Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ESSOSKULL man
I have this info from a very reliable honest source who does not tell fibs.
I would have love to have a snapshot a such a scene.
The attacks he has made on others seems so pathetic after such a stupid thing for himself to do. Wonder what the execs thought. He would have blamed the car as a narcissist would.
I can't help but have a giggle at the thought of him carrying a jerry can to refuel his ride. Ha ha he he!
I would have love to have a snapshot a such a scene.
The attacks he has made on others seems so pathetic after such a stupid thing for himself to do. Wonder what the execs thought. He would have blamed the car as a narcissist would.
I can't help but have a giggle at the thought of him carrying a jerry can to refuel his ride. Ha ha he he!
Did they recover the recorders?
Ziggy:
And:
God forbid not a Comcar? Well I hope they followed SOPs and put an entry in the trip and tech logs?
And did they pull the tapes?
That'd be interesting to see...no wonder his ears were already beetroot red by the time they got to the AMROBA meeting....love it!
Almost as good as Albo going to the AAT or Beaker forgetting to memo his underlings and Albo's circus troupe on the new Beakerised 'Beyond all Reason' world's best practice investigative methodology!
Slight drift here but I noticed Ben's article on the 2nd and final day of the NTSB inquiry and thought it was worth relaying:
Fancy that a transport safety watchdog not pulling any punches nor afraid to call it it for what it is..."Obfuscation" (day one) and "Regulatory Capture" (day two)
.
The difference in process is striking and I bet Congress won't be sitting on their hands saying " The evidence is overwhelming that you've all been very naughty boys'n'girls but here's another bucket of money to squander as you see fit, after all you guys are the experts..."
Hmm back to climbing Mt Noncompliance....
I have this info from a very reliable honest source who does not tell fibs.
I would have love to have a snapshot a such a scene.
I would have love to have a snapshot a such a scene.
He was in a CASA car...oops!
And did they pull the tapes?
That'd be interesting to see...no wonder his ears were already beetroot red by the time they got to the AMROBA meeting....love it! Almost as good as Albo going to the AAT or Beaker forgetting to memo his underlings and Albo's circus troupe on the new Beakerised 'Beyond all Reason' world's best practice investigative methodology!
Slight drift here but I noticed Ben's article on the 2nd and final day of the NTSB inquiry and thought it was worth relaying:
FAA exposed as captive and incompetent over 787 safety
Let’s be frank about the just completed two day NTSB hearing in Washington DC which looked at how the FAA certified the Boeing 787 Dreamliner as safe.
Based on the disclosures admitted in the hearings, the FAA was captive to Boeing’s wishes, failed to do its job in a safe and professional manner , and foisted on the travelling public an airliner which met only second rate standards when it came to its use of the heavy duty lithium-ion batteries whose failures in January led to the Dreamliners being grounded.
Consider this measured editorial article in Forbes by John Goglia, a distinguished and widely respected former NTSB board member.
No one expected the two-day NTSB hearings that concluded Wednesday to answer the question why the Boeing 787’s lithium ion batteries dangerously overheated and in one case caught fire after only 52,000 hours of flight when Boeing had predicted that possibility as one in ten million flight hours. That answer is likely months, if not a year or more, away. But one could have expected an answer to why Boeing failed to use the standards developed by an independent advisory board – an advisory board that Boeing co-chaired – to re-assess the batteries before the aircraft was approved for passenger use. And why the FAA failed to mandate that re-assessment.
Despite sharp questioning from NTSB Chair, Deborah Hersman, both the FAA and Boeing witnesses failed to give satisfactory answers. In what was described by observers as smooth, obviously prepped performances, FAA and Boeing witnesses artfully dodged responding to why they didn’t take the time to re-test these batteries against a standard the FAA asked to be developed after a fire broke out at SecuraPlane, the Arizona manufacturer of the 787’s battery charger. The best these witnesses seemed able to muster were that the standards developed were too severe.
Minimum Standards Should Have Been Addressed
But how severe could they be if they’re termed “minimum standards”? The document prepared at the FAA’s request is titled Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Rechargeable Lithium Battery Systems. According to RTCA, the developer of the standard, the document is “a comprehensive standard that addresses large rechargeable lithium battery systems installed on aircraft used as a power source…” The standards cover the gamut of certification issues from safety to design to production to quality assurance and even proper shipping. RTCA is a private, not-for-profit association that serves as a federal advisory committee to the FAA for certification of avionics products used in aircraft. The FAA’s own advisory circular recommends compliance with RTCA-developed standards.
If the public is to have any faith in FAA certification, it needs an answer to why industry developed minimum standards were not used when new technology was introduced into our nation’s airliners. The implications for future certifications are obvious – and of tremendous concern.
The performance of the FAA as the supposed preeminent air safety regulator in the world in relation to the 787 was disgraceful, and has undermined public safety to satisfy Boeing’s commercial imperatives.
The additional unanswered questions arising are whether, when and how the FAA will reform itself to do the job the world expects, and what else, if anything, it has botched in its certification of the Dreamliner.
The 787 airlines and their Dreamliner passengers will soon have an opportunity to find out the answer to that last question.
Let’s be frank about the just completed two day NTSB hearing in Washington DC which looked at how the FAA certified the Boeing 787 Dreamliner as safe.
Based on the disclosures admitted in the hearings, the FAA was captive to Boeing’s wishes, failed to do its job in a safe and professional manner , and foisted on the travelling public an airliner which met only second rate standards when it came to its use of the heavy duty lithium-ion batteries whose failures in January led to the Dreamliners being grounded.
Consider this measured editorial article in Forbes by John Goglia, a distinguished and widely respected former NTSB board member.
No one expected the two-day NTSB hearings that concluded Wednesday to answer the question why the Boeing 787’s lithium ion batteries dangerously overheated and in one case caught fire after only 52,000 hours of flight when Boeing had predicted that possibility as one in ten million flight hours. That answer is likely months, if not a year or more, away. But one could have expected an answer to why Boeing failed to use the standards developed by an independent advisory board – an advisory board that Boeing co-chaired – to re-assess the batteries before the aircraft was approved for passenger use. And why the FAA failed to mandate that re-assessment.
