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 10th Dec 2013, 09:16
  #121 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: melbourne
Posts: 1
Safety Review - A Feeding Frenzy At Moorabbin

The locals will be out in force no doubt trying to get the recreational facilities moved or shut down. It's shame Moorabbin has such a mixed record. And there is going to be an onslaught of the below the belt digs (humorous or not): Andrew Jenkins - YouTube
thepinkbarron is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2013, 12:38
  #122 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 306
A Hart of gold

As always, Phelan pens a succinct article, and kudos to the Ferryman for posting the link. It's the kind of article that should be read rather than consigned to the Shelfware files. I just hope that Sky Sentinel isn't being used as part of the security system that ties into the review panels office, and especially that safe?
Surely such a secure system would not be vulnerable to some crafty ASIO style bugging and surveillance program? I might phone the Australian Embassy in Jakarta and ask them Hang on a minute, CASA/ASIO? Doesn't CASA HR have an ex ASIO dude working for them in IR

But some interesting observations must be made. If CASA are truly the model litigant and the upholders of integrity that they claim to be, why are they so mistrusted by industry and the IOS? And why the continual claims of bullying from both industry and internal staff if there isn't a bullying culture or issue? Senator Xenophon has certainly picked up on that issue, and I do recall him asking The Skull about his alleged temper issues. (I know, a low blow by Xenophon. And just because there was a Star Chamber at CX years ago that doesn't mean The Skull has done anything wrong).
Anyway, I wouldn't have thought that any government department would allow, tolerate or even deliberately foster a bullying regime? But hey, it's probably just the rumour mill doing its thing? It's all false, just a load of tautological accusations by the IOS yet again.

Now the other thing that keeps niggling at me is the exit of Mr Hart from the ICC. Now I know we are looking at a couple of years ago now since he resigned, but why does a man of integrity, sound judgement and fairness just pull the pin overnight? It would be great if Nick and friends could question him under parliamentary privilege? Hart was a good man, his reputation preceded him and his departure is still being rued by industry 5 years later. Why is that?

Last edited by Paragraph377; 10th Dec 2013 at 12:46. Reason: Looking for references to 'breast feeding' in the Part 61 draft. I got distracted.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2013, 20:19
  #123 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Chameleon effect.

Although senators had sought parliamentary privilege for people and organisations who lodge submissions, it has been explained that under the parliamentary rules, privilege can only be conferred on proceedings that are in fact part of the Parliamentary process, whereas the ASRR’s review is at the behest of the Minister, not the Parliament but is not an instrument of the parliament.
This is a bit too much like the now infamous interpretation of "air transport" used to squeeze airport leases to a satisfactory conclusion for my taste. Give the review to the Senate under Pel Air recommendation 13, perhaps after we get the minuscule 's long awaited response (at some point in the distant future).

"The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes...."
That way people who feel they need confidentiality will get it by being able to give evidence 'in camera'...just a thought?? Hate to think we would have to revisit R13 at a later date just to salvage the integrity of the Minister...now that would be a waste.
[We] even have a safe in the office I’m sitting in at the moment, which is a substantial measure itself, because it used to be the Head of Government Security’s safe. We put anything in there that we’ve been given; we require an extra degree of security around it; and we already have one document in there.

“Everything potentially sensitive will be kept in the safe; it can only be accessed by one person and that person is not me; it’s one person who is general manager here. So even if I want to look at something there it’s got to go back to him. Anything we put in a safe we are not copying, there is an original in the safe, and that’s it. So if someone makes a confidential submission and wants it totally protected we can do that; no one can refer to it, and it goes back in the safe when the panel’s finished with it. What it boils down to I think, is if people don’t tell us what they want to tell us, we can’t do anything about it.
Pause: just for a second, and consider the practicalities of this fatuous statement. They are expecting 300 submissions, they have one 'key holder' and no mention of a document 'log in - log out' system. Anyone with practical experience of committee work knows that to manage 300 documents over a period of what, six months, what happens; and it's just not going to work.

I think if somebody tried to extract vengeance because of a submission to our review, it would be pretty obvious that that’s what’s happened, and I just don’t think CASA would be that unwise.
I think the Vicar has only ever seen CASA at work through the haze generated over the trough at the happy, clappy, feel good, all mates together "Safe Skies" circus. So when this establishment figure turns up to have a 'chat' you can reasonably expect to be politely listened to – but will you be heard?

