Did Barrier get their AOC back?

[004wercras]

Barrier Update

Barrier update. Alive but barely kicking.

Barrier Aviation fights to overturn grounding decision - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Too many good people there to deserve this ****. Keep your heads up boys.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Today's directions hearing is expected to set the matter down for a 10-day hearing in December.

I hope Dave scores more than a "Moral victory" if he has to wait to December.

When Yanda was grounded they had the good sense to quit the field instead of eroding the capital they had built. I can only wish the Killens well.

[Cactusjack]

R.I.P Barrier Aviation

Qld airline withdraws grounding appeal

[seneca208]

Torres Strait Air | Air Charter Company

Rebirthing begins perhaps?

[Me_3]

Domain Name.........: torresair.com
Registrar...........: CRAZY DOMAINS FZ-LLC
Registrant Name.....: Flightech Pty Ltd


Not barrier....

[Kharon]

I have heard recently that Dave K is 'not well', the stress, strain and money have all been detrimental. I suspect the Entsch back down did not help; at all. Ah well, cross that one off the potential employer list. Disgusting.

[Car RAMROD]

Maybe it's a better choice to not try overturn the current ruling?

[Cactusjack]

Barrier not done and dusted?

I heard today that Barrier are not done and dusted, and that just because they aren't appealing the AAT ruling it doesn't mean they have given up the fight. Supposedly Warren Entsch has received a commitment from Truss that CAsA will be thoroughly reviewed by an international aviation expert (or possibly two), who have no ties to CAsA or any agenda (hard to believe really). Wazza is pretty fired up again and once more he states that he is on a mission to bring the CAsA Barrier Buggerers to account! So I guess it could be a case of watch out Team FNQ and the Bald Eagle in Brisbane? Then again, it could all be a smokescreen, a little hocus pocus, a robust deflection of IOS observations by Team CAsA?

[Kharon]

Has play resumed then?

FWIW the article published in –Torres News– seems to suggest that good sense may yet prevail. Parliament is up and running, estimates next week; better stock up on the old popcorn, chips and suitable libations (that's a fridge full of beer).

íso̱s, tal vez, peut-être, mozhet byt', vielleicht: maybe the chooks will come home to roost yet. We shall see....

[GedStreet]

JFC

JFC did do some operations with Barrier Aircraft and crew out of DN and YBCS. I warned the CP not to put his head into the lions mouth and guess what happened today?

...CASA Canberra descended on JFC today. Will be here for a full week and brought 6 investigators. And an SMS from the CP a few minutes ago declared that CASA didn't bring any lube.

I predict the Show Cause will arrive at 16:29 on the day CASA switches the lights off for Christmas - 1st anniversary of Barriers S.C.N.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and Barrier

Some interesting questions by Senator David Fawcett in Senate estimates today.

A short summary of these:

CASA in Senate estimates hearing McCormick tries to justify slowness | Assistance to the Aviation Industry

Post of Hansard shortly.

[lostwingnut]

Senate Inquiry

Here is a link with some details on the upcoming enquiry Aviation regulation back under the microscope | Pro Aviation


GedSteet, just to correct some of your reporting - no offence intended in any way. JFC has not operated out of Cairns at all, just Darwin.

Their Darwin operation seemed to have picked up staff and aircraft from Av8, Barrier and Direct Air. I know they currently lease the old Barrier building, but surely CASA can't get upset over a building lease - I could be wrong, they have gotten into a tiff over other odd things

Let's hope CASA doesn't do the Sunday before Christmas media storm again

[GedStreet]

I stand corrected.

Thank you for the correction. I know, my mate the CP of JFC did go to both Darwin and Cairns so I assumed both had kicked off.

Well, poor old JFC smells horribly like what happened to us at Alligator and to my friends at Barrier too.

I just hope I'm wrong. CAsA doesn't win - it just drives you to an untenable situation.

[aroa]

Team FNQ...

Be advised TFNQ still beavering away at cock-ups supreme = ops normal.
Recent very deficient "investigation" into a broken Robbo and all those CAsA should be charged with mis, mal and NON feasance because their failure to act on serious breaches of the regulations has had dire consequences for innocent individuals, causing stress and financial/legal imposts as a result

And a load of work and $$s over SFA..none of which would have occurred IF they had done their job properly.

Does FF give an airborne fornication about that?..stress and financial hurt to others.
Not likely.. just keep it quiet, in-house and all will hopefully fade away.

So Mr Truss...and Warren Entsch..you better make it a bloody big broom or shovel if you want to clean the place out.
And the sooner the better..

