[Kharon]

This piece from the -  ABC -  made me smile. I’ve often wondered how folks cooped up in the never ending, ugly blocks of flats, surrounded by people and traffic manage to stay relatively sane. Carpentry, joinery and cabinet making have been in our family for hundreds of years; girls and boys allowed to join in – or not, as suits. There has to be a place of quiet, contentment and satisfaction for what used to be called ‘the Soul’ – even if it’s in a friend of mines ‘shop’ where ‘muscle cars’ create his inner peace, even with hell's own din as background music.

Who’d a thought mental health could be gained through a lump of wood or a chunk of metal; our forbears certainly knew. Just a stray thought –

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Are the Reds coming to New England? 

Anthony Klan @Anthony_Klan

Hi all, a month ago I resigned from The Australian after 15 years. I had, and have, serious misgivings about the direction that is now being taken. Australia faces unprecedented external threats. To do otherwise, I felt, would be treasonous. DM me with any and all leads. Thanks

Having jumped from the Newscorp ship the Klanman is now back and opening up with a rip snorter, via michaelwest.com.au -     

Mayday: two shadowy Chinese corporations behind Virgin’s plan to control Australian airbase

Jul 25, 2019 |



This is the story the Murdoch press buried. Investigative reporter, Anthony Klan, defected from The Australian newspaper after News Corp bosses muzzled his investigations, including this expose into secret Chinese plans to establish a mega-pilot training facility on an Australian airforce training facility.


Virgin Australia may have misled all levels of Australian government and has made dubious public claims about the true identity of its shadowy Chinese partners in its secretive proposal to take control of the nation’s biggest military pilot school, at an RAAF training facility in Tamworth NSW.

It can be revealed that the nation’s second biggest airline failed to inform the NSW Government, the Federal Government, the English speaking media – and even Tamworth council – about any foreign involvement in its proposal whatsoever, despite that mega-project being “certified” by the Chinese Communist Party a year ago.

It can also be revealed that Virgin Australia has made dubious public claims, denying the involvement of one of its two key partners in the project, despite those claims being easily disproved by conducting relatively simple company searches.
National security experts, including Swinburne University of Technology Professor John Fitzgerald, have described Virgin Australia’s secretive push in Tamworth as extremely concerning.

They warn the proposal appears to be a re-run of the highly controversial 2015 dealwhereby the Chinese Communist Party-linked Landbridge Group was granted a 99-year lease over the Port of Darwin, a move which drew an angry rebuke from then US President Barrack Obama.



Virgin Australia, which is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) is overwhelmingly foreign-owned. Chinese entities owned at least 42 per cent of the airline at the end of last financial year.

Serious concerns about Virgin’s Tamworth mega-school proposal – including that it appeared to be secretly planning to take control of the facility with two highly questionable Chinese conglomerates – were first raised on the morning of March 22 this year, in an article which appeared on The Australian newspaper’s website (but not in print).


Cover-up


Virgin fiercely rejected those allegations and ran an aggressive and unethical – but until now, largely successful – campaign to prevent journalists from continuing to dig into the matter, and from publishing any further articles.


The Australian has not published a word on the matter since that initial March 22 online story. It can now be revealed the issues raised in that article were entirely accurate. There is much more.


Searches of company databases in Australia and Hong Kong reveal that Virgin Australia’s partners in its plans to gain control of the current Tamworth RAAF training facility are Chinese conglomerate HNA Group – which has close links to the Chinese Communist Party – and Winbright Overseas Investment Limited.


Winbright Overseas Investment Limited is a company domiciled in the British Virgin Islands, a prominent tax haven, and is an arm of the shadowy Chinese conglomerate the Beijing Winbright Investment Co. Virgin Australia has repeatedly, strenuously, denied having any involvement whatsoever with Winbright.


Barnaby Joyce, local government in the dark


Despite holding a string of formal meetings, and Virgin Australia claiming to have been “completely transparent” about the Tamworth proposal, the NSW Government, federal member for New England Barnaby Joyce and the Tamworth Regional Council all say they had no idea about any foreign involvement in the proposed Tamworth mega-school before that March 22 article.

That was despite the Communist Party of China having officially “certified” the proposed Australian mega-project in, or before, August last year – at least seven months earlier.



In October last year Virgin Australia announced its plans to create the Tamworth facility but made no reference to HNA Group, Winbright, or to having any partners in the project whatsoever.


In meetings with government in Australia, Virgin Australia has said it is creating the facility in conjunction with a small Australian-registered company called the Australian International Aviation College.


The AIAC operates a small flight school and is based at Port Macquarie on the NSW mid-north coast. However Virgin Australia failed to disclose to government that the innocuously-named AIAC is in fact owned by Chinese conglomerates HNA Group (80 per cent) and Winbright (10 per cent).


HNA Group and the Chinese Communist Party


HNA Group, one of Virgin Australia’s two key partners in the Tamworth proposal, is a highly controversial Chinese conglomerate which owns Hainan Airlines, along with a mixed-bag of other investments.


“HNA’s ownership structure is so opaque that some other market regulators have acted to prevent its involvement in acquisitions and mergers,” Professor Fitzgerald said.


“It is closely bound up with the CCP party state and acts on the party’s instructions. “The firm and its private foundation are heavily involved in ‘donations’ for political influence in the USA and internationally,” he said.

Cagey Chinese raider HNA needs eye of FIRB

 

HNA Group, whose chairman and co-founder Wang Jian died mid-last year in unusual circumstances after apparently falling from a wall in France, has also raised serious concerns among governments and security experts around the world, given its opaque structure and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party.


That murkiness has led to a number of groups, such as Bank of America, refusing to do business with it.

Separate from the Tamworth proposal, HNA Group has for several years owned about 20 per cent of the shares in the ASX-listed Virgin Australia. The Virgin stake was part of a global acquisition binge where HNA swooped on $US40 billion worth of acquisitions across six continents in two years.

Professor Fitzgerald said it was remarkable that long-standing connection between HNA Group and Virgin Australia had not yet been properly questioned, given that the serious concerns around HNA Group were well known among security experts.



“Given all this is public information, it has long baffled me that no-one has called Virgin to account for its corporate association with HNA,” Professor Fitzgerald said.


HNA Group is a well-known advocate of Beijing’s so-called Belt and Road global infrastructure roll-out, which is seen by many experts as being used by Beijing to advance its military interests by stealth.


Security experts have raised serious concerns that HNA Group’s current secretive advances on the RAAF facility – which sits adjacent to Tamworth Regional Airport’s large, military-grade runway, just 300km north of Sydney – could form part of Beijing’s clandestine military push.


HNA Group and Winbright have repeatedly failed to respond to requests for comment in recent weeks. AIAC has also declined to comment.


Monster proposal at military facility


The site that Virgin Australia, HNA Group and Beijing Winbright Investment Co are seeking to gain control of is a specialised military training facility that for the past three decades has been at the heart of the Australian Defence Force’s aviation training operations.


Since the 1990’s, it has been leased by Tamworth Regional Council to British defence giant BAE Systems, which has been contracted by the Australian Defence Force to train RAAF recruits at the facility.

In 2015 the Australian Defence Force put to tender a new, 25-year multi-billion dollar pilot training contract for that training role, and BAE Systems lost the bid to US defence group Lockheed Martin.



Lockheed Martin will train RAAF pilots from a base in Sale, Victoria. BAE Systems will cease training RAAF pilots in Tamworth by October 31. A September 2015 ABC article about BAE Systems losing its ADF contract underscored the specialised military nature of the Tamworth facility.


It quoted MP Mr Joyce who cited other possible tenants for the facility, including the Republic of Singapore Air Force, the Royal Brunei Air Force and the Papua New Guinea Defence Force.


“We are currently in negotiations with them in expanding their use of that facility,” Mr Joyce told the ABC.

“Our base in Tamworth will continue to be used and we’ve had the Prime Minister (Abbott) of Australia over in Singapore talking about Tamworth’s base to the Singaporean Prime Minister, to see what we can do to make that facility more available for them.”


At the same time, BAE’s Director of Aerospace, Steve Drury, highlighted the massive size of the Tamworth military facility, telling the ABC: “The deal we have with Defence is quite large and so I don’t think any one single contract can actually replace it”.


“We’re talking about a combination of possible futures that we can have and we’re also interested in determining whether civil flying training can be done in that facility.”


