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

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

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

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 2nd Apr 2014, 18:39
  #561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Various
Age: 69
Posts: 371
I am sure that favouritism towards a national airline by the local regulator in some countries isn't uncommon, for what ever reason. Not saying this has been the case in Australia though.
Waghi Warrior is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 06:40
  #562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Further miniscule pressure points & the other muppet!

While mi..mi..mi..Beaker is currently stealing the limelight it would seem the other (STBR) muppet attendance record at AMC (Anger Management Counselling) is paying off...:
CASA simplifies flying training regs

Item by australianaviation.com.au at 2:29 pm, Thursday April 3 2014 Leave a Comment

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says it is simplifying the regulations that cover flying training organisations following a review of the Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

CASA says the simplification of the rules and requirements will cut red tape and reduce costs for about 300 flying training schools across Australia, and estimates the changes will lower costs in the flying training industry by nearly $2 million a year.

Optimal safety outcomes for flying training will be maintained by retaining the core elements of the new Part 141 which covers flying training for recreational, private and commercial pilot licences, ratings and endorsements for single pilot aircraft. It does not extend to intensive integrated training for private and commercial licences, which is contained in Part 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

The new regulations which include Part 141 will take effect from September 1 2014, and simplification of the requirements will be made before the new regulations come into effect.

“I am very pleased the new regulations in Part 141 can be simplified and made less costly while at the same time maintaining high safety outcomes,” CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick said in a statement. “Naturally, safety can never be jeopardised in the pursuit of simpler regulations but with hard work the two outcomes can be achieved. CASA has listened to the views of people in the flying training sector and responded to their concerns with positive action.”

The changes to Part 141 and other information can be found at Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Regulation reform
Still a long road to full recovery but the signs are certainly positive, however how long before the DAS is again kidnapped by the IRON ring??


In other news the NSW Government is still open to submissions to it's Regional Aviation Services inquiry, see here

However what should be most concerning for the miniscule, who is also the leader of the NATs, is the amount of submissions already lodged from many regional communities (the bulk of his party's constituents) concerned with the current status quo of regional air services:
No. 1, Mr Glen Crump
No. 2, Lake Macquarie City Council
No. 3, Coffs Harbour City Council
No. 4, Bega Valley Shire Council
No. 5, Bourke Shire Council
No. 6, Mid-Western Regional Council
No. 7, Leeton Shire Council
No. 8, Clarence Valley Council
No. 9, Narrandera Shire Council
No. 10, Narrabri Shire Council
No. 11, Cobar Shire Council
No. 12, Regional Development Australia Sydney
No. 13, Dubbo City Council
No. 14, Griffith Business Chamber
No. 15, Regional Development Australia Orana
No. 16, Mr Robert Gordon
No. 17, Griffith City Council
No. 18, Regional Development Australia Northern Rivers
No. 19, Eurobodalla Shire Council
No. 20, Cessnock City Council
No. 21, Sydney Airport Corporation Limited
No. 22, Gilgandra Shire Council
No. 23, Local Government NSW
No. 24, Mr Kevin Anderson MP
No. 25, AlburyCity Council
No. 26, Moree Plains Shire Council
No. 27, Airlines of Tasmania Pty Ltd (T/A Par Avion)
No. 28, Armidale Dumaresq Council
No. 29, Hunter Business Chamber
No. 30, Australian Airports Association
No. 31, Orange Business Chamber
No. 32, Central NSW Councils (Centroc) & Central NSW Tourism
No. 33, Ms Roslyn Lunsford
No. 34, The Royal Newcastle Aero Club
No. 35, Port Macquarie-Hastings Shire Council
No. 36, Coonamble Shire Council
No. 37, Wyong Shire Council
No. 38, Coonamble Chamber of Commerce
No. 39, Walgett Shire Council
No. 40, Tamworth Regional Council
No. 41, Parkes Shire Council
No. 42, Snowy River Shire Council
No. 43, Lachlan Shire Council
No. 44, Inland NSW Tourism
No. 45, Broken Hill City Council
No. 46, Riverina Eastern Regional Organisation of Councils
No. 47, Aviator Group
No. 48, Newcastle Airport Pty Ltd
No. 49, Charles Sturt University
No. 50, Bathrust Regional Council
No. 51, Regional Development Australia Riverina
No. 52, Wagga Wagga City Council
No. 53, NSW Business Chamber
No. 54, Ballina Byron Gateway Airport
No. 55, Riverina Regional Tourism
No. 56, Qantas Airways Limited
No. 57, Rex Regional Express
No. 58, Cowra Shire Council
No. 59, Regional Aviation Association of Australia
No. 60, Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
But don't worry miniscule cause Kingcrat has come to your rescue (Sub No 60)...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 12:24
  #563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
The ATSBeaker deserves nothing short of a robust pineapple, however the WLR will only give him a softly inserted banana. We are hearing a lot of mi mi mi but nothing worthwhile will happen.

