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 22nd Mar 2013, 00:46
  #1301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
'Spoilt for choice!"

Indeed Kharon the longer this inquiry goes on and the more rocks the Senators kick over the uglier this whole sordid tale becomes.
As the 'inestimable' Bryan Aherne points out, there exists a perception of potentially serious breaches to various Acts.

I believe BA’s further contributions to this inquiry are indeed ‘inestimable’, despite FF’s further ‘attempts to play the man’ (reference Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary1[1]), which further confirm his veracity and motives do not revolve around any personal self interest, rather the opposite. I would suggest that FF are deliberately ‘playing the man’ because they know that BA’s evidence, research, analysis and rebuttal is so well balanced and uncontroversial. Suggestion for FF give up on attacking BA your just digging yourself a bigger hole ( I know Sunny sociopaths won’t take that kind of advice..oh well!)

So back to BA’s supplementary submissions…oh so spoilt for choice…ponder..ponder??

Okay here’s one that would appear to support Mr McPhee’s submission 19 amongst other things…:
17. In regard to hazardous weather alerting:
(a) Did the ATSB form a view about the adequacy of the procedures for the alerting of flight crew engaged in international flights to significant weather changes at their destination?

ATSB response: The ATSB assessed the weather products available to the flight crew and did not identify any safety issues in respect of the weather information provided.

The ATSB failed to answer this question (the question was directed at determining the adequacy of ATS procedures for alerting flight crew not whether any safety issues emanated from the information actually provided).

We know the Fiji ATC and New Zealand ATC failed to pass on hazardous weather as defined as an International Standard in Annex 11 and under New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (see my third submission). Even if an agreement existed which exempted the ATS providers in question to proactively pass on pertinent flight information, the ATSB is a safety investigator not a compliance auditor. The provision of a flight information service is a fundamental obligation of air traffic control to flight crew. There are also clear duty of care obligations in general law to which ATS is subject. For the ATSB to make no comment on the safety impact (regardless of legality) of proactive provision of flight information services is beyond reason. What is more, if the Australian flight crew should have been aware that the local ATS procedures required them to initiate all requests for flight information then the responsibility to ensure that the flight crew knew this rested with the Operator (Pel-Air) as expressed in CAR 223. That the ATSB never examined this question represents serious investigative oversight.

On the subject of the question(above) which the ATSB chose not to answer, it is not credible for the ATSB to state that there …were no safety issues in respect of the weather information provided.

The weather information provided was wrong. At a time when the valid forecast for Norfolk Island was predicting cloud at around 1000 ft. above aerodrome elevation the actual cloud was fluctuating around 500ft (but as low as 200ft.) When the forecast was finally amended it predicted the cloud would be at 500ft temporarily. This untimely amended forecast was made just prior to the aircraft’s arrival at Norfolk Island at a time when the actual cloud level was 200ft. The BoM, despite having access to infrared satellite, aerological diagrams, wind and temperature data for the entire troposphere as well as the Auto Weather Station data from Norfolk Island was in error by 100% at least in its estimates of the cloud level and in error by 6-7 hours in predicting the passage of the low pressure trough. That the ATSB views this as not presenting a safety issue, again begs the questions:

Is the ATSB investigation methodology flawed?

Did the ATSB suffer outcome bias?

Was pressure exerted on the ATSB by CASA?
Gold BA pure gold!! Off doing a Kelpie…
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 01:52
  #1302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Please Senators motion a spill in the Fort Fumble senate!

It is a great move with the Senators, love to see a positive chess game move and I think the 'Fawcett takes Nash' move is very good. Now, there is nothing wrong with Nash, in fact I am somewhat of a fan of the lass, its just that Fawcetts knowledge becomes invaluable to a serious inquiry of this nature. We need to not lose sight of the fact that within the current system lives are being lost and other lives put at risk so the CASA and ATSB need gutting.
The Senators may also just have enough power to trigger sweeping changes, improving safety and bringing justice finally to those who have been forever scarred by losing a loved one only to be scarred again when bureacracies lie, deceive and twist the truth.

I would also like to see the Senators go beyond just the scope of enquiring into safety (or lack of), but I would like to see them slice open FF's upper echelon and expose their various tricks of the trade including rumoured contracts for services being awarded to mates, bullies being protected, internal shifting around of certain staff to avoid the spotlight when distasteful issues are brought into the open, also the 'mates rates' system where mates, occasionally even relatives or 'besties' receive either promotion or earn top end scales of pay (yes you would be surprised to learn that some persons earn a lot more than others performing the same role). Nepotism is a disease rife through FF and so is sociopathy.
The cancer needs removing from the roots. It's a pity the Senators can't motion a spill of Fort Fumble?

