Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Precisely as I predicted.
It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.
Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.
The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.
There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.
And then there’s the inconvenient problem that some members of the public and the parliament take the view that the classification of operations scheme isn’t for the benefit of ‘the industry’.
You can stamp your little feet, wave your little fists, hold your breath until your face turns blue and even vilify people via pprune, but it’s only a source of mild amusement for the people who have the power to actually change things.
That is why the Minister, whoever he or she may be from time to time, will continue to leave CASA to develop and impose whatever classification of operations scheme it chooses to impose on ‘the industry’.
It’s so … hmmmm…. typically Australian.
It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.
Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.
The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.
There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.
And then there’s the inconvenient problem that some members of the public and the parliament take the view that the classification of operations scheme isn’t for the benefit of ‘the industry’.
You can stamp your little feet, wave your little fists, hold your breath until your face turns blue and even vilify people via pprune, but it’s only a source of mild amusement for the people who have the power to actually change things.
That is why the Minister, whoever he or she may be from time to time, will continue to leave CASA to develop and impose whatever classification of operations scheme it chooses to impose on ‘the industry’.
It’s so … hmmmm…. typically Australian.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
creampuff, other than moving in retirement to Canada or New Zealand, just how can one fix this ?
some of the problems created by CASA have half the players suffering stockholm syndrome and half the players heavily reliant on the embuggerated rules for their existence.
you'll never get sense from the victims.
most have little idea any more which way is up and a regulators viewpoint is totally different from that of a pundit.
some of the problems created by CASA have half the players suffering stockholm syndrome and half the players heavily reliant on the embuggerated rules for their existence.
you'll never get sense from the victims.
most have little idea any more which way is up and a regulators viewpoint is totally different from that of a pundit.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typically Australian.
That we can agree upon. It would appear we are the only Country in The World who self immolate. In The US for example there is not the infighting of groups and there is a genuine will to help, communicate and befriend fellow aviators, engineers and such folk. It is indeed an Australian phenomenon. I guess it's because we have so many 'experts'. Have a look at the news of recent, I've never seen so many 'experts' dredged up from somewhere and all with differing opinions varying from wings falling off to Martians in Malaysia.
To be fair to the contributors here, all or most have good reason to spray venom at the regulator and they should be encouraged not denigrated because the system is rooted and needs fixing. They don't need negativity even if it is simply an example of 'devil's advocate'. You may be right Creampuff, but like all the misfits we are attacking you have a habit of highlighting how NOT to do things when it would suit all better if you showed HOW TO do things.
And to be fair to you, the wheels didn't really fall off, they simply weren't there.
To be fair to the contributors here, all or most have good reason to spray venom at the regulator and they should be encouraged not denigrated because the system is rooted and needs fixing. They don't need negativity even if it is simply an example of 'devil's advocate'. You may be right Creampuff, but like all the misfits we are attacking you have a habit of highlighting how NOT to do things when it would suit all better if you showed HOW TO do things.
And to be fair to you, the wheels didn't really fall off, they simply weren't there.
Precisely as I predicted.
It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.
Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.
The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.
There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.
It has ever been thus with you lot: Rather than confront the message, you shoot the messenger.
Rather than put the scheme on the table: Blather.
The ‘industry’ couldn’t unite and put together a classification of operations scheme to save itself. Not hot air and vacuous motherhood statements: The words of the actual scheme that ‘the industry’ puts to the Minister as ‘the scheme’ that ‘the industry’ has agreed and wants implemented, instead of whatever Frankenstein CASA is creating.
There is not, never has been and never will be an ‘industry agreed’ classification of operations scheme. Parts of 'the industry' advocate patently irreconcilable approaches than other parts of ‘the industry’.
I am still looking, and on the basis of the above, I do hope I manage to find a copy of the final Byron scheme somewhere on an old backup disk.
Further, I have never found that proposed Class.of Ops. discussions, going back to mid-1990s have been controversial within or between industry groups, but there has always been stout resistance to any change by the "iron ring" in CASA --- all such matters are seen as "loss of power". Usually dressed up as "not in the public interest", air safety, blather blather.
