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 4th Dec 2013, 22:19
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 305
Red face Underarm bowling, Senators and the IOS

Kharon, nice footage. Taken from an era probably a decade AFTER the regulatory reform commenced?
Let's take a wander back a tad, to 1981, back before Frankenstein's monster was born in a Government lab:
Now that is the kind of strategic move I would expect CASA to pull out of its magicians bag. What we need is a cricket team made up of IOS, real aviation experts and non party aligned Senators to counteract the 'Chappelising' of our industry.

Creampuff, no arguments from me. I agree that the pressure would have to come from non party aligned Senators. Although I still do believe in the integrity of Xenophon without a shadow of a doubt, and I believe that his intent is genuine, it's just that the horsepower doesn't appear to be there.
A smart move would be for the non affiliated Senators to pick up the Australian aviation thread and start a plan of action. They have a couple of years to learn the aviation ropes, pick up some robust advisors from the IOS and sharpen the knives and plant the pineapple seeds. It will take 2 and a bit years to pull a strong package together, but hey, reg reform has been drifting along for 25 years now, so this could be non aligned Senators meal ticket into the big sandpit. And they would garnish a lot of support from a large number of IOS voters.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 4th Dec 2013 at 22:23. Reason: Comparing turd polishing to cricket ball polishing. Very similar action!
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2013, 00:04
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 305
Reiss Negative? Or Rhesus Negative?

UITA, well done son. Could this be yet another example, exposed, of the Governments intent to 'feed Creamy's chooks'? I believe so.
And this ties in with Kharons questions, namely why Mr Reiss? Plucked from obscurity by whom? Who and how was the decision made to involve him? The IOS would like to review and examine this process. Perhaps Sky Sentinel plucked his name out of a data base? If the smaller end of town was to be represented transparently then Mr Truss's footstool Kingcrat would have brought in Boyd Munro or someone of that calibre?
Sneaky sneaky.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 5th Dec 2013 at 00:31.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2013, 08:30
  #103 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 1,007
You see I'm curious to know why a dwindling, insignificant organisation representing perhaps a few hundred private aircraft owners which essentially sells advertising and publishes a few magazines, is "the" organisation to represent GA, not to mention the potential for 'conflict of interest' creeping into the pot at a later date. Risky strategy - you bet.
Probably because it is the only GA organisation in Oz which has a degree of orginisation about it.

namely why Mr Reiss? Plucked from obscurity by whom?
Strange statement considering Phil has been around for a while.
601 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2013, 10:11
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Given it had 4,000 members in 2004, as stated under oath at Senate Estimates, and now appears to have about 700, it would seem as organized as one could get for a systemic failure. 3,300 members lost in nine years equates to an average steady loss of some 366 members per annum. Why did these people leave if they were getting a benefit for their subscriptions for representation?


Given about 20,000 pilots in Australia, the numbers don't appear to be any representation of pilots let alone the sum of engineers, Air agriculture, EMS, Recreational pilots, DAME's, AOC holders, Regional aviation, Helicopter operators, balloon operators, Ornithopter enthusiasts etc. etc.


Being head of this organization hardly qualifies for induction to any "expert" panel of advisers irrespective how long he has "been around". They lost all their "exerts" years ago in the ego wars.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2013, 11:47
  #105 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 1,007
Even thought it is alleged to only have has "700" members, pray tell what other organised organisation of that size is there to represent GA pilots?
601 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2013, 22:32
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Probably this mob. Australian Women Pilots` Association They say as much about their membership numbers on their website as does that "organized organization" you mention.


I draw your attention to post # 113 Annual report to ASIC.


Receipts from membership fees: $97,744.00 Divided by $145 average but not including non natural non voting members, non voting juniors, associate members etc. comes to 674 members. This despite the information given to Auditors there were 2,588 members?


Only members with full voting rights should be claimed. Perhaps they are claiming "lapsed members" which many are unless those members resign in writing. (read the articles of association).


Take note: they do not represent me!


