Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
D-day or D minor or D – or is option (D) firming up?
Warning: Long post coming up!
While we wait!
Noticed some more (d)iscrepancies
while hovering over Mt Noncompliance at 348m amsl and (d)iligently (d)eciphering the (d)emonstrable (d)ifferences (d)ocument….
On page 65-66 paragraph 5.12 of SUP H12/11 it says…
“However, Australia also has a less protective regime with respect
to other elements of standard 5.12 as:
(a) other than for Cockpit Voice Recorders, the State does not
apply universal protections to all the records in standard 5.12 – it is
only the staff of the Accident Investigation Authority and persons
who are given authorised access that are required to protect them;
(b) where court proceedings are not involved the Accident
Investigation Authority has discretions to release information where
necessary and desirable for purposes of transport safety without
the Appropriate Authority for the Administration of Justice
conducting the balancing test.”
Note: Hallelujah Beaker obviously hasn’t allowed the (D)oc to get his sticky fingers on writing the (d)ifferences references for the bureau.
As you can see (in a round about sort of way) the bureau have also chipped in to help address NCN OPS/03. However the.. “other than for”… seems to murky the waters and perhaps someone with a legal bent can help me out here? Because that would appear to contradict the NCN… “all related Flight recorder records”
Ok so then I (d)ecided to hop across the (d)itch again to see how the Kiwis tackle the problem…
Referring again to paragraph 11.6 of this (d)elightfully easy to use (d)ocument:
Ok not that we don’t trust the Kiwis but this statement comes from a 7 year old document, so lets check the reference (CAR 12.103) for currency and compliance…
If you ‘click here’ you’ll see a nice user friendly page of reg references, so then click on Part 12 look up the relevant reference (CAR 12.103) and this should be what you see:
(a) The holder of a certificate of registration of an aircraft that is
involved in a serious incident or accident must preserve all records,
including all recording media maintained for the operation and maintenance
of the aircraft, for at least 14 days after the serious incident or accident
unless otherwise notified by the Authority.
(b) The holder of a certificate issued in accordance with—
(1) Part 171 that is involved in a facility malfunction incident or an
accident; or
(2) Part 172 that is involved in an airspace incident or an accident;
or
(3) Part 173 that is involved in a promulgated information incident
or an accident; must preserve all records, including log entries, electronic recordings, technical and other relevant data relating to the incident or accident for at least 14 days after the incident or accident unless otherwise notified by the Authority.
(c) A person who is involved in a promulgated information incident or
an accident involving responsibilities under Part 95 must preserve
all records, including log entries, electronic recordings, technical
and other relevant data relating to the incident or accident for at
least 14 days after the incident or accident unless otherwise
notified by the Authority.
Hmm so DOIT/FF stop fluffing around in the chook shed with that axe, I mean how hard can it be?
While we wait!
Noticed some more (d)iscrepancies while hovering over Mt Noncompliance at 348m amsl and (d)iligently (d)eciphering the (d)emonstrable (d)ifferences (d)ocument…. On page 65-66 paragraph 5.12 of SUP H12/11 it says…
“However, Australia also has a less protective regime with respect
to other elements of standard 5.12 as:
(a) other than for Cockpit Voice Recorders, the State does not
apply universal protections to all the records in standard 5.12 – it is
only the staff of the Accident Investigation Authority and persons
who are given authorised access that are required to protect them;
(b) where court proceedings are not involved the Accident
Investigation Authority has discretions to release information where
necessary and desirable for purposes of transport safety without
the Appropriate Authority for the Administration of Justice
conducting the balancing test.”
Note: Hallelujah Beaker obviously hasn’t allowed the (D)oc to get his sticky fingers on writing the (d)ifferences references for the bureau.
