[Peetwo]

More on the demise of JetGo - 

Via the Northern Daily Leader:

JUNE 13 2018 - 3:26PM
JetGo in debt up to $32m, thousands owed flight refunds

• Kate McIlwain
  

Ailing regional airline JetGo could have potential debt of up to $32 million, according to Shellharbour City Council staff who attended the company’s first creditors meeting.

Held on Wednesday morning in Brisbane, the three and a half hour meeting was attended by about 100 people with a number of other creditors – including Shelharbour and other councils, and the Australian Taxation Office – phoning in.

In a summary put together by Shellharbour’s general manger Carey McIntyre and the council’s governance manager, the council reported that JetGo had “confirmed total exposure is $17 million, with a potential total exposure of $32 million”.

Read more: Shellharbour council owed $149k in passenger fees by JetGo

They also said 10,000 customers were owed money, along with 200 unsecured creditors, 12 secured creditors and 112 employees. 

JetGo listed its assets as four aircraft, office equipment, assets at airports, two vehicles, and stock. 

The Air Operating Certificate, which is granted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and gives permission to conduct commercial activities, was JetGo’s biggest asset, the council said.

Administrators are working to secure these assets.

After weeks of rumours about the airline’s cash shortages and debts – and court action from Dubbo Regional Council which requested the compnay to be wound up – Jetgo announced it would go into voluntary administration on June 1.

It immediately suspended all passenger flights, including those operating to Melbourne and Brisbane from the Illawarra Regional Airport.

At the time, managing director Paul Bredereck told the Mercury that he hoped the administration period would be “a temporary measure”.

Shellharbour council says it is owed about $420,000 in passenger taxes and unpaid security costs.

After Wednesday’s meeting, the council also reported that four parties expressed interest in putting together a proposal to take over JetGo.

Shellharbour council nominated to be a part of a committee of creditors which represents the interest of other parties owed money, however this nomination was not successful.

The next report from the administrators is due on June 27, with a second creditors’ meeting convened on July 6.

At this meeting, all creditors will vote either for liquidation of JetGo or deed of company administration.
Illawarra Mercury

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Hmmm...how naive are the council scavengers err....creditors.

The AOC is the biggest asset???

Has anyone told them the AOC is not worth the paper its printed on? It's
actually a liability. The costs of reassigning an AOC can be almost as much
as obtaining one in the first place, then there's no guarantee CAsA would
deem anyone who tried "Fit and Proper". Ya pays Ya money and takes ya chances.

[Gobbledock]

Agree with Thorny, an AOC is worth jackshit. You spend a tonne of money obtaining it and then you spend a tonne of money keeping it, all the while knowing that Fort Fumble can shred it at the blink of an eye. It’s not like buying a taxi lisense, but then again they used to be an investment until the Government green lighted Uber in the blink of an eye and sent hundreds of owner/drivers bankrupt or left them with million dollar lisenses now worth $80k. Assholes. And CAsA don’t give a crap about cost because it’s all taxpayer money so to them who gives a shit.

As for Councils being owed $200k to $470k, DONT blame JetGo, blame your local dickhead Council CEO, CFO and Finance department for allowing a pissy little airline to rack up such a large bill. That would have taken ages to accumulate. That’s poor Council management. The local councillors should kick the Council management teams ass. More taxpayer money written off.

Old mate Bredereck has put on about 30kgs in the past year, must have been eating all the profits! And I would love to see Ryder, Trevor Jensen and the Screaming Skull all in the same cockpit. Imagine that!!!!

‘Unprofitable skies for all’

[Peetwo]

Latest on JetGone - 

Via the other Aunty today:

Regional flights in state of 'crisis': calls for government to step in over JetGo woes
ABC Western Plains 
By Lucy Thackray and Chloe Hart
Updated 56 minutes ago

PHOTO: When regional airline carrier JetGo went into administration, it left thousands of ticketholders out of pocket and without a local carrier. (ABC Western Plains: Nick Lowther)

There are calls for the New South Wales Government to subsidise regional airline services, with the voluntary administration of carrier JetGo Australia this month leaving regional communities without direct flights to some capital cities.

Key points

• Regional airline JetGo Australia owes $17 million, with a potential debt of $34 million, and is facing action at the Supreme Court
  
• More than 10 thousand passengers are pursuing refunds through the banks, with a total ticket value of $4 million
  
• Doctor may be leaving western New South Wales town because of loss of airline
  

In late May Dubbo Regional Council lodged legal action against JetGo Australia in the Supreme Court over more than $270,000 owed by the airline in unpaid fees.

All flights were then cancelled on June 1, leaving more than 10,000 customers pursuing $4 million in refunds.

The full extent of the regional airline's debt was revealed at a creditors' meeting last week to be a confirmed $17 million, but is potentially higher.

JetGo Australia operated flights from regional locations including Dubbo, Wollongong and Albury in NSW; Townsville and Rockhampton in Queensland; and Karratha in Western Australia.

It is the only airline which connects these regional destinations with Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Melbourne.



PHOTO: Dubbo Regional Council has lodged a claim with the Supreme Court over unpaid debts from JetGo.(Supplied: Dubbo City Council)

Doctors to regional towns

Rochana Chandraratne is a Brisbane-based doctor who has been working in Warren, north-west of Dubbo in NSW, as a locum doctor for three years.

Dr Chandraratne uses JetGo to fly from Brisbane to Dubbo for work.

"I work as a GP there and also I look after the hospital as an on-call GP," said Dr Chandraratne.

"There are another two doctors in the area and both of them are travelling.
"One commutes from Sydney and the other from Dubbo."

Although Dr Chandraratne loves his work in Warren, he said without a direct route between Brisbane and Dubbo, he might have to find work elsewhere.

"It is really difficult coming to Sydney from Brisbane," said Dr Chandraratne.
"Those flights are always fully booked and then after that from Sydney you have to wait another hour to catch the flight to Dubbo.

"If I'm given another choice to work in another location where there's a direct flight, I'll consider that because taking two flights is a tiresome thing and more expensive as well.

"If JetGo can resume their service it would be wonderful."

Calls for government to help

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) said there needed to be more support from the NSW Government for regional airlines.

Chief executive Mike Higgins said it was very hard for regional airlines to make a profit.



PHOTO: A Jetgo plane at Illawarra Regional Airport. (ABC Illawarra: Justin Huntsdale)

"A number of our operators are operating on very slim margins due to the long, thin routes that the aircraft fly and the small size of the aircraft," he said.

Mr Higgins said it was difficult for regional flights to be profitable for smaller airlines.

"If you are operating a 737 that Virgin or Qantas operate, passenger numbers plus or minus 15 or 20 really doesn't make much difference," Mr Higgins said.

"But on our operators' sized aircraft, one or two passengers can make a difference of operating at a loss or making ends meet.

"To survive, we need high load factors; that is, the aircraft need to be almost full, if not full, on every flight.

"In terms of financial support I think the Queensland Government sets the benchmark [by] providing subsidies to routes through remote communities.

"I would encourage other state governments to engage with the Queensland Government to see the kind of benefits that sort of investment can provide."

Assistance for passengers

Qantas has offered special fares for customers who are JetGo ticketholders and were booked to travel in the month of June.

A spokesperson for the airline says hundreds of people have already used their special fare to book replacement tickets.

"The fares are available up to June 30 because that is how long JetGo said they would be in administration for," the spokesman said.

"If it continues, obviously we'd look at what we can do."

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

JetGo liquidated; RossAir calls in administrators -   

Via ABC News:

JetGo forced to liquidate as Dubbo council wins Supreme Court case over unpaid debts
ABC Western Plains 
By Claudia Jambor and Karen Michelmore
Updated about 11 hours ago

PHOTO: JetGo may appeal the Supreme Court's decision, a former executive says. (ABC Illawarra: Justin Huntsdale)
RELATED STORY: Regional airline JetGo enters voluntary administration, cancels all flights
RELATED STORY: Airline may consider Rockhampton-Sydney direct flights
RELATED STORY: Dubbo set to get direct flights to Melbourne

Regional airline JetGo will be liquidated after a western New South Wales council was successful in its application in the Supreme Court today to wind up the company.

JetGo serviced cities across regional Australia including Wollongong, Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, Albury, Rockhampton, Townsville, and Karratha.
The company entered voluntary administration on June 1 and grounded all passenger flights.

The council's court action began before the directors of JetGo appointed voluntary administrators.

In a statement to the ABC, Dubbo Regional Council said legal action had been necessary because it was owed "significant outstanding fees" by JetGo and due to "the absence of any realistic proposal for payment".

"Dubbo Regional Council acted in the best interests of our community in this process and will continue to focus on stabilising airline services for our regional community," the council said.

"Unfortunately our community, along with many other communities and businesses, have been financially impacted by this business failure."

Company 'could have continued'

Former JetGo executive Paul Bredereck said the company was working through its financial issues and he was confident the services could have continued under another interested party.

He flagged an appeal of the court decision was being considered, and accused Dubbo Regional Council's legal action as having "vexatious intent".

"My initial response is a little bit dumbfounded as to why the application would be granted seeing as though it's going to significantly disadvantage the creditors," Mr Bredereck said.

"They don't give a sh**t about getting a better return for the creditors."
The successful wind-up application comes a day before thousands of JetGo creditors were set to vote on whether to liquidate the airline.

Despite the administrator recommending liquidation, Mr Bredereck said Dubbo Regional Council's actions had robbed the other creditors of their say in JetGo's future.

"They [Dubbo Regional Council] want this buried, done, dusted. They've got their own liquidator appointed. That's the height of arrogance," Mr Bredereck said.

"Why should the other creditors not get a vote and say who the liquidator is if a liquidator is going to be appointed?"

Focus turns to flights for regional Australia

Shellharbour City Council in the Illawarra region is among the councils that have lost flights and are owed money.

But the council's deputy mayor Kellie Marsh said she felt no animosity towards Dubbo Regional Council.

"The situation is how it is and Dubbo have made the move they have, and for right or for wrong that's what we have to run with now," Cr Marsh said.

Her main focus now was ensuring JetGo's flight services for the Shellharbour and regional Australia could be replaced.

"The need in regional Australia for regular passenger transport is certainly there," Cr Marsh said.

"I hope this isn't a sign of things to come."

Impact of decision felt across the country

In the Western Australian Pilbara region, the City of Karratha said it faced up to $850,000 in losses that it is unlikely to recoup.

JetGo had been due to start flights between Karratha and Brisbane this month, with flights to Singapore due later in the year.

In a statement, the City of Karratha said it had spent $848,763 on sponsorship installments with JetGo, to help the company prepare for the start of the new service, including pilot training, recruitment, progressing regulatory approvals, aircraft leasing, fit-out, and livery.

The council has registered as a creditor with the administrators, but it had been advised that if JetGo went into administration "the City is unlikely to recoup any costs as the City is not a secured creditor".

It said all passengers who had been booked on flights with JetGo had been advised that the services have been cancelled.

Passengers are urged to contact their financial institution to seek reimbursement of the ticket price.

City of Karratha Deputy Mayor Grant Cucel said the council remained committed to improving travel options from Karratha.

"We will continue to work with JetGo's administrators and the appointed liquidation officer to pursue our options to recoup any costs incurred, but we have been advised that this may be unlikely," he said in a statement.

"Costs incurred in trying to facilitate these services will not impact property rates or future budgets."

And from the Oz yesterday:

Headwinds force Rossair into administration

ANNABEL HEPWORTH
Adelaide-based Rossair yesterday announced it had gone into voluntary administration after months of “extreme adversities”.


The economics of the airline charter market are being closely watched after Adelaide-based Rossair yesterday announced it had gone into voluntary administration after months of “extreme adversities” stemming from a fatal crash last year.

Citing “several significant, external challenges”, AE Charter — whose businesses include Rossair Charter — said the board and management would help administrators in a bid to “investigate and pursue strategies to retain the value for all stakeholders”.

A statement yesterday pointed to “more than 12 months faced with extreme adversities” stemming from last year’s plane crash near Renmark Airport that left three people dead.

The “recent challenges have brought high levels of uncertainty and material costs”, a Rossair spokesman said.

Adelaide Airport managing ­director Mark Young said they are “concerned for the future of Rossair, which has played an important role in South Australia’s aviation history”. Rossair is based at Adelaide Airport.

“We will work with Rossair’s team and the administrator through this difficult and uncertain time,” Mr Young said.

Rico Merkert, an aviation expert at the University of Sydney Business School, said it was sad to see Australia’s second-oldest air transport company going into ­voluntary administration.

Whether issues like airlines not flying and operating costs, such as a rise in fuel price, were a “decisive driver” for upward pressure on fares remained to be seen, but “the direction seems to be clear”, he said.

South Australia Regional Development Minister Tim Whetstone yesterday told ABC Radio that it was “now up to Rossair to look at ways that someone could come in and rebuild Rossair or whether we have to introduce a new airline to provide a very valuable service to regional South Australia”.

