Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AQON - 15.
Question 15 to CASA.
Off the top of a file of 16 similar letters to various operators:-
I cant find the link now, perhaps someone could oblige, there was statement published explaining why CASA insisted on this, as policy; but I can't lay my hand on it. (DAS or Gibson ?? – memory still good, crap filing system).
This one happened to be of interest as it's issued and signed by the same chap who seems to have just a small conflict of interest situation with Hardy 's. Which is a long story for another day.
Q) Sen Xenophon - "Given that the ATSB is proposing to give CASA unlimited access to mandatory reports made by industry. etc."
A) CASA is not seeking unlimited access to mandatory reports made by industry. etc.
A) CASA is not seeking unlimited access to mandatory reports made by industry. etc.
"Instrument NRD 017/11 issued 4 March 2011 –
3 Direction The operator is directed to revise the Operator's Manual to:
3 Direction The operator is directed to revise the Operator's Manual to:
- Provide detailed instructions to compel operational staff to submit reports to the ATSB in accordance with the Transport Safety Investigation Act and Regulations 2003 and provide guidance to staff on when such reports are required.
- Instruct operational staff to include CASA as a recipient of a copy these reports within the same time frame where possible.
This one happened to be of interest as it's issued and signed by the same chap who seems to have just a small conflict of interest situation with Hardy 's. Which is a long story for another day.
Last edited by Kharon; 19th Mar 2013 at 19:32.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs, An interesting line up for the Senators! I am sure they will find room to shove some potatoes and ginger up CASA's coits along with the pineapples.
But potatoes do grow well in pooh, so maybe there is a lot of people wanting to import ginger and potatoes and grow that produce, along with pineapples, in the pooh that FF is leaving about the place?
Speaking of pooh, read the CASA Corporate Plan 2012 - 2015!
Hilarious load of spun up ****e spread over 32 robust pages filled with bureaucratic evasion and beautiful glossy pages designed to distract the reader from the content of the pathetic document. A true lesson in government deflection 101. I am hoping to order several hundred copies as I believe the gloss overlay on each page will make a very comfortable toile paper! Don't worry, I will risk assess it first.
My favourite bit is on Page 3 where it says (If I may) - "We act at all times with fairness and integrity. We maintain the highest level of professionalism and act with high ethical standards without bias"!!
Oh man, I am still wiping away the tears of laughter, and as for the photos of Messrs Hawke and Skull, well I liked the use of the white table prop. That was the best element of their photos! Hawke was looking nonchalant and surly, as if a chamber pot had been emptied on his head.
And Mr Skull, grinning like a Cheshire Cat, looked to me like a man that has just taken his happy pills or some lithium!! I'm not saying that is the case by any means, it just looked that way to me
But potatoes do grow well in pooh, so maybe there is a lot of people wanting to import ginger and potatoes and grow that produce, along with pineapples, in the pooh that FF is leaving about the place?
Speaking of pooh, read the CASA Corporate Plan 2012 - 2015!
Hilarious load of spun up ****e spread over 32 robust pages filled with bureaucratic evasion and beautiful glossy pages designed to distract the reader from the content of the pathetic document. A true lesson in government deflection 101. I am hoping to order several hundred copies as I believe the gloss overlay on each page will make a very comfortable toile paper! Don't worry, I will risk assess it first.
My favourite bit is on Page 3 where it says (If I may) - "We act at all times with fairness and integrity. We maintain the highest level of professionalism and act with high ethical standards without bias"!!
Oh man, I am still wiping away the tears of laughter, and as for the photos of Messrs Hawke and Skull, well I liked the use of the white table prop. That was the best element of their photos! Hawke was looking nonchalant and surly, as if a chamber pot had been emptied on his head.
And Mr Skull, grinning like a Cheshire Cat, looked to me like a man that has just taken his happy pills or some lithium!! I'm not saying that is the case by any means, it just looked that way to me
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 19th Mar 2013 at 23:43.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supplements
Brian Aherne continues to provide sane, reasoned response to the Senate Committee. The latest series of 'supplements' are available from the Senate Inquiry – submissions received. Well done Sir, invaluable; particularly as the effort made is voluntary, independent and only provided as a service to the industry. Bravo that man, Choccy frog and a gold star.
Apologies to those who can navigate their way to the submissions, but some of the Bar Room Barristers were having a 'mini bark' about getting there, hence the mud map. Google – Senate Inquiry – Current enquiries – (find) Rural and Regional Affairs – (find) Aviation Accident Investigations – (Click) then (find) Submissions received. This will get you to the right page. Item 10 Mr. Bryan Aherne - Supplementary 3 – is well worth the small amount of trouble to download: 23 pages of solid logic, the sort one would 'normally' expect from a national safety authority.
Speaking of the BRB, once the risqué suggestions on spuds, ginger and pineapples were dealt with, the meeting dealt with 'wodgers wee weport' and D. James options to sue the arse off the bloke who summarily consigned him to the pit under (dodgy ??) 265, backed by the threat of 269: with 234 and to fall back on (264 no appeal). James and a couple of others have felt the effects of a high speed grab on 265. It was decided hyperbole, conjecture and assumption don't quite stretch that far.
Just for fun, a couple of the boys have reworked the "Chambers Report". NFP (naturally) but a little clever editing (very little they say) and the insertion of local nick-names into the more obvious editorial 'gaps' and grammatical 'gaffs' produced a hilarious document of no practical value whatsoever; which manages to be not too damning of CASA, but flays a couple of the resident "Sydney team". All gross supposition and a blatant distortion of course, produced strictly for entertainment purposes; which it achieved admirably. You can try it at home, totally frivolous, but funny as.
Sponsored by the Federated Australian Rabbit Training Society.
Apologies to those who can navigate their way to the submissions, but some of the Bar Room Barristers were having a 'mini bark' about getting there, hence the mud map. Google – Senate Inquiry – Current enquiries – (find) Rural and Regional Affairs – (find) Aviation Accident Investigations – (Click) then (find) Submissions received. This will get you to the right page. Item 10 Mr. Bryan Aherne - Supplementary 3 – is well worth the small amount of trouble to download: 23 pages of solid logic, the sort one would 'normally' expect from a national safety authority.
Speaking of the BRB, once the risqué suggestions on spuds, ginger and pineapples were dealt with, the meeting dealt with 'wodgers wee weport' and D. James options to sue the arse off the bloke who summarily consigned him to the pit under (dodgy ??) 265, backed by the threat of 269: with 234 and to fall back on (264 no appeal). James and a couple of others have felt the effects of a high speed grab on 265. It was decided hyperbole, conjecture and assumption don't quite stretch that far.
