Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Sarcs...
Probably. And Australia had plenty of time to think about the new Annex 19, too.
Some items of interest from the ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010
SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS
Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process
44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes…
Also, and relevant to the PEL-AIR investigation debacle...
Topic 3.2: Safety initiatives arising from recent accidents
61. In summarizing the discussion the Chairman outlined the conclusions reached:
…
b) that it is not acceptable that an accident cannot be completely investigated due to the lack of availability of the recorded data [my bolding]. As a result, ICAO should pursue as a matter of high priority a review of SARPs and guidance materials with the aim of proposing to States for consideration any amendment which would be necessary to ensure that the data necessary to support investigation of accidents are available, including provisions for the recovery of data and information from flight recorders [my bolding]…
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
I wonder how much that little jaunt cost Australia?
The management clowns at the ATSB mustn't be aware of the summary for Topic 3.2 re recovery of data from recorders, and it makes the differences filed by Australia for Annex 13 re resource limitations look pretty bloody stupid I reckon, particularly when you look at the previous ATSB involvement of the last of the listed participants.
The mind boggles.
Q/ Were we the first ICAO signatory State to submit notified differences to, the freshly minted, Annex 19 i.e. SSP??
Some items of interest from the ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010
SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS
Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process
44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes…
Also, and relevant to the PEL-AIR investigation debacle...
Topic 3.2: Safety initiatives arising from recent accidents
61. In summarizing the discussion the Chairman outlined the conclusions reached:
…
b) that it is not acceptable that an accident cannot be completely investigated due to the lack of availability of the recorded data [my bolding]. As a result, ICAO should pursue as a matter of high priority a review of SARPs and guidance materials with the aim of proposing to States for consideration any amendment which would be necessary to ensure that the data necessary to support investigation of accidents are available, including provisions for the recovery of data and information from flight recorders [my bolding]…
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
I wonder how much that little jaunt cost Australia?
The management clowns at the ATSB mustn't be aware of the summary for Topic 3.2 re recovery of data from recorders, and it makes the differences filed by Australia for Annex 13 re resource limitations look pretty bloody stupid I reckon, particularly when you look at the previous ATSB involvement of the last of the listed participants.
The mind boggles.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The committee chairman reiterated his early comments that there was no silver bullet for regulatory reform"
Yes there is, a simple rewrite of the act, then adopt Kiwi Regs!!
Simple, easy, cost effective.
Would save a whole industry from oblivion, the Taxpayer a poultice of money and lead to better safety outcomes.
Yes there is, a simple rewrite of the act, then adopt Kiwi Regs!!
Simple, easy, cost effective.
Would save a whole industry from oblivion, the Taxpayer a poultice of money and lead to better safety outcomes.
Jeez...
CASA just does NOT bloody get it!
ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010
SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS
Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process
44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes
unanimous
/juːˈnanɪməs/
adjective
(of two or more people) fully in agreement.
"the doctors were unanimous in their diagnoses"
So, it means the Australian delegates (yes, the 9 of them) agreed with the establishment of Annex 19.
So how come Australia has already filed a difference with paragraph 3.1.4 of ICAO Annex 19 along the lines that there is:
Yes there bloody-well IS a requirement for those general aviation operators to have an SMS, and it's been a STANDARD in ICAO Annex 6 Part II ** which applies to those operators for some time (at least since 2008), as follows:
** July 2008 edition
The shall means it's a mandatory requirement - so there should have been some definitive action by CASA to ratify the requirement into the regulatory system by now, rather than simply (still) 'considering' the requirement (standard) nearly six years later. FFS
I really want to know how come the CASA delegates agreed with the proposed Annex 19 SMS requirements in 2010, yet CASA is still only 'considering' the SAME requirement as it relates to Annex 19 and Annex 6 Part II four years later (2014), despite the fact that its been an ICAO standard since at least 2008?
So, while we've filed a difference for GA SMS requirements per paragraph 3.1.4 OF Annex 19, there doesn't seem to be a difference filed for the same GA SMS requirement (standard) per paragraph 3.3.2.1 of ICAO Annex 6, presumably because Australian legislation doesn't specifically define 'Corporate Aviation'.