Mega-school for Chinese pilots, not Australians


Virgin Australia and its two Chinese conglomerate partners are well aware of the size of the Tamworth facility. Under their proposal, they would train 500 students at a time there, making it one of the biggest flight schools in the nation.


Such a mega-facility would be well beyond the needs of Virgin Australia: it currently trains between 10 and 40 pilots at a time at its existing facilities.


However, in a statement – which Virgin Australia has attempted to distance itself from – HNA Group and Winbright have told Chinese language media in Australia that the facility will actually be aimed squarely at Chinese nationals.


“It is aimed at Chinese high school graduates and undergraduate students under 26 years of age from overseas Chinese university students,” that statement quoted HNA Group and Winbright as saying.


Take-off


Virgin Australia’s plans to create a flight school in Tamworth first became general public knowledge on October 31 last year. In a statement on its webpage, Virgin Australia announced it would develop a “world-class pilot training school” at Tamworth Regional Airport after being “chosen” to do so by Tamworth Regional Council, which owns and operates that airport.

Qantas had been considering creating a flight school at the Tamworth facility, but instead chose to create a school in Toowoomba in southeast Queensland.


In its announcement, Virgin Australian made no reference to any foreign involvement in the project, or to any partners whatsoever.

Five months later, the March 22 online article in The Australian reported that not only were Chinese conglomerates HNA Group (owner of Hainan Airlines) and Winbright understood to be involved in the proposal, but that those two conglomerates – and Virgin Australia – had actually “officially launched” the project at a Chinese-language media only ceremony in Sydney on August 16 last year.

---

TIMELINE

• August 2018: Chinese language media only press conference is held in Sydney to announce the “offical launch” of pilot school mega-project, which has Chinese government approval.
  
  
• October 24 2018: Virgin Australia meets with NSW Government but refers to its partner in the proposed Tamworth project only as AIAC, making no reference to the two Chinese conglomerates.
  
  
• Oct 31 2018: Virgin Australia publicly announces plans for a pilot facility in Tamworth, but makes no mention of any partners, offshore or otherwise.
  
  
• March 6 2019: The date Virgin Australia claims to have lodged an application with the Foreign Investment Review Board regarding the mega-school proposal.
  
  
• March 22 2019: Online article in The Australian newspaper reveals project “official launch” for Chinese language media seven months earlier. It was partnered by Virgin Australia and named proponents as China’s Hainan Airlines (HNA Group) and China’s Winbright Aviation. (Not another word has been published by The Australian on the matter since).
  
  
• March-April 2019: Virgin Australia attacks that March 22 online article and says its mega-school partner is “AIAC”. Claims to have zero connection to Winbright. Denies the legitimacy of the August launch to Chinese language media, saying it has “no idea” about it.
  
  
• July 2019: Company documents show ultimate owners of AIAC are in fact HNA Group and Winbright, proving false Virgin Australia’s claims that Winbright has zero involvement in the Tamworth mega-project.
  

That was two-and-a-half months before Virgin Australia made its vague October 31 announcement about the Tamworth facility, which made no reference to HNA Group, Winbright or to any other partners.

A press statement about that August 16 “official launch”, made only to Chinese language media, is here.

The statement, which appears to have been translated into English, says the mega-school was “aimed at Chinese high school graduates and undergraduates”.

“On August 16th, the launch ceremony of Winbright Aviation and Hainan Airlines Joint Pilot Training Project——‘The Dream Begins Here’ was successfully held in Sydney,” it states.

“The launch was jointly sponsored by Winbright Aviation, Hainan Airlines, Southern Cross University and the Australian International Aviation College (AIAC).”

Virgin Australia senior executive Peter Cai gave a speech at the launch and is photographed at the launch alongside members of the two Chinese conglomerates.

“Partners included Virgin Australia and the University of New South Wales China Association, local medias (sic) and agencies,” the statement says.



Despite the reference to “local media”, it is understood only Chinese language publications were invited to that August launch, and it was not covered by any English language media outlets.


Chinese language newspapers in Australia have recently been the subject of substantial security concerns.


In parliamentary committee hearings, security experts have warned the federal government that almost all such publications have been bought up by, or are controlled by, entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party.


Despite Mr Cai’s presence at the launch, Virgin Australia has claimed it had “no idea” about the launch and denied it was related to its Tamworth mega-school proposal.


Mega school officially “certified” by Chinese Communist Party


Remarkably, that August 2018 press release states that the new mega-school had been “certified” by China’s aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Administration of China. “This project is the only CAAC-certified airline pilot training program in Australia,” the statement says.


It says Chinese high school and university students could begin training at the flight school after meeting a series of requirements including passing physical examination, psychological tests and a theoretical examination.


After those were met, “a training agreement can be signed with the shipping department and a full flight training at the aviation school.”


“After that, they will be able to sign a labor contract with the shipping division and become an airline pilot,” the statement says.


Australian Government and authorities had no idea


In response to the March 22 online report in The Australian, and despite Virgin Australia’s repeated claims that it had been “100 per cent transparent” about the Tamworth proposal, federal member for New England Barnaby Joyce said he was shocked and had “no idea”of any foreign involvement.

“I thought it was Virgin,” Mr Joyce said of the proposal, calling on Virgin Australia to come clean. Likewise, the office of NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian also denied knowledge of any foreign involvement in the Virgin Australia mega-school project, when contacted by this reporter.



“This is first we’ve heard of it,” spokesman Miles Godfrey said in March.


After repeated requests for information over many days, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet spokesman Matthew Sun distanced the NSW government from the project entirely, and said it was a matter for Tamworth council.


“Tamworth Regional Council independently made an agreement with Virgin Australia regarding the proposed Tamworth flight school,” Mr Sun said in a written statement.

“There was no NSW Government involvement in that specific decision.”


The statement continued: “Tamworth Regional Council announced its partnership on 31 October 2018”. “Questions regarding the selection and due-due-diligence process undertaken by Council prior to the announcement should be directed to Tamworth Regional Council”.

But remarkably, even Tamworth Regional Council had no idea of the involvement of major foreign conglomerates in Virgin Australia’s proposal before reading about it in that March 22 online article in The Australian.



Days later, Tamworth Regional Council general manager Paul Bennett told local paper The Northern Daily Leader that the council had been in talks with Virgin Australia but it had had “no dealings with Chinese aviation giants Hainan and Winbright Aviation”.


“Any Chinese involvement in the Virgin Australia pilot training school is news to Tamworth Regional Council,” Mr Bennett told The Northern Daily Leader.


“Council had never heard of Winbright Aviation until the story was published in national media [last week].”


Aviation veteran and former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Dick Smith, was equally dumbfounded by the revelations.


“Virgin I thought was Aussie-owned but in fact it’s pretty well completely foreign-owned and it looks like it is completely Chinese government controlled,” Mr Smith said. “I am desperately worried about aviation and for this to be done secretly is just unbelievable.”


Virgin denies secret Chinese involvement


In response to the revelations in the March 22 online report in The Australian, Virgin Australia published a media statement attacking the article.

“The idea that we are in secret talks is completely untrue, and any suggestion that this is anything other than confidential, commercial negotiations would be wholly unsubstantiated,” Virgin Australia’s Ms Armstrong wrote.



The airline claimed the press statement regarding the August 16, 2018 Chinese media-only launch (link above) was somehow false; that Virgin Australia had “no idea” where the statement had come from and that Virgin Australia had not been involved in that launch.


Ms Armstrong said that in August Virgin Australia had not yet formalised the deal with Tamworth Regional Council.

Virgin Australia ruled out having any involvement with Winbright whatsoever and said that the airline had “no intention to work with” Winbright in the future.


“Virgin Australia has no involvement with Winbright Aviation and has no intention to work with Winbright Aviation as their model doesn’t suit our requirements,” Ms Armstrong said.


She continued: “A Virgin Australia representative was at a conference where Winbright announced a partnership with Southern Cross University, however in no way does this indicate a partnership between Virgin Australia and Winbright.”

… but the documents


Irrespective of Virgin Australia’s aggressive denials, company records show Virgin Australia and Winbright Aviation are very much business partners in the proposed Tamworth aviation school.

The August 16 press release, which named Winbright and HNA Group as partnering with Virgin Australia in the mega-project, was spot-on.



