Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Cream puff are you suggesting they are the untouchables?
I’m merely pointing out that they won’t be ‘touched’ unless the government decides that there may be an electoral advantage in ‘touching’ them.
Realpolitik: politics based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.
The Senate Committee will make a report based primarily on moral and ethical premises. The report will be almost universally applauded by the critics of CASA/ATSB.
The report will then be delivered to government.
The government’s response will be based primarily on the potential consequences for the government’s tenuous grip on power. The consequences for its tenuous grip on power are almost nil. That’s because the probabilities of the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up sufficiently frequently for the issue to become concerning for focus groups before the next election are almost nil. Therefore, the government’s response will be mostly sound and fury, signifying (and touching) almost nothing.
Creamy, you are right up to a point. Once the Senate report is in and the government has been "told" then there will be electoral consequences if there is a major accident or adverse action by the FAA, EASA, etc.
You may also think me old fashioned, but senior public servants are in general a decent bunch who work hard and want the best for the country. If one becomes sufficiently annoyed by CASA, they may decide to do something about it. Believe me, it can happen and the Minister and his advisors and CASA won't even know what hit them until it is too late. Don't underestimate their guile and capability.
You may also think me old fashioned, but senior public servants are in general a decent bunch who work hard and want the best for the country. If one becomes sufficiently annoyed by CASA, they may decide to do something about it. Believe me, it can happen and the Minister and his advisors and CASA won't even know what hit them until it is too late. Don't underestimate their guile and capability.
[T]here will be electoral consequences if there is a major accident or adverse action by the FAA, EASA, etc.
The regulatory issues in question always change small probabilities that may have consequences measurable over years and decades. Does the Labor government care if something happens that will land in the Coalition’s lap, or vice versa?
I’ll give you an analogy: Commonwealth ‘whistleblower’ legislation. I’ve been hearing about if for about as long as I’ve been hearing about the second Sydney airport. Both sides have been making noises about how important whistleblower legislation is, forever.
Always in opposition.
But, magically, when the positions are reversed, the script reverses. The group that was loudly advocating for effective protections for whistleblowers in opposition is now resisting it in government, and the group that was opposing it in government is now loudly advocating for it in opposition.
Here’s the scary bit: both sides know that neither of them has any interest in any of their activities being exposed to the cold light of public scrutiny.
That’s just one example of why a frustrated electorate has turned to the independents and other minority parties.
The same applies for aviation regulation, but in a weird, reverso-world kind of way. Both groups hope that no major aviation accident happens on their watch, but also know that if something does happen, it will almost certainly be attributable to something done or not done by the previous government. Perfect! No one’s responsible! Answer: Do nothing!
And so it goes, decade after decade.
[S]enior public servants are in general a decent bunch.
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
Project Pony Pooh - Part 1 of 6
I thought I would do a little expose over the next few weeks on some of those who are aligned with CASA or who have influence or are responsible for CASA as a whole, in some form or context.
This 'special series' is not designed so as to disparage individuals, but I am doing this for the benefit of many who PM me asking questions about the power and authority within Fort Fumble.
It us up to you, the viewer, to form your own conclusions as to whether you think the characters featured in this mini series are in any way linked to the abysmal state of the Regulator.
Dr Allan Hawke was appointed Chair of the Board on 1 July 2009. He has a Bachelor of Science (Hons) and Doctor of Philosophy. He joined the Commonwealth Public Service in 1974 and rose through the ranks to be Secretary of the Departments of Veteran’s Affairs, Transport and Regional Services, and Defence.
Dr Hawke was appointed as High Commissioner to New Zealand in 2003, and in 2006 was installed as Chancellor of the Australian National University. In recognition of his outstanding contribution to public service Dr Hawke was awarded a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Public Administration in 1998 and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management in 1999. In 2001 he became a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. The Australian Financial Review’s “Boss” Magazine, named him as one of Australia’s top 30 true leaders in its inaugural list in 2001.
In June 2010 Dr Hawke was made a Companion (AC) in the General Division of the Order of Australia for eminent service to public administration, particularly through the formulation and implementation of policy in the areas of transport, defence and education, and to the strengthening of bilateral relations with New Zealand.
