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 13th May 2013, 04:23
  #1721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Sarcs, a prince and an extended oleo....

Sarcs, my dear friend, I always love your work. Not to mention you are a nice guy, willing to give people a chance, that is a good quality, seriously.
However I am a bit more of a cold bastard and simply cannot give Sith Mrdak a chance. Had he or if he proved that he is trying to implement change in his portfolio then I would gladly embrace him with a hearty handshake and maybe even a 'mans handshake', but alas the evidence is nought. The day we wake up one morning and turn on the news to hear that The Minister For Bad Hair, Teeth and Breath has listened to the Sith and taken a long sharp buccaneer blade as well as a gigantic pineapple that will snugly fit into CAsA's giant waste pipe then I will change my view, until such days I proudly remain one of ESSO's ills of society.

The artist formerly known as Prince Niccolo, we meet again on the battlefield old friend! But this time I switch my allegiance to you and fight on the same team. All tautology aside, I agree with your comments, and perhaps this inquiry will fall on deaf ears, true so true. However, when we end up with an AF447 there will be blood on these bastards hands and our collective voices that gathered on PPRuNe day after day warning about how f#cked the system is, how safety oversight and investigative ability had slid into a level so pathetic that safety was at an absolute risk, they will remember.

Fort Fumble and the ATSBeaker have sunk to the depths at which much of AF447 rests (R.I.P innocent souls).
Only a change of such proportion that leaves everybody's heads spinning will have some kind of affect.

No offence to Senator Heff, I believe he is a good man with honourable intent, but in the inquiry post Lockhart he recommended the reintroduction of a CAsA Board, and what did we get? Another layer of crap contributing to the industry's demise. Get rid of this motley group of lawyers and long term spin doctors and appoint a proper board containing industry experts with the necessary knowledge and the capability to paint an accurate and truthful picture of the real issues and state of play. How about a Mr Aherne, Mr Hart and Mr Stray to begin with? Pilot experience, investigation experience and a reasonable amount of integrity? Then the decapitation of CAsA's senior structure, one swift overnight blow, and the likes of the CAA NZ, FAA and our very own industry experts (there are plenty here) to work together to set up the new structure which would include a finalisation of regulatory reform, an independent and accountable ICC, a AAT not stacked with legal protection an absolute accountability for all newly appointed CAsA and ATSBeaker management.

Please Senators, with your influential power, we do not want any more pony tricks with the vast amount of pooh they leave behind for us to navigate through, no more cockroaches hiding under the floorboards of our aviation bureaucracies which come out at night and feast on the carcass of good people trying to create a safe environment.

Gobbles has allowed me to now twice repeat the following phrase (and assures me that there will be no third occasion),

Tick tock

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 13th May 2013 at 04:40.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 05:50
  #1722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Spirit and intent – Wuzzat?

In all probability Annexe 19 will only be honoured only in the breach; even a fairly sedate amble through the response requires the use of sunglasses (protection from mirror glare) and a snorkel (anti smoke inhalation). The outstanding 'hard points' are few and very far between; the author has managed to feed the ICAO 'few words' (meaning much) back as fluffed up text, which hints and teases at some form of substance, but leaves the reader with a handful of fluff, puff and SFA else. No idea what that little effort cost – but I would like to see a plan, some guidelines and protocols. Is it only six short months (or so - Sarcs??) until it's in. Lots of work for the boys and girls to do, dreaming up excuse me 's and words that will meet the legal requirements, but firmly apply the Strictly no liability policy; you know, the norm for any form ICAO compliance. Lord knows they have had plenty of practice doing just that. Maybe Wodger could show them the way (being the arch wonder wordsmith and all).

Thanks for the copy P18 – I have adopted the CASA system, in my library there is now a healing cupboard. I will tenderly place the document on a special shelf, with all the other documents waiting the cupboards magical healing properties to work and make it a viable, vibrant useful document. There's quite a queue in there, so it could take another 25 years or more. Ah well, the Ox is slow, but the earth is patient...

Last edited by Kharon; 13th May 2013 at 05:54.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 06:04
  #1723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
It's a miracle that Fort Fumble has pulled off a SSP in the first place. They put in charge of the program a person that was walking the halls with little to do at the time. A source told me she spent the first 6 months picking everybody's brains, as she had no understanding of what a SSP was or what Australia's requirements would even be!
Now I am not attempting to put this individual down by any means, but the persons background was certainly rumoured to be far from commensurate with the necessary background to create, implement and manage a high level program such as the SSP.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 09:02
  #1724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
“CAsA Chronicle 1999, Ref: Dick”

A snippet taken from the 7:30 report 23/3/99. I am not posting this to garnish debate over Mr Smith, that is not the intent. It is to show that in my opinion, the changes needed in CAsA which are monumental, needs to include an entirely new organisation and management structure – Out with the very old and in with the new. It is time to clean out the cupboards. We have had too many inquiries, too many management changes includes DAS’s and CEO’s yet the support structure remains the same, and has done so sine the late 90’s. In fact a couple of members of the GWM were lurking around during part of Dick’s tenure, and still there today in senior roles, and have been around for the tenures of The Ayatoller, Bruce the Magnificent and the Screaming Skull. I only mention that out of interest of course, nothing else intended.

