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 31st Dec 2014, 23:46
  #1621 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
...and welcome to the New Director Of Air Safety whose term begins today. Good luck.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2015, 08:08
  #1622 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 49
Posts: 177
The 2015 CASA Croquembouche

Willypedia definition of 'CASA Croquembouche'
a decorative Government organisation consisting of a choux DAS and crystallized executive management team arranged in a cone-like arrangement and held together by a mixture of sticky regulations, policies and procedures force-fed to a multi disciplined group of aviation ills of society.

"Happy Tautological Year". 2015 with the theme of 'same shit different year'!
Soteria is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2015, 20:14
  #1623 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
It's a puzzle.

Now, I freely acknowledge that as a political 'advisor' or even a commentator, it would be better all round, if I stuck with the day time job. I struggle to understand even the simplest of manoeuvres and, left to my own devices will happily remain in a state of disinterest until disturbed. However, even I can see that the Abbott crew are in deep do-do and need to get some runs on the board. As aviation safety is a hot topic at any BBQ you care to attend, could Truss not strike while the iron is hot and use the enhanced public awareness of matters aeronautical to score a few runs for the Abbott team?

The current, truly dreadful state Australian aviation has descended into could all be tracked back to the last minuscule. It is an open secret that Albo was 'instrumental' in hiring McComic and ordering the pogrom on aviation. Albo would not even have allowed the Rev. Forsyth (bless) to conduct his review, but, happily Forsyth did, and did it proud. It's no secret or rumour that Albo would never, not in a million, have countenanced the recommendations being effected. That would never happen on his watch, which IMO was a risky strategy – politically, considering the way thing have developed.

It seems to me that spending half an hour briefing Skidmore to undo the McComic legacy and enabling the changes recommended by intelligent, competent, qualified, trustworthy people, old mate Wazza could score some much needed political points by simply highlighting that Australia was clawing it's way back to international credibility from the unholy mess Albo left in his wake. Give Be-a-Cur and his mates their marching orders, sign a couple of DCM's and just like that, the strong man of transport is seen by a fairly concerned public as actually caring whether or not they arrive at their destination. Or even if they don't, then the system will swiftly, competently and honestly be able to inform their families why not.

I just can't see why there is a hold up, not with so much to play for. The choice is simple, upset a couple or three discredited public servants and ruffle a few feathers; or run the risk of the public knowing that he, Truss had the tools in his hand to fix the wheel on his aviation wagon and failed to use them.

But then, as stated, politics is a strange, alien world to me; it's this accursed curiosity bump which generates the "I wonder" enunciator. I know: Truss doesn't worry about how I do my work and I probably shouldn't be wondering about how he does his; but I do.

'Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost, which is so deemed
Not by our feeling, but by others' seeing.
For why should others' false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?

Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own;
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel.
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown,
Unless this general evil they maintain:  
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.  

S 121

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Jan 2015 at 20:29.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2015, 21:43
  #1624 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606

Hacker: Are you saying that winking at corruption is government policy?Sir Humphrey: No, no, Minister! It could never be government policy. That is unthinkable! Only government practice.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 00:02
  #1625 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
The Laborial dilemma.

Choccy frog for Frank... As for the Ferryman puzzle well perhaps the answer lies within this SMH article (good catch Stan..) - Democracy in crisis:
...Parties in government, regardless of their ideological preferences or election promises, are expected to conform to these strictures. They are assisted in this by elements of the bureaucracy well schooled in the new orthodoxy. They in turn regularly consult with and are monitored by international organisations, be it the OECD or the International Monetary Fund, credit-rating agencies and audit firms. Addressing stark inequalities of wealth and income or enhancing human security find little place in this discourse.
As a consequence, governing parties, having to operate within a highly restricted political space, find solace in the perks of office, occasionally breaching the boundaries of ethical or even legal conduct. Electorates displeased with the outcome feel they can do no more than punish the party in office and elect their opponents, and so the cycle continues with little prospect of significant change in either policy direction or political culture...
...or perhaps not...

IMO there is another disturbing element with the governance of the aviation agencies tasked with the (mal-)administration of aviation safety in this country. Which the former slime-ball miniscule Albo never fails to highlight in any of the very few speeches that he has made on the subject of aviation in the Parliament:
..I have always said that aviation safety is an issue that is well above politics. I am pleased to say that for the many years that I have been first a shadow minister, then a minister, then back again as a shadow minister, the current minister for transport has had the same view. I respect that. That is as it should be.
If there is any area that is above politics it has to be this one, because the whole of the parliament has an interest in working towards ensuring that aviation safety remains an issue of which Australia can be rightly proud...

