Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Megiddo
Age: 60
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tautology forecast
This snippet really flies against what Fort Fumble promote:
They don't like determining set, robust and precise rules whatsoever. That could lead to 'accountability' and we couldn't have that could we?
(ii) The operational implications of forecast reliability for flights to and from
remote islands:
The Bureau is not the appropriate authority to provide comment on the operational implications for aviators from using our forecasts. Operational considerations for the aviation industry are determined by CASA and Airservices regulations.
remote islands:
The Bureau is not the appropriate authority to provide comment on the operational implications for aviators from using our forecasts. Operational considerations for the aviation industry are determined by CASA and Airservices regulations.
They don't like determining set, robust and precise rules whatsoever. That could lead to 'accountability' and we couldn't have that could we?
Thanks Sarcs
The BOM submission has, at Table 2, what’s described as a “Chronology of key weather observations and forecasts at Norfolk Island for the period 0430-1130”. It summarises the observation/forecast rather than stating the ‘raw terms’.
The period from 07:39 to 09:30 confuses me bit:
Errrrm, what about the 0800 SPECI that said 9999 overcast at one thousand one hundred? That’s the one that, according to the ‘partial transcript’, was transmitted by Nadi and addressed to NGA. And why aren’t the 08:30, 08:56, 09:00 and 09:02 SPECIs mentioned in the Table either?
I guess BOM’s just trying to make the point that the cloud base lowered below the alternate minima at 0739, and therefore the other SPECI’s weren’t ‘key’ because they didn’t say the cloud base lifted above the alternate minima (until about 11:28)?
In any event, getting the WX info to NGA is not BOM’s responsibility, once the SPECI/METAR/TAF has been issued.
I suppose it now boils down to whether a different decision would have been made if the information in the cockpit had been:
0800Z AUTO 29008KT 9999 OVC011 21/19 Q1012 RMK RF00.0/000.0
0830Z AUTO 22007KT 9999 BKN003 OVC009 20/19 Q1013 RMK RF00.0/000.0
… with about 40 minutes to think about it and seek more information …
… compared with:
0800Z AUTO 29008KT 9999 OVC011 21/19 Q1012 RMK RF00.0/000.0
0902Z AUTO 20007KT 7000 SCT005 BKN011 OVC015 20/19 Q1013 RMK RF00.0/000.0
… with about 10 minutes to think about it and seek more information.
In the very inexperienced circles in which I move, “BKN003 OVC009” would cause considerable consternation in any event. “SCT005 BKN011 OVC015” – not so much, in the context of the 0800 SPECI.
But Kharon makes an important point about the converging temps/dew points and easing winds.
CASA says the decision should have been to divert, either way.
(And all this depends on assumptions about what was actually received and understood in the cockpit.)
The BOM submission has, at Table 2, what’s described as a “Chronology of key weather observations and forecasts at Norfolk Island for the period 0430-1130”. It summarises the observation/forecast rather than stating the ‘raw terms’.
The period from 07:39 to 09:30 confuses me bit:
07:39 – SPECI report – cloud base lowers below alternate minima – broken cloud 1100 feet.
08:03 – TAF amended; valid 0800 – 2400 to indicate below alternate minima cloud conditions – broken cloud at 1000 feet.
09:25-09:30 – SPECI reports – cloud base lowers further, visibility reduces due showers. Broken cloud 200-300 feet, visibility 4500m in showers.
08:03 – TAF amended; valid 0800 – 2400 to indicate below alternate minima cloud conditions – broken cloud at 1000 feet.
09:25-09:30 – SPECI reports – cloud base lowers further, visibility reduces due showers. Broken cloud 200-300 feet, visibility 4500m in showers.
I guess BOM’s just trying to make the point that the cloud base lowered below the alternate minima at 0739, and therefore the other SPECI’s weren’t ‘key’ because they didn’t say the cloud base lifted above the alternate minima (until about 11:28)?
In any event, getting the WX info to NGA is not BOM’s responsibility, once the SPECI/METAR/TAF has been issued.
I suppose it now boils down to whether a different decision would have been made if the information in the cockpit had been:
0800Z AUTO 29008KT 9999 OVC011 21/19 Q1012 RMK RF00.0/000.0
0830Z AUTO 22007KT 9999 BKN003 OVC009 20/19 Q1013 RMK RF00.0/000.0
… with about 40 minutes to think about it and seek more information …
… compared with:
0800Z AUTO 29008KT 9999 OVC011 21/19 Q1012 RMK RF00.0/000.0
0902Z AUTO 20007KT 7000 SCT005 BKN011 OVC015 20/19 Q1013 RMK RF00.0/000.0
… with about 10 minutes to think about it and seek more information.
In the very inexperienced circles in which I move, “BKN003 OVC009” would cause considerable consternation in any event. “SCT005 BKN011 OVC015” – not so much, in the context of the 0800 SPECI.
But Kharon makes an important point about the converging temps/dew points and easing winds.
CASA says the decision should have been to divert, either way.
(And all this depends on assumptions about what was actually received and understood in the cockpit.)
Last edited by Creampuff; 28th Nov 2012 at 06:31.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Megiddo
Age: 60
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA 2012 Trough Figures (and some tautology)
I have handpicked some gems from the 192 pages of the CASA 2012 annual reprt. It is total ****e. There is to much baloney to post here, take a look for yourself, but Mr Hawke has excelled himself. For the taxpayer out there reading my brief snippets or simply interested in perusing the full document I warn you that when you see where your hard earned money is going you may feel a little testee.