My bolding below;
Transcript
23/03/99
A turbulent career


KERRY O'BRIEN: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is in further turmoil tonight after the sudden resignation of board member Janine Shepherd.

Her decision comes barely 24-hours after the departure of chairman Dick Smith.

With Australia's air regulator once again in crisis, it remains unclear whether Dick Smith jumped or was pushed.

But, by the time he went, the pressure on him from virtually all sectors of the aviation industry had become all but intolerable.

While the man himself says he had become a target of those trying to hold back necessary reforms, his many critics say it was Dick Smith's style as much as his reforms that so deeply divided those with a stake in air safety.

David Hardaker reports.

JOHN WOODS: Dick was totally isolated because of his personality style, his management style.

MARK BARNETT: I understand that Dick can be a difficult man to work with and when you've got someone with a vision they often are like that.

They're hard to work with and the bureaucrats within CASA -- many of them have been there a long time -- they may feel they can't work with a man like Dick Smith so they entrench themselves.

That's a pity, because may be if they listened to him a bit more, they would have got somewhere.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 20:06
  #1725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The Gobbledocks first XI.

Oleo # 1729 -"How about a Mr Aherne, Mr Hart and Mr Stray to begin with? Pilot experience, investigation experience and a reasonable amount of integrity? Then the decapitation of CAsA's senior structure, one swift overnight blow, and the likes of the CAA NZ, FAA and our very own industry experts (there are plenty here) to work together to set up the new structure which would include a finalisation of regulatory reform, an independent and accountable ICC, a AAT not stacked with legal protection an absolute accountability for all newly appointed CAsA and ATSBeaker management."
You don't need to look back many years to see the 'brain drain'; there is some very competent home grown talent gone begging. You could add Bills, Cooke and Davies to the team, but for my money Stray is the catalyst, supported by a good crew, with sane executive management. But first, we need a sort out meeting, starting with exit interviews from some of the past DAS and 'talent' which has departed the fix. This would, with a shove, identify the real, deeply hidden problem areas. It's all too easy to hammer the top dog, but if the 'ills of society' inside the department could be identified and removed, perhaps there could be some faith in a 'new' system.

I have, until recently taken Sunny's much loved sociopath argument with a small amount of scepticism, (as is my wont) but research and reading seem to support the proposition. He's right – they have to go. Just looking over the cases where I am absolutely certain of the evidence, a very scary pattern emerges. Using that hypothesis to measure against other 'cases' the pattern becomes clear. There appears two distinct types, them what is and them what isn't. NFI about how to fix it apart from 'tar and feathers'; it's a bit like a normalised deficiency in an operating system. The culture which supports it needs to change and that, operationally at least, is tough stuff.

Anyway – ruminations over and no further on. BRB tonight with Barrier on the agenda, so; better crack on and move GD's beloved elephants so the crew can park: Oh, and if you think pony pooh is hard to move, try the Jumbo version. Heigh Ho...

Last edited by Kharon; 13th May 2013 at 20:16. Reason: Looking forward to Sunny's lil ol lady interview. Must be fun.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 21:39
  #1726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
Been researching 'paths for Ten years after I ended up working for one and then got entangled with a female one at the same time.

I can now spot them reasonably well, I hope..........

Sociopaths will stop at nothing to get the recognition they thirst for, and be aware that the recognition doesn't have to be praise or adoration or worship; fear and loathing does just as well for filling their endlessly leaking self esteem bucket, so deliberate cruelty is also one of their signature tactics

They will lie, cheat. backstab, plot, connive, flatter and assassinate to get what they want and because they can't empathise with normal humans, they can do it with an absolutely straight face - no hint of emotion because there isn't any emotion. They are dead inside.

The tell tale signatures in an organisation are:

1. Good people suddenly leaving for no apparent reason - we lost Three "rain makers", very capable middle management who made us a lot of money. The sociopath felt threatened by their talent and success. A Chief of Staff also went after having innocently corrected her bosses mistake - in public. I earned the undying hatred of a very well known high profile sociopath for a similar indescretion.

2. The hiring of "special people" whose skil set includes flattery. We copped an Oxford PhD with that lovely accent because he was obviously "special". He became the bosses right hand man / assassin. He was also an incompetent prick, I had to explain the nature of the "database scam" to him in words of one syllable.

The reason for this hiring is that only a sociopath will willingly work for another sociopath. Pretty soon management is infested with them.

3. The creation of an "inner sanctum", for the "special people". All decisions are taken there in secret from the ordinary folk. This also involves a form of social bullying since information is drip fed out to the proles and if you are not "on the team" you are treated like a mushroom. In its highest form, everybody knows that someone is about to be fired or demoted except the victim.