Indeed, when you have the QANTAS DFO/Chief Pilot agreeing with most of the light aviation "alphabet soup" bodies, you know it is uncontroversial.
Do you remember the "shopping centre/checkout ques" "opinion surveys", done on CASA's behalf, to get "public opinion" about CASA and whether it was doing a good job.
The questions were hilariously skewed to to getting the answer CASA wanted:
(1) CASA was doing a fantastic job preventing criminally suicidal persons who commit aviation, from slaughtering the good citizens of Australia.
(2) Any diminution of the powers of CASA would result in death raining from Australian skies.
As I recall, a very high percentage of those surveyed stated that they had never traveled on an aircraft, and never would.
Could you please enlighten me, as to what went to the CASA Board in 1997?
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West of SY OZ
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact to the CASA Board
This e-mail just arrived on my desk from an unknown source.
Apparently the person has been seeking a meeting with the CASA Board.
I post the details and now ask - Is this a serious breach of democratic process??
Inbox > Message Detail
Subject: RE: [FWD: RE: CASA Board ] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From:"ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected]>(Add as Preferred Sender)
Date:Fri, Mar 14, 2014 3:25 pm
To:
UNCLASSIFIED
It has come to my attention that you have been attempting to contact CASA Board member Helen Gillies.
On behalf of the Board, I request that you do not contact Board members by telephone or email. I advise individual board members will not be responding to any direct approaches from you.
I have communicated to you below the means of communication the Board is prepared to accept from you and request that you abide by that.
Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607
and:
On Mar 4, 2014 1:47 PM, "ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected]> wrote:
UNCLASSIFIED
I have liaised with the Chair of the CASA Board. In the event you wish to provide a complaint to him, then he will only receive it in writing and by mail. If you mark any envelope “private and confidential” or “to be opened by addressee only” it will not be opened before receipt by the Chair.
In the event this is not acceptable to you, but your complaint involves allegations of criminal conduct, you may care to direct such complaint to the Australian Federal Police. Alternatively, if the matters relate to maladministration, you may care to direct such a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607
AND the request was, direct to both Helen Gillies and Allan Hawkes:
From:
Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 1:32 PM
To: SKM
Subject: Letter for Helen Gillies
Dear Helen,
I wish to provide some information to the CASA Board and am concerned that it could be diverted by either Mr. McCormick or your secretariat, as it is of a highly confidential nature, if directed through normal channels.
If these issues were to fall into the wrong hands, I am concerned that records could be destroyed or "lost".
I would like to be able to address the Board on a series of matters, which, in part involve the use of known criminals to prosecute a pilot and of false statements made by CASA employees to attempt to prosecute an owner.
I can provide support documents, but that needs to be on the above basis, of no involvement by CASA itself and that the Board independently deals with the matters raised.
Apparently the person has been seeking a meeting with the CASA Board.
I post the details and now ask - Is this a serious breach of democratic process??
Inbox > Message Detail
Subject: RE: [FWD: RE: CASA Board ] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From:"ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected]>(Add as Preferred Sender)
Date:Fri, Mar 14, 2014 3:25 pm
To:
UNCLASSIFIED
It has come to my attention that you have been attempting to contact CASA Board member Helen Gillies.
On behalf of the Board, I request that you do not contact Board members by telephone or email. I advise individual board members will not be responding to any direct approaches from you.
I have communicated to you below the means of communication the Board is prepared to accept from you and request that you abide by that.
Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607
and:
On Mar 4, 2014 1:47 PM, "ANASTASI, ADAM" <[email protected]> wrote:
UNCLASSIFIED
I have liaised with the Chair of the CASA Board. In the event you wish to provide a complaint to him, then he will only receive it in writing and by mail. If you mark any envelope “private and confidential” or “to be opened by addressee only” it will not be opened before receipt by the Chair.
