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 1st Mar 2013, 11:22
  #1181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Well said Oleo! What gets me riled more than anything about yesterday’s hearing was that Senator Fawcett was offering an olive branch to Beaker on the condition that he just hardened up and fessed up.

And what did the Senator get in return…a mi…mi…mi political point scoring exercise, a total denial and more spin that everyone, including the bloke at the back of the room, can totally see through and so the mi…mi…mi Beaker has now lost all credibility with the industry and the travelling public.

The worst part is that the BASI/ATSB reputation worldwide because of this numbnut has been totally trashed…what pilot, operator or member of the public is ever going to have trust or confidence in reporting an incident or safety concern to the bureau ever again…it’s a f***ing disgrace!!

Meanwhile the perpetrators of this heist Fort Fumble continue unabated with covering up their deficiencies, their culture of corruption and systematic decimation of a once proud General Aviation industry in Oz!

No Beaker your days are now severely numbered…sh#t knows how much angst you’ve caused your good and loyal investigators and ops crew under you but god lets hope the damage that you have so obviously fraught is able to be undone because this industry needs our reliable and honest safety watchdog back again, I mean FFS who else is going to keep these Fort Fumble executive and middle management pr##ks honest!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 16:57
  #1182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
CASA has its own "Code" (sic)...with NO criminal provisions.
Cobbled up no doubt by those on LSD from CYA 101.
How self protective..how convenient.!
Up until a few years ago the CASA code wasn't even a public document.

Its a deliberate and disgusting "oversight" that needs to be rectified.
There is no excuse for these "federal public servants" not to be under the same set of Code rules.
Aroa, agree. This should certainly be a recommendation. It might help start undoing some damage. As Sarcs says the Atsb reputation is in pieces.

FAA downgrade?
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 20:16
  #1183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Pray for an FAA downgrade, then perhaps someone might listen.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 21:47
  #1184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sunny - Pray for an FAA downgrade, then perhaps someone might listen.
Careful what you wish for: a FAA downgrade would very seriously affect the country. We need to get this sorted "in house" before the FAA lob in. If and that's another big IF we can, hand on heart, show the FAA and ICAO that we have identified the problem, dealt with the problem; and, yes although we are in the recovery phase, we are doing well, developing world status may be avoided.

Do we need to even address the perceived problems?; absolute no brainer.

Do we have the people to effect the change?– Yes, we do. There are some first class people available to an honest regulator. Please note, they are not pot plants, or units or even resources; but people who can, will and know how do the right thing. I'd bet a choccy frog that at least 50% of current ATSB and CASA frontline folk and 75% percent of ex staff are champing at the bit for a chance to do what they signed on for.

Do we have the horsepower to change the existing system?. Yes, we do, lots of; existing in law - right here, right now.

Do we have the financial resources available? – Yes, we do. Given proper, sensible management the CASA budget could probably be at least stabilised. (Interesting side bar there, compare AUD spent in relation to fleet size against similar and see what you get.)

Do we have the political integrity to admit there is a deep problem?; if there is not then "they" are going to have to find some, somewhere. The consequences of one more fatal or even near fatal, a mid air or any other "Heaven forbid", even a scandal could stop the show. The smart Government would need to be seen to be acting before an event, rather than after.

There simply is too much evidence and now they have been made aware of a very small part through the bizarre comedy of Norfolk, they cannot with any safely ignore the problems which will not, indeed cannot go away.

Too heavy for a weekend, tomorrow if you are all very good, we may continue the Grim Fairy Tales. Gods willing and weather permitting.

Selah.

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Mar 2013 at 21:50.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 21:50
  #1185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Because there’s so much irrelevant twaddle published on this thread, I sometimes find it very difficult to discern the important stuff.

The original version of paragraph 5.4 of Annex 13 says:
General

5.4 The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the provisions of this Annex. The investigation shall include:

a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
b) …
Could someone please answer these questions:

(1) What was the date of effectivity of the amendment that changed para 5.4 to say “The investigation shall normally include”?

Mr Dolan appeared to be quoting from the current version of Annex 13 when he said:
The version I have, which is the version promulgated on 18 October 2010, with additions that have been updated, says, 'The investigation shall'—and I agree with 'shall'—'normally include …' my bold.
(2) Was the word “normally” added after the ATSB said it made its decision not to recover the OBR devices from NGA?

Surely Mr Dolan wouldn’t try to fool anyone with such an easily-exposed ex post facto justification. “In 2009 I didn’t have to do that because the rule changed a year later.”

(3) Did Mr Dolan suggest that medevac operations are not “fare paying passenger transport operations”?

