Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs, BC may have signed off on the RCA's but my source tells me that the 'author of the RCA's' has more qualifications than BC! There are more twists to this than in Michael Jacksons colon.
It would also be rumoured that there has been quite a number of audits in which others sign off on RCA's they have not written themselves.
I am lead to believe that BC left not because he was pushed but rather because he had a gutful of the FF shenanigans, silliness and also because his salary was a lamentable joke. Indeed there was not room for him to dine at the trough with those more royal than he.
He was 'hand picked' by a former colleague and went back to the RAAF to apply his HF trade, along with a more robust remuneration package and a uniform that makes the Skulls Friday outfits look like rejected St Vinnies clothes!
I am still curious about one thing. The Special Auditor of Pelair after the Norfolk accident was, according to Spike, also involved in a special review of Transairs handy work at Lockhart. Why? Lockhart occurred several years before Norfolk, and Lockhart was all done and dusted, closed off, finished , finalised, finito. So why review the whole accident again? For the majority of us it would be a natural part of any investigation once all the dust settles and the clock had ticked forward, review, improve, change and learn. But we are talking about FF here, anything and every they do has an alterior motive, and dicing with Lockhart several year later is very suspicious indeed.
Is there a 'Lockhart special review' document out there awaiting the Senators perusal? Is there something out there that our friends at Stalag CASA are a little nervous about?
It would also be rumoured that there has been quite a number of audits in which others sign off on RCA's they have not written themselves.
I am lead to believe that BC left not because he was pushed but rather because he had a gutful of the FF shenanigans, silliness and also because his salary was a lamentable joke. Indeed there was not room for him to dine at the trough with those more royal than he.
He was 'hand picked' by a former colleague and went back to the RAAF to apply his HF trade, along with a more robust remuneration package and a uniform that makes the Skulls Friday outfits look like rejected St Vinnies clothes!
I am still curious about one thing. The Special Auditor of Pelair after the Norfolk accident was, according to Spike, also involved in a special review of Transairs handy work at Lockhart. Why? Lockhart occurred several years before Norfolk, and Lockhart was all done and dusted, closed off, finished , finalised, finito. So why review the whole accident again? For the majority of us it would be a natural part of any investigation once all the dust settles and the clock had ticked forward, review, improve, change and learn. But we are talking about FF here, anything and every they do has an alterior motive, and dicing with Lockhart several year later is very suspicious indeed.
Is there a 'Lockhart special review' document out there awaiting the Senators perusal? Is there something out there that our friends at Stalag CASA are a little nervous about?
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 4th Feb 2013 at 11:49.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockhart - Norfolk - ALIU
Spurred by Oleo's comment I contacted the inspector involved and he does have a Masters in HF etc. although CASA had him remove the appropriate post nominal from his business card as it embarrasses those "superiors" who only qualified in preschool finger painting and pooh flinging.
As for the Lockhart paper he said it was a test to see if he was appropriate material for the ALIU manager's position prior to Norfolk and when he bagged CASA's responses in the paper he wasn't surprised to learn that he was judged to not fit the position even though he was an accident investigator with a previous employer. Still, he finds it all an amusing memory now that he has had to retire.
As for the Lockhart paper he said it was a test to see if he was appropriate material for the ALIU manager's position prior to Norfolk and when he bagged CASA's responses in the paper he wasn't surprised to learn that he was judged to not fit the position even though he was an accident investigator with a previous employer. Still, he finds it all an amusing memory now that he has had to retire.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spike, interesting insight. It would seem CASA have really been concentrating on all those important things in life - business cards, fancy letters after ones name, not promoting any underling who is more qualified than the nimwits farther up the ladder. As for prioritising safety matters?? Hmmmm.
You are correct about the finger painting aspect. But that stopped a year or two ago after the old geriatrics hands cramped up with arthritis. Now they place a brush in their mouths and paint the canvass that way. It's quite effective and they are good at it because they are use to bobbing for apples .
As a sidepoont, EASA have released their 2013 - 2016 European Aviation Safety Plan, with SMS on its way. It certainly beats any folly that CASA has in play within its own structure (oh sorry, did I forget the SPM which is around 13 years in production) and it pi#ses over Albo's silly White Paper and any glossy spin documents the CASA Board has ever churned out. I simply can't imagine CASA with its own SMS, after all a SMS does incorporate accountability, which not surprisingly is not a CASA strong point. Perhaps CASA execs should shun Montreal as their choice of taxpayer funded holiday destination and head to Europe instead?
It is time for 'out with the old geezers, in with the new'.
You are correct about the finger painting aspect. But that stopped a year or two ago after the old geriatrics hands cramped up with arthritis. Now they place a brush in their mouths and paint the canvass that way. It's quite effective and they are good at it because they are use to bobbing for apples .
