Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
The Globe Swift is to be admired. Don't get to carried away though. The former DAS owned a YAK and loved the poser rights that come with doing aerobatic displays over Noosa regularly. Didn't stop him from screwing GA!
The Globe Swift is to be admired. Don't get to carried away though. The former DAS owned a YAK and loved the poser rights that come with doing aerobatic displays over Noosa regularly. Didn't stop him from screwing GA!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Just read the AA article. ASR is on the agenda but note it states most people are happy with casa performance. The complainers are the minority. Time will tell if they are listened too or dismissed.
As Creamy said the next phrase we'll hear is something like 'regulatory reform is on track and will soon be complete'.
Oh, tour of offices and welcome bbq's.
As Creamy said the next phrase we'll hear is something like 'regulatory reform is on track and will soon be complete'.
Oh, tour of offices and welcome bbq's.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 30th Oct 2014 at 12:40. Reason: Ghggg
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trained seals and performing goats.
Mach E #1416 –"But as well as being a 'good guy' we can only hope that he is totally ruthless and takes a flamethrower to all the dross at CASA. Like, next week. Pay them out. It will cost the taxpayer in the short term, but think of the ongoing savings if so many snouts are removed from the trough.
Once he's done that, maybe he can order whoever survives the cull to cut and paste the NZ regulations in their entirety. No more stuffing about with why Australia is 'different' to NZ. No more pandering to EASA or ICAO. File the differences. ICAO will suck it up.
Once he's done that, maybe he can order whoever survives the cull to cut and paste the NZ regulations in their entirety. No more stuffing about with why Australia is 'different' to NZ. No more pandering to EASA or ICAO. File the differences. ICAO will suck it up.
Toot toot.
Game over; Mr. Mrdak has found what the British insurers at Lloyds once called a "Nodding Donkey" - underwriters who could be persuaded to take on almost any risk after a long lunch and a glass of port. The nodding donkeys led their insurance syndicate members into insuring horrendous risks like Piper Alpha, which claimed Malcolm Frasers fortune.
AVM. Skidmore might be playing with a dead bat, but I doubt it - nodding donkey. Pass the port.
Now just wait till a CASA minion finds an arithmetic mistake in his aircraft’s maintenance release and he gets the same treatment as Toller.
AVM. Skidmore might be playing with a dead bat, but I doubt it - nodding donkey. Pass the port.
:
"Skidmore acknowledged that some in the aviation community had concerns about CASA, but was positive about the general relationship between industry and the regulator.
“My impression is CASA has a good relationship with industry,” Skidmore said.
“There’s obviously mumblings and murmurings around the edges but one of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are.
“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”
Skidmore, who flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said that as a general aviation private pilot he had “never had concerns about CASA or where it was going”.
“One of the reasons I applied for the position and I am very happy to be taking up the position is because I see an opportunity to lead an organisation that is so critical in regards to the safety of aviation in Australia,” he said."
"Skidmore acknowledged that some in the aviation community had concerns about CASA, but was positive about the general relationship between industry and the regulator.
“My impression is CASA has a good relationship with industry,” Skidmore said.
“There’s obviously mumblings and murmurings around the edges but one of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are.
“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”
Skidmore, who flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said that as a general aviation private pilot he had “never had concerns about CASA or where it was going”.
“One of the reasons I applied for the position and I am very happy to be taking up the position is because I see an opportunity to lead an organisation that is so critical in regards to the safety of aviation in Australia,” he said."
Last edited by Sunfish; 30th Oct 2014 at 20:32.
Complexity And Negative Returns
I believe an adequate description to Australias aviation regulation predicament can be found in the work of Joseph Tainter, a social theorist working in the field of complex societies.
His theory involves the concept of diminishing returns - where successive investments produce less and less return, finally reaching the point of zero return where the benefit matches the capital cost of providing it, before finally producing negative returns,, where each successive investment costs more than it benefits.
If we apply this to regulation, there are obvious parallels; we decide to drive on the left side of the road and car crashes diminish, a simple law produces a major benefit. We introduce speed limits and right of way rules, ditto. However as each layer of investment is added the compliance costs increase and the benefits decrease.
We now reach the point, for example, of requiring random drug and alcohol testing of the entire pilot, Air traffic controller and LAME populations, complete with mandatory management plans at a cost of many, many millions to the industry for what return? How many participants have been detected? Two? Six? This is a clear case of an investment providing a totally negative return.
Another case is the massive investment in time and money by CASA in a crusade against pilots with colour vision defects. FOr what benefit? Improving safety? There hasn't been any incident let alone accident involving a colour vision defect in 25 years! Exactly why are we making this investment?
As the extract below puts it, complex societies and organisations got that way be regulation and organisation, and the automatic response to a perceived problem is more of the same - more regulation.
