Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hold the bus K
whoa Kharon,
I'm not real sure where that burr under your saddle came from!
How did my:
morph into your:
I keep reading these references to Avtex/Skymaster (which all seem to presume we all know the nuances of that situation) and now, despite your observation that this is not "the right forum for the discussion to be deflected to Airtex", your cross-reference identifies you as one of the main proponents of that connection.
My original question was indeed innocent. I took the AAT decision to include a reasonable summary of the evidence presented. What I read jars badly with your:
What I was genuinely was after was a cogent statement of the relevance to the Pel-Air Inquiry - I still am!
I'm not real sure where that burr under your saddle came from!
How did my:
I've just read Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 61 (4 February 2011) in its entirety.
This is, perhaps, not the right forum for the discussion to be deflected to Airtex, happy to respond on a thread related to that company, delighted in fact. But bring the Kevlar, tin hat and a cut lunch. The claim made to have 'read' all of the data is suspect; I have 27 very full lever arch files here in my study and almost as much again in 'electronic' format, it's quite a read. So my Prince, if you have indeed ploughed your way through all the material, interviewed the participants, obtained Statutory declarations and are prepared to 'slug it out', I stand ready.
My original question was indeed innocent. I took the AAT decision to include a reasonable summary of the evidence presented. What I read jars badly with your:
That company worked hard. All independently audited and approved to IOSA standards by a leading ICAO audit company, by CASA and due to go "BARS" green at the next independent audit.
Consider, in early 2010 there were preparations to release the third revision of the COM, IOSA audit results were 'first class', AOC conditions removed over the preceding 12 months, AOC reissued for three years, Safety Management System written with expert help, rough but ready for CASA scrutiny and guidance. Looking good.
Consider, in early 2010 there were preparations to release the third revision of the COM, IOSA audit results were 'first class', AOC conditions removed over the preceding 12 months, AOC reissued for three years, Safety Management System written with expert help, rough but ready for CASA scrutiny and guidance. Looking good.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prince N
Your thoughts are not relevant.
Kharon (or Charon, I went to a different school) has his mind set firmly on the far shore as any good ferryman would. Like his Styxian namesake he has an unshakeable self-belief and has his hand firmly and self evidently on his pole.
Not for him to be swayed by criticisms from small minded people who only see his work as an anthology of unintelligibly smug in-jokes and taunting half-truths. Such little folks cannot see the gold in his prose through their narrowed eyes. Not for him to be concerned that others wonder at his agenda and ask why someone with his staggering knowledge does not do a Dick Smith and publish under his own name his claims to take over CASA and/or ATSB.
I acknowledge my own shortcomings. In a long an undistinguished career I never managed to ditch a perfectly serviceable aircraft so I am unable to see the nuances evident in Kharons attacks on CASA in this regard. I always preferred alternates myself but perhaps a lifetime of being totally mission focused (i.e the far bank of the Styx) Kharon has an understandable aversion to diversions.
So I suggest you start another thread, one devoted to plain English and clear exposition, and leave this one to the ferryman and his pole.
Your thoughts are not relevant.
Kharon (or Charon, I went to a different school) has his mind set firmly on the far shore as any good ferryman would. Like his Styxian namesake he has an unshakeable self-belief and has his hand firmly and self evidently on his pole.
Not for him to be swayed by criticisms from small minded people who only see his work as an anthology of unintelligibly smug in-jokes and taunting half-truths. Such little folks cannot see the gold in his prose through their narrowed eyes. Not for him to be concerned that others wonder at his agenda and ask why someone with his staggering knowledge does not do a Dick Smith and publish under his own name his claims to take over CASA and/or ATSB.
I acknowledge my own shortcomings. In a long an undistinguished career I never managed to ditch a perfectly serviceable aircraft so I am unable to see the nuances evident in Kharons attacks on CASA in this regard. I always preferred alternates myself but perhaps a lifetime of being totally mission focused (i.e the far bank of the Styx) Kharon has an understandable aversion to diversions.
So I suggest you start another thread, one devoted to plain English and clear exposition, and leave this one to the ferryman and his pole.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prince, if as I suspect, you live in the castle, many here choose to call it FF, you would be well aware that what is presented to the AAT by CASA is not and can not be described as "evidence", in any proper court anyway. In fact a good chunk of the so called evidence in this case had to be withdrawn, and I heard someone lost their job over it, because it was too obviously manufactured even by CASA standards.
I believe Kharon's comparisons between the treatment handed out to Airtex, "administratively" compared to their treatment of Pelair is valid and bears scrutiny.
Oh, I see Algae is still hanging on to the "It was all Dom's fault" line.
I believe Kharon's comparisons between the treatment handed out to Airtex, "administratively" compared to their treatment of Pelair is valid and bears scrutiny.
Oh, I see Algae is still hanging on to the "It was all Dom's fault" line.
Last edited by thorn bird; 18th Apr 2013 at 21:19.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOIE# 1489 –"I have had numerous similar issues relayed to me over the years. In fact in the past few weeks alone a number of people have contacted me to tell me their own story of bullying, miscarriage of justice or reprisal. I can only imagine what other information has been provided to the Senators, PAIN or Messr Phelan."
