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 15th Feb 2013, 01:44
  #1101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems like I missed a torrid session reading Plane Talking which is live blogging about secret documents ATSB didn't know about.
denabol is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 04:07
  #1102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A chamber pot filled with egg!!

Well well things reached a crescendo today in the senate! I am sure there will be some robust updates posted shortly, however some highlights were:

CASA outed for keeping audits secreted away from the ATSB. The Beaker and Sangston kept mushroomed by the (R)egulator. The senators have picked up on the fact that the MOU between both incompetent structures is more like a MOPOO. The Senators also stated how dysfunctional the organisations are. This is a sad indictment of the parlous state of Australia's aviation bodies.

Pot Plant McCormick got fired up with Xenophons line of robust questioning. He appeared barely able to contain 'the inner John just screaming to get out'.

The Beaker was caught on his remaining good foot and in Beaker style took Fawcetts question and comment and replied with "I'd prefer to give due consideration to this than make it on the run".

Pot Plant McCormick is still blaming Dom entirely for the Norfolk ditching, unbelievable! One needs no further proof that the CASA hierarchy have no concept of causal factors and safety systems. What an embarrassing spectacle.

Senator X pointed out, and quite correctly, that Team Beaker is producing work of a standard less than Nigeria and Lebanon! Amazing what the bureaucrat has achieved in less than 4 years. What an embarrassment.

I believe it was Chamber Pot who wrote in an email that the ATSBeaker and CASA need to avoid 'putting egg on each others faces'! Far too late for that boys.

I think the Senators did a superb job, dusting away the chaff and revealing what's beneath. Friends, it is a frickin mess. The FAA and the ICAO must be cringing at our 'Nigeria equivalent safety bodies'? I feel the Senators comments should give a small measure of satisfaction to Mr Urquhart and others who have been saying for years that the fish has rotted from the head.
One can only hope that a royal commission or deeper inquiry will come out of all this and those bobbing in high places will soon receive their own Friday 1659 pm fax..

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 15th Feb 2013 at 04:09. Reason: Egg fight in the kitchen
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 04:14
  #1103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ben's piece summarises this morning's hearing very well:
Pel-Air Senate hearing sensation: CASA hid key safety audits from ATSB

In a set of extraordinary disclosures in the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air crash report today it was revealed that two key safety audits were kept secret by the safety regulator CASA from the safety investigator the ATSB in contravention of a cooperative memorandum of understanding between the two bodies.

The two most senior officers in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, its chief commissioner Martin Dolan and its GM air investigations Ian Sangston did not know of the existence of the audits, one of which was scathingly critical of CASA’s oversight of Pel-Air, until about 30 minutes before they appeared at the inquiry immediately after an often intense examination of CASA’s Director Aviation Safety John McCormick.

One document, the Chambers Review of CASA, ordered by McCormick and kept secret from the ATSB, found that the ditching of a tiny Westwind air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in November 2009 might have been avoided had the regulator been doing its job properly.

The other, a fatigue management review of the ill fated flight commissioned from the UK safety regulator, suggested that the captain of the flight Dominic James may have been unfit to fly the Careflight mission under its rules.

CASA’s director of air safety John McCormick said he didn’t consider either of them relevant to the cause of the accident, which he says was entirely the fault of the captain, but would have been made available to the ATSB if it has asked for them.

Senator David Fawcett, an experienced pilot, and Senator Nick Xenophon, the instigator of the hearing, pointed out to McCormick repeatedly in the exchanges between them and him that the ATSB could not ask for audits it didn’t know existed, and that under the rules of co-operation between the two bodies, their existence had to be disclosed.

What then followed was a lengthy spectacle in which the most senior executive in CASA, McCormick, denied understanding or recognising the most basic and clearly written obligations that exist in the MoU between the two bodies concerning the exchange of information between them.

The Senate committee is inquiring in the final report by the ATSB into the accident, and how it became changed from one dealing with serious issues concerning the rules relating to fuel and route planning to one that blamed the crash almost entirely on the actions of the captain.

Senator Xenophon told ATSB chief commissioner Dolan that the Pel-Air report the ATSB had finally issued was less compliant with the standards of ICAO Annex 13 than those produced by its counterparts in Nigeria and Lebanon, a comparison strongly rejected by Dolan.

Both the fatigue audit and the CASA audit, which is separate from the CASA special audit into Pel-Air shortly after the crash, will be posted online on the Senate Committee website later today.