One of the signatures of this behaviour is the holding of confidential group meetings, functions, conferences, etc from which certain managers are pointedly excluded.. I've also seen a room of some thirty employees being told that they are "too old" to retrain; the implication being that their days in the organisation were numbered and that they would be fired when it was administratively convenient.

4. A totally, or partially dysfunctional corporate strategy that massages the bosses ego. I was asked to recommend an investment that would have got him a seat on the board of a prestigious financial institution if we had made it.

5. Deliberate cruelty to staff and customers, for the benefit of the bosses ego. These places are not very nice to work in. Lies are commonplace. There is a deliberately fostered climate of fear. All must tremble a the power of he who must be obeyed. Stress leave and workers compensation claims become common.

6. Dishonesty - law breaking by the boss. When ever you see a well known public figure being caught and convicted for a stupid offence involving dishonesty - like insider trading in Telstra shares or lying about who was driving a car, you are dead set looking at a sociopath. They are above the law.

7. A lot of "networking" by the boss with very important people everywhere for the purpose of the next appointment or award. We also copped Two Directors thanks to the Qantas chairmans lounge - reciprocal Board seats for our boss of course.

As an aside to that, if you are ever offered an Order of Australia tell them to shove it up their arse, its a club for sociopaths with a few real achievers thrown in for decoration. Three sociopaths I know have the OA.

8. And of course, utter contempt for "the little people" starting with their own staff.

Would any of these signatures fit CASA? How would I know? They sure as hell fit some of the managers at Qantas judging by the alleged treatment of their engineers.

Last edited by Sunfish; 13th May 2013 at 21:40.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 13th May 2013, 23:04
  #1727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
“Sociopaths, a Prince, a Ferryman and a Sith Darklord!”

PNM:
All this enthusiasm for Annex 19 as some form of panacea for the ills of Australian aviation is a little bemusing.
Ah Princester good to see your still paying attention…hmm nup can’t remember anyone saying that Annex 19 was the great panacea for anything in particular??? No PNM it is the compliance issue of Annex 19 that is of interest here?

Hmm…I also find it interesting that whenever 'your Highness' decides to sneak back on here, like a ‘Prince of Thieves’, it is always at a time when some matter of particular potential sensitivity is bought up.

Last time it was Airtex/Canleyvale and how that was not a good match to compare with Pel-Air, the time before it was the flight recorder recovery and how that was a non-issue. This time is Annex 19 and how it is supposedly irrelevant in context….err there is a pattern here but I just can’t put my finger on it??

PNM:
My understanding of Annex 19 is that it is a collection of existing provisions, edited only for document continuity. As I further understand it, there will be no new provisions for a number of years.
And Princester in that statement you show your ignorance and contempt for Annex 19 and its supporting SMM. All the links for those documents are here on this site for you to examine and yet you don’t? Is that the blueblood coming out perhaps?

It might actually help if you devoted some time to researching what the future implications of Annex 19 could actually mean to not only us ‘ills of society’ but to those ‘who cannot be touched’, defamed or criticised and continue to operate with impunity while reeking their autocratic mayhem on a dispirited, disillusioned and damaged industry.

Ok back to Annex 19 for a bit…

Kharon:
No idea what that little effort cost – but I would like to see a plan, some guidelines and protocols. Is it only six short months (or so - Sarcs??) until it's in. Lots of work for the boys and girls to do, dreaming up excuse me 's and words that will meet the legal requirements, but firmly apply the Strictly no liability policy; you know, the norm for any form ICAO compliance.
Yes “K” it was stated by PAIN at #1696 that ICAO are, optimistically perhaps, looking fwd to November for full application of Annex 19.

Oleo:
It's a miracle that Fort Fumble has pulled off a SSP in the first place. They put in charge of the program a person that was walking the halls with little to do at the time. A source told me she spent the first 6 months picking everybody's brains, as she had no understanding of what a SSP was or what Australia's requirements would even be!
I must correct you Oleo it is not the Fort’s duty to set up an SSP it is Sith Mrdak’s boys‘n’gals that have the unenviable task of doing that. Although it would appear that even the chief-crat hasn’t come to terms with that concept yet.

From Chapter 3 Section 3.2 ‘SSP Framework’ of the SMM it states:
STATE SAFETY POLICY AND OBJECTIVES

The State safety policy and objectives component defines how the State will manage safety throughout its aviation system. This includes the determination of responsibilities and accountabilities of the different State organizations related to the SSP, as well as of the broad safety objectives to be achieved by the SSP.

The State safety policy and objectives provide management and personnel explicit policies, directions, procedures, management controls, documentation and corrective action processes that keep the safety management efforts of the State‘s civil aviation authority, and other State organizations on track. This enables the State to provide safety leadership in an increasingly complex and continuously changing air transportation system.
What I think this means is that it is DoIT’s responsibility to, independently from its agencies, put in place an oversight framework of the SSP. This is further explained here (my bold):
1-2 State safety responsibilities and accountabilities

· SSP Element 1.2 State safety responsibilities and accountabilities - the State has identified, defined and documented the requirements, responsibilities and accountabilities regarding the establishment and maintenance of the SSP. This includes the directives to plan, organize, develop, maintain, control and continuously improve the SSP in a manner that meets the State’s safety objectives. It also includes a clear statement about the provision of the necessary resources for the implementation of the SSP.