The small Port Macquarie flight school, AIAC, is 80 per cent ultimately owned by HNA Group and 10 per cent owned by Winbright Overseas Investment Limited. Further, AIAC and Winbright share a common company director.

Security experts said Virgin Australia’s blanket dubious denials of any involvement with Winbright raised very serious concerns.


Either Virgin Australia was deliberately making dubious claims about who it proposed to create the mega-school with, or it did not know who it was actually entering into business with.


“If Virgin doesn’t even know who it is in business with here, in relation to an Australian registered company, how on earth is it going to have any idea about what HNA Group actually gets up to in China?” one national security expert said.


Those repeat dubious claims came on top of Virgin Australia’s failure to disclose to government in Australia the involvement of major foreign conglomerates in the Tamworth proposal.


When asked how Virgin Australia’s claims to have been “100 per cent transparent” about the mega-school project could be true, given all the secrecy and dubious claims, spokeswoman Libby Armstrong pointed to a formal meeting Virgin Australia held with the NSW Government and Tamworth Regional Council on October 24 last year.


“This meeting involved the department of Premier and Cabinet, the Deputy Premier of NSW and his chief of staff, the Member for Tamworth, the NSW Department of Industry, the Tamworth Regional Council Mayor, and the general manager for Tamworth Regional Council,” Virgin spokeswoman Ms Armstrong said.


“In this meeting, Virgin Australia’s proposed involvement with AIAC was fully disclosed.” However, at the meeting, Virgin Australia failed to disclose that AIAC was actually owned and controlled by HNA Group and Winbright.


In a final argument, Ms Armstrong defended Virgin Australia’s dubious claims of secretive dealings with the two Chinese conglomerates, saying “nothing has been signed” in relation to the Tamworth mega-school proposal.


This is despite Virgin having entered an agreement with Tamworth council last year, publicly announcing the project on October 31, and having lodged a formal application with Foreign Investment Review Board on March 6.

That FIRB application is the final step in the process.


The decision to approve or reject the proposal lies solely with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

———————–

About the author


The author is an investigative journalist. He worked for The Australian newspaper from 2004 to May 16 2019. This article also appears at anthonyklan.com.


Author bio

Investigative journalist specialising in corporate malfeasance and corruption.



His investigations into the likes of superannuation, Google Australia, financial planning and Pink Batts have informed government policy and brought reform in Australia.

This is the first in a series of stories which the Murdoch media declined to pursue.

Have a tip-off or story idea? Email anthonyklan@protonmail.com
Anthony.klan@twitter
Mob: 0403 873 899 WhatsApp / Signal / Telegram.

Awards.


Awards:

• News Corporation Australia journalist of the year, Sir Keith Murdoch Award for Excellence in Journalism, 2010; (finalist) 2018
.
  
  
• Walkley Award for Business Journalism, all media, 2007
  
  
• Graham Perkin Australian Journalist of the Year, (finalist) 2010
  
  
• News Corporation Australia Business Journalist of the Year, 2007; 2011; 2014
  
  
• News Corporation Australia Business Journalist of the Year (highly commended) 2009; (finalist) 2016; (finalist) 2018
  
  
• Citi Journalism Award for Excellence, Personal Finance, 2015
  
  
• Citi Journalism Award for Excellence, Broadcast (finalist) 2016
  
  
• NSW Kennedy Award for Outstanding Investigative Reporting (finalist) 2015
  
  
• NSW Kennedy Award for Outstanding Finance Reporting (finalist) 2015; (finalist) 2016
  
  
• Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) Excellence in Investigative Reporting (finalist) 2016
  
  
• Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) the Scoop Award (finalist) 2016
-
  
  
• Best News Journalist, IT Journalism Awards 2018
  

When it comes to tax, it’s Virgin by name and Virgin by nature

Oh well P2,

very interesting article, makes a change from stories about property development sharks building DFO's next to runways. The way it's going with the Australian selloff, one wonders if Mandarin should be taught as a compulsory language subject in our schools.

In follow up to the Thorny comment on selling things off...  

Via the Oz:

Cobham Aviation up for sale



One of the nation’s biggest aviation groups, Cobham Aviation Services Australia, has been put up for sale by its UK parent after the London Stock ­Exchange-­listed company agreed to a £4 billion ($7.2bn) takeover offer from US buyout group Advent International.

Cobham, which turns over almost $400 million annually and is one of the nation’s biggest aviation groups, is the largest provider of contract aviation services in Australia and flies Boeing 717 aircraft for QantasLink.

It also operates search and rescue aircraft for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and patrols the nation’s coastline for the Australian Border Force.

Delivering the Cobham interim results yesterday, chief executive David Lockwood announced it had started a strategic review of Cobham Australia, ­noting it would decide the best way to ­optimise value in the interests of the company and its stakeholders.

He said Advent International was “aware and supportive” of the review of the Australian business.

Last year Cobham restructured its Cobham Aviation Services unit into two regional businesses, one focused on Australia and the other on Britain, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

As a result, 37-year-old Ryan Both, a former Virgin Australia and Melbourne Airport executive, took over as chief executive of the Australian group from Peter Nottage, who had been in the top job with Cobham Australia since 2006.

Mr Both has since pushed to introduce types of aircraft better suited to the demands of FIFO customers, as the industry rides a recovery in the resource sector, including the Q400, the 70-seat Bombardier and the 98-seat Embraer E190.

“We are about to enter an exciting new phase with the arrival of our first Q400 next week, which brings a game-changing, modern, in-production aircraft to the FIFO sector,” Mr Both said yesterday.

“As a progressive and innovative organisation, it’s not surprising that we are taking stock and reviewing where we’re at.

“Modern aircraft, like the Q400 and the recently introduced Embraer 190, are expensive. They are transforming our business but we need more capital to drive our growth so we can realise our full potential.”

He said the potential of ­Cob­ham was largely an “untold story”.

“We have 1300 people, operate more than 50 aircraft, blue-chip customers and a national footprint,” Mr Both said. “Cobham Plc has high expectations for our business and remains committed to the success of CAvS (Cobham Aviation Services Australia) in Australia during this process.”

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

In todays Australian:

" Public service Mandarins have been put on notice that they will have to meet greater community expectations of service delivery, respect the governments policy agenda and remove bureaucracy roadblocks if they want to keep their jobs.
The implicit message to be delivered by Scott Morrison today comes as the Prime Minister warned that his ministers too would be accountable for regulatory reform and policy rigour across their portfolios."

Ahem! PM.... mate. Are you aware of the following in regards to Aviation?

In the general aviation sector of the industry, expectations of service delivery are so far below rock bottom you need two decompression stops to surface.

Have CAsA ever respected Government policy? there's ample evidence they have thumbed their noses at Government Policy. Is it government policy to shut down the GA industry?, they are doing just that by stealth.

How many roadblocks can a bureaucracy put up? In Australia, CAsA have burdened the industry with tens of thousands of pages of very poorly designed, obtuse, indecipherable regulations in the name of 'Safety". In the USA they achieve better safety outcomes than us with less than a thousand pages of plain english rules. Their industry thrives, ours dies.
CAsA's attempts at "Reform", many would say is actually having a detrimental affect on safety. They have been at it for more than thirty years now, and expended hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to achieve NOTHING, except a dying industry. New Zealand adopted US regulations in less than two years, spent around five million dollars to amend and modify FAA rules, their aviation industry is thriving.

Your Minister, despite the recommendations from many inquiries and industry groups, obfuscates, and ignores the voices of the industry while CAsA runs amok, killing investment, stifling growth, innovation, incomes and in some cases denying natural justice.

So the big question Mr Morrison is are you really serious about the statements in the above press release or is it just Pie in the Sky?

[thorn bird]

Found this little gem, some may find amusing. Bit of ironic truth in there

Railroad Tracks

The Canadian and U.S. Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches.

That's an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used?

Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates designed the U.S. Railroads.

Why did the English build them like that?

Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did 'they' use that gauge then?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular Odd wheel spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So, who built those old rutted roads?

Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels.    

Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

Therefore, the United States and Canadian standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

In other words, bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a specification, procedure, or process, and wonder, 'What horse's ass came up with this?', you may be exactly right.

[color=#3333ff]Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses.

Now, the twist to the story:

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, you will notice that there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank.  These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs.  The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah.

The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit larger, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.