At the outset of today’s hearing Senator Fawcett speaking for the committee said it accepted that errors in fueling the jet that was ditched off Norfolk Island were made by the captain, and that the purpose of the inquiry was not to exonerate the pilot but to examine more deeply how the ATSB report was arrived at, and among other things, understand why it said little to explain why the pilot might have made the errors he did.

The committee repeatedly sought information from the CASA team lead by McCormick as to why the regulator had not disclosed the Chambers Review, commissioned by McCormick, to the ATSB, quoting passages in which it found that had there been more effective auditing and oversight of Pel-Air, the operator of the jet, it would have discovered key failings in its performance and pilot training from interviews with the line pilots that if acted upon in a timely manner could have prevented the accident ever happening.

McCormick said he considered the Chambers Review a private document, which made no findings which would have altered the ATSB’s eventual findings that the accident was caused by pilot error if not violations of the rules by him. He said “I did say at the time that I wanted it warts and all.”

Xenophon told McCormick his explanation for withholding the Chambers Review’s existence and findings from the ATSB to be “curious and bizarre.”
McCormick told the hearing that CASA had kept the findings of the Chambers Review from the ATSB in order “not to contaminate its decision making.”

He stressed the importance CASA placed on the ATSB reaching its own conclusions.

However during the course of the hearing committee members read from emails which said, among other things, that the two bodies needed to avoid “putting egg on each other’s faces”, that a consistent policy on whether or not flights should immediately divert to alternative airports when the weather deteriorated below minimums at destination airports, and other email discussions as to how the initially divergent views of CASA and the ATSB about the seriousness of the accident and were coming into alignment.
Pel-Air Senate sensation CASA hid key safety audit from ATSB | Plane Talking

However after reading the tabled documents I would say the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and no amount of crat spin will get the cork back in...hmm Senators take a bow!!

ps actually Oleo I think it was Beaker himself check out number '02 ATSB_Doc_5' pg 1 para 2 of Beaker reply e-mail (from tabled doc 12)!

Correction to above Oleo it was actually an 'ATSB officer's' email to Beaker and Sanger...apologies!

Last edited by Sarcs; 16th Feb 2013 at 09:03.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 04:45
  #1104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sarcs, thanks for the update about Beaker. I had some trouble opening the attachments, plus it was hard hearing all of the live verbal exchange as there were noisy aircraft thingies in my background and of course I was wearing my hearing protection (never know when the Sheriffs might be poking about).

Mrdak's boys are doing a stellar performance are they not?
Hell hath no fury like a Senator treated with contempt by a bunch of nupties. Go for it Senators.

'Potted plants for all'
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 05:50
  #1105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Internal ATSB email to Mr Dolan, cc Mr Sangston, dated 9 February 2010:
… When the aircraft ditched, both the flight crew and the operator stopped their Westwind Aeromedical operations. CASA coached and guided the operator very well and they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pel-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn’t happed to the flight crew. While they may not have been the ‘Aces of the base’, they were following the relevant procedure provided by both CASA and their operator. …
[Underlining in email]

Oh dear.

Last edited by Creampuff; 15th Feb 2013 at 09:49.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 08:44
  #1106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know that the estimates hansard (12/01/2013) is probably put well in the shade from this morning's impromptu act from a contingent of Albo's circus troop. However there are passages in the hansard that will perk the interest of some on here (besides the Bill and Ben flowerpot men episode!).

Here's an example from the horses mouth, although I'm not sure if it will give many a checkie, ATO, instructor or operator piece of mind:
Senator FAWCETT: My last question goes to flight tests by FOIs whereby they put pressure on the subject, whether it be a student, but more commonly an ATO who is up for approval, to conduct a test or a manoeuvre that is not in line with the manufacturer's recommendations but is what the FOI deems to be appropriate. There are a couple of examples that have been cited to me. One is the requirement to fly light twins at the blue line, as opposed to Vref, which is normally a stall plus 1.3 which gives a lot of float and therefore the chance of overruns of runways, but that is being pushed by some apparently. Also, some aircraft where, for example, a double failure such as a failure of a control system and then a stall is not recommended by the manufacturer, but an FOI requires to see that. In situations like that are there guidelines within CASA that say that if the ATO or whoever is being tested can demonstrate that there is clearly from the manufacturer, or in the operation's manual, guidance that says that this is not appropriate, that it will be accepted at that level without having to go back to actually get letters from the manufacturer?