As you can see (in a round about sort of way) the bureau have also chipped in to help address NCN OPS/03. However the.. “other than for”… seems to murky the waters and perhaps someone with a legal bent can help me out here? Because that would appear to contradict the NCN… “all related Flight recorder records”
Ok so then I (d)ecided to hop across the (d)itch again to see how the Kiwis tackle the problem…
Referring again to paragraph 11.6 of this (d)elightfully easy to use (d)ocument:
11.6 Flight recorder records
An operator shall ensure, to the extent possible, in the event the aeroplane becomes involved in an accident or incident, the preservation of all related flight recorder records and, if necessary, the associated flight recorders, and their retention in safe custody pending their disposition as
determined in accordance with Annex 13.
Compliance Statement
[12.103]
CAR 12.103 Preservation of records
(a) Each holder of a certificate of registration of an aircraft that is involved in a serious incident or accident shall preserve all records, including all recording media maintained for the operation and maintenance of the aircraft, for at least 14 days after the serious incident or accident unless otherwise notified by the Authority.
An operator shall ensure, to the extent possible, in the event the aeroplane becomes involved in an accident or incident, the preservation of all related flight recorder records and, if necessary, the associated flight recorders, and their retention in safe custody pending their disposition as
determined in accordance with Annex 13.
Compliance Statement
[12.103]
CAR 12.103 Preservation of records
(a) Each holder of a certificate of registration of an aircraft that is involved in a serious incident or accident shall preserve all records, including all recording media maintained for the operation and maintenance of the aircraft, for at least 14 days after the serious incident or accident unless otherwise notified by the Authority.
If you ‘click here’ you’ll see a nice user friendly page of reg references, so then click on Part 12 look up the relevant reference (CAR 12.103) and this should be what you see:
12.103 Preservation of records
(a) The holder of a certificate of registration of an aircraft that is
involved in a serious incident or accident must preserve all records,
including all recording media maintained for the operation and maintenance
of the aircraft, for at least 14 days after the serious incident or accident
unless otherwise notified by the Authority.
(b) The holder of a certificate issued in accordance with—
(1) Part 171 that is involved in a facility malfunction incident or an
accident; or
(2) Part 172 that is involved in an airspace incident or an accident;
or
(3) Part 173 that is involved in a promulgated information incident
or an accident; must preserve all records, including log entries, electronic recordings, technical and other relevant data relating to the incident or accident for at least 14 days after the incident or accident unless otherwise notified by the Authority.
(c) A person who is involved in a promulgated information incident or
an accident involving responsibilities under Part 95 must preserve
all records, including log entries, electronic recordings, technical
and other relevant data relating to the incident or accident for at
least 14 days after the incident or accident unless otherwise
notified by the Authority.
Oh I forgot…the equivalent Part is still under review or being redrafted!
Note: The irony is most (d)iligent, safety conscience, ICAO compliant, AOC holders already include that part in their COMs!
Even though it hasn’t been thought up yet I’m going with option (d)!
Last edited by Sarcs; 29th Apr 2013 at 22:47.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief Fifi
Good video Kharon.
Now for a bit of fun, go and watch Mad Max 1. There is a scene where Chief Fifi, a bald and angry individual, is smoking a stoogie while watering pot plants!!
Remind you of anybody??
(C)
Now for a bit of fun, go and watch Mad Max 1. There is a scene where Chief Fifi, a bald and angry individual, is smoking a stoogie while watering pot plants!!
Remind you of anybody??
(C)
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 29th Apr 2013 at 23:45.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB view on SMS
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4053559...1002_final.pdf
A moderately interesting report.
Basically the ATSBeaker relate there is not enough evidence on hand yet to conclude if SMS is effective. Mind you there are minor references to Reason in this report, although Chief Beaker now adopts the 'beyond Reason' approach.
The ATSBeaker do in a round about way sort of agree with SMS however they don't come out and robustly promulgate SMS.
