Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 6th Feb 2013, 07:27
  #981 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,486
The only way the law and CASA will be fixed is after 300plus have died, and even then the coVer up will take Ten years to penetrate if it ever is.

An alternative, if some of you believe there is sufficient evidence, is to go International - write to the FAA and EASA with your concerns. I imagine that one piece of evidence - the size of Casas regulation in pages, may be sufficient to trigger a review of Australia's aviation approvals.

Start with "Dear Mr FAA, we urge you to consider downgrading Australia's classification for the following reasons that we have been struggling with for decades.......

If you did that, you would need to combine it with an international aviation media campaign to explain just what you are putting up with compared to Europe and America. I'm sure that someone knows how to write good copy.

Last edited by Sunfish; 6th Feb 2013 at 08:25.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 09:33
  #982 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
In regard to oleo's post regarding a potential returner to casa

Press Release – FAA Proposes Limits on Companies Hiring FAA Inspectors

Press Release – FAA Proposes Limits on Companies Hiring FAA Inspectors
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 12:46
  #983 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Caramel biscuit, nice in theory my intellectual friend. However we are talking about the CASA, who are beyond accountability and above the law. They ARE the law, so I can't see such a robust yet commonsene rule such as what the FAA suggests being implemented any time soon.
Then again, perhaps this very topic will be discussed at the next junket in Montreal, when 'those above reproach' meet together to discuss the robust higher level aviation policies that us mere mortals on the frontline could never understand or fathom?

Sunfish, I feel you are being too kind when you quote a figure of 300 fragmented corpses. I think it would take around 2 complete hull losses plus the loss of around 800 lives before the government 'accepted' that the CASA was about as useful as catching the clap from the filthy seat in the T2 toilets at Mascot.
From experience, there is no greater 'motivator or driver' for safety reform than standing amongst charred fragmented human remains with the smell of burnt flesh, avgas and burning plastics, rubber and polymer. I hope that when it does happen the idiots decimating our industry are dragged to site and forced to undertake a reality and life changing check.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 6th Feb 2013 at 12:53.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 20:50
  #984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
VH-NGA serial offender!

It would appear from yesterday's release of AQONs for 21/11/2012, that the accident aircraft had a some what checquered history:
8. HANSARD, PG 9

Senator FAWCETT: Could you take on notice whether you passed on to Pel-Air the concerns about their Westwind aircraft.

Mr Harfield: Yes.

Answer:
In the period five years before the Norfolk Island accident (2004 to 2009) Airservices reported to both CASA and the ATSB, 19 safety incidents that were known to Airservices involving VH-NGA.

In July 2005, VH-NGA was involved in a safety incident during a flight from Nowra to Darwin whereby the aircraft was unable to maintain it’s assigned level in RVSM airspace and another aircraft was therefore required to change its altitude in order to maintain the separation standard. Pel-Air was informed about this incident under a standing Letter of Agreement.

Also in the period, VH-NGA was involved in 18 other safety incidents – 16 were pilot or aircraft attributable (2 engine failure, 2 fuel dumps, 1 Loss of Separation, 3 incorrect time and position reporting, 8 pilot errors) and two were air traffic control attributable information display errors. Pel-Air was also informed about the details of these incidents under the Letter of Agreement.
Err what was FF doing while the magical adventures and exploits of NGA and it's illustrious crew were being documented and tracked by their ATC cousins?
Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 21:05
  #985 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
300

300 bodies is excessive. What's needed is half a dozen (metaphorical) heads on pikes planted outside headquarters.

Name, blame and shame will do the trick. Drag any one of these creatures out into the sunlight, prosecute and penalise. Take away a couple of pensions, super and houses and the rest will shape up or ship out. Plenty to choose from, lots of fun; so – fill your boots.


Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 01:12
  #986 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Sarcs, interesting post, you win today's chocolate frog award! It would seem the data is out there it's just that CASA won't or don't want to process it, trend it, or in general doing anything with it. This would tie in with the fact that FF are reactive not predictive.
And the data relates to just one aircraft. One can imagine what else is sitting out there. Perhaps the Senators, now that they have been provided with some of the answers to questions on notice, will probe the FF spin doctors on why they have not acted when so much evidence is out there?

Sarcs, perhaps you could collate your data monthly on operator incidents, accidents and occurrences and provide the info to FF directly for their monthly RRG meetings? They don't seem capable to do it themselves.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 7th Feb 2013 at 01:13.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 03:08
  #987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Chair extends report date!

Extension date to enquiry.

From Senate 'Dynamic Red'

*1106 Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Heffernan): To move—That the time for the presentation of reports of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be extended as follows:
(a) an aviation accident investigation—to 27 March 2013; and
(b) Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test—to 19 June 2013.
Commenced 12:08 PM (today)
Agreed to as amended
Also notice the AQONs for RRAT Committee Sup Estimates (Oct 2012) are finally in....so there will be more to follow (Kelpie classic).

Sarcs, perhaps you could collate your data monthly on operator incidents, accidents and occurrences and provide the info to FF directly for their monthly RRG meetings? They don't seem capable to do it themselves.
Oleo you say it all yourself...all that kind of info would be possibly likely to get is a fart from the trough, or maybe a series of farts!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 05:07
  #988 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
3 little pigs

How's that old story about a big bad wolf and three little pigs go?

Sarcs #1014 – little pig 1 - ASA response, nice catch.

Little pig 2 - ATSB response:-

Sen X. - 16. Did the ATSB form a view about the adequacy of CASA’s oversight of Pel-Air in general and the aeromedical flights in particular?

ATSB response: A review of CASA’s audit documentation found that regular, scheduled audits of Pel-Air’s documented processes were carried out by CASA in the years preceding the accident. No safety issue was identified in respect of CASA’s oversight. No contributing or other safety factors were identified in respect of CASA’s oversight of Pel-Air.
Now we have the ASA and ATSB opinion, it will be interesting to see what little pig 3 spits out. Can't wait.

The Written QON are a gold mine, starts at about Q20 – 30 have a read. They surely built a big haystack to hide under.

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Feb 2013 at 05:08.
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 10:56
  #989 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Read the transcript of the phone call between the PIC and briefing. Doesn't exactly paint him in the best light does it
JetA_OK is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 12:01
  #990 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
ATSB mythology!

Massive amounts of spin and obfuscation in the latest ATSB answers to written QONs 21/11/2012.

Here’s just one example…

To follow on from Kharon’s post here is QON No 25:
Senator X: 25. Documentation indicates a s32 request was made on 4 July 2012 for the CASA Special Audit.
When was the audit sent by CASA? When did it arrive? The committee is aware of the fact that the ATSB knew about the CASA Special Audit when the audit was announced. That being the case, why did the ATSB wait for over two years to request it? Your supplementary submission (annex), which covers where the special audit was included in the ATSB report, appears to come from the March version of the report. Is that the case? How can the ATSB report refer to the Special Audit in the March 2012 draft when it appears the ATSB were not
yet in possession of it?
Ok clear as mud? Now here is part of the spin answer (my bold):
ATSB response: As advised in its 14 December 2012 response to the Committee’s questions on notice of 21 November 2012, the ATSB requested a copy of the CASA Special Audit Report under a S32 notice on 4 July 2012. A copy of the special audit was received by the ATSB on 9 July 2012.
As part of its investigations, the ATSB has not routinely obtained CASA Special Audits. As an independent investigation agency, the ATSB focuses on obtaining its own evidence in consideration of its evolving investigation hypotheses, and in support of its analysis and findings. This need not include the results of investigations or other activities that may be undertaken by other agencies for their own purposes. The decision of whether to obtain such outputs by other agencies would generally be informed by the evidence already gained by the ATSB’s investigation, and the perceived benefits of obtaining them.
So the ATSB do not routinely request FF special audits or for that matter any audits of the operator involved in an investigation , although they can (under the provisions of the TSI Act) if they want?? Yet they espouse to adhere to world’s best practice accident investigation methodology (reference Q/ 32 pg 23) and use the example of the NTSB as a fellow ‘world leader’ in the field.