Despite sharp questioning from NTSB Chair, Deborah Hersman, both the FAA and Boeing witnesses failed to give satisfactory answers. In what was described by observers as smooth, obviously prepped performances, FAA and Boeing witnesses artfully dodged responding to why they didn’t take the time to re-test these batteries against a standard the FAA asked to be developed after a fire broke out at SecuraPlane, the Arizona manufacturer of the 787’s battery charger. The best these witnesses seemed able to muster were that the standards developed were too severe.
Minimum Standards Should Have Been Addressed
But how severe could they be if they’re termed “minimum standards”? The document prepared at the FAA’s request is titled Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Rechargeable Lithium Battery Systems. According to RTCA, the developer of the standard, the document is “a comprehensive standard that addresses large rechargeable lithium battery systems installed on aircraft used as a power source…” The standards cover the gamut of certification issues from safety to design to production to quality assurance and even proper shipping. RTCA is a private, not-for-profit association that serves as a federal advisory committee to the FAA for certification of avionics products used in aircraft. The FAA’s own advisory circular recommends compliance with RTCA-developed standards.
If the public is to have any faith in FAA certification, it needs an answer to why industry developed minimum standards were not used when new technology was introduced into our nation’s airliners. The implications for future certifications are obvious – and of tremendous concern.
The performance of the FAA as the supposed preeminent air safety regulator in the world in relation to the 787 was disgraceful, and has undermined public safety to satisfy Boeing’s commercial imperatives.
The additional unanswered questions arising are whether, when and how the FAA will reform itself to do the job the world expects, and what else, if anything, it has botched in its certification of the Dreamliner.
The 787 airlines and their Dreamliner passengers will soon have an opportunity to find out the answer to that last question.
.The difference in process is striking and I bet Congress won't be sitting on their hands saying " The evidence is overwhelming that you've all been very naughty boys'n'girls but here's another bucket of money to squander as you see fit, after all you guys are the experts..."
Hmm back to climbing Mt Noncompliance....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday special report
Gobbledock has transmitted 'screen shots' (the first of many) from the confidential UN archives. The following was lodged as an ICAO difference, subtly camouflaged and hidden deep within sub files, eventually surfacing under the title – 'Work station protocols'.
When a new DAS is appointed, there is a solemn, highly secret handover ceremony during which the keys to two cabinets are passed on to the new incumbent. The whole event is conducted in semi dark, mirrored room with piped in voodoo drum music and sacred smoke. The long, hooded ceremonial robes and masks are made to order and smuggled in by the 'pot plant' company. The climax is where the sacred keys are handed over in a cunningly disguised petrol can (exempt from DG regs).
Key 1 is for the Healing cupboard, myth and legend surround this ancient metal edifice (designed by the Wright brothers); but when awkward little problems and broken things turn up, they are placed in the cabinet, secret incantations and sacrifice is offered. After a suitable period of time (variable) the item may be taken out, dusted off and returned to service – all fixed up. There are problems deep within the edifice which have been there 25 years and although a full recovery is expected, it is difficult to say when.
Key 2 is for the Trophy Cabinet, highly polished, brightly lit and lined with a velvety material. Legend has it the framework is made from the bones of previous aviation inquiry, the lining from the hide of any who dared to challenge the mystique. This edifice is maintained just inside the entry portal as a reminder to all who enter; that there is a place, on a shelf for your pitiful, puling complaint.
Perhaps the Pel Air inquiry will end up in the trophy cabinet, but there are a couple or three differences this go around: (i) there is no certainty that this happy band have been believed or that they have convinced anyone to cover the flaccid rump: with spin – the issues could be sheeted home to Ministerial oversight and in a highly charged election year, who knows. (ii) Lots of folks know that the Committee are fully aware of the issues and cannot afford to let the matter slide: there exists the potential for catastrophic political ramifications. Would you vote for a Polly who knew then failed to act and an unthinkable happened ??. You could, probably, throw a pinch of increased ICAO/FAA attention into the pot as flavouring.
Ayup, - it's a lottery; but time will tell and we shall have to wait and see what emerges, battered and dusty from the Healing cabinet.
When a new DAS is appointed, there is a solemn, highly secret handover ceremony during which the keys to two cabinets are passed on to the new incumbent. The whole event is conducted in semi dark, mirrored room with piped in voodoo drum music and sacred smoke. The long, hooded ceremonial robes and masks are made to order and smuggled in by the 'pot plant' company. The climax is where the sacred keys are handed over in a cunningly disguised petrol can (exempt from DG regs).
Key 1 is for the Healing cupboard, myth and legend surround this ancient metal edifice (designed by the Wright brothers); but when awkward little problems and broken things turn up, they are placed in the cabinet, secret incantations and sacrifice is offered. After a suitable period of time (variable) the item may be taken out, dusted off and returned to service – all fixed up. There are problems deep within the edifice which have been there 25 years and although a full recovery is expected, it is difficult to say when.
Key 2 is for the Trophy Cabinet, highly polished, brightly lit and lined with a velvety material. Legend has it the framework is made from the bones of previous aviation inquiry, the lining from the hide of any who dared to challenge the mystique. This edifice is maintained just inside the entry portal as a reminder to all who enter; that there is a place, on a shelf for your pitiful, puling complaint.
Perhaps the Pel Air inquiry will end up in the trophy cabinet, but there are a couple or three differences this go around: (i) there is no certainty that this happy band have been believed or that they have convinced anyone to cover the flaccid rump: with spin – the issues could be sheeted home to Ministerial oversight and in a highly charged election year, who knows. (ii) Lots of folks know that the Committee are fully aware of the issues and cannot afford to let the matter slide: there exists the potential for catastrophic political ramifications. Would you vote for a Polly who knew then failed to act and an unthinkable happened ??. You could, probably, throw a pinch of increased ICAO/FAA attention into the pot as flavouring.
Ayup, - it's a lottery; but time will tell and we shall have to wait and see what emerges, battered and dusty from the Healing cabinet.
Last edited by Kharon; 27th Apr 2013 at 21:58.