And finally Kharon, thought you would like this - yesterday I was repairing the chamber pots on the houseboat, they were robustly blocked. Anyway, Gobbles and Minnie were playing. They invited Flyingfiend out to play with them by the trough but he was building barriers and silo's or something, so the kids started throwing rocks, bottles, clumps of pony pooh, even old pot plants at him! It was highly amusing albeit a bit naughty. The last we saw of him he was trying to paddle across to the other side of the Styx, muttering some tautological rubbish about Montreal. Hilarious.

Anyway, gotta run, Pete needs watering (its ok we saved him).

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 22nd Mar 2013 at 02:00. Reason: Handing the Senators more CASA rocks to overturn
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 08:10
  #1303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
The good old days!

More good stuff from BA that perhaps takes us back to the days before Beaker and when the bureau properly utilised their powers of proper, balanced investigation as defined by the TSI Act :
25. Documentation indicates a s32 request was made on 4 July 2012 for the CASA Special Audit.
When was the audit sent by CASA? When did it arrive? The committee is aware of the fact
that the ATSB knew about the CASA Special Audit when the audit was announced. That being the case, why did the ATSB wait for over two years to request it? Your supplementary
submission (annex), which covers where the special audit was included in the ATSB report,
appears to come from the March version of the report. Is that the case? How can the ATSB
report refer to the Special Audit in the March 2012 draft when it appears the ATSB were not
yet in possession of it?

ATSB response: As advised in its 14 December 2012 response to the Committee’s questions on notice of 21 November 2012, the ATSB requested a copy of the CASA Special Audit Report under a S32 notice on 4 July 2012. A copy of the special audit was received by the ATSB on 9 July 2012.

As part of its investigations, the ATSB has not routinely obtained CASA Special Audits. As an independent investigation agency, the ATSB focuses on obtaining its own evidence in consideration of its evolving investigation hypotheses, and in support of its analysis and findings. This need not include the results of investigations or other activities that may be undertaken by other agencies for their own purposes. The decision of whether to obtain such outputs by other agencies would generally be informed by the evidence already gained by the ATSB’s investigation, and the perceived benefits of obtaining them.

This is a false statement and one which contravenes everything the ATSB is required to do under the TSI Act 2003 and Annex 13.The ATSB historically has always sought as much information from CASA as possible including that contained in audits, since breaches of Regulations, Acts, Orders, procedures (i.e. risk controls), as identified in the special audit are well known to be critical to safety

The ATSB knew the special audit existed but failed to request it. CASA would have known that the information contained therein would have been relevant to the ATSB yet failed to provide it to the ATSB as required under the MoU.

I served a section 32 request on the Queensland Government Premiers Office cabinet in confidence documentation on an "internal report" on the dangers of night visual flying for helicopter air ambulance operations. The release of this document proved useful in shifting the Governments position on such operations and subsequently funding was provided which ended a long held practice which was at the heart of many previous fatalities in that state. In addition the ATSB and CASA have a MOU which encourages the sharing of information .
I believe that between BA, PAIN, Davies, the Senate inquiry, this thread etc, coupled with the retrieval of the CVR/FDR, we could rewrite an excellent and extremely valuable final report at very little extra cost to the taxpayer and all totally independent of ATSBeaker/FF. After all Beaker has now forfeited his right to legitimately reopen the investigation...

Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Mar 2013 at 03:39.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 11:42
  #1304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
I continue to be appalled by the CASA submissions that attempt to trash the credibility of witnesses whose evidence is pretty clearly based on meticulous analyses of objective facts, supported by references to primary materials and the opinions of experts other than themselves.

Aside from anything else, the people who hide behind the word “we” in the CASA submissions are pathetic cowards.

On any objective analysis, CASA’s treatment of Mr James, compared with CASA’s treatment of the operator who employed him, was a travesty, and the ATSB’s report was a sick joke.

I don’t know which would worry me more: That the expertise of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible; Or that the integrity of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible through smear, innuendo and obfuscation.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 12:53
  #1305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Well I am continually appalled that CASA has a DAS that is incapable of looking at safety issues holistically (Pel Air) and refuses to accept that there were multiple contributing factors.

I am continually appalled that the Associate DAS continues to spend his time challenging Newtons theories and also ICAO's very own Just Culture methodology.

