Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Sunny
:
That's the best idea Ziggychick...s24 of the TSI Act, as Creamy said, has got way too much wriggle room.
Here's some contacts that might help...
or FAA 'International Affairs' to forward to the 'International Aviation Safety Assesments (IASA)Program':Policy, International Affairs and Environment - Contact Us
Here's a rundown on the remit of IASA:
The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established the IASA program through public policy in August of 1992. FAA's foreign assessment program focuses on a country's ability, not the individual air carrier, to adhere to international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance established by the United Nation's technical agency for aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
In mid-1991, FAA began to formulate a program to address these concerns. This program included visits to twelve countries with airlines seeking authority to operate to and from the United States. After a trial period our findings convinced us of the need to formally establish the IASA Program. Notice of our new policy was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 164, August 24, 1992. The purpose of the IASA is to ensure that all foreign air carriers that operate to or from the United States are properly licensed and with safety oversight provided by a competent Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in accordance with ICAO standards.
A foreign air carrier of a sovereign state desiring to conduct foreign air transportation operations into the United States files an application with the DOT for a foreign air carrier permit under the Federal Aviation Act, newly recodified at 49 U.S.C. 41302. Parts 211 and 302 of the Economic Regulations of Department Of Transportation (DOT), (14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 211 and 302) prescribe the requirements for issuance of these authorities.
Consistent with international law, certain safety requirements for operations into the United States are prescribed by the FAA's Part 129 regulations (14 CFR part 129). 14 CFR Part 129 specifies that the carrier must meet the safety standards contained in Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport) of Annex 6 (Operations of Aircraft) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Before DOT issues a foreign air carrier permit, it notifies the FAA of the application and requests the FAA's evaluation of the respective CAA's capability for providing safety certification and continuing oversight for its international carriers.
Upon DOT notification of a pending foreign air carrier application, if the FAA has not made a positive assessment of that countries safety oversight capabilities, the FAA Flight Standards Service will direct its appropriate international field office to schedule an FAA assessment visit to the CAA of the applicant's country.
Once the assessments visits have been completed, the FAA assessment team will return to the United States to compile the findings. Appropriate notifications to the CAA and other U.S. Government officials of the results of the assessments will be made from Washington, DC., headquarters as soon as possible.
If a CAA is found to be meeting its minimum safety obligations under the Chicago Convention, the FAA will forward a positive recommendation to DOT. If there is a pending foreign carrier application, DOT will issue the requested economic authority and FAA will issue operations specifications to permit the carrier to begin operations to or from the United States.
When CAA's of countries with existing air carrier service to the U.S. are found to not meet ICAO standards, the FAA formally requests consultations with the CAA. The purpose of consultations is to discuss our findings in some detail and explore means to quickly rectify shortcomings found with regard to ICAO annexes, to enable its air carriers to continue service to the United States. During the consultation phase, foreign air carrier operations from that country into the United States will be frozen at existing levels.
This policy is defined in a notice published in the Federal Register (Volume 60, No. 210, October 31, 1995). FAA may also heighten its surveillance inspections (ramp checks) on these carriers while they are in the United States. If the deficiencies noted during consultations cannot be successfully corrected within a reasonable, period of time, FAA will notify DOT that carriers from that country do not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and will recommend that DOT revoke or suspend its carriers economic operating authority
When CAAs of countries with no existing air carrier service to the United States are found to not meet ICAO standards, FAA may not undertake final consultations. The FAA will notify DOT that the CAA does not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and its application for economic authority will be denied. The FAA will undertake a reassessment of the CAA after evidence of compliance with ICAO provisions has been received. FAA will, of course, be willing to meet with CAAs at any time, as our resources permit.
After the assessment visit, consultations (if necessary), and notifications have been completed, FAA will publicly release the results of these assessments. This policy revision, published in 1994 (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 173, September 8, 1994), was made after considerable deliberation. We determined that the findings in our IASA program regarding safety oversight shortcomings must be provided to all U.S. citizens so they can make informed choices in their international flights.
The FAA plans to periodically revisit CAA's of countries with air carriers operating into the United States to maintain full familiarity of the methods of that country's continued compliance with ICAO provisions. The FAA may also find it necessary to reassess a CAA at any time if it has reason to believe that minimum ICAO standards are not being met.
At present, there are close to 600 foreign air carriers that operate into the United States. There are approximately 103 countries or regional country alliances that have oversight responsibilities for air carriers that either currently operate into the United States, that have air carriers that have applied to operate into the United States, or have a national air carrier that code shares with a U.S. partner air carrier. As of December 18, 2008 the results of 101 completed CAA assessments have been publicly disclosed.
The initial findings have shown that two thirds of these countries were not fully complying with ICAO standards. Deficiencies found in FAA assessments typically fall into major categories. These categories are almost identical to the deficiencies that have been found by ICAO in the past. These deficiencies included:
Desired Outcome
The FAA is working to determine that each country meets its obligations under ICAO and to provide proper oversight to each air carrier operating into the U.S. The continued application of this program will result in a lower number of safety-related problems, including accidents, incidents, and an improved level of safety to the flying public.
Hope that helps Ziggy?
:
Ziggy, send your paperwork to the ICAO and the FAA and suggest that an international audit is warranted. The Minister doesn't give a.......
Here's some contacts that might help...
ICAO Headquarters, Montreal, Canada
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
999 University Street, Montréal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada
Tel.: +1 514-954-8219
Fax: +1 514-954-6077
E-mail: [email protected]
ICAO, Asia and Pacific Office
252/1 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Road, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Mail: P.O. Box 11, Samyaek Ladprao,
Bangkok 10901, Thailand
Tel.: +66 2 537 8189
Fax: +66 2 537 8199
E-mail: [email protected]
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
999 University Street, Montréal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada
Tel.: +1 514-954-8219
Fax: +1 514-954-6077
E-mail: [email protected]
ICAO, Asia and Pacific Office
252/1 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Road, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Mail: P.O. Box 11, Samyaek Ladprao,
Bangkok 10901, Thailand
Tel.: +66 2 537 8189
Fax: +66 2 537 8199
E-mail: [email protected]
Here's a rundown on the remit of IASA:
International Aviation Safety Assessments (IASA) Program
The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established the IASA program through public policy in August of 1992. FAA's foreign assessment program focuses on a country's ability, not the individual air carrier, to adhere to international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance established by the United Nation's technical agency for aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
In mid-1991, FAA began to formulate a program to address these concerns. This program included visits to twelve countries with airlines seeking authority to operate to and from the United States. After a trial period our findings convinced us of the need to formally establish the IASA Program. Notice of our new policy was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 164, August 24, 1992. The purpose of the IASA is to ensure that all foreign air carriers that operate to or from the United States are properly licensed and with safety oversight provided by a competent Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in accordance with ICAO standards.
A foreign air carrier of a sovereign state desiring to conduct foreign air transportation operations into the United States files an application with the DOT for a foreign air carrier permit under the Federal Aviation Act, newly recodified at 49 U.S.C. 41302. Parts 211 and 302 of the Economic Regulations of Department Of Transportation (DOT), (14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 211 and 302) prescribe the requirements for issuance of these authorities.