The massive tomes of regulation being emitted by CASA are thus explained. Their solution to everything is more regulation, even if the point of diminishing returns is long past and we are far into negative return territory.
More examples anyone??
http://thearchdruidreport.********.com.au/
His theory involves the concept of diminishing returns - where successive investments produce less and less return, finally reaching the point of zero return where the benefit matches the capital cost of providing it, before finally producing negative returns,, where each successive investment costs more than it benefits.
If we apply this to regulation, there are obvious parallels; we decide to drive on the left side of the road and car crashes diminish, a simple law produces a major benefit. We introduce speed limits and right of way rules, ditto. However as each layer of investment is added the compliance costs increase and the benefits decrease.
We now reach the point, for example, of requiring random drug and alcohol testing of the entire pilot, Air traffic controller and LAME populations, complete with mandatory management plans at a cost of many, many millions to the industry for what return? How many participants have been detected? Two? Six? This is a clear case of an investment providing a totally negative return.
Another case is the massive investment in time and money by CASA in a crusade against pilots with colour vision defects. FOr what benefit? Improving safety? There hasn't been any incident let alone accident involving a colour vision defect in 25 years! Exactly why are we making this investment?
As the extract below puts it, complex societies and organisations got that way be regulation and organisation, and the automatic response to a perceived problem is more of the same - more regulation.
The massive tomes of regulation being emitted by CASA are thus explained. Their solution to everything is more regulation, even if the point of diminishing returns is long past and we are far into negative return territory.
More examples anyone??
When a society begins to add layers of social complexity—for example, expanding the reach of the division of labor, setting up hierarchies to centralize decisionmaking, and so on—the initial rounds pay off substantially in terms of additional wealth and the capacity to deal with challenges from other societies and the natural world. Here again, though, there’s a point of diminishing returns, after which additional investments in social complexity yield less and less in the way of benefits, and there’s a point of zero marginal return, after which each additional increment of complexity subtracts from the wealth and resilience of the society.
There’s a mordant irony to what happens next. Societies in crisis reliably respond by doing what they know how to do. In the case of complex societies, what they know how to amounts to adding on new layers of complexity—after all, that’s what’s worked in the past. I mentioned at the beginning of this month, in an earlier post in this sequence, the way this plays out in political terms. The same thing happens in every other sphere of collective life—economic, cultural, intellectual, and so on down the list. If too much complexity is at the root of the problems besetting a society, though, what happens when its leaders keep adding even more complexity to solve those problems?
There’s a mordant irony to what happens next. Societies in crisis reliably respond by doing what they know how to do. In the case of complex societies, what they know how to amounts to adding on new layers of complexity—after all, that’s what’s worked in the past. I mentioned at the beginning of this month, in an earlier post in this sequence, the way this plays out in political terms. The same thing happens in every other sphere of collective life—economic, cultural, intellectual, and so on down the list. If too much complexity is at the root of the problems besetting a society, though, what happens when its leaders keep adding even more complexity to solve those problems?
"Over to you Mr Skidmore??"
Unlike MMSM Steve & AA's Frawley..
..at least Hitch has an opinion..
..at least Hitch has an opinion..
The Last Minute Hitch: 31 October 2014
31 Oct 2014
Aviation analysts are in overload at the moment with the announcement of Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the new CASA Director of Aviation Safety (DAS). Since February when John McCormick flagged his departure, the industry has been boiling with speculation about who would take the helm, heated by the results of the Forsyth Report. Nine months later we have our new DAS, but the bubbling continues. There is little doubt Mark Skidmore has the skills and integrity to do the job, but his appointment seems to fall in line with the previous practice of giving top civil jobs to ex-RAAF people. Margaret Staib at Airservices was air force, as was John McC himself (admittedly via Cathay Pacific). Curiously, this appointment seems to fly in the face of the Forsyth Report that said the new DAS needed to have skills in culture change. When was the last time there was a culture change in the RAAF? Still, Mark comes well credentialed, so we have to hope he can see a clear path through what has become a murky regulator.
Speaking of CASA bosses, former head Dick Smith has teed-off at the regulator over their advice to pilots to use the area VHF when broadcasting from airfields not marked on the charts. Dick believes interference could lead to an airline accident. I half agree. The advice is off the mark, and we are all better off sticking to 126.7 for all non-CTAF airfields. However, I'm not sure about not broadcasting on the area. True, VFR aircraft operating in G airspace need to be careful when making calls, just as we do entering VFR lanes or making over-water skeds, but I don't believe frequency congestion is an issue on the areas, or that it will lead to a major accident. Fortunately, CAAPs are advisory and don't have to be complied with.