Kharon, I am willing to bet a $10 donation to your nominated charity that the CASA response to the Senate report will be a plan to reorganise itself.
As you must know, as Tacitus observed, a reorganisation gives the impression of change while the reality is that CASA will continue to go on its merry way as it sees fit.
As you must know, as Tacitus observed, a reorganisation gives the impression of change while the reality is that CASA will continue to go on its merry way as it sees fit.
Last edited by Sunfish; 27th Apr 2013 at 22:15.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny – I have to agree that may well be the CASA proposed and preferred plan; but the question is can the senate afford to accept it and become part of the problem? Take the Senate response out of the equation and the CASA still have to face down the industry, and there is the rub. Will the industry put up with more of the same or will it finally use the balls, brains and expertise required to finance, manage, operate and survive in an increasingly tough environment and say Bollocks – enough? Now that's a bet I would avoid; I should be able to take it without hesitation, but $10 is a fearful risk – considering the past track record. Insert some ancient quotation to suit – here.
Got to run - BBQ on the houseboat today, Bar Room Barristers Beaker outfit shindig: should be fun, they've found "the" service station and gotten a hold of the CCTV footage. Can't wait.........
(A little later) - BRB regret that due to the explicit nature of the CCTV footage it is unavailable for public consumption; however the advertorial survived the censor.
– With a smile.
Got to run - BBQ on the houseboat today, Bar Room Barristers Beaker outfit shindig: should be fun, they've found "the" service station and gotten a hold of the CCTV footage. Can't wait.........
(A little later) - BRB regret that due to the explicit nature of the CCTV footage it is unavailable for public consumption; however the advertorial survived the censor.
Last edited by Kharon; 28th Apr 2013 at 01:07. Reason: delightfully irrisistable.
Newsflash: JQ is Gobble's new chopper pilot in Montreal!
I was half way up Mt Noncompliance contemplating yet another FF crevasse followed by a geyser of FF pony pooh, when lo and behold JQ and Gobbles were hovering above me in a shiny new Bell 406. Gobbles manned the winch and within minutes I was pass the FF PNR onwards and upwards….we proceeded to a point 343 metres above sea level and this is what we found…
Note: Creamy touched on this NCN briefly but perhaps it needs a bit more exploring to test the FF veracity on their proposed actions/inactions (by proxi notified differences) and it is also relevant in regards to the inquiry i.e. Flight recorders err OBRs…err CVRs!
1) FF said they were going to file a difference with ICAO by 31 October 2008! Did they?
Well after much teasing, fluffing, huffing and puffing mixed in with a series of expletives (FFS there must be literally thousands of notified differences to ICAO!) while reading over the extremely convoluted AIP SUP H12/11, I finally think I’ve found it in the Annex 6 section.
Here is what it says at Para 3.6.3.4.2.2…“No standards are specified in Australian legislation for the preservation of flight recorder records.”
However after you read the Annex 6 applicable reference, to which the FAA NCN supposedly refers, you begin to wonder if the notified difference really covers it??
And 11.6
I also question the paragraph reference ‘3.6.3.4.2.2’ (or any of the para references for that matter) and what on earth the correlation is to the applicable ICAO reference.
Note: Just out of interest I decided to explore our ANZAC ‘brothers in arms’ over the ditch and how they sort out compliance with the ICAO Annexes, in particular Annex 6. Here is what I found ‘Click Here’.
Very user friendly they even have a web page devoted to ICAO Compliance……yet another tick for the Kiwi system!
Anyway back to the FF promised actions and implementation dates…
2) “Address issue during CASR Part 91 drafting and development”…by 31 December 2008…hmm got a feeling this is heading for another FF crevasse but I could be wrong??
Ah that would be a no and also answers this proposed action by FF… 3) “Develop and promulgate CASR Part 91” by 31 December 2009!
So the jury is out but my bet is on a majority vote of 12 on this NCN!
Doin a Sundy arvo Kelpie!
Note: Creamy touched on this NCN briefly but perhaps it needs a bit more exploring to test the FF veracity on their proposed actions/inactions (by proxi notified differences) and it is also relevant in regards to the inquiry i.e. Flight recorders err OBRs…err CVRs!
1) FF said they were going to file a difference with ICAO by 31 October 2008! Did they?
Well after much teasing, fluffing, huffing and puffing mixed in with a series of expletives (FFS there must be literally thousands of notified differences to ICAO!
) while reading over the extremely convoluted AIP SUP H12/11, I finally think I’ve found it in the Annex 6 section. Here is what it says at Para 3.6.3.4.2.2…“No standards are specified in Australian legislation for the preservation of flight recorder records.”
However after you read the Annex 6 applicable reference, to which the FAA NCN supposedly refers, you begin to wonder if the notified difference really covers it??
6.3.11.2
To preserve flight recorder records, flight recorders shall be de-activated upon completion of flight time following an accident or incident. The flight recorders shall not be re-activated before their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.
Note 1.— The need for removal of the flight recorder records from the aircraft will be determined by the investigation authority in the State conducting the investigation with due regard to the seriousness of an occurrence and the circumstances, including the impact on the operation.
Note 2.— The operator’s responsibilities regarding the retention of flight recorder records are contained in 11.6.
To preserve flight recorder records, flight recorders shall be de-activated upon completion of flight time following an accident or incident. The flight recorders shall not be re-activated before their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.
Note 1.— The need for removal of the flight recorder records from the aircraft will be determined by the investigation authority in the State conducting the investigation with due regard to the seriousness of an occurrence and the circumstances, including the impact on the operation.
Note 2.— The operator’s responsibilities regarding the retention of flight recorder records are contained in 11.6.
11.6 Flight recorder records
An operator shall ensure, to the extent possible, in the event the aeroplane becomes involved in an accident or incident, the preservation of all related flight recorder records and, if necessary, the associated flight recorders, and their retention in safe custody pending their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.
An operator shall ensure, to the extent possible, in the event the aeroplane becomes involved in an accident or incident, the preservation of all related flight recorder records and, if necessary, the associated flight recorders, and their retention in safe custody pending their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.