Just for fun, a couple of the boys have reworked the "Chambers Report". NFP (naturally) but a little clever editing (very little they say) and the insertion of local nick-names into the more obvious editorial 'gaps' and grammatical 'gaffs' produced a hilarious document of no practical value whatsoever; which manages to be not too damning of CASA, but flays a couple of the resident "Sydney team". All gross supposition and a blatant distortion of course, produced strictly for entertainment purposes; which it achieved admirably. You can try it at home, totally frivolous, but funny as.
Sponsored by the Federated Australian Rabbit Training Society.
Last edited by Kharon; 20th Mar 2013 at 21:38. Reason: Checking, checking - please wait - hold music (bells).
"Shelf Ware library catalogue"!
Kharon said: I cant find the link now, perhaps someone could oblige, there was statement published explaining why CASA insisted on this, as policy; but I can't lay my hand on it. (DAS or Gibson ?? – memory still good, crap filing system).
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - 2011 Media Releases
Kharon just like so many robust discussions on FF policy and embarrassing faux pars, throw away lines and possible libellous sensitive documents I’d say this is one of many that has found its way into the ‘FF Shelfware Library’.
Can’t imagine how the catalogue system works but at a guess I think you would be looking for the miscellaneous 2 aisle. (NB Not to be confused with the miscellaneous 1 aisle which contains all the various versions of yet to be promulgated shelfware manuals like the SPM and Investigators Manual).
Ok now you have the MSC 2 aisle go to shelf two under shelf one labelled “DAS/CEO past and active” (which incidentally is probably where Mick Quinn got someone to get a copy of “Regulatory Policy- CEO-PN001-2004 issue No 3: CASA's Industry Sector Priorities and Classification of Civil Aviation Activities;”).
This will get you to the right page. Item 10 Mr. Bryan Aherne - Supplementary 3 – is well worth the small amount of trouble to download: 23 pages of solid logic, the sort one would 'normally' expect from a national safety authority.
All good factual data and robust analysis backed up by solid research…pity BA doesn’t still have a guernsey at FF or ATSBeaker. However like other previous experts (Ben Cook etc) I think he wouldn’t have the necessary sociopathic tendencies to last very long and would be swamped by the GWM wannabes.
Also on the Senate Inquiry submissions page in the additional info section reference ‘Written_AQONs_280213’pdf, creamy will be pleased to know that Senator Fawcett confirms for us (the guy must read pprune!) the relevant version of Annex 13 applicable to the time of the accident is in fact…well let’s just go to the relevant AQONs:
Written Questions Taken on Notice – Australian Transport Safety Bureau from Public Hearing – Thursday, 28 February 2013
Written Questions on Notice- Senator Fawcett
1. Could the ATSB confirm which edition of the Annex 13 document was current at the time Mr Dolan made his decision regarding not recovering the FDR.
ATSB response: The version of Annex 13 current at the time was the 9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B.
2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have mandated recovery of the FDR.
ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph 5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.
Written Questions on Notice- Senator Fawcett
1. Could the ATSB confirm which edition of the Annex 13 document was current at the time Mr Dolan made his decision regarding not recovering the FDR.
ATSB response: The version of Annex 13 current at the time was the 9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B.
2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have mandated recovery of the FDR.
ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph 5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.
On the subject of CAR265 enforcement actions leading to further threats of CAR269 action, I heard a rumour that some poor bugger was wodgered by Wodger Wabbit with CAR265 manufactured caveats on his instrument rating renewal…hmm how does that work when 265 appears to be applicable only to “licences and approvals” …nah can’t be true can it??
Doing a Kelpie and pondering the improper definition and apparent abuse of CAR265 and CAR269….
Last edited by Sarcs; 20th Mar 2013 at 22:26.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa, atsb and Honesty!!
Great catch Kharon on a well written submission by Brian Aherne. From the submission as below:
How can "the man at the back of the room....." in Senator Heffernan's terms, come to any conclusion that ATSB was compromised by casa, which surely is not the aim of an independent aviation investigator.
A real question is in this:
How many other atsb investigations have been compromised by casa. A few spring to mind - Monarch, Whyalla, Lockhart River and the odd Coroners Inquiry/ Inquest such as Hemple.
c) Lack of independence of the ATSB and its investigators
Email: 6 August 2012. ATSB officer to General Manager Investigations ....Many of my arguments that have been rejected have been ones where I have applied safety management methods and tolls and those arguments have been rejected by a reviewer who looks from a regulatory viewpoint instead….To make useful comments on these matters relies on a belief in and use of contemporary safety management theories and methods. To me this was particularly evident when CASA’s Norfolk Island audit report came into our hands and some of the arguments I had tried unsuccessfully to include in the report were subsequently included on the basis of CASA’s findings not mine! When I have to rely on CASA’s opinion to persuade the ATSB how can I claim that the ATSB is independent when it investigates CASA?
Analysis: This shows that the ATSB undermined the independence of its investigator. It also shows that the ATSB is unduly influenced by CASA or it shows a crisis of confidence at the ATSB. Either way the ATSB is clearly not independent of CASA.
Email: 6 August 2012. ATSB officer to General Manager Investigations ....Many of my arguments that have been rejected have been ones where I have applied safety management methods and tolls and those arguments have been rejected by a reviewer who looks from a regulatory viewpoint instead….To make useful comments on these matters relies on a belief in and use of contemporary safety management theories and methods. To me this was particularly evident when CASA’s Norfolk Island audit report came into our hands and some of the arguments I had tried unsuccessfully to include in the report were subsequently included on the basis of CASA’s findings not mine! When I have to rely on CASA’s opinion to persuade the ATSB how can I claim that the ATSB is independent when it investigates CASA?
Analysis: This shows that the ATSB undermined the independence of its investigator. It also shows that the ATSB is unduly influenced by CASA or it shows a crisis of confidence at the ATSB. Either way the ATSB is clearly not independent of CASA.
A real question is in this:
How many other atsb investigations have been compromised by casa. A few spring to mind - Monarch, Whyalla, Lockhart River and the odd Coroners Inquiry/ Inquest such as Hemple.
UITA all good stuff but para d) onwards was even better and summarises and suggests to where the Senators should be shining the spotlight on in the context of this inquiry, I also disagree with your assertions in regards to compromised investigations that go beyond 2008 (Beaker's reign).
This inquiry is dealing with an obviously severely flawed and compromised ATSB investigation and final report that is here and now, may I suggest that it is way too early to test the veracity of your assertions beyond 2008.
From para d) onwards of the Aherne submission was so good that I couldn't do justice to it by summarising, so here is the complete version:
Kind of backs up what many on here have been saying and questioning on here since this inquiry first started.
