Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up-Into-the-Air
Where must they go?
And who is going to send them where?
I have been away from here nearly 5 years, when I come back I find Ground Hog Day. It's pathetic.
Same embittered actors or replacements and pretenders, playing the same embittered and irrelevant roles.
I have suffered through 3 maybe 4 cycles of the current angst over the last 30-40 years of aviation in some form or another.
It is no more nor no less important than prior, but whilst the frothing at the mouth around here imay be noticed, the cause does not go forward because in the absence of another Seaview et al, aviation per se just doesn't get on the Government agenda. As agreed with another respected denizen around here, aviation in any form is around 50th on the list of current priorities. It will for either side of Government take a REAL airline accident to get it any higher.
In the meantime I have built a world class organization with the active and sometimes but not very often reactive assistance from CASA.
How about achieving an AOC unrestricted worldwide with heavy's in around 100 days flat. Full marks to CASA.
And a world class IS-BAO Stage 2 registration concurrently.
An AOC for "heavies" starting with Challenger now including Gulfstream.
Noncombative but firm and respectful relationships.
With the top Fortune 250 companies as clients and colleagues, no angst just reasonable and mature dialogue across the table.
From a now retired, but highly respected CASA FOI suggestion, " if you don't think we "get it" write us a paper that educates us". Did, often, and after a bit of to and fro we reach a point from which we are both able to defend our position both safely, legally against the rules and morally defensible.
Full marks to the organization whom you revile. Perfect they are not, but they're not your enemy.
You don't seem to get that the people against whom you rail, are not evil nor do they necessarily have malicious intent. They may not get it even unto McCormick, they're like all of us a product of and therefore victims of their past.
They put their trousers on the same way as us, one leg at a time.
How about trying to engage with them as human beings with all their shortcomings. Some may be more resistant than others, some may need some serious attitude readjustment. Some may just be recidivist.
Consider the penultimate scene fron the Wizard of Oz.
With some exceptions, there is enough talent around here and in the government process to start the process going forward.
We are now in the maybe the 4th cycle of dejavu, we have to break the nexus before it resultsvin realmtragedy, I sincerely hope it is'nt resolved by an airline accident and loss of lives the responsibility for which we and the regulator must share.
Where must they go?
And who is going to send them where?
I have been away from here nearly 5 years, when I come back I find Ground Hog Day. It's pathetic.
Same embittered actors or replacements and pretenders, playing the same embittered and irrelevant roles.
I have suffered through 3 maybe 4 cycles of the current angst over the last 30-40 years of aviation in some form or another.
It is no more nor no less important than prior, but whilst the frothing at the mouth around here imay be noticed, the cause does not go forward because in the absence of another Seaview et al, aviation per se just doesn't get on the Government agenda. As agreed with another respected denizen around here, aviation in any form is around 50th on the list of current priorities. It will for either side of Government take a REAL airline accident to get it any higher.
In the meantime I have built a world class organization with the active and sometimes but not very often reactive assistance from CASA.
How about achieving an AOC unrestricted worldwide with heavy's in around 100 days flat. Full marks to CASA.
And a world class IS-BAO Stage 2 registration concurrently.
An AOC for "heavies" starting with Challenger now including Gulfstream.
Noncombative but firm and respectful relationships.
With the top Fortune 250 companies as clients and colleagues, no angst just reasonable and mature dialogue across the table.
From a now retired, but highly respected CASA FOI suggestion, " if you don't think we "get it" write us a paper that educates us". Did, often, and after a bit of to and fro we reach a point from which we are both able to defend our position both safely, legally against the rules and morally defensible.
Full marks to the organization whom you revile. Perfect they are not, but they're not your enemy.
You don't seem to get that the people against whom you rail, are not evil nor do they necessarily have malicious intent. They may not get it even unto McCormick, they're like all of us a product of and therefore victims of their past.
They put their trousers on the same way as us, one leg at a time.
How about trying to engage with them as human beings with all their shortcomings. Some may be more resistant than others, some may need some serious attitude readjustment. Some may just be recidivist.
Consider the penultimate scene fron the Wizard of Oz.
With some exceptions, there is enough talent around here and in the government process to start the process going forward.
We are now in the maybe the 4th cycle of dejavu, we have to break the nexus before it resultsvin realmtragedy, I sincerely hope it is'nt resolved by an airline accident and loss of lives the responsibility for which we and the regulator must share.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about trying to engage with them as human beings with all their shortcomings. Some may be more resistant than others, some may need some serious attitude readjustment. Some may just be recidivist.
Plainly, it has to stop.
There has to be a point where proper engagement with ALL stakeholders takes place to reach agreement on how to mend the system.
As we aren't there yet, a Senate Inquiry isn't a bad start.