Note: Just out of interest I decided to explore our ANZAC ‘brothers in arms’ over the ditch and how they sort out compliance with the ICAO Annexes, in particular Annex 6. Here is what I found ‘Click Here’.
Very user friendly they even have a web page devoted to ICAO Compliance……yet another tick for the Kiwi system!
Anyway back to the FF promised actions and implementation dates…
2) “Address issue during CASR Part 91 drafting and development”…by 31 December 2008…hmm got a feeling this is heading for another FF crevasse but I could be wrong??
Ah that would be a no and also answers this proposed action by FF… 3) “Develop and promulgate CASR Part 91” by 31 December 2009!
So the jury is out but my bet is on a majority vote of 12 on this NCN!
Doin a Sundy arvo Kelpie!
Last edited by Sarcs; 28th Apr 2013 at 07:33. Reason: Sorry Gobbles I know f*#k all about choppers!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transparency and evidence to become CAsA's new mantra...
Sarcs, you touch on a valid point in your last post. It is more often than not difficult to trace any FF mitigation strategies or progress reports on NCN's. As industry, the public and the Senators know, more often than not, FF do absolutely nothing but polish the turd.
The Gobbledock emailed me from the UN Council this morning as he had been discussing the issue of smoke and mirrors with Kofi. The UN Supremo advised Gobbles that he suggest that the Australian Senators in their final report push for transparency from FF when they are audited by say ICAO, FAA and ANAO as an example.
FF should have all audit reports as well as a documented list of findings placed on their website or better still, on the DIFTR web page, with an easily findable and distinguishable tab for all to see. Then we can go on there and we can 'keep the bastards honest' considering nobody else does.
• We can ensure FF are meeting mitigation timelines, if not, they should write a robust explanation. No more delays, obsfucation, stalling, spinning or assclownery.
• They should clearly outline each findings root cause, immediate actions and then final mitigation strategy.
• Once the corrective action has been addressed and a fix put in place we should also see evidence of a follow up review of the fix, to ensure it is effective and working.
• Correspondence with the Ministers office over such matters also be tabled and available to the public for review. Again, it would be expected that the Minister, minions, CAsA Execs, the bloated Board all being public servants and accountable to the taxpayer should be more than happy to accommodate that request?
• We should see documented evidence of who 'owns' the non-compliance, in other words which department and senior manager, to ensure accountability is met.
• No more bloated Board bureaucrats or FF execs popping out glossy papers full
of.....sh#t. We are entitled to facts, action plans, evidence and mitigation. Full stop.
• Lastly all international trips undertaken by any CAsA employ should also be listed publicly and contain full details of the trip including reason, a trip report, exact costs including accommodation, meals, airfares, allowances, names of participants and a briefing on how that taxpayer funded trip is commensurate with the participating individuals role in the organisation and in what way said trip will add value to or increase Australian aviation safety.
This is just a start, and please feel free to add your thoughts, but if FF are 'as good' as they wish people to believe they are then they surely would not have a problem doing the above? It is what they expect of industry so why don't they set the example and lead the way? This would be best practise and would help break down the mystique of aviation and possibly even enable them to regain a measure of respect?
P.S Sarcs, Gobbles got fired up over your R66 comment, you know how testy he can get, and he reckons (in his words) that they are, quote; "a heap of pony pooh and he wouldn't be caught naked and covered in molasses in one, and Bell Rangers kick ass and he would like to pilot one straight up JMacs a......." End quote.
He also said to say hi to Flyingfiend and he also said "(C)".
The Gobbledock emailed me from the UN Council this morning as he had been discussing the issue of smoke and mirrors with Kofi. The UN Supremo advised Gobbles that he suggest that the Australian Senators in their final report push for transparency from FF when they are audited by say ICAO, FAA and ANAO as an example.
FF should have all audit reports as well as a documented list of findings placed on their website or better still, on the DIFTR web page, with an easily findable and distinguishable tab for all to see. Then we can go on there and we can 'keep the bastards honest' considering nobody else does.
• We can ensure FF are meeting mitigation timelines, if not, they should write a robust explanation. No more delays, obsfucation, stalling, spinning or assclownery.
• They should clearly outline each findings root cause, immediate actions and then final mitigation strategy.
• Once the corrective action has been addressed and a fix put in place we should also see evidence of a follow up review of the fix, to ensure it is effective and working.
• Correspondence with the Ministers office over such matters also be tabled and available to the public for review. Again, it would be expected that the Minister, minions, CAsA Execs, the bloated Board all being public servants and accountable to the taxpayer should be more than happy to accommodate that request?
• We should see documented evidence of who 'owns' the non-compliance, in other words which department and senior manager, to ensure accountability is met.
• No more bloated Board bureaucrats or FF execs popping out glossy papers full
of.....sh#t. We are entitled to facts, action plans, evidence and mitigation. Full stop.
• Lastly all international trips undertaken by any CAsA employ should also be listed publicly and contain full details of the trip including reason, a trip report, exact costs including accommodation, meals, airfares, allowances, names of participants and a briefing on how that taxpayer funded trip is commensurate with the participating individuals role in the organisation and in what way said trip will add value to or increase Australian aviation safety.
This is just a start, and please feel free to add your thoughts, but if FF are 'as good' as they wish people to believe they are then they surely would not have a problem doing the above? It is what they expect of industry so why don't they set the example and lead the way? This would be best practise and would help break down the mystique of aviation and possibly even enable them to regain a measure of respect?
P.S Sarcs, Gobbles got fired up over your R66 comment, you know how testy he can get, and he reckons (in his words) that they are, quote; "a heap of pony pooh and he wouldn't be caught naked and covered in molasses in one, and Bell Rangers kick ass and he would like to pilot one straight up JMacs a......." End quote.
He also said to say hi to Flyingfiend and he also said "(C)".
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 28th Apr 2013 at 07:10.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oleo,
There should be information published on the progress of industry audits against program. No detail needed. Just the numbers, on schedule any overdue, breakdown by region / office. Oh, ncn's raised and status overdue, etc.
Well 29th so report could be out today? Perhaps FF got an advance copy faxed at 5pm Friday?
