|
TICK TOCK
By the way is there any word on Senator X and his push to reopen the Inquiry to review the AF447 final report? Where's that broom and where is some carpet??? Nick, keep fighting the fight. They may be able to clip your wings but at least when the first charred bodies are pulled from a burning pit you can rest well at night knowing that you tried. You're a damn champion. Too decent for Politics:ok: TICK TOCK |
Interesting
Interesting bit of adhoc information I came across.
Rio-Paris airbus crash 'might have been prevented' if pilots had been briefed on previous incident John Lichfield Paris Tuesday 17 July 2012 A French investigating judge is examining evidence that the Rio-Paris airbus crash might have been prevented if the pilots had been briefed on a terrifying incident the previous year. According to an online update (http://www.airfrance447crash.com/) to a book on the crash, which will appear in print shortly, Air France and Airbus failed to notify pilots about a crisis aboard a Paris to Madagascar flight on 16 August 2008 that bore striking resemblances to the chain of calamities which befell flight AF447 over the south Atlantic nine months later. An American writer and aviation expert, Roger Rapoport, says the events aboard the Air France Madagascar flight – and the successful action taken by its pilot to prevent a crash – are now central to the Rio-Paris manslaughter investigation which is being conducted by a French judge, Sylvie Zimmerman. Mr Rapoport says an independent study by aviation experts sent to the judge last week took a much tougher line on the possible criminal responsibilities of Airbus and Air France than the inconclusive final report of the French air accident investigation bureau, the BEA, the previous week. His book reveals that the experts’ criticism is based partly on events aboard an Airbus 340, AF flight 373, from Paris to Tananarive in Madagascar in August 2008. The pilot of the Madgasacar flight lost reliable indication of his airspeed because the recorders, or pitot tubes, had iced up. Amid heavy turbulence he descended to 4,000 feet, turning off the instructions from the aircraft’s computerised guidance system or ‘flight director’. Much the same circumstances led to the crash of AF 447 in the south Atlantic on 1 June 2009, which killed 228 passengers and crew. In that case, however, the crew lifted the plane’s nose and made a series of other calamitous misjudgements which led the aircraft to plunge into the ocean. The BEA report suggested the crash was caused by a mixture of systems’ failure and pilot error. It did suggest, however, that the pilots may have been led into error by the computerised fight director. Air France and Airbus were placed under formal investigation for manslaughter in March last year. Judge Zimmermann must decide whether to recommend that criminal charges should be brought against either company or both. Mr Rapoport quotes a veteran French aviation expert as saying: “If Air France and Airbus had done the right thing and notified Airbus pilots about the specifics of this near disaster on the Madagascar bound flight, new emergency procedures and better training certainly could have saved the lives of 228 passengers and crew…” Jacques Rocca, a spokesman for Airbus, contacted by The Independent today, dismissed these conclusions as “false… just plain wrong.” He added: “To suggest that we failed to warn airlines or pilots that flight directors are unreliable when the pitot tubes fail is absurd. All pilots know this already.” Mr Rapoport told the Independent: “The BEA report makes it clear that that 'the absence of any (pilot) training at high altitude in manual aeroplane handing’ and the failure of ‘feedback mechanisms’ made it impossible to apply the correct recovery procedures. The Madagascar flight was a case-book example of how pilots should react but the details were not circulated.” A French lawyer who represents families of victims of the crash, Maitre Stephane Busy, confirmed to The Independent today that the Madagascar incident formed part of the judicial inquiry. He said: “The problem is that putting the ‘flight director’ on ‘off’ is recommended but… there is no reminder on the instruments panel. Air France and Airbus knew that this could be a problem but they allowed their aircraft to continue to fly.” Cedric Leurquin, an Air France spokesman, said the Madagascar flight incident has been “normally analysed” and “concerned stakeholders were informed”. He added: “For the rest… Air France…adheres faithfully to the BEA's analyses published on July 5.” Mr Rapoport’s book is an updated English language version of a book published in French last year. It went online last night and will appear in a print version shortly as “The Rio-Paris Crash; Air France 447”. |
He said: “The problem is that putting the ‘flight director’ on ‘off’ is recommended but… there is no reminder on the instruments panel. Huge law suits then result. |
Well the memory items for unreliable speed which the Pilots at the controls should have actioned are there plain as day.
