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 1st Mar 2014, 08:21
  #421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
... 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. ...
One small problem in that theory: The Minister for Defence has stated, repeatedly and publicly, that Operation Sovereign Borders is a civil, not military, operation.

That, and the fact that the ADF owes is duty of obedience to the Queen, not the Minister for Immigration.

LTGEN Campbell will be rewarded well, and pay dearly, for his loyalty to politicians. (And, to get the thread back on track, so will Mr McCormick.)
Creampuff is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 19:11
  #422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sunday head scratcher.

Thanks Creamy, enjoyable article to start a Sunday with; Canberra Times, who'd a thunk it. Whilst on the subject of sleight of hand; can anyone explain in lay terms where the CASA board actually stand on that subject, in law. Just suppose (for arguments sake) that the board was vaguely aware of a problem – say Pel Air – as we are all familiar with it.

Would a meeting be called to discuss 'the issue'; or, would it be left to the ground troops to sort it out and report back during the routine meeting schedule?

To what degree could the board expect to be informed on the progress of a matter like the Norfolk ditching?

What I am trying to determine is 'where the buck stops'. If the board have only been given a brief outline and not too many specifics, can they be accountable in some way? Corporate law and director liability legislation is way beyond my poor skill set, but I expect that somewhere in the rules, someone has to carry the can. The question, to my lay mind is one of how much would they be told and was that information sufficient for the board to form a clear picture of circumstances, events and probable outcomes? There is quite a scale difference between being told – no worries – minor event all under control, to 'Huston we have a problem'.

Would it be quite forgivable for a board to go back to the tea, biscuits and budget without a care, relying on 'executive' advice; or, would there be a 'legal' need to investigate further or ask for more information? Can't see an event like Quadrio or Barrier making it into the hallowed chambers as much more than a one line summary – notice of execution – with little in the way of detail; but what, in general terms does the board 'need' to know?, how is that decided? and by whom?

Too much for my wooden head; wouldn't mention it normally, only the article and an interesting conversation with a savvy 'CEO' prompted the little grey cells.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 22:17
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
A rather embarrassing post by Ben, illustrated with a woodcut of the Spanish Inquisition or somehting like that, has fingered the ARSS for not publishing the public submissions.

Could get ugly quickly. I notice he also published an article in The Australian the other day laying into Qantas management, and maanged to infuriate Joyce into mentioning him on Channel 9 breakfast show. I think efforts to engage the broader media in aviation are worth it, especially Adele Ferguson on the Sydney Morning Herald.

A series of submissions to Australia’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) that offer detailed documented criticism of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have in effect been suppressed by that panel of ‘independent’ experts chaired by David Forsyth, a distinguished career aviation administrator and aero engineer.
The ASRR decided not to publish the ‘public’ submission lodged for its consideration.
This action, which is contrary to the long established practices of accountability and transparency in democracies world wide, has stunned a number of professionals in bodies like the US FAA who had contacted Plane Talking seeking a single point link to the submissions which had been intended by the parties making them to be public.
Because of the disrepute this action by the ASRR might bring to Australia, and the panel itself, including a loss of confidence in the proceedings, a list of links to 11 of the public release intended submissions are provided below.
Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body | Plane Talking
denabol is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 22:19
  #424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Military v Civil Action. Then back on topic.

Creampuff;


As per your previous The Minister for Defence states a civil action, but like the Korea War, a 'Police Action' was run by the Military and sanctioned by the Minister of the day. This Minister is acting on behalf of the Executive of the Government. The Indonesians are now patrolling their borders. Is this a Civil or Military Action?


The Military owes it duty to the elected government of the day.


The Governor General is appointed by the government of the day and is Commander in Chief of the Defence Force who's duty is to The Queen.


