Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
...the regulator contains the ‘brains trust’
If you are referring to the CASA numpties who appeared during the Senate Inquiry, then I don't think so!
Same would apply to the clowns who appeared for the ATSB, especially the Chief Commissioner.
Last edited by SIUYA; 22nd Jun 2013 at 09:11.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you not diverted?
SIUYA – I wouldn't fret too much; the Reg reform boys and girls get a bit 'esoteric' at times, it's just the nature of the beast and it's all good gen, well meant. The Senate inquiry has only touched on reform, but the 'short' inquisition scheduled for 'Ron' should be entertaining. But the issues there are not the main focus of the latest report.
The way the Regs have been used and abused is much more germane– (my self indulgent Sunday word) to the proceedings. Said it before, until the Regs are supported by folk who can 'read' the intent, provide constant application and be trusted not to use any, or all combinations of 'parts cut off as needed' to suit their purpose, then we remain doomed. (Mind you, I'd love to listen to a 4 Dogs v Creamy debate on the subject, with suitable libations provided, it would be worth hearing).
It appears that the Senate have revealed just how deep the selective abuse of 'legal' power is entrenched. "Don't worry – do as I say, we'll bluff and bulldoze our way through": stuff the coroners, shag the courts, bugger the Senate and sod the 'ills of society'. It seems an accepted norm within the ranks of the CASA paymasters that CASA is the all seeing solution to a pagans prayer. Things like this:-.../
then continues:-
/...are starting to emerge as the iceberg slowly, but inevitably is revealed. Part of that which may return to haunt both CASA and ATSB has been exposed by the Mildura incident. Much of the first Senate inquiry, which kicked off this thread, was dismissed with a hearty 'White paper wave off'. That was a tactical error in two ways; one, it pissed off the Senators who were seeking to allay some serious, deep concerns; and, two; it high lighted the arrogant, dismissive culture which imagines and encourages the entrenched belief that only CASA can be divinely right, anointed by the gods, to be 'the' ultimate "Safety" authority. Furry muff, it's not quite what they are; however....
As long as the 'willing accomplice' exists and the evil, vindictive, protected species who abuse their power, trust and legislated remit are still swimming about at the shallow end of the gene pool, no amount of well intentioned, regulatory reform will matter.
Well, it is said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I say those who'd steal the pavers follow close behind. Check your 6, in the mirror.
Aye, it's all too much for a Sunday; Coffee and: will I have a blueberry muffin or a croissant ???....
The way the Regs have been used and abused is much more germane– (my self indulgent Sunday word) to the proceedings. Said it before, until the Regs are supported by folk who can 'read' the intent, provide constant application and be trusted not to use any, or all combinations of 'parts cut off as needed' to suit their purpose, then we remain doomed. (Mind you, I'd love to listen to a 4 Dogs v Creamy debate on the subject, with suitable libations provided, it would be worth hearing).
It appears that the Senate have revealed just how deep the selective abuse of 'legal' power is entrenched. "Don't worry – do as I say, we'll bluff and bulldoze our way through": stuff the coroners, shag the courts, bugger the Senate and sod the 'ills of society'. It seems an accepted norm within the ranks of the CASA paymasters that CASA is the all seeing solution to a pagans prayer. Things like this:-.../
DF – Hansard: "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." etc.
DF – Hansard: "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.
As long as the 'willing accomplice' exists and the evil, vindictive, protected species who abuse their power, trust and legislated remit are still swimming about at the shallow end of the gene pool, no amount of well intentioned, regulatory reform will matter.
Well, it is said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I say those who'd steal the pavers follow close behind. Check your 6, in the mirror.
Aye, it's all too much for a Sunday; Coffee and: will I have a blueberry muffin or a croissant ???....
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Jun 2013 at 21:59. Reason: GD - I found your elephant story check Willyleaks.
I beg to differ: failure to intervene and take (back) responsibility for the regulatory reform program is merely one manifestation of the ‘hands off/no responsibility’ approach that has resulted in the extraordinary revelations in the Senate Committee’s report on which you are focussing. The fix for one issue is the same for all.
If all governments are going to do is wave a rhetorical fist at CASA about the revelations of the report (or the regulatory reform program or whatever), CASA will continue to give governments the middle finger back. Why would it do anything else?
Only governments have the power to build, dismantle, redesign and rebuild regulatory authorities (and investigative agencies). Only governments.
And given the Laborials are now only concerned about getting and retaining power for power’s sake, they no longer have the corporate integrity or competence to do anything substantial.
If all governments are going to do is wave a rhetorical fist at CASA about the revelations of the report (or the regulatory reform program or whatever), CASA will continue to give governments the middle finger back. Why would it do anything else?
Only governments have the power to build, dismantle, redesign and rebuild regulatory authorities (and investigative agencies). Only governments.
And given the Laborials are now only concerned about getting and retaining power for power’s sake, they no longer have the corporate integrity or competence to do anything substantial.
Last edited by Creampuff; 22nd Jun 2013 at 22:42.
I agree with Creampuff. Until the politicians decide to move, nothing can be done. Once the terrible state of CASA and ATSB becomes the subject of a Cabinet minute, anything and everything can be done, and quickly because the good folk at PM &C will supervise, and they are smart, fast, and don't take BS from anyone.
The goal of Mr. Mrdak and his department, CASA and ATSB is to remain underneath that radar.
Albanese doesn't care about aviation except so far as it provides opportunities for property deals and access to the Chairmans lounge. The Department will move mightily to try and maintain that laissez faire approach in a new Liberal Government.
My guess is that they will send a message that appointing a "troublemaker" like Sen. Fawcett will cause the government grief by distracting them from the main game, etc. etc. You know how it goes - make aviation reform a "second term priority" blah blah.