Some gems:
1. Almost 200 pages of crap.
2. Lots of robust colour background pictures and other non essential distracting bollocks.
3. Many bloated, spun and stretcccccccched figures and stats.
4. They left out any mention of $200 million and 23 years of failed reform (wonder why?).
5. Some interesting stats on bloated salaries, bonuses and trough treats.
6. And the achievements they made. A robust three ticks for almost everything they touched!! I would love to know who did the grading?
7.When you crunch a lot of the numbers it is interesting to see where a lot of that extra $89 million dollar trough top up coin is going!
Shortcut to the entire spin document at:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100173/ar1112.pdf
Maybe the Senators can chew over the executive salary figures as they grill them in the Senate and wonder why they earn more than the Senatros?
And yes, the shiny glossy brochure does make good toilet paper. Just make sure you tear out the staples first!
Some gems:
1. Almost 200 pages of crap.
2. Lots of robust colour background pictures and other non essential distracting bollocks.
3. Many bloated, spun and stretcccccccched figures and stats.
4. They left out any mention of $200 million and 23 years of failed reform (wonder why?).
5. Some interesting stats on bloated salaries, bonuses and trough treats.
6. And the achievements they made. A robust three ticks for almost everything they touched!! I would love to know who did the grading?
7.When you crunch a lot of the numbers it is interesting to see where a lot of that extra $89 million dollar trough top up coin is going!
Shortcut to the entire spin document at:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100173/ar1112.pdf
Page 3
Developing aviation safety standards and guidance material, and implementing regulatory changes.FAIL
Page 7 Mission
To enhance and promote aviation safety through effective regulation and by encouraging the wider aviation community to embrace and deliver higher standards of safety. FAIL
Values and Goals. FAIL
Page 12: Board ‘wank word’ highlights:
Underpinning
Core systems
Efficiencies
They forgot FOLLY
Page 15 Statement:
Updating the rules is part of the continual improvement of safety; rules cannot remain static—as safety knowledge and understanding improves, the rules must evolve to reflect better safety practices and to incorporate new technology. Developing and implementing new standards and regulations are a key priority for CASA. In April 2012, the Operations Regulations Implementation Division was established to oversee and facilitate the transition to new regulations.FAIL
Page 17: Outcomes not achieved
1) The aerodrome audit program fell behind schedule due to factors such as widespread flooding and staff illness and absence. CASA’s Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division ismaking progress to get the audit schedule back on track.
2) The Office of Airspace Regulation planned to complete the national review of group/sectorstudies by the end of June 2012. Five of these studies are undergoing review and have not beenfinalised. CASA expects the remaining studies to be completed by the end of October 2012.
3) Due to some technical challenges in the integration of CASA systems, the web gateway project that was planned for 2011–12, to allow applicants to apply and pay for their regulatory services, was suspended. The future progress of this project will be dependent on the replacement of CASA’s Aviation Industry Regulatory System. FAILS
The trough for 2012:
The number of non-executive directors of CASA included in these figures are shown below in the relevant remuneration bands.
Trough dwellers = 1 $30,000 to $59,999
Trough dwellers = 2 $60,000 to $89,999
Trough dwellers = 1 $90,000 to $119,999
Total number of non-executive directors of CASA 4 Total remuneration received or due and receivable by directors $322,069 $315,798.
Total expense recognised in relation to senior executive employment 2012 2011
Short-term employee benefits:
Salary (including annual leave taken) $4,364,291
Annual leave accrued $397,842
Performance bonus $581,835
Allowances $94,539
Total short-term employee benefits $5,438,507
Post-employment benefits:
Superannuation $903,166
Total post-employment benefits $903,166
Other long-term benefits:
Long-service leave $126,899
Total other long-term benefits $126,899
Termination benefits $273,199
Total $6,741,771 (up by almost $800 000)
For the year ended 30 June 2012
Note 13B: Average Annual Remuneration and Bonus paid for substantive
Senior Executives during the reporting period:
2012 Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements):
In each bracket the first figure is Salary, the second figure is bonus and the third figure is the total reaped (snorted)
Salary $150,000:
Trough dwellers =1, Salary $71,571 Super $11,213. TOTAL: $ 82,784
Salary $150,000 -$179,999
Trough dwellers =3, Salary $121,202 Super $27,384 Bonus $ 18,238 TOTAL: $166,824
Salary $180,000 –$209,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $155,716, Super $ 22,393 - Bonus $17,525 TOTAL: $195,634
Salary $210,000 –$239,999
Trough dwellers =5 Salary $178,067 Super $ 31,135 Bonus $15,996 TOTAL: $225,198
Salary $240,000 –$269,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $186,381 Super $41,801 - , Bonus $23,567 TOTAL: $251,749
Salary $270,000 –$299,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $209,951 Super $38,658 – Bonus $ 35,549 TOTAL: $284,158
Salary $330,000 –$359,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $218,971 Super 74,024, Bonus $ 41,138 TOTAL: $334,133
Salary $360,000 –$389,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $230,205 Super $ 89,724, Bonus $ 42,488 TOTAL: $362,417
$390,000 –$419,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $269,254, Super $ 92,805, Bonus $ 46,350 TOTAL: $ 408,409
Salary $420,000 –$449,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary$ 324,635 Super $ 50,227, Bonus$ 46, TOTAL: $350 421,212
Salary $540,000 -$569,000
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $491,600 Super $ 50,000 TOTAL: $541 600
Not included are away allowances, business class fares, meetings, dinners, accommodation etc etc…….