In the event this is not acceptable to you, but your complaint involves allegations of criminal conduct, you may care to direct such complaint to the Australian Federal Police. Alternatively, if the matters relate to maladministration, you may care to direct such a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Adam Anastasi
General Counsel
and Executive Manager
Legal Services Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Ph 02 6217 1040
Fax 02 6217 1607
AND the request was, direct to both Helen Gillies and Allan Hawkes:
From:
Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014 1:32 PM
To: SKM
Subject: Letter for Helen Gillies
Dear Helen,
I wish to provide some information to the CASA Board and am concerned that it could be diverted by either Mr. McCormick or your secretariat, as it is of a highly confidential nature, if directed through normal channels.
If these issues were to fall into the wrong hands, I am concerned that records could be destroyed or "lost".
I would like to be able to address the Board on a series of matters, which, in part involve the use of known criminals to prosecute a pilot and of false statements made by CASA employees to attempt to prosecute an owner.
I can provide support documents, but that needs to be on the above basis, of no involvement by CASA itself and that the Board independently deals with the matters raised.
Last edited by advo-cate; 14th Mar 2014 at 08:42. Reason: layout
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking bullets for the President?
Advo-cate, unfortunately the Board were too busy with their noses buried up the Ministers ass (after being buried in a trough) to be interested in an IOS matter. They won't open the mail as that would mean they now become aware of something 'unsavoury' and they are then obliged to report it for investigation, and they don't want that happening 
. I mean, we can't have 'accountability' thrust upon a Board member can we? Their role is simply to sit on bloated asses and protect his lordship the Miniscule from any unflattering attention. Any matters concerning possible CASA malfeasance, corruption or shonky activity as you mention are the Boards least concern. Keeping the Ministers CV clean, avoiding transparency, throwing around red herrings and writing pithy reports or formulating glossy PowerPoints containing lots of home spun bollocks is their chief priority.
So let this be a lesson to all of you IOS - The CASA Board and CASA executives are far too busy protecting their superannuation and their stellar standing amongst their peers and loyal servants to be harassed about any other matter that may interfere with their golf schedules, overseas trips or their international public speaking commitments
P.S Interesting to see Anustasi jumping straight on to the matter and sending a stern response. Oh he must protect his Masters from the evil IOS. The Doc would be so proud of him, as I am sure Creampuff is also!
'Eventus stultorum magister'
. I mean, we can't have 'accountability' thrust upon a Board member can we? Their role is simply to sit on bloated asses and protect his lordship the Miniscule from any unflattering attention. Any matters concerning possible CASA malfeasance, corruption or shonky activity as you mention are the Boards least concern. Keeping the Ministers CV clean, avoiding transparency, throwing around red herrings and writing pithy reports or formulating glossy PowerPoints containing lots of home spun bollocks is their chief priority.So let this be a lesson to all of you IOS - The CASA Board and CASA executives are far too busy protecting their superannuation and their stellar standing amongst their peers and loyal servants to be harassed about any other matter that may interfere with their golf schedules, overseas trips or their international public speaking commitments
P.S Interesting to see Anustasi jumping straight on to the matter and sending a stern response. Oh he must protect his Masters from the evil IOS. The Doc would be so proud of him, as I am sure Creampuff is also!
'Eventus stultorum magister'
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send this to Senator Brandis and ask him to put it on record so it can be used to support other submissions when his inquiry begins.
11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms
Also cc it to The Federal Police with a written complaint. I understand they MUST act upon a complaint, even if such action is no action.
Forget The Commonwealth Ombudsman, the first thing they will ask is 'have you exhausted every other legal avenue of redress?' and until The Commonwealth Police do act, they will be reluctant to take it on board. They also accept The ICC is another avenue of redress that must be hurdled, so they are effectively compromised by CASA's own system.
Things must be getting rather warm at FF if they are resorting to hip shots like this.
I may have 'over-estimated Mr Anastasi.
11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms
Also cc it to The Federal Police with a written complaint. I understand they MUST act upon a complaint, even if such action is no action.
Forget The Commonwealth Ombudsman, the first thing they will ask is 'have you exhausted every other legal avenue of redress?' and until The Commonwealth Police do act, they will be reluctant to take it on board. They also accept The ICC is another avenue of redress that must be hurdled, so they are effectively compromised by CASA's own system.