Truss lining up Beaker:

The WLR delivers its 'post review summary' to MrDak:
004wercras is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2014, 23:38
  #564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angel Slight drift - The three “C”s!

Not Cut, Colour & Clarity, the PelAir debacle is certainly not a crystal clear example of world’s best practice of administering a “just culture” for the betterment of aviation safety. Rather the three “C”s, in our wonderful insular aviation industry, stand for credibility (i.e ATsB/CAsA have none), cringe (worthy) & cynical…

IOS examples of the three “C”s

Cringe worthy

Today there may or may not have been a breakthrough in the search for flight MH370 (reference Plane Talking):MH370 Northern search focus detects possible pulse

However could I suggest (much like with the lack of references to the FF DAS retiring) that it may be an idea if Angus Houston (head of the JACC) & the government drop any references to the ATsBeaker…

Media Release JACC: Media Reporting on Chinese Ship Detection of Electronic Pulse Signals

“..Advice tonight from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is that they cannot verify any connection to the missing aircraft...”

Cynical

Kharon post #1862:
“…Smoke and mirrors 1. The Dolan response blatantly ignores the easy, pre-arranged tow from 50 meters to 30 meters and presents his argument intimating that the 'dive' is to be conducted in 50 not 30 meters.

Smoke and mirrors 2. Why abandon the project at such a late stage ? the initial funding allocation by made Sangston would more than adequately have covered the cable tow to a 30 meter location and the modest fees charged by the diver; done and dusted…”


Credibility

Plane Talking - Jetstar incident near Gold Coast important yet not a ‘drama’

“…Let’s see where this inquiry leads, and in the post Pel-Air world of ATSB fumbling and bumbling, cut through to what it means, for better or for worse, and keep an open mind.

The inquiry is not being held for fun. There is a reason for it being launched…”

Ok back to the Truss WLR…
Australian Aviation April 2 2014:
UAV operators submit to safety review

The Australian Certified UAV Operators Association (ACUO) is calling for the current Federal Government Aviation Safety Regulation Review to back a harder line to combat the growing problem of illegal unmanned aircraft operations.

The call comes as the ACUO released its submission to the review in light of a recent reported near-miss incident involving a Westpac rescue helicopter and an unknown UAV operating at 1000ft.

The submission calls for new resourcing to be provided to CASA to deal specifically with illegal UAS operations, and warns that the outlook facing the Australian unmanned aircraft industry has strong parallels with the rise of commercial aviation in Australia during the 1920s and 1930s, where a high rate of incidents included loss of human life.

“Under resourcing of the regulatory and compliance management capacities of CASA is not an option as the unmanned aircraft industry continues its rapid growth in not just Australia, but internationally” said Joe Urli, ACUO President in a statement. “Illegal unmanned aircraft operations are on the rise in Australia and the question of whether they will be a serious safety incident is no longer theoretical given last weeks reported near-miss incident involving a Westpac rescue helicopter flying back to its Newcastle base.”

The full ACUO submission to the review can be downloaded at http://www.acuo.org.au/
Significant quote from ACUO submission (my bold):
“..In 2013 however, CASA announced changes to the way certified UAV Operators would be ‘approved’ for ALL commercial UAV operations outside new ‘default operating privileges’ of:
  •  Day VMC
  •  Below 400ft AGL
  •  Not in Controlled Airspace
  •  Not within 3nm of any aerodrome or helipad
  •  Not over a Populous Area
There were no reasons given by CASA or ASA for these changes, and no activity or incident we are aware of that prompted this change…”

Hmm...a worthy contribution from ACUO…

For Sundy amusement - "Untidy Indeed!"