The State‘s initial SSP implementation responsibility is to identify the SSP Accountable Executive as well as the State organization that will administrate and coordinate the implementation and operation of the SSP. This entity is also referred to as the SSP placeholder organization in this document.

For States where multiple regulatory and administrative organizations are involved, it may also be necessary to identify an appropriate national committee with representation by these organizations, to serve as the State‘s on-going SSP coordination platform.

The appointed SSP Accountable Executive and placeholder organization will initiate the SSP implementation process by appointing an SSP implementation team. This implementation team will be responsible to work with the Accountable Executive and the various organizations to initiate the SSP planning and implementation processes.

Implementation and subsequent continuing operation of the SSP will need to be defined and documented. This SSP documentation system includes a top level SSP document that defines/ describes the SSP, together with other records, forms, SOPs, etc associated with the implementation and operation of the SSP.

Concurrent with the definition of safety management responsibilities and accountabilities is the coordinated development of a State Safety Policy (statement) that is applicable across the State‘s regulatory and administrative framework. Likewise, broad State safety objectives are part of the overall mission statements for all relevant State organizations. High level safety objectives may then be supported by relevant safety indicators to facilitate their assessment or measurement as appropriate.
Clear as mud? Ok does this gel with what Sith Mrdak is proposing to do or has already put in place?

From the Sith’s SSP:
Aviation Policy Group

Inter-agency cooperation is essential to implementing and achieving consistent policy objectives across government agencies. The Aviation Policy Group (APG) was established to ensure effective working relationships across the four agencies involved in aviation policy, regulation and service provision. The APG brings together the agency heads of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Airservices, CASA and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) on behalf of Defence.

The Chief Commissioner of the ATSB attends APG meetings as an observer as required, but is not a full member due to ATSB's status as the independent aviation safety investigator.

The APG, although not a decision-making body, provides a high-level forum for effective inter-agency policy coordination and for working through air traffic management and other strategic aviation cross-agency issues.

The APG plays a key coordinating role in overseeing Australia's SSP, the development and maintenance of this document and the associated implementation plan. APG also coordinates as necessary with other agencies, particularly the ATSB, in overseeing implementation of Australia's SSP to ensure proper consideration of any underlying risks to the effectiveness of the safety system.
Aviation Implementation Group

The Aviation Implementation Group (AIG) is a working group of senior officials comprising representatives from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, CASA, Airservices and Defence. The AIG supports the APG in the implementation of cross-agency strategies. This group is chaired by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport.

The AIG also acts as a steering group in relation to ICAO matters bearing on the SSP. The AIG provides regular advice to the APG on developments within the SSP and provides guidance to the SSP Cross-Agency Team.
SSP Cross-Agency Team

The SSP Cross-Agency Team is chaired by the Department and is made up of representatives from CASA, Airservices, ATSB, AMSA and BOM. The Team is responsible for the development and continuing maintenance of the SSP document and for monitoring and reporting on SSP implementation and the indicators relating to levels of safety in the Australian aviation system.
Reads like a ‘going through the motions’, I also can see some real ‘conflict of interest’ issues in there , that possibly lose the original intent of the ICAO proposed Annex 19?? However I’ll let others be the judge of that....

At least Sith Mrdak appears to be taking it seriously even if it is just the bones and tendons at this stage…hmm wonder who is going to help him with the meat and veg?

Last edited by Sarcs; 13th May 2013 at 23:29. Reason: Sunny top job as usual from our resident Sociopath expert!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 23:26
  #1728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
A most studious and revealing summation there Sunny

flesh creepingly so


Maybe the day is at hand when such grievous ills throughout
departments and corporations will attract the attention
of Four Corners and their best investigative journos.

as K might fittingly quote -


Horatio:
He waxes desperate with imagination.

Marcellus:
Let's follow. 'Tis not fit thus to obey him.

Horatio:
Have after. To what issue will this come?

Marcellus:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Horatio:
Heaven will direct it.

Marcellus:
Nay, let's follow him. [Exeunt.]

Last edited by Fantome; 13th May 2013 at 23:50.
Fantome is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 00:40
  #1729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Time warp and ducks in a row?

It's funny, as we have learned CASA can't manage the simplistic of tasks, can't get it's own house in order, couldn't update it's own systems if life itself was dependent upon it, let alone oversight industry.
Below are two basic links (wont take long until they are severed!).
One of these individuals hasn't worked at CAsA for around 4 years and the other, the EM Operations is now at ASA.

http:Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Tarryn - Manager, Policy & Business Development

http:Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Greg - Executive Manager CASA Operations

It is always fun traversing the FF time warp, so much history, so much fun within the hallways of sleepy hollow.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 03:06
  #1730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 70
Posts: 120
Unhappy Research?

