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 31st Mar 2013, 03:20
  #1361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Metaphorical smoking holes are abundant – perhaps we could use these instead? The questions posed by Sarcs above leaves the 'ravelled sleeve of care' untended; it teases you with a notion that the delay on Pel Air was created for one express purpose: the back flip a must have been a required part of the deal to ensure adequate arse cover was available for the 2011 inquiry. Should this ever be proven not even 'he must not named', he hoodoo voodoo behind the scenes cannot hide from the wrath of the people who have had the Mickey Bliss taken for a number of years now.

Stick to your research Sarcs – develop that time line and all will become apparent in due course.

Last edited by Kharon; 31st Mar 2013 at 03:22.
Kharon is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 06:12
  #1362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Sunfish, perhaps an even more eye opening scenario would be the loss of say VH-BBJ into a smoking hole? Maybe brought on by an unfortunate TIBA issue? Or caused by an A320 cadet with minimal hours climbing through BBJ's decent path with its warning systems U/S ? That would certainly awaken the sleeping Government from its comatose state. Unlikely scenarios I agree, but one that would inflict instant change especially if the 'system' was the cause. But imagine the Beaker and all his painful mi mi mi-ing and panicking about how to investigate the accident with a budget of just $500!

'Aviation, what aviation?"

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 31st Mar 2013 at 06:21.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 08:36
  #1363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
4dogs and scrubba look what you’ve started!

Kharon:
Should this ever be proven not even 'he must not named', he hoodoo voodoo behind the scenes cannot hide from the wrath of the people who have had the Mickey Bliss taken for a number of years now.
I agree “K” much like the evil emperor of Star Wars fame who relies on his able Lieutenant Darth Vader to enforce the ways of the darkside so too is the influence of ‘he who must not be named’. Remember this is the man who believes that the MOU was designed for the convenience of FF to exploit and cover up their failings….

I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA (from 15/02/2013 AAI inquiry Hansard).

After all who do you think has been writing and proving all the AQONs, MOUs, DAS retraction letters, regs etc for all these years, certainly not the DAS or his predecessors??
Stick to your research Sarcs – develop that time line and all will become apparent in due course.
Okay that I can handle, as I’m really not much for conspiracies but there certainly is a chasm of dark unexplained murk and corruption mixed up in this lot.

So timeline.. 21st July 2010 ‘CAIR 09/3’ completed and presumably forwarded to the ATSB as per section 32 of the TSI Act. This report didn’t mention virtually anything about the FF deficiencies in oversight as highlighted by the SAR and the FRMS SAR. However 12 days later on the 1st August 2010 the ‘PELAIR-OVERSIGHT (“The Chambers”) REPORT’ is released to the DAS. Then to really throw a spanner amongst the works on the 30th September 2010 the Senate announces the ‘Pilot Training Inquiry’....

Kind of puts a new light on stuff that was stated and answered in that inquiry, here’s an example from the next paragraph down from Kharon’s earlier quote from the 25/02/2011 hansard (my blue thought bubbles):
Mr McCormick 25/02/2011 pg 115 – “Of course, we investigate for different reasons. I am certain—and I will speak slightly for Mr Dolan (DAS thought bubble: …so pay attention Mr Dolan as I have a message for you!)—he most probably said they do not appropriate blame or look for those sorts of issues.

We are not necessarily looking for someone to take action on (DAS thought bubble: …but we are actually doing that as it is all part of the smoke and mirrors to avert attention from our own failings in oversight and hence potential liability!), but we are looking more at what it means for the industry and what has happened here. Perhaps over a year ago, there was an unfortunate incident off Norfolk Island where an aeroplane was ditched. We actually started our activities and our action much sooner than we would have if we had not had that MOU in place (DAS thought bubble: …we now have the perfect mechanism in place to circumvent any unwanted interference and close scrutiny from the ATSB, whereas before the ATSB already had the jump on us).