Things must be getting rather warm at FF if they are resorting to hip shots like this.
I may have 'over-estimated Mr Anastasi.
From the CAsA Soviet....
Nothing new here from The AnusStasi... 
A couple of years ago I sent an updated Invoice to the Tarmac Trio/Turds that were responsible for an unwarranted legal bill.
CAsA's attempted proscecution went tits up because the allegations were all bull****...false sworn testimony and all that, the usual CAsA MO stuff.
That invoice and the added comment re the Quadrio case went straight to the Fort...and I received a letter from AnusStasi himself telling me that I must NOT write to them. Any comms must come to CAsA.! Que?? Dont I have freedom of speech or the written word, you Hitlerite thing, you. (post now complete with Nazi reference)
This is from the very person that denied payment of my costs under the Model Litigant Rules...stating in effect.." piss off, we have more money for a court case than you " !
Ah, Regulatastan...a great country to live in. Complete with Justarse and all that
A couple of years ago I sent an updated Invoice to the Tarmac Trio/Turds that were responsible for an unwarranted legal bill.
CAsA's attempted proscecution went tits up because the allegations were all bull****...false sworn testimony and all that, the usual CAsA MO stuff.
That invoice and the added comment re the Quadrio case went straight to the Fort...and I received a letter from AnusStasi himself telling me that I must NOT write to them. Any comms must come to CAsA.! Que?? Dont I have freedom of speech or the written word, you Hitlerite thing, you. (post now complete with Nazi reference)
This is from the very person that denied payment of my costs under the Model Litigant Rules...stating in effect.." piss off, we have more money for a court case than you " !
Ah, Regulatastan...a great country to live in. Complete with Justarse and all that
Fort Fumble and Red Rat (& others) favours??
{Comment: Mods promise there is a point and the thread will (eventually) drift back..
}
Not wanting to detract from the intriguing thread drift over the last dozen or so posts
, plus equally not wanting to promote further drift 
, however I noted the following statement in the McComick view thread from Waghi Warrior (post#95):
The WW fact would seem to be disputed by other industry figures, here is an example from the Senate RRAT committee inquiry into Qantas's future as a strong national carrier supporting jobs in Australia (my bold)
There is also considerable evidence that the Red Rat is not isolated in receiving preferential treatment when it comes to Fort Fumble..
The classic case is nicely documented in the Senate’s PelAir inquiry versus say the FF persecution of Airtex or Barrier or..(fill in the blank 
).
Drifting back…
The passing comment from FedSec Steve..“the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore”…should be noted by the miniscule and his WLR team...
It should also be noted that although Steve’s primary interest is for his members, the evidence he gave yesterday (& the ALAEA WLR submission) are largely reflected in the comments made by the research team from the Australian School of Business (post#575):
Back on track...
One would assume that the concerns/findings of the ABS researchers will be significantly highlighted in their WLR submission..
More to follow…
Addendum: For those interested the ALAEA submission to the Qantas inquiry can be downloaded HERE
}Not wanting to detract from the intriguing thread drift over the last dozen or so posts
, plus equally not wanting to promote further drift , however I noted the following statement in the McComick view thread from Waghi Warrior (post#95):
I don't work for CASA and I'm certainly not trying to defend them, however lets face it no 'R' egulator as Cactus puts it will never have a super chummy relationship with industry - fact.
The WW fact would seem to be disputed by other industry figures, here is an example from the Senate RRAT committee inquiry into Qantas's future as a strong national carrier supporting jobs in Australia (my bold)
Senator IAN MACDONALD: …The only other question I have because of time is: are you now suggesting that CASA is not doing its job?
Mr Purvinas : In my opinion CASA are nothing more than another arm of Qantas's industrial relations department. I have a very dim view on CASA's oversight of maintenance in this country and outside of Australia. I think they act in line with everything that Qantas wants them to do.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They are not an arm of Qantas, they are an arm of the federal government.
Mr Purvinas : Maybe the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I know this is a criticism of the last government, who had six years to do that, but I must say that I will talk to Mr Truss to make sure that CASA are not an arm of Qantas or anyone else and are an independent authority. You have no confidence in CASA at all?
