Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who wants to play a game?
Gobbledock. I was wondering about the chess game? But, I reckon casa cluedo would be another good one!
But what about:Monopoly? To many at CASA it is a game of jumping over others to get the most money?Or better still - Guess Who, 'The Face Game'! Try to guess the name of the next newly appointed trough dweller while trying to identify and take out the other faces. Hell, the Labor party play that game well.Then you have the game that Kharon likes to play while relaxing on Styx houseboat -Snakes and Ladders. An old favorite played regularly by the Fort Fumble incompetents. Of course Musical Chairs is quite a popular and robust game that is enthusiastically played at the "R"egulator. And how about 'Pin The Tail On The Pony'? Then you have some of the games that Casaweary alluded to last year from memory, games like Hide The Salami and Nude Twister seem to be played after hours around the corridors of Malfunction Junction. The boys from LSG like Scrabble, they can jumble up all the words and spin up any word or meaning that suits them on the day.A favorite word is 'intent'. Big points for that one, triple bonus. Gotta love having intellect and a POOHD! And don't forget the Inspectors enjoy Leap Frog, no better way to get promoted. Spin The Bottle is another favorite of Team LSG. Emphasis on spin.
And they love to use industry as a Piñata. A great game and excellent 'outlet' for those who couldn't cut the mustard in the real world and are sociopaths, bullies and sport small genitalia.
But the ultimate Regulator game is Survivor. And currently there are three teams stranded at a trough - CASA, ASA and ATSB. All the stops have been pulled out and even the shows host, Senator X can't decide who is going to be crowned the Pony Pooh Survivor!
Last edited by gobbledock; 10th Nov 2012 at 11:07. Reason: Playing Darts. The Skull is the bullseye - 100 points!
Creampuff,
I also find the “First Supplemental Submission” of CASA to be quite repugnant.
HMHB - Cluedo seems likely to be WAY too advanced for the clowns running CASA.
After reading CASA's adversarial supplemental submission, I've come to the conclusion that CASA executive management seems to be nothing more than a ship of fools that's staffed by deranged and delusional people who are totally ignorant of where they're going, or why they're going there.
ATSB management seems to be about in the same league (but only just).
I also find the “First Supplemental Submission” of CASA to be quite repugnant.
HMHB - Cluedo seems likely to be WAY too advanced for the clowns running CASA.
After reading CASA's adversarial supplemental submission, I've come to the conclusion that CASA executive management seems to be nothing more than a ship of fools that's staffed by deranged and delusional people who are totally ignorant of where they're going, or why they're going there.
ATSB management seems to be about in the same league (but only just).
Last edited by SIUYA; 10th Nov 2012 at 04:36.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've come to the conclusion that CASA executive management seems to be nothing more than a ship of fools that's populated by deranged and delusional people who are totally ignorant of where they're going, or why they're going there.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's how it goes, everybody knows,
The emperor has no clothes, and everybody knows,
He has done a line or two. (With no clothes). Everybody knows the hidden facts are at the party. But everybody knows, but won't tell his clothes are the finest example of his transparancy.
But everybody knows.
That's how it goes!
Wild man, wild!
I feel reinvigorated, indeed, rejuvinated enough to regurtitate.
But everybody knows!
The emperor has no clothes, and everybody knows,
He has done a line or two. (With no clothes). Everybody knows the hidden facts are at the party. But everybody knows, but won't tell his clothes are the finest example of his transparancy.
But everybody knows.
That's how it goes!
Wild man, wild!
I feel reinvigorated, indeed, rejuvinated enough to regurtitate.
But everybody knows!
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 10th Nov 2012 at 05:32. Reason: Top song needs recognition.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No body knows.
I intended (at coffee #1) to highlight some of the more obvious and odious CASA smoke and mirror party tricks, notes on Aherne, Quinn and various others were made and ready to go. Then I toddled off to make coffee number two happily humming Blackies contribution: then it dawned – no body knows. No body with any clout that is.
To a layman, the CASA submission and response to industry criticism, evidence of collusion, incompetence, arrogance and dereliction of duty would appear quite reasonable: and would, to the uninformed create enough smoke to confuse complex, technical and legal issues.
It is perfectly understandable that a Coroner, AAT member, Judge, Senator or Minister without a working knowledge and understanding could easily be 'mislead' by the 'authoritative' statements made by those charged by the government to protect the public.
Any form of inquiry made by a layman is bound to fall victim to the CASA promoted 'mystique of air safety', indeed it would take a person with a lot more guts and brains than the average "Joe", 'fresh' off the street to challenge the might of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Which, in effect most people are, just happy to leave it to the 'experts'.