I am continually appalled at the role of the Assistant DAS and some of his behind the scenes blasé actions.

I am continually appalled at the state of ASA's top tier and the disgraceful way Russell spinelessly bolted when the kitchen got hot and has left us with an under resourced Controller problem.

I am continually appalled at the state of the ATSBeaker and the embarrassing mi mi mi-ing from the head Beaker and his farcical handling of the Pel Air ditching.

I am continually appalled at these organisations lack of ability at the top, as well as the actions of their Boards, advisors, faceless men and assorted apple bobbers all the way up to and including Big Tony.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 23:21
  #1306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Hear, hear.

Been ploughing my way through the depressing Hempel case this AM: running a comparison matrix between James and a couple of 'Sydney based' others which we haven't brought to light, it makes for a grim start to the weekend. The Hempel v Quadrio matrix is truly distressing.

I'm no longer convinced that a narrow focus on the Pel Air case is sufficient; the absolutely incontrovertible shambles of farcical rulings and abuse of process from the Sydney office has become legend over the last few years and beggars the imagination. If it were not for the reams of solid, tested sworn testimony available I would dismiss the claims as fanciful. Regrettably, these issues can no longer safely be ignored in relation to the handling and management of the Pel Air matter. Sydney (Bankstown as was) is the office responsible for Pel Air, Airtex, Skymaster and several other instances which I believe must be investigated thoroughly if anything CASA present from that office is to be 'safely' relied on in any court or tribunal.

No doubt there are honest, hard working people toiling under the present system to do the 'right thing'. I wish them luck.

Pete rules - OK.

PS. Creamie – thank you for your post, erudite as ever. Cheered me up no end.

Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Mar 2013 at 23:29.
Kharon is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 23:52
  #1307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 302
Rod Lovell (DC3, VH-EDC 24th April 1994) has protested his innocence for nearly twenty years over the final report that he says "The BASI report is superficial, incomplete, inaccurate and in certain areas, untrue. I vehemently deny all allegations made against me."
He also maintains that the CAA suspended his licence some 9 weeks AFTER the accident only because he would not "kow-tow" to the Authority
dogcharlietree is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 07:40
  #1308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Beaker's last stand!

Bryan Aherne’s comments/analysis of the ATSB AQONs in reply to QONs and written QONs from the Friday 15th February hearing absolutely destroy the ATSBeaker’s credibility in this sorry affair and call into question the veracity of all aviation accident/incident reports in at least the last 5 years or in Beaker’s reign and the onset of the 2010 MOU (Oh and don’t think FF gets off lightly either!) .

Here’s an extract from Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary5.pdf:
Written Questions on Notice- Senator Xenophon


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.
Comment:
The ATSB as a key component of Australia’s State Aviation Safety program (SASP) must consider systemic issues when examining aviation safety. However the email below written on the 10thof February 2010 indicates the ATSB attempted to align itself to some degree with the approach CASA had advised it was going to take-which was not one examining systemic issues but more one examining whether there had been regulatory breaches.

Refer to the email shown below, it shows that:
The Chief Commissioner originally had ‘confidence’ that CASA would be taking a systemic
approach, but on the 9th of February he had a conversation with CASA where CASA advised it
would be hardening its view that a regulatory breach had been committed and needed to be
addressed. The word ‘confidence’ suggests that the ATSB and CASA originally had a common view that the accident should be investigated focussing on systemic issues. One such systemic issue was the need for CASA to clarify/ improve on its guidance regarding in- flight decision making following changes to weather forecasts used at the planning stage of the flight. After The Chief Commissioner’s conversation with CASA he advised the ATSB Investigating Officer that CASA stated that what was now required was a focus on compliance related interventions rather than changes to the regulatory framework.

However CASA and ATSB assert that influence was not exerted on ATSB by CASA, there was less focus on systemic issues however, and it would appear from the content of the final report that this is the message that was understood by the ATSB. The ATSB appeared to neglect its responsibilities as part of the State Aviation Safety Program to investigate focussing on systemic issues.
BA’s comprehensive rebuttal of the ATSB’s answer for Senator X QON 4, coupled with the systematic research and analysis of FRMS is well worth the read (pg 7 of pdf).
4. Did the ATSB think to obtain some independent analysis of fatigue levels from another investigation bureau/aviation authority? Were you aware that CASA asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to analyse the fatigue levels of the crew?
And BA does not stop there in exposing the fragility of what surely has to be ‘Beakers last stand’! They’ve thrown him a lifeline several times but he arrogantly continues to keep duckpaddling in the putrid waters of Fort Fumble’s dungeon!