The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel.The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.


So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.  And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important!  Now you know, Horses' Asses control almost everything.


Explains a whole lot of stuff, doesn't it?

[thorn bird]

Interesting little snippet from Fridays Australian, not earth shattering in itself but it set me pondering just how these things suddenly appear from the bureaucrats.

Are they based on any specific risk analysis? are they simply an epiphany from the brain of a bored minion with nothing better to do but dream up ways to expend budgetary allocations.

Did anyone do a cost / benefit analysis, either before or after the event?

CAsA I was told introduced their DAMP (Drug and alcohol management) scheme allegedly because a single accident investigation which detected traces of cannabis in a deceased pilots blood, traces that in no way would have had any bearing on the cause of the accident. That revelation triggered feigned shock and horror by the bureaucrats who fed into the publics mind that they were at risk as the piloting fraternity were all a mob of raving alcoholics and junkies.

It now appears the Skydiving fraternity, according to Fridays Australian, are to be painted with the same brush.
Personally I've never been able to fathom why anyone would want to jump out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft, maybe a shot or two of courage required, but to each his own I guess, but it's a rather singular enterprise. How many people get hit by wayward parachutists every year?
Probably a lot less than by lightning I would guess, but so far we haven't been banned from walking in the rain.

I have heard the CAsA DAMP legislation cost the taxpayers well over 30 million dollars to introduce and the industry many millions more to comply with.

I abhor the thought of anyone attempting to commit aviation under the influence of any performance degrading substance, but preventing it completely I would suggest is as impossible as achieving absolute safety.
I've never really understood what Pre-employment drug and alcohol tests were about. All that proves is that at that time on that day you were sober and anyone applying for a job would be rather foolish to turn up for a test under the influence.

Is that an any more effective deterrent than random testing?

Still I guess DAMP is all part of CAsA's corporate plan to make things as convoluted and complex as possible requiring many more minions to administer it and create as many "Felons" as possible to add to its score sheet.

Would it have achieved the same result to simply introduce random tests instead of DAMP? One thing for sure, it would have saved a hell of a lot of money which could have been used for more random testing.

The Australian Parachute Federation which administers Skydiving repots that on average there are 2.5 fatalities a year from skydiving. I wonder what percentage of those were under the influence?

[thorn bird]

Someone sent me this, which I found rather amusing.

Do you reckon this guy is a tad pissed off?

This is an actual letter sent to the DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) Immigration Minister.  The Government tried desperately to censure the author,  but got nowhere because every legal person who read it couldn’t stop laughing !


Dear Mr Minister,
I'm in the process of renewing my passport, and still cannot believe this.

How is it that K-Mart has my address and telephone number, and knows that I bought a television set and golf clubs and condoms from them back in 1997, and yet the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born and on what date?

For Christ’s sake, do you guys do this by hand?

My birth date you have in my Medicare information, and it is on all the income tax forms I've filed for the past 40 years. It is also on my driver's licence, on the last eight passports I've ever had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I've had to fill out before being allowed off planes over the past 30 years.
It's also on all those insufferable census forms that I've filled out every 5 years since 1966.

Also... would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother's name is Audrey, my father's name is Jack, and I'd be absolutely bloody astounded if that ever changed between now and when I drop dead!!!

SHIT! What do you people do with all this information we keep having to provide?

I apologize, Mr. Minister. But I'm really pissed off this morning. Between you and me, I've had enough of all this bullshit! You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my bloody address!

What the hell is going on with your mob? Have you got a gang of mindless Neanderthal arseholes working there!

And another thing, look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I can't even grow a beard for God's sakes. I just want to go to New Zealand and  see my new granddaughter.  (Yes, my son interbred with a Kiwi girl).

And would someone please tell me, why would you give a shit whether or not I plan on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? In the unlikely event I ever got the urge to do something weird to a sheep or a horse, believe you me, I'd sure as hell not want to tell anyone!

Well, I have to go now, 'cause I have to go to the other side of Sydney, and get another bloody copy of my birth certificate - and to part with another $80 for the privilege of accessing MY OWN INFORMATION!

Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot, to assist in the issuance of a new passport on the same day?

Nooooo,  that'd be too bloody easy and makes far too much sense. You would much prefer to have us running all over the bloody place like chickens with our heads cut off, and then having to find some 'high-society'  wanker to confirm that it's really me in the goddamn photo! You know the photo... the one where we're not allowed to smile?...you bloody morons.

Signed - An Irate Australian Citizen.

P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture, and getting someone in 'high-society' to confirm that it's me?  Well, my family has been in this country since before 1820! In 1856, one of my forefathers took up arms with Peter Lalor.  (You do remember the Eureka Stockade!)
I have also served in both the CMF and regular Army for something over 30 years (I went to Vietnam in 1967), and still have high security clearances.  I'm also a personal friend of the president of the RSL...Lt General Peter Cosgrove sends me a Christmas card each year.

However, your rules require that I have to get someone "important" to verify who I am; you know...someone like my doctor - WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN  BLOODY PAKISTAN!...a country where they either assassinate or hang their ex-Prime Ministers - and are suspended from the Commonwealth and United Nations for not having the "right sort of government"..

You are all pen-pushing paper-shuffling bloody idiots!

Now if you imagine this guy is pissed off, imagine how outraged those in aviation are who have to suffer through the process of gaining an ASIC.  That card we have to pay a fortune for every two years that is about as useful to us as tits on a bull. All its good for is, if your lucky, is a discount at the terminal coffee shop.

So what's it for? Does the land of the free and also the home of 9/11 require an equivalent? nope! and are rather bemused we do.

Its great for the bureaucrats, an excellent make work program and a nice little earner for ex DOTARS executives

[thorn bird]

Sorry people, this IT crap didn't turn up till I was middle aged, getting this video up is beyond me, maybe P2 can fix it.

I just found this video fascinating. It portrays the top exporting nations of the world from 1965 to 2018. Australia featured prominently but soon disappeared, which begs the question, "Where did we go wrong?".

As an annendum to this post someone related a story I found very poignant.

The very socialite Duchess decided she could embellish her image a tad by holding a charity ball.
All the Hoi Paloy were invited, no expense spared and the high gardens mansion was awash with
high society matrons adorned with glittering jewels and designer ball gowns, the cream of high society
treading the light fantastic around the duchesses ballroom.
The Duchess was squired by a particularly handsome toy boy waltzing across the floor until the music stopped
and one of those poignant moments occurred when there was absolutely no noise.
Unfortunately at that exact moment the duchess could not restrain a very long very loud fart.
As every head turned towards her and her whole life passed before her eye's redemption appeared in the shape of the butler carrying tray of champagne.
Instantly she shouted Jeeves stop that!!
Jeeves turned to her and said Otto voiced "Yes Madam, which way did it go?"

So a question for our Pollies " where did our exports go?"

Yeah gone like a fart in a thunderstorm! in much the same direction as our general aviation industry.

[Peetwo]

WTD? - Red Rat wants to eradicate employees' unconscious bias...  

Talking about crap, this time HR crap, I had to pinch myself several times to check if I was dreaming after reading the following Orwellian (1984) Oz article...  

Pilots of the brain waves to help eradicate prejudice

We used to go to church to learn about our sins. Today we go to our inbox and click on the latest message from the human resources ­department.

Qantas wants to purge its staff of bad thoughts by enrolling them on a training course conducted by the NeuroLeadership Institute, an organisation with an unsettling name that claims to remove the ­tumour of prejudice from the human brain.

The course will teach staff to “call out” unconscious bias, leading to improvements in gender balance, talent management and the wokely-dokely culture in ­general to which our national airline aspires.

How? By using “brain-based, process-focused and outcome-driven methodologies” based on “deep neuroscience research”. The results, or “outcomes” as we are obliged to call them, will be “better decisions”. Adopting this contentious program clearly wasn’t one of them, if the mumbo-jumbo language of the promotional leaflet is an indication of the precision of thought behind it.

We are left with the awful suspicion that the Qantas HR department has too much time on its hands, and money in its diversity and inclusion budget that is itching to be spent. The bureaucrats get to enhance their status by seeming to be doing something about unconscious bias, a problem no one knew existed until the neuroscience industry thought it up.

That, at least, is the kindest ­explanation. The alternative, that the people running Qantas think that resetting the human brain is as simple as rebooting the in-flight entertainment system, is considerably more troubling.