I wonder if Chief Beaker, Jules Verne and Ian's Sandwich were all in unison with the report? No doubt many nights were spent philosophically dissecting the reports contents with much debate and mi mi mi mi, while twirling moustache ends, sitting on leather divans, smoking Davidoff cigars, gently sipping Courvoisier L'Essence de Courvoisier Brandy and nibbling on Italian white truffles.
(C)
A moderately interesting report.
Basically the ATSBeaker relate there is not enough evidence on hand yet to conclude if SMS is effective. Mind you there are minor references to Reason in this report, although Chief Beaker now adopts the 'beyond Reason' approach.
The ATSBeaker do in a round about way sort of agree with SMS however they don't come out and robustly promulgate SMS.
I wonder if Chief Beaker, Jules Verne and Ian's Sandwich were all in unison with the report? No doubt many nights were spent philosophically dissecting the reports contents with much debate and mi mi mi mi, while twirling moustache ends, sitting on leather divans, smoking Davidoff cigars, gently sipping Courvoisier L'Essence de Courvoisier Brandy and nibbling on Italian white truffles.
(C)
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 30th Apr 2013 at 01:55.
Interim report!
The senate Committee today issued an interim report...full report due to be tabled 23rd of May.
There was also a last minute tabled document from CASA (26/04/2013)....sheesh they've got a hide!
Ps To quote the Heff… “The committee intends to present the final report by Thursday, 23 May 2013 which would allow it to fully consider the evidence and conclude its deliberations..”
Pps So that's what option (d) was! Also means the Senators get another crack at Albo's circus at etimates on the 12th before the report comes out..
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Interim report—Aviation accident investigation (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Bishop, on 30 April 2013).
Ps To quote the Heff… “The committee intends to present the final report by Thursday, 23 May 2013 which would allow it to fully consider the evidence and conclude its deliberations..”
Pps So that's what option (d) was!
Also means the Senators get another crack at Albo's circus at etimates on the 12th before the report comes out..
Last edited by Sarcs; 30th Apr 2013 at 07:34. Reason: HMHB delaying tactic that's all it is!
How ironic:
Errors in transcripts?
Yes, just like in the transcript of the radio communications with NGA.
Guess how many times this is stated in CASA’s letter:
Think about that. CASA spent a bunch of time (funded by you) reviewing the transcript and suggesting corrections, but then realised, after spending a bunch more of time (funded by you), that the suggested corrections were incorrect and needed to be corrected, so it spent more time (funded by you) writing to the Committee about it …
This is my favourite:
Read carefully and see what word changed, and ask yourself: How much it cost to detect that, and whether the world would have stopped turning if it wasn’t changed.
And this concept is surreal:
An inanimate artificial person determines what human beings meant to say. I didn’t determine that I meant to say something different. CASA did!
It is unfortunate for DJ that the same level of forensic analysis was not applied to the transcript of the radio communications with NGA, or to the rest of the investigation.
[W]hile reviewing a recording of the hearing for the purposes of confirming our understanding of what appeared to be errors in the Hansard, it became apparent that there were indeed a number of errors – words omitted or incorrectly transcribed- in the Hansard of 15 February 2013.
Yes, just like in the transcript of the radio communications with NGA.
Guess how many times this is stated in CASA’s letter:
CASA determines that both the Hansard and our original suggested correction are incorrect and the transcript should read …
This is my favourite:
Dr Aleck, Page 7: The only other point I will make is that the information that came to us in relation to the operations of Pel-Air were based on the routine auditing processes…
- CASA determines Dr Aleck meant: ‘The only other point I will make is that the information that came to us in relation to the operations of Pel-Air was based on the routine auditing process.
- CASA determines Dr Aleck meant: ‘The only other point I will make is that the information that came to us in relation to the operations of Pel-Air was based on the routine auditing process.
