Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 8th May 2013, 10:17
  #1681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Same Rules??

You seem quite knowledgeable regarding all of this Parliamentary legal info. So if CASA, ATSB etc., can't receive the draft on a "hard copy". Could it be accessed via their email or USB or disk?
Also, if the current inquiry with CASA, ATSB and others were to collude, would they be dealt with in the same manner that you have mentioned in the surrounding walls of Parliament.

It sounded like you were talking about a factual occurrence within the Parliamentary walls not too long ago. TSI 24 was allegedly breached I believe. An alleged mid-investigation collusion, may have happen, find out shortly.

It's difficult to trust.

I trust the Senate. There are some very intelligent, skilled people on our side.
Regarding the negativity and possible responses to the Recommendations. Well personally I feel it will validate theses torturous years of waiting, I hope it validates the need for different structural processes of both CASA and the ATSB. With air safety and investigations the absolute focus.
And for this I am hopeful.
Our skies are becoming busier, talks a second airport, isn't it time that something is done? Stay optimistic 4dogs, please.

I have no doubt the media will have field day with this all.
Lets just hope there are two new Chiefs ready to rebuild the publics confidence.

Apologies 4Dog if I sounded rude, but I really do have confidence in the Senate. I am also curious with the collusion, /"hard copy" v email wording.
Ziggychick is offline  
Old 8th May 2013, 11:15
  #1682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
Unlike the PT inquiry which was all very political, this inquiry has been
apolitical and driven selflessly by various committee members.
Would you care to expand on that statement Sarcs? In what way was it political? Given that the report will be released in the final stages of a hopeless government why do you think the next mob will pick it up and run with it?

The one thing it cannot do is expunge the Report from the Parliamentary record. It will remain there forever as political ammunition and, in this case I'm sure, as the starting point for a lot of activity in Estimates.
4dogs has summed it up perfectly. For Ziggy this report will be a starting point not an end point.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th May 2013, 13:06
  #1683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Lets be honest here. There is lots of talk about due processes, confidential reports, timing, ethics........mi mi mi mi.
Bollocks. If the report is damning I can assure you, in my opinion that they are already aware of how large the pineapple is.
As an example do you honestly believe that nobody knew about Craig Thompson? What he 'allegedly' did as a public servant and the crooked, distorted and unethical way the government protected him and their own asses goes beyond the pales of disgusting. The PM would have known what was coming every step of the way, why do you think she called an election on the day she did? She knew what was going to happen the next day, or are you telling me she had crystal ball? So spare me the bullshit, CAsA, the Minister and the other government dross won't be caught with their pants down, they won't find out the reports content at the precise time it is released which is the same time us plebs find out, suppposedly....oh please, c'mon.

True scorecard of Australian aviation;

ATSBeaker - Fail
CAsA - Fail
Level of safety - Fail
Ministry - Fail
White Paper - Fail
CAsA Board - Fail

Lift the giant chamber pot lid, empty the above items robustly into the shite receptacle and press flush! Because I can assure you of this, it is only a matter time until the present course takes us to a smoking hole on a hillside. The next one won't be a medical ditching or a dozen or so lives into a ridge.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 8th May 2013, 16:41
  #1684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Nice little report from James Reason on achieving a safe culture. There are a number of people happy to concentrate on the 'who' and ignore the 'why'.

http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/21ma...09-JReason.pdf

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 8th May 2013 at 18:08. Reason: change was to were and delayed my post.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 03:05
  #1685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
Nice little report from James Reason on achieving a safe culture
There's actually a nice little book by Reason called "Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents" which was printed in the 90's! If you look at the ICAO SMM manual it pretty much lifts the whole book to come up with the aviation wunderkind of SMS as a fix it solution for aviation safety. As Pel Air and CASA have demonstrated just including the words "Reason" and "swiss cheese" in your manuals does not a safety system make.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 05:32
  #1686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Cause and Effect

Hi Lookleft,
I'm not sure what is ahead regarding this whole saga, whether it is a start or an end, I'll embrace it.

I do agree that a new model needs to be constructed to encompass safety on all levels, ops, reg and inv.

I heard that the ATSB recently released a report that concluded that there "was no cause for the crash" Huh??