[Up-into-the-air]

casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry and so is mccormick

The following is from the Hansard of the Senate on Monday [18th November 2013]:

In part:

Senator FAWCETT: There are a few issues I would like to cover off on. First, can you give us an update on what is happening with Barrier Aviation. It is some months now, I understand, since they were given a 'show cause' and ceased operating. Can you give us an update on what has occurred there?

Mr McCormick: I will ask my general counsel to give you the time line on that. While he is coming forward to the desk I can tell you that we started on 23 December with a 'serious and imminent risk' situation. At this moment we have no application on record from Barrier Aviation to continue or appeal their air operator certificate cancellation. But I will leave that to my general counsel.

Senator FAWCETT: You say you have nothing on record. My understanding is that they have sought, numerous times, to appear before the AAT. Are you saying that they never have or that there is nothing currently on record?

Mr McCormick: I will defer to my general counsel.

Mr Anastasi: In relation to the question you just asked, there was an application by Barrier on 9 May 2013 for the reissue of its AOC, air operators certificate. That followed CASA cancelling the air operators certificate on 13 March 2013. In relation to the more recent application for the AOC, CASA refused to issue that AOC on 31 July, and that was largely on the basis of the reasons for which it cancelled the AOC. Barrier sought review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of both of those decisions and, ultimately, after a hearing was listed in December, withdrew both those applications on 16 October.

The rest is at: Barrier Aviation and Senate estimates Hansard report | Assistance to the Aviation Industry

[Up-into-the-air]

Barrier article

Published today in Cairns:

Barrier Aviation considers separate legal action after withdrawing appeal against CASA decision | Business News | Business and Finance News | | Cairns Post

[Sarcs]

Protected species vs hung strung & quartered!

Wazza's media release: FNQ aviation industry urged to speak up

Entsch quotes:
...“I welcome the minister’s Review,” Mr Entsch said today.
“The Terms of Reference outline how the panel will consult closely with general aviation, industry and public stakeholders. This will provide an opportunity for operators like Barrier Aviation – and others from around Australia who have contacted me – to provide information on the appalling way in which they have been treated by CASA officers.
“The fact that they will be dealing with a panel of well-respected overseas experts should mean that at least they will get a fair hearing, unlike the blatant prejudice to which they’ve been subjected to date"....
...“I would absolutely encourage anyone who has had an issue with CASA procedures - and in particular their officers - to put in a submission,” Mr Entsch said.

“In addition, if they have experienced repeated and unresolved problems with individuals within CASA, they can give evidence in Canberra and name them. Testimony will be subject to parliamentary privilege and cannot be intimidated by legal threats.”
Kind of falls in line with the questioning by Senator Fawcett at the tail end of the Fort Fumble inquisition at Senate Estimates..

Warning - Features an appearance from Wodger's fellow anthropomorphised mate from the fable 'Bankstown Down' :

Senator FAWCETT: I would like to come back to a few more questions about Barrier Aviation. I am still trying to understand exactly the process that has gone on here.

Mr McCormick, you had a company that you obviously had grave concerns about in terms of its safety. You obviously did audits of that company. What kind of resource would normally be allocated to an audit of a company, as you have described it—a family run company? How many people and for how long—what sort of resources—would normally be thrown at that?

Mr McCormick : I will ask our Executive Manager of Operations to give you a better idea about that. The ownership structure does not drive the number of inspectors; it is the size of the operation that drives that, as you would appreciate.

Senator FAWCETT: Sure.

Mr McCormick : As a background to Barrier Aviation, when the documentation was first brought to me suggesting that there was a 'serious an imminent risk' issue I was not satisfied that there was sufficient information given. By the time we did issue that order I was more than satisfied that the information was sufficient, as was confirmed. I think we have taken a couple of questions on notice about our way through our discussion with Barrier Aviation. The option has been open to Barrier Aviation for some time—all of this year—to take some action.

Senator FAWCETT: One of the problems we have is that we hear complaints from industry. Without an AAT process having occurred we do not get to see the objective facts of a matter. One of the few vehicles we have to try and get the other side of the story is this process of Senate estimates, which is why I am trying to get the balance of the facts to understand what has eventuated in this process. I want to see whether, in fact, we have a problem with our system or whether appropriate process was gone through.

Mr Campbell : I think your question was about how much resource would be put into an audit of an organisation of that size. The audits we have done recently would have been done within our certificate management team structure. So, in an audit like we would expect to involve flight operations inspectors, air worthiness inspectors and safety systems inspectors. Within the certificate management team, the CMT will decide how many people are appropriate for the audit and how long the audit will take. Audits, as you would realise, are sometimes like following a trail. You cannot always be sure how long it is going to go. Sometimes when you do an audit you find that everything is great; it does not lead to anything else. Other times things move on because the guys gather evidence which says that we need to go an look at this or that, and that sometimes leads to other things. I would expect three or four people to be involved in an audit like that and for it to take place over several days on site. Then, of course, often they will take away photocopies of material or logbooks and do a whole lot of work off site as well.