CASA commissioned a survey to gauge whether or not the general public thinks they are doing a good job. The result showed that most people are pretty happy, but it also showed that nearly half of all Australians want more regulation over private flights. This despite the fact that the vast majority of the survey population admit to never having been on a private flight. This is nothing new to us; public comments over general aviation have been wide of the mark for years. Warning bells are sounding, because this gives CASA an excuse for tightening the screws on the industry. Afterall, they have stated for years that the general public is the primary focus of their safety. Over to you, Mr Skidmore.
On the upside, the year-to-date delivery figures show further strengthening of sales in the piston-engine market. This sector contains most the aircraft flown in general aviation, be it private, training or small charter. That can only be good for all of us, and points towards the recession fading from influence.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
31 Oct 2014
Aviation analysts are in overload at the moment with the announcement of Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the new CASA Director of Aviation Safety (DAS). Since February when John McCormick flagged his departure, the industry has been boiling with speculation about who would take the helm, heated by the results of the Forsyth Report. Nine months later we have our new DAS, but the bubbling continues. There is little doubt Mark Skidmore has the skills and integrity to do the job, but his appointment seems to fall in line with the previous practice of giving top civil jobs to ex-RAAF people. Margaret Staib at Airservices was air force, as was John McC himself (admittedly via Cathay Pacific). Curiously, this appointment seems to fly in the face of the Forsyth Report that said the new DAS needed to have skills in culture change. When was the last time there was a culture change in the RAAF? Still, Mark comes well credentialed, so we have to hope he can see a clear path through what has become a murky regulator.
Speaking of CASA bosses, former head Dick Smith has teed-off at the regulator over their advice to pilots to use the area VHF when broadcasting from airfields not marked on the charts. Dick believes interference could lead to an airline accident. I half agree. The advice is off the mark, and we are all better off sticking to 126.7 for all non-CTAF airfields. However, I'm not sure about not broadcasting on the area. True, VFR aircraft operating in G airspace need to be careful when making calls, just as we do entering VFR lanes or making over-water skeds, but I don't believe frequency congestion is an issue on the areas, or that it will lead to a major accident. Fortunately, CAAPs are advisory and don't have to be complied with.
CASA commissioned a survey to gauge whether or not the general public thinks they are doing a good job. The result showed that most people are pretty happy, but it also showed that nearly half of all Australians want more regulation over private flights. This despite the fact that the vast majority of the survey population admit to never having been on a private flight. This is nothing new to us; public comments over general aviation have been wide of the mark for years. Warning bells are sounding, because this gives CASA an excuse for tightening the screws on the industry. Afterall, they have stated for years that the general public is the primary focus of their safety. Over to you, Mr Skidmore.
On the upside, the year-to-date delivery figures show further strengthening of sales in the piston-engine market. This sector contains most the aircraft flown in general aviation, be it private, training or small charter. That can only be good for all of us, and points towards the recession fading from influence.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having bucket loads of fast jet experience is admirable, however, understanding the regulatory craft and contemporary safety practice is more important for the DAS. I hope he has both. Fawcett certainly does, in abundance. Performance or outcome based regulation (which is where we should be heading, i.e., NZ) requires a steady hand and a skilled safety practitioner. Even if the DAS has these skills, he needs to convert the FOI and AWI rot he inherits. They see this approach as a removal of their all-powerful rights.
The rebellion started back in the Byron days when the current rot set in. Compliance based regulation is history (most advanced countries acknowledge this). The industry is best placed to understand the risks they face. Byron was criticised by the Senate for stating CASA needed a "partnership" with industry. Back then none of the Senators had any aviation experience and pushed the capital R regulator concept, largely driven by the ALAEU and the Lockhardt Coronial. Transair was a significant catalyst for the push. Whilst the Senate thrust was made with the right intentions, it provided the wrong results. Also, political industrial issues never result in improvements in safety. At least Fawcett is there now to provide some sense and guidance to the Senate Committee. This is exactly what's required.
Without trust and engagement, nothing will change. Forsyth made that very clear in the ASRR.
IMHO, The DAS needs to have to balls to take a torch to the joint, otherwise he won't achieve a thing. Just 5 more years of fumbling that will result in the industry being torched.
RIP capital R regulator!
The rebellion started back in the Byron days when the current rot set in. Compliance based regulation is history (most advanced countries acknowledge this). The industry is best placed to understand the risks they face. Byron was criticised by the Senate for stating CASA needed a "partnership" with industry. Back then none of the Senators had any aviation experience and pushed the capital R regulator concept, largely driven by the ALAEU and the Lockhardt Coronial. Transair was a significant catalyst for the push. Whilst the Senate thrust was made with the right intentions, it provided the wrong results. Also, political industrial issues never result in improvements in safety. At least Fawcett is there now to provide some sense and guidance to the Senate Committee. This is exactly what's required.