During this inquiry several expert, experienced, qualified industry people have publicly endeavoured to show the Senators an accurate snap shot of the iceberg's tip. They have shown professional integrity, personal courage and a depth of caring for the travelling public, the industry and the people who work in it. They are now being denigrated and vilified by people who are willing to perpetrate the unholy myth, that Australian air safety is in good hands and world class. There is a mountain of contrary evidence to prove that it is not.
Senators, be aware - it must now be considered legally 'unsafe' to rely on the probity or competence of the CASA board or their minions which service the system. Please do not let things get to the stage where the ICAO, FAA, EASA, CAA, PNG CASA or NZ CAA need to point out just how much trouble we are in.
I understand it is complex, difficult and perhaps, politically fraught with peril; but, people are being killed, businesses destroyed, lives shattered and the public mislead. You have the evidence, you have the power, now do you need anything else?.
The ball, dear Senators, rests firmly in your court.
Selah.
To a layman, the CASA submission and response to industry criticism, evidence of collusion, incompetence, arrogance and dereliction of duty would appear quite reasonable: and would, to the uninformed create enough smoke to confuse complex, technical and legal issues.
It is perfectly understandable that a Coroner, AAT member, Judge, Senator or Minister without a working knowledge and understanding could easily be 'mislead' by the 'authoritative' statements made by those charged by the government to protect the public.
Any form of inquiry made by a layman is bound to fall victim to the CASA promoted 'mystique of air safety', indeed it would take a person with a lot more guts and brains than the average "Joe", 'fresh' off the street to challenge the might of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Which, in effect most people are, just happy to leave it to the 'experts'.
During this inquiry several expert, experienced, qualified industry people have publicly endeavoured to show the Senators an accurate snap shot of the iceberg's tip. They have shown professional integrity, personal courage and a depth of caring for the travelling public, the industry and the people who work in it. They are now being denigrated and vilified by people who are willing to perpetrate the unholy myth, that Australian air safety is in good hands and world class. There is a mountain of contrary evidence to prove that it is not.
Senators, be aware - it must now be considered legally 'unsafe' to rely on the probity or competence of the CASA board or their minions which service the system. Please do not let things get to the stage where the ICAO, FAA, EASA, CAA, PNG CASA or NZ CAA need to point out just how much trouble we are in.
I understand it is complex, difficult and perhaps, politically fraught with peril; but, people are being killed, businesses destroyed, lives shattered and the public mislead. You have the evidence, you have the power, now do you need anything else?.
The ball, dear Senators, rests firmly in your court.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Nov 2012 at 07:44. Reason: Good one Blackie, just what I needed. Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post, but........
1. Will they read it?
2. Do they care enough to act responsibly and swiftly?
3. Are they too influenced by other factors? i.e cost of change,lack of political will, how much does the public care?
4. If they act, how much and how long will it take?
I hate to be pessimistic, and my glass is half full most of the time, but I have gone into "fingers crossed mode" and feel that I'm going to be disappointed.
Senators, please make me wrong.
1. Will they read it?
2. Do they care enough to act responsibly and swiftly?
3. Are they too influenced by other factors? i.e cost of change,lack of political will, how much does the public care?
4. If they act, how much and how long will it take?
I hate to be pessimistic, and my glass is half full most of the time, but I have gone into "fingers crossed mode" and feel that I'm going to be disappointed.
Senators, please make me wrong.
Top post “K” and more than adequately summarises the current state of play, the lid is well and truly off it is now just a matter of shining the light into the deep dark corners of a fundamentally corrupt aviation safety bureaucracy!
LeadSled said it best:
There in lies the problem for the Senators now they’ve lifted the lid and revealed a very dark, murky “underbelly” of lies, deceit, obfuscation and obvious maladministration, they can’t now merely put the genie back in the bottle.
Again a very good observation by Kharon but there is one marked difference with this current RRAT Senate Committee membership and that is the addition of Senator Fawcett. For the very first time (that I can recall) we have a Senator that ‘gets it’ and is obviously being briefed by concerned, competent, credible aviation experts.
Fawcett is no layman he knows the jargon, the regs etc and he has put his aviation knowledge at the disposal of the RRAT committee in past Senate Estimates, as creamy points out here:
Although I believe it was the ‘ATSB’ and the ‘DOIT’ secretary who were ‘ducking for cover.’
So Fawcett is helping to facilitate a breaking down of the 'mystique of air safety' that the regulator and bureau has exploited so successfully before in Senate Estimates and Inquiries.