Even if you add the two totals together and divide by two for a wild average there are still 1631 which is still a bit shy to be claiming to represent all of GA.


I estimate the PPRuNe posters networks who have made submissions to both The Senate and this enquiry have more combined members.


But what would I know?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2013, 22:59
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil Captain's (Kingcrat) pick for twelfth man has IOSCB approval!

Personally the IOSCB have no problem with Phil carrying the drinks, it is the prerogative of the Captain to pick the twelfth man. However let's 'play the ball' and not the man, after all it is just not cricket to sledge a player off the field of play...

601:
Even thought it is alleged to only have has "700" members, pray tell what other organised organisation of that size is there to represent GA pilots?
Hmm..interesting comment and at the risk of drifting towards the inevitable NAOPA wars (there is another thread in GA for that ) let us do a basic review/audit, say over the last 5 years, of the legitimacy of 601's comment...

Note: Before we start I think 601 has sold NAOPA short in the who?? and what?? they profess to represent, from 'An Open Letter to Everyone Involved in General Aviation in Australia':
AOPA does its best to work closely with other aviation organisations, but AOPA is the only one that truly represents the full spectrum of GA activity: IFR, VFR, helicopter and fixed-wing, aerial work and charter, owner-flown, instructional and private hire.
Let us accept, that in GA terms, for the last 12 months the most significant event in GA circles (the one that drew the most cross-discipline, cross-association, political interest, PPRuNe following etc..and largely responsible for triggering the TASRR) was the Senate PelAir inquiry . OK so we will use that event to establish a baseline for our brief review.

So did our truly only GA reps offer support to our Senate elected representatives on the release of the PelAir report and its damning findings back on the 23rd of May...AOPA News link for 2013.?? Err...no! {NB: I can stand correction here; but in the whole of the news listings that the PelAir inquiry was running there is not one mention that I can find}.

So did our truly only GA reps at least make a submission to the PelAir inquiry...Aviation Accident Investigations?? That would be a no!

Maybe they were involved in the other significant GA Senate inquiry...Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010?? Also a no!

In fact the last time that our truly only GA reps made a submission to a GA related Senate/House inquiry was in 2008 and that effort could only best be described as a Creamy wet lettuce response, see here:

Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters

AOPA sub 6

AOPA sub 6A

Hearing transcript from page 30
{To be fair, it is also worth noting that the Captain's pick twelfth man was not selected in that series..}

Sarcs comment: Trolling back through the history of our truly only GA reps involvement in past parliamentary inquiries, there was one submission of note back in 1999-2000 that the association should seriously consider re-badging/updating (name changes etc) and forward as their submission for the TASRR:House Committee sub 145 Hmm...on second thoughts perhaps not!

In the interest of balance of our truly only GA reps (and their 781 members), the elected committee have not been sitting on their hands, from the letter mentioned above :
Recently, on your behalf, the AOPA Committee has:
• Prepared detailed responses to CASA and attended meetings to advocate more GA-friendly provisions in the new Part 61, 91, 141, 142, 145, aviation medical, ageing aircraft and other regulations
• Actively engaged with the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group and the Bureau of Meteorology to make sure that GA, and not just the airlines, have a say on vital air traffic management, airspace planning, satellite-based navigation, weather and other services
• Re-introduced the AOPA aviation scholarships with the support of Airservices Australia
• Held seminars around the country, actively promoting general aviation safety and making contact with our members.
In summing up (and on behalf of the IOSCB) I can see no problem with the twelfth man selection, however the IOSCB would have serious issue with him taking to the field in any other position except silly mid-on or to carry the drinks!

Addendum: Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form.

Media Release WT042/2013 06 December 2013

Last edited by Sarcs; 5th Dec 2013 at 23:27. Reason: Addendum: Thank you Minister!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 00:41
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
12th Man and all that.

I agree with Sarcs # 119; Reiss is probably a reasonable cove, certainly a good (if not the best) choice of fellah to carry the drinks and lick the invitation envelopes. But the slippery notion that AOPA; (as in the real muscle, heavy metal USA version), is representing the local domestic product at what was to be a serious review is risible.

