Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Fort Fumble insight for the troops.....free of charge!
'K';
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?
Hoodshould of and could have been the reformer of CAsA, hell he tried. But unfortunately his youth, credibility, skill and his ability to gain respect from the troops became unpalatable to the Iron Circle. Pel Air became the perfect tool for which the rusty ring could dispatch a GM Operations and assign a mighty large pineapple. Hood jumped before being unjustly pushed. Don't get me wrong, the Hooded one did have to work within the CAsA system, so he also has a small amount of industry blood on his tender hands, however the man tried to take CAsA in the right direction, as did the former manager of the SOB (safety oversight branch), however both were discarded by the geriatrics and wrecking balls of CAsA, the trio of DAS. Hoods coffin was nailed when he applied for ASA CEO and the Hawaiian shirt wearer grew indignant as Hood. Also the A380 sky sentinel endorsed old fart grew indignant at the former SOB Manager when the old fart was 'called out' for being the complete knob that he is......the rest as they say history, and this is the legacy of what the Miniscule, his adviser and the Board allow to happen to good people at CAsA.
More from the Ferryman;
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.
McComickis dead man walking, and on his walk down the green mile can't resist taking a shot at one of his most hated IOS stalwarts, Messr Phelan. Phelan has the Skull's number, and the Skull doesn't like it. Be that as it may, the Skulls slippery shot at a vocal oppose of Fort Fumbles antics is to be expected. The Skull's rhetoric is to be taken with a grain of salt as anything that comes out of his mouth is ****e of the purest quality! In fact it is the Skulls commentary and vocabulary that will be somewhat missed when he fades away into the River Styx sunset, the Skull has become somewhat fun at times, and to listen to his ferocious ramblings about other human beings has become quite amusing amongst the IOS fraternity.
To be perfectly honest I wish I had been the Skulls F/O at some stage in life, how I would have loved to have baited this angry man on the flight deck and watched his lips curl, his forehead vein 'pop' out, and listen to the tirade of vicious verbal abuse as he lost control of his emotions!! To see this display in the office is fun, to see it at a conference is delectable but to see it at 40,000 feet over the sea of Japan would have been priceless.....oh what a shame, what a shame.
Selah, toot toot and tick tock
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?
Hoodshould of and could have been the reformer of CAsA, hell he tried. But unfortunately his youth, credibility, skill and his ability to gain respect from the troops became unpalatable to the Iron Circle. Pel Air became the perfect tool for which the rusty ring could dispatch a GM Operations and assign a mighty large pineapple. Hood jumped before being unjustly pushed. Don't get me wrong, the Hooded one did have to work within the CAsA system, so he also has a small amount of industry blood on his tender hands, however the man tried to take CAsA in the right direction, as did the former manager of the SOB (safety oversight branch), however both were discarded by the geriatrics and wrecking balls of CAsA, the trio of DAS. Hoods coffin was nailed when he applied for ASA CEO and the Hawaiian shirt wearer grew indignant as Hood. Also the A380 sky sentinel endorsed old fart grew indignant at the former SOB Manager when the old fart was 'called out' for being the complete knob that he is......the rest as they say history, and this is the legacy of what the Miniscule, his adviser and the Board allow to happen to good people at CAsA.
More from the Ferryman;
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.
McComickis dead man walking, and on his walk down the green mile can't resist taking a shot at one of his most hated IOS stalwarts, Messr Phelan. Phelan has the Skull's number, and the Skull doesn't like it. Be that as it may, the Skulls slippery shot at a vocal oppose of Fort Fumbles antics is to be expected. The Skull's rhetoric is to be taken with a grain of salt as anything that comes out of his mouth is ****e of the purest quality! In fact it is the Skulls commentary and vocabulary that will be somewhat missed when he fades away into the River Styx sunset, the Skull has become somewhat fun at times, and to listen to his ferocious ramblings about other human beings has become quite amusing amongst the IOS fraternity.
To be perfectly honest I wish I had been the Skulls F/O at some stage in life, how I would have loved to have baited this angry man on the flight deck and watched his lips curl, his forehead vein 'pop' out, and listen to the tirade of vicious verbal abuse as he lost control of his emotions!! To see this display in the office is fun, to see it at a conference is delectable but to see it at 40,000 feet over the sea of Japan would have been priceless.....oh what a shame, what a shame.
Selah, toot toot and tick tock
Crude page counts & adjusted??
Kharon:
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)…
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)…
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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; 28th Feb 2014 at 23:29. Reason: snake in the laundry caused interruption. difficult to concentrate with all that screaming.
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 hangar 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.
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 hangar 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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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.
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.
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.
... 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. ...
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.)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Australia suppresses criticism of its aviation safety body | Plane Talking
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last drift, I promise….
… Not correct …
Correct.
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.
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.
… 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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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??:
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..
:
Oh dear miniscule what have you unleashed??
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.
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.
:
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!”
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!”
Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Mar 2014 at 19:03.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
seems a lot of australians are running out of patience for the smoke and mirrors nonsense of safety as a religion divorced from reality.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scrambled eggs at Parliament house
WLRP trying to unscramble a $230 million+ egg before..
After that word from the Miniscules office it is back to feeding Creampuffs beloved chooks.
(Footage of the Miniscule and Kingcrat doing their thing with the Australian aviation egg)
Toot Toot, Tick Tock and Brrrt Brrrt
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do as I say, not as I do.
Naughty Creampuff, you've been to this school as well?
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 bull****. 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 bull**** 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 'bull****ters' 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 bull**** 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 bull**** 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?
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 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''.
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 bull**** 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 bull**** 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?