My bolding. Why? Why not!
So, would he be the right man for this AVIATION job?
This 'special series' is not designed so as to disparage individuals, but I am doing this for the benefit of many who PM me asking questions about the power and authority within Fort Fumble.
It us up to you, the viewer, to form your own conclusions as to whether you think the characters featured in this mini series are in any way linked to the abysmal state of the Regulator.
Dr Allan Hawke was appointed Chair of the Board on 1 July 2009. He has a Bachelor of Science (Hons) and Doctor of Philosophy. He joined the Commonwealth Public Service in 1974 and rose through the ranks to be Secretary of the Departments of Veteran’s Affairs, Transport and Regional Services, and Defence.
Dr Hawke was appointed as High Commissioner to New Zealand in 2003, and in 2006 was installed as Chancellor of the Australian National University. In recognition of his outstanding contribution to public service Dr Hawke was awarded a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Public Administration in 1998 and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management in 1999. In 2001 he became a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. The Australian Financial Review’s “Boss” Magazine, named him as one of Australia’s top 30 true leaders in its inaugural list in 2001.
In June 2010 Dr Hawke was made a Companion (AC) in the General Division of the Order of Australia for eminent service to public administration, particularly through the formulation and implementation of policy in the areas of transport, defence and education, and to the strengthening of bilateral relations with New Zealand.
Defence Department Head Removed By Government
September 25, 2002
The Secretary of the Defence Department, Dr. Allan Hawke, has been effectively sacked by the Federal Government. It was announced yesterday that Dr. Hawke's contract would not be renewed when it expires next month. The current Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Ric Smith, will take over in November.
The change follows a significant shake-up of Defence Department chiefs last May. The announcement came as a surprise within the federal bureaucracy. It is seen as reflecting two concerns:
• That Dr. Hawke has failed to implement reforms to the Defense Department.
• Deteriorating relationships with the Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill, arising out of the children overboard issue.
Secretaries are the highest-ranking public servants in government departments. Once referred to as "permanent heads", they are now appointed on contracts, usually for 3 years. Hawke was appointed in 1999, following the acrimonious removal of Paul Barratt by the previous Minister, John Moore.
by Lincoln Wright
Dr Hawke's removal as Secretary is seen by insiders as a direct result of a perception at senior Government levels that he had failed to deliver necessary reforms at Defence, especially to the procurement process. Defence's financial management system is also understood to be in a shambles and the subject of serious review by the Auditor General.
Dr Hawke had also been thought to be having trouble getting on with Robert Hill, Minister for Defence, since the last election.
Dr Hawke, a protégé of a former Defence Secretary, Tony Ayers, was Secretary of Veterans Affairs and later Transport and Regional Services before being sent to Defence. A highly regarded manager and policy analyst, he has been spoken of as a future Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, though much of his expertise has been in Defence.
Opposition Defence spokesman Chris Evans congratulated Mr Smith on his appointment last night, but added Dr Hawke's removal was a surprise decision given the incomplete reform agenda at Defence.
"At a time of unparalleled operational activity, Defence continues to lack the critical political and organisational support to allow them to do their job as effectively as possible," Senator Evans said.
Dr Hawke began his career as Defence Secretary with a now-famous speech outlining Defence's problems, what he called a "due diligence" summary detailing the department's executive problems.
Apart from establishing the new Defence Materiel Organisation, Dr Hawke oversaw the 2000 Defence White Paper, the border protection operation last year and the latest deployment of Special Forces.
But persistent problems with acquisitions and expensive cost blowouts have been a major concern in senior Government circles. Along with how Defence manages its budget, they were apparently decisive in his removal.
In particular, senior Government figures had been unimpressed by Dr Hawke's handling of intractable problems on everything from - to name just a few - the Collins Class submarine, the Seasprite helicopter, the Anzac Ship Project and the Bushmaster Infantry vehicle.
Recently, the Government officially conceded, to its political embarrassment, that 16 major Defence capital projects were $5.1 billion over budget and, in some cases, years overdue.
