Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truss leadacy.
It’s time the United States Federal Aviation Administration took action.
"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).
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
The PAIN initiative & AMROBA
PAIN:
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….
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..
If you wish to join in the debate (and it is a good one) you can go to Dick's new thread HERE
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.
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.
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.
..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
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
Last edited by Sarcs; 4th Mar 2014 at 08:51.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Kharon; 5th Mar 2014 at 19:28. Reason: A horse is a horse of course, Mr Ed
See if you can pick who and when:
Govt clips the wings of air safety body
The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.
The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The Transport Minister [Tweedle Dumb] says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.
The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.
Mr [Dumb] says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.
"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.
Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.
Accountability
The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.
Laborial transport spokesman, [Tweedle Dumber], says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.
"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.
…
The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.
The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The Transport Minister [Tweedle Dumb] says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.
The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.
Mr [Dumb] says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.
"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.
Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.
Accountability
The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.
Laborial transport spokesman, [Tweedle Dumber], says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.
"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.
…
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
this outcome is deplorable.
McCormic's comment that no matter what the new rules will remain seems to have come to pass.
stupid incompetent politicians.
back in the 70's the air was the same and the aeroplanes were the same.
we were congratulated for years of safe aviation.
people occasionally came to grief but weather and granite can be unforgiving and we all understood that.
nowadays we still fly without incident but the regulator can't stand us ignoring their dribble and seek to grind our noses in it.
dare we do what is safe and ignore them we are all criminals.
what utter bloody nonsense all this new environment is.
McCormic's comment that no matter what the new rules will remain seems to have come to pass.
stupid incompetent politicians.
back in the 70's the air was the same and the aeroplanes were the same.
we were congratulated for years of safe aviation.
people occasionally came to grief but weather and granite can be unforgiving and we all understood that.
nowadays we still fly without incident but the regulator can't stand us ignoring their dribble and seek to grind our noses in it.
dare we do what is safe and ignore them we are all criminals.
what utter bloody nonsense all this new environment is.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Magnificent Eight?
I believe that here is the 8 new Board members in training!
They were taken to Washington, the world capital for trough gouging. It was a robust 8 week course but well worth their effort
Maybe we should call them 'Eight Is Enough'?
TICK TOCK
They were taken to Washington, the world capital for trough gouging. It was a robust 8 week course but well worth their effort
Maybe we should call them 'Eight Is Enough'?
TICK TOCK
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
creamie post
A goooooggul search of creamies post gives the following basically "word -for -word"
Is this the one creamie???
Tue, Nov 19 2002 5:44 AM AEDT
Govt clips the wings of air safety body
The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.
The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The Transport Minister, John Anderson, says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.
The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.
Mr Anderson says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.
"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.
Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.
Accountability
The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.
Labor's transport spokesman, Martin Ferguson, says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.
"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.
Limits
Meanwhile, Australia's aircraft owners have called for further limits to the powers of the aviation safety regulator.
Bill Hamilton, from the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association. says despite the changes, there still will not be enough scrutiny of the authority.
He says CASA will continue to have a conflict of interest because it both licences and polices air safety.
"It has to go far more than abolishing a board and appointing a chief executive," he said.
Govt clips the wings of air safety body
The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.
The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The Transport Minister, John Anderson, says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.
The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.
Mr Anderson says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.
"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.
Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.
Accountability
The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.
Labor's transport spokesman, Martin Ferguson, says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.
"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.
Limits
Meanwhile, Australia's aircraft owners have called for further limits to the powers of the aviation safety regulator.
Bill Hamilton, from the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association. says despite the changes, there still will not be enough scrutiny of the authority.
He says CASA will continue to have a conflict of interest because it both licences and polices air safety.
"It has to go far more than abolishing a board and appointing a chief executive," he said.
Gold Star UITR!
See if you can pick who and when:
See if you can pick who and when:
The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.
Eight is a bard's delight.
To start the ball rolling on a database of malapropisms...
abrogate, alleviate, date (as in the anatomical location e.g. the eight's date of appointment), debate, defecate, deflate, delineate, discombobulate, illiterate, inarticulate, inappropriate, levitate, obfuscate, permeate, prostate, prostrate, regurgitate, relegate, resuscitate, sate, wait ...there must be more in the MEL.
So rotate ye bards
To start the ball rolling on a database of malapropisms...
abrogate, alleviate, date (as in the anatomical location e.g. the eight's date of appointment), debate, defecate, deflate, delineate, discombobulate, illiterate, inarticulate, inappropriate, levitate, obfuscate, permeate, prostate, prostrate, regurgitate, relegate, resuscitate, sate, wait ...there must be more in the MEL.