Neurobiology in its purest form — the scientific study of the nervous system — has made rapid progress since World War II thanks largely to advances in molecular biology, electrophysiology and computer science. The brain’s neural circuitry is better understood and the range of treatments to help it function smoothly is more effective.

The pseudoscience of behavioural neurology, on the other hand, is one of many infant disciplines taught in modern univer­sities that swell the ranks of the educated by teaching nothing ­useful at all. It borrows from the ­biology of the brain, human and non-human, to make deterministic assumptions about what makes people tick. In its more adventurous forms, it presumes to use that understanding to make us better people. It is at this point that we find ­ourselves involuntarily, perhaps even subconsciously, shouting: “Enough!”

The search for scientific rules that explain why humans act as they do — quirkily, temperament­ally and frequently irrationally — ­inspired some of the most tragic misadventures of the past century.

Communism was an attempt to put scientific order on human societies. It aimed to make the inter­action between humans more efficient by forcing them to surrender self-will to a scientifically competent state.

The defining assumption of ­eugenics, that national destiny is determined by biological traits ­relating to race, spread like a virus in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, driving ill-advised social movements from Sydney to Stockholm to San Francisco. ­Nazism was its purest and, by far, the worst form.

Biological determinism is again in vogue, underpinning the new “science” of intersectionality with its notions of victimhood. Your destiny as a person of colour is ­decided at birth. Ditto the ­destiny of white people, driven to become oppressors by inherited traits.

The ferocity with which proponents of intersectionality defend this betrays the significance of ­biological determinism to their thinking. Even those who seek to change their biological gender do so because they were born that way.

The arguments are examined by Douglas Murray in his new book, The Madness of Crowds: Gender Race and Diversity. Since Murray is gay, he has the courage to discuss this sensitive issue more frankly than most.

The science of homosexuality is surprisingly unsettled, notes Murray. The zeitgeist, on the other hand, has settled on the assumption that sexuality is decided at birth. Yet Murray concludes that the notion that our sexuality ­determines your membership of an oppressed class is fragile. The idea that being gay bonds you with lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and so forth in a wider marginalised class is even less robust.

It is a division based not on fact but from a modern ideology born out of the frustration of Marxist academics at the failure of the original class narrative to inspire revolution.

The growth of the new anti-capitalist movement that harvests bespoke gender, race, indigenous, sexual and environmental causes into a powerfully disruptive force has changed the nature of our universities, says Murray.

“The purpose of large sections of academia had ceased to be the exploration, discovery or dissemination of truth,” he writes. “The purpose had instead become the creation, nurture and propagandisation of a particular, and peculiar, brand of politics. The purpose was not academia, but activism.”

The movement of the muddle-headed has not stopped at the university gates. Marxist contagion is present to a greater or lesser extent in every corporate bureaucracy.

The Qantas HR department, one suspects, is not rich on people who fly or service planes. Forgive our unconscious bias for a ­moment, but it probably has its fair share of graduate inductees with subprime degrees in novel branches of science or sustainability studies.

In these conditions the diversity and inclusion fixation flourishes, encouraging the bureau­cracy to consider every part of the business through that lens. ­Biology, disguised as diversity, ­becomes the predominant factor in the appointment process. Competence comes second.

Senior branches of management and the board are too busy or too enchanted to work out what happens to a business that becomes swamped by a culture that is predominantly anti-business and possesses Marxist anti-capitalist undertones.

Qantas should quietly pushback against the woke zeitgeist while it still can. Its safety record is a tribute to the quality of its pilots and maintenance staff. The friendliness of its cabin staff is testimony to its inclusiveness.

These are not resources that can be enhanced by wheeling staff into the hangar and delving ­beneath the cowling. They will ­undoubtedly be improved, however, by getting the lip-curlers off their backs.

   
Hmm...perhaps the same neuro-psycho babble could be deployed at Fort Fumble, I can think of several executive psychopaths  that would appear to be suffering some unconscionable bias...  

On second thoughts probably not a good idea, the iron ring might take it as open invitation to eradicate/brainwash the last of the white hats to their way of thinking ie 'Safeskies are empty skies"  

MTF...P2 

[DicDoc]

The capture of neurosciences and the use of its terminology to give legitimacy to various scams by those wanting to make a quick buck is not new or unique to that discipline; witness the crap [read ideology] served up in the name of the alleged ‘science’ of economics over the last 25 years to which our political masters often adhere blindly. Nothing new under the sun here.

The critical thing to ask for here is the program which is being used AND the evidence to support that program.  Where is the evidence and does it pass close scrutiny? 

For those of you who may have forgotten think about all that left-brain, right-brain stuff which sold for a stack of brass and is still in common parlance. 

The thing is with all these programs there are often elements of what are generalisations about human behaviour which give it some form of legitimacy.  Ooh, that sounds like me!  This is called the  fallacy of personal validation, a well-described  phenomenon used in astrology and other well-known scams.

So let’s see the proposed program and the evidence so we can make up our own minds!

And perchance you get the ‘bum’s rush’ and are fobbed off under the rubric of the program being confidential or proprietary in some way as happens with courses in risk management, time to roll out the ‘high index of suspicion’ meter.  Neither private nor public institutions are immune.

For all we know the program could be the best thing since sticky tape but psychology and now neuroscience stuff have a penchant for exploitation. 

Show me the evidence!  Cui bono?

[DicDoc]

Oh, and by the way asking questions about the scientific validity of any program is only part of the deal.  Then there are those other nasty questions with a 1984 ‘Big Bro’ theme in them.

[thorn bird]

What price an orange??????

No one would disagree that aviation, a transport industry, exactly as road transport or marine transport requires some form of regulation. The caveat on that proposition is that the rules should be fit for purpose, concise and achieve the outcomes they were designed for without destroying the industry they purport to regulate, to do so is self defeating.
Our aviation industry is a classic example of the result of over-regulation, but it is not alone and the cost to this country is eye-watering and I fear if something is not done sooner rather than later to reign in our bureaucrats, Australia the most secretive democracy on the planet, is on a slippery slope to third world status or beyond.

On tonights Skynews a story about a 277% increase in government charges to export oranges.

Last time I bought orange juice at Woolies I couldn't find an Australian product, it was all imported, apparently its easier and cheaper to import than to export.

Why the hell should an Australian grown orange be more heavily regulated that a Brazilian orange?

Why would an orange be regulated at all?

The mind boggles

[Peetwo]

BB piece - 

Since the MH370 coverup/saga/mystery has faded past the front two pages of the Oz, BB has lost a little on his ATSB bashing mantra. However is still doing at least a weekly piece for the Oz, here is this week's contribution...  

 

---

Experience, skills and support avert disaster



Last week a Boeing 777ER suffered an engine surge after takeoff from LAX (Los Angeles).

The passengers observed the phenomenon of a sheet of flame appearing out the front of the engine every time it coughed — about once a second — until the pilots reduced the engine thrust.

The pilots declared an emergency and brought the aircraft around for a prompt landing. Upon clearing the runway after landing all the tyres deflated so the aircraft was then immobile. Excellent air traffic control at LAX, which I have operated out of several times, kept the drama unde control.

This is a very interesting case study for pilots. In older jet aircraft, engine surges (compressor stalls) were not that rare an event, unlike modern turbofans. Pure turbojets as in the B707 were temperamental and needed handling with care.

I once had a surge in a B727 and jets like the Rolls-Royce Avon-engined Sabre sometimes surged during combat manoeuvring at high angles of attack at high altitude with very cold temperatures, as the surge boundary is an inverse function of the absolute temperature. Pilots are required to practise engine failure after takeoff in the simulator every year.

I had this scenario in September in Dallas CAE in a super mid-size corporate jet simulator. Most airline pilots will go their whole career without having a real engine failure but it is a check ride requirement.

Then, as long as it is not a fire, the engine is assessed and if still rotating a relight is performed and the PAN emergency cancelled so operations normal is resumed. If the engine was damaged, for example by a birdstrike, or did not relight, then the pilot has two options.

Should he dump fuel down to maximum landing weight, which was done decades ago, or land overweight, which is done in the case of a land as soon as possible fire situation?