It remains to be seen what Abbott does, but I haven't got my hopes up.
The goal of Mr. Mrdak and his department, CASA and ATSB is to remain underneath that radar.
Albanese doesn't care about aviation except so far as it provides opportunities for property deals and access to the Chairmans lounge. The Department will move mightily to try and maintain that laissez faire approach in a new Liberal Government.
My guess is that they will send a message that appointing a "troublemaker" like Sen. Fawcett will cause the government grief by distracting them from the main game, etc. etc. You know how it goes - make aviation reform a "second term priority" blah blah.
It remains to be seen what Abbott does, but I haven't got my hopes up.
Senate PelAir report recommendation 13!
Sunny you may well be right, but are you in agreement with recommendation 13?? Going off Creamy's recent posts he would be in agreement and apparently prepared to participate albeit through a friend
:
Although Creamy you may not be in total agreement with some of the committees footnoted references:
Combine some of those quoted references with your 'RRP thread' (pick out the good bits) then write a concise executive summary and 'bingo' your submission will be done…can’t wait to link pprune to it for a robust discussion!
Creamy:
I agree with your ‘above’ statement, although I’m not sure about independents in the lower house holding the balance of power. The current experiment with minority government IMHO hasn’t worked and has led to a government too busy pumping out ineffective, largely uncontested (87% uncontested apparently) volumes of legislation rushed through mostly without proper ‘due process’ followed.
More independents in the Senate…now that I would agree with and there are some indications that may well happen, although they won’t be in place till July next year.
On the matter of DF’s tabling speech I think you’re underestimating the good Senator. The speech says to me that the Senate Committee Senators are not letting this matter rest and are united in seeing that the recommendations will not be simply shelf-wared or white paper washed like last time.
It also indicates that DF hasn’t been white washed by his own party and if you refer to Senate Estimates Hansard 29/05/13 (scroll to Senator Fawcett), I also get the impression that the good Senator is joining the dots.
All the more reason that the Committee receives informative, objective submissions when the ‘short inquiry’ into RRP is called!
Ok that sort of covers R13..so well done Creamy
Phearless Phelan's cottoned onto DF's speech..
Senator Fawcett?s vision for the future ? opinion | Pro Aviation
Going off Creamy's recent posts he would be in agreement and apparently prepared to participate albeit through a friend:
"I'll urge a close friend to make a submission to the 'short inquiry' into the regulatory reform program."
Regulatory reform
6.56 The committee received information that there is concern in industry about the progress and direction of regulatory reform.54 It understands that this process has been going on for well over a decade55 and this extended timeframe is causing ongoing uncertainty for industry. The committee compares it with the regulatory reform process in New Zealand which has taken far less time and by all accounts has been effective.56
6.57 While a certain degree of concern is to be expected, the committee believes it is time to conduct a brief inquiry on the current status of regulatory reform to review the direction, progress and resources expended to date. This would include seeking perspectives from CASA and industry. It would also include benchmarking against the New Zealand reform process and outcomes, including industry acceptance.
Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
Regulatory reform
6.56 The committee received information that there is concern in industry about the progress and direction of regulatory reform.54 It understands that this process has been going on for well over a decade55 and this extended timeframe is causing ongoing uncertainty for industry. The committee compares it with the regulatory reform process in New Zealand which has taken far less time and by all accounts has been effective.56
6.57 While a certain degree of concern is to be expected, the committee believes it is time to conduct a brief inquiry on the current status of regulatory reform to review the direction, progress and resources expended to date. This would include seeking perspectives from CASA and industry. It would also include benchmarking against the New Zealand reform process and outcomes, including industry acceptance.
Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
55 See www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_92098 ;
www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_92107; Steve Creedy, 'Civil Aviation Safety Authority close on reform of rules', The Australian, 4 November 2011. The article notes that the new regulations may not be in place before the end of 2014; Emma Kelly, InFocus, 'Australia closes in on regulatory reform', 19 February 2013.
www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-australia-closes-in-on-regulatory-reform-382027/;
Paul Phelan, 'To hell with the rules', 6 April 2013, Pro Aviation
http://proaviation.com.au/?p=639 accessed (19 April 2013).
56 AMROBA, Submission 15, p. 1; Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Strategic Direction,October
c=PC_92098 ;www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_92107; Steve Creedy, 'Civil Aviation Safety Authority close on reform of rules', The Australian, 4 November 2011. The article notes that the new regulations may not be in place before the end of 2014; Emma Kelly, InFocus, 'Australia closes in on regulatory reform', 19 February 2013.www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-australia-closes-in-on-regulatory-reform-382027/;
Paul Phelan, 'To hell with the rules', 6 April 2013, Pro Aviation
http://proaviation.com.au/?p=639 accessed (19 April 2013).
56 AMROBA, Submission 15, p. 1; Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Strategic Direction,October
Creamy:
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.
More independents in the Senate
…now that I would agree with and there are some indications that may well happen, although they won’t be in place till July next year.On the matter of DF’s tabling speech I think you’re underestimating the good Senator. The speech says to me that the Senate Committee Senators are not letting this matter rest and are united in seeing that the recommendations will not be simply shelf-wared or white paper washed like last time.
It also indicates that DF hasn’t been white washed by his own party and if you refer to Senate Estimates Hansard 29/05/13 (scroll to Senator Fawcett), I also get the impression that the good Senator is joining the dots.
All the more reason that the Committee receives informative, objective submissions when the ‘short inquiry’ into RRP is called!
Ok that sort of covers R13..so well done Creamy
Phearless Phelan's cottoned onto DF's speech..
Senator Fawcett?s vision for the future ? opinion | Pro Aviation
Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Jun 2013 at 07:43.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beggar it – I'm gonna bite, once.