"Although nature commences with reason and ends in experience it is necessary for us to do the opposite, that is to commence with experience and from this to proceed to investigate the reason"

Leonardio Da Vinci c 1500

Wise man. Thought Beaker might like it.

S'pose it's the universal law of cause and effect.

I am of course no expert when it comes to that high level that one can hold, but it seems that the time for Company Cultural Management has come into play in the office and for Execs'.

Maybe, two Chiefs, both pilots, both educated.
Annual psychological profiling with a focus on:
  • their commitment to air safety
  • honesty
  • accountability
  • etc. etc.
A shrink that specialises in reading emotion, this is where the lies lie silently.
Same profiling for execs.
Record keeping systems that Red Flags to the ATSB during an investigation when an operator has had a prior safety alert/s.

I know this is not technical as you fellas are use to, but they're thoughts that are good to get out.
Ziggychick is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 06:19
  #1687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
Ziggy there is no doubting your passion and commitment to achieve change as long as you realise that this is a long term commitment. I would recommend that you get in touch with others who have been touched by CASA's incompetence. Have a look at the Barry Hempel thread and the Lochhart River thread and you will find others who are in a similar situation as you (not your physical situation though). As you can tell those within the industry have not been able to change the system so for someone like yourself who is outside the industry you stand a better chance.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 07:37
  #1688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
Ziggy, the HR profession, I understand, is working to develop screening tools for sociopaths. By way of example, my son is in a police Force and the final interview in a nine month screening program was conducted by Two "nice little old ladies" who asked him a series of questions about situations that he had no trouble answering, but would be impossible for a sociopath to answer. I recognised it as a screen for sociopaths. I won't explain further because I don't want to give the game away.

The trouble is that we have at least Thirty years of sociopaths climbing the management ladder and some have climbed very high indeed - one made it to Prime Minister, for a little while.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 21:42
  #1689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
It strikes me that Australian Air and the Air space above Australia must be "special" in some way.

How else could regulation of Aircraft in Australia require an entirely different and punitive mindset compared to the rest of the world?

Not being bright, I wonder if it is possible to draw together a table comparing the sheer volume of regulation produced in Australia compared to other English speaking countries?

While no doubt there will be differences in emphasis and structure of other countries manuals and regulations, perhas a comparison based on pure volume might be instructive?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 22:12
  #1690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
CASR (1988) - 675 pages.

CASR (1990) - 1376 pages.

Source: Comlaw download pages.

NZ regs (from my poor addition of the pages in each pdf file) - 1814 pages

http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/rules.htm

Are we really so badly off?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 22:15
  #1691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 298
How else could regulation of Aircraft in Australia require an entirely different and punitive mindset compared to the rest of the world?
Maybe it's something to do with the national culture - after all, we did start out as a penal colony...
Falling Leaf is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 22:31
  #1692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
From the 2008 ICAO audit -

3.1.17 The Airspace Act 2007 establishes CASA’s responsibility to “administer and regulate Australian-administered airspace,” which includes the airspace over Australian territory, and airspace that has been allocated to Australia by ICAO under the Chicago Convention and for which Australia has accepted responsibility.

The Act requires the Minister to make an “Australian Airspace Policy Statement” outlining the government’s policy with respect to classification, designation and strategies for the administration and management of Australian-administered airspace. This statement must be reviewed every three years, with consultation between the Department of Infrastructure, CASA, AA and other relevant entities.
Seems to me someone remembered to tick the boxes, but forgot to attach the letter to the email. Someone should remember that even the lowliest in places like ICAO and FAA can manage to read English, even the mangled stuff produced by the stellar report writers. Mayhap - Perhaps, with more compliance a little less time could be wasted persecuting and a little more spent pursuing worthy objectives (like first world compliance) would reduce the mounting court costs? Hell, we may even find words like "alleged" being used; or is that a bridge too far?

Last edited by Kharon; 9th May 2013 at 22:32.
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th May 2013, 23:10
  #1693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 603
Sunfish...

CASR (1988) - 675 pages.

CASR (1990) - 1376 pages.

Source: Comlaw download pages.

NZ regs (from my poor addition of the pages in each pdf file) - 1814 pages

Civil Aviation Rules

Are we really so badly off?
Fair question Sunfish, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think your figures are comparing apples with apples if the CAOs are factored into the comparison.

