Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[my oleo is extended]

I second Franks comment!!

However I do believe there is a little room for cryptics still. I noticed in one of Sunfish's recent posts he refers to a certain individual as 'Beaker'. Rather unusual for Sunny as his posts are quite articulate in their structure, however he did make me grin. Now if we could just get people to use phrases such as Screaming Skull, Voodoo Witchdoctor..........

[Kharon]

Y'but.

Sarcs # 1330 –"Do we honestly believe that the bureau investigators, without FF involvement in this investigation, would have missed such an elementary and critical point on the erroneously transmitted 0630 METAR cloud base?

Yes, but; is this the only aberration within the documents? We could probably be convinced that a qualified, trained ATSB investigator managed to miss a single item in a draft report, we may even allow some latitude for an item being overlooked when a report is being cross checked during compilation. At a stretch we could even allow that the final edit before release missed one, solitary, albeit important item. This is (was) our trusted ATSB who's reports are relied on by Courts, Coroners and commoners alike. It is just within the realms of possibility that IF one such error was made. El Heffe's* famous 'man' at the back of the room may well accept an honest mistake, made in good faith, especially if the error was admitted to and corrected.

Is this what the Senate or industry is being asked to swallow?, what we appear to have here is layer upon layer of not quite believable 'evidence', obfuscation and rhetoric, presented to convince us that James, and only James is the sole cause of the incident. Having taken that stand at the beginning, CASA and ATSB are scrambling to justify it; irrespective of cost and hazard.

You know, I keep coming back to the why and the how of it?. Why take these incredible risks, publicly, on record, in the Parliament? How do you muzzle the honest folks who clearly understood the situation?: how do you even allow something like the Chambers missive to be written, let alone presented in evidence? (particularly given the 'unfortunate' anecdotal reputation of the writer). All high risk strategy - just the notion of someone being 'persuaded' to break silence, in camera, would keep me awake nights.

We and the Senate are being instructed that we are to accept not one, but several "inconsistencies" within a report. We are confronted with both the ATSB and CASA attempting, in Senate under oath to justify their position and bluff their way past a committee of the Senate in Parliament. This can only be seen as a high handed attempt to convince a jury that the not so well crafted fairy stories are scientifically established facts.

Common sense and a sense of humour are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humour is just common sense, dancing. William James.

Oh, by the by – I hear on the wind that there is to be an industry generated "Chambers Report", the crew doing it don't mess about or mince words, should be entertaining. More gossip, rumour and indeendtho from the BRB tonight I expect.

[Sunfish]

Who was the chief pilot at pel air at the time of the accident? Are they still there?

[flying-spike]

Who holds the post and who runs the show.. not the same

The Chief Pilot now works for CASA. The guy that actually ruled the operation with an iron fist is, I believe, still there but deliberately distanced from the operation since the accident. I may be wrong.

[Sarcs]

Crossed over to the dark side!

Perhaps Sunny this will refresh your memory? ...From AQONs 22/10/12 public hearing

CASA01: Experience of Pel-Air Chief Pilot
Hansard: p.34
CHAIR: It has been suggested to us that the chief pilot, who is now the CASA Bankstown person, did not really have a lot of experience himself with these types of aircraft. Do you know what his experience was with Westwind aircraft? I presume he was endorsed to fly the damn things—was he?

Mr McCormick: He was, but I do not have the figure in front of me showing what his experience was at the time. It may be in some of the documents we gave you.

CHAIR: Could you take that on notice?

Mr McCormick: Sure.

Answer:
Mr Wickham completed a co-pilot endorsement on the Westwind on 23 September 1992.
Mr Wickham has 50 hours experience on the aircraft as a co-pilot.
A chief pilot need not, in all cases, be endorsed to fly all of the aircraft types covered by an Air Operator’s Certificate as pilot-in-command. In such cases, the Civil Aviation Orders permit the chief pilot to delegate his or her operational duties to another member of the operator’s staff. In this case, the chief pilot’s operational duties in relation to Pel-Air’s Westwind aircraft had been delegated to the fleet manager, Mr Ian ‘Wally’ Meyer. At the time of the accident, Mr Meyer was fully endorsed on the Westwind aircraft, had over 20,000 hours total aeronautical experience with 147 hours as pilot-in-command on the Westwind in the 12 months preceding the accident.