Sarcs,

I will always be guilty of being Machiavellian, goes with the name...

But you ascribe a number of unfortunate traits to me that I fear are unjustified. My comments on Annex 19 were based on Attachments D and E to the ICAO State letter AN 8/3-13/30:

ATTACHMENT D to State letter AN 8/3-13/30

SOURCES OF ANNEX 19, FIRST EDITION

Note 1. This document tracks the sources of Annex 19 – Safety Management, first edition. For the purpose of clarity, coherence and understanding, the content of the SARPs in Annex 19 may have been
modified from the original text.

Note 2. ― “Transfer” to Annex 19 means that the provision no longer exists in the original Annex. “Duplication” means that the provision has been copied into Annex 19 and has been kept in the original Annex (with amendment, as needed).

Note 3. ― As a result of the adoption of Annex 19, consequential amendments to Annexes 1 (Amdt. 171), 6, Part I (Amdt. 37), II (Amdt. 32) and III (Amdt. 18), 8 (Amdt. 104), 11 (Amdt. 49), 13 (Amdt. 14) and 14,Volume I (Amdt. 11) have also been adopted.







and the table attached thereto contains only two new provisions, both for continuity. However, it is Attachment E that tells us what is happening:



ATTACHMENT E to State letter AN 8/3-13/30

CLARIFICATIONAND ROLL-OUT PLAN FOR ANNEX 19, FIRST EDITION

This attachment contains information regarding the creation of Annex 19 and its implementation. The States are invited to broadly distribute this document internally to their appropriate staff and externally to the industry, in order to efficiently support the roll-out of this new ICAO Annex and reach out the largest amount of stakeholders.

The ICAO Safety Management website, http://www.icao.int/SafetyManagement has been updated to provide valuable information on the implementation of Annex 19 and will be updated regularly with new developments. Any questions regarding Annex 19 or safety management provisions can be addressed to [email protected].


1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Safety management provisions were gradually introduced into the following ICAO Annexes beginning in 2001:

a) Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing;

b) Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part I — International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes, Part II — International General Aviation — Aeroplanes and Part III — International Operations — Helicopters;

c) Annex 8 — Airworthiness of Aircraft;

d) Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services;

e) Annex 13 — Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation; and

f) Annex 14 —Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome Design andOperations.


1.2 In response to High-level Safety Conference 2010 (HLSC/2010) Recommendation 2/5, the ICAO Council supported a two-phased approach for the creation of a new safety management Annex:

a) the first phase to consolidate existing and overarching Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS), currently contained in as many as six different Annexes, into a single new Annex; and

b) the second phase for the development of new safety management provisions.

1.3 On 25 February 2013, the ICAO Council unanimously adopted the first edition of Annex 19 with an applicability date of 14 November 2013.


2. SUMMARYOF ANNEX 19 CONTENTS

2.1 The first edition of Annex 19 is a consolidation of existing overarching safety management provisions. The sources of Annex 19, first edition, are described in Attachment D to this State letter.

2.2 Minor modifications were made as necessary for the purposes of clarity and consistency. In addition, the following amendments were made for harmonization purposes:

a) the four components of the SSP framework were elevated to a Standard in Chapter 3;

b) State safety oversight provisions (Appendix 1) were derived from Annex 6, Part I, Appendix5 and Annex 6, Part III, Appendix 1 and their applicability broadened to all service providers identified in Chapters 3 and 4;

c) Safety data collection analysis and exchange (Chapter 5) provisions were transferred from Annex 13. Legal guidance for protection of safety information (Attachment E to Annex13) is replicated as Attachment B to Annex 19; and

d) the SMS framework(Appendix 2) now applies to type design and manufacture of aircraft.


I'm not entirely sure what my research crime was

Last edited by Prince Niccolo M; 14th May 2013 at 03:37.
Prince Niccolo M is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 08:37
  #1731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 603
my oleo is extended...

...CASA can't manage the simplistic of tasks, can't get it's own house in order, couldn't update it's own systems if life itself was dependent upon it, let alone oversight industry.
So, in simple terms then, does that mean that CASA couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery?
SIUYA is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 11:54
  #1732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
SIUYA, I was probably being a bit harsh. They are actually very good at;

• Arranging audit and surveillance activities predominately in ports where QF group fly, inspectors keep all frequent flyer points. (Absolutely true).

• Taking overseas trips to attend conferences, seminars and a host of other non value adding jollies.

• They are well organised when it comes to dipping their hands in the public trough and enjoying the endless spend of taxpayer funds.

• They are well organised and very efficient at stitching up anybody who challenges them, right or wrong.

• They have awesome skills when it comes to arranging endless coffee breaks at establishments within walking distance of their offices!
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 19:36
  #1733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Crime and punishment.