(C) shelf ware.
There should be information published on the progress of industry audits against program. No detail needed. Just the numbers, on schedule any overdue, breakdown by region / office. Oh, ncn's raised and status overdue, etc.
Well 29th so report could be out today? Perhaps FF got an advance copy faxed at 5pm Friday?
(C) shelf ware.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 28th Apr 2013 at 20:47.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Palace revolution.
It's all Sunny's fault – BRB discussion (suitably lubricated and fed) on "reorganisation" if it comes to pass. Consensus – Can't possibly allow the CASA, as it stands, to manage 'their' internal reshuffle. It wasn't quite put that way – but -
Paul Phelan – extract – To hell with the rules.
Clearly, looking at Sarcs post and response to the FAA/ICAO audit (100 NCN) they were and remain 'philosophically challenged'.
Pete rules – OK.
Paul Phelan – extract – To hell with the rules.
On Friday of the same week in Canberra at a meeting of some, but not all CASA executive managers, the mood was one of outright revolt, with complete rejection of Byron’s announcements. Byron was not present and it is understood no minutes were kept.
Three separate sources say that ‘the feeling of the meeting,’ rich in expletives, was expressed in terms of “We are the safety experts, we’ll tell the bastards what the rules are, and what the policy is, and if they don’t like it, we’ll run them out of the industry.”
The meeting “agreed” that all the reform program changes put in place in 1996/1999 were a grave mistake, and they would put that right because the Government had “got it wrong”.
Obviously interesting times still lay ahead. In fact the meeting also “decided” that in the face of concerted opposition, Byron would back down and they would have a free run; that the DOTARS and the Minister would not stand in their way, so there would be no more “pandering to the industry” in terms of consultation.
One attendee at the meeting declared that all the changes the PAP had put in place were ‘not Government policy,’ notwithstanding that the PAP briefed the Minister monthly.
Only a few days after the meeting, Byron called in three of the executives without involving his Deputy and Chief Operating Officer Bruce Gemmell. The three, who left CASA almost immediately, included Bill McIntyre, CASA’s (then) Executive Manager of Standards who had overseen the controversial rule rewrite.
A month after the meeting, on 24 November 2004, Byron issued two directives to Gemmell, with immediate effect. They were clear and uncompromising, and again spelt out the goals of the program using now-familiar phrases.
Directive 16/2004 – Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework -set out to establish guiding principles for the development of the regulatory framework and to provide clear guidance for the development of proposed aviation safety regulations.
The regulations were to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks, with each proposed regulation to be assessed against the contribution it would make to aviation safety.
Wherever possible, the CASRs were to be drafted to specify the safety outcome required, unless, in the interests of safety and to address known or likely aviation safety risks, detailed requirements were to be presented.
This is exactly what EASA rules deliver, and is why the EASA committee recommended to Byron that adopting EASA maintenance rules would achieve another of his objectives (published elsewhere) which was:
“Wherever possible, aviation safety regulations are to be developed within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs, together with appropriate guidance material.”
Manuals of Standards (MOSs) were to be developed only where there was a clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to mandate standards that for the purpose of clarity should not be contained in the Regulations.
Notably, the CASA lawyers had emphasised that a MOS would have to be referred to in the regulations, and would therefore become a third tier of legislation – highly undesirable and work-intensive when a MOS will contain material that needs regular updating in practice.
The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the contribution made to aviation safety, and a MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating advisory material and other information.
And all proposed CASA Parts and MOSs were to be assessed against the guiding principles.
Directive 17/2004 – Regulatory Advisory Panels – required Regulatory Advisory Panels to be established in relation to each CASR Part under development, and the work of the panels to be separate from and additional to the existing consultative arrangements through the Standards Consultative Committee.
The RAPs were to advise the CEO on the proposed content of each CASR Part and, where applicable, the associated MOS, prior to publication of a discussion paper, NPRM or submission to the Minister, in relation to that Part.
The Advisory Panels would comprise:
The directives, which were fully in line with (then) Minister Anderson’s comprehensive charter letter to Mr Byron on his appointment in November 2003, came shortly after the departure of the three executives. It sent a strong message to other officials still pushing for the mountain of regulation that had been under preparation since CASA set aside the industry consultation input of the PAP in the late 1990s. The directives represented a 180-degree turn away from “prescriptive” regulations whose development over the past six years had ploughed ahead in the face of vigorous industry opposition.
Among the remaining symptoms of substantial internal resistance to CASA reform, had been embedded contempt for the reform process, continued antipathy to the concept of industry consultation, the determination of CASA to walk away from modern regulatory frameworks and guidelines, a growing confrontational mentality that has further damaged industry relations, and an apparent absence of acknowledgement of, and compliance with, international obligations.
Three separate sources say that ‘the feeling of the meeting,’ rich in expletives, was expressed in terms of “We are the safety experts, we’ll tell the bastards what the rules are, and what the policy is, and if they don’t like it, we’ll run them out of the industry.”
The meeting “agreed” that all the reform program changes put in place in 1996/1999 were a grave mistake, and they would put that right because the Government had “got it wrong”.
Obviously interesting times still lay ahead. In fact the meeting also “decided” that in the face of concerted opposition, Byron would back down and they would have a free run; that the DOTARS and the Minister would not stand in their way, so there would be no more “pandering to the industry” in terms of consultation.
One attendee at the meeting declared that all the changes the PAP had put in place were ‘not Government policy,’ notwithstanding that the PAP briefed the Minister monthly.
Only a few days after the meeting, Byron called in three of the executives without involving his Deputy and Chief Operating Officer Bruce Gemmell. The three, who left CASA almost immediately, included Bill McIntyre, CASA’s (then) Executive Manager of Standards who had overseen the controversial rule rewrite.
A month after the meeting, on 24 November 2004, Byron issued two directives to Gemmell, with immediate effect. They were clear and uncompromising, and again spelt out the goals of the program using now-familiar phrases.
Directive 16/2004 – Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework -set out to establish guiding principles for the development of the regulatory framework and to provide clear guidance for the development of proposed aviation safety regulations.
