Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
halfmanhalfbiscuit
A concern shared by many me thinks.
Perhaps there was a very specific reason.
"There is no evidence your honour".
Consider this "hypothetical".
Suppose, just suppose, hypothetically, that "the investigation authorities (plural)" reaches a certain point, very early on, where they realise, that knowing whether or not NGA got the Nandi info, was cruicial to whether or not they could shaft DJ fully, with the met as the trump card and the fuel as backup, without DJ having a "met based defence".
After all, logic says, if he got the Nandi info, then yes, we have got him cold. Shaft to the max.
But, if he did not get the Nandi info, or if what was received was not entirely readable and understandable, it is not so conclusive, it might not be so easy to shaft him on that. It might leave him some wiggle room on appeal, so we have to do him on the fuel.
Further suppose, just suppose, that "the investigation authorities (plural)", realise that there are only two ways DJ may (or worse - if he gets a good lawyer) wriggle out.
The transmit tape from Nandi and the receive tape from NGA - and of course - subsequent discussion in NGA.
So, two holes to plug.
Suppose, just suppose, that for now, we just leave the box where it is, and make it known, very hush-hush like, in diplomatic circles, that it would be "really helpfull" if a little island nation "declined" to supply their tapes. Given the nature of things - much bigger things - certainly do-able.
Further suppose, just suppose, that, having received advice of such willingness to decline, "the investigation authorities (plural)" now know that only the box could save DJ, so they "concoct" a "rationalle" - beyond all Reason, to "let it rest in peace".
Then, DJ is "done like a dinner" and "the investigation authorities (plural)" slip out into the shadows - and away - scott free.
Eventually, post shafting, DJ and others, like a couple of blokes in a bloody big house with a grass roof, can be given the stock bull****, fully aware, that they are safe from being implicated in any way, safe in the knowledge that if it ever went to the land of the legal eagles, their defence would be simple - "There is no evidence your honour".
Back to reality.
Question. Can a court demand that a box be retreived ?
Quote:
Creampuff
You don't know, for sure, what weather information was transmitted to and understood by the crew.
What we do know, for sure, is that there were patent errors in the weather information transmitted to NGA, and that there are patent errors in the transcription, in the ATSB report, of the broadcasts supposedly made to NGA.
All grey matter has wisdom in 20/20, unfatigued hindsight, but none has yet been discovered with ESP.
To answer that question the CVR would go a long way! Just because it was transmitted doesn't mean it was received on board NGA. It has always concerned me that the CVR/FDR were not recovered. Beyond all Reason!!!
Creampuff
You don't know, for sure, what weather information was transmitted to and understood by the crew.
What we do know, for sure, is that there were patent errors in the weather information transmitted to NGA, and that there are patent errors in the transcription, in the ATSB report, of the broadcasts supposedly made to NGA.
All grey matter has wisdom in 20/20, unfatigued hindsight, but none has yet been discovered with ESP.
To answer that question the CVR would go a long way! Just because it was transmitted doesn't mean it was received on board NGA. It has always concerned me that the CVR/FDR were not recovered. Beyond all Reason!!!
Perhaps there was a very specific reason.
"There is no evidence your honour".
Consider this "hypothetical".
Suppose, just suppose, hypothetically, that "the investigation authorities (plural)" reaches a certain point, very early on, where they realise, that knowing whether or not NGA got the Nandi info, was cruicial to whether or not they could shaft DJ fully, with the met as the trump card and the fuel as backup, without DJ having a "met based defence".
After all, logic says, if he got the Nandi info, then yes, we have got him cold. Shaft to the max.
But, if he did not get the Nandi info, or if what was received was not entirely readable and understandable, it is not so conclusive, it might not be so easy to shaft him on that. It might leave him some wiggle room on appeal, so we have to do him on the fuel.
Further suppose, just suppose, that "the investigation authorities (plural)", realise that there are only two ways DJ may (or worse - if he gets a good lawyer) wriggle out.
The transmit tape from Nandi and the receive tape from NGA - and of course - subsequent discussion in NGA.
So, two holes to plug.
Suppose, just suppose, that for now, we just leave the box where it is, and make it known, very hush-hush like, in diplomatic circles, that it would be "really helpfull" if a little island nation "declined" to supply their tapes. Given the nature of things - much bigger things - certainly do-able.