Without trust and engagement, nothing will change. Forsyth made that very clear in the ASRR.
IMHO, The DAS needs to have to balls to take a torch to the joint, otherwise he won't achieve a thing. Just 5 more years of fumbling that will result in the industry being torched.
RIP capital R regulator!
Last edited by Jinglie; 31st Oct 2014 at 09:47. Reason: Hmmmm, retrospect is a great thing.
Planetalking OPINION!
CASA’s new director of safety faces multiple public safety threats
Ben Sandilands | Oct 31, 2014 4:25PM | EMAIL | PRINT
Air Vice-Marshal Mark Skidmore in his element, courtesy Australian Aviation
Opinion Retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Mark Skidmore has been accorded polite, even deferential media on his being appointed as the new director of safety at CASA.
He has in this brief report in Australian Aviation said he will be a ‘good listener’.
With respect to the new DAS, he will also have to be a reformer, and a remover of various CASA identities, to bring the body back to one that merits respect and carries out its obligations to properly and effectively regulate aviation safety in this country.
The regulatory reform process has been so atrociously mishandled by CASA that four years after the Pel-Air crash the regulatory issues that were exposed in the ditching of that medical evacuation Westwind jet near Norfolk Island remain unresolved.
As a declared good listener, retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Skidmore needs to sit down with Senators Bill Heffernan, David Fawcett, Glenn Sterle, and Nick Xenophon to learn how they came to distrust the testimony of his predecessor John McCormick and the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, after reading as of course he would have already done, the Hansard of the proceedings and final report of the committee that inquired into the procedures that were followed in the ATSB arriving at a seriously compromised final report into the accident.
It’s not about a ‘small’ plane crash. It’s about a large issue of honesty and transparency.
If the legacy of disrepect and distrust of CASA caused by these and other events isn’t addressed (including the withdrawal of the second rate accident report) Skidmore has no chance of fulfilling his commendable ambitions for the regulator under his direction.
Other bloody incidents that hang over CASA are the 2008 Barry Hempel crash and the 2005 Lockhardt River crash. It is respectfully suggested that DAS Skidmore not read any of the media coverage reported on Plane Talking or mainstream publications on these matters, but the actual coronial documents and testimonies that are covered by legal or parliamentary privilege.
These are serious matters. They cannot be forgiven, ever, given the deep harm done to the public by CASA’s inability or reluctance to carry out its obligations, but the culture that tried to defend and bury these scandals can be broken by a strong and determined DAS.
To remake CASA, Skidmore will need to risk his own appointment. He will need to say and do things that the Minister won’t like, and he will need to take the public, as well as the industry, with him.
If it turns out that Skidmore gets himself terminated through being courageous and principled, that sacrifice will in itself render the state of CASA so unacceptable even to the Government of the day, that major and constructive reforms of the air safety regulator will at last ensue.
Ben Sandilands | Oct 31, 2014 4:25PM | EMAIL | PRINT
Air Vice-Marshal Mark Skidmore in his element, courtesy Australian Aviation
Opinion Retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Mark Skidmore has been accorded polite, even deferential media on his being appointed as the new director of safety at CASA.
He has in this brief report in Australian Aviation said he will be a ‘good listener’.
With respect to the new DAS, he will also have to be a reformer, and a remover of various CASA identities, to bring the body back to one that merits respect and carries out its obligations to properly and effectively regulate aviation safety in this country.
The regulatory reform process has been so atrociously mishandled by CASA that four years after the Pel-Air crash the regulatory issues that were exposed in the ditching of that medical evacuation Westwind jet near Norfolk Island remain unresolved.
As a declared good listener, retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Skidmore needs to sit down with Senators Bill Heffernan, David Fawcett, Glenn Sterle, and Nick Xenophon to learn how they came to distrust the testimony of his predecessor John McCormick and the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, after reading as of course he would have already done, the Hansard of the proceedings and final report of the committee that inquired into the procedures that were followed in the ATSB arriving at a seriously compromised final report into the accident.
It’s not about a ‘small’ plane crash. It’s about a large issue of honesty and transparency.
If the legacy of disrepect and distrust of CASA caused by these and other events isn’t addressed (including the withdrawal of the second rate accident report) Skidmore has no chance of fulfilling his commendable ambitions for the regulator under his direction.
Other bloody incidents that hang over CASA are the 2008 Barry Hempel crash and the 2005 Lockhardt River crash. It is respectfully suggested that DAS Skidmore not read any of the media coverage reported on Plane Talking or mainstream publications on these matters, but the actual coronial documents and testimonies that are covered by legal or parliamentary privilege.
