Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
TOR 2: Mick Quinn & the swinging pendulum
Although FF did their utmost to discredit Mick Quinn (the play the man routine) and his evidence given in the AAI inquiry, perhaps upon reflection it would be worth the WLR panel reviewing some of MQ’s evidence in light of…
TOR objective bullet point two…
• the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);
& TOR outcome bullet point two…
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
The following is two segments from the MQ evidence presented at the 22 October 2012 public hearing that very much go to the above TOR references…
[YOUTUBE]
Hansard segment 1:
“….Senator XENOPHON: There are two more issues. At pages 10 to 13 of your submission, you have made reference about the ATSB/CASA review of 2007, the Miller review. You talk about the interplay between the ATSB and CASA. Do you think that the matters raised by Mr Miller in his report of 2007 have been adequately dealt with in terms of the current relationship between CASA and the ATSB?
Mr Quinn : A lot of work by both organisations went into sorting this out. What I believe, though, is that Mr Miller's comments have been interpreted in an incorrect way. The relationship now, which was one that, particularly after the Lockhart River accident, got personal between individuals in both organisations—
CHAIR: We have had experience of that in this committee.
Mr Quinn : Yes. It got very personal. I use the term 'pendulum'; the pendulum has now swung from one of adverse tension that was not producing the sort of outcomes that the aviation safety industry wants to completely the opposite way, where I believe those two organisations are basically acting as one. There needs to be this tension. It is a professional thing and it is a big part of the aviation industry that there be transparency and that these two organisations have very specific roles under their acts, and that seems to have diminished. I think this report is evidence of that….”
[YOUTUBE]
Hansard segment two:
“…Senator FAWCETT: Do you see that one of the steps to recovering that is looking at the MOU between CASA and ATSB? I am aware that was developed after the report in 2007—the Miller review, I think it was—to try to make sure there is a good relationship. I know you talked about the pendulum swinging. Is that one of the key things that needs to be looked at to get that check and balance back into the system?
Mr Quinn: I know there is some criticism about the MOU in the industry, but I do not think the MOU is the problem. I think the problem is the application of it and any interpretation that might be in that. Certainly a review of the MOU should be done, and I think in terms of doing that review it would be pretty wise to have a look at what the NTSB and the FAA do in the US, because they seem to have it fairly right, in my view, and also the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in the UK and the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission. There are other examples out there that we can learn from. I am not criticising the MOU. I do not think the MOU is the problem; I think it is the interpretation, the application and the implementation of that relationship. It needs to be removed from personalities and put back into people accepting that this is not about blame; it is about fixing things. That includes the regulator, it includes the industry, it includes individuals like Mr James. Get away from this blame concept and let's get on with stating the facts and improving the system…”
Maybe MQ has already got in Forsyth’s ear and made a personal submission?? If not the WLR panel would do well to have a chat with MQ, regardless of whether he has an axe to grind with his former employer. He would certainly give a unique insight on the inner workings of FF and would know where many of the skeletons are buried…
004:
Question 004: I would of thought that there is a difference though, as far as I am aware MQ is no longer rubbing shoulders with the GWM trough dwellers, so what has he got to lose??
TOR objective bullet point two…
• the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);
& TOR outcome bullet point two…
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
The following is two segments from the MQ evidence presented at the 22 October 2012 public hearing that very much go to the above TOR references…
[YOUTUBE]
Hansard segment 1:
“….Senator XENOPHON: There are two more issues. At pages 10 to 13 of your submission, you have made reference about the ATSB/CASA review of 2007, the Miller review. You talk about the interplay between the ATSB and CASA. Do you think that the matters raised by Mr Miller in his report of 2007 have been adequately dealt with in terms of the current relationship between CASA and the ATSB?
Mr Quinn : A lot of work by both organisations went into sorting this out. What I believe, though, is that Mr Miller's comments have been interpreted in an incorrect way. The relationship now, which was one that, particularly after the Lockhart River accident, got personal between individuals in both organisations—
CHAIR: We have had experience of that in this committee.
Mr Quinn : Yes. It got very personal. I use the term 'pendulum'; the pendulum has now swung from one of adverse tension that was not producing the sort of outcomes that the aviation safety industry wants to completely the opposite way, where I believe those two organisations are basically acting as one. There needs to be this tension. It is a professional thing and it is a big part of the aviation industry that there be transparency and that these two organisations have very specific roles under their acts, and that seems to have diminished. I think this report is evidence of that….”
[YOUTUBE]
Hansard segment two:
“…Senator FAWCETT: Do you see that one of the steps to recovering that is looking at the MOU between CASA and ATSB? I am aware that was developed after the report in 2007—the Miller review, I think it was—to try to make sure there is a good relationship. I know you talked about the pendulum swinging. Is that one of the key things that needs to be looked at to get that check and balance back into the system?
