Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 24th Feb 2014, 23:44
  #401 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Safety, Neville! Safety!

We're all going to die if all CVD pilots are not hounded out of the sky! Any objective analysis of the data show that .... errrrmmm .... I withdraw that.

Safety, Neville! Safety!
Creampuff is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 04:43
  #402 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,408

Yeah, old Navy Commander mate of mine now well retired as part of his skill-set requirement acquired a "navigators" ticket which i understand allowed him to navigate any navy ship into any port in the world unassisted by tugs.

Some years ago tried to get a SPL on the road to becoming a PPL.

Was defined as a "potential hazard to aviation" due to failing the Ishihara.

Dilemma, ships in close quarters are largely navigated by coloured lights, so how come he continued to pass the very rigorous Navy system and operated safely for many years without incident.

He was smart enough not to test CASA confidentiality by protesting with the Navy evidence.

Go figure.
gaunty is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 07:04
  #403 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
And the penny (finally) drops.

Page 1 – CASA : The McComic attempted filibuster was so full of bollocks, threats, smoke, threats, mirrors, threats, contradictions, threats, bollocks and rubbish, it was a relief when Bill H pulled him up, "that's your lot, now STFU". For that alone, I will always hold Heffernan in high regard. It is unbelievable that the board would allow such a 'speech' (for wont of better) to be made by that director to an educated, cynical audience of Senators, harder to believe that Truss is prepared to be shamed and humiliated in that manner, publicly and on the record.
McCormick "To adopt certain parts the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety, including amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, the introduction of non-criminal penalties, the reconstruction and reconsideration of other CASA parts recently made, and other major changes.
It did 23 years ago; and all we got for $230,000,000  was a non working, clockwork Frankenstein, it is absolutely time we quit that project. But at least the solution is clearly defined, finally the penny drops. Just lets do it once, do it properly and be done with it FFS. I second the motion to unscramble the Gordian knot, with one clean axe stroke.

McCormick : "This will be a long-term undertaking, involving several additional years of legislative redrafting and industry consultation."
Naughty disingenuous man, a pro team, not the bunch of old could have the new Frankenstein ticking over, even with the dead beats clinging to pensions at Sleepy Hollow within two years – tops. This stick, carrot, threat and salvation technique was outmoded 100 years ago; it's a crock; a scary story to frighten children and politicians, no one else would believe it. Aces and Eights is not a winning hand.
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 08:26
  #404 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Fort Fumble WLR submission tabled

This should help "K", the full, non-rushed, unadulterated version nicely tabled for IOS consumption.. FF WLR submission

And attachments: Attach 1 & Attach 2

Sarcs is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 12:59
  #405 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 312
If i could vote for Sen Fawcett I would! It's great to see someone who knows what he is talking about.

I think he has the measure of those who sit in front of him.
Dangly Bits is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 13:25
  #406 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Yes, he certainly wasn't fooled by the safety argument and 727 case presented batting it straight back. The questioning for a real safety issue in Australia justifying the change rather than the academic uk argument was interesting.

A more naive environment may well have been fooled.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 19:10
  #407 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Fried by Freud ?

CHAIR: How did it go from a critical incident to a 'don't worry about it' incident?

Mr Dolan: That is a matter we did "rehearse" with the references committee. In short, our initial assessment of the issue of guidance as to dealing with the situation, weather deterioration and what was planned, we over assessed it as critical at an early stage and by applying our methodologies we concluded by the end of the process that it constituted a minor safety issue.

CHAIR: Can I commend you. You look really well. You look less stressed than you used to for some reason.

Mr Dolan: It is probably the lack of the beard.
More like old Johnston and MM parked either side like a pair of gargoyles to make sure the minuscule's line of delay, deny, defer, deny, refute and defend were followed to a T. Poor old Beaker: looked like one of those nervy, hairless dogs you see old ladies clutching, you know the ones, pop out eyes, yappy and useless except for being of a size convenient for hoisting over the fence.