We are moving to get to a result and an understanding much quicker while the ATSB naturally takes its due process (DAS thought bubble: …so Mr Dolan fair warning we need you to sign on the virtual dotted line and come across to the darkside and take up our mantra that it was all the pilot’s fault and there is.. “nothing to see here!”).”
Okay well back to my timeline and doing a Kelpie i.e. back in my box!

OK Sunny which acronyms are you having trouble with?? DAS= Director of Aviation Safety, FF= Fort Fumble, AQON= answer to question on notice, SAR= Special Audit Report, FRMS= fatigue risk management system, CAIR= CASA Accident Investigation Report, CSI= critical safety issue, SR= safety recommendation or maybe AAI= Aviation Accident Investigations (the name of the inquiry). Hope that helps??

Last edited by Sarcs; 31st Mar 2013 at 11:21.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 10:38
  #1364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,540
For Gods sake don't use acronyms witout explaining them if you want anyone outsde the small circle that writes this stuff to read it and understand.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 12:30
  #1365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Actually Sunny it is YOU that has recently come up with a term that tickles my fancy - 'Twerp' I hadn't heard that term used for years mate, very old school but quite amusing, and it is also a much nicer term than what the youth of today let fly from their potty mouths, not to mention myself on rare occasions.
So I am thinking that the following is what I shall use for a week or so, just to test the waters;

Director Aviation Safety - Twerp 1
Assistant Director Aviation Safety - Twerp 2
Associate Director Aviation Safety - Twerp 3

"Aviation, what aviation?"

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 31st Mar 2013 at 12:31.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 21:43
  #1366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,540
Oleo, I take your point. However there are Two things that do not help your case, both relate to the hope that a passing politician or journalist might read what has been written on some PPRuNe pages and decide to take the matter further.

1. The first is the habit of some pilots to revile both journalists for their aviation hyperbole ("the lazy journalists guide" etc.) and calling members of the travelling public "self loading freight" a derogatory term I detest. Both tend to form an impression that the pilot community is a bunch of self indulgent prima donnas, leading to the false conclusion that compliants by them about CASA may have no basis in fact.

2. The tendency to use acronyms without explaining them and not bothering to put the story into words others can understand.

The whole point of the story is that the ATSB was set up in the first place as an independent body, as are similar institutions all over the developed world, to paraphrase Mr. Dolan: because it is vital to the safety of the travelling public all over the world that any safety information must not be suppressed for fear of the consequences,"

However CASA and the ATSB established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that now completely subverts the intent of not only Australias laws on the matter but Australias intenational obligations to the International Civil Aviation Organisation which is a big deal because non compliance prejudices the availability of international travel services to the Australian public.

The ATSB now transmits information to CASA that facilitates prosecution or administrative punishment against individual pilots and allegedly perverts its reports to make them supportive of CASAs preferred outcomes. This situation now guarantees that pilots will think twice before reporting anything to the ATSB at all - suppressing safety information.

I dare say AirServices Australia (AsA), the air traffic control provider, has an MOU that facilitates similar actions by CASA. Which is one reason why I'm fitting data logging equipment to my aircraft.

In my opinion. both CASA and ATSB have "drunk the Kool Aid" (referring to the forced suicide of the Jones cult) - meaning that they have perverted their operations in a manner that reduces the possibility of an adverse Aviation event being discovered and requiring the Minister to take either criticism or action, while at the same time assuming absolute responsibility for one should it occur.

To put that another way, by embarking on MOUs CASA ATSB and AsA have willingly entrapped themselves in "the double bind problem" at the invitation of the Minister who will no doubt wreak terrible justice on them after there is an accident and their failings are revealed and I have some sympathy for their hardworking and diligent staff for this reason..

The usual personal calculation made by people requested to enter this type of double bind is to take the pay and responsibility and hope like hell nothing happens during the term of their contract. This is what I was invited to do by Esso many years ago and I quit as a result. What Esso some years later did to its poor employees, some of who died in its Longford Gas Plant Explosion, validated my decision.

My guess would also be that a new Government would have no stomach for reform whatsoever.

That is the guts of the story that needs to be told in my opinion and I wish the good Senators luck.