But even more from the trough:
Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements):
Salary $150,000 to $179,999
Trough dwellers = 86
Salary $128,585 Super $30,236.06 Allowances $5.07 Bonus $2,174.79 TOTAL: $161,001.11
Salary $180,000 to $209,999
Trough dwellers = 29
Salary $149,321.59 Super $37,427.47 Allowances $16.57 Bonus $5,829.44 TOTAL: $192,595.07
Salary $210,000 to $239,999
Trough dwellers = 10
Salary $177,628.96 Super $40,228.11 Alowances$13.08 Bonus $6,321.17 TOTAL: $224,191.32
Salary $240,000 to $269,999
Trough dwellers = 3
Salary $196,273.81 Super $53,639.81 Bonus $6,396.60 TOTAL: $256,310.22
Developing aviation safety standards and guidance material, and implementing regulatory changes.FAIL
Page 7 Mission
To enhance and promote aviation safety through effective regulation and by encouraging the wider aviation community to embrace and deliver higher standards of safety. FAIL
Values and Goals. FAIL
Page 12: Board ‘wank word’ highlights:
Underpinning
Core systems
Efficiencies
They forgot FOLLY
Page 15 Statement:
Updating the rules is part of the continual improvement of safety; rules cannot remain static—as safety knowledge and understanding improves, the rules must evolve to reflect better safety practices and to incorporate new technology. Developing and implementing new standards and regulations are a key priority for CASA. In April 2012, the Operations Regulations Implementation Division was established to oversee and facilitate the transition to new regulations.FAIL
Page 17: Outcomes not achieved
1) The aerodrome audit program fell behind schedule due to factors such as widespread flooding and staff illness and absence. CASA’s Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division ismaking progress to get the audit schedule back on track.
2) The Office of Airspace Regulation planned to complete the national review of group/sectorstudies by the end of June 2012. Five of these studies are undergoing review and have not beenfinalised. CASA expects the remaining studies to be completed by the end of October 2012.
3) Due to some technical challenges in the integration of CASA systems, the web gateway project that was planned for 2011–12, to allow applicants to apply and pay for their regulatory services, was suspended. The future progress of this project will be dependent on the replacement of CASA’s Aviation Industry Regulatory System. FAILS
The trough for 2012:
The number of non-executive directors of CASA included in these figures are shown below in the relevant remuneration bands.
Trough dwellers = 1 $30,000 to $59,999
Trough dwellers = 2 $60,000 to $89,999
Trough dwellers = 1 $90,000 to $119,999
Total number of non-executive directors of CASA 4 Total remuneration received or due and receivable by directors $322,069 $315,798.
Total expense recognised in relation to senior executive employment 2012 2011
Short-term employee benefits:
Salary (including annual leave taken) $4,364,291
Annual leave accrued $397,842
Performance bonus $581,835
Allowances $94,539
Total short-term employee benefits $5,438,507
Post-employment benefits:
Superannuation $903,166
Total post-employment benefits $903,166
Other long-term benefits:
Long-service leave $126,899
Total other long-term benefits $126,899
Termination benefits $273,199
Total $6,741,771 (up by almost $800 000)
For the year ended 30 June 2012
Note 13B: Average Annual Remuneration and Bonus paid for substantive
Senior Executives during the reporting period:
2012 Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements):
In each bracket the first figure is Salary, the second figure is bonus and the third figure is the total reaped (snorted)
Salary $150,000:
Trough dwellers =1, Salary $71,571 Super $11,213. TOTAL: $ 82,784
Salary $150,000 -$179,999
Trough dwellers =3, Salary $121,202 Super $27,384 Bonus $ 18,238 TOTAL: $166,824
Salary $180,000 –$209,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $155,716, Super $ 22,393 - Bonus $17,525 TOTAL: $195,634
Salary $210,000 –$239,999
Trough dwellers =5 Salary $178,067 Super $ 31,135 Bonus $15,996 TOTAL: $225,198
Salary $240,000 –$269,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $186,381 Super $41,801 - , Bonus $23,567 TOTAL: $251,749
Salary $270,000 –$299,999
Trough dwellers =3 Salary $209,951 Super $38,658 – Bonus $ 35,549 TOTAL: $284,158
Salary $330,000 –$359,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $218,971 Super 74,024, Bonus $ 41,138 TOTAL: $334,133
Salary $360,000 –$389,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $230,205 Super $ 89,724, Bonus $ 42,488 TOTAL: $362,417
$390,000 –$419,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $269,254, Super $ 92,805, Bonus $ 46,350 TOTAL: $ 408,409
Salary $420,000 –$449,999
Trough dwellers =1 Salary$ 324,635 Super $ 50,227, Bonus$ 46, TOTAL: $350 421,212
Salary $540,000 -$569,000
Trough dwellers =1 Salary $491,600 Super $ 50,000 TOTAL: $541 600
Not included are away allowances, business class fares, meetings, dinners, accommodation etc etc…….
But even more from the trough:
Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements):
Salary $150,000 to $179,999
Trough dwellers = 86
Salary $128,585 Super $30,236.06 Allowances $5.07 Bonus $2,174.79 TOTAL: $161,001.11
Salary $180,000 to $209,999
Trough dwellers = 29
Salary $149,321.59 Super $37,427.47 Allowances $16.57 Bonus $5,829.44 TOTAL: $192,595.07
Salary $210,000 to $239,999
Trough dwellers = 10
Salary $177,628.96 Super $40,228.11 Alowances$13.08 Bonus $6,321.17 TOTAL: $224,191.32
Salary $240,000 to $269,999
Trough dwellers = 3
Salary $196,273.81 Super $53,639.81 Bonus $6,396.60 TOTAL: $256,310.22
And yes, the shiny glossy brochure does make good toilet paper. Just make sure you tear out the staples first!