However to help the good Senator out I believe he need look no further than the submissions (that we are aware of) presented thus far.
Having read through all the submissions and supplementary submissions I believe the Davies submission is the key. The Davies, Aherne and Quinn evidence combined IMHO has effectively ‘tag teamed’ the regulator out of the game. Hence the concerted effort by the regulator to ‘play the man’ in order to discredit both BH & MQ, although they will probably try to discredit RD by association somewhere down the track!
The methodology that Davies uses in his submission is extremely clinical, precise and his forensic analysis cannot IMHO be faulted. Perhaps the ATSB should take note of RD’s methodology! This is more than adequately highlighted in the following paragraphs 56-76 from the Davies submission:
(my bolding in parts)
This section of RD’s submission leaves no ‘reasonable doubt’ that this whole operation was inadequately oversighted by the regulator. How could any FOI possibly approve an AOC based on what were totally deficient COMs? How could a Chief Pilot worth his salt not have addressed these anomalies littered throughout the COMs suite?
RD’s brief summation again cuts through all the ****e and makes it quite clear, even to a layman, where all the faults of this pitiful report lay:
It is also interesting to note that the Davies (RD) submission (so far) is the only one out of the three that the regulator hasn’t responded to probably because it is too hard to refute the facts!
It is Quinn in his tabled document “CEO-PN001-2004 issue number three” that shows us how this apparent aberration came about. The “classification” of operations is used as a tool for CASA to prioritise their surveillance operations of AOC holders and as this operation was in the bottom section (i.e. aerial ambulance) of the classification list then it was never going to receive any real oversight. Provided the boxes were ticked, as far as CASA was concerned, that was good enough for them!
N.B. Interesting when you google or go to the CASA site “CEO-PN001-2004 issue number three” seems to have disappeared??
If the Senators hold steadfast to the evidence presented by these three gentleman (in particular Davies) along with similar quality submissions given ‘in confidence’, and take heed of Senator Fawcett’s counsel, while ignoring the diversionary tactics deployed by Fort Fumble then maybe just maybe we may see some major axe wielding and public executions to appease a forgotten industry!
LeadSled said it best:
PS: Regardless of the "regulations", an incredibly hard thing to shift is an entrenched "culture".
Kharon said: Any form of inquiry made by a layman is bound to fall victim to the CASA promoted 'mystique of air safety', indeed it would take a person with a lot more guts and brains than the average "Joe", 'fresh' off the street to challenge the might of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Which, in effect most people are, just happy to leave it to the 'experts'.
Fawcett is no layman he knows the jargon, the regs etc and he has put his aviation knowledge at the disposal of the RRAT committee in past Senate Estimates, as creamy points out here:
At the point at which Senator Fawcett asked the CASA witnesses about who was responsible for ‘closing the loop’ on commitments made by CASA to coroners, all the witnesses ducked for cover – nobody was responsible.
So Fawcett is helping to facilitate a breaking down of the 'mystique of air safety' that the regulator and bureau has exploited so successfully before in Senate Estimates and Inquiries.
However to help the good Senator out I believe he need look no further than the submissions (that we are aware of) presented thus far.
Having read through all the submissions and supplementary submissions I believe the Davies submission is the key. The Davies, Aherne and Quinn evidence combined IMHO has effectively ‘tag teamed’ the regulator out of the game. Hence the concerted effort by the regulator to ‘play the man’ in order to discredit both BH & MQ, although they will probably try to discredit RD by association somewhere down the track!
The methodology that Davies uses in his submission is extremely clinical, precise and his forensic analysis cannot IMHO be faulted. Perhaps the ATSB should take note of RD’s methodology! This is more than adequately highlighted in the following paragraphs 56-76 from the Davies submission:
Company Fuel Policy and Flight Planning
56. I have reviewed the following sections of Pel-Air Manuals
Part A Section 9.11
Part B Section 5.1 to 5.4
Part B Section 16.5 which relate to Fuel Policy and Flight Planning (and are approved by CASA)
57. The ATSB report (page 24) discusses the requirement
“for the operator to maintain an operation manual that provided guidance to its pilots, and other operational personnel”,
and that
“Operations manuals were to include information, procedures and instructions in respect of the safe operation of all the operators aircraft types.”