Consistent with international law, certain safety requirements for operations into the United States are prescribed by the FAA's Part 129 regulations (14 CFR part 129). 14 CFR Part 129 specifies that the carrier must meet the safety standards contained in Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport) of Annex 6 (Operations of Aircraft) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Before DOT issues a foreign air carrier permit, it notifies the FAA of the application and requests the FAA's evaluation of the respective CAA's capability for providing safety certification and continuing oversight for its international carriers.
Upon DOT notification of a pending foreign air carrier application, if the FAA has not made a positive assessment of that countries safety oversight capabilities, the FAA Flight Standards Service will direct its appropriate international field office to schedule an FAA assessment visit to the CAA of the applicant's country.
Once the assessments visits have been completed, the FAA assessment team will return to the United States to compile the findings. Appropriate notifications to the CAA and other U.S. Government officials of the results of the assessments will be made from Washington, DC., headquarters as soon as possible.
If a CAA is found to be meeting its minimum safety obligations under the Chicago Convention, the FAA will forward a positive recommendation to DOT. If there is a pending foreign carrier application, DOT will issue the requested economic authority and FAA will issue operations specifications to permit the carrier to begin operations to or from the United States.
When CAA's of countries with existing air carrier service to the U.S. are found to not meet ICAO standards, the FAA formally requests consultations with the CAA. The purpose of consultations is to discuss our findings in some detail and explore means to quickly rectify shortcomings found with regard to ICAO annexes, to enable its air carriers to continue service to the United States. During the consultation phase, foreign air carrier operations from that country into the United States will be frozen at existing levels.
This policy is defined in a notice published in the Federal Register (Volume 60, No. 210, October 31, 1995). FAA may also heighten its surveillance inspections (ramp checks) on these carriers while they are in the United States. If the deficiencies noted during consultations cannot be successfully corrected within a reasonable, period of time, FAA will notify DOT that carriers from that country do not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and will recommend that DOT revoke or suspend its carriers economic operating authority
When CAAs of countries with no existing air carrier service to the United States are found to not meet ICAO standards, FAA may not undertake final consultations. The FAA will notify DOT that the CAA does not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and its application for economic authority will be denied. The FAA will undertake a reassessment of the CAA after evidence of compliance with ICAO provisions has been received. FAA will, of course, be willing to meet with CAAs at any time, as our resources permit.
After the assessment visit, consultations (if necessary), and notifications have been completed, FAA will publicly release the results of these assessments. This policy revision, published in 1994 (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 173, September 8, 1994), was made after considerable deliberation. We determined that the findings in our IASA program regarding safety oversight shortcomings must be provided to all U.S. citizens so they can make informed choices in their international flights.
The FAA plans to periodically revisit CAA's of countries with air carriers operating into the United States to maintain full familiarity of the methods of that country's continued compliance with ICAO provisions. The FAA may also find it necessary to reassess a CAA at any time if it has reason to believe that minimum ICAO standards are not being met.
At present, there are close to 600 foreign air carriers that operate into the United States. There are approximately 103 countries or regional country alliances that have oversight responsibilities for air carriers that either currently operate into the United States, that have air carriers that have applied to operate into the United States, or have a national air carrier that code shares with a U.S. partner air carrier. As of December 18, 2008 the results of 101 completed CAA assessments have been publicly disclosed.
The initial findings have shown that two thirds of these countries were not fully complying with ICAO standards. Deficiencies found in FAA assessments typically fall into major categories. These categories are almost identical to the deficiencies that have been found by ICAO in the past. These deficiencies included:
- inadequate and in some cases nonexistent regulatory legislation;
- lack of advisory documentation;
- shortage of experienced airworthiness staff;
- lack of control on important airworthiness related items such as issuance and enforcement of Airworthiness Directives, Minimum Equipment Lists, investigation of Service Difficulty Reports, etc.;
- lack of adequate technical data;
- absence of Air Operator Certification (AOC) systems,
- nonconformance to the requirements of the AOC System
- lack or shortage of adequately trained flight operations inspectors including a lack of type ratings;
- lack of updated company manuals for the use by airmen;
- inadequate proficiency check procedures; and
- inadequately trained cabin attendants.
Desired Outcome
The FAA is working to determine that each country meets its obligations under ICAO and to provide proper oversight to each air carrier operating into the U.S. The continued application of this program will result in a lower number of safety-related problems, including accidents, incidents, and an improved level of safety to the flying public.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West of SY OZ
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the future - responsibility for their actions
Good advice sarcs:
And for reading:
And for reading:
FAA audit complete, India retains highest safety standards for aviation
Express news service : New Delhi, Thu Sep 24 2009, 01:49 hrs
India has managed to retain highest category safety standards for aviation after being put through a thorough audit by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over the last two days. Indian aviation safety standards were verified by the US aviation regulator, which granted it the right to retain Category-I status for complying with international safety standards. After the audit, under the International Aviation Safety Assessment Programme, India has been found to be fully compliant with international safety standards by the FAA, civil aviation secretary M Nambiar said. Earlier, FAA had downgraded Israel from Category 1 status to Category 2 status on being found wanting on certain safety aspects.
The audit focuses on the country's ability to adhere to standards and recommended practices of International Civil Aviation Organisation for aircraft operations and maintenance. "Following the Category-I status, we are now on a level playing field," Nasim Zaidi, Director General of Civil Aviation, said. Under Category 2, no expansion or changes to services of Indian air carriers to US would have been permitted and the existing operations would have been subjected to "heightened FAA surveillance". No new direct flights to the US has been started since the review began, said an official source.
Express news service : New Delhi, Thu Sep 24 2009, 01:49 hrs
India has managed to retain highest category safety standards for aviation after being put through a thorough audit by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over the last two days. Indian aviation safety standards were verified by the US aviation regulator, which granted it the right to retain Category-I status for complying with international safety standards. After the audit, under the International Aviation Safety Assessment Programme, India has been found to be fully compliant with international safety standards by the FAA, civil aviation secretary M Nambiar said. Earlier, FAA had downgraded Israel from Category 1 status to Category 2 status on being found wanting on certain safety aspects.
The audit focuses on the country's ability to adhere to standards and recommended practices of International Civil Aviation Organisation for aircraft operations and maintenance. "Following the Category-I status, we are now on a level playing field," Nasim Zaidi, Director General of Civil Aviation, said. Under Category 2, no expansion or changes to services of Indian air carriers to US would have been permitted and the existing operations would have been subjected to "heightened FAA surveillance". No new direct flights to the US has been started since the review began, said an official source.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the Support
Thank you all for your advice. I will work towards doing the suggested. It's about time justice is delivered to all the people affected by the secret protected portal of CASA and the ASTB. The FAA will know very soon, and have the documents I FOI'd.
I will construct a letter to send as well. Anymore advice/help would be most appreciated.
I have nothing to lose as I have lost so very much. I have no fear of CASA. The truth needs no rehearsal, I am telling the truth. The same can't be said for the bumbling dribble pouring out of the mouths of certain leaders.
I will construct a letter to send as well. Anymore advice/help would be most appreciated.