"Full troughs for all"
Last edited by Valley of Hinnom; 29th Nov 2012 at 04:16.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate inquiry into PelAir and aviation matters
Date has been extended and committee is taking further submissions. To be continued in February.
Join in now with further information on Section (d)
Aviation Accident Investigations
Terms of Reference
On 13 September 2012, the Senate agreed that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
(a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009;
(b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
(c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in a timely manner; and
(d) any related matters.
For further information, contact:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
Fax: +61 2 6277 5811
Email: [email protected]
Terms of Reference
On 13 September 2012, the Senate agreed that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
(a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009;
(b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
(c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in a timely manner; and
(d) any related matters.
For further information, contact:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
Fax: +61 2 6277 5811
Email: [email protected]
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 30th Nov 2012 at 00:22. Reason: More information
L6 as UITA says the reporting date has been extended:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Also worth a download is the supp submission from Mr Richard Davies which more than adequately refutes the ATSB supp submission and evidence given on the 21/11 by the Beaker in an attempt to discredit the Davies original submission:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Good stuff RD you are making the ATSB and CASA look very amateur!
Aviation Accident Investigations
Information about the Inquiry
On 13 September 2012 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for inquiry and report.
Submissions should be received by 12 October 2012. The reporting date is 29 November 2012. On 20 November 2012,the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 27 February 2013.
The Committee is seeking written submissions from interested individuals and organisations preferably in electronic form submitted online or sent by email to [email protected] as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format document. The email must include full postal address and contact details.
Information about the Inquiry
On 13 September 2012 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for inquiry and report.
Submissions should be received by 12 October 2012. The reporting date is 29 November 2012. On 20 November 2012,the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 27 February 2013.
The Committee is seeking written submissions from interested individuals and organisations preferably in electronic form submitted online or sent by email to [email protected] as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format document. The email must include full postal address and contact details.
Also worth a download is the supp submission from Mr Richard Davies which more than adequately refutes the ATSB supp submission and evidence given on the 21/11 by the Beaker in an attempt to discredit the Davies original submission:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Good stuff RD you are making the ATSB and CASA look very amateur!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those considering making a submission the email from CASA to staff may well prove the prod needed.
Section of the CASA email extracted from Ben Sandilands article on the 21st November.
Ben's comment is so true.
Pel-Air inquiry to get critical CASA-ATSB crash documents | Plane Talking
Section of the CASA email extracted from Ben Sandilands article on the 21st November.
However, do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics; they are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer ‘facts’ when engaged in discussions; not hearsay and tautological rubbish that some others seem to regard as promising material.
Comment. The McCormick email, like the ATSB final report, and its failure to deal openly and in detail with the systemic failings of CASA and Pel-Air, brings the administration of air safety in Australia into disrepute.
Comment. The McCormick email, like the ATSB final report, and its failure to deal openly and in detail with the systemic failings of CASA and Pel-Air, brings the administration of air safety in Australia into disrepute.
Pel-Air inquiry to get critical CASA-ATSB crash documents | Plane Talking
Crapology....
IMHO the "ills of society" are bureaucratic bullies from dysfunctional, opaque and unaccountable agencies eg CASA that use their systems to avoid their obligations and any justice for their victims. 
The Skull shows symptoms of the pathological bully, denigrate any alternative view, brown-nose the staff as a cover, and has no consideration for those CASA clients that have been sh*t on...that they may actually have a valid case and an alternative view.
That CASA is no longer a "fit and proper" agency for the task of overseeing "safety" in this country is not disputed by the industry.
Only CASA believes they are the experts, pure in intent, words and deeds.
Like the Emperor....naked ..and all bulls*it.
The Skull shows symptoms of the pathological bully, denigrate any alternative view, brown-nose the staff as a cover, and has no consideration for those CASA clients that have been sh*t on...that they may actually have a valid case and an alternative view.
That CASA is no longer a "fit and proper" agency for the task of overseeing "safety" in this country is not disputed by the industry.
Only CASA believes they are the experts, pure in intent, words and deeds.
Like the Emperor....naked ..and all bulls*it.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's always polite to respond.
HMHB - For those considering making a submission the email from CASA to staff may well prove the prod needed.
"There's an east wind coming, Watson."
"I think not, Holmes. It is very warm."
"Good old Watson! You are the one fixed point in a changing age. There's an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet. It will be cold and bitter, Watson, and a good many of us may wither before its blast. But it's God's own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared." The immortal Holmes.
"I think not, Holmes. It is very warm."
"Good old Watson! You are the one fixed point in a changing age. There's an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet. It will be cold and bitter, Watson, and a good many of us may wither before its blast. But it's God's own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared." The immortal Holmes.
Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Dec 2012 at 13:37. Reason: Been busy - and GD has the giggles - again!!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ‘Tautological Rubbish’ statement.
It would appear that the Acting Director of Aviation Safety has taken it upon himself to ‘straighten the record’ in regards to that ‘internal memo’ that was placed on the public record in the hearing 21/10/12;
PAIN link for that correspondence from the Acting Deputy Director;
Zippyshare.com - CASA(3011).pdf
P2
CHAIR:
This organisation, CASA, and the boss have the audacity to send out an internal memo which says, 'Do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics.' You may not be described as a critic but you did say, 'This is an intolerable proposition,' and they said, 'Beg your pardon—we don't think it is.' So that could make you a critic of CASA. The email continues: 'They are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer "facts" when engaged in discussions'—I presume when you have discussions you deal with facts—'not hearsay and tautological rubbish.' This is out there on the edge of the ice-skating rink, in my view. I think that sort of an internal memo could be quite intimidatory of witnesses and people with whom they are dealing, including you. If that is the mindset of the boss, I think that is what I would call bullying in the gathering of evidence.