This inquiry is dealing with an obviously severely flawed and compromised ATSB investigation and final report that is here and now, may I suggest that it is way too early to test the veracity of your assertions beyond 2008.
From para d) onwards of the Aherne submission was so good
that I couldn't do justice to it by summarising, so here is the complete version:
d) Breach of International Conventions
Australia is a signatory to article 37 of the Chicago Convention, ICAO, Part IV International Standards and Recommended Practices.
As such, three International Standards (International Standards are defined as 'shall', International conventions intend to foster standardisation, consistency and efficiency and when it comes to safety- shared learning) under Annex 13 have not been complied with, namely Annex 13, 5.4 which states:
"The accident investigation authority SHALL have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the provisions of Annex 13" Annex 13, 5.6 states:
"The investigator in charge shall have unhampered access to the wreckage and all relevant material, including flight recorders and ATS records, and shall have unrestricted control over it to ensure that a detailed examination can be made without delay by authorised personnel participating in the investigation".
However:
1) The Investigator in Charge was not given unhampered access to the relevant material of the "Chambers Report", the "UK CAA FRMS Study of the pilot" and the internal CASA survey results of its "Flying Operations Inspectors Survey" and the complete "FRMS" report by CASA officers.
2) The aircraft wreckage (evidence) was not recovered which meant that:
a) Crashworthiness data was not gathered. (Data as to how the impact forces were distributed, which load paths were critical, how energy was dissipated remain unknown and would have been useful information for future aircraft design.
b) Reasons for the survivability of the accident could not be determined. Seatbelt function, seat design, floor attachment points; cabin design; emergency exit design, stretcher design and placement.
3) The Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders were not made available to the
Investigator in Charge because of budget, not safety considerations. As a result the following
data (evidence) is missing:
a) How much fuel was on board the aircraft? What were the fuel flow rates?
b) What were the actual winds and temperatures?
c) What was the navigation instrument accuracy? How accurately were the instrument
approaches flown?
d) What altimeter settings were used by the crew? How accurate were the altimeters?
e) Which systems were operable / degraded /inoperable?
f) What decision making process was used by the crew?
g) What discussions were had regarding the viability of continuing the flight to Melbourne
following a diversion to Noumea-this centres around flight and duty limitations.
h) What discussions were had regarding the costs of a diversion (fuel , navigation charges,
landing charges, hotel and transport for passengers and crew)?
i) To what extent were the crew fatigued?
j) To what extent did the nature of the operation (EMS) influence the crews’ decision making?
k) To what extent did the lack of operational support by the Operator (contactability, landing
permissions, fuel availability, flight following) influence the crews’ decisions?
l) What was the quality of the radio transmissions being received by the crew?
m) To what extent did CRM influence the accident sequence?
n) To what extent did the first officer perform her function?
o) How did the flight crew successfully ditch an aircraft at night.(Data on the aircraft pitch
attitude, speed, configuration, rate of descent and orientation with respect to wind and
wave would have been invaluable )
Annex 13, 5.13 states:
"If, after the investigation has been closed, new and significant evidence becomes available, the State which conducted the investigation SHALL re-open it. "
However: Despite new evidence being brought to the attention of the ATSB this has not yet happened.
Australia is obliged under International Convention to re-open the investigation.
4. Conclusion
In light of the "Chambers Report", the "UK CAA Fatigue study of the pilot" and the "Flying Operations Inspectorate Survey", as a signatory to article 37 of the Chicago Convention, Australia must withdraw the ATSB publicly released Final Report into the ditching of NGA on 18 November 2009, and re-open the investigation.
5. Recommendation
Recover the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder from the aircraft.
Australia is a signatory to article 37 of the Chicago Convention, ICAO, Part IV International Standards and Recommended Practices.
As such, three International Standards (International Standards are defined as 'shall', International conventions intend to foster standardisation, consistency and efficiency and when it comes to safety- shared learning) under Annex 13 have not been complied with, namely Annex 13, 5.4 which states:
"The accident investigation authority SHALL have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the provisions of Annex 13" Annex 13, 5.6 states:
"The investigator in charge shall have unhampered access to the wreckage and all relevant material, including flight recorders and ATS records, and shall have unrestricted control over it to ensure that a detailed examination can be made without delay by authorised personnel participating in the investigation".
However:
1) The Investigator in Charge was not given unhampered access to the relevant material of the "Chambers Report", the "UK CAA FRMS Study of the pilot" and the internal CASA survey results of its "Flying Operations Inspectors Survey" and the complete "FRMS" report by CASA officers.
2) The aircraft wreckage (evidence) was not recovered which meant that:
a) Crashworthiness data was not gathered. (Data as to how the impact forces were distributed, which load paths were critical, how energy was dissipated remain unknown and would have been useful information for future aircraft design.
b) Reasons for the survivability of the accident could not be determined. Seatbelt function, seat design, floor attachment points; cabin design; emergency exit design, stretcher design and placement.
3) The Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders were not made available to the
Investigator in Charge because of budget, not safety considerations. As a result the following
data (evidence) is missing:
a) How much fuel was on board the aircraft? What were the fuel flow rates?
b) What were the actual winds and temperatures?
c) What was the navigation instrument accuracy? How accurately were the instrument
approaches flown?
d) What altimeter settings were used by the crew? How accurate were the altimeters?
e) Which systems were operable / degraded /inoperable?
f) What decision making process was used by the crew?
g) What discussions were had regarding the viability of continuing the flight to Melbourne
following a diversion to Noumea-this centres around flight and duty limitations.
h) What discussions were had regarding the costs of a diversion (fuel , navigation charges,
landing charges, hotel and transport for passengers and crew)?
i) To what extent were the crew fatigued?
j) To what extent did the nature of the operation (EMS) influence the crews’ decision making?
k) To what extent did the lack of operational support by the Operator (contactability, landing
permissions, fuel availability, flight following) influence the crews’ decisions?
l) What was the quality of the radio transmissions being received by the crew?
m) To what extent did CRM influence the accident sequence?
n) To what extent did the first officer perform her function?
o) How did the flight crew successfully ditch an aircraft at night.(Data on the aircraft pitch
attitude, speed, configuration, rate of descent and orientation with respect to wind and
wave would have been invaluable )
Annex 13, 5.13 states:
"If, after the investigation has been closed, new and significant evidence becomes available, the State which conducted the investigation SHALL re-open it. "
However: Despite new evidence being brought to the attention of the ATSB this has not yet happened.
Australia is obliged under International Convention to re-open the investigation.
4. Conclusion
In light of the "Chambers Report", the "UK CAA Fatigue study of the pilot" and the "Flying Operations Inspectorate Survey", as a signatory to article 37 of the Chicago Convention, Australia must withdraw the ATSB publicly released Final Report into the ditching of NGA on 18 November 2009, and re-open the investigation.