Mr J McCormick: I would need to see the examples and I could give you an answer on notice. Those examples that you give are the first that it has come to my attention, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not out there. We certainly, as an organisation, do not instruct our FOIs or our flight training examiners, our FTEs, to carry out a manoeuvre that is not prescribed in the AFM or in the pilot-handling notes, depending on the category of aeroplane.

Senator FAWCETT: I guess my concern is not so much that you would instruct them to do that. I would not suggest that.

Mr J McCormick: I know where you are going.

Senator FAWCETT: I am more concerned that they are allowed to essentially have their own agenda as opposed to being constrained to operate within what either an operations manual or the AFM for the particular aircraft specifies is normal practice for that aircraft.

Mr J McCormick: We spend a lot of time with standardisation and we are still working on that. That is an ongoing aim of the organisation for this year. As far as the organisation of FOIs and whatever, they are now in certificate management teams where they have a team leader who responds then to the regional manager who is the office manager as well, and our whole aim is to stop any sort of behaviour that is outside of the norms for flight tests because it will be in the manual standards. It is currently in the CAOs. The standards and the manoeuvres that have to be carried out and to the degree of accuracy that is required is laid out there. We certainly do not condone anything outside those limits.

Senator FAWCETT: What if the AFM prohibits something that is currently in the manual standards as a manoeuvre that should be conducted, but for this particular aircraft it cannot be? How is that resolved?

Mr J McCormick: The AFM would have overriding authority.

Senator FAWCETT: Your expectation would be that if the ATO or if the student and the test could show that, that should be accepted without question by the testing officer?

Mr J McCormick: Absolutely, and except for the small aeroplanes in the one general category, if we talking of a more specific aircraft where the AFM may prohibit a particular manoeuvre or particular, as you say, flight control sequence or whatever or a symmetric configuration to the stall or such, we have our flight training examiners qualified on type, so they should be aware of the AFM limitations. By the same token, anybody under test should be aware of their aircraft and what the AFM limitations are or the TCDS limitations and not allow themselves to go on that. We certainly do not condone anything like that.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...pplication/pdf

Read it and weep...

Oh an excellent follow up to Ben's earlier article:Nailed to the wall, the fixer files and CASA's cover-up | Plane Talking

Last edited by Sarcs; 15th Feb 2013 at 09:34.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 09:31
  #1107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm just wondering when an apology will be forthcoming to Dom James?
In particular, I'm wondering as to whether the Pprune "experts" are willing to admit they got it wrong?
One could only hope!
GADRIVR is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 09:59
  #1108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sarcs, it would appear that J Mac is completely unaware of how much various expert FOI's force operators to tinker with manufacturers recommended procedures, all based on their interpretation of the AOCM section 7 which is CASA "Policy". Its crazy that various operators of the same aircraft can all be operating differently. Its also crazy that the operators have to carry the liability for that not CASA who force the changes.
Incidentally has the Styx houseboat sunk or something? or has Kharon been renditioned to Israel, he's gone awful quiet.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 11:27
  #1109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Incidentally has the Styx houseboat sunk or something? or has Kharon been renditioned to Israel, he's gone awful quiet.
I'd say "K" is busy cogitating and studying the bottom of the 'Chamber Pot', besides the Ferryman does his best work at half past the witching hour!

By the way here's the lead up to Fawcett's line of questioning (from above) and perhaps highlights the angst that highly regarded ATOs have been feeling in recent times:
Senator FAWCETT: What is your view on the future of approved testing officers versus inspectors? Industry feedback seems to be that ATOs are no longer favoured by CASA and there are situations where operators are required to use an FOI, as opposed to being allowed to use an ATO. I am wondering if you have a corporate plan or a strategic direction for the utilisation of ATOs?

Mr J McCormick: Some years ago—and we can give you the date on notice if you like—we did a review of the flying training organisations and their success rate at passing the initial instructor rating, the grade 3 rating. We centred that into some of the commercial flights and we found that there was a very large pass rate when most of those initial tests were being done by the industry. We, of course, always have the prerogative to do the test ourselves and anyone who proposes to carry out a test in the industry has to give us seven days' notice that they intend to carry out that test. We put much effort into carrying out a lot of those tests and we have quite a large failure rate. Since then we have seen that there has been a complete rebound in that sector and we are very pleased with the progress now being made by the flying schools and organisations around ATOs. So, in specific instances we still use our prerogative to check someone, particularly if there is any question over their competence or whatever, but we have no intention, to my knowledge, of removing or taking over all the duties that are done by ATOs. It would be beyond our capability.

