[Peetwo]

 Sterle wasn't too bad either...

...love it...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

For mine, a highlight was the decorative lady doing the sign language for all the deaf pilots out there watching; I thought it a kind, considerate gesture; until I un-muted the feed.  Then the loud, gushing laugh, grating accent and brash words intruded.  The penny dropped ; not sign language but Testiculation, which as every fool in the market place knows is the art of talking Bollocks, with your hands.

Minnie Bannister picked up that the outfit was a repeat "'ere, we've seen that one before K" she mused, in that special tone women reserve for others of their kind, "must be her estimates uniform".   I didn't respond of course; far too busy looking for the mute button.  

MTF – probably, when we have had a second shufti.  

Shufti (another way of writing it, the one usually given in dictionaries) is Arabic. In that language it means “have you seen?”. It’s a bit of military slang, picked up by British servicemen formerly based in the Middle East. The first recorded examples in print are from the Second World War, suggesting that it may have originated among soldiers in the desert campaign. However, Eric Partridge says that it actually started life with Royal Air Force stations in that area about 1925, but that it had spread to the Army by 1930. This seems probable, to judge from the extent of its use in World War Two, and the number of compounds it spawned, none of which seem to have survived the end of the War. Among them, Partridge mentions shuftiscope, which had a number of senses, one of which he defines with ponderous delicacy as “an instrument used by doctors for research in cases of dysentery"

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Nonsense & waffle!

Well the Hansard is finally out and here are the links:

RRAT Estimates Hansard 27 May 2015

RRAT Estimates Hansard 28 May 2015

The Wednesday sessions did not have much of interest as most of the relevant (aviation) action was deferred to the Thursday AM sessions. However there was this bit from the Heff at the start of the day, which was related to the Public Service Dipshit Stakes  mentioned on the previous page:

Senator STERLE: For those listening out there, we do have indicative times, which we have always tried to work to in this committee. But there are some new rules. I will be doing my best to try and work within those times, bearing in mind that if it does go longer, I know that we can.

CHAIR: Can I indicate, for the purposes of Hansard, the cooperation that this committee has historically had. The rules have changed. I read an entertaining piece, which came from someone in today's proceedings. Someone sitting out the back there or back in the office has got what I call 'the shits' with us. But really, there is a change, and the Senate is working on fixing that, because the time limit is uncontrollable. But in this particular committee we try to do the right thing and we will certainly do our best today. I sincerely thank Senator Sterle and his people and the other members of this committee for their sense of cooperation. We may well go to 11 tonight or we may finish early. But what we would like to do is get through the program so that people who have sat there all day can get to have their say. Just for the purposes of remedy, the person who sent that rather cute note, which I have had pinned in my window for everyone to read for the past six months, I don’t mind if they quietly come to me and have a yarn. I will explain to them the difficulty of the change in the regulations around it. Then we can go off and have a quiet glass of wine, perhaps. Over to you, Senator Sterle.

It is also worth putting on the record the rather uncharacteristic outburst from Senator Sterle towards the end of the day's proceedings...

Senator STERLE:  I want to follow up to Senator Bullock's questions, when he was talking about the regulation or regulating who can be in the cockpit. Mr Skidmore, let us play a little game. Let's try yes and no. I do not want to be rude, but if there is a bit of waffle I am going to be rude. Sorry to be direct at a quarter to 11 at night. Let's see how we go. Have there been any attempts to prescribe this in regulations in recent years: who can come in the cockpit?

Mr Skidmore : No.

Senator STERLE:  None at all?

Mr Skidmore : No.

Senator STERLE: I am going to move on to a completely different line of questioning and it is to do with an operator in Perth who has raised these questions with me and I think they are valid. There are a number of questions. I am going to try and get through as quickly as we can so we can move to Senator Xenophon but without cutting short. My questions will be directed to the multicrew cooperation training course. Can you outline the consultation process followed ahead of introduction of the mandatory MCC training course?

Mr Skidmore : I will ask my executive manager of standards to cover that.

Senator STERLE:  Sure.

Mr Boyd : Your question is about—

Senator STERLE:  Consultation.

Mr Boyd : The particular part you are referring to was part of the licensing regulations.

Senator STERLE:  I am aware of this. Let's get straight to the point, Mr Boyd. What was your consultation?

Mr Boyd : They went through the normal consultation process.

Senator STERLE:  Tell me what the normal consultation process is. Who did you meet with? Who did you talk to? When? How many times?