And please (please), can we give the pony pooh references and all the other rubbish a rest for while (just a little while)?

Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Mar 2013 at 21:51.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 22:04
  #1186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
By golly – he's got it, good training methods indicated when the slow ones catch up. Yes slowcoach, Beaker pulled a swifty.

Creamie - You can (a) not bother to read the irrelevant, (b) ring 1300 We Care or (c) try to pay more attention; or, (d) step off the podium and help. Sniping from the side lines, kicking a downed man or starting semantic little fights then running away is not very sporting. Definitely not the behaviour of an officer or a gentleman.

Would I will thump a geek in a wheel chair – absolutely. (Being neither an O or G)

CP - 1) What was the date of effectivity of the amendment that changed para 5.4 to say “The investigation shall normally include”?
Start by doing the bloody research and publish your intellectually refined answer here, We'll wait until you catch up.

All together now - "Oh, I like pony pooh jelly, pony pooh jelly for me".

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Mar 2013 at 22:18. Reason: Please can we have Gobbles back - someone needs a pineapple
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 22:26
  #1187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,394
According to the aformentioned ATSB memo, the ATSB believes that the GA, RAA, SSAA bottom of the food chain of aviation is to be made safe via conformance to regulation, as opposed to large RPT operations which require a more sophisticated safety systems approach.

Why then, does not the ATSB review the state of the CASA regulatory environment as it affects safety? To put that another way, does the existence of CASAs 1500 pages of maintenance regulations as opposed to the FAAs 150 pages make us ten times safer than American aviators in this area, or ten times less safe? Or does it have no effect on safety at all? Same with other chapters.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 23:46
  #1188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Interesting article in yesterdays Australian related to the rise of Air New Zealand, seems like aviation there is booming.
We could perhaps blame a fiddling Irishman for the destruction of Qantas but it cant all be attributed to just bad management. All other facets of the industry this side of the ditch seem to be suffering as well.
We are told we cant compete with those pesky Arabs because their cost base is so low but just how much of the cost base in Australia is made up of regulatory burden?
From all I hear NZ has pretty good reg's, cost them a hell of a lot less as well. Its considerably cheaper to maintain the same aircraft under their reg's compared to Australia's and almost all other facets of regulatory compliance is way cheaper.
Is the growth there because they have sensible user friendly regulations?
Will be see a Kiwi invasion into Australia as the industry here is regulated out of business? I can see some interesting questions the good senators could ask the skull.

Last edited by thorn bird; 1st Mar 2013 at 23:48.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 00:22
  #1189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Beaker pulled a swifty.
You’re obviously a very brave person, Kharon.

That, or very stupid.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 02:50
  #1190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60


our learned friend, like most of us, displays aspects of both conditions, the former far outweighing the latter. There are parallels that could be drawn, just occasionally, between our man and a 'silver budgie' in the making incident, one at a cricket match at Oxford where the latter was drinking his way through a rhode scholarship. At lunch, just prior to RJLH's appearance at the crease, he was obliged to knock back several Kummels. Went out and was first ball bowled for a duck.

Oh them poms sometimes pull it off perfect , for up on the board straight off went -

HAWKE BOWLED KUMMEL - 0

now in the blue corner - creamie, shaping up nicely , and in the red , kharon, looking none the worse for wear after a Kilkenny lunch, but in need of a bit more rosin on the shoes, to offset some darkish looking muck that looks just a bit like . . . . no, not on his boots.

The common thought and aim here is to concentrate on the devil, not his
adversaries.

And as a foot note, here must be appended that deathless injunction from the
US general to one of his staff in the dark days of the war -

"How many times have ah gotta tell you, son, if you're in the shit, for chrissake, DON'T TRACK IT." ?

Last edited by Fantome; 2nd Mar 2013 at 03:20.
Fantome is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 03:32
  #1191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
I was merely referring to K’s statement about ‘Beaker’. Lawyers’ nasty-grams have been dispatched to PPRuNe’s owners for less.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 04:48
  #1192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
point taken sir. imagine the hours, potentially, of court disputation to arrive at a ruling as to the meaning of 'beaker pulled a swifty'

Last edited by Fantome; 2nd Mar 2013 at 04:53.
Fantome is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 04:56
  #1193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
So Creamy have you been able to track the changes/amendments to ICAO Annex 13? It’s not an easy thing given the convoluted layout of the ICAO website and the fact that they want you to pay for the privilege!