Senator FAWCETT: So three to four people over several days is what you think would be normal?

Mr Campbell : Depending on where it led and the size of the organisation, and Barrier have several locations, so we would have had to move people around to those various locations.

Senator FAWCETT: So you think four people for two weeks twice is an excessive amount at just their Cairns headquarters?

Mr Campbell : Like I said, it depends where it leads—and where it was leading was not that fantastic. I have to say that before we even had the information from Horn Island we were looking seriously at show cause action at that time. There had been a couple of audits done that year. There was one done—if I recall, it was a special audit???—which resulted in quite a large number of non-compliance notices and, if I recall, the issue of about 12 ASRs against aircraft, four of which were coded ASRs and required maintenance on the aircraft before further flight. There was a lot of concern about that organisation and about the things that were going on there.

Senator FAWCETT: What kind of concerns would normally be conveyed in the verbal outbrief at the end of an audit? Would they normally give the AOC holder a broad understanding of the nature and seriousness of a concern?

Mr Campbell : Yes, I believe so.

Senator FAWCETT: Do CASA hold any records of what the content of those verbal outbriefs are?

Mr Campbell : I think you are talking about an exit meeting. I believe that we still have an exit meeting under our current processes and our current surveillance manual, and I believe there would be records of that meeting.

Senator FAWCETT: Are you able to provide those to the committee? Again, I am only getting one side of the story at the moment, and my understanding is that the exit meeting did not indicate any serious problems that would indicate a show cause notice forthcoming.

Mr Campbell : I would not expect our inspectors to be talking about show cause at an exit meeting, quite frankly {Hmm kind of conflicts with.."I have to say that before we even had the information from Horn Island we were looking seriously at show cause action at that time..."}. I think that is a decision that we make as part of our coordinated enforcement process, and it requires input from more people than just the inspectors to start talking about things like a show cause notice. I would expect them to say, 'We found this and this and this,' and we will be in touch with them.

Senator FAWCETT: I believe Horn Island was the area where the most concern was. I think there was an audit done—I think Twin Otter was the aircraft that was of concern. Can you tell me how many defects were found on that aircraft when you did the audit?

Mr Campbell : I do not recall the Twin Otter. I will have to take that one on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is that it was less than a handful of things like landing lights. Again, there is no AAT process we can look at to understand the balance of this argument. Are you able to provide me—even if it is in confidence—with a record of what the deficiencies were that caused the concern in CASA, because I am certainly not seeing the same story from the other side that would lend weight to a grounding situation, which is essentially what has occurred?

Mr McCormick : Yes, we will take that on notice and provide you with all the documentation we can. I am cognizant that the committee had a discussion earlier today with Mr Mrdak about FOI versus committee requests, and we acknowledge that anything we give to you will be in confidence. We will do our utmost to give you anything we have available on that, and we will certainly find the reports you refer to and the recommendation paperwork that came to me which led to the serious and imminent risk decision. Is it satisfactory that we go up to that decision point?

Very interesting... I could be wrong but this statement..." if I recall, it was a special audit" bythenew trough dweller is not in fact correct and there in lies the problem for DK i.e. there was no heads up for his company's impending doom.

As was highlighted in the PelAir debacle, once the company became aware of the FF intention to Special Audit them, the company took the proactive action to ground their operation and were subsequently allowed to enact a management action plan to address their significant safety issues within their AOC. I don't believe any such 'olive branch' was offered up to DK, the first heads up DK received was a SCN on Xmas eve.

FF may then argue that the maintenance issues highlighted were so serious and disturbing that they were given little choice but to issue the SCN. Hmm..wouldn't it have been more prudent to ask DK to ground the suspect defective aircraft until the 4 most disturbing (to FF at least) ASRs were addressed and then conduct a special audit early in the New Year??

Coming back to the apparent FF 'us and them' mentality we should remind ourselves of the number of ASRs and RCAs issued to PelAir in the course of the special audit, here is a couple of examples:

ASR 251813

For rectification:

• Standby Compass bubble;
• Evidence of lightning strike;
• Numerous exterior decals missing;
• Compass correction card dated April 2000 and 2002; and
• Damage to RH nosewheel.

RCA 321071 has been issued for failure to comply with CAR 50 - Reporting of Defects.

Of course history will show that the good work of the audit AWIs in the PelAir Special audit was subsequently white-washed by Wodger and shelfwared by his fellow anthropomorphised mate...

More to follow...

[Josh Cox]

Senator FAWCETT: I believe Horn Island was the area where the most concern was. I think there was an audit done—I think Twin Otter was the aircraft that was of concern. Can you tell me how many defects were found on that aircraft when you did the audit?