The Panel acknowledges that all the submissions including confidential submissions may be made available to ‘interested government departments and government instrumentalities under certain circumstances
Add to this a seriously 'secret squirrel' review, this panel could spend the next six months ducking in and out of the local cat houses, boozing in bordellos, riding skateboards around the park, sparing some little time between morning tea and lunch to "chat" with industry; then hire some catamite to script a smooth 60 pages on glossy paper. Transparent – I think not.

Nope, the high priest of the establishment is going to have to do a lot better than the closing speech of the last 'safe skies' stitch up to convince the IOS, anyone hear it? 10 minutes of thank you and platitude, not a positive statement in sight except a determination to do it all again. Is the mystery wielder of the wet lettuce leaf finally unmasked?

Speaking of wet lettuce - I note Phelan who is usually big on word counts devotes 810 words to the Forsyth saga and a paltry 172 to the potential of it all becoming just another round of old bollocks.

Now the other thing that keeps niggling at me is the exit of Mr Hart from the ICC. Now I know we are looking at a couple of years ago now since he resigned, but why does a man of integrity, sound judgement and fairness just pull the pin overnight? It would be great if Nick and friends could question him under parliamentary privilege?
I for one would dearly love to hear what the inestimable Hart has to say in interview, maybe when the Senate crew get hold of this imbroglio - some time next year (perhaps).

Added - While I'm 'at it' comrade Sarcs seems to have hit the wrong thread (maybe) anyway, it's worth a read – HERE – on PPRuNe. It looks as though W. Entsch (Wazza) has added some fuel to the fire – sorry no link – Try Torres Post.

Boogar !!- I omitted the robust Freudian slip. (Big smile).

[We] even have a safe in the office I’m sitting in at the moment,
There you see, all tucked up 'sitting' in the safe; dreadful Grand ma, just awful.

Last edited by Kharon; 11th Dec 2013 at 00:15. Reason: Insert a Pukey at any point that pleases -
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2013, 22:23
  #124 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 306
Brt brt brt

I can picture it now, Creamys wet lettuce being fed by Farmer Truss to the chooks, the chooks in turn dropping loads of rooster booster on the ground and covering industry in it.

Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2013, 05:43
  #125 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The other problem of course is the foxes; man do they like to get into a chook shed. Neither locks, threats or the polite throwing of cucumber sandwiches work half as well a bloody big guard dog. Handing over....Where's Steven Palethorpe when we need him. Woof woof.

Last edited by Kharon; 11th Dec 2013 at 06:10.
Kharon is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2013, 05:59
  #126 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil Chook shed war acronyms: IR..PR..COI..SOPs..CRM..etc

IR- 'Internal Rift': "K" thanks for reminding me..
It looks as though W. Entsch (Wazza) has added some fuel to the fire – sorry no link – Try Torres Post.
Although Creamy damns Wazza's rhetoric as all PIW(piss in wind), could there be another potential IR within the ranks of the Coalition government?? FNQ aviation industry urged to speak up :
“I would absolutely encourage anyone who has had an issue with CASA procedures - and in particular their officers - to put in a submission,” Mr Entsch said.

“In addition, if they have experienced repeated and unresolved problems with individuals within CASA, they can give evidence in Canberra and name them. Testimony will be subject to parliamentary privilege and cannot be intimidated by legal threats.”
And..Not the Torres News...?? :
"I’ve had a lot of people contact me who have been afraid of victimisation if they speak up; this inquiry gives them an opportunity to provide evidence in camera. This will offer them anonymity and protect them from intimidating threats of defamation.

"People can be honest and frank."
Hmm..be interesting to be a FOTW (fly on the wall..) of Coalition HQ over the next couple of days..

PR- personal rage: In the PP article do I detect a note of, barely controlled, PR by the PC (Professional Chair) in having to lower himself to address the concerns of that riff raff mob the IOS (GA) and all its AASG (associated alphabet soup groups)??: Safe to report to us

COI - Conflict of interest: {Note: Apologies "K" for posting on the other thread} In post # 1658 I reference the SS13 (safeskies13 speakers) and their mugshots. There was one particular mugshot where the gentleman in question (minus the fedora) could have stepped out of a scene from the Untouchables..


Comparison aside....this particular gentleman's cv should be of extreme interest to all IOS members, quote:

...."is no stranger to the portfolio having begun his Australian Public Service career in 1988 as a Graduate with the then Department of Transport and Communications. He has held a number of senior positions across the portfolio. His work with the portfolio includes management of international and domestic aviation policy and regulation, the airport sales and regulation program, infrastructure investment, the COAG competition policy reform agenda, rail investment and regulatory reform, maritime policy, emissions, energy and natural resources policy...."