Mr Boyd : Look, in terms of that—

Senator STERLE:  No, not look. I have asked you some questions, please.

Mr Boyd : I will have to take it on notice for that particular—

Senator STERLE:  You do not know? You cannot tell me. You have just been called up because you are the man and you cannot tell me what the consultation process for—

Mr Skidmore : We have a process that we go through—

Senator STERLE:  I will tell you what we will do.

Mr Skidmore : We can outline the process for you.

Senator STERLE:  No, I will tell you what we will do this late at night, through you, Chair. I am not going to be entertained with this nonsense and waffle. I am going to ask that they come back tomorrow morning and bring back all the information about the MCC—and I will accede to Senator to Xenophon—because this is typical of CASA. If you cannot give me an honest, straightforward answer, come back tomorrow armed with everything that I need.

CHAIR: Order! Thank you very much for your contribution, Senator Sterle, but I am going—

Senator STERLE:  Are they going to come back tomorrow with the all information on the MCC?

Senator CASH:  I think we have established that we require CASA to come back tomorrow.

Senator STERLE:  Thank you very much.

Senator CASH:  But we do not need to be rude to them.

Senator STERLE:  I am not being rude, but at this time of night—you see, Senator Cash, I have taken 10 years of this sort of stuff.

Senator CASH:  That is fine—

Senator STERLE:  And when bureaucrats get called to the table they go, 'Er, ah, um, I don't know.' Don't waste time.

 

Also there was some interesting tabled documents & yet another foot in mouth tabled letter.. ..from the ATSB MH370 search manager Peter Foley:

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development



Tabled Documents

View File

1.) Four documents relating to asset recycling. Tabled by Mr Mike Mrdak, Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on 27 May 2015.
(PDF 7274 KB)

2.) Opening statement. Tabled by Mr Mark Skidmore, Director of Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 May 2015.
(PDF 621 KB)

4.) Document titled 'Response to TSB recommendations'. Tabled by Mr Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner, Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 28 May 2015.
(PDF 537 KB)

5.) Document titled 'Target Review of Melbourne Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO) Safety Assurance'. Tabled by Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer, Airservices Australia on 28 May 2015.
(PDF 838KB)

6.) Document titled 'Airservices Response to the Review of Melbourne Land and Hold Operations (LAHSO) Safety Assurance. Tabled by Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer, Airservices Australia on 28 May 2015.
(PDF 97KB)

Additional information and clarification of evidence

View File

1.) Clarification of evidence received 1 June 2015 from Mr Peter Foley, Program Director, Operational Search for MH370, Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
(PDF 91KB)Hansard etc. released

There you go, fill your boots...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

ASA and the flying duck.

#46 – 24. 05.15.  ASA on centre stage for 90 minutes at 2130.  If you were a Senator, where would you start?  I mean FFS.  We could start with a prayer of thanks to the ATCO who despite all odds, turn up every day and manage to keep aircraft separated.  But what goes on above that level and beneath the Houston radar has to be one of the greatest travesties in Australian history.  Perhaps the scant 90 minutes could be used to mount an appeal to Houston.  "Oi, Angus, sort this bloody management shambles out – Please, for pities sake".   Maybe the BRB can draft it, save a shed load of time.  

Well, the BRB ‘settling up’ night draws near; it always takes a while for the repercussions to fall out of the woodwork.  Clearly, those who bet on ‘Houston’ stepping up and actually doing something about not only the clearly identified, established rorts and obscene amounts paid to those who apparently see this behaviour as a ‘perk’, part of the job, lost their beers.  It would be a little more palatable if the ‘job’ was done properly; or even an attempt made to justify why the job is so much more difficult in Australia than it is in other countries.

Despite the unheeded shellacking in the press, driven by Dick Smith; regardless of the awkward, embarrassing moments in estimates and disregarding a front page call for Angus to get his finger out and bring a semblance of control to his apple cart, bring it back under some sort of decent restraint; there is solid silence.  Not a peep, not a chirp. Perhaps the notion of actually earning the fee paid to chairpersons and board members is just too risible to contemplate.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. (Poe).

Anyway – the bets made will be honoured, but winning such a wager is a cold comfort to those who hoped for better from the ASA.  No matter, we can all clutch our courage badges to our winged bosoms as we stare at the poster depicting the vision splendid as ASA management see it.  That bloody cartoon poster just about sums it up, don’t it?.

Richard:
"O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!"

Selah.

[Peetwo]

P7: Snipe for tonight, irresistible.