However if you refer to the NTSB Investigator’s manual pg 137 you will see what the NTSB require the FAA to produce in an operator’s overview context and regardless of whether the investigator(s) believe it will be relevant or not :
Federal Aviation Administration Information
(1) "Blue Ribbon" medical and pilot certificate records.
(2) Violation and other certificate actions on flightcrew and airline. Obtain certified copies.
(3) Inspections performed on the airline during the previous 12 month period including base, ramp, en route, ground and flight training program, crew member; dispatcher records (including flight and rest), trip records, dispatch center/flight following/flight/locating facility. Obtain certified copies.
(4) Latest regional inspection performed. Obtain a certified copy.
(5) Latest national inspection performed. Obtain a certified copy.
(6) Frequency of surveillance. Compare the number and types of inspections performed with regional and national inspections guidelines.
(7) Workload of POI.
(8) Background and qualifications of POI.
(9) Authorized and current staffing level of district office.
(10) Most recent pre-accident/incident flight inspection and post flight inspection results of pertinent en route and approach facilities/aids. Obtain certified copies.
(11) Most recent pre-accident/incident airways facility inspection and post inspection or pertinent en route and approach facilities/aids. Obtain certified copies.

There are also plenty of examples in the past, Seaview comes to mind, where the BASI/ATSB investigators relentlessly turned over all the FF previous audits/surveillance activities and records in the search for the truth . Nah this is just another Beakerised adopted methodology that another world’s best practice agency the NTSB appears to be in no hurry to adopt!

Definitely more to uncover in this haystack….hmm next this SR/Safety issue myth me thinks.... doin a Kelpie..or an Arnie.."I'll be back"!

Last edited by Sarcs; 7th Feb 2013 at 12:05. Reason: JetA move on mate this is way bigger than the pilot!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 13:17
  #991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Sarcs, unfortunately all that you post is true. The ATSB 's 'quality non political work' came to an abrupt end the day Beaker took command. Once he 'CASArised' the ATSB it was all over red rover. They are in meltdown, Team Beakers responses are illogical, contradictory and down right ridiculous. He has shot both feet off, and the more they try to spin their way out of this mess the more deeper they dig their hole.

At least with FF they deliver exactly what they have done for decades - crap.
But the ATSB was indeed a stellar outfit, well respected and highly regarded internationally, they really were second to the NTSB, and that is something to be proud of. But now? Just another bunch of executive wankers who have ego's the size of the Hindenberg. And we know what happened to it don't we? These geniuses sadly, and in a disillusioned fashion, actually think they are more intelligent and intellectual than the rest of mankind. This is nothing new, there have been idiots throughout history who have also thought this highly of themselves only to have things end in tears. These clowns are just like Doctors who for some reason think they are god. Message to them - you're not!! You are nothing short of the shite beneath our shoes.

Even if the CASA, ATSB, ASA end up using their political might, free immunity and indemnity clauses and millions more in taxpayer money stretching, stalling, deflecting, spinning and crushing the Senators crusade, make no bones about this - your number is up, you have been outed. Industry know what you are, the Senators know what you are, the FAA know what you are and so do ICAO. And eventually, after we lose a 200+ seater into a smoking hole the Australian public will know what you are.

As Stan would say, ironically under the present oversighting bodies 'safe skies are indeed empty skies'.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 7th Feb 2013 at 13:19.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 19:04
  #992 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Foresight Zero - 20/20 Hindsight.

COMPARISON OF DRAFT AND FINAL REPORTS AO-2009-072 WITH THE CASA SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT.