To quote from my Commission: "To xxxx whereas you have been appointed to be, on and from xx/xx/xxxx an officer of the Australian Army; Now therefor I, the Right Honourable Sir John Robert Kerr, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Most venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's Cousel learned in the law, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, issue in pursuance of section 10 of the Defence Act 1903, this Commission to you as an officer of the Australian Army: AND I do Charge and Command you to discharge your duty faithfully and to observe and execute all such orders and instructions as you may receive from your superior officers. Given under my hand etc. ... It's got nothing to do with loyalty to any particular party. It's duty.


To get back to where I tried to liken this fact to the strange addiction that besets us with political advisors left over from the last mob, I would suggest this is because of the epidemic of public servants ensconced in positions so firmly that any new government are loathe to divest themselves lest memories from the past are brought to the present day.


Regarding the CASA Board, I would suggest their duty should eclipse the standard of the Corporations Act and answer to a higher moral and ethical jurisdiction.


I doubt they do. It's my opinion they are treated like mushrooms and when the day of reckoning arrives they will wonder what they were doing there in the first place.


If the DAS is on that Board, I feel it is compromised.


EDIT for denabol post: Amazing that they would invite further criticism by rejecting public submissions after they were solicited. To call it outrageous would be accurate but there must be a better word to use.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Mar 2014 at 23:00. Reason: denabol post catch up.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 04:05
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Last drift, I promise….
The Governor General is appointed by the government of the day …
… Not correct …
… and is Commander in Chief of the Defence Force who's duty is to The Queen.
Correct.
… I do Charge and Command you to discharge your duty faithfully and to observe and execute all such orders and instructions as you may receive from your superior officers.
Is Minister Morrison a “superior officer” of Major General Campbell within the meaning of the standard terms of Commission?

If Minister Morrison ordered Major General Campbell to shoot the GG and CDF, would Major General Campbell be obliged to carry out that order?

If the GG and CDF ordered Major General Campbell to shoot Minister Morrison, would Major General Campbell be obliged to carry out that order?

(Don’t get too wrapped up in this hypothetical, Frank. There are orders, and then there are orders. Their ‘legality’ sometimes depends on who gets the Queen to sack whom, first.)

Back on topic: The submitters to the ASRR are not protected by parliamentary privilege. I have no knowledge of the Panel’s thinking on the issue, but I guess they figure if someone decides to publish his/her/its own submission on someone's websit, the Panel is not responsible for the consequences of publishing the content. However, if the Panel decides to publish submissions on the Department’s website, the Panel and the Department may be responsible for the consequences of publishing the content.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 05:19
  #426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Answer via PM. This is probably irritating the moderators.


The submitters to the ASSR include natural and non natural persons and identities which include many who's jurisdiction is with ASIC. It's not up to the panel to decide on consequences of publishing, it's up to the submitters.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 05:35
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Not quite Frank.

If I post some defamatory material on PPRuNe, the owners of the website may be at risk as well as me.

Purely hypothetically, if e.g. Pro Aviation chose to author and publish, on its own website, an ASRR Submission that contained material defamatory of current or past CASA staff, Pro Aviation alone is at risk of defamation actions brought by those current or past CASA staff. If the ASRR Panel decided to publish the same (hypothetical) submission on the Department’s website, the Panel and the Department may be at risk as well.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 05:49
  #428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
if we want to fix the problems of aviation regulation in this country we need to identify exactly where the problems are.

the ex-RAAF being employed in aviation regulation has seen them either deliberately or accidentally try to cast civilian aviation in ways that are familiar to the ex-RAAF.
if you look at maintenance organisations the regs try to make them look like RAAF maintenance hangars.
if you look at private ownership rights these are nowhere in evidence in australian aviation law probably because in the RAAF private ownership was an unknown concept.

I looked at the old CAAP on biennial flight reviews last night and indeed it looks like a reasonable approach. It seems that a lot of CASA intent fails in the delegated coal face. while I was watering the grass in front of my hangar one of the guys told me of his experiences recently with his biennial. he found it a little tedious but got the sign off sorted. the instructor then showed him the new changed requirements that would be in force next time.
his comment was that he was not submitting to that. it was totally over the top. he was not intending to ever submit to a biennial ever again.

australian aviation regulation is not far off track, but it is subtly wrong on every front.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 05:52
  #429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
creampuff they'd find it all a lot easier if there was nothing to criticise.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 05:59
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
WLRP trying to unscramble a $230 million+ egg before..

