Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Sarcs]

Who framed the DJ??

Hmm..perhaps a wedge shot to come in under the “K” extraordinary drive that smacked the flagpole on the 3rd hole…

If the rumour about the AFP stalled TSI s24 investigation be true perhaps the IOS dot joiners could lend a helping hand to the miniscule & WLR panel deliberations on the PelAir debacle??

I see the “K” tale is progressing along quite nicely, although he is still light years in front of the pack ; and IMO the best chapters are yet to come, so backing up a tad….

Part Two: “Please Sir just sign here!”
Q/ Was the ‘Hooded One’ hoodwinked….

Knowing what we (the IOS ‘we’ not the royal ‘we’) now know in light of the revelations from the PA inquiry let’s refer to the original DJ NOS under the heading Facts and Circumstances…


Hmm…spot the next dot (“K” certainly has)??

ps perhaps the following will help with the dot spotting..



Then we had, for my mind, the intriguing apparent black letter ops of r265 that has led to DJ being the only ATPL pilot in the history of Oz aviation (so far and prior to Part 61 being enacted) having to do what is essentially an ATPL flight test prior to all the privileges of his ATPL being reinstated. And it all started with the following passage from the original NOS…



Definitely more to follow on the PelAir timeline of embuggerance…and if I sprint for a bit I can just see the outline of a certain fluffy tail heading towards the Ferryman’s dock...

ps Can't wait for the car chase scene...

[YOUTUBE]

You Tube

[Creampuff]

I have zero knowledge of what actually happened, but I note that if DJ had been pursued for a contravention of section 20A, there would have been a very inconvenient consequence for the people who had an interest in a nice neat bow being tied around a closed ‘Only The Pilot Was To Blame’ file.

The owner and the operator would have been automatically liable as well, as they permitted him to operate the aircraft: Section 29(3).

PS: The attachment to Mr White's letter is mistaken in this regard. Section 20A doesn't make anything an offence.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and the strength of it's office legal counsel

The following about DJ bears some very serious thought, as it demonstrates [and I am aware of other instances where the same mechanism has been used] - "to intimidate..":

• I explained he could consent to the conditions or CASA could take show cause action to vary his licence to add the conditions.

[Frank Arouet]

Re :Section 29 (3).


Questions;


1) Who is the owner/operator?
2) Who is a Director of the company that is the owner/ operator?
3) Who is the Chairman of the owner/ operator company?
4) Do any of the answers to the above suggest any political connection?
5) If there is any political connection which which political party?
6) Are there multiple political party's in the time line?
7) If there are, what would be any political party's agenda towards the other?
8) If 'the buck stops' with the Minister why are two of different ilk feigning indifference and allowing Bureaucrats to airbrush the incident out of history in any CASA 'review'?

[Sarcs]

On section 20A references

Addendum:

Creamy it would appear that the s20A implied breach was resolved at the AAT pre-hearing conference which led to the matter being pulled out of the AAT.

Besides the reference in the White missive (CAIR 09/3) the only other references were in the NOS:




And in a reply letter from Rule to DJ's lawyer in the lead up to the intended AAT hearing:



Cheers

Sarcs

[Creampuff]

As I said, section 20A does not create any offence. Section 29(3) creates the offence, only one element of which is contravention of section 20A(1).

If they did pursue the 20A line seriously, the inconvenient implications of section 29(3) would have had to have dawned on them eventually.

[4dogs]

how inconvenient really?

Creamie,

Notwithstanding some exposure to legal scrutiny, I would imagine that the Chairman and the directors would rely on the "not us, Your Honour" provisions of s97A(2)...

Given that it appears that CASA was totally aligned with the corporate interests of Pel-Air rather than the public interest, the James' legal team would be hard pressed to establish for the judge what the standard for "took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the conduct" means.

Are you aware of the frequency of successful (or, perhaps more tellingly, unsuccessful) s97A defences to the "the owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft" catch-all in such cases?

Stay Alive,

[Creampuff]

Unless DJ stole the aircraft or was expressly forbidden by the aircraft owner and operator from conducting the flight that ended in the ditching, I don’t see how s97A(2) has any relevance to the circumstances.

(3) The owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft commits an offence if he or she:

(a) operates the aircraft or permits the aircraft to be operated; and

(b) the operation of the aircraft results in a contravention of subsection 20A(1).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(4) Strict liability applies to paragraph (3)(b).

Was DJ permitted by the owner and operator of the aircraft to fly it in fact? If the answer is yes, that’s a tick against them and DJ under 29(3)(a).