Am I missing something here, or is it a fact that these idiots (CASA management) really haven't got a clue?
CASA just does NOT bloody get it!
ICAO HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2010 held in Montréal, 29 March – 1 April 2010
SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS
Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process
44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes
unanimous
/juːˈnanɪməs/
adjective
(of two or more people) fully in agreement.
"the doctors were unanimous in their diagnoses"
So, it means the Australian delegates (yes, the 9 of them) agreed with the establishment of Annex 19.
So how come Australia has already filed a difference with paragraph 3.1.4 of ICAO Annex 19 along the lines that there is:
No existing requirement for general aviation operators of large or turbojet aeroplanes to have an SMS, however, consideration is being given to this.
3.3.2 Safety management system
3.3.2.1 An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation.
3.3.2.1 An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation.
The shall means it's a mandatory requirement - so there should have been some definitive action by CASA to ratify the requirement into the regulatory system by now, rather than simply (still) 'considering' the requirement (standard) nearly six years later. FFS
I really want to know how come the CASA delegates agreed with the proposed Annex 19 SMS requirements in 2010, yet CASA is still only 'considering' the SAME requirement as it relates to Annex 19 and Annex 6 Part II four years later (2014), despite the fact that its been an ICAO standard since at least 2008?
So, while we've filed a difference for GA SMS requirements per paragraph 3.1.4 OF Annex 19, there doesn't seem to be a difference filed for the same GA SMS requirement (standard) per paragraph 3.3.2.1 of ICAO Annex 6, presumably because Australian legislation doesn't specifically define 'Corporate Aviation'.
Am I missing something here, or is it a fact that these idiots (CASA management) really haven't got a clue?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better grab the KY boys
Sunfish #781 nails it! Nothing will change at the core. The patch over has started - 2 more Board members to cover the Miniscules ass, and McComick leaves in August. There you have it, all fixed, nothing to see, move on, problem solved. I have heard that Terry will go around the same time that his Master leaves, and another rumour is Dr Voodoo will also toddle off to another gig somewhere, but that is yet to be confirmed. Either way, some members of the iron ring remain and some of their apprentices who have been groomed for some time will step straight into the empty shoes. Then the tautological process of malfeasance will continue, but at the hands of a very very angry Fort Fumble. These gods of thunder will be bringing hell upon those who dared to submit a diatribe or two towards them by way of submitting towards the WLR! This is fertile ground for the sociopaths and sycophants and the IOS are the prefect fodder for which they will satisfy their lust for revenge. Fort Fumble have the code to the WLR safe where all submissions are safely and robustly kept, and once Forsyth, Spruston and Whitefield have left the building, well, the Iron Ring will access that safe quicker than a teen boy accessing his dad's Hustler collection (or perhaps Ribald collection)
Aviators of Australia, grab your ankles and curl your toes as the real buggery is about to begin! Hell haveth no mercy like a CAsA employee thrust into the spotlight!
Toot toot
Aviators of Australia, grab your ankles and curl your toes as the real buggery is about to begin! Hell haveth no mercy like a CAsA employee thrust into the spotlight!
Toot toot
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better learn to share the KY.
004 - There are more way to skin a cat than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Horrible, I know but it's early). See the – Senate - thread for a more 'robust' response. (Evil icon).
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps.
Oil and gas etc demand you have it. Why what dose it give you. I found Australian in our industry are really pretty good at it with out training with being told if you walk into a prop its more than likely going to hurt.
At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good we still have two systems either FAA or ESSA which neither really suits use here in Australia. Maybe the flying side more than engineering. Our population here is so small yet our country so vast. Did we really have a problem with our system before they turned it into muck. No it may not have been prefect but it worked. And as the traveling roads show guy said oh the Europeans think we have a better system than they have, my return was so we throwing the baby out with the bath water. Well his tacho went of the limiter.
So what have we been left with, a system that not working is still not recognized by anyone else and a plie of paper work muck making money from nothing costing shed loads and really giving us nothing in return,
But least im not bitter and twisted just yet.
Normal programing will return shortly
Cheers
Oil and gas etc demand you have it. Why what dose it give you. I found Australian in our industry are really pretty good at it with out training with being told if you walk into a prop its more than likely going to hurt.