A senior political insider said last night that Dr Hawke had made progress on procurement and financial management. "In fairness to him, it's a bloody difficult job." But the source went on to say there was a perception that when a crisis hit, people would often say, "Where's Allan?"
Although the ultimate decision not to re-appoint Dr Hawke as Secretary was made by Mr Howard, it had also been rumoured that there were personal problems between him and Defence Minister Robert Hill.
In July 1999, the then Defence Minister John Moore fired his Department head Paul Barratt in controversial circumstances, one of which was said to be personal problems with Mr Barratt.
The Barratt case was a cause célèbre in bureaucratic circles, involving a Federal Court court injunction against the sacking and an embarrassing unfair dismissal case.
Dr Hawke's replacement at the head of Defence had been rumoured for some time, as had Mr Smith's possible appointment. Mr Smith has a strong background as a strategist at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but it is expected the Government wants reform of procurement and financial management.
Dr Hawke's three-year contract was due to end in October.
Mr Smith, who served at Defence as the Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence in 1994-95, will take up his new job on November 11 with a three-year contract.
Dr Hawke is expected to take some leave and then be posted overseas
September 25, 2002
The Secretary of the Defence Department, Dr. Allan Hawke, has been effectively sacked by the Federal Government. It was announced yesterday that Dr. Hawke's contract would not be renewed when it expires next month. The current Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Ric Smith, will take over in November.
The change follows a significant shake-up of Defence Department chiefs last May. The announcement came as a surprise within the federal bureaucracy. It is seen as reflecting two concerns:
• That Dr. Hawke has failed to implement reforms to the Defense Department.
• Deteriorating relationships with the Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill, arising out of the children overboard issue.
Secretaries are the highest-ranking public servants in government departments. Once referred to as "permanent heads", they are now appointed on contracts, usually for 3 years. Hawke was appointed in 1999, following the acrimonious removal of Paul Barratt by the previous Minister, John Moore.
by Lincoln Wright
Dr Hawke's removal as Secretary is seen by insiders as a direct result of a perception at senior Government levels that he had failed to deliver necessary reforms at Defence, especially to the procurement process. Defence's financial management system is also understood to be in a shambles and the subject of serious review by the Auditor General.
Dr Hawke had also been thought to be having trouble getting on with Robert Hill, Minister for Defence, since the last election.
Dr Hawke, a protégé of a former Defence Secretary, Tony Ayers, was Secretary of Veterans Affairs and later Transport and Regional Services before being sent to Defence. A highly regarded manager and policy analyst, he has been spoken of as a future Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet, though much of his expertise has been in Defence.
Opposition Defence spokesman Chris Evans congratulated Mr Smith on his appointment last night, but added Dr Hawke's removal was a surprise decision given the incomplete reform agenda at Defence.
"At a time of unparalleled operational activity, Defence continues to lack the critical political and organisational support to allow them to do their job as effectively as possible," Senator Evans said.
Dr Hawke began his career as Defence Secretary with a now-famous speech outlining Defence's problems, what he called a "due diligence" summary detailing the department's executive problems.
Apart from establishing the new Defence Materiel Organisation, Dr Hawke oversaw the 2000 Defence White Paper, the border protection operation last year and the latest deployment of Special Forces.
But persistent problems with acquisitions and expensive cost blowouts have been a major concern in senior Government circles. Along with how Defence manages its budget, they were apparently decisive in his removal.
In particular, senior Government figures had been unimpressed by Dr Hawke's handling of intractable problems on everything from - to name just a few - the Collins Class submarine, the Seasprite helicopter, the Anzac Ship Project and the Bushmaster Infantry vehicle.
Recently, the Government officially conceded, to its political embarrassment, that 16 major Defence capital projects were $5.1 billion over budget and, in some cases, years overdue.
A senior political insider said last night that Dr Hawke had made progress on procurement and financial management. "In fairness to him, it's a bloody difficult job." But the source went on to say there was a perception that when a crisis hit, people would often say, "Where's Allan?"
Although the ultimate decision not to re-appoint Dr Hawke as Secretary was made by Mr Howard, it had also been rumoured that there were personal problems between him and Defence Minister Robert Hill.