Audit finding Final and Draft investigation report references in ‘pXX’ and ‘[pXX]’ format respectively.

Inadequate fuel policy for Westwind operations. P25 [p33] of the report refers to CAR 220, highlighting that an operator also shares the responsibility for ensuring that sufficient fuel and oil is carried, and was required to include specific guidance for the computation of the fuel carried on each route in their operations manuals.

Discussion of the operator’s fuel policy that appeared somewhat less than ideal included at: P29 [p37] of the report, which highlighted a disparity between Parts A (9.11.2) and B (6.1.2) in respect of the calculation of critical points for use depending on the availability of critical or intermediate aerodromes.

Also in respect of abnormal operations, p29 [p37] of the report also highlights that aerodrome ‘criticality’ and ‘adequacy’ were not defined.

In addition, p30 [p37] of the report relates that whereas the operator’s planning methodology for determining the point of no return (PNR) was satisfactory for determining a return in the same configuration as the outbound leg but was not appropriate for a return leg where that leg had a higher fuel burn than that outbound
.
It is quite acceptable that the ATSB can with hindsight, determine that there were issues with the operators fuel planning policy. But where's the foresight??, where's the robust, steely eyed oversight? drinking latte and eating chocolate Monte's in the kitchen, that's where.

Where is last years memo to the CP from CASA saying - "I note a lack of guidance in the Operations manual for pilots operating between remote islands; as the company appears to be regularly staging aircraft through NLK in the middle of the night; perhaps the section could be expanded to provide improved guidance to the 'junior' flight crew currently on roster". "Perhaps you would consider providing a route guide and port advice notes, CFIT and ALAR risk analysis and some (CP/PNR) release points for operational control".

This is Not rocket science -

Then, where is the ATSB recommendation to CASA suggesting that perhaps, as a result of a near fatal, attention to company fuel policies could be increased; just to ensure this cannot happen again. They could even produce a joint report suggesting that company fuel policy should reflect the operational realities of life, rather than the minimum legal requirements with dire threat of goal. Hell, they could even lose their heads completely and revisit 'bad law 101', i.e. Reg 206 and CAO 82 and cover the bets properly. Sheeit, CAAP, instruments, [AIP], legal head of power; so much wriggle room, so much power, so very little common sense. So simple, and yet so far, far away.

"Lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Feb 2013 at 19:08. Reason: Too early for this stuff; Minnie Coffee, a bloody big one.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 10:49
  #993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
BH, that's the whole point. The words 'interpret' as well as 'intent' hold some serious weight in the world of FF and lawyers.
Our taxpayer money ensures that governments retain the most qualified legal eagles and wordsmiths that money can buy. Every word, sentence, paragrah and apostrophe is carefully and meticulously penned in a way to ensure that they win and we lose. It's so simple it is laughable.

Many rules, laws and processes are purposefully written in a way that will;
(a) Ensure no liability or accountability falls back on government, and
(b) Those in authority, e.g CASA, can twist the particular rules meaning into whatever suits them best. In other words the 'ace in the deck' is always in their hand, the blackjack table is rigged, the house always wins.

'Safe skies are bankrupt skies'

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 8th Feb 2013 at 10:51.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 17:09
  #994 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
A couple of new submissions. Amroba and Mr Shane Urquhart. Worth reading.

Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 03:38
  #995 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Coroner, questions of.

Oh G' day Blackie, glad to see your posting again, early release?? Now you're out, perhaps you could give us the benefit of your opinion on a question from Sen. Fawcett to DoiT about closing the loop on Coroner recommendations.

The question was prompted by the fact that there is no open system in place to ensure that if a Coroner makes a recommendation, it is addressed, where appropriate actioned and closed off. The side bars to question bring into play issues like a public Coronial data base tied to the ATSB data and a record of CASA response and actions.

Now, there is system of sorts in play, but a little research soon reveals that (a) A WA Coroner looking at an accident may make a couple of recommendations; (b) a Qld Coroner may look at a similar accident and make recommendations; but, there is no correlation of information, no way to ensure that all recommendations have been examined or to see what has been done to prevent a reoccurrence.