Hey, P2: – one of your favourite journalists is under fire from a UP troll.  Seems his reporting is to be denigrated by the resident experts, inaccurate, according to ASA who have decorously not screamed this from the roof tops.  It is worth looking at the track record of the ‘slagger’; 616 post in 12 years – content? - well, do your own home work.  Still it’s only on the UP, so no one in the real world gives a toss.  Higgins could and probably would, if the mood moved him, box his silly ears.  Where do they get these people, those who cannot write a letter to the editor of the Australian, or even a UP o’gram to concisely point out the alleged ‘flaws’ and force a retraction.  UP trolls, not only dopey, but gutless.

QSK's intimate knowledge of the inner workings of ASA (& especially the Executive) always did strike me as 'passing strange'?? Now the QSK assertion of journalistic embellishment, on the level of trough gorging going on by the ASA Executive Management team, seems to have fallen on deaf MMSM ears..err..that man Higgins again... :
  

Senators agog at $800,000 air bonuses for Airservices Australia  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• June 19, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney


Labor and Coalition senators have voiced concerns about a spike in the salary and bonus pool for senior executives at Airservices Australia, with one calling for an independent audit.  

The move follows revelations in The Australian this week that fewer than a dozen executives had their salary pool expanded by more than 40 per cent last finan­cial year to nearly $4 million, and within that the bonus pool increased by 60 per cent to nearly $800,000.

The senators also expressed concern at a decision by Airservices to not report a credit card travel rort fraud to police, despite being warned last year that failure to do so could constitute a criminal offence.

Airservices claims the massive rises in the senior executive salary pool between 2012-13 and 2013-14 reflected changes to the composition of the executive team, and an evening-out of an earlier dip in remuneration. 

Airservices initially claimed the average rise in “remuneration” was 2.25 per cent, but under further questioning yesterday admitted this only covered base salary.

With the rise in bonuses, it now claims total average remuneration rose by 5.2 per cent.
Airservices has refused to provide a full breakdown of the executive salary and bonus increases to allow its claims to be tested.

It has also not confirmed or denied inside information reaching The Australian that several senior executives who are not based at Airservices headquarters in Canberra are on travel allowances beyond their salaries of the order of $90,000.

But a spokesman said: “Airservices is a national organisation with significant operations in all capital cities.”

Labor senator Glenn Sterle called for an independent audit, saying: “Someone has to be ­accountable.”

His colleague Alex Gallacher said Airservices had a mono­poly on provision of air traffic control across the nation. “To get a bonus in all this is extraordinary,” Senator Gallacher said.

At a Senate estimates hearing in October, committee members expressed concern when Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib said a credit card fraud perpetrated by a middle manager, which she put at $10,000 to $20,000, had not been reported to law enforcement authorities.

{Hmm...Ferryman & Gobbles I wonder, does this expand the pool of candidates for the author of the Heff's 'Dipshit' letter??}

Is it any wonder the Senate RRAT Committee have kept this - Performance of Airservices Australia - listed as ongoing.

However back to the main drawcard because that was only an appetiser from that man Higgins - Houston we have a problem   

Coming to the AuntyPru thread - Things that go bump in the night very soon, so stay tuned...

[*]MTF...you bet! P2

[*]Here is a link for the ASA letter to the Oz - Response to The Australian

Dear Editor,


Your articles today ‘Air salaries up and Houston pushed to clarify $4m blowout’ (Monday 15 June 2015) and headlines contained serious inaccuracies in reference to executive remuneration.

Any assertion that salaries for Airservices senior executives rose by more than 40 per cent is not correct and your journalist was advised of this prior to publication. It is also incorrect to suggest there was a “$4m blowout” in executive salaries.

As we advised, the average remuneration increase for our senior executives was 2.25 per cent between 2012-13 and 2013-14.

We also advised prior to publication that during the two-year period in question, there were several changes to the composition of the Executive and it is not accurate to do a simple dollar comparison from year to year. This includes partial year data for new members of the Executive in 2012-13, while the 2013-14 remuneration data includes one-off entitlements such as accrued leave and long service leave paid to a departing long-serving member of staff in 2013-14.

Reporting in this way is false and misleading and we request a correction be published as soon as possible.