In July 1999, the then Defence Minister John Moore fired his Department head Paul Barratt in controversial circumstances, one of which was said to be personal problems with Mr Barratt.
The Barratt case was a cause célèbre in bureaucratic circles, involving a Federal Court court injunction against the sacking and an embarrassing unfair dismissal case.
Dr Hawke's replacement at the head of Defence had been rumoured for some time, as had Mr Smith's possible appointment. Mr Smith has a strong background as a strategist at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but it is expected the Government wants reform of procurement and financial management.
Dr Hawke's three-year contract was due to end in October.
Mr Smith, who served at Defence as the Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence in 1994-95, will take up his new job on November 11 with a three-year contract.
Dr Hawke is expected to take some leave and then be posted overseas
So, would he be the right man for this AVIATION job?
Last edited by gobbledock; 13th Nov 2012 at 09:58.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the pony poo trail!
Lets go to the top, John McCormick:
The 49ers Story - the Star Chamber
and:
And from the South China Post on 30th September 2012 [http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/inthenews/news.htm]:
and along the way perjury alleged and "lost files" [http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/int...r10trans.pdf]:
And from the Senate papers on 1st November 2012:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Misleading Mr. McCormick or just a "Big fat L*e"
A bit like "losing things" or "perjury"
The 49ers Story - the Star Chamber
From 5-7th July 2001, the Star Chamber convened with the Objective to identify which pilots who were considered not be acting in the interests of the airline. There reasoning is amplified here. The Star Chamber comprised [in part] Captain John McCormick Chief Pilot (Boeing) Promoted to General Manager
Became head of Australia's Civil Aviation Authority
Became head of Australia's Civil Aviation Authority
"The 49ers" were created on 9th July 2001, following the termination by Cathay Pacific Airways of 49 pilots. The 49ers were selected by a "Star Chamber". Their story has become one of the longest industrial disputes in aviation history.
Hard-won victories for Cathay's pilots, flight attendants
John Carney [email protected]
Two former employees at Cathay Pacific could not be happier after scoring victories in court against the airline that ended long-running labour disputes.
Retired in-flight services manager Becky Kwan Siu-wa and ex-pilot John Warham, a former president of the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, were among those awarded damages for unfair policies by Cathay, in two separate judgments.
In Kwan's case, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that certain allowances should be considered in calculating the holiday pay of cabin crew. Kwan estimated she would be entitled to about HK$100,000 in compensation.
She won her appeal along with flight attendants Jenny Ho Kit-man and Vera Wu Yee-mei, who lodged a labour complaint four years ago.
Meanwhile, Cathay will have to pay HK$850,000 in damages to each of the 18 pilots, including Warham, that it sacked in 2001 over their industrial action.
Collectively known as the Cathay Pacific "49ers", the pilots were fired during an industrial dispute in 2001 concerning pay and working hours.
"It was great that we both [flight attendants and pilots] received such favourable verdicts at the same time, as everyone supported each other in the two cases," Kwan said. "We had a lot of solidarity and it was a perfect ending after what was a long battle for everyone involved."
Following years of bitter wrangling, Cathay now stands to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation.
Warham, who now works as a flight simulator instructor, said justice had finally been served.
"I feel vindicated. What we've shown is that people can take on these huge corporate entities and beat them," he said. "We've shown them up for what they are - unethical and immoral."
John Carney [email protected]
Two former employees at Cathay Pacific could not be happier after scoring victories in court against the airline that ended long-running labour disputes.
Retired in-flight services manager Becky Kwan Siu-wa and ex-pilot John Warham, a former president of the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, were among those awarded damages for unfair policies by Cathay, in two separate judgments.
In Kwan's case, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that certain allowances should be considered in calculating the holiday pay of cabin crew. Kwan estimated she would be entitled to about HK$100,000 in compensation.
She won her appeal along with flight attendants Jenny Ho Kit-man and Vera Wu Yee-mei, who lodged a labour complaint four years ago.
Meanwhile, Cathay will have to pay HK$850,000 in damages to each of the 18 pilots, including Warham, that it sacked in 2001 over their industrial action.