These are serious matters. They cannot be forgiven, ever, given the deep harm done to the public by CASA’s inability or reluctance to carry out its obligations, but the culture that tried to defend and bury these scandals can be broken by a strong and determined DAS.
To remake CASA, Skidmore will need to risk his own appointment. He will need to say and do things that the Minister won’t like, and he will need to take the public, as well as the industry, with him.
If it turns out that Skidmore gets himself terminated through being courageous and principled, that sacrifice will in itself render the state of CASA so unacceptable even to the Government of the day, that major and constructive reforms of the air safety regulator will at last ensue.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unintended eavesdropping.
Normally, I'll drift down the bar and get as far away as possible from anyone who starts a MH 370 discussion within my hearing. There I was, minding my own business when a couple of bright sparks kicked off a MH 370 'chat' – I started looking for a quiet corner to finish my ale and tuning the noise out until I realised they were talking about the incident in terms of 'social media' and, they seemed to know their onions. The conversation mentioned numbers of 'tweets', posts, comments, 're-tweets' etc. etc. related to the topic. Even if these boys were wrong, by double, the sheer volume of 'traffic' they were discussing was staggering.
Even our own modest Pprune stands behind nearly 19 and a half million 'reads' of the MH 370 matter, with some 11 thousand odd mostly intelligent, informed comment and that is a very humble total compared to the numbers being bandied about by the two chaps I could overhear.
A little later ambling home quietly mulling over those numbers, a small thought crept in. I wondered how many of those countless people interested in the topic thought that our very own Beaker was in the class of the ex military Houston; which lead me to consider the amount folk who quite innocently believe that the beyond reason, Beaker version of the Australian ATSB is 'sound' and may be relied on. The Senate certainly don't:-
Then I wondered what those millions of folk would make of the little example (below) of who they are relying on. Watch as a concerned Senator is confounded, during an inquiry into the 'ditching' of an aircraft, in shallow water (50 m), close to land (<10 clicks), where the 'black boxes' were not recovered. Too expensive, dangerous and neither significant nor important was the 'official' line. The disingenuous part is where the 'new' version of the ICAO annexe was used to support the argument, rather than the version applicable at the time.
The Senator was correct. It leaves you wondering about what will be done in an inquiry mounted for a large, public interest case, like MH 370 – if it's ever found.
While I may wonder about and find 'sensible' explanation for why Houston was not coordinating and managing the effort, or why AMSA were taken off a marine search, I can find no logical explanation for Beaker being reinstated after the Pel Air debacle, let alone being entrusted with a job the world and it's wife are very interested in. Perhaps the Minister has the answer.
Nice to see Ben and Hitch retain their journalistic talent and integrity. Bravo both and thank you......
Toot toot.
Even our own modest Pprune stands behind nearly 19 and a half million 'reads' of the MH 370 matter, with some 11 thousand odd mostly intelligent, informed comment and that is a very humble total compared to the numbers being bandied about by the two chaps I could overhear.
A little later ambling home quietly mulling over those numbers, a small thought crept in. I wondered how many of those countless people interested in the topic thought that our very own Beaker was in the class of the ex military Houston; which lead me to consider the amount folk who quite innocently believe that the beyond reason, Beaker version of the Australian ATSB is 'sound' and may be relied on. The Senate certainly don't:-
(My bold) - Sandilands – Plane Talking - "As a declared good listener, retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Skidmore needs to sit down with Senators Bill Heffernan, David Fawcett, Glenn Sterle, and Nick Xenophon to learn how they came to distrust the testimony of his predecessor John McCormick and the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, after reading as of course he would have already done, the Hansard of the proceedings and final report of the committee that inquired into the procedures that were followed in the ATSB arriving at a seriously compromised final report into the accident.
It’s not about a ‘small’ plane crash. It’s about a large issue of honesty and transparency.
It’s not about a ‘small’ plane crash. It’s about a large issue of honesty and transparency.
The Senator was correct. It leaves you wondering about what will be done in an inquiry mounted for a large, public interest case, like MH 370 – if it's ever found.
While I may wonder about and find 'sensible' explanation for why Houston was not coordinating and managing the effort, or why AMSA were taken off a marine search, I can find no logical explanation for Beaker being reinstated after the Pel Air debacle, let alone being entrusted with a job the world and it's wife are very interested in. Perhaps the Minister has the answer.
Nice to see Ben and Hitch retain their journalistic talent and integrity. Bravo both and thank you....
..Toot toot.
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Nov 2014 at 02:55.
Even an amateur diver could have recovered those black boxes on heliox with decompression stops. For a professional it would be a doddle.
http://bountydivers.********.com.au/...s-crashed.html
http://bountydivers.********.com.au/...s-crashed.html
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye – But what makes it even stranger is they had a rope on the tail end, a crane on a cargo ship to lift it and an investigator on site, to preserve the 'evidence chain'. I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle. But, then again, there are many mysteries of life that elude me.