Oleo # 1740 –"They are well organised and very efficient at stitching up anybody who challenges them, right or wrong."
Must be getting psychic in your old age mate, the BRB kicked off the Barrier discussion last night with pretty much that notion. The Barrier issue is sensitive at the moment which is why there is not a lot of information (or gossip) out here. The BRB thought it worth mentioning that Barrier needs industry support and in it's own defence, the industry needs to support Barrier. It is an ugly story and no matter what your stance on "Barrier" is, it is unacceptable that any operator should be subjected to the full CASA "treatment"; and Barrier is getting it – big time. Write to Warren Entsch question the CASA methodology and pray. Pray it's not your turn next week.

Anyway – the Barrier yarn naturally led (to another round) and then onto the CASA "treatment" system, which brought up Dom James and his woyal wodgering. The "lads" have been reading (and editing) the Bankstown Chronicles (BKC); they particularly enjoyed Wodgers very own chapter. Here's a turn up though, the BRB seriously contemplated sending the BKC to CASA, believe it not, to help them; before there is a real embarrassment. Some of the juicy morsels included in the BKC:- the James tale, the case of the psychic damp test, the adventure of fast and loose use of Reg 265 (or anything else which may fit), the chapter on conflicting evidence was voted a prize winner (Tim Tam for K). Here's a teaser. A letter clearly stating "although this is not a fail, the wodgering will continue unabated": later, when the issue is pushed "fail" paperwork is "produced". Think about it. The motion to send the BKC was defeated by a thumping majority, but I wonder. But, then again, who would we send it too?

Later (another round) the BRB also debated the proposition - is our Wodger is a candidate for Sunny's little old lady interview?. (unanimous). There was also much discussion about whether the LSD have any idea of the potential credibility and fiscal disaster rumbling toward their door. (The Nays have it).

And that (for those who weren't there) is the latest BRB report, sanitised, censored and all ribald comments removed.

PM Oleo - Gobbles email was interesting – the Presidential suite in Montréal's finest cat house has been prepared to receive the Oz ICAO specialist "team", seems the FAA are waiting with bated breath for the Australian version of Annex 19. Apparently, after a long cold winter they could do with a good laugh. GD wanted to do more, but I told him to relax, have a cigar and road test the latest in fluffy slippers. Anyway – Pete's enjoying the break. But those bloody elephants.... Who was it said – "I like elephants, I just wouldn't want to own one"?....

Last edited by Kharon; 14th May 2013 at 19:52. Reason: Whoa, nice new clean page, thought I was to be the tag end of the last. Be still my beating heart.
Kharon is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 06:23
  #1734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Down the ICAO barrel and…beyond???

Kharon said:
The BRB thought it worth mentioning that Barrier needs industry support and in it's own defence, the industry needs to support Barrier. It is an ugly story and no matter what your stance on "Barrier" is, it is unacceptable that any operator should be subjected to the full CASA "treatment"; and Barrier is getting it – big time.
Couldn’t agree more “K” it is indeed an ugly tale and one of many that seems to be stuck on an endless loop of sorry tales. However if you are lucky enough to reside in the middle to big end of town (like a Pel-Air), then it would appear you can just about get away with anything!

However if the SSP were to be properly implemented, in accordance with Annex 19, then it is highly unlikely that the Barrier’s of this world would ever occur.

Why you might ask? Ok if we assume the SSP to be the State’s SMS, then the SSP will have to provide a high level strategy, and not only a detailed ‘in the weeds’ set of procedures so much loved by the “Wodgers” of Fort Fumble’s inspectorate (refer the 'Chamber Report').

The existence of a proper SSP policy and strategy means that you or I can ask ‘Yes, but do your procedures align with the documented strategy? If you cannot convince me of that, then your argument has no merit.’

Clear as mud? No? Well perhaps ‘3-1 Safety Oversight’ section might better explain (my bold):
SSP Element 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.
This would mean that some of the ugliest, dubious, and legally questionable cases like Barrier and the ones “K” alludes to … “ the James tale, the case of the psychic damp test, the adventure of fast and loose use of Reg 265 (or anything else which may fit),” ...would have to be justified and in accordance with the SSP, the State’s legislative requirements, the ICAO SARPs and would required to be transparent to review by the administrators (not Fort Fumble) of the SSP.

As an example if we refer to Karon’s earlier post:
One of the major stumbling blocks towards nirvana Annexe 19 would be that not only would James have been exonerated, but the whole motley judgement panel would be knee deep in their own pony pooh. Look at the flogging Mick Quinn got when he quite rightly stated in the Senate, (my paraphrasing) - the ATSB report’s substitution test showed that the unsafe procedure that nearly killed everyone on NGA, is endemic across Australian Civil Aviation. Therefore everyone didn’t realise the risk, not just Dom.
If we then refer to part of the last paragraph of '1-4 Enforcement policy':
At the same time, the State may need to formalize the need for its service providers to have internal disciplinary procedures that incorporate an equivalent enhancement. This would imply that service providers are expected to have an acceptable process in place to manage their own routine safety/ quality deviations through internal disciplinary policies and procedures.
If applied properly, it would have exonerated Dom James because he was complying with his ops manual, unaware that compliance made him unsafe. Implicit from this argument, the regulator must realise that they’re not God, only a ‘defence in depth’.