All they had to do was 'do' them and the aeroplane and pax would still be here today. |
|
oink oink
|
The trough
Albanese:
From the SMH Database Revealed: Politicians' gifts, trips and tickets The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have built a searchable database showing every Federal politician's financial interests. You can explore the information by category, by keyword, by politician or any combination of the three.
|
This little piggy went to the market........
Wow. The Minister for Bad Teeth has certainly been indulging a little in the trough! What did Mel Brooks say in History Of The World - "It's good to be the king".
One question though, was the 'cheese knife' gift actually a 'swiss cheese aka James Reason knife' or was it a 'pony pooh knife' used for cutting through the endless amount of ****e he dribbles? http://images.smh.com.au/2011/08/01/...nner-420x0.jpg |
Don't worry, Gillard will protect you (apparently)
Gillard hits back at Rinehart over mining comments | News | Business Spectator "It's not the Australian way to toss people $2, to toss them a gold coin, and then ask them to work for a day." Ms Gillard said. In a video posted on the Sydney Mining Club's website on Wednesday, Ms Rinehart said Australians should not be complacent about mining investment when African workers were toiling for $2 a day. "We support proper Australian wages and decent working conditions," Ms Gillard said. not in the Airline industry ...:( |
Gina Rheinhart SHOULD fukc off to Africa and try doing business there.
There are plenty of other companies willing to dig up our mineral wealth and leave us a quarry.:{ |
Gina Rheinhart SHOULD fukc off to Africa and try doing business there. Pi#s on her. |
There are plenty of other companies willing to dig up our mineral wealth and leave us a quarry The States get Royalties from those who dig those minerals up. Gillard reckons that wealth belongs to ALL Australians in spite of the constitution and is bunging on a tax over and above those Royalties to redistribute that wealth to the PBNWILV thus imposing extra burdens on people like Gina. Except for the fact she owns Daddy's land under which those minerals lay, she may well spend her wealth in Africa. That would be good for all us Aussies no doubt?? Perhaps this is why so many projects are being "deferred" for the time being? PBNWILV- poor bloody non working idiot Labor voters. Just my take on the situation, but I'm probably wrong as usual. |
GFR #404 - I couldn't help noticing the similarities between us and the pearling industry. Big money, lowering pay and conditions, inexperience, over stretched training resources, un managed threats........the list goes on. All reflected in the Norfolk ditching. The list is indeed long and the Norfolk event is about to get swept under the flying carpet in the Ministers office. Enough already, enough. |
Time Gentlemen, PLEASE.
One day there is going to be a major accident on Australian soil; you or your family could be on board.
It will probably be a preventable accident. It could have been prevented by you. The Regulator is an international and domestic laughing stock, you know this. McCormick interview. The regulations a spiders web supporting anything the regulator want's them to support, you know this. Norfolk Ditching. The ATSB has become nothing more than the PR voice of the Minister, you know this. Dolan interview. The Air traffic control system is slowly disintegrating beyond the point of no return, you know this. It's time Gentlemen; if the Norfolk Island accident, the Air France fatal or any of the recently published incidents don't convince you of that; then despite the rhetoric and white papers, the blood will be on your hands. Then, it will be truly a vote of conscience. Selah. Great work - 4 Corners – ABC. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif |
I strongly urge anyone contemplating a measured response to this topic to read the novel, Power without Glory, by Frank Hardy. This book was banned at one point by, (guess who), because it impinged sensitivities. It is as relevant today as it was when written.
The "buck stops" somewhere. PS, it's a good entertaining read to boot. |
Ah the characters from Carringbush, I see what you mean Frank.