Did the operation of the aircraft result in a contravention of subsection 20A(1)? If the answer is, as alleged by CASA, a ‘yes’, that’s a tick against 29(3)(b).

Strict liability applies to 29(3)(b). That is, the owner and operator etc do not have to know or intend that the operation of the aircraft resulted in a contravention of 20A(1).

How does 97A(2) make any difference? We are not trying to attribute any of DJ’s actions to a corporate entity. We are not trying to say DJ permitted himself to operate the aircraft and that that permission constituted the permission of the owner and operator of the aircraft in terms of 29(3)(a). The owner and operator gave their own permission.

Can we at least agree that section 20A does not create an offence?

[Cactusjack]

Franks questions - to be taken on notice?

Questions;

1) Who is the owner/operator?
2) Who is a Director of the company that is the owner/ operator?
3) Who is the Chairman of the owner/ operator company?
4) Do any of the answers to the above suggest any political connection?
5) If there is any political connection which which political party?
6) Are there multiple political party's in the time line?
7) If there are, what would be any political party's agenda towards the other?
8) If 'the buck stops' with the Minister why are two of different ilk feigning indifference and allowing Bureaucrats to airbrush the incident out of history in any CASA 'review'?

Interesting and pertinent line of questions Frank ol chap. I do believe your bloodhound nose may have smelt out a trail of sorts
Now whether you have sniffed out a pooh trail, the scent of a trough, the scent of a scared wabbit running and urinating out of fright, or simply smelt a couple of droplets of political blood I am not sure, but nonetheless you can be assured if this - what the Senators don't sniff out, or what the IOS don't sniff out is nothing compared to the whiff of a smoking hole, and if that is to happen then all the spin doctoring grubs responsible will become familiar with the smell of the Styx Paddle wheeler, it's smoking chimney, and the stale sweaty smell of the hard working Ferryman. TOOT TOOT. Next stop Sleepy Hollow.

Didn't the band 'The Screaming Skulls' sing this?

You Tube

TICK TOCK

[Creampuff]

I should add that sections 20A and 29 have been the subject of a fair bit of legislative fiddling over the years.

The last amendment to 29 was in 2001 and resulted in the drafting atrocity that is the current 29(3).

[Kharon]

Item last - 4. Sense and sensibility.

Last of the long posts: One of the email chains provided to DJ under FOI gives many clues, although the CASA 'legal opinion' guts are redacted. I'd just started this post when I realised (Sarcs a.k.a. Jiminy Cricket) many would not have a blind clue what I was banging on about so: to explain. As this squalid little affair has the potential to impact on any pilot unfortunate enough to be involved in an 'incident' I (figuratively) got hold of TOM (P7) at PAIN, they contacted the 'owner' of their DJ file who authorised the release of some DJ filed documents, to use as best pleased me. Now then, as many of the 'emails' are confidential and have been released under FOI I'm not sure if it would be productive or even 'legal' to post a link to them. But I will (time and patience permitting) attempt summarise the entire passage of play shortly, then add them to the ever growing Bankstown Chronicles. So:-

The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability and. competence to hold an ATPL'' and that the test was to include "en route assessment for CP/PNR and .the decision to apply a diversion to an alternate, focusing on weather with a minimum fuel scenario." The amended Notice (26 February 2010) confirmed that there was no objection to the flight tests being conducted in a Westwind aircraft and that the test would be tailored to address the specific deficiencies identified following the accident flight. It Is evident from the two Notices that the in-flight assessment was to be conducted with a degree of rigour consistent with the type of operation of accident flight.

CASA has conceded that the flight assessments may be conducted In basic, training aircraft - a Cessna 182 for the CP(A)L flight test, and a Beech BE76 Duchess for the IR-C(ME)A flight test. While these aircraft will allow the CPL and CIR flight tests to be conducted against the prescribed assessment criteria, they are not sufficiently sophisticated or complex for CASA "to make an effective assessment of skills, ability and competence to hold an ATPL ". An attempt to include these assessments in the CPL or CIR fight tests could be a compromise that may limit the effectiveness of the ATPL assessment and could jeopardise the integrity of these flight tests

The paragraphs above were written by a 'management (acting) team member' FOI who, operationally speaking, could not find a cat, in a cathouse with a candle. But, nonetheless an acknowledged master of 'academic trivia'; a specialist in 'tricky' little questions. The trite wording seems at first glance innocuous enough, but think it through. Just for fun cherry pick some lines and examine them against normal, standard, promulgated industry safety regulations for qualifying and the accepted routine practices used to do so. Do not let the white noise distract you or the pure bollocks to baffle your brain. Remember DJ has re sat and passed the ATPL twice now.....