That aside the exchange between Senator Fawcett and Beaker, besides the semantics and legal meaning (I know that is your bag Creamy) of additional or replaced words, showed further indications that Beaker’s original decision was made on purely fiscal constraints. It would also appear that Fort Fumble’s decision as stated by the DAS in one of his retraction letters to the committee…

“I have since been advised that this statement is not correct. On 8 December 2009 the ATSB raised with CASA by email the possibility of contributing to a joint fund sharing arrangement to recover the black box and was advised that CASA did not have the funds to contribute to that exercise. I was not aware of this email at the time of my advice to the Committee.”

….was a pivotal moment and was further highlighted by the ATSB IIC writing in the prelim report:
From preliminary report AO-2009-072 released January 2010:

The ATSB has interviewed a number of witnesses and people who were associated with the occurrence, and is assessing the feasibility of recovering the aircraft Cockpit Voice and Flight Data recorders from the seabed.

The investigation is continuing and will include further examination and analysis of the:
§ meteorological information and its effect on the decision making and actions of the crew during the flight
§ fuel planning relevant to the flight
§ operational requirements that were relevant to the conduct of the flight
§ crew resource management
§ aeromedical flight classification and dispatch.

The remainder of the investigation is likely to take some months. However, should any critical safety issues emerge that require urgent attention, the ATSB will immediately bring such issues to the attention of the relevant authorities who are best placed to take prompt action to address those issues.
The bureau had already deployed the Victorian Water Police to conduct a surveillance/video operation of the wreckage on the 21/12/2009 utilising a remotely operated vehicle. This would presumably not have been a cheap exercise and probably used up a considerable amount of Beaker’s allocated budget.

This coupled with the fact that under the CAA and TSI Act (which is in variance to Annex 13) the only ‘flight recorder’ they legally recognise is the CVR. Plus as Beaker repeatedly states most of the relevant radio transmission information could be replicated from ATC recordings/transcripts…it was a ‘no brainer in the end for a beancounter like Beaker.

However it is still a fundamental error by Beaker not to consider the considerable valuable information that can potentially be derived from a FDR, you need look no further than the ATSB Final Report on the Lockhart River accident to see what I mean.

I wonder if Beaker’s decision not to recover the black box would still have been the same if with the same accident there had of been (god forbid) a fatality? Given that, other than a death, there would have been the same scenario of facts and evidence one would have to presume that the fiscally prudent Beaker would have made the same decision, or would a death maybe have changed his priorities? Not to mention the inevitable scrutiny of a Coroner dragging over Beaker’s compromised Final Report!

I know that all government agencies are constrained by budgets but when our independent transport safety investigator the ATSB are having their investigations potentially compromised by a lack of resources/funds…well that kind of doesn’t ring true for me!

Note: Here are a couple of definitions from around the world on ‘flight recorders’.

ICAO - Flight recorder. Any type of recorder installed in the aircraft
for the purpose of complementing accident/incident investigation.

Singapore AAIB - “flight recorder” means any type of recorder installed in the
aircraft for the purpose of complementing accident or incident investigation;

EASA - (6) ‘flight recorder’ means any type of recorder installed in the aircraft for the purpose of facilitating accident/incident safety investigations;


They’re all the same and as Senator Fawcett states there is no compromise in any of these authorities in trying to recover the ‘flight recorders’, they are “gold” and the ‘holy grail’ of all good aviation accident investigators.

‘Feasibility’ isn’t because… “oh we can’t afford it”…feasibility is when your faced with a bottomless oceanic trench or the crash is in an erupting volcano…hence the reason that in the history of black boxes there has only been a dozen (from memory) that have been unrecovered….no Beaker has made a poor decision and one that may come back to bite him!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 05:35
  #1194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
No, I haven’t been able to track down the precise date of effect of the change. That’s why, as an act of purest optimism, I asked the question. As is often the case, my optimism was unfounded.

I think it’s far from mere semantics. I understood the whole point of the exchange between Mr Dolan and Senator Fawcett about this issue was that the ATSB was obliged to recover the OBR devices because of the terms of para 5.4 of Annex 13. The word ‘normally’ neuters the obligation and therefore the point.

It would be unfortunate and embarrassing, for some, if the addition of ‘normally’ took effect before the decision not to recover the OBR devices. The fact that a version was ‘promulgated on 18 October 2010’ does necessarily mean that the changes in that version took effect on that date.

This nonsense really makes me sick:
Plus as Beaker repeatedly states most of the relevant radio transmission information could be replicated from ATC recordings/transcripts…
Aside from the fact that there are patent errors in the transcript, it does not follow that something transmitted was received and understood.

I thought the most telling point of the 28 Feb hearing was when Senator Fawcett asked, completely seriously, whether common sense was a factor in the ATSB’s decision making.