1) Unless you personally get a transcript there is no way to see the Coroners recommendations.

2) Unless you personally monitor CASA actions on those recommendations, there is no way to determine exactly what has been done, why, by whom or the method used.

3) Unless you are a mind reader there is no information available from the ATSB on any of it.

So, to explain fully; Coroners recommendations can and do disappear (like bubbles in the bath), promised changes to legislation accommodating Coronial recommendations does not appear, safety actions don't occur and, no one knows. Then there is the notion that a Coroner may have based some part of a decision against the "promise" of changes; once again who would know.

There is some bloody good research (Thanks PAIN_Net) on this out there now and the results are grim. Clearly the Senator would love some answers. So Blackie, how about it; perhaps you could once again enlighten us mere mortals here on PPRuNe with your usual insight, wit and eloquence.

Last edited by Kharon; 9th Feb 2013 at 03:45. Reason: Carrot cakes crumbs in the key board,
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 05:28
  #996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Perhaps Blackie this will help gel an answer for you!

Start of the story...Scene 1: Act I

Once upon a time in a land called Crat city a certain new Lib bright star Senator asked a particularly poignant question of a certain head sherangacrat in a committee hearing room…but first the lead up because it is important.

"Senator FAWCETT: I notice CASA is often another player in the coronial inquests and often you will highlight something, the coroner will accept it and basically tick off in his report on the basis that a new CASR or something is going to be implemented. Do you follow those up? I have looked through a few crash investigations, and I will just pick one: the Bell 407 that crashed in October '03. CASR part 133 was supposed to be reworked around night VFR requirements for EMS situations. I notice that still is not available now, nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated? How do you track those? How do we, as a society, make sure we prevent the accidents occurring again?

Mr Dolan: We monitor various coronial reports and findings that are relevant to our business. We do not have any role in ensuring that coronial findings or recommendations are carried out by whichever the relevant party may be. I think that would be stepping beyond our brief.

Senator FAWCETT: Who should have that role then?

Mr Dolan: I would see that as a role for the coronial services of the various states. But to add to that, because we are aware of the sorts of findings—as you say, it is not that common that there is something that is significantly different or unexpected for us, but when there is—we will have regard to that obviously in our future investigation activities and recognise there may already be a finding out there that is relevant to one of our future investigations.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be appropriate to have—a sunset clause is not quite the right phrase—a due date that if an action is recommended and accepted by a regulatory body, in this case CASA, the coroner should actually be putting a date on that and CASA must implement by a certain date or report back, whether it is to the minister or to the court or to the coroner, why that action has not actually occurred?

Mr Dolan: I think I will limit myself to comment that that is the way we try to do it. We have a requirement that in 90 days, if we have made a recommendation, there is a response to it. We will track a recommendation until we are satisfied it is complete or until we have concluded that there is no likelihood that the action is going to be taken.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as secretary of the relevant department, how would you propose to engage with the coroners to make sure that we, as a nation, close this loophole to make our air environment safer?

Mr Mrdak: I think Mr Dolan has indicated the relationship with coroners is on a much better footing than it has been ever before. I think the work of the ATSB has led that. I think it then becomes a matter of addressing the relationship between the safety regulators and security regulators, as necessary, with the coroners. It is probably one I would take on notice and give a bit of thought to, if you do not mind.

Senator FAWCETT: You do not accept that your department and you, as secretary, have a duty of care and an oversight to make sure that two agencies who work for you do actually complement their activities for the outcome that benefits the aviation community?

Mr Mrdak: We certainly do ensure that agencies are working together. That is certainly occurring. You have asked me the more detailed question about coroners and relationships with the agencies. I will have a bit of a think about that, if that is okay.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you."