Mr FAA (IASA) comes a knockin...

Well signs a not good so far for the miniscule, Ben's article is somewhat inevitable really..TICK TOCK miniscule...

Comet's comment could be prediction of things to come maybe?? :
comet

Posted March 2, 2014 at 11:43 am

It’s time the United States Federal Aviation Administration took action. Because Australia won’t.

The FAA should downgrade Australia to a Category 2 rating under its International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, just like it recently did to India. It would be for Australia’s good, and the only way Australia will be motivated to get its house in order.

Australia has an overwhelming culture of secrecy. You see it in the military. You see it in the Immigration department (news about asylum seekers and boats arrivals is suppressed), and you see it in aviation administration, such as the Pel-Air crash inquiry, and now the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

It’s a pretty dire state of affairs when public criticism of aviation administration and CASA must be suppressed by the government. You would expect this sort of action to happen in Uganda.
And ProAviation's update, from the Chair of the WLRP, points towards an uncertainty of a possible fix to the basket case that is the RRP & the administration of aviation safety here in Oz.. :
Forsyth Committee unscrambling the issues

The strength and spread of interest in the government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) process took almost everybody by surprise. ProAviation had already been made aware of numerous submissions from industry sector groups, trade unions, airports, other government agencies, individuals from pretty well all the aviation sectors we’re aware of, AOC and MRO approval holders and even the medical and legal professions; each commenting on their own regulatory hot spots and in most cases identifying well-considered solutions.

For an update we contacted Australian industry veteran David Forsyth, who heads up the ASRR Panel. He says the review has now received over 260 submissions and supplementaries, and Panel members have already interviewed over 200 people or groups in the first phase of the team’s in-depth probe into the regulatory environment in which the industry does its business.

“We’ve had a lot of interest which has been really encouraging. Submissions have come from right across the country; quite a lot from the areas we visited around Christmas time when the panel first visited Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, and spoke to people at the GA airports – Moorabbin, Bankstown, Parafield and Archerfield. At that time we also met with other organisations in those capitals. So when you add them all up, at this point we’ve spoken to probably around 200 people now. The panel is back in Canberra at the moment where we’ve been talking to give them more people. We spent a day in Sydney last week and a day in Melbourne, and we’re splitting up over the weekend. Two of us will be in Perth this week and the other two are going up to Cairns; and we’ll be talking to people in both those locations too. We obviously don’t have time to see everybody around such a big country, but we wanted to make sure we had two of us up in Cairns and two in Perth and that accounts for this coming week.”

The exploratory work has already helped the Panel identify and classify issues that will help them sharpen their focuses and their priorities.

“Rather than continuing what we’ve been doing with the more general stakeholder meetings, talking about a whole range of things and getting their inputs on all the terms of reference, we’re now starting to concentrate on particular issues. The way we structured those interviews this last week, we spoke to specific people about their issues and to others about their submissions. We’re obviously not going to get to all 260 people who made submissions, but if there’s a particular matter to run down, like pilot medicals for example, then we’ll go and talk specifically to individuals who’ve made submissions, or who are in the business, or have spoken to us about those issues.

“We’re very happy with progress so far. We think all of the issues are on the table now and we don’t think there’ll be too many new matters. The sort of comment we getting from both talking to people and from their submissions when we meet with them, has been very, very good. I didn’t really expect anything else, but I think my UK and Canadian colleagues are both quite impressed by how articulate participants have been, and also how reasonable they’ve been. I do understand that they can get upset about things but they’re not being overly emotional about it, they’re quite factual and clinical, and a lot of them are making really good suggestions as to how things might be done well, so thus far we’ve been very impressed, and it’s been great.”

The Panel expects to be briefing Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss regularly between now and May, and to deliver its draft report in early May; and members are confident that target can be met, says Mr Forsyth.

