Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
has to be seen to be absolutely consistent with the actions taken in the Pel Air case, otherwise ATSB and CASA become complete laughing stocks!
I think the Senate has shown that they already are. This is not the first occasion that RPT jets have been caught with insufficient fuel to go anywhere and have had to land below the minima. The difference in this case is they had to do it at an airport not equipped with an ILS.
Both apparently landed below minima, at least Dominic James didn't try that!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, so we have 'Norfolk', the Diversion to Mildura, the pilots of two different airlines getting caught out with insufficient fuel..........perhaps CAsA and the ATSBeaker may just consider there is something amiss here? Is a once latent condition within the industry now slapping them in the face with warning bells ringing louder than the 'come and indulge' bell attached to a public trough that is beckoning our least favored aviation bureaucrats to indulge in?
To hell with it, Gobbledock ain't coming back from Montreal so let me add; TICK TOCK.
To hell with it, Gobbledock ain't coming back from Montreal so let me add; TICK TOCK.
Last edited by 004wercras; 20th Jun 2013 at 01:41.
DoIT Kingcrat: “Err..the elephant is growing Minister!”
Okay now let’s get this straight…we have the low fuel diversion to YMIA…an urgent response required to the Senate PelAir report/recommendations
…Wazza bagging and promising an inquiry into Fort Fumble
….the OAIC (Information Commissioner) taking FF LSD to task
….the ABC’s Australian Story examining the Hempel disgrace on Monday
…Albo off to the AAT…err there’s probably more??
Meanwhile the Minister is MIA (missing in action..get it?
) and the MSM is too busy pointing out who is or isn’t wearing a blue tie..WTF
?
By the way caught these combined articles from the ‘Torres News’ for further amusement
:
Admittedly not the MSM but I’ve got a feeling it will soon be dangled in front of their noses??!! Hmm...eventually I will get back to those recommendations...
…Wazza bagging and promising an inquiry into Fort Fumble….the OAIC (Information Commissioner) taking FF LSD to task….the ABC’s Australian Story examining the Hempel disgrace on Monday…Albo off to the AAT…err there’s probably more?? Meanwhile the Minister is MIA (missing in action..get it?
) and the MSM is too busy pointing out who is or isn’t wearing a blue tie..WTF?By the way caught these combined articles from the ‘Torres News’ for further amusement
:
CASA under fire over Barrier, Lockhart River tragedy
Entsch vows to pursue CASA on Barrier demise
By MARK BOUSEN
MEMBER for Leichhardt Warren Entsch says he will be calling for a full inquiry into the operations of the Cairns office of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) after the Federal election on September 14.
Currently the Chief Opposition Whip, Mr Entsch was indicating he expects an LNP Government will be elected. and, once in government, he will be able to act.
Speaking in the House of Representatives in Canberra on June 5, Mr Entsch launched a tirade against the Cairns CASA and the demise of Barrier Aviation, concluding his speech with: “After 14 September, I will be calling for a full inquiry.
“I will not let Barrier be destroyed without holding those individuals who are directly responsible for this sordid business accountable for their actions. This industry urgently needs an independent body and rights mechanisms to hold CASA Cairns accountable for their own inadequacies and conduct.”
Barrier Aviation operated a fleet of more than 30 aircraft from bases Horn Island, Gove, Darwin and Cairns, and employed more than 50 staff.
Mr Enstch is able use terms in the House under privilege, which are protected from legal action, but those some protections do not apply to the Torres News, and, regrettably, this newspaper is not able to reproduce them here.
But the Member for Leichhardt was scathing of Cairns CASA and its operations, and named three people he holds responsible.
“What is also unbelievable is the abuse of process. Six months after Barrier was
forced to shut its doors, they still have not been able to test a single allegation in court - and at the cost of $28,000 per day in lost revenue. And to top it off, CASA has sent press release after press release with statements that have never been
tested.”
Mr Entsch continued: “Around 50 people have lost their jobs, investors have lost millions of dollars, and (owner) David Kilin has lost his life’s work. And even now, CASA is not content with just burying Barrier, they want to dance on the grave as
well. I was disgusted to learn that CASA Cairns has been speaking to potential purchasers of Barrier aircraft, threatening that they will not approve their airworthiness.”
CASA said any reply would have to come from Minister Anthony Albanese. "But he is MIA??"
New search ordered for missing CASA documents
By PAUL PHELAN
proavitation.com.au
THE office of the Australian Information Commissioner has served notice on Civil Aviation Safety Authority under the Freedom of Information Act, requiring to re-conduct a previously requested search for documents, and that it “fully document that search.”
The FOI request had been lodged by Mr Shane Urquhart, whose daughter Sally died in the Lockhart River Metro crash more than eight years ago, and who has been a passionate critic of CASA’s oversight of the operator TransAir before the crash, and of its subsequent conduct during the Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation and the inquest.
OAIC wrote to CASA on February 27 this year seeking further details of its search for the documents, which the authority had said it was unable to find.
CASA provided a response on March 14 which, OAIC says, did not satisfactorily explain why it was unable to locate the documents.
OAIC then conducted further enquiries with CASA in late March. CASA’s response to this was regarded as insufficient to show that the documents Mr Urquhart sought did not exist or could not be found.
(All 15 people aboard the Metroliner died when it smashed into a mountain while on approach to the Lockhart River airfield on May 7, 2005. The aircraft, owned by TransAir and operated by Aerotropics, was flying from Bamaga to Cairns.)
Mr Urquhart had applied under FOI for 38 specified documents related to approvals of variations and amendments and additions to TransAir’s air operator’s certificate.
“There may have been some others. The ones I received were quite routine and not remarkable. The issue is that the actual documents we would like to see were in those listed as ‘unable to be located.’
