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 12th Mar 2013, 00:06
  #1281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Bring on the fast bowler.

Dear old FF, blast from a murky past. I had vaguely noticed a distinct lack of 'police' type threats being issued lately; pretty poor show when it's all bluff, buggery and no action. Shame really; they were always good for a quiet chuckle or two.

Perhaps he will set his fearsome sights onto the case of the "Brown Nose Wabbit", you know the one where porky pies are discussed in court; paperwork gets 'lost' or can't be used 'cos the date maybe wrong. Don't see a threat of legal or police action occurring there, no Sir. Plenty of work there for them though.

Or perhaps he may fancy explaining words like collusion, hypocrisy, mendacity or even impeachment. Being a fearless Casasexual exemplar, the explanations should trip off the tongue in an easy manner, just so we, the great unwashed may be educated. Better send David Fawcett a memo, he'll want to hear why we all have it so very, very wrong.

Bullies, cowards and liars always have a problem when confronted with something they can't bluff their way around. Perhaps from his exalted position he could peruse some of the "in camera" submissions, and then try take the Mickey Bliss out of that lot; maybe Hempel is just a figment of our overheated imaginations; Canley Vale is just another glowing report on how good a system we have, he may even have a retrospective look a Lockhart and explain that one away (again). Now assuming the super star of CASA defenders managed to explain that lot away; he still has to face John Quadrio who is looking forward to an early, comfortable retirement. I wonder why?.

No, we just must hope they don't send that master wordsmith Wodger the Weport Wabbit out to the crease, that wabbit can swing a bat. Nah mate, Gobbles has lost his arch enemy (much to his regret), we have only lost a spoiler, bully and a teller of fairy stories designed to frighten the kiddies. But not much else.

Last edited by Kharon; 12th Mar 2013 at 00:38.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2013, 06:19
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
The Hooded One has left the building! More CASA musical chairs.

Hoody has commenced his new role at ASA as 'General Manager Demand and Capacity Management'!
A somewhat robust title, but I am sure he will enjoy the challenge flanking Frau Staib. Hopefully he will get more support over there than he got from the Volvo driving false teeth brigade at CASA. He did manage to accomplish a couple of decent things at FF, and in a previous life at ASA the robust one kicked a few goals. However I am sure time will tell.
I know that many of the safety zealots at Fort Fumble are eagerly anticipating the anointing of the new EM Operations to lead them forward on their safety journey, and it has been rumoured previously the names Rossiter or Campbell spring forth! Should be interesting to see over the next few weeks.

So I guess the questions one could ponder is does he leave a sound platform behind for others to work from?
Has he left a positive stain on aviation regulatory advancement?
Will he still be going jogging most workday mornings prior to work?
Did his former CASA bosses give him a robust farewell meal which included pineapples or chocolate frogs? (I know his bosses would have eaten marshmallows, gummy bears and soup as their old gums are a bit soft these days and the are alergic to swiss cheese, plus dinner would have been held at 1500 pensioner time).

Yes indeed, the Hooded one will be warmly accepted into ASA, but the question is will he truly be able to make some of the changes so desperately needed or will he be merely applying glitter to yet another turd?

'Safer skies might be Hoody skies'

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 13th Mar 2013 at 06:32. Reason: Emptying an overflowing Chamber pot
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2013, 08:24
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Oleo,

Been a bit of turnover at EM level in recent years. Couple of those could have picked up Operations.

Maybe should give Vaughan a call - he's a Greg.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2013, 13:14
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
History, memories, shenanigans and pineapples

Halfmanhalfhood, that's quite funny mate. A blast from the past, Messr Vaughan. Maybe they should try Greg Ritchie, Greg Brady, Greg Chappell, Greg Louganis, Greg Evans or Greg Matthews yeah yeah?
Perhaps Quinn could come back also, and share a combined office with Vaughan?? Now that would be funny, there was so much love between the pair, NOT.
And speaking of the 'mystique of aviation',why is it that both Vaughan and Aleck in their own ways look like Richard Dreyfuss??