So rotate ye bards
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.
The CASA board created by this legislation will be a small expert board of five members appointed by the minister. The board will strengthen CASA’s governance arrangements, and provide strong support to the Director of Aviation Safety and the minister. It will also play an important role monitoring CASA’s effectiveness and accountability across its range of functions. The board will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, and allow for more meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders into strategy.
Miniscules explanatory statement..
From HoR Hansard for Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014:
Which, if you remember, is what was promised in the Coalition’s pre-election aviation policy...
"...b. CASA board
CASA’s board has been repeatedly established, abandoned and re-established again.
While boards in other agencies have been successful in setting and implementing the strategic direction of their agency, CASA’s board structure has been the subject of criticism.
The Coalition will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the board from four to six members, including some with aviation skills and experience.
This expansion will increase the breadth of knowledge and experience on the CASA board and better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation..."
Interesting that after question time in the Senate on Tuesday, proceedings went to the TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS debate, the subject matter being (of course) Qantas. Senator Fawcett made a contribution to that debate, where he said:
Which is a slight expansion on the original pre-election promise and it would appear that this is one promise that the miniscule will adhere to...
Here is the video cut of the complete DF statement, which is interesting in itself..:[YOUTUBE]Senator Fawcett Carbon Tax & Aviation 04/03/14 - YouTube
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (12:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy—it links our regions to our cities—and our cities to the world.
The increased diversity of the Australian aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, built on a strong regulatory system—any regulator must keep pace with the industry it regulates.
Australia's aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 covering the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)—Australia's aviation safety regulator.
CASA was established in July 1995, under an updated Civil Aviation Act 1988, as the independent aviation safety regulator—a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and Australian aircraft operating outside Australian territory.
The CASA board, in its current form, was established in July 2009 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be adopted by CASA. The board is also responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner, complying with directions given by the minister.
The CASA board currently consists of the Director of Aviation Safety (who is also the Chief Executive Officer of CASA), as an ex-officio member, and up to four board members (including the chair and deputy chair).
The Coalition's Policy for Aviation, released in August 2013, outlined a number of commitments to enhance and strengthen aviation.
The government has since established an external aviation safety regulation review, which is being undertaken by a panel of leading aviation experts.
The review is well underway, with the review panel examining the suitability of Australia's aviation safety related regulations and the outcomes and direction of CASA's regulatory reform process.
The panel is also examining the structures, effectiveness and processes of CASA with a view to ensuring that best practice in aviation safety is maintained. The panel has received around 250 submissions from interested parties across the aviation industry. The review panel is expected to report to the government by the end of May 2014.
The Coalition's Policy for Aviation also outlined our commitment to improve CASA's structure and governance arrangements to enhance the organisation's abilities to function as Australia's aviation safety regulator.
To deliver on this commitment the government intends to appoint two additional members to the CASA board.
At least two of the board members will be required to have technical and/or operational aviation experience to strengthen the board's aviation knowledge, skills and practical experience. The expanded board will be well-placed to oversee CASA's new strategic direction—which the government will issue, as allowed for under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act, after the government has considered the review panel's final report.
Establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation will enhance CASA's capability to respond as Australia's aviation safety regulator. Through the introduction of a new strategic direction, the government plans to reinforce safety as CASA's primary responsibility, but will also set out the leadership role of the board in implementing the strategic direction of CASA.
Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that implements this commitment to take decisive action to strengthen the nation's aviation safety agency and their oversight of the aviation industry. The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill will allow the government to fulfil undertakings, made in the coalition's policy for aviation, to have important enhancements to safety governance in place from 1 July 2014.
The bill will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the size of the board by two members. The appointment of two additional members will increase the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA board, which will better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation.
The bill improves the capacity and effectiveness of CASA to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and diverse aviation industry. CASA must have the right structure, resources and legal framework to regulate the civil aviation industry to enhance the safety of the travelling public, industry participants and the wider community.
The provisions of the bill will provide for the CASA board to be comprised of six members appointed by the minister, plus the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member, that is, seven members in total.
The board will play an important role monitoring CASA's effectiveness and accountability across the authority's range of functions and will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, allowing for meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders.
Importantly, the enhanced board will be in place to implement CASA's new strategic direction.
Enhancing the CASA board is one important step in ensuring we continue to foster an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is proportionate to risks and delivers the highest level of safety—a level of regulation that does not unreasonably restrict innovation and growth in the industry.
It is vital that government and industry share the responsibility for addressing these challenges.