The regulations were to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks, with each proposed regulation to be assessed against the contribution it would make to aviation safety.
Wherever possible, the CASRs were to be drafted to specify the safety outcome required, unless, in the interests of safety and to address known or likely aviation safety risks, detailed requirements were to be presented.
This is exactly what EASA rules deliver, and is why the EASA committee recommended to Byron that adopting EASA maintenance rules would achieve another of his objectives (published elsewhere) which was:
“Wherever possible, aviation safety regulations are to be developed within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs, together with appropriate guidance material.”
Manuals of Standards (MOSs) were to be developed only where there was a clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to mandate standards that for the purpose of clarity should not be contained in the Regulations.
Notably, the CASA lawyers had emphasised that a MOS would have to be referred to in the regulations, and would therefore become a third tier of legislation – highly undesirable and work-intensive when a MOS will contain material that needs regular updating in practice.
The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the contribution made to aviation safety, and a MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating advisory material and other information.
And all proposed CASA Parts and MOSs were to be assessed against the guiding principles.
Directive 17/2004 – Regulatory Advisory Panels – required Regulatory Advisory Panels to be established in relation to each CASR Part under development, and the work of the panels to be separate from and additional to the existing consultative arrangements through the Standards Consultative Committee.
The RAPs were to advise the CEO on the proposed content of each CASR Part and, where applicable, the associated MOS, prior to publication of a discussion paper, NPRM or submission to the Minister, in relation to that Part.
The Advisory Panels would comprise:
- Chair of the Standards Consultative Committee
- Project Manager for the relevant Part.
- Manager from the relevant Standards branch (nominated by EM Standards)
- Member of the SCC (Nominated by the SCC)
- Member of the ASF (Nominated by the ASF)
- Inspector / Manager from the relevant area of Compliance (Nominated by EM Compliance)
- Independent member of the aviation industry (nominated by the CEO)
- Member of the Office of Legal Counsel (nominated by General Counsel)
- Representative of the Department of Transport and Regional Services
- Adviser from the Office of the CEO (Nominated by the CEO)
The directives, which were fully in line with (then) Minister Anderson’s comprehensive charter letter to Mr Byron on his appointment in November 2003, came shortly after the departure of the three executives. It sent a strong message to other officials still pushing for the mountain of regulation that had been under preparation since CASA set aside the industry consultation input of the PAP in the late 1990s. The directives represented a 180-degree turn away from “prescriptive” regulations whose development over the past six years had ploughed ahead in the face of vigorous industry opposition.
Among the remaining symptoms of substantial internal resistance to CASA reform, had been embedded contempt for the reform process, continued antipathy to the concept of industry consultation, the determination of CASA to walk away from modern regulatory frameworks and guidelines, a growing confrontational mentality that has further damaged industry relations, and an apparent absence of acknowledgement of, and compliance with, international obligations.
Pete rules – OK.
Last edited by Kharon; 28th Apr 2013 at 22:22. Reason: Trendy - long post, my turn...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce vs the Faceless Men
Kharon, nice post. The length is impressive. The only issue I have with the actions that Byron took is that he didn't get rid of all the people he should have.
I recall the same sort of stunts being pulled by a 'faceless man'' during Mr Smiths tenure. The same individual has continued the slide up the greasy pole into a very high position.
Perhaps some people are putting spells on the DAS's or placing magic potions in their coffees or cigars??
I recall the same sort of stunts being pulled by a 'faceless man'' during Mr Smiths tenure. The same individual has continued the slide up the greasy pole into a very high position.
Perhaps some people are putting spells on the DAS's or placing magic potions in their coffees or cigars??
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 28th Apr 2013 at 22:41. Reason: Working out who Wodger learned his tricks from. Hmmmm
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMROBA war drums.
There was a significant meeting held in Brisbane recently, the thread – General Aviation Meeting – started on Pprune is beginning to define many of the current and ongoing problems faced by the industry. The focus is on the perilous situation general aviation finds itself through very little fault of its own making. This discussion is germane to the Senate Inquiry as it clearly defines the mindset CASA adopt when dealing with the industry they overlook - on any matter.
The AMROBA website is available for public viewing.
The Sarcs – and – Owen Meany posts are worth the few seconds it takes to read. For those not wholly convinced there are significant issues affecting the safety of the travelling public, perhaps this small glimpse into one minor issue may assist to form a clearer view.
The AMROBA website is available for public viewing.
The Sarcs – and – Owen Meany posts are worth the few seconds it takes to read. For those not wholly convinced there are significant issues affecting the safety of the travelling public, perhaps this small glimpse into one minor issue may assist to form a clearer view.
Last edited by Kharon; 29th Apr 2013 at 01:35. Reason: Not too much drift, considering the wind.
Former fire chief appointment!
Puts a whole new light on this part of the 22/10/2012 inquiry Hansard:
Word is there is a fulltime former fire chief stationed outside the DAS’s office to rescue him every time he gets his head stuck in the roof and to put out the fire when his stogies land in the pink bats, which inevitably always happens after he has read a Kharon or Oleo post!
Note: Just before liftoff!
CHAIR: We have had an interesting day. As you know, I am Australia's most disgraced senator and I am grumpy. The evidence we have received today is that you are also grumpy, a bullying and an intimidator of people. I presume you think you are just a calm and collected bossy boss.
Mr McCormick: I do not think I am a bully in any respect, but you have other people here who you can ask—
CHAIR: So you are just a bossy boss, are you?
Mr McCormick: No, I am not a bossy boss at all. What I found when I got to CASA, as I think we have discussed before, is that there was a significant lack of direction, and perhaps some of the things that we see and we are here discussing may be direct outcomes of some of that lack of direction and focus.
Mr McCormick: I do not think I am a bully in any respect, but you have other people here who you can ask—
CHAIR: So you are just a bossy boss, are you?
Mr McCormick: No, I am not a bossy boss at all. What I found when I got to CASA, as I think we have discussed before, is that there was a significant lack of direction, and perhaps some of the things that we see and we are here discussing may be direct outcomes of some of that lack of direction and focus.
Note: Just before liftoff!