CHAIR: With that particular incident of which I just spoke no thinking person would believe that bureaucratic answer. You cannot go from a critical incident to a minor one or whatever it was without something happening on the journey. Anyway, we will not go back there. To any sensible person it sounds like either a cover-up or a balls-up.
Gods alone know what the Canadians think they are looking at, those ToR are not published, the Senate committee appear to have them, but are they available for industry scrutiny??. Canely Vale is up for review, perhaps a copy of one chapter of the Bankstown Chronicle should find it's way to the land of the Maple leaf; love to be a fly on that wall.

CHAIR: Could I just make a clarification? If there was a review to be had by the committee, Senator Fawcett, it would be the reference committee, not this committee?

Senator FAWCETT: I apologise; it is the references committee.
Now then, how do we get hold of the reference committee Hansard ?, any answers.
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 20:35
  #408 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Meanwhile on the otherside of the House...

I was wondering who was sat next to Dolan, because Dolan kept looking at him before beginning every statement – in Hansard representing the Government was Senator the Honourable David Albert Lloyd Johnston, if you can find the segment below on the U-chewed clips a student of body language and lip reading may, perhaps gain some insight.
Hmm..it is interesting that you should mention the other DJ (Senator that is & Minister for Defence)...

Maybe the good Senator representing the miniscule was being made aware that the Trusster had just answered a Dorothy Dixar in question time that somewhat contradicted the FF WLR submission, read out by the soon to depart DAS. It went something like this...

"Regional Aviation

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:28): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will the government's policies assist regional aviation and the jobs that it supports?

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for the question and for the privilege of being with him in his electorate during the break. It was good to see and talk about some of the important infrastructure projects that this government has planned for Wannon and the neighbouring electorates.

The member would also know how important regional aviation is for so much of country Australia. People who live in regional communities depend on aviation not just to get to other places in the country or around the world but also for many of their basic services, such as health, education and the professional services they need in their community from the people who fly in to provide those services. Alternatively, country people so often have to go to the cities to get the health care and other things that they need. So the aviation industry is very, very important to regional Australia. It has been an industry facing significant competition and, obviously, high cost. It is a difficult environment.

However, since the carbon tax was put in place, the cost of regional aviation has increased dramatically—6c a litre added to the cost of aviation kerosene and 5c a litre added to the cost of avgas—and that puts up the cost of operating aviation right across the country. We all know that regional aviation companies have been reporting declining profitability. Sharp Airlines in the member's own electorate—

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lingiari!

Mr TRUSS: reckoned that this tax is costing them $400,000 a year, money that they find very difficult to recover from their passengers, and of course it also affects their profit margin. Rex have talked similarly about declining profit projections.

There is something that this parliament can do to make regional aviation more competitive and that is get rid of the carbon tax. If the opposition is serious about jobs in this country, then it should be voting to get rid of the carbon tax. It is a job-destroying tax. It is a service-destroying tax. It is a tax that tears particularly at regional communities because they have to pay such a significant share. So when members opposite talk about the need to look after Qantas and Virgin and the other major airlines, there is something that this parliament can do right now. The Senate should vote to get rid of the carbon tax that will tear hundreds of millions of dollars out of the cost structure of our airlines, to make them more profitable, to enable them to employ more people and to provide better services for the people of Australia...."

"Gentleman please synchronise your watches.."

So maybe "K" it was all about the lining up of the ducks??

I also find it passing strange that Senator (& Minister) DJ just so happened to be sitting in on this particular committee's additional estimates hearing, as the rep for the miniscule?? Rumour has it that DJ & DF have had a strong affiliation & friendship for a number of years (harking back to the days when DF was a Defence Dept consultant & lobbyist), it is not too long a bow to draw that DF in government is in a similar role as confidante to the Defence Minister...interesting times indeed..

Okay let's go backwards from "D"s to "B"s...'Beaker Bashing' that is..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 05:50
  #409 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
"To adopt certain parts the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety, including amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, the introduction of non-criminal penalties, the reconstruction and reconsideration of other CASA parts recently made, and other major changes.

At least Mr. McCormick got that much right ----- and most of that was Government (but not CASA middle management) policy in 1996, and recommended in the final report of the PAP in 1998, but it did not take long for the "iron ring" to re-assert itself, and formal Government policy was ignored/undermined/generally subverted to produce the mess we have now.