...I will conclude by indicating publicly, as I have privately to the minister, that the opposition is firmly committed to working in a constructive and bipartisan way on these issues. I note that the minister has been exemplary in ensuring appropriate briefings and in ensuring that this issue continues to be where it was when I was the minister and, previously, under the Howard government...

...I indicate that that should not be seen in any way as a suggestion that we will operate politically on this issue, because we will not. We will deal with these things on their merits. I thank the minister for his response and conclude where I began: it is good to see him back in the House.
And so ends the chance of there being any meaningful debate on the alarming issues highlighted in both the Forsyth report & the Senate AAI report...

For those into pictures here is part of the Albo speech but be warned a (BYO) bucket may be required..

However in that speech - which was in reply to the Truss speech introducing the Government response to the ASRR report - Albo couldn't hide his complete contempt for all things aviation and his continual love affair for his appointed former DAS McComic...

On McComic:
...I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time...

...That was a courageous decision by John McCormick. The fact that Tiger has now been taken over by Virgin Australia and is now functioning in a way that satisfies all the safety concerns shows that that was not just a courageous decision but a correct decision.
On non-aviation attitude:
...It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.

The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly. I think one of the worst parts of the job of being the aviation minister in this country is the fact that you get notified in real time. Except for the minister, people are probably unaware of that. I have had phone calls at all hours telling me that a plane with two or three people on board has gone missing. When the departmental head rang, or in the case of Mr McCormick there was often direct contact, you really did not want to receive that call.

If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.

I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder.
It should also not be forgotten that this disgusting former miniscule for non-aviation was not only responsible for obfuscating the Senate Pilot training inquiry recommendations but for obfuscating/delaying the former Govt response to the Senate AAI report... And this was despite strong non-partisan pressure for him to urgently respond. This was a fact that Planetalking at the time did not fail to remind this consummate (slime-ball) politician.

Here - Pel-Air update: Minister wants to respond with urgency - and then here - Pel-Air on prime time TV snares Minister’s false statement :
The Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese was caught out on 7 News tonight in a report by Chris Reason on the festering sore that is the proven hush up by CASA and the ATSB of all of the circumstances that were relevant to the crash of a Pel-Air operated air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

Albanese said he was unable to take action over a damning Senate committee report on lies and deceits of Australia’s two air safety authorities because parliament went into caretaker mode.

Minister, this is total unmitigated rubbish. Caretaker mode began on 5 August.

On 29 May after consultation with your department Plane Talking published this story as to the urgency with which you and your departmental head Mike Mrdak were claimed to be responding to the unanimous report of the Senate Committee inquiry into aviation safety investigations with particular reference to the performance of the ATSB (the safety investigator) and CASA (the safety regulator).

At that inquiry the Director of Safety at CASA, John McCormick, admitted to withholding an internal audit by CASA that found that the accident was preventable if CASA had actually carried out its duties and obligations in law in relation to the oversight of Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick also apologised for his actions, which the committee has referred to the Australian Federal Police to resolve whether or not it was action that constituted an offence under the Transport Safety Investigations Act of 2003. (If the words in the act mean what they say, McCormick broke the law.)

The committee went on to devote an entire chapter of its report into its lack of confidence in the testimony given by the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan. The committee’s findings, made by a panel drawn from Labor, the Coalition and the Greens, was unanimous in its findings.
It also recommended, among other things, that the ATSB reconsider its final accident report and in the process retrieve the data recorder from the wreckage of the jet, which lies at a recoverable depth on the sea floor near Norfolk Island where it came to rest after being ditched immediately before it ran out of fuel. (All six persons on board were subsequently rescued by a fishing boat in the middle of the night).

The ATSB has deliberately chosen not to recover the data, which carries the distinct possibility of proving that the pilot did not receive correct meteorological information before flying the jet to a position where it could no longer divert to an alternative airport in Noumea or Fiji should it be unable to land at Norfolk Island for a refueling stop.

The ASTSB failed to honor its international obligations to make safety recommendations in relation to the failure on board the ditched jet of all of the safety equipment to perform as intended. It regarded the eventual discovery that CASA had found Pel-Air to be in breach of dozens of safety requirements at the time of the crash as ‘immaterial’, and it framed its final report to visit the entire blame for the accident on the captain Dominic James, who was central to the 7 News report, which should be readily found by a search query on the internet later tonight.

