Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[Kharon]

Rank and File.

There are philes of all types at FF, anglophiles, bibliophiles, coprastasphile, defecaloesiophile etc.....

But the ones Sunny refers to exist, on both sides of the fence. The more interesting ones however begin and end with the CASA system. Yes Sunny there are a few files laying about the place, hell I've even got one or two myself – somewhere about the place. Great rainy day reading. Three steps to Nirvana:-

1) Get a copy of all the CASA procedure for achieving anything –

2) Obtain all the associated paper work,

3) Then, simply confirm that the prescribed, published procedure was followed.

It sounds dry, but be assured it's not. Eight times out of every 10 you will find that procedural 'slips' have been made: the ninth will have deliberate breaches, omissions and will have 'run around the back' of the system. Number ten will blow your socks off. One in every ten will be a deliberate manipulation of system, a stretch of the regulation and contain some heroic bluff, puff and spin. Of course this makes a happy playground for the legal chaps and chapesses, but not too much fun for those now caught within 'the system'.

Now, I notice AA getting a mention herein. The BRB jury is still out on this chap, lots of discussion and many, many tales; but little solid evidence of malice and aforethought. The BRB reckon his is a tough job, trying to keep the lid on and cover everyone's ass. It is what he gets paid for; sure he's a lawyer and a little like Harvey in that, like it or not, they both do a good job – for the client i.e. CASA. A legal type once told me that they are obliged to act on the clients brief (Creamy, sit down) and are not in a popularity contest, but paid to win. That aside, the man will always take a call and respond to a written request - you may not like the response, but at least AA does not run away or ignore. I can appreciate that.

I wonder though – just how often a man (or woman) in AA's position has to run about the place, putting out fires not of his (or her) making. How often there is a pregnant "Oh Faruk" moment when a gross obscenity lands on his desk, out of the blue, exploding like a fully loaded chamber pot lobbed through the window. I expect he'd do his job and clean up the mess, protect the troops and satisfy the demands of his lords and masters. I'd bet the pot plants are bloody well fertilised.

BRB jury stalemate, benefit of the doubt and decision delayed until creditable evidence presented M'lud; if, and we must, apply the play the ball, not the man rule, to be fair.

The word Fairyophile just popped into my old wooden head – I'll ask Gobbles if it's kosher....

[Sarcs]

“The Fort Fumble siege!”

Oleo:

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!

Oleo talking of philes, of the electronic variety occasionally placed on FF’s website, came across something that would interest you while trolling (as you do!) through the ‘Shelfware Chronicles’ (i.e the FF website).

If you remember sometime back in volume two of the Senate thread, plus several times after, you had enlightened us all on the 13 year history of FF’s infamous SPM that apparently was in a continuous loop of review..redraft..etc. Well guess what? Although rebadged (SM), it has now been officially promulgated, see here.
Note: Funny thing is I could have sworn that it wasn’t listed in the FF manuals webpage less than a month ago??

The other weird and wondrous thing is that the pdf file was created…wait for it…on the 15th of February 2013…now why does that date ring a bell?

Another point of interest is that when you scroll through the ‘Revision History’ you’ll see that the rebadging, restructuring (including an additional 300 odd pages!) actually took place in 2010!

But still we can’t complain because we now can have faith the QA (LSD) department has created a masterpiece of a document, all 500 pages of it, that will guide all those diligent FOIs and AWIs on the pure path of ‘how to’ conduct routine surveillance of the ‘ills of society’!

Ok back to the other philes and maybe that other masterpiece the FF ‘EM’ as I think that is where “K” is heading with his post!

[my oleo is extended]

Poophiles and the Twilight Skull

Yes Sarcs, Feb 15 was a robust date. From memory it is the day that the Chamber Pot Chronicles were birthed!
It is also the day that Barrier Aviation was meant to go to Court I think.
Rumour has it that Feb 15 was also the day one of the old CAsA Execs turned 91 perhaps?

Interesting about the date of the newly promulgated Surveillance Chronicle, 2010? Doesn't CAsA issue NCN's to operators for having manuals not updated yearly? Would an operator not cop a pineapple for having itself a suite of flight ops manuals, SMS or compliance statement not updated yearly, or having a date on it that reflects the previous 12 months? One set of rules by the look of things, yet again. Or is it a printing 'error' or something like that? Either way it warrants an NCN plus the oversight should be placed upon a poophile and placed on record, for retrieval at a later date, placed in a pineapple and rammed into somebody!