This organisation, CASA, and the boss have the audacity to send out an internal memo which says, 'Do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics.' You may not be described as a critic but you did say, 'This is an intolerable proposition,' and they said, 'Beg your pardon—we don't think it is.' So that could make you a critic of CASA. The email continues: 'They are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer "facts" when engaged in discussions'—I presume when you have discussions you deal with facts—'not hearsay and tautological rubbish.' This is out there on the edge of the ice-skating rink, in my view. I think that sort of an internal memo could be quite intimidatory of witnesses and people with whom they are dealing, including you. If that is the mindset of the boss, I think that is what I would call bullying in the gathering of evidence.
PAIN link for that correspondence from the Acting Deputy Director;
Zippyshare.com - CASA(3011).pdf
P2
"on line blogs"
What other sort are there?
"anonymity"? - anyone want to take on an organization with a multi million dollar litigation budget and an alleged history of victimization without anonymity?
The underlying question that concerns me is how a government organization can generate so much angst and preside over a 20 year regulatory rewrite that is still in progress, costing so much money.
Surely CASA needs to address the question oF how this situation has arisen instead of just bagging its critics?
Please explain.
In any case, merry christmas to all at CASA
What other sort are there?
"anonymity"? - anyone want to take on an organization with a multi million dollar litigation budget and an alleged history of victimization without anonymity?
The underlying question that concerns me is how a government organization can generate so much angst and preside over a 20 year regulatory rewrite that is still in progress, costing so much money.
Surely CASA needs to address the question oF how this situation has arisen instead of just bagging its critics?
Please explain.
In any case, merry christmas to all at CASA
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respect: promoting a culture free from harassment and bullying in the APS
This document may be worth looking at.
Australian Public Service Commission - Respect: promoting a culture free from harassment and bullying in the APS
Surely if the internal email was only aimed at blogs it could have said so?
Australian Public Service Commission - Respect: promoting a culture free from harassment and bullying in the APS
Surely if the internal email was only aimed at blogs it could have said so?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A three pipe problem.
Back at Baker Street, he needs time to think hard about the mystery and says to Watson, "It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes." Holmes – The Red Headed League.
Pipe 1 – By agreeing to be the cats paw the "Doc" is now firmly tied to the sinking ship. Attempting to threaten and denigrate honest critics, while grovelling and slobbering before the Senate, previously treated with open, hostile contempt; is quite a party trick. One of our learned colleagues here recently asserted the Senate can't touch them. Wrong. "He who cannot be shamed" must learn to write his own letters of apology and explanation, not hide behind the "Doc's" skirts. The 'Mc email' was bully's low shot followed by a cowards response, now recanted by the ever faithful if misguided willing accomplice. Hong Kong: anyone?
Pipe 2 – Preventing the truth from leaking out. Mission impossible. Certainly not simply because the morale of some of the more sensitive souls at CASA may be damaged. Those sensitive souls should have considered the results of their actions before merrily denigrating and destroying the morale and lives of those affected by their actions.
Pipe 3 – The Credibility gap is a yawning chasm which cannot be repaired: no court, tribunal or inquiry can ever safely again rely on the "CASA" version of "facts and circumstances". PA has, for many, proven the lies, deceit, manipulation, arrogance and corruption pudding beyond all reasonable doubt.
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: Hosea 8.7.
Doc's response.
It is interesting to take a look at the reference to which the Acting DAS refers i.e. pg 201-202 Hansard Supp Est 20/10/2009. This was the DAS second appearance and second major speech before the Senate Estimates and was given after some deckchair shuffling and much bloodletting. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the name changes, deletions and job titles of those sitting at the FF table:
There's a couple of names in that lot which have a couple of bit parts in the PA debacle!
Now to the part that the good Doc refers...
"Mr McCormick—
Before concluding, I would like to make an important point, one that should probably have been made long before now. CASA is certainly no stranger to criticism, complaints and variably informed expressions of dissatisfaction with the things we do and the way we do them from the diverse industry we regulate, amongst others. I welcome this, as a responsible director of any regulatory authority should welcome balanced, reasonable and constructive advice about where we may have gone wrong, or where we may at least be seen by some to
have gone wrong, or where we might do better. Well-meaning criticism can be helpful, even if it is wide of the mark, and it gives us a better understanding of the way our actions are perceived and experienced.
So let me be clear: I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA’s actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government’s attention, or to the attention of the Australian public. As I said, I welcome and embrace this. At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA’s actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving and frequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual
CASA officers by name and by station.
This is wrong and unfair and, in some cases, I think it is downright cowardly. It does nothing to advance the interests of air safety or organisational improvement, and it almost certainly is not intended to do either. If left unaddressed, it impugns the reputations and integrity of committed, capable and professional individuals who are dedicated to the critical, and sometimes thankless, regulatory and other safety related tasks, and it takes a serious toll
on the morale of the entire staff in ways that, I dare say, some of those who try to conceal what is often nothing more than demagogic vitriol behind the facade of a pointed evaluatory critique could not begin to understand.
CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee, Chair. Clearly, these critics have no intention of exposing themselves to anything like the kind of scrutiny to which we are, and should be, subject. Frankly, I seriously doubt whether many of them could withstand it if they were. To those who constantly challenge CASA to lift its game I say, ‘Thank you and keep it coming.’ To those whose intent is merely to insult, denigrate, vilify and, in some instances I suspect, to defame individual CASA officers, unless and until they might be held accountable for their words and actions, I can
only say, ‘Shame’. Thank you, Chair."
I'm not so sure "K"? Given that the Acting DAS (ADAS) could go straight to that reference (2nd DAS speech) and given that the Doc's letter is almost verbatim from that speech, I'd be more inclined to believe that the Doc was the original speech writer and the script for this play is his script!
Certainly food for thought hey?? Doc
1st appearance:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 Senate Estimates
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr Peter Cromarty, General Manager Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group, CASA
Mr John McCormick, Chief Executive Officer
Mr Shane Carmody, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Strategy and Support
Mr Mick Quinn, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Operations
Dr Jonathan Aleck, Chief Legal Officer
Ms Betty Edwards, Chief Financial Officer
Mr Simon Denby, Group General Manager, Aviation Licensing Group
Thursday, 28 May 2009 Senate Estimates
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr Peter Cromarty, General Manager Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group, CASA
Mr John McCormick, Chief Executive Officer
Mr Shane Carmody, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Strategy and Support
Mr Mick Quinn, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Operations
Dr Jonathan Aleck, Chief Legal Officer
Ms Betty Edwards, Chief Financial Officer
Mr Simon Denby, Group General Manager, Aviation Licensing Group
2nd appearance:
Tuesday 20 October 2009 Supplementary Estimates
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr John McCormick, Director of Aviation Safety
Mr Greg Hood, Executive Manager, CASA Operations Division
Dr Jonathan Aleck, Chief Legal Officer
Mr Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division
Dr Pooshan Navathe, Principal Medical Officer
Mr Terry Farquharson, Executive Manager, Office of the Director of Aviation Safety
Tuesday 20 October 2009 Supplementary Estimates
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr John McCormick, Director of Aviation Safety
Mr Greg Hood, Executive Manager, CASA Operations Division
Dr Jonathan Aleck, Chief Legal Officer
Mr Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division
Dr Pooshan Navathe, Principal Medical Officer
Mr Terry Farquharson, Executive Manager, Office of the Director of Aviation Safety
"Mr McCormick—
Before concluding, I would like to make an important point, one that should probably have been made long before now. CASA is certainly no stranger to criticism, complaints and variably informed expressions of dissatisfaction with the things we do and the way we do them from the diverse industry we regulate, amongst others. I welcome this, as a responsible director of any regulatory authority should welcome balanced, reasonable and constructive advice about where we may have gone wrong, or where we may at least be seen by some to
have gone wrong, or where we might do better. Well-meaning criticism can be helpful, even if it is wide of the mark, and it gives us a better understanding of the way our actions are perceived and experienced.
So let me be clear: I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA’s actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government’s attention, or to the attention of the Australian public. As I said, I welcome and embrace this. At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA’s actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving and frequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual
CASA officers by name and by station.
This is wrong and unfair and, in some cases, I think it is downright cowardly. It does nothing to advance the interests of air safety or organisational improvement, and it almost certainly is not intended to do either. If left unaddressed, it impugns the reputations and integrity of committed, capable and professional individuals who are dedicated to the critical, and sometimes thankless, regulatory and other safety related tasks, and it takes a serious toll
on the morale of the entire staff in ways that, I dare say, some of those who try to conceal what is often nothing more than demagogic vitriol behind the facade of a pointed evaluatory critique could not begin to understand.
CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee, Chair. Clearly, these critics have no intention of exposing themselves to anything like the kind of scrutiny to which we are, and should be, subject. Frankly, I seriously doubt whether many of them could withstand it if they were. To those who constantly challenge CASA to lift its game I say, ‘Thank you and keep it coming.’ To those whose intent is merely to insult, denigrate, vilify and, in some instances I suspect, to defame individual CASA officers, unless and until they might be held accountable for their words and actions, I can
only say, ‘Shame’. Thank you, Chair."
Kharon said: Pipe 1 – By agreeing to be the cats paw the "Doc" is now firmly tied to the sinking ship. Attempting to threaten and denigrate honest critics, while grovelling and slobbering before the Senate, previously treated with open, hostile contempt; is quite a party trick.
Certainly food for thought hey?? Doc
Last edited by Sarcs; 4th Dec 2012 at 23:31.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Megiddo
Age: 60
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA executives are feeling gaunt!
Kharon,
Well worded my friend with robust factual commentary direct from the River Styx. Good work! Make sure the boat is in working order, the oars in good shape, crew and Captain have their log books in order and the safety briefing cards comply ICAO Annex 6, as more passengers are coming shortly! (Also refer to S.O.P - Rev 20:1,2)
Chief Screaming Skull's outburst is part and parcel of his attitude towards others whom he holds in contempt (pretty much anybody who disagrees with him).
Fort Fumble have done a good job in decades gone past, dazzling Senators and impressing them with spreadsheets, fluffy mission statements, and so called commitments to all things safe. This round is different. Different Senators, in fact clever ones, ones not prone to being fooled by party tricks and silly pantomimes. This will be third poo poo sandwich he has ingested in recent weeks. The Senators are no mugs and they can see the attitude of this bloke. The 'CAA' have for decades treated industry, Senators and aviation like fools. The game is up. The smoke has dissapeared and the mirrors are all broken and the tricks are exposed.