HMHB # -"The more evidence presented the clearer a pattern of behaviour is demonstrated and less likely that everybody who has an issue is deluded, mad and the ills of society."
DJ –Sub 22 –"As the release of the report draws near, I thought I would share a few things with the Committee that have been worrying me for some time. I have left the details alone and sought to frame the bigger picture, as ultimately this is what really matters."
GADRVR # 1494 -:Under oath...... appropriate forum!
Now THAT sounds like a whole lotta fun!!!
Guess some people may be needing some personal legal help,
Life's good!"
Now THAT sounds like a whole lotta fun!!!
Guess some people may be needing some personal legal help,
Life's good!"
GAD has the right of it, if the Senate dare allow the truth out, for the public to judge; someone, somewhere is going to need help, if they are to have a chamber pot left to piss in.
Oh, was that it? - when are you going to bring on the fast bowler. 320,000 runs: they must be getting a bit panicky out there, but if that's the best you boys have got - game over. Back to my pole dancing, now there's a picture.....
Last edited by Kharon; 18th Apr 2013 at 21:55. Reason: Trembling with fear as I type? - Naww, smiling quietly.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He shoots he scores
Hmmm very interesting, the cricket game of Industry vs CAsA takes a turn. Team CAsA bring out 2 of its fast bowlers - Algie Bloom and 'the aviator formally known as Prince Nicolo Mi mi mi'. A desperate move by a team facing defeat. Although they have been trained by the great Flyingfiend their actions are somewhat irrelevant as they simply cannot take a wicket. Is it because the Styx Cricket Ground wicket is too firm? Is it because although they are masters at spin the wily batsmen are wide awake to their attempted googleys and leg breaks?
Either way, as they bowl a few bouncers at Kharon he steps forward and puts the ball over the fence at the Styx Cricket Ground. Umpire Gobbledock raises his middle finger and indicates it is a robust 666. The crowd goes wild.
But their is more to come as Kharon will go on to make a double century.
But what a line up with Sarcs, UITA, Thorn Bird, aroa, halfmanhalfbatsmen and even Oleo yet to bat..... Game on.
Either way, as they bowl a few bouncers at Kharon he steps forward and puts the ball over the fence at the Styx Cricket Ground. Umpire Gobbledock raises his middle finger and indicates it is a robust 666. The crowd goes wild.
But their is more to come as Kharon will go on to make a double century.
But what a line up with Sarcs, UITA, Thorn Bird, aroa, halfmanhalfbatsmen and even Oleo yet to bat..... Game on.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 18th Apr 2013 at 22:26.
Algie and Prince N., what has been alleged in summary is that CASA predetermines outcomes of investigations to suit the personal motives of some members of its staff. It is also alleged that CASA initiates investigations to suit the personal motives of some members of its staff, to the point of allowing them to engage in personal vendettas against some pilots and operators while at the same time shielding others from investigation and punishment.
It is also alleged that CASA is not a model litigant, that it conceals and/or fabricates evidence, that it uses its unlimited financial resources to engage in or threaten to engage in litigation with the purpose of bankrupting its target.
Then there is the allegation of capriciousness, bias and a total lack of proportionality in respect to punishment. It is also alleged that it honors the concepts of fairness, equity and natural justice in the breach. What has been allegedly "legal" for twenty years is today "illegal" and "unsafe" and "criminal" when this allegedly suits a CASA operative.
To put that another way, it is alleged that Casa also appears to engage in an administrative form of barratry:
The best evidence for this may be the treatment of Polair in Western Australia - demanding that Polair produce maintenance records and evidence of compliance with AD's going back Thirty years on all its aircraft (from memory). Further evidence might be found in the use of CAR206 to shut down certain charter operations by alleging they are in fact RPT. Then there is the question of Barrier aviation who have effectively been bankrupted by administrative fiat without any due process.
Then there is the allegation that CASA is vindictive and administers the law in a manner desired to cause maximum pain and suffering on its target - to whit "the friday afternoon fax" - the legal equivalent of mailing someone a turd. The latest example being the grounding of Barrier aviation on the afternoon af Christmas Eve.
Then there is the question exactly how an administrative reform program was allowed to drag on for Twenty Five years, at the cost of some $250 million and has aparently produced even more complex and costly regulations than the ones they replace.
Then there is the allegation that the regulations are deliberately designed to be complex, ambiguous and difficult to understand because it gives CASA inspectors the ability to interpret them as they see fit to achieve their desired result and those interpretaions are inconsistent across the continent.
By way of example, an acquaintance on being ramp checked a few weeks ago asked the inspector why there was not a simple plain English statement from CASA of exactly what the pilot of a single piston engined light aircraft was required to carry or posess in order to guarantee to pass a ramp check. The Inspectors response? "Too difficult and complex" because "all aircraft are different".
Then there is the allegation that CASA has forced various operators to employ certain operational practices that are not approved, or even forbidden, by various aircraft manufacturers, including engine failure training methods in multi engine aircraft.
Then there is the allegation that CASA has worked in collusion with the ATSB to circumvent the provisions of the TSA act regarding confidentiality of reporting and independence of the ATSB (and perhaps AsA as well).
Then there is the allegation that the regulatory overburden CASA has instigated has resulted in aircraft operating costs in Australia being Three times the North American equivalent which has resulted in economic damage to the Australian economy.