5. Recommendation
Recover the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder from the aircraft.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa, atsb and Honesty!!
TX Sarcs - that was next on my list and certainly needs no editorial assistance!!
Picked this up this am:
Love to be a fly on the wall!!
Picked this up this am:
Senate debates
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Committees
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Meeting
All Senate debates on 20 Mar 2013
12:45 pm
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party)
I seek leave to move a motion to enable the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee to meet during the sitting of the Senate today.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.50 pm.
Question agreed to.
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Committees
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Meeting
All Senate debates on 20 Mar 2013
12:45 pm
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party)
I seek leave to move a motion to enable the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee to meet during the sitting of the Senate today.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.50 pm.
Question agreed to.
UITA you missed the earlier attempt by the Heff for this private meeting to be allowed to be held:
And hence the reason that Senator Heffernan had to formally refer to a section 33 request for a private meeting:
NB It is also worth noting that it would have been a very brief meeting (i.e. 10 minutes) as all the Senators are required to be present for question time at 2pm.
And Oleo a private meeting is a meeting of the committee members not an ‘in camera’ hearing. There is an example of how an in camera hearing is requested in today’s Dynamic Red…and that it is one where I’d liked to be a fly on the wall!
Now back to the Aherne supp submissions and somewhere down the track CAR265 etc needs exploring…..off doing a Kelpie!
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (09:31): On behalf of the chairs of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Cameron, and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I seek leave to move a motion to enable the committees to meet during the sitting of the Senate today.
Leave not granted.
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (09:31): On behalf of the chairs of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Cameron, and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I seek leave to move a motion to enable the committees to meet during the sitting of the Senate today.
Leave not granted.
:
33 Meetings during sitting
1. A committee of the Senate and a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament may meet during sittings of the Senate for the purpose of deliberating in private session, but shall not make a decision at such a meeting unless:
a. all members of the committee are present; or
b. a member appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and a member appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate are present, and the decision is agreed to unanimously by the members present.
2. The restrictions on meetings of committees contained in paragraph (1) do not apply after the question for the adjournment of the Senate has been proposed by the President at the time provided on any day.
3. A committee shall not otherwise meet during sittings of the Senate except by order of the Senate.
4. Proceedings of a committee at a meeting contrary to this standing order shall be void.
1. A committee of the Senate and a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament may meet during sittings of the Senate for the purpose of deliberating in private session, but shall not make a decision at such a meeting unless:
a. all members of the committee are present; or
b. a member appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and a member appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate are present, and the decision is agreed to unanimously by the members present.
2. The restrictions on meetings of committees contained in paragraph (1) do not apply after the question for the adjournment of the Senate has been proposed by the President at the time provided on any day.
3. A committee shall not otherwise meet during sittings of the Senate except by order of the Senate.
4. Proceedings of a committee at a meeting contrary to this standing order shall be void.
NB It is also worth noting that it would have been a very brief meeting (i.e. 10 minutes) as all the Senators are required to be present for question time at 2pm.
And Oleo a private meeting is a meeting of the committee members not an ‘in camera’ hearing. There is an example of how an in camera hearing is requested in today’s Dynamic Red…and that it is one where I’d liked to be a fly on the wall!
From Dynamic Red today (21/03/13):
*1216 Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Heffernan): To move—That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 21 March 2013.
*1216 Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Heffernan): To move—That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 21 March 2013.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More movement in the CASA chess game??
Well well, rumor has it that somebody senior in FF's Melbourne office has been 'seconded to a project' for a while? Same person who withstood the Field Office Manager shake up a few years ago due to his protective member of the GWM. The real rumoured reason is interesting for his moving to a 'project' however best not be discussed here, but suffice to say that the Melbourne person has friends in low places and the protective arm of the GWM strikes again!
And incidentally the person has been rewarded with a role that requires extensive international travel, so he will be strategically 'out of mind out of sight' for the coming months, how convenient?
Yes yes yes, another day with the same games, same shenanigans, same arrogance and same contempt for anything but their own self interests.
Then again, it is very hard to break up a mafia. Who knows, maybe Senator X (aka Elliot Ness) and his Untouchables (aka fellow Senators) will bust these guys and their rumored rackets wide open? Perhaps the Untouchables will give up on the notion of catching their prey on the big 'non compliances' and go after them on the smaller ones?? A win is a win.
And incidentally the person has been rewarded with a role that requires extensive international travel, so he will be strategically 'out of mind out of sight' for the coming months, how convenient?
Yes yes yes, another day with the same games, same shenanigans, same arrogance and same contempt for anything but their own self interests.
Then again, it is very hard to break up a mafia. Who knows, maybe Senator X (aka Elliot Ness) and his Untouchables (aka fellow Senators) will bust these guys and their rumored rackets wide open? Perhaps the Untouchables will give up on the notion of catching their prey on the big 'non compliances' and go after them on the smaller ones?? A win is a win.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 21st Mar 2013 at 12:23.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate Chess ??
Committee membership.
Senator Fawcett to replace Senator Nash on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee’s inquiry into aviation accident investigation on 21 March 2013, and Senator Nash to be appointed as a participating member of the committee. 3.56 Agreed to.
Senator Fawcett to replace Senator Nash on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee’s inquiry into aviation accident investigation on 21 March 2013, and Senator Nash to be appointed as a participating member of the committee. 3.56 Agreed to.
Hopefully the committee will penetrate the thinly disguised sham of the Pel Air embarrassment and serve notice that several very dodgy matters need to be addressed. The sooner CASA get the message that there is a greater power than them available to the people they disrespect (i.e. the law and the Parliament that made the law), the sooner we can get back to a sane, honest, representative system of managing air safety. The "Strictly no liability" ethos can disappear where the sun don't shine and CASA can get on with repairing the damage, working with industry toward a common goal; and, perhaps even regain some of the credibility and respectability lost during the last few traumatic years. Big job? – Oh yes....
With luck, this committee will see the Chambers Report; which, in my opinion is shameful, deceitful calumny; for what it is. Even if they only manage to disengage industry from the clutches of the "willing accomplice syndrome" and it's masters, they will have accomplished a great deal. If the CDPP can be utilised to reinforce the lesson in humility, so much the better. As the inestimable Bryan Aherne points out, there exists a perception of potentially serious breaches to various Acts. No doubt young Mr. James and many others would agree that these matters need to be properly tested, just to remove the element of doubt. (Eliminate them from our inquiries, so to speak).
