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

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

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

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 24th May 2014, 23:21
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Mayday..mayday..mayday!

Top catch SIUYA at post #782 & #785….
“..SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS

Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process

44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes..”


Meanwhile, in Fort Fumble’s parallel universe, the middle management minions were busy enacting their MAP to roger DJ and the ATsB, while attempting to cover up their obvious shortcomings to properly oversight the PelAir operation.

Anyone else see the irony in the two universes?

List of Participants

AUSTRALIA

MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D


Looking at all the participants from Oz, I also find it more than ‘passing strange’ that Beaker’s crew did not get a look in?? After all the principle body that is fundamental to a successful State SSP is it’s fully independent AAI.


Oh well perhaps bean counter Beaker’s budgetary constraints couldn’t stretch to paying a couple of economy class airfares to Montreal…

In regards to Annex 19 & in the context of the WLR panel report, unlike CAsA, hopefully the panel will have not missed the significance and importance that ICAO place on Annex 19 as the lynch pin that ties all the other ICAO SARPs together. This significance was certainly not missed by several of the submitters to the WLR, who have asked for the Govt to seriously consider reviewing/updating our version of the SSP (State Safety Program i.e. Annex 19).


Examples…

Sports Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) submission:

2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)

a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.


Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submission:


5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.

It is worth reflecting on the ALA submission because the main author of their submission was Joseph Wheeler from Shine Lawyers. This bloke has a real handle on our obligations, as a signatory state, to the ICAO SARPs and in particular Annex 19. Couple of quotes from the ALA submission…

“…Despite Australia’s admirable domestic and international air safety record, and its respected place among International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) States, Australia does not occupy as high a place as it should in terms of international adherence to ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) – the principal measure of a nation’s air safety oversight obligations…”

And from Part ‘5. Systemic oversight issues following Lockhart River crash in 2005’…

“…In the aftermath of the Lockhart River crash it is recognised that the broader trend worldwide towards risk assessment and management led to the development and approaches being implemented at the operational level by CASA. See for example, the publication “SMS for Aviation – A practical guide: Safety Management System Basics”.51

The ALA’s submission is that while there is now a proactive aviation atmosphere with respect to safety risk management for aviation service providers, as evidenced by CASA’s reliance on such principles in preparing its own responses to SARPs on fatigue risk management and drug and alcohol risk management in aviation, these principles should also not be forgotten in the broader context of the results which can eventuate in the absence of such principles in guiding surveillance or oversight of AOC holders (such as the crash at Lockhart River).

Thus, the ALA recommends and endorses updating of the Australian State Safety Program, as published on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, as this was last considered in April 2012, well before the commencement of Annex 19.52 The benefit of this would be to demonstrate to the public the Government’s continuing adherence to regulatory oversight and surveillance at a national level and inspire confidence in smaller air operators to embrace safety risk management principles in the management of their aviation businesses…”

Joseph Wheeler has also produced some excellent articles, published on the Shine Lawyers blog site, on the MH370 search and accident investigation:
MH370 investigation: roles, responsibilities and rule changes
MH370 Preliminary Report released

But his latest article perhaps best highlights the essential role that ICAO play in governing how a signatory state must predictively act after a tragic air disaster has occurred.
MH370 search for answers and ICAO work to track airliners
One rule in Annex 13 is that countries which have a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens are entitled to “have access to relevant factual information which [are] approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation”: Ch 5.27 at 5-8 – 5-9. While it has been argued that no-one knows better than accident investigators the importance of their role (to make aviation safer) we maintained (less than 2 weeks after the aircraft’s disappearance) that:

passengers’ families need to be represented within investigations, both during the search phase and during the investigation phase. … It is only these people, with their human feelings and passionate concerns for answers (owing to their unique losses and experience), which can serve to remind investigators of the reason they are doing what they are doing – to prevent the suffering which has been caused to family members – not the lofty ambition of “making aviation safer” (a trite comment in the context of the shared global pain of those hoping with the families of MH370 passengers to get answers).

We do not depart from those views.
In this case the ICAO SARPs, along with international community, has helped remind the Malaysians of their obligations to the victims and their families of flight MH370.

