Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
"Well secluded, I'm beginning to see all???..."
Oleo's top post 
said:
Hmm kind of gives a lot of credence to Aherne’s supp submission that deals with ‘prejudice and outcome bias’, see here:
Link to that submission:https://senate.aph.gov.au/submission...6-7c95160557d9
It was also obvious Oleo that the Senators at that inquiry were being fed information along the lines of which you suggest.
They asked several questions in regards to FF ‘conflict of interest’, here’s an example:
But then that line of inquiry unfortunately got lost in the Tiger AOC suspension and as we know the rest is history.
Coming back to the Pel-Air situation, we should not forget that they too had a mover and shaker adept at greasing the wheels of government process and a former Minister for Transport to boot!
Perhaps another thread (down the track) could look into what would appear to be some perfect examples of ‘conflict of interest’ within a government agency,….hmm definitely ‘food for thought’?
But for now let’s step back on Lefty’s TWM…
PAIN’s extracted piece from the Pel-Air SAR is indeed fascinating. I can’t believe that what the report revealed as some pretty ordinary systemic deficiencies within the maintenance org and the defect reporting regime only amounted to one ASR and one RCA…WTF?
So doing some trolling (as you do) on google I came across a rather relevant headline from the SMH, August 20 1986….“Pilots pressed not to log plane defects, Pel-Air inquest told”. The Sydney Morning Herald - Google News Archive Search
Now given the findings as stated in the ‘Maintenance Control and Defect Reporting’ section of the Pel-Air SAR and if history had been a little different and (God forbid!) everyone had perished on VH-NGA would this headline have looked so out of place during the Coronial Inquest that would have inevitably been called? Or indeed, if history wasn’t changed but instead we swapped the word “inquest” for “inquiry” would this be a relevant headline today?
Oh well off doing a Kelpie!
said:
- When that inquiry was taking place and Mr Hood was taking QON's about fatigue at JQ and safety risks, the JQ Safety Manager had only been working for Mr Hood as a Safety Systems Specialist (SSS) about 12 months earlier at CASA, all part of the same team, very close, all good mates.
- Gets better. Another one of their 'group', also a SSS, resigned around the same time. He ends up coming back to CASA as a 'consultant' (in Mr Hoods group where he worked 12 months earlier) and he participates in a CASA audit of none other than JQ! Yes he gets to audit his former fellow CASA mate who is now at JQ in a senior role!
All of this took place within an approximately 12 month period!
- Gets better. Another one of their 'group', also a SSS, resigned around the same time. He ends up coming back to CASA as a 'consultant' (in Mr Hoods group where he worked 12 months earlier) and he participates in a CASA audit of none other than JQ! Yes he gets to audit his former fellow CASA mate who is now at JQ in a senior role!
All of this took place within an approximately 12 month period!
1. Introduction.
I thank the committee for allowing me to make a supplementary submission to the Inquiry. The Inquiry has to this point necessarily had to consider technical matters contained in the many submissions it has received. This submission however, will focus on the issues of prejudice and outcome bias which along with allegations of collusion have tainted the ATSB investigation. On a separate matter, I have attached an Appendix which criticques the more confounding of the answers provided by the ATSB in response to questions on notice.
I thank the committee for allowing me to make a supplementary submission to the Inquiry. The Inquiry has to this point necessarily had to consider technical matters contained in the many submissions it has received. This submission however, will focus on the issues of prejudice and outcome bias which along with allegations of collusion have tainted the ATSB investigation. On a separate matter, I have attached an Appendix which criticques the more confounding of the answers provided by the ATSB in response to questions on notice.
It was also obvious Oleo that the Senators at that inquiry were being fed information along the lines of which you suggest.
They asked several questions in regards to FF ‘conflict of interest’, here’s an example:
5. HANSARD, RA&T 7273
Senator O’BRIEN—There are plenty of examples of contractual requirements that limit movement benefiting from an employment arrangement with one company to another company—taking advantage of the knowledge given by one company and then using it for another. Is there no means for CASA to introduce some sort of system which would penalise the taking of such an advantage? I guess you cannot prevent it because you cannot stop someone from leaving when they resign, but is there no way that contractually you can limit where they can go?
Mr McCormick—Generally speaking, we have discussed this internally, particularly after the last rather high‐profile departure we had. My understanding is concomitant with government policy—that we do not have very many tools available to us. Dr Aleck may wish to add a couple of points on this because it is a topical issue.
Dr Aleck—We have been very closely reviewing these things for the very reasons you have raised. Such a provision in a contract is possible. It is legal. Obviously, it can only prospective; we cannot insert it into an existing contract. The information—which I think the Attorney General’s Department has published, but I will take that on notice to confirm it—is that those provisions are notoriously difficult to enforce. Whilst they are legally available, as a practical matter there is great difficulty in enforcing them.