This was followed by a non-answer to what the Lib rising star Senator thought was a QON (must forgive him as he is still learning the game) at the Sup Estimates hearing in October. However no harm done as it was eventually formally listed as a QON that was addressed to DOit head-crat Mrdakari.

However it would appear that Mrdakari has deferred to his most submissive minion to put forward, yet again, the safety investigation methodology and supreme spin according to Beaker.

So headcrat Mrdakari has again played the Senator back into the court of spinners and crats, the question is will the Senator accept this play?

When you read SU’s submission, especially the following from Samantha Hare, I think the Senator is well justified pursuing his original line of inquiry (i.e. FF ignoring Coroner recommendations/findings and 'closing the loop')!
“My partner died in a yak-52 joy flight on 31 August, 2008. His name was Ian Lovell. I along with many others continue to feel shock that such an accident has happened. I think this is because people do not expect such an accident to happen in Australia. Nearly five years later and I now know that the lack of regulation in the Australian aviation industry makes flying a very dangerous venture but my experiences are that the general public continue to be unaware. They do not know that Ian died in an accident waiting to happen, that it could have happened to any member of the public and unless there are changes it is likely to happen again.

The flight was sold to me as a gift certificate for Ian’s 35th birthday.
Hempel’s Aviation was recommended to me by Archerfield Airport, the company was advertised on the internet, Hempel’s Aviation employees recommended Barry Hempel as the pilot, I bought the gift certificate directly off Barry Hempel at Hempel’s Aviation located at Archerfield Airport; I paid Barry Hempel of Hempel’s Aviation $495 for what in the past has been referred to by the media as the ‘death’ ticket.

At no time would I have bought this ticket if I had known that the pilot, Barry Hempel did not have a commercial license. At no time was this flight referred to as an adventure flight. At no time were the risks of flying in a warbird discussed and at no time was a waiver signed.


I shared in Ian’s elation at the best present that had ever been bought for him; I drove Ian to Archerfield airport; I dismissed a dream that he had about the plane crashing into water; I had a laugh with him when he told me he was listening to the soundtrack of top-gun whilst waiting to take the flight; I took him out to the tarmac and took photos of him as he was strapped in for his first flight in a warbird, his first experience of aerobatics and first real taste of g-force and we both expected that he would return safely.


Ian’s flight was the third joy flight of the day that Barry Hempel had piloted and all customers were under the impression that the flight was commercial.


I waited on the tarmac to take photos of his arrival. Ian didn’t arrive. Soon after there was a phone call to say a plane had crashed into the water just off South Stradbroke Island. I knew that Ian was gone.

Devastated, traumatised, shock. There aren’t any words that can describe losing a partner in such a way. A motorbike accident is comprehensible and something tangible that I had worried about, but a plane crash seemed as likely as being taken by a shark whilst dangling your feet in the Brisbane River.


Since I have lost Ian I have noticed that planes fall out of the sky regularly.


As do most people who lose a significant person in their lives, I think about Ian every day. We had planned our future together, a home, children, travel, he was the only person I had ever looked to the future with. But now I don’t only grieve the loss of Ian but I also grieve what has been taken away from me by a system that has failed Ian and I for the last four and half years.

Put simply, the ATSB did not investigate; the QPS never recovered the plane; the police report took 3 years to complete; CASA will not admit any fault to prevent any further accidents happening; the Inquest took approximately four years to begin; CASA stalled the Inquest
recommendations for another hearing date and now I have been told to wait again with the additional hearing date being postponed. When I found this out on the 15 November 2012, not even two working days before the hearing date was set to begin, I cried. The tears started at work and basically did not stop for the rest of the day. I feel sheer disappointment that I continue to be put through this, so many years after Ian’s death.