And this concept is surreal:
CASA determines Mr McCormick meant …
CASA determines Mr Aleck meant …
CASA determines the recording of the hearing is unclear and Mr Farquharson meant …
CASA determines Mr Aleck meant …
CASA determines the recording of the hearing is unclear and Mr Farquharson meant …
It is unfortunate for DJ that the same level of forensic analysis was not applied to the transcript of the radio communications with NGA, or to the rest of the investigation.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st May 2013 at 02:51. Reason: Correction to the transcript of the letter, due errors discovered ...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent work Creamy excellent. Nicely deciphered. I believe we all know what is 'meant' by your post
It is interesting that the three Execs - Twerps 1, 2 and 3 (thanks again Sunny) earn a combined total of around $1.3 million per year. Break that down into hours and you get an idea of how much taxpayer money has been further wasted by them looking for 'escape routes, get out of jail free cards and hidden passageways' away from the spotlight. I guess it is just a habit after all these years. And again, it shows an arrogance and contempt against the Senators along with anybody who dare stand in the way of these so called Lords of aviation. But that's ok, every time they pull these stunts they show themselves up for who and what they are really all about. So good work Twerps, just keep fuelling industries fire towards yourselves
Another point made by Creamy is that these buffoons are so diligent and thorough at pouring over Hansard transcripts but aren't capable of being as thorough at their own processes and procedures? No, it's desperate measures being undertaken by desperate individuals who have been exposed for what they truly are.
But take it a step further. Due to the sensitivity of the inquiry their pathetic response would not be publicly tabled without approval by the Board and senior members of the Ministers office, so this whole debacle and incompetence is supported at all levels. My my my, what a sloppy pile of donkey pooh this all is?
C'mon ICAO and FAA, time for action. You want to identify risk, well here it is on a platter...
P.S Apologies to all those awaiting pick up along the River Styx. I 'meant' to put fuel in the boat but I forgot and ran out. Anyway I found a mariner and topped up with some ESSO.
It is interesting that the three Execs - Twerps 1, 2 and 3 (thanks again Sunny) earn a combined total of around $1.3 million per year. Break that down into hours and you get an idea of how much taxpayer money has been further wasted by them looking for 'escape routes, get out of jail free cards and hidden passageways' away from the spotlight. I guess it is just a habit after all these years. And again, it shows an arrogance and contempt against the Senators along with anybody who dare stand in the way of these so called Lords of aviation. But that's ok, every time they pull these stunts they show themselves up for who and what they are really all about. So good work Twerps, just keep fuelling industries fire towards yourselves
Another point made by Creamy is that these buffoons are so diligent and thorough at pouring over Hansard transcripts but aren't capable of being as thorough at their own processes and procedures? No, it's desperate measures being undertaken by desperate individuals who have been exposed for what they truly are.
But take it a step further. Due to the sensitivity of the inquiry their pathetic response would not be publicly tabled without approval by the Board and senior members of the Ministers office, so this whole debacle and incompetence is supported at all levels. My my my, what a sloppy pile of donkey pooh this all is?
C'mon ICAO and FAA, time for action. You want to identify risk, well here it is on a platter...
P.S Apologies to all those awaiting pick up along the River Styx. I 'meant' to put fuel in the boat but I forgot and ran out. Anyway I found a mariner and topped up with some ESSO.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 30th Apr 2013 at 10:29.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Execs - Twerps 1, 2 and 3
But I was wrong once.
(the time I admitted I was wrong).
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No wonder regulatory reform is taking so long.
The letter gives a very good idea of how casa works.
Anybody seen the Brit series 'the thick of it'. The series on the senate inquiry is very good.
The letter gives a very good idea of how casa works.
Anybody seen the Brit series 'the thick of it'. The series on the senate inquiry is very good.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But - The die is cast.
Creamy starts us on the road well, with a solid dose of irony, a sage assessment of cost and dip in the waters of surrealism. But is that enough? – I wonder why CASA dare take these appalling risks, as Oleo points out:-
The tabled offering is a pitiful defence against overwhelming evidence of much deeper problems. The sheer scale and scope of the bluff is breathtaking – but will it fool anyone? or is this simply a case of 'given enough rope'. etc.