“CASA was prompt in its response to my original request, not charging me and probably hoping I would be happy with what I got and accepting of their excuse for the others.
“ I immediately asked for a review and involved the OAIC. The OAIC has been particularly helpful in assisting me and providing advice.”
Mr Urquhart says his reason for wanting to see the documents is to identify their signatory.
“I believe that it will be very pertinent to the Lockhart River case - i.e. I believe that [a named individual] will be on at least one of the crucial approvals, and that the content will be very relevant to the issues I have been raising.
“I also know that CASA is very aware of what I am seeking and why. I made the point to both CASA and the OAIC that, if the documents cannot be located, it can only follow that they have been lost, stolen, removed or never existed.
“I do not believe the first or last of those situations.”
A lawyer who is involved in the case says: “I have seen something I have never seen before! What an exceptional turn of events!”
CASA’s response was due by June 4.
In an interim response, the Office of the Australian Information Commission told Mr Urquhart on June 11 that CASA proposes to provide the two relevant files to him in full.
“So that you can be satisfied that all documents held on its files have been released to you. Having the entire file may give you some contextual information you wouldn’t obtain if CASA merely extracted the specific documents you requested.”
Entsch vows to pursue CASA on Barrier demise
By MARK BOUSEN
MEMBER for Leichhardt Warren Entsch says he will be calling for a full inquiry into the operations of the Cairns office of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) after the Federal election on September 14.
Currently the Chief Opposition Whip, Mr Entsch was indicating he expects an LNP Government will be elected. and, once in government, he will be able to act.
Speaking in the House of Representatives in Canberra on June 5, Mr Entsch launched a tirade against the Cairns CASA and the demise of Barrier Aviation, concluding his speech with: “After 14 September, I will be calling for a full inquiry.
“I will not let Barrier be destroyed without holding those individuals who are directly responsible for this sordid business accountable for their actions. This industry urgently needs an independent body and rights mechanisms to hold CASA Cairns accountable for their own inadequacies and conduct.”
Barrier Aviation operated a fleet of more than 30 aircraft from bases Horn Island, Gove, Darwin and Cairns, and employed more than 50 staff.
Mr Enstch is able use terms in the House under privilege, which are protected from legal action, but those some protections do not apply to the Torres News, and, regrettably, this newspaper is not able to reproduce them here.
But the Member for Leichhardt was scathing of Cairns CASA and its operations, and named three people he holds responsible.
“What is also unbelievable is the abuse of process. Six months after Barrier was
forced to shut its doors, they still have not been able to test a single allegation in court - and at the cost of $28,000 per day in lost revenue. And to top it off, CASA has sent press release after press release with statements that have never been
tested.”
Mr Entsch continued: “Around 50 people have lost their jobs, investors have lost millions of dollars, and (owner) David Kilin has lost his life’s work. And even now, CASA is not content with just burying Barrier, they want to dance on the grave as
well. I was disgusted to learn that CASA Cairns has been speaking to potential purchasers of Barrier aircraft, threatening that they will not approve their airworthiness.”
CASA said any reply would have to come from Minister Anthony Albanese. "But he is MIA??"
New search ordered for missing CASA documents
By PAUL PHELAN
proavitation.com.au
THE office of the Australian Information Commissioner has served notice on Civil Aviation Safety Authority under the Freedom of Information Act, requiring to re-conduct a previously requested search for documents, and that it “fully document that search.”
The FOI request had been lodged by Mr Shane Urquhart, whose daughter Sally died in the Lockhart River Metro crash more than eight years ago, and who has been a passionate critic of CASA’s oversight of the operator TransAir before the crash, and of its subsequent conduct during the Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation and the inquest.
OAIC wrote to CASA on February 27 this year seeking further details of its search for the documents, which the authority had said it was unable to find.
CASA provided a response on March 14 which, OAIC says, did not satisfactorily explain why it was unable to locate the documents.
OAIC then conducted further enquiries with CASA in late March. CASA’s response to this was regarded as insufficient to show that the documents Mr Urquhart sought did not exist or could not be found.
(All 15 people aboard the Metroliner died when it smashed into a mountain while on approach to the Lockhart River airfield on May 7, 2005. The aircraft, owned by TransAir and operated by Aerotropics, was flying from Bamaga to Cairns.)
Mr Urquhart had applied under FOI for 38 specified documents related to approvals of variations and amendments and additions to TransAir’s air operator’s certificate.
“There may have been some others. The ones I received were quite routine and not remarkable. The issue is that the actual documents we would like to see were in those listed as ‘unable to be located.’
“CASA was prompt in its response to my original request, not charging me and probably hoping I would be happy with what I got and accepting of their excuse for the others.
“ I immediately asked for a review and involved the OAIC. The OAIC has been particularly helpful in assisting me and providing advice.”
Mr Urquhart says his reason for wanting to see the documents is to identify their signatory.
“I believe that it will be very pertinent to the Lockhart River case - i.e. I believe that [a named individual] will be on at least one of the crucial approvals, and that the content will be very relevant to the issues I have been raising.
“I also know that CASA is very aware of what I am seeking and why. I made the point to both CASA and the OAIC that, if the documents cannot be located, it can only follow that they have been lost, stolen, removed or never existed.
“I do not believe the first or last of those situations.”
A lawyer who is involved in the case says: “I have seen something I have never seen before! What an exceptional turn of events!”
CASA’s response was due by June 4.
In an interim response, the Office of the Australian Information Commission told Mr Urquhart on June 11 that CASA proposes to provide the two relevant files to him in full.