Now, where was I? Oh yes, what about Shane 'wingnut' Carmody, he too might make a return? So many big hitters to chose from, who knows, perhaps Rob Whyte, Patrick Murray and Clive Adams will make an imminent return to operational management roles, a dual to the death. And dont forget the ever popular people and non perfomance HR manager Gary Harbor. Then you have those who have been squirrelled away into 'projects' or other 'sidelined' positions Richard 'ALIU' White, Marcolin and Johns. Oh my, so many to choose from. No wonder the Sunshine Coast pineapple plantation went bust!
Maybe Sinclair, Lloyd and Lillehagen will return to the ever nurturing, caring and fair employer CASA?

Where is that CASA chess game thread when you need it?

'Safe skies are political skies'

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 13th Mar 2013 at 13:22. Reason: Researching 'CASA ancestry.com'
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2013, 22:19
  #1285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Perhaps a new thread

Snakes and Ladders

Or

Fantasy executive management team.

This thread has had over 250,000 views and its an important one . So best not get it shut down. :-)

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 13th Mar 2013 at 22:20.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2013, 20:35
  #1286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Meeting
Senator KROGER(Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:04): by leave—I move:
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 18 March 2013, from 4 pm.
Question agreed to.
Oh to be a fly on the wall; or better still, Heff's old mate at the back of the room. Curiosity is a curse. Then we have :-

Submission 19:-

"The WX station at Norfolk was not set up right. The station should have triggered a speci when the WX got below the alternate minimum OR 1500 feet agl which ever happened first. As the alternate minimum at Norfolk is 1289 feet it took until then for the speci to be triggered this was about 40 min later/after the cloud dropped below the 1500 feet point and the speci should have been issued.

You can see this in the accident report but they seem to miss that the BOM did not issue a speci just a metar when the cloud dropped below 1500 feet. If a speci had been issued when is should have and was required then ATC would have past on the speci to the pilot and this would have happened up to 40 mins earlier."

Thus I would like to think the Senate Committee will pick this up, as it is all in the report and if you cross ref the met rules you can see the BOM did not follow the rules.

Thus the pilot seems to have to ware blame where BOM did not do their job correctly (following the rules) and thus Air Services did not inform the pilot.
N.B. I had some trouble with the copy/paste for this document, so it is not in exactly the format provided.

The submission raises some interesting points that never entered my head. It just goes to show how easily you can miss important information, by simply not being 'aware' that it even exists and making an assumption that BoM had NLK 'sorted'. More reading.........

Last edited by Kharon; 16th Mar 2013 at 01:16.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 00:15
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Of interest

Whilst the Hempel Coronial inquiry has not thus far made it a Senate matter, there are some extraordinary features which maybe germane to the passing strange events we have been discussing recently. Sarcs – Hempel - post is worth a read within context of the Senate inquiry.

Perhaps Mr James and his associates could consider Pg 6-38 of Enforcement manual (sorry no link) as applicable to his situation and the treatment received. There are a couple of other pilots similarly treated who are; the FOI discovery should be of interest.

Last edited by Kharon; 17th Mar 2013 at 00:16.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2013, 02:24
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Here you go Kharon here's the link:http://www.casa.gov.au/enf/009r006.pdf

Oh and here's a slightly edited version of pg 6-38 and the referred to paragraph 3.4:
6.14.2 Suspension for Purposes of Examination – CAR 265
Before taking any action to suspend a licence or authority for the purposes of an examination under CAR 265 (1), the referring manager must ensure that they have taken part in the CEP (see Chapter 3 at 3.4). When, as a result of the CEP a decision is made to recommend this action to the delegate then the flowchart Coordinated Enforcement Process G should be followed and the SFR (form 316) with attached AAC (form 886). The manager must also ensure that the holder of the licence or authority has been, or will be, (co-incidental with the suspension) validly required to undergo an examination under regulation 33 or 5.38. (This requirement may be included in the CAR 265 notice.)

It is important that the referring manager discuss with the ALC all aspects of the AOC Holder’s behaviour that was/is of concern to the referring manager. Other issues, in addition to serious competency issues, may need to be included in the suspension notice, for example areas where CASA is still uncertain or unclear whether competency exists.


6.14.2.1 Duration of Suspension

Any suspension under CAR 265 (1) remains in force until such time as the examination is completed and the results are known. Where the result of an examination does not show any ground on which licence or authority may be varied, suspended or cancelled, then the delegate must immediately terminate the suspension of the aviation permission and notify the holder of the document in writing that the suspension has been terminated.