Joseph Wheeler’s article also displays how all the ICAO SARPs are intrinsically linked. If you follow the JW Annex 13 reference (i.e. Ch 5.27):

5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall be entitled to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information which is approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation; and
c) receive a copy of the Final Report.


This will not preclude the State from also assisting in the identification of victims and in meetings with survivors from that State.


Note.— Guidance related to assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families is provided in the Guidance on Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and their Families (Circ 285).

Link for Circ 285 HERE & ICAO Annex 9, Chapter 8, Section (I) can be viewed HERE

yr right’s comments…

“…SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps…”

“…At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good…”

yr right is right that SMS & Annex 19 is yet another impost to industry stakeholders and is largely based on ‘common sense’. yr right is not right when it comes to ICAO and their SARPs.

Since the Chicago Convention 1944, the ICAO SARPs have been evolving and are produced from over a 110 years of collective (some tragically) international air safety lessons learnt. Those bothersome Human Factors experts may have had a large part in the writing and design of Annex 19, however their combined efforts are not just based on a whim. HF experts in aviation basically study why it is we humans continue to make fundamental errors while committing aviation. They also look at ways to lessen the occurrence & severity of these errors. Annex 19 is a reflection of HF expert research over a good 50 or so years.

That is why it is a total abomination that our numb nuts in CAsA and the Dept (there are Dept names in that list) have the audacity to spend untold millions of taxpayer monies going on junkets to Montreal to show, on paper at least, that we are an ICAO compliant State. But in reality we are merely paying lip service to the ‘Spirit & Intent’ of over 70 years of collective ICAO wisdom…

One can only hope that the ALA recommendation 5 features somewhere near the top of the list of WLR recommendations and the miniscule takes heed, hopefully sometime before Mr ICAO eventually comes knocking…

TICK bloody TOCK!

Last edited by Sarcs; 25th May 2014 at 00:43.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 01:16
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,002
Whilst I understand ICAO it still has two separate base systems Why is there not one and then who is to say which one is right, Now remember this is a paper work exercise the aircraft is maintained to the same standard.


On the HF course what a crock. Now they saying every two years come on give me a break. I can fly to the USA out of the east coast cheaper and quicker than to get to Melbourne to do it from here, and for what. Nothing that's really going to impact the way I or anyone conducts themselves in the course of Maintenance. We do HF every day while we work. Its not new its called common sense. Common sense is real its in the dictionary when its removed then its not but while ever its there the goody goodys cant say there is no such thing.


In about 1999/2000 there was a CASA seminar at Milperra on the changes in maintenance that they where purposing.


me I ask why the change


Them we dont like you doing your studys over the kitchen table


me you saying we in this room (more than 100 people all industry airlines to ga) are all incompetent


them no not saying that


me hands up every one in this room that did (everyone did ) you are


Them no no im not


Me you did


some more questions where asked and then I asked


Me how are people in remote areas going to be able to do there exams and study under this system


Them they be able to do via correspondence


Me WHAT OVER THE KITCHEN TABLE.


What a mess we find ourselves into now I keep saying we never been placed in such a dangerous environment than what we are in now.


And even now with all the changes that where made our Lic system is still not recognized any where else. Now remember how long they tried to get this in, Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it


In the old days it would have been called treason


Cheers

Last edited by yr right; 25th May 2014 at 01:18. Reason: added nt to dont
yr right is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 10:11
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it
let us not be vague about it.
it was QANTAS.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 12:55
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 943
List of Participants

AUSTRALIA

MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
For what it is worth the last two names are the outgoing/ingoing Australia Reps in the ICAO and at the time lived in Montreal.
triadic is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 13:22
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,002
Yep it was Qantas. Just means they don't have to traine engineers in the whole aircraft.
Typical q but f u we ok. Or Qantas syndrome really we the best you all no f all. Worst job I ever held.

Cheers
yr right is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 20:29
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Oink oink

List of Participants
AUSTRALIA

MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
The first 7 names on the list went from Australia. A rough calculation which includes business class airfares, their away allowances, accommodation, meals, sundries and whatever else could be milked 'legitimately' from the trough and you would easily hit the $100k taxpayer figure.