This gentleman practically started crawling in the hallowed halls of the Department (DoT...DoIT etc..etc), he knows better than anyone where all the skeletons are buried and bore witness to twenty plus years of the RRP "drifting along". He also did a stint in Sunny's beloved PMC...

...."Between March 2008 and June 2009...was Deputy Secretary (Governance) with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with responsibility for government, governance, cabinet secretariat and corporate functions within PM&C...."

He even had a hand in the School Halls & pink batts saga...

....."In 2009 he was the inaugural Commonwealth Coordinator General charged with ensuring the effective implementation of key Commonwealth economic stimulus infrastructure investments...."

Memo to the Minister: There is no doubting that this gentleman has been a good and faithful servant of the people for a quarter of a century..but Minister for the sake of transparency and integrity please consider handing the admin of the TASRR over to the Senate RRAT committee and letting concerned individuals, operators etc have the protection of parliamentary privilege!

SOPs - Separation of powers: The BRB believe that this issue is something the panel should seriously consider while reviewing the functions of FF...??

CRM - Controlled Rage Mandate: Something all IOS members have sworn to uphold i.e all sledging to be kept on the field of play or behind closed doors in the CSS (Chook Shed stadium)....
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2013, 18:17
  #127 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Queer giraffes and the ICAC.

The educational video (below) provides instruction on how, in days gone by, a man who had been ripped off could gain some form of restitution and a degree of satisfaction. The educated viewer may gleam from the subtle messaging and sub text the risks associated with doing dodgy business. These days we have the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC); same principal, only the satisfaction of physical contact is denied.

Problem is the system only targets corruption 'done', not the means by which the corruption is flavoured. There remains the contentious issue of whether the corruption is of a moral or legal flavour. It is a sickness of the time we live in – legal and tidy ?= all good. The moral or ethical questions in any situation may be, with impunity, dusted off.

There is no ICAB (Bull-dust). There is a 'legal' impediment to offering 'real' protection from persecution, so there; that's it. Yet we are expected to 'play up' and make genuine, but toothless complaint against the PPP of CASA and meekly accept that we may rely on some second hand fridge, converted (with a new padlock) to a safe, for industrial security. No moral obligations whatsoever to protect witness is envisaged. Bollocks, give this revue back to the Senate, where it belongs; with folk who understand parts, if not all of it. Then drag S. Palethorpe esq. and his crew back from wherever they are toiling and lets have this thing done "proper", or let's not bother at all.

There is no ICAP (Patronising). "GA people"; "Industry players" and all the poor people out there, not sitting on a cushion. You note the high handed, demeaning words used. Not a whisper of robust comment, perhaps along the lines of "We understand and support the need for your protection; there are some legal impediments to this at moment, however we shall discuss the matter with the Miniscule and his watchdog, to ensure that full protection is available to those who's business and career depend on not becoming a haunted or hunted species". Stone the crows, (insert retch break here).

“It may not make your readers totally happy, because some would have been seeking parliamentary privilege. But what we’ve done – and we’ll be telling GA people this when we talk to them as well
Damn straight it don't.

There is no ICAP (Platitudes). A pat on the head and a soothing, but meaningless reassurance from a professional Master of Ceremonies (or a Head waiter for that matter) mean Jack; they're both very superior, cynical and professionally superficial beings.

“So there’s a wall around the review, around its files, around its information and around its people. Each person in the office has signed a confidentiality agreement and gone through all of the processes that generally apply to these sorts of reviews.
There is no ICARR. (Rigged races) the Murky Machiavellian team will no doubt impress the mug punters. Much in the same way a showy, jail bait chestnut filly prancing around the saddling paddock will always attract the 'ladies' money (mine sometimes and I should know better), even at short odds. But, under the sleek glossy hide although all looks well, the fix is in. It will be a legal fix no doubt, the mare returning to stables for a good rub down, in a warm stall the feed bag full of favourite sweetmeats. The rest will just be 'rid hard and put away wet', after all they're just spares to make it look like a real race, the knackers yard awaits.

There is no ICAC. (Confusion). The internal Rift (IR) wars at political level need to be settled. Wazza says it's OK – go for it, I've got your 6. The PC/PC says no pushing, or hair pulling for there is to be no protection against that sort of behaviour (Mummy smack). Which, FPS is it?