“So that you can be satisfied that all documents held on its files have been released to you. Having the entire file may give you some contextual information you wouldn’t obtain if CASA merely extracted the specific documents you requested.”
Hmm...eventually I will get back to those recommendations...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone please check in the lost and found department, ta.
Sarcs, I think Mr Urquhart is a champion. He has respectfully and in a dignified manner kept chipping away at the turd (CAsA) in an attempt to find answers (they are out there) to some serious questions. People like Mr Urquhart seek justice, closure and a measure of peace back in their lives and he deserves it, in full.
You know it is quite interesting how a Prime Minister or even an Aviation Minister will shed a tear when a fellow nimrod announces retirement or bleats on about name calling or victimisation, yet these same people don't bat an eyelid or give a clump of horse manure about citizens who receive injustices at the very hands of those expected to support, protect and assist them, those entrusted to uphold the virtues of the Commonwealth and serve their constituents.
Shane, I don't know if you read some of these ramblings but if you do, keep going, keep searching and don't rest until you find what you need. The answers are out there. Keep enduring and let the bastards know that your daughter has and will not been forgotten.
It is interesting, as per Mr Urquharts FOI request that CAsA's response was 'we can't find all the documents'! Now naturally some would, dare I say, call CAsA out and say that their response is a crock of sh#t, a stall tactic, a diversion, a manipulation of the system designed to buy themselves more time, buy hey, that is what some might say. Then again, pesky details of things such as audit reports, operator approvals, you know things like that can fall between the cracks from time to time and end up in a worm-farm or under the bottom of a hanging pot plant so who knows, maybe they have been lost, along with pages of the Chamber Pot report?
Would not the 'loss' of such important documents allude to a breakdown in CAsA's processes and procedures? Oh dear, such 'losses' in things such as maintenance records and other assorted ditties have seen airlines lose their AOC's or COA's! But no, not CAsA, documents are lost, no records to be found, oh well nothing to see here, move on folks.
What else have they lost? Perhaps some large airlines HOFO approvals? Yeah right. CAsA are very good at maintaining selected 'philes' on individuals both internally and externally. C'mon boys, check the shelfware, it's bound to be sitting there somewhere, check the bowels of TRIM, that great I.T black hole. Or perhaps check the pen drives of the old tossers running the place!! Or maybe just like with the senate inquiry and CAsA and Beakers 'secret meetings' no records or minutes have been kept, all that took place were 'discussions'?
I bet they haven't lost the address of ICAO's building in Montreal? I bet they haven't lost the copies of individual contracts which outline their salaries, bonus schemes and pay increments? Perhaps they have lost copies of ICAO's last audit report, the FAA's findings and all of those pesky 'answers on notice' promised to the Senators?
No, the elephant that was in the middle of the room has turned into a giant herd of the massive beasts, all sitting, pontificating, spinning and poohing in the middle of Parliament House. Not even Ace Ventura can sort this mess.
'Safe skies for all are skies filled with blue ties'.
You know it is quite interesting how a Prime Minister or even an Aviation Minister will shed a tear when a fellow nimrod announces retirement or bleats on about name calling or victimisation, yet these same people don't bat an eyelid or give a clump of horse manure about citizens who receive injustices at the very hands of those expected to support, protect and assist them, those entrusted to uphold the virtues of the Commonwealth and serve their constituents.
Shane, I don't know if you read some of these ramblings but if you do, keep going, keep searching and don't rest until you find what you need. The answers are out there. Keep enduring and let the bastards know that your daughter has and will not been forgotten.
It is interesting, as per Mr Urquharts FOI request that CAsA's response was 'we can't find all the documents'! Now naturally some would, dare I say, call CAsA out and say that their response is a crock of sh#t, a stall tactic, a diversion, a manipulation of the system designed to buy themselves more time, buy hey, that is what some might say. Then again, pesky details of things such as audit reports, operator approvals, you know things like that can fall between the cracks from time to time and end up in a worm-farm or under the bottom of a hanging pot plant so who knows, maybe they have been lost, along with pages of the Chamber Pot report?
Would not the 'loss' of such important documents allude to a breakdown in CAsA's processes and procedures? Oh dear, such 'losses' in things such as maintenance records and other assorted ditties have seen airlines lose their AOC's or COA's! But no, not CAsA, documents are lost, no records to be found, oh well nothing to see here, move on folks.
What else have they lost? Perhaps some large airlines HOFO approvals? Yeah right. CAsA are very good at maintaining selected 'philes' on individuals both internally and externally. C'mon boys, check the shelfware, it's bound to be sitting there somewhere, check the bowels of TRIM, that great I.T black hole. Or perhaps check the pen drives of the old tossers running the place!! Or maybe just like with the senate inquiry and CAsA and Beakers 'secret meetings' no records or minutes have been kept, all that took place were 'discussions'?
I bet they haven't lost the address of ICAO's building in Montreal? I bet they haven't lost the copies of individual contracts which outline their salaries, bonus schemes and pay increments? Perhaps they have lost copies of ICAO's last audit report, the FAA's findings and all of those pesky 'answers on notice' promised to the Senators?
No, the elephant that was in the middle of the room has turned into a giant herd of the massive beasts, all sitting, pontificating, spinning and poohing in the middle of Parliament House. Not even Ace Ventura can sort this mess.
'Safe skies for all are skies filled with blue ties'.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo - AIC.
004 # 2124 –" maybe they have been lost, along with pages of the Chamber Pot report?".
004 # 2124 -"Or maybe just like with the senate inquiry and CAsA and Beakers 'secret meetings' no records or minutes have been kept, all that took place were 'discussions'?".
