Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[my oleo is extended]

A source of mine in the city of Spamberra informs me the buzzards are definitely circling FF, what hasn't been determined yet is whether the buzzards will get to pick the carcass to the bone or whether they will just get to take a nibble!

I am also predicting (however I could be wrong) but depending on the final report (I hope you naughty scribes at Hansard get the spelling correct otherwise you will receive another scolding from the Witchdoctor), the CAsA beast will announce an early retirement for ESSO, or they will formally announce his intentions not to re-sign at the end of the year and that they have now started their robust search for the next DAS. It will be an outsider, possibly Barsch whom it is rumoured is being positioned as we speak, after all he is now on the AAT. Bureaucracies love lawyers! Although Twerps 1 and 2 view themselves as 'gods gift to all things aviation' and consider their abilities to go beyond the realm of aviation mystique, they are stained goods and won't be crowned 'King DAS 2013'. Hell they may even bring back Carmody? That would be interesting if Wingnut returned?

And finally another robust move to expect is that CAsA, who still need to replace that virile man Hoody, will make an announcement almost immediately after the report is handed down, that they are bringing in new blood, you know, 'that old chestnut'. They will make out poor Hoody to be the bad guy and say that his new replacement is now onboard to set things straight, blah blah blah and mi mi mi.
Which will leave ASA and ATSBeaker. I'm guessing some minor shuffling and chess moves will take place at ASA but the ATSBeaker will need stripping bare. It's hierarchy, yes those dwelling in a mystical place somewhere beyond Reason will also have to 'walk the green mile'.
New aviation bodies will hold no place in their structures for these types of dross.

[Kharon]

Contempt – Oh that.

Oleo – I can't see Barsch in the hot seat, that would be a bit like putting Hempel in charge of an A380; I would like to see someone like the ex ICC Hart (spell check) supported by Cook, Aherne and Hood look-alike competition winners; get some sanity, humanity, common sense and an ability to assess into the mix. Whoever is there needs to weed the pot plants, get rid of some of the corrupt deadwood, hunt down the inutile and those captivated by or beholden to external sources. These people may be easily identified, just ask any operator.

1 On my wish list – bring in the Kiwi's to square off the benighted regulations – please.

2 On my wish list a Regional/GA conference where some of the major safety and operational cost issues created by idiotic CASA rulings, policy and whimsy are addressed.

3 On my wish list provide a forum and a fair hearing for those damaged by idiotic CASA rulings, policy, whimsy and plain old ordinary malice.

As it's a longish list, I'll stop there; certain you get the message. Getting Sleepy Hollow sorted out is only the first small step, we still have a hellish mess to clean up after the party.

'Nuff - Sarcs, what's on the menu today?.....

[Sunfish]

Be very careful what you wish for. Yes, it appears that house cleaning is necessary, but before that you must make up a big red rubber stamp saying " not to ever be employed as a consultant".

Furthermore, watch out for "outsourcing" deals with the aforesaid "retired" employees.

If this is not done, a little reorganisation, a few retirements and some consulting contracts and outsourcing could leave you in exactly the same mess you are in now - with the "retires" making even more money.

As I said on multiple occasions, change, if it is to happen, will need to be overseen by Department of PM & C or nothing good will be achieved.

[QSK?]

CASA Internal Ombudsman

Whatever happened to this function inside CASA (1999 ad)?

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia is seeking the services of suitably qualified and experienced people to be appointed to an internal ombudsman panel. CASA is a Commonwealth statutory body and has the function of conducting the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australian territory and the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory. From time to time, allegations are made concerning the conduct of CASA or CASA officers. The Board of CASA has decided to establish a panel of independent experts from which CASA's Director of Aviation Safety can appoint a member, as required, to inquire into particular matters and make recommendations. Panel members will have extensive experience in public administration and in the conduct of similar types of inquiries. CASA invites tenders from suitably qualified persons for appointment to the panel. So far as possible, CASA will aim to establish a panel which comprises both genders.

[Sarcs]

Team A and team B!

Kharon:

Oleo – I can't see Barsch in the hot seat, that would be a bit like putting Hempel in charge of an A380.

Couldn’t agree more and not to mention the grey area associations he has with PA/Rex and some of the individuals listed as industry expert advisers on his website.

Not that I really have any idea about how to go about lancing the boil and then cleaning/disinfecting the pus and corruption (sounds like that’s more Sunny’s bag). However maybe it should be broken up into team A, clean up crew, and team B whose responsibility is to clean the slate and simplify the system with experts that have no personal self interest or ties to the past i.e. fresh new start.