Last edited by Sarcs; 29th Apr 2013 at 02:54. Reason: Ok back to the 'land of the long white post'!
Be very careful what you say about people here and remember that this is about developing a just, fair, equitable and economically efficient system of safety regulation.
Failure to stay on message and descending into hatred, ridicule and contempt dooms your cause.
Your best approach is to fail to understand why certain inconsistencies eventuate.
Failure to stay on message and descending into hatred, ridicule and contempt dooms your cause.
Your best approach is to fail to understand why certain inconsistencies eventuate.
Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Apr 2013 at 04:20.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem that the Australian experiment with EASA has been an abject failure in delivering what the original "brief" called for.
It would also seem that EASA themselves are having trouble making their reg's work given the level of complaint from industry in Europe. Shouldn't Australia look at realigning ours?
I have read it would be impossible for us to copy FAA reg's due to the incompatibility between our legal systems, is this true?
NZ's legal system had the same roots as ours, British Law, would it be easier to adopt their reg's? they seem to work very well.
I have also heard that regulations in Australia cannot be written in plane language because of our legal system, yet the Kiwi reg's are, why is this?
Why has it cost over $250 million for our reg's yet I'm told not much more than $5 million for the Kiwi reg's?
Does Australia achieve better safety outcomes than compatible countries?
It would also seem that EASA themselves are having trouble making their reg's work given the level of complaint from industry in Europe. Shouldn't Australia look at realigning ours?
I have read it would be impossible for us to copy FAA reg's due to the incompatibility between our legal systems, is this true?
NZ's legal system had the same roots as ours, British Law, would it be easier to adopt their reg's? they seem to work very well.
I have also heard that regulations in Australia cannot be written in plane language because of our legal system, yet the Kiwi reg's are, why is this?
Why has it cost over $250 million for our reg's yet I'm told not much more than $5 million for the Kiwi reg's?
Does Australia achieve better safety outcomes than compatible countries?
Last edited by thorn bird; 29th Apr 2013 at 10:16.
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
As a social experiment, nothing has been of any benefit to any person in this entire Country. Political, Bureaucratic, or as will be shown "Royal Commissions" called for by a mob of Athiest Republicans hell bent on decimating The Catholic Church or any other organisation that represents a leadership role in civil society.
Excepting the CASA of course.
A pox on the lot of them.
Given, both sides, (England/US), fought a war on their principles, and we share a Christian background, and a belief in the burden of proof being put on the accuser, why would there be any inconsistencies unless some clown, by stealth, altered that same burden of proof with strict liability and criminal outcomes that make all pilot's un-caught, open season great unwashed targets?
Is there an inquisition under way?
I'll barrack for the bloke in the big hat without the pot plant.
Excepting the CASA of course.
A pox on the lot of them.
I have read it would be impossible for us to copy FAA reg's due to the incompatibility between our legal systems, is this true?
Is there an inquisition under way?
I'll barrack for the bloke in the big hat without the pot plant.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heffernan 2008 comments on CASA Inquiry
CASA Inquiry handed down > Senator The Hon. Bill Heffernan
CASA Inquiry handed down
Senator HEFFERNAN - As Senator Abetz, who is in the chamber, would know, I am not here to talk about Gunns in Tasmania and I am not here to talk about the High Court; I am here to talk about this report. I support the chair’s remarks on the report and the enthusiasm which the committee took to that report. One of the great difficulties for the flying public is to be confident that it is a safe environment. One of the precursors of that is for us to have confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as the supervising authority.
This report rings some warning bells for the continuing relationship between air safety and viable airlines. One of the risks for all airlines is that, in the competitive market of discounted airfares, the airline, to protect its financial capacity to fly, may endanger its physical capacity to fly - in other words, if they cut back the maintenance enough the planes eventually start falling out of the sky. To that end, there have been some concerns raised by the Australian public and certainly by people in the industry that discounted maintenance could be a problem. So there needs to be confidence in the board to supervise maintenance of aircraft in places like Malaysia, and I intend to table a couple of documents to that effect in a moment.
The committee is very much of the view that we need to have a small board overseeing CASA. This would bring to account some of what is seen as unaccountability for the inconsistency of treatment by CASA officers in various regions. There does not seem to be harmonisation across the regions and, as the chairman said, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia raised that issue. The report says:
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association … criticised response times and lack of assistance from CASA senior management. At the same time, AOPAA emphasised that there are many knowledgeable and helpful CASA staff. AOPAA told the Committee:
‘… it takes an inordinate length of time to get a response from CASA senior management and sometimes the responses we get are, shall we say, less than helpful. Whereas, when we deal with staff who are at the coalface, we find them to be very helpful. We get on and we get results.’
Then concerns were raised about who these people are that CASA sends out to supervise operators and keep flying safe. As the chairman said, the turnover of staff in CASA is, to say the least, unusually high. Whether that is personality based or career based I am unaware, but CASA informed the committee:
… the issue of training is something that we are aware of. It is probably the last major part of the change program to really nail down. I reiterate the point that we do have a lot of new people who have current technical qualifications.
I have to say, we were given examples where CASA people came out to supervise some technical aspects of maintenance where the person who was doing the maintaining obviously knew more than the person who was doing the supervising. That was a problem. The Aerial Agriculture Association raised the same problem of inconsistency in the interpretation and application of CASA policy. They are a vital little flying force out there in the bush, but they see themselves having less relevance and getting rougher treatment sometimes from the CASA people. They are issues that emphasise the case, as the chairman has said. The committee recommended:
… introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA -
as well as bringing to account, as it were, the capacity of people who have a complaint to go to the board, which can then go and say ‘How do you do’ to the senior staff at CASA, whereas in the present arrangement someone out in the bush, down the track or in a city who has a problem can sometimes, because of the blockers that are in the system, never get access to senior enough staff to meaningfully put their problems.