Aye well, the Sarcs defined Politically Correct (PC) Professional Chairman (PC) only needs to polish off the welcome speech, work a little more on the closing speech and it's all done and dusted: neat and legal; tied up with a pretty PC ribbon. Special advisors can swagger off to a special congratulatory dinner; and the long serving calendar girl may even be able to return to the stable that bred it.

Step up boys and girls; otherwise, no one will be able to say "Oi !, you sold us queer giraffes". Or hear you scream in space.


Last edited by Kharon; 11th Dec 2013 at 19:00. Reason: Well, it's the dizzy limit - init?
Kharon is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2013, 20:36
  #128 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 251
Aviation Safety Regulation Review OPEN

On 14 November 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon Warren Truss MP, announced the Government has established an independent review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

The submission process is now open.

Submissions will be accepted until 31 January 2014.

Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Sure don't give industry a whole lot of time to get submissioning does it....

I urge every pilot and every organisation to have their say on how we compare with other countries. But not here on PPRuNe! GO TO THE SUBMISSION FORM and have your say COUNT.
thunderbird five is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2013, 22:16
  #129 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 304
Interesting that the terms of reference does not include:

"Outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and operators/industry!

Nor the need to protect the confidentiality of submissions and contributors. We can provide detailed submissions, but without strong protections in place there is a lot of opportunity for payback from some very nasty CASA FOIs and AWIs down the track.
hiwaytohell is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 00:36
  #130 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,391
Sad, but I have a horrible feeling that this enquiry has been nobbled from the start. The CAsA thugs have Trussed Truss up very well, much the same as organised criminals manipulate the legal system.
It would appear the committee members have not the slightest inkling of the corruption they are dealing with and it would take a very brave individual to attempt to educate them, given the extent CAsA would go to, and has gone to, to ensure any dissent is well and truely muzzled.
Creamie is probably right again it's another snow job.

Last edited by thorn bird; 12th Dec 2013 at 01:42.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 01:44
  #131 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"Football, meat pies, kangaroos and..err Airvans?"

Sad, but I have a horrible feeling that this enquiry has been nobbled from the start. The CAsA thugs have Trussed Truss up very well, much the same as organised criminals manipulate the legal system.
TB (tongue in cheek..) do you reckon?? Although I'm not so sure about??..."It would appear the committee members have not the slightest inkling of the corruption they are dealing with..."

IMO the players (Senators NX, DF..Wazza and co) don't know how to get around dealing with a Minister who is already trussed up and spinning around Kingcrat and FF's spit with a bloody great pineapple protruding from his err..mouth...

Anyway while we're waiting for Mr PC (under Dept direction) to officially draw up the rules of engagement... ...came across an article written on the back of Holden's demise that prompts food for thought..???
Why Holden is an aerospace opportunity.

Politicians are scrounging for reasons to blame or deny the imminent demise of Australia’s automotive manufacturing industry. Automotive’s future script has been clear for over two decades since Dr John Hewson announced a zero tariff regime for automotive products in 1992.

Indeed, the writing has been on the wall for the majority of Australia’s manufacturing industries for sometime, yet one industry is a clear performer. Australia’s $4 billion aerospace manufacturing industry is a minnow when compared to the automotive industry, but it still employs more than 14,000 people. Subject to aviation’s global fiscal uncertainty, it still continues to grow delivering consistent profit and growth as other industries shrink.

Before the election the Coalition presented a relatively well thought through aviation policy document, a step in the right direction after years of neglect. Specifically, section 11 of the Coalition’s aviation policy ‘Enhance Industry and Training’ identified the need to study “the state of the workforce in the broader aviation industry to inform future skills development and training policies.”

This opportunity presents a test of commitment. With thousands of skilled automotive workers searching for work, up-skilling them for aerospace manufacturing would be far cheaper than training a worker from scratch.
The technological efficiency demands of commercial and military operators require it to constantly adapt and recreate. This doesn’t happen overnight, aerospace plans decades ahead and the support of significant capital investment provides a certain guarantee of longevity. Substantially larger capital investment also means aviation has a better capability to absorb the cost of an expensive workforce, an Australian reality.