Hiegh ho – back to my knitting...
Hiegh ho – back to my knitting...
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Nov 2014 at 02:56. Reason: t'was a ship - not a barge. Senior moment.
Weekend banter - Hitch, UWV, #MH370 & social media.
Some topics of interest for the weekend love it..
But first Hitch brings up some very valid points in supplement to his weekly wrap focus on the new DAS..:
Sunny if you go to the Bounty Divers website you will eventually find this link - Norfolk Island - Bounty Divers- Crashed Pel Air West Wind that gives a good description of that dive on the PelAir wreck:
Hmm...so did they get there?? And who or what roped off the tail of VH-NGA and placed a buoy on that rope?? Was it the Vic water coppers rover...
...or someone else??
Moving on to the "K" post on social media - of which I have somewhat of a fascination...
Currently on the t.w.i.t.t.e.r-verse one of the most hit on hashtags is #MH370, so much more than #MH17 - why is this so?? Well I believe it is because people have an extreme fascination for a mystery or - God forbid - a possible conspiracy. Social media therefore provides the perfect platform for people to get involved by actively searching for any snippet of information to help feed human nature's natural inclination to solve a mystery.
While on #MH370 came across a couple of snippets....of interest in regards to the "K" post above. The first was from an app that allows you to expand or make longer t
ts:
Ok then there is the many millions of links (to more & more information...
) that is provided by the many social media platforms...the amount of information available to any individual on the planet is (pardon the pun) absolutely mind boggling! 
Again using #MH370 for yet another Australian connection: The Aussie Connection
Hmm interesting...yet another AVM diligently following Govt orders...
MTF...
But first Hitch brings up some very valid points in supplement to his weekly wrap focus on the new DAS..
:
SteveHitchen In some respects there has been quite a bit of culture change within the RAAF over the past 20 years; roles for women is the obvious one. However, the culture of most military (if not all) is that the rules shall be obeyed without question. What we need now is someone who is going to say "the rules don't work and are even damaging; we need to recognise that and move on to a new set of rules." Is there a lot of that going on in the RAAF? I agree that there has been more culture change in the RAAF in the past 20 years than civvy street, but that says more about civvy street than the RAAF. I honestly hope Mark Skidmore is the man, but his appointment doesn't appear at first to be a good match to what the Forsyth Report said was needed.
Bounty Divers managed to dive on the crashed Pel Air West Wind a few months ago after the area ban was lifted.
We did not get all the way down to the aircraft as this dive was just a reco dive to see if we thought it was possible and/or safe.
As you can see from the footage the fuselage is in two pieces. The rear part is shown very clearly, but we could not see the front section at all. The rear section is the prt that we want to have a look at as is has all of the important parts in and on it ie. the wings, the engines etc.
We have some extremely good divers on Norfolk Island and Bounty Divers will be going down to have another look as soon as the weather permits.
The wreck is sitting at 54m. The video footage was taken from 40m initially and then we moved down to 45m. Before we go any deeper than that we have some serious planning and safety precautions to take care of first.
We did not get all the way down to the aircraft as this dive was just a reco dive to see if we thought it was possible and/or safe.
As you can see from the footage the fuselage is in two pieces. The rear part is shown very clearly, but we could not see the front section at all. The rear section is the prt that we want to have a look at as is has all of the important parts in and on it ie. the wings, the engines etc.
We have some extremely good divers on Norfolk Island and Bounty Divers will be going down to have another look as soon as the weather permits.
The wreck is sitting at 54m. The video footage was taken from 40m initially and then we moved down to 45m. Before we go any deeper than that we have some serious planning and safety precautions to take care of first.
...or someone else??
Moving on to the "K" post on social media - of which I have somewhat of a fascination...
Currently on the t.w.i.t.t.e.r-verse one of the most hit on hashtags is #MH370, so much more than #MH17 - why is this so?? Well I believe it is because people have an extreme fascination for a mystery or - God forbid - a possible conspiracy. Social media therefore provides the perfect platform for people to get involved by actively searching for any snippet of information to help feed human nature's natural inclination to solve a mystery.
While on #MH370 came across a couple of snippets..
..of interest in regards to the "K" post above. The first was from an app that allows you to expand or make longer tts:
MuOne:
“If Inmarsat are still holding some cards close it seems ATSB are complicit?
“I still think, it will be the Malaysians (Indonesians, and maybe Thai?) that deserve the stick, for holding back on radar data release.”