Collectively known as the Cathay Pacific "49ers", the pilots were fired during an industrial dispute in 2001 concerning pay and working hours.
"It was great that we both [flight attendants and pilots] received such favourable verdicts at the same time, as everyone supported each other in the two cases," Kwan said. "We had a lot of solidarity and it was a perfect ending after what was a long battle for everyone involved."
Following years of bitter wrangling, Cathay now stands to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation.
Warham, who now works as a flight simulator instructor, said justice had finally been served.
"I feel vindicated. What we've shown is that people can take on these huge corporate entities and beat them," he said. "We've shown them up for what they are - unethical and immoral."
And from the Senate papers on 1st November 2012:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Misleading Mr. McCormick or just a "Big fat L*e"
A bit like "losing things" or "perjury"
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 15th Nov 2012 at 01:48. Reason: More information
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Houston, we have a situation.
We have a situation where a National Aviation Authority (CASA) only just survived the last audit series through a shed load of promises and proposed grandiose schemes that have not, in any realistic manner been honoured. They haven't quite reneged; but the contemptuous, pantomime manner in which they have 'gilded the Lily' to make it look as though they have been 'trying' will survive about 30 seconds into day one of the next audit onslaught.
We have a situation where a ministerial 'White paper' response to national concerns is clearly an arrogant, dismissive thumb in the eye of the Parliament, the public and the industry. This did not go unnoticed.
We have a situation where the CASA have blatantly lied and attempted to deceive an industry, a minister and a Senate inquiry to cover their incompetence and responsibilities in relation to an accident which could have been prevented and almost claimed six lives. Nothing has changed since the accident four years ago, the potential for a repeat still exists within the rules. No educational or informative documents have been provided. The industry is once again left to 'sort out' the bloody mess and to deal with CASA interpretation of what the law means.
We have a situation where the national Air Transport Safety Bureau have been influenced by the CASA to provide a fraudulent, risible report which withheld important safety information from the aviation community for three years, actively sought to deceive the industry and is now being used in an attempt to once again deceive the Senate in Parliament.
We have a situation where no judicial or parliamentary body may safely 'rely' on ATSB or CASA report probity into an incident or accident when making recommendations or rulings. The industry has always known this, but now the Judiciary and Tribunals know it, we do, after all have a signed confession on Hansard. How many 'unsafe' judgements have been handed down based on CASA and ATSB "evidence" ?. This will make a great defence at a hearing near you. SC - "M'lud, the defence sights the Pel Air debacle". – M'Lud - "Case dismissed".
We have a situation where the Senate is now very aware of the industry concerns and they dare not ignore those issues. Once the Parliament is aware that there is a situation which has the potential to cause death, devastate industry and through failed audit to significantly impact on the balance of payments, they are obliged to act. Or the 'financial blood' will be on their collective hands.
The CAA, EASA, FAA and ICAO do have guns big enough to blast open the defences of Fort Fumbles. They have yet to be heard: these 'professional' outfits, unlike our own amateur hour 'groupies' and wannabees, have big ears, a long reach and lots of juice. They have the equipment to decimate Australian overseas travel and tourism. Are they listening ?: very hard. Will they act ?: absolutely.
Safe judgements, safe travel, safe air traffic, safe skies ?; for all?? - my hairy arse. Our light weight, silly half arsed pretend version of an 'authority' need to get with the world program; the heavy mob has not yet weighed in, they will; and when they do.... Senators, don't say you weren't warned, by the industry and the people who will be most affected. That would be the people voting minister, yes them on the cheap seats without a cushion.
Arrrggggh ! – "Steam off ?" – "Confirmed"..........Blackie, don't even think about it.
We have a situation where a ministerial 'White paper' response to national concerns is clearly an arrogant, dismissive thumb in the eye of the Parliament, the public and the industry. This did not go unnoticed.
We have a situation where the CASA have blatantly lied and attempted to deceive an industry, a minister and a Senate inquiry to cover their incompetence and responsibilities in relation to an accident which could have been prevented and almost claimed six lives. Nothing has changed since the accident four years ago, the potential for a repeat still exists within the rules. No educational or informative documents have been provided. The industry is once again left to 'sort out' the bloody mess and to deal with CASA interpretation of what the law means.