Toller, and to a lesser extent Byron, did not know or understand what was going on underneath them, and the presence of a Board or otherwise has proved to be irrelevant.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 06:02
  #410 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
If i could vote for Sen Fawcett I would! It's great to see someone who knows what he is talking about.
I think he has the measure of those who sit in front of him.
He certainly does. For the first time in about forty plus years, we have somebody in the Parliament who has an in-depth aviation knowledge, and the skill to sort the sheep from the goats, not only in CASA/ATSB/AsA, but all those who approach him from the aviation community.

As a result, a very experienced aviator is very well briefed in the Senate hearings, as was clear on 24 Feb, just after 1400 AEDT.

It was equally clear, even thought, in my opinion, Mr. McCormick intended to muddy the waters over CVD matters,that he, Mr. McCormick did/does not understand the legal basis of Denison, or what ICAO or our own regulations actually say about what is required to demonstrate pilot proficiency.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 13:55
  #411 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
one interesting item that came out was that the supposed problem for Colour Vision Deficit pilots was the PAPI aid.

well the papi aid is just 4 lights that show white too high, half and half on the glideslope and 4 reds when too low.

if it really is a problem then change the colours to white and amber.

the level of moronic stupidity shown by the casa people just beggars belief.

to a man I think they would be more appropriate working in the catholic church than in casa.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 17:09
  #412 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
I have been lying in bed sleepless pondering something that doesn't make sense to me.

Tonight I discovered that the CASA head medico, dear old Poohsan, is actually an associate professor, presumably of medicine.

You would think that an associate professor of medicine would be held in high regard by his peers. after all they don't normally make idiots associate professors. the thing that doesn't stack up for me is that all three of the practising qualified doctors that I have spoken to about poohsan think he is an idiot with the weirdest take on medicine they have ever encountered.

how could you be an associate professor and yet seen by your peer professionals as an idiot?

the only logical explanation I have come up with is the question, "are Poohsan's qualifications bogus?"

CASA's HR selection process doesn't seem to check backgrounds if the last idiot I encountered from CASA is anything to go by. I wonder...
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 22:17
  #413 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
IOS (& tendentious bloggers) right of reply to FF WLR submission!

Kharon's last has a certain finality undertone to it?? Could it be that the Ferryman has already got forward bookings and is just going through the motions??

Oh well still time to play while the miniscule is still MIA and coming to terms with a ten tonne Dumbo permanently parked in his office..

The (soon to be former..) DAS had this to say on page 6 of his WLR submission:

Now I find the typical back-handed comments...

..."especially useful indicator" & " even on this crude basis"..

..passing strange given a certain tendentious blogger, in his recent WLR submission, makes just such a comparison:
Finally, this summary would be incomplete without a comparison with similar legislation in other jurisdictions. An example lies in a single regulation covering the “sharp end”:

Australia – 351 words

USA – 94 words

New Zealand – 96 words

91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command

(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

(c) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;

(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:

(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and

(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

(c) the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;

(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.

(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command

Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:

(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and

(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.

Author’s note

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as “shelfware”; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft’s operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn’t always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.

The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the “finishing touches” on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn’t even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.

In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

The new regulations are rich in similar examples.
Phearless Phelan's WLR submission's next paragraph heading is...
Strict liability offences

It has been explained to us that offences are designated to be of “strict liability” so as to exclude intent from the elements defining the offence, and that for that reason the concept has no place in legislation on operational matters. It has also been explained to us that the reason that almost every regulation is assigned the maximum of 50 penalty points maximises the amount of the available administrative fine where that is an optional alternative to criminal prosecution.
Hmm....interesting that in the next breath of the DAS (soon to be retired..) missive he goes onto comment about a Civil Penalties solution that CAsA are apparently batting around the halls of Fort Fumble and in consultation with industry minions for the past two years...

Passing strange that...more to follow..K2!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 23:49
  #414 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
What's up Doc?