Yesterday’s statement from Rossair said limited non-flying ­activities would continue while ­efforts were made “to put the business on a sustainable footing for the future”.

Ernst & Young partner Henry Kazar and director Lachlan ­Abbott have been appointed as administrators of AE Charter and Rossair Charter.

The move came despite Rossair last year striking an agreement with Essendon-based AusJet for a joint venture in the South Australian market.

Professor Merkert said the situation with airlines going into voluntary administration highlighted the challenges of running those kinds of operations.

Ben Wyndham, Airspeed Aviation managing director, said there was an increasing regulatory complexity facing the sector.

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

A little more of AOPA logic from Shawn Kelly (director).  A 'change' in culture has been a long wished for item. Probably from both sides; however, (IMO) until the threat of a liability matter, being raised against  CASA is removed, it seems to me CASA is hidebound: locked within the toils of their own legal knitting. It is terms like 'CASA must be satisfied' which create the second edge to the knife. If the approval legislation was 'un-ravelled' to a simple USA style system where if you have (A), (B), ©, and (D) you're good to go pay the fee and get on with it, CASA would benefit. But because of the legalese, mumbo-jumbo and arse covering built into the rules, an approval becomes a legal minefield.  That said - Shawn makes a valuable, reasoned comparison analysis, which heralds the way forward for the AOPA efforts to make life just a little better for the aviation community.    

> Subject: Re: Another example of CASA regulation making things VERY difficult.
>
> It might have, but I’m a bit skeptical. Keep in mind that CASA proactively and aggressively pursued this. I think that the bigger problem is that the overall mindset is that they are a police agency and we are a bunch of shady characters that are always trying to get away with something.
>
> Unless we can somehow change the culture at CASA, I don’t see much improvement, and I think that that is a very big project. No impossible, but certainly a big project.
>
> I AM, however, convinced that a change of the basic underlying regulations to the American system would yield very positive results. If we were allowed to do anything that wasn’t prohibited I think that it would change the power dynamic. Even though it seems like a simple difference in semantics, it I think that there is a a very real, if subtle, difference in the perception of power. The individual is the one with the rights, and those rights cannot be usurped unless there is a specific rule that allows them to be. Plus, it allows for more flexibility and less cost.
>
> Ben told me something the other day that’s an incredibly powerful argument in favour of the American system. There are as many GA aircraft movements in Southern California in one day as there are in Australia in a year.
>
> Think about that!
>
> Having flown quite a bit in Southern California, I can believe it. And most of that flying is taking place in the smog in the Los Angeles Basin. Going into the sun, visibility is very limited. Most of the time you are flying over densely populated city with few if any acceptable emergency landing spots. And yet, they have a safety record equal to or better than ours.
>
> Adopting that system would involve trusting individuals to be competent and to do the right thing. It would involve a lot of people in CASA giving up a lot of power. And would probably result in a reduced number of bureaucrats. I think that makes it a bit of an uphill battle.

[Peetwo]

Industry fears more red tape burden on Part 135? -   

Via the Oz:

Fears of more charter red tape
ANNABEL HEPWORTH
The nation’s civil aviation regulator is being urged against adding to crippling red tape and costs to small air charter operators.

---

Small aviation chart operators fear more red tape

The nation’s civil aviation regulator is being urged against adding to crippling red tape and costs to small air charter operators when it releases new rules for smaller aeroplanes.

In the wake of this week’s summit on the embattled general aviation sector in Wagga Wagga, the sector has launched a pre-emptive strike over new “part 135” rules that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is expected to release in draft form next month for broad consultation.

The rules will be aimed at setting minimum standards for small planes conducting air transport operations, capturing both charter and regular public transport operations.

Some have fears that the rules and associated maintenance regulations could prove too complicated for smaller and remote operations, although CASA insists the proposed changes would decrease red tape “over time”.

There has been consultation so far through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and its technical working group, though this is still in progress.

It is understood the content of the draft to be released for consultation is still not settled.

Ben Wyndham, Airspeed Aviation managing director, said he worried that the new rules would mandate the employment of safety managers and prevent the business owner or chief executive filling the key roles of safety manager and chief pilot.

“This adds $100,000 to $200,000 to our payroll each year and is simply anti-small business,” Mr Wyndham said.

However, a CASA spokesman said the role of safety manager “could be met in a number of ways and may not require ­additional resources in an ­organisation”.

“Consultation already conducted during the drafting of the proposed rules has suggested it is appropriate for all air transport operators to have a safety management system,” he said.

“The key point is that safety management systems will be scaled to match the size of the ­operator … CASA will not require small air transport operators to have the same complex safety management systems as large airlines.”

Another crucial issue is the level of maintenance CASA insists on. Mr Wyndham said that regulating charter operations the same as regular public transport operations could lead to a need to use more expensive maintenance outfits. This could lead to “more administration and staff and costs,” he said.

Stuart Burns, chief executive and chief pilot at Complete Aviation, which runs charter aircraft, was concerned that another set of rules for large aeroplanes, being made together with part 135, would affect current operators of various light aircraft, impose extra costs and require more crew.

Mr Burns said this was at a time when there was a shortage of skilled pilots and competition from road transport.

But the CASA spokesman said the proposed changes “provide for an increased number of outcome-based rules that will lower red tape over time”.

Rick Pegus, a pilot and man­aging director of Navair, said part 135 could create opportunities for smaller operators to conduct scheduled flights, selling seats “which might open up some opportunities in certain areas”.

“It could be potentially good for small country towns that currently don’t have any services,” Mr Pegus said.

But he noted that it “could also create a revolving door of operators going broke trying to establish these types of opportunities without any real experience in this new style of business”.

---

& a comment from Sandy:

..CASA has a 30 year record of talking the talk, a remarkable history of stating unequivocally that it is working to reduce red tape for General Aviation (GA). Problem is that one step forward and ten backwards has resulted in the closure of hundreds of flying schools and more closures of the few struggling GA schools and smaller charter firms still operating will occur. Thousands of jobs have also been lost in aircraft maintenance and the pathways for aircraft engineering apprentices have been steadily truncated. There are now no appropriate courses in Melbourne so one apprentice is traveling from north west Victoria through Melbourne to East Gippsland (Sale) for training. You wouldn’t believe we have become so backward. 

The independent regulator is a model of failure, just another Can’tberra fee gouging salary factory. It is churning out impossibly complex rules, a 30 year attempt to rewrite and still not finished. It has migrated its unfinished rules into the criminal code, against the Commonwealth’s own guidelines, and inappropriately framed them as offences of strict liability. It’s CEO, fatuously titled ‘Director of Air Safety,’ receives around $600,000 per annum, considerably more than the Minister who should be in charge. Neither gentleman has any hands on experience of GA. 

Qantas and other airlines used to have plenty of well qualified Australian GA pilots to chose from, now it can’t find them and is fishing around the world to fill it’s cockpits. It is planning to create a local flight school, well good luck Mr. Joyce, the new flying school rules due this August mean the shortage of instructors will increase and your flight school would be well advised to set up in the USA where rational and workable rules are allowing a resurgence of GA activity. Alex in the Rises.. 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Is Carmody the Iron Ring's Mr Fixit? 
 

AP references:

Midweek on the AP – 29/08/18



Timeline of Australian aviation safety regulatory embuggerance – 1988 till ???? 

---

&..
Much like the PelAir TOE (timeline of embuggerance references: HERE & HERE ) eventually AP will endeavour to put together a TOE for the last 30 years of 'Iron Ring' big "R" regulator embuggerance of the industry...    

In the meantime working backwards with some factual OBS for the last half decade...  

On the IOS/PAIN_Net BRB grapevine I heard a rumour that there is talk amongst the RRAT committee Senators of doing a repeat of the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA -     

Well in the course of doing further research of going back a decade on the aviation safety embuggerance timeline - plus refreshing my memory on what was it that prompted the Senate RRAT committee to inquire into the administration of CASA in 2008 - I came across some very interesting and somewhat disturbing passages of Estimates/Inquiry Hansard, QON etc. which got me thinking that we are once again in some sort of bizarre timewarp...  

These extracts etc. also IMO beg the QON/ Is Carmody some sort of Iron Ring Mr Fixit?     

First from the 2008 Budget Estimates CASA QON:

Question: CASA 08
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Allegations of misleading the Senate – legal advice
Hansard Page: 54-55 (28/05/08)

Senator O’Brien asked:

Senator O’BRIEN—Did you receive written advice from that person?

Mr Carmody—I did. In addition to that written advice and subsequent to that response I
sought external legal advice from one of the lawyers on our external panel, subsequent to my response, to confirm the original advice that I had been provided with internally. That advice also confirmed that I did not in any way mislead the Senate. As I have said, the allegation being raised by a professional colleague is to say the least disappointing.

Senator O’BRIEN—Are you prepared to share those advices external and internal with the
committee?

Mr Carmody—As far as I am aware, I cannot provide legal advice. I am not allowed to
table legal advice.

Senator O’BRIEN—I do not know that you are not allowed to, but the government does not
table legal advice.

Mr Carmody—The government normally does not table it.

Senator O’BRIEN—You have sought advice in relation to the question of whether you
misled the senate. That is what you have just told us.

Mr Carmody—That is correct, and I could seek advice on that matter. Personally the advice, as far as I am concerned, is unambiguous, but it really depends on whether the advice falls in under that direction.


Senator O’BRIEN—It is not advice to government, is it?

Mr Carmody—It is not necessarily my interpretation to make. That is why I would like to
take the question on notice.

Senator O’BRIEN—It was advice that you sought for your purposes?

Mr Carmody—It was advice that was sought but it was sought for the organisation. It was
sought on the advice of the organisation’s legal panel so it is government legal advice.

Senator O’BRIEN—It was sought for CASA, was it?

Mr Carmody—Yes, it was. It was sought through our legal panel. When I am providing my
testimony I am representing the organisation so I suppose that is correct.

Senator O’BRIEN—Yes. I suppose in part you are. You are also representing yourself. In
terms of the suggestion that you misled the Senate it would be you who would be called to
answer for that rather than the organisation, would it not?

Mr Carmody—Correct. But as I have indicated, I am not aware of whether or not I am able
to provide this advice. I can check that matter. As far as I am concerned the allegations are closed.

Answer: Consistent with Government policy, CASA is unable to table legal advice.

        
Got to admit Carmody is consummate professional bureaucrat - that answer is classic...  
However to understand the context of the QON and I had to go back to the Budget Estimates Hansard.

From the bottom of page 78:

Mr Carmody—It was provided by Mallesons, I believe.

Senator O’BRIEN—As to the evidence that you provided back on 19 February, I think I
drew your attention to some comments from the coroner. I said, ‘You no doubt have seen the coroner’s findings on page 9 of his decision which stated’—and I quoted—‘CASA had senior expert legal representation who I am sure would not have made such a sustained attack on the integrity of the ATSB investigation report without explicit instructions.’ I went on and asked, ‘Have you seen that and, if so, did you give or authorise such instructions?’
You then answered:

I have seen the coroner’s comments. I have read the report in some detail. As you well know, we had difficulties with some aspects of the ATSB report, but to categorise it as giving explicit instructions to attack the integrity of the ATSB, no, that is not the case. We certainly attacked the report. We had difficulties with aspects of the report. We made that plain at the beginning. The coroner found some aspects of our view on the report to be sustained.

Is your answer to my question a fair reflection of the coroner’s view as to whether you had
attacked the integrity of the ATSB or, indeed, the tenor of your dealing with the ATSB
document, that is, CASA’s, in those proceedings?

Mr Carmody—As I have indicated the allegation was made that I misled the Senate in my
testimony. My view is—

Senator O’BRIEN—I am asking a different question at the moment. I understand you
have— 

Mr Carmody—I have answered that.


Senator O’BRIEN—You have said something in relation to that letter. I am asking in
relation to that particular comment that you made in Hansard then if that, in your view, is a fair reflection of the coroner’s finding in relation to CASA’s conduct in those proceedings?

Mr Carmody—I would just have to find and review that comment but I do not resile from
any of the comments I made in my previous testimony.

Senator O’BRIEN—You do not think that that in any way misrepresents the position the
coroner took?

Mr Carmody—No.

Senator O’BRIEN—There were a number of passages in the coronial finding that I have
had a look at since that hearing. On page 7, the first full paragraph on the page says:

A number of other aspects of the ATSB’s methodology also concerned CASA. The first was that the report did not disclose that this was the first investigation that had been managed under the new model which was untested.

The coroner then says:

This seems of little substance: the investigation processes and the reports findings are open for scrutiny and CASA has actively participated in that in various fora. If the methodology is flawed, whether on its first application or its fiftieth, that should be exposed and this inquest should be part of that scrutiny.

It is a rather scathing criticism of that submission, is it not?