The AOPAA, that is the Australian, non aligned version has, since 2000 slowly declined to insignificance, achieving very little of any great benefit to the unwashed, unshriven masses. The Sarcs post highlights a singular lack of performance; the diminishing membership reflects an inability to generate interest in any positive way and the lack of any sort of guidance on matters aeronautical is notable. The AAAA, AHIA, RAAA, AMROBA, have done some very heavy lifting in all areas of concern and have lead by example. The 2008 submissions mentioned for example showed a real commitment toward assisting industry in a positive, non-combative approach to dealing with the issues as they arose.

Nope: sorry, but whoever made certain that the Minister pulled the AOPAA name out of his hat is, shall we say, 'misinformed'. If we must have a specialist "GA – expert advisor" to carry the drinks, manage the dinner seating cards and arrange the flowers, there are better representatives from an extensive list organisations. Why not select the CEO, GM or CP of a fair dinkum company, there is a fairly extensive list of first class GA/Regional operations to choose from; RFDS, Police Air-wing, Sharp, Air North, Qlink etc. etc. Much more in touch with coal face issues and far, far removed from the rarefied atmosphere of what is now a small, select, specialised user of non renewable resources.

Creamy has the right of it: a one sentence email supporting any of the major players will do a lot more good than sitting back, depending on the 12th man and associated cronies.

Many people dropped their AOPA membership in years past because of instability and wasteful expenditure. The current AOPA Committee is determined not to let that happen again.

Put simply, I’m writing to ask you to give AOPA another chance.
Just about says it all for my AUD$ 0. 20.

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Dec 2013 at 01:54. Reason: CJ's fault - Can't hit the right keys for laughing. CASA gives breasts the thumbs up ?
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 02:22
  #109 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,364
TRUSS MEDIA RELEASE

Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development


Media Statement


6 December 2013

Aviation Safety Regulation Review – submissions now open


DEPUTY Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss today announced the opening of the public consultation stage for the Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review, announced by Mr Truss on 14 November 2013, is a systemic and strategic review to examine how well Australia’s regulatory system is positioned to ensure we remain at the forefront of aviation safety globally.

“The general and regional aviation sectors, in particular, have told the Government they are concerned about the costs of regulatory compliance and how our regulatory system compares to other countries,” Mr Truss said.

“This review will place us in a strong position to ensure our aviation safety standards remain up to the challenge of meeting the predicted expansion of aviation over the next 20 years.

“Australia has a world-class aviation safety record but that doesn’t mean we should sit by and just hope it stays that way.

“I encourage everyone in the Australian aviation industry to engage in this review.

“The Coalition Government is determined to do everything it can to make a good safety system even better.”

The Review Panel, chaired by Mr David Forsyth AM, is now calling for public and industry submissions. Submissions close 31 January 2014.

Mr David Forsyth AM, will Chair the review panel. Mr Forsyth is a prominent figure in Australian aviation. He is the chair of Safeskies Australia, former chair of Airservices Australia and has over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business.

Mr Forsyth will be joined by Mr Don Spruston, former Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada and former Director General of the International Business Aviation Council, and by Mr Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, former safety adviser to Qantas and former United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority board member.

The review panel will provide its report to the Deputy Prime Minister in May 2014.

Submissions may be made through the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr.
This news just in, hot off the server.

Interesting that it now sounds like more regulation rather than cleaning out the deadwood
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 03:28
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The Coalition Government is determined to do everything it can to make a good safety system even better.
You see: It’s already a ‘good system’!