“We haven’t reached any final conclusions about anything at this point, but obviously we’ve got some ideas. We’ll be briefing the Minister sometime this week and indicating a few things that we’re starting to consider more deeply, and I’m sure we’ll get some comments back. We’ll continue to poke and prod while talking further to industry about their thinking, as well of course as talking to people in government about the same things. So altogether I’m quite happy with progress at this stage.”

With the government response to the Senate committee’s ATSB/CASA investigation report due to be tabled this week, the ASRR Panel is also working closely with the committee and in particular with Senators David Fawcett and Nick Xenophon:

“The whole panel met with them last December when they were first here. We’re meeting with a couple of the Senators again this coming week, and we’ve certainly set up meetings with Senators Fawcett and Xenophon. While my overseas colleagues were back home over Christmas, January and half of February, I and Panel secretary Richard Farmer went around and continued to talk to industry, mostly on specific subjects, continued to ask questions of CASA and the Department and other agencies, and to get answers to questions the other panelists had asked. I’m not saying it’s easy but I’m happy with what’s been achieved in the gathering of preliminary information.”

While he’s obviously unable to talk about specific issues at this point, Mr Forsyth observes:

“This industry rarely agrees on anything but they’re certainly agreed on a couple of things this time which is good. Some of the issues of course are sort of ‘low-hanging fruit,’ and there are some things that we’ll be able to reach a conclusion on quicker than others. Those are much easier to deal with than the ones where the industry isn’t in accord but on most other issues it has a reasonably consistent view.

“One of the hardest things to deal with is the regulatory reform program, because although the industry is almost unanimous that it’s a dog’s breakfast, they’re not united on what the solution is, and that makes it the main area where there are significantly different views across the industry. They are not agreed on the solution to the regulatory reform program and there are quite a range of differences of opinion. Some like the New Zealand model, some favour the US FARs, some people like the EASA, some people say we should just live with what we’ve got. Some say the whole thing should be chucked out and rewritten, and some think it only requires a very small amount of work. So there are a whole range of views on regulatory reform as I’m sure you’d expect.”

With over 260 contributors of submissions and the hundreds or thousands of industry players directly involved to various degrees, it’s obviously impractical to circulate a draft report to all stakeholders, and Mr Forsyth doesn’t see that happening:

“As far as I know the way the system is going to work is that we’ll talk with the Minister about the draft report and see if there’s anything we’ve missed that he wants us to look at, and give us the resources to do that if we need to. But failing that, we’ll then give him the final report and where it goes after that is up to the Minister. But so far we’re happy with the way we are progressing.

“I think the Minister is being kept well informed and obviously wants do something. I also think it can be fixed. It’s been encouraging, and it seems it just requires a bit of common sense on everybody’s part to work through all the issues. But as you know, it’s become a bit unpleasant out there both for industry and for the government, and usually those relationships can be repaired if you work hard at them.

“So let’s hope we can make some suggestions that will help with that. A lot of people are pinning a lot of hope on the process, and the weight of their expectations is huge!”
Oh dear miniscule what have you unleashed??

Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Mar 2014 at 19:03.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2014, 08:35
  #431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
it is as well to see that many pilots see CASA in this light....



seems a lot of australians are running out of patience for the smoke and mirrors nonsense of safety as a religion divorced from reality.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2014, 00:17
  #432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I still have my doubts the minister is being 'well informed' as opposed to 'informed'. If the CASA Board report what could be 'doctored' information, then they should be cognizant of what happened at the Nuremberg Trials when they tried it on with the 'I was only acting under orders' excuse, (or in this case ignorant of the real story). This probably relates to Creampuffs question on Generals orders to shooting GG's and other identities.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2014, 06:08
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 286
Do as I say, not as I do.