Mr Carmody—I think it is a criticism.

Senator O’BRIEN—Sorry?

Mr Carmody—It is a criticism. It is very difficult, I must say, and I said it in my testimony
before to quote items from the coroner’s report selectively and then ask me to comment back on the relevance of those particular items.

Senator O’BRIEN—Sorry.

Mr Carmody—The report is as a whole.

Senator O’BRIEN—Was I quoting in some way improperly when I drew your attention to
that passage, was I? That is the implication of your response there.

Mr Carmody—No. The point I am making is that in a coronial if the organisation, as it did
in this case, raises the point that this is the first time that methodology has been used and
wishes to raise that point and raises it in the coronial we are quite entitled to, as the coroner is quite entitled to say that it is not relevant. But we are entitled to raise it and we did.

Senator O’BRIEN—I am certain you are entitled to raise matters that you see fit. I think
the fact that the coroner reflected on that submission as of little substance is a matter which would concern me if I was on the receiving end of that criticism. But he then went on to say:

Of more concern is CASA’s suggestion that in its efforts to look beyond the immediate physical cause of an incident, the ATSB has created a framework that is biased towards a conclusion that organisational factors contributed to the crash.

Then there are what I take to be comments which are much more supportive of the ATSB
approach, but I will not quote the whole passage. After the finding that your submission was of little substance, the coroner then says, ‘Not only was that of little substance but I am more concerned that you are looking to talk about the ATSB using some biased framework in its approach.’

I take you back to the original question that the coroner found on page 9 that CASA had, through legal representation, made a sustained attack on the integrity of the ATSB investigation report. Do you disagree with that?

Mr Carmody—As I said in my testimony, we were not attacking the integrity of the
ATSB. We certainly attacked the report. I will go on with that paragraph that you were
quoting where we made the statement, I think, that, ‘ATSB has created a framework that is biased towards a conclusion that organisational factors contributed to the crash.’

Towards the end of that paragraph the lead investigator, Mr Madden, acknowledges that, ‘the model assumed that there will never be an incident that can be adequately explained by either the occurrence event and some individual actions’. He did go on to say that ‘CASA’s submission that there will always be organisational influences’ he did not agree with. But he did actually agree with the fact that the model assumed that there will never be an incident that is adequately explained by either the event itself and some individual actions. I actually think that he has justified the point that we were making.

Senator O’BRIEN—He does not believe that, clearly. He goes on to say on the same
page:

This misconstruing of the investigation model is in my view significant. It leads CASA to assert that the systemic bias creates an unwitting focus on organisations such as CASA and encourage speculative attempts to link it to the cause of the accident. This tendency can is said to be counter-productive in terms of aviation safety …
And there are a number of reasons. Then he says:

In my view, this attack—
he uses the word ‘attack’—
on the methodology used by the ATSB is without substance.

You are entitled to take issue with it, but why would the coroner categorise the way that
CASA pursued this matter as an ‘attack’?

Mr Carmody—It was an attack on the methodology. We questioned the methodology. If
he wishes to use the word ‘attack’ that is his choice. But we questioned the methodology and we had reason to question the methodology. The methodology came to a particular conclusion that, at the end of the day, as I have indicated, the coroner actually swayed more towards our view of what had occurred so, therefore, in my view the criticism of the methodology was sustainable.

Senator O’BRIEN—So I should view that in isolation from the next passage which says:

CASA contends that the ATSB had a conflict of interest that should have led to its actions being identified as one of the organisational influences that may have contributed to the crash. Further, CASA asserted that the ATSB should have refrained from investigating the incident on account of it having such a conflict. -WTF?    

Was that a serious submission?

Mr Carmody—The two issues are running in parallel in the report but they are not quite
related—

Senator O’BRIEN—They are not the same issue. I do not think you need to argue that
point. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the coroner has led from one point of
criticism to another and this one is a very substantial one. Because what he is saying is not
only were you going to take issue with their methodology but you were saying they were
biased and they should not have been investigating the report at all.

Mr Carmody—The point we raised in the coronial was the fact that confidential reporting
had been passed to the ATSB prior to the accident which had never been passed to the
regulator. Therefore, the point we raised was that concerns had been raised about the operator and passed to the ATSB that had not been passed to us. That was a reasonable point of view to put forward in the coronial. If the coroner did not agree with it, that is his choice.

Senator O’BRIEN—Is the coroner inaccurately recording your submission?

Mr Carmody—No. You read it to me. I have not actually got the page.

Senator O’BRIEN—It is on page 8.

Mr Carmody—Yes, which paragraph?

Senator O’BRIEN—It is the top of the page.

Mr Carmody—‘CASA contends that the ATSB had a conflict of interest.’ We were
entitled to contend that, so we did.

Senator O’BRIEN—Do you not contest that that is a recording of fact?

Mr Carmody—That was a point that was raised during the cut and thrust of the coronial.

Senator O’BRIEN—Later on the page the coroner says:

CASA submits that the ATSB had a conflict of interest as a result of the earlier contacts and that the agency failed to adequately manage it. I do not accept that to be the case.

Mr Carmody—Absolutely. But, once again, CASA submitted this was the case. The
coroner did not accept it. The coroner is able not to accept what we submit...

And so the argy bargy goes backwards and forwards till about page 96 of the Hansard. There are also other passages of Hansard that suggest at the time a very open and ugly level of antagonism between CASA and the committee...  

Less than 2 months later the inquiry into the administration of CASA was called.  

Here is some extracts from the CASA Hansard from 2 July public hearing:

CHAIR —Thank you, Mr Byron. I noticed in your opening statement you talked about genuinely consulting with industry. How do you determine ‘genuine’?
Mr Byron —To make sure that the stakeholders that we regulate are adequately consulted when we are making significant changes. I suppose the most visible part of that is when we want to change regulations. We have a consultative process, called the Standards Consultative Committee, with about 50 participants from representative organisations and staff associations who form part of that committee and part of the subgroups. From my point of view, as long as we maintain that process, I believe we are genuinely consulting with the key players in the industry.
In addition to that, people who actually hold certificates that we regulate always put themselves forward as people who want to have a say in various things. I try to make sure that, through our processes—particularly the SCC and industry briefings that we conduct—the major aviation organisations and associations representing those organisations have an opportunity to have a say.
CHAIR —And I would expect nothing less. But you would have heard the witnesses this morning—and quite a few of them were quite scathing against CASA’s inability to embrace all representative bodies on a number of issues. One that comes to mind are the pilots when you are developing a drug and alcohol policy. Sorry, Mr Byron, but what I heard I would not call being genuine in consulting all of industry.
Mr Byron —That is obviously a view that they have presented to you today.
CHAIR —That was one of a number.
Mr Byron —Clearly, from my point of view, I would want to make sure that they have the opportunity to have an input in a consultation process. You mentioned the drug and alcohol program. I might ask Mr Carmody to give his view about their involvement in that process.
Mr Carmody —I listened to the discussions on consultation this morning as well. In terms of the drug and alcohol program—and it has been discussed at the committee before—we cover, we think, about 120,000 people in the drug and alcohol program across the industry. The project team, which was decided by the Standards Consultative Committee, is made up of a number of representatives—a CASA representative, a representative from the Australian Airports Association, a representative from Regional Aviation Group, two representatives from Qantas, a representative from Aerospace Aviation, a representative from Flight Training Adelaide and Chris Howell, representing Airservices Australia. The Flight Attendants Association of Australia and the Australian International Pilots Association have had an observer at the five meetings that I have listed here. We have also had Virgin Blue, AOPA and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots at these meetings. The Australian International Pilots Association make the point that they represent pilots, and they do, but I said to them that they represent a couple of thousand pilots.
CHAIR —Are they not significant? Is that what you are saying?
Mr Carmody —With 120,000 people covered in the industry, we are constantly told in consultation that we need to have small working groups, and that is what we endeavour to do.
Senator NASH —What is the total number of pilots then, if the international association represents a couple thousand out of 120,000?
Mr Carmody —There are 37,000 pilots with licences in Australia, and they represent a couple of thousand.
Senator NASH —Out of those that you were mentioning, which of those are the pilot representatives who were actually on the group?
CHAIR —I understand where Senator Nash is coming from, but there is a bit of a difference between one pilot and controlling a plane with one person as opposed to 430 rammed on a jumbo, which she is very aware of.
Senator NASH —Absolutely.
Mr Carmody —If I may, one of the things that we do with all of the project teams and the working groups—
Senator NASH —Can you answer the previous question?
Mr Carmody —That is what I am endeavouring to do. We do not have representatives representing particular interests; we have representatives representing expertise on these working groups. That is what we endeavour to achieve. So we are not looking at having every representative body having a guernsey at every meeting—
CHAIR —No-one suggests that but I would have thought—I have negotiated many drug and alcohol policies, as you would know—that there is a bit of difference between a cleaner falling over a bucket while under the influence of alcohol or drugs compared to a pilot on a rather large passenger aircraft.
Senator NASH —Exactly.
Mr Carmody —I could not agree more.
CHAIR —Well, why were they not at the table if you are saying you are genuinely consulting industry?
Mr Carmody —We are genuinely consulting industry. They were represented at five of the working group meetings.
CHAIR —They were sitting in as—what was the word you used?
Mr Carmody —Observers. They participated very actively.
CHAIR —Did you invite them or did they have to put up their hand to be asked to be observers?
Mr Carmody —They put up their hand to come along. The Standards Consultative Committee, which is the industry body—
Mr Byron —If I might interrupt—I will let Mr Carmody continue in a moment—there is another pilots association that is fairly broad in this country, and I had a personal approach from the executive director of that organisation asking if they could participate. I immediately made sure that they were there.
CHAIR —That is honourable, but one would have thought they would have been invited to the damn table...

---

...CHAIR —What I challenge is Mr Byron’s words ‘genuinely consulting’ all stakeholders. From what we have heard this morning, I do not think that is genuinely consultative. That is my view.
Mr Carmody —Senator, I understand your view.
CHAIR —And, from what I have heard so far, your answers do not bring warmth to me that you are genuinely consulting. And that is not just from the pilots.
Mr Byron —Chair, Mr Quinn wishes to make a comment.
Mr Quinn —If I may, I should add, knowing their involvement from an operational perspective, that what the International Pilots Association did contribute was considered some of the most effective contributory material to that. Putting aside the point about who was invited when, their contribution was important, it was constructive and my understanding is that it was taken on within CASA as a result.
Senator NASH —So what would have happened if they had not offered to come? You would have missed out on what was obviously very good advice, as you say.
Mr Quinn —Well, they were there, Senator, so I cannot comment as to what would have happened if they were not there. They were involved in the process. As for the point that you make about whether or not they were invited, I think I can only go on Mr Carmody’s comments.
Senator HEFFERNAN —Just to clarify: when this process began, did a circular go out?
Mr Byron —The Standards Consultative Committee?
Senator HEFFERNAN —Yes. Did people generally know there was a process underway, to say if you were interested—
Mr Byron —Absolutely, yes. It would have been very, very widely advertised throughout CASA’s website. It is very widely known and recognised. I went along to one of the initial meetings in 2004, and it was very widely represented, so it must have got the message out pretty well.
CHAIR —To the best of your knowledge, was everyone invited at the same time after you formed the consultative committee? Or were there any other people ringing up and asking about it?
Mr Carmody —To the best of my knowledge, the Standards Consultative Committee decided, as the committee does, who was going to be represented. My understanding is that AIPA then came to the committee and said, ‘We would like to be represented.’ The Standards Consultative Committee reviewed who was on the subcommittee and determined that the subcommittee was adequate. That is my understanding of the Standards Consultative Committee. As Mr Byron said, there are 38 plus another eight members—about 46 industry representatives. And, when these issues are discussed at the Standards Consultative Committee, AIPA are actually in the forum, in the committee.
CHAIR —They are now.
Mr Carmody —In the Standards Consultative Committee, they have always been there, Senator. They have been there all along. As I said, they have been at 23 formal meetings over the last 18 months, not including all of the things that are on the website or the telephone calls, emails and meetings. I have had meetings with them. I think that, given the other things that we have to do, we have consulted with that organisation quite extensively.
CHAIR —We covered that in estimates.
Mr Carmody —You did.
CHAIR —And I think you told us at the time that it was 60.
Mr Carmody —I thought it was. I have got the actual numbers here.
CHAIR —Whether it was 50 or 60, it does not matter; I fully understand that. But it still baffles me. But let us not focus just on the pilots. There was also a bit of a pisling coming to CASA from other witnesses today about not being consulted either. This is just one that I am highlighting for you.
Mr Carmody —Would you like me to deal with the others, Senator?
CHAIR —Yes, I would be more than happy.
Mr Carmody —We have had the discussion on the pilots. If I look at the other consultation mechanisms, if I may, the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association attends the Standards Consultative Committee and a subcommittee. They have formally been in committee meetings 12 times in the past 18 months.
CHAIR —Sorry, Mr Carmody; I do understand. We are not arguing about the Standards Consultative Committee. When we talk about consultation, we mean that there are other forms of consultation or other areas of consultation where one would question how genuinely consultative CASA have been.
Mr Carmody —I think that, with these organisations and with others that I will go through, there is genuine consultation. I will make the point that they are not certificate holders. They are interest groups and representative groups, but we do not have a regulatory relationship with any of these groups. We have regulatory relationships with approximately 2,000 certificate holders in the country. That does not include, for example, AIPA, the ALAEA and it does not include AOPA. So we are consulting.
CHAIR —But, if we are talking about safety regulation, you would not just limit yourself to those who are licensed; you would certainly take briefs from all and sundry, would you not?
Mr Carmody —Yes, to the extent that we can. In the development of regulations we are being criticised for going slowly. Everybody wants a small consultative team; it is just that they all want to be on it. Somebody has to make a decision, and it is actually made by the Standards Consultative Committee, which has an external chair.