Also another trick of FF's is to dump a manual, policy, statement, take enforcement action or announce a structure or management change whenever they are under the spotlight, so maybe that is why the SM was loaded into the system on Feb 15?? Deflection, bit of smoke n mirrors, make everybody believe they have a current surveillance manual and PA was adequately oversighted??
The CAsA website is like the Twilight Zone, Area 51, the Bermuda Triangle, Molly Meldrums spa bath and Julia Gillard's caucus meetings - Things appear, disappear, reappear, morph, evolve, destruct and leave those involved scratching their heads in disbelief, amusement and shock!!
Links to past statements are there one day, gone the next then back again. Most things are hard to find, tucked away or buried within another document or the wrong section, another trick out of the book of deception.

Kharon, have you lost your mind? Been indulging in gold top mushrooms with FOI's, or are you under a voodoo spell?? Perhaps ESSO and some mates ran out of fuel again, you found them and helped them out and now you are besties with them? Be careful of Flyingfiend, the apple doesn't fall far from the trough. Remember who his mentor in aviation mystique was/is?

'Safe philes for all'

[Creampuff]

Things appear, disappear, reappear, morph, evolve, destruct and leave those involved scratching their heads in disbelief, amusement and shock!!

In the “Regulatory Reform Will Drift Along Forever” thread I noted one particularly sleazy trick pulled back in September 2006.

Nearing the end of September 2006, neither the June, July, August nor September regulatory development Status Reports had been published. Suddenly they all appeared on the website at the same time, with flashing cursors denoting ‘latest information’ next to the links.

When the cursors stopped flashing, it looked like the Reports had been published consecutively rather than at the same time. The evidence of the unpalatable truth having been known but withheld by CASA for months was conveniently airbrushed out of history.

“That was in the June regulatory development Status Report, Senator. Everyone had access to that information.”

Yes, but not in June, or July, or August, or even September, CASA.

Of course, back then the unpalatable truth was merely that the ‘target date’ for completion had quietly blown out by a(nother) year. We now know the unpalatable truth is it’s never going to be completed.

[Sarcs]

The Sociopath clause!

Between the EM and the SM (still missing the IM) there are 679 pages that all diligent FOI/AWIs have to get their head around.

After reading parts of the SM, just trying to come to terms with some of the extremely convoluted processes apparently now in place…could quite literally do your head in let alone be able to get your head around!

However these FOI/AWIs are given fair warning about non-compliance by the DAS in both the EM and SM (my bold):

Mandatory Use of Policy and Procedure Manuals

This manual is one of the set of manuals and other documents which comprise CASA’s authorised document set. The authorised document set contains the policy, processes and procedures with which CASA personnel are expected to comply when performing assigned tasks. All CASA personnel are required to have regard to the policies set out in this manual. Except as described in the Introduction, CASA decision-makers should not depart from these policies, processes and procedures.


John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety

Pretty tough love in that statement! But there is a loophole imbedded in the statement for the less scrupulous, less diligent FOI/AWI to exploit, just six words …“Except as described in the Introduction”.

So if we scroll down to the ‘Introduction’ and on page 13 we can see what the DAS is referring to:

Departure from Authorised Policy
Adherence to CASA’s authorised policies will almost always produce an appropriate decision. As said, however, from time to time there will be circumstances in which the strict application of policy may not result in the “preferable” decision. In these cases it may be appropriate (and possibly necessary) to depart from otherwise applicable policy.
Any departure from policy must be justified in order to ensure that it:

l Is genuinely necessary in the interests of fairness

l Does not inappropriately compromise the need for consistent decision-making; and, of course

l Is not in conflict with the interests of safety.

Without fettering a decision-maker’s discretion, it is therefore expected that appropriate consultation will occur before a decision is made that is not the product of the policies and processes set out in this manual. The prescribed consultation process is described below.

Before contemplating stepping outside SOPs you need to get your superior onside (Hint: make sure you pick a boss who is a recognised sociopath). Your superior will then smooth the way or choose to circumvent the FF legal eagles, see here:

Consultation Process
Decision-Maker’s Responsibilities

When a decision-maker believes there is a need to depart from policy he or she is expected to consult with his or her direct supervisor. This process should be initiated in writing:

l Setting out the pertinent facts and circumstances

l Identifying the provisions of the policy normally applicable

l Stating why the application of that policy would not result in the making of the “preferable” decision in the circumstances to hand

l Specifying the approach the decision-maker believes is more likely to result in a “preferable” decision.