I do admire the tenacity of Shane Urquhart; it may have taken time and courage but, 'IF' it could ever be proven that anyone has strayed outside of the CASA publicly stated protocol and procedural guidelines (gone independent rogue), or not recorded essential 'facts', the LSD would be obliged to publicly crucify them; before both the civil and criminal courts get a whack. Well, they do say – you pays your money and you takes your chances.
Memo - stay out of pubs and do not mix real Ale with Gobbledock tall tales; filling my poor old wooden head with seditious gossip and scurrilous rumour, bad GD. But, then again...........
Last edited by Kharon; 20th Jun 2013 at 21:40.
Top posts 004, Kharon and bravo Mr Urquhart!
004:
Kharon:
Fort Fumble have been obfuscating the FOI Act for years
, you only need look at the various cases of review littered throughout the IC’s 'website' and prior to the forming of the OAIC (2010 I think?) the various AAT hearings dealing with FF FOI review decisions. Yep like most ‘due process’ issues FF have always been the masters of spin, stalling and diversions (nothing to do with the aeronautical definitions either!).
As I understand it with SU’s request for IC review there was a difference because SU wasn’t questioning the original FF decision and released docs (some of those released documents are ‘here’) but was questioning the validity of FF’s search for the requested documents, because he knew that certain documents did or used to exist. This meant that the review was also handled as a complaint and was subsequently investigated by the OAIC ‘Dispute Resolution Branch’ and has led to FF being forced to do a repeat search for the requested docs. The lawyer involved in the case sums it up with his statement…"I have seen something I have never seen before! What an exceptional turn of events!”
Either way full credit to SU for hanging in there! The net effect is that FF LSD are on notice that the IC is now looking over their shoulder when it comes to their administration of all FOI requests.
Note: 004 remember that Shane has also been fighting the victims cause as well (see Submission 16) and apparently sat in on the final hearing days of the Hempel inquest in support of Samantha Hare (OZ story Monday).
And the Minister is still MIA…hmm hang on...here he is in a happysnap moment..the “teflon man” himself.
It is interesting, as per Mr Urquharts FOI request that CAsA's response was 'we can't find all the documents'! Now naturally some would, dare I say, call CAsA out and say that their response is a crock of sh#t, a stall tactic, a diversion, a manipulation of the system designed to buy themselves more time, buy hey, that is what some might say. Then again, pesky details of things such as audit reports, operator approvals, you know things like that can fall between the cracks from time to time and end up in a worm-farm or under the bottom of a hanging pot plant so who knows, maybe they have been lost, along with pages of the Chamber Pot report?
I do admire the tenacity of Shane Urquhart; it may have taken time and courage but, 'IF' it could ever be proven that anyone has strayed outside of the CASA publicly stated protocol and procedural guidelines (gone independent rogue), or not recorded essential 'facts', the LSD would be obliged to publicly crucify them; before both the civil and criminal courts get a whack. Well, they do say – you pays your money and you takes your chances.
, you only need look at the various cases of review littered throughout the IC’s 'website' and prior to the forming of the OAIC (2010 I think?) the various AAT hearings dealing with FF FOI review decisions. Yep like most ‘due process’ issues FF have always been the masters of spin, stalling and diversions (nothing to do with the aeronautical definitions either!). As I understand it with SU’s request for IC review there was a difference because SU wasn’t questioning the original FF decision and released docs (some of those released documents are ‘here’) but was questioning the validity of FF’s search for the requested documents, because he knew that certain documents did or used to exist
. This meant that the review was also handled as a complaint and was subsequently investigated by the OAIC ‘Dispute Resolution Branch’ and has led to FF being forced to do a repeat search for the requested docs. The lawyer involved in the case sums it up with his statement…"I have seen something I have never seen before! What an exceptional turn of events!”Either way full credit to SU for hanging in there! The net effect is that FF LSD are on notice that the IC is now looking over their shoulder when it comes to their administration of all FOI requests.
Note: 004 remember that Shane has also been fighting the victims cause as well (see Submission 16) and apparently sat in on the final hearing days of the Hempel inquest in support of Samantha Hare (OZ story Monday).
And the Minister is still MIA…hmm hang on...here he is in a happysnap moment..the “teflon man” himself
.
Senator Fawcett officially tables AAI report..debate to come??
Yesterday Senator Fawcett tabled the PelAir report here is the Hansard...
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (18:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
The final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations was tabled in May this year. It followed a long period of investigation into the inquiry by the ATSB into the accident in which a Pel-Air aircraft ditched off Norfolk Island in 2009. The Senate report highlighted that the performance of the two government agencies that were primarily involved, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, came far short of the expectations that the Australian taxpayer, this parliament and the aviation community should have.
In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies. Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas. I will list them and then talk in more detail about them. They failed to maximise the beneficial aviation safety outcomes that could have been derived from the investigation into this incident. They failed to enhance public confidence in aviation safety. I think we saw that in the controversy in the aviation industry and the media around the report when it was finally released. They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety. They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency's complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA's specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other's functions. They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement. The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting.
Safety outcomes is one area that I would like to touch on. Accident investigations are an opportunity for an informed and expert body to sit back and take a considered look at why an incident occurred. That body may be expert but they are not necessarily the best judges of how the lessons from that incident may be applied to other sectors of the aviation industry. The committee found that for various reasons and over time the ATSB processes have got to the point where much evidence can be excluded if it does not fall into the categories that they consider will impact on high-risk future operations. So we have a situation where they are making an arbitrary decision to exclude evidence, and without evidence they are not then investigating or reporting on what actually occurred. That means that other aviation operations are not the beneficiaries of an explanation of occurrences and failures in a system safety approach and what defences failed such that the accident occurred. It has been the traditional approach to identify each of those factors and let the stakeholders make their own assessment. But the safety outcomes are no longer optimised because of this approach of trying to make that arbitrary decision at the front. That is a significant flaw in the current approach which the committee has recommended be revisited.