The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to aviation safety—we are taking decisive action now to strengthen the nation's safety regulator and its oversight of the aviation industry.
Debate adjourned.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy—it links our regions to our cities—and our cities to the world.
The increased diversity of the Australian aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, built on a strong regulatory system—any regulator must keep pace with the industry it regulates.
Australia's aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 covering the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)—Australia's aviation safety regulator.
CASA was established in July 1995, under an updated Civil Aviation Act 1988, as the independent aviation safety regulator—a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and Australian aircraft operating outside Australian territory.
The CASA board, in its current form, was established in July 2009 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be adopted by CASA. The board is also responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner, complying with directions given by the minister.
The CASA board currently consists of the Director of Aviation Safety (who is also the Chief Executive Officer of CASA), as an ex-officio member, and up to four board members (including the chair and deputy chair).
The Coalition's Policy for Aviation, released in August 2013, outlined a number of commitments to enhance and strengthen aviation.
The government has since established an external aviation safety regulation review, which is being undertaken by a panel of leading aviation experts.
The review is well underway, with the review panel examining the suitability of Australia's aviation safety related regulations and the outcomes and direction of CASA's regulatory reform process.
The panel is also examining the structures, effectiveness and processes of CASA with a view to ensuring that best practice in aviation safety is maintained. The panel has received around 250 submissions from interested parties across the aviation industry. The review panel is expected to report to the government by the end of May 2014.
The Coalition's Policy for Aviation also outlined our commitment to improve CASA's structure and governance arrangements to enhance the organisation's abilities to function as Australia's aviation safety regulator.
To deliver on this commitment the government intends to appoint two additional members to the CASA board.
At least two of the board members will be required to have technical and/or operational aviation experience to strengthen the board's aviation knowledge, skills and practical experience. The expanded board will be well-placed to oversee CASA's new strategic direction—which the government will issue, as allowed for under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act, after the government has considered the review panel's final report.
Establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation will enhance CASA's capability to respond as Australia's aviation safety regulator. Through the introduction of a new strategic direction, the government plans to reinforce safety as CASA's primary responsibility, but will also set out the leadership role of the board in implementing the strategic direction of CASA.
Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that implements this commitment to take decisive action to strengthen the nation's aviation safety agency and their oversight of the aviation industry. The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill will allow the government to fulfil undertakings, made in the coalition's policy for aviation, to have important enhancements to safety governance in place from 1 July 2014.
The bill will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the size of the board by two members. The appointment of two additional members will increase the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA board, which will better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation.
The bill improves the capacity and effectiveness of CASA to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and diverse aviation industry. CASA must have the right structure, resources and legal framework to regulate the civil aviation industry to enhance the safety of the travelling public, industry participants and the wider community.
The provisions of the bill will provide for the CASA board to be comprised of six members appointed by the minister, plus the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member, that is, seven members in total.
The board will play an important role monitoring CASA's effectiveness and accountability across the authority's range of functions and will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, allowing for meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders.
Importantly, the enhanced board will be in place to implement CASA's new strategic direction.
Enhancing the CASA board is one important step in ensuring we continue to foster an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is proportionate to risks and delivers the highest level of safety—a level of regulation that does not unreasonably restrict innovation and growth in the industry.
It is vital that government and industry share the responsibility for addressing these challenges.
The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill demonstrates this government's ongoing commitment to aviation safety—we are taking decisive action now to strengthen the nation's safety regulator and its oversight of the aviation industry.
Debate adjourned.
"...b. CASA board
CASA’s board has been repeatedly established, abandoned and re-established again.
While boards in other agencies have been successful in setting and implementing the strategic direction of their agency, CASA’s board structure has been the subject of criticism.
The Coalition will maintain the CASA board structure, but will expand the board from four to six members, including some with aviation skills and experience.
This expansion will increase the breadth of knowledge and experience on the CASA board and better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation..."
Interesting that after question time in the Senate on Tuesday, proceedings went to the TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS debate, the subject matter being (of course) Qantas. Senator Fawcett made a contribution to that debate, where he said:
That is why I welcome the coalition's promise of reforming the CASA board. We see that the coalition will be increasing the size of board to bring skills of aviation engineering and operations onto that board. We also see reform of the regulatory sector, which is undergoing an inquiry right now.
Here is the video cut of the complete DF statement, which is interesting in itself..
:[YOUTUBE]Senator Fawcett Carbon Tax & Aviation 04/03/14 - YouTube
new board members
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old games rehashed
Board positions did I hear you say??
All open slots will go to people with Coalition heritage, or in the very least have loyally served their masters in some capacity over the years.