Then, perhaps the committee could give the ATSB back the bollocks to square off some of the absolute rubbish presented as 'reports' in recent times; and perhaps issue CASA with instructions to 're examine' a couple or three well rogered pilot, accident and operator cases with some degree of probity, an eye for realism and some semblance of integrity. This would be welcomed as a 'recommended course of action' to begin the rehabilitation of a very sick puppy.
Selah.
{Oh, the BRB had a whip around, a years supply of bottled water was purchased and sent to "Pete", the lonesome, winsome pot plant which has been adopted as the BRB mascot. Can Ms. Nash provide an autographed picture of "Pete", our hero??}
Last edited by Kharon; 21st Mar 2013 at 21:33. Reason: Desparately seeking some semblance of humour.
'Spoilt for choice!"
Indeed Kharon the longer this inquiry goes on and the more rocks the Senators kick over the uglier this whole sordid tale becomes.
I believe BA’s further contributions to this inquiry are indeed ‘inestimable’, despite FF’s further ‘attempts to play the man’ (reference Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary1[1]), which further confirm his veracity and motives do not revolve around any personal self interest, rather the opposite. I would suggest that FF are deliberately ‘playing the man’ because they know that BA’s evidence, research, analysis and rebuttal is so well balanced and uncontroversial. Suggestion for FF give up on attacking BA your just digging yourself a bigger hole ( I know Sunny sociopaths won’t take that kind of advice..oh well!)
So back to BA’s supplementary submissions…oh so spoilt for choice…ponder..ponder??
Okay here’s one that would appear to support Mr McPhee’s submission 19 amongst other things…
:
Gold BA pure gold!! Off doing a Kelpie…
As the 'inestimable' Bryan Aherne points out, there exists a perception of potentially serious breaches to various Acts.
I believe BA’s further contributions to this inquiry are indeed ‘inestimable’, despite FF’s further ‘attempts to play the man’ (reference Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary1[1]), which further confirm his veracity and motives do not revolve around any personal self interest, rather the opposite. I would suggest that FF are deliberately ‘playing the man’ because they know that BA’s evidence, research, analysis and rebuttal is so well balanced and uncontroversial. Suggestion for FF give up on attacking BA your just digging yourself a bigger hole ( I know Sunny sociopaths won’t take that kind of advice..oh well!
) So back to BA’s supplementary submissions…oh so spoilt for choice…ponder..ponder??
Okay here’s one that would appear to support Mr McPhee’s submission 19 amongst other things…
:
17. In regard to hazardous weather alerting:
(a) Did the ATSB form a view about the adequacy of the procedures for the alerting of flight crew engaged in international flights to significant weather changes at their destination?
ATSB response: The ATSB assessed the weather products available to the flight crew and did not identify any safety issues in respect of the weather information provided.
The ATSB failed to answer this question (the question was directed at determining the adequacy of ATS procedures for alerting flight crew not whether any safety issues emanated from the information actually provided).
We know the Fiji ATC and New Zealand ATC failed to pass on hazardous weather as defined as an International Standard in Annex 11 and under New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (see my third submission). Even if an agreement existed which exempted the ATS providers in question to proactively pass on pertinent flight information, the ATSB is a safety investigator not a compliance auditor. The provision of a flight information service is a fundamental obligation of air traffic control to flight crew. There are also clear duty of care obligations in general law to which ATS is subject. For the ATSB to make no comment on the safety impact (regardless of legality) of proactive provision of flight information services is beyond reason. What is more, if the Australian flight crew should have been aware that the local ATS procedures required them to initiate all requests for flight information then the responsibility to ensure that the flight crew knew this rested with the Operator (Pel-Air) as expressed in CAR 223. That the ATSB never examined this question represents serious investigative oversight.
On the subject of the question(above) which the ATSB chose not to answer, it is not credible for the ATSB to state that there …were no safety issues in respect of the weather information provided.
The weather information provided was wrong. At a time when the valid forecast for Norfolk Island was predicting cloud at around 1000 ft. above aerodrome elevation the actual cloud was fluctuating around 500ft (but as low as 200ft.) When the forecast was finally amended it predicted the cloud would be at 500ft temporarily. This untimely amended forecast was made just prior to the aircraft’s arrival at Norfolk Island at a time when the actual cloud level was 200ft. The BoM, despite having access to infrared satellite, aerological diagrams, wind and temperature data for the entire troposphere as well as the Auto Weather Station data from Norfolk Island was in error by 100% at least in its estimates of the cloud level and in error by 6-7 hours in predicting the passage of the low pressure trough. That the ATSB views this as not presenting a safety issue, again begs the questions:
Is the ATSB investigation methodology flawed?
Did the ATSB suffer outcome bias?
Was pressure exerted on the ATSB by CASA?
(a) Did the ATSB form a view about the adequacy of the procedures for the alerting of flight crew engaged in international flights to significant weather changes at their destination?
ATSB response: The ATSB assessed the weather products available to the flight crew and did not identify any safety issues in respect of the weather information provided.
The ATSB failed to answer this question (the question was directed at determining the adequacy of ATS procedures for alerting flight crew not whether any safety issues emanated from the information actually provided).
We know the Fiji ATC and New Zealand ATC failed to pass on hazardous weather as defined as an International Standard in Annex 11 and under New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (see my third submission). Even if an agreement existed which exempted the ATS providers in question to proactively pass on pertinent flight information, the ATSB is a safety investigator not a compliance auditor. The provision of a flight information service is a fundamental obligation of air traffic control to flight crew. There are also clear duty of care obligations in general law to which ATS is subject. For the ATSB to make no comment on the safety impact (regardless of legality) of proactive provision of flight information services is beyond reason. What is more, if the Australian flight crew should have been aware that the local ATS procedures required them to initiate all requests for flight information then the responsibility to ensure that the flight crew knew this rested with the Operator (Pel-Air) as expressed in CAR 223. That the ATSB never examined this question represents serious investigative oversight.
On the subject of the question(above) which the ATSB chose not to answer, it is not credible for the ATSB to state that there …were no safety issues in respect of the weather information provided.
The weather information provided was wrong. At a time when the valid forecast for Norfolk Island was predicting cloud at around 1000 ft. above aerodrome elevation the actual cloud was fluctuating around 500ft (but as low as 200ft.) When the forecast was finally amended it predicted the cloud would be at 500ft temporarily. This untimely amended forecast was made just prior to the aircraft’s arrival at Norfolk Island at a time when the actual cloud level was 200ft. The BoM, despite having access to infrared satellite, aerological diagrams, wind and temperature data for the entire troposphere as well as the Auto Weather Station data from Norfolk Island was in error by 100% at least in its estimates of the cloud level and in error by 6-7 hours in predicting the passage of the low pressure trough. That the ATSB views this as not presenting a safety issue, again begs the questions:
Is the ATSB investigation methodology flawed?