The DJ suspension was indeed kosher, most would agree righteous. OK, so after CPL test etc. could his instrument flying be legitimately re challenged – I'd say a MECIR pass, four approaches and a ditching at night, in weather, knackered, with an impending fuel crisis would test the instrument flying skills of all. The CVR would be nice, to find out if the FO was worried about this aspect; alas. So, could his flying skills be reasonably challenged then, here again, on balance you have to say no; history of failure – No; any complaints of poor flying from Fo – No; managed a night ditching which all survived – Yes. Even the toughest, most pedantic judges would say 'flight skills' adequate. So what's left – flight planning – definitely shy of the mark. So re train, re test (ATPLx2 a bit OTT, however) and make sure the company ops manual carries enough information and guidance (in Braille if needs must) so even the worst offender has enough rope to be hanged with. (AOC management 101).

But the real travesty here is that the original, double jeopardy aberration has firmly taken root and the rest is just manure, to ensure growth; one has to ask why the venom. A half way decent lawyer could knock out the foundations of this evil just on the CAO alone. A decent chief pilot would clean up this mess in about five minutes – tell them it's bollocks and piss off.

"The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments" .etc.

Why. Against what?, measured how ?: MECIR nope; passed that. CPL fight test; nope passed that: CAO 40.1.5 possibly, but legal impediments loom and it's no fun when the base line is clearly stated in the orders. Better we invent one?.

"in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA". etc.

who is to know what's going on? Veger; the lone Westwind' expert has a massive 4000 hours on type, but made a fearful hash (benefit of doubt) of the fuel planning figures (see Davis) but been no where near the bloody aircraft since circa 1996 or something. Was an independent observer requested and would it be allowed??

to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability' and. competence to hold an ATPL'

This homemade nonsense was drafted against and to reinforce the first suspension notice. It sounds great to a layman or lawyer but what, in operational terms, does it all mean ?. He had passed the CPL/MECIR. Even if they could make double jeopardy stick, there's nary a word about a LOFT session in a sim – , not even a whisper of base check under CAR 217, not even the smallest hint that ATPL does not require a flight test. But "no industry ATO" says the DAS, just to rub the salt in; testing only by a person specifically approved by CASA. Chop ride for DJ right there?, bit like the 'expert' witnesses they drag into the AAT and they wouldn't lie, now would they?.

I did ask TOM if PAIN were doing a report on the DJ embuggerance. After a beat, "not just DJ, there are others"; TOM reckons the final report would rock 'em - if they could ever define 'them' and get the report into the hands of someone who can and will actually do something useful with it.

The above represents (IMO) some of what the WLR is not tackling as it could be construed as (a) it's Pel Air and (b) it mentions CASA; but in the final analysis, it comes back to loose regulation written with good intentions, becoming 'bad' law when it is being manipulated. Clearly defined outcome based regulation would plug most of the holes, making it difficult for the small minority who, without a seconds thought will happily perjure or impeach as pleases; breach constitutional and human rights tenets on a whim, then boast and swagger about the damage inflicted on another human being; able to hound their victims through the industry with complete impunity. Some men, just want to watch the world burn.

Selah.

[thorn bird]

Of being Wodgered by Woger!!

[Quote] "The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability and. competence to hold an ATPL''

I'm really surprised Woger didn't insist the assessment be conducted in the space shuttle!!
Maybe Woger surmised if he made the requirements too onerous, DJ would simply give up and go away, thus the whole sorry mess could be kept out of the spotlight, the heirachy could get back to focusing on the trough or planning an interesting diversion for the next trip to Montreal.
Damn pesky GA pilots!! especially this one who just wouldn't lay down and crawl away.
Maybe Wodger developed a hatred of pilots during his days as a RAAF baggage handler? Who knows but it seems he revels in destroying lives and livelihoods.

[Sarcs]

WLR submission 666: DJ & the black ops application on r265 (WTF)??

A reprieve on the fourth: “K”, ignoring the meandering dogleg where the rest of us mere mortals had all decided to lay up, again smashed the fanny out of his ball and drove it straight at the flag.

However (somewhat ironically) his ball again smacked the flagpole but this time ricocheted on a 45 and ended up on the fifth tee. In true Ferryman style, “K” has been forced to use his Texas wedge to backtrack to the 4th..IOS sigh of relief..

The embuggerance of DJ under r265 is still firmly on the fairway and in the field of play, perhaps this provides the WLR panel the perfect reference point to assess the effectiveness of the Fort Fumble (DAS sanctioned) black ops enforcement action:

Post #234 quote - “Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.”