Supervisor’s Responsibilities

In considering a consultative referral, the decision-maker’s supervisor should:

l Advise the decision-maker as to whether his or her assessment of the relevant considerations appears to be complete and correct

l If, in the opinion of the supervisor, the circumstances do not warrant a departure from policy, provide the decision-maker with written advice and guidance as to how the decision might more properly be approached within the current policy framework

Note: Reliance on relevant precedent is a sound basis on which to ground such an opinion. It may also be helpful to seek advice from peers, superiors and/or CASA’s Legal Services Division.

l If, in the opinion of the supervisor, a departure from policy is warranted, the supervisor should ensure the policy sponsor (normally the relevant Executive Manager) is advised of:

i. The intention to depart from the otherwise applicable policy

ii. The alternative approach the decision-maker will be taking to the matter.

The supervisor should ensure that a full written record of these actions is made and maintained.

Hmmm….kind of like a ‘free kick loophole’ for all those FOI/AWIs with sociopathic tendencies.

There is a ‘but’ with this cosy Non-SOP arrangement…always..always keep to the rules as laid out in Chapter 6 of the EM or you could find the once obliging ALC will not come to your rescue when/if it all turns to sh*t!

So Flying Fiend when’s the Investigator Manual coming out?

[Creampuff]

The investigations manual of any regulatory authority does not have to be, and should not be, a public document.

I see Mr McCormick appears to have been fooled into setting up a delegations regime that delegates powers to numerous positions, thereby giving independent discretion to numerous people and unnecessarily inviting allegations of inconsistency and favoritism.

There’s a way to fix that, Mr McCormick: Delegate the controversial powers to the occupant of only one or maybe two positions that are very close to you.

My suggestion is that you pick someone who’s always whispering in your ear about what you and everyone else should decide. That way, they’ll not only be able to tell you and everyone else what decision should be made, and why: they’ll be responsible for making the decision themselves!

At the next meeting of the CASA executive, look around the table and ask each attendee: How often have you actually put your name, as delegate, on some decision that’s grounded a fleet of aircraft, ended a career or put an organisation out of business? If you get to someone who’s been in the organisation for a very long time, and the answer is “not many” or “none”, pick them too.

[my oleo is extended]

Would The Skulls (ESSO) invitation extend to a paranoid lawyer who can't even send you an email about the latest football score without it being sent as a minute with a heap of legal accountability (directed at the recipient) wrapped around it??

I agree about the investigations manual, technically it shouldn't be made public, however it never takes long before copies are out there in the public domain for us to have a good laugh over. I don't know whether CAsA has said manual (if they do it will be an unfinished product around 15 to 20 years in the making).

As for ESSO being fooled, he has been fooled from day one, and so were others before him, by members of the GWM. And at this rate nothing will change into the future with a new DAS. Groundhog Day? Yep. Tautological? Yep. Is it all pony pooh? Yep.

'Safe skies are investigations and surveillance procedures manual promulgated skies for all'? Nup

[Sunfish]

Links or copies of the manuals please....

[Kharon]

Manual labour.

Sarcs # 1651 –"There is a ‘but’ with this cosy Non-SOP arrangement…always.. always keep to the rules as laid out in Chapter 6 of the EM or you could find the once obliging ALC will not come to your rescue when/if it all turns to sh*t!"

Creamy #1652 –"At the next meeting of the CASA executive, look around the table and ask each attendee: How often have you actually put your name, as delegate, on some decision that’s grounded a fleet of aircraft, ended a career or put an organisation out of business? If you get to someone who’s been in the organisation for a very long time, and the answer is “not many” or “none”, pick them too."

Ah yes, the who's to bless and who's to blame game? The big question: is McComic simply a cats paw for the GWM; guilty by association or the root cause?. Either way the exit sign is clearly marked. Sunny the 'manuals' mean diddley – none of it does, until as and when it suits. Some of the 'philes' being reviewed by serious people are literally unbelievable. Was asked to look at a 'phile' recently (operational 'technical' issues) for a case which is going live; the rape of policy, embuggerance (thanks Sunny) of protocol and total disregard for prescribed procedure was breath taking. But the abuse and manipulation of 'law' beggars the imagination. Yerrss – it was a Wodger special; but I will leave that story to the eminent SC in charge of future retirement planning.....

As it happens, I had a beer (or two) last evening with an old mate, he was on 'light' as the car was parked fairly close to the pub. This led to a conversational gambit on booze busses which naturally led to DAMP. A reference he made in passing almost whizzed by before I realised what was said; so I backed him up and begged the story (cost me round): here, to go with your Sunday morning cuppa is a sanitised version.