Did the ATSB suffer outcome bias?
Was pressure exerted on the ATSB by CASA?
Off doing a Kelpie…
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please Senators motion a spill in the Fort Fumble senate!
It is a great move with the Senators, love to see a positive chess game move and I think the 'Fawcett takes Nash' move is very good. Now, there is nothing wrong with Nash, in fact I am somewhat of a fan of the lass, its just that Fawcetts knowledge becomes invaluable to a serious inquiry of this nature. We need to not lose sight of the fact that within the current system lives are being lost and other lives put at risk so the CASA and ATSB need gutting.
The Senators may also just have enough power to trigger sweeping changes, improving safety and bringing justice finally to those who have been forever scarred by losing a loved one only to be scarred again when bureacracies lie, deceive and twist the truth.
I would also like to see the Senators go beyond just the scope of enquiring into safety (or lack of), but I would like to see them slice open FF's upper echelon and expose their various tricks of the trade including rumoured contracts for services being awarded to mates, bullies being protected, internal shifting around of certain staff to avoid the spotlight when distasteful issues are brought into the open, also the 'mates rates' system where mates, occasionally even relatives or 'besties' receive either promotion or earn top end scales of pay (yes you would be surprised to learn that some persons earn a lot more than others performing the same role). Nepotism is a disease rife through FF and so is sociopathy.
The cancer needs removing from the roots. It's a pity the Senators can't motion a spill of Fort Fumble?
And finally Kharon, thought you would like this - yesterday I was repairing the chamber pots on the houseboat, they were robustly blocked. Anyway, Gobbles and Minnie were playing. They invited Flyingfiend out to play with them by the trough but he was building barriers and silo's or something, so the kids started throwing rocks, bottles, clumps of pony pooh, even old pot plants at him! It was highly amusing albeit a bit naughty. The last we saw of him he was trying to paddle across to the other side of the Styx, muttering some tautological rubbish about Montreal. Hilarious.
Anyway, gotta run, Pete needs watering (its ok we saved him).
The Senators may also just have enough power to trigger sweeping changes, improving safety and bringing justice finally to those who have been forever scarred by losing a loved one only to be scarred again when bureacracies lie, deceive and twist the truth.
I would also like to see the Senators go beyond just the scope of enquiring into safety (or lack of), but I would like to see them slice open FF's upper echelon and expose their various tricks of the trade including rumoured contracts for services being awarded to mates, bullies being protected, internal shifting around of certain staff to avoid the spotlight when distasteful issues are brought into the open, also the 'mates rates' system where mates, occasionally even relatives or 'besties' receive either promotion or earn top end scales of pay (yes you would be surprised to learn that some persons earn a lot more than others performing the same role). Nepotism is a disease rife through FF and so is sociopathy.
The cancer needs removing from the roots. It's a pity the Senators can't motion a spill of Fort Fumble?
And finally Kharon, thought you would like this - yesterday I was repairing the chamber pots on the houseboat, they were robustly blocked. Anyway, Gobbles and Minnie were playing. They invited Flyingfiend out to play with them by the trough but he was building barriers and silo's or something, so the kids started throwing rocks, bottles, clumps of pony pooh, even old pot plants at him! It was highly amusing albeit a bit naughty. The last we saw of him he was trying to paddle across to the other side of the Styx, muttering some tautological rubbish about Montreal. Hilarious.
Anyway, gotta run, Pete needs watering (its ok we saved him).
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 22nd Mar 2013 at 01:00. Reason: Handing the Senators more CASA rocks to overturn
The good old days!
More good stuff from BA that perhaps takes us back to the days before Beaker and when the bureau properly utilised their powers of proper, balanced investigation as defined by the TSI Act :
I believe that between BA, PAIN, Davies, the Senate inquiry, this thread etc, coupled with the retrieval of the CVR/FDR, we could rewrite an excellent and extremely valuable final report at very little extra cost to the taxpayer and all totally independent of ATSBeaker/FF. After all Beaker has now forfeited his right to legitimately reopen the investigation...
:
25. Documentation indicates a s32 request was made on 4 July 2012 for the CASA Special Audit.
When was the audit sent by CASA? When did it arrive? The committee is aware of the fact
that the ATSB knew about the CASA Special Audit when the audit was announced. That being the case, why did the ATSB wait for over two years to request it? Your supplementary
submission (annex), which covers where the special audit was included in the ATSB report,
appears to come from the March version of the report. Is that the case? How can the ATSB
report refer to the Special Audit in the March 2012 draft when it appears the ATSB were not
yet in possession of it?
ATSB response: As advised in its 14 December 2012 response to the Committee’s questions on notice of 21 November 2012, the ATSB requested a copy of the CASA Special Audit Report under a S32 notice on 4 July 2012. A copy of the special audit was received by the ATSB on 9 July 2012.
As part of its investigations, the ATSB has not routinely obtained CASA Special Audits. As an independent investigation agency, the ATSB focuses on obtaining its own evidence in consideration of its evolving investigation hypotheses, and in support of its analysis and findings. This need not include the results of investigations or other activities that may be undertaken by other agencies for their own purposes. The decision of whether to obtain such outputs by other agencies would generally be informed by the evidence already gained by the ATSB’s investigation, and the perceived benefits of obtaining them.
This is a false statement and one which contravenes everything the ATSB is required to do under the TSI Act 2003 and Annex 13.The ATSB historically has always sought as much information from CASA as possible including that contained in audits, since breaches of Regulations, Acts, Orders, procedures (i.e. risk controls), as identified in the special audit are well known to be critical to safety
The ATSB knew the special audit existed but failed to request it. CASA would have known that the information contained therein would have been relevant to the ATSB yet failed to provide it to the ATSB as required under the MoU.
I served a section 32 request on the Queensland Government Premiers Office cabinet in confidence documentation on an "internal report" on the dangers of night visual flying for helicopter air ambulance operations. The release of this document proved useful in shifting the Governments position on such operations and subsequently funding was provided which ended a long held practice which was at the heart of many previous fatalities in that state. In addition the ATSB and CASA have a MOU which encourages the sharing of information .
When was the audit sent by CASA? When did it arrive? The committee is aware of the fact
that the ATSB knew about the CASA Special Audit when the audit was announced. That being the case, why did the ATSB wait for over two years to request it? Your supplementary
submission (annex), which covers where the special audit was included in the ATSB report,
appears to come from the March version of the report. Is that the case? How can the ATSB
report refer to the Special Audit in the March 2012 draft when it appears the ATSB were not
yet in possession of it?