Senator FAWCETT: A related issue, but not on the same topic of a grand plan, what flexibility do you give or should you or can you be giving regional officers to be responsive to commercial pressures? I think specifically here of an operator who was required to have one of their pilots renew an instrument rating. There was a qualified ATO in the state, qualified on the aircraft type who could have conducted it, but because he was not listed on that aircraft's check and training document, the company was required to fly that person from the west coast to the east coast to do the test in a simulator and then back to the west coast, where a suitably qualified person, with some discretion, could have conducted that test and saved the operator a lot of money. What options are there for CASA to have a responsiveness to commercial pressures in situations like that?

Mr J McCormick: Again, we are not a commercial regulator; we are a safety regulator. If you give us details of that particular test I can give you a specific answer. What I am getting at is that there are some instances now where we have mandated that certain asymmetric events et cetera must be carried out in a simulator rather than the aircraft, following on from the unfortunate Brasilia crash in Darwin, so if the test involves something of a multicrew or a multiengine aircraft or whatever, we may not have been prepared to allow that testing in the aircraft. Without knowing the specifics, I cannot tell you. If you give us the specifics we can give you an answer on notice.
Cheers TB and good question GA one of many that will come up over the coming weeks????
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 11:34
  #1110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This evening Kharon traded the houseboat for business class tickets on a flying boat. He has flown to Montreal to buy some new pot plants for the houseboat. Plus he is doing maintenance on the houseboat as the river Styx is in full flow and some additional passengers could be coming shortly!
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 19:21
  #1111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Scratchin' the surface?.

There was a dull thump on the house boat back door last evening; turned out it was "The Old Man" (TOM a.k.a. P7) loaded with a dozen cold ones and half a box of excellent cigars. Quick as a flash I cancelled the Montreal trip and settled in for a long yarn. When the cigar was going to his satisfaction and about half of the first pint was settled, he cocks an eyebrow at me and says "passing strange business this 'The Chambers Report', ain't it?; to a thinking man that is".

I agreed; but as it turned out there was a couple of unexplained things worrying TOM: for example, why would the DAS commission a secret report into the CASA dealings with one operator?. If it was to be definitive study of CASA operations, with a view to improving the system, why the clandestine approach?. He speculated that such a report would normally be touted as an executive initiative, much publicised, spun until dizzy and designed to ensure that the DAS shone like "a bloody beacon of hope" to industry; "Handled properly, there's lots of brownie points in such a move" says TOM, "but you can always shoot off your foot off with a carelessly handled weapon; he probably just needs more practice in dealing with things that can and will hurt you, eh?". "Aye, passing strange it surely is".

"Do you know if he was qualified to draft such a lethal study?". I had to confess ignorance. After an interlude of quiet, he rumbles in a speculative tone - "It is unfortunate that the manager of the branch was the one anointed to perform this very delicate task", he says, "you have to wonder why?, I mean the bloke was the coordinator of the multi level of audit, special audit, investigation and all, must have been a busy little bee; takes time to generate a 16 page report damning the people who work for you, while keeping them happy and focussed". "Aye, 'tis passing strange".

Declaring that talking made him thirsty, he padded off to the bar for a refill, being a true Gent, he returned with two; "Just thinking" says he, "that report pretty much said that the crew doing Pel Air over were pretty much useless." "I wonder if they were retrained or just fired out of hand?, I mean, you have wonder why a manager would denigrate his own blokes, wouldn't you?. I mentioned rumours of a faction war within the hallowed halls of sleepy hollow and speculation about a bitter power struggle between two warring camps. "Yeah, I've heard that one too; makes you wonder, don't it? Of course, knowing the personalities involved and all the juicy rumours, by the time the third pints were delivered (P_26 a.k.a 362436) we were on a roll, my sides still hurt from laughing. I doubt Pprune would allow the conversation, so let's just say it was an interesting period of robust speculation, ribald humour and the sort of nonsense mates dream up over a few cold ones. But we allowed that it was all "passing strange", indeed.

At least the mystery of the masked man with one foot shot off is solved, probably won't end up as the DAS now; having managed to present the somewhat grandiosely entitled "The Chambers Report" to the Senate, the world and it's wife, in all it's tawdry glory.

