Airservices test case for newly minted Aussie (ICAO Annex 19) SSP.

To begin here is an extract from post #61 off the AP Mount NCN thread:

Joining dots, making dashes on Aussie SSP??? –

Ferryman: “..The Senate XI have not, as yet, used the powerful SSP as a means of winning the championship; not too much opposition so far to test it against – but despite it’s ‘wet lettuce’ appearance; it is a handy tool – if needed (hint)…”

(09-29-2016, 01:33 PM) Peetwo Wrote: PAIN/IOS audit of Australia’s SSP (ICAO Annex 19) 

Quote: Before we get started note that of the original ICAO eight critical elements of a USOAP Safety Audit, ‘Accident Investigation’ has I believe taken over the previously listed ‘resolution of safety concerns’ critical element. The reason ICAO have changed the element reflects the introduction (2012) of Annex 19 and the importance ICAO places on the State AAI, according to Annex 13, to the integrity and compliance of an effective State Safety Program (SSP).

vs

Over on the Estimates thread “K” has finished commentating (for now) on the SSP Cup –The State Safety Program cup – Round one. This commentary has brought about a fascinating situation where Harfwit has unwittingly (no surprises there ) provided a perfect test case to review the effectiveness and veracity of Murky’s newly minted, ICAO Annex 19 defined, State Safety Program.

The Ferryman then, very effectively, argues ‘for’ the SSP test ‘safety’ case:

 Catch of the match.

P2 at short leg, takes the catch of the match. Low, fast and disguised, at screaming speed. Few would even attempt it; of those many would have dropped it.

P2 – “Personally I can’t think of much documented evidence that would support that Australia’s claim, as a signatory State to ICAO, is anywhere near an acceptable standard of effectiveness in regards to the ALoSP four components.(E.g. Bullet point four – implementation of ICAO SARPs by the State. – I would say that 3000+ notified differences to the SARPs are a good indicator that our aviation safety bureaucracy is totally ineffective with this component.)

The BRB ‘heavy mob’ have just about completed their ‘reading’ of the last Estimates session; serious (no lampshades) indaba scheduled soon and it will be an interesting session.  ICAO compliance has the top listing of a three item agenda. Early indications are that the other two items will be deferred – for another day. I can see why:-

The SSP is ‘live’ and ICAO will be paying some attention to how the various signatory States fulfil their obligations. Without doubt, the level of ‘work-shopped’ spin and word weasel magic contained in SSP will be at an all time high, from all nations. That is to be expected, the state agencies moving carefully to protect the States interests and limit liability. In the bureaucratic world, a little ducking and weaving around the peripheries is the expected ‘norm’. But what of the ‘spirit and intent’, the stuff men of good will rely on. There are two options for those people; either say to ICAO, look, we believe this is a load of old cobblers and cannot support it: or, take a hold of the thing, see the logic, applauded the ‘spirit’ and run with ‘the intent’.

The Australian approach is, in the opinion of many, ‘cynical’. Gods know there is enough evidence to support that claim. Seen as too gutless to say “No thank you” and not interested enough to embrace. Many claim, with sound reason, Australia is blatantly dishonest in it’s dealings with ICAO; simply paying lip service to the edicts and doing just enough to maintain the ranking and membership. CASA being a prime example; over 3000 carefully constructed differences; ATSB massaged ‘investigation’ and manipulated reporting statistics to obtain the 90 something % rating: ASA teetering on the brink of the abyss.  All the silo’s connected, by subterranean tunnels to the back door of the DoIT.  It’s a ‘mud-guard’ shiny on top, covered with shite underneath.

The unfolding ASA debacle presents a perfect opportunity to test the SSP. If Qantas or ‘Pie-in-the-Sky Airways’ were to shed 25% of their workforce; under ‘dodgy’ circumstances, what do you imagine would happen – Safety case examination? Absolutely.  If the Tax office or the AG or DMR or AMSA were earning a Billion a year; from the public purse, from a gifted monopoly and went ‘broke’, sacking 25% of their workforce; what would the government of the day do? Moreover, what would the press do?

Well the AG has moved; the ANAO has moved and is going back for a less ‘restricted’ look-see; the Senate has moved and intending to move again; in short, there is a fair bit of interest in the ‘financial’ debacle ASA has generated. But what of the ‘Safety-case’?

The ASA monopoly is an essential supporting pillar of public safety. There exists an ICAO requirement for a SSP; there is a SSP live and legal on the books. Why has this not been ‘activated’?  If it were to be activated, who is to run the ‘case’?  DoIT? Don’t make me laugh. CASA? Oh please, stop before I become hysterical. ATSB? No more, I beg you, it’s starting to hurt. “What about the minister?” shouts the crowd.  That’s it for me; the men in white jackets are arriving.

Hold the tranquiliser dart; I’ll sit here a while, at Mount Non Compliance base camp with GD and P2; have a brew and contemplate how best we may scale the ugly, dirty, dangerous, departmentally manufactured mountain. Aye, ‘tis indeed a monster.

Toot – toot.

And so it continued till stumps on day two of an intriguing SSP cup cricket match, brought to you live from the Mount NCN Base Camp oval – TBC P2