Mr Purvinas : No. We do not have confidence in CASA to provide effective oversight of maintenance.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: You think that the reason they are failing in the duty that the Australian people, through their government, have given them is because they are in the pay—so to speak colloquially—of Qantas?
Mr Purvinas : I think they have been a victim of corporate capture. They have got too close to the airline. A lot of them are friends with people who work for Qantas and I think corporate capture, Stockholm syndrome, whatever you want to call it, I think CASA have some problem.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Does that apply to Virgin as well, or is it related only to Qantas?
Mr Purvinas : I do not know how close they are to Virgin. I have not had too many indications that that would be the case there. I do know that they are coming up pretty hard against airlines like Tiger and so on. They grounded Tiger for things that are far less than what we have seen with Qantas.
Mr Purvinas : In my opinion CASA are nothing more than another arm of Qantas's industrial relations department. I have a very dim view on CASA's oversight of maintenance in this country and outside of Australia. I think they act in line with everything that Qantas wants them to do.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: They are not an arm of Qantas, they are an arm of the federal government.
Mr Purvinas : Maybe the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I know this is a criticism of the last government, who had six years to do that, but I must say that I will talk to Mr Truss to make sure that CASA are not an arm of Qantas or anyone else and are an independent authority. You have no confidence in CASA at all?
Mr Purvinas : No. We do not have confidence in CASA to provide effective oversight of maintenance.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: You think that the reason they are failing in the duty that the Australian people, through their government, have given them is because they are in the pay—so to speak colloquially—of Qantas?
Mr Purvinas : I think they have been a victim of corporate capture. They have got too close to the airline. A lot of them are friends with people who work for Qantas and I think corporate capture, Stockholm syndrome, whatever you want to call it, I think CASA have some problem.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Does that apply to Virgin as well, or is it related only to Qantas?
Mr Purvinas : I do not know how close they are to Virgin. I have not had too many indications that that would be the case there. I do know that they are coming up pretty hard against airlines like Tiger and so on. They grounded Tiger for things that are far less than what we have seen with Qantas.
&..
Senator BACK: I want to follow up with Dubai and Hong Kong. Has it been your experience, or can you document, similar failures of inspection in both the cities of Dubai and Hong Kong?
Mr Purvinas : ...We approached Qantas and CASA about it, and what happened is an example of why we have no confidence in CASA. Under the mandatory Service Difficulty Reporting scheme, which is a government standard here, all airworthiness defects must be reported to CASA. They had a facility in Hong Kong that was not bolting on engines correctly. The report should have gone in within 24 hours so they could contact the facility and let them know to check all the engines they had installed on aircraft. We were monitoring this. We know the mandatory report never went in, because they are publicly available. So we wrote letters to CASA saying: 'Aircraft has come out with three of the four engines not bolted on correctly—why has no mandatory service difficulty report gone in?' They said, 'It is okay—Qantas rang us and told us about it.' That is illegal. There are laws that are meant to protect aviation safety, and CASA are meant to make sure those laws are applied and implemented correctly.
CHAIR: Can you table those letters of concern for the committee?
Mr Purvinas : Absolutely. I think the letters are there. We also table the appropriate legislation that requires mandatory service difficulty reports.
Senator BACK: I want to follow up with Dubai and Hong Kong. Has it been your experience, or can you document, similar failures of inspection in both the cities of Dubai and Hong Kong?
Mr Purvinas : ...We approached Qantas and CASA about it, and what happened is an example of why we have no confidence in CASA. Under the mandatory Service Difficulty Reporting scheme, which is a government standard here, all airworthiness defects must be reported to CASA. They had a facility in Hong Kong that was not bolting on engines correctly. The report should have gone in within 24 hours so they could contact the facility and let them know to check all the engines they had installed on aircraft. We were monitoring this. We know the mandatory report never went in, because they are publicly available. So we wrote letters to CASA saying: 'Aircraft has come out with three of the four engines not bolted on correctly—why has no mandatory service difficulty report gone in?' They said, 'It is okay—Qantas rang us and told us about it.' That is illegal. There are laws that are meant to protect aviation safety, and CASA are meant to make sure those laws are applied and implemented correctly.