We have a situation where the national Air Transport Safety Bureau have been influenced by the CASA to provide a fraudulent, risible report which withheld important safety information from the aviation community for three years, actively sought to deceive the industry and is now being used in an attempt to once again deceive the Senate in Parliament.
We have a situation where no judicial or parliamentary body may safely 'rely' on ATSB or CASA report probity into an incident or accident when making recommendations or rulings. The industry has always known this, but now the Judiciary and Tribunals know it, we do, after all have a signed confession on Hansard. How many 'unsafe' judgements have been handed down based on CASA and ATSB "evidence" ?. This will make a great defence at a hearing near you. SC - "M'lud, the defence sights the Pel Air debacle". – M'Lud - "Case dismissed".
We have a situation where the Senate is now very aware of the industry concerns and they dare not ignore those issues. Once the Parliament is aware that there is a situation which has the potential to cause death, devastate industry and through failed audit to significantly impact on the balance of payments, they are obliged to act. Or the 'financial blood' will be on their collective hands.
The CAA, EASA, FAA and ICAO do have guns big enough to blast open the defences of Fort Fumbles. They have yet to be heard: these 'professional' outfits, unlike our own amateur hour 'groupies' and wannabees, have big ears, a long reach and lots of juice. They have the equipment to decimate Australian overseas travel and tourism. Are they listening ?: very hard. Will they act ?: absolutely.
Safe judgements, safe travel, safe air traffic, safe skies ?; for all?? - my hairy arse. Our light weight, silly half arsed pretend version of an 'authority' need to get with the world program; the heavy mob has not yet weighed in, they will; and when they do.... Senators, don't say you weren't warned, by the industry and the people who will be most affected. That would be the people voting minister, yes them on the cheap seats without a cushion.
Arrrggggh ! – "Steam off ?" – "Confirmed"..........Blackie, don't even think about it.
Last edited by Kharon; 14th Nov 2012 at 01:32. Reason: Say G'day to The Kelpie.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon -
Do you mean we've got one ? - Houston, we have a situation.
Don't you mean the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
Nugatory.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 14th Nov 2012 at 01:35.
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
This is what's wrong people.
Australia is a Nation. The National Aviation Safety Bureau happens to be, in this case, The Australian or ATSB.
While we fiddle over semantics, Rome burns.
Get real, really, as in piss or get off the pot!
The Catholic Church is getting more "air time" than all of you. The NSW Police are in trouble, Slippery Pete has his own problems in Oxford Street, Gillard is backed into a corner, the "Baby Factory's" at DOC'S are more important, than the notion that most of us are representative of a fractionated industry is a fact.
Toller, Byron and McKormick recognise this and they have divided and conquered. Bless them and their underlings.
Signed;
Frank. Chairman: POGOTP.
(a separate entity involved in urine disposal).
Australia is a Nation. The National Aviation Safety Bureau happens to be, in this case, The Australian or ATSB.
While we fiddle over semantics, Rome burns.
Get real, really, as in piss or get off the pot!
The Catholic Church is getting more "air time" than all of you. The NSW Police are in trouble, Slippery Pete has his own problems in Oxford Street, Gillard is backed into a corner, the "Baby Factory's" at DOC'S are more important, than the notion that most of us are representative of a fractionated industry is a fact.
Toller, Byron and McKormick recognise this and they have divided and conquered. Bless them and their underlings.
Signed;
Frank. Chairman: POGOTP.
(a separate entity involved in urine disposal).
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank me old,
Too true, but lighten up oa bit, I doubt that anyone here is no less passionate than yourself.
And I go back to what I would now fondly call the good old DCA days, although that might have been argued at the time. At least we had some certainty and highly qualified and dedicated "professional" public servants.
Ridiculed at the time but now seen to be veritable saints after a certain adventurer came to save us all and they all buggered off to other jurisdictions who actually appreciated their knowledge experience and skills.
What does being an ex Cathay pilot bring to the Australian story? furthermore the ex RAAF brigade albeit highly trained pilots work daily in an entirely different universe so they bring what to the table???