58. The ATSB report claims “the operator maintained an operations manual in accordance with CAR 215”
and that the operators manuals
“ensured compliance with the current regulatory requirements”
and
“The operators procedures and flight planning guidance managed risk consistent with regulatory provisions”
Part A Section 9.11
59. Part A Section 9.11 relates to Fuel, including
Company Fuel Policy
Critical Point
Point of No Return
Variable and Fixed Reserve Fuel Requirements
Latest Divert Time Point
60. The first paragraph of this section states:
“9.11.1.1 The Company fuel policy for all Company aircraft shall be as follows:
a) Details on fuel planning specific to aircraft types operated by the Company shall be in accordance with Part B, Section 6 – Flight Planning.”
Part B Section 6 is not Flight Planning (my bold)
61. Subsection b) of the above paragraph states ‘Taxi Fuel’ shall be carried. No figures were supplied in any manual for this amount.
62. Paragraph 9.11.1.3 states the PIC must include provision for fuel for approach
and landing. No figures were supplied in any manual for this amount.
63. The ATSB report (page 29) discusses disparities between Pel-Air manuals with
regard to Critical Point calculations.
64. The method specified in the manual for calculating CP is only pertinent for situations where the outbound and inbound tracks are identical. It does not accommodate ‘Off Track CP’, nor is there any guidance in any Pel-Air manual as to how to calculate this. An ‘Off Track CP’ calculation is more likely to be encountered than the one described in the manual, and was the situation
encountered in the accident flight.
65. The method specified in the manual for calculating PNR is only pertinent for situations where the outbound and inbound tracks are identical. It does not accommodate calculations for suitable airports ‘Off Track’ (this calculation is more commonly referred to as Latest Point of Safe Diversion LPSD). There is no guidance in any Pel-Air manual as to how to calculate this.
Part B Section 5.1 to 5.4
66. The first paragraph of this section states:
“Flight planning for Company operations shall be:
a. in accordance with Company fuel policy at Part A-8-3”
Part A-8-3 is ‘Suitability of Aerodromes/ALAs’, not Flight Planning
67. The first paragraph of this section states:
“Flight planning for Company operations shall be:
b. in accordance with the Company fuel planning data for the particular type”
This contradiction is addressed in paragraph 19 to 21 of this document.
68. Critical Point and PNR calculations are addressed, with the same problems identified above being apparent
69. As discussed in paragraph 19, fuel consumption and speeds are based on hourly figures regardless of aircraft weight
Part B Section 16.5
70. Part B Section 16.5 reiterates the erroneous method of fuel consumption and block speeds regardless of weight.
Aircraft Suitability for Task
71. The submission by Mr. Aherne discusses the suitability of the aircraft for the tasks it was assigned. My analysis supports his submission with the consideration
RVSM flight planning.
RVSM
72. The aircraft operated by Pel-Air, VH-NGA, was not approved for RVSM operations. Therefore operations should have been planned at Non RVSM flight levels. In the NFFF and NZAA FIRs this excludes FL290 to FL410 inclusive.
73. I completed calculations (Annex G) that considered the following scenario:
Flight NSFA to YSNF
ZFW 14840 lbs
Full fuel tanks of 1330 USG (Volumetric limit)
Fuel SG of 0.78
Takeoff Weight of 23500 lb (Max limit)
No fuel used for Start, Taxi or Takeoff (as per Pel-Air Manuals)
Temperature deviation of ISA+10 deg C throughout flight
Cruise at FL280 (Maximum Non RVSM level) to calculated LPSD
Cruise at Long Range Cruise performance (as per Operational Planning Manual)
50 kts headwind during Climb and Cruise to LPSD
LPSD calculated for Depressurised flight at 10000ft to NFFN
20 kts head or tail wind (as applicable) during cruise at 10000ft and descent to
destination; either YSNF or NFFN
Variable Fuel Reserve used in flight
No fuel is used to turn, to reverse track to NFFN
No fuel used for Approach or Landing
No variation in fuel usage from Operational Planning Manual; such as from dirty or damaged airframe
74. Based on these conditions the aircraft can be planned to perform the flight.
75. It the event of a depressurization immediately after the LPSD to NFFN (depressurized) the aircraft could continue to YSNF and arrive with 747 lbs. This
excludes any variation from the above list (para 73).
76. Given that Pel-Air now requires an allowance for fuel usage for taxi and for approach, this reduces the amount of fuel remaining to below FFR, and therefore the aircraft is unsuitable for the task.
56. I have reviewed the following sections of Pel-Air Manuals
Part A Section 9.11
Part B Section 5.1 to 5.4
Part B Section 16.5 which relate to Fuel Policy and Flight Planning (and are approved by CASA)
57. The ATSB report (page 24) discusses the requirement
“for the operator to maintain an operation manual that provided guidance to its pilots, and other operational personnel”,
and that
“Operations manuals were to include information, procedures and instructions in respect of the safe operation of all the operators aircraft types.”