Mr Quinn: I know there is some criticism about the MOU in the industry, but I do not think the MOU is the problem. I think the problem is the application of it and any interpretation that might be in that. Certainly a review of the MOU should be done, and I think in terms of doing that review it would be pretty wise to have a look at what the NTSB and the FAA do in the US, because they seem to have it fairly right, in my view, and also the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in the UK and the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission. There are other examples out there that we can learn from. I am not criticising the MOU. I do not think the MOU is the problem; I think it is the interpretation, the application and the implementation of that relationship. It needs to be removed from personalities and put back into people accepting that this is not about blame; it is about fixing things. That includes the regulator, it includes the industry, it includes individuals like Mr James. Get away from this blame concept and let's get on with stating the facts and improving the system…”
Maybe MQ has already got in Forsyth’s ear and made a personal submission?? If not the WLR panel would do well to have a chat with MQ, regardless of whether he has an axe to grind with his former employer. He would certainly give a unique insight on the inner workings of FF and would know where many of the skeletons are buried…
004:
However if he is let loose there would be others within the GWM that would quickly reveal MQ's skeletons. Risky move.
Last edited by Sarcs; 10th Apr 2014 at 22:16.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danger Will Robinson - Warning Warning!
Maybe MQ has already got in Forsyth’s ear and made a personal submission?? If not the WLR panel would do well to have a chat with MQ, regardless of whether he has an axe to grind with his former employer. He would certainly give a unique insight on the inner workings of FF and would know where many of the skeletons are buried…
As for the CAsA/ATsBeaker MOU, Dr Voodoo was the creator of that little Frankenstein.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MQ and skeletons
I think MQ has already put himself out there, balls and all. No fear of retribution. Good play! He made a submission to a senate inquiry in 2008 which made total sense for the way forward. Unfortunately, back stabbed and white anted by those looking for the key to the throne. I'll paste the 2008 senate speech after I try and update my reg knowledge. Could be a year or so!
Murdoch MSM catching up..well sort of?
Not sure where Creedy has been lately but the fill in bloke is actually starting to (occasionally) jump the fence to provide a slightly more balanced view than the usual QASA diatribe..
Last week in Friday's Australian the MMSM reported on parts of the AFAP (& ALAEA) WLR submissions with the headline: Pilots call for less ‘arbitrary’ screening
Normally the miniscule's dept doesn't partake in any trivial aviation media matters. So it is somewhat surprising that this particular article has actually provoked a response from Kingcrat & crew, where we see (ironically) that the ICAO compliance card has been played..
:
Hmm..pity those same ICAO standards weren't applied when it came to the VH-NGA ditching investigation..
Moving on remember this??
“Do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics; they are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer ‘facts’ when engaged in discussions; not hearsay and tautological rubbish that some others seem to regard as promising material.”
Well it would seem that the " vocal minority" is starting to become a majority and they're camped in the miniscule's office waiting room with some hard 'facts':
If only the miniscule could see behind the 2000 pound elephant (called Fort Fumblenese..) constantly parked in his office...
Last week in Friday's Australian the MMSM reported on parts of the AFAP (& ALAEA) WLR submissions with the headline: Pilots call for less ‘arbitrary’ screening
THE Australian Federation of Air Pilots has labelled screening processes for passengers at many of the nation’s non-major airports as “illogical or unnecessary” and claims they are conducted with no regard for the costs involved.
In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety review — which is expected to report later this month — it also describes screening processes for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”, saying: “Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit seat beggars belief.”
In November, Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss announced the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to examine the effectiveness of aviation agencies, look for overlap, and to determine the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety regulations compared to those abroad.
The inquiry, chaired by aviation veteran David Forsyth, has not made its 150-odd submissions public, claiming many authors wished for them to remain confidential. However, it will draw on them in filing its report.
Mr Forsyth was unavailable for comment yesterday.
The AFAP says the federal government’s Office of Transport Security “appears to operate without any regard” to the costs it imposes on the industry through screening requirements.
“While there may be a clear need for such screening at major airports, the rationale for (it) at smaller regional airports is questionable at best,” it says.
“The operations of the Office of Transport Security are an excessive cost burden on the industry ... many security screening processes are illogical or unnecessary”. The federation — the largest pilots’ association in Australia, with over 3500 members — also says many of the screening and security measures “appear to be driven by political and public relations concerns”.
The Office of Transport Security had not responded to the claims by deadline yesterday.
In a separate submission the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association raises a number of concerns with the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and calls for the introduction of a US-style whistleblower protection program to protect employees raising safety concerns.
The ALAEA claims CASA is not properly policing maintenance operations and takes disproportionate action against “soft targets”, such as when it “very strongly pursued minor operator Tiger Airways over safety breaches and poor systems”. CASA has denied both allegations.
The AFAP has also raised concerns over CASA. “The perception of CASA by our members is one of constant change, characterised by high staff turnover and low morale from within,” it says in its submission.