Creamy, just for fun - I'll see your differ and raise you an agreement; I have no doubt that essentially at 'top drawer' level, all is as you say and the responsibility lays squarely with Gummint. I'm in ferocious agreement with you.
However, really, the likes of Albo, (the pollies polly), are not, not ever as long as their nether regions point at the earth's centre going to 'step up'. They will, righteously wheel in an 'expert donkey' to pin a tail on when it all goes south, give 'it' a fluffy white paper hat and say "crack on lads, time is money". Then sit back, in glorious isolation watching the fun in the arena from the safety of the chairman's lounge. That system (human nature) at least will never fail.
For mine, the essence of the problem lays within the CASA/ATSB 'culture'. How the system (whatever it is) gets used. The Gummint appointee sets the tone, gives sage, honest advice to the paymaster and manages the troops (honour, integrity and all that old school stuff). This has not been delivered by McComic or any of his 'orrible little men; and that is where I believe the problem lays. The deeper problems e.g. Pel Air are just not clearly seen, by ministers and mandarins, through the shiny, slippery covering of the 'watchdog's' bombproof, public edifice made safe by Safety.
The deep seated problems, exposed in part by Pel Air, exist within an encouraged, systematic methodology, which, without having need to regard accountability - to anyone, can pretty much do as it likes and fully expect to get away with it. The multiple, Teflon coated layers of protection afforded make it almost (but not quite) impossible to penetrate to the depths where the big rats are hidden. Someone, somehow needs to get a rope on the little buggers, make them accountable for the carnage and mess left behind. The minister and mandarins may completely believe that all is well, indeed they should be able to rely implicitly on it (what would they know anyway). But no matter, there are always those who will ensure that should the ministerial lobotomy fail, then blinkers, cotton wool and soothing potions will be administered. Should that fail, the old "well, the blood will be on your hands Minister" speech is dusted off and plugged into the deep sleep, subliminal message bank. The message - "Trust me minister, - I'll only just pop it in a little way, if you don't like, I'll just pop it out again".
But most of all, no matter who does it, or how it is achieved: whether by divine intervention, a public flogging or just simply through 'someone' who'll do the job properly and expect at least some integrity from the 'minions'. Keep them honest; Pel Air wasn't honest; Quadrio wasn't honest; Barrier cannot be honest; Canley Vale won't be honest; Senate inquiry bloody nearly wasn't honest. Let's at least have a semblance of honesty, service and assistance to the aviation community which relies quite heavily on and pays dearly for the 'expert' administrative unit we and the rest of the planet, laughingly refer to as "the" safety authority.
Steam off - Sheepish grin – exeunt, stage left. Now where's my muffin gone; bloody dog. ...
However, really, the likes of Albo, (the pollies polly), are not, not ever as long as their nether regions point at the earth's centre going to 'step up'. They will, righteously wheel in an 'expert donkey' to pin a tail on when it all goes south, give 'it' a fluffy white paper hat and say "crack on lads, time is money". Then sit back, in glorious isolation watching the fun in the arena from the safety of the chairman's lounge. That system (human nature) at least will never fail.
For mine, the essence of the problem lays within the CASA/ATSB 'culture'. How the system (whatever it is) gets used. The Gummint appointee sets the tone, gives sage, honest advice to the paymaster and manages the troops (honour, integrity and all that old school stuff). This has not been delivered by McComic or any of his 'orrible little men; and that is where I believe the problem lays. The deeper problems e.g. Pel Air are just not clearly seen, by ministers and mandarins, through the shiny, slippery covering of the 'watchdog's' bombproof, public edifice made safe by Safety.
The deep seated problems, exposed in part by Pel Air, exist within an encouraged, systematic methodology, which, without having need to regard accountability - to anyone, can pretty much do as it likes and fully expect to get away with it. The multiple, Teflon coated layers of protection afforded make it almost (but not quite) impossible to penetrate to the depths where the big rats are hidden. Someone, somehow needs to get a rope on the little buggers, make them accountable for the carnage and mess left behind. The minister and mandarins may completely believe that all is well, indeed they should be able to rely implicitly on it (what would they know anyway). But no matter, there are always those who will ensure that should the ministerial lobotomy fail, then blinkers, cotton wool and soothing potions will be administered. Should that fail, the old "well, the blood will be on your hands Minister" speech is dusted off and plugged into the deep sleep, subliminal message bank. The message - "Trust me minister, - I'll only just pop it in a little way, if you don't like, I'll just pop it out again".
But most of all, no matter who does it, or how it is achieved: whether by divine intervention, a public flogging or just simply through 'someone' who'll do the job properly and expect at least some integrity from the 'minions'. Keep them honest; Pel Air wasn't honest; Quadrio wasn't honest; Barrier cannot be honest; Canley Vale won't be honest; Senate inquiry bloody nearly wasn't honest. Let's at least have a semblance of honesty, service and assistance to the aviation community which relies quite heavily on and pays dearly for the 'expert' administrative unit we and the rest of the planet, laughingly refer to as "the" safety authority.
Steam off - Sheepish grin – exeunt, stage left. Now where's my muffin gone; bloody dog. ...
Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Jun 2013 at 00:53. Reason: Nope, GD's elephant got the muffin. Some days, you know.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 65
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Skull, A Beaker and Dr Death
The reason that CASA and ATSB has self imploded is due primarily to Dr Voodoo Aleck, 20plus years of lies, deceit and dishonesty. Along with others including Boyd and Terry from the West they have tricked and conned the Minister, the Ministers bum boy Mrdak and the public. Add into the mix one JMac, Campbell, and a host of other parasites including all of Bankstown as well as most of Sydney and you have a system beyond repair.
The three ATSB Comissioners are deadwood and out of their league, and there are other hidden agendas that have taken place that breach the TSI.