Senator O’BRIEN—There are plenty of examples of contractual requirements that limit movement benefiting from an employment arrangement with one company to another company—taking advantage of the knowledge given by one company and then using it for another. Is there no means for CASA to introduce some sort of system which would penalise the taking of such an advantage? I guess you cannot prevent it because you cannot stop someone from leaving when they resign, but is there no way that contractually you can limit where they can go?
Mr McCormick—Generally speaking, we have discussed this internally, particularly after the last rather high‐profile departure we had. My understanding is concomitant with government policy—that we do not have very many tools available to us. Dr Aleck may wish to add a couple of points on this because it is a topical issue.
Dr Aleck—We have been very closely reviewing these things for the very reasons you have raised. Such a provision in a contract is possible. It is legal. Obviously, it can only prospective; we cannot insert it into an existing contract. The information—which I think the Attorney General’s Department has published, but I will take that on notice to confirm it—is that those provisions are notoriously difficult to enforce. Whilst they are legally available, as a practical matter there is great difficulty in enforcing them.
Coming back to the Pel-Air situation, we should not forget that they too had a mover and shaker adept at greasing the wheels of government process and a former Minister for Transport to boot!
Perhaps another thread (down the track) could look into what would appear to be some perfect examples of ‘conflict of interest’ within a government agency,….hmm definitely ‘food for thought’?But for now let’s step back on Lefty’s TWM…
PAIN’s extracted piece from the Pel-Air SAR is indeed fascinating. I can’t believe that what the report revealed as some pretty ordinary systemic deficiencies within the maintenance org and the defect reporting regime only amounted to one ASR and one RCA…WTF?
So doing some trolling (as you do) on google I came across a rather relevant headline from the SMH, August 20 1986….“Pilots pressed not to log plane defects, Pel-Air inquest told”. The Sydney Morning Herald - Google News Archive Search
Now given the findings as stated in the ‘Maintenance Control and Defect Reporting’ section of the Pel-Air SAR and if history had been a little different and (God forbid!) everyone had perished on VH-NGA would this headline have looked so out of place during the Coronial Inquest that would have inevitably been called? Or indeed, if history wasn’t changed but instead we swapped the word “inquest” for “inquiry” would this be a relevant headline today?
Oh well off doing a Kelpie!
Last edited by Sarcs; 5th Apr 2013 at 01:44. Reason: "With a bit of a voodoo flip...You're into the skull slip.."
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chains in a link
Sarcs, great studious work. That is definitely 'just a jump to the left'.
Out of interest last night for several hours I re-read the Lockhart ATSBeaker final report as I am still uncomfortable with the Pel Air final report, and I wanted to see whether I was imagining things because I see some linear causes in Pel Air, Lockhart and Canley Vale etc.
I won't post it all here but in the Lockhart Final report the following sections are worth ones reading, then compare those regulatory findings to Pel Air and see if CASA has even remotely improved.
As follows;
• 2.8 Organisational influences, CASA
• 3.2.4 Contributing factors relating to CASA processes
• 3.3.4 Other factors relating to regulatory requirements and guidance
• 3.3.5 Other factors relating to CASA processes
• 4.2.2 CASA response to 'guidance for evaluating management systems'
• 4.2.3 CASA response to 'Risk assessments for changes in operations'
Maybe it's just me, maybe I am blinded by pot plants, but I see the same issues appearing over and over on the behalf of the big 'R' regulator. Similar deficiencies, similar contributing factors, all followed by similar spin and deflection from a robustly non accountable Fort Fumble. The smell of pony pooh wafts through the air.
And Sarcs, the FAA have done what Twerp 1 and Twerp 3 seem to have found to be somewhat difficult - placing an embargo of 2 years upon an employee who leaves their regulator and goes to work in industry again.
'Moral compass, what moral compass?'
Out of interest last night for several hours I re-read the Lockhart ATSBeaker final report as I am still uncomfortable with the Pel Air final report, and I wanted to see whether I was imagining things because I see some linear causes in Pel Air, Lockhart and Canley Vale etc.
I won't post it all here but in the Lockhart Final report the following sections are worth ones reading, then compare those regulatory findings to Pel Air and see if CASA has even remotely improved.
As follows;
• 2.8 Organisational influences, CASA
• 3.2.4 Contributing factors relating to CASA processes
• 3.3.4 Other factors relating to regulatory requirements and guidance
• 3.3.5 Other factors relating to CASA processes
• 4.2.2 CASA response to 'guidance for evaluating management systems'
• 4.2.3 CASA response to 'Risk assessments for changes in operations'
Maybe it's just me, maybe I am blinded by pot plants, but I see the same issues appearing over and over on the behalf of the big 'R' regulator. Similar deficiencies, similar contributing factors, all followed by similar spin and deflection from a robustly non accountable Fort Fumble. The smell of pony pooh wafts through the air.