P2 comment - Well it is good to see that although the names/acronyms have changed (eg SCC vs ASAP), 'consultation CASA style' still remains consistent...   
Next, the war between former Senator O'Brien and Carmody continues...

Senator O’BRIEN —Mr Carmody, I believe you are disappointed that this inquiry is taking place.
Mr Carmody —I was, certainly. I was disappointed that the inquiry was taking place. After we had given our evidence at the last estimates, the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed.
Senator O’BRIEN —Because you felt that whatever you needed to tell the Senate you had already told the Senate?
Mr Carmody —There are a couple of reasons. A number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot and there is also management time and effort. We as an organisation have an enormous amount on our plate. As you know—and I am sure we will get to it—we have issues with regional airlines and have issues with oversight and Qantas maintenance. We have a lot to do. Therefore, essentially going through another estimates process and preparing for another estimates process—preparing witnesses and putting in a submission—involves a lot of work. So, yes, I am disappointed.
Senator O’BRIEN —How many witnesses have you prepared?
Mr Carmody —All of the general management team are here.
Senator O’BRIEN —How have you prepared witnesses?
Mr Carmody —At the end of the day, in the same way that we normally do Senate estimates preparation—and ‘preparation’ is probably too strong a word—we, like all departments and organisations, look at issues that may come up and we prepare briefs and make sure that we have an understanding of the issues. So managers are distracted from what they would normally do by going back and reviewing the issues. That is the preparation that I meant...

---

...Mr Quinn —If I can add something there: being out in the industry in the last few weeks and consulting with various groups, the point has been made very clear to me—and it is also a point that is very clear in CASA—that the most important aspect of this inquiry is to come up with some sort of constructive outcome in the interests of aviation safety in this country. We certainly acknowledge that, I certainly acknowledge that and so does the industry. The point that is being made here is that, whilst this is going on, it takes some significant work to prepare ourselves when other significant work is going on—and there is a lot on our plate currently. We recognise the importance of this process to get to where we want to get.
Senator O’BRIEN —That is why I asked the questions about what was involved in preparing witnesses. The answer did not seem to indicate that it was a highly complex set of preparations given. I take it from the answer given that they were essentially the preparations for estimates which have only recently occurred.
Mr Carmody —If I may add—given that the question led with my disappointment—there still is work to go back and review any other issues that are around and in place. It is not for us—and nor would I think you expect it to be for witnesses—to take a blase approach to appearing before committees. We review our material very carefully, as we should, and we put a lot of effort into doing so. So there is individual preparation by managers to make sure that they are across all elements of their brief, or as many as they can be. The other side of the disappointment aspect—because I did not conclude that—is that there have been a lot of references to CASA over the last couple of years. One element of my disappointment—and I think it is covered eloquently in our submission—is that there has been a lot of change in CASA in the last five years. I am not sure that that is as broadly recognised in the community as it could be, and that is a disappointment.
Senator O’BRIEN —Here is your chance to make the case.
Mr Carmody —That is what we did in our submission.
Senator O’BRIEN —So it is actually an opportunity rather than a disappointment?
Mr Carmody —I think I said that in the all-staff announcement. I said that it is an opportunity to show what we have done. I do not have it in front of me but I can find it.
Senator O’BRIEN —No. You started with the disappointed, and you finally got to that; I will concede that.
Mr Carmody —Thank you, Senator.

With the exception of Carmody now being in the top job, how things have changed at Fort Fumble in the last decade - NOT! 

 
Hmm...much MTF...me thinks? P2 

[Kharon]

Leopards, spots and the changing thereof.

SBG – “Take a long hard look at either the Carmody or Hood ‘leadership’ and the results produced. The jury is still out on Carmody; there is little worthy of mention on the credit side, certainly no vigorous attempts to curb the excesses of his organisation or a sensible approach to regulations.”

Ambled into the BRB pre Estimates indaba, thoughts firmly fixed on a quiet pint or two, quiet evening and home in time for supper. Alas; the best laid schemes etc. It seems our inestimable P2 has been rummaging in the garden again, digging up more old bones (Terriers do that). Seems that the quote from the SBG sent him off to the Sleepy Hollow swampland, where some of the skeletons are buried. By stumps it was made unanimous, without too much argy-bargy - Carmody definitely not on the side of the angels.

P2 – “These extracts etc. also IMO beg the QON - Is Carmody some sort of Iron Ring Mr Fixit?”

Question: CASA 08
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Allegations of misleading the Senate – legal advice
Hansard Page: 54-55 (28/05/08).

Before we dive into the decade old Hansard, read and consider the topic quoted. Consider this; here’s an elected Senator asking a serious question related to a major aviation event. The Senator wants to know if the Senate has been mislead (again?). Considering that O’Brien would not ask a question to which the answer was unknown; and, considering that CASA have just spent a significant sum, over and above the cost of their own legal department; you have to wonder how close to the bone O’Brien has cut. When you read the Hansard, it exposes the ‘steel’ behind the smiling visage of the Iron Ring’s anointed reform slayer. Carmody does it all with a smile. A decade later and guess what; Ayup, he’s back in the saddle again.

The now infamous coffee shop story, witnessed by non other than the ICC, provided a useful insight to the basic ‘character’ of the man who is stonewalling change and dividing the small end of town private aviation sectors. But there’s just a little more to consider – before we take a walk back through history, via Hansard. Have you wondered why there is little to no ‘gossip’ coming from your friendly local FOI? If rumour is correct, there is effectively a Gag order in place; federal bobbies on the job and ASIO to boot. National security involved. Bollocks, IMO the white hats are under threat, just in case someone inadvertently gives the game plan away. Sure, it’s a rumour but………….

No matter – I digress, back to P2’s research.

Senator O’BRIEN—Yes. I suppose in part you are. You are also representing yourself. In terms of the suggestion that you misled the Senate it would be you who would be called to answer for that rather than the organisation, would it not?

Mr Carmody—Correct. But as I have indicated, I am not aware of whether or not I am ableto provide this advice. I can check that matter. As far as I am concerned the allegations are closed.
 
P2 – “Got to admit Carmody is consummate professional bureaucrat - that answer is classic...”

Try to find the time to read the opening passage of play between O’Brien and Carmody. Remember, it led to yet another ‘Inquiry’ into CASA. Not that it mattered very much, you need look no further than the Pel-Air inquiry to see how CASA treats the ‘opinions’ of others and remains, determinedly resolute to not even consider reforming itself. Quite the reverse. Will the next ‘inquiry’ beat the Iron Ring sponsored Carmody first XI? The book is open.

MTF – Yes, I’d say so; there’s still the following Hansard to plough through.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

From off the AP blog today...

---

The return of the smiling assassin?   


 

---

Reference from the Ironsider article in the Oz today:

---

A CASA spokesman said the authority had carefully assessed the safety issues and risks in determining the various classes of aviation medical certificates, taking into account things like other airspace users, aircraft passengers and people and property on the ground.

“CASA considers self medical certification to be appropriate for recreational pilots operating in small aircraft with one passenger, and outside controlled airspace under licences issued by Recreational Aviation Australia,” the spokesman said. “CASA considers medical certification based on an assessment by a medical professional to be appropriate for pilots flying in all classes of airspace, including controlled airspace under a CASA issued licence.”

He said since July, more than 200 general aviation pilots had applied for a basic Class 2 category of medical certification.

---

If you think double standards with CASA stop with medical certification then I’ve got a cheap house at Circular Quay I can sell you –  

Anyway back to the smiling assassin Carmody:

---

Meanwhile, CASA will explore ways to make it cheaper and easier for aircraft flying under visual flight rules to voluntarily use automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) technology.

The technology automatically broadcasts the precise location and altitude of the aircraft and is compulsory on instrument-flight rules aircraft.

CASA chief executive Shane Carmody said so far uptake in the visual flight rules community had been low despite there being strong support for voluntary adoption.
As a result, CASA was proposing to relax the equipment and installation standards for ADS-B fitment in visual flight rules aircraft.

---

Hmm…how can anyone trust a single syllable that comes out of Carmody’s mouth after reading this Hansard from more than a decade ago?   

Reference from the bottom of page 84 :  Budget Estimates Hansard

---

Senator O’BRIEN—So you do not accept that finding?

Mr Carmody—What finding?

Senator O’BRIEN—That there was not a conflict of interest.

Mr Carmody—I accept that the coroner—we raised the point that there was a conflict of interest. The coroner has come back and said it was not. As far as I am concerned that is the coroner’s view, it was not.

Senator O’BRIEN—But you do not accept it?

Mr Carmody—It really does not matter whether I accept it or not. I am not continuing to push the line that there was a conflict of interest. We raised a point—

Senator O’BRIEN—Where would you push that line if you were continuing to push it?

Mr Carmody—I do not know. I have no idea. You are the one that is asking the questions
on that.

Senator O’BRIEN—I am. I am asking questions in relation to a coronial inquiry and raising several disturbing passages within the coroner’s report which deal with the nature of CASA’s submissions against another organisation which happens to appear before this committee and what the coroner described as a sustained attack on the integrity of the ATSB investigation report. Not only does the coroner find no reason to conclude there has been any deliberate skewing of the evidence, on page 9 he says:

… of necessity, not all information gathered in such an investigation can be included in the final report and reasonable minds may differ on what should be excluded without either being biased. Nor do I consider that the investigation model or framework led to any unconscious bias…

In prosecuting these allegations over ten pages of its submissions, CASA reminds one of the oft quoted observations made by Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude, when viewing the travelling players. P2 – Choc frog for former Senator O’Brien – an SBG quote perhaps? 

CASA’s submission seeks to down-play the allegation of bias by concluding with what seems to me a disingenuous assurance that they are not alleging that it was intentional but rather the result of structural problems with the ATSB’s new investigation system. That disclaimer is not consistent with the earlier attacks on the impartiality of the report which I have only briefly summarised here.

CASA had senior, expert legal representation who I’m sure would not have made such a sustained attack on the integrity of the ATSB investigation report without explicit instructions. In my view, these protestations are symptomatic of serious, ongoing animosity between the two organisations that needs redressing. I shall return to the issue in the recommendation section of these findings.

So, it can’t be any clearer than that. That is very strong criticism of the CASA submission and a very clear view that the nature of the attack had to be the subject of explicit instructions, which was the subject of my question back in February. I am inviting you to give us some more information in relation to those comments. Were there indeed explicit instructions to attack the integrity of the ATSB’s investigation report?

Mr Carmody—We were certainly not comfortable with their report. I do not recall giving
explicit instructions to attack the integrity of the report. But implicitly, if I do not agree with the subject in the report and we are disputing the report in the coronial, then I must be in some way instructing counsel to attack the report. We have said in our document that we believe the methodology in the report is flawed. That is an attack on the report. 

So to that extent, certainly. But I must say that I can quote things out of this coronial as well at liberty and I can quote things that support CASA’s view. I do not see that it is helpful.  P2 comment – Shades of…”just someone else’s opinion”… comes to mind??   
 
Senator O’BRIEN—Support CASA’s view of the reason for the accident?

Mr Carmody—No support CASA’s role and function organisationally, statements like
‘CASA is not to blame for the accident’. The coroner—

Senator O’BRIEN—I have read the report. I know what is said there. I know there are
other passages that talk about certain other deficiencies.

Mr Carmody—Correctly, I mean, I think we could possibly agree to disagree on this
matter.

Senator O’BRIEN—You disagree with the coroner on this matter?

Mr Carmody—My point is that there are passages we could continue to read. The coroner for the first time in a coronial that I have read, has said, at least twice if not three times, that CASA is not to blame. He has obviously felt the need to emphasise that in his report. I do not know why he felt the need to do so. But that was very clear at the end of the report as well.