If, after the results of an examination are known, the delegate decides that there are grounds for the variation, suspension or cancellation of the licence or authority, this action must be taken under CAR 269. The licence or authority remains suspended during the period allowed in the SCN to respond.
See generally sections 6.5-6.8 of this Chapter and the SFR (form 316) and AAC (form 886).


6.14.2.2 Preparation and Issue of Suspension Notices

The procedure for the preparation of suspension notices (form 311) under CAR 265 is much the same as for the preparation of SCN (see section 6.9 above). A decision to suspend a licence or authority under CAR 265 is reviewable by the AAT and the suspension notice must advise the holder of this right of review. Such a decision is not subject to the automatic stay provisions in section 31A of the Act as no show cause is required before the decision is made - see sample form 311.

Pg 3-2 of Enforcement Manual:


3.4 Initial Investigation

Where information is received by the operational/technical area an initial investigation may be carried out by the operational/technical staff prior to the CEP being initiated. (See flowchart – Coordinated Enforcement Process A).

Managers in operational and technical areas need to consult with their team members on receipt of information and initial investigation to determine whether the matter can be addressed by using other means such as RCAs and ASRs or whether enforcement may be necessary. A record should be kept of such meetings and preliminary decisions.

There may also be a need for further investigation to be carried out by operational/technical personnel after the CEP has been initiated. As part of the CEP it may also become apparent that the specialised skills of a Part lllA investigator should be used.
Like Dom James and anyone else who has been issued or will potentially be issued (maybe some of the ex-Barrier pilots should take note of this!) with a suspension notice under r265, reading this to checklist all the legal crossing of "t"s and dotting of "i"s that is required of FF could well be in your best interest!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2013, 04:51
  #1289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
It would appear the inquiry reporting date has again been extended and further answers to written QONs from the 15/02/2013 hearing have finally been released, here's one small sample from mimimi..Beaker that just makes you want to :

Questions in relation to previously in-camera documents

1. An email on 9 Feb 2010 appears to show that you were looking for a way to assist CASA with their early intervention with Mr James. Can you explain that please?



ATSB response:
The email exchange was in the context of a discussion about the complementary but distinct roles of CASA and the ATSB in maintaining aviation safety. The interest of the ATSB officer involved was in CASA’s concentrating on improvements to the regulatory and other guidance for the future safety of such flights as the Norfolk Island one.

He was of the view that this would be the most effective way for CASA to address the issues

arising from the investigation. My response was to advise him that CASA’s assessment of what was required was now focussing on compliance-related interventions, rather than changes to the regulatory framework.

Need I say more...between the Hoodoo Voodoo doc's answers and Beaker's answers it is a toss up to who is the "King of spin!"
Aviation Accident Investigations

Information about the Inquiry

On 13 September 2012 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for inquiry and report.
Submissions should be received by 12 October 2012. The reporting date is 29 November 2012. On 14 March 2013,the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 30 April 2013.
As an aside Oleo you'll pleased to know that the good Senators appear to be lining up the pineapples, from Hansard 14/03/2013:
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:05): At the request of Senator Heffernan, I move:
That the time for the presentation of reports of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be extended as follows:
(a) aviation accident investigation—to 30 April 2013;
(b) fresh pineapple imports—to 24 June 2013;
(c) New Zealand potatoes import risk analysis—24 June 2013; and
(d) fresh ginger import risk analysis—to 24 June 2013.
Question agreed to.
Although not sure where the spuds and gingers fit in??

Last edited by Sarcs; 19th Mar 2013 at 06:23.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2013, 16:27
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Pel Air inquiry carries on. I'm guessing they have done all hearings now?

Love the QON all ills of society again. Delusional, multiple personalities or simply mad? But the senators are listening.

I believe Shane Urqhuart put in his submission that casa brands everyone who has an issue mad. Unfortunately Pel Air, Hempel and Barrier are starting to show that might not be the case and there is more than a grain of truth in the criticism!

halftautologicalhalfteapot

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 19th Mar 2013 at 18:10. Reason: mad elephant in the room alert
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2013, 18:44
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
I offer the following prose from an American who was concerned at the "group think" that controlled American foreign policy some years ago. I wonder if it is relevent to "the good people" of CASA and ATSB FWIW?