And Sarcs, the FAA have done what Twerp 1 and Twerp 3 seem to have found to be somewhat difficult - placing an embargo of 2 years upon an employee who leaves their regulator and goes to work in industry again.
'Moral compass, what moral compass?'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reporting, not recording.
Sarcs # 1408 –"I can’t believe that what the report revealed as some pretty ordinary systemic deficiencies within the maintenance org and the defect reporting regime only amounted to one ASR and one RCA. etc."
CAR 51 uses 'report' in relation to major defects and damage. CAR 50 is a whole different animal and does not require 'reporting' at all, at all. The reg requires the PIC, operator or flight crew member to endorse the MR (or approved alternate) when they become aware of a defect or damage; in flight or on the ground. Not to do so is a breach.
So it's all into the TWM and back to 1986 and all that. Gold Sarcs.,.,. pure, undiluted solid gold. Have a Tim Tam mate. Wuzzat y' say, 27 years ?; - ain't nothing, just a drop in an ocean of time down in Sleepy Hollow.
Last edited by Kharon; 5th Apr 2013 at 03:52. Reason: Bars open boys; Oleo, you'll have to leave the troll outdoors.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish; as always it would have been the response that determines the outcome. Did Pel-Air (Rex) make big changes and throw money at fixing the problem or did they fight city hall?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, that is the million dollar question isn't it.
There has been lots of talk about small 'r' regulation under previous director. Barrier definitely saw big 'R' regulator.
Jeta ok, valid point. If a company is working to fix issues then that is valid. But, there have been cases when the relationship has been so adversarial the operator claimed they couldn't workout a solution. Take a look at comments made by Barrier.
Are they consistent or not in their treatment? It is a big question, no doubt we'd be accused of tautology and being ills of society for raising such concerns.
There has been lots of talk about small 'r' regulation under previous director. Barrier definitely saw big 'R' regulator.
Jeta ok, valid point. If a company is working to fix issues then that is valid. But, there have been cases when the relationship has been so adversarial the operator claimed they couldn't workout a solution. Take a look at comments made by Barrier.
Are they consistent or not in their treatment? It is a big question, no doubt we'd be accused of tautology and being ills of society for raising such concerns.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 5th Apr 2013 at 11:26. Reason: Response to jetaok response
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the why!
[QUOTE][/The thoroughly modern bureaucrat
General
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat, I have all the information to see where you measure at,
I have the regulations to let me rule and regulate,
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern potentate.
From statutes to ordinances, in order quite methodical, I weave my red tape, with a zeal quite mechanical,
I understand the policies, the ones quite ineffectual, I’m a very modern bureaucrat, and I oversee you all.
All
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all. He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all. He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
General
I’m good at mission statements and strategic plans as well, I know about operational plans and who not to tell,
In short, I’m good at keeping things just where they’re at, I’m the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
All
In short, he’s good at keeping things just where they’re at, He is the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
General
I like the RDOs, the pension benefits and all the other perks, I like the opportunity I have to drive you all berserk,
And I like the feeling of knowing just where you’re at,
I’m the very modern pirate, the one called the bureaucrat.
All
And he likes the feeling of knowing just where you’re at, He’s the very modern pirate, the one called the bureaucrat.
With apologies to Gilbert and SullivanQUOTE]
General
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat, I have all the information to see where you measure at,
I have the regulations to let me rule and regulate,
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern potentate.
From statutes to ordinances, in order quite methodical, I weave my red tape, with a zeal quite mechanical,
I understand the policies, the ones quite ineffectual, I’m a very modern bureaucrat, and I oversee you all.
All
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all. He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all. He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
General
I’m good at mission statements and strategic plans as well, I know about operational plans and who not to tell,
In short, I’m good at keeping things just where they’re at, I’m the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
All
In short, he’s good at keeping things just where they’re at, He is the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
General
I like the RDOs, the pension benefits and all the other perks, I like the opportunity I have to drive you all berserk,
And I like the feeling of knowing just where you’re at,
I’m the very modern pirate, the one called the bureaucrat.
All
And he likes the feeling of knowing just where you’re at, He’s the very modern pirate, the one called the bureaucrat.
With apologies to Gilbert and SullivanQUOTE]
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa The Modern Bureaucrat
Just to make an easier read Stan:
and for those who have never heard the "General Song":
and for those who have never heard the "General Song":
The Thoroughly Modern Bureaucrat [Apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan]
The General
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat;
I have all the information to see where you measure at,
I have the regulations to let me rule and regulate,
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern potentate.
From statutes to ordinances, in order quite methodical;
I weave my red tape, with a zeal quite mechanical;
I understand the policies, the ones quite ineffectual;
I’m a very modern bureaucrat, and I oversee you all.
All and in Unison:
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
The General
I’m good at mission statements and strategic plans as well;
I know about operational plans and who not to tell;
In short, I’m good at keeping things just where they’re at;
I’m the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
All and in General Unison:
In short, he’s good at keeping things just where they’re at;
He is the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
The General:
I like the RDOs, the pension benefits and all the other perks;
I like the opportunity I have to drive you all berserk;
And I like the feeling of knowing just where you’re at;
I’m the very modern pirate;
The one called "The Bureaucrat."