[YOUTUBE]

Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 06:20
  #565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Time to tidy up

Sarcs, I'm still laughing
It seems Terry's memory was very 'untidy', until of course Sen Heff pulled out a little reminder. Perhaps Alzheimer's is affecting the A380 endorsed grey nomad?
And as usual Mr Boyd looked rather miffed at the level of questions being asked, and naturally couldn't answer the 'untidy' question either! Maybe they can't answer the question because they have all been too busy in Montreal to know the answer?
And did anybody notice that Hoody was the only one of the six to still sprout a robust head of hair, even though it had been trimmed somewhat?

Sarcs, out of interest, did Fort Fumble end up providing the QON detail regarding CAsA's hiring of the Pel Air CP? Would have been great to see if the position was advertised, who conducted the interviews and then signed off on his hiring, who all the applicants were, etc etc. Indeed, another potentially 'untidy' CAsA shenanigan
004wercras is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 21:14
  #566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Phase 1 first drills.

004 – [who] conducted the interviews and then signed off on his hiring, who all the applicants were, etc etc. Indeed, another potentially 'untidy' CAsA shenanigans". etc...
If you can't get access, you can't get in to tidy up; Phase 1 = access. The team led by someone who forensically knows the intricacies of the 'system'; where the skeletons are buried and how to dig 'em up. Phase 2 – armed with unimpeachable evidence, prosecute those who have knowingly, with intent broken the rules. Phase 3: tidy up what's left.

Because when you start to add it all up it's hard to see how the miniscule can (dare) to sign off on yet another whitewash document, like the response to Senate. Pragmatically, it is impossible for any miniscule to publicly acknowledge that the loonies have been running the asylum, fair enough, we can live with that; but the miniscule must, in one form or another 'brief' the new DAS, simple statement; "do some house keeping and report directly to me". We have regrettably passed that happy age where heads were placed on spikes in public view; but that's just window dressing. In the modern PC age, we need to hear lot's of "spending more time with family"; or, "having served faithfully for 40 years, Old Faithful is retiring" (I'd even pay for the gold watches); that way the mill pond surface is not disturbed. But it needs to be done and tout de suit, (the tooter the sweeter).

Reading through the 'subtext' of politician statements (Cheers Sarcs)

The government “as a matter of urgency” should consult with industry and other relevant bodies to formulate terms of reference for a “comprehensive review of Australia’s aviation sector”, the committee said.
They know industry is in a hell of a state: they have had a glimpse through the keyhole of Pel Air, that rocked them. Hopefully, through the partly cleaned window provided by the Reverent Forsyth' s camera obscura, a much better view of the underlying problems. Time to kick open the door methinks. But be warned, it will startle the horses and make the ladies swoon; it's not pretty in there.

If there is insufficient 'evidence' to promote a no holds barred inquiry; I am certain that the Senate committee could be provided with an avalanche of documents; within a working week of a request being made. One of the more interesting 'reads' would be the 'hired, fired and resigned' chapter. There are some strange tales, but true in that one. Parliamentary privilege through a Senate inquiry is all we need and even the miniscule cannot prevent that. Bring it on, I say.

Sarcs, out of interest, did Fort Fumble end up providing the QON detail regarding CAsA's hiring of the Pel Air CP?
Bloody good question ?????? the sanitised answer would do; there has been some interesting hiring and firing done in certain offices.

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Apr 2014 at 21:39. Reason: Distracted by March hare training video. NFP - yet.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 22:14
  #567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
FF Wickham AQON & still quite 'bizarre' Bryan??

For Kharon & 004's benefit :
CASA08: Recruitment of John Wickham to CASA
Hansard: p.52

Senator NASH: Also, just regarding Mr Wickham and his appointment to CASA, could
youagain on notice, if you would not mindprovide for the committee how many
applicants there were for that position and who was on the selection panel? I think, as the
chair has raised, it looks extremely odd that CASA would employ the chief pilot from Pel-Air
while ATSB was currently conducting the investigation around the report. It is very, very
strange. So if you could take on notice for us the applicants and who was on the selection
panel.


Mr McCormick: Certainly, Senator.