Will the defence of Chambers satisfy James and several others?; CASA have been backed into a corner where they are obliged to defend the person who, it could be argued, created the crack in the dyke. Whether all this was done at the behest of his superiors or not, remains an unanswered question. But, I fear the Chambers notorious handling of matters aeronautical in the Sydney basin will require much support from the department. If proven, the tales surrounding the purported actions of this so called -'shoot from the hip and bluff' - merchant have the potential to haunt the Sleepy Hollow LSD for years to come; so why bother producing two expensive pages in defence? Domino effect is a phrase which springs to mind, perhaps the answer lays there – who knows. Question: is the game worth the candle?
I note much space given to the McComic defence of why the Chambers report was withheld; apart from an understandable, natural reluctance to publicly release a published report which, to industry, presented a badly written nonsense. I understand that the Chambers report is universally seen as much manipulated, plagiarised crock; weakly aping the efforts of better, more qualified men and serving no practical purpose. CASA appear to point out the weakness inherent in their argument, by making much of the report and their forced defence of subsequent actions. None of these theatrical, time consuming ploys can hope to disguise the facts now in the public domain. To name but a few of the programs which have had the exact same treatment as the latest offering, tabled as a Hansard response:-
Selah.
MOIE # 1611 –"Due to the sensitivity of the inquiry their pathetic response would not be publicly tabled without approval by the Board and senior members of the Ministers office, so this whole debacle and incompetence is supported at all levels."
Will the defence of Chambers satisfy James and several others?; CASA have been backed into a corner where they are obliged to defend the person who, it could be argued, created the crack in the dyke. Whether all this was done at the behest of his superiors or not, remains an unanswered question. But, I fear the Chambers notorious handling of matters aeronautical in the Sydney basin will require much support from the department. If proven, the tales surrounding the purported actions of this so called -'shoot from the hip and bluff' - merchant have the potential to haunt the Sleepy Hollow LSD for years to come; so why bother producing two expensive pages in defence? Domino effect is a phrase which springs to mind, perhaps the answer lays there – who knows. Question: is the game worth the candle?
I note much space given to the McComic defence of why the Chambers report was withheld; apart from an understandable, natural reluctance to publicly release a published report which, to industry, presented a badly written nonsense. I understand that the Chambers report is universally seen as much manipulated, plagiarised crock; weakly aping the efforts of better, more qualified men and serving no practical purpose. CASA appear to point out the weakness inherent in their argument, by making much of the report and their forced defence of subsequent actions. None of these theatrical, time consuming ploys can hope to disguise the facts now in the public domain. To name but a few of the programs which have had the exact same treatment as the latest offering, tabled as a Hansard response:-
- ICAO compliance – fail.
- Regulatory reform – fail.
- Industry Complaints Commission program – fail.
- Freedom of Information – fail.
- Confidentiality – fail.
- Public service act – fail.
- Model litigant – fail.
- Enhanced safety – fail.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Apr 2013 at 20:13. Reason: Fighting a gag reflex
The Only Conclusion The Senate Committee Can Reach.
WIth respect to the RRAT Committee inquiry, I am afraid that there is only one possible conclusion that can be reached if the evidence presented is accepted as true.
And that is the devastating conclusion that CASA and ATSB have lost the trust of the industry it is supposed to regulate.
If that is what the Senators in their wisdom conclude, then all else follows as a matter of course, no matter which Government is in power after September.
The alleged CASA behaviour at the AMROBA public meeting, if true, simply reinforces this conclusion.
If any other conclusion is reached instead of loss of trust, then CASA will simply reorganise itself and stifle criticism.
The only rational response from industry is now BOHICA - just going through the motions, with a silent prayer that it will end quickly. I have watched managers in businesses when they were dead men walking. Everybody knew but them.