THen there is the alegation that CASA has engineered a situation where Australia no longer conforms to its treaty obligations regarding safety required as a member of the ICAO.
...That enough allegations for you?
Of course none of the allegations may be true, however....
And the "Safety" mantra doesn't wash if you simply look at the costs imposed in Australia versus the safety outcome. Contrary to popular opinion, risk management professionals can and do calculate the value of a human life and use that number along with probability estimates to calculate the economic return on investing in safety.
If one used those scores, I suspect that CASA and the ATSB would be showing a very negative rate of return to the Australian public.
And of course the ultimate hypocrisy; if the good Senators ever find that there is any truth in the allegations above, what will CASA immediately do?
Thats right, call to be treated with "fairness, equity and natural justice" - something they allegedly routinely deny to the rest of the industry.
It is also alleged that CASA is not a model litigant, that it conceals and/or fabricates evidence, that it uses its unlimited financial resources to engage in or threaten to engage in litigation with the purpose of bankrupting its target.
Then there is the allegation of capriciousness, bias and a total lack of proportionality in respect to punishment. It is also alleged that it honors the concepts of fairness, equity and natural justice in the breach. What has been allegedly "legal" for twenty years is today "illegal" and "unsafe" and "criminal" when this allegedly suits a CASA operative.
To put that another way, it is alleged that Casa also appears to engage in an administrative form of barratry:
Barratry (pron.: /ˈbærətri/ BA-rə-tree) is a legal term with several meanings. In common law, barratry is the offense committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment.[
Then there is the allegation that CASA is vindictive and administers the law in a manner desired to cause maximum pain and suffering on its target - to whit "the friday afternoon fax" - the legal equivalent of mailing someone a turd. The latest example being the grounding of Barrier aviation on the afternoon af Christmas Eve.
Then there is the question exactly how an administrative reform program was allowed to drag on for Twenty Five years, at the cost of some $250 million and has aparently produced even more complex and costly regulations than the ones they replace.
Then there is the allegation that the regulations are deliberately designed to be complex, ambiguous and difficult to understand because it gives CASA inspectors the ability to interpret them as they see fit to achieve their desired result and those interpretaions are inconsistent across the continent.
By way of example, an acquaintance on being ramp checked a few weeks ago asked the inspector why there was not a simple plain English statement from CASA of exactly what the pilot of a single piston engined light aircraft was required to carry or posess in order to guarantee to pass a ramp check. The Inspectors response? "Too difficult and complex" because "all aircraft are different".
Then there is the allegation that CASA has forced various operators to employ certain operational practices that are not approved, or even forbidden, by various aircraft manufacturers, including engine failure training methods in multi engine aircraft.
Then there is the allegation that CASA has worked in collusion with the ATSB to circumvent the provisions of the TSA act regarding confidentiality of reporting and independence of the ATSB (and perhaps AsA as well).
Then there is the allegation that the regulatory overburden CASA has instigated has resulted in aircraft operating costs in Australia being Three times the North American equivalent which has resulted in economic damage to the Australian economy.
THen there is the alegation that CASA has engineered a situation where Australia no longer conforms to its treaty obligations regarding safety required as a member of the ICAO.
...That enough allegations for you?
Of course none of the allegations may be true, however....
And the "Safety" mantra doesn't wash if you simply look at the costs imposed in Australia versus the safety outcome. Contrary to popular opinion, risk management professionals can and do calculate the value of a human life and use that number along with probability estimates to calculate the economic return on investing in safety.
If one used those scores, I suspect that CASA and the ATSB would be showing a very negative rate of return to the Australian public.
And of course the ultimate hypocrisy; if the good Senators ever find that there is any truth in the allegations above, what will CASA immediately do?
Thats right, call to be treated with "fairness, equity and natural justice" - something they allegedly routinely deny to the rest of the industry.
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Apr 2013 at 06:18.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa, atsb asa - The Modern Bureaucrat
Well done P1
Top summary Sunny!!
Either way, as they bowl a few bouncers at Kharon he steps forward and puts the ball over the fence at the Styx Cricket Ground.
Umpire Gobbledock raises his middle finger and indicates it is a robust "6-6-6".
The crowd goes wild.
But their is more to come as Kharon will go on to make a double century.
But what a line up with Sarcs, UITA, Thorn Bird, aroa, halfmanhalfbatsmen and even Oleo yet to bat.....
Game on.
Umpire Gobbledock raises his middle finger and indicates it is a robust "6-6-6".
The crowd goes wild.
But their is more to come as Kharon will go on to make a double century.
But what a line up with Sarcs, UITA, Thorn Bird, aroa, halfmanhalfbatsmen and even Oleo yet to bat.....
Game on.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 19th Apr 2013 at 01:28. Reason: More stuff
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life Lesson # 302
Do Not Disagree With Kharon (or even slightly mock him/her or even ask for an elaboration of metaphors and facts)
He/she or his/her henchmen will attack you verbally and your input will not in any case be taken seriously.
I am minded of the old saying: "In defeating monsters take care not to become one"
Also not a few shades of Animal Farm..... "Two legs good, four legs better!"
Basic rule Kharon..... What is right not who is right. And you're not right just because you say so in flowery language and a loud pen. Evidence based findings are where it's at, not verbal tyranny.