Creampuff said: I don’t know which would worry me more: That the expertise of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible; Or that the integrity of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible through smear, innuendo and obfuscation.
Top post Creamy!

Oh and dogcharlietree I don’t think the ferryman meant we should go quite that far back..off doing a Kelpie!

ps dct point taken and it is a good comparison, although I don't believe the ATSB/BASI back then was quite so beholden to the regulator and there were some very good investigation reports that came out of the bureau at that time (Seaview and Monarch come to mind)!


Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Mar 2013 at 09:02.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 08:01
  #1309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I am of the opinion that the deterioration began during the days of The CAA and the tradition of "mentorism" has been carried forth until this day.

It saddens me to see that is taken this long for men of good intent during the CAA days to now see the light.

I hope those who know what I'm talking about can now appreciate why I was part of the Kinarney (Jerilderie), Social Club, albeit a very junior member, who had the fortune of flying things most can only dream of today. That was DCA days when the Military ran things and we opposed them.

Why won't we learn?

I've seen the best and worst of aviation regulation in this country.

I'll never see the best ever again.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 23rd Mar 2013 at 08:03. Reason: Old memories deserve a moment of silence.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 08:37
  #1310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 302
Oh and dogcharlietree I don’t think the ferryman meant we should quite go that far back..off doing a Kelpie!
But if Pel-Air is a re-run of an old movie then I think it's very appropriate.
Does "pilot error" in both cases sound familiar?
Why let the FACTS get in the way of crucifying the pilot?
dogcharlietree is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 09:26
  #1311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Frank, very astute observation. DCA days were tough but relatively fair. CAA was the commencement of the current regime. FF's issues go deep to the core. Most of the CEO/Directors have been idiots, with the occasional good one, but their tenures are short term. So you need to dig down deeper, bring to the surface the long termers who have been there 10, 20 or so years. They are the ones who have spent years manipulating, creating and building the beast we now see. And if you don't believe they can be influential then just look at the ATSBeaker. An organisation that went from top class to pony pooh in 5 short years under the direction of one person.

So we understand the concept of root cause don't we? Yes we do. So lets apply that very methodology to FF and ATSBeaker. Look at the causes, conditions, trends and facts and you find the answer. FF's power brokers and former faceless men who have risen through the ranks over one to two decades are individually worthy of closer Senator scrutiny. Same with the ATSbeaker, review their history, structure, senior people and the time frame from when they used to churn out quality work and had built up a good reputation to now, the past 5 years since the Head Beaker came onboard and turned the place into a mi mi mi
mess. Root Causes galore friends!
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 22:40
  #1312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
DCT – You make an interesting point well worth a Sunday thought or two;

Q. Do I believe Rod was unilaterally crucified ? (A) Dunno, need to think it through.

The thing that pops into my head is the different attitude we all had back then. The difference is, back then BASI would be 'widely' believed and trusted as was CAA (or whatever). The general mindset in the day - would be one of 'reasonable doubt' and it would be tough to generate support for an argument that BASI got it wrong. This may well have been so in Rod's case; but, by and large BASI usually nailed an inquiry and were unlikely to be seen as 'glove puppets' for the authority. Please – I'm not saying for right or wrong; just saying 'the troops' would be more likely, on balance of probability, to 'believe' a BASI case then.

This is not the situation today –

Q. Do I believe DJ and JQ were unilaterally crucified ? (A) Absolutely, no doubt at all.

CASA and ATSB, looking at the inquiry evidence so far, appear as a shambollic mess, seemingly dedicated to presenting reports designed for CASA to push through the smoke and mirror factory, polish and spin for public acceptance, to ease the avoidance of civil action and fostering a 'Strictly No Liability' facade. They present with the appearance of relying on the extremes of law used only to suit their purpose, bluffing, denigrating or bullying all who would dare challenge the might of the self styled - government safety watchdogs, or lap dogs if you like, (anything other than honest working dogs).

This all is extraordinarily counter productive – once upon a time, with the odd grumble things could be accepted as 'kosher', but not anymore; even the outright villains get support. Any semblance of reasonable doubt provided against a CASA case after this little lot will have the judge seeking to avoid making an unsafe ruling. Why, because it is being demonstrated in Parliament, to my satisfaction, that CASA and ATSB can and will be 'economical' with the facts.

Did I tell you the one about the wabbits at the bottom of our garden?; no, later then, over a beer.