Crooks Crooks Crooks
The three ATSB Comissioners are deadwood and out of their league, and there are other hidden agendas that have taken place that breach the TSI.
Crooks Crooks Crooks
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy cow. I just started reading the media sites, and thought this one Ben had done was about the Hume freeway being finished, which is important out here.
Hume freeway fixed, but air safety broken | Plane Talking
Well no. It is about Pel-Air.
Hume freeway fixed, but air safety broken | Plane Talking
Well no. It is about Pel-Air.
Highway accidents kill mainly in single figures and even today they quickly mount up, even thought the public is largely desensitized to the road toll until for example, a logistics company which flouts the laws on fatigue, rostering and drugs in the work place, lets one of its drivers smash head on into a private car, even on a dual carriageway, wiping out a family.
But airline crashes , although exceedingly rare, often kill hundreds of people at once.
Albanese has on his insanely overburdened desk a Senate Committee report into the conduct of the ‘independent’ air safety investigator, the ATSB, and the air safety regulator, CASA which without dissent across party and independent lines, makes grave and fully annotated and supported findings concerning their integrity and competency.
Albanese would also be mindful of Australia’s international reputation for getting air safety right, and no doubt horrified if he could spare the time to consider this report.
He appears however to have relied on public servants to advise him about matters concerning other public servants who have admitted in testimony and examination before the committee to various actions or omissions in carrying out their responsibilities in relation to the crash of a Pel-Air Westwind corporate jet performing an air ambulance role into the sea near Norfolk Island in 2009.
The accident is one thing. But the deliberate actions of CASA in withholding from the ATSB an internal audit which finds CASA failed in its duties in relation to Pel-Air to an extent which could have prevented the accident happening are another thing, and tell us, and the international air safety community, that the administration of air safety in this country is rotten.
The annotated and fully supported findings of the Senate committee also explain why the members lost confidence in the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.
The ATSB report does not in fact fulfill its obligations to improve air safety because even though it inquired into the first ever ditching of a Westwind corporate jet, it makes no findings or recommendations following the discovery that none of the safety equipment or required procedures on board the flight worked.
It ignores the fact that the jet was flown without the operator having an adequate fuel policy for its pilots to follow, and appears to have been deliberately framed to avoid considering the unsuitability of the jet concerned to have ever been flown on the inter-island route it was following.
The minister would also, as a passionate believer in the rights and work place protections of individuals, no doubt be appalled at the full and concerted apparatus of the public administration of the ATSB and CASA being brought to bear on the captain of the flight to frame him entirely for the responsibility for the accident to the exclusion of a substantial body of improperly suppressed evidence on serious failings in the operator Pel-Air and the regulator CASA.
Minister, this is about fairness and equity, as well as about Australia’s international air safety reputation and the integrity and competency of the ATSB and CASA.
The report needs to be redone. Dolan needs to be fired. Both bodies need a complete shake-up, and the risk these two bodies pose to the proper administration of air safety in this country needs to be reduced through urgent but effective intervention.
But airline crashes , although exceedingly rare, often kill hundreds of people at once.
Albanese has on his insanely overburdened desk a Senate Committee report into the conduct of the ‘independent’ air safety investigator, the ATSB, and the air safety regulator, CASA which without dissent across party and independent lines, makes grave and fully annotated and supported findings concerning their integrity and competency.
Albanese would also be mindful of Australia’s international reputation for getting air safety right, and no doubt horrified if he could spare the time to consider this report.
He appears however to have relied on public servants to advise him about matters concerning other public servants who have admitted in testimony and examination before the committee to various actions or omissions in carrying out their responsibilities in relation to the crash of a Pel-Air Westwind corporate jet performing an air ambulance role into the sea near Norfolk Island in 2009.
The accident is one thing. But the deliberate actions of CASA in withholding from the ATSB an internal audit which finds CASA failed in its duties in relation to Pel-Air to an extent which could have prevented the accident happening are another thing, and tell us, and the international air safety community, that the administration of air safety in this country is rotten.
The annotated and fully supported findings of the Senate committee also explain why the members lost confidence in the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.
The ATSB report does not in fact fulfill its obligations to improve air safety because even though it inquired into the first ever ditching of a Westwind corporate jet, it makes no findings or recommendations following the discovery that none of the safety equipment or required procedures on board the flight worked.
It ignores the fact that the jet was flown without the operator having an adequate fuel policy for its pilots to follow, and appears to have been deliberately framed to avoid considering the unsuitability of the jet concerned to have ever been flown on the inter-island route it was following.
The minister would also, as a passionate believer in the rights and work place protections of individuals, no doubt be appalled at the full and concerted apparatus of the public administration of the ATSB and CASA being brought to bear on the captain of the flight to frame him entirely for the responsibility for the accident to the exclusion of a substantial body of improperly suppressed evidence on serious failings in the operator Pel-Air and the regulator CASA.
Minister, this is about fairness and equity, as well as about Australia’s international air safety reputation and the integrity and competency of the ATSB and CASA.
The report needs to be redone. Dolan needs to be fired. Both bodies need a complete shake-up, and the risk these two bodies pose to the proper administration of air safety in this country needs to be reduced through urgent but effective intervention.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Message from Gobbledock
Friends of Safety,
I received a message from Gobbledock this morning. It would seem that he has been rather busy in Montreal. He asked me to pass on that he is doing fine, was not adversely affected in the recent floods and he has been busy teaching ICAO staff how to 'nude conga', play 'nude twister' and incredibly persuaded them to all now wear blue ties. Also he has been busy doing what CAsA and ATSB can't do - lift the veil on the mystique of aviation and produce something tangible. Indeed, while CAsA adopt a monolithic approach to safety and do their utmost to dine from troughs, engage in hypothetical banter while tautologically proclaiming advancement in the reg reform program, Gobbles assisted ICAO in producing Annexure 19 on safety management. Gobbles advises me that there is 'something old, something new, something bold, something that is not pooh', im the annexe and it is worth taking a look at the below link;
Safety Management
Considering the new annexe also contains requirements for the state and its SSP obligations, Gobbles advises that it is likely that there will be many business class trips coming up to Montreal for Fort Fumbles supposedly elite safety experts, namely the Skull, Boyd, Aleck, Farkwitson and other important CAsA dignatories, so Finance had better get all those cab receipts in order and LSD had better ensure no 'paperwork' gets lost in the system, you know how fragile these things can be!