58. The ATSB report claims “the operator maintained an operations manual in accordance with CAR 215”
and that the operators manuals
“ensured compliance with the current regulatory requirements”
and
“The operators procedures and flight planning guidance managed risk consistent with regulatory provisions”
Part A Section 9.11
59. Part A Section 9.11 relates to Fuel, including
Company Fuel Policy
Critical Point
Point of No Return
Variable and Fixed Reserve Fuel Requirements
Latest Divert Time Point
60. The first paragraph of this section states:
“9.11.1.1 The Company fuel policy for all Company aircraft shall be as follows:
a) Details on fuel planning specific to aircraft types operated by the Company shall be in accordance with Part B, Section 6 – Flight Planning.”
Part B Section 6 is not Flight Planning (my bold)
61. Subsection b) of the above paragraph states ‘Taxi Fuel’ shall be carried. No figures were supplied in any manual for this amount.
62. Paragraph 9.11.1.3 states the PIC must include provision for fuel for approach
and landing. No figures were supplied in any manual for this amount.
63. The ATSB report (page 29) discusses disparities between Pel-Air manuals with
regard to Critical Point calculations.
64. The method specified in the manual for calculating CP is only pertinent for situations where the outbound and inbound tracks are identical. It does not accommodate ‘Off Track CP’, nor is there any guidance in any Pel-Air manual as to how to calculate this. An ‘Off Track CP’ calculation is more likely to be encountered than the one described in the manual, and was the situation
encountered in the accident flight.
65. The method specified in the manual for calculating PNR is only pertinent for situations where the outbound and inbound tracks are identical. It does not accommodate calculations for suitable airports ‘Off Track’ (this calculation is more commonly referred to as Latest Point of Safe Diversion LPSD). There is no guidance in any Pel-Air manual as to how to calculate this.
Part B Section 5.1 to 5.4
66. The first paragraph of this section states:
“Flight planning for Company operations shall be:
a. in accordance with Company fuel policy at Part A-8-3”
Part A-8-3 is ‘Suitability of Aerodromes/ALAs’, not Flight Planning
67. The first paragraph of this section states:
“Flight planning for Company operations shall be:
b. in accordance with the Company fuel planning data for the particular type”
This contradiction is addressed in paragraph 19 to 21 of this document.
68. Critical Point and PNR calculations are addressed, with the same problems identified above being apparent
69. As discussed in paragraph 19, fuel consumption and speeds are based on hourly figures regardless of aircraft weight
Part B Section 16.5
70. Part B Section 16.5 reiterates the erroneous method of fuel consumption and block speeds regardless of weight.
Aircraft Suitability for Task
71. The submission by Mr. Aherne discusses the suitability of the aircraft for the tasks it was assigned. My analysis supports his submission with the consideration
RVSM flight planning.
RVSM
72. The aircraft operated by Pel-Air, VH-NGA, was not approved for RVSM operations. Therefore operations should have been planned at Non RVSM flight levels. In the NFFF and NZAA FIRs this excludes FL290 to FL410 inclusive.
73. I completed calculations (Annex G) that considered the following scenario:
Flight NSFA to YSNF
ZFW 14840 lbs
Full fuel tanks of 1330 USG (Volumetric limit)
Fuel SG of 0.78
Takeoff Weight of 23500 lb (Max limit)
No fuel used for Start, Taxi or Takeoff (as per Pel-Air Manuals)
Temperature deviation of ISA+10 deg C throughout flight
Cruise at FL280 (Maximum Non RVSM level) to calculated LPSD
Cruise at Long Range Cruise performance (as per Operational Planning Manual)
50 kts headwind during Climb and Cruise to LPSD
LPSD calculated for Depressurised flight at 10000ft to NFFN
20 kts head or tail wind (as applicable) during cruise at 10000ft and descent to
destination; either YSNF or NFFN
Variable Fuel Reserve used in flight
No fuel is used to turn, to reverse track to NFFN
No fuel used for Approach or Landing
No variation in fuel usage from Operational Planning Manual; such as from dirty or damaged airframe
74. Based on these conditions the aircraft can be planned to perform the flight.
75. It the event of a depressurization immediately after the LPSD to NFFN (depressurized) the aircraft could continue to YSNF and arrive with 747 lbs. This
excludes any variation from the above list (para 73).