What a joke.
004wercras is offline  
Old 25th May 2014, 23:14
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Yes – but it's essential CASA goes to Montreal - not the ATSB. CASA frame the AIP; thus controlling the register of the 97 page 'differences' catalogue; including those to Annexe 6, 13 and 19. ATSB must, as handmaiden (submissive or catamite) to the safety authority, remember to change their bags before being booted in the arse: lest the CASA boot get dirty. It's a sad, shameful business we pay for. Legal?- "Of course it is M'lud".

Last edited by Kharon; 26th May 2014 at 21:54.
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 07:01
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Senator Heff stirring the Parliament pot!!

A chocky frog for the Heff
He has been concerned about security in Can'tberra's most holy of holy for some time! So he pulled this stunt;

Senator Bill Heffernan smuggles fake 'pipe bomb' into Parliament House, says building 'no longer secure' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Now I can only hope that perhaps Fawcett or Xenophon brandish a dodgy NCN or an 'ICAO intention to audit Australia letter' and sneak it into Fort Fumbles Brisbane H/O, and watch everyone also running for the door!!
004wercras is offline  
Old 26th May 2014, 09:12
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 605
Wink The ICAO 'gravy train'

004wercras ...

There's a whole lot more people involved with ICAO-centric jolly's and troughs than the ones previously posted I'm afraid.

See: Australian Involvement with ICAO Panels, Committees, Study Groups, Regional Planning Groups Etc

There's more than 80 people listed here that are involved with the ICAO 'gravy train' by virtue of Australia being a Contracting State.

Nice work if you can get it! The mind boggles at the $$$'s that must be involved here.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet that all of the listed panellists/committee members/secretariat study 'groupies'/working 'groupies'/ANC panellists/regional planning panellists/others/AN study 'groupies' and task force members don't limit their participation to e-meetings.
SIUYA is offline  
Old 27th May 2014, 12:27
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Toot Toot - No seats left!

SIUYA, agreed, nice if you can land a free seat aboard the ICAO gravy train! All these 'safety related experts' with an annual bill that runs into the millions, yet Australia, by way of CAsA has managed to not complete its regulatory reform program in 25 years with a cost approaching $300 million, the ATsB has folded into a laughing stock and been steered into the depths of a bottomless pit filled with pooh, our industry has been buggerised, pulverised and euthanised, and the consensus in many circles is that Australia is equal to most of the bottom layer third world civil aviation outfits!
Yep, all that money, time and resources that has been outlaid has achieved????

Toot toot
004wercras is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 03:13
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rarotonga
Posts: 204
Arrow For What It's Worth

For what it is worth the last two names are the outgoing/ingoing Australia Reps in the ICAO and at the time lived in Montreal.
It would be interesting to know the process for the ingoing (the last name) being selected to represent Oz in Montreal.

Someone mentioned she was a bureaucrat in Department who spent time in ATSB.

Obviously, a stringent selection process before MM gave her the tax payer funded golden ticket.
Frank Burden is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 03:43
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
While on the subject of overseas junkets, interesting article in todays Sydney Telegraph. Seems the previous Guvmint put aside $370 mil to fund things for the upcoming G20 meeting in BN with no clear rules regarding its disbursement.

Fat cats, as fat cats do, rubbed their hands with glee and dived in, spreading taxpayer largesse around on cruises down the Rhine, superyacht trips around the harbor etc. until the PM's department stepped in and put a brake on it.


Seems to me the PM's dept should have a long hard look at CAsA.


Easily more than $370 mil pissed up against the wall on regulatory "Reform"(CAsA's word for it certainly not industries) and god knows how much on junkets to Montreal. They talk about waste, the whole of CAsA is a wasted space.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 04:00
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Icao rep

Frank,

From memory, the lady in question is a qualified aviation investigator who holds/has held both cpl and parachute quals.
hamble701 is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 04:00
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
The ICAO trough list.