At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good we still have two systems either FAA or ESSA which neither really suits use here in Australia. Maybe the flying side more than engineering. Our population here is so small yet our country so vast. Did we really have a problem with our system before they turned it into muck. No it may not have been prefect but it worked. And as the traveling roads show guy said oh the Europeans think we have a better system than they have, my return was so we throwing the baby out with the bath water. Well his tacho went of the limiter.
So what have we been left with, a system that not working is still not recognized by anyone else and a plie of paper work muck making money from nothing costing shed loads and really giving us nothing in return,
But least im not bitter and twisted just yet.
Normal programing will return shortly
Cheers
Mayday..mayday..mayday!
Top catch SIUYA at post #782 & #785….
“..SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS
Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process
44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes..”
Meanwhile, in Fort Fumble’s parallel universe, the middle management minions were busy enacting their MAP to roger DJ and the ATsB, while attempting to cover up their obvious shortcomings to properly oversight the PelAir operation.
Anyone else see the irony in the two universes?
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
Looking at all the participants from Oz, I also find it more than ‘passing strange’ that Beaker’s crew did not get a look in?? After all the principle body that is fundamental to a successful State SSP is it’s fully independent AAI.
Oh well perhaps bean counter Beaker’s budgetary constraints couldn’t stretch to paying a couple of economy class airfares to Montreal…
In regards to Annex 19 & in the context of the WLR panel report, unlike CAsA, hopefully the panel will have not missed the significance and importance that ICAO place on Annex 19 as the lynch pin that ties all the other ICAO SARPs together. This significance was certainly not missed by several of the submitters to the WLR, who have asked for the Govt to seriously consider reviewing/updating our version of the SSP (State Safety Program i.e. Annex 19).
Examples…
Sports Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) submission:
2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)
a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.
Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submission:
5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
It is worth reflecting on the ALA submission because the main author of their submission was Joseph Wheeler from Shine Lawyers. This bloke has a real handle on our obligations, as a signatory state, to the ICAO SARPs and in particular Annex 19. Couple of quotes from the ALA submission…
“…Despite Australia’s admirable domestic and international air safety record, and its respected place among International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) States, Australia does not occupy as high a place as it should in terms of international adherence to ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) – the principal measure of a nation’s air safety oversight obligations…”
And from Part ‘5. Systemic oversight issues following Lockhart River crash in 2005’…
“…In the aftermath of the Lockhart River crash it is recognised that the broader trend worldwide towards risk assessment and management led to the development and approaches being implemented at the operational level by CASA. See for example, the publication “SMS for Aviation – A practical guide: Safety Management System Basics”.51
The ALA’s submission is that while there is now a proactive aviation atmosphere with respect to safety risk management for aviation service providers, as evidenced by CASA’s reliance on such principles in preparing its own responses to SARPs on fatigue risk management and drug and alcohol risk management in aviation, these principles should also not be forgotten in the broader context of the results which can eventuate in the absence of such principles in guiding surveillance or oversight of AOC holders (such as the crash at Lockhart River).
Thus, the ALA recommends and endorses updating of the Australian State Safety Program, as published on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, as this was last considered in April 2012, well before the commencement of Annex 19.52 The benefit of this would be to demonstrate to the public the Government’s continuing adherence to regulatory oversight and surveillance at a national level and inspire confidence in smaller air operators to embrace safety risk management principles in the management of their aviation businesses…”
Joseph Wheeler has also produced some excellent articles, published on the Shine Lawyers blog site, on the MH370 search and accident investigation:
MH370 investigation: roles, responsibilities and rule changes
MH370 Preliminary Report released
But his latest article perhaps best highlights the essential role that ICAO play in governing how a signatory state must predictively act after a tragic air disaster has occurred.
MH370 search for answers and ICAO work to track airliners
In this case the ICAO SARPs, along with international community, has helped remind the Malaysians of their obligations to the victims and their families of flight MH370.
Joseph Wheeler’s article also displays how all the ICAO SARPs are intrinsically linked. If you follow the JW Annex 13 reference (i.e. Ch 5.27):
5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall be entitled to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information which is approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation; and
c) receive a copy of the Final Report.