The next close encounter with the estimates committee will (or should) have the miniscule's response to the Pel Air mess for the panel to play with. It's been a long gestation period but there is a sense that the interminable delays have not blunted the anticipation. No doubt the Senate panel will do it the justice it deserves. The response, whatever form it takes is a potential no win situation, but I just can't see the Senate panel swallowing it and saying thank you.

ASA, under Hood direction have bearded their lions and, through the Mildura incident, have clearly demonstrated acceptance of their issues, parallel to the Norfolk event, and are addressing them. The well known McComic dislike of Hood, which may just have encouraged Hood to toddle off was a grave error. Hood is a keeper. Hood knows where the skeletons are buried and (IMO) he's a lot smarter than the likes Campbell or Chambers. Given the elbow room and some encouragement; things may have been very different for CASA and the ATSB. But they are not; not now, are they?

No matter what platitudes, promises and humbug McComic and Beaker have pumped into the ministerial response, no matter how good the MM damage control, no matter how carefully the words are massaged; without a shred of credibility remaining, any response to Pel Air will expose the Minister, Board and those involved as either willing participants or negligent on lookers. Yet there is hope. People, the calibre of Forsyth, Hawke and Johnston, not to mention a couple in the PMC have a basic structural integrity, are intelligent, sophisticated, worldly wise and, when presented with facts, no where near politically stupid. Their disgust may not be publicly displayed, but I'd bet a long cold beer that behind closed doors that disgust would be clearly displayed, with some venom. Truss on a spit? - hell yes.

But what about the 'other' interested' parties? The WLR panel for example, or the Canadian TSB. What are they to think? Someone has been 'at it' on the Terms of Reference (ToR), for both 'investigations'. The CTSB review has been carefully shaped, to provide the right response within the ToR; as writ. There was and probably is very little 'non standard' in the ATSB methodology or paperwork, 'no brainer'. The WLR was to be the same – same: but the wheels have come off; 260 + submissions is too much to sweep under the miniscule carpet.

What will the Senate committee do? Between McComic and Dolan the whole infrastructure has been publicly (at least to industry) embarrassed; now it falls on the shoulders of Fawcett, Heffernan, Xenophon et al to retrieve the miniscule's chestnuts from the fire. Truss just needs to take a deep breath and do the right thing, not only for his reputation, but for that of the other bystanders likely to be politically damaged, through association, by the fall out.

Minion – "Yes Minister, you have a problem". Minister "Yes I can see that; lets get some advice and fix it, quick smart". See, easy as pie: the advice is there, the good troops are there, the power is there; so what FCOL is the hold up ??? This could be a gold star for the transport minister. Huge money leak, plugged. Aviation industry world class and recovering, exemplar in accident investigation; world leader in regulatory reform; the best administration of matters aeronautical – anywhere. All to play for, all obtainable, a long festering sore healed, credibility restored: all at the stroke of a pen. Just do it, for pities sake.


[Aside]. Some fool in the estimates was taking the Mickey Bliss out of the Abbott comments on how bad roads affect the mental health of people using them; the fool should have been on the M5 yesterday morning where he could have clearly seen the results for himself. He should have stood on the side waving a banner – "Abbott talks bull on bad roads" he'd have been road kill in about 10 seconds – flat. Idiot.

PS - Hansard transcript can be downloaded - HERE- Start page 52: Adobe (PDF) counter p. 56.

Last edited by Kharon; 27th Feb 2014 at 23:51. Reason: Whoops, wrong button - Edit not delete old fool.
Kharon is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 18:50
  #415 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A class touch?

Phelan never felt the slippery hand of plagiarism as McComic gabbled out the (thankfully interrupted) nonsense speech in last estimates. The infamous nonsense speech had many pundits, (those not rolling about laughing) scratching their heads and mumbling into their drinks. The ever alert Sarcs nailed it down; Phelan's submission.
Sarcs # 499 –"Now I find the typical back-handed comments..."especially useful indicator" & " even on this crude basis"....passing strange given a certain tendentious blogger, in his recent WLR submission, makes just such a comparison:
Pro Aviation's opening gambit is a 150 page epistle and no easy read, being complex and detailed. The funny thing is; Paul was having web site problems and there was a delay in publishing on the PA site. You can check the dates yourself, then have a read of the PA submission, then write a rebuttal. It is indeed passing strange that McComic could have read, considered, drafted, edited and polished a speech within the time frame - ProAviation, updated February 21, 2014 – quite remarkable. We know the WLR panel keep their cheese sandwiches and a couple of beers in the Kenwood (for security), perhaps the mice got in.