The great challenge for the future of flying is for the airlines at some point in time to understand that they are actually going to have to tell the flying public the real cost of flying. Because of discounting, the real cost of flying at the moment is in many ways not being reflected, which means there is less emphasis on repairs and maintenance and more on discounting fares. I think that is going to be a serious problem in the future, unless somehow the flying public understands that there are certain set costs in the system. Paying for your lunch on the plane is token compared to some of the serious maintenance that has to go on. To that end, we need to protect our brand names. Qantas is just one of the best branded entities on the planet, and we need to protect Qantas at all costs.
By the way, I have to declare two things. I am an old pilot. I got my pilot’s licence in 1965 ... I am a pilot and, I have to say, my daughter is a proud employee of Qantas.
This is a serious problem of protecting Australia’s aviation industry and protecting the brand name of our major flyers. There are several good airlines and there are certainly some good regional airlines, but the public needs to know that the people who are doing the supervising are up to the task. To that end, I would like to table two paper clippings which I have shown the government and the Leader of the Opposition.
Well this one turned out to be option (c) shelfware.
CASA Inquiry handed down
Senator HEFFERNAN - As Senator Abetz, who is in the chamber, would know, I am not here to talk about Gunns in Tasmania and I am not here to talk about the High Court; I am here to talk about this report. I support the chair’s remarks on the report and the enthusiasm which the committee took to that report. One of the great difficulties for the flying public is to be confident that it is a safe environment. One of the precursors of that is for us to have confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as the supervising authority.
This report rings some warning bells for the continuing relationship between air safety and viable airlines. One of the risks for all airlines is that, in the competitive market of discounted airfares, the airline, to protect its financial capacity to fly, may endanger its physical capacity to fly - in other words, if they cut back the maintenance enough the planes eventually start falling out of the sky. To that end, there have been some concerns raised by the Australian public and certainly by people in the industry that discounted maintenance could be a problem. So there needs to be confidence in the board to supervise maintenance of aircraft in places like Malaysia, and I intend to table a couple of documents to that effect in a moment.
The committee is very much of the view that we need to have a small board overseeing CASA. This would bring to account some of what is seen as unaccountability for the inconsistency of treatment by CASA officers in various regions. There does not seem to be harmonisation across the regions and, as the chairman said, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia raised that issue. The report says:
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association … criticised response times and lack of assistance from CASA senior management. At the same time, AOPAA emphasised that there are many knowledgeable and helpful CASA staff. AOPAA told the Committee:
‘… it takes an inordinate length of time to get a response from CASA senior management and sometimes the responses we get are, shall we say, less than helpful. Whereas, when we deal with staff who are at the coalface, we find them to be very helpful. We get on and we get results.’
Then concerns were raised about who these people are that CASA sends out to supervise operators and keep flying safe. As the chairman said, the turnover of staff in CASA is, to say the least, unusually high. Whether that is personality based or career based I am unaware, but CASA informed the committee:
… the issue of training is something that we are aware of. It is probably the last major part of the change program to really nail down. I reiterate the point that we do have a lot of new people who have current technical qualifications.
I have to say, we were given examples where CASA people came out to supervise some technical aspects of maintenance where the person who was doing the maintaining obviously knew more than the person who was doing the supervising. That was a problem. The Aerial Agriculture Association raised the same problem of inconsistency in the interpretation and application of CASA policy. They are a vital little flying force out there in the bush, but they see themselves having less relevance and getting rougher treatment sometimes from the CASA people. They are issues that emphasise the case, as the chairman has said. The committee recommended:
… introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA -
as well as bringing to account, as it were, the capacity of people who have a complaint to go to the board, which can then go and say ‘How do you do’ to the senior staff at CASA, whereas in the present arrangement someone out in the bush, down the track or in a city who has a problem can sometimes, because of the blockers that are in the system, never get access to senior enough staff to meaningfully put their problems.
The great challenge for the future of flying is for the airlines at some point in time to understand that they are actually going to have to tell the flying public the real cost of flying. Because of discounting, the real cost of flying at the moment is in many ways not being reflected, which means there is less emphasis on repairs and maintenance and more on discounting fares. I think that is going to be a serious problem in the future, unless somehow the flying public understands that there are certain set costs in the system. Paying for your lunch on the plane is token compared to some of the serious maintenance that has to go on. To that end, we need to protect our brand names. Qantas is just one of the best branded entities on the planet, and we need to protect Qantas at all costs.
By the way, I have to declare two things. I am an old pilot. I got my pilot’s licence in 1965 ... I am a pilot and, I have to say, my daughter is a proud employee of Qantas.
This is a serious problem of protecting Australia’s aviation industry and protecting the brand name of our major flyers. There are several good airlines and there are certainly some good regional airlines, but the public needs to know that the people who are doing the supervising are up to the task. To that end, I would like to table two paper clippings which I have shown the government and the Leader of the Opposition.
Well this one turned out to be option (c) shelfware.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 29th Apr 2013 at 18:12. Reason: option c
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee whizz Biccy – look on the bright side.
We will always have Pete the Pot plant; and, absolute proof that there are indeed Pete's brethren striving within the hallowed halls of Sleepy Hollow to improve the ambiance, decor and provide fresh air. I admire the robust willpower McComic demonstrated, making the extraordinary effort to maintain the shrubbery despite the huge budgetary pressures inflicted by government austerity and internal pressure groups.
The vexed question of fuel planning and reserves has been resolved, it may be stated that anyone can and probably will run out of noise at one time or the other, even the best and most infallible. A lesson there for the younger crew members.
No, I shall be very glad to have a new telephone directory sized lump of the forest to keep the office door open on hot days, the last one is looking a bit shabby. Result.
I ain't heard no fat lady singing in the key of (C) – yet.
Sunny we ain't Misbehavin' – Just waiting.....
The vexed question of fuel planning and reserves has been resolved, it may be stated that anyone can and probably will run out of noise at one time or the other, even the best and most infallible. A lesson there for the younger crew members.
No, I shall be very glad to have a new telephone directory sized lump of the forest to keep the office door open on hot days, the last one is looking a bit shabby. Result.
I ain't heard no fat lady singing in the key of (C) – yet.
Sunny we ain't Misbehavin' – Just waiting.....
Last edited by Kharon; 29th Apr 2013 at 20:20. Reason: Lobotomies all around.