Nice post gaunty and from what you have described:
How about achieving an AOC unrestricted worldwide with heavy's in around 100 days flat. Full marks to CASA
a very good outcome. What is being discovered in this inquiry however is what can happen after that process and your business venture is sold to others. Then they don't apply the same world class standards and even though they are still getting the big tick in CASA audits some of the personnel within the business are taking shortcuts and dodgy procedures are becoming normalised. The audits are still finding that all the paperwork is as pristine as the day it was signed and things like SMS and ops manuals are world standard. What CASA is not finding are things that should have been found before a "special audit" is required.
But often they appear to be a bit too friendly to the companies we have to work for.
How about achieving an AOC unrestricted worldwide with heavy's in around 100 days flat. Full marks to CASA
Full marks to the organization whom you revile. Perfect they are not, but they're not your enemy
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and Industry
and Gaunty, I don't disagree with you in what you say, but after 25 years personally in a State Govt. Dept, where the basis was to co-operate with those requiring the service or within the regulatory framework: I have found that there are some in casa who attempt to "work with the industry", but they are a rarity.
In most cases, casa are just dismissive of problems raised with them and seem to protect their "favorites".
However, that is one of the problems - complete inconsistency.
In my work with casa, when issues are raised, then followed up, replies, despite numerous requests are slow or non-existant. The following are three areas that are of concern that demonstrate these difficulties with casa and it's inability to work with GA .
The big end of town, Gaunty, as you report is OK [?????]
1. Failure to respond to safety concerns:
Fuel contamination in 1999 [This was my first example of how CASA does not co-operate to deal with safety issues.]
I reported a fuel problem some 18 months prior to the AVGAS grounding to CASA. I never received any reply from CASA, despite this, I followed the matter up with both Mobil and CASA, with no reply. Further research shows other organisations being “blamed” by CASA, when engines failed and in a similar fashion to myself, and then having action being taken against their AOC’s.
It seems that CASA avoids it’s responsibility when serious safety concerns are raised.
SDR system:
I am aware of a serious deficiency, reported under the SDR system as required by CASA, of an up-lock hook and a seven month delay in the return to service. The matter back to the maintenance organisation, after finding a further two aircraft affected in a similar way, and grounding of 5 aircraft [no CASA requirement]. The problem was defined by a service bulletin, which the maintenance organisation failed to adhere to during routine service.
I reported this to CASA, but there was no further action by CASA, despite there being some 198 similar aircraft that could be affected, no AD or AWB was issued.
The matter still has not been acted on with the maintenance organisation.
ATSB/ BASI:
There are numerous SR’s [Safety Recommendations] which are ignored by the regulator.
This situation is becoming much more marked after the issue of the CASA/ATSB MOU [memo of Understanding]
In most cases, casa are just dismissive of problems raised with them and seem to protect their "favorites".
However, that is one of the problems - complete inconsistency.
In my work with casa, when issues are raised, then followed up, replies, despite numerous requests are slow or non-existant. The following are three areas that are of concern that demonstrate these difficulties with casa and it's inability to work with GA .
The big end of town, Gaunty, as you report is OK [?????]
1. Failure to respond to safety concerns:
Fuel contamination in 1999 [This was my first example of how CASA does not co-operate to deal with safety issues.]
I reported a fuel problem some 18 months prior to the AVGAS grounding to CASA. I never received any reply from CASA, despite this, I followed the matter up with both Mobil and CASA, with no reply. Further research shows other organisations being “blamed” by CASA, when engines failed and in a similar fashion to myself, and then having action being taken against their AOC’s.
It seems that CASA avoids it’s responsibility when serious safety concerns are raised.
SDR system:
I am aware of a serious deficiency, reported under the SDR system as required by CASA, of an up-lock hook and a seven month delay in the return to service. The matter back to the maintenance organisation, after finding a further two aircraft affected in a similar way, and grounding of 5 aircraft [no CASA requirement]. The problem was defined by a service bulletin, which the maintenance organisation failed to adhere to during routine service.
I reported this to CASA, but there was no further action by CASA, despite there being some 198 similar aircraft that could be affected, no AD or AWB was issued.
The matter still has not been acted on with the maintenance organisation.
ATSB/ BASI:
There are numerous SR’s [Safety Recommendations] which are ignored by the regulator.
This situation is becoming much more marked after the issue of the CASA/ATSB MOU [memo of Understanding]
CASA AQON 4!
Okay onwards and downwards to the CASA answer to Q4.
Again this was one of those golden moments in the hearing where all the arrogance, bluster and posturing led to an extreme couple of faux pa (foot in mouth disease). Examples: “Mr McCormick: As far as that report goes and the recommendation and what the disposition was, we will have to take that on notice. None of us were involved, unfortunately, in the year 2000”or; “Can anyone at this table please tell me what the review involved? When was that review concluded?”
It appeared at the time that no one at the table wanted to help their esteemed leader out on an issue that, given the circumstances, they should all have been fully briefed on.