Kharon said:

Yes, but; is this the only aberration within the documents? We could probably be convinced that a qualified, trained ATSB investigator managed to miss a single item in a draft report, we may even allow some latitude for an item being overlooked when a report is being cross checked during compilation. At a stretch we could even allow that the final edit before release missed one, solitary, albeit important item.

No there is quite obviously plenty of 'aberrations' in this whole sordid tale.

My point is the one document that FF wanted and apparently manafactured to suit a purpose (theirs) that was released under section 32 of the TSI Act in spirit of the MOU is CAIR 09/3. If you put the ATSB report alongside the CAIR 09/3 they basically run to a scripted outcome, albeit the bureau report has a lot more 'meat 'n' veg' and spin.

So are you trying to tell me that the two agencies dropped all their previous deeply entrenched animosities and all of a sudden they were running like two perfectly synced props? That's like the Carbon Queen telling us that last week's self-indulging labor party aborted leadership spill is all over.."nothing to see here, move along"! Yeah right??

Kharon said:

You know, I keep coming back to the why and the how of it?. Why take these incredible risks, publicly, on record, in the Parliament?

Who knows it is bizarre, my guess is it was some directive from the main circus act to stop all sideshow events that might detract attention from the ringmasters performance in the big top...but that's just my guess??

[Sunfish]

At the time of the accident, Mr Meyer was fully endorsed on the Westwind aircraft, had over 20,000 hours total aeronautical experience with 147 hours as pilot-in-command on the Westwind in the 12 months preceding the accident.

But that is not the answer to the question. How much time has mr. Meyer on the Westwind IN TOTAL? The answer lies between 147 and 20,000 hrs.

Could it be that pel air management had relatively little experience on the Westwind?

Could it be that Dominc James was left virtually to his own devices in planning and operating a Westwind?

Could it be that pel air provided very limited resources and operational support?

[d_concord]

Yes it is between 147 and 20000 Sunfish. I have heard about 16,000!!.

It is interesting that CASA did not see fit to highlight that. Would make their guy look pretty deficient I would think.

All your other questions are valid.

The experience of the chief pilot is a question that cant just be thrown away because he had access to others with experience. You then have to start down the road of exactly what was he doing and how is this delegated duty working. Just because there is provision in the regs to delegate your duties you cant delegate your responsibility and the fact is this guy knew F??K all. I'm not sure that is the issue here is experience on type. The issue here is company culture and that lies with the CP at the end of the day.

The fact that he is now with CASA says it all. What a disgrace.

[Kharon]

The Bankstown Chronicles ?? -

DC # 1340 –"The experience of the chief pilot is a question that cant just be thrown away because he had access to others with experience."

Aye, and therein, lays one of the Bankstown Chronicles; a sad tale of experience being sacrificed on the altar of slobbering 'blind obedience'.

For example ; one not so funny yarn is of a very experienced CP who, after chewing down a string of mildly annoying, silly operational dictates, dared to mildly disagree with a potentially dangerous 'edict' and was obliged; under duress and protest to undertake an anger management course. Of course, the stroking of marginally qualified administrative egos from above, being spoon fed by the operationally inept and guided by inutile rejects could not occur in the robust, shiny, squeaky clean world of Bankstown. No way: anger management ? - it's just part of -

another day at the Bankstown office.

There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first kind is excellent, the second good, and the third kind useless. Niccolo Machiavelli.

[my oleo is extended]

Culture and dancing, safety's friend??

So the question again has been raised and remains unanswered, 'why has Fort Fumble stood by its belief that the Pel Air ditching is all Dom's fault'??
Well I can shed some light. Apart from the fact that FF Execs are driven by pride, arrogance and ego, the real reason is the organisation in its entirety. It isn't a generative organisation in deeds, action and culture, it is pathological. We can measure that quite easily by comparing the two cultures.

A generative culture is one where:
- Information is sought and accepted
- 'Messengers' are trained
- Responsibilities are shared
- Reports are accepted and the reporters rewarded, so to speak
- Failures are scrutinised, evaluated and lessons are learned
- New ideas embraced and welcomed

A pathological organisation is one where:
- Information is hidden, buried and covered over
- 'Messengers' are shouted down, eliminated, bullied and silenced
- Responsibilities are shirked, avoided, abandoned and deflected
- Reports are discouraged, spun shredded or hidden
- Failures are covered up, buried or tucked away in a chamber pot
- New ideas are crushed, destroyed, flushed and shunned

So it's pretty easy to see what class the bumbling ninnies running the Regulator fit in to. Quite concerning actually. But obviously that's what the Government wants isn't it?