It says a Senate inquiry into aviation accident investigations handed down a report more than two years ago into the effectiveness of CASA and the Air Traffic Safety Bureau. “(That report) made 26 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the relationship between CASA and the ATSB. To date it appears that few, if any, of these recommendations have been carried out.”
It requests that the review “revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend (their) implementation” as a priority.
It also wants aviation regulations to be “rewritten in plain English”, and “targeted at and comprehensible to the industry”.
In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety review — which is expected to report later this month — it also describes screening processes for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”, saying: “Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit seat beggars belief.”
In November, Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss announced the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to examine the effectiveness of aviation agencies, look for overlap, and to determine the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety regulations compared to those abroad.
The inquiry, chaired by aviation veteran David Forsyth, has not made its 150-odd submissions public, claiming many authors wished for them to remain confidential. However, it will draw on them in filing its report.
Mr Forsyth was unavailable for comment yesterday.
The AFAP says the federal government’s Office of Transport Security “appears to operate without any regard” to the costs it imposes on the industry through screening requirements.
“While there may be a clear need for such screening at major airports, the rationale for (it) at smaller regional airports is questionable at best,” it says.
“The operations of the Office of Transport Security are an excessive cost burden on the industry ... many security screening processes are illogical or unnecessary”. The federation — the largest pilots’ association in Australia, with over 3500 members — also says many of the screening and security measures “appear to be driven by political and public relations concerns”.
The Office of Transport Security had not responded to the claims by deadline yesterday.
In a separate submission the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association raises a number of concerns with the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and calls for the introduction of a US-style whistleblower protection program to protect employees raising safety concerns.
The ALAEA claims CASA is not properly policing maintenance operations and takes disproportionate action against “soft targets”, such as when it “very strongly pursued minor operator Tiger Airways over safety breaches and poor systems”. CASA has denied both allegations.
The AFAP has also raised concerns over CASA. “The perception of CASA by our members is one of constant change, characterised by high staff turnover and low morale from within,” it says in its submission.
It says a Senate inquiry into aviation accident investigations handed down a report more than two years ago into the effectiveness of CASA and the Air Traffic Safety Bureau. “(That report) made 26 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the relationship between CASA and the ATSB. To date it appears that few, if any, of these recommendations have been carried out.”
It requests that the review “revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend (their) implementation” as a priority.
It also wants aviation regulations to be “rewritten in plain English”, and “targeted at and comprehensible to the industry”.
:
Government rejects screening complaint
THE federal government has hit back at claims from the nation’s pilots’ association that many secu*rity checks are “illogical and unnecessary”, claiming they are in line with the risks.
The Australian revealed last week that the Australian Federation of Air Pilots viewed screening processes for passengers at many regional airports as unnecessary and screening pro*cess*es for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”.
A spokeswoman for the *Department of Infrastructure said the level and type of screening was appropriate.
“The Australian government is aware of the social and economic importance of a vibrant and competitive regional aviation sector,” the spokeswoman told The Australian.
“Screening measures at Australia’s security-controlled airports are commensurate with risk and threat levels, as determined through information provided by Australia’s security agencies.”
In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety *review — which is expected to report later this month — AFAP, which has said security measures appeared to be implemented “without any regard” to the costs imposed on industry through screening requirements.
“Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected *before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit beggars belief,” AFAP said in the statement.
The Department of Infrastructure said the national prohibited items list (which guides screening at airports) reflected standards developed by the International Civil Aviation Org*anisation and was accepted internationally by other foreign aviation security regulators.
“The screening processes are *neither arbitrary nor unneces*sary,” the spokeswoman said. “All people entering the sterile area of an airport and boarding an aircraft are subject to the same levels of screening.”
She said screening reduced the risk of a person knowingly or unknowingly bringing a prohibited item into the “sterile area”.
THE federal government has hit back at claims from the nation’s pilots’ association that many secu*rity checks are “illogical and unnecessary”, claiming they are in line with the risks.
The Australian revealed last week that the Australian Federation of Air Pilots viewed screening processes for passengers at many regional airports as unnecessary and screening pro*cess*es for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”.
A spokeswoman for the *Department of Infrastructure said the level and type of screening was appropriate.
“The Australian government is aware of the social and economic importance of a vibrant and competitive regional aviation sector,” the spokeswoman told The Australian.
“Screening measures at Australia’s security-controlled airports are commensurate with risk and threat levels, as determined through information provided by Australia’s security agencies.”
In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety *review — which is expected to report later this month — AFAP, which has said security measures appeared to be implemented “without any regard” to the costs imposed on industry through screening requirements.
“Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected *before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit beggars belief,” AFAP said in the statement.
The Department of Infrastructure said the national prohibited items list (which guides screening at airports) reflected standards developed by the International Civil Aviation Org*anisation and was accepted internationally by other foreign aviation security regulators.
“The screening processes are *neither arbitrary nor unneces*sary,” the spokeswoman said. “All people entering the sterile area of an airport and boarding an aircraft are subject to the same levels of screening.”