Then there was the AQON:
Priceless really!
Shame FF's not back next week for some more good theatre!!
Besides the fact that most of Fort Fumble’s answer was a total rehash of recommendation R20000040, see here: Recommendation R20000040...FF totally glossed over the fact that the Pel-Air operation was classified as ‘aerial work’ and therefore CAO 82.0 was completely irrelevant. The company prior to the ditching had been operating for many years with what had become a ‘normalised deviation’. This was probably because, as the Davies submission more than adequately showed, the Westwind operation couldn’t legally comply with the CAO 82.0 pax carrying charter ops requirements.
The statement that…“ Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations were not included in the amendment to CAO 82.0 as it was already a condition on an RPT Air Operators Certificate (AOC) that CASA approved both the route over which an RPT was flown and the fuel policy of the operator” …is also very interesting and given incident “199801482”…
After conducting an instrument approach, they determined that the cloud base was 600 ft, which was less than the alternate minima. Fuel for diversion to an alternate airfield was not carried on the flight because the forecast had not indicated any requirement.
….one would have to ask whether those conditions on an RPT AOC were actually working at the time?
Oh well they’ve given Senator X his answer, however I’m not sure if the answer is going to give the Senator any piece of mind though!!
Again this was one of those golden moments in the hearing where all the arrogance, bluster and posturing led to an extreme couple of faux pa (foot in mouth disease). Examples: “Mr McCormick: As far as that report goes and the recommendation and what the disposition was, we will have to take that on notice. None of us were involved, unfortunately, in the year 2000”or; “Can anyone at this table please tell me what the review involved? When was that review concluded?”
It appeared at the time that no one at the table wanted to help their esteemed leader out on an issue that, given the circumstances, they should all have been fully briefed on.
Then there was the AQON:
CASA04: ATSB recommendation in 2000 on weather forecasts at Norfolk Island and
fuel requirements
Hansard: p.44-45, 46
Senator XENOPHON: Could I just go to an issue back, again, on the 22 February 2000? The ATSB made a recommendation to the Bureau of Meteorology about aviation safety issues inactions in terms of the reliability of Norfolk Island forecasts. Are you familiar with that at all?
Mr McCormick: No, I am not.
Senator XENOPHON: Okay. Perhaps you could take that on notice; it talks about the safety deficiency and the unreliability of the weather forecasts at Norfolk Island—
Mr McCormick: Sorry, that is a recommendation to BOM?
Senator XENOPHON: Yes, to the Bureau of Meteorology. But it does actually make reference to:
SAFETY ACTION
As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
The report on Norfolk Island, the recommendations to the Bureau of Meteorology and the safety action is that CASA had commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands. Can you tell me when that review was concluded?
Mr McCormick: We did have a project on—
Senator XENOPHON: No, perhaps you mistake me. This is back on 22 February 2000—
Mr McCormick: Oh, I see.
Senator XENOPHON: saying that a recommendation was issued to the Bureau of Meteorology and there was a safety action. There was analysis and it said:
The present level of reliability of meteorological forecasts and the current regulatory requirements are not providing an adequate level of safety for passenger-carrying services to Norfolk Island.
That was the analysis, and therefore the safety action was:
As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
That was nearly 12 years ago—sorry, more than 12 years ago; what has happened since then?
Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what the then regime did 12 years ago with those recommendations—
Senator XENOPHON: But you can tell me, surely? CASA obviously dealt with this pretty promptly. It was back in 2000. When was the review in relation to the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands concluded by CASA?
Mr McCormick: As far as that report goes and the recommendation and what the disposition was, we will have to take that on notice. None of us were involved, unfortunately, in the year 2000. There is a project at the moment involved in fuel for remote islands—
Senator XENOPHON: Surely, it cannot be the same project? Surely, it cannot be the same project from a recommendation issued on 22 February 2000? It cannot be!
Mr McCormick: That is the first I have heard of that recommendation, myself personally, so I do not connect the two. As I said, we will take on notice that particular report—
Senator XENOPHON: I reckon that we are going to have to have you back here, because it relates to a number of incidents in relation to a BAe 146 aircraft, a Piper Navajo Chief, a Chieftain and another BAe 146; it gives a number of instances where things got pretty hairy because of the unreliability of weather forecasts at Norfolk Island. CASA was undertaking a review in relation to fuel requirements for flights to remote islands—this is over 12 years ago—surely, it has been resolved? It must be!
Please do not tell me that there is still an ongoing review of fuel requirements for remote islands 12 years after it was raised—nearly 13 years, rather, after it was raised.
Mr McCormick: Senator, I appreciate that what you have raised there is that people should be very prudent when they are flight-planning to Norfolk Island. I agree with that, whereas the project—
Senator XENOPHON: No, no, no! I am sorry, Mr McCormick—there was a role for CASA to take:
… the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
Can anyone at this table please tell me what the review involved? When was that review concluded?