Four and half years and ongoing, is a long time in a person’s life. I was 30 years of age when Ian died and am now nearly 35. The grief and shock of losing Ian has at times consumed me but I have been able to work through it so it is now something that I can control. What I can’t control four and half years on is the legal/regulatory system. I cannot control when I’m going to get that next phone call. When I will be re-traumatised again? It feels like the system is trying to break me, hoping that I can’t handle it anymore and I’ll walk away. What will break me is if I do walk away after all this time. I’ve lost too much. Ian’s death was preventable and four and half years later we are still waiting on recommendations from a Coroner on what needs to happen to try and prevent another accident of its kind.


In the last four and half years my friends have either become engaged, got married, had children, advanced in their career, travelled. It feels like the legal system/CASA has pressed pause on these aspects of my life. I can’t work in social work because the ongoing and unpredictable nature of the legal process impacts on my emotions and my capacity to work in a crisis setting, I have mounting legal fees, the emotional toll impacts on my relationships with other significant people in my life and I can’t travel freely because my life is dictated by the systems schedule.

I wonder when the victims are considered in the process. I wonder what new information is going to come from yet another hearing day called by CASA. I wonder whose interests this serves. I wonder how much more obvious it needs to be that CASA and the medical practitioners involved breached their duty of care. I wonder how many more planes will fall out of the sky. I wonder why my life continues to be put on hold by the system, when I lost my partner due to other people’s/CASA’s negligence.


I wonder how those in the aviation industry who turned a blind eye have been impacted. I wonder whether 2013 will be the year that there is legal resolution for Ian. I wonder whether there ever would have been an Inquest if Ian’s loved ones did not demand it year after year. I wonder whether changes will occur in a flawed Civil Aviation Safety Authority and I wonder whether I will then be able to sit with my grief for Ian peacefully and remember the beauty that he bought to my life without it being tarnished by an incompetent and unjust legal/regulatory system.


Samantha Hare (fiancé of Ian Lovell) Hempel’s Yak 52 South Stradbroke Is 31 August 2008. 2 fatalities.”
There's the backgound Blackie, hope it helps?
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 07:12
  #997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
And don’t forget this:
Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though, Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?

Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009. …

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?

Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.

Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?

Dr Aleck: I was in Montreal. [CP note: Apart from the stint in Montreal, Dr Aleck has occupied various senior management positions within CASA for an accumulated period of about 10 years to the present.]

[CP Note: Messrs Farquharson and Anastasi, both of whom have been in CASA for all or most of the period 1999 to the present, were also at the table but, according to Hansard, remained silent.]
You see: no one's responsible.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 08:35
  #998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Submission updates!

On request please find links for recently published submissions to the 'Aviation Accident Investigations' Senate Inquiry.

Submission 15 AMROBA.
Zippyshare.com - sub15_AMROBA.pdf

Submission 16 Mr Shane Urquhart.
Zippyshare.com - sub16_Urquhart[1].pdf

In light of Mr Urquhart's submission PAIN thought it pertinent to revisit Mr Gary Currall's extremely well written submission to the Inquiry.

Submission 03 Mr Gary Currall.
Zippyshare.com - Sub03_Currall[1].pdf

PAIN will continue to monitor all developments with the inquiry and will provide further links etc for those wishing to be kept informed.

Regards

P2
PAIN_NET is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 08:49
  #999 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
From Mr Urquhart's submission.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
We know what they have been doing, how they operate and who the main players are, but we are ignored as an inconvenient presence in the milieu. eg ongoing difficulties in obtaining information, even through FOI, time wasting, blocking, denial, shifting personnel around and blatant lying. The personalities and operating methods of senior executives are a serious blight on the integrity of the Senior Executive Service of the Commonwealth and is a real factor in our frustrations etc etc. No survivors=pilot error every time. It could be legitimately believed that this is a preferred outcome of air crashes. Numerous Inquests and the subsequent findings and recommendations seem to support this belief. The general public would be appalled.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 19:58
  #1000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,486
I know of one person who was threatened by CASA after the Whyalla accident. It was something to do with Lean of Peak operations.

Last edited by Sunfish; 9th Feb 2013 at 19:59.
Sunfish is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.