Also, I believe Mini will be heading to Montreal for a spell, and Gobbles says he looks forward to working closely with the CAsA team in Maple Land. He has extended a personal invite for all to stay at his own sleepy hollow, a lake cabin at Lake Louise, and he hopes Flyingfiend can come along also.
P.S Great to see Casaweary is back, hopefully this time it will be for a little longer, provided he still isn't running the Fed Police gauntlet? Flyingfiend can you please confirm whether Casaweary is allowed back outside to play for a while?
I received a message from Gobbledock this morning. It would seem that he has been rather busy in Montreal. He asked me to pass on that he is doing fine, was not adversely affected in the recent floods and he has been busy teaching ICAO staff how to 'nude conga', play 'nude twister' and incredibly persuaded them to all now wear blue ties. Also he has been busy doing what CAsA and ATSB can't do - lift the veil on the mystique of aviation and produce something tangible. Indeed, while CAsA adopt a monolithic approach to safety and do their utmost to dine from troughs, engage in hypothetical banter while tautologically proclaiming advancement in the reg reform program, Gobbles assisted ICAO in producing Annexure 19 on safety management. Gobbles advises me that there is 'something old, something new, something bold, something that is not pooh', im the annexe and it is worth taking a look at the below link;
Safety Management
Considering the new annexe also contains requirements for the state and its SSP obligations, Gobbles advises that it is likely that there will be many business class trips coming up to Montreal for Fort Fumbles supposedly elite safety experts, namely the Skull, Boyd, Aleck, Farkwitson and other important CAsA dignatories, so Finance had better get all those cab receipts in order and LSD had better ensure no 'paperwork' gets lost in the system, you know how fragile these things can be!
Also, I believe Mini will be heading to Montreal for a spell, and Gobbles says he looks forward to working closely with the CAsA team in Maple Land. He has extended a personal invite for all to stay at his own sleepy hollow, a lake cabin at Lake Louise, and he hopes Flyingfiend can come along also.
P.S Great to see Casaweary is back, hopefully this time it will be for a little longer, provided he still isn't running the Fed Police gauntlet? Flyingfiend can you please confirm whether Casaweary is allowed back outside to play for a while?
Last edited by 004wercras; 23rd Jun 2013 at 04:46.
Folks,
It is time to more accurately re-name what has been loosely called the Reg Reform program.
Whatever is being produced is change, but it is certainly not "reform" --- unless you thing change and reform are interchangeable descriptions.
Notions of "reform" generally carry the expectation of better, or improved or generally the idea that reform will improve things.
Hands up anybody who thinks recent CASA changes (like making even the most minor administrative error --- that should not be criminal offences in the first place -- all 50 penalty points --- $8500 --- so the maximum administrative fine can be $1700) are an improvement.
So, what are we going to call what CASA is now doing, when we put our submissions in to the Reg. Reform Senate inquiry that the good Senator Fawcett has promoted.
Tootle pip!!
It is time to more accurately re-name what has been loosely called the Reg Reform program.
Whatever is being produced is change, but it is certainly not "reform" --- unless you thing change and reform are interchangeable descriptions.
Notions of "reform" generally carry the expectation of better, or improved or generally the idea that reform will improve things.
Hands up anybody who thinks recent CASA changes (like making even the most minor administrative error --- that should not be criminal offences in the first place -- all 50 penalty points --- $8500 --- so the maximum administrative fine can be $1700) are an improvement.
So, what are we going to call what CASA is now doing, when we put our submissions in to the Reg. Reform Senate inquiry that the good Senator Fawcett has promoted.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Jun 2013 at 16:08.
So, what are we going to call what CASA is now doing, when we put our submissions in to the Reg. Reform Senate inquiry that the good Senator Fawcett has promoted.
Running sore?
Trainwreck?
Obscenely expensive journey in circles?
The blind leading the deaf leading the ignorant?
Let’s wait to see how much noise “the good Senator Fawcett” makes in government. His “solution” to aerial ambulance standards is a true-to-form Laborial abrogation of responsibility: CASA and industry should get together and have a group hug.
That’s worked well so far, hasn’t it?
And there’s a gaping hole in the suggestion. I’d be interested in knowing how much confidence someone like Ziggychick would have in a process in which CASA consults with – let’s choose an eminent representative of the aviation ‘industry’ – John Sharp, to ‘sort out’ aerial ambulance standards. Maybe the public might have a view as well?
Oh I forgot – in aerial work the POB are all ‘participants’, so they ‘understand and accept’ all the risks.
Move along shall we??
Phelan enters the debate...well sort of??
Senator Fawcett’s vision for the future – opinion
Phelan:
Now as Kharon suggests at #301 RRP thread can we now move on and take the RRP debate where it belongs??
Oh by the way Creamy accolades to you as your thread title is becoming famous...PAIN_NET1
Senator Fawcett’s vision for the future – opinion
Phelan:
Senator David Fawcett’s remarks when formally tabling the “PelAir Report” on June 19 are reviewing the hopes of a beleaguered industry for an improved future.