As a sidepoont, EASA have released their 2013 - 2016 European Aviation Safety Plan, with SMS on its way. It certainly beats any folly that CASA has in play within its own structure (oh sorry, did I forget the SPM which is around 13 years in production) and it pi#ses over Albo's silly White Paper and any glossy spin documents the CASA Board has ever churned out. I simply can't imagine CASA with its own SMS, after all a SMS does incorporate accountability, which not surprisingly is not a CASA strong point. Perhaps CASA execs should shun Montreal as their choice of taxpayer funded holiday destination and head to Europe instead?
It is time for 'out with the old geezers, in with the new'.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 4th Feb 2013 at 22:55.
Oleo you said:
If you take a close look at the SAR (version II so far??) that Flight Nurse Karen Casey was able to get under FOI and then look at the list of RCAs:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...-ef12-5471.pdf
You'll see that other than the first 13 RCAs that were signed by the FOI assigned to Pel-Air the rest, although appearing to be written by various Special Audit Team members (including BC), are countersigned and filled out by the Audit Skulldinator....
So Spike it was more a test of whether he would tow the party line? And the dude failed miserably...so Messr RW gets the gig because he is itching to feed at the trough and has previously been a reasonable master of spin and obfuscation and considered more than a match for the numpties at the bureau...hmm makes sense I guess???
For those interested I also found this interesting released FOI documentation, which is a copy of an audit on Pel-Air in March 2008
:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...ef12-10004.pdf
Sarcs, BC may have signed off on the RCA's but my source tells me that the 'author of the RCA's' has more qualifications than BC! There are more twists to this than in Michael Jacksons colon.
It would also be rumoured that there has been quite a number of audits in which others sign off on RCA's they have not written themselves.
It would also be rumoured that there has been quite a number of audits in which others sign off on RCA's they have not written themselves.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...-ef12-5471.pdf
You'll see that other than the first 13 RCAs that were signed by the FOI assigned to Pel-Air the rest, although appearing to be written by various Special Audit Team members (including BC), are countersigned and filled out by the Audit Skulldinator....
FS said: As for the Lockhart paper he said it was a test to see if he was appropriate material for the ALIU manager's position prior to Norfolk and when he bagged CASA's responses in the paper he wasn't surprised to learn that he was judged to not fit the position even though he was an accident investigator with a previous employer. Still, he finds it all an amusing memory now that he has had to retire.
For those interested I also found this interesting released FOI documentation, which is a copy of an audit on Pel-Air in March 2008
: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...ef12-10004.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs, it's interesting reviewing these 2 audits independently. Some highlights (or should I say high****es) are:
- In 2008 80% of the 20 FLT crew reviewed had no evidence of life jacket/raft training. Then after the ditching in 2009 the special audit found inadequate life raft refresher training. Not much changed in 12 months.
- In 2008 that audit uncovered basically nil FRMS training. Then again in 2009 after the ditching the special audit found inadequate FRMS policy/procedures.
- And the RCA's. Mr RC signed the RCA's that were written by Mr MH, Mr BC and Mrs KS. WTF?
Although questions about Pelair are obvious and inevitable, my interest is in the Regulators oversight, ability and activities during this time period. What were they doing? The similarities to Lockhart are more than concerning. CASA is meant to be oversighting safety yet here are 2 accidents that occurred not long after CASA had been 'hanging around'? Is the role of the CASA pretty much redundant? They certainly don't appear to add any value to safety? They certainly don't seem capable of identifying risk prior to accidents? Proactive vs reactive I hear you say? The CASA are reactive! And as far as I am concerned when it comes to organisational culture CASA are pathological. If they were an airline I would rather take my chances and cross the pacific ocean on a Segway than fly with them.
The holes in the cheese are big enough to fly a Starlifter through. How much longer? Over to you Senators.
- In 2008 80% of the 20 FLT crew reviewed had no evidence of life jacket/raft training. Then after the ditching in 2009 the special audit found inadequate life raft refresher training. Not much changed in 12 months.
- In 2008 that audit uncovered basically nil FRMS training. Then again in 2009 after the ditching the special audit found inadequate FRMS policy/procedures.
- And the RCA's. Mr RC signed the RCA's that were written by Mr MH, Mr BC and Mrs KS. WTF?
Although questions about Pelair are obvious and inevitable, my interest is in the Regulators oversight, ability and activities during this time period. What were they doing? The similarities to Lockhart are more than concerning. CASA is meant to be oversighting safety yet here are 2 accidents that occurred not long after CASA had been 'hanging around'? Is the role of the CASA pretty much redundant? They certainly don't appear to add any value to safety? They certainly don't seem capable of identifying risk prior to accidents? Proactive vs reactive I hear you say? The CASA are reactive! And as far as I am concerned when it comes to organisational culture CASA are pathological. If they were an airline I would rather take my chances and cross the pacific ocean on a Segway than fly with them.
