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 7th Feb 2013, 12:17
  #1061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ****e 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 12:19.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 18:04
  #1062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 18:08. Reason: Too early for this stuff; Minnie Coffee, a bloody big one.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 09:49
  #1063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 09:51.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2013, 16:09
  #1064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A couple of new submissions. Amroba and Mr Shane Urquhart. Worth reading.

Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 02:38
  #1065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 02:45. Reason: Carrot cakes crumbs in the key board,
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 04:28
  #1066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, 06:12
  #1067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, 07:35
  #1068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, 07:49
  #1069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, 18:58
  #1070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
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 18:59.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2013, 23:05
  #1071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sunfish, that is nothing unusual. Threats are common, however there is no system available for those threatened. Unless you call the ICC or the AAT a fair method of complaining? That is where those on the committees are aligned with the Regulator. As said before, the numbers are stacked and the odds in your favour don't exist.
Get a win in the AAT or with the ICC, your name gets targeted for revenge.
Get a win in the courts, The CASA appeals process will sen you bankrupt.
Get a win against an incorrect Fort Fumble decision? Expect a series of robust audits, surveillance and payback. Childish antics but you are dealing with a childish organisation.

When you read the comments from Mr Urqhart, Mr Lovells fiancé, and then the comments from mr Butson and you see disgraceful treatment by bullies, sociopaths and sycophants at the hand of government employees. How nice.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 10th Feb 2013 at 02:05.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 00:48
  #1072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unbridled power

Sunfish, Oleo,
No need to quote third party threats. Refer to Paul Phelan's Shooting the Messenger page 11

OLC believes that this is a borderline case and were it to appear before the AAT, that the results of a review could not be guaranteed. However, both OLC and the Area Office argue that it is an important policy position to take action against Schutt, in order to dissuade other companies from attempting to circumvent legislation in this way.
These bastards haven't the intelligence to have "policy" translated into legislation, assuming there is even a "safety" case. But with a monopoly there is usually "reprisal" and unlimited legal $$$s. So no worries. She'll be right,mate!

Based on policy there should be an immediate halt to "charter flights" as they could not meet the absolute safety requirements demanded for "paying passenger" ultimately "empty skies are safe skies"
Euthanasia of the G.A. Industry appears legal, evidently supported by the highest echelons of Government.
Australia once again leading the world!

the DPP's view is that a prosecution could not be implemented or proceeded with by them because it was not in the public interest and it was highly unlikely that it would succeed. I herewith request approval to cease the investigation of this matter forthwith and approval not to submit a brief of evidence to the DPP.”
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submission...7-e114756fe994

Isn't it strange that Ana stasi managed to misplace this material for the AAT hearing, yet McC was aware of it, not considering this as New, must be a special power of insight? Might it also explain why Adam was elevated to the top position in the now renamed LSD. Shows there is reward for excellence. There are several more examples of similar misplaced communications, but McC is on top of them all. Always good to light the open fire!

"empty skies are safe skies"
Stan van de Wiel is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 06:25
  #1073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stan,

If CASA had done this to me, I would have been in court long ago suing the pants of all responsible for the demise of my business and the discrediting of my reputation.

Get a good "no win, no fee litigation lawyer firm like Slater and Gordon if you have to, even just to see justice being done.
AEROMEDIC is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 19:53
  #1074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having dutifully ploughed through the 228 page response, AQON 211112 and identified several howlers, contradictions and plain, old fashioned 'porkpies'; I can report that as a definitive study of corporate spin, it is a masterpiece. The tabled data is the work of master craftsman. Clearly history is repetitive:-

AQON 211112_PDF page # 48.

ATSB response to the question ‘Is this new methodology internationally recognised?’:
The first significant investigation undertaken using the new analysis methodology was the ATSB’s investigation of the fatal Metro 23 accident near Lockhart River, Queensland on 7 May 2005 (ATSB investigation 200501977). Following the completion of this investigation, there was some criticism of aspects of the ATSB’s methodology by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority regarding the ATSB’s use of a Reason-type model and the ATSB’s definition of ‘contributing safety factor’, and the Queensland State Coroner had concerns regarding the description of the standard of proof associated with the ATSB’s definition of ‘contributing safety factor’.
Norfolk - Sub03_Currall.

14. As pointed out on the 4 Corners program the ATSB’s final report was flawed, causing it to be quietly withdrawn some 24 hours after publication. The report was then reissued with no form of version control. I now have two versions of the final report and do not know which to believe.

15. The report omitted crucial information on the issue of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM). This issue, together with apparent deficiencies of the Operations Manual severely limited the pilot’s ability to plan the flight effectively. This apparently deliberate omission ensured that the blame for poor flight and fuel planning was pinned on the pilot despite the constraints that each of the above placed upon him.