|
Give truth, and air safety, a chance
Yeah good catch Frank and it brings to bear that..."the more things change the more they stay the same"...or as one wiseman said:
GB Shaw: If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
"In a society where spin and media manipulation perpetuates myths about airline safety and keeps a lid on disclosures of unsafe practices the commitment of independent politician Nick Xenophon to his proposed Senate Inquiry into pilot training standards might trigger some long overdue reforms. As Senator Xenophon pointed out in his address to the Australian and International Pilots Association recently, Australia is tolerating what the US now finds intolerable, which is the placing of pilots with as little as 200 hours experience in the right hand or first officer seat of airliners. It is a madness that needs to be hauled up sharp in this country. It requires a revaluation of piloting skills and safety cultures. There are a number of elements to this controversy. One of them is the corruption of airline safety ‘cultures’ into ones where pilots increasingly think like accountants or shareholders rather than professional pilots required to conform to some very serious rules about what defines safe flight, including loss of control and upset situations, fuel and weather considerations and separation in uncontrolled air space. Another is the popular insistence by airlines, here and elsewhere, on the notion that meeting the requirements of airworthiness directives, or maintenance intervals, or tick-the-boxes flying courses for flying skills delivered by outside trainers, all represent world’s best practice. This is a popular lie. All the carriers are doing is meeting the minimum legal standards, or even delegating the achievement of those standards to external enterprises they have no control over. The standards required in these cases are not the highest available, they are the cheapest legally available standards, and in the case of regulatory matters like airworthiness directives, they are often the end result of ‘consultations’ between the carriers, the regulators and equipment manufacturers which involve the commercial consequences for airlines. Airbus has been vocal on the topic diminishing flying skills, yet has been firmly challenged by the French accident investigators over its history in handling piloting issues where unreliable airspeed warnings are generated by ice clogging external air speed probes. Boeing infamously dragged the chain over 737 rudder control failures that confronted pilots with a bewildering and potentially disastrous problem for years, indeed, it even slandered the pilots who died in struggling to save several stricken jets before the truth about a lethal design error finally came out. But back to a tighter focus. Xenophon has gone for pilot training standards in this country, which are in crisis, and for inadequate incident reporting procedures. There is more than enough in both to keep a Senate Inquiry very usefully occupied. Xenophon has called for Alan Joyce, as then CEO of Jetstar, to explain himself over the July 2007 botched missed approach to Melbourne of an A320. Was Joyce ignorant of his obligations to the law, or did he chose to ignore them? In this incident the airline he was responsible for broke the law on the reporting of safety incidents, and only disclosed the true situation when the ATSB felt compelled to act on a media report by myself, one and half months later. After which the ATSB produced a damning report, yet failed to refer Jetstar to the Commonwealth public prosecutor. The ATSB is a world class technical investigator that is too timid to refer breaches of the law on failures to report serious operational incidents involving major carriers. Most recently, it sat on its hands while Tiger Airways chose to ignore its legal obligations concerning an aileron failure in one of its A320s because Tiger had decided the Australian laws didn’t matter. It has a habit of making excuses for the airlines, although not in the case of the Lockhart River disaster in 2005, in which it nailed CASA for lack of appropriate action against a carrier it knew was dangerous. Which raises an important issue for the Senate to consider. When the safety regulator CASA finds evidence that an operator is unsafe, does it not have an obligation to tell the travelling public, rather than do nothing to warn them, allowing an unsafe operation to continue flying in that particular case until it killed 15 people? In the Crikey story linked above and published yesterday, reference is made to a Qantaslink incident at Sydney Airport on Boxing Day 2008, which was also covered by Plane Talking in June. The ATSB report is woefully evasive in its accounting for this astonishing incident. A Qantaslink turbo-prop, with 50 seats, nearly stalls twice in 10 seconds on approach to Sydney airport, during which a first officer with limited experience on the type disobeys an instruction by the captain to go around rather than try and complete an ‘unstable’ approach to the runway. The report fails to explain how standards at Qantaslink could be so pathetic as to allow this situation to arise. It fails to detail what then happened in the Qantaslink management of its safety standards. It doesn’t tell us what submissions Qantaslink made, or what submissions the CASA safety regulator made. The final report is only released after the wording has been read and passed by the airline and the safety investigator, although it can ignore objections by the parties being investigated. The public just doesn’t get any inkling as to what really happened. In the US the NTSB, the ATSB equivalent, would have held public hearings into the Qantaslink incident, and the airline management would have been cross examined as to how such an unacceptable situation had occurred. The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards. There is nothing wonderful about a Qantas turbo-prop being put in peril twice in 10 seconds by the flight standards that it is the obligation of the company to uphold and administer. This proposed inquiry is of critical importance to all air travellers in Australia." So did the Senate Inquiry make one iota of difference?? |
Plush pile?
All reflected in the Norfolk ditching. The list is indeed long and the Norfolk event is about to get swept under the flying carpet in the Ministers office "Soiled skies for all". |
Next estimates hearings
Supplementary budget estimates will be held from 15 to 18 October 2012.