I have nothing to lose as I have lost so very much. I have no fear of CASA. The truth needs no rehearsal, I am telling the truth. The same can't be said for the bumbling dribble pouring out of the mouths of certain leaders.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and that madam, says it all.
After 47 years in the aviation industry I am ashamed.
Not so much of what our regulator has become, but that
we as an industry allowed it to happen.
"What ye sow what ye reap" perhaps we deserve to be
bled to death by a rapacious regulator, our apathy, our inaction
has bought us to this. The really terrible thing is, once the aviation industry has been reduced to nothing, the sociapaths responsible will move on, like metastizing cancer, infecting and ultimately bringing down other industries.
Melodramatic? perhaps, but I fear its what will occur.
After 47 years in the aviation industry I am ashamed.
Not so much of what our regulator has become, but that
we as an industry allowed it to happen.
"What ye sow what ye reap" perhaps we deserve to be
bled to death by a rapacious regulator, our apathy, our inaction
has bought us to this. The really terrible thing is, once the aviation industry has been reduced to nothing, the sociapaths responsible will move on, like metastizing cancer, infecting and ultimately bringing down other industries.
Melodramatic? perhaps, but I fear its what will occur.
Last edited by thorn bird; 22nd Apr 2013 at 12:17.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate thread top posts compilation
Link for Senate thread top posts Vol1-4 compilation.
Maybe the link should be forwarded to ICAO and the FAA?
"Download Now" button only (i.e. the big red one).
P2 (AKA BP)
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long existing rot...
Ziggy, Keep up the good work and keep fighting the fine fight.
Here are some snippets leading up to and including todays CASA.
I have put together some snippets of interest. Some past CASA pithy motherhood speeches but also some scathing statements against CASA. I believe those statements are still relevant today.
Links to the full speeches are included. I have cut and pasted my favourite highlights. (My bolding):
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_91688
New governance arrangements for CASA
3 February 2004
I have today issued fourteen Directives. The first four Directives relate to the need to review elements of the Regulatory Reform Program. This will involve a delay in the bulk of the overall Program, although hopefully the delay will not extend beyond 30 June 2004. There are two Directives covering reviews of Particular Parts, and another Directive relates to the planning needed to accommodate the overall delay, and the specific reviews.
And,
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_91702
RAAA 2008 Convention
Hyatt Regency, Coolum, 18 September 2008
Threats, Challenges and Opportunities
You have anew Chief Executive, who I think is doing a really good job in representing your interests. CASA will soon have a new CEO and it just might be that this could be the right time to re-think the relationship, to ensure issues raised have genuine safety outcomes as objectives and to be ready to convince CASA that this is the case. For CASA's part, we must clearly be ready to engage with any group that has a clear safety.
When I came to CASA at the end of 2003, it was not as if I did not know what I was taking on. Way back, I had worked in the then Department of Aviation, CASA's predecessor. I was later appointed to the CASA Board. I chaired CASA's Aviation Safety Forum and I was appointed by the then Minister as a special industry adviser to CASA on regulatory reform.
The senior management team was tired, set in its ways, and not all that interested inasking the hard questions, such as whether CASA was actually effective infulfilling the expectations of the government, the industry, the travelling public and the taxpayer. I could go on, but I think you get the drift. The regulatory reform programis finally producing non-prescriptive outcome-based regulations stripped of requirements that do not contribute to safety, and supported by a transparent and comprehensive industry
We established a robust independent Industry Complaints Commissioner function toprovide an independent procedure for industry complaints against CASA to be addressed in an unbiased way.
It seems tome unlikely that a Board will be in place much before March 2009, perhaps later. Is this a threat? I don't believe so. Will the existence of a Board present any insurmountable difficulties for CASA or create great uncertainties for CASA or the industry? I don't believe so.
The successof a Board very much depends on the quality of the members and I am sure the Minister will be appointing people of the highest standing and experience to afuture CASA Board, assuming, of course, passage of the necessary changes to the Civil AviationAct.
Thank you
Bruce Byron AM
Chief Executive Officer
September 2008
And,
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/_assets/main/corporat/ceo/speeches/transcript_bris.pdf
CASA response to the Lockhart River investigation. No longer exists? Hmmmmmm
However, as a reminder:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/casa-admits-to-insatisfactory-response-to-lockhart/story-e6frg6nf-1111113846106
CASA admits to 'unsatisfactory'response to Lockhart
· From:The Australian
· June 28, 200712:00AM
ACIVIL Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) inspector has admitted the aviation watchdog's response to concerns about the airline at the centre of one of the nation's worst air disasters was "unsatisfactory".
Brisbane-based CASA inspector Max McRae today gave evidence to a coronial inquest into thecircumstances surrounding the Lockhart River plane crash on May 7, 2005.
All 15 people aboard died when the TransAir-operated Metroliner aircraft ploughed into a 500-metre high mountain on approach to the Lockhart RiverAboriginal community on Cape York, in far north Queensland.
Following a two-year investigation into the crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) found, among other contributors, CASA failed to detect and regulate safety problems inherent in TransAir.
The report showed CASA raised concerns with the now-defunct TransAir as early as 1998 about its director Les Wright, who was also the airline's CEO, chiefpilot and training and checking pilot.
The aviation body was concerned Mr Wright was “spread very thin” across the Australian and Papua New Guinea operations, compromising safety.
A 1999 CASA audit of TransAir uncovered a worrying degree of non-compliance,including inadequate management and issues relating to the airlines' operationsmanual.
The audit results prompted CASA to draft a show-cause notice against Mr Wrightdemanding why he should be allowed to keep his chief pilot approval, which if stripped would have effectively grounded the airline.
But the notice was not issued because Mr Wright agreed to an urgent alternativecourse of action which included appointing someone to introduce and manage asafety management system within the company.
It was agreed Mr Wright would provide CASA with weekly reports and attendmeetings to ensure progress was being made.
However, the ATSB found CASA files showed little evidence TransAir compliedwith the agreement.
TransAir only appointed a safety manager in 2001 and a deputy chief pilot a year later.
Under cross examination, Mr McRae today was asked why CASA allowed TransAir to expand its operations to include additional routes while it deemed the airline,which hadn't kept its end of the agreement, “high risk”.
“CASA was in a position where we were trying to improve the organisation,” MrMcRae said.
When asked if these concerns weren't “followed through”, Mr McRae replied:“Yes”.
When further asked if this was unsatisfactory, he responded: “In those terms,yes”.
He said CASA had embarked on “a lot more operational surveillance” following the crash, but the onus was on the airline operators to do the right thing.
When asked what he believed was the cause of the accident, he responded: “I believe the guy flew into the hill”.
“I don't think one can form an absolute view,” he said.
And,
CASA under fire over Lockhart River crash
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 04/04/2007
Reporter: Karen Burkman
The Australian aviation regulator, CASA, isunder fire after an investigation found the authority should take part responsibility for the Lockhart River crash.
Transcript
TONY JONES: Error after error - that's how investigators have summed up the Lockhart River air crash almost two years ago. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau found mistakes made by two TransAir pilots working under pressure were the major cause but the airline's safety culture and lack of adequate supervision by the aviation safety watchdog, CASA, were also cited as contributing factors. Karen Berkman reports.