She said screening reduced the risk of a person knowingly or unknowingly bringing a prohibited item into the “sterile area”.
Moving on remember this??
“Do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics; they are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer ‘facts’ when engaged in discussions; not hearsay and tautological rubbish that some others seem to regard as promising material.”
Well it would seem that the " vocal minority" is starting to become a majority and they're camped in the miniscule's office waiting room with some hard 'facts':
Airport fee rises ‘choking growth’
THE nation’s airline lobby group has called for Australia’s major international airports to slow the aggressive ramping-up of fees, which it claims risks “choking” future growth.
The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, which represents 29 international *airlines operating in the country, said prices charged by the *nation’s major international *airports had doubled in real terms over the past 12 years, from about $10 to $20 a passenger.
In a report into infrastructure of the nation’s major airports, to be released today, BARA says charges at Sydney and Brisbane airports are now “well above” the Asia-Pacific and European averages. “If the industry is to maintain airfare affordability, it is not possible to sustain the trend of rising investment levels funded through continued increase in airport prices,” the BARA report says. It says the industry needs to ensure the cost of meeting growth does not end up chocking the very growth it is intended to foster.
The report highlights the very high investment returns being delivered to the nation’s airports, with pre-tax returns soaring from below 6 per cent annually in 2003 to above 12 per cent at present and averaging 11 per cent over the past five years.
A key to the growth in that revenue was the government’s 2002 moves to *remove price controls set by the Australian *Competition & Consumer Commission and *replace them with “light-*handed” economic regulation, placing more control in the hands of operators.
The result of this *light-*handed regulation has led to *unnecessary “protracted negotiation processes between international airlines and airport operators”, BARA says.
The report comes after the ACCC findings last week that the nation’s four *biggest *airports were continuing to ramp up fees despite most *delivering no real increase in *service quality.
The ACCC, which delivers an annual report on the performance of the Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney airports, found all but Brisbane had delivered only “satisfactory” performance over the year to June 2013.
Brisbane’s average quality of service was lifted from satisfactory to “good”. Sydney delivered the worst quality of service, *despite charging the highest “aeronautic *revenue” per *passenger at $15.53.
The lobby group for the Australian Airports Association challenged the ACCC’s findings and said they presented a *“historical snapshot” as they *related to data that was already nine months old. “The ACCC’s findings provide an historical snapshot of the state of our major airports, given the extremely dynamic nature of the aviation industry and the ongoing investment being made in better airport infrastructure,” said AAA chief executive *Caroline Wilkie.
BARA notes the ACCC’s *service quality monitoring has been criticised by the AAA.
“It is notable, however, that the industry has not developed more sophisticated service quality measures and included them in agreements with airlines,” the BARA report says.
The airline body calls for the government to commission research into the productivity of the nation’s aviation industry and the “rate of return across *infrastructure providers”.
THE nation’s airline lobby group has called for Australia’s major international airports to slow the aggressive ramping-up of fees, which it claims risks “choking” future growth.
The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, which represents 29 international *airlines operating in the country, said prices charged by the *nation’s major international *airports had doubled in real terms over the past 12 years, from about $10 to $20 a passenger.
In a report into infrastructure of the nation’s major airports, to be released today, BARA says charges at Sydney and Brisbane airports are now “well above” the Asia-Pacific and European averages. “If the industry is to maintain airfare affordability, it is not possible to sustain the trend of rising investment levels funded through continued increase in airport prices,” the BARA report says. It says the industry needs to ensure the cost of meeting growth does not end up chocking the very growth it is intended to foster.
The report highlights the very high investment returns being delivered to the nation’s airports, with pre-tax returns soaring from below 6 per cent annually in 2003 to above 12 per cent at present and averaging 11 per cent over the past five years.
A key to the growth in that revenue was the government’s 2002 moves to *remove price controls set by the Australian *Competition & Consumer Commission and *replace them with “light-*handed” economic regulation, placing more control in the hands of operators.
The result of this *light-*handed regulation has led to *unnecessary “protracted negotiation processes between international airlines and airport operators”, BARA says.
The report comes after the ACCC findings last week that the nation’s four *biggest *airports were continuing to ramp up fees despite most *delivering no real increase in *service quality.
The ACCC, which delivers an annual report on the performance of the Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney airports, found all but Brisbane had delivered only “satisfactory” performance over the year to June 2013.
Brisbane’s average quality of service was lifted from satisfactory to “good”. Sydney delivered the worst quality of service, *despite charging the highest “aeronautic *revenue” per *passenger at $15.53.
The lobby group for the Australian Airports Association challenged the ACCC’s findings and said they presented a *“historical snapshot” as they *related to data that was already nine months old. “The ACCC’s findings provide an historical snapshot of the state of our major airports, given the extremely dynamic nature of the aviation industry and the ongoing investment being made in better airport infrastructure,” said AAA chief executive *Caroline Wilkie.