16. There is no attempt by the ATSB to undertake root cause analysis of the issues raised in their final report. This was exemplified by the issue of Threat and Error Management (TEM), a procedure to improve flight safety by identifying potential threats and errors. According to the report ICAO regulations require training in TEM, though not for this category of flight. CASA regulations however do not require training in TEM. The logical outcome of these points would be to analyse the reasons why there is no such training requirement in Australia and why this flight was in this particular category. If such training is required, or
does help prevent accidents and the flight was found to be in an inappropriate category for this type of operation then CASA could be held accountable for this. Instead, the report simply omitted analysis of these issues.

17. Despite the requirement in the Operations Manual neither of the crew had undertaken training in Crew Resource Management (or in TEM). The ATSB’s investigation went further; in a survey of both trainee and experienced pilots the report found inconsistencies in their approach to the legal requirement to divert to an alternate because this is not part of the syllabus for a trainee pilot. Despite these findings the ATSB declined to offer any recommendations that may improve this clearly unsatisfactory situation.
Lockhart River - Urquhart – Coroner Barnes. 20 Aug, 2007.

" Evidence clearly provided to the inquest both by CASA witnesses and others, showed how CASA has not really changed anything in the way it operates and its serious disregard for promoting safety within the Regional Airline Industry. This is supported by reams of information and statements I have read over a long period of time. Does CASA not have some duty of care in an industry where safety is paramount and should there not be serious consequences imposed on individuals and the organisation for breaches of this? " etc.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 22:04
  #1075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tomorrow's schedule!

Looking at the proposed timetable for RRAT committee additional estimates it looks like it'll be beer'n'nuts arvo viewing of the fun and frivolities:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...1213/rrat.ashx

Broadcast Link:
Watch Parliament – Parliament of Australia
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2013, 22:25
  #1076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No duty of care!!!

Lockhart River - Urquhart – Coroner Barnes. 20 Aug, 2007.

" Evidence clearly provided to the inquest both by CASA witnesses and others, showed how CASA has not really changed anything in the way it operates and its serious disregard for promoting safety within the Regional Airline Industry. This is supported by reams of information and statements I have read over a long period of time. Does CASA not have some duty of care in an industry where safety is paramount and should there not be serious consequences imposed on individuals and the organisation for breaches of this? " etc.
Although no fatalities can so far be attributed to the "AvGas contamination" CASA has refused to follow up the testing recommendations as per the ATSB report. Mobil has gone out of the AvGas business so things must be safe. If not just blame the pilot. Maybe any re introduction of testing may show up CASA s culpability. [we're not guilty and certainly not sorry] who does industry think they are? Notice any similarity with Coroner Barnes' finding. Time we did the "fit & proper test"

"empty skies are safe skies"
Stan van de Wiel is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2013, 03:50
  #1077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Creampuff: 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.
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.
So although The Skull has been around 5 years, he takes no responsibilty?
As for the others who have been at CASA ranging from 12 - 20 years and who conveniently deflected Senator Nash's probing, they don't get off so easy I am afraid. Anybody in those positions and who has been in CASA for that length of time would have had a say and had influence in decison making. No high level decisions are made without consulting with others, so the 'hand washing' by these guys is laughable.

And I reiterate that mosy of FF's issues lay within its structure of 'long termers' who have spent decades playing the system, and playing it well. But the piece of string has been pulled by the Senators and the whole lot is unravelling. The stench of incompetence flows all the way to the Minister, and people like Mrdak, the Boards, the whole lot of them need to be held to account.
It is a real shame that Samantha Hare and Shayne Urquhart couldn't take all these executive individuals to the morgue with them to identify their loved ones. Or have those executives with them at Xmas or birthdays, to show them that we are dealing with lives, not executive salaries and bonuses.
None of these executive clowns has earned a clean conscience nor do they deserve a peaceful nights sleep while people continue to die and accountabilty is mocked.

On a final note, in regards to the CASA's inabilty to 'close the loop' this too is a farcicle outrage. They preach from the book of James Reason yet don't practise what they preach in reality. If an operator didn't 'close the loop' on an investigation, incident, occurence or non-compliance' then a NCN would be issued by CASA quicker than a CASA executive boarding a plane for Montreal! Hypocrites.

To be con't............

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 11th Feb 2013 at 03:51.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2013, 06:50
  #1078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.

Creampuff: 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.
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.
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
Folks,
The comment by Creampuff is significant, perhaps the good Senators should ask about who was involved in the drafting of a CAO that completely changed the meaning of "Island Reserve", and placed specific fuel requirements on Norfolk, Lord Howe, Cocos etc. --- in 2000, or thereabouts, as a reaction to the Seaview Royal Commission.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2013, 07:19
  #1079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And what would the correct answer be, in your view? If someone was "involved in the drafting" of a CAO, s/he can have no reasonable objection to being identified as such.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2013, 17:39
  #1080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another piece of Ben's good work. Somehow appropriate to this thread?