Team A: An individual who has no affiliations what so ever with industry or DOIT and their agencies should head up team A. This person would have a background/reputation in the corporate world as a clean up CEO/Director, with experience in auditing and receiverships, whose sole purpose was to reconfigure a struggling company back to the path of profitability within a limited timeframe. Also this person should be capable of discovering and zipping up all the loopholes that Sunny warns of:

Be very careful what you wish for. Yes, it appears that house cleaning is necessary, but before that you must make up a big red rubber stamp saying " not to ever be employed as a consultant".

Furthermore, watch out for "outsourcing" deals with the aforesaid "retired" employees.

Team B is more my bag and is IMHO a lot more interesting.

“K” shines the way..."I would like to see someone like the ex ICC Hart (spell check) supported by Cook, Aherne and Hood look-alike competition winners; get some sanity, humanity, common sense and an ability to assess into the mix."

And that is where ‘in touch with the industry’ organisations like AMROBA come in, here’s a couple of quotes from Sub15:

AMROBA does not believe that Australia & CASA, under the current system of regulatory development, will ever meet ICAO critical elements, as attached, in the same manner as, for example, Singapore has achieved full compliance with the ICAO critical elements. This will not happen until the government of the day takes legislative action to completely overhaul the aviation legislative framework.

Singapore and other Asian countries are leaving Australia behind in relation to aviation business because they have a modern aviation legislative framework. Even New Zealand has a better and more modern legislative framework than Australia.

Over time, the Australian legislative framework has ended up with the wrong mix of requirements in the various Acts and Regulations. Singapore completely restructured their regulatory framework so that the right details are in the right Acts, Orders and Civil Aviation Authority Singapore (CAAS) issued Requirements.

And then this:

The ideal regulatory framework for Australia is one that harmonises in all aspects with NZ so that a full Australasian open aviation market could exist – full recognition of aviation licensed personnel, operators and organisations including aircraft and operational and maintenance standards. Singapore has demonstrated how making Acts that comply with ICAO, instead of being politically amended to meet the pressures of the day, work and creates a safe environment for their communities and industry.

Which would appear to coincide with number one on Kharon’s wish list…“On my wish list – bring in the Kiwi's to square off the benighted regulations – please”…

Hmm “K” for team B perhaps?

[Creampuff]

AMROBA makes an important point that is lost on many others.

CASA and the ATSB are the symptom, not the cause.

If you deal with the symptom and not the cause, the symptom will always return.

The cause is the legislative framework, and what successive governments have allowed happen or, through funding decisions, have made happen, within that framework.

[my oleo is extended]

Serious questions. No humour, riddles or tautology.

Ok, my background is technical and safety, this crosses over into processes and procedures and regulatory and legislative requirements. However I do not have a legal background so my open and honest three questions are directed to those who do have specific tailored skills in the legal area.(Humility is not an issue for
me, unlike CAsA I am happy to accept/foster discussion and input on matters I am not fully equipped in). But before I get to that I have a question for Creampuff (or even Sunfish),as follows;

Creamy, Mate are you saying CAsA and ATSBeaker are victims of a rooted legal system? If so I guess we are screwed as how could we change the Australian legal framework? NZ regs work pretty well, aren't they part of the Westminster system as well? Excuse my naivety on higher level legal stuff, but I am trying to paint a clearer picture here, and I do not want to ask Sith Aleck or his Apprentice Anastasi for input as I would like a clear, precise, non fluffed non tautological answer that cuts to the chase.

My three questions are as follows;

Would the suite of regs and rules that are used in say NZ, the USA or Singapore work in Australia?

And,
If there are options out there that would work, exactly what is it that is holding us back? Is it our laws contained within our legal framework or CAsA incompetence?

And,
Is our legal system really all that bad or could the problem, dare I say the 'root cause' of our Regulatory issues be because a selected Lawyer in CAsA has chosen to play, for better words, 'god with the system' in CAsA for over 20 years, and that is the problem? You know, a sort of project, a toy, an experiment funded by the taxpayers?? Not an accusation, just a hypothetical question? Some people enjoy control, usually because they are henpecked, short and have very small genitalia, so perhaps that is a causal factor?