For the potted story, we'll call the protagonist Vic and our antagonist FOI. Once upon a time, Vic rocks up to work one bright sunny morning, FOI is paying a visit along with some other suits and ties. Anyway – eventually, Vic leaves the building and toddles off home. FOI waves Vic bye bye from the doorway, all good. A short time later, FOI buttonholes the chief pilot, confirms that Vic has, indeed gone home; much later, just before leaving FOI speaks to the CP of 'grave concerns'; seems Vic appeared 'scruffy', glassy eyed and smelled of last evenings intake to the FOI. "We'll call him back" says the CP "we have a DAMP officer on site". The offer was declined, "no, don't worry about it" says FOI.

Back in the lair the tale is relayed by FOI to a management type, who gleefully files it away to incubate for nearly four months. Meanwhile, Vic is happily operating through the period in blissful ignorance, until 'the letter' arrives (by ordinary post) cancelling his medical certificate against complaints received from FOI and his 'mate'. Imagine, suddenly grounded, guilty of alcoholism until proven innocent; full battery of psychiatric, forensic, medical and pathological tests to be conducted by a rarefied specialist 'professor' (cost a bomb). Turns out Vic was deemed clean as a whistle, never had, never did; nor, was likely to be in the future a 'drinking man'. The expert prof's report was not complimentary of the enshrined CASA system by the way. All good, no sir. The management type insisted that two more years of quarterly blood tests were required. Clear evidence, expert opinion and unimpeachable witnesses, all unimportant. All this was achieved by the use of selected parts of various manuals, policy and what ever else could be made to fit.

Think on it – then refer to any of those manuals mentioned and see what can be achieved. Was McComic aware? will He Hoo Doo Voodoo cop the rap?, or will the weporting manager cop the flack? - Buggered if I know; but it's a good Sunday yarn; a better thing is that it wasn't me, some inutile FOI and his mate would need to make sure the deeds to the house, car, dog and pot plants were in someone else's name.

Minnie, time for Kirk, fetch the buggy and no cussin' till we're home.


Selah.

[Sarcs]

‘Contempt and embuggerance in_deed’!

Very disturbing tale in_deed “K”! Perhaps explains why when such matters go externally (i.e. the courts/tribunals) that the FF preferred less informal method, that is less inclined to examine ‘due process’, is the AAT.

Creamy:

The investigations manual of any regulatory authority does not have to be, and should not be, a public document.

Oleo:

I agree about the investigations manual, technically it shouldn't be made public, however it never takes long before copies are out there in the public domain for us to have a good laugh over.

Note: All it takes Oleo is one strongly well-worded, well-constructed FOI request for said document to be revealed!

I agree that it is probably not in the government enforcement agency’s best interest to reveal how they go about investigating the ‘ills of society’. However this day and age the GEA (in this case FF) are supposed to be beholden to the ‘Australian Government Investigation Standards’.

Note: The FF EM even states this at 11.5.1… “ The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards.”

And Oleo you will notice the IM reference which kind of answers your statement… “I don't know whether CAsA has said manual (if they do it will be an unfinished product around 15 to 20 years in the making).”

Much like the EM guides delegates and LSD in ‘due process’ for a ‘show cause’ administrative enforcement action, the AGIS calls for full transparency in the carriage of an investigation i.e. everything should be fully documented in order to show that ‘due process’ has indeed been adhered to.

Sure there will be sections of the IM that could be ruled are not in the ‘public interest’ to reveal. Just like the legal ‘due process’ for a show cause is strongly emphasised in the EM, so to would the IM emphasise the necessary protocols/procedures to be followed so that a case can ultimately withstand the scrutiny of a court of law.

Like executing a ‘search warrant’ or taking a 'statement' must follow a proper legal process (or you could find a prosecution being chucked out before it even gets to trial), so to does a FF investigation or enforcement action have to adhere to the proper documented legal process.

It is therefore reasonable that the respondent/defendant be allowed to view, at least, the documented protocols that the FF investigators must adhere to pursuant to the AGIS (2011).

Hmmm…food for thought on a Sundy arvo??

[Creampuff]

Note: All it takes Oleo is one strongly well-worded, well-constructed FOI request for said document to be revealed!

No it doesn’t. You won’t get most of the manual under FOI, because you’re not entitled to get most of the manual under FOI.