Drinking the Kool-Aid
Sunfish is online now  
Old 19th Mar 2013, 19:25
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
AQON - 15.

Question 15 to CASA.
Q) Sen Xenophon - "Given that the ATSB is proposing to give CASA unlimited access to mandatory reports made by industry. etc."

A) CASA is not seeking unlimited access to mandatory reports made by industry. etc.
Off the top of a file of 16 similar letters to various operators:-

"Instrument NRD 017/11 issued 4 March 2011 –
3 Direction
The operator is directed to revise the Operator's Manual to:
  • Provide detailed instructions to compel operational staff to submit reports to the ATSB in accordance with the Transport Safety Investigation Act and Regulations 2003 and provide guidance to staff on when such reports are required.
  • Instruct operational staff to include CASA as a recipient of a copy these reports within the same time frame where possible.
my bold
I cant find the link now, perhaps someone could oblige, there was statement published explaining why CASA insisted on this, as policy; but I can't lay my hand on it. (DAS or Gibson ?? – memory still good, crap filing system).

This one happened to be of interest as it's issued and signed by the same chap who seems to have just a small conflict of interest situation with Hardy 's. Which is a long story for another day.

Last edited by Kharon; 19th Mar 2013 at 19:32.
Kharon is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2013, 23:35
  #1293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Sarcs, An interesting line up for the Senators! I am sure they will find room to shove some potatoes and ginger up CASA's coits along with the pineapples.
But potatoes do grow well in pooh, so maybe there is a lot of people wanting to import ginger and potatoes and grow that produce, along with pineapples, in the pooh that FF is leaving about the place?

Speaking of pooh, read the CASA Corporate Plan 2012 - 2015!
Hilarious load of spun up shite spread over 32 robust pages filled with bureaucratic evasion and beautiful glossy pages designed to distract the reader from the content of the pathetic document. A true lesson in government deflection 101. I am hoping to order several hundred copies as I believe the gloss overlay on each page will make a very comfortable toile paper! Don't worry, I will risk assess it first.
My favourite bit is on Page 3 where it says (If I may) - "We act at all times with fairness and integrity. We maintain the highest level of professionalism and act with high ethical standards without bias"!!
Oh man, I am still wiping away the tears of laughter, and as for the photos of Messrs Hawke and Skull, well I liked the use of the white table prop. That was the best element of their photos! Hawke was looking nonchalant and surly, as if a chamber pot had been emptied on his head.
And Mr Skull, grinning like a Cheshire Cat, looked to me like a man that has just taken his happy pills or some lithium!! I'm not saying that is the case by any means, it just looked that way to me

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 19th Mar 2013 at 23:43.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2013, 20:11
  #1294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Supplements

Brian Aherne continues to provide sane, reasoned response to the Senate Committee. The latest series of 'supplements' are available from the Senate Inquiry – submissions received. Well done Sir, invaluable; particularly as the effort made is voluntary, independent and only provided as a service to the industry. Bravo that man, Choccy frog and a gold star.

Apologies to those who can navigate their way to the submissions, but some of the Bar Room Barristers were having a 'mini bark' about getting there, hence the mud map. Google – Senate Inquiry – Current enquiries – (find) Rural and Regional Affairs – (find) Aviation Accident Investigations – (Click) then (find) Submissions received. This will get you to the right page. Item 10 Mr. Bryan Aherne - Supplementary 3 – is well worth the small amount of trouble to download: 23 pages of solid logic, the sort one would 'normally' expect from a national safety authority.

Speaking of the BRB, once the risqué suggestions on spuds, ginger and pineapples were dealt with, the meeting dealt with 'wodgers wee weport' and D. James options to sue the arse off the bloke who summarily consigned him to the pit under (dodgy ??) 265, backed by the threat of 269: with 234 and to fall back on (264 no appeal). James and a couple of others have felt the effects of a high speed grab on 265. It was decided hyperbole, conjecture and assumption don't quite stretch that far.

Just for fun, a couple of the boys have reworked the "Chambers Report". NFP (naturally) but a little clever editing (very little they say) and the insertion of local nick-names into the more obvious editorial 'gaps' and grammatical 'gaffs' produced a hilarious document of no practical value whatsoever; which manages to be not too damning of CASA, but flays a couple of the resident "Sydney team". All gross supposition and a blatant distortion of course, produced strictly for entertainment purposes; which it achieved admirably. You can try it at home, totally frivolous, but funny as.