BARA notes the ACCC’s *service quality monitoring has been criticised by the AAA.
“It is notable, however, that the industry has not developed more sophisticated service quality measures and included them in agreements with airlines,” the BARA report says.
The airline body calls for the government to commission research into the productivity of the nation’s aviation industry and the “rate of return across *infrastructure providers”.
) constantly parked in his office...
Last edited by Sarcs; 12th Apr 2014 at 01:52.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup Sarcs,
our airports are doing a wonderful job, world class.
Some questions I would love to see answered in Parliament or Publicly?
1. How many airports have been constructed in Australia in the past 10 years compared with China?
2. How much revenue has Sydney airport earned since it was privatised.
3. How much tax has Sydney airport paid since it was privatised.
4. What is the ratio of money Sydney airport has spent, since it was privatised, on improving airport infrastructure, by that I mean directly involved with aviation, compared with non aviation infrastructure such as car parks, terminal shops, hotels and supermarkets?
5. How much public money was spent by CAsA to provide a 72 year old senior manager with an A380 endorsement?
6. For what purpose is the endorsement to be used by CAsA?
7. When will the senior manager be retiring?
8. How will the A380 endorsement impact on the senior managers entitlements on retirement?
anybody got some to add?
our airports are doing a wonderful job, world class.
Some questions I would love to see answered in Parliament or Publicly?
1. How many airports have been constructed in Australia in the past 10 years compared with China?
2. How much revenue has Sydney airport earned since it was privatised.
3. How much tax has Sydney airport paid since it was privatised.
4. What is the ratio of money Sydney airport has spent, since it was privatised, on improving airport infrastructure, by that I mean directly involved with aviation, compared with non aviation infrastructure such as car parks, terminal shops, hotels and supermarkets?
5. How much public money was spent by CAsA to provide a 72 year old senior manager with an A380 endorsement?
6. For what purpose is the endorsement to be used by CAsA?
7. When will the senior manager be retiring?
8. How will the A380 endorsement impact on the senior managers entitlements on retirement?
anybody got some to add?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has a robust 'trough' been discovered?
I agree with Thornys post below. This should be given the most on-depth scrutiny and an acceptable response given by CAsA;
My guess is as follows;
5. Around $45k
6. None whatsoever. The endorsement will benefit the endorsed individual by way of (a) financially, and (b) ego.
7. I've heard when his Angry mate goes in August, or thereabouts. Or perhaps when his arthritic hands can no longer push the elevator button to get to his office, or he can't stay awake past 1600 in the afternoon. So I am guessing it should be soon then.
8. Very well indeed. Seems somebody did his homework. Gotta love the taxpayer ey?
Perhaps the Senators or somebody could delve into this a little deeper? After all every taxpayer cent spent must be justified (just ask Beaker). Perhaps they can also get to the bottom of 'Sky Sentinel' as well as Mr Wickhams hiring. Something tells me that the 'R'egulator has been making up its own rules? Then again, that's nothing new is it???
Did Craig Thompson ever work for CAsA?
TICK TOCK
5. How much public money was spent by CAsA to provide a 72 year old senior manager with an A380 endorsement?
6. For what purpose is the endorsement to be used by CAsA?
7. When will the senior manager be retiring?
8. How will the A380 endorsement impact on the senior managers entitlements on retirement?
6. For what purpose is the endorsement to be used by CAsA?
7. When will the senior manager be retiring?
8. How will the A380 endorsement impact on the senior managers entitlements on retirement?
5. Around $45k
6. None whatsoever. The endorsement will benefit the endorsed individual by way of (a) financially, and (b) ego.
7. I've heard when his Angry mate goes in August, or thereabouts. Or perhaps when his arthritic hands can no longer push the elevator button to get to his office, or he can't stay awake past 1600 in the afternoon. So I am guessing it should be soon then.
8. Very well indeed. Seems somebody did his homework. Gotta love the taxpayer ey?
Perhaps the Senators or somebody could delve into this a little deeper? After all every taxpayer cent spent must be justified (just ask Beaker). Perhaps they can also get to the bottom of 'Sky Sentinel' as well as Mr Wickhams hiring. Something tells me that the 'R'egulator has been making up its own rules? Then again, that's nothing new is it???
Did Craig Thompson ever work for CAsA?
TICK TOCK
No Craigs in CAsA.....
He could use the HSU credit card to get some....
CaSA has for many years been unable to organise even a fcuk in a brothel. And the place is one
The corrupt there in, are just using the convoluted machinations of bureaucratic financial jiggery-pokery to slurp in the taxpayer funded troughs.
Should be some forensic accountants put nto CAsA to go thru the books....they'd find some "documentary fraud" in spades
One hears about complaints of the " migration industry" or whatever.