Australia already holds commitment for multiple, secure aerospace programmes over the next 20 years, including: Boeing’s Aerostructures Australia’s (BAA) $4 billion 787 component supply programme, and position as continued sole supplier of 737 ailerons; GippsAERO new Indian-owner Mahindra has committed to development of the GA-10 and GA-18 programmes, with the appointment of 14 new dealers to support expansion into markets in the Americas, Europe and South East Asia; and, F-35 component supply.

Further, production locations for Boeing’s next generation 777X programmes remain undetermined – wherever it lands will deliver billions in economic activity – presenting an opportunity for BAA to be a significant programme supplier. The F-35 support programmes will continue for the foreseeable future. And, if Tony Abbott signs a new Australia-China free-trade agreement (FTA) it presents considerable opportunity for an aerospace partnership with China’s largest manufacturer COMAC.

Is there an opportunity for Australia to be a significant component supplier for the 777X programme? Image: Boeing.

A genuine commitment made today to aerospace industry development and training support could see the number of manufacturers and component suppliers grown well above the 834 that exist today. As manufacturers and suppliers increase, planned training programmes could see automotive workers transition over the next three to four years as automotive shuts down.

Ultimately this growth, supports technological leadership and increased economies of scale, reducing the disadvantage of our distance and cost of doing business. With the right policy, planning and support, Australia’s new government could deliver a mini industrial revolution of sorts – this time in aerospace.

The government needs to look forward, continued bickering only promotes the supposition that Australia is devoid of opportunity. Could aerospace be the opportunity?

Our capabilities have been demonstrated, yet seemingly neither side of the political spectrum wants to recognise it.
Hmm....for that kind of government initiative to be truly successful wouldn't someone need to grab the wood shed axe and chop the heads off a couple of raging, rampaging, reckless, red tape roosters??

NB Don't forget...

Location: Moorabbin Airport 1000 – 1500
Invited: Maintenance Organisations, Operators and Licence Holders
Host: Aviation Maintenance Repair & Overhaul Business Association, inc.
Purpose: Discuss Issues, Government Aviation Policy & Future Effect on Aviation
Contact: Linton Hayres. Aircraft Propellers & Spares. [email protected]
Mobile 0408 565 134
Location: Dingley International Hotel (Next to Airport)
334-348 Boundary Road, Dingley 3172. (03) 9551 8344

1000 - 1020 Introduction Ken Cannane, Executive Director, AMROBA
Change – need for new direction
Review – will it achieve change?
1030 – 1040 Government Policy – Direction Senator David Fawcett
LNP Aviation Policy
1040 – 1300 Open Forum - Issues
Chairs: Senator Fawcett, Ken Cannane
Local issues with:
 Airports/Operations/Maintenance/Personnel
 CASA interaction/processes & procedures.
 EASA and/or FAR system for Non-Airline sectors
 Pilot & Engineer qualifications and licensing
 Industry Concerns for future
 Regulatory Rewrite – Stop??
1230 – 1300 Working Lunch (Sandwiches etc Provided)
1300 – 1455 The Way Ahead
Chairs: Ken Cannane, Linton Hayres
Industry Expectations – Your Opinions
 FAR system for non-airline
o Pros & cons
 Independent LAME
 FAA Fixed Based Operators System
 Approved Maintenance Organisations
 AME Licensing
 Pilot/Instructor Licensing
o Independent Flight Instructors
1455 – 1500 Close Summation and thanks

Last edited by Sarcs; 12th Dec 2013 at 02:14.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 02:34
  #132 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: passing a cloud
Posts: 319
Yes it is a snow job.
We had a discussion today whether our organisation would make a submission based upon our current view of the in industry. Some of our management team have be in commercial aviation in and out of Australia for over 40 years. The result was we won't, here is why.

In summary, none of us have seen such a distrust of the regulator by the industry...... ever.

The overriding view is that without completely closed sessions between the respondents and the panel, industry will not speak up as to the atrocious performance of the regulator for fear for reprisal by the regulator and its staff.

The reform process has dragged on for so long and overcomplicated so many functions that the actual level of safety has decreased. I have witnessed operations where flight operations staff and compliance managers have spent so much time on a wild goose chase propagated by CASA not knowing how to apply their own regulations.

For a any organisation to put their skin in the game and say it how it is to the panel, that organisation is seriously compromising their own business continuity.

I am all for affordable safety, but compliance with all the wonderful rolled gold policy and procedures, safety systems and mechanisms is simply unsustainable from an economic stand point given the miniscule population base we have to sustain the cost of the operations.