This will not preclude the State from also assisting in the identification of victims and in meetings with survivors from that State.
Note.— Guidance related to assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families is provided in the Guidance on Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and their Families (Circ 285).
Link for Circ 285 HERE & ICAO Annex 9, Chapter 8, Section (I) can be viewed HERE
yr right’s comments…
“…SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps…”
“…At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good…”
yr right is right that SMS & Annex 19 is yet another impost to industry stakeholders and is largely based on ‘common sense’. yr right is not right when it comes to ICAO and their SARPs.
Since the Chicago Convention 1944, the ICAO SARPs have been evolving and are produced from over a 110 years of collective (some tragically) international air safety lessons learnt. Those bothersome Human Factors experts may have had a large part in the writing and design of Annex 19, however their combined efforts are not just based on a whim. HF experts in aviation basically study why it is we humans continue to make fundamental errors while committing aviation. They also look at ways to lessen the occurrence & severity of these errors. Annex 19 is a reflection of HF expert research over a good 50 or so years.
That is why it is a total abomination that our numb nuts in CAsA and the Dept (there are Dept names in that list) have the audacity to spend untold millions of taxpayer monies going on junkets to Montreal to show, on paper at least, that we are an ICAO compliant State. But in reality we are merely paying lip service to the ‘Spirit & Intent’ of over 70 years of collective ICAO wisdom…
One can only hope that the ALA recommendation 5 features somewhere near the top of the list of WLR recommendations and the miniscule takes heed, hopefully sometime before Mr ICAO eventually comes knocking…
TICK bloody TOCK!
“..SUMMARIES OF DISCUSSIONS
Topic 2.5: Implementing new safety management process
44. There was unanimous support for the establishment of a new Annex [19] to the Convention dedicated to safety management responsibilities and processes..”
Meanwhile, in Fort Fumble’s parallel universe, the middle management minions were busy enacting their MAP to roger DJ and the ATsB, while attempting to cover up their obvious shortcomings to properly oversight the PelAir operation.
Anyone else see the irony in the two universes?
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
Looking at all the participants from Oz, I also find it more than ‘passing strange’ that Beaker’s crew did not get a look in?? After all the principle body that is fundamental to a successful State SSP is it’s fully independent AAI.
Oh well perhaps bean counter Beaker’s budgetary constraints couldn’t stretch to paying a couple of economy class airfares to Montreal…
In regards to Annex 19 & in the context of the WLR panel report, unlike CAsA, hopefully the panel will have not missed the significance and importance that ICAO place on Annex 19 as the lynch pin that ties all the other ICAO SARPs together. This significance was certainly not missed by several of the submitters to the WLR, who have asked for the Govt to seriously consider reviewing/updating our version of the SSP (State Safety Program i.e. Annex 19).
Examples…
Sports Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) submission:
2) The Government review the State Safety Program (SSP)
a) The SSP concept as articulated in Annex 19 is the basis of how a State administers aviation oversight and reporting at the state level and internationally to ICAO.
b) Recommend the Government overhaul the SSP and use it to administer all aviation activities in Australia not as a spectator role it takes at present.
Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submission:
5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
It is worth reflecting on the ALA submission because the main author of their submission was Joseph Wheeler from Shine Lawyers. This bloke has a real handle on our obligations, as a signatory state, to the ICAO SARPs and in particular Annex 19. Couple of quotes from the ALA submission…
“…Despite Australia’s admirable domestic and international air safety record, and its respected place among International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) States, Australia does not occupy as high a place as it should in terms of international adherence to ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) – the principal measure of a nation’s air safety oversight obligations…”
And from Part ‘5. Systemic oversight issues following Lockhart River crash in 2005’…
“…In the aftermath of the Lockhart River crash it is recognised that the broader trend worldwide towards risk assessment and management led to the development and approaches being implemented at the operational level by CASA. See for example, the publication “SMS for Aviation – A practical guide: Safety Management System Basics”.51
The ALA’s submission is that while there is now a proactive aviation atmosphere with respect to safety risk management for aviation service providers, as evidenced by CASA’s reliance on such principles in preparing its own responses to SARPs on fatigue risk management and drug and alcohol risk management in aviation, these principles should also not be forgotten in the broader context of the results which can eventuate in the absence of such principles in guiding surveillance or oversight of AOC holders (such as the crash at Lockhart River).