These are serious issues and allegations and need to be treated as such.
Proceed
Do Not Disagree With Kharon (or even slightly mock him/her or even ask for an elaboration of metaphors and facts)
He/she or his/her henchmen will attack you verbally and your input will not in any case be taken seriously.
I am minded of the old saying: "In defeating monsters take care not to become one"
Also not a few shades of Animal Farm..... "Two legs good, four legs better!"
Basic rule Kharon..... What is right not who is right. And you're not right just because you say so in flowery language and a loud pen. Evidence based findings are where it's at, not verbal tyranny.
These are serious issues and allegations and need to be treated as such.
Proceed
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, take a chill pill Herr Algie. You are going to blow a foofer valve over what.....rumours. That's all, nothing but rumours on a rumour network. So why stress, why take it personal, why demand answers to questions from Kharon when likely he doesn't have the answers because rumours are just that - rumours, unconfirmed truths? This is a rumour network is it not?
Henchmen? Hope you are not aiming that rumour at myself? Not me surely?
I would never be a henchman, however i do freelance as a 'Protection Servant' and steer Kharon around on a Kevlar fortified houseboat which also has bullet proof glass, mounted weapons, it's own oxygen supply, and some additional 'shelfware'. It is a dangerous job being a houseboat Captain on the River Styx, or a Senator for that matter.
Henchmen? Hope you are not aiming that rumour at myself? Not me surely?
I would never be a henchman, however i do freelance as a 'Protection Servant' and steer Kharon around on a Kevlar fortified houseboat which also has bullet proof glass, mounted weapons, it's own oxygen supply, and some additional 'shelfware'. It is a dangerous job being a houseboat Captain on the River Styx, or a Senator for that matter.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 19th Apr 2013 at 01:07.
You are going to blow a foofer valve over what.....rumours. That's all, nothing but rumours on a rumour network. So why stress, why take it personal, why demand answers to questions from Kharon when likely he doesn't have the answers because rumours are just that - rumours, unconfirmed truths? This is a rumour network is it not?
If it is merely the rehashing of rumours and innuendo and doesn't serve any real purpose but to allow a vocal minority the opportunity to indulge in quips and quibbles then it has long since served its purpose. I have stated before that all the references to Minnie Bannister and Gobbledock makes the aviation community look foolish at best and idiotic at worst if the intended readership is the Austalian Senate!
However while people like Sarcs and PAIN_NET continue to post useful links and factual information then it has a reason to stay open. Even Sunfish provides useful background information on the character traits of some executives of large organisations.
I am not disagreeing with the premise that the bureaucracy of CASA and the ATSB is flawed but lets keep the discussion relevant and not a depository for cast-off scripts from 50's radio programs
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the future - responsibility for their actions
Well LookLeft, on with what you wish to see.
Give some support to your supposition as follows:
LookLeft - Add to the argument, don't be the argument.
Give some support to your supposition as follows:
I am not disagreeing with the premise that the bureaucracy of CASA and the ATSB is flawed....
The argument being made by LL and others, with which argument I agree, is that the content of many of the posts from a small number of repeat posters on this thread is irrelevant or illogical rubbish and, consequently and ironically, doesn’t help the cause of air safety or DJ at all.
Any substantial action arising out of the Senate Committee’s inquiry and report will be as a consequence of the evidence given and submissions made to the Committee, not the content of this thread.
Some obvious conclusions can be drawn from a sober discussion and analysis of the evidence given and submissions made to the Committee. It’s disappointing that some posters can’t confine themselves to that kind of discussion.
Any substantial action arising out of the Senate Committee’s inquiry and report will be as a consequence of the evidence given and submissions made to the Committee, not the content of this thread.
Some obvious conclusions can be drawn from a sober discussion and analysis of the evidence given and submissions made to the Committee. It’s disappointing that some posters can’t confine themselves to that kind of discussion.
“Gold Star” award for Sunny!
Sunny perfectly summarises the current status quo at Fort Fumble, I particularly liked the legal term ‘Barratry’:
But is it something that could be proven in a court of law?
However perhaps we are jumping ahead of ourselves here, so let’s reflect on Dom’s submission first and where he said….
“Section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act was written to prevent any person - regardless of who they are - from interfering with the ATSB's process of investigation. If one was to inhabit the mind of the author of Section 24 and the scenario they wished to prevent, then the events surrounding the investigation of the Norfolk Island accident would almost certainly be what they had in mind. Therefore, in order to respect the purpose of Section 24, it is vital that action be taken when it becomes evident it has been breached....”
To put that in context this was where s24 was first bought up in the inquiry:
So the guy has a point but is there also more elements of criminality or administrative law breaches here that need exploring?
Dom finishes up by saying…
“All I ask is that this matter be referred to the appropriate authority so that evidence can be given under oath and the facts be examined in the appropriate forum….”
So if the Senators have referred or are considering referring this matter (presumably to the AFP) for investigation what else is potentially a breach of commonwealth laws? And is there enough evidence here and within the inquiry to justify the AFP investigating?
Perhaps a good place to start exploring possible breaches would be in here: Criminal Code Act 1995
The middle section of which looks promising, here’s a sample to consider:
Food for thought…maybe others, with a more legal bent, might have suggestions to chuck into the mix?? 