I’ll ask again: to the degree that information is being withheld (and that appears to be the case — and by more than one “party” here), how would that be done WITHOUT the complicity of the other stakeholders? Put another way, if Malaysia and Indonesia are the only culprits here, why haven’t they been fully outed? There are competing interests here. And the aviation industry lives (or dies) on certainty — and the flying public’s belief that it’s statistically safer to travel by air than drive a car or cross the street on foot...
...Very clearly, the “authorities” – whether we’re talking about Malaysia, ATSB, AAIB (UK), or the FAA – have convergent interests here. But they have divergent interests as well. In that regard (and before we put ALL of the obfuscation around MH370 in Malaysia’s lap), do people recall what Duncan Steel said about the French (BEA) getting stonewalled?
Remi Jouvet, a member of the French delegation sent to Malaysia, said “The plane was made invisible intentionally.” But UK’s AAIB refused to give MH370 ping data to the French who were INVITED by the Malaysians, because of their expertise gained as a result of AF447. So the French left Malaysia empty-handed.
“If Inmarsat are still holding some cards close it seems ATSB are complicit?
“I still think, it will be the Malaysians (Indonesians, and maybe Thai?) that deserve the stick, for holding back on radar data release.”
I’ll ask again: to the degree that information is being withheld (and that appears to be the case — and by more than one “party” here), how would that be done WITHOUT the complicity of the other stakeholders? Put another way, if Malaysia and Indonesia are the only culprits here, why haven’t they been fully outed? There are competing interests here. And the aviation industry lives (or dies) on certainty — and the flying public’s belief that it’s statistically safer to travel by air than drive a car or cross the street on foot...
...Very clearly, the “authorities” – whether we’re talking about Malaysia, ATSB, AAIB (UK), or the FAA – have convergent interests here. But they have divergent interests as well. In that regard (and before we put ALL of the obfuscation around MH370 in Malaysia’s lap), do people recall what Duncan Steel said about the French (BEA) getting stonewalled?
Remi Jouvet, a member of the French delegation sent to Malaysia, said “The plane was made invisible intentionally.” But UK’s AAIB refused to give MH370 ping data to the French who were INVITED by the Malaysians, because of their expertise gained as a result of AF447. So the French left Malaysia empty-handed.
) that is provided by the many social media platforms...the amount of information available to any individual on the planet is (pardon the pun) absolutely mind boggling! Again using #MH370 for yet another Australian connection: The Aussie Connection
...Summary: The Aussie connection and high politics
We see that the military commander at the critical hours of MH370 was probably an Australian officer not a Malaysian. This may help us understand the Australian involvement later during the search after MH370 in the Southern Indian Ocean.
The FPDA exists for more than forty years and against all expectations has flourished. Its secret is that it was kept quiet and undemanding. It's not a formal mutual defense treaty and formally the five sides are required only to consult each other in case of defense emergency. The Malaysians are playing "hard to get" and feel smug that the Australians are trying to please them.
Into this delicate web the MH370 affair fell like a bomb. Most Malaysians wouldn't like to hear that an Australian officer is commanding their air defense and if he made a fatal mistake in this case the FPDA is in real danger. We should remember that the FPDA is crucial to the US in its plans to contain China and it'll do whatever needed protect it...
We see that the military commander at the critical hours of MH370 was probably an Australian officer not a Malaysian. This may help us understand the Australian involvement later during the search after MH370 in the Southern Indian Ocean.
The FPDA exists for more than forty years and against all expectations has flourished. Its secret is that it was kept quiet and undemanding. It's not a formal mutual defense treaty and formally the five sides are required only to consult each other in case of defense emergency. The Malaysians are playing "hard to get" and feel smug that the Australians are trying to please them.
Into this delicate web the MH370 affair fell like a bomb. Most Malaysians wouldn't like to hear that an Australian officer is commanding their air defense and if he made a fatal mistake in this case the FPDA is in real danger. We should remember that the FPDA is crucial to the US in its plans to contain China and it'll do whatever needed protect it...
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 31st Oct 2014 at 23:41.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth
This from the UK CAA web site;
A ‘root and branch’ review of how the UK’s Air Navigation Order (ANO) impacts on general aviation (GA) has begun, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed today. The wide-ranging review will look at how a more proportionate and lighter touch regulation for general aviation can be achieved.
The review follows a commitment made by the CAA in response to the Government’s Red Tape Challenge last year - which committed the CAA to reforming the regulatory regime for the UK’s GA sector. The first stage of this major project will see the CAA examine all ANO provisions relating to general aviation - from licensing requirements to operations and airworthiness rules – with a view to deregulating or delegating where possible, in order to simplify compliance for GA pilots and organisations. An amended ANO will also speed up the CAA’s ability to introduce reforms already identified.