And that is the devastating conclusion that CASA and ATSB have lost the trust of the industry it is supposed to regulate.
If that is what the Senators in their wisdom conclude, then all else follows as a matter of course, no matter which Government is in power after September.
The alleged CASA behaviour at the AMROBA public meeting, if true, simply reinforces this conclusion.
If any other conclusion is reached instead of loss of trust, then CASA will simply reorganise itself and stifle criticism.
The only rational response from industry is now BOHICA - just going through the motions, with a silent prayer that it will end quickly. I have watched managers in businesses when they were dead men walking. Everybody knew but them.
Last edited by Sunfish; 30th Apr 2013 at 22:06.
‘Beyond all reason’ FF style?
Have FF blindly taken bureaucratic obfuscation to a whole new level or is this ‘ops normal’?
Creamy nails it:
And Oleo follows it up:
..then Frank, Flexy, Biccy and Sunny….while “K” brings us all back, ironically, to the causal chain of evidence or, if you like, back to the ‘Reason model’.
TIC: To be fair to FF, DOIT and the Minister maybe this is their way of contributing (along with the other 250 million) legitimately to Julia’s BHD (blackhole deficit!) and all under the solid veil of the 'State Safety Program'?
Here is perhaps the most obfuscated, enlightening and confusing 3 paragraphs from the FF correspondence:
Weasel words hop and skip all the way down the page, words like ‘errors’, ‘omitted’, ‘incorrectly’, ‘differences’, ‘discrepancies’ etc…but then they concede that it is ‘well past the date’ and that statements from the original Hansard ‘are not false or misleading’…..so what exactly is FF’s point?
What is also of interest is that the five page pdf un-compressed is over 11mb..that is impossibly huge! This would suggest that the original doc (draft) has been at least triple encrypted with multiple scans etc…so why all the paranoia on one mealy-mouthed document??
Hmm doing a Kelpie and contemplating the possible real reasons for an extension on the reporting date…revolving around ‘new evidence’…AMROBA complaint…ICAO/FAA…Senate Estimates on the 12th… Sunny’s post etc..etc hmm it is a puzzle?
Creamy nails it:
Think about that. CASA spent a bunch of time (funded by you) reviewing the transcript and suggesting corrections, but then realised, after spending a bunch more of time (funded by you), that the suggested corrections were incorrect and needed to be corrected, so it spent more time (funded by you) writing to the Committee about it …
Another point made by Creamy is that these buffoons are so diligent and thorough at pouring over Hansard transcripts but aren't capable of being as thorough at their own processes and procedures? No, it's desperate measures being undertaken by desperate individuals who have been exposed for what they truly are.
TIC: To be fair to FF, DOIT and the Minister maybe this is their way of contributing (along with the other 250 million) legitimately to Julia’s BHD (blackhole deficit!) and all under the solid veil of the 'State Safety Program'?
Here is perhaps the most obfuscated, enlightening and confusing 3 paragraphs from the FF correspondence:
Weasel words hop and skip all the way down the page, words like ‘errors’, ‘omitted’, ‘incorrectly’, ‘differences’, ‘discrepancies’ etc…but then they concede that it is ‘well past the date’ and that statements from the original Hansard ‘are not false or misleading’…..so what exactly is FF’s point?
What is also of interest is that the five page pdf un-compressed is over 11mb..that is impossibly huge! This would suggest that the original doc (draft) has been at least triple encrypted with multiple scans etc…so why all the paranoia on one mealy-mouthed document??
Hmm doing a Kelpie and contemplating the possible real reasons for an extension on the reporting date…revolving around ‘new evidence’…AMROBA complaint…ICAO/FAA…Senate Estimates on the 12th… Sunny’s post etc..etc hmm it is a puzzle?
Last edited by Sarcs; 1st May 2013 at 02:25. Reason: Interim report link and copied that Sunny!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beyond reason
Have FF blindly taken bureaucratic obfuscation to a whole new level or is this ‘ops normal’?