The link below takes you to a –'download'-- button' which, if clicked will provide a summary of the petition and survey conducted through Pprune last year. Should you wish to have an input to the industry you work in, get busy. Help is available at PAIN_NET0012@YAHOO. com.au |
Often licked
|
Pelair Norfolk Island ditching and the ATSB!
Well Senator X comes through again, got to give him top marks for trying to keep the buggers honest!:ok:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia Here's an exercise that took me all of..ohhh ten minutes to do and is very much relevant to the Pelair Norfolk Island ditching and the ATSB. This small exercise highlights the issue of the ATSB becoming a mere lapdog to the CASA and the damage that the MOU is doing: Up till now Timeframe: 01/01/2011- 23/09/2012 Safety issues and actions Ten years before Timeframe: 01/01/2001- 23/09/2002 Safety issues and actions As can be seen there were 8 pages or a 154 entries in the same time frame 10 years before, of those there were 63 entries directly related to CASA. That is in stark contrast from 01/01/2011- 23/09/2012 where we have a total of 10 entries, none of which were directly related to the CASA. Terms of Reference On 13 September 2012, the Senate agreed that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012: (a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009; (b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an aviation accident investigation and the reporting process; (c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in a timely manner; and (d) any related matters. |
Tick Tock Tick Please fix things Nick
In the US the NTSB, the ATSB equivalent, would have held public hearings into the Qantaslink incident, and the airline management would have been cross examined as to how such an unacceptable situation had occurred. The public would not have been subjected to spin about our wonderful safety standards. The Manure Express has been gaining speed over the past 10 years while on it's way to it's last station stop - Smoking Hole. CASA, ATSB and the Government have lost the plot, drearily drifting along in cloud bureaucracy hell bent on ignoring the issues and preferring to fatten themselves at the taxpayer trough. CASA has become bloated with has-been management and out of touch pensioners. Management, the inept Board and the regulators pathetic entry control standards as well as it's penchant for nepotism and cronyism has pushed Australia's safety standards into the crisis zone. The ATSB, a once respected authority not afraid to paint a true picture of facts, accuracy and recomendations have become as woeful as their counterparts CASA. My opinion is that the damage Dolan has done would take years to repair if the fixing commenced now. The only hope we have realistically is if Senator Nick gets a bonfire started. If not, well..............tick tock http://www.frontline-figures.com/french-indian/iw6.jpg |
One would hope that this pilot will front up to give evidence at the Senate Inquiry:
Tomorrow, the ATSB will release a Final report into an aviation accident at Norfolk Island. The Final report in it’s current form contains factual errors. These have been brought to the attention of the (name and position withheld), and also the (name and position withheld). Despite these many areas under dispute having been brought to the attention of both of these men on numerous occasions and requests that the Final report be delayed pending dialogue to resolve the inaccuracies, (name withheld) has determined that this report will be released tomorrow. (Name withheld) has also let it be known that he is expecting a lot of media attention. I ask what is the point of media attention to a factually incorrect report? Obviously a report with facts in dispute should not be released. Having spoken to both pilots concerned and as a professional aviator myself, I am left dismayed at the attitude of the ATSB and their willingness to issue such a questionable report. As Minister, I would ask you to stop the release to give all parties involved the opportunity for continued dialogue before it’s release. At the moment, I am extremely disappointed in the attitude of the ATSB and have been left with great doubts about their investigations. At this point, I would most certainly be advising my colleagues in the airlines that they cannot rely on the ATSB to report the facts nor give them a fair hearing if they are ever involved in an incident. This is obviously not the reputation that the ATSB should be making for themselves.” From Planetalking 26/09/2011 Pel-Air report errors ignored by ATSB says expert reviewer | Plane Talking Plane talking 26/09/2012: Together with the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, arguing on a 4 Corners program that the failure of Pel-Air to pass a CASA safety audit immediately after the accident was immaterial, the ATSB report, and the apparent determination to publish it with incomplete or untrue claims, leaves a big question hanging in the air. Why did the safety regulator and safety investigator go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid public disclosure of the state of operations at Pel-Air at the time of the crash? The last two paragraphs from Fumblenese's letter shine the light on where all this pony pooh originates from, what a self-effacing load of tripe! Question: Have we ever had a Transport Minister who is less engaged with the Aviation Safety Portfolio? I know we have some real numbnuts for Ministers and some had some pretty dopey policies but, to give them their due, at least they were interested!!:ugh: |
Virgin Australia 737-800 lost by air traffic control for 30 minutes by Ben Sandilands
Latest report from Ben. Looks like this could generate a few questions for the senators?