There are some very dedicated, highly experienced and skilled people within CASA but because they have to operate inside a for profit regulator with the current leadership, its a bit hard to get their light to shine.
So how do we find our way back to actually being "world class".
God forbid, but like the events to which you refer now getting critical mass with the public, it may just take a high capacity airline "seaview/monarch/whayalla/Norfolk..." accident to get it properly and foursquare on the agenda.
Too true, but lighten up oa bit, I doubt that anyone here is no less passionate than yourself.
And I go back to what I would now fondly call the good old DCA days, although that might have been argued at the time. At least we had some certainty and highly qualified and dedicated "professional" public servants.
Ridiculed at the time but now seen to be veritable saints after a certain adventurer came to save us all and they all buggered off to other jurisdictions who actually appreciated their knowledge experience and skills.
What does being an ex Cathay pilot bring to the Australian story? furthermore the ex RAAF brigade albeit highly trained pilots work daily in an entirely different universe so they bring what to the table???
There are some very dedicated, highly experienced and skilled people within CASA but because they have to operate inside a for profit regulator with the current leadership, its a bit hard to get their light to shine.
So how do we find our way back to actually being "world class".
God forbid, but like the events to which you refer now getting critical mass with the public, it may just take a high capacity airline "seaview/monarch/whayalla/Norfolk..." accident to get it properly and foursquare on the agenda.
Admire your passion Frank and have to agree with...
Shame we don't have Hedley Thomas batting for our team he is like a blue healer nipping away at the heel's of the Ginger Ninja.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I reckon HT would certainly have the tenacity to ferret out all the skeletons at Fort Fumble but unfortunately he is obviously otherwise occupied. Unless someone knows of another investigative journo that would be interested in our cause I suggest we throw support behind the Senators or at least let them know they are officially on notice!
Noticed that there is another embarassing revelation revealed on the Senate site:
Makes you wonder how it will be possible for the Senators to believe anything that comes out of the mouths of Fort Fumbles senior troughfeeders, the bard said it well..
...however Aristotle said it better..
Forgot to mention next Monday and Wednesday program is up:
The OAIC commissioner is an interesting one...wonder what that's all about? No Fort Fumble though!
The Catholic Church is getting more "air time" than all of you. The NSW Police are in trouble, Slippery Pete has his own problems in Oxford Street, Gillard is backed into a corner, the "Baby Factory's" at DOC'S are more important, than the notion that most of us are representative of a fractionated industry is a fact.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I reckon HT would certainly have the tenacity to ferret out all the skeletons at Fort Fumble but unfortunately he is obviously otherwise occupied. Unless someone knows of another investigative journo that would be interested in our cause I suggest we throw support behind the Senators or at least let them know they are officially on notice!
Noticed that there is another embarassing revelation revealed on the Senate site:
Dear Senator Heffernan
Clarification of statements made at hearing on 22 October 2012
I write regarding certain statements made during the appearance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) at the inquiry into aviation accident investigation (Pel-Air) on 22 October 2012.
At page 36 of the Hansard from Monday 22 October I stated:
Senator XENOPHON: So, there is nothing to stop Mr Wickham working on Pel-Air right now, notwithstanding the fact that he was the chief pilot?
Mr McCormick: Mr Wickham has not worked on Pel-Air other than to do a desktop review on some aspects.
I made this in good faith. It has since been brought to my attention that Mr Wickham was not involved in desk top work but instead, on 11 November 2011, he participated as an observer for an assessment of a Pel-Air check pilot in order to gain approval to conduct an Emergency Procedures Check under the Civil Aviation Orders. This was necessary as part of Mr Wickham’s development for a Flying Operations Inspector role. No other work was conducted on Pel-Air by Mr Wickham.
I apologise if my comments have in anyway been misleading.
Yours sincerely
Clarification of statements made at hearing on 22 October 2012
I write regarding certain statements made during the appearance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) at the inquiry into aviation accident investigation (Pel-Air) on 22 October 2012.
At page 36 of the Hansard from Monday 22 October I stated:
Senator XENOPHON: So, there is nothing to stop Mr Wickham working on Pel-Air right now, notwithstanding the fact that he was the chief pilot?