CAsA dwellers have made a lucrative "safety" industry for themselves...and it will continue to thrive until there is an Agency or MINISTER, not a miniscule, with backbone, balls and BITE...who gets in there with the axe.
Faint hope, I fear.
Hey I'm over 72, next pension day I'll put in an application for an A320 endo.
Shouldnt be a problem. Oink oink.
CaSA has for many years been unable to organise even a fcuk in a brothel. And the place is one
The corrupt there in, are just using the convoluted machinations of bureaucratic financial jiggery-pokery to slurp in the taxpayer funded troughs.
Should be some forensic accountants put nto CAsA to go thru the books....they'd find some "documentary fraud" in spades
One hears about complaints of the " migration industry" or whatever.
CAsA dwellers have made a lucrative "safety" industry for themselves...and it will continue to thrive until there is an Agency or MINISTER, not a miniscule, with backbone, balls and BITE...who gets in there with the axe.
Faint hope, I fear.
Hey I'm over 72, next pension day I'll put in an application for an A320 endo.
Shouldnt be a problem. Oink oink.
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
Nearly every airport in Australia was paid for by the Taxpayer.
They were then given to the ratepayers and private enterprise who started to rely upon government grants after the initial grants ran out. Then the public either didn't pay landing fees or caught a train or gave other blokes they hate registrations to avoid paying for something they already owned.
We the got ASIC cards and a plethora of other "safety" measures which further cost industry. Meanwhile, the regulatory review process continued, the public service grew logarithmically to the needs of that "service" and self funded to the point where a private company would have been guilty of trading whilst insolvent.
We now have GA "feral fly-in's because everyone is scared $hitless of ramp checks at organized events and aircraft not intended for paddocks are operated there. WAC charts not current are a criminal offence despite the same mountain being there for millions of years. Bugger me, most single seaters in RA-Aus use freekin BP road maps because they only go 50nm without a piss stop. But you still need to know how to do 1:60 calculations when a force 5 gale is blowing through the canopy.
Yes, safety. Say it often enough and it becomes a mantra. Say this often enough and you become a Buddhist pilot.
I recently had to get into flying to get out of flying because I needed a BFR to deliver my aeroplane when I sold it. Then I did an IFR trip as a passenger where I was looking at the RPT goings on in a 10 seater in class G airspace that varied between 7000ft and 10,000ft to get over and around clouds. I regularly flew at those mid altitudes VFR. What happened to hemispherical levels? Poor old Dick is forced to fly low with these blokes and me in his jet because some prick doesn't like him.
Christ! Why won't they just leave everyone alone to kill themselves as they see fit?
I'm over it. They can all get fkuced! I'm going sailing while it's still legal.
They were then given to the ratepayers and private enterprise who started to rely upon government grants after the initial grants ran out. Then the public either didn't pay landing fees or caught a train or gave other blokes they hate registrations to avoid paying for something they already owned.
We the got ASIC cards and a plethora of other "safety" measures which further cost industry. Meanwhile, the regulatory review process continued, the public service grew logarithmically to the needs of that "service" and self funded to the point where a private company would have been guilty of trading whilst insolvent.
We now have GA "feral fly-in's because everyone is scared $hitless of ramp checks at organized events and aircraft not intended for paddocks are operated there. WAC charts not current are a criminal offence despite the same mountain being there for millions of years. Bugger me, most single seaters in RA-Aus use freekin BP road maps because they only go 50nm without a piss stop. But you still need to know how to do 1:60 calculations when a force 5 gale is blowing through the canopy.
Yes, safety. Say it often enough and it becomes a mantra. Say this often enough and you become a Buddhist pilot.
I recently had to get into flying to get out of flying because I needed a BFR to deliver my aeroplane when I sold it. Then I did an IFR trip as a passenger where I was looking at the RPT goings on in a 10 seater in class G airspace that varied between 7000ft and 10,000ft to get over and around clouds. I regularly flew at those mid altitudes VFR. What happened to hemispherical levels? Poor old Dick is forced to fly low with these blokes and me in his jet because some prick doesn't like him.
Christ! Why won't they just leave everyone alone to kill themselves as they see fit?
I'm over it. They can all get fkuced! I'm going sailing while it's still legal.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAsA, AMSA, sailing and safety first!
I'm over it. They can all get fkuced! I'm going sailing while it's still legal.
Who knows, maybe the Skull, the 72 year old A380 pilot and the Witchdoctor will head over as well?
Sundy QASAtation: Kudos to Robin Speed (ROLIA)
Sundy drift with WLR relevance...
In the Friday Oz newspaper's legal section there was an article titled 'Rule of Law wants governments to play by litigant rules':
Now I know the subject of the MLR, in regards to CAsA, has been done to death on here but this could be an opportunity to highlight the middle finger approach FF takes to their obligations to act as a Model Litigant, Stan seems to think so..:
And PAIN suggests referring to the ProAviation WLR submission for some classic examples: PAIN_NET
Food for thought for those aggrieved IOS members amongst us??