All and in General Unison [one last time]:
And he likes the feeling of knowing just where you’re at;
He’s the very modern pirate;
The one called "The Bureaucrat".
With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan and Stan!!
The General
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat;
I have all the information to see where you measure at,
I have the regulations to let me rule and regulate,
I am the very model of a thoroughly modern potentate.
From statutes to ordinances, in order quite methodical;
I weave my red tape, with a zeal quite mechanical;
I understand the policies, the ones quite ineffectual;
I’m a very modern bureaucrat, and I oversee you all.
All and in Unison:
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
He’s a very modern bureaucrat, and he oversees us all.
The General
I’m good at mission statements and strategic plans as well;
I know about operational plans and who not to tell;
In short, I’m good at keeping things just where they’re at;
I’m the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
All and in General Unison:
In short, he’s good at keeping things just where they’re at;
He is the very model of a thoroughly modern bureaucrat.
The General:
I like the RDOs, the pension benefits and all the other perks;
I like the opportunity I have to drive you all berserk;
And I like the feeling of knowing just where you’re at;
I’m the very modern pirate;
The one called "The Bureaucrat."
All and in General Unison [one last time]:
And he likes the feeling of knowing just where you’re at;
He’s the very modern pirate;
The one called "The Bureaucrat".
With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan and Stan!!
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 5th Apr 2013 at 22:20. Reason: more information
If we're going down the Gilbert and Sullivan path I would have thought A Policeman's Lot is not a Happy One would be more appropriate for CASA! Or Sir J in HMS Pinafore and "Now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee" Come on you lot start paraphrasing!
Last edited by Lookleft; 6th Apr 2013 at 00:50. Reason: I always preferred G&S to Rocky Horror
'Beyond Reason' and the FF blackhole!
Oleo said:
Besides the obvious comparison between the old pre-Beaker days when the bureau metaphorically kicked arse and held no prisoners, that is a very good question Oleo. Given the aviation safety watchdog has effectively been muzzled since Lockhart and with all the shenanigans revealed thus far in this inquiry I’d say that if anything CAsA has gotten worse are more out of control and a ‘law unto themselves’.
To add to Oleo’s quoted sections of the Lockhart Final Report it is also worth taking a look at appendix H from the following link:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3148359/aair200501977_appendices.pdf
It is also worth looking at this FOI released document that shows more than anything the ‘ad hoc’ approach to surveillance of Transair that CAsA took at the time. What is also amazing is the amount of changes/additions to the Transair AOC that appear to be seamlessly rubber stamped:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/ef-121779.pdf
Note: The Flight Ops section of form 069 that dealt with the port and route check approval for Lockhart River is mysteriously missing…go figure??
All of which when put alongside the Pel-Air SAR, the Pel-Air FRMS SAR and even the infamous ‘Chambers Report’ would all seem to indicate that not much has changed within bowels of FF and in comparison to the Lockhart stain.
However Oleo I think the bigger ugliness that the Pel-Air inquiry is unearthing is the complete double standards, inconsistency, apparent shonky backroom deals, etc..etc that FF applies to individual operators and pilots. The examples of this in recent years are plentiful…Hempel, Airtex, Hardy’s, JQ, etc.
However probably the perfect place to do a comparison is with the currently active Barrier permanent suspension case and also the Skymaster (Canleyvale) case, which (if you remember) included a BK FF ‘Special Audit’….hmm sure would be interesting to get a copy of that SAR??
Both of these cases deal with FF regional offices that have particularly checkered histories and seem to be where FF hide their miscreants and odd bods with sociopathic tendencies (i.e. potential GWM recruits)….hmm perfect really for our purposes!
Doing a Kelpie….wondering where I can get a copy of that SAR???
I won't post it all here but in the Lockhart Final report the following sections are worth ones reading, then compare those regulatory findings to Pel Air and see if CASA has even remotely improved.
To add to Oleo’s quoted sections of the Lockhart Final Report it is also worth taking a look at appendix H from the following link:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3148359/aair200501977_appendices.pdf
It is also worth looking at this FOI released document that shows more than anything the ‘ad hoc’ approach to surveillance of Transair that CAsA took at the time. What is also amazing is the amount of changes/additions to the Transair AOC that appear to be seamlessly rubber stamped:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/ef-121779.pdf
Note: The Flight Ops section of form 069 that dealt with the port and route check approval for Lockhart River is mysteriously missing…go figure??
All of which when put alongside the Pel-Air SAR, the Pel-Air FRMS SAR and even the infamous ‘Chambers Report’ would all seem to indicate that not much has changed within bowels of FF and in comparison to the Lockhart stain.