The senator’s remarks about the regulatory reform process align closely with what (then Minister) John Sharp put in place in 1996. Mark Vaile, the next Minister, followed through impressively, but when John Anderson became Minister he was prevailed upon – some say “conned into” – abandoning industry consultation by winding up the Program Advisory Panelwhich had been the main vehicle for industry consultation. That’s where the backsliding started, and it has yet to be reversed.
Since his entry into politics, Senator Fawcett’s aviation background and awareness has benefited the industry in many ways. As one example, he became aware that the “CASA expert” involved in the writing of the helicopter rules, was a light helicopter pilot of limited experience, and with no apparent qualifications to be drafting what in effect comprised legally enforceable criminal law cobbled together as operating standards, that apparently only reflected the CASA person’s level of knowledge and experience.
In another he largely paved the way for a reversalof CASA’s sustained and dogged opposition to the introduction of night vision goggles in emergency services helicopter operations.
With notable input also from Senators Nick Xenophon, Bill Heffernan (Chair) and others, the committee process has had the effect of broadening the whole parliament’s aviation awareness and the hopes for a dramatic turnaround in industry/regulator relations.
The senator’s remarks about the regulatory reform process align closely with what (then Minister) John Sharp put in place in 1996. Mark Vaile, the next Minister, followed through impressively, but when John Anderson became Minister he was prevailed upon – some say “conned into” – abandoning industry consultation by winding up the Program Advisory Panelwhich had been the main vehicle for industry consultation. That’s where the backsliding started, and it has yet to be reversed.
Since his entry into politics, Senator Fawcett’s aviation background and awareness has benefited the industry in many ways. As one example, he became aware that the “CASA expert” involved in the writing of the helicopter rules, was a light helicopter pilot of limited experience, and with no apparent qualifications to be drafting what in effect comprised legally enforceable criminal law cobbled together as operating standards, that apparently only reflected the CASA person’s level of knowledge and experience.
In another he largely paved the way for a reversalof CASA’s sustained and dogged opposition to the introduction of night vision goggles in emergency services helicopter operations.
With notable input also from Senators Nick Xenophon, Bill Heffernan (Chair) and others, the committee process has had the effect of broadening the whole parliament’s aviation awareness and the hopes for a dramatic turnaround in industry/regulator relations.
Oh by the way Creamy accolades to you as your thread title is becoming famous...PAIN_NET1
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time Out ..............
Gentlemen, the internet and google sometimes throw up priceless gems when searching for something else.
I reccomend the following link.
Aircraft Accident Investigation at ARL: The First 50 Years
<To quote pages 3 and 4>
Sir William Glasgow, Minister for Defence, signed a Statutory Rule on 25 May 1927 under the Air Navigation Act of 1920 appointing an Air Accidents Investigation Committee.
The committee was empowered to make an independent inquiry into aircraft accidents, to study probable causes and to suggest preventative measures.
Composition of the committee was:
"* Professor Henry Payne, Melbourne University (Chairman)
"* Mr Marcus Bell, Superintendent Defence Laboratories
"* Colonel H.B.L. Gipps, Chief Inspector Munitions Inspection Branch
"* Squadron Leader Eric Harrison, RAAF
"* Captain E.J. Jones, Superintendent Flying Operations, CAB
"* Flight Lieutenant William Palstra, RAAF (Secretary)
While some of these men had some previous experience in aircraft accident investigation, the relevance of others is doubtful and the NSW Section of the Australian Aero Club was quick to voice its disapproval.
The committee made a flying start by holding its first meeting at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne on 25 May.
AAIC Report no. 1 covered the accident to DH.9C G-AUED at Tambo, Qld on 24 March 1927.
This was the first fatal accident suffered by Qantas; the aircraft stalled on final approach and its three occupants were killed on impact.
Then followed Reports 2-4 covering the DH.9 collision, A2-24 and A2- 11 respectively.
The committee plied its trade with considerable diligence to the extent that when the DH Moth A7-10 crashed at Point Cook, Vic. on 5 January 1930, the matter was addressed by AAIC Report no. 70.
On I February 1931, membership was reduced from six to three as a government economy measure but the diligence, if not the intelligence, remained unimpaired.
Thereafter, the committee seems to have run into an increasing amount of trouble, particularly when investigating accidents which could not be summarised simply as engine failure or pilot error.
Accidents to the Jones Wonga VH-ULZ and the Puss Moth VH-UPM in 1932 produced a crisis.
The Wonga was a single engine, high wing monoplane designed by L.J.R. Jones and built during 0929-30.
After successfully completing about 100 hours of flying, the aircraft crashed during a short test flight at Quaker's Hill, NSW on 16 June 1932.
Eyewitnesses observed the aircraft to bank steeply before diving to the ground causing fatal injuries to both occupants.
At the inquest held on 5 July 1932, the AAIC reported its conclusion that the accident had resulted from low flying and bad weather.
Subsequently T.D.J. Leech, lecturer in civil engineering, University of Sydney, built a scale model of the Quaker's Hill area and tested it in the G.A. Taylor memorial wind tunnel.
From these tests he concluded that the aircraft probably encountered severe turbulence when the loss of control occurred.
These findings, together with the unhappy experience of the Puss Moth described in the next section, promoted a crisis of confidence in the AAIC.
In a report to the Federal Government, a voluntary committee of aeronautical engineers charged the AAIC with insufficient inquiry, faulty conclusions and unfair reflections on the ability of deceased pilots.
It recommended that all of the personnel of the AAIC be replaced with experts drawn from appropriate professional and scientific fields.
Faced with open rebellion, the government predictably closed ranks.
On 21 April 1933, Sir George Pearce, Minister for Defence, stated that:
"the voluntary committee had adopted an attitude of superiority which neither the constitution or qualifications justify"
and the AAIC lived to fight another day.