Thus, the ALA recommends and endorses updating of the Australian State Safety Program, as published on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, as this was last considered in April 2012, well before the commencement of Annex 19.52 The benefit of this would be to demonstrate to the public the Government’s continuing adherence to regulatory oversight and surveillance at a national level and inspire confidence in smaller air operators to embrace safety risk management principles in the management of their aviation businesses…”
Joseph Wheeler has also produced some excellent articles, published on the Shine Lawyers blog site, on the MH370 search and accident investigation:
MH370 investigation: roles, responsibilities and rule changes
MH370 Preliminary Report released
But his latest article perhaps best highlights the essential role that ICAO play in governing how a signatory state must predictively act after a tragic air disaster has occurred.
MH370 search for answers and ICAO work to track airliners
One rule in Annex 13 is that countries which have a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens are entitled to “have access to relevant factual information which [are] approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation”: Ch 5.27 at 5-8 – 5-9. While it has been argued that no-one knows better than accident investigators the importance of their role (to make aviation safer) we maintained (less than 2 weeks after the aircraft’s disappearance) that:
… passengers’ families need to be represented within investigations, both during the search phase and during the investigation phase. … It is only these people, with their human feelings and passionate concerns for answers (owing to their unique losses and experience), which can serve to remind investigators of the reason they are doing what they are doing – to prevent the suffering which has been caused to family members – not the lofty ambition of “making aviation safer” (a trite comment in the context of the shared global pain of those hoping with the families of MH370 passengers to get answers).
We do not depart from those views.
… passengers’ families need to be represented within investigations, both during the search phase and during the investigation phase. … It is only these people, with their human feelings and passionate concerns for answers (owing to their unique losses and experience), which can serve to remind investigators of the reason they are doing what they are doing – to prevent the suffering which has been caused to family members – not the lofty ambition of “making aviation safer” (a trite comment in the context of the shared global pain of those hoping with the families of MH370 passengers to get answers).
We do not depart from those views.
Joseph Wheeler’s article also displays how all the ICAO SARPs are intrinsically linked. If you follow the JW Annex 13 reference (i.e. Ch 5.27):
5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall be entitled to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information which is approved for public release by the State conducting the investigation, and information on the progress of the investigation; and
c) receive a copy of the Final Report.
This will not preclude the State from also assisting in the identification of victims and in meetings with survivors from that State.
Note.— Guidance related to assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families is provided in the Guidance on Assistance to Aircraft Accident Victims and their Families (Circ 285).
Link for Circ 285 HERE & ICAO Annex 9, Chapter 8, Section (I) can be viewed HERE
yr right’s comments…
“…SMS what by any other name is basic common sense. Same as Human factors is. But oh gee we now all have to do it or we are all unsafe. Its these extras that at the end of the day don't really amount to anything but are costing industry heaps…”
“…At the end of the day ICAO whilst it sounds good…”
yr right is right that SMS & Annex 19 is yet another impost to industry stakeholders and is largely based on ‘common sense’. yr right is not right when it comes to ICAO and their SARPs.
Since the Chicago Convention 1944, the ICAO SARPs have been evolving and are produced from over a 110 years of collective (some tragically) international air safety lessons learnt. Those bothersome Human Factors experts may have had a large part in the writing and design of Annex 19, however their combined efforts are not just based on a whim. HF experts in aviation basically study why it is we humans continue to make fundamental errors while committing aviation. They also look at ways to lessen the occurrence & severity of these errors. Annex 19 is a reflection of HF expert research over a good 50 or so years.
That is why it is a total abomination that our numb nuts in CAsA and the Dept (there are Dept names in that list) have the audacity to spend untold millions of taxpayer monies going on junkets to Montreal to show, on paper at least, that we are an ICAO compliant State. But in reality we are merely paying lip service to the ‘Spirit & Intent’ of over 70 years of collective ICAO wisdom…
One can only hope that the ALA recommendation 5 features somewhere near the top of the list of WLR recommendations and the miniscule takes heed, hopefully sometime before Mr ICAO eventually comes knocking…
TICK bloody TOCK!