The McComic filibuster, considered against the Phelan submission will take on quite a bizarre aspect, to those unfamiliar with the CASA style and penchant for lifting the work of clever folk from Google without even the courtesy of an "acknowledgement" to the author. This stand alone is dishonest, but worse than that, it's bad manners. Then to brazenly put yourself up as the author of a piece and claim credit for being the Messiah, is beyond the pale. But it seems to be 'de rigueur' for the 'guns' at Sleepy Hollow; sad really.

But at least we now know that Phelan has their measure, it's passing strange that McComic didn't take on the AAAA submission or AMROBA; both freely available, concise, written in English and published long before Phelan and PA got their act together. I particularly dislike the cunning use of (adjusted) without explanation and the sly, thinly veiled, derogatory remarks made as part of the McComic nonsense speech. The implications speak volumes on the type of man; and by extension his supporters, we see being slowly, but very surely publicly revealed. I have always found that bullies are invariably cowards and usually cheats attracting a definite type of follower. To take on and deride a journalistic submission where legal threat may be in play, rather than an industry peer group where it is not; is not the behaviour of an officer or a gentleman. Ask Ben Sandilands if you don't believe it; or, better still ask

Now then, how many sleeps till August?.

Last edited by Kharon; 28th Feb 2014 at 19:10. Reason: Choccy frog for CJ - still laughing at the best Muppet clip ever
Kharon is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 23:25
  #416 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Crude page counts & adjusted??

I particularly dislike the cunning use of (adjusted) without explanation and the sly, thinly veiled, derogatory remarks made as part of the McComic nonsense speech.

Glad to see that the adjusted, in brackets, didn’t get past your scrutiny “K”…

Adjusted: A small (past tense) derivative of adjust, which is defined as…

“…alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result e.g. "he smoothed his hair and adjusted his tie"…”

The synonyms are interesting…

“…synonyms: modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance..”

Definitions aside, what is it intended to indicate in the DAS’s (soon to be retired) missive??

Not wanting to enter into any crude, or tautological, or tendentious arguments on the subject of page counts of other jurisdictions aviation safety regs, so I won’t. However it is an interesting exercise to explore the part where the first (adjusted) comes up. It was in reference to a crude page count assessment on the intended CASR Part 61 vs the current FAR Parts 61/63.

Note: The words intended & current are crucial in this as they go to the reason for adjusted (in brackets).

If you briefly explore the history of FAR Part 61/63 you will find that the original (or intended) Part 61/63 was first made active some 30 odd years ago (I think 1978?). More interesting is that it had far earlier origins and was basically a carry-over (copy if you like) from the US Civil Aeronautics Act 1938, which then became the FAA Act in 1958. Part 61/63 in that interim period was listed as a CAR (Civil Aeronautics Regulations).

As we all know once proposed legislation or regulations become ‘live’ they grow with the times. {Comment: Case in point is the CASR 1998, that crudely put, has grown from 190 pages to 2186 pages.}

So in the interim period, of 76 years, FAR 61/63 (formerly CAR 61/63) has naturally grown as times change…

Hmm…I think…...that is what the DAS (STBR) obscurely means by the word adjusted (in brackets)…
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 00:22
  #417 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The DAS submission would be in DRAFT form up until the last moment to allow for 'adjustments' required after reading all the other submissions. At least that's how I'd do it if I were to wear his crown for a bit.

On a similar subject, the DAS reports to the CASA Board, yes? If so, why is he on the Board, (or since Toller is this not the case)? This would be like reporting to yourself in the company of others explaining your interpretation of amended matters in such a way as to pass any resolution.

Under The Corporations Act, which isn't necessarily in any government jurisdiction, a Director 'must keep himself informed'. Failure to do so is no excuse, but could perhaps be ameliorated by a factor if the Director or member of the Board is given false, misleading or obtuse information by another member of that Board.