Last edited by Sunfish; 31st Mar 2013 at 22:00.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 22:26
  #1367 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,412
”Aint it sad that here we are almost wishing for an event that 99.999% of us strive to ensure never happens, happens.”
Statistically and regardless of CASA incompetence, it is highly unlikely an Australian airline will be involved in a smoking crater event any time in the foreseeable future.

30, 40 or 50 years ago airline accidents around the world occurred relatively frequently. However this century and despite the dramatic increase in the world’s airline fleet size, airline accidents have fortunately become a rarity. Technological advancements have all but excluded the possibility of accidents such as occurred and the result of the Comet I fuselage and Lockheed Electra wing structural failures.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 23:18
  #1368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
Very true TW but its not the technology thats killing people its the lack of basic flying skills and sound judgement that is the current problem. Look at AF447, AF in Toronto, Turkish Airlines in Amsterdam, Colgan, all the runway overruns occurring. It is the state of technology that have allowed the rule makers to reduce the experience levels worldwide, a problem that is only going to get worse over the next decade as the demand for air travel increases. Combined with older pilots leaving the system because age does indeed weary then the concern about the increased likelihood of a catastrophic accident is a valid one. Stats are fine as an interpretation of the past but I wouldn't be relying on them to forecast the future.

BTW Sunny thanks for your summary of the way Governments work. It highlights just how hamstrung by the system is the good work of the Senate .
Lookleft is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 23:47
  #1369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sunny, you are but as innocent and unworldly as a new born, we all know the blindingly obvious. The staff of anyone who willingly participates is a guilty as the one who ordered the actions, no sympathy from me, none at all. We pay for, and everyone who travels by bus, train, boat or air, expects probity. What we have here is the perversion of a system, nothing as simple and honest as backsheesh; and it has bugger all to do with aircraft ploughing into stationary objects. Nada -we had our white paper answer to that inquiry, didn't we. So alls well.

What we do have is an out of control safety department which can and does get away with the most outrageous manipulations, threats, intimidation, punishment and general embuggerance of the industry; deliberately, with malice and aforethought. Pel Air don't signify – it's a bagatelle; the real game is being played at deeper, darker level to expose the system, warts and all, (to borrow a phrase). Protect Hempel – OK. Crucify Quadrio – OK. Shut down Polar - OK. Protect Pel Air – OK. To name but a few of many. Enough with the bullshit already. Now-this Senate inquiry provides one, slim, fragile chance to correct at least some the iniquity, so-think on.

How about you do your homework and then tell us what you think it means? Then we can discuss it.
Steam off;

Sarcs - Don't much go for a conspiracy line either; but the Pel Air incident sure had the potential to upset the cosy relationship. Beaker's boys to do the 'technical' only and he saves a mint. CASA boys draw the conclusions to suit the "Strictly no Liability" policy; Yep - works just fine. Until the wheels come off that is.

If you can find the time I urge you to read the Canley Vale report – I mean read it; it's a sow's ear. The last part from about p 30 (ish) is an arse covering exercise of mammoth proportions; you may even spot some familiar language and grammatical gaffs. Even the technical analysis is suspect. When the Coroner reads that, signed off by ATSB as 'kosher' many awkward questions would potentially be avoided, the system works, just fine. Unless serious 'new' information is provided and accepted. Like..?..?..?..?..?.. But that is a battle yet to be fought, on another day.

Currently, I remain intrigued by the motive for the unfortunate 'Chambers' missive: is it still being touted as the 'cure' ?; does the DAS still robustly stand behind it ?; does the current atmosphere even allow for the thing to be dismissed, for what it is?. The ATSB and Ben Cook primary reports, supported by Aherne, certainly have more value, credibility and authority, yet they remain buried in a sea of fluff. Hard to tell – but, I agree Sarcs, the inconsiderate DJ certainly picked a hell of a time to run out of noise and then have the audacity to survive and the temerity have his very own Senate committee, asking awkward questions. Particularly of the potted, risible, Chambers Report.

Who's this Kharma bitch anyway ??