I am not intentionally wanting to drift, but for decades we have talked about how the regs are rooted, how other States have pretty workable systems, and how difficult it is for Australia to 'get it right'.
Hence my wanting to really drill down into what the core problem is, so we can fix it.
If we are dicking around because of the $250 million spent to date on a system that will never work then to that I say 'f#ck it', write it off and start afresh. The money is gone anyway, and besides, that is a drop in the ocean when you consider how much Labor have pissed away in 5 years.

Lets stop polishing the turd, 25 years later and not a spot of sheen to be found, it is still sh#t. Lets hire the Kiwis and fix the damn thing once and for all. New regs, new CAsA and a new ATSBeaker. The time has come to force change. Words are cheap. Lets get off the roundabout and take the first baby steps to fixing the problem. A decent Manager doesn't just throw down his fist and tell you what is f#cked, he provides a solution to the problem, sometimes several.

Lets roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty. Dear Senators, you have our attention and support, lead the way........

[Sunfish]

I once knew a lawyer in a Government department. He really wanted to be a prosecutor/ judge/attorney General so that he could sublimate the aggression he felt towards those he believed had "wronged" him - which included pretty much everyone.


Getting him to write a simple legal agreement for any of us was an exercise requiring great tact and discretion because he always included the most blood curdling penalty clauses for non compliance with the agreement in drafts which were totally unnecessary, and which none of our clients would ever sign in a pink fit. (Eg: "you agree to pay the Department a fine of $10,000,000 if you breach confidentiality, etc.)

We always had to wheedle and cajole to get these stupid and unnecessary clauses removed. He was like a pit bull terrier that had to always be kept muzzled.

One wonders if CASA might have had to deal with the same problem, but with less success? The use of the "Friday afternoon fax" which is very bad legal form, and the strict liability criminal offences might indicate they still have a problem.

[Creampuff]

MOIE

No, it’s not the “legal system”.

It’s the political system.

The political system in Australia has (d)evolved to the point at which the primary aim of the major parties is to obtain and retain power for power’s sake. The major parties are just machines, fine-tuned to that purpose.

Although many individual parliamentarians within those parties may be very decent and dedicated people, they are still part of the machine.

The machine has an automatic response to any issue: How many votes are in it?

Even if all of the allegations that have been made against CASA and the ATSB are true, there is no political imperative to do anything about it. The issue is not one that will make or break any government.

What CASA and the ASTB do, and how well or badly they do it, affects tiny percentages of tiny probabilities of the events that might change a small percentage of votes, sometime in the future. Events that might change a small percentage of votes sometime in the future aren’t on any major party’s radar.

The answers to your 3 further questions are:
1. See above.
2. See above.
3. See above.

Even Sunfish, who understands the above, often makes the mistake of blaming the monkeys rather than the organ grinders.

[Sunfish]

Creamy I agree with you, it goes without saying.

I think CASA and ATSB also agree with you - and calculate that they will be left alone accordingly.

There are three events that might change this:

1. An effective PR/ industrial campaign by the GA industry, perhaps including strikes.

2. A major accident.

3. What I will call "chance" - I know of one chunk of a Commonwealth Department that got overhauled and employees removed after they got a little too arrogant in front of a bystander who just happened to be a very, very senior public servant.

[Frank Arouet]

it’s not the “legal system”. It’s the political system.

The legal system has duped the political system for too long. Strict liability is a product of a document not picked up by the bored and unintelligent politicians then not allowed to progress by interferrence with a dis-allowance motion in the Senate, where it was seized upon by persons in considerable power and abused.

The whole scam of reversal of burden of proof lies with those that allowed this abomination.

Creampuff, It's my opinion your hands are not clinically clean in this regard.

A metaphor, mixed or other, is Captain Bligh rowing away in a whaler while the crew toss potplants out of the ship.

What vessel are you on exactly?

[Sarcs]

“Political will”!

Love it Frank!

Sunny:

Creamy I agree with you, it goes without saying.

I’ll second that Creamy…AMROBA…ALAEA…etc!

AMROBA have been consistent in stating the obvious about ‘political will’ for change and openly discuss the risks/implications if there is no change to the current status quo, AMROBA News letter15/01/2013 (my bold):

Like all other political/judicial enquiries, this one has and will attract a lot of very sincere and appropriate submissions from many quarters. The outcome will be recommendations to add a provision in an Act or two, maybe additional regulations BUT never a real recommendation to rewrite the aviation legislative system to modernise our antiquated aviation system.