However Oleo I think the bigger ugliness that the Pel-Air inquiry is unearthing is the complete double standards, inconsistency, apparent shonky backroom deals, etc..etc that FF applies to individual operators and pilots. The examples of this in recent years are plentiful…Hempel, Airtex, Hardy’s, JQ, etc.
However probably the perfect place to do a comparison is with the currently active Barrier permanent suspension case and also the Skymaster (Canleyvale) case, which (if you remember) included a BK FF ‘Special Audit’….hmm sure would be interesting to get a copy of that SAR??
Both of these cases deal with FF regional offices that have particularly checkered histories and seem to be where FF hide their miscreants and odd bods with sociopathic tendencies (i.e. potential GWM recruits)….hmm perfect really for our purposes!
Doing a Kelpie….wondering where I can get a copy of that SAR???
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the atsb
'Tis the weekend of course - casa does not need the policemane - Offences of Strict Liability you know!!
Back on theme:
From the 1999 Review of BASI is worth the read and Terms of Reference 2 really says it all [my highlight]:
There it is and what has the Senate Inquiry found - points to deliberate interference in due process and what the aviation community as a whole require and are prepared to support.
Back on theme:
From the 1999 Review of BASI is worth the read and Terms of Reference 2 really says it all [my highlight]:
Term of Reference Number 2
Are BASI’s activities recognised, valued and supported by the aviation community – particularly those airlines, manufacturers and service providers involved in the carriage of fare-paying passengers?
While there were some notable exceptions, there was overwhelming support for BASI from most of the 60 aviation industry participants who provided formal submissions to the review. Opinions expressed in informal consultation also confirmed this. The sheer number of both formal and informal submissions attested to the broad external recognition of the Bureau. There was almost universal acceptance of the need for a safety ‘watchdog’ that is independent of the regulator (CASA).
The role of BASI in concentrating its efforts on the fare-paying passenger was not universally recognised or accepted. This was the most divisive aspect in the submissions. The most telling criticism came from the general aviation (GA) sector, with the most critical opponent of current practice being the Aircraft * and Pilots Association (A*PA). This is significant because of the strength of feeling expressed and the fact that the Association represents such a large proportion of the sector. Similar comment was received from specialist organisations within the general aviation sector. For reasons outlined in the body of the report, this review supports the government policy that BASI concentrate on the fare-paying passenger sector. It sees little wrong with the policy, but does question the focus placed on it by the Bureau, which is seen by the GA sector as having interpreted the policy of ‘concentrating on fare-paying passengers’ to bias the BASI contribution towards ‘excluding the general aviation sector’, where possible. This is in spite of the fact that BASI does quite a significant amount of work investigating accidents/incidents in the GA sector. This would suggest that the industry does not see this work as making a significant contribution to aviation safety and reinforces the recommendations in this report regarding the need for BASI to adopt a more strategic approach to its accident/incident investigation role.
It is very important to recognise that general aviation operates in airspace used by the fare-paying sector. A significant number of the personnel in the fare-paying sector also come through the general aviation sector and attitudes and practices are often deeply enshrined in the performance of these persons as a result of their experience in the general aviation sector. It is probably too late to change these fundamental attributes when a person progresses to the fare-paying sector. The approach within BASI is largely influenced by the inability of the Bureau, while applying current practices, to allocate sufficient resources towards contributing to general aviation to an appropriate degree. It is interesting to note that the criticism regarding inadequate attention to the GA sector extended to the performance of CASA also.
While not suggesting a change to government policy, the review believes that more appropriate setting of priorities and improved work practices should enable a measured extent of BASI resources to be applied to the sectors other than fare-paying and an increase in outputs intended to improve safety in these sectors. It is also confident that adoption of a more proactive approach and more focussed monitoring of aviation safety statistics and associated information would ensure that adequate priority could be given to relevant areas of the general aviation sector in future. As a matter of principle BASI should aspire to optimal levels of trust and cooperation with the industry in total. Although BASI does considerable work in the general aviation sector, this effort has not been recognised by that sector. BASI will not be able to achieve a satisfactory relationship without addressing the concerns of the general aviation sector in which there still remains a significant store of goodwill towards the Bureau.
The review recommends that BASI consider the creation of formal consultative mechanisms with the industry, while still retaining its necessary independence. It also makes a number of suggestions regarding improved strategic planning and accountability, which if adopted could assist in enhancing its industry relationships.
In summary, the review was able to confirm that the Bureau does receive widespread recognition and support from industry. There is a priority need, however, for a range of actions to build on this in the interest of providing a safer aviation system.
Are BASI’s activities recognised, valued and supported by the aviation community – particularly those airlines, manufacturers and service providers involved in the carriage of fare-paying passengers?
While there were some notable exceptions, there was overwhelming support for BASI from most of the 60 aviation industry participants who provided formal submissions to the review. Opinions expressed in informal consultation also confirmed this. The sheer number of both formal and informal submissions attested to the broad external recognition of the Bureau. There was almost universal acceptance of the need for a safety ‘watchdog’ that is independent of the regulator (CASA).