One wonders if all information given to the CASA Board is accurate, contemporary and relevant. Do they act on the information given by the person responsible for reporting to them and if that person who reports is also a member of the same Board, is there no conflict of interest if say, matters of complaint against the reporter, (DAS), have been run through a 'wordsmith' 'doctored' or omitted, and the Board is left ignorant of ALL the pertinent FACTS, thus not enabling them to 'keep themselves informed'.

If this Board reports to The Minister on inaccurate or jaundiced information, is the Minister able to be well enough informed to make objective decisions on the probity of that information.

The CASA Board of Directors are to be held as responsible as the DAS on information given to The Minister who in turn informs the Public.

The 'buck may stop' with the Minister, but there is a potential for a lot of others to 'sink' with the ship while he rows off in the lifeboat.

If I were a CASA Board member I would make a preemptive plan of action now before it's too late. Making a plan to stay with the boat and the skipper would be a bad move I believe. The Admiral is already ashore preparing for his send off and rewards. I hear Barnaby is selecting the wines.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Mar 2014 at 00:29. Reason: snake in the laundry caused interruption. difficult to concentrate with all that screaming.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 02:09
  #418 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Apropos of nothing specific and no one in particular, an article by Jack Waterford, titled “Practised in the arts of deception” makes interesting reading. (Here: Practised in the arts of deception

Robert Armstrong, secretary of the British cabinet, famously called it being ''economical with the truth''. It's a technique of volunteering no information, answering questions literally, and playing a completely dead bat. Confirming only facts already known. Conscious use of ambiguous phrases such as ''as far as I know'' or ''to my knowledge'' that can equally imply inquiry or lack of it.

It's about deceiving without lying, misleading, answering questions not asked, and failing to answer questions which are. It's playing the smart-arse. Making sure that nothing one says could be a springboard for criticism for what has occurred. When not ''cover-up'', which it often is, it's about ''providing cover''.

It's the adroit and practised way of verbalising with mental reservations unstressed parts of speech that negate the apparent meaning, or claimed ''misunderstanding'', of questions. It never, of course, involves a lie - in some cases perjury - even if any notion of ''the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'' has been strangled into meaninglessness.

Those who practise this art are often immoderately pleased at their abilities to conceal, evade, mislead and leave a completely false impression. It's ''protecting the minister''. It is regarded as one of the highest calls of duty upon the senior public servant. Even as old bonds of fidelity and confidence between politician and public servant wither, a public servant who loses a minister is careless, and one who gets a minister into trouble is negligent. To do so by wrongly describing the facts and considerations is bad - even unprofessional. To dob the minister in by telling the truth is even worse - a form of unfaithfulness worse than (though akin to) adultery.

It's also practised, as a matter of routine, by military officers answering questions from people outside the direct chain of command. Anyone else - parliamentarians, press and public - will be told only what it is convenient for government and the services to have them know.

This week, Angus Campbell, a senior soldier who has been seconded to a largely bureaucratic position - which includes oversight over Australia's concentration camps - was accused by Steve Conroy in estimates of covering up for government. He was - at least in the sense of consciously avoiding giving any information that might embarrass the government or the military. No doubt he thought that was his duty. Perhaps it is. But there has never been and should never be a tradition that an officer - or a bureaucrat - who does it is immune from criticism, or questions about whether he, or she, is really serving the public interest by extinguishment of sunlight as a disinfectant to bad policy, bad operations and bad leadership, civil or military.

Criticism is more necessary when a national security or ''operation'' or, now, ''on-water'' excuse is used to claim immunity from scrutiny, even after needless deaths. One day, indeed, there should be a public inquiry into the antecedents and limits of the claim - originally made by government, then adopted by Campbell - that the ''on-water'' activities of border command would be fatally compromised by public (and people-smuggler) knowledge of what was being done by politicians and sailors in Australia's name.

Being unhelpful to parliamentary committees is a bipartisan sport. After all, politicians hide behind bureaucrats and officers when it suits. Likewise with hiding behind the flag, by which any criticism of military judgment or activity is counted as a betrayal of the nobility of Gallipoli, or the service ethos.