Further suppose, just suppose, that, having received advice of such willingness to decline, "the investigation authorities (plural)" now know that only the box could save DJ, so they "concoct" a "rationalle" - beyond all Reason, to "let it rest in peace".
Then, DJ is "done like a dinner" and "the investigation authorities (plural)" slip out into the shadows - and away - scott free.
Eventually, post shafting, DJ and others, like a couple of blokes in a bloody big house with a grass roof, can be given the stock bull****, fully aware, that they are safe from being implicated in any way, safe in the knowledge that if it ever went to the land of the legal eagles, their defence would be simple - "There is no evidence your honour".
Back to reality.
Question. Can a court demand that a box be retreived ?
Kangaroo court
From Wikipedia
A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted"
The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.
A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. Such courts are typically run by authoritarian governments, and can also be found in rural areas where legitimate law enforcement may be limited. In particular, they are still common in rural India, where they are referred to as "Gram Panchayat".
From Wikipedia
A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted"
The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.
A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. Such courts are typically run by authoritarian governments, and can also be found in rural areas where legitimate law enforcement may be limited. In particular, they are still common in rural India, where they are referred to as "Gram Panchayat".
But, if he did not get the Nandi info, or if what was received was not entirely readable and understandable, it is not so conclusive, it might not be so easy to shaft him on that. It might leave him some wiggle room on appeal, so we have to do him on the fuel.
But if:
(a) the crew did not receive all of the Nandi info; or
(b) some of the info that Nandi transmitted had errors in it that gave a misleading view of the prevailing and likely future weather conditions; or
(c) Nandi refrained from transmitting information that would have given the crew of NGA a better understanding of the prevailing and likely future weather conditions; or
(d) some of the information that was received by the crew was misunderstood due to a combination of fatigue and the usual HF propagation issues; or
(e) a combination of some or all of the above resulted in the crew being misled into believing the prevailing and likely future weather conditions supported the decision to continue to Norfolk,
it is not so conclusive and it is not so easy to shaft him on that.
(a) the crew did not receive all of the Nandi info; or
(b) some of the info that Nandi transmitted had errors in it that gave a misleading view of the prevailing and likely future weather conditions; or
(c) Nandi refrained from transmitting information that would have given the crew of NGA a better understanding of the prevailing and likely future weather conditions; or
(d) some of the information that was received by the crew was misunderstood due to a combination of fatigue and the usual HF propagation issues; or
(e) a combination of some or all of the above resulted in the crew being misled into believing the prevailing and likely future weather conditions supported the decision to continue to Norfolk,
it is not so conclusive and it is not so easy to shaft him on that.
dead right Lookleft .. thanks
It's fair to say the final and exhaustive, credible analysis, will only come from a researcher and writer who -
1. Having taken on the assignment, allows sufficient time to be right across every bit of the story, before drawing any conclusions.
2. Is unrelenting in getting to the bottom of every controversial twist
3. Has runs on the board in air accident investigation
4. Is free of bias
5. Is able to distinguish between fact and assumption, however finely nuanced, and
6.ideally, comes to the task afresh, with no prior knowledge or interest
It's fair to say the final and exhaustive, credible analysis, will only come from a researcher and writer who -
1. Having taken on the assignment, allows sufficient time to be right across every bit of the story, before drawing any conclusions.
2. Is unrelenting in getting to the bottom of every controversial twist
3. Has runs on the board in air accident investigation
4. Is free of bias
5. Is able to distinguish between fact and assumption, however finely nuanced, and
6.ideally, comes to the task afresh, with no prior knowledge or interest
Looks like the mainstream media are continuing to take an interest in this. And I guess DJ has decided this is his opportunity to land some punches.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1227206983414
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1227206983414
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slats . . . . you can't copy and paste that item from The Australian?
is this it? - dated Dec 3 2014
https://plus.google.com/107158623429005505864
The Pel-Air Aviation Westwind air ambulance is parked on the tarmac at Nauru Airport before its ill-fated flight that ended with it ditching into the sea off Norfolk Island in November 2013. Source: AFP
DEPUTY Prime Minister Warren Truss has asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to re-open its controversial inquiry into the Pel-Air crash off Norfolk island in 2009.