This entire episode will be a circus act. Current Board members will already have slots lined up back in Can'tberra somewhere as nobody in bureaucracy comes out as a loser.
Truss's announcement is soft, a slap with Creampuffs wet lettuce. Expand the seats at the trough x 2, bring in another DAS 'yes man'. Add to this the Dolan trio of Commissioners over at the other alphabet soup organisation, they will also go, then you will have some robust debate that will take place over the following 18 months about which set of aviation rules to adapt and hey presto it's election time again! It's all tautological, a merry-go-round, Groundhog Day.
For any credibility to shine out of all this we would have to see Fawcett appointed as junior minister for aviation, somebody like Mike Smith brought in as CASA DAS, MrDak removed, no Skull affiliation with the new Board and ALL existing CASA Board members wiped along with the 'other' two DAS members that make up the trio. The LSD would need to be replaced and here is a thought - Accountability introduced into the CASA framework. And finally, a Royal Commission, which actually has teeth, formed to investigate the allegations of systemic malfeasance and corporate abuse towards individuals inside and outside of CASA, and an investigation of the $250 million 25 year sinkhole called Regulatory reform. Add to this the need for scrutiny over the Pel Air and Lockhart crashes which remain unresolved from which justice has to be sought for those families and friends of the deceased or injured in these accidents. Then the IOS may be mildly convinced that changes, real changes, are afoot.
All open slots will go to people with Coalition heritage, or in the very least have loyally served their masters in some capacity over the years.
This entire episode will be a circus act. Current Board members will already have slots lined up back in Can'tberra somewhere as nobody in bureaucracy comes out as a loser.
Truss's announcement is soft, a slap with Creampuffs wet lettuce. Expand the seats at the trough x 2, bring in another DAS 'yes man'. Add to this the Dolan trio of Commissioners over at the other alphabet soup organisation, they will also go, then you will have some robust debate that will take place over the following 18 months about which set of aviation rules to adapt and hey presto it's election time again! It's all tautological, a merry-go-round, Groundhog Day.
For any credibility to shine out of all this we would have to see Fawcett appointed as junior minister for aviation, somebody like Mike Smith brought in as CASA DAS, MrDak removed, no Skull affiliation with the new Board and ALL existing CASA Board members wiped along with the 'other' two DAS members that make up the trio. The LSD would need to be replaced and here is a thought - Accountability introduced into the CASA framework. And finally, a Royal Commission, which actually has teeth, formed to investigate the allegations of systemic malfeasance and corporate abuse towards individuals inside and outside of CASA, and an investigation of the $250 million 25 year sinkhole called Regulatory reform. Add to this the need for scrutiny over the Pel Air and Lockhart crashes which remain unresolved from which justice has to be sought for those families and friends of the deceased or injured in these accidents. Then the IOS may be mildly convinced that changes, real changes, are afoot.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheat from chaff.
There seem to be more positive features in yesterday's back and forth than negatives; I believe a small round of polite applause may be given. With perhaps a small bravo thrown in for the debate between – Fawcett – and - Xenophon – on the CAO 48 matter. DF essentially agrees with the wide concept of change and industry involvement but feels that while 48 is not perfect; it is an improvement. NX presents an equally compelling argument that 48 is 'bad' law and CASA need to go away and do their homework. The real win (IMO) is that two Senators feel secure enough to take a different stance, present lucid, intelligent argument, for and against the disallowance, without any other issues at heart, bar aviation improvement. It's most refreshing to find a subject like pilot fatigue being debated, both sides of the coin articulated and the chance to reach a rational conclusion, a real bonus. The NOES had it; (that's democracy) but well done Senators, VIPA, AIPA and others who assisted to bring the subject to debate . The notion that industry may have a voice is appealing; 48 may have been the subject but it has opened several previously closed doors. Bravo.
Like 377, I too am bored with the board; I fail to see how two additional members can achieve any more than a two or three 'man' board could, if indeed we need a board. It is of concern that Truss has elected to continue with the existing crew. Until it is made clear that the current board has not been compromised in any way, it could consider stepping aside. At least until the inevitable investigation of CASA is complete and the board is exonerated, beyond reasonable doubt. The departure of McComic is insignificant, the acts which have been committed in the name of the 'air safety' remain firmly attached. If the board was not made fully aware, then perhaps an excuse exists; but I doubt the CAC act is as forgiving as we may be. Even with Truss madly gilding the Lilly, it is hard to see how industry can have faith, considering the carnage, rapine and embuggerance left behind. Only my opinion of course, but I do believe the board has been compromised: if so, it is most certainly unintentional; probably in all innocence and undoubtedly in good faith, but...there is a spectral elephant parked next to the pot plant in the boardroom. Any board needs clear air to work in, credibility and our trust if it is to be effective. The Quadrio and Canely Vale matters, standing alone beg some very serious questions. The Forsyth nomination?, we shall see in May.