Answer:
Mr Wickham originally applied for a position as a Flight Training Examiner in August 2010.
That recruitment process involved 9 applicants, 4 of whom were interviewed. The panel
consisted of (Manager Flying Standards), (Team Leader
Flight Training) and , (Team Leader Administration).

In October 2010 Mr Wickham was selected as the second ranked candidate and placed on a
merit list for future vacancies. The preferred applicant for the Flight Training Examiner
subsequently withdrew and Mr Wickham was then offered the role. He elected to continue
with the Flying Operations Inspector (FOI) application as outlined below.

When a vacancy for a FOI arose in June 2010, a review of candidates available from a merit
lists was conducted and Mr Wickham was identified as meeting all the mandatory
qualifications for an FOI position in December 2010. An additional interview and
background checks were completed on Mr Wickham by a new panel made up of
(Acting Manager General Aviation GA Field Office Sydney) and
(Recruitment Consultant) to assess Mr Wickham for the FOI position. A report was
submitted and following approval by the delegate an offer was made to Mr Wickham in late
January 2011. He commenced in CASA on February 2011.

Both Flight Training Examiner and Flying Operations Inspector positions have similar
mandatory and desirable criteria including holding a current Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane)
and Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) Licences, a Command (Multi Engine Aeroplane)
Instrument Rating, a current Class 1 Medical certificate and to hold or have held Approved
Testing Officer delegations, Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating, Chief Pilot and/or Chief Flying
Instructor approval and have had extensive training and checking experience. Mr Wickham
met or exceeded these criteria.
Plus the PelAir desktop AQON from Senator Nash..
CASA 09: Desktop work by Mr John Wickham
Hansard: p.36


Senator NASH: Could you clarify what the desktop work was that Mr Wickham was doing
on Pel-Air and when that was?


Mr McCormick: Could you give us a couple of minutes to look for that, Senator.

Answer
On 11 November 2011 Mr Wickham participated as an observer for an assessment of a Pel-
Air check pilot to gain approval to conduct Emergency Procedures Checks under the Civil
Aviation Orders. The task was conducted by a CASA senior Flying Operations Inspector
(FOI) and was necessary as part of Mr Wickham’s development for the FOI role. There was
no other work conducted on Pel-Air by Mr Wickham.
While on the subject of PelAir the following is a copy of Mr Aherne's oral evidence given at the Senate AAI inquiry hearing 22/10/12, "In your view!":

[YOUTUBE]Senate AAI inquiry hearing 22/10/12 - Bryan Aherne Part 1 - YouTube

[YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]

Funny how nothing has changed and things are indeed still 'bizarre'!

Perhaps the miniscule & Mr Forsyth would do well to refer to Bryan for an unadulterated aviation expert version/opinion (take) on the PelAir shenanigans...

Hmm wonder if Bryan has made a WLR submission..

Last edited by Sarcs; 6th Apr 2014 at 22:27.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 02:45
  #568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Mr Sarcs, again thank for your detailed response. You answered my QON in under 48 hours, with a good measure of detail
I would recommend you join CAsA, they could learn a thing or two!

However, before we become overwhelmed with excitement, some further probing is required, by way of names. What are the names of all involved in the process of hiring Mr Wickham? Are any of those names familiar to Mr Wickham, for example ex colleagues from the industry etc?
Out of curiosity was the recruitment organisation run by one Gary Harbor? Don't know, just a wee thought.

To be cont....
004wercras is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 12:38
  #569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,154
Sorry, but what the hell is a "merit list"???????????

This is just effing corrupt!!!! There is no other word for it.

Standard Public service hiring practice is that a hiring decision is made from a list of candidates who meet the experience and qualification requirements of the position on the day. All other candidates are rejected once a candidate accepts an offer and the process is complete.

There is no "merit list" because that is an open invitation to official corruption - to get ones name on "the list", presumably to wait until there is a "suitable" appointment available.

I cannot stress to much that a public company adopting such a process would face an almost immediate legal challenge from any number of sources. This is just plain ******* corrupt.

The existence of a "list" in a hiring process is just plain indefensible
Sunfish is online now  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 16:04
  #570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 547
Standard Public service hiring practice is that a hiring decision is made from a list of candidates who meet the experience and qualification requirements of the position on the day. All other candidates are rejected once a candidate accepts an offer and the process is complete.
Agree, believe it is form 424 Selection Advisory Committee Report in casa's case and for a specific position that details and rates applicants and offer.