As Mick Quinn, the former deputy chief executive officer of CASA told Chris Reason on 7 News tonight, this corrupted and untruthful circus performance by the safety bodies in relation to the Pel-Air investigation has destroyed Australia’s reputation as a first class nation when it comes to the administration of air safety.

Minister, you are personally responsible for this. You allowed commitments to be made on your behalf, which were not honoured, and you have demonstrated contempt for the Senate of Australia by not responding to the committee’s recommendations within 90 days.

This means you have not acted in a timely manner to correct or restore the integrity of the aviation safety authorities, and that means the safety of Australian air travellers, and those of foreign airlines and their passengers using our air space and airports, is no longer a given.

On 30 May Plane Talking reported on the intention of the department of Infrastructure and Transport to ‘ride out’ the controversy over the disgraceful report issed by the ATSB into this accident.

Minister, surely you are not a party to ‘riding out’ critically important air safety issues? The world is unlikely to let Australia get away with such a poor attitude, as explained in this more recent report.

If the Minister can say so during caretaker mode, what was he thinking when he gave his misleading answer about his inability to repond to these matters in the Chris Reason interview?

Was it amnesia? Or did he think no one would notice that what was broadcast night night was in conflict with his position at the end of May?
As Kharon alludes in his top of the page post...

"...Game on, shake off the hangover and lets try to keep the pressure on, before Abbott drops the ball and Albo emerges, once again and re-hires the McComic. Up to you ALL, at the end of the day, all 275,000 of you who read PPRuNe this past month. You know you want to.."

...now is not the time to relax, if M&M & the Iron Ring with the support of the likes of Albo get their way it is simply all over...

Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Jan 2015 at 01:07.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 05:18
  #1626 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Abbott and problem #370.

Well, I got hooked and read the whole thing; despite there being some lightweight assumptions drawn by [email protected] which could, for the purist at least, detract a little kudos from what is a very sane, solid piece of research and dot joining. For instance:-

Julie 1. As far as I can tell, there have been no updates (or corrections) to this article — meaning that no one, from Boeing or elsewhere, appears to have come forward and stated that it was impossible for MH370 to have flown at FL45 — beyond it's certified maximum.
Just because an aircraft is "certified" to a flight level, does not mean it cannot, quite safely operate above that level. It is an easy enough task to 'google' the type certification data and perhaps even ask Boeing what was the maximum demonstrated height used to derive the certification data matrix; it will not be a 'national secret'. Also, F 430 or 450 there's little difference in 'survivability' time if the cabin was dumped.

But apart from niggles like that and a couple of other 'minor' technically fluffy bits, the piece makes interesting thought food. I have cherry picked some parts which relate directly to the Australian government's involvement. If you can spare the time, the links provided by Julie are worth following, if only for the sake seeing through what seems to be rapidly developing into a smoke and mirrors show.

Julie 2. The paragraph that begins the altitude discussion starts with "According to military radar". Again, I initially thought this was very sloppy, both in the writing and the editorial, because WHOSE radar was not specified. Of course, most people would just naturally assume that given the context, the writer meant MALAYSIA'S military and keep moving. But was Malaysia's military the ONLY military that *saw* MH370 right AFTER its turn over the South China Sea?
There's every chance that JORN did. JORN is a joint American/Australia piece of hi-tech radar gear and it is directly connected with the five powers MoU – see Sarcs #-HERE for details.. Which is passing strange, considering the smoke generated when any line of discussion related to radar data is opened. For example:-

Bradsher –"The main evidence for the conclusion lies in a re-examination of Malaysian military radar data and in a more detailed analysis of electronic 'handshakes,' or pings"...and;
Bradsher –...a comprehensive international review has found that the Malaysian radar equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision to draw any conclusions about the aircraft’s true altitude.
Now that is a troubling statement, how in the seven hells can anyone responsibly assign altitude and guarantee separation (or contact) using a 'not calibrated enough' radar system. Even though it is a very expensive and reputedly highly sophisticated equipment system. So they just bought a brand new Rolls Royce, with all the whistles and bells, and then just parked in the ghetto. Nah, don't believe a word of it.

Bradsher –"'The primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable" said Angus Houston...Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, agreed with Mr. Houston. 'There’s nothing reliable about height'..

Mr. Houston and Mr. Dolan declined to discuss any details about the Malaysian radar readings."..
Huston perhaps with the national interest at heart and being naturally sensible may well have declined to speculate, leaving the 'Dolan' camp and his associated departments bereft of one mirror, to assist with the 'departmental' smoke and mirrors strategy for a 'clean' exit. It's a notion which may explain, in part, the developing rift between two camps and the bizzare, one line interviews Dolan is gracing the international media with. There's nary a skerrick in the local rags; unless you consider his IOS celebrated 'lunch' with the SMH as investigative journalism.