76. Given that Pel-Air now requires an allowance for fuel usage for taxi and for approach, this reduces the amount of fuel remaining to below FFR, and therefore the aircraft is unsuitable for the task.
This section of RD’s submission leaves no ‘reasonable doubt’ that this whole operation was inadequately oversighted by the regulator. How could any FOI possibly approve an AOC based on what were totally deficient COMs? How could a Chief Pilot worth his salt not have addressed these anomalies littered throughout the COMs suite?
RD’s brief summation again cuts through all the ****e and makes it quite clear, even to a layman, where all the faults of this pitiful report lay:
ATSB
77. The ATSB report on page viii states
“…an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings.”
78. This submission identifies significant errors in the ATSB report of this accident.
79. As is apparent from the analysis above, the ATSB report contains insufficient
factual material to support its analysis and findings. Therefore, the veracity of the
ATSB report is questionable.
CASA
80. There is a duality of responsibility shared between the operating crew and the aircraft operator; for the crew operates within an environment of which the operator dictates aspects and limitations through their imposition and implementation of risk controls, the quality of which arise from the oversight of the regulator (CASA) through its approval process.
81. Specifically, the ATSB report (page 25) recognizes that in regard to steps taken to ensure sufficient fuel and oil is carried;
“An operator also shared that responsibility, and was required by CAR 220 to include specific guidance for the computation of the fuel carried…”
82. The quality of risk controls are fundamentally determined by their adequacy and reliability.
83. In the events and conditions associated with this accident it is apparent the
risk controls were inadequate and unreliable. This in turn identifies a lack of effective regulatory oversight of the operator by CASA.
General
84. The purpose of this submission is to improve aviation safety in Australia, by demanding the highest quality of standards and practices by both the regulator and the independent investigative body.
85. The standards and practices exhibited by both ATSB and CASA in this matter I have observed several times previously, and in my experience seem to be indicative of their general standards.
86. I support the sentiment of the submission of Mr Bryan Aherne.
77. The ATSB report on page viii states
“…an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings.”
78. This submission identifies significant errors in the ATSB report of this accident.
79. As is apparent from the analysis above, the ATSB report contains insufficient
factual material to support its analysis and findings. Therefore, the veracity of the
ATSB report is questionable.
CASA
80. There is a duality of responsibility shared between the operating crew and the aircraft operator; for the crew operates within an environment of which the operator dictates aspects and limitations through their imposition and implementation of risk controls, the quality of which arise from the oversight of the regulator (CASA) through its approval process.
81. Specifically, the ATSB report (page 25) recognizes that in regard to steps taken to ensure sufficient fuel and oil is carried;
“An operator also shared that responsibility, and was required by CAR 220 to include specific guidance for the computation of the fuel carried…”
82. The quality of risk controls are fundamentally determined by their adequacy and reliability.
83. In the events and conditions associated with this accident it is apparent the
risk controls were inadequate and unreliable. This in turn identifies a lack of effective regulatory oversight of the operator by CASA.
General
84. The purpose of this submission is to improve aviation safety in Australia, by demanding the highest quality of standards and practices by both the regulator and the independent investigative body.
85. The standards and practices exhibited by both ATSB and CASA in this matter I have observed several times previously, and in my experience seem to be indicative of their general standards.
86. I support the sentiment of the submission of Mr Bryan Aherne.
It is Quinn in his tabled document “CEO-PN001-2004 issue number three” that shows us how this apparent aberration came about. The “classification” of operations is used as a tool for CASA to prioritise their surveillance operations of AOC holders and as this operation was in the bottom section (i.e. aerial ambulance) of the classification list then it was never going to receive any real oversight. Provided the boxes were ticked, as far as CASA was concerned, that was good enough for them!
N.B. Interesting when you google or go to the CASA site “CEO-PN001-2004 issue number three” seems to have disappeared??
If the Senators hold steadfast to the evidence presented by these three gentleman (in particular Davies) along with similar quality submissions given ‘in confidence’, and take heed of Senator Fawcett’s counsel, while ignoring the diversionary tactics deployed by Fort Fumble then maybe just maybe we may see some major axe wielding and public executions to appease a forgotten industry!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs -Terrific work. Mr Davies - Even better!
N.B. Interesting when you google or go to the CASA site “CEO-PN001-2004 issue number three” seems to have disappeared??
From experience they often undertake this sort of tomfoolery when they are caught with pooh pooh on their hands over a past or previous decision or policy they have put out there. They then remove, hide or sophisticatedly bury the evidence when it comes back to haunt them.