CHAIR: Can you table those letters of concern for the committee?
Mr Purvinas : Absolutely. I think the letters are there. We also table the appropriate legislation that requires mandatory service difficulty reports.
The classic case is nicely documented in the Senate’s PelAir inquiry versus say the FF persecution of Airtex or Barrier or..(fill in the blank ).Drifting back…
The passing comment from FedSec Steve..“the federal government should pull them in and make sure that they are giving proper oversight to maintenance facilities here and offshore”…should be noted by the miniscule and his WLR team...
It should also be noted that although Steve’s primary interest is for his members, the evidence he gave yesterday (& the ALAEA WLR submission) are largely reflected in the comments made by the research team from the Australian School of Business (post#575):
Fraser: "In effect, Australia's MRO training effort has been allowed to become hostage to the strategies and fortunes of a single company. If that company now can't look after itself, how is it going to look after the future needs of the Australian industry?"
Hampson: “There are doubtless many offshore shops which give top-quality service that Australian consumers can rely on,” he says. “We know from experience that there are some which definitely don’t. The problem is that we don’t have enough good information to tell which is which.
Australia doesn’t even keep public records of which maintenance goes offshore, never mind where it goes. Once it does go offshore, no public records are kept of where the work has fallen short of standard, or what rework is needed in Australia when the plane comes back.
“The risk then is that because there isn't enough information about quality, choices will be made on the basis of price. This is a classic ‘market for lemons’ situation, where quality providers get driven out of the market and many others survive who don't deserve to."
The researchers note “a contrast between Australia's relaxed approach to the supervision of overseas repair shops handling Australian work, and the increasingly stringent regulatory approach which public concern in the US has obliged Congress and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to apply to offshore providers”.
The FAA is subject to political supervision and accountability in ways that Australia’s CASA is not. The FAA was recently compelled by congressional legislation to tighten up its regulatory and supervisory practices. In Australia, the trend is for CASA to offshore its responsibilities to foreign aviation authorities to ensure safety standards. This leaves the certification of maintenance on Australian aircraft to the safety oversight, training and licensing procedures of another country.
“We wonder how consistent this is with the Australian safety program, as well as International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements that the State of Registry be responsible for the safety of maintenance performed on aircraft even in another country,” say the researchers.
Hampson: “There are doubtless many offshore shops which give top-quality service that Australian consumers can rely on,” he says. “We know from experience that there are some which definitely don’t. The problem is that we don’t have enough good information to tell which is which.
Australia doesn’t even keep public records of which maintenance goes offshore, never mind where it goes. Once it does go offshore, no public records are kept of where the work has fallen short of standard, or what rework is needed in Australia when the plane comes back.
“The risk then is that because there isn't enough information about quality, choices will be made on the basis of price. This is a classic ‘market for lemons’ situation, where quality providers get driven out of the market and many others survive who don't deserve to."
The researchers note “a contrast between Australia's relaxed approach to the supervision of overseas repair shops handling Australian work, and the increasingly stringent regulatory approach which public concern in the US has obliged Congress and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to apply to offshore providers”.
The FAA is subject to political supervision and accountability in ways that Australia’s CASA is not. The FAA was recently compelled by congressional legislation to tighten up its regulatory and supervisory practices. In Australia, the trend is for CASA to offshore its responsibilities to foreign aviation authorities to ensure safety standards. This leaves the certification of maintenance on Australian aircraft to the safety oversight, training and licensing procedures of another country.
“We wonder how consistent this is with the Australian safety program, as well as International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements that the State of Registry be responsible for the safety of maintenance performed on aircraft even in another country,” say the researchers.
One would assume that the concerns/findings of the ABS researchers will be significantly highlighted in their WLR submission..
More to follow…
Addendum: For those interested the ALAEA submission to the Qantas inquiry can be downloaded HERE
Last edited by Sarcs; 15th Mar 2014 at 00:54. Reason: ALAEA submission link
You may be right Creampuff, but like all the misfits we are attacking you have a habit of highlighting how NOT to do things when it would suit all better if you showed HOW TO do things.