The whiff of a Dolan long overdue departure is in the air though, ain't it? Been tossing some ideas around (as you do, over a beer); ATSB should be easier to sort out than CASA (no board). I note CJ brings the inestimable Mike Smith to the CASA debate, but when ATSB is mentioned, the name Rob Graham gets some serious consideration. Consensus is that if he could be persuaded to take on a short term, say a twelve month, gig to clean up the Beaker'ised agency, normal service would soon be restored. Can you imagine having a non CASA'ised report on an accident like Canely Vale. Oh, be still my beating heart.
On balance, I'd say the IOS had a good day, yesterday. Not perfect, but considering the barriers and vested interests in play; not too shabby at all. Ye Gods, I hate politics; wish they'd get a bloody wriggle on. Whoop it up 'em Shags, they're not our engines.
Toot-toot.
Like 377, I too am bored with the board; I fail to see how two additional members can achieve any more than a two or three 'man' board could, if indeed we need a board. It is of concern that Truss has elected to continue with the existing crew. Until it is made clear that the current board has not been compromised in any way, it could consider stepping aside. At least until the inevitable investigation of CASA is complete and the board is exonerated, beyond reasonable doubt. The departure of McComic is insignificant, the acts which have been committed in the name of the 'air safety' remain firmly attached. If the board was not made fully aware, then perhaps an excuse exists; but I doubt the CAC act is as forgiving as we may be. Even with Truss madly gilding the Lilly, it is hard to see how industry can have faith, considering the carnage, rapine and embuggerance left behind. Only my opinion of course, but I do believe the board has been compromised: if so, it is most certainly unintentional; probably in all innocence and undoubtedly in good faith, but...there is a spectral elephant parked next to the pot plant in the boardroom. Any board needs clear air to work in, credibility and our trust if it is to be effective. The Quadrio and Canely Vale matters, standing alone beg some very serious questions. The Forsyth nomination?, we shall see in May.
The whiff of a Dolan long overdue departure is in the air though, ain't it? Been tossing some ideas around (as you do, over a beer); ATSB should be easier to sort out than CASA (no board). I note CJ brings the inestimable Mike Smith to the CASA debate, but when ATSB is mentioned, the name Rob Graham gets some serious consideration. Consensus is that if he could be persuaded to take on a short term, say a twelve month, gig to clean up the Beaker'ised agency, normal service would soon be restored. Can you imagine having a non CASA'ised report on an accident like Canely Vale. Oh, be still my beating heart.
On balance, I'd say the IOS had a good day, yesterday. Not perfect, but considering the barriers and vested interests in play; not too shabby at all. Ye Gods, I hate politics; wish they'd get a bloody wriggle on. Whoop it up 'em Shags, they're not our engines.
Toot-toot.
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Mar 2014 at 20:25. Reason: There now, all better.
The experiment with the Board has already been run and the results are already in: With or without; big or small; aviation appointees or not – not a schmick of difference.
The Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act to expand the size of the Board is a perfect opportunity for the Senate to introduce amendments to implement the recommendations of its own Committee’s air accident investigation report. The Laborial Senators have the power to force those amendments.
Talk from Fawcett and his Laborial colleagues is cheap, Kharon. It’s how they use their Senate vote that counts. (What’s that old saying about judging people by what they do, not what they say …)
You watch: There’ll be lots of high sounding rhetoric about safety, but all that will come out of the Senate is a Bill for two more slots on the CASA Board.
That’s why CASA and ATSB called the Senate Committee’s bluff. They know the Laborial Senators are all talk and no action (unless it’s politically expedient).
The Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act to expand the size of the Board is a perfect opportunity for the Senate to introduce amendments to implement the recommendations of its own Committee’s air accident investigation report. The Laborial Senators have the power to force those amendments.
Talk from Fawcett and his Laborial colleagues is cheap, Kharon. It’s how they use their Senate vote that counts. (What’s that old saying about judging people by what they do, not what they say …)
You watch: There’ll be lots of high sounding rhetoric about safety, but all that will come out of the Senate is a Bill for two more slots on the CASA Board.
That’s why CASA and ATSB called the Senate Committee’s bluff. They know the Laborial Senators are all talk and no action (unless it’s politically expedient).