Mr McCormick: Sorry, Senator, we were not involved in this. We were not in these positions in the year 2000. I do not know what has happened to that report; I will find it out on notice.
….. Senator XENOPHON: Let's not take it any further, other than to ask you to please advise us on notice what action CASA took following recommendations made on 22 February 2000.
Mr McCormick: Yes, we will take that on notice.
fuel requirements
Hansard: p.44-45, 46
Senator XENOPHON: Could I just go to an issue back, again, on the 22 February 2000? The ATSB made a recommendation to the Bureau of Meteorology about aviation safety issues inactions in terms of the reliability of Norfolk Island forecasts. Are you familiar with that at all?
Mr McCormick: No, I am not.
Senator XENOPHON: Okay. Perhaps you could take that on notice; it talks about the safety deficiency and the unreliability of the weather forecasts at Norfolk Island—
Mr McCormick: Sorry, that is a recommendation to BOM?
Senator XENOPHON: Yes, to the Bureau of Meteorology. But it does actually make reference to:
SAFETY ACTION
As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
The report on Norfolk Island, the recommendations to the Bureau of Meteorology and the safety action is that CASA had commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands. Can you tell me when that review was concluded?
Mr McCormick: We did have a project on—
Senator XENOPHON: No, perhaps you mistake me. This is back on 22 February 2000—
Mr McCormick: Oh, I see.
Senator XENOPHON: saying that a recommendation was issued to the Bureau of Meteorology and there was a safety action. There was analysis and it said:
The present level of reliability of meteorological forecasts and the current regulatory requirements are not providing an adequate level of safety for passenger-carrying services to Norfolk Island.
That was the analysis, and therefore the safety action was:
As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
That was nearly 12 years ago—sorry, more than 12 years ago; what has happened since then?
Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what the then regime did 12 years ago with those recommendations—
Senator XENOPHON: But you can tell me, surely? CASA obviously dealt with this pretty promptly. It was back in 2000. When was the review in relation to the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands concluded by CASA?
Mr McCormick: As far as that report goes and the recommendation and what the disposition was, we will have to take that on notice. None of us were involved, unfortunately, in the year 2000. There is a project at the moment involved in fuel for remote islands—
Senator XENOPHON: Surely, it cannot be the same project? Surely, it cannot be the same project from a recommendation issued on 22 February 2000? It cannot be!
Mr McCormick: That is the first I have heard of that recommendation, myself personally, so I do not connect the two. As I said, we will take on notice that particular report—
Senator XENOPHON: I reckon that we are going to have to have you back here, because it relates to a number of incidents in relation to a BAe 146 aircraft, a Piper Navajo Chief, a Chieftain and another BAe 146; it gives a number of instances where things got pretty hairy because of the unreliability of weather forecasts at Norfolk Island. CASA was undertaking a review in relation to fuel requirements for flights to remote islands—this is over 12 years ago—surely, it has been resolved? It must be!
Please do not tell me that there is still an ongoing review of fuel requirements for remote islands 12 years after it was raised—nearly 13 years, rather, after it was raised.
Mr McCormick: Senator, I appreciate that what you have raised there is that people should be very prudent when they are flight-planning to Norfolk Island. I agree with that, whereas the project—
Senator XENOPHON: No, no, no! I am sorry, Mr McCormick—there was a role for CASA to take:
… the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
Can anyone at this table please tell me what the review involved? When was that review concluded?
Mr McCormick: Sorry, Senator, we were not involved in this. We were not in these positions in the year 2000. I do not know what has happened to that report; I will find it out on notice.
….. Senator XENOPHON: Let's not take it any further, other than to ask you to please advise us on notice what action CASA took following recommendations made on 22 February 2000.
Mr McCormick: Yes, we will take that on notice.
Shame FF's not back next week for some more good theatre!!
Answer:
The ATSB issued Recommendation R20000040 on 22 February 2000 to the Bureau of Meteorology:
SUBJECT - RELIABILITY OF NORFOLK ISLAND FORECASTS
SAFETY DEFICIENCY
The meteorological forecasts for Norfolk Island are not sufficiently reliable on some occasions to prevent pilots having to carry out unplanned diversions or holding.
Prior to 1991, the then Civil Aviation Authority published specific requirements for flights to island destinations. For example, flights to Lord Howe Island were required to carry fuel for flight to an alternate aerodrome on the mainland Australia, and flights to Norfolk Island and Cocos Island, where no alternate aerodromes were available, were required to carry a minimum of 2 hours of holding fuel.
In 1991 Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234 was enacted and provided that an aircraft would not commence a flight unless the pilot in command and the operator had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety. The regulation did not specify the method for determining what was sufficient fuel in any particular case.
Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1(0) dated March 1991 provided guidelines which set out one method that could be used to calculate fuel requirements that would satisfy CAR 234. CAAP 234-1 did not contain any special considerations or requirements when planning a flight to an island destination.
In August 1999, Civil Aviation Order 82.0 was amended to require all charter passenger carrying flights to Norfolk Island and other remote islands to carry fuel for the flight to their destination and to an alternate aerodrome. The alternate aerodrome must not be located on a remote island. This requirement to carry additional fuel does not apply to regular public transport flights to a remote island.
In a response to the ATSB dated 27 April 2000 regarding recommendation R20000040, the Bureau Of Meteorology advised that it had explored a number of possible ways to increase the reliability of forecasts for flights to the Island and was actively participating in the review of fuel requirements for flights to remote islands being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
This referred to a CASA review of the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands which resulted in an amendment to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.0. An amendment to CAO 82 .0 was made in August 1999; however this was reviewed during 2000 and amended again in December 2000. These amendments deleted Cocos Island but retained Norfolk Island in the definition of a remote island. It also included the conditions for passenger carrying charter operations to remote islands and the fuel requirements for those flights. Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations were not included in the amendment to CAO 82.0 as it was already a condition on an RPT Air Operators Certificate (AOC) that CASA approved both the route over which an RPT was flown and the fuel policy of the operator. Thus for RPT operations, CASA already had in place a means to regulate the carriage of adequate fuel. The making of the amendment in December 2000 concluded that particular review project.
The CAO 82.0 requirements were in force at the time of the Pel Air accident. CASA initiated a project (OS 09/13) in 2009 to address ATSB concerns that fuel quantity issues were becoming problematic. That project remains in place and the CASA agreed action in the Pel Air accident report is to review in part the fuel and alternate requirements for operations to remote islands.
The ATSB issued Recommendation R20000040 on 22 February 2000 to the Bureau of Meteorology:
SUBJECT - RELIABILITY OF NORFOLK ISLAND FORECASTS
SAFETY DEFICIENCY
The meteorological forecasts for Norfolk Island are not sufficiently reliable on some occasions to prevent pilots having to carry out unplanned diversions or holding.
Prior to 1991, the then Civil Aviation Authority published specific requirements for flights to island destinations. For example, flights to Lord Howe Island were required to carry fuel for flight to an alternate aerodrome on the mainland Australia, and flights to Norfolk Island and Cocos Island, where no alternate aerodromes were available, were required to carry a minimum of 2 hours of holding fuel.
In 1991 Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234 was enacted and provided that an aircraft would not commence a flight unless the pilot in command and the operator had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety. The regulation did not specify the method for determining what was sufficient fuel in any particular case.
Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1(0) dated March 1991 provided guidelines which set out one method that could be used to calculate fuel requirements that would satisfy CAR 234. CAAP 234-1 did not contain any special considerations or requirements when planning a flight to an island destination.
In August 1999, Civil Aviation Order 82.0 was amended to require all charter passenger carrying flights to Norfolk Island and other remote islands to carry fuel for the flight to their destination and to an alternate aerodrome. The alternate aerodrome must not be located on a remote island. This requirement to carry additional fuel does not apply to regular public transport flights to a remote island.
In a response to the ATSB dated 27 April 2000 regarding recommendation R20000040, the Bureau Of Meteorology advised that it had explored a number of possible ways to increase the reliability of forecasts for flights to the Island and was actively participating in the review of fuel requirements for flights to remote islands being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
This referred to a CASA review of the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands which resulted in an amendment to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.0. An amendment to CAO 82 .0 was made in August 1999; however this was reviewed during 2000 and amended again in December 2000. These amendments deleted Cocos Island but retained Norfolk Island in the definition of a remote island. It also included the conditions for passenger carrying charter operations to remote islands and the fuel requirements for those flights. Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations were not included in the amendment to CAO 82.0 as it was already a condition on an RPT Air Operators Certificate (AOC) that CASA approved both the route over which an RPT was flown and the fuel policy of the operator. Thus for RPT operations, CASA already had in place a means to regulate the carriage of adequate fuel. The making of the amendment in December 2000 concluded that particular review project.
The CAO 82.0 requirements were in force at the time of the Pel Air accident. CASA initiated a project (OS 09/13) in 2009 to address ATSB concerns that fuel quantity issues were becoming problematic. That project remains in place and the CASA agreed action in the Pel Air accident report is to review in part the fuel and alternate requirements for operations to remote islands.
The statement that…“ Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations were not included in the amendment to CAO 82.0 as it was already a condition on an RPT Air Operators Certificate (AOC) that CASA approved both the route over which an RPT was flown and the fuel policy of the operator” …is also very interesting and given incident “199801482”…
A British Aerospace 146 (BAe146) aircraft was conducting a regular public transport (RPT) passenger service from Sydney to Norfolk Island. The terminal area forecast (TAF) for Norfolk Island indicated that cloud cover would be 3 octas with a cloud base of 2,000 ft. Approaching Norfolk Island, the crew found that the area was completely overcast.