ATSB response: As advised in its 14 December 2012 response to the Committee’s questions on notice of 21 November 2012, the ATSB requested a copy of the CASA Special Audit Report under a S32 notice on 4 July 2012. A copy of the special audit was received by the ATSB on 9 July 2012.
As part of its investigations, the ATSB has not routinely obtained CASA Special Audits. As an independent investigation agency, the ATSB focuses on obtaining its own evidence in consideration of its evolving investigation hypotheses, and in support of its analysis and findings. This need not include the results of investigations or other activities that may be undertaken by other agencies for their own purposes. The decision of whether to obtain such outputs by other agencies would generally be informed by the evidence already gained by the ATSB’s investigation, and the perceived benefits of obtaining them.
This is a false statement and one which contravenes everything the ATSB is required to do under the TSI Act 2003 and Annex 13.The ATSB historically has always sought as much information from CASA as possible including that contained in audits, since breaches of Regulations, Acts, Orders, procedures (i.e. risk controls), as identified in the special audit are well known to be critical to safety
The ATSB knew the special audit existed but failed to request it. CASA would have known that the information contained therein would have been relevant to the ATSB yet failed to provide it to the ATSB as required under the MoU.
I served a section 32 request on the Queensland Government Premiers Office cabinet in confidence documentation on an "internal report" on the dangers of night visual flying for helicopter air ambulance operations. The release of this document proved useful in shifting the Governments position on such operations and subsequently funding was provided which ended a long held practice which was at the heart of many previous fatalities in that state. In addition the ATSB and CASA have a MOU which encourages the sharing of information .
Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Mar 2013 at 02:39.
I continue to be appalled by the CASA submissions that attempt to trash the credibility of witnesses whose evidence is pretty clearly based on meticulous analyses of objective facts, supported by references to primary materials and the opinions of experts other than themselves.
Aside from anything else, the people who hide behind the word “we” in the CASA submissions are pathetic cowards.
On any objective analysis, CASA’s treatment of Mr James, compared with CASA’s treatment of the operator who employed him, was a travesty, and the ATSB’s report was a sick joke.
I don’t know which would worry me more: That the expertise of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible; Or that the integrity of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible through smear, innuendo and obfuscation.
Aside from anything else, the people who hide behind the word “we” in the CASA submissions are pathetic cowards.
On any objective analysis, CASA’s treatment of Mr James, compared with CASA’s treatment of the operator who employed him, was a travesty, and the ATSB’s report was a sick joke.
I don’t know which would worry me more: That the expertise of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible; Or that the integrity of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible through smear, innuendo and obfuscation.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am continually appalled that CASA has a DAS that is incapable of looking at safety issues holistically (Pel Air) and refuses to accept that there were multiple contributing factors.
I am continually appalled that the Associate DAS continues to spend his time challenging Newtons theories and also ICAO's very own Just Culture methodology.
I am continually appalled at the role of the Assistant DAS and some of his behind the scenes blasé actions.
I am continually appalled at the state of ASA's top tier and the disgraceful way Russell spinelessly bolted when the kitchen got hot and has left us with an under resourced Controller problem.
I am continually appalled at the state of the ATSBeaker and the embarrassing mi mi mi-ing from the head Beaker and his farcical handling of the Pel Air ditching.
I am continually appalled at these organisations lack of ability at the top, as well as the actions of their Boards, advisors, faceless men and assorted apple bobbers all the way up to and including Big Tony.
I am continually appalled that the Associate DAS continues to spend his time challenging Newtons theories and also ICAO's very own Just Culture methodology.
I am continually appalled at the role of the Assistant DAS and some of his behind the scenes blasé actions.
I am continually appalled at the state of ASA's top tier and the disgraceful way Russell spinelessly bolted when the kitchen got hot and has left us with an under resourced Controller problem.
I am continually appalled at the state of the ATSBeaker and the embarrassing mi mi mi-ing from the head Beaker and his farcical handling of the Pel Air ditching.
I am continually appalled at these organisations lack of ability at the top, as well as the actions of their Boards, advisors, faceless men and assorted apple bobbers all the way up to and including Big Tony.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, hear.
Been ploughing my way through the depressing Hempel case this AM: running a comparison matrix between James and a couple of 'Sydney based' others which we haven't brought to light, it makes for a grim start to the weekend. The Hempel v Quadrio matrix is truly distressing.
I'm no longer convinced that a narrow focus on the Pel Air case is sufficient; the absolutely incontrovertible shambles of farcical rulings and abuse of process from the Sydney office has become legend over the last few years and beggars the imagination. If it were not for the reams of solid, tested sworn testimony available I would dismiss the claims as fanciful. Regrettably, these issues can no longer safely be ignored in relation to the handling and management of the Pel Air matter. Sydney (Bankstown as was) is the office responsible for Pel Air, Airtex, Skymaster and several other instances which I believe must be investigated thoroughly if anything CASA present from that office is to be 'safely' relied on in any court or tribunal.
No doubt there are honest, hard working people toiling under the present system to do the 'right thing'. I wish them luck.
Pete rules - OK.
PS. Creamie – thank you for your post, erudite as ever. Cheered me up no end.
I'm no longer convinced that a narrow focus on the Pel Air case is sufficient; the absolutely incontrovertible shambles of farcical rulings and abuse of process from the Sydney office has become legend over the last few years and beggars the imagination. If it were not for the reams of solid, tested sworn testimony available I would dismiss the claims as fanciful. Regrettably, these issues can no longer safely be ignored in relation to the handling and management of the Pel Air matter. Sydney (Bankstown as was) is the office responsible for Pel Air, Airtex, Skymaster and several other instances which I believe must be investigated thoroughly if anything CASA present from that office is to be 'safely' relied on in any court or tribunal.
No doubt there are honest, hard working people toiling under the present system to do the 'right thing'. I wish them luck.
Pete rules - OK.
PS. Creamie – thank you for your post, erudite as ever. Cheered me up no end.
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Mar 2013 at 22:29.
Rod Lovell (DC3, VH-EDC 24th April 1994) has protested his innocence for nearly twenty years over the final report that he says "The BASI report is superficial, incomplete, inaccurate and in certain areas, untrue. I vehemently deny all allegations made against me."
He also maintains that the CAA suspended his licence some 9 weeks AFTER the accident only because he would not "kow-tow" to the Authority
He also maintains that the CAA suspended his licence some 9 weeks AFTER the accident only because he would not "kow-tow" to the Authority
Beaker's last stand!
Bryan Aherne’s comments/analysis of the ATSB AQONs in reply to QONs and written QONs from the Friday 15th February hearing absolutely destroy the ATSBeaker’s credibility in this sorry affair and call into question the veracity of all aviation accident/incident reports in at least the last 5 years or in Beaker’s reign and the onset of the 2010 MOU (Oh and don’t think FF gets off lightly either!) .