Naughty Creampuff, you've been to this school as well?
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''.
Almost all politicians are actually trained in the above mentioned skill by consultants specializing in this field. The government picks up the tab and it is expensive. Most of you would already know that, but for some of our junior PPRuNe folk they may not be aware of this. Bill Clinton would be one of the most skilled individuals you could ever study in this arena. He is brilliant at the art of bullshit. Robert Macnamara was also a master of poker faced non incriminating non yes/no answers, and NZ's Robert Muldoon (whom I despise) was also a fluent bullshit artist. So don't be fooled friends, if you have been watching the Senate fun you will have noticed plenty of this mischief. Unfortunately it is extremely hard work and takes a lot of concentration, so normally the 'bullshitters' body language will tell a different story, normally the truth. It's all fun to those who enjoy human factors and behavioural analysis techniques.
I pulled a similar stunt on a Regulator many moons ago, played them at their own game and made sure I didn't answer one single question with a yes/no. I would recommend that all folks study the technique and apply it for yourself. Never give a yes/no answer, just look at the bureaucrats, there is a good reason why they do what they do. MrDak does it pretty well and so does Truss, the Skull is mediocre as he can't control emotion, the Beaker is plain useless and couldn't bullshit his way through a cover up story about broken school desks, and Hoody is good at lip service (so to speak) when required, but he usually plays a straight bat (again, so to speak) hence the reason people generally like and listen to him, he keeps bullshit to a minimum.

Anyway, the WLR has placed a few nuggets out there for the IOS to consume. My take thus far, from their wording of matters, is that they agree that there are major problems, they agree that some things can be fixed in a short period of time (hint hint the disposal of the Skull and Beaker) and they acknowledge the powers to be ( government) have little control of matters (that's where a recommendation for David Fawcett as a junior aviation minister may come about). I think this review, although structured and obviously an attempt to appease the growing numbers of verbal critics, has backfired and the airing of so much dirty laundry certainly should have the Miniscule and the PM's attention, and if not then perhaps a visit by ICAO and the FAA, plus a subsequent downgrade of Australia's safety rating will wake these clowns up from their hibernation?
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2014, 19:39
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The Truss leadacy.

It’s time the United States Federal Aviation Administration took action.
Last time this miniscule had the chance to fix things, he rolled off the top. Then Albo and McComic waded in. Now with a hearty Hi Ho Silver, a wet lettuce review, seriously compromised ToR and a 'no foul' - all good mates approach, he expects the past is going to disappear with a band aid, cup of tea and some nice little platitudes.. Bollocks.

"The industry can't make up it's mind which regulation set it wants"; nonsense. "It may be ours only need a tweak or two; perhaps things are no too bad". Bollocks, wishful thinking and a handy escape route for the miniscule's withdrawal from conflict. Someone should tell the miniscule, the FAA/ICAO etc. know a hell of a lot more about the situation than he and his pals do; moreover, not only do they know the whole truth, they are not, even remotely scared of it. The big dogs are eying his bone and without true commitment, interest and attention he's going to have it pinched. What price Qantas then??

The legacy of damage McComic and his minions have imposed on the industry cannot and must not be swept under the carpet of political expediency. Thinking that by allowing McComic to slip away into the sunset, without a being glove laid on the bum, is a fix; is not only a travesty, but a fantasy. The creatures McComic encouraged and fostered remain; the malpractice system he created remains, the stench of corrupt evidence, subterfuge, colossal ignorance and massive arrogance cannot be that easily removed. Not by a quick wipe around with a wet lettuce leaf, not again. Been there, done that. Try to attract investors to industry if you seriously want to quantify the damage.

Miniscule Truss may feel well pleased with his band aid, he may, with luck, even placate an industry which will swallow just about anything, just for a little peace, harmony and the opportunity to resume normal operations; but I think it's too little, too late.

It's been said that David Forsyth is a honest man, intelligent and becoming increasingly alarmed at the blatant depravity being reported to the WLP. He and his colleagues probably even have the integrity to accurately report all this to Truss. It's no skin off for them to do exactly that. It's even possible they may 'strongly recommend' an independent, judicial inquiry through the Senate to examine the myriad of serious complaints against CASA officers, the blatant manipulation of the AAT system, the gross embuggerance of the ICC, the desperate need for ATSB independence and a Junior minister to oversight the whole shooting match. Tea and scandal with the miniscule tut-tutting away and shaking his head is one thing, getting Truss to take direct, positive action is quite another.