Last edited by Sarcs; 25th May 2014 at 00:43.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I understand ICAO it still has two separate base systems Why is there not one and then who is to say which one is right, Now remember this is a paper work exercise the aircraft is maintained to the same standard.
On the HF course what a crock. Now they saying every two years come on give me a break. I can fly to the USA out of the east coast cheaper and quicker than to get to Melbourne to do it from here, and for what. Nothing that's really going to impact the way I or anyone conducts themselves in the course of Maintenance. We do HF every day while we work. Its not new its called common sense. Common sense is real its in the dictionary when its removed then its not but while ever its there the goody goodys cant say there is no such thing.
In about 1999/2000 there was a CASA seminar at Milperra on the changes in maintenance that they where purposing.
me I ask why the change
Them we dont like you doing your studys over the kitchen table
me you saying we in this room (more than 100 people all industry airlines to ga) are all incompetent
them no not saying that
me hands up every one in this room that did (everyone did ) you are
Them no no im not
Me you did
some more questions where asked and then I asked
Me how are people in remote areas going to be able to do there exams and study under this system
Them they be able to do via correspondence
Me WHAT OVER THE KITCHEN TABLE.
What a mess we find ourselves into now I keep saying we never been placed in such a dangerous environment than what we are in now.
And even now with all the changes that where made our Lic system is still not recognized any where else. Now remember how long they tried to get this in, Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it
In the old days it would have been called treason
Cheers
On the HF course what a crock. Now they saying every two years come on give me a break. I can fly to the USA out of the east coast cheaper and quicker than to get to Melbourne to do it from here, and for what. Nothing that's really going to impact the way I or anyone conducts themselves in the course of Maintenance. We do HF every day while we work. Its not new its called common sense. Common sense is real its in the dictionary when its removed then its not but while ever its there the goody goodys cant say there is no such thing.
In about 1999/2000 there was a CASA seminar at Milperra on the changes in maintenance that they where purposing.
me I ask why the change
Them we dont like you doing your studys over the kitchen table
me you saying we in this room (more than 100 people all industry airlines to ga) are all incompetent
them no not saying that
me hands up every one in this room that did (everyone did ) you are
Them no no im not
Me you did
some more questions where asked and then I asked
Me how are people in remote areas going to be able to do there exams and study under this system
Them they be able to do via correspondence
Me WHAT OVER THE KITCHEN TABLE.
What a mess we find ourselves into now I keep saying we never been placed in such a dangerous environment than what we are in now.
And even now with all the changes that where made our Lic system is still not recognized any where else. Now remember how long they tried to get this in, Mainly one large Aust airline pushed it
In the old days it would have been called treason
Cheers
Last edited by yr right; 25th May 2014 at 01:18. Reason: added nt to dont
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep it was Qantas. Just means they don't have to traine engineers in the whole aircraft.
Typical q but f u we ok. Or Qantas syndrome really we the best you all no f all. Worst job I ever held.
Cheers
Typical q but f u we ok. Or Qantas syndrome really we the best you all no f all. Worst job I ever held.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oink oink
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
AUSTRALIA
MCCORMICK J. CD
FARQUARSON T. ACD
TIEDE A.H.R. ANC
ALECK J. D
BOYD P. D
BROOKS L. D
DOHERTY J. D
EVANS P.K. D
MACAULEY K. D
What a joke.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes – but it's essential CASA goes to Montreal - not the ATSB. CASA frame the AIP; thus controlling the register of the 97 page 'differences' catalogue; including those to Annexe 6, 13 and 19. ATSB must, as handmaiden (submissive or catamite) to the safety authority, remember to change their bags before being booted in the arse: lest the CASA boot get dirty. It's a sad, shameful business we pay for. Legal?- "Of course it is M'lud".
Last edited by Kharon; 26th May 2014 at 21:54.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senator Heff stirring the Parliament pot!!