On a side note and also from page 22 of the Hansard 15/02/2013 we got this:
And page 23…
So what ever happened to the supp submission from FF?? Maybe the DAS was advised to quit while they were ahead..well sort of ahead!
:
Barratry (pron.: /ˈbærətri/ BA-rə-tree) is a legal term with several meanings. In common law, barratry is the offence committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment.
However perhaps we are jumping ahead of ourselves here, so let’s reflect on Dom’s submission first and where he said….
“Section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act was written to prevent any person - regardless of who they are - from interfering with the ATSB's process of investigation. If one was to inhabit the mind of the author of Section 24 and the scenario they wished to prevent, then the events surrounding the investigation of the Norfolk Island accident would almost certainly be what they had in mind. Therefore, in order to respect the purpose of Section 24, it is vital that action be taken when it becomes evident it has been breached....”
To put that in context this was where s24 was first bought up in the inquiry:
From page 22 of Hansard 15/02/2013:
Senator XENOPHON: I will just read it to you:
24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct);
…
You do not see that you in any way adversely impacted on the ATSB's investigation by not releasing the Chambers report?
Senator XENOPHON: I will just read it to you:
24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct);
…
You do not see that you in any way adversely impacted on the ATSB's investigation by not releasing the Chambers report?
Dom finishes up by saying…
“All I ask is that this matter be referred to the appropriate authority so that evidence can be given under oath and the facts be examined in the appropriate forum….”
So if the Senators have referred or are considering referring this matter (presumably to the AFP) for investigation what else is potentially a breach of commonwealth laws? And is there enough evidence here and within the inquiry to justify the AFP investigating?
Perhaps a good place to start exploring possible breaches would be in here: Criminal Code Act 1995
The middle section of which looks promising, here’s a sample to consider:
136.1 False or misleading statements in applications
137.1 False or misleading information
137.2 False or misleading documents
139.2 Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official
142.2 Abuse of public office
145.4 Falsification of documents etc.
145.5 Giving information derived from false or misleading documents
149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials
137.1 False or misleading information
137.2 False or misleading documents
139.2 Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official
142.2 Abuse of public office
145.4 Falsification of documents etc.
145.5 Giving information derived from false or misleading documents
149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials
On a side note and also from page 22 of the Hansard 15/02/2013 we got this:
Mr McCormick: At this stage is it possible that we could perhaps put in a supplementary submission at some stage in light of the information that has come up to date?
CHAIR: Cease fire. Thank you. Will you be putting in a supplementary report?
Mr McCormick: Given the issues we are looking at, is that acceptable?
CHAIR: That is okay. We are most grateful for your attendance. Thank you very much.
Mr McCormick: Thank you.
Mr McCormick: Given the issues we are looking at, is that acceptable?
CHAIR: That is okay. We are most grateful for your attendance. Thank you very much.
Mr McCormick: Thank you.
Last edited by Sarcs; 19th Apr 2013 at 09:01.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Sunny
Thank you Sunfish, that is exactly what I was looking for.
Thorn bird, I was so startled by the enormity of your misconception:
and the length of time that I have been persona non grata within even the postcode of the "castle", that I fell off my chair in hysterics.
Even though I share similar convictions about certain agency behaviours, I have been a little less amused by the blind passion on display - as the original Prince would say:
Thorn bird, I was so startled by the enormity of your misconception:
Prince, if as I suspect, you live in the castle,
Even though I share similar convictions about certain agency behaviours, I have been a little less amused by the blind passion on display - as the original Prince would say:
It is far better to identify the absence of balance in your attack than it is to leave it for your enemy to use as another arrow in his quiver.
Last edited by Prince Niccolo M; 19th Apr 2013 at 08:38.
A couple of the key elements of the offence created by s 24 of the TSI Act are that:
Section 5.4 of the Criminal Code Act says:
Some scenarios to consider out of that.
If I deliberately destroy or hide or alter some information that is patently relevant to an investigation, believing and intending that my conduct will adversely affect the investigation, but in the event my conduct makes no difference in fact to the course and findings of the investigation, I do not commit an offence under 24.
If I don’t disclose information because I honestly believe the information is not relevant to an investigation, but in the event the non-disclosure of the information in fact results in the investigation taking the wrong course and making substantially incorrect or incomplete findings, I do not commit an offence under 24.
If I honestly believe that it is not necessary to pursue some aspects of an investigation and instead decide to pursue others, and it turns out my decision results in the investigation in fact taking the wrong course and making substantially incorrect or incomplete findings, I do not commit an offence under 24.
I get the impression that the folks pressing for action under s 24 of the TSI Act are alleging that a person or persons withheld information from or provided incorrect information to, or made wrong decisions about the course of, the ATSB’s Pel Air investigation, with the result that the investigation was adversely affected.
Let’s call withholding information from or providing incorrect information to an investigation, or making wrong decisions about the course of the investigation, the “conduct”.
In order for the person/s engaging in that conduct to commit an offence under 24:
(1) the person/s must:
(a) know that the conduct will adversely affect an investigation, or
(b) intend that the conduct will adversely affect an investigation, or
(c) be aware of a substantial risk that the conduct will adversely affect an investigation (and, having regard to the circumstances known to the person/s, it is unjustifiable to take that risk); and
(2) the conduct must have the result of adversely affecting the investigation.