KAREN BERKMAN: The Australian Transport Safety Bureau report paints a terrifying picture of the last moments of Australia's worst civilian air crash in almost 40 years. In bad weather, the Metroliner came in for a complex instrumentlanding at Lockhart River, with the pilot overloaded and an inexperienced21-year-old co pilot. Add to that confusing maps and a basic ground proximity warning system that would have alerted the crew too late.
BRUCE BYRON, CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY: I have never seen rates of descent that high during an estimate approach when so close to the ground.
KAREN BERKMAN: Exactly why the TransAir plane descended too fast and too steeply may never be known because the cockpit voice recorder wasn't working properly. The ATSB attributed much of the blame to mistakes made by the overworked crew.
KYM BILLS, AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT SAFETY BUREAU: The pilot in command had a history of fast flying, including without properly endorsed crew, and had been surprised by high terrain, using this same approach 10 days before.
KAREN BERKMAN: TransAir was found to have contributed to the crash by inadequate training and supervision of pilots.
KYM BILLS: TransAir's safety management and culture were poor.
KAREN BERKMAN: The ATSB said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had not properly monitored the airline's structure in operations.
MARTIN FERGUSON, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN: If CASA had have been doing its job, the Lockhart River accident, which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
MARK VAILE, TRANSPORT MINISTER: I think that we are continuing to make improvements and I look forward to CASA's response.
KAREN BERKMAN: The inquiry found that CASA had not properly followed its own procedures and guidelines.
BRUCE BYRON: Yes, I saw that, and that's definitely an area of concern. I would say that across the board CASA’s surveillance needed improvement across all areas.
KAREN BERKMAN: CASA rejected the charge it contributed in any way to the crash, but says its monitoring of small operators has improved greatly in the two years since. Many of the report's recommendations have already been incorporated, including enhanced ground proximity systems.
And,
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
2:15 pm,4April2007,ParliamentHouse
Subjects: aviation industry reform, CASA, TransAir,Lockhart Review report findings
MARTIN FERGUSON:
On behalf of a number of families,who lost loved ones in the Lockhart River accident, can I firstly say: they have clearly expressed their dismay to my Office this afternoon at the inadequate response by the CEO of CASA, Mr Byron, to the ATSB Report.
To think that CASA can simply dismiss ATSB findings as being wrong and to effectively seek to distance himself and CASA from the findings of the ATSB Report simply says there is a lack of leadership at the most senior level of CASA.
On that basis the Opposition has come to the conclusion that there is no alternative but to call for the resignation of Mr Byron.
The ATSB Report is a scathing report, not only in terms of the performance of TransAir but more importantly, in terms of the performance of CASA; the safety organisation responsible for the aviation industry in Australia.
I think itis also fair to say that we need a root and branch reform of CASA as an organisation. Unlike Air Services Australia and ATSB, organisationssimilarly involved in aviation in Australia, we have no confidence in CASA and its leadership.
Some years ago both the Government and the Opposition came to the view that perhaps the best way of actually taking CASA forward was to abolish the Board. Our decision required a Minister to actually have an interest in holding CASA accountable.
In the period since the Board was abolished, there have been three Howard Government Ministers for Transport. None of those Government Ministers have been actually prepared to do the hard work or actually have the interest in reforming and taking CASA forward.
Side by side, with a resignation from the CEO of CASA, who has 18 months to run on his contract, I believe that the Government has to think about separating enforcement in terms of the role of CASA, actually putting the finger on theindustry going to issues of aviation safety, and policy development and regulation setting.
The Government is required to go out of its way to recruit someone who is a professional with an intimate knowledge of the aviation industry, be it domestically or internationally.
I also believe that rather than appointing a Board, as it has on a number of occasions of mates, it has to put in place a small body to actually assist the CEO to bring about fundamental cultural reform andmethods of operations of CASA.
As for the Government’s response today, I also believe that, like CASA, it leaves a lot to be desired.
The ATSB Report is a scathing report of not only CASA but potentially aviation safety inAustralia.
With respect to the issue of the Government, weneed a professional response.
To put Dick Smith back in the ring is just plain wrong. I might also say there are serious questions about a further member of the Taskforce, Mr Boyd, and obviously we will be having something further to say with respect to the Taskforce in the foreseeable future.
The Government should not be about putting croniesin place to try and cover its trail to protect itself. We all have to comeclean and say we actually got it wrong. I say on behalf of the Opposition, thatwe actually supported the abolition of the Board as did the Government. But we have been proven to be wrong.
Today requires honesty, integrity and aprofessional approach to fixing aviation safety in Australia. It seems that the Howard Government and CASA is incapable of actually responding to thechallenge.
JOURNALIST:
What is wrong with Dick Smith? You seem to be blackening his name, what is the cause for that?
MARTIN FERGUSON:
There are serious questions not only in the mind of the Opposition but I might also say in the Government about Dick’s performance.
It was John Anderson, who was then the Minister for Transport, who finally sacked him and said enough is enough. Any suggestion that Dick Smith be brought back into any role in aviation regulation reform in Australia today, has sounded the alarm bells in the aviation industry.
Not only have I had Lockhart River victims’ family members on the phone today complaining about CASA’s response, I have also had calls from senior representatives in the aviation industry saying, "Martin, you have to stand up. Dick Smith is a problem."
We have to go forward in a proper non-emotional,professional way. Dick Smith is at best an enthusiastic amateur, too emotionally involved in the industry, who likes to get his own way without regard to what I regard as of fundamental importance to aviation safety and how we get it right.
JOURNALIST:
What is wrong with CASA? It is abody of professionals who must be all reasonably good at their jobs. How is it that the organisation doesn’t meet air safety regulations?
MARTIN FERGUSON:
Well compare Air ServicesAustralia. It has a Board structure where the CEO is actually prepared to standup and hold people accountable.
CASA simply is not able to do the job. There is a cultural problem throughout the whole organisation. In the last three years, you think they would have got it right.
CASA has spent over $9 million on so-called management change. Where are we today? It is almost as if that money was just poured down the drain because of the failure of leadership, a lack of ministerial interest and without a doubt - as the ATSB Report clearly states in black and white - if CASA had been doing its job, theLockhart River accident which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
Thank you.
‘2013 - Safe and improved skies for all’? I think not.
Here are some snippets leading up to and including todays CASA.
I have put together some snippets of interest. Some past CASA pithy motherhood speeches but also some scathing statements against CASA. I believe those statements are still relevant today.
Links to the full speeches are included. I have cut and pasted my favourite highlights. (My bolding):
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_91688New governance arrangements for CASA
3 February 2004
I have today issued fourteen Directives. The first four Directives relate to the need to review elements of the Regulatory Reform Program. This will involve a delay in the bulk of the overall Program, although hopefully the delay will not extend beyond 30 June 2004. There are two Directives covering reviews of Particular Parts, and another Directive relates to the planning needed to accommodate the overall delay, and the specific reviews.