There are no more glaring examples of this than the recent Part 61 kerfuffle which was doomed from the word go and ADS-B compliance, where by the regulator need to make a blanket exemption because the manufacturers of said equipment simply do not have the resources, to equip a very large percentage of the Australian fleet of jets manufactured pre 2007.

The Australianisation of what could be a simple after market fix for many Part 25 certified airframes is nothing more than a WOFTAM, that is costing the very industry that the regulator is meant to support, a fortune for zero increased safety benefit.

Licencing is another issue, in the US I can complete a type rating on a transport category aircraft in the sim. The check airman can issue me a temporary airman certificate I can walk out of the sim centre across the road to the FBO, and jump straight into that aircraft and fly it away on its delivery flight. In Australia, send the paperwork to CLARC and wait 56 days is their current answer....... for what.

The cost to business for that is not sustainable, zero safety benefit.

Unfortunately, in our view the review will end up not fixing anything.

The only real solution is put a broom through the whole place from the board down. Scrap the 25 years of the regulatory reform process and pass a bill in the senate thats says from this date the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations will mirror those of the FAA.

Do they have a higher accident/ incident rate per hour flown? per passenger carried? I would argue not, is it risk based affordable safety..... the answer is yes.
TWOTBAGS is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 03:43
  #133 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 83
The only real solution is put a broom through the whole place from the board down.

Catch 22, this will never happen if no one speaks up. No one seems brave enough to speak up, so nothing happens.
gchriste is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 08:08
  #134 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052

Yes, unfortunately it’s a snow job.

But the implications of the page you’ve posted on PPRuNe are profound and your organisation can make a submission …. to Senator Xenophon.

And, on 1 July 2014, there’s nothing stopping your organisation from urging the non-major party aligned Senators to follow Senator Xenophon’s lead on matters aviation.

(Bear in mind: The Panel won’t be reporting until “May 2014” – that will almost certainly be ‘re-established’ to beyond May, due to the ‘volume and complexity of the issues raised by the submissions’ received in the context of the terms of reference and the ‘overriding importance of safety and the obvious need to "get the recommendations right"’– so the government will be stalling on doing anything – sorry – ‘waiting with anticipation’ - until the recommendations of the ‘Review’ have been made.

The government’s response to the recommendations of the ‘Review’ will be to announce some ‘fundamental’ changes to a ‘good’ system to make it ‘even better’. Those changes will, in substance, be inconsequential, but at least one will involve legislation. That’s where the non-major party aligned Senators come in.

What the government mooveth, the non-government Senators can amendeth….

(And for Sunfish: The Holden announcement shows just how sensitive the government is to the job-loss shibboleth. i.e. not at all.)
Creampuff is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 19:57
  #135 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053

Creampuff # 148 But the implications of the page you’ve posted on PPRuNe are profound and your organisation can make a submission …. to Senator Xenophon.
Compared to the last hilarious weekend outing at Mr McKenzie's private lake (LBG) with a BBQ, elephant rides and a couple of effigy burnings (we did, most assiduously clean up afterwards) the formal annual meeting was a serious, even sombre affair. We even went 'hi-tech' and abandoned the usual carrier pigeons in favour of Skype for communications with our colleagues far from home.

Overshadowing proceedings, the Truss stitch up and what to do, for best. Not to much wind was wasted deciding that this wet lettuce leaf inquiry has been subject to a right royal embuggerance. Pretty much a given. Not to waste your time; the following ideas found the most merit:-

1) The notion of bombarding Sen NX with (probably) 2 or 300 hundred submissions was impractical; however the idea of sending a short succinct email voicing your objections and supporting a request for Senate committee involvement would be worth the time. cc Barnaby Joyce....(evil icon).

2) That those who wish to should send a submission to the review should do so. Keep it 'simple' and mention regulatory reform, without reform of the regulator is a waste and just another, pointless PC/PR exercise. It should be a fairly easy exercise to add a politely phrased objection to the terms of reference, lack of public reporting, the demeaning, intimidating pre bout rhetoric, the lack of any real protection and the perception that this review is an exhibition bout, rather than a title fight. (see your local wordsmith) and cc Barnaby Joyce.

3) – Three; aye well, three was 'off the wall'. But, a majority vote declared it a bloody good idea, to wit: a petition to Clive Palmer asking he present a private members bill supporting a notion to "Stop buggering about, bring in the NZ CAR, import some NZ talent to steer the process, and clean out the vermin". cc Barnaby Joyce.