The process maybe on the casa website.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 21:14
  #571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
'tis bizarre and passing strange M'lud.

"An additional interview and background checks were completed on Mr Wickham by a new panel made up of (Acting Manager General Aviation GA Field Office Sydney) and (Recruitment Consultant) to assess Mr Wickham for the FOI position. A report was submitted and following approval by the delegate an offer was made to Mr Wickham". (my bold).
Sunny, it gets even more 'peculiar' just a little way under the mirrored surface, there appear to be some very strange going's on in certain offices. Oh to open up the WLR terms of reference; invoke parliamentary privilege, sit back and listen. There are some questions of a tricky nature which demand answers and it's always interesting to listen to the answers. There are, in one office alone, four ground floor 'hiring's' and one firing which IMO need to be examined; in depth, preferably by the AFP (only for the sake of impartiality). Then the informed questioner could look further up the ladder at the snakes residing on the second level. Whether it be publicly or clandestinely managed, the new DAS must do some housekeeping, this with the full cooperation of and support from both ministerial managers and the board.

House keeping needs to address several areas; potential criminal acts, potential corrupt acts working slowly through negligence, incompetence and pure, old fashioned laziness. This is not for the benefit of the 'public', but for that of the board and of the miniscule. Look at how much crap Sinodinos landed in; tricky business this sitting back, being bored and taking the loot. These folk are, after all paid to be the place where the buck stops.

Whoever gets the DAS Guernsey will need to hit the ground running – assuming of course, the intention is clean up CASA and thereby regain industry confidence, cooperation and assistance by doing so.

On the lighter side, there is now a competition where you can showcase your skills and promote the benefits of training your very own personal, preferred pet. So, just for a laugh.


Last edited by Kharon; 7th Apr 2014 at 21:25. Reason: The superb, elegant aerodynamics of the ears – amazing.
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 21:47
  #572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
PP catching up & the other Phil's (AAAA) sup submission??

As an aside to the passing strange FF hiring practices, pings & mystery black boxes, I noticed that Phearless Phelan is catching up... : Agricultural operators dump on the regulator
Peace at last?Well, not quite:

It is worthwhile noting that the AAAA SOM is almost universally disliked by CASA FOIs and AWIs – not because they disagree with the content (they recently had the opportunity to make criticisms and input and very little was received) but because the SOM enforces a standardised approach on all CASA staff as the manual cannot be amended by individual FOIs or AWIs. It can only be amended at a higher level in consultations between CASA and AAAA.

By removing the power of CASA field staff to intimidate and obfuscate in accordance with personal preferences, the manual has delivered a significant cost saving to CASA, quicker turnaround and approval times for industry, and far greater certainty in the process.

But AAAA says this success had now been reversed by CASA’s lack of understanding of either the SOM concept or how it works within the regulator’s organisation. The resulting waste of time and human resources has not resulted in quicker handling of CASA “approvals” and the joint initiative has failed to deliver on its goals, complain the operators.

A prevalent theme common to many of these issues is CASA’s spectacular failure to deliver regulatory reform that is compliant with the project’s founding principles, and (in one example) then to blame industry for the fact that they are simply not workable because implementation required a manual of standards which had yet to be developed.
Well summarised by PP..

One thing new that PP brings to IOS attention is the fact that the other Phil & the Aerial Ag mob had made a supplementary submission (must of missed that in the mystery of MH370 & VH-NGA's missing black boxes):
A supplementary submission

Delivered to the Panel on 20 January, AAAA’s submission may have taken the ASRR Panel by surprise, although it is carefully constructed to fit with the review’s terms of reference and clearly identifies problems, their impact, their background, and viable solutions.