Many on here were critical of DJ’s actions pre..post..ditching and especially in the Senate Inquiry, where most critics thought he was just trying to abrogate his responsibilities as the PIC. The following is his statement from the 22nd October public hearing:

Mr James : I was the captain of the jet that ditched of Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009 without the loss of life. As the pilot in command, I wish to make it clear that on that night I was not operating by myself in a vacuum. I was licenced by CASA, trained by structures that CASA created and worked for a company using procedures CASA had approved, and yet CASA found I was the problem.

My employer, Pel-Air, found me skilled enough to make me a captain and never had cause to discipline me at any time. After the accident, they did not find that I had violated any of the company procedures and they too found that I was the problem. The truth of the matter is that I was a convenient solution to the problem both organisations faced—that is, that they had failed to do their jobs properly.

Then there is the ATSB report—a report which blames me solely for the accident and apologises for everyone else involved. It fails to detail the deficiencies that existed at Pel-Air and CASA at the time of the accident but discussed in detail the improvements Pel-Air has made and CASA intends to make.

The ATSB then addresses what they believe were my deficiencies on the night but then never discusses the steps I have taken since the accident to demonstrate my competence as a pilot. Why am I judged to a different standard? Where is the ATSB's own no-blame policy in this approach? If both Pel-Air and CASA have made improvements as the report admits, then logically something was inadequate to begin with that required these improvements, so therefore why doesn't the report discuss any of these deficiencies?

Before the accident had even occurred, many of the elements that created the accident were already known. To the misfortune of all those on board, although these elements were known, nothing was done to prevent their influence or remove them altogether. Norfolk Island was known to the ATSB as a problem destination for unforecasted weather, and recommendations were put forward to improve the situation but nothing was done about it.

Pel-Air was known to CASA for particular deficiencies in its operation, but that too was not acted upon. Then, after the accident, there was more inaction, this time in the form of the ATSB not disclosing in the accident report the findings of the Pel-Air special audit, amongst other things.

Why have the problems that created this accident been ignored and overlooked? Don't the two government agencies responsible for aviation safety—the ATSB and CASA—want to preserve the safety of the travelling public? As things stand today, nothing has been improved since the accident and most of the issues that caused the accident still exist unchanged. The ATSB report needs to be withdrawn, as it is full of pointless accounts of nothing worthwhile and it serves my industry and those who travel by air no benefit whatsoever. With so much to learn from what happened and the strong desire of those involved to share their experiences, there is a far better result available if the ATSB accepts its shortcomings and rewrites this report.

Finally, I wish to say that considering all the criticisms in the report as to the quality of the job I did on the night of the accident, and given the limited time and resources I had available to me, it strikes me as astoundingly hypocritical of the ATSB to have made these criticisms when the ATSB has failed to do its job after nearly three years and with almost unlimited resources.

My thanks to the committee for allowing me the chance to speak today and share a little of my story from the last three years. I hope that what I have to say helps the committee in its role of understanding better what has happened since November 2009. Following my public discussion with the committee, I wish to go in camera to discuss some other issues related to the accident.

{Note: IMO that statement still stands the test of time and almost perfectly summarises the case as we know it}

Again knowing what we now know, would those same critics be so dismissive of DJ’s statement?? The worst part is that his original statement is yet to be adequately refuted or addressed by the “powers to be” and he is still living with the implications of an executively sanctioned black letter ops enforcement action and an apparent embuggerance of the original intent of the NOS & r265…

Quote from CAsA official (at the time): “…DAS is obviously interested in this issue”…???

[Frank Arouet]

Not fit for the job.

I say this because I have first hand knowledge of how my own eyes gloss over and people 'loose me' when they talk of the innards of ADSB and other electrical gadgetry. It is beyond me why a pilot for another example needs to know how the constant speed propeller is made, assembled, tested and 'doctored' to its final specifications. As in PNG, the throttle is simple a gadget that 'pushemhegopullemhestop'. (not sure if I got that right but you get my drift). When you go into too much detail our 'fuzzywuzzie' mates just look for the next cargo cult party.


When saying I believe Truss is not fit for the job, I don't mean to be as offensive as it sounds, but simply he does not have the technical knowledge to get his head around some of the problems, so... he hands it over to his 'advisor' who is supposed to be knowledgeable in these things.


This is the 'Nigerian' in the woodpile I believe, and needs to prove to us all his knowledge of the 'problems' and he should expose and be transparent enough to show us his pedigree.


Truss obviously, is led by him.


But I was wrong once before.

[Cactusjack]

When saying I believe Truss is not fit for the job, I don't mean to be as offensive as it sounds, but simply he does not have the technical knowledge to get his head around some of the problems, so... he hands it over to his 'advisor' who is supposed to be knowledgeable in these things.