The ATSB was forced to defend its handling of the investigation before a Senate Committee after irregularities emerged in its handling of the Westwind jet crash in November 2009.
All six occupants of the jet survived the night-time ditching of a CareFlight medical evacuation from Noumea but CASA suspended the licence of pilot-in-command Dominic James and the airline grounded its Westwind operations.
The ATSB took almost three years to produce a report that identified mistakes by the flight crew relating to fuel planning and weather checks as contributing safety factors and to a lesser extent criticised the available guidance on these issues from the company.
The Senate committee was formed after an ABC Four Corners investigation revealed a CASA audit after the crash, and not mentioned in the ATSB report, uncovered 57 breaches and “serious deficiencies’’ at Pel-Air.
Mr Truss announced today as part of the government’s response to a report in aviation safety chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth that a review by the Canada Transportation Safety Board had found the ATSB made mistakes in its investigation.
“While the Canadian TSB found that ATSB investigation methodology and analysis tools represent best practice and have been shown to produce very good results, they found that in the case of the Pel-Air investigation, there were errors made,’’ Mr Truss said.
“I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air off Norfolk Island in 2009.
“As a consequence, I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to reopening the investigation.’’
Mr Truss said he had appointed an additional ATSB commissioner with aviation experience and would be issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the bureau once the government had the opportunity to review the findings of the Canadian review.
The Minister also announced the appointment three additional CASA board members.
They are: chartered accountant and long-term sport aviation industry figure Anita Taylor, aviation insurance specialist Ian Smith and former Qantas general manager or regulatory and industry affairs Murray Warfield.
The government had previously announced that retired Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore would replace John McCormick as director or aviation safety and had appointed industry veteran Jeff Boyd as deputy chairman.
The government had been taking flak because of its delayed response to the Forsyth report which was released in June and found relations between CASA and the industry had soured to the point that safety improvements were being stifled
Mr Truss said that the government had agreed to or would undertake a more detailed examination of 36 of the report’s 37 recommendations.
He endorsed a number of key aviation principles and reaffirmed CASA’s role as part of system charged with “protecting all passengers, their crew and the community’’.
He acknowledged industry complaints about CASA’s regulatory approach and perceptions it did not pay enough regard to how regulatory changes affected operators.
“Aviation services can be complex and expensive operations,’’ he said. “The business environment in which aviation operates is a challenging and often highly competitive one with fluctuating market conditions. Even well-established and well intentioned aviation operators can encounter problems.
“In such a complex environment the Government expects the regulator to be firm but fair in how it conducts its role.
“The regulator also needs to be well-informed about the industry context, conscious of the impacts that its actions have on operators and open to approaches which achieve safety outcomes without unnecessary impacts on industry.
“This approach calls for effective and ongoing engagement and communication with the industry, both at a strategic and working level.’’
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that Mr Creedy's credibility takes another tumble, when he cannot get the departure point right in the above
is this it? - dated Dec 3 2014
https://plus.google.com/107158623429005505864
The Pel-Air Aviation Westwind air ambulance is parked on the tarmac at Nauru Airport before its ill-fated flight that ended with it ditching into the sea off Norfolk Island in November 2013. Source: AFP
DEPUTY Prime Minister Warren Truss has asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to re-open its controversial inquiry into the Pel-Air crash off Norfolk island in 2009.
The ATSB was forced to defend its handling of the investigation before a Senate Committee after irregularities emerged in its handling of the Westwind jet crash in November 2009.
All six occupants of the jet survived the night-time ditching of a CareFlight medical evacuation from Noumea but CASA suspended the licence of pilot-in-command Dominic James and the airline grounded its Westwind operations.
The ATSB took almost three years to produce a report that identified mistakes by the flight crew relating to fuel planning and weather checks as contributing safety factors and to a lesser extent criticised the available guidance on these issues from the company.
The Senate committee was formed after an ABC Four Corners investigation revealed a CASA audit after the crash, and not mentioned in the ATSB report, uncovered 57 breaches and “serious deficiencies’’ at Pel-Air.
Mr Truss announced today as part of the government’s response to a report in aviation safety chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth that a review by the Canada Transportation Safety Board had found the ATSB made mistakes in its investigation.