If you’re considering making a submission suggesting that the current system isn’t that ‘good’, it might be worth first confirming that authors of submissions are protected by parliamentary privilege.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 05:02
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 305
'Air Safety Through Investigation'

Creamy, good pick up. Improving our 'already good system' is a nice misrepresentation of the truth, and a cleverly worded little nugget of deceit
Naughty naughty spin doctors spinning away on behalf of Truss. One has to recognise, acknowledge and admit that the system is very very sick, terminal, complete shite (as it currently is), before any changes can be made. That recognition is yet to be acknowledge by those who can introduce the fixes. I mean the IOS and a host of aviation core people know it, but don't have the horsepower to change it.
On a seperate note, the ISASI article below is worth a guernsey.

http://www.isasi.org/Documents/Forum...t-Dec_2013.pdf

Chair Tadros keynote address was quite succinct, and it emphasizes how investigations, per se, have and are changing in scope, technique and methodology. I think that Mr Spruston the review panel expert from the land of the Moose will be quite surprised at how our ATSBeaker has slipped backwards faster than a CASA executive slipping between two taxpayer troughs! The Canucks have pretty much got it right in the investigative field, and so have our brothers in Singapore and the USA. I am sort of hoping that one outcome of the review will be the actual implementation in Australia of workable regulations and a return to sane rules and the world class quality type investigations that the ATSBeaker used to do before Bills and Stray went away and Jules Verne and Beaker took the helm. I remain sceptical about the Governments intent, however if enough of the underlying issues make light a small brushfire may erupt, regardless of how much they try to smother it. A small brushfire has the capacity to turn into a fully fledged bushfire which is what we need. Remember, a fire is destructive, however after the fire new foliage sprouts and takes over………

Last edited by Paragraph377; 6th Dec 2013 at 05:03. Reason: I wonder if ISASI support workplace breast feeding?
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 15:06
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
[quote]-----it might be worth first confirming that authors of submissions are protected by parliamentary privilege. [/quote]

Well said, particularly as all submissions, including those marked "confidential" will be available to anyone in Government, but especially CASA, who wants to look at them.

Defo. is alive and well as a source of income for lawyers who specialise in that sort of thing ----- and both CASA and Airservices have threatened or actually taken action for defamation against industry players who have been critical of individuals.

All the above in addition to CASA's propensity to not view criticism kindly.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 15:59
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
the only way to handle that is to make absolutely no submissions.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 19:42
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
More tea Vicar?

I hardly ever wish-upon-a-star; the occasional muttered comment to whatever pagan gods are handy serves any need for divine intervention; but I'd probably do both to be at the briefing sessions between Team Truss and the Pel Air Senate crew. The outcome of that is going to decide what colour the elephant gets painted. It's a racing certainty that without the drive, dedication and determination of that Senate committee, it's all over, bar the shouting.

The weasel words are flowing, trite little apologies, enough spin to shame a whirling dervish, severely constricted ToR and the joys of defo threatening are all part of the Murky Machiavellian toolkit. Neat little tricks to block parliamentary privilege, tame professional board sitters; the show is starting to look more a vicars tea party than a down and dirty attempt to straighten out the mess.

Aye well, at least when the next preventable smoking hole appears, we can define precisely just who's hands are bloody. We did try to warn them.

Sponsor the IOS review panel for Gathering Analogous Supportable Bulldust Achieving Gullible Sincerity.....

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Dec 2013 at 20:43.
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2013, 23:26
  #115 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,364
Devil

at least when the next preventable smoking hole appears, we can define precisely just who's hands are bloody. We did try to warn them.
No mate they will say "We held inquiries and hearings and inquests and did all we could reasonably do. The company concerned has passed many safety audits in our excellent aviation safety regulatory system. Therefore, it must be pilot error".
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2013, 00:02
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Newsflash: I.O.S.C.B pick for international player - Alan Farkus E.A.A.C.B

In keeping with the rules of the upcoming TASRR World Series Cricket competition (Bodyline series MKII), the IOSCB has met in a EBM to discuss the 2 international selections. For the proposed first pick the board has unanimously supported the motion to send an invitational to the EAACB for the services of Alan Farkus (a.k.a F**K You).