Airservices reports all executive salaries in line with government legislation through our Annual Reports. Airservices has demonstrated its commitment to financial restraint by implementing an Executive pay freeze for the 2014-15 financial year, which is still in place for the upcoming 2015-16 financial year. This wage restraint extends to all members of the senior leadership team who report to the Executive.
Yours sincerely,
 
Mairi Barton
Executive General Manager
Corporate and Industry Affairs

[*]

  

[Gobbledock]

Sir Gallagher'had sure did throw the cat in among the pigeons, brilliant work. Nick X grabbed Sir Gallagher'hads line and ran with it, then Heff came in and placed a beautiful large bow on top of the sordid stinking mess when he highlighted the internal factions at ASA!! Briliant work Senators, bravo.

It sure doesn't paint a good picture for Staib does it. She is yet another long serving military footstool who has proven that these type don't cut the mustard in the more corporate type world. As a so-called Leader she is presiding over a political mess with internal executive leaks, factions, pineapples and stitch ups! The top tier of ASA is in disarray and she, along with Angus, have lost control. Trying to plug leaks with threats of involving the AFP is a desperate move by somebody who has lost control of her Chess pieces.

On a more positive note, Hoody looked magnificent! Fit, tanned, sublime, he was fairly quiet but when he spoke his chiselled jaw delivered quick to the point answers. He looked refreshed. I'm guessing recent holidays to Bali or perhaps to Granite Bay on Queensland's Sunshine Coast?

There were a number of ASA candidates identified who had the potential to pen a new 'dipshit' letter to Heff. So many to choose from yet so little time........

TICK DIPSHIT TOCK

[Peetwo]

Senators agog at $800,000 air bonuses for Airservices Australia 
 
Labor and Coalition senators have voiced concerns about a spike in the salary and bonus pool for senior executives at Airservices Australia, with one calling for an independent audit.  

The move follows revelations in The Australian this week that fewer than a dozen executives had their salary pool expanded by more than 40 per cent last finan­cial year to nearly $4 million, and within that the bonus pool increased by 60 per cent to nearly $800,000.

The senators also expressed concern at a decision by Airservices to not report a credit card travel rort fraud to police, despite being warned last year that failure to do so could constitute a criminal offence.

Airservices claims the massive rises in the senior executive salary pool between 2012-13 and 2013-14 reflected changes to the composition of the executive team, and an evening-out of an earlier dip in remuneration. 

Airservices initially claimed the average rise in “remuneration” was 2.25 per cent, but under further questioning yesterday admitted this only covered base salary.

With the rise in bonuses, it now claims total average remuneration rose by 5.2 per cent.

Airservices has refused to provide a full breakdown of the executive salary and bonus increases to allow its claims to be tested.

It has also not confirmed or denied inside information reaching The Australian that several senior executives who are not based at Airservices headquarters in Canberra are on travel allowances beyond their salaries of the order of $90,000.

But a spokesman said: “Airservices is a national organisation with significant operations in all capital cities.”

Labor senator Glenn Sterle called for an independent audit, saying: “Someone has to be ­accountable.”

His colleague Alex Gallacher said Airservices had a mono­poly on provision of air traffic control across the nation. “To get a bonus in all this is extraordinary,” Senator Gallacher said.

At a Senate estimates hearing in October, committee members expressed concern when Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib said a credit card fraud perpetrated by a middle manager, which she put at $10,000 to $20,000, had not been reported to law enforcement authorities.

[*]Here is a link for the ASA letter to the Oz - Response to The Australian

[*]

An update to the above post, it would appear that within the last 24hrs the Senators have shifted into top gear, see the following from that man again... :

Senate speeds Airservices inquiry  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• June 20, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, appointed chair of Airservices Australia in 2012. Picture: Justin Benson-Cooper Source: News Corp Australia

The Senate is fast-tracking an ­inquiry into Airservices Australia following revelations of a blowout in executive pay, alleged credit-card rorting and its failure to gain approval for major capital works.  

The move follows The Aus­tralian’s revelations recently of a 40 per cent-plus rise in senior executive salaries, including a 60 per cent increase in performance bonuses to nearly $800,000 for fewer than a dozen managers.

The inquiry will also look into aviation issues facing Air­services, which runs the nation’s air traffic control system and airport firefighting services, including whether controlled airspace should be extended where radar is available.

It will canvass whether firefighters at regional airports without control towers should be trained to use the Unicom radio service to give basic air-traffic and weather information to pilots.

The inquiry will subpoena Airservices’ financial records to hold an audit and call witnesses, including chairman Angus Houston.

The Senate’s rural, regional affairs and transport legislation committee plans to meet the week after next to map out the investi­gation, with a view to holding public hearings in one or two months.

The committee chairman, Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, said the inquiry would examine “recent revelations” and other matters, but declined to comment further.