Last edited by SIUYA; 9th May 2013 at 23:10.
SIUYA is offline  
Old 10th May 2013, 01:14
  #1694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
But what you’re overlooking is the fact that the original Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 were only 155 pages long. (Copy here: Civil Aviation Regulations)

Those 155 pages were, apparently, so complex and convoluted that they had to be replaced with 2,000 pages (so far) of inexorably expanding regulations, plus 10 times that in MOSs. 155 pages simplified to 2,000 plus, with more to come.

The CAOs are still there, and they are expanding inexorably as well.

For those who have been active pilots in Australia over the period 1988 to the present, what substantial difference has any of those thousands of pages of extra regulations made?

Let’s see: Quadrantal cruising levels changed to hemispherical. No more full reporting for VFR OCTA. GAAP to Class D (but that’s been effectively AIP’d and ERSA’d back to GAAP). A bit of messing around with CTAFs and frequencies on charts (remember Dick’s biscuits?). A bit of messing around with circuit entry/straight in approaches and calls at non-towered aerodromes, and a bit of messing around with report items in CTA (sorry, Class X).

In short, f*ck all difference, which could have been achieved with a few deletions, amendments and additions.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 10th May 2013, 08:40
  #1695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
“The future conundrum of Annex 19”

Started a review of the proposed Annex 19 but first a quote from PAIN post #1696 , which is particularly pertinent…The proposed ICAO Annex 19, is designed, in part, to assist less fortunate countries achieve compliance with ICAO benchmarks. The Australia - ICAO final report on Safety Oversight Audit of Australia (Feb 2008) released January 2009 provides an excellent starting point for comparison.

There is ever a widening gap between ICAO and the existing Australian version. Annex 19 is about to make that gap almost too large to span. The issues need to be addressed, urgently and properly if Australia is to retain a tenuous hold on its current classification.”

So to the review and warning this is a long post!

From Page 19 of Annex 19:
3.1.2 The acceptable level of safety performance to be achieved shall be established by the State.

Note.— An acceptable level of safety performance for the State can be demonstrated through the implementation and maintenance of the SSP as well as safety performance indicators and targets showing that safety is effectively managed, built on the foundation of implementation of existing safety-related SARPs.
This means both FF and ATSBeaker will have to define what are acceptable levels of safety for different types of aviation and how they will measure those levels, probably with leading and lagging safety indicators. That way, all parties will know what they're being judged against, and FF will be called to account if (as is the norm) they launch an original punitive frolic.

From page 26 (my bold):
3.3 The State shall ensure that inspectors are provided with guidance that addresses ethics, personal conduct and the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest in the performance of official duties.
Well, well Houston we may have a problem?? Not very accommodating for all those imbedded sociopaths like Wodger and that camp guy ‘Bull’.

Then there is page 27 which is headed ‘Resolution of safety issues’(my bold):
8.1 The State shall use a documented process to take appropriate corrective actions, up to and including enforcement measures, to resolve identified safety issues.

8.2 The State shall ensure that identified safety issues are resolved in a timely manner through a system which monitors and records progress, including actions taken by service providers in resolving such issues.
It also looks like the 'gotcha loopholes' in the EM, SM (and presumably IM) may have to be revisited and the ‘due process’ documentation required in those docs will have to be strongly adhered to or else!

Page 29 paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 would appear to mean that FF and ATSBeaker would have to have in place accountable managers that are answerable for compliance with documented SSP procedures. Hmm…wonder how that will go down with the FF and bureau execs currently running the shop?

Next on page 30 we have ‘2.1 Hazard identification’ and ‘3.1 Safety performance monitoring and measurement’, which are less immediate issues for the State service providers. However given the recent track record of blaming and flogging pilots (e.g Dom) these parts of the SSP could potentially cause some major areas of discomfort down the track.

Quoting from page 33 (my bold):
1.3 Accident and incident investigation

The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State. In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations.
Well although the bureau is supposedly ‘independent’ there is one thing that this inquiry has shown and that is the reality is an entirely different matter... “ Beaker please explain!”

Heading of paragraph 1.4 is ‘Enforcement Policy’, and there is enough people on here (and elsewhere..AMROBA, DK, DJ etc) that have an opinion on how that’s working out for the ‘State’, hmm..“Third Reich comes to mind!”