Julie –Without a peep (in that article) from any Malaysian officials, and from the pulpit in Australia — sans any details as to who conducted the "comprehensive international review" of Malaysia's military radar system — or an explanation of the technical basis for determining that Malaysia's system was not "calibrated with enough precision" — it was announced that Malaysia's military altitude data was so imprecise that it was being dismissed. Which then allowed the authorities to CHANGE the SEARCH focus.
Julie –Other than Keith Bradsher, is there an aviation journalist anywhere on earth who caught this - or questioned it (or the authorities in AUS) in any meaningful way?
Yes, our very own Ben Sandilands was onto this and other 'interesting' elements of the incident and is also worth 'reading' in the manner prescribed by Julie in her 'longer twitter'.

Australia has more skin in the #MH 370 game than many realise and with a yawning chasm developing between the 'Mrdak/Dolan' front of house clean exit team and the Huston – 'Just do it right' crew, perhaps those who are going to be closest to the incoming flack had better pay a little attention to the Dolan domestic woes, before it becomes another Pel-Air, writ large and spread all over the pages of both domestic and international newspapers. If it was my shout, I'd drag the inestimable Julia Bishop into the front line and clean up the Australian aviation safety system 'image', before the unmentionable hits that which is rotating at an increasing speed. (Bit of diplomatic double speak there, but you get the drift).

I just wonder which of the major oil exploration companies is going to 'buy' the sea floor maps from the whoever owns them and what the final price will be; I mean the maps have to be worth something, to someone don't they?

Aye; it's all interesting enough, but will it get the Forsyth and Senate reports over the wire? Who would know just who will have a seat, when the music stops, as it must.

Nice work Julie – Cyber Choc frog delivery through cyber space – Send....

Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Jan 2015 at 11:10. Reason: Tidy up run..
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 06:46
  #1627 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 49
Posts: 177
Nice work Julie – Cyber Choc frog delivery through cyber space – Send....
Perhaps the chocy frogs can be delivered by Drone?
Soteria is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 09:20
  #1628 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Going nowhere...
Posts: 320

The "military radar" being referred to here is not an ATC radar but rather the type of radar designed to detect uncooperative aircraft such as an enemy which is not squawking any kind of transponder. One part of such a radar is that which tries to verify an aircraft's altitude by triangulation of the direct range and the antenna elevation angle: there are potentially large deductive errors if such a radar has not been "calibrated".
It's no surprise to me that such a conclusion might be reached.
Jetsbest is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 10:34
  #1629 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
JB. Even so: and I will acknowledge superior knowledge; but perhaps, particularly in that 'role', there just, conceivably, may be an even greater need for precision, rather than an 'approximation' to dispatch fighter aircraft to – duuno. But it still begs questions. However, the questions Sirrah are not my questions, but those of 'expert' commentators, repeated here solely in the interests of discussion and, mayhap, the Australian national interest; which you'll own, is not being well served at the moment. 'Twas but an idle twiddle based on what perhaps the world may perceive.

I still believe ET got it. This is, after all the entertainment channel....

Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Jan 2015 at 11:20.
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 11:57
  #1630 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Going nowhere...
Posts: 320

Agreed: accurate assessment of a contact's altitude is important....

But, in a purely military sense, when using such a ground-based radar in an air defence scenario to direct fighters (Malaysia for eg has Mig 29s, SU30s & Hornets) toward such a target, approximate is good enough because the fighter radar will be far more accurate. It's not about arranging or monitoring deconfliction, it's about getting the fighter radar pointed into the right piece of sky in order to be able gain radar contact in its own right which then allows a target to be intercepted.

In the absence of imminent hostilities I imagine that Malaysia's Air Force, like many others around the world with similar risk assessments, is faced with the same compromises wrt the costs of systems calibration and around-the-clock monitoring: hence the somewhat discredited altitude data from that source.

Just a humble opinion.
Jetsbest is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 20:10
  #1631 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Thanks JB; a good post serving to highlight, very well, the difference a considered, informed opinion can make to 'speculation'. It makes perfect sense – once explained. Perhaps if more explanations of this calibre were provided, the public anxiety and suspicion levels would drop along with wind in some 'theorists' sails.