Truss has let the industry down, very badly in the past. If he can't find the bottle to deal with the situation he partly created, then he must find the personal courage through conscience to appoint someone who can; that is not a lot to ask. Now is it?

Perhaps Fawcett may not want to take the job on, but he could help; Xenophon may just be too busy to take on the task, who knows. There are other, talented, honest people who could, for a relatively small impost, just get it all done, properly, once and for all. No need to get the miniscule hands dirty, just hire a hit man. How's about it miniscule: will you man up and deal with the unpleasant truth your review dog has dragged home; or will you, yet again slide behind the cosy, air-conditioned barricades erected for your protection by those mandarins who happily led you so far up the garden path last iteration?

Selah.

Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Mar 2014 at 20:03. Reason: Right, tea break over – back on your heads you lot. (Ancient joke).
Kharon is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2014, 20:25
  #435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 286
Time to skin the cat?

As has been revealed, Miniscule Truss has opted for the urgent 'bury and hide' approach combined with 'sweep it under the carpet' in regards to the WLR (Link below for those who haven't yet read about the Miniscules despicable action)

Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body | Plane Talking

My questions are these;
- As an aviation industry which revolves around 'safety', are we really expected to sit back and have the results of an urgent and important review of dangerous issues covered up by being locked away in a Can'tberra vault?

- Why aren't the more mainstream media such as 4 Corners or 60 Minutes grabbing hold of this blatant attempt to cover up the truth and running a very big story about it?

- Why aren't ICAO and/or the FAA jumping on the first available flight and heading down under to see what the hell is going on?

- Why aren't the independent political parties using this issue to their advantage by using parliamentary privilege and their media 'friends' to go for the Governments jugular?

As a thought, it's time to find a different way to skin the cat. So the Miniscule decides to bury the submissions that paint his portfolio and subsequent departments in a bad light, why can't we encourage all those submitters to also send their submissions to somewhere such as Pro Aviation or Crikey where they can be publicly posted? Or perhaps they can be sent to PAIN who can then post them on PPRuNe, on a new thread? Those more legally minded may have some thoughts or ideas as to the legitimacy of doing this?
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 01:29
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
The PAIN initiative & AMROBA

PAIN:
We have had many requests from overseas parties to provide a single point access to the submissions made. Unable to satisfy all requests, we have endeavoured to provide those submissions published through group web sites. For those wishing to have a submission made available, there is a simple solution.
Good initiative PAIN, maybe PP (ProAviation) or Ben (Planetalking) could be persuaded to publish and update submissions as they come in…

On the subject of publicly available submissions I stumbled across the AMROBA submission: AMROBA ASRR Submission

Although it doesn’t hold back, the AMROBA submission is not quite as heavy hitting (& laced with obvious anger) that we saw with the AerialAg submission. The 30 odd page AMROBA contribution provides an excellent historical context, is well balanced and directly addresses the ToRs while providing well thought out solutions/recommendations for the WLRP to consider. Also like the AAAA sub, the AMROBA sub is not solely addressing their main area of concern (Aircraft maintenance & overhaul) but takes a top down view of the whole industry….
Executive Summary

Aviation has been in a state of change ever since government created, in 1988, a separate aviation safety regulator to operate on economic principles and the creation of an independent air accident bureau. This followed a 1987 Parliamentary Report on aviation safety regulation and sport aviation safety. Twenty five years on and there is still no final legislative system meeting global standards?

The international and national allocation of responsibilities for safety of the safety regulator, air accident bureau and industry, are obviously still not clarified in the legislative system that is being imposed.