And from ALAEA Fed sec proposed letter to pollies (my bold):

Instead, CASA surveyors are out hounding small Airline Operators because they have made paperwork errors whilst genuine complaints against major carriers in this country are left idle. There are problems with this organisation that is meant to be keeping our skies safe. Whether it is through lack of funding or corporate capture, a review of how they operate is well overdue. The current Government appear to be out of their depth in dealing with these issues, we need to ensure that the next Government isn’t.

However Creamy then goes on to say...
"The machine has an automatic response to any issue: How many votes are in it? Even if all of the allegations that have been made against CASA and the ATSB are true, there is no political imperative to do anything about it. The issue is not one that will make or break any government..."

Which is again stating the obvious! The no ‘political imperative’, ‘no votes’ maybe relevant for the upcoming election, especially in the current political environment, but it is also in the interest for the major political parties to be keeping an eye on the future, Political parties also need to sustain future voting power.

Therefore if future votes could be dependent on acting or amending a not so popular policy now, then history indicates that politicians will take a punt (albeit occasionally), suck up the short term loss and act (classic example was John Howard’s gun buy back!).

In the case of the inquiry with all the damning available evidence and the levels of agency ineptitude displayed, would the pollies risk sitting on their hands and do nothing only to get ICAO dumping the ‘State’ down to level two in a future audit?

Taking the ‘sit on hands’ approach could have the potential to become ‘political suicide’ with the knock on effect of being downgraded to level 2 and the subsequent damaging effects it would have on the economy. The voter backlash could create a big enough swing to see a pollie/government out of a job!

Allowing the current status quo to continue could also lead to the decimation of General Aviation. The loss of the GA sector would be a significant hit to GDP and leave a lot of people out of a job. People without jobs are also voters!

Hmm interesting conundrum the Senators are in!

Sidenote: AG 'contempt for the rules' ?? Oh and Fed Sec gets a mention!

[Creampuff]

Yes Frank, I’m a CASA stooge…

Almost every piece of primary legislation passed by the parliament includes strict liability offences. If you think parliamentarians don’t know what strict liability means, and don’t know that it’s sprayed all over the pieces of legislation they pass, it’s you who’s unintelligent.

But keep arguing with us monkeys, if it stops you being bored.

[Kharon]

Political wall.

The mathematics of gambling, or the laws of probability and complex systems have long fascinated me. For the amusement and delight of the Bar Room Barristers a 'book' with tote odds is often opened and beers are bet (that means shouts, so a one beer bet can get expensive). A book for the current Senate Inquiry was proposed and for the first time ever, I not too reluctantly declined.

There are too many imponderables to consider; Creamy has some parts of the negative correctly identified, Sunny adds to the matrix while generating further (unqualifiedly) aspects, such as public service mandarins with long sharp knives. Frank, Oleo and Sarcs provide equally variable options. All valid and to some extent, quantifiable.

Parts of the equation which puzzle are el Jefe's fury, the general disgust of the committee, residual anger from being 'white-papered' by their previous inquiry, a natural response to being treated with utter contempt (see AMROBA). Then there is the wonderful bipartisan atmosphere, Searle becoming a significant 'team' player. Then the certain knowledge that if there is another cock up like PA resulting in an international full audit or a down grade; the bone will be well and truly pointed at the politicos who took the soft options. This renders the selection of a coefficient well nigh impossible.

Then there are the variables to consider, e.g. the percentage chance of a preventable accident occurring have increased, due to several factors: among them a persistent arrogant disdain for accepting external suggestions from industry, coroners, overseas expert bodies or CASA generated and ignored evidence. The departure of good, honest, qualified, expert men (and women) and the almost useless replacement parts, makes identification of the variable very blurred.

There are one or two constants; for example, Xenophon has been a steady, able supporter of matters aeronautical and must, by now have a fairly good grip on the essentials: Fawcett is an able, qualified, experienced man and I believe a honest one. There are many other contestants which may be drafted into the equation.

But the real head scratching, bung twister is industry expression and public reaction to being spoon fed CASA manipulated safety reports which should provide a solid base line for mathematically reducing the odds against anyone ever going for an involuntary swim, fully clothed in the middle of the night; but don't. Once you accept being bullied, subjugated, or swindled – you're stuck with it. Bit like the old saw about boiling frogs.

Nope, you guys are braver, bolder men than I am to call it, but the equation S@i#t in :: S*it% out seems to hold.

Coffee Minnie – oh, and cancel the GWM meeting; Gobbles has got the Skype working.

[Sunfish]

There is an old bureaucratic tactic called "file stuffing" and the various threads on Pprune and elsewhere are the modern equivalent if they can be coherently collated.