Much appreciated.....The Tim Tams are on the top shelf, next to the good posts.....
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 21:53
  #1632 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Notably absent here is any discussion on ADSB and WAAS and "new" aircraft disappearing from "radar" who would be assumed to be WAAS or at least ADSB capable. I stand ready for correction, but I was of the opinion such a Satellite was positioned in the Asian theatre of operations. If in fact we are talking ADSB tracking, and not uncalibrated military "primary" radar tracking for separation purposes, it puts paid to the old chestnut we were sold that ADSB is also a SAR device.

I'd like to hear more about "JORN" and its possible role. Would Truss know anything about any MoU? He is the Deputy Prime Minister after all. Would Dolan know anything? (no, ignore that last sentence).

But I digress, the ADSB was being rammed down our throats in another time and another Minister of the day.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 22:28
  #1633 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
The trouble with cover-ups.

In case you missed it here is the most relevant part of my Senate thread post - Aviation Mandarin, JORN & the sleepy echidna.
...If so there would yet again be another fascinating connection to MH370, for it seems that the RAAF has been dancing the tango with Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements for 43 years and the IADS has always been under the command of a RAAF AVM.

Reference from page 84 - The Five Power Defence Arrangements:The Quiet Achiever:
The Commander of IADS has always been an Australian Air Vice Marshal
assisted by a deputy who rotates between Malaysia and Singapore.
Reference from the Strategist article - FPDA—not fade away:
Unlike the echidna, the FPDA has at least adjusted its gait to move with the times, re-badging IADS from integrated air defence to area defence as far back as 2001. Exercise and interoperability themes have since been broadened from conventional defence to HADR and maritime security. FPDA was not publicly invoked during the search for MH 370, but the disaster has focused an operational spotlight on the need for integrated air surveillance and SAR coordination across Southeast Asia and beyond. The apparent failure to track the airliner as it passed north of Butterworth was not IADS’ finest hour. But the continuing multinational search operation has unquestionably benefited from the institutionalised trust built up between Malaysia and its fellow FPDA members.
This apparent anomaly - although totally missed by most Oz MSM - was not missed by the international MSM nor the TBA.

Example from IBT - MH370: Australia Seems Conspiring to Hide Something, Random Letter Sparks Questions on Au’s Security Radar :
...With this, he explained that JORN can search most of the way to India.
"Given this, the only way for the radar not to have detected something like MH370 is for it to be switched off at the time, which raises its own questions."

The most interesting detail the Mr La Franchi pointed out is that Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom jointly operate the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) integrated air defence centre based in Malaysia.

He said that Australia had even funded the modernisation of the centre back in 1990. The modernisation entailed for the centre to be able to "recognised air picture" of all of Southeast Asian airspace using feeds from both civil and military radars.

"That centre has a live feed into the Australian Air Defence Ground Environment (ADGE) which underwent extensive modernisation across the 2000s. The FPDA integrated air defence data is fused with data from JORN in the ADGE, with this data available in real time at centres in Adelaide, Canberra and Newcastle," he explained.

With this information at hand, Mr La Franchi could not understand why MH370 was never detected by Australian system.
Kharon - "...Thanks JB; a good post serving to highlight, very well, the difference a considered, informed opinion can make to 'speculation'. It makes perfect sense – once explained. Perhaps if more explanations of this calibre were provided, the public anxiety and suspicion levels would drop along with wind in some 'theorists' sails..."

Sorry "K" in the case of #MH370 I beg to differ... Maybe with a cover-up like that revealed with PelAir it is still possible to contain the leaks and amp up the smoke machine and add a few more mirrors but with #MH370 it simply has a life of its own.

To give an example take a look at the following article from Malay-mail online - Surviving MH370: One woman cries conspiracy. The following quotes are from under the by-line - 'A cover-up?':
“It doesn’t smell right and exactly what is going on, I honestly don’t know. I have no question what-so-ever that there is a cover up, at least related to MH370,” she said, adding that information has been withheld intentionally.
“There is nothing that has been proven correct in the entire investigation, nothing, no proof,” she concluded.
“It could be that the cover up is that literally they don’t know. It could be that everybody is mystified and honestly doesn’t know and really covering that up by claiming that they know where it is in the ocean. “I just don’t believe that it’s in the ocean. “Every expert that I’ve talked to says it’s impossible for an airplane like that to go into the ocean without debris, impossible,” she said. Bajc said the official story has so many holes in it that “it’s impossible to believe”. “I hear all the theories, some of them are absolutely crazy but most of them are more believable to me than the official story. So that’s why I continue to work at finding the truth,” she said, adding that now, she’s spending five to ten hours a week on finding answers.
Pause for a moment and consider that this is just one obviously educated, intelligent woman's opinion that something does not 'smell right' - now expand that by how many millions?? Then consider who the PM & DPM have (by default) put in charge of the search for what is no doubt the highest profile aircraft disappearance mystery the world has ever seen...