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Apr 2013 at 00:08.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 02:40
  #1370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The whole point of the story is that the ATSB was set up in the first place as an independent body
This may seem strange given recent events but ATSB, CASA and Airservices were once all the one, The Department of Civil Aviation, (DCA).

It would be interesting to see how many people were employed in DCA of those days compared to the sum total of the three separate organisations we have today.

As one example, Licences were run by one Lady, (Mrs Giltrap from memory) and a staff of just a few. They handled all licences.

The aviation medical branch today probably has a cast of hundreds. I think there was one Doctor and some admin staff during the 60's.

I'm sure if they were burdened with the ASIC that would be attended to without the mess we have now.

We got free maps and amendment service as well.

DCA also looked after all engineering matters, registrations, home built aircraft, (the Cri Cri was one example), a really high quality crash comic without advertising and edited contributed to by experts.

I can remember booking night circuit time at Bankstown due to the number of aircraft flying and pilot licences have remained pretty static since the 60's to today.

It was normal for light aircraft to frequent Mascot/ Kingsford-Smith airport without charge. In fact there were no landing charges anywhere.

Everything was paid for from consolidated revenue.

I wouldn't object to a return to those days.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 03:29
  #1371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"Let's do the timewarp again.."

Can’t guarantee Frank that we can ever return to the good old days but maybe, just maybe we could right a few wrongs and help put the industry on a better more sustainable footing…so to the thread!

Lefty said:
Very true TW but its not the technology thats killing people its the lack of basic flying skills and sound judgement that is the current problem. Look at AF447, AF in Toronto, Turkish Airlines in Amsterdam, Colgan, all the runway overruns occurring.
Lefty are you in a time warp or something? Your observations/opinions in the above post could have been plucked out of the thread for the previous ‘Pilot Training’ Senate Inquiry; I hope you were actively involved in that one too??

Using Lefty’s time machine and altering the historic chronology slightly so that the previous Senate Inquiry was called in early 2011 and the ATSB released their final report for AO-2009-072 within the normal timeframe for such an occurrence (basically on or around the same time)….well what would that have changed??

Ø To begin with this inquiry probably would never have happened because it would have been all revealed in the context of the last inquiry. It would also have meant that FF and the bureau would have been caught with their pants down, although I think it would have reflected more poorly on FF and the bureau could have come out smelling of roses.
Ø It would also have meant that the committee would have been given a perfect snapshot of the current system at work and would have focussed more attention on the General Aviation sector.
Ø It would have given more credence to several private individual submissions (and ironically Mr Lyon’s submission 18 from this inquiry), instead of getting lost in the airline ‘white noise’….

……….I’m sure people can think of many other things that such a change in history could have caused but unfortunately that isn’t the way it all transpired..oh well moving on!

Going back to Lefty’s time warp post where he mentions AF447, well again ironically that was included in the report and recommendations of that inquiry:
Recommendation 9

The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Australian aviation operators review the final findings of France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis into Air France 447, including consideration of how it may apply in the Australian context. Subject to those findings, the committee may seek the approval of the Senate to conduct a further hearing in relation to the matter.
And the government response:
Response


The Government supports this recommendation as it confirms current agency practice.

Australia’s independent safety regulatory and investigatory agencies, CASA and the ATSB, and industry, routinely examine the outcomes of accident investigations and consider their implications for the safety of Australian aircraft operations.

Both agencies are monitoring the French investigation into the accident of Air France Flight 447 and when the findings of the final report have been issued, which is expected next year, CASA and the ATSB will review any implications for Australian aviation.
So has this happened and if so are we going to be privy to the review information?? And are the Senators still keeping the option open of a further hearing to look into the AF447 investigation and findings?

There was also a further recommendation that has direct relevance to this inquiry in regards to human factors:
Recommendation 15

The committee recommends that the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) review its approach to the investigation and publication of human factors with a view to achieving a more robust and useful learning tool for the industry.
The Government response, also in light of this inquiry, has the potential to be very embarrassing for the minister and his motley crew:
Response

The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.