“While the Canadian TSB found that ATSB investigation methodology and analysis tools represent best practice and have been shown to produce very good results, they found that in the case of the Pel-Air investigation, there were errors made,’’ Mr Truss said.
“I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air off Norfolk Island in 2009.
“As a consequence, I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to reopening the investigation.’’
Mr Truss said he had appointed an additional ATSB commissioner with aviation experience and would be issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the bureau once the government had the opportunity to review the findings of the Canadian review.
The Minister also announced the appointment three additional CASA board members.
They are: chartered accountant and long-term sport aviation industry figure Anita Taylor, aviation insurance specialist Ian Smith and former Qantas general manager or regulatory and industry affairs Murray Warfield.
The government had previously announced that retired Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore would replace John McCormick as director or aviation safety and had appointed industry veteran Jeff Boyd as deputy chairman.
The government had been taking flak because of its delayed response to the Forsyth report which was released in June and found relations between CASA and the industry had soured to the point that safety improvements were being stifled
Mr Truss said that the government had agreed to or would undertake a more detailed examination of 36 of the report’s 37 recommendations.
He endorsed a number of key aviation principles and reaffirmed CASA’s role as part of system charged with “protecting all passengers, their crew and the community’’.
He acknowledged industry complaints about CASA’s regulatory approach and perceptions it did not pay enough regard to how regulatory changes affected operators.
“Aviation services can be complex and expensive operations,’’ he said. “The business environment in which aviation operates is a challenging and often highly competitive one with fluctuating market conditions. Even well-established and well intentioned aviation operators can encounter problems.
“In such a complex environment the Government expects the regulator to be firm but fair in how it conducts its role.
“The regulator also needs to be well-informed about the industry context, conscious of the impacts that its actions have on operators and open to approaches which achieve safety outcomes without unnecessary impacts on industry.
“This approach calls for effective and ongoing engagement and communication with the industry, both at a strategic and working level.’’
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that Mr Creedy's credibility takes another tumble, when he cannot get the departure point right in the above
Pilot lashes out at air-safety watchdogs’ crash report
THE AUSTRALIAN FEBRUARY 04, 2015 12:00AM
Anthony Klan
Journalist
Sydney
https://plus.google.com/110790254144288601738/
THE two government agencies responsible for policing aviation “publicly lied” about the full circumstances of a 2009 Pel-Air crash off Norfolk Island, the plane’s pilot has claimed.
Dominic James, who had his pilot’s licence temporarily suspended following the incident, said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had *“significantly altered the findings” of an accident report. “Once this misconduct was disclosed, the (agencies) then lied quite publicly about what they knew and defended this unsound report,” Mr James told The Australian.
Two people involved in the crash of the medevac flight, nurse Karen Casey and doctor David Helm, have sued Pel-Air — an arm of Regional Express, or Rex — with the case being heard in the NSW Supreme Court this week.
After the accident it was revealed an ATSB investigation had failed to mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel-Air which had been identified by CASA. Those revelations sparked a parliamentary inquiry that reported in December, leading the federal government to call on the ATSB to launch a new probe.
An external investigation was also undertaken by the Canadian Transport Bureau, which also found major problems with the existing report.
Questions are being asked over Rex’s government relationships after the small listed company donated almost $400,000 to the federal ALP and LNP between July and November 2012, while the ATSB and CASA investi*gations were ongoing.
Rex has repeatedly declined to comment when asked by The Australian why it made those *political donations with shareholder funds.
The company has not made any donations since then and the only other political donations the company had ever made was $3486 to the ALP in the year to June 2004.
There were six people aboard the Pel-Air flight when it ditched into the ocean near Norfolk Island after running out of fuel, but no lives were lost.
Lawyers for Ms Casey, who was seriously injured in the crash, told judge Monika Schmidt she has suffered from severe physical and mental problems following the crash and will never be able to work again. Ms Casey and Dr Helm are seeking damages, while Rex is arguing it has no obligation to make any payments.
The case continues.
THE AUSTRALIAN FEBRUARY 04, 2015 12:00AM
Anthony Klan
Journalist
Sydney
https://plus.google.com/110790254144288601738/
THE two government agencies responsible for policing aviation “publicly lied” about the full circumstances of a 2009 Pel-Air crash off Norfolk Island, the plane’s pilot has claimed.