The role of BASI in concentrating its efforts on the fare-paying passenger was not universally recognised or accepted. This was the most divisive aspect in the submissions. The most telling criticism came from the general aviation (GA) sector, with the most critical opponent of current practice being the Aircraft * and Pilots Association (A*PA). This is significant because of the strength of feeling expressed and the fact that the Association represents such a large proportion of the sector. Similar comment was received from specialist organisations within the general aviation sector. For reasons outlined in the body of the report, this review supports the government policy that BASI concentrate on the fare-paying passenger sector. It sees little wrong with the policy, but does question the focus placed on it by the Bureau, which is seen by the GA sector as having interpreted the policy of ‘concentrating on fare-paying passengers’ to bias the BASI contribution towards ‘excluding the general aviation sector’, where possible. This is in spite of the fact that BASI does quite a significant amount of work investigating accidents/incidents in the GA sector. This would suggest that the industry does not see this work as making a significant contribution to aviation safety and reinforces the recommendations in this report regarding the need for BASI to adopt a more strategic approach to its accident/incident investigation role.
It is very important to recognise that general aviation operates in airspace used by the fare-paying sector. A significant number of the personnel in the fare-paying sector also come through the general aviation sector and attitudes and practices are often deeply enshrined in the performance of these persons as a result of their experience in the general aviation sector. It is probably too late to change these fundamental attributes when a person progresses to the fare-paying sector. The approach within BASI is largely influenced by the inability of the Bureau, while applying current practices, to allocate sufficient resources towards contributing to general aviation to an appropriate degree. It is interesting to note that the criticism regarding inadequate attention to the GA sector extended to the performance of CASA also.
While not suggesting a change to government policy, the review believes that more appropriate setting of priorities and improved work practices should enable a measured extent of BASI resources to be applied to the sectors other than fare-paying and an increase in outputs intended to improve safety in these sectors. It is also confident that adoption of a more proactive approach and more focussed monitoring of aviation safety statistics and associated information would ensure that adequate priority could be given to relevant areas of the general aviation sector in future. As a matter of principle BASI should aspire to optimal levels of trust and cooperation with the industry in total. Although BASI does considerable work in the general aviation sector, this effort has not been recognised by that sector. BASI will not be able to achieve a satisfactory relationship without addressing the concerns of the general aviation sector in which there still remains a significant store of goodwill towards the Bureau.
The review recommends that BASI consider the creation of formal consultative mechanisms with the industry, while still retaining its necessary independence. It also makes a number of suggestions regarding improved strategic planning and accountability, which if adopted could assist in enhancing its industry relationships.
In summary, the review was able to confirm that the Bureau does receive widespread recognition and support from industry. There is a priority need, however, for a range of actions to build on this in the interest of providing a safer aviation system.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASI, CAA, CASA, ATSB, POOH.....oh the humanity!
Sarcs, SAR's are usually kept out of reach, deep within the bowels of TRIM, and robustly locked away. Unless you have access to the CASA pony pooh TRIM system, or someone internal to FF leaks these reports to PAIN, or the Senators ask for copies of said reports, they will remain an integral part of the 'mystique of aviation', mysterious, hidden, guarded by Herr Skulls Rottweilers and not to be shown publicly.
With regards to the Lockhart investigation report, one of the ATSbeakers last decent reports before the Beaker took charge and 'Beakerised' the place, it raised the weaknesses and deficiencies along with causal factors in the accident that inadvertently link to CASA. If you use the James Reason method of analysis the Regulator itself is a defence. So if we do some 'Swiss cheesing' we soon see that although the Regulator is not the primary cause of Lockhart, most certainly a lack of proper surveillance and auditing, acceptance of Transair piss poor procedures, non use of risk assessments by Transair and CASA, changes allowed within the Operators AOC which reflected an absolutely all time low level of adequate procedures and safety, plus an 'entry control' curve that set the safety bar so low that the entire debacle is almost criminal!
However, this thread isn't about Lockhart, so I will pull back from the drift, however there appear to be palpable systemic issues withing Fort Fumble that stretch back over eons then forward to this very day. If they can't complete regulatory reform within an embarrassing quarter of a centrury how can we expect or believe these other inherent problems to simply 'no longer exist, all is now well, move on folks nothing to see here'??
I know the current inquiry had its birth c/o declining industry safety standards, morphed into the Pel Air inquiry and so it goes, but the can of worms is spilling out more worms than the Senate can keep up with and there is much much more that lays beneath the surface waiting to see daylight.