The method of file stuffing is very simple. Every time your "target" makes the slightest mistake or infringement, you add a description of it to the targets file. It matters not how trivial. The file includes things like the gardener being caught mowing the nature strip outside the ops room at 7.00am in defiance of noise polution laws in 1981 or the fact that one of your pilots made a log error in 1972, or the day in 1993 when an FOI with a tape measure caught you refueling an aircraft 15cm short of the required building clearance.

It matters not what, when or how trivial the alleged offence committed, the purpose is to achieve sufficient thickness of the file, preferably at least Three inches, Two or more volumes is even better. When the appropiate opportunity appears - say you commit an offence, you strike. You figuratively throw the file on the judges desk and state "look, Judge! This person is a serial offender, look at the size of this file of his offences!

It matters not what you say then because no one has the time or inclination to listen to your long winded justifications, the damage is done, you have been successfully painted as a serial offender and scofflaw.

CASA seems to do this a lot and the AAT falls for it every time. However, Two can play this game and it appears that One or Two people are keeping a list of CASAs apparent transgressions and when the time unfortunately comes when there is another major accident, we can sit back and say "why are we not surprised?".

[Sarcs]

Top post "K"...so basically your saying their damned if they do and damned if they don't?? The Senate estimates beer'n'nuts hearing on the 29th could be required viewing!

Sunny:

However, Two can play this game and it appears that One or Two people are keeping a list of CASAs apparent transgressions and when the time unfortunately comes when there is another major accident, we can sit back and say "why are we not surprised?".

Hmmm does a 100mb file count? Suppose in hard copy it would be well over 3 inches and enough pages to challenge any recent proposed CASR parts.

Noticed Ben has picked up on the AG mobile phone story...love it Ben!

Correction for Senate Estimates date:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry: Monday 27 May and Tuesday 28 May 2013
Infrastructure and Transport: Wednesday 29 May 2013
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts & Sport: Thursday 30 May 2013

So that would be a week after the report comes out...could still be required viewing!

[Ziggychick]

Conversation with FAA

So, had good talk with FAA this morning, 15:30 their time. Can't say too much just yet. He was very concerned with the shenanigans going on with down under with Aviation. I am leaving hospital today and will send all the docs etc to him, which is what he requested. Fingers crossed.

[my oleo is extended]

Good work Ziggy! Hope you are feeling better too
Had I realised you were going to be in Hospital for so long I would have sent you a few Bob Seger CD's (very soothing) and perhaps a copy of the White Paper to put you to sleep or make you laugh!
Hey maybe the next time you are in hospital having treatment ESSO and his friends may visit? Hope somebody fuels up his car!

Sunfish, indeed CAsA have such robust files on many operators and individuals. Said files are archived in TRIM and retrieved from the bowels of the system, dusted off and placed in the end of a prickly pineapple as and when required!
The Regulator is very fond of the 'dirt file' (apologies to those who are offended by apostrophes). My guess is those who structured the early DCA were ex members of J. Edgar Hoover's surveillance teams, and those practises have been passed down to this day.
Sadly procedure 4.1.2 Grassy Knoll has never been complied with in regards to CAsA! (Just kidding boys, don't get your SMS in a knot!)

Use of these files becomes almost frenzy like especially when an industry person files a compliant with the ICC or lodges in the AAT. Coincidence? Hmmm.

[Stan van de Wiel]

CAsA do NOT hold files on pilots.

Sunfish, I hate to disappoint but CAsA do NOT hold files on pilots. In 2007 the now head of LSD, one A. Ana stasi, formerly of OLC, made this statement under oath, having been warned by S.M. Fice of the AAT, that he would be guilty of perjury if he didn't tell the truth.

When again asked with reference to Medical Files, he admitted that YES we do hold those. So it would appear that CAsA is the only Government Enterprise that do not hold files. In their usual concerned fashion, Natural Justice and Rule of Law and all that decoration no action was taken.

Unfortunately when at law school Adam must have missed that 15 minute lecture on Ethics.

So unless things have changed CAsA will NEVER, I repeat NEVER go so low as to keep a file on us pilots. Not if Adam has anything to do with it.

[Sunfish]

I fail to understand how CASA could NOT hold files on pilots, electronically or otherwise. There must be a file or why would you receive an ARN?

Furthermore there is a thing called a public records act or equivalent that prohibits destruction of certain records and prescribes retention periods for others.