A muppet who colluded/conspired to help perpetuate the PelAir cover-up; ..a muppet who after the Senate AAI report is now the most di-credited active bureaucrat involved in aviation safety administration/oversight in this country;..a muppet who appears to have gone rogue on the JACC & is now leaking to the international MSM...
Kharon - Thanks JB; a good post serving to highlight, very well, the difference a considered, informed opinion can make to 'speculation'. It makes perfect sense – once explained. Perhaps if more explanations of this calibre were provided, the public anxiety and suspicion levels would drop along with wind in some 'theorists' sails.
Now to contradict myself if we were to go back in time...

Nailed down Ferryman... Jetsbest post is exactly what should have come out of the JACC back then i.e. theory considered, measured, assessed and properly discounted...JB help yourself to the Tim Tams...

I'll be back...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2015, 00:00
  #1634 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 595
I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.
Just to go back to your post Sarcs about Albanese, if the appropriate level of tension existed between the ATSB and CASA as it did during Lockhart River then quite possibly the whole Pelair debacle may not have taken the course that it did. The ATSB should have looked at the organisational issues surrounding Pelair's medevac services and I believe would have if they had been truly independent and not tied to CASA via the MOU. The MOU come about because the Queensland Coroner criticized the tension that did exist between the agencies. You can't have it both ways. BTW Albo a planespotter is an enthusiast who doesn't give a toss about the politics behind why he/she is able to enjoy watching planes take-off and land. What he doesn't seem to get is that an aviation professional has every right to criticize a system that is more against aviation than for it. Rant over
Lookleft is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2015, 00:57
  #1635 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Last on MH 370.

As Lefty correctly points out; we have our own troubles here at home; however. Franks' question is a valid one, in relation to how the Australian system will be viewed as a direct result of the Albo & Co legacy, the MoU and Pel-Air.

Global Research - Many people are asking why the Australian over the horizon radar Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) did not see MH370. The map below showing the JORN range is taken from an Australian Air Force fact sheet on JORN (https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_Fact_Sheet.pdf):
As I keep pointing out; the more Australia gets 'embroiled' the more danger there is that the 'credibility' of Angus Houston and by default the government will be tarnished by the 'say nothing' syndrome. This is why IMO it is crucial that open, honest, considered, professional opinion is offered, to each credible theory; even if it's a 'negative'. It beats the vacuum of no information into a cocked hat. Jetsbest's post is a perfect example of why communication, from accredited, qualified experts works so well and pays dividends; it is, as Sarcs mentions, not only totally credible, but earns gold stars. "Yes, we have carefully examined that theory and feel comfortable dismissing it, here's why". Full stop, gold star, media applause and maximum public credibility.

But no, in true Australian style in house politics at departmental level has to be played, the Be-a-Cur life support system weighs in and suddenly, in the midst of the straight, steady leadership of Houston and the excellent AMSA services, the Muppet creeps onto centre stage and into the media. Seems MH 370 is now to be cynically used in a vainglorious attempt to resurrect an image; not that of the ATSB mind you, but that of one who's very own Senate in Parliament dismissed it, with publicly stated open contempt.

It was always going to be tough enough for Julia Bishop to keep the collective Australian arse out of the blow back from MH 370, even with the credibility of Houston and AMSA front and centre. But with the Murky Machiavellian's glove puppet love child leading the way, from the pages of the SMH restaurant guide, mission impossible seems an appropriate title. What's next, Be-a-Cur does MKR? (gods spare us).

The Indonesian NTSB must be so happy that they got their act together and adopted the Alan Stray system rather than the 'beyond all reason' methodology and may rightfully compare their excellence now to be superior to that of the country which not only exported Stray, but then provided the world with the co author of the Pel-Air fiasco. Can you believe as 'the' accredited expert to lead the way to solving the confused MH 370 puzzle. Yeah, I also though it a joke until the Australian media was boycotted in favour of the international set. Perhaps the next planned stop is meant to be Montreal; then ICAO can have a matching pair. What a set of bookends to have on the mantelpiece, what a conversation starter that would make.

FFS someone bang on the miniscule's door, his alarm clock must have stopped working and he's late; almost too late......

Toot –toot – Tick-tock - CLICK MH 370....

Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Jan 2015 at 01:17.
Kharon is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 10:15
  #1636 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 68
Posts: 1,128
MH370 and australia's primary defence radar being turned off at the time.
ha ha ha ha ha plonkers. even if it wasn't turned off ...still plonkers.

I loved the russian response to the air asia crash.
here is one of our seaplanes that is able to land beside wreckage and retrieve stuff. (like you lot can't )
here are some of our divers as well who can dive on submerged wreckage.
the rest of the first world responses seem so anaemic in comparison.
ruskies win that one.

an incident of interest to me.
an australian P3 orion flying in international waters at 500 ft thinking it was totally dark and invisible and all that, detects 2 indonesian sukois making a bee line to intercept them.
how on earth did they know????

methinks it pays not to ever think the indonesians are idiots. the western world hasn't always treated them fairly in its dealings, australia especially, if they haven't quietly caught up they aren't far off.
good one to the indonesians. selamat malam and all that.

...back to your regular entertainment...
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 21:23
  #1637 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I'm not convinced Houston is a "white hat". He's another political appointment suffering dependency syndrome.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 03:48
  #1638 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,456
A blast from the past

Have we have learnt nothing?

The Zippy Share link at the bottom of the page will take you to a discussion written by ex-TAA Captain, turned lawyer Paul Clough. The opinion, comments and advice provided are persuasive. Expertise in both the aviation and legal disciplines add weight to the construct, which is provided for mature consideration.

The opinion provides a measured response to two, of several events which occurred during the past five years i.e. the Polar Aviation decision and the grounding of Tiger Airlines.

In my opinion, the piece provides a powerful insight into the burgeoning “Rule of the Regulator”, the consequences of that ethos and graphically illustrates how the unconscionable, immoral behavior of the so called “Iron ring” utilizes the CASA legal department in a “win at all cost” battle against any action which challenges the premise that CASA cannot be wrong.

The terms model litigant and due process are merely paid lip service when a determination has been made to take a course of action.

This practice tarnishes the reputation of all public servants and denigrates the legal profession, as a direct result.

If, as the Forsyth review recommends, CAsA is to genuinely seek rehabilitation within the aviation community then the opinion of Clough and many other aviation oriented counsel who contributed to the review must be considered essential to the dialogue.

Clough reaches back in time and uses as an example an incident which, to my knowledge, was never made public, Valuable lessons were therefore not learned, to the detriment of air safety.

There are many parallels and similar events occurring today, but lack of transparency and independence of public investigations achieves the same result as the cited incident.

Zero safety lessons learnt.

One of the startling differences is that the DC9 crew acquiesced to the CAA demands; the consequences were demonstrably almost fatal, certainly expensive.

There are several individual cases from 'today' that I am aware of, and probably many more that I aren’t, where crew or trainers have refused to oblige the CAsA demands, the aircraft remained undamaged, lives perhaps saved, but because of their dissent, the effect of that refusal has been detrimental to the careers of those pilots who stuck to SOP and the manufacturers prohibitions contained within the approved aircraft flight manual.

The many relevant messages contained within the article, the lessons that could have been learned by industry, are as relevant now they were during the DC9 incident. The questions raised are the same today and not just in aviation, but across the spectrum where the rule of the regulator impinges on an industry.

There is also some sound advice on protecting yourself and your organization should you become a potential victim of the 'system'. What is terribly sad is that that advice should be necessary, that a mature debate on a safety issue cannot be had with the regulator for fear of punitive retribution.

The DC 9 incident rang the warning bells, very loudly. TAA acted, promptly and correctly, but the regulator's official slipped away unscathed. Since the incident was managed 'quietly' and in house, the regulator has not taken the steps required to ensure, that from their end, the DC 9 incident could not be repeated. Indeed, recent court hearings have demonstrated that the ability to act irresponsibly has been enshrined in law; under the banner of 'safety'.

Those same warning bells are today ringing equally loudly, only an inch from our ears yet still the industry blindly follows the “Judas” goat to oblivion, like lemmings off a cliff.

Just like the ferryman, I get this curiosity itch. Scratch it and it just gets worse, no matter how I try to ponder an answer, for the life of me I cannot see why those of the 'Iron Ring' are so determined to destroy the very industry they oversee and draw revenue from.

What motivates them on this course? Are they being driven against their better judgment by a political agenda, such as that of Minister Albanese ?

Or is there a darker reason?

GA secondary airports have become very valuable pieces of real estate. Evidence is surfacing of a bit of derring do between various government officials and property developers during the original sell off.