The holes in the cheese are big enough to fly a Starlifter through. How much longer? Over to you Senators.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the stomach churns.
It's a fair question – just how much individual, unchecked power does a manager have?
When you get down and dirty on the Special Procedures Manual (SPM) and Safety Trend Index (STI) system you find that Transair, of Lockhart River fame had an audited STI score of 15, the normal red flag is raised at seven. Safety alert, No, Show cause, No? kick in the pants, No?; but shortly afterward they are granted significant changes in the AOC despite clear evidence that under the 'robust' CASA system this was the last thing that should happen.
There is no empirical evidence that the Operations Manual was significantly amended to rectify any of the items reflected in their STI score. There is no data to support the idea that the audit was 'audited' and that changes, if any, were ticked off. The failings in the oversight system were huge and 15 people died.
Pel Air - same - same. Only in this case we have the auditors investigating their audit: now how in all the hells does that happen? Even more intriguing are the resignations shortly afterward by people who were eminently qualified to assess the operation, the audit and the proposed corrections.
In part, the 'investigation' process, was supposedly to determine if previous RCA and audited deficiencies had been corrected; and that both the CASA and P-A systems were functioning correctly. So we task the auditors to examine their own work – sorry, but why am I not surprised that despite a fairly hefty STI count and no positive proof of improvement a Safety Alert was waived and evidence deeply buried. P-A was back in business within a Christmas week of the "changes" being initiated. It would take a week of hard work just make to amendments let alone have them tested, accepted, executed and ticked off. The required training programs alone would have taken a week full to complete.
Seems there exists either a massive systematic failure; or a truck load of discretionary power at work. Compared to Hardy, Barrier, Airtex and a couple of others where the 'managers' discretion is used to produce the desired outcome you just have to ask questions of the system, the integrity of the audit and the investigation process. Is the system there to ensure a safety outcome, or to produce a safe outcome under discretionary privilege? Quick twirl of the red pen – problems all go away; shut up or resign. Men of integrity did.
I find it intriguing that Airtex had independent, senior, experienced ICAO 'qualified' auditors determine a clean bill of health for the operation and were shot down in flames by, shall we say, slightly less qualified people; and had a safety alert issued on the flimsiest grounds; yet P-A in seven days, over Christmas manage to convince almost the same audit/ investigating team that all was well.
Here Johnny, mark your own exam paper. What a system. Unbelievable? check it out your self, all there on the public record.
When you get down and dirty on the Special Procedures Manual (SPM) and Safety Trend Index (STI) system you find that Transair, of Lockhart River fame had an audited STI score of 15, the normal red flag is raised at seven. Safety alert, No, Show cause, No? kick in the pants, No?; but shortly afterward they are granted significant changes in the AOC despite clear evidence that under the 'robust' CASA system this was the last thing that should happen.
There is no empirical evidence that the Operations Manual was significantly amended to rectify any of the items reflected in their STI score. There is no data to support the idea that the audit was 'audited' and that changes, if any, were ticked off. The failings in the oversight system were huge and 15 people died.
Pel Air - same - same. Only in this case we have the auditors investigating their audit: now how in all the hells does that happen? Even more intriguing are the resignations shortly afterward by people who were eminently qualified to assess the operation, the audit and the proposed corrections.
In part, the 'investigation' process, was supposedly to determine if previous RCA and audited deficiencies had been corrected; and that both the CASA and P-A systems were functioning correctly. So we task the auditors to examine their own work – sorry, but why am I not surprised that despite a fairly hefty STI count and no positive proof of improvement a Safety Alert was waived and evidence deeply buried. P-A was back in business within a Christmas week of the "changes" being initiated. It would take a week of hard work just make to amendments let alone have them tested, accepted, executed and ticked off. The required training programs alone would have taken a week full to complete.
Seems there exists either a massive systematic failure; or a truck load of discretionary power at work. Compared to Hardy, Barrier, Airtex and a couple of others where the 'managers' discretion is used to produce the desired outcome you just have to ask questions of the system, the integrity of the audit and the investigation process. Is the system there to ensure a safety outcome, or to produce a safe outcome under discretionary privilege? Quick twirl of the red pen – problems all go away; shut up or resign. Men of integrity did.
I find it intriguing that Airtex had independent, senior, experienced ICAO 'qualified' auditors determine a clean bill of health for the operation and were shot down in flames by, shall we say, slightly less qualified people; and had a safety alert issued on the flimsiest grounds; yet P-A in seven days, over Christmas manage to convince almost the same audit/ investigating team that all was well.
Here Johnny, mark your own exam paper. What a system. Unbelievable? check it out your self, all there on the public record.