A chocky frog for the Heff 
He has been concerned about security in Can'tberra's most holy of holy for some time! So he pulled this stunt;
Senator Bill Heffernan smuggles fake 'pipe bomb' into Parliament House, says building 'no longer secure' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Now I can only hope that perhaps Fawcett or Xenophon brandish a dodgy NCN or an 'ICAO intention to audit Australia letter' and sneak it into Fort Fumbles Brisbane H/O, and watch everyone also running for the door!!
He has been concerned about security in Can'tberra's most holy of holy for some time! So he pulled this stunt;
Senator Bill Heffernan smuggles fake 'pipe bomb' into Parliament House, says building 'no longer secure' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Now I can only hope that perhaps Fawcett or Xenophon brandish a dodgy NCN or an 'ICAO intention to audit Australia letter' and sneak it into Fort Fumbles Brisbane H/O, and watch everyone also running for the door!!
The ICAO 'gravy train'
004wercras ...
There's a whole lot more people involved with ICAO-centric jolly's and troughs than the ones previously posted I'm afraid.
See: Australian Involvement with ICAO Panels, Committees, Study Groups, Regional Planning Groups Etc
There's more than 80 people listed here that are involved with the ICAO 'gravy train' by virtue of Australia being a Contracting State.
Nice work if you can get it! The mind boggles at the $$$'s that must be involved here.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet that all of the listed panellists/committee members/secretariat study 'groupies'/working 'groupies'/ANC panellists/regional planning panellists/others/AN study 'groupies' and task force members don't limit their participation to e-meetings.
There's a whole lot more people involved with ICAO-centric jolly's and troughs than the ones previously posted I'm afraid.
See: Australian Involvement with ICAO Panels, Committees, Study Groups, Regional Planning Groups Etc
There's more than 80 people listed here that are involved with the ICAO 'gravy train' by virtue of Australia being a Contracting State.
Nice work if you can get it! The mind boggles at the $$$'s that must be involved here.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet that all of the listed panellists/committee members/secretariat study 'groupies'/working 'groupies'/ANC panellists/regional planning panellists/others/AN study 'groupies' and task force members don't limit their participation to e-meetings.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toot Toot - No seats left!
SIUYA, agreed, nice if you can land a free seat aboard the ICAO gravy train! All these 'safety related experts' with an annual bill that runs into the millions, yet Australia, by way of CAsA has managed to not complete its regulatory reform program in 25 years with a cost approaching $300 million, the ATsB has folded into a laughing stock and been steered into the depths of a bottomless pit filled with pooh, our industry has been buggerised, pulverised and euthanised, and the consensus in many circles is that Australia is equal to most of the bottom layer third world civil aviation outfits!
Yep, all that money, time and resources that has been outlaid has achieved????
Toot toot
Yep, all that money, time and resources that has been outlaid has achieved????
Toot toot
For What It's Worth
For what it is worth the last two names are the outgoing/ingoing Australia Reps in the ICAO and at the time lived in Montreal.
Someone mentioned she was a bureaucrat in Department who spent time in ATSB.
Obviously, a stringent selection process before MM gave her the tax payer funded golden ticket.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While on the subject of overseas junkets, interesting article in todays Sydney Telegraph. Seems the previous Guvmint put aside $370 mil to fund things for the upcoming G20 meeting in BN with no clear rules regarding its disbursement.
Fat cats, as fat cats do, rubbed their hands with glee and dived in, spreading taxpayer largesse around on cruises down the Rhine, superyacht trips around the harbor etc. until the PM's department stepped in and put a brake on it.
Seems to me the PM's dept should have a long hard look at CAsA.
Easily more than $370 mil pissed up against the wall on regulatory "Reform"(CAsA's word for it certainly not industries) and god knows how much on junkets to Montreal. They talk about waste, the whole of CAsA is a wasted space.
Fat cats, as fat cats do, rubbed their hands with glee and dived in, spreading taxpayer largesse around on cruises down the Rhine, superyacht trips around the harbor etc. until the PM's department stepped in and put a brake on it.
Seems to me the PM's dept should have a long hard look at CAsA.
Easily more than $370 mil pissed up against the wall on regulatory "Reform"(CAsA's word for it certainly not industries) and god knows how much on junkets to Montreal. They talk about waste, the whole of CAsA is a wasted space.