Kharon. Very entertaining video, but I don't believe that was Bankstown. Judging by the dancing style and robust uniforms it was the FNQ and NT Inspectors on audit and celebrating an operators Show Cause!
Then again perhaps in line with the true 'mystique of aviation' it was some kind of voodoo dance aimed at keeping the evil Senators away?

[Sarcs]

Bankstown bashing to Beaker bashing??

Sorry "K" and Oleo slight drift here and by the way I'm stuck on six across??

As if anymore needed to be added to Beaker’s systemic causal chain to relegating what was once regarded worldwide as being in the top 2 of aircraft accident investigation authorities, well it seems that mimimiBeaker keeps digging a bigger hole. Take a look at some of his answers to Senator X’s written QONs for the 28/02/2013 public hearing:

2. Since the Lockhart River inquest in 2007, how has the ATSB’s relationship with CASA changed?
o Does the ATSB still acknowledge oversight of CASA’s role as regulator?

ATSB response: The ATSB has never had oversight of CASA’s role as a regulator.

Its role is independently to investigate transport safety matters.

This was confirmed by Parliament in the passage of the Transport Safety
Investigation Act 2003 and in the establishment of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as an independent commission in 2009.

In the second reading speeches for both of these changes, it was highlighted that the ATSB must be independent from parties or actions that may have been directly involved in the safety occurrence or that had some influence on the circumstances or consequences of that occurrence. For example, the ATSB must be free to investigate and comment on any significant role of the regulator in a particular occurrence and as such must not itself play a regulatory role in the
industry. Investigations that are independent of transport regulators,
government policymakers, and the parties involved in an accident, are better positioned to avoid conflicts of interest and external interference.

Maybe we could map a chronology of the way the bureau has evolved in recent years? It could be labelled ‘Watchdog to Lapdog the Beaker years’!

Senator X QON 2 continued (my bold):

o If so, in what practical sense does the ATSB carry out its duties in this
regard?

ATSB response: The ATSB does not have oversight responsibilities for CASA.

o If not, who now has oversight of CASA?

ATSB response: The Civil Aviation Act 1988 clearly sets out accountability arrangements for CASA including reporting to Parliament and the Minister.

It also sets out the role of the CASA Board which includes deciding on the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; ensuring CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner; and ensuring that CASA complies with certain directions given by the Minister. (note: Maybe Beaker is finally shining the light??)

So Albo’s circus is the mob that is tasked with the oversight of the heavily entrenched sociopath behemoth that is currently our regulator. Yet our minister is so disenfranchised from industry and his only line prattled out repeatedly is to say that the…“White Elephant is the holy grail..all hail the White Elephant”!!

Maybe the strongest conclusion that comes out of all this corrupt mess is that our bureau either files for divorce from DOIT (and perhaps cohabitates with the Senate as godfather), or it be consigned to oblivion forever because it is obviously no longer operating independently without ‘fear nor favor’ and no longer operating in the public or industry interest.

Okay after that small interlude back to the FFBKCP and FFCBSS bashing, after all it is much more fun!

[my oleo is extended]

Crosswords and mi mi mi-ing

Sarcs, 6 across is 'pony' and 4 down is 'pooh'.

And as for the ATSBeaker/CASA 'separation requirements' which have been quite obviously breached it is a complete joke. No other oversighting body(s) have such a ludicrous interaction. Can you imaging the NTSB and FAA in this position, basically naked and dry humping each other and indulging in bedroom talk and the occasional happy ending???

Big Tony, Sith Mrdak, Skull and his Board of bloated bureaucrat spin doctors, Beaker and all the other postulating dollops of dross are completely disconnected from reality, drunk from the excesses of taxpayer troughs, limo drivers, executive salaries and generous superannuation entitlements.
They are so busy focusing on self preservation and self importance that their catch-cry should be "aviation, what aviation"??

[Sunfish]

Sorry, off topic, but I read this headline and had a surreal image of Mr Kharon.....

Chainsaw-wielding man cuts up office

Updated 58 minutes ago
Map: Canberra 2600

A 34-year-old man has been arrested after he entered a Canberra office building brandishing a running chainsaw.