You could subpoeana it in live proceedings, if it's relevant, but an action in contempt would be brought against someone who then disclosed the subpoenaed document to the world after it was produced to the court/tribunal for the purposes of those proceedings.

Like executing a ‘search warrant’ or taking a 'statement' must follow a proper legal process (or you could find a prosecution being chucked out before it even gets to trial), so to does a FF investigation or enforcement action have to adhere to the proper documented legal process.

Correct. But those proper legal processes exist, and must be followed, irrespective of the existence and content of any “investigations manual”. The court will test very meticulously the grounds on which any warrant is sought, as well as any evidence proposed to be adduced, irrespective of the existence and content of any “investigations manual”.

If you think the CASA investigations manual contains some legal outrage that means CASA's getting away with obtaining warrants and collecting and adducing evidence illegally, you are chasing your tails. Mildly amusing to observers, but a waste of energy nonetheless.

[Sarcs]

“Legal outrage” nope just the facts!

Creamy:

No it doesn’t. You won’t get most of the manual under FOI, because you’re not entitled to get most of the manual under FOI.

Not after any potentially exempt documents as per s37, s42, s45, s46 or indeed any of the 'public interest' conditional exempt documents set out under s47C or s47E, although I might leave it open to challenge some of those on the basis of applying s22 (redactions). In fact I couldn’t give a rat’s arse nor am I personally interested in any of the secret squirrel stuff contained in the IM or the contents of communications, personal IDs etc. I just want proof that proper process was followed nothing more, nothing less.

Creamy:

You could subpoeana it in live proceedings, if it's relevant, but an action in contempt would be brought against someone who then disclosed the subpoenaed document to the world after it was produced to the court/tribunal for the purposes of those proceedings.

Nope not interested in showing it to anyone else either.

Creamy:

But those proper legal processes exist, and must be followed, irrespective of the existence and content of any “investigations manual”. The court will test very meticulously the grounds on which any warrant is sought, as well as any evidence proposed to be adduced, irrespective of the existence and content of any “investigations manual”.

That maybe the legal theory but is it the legal reality? And will the AAT apply those same principles? And would FF be obliged to show proof of process in the carriage of their investigation in the AAT?

Creamy:

If you think the CASA investigations manual contains some legal outrage that means CASA's getting away with obtaining warrants and collecting and adducing evidence illegally, you are chasing your tails. Mildly amusing to observers, but a waste of energy nonetheless.

Nope not interested in legal outrage being exposed through the contents of the IM. Simply want the proof of proper process that the FF investigators are suppose to adhere to and are obliged to adhere to according to the AGIS and as stated in the EM.

[Frank Arouet]

Mildly amusing to observers, but a waste of energy nonetheless

I find it all very theapeutic.

[my oleo is extended]

I find it all very theapeutic.

Frank, I actually find it all very arousing!

Also, I just received a group photo of Team CAsA taken by Senator Nash at the Senate Inquiry a little while back.
I wonder if they have kept the pot plants??

[Creampuff]

Being …. sucked … into … circular …. illogic … vortex .…. cannot … escape … pull … of … circular …. illogic …. vortex …. arrrggghhhhhhh …

Yes. You can get a redacted copy. That’s why I said you won’t get “most” of it under FOI.

But even if you obtained a complete copy and it contained squeaky-clean, AGIS-blessed procedures …. someone will allege it’s all a sham. Of course CASA would have a manual that contains squeaky-clean, AGIS-blessed procedures, wouldn’t it?

And what are the chances that it contains procedures for extracting statements through threats of regulatory action or violence, or for inventing convenient evidence and losing inconvenient evidence?

Trying …. to …. extricate …. self …. from …. vortex: Irrespective of the existence or content of the manual, the methods used by CASA are either legal and in accordance with Commonwealth law and policy, or they are not. Those are not matters for PPRuNe posters to determine.

[Ziggychick]

...not when your life has been threatened...

In all due respect CP.Questions and curiosity are necessarily warranted. I do not wish start a sling match but I i I believe I need to explain: When one has actually been involved in a serious incident, the need from within to know and understand their (C&A) truths is nothing less than compelling. Facing death in a horrific manner has forced me to research, meet and continue to climb the ladder of that unseemly reachable "safe skies"
This is how I have observed the majority of posts on pprune. People have lost loved ones, their business or their life savings. I believe the only way to make true difference is to perceiver and not be afraid. Historically this is the only way change comes about-with any subject.

[dogcharlietree]

I hate to disappoint but CAsA do NOT hold files on pilots.

THEY admitted to me that MY file was about 6" thick (and that was some 20 years ago).