As Mick Quinn stated (above), the ATSB report’s substitution test showed that the unsafe procedure that nearly killed everyone on NGA, is endemic across Australian Civil Aviation. Therefore everyone didn’t realise the risk, not just Dom.

And that is the importance of Annex 19 and the proper compliant implementation of an Aviation SSP….the question is does the current status quo have the necessary testicular fortitude to see a proper SSP put in place? Or, coupled with all those other NCNs, SARP differences, etc…etc, are we doomed to a long stint bumped back to level 2?

Last edited by Sarcs; 15th May 2013 at 06:36. Reason: "K" you were looking a bit lonely at the top of the page...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 08:32
  #1735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
If applied properly, it would have exonerated Dom James because he was
complying with his ops manual
I have been critisiced before for suggesting that this whole inquiry has been partly about exonerating DJ.

"No thats not the purpose its all about making the skies safer and highlighting the corruption in how avaition is administered!"

Now your suggesting Sarcs that DJ would have been exonerated had Annex 19 been available! I have said before in a previous thread that the organisational issues got him to ToD to an airport below minima however the ditching was all his (along with his F/O). It wasn't a faulty SSP that prevented him from declaring a mayday and it wasn't a faulty SSP that required him to conduct 4 approaches to a minima that was never going to get him visual.

Now I will sit back and await the usual crap from the usual players.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 12:03
  #1736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
You know the difference between God and a CAsA expert???
God doesn't think he's a CAsA expert!
thorn bird is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 12:41
  #1737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Well said Lookleft,

I think, (if I translate Kharon's opaque meanderings correctly) that he and his ilk are playing the "My enemy's enemy is my friend" game. But as I said, so little of his running series of in-jokes is intelligible to this poor soul that I'm not sure.

There is nothing that shows up airmanship like the way a crew collectively thinks (and ultimately PIC decides) at the last point, and it is often approaching TOD, at which you can divert to a decent alternate where you have personally ascertained that there's OK WX. To identify shortcomings in this part of the sad saga is not to necessarily dislike DJ or be a paid up member of the CASA Fan Club. It's just common sense.

I think, though again, can't be sure, that Kharon and his mates are pilots of some sort. Or at least hang around pilots. So they should be aware of Rule 1 of CRM: its not Who's right it is What's right that matters.

Having said all of that what would I know?.....I can't even decipher half of the posts on this thread
Algie is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 12:59
  #1738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 55
Posts: 560
Ministers Statement Release May 4 2013.

Ministers Statement Release May 4 2013.

At the behest of the Gobbledock who yesterday chaired a sit-in at ICAO on behalf of ‘The Occupy ICAO Movement’, he has forwarded the below high level statement by Teflon Tony.(Ironically Gobbles is claiming Tony is in fact his step-dad! WTF??) Anyway, he sent the statement by express SHS – Styx Houseboat Courier. The wily comedian also sent a pound of pony pooh, some worm castings, a photo of a young Teflon Tony when he used to have a perm, a copy of John Warham’s ‘The 49ers The True Story’ and a crate of pineapples!

Has anybody else taken alook at this folly? Interesting release date of May 4 2013, a few weeks prior to the Senate report release. For sure, it is standard protocol to release a statement such as this by the department, but could one view this timing as simply Teflon Tony’s way of putting the onus back on the Board that if something goes pear shaped (which could happen in theory on the 23rd) then it will be the Boards robust heads on the chopping block? I have, as always, bolded my favourite bits andprovided a web link, but the below snippets made me laugh;

1) Undertake effective and appropriate stakeholder engagement with the community.Yep, that really worked at the AMROBA meeting didn’t it? FAIL!

2) Continuing its strong commitment to completing the regulatory reform program. Haha, that is gold! 25 years almost, and the Minister for Bad Teeth calls it a ‘strong commitment’?? FAIL!

3) To adhere to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding with the ATSB. Looks like the ALOO is here to stay and the sharing of information philes between ATSBeaker and CAsA will continue! FAIL!

4) Work closely with the ATSB and the Department to ensure that arrangements are inplace for the appropriate sharing and use of safety information by the ATSB andCASA. See point 3 above.

Adhere to a set of values and a code of conduct that maintain high standards of professionalism, service, probity, reporting,accountability and transparency. Hmm, very wanky indeed. I am sure that people like Quadrio, Butson, Stan, the good people of AMROBA, the generative ‘ills ofsociety’ and pretty much everybody else that they hold in contempt would be scratching their heads about now? All of the above statement flies in opposition to how the GWM actually operate. And obviously the ICC is excluded from this section.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00744
Statement of Expectations For the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

For the Period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015

This Statement of Expectations (SOE) outlines in a formal and public way, my expectations concerning the operations and performance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015. This Statement of Expectations serves as a notice of strategic direction to CASA under section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) and commences on 1 July 2013.