And,
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_91702
RAAA 2008 Convention
Hyatt Regency, Coolum, 18 September 2008
Threats, Challenges and Opportunities
You have anew Chief Executive, who I think is doing a really good job in representing your interests. CASA will soon have a new CEO and it just might be that this could be the right time to re-think the relationship, to ensure issues raised have genuine safety outcomes as objectives and to be ready to convince CASA that this is the case. For CASA's part, we must clearly be ready to engage with any group that has a clear safety.
When I came to CASA at the end of 2003, it was not as if I did not know what I was taking on. Way back, I had worked in the then Department of Aviation, CASA's predecessor. I was later appointed to the CASA Board. I chaired CASA's Aviation Safety Forum and I was appointed by the then Minister as a special industry adviser to CASA on regulatory reform.
The senior management team was tired, set in its ways, and not all that interested inasking the hard questions, such as whether CASA was actually effective infulfilling the expectations of the government, the industry, the travelling public and the taxpayer. I could go on, but I think you get the drift. The regulatory reform programis finally producing non-prescriptive outcome-based regulations stripped of requirements that do not contribute to safety, and supported by a transparent and comprehensive industry
We established a robust independent Industry Complaints Commissioner function toprovide an independent procedure for industry complaints against CASA to be addressed in an unbiased way.
It seems tome unlikely that a Board will be in place much before March 2009, perhaps later. Is this a threat? I don't believe so. Will the existence of a Board present any insurmountable difficulties for CASA or create great uncertainties for CASA or the industry? I don't believe so.
The successof a Board very much depends on the quality of the members and I am sure the Minister will be appointing people of the highest standing and experience to afuture CASA Board, assuming, of course, passage of the necessary changes to the Civil AviationAct.
Thank you
Bruce Byron AM
Chief Executive Officer
September 2008
And,
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/_assets/main/corporat/ceo/speeches/transcript_bris.pdf
CASA response to the Lockhart River investigation. No longer exists? Hmmmmmm
However, as a reminder:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/casa-admits-to-insatisfactory-response-to-lockhart/story-e6frg6nf-1111113846106
CASA admits to 'unsatisfactory'response to Lockhart
· From:The Australian
· June 28, 200712:00AM
ACIVIL Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) inspector has admitted the aviation watchdog's response to concerns about the airline at the centre of one of the nation's worst air disasters was "unsatisfactory".
Brisbane-based CASA inspector Max McRae today gave evidence to a coronial inquest into thecircumstances surrounding the Lockhart River plane crash on May 7, 2005.
All 15 people aboard died when the TransAir-operated Metroliner aircraft ploughed into a 500-metre high mountain on approach to the Lockhart RiverAboriginal community on Cape York, in far north Queensland.
Following a two-year investigation into the crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) found, among other contributors, CASA failed to detect and regulate safety problems inherent in TransAir.
The report showed CASA raised concerns with the now-defunct TransAir as early as 1998 about its director Les Wright, who was also the airline's CEO, chiefpilot and training and checking pilot.
The aviation body was concerned Mr Wright was “spread very thin” across the Australian and Papua New Guinea operations, compromising safety.
A 1999 CASA audit of TransAir uncovered a worrying degree of non-compliance,including inadequate management and issues relating to the airlines' operationsmanual.
The audit results prompted CASA to draft a show-cause notice against Mr Wrightdemanding why he should be allowed to keep his chief pilot approval, which if stripped would have effectively grounded the airline.
But the notice was not issued because Mr Wright agreed to an urgent alternativecourse of action which included appointing someone to introduce and manage asafety management system within the company.
It was agreed Mr Wright would provide CASA with weekly reports and attendmeetings to ensure progress was being made.
However, the ATSB found CASA files showed little evidence TransAir compliedwith the agreement.
TransAir only appointed a safety manager in 2001 and a deputy chief pilot a year later.
Under cross examination, Mr McRae today was asked why CASA allowed TransAir to expand its operations to include additional routes while it deemed the airline,which hadn't kept its end of the agreement, “high risk”.
“CASA was in a position where we were trying to improve the organisation,” MrMcRae said.
When asked if these concerns weren't “followed through”, Mr McRae replied:“Yes”.
When further asked if this was unsatisfactory, he responded: “In those terms,yes”.
He said CASA had embarked on “a lot more operational surveillance” following the crash, but the onus was on the airline operators to do the right thing.
When asked what he believed was the cause of the accident, he responded: “I believe the guy flew into the hill”.
“I don't think one can form an absolute view,” he said.
And,
CASA under fire over Lockhart River crash
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 04/04/2007
Reporter: Karen Burkman
The Australian aviation regulator, CASA, isunder fire after an investigation found the authority should take part responsibility for the Lockhart River crash.
Transcript
TONY JONES: Error after error - that's how investigators have summed up the Lockhart River air crash almost two years ago. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau found mistakes made by two TransAir pilots working under pressure were the major cause but the airline's safety culture and lack of adequate supervision by the aviation safety watchdog, CASA, were also cited as contributing factors. Karen Berkman reports.
KAREN BERKMAN: The Australian Transport Safety Bureau report paints a terrifying picture of the last moments of Australia's worst civilian air crash in almost 40 years. In bad weather, the Metroliner came in for a complex instrumentlanding at Lockhart River, with the pilot overloaded and an inexperienced21-year-old co pilot. Add to that confusing maps and a basic ground proximity warning system that would have alerted the crew too late.
BRUCE BYRON, CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY: I have never seen rates of descent that high during an estimate approach when so close to the ground.
KAREN BERKMAN: Exactly why the TransAir plane descended too fast and too steeply may never be known because the cockpit voice recorder wasn't working properly. The ATSB attributed much of the blame to mistakes made by the overworked crew.
KYM BILLS, AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT SAFETY BUREAU: The pilot in command had a history of fast flying, including without properly endorsed crew, and had been surprised by high terrain, using this same approach 10 days before.
KAREN BERKMAN: TransAir was found to have contributed to the crash by inadequate training and supervision of pilots.
KYM BILLS: TransAir's safety management and culture were poor.
KAREN BERKMAN: The ATSB said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had not properly monitored the airline's structure in operations.
MARTIN FERGUSON, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN: If CASA had have been doing its job, the Lockhart River accident, which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
MARK VAILE, TRANSPORT MINISTER: I think that we are continuing to make improvements and I look forward to CASA's response.
KAREN BERKMAN: The inquiry found that CASA had not properly followed its own procedures and guidelines.
BRUCE BYRON: Yes, I saw that, and that's definitely an area of concern. I would say that across the board CASA’s surveillance needed improvement across all areas.
KAREN BERKMAN: CASA rejected the charge it contributed in any way to the crash, but says its monitoring of small operators has improved greatly in the two years since. Many of the report's recommendations have already been incorporated, including enhanced ground proximity systems.
And,
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
2:15 pm,4April2007,ParliamentHouse
MARTIN FERGUSON
Subjects: aviation industry reform, CASA, TransAir,Lockhart Review report findings
MARTIN FERGUSON:
On behalf of a number of families,who lost loved ones in the Lockhart River accident, can I firstly say: they have clearly expressed their dismay to my Office this afternoon at the inadequate response by the CEO of CASA, Mr Byron, to the ATSB Report.