The B777ER has a maximum takeoff weight of about 350 tons and a maximum landing weight of 250 tons. In this LAX event the aircraft had 129 tons of fuel on board. B777 aircraft are certified for a touchdown descent rate of 600 feet a minute and emergency return landing at maximum takeoff weight touchdown of 360 feet a minute.

A Qantas A380 that diverted into Honolulu years ago did an autoland, which ensures the safe overweight touchdown rate. To dump nearly 100 tons of fuel has a lot of negatives. Costly, time consuming and an environmental hazard. It’s done above 5000 feet but not near any lightning as a massive fuel/air explosion could result.

The problem landing with all that fuel on board is kinetic energy, because the landing speed has to be increased due to the increased weight and again because of the reduced flap setting in the engine out configuration. This results in nearly double the kinetic energy, which is a squared function.

Unless there is a very long runway and the pilots can stay off the brakes as long as possible, very high carbon brake temperatures exceeding 600C will result. The wheels have fusible plugs which melt before the tyres explode.

The LAX B777 cleared the end of the runway and then, as expected, all 12 of his main tyres deflated. Then comes the problem of getting the passengers off, because with red hot brakes the wheels will be catching fire. A lot for the pilots to think about.

---

Hmm...maybe we could convince Old BB to start having a crack at Fort Fumble? I for one would endeavour to keep him informed of the latest developments/rumours/stitched up stats being leaked from the Fort Fumble make work, MOAS trough fund...  

  

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Sunday Telegraph December 1st.

"FIREY'S PLANE PLAN CRASHES"

Seems the NSW government is about to experience some good old fashion CASA embuggerence.

Well, debatably embuggerence may be too strong a word. Most certainly they will have to make a large "donation" to CASA inc. for non services rendered to certify their recently purchased water bombers are indeed safe to carry passengers. Seems like the US certified Boeing 737 airliner, converted to dump thousands of litres of fire retardant from low level, can also carry up to 70 fire crews to or from a fire zone.

In the land of OZ they can't, not without CASA "Certification" ie a CASA make work program. Keep in mind the firey's are not required to buy a ticket.

Same same their Blackhawk choppers because they are ex military aircraft, Australian Federal Aviation laws would have to be re-written for them to carry non fare paying passengers.

Okay for passengers to be carried in C130ies, also military, not civilian certified.

Given our experience with the costs of Australia's Part 61, 141, 142, re-writting OZ reg's to accomodate fireys is going to cost a motza, probably a lot more than simply introducing US FAR regulations en total, things would be a lot safer not to mention a lot cheaper as a bonus.

Oh well, I guess squandering zillion's of $$$ never was a bureaucrats concern, it aint their money after all.

[thorn bird]

Given a bit of thought about the why's and wherefores of CAsA recalcitrance to allow Firey's to travel on a converted airliner or on ex military choppers.

They could, perhaps cop a bit of flack if the NSW bitched about the costs involved, then again the NSW gov could say get stuffed and operate it on the US register, or even more embarrassing put it on the Cayman or Isle of Mann register and tell CAsA to get stuffed, but at the end of the day it aint their money either, besides it's all about safety dontcha know, what's a few million bucks between bureaucrats.

CAsA will always hide behind the Myth of Safety, NSW gov may gnash their teeth, knowing its bullshit, but bite the bullet and pay up because the illusion of safety is very hard to argue against. The reality of course is CAsA don't give a flying F..ck about safety. Its all about liability.

The Firey's can clamber on a RAAF C130 and die, thats down to the RAAF. Silly buggers should have known that a military aircraft is not as safe as one WE administer, not our responsibility.

The fires can drive their trucks through a fire zone rather than hop on a chopper and fly over it, if they get caught and burn, aint CAsA's problem, silly buggers should have known a fire zone was dangerous. Not our responsibility.

If a few civilians lose their homes or lives because the firey's couldn't get to them, would CAsA give a flying F..ck?

Of course not, silly buggers shouldn't have been there in the first place, not our responsibility.

[Kharon]

A mixed message from the ABC - HERE - but worth a read. The world a little less interesting without 'Murky'.

[thorn bird]

Weeel, it is from the ABC K.

But even so there is some true-isms in there and for sure we will miss the stimulating exercise of trying to second guess the Murky Mandarin.

I'll shed no tears for his demise however. During his tenure as the master mandarin some fairly murky deals were done with the big end of town which added considerably to a few individuals already burgeoning wealth. Murky himself, even if he avoided the odd hand under the table, earned salaries you and I and the PM could only dream of, topped off with a public service super scheme that by now he could probably pay down the national debt.

I expect in due course we will hear of his appointment to a board somewhere, maybe Mcbank for example with a stipend that again the average punter would draw breath at and probably retire on, plus a free block of flats and half of Tasmania, maybe a free farm in NZ that one departed polly was awarded.

Services must always be rendered doncha know.

Listened to an interesting interview with the President of the Phillipines recently.

He's just discovered a dodgy contract signed between the government and some wealthy individuals which privatised Manila's water supply. Seems there is a clause in the contract that allowed these individuals to claim billions of peso's from the government if there was a shortfall in their profits. They deliberately restricted water supply to Manila to create a shortage leading to a rise in the cost of water. Profits is all, bugger those that rely on the service.

He was having non of that and ordered the faucet opened, they then send a bill for billions of peso's for lost profits.

We slander the Phillipines as a third world country where corruption is rife, but are we really much different?

The Phillipines president has ordered an examination of all contracts between the government and private entities, any that appear dodgy or incompetent will result in some serious jail time for the perpetrators.

Now think of the sale of Australia's airports to big banks and property developers.

Just who allowed the intent and terms of the airport act and head leases to be perverted to diminish the utility for the aviation industry in favour of the big end of towns profits, as our mate Bill was fond of saying?

Just who sat idly by as a independent government corporation ran rampant with hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to produce a rule set that is not only incompetent, completely fails in what it was intended to do and destroys the very industry it was intended to regulate? all based on a myth of safety.

I've never been one for conspiracy theories, but I can't help but join a few dots and grow increasingly suspicious that we the public are either being manipulated by dark forces, or the level of competence and foresight of our Public sector is so bad that a thorough, external audit is required, and those responsible at the very least demoted, or dismissed or if corruption is proven some serious jail time.

Incompetence or poor judgement in our industry is an anathema, sooner or later the chickens come home to roost, why should we tolerate it those that administer us, and that doesn't just apply to aviation.

Cosy deals between developers, unions and regulators drives up the cost of building anything by more than 30% some say, sometimes significantly more than that, and that applies to State or commonwealth awarded contracts, ensuring any public project, that's anything paid for with our money, will ever come in On budget.

Evidence would suggest that the private sector is no better at managing vital infrastructure than the public sector. The difference is the profits do not go back into improving that infrastructure or provide capital for further infrastructure.

Privatisation is a scam, perpetuated by Governments, no doubt "advised" by Murky Mandarins either State or Federal, to ameliorate their incompetence at controlling their own budgets.

Consider all the so called privatisation of public infrastructure, have any of them resulted in better outcomes for consumers?

Think of energy, supposedly a state responsibility. When I became considered an adult the states built the generators, and the poles and wires and were the retailer. Modest profits went back to the government, which should have been spent on improving the infrastructure, rather than funding political wet dreams. The ethos was supplying a vital product at the best possible price to the people of the state who's taxes provided the funds to develop it.

Privatisation completely changed the ethos between the supplier and the consumer from supplying a vital affordable service, to maximising profits for the supplier. Breaking energy supply into seperate entities added to the consumer burden because the owners of each entity add their profit margins to the end product. Is it any wonder energy prices are going through the roof especially when the federal government heavily subsidises so called "renewable" unreliable energy, largely supplied by foreign entities, after intense lobbying and one would suspect large political donations subtly killing any investment in cheaper more reliable generation.

Think of water. It falls from the sky free, it belongs to everyone. yet the government put a price on it and created a water market open to any investor whether foreign or domestic, they require no land ownership nor interest in utilising their purchase, they do so for no other reason than profit. There is no requirement for them to sell entitlements, indeed they deliberately withhold selling them to create an artificial shortage much as in the Phillipines to drive up the price allowing precious water to flow past our farmers fields, unused and into the ocean because farmers cannot pay the uneconomic price. What bright spark mandarin dreamt up this little rort? Someone obviously so dumb to not recognise that greed and corruption would rule the day without checks and balances. At least the Phillipines president has the balls to call it out for what it is and move to hold those responsible accountable.