Senator O’BRIEN—I think he actually says in part why, given the families of the deceased and the view they had and the potential for them to be seeking a finger to be pointed at an organisation that could be held to account. I think that clearly was a reason that he was at pains to say: ‘No, CASA did not cause the crash,’ but he also says in other parts that CASA could have done more, and who knows what the outcome would have been if CASA had done more.

Mr Carmody—I do not know whether he says the ‘who knows’ bit.

Senator O’BRIEN—No, he does not say who knows. I am saying: who knows what the outcome would have been if CASA had done some of the things that the coroner found could have and perhaps should have been done. We can never say, and that is why the coroner said that because he did not know what the impact of those things would have been he could not make a finding as to CASA having a specific liability or culpability in relation to the accident.

Mr Carmody—If I may make just two brief points. The first one is that the two fundamental areas where we disagreed with the ATSB on the report were the characterisation of contributory safety factors to CASA and that was in relation to the methodology. The second one was the scenario, the end scenario, which occurred in the accident. Our view was, and remains, that if the pilot made a deliberate decision to depart from the published approach, in other words he broke the rules, then that was the principal cause of the accident and that any allegation that a contributory safety factor, which is the way it was characterised in the methodology for CASA, that could have changed that pilot’s behaviour on the day is an incorrect characterisation. That is the point we made repeatedly in the coronial and that is the point we still make. But I make the final point which is that we have implemented all of the recommendations of the coroner. We have implemented the recommendations that ATSB made in the report, whether or not we agree with them, and we are moving forward.

---

When you consider this bit..

 “..Our view was, and remains, that if the pilot made a deliberate decision to depart from the published approach, in other words he broke the rules, then that was the principal cause of the accident and that any allegation that a contributory safety factor, which is the way it was characterised in the methodology for CASA, that could have changed that pilot’s behaviour on the day is an incorrect characterisation…”

…it is very hard to reconcile that this Hansard was recorded more than 18 months before the ‘inconvenient ditching’ of VH-NGA at Norfolk Island –   

Now fast forward to this segment of Supplementary Budget Estimates 27 October 2017:

Then consider how, since that time, the ATSB PelAir re-investigation report has effectively been whitewashed, with the collective memory of the PelAir cover-up in the Can’tberra aviation safety bureaucracy circles squaring it away and subsequently binning for all eternity –    

Finally in regards to CC’s comment…

"...But I make the final point which is that we have implemented all of the recommendations of the coroner. We have implemented the recommendations that ATSB made in the report, whether or not we agree with them, and we are moving forward…”

…you only need to revisit PAIN’s research papers…

---

1) Coronial analysis
2) Lockhart River
3) Popin_2

---

…or take a read of the AP thread: Closing the safety loop – Coroners, ATSB & CASA to get an idea of how effectively CASA have ‘implemented (obfuscated) the recommendations’ of both the Coroner(s) and the ATSB.

Yet here sits, over a decade later, that same bureaucrat who was responsible for oversighting, facilitating, defending and obfuscating one of the worst periods of Australian aviation safety administration since the writing and promulgation of the Civil Aviation Act  30 years ago –   

MTF? Yes much MTF! P2   

[Peetwo]

FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance - 

While HVH in toe with the Iron Ring and their minions, continue to snow-job the YMEN DFO accident report - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-30-...ml#pid9340 - it would appear that Mr Fixit (aka Carmody Capers; aka the smiling assassin) is hard at the GA divide & decimate campaign (GADD)...    

Yesterday via the Yaffa:

CASA opens Consultation on Self-administration
26 September 2018

CASA has opened consultation on the first Part 149 Manual of Standards (MOS) for approved self-administering aviation organisations (ASAOs).

ASAOs administer specific sections of aviation under a CASA approval, and organisations such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) and Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL) are expected to transition to the new Part 149 rules.

Previously, these organisations were approved via individual agreements with CASA
"This consultation draft sets out the full proposed Part 149 MOS that supports the operation of Part 149 of the CASR – Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations (ASAOs) – for public consideration and comment," CASA has stated. "Previous consultation has supported policy to have a concise regulation and move most of the operational detail for ASAOs into the Part 149 MOS.

"While Part 149 of CASR has been designed for sport and recreational aviation organisations which currently operate under a system of self-administration, the regulation enables any aviation organisation to apply to CASA to carry out a self-administered activity."

The MOS sets out the regulatory framework under which ASAOs will be expected to operate, and the requirements an organisation will need to meet for CASA to issue an ASAO certificate. The MOS covers many areas including:

• aircraft registration
  
• airworthiness
  
• flight operations
  
• flight training
  
• key personnel
  
• safety management systems
  

"The implementation of Part 149 of CASR means that the administration of aircraft operated in accordance with the 95-series CAOs that apply to sport and recreational aircraft would become an aviation administration function," CASA states in the Summary of Proposed Change.

"For the purposes of the prescribed aviation administration functions, the kinds of aircraft subject to self-administration (Part 149 aircraft) are described in the MOS in terms consistent with how they are described within the applicable CAO(s)."

CASA has given the aviation community until 21 October to respond to the draft Part 149 MOS via the Consultation Hub.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...jcaev8V.99

Here is Sandy's take on CASA 'Iron Ring style' consultation in regards to the VFR ADSB imbroglio...

Quote:-

“CASA has listened to the aviation community and will be developing rule changes aimed at making it cheaper and easier for automatic dependent surveillance—broadcast (ADS-B) technology to be voluntarily fitted to visual flight rules aircraft. This action follows consultation which showed broad support for the voluntary adoption of ADS-B across general aviation. ”

Gosh that’s great and what a remarkable revelation that we would be in favour of voluntary fitment. All that money and time spent on the consultation process will be valued. Hoping it won’t be too many years before those hard working staff find the time to “develop” these new regulations, perhaps after the new basic medical regime is sorted?

I dare say that some of the regulation writing experts will be drifting back to Aviation Hearse after seminars and holidays in northern climes. If Canberra wasn’t so freezing and far from the beach...

But anyway while we wait, thanks CASA, how generous of you. We, your supplicants, are most impressed. Impressed as one being at an open casket funeral and admiring the funeral director’s skill at make up.

And for a perfect example on how much - under the warm & fuzzy CC stewardship - the CASA consultation process has become more conciliatory and efficient over time one cannot go past the more than decade old fatigue management regulatory (Order not Part) re-write (i.e. CAO 48.0).

Current progress: see - https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/fa...management

Next steps
In 2018, we will make amendments and develop guidance material to support the transition of the high capacity regular public transport operators.
We will continue to work with industry, including the Technical Working Group appointed by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, to road-test changes before public consultation on proposed changes to the regulations. Key changes this year will include amending the prescriptive flight duty limits in Appendices 2 and 3, and improvements to FRMS.

Now let's rewind 5 years when former Senator X had put forward a disallowance motion on CAO 48.1: reference link - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread...86#pid8186

Fast forwarding again, to 30 June 2013 the following are quotes from a AIPA Parliamentary Brief in support of the NX proposal to disallow CAO 48.1: https://www.aipa.org.au/sites/default/fi...3a_002.pdf

---

From pg 2 of the brief:

In summary, the Instrument is a step in the right direction but is unfinished business. There are serious concerns about the application or otherwise of the body of fatigue science and research and the preservation or extension of existing provisions already challenged by parts of the industry as unsafe.

CASA has an abysmal record of regulatory oversight of fatigue management, even without the pressure of trying to get some serious traction on the Regulatory Reform programs that have diverted them for the last 17 or so years. Parts of the industry believe that CASA has seriously underestimated the resources required to implement these new rules and that there will be an inevitable trade-off in surveillance activities of flight operations.

If not disallowed now, this legislation will continue with no incentive for improvement unless and until the inherent risk crystallises into an undesirable outcome. That is not a possibility that this Parliament should allow to persist.
 

---

From pg 5:

ICAO recognises the importance of “operational experience”, but that is a tainted concept if it merely reflects what operators have been doing or what the regulator thinks they are doing.

In Australia, we have already seen how this concept is tainted - recent Senate inquiries that have touched upon Jetstar, Pel-air and Avtex/Skymaster fatigue management processes and largely exposed the gulf between sound fatigue risk management, what operators have really been doing and what the regulator didn’t really bother to see what they were doing. The CASA Special Audit conducted after the Pel-Air ditching revealed all three of those propositions, while explaining a lack of pilot complaints:

…The short planning period, lack of knowledge of possible destinations and lack of support provided by operations staff once doors closed appears to add to this fatigue. All crew interviewed stated that they felt there would be no issues in stating that they were fatigued and pulling out of duty but also felt that they had limited opportunities to fly and had to take these opportunities when they arose… 8

… Most crew interviewed stated that they had been part of a duty that was greater than 15 hours in length but evidence could not be identified that showed fatigue related extension of duty processes had been followed, safety reports had been written following the duty or that management follow-up was conducted as is required in the company FRMS manual. Several interviewees believed that there is a lack of management adherence to safety management requirements and the fatigue risk mitigation strategies as laid down in the company's FRMS manual…9

When CASA was asked about the significance of Jetstar requiring crews on the Darwin-Singapore-Darwin night flight to extend beyond their normal flight duty period (FDP) limits on 12 of 21 flights in January 2011, they responded:

CASA does not consider that these extensions require continual monitoring.
The duty extensions recorded in January 2011 by Jetstar were a result of flight crew agreeing to operate beyond the standard 12 hour initial limits as provided for within Civil Aviation Order 48 Exemption. No breaches of the 14 hour condition were recorded.10

Undoubtedly that is how CASA will regulate operations under the SIE until they expire in 2016, despite the fact that the same flights could not even be contemplated under The Instrument! Finally, from evidence given to the UK Parliament Transport Committee Inquiry into Flight Time Limitations in February 2012 (which we believe to be replicated in parts of the Australian industry):

7.6. More importantly: fatigue is significantly under-reported by the pilots themselves. This is because pilots do not file reports on an aspect that has become a ‘normal’ part of their daily work. Many are afraid their fatigue reports could have negative consequences for their professional future (i.e. reprisals by management) – a phenomenon that is growing – particularly when pilots refuse to fly because they are too fatigued. Indeed UK polling results show that 33% of pilots would not feel comfortable refusing to fly if fatigued, and of those who would, three quarters would have reservations. Once a pilot has decided they have no option but to fly, a fatigue report would be tantamount to writing the evidence for their own prosecution…11

This under-reporting by pilots is exacerbated by CASA being widely seen by the aviation community as having actively disengaged in any intelligent discussion about fatigue regulation for many years. It is highly unlikely that CASA has any defensible
‘regulatory experience’ other than superficial ‘tick and flick’ audit activities and, as such, cannot and should not rely on its perception of the current state of fatigue management to set aside the science or to replicate current rules.

Now rewind to the previous year, before the PelAir cover-up inquiry began, at Senate Estimates: reference - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid8209

Coming back to the - unclosed loop - 2 decade old identified safety issue of fatigue, as a passing strange coincidence the following was a short passage of Hansard, from May 2012, that followed Sen Fawcett's ATSB safety loop questioning:

Senator XENOPHON: I will try to make it a very quick one. I keep getting complaints from those who are in safety-sensitive positions in aviation about fatigue issues and that the fatigue issues seem invariably to accompany reports of an oppressive workplace culture, most recently in terms of air traffic controllers. How does the ATSB deal with the particular issues of fatigue management and the performance consequences of workplace culture, given the subjectivity inherent in those concepts? Do you see a role in ATSB monitoring the performance of the fatigue management systems or do you see it as a purely regulatory function? Do you think that the regulatory agencies are doing enough about fatigue risk management? I am happy for you to take it on notice.

Mr Dolan : With your indulgence, I can answer it quite quickly.

CHAIR: Yes, get to the point.

Mr Dolan : Fatigue, when it is detected as a contributing factor in any investigation we undertake, we will look to fatigue management systems to see whether they can be improved to better manage the risk of fatigue in the system. I do not have any evidence in front of me that would allow me to give you an additional comment on the adequacy of regulatory oversight. We have not seen anything that would say it is inadequate. P2 comment - Err (vomit -  ) BOLLOCKS!!

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you.

Next let's rewind a decade to Budget Estimates 2008 (reference Hansard - 

S10855.pdf Size: 1.22 MB  Downloads: 0

S10855.pdf Size: 1.22 MB  Downloads: 0

) to a long but IMO important passage of Hansard between the RRAT Chair Senator Sterle and Carmody (feebly backed by Mr Wight):

CHAIR—Are there any other questions of CASA? If not, I have some that I would like to
put to you, Mr Carmody. Firstly, I would like to talk about one of your orders. You might want to bring someone to the table that may assist with civil aviation order 48, general exemption.

Mr Carmody—Could you hold on for a second?

CHAIR—By all means.

Mr Carmody—It is regarding flight and duty times, I presume.

CHAIR—Do you have it in front of you?

Mr Carmody—I am not really sure.