To think that CASA can simply dismiss ATSB findings as being wrong and to effectively seek to distance himself and CASA from the findings of the ATSB Report simply says there is a lack of leadership at the most senior level of CASA.
On that basis the Opposition has come to the conclusion that there is no alternative but to call for the resignation of Mr Byron.
The ATSB Report is a scathing report, not only in terms of the performance of TransAir but more importantly, in terms of the performance of CASA; the safety organisation responsible for the aviation industry in Australia.
I think itis also fair to say that we need a root and branch reform of CASA as an organisation. Unlike Air Services Australia and ATSB, organisationssimilarly involved in aviation in Australia, we have no confidence in CASA and its leadership.
Some years ago both the Government and the Opposition came to the view that perhaps the best way of actually taking CASA forward was to abolish the Board. Our decision required a Minister to actually have an interest in holding CASA accountable.
In the period since the Board was abolished, there have been three Howard Government Ministers for Transport. None of those Government Ministers have been actually prepared to do the hard work or actually have the interest in reforming and taking CASA forward.
Side by side, with a resignation from the CEO of CASA, who has 18 months to run on his contract, I believe that the Government has to think about separating enforcement in terms of the role of CASA, actually putting the finger on theindustry going to issues of aviation safety, and policy development and regulation setting.
The Government is required to go out of its way to recruit someone who is a professional with an intimate knowledge of the aviation industry, be it domestically or internationally.
I also believe that rather than appointing a Board, as it has on a number of occasions of mates, it has to put in place a small body to actually assist the CEO to bring about fundamental cultural reform andmethods of operations of CASA.
As for the Government’s response today, I also believe that, like CASA, it leaves a lot to be desired.
The ATSB Report is a scathing report of not only CASA but potentially aviation safety inAustralia.
With respect to the issue of the Government, weneed a professional response.
To put Dick Smith back in the ring is just plain wrong. I might also say there are serious questions about a further member of the Taskforce, Mr Boyd, and obviously we will be having something further to say with respect to the Taskforce in the foreseeable future.
The Government should not be about putting croniesin place to try and cover its trail to protect itself. We all have to comeclean and say we actually got it wrong. I say on behalf of the Opposition, thatwe actually supported the abolition of the Board as did the Government. But we have been proven to be wrong.
Today requires honesty, integrity and aprofessional approach to fixing aviation safety in Australia. It seems that the Howard Government and CASA is incapable of actually responding to thechallenge.
JOURNALIST:
What is wrong with Dick Smith? You seem to be blackening his name, what is the cause for that?
MARTIN FERGUSON:
There are serious questions not only in the mind of the Opposition but I might also say in the Government about Dick’s performance.
It was John Anderson, who was then the Minister for Transport, who finally sacked him and said enough is enough. Any suggestion that Dick Smith be brought back into any role in aviation regulation reform in Australia today, has sounded the alarm bells in the aviation industry.
Not only have I had Lockhart River victims’ family members on the phone today complaining about CASA’s response, I have also had calls from senior representatives in the aviation industry saying, "Martin, you have to stand up. Dick Smith is a problem."
We have to go forward in a proper non-emotional,professional way. Dick Smith is at best an enthusiastic amateur, too emotionally involved in the industry, who likes to get his own way without regard to what I regard as of fundamental importance to aviation safety and how we get it right.
JOURNALIST:
What is wrong with CASA? It is abody of professionals who must be all reasonably good at their jobs. How is it that the organisation doesn’t meet air safety regulations?
MARTIN FERGUSON:
Well compare Air ServicesAustralia. It has a Board structure where the CEO is actually prepared to standup and hold people accountable.
CASA simply is not able to do the job. There is a cultural problem throughout the whole organisation. In the last three years, you think they would have got it right.
CASA has spent over $9 million on so-called management change. Where are we today? It is almost as if that money was just poured down the drain because of the failure of leadership, a lack of ministerial interest and without a doubt - as the ATSB Report clearly states in black and white - if CASA had been doing its job, theLockhart River accident which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
Thank you.
‘2013 - Safe and improved skies for all’? I think not.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 23rd Apr 2013 at 02:00.
Nice summary Oleo and in a nutshell presents Ziggy with her dilemma. When Labor were in opposition they had all the evidence they needed that CASA needed to be changed.
Labor has been in power for 6 years and we are still having inquiries about the state of aviation in Australia.
My suggestion to Ziggy would be to get in touch with Shane Urquart whose daughter was on the Lockhart River flight to pool resources and demonstrate to the pollies the human cost of CASAs failings. In America the Senate has rejected common sense changes to gun laws despite the families of the recent kindergarten shooting lobbying the Senators. I think that gives an indication of the difficulties she will face but thats not to say don't bother.
CASA has spent over $9 million on so-called management change. Where are we today? It is almost as if that money was just poured down the drain because of the failure of leadership, a lack of ministerial interest and without a doubt - as the ATSB Report clearly states in black and white - if CASA had been doing its job, theLockhart River accident which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
My suggestion to Ziggy would be to get in touch with Shane Urquart whose daughter was on the Lockhart River flight to pool resources and demonstrate to the pollies the human cost of CASAs failings. In America the Senate has rejected common sense changes to gun laws despite the families of the recent kindergarten shooting lobbying the Senators. I think that gives an indication of the difficulties she will face but thats not to say don't bother.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Triumph of the Political Class (Paperback)
Peter Oborne
Oborne's perspective seems to be that of an old-style 'one nation tory'. From that perspective, he considers that:
'...the real gulf in British politics is no longer between Tory and Labour. It is between a hegemonic Political Class and a population at large which is mainly disenfranchised and increasingly betrayed by what amounts to a conspiracy between the mainstream parties.' (p93)
Peter Oborne
Oborne's perspective seems to be that of an old-style 'one nation tory'. From that perspective, he considers that:
'...the real gulf in British politics is no longer between Tory and Labour. It is between a hegemonic Political Class and a population at large which is mainly disenfranchised and increasingly betrayed by what amounts to a conspiracy between the mainstream parties.' (p93)
Remember this inquiry was a result of a Four Corners documentary. Embarrassing the government is probably the best option via the ABC if you can get them interested Ziggy.
Write to Universities running human factors, and accident investigation programs. Pel Air would make a gd case study.
Air Crash Investigation production company
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(TV_series)
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 23rd Apr 2013 at 17:45.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The page of long posts.
Ziggychick – great to see your spirit restored to being 'match fit'. I sympathise with your sentiments and - welcome to the dustup; there is only one small point I could disagree with – The Chambers Report – (now that's a drum roll). Anyone who could believe the chambers epistle was written for "the well being and future direction" of CASA and industry can buy a used houseboat from me anytime.
As I see it, there was one of three only three purposes to the Chambers report:-
1) To denigrate the crew working 'on task', even the expert, qualified ones.
2) To cover the flaccid rump of the fearless leader in matters not pertaining to Pel Air while the FAA was hanging about the coffee machine. Someone was bound to ask why the likes of Cook pulled the golden pin.
3) As an egocentric private (very) demonstration of 'skills' which would assist in a slither up the slippery pole to trough heaven.
If ever Mc Comic and Beaker are to depart the fix; have them take their Chamber pot with them, please.