The ‘objectives’ of multiple aviation reviews, post 1988, that the aviation industry has been subject to, have never achieved clarity of purpose, and never will, until the Civil Aviation Act is part of what must be reviewed. Bench-marking the legislative structure against other mature aviation countries, then amending accordingly to implement an effective aviation system applicable to the complexities of Australia’s aviation activities and also compliant with the applicable Articles of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, must be done.

The Act must enable governments to make Parliamentary Regulations directing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to promulgate [civil] aviation safety standards (CASS); standards developed by adaptingand/or creating global [civil] aviation safety standards.

The promulgation of CASSs must be the responsibility of CASA but the Act must also require those CASSs to be adapted fromthe Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, comparable with North America and European Aviation Regulators’ promulgated safety standards (Regulations/Standards) with minimal differences with our closest trading countries, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

Until the Civil Aviation Act has an objective that will see the development of aviation safety requirements to support a safe and sustainable aviation industry, there will not be overall growth in a safe and sustainable air transport system for all. The current ‘Main Object’ of the Act works against safe growth in some sectors.

Aviation safety is based on continual review of past decisions, recognising which decisions have had positive effects and which decisions have had negative effects.

The regulatory reform has been continual since 1989 and industry has had to continually change their business model. The problem is today, the change process itself introduces risk elements to safety. Many participants in this industry have only known an industry undergoing regulatory change and this continual change imposes confusion, a regulatory imposed risk that has to be managed.

Rewriting the Civil Aviation Act and a three-tier system will enable the regulatory reform process to be completed within 3 years.
The AMROBA submission is definitely worth reading and cogitating over…..well done Ken & Co…

Addendum - Dick's letter to the miniscule kind of follows the rationale of parts of the AMROBA submission..
Dear Minister

Legislation Where Compliance is Not Possible


I notice in your speech in Parliament on 14 November 2013 introducing the Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review, you stated:

“Safety will always remain the Government’s highest priority in aviation policy. That will never change.”

This, of course, reflects the current Civil Aviation Act 1988 which says, in relation to CASA,

9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

Minister, this makes it absolutely clear that safety is a more important consideration than other considerations, such as cost and participation levels.

While you make such statements in Parliament and while the Act remains as it is, it is quite clear that CASA staff must put a one-way ratchet on the rule re-write, increasing “safety” and resultant costs at all times and not considering whether the extra costs will affect the number of people who can actually afford to buy an air ticket or to charter or own an aircraft.

Over the last five years I have asked people at CASA why they are writing regulations which are more onerous and add to costs and their answer is quite simple: “Dick, there is nothing in the Act that says we should look at cost. Quite the contrary – we have to put the safety of air navigation in front of any cost or participation level considerations”.


Minister, I also note you have been telling people we can make savings by removing “red tape”. The problem is that the cost of red tape is such a minute part of the costs in aviation that removing it will most likely have no measureable effect and, on some occasions, the red tape actually adds to safety in a small way. So under the Act it would not be able to be removed.

Indeed, if the Act is followed as it has to be and safety is given prominence over other considerations, such as the cost of complying with the regulation and therefore the cost of air tickets, then participation levels will drop. That is indeed happening in the general aviation industry and if we are not careful the same thing will happen in air passenger operations as our costs climb higher and higher as CASA follows 9A.

The result will be that fewer Australians will be able to benefit from the higher safety levels that travel by air provides.

Minister, it is absolutely imperative that you “bite the bullet” and change the Act so it reflects what has to happen in reality.

Could I suggest that Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act be amended as follows:

9A Performance of functions

(2) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation and participation levels in aviation as the most important considerations.

I realise, of course, that your advisers from the Department will tell you that the Australian public is pretty stupid and will not accept such a change in the legislation. In fact, your advisers would be quite wrong as all sensible Australians understand that in aviation safety there must always be a balance between the amount of money spent in safety compliance and the ability of the beneficiary to pay these costs.

The way things are presently going could result in a situation where the only person able to afford to participate in our industry will be James Packer.

Yours faithfully

Dick Smith
If you wish to join in the debate (and it is a good one) you can go to Dick's new thread HERE

Last edited by Sarcs; 4th Mar 2014 at 08:51.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2014, 19:11
  #437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Nuts, bolts and Ammit.