In relation to the special audit report, for example, my understanding from the evidence given to the Committee is that Mr McCormick decided not to disclose the report to the ATSB because he believed that disclosure could ‘contaminate’ the investigation. In other words, I interpret what he said as meaning that he engaged in that conduct so as to avoid adversely affecting the investigation.
Some people might disagree with that decision, and some people might not believe the explanation for the decision. But that does not make the explanation untrue.
In relation to the decisions about what would and would not be done in the course of the investigation, and when, my understanding of the evidence given to the Committee by the ATSB is that the ATSB believes those to have been the correct decisions in the circumstances.
Some people might disagree with those decisions, and some people might not believe the explanation for those decisions. But that does not make the explanation untrue.
It will be interesting to read what the Committee’s Report says about these issues. But for those waiting with bated breath (in pprune speak: baited breathe), I think you are going to be disappointed.
- the person is reckless as to whether the conduct [in which the person engages] will adversely affect an investigation
- the conduct has the result of adversely affecting [the] investigation.
- the conduct has the result of adversely affecting [the] investigation.
5.4 Recklessness
(1) A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if:
(a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and
(b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.
(2) A person is reckless with respect to a result if:
(a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and
(b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.
(3) The question whether taking a risk is unjustifiable is one of fact.
(4) If recklessness is a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.
(1) A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if:
(a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and
(b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.
(2) A person is reckless with respect to a result if:
(a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and
(b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.
(3) The question whether taking a risk is unjustifiable is one of fact.
(4) If recklessness is a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.
If I deliberately destroy or hide or alter some information that is patently relevant to an investigation, believing and intending that my conduct will adversely affect the investigation, but in the event my conduct makes no difference in fact to the course and findings of the investigation, I do not commit an offence under 24.
If I don’t disclose information because I honestly believe the information is not relevant to an investigation, but in the event the non-disclosure of the information in fact results in the investigation taking the wrong course and making substantially incorrect or incomplete findings, I do not commit an offence under 24.
If I honestly believe that it is not necessary to pursue some aspects of an investigation and instead decide to pursue others, and it turns out my decision results in the investigation in fact taking the wrong course and making substantially incorrect or incomplete findings, I do not commit an offence under 24.
I get the impression that the folks pressing for action under s 24 of the TSI Act are alleging that a person or persons withheld information from or provided incorrect information to, or made wrong decisions about the course of, the ATSB’s Pel Air investigation, with the result that the investigation was adversely affected.
Let’s call withholding information from or providing incorrect information to an investigation, or making wrong decisions about the course of the investigation, the “conduct”.
In order for the person/s engaging in that conduct to commit an offence under 24:
(1) the person/s must:
(a) know that the conduct will adversely affect an investigation, or
(b) intend that the conduct will adversely affect an investigation, or
(c) be aware of a substantial risk that the conduct will adversely affect an investigation (and, having regard to the circumstances known to the person/s, it is unjustifiable to take that risk); and
(2) the conduct must have the result of adversely affecting the investigation.
In relation to the special audit report, for example, my understanding from the evidence given to the Committee is that Mr McCormick decided not to disclose the report to the ATSB because he believed that disclosure could ‘contaminate’ the investigation. In other words, I interpret what he said as meaning that he engaged in that conduct so as to avoid adversely affecting the investigation.
Some people might disagree with that decision, and some people might not believe the explanation for the decision. But that does not make the explanation untrue.
In relation to the decisions about what would and would not be done in the course of the investigation, and when, my understanding of the evidence given to the Committee by the ATSB is that the ATSB believes those to have been the correct decisions in the circumstances.
Some people might disagree with those decisions, and some people might not believe the explanation for those decisions. But that does not make the explanation untrue.
It will be interesting to read what the Committee’s Report says about these issues. But for those waiting with bated breath (in pprune speak: baited breathe), I think you are going to be disappointed.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, good to see you bringing the thread back on track
You pose some quite interesting points, no arguments here.
Without mentioning names, groups or whatever other descriptors people want to use, a lot of us on here do have in mind our own desired outcome from the senate inquiry. There are literally hundreds of different outcomes that people want to see take place, for different reasons and relating to different items.
For all the CAsA sins on offer, and by god there are plenty, for me ultimately I want to see justice and closure for any and all victims by way of injury or death, that has occurred with some measure of regulatory cause as a factor. The actions and no accountability on CASA stemming from CASA actions, or lack of, is appalling. Lockhart is to me what Erebus is to others, a travesty of justice. At Lockhart people died and their families have a life sentence.
For those onboard the Pel Air submarine who are suffering trauma, shame or feeling like justice and truth has deserted them. Some of you will have life long scars.
For the Quadrio's, Butsons, and a number of Ppruners who have also been victimised and persecuted mercilessly beyond what is justifiable (if it ever was) will bear life long financial scars.
Then you have Canley Vale, the victims of Hempel and so the list grows...industry bullied, CAsA's own employees bullied, Government ineptitude and taxpayers fleeced. I better stop as I can't see through the steam rising from the turd...