There is some serious talent in the BRB, they reckon that it would take a five man team about a month to 're jig' some of the local peculiarities in the NZ CAR and make a working rule set. The Australian AIP being a whole different world of pain, but doable. One of the crew has compliance templates for parts 121, 125 and 135 to provide a guide for CP 's who would need to redraft (down size) their COM, and I am assured that similar templates are available for the engineering sector (foreign language to me). The proposal was marked for further serious consideration, it's wild, but I confess the more I think about it, the better I like it. P7 (TOM) and I walked home in a very thoughtful mood.

Anyway, there you have it, for what it's worth, a paraphrased, potted version of the Bar Room Barristers AGM. The Christmas bash is always a happier, if not healthier affair. (big grin).

Last edited by Kharon; 12th Dec 2013 at 20:02. Reason: Cussin at Chrome v smiley's.
Kharon is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 23:24
  #136 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
QUOTE: Lo the regulator. He riseth in the morning and upsetteth the whole applecart. Mighty are his endeavors. He goeth forth with great evil and no love in his heart and when the day is spent he returneth, smelling of strong drink and happy, and the truth is not in him.QUOTE

Our new Attorney General is on to this mob. I doubt the obsfucation in the trussed up affair on note will pass muster when he gets through with his little inquisition. Someone should ask George Brandis what he's up to. Funny how these things dovetail into each other. (happy Frank smilie).

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 12th Dec 2013 at 23:26. Reason: Looking for quote wrap again and lost smilies.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2013, 00:33
  #137 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Ben has put up a post on the Senate matters and Truss today.

ATSB chopper emergency inquiry contradicts Pel-Air report | Plane Talking
denabol is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2013, 02:06
  #138 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,483
The coming recession is going to put so much strain on the economy that CASA will have to go under, or their won't be a GA sector at all.

My own (uninformed) take on the CASA rules and regulations is that they are unworkable and the product of a dysfunctional organisation.

THe rules and regulations are not clear and readily understandable and seem to be designed to allow the regulator totally unfettered action to the point of an Alice in Wonderland standard.

The ATSB has been totally compromised

Air Services Australia is a failed ATC organisation thanks to a "profit centre" mentality that destroyed the controller base.

The AAT process used by CASA is abused.

So herewith my submission:

'Here!' cried Alice, quite forgetting in the flurry of the moment how large she had grown in the last few minutes, and she jumped up in such a hurry that she tipped over the jury-box with the edge of her skirt, upsetting all the jurymen on to the heads of the crowd below, and there they lay sprawling about, reminding her very much of a globe of goldfish she had accidentally upset the week before.

'Oh, I BEG your pardon!' she exclaimed in a tone of great dismay, and began picking them up again as quickly as she could, for the accident of the goldfish kept running in her head, and she had a vague sort of idea that they must be collected at once and put back into the jury-box, or they would die.

'The trial cannot proceed,' said the King in a very grave voice, 'until all the jurymen are back in their proper places—ALL,' he repeated with great emphasis, looking hard at Alice as he said do.

Alice looked at the jury-box, and saw that, in her haste, she had put the Lizard in head downwards, and the poor little thing was waving its tail about in a melancholy way, being quite unable to move. She soon got it out again, and put it right; 'not that it signifies much,' she said to herself; 'I should think it would be QUITE as much use in the trial one way up as the other.'

As soon as the jury had a little recovered from the shock of being upset, and their slates and pencils had been found and handed back to them, they set to work very diligently to write out a history of the accident, all except the Lizard, who seemed too much overcome to do anything but sit with its mouth open, gazing up into the roof of the court.

'What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.

'Nothing,' said Alice.

'Nothing WHATEVER?' persisted the King.

'Nothing whatever,' said Alice.

'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'UNimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.

'UNimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone,

'important—unimportant—unimportant—important—' as if he were trying which word sounded best.

Some of the jury wrote it down 'important,' and some 'unimportant.' Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; 'but it doesn't matter a bit,' she thought to herself.

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out 'Silence!' and read out from his book, 'Rule Forty-two. ALL PERSONS MORE THAN A MILE HIGH TO LEAVE THE COURT.'

Everybody looked at Alice.

'I'M not a mile high,' said Alice.

'You are,' said the King.

'Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen.

'Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: 'besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.'

'It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King.

'Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice.

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.

'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'

'What's in it?' said the Queen.

'I haven't opened it yet,' said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.'

'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'

'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.