Farkus has been touted as being the next great allrounder of WSC(USA). He currently opens the bowling for the EAA and has a formidable record with consistent bowling speeds at over 150km, he has a huge bumper ball that has got under the chin of many an FAA inspector and as first drop for the EAA, has the incredible batting figures of 99.9.

We (the IOSCB) hope the IOS membership fully support our first international selection and nominations for the 2nd selection are now open.

Some excerpts off the CV of Alan Farkus (a.k.a F**k You)....

Aero-News Update: The Other Shoe Drops -- EAA Files Brief in EAA v FAA Fee War

Aero-News Podcast MP3

Petition for Review and Other Relief
Regardless; make no mistake about it... a decidedly and increasingly unkind and unfriendly FAA has now learned in no uncertain terms that a once compliant General and Sport Aviation community is starting to wake up to the realities of a federal government that is more interested in politics and serving itself than doing the job is has done for decades -- and is still expected to do. {hmm...sounds familiar }

If the FAA thought the entire industry was going to roll over and let them run roughshod over our rights and their responsibilities (to us), then it seems that the time has come to disabuse them of that notion. And we MUST offer serious kudos to EAA for having the Cojones to step up and meet the FAA on the legal field of battle... we were worried that they didn't have it in them... and now we know they do.

From here on out, it looks to be a dogfight, folks, and we'll keep you updated.
[YOUTUBE]

EAA's Legal Position:
  • The FAA's Decision to Demand Payment from EAA for ATC Services at AirVenture Is Arbitrary, Capricious, an Abuse of Discretion, and Otherwise Not in Accordance with Law.
  • The FAA Lacks Statutory Authority to Impose Fees on EAA for ATC Services.
  • The FAA's Charge for ATC Services Is an Unlawful User Fee
  • The FAA's Imposition of Fees on EAA for ATe Services Violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine
  • The Purported Agreement Is Invalid Due to Duress
Gotta love the yanks...

Last edited by Sarcs; 8th Dec 2013 at 03:19.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2013, 18:51
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A Sunday laugh.

Great idea HLB (#130) - A bloody good way to save a few trees. Maybe we just write the IOS Act and submit it, save a load of dollars, messing about with reviews and inquiries. Here ya go mate; done and dusted on the back of a beer coaster. Easy peasy.

The IOSCB Aviation Act, (writ small in fine print).

The rule of law is officially made redundant by this Act. Herewith and henceforward all accidents or incidents, no matter how repetitive, no matter how serious, irrespective of who gets killed or nearly drown are not our fault. Henceforward -nothing is 'our' fault.

We the untouchables led by the unsavoury hereby avow and declare Criminal Pilot Error (non prosecutable because of the silly rules of evidence) to be the predetermined outcome of any future accident or incident.

We the invincible in cooperation with the unconscionable solemnly declare our intention to only present our own home spun version of events; disregard peer group safety recommendations (what would they know) and will outlaw the attendance of our people in nasty Coroners courtrooms.

We will promise to continue our world leading efforts to ensure that whether those who toil in our sheltered workshops bring their children to work or not; we will provide a no worries workplace.
Looks like Sarcs has discovered one the differences between the US outlook and Australian don't look. Can we persuade Mr Farkuse or better still Sean Elliot (VP EAA) to travel over here and bat for the IOS first XI? that should go down very nicely with the tea and scones set. Must be very nice to have the dollars, the laws, the membership, the interest and the political courage to tangle with the monolith of US government.

I wish him, his cojones and all EAA members, the very best of all things. Bravo!!

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Dec 2013 at 19:40.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 20:23
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
At a Christmas BBQ.

LS # 127 - "and both CASA and Airservices have threatened or actually taken action for defamation against industry players who have been critical of individuals."
I heard a very ugly rumour yesterday; which if ever proven true demands immediate, urgent public action. This came not from the TL fuel depot; but from a fairly well informed source. I hope there is no truth in the tale, but FWIW - the conversation, paraphrased : "Seems Arthur Pape has been copping all kinds of flack - attacked, disadvantaged and threatened for publishing - his article - on PPRuNe and for refusing to bow down and back off. Tactics of a Non model litigant are being ruthlessly applied".