After conducting an instrument approach, they determined that the cloud base was 600 ft, which was less than the alternate minima. Fuel for diversion to an alternate airfield was not carried on the flight because the forecast had not indicated any requirement.
Oh well they’ve given Senator X his answer, however I’m not sure if the answer is going to give the Senator any piece of mind though!!
Gauntly, I'm sure your opinion is correct, there are good people in CASA. It is possible to work with them and arrive at a good outcome.
However it would appear that this is not everyone's experience.
The question then becomes: are the complainants simply malcontents with an axe to grind, or is there actually room for improvement?
Twenty years of a regulatory reform process and an excess of legal action as reported in Pprune would suggest that there are gaps in CASA performance in my opinion, but what would I know?
In my own situation as a PPL, the slightest threat of action by CASA in my direction will result in the burning of the licence and the logbook and a chainsaw through the aircraft. My mate has just picked up about a $1million yacht for $300,000 and I am tempted to do the same anyway.
However it would appear that this is not everyone's experience.
The question then becomes: are the complainants simply malcontents with an axe to grind, or is there actually room for improvement?
Twenty years of a regulatory reform process and an excess of legal action as reported in Pprune would suggest that there are gaps in CASA performance in my opinion, but what would I know?
In my own situation as a PPL, the slightest threat of action by CASA in my direction will result in the burning of the licence and the logbook and a chainsaw through the aircraft. My mate has just picked up about a $1million yacht for $300,000 and I am tempted to do the same anyway.
Blowtorch to the belly, gaunty: Do you consider the content of CASA’s supplemental submission and answers to QONs to be sincere and justified?
In any event, whom in CASA would you hold responsible for the content?
In any event, whom in CASA would you hold responsible for the content?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AEROMEDIC.
Too true and under oath as well.
Sunfish
Answer unfortunately equals both, from my past experiences here, most of the malcontents and a pretender are easily recognisable, some not so but I'll get there. As always the reasoned and quality postings seem to get drowned in the stampede to be the most active reviler.
There is always room for improvement and if we can sort the sh!t from the clay around here we might get some proactive response. It was and I'm sure is still true that CASA monitor this site. One does not need much imagination to suggest they may throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.
. 
Yup and you can buy a Gulfstream or Citation for less than half its costs pre GFC. This like the yacht to which you refer opens a trap for young players all on their own, they dont cost less than half to operate and have the potential to fall into the wrong hands. Usually before they get to the distressed stage the maintenance has suffered to the point that they are practically valueless unless you have your eyes wiiiiiiiiiiide open and a biggish wallet.
LookLeft
Of course that is always a possibility, but I hope I have that covered by invoking an even higher standard than the CASA requirement in the IS-BAO, this Internationally accepted SMS registration which requires minimum 2 year renewal and demonstration that you have in fact gone forward from the last. That's the point of difference and a significant value add. Further if there is a significant change in management a relook is required, as so should CASA audits.
Creampuff
Whilst I consider/research the answer to your question you and others might want to contemplate the attached insofar as it might relate to this discussion. Its an old one but I thought it captures the human condition and this discussion. I expect this will bring on a stoning of myself for which purpose I am happy to arrange a venue.
Code:
As we aren't there yet, a Senate Inquiry isn't a bad start.
Sunfish
Code:
The question then becomes: are the complainants simply malcontents with an axe to grind, or is there actually room for improvement?
There is always room for improvement and if we can sort the sh!t from the clay around here we might get some proactive response. It was and I'm sure is still true that CASA monitor this site. One does not need much imagination to suggest they may throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.
Code:
My mate has just picked up about a $1million yacht for $300,000 and I am tempted to do the same anyway.
Yup and you can buy a Gulfstream or Citation for less than half its costs pre GFC. This like the yacht to which you refer opens a trap for young players all on their own, they dont cost less than half to operate and have the potential to fall into the wrong hands. Usually before they get to the distressed stage the maintenance has suffered to the point that they are practically valueless unless you have your eyes wiiiiiiiiiiide open and a biggish wallet.LookLeft
Code:
What is being discovered in this inquiry however is what can happen after that process and your business venture is sold to others.
Creampuff
Whilst I consider/research the answer to your question you and others might want to contemplate the attached insofar as it might relate to this discussion. Its an old one but I thought it captures the human condition and this discussion. I expect this will bring on a stoning of myself for which purpose I am happy to arrange a venue.
Gauntly, I understand where you are coming from regarding " cheap" vehicles. In the case of yachts, I am quite capable of bringing one up to Lloyd's 100a1 on my own. Not so aircraft, which need the paper trail.
IS-BAO, this Internationally accepted SMS registration
If you don't pay the piper, you don't get the work.