The revelations have given Labor and Coalition committee members the impetus to delve into a government-owned organisation that they believe has ­serious ­issues of administration, transparency and accountability.

The committee’s senior Labor senator, Glenn Sterle, noted the revelation in 2012 that then Airservices chief executive Greg Russell had run up a corporate credit-card bill of $243,702 between January 2007 and August 2010.

He resigned soon after the exposure but Airservices defended the credit-card use as acceptable for an executive whose job required him to travel internationally and to host senior aviation officials.

Senator Sterle said the organisation had to be held accountable, saying this applied to replacement chief executive Margaret Staib, the board and Sir Angus.

A Coalition senator said: “It seems to me it has been a seriously uninspected operation.”

At a Senate estimates hearing in October, committee members of all parties castigated Ms Staib, criticising Airservices’ failure to meet its statutory obligation to advise the Senate of major capital works proposals.

They were also incredulous that alleged credit- card fraud by a middle manager had not been reported to police.

Although she promised senators she would consider the matter, Ms Staib never reported the alleged fraud, informing Senator Heffernan by letter that the established loss amounted to less than $3000 and she had used her statutory discretion to not refer it.

Yesterday, Airservices said the bigger salary pool for senior executives reflected changes in the composition of top management and an adjustment after a dip.

It said the average rise in base salary last financial year was 2.25 per cent and, according to its calculations, 5.2 per cent including bonuses.

[*]

Hmm..sounds like the Inquiry will be wide reaching, better order in some popcorn me thinks...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Senate speeds Airservices inquiry  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• June 20, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney



Retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, appointed chair of Airservices Australia in 2012. Picture: Justin Benson-Cooper Source: News Corp Australia

The Senate is fast-tracking an ­inquiry into Airservices Australia following revelations of a blowout in executive pay, alleged credit-card rorting and its failure to gain approval for major capital works.  

The move follows The Aus­tralian’s revelations recently of a 40 per cent-plus rise in senior executive salaries, including a 60 per cent increase in performance bonuses to nearly $800,000 for fewer than a dozen managers.

The inquiry will also look into aviation issues facing Air­services, which runs the nation’s air traffic control system and airport firefighting services, including whether controlled airspace should be extended where radar is available.

It will canvass whether firefighters at regional airports without control towers should be trained to use the Unicom radio service to give basic air-traffic and weather information to pilots.

The inquiry will subpoena Airservices’ financial records to hold an audit and call witnesses, including chairman Angus Houston.

The Senate’s rural, regional affairs and transport legislation committee plans to meet the week after next to map out the investi­gation, with a view to holding public hearings in one or two months.

The committee chairman, Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, said the inquiry would examine “recent revelations” and other matters, but declined to comment further.

The revelations have given Labor and Coalition committee members the impetus to delve into a government-owned organisation that they believe has ­serious ­issues of administration, transparency and accountability.

The committee’s senior Labor senator, Glenn Sterle, noted the revelation in 2012 that then Airservices chief executive Greg Russell had run up a corporate credit-card bill of $243,702 between January 2007 and August 2010.

He resigned soon after the exposure but Airservices defended the credit-card use as acceptable for an executive whose job required him to travel internationally and to host senior aviation officials.

Senator Sterle said the organisation had to be held accountable, saying this applied to replacement chief executive Margaret Staib, the board and Sir Angus.

A Coalition senator said: “It seems to me it has been a seriously uninspected operation.”

At a Senate estimates hearing in October, committee members of all parties castigated Ms Staib, criticising Airservices’ failure to meet its statutory obligation to advise the Senate of major capital works proposals.

They were also incredulous that alleged credit- card fraud by a middle manager had not been reported to police.

Although she promised senators she would consider the matter, Ms Staib never reported the alleged fraud, informing Senator Heffernan by letter that the established loss amounted to less than $3000 and she had used her statutory discretion to not refer it.

Yesterday, Airservices said the bigger salary pool for senior executives reflected changes in the composition of top management and an adjustment after a dip.

It said the average rise in base salary last financial year was 2.25 per cent and, according to its calculations, 5.2 per cent including bonuses.

Senate Inquiry AirServices Australia - Houston we have a problem??

Senate Estimates timeline of ASA incompetence & obfuscation in pictures...

Plus the small segment on those ridiculous bloody courage badges...