No, I withdraw that.
In fact, the ASR Panel would desperately love to be spoon fed the industry’s solution on HOW TO fix aviation regulation in Australia.
Frank, all of my HOW TO solutions for aviation regulation in Australia start with this step:
1. Industry unite.
That’s where things tend to go pear shaped.
Now I’m sure someone will point out that the industry seems to be united in its view that CASA is NOT doing what it should be doing. But as you say, Frank, it would suit all better if the industry united and showed the Panel HOW TO do things …
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I said the aviation industry in Australia is rooted, I meant just that. It is as broke as the CASA. The only thing they, (industry), are united in, is a complete firm rejection and lack of confidence in the regulator. This is a catalyst for a disaster of monumental proportion so it behooves the people that we elected to run the 'freekin' Country to do something about it. The trusty Truss can only do that if he understands there is a problem, and CASA are not the answer to that problem. He should listen to the masses off un-united but affirmative dismissals of the status quo. You only have to look at the Anastasi letter above to see Truss is being given the 'blinkered' tour and the Board is being treated like mushrooms.
No Creampuff, we elect leaders to lead, not be lead.
No Creampuff, we elect leaders to lead, not be lead.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 15th Mar 2014 at 03:43. Reason: Lead as in metal on purpose. Take it any way you see fit.
And it's my fault that they don't?
No Laborial is actually going to take responsibility and make a decision.
On that issue I have posted, many times, HOW TO leverage the only glimmer of hope.
No Laborial is actually going to take responsibility and make a decision.
On that issue I have posted, many times, HOW TO leverage the only glimmer of hope.
Advocate. If you wish to raise a complaint with CASA there is one single and effective route open to you that CASA cannot and must not interfere with.
Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.
CASA is then responsible for providing an answer, via the Minister, to the PM's office.
Anastasi would not and cannot interfere with this process which is available to all citizens.
My understanding is that the Board of CASA is mere window dressing - a bunch of impotent clowns who do not have any authority, unlike in a public company, so appeals to them are pointless anyway.
The other alternative is to put together a dossier - solid evidence of major malfeasance, then write a snappy Two page press release. Send the package to every radio, TV and newspaper in the country. That worked for me when I caught a major insurance company diddling not only me but thousands of other customers. After Eight weeks of work I got what I wanted in Two hours.
Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.
CASA is then responsible for providing an answer, via the Minister, to the PM's office.
Anastasi would not and cannot interfere with this process which is available to all citizens.
My understanding is that the Board of CASA is mere window dressing - a bunch of impotent clowns who do not have any authority, unlike in a public company, so appeals to them are pointless anyway.
The other alternative is to put together a dossier - solid evidence of major malfeasance, then write a snappy Two page press release. Send the package to every radio, TV and newspaper in the country. That worked for me when I caught a major insurance company diddling not only me but thousands of other customers. After Eight weeks of work I got what I wanted in Two hours.
Sunfish...
Fine in theory, but it didn't work under Labor.
I wrote to Albanese a number of times - you guessed it - no response.
So I then wrote to Rudd on the same matter and expressed concern that the Minister wasn't responding - - you guessed it - no response.
I also wrote to Truss regarding the matter, and included information for his information and necessary action that neither the Minister not the PM had responded to my concerns - you guessed it - no response.
I've also written to the new Coalition Government Minister - Mr Truss - same old result - no reply.
I agree with Creampuff - until the industry unites, then it's going nowhere fast like it has for the past 20 or so years..
There are so many valid viewpoints being expressed here, but until the infighting and sniping takes a rest and we ALL do what Creampuff suggests, then we're going nowhere fast.
Advocate. If you wish to raise a complaint with CASA there is one single and effective route open to you that CASA cannot and must not interfere with.
Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.
Write to the Prime Minister. Protocol requires that it is passed by the PM's office to the responsible Minister who must then pass it to the Department and then to CASA, or perhaps direct from Minister to CASA.