An example is the requirement for 2 pilots to crew an AS350 just to move it from one HLS to another HLS when no passengers are on board.
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 4 of 6
David Gray,
Is he what is needed on the Board?
Employment - Current
Director, Collection House
Adjunct Professor, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Chairman, Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation
Chairman, Australia Research Council for Aviation Automation
Deputy Chairman, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Director, Brisbane Airport Corporation
Employment - Previous
2006 to 2010: Chairman, Queensland Motorways
2008 to 2011: Chairman, WaterSecure
1995 to 2006: Managing Director, Boeing Australia
1990 to 1995: Managing Director, GEC Marconi (Australia)
1984 to 1990: Divisional Chief Executive, GEC (Australia) Heavy Engineering
1981 to 1984: Operations Manager, Teltech South Africa
Other Qualification/ Awards
Honorary Doctorate, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Member of Australian Institute of Company Directors
Centenary Medal for Contribution to the Aviation Industry
Fellow of Royal Aeronautical Society
Other Previous Boards/ Councils
Queensland University Senate
Aviation Australia Advisory Board
Director Boeing Australia Holdings
Member of Queensland Premier’s Business Round Table
Member of Queensland Premier’s Smart State Council
Queensland Education & Training
AIG Defence Industry Executive
Education
University: Bachelor of Science, University of Newcastle on Tyne, UK
Secondary School: "A" Level, Churchill School, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)
Director, Collection House
Adjunct Professor, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Chairman, Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation
Chairman, Australia Research Council for Aviation Automation
Deputy Chairman, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Director, Brisbane Airport Corporation
Employment - Previous
2006 to 2010: Chairman, Queensland Motorways
2008 to 2011: Chairman, WaterSecure
1995 to 2006: Managing Director, Boeing Australia
1990 to 1995: Managing Director, GEC Marconi (Australia)
1984 to 1990: Divisional Chief Executive, GEC (Australia) Heavy Engineering
1981 to 1984: Operations Manager, Teltech South Africa
Other Qualification/ Awards
Honorary Doctorate, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Member of Australian Institute of Company Directors
Centenary Medal for Contribution to the Aviation Industry
Fellow of Royal Aeronautical Society
Other Previous Boards/ Councils
Queensland University Senate
Aviation Australia Advisory Board
Director Boeing Australia Holdings
Member of Queensland Premier’s Business Round Table
Member of Queensland Premier’s Smart State Council
Queensland Education & Training
AIG Defence Industry Executive
Education
University: Bachelor of Science, University of Newcastle on Tyne, UK
Secondary School: "A" Level, Churchill School, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)
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
Additional Pooh
My bolding. Anthony sure has his finger on the pulse doesn't he?? NOT
sarcs #804 Spot on. Senator X frustration and disbelief is shining through. Nobody at Fort Fumble knows anything -"It was before my time sir", "I don't recall sir", "I was in Montreal sir", "I had my as# in the air and face buried in a trough sir", "it was not me it was the one armed f#cking man who did it sir"..............
No records kept at Fort Fumble? That has to be worth a NCN!
What about some of the greasy decision makers who have been hiding there for the past 20 years, bad memories?
Poor old Skull, if he eats any more sh#t sandwiches he is going to explode! There are plenty other trough dwellers there should be sharing a bite from his robust sandwich.
ATSB and CASA board members reappointed
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 5:26 pm, Tuesday June 5 2012
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a series of reappointments at CASA and the ATSB.
Dr Allan Hawke AC has been reappointed as chair of CASA, while fellow board members David Gray, Trevor Danos and Helen Gillies have also agreed to serve further terms. In addition, Noel Hart has been reappointed as a Commissioner of the ATSB.
“The re-appointments provide ongoing certainty for both CASA and the ATSB enabling both bodies to continue to perform their vital roles as the independent aviation safety regulator and national transport safety investigator respectively to the highest standard,” said Minister Albanese.
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 5:26 pm, Tuesday June 5 2012
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a series of reappointments at CASA and the ATSB.
Dr Allan Hawke AC has been reappointed as chair of CASA, while fellow board members David Gray, Trevor Danos and Helen Gillies have also agreed to serve further terms. In addition, Noel Hart has been reappointed as a Commissioner of the ATSB.
“The re-appointments provide ongoing certainty for both CASA and the ATSB enabling both bodies to continue to perform their vital roles as the independent aviation safety regulator and national transport safety investigator respectively to the highest standard,” said Minister Albanese.
No records kept at Fort Fumble? That has to be worth a NCN!
What about some of the greasy decision makers who have been hiding there for the past 20 years, bad memories?
Poor old Skull, if he eats any more sh#t sandwiches he is going to explode! There are plenty other trough dwellers there should be sharing a bite from his robust sandwich.
Last edited by gobbledock; 17th Nov 2012 at 23:29.