Sarcs, I agree with your statement about Fawcett. CASA must be soiling themselves knowing that in Fawcett's case they don't have your common dumb arse political gimp sitting on the other side of the table. Fawcett know's his stuff. Senator X although not as experienced in 'all things aviation' as Senator F, is no slouch and has a very good understanding of the issues at hand. Although I don't play in the same league as the Senators I am personally aware that some very savvy aviation experienced big hitters are regularly providing their 'two accurate cents worth' to the Senators.
There is a level of interest and understanding in this inquiry that goes beyond some previous 'looks' at the Regulator. It is time that will define whether after 25 years of snakes and ladders and voodoo we finally get the changes that are needed in our industry before the doomsday clock ticks over to 'smoking hole'.
My earnest hopes are that the Senators are sitting on something more explosive than JMac's temper or Dr Voodoo's hemorrhoids. Maybe the Senators are letting Fort Fumble's nupty's lengthen the rope a little more before the trap door is sprung open and the neck of this decrepid beast is finally snapped?
Last edited by gobbledock; 11th Nov 2012 at 02:56. Reason: Avoiding elephants, ropes and trap doors in the middle of the room.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good work in the slips.
Sarcs # 745 – "N.B. Interesting when you Google or go to the CASA site “CEO-PN001-2004 issue number three” seems to have disappeared?".
P1. a.k.a - P1.
Last edited by PAIN_NET; 11th Nov 2012 at 03:02.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naughty errant file, there you are.
The errant document may be downloaded here:-CEO-PN001-2004
And for those who still not quite sure or who don't quite understand how CASA's game of Smoke n Mirrors works, please view the below clip.
Hint: The two gents in the hallway represent CASA and the other guy represents industry, Senators, ICAO and FAA!
Last edited by gobbledock; 11th Nov 2012 at 04:00. Reason: Avoiding the smoke screen in the hallway
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all the media are asleep at the wheel.
Ben Sandilands -
How much longer can 'he who will not be shamed' continue to posture, strut, puff up his chest, disregard and belittle the Senate with total impunity.
As the well regarded (but strangely silent) Kelpie would say -
With just over a week to go before further public hearings, Australia’s air safety regulator CASA has filed character and integrity attacks on one of the main witnesses at the opening session, Mick Quinn, himself a former senior CASA executive, as well as criticising Bryan Aherne, an aviation safety analyst.
As the well regarded (but strangely silent) Kelpie would say -
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Nov 2012 at 05:48.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believed psychopaths have delusions of grandure.
Didn't the resident head psycho, (or 2IC), say in the POLAIR matter that someone was delusional?
This bloke has been farting in the bath for too long and he is the only one there. The bubbles prove the unmistakable and irrefutable law that they always end up surfacing with the stink.
Didn't the resident head psycho, (or 2IC), say in the POLAIR matter that someone was delusional?
This bloke has been farting in the bath for too long and he is the only one there. The bubbles prove the unmistakable and irrefutable law that they always end up surfacing with the stink.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness me!! we've gone the full gambit now havnt we, from "Hoy! hang on a sec that cant be right?" to shrieking 'You've got to be joking?" to total disbelief, now all thats left is "taking the p ss" which perhaps is the final indication of just how much respect our regulator commands within the industry.
There has been a slow realisation that our regulator is corrupt. Lots of individual voices protesting, lots of hand wringing, finally utter frustration when the realisation dawns that without cohesion the industry simply dosnt have the financial resources to beat the spin. The "enemy", that cancer eating the heart out of the industry so many of us love, has the public purse to spend.
The "Industry" to a large extent has always been a labour of "Love", financially fragile, yet so vital for so many in our community. Hard pressed to pay the wages bill, let alone fight rapacious, corrupt beauracrats, in the court of public opinion. They can draw on the limitless recources of the taxpayer to convince the public and their political masters, that the industry is populated by a bunch of homocidal, criminal maniacs hell bent on their destruction.
The PAIN group seems to be gaining traction, thank god, finally we seem to have politicians with the capacity to see through the "spin" and hold these corrupt incompetent clowns to book.
Corruption breeds corruption, if PAIN is successful it can only be good for the whole country.
There has been a slow realisation that our regulator is corrupt. Lots of individual voices protesting, lots of hand wringing, finally utter frustration when the realisation dawns that without cohesion the industry simply dosnt have the financial resources to beat the spin. The "enemy", that cancer eating the heart out of the industry so many of us love, has the public purse to spend.