That is a very smart question, Barrier don't/didn't operate a "Twin Otter"and I am pretty sure the good Senator knew this, that was an ambush by Senator Fawcett. Very interesting.

[Kharon]

SPECULATIVE OPINION.

To understand the Barrier 2012 audit it is essential to examine the 2009 audit, conducted in YYYY by Agent X. The syntax has varied little throughout, the 'stretch' of black letter law and liberal applications of subjective opinion have provided 'conclusions' and 'summary' which have been used to frame the case.

It is noteworthy that Agent X was under severe pressure at the time, both he and Agent Y were subject to a very serious operator challenge to have Agent X removed. Several operators fully intended to sue CASA for exactly the same reasons as those demonstrated throughout the Barrier 2009 audit. Happily, the complaining operators won the day and Agent X was demoted and sent South; ostensibly to sharpen the pencils.

It is also worth contemplating the curious responses from CASA to NCN and the repetition of acquitted NCN. It is passing strange that CASA accepted 95% of the proposed remedies, but rejected 100% of the identified 'root cause'. Subjective opinion stridently denies logic; if an identified problem has been accepted as cured, it must follow that the root cause has been correctly identified. Not so for Barrier.

For an example: there is much made of CAO 48 issues, the word 'intent' is freely used. Had there been 'intent' then the industry exemption, freely offered could have been applied for. Application of SIE 5 latitude negates any 'grave concern' over the very few, minor technical breaches alleged to be serious Barrier FDP control issues. Barrier FDP records demonstrate compliance with SIE 5. Had there been operations outside of the standard industry exemption latitude, then perhaps a safety case could be brought. But it could only be against one, isolated, disputed 'rest period' allowance, with the pilot at fault. This is not the provable, chronic, systemic aberration of CAO 48, claimed to be enforced by the operator.

It gets worse, when the dust settles perhaps some of the NCN can be released for peer review. Perhaps between Wazza and the Senate committee, some of this can be brought out into the open.

[Paragraph377]

Speculation, conjecture, fifth amendment, I was busy in Montreal, etc etc......

Kharon, there is logic in what you are saying good sir about 'CASA accepting mitigation of the NCN finding, but not closing off the NCN due to the 'root cause not being identified'. However the issue is this - CASA like lots of paperwork, evidence, confessions etc etc. By the operator filling in the root cause they are admitting in writing that they admit and accept that they stuffed up. This is as good as a murderer admitting in writing that he committed a murder, annotating how he did it and then providing evidence to back his confession (maybe a fingerprint or DNA sample). CASA couldn't give a smear of donkey pooh whether an operator 'understands how they screwed up'. It's about ensuring that CASA aren't scrutinised, implicated or have blame attributed to them for any cock ups, and of course it is about building those 'secret files', you know, the ones that don't exist on operators or individuals apparently, but are miraculously tied up in a bundle and shoved up your Hershey highway on a day that suits them! (Perhaps after a complaint to the ICC??)

And in Barriers case it is very interesting. You see Barrier was never one for 'towing the CASA line', and I mean that in a political sense, or as Sunfish would say; 'to put it another way', Barrier didn't take any CASA bullsh#t. They had received support from local politicians and other operators over the years (this is not a revelation of secrets, it is a well known fact), and CASA FNQ didn't like this. But life goes on, slowly slowly catch the monkey, and when the timing was right Barrier received a Class A piece of CASA wrath at its very best - show cause at Xmas!! Ding ding that's it folks, down tools, pack up and go home, the show is over, no replay and no encore, done, goooone.

Anyway, on a separate note, I know that CASA, in its charter, must apply due diligence. Also, as an example to industry it must record its data, trend information, secure documents in a robust workable system (funny how TRIM and Sky Sentinel fail at this), and produce said information upon request by someone such as the ICAO or even the ANAO.
So my suggestion to the Senators would be this. Once the scope of the upcoming estimates/inquiry/inquisition has been set, ask respondents to supply documentation on how they received an unscheduled audit, regulatory action, a show cause, increased surveillance, persuaded to remove a key person such as HOFO or HAAMC, after a complaint was made to the ICC or taken up with the AAT! If the operator can supply detailed notes including dates, times and locations, even go so far as to create a gant chart, timeline or flowchart to help paint the picture, I think all will be very very surprised at what they see unfold This pattern of documented evidence could be perhaps compared to Fort Fumbles record of events (only if they can find them of course), after all an admin clerk could have accidentally shredded them, perhaps a power outage occurred and then a subsequent power surge corrupted those specific TRIM files? Oh dear, these things can happen I have heard!

Anyway, it is past 1659 on a Friday and I have more data searching to undertake. As Leadie would say, Tootle Pip.