And it is funny how they are crying poor over 'attacks' on senior management? As Kharon points out, it is ok for them to bully industry individuals (and staff), bankrupt businesses, gang up and anihalate individual reputations, yet if there is even a resembalance of finger wagging pointed at them it is time to grab the Kleenex? Somebody ought to remind them that they are public servants providing a public service (supposedly) so on that basis they are and will remain in the public eye somewhat. they have a charter to uphold, and they are not doing it. If they don't like the negativity then the answer is simple - Retire and go play lawn bowls or knit cardiagans. Otherwise toughen up, lead by example and maybe you will earn a measure of respect.
Complete with Aloe to sooth those sore noses from all the blowing they have been doing
Well worded my friend with robust factual commentary direct from the River Styx. Good work! Make sure the boat is in working order, the oars in good shape, crew and Captain have their log books in order and the safety briefing cards comply ICAO Annex 6, as more passengers are coming shortly! (Also refer to S.O.P - Rev 20:1,2)
Chief Screaming Skull's outburst is part and parcel of his attitude towards others whom he holds in contempt (pretty much anybody who disagrees with him).
Fort Fumble have done a good job in decades gone past, dazzling Senators and impressing them with spreadsheets, fluffy mission statements, and so called commitments to all things safe. This round is different. Different Senators, in fact clever ones, ones not prone to being fooled by party tricks and silly pantomimes. This will be third poo poo sandwich he has ingested in recent weeks. The Senators are no mugs and they can see the attitude of this bloke. The 'CAA' have for decades treated industry, Senators and aviation like fools. The game is up. The smoke has dissapeared and the mirrors are all broken and the tricks are exposed.
And it is funny how they are crying poor over 'attacks' on senior management? As Kharon points out, it is ok for them to bully industry individuals (and staff), bankrupt businesses, gang up and anihalate individual reputations, yet if there is even a resembalance of finger wagging pointed at them it is time to grab the Kleenex? Somebody ought to remind them that they are public servants providing a public service (supposedly) so on that basis they are and will remain in the public eye somewhat. they have a charter to uphold, and they are not doing it. If they don't like the negativity then the answer is simple - Retire and go play lawn bowls or knit cardiagans. Otherwise toughen up, lead by example and maybe you will earn a measure of respect.
Complete with Aloe to sooth those sore noses from all the blowing they have been doing
Last edited by Valley of Hinnom; 4th Dec 2012 at 23:44.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kessel pauken.
Senate Estimates.
No bolding, no highlighting, just a comparison between Senate speak and the stark realities of life. Like six people dog paddling for their lives in a dark dangerous ocean after surviving a ditching impact; an industry living in fear, the Regulator living off the fat of the land and GA on it's knees. Perhaps we should all just shut up now, lest we delusional, dysfunctional, bullying hypocrites be accused of upsetting the rosy garden. Can't have morale affected, can we now; perhaps, a consultation with the truth then? - No. Then what about with Quadrio and others?– Nah - why am I not surprised?
28 May 2009 : Consultation does not equate to agreement and, while all views will be seriously considered and taken into account, at the end of the day CASA, as the regulator, is responsible for making, and will make, the final decisions.
Oct 20.2009: We are committed to full and frank consultation and discussion with all and every comer, but in the end the regulator must make a decision. That decision must be legal, in the interests of the Australian public, and must be a decision made with the thought in mind that CASA and the associated processes decide, not the industry.
28 May 2009 : So let me be clear: I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA’s actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government’s attention, or to the attention of the Australian public. As I said, I welcome and embrace this. At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA’s actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving and frequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual CASA officers by name and by station.
Oct 20.2009: I have delivered the message to our staff that CASA is a regulator, that ‘regulator’ starts with the letter R and that, in my opinion, it is a capital R. That means neither that we bully all until they submit, nor that we abandon consultation with the industry. Indeed, consultation is specifically required by the act. But it does mean consultation, and not endless attempts to reach consensus.
28 May 2009: CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee, Chair. Clearly, these critics have no intention of exposing themselves to anything like the kind of scrutiny to which we are, and should be, subject. Frankly, I seriously doubt whether many of them could withstand it if they were. To those who constantly challenge CASA to lift its game I say, ‘Thank you and keep it coming.’ To those whose intent is merely to insult, denigrate, vilify and, in some instances I suspect, to defame individual CASA officers, unless and until they might be held accountable for their words and actions, I can only say, ‘Shame’. Thank you, Chair.
Oct 20.2009: I will stress: this is no criticism of anyone past or present. To further these aims, we are in the process of writing a governance manual for all parts of CASA. Beneath this manual will live all our policy and procedure manuals, going a long way to ensuring consistency. To facilitate this, some rearranging of our structure will be necessary.
Oct 20.2009: As a regulator, we should be able to be approached and all our activities should stand the test of scrupulous probity.
Oct 20.2009: It will allow the industry to receive more consistent interpretation of legislation and directives.
Oct 20.2009: These changes, such as the increased emphasis on governance, will directly address some concerns raised by the Senate inquiry in the aviation green paper.
Oct 20.2009: CASA is required to carry out surveillance which, on one level—that is the level that is best generally understood—involves physical presence on an aerodrome and the actual inspection of aviation activities that are being undertaken. Given this fact, and viewing all information at arm’s length, I am unable to reconcile a decision to close Townsville with the superior desire to increase surveillance.
Oct 20.2009: The future of aviation in Australia relies on the success of general aviation. To be blunt, if we kill GA, we kill aviation and many other activities that rely on it. In summary, I look forward to contributing to the ongoing success of aviation in Australia. I cannot do anything about the past, but I can do a lot about the future, and that is what I intend to do. Thank you for your polite indulgence.