Dreamliners: A failure of effective public administration? Ben Sandilands | Feb 10, 2013 10:59AM | EMAIL | PRINT


Comment
It may not be the first thing that comes to mind in the Dreamliner crisis, but there is an argument that could see the botched if not fudged certification of the Boeing 787’s battery system as part of a more generalized failure of public administration on a global scale.
Big call? Let me try to explain in too few words.
There has been immense, and justifiable pressure in recent decades for public administration, which includes aviation regulators, to be less wasteful and more efficient.
Which is critical to having a globally competitive economy, where taxation and regulation are ripe targets for cut backs.
But the weak point in this desirable outcome may be that instead of cutting back in inefficiency in executing necessary public policy, there has been a concurrent move to reduce the scope of regulation, thus reducing the task load of regulation, whether in banking, pure food acts, building standards, and ….transportation, whether by truck, ship, or aircraft.
It could be argued that in this process the selection of senior management in public service functions has moved more to the criteria of meeting key performance indicators skewed in favor of reduced public responsibilities and thus reduced public officials charged with carrying out those responsibilities.
One consequence of this would be to reward public administrators who cut the wages bill rather than deliver better public policy execution.
In reaching that result the temptation, if not overt policy instruction, has been to permit increasing levels of self regulation, which in banking in the US, UK and EU, lead to an orgy of corrupt, vicious, and outrageously indulgent and dishonest behavior, of the type that in the US has been largely forgiven, and on the other side of the Atlantic, appears to be largely if somewhat slowly subject to fiercer prosecution of corporations and individuals.
In the case of the Dreamliner 787, there were other issues as well, including doggedly willful dishonesty in Boeing which relied on PR to set engineering and performance targets and delivery dates while the company gutted itself of old fashioned and costly technical expertise, all the while pretending to be a great American enterprise, yet shunting risk and reward and even design to overseas partners who were not only incompetent in some cases, but inadequately supervised. (To paraphrase Boeing itself on these failings.)
Some of the immediate consequences of this has been the botching of the 747-8 program, to the extent that the aircraft haven’t yet attained brochure parity in performance, and fly with systems that suppress or ‘alleviate’ handling deficiencies arising from a job badly done.
(We are promised the full 748 products sometime in 2014, assuming the various refinements gain FAA approval. Which might be harder than assumed before the 787 grounding.)
Many observers and analysts have pointed out that the outsourcing of such things as valid design data to the aircraft manufacturer by the FAA, in order to assist certification of particular airliners, has been going on for a long time.
But has it been as incompetent or even dishonest or rushed, or at the very least, as indulgent and unquestioning as it has been in the case of 787?
The FAA is now investigating its past behavior in this matter. Will it say ‘Oh shucks, we really tried to do everything right, and this is all such a shock.’ Or will it come to a different view. At the moment it is not apparently in any hurry to go for ‘Oh shucks ….’. The most recent indications are that it regards the deficiencies in the lithium ion batteries as something to be addressed thoroughly rather than hastily, even though Boeing has let it be known that it can come up with an interim fix even before the causes of the mid January grounding are fully understood.
Boeing may be asking us to fly on blind trust in this respect. Why should it be trusted? Given the record of this company in relation to the 787 project, why should it be trusted with anything?
The second part of this situation in the open ended review of the certification process, meaning its integrity and it is clearly open to discovery as to what else might have been botched or fudged in the data and claims about other aspects of the 787 design in its materials, systems and quality of construction, scattered as it is across most of the northern hemisphere and even to an extent in Australia.
The writer may seem a little angry on this topic. The American side of my family including some who worked for Boeing in the 707 to early 747 times. When I first visited my roots on that side in the mid 60s I was going to get my riveting tools and rock up to Renton to work on the greatest birds made in peace time, since I was still legally a dual national, but restlessness took me on, through that great country, to connect with other roots.
I am bitterly, angrily ashamed of what these looter-taker managers have done to Boeing . It is inexcusable.The rebirth and restoration of this company to the place generations of people in the Pacific Northwest worked to send it is needed, and any amount of babbling on by the apologists will not help shift it back to where it should be.
But I digress. There are severe failings in public administration in our societies, with scandalous underperformance and lack of transparent air safety regulation and investigation in this country.
Whether it is a matter of robber bankers, or the selling out of Australia’s disease free status in agriculture and livestock on the sacrificial altar of free trade, or weak big pharma friendly drug oversight, our public service objectives have been corrupted and undermined.
Efficiency in public administration must not mean weakened standards. The goal must be better administration, not less effective administration.
Be it in the FAA, or EASA, or CASA.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.