In the Friday Oz newspaper's legal section there was an article titled 'Rule of Law wants governments to play by litigant rules':
New laws are needed to ensure governments do not abuse their power in litigation, according to the Rule of Law Institute.
The call for legislative change comes after the Productivity Commission this week found compliance with the Model Litigant Rules, which required governments to uphold the highest standards of fairness, honesty and integrity, was patchy.
R.O.L.I. chairman Robin Speed said stronger enforcement was needed to ensure government agenciues did not crush their opponents by unfairly using the resources at their disposal.
“There can’t be anything more intimidating than the commonwealth as an defendant, be4cause what it can do in resources is kill you in one way or another, or drag things out or not enter into fair negotiations,” he said.
R.O.L.I has handed a legislative blueprint to Attorney General George Brandis that would allow the courts to enforce model litigant guidelines.
Mr Speed said the Productivity Commission’s draft report had shown new enforcement measures were needed, and there was not enough incentive for agencies to comply with the rules.
“Clearly, the present system of internal review has not worked effectively or consistently, ” he said.
The Attorney general’s department appears not to want the job of monitoring other departments.”
Mr Speed met with Senator Brandis before Christmas to discuss possible changes to the existing framework and sent a proposed Bill to the Attorney general earlier this year.
He said if the Bill were adopted, it would be up to the courts to decide on an appropriate remedy for any breach of the model litigant rules.
The productivity Commission has sought advice on whether the model litigant rules should apply in other cases where there is a power imbalance, for example those involving large corporations or self represented litigants.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said in his experience the commonwealth had a high level of compliance with model litigant guidelines.
The call for legislative change comes after the Productivity Commission this week found compliance with the Model Litigant Rules, which required governments to uphold the highest standards of fairness, honesty and integrity, was patchy.
R.O.L.I. chairman Robin Speed said stronger enforcement was needed to ensure government agenciues did not crush their opponents by unfairly using the resources at their disposal.
“There can’t be anything more intimidating than the commonwealth as an defendant, be4cause what it can do in resources is kill you in one way or another, or drag things out or not enter into fair negotiations,” he said.
R.O.L.I has handed a legislative blueprint to Attorney General George Brandis that would allow the courts to enforce model litigant guidelines.
Mr Speed said the Productivity Commission’s draft report had shown new enforcement measures were needed, and there was not enough incentive for agencies to comply with the rules.
“Clearly, the present system of internal review has not worked effectively or consistently, ” he said.
The Attorney general’s department appears not to want the job of monitoring other departments.”
Mr Speed met with Senator Brandis before Christmas to discuss possible changes to the existing framework and sent a proposed Bill to the Attorney general earlier this year.
He said if the Bill were adopted, it would be up to the courts to decide on an appropriate remedy for any breach of the model litigant rules.
The productivity Commission has sought advice on whether the model litigant rules should apply in other cases where there is a power imbalance, for example those involving large corporations or self represented litigants.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said in his experience the commonwealth had a high level of compliance with model litigant guidelines.
:
COMMENTS:
Stan van de Wiel,
…..there was not enough incentive for agencies to comply with the rules…. What kind of incentive are these creatures after, praise, payment on top of their bloated salaries. What about professional conduct. …….."Mark Dreyfus said in his experience the commonwealth had a high level of compliance with model litigant guidelines”…… The commonwealth should have an absolute level of compliance. If Surgeons or Pilots were to conduct themselves in such manner there would be deaths. Why are Judges condoning such methods, can’t they recognise them from professional conduct or is it because all judges have come up under a similar system and regard this behaviour as the ethical norm.
Stan van de Wiel,
…..there was not enough incentive for agencies to comply with the rules…. What kind of incentive are these creatures after, praise, payment on top of their bloated salaries. What about professional conduct. …….."Mark Dreyfus said in his experience the commonwealth had a high level of compliance with model litigant guidelines”…… The commonwealth should have an absolute level of compliance. If Surgeons or Pilots were to conduct themselves in such manner there would be deaths. Why are Judges condoning such methods, can’t they recognise them from professional conduct or is it because all judges have come up under a similar system and regard this behaviour as the ethical norm.
@RoLAustralia cont/- For examples on @CASABriefing MLR abuse look no further than #Proaviation #ASRR submission here ProAviation?s submission to the ASRR | Pro Aviation …
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs, sounds good in theory. And the IOS would be supportive of such changes, however there is no incentive for Government to even contemplate Mr Speed's suggestions. Government like being non accountable. They have no conscience nor do they accept that its constituents have the right to be treated honestly and fairly. It will never ever happen. Can you imagine someone like the ATO acting fairly? Not charging 200% interest penalties on some poor small business owner who is going broke thanks to some ridiculous unethical compliance law suddenly thrust upon the business owner out of the blue? He loses his business plus gets to pay up to 200% interest rate! What is that figure based upon? Why so much? How can that be justified?