So for gods sake can we quit the 'he said she said' crap and whoever is interested keep focused on the inquiry as the primary objective (and a bit of the odd humour, disagreement and tautology is fine). Some people use emotion in their speech, some are articulate like an English professor, some use humor and wit, some are downright smutty and some speak in riddles or poetry. Who cares!! We are all individuals and express ourselves differently, no amount of nitpicking will change any of us...
The Senators are nobody's fools, if you don't believe there is even a measure of fact or truth in some of the obvious evidence they have unearthed then you should check out now.
Creampuff, so true, are CAsA made from Teflon? Certainly it has been that way for many years. Will this be the inquiry from which the Teflon wears off? Who knows, the CAsA have some powerful backers, friends and allies. But they also have some powerful opponents, some well known and some not.
To the thread......
You pose some quite interesting points, no arguments here.
Without mentioning names, groups or whatever other descriptors people want to use, a lot of us on here do have in mind our own desired outcome from the senate inquiry. There are literally hundreds of different outcomes that people want to see take place, for different reasons and relating to different items.
For all the CAsA sins on offer, and by god there are plenty, for me ultimately I want to see justice and closure for any and all victims by way of injury or death, that has occurred with some measure of regulatory cause as a factor. The actions and no accountability on CASA stemming from CASA actions, or lack of, is appalling. Lockhart is to me what Erebus is to others, a travesty of justice. At Lockhart people died and their families have a life sentence.
For those onboard the Pel Air submarine who are suffering trauma, shame or feeling like justice and truth has deserted them. Some of you will have life long scars.
For the Quadrio's, Butsons, and a number of Ppruners who have also been victimised and persecuted mercilessly beyond what is justifiable (if it ever was) will bear life long financial scars.
Then you have Canley Vale, the victims of Hempel and so the list grows...industry bullied, CAsA's own employees bullied, Government ineptitude and taxpayers fleeced. I better stop as I can't see through the steam rising from the turd...
So for gods sake can we quit the 'he said she said' crap and whoever is interested keep focused on the inquiry as the primary objective (and a bit of the odd humour, disagreement and tautology is fine). Some people use emotion in their speech, some are articulate like an English professor, some use humor and wit, some are downright smutty and some speak in riddles or poetry. Who cares!! We are all individuals and express ourselves differently, no amount of nitpicking will change any of us...
The Senators are nobody's fools, if you don't believe there is even a measure of fact or truth in some of the obvious evidence they have unearthed then you should check out now.
Creampuff, so true, are CAsA made from Teflon? Certainly it has been that way for many years. Will this be the inquiry from which the Teflon wears off? Who knows, the CAsA have some powerful backers, friends and allies. But they also have some powerful opponents, some well known and some not.
To the thread......
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 19th Apr 2013 at 11:29.
To Creamy well done! You have proven beyond 'reasonable doubt' that is mere folly to attack the 'dark side' on the suspicion of breaking the law, whether it be criminal, civil or administrative.
To Oleo well done! Thread back on track and all the injustices revealed and out in the open revealing an out of control regulator that has severely lost its way and in the process severely diminished the reputation of the once proud institution of the ATSB/BASI.
I would like to point out that we have now moved on from this inquiry, the report has been written the recommendations are soon to be tabled, the Senators and committee secretariat have all done their job and can do no more, so now where do we go?
Well it is easy really, we go to the lower house (the main house) and demand that the Minister makes the inquiry findings and recommendations a priority and addresses industry concerns ASAP as a primary Ministry concern. Or what?...Or be called to account for allowing such a despicable case of maladministration be allowed to continue unabated under the Ministers watch...so help me god..hic..
!
Now back to the houseboat as the ferryman's put on a keg...hic..!
To Oleo well done! Thread back on track and all the injustices revealed and out in the open revealing an out of control regulator that has severely lost its way and in the process severely diminished the reputation of the once proud institution of the ATSB/BASI.
I would like to point out that we have now moved on from this inquiry, the report has been written the recommendations are soon to be tabled, the Senators and committee secretariat have all done their job and can do no more, so now where do we go?
Well it is easy really, we go to the lower house (the main house) and demand that the Minister makes the inquiry findings and recommendations a priority and addresses industry concerns ASAP as a primary Ministry concern. Or what?...Or be called to account for allowing such a despicable case of maladministration be allowed to continue unabated under the Ministers watch...so help me god..hic..
! Now back to the houseboat as the ferryman's put on a keg...hic..
!
I want to see justice and closure for any and all victims by way of injury or
death, that has occurred with some measure of regulatory cause as a factor
death, that has occurred with some measure of regulatory cause as a factor
Well it is easy really, we go to the lower house (the main house) and demand that the Minister makes the inquiry findings and recommendations a priority and addresses industry concerns ASAP as a primary Ministry concern.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookleft
Sarcs you and I both know that with an election coming up all Senate inquiries will be null and void. This Minister has rejected a request from the industry to put a junior minister in place to help him with the aviation part of his portfolio. The writs for the election get issued in August. That only gives three months for a government on the way out to do anything even if it wanted to. Any recommendations will be a part of the National archives once they are released.
Well it is easy really, we go to the lower house (the main house) and demand that the Minister makes the inquiry findings and recommendations a priority and addresses industry concerns ASAP as a primary Ministry concern.