Folks,
Actually, there was one person present on the CASA bench at the last RRAT hearing day, who was around in 1999/2000, when CAO 82.0 was amended (several times) to what it is today.
Strangely, he seemed to be suffering a memory lapse, sitting in the Senate inquiry room.
Gaunty, good you are still wearing the same rose coloured glasses that you have been wearing for so many years, at least something is changeless. You have never been able to understand that, if "it" hasn't happened to you, it hasn't happened, have you?
Tootle pip!!
Actually, there was one person present on the CASA bench at the last RRAT hearing day, who was around in 1999/2000, when CAO 82.0 was amended (several times) to what it is today.
Strangely, he seemed to be suffering a memory lapse, sitting in the Senate inquiry room.
Gaunty, good you are still wearing the same rose coloured glasses that you have been wearing for so many years, at least something is changeless. You have never been able to understand that, if "it" hasn't happened to you, it hasn't happened, have you?
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Nov 2012 at 12:08.
Actually, there was one person present on the CASA bench at the last RRAT hearing day, who was around in 1999/2000, when CAO 82.0 was amended (several times) to what it is today.
I can understand your frustrations JS but personally I think there were some golden moments in the ASA appearance, which was best summed up in Ben's blog, see here:Pel-Air hearing stunned by ATSB safety cop-out | Plane Talking
I have to agree with you JS it was a very insipid performance from the ASA exec management
Here's an example where the new CEO very much stepped into the breach:
Ms Staib: The first thing I would say is that I am not concerned about how Airservices has dealt with this particular matter. The whole point is—
CHAIR: Is that because it is not in your jurisdiction?
Ms Staib: It is because we have followed our area of responsibility.
CHAIR: That is right. Exactly. It is not in your jurisdiction to have what does not worry you?
Ms Staib: Not in the way that this particular incident was handled. What it has brought out in my mind—appearing here before you—is that there is room for improvement in managing the cross-boundary areas of the different jurisdictions, because inevitably it is very difficult to see the line drawn on a map in the air.
CHAIR: Surely, in normal human workings, this is—with your permission Senator Xenophon—a fundamental flaw in that the weather was not conveyed in New Zealand airspace by the Bureau of Meteorology in New Zealand. Everyone knows that. The guy—even if you were the most mediocre pilot, like I used to be—would know to divert to somewhere like Noumea with ILS. That did not happen, because he did not get the information, and the outcome was catastrophic, to say the least. Surely, it is not one of those things where, like Senator Fawcett said: 'Don't look over the boundary. You mightn't like what you see.' For God's sake, why wouldn't you have been up CASA and up ATSB and up everyone else, like I intend to be, over this? It is obviously a flaw and obviously bureaucracies tend to protect themselves and put up a shell—'Don't ask, don't tell. That wasn't our responsibility' and 'Don't look over the fence.' For God's sake, what is going on?
A very big learning curve for the new ASA CEO. Still she'd better get used to dealing with hostile Senators, after all that is definitely part of Ms Staib's remit!!
The BOM part of this morning's event was very civilized in comparison...
And you can find the Hansard PDF here:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...pplication/pdf
I have to agree with you JS it was a very insipid performance from the ASA exec management
Here's an example where the new CEO very much stepped into the breach:
Ms Staib: The first thing I would say is that I am not concerned about how Airservices has dealt with this particular matter. The whole point is—
CHAIR: Is that because it is not in your jurisdiction?
Ms Staib: It is because we have followed our area of responsibility.
CHAIR: That is right. Exactly. It is not in your jurisdiction to have what does not worry you?
Ms Staib: Not in the way that this particular incident was handled. What it has brought out in my mind—appearing here before you—is that there is room for improvement in managing the cross-boundary areas of the different jurisdictions, because inevitably it is very difficult to see the line drawn on a map in the air.
CHAIR: Surely, in normal human workings, this is—with your permission Senator Xenophon—a fundamental flaw in that the weather was not conveyed in New Zealand airspace by the Bureau of Meteorology in New Zealand. Everyone knows that. The guy—even if you were the most mediocre pilot, like I used to be—would know to divert to somewhere like Noumea with ILS. That did not happen, because he did not get the information, and the outcome was catastrophic, to say the least. Surely, it is not one of those things where, like Senator Fawcett said: 'Don't look over the boundary. You mightn't like what you see.' For God's sake, why wouldn't you have been up CASA and up ATSB and up everyone else, like I intend to be, over this? It is obviously a flaw and obviously bureaucracies tend to protect themselves and put up a shell—'Don't ask, don't tell. That wasn't our responsibility' and 'Don't look over the fence.' For God's sake, what is going on?
The BOM part of this morning's event was very civilized in comparison...
And you can find the Hansard PDF here:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...pplication/pdf
Last edited by Sarcs; 19th Nov 2012 at 05:49.