The ATSB already has a robust approach to the investigation and publication of human factor issues which was recognised in 2009 when the ATSB received an award from the International Society of Air Safety Investigators for its world-leading work in human factors.

An example of the ATSB’s continuing commitment and approach to investigations into human factors to help explain accidents and incidents is its research report: Evaluation of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System as a Predictive Model released in December 2010.
Note: Here’s the link for that very valuable report and I believe again the irony, in relation to this inquiry, will not be lost on most reasonably intelligent people: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3536263/ar2008036.pdf

However I digress and I am in agreement with Kharon on this…Now-this Senate inquiry provides one, slim, fragile chance to correct at least some the iniquity, so-think on…” and believe we as representatives of the industry can endeavour to help the Senators kick over the metaphorical rocks and obstructions placed to protect the axis of evil and dispel the myth of the ‘mystique of aviation’. If we don’t succeed we sure would have had a lot of fun trying!

So Kharon said:
Currently, I remain intrigued by the motive for the unfortunate 'Chambers' missive: is it still being touted as the 'cure' ?; does the DAS still robustly stand behind it ?; does the current atmosphere even allow for the thing to be dismissed, for what it is?. The ATSB and Ben Cook primary reports, supported by Aherne, certainly have more value, credibility and authority, yet they remain buried in a sea of fluff.
Agree “K” the ‘Chambers Report’ coupled with the self-serving CAIR 09/3 is the key here but the public portrayed airbrushed image in the ‘Pilot Training’ inquiry is a further piece of the puzzle…all very fascinating if it wasn’t so in your face and real!!

Off doing a Kelpie!

Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Apr 2013 at 07:03. Reason: "it's just a jump to the left..."
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 03:55
  #1372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
can't apologise for an interest in history

hey Sarcs,

my vague recollection was that senator X was pushing for whistleblower protection to enhance reporting but the atsb was saying that there was no problem because they didn't just give the info to anyone! of course, that was a problem, because they had already embarked on giving CASA almost all of the information they received and CASA had already completed its enforcement actions by kicking DJ into touch while assisting Pel-Air in its voluntary recovery program.

what is being revealed now is what has actually been going on since 2009, including 3 good years of polishing that turd in the senate - now the obfuscation and misinformation is revealed

but when does plain lying turn into a conspiracy? your call
scrubba is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 04:19
  #1373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 468
[QUOTE]It was normal for light aircraft to frequent Mascot/ Kingsford-Smith airport without charge. In fact there were no landing charges anywhere.

Everything was paid for from consolidated revenue.

I wouldn't object to a return to those days./QUOTE]

They called it "cost recovery" and was a series of "one time fees".
The trouble with this was it created a trough for the managers and the feeding frenzy began.........
AEROMEDIC is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 06:51
  #1374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,540
Tailwheel, I don't share your view that "technology has saved us" what technology has done is eliminated some forms of accident while creating new ones.

Examples? Air France 447 where it appears a pitot enabled air data computer failure completely embuggerised the flight director system and so confused the crew that they could not determin what corrective action should have been taken.

QF A380 that lost a chunk of its data bus and the systems that used it, to the point where only excellent aviation by a former schoolmate saved the ship.

Then there is the ongoing B787 lithium battery saga..

To quote Pogo: "we have met the enemy and he is us" we have created new and more elegant ways to screw up. I agree with you that the probability of accident is vanishingly small, but as Richard Feyneman pointed out it ain't zero.

One wonders if CASA feels, as the management of NASA did, that they can complacently keep going on their merry way because it can't happen here.

I still keep asking myself: what don't I know? I try and learn something new every flight......And now its time for me to find an instructor and go and get current again.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 10:53
  #1375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
[quoteThey called it "cost recovery" and was a series of "one time fees".][/quote]

AEROMEDIC, cost recovery came into being in the '90's. Prior to that, we all paid air nav charges. A fuel levy came into the scheme of things just after, from memory.

Anyway, I've had the best years of aviation in Australia and I doubt any of you younger pilots will have or even see how good we had it then.