Perhaps at the Panel’s request, the Association later filed a supplementary submission that has identified what AAAA believes to be four key areas that need attention and amendment, and a way forward to achieve them.
The supplementary submission sets out:
  • 12 recommended amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
  • Replacement of the current Board with a reformed structure; or
  • Bringing CASA back under the Department of Infrastructure as a responsible departmental agency of the Department in a similar manner to other Department of Infrastructure agencies;
  • Regulatory reform moved to the Department of Infrastructure;
  • Safety promotion moved to ATSB; and
  • An ongoing economic and efficiency review to reduce the “waste, inefficiency and increasing costs imposed on industry [which] are tolerated by CASA because it has no incentive to reform itself.”
The AAAA submission has peered into several dark corners and identified numerous reasons for long-standing industry frustration and near-despair. It is recommended reading for everybody in the industry who hopes for reform. It is also recommended reading for CASA’s entire Board, its senior managers, the Department’s bureaucrats, and in particular the current Minister, whose apparent inertia on these matters is matched only by that of his predecessor, Anthony Albanese.


Click here for the entire detailed 40-page AAAA submission, and here for the supplementary submission.
IOS choccy frog award for PP(PA) & a further bonus choccy frog for PH(AAAA)...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 23:27
  #573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,364
Chocky frog!! darn it Sarks give them a box each.
They identified and fixed one of the major problems and frustrations that plague the commercial side of GA. Its sad but perhaps an indictment of the lack of direction by senior management in CAsA that has allowed the FOI's and AWI's to destroy the generic manual.

Thirty years ago you still had to have an operations manual.

The manual was generally thirty or forty pages long and reflected instructions pertinent to company operations the CP felt were beyond what the various regulations dictated. Operating instructions for installed equipment not contained in manufacturers manuals, and directions on company administration and employment.

Today that has Morphed into 1000 page Tomes of biblical proportions just for the main Part A. There are some in CAsA who love to call the ops manual a "Living Document"!!! Its alive for sure because its breeding, the PART A now has an ever expanding brood of chicks, one company I know is now out to PART J, I have no idea what they are going to do when they run out of Alphabet. The "New" reg's will require them to be carried on board the aircraft within easy reach of the pilot. So after the ballast in the rear locker to balance all the books scattered around the flight deck, a librarian crew member to find the right book and pass it to the pilot, there aint going to be much room left for the passengers.

The operations manuals now no longer express stuff that the operator particularly wants to express to those in their employ, rather they contain the opinions of various FOI's and AWI's that have crossed the operators path over the years, and therein lies the long suffering CP's despair. What's "compliant" for this FOI or AWI is not necessarily "Compliant" for the next, similarly what is "Compliant" in NSW may not be "Compliant" in QLD.

Those retired CAsA people who now make their living producing this stuff first question will be.."Who's your FOI..Ah you need a Billy Blowfly Manual".

Why are many in the industry paying exorbitant fees to these manual writers? I know of a company who forked out over a hundred grand for manuals, CAsA fees and proving flights to put a simple Citation on their AOC, they already operated one, it was just a different type. Based on their Part C, an amalgam of three or so FOI's opinions, it will cost this company around forty grand just to give a pilot a job on this aircraft, plus dozens of hours of non revenue flying to keep them employed.

If the industry and CAsA consulted and produced generic manuals those fees could be charged by CAsA and provide an income stream, CP's would suddenly stop being angry men, hell maybe people would start applying for CP positions again as most of the frustration would be removed at a stroke, and the ever present threat to their career and livelihood from the dreaded "Not a Fit and Proper person" Friday fax so beloved of the dastedly wabbit.

I don't believe the old "Liability" issue is pertinent largely because out there in the cyber world there are lots and lots of carefully stored emails and scanned documents to trot out if there ever was a liability issue, which I believe would prove to any judge that these manuals are heavily influenced by CAsA via their FOI's and AWI's.

If this occurred, the industry would all be working off the same page, and an even playing field. There would be enormous savings, imagine.. a 20;11 check by one company could be accepted by another, a proficiency check by this company could be accepted by another...so many other requirements that stem from regulations that should have everyone doing the same thing, with the same standards, that currently don't, everybody is different, different based on the opinions of various CAsA employees.

Boys and girls if you think its bad today...have a look at what's coming down the pipeline, a target rich environment that must have the FOI's and AWI's rubbing their hands with glee at the carnage they will be able to inflict on the industry.