Virgin Australia 737-800 lost by air traffic control for 30 minutes by Ben Sandilands Last Friday morning a Virgin Australia 737-800 with 168 seats left Sydney for Brisbane. Somewhere near Newcastle or perhaps a but further up the track, after the controller responsible for its departure from Sydney had handed over the flight to the officer responsible for most of its cruise north toward Brisbane, the flight was ‘lost.’ Its trace on the air traffic control screens was ‘inhibited’ as the ATSB puts it in its incident notification. The action that was taken to render this jet airliner an invisible projectile was deliberate, in that it involves a considered and concise physical action, and horrifically unprofessional, and there are hints that an attempt may have been made to prevent the enormity of the event being properly reported, although it has been reported, and an investigation has begun. It flew at high speed and high altitude through the busiest airspace in Australian skies, between Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane, without anyone in air traffic control, or any of the many jets of varying sizes that would have been under control in the space it was using, having any knowledge of its presence. The first anyone knew that there was an invisible passenger jet flying toward Brisbane was when a Virgin Australia pilot called traffic control at a point where he or she would have normally expected to hear from the ATC system prior to entering the airspace nearer its destination. The seriousness of this extraordinary situation isn’t conveyed by the summary posted this afternoon by the ATSB in notifying that the investigation had been initiated. It was reported that the aircraft’s details were inadvertently inhibited in the Air Traffic Management system for approximately 30 minutes. There was a loss of separation assurance. The investigation is continuing. There is a long and seldom generally reported history of dangerous and incompetent actions by AirServices Australia. Its record in recent years is indefensibly sub-standard. But this incident represents a new low. Let’s put it at its simplest. Airservices is failing to deliver the fundamentals of a safe and secure air traffic control system. This incident is the clearest of evidence that its standards are totally untrustworthy, and that no airline, foreign or domestic, can truthfully have any confidence that their passengers, their investments, and their brands, are safe in Australian air traffic controlled skies. We have deteriorated to the level of being a dangerous embarrassment when a 737-800 can fly for half an hour through one of the 10 busiest air routes on the planet without any other aircraft, or the ATC system, having the faintest inkling that it is there, doing something like 850 kilometres an hour, through airspace which includes A380s and 777s as well as a host of airliners of lesser size, any two of which can be destroyed by the inability of a developed country to provide a professional and well managed air traffic control system. No doubt the usual fawning excuses will be made. But the facts involved in this particular incident ought to be of the gravest of concern to air travellers and the airlines and our political leaders. |
HMHB it is probably more likely it will be brought up in the...Estimates daily programs – Parliament of Australia
....although the usual spin and obfuscation will no doubt emanate from the bureau report, lines like: Conclusion No organisational or systemic issues that might adversely affect the future safety of aviation operations were identified as a result of this investigation. SAFETY ACTION Whether or not the ATSB identifies safety issues in the course of an investigation, relevant organisations may proactively initiate safety action in order to reduce their safety risk. The ATSB has been advised of the following proactive safety action in response to this occurrence. As an extension of my above exercise take a look at this comparison between the NTSB and the ATSB for safety recommendations submitted: Safety Recommendation Comparison NTSB: (methodology) Safety Recommendations - Search & View The NTSB issues safety recommendations as a result of its investigation of transportation accidents and other safety concerns. Recommendations usually identify a specific problem uncovered during an investigation or study and specify how to correct the situation. Letters containing the recommendations are directed to the organization best able to act on the problem, whether it be public or private. ATSB: (methodology) Safety issues are broadly classified in terms of their level of risk as follows: Critical safety issue: associated with an intolerable level of risk and generally leading to the immediate issue of a safety recommendation unless corrective safety action has already been taken. Significant safety issue: associated with a risk level regarded as acceptable only if it is kept as low as reasonably practicable. The ATSB may issue a safety recommendation or a safety advisory notice if it assesses that further safety action may be practicable. Minor safety issue: associated with a broadly acceptable level of risk, although the ATSB may sometimes issue a safety advisory notice. Safety action: the steps taken or proposed to be taken by a person, organisation or agency in response to a safety issue. Year: 2000 NTSB Aviation related SR: 144 ATSB Aviation related SR: 45 NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 119 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 12 Percentage of total: 82.6% Percentage of total: 26.6% Year: 2005 NTSB Aviation related SR: 35 ATSB Aviation related SR: 19 NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 35 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 6 Percentage of total: 100% Percentage of total: 31.5% Year: 2010 NTSB Aviation related SR: 168 ATSB Aviation related SR: 11 NTSB SR addressed to FAA: 143 ATSB SR addressed to CASA: 0 Percentage of total: 85.1% Percentage of total: 0.0% It is also obvious from a perusal of other member states of the ICAO that the "Safety Recommendation" methodology is still being embraced, if anything expanded. Meanwhile here in Oz it's being eroded and replaced by spin and obfuscation!:yuk: Here's some examples: Aviation Safety Recommendations http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ort%202010.pdf http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ort%202011.pdf |
#432. Good one Sarcs.