The "Industry" to a large extent has always been a labour of "Love", financially fragile, yet so vital for so many in our community. Hard pressed to pay the wages bill, let alone fight rapacious, corrupt beauracrats, in the court of public opinion. They can draw on the limitless recources of the taxpayer to convince the public and their political masters, that the industry is populated by a bunch of homocidal, criminal maniacs hell bent on their destruction.
The PAIN group seems to be gaining traction, thank god, finally we seem to have politicians with the capacity to see through the "spin" and hold these corrupt incompetent clowns to book.
Corruption breeds corruption, if PAIN is successful it can only be good for the whole country.
Last edited by thorn bird; 11th Nov 2012 at 08:37.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Senator's little problem.
Interesting discussion last evening with the Bar Room Barristers; thought I'd share it. One of the issues was the 'ability' of the Senators to have absolute faith in and support one of the two very different reports on the Norfolk ditching. They may believe the independent reports, they may want to support them, but will that belief come back and bite 'em on the arse? It must be problematic for them.
If the Senate were to 'hand pick' an independent team to solve the riddle, the list of prospective candidates would likely include Aherne, Davies and Quinn amongst others. Whilst not perfect, they are properly qualified to conduct the investigation. Whoever was selected to play for the 'Senate 11' would probably complete a very similar analysis to the one presented.
Combined, the Aherne, Davies and Quinn submissions make a powerful statement and provide a pretty comprehensive, compelling report which could be 'safely' supported.
Anyway, the BRB decided that each of us (and anyone else who's arm could be twisted) would send an email to each of the RRAT Senators expressing our support. Just a simple message – "Dear Senators, I am an industry professional and I fully support the arguments presented by Aherne, Davies and Quinn. Done mine – have you???.
If the Senate were to 'hand pick' an independent team to solve the riddle, the list of prospective candidates would likely include Aherne, Davies and Quinn amongst others. Whilst not perfect, they are properly qualified to conduct the investigation. Whoever was selected to play for the 'Senate 11' would probably complete a very similar analysis to the one presented.
Combined, the Aherne, Davies and Quinn submissions make a powerful statement and provide a pretty comprehensive, compelling report which could be 'safely' supported.
Anyway, the BRB decided that each of us (and anyone else who's arm could be twisted) would send an email to each of the RRAT Senators expressing our support. Just a simple message – "Dear Senators, I am an industry professional and I fully support the arguments presented by Aherne, Davies and Quinn. Done mine – have you???.
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Nov 2012 at 18:08.
You cannot beat CASA.
The only people who can "help" CASA are in the Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet. It is their job to discipline the departments.
Until this matter gets on Julia Gillards or Dr. Watts (Secretary PM &C) radar nothing will happen. The Minister and his staff can't do it themselves.
This is a matter about public service administration NOT policy. PM & C are the experts here NOT the Ministers (or Prime Ministers) non public service advisors.
I wonder who is looking at this issue and how creative they mightl be in dealing with it?
"Someone" might like to look at this web page at PM&C about public sector reform, especially the road map. especially section 8.1, I wonder who is doing the "reviews of Agency capability?"
Years and Years ago I would have had a contact who could tell me who was doing what in there, but not any longer. They may be aware of CASA but have other priorities. Maybe there is a bright young thing at PM&C that might like to take on a little project shall we say? Maybe a young PPL holder?
Reform of Australian Government Administration
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
The only people who can "help" CASA are in the Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet. It is their job to discipline the departments.
Until this matter gets on Julia Gillards or Dr. Watts (Secretary PM &C) radar nothing will happen. The Minister and his staff can't do it themselves.
This is a matter about public service administration NOT policy. PM & C are the experts here NOT the Ministers (or Prime Ministers) non public service advisors.
I wonder who is looking at this issue and how creative they mightl be in dealing with it?
"Someone" might like to look at this web page at PM&C about public sector reform, especially the road map. especially section 8.1, I wonder who is doing the "reviews of Agency capability?"
Years and Years ago I would have had a contact who could tell me who was doing what in there, but not any longer. They may be aware of CASA but have other priorities. Maybe there is a bright young thing at PM&C that might like to take on a little project shall we say? Maybe a young PPL holder?
Reform of Australian Government Administration
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Nov 2012 at 18:19.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch the goings on in NSW. It would appear they are untouchable until they get booted out of office and people are left alone to ask the difficult questions without recourse to threats of defamation.
Corruption has a peculiar smell about it. It also appears to favour one particular incompetent political party who give succour to other parasites.
Corruption has a peculiar smell about it. It also appears to favour one particular incompetent political party who give succour to other parasites.