Last edited by thorn bird; 8th Apr 2014 at 20:08.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 13:40
  #574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 270
Here here
12 recommended amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Replacement of the current Board with a reformed structure; or
Bringing CASA back under the Department of Infrastructure as a responsible departmental agency of the Department in a similar manner to other Department of Infrastructure agencies;
Regulatory reform moved to the Department of Infrastructure;
Safety promotion moved to ATSB; and
An ongoing economic and efficiency review to reduce the “waste, inefficiency and increasing costs imposed on industry [which] are tolerated by CASA because it has no incentive to reform itself.”
The Ag boys and gals have really got the old finger on the pulse. I agree with all the above. Particularly the reference to removing the Board. They should all go, lock, stock and smoking barrel. Truss increasing the number by 2 is a joke. The current Board needs to have their trough privileges removed and be shown the door, pronto. If anything, a new Board not comprising of career bureaucrats, Miniscule bodyguards and spin doctors. Send Chairman Hawke and friends to Comcare, somewhere like that, and take Dolan from the ATSB with you. Comcare has lots of juicy rabbit holes, senior bureaucrats and pots of money to protect. Aviation SAFETY holds no place for people like you. As for the other CASA executives they should be tar and feathered and handed to the IOS!
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2014, 22:28
  #575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sign post to the future?

There are many so many salient points in the AAAA supplementary all worthy. They lead to some not so idle speculation and have the potential to cheer up the 'lighter' end of industry.

Firstly, there are indications that the 'sup' was requested; this is a good thing and probably true. The AAAA submission was 'sub tended' by many others, all with pretty much the same strong message. The 'sup' seems to be a natural extension and the first sign that the WLR is 'honest' and seeking real, strongly grounded answers for their report. It is now clearly apparent from the response to Pel Air that Truss and Co. will dilute and whitewash the issues until they become a shadowy spectre of the original intent. This means (to a honest review) that the report must be unequivocal with no escape paths. Tough job; but by citing AAAA as industry supported (which they bloody well should be) provides a corner stone for a comprehensive review. There are others, equally important which may, with luck close down some more of the 'wriggle' room.

Secondly, the 'sup' barely mentions 'regulatory' changes but defines sections of the Act which are in dire need of reform. Here again with practical, theoretical, legal and political savvy, the AAAA build a strong platform for meaningful reform. I'd like to think that a new Act would pave the way for adopting (with some changes) the NZ or USA regulations. It makes sense (to me at least), getting our Act together promotes the notion of adopting a sane, proven, ICAO compliant rule set. This could be speedily and economically achieved; much to everyone's relief and benefit.

Thirdly, if Truss is to accept and action the recommendations of "his" carefully selected, experienced, qualified team and expensive, time consuming review; he will need to select a DAS with proven track record of effecting change (actually doing, not just talking 'it' up), in the face of strong GWM resistance. One with a demonstrated ability to achieve 'true' ICAO compliance, a natural leader with understanding of and experienced in Australian industry. Despite the many claims (and I hear some risible applications) to the throne, in reality there are very few would could actually see the job through to a successful outcome. I can think of just three who would be capable; who could build and lead a reform support team.

The big IF is will Truss man up? It's a big, tough dirty job for someone; but, in reality all Truss has to do is sign off. No requirement for his Lilly white hands to get dirty, no heavy lifting, no blood letting. Reward, a footnote in history to remind future generations that W. Truss Esq. was the man responsible for a major renaissance in the Australian aviation industry. Not a bad epitaph really.

Selah.
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2014, 00:10
  #576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,364
There you go Boatman,


Some posters around airports, as many airmen as possible email Truss


"Hey Miniscule GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER".
A concerned Aviator.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2014, 02:44
  #577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Just watching Abbott in Korea at the DMZ and was horrified to think that if one of those 'belligerents' on the other side chucked a grenade at him, Truss would be our new PM. I can't get the bloody image out of my head.


I may start drinking early today.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2014, 10:53
  #578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,156
Frank...cheers

I'm having a couple as well.

Dont worry, I dont think anyone in North Korea would figure a pot shot at the PM of an insignificant little country, of unknown geographical position , would be worth starting WW3 over.

I do admit tho, that The Trussed as PM would be very scary.
Jeeez...would the AsRR and GA rate in that circumstance. I think not.

Immediate concern is what he 's going to do with 'his' review...which is currently claimed to be the snake oil panacea..it will cure everything.