As I see it, there was one of three only three purposes to the Chambers report:-
1) To denigrate the crew working 'on task', even the expert, qualified ones.
2) To cover the flaccid rump of the fearless leader in matters not pertaining to Pel Air while the FAA was hanging about the coffee machine. Someone was bound to ask why the likes of Cook pulled the golden pin.
3) As an egocentric private (very) demonstration of 'skills' which would assist in a slither up the slippery pole to trough heaven.
If ever Mc Comic and Beaker are to depart the fix; have them take their Chamber pot with them, please.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's issues - Worrying, compelling and tautological
Advo-cate, your post along with previous discussions got me thinking yet again about the 100 NCN's, give or take. That is a huge number. I have been trying to research as to exactly how many items are outstanding?
But either way, 100 is a disgrace.
How would CAsA treat an operator that was found to be so severely wanting that it received 100 NCN's?
We have seen repetitive ramblings by the Skull and his predecessors including Bruce 'I don't want to live in Canberra' Byron about how problems have existed 'currently and/or before his/their tenure in the top role', yet nothing gets fixed?
Does the very organisation that oversights Australian aviation safety itself not understand 'root cause'? It seems that repetitive DAS's make the statements. Each one, as we are led to believe, inherits a lemon!
What will the Skulls replacement say when he/she starts at the end of the year?
CAsA does not set a safety example. It does not understand root cause, has legacy issues that date back decades and it does not understand the very industry it regulates. It is farcical that an airline must respond, fix and review issue, in other words is expected to actually fix the problem. Yet CAsA prefers to hide, deny, lie, spin and bluff rather than fix its issues. Absolute contradiction of expectations. But then again, that's what happens when you have bureaucrats, lawyers, burnt out test pilots and sociopaths in charge of business, how could they know how to fix it?
Further proof is Quadrio. CAsA spend millions chasing a lone chopper pilot, tie up resources, manpower and of course throw millions of the taxpayers dosh into the entire episode and why? Isn't it the CAsA charter to keep the fare paying passenger safe? Isn't that their primary objective? So please tell me again why they are focused on a chopper pilot who doesn't provide RPT or even Charter services?
Yes, the history of CAsA, and now it's symbiotic bed sleeping arrangements with the ATSBeaker is nothing short of extremely concerning. The industry is getting worse, CAsA and ATSBeaker have completely lost the plot, Board and senior Executives are out of control and the Minister is too busy planning his next career for when he is jettisoned out of Government later this year all means that nobody is at the wheel.
Should ICAO and the FAA be concerned? Damn straight.
But either way, 100 is a disgrace.
How would CAsA treat an operator that was found to be so severely wanting that it received 100 NCN's?
We have seen repetitive ramblings by the Skull and his predecessors including Bruce 'I don't want to live in Canberra' Byron about how problems have existed 'currently and/or before his/their tenure in the top role', yet nothing gets fixed?
Does the very organisation that oversights Australian aviation safety itself not understand 'root cause'? It seems that repetitive DAS's make the statements. Each one, as we are led to believe, inherits a lemon!
What will the Skulls replacement say when he/she starts at the end of the year?
CAsA does not set a safety example. It does not understand root cause, has legacy issues that date back decades and it does not understand the very industry it regulates. It is farcical that an airline must respond, fix and review issue, in other words is expected to actually fix the problem. Yet CAsA prefers to hide, deny, lie, spin and bluff rather than fix its issues. Absolute contradiction of expectations. But then again, that's what happens when you have bureaucrats, lawyers, burnt out test pilots and sociopaths in charge of business, how could they know how to fix it?
Further proof is Quadrio. CAsA spend millions chasing a lone chopper pilot, tie up resources, manpower and of course throw millions of the taxpayers dosh into the entire episode and why? Isn't it the CAsA charter to keep the fare paying passenger safe? Isn't that their primary objective? So please tell me again why they are focused on a chopper pilot who doesn't provide RPT or even Charter services?
Yes, the history of CAsA, and now it's symbiotic bed sleeping arrangements with the ATSBeaker is nothing short of extremely concerning. The industry is getting worse, CAsA and ATSBeaker have completely lost the plot, Board and senior Executives are out of control and the Minister is too busy planning his next career for when he is jettisoned out of Government later this year all means that nobody is at the wheel.
Should ICAO and the FAA be concerned? Damn straight.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 24th Apr 2013 at 01:47.
"Boeing grilled over ‘obfuscation’ at NTSB 787 session"
“I think there is some obvious obfuscation here,” Hersman said....Hmm could you imagine mi..mi..mi..Beaker saying such a thing while scrutinising Fort Fumble's shennanigans in the Pel-Air ditching debacle??...Errr nup!
However that's what the US equivalent of the ATSB, the NTSB, are currently doing in their own inquiry into the 787 battery fires. See the Washington Post story and Ben's coverage for a full run down.
Now that's how a true aviation safety watchdog should be behaving..
Instead we get a canine cowering behind the shirt tails of FF like a pissing puppy scared of its own shadow!
However that's what the US equivalent of the ATSB, the NTSB, are currently doing in their own inquiry into the 787 battery fires. See the Washington Post story and Ben's coverage for a full run down.
Now that's how a true aviation safety watchdog should be behaving..
Instead we get a canine cowering behind the shirt tails of FF like a pissing puppy scared of its own shadow!
Last edited by Sarcs; 24th Apr 2013 at 12:29. Reason: Going from the 'long post' to the 'last post' 0530 tomorrow!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Shameful System
On reflection, the FAA were in Canberra investigating CASA one week after the ditching. Very swiftly the pilot went from hero to scapegoat. What did McSkull say to them? Well, it's time they knew the truth. I am sure the FAA & ICAO will not be happy when I alert them this week to the Senate, regardless of the findings. If our own country representatives have not the balls to actively do something about C & A, then the big boys will step in. I can not say to much just yet, but I have spoken to ICAO & will be speaking with the FAA investigator shortly. I am gathering all the evidence to send in an impeccable order. The problems with CASA & ATSB has been going on for too long. It is time for real structural change and a good look at the people within the organisations. Something needs to be done as learning from admissions to mistakes is a void within both. How disgraceful that the involvement of international minds is necessary as our own are so ignorant. Stay tuned, and once again, thank you to all that have been so informative. Justice and truth will trump the BS surrounding this investigation and past ones that have conducted in a self protective manner by the fools. What I am doing is not vindictive nor attacking, it is simply bringing the truth to the surface for all to see and advocate much needed change. I am on again in hospital, migraines everyday due to neck injury and I have a very weak almost useless right arm, daily pain in right hip and right leg. It Absolutely feels that I am being punished for going to work one night and ending up in the drink and injured. How dare they. My will is strong and the evidence reality. No more hiding behind lies, BIG mistake CASA & ATSB. A wise person knows the truth trumps eventually. Clearly McSkull & Beaker do not have the wisdom within to know this. Sad cases. I am very grateful for all of your help, will keep you posted. For our ANZACS, Lest we Forget.
Last edited by Ziggychick; 24th Apr 2013 at 18:23. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
April 2013
From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick
New rules are now in place for the management of flight crew fatigue in Australian aviation. Changes to the Civil Aviation Orders relating to fatigue management take effect from 30 April 2013.