A favourite - for Sunday pleasure.

Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Mar 2013 at 23:25. Reason: Bloody phone - reading Patterson, good and bad, eh?
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2013, 00:01
  #1313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 302
In Rod's report http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24341/a...401043_001.pdf BASI mentions no less than 19 times the use of unapproved performance charts. They were in fact approved.
This had absolutely ZERO in contributing to the accident. There were other similar smoke screen/diversions.
The circumstances that led to this accident were;
1) Port engine failure caused by an incorrectly fitted thrust washer (see page 12 of the report).
2) Port propellor failed to fully feather (see page 15 of the report).
3) Incredible profile drag attributed to a very old airframe which degraded performance so much that continued flight was not a possibility.

Here is a link to the Dutch Dakota Assoc fatal DC3 accident that occurred with very similar circumstances. Very interesting to see what their accident investigation concluded.
dda

Last edited by dogcharlietree; 24th Mar 2013 at 01:49.
dogcharlietree is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2013, 08:44
  #1314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Mr Aherne's CASA rebuttal continued...

From page 19 of Brian Aherne’s Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary1[1].pdf where he defends himself from CASA’s playing the man tactic is worth regurgitating :
5.10.4 This allegation indicates that Mr Aherne has little or no knowledge of the history involved. While he may be frustrated at what he perceives to be slow pace of regulatory reform, his unsubstantiated claims that certain individuals in CASA have wilfully obstructed the program are not tenable. Over the last three years, since the Standards Division was re-established, CASA staff have worked tirelessly to progress regulatory reform. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that elements of the aviation industry are now calling for CASA to slow the pace of change and in some cases stop it all together.

CASA assert in 5.10.4 that I have little or no knowledge of the history involved. See my extracts from the 2003 Cape Hillsboro accident report. That report speaks for itself.

I don’t call a 2001 decision to think about putting aerial ambulance operations into Aerial Work and determining over 8 years later not to, only to re-invigorate the idea again in 2012 for a 2014 intent as “Working Tirelessly”. If CASA do, then that is remarkable. (love it BA!)
Note: It might have been worth the author(s) of the CASA ATM (attack the man) to do a bit of research themselves as this statement… “It may be of interest to the Committee to know that elements of the aviation industry are now calling for CASA to slow the pace of change…” has been spruiked by the DAS in Senate Estimates before, here is just one example from the 16/10/2012 Senate Estimates Hansard:
Senator FAWCETT: I have a couple of questions following on from the white paper. The CASA regulatory reform program, which was forecast to be completed by 2011, is on page 69. What is the current status of that?

Mr J McCormick: We have in previous estimates discussed the priority issues and also coming out of the flying training inquiry of last year. The status of the white paper was that the regs would be made by that date but not implemented because obviously some of the regulations affect up to 800 organisations and it takes a considerable amount of time to do the industry training and practice to make sure that those regs enter into the industry without introducing undue risk into the industry at the same time. So we undertook to complete parts 42, 66, 145 and 147 to be made by the end of this year, as I reported at estimates in the past, and we are on track to complete those regulated parts in time.

At the moment we have maintenance regulation 145 for the small end of town, GA part 135, which is the current low capacity RPT area. They are out to consultation now. The operational regulations part 119 and 121, the high capacity RPT replacement regs, and 135 are interleaved with those maintenance regulations because of requirements for the Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation, which is part 42. And we have generally taken the view that we do not want to make any of the regs when they are going to have a shelf life of longer than one year. We have had some calls from the industry to slow down the rate of the reg implementation program and we are cognisant of the fact that a considerable amount of training has to be done to make sure that those regs, particularly in the small end of town, are well and truly consulted with the industry so that we take on board their concerns and then we produce legislation that harmonises with existing parts 145 and 42 which we are in the process of rolling out and have been since June 2010.
It is also interesting to note that Bryan Aherne mentioning the 2003 Cape Hillsboro accident report has effectively taken us full circle on Senator Fawcett’s original question, yet to be properly answered, on ‘closing the loop’ back at the 23/05/2012 Senate Estimates, see this link to my post on the Hempel thread: 503
Sarcs is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2013, 09:16
  #1315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,525
I am reminded of an old Army saying that encapsulated the modish operandi of many NCOs when dealing with officers:

"Bullshyte baffles brains".