It illustrates that the capability to operate at such level is clearly there, just focus is opposite to what ALL VICTIMS have experienced. Perhaps it's the wordsmiths who should be running the operational side. Couldn't be worse than the lawyers could it?
"empty skies are safe skies". Stop the visual horizon pollution.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the Senate Inquiry What casa will do
Well done Sarcs
Does that mean casa have made an illegal recording of the Senate hearing??
I understood that only Hansard can make a recording of an Inquiry.
Just a thought!!
Does that mean casa have made an illegal recording of the Senate hearing??
I understood that only Hansard can make a recording of an Inquiry.
Just a thought!!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The policies of our watchdog & investigators
With so many policies in place there is one important one missing...Honesty IS the best policy.
If this was practiced, maybe this disgraceful saga would not be covered within the Oz Aviation system.
The simplicity of honesty has been lost.
I have been in contact with the FAA, so stay tuned.
Change is desperately needed!
If this was practiced, maybe this disgraceful saga would not be covered within the Oz Aviation system.
The simplicity of honesty has been lost.
I have been in contact with the FAA, so stay tuned.
Change is desperately needed!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disrespect for the Senate
Aargh yes, of course CAsA has taken umbrage with Hansard. This is what usually happens when a wounded beast is cornered. Often out of fear and desperation a wounded beast will even attack itself, it's tail or a leg, so hopefully this will occur next and the CAsA beast will turn on itself in a desperate attempt to save itself?
The ridiculous nit picking over irrelevant minor mistakes in Hansard and the smart arse and pathetic manner they are trying to shift the spotlight is laughable. What an absolute load of mi mi mi. Go do something proactive you clowns and fix our Regs, improve safety and accept accountability for your complete and utter failings!
I would like to see the FAA treat Congress with the same amount of contempt? ............................................................ ................................................
Dear Senators (If you are reading),
Please be assured that some of us in the aviation industry do not support what we believe is CAsA's feeble attempt to undermine the importance and relevance of this inquiry through perceived stalling tactics, word twisting, mockery and attitude towards the Senate, Operators, Industry Groups and the travelling public. In an environment where safety does come first it is obvious that for CAsA their ego and pride are what come first.
But it's not just them. The ATSBeaker have demonstrated similar disregard towards the Senate and are on an equal platform with their CAsA counterparts (or should that be bed partners?)
It would appear that the ASA are hiding beneath the radar, mainly due to their fearless leader jumping ship before being made to walk the plank. Brave or stupid, you be the judges.
Senators, respectfully, you must dispose of this dross, gut the organisations in question, force immediate change, repair the damage and start with a fresh deck. A full scale restructure is needed now. No silly name changes of the department, no relocating of management into other bureaucracies - A total top to bottom cleansing and repentance of former sins is necessary. It's time to exorcise the demons.
Kind regards
The Ills Of Society
The ridiculous nit picking over irrelevant minor mistakes in Hansard and the smart arse and pathetic manner they are trying to shift the spotlight is laughable. What an absolute load of mi mi mi. Go do something proactive you clowns and fix our Regs, improve safety and accept accountability for your complete and utter failings!
I would like to see the FAA treat Congress with the same amount of contempt? ............................................................ ................................................
Dear Senators (If you are reading),
Please be assured that some of us in the aviation industry do not support what we believe is CAsA's feeble attempt to undermine the importance and relevance of this inquiry through perceived stalling tactics, word twisting, mockery and attitude towards the Senate, Operators, Industry Groups and the travelling public. In an environment where safety does come first it is obvious that for CAsA their ego and pride are what come first.
But it's not just them. The ATSBeaker have demonstrated similar disregard towards the Senate and are on an equal platform with their CAsA counterparts (or should that be bed partners?)
It would appear that the ASA are hiding beneath the radar, mainly due to their fearless leader jumping ship before being made to walk the plank. Brave or stupid, you be the judges.