Oct 20.2009: We are committed to full and frank consultation and discussion with all and every comer, but in the end the regulator must make a decision. That decision must be legal, in the interests of the Australian public, and must be a decision made with the thought in mind that CASA and the associated processes decide, not the industry.
28 May 2009 : So let me be clear: I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA’s actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government’s attention, or to the attention of the Australian public. As I said, I welcome and embrace this. At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA’s actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving and frequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual CASA officers by name and by station.
Oct 20.2009: I have delivered the message to our staff that CASA is a regulator, that ‘regulator’ starts with the letter R and that, in my opinion, it is a capital R. That means neither that we bully all until they submit, nor that we abandon consultation with the industry. Indeed, consultation is specifically required by the act. But it does mean consultation, and not endless attempts to reach consensus.
28 May 2009: CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee, Chair. Clearly, these critics have no intention of exposing themselves to anything like the kind of scrutiny to which we are, and should be, subject. Frankly, I seriously doubt whether many of them could withstand it if they were. To those who constantly challenge CASA to lift its game I say, ‘Thank you and keep it coming.’ To those whose intent is merely to insult, denigrate, vilify and, in some instances I suspect, to defame individual CASA officers, unless and until they might be held accountable for their words and actions, I can only say, ‘Shame’. Thank you, Chair.
Oct 20.2009: I will stress: this is no criticism of anyone past or present. To further these aims, we are in the process of writing a governance manual for all parts of CASA. Beneath this manual will live all our policy and procedure manuals, going a long way to ensuring consistency. To facilitate this, some rearranging of our structure will be necessary.
Oct 20.2009: As a regulator, we should be able to be approached and all our activities should stand the test of scrupulous probity.
Oct 20.2009: It will allow the industry to receive more consistent interpretation of legislation and directives.
Oct 20.2009: These changes, such as the increased emphasis on governance, will directly address some concerns raised by the Senate inquiry in the aviation green paper.
Oct 20.2009: CASA is required to carry out surveillance which, on one level—that is the level that is best generally understood—involves physical presence on an aerodrome and the actual inspection of aviation activities that are being undertaken. Given this fact, and viewing all information at arm’s length, I am unable to reconcile a decision to close Townsville with the superior desire to increase surveillance.
Oct 20.2009: The future of aviation in Australia relies on the success of general aviation. To be blunt, if we kill GA, we kill aviation and many other activities that rely on it. In summary, I look forward to contributing to the ongoing success of aviation in Australia. I cannot do anything about the past, but I can do a lot about the future, and that is what I intend to do. Thank you for your polite indulgence.
Last edited by Kharon; 5th Dec 2012 at 01:22. Reason: KP= Kettle drums, battle cry of German night fighters WW 2 (the big one)
The concern I have is that there does not appear any mention of proportionality, procedural fairness and natural justice when it comes to perceived offenders - the excuse given for the lack of these general administrative requirements is "safety".
as a very minor public servant, I lived in perpetual fear of the auditor general, as did the rest of us.
Our protection was rigid and careful compliance with written policy and procedures such that a complete audit trail of every decision was available to the AG or anyone else.
What mystifies me is the apparent total lack of standardization and written policy and procedure in CASA.
For example, I fail to understand why a standard template for the entire suite of documents to gain an AOC for typical operating organizations, for example a small flying school, a small sight seeing operation, SE piston charter, etc. is not available to the public on the CASA website, and that adoption and compliance with such a template automatically ensures CASA approval.
Same goes for typical add ons - the system should be modular and cross referenced with the regs.
But most importantly standardized right across the country, as should be all inspection and operating criteria. For example, how the f@/-( in 2012 can there be ANY shadow of doubt about the conduct of simulated engine failures?
To put that another way, it is not the technical detail that actually matters, it is what practice a CASA FOI is required to adopt that is important and it should be the same right across Australia and from top to bottom.
To put that yet another way, CASA itself stated that it's FOIs were evenly divided on the question of alternates in the Norfolk Island ditching. This state of affairs is bureaucratically INTOLERABLE and must be immediately addressed.
Better still if the FOI community is divided on any other issues this should be rapidly discovered and immediately fixed. Bureaucrats are required to be consistent in all their decision making.
as a very minor public servant, I lived in perpetual fear of the auditor general, as did the rest of us.
Our protection was rigid and careful compliance with written policy and procedures such that a complete audit trail of every decision was available to the AG or anyone else.
What mystifies me is the apparent total lack of standardization and written policy and procedure in CASA.
For example, I fail to understand why a standard template for the entire suite of documents to gain an AOC for typical operating organizations, for example a small flying school, a small sight seeing operation, SE piston charter, etc. is not available to the public on the CASA website, and that adoption and compliance with such a template automatically ensures CASA approval.
Same goes for typical add ons - the system should be modular and cross referenced with the regs.
But most importantly standardized right across the country, as should be all inspection and operating criteria. For example, how the f@/-( in 2012 can there be ANY shadow of doubt about the conduct of simulated engine failures?
To put that another way, it is not the technical detail that actually matters, it is what practice a CASA FOI is required to adopt that is important and it should be the same right across Australia and from top to bottom.
To put that yet another way, CASA itself stated that it's FOIs were evenly divided on the question of alternates in the Norfolk Island ditching. This state of affairs is bureaucratically INTOLERABLE and must be immediately addressed.
Better still if the FOI community is divided on any other issues this should be rapidly discovered and immediately fixed. Bureaucrats are required to be consistent in all their decision making.