No, Frank has the right idea - civil disobedience. It would only take a few hundred thousand people to tell the government to stick its silly rules up its a#s, or to force the laws around speed cameras to be repealed (or the vans torched), to remove politicians outrageous salaries and perks or to kick the PM of the day out of his opulent special palace overlooking the harbour and put a hundred poor homeless souls in there.
Long live the IOS
No, Frank has the right idea - civil disobedience. It would only take a few hundred thousand people to tell the government to stick its silly rules up its a#s, or to force the laws around speed cameras to be repealed (or the vans torched), to remove politicians outrageous salaries and perks or to kick the PM of the day out of his opulent special palace overlooking the harbour and put a hundred poor homeless souls in there.
Long live the IOS
Para377, there is a rather large incentive for Government to enforce model litigant rules on itself. Its called trust.
As Francis Fukuyama wrote in his book : "Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity", without trust the economy is poorer because transaction costs of doing business skyrocket, often to the point where no business can be transacted at all.
I would argue that if the lack of trust of CASA is as endemic as Pprune folk would have us believe, then look no further for the cause of the decline of the Aviation industry.
You cannot invest, employ and grow any business if you cannot manage the business risks involved and one of those risks is capricious action by CASA. The only way to mitigate that risk is through a robust defence in an unbiased Court of law, but CASA has already shown itself, if Pprune is to be believed, that it will not play by the rules.
To put that another way, what person in their right mind would want to start an airline let alone manufacture a certified aircraft in this country?
As Francis Fukuyama wrote in his book : "Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity", without trust the economy is poorer because transaction costs of doing business skyrocket, often to the point where no business can be transacted at all.
I would argue that if the lack of trust of CASA is as endemic as Pprune folk would have us believe, then look no further for the cause of the decline of the Aviation industry.
You cannot invest, employ and grow any business if you cannot manage the business risks involved and one of those risks is capricious action by CASA. The only way to mitigate that risk is through a robust defence in an unbiased Court of law, but CASA has already shown itself, if Pprune is to be believed, that it will not play by the rules.
To put that another way, what person in their right mind would want to start an airline let alone manufacture a certified aircraft in this country?
You cannot invest, employ and grow any business if you cannot manage the business risks involved and one of those risks is capricious action by CASA.
Addressing this situation, the dearth of sources of capital for investment in small aviation enterprises was one of the issues to be addressed by the PAP/CASA Review in 1997, it was well recognised at the time, and the problem was addressed in the then Government election policy: Soaring Into Tomorrow.
There have been at least two more studies, of which I am aware, on this subject since, I have looked for but have not found copies.
However, they all make the same point, that the CASA arbitrary and capricious interpretations of very unsatisfactory aviation regulation, and the lack of avenues of reasonable redress at affordable costs, seriously undermines any potential for investment in aviation.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would argue that if the lack of trust of CASA is as endemic as PPRuNe folk would have us believe, then look no further for the cause of the decline of the Aviation industry.
Yes Sunny, I can see how government is embracing its incentive to 'do the right thing'. And I'm sorry mate but the litany of hangers-on, advisors, more advisors, policy writers, PMC and so forth have and are achieving jack ****.
Goodbye GA...
If there are persons in CAsA that believe that the air over Oz should be traversed only by F18s and B 737s A 320s etc...then the paper re anything else must have been titled "Sawing Off Tomorrow".
The other two study papers were titled.. "Lets Fcuk over GA".. and.. "Time to Finish It Off". Its all a 25+ year old 'work in progress'...can't cut off the trough too soon.
Post May...when the Truss ASRR is bound and basted, industry and individual submissions sidelined and any REAL action/fixes watered down to homeopathic concentrations,then we the people/the IOS/ the victims (JQ et al) really will have to get somehow serious.
The survival of GA, and the sanity of its participants, will depend on it.
The other two study papers were titled.. "Lets Fcuk over GA".. and.. "Time to Finish It Off".
Its all a 25+ year old 'work in progress'...can't cut off the trough too soon.Post May...when the Truss ASRR is bound and basted, industry and individual submissions sidelined and any REAL action/fixes watered down to homeopathic concentrations,then we the people/the IOS/ the victims (JQ et al) really will have to get somehow serious.
The survival of GA, and the sanity of its participants, will depend on it.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gary the goat unveiled?
Gary the goat actually Gary Harbor? Just asking the question.
My quote taken from the below link:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Part 1 CASA's people
Now that's a trip down memory lane! Wonder where geni-talia is these days? What a motley crew!
Gary Harbor joined CASA in April 2005, with an extensive private sector background in human resources. He has been a personnel manager for Toyota; General Manager, Human Resources, at Email Metals; and head of human resources at the pharmaceutical firm Sigma Company. He has degrees in arts and economics and an MBA.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Part 1 CASA's people
Now that's a trip down memory lane! Wonder where geni-talia is these days? What a motley crew!