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Feb 2013 at 01:19.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Kharon,
FF BNE hold monthly Risk Review Group (RRG) meetings. Do they review risk, or do they drink green tea and eat wafers while musing over EBA travel perks and counting frequent flyer points? How are operators 'slipping through the system'? One former Field Office Manager (RW) used to accept inspectors phone calls to operators as 'Op Surveillance'! It's all about KPI's and numbers, more smoke and mirrors. Now he 'liaises' with the ATSB. What a farce, a complete joke.
Maybe the Senators can ask to review such documents? There should be minutes, albeit they will be hidden deep within that blackhole called TRIM.
Robert S McNamara wrote a book called 'The Fog Of War'. Well we could write a book called 'The Fog Of CASA', a political tale of spin, uselessness and magic tricks, an analysis of what purpose do they serve at all.
CASA reside in their own fog, and just like Richard The Third, will some day in the future be found buried beneath a supermarket carpark, that day can't come soon enough.
FF BNE hold monthly Risk Review Group (RRG) meetings. Do they review risk, or do they drink green tea and eat wafers while musing over EBA travel perks and counting frequent flyer points? How are operators 'slipping through the system'? One former Field Office Manager (RW) used to accept inspectors phone calls to operators as 'Op Surveillance'! It's all about KPI's and numbers, more smoke and mirrors. Now he 'liaises' with the ATSB. What a farce, a complete joke.
Maybe the Senators can ask to review such documents? There should be minutes, albeit they will be hidden deep within that blackhole called TRIM.
Robert S McNamara wrote a book called 'The Fog Of War'. Well we could write a book called 'The Fog Of CASA', a political tale of spin, uselessness and magic tricks, an analysis of what purpose do they serve at all.
CASA reside in their own fog, and just like Richard The Third, will some day in the future be found buried beneath a supermarket carpark, that day can't come soon enough.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shooting the messenger
Unfortunately for those who consider CASA to be a disfunctional organisation, Paul Phelan's article "shooting the messenger" proves the opposite.
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submission...7-e114756fe994
If only it had some connection with flight SAFETY!!!
47 years, 24,000 incident free hours don't count for much ?
Thanks again Paul.
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submission...7-e114756fe994
If only it had some connection with flight SAFETY!!!
47 years, 24,000 incident free hours don't count for much ?
Thanks again Paul.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Allure of Evil.
Great job Stan and Paul – it's a big read but most satisfactory. 
There are many parts of Richard III that have relevance; glad they found the old bugger, although we'll never know the true story – ring any bells ??
MOIE# 1007 "CASA reside in their own fog, and just like Richard The Third, will some day in the future be found buried beneath a supermarket car park, that day can't come soon enough."
When Richard claims that his deformity is the cause of his wicked ways, he seems to be manipulating us for sympathy, just as he manipulates the other characters throughout the play.
As a result, Richard III does not explore the cause of evil in the human mind so much as it explores its operation, depicting the workings of Richard’s mind and the methods he uses to manipulate, control, and injure others for his own gain.
“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions”
As a result, Richard III does not explore the cause of evil in the human mind so much as it explores its operation, depicting the workings of Richard’s mind and the methods he uses to manipulate, control, and injure others for his own gain.
“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions”
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Feb 2013 at 04:22. Reason: Beer o'clock ?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQ Safety Manager rumoured to be returning to the nest?
My source tells me the former CASA Safety Systems Specialist who went to JQ as Safety Manager is about to reappear at CASA as EM Operations now that Hood (the Norfolk sacrificial lamb) is going to ASA. All rumour of course.
Makes sense, the GWM love 'yes men', and I don't think the JQ Safety Manager enjoyed his last venture in front of the Senators, nor did Boston Bruce or Greg Russell! Reminds me of a scene out of Monty Python And The Holy Grail - 'brave brave Sir Robin'...NOT.
CASA chess game and musical chairs indeed. (If all true).
Makes sense, the GWM love 'yes men', and I don't think the JQ Safety Manager enjoyed his last venture in front of the Senators, nor did Boston Bruce or Greg Russell! Reminds me of a scene out of Monty Python And The Holy Grail - 'brave brave Sir Robin'...NOT.
CASA chess game and musical chairs indeed. (If all true).
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 6th Feb 2013 at 05:53.
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.
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 07:25.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Press Release – FAA Proposes Limits on Companies Hiring FAA Inspectors
Press Release – FAA Proposes Limits on Companies Hiring FAA Inspectors
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 11:53.
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
:
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?
:
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 00:13.
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).
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!
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
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:-
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.
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.
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.
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 04:08.
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:
Ok clear as mud? Now here is part of the spin answer (my bold):
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
:
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"!
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?
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?
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.
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.
, 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.
(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 11:05. Reason: JetA move on mate this is way bigger than the pilot!