'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the OUTSIDE.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'

'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of the jurymen.

'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'

'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

'That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.

'It proves nothing of the sort!' said Alice. 'Why, you don't even know what they're about!'

'Read them,' said the King.

The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. 'Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.

'Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'

These were the verses the White Rabbit read:—

'They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.

He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?

I gave her one, they gave him two,
You gave us three or more;
They all returned from him to you,
Though they were mine before.

If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.

My notion was that you had been
(Before she had this fit)
An obstacle that came between
Him, and ourselves, and it.

Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.'

'That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the King, rubbing his hands; 'so now let the jury—'

'If any one of them can explain it,' said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting him,) 'I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.'

The jury all wrote down on their slates, 'SHE doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it,' but none of them attempted to explain the paper.

'If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, 'that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know,' he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; 'I seem to see some meaning in them, after all. "—SAID I COULD NOT SWIM—" you can't swim, can you?' he added, turning to the Knave.

The Knave shook his head sadly. 'Do I look like it?' he said. (Which he certainly did NOT, being made entirely of cardboard.)

'All right, so far,' said the King, and he went on muttering over the verses to himself: '"WE KNOW IT TO BE TRUE—" that's the jury, of course—"I GAVE HER ONE, THEY GAVE HIM TWO—" why, that must be what he did with the tarts, you know—'

'But, it goes on "THEY ALL RETURNED FROM HIM TO YOU,"' said Alice.

'Why, there they are!' said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. 'Nothing can be clearer than THAT. Then again—"BEFORE SHE HAD THIS FIT—" you never had fits, my dear, I think?' he said to the Queen.

'Never!' said the Queen furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke. (The unfortunate little Bill had left off writing on his slate with one finger, as he found it made no mark; but he now hastily began again, using the ink, that was trickling down his face, as long as it lasted.)

'Then the words don't FIT you,' said the King, looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

'It's a pun!' the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2013, 08:33
  #139 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 142
Anyone read the latest CASA annual report? According to their own report they have more senior managers than FOIs. And the number of staff earning over $180 000 increased by 50% in 1 year. No wonder we have to pay a fortune for everything and have to wait forever to get it
Vref+5 is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 01:33
  #140 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West of SY OZ
Posts: 69
ASRR - David Forsyth and Others

Senator Fawcett is encouraging all aviation people with a distinct problem with the regulations to contact the ASRR and make a submission.

Senator Fawcett is aware that numerous people have problems with the Terms of Reference (TOR) and could be concerned about where the information could end up.

He still wishes the industry to make submissions.

It is important to make the submission, particularly as the number of submissions is always important and just being part of a "group submission" does not get the "number clock" running. The group submission does give protection to you, but does not "click-over" the "number clock" that the ASRR has attached to this type of review.

The ASRR are well aware of this.

Consequently, I suggest that you do make a submission in the following format, which you can "cut-and-paste" and get your say recorded as to your problems with confidentiallity and record your feelings as well.

There is a specific form to be used, with the usual tick boxes, then a place to upload an attached file.

The point of contact is via this web-link.

The following may assist you in formulating a response:

The Chair,
Mr. David Forsyth,
ASRR Panel,

Dear Sir,

I do wish to make a submission to the panel and am aware that the panels TOR are to investigate as follows:

  1. the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;
  2. the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);
  3. the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
  4. the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions; and
  5. any other safety related matters.
I have had a long experience as to how these matters are not working effectively in Australia through my own experience and with the Regulator (CASA) and at times, other agencies (such as AirServices and ATSB).

I am concerned that if I make a detailed submission to the ASRR, I and/or my business or people that I work with, will be submitted to recriminations or other sanctions, that will affect me personally or my ability to work in the aviation industry.

I believe the best way forward is to stop the flawed regulatory reform process immediately and introduce the CAA-NZ or FAA-FAR's immediately to stop the serious decline in aviation in Australia in safety, training, industry, maintenance and other areas.

I wish you to record my concerns and this submission and convey these to Senator Fawcett, Senator Xenophon and Minister Truss on receipt of this letter.

Yours sincerely,
The pro-forma was (with thanks) up-loaded for your use and is in Word format.

The direct e-mail for the committee is: [email protected]

Senator Fawcett is very interested in the process of this and if you feel inclined, the Senator's e-mail is: [email protected]

Last edited by advo-cate; 15th Dec 2013 at 01:53. Reason: Editorial
advo-cate 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.