And 99% of the time they were exactly right.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2013, 10:26
  #1316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,395
There was a suggestion in earlier posts that certain CASA individuals may have been in breach of the TSI act and that the DPP was examining prosecution.
I have read in other threads where the DPP has declined to prosecute perjury against CASA officers. How serious an offence has to be committed before the DPP WILL take action or can CASA get away with anything?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2013, 11:49
  #1317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,889
DCA days were tough but relatively fair
I would say you are looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses. The characters in those days could be just as arrogant and shifty as those accused of similar sins now. I remember after leaving the RAAF to join DCA (bad move in retrospect) and on my first day out of uniform being shown my dark and dingy little office in DCA HQ at Aviation House and told to sit down at my table, learn the ANO's and and keep my head down. Don't suggest anything. Don't try and change anything. Above all, don't make waves lest you bring down upon you the wrath of the very senior DCA public servants high in the top floor of the building and high on the food train.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2013, 12:12
  #1318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
"Bullshyte baffles brains".
Yes, "Tarus excreta conundrum cerebellum". A well used phrase and oft quoted in the Officers Mess as well. Be this as it may, I would prefer those DCA days to these CASA days.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2013, 21:07
  #1319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,525
Politically, it appears that the current Transport portfolio is designed to suit a Minister who needs to spend all his time on party matters. The most likely instructions to the Secretary being that waves are not to be made under any circumstances and nothing "courageaous" is to be attempted.

In support of that requirement, Mr. Beaker was placed in charge of the ATSB - the most obvious potential source of a Tsunami, with instructions to muzzle it.

CASA on the other hand has realised that the Minister couldn't give a rats backside for anything to do with aviation apart from the Chairmans lounge and a First class seat. They surmised that they can do what they like as long as they don't make waves. That means leave Qantas alone and strangle any operator who dares to upset the status quo.

That is what I get from reading between the lines of the Ministers instructions and the CASA/ATSB MOU. I suspect that the CASA/AsA MOU would reveal similar intent.

To put that another way; the Minister simply said "don't bother me about Aviation, I'm too busy" and to be fair, he is.

The subject will get no attention until there are Three smoking holes in the ground, and even then the terms of reference for the resulting Royal Commission will be perverted to preclude consideration of CASA, ATSB and AsA operations.

Civil Aviation - a sleepy administrative backwater.

Last edited by Sunfish; 25th Mar 2013 at 21:12.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2013, 21:17
  #1320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Of men, balls-

- and the playing with thereof. The mystique of air safety has a lot to answer for; this ball has, for many overs satisfactorily serviced the needs of the authority and has been cynically and ruthlessly hammered to death. We'll take the new ball now, thanks Ump.

I can't see that the Senate has any option but to call in the DPP and closely examine the events subsequent to the ditching. Even if it is only to eliminate the possibility that breaches of not only the TSI Act, but of the AN Act, Regulations and Orders on through to misleading the Senate were committed – by CASA; if only for self preservations sake. That aught to take care of the ball – but what of the men, how should we play them?

The current CASA outfit has demonstrated, when it suits, no mercy when it comes to playing the man; not just Davis, Aherne, Quinn, James, Quadrio etc. etc. there are many. Perhaps the DAS is misinformed as to whom exactly is, universally, perceived as the confused minority group. Hint; it ain't the industry.

CASA have not scrupled to 'bend' Acts, facts, statements and words to a sole purpose – has that not been self evident throughout the Pel Air inquiry? The 'authority' seemingly has not hesitated to reverse course from a full on doing over of Pel Air to a full blown "nothing to see – move on" report being generated, served up under the tattered remnants of the cloak of mystery. This is what they are so desperately arguing through the Senate inquiry. James ? a bone thrown to the rapacious wabbit – hells bells, Chambers should be fired, out of hand, simply for gross abuse of the English language, never mind the rest.

The 'system' is designed to allow for 'personalities'; as group, we tend to fix up a SOP or COM system glitch first (our end); dealing with 'offender's' for the most part, in house. It is a good system and has served well for many years. But for CASA, those days must be numbered, it's time; distasteful and unnatural as it is, to play the man. The systems when not abused work fine (ish), perhaps it's time for a few CASA operatives to have 'tea and biccy's with the CDPP, or someone's legal team under civil law, (up close and personal like).

Once we have the system working, maybe we can tackle the essentials: like why Hempel crashed, why DJ ran out of motion lotion. etc. etc..... Crikey, we may even get some educated, qualified recommendations about how to avoid such unpleasantness. But, as Grandpapa used to say – "if you want a rabbit pie, first, you must catch your rabbit."

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Mar 2013 at 21:24. Reason: Sleepy Hollow it surely is Sunny.
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.