The Australian Government expects the Board to help position CASA to meet current and emerging challenges in aviation safety, by operating as a world leading aviation safety regulator, backed by a workforce with the requisite skills and capabilities to maintain a high level of aviation safety.

As the Board of CASA, I expect that you:

· will ensure CASA acts in accordance with the Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act) as well as other relevant legislation and legal instruments;

· will give a particular focus to the governance of CASA and its performance against the goals identified in the Corporate Plan including improved safety outcomes, with the Director of Aviation Safety discharging the responsibility for regulatory decision making; and

· will ensure that I and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (the Department) are kept fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the initiatives and activities stated below, and alerted to events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA, including through the provision of timely quarterly reports of progress against the Corporate Plan.

My expectations are that CASA will:

1. perform its functions in a manner that continues to focus on aviation safety as the highest priority,consistent with Government policy.

2. undertake effective and appropriate stakeholder engagement with the community, industry and Government in the further development and implementation of significant changes to the regulation of civil aviation safety, including continuing to strengthen industry awareness of its safety obligations and the provision of relevant education programs.

3. in conjunction with the Department, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence as appropriate, continue to develop and implement policies, programs and other initiatives to facilitate aviation safety, including:

a) the development and implementation of an air traffic management (ATM) regulatory plan which outlines CASA’s proposed future ATM standards;

b) continuing its strong commitment to completing the regulatory reform program in conjunction with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC);

c) maintaining a strategic workforce plan that addresses CASA’s future recruitment, training and skills requirements;

d) continuing to implement the Government’s policy objectives in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement; and

e) managing the commitment to cap aviation regulatory service fees (subject to adjustments in the consumer price index) until at least 2015.

4. work with the Department in the preparation of the next long term funding strategy for CASA for consideration in the 2014-15 Portfolio Budget Statements to provide ongoing financial stability for CASA and examining opportunities for reducing the cost of regulation on regional and general aviation.

5. continue to adhere to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding with the ATSB and provide advice to me about significant issues arising from the regular Executive meetings held between the Director of Aviation Safety and the Chief Commissioner.

6. work closely with the ATSB and the Department to ensure that arrangements are in place for the appropriate sharing and use of safety information by the ATSB and CASA and that these arrangements are transparent to the aviation industry and consistent with a strong reporting culture.

7. continue to work closely with the Department and other Australian Government agencies, including the ATSB and Airservices Australia to deliver integrated and comprehensive safety regulatory advice to Government and industry.

8. continue to strengthen international engagement through:

a) the establishment of appropriate mutual recognition
arrangements;

b) support of the Government’s aviation safety agenda in the Asia/Pacific region including initiatives such as the Indonesian Transport Safety Assistance Package; and

c) commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding between CASA, the Department and Airservices Australia, regarding the management of Australia’s International Civil Aviation organization (ICAO) responsibilities.

9. continue to support the maintenance of Australia’s State Safety Program including the appropriate implementation of Safety Management Systems.

10. adhere to a set of values and a code of conduct that maintain high standards of professionalism, service, probity, reporting, accountability and transparency, consistent with the Government’s aim of excellence in the public sector.


ANTHONY ALBANESE

Minister for Infrastructure and
Transport
12 April 2013


Algie bloom,
I think, (if I translate Kharon's opaque meanderings correctly) that he and his ilk are playing the "My enemy's enemy is my friend" game. But as I said, so little of his running series of in-jokes is intelligible to this poor soul that I'm not sure.
Are you referring to 'the ilk of society' or 'the ills of society'?

P.S Tell the flyingfiend and GWM that all of us 'ilk' say a very robust g'day


Last edited by my oleo is extended; 15th May 2013 at 13:06.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 14:00
  #1739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Ah Algie and look left posting again. Are you in canberra or bris? This blame the pilot seems very at odds with modern thinking? The ills the ilks and the deluded have a common interest.

It's not just about 'who' but 'why'. Focus on the target said a lot.

Anyway, the report should be out next week. It'll be interesting.

Two approaches to the problem of human fallibility exist: the person and the system approaches

The person approach focuses on the errors of individuals, blaming them for forgetfulness, inattention, or moral weakness

The system approach concentrates on the conditions under which individuals work and tries to build defences to avert errors or mitigate their effects

High reliability organisations—which have less than their fair share of accidents—recognise that human variability is a force to harness in averting errors, but they work hard to focus that variability and are constantly preoccupied with the possibility of failure
396,000 hits. Could be 400,000 views by the weekend? That is a lot of views for PPRuNe.

Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 15th May 2013 at 16:20. Reason: Elephant in room
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 15:43
  #1740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
Alfie and look left, you are dead wrong. Every time I go near an aircraft I am thinking, " what don't I know?" More than once the answer has been " plenty" because no training system is perfect.

Your suggestion that " he should have known" is unhelpful. The question is why he didn't know.

... Speaking as one who has been on the wrong end of that same situation, luckily only at the expense of my wallet.
Sunfish is online now  

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.