The public servant or officer who deceives to protect the present minister is probably doing it to protect the Labor one before him, and the Liberal one before that. Loyal lying is to the government of the day, the policy of the hour, the tactic of the minute. It serves, usually, no long-term purpose, no higher ideal. It is sometimes founded on a naive belief that loyalty will be returned, or that a politician you protect ''owes'' you something, or is blackmailable if ever one is in a fix.

In some departments, not least Prime Minister and Cabinet, one suspects there are informal classes about being unhelpful to parliamentary committees, even, perhaps particularly, on issues that matter not a bit. In clubs, some senior public servants quietly boast to each other about how they faced down the bowling, dispatched the odd loose ball to the boundary and never once gave a chance. Even better, of course, is if one gets a moral advantage over the inquisitors. Sometimes, a parliamentary Rumpole will express frustration and suggest that the batsman is being less than completely forthright. Great umbrage can be taken, on the Ken Henry model or, now, the David Hurley model for such an infamous suggestion.

In 2011, Senator Michael Ronaldson accused Lieutenant-General Ken Gillespie, then chief of army, of ''prevaricating'' about an awards ceremony. Strictly, Gillespie had been telling the truth, but he was also prevaricating, if only by efforts to distract. He was loyally protecting the army from its embarrassment about a broken promise to veterans. And protecting David Feeney, then at the dizzy heights of his political career as parliamentary secretary for defence, who himself showed a talent for obfuscation and misdirection that might have suggested a background in factional politics, public service or both. Feeney's statements were replete with some of the classic distractors: ''Now let me clarify this …''; ''As I comprehend it …''; ''That is my advice''; ''I am advised …''; ''If that is your suggestion, then all I can say is that that is my advice and I know nothing of it''; ''I am advised now, however, …''. And so on.

Gillespie intervened to ''help'' the minister. He explained one of many sources of confusion, if by suggesting it was the only one.

Ronaldson: I am afraid, with the greatest respect, that given the prevarication in relation to this matter … I am far more prepared to accept the views of those who refused to come … I am more prepared to accept their take on this and I am more prepared to accept the take of the journalists involved than from anything I have heard today.

Gillespie: That is for you to …

Ronaldson: I thank you for your prevarication.

Gillespie: That is your choice to make that.

It is typical of the incompetence of those staffing Bill Shorten, and of Shorten himself, that this incident was misdescribed this week as Ronaldson calling Gillespie a ''coward''. He wasn't, and Shorten had to spend several days apologising.

In 2011, there was no collective intake of breath at what Ronaldson said. Chief of the Defence Force Angus Houston was in the room but did not take public umbrage and call for a return to the day when, apparently, the word of an officer and a gentleman could always be taken as absolute writ.

Ronaldson had not been suggesting that Gillespie was a pawn of Labor. He did not really mean that Gillespie had not been telling the truth. Indeed, Gillespie was telling the truth, but the truth as he saw it completely elided anything to do with the embarrassment caused Defence by the commander in chief, and the political and media reaction to the consequences. The incident, to him, followed a confusion of two separate functions, and a worthy extra tacked on to another worthy event. But nothing he said cleared the air or made things simpler. I doubt General Gillespie would have reached the rank he did had he intended to. His level of command is much more focused on assembling the resources necessary for his service to meet the needs of the government of the day - a process for intellectual, political and administration infighting, rather than traditional military virtues.

Horatio Nelson, famously, put a telescope to his blind eye during the Battle of Copenhagen so that he could say, honestly, that he ''had not seen'' an order - conveyed by flag from his commander, Sir Hyde Parker, to withdraw his ships from the fight. A former defence chief, Admiral Chris Barrie, was once accused of doing something similar in failing to update his information about whether children were thrown overboard from a refugee boat. Barrie could hardly but be aware that both John Howard and Peter Reith, with the help of their private offices, were being accused of constructing ''I wasn't told'' alibis. Formally told by Rear Admiral Chris Ritchie that there was ''no evidence'' of children being thrown overboard, Barrie told Ritchie: ''I would not change my advice to the minister [Reith] without conclusive proof that the original advice to Reith was wrong.''