I could ramble on with further examples which appear somewhat dubious and therefore casts doubt on the competence of the public sector to manage the countries and states finances.

I could, of course be completely wrong and everything is Kosher, but I have a "K" itch that will not be scratched away.

[thorn bird]

Found the following snippet in todays Australian Last Post.

A reader asks a rather poignant question:

"Acknowledging that Australia is a bushfire-prone country, why do we still spend thousands of dollars every week between September and March hiring fire-fighting aircraft and helicopters from the US when we should be building a fleet of Elvis-Type air cranes for our own use each summer, then hiring them out to other countries during winter?" John Clark.

Well john old mate sorry to inform you, firstly, it aint thousands a week, it 100's of thousands a week.

Secondly, there is a rather large impediment to building anything to do with aviation in Australia, its called CAsA.

[thorn bird]

Having a leisurely read of the Australian over coffee this morning, not much in the way of news but a report on page four set my mind pondering.

“Drivers panned as holiday Toll hits 31” read the headline.

Eight people dead in NSW alone in less than two weeks, which generated a plea from “Disappointed” police for drivers to take care and “follow the rules.”

Compare the hysterical reaction of the aviation police (CAsA) to crashes which killed six people on behalf of the “angel flight” charity. Six deaths over nine years. Two fatal crashes that generated front page reports in the press and much gnashing of teeth and calls to do something from the political class.

State Traffic police express disappointment, aviation police jerk the knee and immediately start talking of increased onerous regulation that would affectively shut down charity flights.

Its all so passing strange that aviation attracts such scrutiny.

Money thrown around like confetti on ATSB investigations that really come to no conclusion at all, other than glib statements that do not address the causes or recommendations on how to mitigate them.

The aviation police pushing through “administrative” actions free from scrutiny by anyone from the political class with any marbles in place, heaping cost upon cost upon the charities aside from that expended to develop those actions, that do not target the real issue central to the cause of the accidents and will do nothing to mitigate a reoccurrence.

The whole sorry saga a sad indictment of Australia’s regulator reacting to a hysterical, sensationist press, rather than sober reflection.

The past few weeks have seen many reports condemning the ineptitude of the Bureaucratic class both in their “advice” or lack thereof and their ability to format laws that actually work as intended.

Poor old aviation always seems to be on the receiving end of this ineptitude.

Consider the privatisation of our airports. Probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the Australian people, handing billions of dollars the big Mcbanks and development sharks to the detriment of the users, same with our ports, same with our electricity suppliers, same with our roads, everywhere you turn vital national infrastructure handed to entities who’s only objective is profit, they’ve even done it with our water supplies.

Some Local shire councils, mostly in more urban areas, heavily influenced by Development sharks pulling off some rather shady, shonky, deals contrary to the interests of their constituents, I believe the term is “Soft Corruption”, the sad thing is there is nothing soft about it and it is invading our public sector in ever increasing volume.

[Peetwo]

Having a leisurely read of the Australian over coffee this morning, not much in the way of news but a report on page four set my mind pondering.

“Drivers panned as holiday Toll hits 31” read the headline.

Eight people dead in NSW alone in less than two weeks, which generated a plea from “Disappointed” police for drivers to take care and “follow the rules.”

Compare the hysterical reaction of the aviation police (CAsA) to crashes which killed six people on behalf of the “angel flight” charity. Six deaths over nine years. Two fatal crashes that generated front page reports in the press and much gnashing of teeth and calls to do something from the political class.

State Traffic police express disappointment, aviation police jerk the knee and immediately start talking of increased onerous regulation that would affectively shut down charity flights.

Its all so passing strange that aviation attracts such scrutiny.

Money thrown around like confetti on ATSB investigations that really come to no conclusion at all, other than glib statements that do not address the causes or recommendations on how to mitigate them.

The aviation police pushing through “administrative” actions free from scrutiny by anyone from the political class with any marbles in place, heaping cost upon cost upon the charities aside from that expended to develop those actions, that do not target the real issue central to the cause of the accidents and will do nothing to mitigate a reoccurrence.

The whole sorry saga a sad indictment of Australia’s regulator reacting to a hysterical, sensationist press, rather than sober reflection.

The past few weeks have seen many reports condemning the ineptitude of the Bureaucratic class both in their “advice” or lack thereof and their ability to format laws that actually work as intended.

Poor old aviation always seems to be on the receiving end of this ineptitude.

Consider the privatisation of our airports. Probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the Australian people, handing billions of dollars the big Mcbanks and development sharks to the detriment of the users, same with our ports, same with our electricity suppliers, same with our roads, everywhere you turn vital national infrastructure handed to entities who’s only objective is profit, they’ve even done it with our water supplies.

Some Local shire councils, mostly in more urban areas, heavily influenced by Development sharks pulling off some rather shady, shonky, deals contrary to the interests of their constituents, I believe the term is “Soft Corruption”, the sad thing is there is nothing soft about it and it is invading our public sector in ever increasing volume.

Some good OBS there TB - 

Thought I add the following to the mix of end of year snippets...

---

Five PMs, fractured political parties: tribal politics loses its flavour

TROY BRAMSTON
Follow @TroyBramston



Prime minister Julia Gillard and foreign minister Kevin Rudd in October 2010. Picture: AAP

12:00AM DECEMBER 28, 2019
152 COMMENTS

A dismal decade in Australian politics is drawing to a close. In the 2010s, there have been five changes of prime minister. The party system continues to fracture. The polity is more polarised. Transformative policy change is harder to achieve and progress has been mixed. Political forces outside parliament have altered. And the pervasive influence of ­social media presents opportunities and risks for politicians.

The upshot is that fewer Australians identify with the major parties, we are disappointed with our leaders, citizens are more disengaged from politics, and trust in government and satisfaction with democracy continue to fall.

It is especially worrying that only 55 per cent of Australians under the age of 30 support democracy over authoritarian forms of government.

There are five key trends that help define and explain the 2010s: leadership instability; party dealignment; the impact of social media; the change in traditional activism; and the degeneration of the political class.


Leadership instability

Never before have so many prime ministers been ruthlessly removed from power by their own parties: Kevin Rudd (2010), Julia Gillard (2013), Tony Abbott (2015) and Malcolm Turnbull (2018). The degree and manner of prime ministerial churn is unprecedented.

Australia has had revolving-door prime ministers before. Between 1966 and 1975 there were seven prime ministers: Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, John McEwen, John Gorton, Billy McMahon, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser.

The difference is they exited because of retirement, death, transition, election or dismissal rather than execution by their colleagues. (Gorton effectively resigned when a partyroom confidence motion was tied 33-all in 1971.)


Prime minister Tony Abbott arrives for the leadership ballot, September 14, 2015. Picture: AAP

In the past 10 years, prime ministers rose and fell mostly due to simmering blood feuds redolent of a Jacobean revenge tragedy. The hatred between Rudd and Gillard and between Abbott and Turnbull was, and remains, barely disguised. They still blame the other protagonist for their respective demises. Both major parties were also seduced into thinking changing the leader was the only way to boost their chances of remaining in power.

This roiling prime ministership has been bad for democracy. No other country changed leaders more often than Australia in the past decade. While Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull were tormented by poor opinion polls, the Australian National University’s Australian Election Study shows there was no majority of voters that thought their removal was justified. Nor did most voters support Rudd’s termination in 2010.

Scott Morrison, the sixth prime minister in 10 years (counting Rudd twice), defied the odds by becoming the only one since Paul Keating to take the top job midterm and win a majority of seats at the next election. But Morrison did not slay the incumbent; it was done for him by Peter Dutton.



Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison before the 2018 spill vote. Picture: AAP

There are now six members of the bulging former prime ministers club: Keating, John Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull. (There were eight between 1945 and 1947.) It is also a decade when we lost three political giants: Whitlam (2014), Fraser (2015) and Bob Hawke (2019).

It would be a mistake to think leadership instability is a thing of the past because the major parties now provide some protection from challenge. The partyrooms are masters of their own destiny. When a leader falters and places election or re-election in jeopardy, and a better prospect waits in the wings, all it takes is a simple majority of MPs to change their rules.

Party dealignment

The 2010s saw four general elections: 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019. Labor did not win a majority of seats at any of them. Labor has won a major­ity of seats at only one election (2007) in the past 26 years. This is an appalling record. If Labor were a business, it would be in receivership.