The initial review is expected to be completed by March 2015, followed by a public consultation on initial concepts and a second consultation in September 2015 on the CAA’s specific recommendations. Any changes to the ANO will have to be approved by the Department for Transport. DfT officials will be working closely with the CAA throughout the review process.
The review will follow the principles already adopted by the CAA in its oversight of general aviation, which include:
• only regulate when necessary, and to do so proportionately;
• deregulate where it can;
• delegate where appropriate;
• not to gold-plate, and quickly and efficiently remove gold-plating that already exists;
• help create a vibrant and dynamic GA sector in the UK.
The CAA has also established an independent GA Challenge Panel, chaired by Julian Scarfe, Vice President of Europe Air Sports, to oversee the ANO review.
Launching the review, Padhraic Kelleher, the CAA’s Head of Intelligence, Strategy and Policy, said: “The Air Navigation Order has developed over many years, but with the large amount of change that has taken place over recent years, we have to ensure that the ANO is suitable from a GA perspective. I am confident that by the end of the review process we will be well on the way to a simpler, more streamlined and, ultimately more successful, General Aviation sector.”
The CAA’s General Aviation Unit, which was formed earlier this year, has already published a work plan outlining a number of proposed reforms . The CAA and AOPA are also jointly engaged in a project to identify and tackle areas where EU regulations have been 'gold plated'.
A ‘root and branch’ review of how the UK’s Air Navigation Order (ANO) impacts on general aviation (GA) has begun, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed today. The wide-ranging review will look at how a more proportionate and lighter touch regulation for general aviation can be achieved.
The review follows a commitment made by the CAA in response to the Government’s Red Tape Challenge last year - which committed the CAA to reforming the regulatory regime for the UK’s GA sector. The first stage of this major project will see the CAA examine all ANO provisions relating to general aviation - from licensing requirements to operations and airworthiness rules – with a view to deregulating or delegating where possible, in order to simplify compliance for GA pilots and organisations. An amended ANO will also speed up the CAA’s ability to introduce reforms already identified.
The initial review is expected to be completed by March 2015, followed by a public consultation on initial concepts and a second consultation in September 2015 on the CAA’s specific recommendations. Any changes to the ANO will have to be approved by the Department for Transport. DfT officials will be working closely with the CAA throughout the review process.
The review will follow the principles already adopted by the CAA in its oversight of general aviation, which include:
• only regulate when necessary, and to do so proportionately;
• deregulate where it can;
• delegate where appropriate;
• not to gold-plate, and quickly and efficiently remove gold-plating that already exists;
• help create a vibrant and dynamic GA sector in the UK.
The CAA has also established an independent GA Challenge Panel, chaired by Julian Scarfe, Vice President of Europe Air Sports, to oversee the ANO review.
Launching the review, Padhraic Kelleher, the CAA’s Head of Intelligence, Strategy and Policy, said: “The Air Navigation Order has developed over many years, but with the large amount of change that has taken place over recent years, we have to ensure that the ANO is suitable from a GA perspective. I am confident that by the end of the review process we will be well on the way to a simpler, more streamlined and, ultimately more successful, General Aviation sector.”
The CAA’s General Aviation Unit, which was formed earlier this year, has already published a work plan outlining a number of proposed reforms . The CAA and AOPA are also jointly engaged in a project to identify and tackle areas where EU regulations have been 'gold plated'.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The initial review is expected to be completed by March 2015".
Nkosi,
They are being a tad ambitious aren't they??
If Australia started today, the initial review would be half finished by, oh, around 2035.
At that point our regulations would have grown to around one hundred volumes of around ten thousand pages each.
CAsA would petition the Government that as it is impossible to complete the process because new regulations keep growing at a faster rate than its possible to review them, the review should be postponed to a date in the future.
There is a possibility that if the review panel could be increased to 150 members, there was a possibility of half finishing the other half of the half already completed.
This would require the fuel levee to be increased by five dollars a liter.
With only 50 aircraft still operating in Australia CAsA had to concede that it was becoming increasingly difficult to achieve the surplus required by government, without an increase in the levee there was no way they could complete the review.
Nkosi,
They are being a tad ambitious aren't they??
If Australia started today, the initial review would be half finished by, oh, around 2035.
At that point our regulations would have grown to around one hundred volumes of around ten thousand pages each.
CAsA would petition the Government that as it is impossible to complete the process because new regulations keep growing at a faster rate than its possible to review them, the review should be postponed to a date in the future.
There is a possibility that if the review panel could be increased to 150 members, there was a possibility of half finishing the other half of the half already completed.
This would require the fuel levee to be increased by five dollars a liter.
With only 50 aircraft still operating in Australia CAsA had to concede that it was becoming increasingly difficult to achieve the surplus required by government, without an increase in the levee there was no way they could complete the review.
I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle.
Their prediction has proved correct.