Speaks volumes.
GD # 429 - The ATSB, a once respected authority not afraid to paint a true picture of facts, accuracy and recommendations have become as woeful as their counterparts CASA. My opinion is that the damage Dolan has done would take years to repair if the fixing commenced now. I know; "don't fix it unless it's broke", but man oh man: who is going to clean up the mess and how, is a thing of nightmare. I just hope Pruners are going to have a say at the next inquiry and not sit on their arses and rely someone else to speak up. The tick is clocking boys and girls, next week is the latest if you want to have a say. Email, post card, beer coaster, hell you could even write as letter should the muse descend. Steam off. |
Come in spinner
Yes, that old chestnut - "I will take it on notice"!
In other words he means, "I will buy myself a few extra months by dodging a straight answer and getting the voodoo witch doctors to put together a supreme piece of bureaucratic wankery that is filled with spin, evasion and deflections"! Time to get out the magic spinning top boys!! http://thebusysignal.com/wp-content/...inception1.jpg |
Too true Gobbles although the same bit of 'spin' and 'bureacratic wankery' (i.e. CASR proposed 91) seems to have created a degree of 'angst' and confusion within Fort Fumble ranks, see here their response to question 159:
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Budget Estimates May 2011 Infrastructure and Transport Question no.: 159 Program: n/a Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority Topic: Part 91 Proof Hansard Page/s: Written Senator Heffernan asked: Part 91 of the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 2011 aims effect a number of regulations in the aviation industry. The first discussion paper was published by CASA in 1999. It has been followed at various times by a NPRM in 2001 and several subsequent industry reviews. The existing draft of Part 91 was prepared after those reviews were “frozen” in 2006. 1) How does CASA justify leaving the industry in limbo for 11 years? Has CASA provided explanations to the industry and a proposed timeline so that the industry can prepare and plan for changes to its regulations? 2) How much has this lengthy review process cost? 3) What is the estimated cost of implementing these changes? Answer: 1) CASA has kept the industry informed of progress with Part 91 on an on-going basis. In addition to postings on the CASA website, updates are given regularly at meetings of the Standards Consultative Committee and its sub-committees. Pilots and operators will be given sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations before they enter into force. Training and education publications will be developed and briefings given to the industry to prepare them for the introduction of the regulations. 2) CASA does not itemise costs for individual parts or development of individual pieces of legislation. 3) In accordance with established procedure, the estimated cost to implement the Part 91 changes will be made public in a Regulation Impact Statement. So did they ATFQ(s)? |
Confusion, trickery and Private Parts 91
Note: The bureaucratic keywords and abbreviations are: informed, on-going, prepare, SCC (and its sub-committees) and RIS. So did they ATFQ(s)? So lets disect the CASA answers shall we; Answer: 1) CASA has kept the industry informed of progress with Part 91 on an on-going basis. In addition to postings on the CASA website, updates are given regularly at meetings of the Standards Consultative Committee and its sub-committees. Pilots and operators will be given sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations before they enter into force. Training and education publications will be developed and briefings given to the industry to prepare them for the introduction of the regulations. 2) CASA does not itemise costs for individual parts or development of individual pieces of legislation. 3) In accordance with established procedure, the estimated cost to implement the Part 91 changes will be made public in a Regulation Impact Statement |
Starting to see a pattern here, no wonder JQ was done in by a criminal crackhead and RR a couple of dodgy AWIs:
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Budget Estimates May 2011 Infrastructure and Transport Question no.: 141 Program: n/a Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority Topic: Section 42ZC(6) Regulation Proof Hansard Page/s: 67 (26/05/2011) Senator Abetz asked: Senator ABETZ: Can I ask you then, in general terms, for what purposes is an instrument issued under Section 42Z(c)6 of the regulations? Why was that countenanced? Mr McCormick: I think we will have to take that on notice. NB Double speak for I have NFI! Answer: In general terms, regulation 42ZC(6) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 provides that CASA may, in appropriate cases, and subject to such conditions as may be necessary, authorise a person, who is not otherwise licensed to do so, to carry out specified maintenance on an Australian aircraft in Australian territory, or specified maintenance on an aircraft component or aircraft material in Australian territory. The provision countenances such authorisations only in circumstances where: the maintenance involved is specified with reasonable particularity; the person authorised has the skills and ability to carry out the maintenance competently and the maintenance is carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be required to ensure it is carried out safely. |
Gee that's really nice that part 91.