<end>
History does repeat itself ............ no ?
I reccomend the following link.
Aircraft Accident Investigation at ARL: The First 50 Years
<To quote pages 3 and 4>
Sir William Glasgow, Minister for Defence, signed a Statutory Rule on 25 May 1927 under the Air Navigation Act of 1920 appointing an Air Accidents Investigation Committee.
The committee was empowered to make an independent inquiry into aircraft accidents, to study probable causes and to suggest preventative measures.
Composition of the committee was:
"* Professor Henry Payne, Melbourne University (Chairman)
"* Mr Marcus Bell, Superintendent Defence Laboratories
"* Colonel H.B.L. Gipps, Chief Inspector Munitions Inspection Branch
"* Squadron Leader Eric Harrison, RAAF
"* Captain E.J. Jones, Superintendent Flying Operations, CAB
"* Flight Lieutenant William Palstra, RAAF (Secretary)
While some of these men had some previous experience in aircraft accident investigation, the relevance of others is doubtful and the NSW Section of the Australian Aero Club was quick to voice its disapproval.
The committee made a flying start by holding its first meeting at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne on 25 May.
AAIC Report no. 1 covered the accident to DH.9C G-AUED at Tambo, Qld on 24 March 1927.
This was the first fatal accident suffered by Qantas; the aircraft stalled on final approach and its three occupants were killed on impact.
Then followed Reports 2-4 covering the DH.9 collision, A2-24 and A2- 11 respectively.
The committee plied its trade with considerable diligence to the extent that when the DH Moth A7-10 crashed at Point Cook, Vic. on 5 January 1930, the matter was addressed by AAIC Report no. 70.
On I February 1931, membership was reduced from six to three as a government economy measure but the diligence, if not the intelligence, remained unimpaired.
Thereafter, the committee seems to have run into an increasing amount of trouble, particularly when investigating accidents which could not be summarised simply as engine failure or pilot error.
Accidents to the Jones Wonga VH-ULZ and the Puss Moth VH-UPM in 1932 produced a crisis.
The Wonga was a single engine, high wing monoplane designed by L.J.R. Jones and built during 0929-30.
After successfully completing about 100 hours of flying, the aircraft crashed during a short test flight at Quaker's Hill, NSW on 16 June 1932.
Eyewitnesses observed the aircraft to bank steeply before diving to the ground causing fatal injuries to both occupants.
At the inquest held on 5 July 1932, the AAIC reported its conclusion that the accident had resulted from low flying and bad weather.
Subsequently T.D.J. Leech, lecturer in civil engineering, University of Sydney, built a scale model of the Quaker's Hill area and tested it in the G.A. Taylor memorial wind tunnel.
From these tests he concluded that the aircraft probably encountered severe turbulence when the loss of control occurred.
These findings, together with the unhappy experience of the Puss Moth described in the next section, promoted a crisis of confidence in the AAIC.
In a report to the Federal Government, a voluntary committee of aeronautical engineers charged the AAIC with insufficient inquiry, faulty conclusions and unfair reflections on the ability of deceased pilots.
It recommended that all of the personnel of the AAIC be replaced with experts drawn from appropriate professional and scientific fields.
Faced with open rebellion, the government predictably closed ranks.
On 21 April 1933, Sir George Pearce, Minister for Defence, stated that:
"the voluntary committee had adopted an attitude of superiority which neither the constitution or qualifications justify"
and the AAIC lived to fight another day.
<end>
History does repeat itself ............ no ?
Last edited by ventus45; 24th Jun 2013 at 02:02.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting indeed. And history is somewhat tautological!
Also interesting to see that even 80 - 100 years ago there were certain 'ills of society' calling for change?
Aren't some of CAsA's hierarchy a left over element of that era? They sure are old enough
Also interesting to see that even 80 - 100 years ago there were certain 'ills of society' calling for change?
Aren't some of CAsA's hierarchy a left over element of that era? They sure are old enough
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just finished reading the history of ARL posted above.
Aircraft Accident Investigation at ARL: The First 50 Years
A very good read, particularly the end, dealing with Iriquois and Hornet investigations.
The lessons for the Senators however are at the very end.
<Quote from the last two pages, page 91 & page 92>
-91-
ARL gathers together, within the one establishment, expertise covering the full range of the aeronautical sciences. This expertise is supported by extensive laboratory facilities, computers and associated software. These assets are backed by considerable experience, and ARL's experience with the investigation of aircraft accidents goes back virtually to its very beginning. Within Australia, ARL is unique; it is the one organisation which can approach a technically complex accident with a reasonable expectation of success.
The purpose of accident investigation is to discover the cause in order that appropriate corrective measures can be implemented in a timely manner, thus preventing any recurrence. These objectives are not always achieved and this report contains several examples where accidents went on recurring despite the best efforts of the ARL investigators. However, over the past fifty years, a remarkably high standard has been maintained which will withstand comparison with the best overseas. The important thing is to maintain continuity, to learn from past mistakes and to strive for improvement.
As these pages indicate, one lesson that has been learnt is the folly of relying on overseas experts. Frequently their expertise is less than advertised and, if they represent the aircraft manufacturer, their objectivity is suspect.
Perhaps ARL's most important quality is that of professional integrity; a willingness to face facts however unpalatable.
If there is one continuing thread running through this report, it is the need to explain damage. It is always tempting to discard damage evidence that won't conform to preconceived ideas; it's not the evidence that's wrong, but the ideas. This is not a new observation.
-92-
Arrange your facts. Arrange your ideas. And if some little fact will not fit in - do not reject it, but consider it closely. Though its significance escapes you, be sure that it is significant.
Hercule Poirot - The Murder on the Links
(Agatha Christie, 1923)
<end>
Indeed, we need a real Poirot - to stop the rot.