The report and CASA's statements in name supported the concept of a systemic approach to aviation safety. But what we found very clearly was that the investigation focused very quickly on the pilot in command on the night, as opposed to looking at the raft of other factors. Looking at the James Reason model of system safety, one sees that there are a number of defences which are in place, which include the operating company, the regulator and a raft of things—training et cetera—as well as the pilot. But many of those factors were given, at best, lip-service. They were mentioned in the report so a box could be ticked to say that they were considered, without a detailed consideration of them. For that reason, the report was quite flawed.
What made the matter worse was that, having required both CASA and ATSB to produce documents for the inquiry, which initially they were reluctant to do, we spent some considerable time going through literally boxes and boxes of documents to find information, emails, reports and things that were relevant to the report and, having seen a report that said that the company was applying all of its regulatory requirements and CASA was auditing it and so there were no organisational factors to consider, we found that CASA in fact had done a special audit. Not only had they done a special audit that found a range of problems within the company; they had done their own internal report about CASA's performance of their oversight of the company and found that, in their own words, that was deficient.
So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, 'No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,' they chose not to do that. That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.
It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations. That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change. So the ATSB, in its approach to its report, and CASA, by withholding that information, have done the aviation industry in Australia a great disservice. The aviation industry relies on open, transparent and accurate reporting from the regulator and from the safety investigation agency to make sure that the organisations concerned can be ongoing learning organisations that maximise the safety outcomes for the travelling public and for people operating aircraft.
The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this. The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment. To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields. There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.
The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were underresourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing. From subsequent discussions, I would argue that, in some cases, they did not have the background to be writing the regulations or standards in the first place. I believe there is a strong requirement to look at the regulatory reform process and the role that industry should have, not just with token consultation but with a powerful voice, even to the point of veto, where they can work with the regulator to highlight what is industry best practice, and that should form the basis of regulation unless there is a very clear safety case to not go down that path. Australia's travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better. I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
And here is the consideration notice for debate:
The Senate next sits on Monday...
Planetalking: 'Virgin Mildura fog update'...still the Minister is MIA!
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (18:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
The final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations was tabled in May this year. It followed a long period of investigation into the inquiry by the ATSB into the accident in which a Pel-Air aircraft ditched off Norfolk Island in 2009. The Senate report highlighted that the performance of the two government agencies that were primarily involved, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, came far short of the expectations that the Australian taxpayer, this parliament and the aviation community should have.
In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies. Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas. I will list them and then talk in more detail about them. They failed to maximise the beneficial aviation safety outcomes that could have been derived from the investigation into this incident. They failed to enhance public confidence in aviation safety. I think we saw that in the controversy in the aviation industry and the media around the report when it was finally released. They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety. They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency's complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA's specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other's functions. They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement. The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting.
Safety outcomes is one area that I would like to touch on. Accident investigations are an opportunity for an informed and expert body to sit back and take a considered look at why an incident occurred. That body may be expert but they are not necessarily the best judges of how the lessons from that incident may be applied to other sectors of the aviation industry. The committee found that for various reasons and over time the ATSB processes have got to the point where much evidence can be excluded if it does not fall into the categories that they consider will impact on high-risk future operations. So we have a situation where they are making an arbitrary decision to exclude evidence, and without evidence they are not then investigating or reporting on what actually occurred. That means that other aviation operations are not the beneficiaries of an explanation of occurrences and failures in a system safety approach and what defences failed such that the accident occurred. It has been the traditional approach to identify each of those factors and let the stakeholders make their own assessment. But the safety outcomes are no longer optimised because of this approach of trying to make that arbitrary decision at the front. That is a significant flaw in the current approach which the committee has recommended be revisited.
The report and CASA's statements in name supported the concept of a systemic approach to aviation safety. But what we found very clearly was that the investigation focused very quickly on the pilot in command on the night, as opposed to looking at the raft of other factors. Looking at the James Reason model of system safety, one sees that there are a number of defences which are in place, which include the operating company, the regulator and a raft of things—training et cetera—as well as the pilot. But many of those factors were given, at best, lip-service. They were mentioned in the report so a box could be ticked to say that they were considered, without a detailed consideration of them. For that reason, the report was quite flawed.
What made the matter worse was that, having required both CASA and ATSB to produce documents for the inquiry, which initially they were reluctant to do, we spent some considerable time going through literally boxes and boxes of documents to find information, emails, reports and things that were relevant to the report and, having seen a report that said that the company was applying all of its regulatory requirements and CASA was auditing it and so there were no organisational factors to consider, we found that CASA in fact had done a special audit. Not only had they done a special audit that found a range of problems within the company; they had done their own internal report about CASA's performance of their oversight of the company and found that, in their own words, that was deficient.
So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, 'No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,' they chose not to do that. That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.
It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations. That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change. So the ATSB, in its approach to its report, and CASA, by withholding that information, have done the aviation industry in Australia a great disservice. The aviation industry relies on open, transparent and accurate reporting from the regulator and from the safety investigation agency to make sure that the organisations concerned can be ongoing learning organisations that maximise the safety outcomes for the travelling public and for people operating aircraft.
The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this. The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment. To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields. There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.