I wrote to Albanese a number of times - you guessed it - no response.
So I then wrote to Rudd on the same matter and expressed concern that the Minister wasn't responding - - you guessed it - no response.
I also wrote to Truss regarding the matter, and included information for his information and necessary action that neither the Minister not the PM had responded to my concerns - you guessed it - no response.
I've also written to the new Coalition Government Minister - Mr Truss - same old result - no reply.
I agree with Creampuff - until the industry unites, then it's going nowhere fast like it has for the past 20 or so years..
There are so many valid viewpoints being expressed here, but until the infighting and sniping takes a rest and we ALL do what Creampuff suggests, then we're going nowhere fast.
Last edited by SIUYA; 15th Mar 2014 at 08:21.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that the ASR Panel would like to be showed HOW TO fix aviation in regulation in Australia.
In fact, the ASR Panel would desperately love to be spoon fed the industry’s solution on HOW TO fix aviation regulation in Australia.
unless there is a better scheme, kill off the $240,000,000 worth of dribble and introduce the New Zealand FAR's. Kill off the bull**** that is CASA and start again.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring back Alan
Good to see somebody is receiving the benefits of the skills and experience of Alan Stray:
News: PNG boosts aviation safety investigation capability
It won't belong before PNG's investigative capability outshines Australia's ability, good for them! Perhaps the WLR will recommend bringing back Alan to replace mi mi mi Beaker??
News: PNG boosts aviation safety investigation capability
It won't belong before PNG's investigative capability outshines Australia's ability, good for them! Perhaps the WLR will recommend bringing back Alan to replace mi mi mi Beaker??
Siuya - you got no response at all? What did you write? A crank letter? You need to write a credible and well reasoned letter that is capable off being answered in a reasonable manner. If that fails, then visit your local MP and submit it through him.
Your letter has to be on file somewhere together with a brief from a public servant explaining why it shouldn't be replied to.
Your letter has to be on file somewhere together with a brief from a public servant explaining why it shouldn't be replied to.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the real problem for people like the safety review and creampuff is the problem of why the National Aviation Authorities in other countries like Canada and New Zealand are seen as benevolent parts of their aviation scene, and why CASA is just seen as the clueless arseholes stopping aviation?
the attitudes in the Australian industry are anything but healthy. why?
why do we have companies that seek to hinder their competitors by shopping them to CASA?
why is it that you can never get an approval from CASA?
why has Canadian Owner Maintenance been in place in Canada for about 15 years now without incident and yet owner maintenance in australia is seen as a heinous crime? (although every owner I know except one does it )
why has CASA done all in its power for decades now to kill australian aviation?
the guys who tried to build the eagle-x here are convinced that CASA's actions can only be explained logically if CASA was trying to shut them down.
all of this bull**** comes from an interaction of the ex-raaf "experts" at the core of CASA and the australian government directions to them.
what aspect of those government directions has led to all this?
since most of us have no idea what is discussed over canapés and port we'll never have a handle on what the actual problem is.
whatever the source of the problem it is killing off what could be a large successful industry.
what is it you idiot politicians? do you look out the window of the jet and wonder if the magic will stop and suffer a primal fear?
the attitudes in the Australian industry are anything but healthy. why?
why do we have companies that seek to hinder their competitors by shopping them to CASA?
why is it that you can never get an approval from CASA?
why has Canadian Owner Maintenance been in place in Canada for about 15 years now without incident and yet owner maintenance in australia is seen as a heinous crime? (although every owner I know except one does it )
why has CASA done all in its power for decades now to kill australian aviation?
the guys who tried to build the eagle-x here are convinced that CASA's actions can only be explained logically if CASA was trying to shut them down.
all of this bull**** comes from an interaction of the ex-raaf "experts" at the core of CASA and the australian government directions to them.
what aspect of those government directions has led to all this?
since most of us have no idea what is discussed over canapés and port we'll never have a handle on what the actual problem is.
whatever the source of the problem it is killing off what could be a large successful industry.
what is it you idiot politicians? do you look out the window of the jet and wonder if the magic will stop and suffer a primal fear?