The party’s primary vote registered 37.9 per cent (2010), 33.3 per cent (2013), 34.7 per cent (2016) and 33.3 per cent (2019) — a decline of 4.6 percentage points across the decade. Labor’s vote needs to be in the 39-40 per cent range to form ­majority government. Labor won with 43.3 per cent in 2007, 49.4 per cent in 1983 and 49.5 per cent in 1972. It is a long time since Labor got anywhere near this level of support.

The party’s long-term viability as an electoral force capable of winning government and being in office for lengthy periods is in doubt. Labor has suffered a dealignment of voter support as non-tertiary-educated working-class voters have shifted to the Coalition and far-right parties such as One Nation, while inner-city progressive voters motivated by post-materialist concerns have shifted to the Greens.

It will be difficult for Anthony Albanese, the most left-wing Labor leader in more than a half-century, to bridge this divide. The most successful Labor leaders — Whitlam, Hawke, Keating and Rudd — were moderates who won elections and governed mostly from the centre of politics. Since the May election, Labor has flatlined in Newspoll at 33 per cent.




Voters at the Bondi Surf Bathers club polling booth in the seat of Wentworth on election day, September 7, 2013. Picture: Braden Fastier

A further threat to Labor’s electoral viability is on policy.

At the election in May this year, the Coali­tion had a strong advantage over Labor on economic issues, immigration and asylum-seekers, according to the AES. This has increased at every election in the past decade. At the May election, Labor had an advantage on educa­tion, health and environmental issues but these were not significant enough to overcome the Coali­tion’s strengths. This suggests that Labor may find sustained electoral success only in state politics, where these issues are paramount.

The political divide

Moreover, Labor is struggling to reconcile its different constituencies: socially conservative working and middle-class suburban and regional voters with a wealthy progressive cohort of voters in the inner cities. The political divide in the next decade will be as much about culture and values as it is about specific policies. Labor, already breaking away from its historic moorings, will find the next decade more difficult.

While the Coalition has been threatened by populist breakouts on its right flank — notably Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party and Bob Katter’s Australian Party — the combined primary vote of the Liberals and Nationals (including the Liberal National Party in Queensland and Country Liberals in the Northern Territory) has not fallen below 41 per cent in the 2000s or the 2010s. The Liberal Party’s vote, however, reached its lowest level at 27.9 per cent at the May election. (This figure does not include the LNP in Queensland.) Nevertheless, Fraser and Howard led the party to victory with primary votes in the range of 33.8 per cent (1998) to 41.8 per cent (1975). Abbott’s victory in 2013 — 32 per cent of the primary vote — was lower than any of the Fraser or Howard-led victories.

The Nationals have proved resilient even though they have been saddled with lacklustre leaders in Michael McCormack and Warren Truss, and the scandal-prone Barnaby Joyce. They have increased their primary vote from 3.4 per cent in 2010 to 4.5 per cent in 2019. The party’s seat share has increased from 12 to 16.

The Greens are the most successful minor party. They received 1.4 million lower house votes at the May election, which represents a 10.4 per cent share. This is more than three times that of One Nation. While the Greens have nine Senate seats and one MP in the House of Representatives, their goal of supplanting Labor as the major party on the left of politics remains a fantasy.

The 2020s will continue to favour minor parties and independents as partisanship further breaks down. One-quarter of the electorate did not vote Coalition or Labor at the May election. Those who always vote for the same party have fallen from 69 per cent of voters in 1969 to 39 per cent in 2019, according to the AES. Those who regard themselves as lifetime Coalition voters have fallen from 35 per cent in 1969 to 17 per cent today. 

Lifetime Labor voters have fallen from a high of 38 per cent in 1987 to 14 per cent today.

Social media

Radio transformed politics in the 1930s and 40s, TV transformed politics in the 60s and 70s, and the internet trans­formed politics in the 90s and 2000s. The defining technological change in the 2010s was social media. No politician can succeed without engaging voters via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media platforms. They need to be seen to be active. It is a good way to send a message quickly and effectively. But this is the wild west of politics. It cannot be tamed, let alone controlled. What is trending on Twitter is not the real world. This is a risk for politicians and the media.

Much political campaigning takes place on handheld devices away from the scrutiny of the media and most voters. Messages, often fake, are highly targeted. (Remember Labor’s “death tax” or the Coalition’s plan to privatise Medicare?) Divisions are exploited. Political debate is dumbed down. The added danger for voters is that their personal data is being collated, analysed and used to influence their vote without them even knowing it.

Activism

The 2010s have also witnessed a new form of activism that takes place increasingly online, through social media, petitions and the like. Outrage is the new norm. Some issues still motivate people to take to the streets, but without much success in changing mainstream attitudes. Grassroots campaigning, especially by organisations such as GetUp, has had an impact but it is often overstated.

The union movement continues to shrink, now representing only 14 per cent of the total workforce. The ACTU squandered $15m campaigning for Labor at the May election. The business community has scant authority to campaign for policy changes and lacks the mettle for confrontation. Think tanks and lobby groups, especially on the centre-left, have had negligible impact in advancing policy causes. It is therefore harder for governments to build coalitions for policy change when those they have traditionally relied on for support — unions, business groups, think tanks — have become so enfeebled. Institutions such as banks and churches that once were community pillars are utterly discredited. Scare campaigns arguing against change, as ever, are easier to mount.

The political class

The political class has continued to degenerate. Those MPs who have not worked as a political staff member, party or union official, or as a lawyer are few and far between. Labor has degenerated the most and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of sub-faction leaders and union secretaries with diminishing real-world authority.
The membership of political parties continues to decline and constitutes less than 1 per cent of the electorate. As they are less representative of the community, and those who vote for them, parties are finding it difficult to attract a diversity of candidates. Labor has shifted leftward and the Liberal Party has shifted to the right. 

Populism, while not as prevalent as overseas, is evident on the fringes of the major parties and is the stock-in-trade for minor parties.


Turnbull gives a press conference accompanied by his grandson Jack and granddaughter Alice after the spill vote in which Morrison was elected leader. Picture: Sean Davey

The influence and authority of the public service has tumbled. It is now challenged by competing sources of advice, including the inexorable rise in political staffers. Public servants rarely offer, or are asked for, frank and fearless advice. The bureaucracy’s ­effectiveness has been sapped by cost-cutting, efficiency dividends and many bright young people preferring a more lucrative and rewarding career in the private sector.
The challenge for the 2020s is to bring greater stability to the political system and make pro­gress on policy issues such as energy and climate change, workplace relations and taxation reform. We have done this before. There is little disagreement between the major parties on ­issues such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, school and higher education policy, health and Medicare, foreign policy and national security.
The focus for the decade ahead should be to set aside the destructive tribalism of the past and surrender the idea that progress means one side, left or right, achieving victory over the other on a contestable policy area. Agreement is not built like that. The task is to achieve a workable consensus that advances the country and its people. This is, after all, the purpose of politics.

---

 ...kind of sums up the decade of political stagnation, useless self-serving leadership and the consequential erosion of democratic processes IMHO..

MTF - P2  

[thorn bird]

"quod erat demonstrandum"

QED P2

and on Page 5 of todays Australian perhaps an illustration of a possible solution to the turbidness of our political process and a lesson for our industry on how to give the political class and via them the bureaucrats that torment us a very bloody nose.

The headline:

"Irrigator taps into torrent of anger on water theft"

The story centres around a Guy called Chris Brooks, a farmer a tad pissed off with the way the bureaucrats screwed up water management. Just a simple irrigation farmer who tapped into the powerful emotions around water, or lack of it, gripping rural communities in the region and in less than twelve months went from simple farmer to the most influential political activist outside the capital cities. With less than 1800 followers he has managed to put the fear of god into the political class and the bureaucrats by Organised rallies, simple messages, and the threat, that mess with us and direct action will follow, which has been very successful in recent NSW elections, along with class actions in the courts if necessary.

General aviation is small, and growing smaller everyday, thanks to the corrupt self serving bureaucrats, the irrigation farmers are equally small but together are showing the way.

Chris Brooks is a beacon of light into our dark world and shows us what can be achieved, if we can put our ego's away and unite with one voice. If we don't we are condemned to never ending purgatory of CAsA's regulatory miasma.