Paul Kelly, in his book The March of Patriots, observed: ''Even if Barrie was unconvinced, his obligation was clear - he should have asked Ritchie to 'resolve it once and for all and report back'. But Barrie was a CDF who did not want to be convinced the story was wrong.''

It was Barrie's fate to be remembered primarily for his provision of political cover to the government of the day, over an affair that went right to the basis of any concept of military honour. Students of the military art, and those lecturing them, now learn of this, and similar incidents, as examples of what not to do.

But the military caste has little to learn about being forthright from public servants. In estimates this week, the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Roger Wilkins, was asked about subpoenas from the Hanger royal commission for Rudd-era cabinet documents:

Wilkins: Are you asking whether we have received such a request?

Senator Joseph Ludwig: Yes.

Wilkins: No.

Senator Kim Carr: So, no documents have been handed over, as far as you are aware?

Wilkins: Not from us.

As Crikey.com.au reported, that same afternoon, an PM&C officer told another committee a folder of cabinet documents had been given to A-G's department which, with the Australian Government Solicitor, was co-ordinating compliance with royal commission requests. Wilkins sent a letter ''clarifying'' his evidence - in language that may well have been in German. He was later asked about it.

Ludwig: Senator Kim Carr asked whether or not any documents had been handed over to the royal commission. My recollection is that your evidence was, 'Not from us' …

Wilkins: That is exactly what I did not say. I said they are not our documents.

George Brandis: In fairness, I think Mr Wilkins was being asked about Attorney-General's Department documents and his answer was strictly correct. But in order to clarify that answer - not to derogate from it but to clarify it and expand a little on it - Mr Wilkins has been good enough to provide this letter.

Ludwig: When you say, 'Not from us', there would have been documents in the Attorney-General's portfolio that related to the home insulation program, would there not?

Wilkins: No, they were not - that is my point.

Very clever, Roger Mr Wilkins. But anyone reading could be excused for resolving never to believe you on anything unless it had been parsed by Fowler, translated back and forth from German, and run up the flag and saluted by Angus Campbell.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 08:29
  #419 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Interesting reading indeed:

The Military are responsible for carrying out the will of the elected government of the day. If that elected government changes there is no hang over of duty to the old government, it takes new orders from that newly elected government the day that government is sworn in. Be in no doubt, Lt General Angus Campbell is acting in his military capacity and Operation sovereign Borders is a military Operation despite the bleating's of Shorten, The Greens or the Media and there is no reason to compromise military operations by offerings to anybody outside of government. If I recall correctly, all 'The Guardian' journalists were 'sent to Coventry' after the sinking of HMS Sheffield. (apologies for the obvious play on words).

Now with Politicians, it's not uncommon to keep 'Advisors' from the last mob on the same job despite any pre formed or hereditary ties. This is something I don't understand as it has a very great potential to perpetuate any existing traits. I'm unsure if the Conservatives are just 'soft cocks' or have a plan regarding 'my ABC' for example.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 08:54
  #420 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
again apropos of nothing specific....

Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume the early english designer has turned his hand to writing aviation histories. (good ones too)

In his book Flying Flea, Henri Mignet's Pou du Ciel is the following quote..
But it was in Australia where the greatest number of Fleas were built outside Britain. This was in spite of an extremely strict Australian airworthiness rules (stricter even, at that time, than ours [britain’s]) which virtually prohibited any aircraft from flying without a full and certifiable certificat of airworthiness. Happily Australian’s, like Yorkshiremen, dont respond easily to city-dwelling rules makers and so the first flight of a flea took place on January 31st 1936....
On June 1st,(1936) the Australian authorities issued a circular categorically prohibiting all further flying of Fleas. Six weeks later a second Flea was tested at Parafield and the following May another was flown.....
In all at least 56 people are known to have been actively involved with the Flea in Australia before 1939.
so it seems we in Australia have a long history of over the top aviation regulation ...and equally just ignoring the bastards and doing it anyway.
dubbleyew eight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.