Frank, you're a lot more diplomatic about Truss than I could ever be.
At the end of the day he doesn't care, never has never will. Politics is smoke and mirrors, an act, a show, and the real focus of Pollies is on self preservation, self wealth, self rorts, self retirement with millions in the nest egg and a fat consulting role to go to, and of course self ego. I see no difference between the current Liberal government and the former Labor government, and Liberals again before that. It's the nature of the beast, and this tautological merry-go-round will keep on spinning. Just look at the current policy on the asylum boats and the politically enforced media blockage, the governments refusal to give details, refusal to discuss any minor details and the arrogant thumbing of its nose against us tax paying citizens and now ask yourselves honestly 'will this government conduct a clear, transparent non biased open review on Australian aviations government safety structure, effectiveness, accountability and compliance'? Hmmm, there layeth thy answer.

I think we all know what the eventual catalyst for change will be, don't we?

TICK TOCK

[Dangly Bits]

Who is Mr Truss's Aviation Advisor?

[Kharon]

An apology and Addendum.

I must apologise to Len Veger and Ppruners – no excuses; I made a typographical error copying from my working notes and misquoted the Veger the 'time on type'. The paragraph below provides an accurate account of Veger's qualifications.

I have amended the offending paragraph to reflect accurate figures.

Mea Culpa.

I am endorsed to fly a wide variety of single and multi-engine aircraft including the Westwind 1124A.l have a total of 20,000 hours of aeronautical experience, approximately 4,000 hours of which was obtained in flying operations on the Westwind W1124 series I and 2. This included operations as a check pilot and pilot trainer, responsible for training of pilots on the Wll24, and flight crew competency assessment of qualified pilots as required under the terms of r. 217 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

[Sarcs]

Trouble on the 5th so..maybe an AMROBA interlude…??

Oops K at post #299…..“Errare humanum est, ignoscere divinum.”

“K” in the water off the fifth: In true Ferryman fashion “K” decided to ignore the water on the 5th and drive straight for the flag. It was a low trajectory shot that strangely resembled the Westwind skipping across the ocean at Norfolk, unfortunately the “K” ball fell a 100m short.

As luck would have it the “K” ball was equipped with a GPS tracking device and a curious spectator took some video footage { Note: Unfortunately the vid footage appears to have been already shopped and spliced into a scene from ‘Happy Gilmore’. Ps.Although the IOS panel believe the footage at 1:18 is close to the true record of what happened}.

[YOUTUBE]

The Price Is Wrong, Bitch - Happy Gilmore (8/9) Movie CLIP (1996) HD - YouTube

So while we wait for the next satellite pass and our resident IOS video expert to unravel the shopped vid, while also redacting certain expletives, we will take a short interlude...

Perhaps now would be a good time to see what other members of the IOS are up to in regards to the miniscule’s WLR. Hmm…it would appear that Ken & the AMROBA crew haven’t given up the ghost on the TASRR, coupla quotes from the latest newsletter Volume 11 Issue 1 (0114):

This will be one of the biggest years for the aviation industry in Australia. A new government has rightfully implemented a review of the current situation and, like the education system that has seen Australia slide down the international scale, aviation has had so much red tape added that there is a decline in new pilots being attracted to the industry.

&

The Minister’s aviation review is the best and probably the only chance to turn this fundamental problem around so aviation can safely survive and grow.

There was once a ‘question’ used when drafting requirements, i.e. “what would be added to safety of any proposed new regulatory provision?”

The Minister’s review must recognise that the current legislative system is so out of sync that our aviation system is suffering.

And with this motto.. “Motto: Safety All Around”..I think I can see where the AMROBA submission is heading….

Ah well we will soon be cutting back to the 5th and further IOS discussions on FF embuggerance of the DJ, plus a flashback moment to..“who is responsible??”

[Frank Arouet]

Dangly Bits. I'm recently, (last 12 hours), told that he doesn't have one. Given his demonstrated lack of knowledge and readiness to accept anything is drastically wrong with the system sans a bit of a 'tune up' this is a reasonable assumption.


Mr dak and Mr forthwyth were mentioned as appearing to hold his attention. Perhaps they are the 'Nigerians in the woodpile'? God help us all if they are.

[Cactusjack]

Shhhhhhhhh

It's part of the new Liberal government approach - You can save money by not hiring advisors, technically minded people, or even ass lickers. All you do is implement a policy of 'we cannot tell you anything, shhhhhh'.
So forgot the inquiry, forget the current risks and forget everything you IOS!! Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The Screaming Skulls and Truss's Hermits unite;

You Tube