I sincerely wish you could.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Apr 2013 at 10:54. Reason: Went back to the deamtime.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 13:05
  #1376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Safety time warp

I agree with tail wheel that a fully fledged smoking hole incinerating 150+ pax would be of small odds. However I also believe, in a perverted sort of way that is one of our current problems. The lack of a giant smoking hole has enabled FF and the Fabulous Beaker Brothers to not just lose sight of the ball but the ball has never been in their field of play. Lockhart, Canley Vale, Pel Air have all been comedy caper affairs for the powers to be. If these accidents are a 'practise run' for the 'big one' then god help us.

At the end of the day we don't have a crystal ball, so maybe we won't have a major hull loss in the next 10 years. Then again, maybe we will. Either way, a decent safety regulator and a decent safety investigating body would surely go a long way to preventing what I foresee as the inevitable.
Am I wrong? I actually hope so, I hope this inquiry, this thread and the my thoughts about the state of this industry are all an over exaggeration, hysteria, the ramblings of one of society's ills, i hope i am trapped on some kind of time warp. If this is the case then so be it, I may be opinionated but I am humble, I will concede defeat and see out my days basking on the aft deck of the Styx houseboat awaiting the day when even the boats HAAMC has to cross over.

My motivation, ironic as it may sound, has only ever been 'safety', and for that I have my good reasons. My ramblings may be cryptic, my language 'colourful', and my disgust in corrupt bureaucracies unmeasurable, but I will eternally support every person, irrespective of their method, who continue to fight for change and 'realignment' of our piss poor regulatory agencies which have been hijacked by executive philosophers, wordsmiths, spin producing twerps and twerpettes.

P.S Seeing this is a rumour network I have heard that Flyingfiend is actually Dr Frankenfurter and Twerp 1, Twerp 2 and Twerp 3 are the masters of his stage show.
As Beaker would say "It's just a ministerial jump to the left, and a mi mi mi mi to the right, put your hands in a trough"......

"Aviation, what aviation?"
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 13:39
  #1377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America's 51st State
Posts: 189
Oleo,

Go and have another drink...
VH-MLE is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 20:52
  #1378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Pete, our hero.

You will all notice how our hero, "Pete, the lonesome pot plant" foils a grab and smash mission.



There is probably some obscure moral to the story – perhaps there is a serious requirement for - ; Nah, forget it. Oleo, I'll have another if you're off to the bar - rinse the taste of troll away. Cheers.

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Apr 2013 at 20:52.
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 08:08
  #1379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
“It's astounding; Time is fleeting; Regulatory madness takes it’s toll..”

MOIE said: As Beaker would say "It's just a ministerial jump to the left, and a mi mi mi mi to the right, put your hands in a trough"......
Just had a vision of the Ferryman, gobbles and crew doing the timewarp aboard the housboat on the river Styx…hmm sort of fits I think!

“Anyway to the thread dear Watson”!

scrubba I too am a lover of history and research! Your, yet again, insightful post #1372 shows that you also do your homework:
my vague recollection was that senator X was pushing for whistleblower protection to enhance reporting but the atsb was saying that there was no problem because they didn't just give the info to anyone! of course, that was a problem, because they had already embarked on giving CASA almost all of the information they received and CASA had already completed its enforcement actions by kicking DJ into touch while assisting Pel-Air in its voluntary recovery program

Which makes me reflect back on this statement from the DAS (25/02/2011)…“Perhaps over a year ago, there was an unfortunate incident off Norfolk Island where an aeroplane was ditched. We actually started our activities and our action much sooner than we would have if we had not had that MOU in place”…

Just surmising but I would say that the DAS was testing the waters to see if there was any interest in the Pel-Air ditching investigation. And because he had now had time to absorb the ugly implications if the ‘Chambers Report’ findings were to come out!