Anyway, off to the River Styx, the houseboat party is starting. All are invited, Kharon has decorated the deck in party lights and pot plants, Minnie and Gobbles are no longer under house ban (after throwing pot plants and pooh at
Flyingfiend). There will 80's music, a Rocky Horror dress code', 'Behind The Green Door' will be playing on the giant TV screen, Halfmanhalfreaper will be there singing the Blue Oyster Cult classic 'Don't Fear The Reaper', Sarcs will be doing a Shakespearean reading of the CASA SPM and The Screaming Skull will be trussed up as a piñata - hit him with a stick or kick him with a jackboot and win a prize!!
C'mon down kids.
With regards to the Lockhart investigation report, one of the ATSbeakers last decent reports before the Beaker took charge and 'Beakerised' the place, it raised the weaknesses and deficiencies along with causal factors in the accident that inadvertently link to CASA. If you use the James Reason method of analysis the Regulator itself is a defence. So if we do some 'Swiss cheesing' we soon see that although the Regulator is not the primary cause of Lockhart, most certainly a lack of proper surveillance and auditing, acceptance of Transair piss poor procedures, non use of risk assessments by Transair and CASA, changes allowed within the Operators AOC which reflected an absolutely all time low level of adequate procedures and safety, plus an 'entry control' curve that set the safety bar so low that the entire debacle is almost criminal!
However, this thread isn't about Lockhart, so I will pull back from the drift, however there appear to be palpable systemic issues withing Fort Fumble that stretch back over eons then forward to this very day. If they can't complete regulatory reform within an embarrassing quarter of a centrury how can we expect or believe these other inherent problems to simply 'no longer exist, all is now well, move on folks nothing to see here'??
I know the current inquiry had its birth c/o declining industry safety standards, morphed into the Pel Air inquiry and so it goes, but the can of worms is spilling out more worms than the Senate can keep up with and there is much much more that lays beneath the surface waiting to see daylight.
Anyway, off to the River Styx, the houseboat party is starting. All are invited, Kharon has decorated the deck in party lights and pot plants, Minnie and Gobbles are no longer under house ban (after throwing pot plants and pooh at
Flyingfiend). There will 80's music, a Rocky Horror dress code', 'Behind The Green Door' will be playing on the giant TV screen, Halfmanhalfreaper will be there singing the Blue Oyster Cult classic 'Don't Fear The Reaper', Sarcs will be doing a Shakespearean reading of the CASA SPM and The Screaming Skull will be trussed up as a piñata - hit him with a stick or kick him with a jackboot and win a prize!!
C'mon down kids.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 6th Apr 2013 at 11:07. Reason: Sharpening the stick, putting on the boots, trussing up the angry man!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grim pictures and happy moments.
MOIE# 1409 –"I re-read the Lockhart ATSBeaker final report as I am still uncomfortable with the Pel Air final report - etc."
The pattern I see emerging under the current regime really scares me. The trend robustly appears as one of ruthless administrative penalties to individuals and the utter destruction of selected companies, at any cost, by any method; while skating at high speed along the extreme edges of credibility and the limits of law. One man makes the decision, the rest play along or toddle off. The track record is publicly available, the lengths gone to in some cases are truly remarkable. Then, we have Pel Air; they are clearly in the big gun-sight – ducks all lined up (nice and tidy like). Then brakes on – all change, tickets please; Wodger reverses the gun and shoots himself in the arse. Why ???? (or, better yet, how?? – maybe it was the the smoke and mirrors).
PM: Oleo, Stan was legless. We found a camel taxi which was prepared to take him home, sent Gobbles along to keep an eye; GD told him it was a magic carpet ride ('cos wuz furry and moved funny). Last seen heading roughly Southeast, bottle in one hand, cigar in t'other singing his version of the pirates song (full volume) which seemed entirely appropriate, but none the less truly remarkable, considering the state he was in.
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Apr 2013 at 04:20. Reason: Whoa - new page, I must not spill coffee. I must......
Join Date: May 2008
Location: South West Pacific
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Wonder if there will be red faces all round if the Kiwi,s manage to retrieve A whole aircraft from 60 meters under water & we couldn't even recover a box.
Waikato Police operations manager Inspector John Kelly said today that Navy divers completed five dives on the site and managed to recover one body from the wreckage around midday.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM: Oleo, Stan was legless. We found a camel taxi which was prepared to take him home, sent Gobbles along to keep an eye; GD told him it was a magic carpet ride ('cos wuz furry and moved funny). Last seen heading roughly Southeast, bottle in one hand, cigar in t'other singing his version of the pirates song (full volume) which seemed entirely appropriate, but none the less truly remarkable, considering the state he was in.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jekyll & Hyde syndrome – examined.
Phelan has recently posted a very interesting article, you may or may not (as pleases) agree with the context or the conclusion; but, for a quiet Sunday morning read it's hard to beat. For my two bob, the argument is hard to beat, anyway. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to ensure it is brought to the attention of our Wodger, just as food for thought. I think the article highlights the Jekyll & Hyde performance under discussion very well.