[Kharon]

Muguard 101.

CP# 1660 –"And what are the chances that it contains procedures for extracting statements through threats of regulatory action or violence, or for inventing convenient evidence and losing inconvenient evidence?"

I have to agree with Creamy;- the top of the mudguard is pristine and theoreticaly bullet proof; many many layers of protection and polish, buffed to a fare the well are maintained at great expense. The dirt of course is hidden underneath. But, as they say in the classics where there's muck, there's money.

This Senate Inquiry seems to be seeing through the 'muguard' gloss. Were all the correct procedures used to Wodger Dom James? (hint – No), was the prescribed, published and much vaunted CASA auditing system and the use of results followed to the letter ? (hint – No); then of course there is the original question – What, in all the hells happened with the report ?????

This why we are seeing the Senate committee working hundreds of man hours, (not to mention overtime used correcting Hansard), they are stripping back the protective layers and heading toward bare metal. We, the unwashed, illiterate, ills of society can only hope that the sane, logical voices of honest, qualified folk like Cook, Aherne, Davis and others are clearly heard over the braying and barking cacophony thrown up by the likes of McComic and his happy band.

The written system may well be an exemplar, but the way that system is perverted and manipulated to achieve whatever fate the gods decide for mortals is the stuff of legend. Remember the quote from that infamous email - 'stay on target'.

Pete rules – OK.....

[Sunfish]

Kharon:

For the potted story, we'll call the protagonist Vic and our antagonist FOI. Once upon a time, Vic rocks up to work one bright sunny morning, FOI is paying a visit along with some other suits and ties. Anyway – eventually, Vic leaves the building and toddles off home. FOI waves Vic bye bye from the doorway, all good. A short time later, FOI buttonholes the chief pilot, confirms that Vic has, indeed gone home; much later, just before leaving FOI speaks to the CP of 'grave concerns'; seems Vic appeared 'scruffy', glassy eyed and smelled of last evenings intake to the FOI. "We'll call him back" says the CP "we have a DAMP officer on site". The offer was declined, "no, don't worry about it" says FOI.

Back in the lair the tale is relayed by FOI to a management type, who gleefully files it away to incubate for nearly four months. Meanwhile, Vic is happily operating through the period in blissful ignorance, until 'the letter' arrives (by ordinary post) cancelling his medical certificate against complaints received from FOI and his 'mate'. Imagine, suddenly grounded, guilty of alcoholism until proven innocent; full battery of psychiatric, forensic, medical and pathological tests to be conducted by a rarefied specialist 'professor' (cost a bomb). Turns out Vic was deemed clean as a whistle, never had, never did; nor, was likely to be in the future a 'drinking man'. The expert prof's report was not complimentary of the enshrined CASA system by the way. All good, no sir. The management type insisted that two more years of quarterly blood tests were required. Clear evidence, expert opinion and unimpeachable witnesses, all unimportant. All this was achieved by the use of selected parts of various manuals, policy and what ever else could be made to fit.

Is this a recent case and is there any proof that this actually occurred? Two years of cancelled medical on the whim of an FOI without a shred of evidence?

If it is then the only sane option is to avoid any engagement with CASA beyond the absolute minimum.

[Kharon]

Slight drift.

Mods – I beg a little latitude for drift during the intermission :-

Sunny – happy to discuss on the PM system, I brought the item up as an indication of just how far the 'system' can be stretched when needed. Regrettably, this is not a topic within the ambit of the Senate Inquiry, unless the committee decides to examine the way D. James was treated. I believe they should, just for completeness sake;- but time, money, interest and an impending general election are probably more important than the lives and well being of a few of the ills of society types who probably need swimming lessons.

Yes mate, tick all the boxes. The episode referred to is very real. Excellent legal advice was provided and Vic had enough sense to heed it; FOI requests properly done, evidence and affidavits locked down. If the 'grounding', stand alone, was not bad enough, then the timing of the deed was particularly evil, the day of the FOI visit was very significant for Vic, as was the day the complaint was filed, as was the day 'the letter' arrived. The reason for the delay in making contact with Avmed was nothing short of sinister. Was Vic well and truly Wodgered – I believe so. Oh, I should mention that couple of folks had heard the whispering in the tea room and forewarned Vic. Quadrio had a very soft ride compared to Vic.....

Drift correction applied: endit.....

Someone mentioned that the 12th is "estimates' day : that's a Saturday, (unless booze and old age have addled the marbles) can anyone assist.....