Here’s an extract from Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary5.pdf:
BA’s comprehensive rebuttal of the ATSB’s answer for Senator X QON 4, coupled with the systematic research and analysis of FRMS is well worth the read (pg 7 of pdf).
And BA does not stop there in exposing the fragility of what surely has to be ‘Beakers last stand’! They’ve thrown him a lifeline several times but he arrogantly continues to keep duckpaddling in the putrid waters of Fort Fumble’s dungeon!
Top post Creamy!
Oh and dogcharlietree I don’t think the ferryman meant we should go quite that far back..off doing a Kelpie!
ps dct point taken and it is a good comparison, although I don't believe the ATSB/BASI back then was quite so beholden to the regulator and there were some very good investigation reports that came out of the bureau at that time (Seaview and Monarch come to mind)!
Here’s an extract from Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary5.pdf:
Written Questions on Notice- Senator Xenophon
Questions in relation to previously in-camera documents
1. An email on 9 Feb 2010 appears to show that you were looking for a way to assist CASA with their early intervention with Mr James. Can you explain that please?
ATSB response: The email exchange was in the context of a discussion about the
complementary but distinct roles of CASA and the ATSB in maintaining aviation safety. The
interest of the ATSB officer involved was in CASA’s concentrating on improvements to the
regulatory and other guidance for the future safety of such flights as the Norfolk Island one. He was of the view that this would be the most effective way for CASA to address the issues arising from the investigation. My response was to advise him that CASA’s assessment of what was required was now focussing on compliance-related interventions, rather than changes to the regulatory framework.
Comment:
The ATSB as a key component of Australia’s State Aviation Safety program (SASP) must consider systemic issues when examining aviation safety. However the email below written on the 10thof February 2010 indicates the ATSB attempted to align itself to some degree with the approach CASA had advised it was going to take-which was not one examining systemic issues but more one examining whether there had been regulatory breaches.
Refer to the email shown below, it shows that:
The Chief Commissioner originally had ‘confidence’ that CASA would be taking a systemic
approach, but on the 9th of February he had a conversation with CASA where CASA advised it
would be hardening its view that a regulatory breach had been committed and needed to be
addressed. The word ‘confidence’ suggests that the ATSB and CASA originally had a common view that the accident should be investigated focussing on systemic issues. One such systemic issue was the need for CASA to clarify/ improve on its guidance regarding in- flight decision making following changes to weather forecasts used at the planning stage of the flight. After The Chief Commissioner’s conversation with CASA he advised the ATSB Investigating Officer that CASA stated that what was now required was a focus on compliance related interventions rather than changes to the regulatory framework.
However CASA and ATSB assert that influence was not exerted on ATSB by CASA, there was less focus on systemic issues however, and it would appear from the content of the final report that this is the message that was understood by the ATSB. The ATSB appeared to neglect its responsibilities as part of the State Aviation Safety Program to investigate focussing on systemic issues.
Questions in relation to previously in-camera documents
1. An email on 9 Feb 2010 appears to show that you were looking for a way to assist CASA with their early intervention with Mr James. Can you explain that please?
ATSB response: The email exchange was in the context of a discussion about the
complementary but distinct roles of CASA and the ATSB in maintaining aviation safety. The
interest of the ATSB officer involved was in CASA’s concentrating on improvements to the
regulatory and other guidance for the future safety of such flights as the Norfolk Island one. He was of the view that this would be the most effective way for CASA to address the issues arising from the investigation. My response was to advise him that CASA’s assessment of what was required was now focussing on compliance-related interventions, rather than changes to the regulatory framework.
Comment:
The ATSB as a key component of Australia’s State Aviation Safety program (SASP) must consider systemic issues when examining aviation safety. However the email below written on the 10thof February 2010 indicates the ATSB attempted to align itself to some degree with the approach CASA had advised it was going to take-which was not one examining systemic issues but more one examining whether there had been regulatory breaches.
Refer to the email shown below, it shows that:
The Chief Commissioner originally had ‘confidence’ that CASA would be taking a systemic
approach, but on the 9th of February he had a conversation with CASA where CASA advised it
would be hardening its view that a regulatory breach had been committed and needed to be
addressed. The word ‘confidence’ suggests that the ATSB and CASA originally had a common view that the accident should be investigated focussing on systemic issues. One such systemic issue was the need for CASA to clarify/ improve on its guidance regarding in- flight decision making following changes to weather forecasts used at the planning stage of the flight. After The Chief Commissioner’s conversation with CASA he advised the ATSB Investigating Officer that CASA stated that what was now required was a focus on compliance related interventions rather than changes to the regulatory framework.
However CASA and ATSB assert that influence was not exerted on ATSB by CASA, there was less focus on systemic issues however, and it would appear from the content of the final report that this is the message that was understood by the ATSB. The ATSB appeared to neglect its responsibilities as part of the State Aviation Safety Program to investigate focussing on systemic issues.
4. Did the ATSB think to obtain some independent analysis of fatigue levels from another investigation bureau/aviation authority? Were you aware that CASA asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to analyse the fatigue levels of the crew?
Creampuff said: I don’t know which would worry me more: That the expertise of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible; Or that the integrity of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible through smear, innuendo and obfuscation.
Oh and dogcharlietree I don’t think the ferryman meant we should go quite that far back..off doing a Kelpie!
ps dct point taken and it is a good comparison, although I don't believe the ATSB/BASI back then was quite so beholden to the regulator and there were some very good investigation reports that came out of the bureau at that time (Seaview and Monarch come to mind)!
Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Mar 2013 at 08:02.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am of the opinion that the deterioration began during the days of The CAA and the tradition of "mentorism" has been carried forth until this day.
It saddens me to see that is taken this long for men of good intent during the CAA days to now see the light.
I hope those who know what I'm talking about can now appreciate why I was part of the Kinarney (Jerilderie), Social Club, albeit a very junior member, who had the fortune of flying things most can only dream of today. That was DCA days when the Military ran things and we opposed them.
Why won't we learn?
I've seen the best and worst of aviation regulation in this country.
I'll never see the best ever again.
It saddens me to see that is taken this long for men of good intent during the CAA days to now see the light.
I hope those who know what I'm talking about can now appreciate why I was part of the Kinarney (Jerilderie), Social Club, albeit a very junior member, who had the fortune of flying things most can only dream of today. That was DCA days when the Military ran things and we opposed them.
Why won't we learn?
I've seen the best and worst of aviation regulation in this country.
I'll never see the best ever again.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 23rd Mar 2013 at 07:03. Reason: Old memories deserve a moment of silence.