Senators, respectfully, you must dispose of this dross, gut the organisations in question, force immediate change, repair the damage and start with a fresh deck. A full scale restructure is needed now. No silly name changes of the department, no relocating of management into other bureaucracies - A total top to bottom cleansing and repentance of former sins is necessary. It's time to exorcise the demons.
Kind regards
The Ills Of Society
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 1st May 2013 at 03:31.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rather like to believe the beast is caught in a trap and is right now chewing its leg off.
The point to be alert to, is the teeth still appear to work.
Keep poking it with a stick would be my advice.
The point to be alert to, is the teeth still appear to work.
Keep poking it with a stick would be my advice.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st May 2013 at 05:12. Reason: reading up on traps.
Contempt for the Senate?
Good point you make Oleo!
Perhaps in relation to the bizarre pdf doc (CASA re hansard corrections 26 April 2013_Web[1]) and the inferences it makes on the competency/integrity of the RRAT Committee Secretariat, the Senators should be questioning whether this is in fact a ‘Contempt of Parliament’:
I know there is again too much wriggle room to escape possible sanctions, coupled with the fact that public servants are even more protected, but it could at least extract a retraction and apology from FF. God knows throughout this inquiry there has been an element of contempt displayed by FF to the Senate committee process and to all of us ‘ills of society’.
Anyway moving on but still on the subject of contempt, at post #1597 Kharon said:
Given the elevated attention AMROBA has been receiving on here of late, now might be the time to explore sub15. In the submission Ken and Co do address the current impasse between industry and regulator, while offering a possible plan of attack to the pollies that could ultimately see us genuinely addressing ICAO compliance and the RRP.
Sub15…food for thought perhaps??
Ps Maybe FEDSEC Steve and Ken should get together...if they haven't already??
Perhaps in relation to the bizarre pdf doc (CASA re hansard corrections 26 April 2013_Web[1]) and the inferences it makes on the competency/integrity of the RRAT Committee Secretariat, the Senators should be questioning whether this is in fact a ‘Contempt of Parliament’:
Contempt of Parliament definition:
Conduct (including the use of words)... [which] amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member.
Contempt decisions by the House of Representatives or the Senate are thus subject to review by the Federal Courts.
Punishments are limited under the Act to (for individuals) a fine of $5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment, or (for corporations) a fine of $25,000.
In the Senate, allegations of contempt are heard by the Privileges Committee, which decides whether or not contempt was committed, and if so, what punishment is to be imposed. In practice, there have been very few times when a hearing determined that anyone was in contempt, and on no occasions has anyone been punished beyond a warning, with an apology and/or appropriate remedial action.
Conduct (including the use of words)... [which] amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member.
Contempt decisions by the House of Representatives or the Senate are thus subject to review by the Federal Courts.
Punishments are limited under the Act to (for individuals) a fine of $5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment, or (for corporations) a fine of $25,000.
In the Senate, allegations of contempt are heard by the Privileges Committee, which decides whether or not contempt was committed, and if so, what punishment is to be imposed. In practice, there have been very few times when a hearing determined that anyone was in contempt, and on no occasions has anyone been punished beyond a warning, with an apology and/or appropriate remedial action.
Anyway moving on but still on the subject of contempt, at post #1597 Kharon said:
There was a significant meeting held in Brisbane recently, the thread – General Aviation Meeting – started on PPRuNe is beginning to define many of the current and ongoing problems faced by the industry. The focus is on the perilous situation general aviation finds itself through very little fault of its own making. This discussion is germane to the Senate Inquiry as it clearly defines the mindset CASA adopt when dealing with the industry they overlook - on any matter.
Sub15…food for thought perhaps??
Ps Maybe FEDSEC Steve and Ken should get together...if they haven't already??
Last edited by Sarcs; 1st May 2013 at 07:00. Reason: Fedsec for MP..got my vote!