Page 33 and paragraph 2.1 is headed ‘Safety requirements for the service provider’s SMS’. Which again places a requirement on FF to have in place the policies/procedures to ensure transparency in administration. To ensure ICAO compliance these policies will be periodically reviewed…not sure if the Doc’s going to like that too much!

Finally (for now at least) on page 34 we have:
3.1 Safety oversight

The State has established mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring of the eight critical elements of the safety oversight function. The State has also established mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls (requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies).
These mechanisms include inspections, audits and surveys to ensure that regulatory safety risk controls are appropriately integrated into the service provider’s SMS, that they are being practised as designed, and that the regulatory controls have the intended effect on safety risks.
Fairly long winded I know, however it would appear that FF must have in place a robust fully accountable framework for administering the SSP.

Yeah like that’s going to happen while the present numbnuts are minding the Fort??

Much more to follow me thinks!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th May 2013, 09:32
  #1696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Just fell off my barstool laughing, accountable managers??? Oh dear. Well that's one way to achieve instant resignations and collection of pensions!

Perhaps they could hire Aherne as a consultant to set all this up? He is probably the only one that has so far demonstrated he understands aviation. (Just as long as he doesn't bring the drunk with him )
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 10th May 2013, 10:29
  #1697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Let us read “CAsA Chronicle 2001 Ref: Shelfware Mick”.

Another trip down pony pooh lane for your enjoyment. I have posted the link (still works for now) and because of the length of the speech I have cut and pasted only my personal highlights below. Some bits make me laugh, some make me cry,some make me reach for the spew bucket and some things make me wonder if I am in fact Bill Murray.

You may ask what the reason and relevance for my sojourn into CAsA’s bowels, in to the mire of the wormfarm, in to the largest of potted plants is? Well it is to show that CAsA is a bad version of Groundhog Day. A different Minister of the day, different Director, different decade but same old pony pooh, same old tautology and some of the same old faces behind the scenes!

There are heaps of these chronicles out there, but I want the Senators to be aware that the work they have done has been repeated before, over and over and over. This time we want to see actual change.

So sit back with a Crownie, put on some Sonny and Cher and see if you can ‘smell’ a familiar story….

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_91845



CASA's Safety Agenda

Speech by Mick Toller, Director of

Aviation Safety, at SafeSkies 2001, 1 November 2001


CASA's Safety Agenda


One of them is the increased focus that we've got internally and externally in CASA on risk management. I now have an executive risk manager who is responsible for ensuring that everybody in CASA understands and practices risk managements.

I spent 30 years in the private sector. Things that have happened in the private sector haven't necessarily happened within the public sector and need to, and we're going through that process at the moment in CASA.

Corporate governance is the buzz word throughout the private sector but it needs to be the buzz word also within the public sector. Although we don't tend to talk so much about corporate governance, we do need to recognise that the same responsibilities are on those that lead us in the public sector as they are in the private sector and particularly in an authority like CASA which has its Board.

Patrick's road show with Professor James Reason and Bruce Byron has just been completed and that's a very important part of what we do.

We've got the standards that we set and then we've got the
necessary adjunct of ensuring that there's compliance with those standards.

We have a corporate plan. We are required by law to have a
corporate plan, but that corporate plan now is a pretty robust document. It's got a strong strategic focus. It's measurable.

Importantly we are 95% staffed in the compliance section. We are 97% staffed in the standards division,

We're taking a strong focus this year on training and development
We're also recognising the fact that there are a number of other issues that need considerable internal training

We have some systems which we inherited from the old CAA days that are long overdue, I think, for replacing.

It gave us the ability to focus on some small projects which would give us quick wins.

As for ASRIP, now this is a very big program, and it's a very, very important program as far as I'm concerned. It's a management program that ensures we implement the regulations after they're written.

There's also the coordination of knowledge needs across the
organisation, which is partly about making sure that we learn from history and it's partly about ensuring that we enshrine everything that's going on for the future, so that we help those that come after us.

And, finally, it's important to make sure that everything that we do matches up with the concept of the new regulations.

We have just conducted a review of our regulatory reform program which showed basically that although there's a lot of effort going in and a lot of work being done we were predicably, I suppose, short on outcomes.

What we've put together is a program which we believe is going to put that train back on its rails again. The second highest requirement was to remove inconsistencies that existed at the moment. Very near the bottom, interestingly, was to make them more like overseas regulations Although we recognise the fact that it is important that we are in line with the ICAO requirements, in line with international best practice, it's interesting to see that it's not what people regard as a high priority.