So if I have an engine failure and succeed in making a forced landing and knock over a single fence post I can be prosecuted because by definition I wasn't flying at sufficient height to avoid damage to persons or property? What next? Is CASA going to repeal Newtons laws? |
So I take it that all single engine piston ops to/from Essendon are about to be illegal then.
And I imagine that every single piston to/from Moorabbin will need to be routed through a 'lane' that heads straight for the coast? Not a lot of options once you clear the golf courses. Especially to the north west. |
Who us ? - Nah.
Plane Talking latest.
The audit is a clear, signed confession of CASA compliance in the Norfolk ditching. CASA 'must be satisfied', there is an acknowledgement within the audit that CASA had approved minimum, 'technically legal' fuel planning procedure, poor check/training etc. etc and then have the hide to blame the operator, the pilot, the ATSB and the cleaners cat. The Senate needs the entire, unvarnished audit series for this company. That will tell a tale. Sure there is enough pooh to go around, but always remember who approved, accepted and over looked the operation, who conducted the audit, who passed on the 'pertinent' information to the ATSB. Yes, it's all very 'unfortunate', ain't it. Wasn't going to vomit, but I might indulge myself this time. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/pukey.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/pukey.gif |
Sheessh...the way this Inquiry is heading the good Senators will be able to charge admission for the hearing(s). Got a feeling it will be a packed house when the regulator and bureau are being interrogated!:E
“Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.” by anonymous |
Sarcs,
There is a senate estimates as a warm up first. Senate Inquiry Barry Hempel inquest report due November. I hope the press have some seats booked. |
Too true HMHB...yes the calendar is filling up...let's see submissions in by tomorrow...16th Supp Estimates hmmm anyone posed any question clangers for the Senators..then 17th submissions published...22nd world popcorn day and the Senate Inquiry hearings (although I have strong suspicion there maybe more than one day of hearings). :D
Then November the 19th is the Hempel Coroner's findings and ten days later the Senate Inquiry Report...well HMHB have I missed anything??:ok: |
November is a very full month and bet the lights will be on late in Camberra and Brisbane. I'm guessing there will be some sleepless nights for some and chess game updates along the way.
Sarcs, thanks for detailing the dates. I don't think you've missed anything. Enjoy the popcorn. |
HMHB - I don't think you've missed anything. The ladders are getting slippery (pardon the pun) and the snakes 'snakier'; we can only hope to watch from afar. What price being a fly on the wall, now that would beat popcorn. :D |
Mememememem
Yes, it will be interesting to see how 'Beaker' handles this one, and what the 'substance' (possibly brown) of the report will be?
ASA and CASA CEO?? http://www.yogaleaks.com/storage/Bea...=1347669103987 |
Things that make you Hmmm?!
The inquiry into the ditching was, I had hoped, going to make a difference; seems not.
The 'Old man' at the pub last night was a bit down, "wuzzup Pops" says I. It's hard to get the bugger to say much, but eventually the story emerges. "There is a mountain of submissions being made to the committee, many of these are 'tough love' and will be difficult to handle". "So what" say I: "that's what we pay for, ain't it". He shakes his old head and smiles at me, sad like. I had to buy him another pint, "No mate, they are only accepting the submissions they want for publication; the rest go confidential". "That's OK" says I, "ain't it? the tough ones will be dealt with". Another pint disappears: "You don't get it Junior, if a submission is not published, neither is the response: how to shut down the inquiry 101, in a parliament near you". Another shake of the head; "buy me a pint and forget about the Senate Inquiry son; it's a done deal". It was a very quiet walk home. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.