The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were underresourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing. From subsequent discussions, I would argue that, in some cases, they did not have the background to be writing the regulations or standards in the first place. I believe there is a strong requirement to look at the regulatory reform process and the role that industry should have, not just with token consultation but with a powerful voice, even to the point of veto, where they can work with the regulator to highlight what is industry best practice, and that should form the basis of regulation unless there is a very clear safety case to not go down that path. Australia's travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better. I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
And here is the consideration notice for debate:
Consideration
The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Report—Aviation accident investigations. Motion to take note of report moved by Senator Fawcett. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting, Senator Fawcett in continuation.
The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Report—Aviation accident investigations. Motion to take note of report moved by Senator Fawcett. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting, Senator Fawcett in continuation.
Planetalking: 'Virgin Mildura fog update'...still the Minister is MIA!
Last edited by Sarcs; 21st Jun 2013 at 06:11.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fawcett tables a properly written report.
Hansard : So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, 'No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,' they chose not to do that. That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation. {my bolding}.
Just shows: No matter how much you shake and dance, the last few drops fall down your pants. Taxi to the ferry? - anyone????.- My shout.....(background sounds of distant, but happy laughter as the BRB head off for a well earned 'quiet one', or perhaps today, two would be in order)......
+ = Edit, just been informed the first two rounds will be used to toast D. Fawcett esq. and the inestimable Sen N. Xenphon, if memory serves there were important others on "the" committee who shall, at some point be named and hailed. Heartfelt well done to all.
Last edited by Kharon; 21st Jun 2013 at 08:05. Reason: In 30 days (21 -21), big aniversary. Remember?
from the CAsA dictionary of definitions....
LOST. "Fell" (aka pushed) off the desk into the waste basket that was later tipped in the dumpster.
NEVER EXISTED. "Fell" out of the file when it was dropped on the floor and was inadvertently put in the pile for shredding and dumping.
For CAsA NON FOI is an art form and a game to be played to see how much time can be wasted before the OAIC makes a decision. And use any old BS excuse and irrelevant and obscure FOI exclusion that will extend the play time.
Just got 5 pages after a couple of years...and I wrote FOUR of them myself.!!! LSD must be full of neurologically defective comedians.!!
Considering the time, cost and dicking around in all those CB Ivory towers, it leads me to believe the country is in more strife than I thought.
And for "hair-splitting" I do love the Fawcett comment, re withholding material...."That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act" (TSI Act). 24.1 was it?
Who will determine how close is close.??? Seems that in reality it was SO VERY close a breach did occur. BWTFWIK. Not a CYA let out, I hope.
Is just "coming very close" a new legal one might use????
NEVER EXISTED. "Fell" out of the file when it was dropped on the floor and was inadvertently put in the pile for shredding and dumping.
For CAsA NON FOI is an art form and a game to be played to see how much time can be wasted before the OAIC makes a decision. And use any old BS excuse and irrelevant and obscure FOI exclusion that will extend the play time.
Just got 5 pages after a couple of years...and I wrote FOUR of them myself.!!!
LSD must be full of neurologically defective comedians.!!Considering the time, cost and dicking around in all those CB Ivory towers, it leads me to believe the country is in more strife than I thought.
And for "hair-splitting" I do love the Fawcett comment, re withholding material...."That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act" (TSI Act). 24.1 was it?
Who will determine how close is close.??? Seems that in reality it was SO VERY close a breach did occur. BWTFWIK. Not a CYA let out, I hope.
Is just "coming very close" a new legal one might use????
Double..double..toil and trouble!
Look's like Ben's forecasting 8 octas of CBs over Fort Fumble tonight and there is no Tempo or Inter...just a Prob of Steam fog for the wee hours.. Ben1...Ben2...Ben3...Ben4
Don't hold back Ben!
And the Minister is still MIA??
You'd think that the following quotes from Senator Fawcett's speech would have at least grabbed his attention just a teency little bit..
:
And this:
Then remember that it was revealed that the Chambers report was used by FF to justify getting additional funding for training etc from DoIT...so the Q/ is did DoIT also possibly breach the TSI Act and all under this Minister's watch???
Hmm..any bets on when we'll pass 500k??
PS Ben has picked up on the Senator Fawcett 'speech'...
Ben1...Ben2...Ben3...Ben4 Don't hold back Ben!
And the Minister is still MIA??
You'd think that the following quotes from Senator Fawcett's speech would have at least grabbed his attention just a teency little bit..:
So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, 'No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,' they chose not to do that. That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.
The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were underresourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing
???Hmm..any bets on when we'll pass 500k??
PS Ben has picked up on the Senator Fawcett 'speech'...
Last edited by Sarcs; 21st Jun 2013 at 09:09.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm..any bets on when we'll pass 500k??
This story has just been posted on the Hempel thread.
Woman sues doctors over partner's death during joy flight crash with pilot Barry Hempel | News.com.au
Australian Story ad
The Men Who Fell To Earth | Australian Story | Monday 24 June at 8pm, ABC1 - YouTube
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 21st Jun 2013 at 17:59.
Folks,
Australian Story this Monday night on ABC TV for Hempel, once again CASA's efficiency, effectiveness and diligence will be on display.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Sunfish, what else can be done?? People should cast their minds back to the fate of the old Department of Customs and Excise, when it became too big a public embarrassment for the politicians.
Some of those inquiries I mentioned over many years were Royal Commissions.
Reviewing the SMABC submission to Miller, I don't think there was one reservation or forecast that was not proved entirely justified or accurate by the Pel Air Report.
Australian Story this Monday night on ABC TV for Hempel, once again CASA's efficiency, effectiveness and diligence will be on display.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Sunfish, what else can be done?? People should cast their minds back to the fate of the old Department of Customs and Excise, when it became too big a public embarrassment for the politicians.
Some of those inquiries I mentioned over many years were Royal Commissions.