Last edited by Creampuff; 2nd Mar 2013 at 05:35.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 06:48
  #1195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Sarcs, the only budget that isn't constrained is the CASA litigation fund.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 09:01
  #1196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
As is often the case, my optimism was unfounded.
Pessamists are never disappointed.

Try it.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 09:44
  #1197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
It would be unfortunate and embarrassing, for some, if the addition of ‘normally’ took effect before the decision not to recover the OBR devices
I think you mean 'OBR device' as the other flight recorder isn't recognised here in Oz as an 'OBR'.

On the matter of embarrassment I'd be more inclined to say the embarrassment lies with Beaker and his offsider Mr Walsh.

For an organisation such as the ATSB to profess compliance with ICAO Annex 13, albeit with some notified differences, should mean they are always monitoring/tracking any amendments to Annex 13 and their 'shelfware manuals' at each of their offices should also reflect this.

Therefore Mr Walsh should have been able to put his hands on the exact version that was current at the time the investigation began...maybe it would be worth someone with authority doing a shelfware audit of the manuals at each of the ATSB offices??

NB Again it is very hard to track but I believe the amendment version that needs to be presented to Senator Fawcett is 'Ref #2009/16 Amendment 12 to Annex 13 (09/04/2009)' and the one that he gave to Beaker is Amendment 13...hope that helps Mr Walsh??

Creamy asked: (3) Did Mr Dolan suggest that medevac operations are not “fare paying passenger transport operations”?
Creamy I’m not sure Beaker has ever openly suggested or stated that medevac ops “are not fare paying passenger transport operations”. However is your question in relation to Senator Fawcett’s queries in regards to ATSB prioritisation of their investigations? If so the reference in AQON_150213_80.pdf that shows the ATSB risk matrix may help you out.

Also out of interest he is the link for the 'Ministers statement of expectations':Minister's statement of expectations

Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Mar 2013 at 10:03.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 10:18
  #1198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
To downgrade or not to downgrade, that is the question..

Creampuff, duly noted, and ignored.

Kharon, I agree that an FAA downgrade (aka a monstrous pineapple) would not be good for Australia. I mean a lot of good people in our industry are truly dismayed at our current PONY POOH status. To receive a giant pineapple from Uncle Sam would add injury to insult. However, it would certainly shake the apple cart and cause overnight changes to Fort Fumble and ATSB. I would pay top dollar to watch the faces of Big Tony, BEAKER and the Skull as some **** named Jim Bob or Randy delivered the bad news! Some days one wishes that would happen as there seems no alternative to acquiring a clean slate and starting afresh.
Halfmanhalficevovo, what do you reckon son, would said downgrade be delivered by fax at 1659 on a Friday?

And isn't it interesting how we have 2 government agencies each bleating about how the fare paying public is their primary objective, yet the ATSBeaker activate budget restraints for an investigation into an accident by an operator who, although not on that specific flight, operates flights that carry fare paying passengers? A huge link by my understanding.
And likewise at Fort Fumble. A half assed investigation into a passenger carrying operator yet minimum cost outlayed, but they spend millions chasing Quadrio and others?
Mi mi mi mi thinks the current system is as useful as a bleeding haemorrhoid.

'Safe skies are Beakerless skies'

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 2nd Mar 2013 at 10:25. Reason: Researching Marilyn Chambers
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 14:06
  #1199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Halfmanhalficevovo, what do you reckon son, would said downgrade be delivered by fax at 1659 on a Friday?
Yes, there is perhaps a poetic justice there for some.

A downgrade wouldn't be good. The senators need to take action to prevent.

Halftimtam half everyday value choc biccy.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2013, 20:30
  #1200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Hollywood Press Release

Two new movies to be released this year:

1. 'Behind The Fortress Door' - A sequel to the classic 'Behind The Green Door'. The sequel was made due to the demands of cult followers of Marilyn Chambers, as well as fans of the 'Chambers Report'. Fans thirst for action and risqué entertainment will be well and truly quenched. The movie features endless Fort Fumble shenanigans including naked men with robust pineapples.

2. '20 000 Leagues Beneath The Norfolk Sea'. A satirical remake of the original Jules Walsh classic. The film features lots of silliness as a group of grown men fumble through the process of retrieving a simple block of Swiss cheese from the ocean floor. The film contains a mixture of Hogans Heroes antics as well as a splash of Muppets and Get Smart. The humour will have you mi mi mi-ing in the isles!

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 2nd Mar 2013 at 20:41. Reason: Bad case of the bends
my oleo is extended is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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