CHAIR—You do not have the order in front of you. You can pull me up then and correct
me if I am wrong then. Civil aviation order 48, general exemption, refers to flight deck duty time and, in particular, it talks about the actual time the pilots spend in the cockpit; is that correct?

Mr Wight—That is correct.

CHAIR—I am led to believe the exemption order addresses the actual time from the time
they clock on to the time they actually leave the cockpit; is that correct?

Mr Wight—You are talking about the actual order itself?

CHAIR—Yes, sorry, the actual order.

Mr Wight—The order reflects two parts. It reflects the duty time so, as you correctly said,
from the time they essentially start duty to when they finish duty and then it talks about flight time limitations as well. That is the actual flight time, so essentially sort of from pushback tothe flight stopping.

CHAIR—Off the top of your head what would be the difference in hours, would you
know?

Mr Wight—It would depend on the flight pattern that was given to the crew. The crew
could conceivably do an eight-hour duty and only do three or four flight hours. That is
possible.

CHAIR—It is possible that pilots can spend up to another five hours performing other
duties, preparation for departure and what not?

Mr Wight—Or time in between flights where they actually may not be performing any
duties.

CHAIR—Does that affect any particular sector? Is it domestic or international or both?
Mr Wight—The exemption that 48 covers is wide-ranging; it is not limited to international
or domestic. CASA has also had some standard exemptions in place that covers various
sectors of the industry.

CHAIR—Is CASA aware that operators are using alternative flight-deck duty time
definitions to that required by the civil aviation order 48 general exemption?

Mr Wight—I am not specifically aware of that. CASA operators either work to the CA48
or they work to the exemption that has been issued by the authority.

CHAIR—I am talking about the exemption now.

Mr Wight—Okay.

CHAIR—You are not aware?

Mr Wight—I am not specifically aware of the event which you are referring to.

CHAIR—Are you aware then that Australian and International Pilots Association has
repeatedly raised this matter with CASA over a period of some three years?

Mr Carmody—Yes, I am aware that it has been the subject of a lot of discussion by the
Australian and International Pilots Association and others in the Standards Consultative
Committee of which AIPA is a member. Many other organisations are members as well. That is the organisation, the group, that we have in place to consult on our regulations.

CHAIR—Who is on that?

Mr Carmody—It is chaired by an external chair and has a wide range of industry
representatives from AIPA to representative organisations like the international pilots
association and the Flight Attendants Association. It has the major airlines. It has the Regional Airlines Association. It has the maintenance organisations. There are routinely about 60 people at the Standards Consultative Committee meeting. The point I am making is that my understanding is that the Standards Consultative Committee has discussed this at some length and has agreed that there are some issues with CAO 48 but that it is going to be managed under the fatigue risk management system that is being discussed and being brought into place at present. I understand that there is a proposed change to civil aviation order 48 which will offer fatigue risk management as an option for managing duty times. It is anticipated that a notice of proposed rulemaking for this CAO change will be released in September this year.

It has been a very long and complex process and I understand that the Australian and
International Pilots Association is very keen to have it resolved, but I also understand that the committee has discussed it on a number of occasions and this is the course that they have agreed to follow.


CHAIR—What were they discussing?

Mr Carmody—That there are some inadequacies with CAO 48 and that newer approaches
to looking at fatigue and fatigue risk should be in place and we should be offering
alternatives.

CHAIR—You might be able to help me out here, when you say, ‘some inadequacies’, did
it not suit some of the airline operators?

Mr Carmody—I do not know in detail. All I know is that discussions have centred on CAO 48. My presumption is that some operators are having difficulties, or some individuals
are having difficulties, and that is why it has been discussed at length.

CHAIR—I do not have a history in fatigue management in the aviation industry but, for
the record, I have a hell of a lot of experience of fatigue management in road transport. When we start talking about these representative bodies who are well and truly representing over 60 individuals; just about every stakeholder in the industry I would say would be represented on that AIPA; is that right?

Mr Carmody—No, the Standards Consultative Committee.

CHAIR—The Standards Consultative Committee. And if I am hearing correctly they are
having some issues around a fatigue management issue. The issues must be that obviously
they are not happy with it in terms of it being too tight for the operators, or is it too long for the pilots?


Mr Carmody—I would presume it depends on where you sit. Without trying to be
flippant, I would suggest that that is the case. I do not have all of the details but I do know that it is not new to us. It has been the subject of a lot of discussion and a lot of work.

CHAIR—That civil aviation order was not pulled out of a Weeties packet, was it?

Mr Carmody—CAO 48?

CHAIR—The exemption.

Mr Carmody—And the exemption?

CHAIR—They just did not fall out of the sky, did they? They were negotiated; is that
right? They were legislated?

Mr Carmody—I do not know what year civil aviation order 48 was created. I would
suspect that any exemptions to that order would have been on the basis of a request from
someone and I presume, using our latest terminology, some sort of a safety case for evaluation of that.

CHAIR—And it would be CASA’s role to enforce that exemption; is that correct?

Mr Carmody—Yes, I would expect so.

CHAIR—If we have got a host of people sitting around a table under the guise of a
Standards Consultative Committee having some extended issues with a law, it tells me that
something is not working. I am asking you, Mr Carmody or Mr Wight, have you been vigilant in enforcing that exemption or that law?


Mr Wight—Through our normal surveillance process that would be something that we
would routinely check, the exceeding of limitations of how they have been recorded within
organisations.

CHAIR—Do you have to hand your hit record, or score record, or those that are behaving
and those that might be working outside it?

Mr Wight—I do not on me, no.

CHAIR—You may want to take that on notice, if you can, and provide that information to
the committee. But I want to come back to it now. We have got some issues and obviously
there is a representation of the pilots. And I would have thought that if anyone wants to work to safe flying times the pilots would have a large input into that standard. Would that be a fair assumption?

Mr Wight—I think probably some explanation about 48 is that it is a prescriptive
framework that does not necessarily best manage the risks and the fatigue associated with
work and duties associated with work and so the move to the FRMS, the fatigue risk
management system, allows operators to better manage their risks and for them to provide education to their crews about management fatigue as well in a less prescriptive environment.


CHAIR—If we have got a law now that states certain guidelines. Let us say the drink
driving laws and suddenly we raise it from .05 to .07 but we are still talking about it so it is
still all right to drive at .07. Are you trying to tell me that you have set some standards that
you are handed to enforce to make sure the pilots are completely and safely rested in between shifts, that it is not being adhered to and it is creating dramas, but it is all right to break that law?

Mr Wight—I would say that even under the current CAO 48 the operator is still
responsible for ensuring that crews are not put on line that are fatigued.

CHAIR—What if they are not?

Mr Wight—Sorry, could you—

CHAIR—What if they are not enforcing that law? Who does it then?

Mr Wight—If the crews who are going onto line are fatigued?

CHAIR—If the crews are working greater hours than what is prescribed under the
legislation, do we turn a blind eye?

Mr Wight—We do not turn a blind eye, no. If we are aware of the issue then we certainly
would not be turning a blind eye.

CHAIR—I would say that if we had been talking—I should not say ‘we’—if the Standards
Consultative Committee has been talking about these issues of fatigue management for the last three years, then I am forming an opinion here that you are well aware of it; it is not being adhered to—and correct me if I am wrong—but it is not being policed?

Mr Wight—I might say that there is an issue with the 48—

CHAIR—It sounds like there is an issue.

Mr Wight—The question that you are asking is that: are the crews fatigued within the
limitations of 48 or are they actually exceeding the flight time or duty time limitations—

CHAIR—I think I said very clearly ‘exceeding the times’.

Mr Wight—That was an issue if we became aware of that.

CHAIR—You are aware of it now and you have been aware of it. Mr Carmody said there
have been some issues around this for the last three years.

Mr Carmody—I did not say that. I said there were some issues around this. To be fair,
there are some issues around CAO 48. I did not quite say that there were some issues where we knew that people were exceeding the requirements of CAO 48. My point is that the committee which has all these representatives on it is actually trying to resolve this matter and a number of parties are very interested in it. We are trying to work on it and resolve it as well.

CHAIR—In that case, are you aware that CASA Complaints Commissioner, Mr Hart, has
also asked CASA for an explanation of why they, meaning CASA, have not acted? Are you
aware of that?

Mr Carmody—Yes, I am aware of that, but I am also aware of the view that all the
representatives of the Standards Consultative Committee on which the complainants are
represented agreed that this was the way through this NPRM process that this fatigue risk
management work would be done.

CHAIR—Can I ask you then can you categorically commit to this committee that you are
enforcing this exemption to the letter of the law?

Mr Carmody—I would like to review the evidence that the ICC has in front of them
before I make that commitment.

CHAIR—Isn’t it true that Commissioner Hart recommended:

… that the wording and hence the meaning [of CAO48E’s) definitions with respect to …flight deck duty are clear and unambiguous …


and that it is subsequently:

… not within the lawful prerogative of any operator to place or invent any other interpretation with respect to the meaning of those words.


Mr Carmody—I understand that to be the case. I do also understand that in responding to
the question that was raised with the industry’s complaints commissioner I do not think he
was aware at the time of the deliberations of the Standards Consultative Committee and that those who had raised the complaints with him were also aware of the deliberations of the committee.


CHAIR—Carry on.

Mr Carmody—I think had he been aware of the deliberations of the Standards
Consultative Committee he may well have responded differently but I cannot confirm that.

CHAIR—So that I am very clear on that has Mr Hart been misled, has he, or is he
confused?

Mr Carmody—Neither. My point was that he received a request and responded to a
request as far as I know within the terms of that request. What I am not sure he was fully
aware of was that this was afoot, this had been debated and that the Standards Consultative Committee itself had worked out a way through this mechanism and was working assiduously to get itself there.

CHAIR—The Standards Consultative Committee are working around something more
flexible; is that what you are trying to say?

Mr Carmody—That is right. A CAO 48 arrangement, if I understand it correctly, that
includes modern fatigue risk management principles rather than being very prescriptive,
trying to move away from a prescriptive nature to a more outcomes focused result, as we are with all of our regulations.

CHAIR—I have no problem with moving forward with the times. If that is the wish of
both sides of industry it is very hard to argue against, but if we have a recommendation—or, sorry, a law now, not a recommendation—how can you justify not enforcing it until a new one is in place?

Mr Carmody—I do not think I said that we were not enforcing it. I said I would like to see
what the details are.

CHAIR—Commissioner Hart has raised his concerns. Would I be right in assuming that
you have not implemented his recommendations?

Mr Carmody—I have not got his recommendations in front of me but I would say that we
are considering his recommendations in the context of the Standards Consultative Committee deliberations. That is my understanding.

CHAIR—You are saying that the breach has been committed because the FMRS rules are
being developed?

Mr Carmody—Without having the full details of the response, I am not saying that a
breach has been committed. I would be happy to take the matter on notice and look at what the ICC’s response has been. And I will look at the FMRS as well.

CHAIR—I will help you out. And the pilots association who represent the pilots are
making it very clear that for three years they have been bringing to your attention many
breaches. Sorry, I will rephrase that. There is not enforcement of that order.

Mr Carmody—Hmm.

CHAIR—Mr Carmody, we can sit there and ‘hmm’, but if we are talking about fatigue
management obviously there are laws around it for a very good reason and I want to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps this law is not being enforced. I am not talking about my colleagues on the committee here who happen to spend too much time on airplanes now but for the whole general public. We like to think that our pilots are safely rested and ready for duties. But if we have major operators who are getting away with not enforcing the law because they cannot do it themselves and the major enforcement body, CASA, is not policing it, it sends a very worrying message when the pilots are out there saying, ‘Hey, how many more times do we have to scream out: “Enforce the law.”?’ If a new one is negotiated and a new one is enforced, good luck to all. Would that be a fair assumption? It is now 3.30 pm and there is a long way to go. You have taken on notice and you are going to come back to the committee with the records that you have for whatever breaches there have been to this exemption; is that right?


Mr Wight—We can if—

CHAIR—I am actually asking you to take it on notice if you can and come back to us.

Mr Wight—I will take that on notice.

CHAIR—If it is possible to come back before we adjourn by tomorrow night that would
be appreciated. Does CASA believe it has discretion enforcing compliance with the
regulations under its authority?

Mr Carmody—I do not believe we have discretion.

Mr Wight—Not within the current CAO 48.

CHAIR—Why are you permitting airlines to not comply with the law?

Mr Carmody—If I may respond, as I have said before, I am not sure that we are. I would
like to review that information.

CHAIR—Okay. You did say that. That is fair and I will wait with bated breath for you to
come back with that information. Is it correct to say that if CASA were to enforce the CAO
48E definition then the operators would need additional crew to operate some of their
currently scheduled sectors and hence incur additional costs? Would that be a fair statement?

Mr Carmody—I would have to couple that with my previous response. I do not know the
answer to that.

CHAIR—Were such commercial considerations a factor in CASA withdrawing its initial
acknowledgement in 2005 to AIPA that the CAO 48E duty time definitions were being
breached?