Reviewing the SMABC submission to Miller, I don't think there was one reservation or forecast that was not proved entirely justified or accurate by the Pel Air Report.
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Jun 2013 at 16:42.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.
LS # 2133 "Reviewing the SMABC submission to Miller, - link here.
Looks like the 'back-flip' has been identified, Barrier decimation, Polar decimation, Airtex decimation, Pel Air – back in the air within a fortnight, over Christmas, although they were ferociously disciplined with one of Creamies (world famous) wet lettuce leaves. I'm all in favour of academic, fine legal point scoring on the TSI Act questions; but in sympathy for Wodger I feel that all that lovely paperwork generated to support the original 'slash and burn' approach should be examined. Who put the brakes on and why ?, is a question that needs to be closely examined, very closely indeed. In fact, to eliminate the "Bankstown Boys" from 'our inquiries', as they say, all management pronouncements from that office should be put under the proverbial microscope and reviewed very carefully.
It also intimates that identified areas of CASA accepted and audited SOP were indeed sub par and had been for some time. The Hansard paragraph above takes us into some pretty murky water. It's difficult to understand why PA got away with sloppy SOP and harder again to define the ramping up of evidence for the AAT a'la Airtex, then the almost magical change of stance; where a few paragraphs hastily banged into a COM made all the issues go away 'poof'. Clearly, so impressed was CASA by the masterful changes made over a few days that they hired the author. That must be quite a collection of master document riggers at BK now.
Perhaps the LSD could weigh in and save everyone a lot of trouble, embarrassment and tax payer dollars. There's a chance to shine here for the LSD against a certainty of being covered in muck: me?, why I'd start polishing right now because when the lid is blown off this chamber pot, the aftermath is going to be a big, big clean up job, huge.
I expect the minister is too thaid up to worry about Gobbledocks beloved elephants wreaking havoc in the shrubbery; but that's OK, I mean poncing about with a bunch of kids in a 'new' classroom is so much more important. So, all's well that ends well.
"What does this knave here? Get you gone, sirrah:
the complaints I have heard of you I do not all
believe: 'tis my slowness that I do not; for I know
you lack not folly to commit them, and have ability
enough to make such knaveries yours."
Hansard: It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations.
Hansard: That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change.
Perhaps the LSD could weigh in and save everyone a lot of trouble, embarrassment and tax payer dollars. There's a chance to shine here for the LSD against a certainty of being covered in muck: me?, why I'd start polishing right now because when the lid is blown off this chamber pot, the aftermath is going to be a big, big clean up job, huge.
I expect the minister is too thaid up to worry about Gobbledocks beloved elephants wreaking havoc in the shrubbery; but that's OK, I mean poncing about with a bunch of kids in a 'new' classroom is so much more important. So, all's well that ends well.
"What does this knave here? Get you gone, sirrah:
the complaints I have heard of you I do not all
believe: 'tis my slowness that I do not; for I know
you lack not folly to commit them, and have ability
enough to make such knaveries yours."
Last edited by Kharon; 21st Jun 2013 at 21:46. Reason: 500 K, that's a serious number, considering.
The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this. The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment. To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields. There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.
NO.
There is a very clear case for THE GOVERNMENT– NOT CASA - to determine what standards apply to the various classifications of operations.
The reason classification of operations remains the stinking detritus at the centre of the running sore that is the regulatory ‘reform’ program, is that successive governments have expected a regulatory authority to perform a political function. Consulting with industry merely produces a bunch of irreconcilable priorities – essentially, cost versus safety and benefits versus dis-benefits. The decision as to what safety risks and other dis-benefits will be traded off in return for what benefits is a POLITICAL DECISION, NOT THE REGULATOR’S DECISION.
“To put [aerial ambulance] into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields.” No sh*t, Sherlock.
And precisely the same logic applies to any classification system which, by definition, results in different standards and therefore different levels of safety. CASA IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE ORGANISATION to decide where those lines are drawn and, thereby, whose life will be at greater risk in return for what benefits.If a future government of which Senator Fawcett is a part continues to abrogate its responsibility to make the rules (and accept the political consequences of the trade offs that must inevitably be made in those rules), the “new” aerial ambulance classification will go the same way as classification of operation reforms generally: nowhere.
Last edited by Creampuff; 21st Jun 2013 at 22:52.
Well speak up Creamy!
Here is a thought Creamy tell him and Nick personally what you think...
Dear Senator Fawcett,
Dear Senator Xenophon,
Sarcs
Dear Senator Fawcett,
Dear Senator Xenophon,
Sarcs
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety vs Politics
Creamie,
You'll be pleased to know that the essence of your advice has already been given
One interesting sidebar to the discussion emerges - politicians of all persusasions are very sensitive about the risks inherent in political interference in safety matters when there are executive agencies specifically in place to advise on those matters. The chances of getting a Ministerial Directive to an agency that completely overrides that agency's advice are gusting well south of zero!
To even get close, the Minister would have to be in receipt of advice that he/she could reasonably defend as being better informed, more accurate and more reliable than that provided by (generally) one of their own portfolio agencies. That could not be contemplated in the Westminster tradition without shooting the agency head (and obvious disciples) first. The replacement then finds him/herself restrained by a Ministerial Directive that may not result in the required outcome - and must face the Minister in the 'painted-in corner' and inform the Minister that he/she has actually screwed the system by their directive and now cannot blame anyone else but themselves!
So, even if they still felt so driven as to directly interfere, where do they get decent advice?