I can't give it to you chapter and verse; wish I could, so for once, try to read between the lines I can give you. This sort of thing needs a positive response from government even if it's just a simple denial, because if true and ever proven, it's time to turn off the lights.
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 14:55
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Sarcs comment: Trolling back through the history of our truly only GA reps involvement in past parliamentary inquiries, there was one submission of note back in 1999-2000 that the association should seriously consider re-badging/updating (name changes etc) and forward as their submission for the TASRR:House Committee sub 145 Hmm...on second thoughts perhaps not!
Folks,
In those days, AOPA was a very different and much larger organization, with a very different approach to the present and much smaller AOPA. As somebody basks on one post, can and organisation that takes money from CASA be independent -- or more importantly: "Bite the hand that feeds it".

Of course not!!!

In comparison, in the 90s and early 2000s, a prime AOPA policy was "Pay your own way, have your own say", and, actually, quite a lot was achieved, including forcing Parts 21 to 35 into law.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 19:57
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Dis custard is disgusting.

Well !: maybe the Pape episode is a good starting point for the Forsyth saga. I hear Doc Pape had a sit down with the inimitable Fawcett yesterday, the tea lady told the delivery man she overheard that apparently Doc Pape can no longer possibly be considered a suitable 'expert witness' since he became a tendentious blogger and joined the IOS. Well that's at least one side of the story, told in whispers and innuendo, but as much as I can get for moment; there may yet be a rebuttal. Or even solid fact, which would be nice.

But if true, then it makes as sad a statement about the use of regulation. Almost any, no matter how thin, stretch of 'legal' embuggerance which can be used to delay, divert and drag out an AAT case seems to be an acceptable norm. Of course it's all bollocks; both sides know that, but what sort of 'model' litigant would stoop to such low, budget stretching tactics in an attempt to win a case. We know children, don't we.

Perhaps the Vicars crew could start with the Pape issue, just to gain some insight. Although it does seem the Murky Machiavellian script shuns any sort of unpleasant head on confrontation with the bullies or providing solace to the victims. There is a public statement on this made – HERE – seems everyone is invited for tea and scones provided you wear your Sunday best, shoes polished, noses wiped, hands clean and you play nice; otherwise back to the workhouse for you. Always though it was cruel to invite the local urchins up to the 'big house' for tea, scones and pony rides, then dump them back at the orphanage, bewildered and confused; but I digress. Three monkeys story anyone:-you know; hear, speak and see no evil. etc..

He said the panel was open to anything industry players wanted to tell it; however, Mr Truss had been clear in the terms of reference that he wanted a strategic review that did not re-examine investigations or look at individual complaints.
He said he understood some smaller operators were particularly cranky about the way CASA operated, but that the panel was not a witch-hunt and he would be seeking CASA's viewpoint.
"As with all of these things there's never any one fault," he said. "When you've got a relationship breakdown it takes at least two and sometimes three, so it will be interesting to hear both sides of it."

Admitting that managing the review would need "a fair bit of diplomacy", he said people would need to recognise that the panel was attempting to try and improve the situation. Being vitriolic about CASA or other players was not going to be seen as being particularly helpful.

"The panel obviously wants to get to the meat of these things and deal with it and maybe look at some options for improvement," he said "It isn't here to sit down to hear people rant and rave so people need to be measured in the way they put their responses together."
Aye well, bollocks aside: I notice the whoever put the CASA calendar together this year has managed to include the month of March; stellar achievement. It is to be fervently hoped that those responsible for previous omissions to the Julian calendar have since been educated to deal with this new legislation (circa 45 BC) and are not removed to any sort of responsible position after having learnt a 'new skill set'.

Addendum : Pro Aviation - Paul Phelan reports from the tea rooms.

Last edited by Kharon; 9th Dec 2013 at 20:16. Reason: Chrome seems not to like Pprune smiley's - wonder why??
Kharon 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.