Mr Carmody—I do not know the answer to that, either.

CHAIR—Take that on notice, thank you. Are there any other questions of CASA? If not, I
thank you Mr Carmody and Mr Wight and we will now call Australian Transport Safety
Bureau.

This was how the QON was cynically obfuscated answered some months later by Carmody & CO...  

Senator Sterle asked:

CHAIR—And it would be CASA’s role to enforce that exemption; is that correct?
Mr Carmody—Yes, I would expect so.
CHAIR—If we have got a host of people sitting around a table under the guise of a
Standards Consultative Committee having some extended issues with a law, it tells
me that something is not working. I am asking you, Mr Carmody or Mr Wight, have
you been vigilant in enforcing that exemption or that law?
Mr Wight—Through our normal surveillance process that would be something that
we would routinely check, the exceeding of limitations of how they have been
recorded within organisations.
CHAIR—Do you have to hand your hit record, or score record, or those that are
behaving and those that might be working outside it?
Mr Wight—I do not on me, no.
CHAIR—You may want to take that on notice, if you can, and provide that
information to the committee.

Answer:
Compliance against CAO Part 48 and any exemptions under CAO Part 48 is assessed
on all system audits. Enforcement action has been taken three times in relation to
CAO 48 since 1 January 2007. Requests for Corrective Action have been issued 26
times in the same period. CASA also undertakes a range of other administrative
action in addition to Requests for Corrective Action. Disaggregating this data is not
practicable at this time.

---

&..
Senator Sterle asked:
CHAIR—Commissioner Hart has raised his concerns. Would I be right in assuming
that you have not implemented his recommendations?
Mr Carmody—I have not got his recommendations in front of me but I would say
that we are considering his recommendations in the context of the Standards
Consultative Committee deliberations. That is my understanding.
CHAIR—You are saying that the breach has been committed because the FRMS
rules are being developed?
Mr Carmody—Without having the full details of the response, I am not saying that a
breach has been committed. I would be happy to take the matter on notice and look at
what the ICC’s response has been. And I will look at the FRMS as well.

Answer:
If a breach has occurred it would necessarily be a breach under the existing
requirements, not any proposed rules being developed by the Standards Consultative
Committee.

I still keep pinching myself to the reality that all of the above Hansard etc. was from over a decade ago and features the same bureaucrat (ably supported by the Iron Ring), who now sits in the CASA top job - Leopards and spots INDEED??!! 


MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

Of piffle, folly, and waffle

I believe everything that comes out of Wingnuts mouth, along with anything that comes from the Miniscules office or indeed Can’tberra itself can be aptly described, as the Screaming Skull would say as being ‘tautological rubbish’. In fact those giant ears of Carmody’s seem to rapidly fan the amount of shit that dribbles from his voice box FFS. Almost as nauseating as having to listen to Peter Gobfullofshite.

Byron, Skull, Skidmark, Wingnut are nothing short of lapdogs. Lapdogs who sit at the Miniscules feet begging for a tummy scratch, a pat, or even the odd Smacko treat. Occasionally they get so excited in the Miniscules presence that they get a ‘lipstick’. They all form part of a bureaucratic system which is falling apart.

Quite frankly we are all fed up with them peddling shit to us and expecting us to swallow it. To be even more frank; “who the fu#k are these jerks to tell me what makes for safety and what doesn’t”? What makes these select individuals think they know better than I, and that I should obey their commands? They are nothing more than shitstains dressed up in expensive suits sprouting rhetoric that is as believable as a Christmas fable. They can kiss my ass......

[Kharon]

Frank and Ernest.

P2 – “I still keep pinching myself to the reality that all of the above Hansard etc. was from over a decade ago and features the same bureaucrat, etc.”



Thing I can’t get over is that a succession of ‘ministers’ and a couple of Senate teams have not been able to put a full stop to this never ending cycle. They all seem to sit there, politely asking CASA to ‘consider’ stuff, which they do, then either kill off the ‘suggestions’, shrug off recommendations as opinion; or, quietly shuffle reports off to the shelf-ware storage to await shedding; or, they take so bloody long to ‘do’ whatever it is they’re supposed to do, everyone has forgotten what it was; or have died during the waiting period. A decade ago, the same problems we have today existed; the remedy has been to make things worse for industry while making life in CASA a pleasant ‘desk-top’ experience.

There is a new ‘Board’ stepping up to the crease; there is a fairly cranky Senate committee, which, even with O’Sofullashite still hanging about, seems to mean business, if the opposition can place a little pressure on McDoNaught, not to mention the 'Alphabet Soup Groups' lobbying like hell. Maybe, perhaps in another decade, regulatory reform (and sanity) will be achieved. Just in time for the re-write. Then we can start all over again.



What a bloody shambles. What a disgrace. What a horrendous cost – but most of all; what an unashamed arrogance it is to ignore the worlds best practice set by the USA.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

DAS Carmody makes progress on 'Safe Skies are empty skies' policy 

"K" off the AP Senate thread : http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-...ml#pid9445

"Voyager, there are no bridges, one builds them as one walks."

“Our general aviation (GA) community is similar to the inner workings of a kaleidoscope. It consists of different parts — different types of pilots and mechanics, on many different types of aircraft, representing different issues, needs, and concerns. Just like the kaleidoscope’s prism of mirrors, GA advocacy groups reflect and support each part of our aviation village to create the harmonious patterns that shape our aviation world.”

That, is one the very best analogies of what is loosely known as GA. Of course in the USA, the term GA is not a derogatory term. In the USA it encompasses the entire spectrum of non airline operations; from privately owned and operated ‘heavy metal’ all the way through to the lightest, homebuilt bug smasher. All signify; not always harmonious, but very definitely considered. AOPA America is very, very good, efficient, organized and have worked hard to develop a sound working relationship with the regulator. But; it does take ‘two to Tango’ as they say. The FAA attitude to matters aeronautical is vastly different from the Australian edition; which makes discussion possible and any proposed ‘change’ has at least a fighting chance of becoming part of the fabric. The difference is stark and compelling.  

AOPA and the FAA work closely together to educate and provide outreach to the GA community, share information, and circulate best practices and lessons learned. A good example of this relationship is the GA Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), of which the FAA and AOPA are members. This joint government/industry committee uses a data-driven approach to analyze GA accident causal factors and develop mitigation strategies. Committee members all work together through educational programs such as the #FlySafe campaign to promote best practices and safe flying techniques.

Seriously – how much would this nations aviation aspirations benefit by adopting a similar system? Sure, it takes time, effort and willingness – from all concerned to arrive at any sort of agreement – always does – the difference being that in the USA – things get done; finished tidy. It seems to me at least, that there is a ‘can do/ want to do’ attitude over there; whereas in Australia, it always seems to be a one way street of ‘no – you can’t; first,  and then, even if you can, we will make it as difficult, complicated and expensive as possible. Why this is so, I’ve no idea; however, it is there – in your face, every time you need to change the colour of the bog roll in the airborne executive dunny. 

The entire article – above, (courtesy of P2) is worth reading through. Then, you can return to the 99th  re hash of the no longer approved after audit of the manual you drafted two years ago, to accommodate the new aircraft type; or to include the amendment to the exemption, which used to exempt you from only using black ink.  

Hell's bloody bells!– we can’t even get AOPA into the game here. Time the minister resolved the mess; or resigned, in favour of a more able man (or even my aging, giddy Aunt Mable). Thing that really gets my back up is we pay, and pay dearly to allow CASA to blithely, with untrammeled authority, to get away with this. Aye, ‘tis the ultimate of bollocks; self inflicted, just so we can all go along, to get along. Ridiculous. 

As a passing strange coincidence I note that Carmody Capers has tapped out yet another enthralling OP piece for the Oz...  

CASA’s satisfaction rating rises
SHANE CARMODY

As a CEO it is important to take stock of how your organisation is tracking. Is it making progress or slipping behind?

The feedback I receive most of the time about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is that we are making progress, but there is still more to do. That’s not entirely surprising to me because over the past few years we have done a lot.

We have implemented new surveillance technology, transitioned flying schools to new regulations, reviewed fatigue rules, established vastly simplified consultation arrangements, introduced new aviation medical processes, made small but targeted improvements to service delivery, sought to make our decision-making more nationally consistent and added far more rigour in our approach to industry regulatory oversight.

It is a fact of life that CASA is a regulator, and regulators are never universally popular.

Put simply, we are charged with making decisions that maintain and enhance high safety standards — and taking steps against those who are purposely not meeting them. A simple analogy is road safety regulation.

No one enjoys getting a speeding fine, but most of us would accept that driving safely and within the speed limit is part of a necessary system of road safety. It is not the case that CASA is always dealing with people who are deliberately reckless. In fact, with CASA it is usually the opposite.

No one takes off expecting to have an accident nor considering whether their lack of safety focus will cause an accident. We all want to get home safely.

CASA and the aviation community do share a strong commitment to safety. It is just that we sometimes differ in how that commitment is best expressed.

Bridging this gap requires both mutual understanding and mutual respect. One element of developing and maintaining mutual understanding is ensuring we know what the aviation industry thinks about us. We need to know what Australian aviation thinks we are doing well, what we are not doing well and how we could do better.

A key tool in this understanding is conducting regular and comprehensive research of the aviation community.

We have just released the results of our 2018 aviation community relationship survey and I am pleased to say there has been a marked improvement in outcomes across the board. The ­survey shows the aviation community believes we have made real improvements in key areas. This is not CASA patting itself on the back, but the verdict of people from all sectors of the Australian aviation community.

The first time CASA undertook this survey, in 2015, we found out we had to do a lot better. The overall result was a mean satisfaction rating of 4.2 out of 10. In 2018, the mean satisfaction rating has risen to 6.2 out of 10.

Significantly, those stakeholders who were “satisfied or very satisfied” with their relationship with CASA increased from 25 per cent in 2015 to 53 per cent in 2018. Additionally, those who were “dissatisfied or very dissatisfied” decreased from 46 per cent in 2015 to 20 per cent in 2018.

Can we further improve our performance in the future? We will most certainly be trying: not to increase our popularity, but to improve on the many things we still don’t do well enough and thereby improve aviation safety for all Australians. Of course, we will continue to expect that everyone in Australian aviation demonstrates their commitment to safety each and every day.

While CASA will keep working hard to get better at what we do, achieving the highest levels of safety relies upon the efforts of every aviation organisation and individual. We are in a safety partnership and that requires effort by us all. The latest survey included a new question on the three most important areas CASA should focus on to improve aviation safety. The answers were that we should make regulations simpler, clearer or more practical (19 per cent of answers); increase industry and stakeholder knowledge and interaction through consultation (13 per cent); and focus on training (10 per cent).

The survey also pointed to dissatisfaction with the delays in processing licence applications or renewals, and with difficulties contacting people within the ­organisation.

We will work hard to improve these areas. I’d like to thank the aviation community for the honest feedback. From what we are hearing we believe we have set the right course. We will commit to improving the way we regulate, not to court popularity, but to build the understanding and ­respect that is the foundation of aviation safety.

Shane Carmody is the CEO and director of aviation safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

  
Hmm...this spiel somehow sounds so very familiar...
Quote: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-142...ml#pid9308

---

Senator O’BRIEN —Mr Carmody, I believe you are disappointed that this inquiry is taking place.
Mr Carmody —I was, certainly. I was disappointed that the inquiry was taking place. After we had given our evidence at the last estimates, the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed.
Senator O’BRIEN —Because you felt that whatever you needed to tell the Senate you had already told the Senate?
Mr Carmody —There are a couple of reasons. A number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot and there is also management time and effort. We as an organisation have an enormous amount on our plate. As you know—and I am sure we will get to it—we have issues with regional airlines and have issues with oversight and Qantas maintenance. We have a lot to do. Therefore, essentially going through another estimates process and preparing for another estimates process—preparing witnesses and putting in a submission—involves a lot of work. So, yes, I am disappointed.
Senator O’BRIEN —How many witnesses have you prepared?
Mr Carmody —All of the general management team are here.
Senator O’BRIEN —How have you prepared witnesses?
Mr Carmody —At the end of the day, in the same way that we normally do Senate estimates preparation—and ‘preparation’ is probably too strong a word—we, like all departments and organisations, look at issues that may come up and we prepare briefs and make sure that we have an understanding of the issues. So managers are distracted from what they would normally do by going back and reviewing the issues. That is the preparation that I meant...