Dominic James, who had his pilot’s licence temporarily suspended following the incident, said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had *“significantly altered the findings” of an accident report. “Once this misconduct was disclosed, the (agencies) then lied quite publicly about what they knew and defended this unsound report,” Mr James told The Australian.
Two people involved in the crash of the medevac flight, nurse Karen Casey and doctor David Helm, have sued Pel-Air — an arm of Regional Express, or Rex — with the case being heard in the NSW Supreme Court this week.
After the accident it was revealed an ATSB investigation had failed to mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel-Air which had been identified by CASA. Those revelations sparked a parliamentary inquiry that reported in December, leading the federal government to call on the ATSB to launch a new probe.
An external investigation was also undertaken by the Canadian Transport Bureau, which also found major problems with the existing report.
Questions are being asked over Rex’s government relationships after the small listed company donated almost $400,000 to the federal ALP and LNP between July and November 2012, while the ATSB and CASA investi*gations were ongoing.
Rex has repeatedly declined to comment when asked by The Australian why it made those *political donations with shareholder funds.
The company has not made any donations since then and the only other political donations the company had ever made was $3486 to the ALP in the year to June 2004.
There were six people aboard the Pel-Air flight when it ditched into the ocean near Norfolk Island after running out of fuel, but no lives were lost.
Lawyers for Ms Casey, who was seriously injured in the crash, told judge Monika Schmidt she has suffered from severe physical and mental problems following the crash and will never be able to work again. Ms Casey and Dr Helm are seeking damages, while Rex is arguing it has no obligation to make any payments.
The case continues.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Another Truss "Wafflegram" 
So they might seriously decline?
And what did he say would be happening with 36 of the 37 recommendations? :roll eyes:
“As a consequence, I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to reopening the investigation.’’
And what did he say would be happening with 36 of the 37 recommendations? :roll eyes:
If the plaintiffs are successful (through judgement or negotiated settlement) and the operator's underwriter has to pay damages, I wonder if that paves the way for the underwriter to claim against CASA on the grounds of alleged inadequate regulatory oversight which increased the underwriters risk.
An offshore underwriter could reasonably expect the regulator to look after all interests, including those of the underwriter.
An offshore underwriter could reasonably expect the regulator to look after all interests, including those of the underwriter.
Last edited by slats11; 4th Feb 2015 at 22:39.
Nearly 22 years ago an RPT Chieftain flew through the trees and impacted the ground on a dark and stormy night, whilst on approach into Young in central west NSW.
As a result of the Coronial inquest the insurance underwriters of the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Lloyds of London, determined that an ex- gratis payment of no less than $20 million be paid to the families of the 5 passengers killed in the accident. These payments were on the condition that the families of the victims sought no action against the CAA for its role in the oversight of the airline. Lloyds then "Wiped" the Australian regulator!
The Government changed the name of the regulator, liquidated the FOI, and then sought indemnity elsewhere. Nothing much else changed.
I wonder what the current insurance underwriters feel about the lessons of history?
As a result of the Coronial inquest the insurance underwriters of the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Lloyds of London, determined that an ex- gratis payment of no less than $20 million be paid to the families of the 5 passengers killed in the accident. These payments were on the condition that the families of the victims sought no action against the CAA for its role in the oversight of the airline. Lloyds then "Wiped" the Australian regulator!
The Government changed the name of the regulator, liquidated the FOI, and then sought indemnity elsewhere. Nothing much else changed.
I wonder what the current insurance underwriters feel about the lessons of history?
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
CAsA have 'limited liability'. (I understand it's not very much). It would be interesting to find out who underwrites the underwriter if Lloyds 'wiped' any regulator by any name.
A 'conditional' ex-gratis payment' is borderline 'a payment accepted under duress.
A 'conditional' ex-gratis payment' is borderline 'a payment accepted under duress.
Watch out World!
Sunny: Net result of CASA corruption and incompetence will be higher insurance premiums for Australian registered aircraft compared to other developed countries.
On a slightly different tack I noticed some interesting obs by Dougy in his weekly insight:
Editor's insights 5 February 2015
05 Feb 2015
Doug Nancarrow
Lots of informed speculation circulating at the moment, including about the CASA board, Qantas and the appointment of a new ICAO Secretary General.