Sponsored by the Federated Australian Rabbit Training Society.

Last edited by Kharon; 20th Mar 2013 at 21:38. Reason: Checking, checking - please wait - hold music (bells).
Kharon is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2013, 22:24
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"Shelf Ware library catalogue"!

Kharon said: I cant find the link now, perhaps someone could oblige, there was statement published explaining why CASA insisted on this, as policy; but I can't lay my hand on it. (DAS or Gibson ?? – memory still good, crap filing system).
Here you go "K"! You can check but I think you will be disappointed:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - 2011 Media Releases
Kharon just like so many robust discussions on FF policy and embarrassing faux pars, throw away lines and possible libellous sensitive documents I’d say this is one of many that has found its way into the ‘FF Shelfware Library’.

Can’t imagine how the catalogue system works but at a guess I think you would be looking for the miscellaneous 2 aisle. (NB Not to be confused with the miscellaneous 1 aisle which contains all the various versions of yet to be promulgated shelfware manuals like the SPM and Investigators Manual).

Ok now you have the MSC 2 aisle go to shelf two under shelf one labelled “DAS/CEO past and active” (which incidentally is probably where Mick Quinn got someone to get a copy of Regulatory Policy- CEO-PN001-2004 issue No 3: CASA's Industry Sector Priorities and Classification of Civil Aviation Activities;”).
This will get you to the right page. Item 10 Mr. Bryan Aherne - Supplementary 3 – is well worth the small amount of trouble to download: 23 pages of solid logic, the sort one would 'normally' expect from a national safety authority.
BA’s other supps below that one are also well worth a read, although you will need several cups of coffee to stop your eyes glazing over with some of it.


All good factual data and robust analysis backed up by solid research…pity BA doesn’t still have a guernsey at FF or ATSBeaker. However like other previous experts (Ben Cook etc) I think he wouldn’t have the necessary sociopathic tendencies to last very long and would be swamped by the GWM wannabes.

Also on the Senate Inquiry submissions page in the additional info section reference ‘Written_AQONs_280213’pdf, creamy will be pleased to know that Senator Fawcett confirms for us (the guy must read PPRuNe!) the relevant version of Annex 13 applicable to the time of the accident is in fact…well let’s just go to the relevant AQONs:
Written Questions Taken on Notice – Australian Transport Safety Bureau from Public Hearing – Thursday, 28 February 2013
Written Questions on Notice- Senator Fawcett
1. Could the ATSB confirm which edition of the Annex 13 document was current at the time Mr Dolan made his decision regarding not recovering the FDR.
ATSB response: The version of Annex 13 current at the time was the 9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B.

2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have mandated recovery of the FDR.
ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph 5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.
However I notice there is no retraction/apology letter forth coming from Beaker...which I guess comes as no surprise after all muppets are invertebrates!

On the subject of CAR265 enforcement actions leading to further threats of CAR269 action, I heard a rumour that some poor bugger was wodgered by Wodger Wabbit with CAR265 manufactured caveats on his instrument rating renewal…hmm how does that work when 265 appears to be applicable only to “licences and approvals” …nah can’t be true can it??

Doing a Kelpie and pondering the improper definition and apparent abuse of CAR265 and CAR269….

Last edited by Sarcs; 20th Mar 2013 at 22:26.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 00:09
  #1296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
UITA all good stuff but para d) onwards was even better and summarises and suggests to where the Senators should be shining the spotlight on in the context of this inquiry, I also disagree with your assertions in regards to compromised investigations that go beyond 2008 (Beaker's reign).

This inquiry is dealing with an obviously severely flawed and compromised ATSB investigation and final report that is here and now, may I suggest that it is way too early to test the veracity of your assertions beyond 2008.

From para d) onwards of the Aherne submission was so good that I couldn't do justice to it by summarising, so here is the complete version:
d) Breach of International Conventions

Australia is a signatory to article 37 of the Chicago Convention, ICAO, Part IV International Standards and Recommended Practices.