Will icao end up downgrading Australia. Does the Australian government want to risk that?
The senate can't unlearn the revelations and weaknesses brought out in this inquiry. They are all on Hansard and soon the report. If there is subsequently an incident that may have been prevented if the issues brought out from this senate inquiry had been acted on it wouldn't be a great position to be in.
Now over 325,000 views, I suspect this is already being viewed outside Australia as the numbers rise overnight.
I think this quote must be the announcement to CASA staff. Taken from this thread.
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...casa-head.html
QUOTE]
From CEO Bruce Byron
John McCormick will take over as the new chief executive officer of CASA from 1 March 2009. Infrastructure and Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, announced the appointment of Mr McCormick today. Mr Albanese said:
"The Rudd Labor Government places the highest importance on aviation safety and is very pleased to have someone of Mr McCormick’s calibre and experience taking the reins of CASA. Mr McCormick will take up his responsibilities at an exciting time for the nation’s civil aviation industry. The Government has provided a framework for the industry’s future development with the release last week of our Aviation Green Paper, the next stage in the development of the nation’s first ever long term Aviation Strategy or White Paper.
Safety is at the forefront of the Green Paper and as the independent safety regulator, CASA has a crucial role to play in maintaining Australia’s proud safety record. To improve its governance arrangements as well as provide stronger support to the CEO and the Minister, I recently announced the Government intends to put in place a small, independent Board for CASA.
An early priority for Mr McCormick will therefore be to prepare for the establishment of this Board in July 2009. The Government acknowledges and thanks Mr Bruce Byron for his outstanding contribution as CASA CEO over the past five years as well as his personal commitment to the highest of safety standards and necessary internal reforms. He leaves CASA well placed to meet future challenges."
John has worked for Cathay Pacific since 1987, having been with Qantas as a second officer on the B747-200 from 1984 to 1987. Prior to that he held various positions within the RAAF, serving a number of overseas tours. At Cathay Mr McCormick started as a first officer on the B747-200 and rose to become chief pilot and manager training for the airline's Boeing fleet, before taking over as general manager Operations in Hong Kong. This role included responsibility for the airline's air operators certificates and all applicable regulatory matters. For the last two years he has been a Brisbane-based line pilot and is a senior training captain on the A330/340s.
Mr McCormick brings a wealth of up-to-date and international industry experience to CASA which will further strengthen our senior management team. I have no doubt his fresh perspective and ideas will drive continued improvements to CASA, building on the success of our change program which has been strongly endorsed by the Government. I can report that the field of candidates for the CEOs position was strong and in itself this speaks volumes for the respect CASA now has in the Australian and international aviation communities.
I know you will all look forward to meeting John McCormick and will give him your full support and loyalty. In the meantime, I look forward to the next few months as I complete my term as CEO and get our organisation ready for a smooth transition to a new leader who will bring a commitment to building on our current successes and striving for continued improvement.
From CEO Bruce Byron
John McCormick will take over as the new chief executive officer of CASA from 1 March 2009. Infrastructure and Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, announced the appointment of Mr McCormick today. Mr Albanese said:
"The Rudd Labor Government places the highest importance on aviation safety and is very pleased to have someone of Mr McCormick’s calibre and experience taking the reins of CASA. Mr McCormick will take up his responsibilities at an exciting time for the nation’s civil aviation industry. The Government has provided a framework for the industry’s future development with the release last week of our Aviation Green Paper, the next stage in the development of the nation’s first ever long term Aviation Strategy or White Paper.
Safety is at the forefront of the Green Paper and as the independent safety regulator, CASA has a crucial role to play in maintaining Australia’s proud safety record. To improve its governance arrangements as well as provide stronger support to the CEO and the Minister, I recently announced the Government intends to put in place a small, independent Board for CASA.
An early priority for Mr McCormick will therefore be to prepare for the establishment of this Board in July 2009. The Government acknowledges and thanks Mr Bruce Byron for his outstanding contribution as CASA CEO over the past five years as well as his personal commitment to the highest of safety standards and necessary internal reforms. He leaves CASA well placed to meet future challenges."
John has worked for Cathay Pacific since 1987, having been with Qantas as a second officer on the B747-200 from 1984 to 1987. Prior to that he held various positions within the RAAF, serving a number of overseas tours. At Cathay Mr McCormick started as a first officer on the B747-200 and rose to become chief pilot and manager training for the airline's Boeing fleet, before taking over as general manager Operations in Hong Kong. This role included responsibility for the airline's air operators certificates and all applicable regulatory matters. For the last two years he has been a Brisbane-based line pilot and is a senior training captain on the A330/340s.
Mr McCormick brings a wealth of up-to-date and international industry experience to CASA which will further strengthen our senior management team. I have no doubt his fresh perspective and ideas will drive continued improvements to CASA, building on the success of our change program which has been strongly endorsed by the Government. I can report that the field of candidates for the CEOs position was strong and in itself this speaks volumes for the respect CASA now has in the Australian and international aviation communities.
I know you will all look forward to meeting John McCormick and will give him your full support and loyalty. In the meantime, I look forward to the next few months as I complete my term as CEO and get our organisation ready for a smooth transition to a new leader who will bring a commitment to building on our current successes and striving for continued improvement.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 19th Apr 2013 at 17:24.