The worst thing that ever happened was sending BASI to the ATSB.
What should now happen, is recreate BASI within the ARL, and leave Beaker and Co. to play with their trains and boats ...........
Aircraft Accident Investigation at ARL: The First 50 Years
A very good read, particularly the end, dealing with Iriquois and Hornet investigations.
The lessons for the Senators however are at the very end.
<Quote from the last two pages, page 91 & page 92>
-91-
ARL gathers together, within the one establishment, expertise covering the full range of the aeronautical sciences. This expertise is supported by extensive laboratory facilities, computers and associated software. These assets are backed by considerable experience, and ARL's experience with the investigation of aircraft accidents goes back virtually to its very beginning. Within Australia, ARL is unique; it is the one organisation which can approach a technically complex accident with a reasonable expectation of success.
The purpose of accident investigation is to discover the cause in order that appropriate corrective measures can be implemented in a timely manner, thus preventing any recurrence. These objectives are not always achieved and this report contains several examples where accidents went on recurring despite the best efforts of the ARL investigators. However, over the past fifty years, a remarkably high standard has been maintained which will withstand comparison with the best overseas. The important thing is to maintain continuity, to learn from past mistakes and to strive for improvement.
As these pages indicate, one lesson that has been learnt is the folly of relying on overseas experts. Frequently their expertise is less than advertised and, if they represent the aircraft manufacturer, their objectivity is suspect.
Perhaps ARL's most important quality is that of professional integrity; a willingness to face facts however unpalatable.
If there is one continuing thread running through this report, it is the need to explain damage. It is always tempting to discard damage evidence that won't conform to preconceived ideas; it's not the evidence that's wrong, but the ideas. This is not a new observation.
-92-
Arrange your facts. Arrange your ideas. And if some little fact will not fit in - do not reject it, but consider it closely. Though its significance escapes you, be sure that it is significant.
Hercule Poirot - The Murder on the Links
(Agatha Christie, 1923)
<end>
Indeed, we need a real Poirot - to stop the rot.
The worst thing that ever happened was sending BASI to the ATSB.
What should now happen, is recreate BASI within the ARL, and leave Beaker and Co. to play with their trains and boats ...........
Last edited by ventus45; 24th Jun 2013 at 05:26.
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
What should now happen is to go back to the future.
Department of Civil Aviation sounds about right but only with the same amount of functionaries, given there has been no measurable active pilot medical increases in since 1965.
Yes, DCA has a certain ring about it.
Department of Civil Aviation sounds about right but only with the same amount of functionaries, given there has been no measurable active pilot medical increases in since 1965.
Yes, DCA has a certain ring about it.
--- a lake cabin at Lake Louise,
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Jun 2013 at 07:42.
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.
Your faith in PM&C is touching (did you work there once?) but in my opinion, misplaced. In my view PM&C is the most intensely political of all "departments" (using the term loosely)
Just to go over a bit of background.
With the incoming Howard Government in 1996, John Sharp established the CASA Review. This was split in two parts, the CASA Role Review --- what was CASA's job, and the Regulatory Framework Review --- what should the rules (if indeed, rules were actually required in some areas, as opposed to Codes of Practice etc.), and the Government ( Sharp, the Minister) set the policy, as Creampuff rightly says, is the job of Government --- much to the disgust of the "iron ring" of (now) CASA, who had dominated policy since the days of DCA.
Effectively, (with a very new Director, Leroy Keith) the doyens of the "iron ring" nominated the members of the PAP, which was the usual bunch of "industry experts", in fact functionaries of the various alphabet soup organisations, who would not trouble CASA with anything radical.
Once John Sharp, as Minister, saw the list, there was a considerable eruption, and the original PAP was, effectively, dismissed before it even started.
John Sharp appointed the members of the PAP Mk2, chaired by James Kimpton, an Ansett lawyer, and later a board member and Vice Chairman of CASA. Leroy Keith was an ex-officio of the PAP --- and an enthusiastic supporter of John Sharp's plans for reforming CASA.
At the time, the Chairman of the CASA Board Board was Mr. Justice William Fisher, a wily old bird, tough as nails, who knew his was around politics and the public service.
Considerable progress was made, despite the whole gamut of public service delaying tactics. in mid-1998, Parts 21 to 35 became law, Part 21 has some important innovations --- as a result of Government policy. As Paul Phelan has mentioned, Vaile followed through, when Sharp resigned --- a great loss to aviation, at the time.
Then things started to go haywire --- as a result of board changes, ministerial changes and a new Director.
Without writing a novel, by 2003, the then Minister, John Anderson, was thoroughly teed off with the regression in CASA, the re-emergence of the "iron ring" as dominant --- and decided to do something about it --- planning to do pretty much what the recent Senate Report on Pel Air
suggests.
Sadly (and here is the point) PM&C stepped in and kyboshed Anderson's plans, because they (PM&C) didn't want any adverse publicity that might have resulted from the proposed major shakeup of CASA, and the appointment of a new CEO/Director. After that, John Anderson lost interest in aviation.
The shambles we now have, with the CASA iron ring running the "policy", particularly since the departure of Bruce Byron and Greg Vaughan, is there for all to see.
The Reg. Reform Program has not been a 20 or so year continuum, it has been a series of attempted reforms, all finally thwarted by the members of the "iron ring", and going back (to my knowledge) the 1960's.
In balance, the Australian aviation community, and the Australian economy has suffered very badly as a result of the style of public service administration of aviation over too many years ---- indeed, since the dawn of aviation in Australia.
Other countries have Air Shows to commemorate battles or wars, what other country has staged a major airshow (at then ASBK) to commemorate to 50th anniversary of the publication of the first ANO??
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Jun 2013 at 08:54.