Anyway, that's how "K" spent the evening – I watched as TOM stepped up onto his favourite horse and ambled off, crooning a kids song, into the moon rise. Passing strange? Aye; perhaps it was: but then, there are more things in heaven and earth. etc. Ah well, back to the digging.
Kharon is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 21:10
  #1112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pot Plants

Reading Hansard recently and watching the truly excellent question from Sen Nash I have been bewildered at the inability of highly paid senior executives to answer basic questions "off the cuff".

My background has largely been in public companies and I would expect (have seen) guys dismissed or demoted for better answers than we've seen from Messers McCormick & Jordan. Can you imagine a Chief Executive (or Chairman) not being able to answer equivalent questions in a shareholders meeting? It would be a scandal. A Chief executive not being able to give batter detailed, numerate answers to his board in a budget session would find his tenure severely limited.

The role of Chief Executive is to be across this level of detail. That's why they get the money. Otherwise the person is an ordinary administrator.

I was even more astounded when I counted 13 people from CASA listed in Hansard as attending. That's more than a cricket team. And none of them could answer any reasonable basic questions about a currently open $150,000 tender.

From what I have seen in Hansard the CEO and CFO have less of a grip on the detail of their jobs than I would accept from a middle manager. I think CASA is beyond redemption.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2013, 22:52
  #1113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"and perhaps highlights the angst that highly regarded ATOs have been feeling in recent times".

Sarcs,
no wonder given the BK ex baggage handlers perchance for pulling experienced ATO's briefs, even a highly respected ex CASA senior examiner of airmen ran afoul of the chamber pot.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 00:45
  #1114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old Akro, I agree with your comments, however CEO's in private enterprise do fit into the 'accountable person' classification. Unfortunately, and wrongly, Government people, such as the CASA, don't have to be accountable for their actions, pretty well no matter what. This is where the system breaks down. Until the rules of the game change and these people are made to be accountable for their actions nothing will change.

'K', agreed. The Chamber Pot has learned from other long term game players and survivors, and has most likely been working very hard on executing a series of manoeuvres with the intent of elevating himself into a deeper corner of the trough, however the game plan may have been revealed, and his chess strategy revealed?
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 07:45
  #1115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Internal ATSB email to Mr Dolan, cc Mr Sangston, dated 9 February 2010:
Quote:
… When the aircraft ditched, both the flight crew and the operator stopped their Westwind Aeromedical operations. CASA coached and guided the operator very well and they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pel-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn’t happed to the flight crew. While they may not have been the ‘Aces of the base’, they were following the relevant procedure provided by both CASA and their operator. …

[Underlining in email]

Oh dear.
To follow on from Creamy’s post, which perhaps highlights the turning point where the ATSB’s investigation all went South, here is (hopefully if I've got it right??) the full and complete email from 'ATSB officer' (ps thanks Creamy) to Beaker and Sanger :






Now if you combine that full and frank 'ATSB officer' proclamation with the Chamber Pot review and bagging of certain members of his fellow BK Flight inspectorate, well maybe we should be writing a 'Safety Recommendation' that highlights a 'Critical Safety Issue' in the lack of proper oversight by FF of the Pel-Air operation.

After all as the 'ATSB officer' points out they'd effectively covered all the other systemic operational issues that related to this accident...

Last edited by Sarcs; 16th Feb 2013 at 08:54. Reason: stand corrected Creamy...hmm I shouldn't just assume!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 08:20
  #1116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not sure the person whose nickname you've stated was identified, in the tabled documents or in the course of the hearing, as the author of the email.

Should you be stating that nickname?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 09:01
  #1117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,678
Received 42 Likes on 27 Posts
Well...booger I..!

Gee, thanks Senate hearing...right out of the mouth of Jmac himself.!!
"...we are not a commercial regulator, we are a safety regulator"

Geezus, how many decades to wait for that admission?
Could be some interesting legal implications there.!

And as for X question re any CASA consideration to unwarranted expenses to a business...quite frankly CASA just doesnt give a rats arsK....safety regulator or otherwise.
aroa is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 10:07
  #1118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Creampuff, the interesting thing in that email trail is that the ATSB unnamed Investigator mentions the 'Reason cheese' approach, something that has been accepted as a form of best practise across investigative communities. Yet this must have disturbed the Beaker as he has made it abundantly clear that he operates from a much higher plain than Reason, hence his recent high level ramblings about things beyond the Reason scope! Considering that CASA's very own Associate DAS himself has been challenging the theories on 'Just Culture' in somewhat opposition to what his beloved ICAO promulgates, shows that these clowns have too much frickin time on their hands enabling them to challenge Newtons laws on gravity as well as everything else and they need to pull their heads in and do what they actually should be doing - Increasing the level of aviation safety in Australia, FFS.