Kill off GA and these very valuable pieces of underutilized real estate if commercially developed would make someone a lot of money.

I cannot accept that anyone in the bureaucracy could be so blind not to realize that destroying the industry they regulate they destroy themselves.

There must be intelligent people among their ranks, we have all observed just how cleverly they can manipulate events when it suits them.

I cannot accept that they are oblivious to the cause and effect of their actions on General Aviation, or the whole industry, Tiger for an example.

The affect of the law of diminishing returns must, eventually have an adverse effect on their own organization and by extension, their own well being.

The question I ask is why? What do they possibly hope to gain?

Zippyshare.com - Clough_DC9.pdf

Don't forget, hit the Download Now button to avoid spam.

I have taken the liberty of using 'bold' text to emphasise some bits and pieces that to me seem to be important and added some of my own thoughts and questions in the brackets.

Last edited by thorn bird; 5th Jan 2015 at 04:04.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 04:48
  #1639 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 49
Posts: 177
CAO 82.0 amendment

Well done Terry!! Only 4 years AFTER the PelAir clusterf#ck

CASA wishes to advise Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 3) (FRLI number F2014L01793) has been registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and is now in effect.

A copy of the Instrument can be downloaded from ComLaw by clicking on the following link:
Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 3).
Soteria is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2015, 19:45
  #1640 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
And the winner is – History.

Well done TB, you know where the Tim Tams are....

TB – "If, as the Forsyth review recommends, CAsA is to genuinely seek rehabilitation within the aviation community then the opinion of Clough and many other aviation oriented counsel who contributed to the review must be considered essential to the dialogue."
Spot on, the galling thing is that 'industry', from top to bottom, has responded magnificently to each and every 'inquiry' made. Hours of research, checking, writing editing, re-writing ensuring the message is delivered in a manner 'acceptable'; yet silence has been the stern reply. The response from the other side is to actively and openly seek ways and find means to minimise and avoid as many of the recommendations as possible, history is trying to repeat.

TB – "The DC 9 incident rang the warning bells, very loudly. TAA acted, promptly and correctly, but the regulator's official slipped away unscathed. Since the incident was managed 'quietly' and in house, the regulator has not taken the steps required to ensure, that from their end, the DC 9 incident could not be repeated. Indeed, recent court hearings have demonstrated that the ability to act irresponsibly has been enshrined in law; under the banner of 'safety'."
Amen. Indeed, little has changed since the DC 9 incident and 'stalling' is still a major issue. There are those who are 'black letter' pedantic. One of many similar tales from the Bankstown Chronicles goes like this: an RCA was raised against an ATO, essentially claiming that 'stalls' had not been correctly executed during aircraft based type rating training and check. It seems the only right and acceptable way to do this was to fully disable the stall protection systems. It took a letter from the manufacturer and much argument to persuade the CASA team that this was not only a bad idea, but was prohibited both by certification and the AFM. No matter, the type ratings were disallowed (even the FO's, who where not required to risk it under 40.1) and the RCA was produced and used as 'evidence' later, which of course was the purpose of the exercise. It's only one of many stories attributable to inutile FOI who can and will use the rules as required to achieve a desired outcome, which has sod all to do with 'safety'. There is a bit more to that tale, but you get my drift. Tell you it all over the next beer.....

TB – "There are several individual cases from 'today' that I am aware of, and probably many more that I aren’t, where crew or trainers have refused to oblige the CAsA demands, the aircraft remained undamaged, lives perhaps saved, but because of their dissent, the effect of that refusal has been detrimental to the careers of those pilots who stuck to SOP and the manufacturers prohibitions contained within the approved aircraft flight manual."
It's one of the great ironies, we spend a fortune to get the 'top end' of CASA straightened out, but the real grass roots embuggerance continues without let or hindrance. Much for Mr. Skidmore and his merry bored to consider, if they want to do the job right, not just look like they're doing it. A reassessment of their coal face troops and managers would be a great place to start. (....Chuckle) – wouldn't it be a hoot if we started generating 'industry NCN' and sent them off to Skidmore......."Dear Mark this idiot (pick one) has just stated that we must (pick one). This is pony-pooh and we ain't having a bar of it. L&K the operator". That'd rock 'em.......

Aye well; in the meantime I shall study the Clough offering carefully, it seems to make a lot of sense. Bravo Mr. Clough. Thanks mate....

Toot toot.

Last edited by Kharon; 5th Jan 2015 at 21:11. Reason: Oooh, top of page – Morning all.
Kharon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.