Chainsaw-wielding man cuts up office - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

A pathological organisation is one where:
- Information is hidden, buried and covered over
- 'Messengers' are shouted down, eliminated, bullied and silenced
- Responsibilities are shirked, avoided, abandoned and deflected
- Reports are discouraged, spun shredded or hidden
- Failures are covered up, buried or tucked away in a chamber pot
- New ideas are crushed, destroyed, flushed and shunned

So it's pretty easy to see what class the bumbling ninnies running the Regulator fit in to. Quite concerning actually. But obviously that's what the Government wants isn't it?

There was discussion earlier on DJ's best course of action. Has anybody on thoughts on tackling from a bullying and harassment standpoint? Has it been tried before?

I also believe the senate estimates should get data on casa oversight. Schedule, progress. Overdue etc. CMTs should have got in control now.

[my oleo is extended]

Sunfish, Kharon is the sane one, he tends to mellow out by walking the dog and keeping the Styx houseboat in good working order. It is the Gobbledock that tends to cut loose with the chainsaw in Canberra. Maybe Gobbles mistook the ABC for Flyingfiends office?

[Kharon]

In my own defence M'lud.

Oleo –"Very entertaining video, but I don't believe that was Bankstown. Judging by the dancing style and robust uniforms it was the FNQ and NT Inspectors on audit and celebrating an operators Show Cause!"

Oleo you may not know: Gobbles is a secret agent (part time) for Willyleaks, he got that 'vision' at great personal risk, the security was hell he reckons. Seems the FAA have got the idea that the Brisbane training centre is a sham, designed to fool the ICAO boys. FF needed to run one 'real' training course to show the Yanks, this was it. All the boys in the 'vision' passed with non flying colours and honours in obfuscation. A couple achieved the highest merit points possible for correctly identifying primary pineapple planting locations (PPPL). But, you're right, the backdrop was modelled on the FNQ famous 'think tank' and made specially by the GWM wives (and/or partners) knitting club for the event.

Sunny – No mate, not me. Bloody Gobbledock – again. We bailed him out last night, Judge was very sympathetic once the case was explained. He said, and I quote "your response is perfectly understandable Mr. G. given the circumstances; any responsible citizen would have seen it as a moral duty". GD smiled slightly and whispered {– "taught the bugger to fly"}, then solemnly faced the judge for sentence. "Provided you are prepared to attempt only one office wrecking party each year" intoned the man, "you are free to go, the court is appalled at the treatment you received and praises your restraint; we are impressed that there was no damage done to the potted plants". I got fined a chocolate frog because of the chain saw teeth "not as sharp as they may be Mr. K". I ask you, where's the justice?

So, it's all calm again on the Styx, Minnie is making pineapple fritters for Gobbles. I think he quite enjoyed his trip to town, I've locked up the chainsaw – at least for the weekend. By the way – they both deny throwing pot plants at FF t'other day, it was soggy white paper from the chamber pots they reckon, just a little green about the edges, the impression of foliage was created using old cigar butts. They showed me one, quite realistic.

PS - Check Creamies last post on the Reg reform page. I'm still smiling, between Sunny and Creamie, it's a great start to the LWE.

[Sarcs]

Written AQONs 28/02/13:

PS - Check Creamies last post on the Reg reform page. I'm still smiling, between Sunny and Creamie, it's a great start to the LWE.

Gold Creamy..pure gold take no prisoners!

Coming back (briefly) to the written QONs and the Beaker answers for the 28/02/2013 public hearing, Senator Fawcett QON 2:

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.

So now we have established which version and amendment of Annex 13 was current at the time (9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B) we can safely say that this was what paragraph 5.4 read (my bold)…
“5.4 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 this Annex. The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available
information on that accident or incident;
b) if appropriate, the issuance of safety recommendations;
c) if possible, the determination of the causes; and
d) the completion of the final report.
When possible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the
wreckage examined and statements taken from witnesses.”

We now know that it (a) was possible and; (b) that Beaker’s final decision was based on purely fiscal reasons. Whether this decision was justified, in compliance and in the ‘spirit’ of paragraph 5.4 is very much open to debate??

There is however another ‘open issue’ at the time, the following is a quote from the ‘Preliminary Report January 2010’:

The ATSB has interviewed a number of witnesses and people who were associated with the occurrence, and is assessing the feasibility of recovering the aircraft Cockpit Voice and Flight Data recorders from the seabed.