I think everyone has had a gutful of these mad scientists challenging the laws of relativity and want some real aviation people placed in these roles who are actually able to define, improve, lead and better our industry rather than tearing it asunder.

I believe the boiling Chamber pot cauldron is yet to fully manifest itself and there is much more to the inner workings of these aviation bodies than has been revealed so far. The entire episode gets worse by the week, and the level of incompetence, obfuscation, ignorance and sheer stupidity is mind numbing.
The ATSBeaker changes its mind more than a pregnant bride, and CASA couldn't identify a root cause if one dropped on their heads and started defecating!
In regards to the Norfolk report, a bunch of high school graduate could have written a better piece of work and the fact that FF are still maintaining the old chestnut of 'it was all Dom's fault' is ample proof that immediate action must be taken to remove one of the root causes of Australian aviation safety being compared to Lebanon's! What's next, Kim Jong Un hired as a Consultant???

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 16th Feb 2013 at 10:14.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 11:27
  #1119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The chambers report also raises concerns regarding resources awi and foi and audit schedule running late.

Jmac has addressed resources but it does look there was an issue there. I think he resisted in the inquiry. One senator chirped in something like things were bad when john took over.

I suppose the question is was casa resourcing an issue? The author of the chambers report seems to indicate it was.

Or is this a similar problem to what we have seen in financial regulation?

Just a thought. Could the Atsb now say as casa allegedly breached the mou and withheld information they could prove important to the investigation the existing report and investigation needs to be re opened?

Perhaps the senators could recommend with expert assistance from NTSB or AAIB.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 16th Feb 2013 at 15:03.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2013, 22:18
  #1120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cause and effect.

The cause is hidden; the effect is visible to all. Ovid
Well, I've tried to fathom it, in a fair way as a reasonable man should, to determine the cause of the "The Chambers Report". I regret it will take a higher authority, time, money and some considerable effort to determine, accurately the reasons, motivation, purpose and beneficiaries of the document. We can, and probably will speculate for a while on that, in many cockpits, bars, cafe's and other places where aircrew meet.

Some of the worlds nicest folk have produced the most horrendous documents, usually in fiction, occasionally with a nod towards fact or even legend; but I wonder here, I truly do, at the true nature of this remarkable document.

The potential effects emanating from this badly drafted, weasel worded, self aggrandising, incompetent, amateurish report are truly remarkable. There arise from this document many questions which, for one I would like to have answered in the cold, sober light of day, by a competent, independent Judge in a court of law.

Consider:-

1) The DAS had this report for a while; if you were a Chief pilot or manager how would you respond to it?. Clearly, something is very wrong and should the report be tested and proven concise; then documented proof should be available to all of swift, executive action and cure.

2) I believe, the author of "The Chambers Report" has now managed three of the most significant, contentious incidents in the recent history of GA: Pel Air, Airtex and Skymaster. Each and every one has been rancorous, acrimonious, declared by industry to have been, very like "The Chambers Report" an indication of the fault lines, injustices and maladministration inflicted on an industry which can't and dare not challenge the local street bully.

Old Akro # 1077 – "and I would expect (have seen) guys dismissed or demoted for better answers than we've seen from Messer's McCormick & Jordan. Can you imagine a Chief Executive (or Chairman) not being able to answer equivalent questions in a shareholders meeting? It would be a scandal." etc.
As this is a 'public service' event, we need be a little more circumspect, however there should be a call made, and there is provision for the suspension of the author of "The Chambers Report", at least until such time as an investigation is complete and it establishes that the "Author" is, indeed, a fit and proper person, competent and qualified to wield the powers, bestowed by Parliament on a "Manager" in a highly visible, safety sensitive industry.

Problem: if the Pel Air debacle is openly re examined, then the motivation, directions, decisions made, actions taken in the other two cases (Airtex and Skymaster) manipulated and managed by the author of "The Chambers Report" must be suspect and are, in all probability, akin to the John Quadrio case and likely to be proven legally "unsafe".

Ah well, so much for idle speculation, time and evidence will no doubt provide the correct answers. I just wonder if the DAS and his willing accomplices realise how very easily avoidable this now public spectacle; this waste of tax payer time, money, credibility and effort could have been avoided. Is there time to affect a cure?

Hosea 8.7 - For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
Change of pace -


Last edited by Kharon; 16th Feb 2013 at 23:38.
Kharon 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.