What we were dealing with before in regulatory reform was many
stated project objectives. These are the things that we have been told at various times that we had to put into the reform program and they're all quite interesting, they're all important.

They also had to be clear, concise and unambiguous, enforceable, consistent with our international obligations and ICAO and harmonised with the overseas requirements wherever possible.

When you're trying to write new regulations there are many times when you say, well we want it to be like this, but if you make it like this it's not then going to be enforceable or it's not going to be internationally harmonised or it's not going to be based on risk management principles. Weighing up all these different conflicts was causing many of the stresses, I believe, in the reform program going ahead. We've put that to the Attorney-General's Department. Remember that we actually don't write the regulations. Everybody thinks that poor old CASA writes this stuff, but I assure you we don't. It's actually the office of legal drafting in the Attorney-General's Department. We put simplicity to them with some trepidation I have to say, expecting them to turn around to say, you can't do that, but I'm delighted to say that they have actually embraced this concept and welcomed this concept and significantly will help us to achieve it.

Accusation that CASA is sort of judge, jury and executioner.

There was an element of truth in it and I'll be the first to admit it. It is not out of choice. It is what is written in the Civil Aviation Act and this is what Parliament has told us to be.

So this idea that we're out there standing behind a tree waiting to jump out on top of people and prosecute them I'm afraid is a myth.

And the final myth which is going around at the moment is that we were the inventors of strict liability and that we're taking the industry that way. Not so. Strict liability is government policy. Strict liability is about fault and whether fault shows that there is intent or not. In fact it's entirely within the Attorney-'General's Department and CASA has no input to it whatsoever and that's important.

The result of that will be, if it works, greater compliance by industry - which means a safer industry and more contact time for our inspectors. They can get out, they can be doing more flight testing, more checking, and that has also got to be of great value to the future standards of this industry.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 10th May 2013 at 10:39.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 10th May 2013, 14:22
  #1698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Unite

Firstly, thank you for all your support.

The risk involved with putting your name out there in the Aviation vortex is huge. There is one's reputation on line and the unknown prospects of future employment.

Despite the negative rumours, both Quinn and Aherne have actively been super involved, delivered excellent submissions and have had face to face discussions with the Senate. They have not hidden nor given up, that's admirable.

I respect the balls needed to do this.

If there was real unity with wanting change, rather than go around in circles, unite.
Only the masses voices heard will create change. I read so much talk about needed change, yet the circle of zero change continues.

Oleo, wouldn't it be great if all of the pilots on PPRuNe united and all sent individual letters to the Minister. The voice of the masses grabs the attention. Otherwise what is the point of all this information, recommendations and advice? It's falling on deaf ears.

Once the Senate report is released, what an excellent opportunity to really voice all the concerns. You and all your colleagues have every right to tell our Minister what you think, I have.
There may be fear and that I understand. Do what you fear and your fear disappears.
Please unite, there should have been hundreds of submissions in this current Senate.
Please unite, write to the Minister and end the "going nowhere" pattern.

Take care,
Ziggy.
Ziggychick is offline  
Old 10th May 2013, 15:47
  #1699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
Won't do a thing Zig, the minister and government couldn't care less what we think say or do.

The general public are too stupid to understand the problem and will believe that everything CASA says is gospel.

Three smoking holes, or an icao/FAA downgrade, both of which will scare or inconvenience the sheeple are what is required before change is feasible, and there is no guarantee that change would necessarily be for the better,
Sunfish is offline  
Old 10th May 2013, 16:44
  #1700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Ziggy,

This inquiry only happened after Four Corners. Perhaps that is another option getting the ABC to follow up? I'm sure it may wake up a few people.

Like Sunfish says so many people have tried fighting these issues. As you can see from the casa responses to Quinn and Aherne it isn't an easy option.

The GA meeting thread shows the relationship between regulator and industry is strained and that needs to be fixed.

But I do support your view that we have to try. Writing to the new minister and new das would be worthwhile. I really hope the senate do something - but last ones have been washouts.


This thread is getting closer to 400,000 views which is pretty good. Although what would a Four Corners follow up get.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 10th May 2013 at 18:05. Reason: Was not were.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.