Be warned: the new website is not fully 'seen' by search engines; you may need to copy the link into the "paste & go" address bar of your browser. Publish and be Damned – Case Study | Pro Aviation. I'll try to get the Pprune link system to find it. But, worth a coffee?, I think so.....
Be warned: the new website is not fully 'seen' by search engines; you may need to copy the link into the "paste & go" address bar of your browser. Publish and be Damned – Case Study | Pro Aviation. I'll try to get the Pprune link system to find it. But, worth a coffee?, I think so.....
Begins : "This analysis of the ten allegations against the operator demonstrates that the suspension of the AOC was not necessary “in the immediate interests of safety” without examining whether the unsubstantiated allegations had merit. In other words, had CASA been motivated to assure the operator was a compliant operator rather than a discredited operator, initiatives were available to its officials to achieve that assurance without exercising sanctions which had the inevitable outcome of closing down a commercial aviation operation at the peak of a business season. The allegations and an analysis of their validity and Civil Aviation Safety Authority responses are detailed below."
Concludes: "If the Civil Aviation Safety Authority became aware of any safety-related allegations against operators, scrutinised and evaluated them as to whether they would be sustainable in a court of law, and did not ground the aircraft concerned until the alleged errors were rectified; or did not have the matters rectified immediately, then the Civil Aviation Safety Authority must itself be guilty of negligence."
The question of whether the publication of unsubstantiated allegations constitutes a defamation never came before a court.
However the owner was charged in the Cairns District Court with the 10 alleged offences. He was found guilty on the dangerous goods charge and fined $600 for that offence, which is a minor technical one. Like most seaplane operators he made a practice of carrying a jerry can of two-stroke motor fuel in a locker in one of the aircraft’s floats in case a boat tending the aircraft ran out of fuel. The actual offence was carrying the fuel without having a supplement in its Operations Manual to describe the dangerous goods precautions taken. The other nine charges were dismissed.
The question of whether the publication of unsubstantiated allegations constitutes a defamation never came before a court.
However the owner was charged in the Cairns District Court with the 10 alleged offences. He was found guilty on the dangerous goods charge and fined $600 for that offence, which is a minor technical one. Like most seaplane operators he made a practice of carrying a jerry can of two-stroke motor fuel in a locker in one of the aircraft’s floats in case a boat tending the aircraft ran out of fuel. The actual offence was carrying the fuel without having a supplement in its Operations Manual to describe the dangerous goods precautions taken. The other nine charges were dismissed.
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Apr 2013 at 21:56. Reason: Pondering recent meetings in FNQ - very interesting.
I do find amusing the way in which the patent inconsistency in logic is dealt with.
CASA must prove its allegations in court!
OK then.
CASA (actually the CDDP) proves the charge of carriage of dangerous goods in court.
Whoops. Errrrm .... that's inconvenient.
So let's just call it "a minor technical" crime.
Of course, the people best able to judge the seriousness or otherwise of crimes are not judges ...
And are we sure the other charges were "dismissed"? There's a vast, vast difference between charges being "dismissed" (that is, found by the court not to have been proved) and charges being "discharged without conviction" (which can only occur if the charges are found by the court to have been proved first ). Perhaps the other charges were "dismissed", but I've seen enough of Mr Phelan's stories to remain ever-sceptical of their accuracy.
That said, if the extracts of the correspondence from CASA to the operator are accurate, evidently someone in CASA (at least back then) didn't have a clue about what CAR 47 required (or, more accurately, didn't require) in the circumstances.
CASA must prove its allegations in court!
OK then.
CASA (actually the CDDP) proves the charge of carriage of dangerous goods in court.
Whoops. Errrrm .... that's inconvenient.
So let's just call it "a minor technical" crime.
Of course, the people best able to judge the seriousness or otherwise of crimes are not judges ...
And are we sure the other charges were "dismissed"? There's a vast, vast difference between charges being "dismissed" (that is, found by the court not to have been proved) and charges being "discharged without conviction" (which can only occur if the charges are found by the court to have been proved first ). Perhaps the other charges were "dismissed", but I've seen enough of Mr Phelan's stories to remain ever-sceptical of their accuracy.
That said, if the extracts of the correspondence from CASA to the operator are accurate, evidently someone in CASA (at least back then) didn't have a clue about what CAR 47 required (or, more accurately, didn't require) in the circumstances.
the operator claimed they couldn't workout a solution
It appears once individuals in CASA have determined a course of action, nothing will convince them otherwise, even if their peers have accepted it before.
There are more that one way of skinning a cat, but in aviation, it can only be CASA's way or you are out the door or before the AAT.
We really need a separation of issuance, compliance and policing.
If this is not attainable, an independent standards section within CASA staffed by a mix from industry and CASA that is directly accessible by industry and CASA without prejudice. Decisions made by the section to be published so industry and CASA staff have precedents on which decisions and interpretations can be made with some certainty.
Or is this a bridge to far?