From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick
New rules are now in place for the management of flight crew fatigue in Australian aviation. Changes to the Civil Aviation Orders relating to fatigue management take effect from 30 April 2013.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Convenient
It is great that FRMS has now been acknowledged and changed. But, isn't that a direct admission of the short comings from the past. Too late for NGA, Lockhart and others. McCormicks statement makes me wonder who is talking to who in our Gov and could his statement be a diversion from Senate findings as the dates are the same. Clever tactic or genuine concern for change. With the coincidence of the dates, his explosive history and reputation, perhaps the tactical route seems more likely. Who can we trust?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO and ANZAC biscuits.
"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned,"
Biznizzz - Not certain that ICAO can get involved in a domestic; unless of course they decide that enough is enough with non compliance. In a typical CASA response to ICAO 'compliance' we have spent a fortune making sure that Australia whilst seen to be 'compliant' (refer differences) we ain't. Not by a long shot. But, the wriggle room has been ever so smoothly provided, at great expense so that CASA can arrogantly thumb it's nose at ICAO and remain unique. Rather than address the issues, CASA found a way around them.
ATSB have suffered and are being publicly humiliated by the same mindset; after the Lockhart fiasco, it was decided to neuter the ATSB rather than fix the problem; CASA once again found a way around the problematic ATSB thorn in their side. Mark you reading some of the latest reports they either need to stop Wodger witing - or get out the game – pathetic.
Why? – who knows, but it is certain that a new attitude, from the top down needs to be found. There are serious issues which need to be addressed, lots of. There is a screaming need for a DAS who can actually connect with industry experts who don't want to spend their time pottering about in a sheltered workshop, watering the plants and writing nonsense.
Would it take very long or cost a great deal to reassess CASA actions over the last four or five years?. Fairly, honestly and pragmatically look at industry complaints, if it's an AWI or FOI problem get rid of the problem (returned to industry is the expression used for dubious cases); or, determine if a particular operator or individual was indeed a danger and a menace to society, then punish or rehabilitate as required against tested evidence, in court. etc. etc. That would at least convince the industry that a start had been made, the rest should flow on from a good, honest appraisal.
The Tiger stunt was disgraceful, the Quadrio case beyond the pale and Pel Air provides an impeccable record of exactly what ails and restricts the Australia authority from becoming a world leader rather than a ridiculous, frightened bunch of shamateurs hiding behind multiple layers of legal righteousness. - Steam off and :-
Lest we forget.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
Last edited by Kharon; 25th Apr 2013 at 02:21.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Skull is a lapdog. ICAO say jump and he says 'how high'!
SMS, HF, FRMS all being implemented due to CAsA having too. Nothing off their own initiative.
The Colgan crash in the USA was the catalyst for FRMS. For those of us who work frontline and in the real world we knew fatigue has been an issue for a long long time. But the costs associated with managing fatigue, creating more 'people friendly' rosters which would mean less hours flown and a requirement for more Pilots and other safety critical roles has been contested by greedy grubby organisations for years. And ICAO knew that Fatigue Management would upset industry and their precious profits hence their sitting on their hands....until Colgan. Colgan was the excuse ICAO needed to introduce change, and so they finally did.
Ziggy , the NTSB report on Colgan is worth a read. The FAA had to also fall into line due to some of the causal factors. There are a few papers out there on Colgan from a HF and FRMS perspective and they are worth a read. Also prior to 2008 our own former quality investigator the ATSBeaker was poking around HF and Fatigue issues but that slowed off of course once the Beaker got his bureaucratic paws on the place, Beakerised it and commenced his mi mi mi mi-ing.
My concern is that the Voodoo witch doctor will do as he has done with SMS and Just Culture and take FRMS, dissect it, smother it in PhD tautology and his bureaucratic wankery and try to turn it in to something else, something on a higher plain (or plane) where only he and the Beaker reside in their intellectual wonderland!
I truly hope we don't have our own version of a Colgan down under, but I think Pel Air, Lockhart and Canley Vale all have elements of Colgan in them. Lets hope all factors don't combine together and we end up with a large smoking hole, or has Sunny would say 'a smoking hole or three'.
Ziggy keep up the good work, you are not a lone voice, you have support. And you can also be proud that you have a bigger set of dusters than our Regulatory wiener boys over sighting our industry.
We all hope your physical and mental scars subside with time
SMS, HF, FRMS all being implemented due to CAsA having too. Nothing off their own initiative.
The Colgan crash in the USA was the catalyst for FRMS. For those of us who work frontline and in the real world we knew fatigue has been an issue for a long long time. But the costs associated with managing fatigue, creating more 'people friendly' rosters which would mean less hours flown and a requirement for more Pilots and other safety critical roles has been contested by greedy grubby organisations for years. And ICAO knew that Fatigue Management would upset industry and their precious profits hence their sitting on their hands....until Colgan. Colgan was the excuse ICAO needed to introduce change, and so they finally did.
Ziggy , the NTSB report on Colgan is worth a read. The FAA had to also fall into line due to some of the causal factors. There are a few papers out there on Colgan from a HF and FRMS perspective and they are worth a read. Also prior to 2008 our own former quality investigator the ATSBeaker was poking around HF and Fatigue issues but that slowed off of course once the Beaker got his bureaucratic paws on the place, Beakerised it and commenced his mi mi mi mi-ing.
My concern is that the Voodoo witch doctor will do as he has done with SMS and Just Culture and take FRMS, dissect it, smother it in PhD tautology and his bureaucratic wankery and try to turn it in to something else, something on a higher plain (or plane) where only he and the Beaker reside in their intellectual wonderland!
I truly hope we don't have our own version of a Colgan down under, but I think Pel Air, Lockhart and Canley Vale all have elements of Colgan in them. Lets hope all factors don't combine together and we end up with a large smoking hole, or has Sunny would say 'a smoking hole or three'.
Ziggy keep up the good work, you are not a lone voice, you have support. And you can also be proud that you have a bigger set of dusters than our Regulatory wiener boys over sighting our industry.
We all hope your physical and mental scars subside with time
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 25th Apr 2013 at 02:38.
The issue of Fatigue management is not in question.
The real question is "would CASA, have implemented fatigue management regulatory change of its own volition, absent pressure from ICAO, FAA and the Norfolk ditching?
I fail to see it as anything other than a reactive organisation, not proactive at all. Since when has ATSB or CASA ever sounded the alarm bells to the international aviation community after discovering something truly hazardous on its own?
The real question is "would CASA, have implemented fatigue management regulatory change of its own volition, absent pressure from ICAO, FAA and the Norfolk ditching?
I fail to see it as anything other than a reactive organisation, not proactive at all. Since when has ATSB or CASA ever sounded the alarm bells to the international aviation community after discovering something truly hazardous on its own?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, beyond reason?
Noticed on the casa briefing a design and manufacture seminar coming up. Perhaps an opportunity to ask questions.
Noticed on the casa briefing a design and manufacture seminar coming up. Perhaps an opportunity to ask questions.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 25th Apr 2013 at 15:11. Reason: D and m