I wish. ! And we'll see, in May
Man of steel... or the strength of a wet bus ticket.????
aroa is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2014, 02:47
  #579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Snoop TOR 2: Mick Quinn & the swinging pendulum

Although FF did their utmost to discredit Mick Quinn (the play the man routine) and his evidence given in the AAI inquiry, perhaps upon reflection it would be worth the WLR panel reviewing some of MQ’s evidence in light of…

TOR objective bullet point two…

• the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);

& TOR outcome bullet point two…

• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;

The following is two segments from the MQ evidence presented at the 22 October 2012 public hearing that very much go to the above TOR references…

[YOUTUBE]

Hansard segment 1:

“….Senator XENOPHON: There are two more issues. At pages 10 to 13 of your submission, you have made reference about the ATSB/CASA review of 2007, the Miller review. You talk about the interplay between the ATSB and CASA. Do you think that the matters raised by Mr Miller in his report of 2007 have been adequately dealt with in terms of the current relationship between CASA and the ATSB?

Mr Quinn : A lot of work by both organisations went into sorting this out. What I believe, though, is that Mr Miller's comments have been interpreted in an incorrect way. The relationship now, which was one that, particularly after the Lockhart River accident, got personal between individuals in both organisations—

CHAIR: We have had experience of that in this committee.

Mr Quinn : Yes. It got very personal. I use the term 'pendulum'; the pendulum has now swung from one of adverse tension that was not producing the sort of outcomes that the aviation safety industry wants to completely the opposite way, where I believe those two organisations are basically acting as one. There needs to be this tension. It is a professional thing and it is a big part of the aviation industry that there be transparency and that these two organisations have very specific roles under their acts, and that seems to have diminished. I think this report is evidence of that….”

[YOUTUBE]

Hansard segment two:

“…Senator FAWCETT: Do you see that one of the steps to recovering that is looking at the MOU between CASA and ATSB? I am aware that was developed after the report in 2007—the Miller review, I think it was—to try to make sure there is a good relationship. I know you talked about the pendulum swinging. Is that one of the key things that needs to be looked at to get that check and balance back into the system?

Mr Quinn: I know there is some criticism about the MOU in the industry, but I do not think the MOU is the problem. I think the problem is the application of it and any interpretation that might be in that. Certainly a review of the MOU should be done, and I think in terms of doing that review it would be pretty wise to have a look at what the NTSB and the FAA do in the US, because they seem to have it fairly right, in my view, and also the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in the UK and the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission. There are other examples out there that we can learn from. I am not criticising the MOU. I do not think the MOU is the problem; I think it is the interpretation, the application and the implementation of that relationship. It needs to be removed from personalities and put back into people accepting that this is not about blame; it is about fixing things. That includes the regulator, it includes the industry, it includes individuals like Mr James. Get away from this blame concept and let's get on with stating the facts and improving the system…”

Maybe MQ has already got in Forsyth’s ear and made a personal submission?? If not the WLR panel would do well to have a chat with MQ, regardless of whether he has an axe to grind with his former employer. He would certainly give a unique insight on the inner workings of FF and would know where many of the skeletons are buried…

004:
However if he is let loose there would be others within the GWM that would quickly reveal MQ's skeletons. Risky move.
Question 004: I would of thought that there is a difference though, as far as I am aware MQ is no longer rubbing shoulders with the GWM trough dwellers, so what has he got to lose??

Last edited by Sarcs; 10th Apr 2014 at 22:16.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2014, 04:08
  #580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Danger Will Robinson - Warning Warning!

Maybe MQ has already got in Forsyth’s ear and made a personal submission?? If not the WLR panel would do well to have a chat with MQ, regardless of whether he has an axe to grind with his former employer. He would certainly give a unique insight on the inner workings of FF and would know where many of the skeletons are buried…
MQ certainly does know where the skeletons are hidden, and then some! However if he is let loose there would be others within the GWM that would quickly reveal MQ's skeletons. Risky move. I quote Sunfish; "To put that another way", birds of a feather stick together, and many many dirty little secrets are buried beneath FF's worm farm. Careful what you dig for.

As for the CAsA/ATsBeaker MOU, Dr Voodoo was the creator of that little Frankenstein.
004wercras is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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