Mr McCormick: Mr Wickham has not worked on Pel-Air other than to do a desktop review on some aspects.
I made this in good faith. It has since been brought to my attention that Mr Wickham was not involved in desk top work but instead, on 11 November 2011, he participated as an observer for an assessment of a Pel-Air check pilot in order to gain approval to conduct an Emergency Procedures Check under the Civil Aviation Orders. This was necessary as part of Mr Wickham’s development for a Flying Operations Inspector role. No other work was conducted on Pel-Air by Mr Wickham.
I apologise if my comments have in anyway been misleading.
Yours sincerely
WS: Lord, Lord, how subject we old men are to this vice of lying!
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.
Forgot to mention next Monday and Wednesday program is up:
Inquiry into the Aviation Accident Investigations
Public hearing - Canberra, Monday 19 November 2012
Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Time
Witness
10.00 am
Airservices Australia
Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer
Mr Jason Harfield, Executive General Manager Air Traffic Control
Mr Peter Hobson, A/g Manager Network Management Services
11.00 am
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Mr Barry Hanstrume, Regional Director NSW
12:00 pm
Adjournment
Inquiry into the Aviation Accident Investigations
Public hearing - Canberra, Wednesday 21 November 2012
Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Time
Witness
4.00 pm
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Professor John McMillan AO, Australian Information Commissioner
5.00 pm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Mr Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner
Mr Ian Sangston, General Manager Aviation Safety Investigations
Mr Julian Walsh, General Manager Strategic Capability
Mr Joe Hattley, Assistant General Manager Strategic Capability
6:30 pm
Adjournment
Public hearing - Canberra, Monday 19 November 2012
Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Time
Witness
Sub No.
10.00 am
Airservices Australia
Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer
Mr Jason Harfield, Executive General Manager Air Traffic Control
Mr Peter Hobson, A/g Manager Network Management Services
11.00 am
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Mr Barry Hanstrume, Regional Director NSW
12:00 pm
Adjournment
Inquiry into the Aviation Accident Investigations
Public hearing - Canberra, Wednesday 21 November 2012
Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Time
Witness
Sub No.
4.00 pm
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Professor John McMillan AO, Australian Information Commissioner
5.00 pm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Mr Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner
Mr Ian Sangston, General Manager Aviation Safety Investigations
Mr Julian Walsh, General Manager Strategic Capability
Mr Joe Hattley, Assistant General Manager Strategic Capability
2
6:30 pm
Adjournment
Last edited by Sarcs; 14th Nov 2012 at 06:16. Reason: Thanks creamy
You left the word “observer” out of the quote from the letter, Sarcs. He “… participated as an observer …”.
Still, it looks like a “correction” rather than a “clarification” by Mr McCormick. Those sh*t sandwiches must be getting rather filling…
I wonder whether CASA will be making another Supplemental Submission, trashing Mr Davies’ integrity.
Still, it looks like a “correction” rather than a “clarification” by Mr McCormick. Those sh*t sandwiches must be getting rather filling…
I wonder whether CASA will be making another Supplemental Submission, trashing Mr Davies’ integrity.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting so the ex Pel Air guy worked on Pel Air when he joined casa? Possibly only as an observer as Creampuff suggests.
There is a casa policy on conflict of interest which wasn't complied with?
Also see FAA document below.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...4-09-2008).pdf
There is a casa policy on conflict of interest which wasn't complied with?
Also see FAA document below.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...4-09-2008).pdf
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 14th Nov 2012 at 06:16. Reason: Removed conflict of interest
Creampuff...
To me, the nugatory attempts by CASA to trash the integrity of Messrs Quinn and Aherne were spectacularly unsuccessful. So perhaps:
I wonder whether CASA will make another Supplemental Submission, this time in an attempt to trash Mr Davies’ integrity?
I wonder whether CASA will be making another Supplemental Submission, trashing Mr Davies’ integrity.
I wonder whether CASA will make another Supplemental Submission, this time in an attempt to trash Mr Davies’ integrity?
Last edited by SIUYA; 14th Nov 2012 at 07:40. Reason: self-explanatory