There’s set to be some changes to the CASA board when chairman Allan Hawke steps down in the second quarter. I have assumed up till recently that deputy chair Jeff Boyd would take on the role at that time, but there’s some talk that an entirely new chairman may be appointed. If that’s so then there’s one obvious candidate for the job, but would he want to take it on? Either way, the ‘new’ CASA board needs to be independently proactive and firmly behind the new DAS, to help him stay on song in his relationships with industry and with those powerful CASA elements that can be obstacles to change.
The other thing the CASA board and the Minister’s office should be looking at is reconvening the team that put together the ASRR Report, now more commonly known as the Forsyth Report. We’re rapidly approaching the one-year mark since the report was delivered to the Minister and given a pretty general industry view that not much has been done about the report’s recommendations it would be a damned good idea for the trio who put it together to give us a report on progress - or lack of it.
On the Qantas front there's been some chatter that chairman Leigh Clifford might have decided that he’s had enough after seven years at the helm. If that turns out to be the case then it could have significant implications for CEO Alan Joyce who has worked very closely with Clifford. Even more so if rumours about a Clifford replacement also turn out to be true.
And we’ll know about the second week of March if Australia’s official nominee for the top job at ICAO has got in. The contest for the ICAO Secretary General position, now in its final days, is between former CASA DAS John McCormick and a Chinese nominee who has been running the human resources side of things in Montreal. Regardless of any residual industry sentiment about J Mc it would be excellent to see an Australian running the show up there.
Despite the extraordinary distractions in Canberra right now, it seems likely that the Senate star chamber will shortly be targeting unresolved aviation issues such as the Pelair ditching. And aviation entities such as Airservices and ATSB are not out of the woods yet either. I fully understand the need for vigilance with regard to the performance of these aviation bodies, but it can get out of hand and become a huge distraction from the real work they are charged with performing. Just look at the way the NSW ICAC has run amok in recent times. Dig deep and hard enough and you’ll always find something amiss, but you will run the risk of turning a target into an organisation focused almost entirely on its own survival instead of the job it should be getting on with. Finding the right balance is not something
Senate committees have in mind. They want blood.
05 Feb 2015
Doug Nancarrow
Lots of informed speculation circulating at the moment, including about the CASA board, Qantas and the appointment of a new ICAO Secretary General.
There’s set to be some changes to the CASA board when chairman Allan Hawke steps down in the second quarter. I have assumed up till recently that deputy chair Jeff Boyd would take on the role at that time, but there’s some talk that an entirely new chairman may be appointed. If that’s so then there’s one obvious candidate for the job, but would he want to take it on? Either way, the ‘new’ CASA board needs to be independently proactive and firmly behind the new DAS, to help him stay on song in his relationships with industry and with those powerful CASA elements that can be obstacles to change.
The other thing the CASA board and the Minister’s office should be looking at is reconvening the team that put together the ASRR Report, now more commonly known as the Forsyth Report. We’re rapidly approaching the one-year mark since the report was delivered to the Minister and given a pretty general industry view that not much has been done about the report’s recommendations it would be a damned good idea for the trio who put it together to give us a report on progress - or lack of it.
On the Qantas front there's been some chatter that chairman Leigh Clifford might have decided that he’s had enough after seven years at the helm. If that turns out to be the case then it could have significant implications for CEO Alan Joyce who has worked very closely with Clifford. Even more so if rumours about a Clifford replacement also turn out to be true.
And we’ll know about the second week of March if Australia’s official nominee for the top job at ICAO has got in. The contest for the ICAO Secretary General position, now in its final days, is between former CASA DAS John McCormick and a Chinese nominee who has been running the human resources side of things in Montreal. Regardless of any residual industry sentiment about J Mc it would be excellent to see an Australian running the show up there.
Despite the extraordinary distractions in Canberra right now, it seems likely that the Senate star chamber will shortly be targeting unresolved aviation issues such as the Pelair ditching. And aviation entities such as Airservices and ATSB are not out of the woods yet either. I fully understand the need for vigilance with regard to the performance of these aviation bodies, but it can get out of hand and become a huge distraction from the real work they are charged with performing. Just look at the way the NSW ICAC has run amok in recent times. Dig deep and hard enough and you’ll always find something amiss, but you will run the risk of turning a target into an organisation focused almost entirely on its own survival instead of the job it should be getting on with. Finding the right balance is not something
Senate committees have in mind. They want blood.