Sort of open-ended statement made by the author, whom would I assume be the ‘Investigator In Charge’ (IIC)? So…
Q/ I wonder if the IIC would personally have considered ‘feasibility’ to also include the fiscal concerns of Chief Commissioner Beaker, especially given the high profile media coverage this occurrence had generated and the unique circumstances of a night ditching where everyone survived?

Given that the issue of recovering the CVR/FDR was under discussion well before the IIC voiced his concerns via email to Beaker (09/02/2010, reference 02 ATSB_Doc5_Web.pdf) about the stance that FF was taking… “I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support”;

Therefore futher questions:
(1) What was the IIC stance on the CVR/FDR issue?
(2) Was the IIC, aware at the time, that Beaker (according to the answer to the QON above) had justified his decision pursuant to paragraph 5.4 of Annex 13?
(3) If not when did the IIC become aware and was the IIC in agreement with this Beaker decision?

Because according to paragraph 5.5 and 5.6 of Annex 13…

“Investigator-in-charge — Designation

5.5 The State conducting the investigation shall designate
the investigator-in-charge of the investigation and shall initiate
the investigation immediately.

Investigator-in-charge — Access and control

5.6 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 authorized personnel participating in
the investigation.”

….the IIC has ‘supreme control’ over the conduct of the investigation, wreckage recovery etc..etc…so was the IIC’s ‘head of power’ as per Annex 13 and the TSI Act compromised by both internal/external subjectively interested parties?

Anyway moving on down the written QONs (28/02/2013) we find a question (QON 4) from Senator X that must have been asked almost ‘tongue in cheek’ (my bold):

4. If, as proposed in your changes to Mandatory Reporting, the ATSB merely acts as a conduit to provide CASA with unrestricted access, why not merely reverse the roles to have the industry report to CASA and CASA pass on what they think should be investigated?

ATSB response: Under the proposed reforms the ATSB will maintain its full independence with respect to determining what to investigate. It will also maintain the accident and incident database which is used to conduct research and trend analysis. Adopting the above proposal would compromise the ATSB’s independence.

Although the concept of what Senator X suggests is in itself most disturbing, it would appear from the evidence presented thus far that this is effectively what is already happening and the bureau is no longer a fully independent transport investigator. Perhaps this is the underlying point that Senator X is making in asking this question??

Oh well off doing a Kelpie..enjoy your Easter LW/E!

[AEROMEDIC]

Love these posts as I'm sure others do as well.

I can't help wondering in the light of the upcoming election whether the Shadow minister has been canvassed for comment or the like.

Anyone?

[Up-into-the-air]

Shadow Minister

I am sure the Shadow Minister is a reader!!

[my oleo is extended]

'Shadow minister' would mean he is a minister hiding within the shadow of a taxpayer trough. The only good politicians, from what we can tell, are the Senators who are gently lubricating CASA and Beakers sphincters for the mother of all pineapples (we hope).
As for the rest of the politicians, they are all bottom dwelling parasites who host on the taxpayers. A protected species in which cleverly tailored laws, morals, ethics and privileges wrap around them while the rest of us get shat on.

And as for those trough dwelling Pollies I speak of, that may be reading this thread as UITA pointed out, I have a special two word comment for you........

[Lookleft]

And who is the Shadow Minister? Why will they be any different to John Anderson and John Sharp (I think that's his name, the bloke who's on the board of Rex). The Regional Services portfolio usually goes to the NP leader who is also usually the Deputy PM. How much time or effort do you think will be put into aviation? Greg Searle was on the Senate Committee that looked at training and aviation and he was very alarmed after he heard some of the evidence. What influence did he have on the government's response to the final report?

Senator Fawcett is a knowledgable politician when it comes to aviation matters, but I don't think that he will have any significant influence in changes being made to how CASA and the ATSB do business if its not high on the new Government's agenda.

Do you really think politicians are going to bother reading Pprune when this is the typical stuff posted:

So, it's all calm again on the Styx, Minnie is making pineapple fritters for Gobbles. I think he quite enjoyed his trip to town, I've locked up the chainsaw – at least for the weekend. By the way – they both deny throwing pot plants at FF t'other day, it was soggy white paper from the chamber pots they reckon, just a little green about the edges, the impression of foliage was created using old cigar butts. They showed me one, quite realistic.