---

[size=undefined]
...Mr Quinn —If I can add something there: being out in the industry in the last few weeks and consulting with various groups, the point has been made very clear to me—and it is also a point that is very clear in CASA—that the most important aspect of this inquiry is to come up with some sort of constructive outcome in the interests of aviation safety in this country. We certainly acknowledge that, I certainly acknowledge that and so does the industry. The point that is being made here is that, whilst this is going on, it takes some significant work to prepare ourselves when other significant work is going on—and there is a lot on our plate currently. We recognise the importance of this process to get to where we want to get.
Senator O’BRIEN —That is why I asked the questions about what was involved in preparing witnesses. The answer did not seem to indicate that it was a highly complex set of preparations given. I take it from the answer given that they were essentially the preparations for estimates which have only recently occurred.
Mr Carmody —If I may add—given that the question led with my disappointment—there still is work to go back and review any other issues that are around and in place. It is not for us—and nor would I think you expect it to be for witnesses—to take a blase approach to appearing before committees. We review our material very carefully, as we should, and we put a lot of effort into doing so. So there is individual preparation by managers to make sure that they are across all elements of their brief, or as many as they can be. The other side of the disappointment aspect—because I did not conclude that—is that there have been a lot of references to CASA over the last couple of years. One element of my disappointment—and I think it is covered eloquently in our submission—is that there has been a lot of change in CASA in the last five years. I am not sure that that is as broadly recognised in the community as it could be, and that is a disappointment.
Senator O’BRIEN —Here is your chance to make the case.
Mr Carmody —That is what we did in our submission.
Senator O’BRIEN —So it is actually an opportunity rather than a disappointment?
Mr Carmody —I think I said that in the all-staff announcement. I said that it is an opportunity to show what we have done. I do not have it in front of me but I can find it.
Senator O’BRIEN —No. You started with the disappointed, and you finally got to that; I will concede that.
Mr Carmody —Thank you, Senator.[/size]

With the exception of Carmody now being in the top job, how things have changed at Fort Fumble in the last decade - NOT!

---

If you consider that the Hansard extracts etc. were taken from over a decade ago, in reality the progress as stated by CC is moving at a snail's pace - 
I also note that over on the UP that Dick Smith and certain members of the IOS would seem to have missed the CC memo?? 

Dick Smith

Whatever you do, don't change anything - CASA Multicom

---

I love it. CASA has just sent out what is probably their final consultation paper regarding "Frequency use in Class G airspace". Here is a link. https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulat...1802as.pdf

Note once again there are no names - no one has the confidence to put their name on any document while earning up to $300,000 per year.

Of course, I could have written the wording in their email notification “We believe the safest and simplest system is the one currently in place.” This is entirely consistent with the whole of CASA. That is, never change anything, never show a skerrick of leadership. Never copy the best from overseas and incorporate with the best we already do here. Just make sure the status quo remains so no one could ever possibly be held accountable for making a decision.

What about the extraordinary cost in CASA doing this, which is paid by the industry? Or the cost of industry people and RAPAC members going to meetings? It is not quite the $1.4 billion waste from the Super Seasprite fiasco but it is the same incompetence.

Imagine working for the place. It must be really demoralising. You have to live dishonestly during the day and then presumably go home and tell your kids and grandkids to be honest.

I presume when they did the study, Mr Carmody said to them, “Whatever you do, don’t look at what happens overseas. In fact I prohibit it completely. You must not look at countries such as the USA, Canada or Europe as our minds are fixed in concrete and there is no way we will ever copy the best in the world. After all, we made the Nomad, and they only made the Airbus A380, the Boeing 747 and the space shuttle.”
 
&..

And we are converting a French Nuclear Submarine into a “ nomad” but with piston engines!

---

Ramjet555

If this stuff was printed 50 years ago, it would be have immediately been cut into quarters and pushed on a nail in the outhouse where it belongs today.

CASA is constantly on the lookout for ways to waste Taxpayers money, to engage in the delusional world of where they hang their hat on "Safety" rather than reality and the facts. The ideas of logical reasoning, based on necessity and reliability started down the gurgler decades ago and the whirlpool has only gotten worse.

CASA think they need to reinvent the wheel that worked well before they decided to to demonstrate corporate narcissism and engage in financial rape of the aviation industry.

In the USA or Canada, 126.7 is the Class G as they call it frequency for uncontrolled airspace. It's fine for the really remote areas.

Get closer to the big smoke and up high, you hear every clown within 100 miles going thru those long winded radio calls endlessly yabbering "Conflicting traffic please advise" instead of using eyeballs.

There are other concerns that are more important, with GPS everyone flies a railroad in the sky, yet do we ever hear of any rules to fly to the right of a direct track when closing speeds can be a few seconds a mile.

CASA have removed the vocabulary that was common with overseas countries and replaced it with their own that makes CASA look stark raving mad in the international world.

Now back to reading the sacred scrolls of CASA. - 

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable." – (Mark Twain).

Not going to waste time on CASA’s self gratification; no matter how chuffed Carmody is with himself. We did forecast the results, the clever money won.


An Idyll of Dandaloo. (A B Patterson).

The races came to Dandaloo,
And all the cornstalks from the West
On every kind of moke and screw
Come forth in all their glory drest.
The stranger's horse, as hard as nails,
Look'd fit to run for New South Wales.

He won the race by half a length --
Quite half a length, it seemed to me --
But Dandaloo, with all its strength,
Roared out "Dead heat!" most fervently;
And, after hesitation meet,
The judge's verdict was "Dead heat!"

And many men there were could tell
What gave the verdict extra force.
The stewards -- and the judge as well --
They all had backed the second horse.
For things like this they sometimes do
In larger towns than Dandaloo.

[Gobbledock]

Of ticking boxes and magical illusions

The Ferryman might not take the bait but I will. Shane Comedy is a bureaucrat. He lives in a fantasy world where survey percentages, box ticking, glossy annual reports and pie charts are his only friend. He lives in Can’tberra, a city that looks like The Truman Show - neatly lined box offices and apartments, perfectly manicured lawns, garden edges that line up perfectly, where an average salary is around $200k, a bureaucrat Chief starts at $400k, and the restaurants are filled with lettuce eating executives drinking a $20 orange juice and where the mere thought of breaking wind in their Armani suits or Dolce and Gabanna skirts has them running to the psychiatrist.

Kharon, duck him mate duck him. The muppet needs to break free from under the Miniscules desk and break out of his protective bubble and go sniff and taste the real world. The poor possum would be scurrying back to his protected Can’tberra walls and ministerial comfort blanket in no time....

Shane, two free tickets to the Ministers Khyber Pass are in the mail. Enjoy.

[Peetwo]

Of ticking boxes and magical illusions

The Ferryman might not take the bait but I will. Shane Comedy is a bureaucrat. He lives in a fantasy world where survey percentages, box ticking, glossy annual reports and pie charts are his only friend. He lives in Can’tberra, a city that looks like The Truman Show - neatly lined box offices and apartments, perfectly manicured lawns, garden edges that line up perfectly, where an average salary is around $200k, a bureaucrat Chief starts at $400k, and the restaurants are filled with lettuce eating executives drinking a $20 orange juice and where the mere thought of breaking wind in their Armani suits or Dolce and Gabanna skirts has them running to the psychiatrist.

Kharon, duck him mate duck him. The muppet needs to break free from under the Miniscules desk and break out of his protective bubble and go sniff and taste the real world. The poor possum would be scurrying back to his protected Can’tberra walls and ministerial comfort blanket in no time....

Shane, two free tickets to the Ministers Khyber Pass are in the mail. Enjoy.

Tempting fate here but the following is cribbed from this week's Oz Flying LMH, where Hitch would at first appear to be shocked that the Leopard - ie. CASA, under Carmody Capers - may not have actually changed it's spots...  

...A very wise and well-informed person once told me that if you have to choose between the likelihood of a conspiracy or a major blunder at CASA, go for the major blunder every time! It's a philosophy that has guided me well ... until now. Yesterday CASA released their decision on the uncharted airfield frequency issue, but there are some serious problems with the accompanying narrative. I will attempt now to summarise. "In April we decided to recommend using the Multicom 126.7 and the majority of feedback supported the proposal, so as a result of this feedback we have decided to proceed with recommending the area VHF." WT-bloody-F? Logic like that is not going to get you a pass mark in COM101 at uni. It could be another blunder, but this time, I'm voting for conspiracy. Something, or someone, has changed the regulator's mind and we're not being told what or who that is, but clearly the force was powerful enough for CASA to risk their future relationship with the industry by doing a 180 then telling the aviation community it was a result of the feedback. Regardless of what your favourite frequency is, this consultation looks compromised. If it was safe for CASA to recommend the Multicom in April, why is it no longer safe to do so in October? Multicom has gone from an "acceptable level of risk" (CASA's words) to an unacceptable level of risk. And as the risk assessments were done before this last round of consultation, the risk must have been known when CASA decided to recommend the Multicom back in April. Something is curdled in Copenhagen. In some ways I feel sorry for CASA; this issue got very big on them and it looks to the world like they didn't know how to handle it.

 it was always going to take time to turn the regulator around.

Dalton Trumbo couldn't have written a better script: one day after CASA released their vexxing decision on the CTAF issue, the results of the satisfaction survey are published, showing how much happier we are with them now than in 2015. I wonder if we'd get the same results if we had the chance to do the survey again next week. As I see it, the mystery behind CASA's about-face on the Multicom has signatures of three major behaviours we were hoping would be weeded out of the regulator by now: arbitrary decision making, failing to take notice of the industry and inconsistency. It sort of looks like a throw-back doesn't it? To be fair, the results of the survey are very impressive for CASA; they show industry at large finally agrees with the consistent spiel that CASA is improving. There have been a heap of changes within CASA since the Forsyth Report came out, and it was always going to take time to turn the regulator around. The survey results are not an indicator that it's all smooth sailing from here on, but it's possible we could be now entering the era when the impacts of the changes are starting to be felt. It makes the Multicom result even more disappointing...


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...iiWApau.99

  
Hmm...personally no surprises here, after all CASA and the Iron Ring have been doing it for decades - IMO Triadic nails it off the UP: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10286786

...megan; You are correct in that there are very few individuals that have their name to anything. Yes Mr Walker has a role and since he moved across from Airservices some 2 years ago the communications out of CASA have improved significantly. There are those within the organisation that still do their own thing and to hell with the industry they are meant to serve. Unfortunately Mr Walker does not have control of those individuals. The sooner those individuals are identified and shown the door the better - what some might say is the last of the iron ring? Those staff are only there for the money and their own ego. CASA is not only a regulator but a service provider. The sad part is that it does far more regulating than it does in service provision. They really need to get the legal people out of the letter writing and decision making - it might be more relevant to aviation then?...

   

MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Of piffle, waffle and dementia

LMH (Lick My Hole) said;

“To be fair, the results of the survey are very impressive for CASA; they show industry at large finally agrees with the consistent spiel that CASA is improving”

Congratulations Hitch, your boarding pass for the dementia express has been printed and you have obviously already commenced boarding.

How dare you make comments like ‘industry largely agrees that CAsA is improving’. Nobody that I know and work with in the industry agrees with that ludicrous statement. Only a nupty, CAsAmite or dementia sufferer would believe any comment, statement, media release, data, purported fact, spiel or propaganda delivered from the mouth of the CAsA spin machine. So which one is it Hitch, are you a nupty, CAsAmite or dementia sufferer? I’m guessing all three.

P.S Australian Flying, the time has come to put LMH out to pasture. This conceited buffoon and so-called industry expert is nothing short of a dinosaur who picks around the edges of the industry and certainly is not in tune with what is taking place within the bowels of the industry. Surely there is a spot for this CAsA footstool in one of the Governments departments somewhere? Steve Creepy should be able to assist....

Stephen Hitchen, his sanity gauges have been turned to the off position.

[Kharon]

From the scurrilous rumour department.

Sunday - Carmody - The Cheshire Cat - A perpetually grinning cat who appears and disappears at will.

‘Twas but a whimsical notion of my own – a twiddle; or, so I thought until one of the IOS called.

“New rumour” says she. “Oh aye” says I – “do tell”.

The story goes Carmody has been given a week off, effective immediately. Scuttlebutt has it that he only shows up about morning tea time, three or four days a week and departs the fix sometime after lunch as a habit.

This does not fit the portrayed image of Carmody turning up at the crack of dawn, shedding his jacket, rolling up his sleeves and found still labouring at his desk burning the midnight oil five and half days of the week and bringing his own lunch box; to justify the outrageous salary – does it now.

Aye well, it is but an unsubstantiated rumour, no doubt started by those who love to see him gone. Not that there’d be many who'd love to see that happen, would there? Nah……………Artificial intelligence does still have a place after all.

Toot – toot.

[Gobbledock]

Tis an ear thing.....

The brutal Westerly Can’tberra winds play havoc with Wingnut Carmody’s ears this time of the year. On numerous occasions he has become airborn and ascended to 1,000 feet AGL. Not a good look for a DAs, so Aleck did a risk assessment and decided that Wingnut should avoid the early morning and late afternoon winds.

Relax peeps, Shane is ok, just mitigating risk.

Warm regards
GD

 P2 - Luv it GD...
P7 = Second that; and, a CF to boot.