However it was the 5th paragraph that almost made me vomit..."...Regardless of any residual industry sentiment about J Mc it would be excellent to see an Australian running the show up there..."
...but then I thought nahh Dougy's got his tongue fairly stuck in his cheek..
I also did a small exercise and passed Dougy's missive around and here was a couple of (anonymous..
) responses..."...If Doug and I were in the same room I'd suggest that McCormick's behaviour in the Pel-Air episode the lying to protect CASA at the expense of air safety and the victims of the crash should render him ineligible...I would endorse his suggestion of a Forsyth review..."
"...Agreed. His integrity is such that he simply can't occupy such a position...Then imagine how awkward it would be if Aust aviation was to be downgraded as a result of deficiencies on his watch...Too many skeletons..."
But my personal favourite was this one...
:Lock up your daughters, hide your gold.Which surprisingly heavily supported a twitlonger piece I had been working on when the J Mac ICAO secgen story was covered by the MMSM the Oz - Watch out world!:
CASA chief John McCormick’s ICAO nomination confirmed
THE federal government has confirmed its nomination of the former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief John McCormick for the secretary-general’s position at the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Mr McCormick finished his term last year amid controversy about the way CASA dealt with the industry and after a highly critical 2013 Senate committee report into the authority’s role in an investigation of the 2009 crash of a Pel-Air air ambulance off Norfolk Island.
The Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth, called for sweeping reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.
The report was ordered by Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss in response to industry criticism of CASA and concerns about the adequacy of the Australian Transport Safety Board’s investigation into the Pel-Air ditching.
It accused the regulator of adopting “an across-the-board hardline philosophy, which in the panel’s view is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia’’.
The government said it would investigate 36 of the review’s 37 recommendations.
Mr McCormick’s nomination appears to have been revealed at an ICAO seminar last year by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s international standards director, Jamie Thomson.
A spokesman for Mr Truss this week confirmed the endorsement of Mr McCormick to replace Raymond Benjamin when his term expires on June 30.
“Having an Australian serve as ICAO secretary-general would present a unique opportunity to further enhance Australia’s international reputation in maintaining the safety and security of aviation and for Australia to continue to influence international aviation policy development,’’ the spokesman said.
“Mr McCormick has over 30 years of experience in the aviation industry as CEO of CASA, a senior pilot and airline manager, as well as experience in the RAAF. No other candidate for secretary-general of ICAO can bring the same experience and qualifications to the role.’’
THE federal government has confirmed its nomination of the former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief John McCormick for the secretary-general’s position at the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Mr McCormick finished his term last year amid controversy about the way CASA dealt with the industry and after a highly critical 2013 Senate committee report into the authority’s role in an investigation of the 2009 crash of a Pel-Air air ambulance off Norfolk Island.
The Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth, called for sweeping reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.
The report was ordered by Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss in response to industry criticism of CASA and concerns about the adequacy of the Australian Transport Safety Board’s investigation into the Pel-Air ditching.
It accused the regulator of adopting “an across-the-board hardline philosophy, which in the panel’s view is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia’’.
The government said it would investigate 36 of the review’s 37 recommendations.
Mr McCormick’s nomination appears to have been revealed at an ICAO seminar last year by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s international standards director, Jamie Thomson.
A spokesman for Mr Truss this week confirmed the endorsement of Mr McCormick to replace Raymond Benjamin when his term expires on June 30.
“Having an Australian serve as ICAO secretary-general would present a unique opportunity to further enhance Australia’s international reputation in maintaining the safety and security of aviation and for Australia to continue to influence international aviation policy development,’’ the spokesman said.
“Mr McCormick has over 30 years of experience in the aviation industry as CEO of CASA, a senior pilot and airline manager, as well as experience in the RAAF. No other candidate for secretary-general of ICAO can bring the same experience and qualifications to the role.’’
Remember this...??
Buyer (ICAO) beware!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the extraordinary distractions in Canberra right now, it seems likely that the Senate star chamber will shortly be targeting unresolved aviation issues such as the Pelair ditching.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ,for one, miss the two closed threads. I suspect content rather than posting rules led to the closure. The material Sarcs posted was well researched and I enjoyed Kharon's sense of humour. Bring back a similar thread I say. Perhaps one discussing the rate of implementation of the Forsyth recommendations.