The Australian aviation world is awash with semi-hysterical single issue 'squeaky wheels', towing baggage carts a mile long that any sane person would keep at a very long arms-length. The Miller Report demonstrates to me the dangers of examining an aviation issue from solely one institutionalised background - the blame-allocation/punishment-seeking legal profession - without sufficient balance provided by the 'grey letter' issues of acceptable human responses within policy boundaries, some of which may be prescribed in law. So it requires a collegiate solution. - do we have any organisations that are widely recognised as non-partisan bodies that are fearless and world standard in their advice, as well as being prepared to get their hands dirty in an area that is not well-suited to judicial processes of examination?
I don't have the answer and certainly to this point it doesn't appear that the politicians do either. It would be very helpful to get some suggestions as to how we might practically move to the political outcome you so strongly suggest
Stay Alive,
You'll be pleased to know that the essence of your advice has already been given
One interesting sidebar to the discussion emerges - politicians of all persusasions are very sensitive about the risks inherent in political interference in safety matters when there are executive agencies specifically in place to advise on those matters. The chances of getting a Ministerial Directive to an agency that completely overrides that agency's advice are gusting well south of zero!
To even get close, the Minister would have to be in receipt of advice that he/she could reasonably defend as being better informed, more accurate and more reliable than that provided by (generally) one of their own portfolio agencies. That could not be contemplated in the Westminster tradition without shooting the agency head (and obvious disciples) first. The replacement then finds him/herself restrained by a Ministerial Directive that may not result in the required outcome - and must face the Minister in the 'painted-in corner' and inform the Minister that he/she has actually screwed the system by their directive and now cannot blame anyone else but themselves!
So, even if they still felt so driven as to directly interfere, where do they get decent advice?
The Australian aviation world is awash with semi-hysterical single issue 'squeaky wheels', towing baggage carts a mile long that any sane person would keep at a very long arms-length. The Miller Report demonstrates to me the dangers of examining an aviation issue from solely one institutionalised background - the blame-allocation/punishment-seeking legal profession - without sufficient balance provided by the 'grey letter' issues of acceptable human responses within policy boundaries, some of which may be prescribed in law. So it requires a collegiate solution. - do we have any organisations that are widely recognised as non-partisan bodies that are fearless and world standard in their advice, as well as being prepared to get their hands dirty in an area that is not well-suited to judicial processes of examination?
I don't have the answer and certainly to this point it doesn't appear that the politicians do either. It would be very helpful to get some suggestions as to how we might practically move to the political outcome you so strongly suggest
Stay Alive,
Last edited by 4dogs; 22nd Jun 2013 at 02:26.
4dogs, the answer to your question is that, yes, there are people who can " deal with" CASA and ATSB without getting deterred by the "safety" and myriad technical "bull**** baffles brains" defenses those organizations use. Those people are the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Their specialty is cutting bureaucrats down to size. Contrary to what some people think the " it's too technical for you to understand, so leave us alone " defense has been advanced by many government organizations over the years and PM &C are quite capable of slicing through them like a hot knife through butter, as other institutions have found out to their cost.
The problem is getting the issue on PM & Cs radar screen because they are very busy and hardworking people with a lot of issues on their plate at the best of times.
Their specialty is cutting bureaucrats down to size. Contrary to what some people think the " it's too technical for you to understand, so leave us alone " defense has been advanced by many government organizations over the years and PM &C are quite capable of slicing through them like a hot knife through butter, as other institutions have found out to their cost.
The problem is getting the issue on PM & Cs radar screen because they are very busy and hardworking people with a lot of issues on their plate at the best of times.
Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Jun 2013 at 05:29.
[P]oliticians of all persusasions are very sensitive about the risks inherent in political interference in safety matters when there are executive agencies specifically in place to advise on those matters. The chances of getting a Ministerial Directive to an agency that completely overrides that agency's advice are gusting well south of zero!
In a normal world, the Department of Transport or Aviation would be giving policy advice and arranging for rules to be made to give effect to the policy chosen by the Minister/Cabinet. The regulatory authority would then just administer those rules.
Even if Australia has deteriorated to the point at which the regulator contains the ‘brains trust’, it should still only be giving ‘advice’ on the risks and benefits, and the government (the Minister and portfolio department) should make the ultimate political decision as to the trade off. Because nobody in government wants to make a decision upsetting anyone, it’s left to the regulator to reconcile the irreconcilable – which it can’t, which is why the regulatory reform program will drift along forever. The industry swallows it hook, line and sinker, and blames the regulatory authority.
The point made by Senator Fawcett about the trade off between safety standards and viability/practicality is not rocket surgery. (Dick Smith butted his head against the wall trying to make the same point, but few wanted to listen to him.) It applies to the entirety of the classification of operations issue and the rules generally. But if successive governments are only prepared to wave rhetorical fists at CASA, they should not be surprised when they are ignored. (It reminds of when the Treasurer huffs and puffs at the Banks about interests rates, and is comprehensively ignored.)
It may be that CASA employs the only people left in government with insight into the impenetrably complicated and extraordinarily esoteric technical issues relevant to aviation safety (the mystique of aviation, oooooooeerrrrr ….), but all those issues resolve to some fairly simply-stated risks and rewards and costs and options that even Ministers and Departmental Secretaries understand. If you want aerial ambulance services to meet X standard and there is no new investment in or subsidies for aircraft and aerodrome infrastructure, the reduction in available services will be Z and the estimated lives lost would be P. If you want aerial ambulance services to meet Z standard and there is no new investment in or subsidies of etc …. The cost of the new investment in or subsidies would be $v and $n respectively …. Now, do what you’re paid to do, and make and take responsibility for making a decision. (The decision: “Make everyone happy, quickly and for less cost.”)
I’ve been asked what my solution is. I’ve said it frequently: Elect independents. Australia needs lots, lots more like Nick Xenophon, so that the Federal government once again takes responsibility for governing.