As such, three International Standards (International Standards are defined as 'shall', International conventions intend to foster standardisation, consistency and efficiency and when it comes to safety- shared learning) under Annex 13 have not been complied with, namely Annex 13, 5.4 which states:

"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 Annex 13" Annex 13, 5.6 states:

"The investigator in charge shall have unhampered access to the wreckage and all relevant material, including flight recorders and ATS records, and shall have unrestricted control over it to ensure that a detailed examination can be made without delay by authorised personnel participating in the investigation".
However:

1) The Investigator in Charge was not given unhampered access to the relevant material of the "Chambers Report", the "UK CAA FRMS Study of the pilot" and the internal CASA survey results of its "Flying Operations Inspectors Survey" and the complete "FRMS" report by CASA officers.

2) The aircraft wreckage (evidence) was not recovered which meant that:

a) Crashworthiness data was not gathered. (Data as to how the impact forces were distributed, which load paths were critical, how energy was dissipated remain unknown and would have been useful information for future aircraft design.
b) Reasons for the survivability of the accident could not be determined. Seatbelt function, seat design, floor attachment points; cabin design; emergency exit design, stretcher design and placement.

3) The Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders were not made available to the
Investigator in Charge because of budget, not safety considerations. As a result the following
data (evidence) is missing:

a) How much fuel was on board the aircraft? What were the fuel flow rates?
b) What were the actual winds and temperatures?
c) What was the navigation instrument accuracy? How accurately were the instrument
approaches flown?
d) What altimeter settings were used by the crew? How accurate were the altimeters?
e) Which systems were operable / degraded /inoperable?
f) What decision making process was used by the crew?
g) What discussions were had regarding the viability of continuing the flight to Melbourne
following a diversion to Noumea-this centres around flight and duty limitations.
h) What discussions were had regarding the costs of a diversion (fuel , navigation charges,
landing charges, hotel and transport for passengers and crew)?
i) To what extent were the crew fatigued?
j) To what extent did the nature of the operation (EMS) influence the crews’ decision making?
k) To what extent did the lack of operational support by the Operator (contactability, landing
permissions, fuel availability, flight following) influence the crews’ decisions?
l) What was the quality of the radio transmissions being received by the crew?
m) To what extent did CRM influence the accident sequence?
n) To what extent did the first officer perform her function?
o) How did the flight crew successfully ditch an aircraft at night.(Data on the aircraft pitch
attitude, speed, configuration, rate of descent and orientation with respect to wind and
wave would have been invaluable )

Annex 13, 5.13 states:
"If, after the investigation has been closed, new and significant evidence becomes available, the State which conducted the investigation SHALL re-open it. "

However: Despite new evidence being brought to the attention of the ATSB this has not yet happened.

Australia is obliged under International Convention to re-open the investigation.

4. Conclusion

In light of the "Chambers Report", the "UK CAA Fatigue study of the pilot" and the "Flying Operations Inspectorate Survey", as a signatory to article 37 of the Chicago Convention, Australia must withdraw the ATSB publicly released Final Report into the ditching of NGA on 18 November 2009, and re-open the investigation.

5. Recommendation

Recover the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder from the aircraft.
Kind of backs up what many on here have been saying and questioning on here since this inquiry first started.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 01:24
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Heff is teasing us. Hate it when they meet 'off camera'.
Perhaps someone in Spamberra can let us know if a B Double Golden Circle truck pulls up before the sitting???
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 02:58
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
UITA you missed the earlier attempt by the Heff for this private meeting to be allowed to be held:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Meeting

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (09:31): On behalf of the chairs of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Cameron, and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I seek leave to move a motion to enable the committees to meet during the sitting of the Senate today.

Leave not granted.
And hence the reason that Senator Heffernan had to formally refer to a section 33 request for a private meeting:
33 Meetings during sitting

1. A committee of the Senate and a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament may meet during sittings of the Senate for the purpose of deliberating in private session, but shall not make a decision at such a meeting unless:

a. all members of the committee are present; or
b. a member appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and a member appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate are present, and the decision is agreed to unanimously by the members present.

2. The restrictions on meetings of committees contained in paragraph (1) do not apply after the question for the adjournment of the Senate has been proposed by the President at the time provided on any day.
3. A committee shall not otherwise meet during sittings of the Senate except by order of the Senate.
4. Proceedings of a committee at a meeting contrary to this standing order shall be void.