Greedy
Greedy
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
edited to take out personal stuff..CFI
The Norfolk Island matter is part of the big problem which a lot seem to want to ignore for whatever reasons. The writings of any author deserve to be aired if in the interests of the big picture.
I hope I'm not out of order in reminding all that it's been over 12 months since the Forsyth Report, (which included the Pel-Air matter), and nothing has yet been done.
I'm getting to the stage of not caring any more.
The Norfolk Island matter is part of the big problem which a lot seem to want to ignore for whatever reasons. The writings of any author deserve to be aired if in the interests of the big picture.
I hope I'm not out of order in reminding all that it's been over 12 months since the Forsyth Report, (which included the Pel-Air matter), and nothing has yet been done.
I'm getting to the stage of not caring any more.
The over control is a thing that perturbs a lot of us. Robust debate should always be expected, covering an extensive array of major issues and minutia, for this is indeed the serious side of this website.
As Kharon has implied, the sheer weight of numbers reflected in the
recorded visits to some of those threads , speaks volumes for
the extent of public and non-public interest.
Would a post here, extracted from the 'Concerned Aviator' blog,
referring to the Cairns to Canberra Caravan, survive?
(edited to reduce risk of deletion)
Examples of the problem:
A classic that I researched was the "CAIRNS TO CANBERRA ANTI-CORRUPTION CARAVAN"
In this case, the original PPRuNe thread, (Mark 1) , had nearly 9,000 views in 10 days, , a very large interest from a thread that started with no-notice on 8th October 2014. The detractors, then had the thread removed, not locked, as was the case with Mark 2.
There were a number of people who “outed themselves” and their PPRuNe identities. These people are well known as people who have been given “..inside runs..”.
Serious new information was gained by the caravan in it’s travels.
From the reports in at the time, the caravan achieved it's aims. This was the first time an event like this had been undertaken on a private basis. It certainly showed what can be done.
One of the caravan participants told the author that the Lockhart River issue does not appear to have been resolved. Also that new information has been discovered.
When this was posted on the PPRuNe site, the usual suspects rolled in, including an individual who allegedly was involved in cover-ups.
There were those who conspired to stop what was, potentially, a most effective operation to expose the corruption. It would be interesting to know who was putting pressure on these individuals to make the posts. Looking at the current situation, with the locking of a series of threads, ones which have attracted enormous interest, ones that looked at the ASRR and Senate matters, these threads have had almost 1,500,000 reads since their commencement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK . . .. . don't give up . . .. . don't say NRMA (nothing really matters anymore)
As Kharon has implied, the sheer weight of numbers reflected in the
recorded visits to some of those threads , speaks volumes for
the extent of public and non-public interest.
Would a post here, extracted from the 'Concerned Aviator' blog,
referring to the Cairns to Canberra Caravan, survive?
(edited to reduce risk of deletion)
Examples of the problem:
A classic that I researched was the "CAIRNS TO CANBERRA ANTI-CORRUPTION CARAVAN"
In this case, the original PPRuNe thread, (Mark 1) , had nearly 9,000 views in 10 days, , a very large interest from a thread that started with no-notice on 8th October 2014. The detractors, then had the thread removed, not locked, as was the case with Mark 2.
There were a number of people who “outed themselves” and their PPRuNe identities. These people are well known as people who have been given “..inside runs..”.
Serious new information was gained by the caravan in it’s travels.
From the reports in at the time, the caravan achieved it's aims. This was the first time an event like this had been undertaken on a private basis. It certainly showed what can be done.
One of the caravan participants told the author that the Lockhart River issue does not appear to have been resolved. Also that new information has been discovered.
When this was posted on the PPRuNe site, the usual suspects rolled in, including an individual who allegedly was involved in cover-ups.
There were those who conspired to stop what was, potentially, a most effective operation to expose the corruption. It would be interesting to know who was putting pressure on these individuals to make the posts. Looking at the current situation, with the locking of a series of threads, ones which have attracted enormous interest, ones that looked at the ASRR and Senate matters, these threads have had almost 1,500,000 reads since their commencement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK . . .. . don't give up . . .. . don't say NRMA (nothing really matters anymore)