Master Burden, the process for choosing the ICAO delegate is done by Infrastructure. They always choose a 'wordsmith' to represent the good people of Aus. No actual aviation skill is necessary, just the ability to spin, speak bureaucratic lingo, polish the turd and write 10 000 word executive summaries, policy statements and other such baloney. My sources who are deep within the bowels of the Australian system told me that Dr Hoodoo was disliked when he spent time as the Aus representative at ICAO. No tears were shed when he left.

If you look at name number 6 on that amazing list you may find out some interesting stuff when researching her. My sources tell me that she too worked for Infrastructure and was a 'wordsmith' who industry thought was an idiot. Mention her name around PASO and see what response you get
Dr Voodoo (who has worked closely with her before) brought her across from Infrastructure to manage CAsA's ITSAP program. Dr Voodoo took that portfolio off Terry and brought her across when the former ITSAP manager was pineappled by the GWM. When she arrived she and Dr Voodoo proceeded to tinker with, stall and stuff up the ITSAP program, and the Indonesians hated her!
She is a former 'journalist' (ha ha) and doesn't have an aviation bone in her body, so to speak.
The two Fort Fumble inspectors in the program resigned (there was some alleged mischief as well) and the program was handed to Consultants who royally rooted it completely. Well done Fort Fumble
Interestingly this same woman also used to serve on the selection/interview panel for choosing the Aus ICAO delegate! Perhaps she will be next to move to Montreal for three years? Maybe it will be a close acquaintance who lands the coveted gig? Oh Fort Fumble, there is always a story, always a link, never is the smell of pooh far from them

'Safe skies are gravy train filled skies'

Toot toot
004wercras is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 04:08
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Icao rep

004, think you've got the wrong lady !!!!!
hamble701 is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 04:14
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Hamble, negative sir. I've got the correct person. Works in the office of the DAS, answers to Dr Voodoo, based in Can'tberra, sits below P.Boyd on that little attached list etc etc....
004wercras is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 05:01
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
ICAO Rep

Hi 004,

Think we are talking at cross purposes. I must have been confused by Frank"s reference to Oz ICAO reps. There are 2, usually appointed for 3 year terms. The senior is the Councillor, the other is the ANC commissioner.

Present Councillor to whom I am referring is Kerryn Macauley, thought she had been reappointed for a 2nd term. Very smart lady with a good aviation background. Time may have flown and there may be someone else in the wing of whom I know nothing.

Hope this clears things up.
hamble701 is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 06:48
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
The ICAO 'ozfucation nine' - (D)7 on MH370 & Airports

One of the IO9 gives us an update on the recent junket....err...ICAO meeting on MH370:


DH7 is also apparently the resident Dept guru on airports, & was earlier (along with MM) parrying questions from Senator Fawcett...


Watch & weep...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 28th May 2014, 23:21
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rarotonga
Posts: 204
For What It's Worth

hamble701, you missed the point of my post.

It was about process meeting the usual checks and balances in a government funded body (auditable, transparent, fair, etc) before the incumbent was selected.

Similarly, if the position has been extended as mentioned, was the market tested to make sure this important representative position has the best person in it going forward?

Or again, did a sponsor use their authority and make a snap on behalf of the people of Australia?

My post was not about the incumbents suitability for membership of Mensa, or her interpersonal skills or anything else, but about what defines appropriate governance in public office.

004, appreciated your perspectives on the inner workings. A bit hard figuring things out from the outside.
Frank Burden is offline  
Old 29th May 2014, 00:19
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 605
Frank...

See: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...nding_Aust.pdf

Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 set out the arrangements for appointment of the Council Representative and the nominee to the Air Navigation Commission.

Paragraph 8.5 is of interest, and states that it is the general expectation that the appointee will be from Infrastructure, Airservices Australia or CASA...

...but this would not rule out the selection of a candidate external to these agencies.
I'd like to know if/when an external candidates have been appointed.

And if in recognition of paragraph 8.5 the positions are ever advertised so that external candidates can apply, and so that their qualifications and experience can be evaluated alongside those of the Infrastructure, Airservices and CASA candidates to ensure that the most qualified and experienced candidates are selected for the positions in the best interests of Australia.

My suspicion is that no external candidates are ever going to be considered, particularly when internal candidates who are 'smart' people with 'a good aviation background' (whatever that means) are available.
SIUYA 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.