It's becoming transparently obvious Truss and the mandarins are treating the WLR as per plan A. The notion that a review, neatly managed would meet his pre election promises and satisfy industry is being skilfully presented. The denial of parliamentary privilege, loose security and the despicable use of those reasons to deny public access to those submissions made available for publication is a disgrace, equal to anything Albo pulled out of the dirty tricks bag.

The public, peers and media have a right to know just how truly dreadful things have become. To continue the deception only to have it revealed at a later date will reflect badly. Imagine ICAO strolling in and declaring Australia to be the same as India i.e. not a fit and proper country. Blimey, the irony and the fall out: I can see the headlines; Minister hides essential safety information, Minister responsible for downgrade. Of course, the clever money is against this happening, but the odds are shortening with every weasel worded platitude and non event.

Sarcs published Nick Xenophon speaking – HERE- yesterday in the Senate; couple of things concerned me, although I must admit to not completely understanding how the game is played, and probably have got the tiger by the tail, again:

(a) The place was empty: you would expect a bunch of nanny state, budget conscious politicians to be righteously concerned with aviation safety and the associated cost. But you could have shot a gun in the chamber and hit sweet FA.

(b) Are the dynamic duo signing off on the entire matter?, there was nothing in the Xenophon speech which gave the impression of continuing commitment or ongoing involvement. Much like the WLR panel and the CTSB, they have honestly done what they can. The powers that be have the information, time to knock off and let the miniscule deal with the mess. In fairness, there is little else they can do.

So, it's back to the miniscule's office and his minders, here we find a couple or three special interest groups camped in the foyer, all needing their arses covered from incoming munitions. We know there is a severe shortage of backbone, we know the special interest groups have real influence and we have previously seen the demise of industry best effort in the hands of this miniscule.

Before placing a bet a wise punter must not only pick a fancy, but must be aware of the competition. In the "CYA" stakes, the CASA board will be tough to beat and at short odds; the mandarins entry must be the short price favourite; the Barnaby entry looks like a serious threat to Truss entry, the lame ATSB nag (rescued from the knackers) is at better odds than it deserves. With the Senate runners scratched, the industry entry must be at very, very long odds to finish the course. The industry entry has been beaten, flogged and starved for years, fed on whatever it could scavenge from a poor paddock.

Truss has drawn a good box for the start, will he use it, or is the fix in? It won't much matter to him during this life; but, before entering the next, he must first deal with Ammit.

From Wiki - Ammit lived near the scales of justice in Duat, the Egyptian underworld. In the Hall of Two Truths, Anubis weighed the heart of a person against the feather of Ma'at, the goddess of truth, which was depicted as an ostrich feather (the feather was often pictured in Ma'at's headdress). If the heart was judged to be not pure, Ammit would devour it, and the person undergoing judgement was not allowed to continue their voyage towards Osiris and immortality. Once Ammit swallowed the heart, the soul was believed to become restless forever; this was called "to die a second time". Ammit was also sometimes said to stand by a lake of fire. In some traditions, the unworthy hearts were cast into the fiery lake to be destroyed. Some scholars believe Ammit and the lake represent the same concept of destruction. Ammit was not worshipped; instead she embodied all that the Egyptians feared, threatening to bind them to eternal restlessness if they did not follow the principle of Ma'at.
Aye well: fetch the porridge Minnie; at least breakfast is a sure bet. Peace, quiet, the dogs and a second coffee. I'm all right Jack.

Last edited by Kharon; 5th Mar 2014 at 19:28. Reason: A horse is a horse of course, Mr Ed
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 00:48
  #438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Mr Truss has just introduced a Bill that will expand the CASA Board from 4 to 6 (plus CEO as ex officio member), with effect 1 July.

Peace for our time!
Creampuff is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 03:38
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Any rumors as to the names of those to fill the new positions?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2014, 03:47
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Well they definitely won't be labour supporters!!!
thorn bird 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.