Also had to laugh at one of Senator X’s QONs and the hypocrisy of ‘he who must not be named’ answers in light of the Pelgate inquiry:
Topic: Operator resources
Hansard Page/s: Written Question
Senator Xenophon asked:
As a rule, our system of government gives significant leeway to operators to run their
businesses as they see fit. As regulators observing some of these operations, how do you:
a. Pick the threshold below which the system fails for lack of resources?
Answer:
There is no single specific threshold.

b. Assess whether some ambitious manager seeking to please his or her boss has
not just sown the seeds of future dysfunction or disaster?
Answer:
The assessment of key personnel, SMS and other regulatory requirements ensures CASA is satisfied that an operator fully understands their safety obligations. (yeah right..snigger, snigger)

c. Train your staff to make appropriate assessments?
Answer:
CASA inspectorate staff are required to complete core regulatory courses and ongoing
specialised regulatory training for their given discipline.

To be fair to the DAS and 'he who must not be named' it was a bit late to turn around and say..

"well actually one of our most trusted lieutenants has come up with a report that revealed we really dropped the ball with the oversight of the operator involved in the Norfolk Island ditching.

However because we commissioned that report we now have a clear insight and have manufactured a robust MAP (Management Action Plan for Sunny)specifically drawn up to address our deficiencies in surveillance and oversight of operators like Pel-Air..spin..polish the turd..etc.etc..blah..blah..blah"

...especially when you've already rogered the pilot and allocated that 89 million dollars extra funding to the GWM and potted plants retirement fund.

I mean FFS poor FF apparently didn't even have enough spare coin to help their poorer 'brothers in arms' fund the recovery of the CVR/FDR...
no I can understand where they were coming from...not!

Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Apr 2013 at 09:26. Reason: "GWM's got to keep control."
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 11:11
  #1380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
"The Chambers report it's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me"

I mean FFS poor FF apparently didn't even have enough spare coin to help their poorer 'brothers in arms' fund the recovery of the CVR/FDR...
Perhaps if the VH registered aircraft had ditched near Montreal they would have spent the money to go over there and retrieve the 'beaker boxes'? There is always money from Montreal in the FF pot of money. Cha ching $$$

On a serious note (and with my bolding), from;
ParlInfo - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee : 22/10/2012 : Aviation accident investigations
Senator FAWCETT: Do any of the commissioners have a background or qualification in aviation accident investigation?
Mr Dolan : I do not believe any of the three commissioners are qualified in aviation accident investigation. I have a reasonably significant background in aviation safety—air security and various other things—and a broader background in safety, including work health and safety and the systems approach to that. The other two commissioners have backgrounds in marine safety and rail safety.
And,
CHAIR: Mr Dolan, who made the decision not to recover the black box?
Mr Dolan : I did, Senator.
Could this be part of the broader systemic reason the ATSBeaker has become a complete farce? Yes, I think so. You wouldn't have seen such a ludicrous penny pinching decision and palpable decision made had the extremely qualified and dignified Alan Stray been running the place.
Sorry friends, the top echelon has to go. The cleaners at ATSBeaker headquarters could do a better job than mi mi mi Beaker and Co.

Also,
Agree “K” the ‘Chambers Report’ coupled with the self-serving CAIR 09/3 is the key here but the public portrayed airbrushed image in the ‘Pilot Training’ inquiry is a further piece of the puzzle…all very fascinating if it wasn’t so in your face and real!!
This is the plot shaper, the curve ball. I would like to see the Senators gently tug on this ball of yarn a little bit more. Lets see Herr Chambers take the stand and explain the 'mystique of the Chambers report' to the Senators in a little more detail. The 'who, how, where, when and why' as only the surface of this sore has been scraped.

Sarcs, I momentarily posted a Poohtube clip of Dr Frank N Furter however I removed it so as to not cause offence. Great movie however, and I can imagine Kharon dressed as the good Doctor (no, not Aleck) prancing around the deck of that beautiful sloop called the Styx Houseboat, enjoying the fresh air, the smell of Hades and the gentle swish of the river water lapping against both bow and stern as the boat slowly works its way towards 'The Circuit, Brisbane Airport'.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 2nd Apr 2013 at 11:24.
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.