NB It is also worth noting that it would have been a very brief meeting (i.e. 10 minutes) as all the Senators are required to be present for question time at 2pm.

And Oleo a private meeting is a meeting of the committee members not an ‘in camera’ hearing. There is an example of how an in camera hearing is requested in today’s Dynamic Red…and that it is one where I’d liked to be a fly on the wall!
From Dynamic Red today (21/03/13):

*1216 Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Heffernan): To move—That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 21 March 2013.
Now back to the Aherne supp submissions and somewhere down the track CAR265 etc needs exploring…..off doing a Kelpie!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 12:20
  #1299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
More movement in the CASA chess game??

Well well, rumor has it that somebody senior in FF's Melbourne office has been 'seconded to a project' for a while? Same person who withstood the Field Office Manager shake up a few years ago due to his protective member of the GWM. The real rumoured reason is interesting for his moving to a 'project' however best not be discussed here, but suffice to say that the Melbourne person has friends in low places and the protective arm of the GWM strikes again!
And incidentally the person has been rewarded with a role that requires extensive international travel, so he will be strategically 'out of mind out of sight' for the coming months, how convenient?

Yes yes yes, another day with the same games, same shenanigans, same arrogance and same contempt for anything but their own self interests.
Then again, it is very hard to break up a mafia. Who knows, maybe Senator X (aka Elliot Ness) and his Untouchables (aka fellow Senators) will bust these guys and their rumored rackets wide open? Perhaps the Untouchables will give up on the notion of catching their prey on the big 'non compliances' and go after them on the smaller ones?? A win is a win.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 21st Mar 2013 at 12:23.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 20:36
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Senate Chess ??

Committee membership.
Senator Fawcett to replace Senator Nash on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee’s inquiry into aviation accident investigation on 21 March 2013, and Senator Nash to be appointed as a participating member of the committee. 3.56 Agreed to.
Interesting move, one perhaps reflecting the 'mood' of the Pel Air inquiry team. DF is a particularly well qualified asset; fair minded and tough enough to see through the blarney and legal chicanery being pedalled, some believe with contempt, to this now first class committee. One thing I like is the notably 'non partisan' approach and the willingness to cooperate; team effort and all that. This particularly able group have, for me at least, so far shown the very 'best' side of the political system at work; you know, for the good of the people. etc. Choccy frogs and gold stars all round.

Hopefully the committee will penetrate the thinly disguised sham of the Pel Air embarrassment and serve notice that several very dodgy matters need to be addressed. The sooner CASA get the message that there is a greater power than them available to the people they disrespect (i.e. the law and the Parliament that made the law), the sooner we can get back to a sane, honest, representative system of managing air safety. The "Strictly no liability" ethos can disappear where the sun don't shine and CASA can get on with repairing the damage, working with industry toward a common goal; and, perhaps even regain some of the credibility and respectability lost during the last few traumatic years. Big job? – Oh yes....

With luck, this committee will see the Chambers Report; which, in my opinion is shameful, deceitful calumny; for what it is. Even if they only manage to disengage industry from the clutches of the "willing accomplice syndrome" and it's masters, they will have accomplished a great deal. If the CDPP can be utilised to reinforce the lesson in humility, so much the better. As the inestimable Bryan Aherne points out, there exists a perception of potentially serious breaches to various Acts. No doubt young Mr. James and many others would agree that these matters need to be properly tested, just to remove the element of doubt. (Eliminate them from our inquiries, so to speak).

Then, perhaps the committee could give the ATSB back the bollocks to square off some of the absolute rubbish presented as 'reports' in recent times; and perhaps issue CASA with instructions to 're examine' a couple or three well rogered pilot, accident and operator cases with some degree of probity, an eye for realism and some semblance of integrity. This would be welcomed as a 'recommended course of action' to begin the rehabilitation of a very sick puppy.

Selah.

{Oh, the BRB had a whip around, a years supply of bottled water was purchased and sent to "Pete", the lonesome, winsome pot plant which has been adopted as the BRB mascot. Can Ms. Nash provide an autographed picture of "Pete", our hero??}

Last edited by Kharon; 21st Mar 2013 at 21:33. Reason: Desparately seeking some semblance of humour.
Kharon 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.