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Sterle hit the jackpot with this;

"Labor senator Glenn Sterle called for an independent audit, saying: “Someone has to be ­accountable"

And this;

"Senator Sterle said the organisation had to be held accountable, saying this applied to replacement chief executive Margaret Staib, the board and Sir Angus"

Staib should be the first head to roll, followed by Houston. These are the people in the organisation where the buck stops. However one still needs to drill further and ask some big questions about the Miniscules Chief Mandarin, Pumpkin Head. He must be equally called to account for successive clusterf#cks within the alphabet soup organisations.

Sterle also said;

"The committee’s senior Labor senator, Glenn Sterle, noted the revelation in 2012 that then Airservices chief executive Greg Russell had run up a corporate credit-card bill of $243,702 between January 2007 and August 2010.
He resigned soon after the exposure but Airservices defended the credit-card use as acceptable for an executive whose job required him to travel internationally and to host senior aviation officials"

That was one mighty deep trough! And ironically when the shit hit the fan Russell bolted and commenced work with the very company that was awarded a $1 billion contract he signed off on for ASA. Perhaps the Senators can take a closer look at that little number?

It has become very plain to see that ASA has been run like it is some kind of personal bank account for some. The rot is still emanating from deep within, and not just within the remaining members of the Russellites!

And what about the contaminated airport land PFC issues? ASA are keeping pretty quiet on that slowly festering issue? Can the Senators perhaps ask Staib and friends what the game plan is in regards to that potential multi billion dollar problem??

Margie, Angus, Hoody, Miniscule, Pumpkin Head - TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Sterle hit the jackpot with this;

"Labor senator Glenn Sterle called for an independent audit, saying: “Someone has to be ­accountable"

And this;

"Senator Sterle said the organisation had to be held accountable, saying this applied to replacement chief executive Margaret Staib, the board and Sir Angus"

Staib should be the first head to roll, followed by Houston. These are the people in the organisation where the buck stops. However one still needs to drill further and ask some big questions about the Miniscules Chief Mandarin, Pumpkin Head. He must be equally called to account for successive clusterf#cks within the alphabet soup organisations.

Sterle also said;

"The committee’s senior Labor senator, Glenn Sterle, noted the revelation in 2012 that then Airservices chief executive Greg Russell had run up a corporate credit-card bill of $243,702 between January 2007 and August 2010.
He resigned soon after the exposure but Airservices defended the credit-card use as acceptable for an executive whose job required him to travel internationally and to host senior aviation officials"

That was one mighty deep trough! And ironically when the shit hit the fan Russell bolted and commenced work with the very company that was awarded a $1 billion contract he signed off on for ASA. Perhaps the Senators can take a closer look at that little number?

It has become very plain to see that ASA has been run like it is some kind of personal bank account for some. The rot is still emanating from deep within, and not just within the remaining members of the Russellites!

And what about the contaminated airport land PFC issues? ASA are keeping pretty quiet on that slowly festering issue? Can the Senators perhaps ask Staib and friends what the game plan is in regards to that potential multi billion dollar problem??

Margie, Angus, Hoody, Miniscule, Pumpkin Head - TICK TOCK

Just an update to the ASA Performance inquiry, the following is fresh off the Senate Committees: Upcoming Public Hearings webpage:

18 August 2015

• Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
  Contact: Committee Secretary, Tim Watling (02) 6277 3510
  Performance of Airservices Australia
  CANBERRA ACT: Committee Room 2S3, Parliament House, 5.00pm - 7.00pm
  

 
Moving on but still on the subject of Senate Committees remember this??-

  

Which was followed six days later by this...

Well we are now only one week out from the anniversary date of that combined MoP being referred & accepted by the Senate Privileges Committee:

Senate Standing Committee of Privileges


Current Inquiries

• Possible imposition of a penalty on a witness before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Trasport References Committee or a person providing information to the committee
          Status: Referred to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges
          Date Referred: 14 July 2014
  
  

See Also:

• Completed inquiries by this committee
  

 
Now going through the past records of MoPs, procedurally it would seem to be highly unusual for an inquiry to be outstanding for more than a year. The prior inquiry - which was comprehensively covered by Steve Easton from the Mandarin (see #post13) - was completed inside of six months, so WTF is the hold up? 

MTF..P2  

[Gobbledock]

P2 said;

"procedurally it would seem to be highly unusual for an inquiry to be outstanding for more than a year. The prior inquiry - which was comprehensively covered by Steve Easton from the Mandarin (see #post13) - was completed inside of six months, so WTF is the hold up?"

I couldn't agree more! Interesting timing, perhaps they have been waiting until a certain somebody is no longer on the Government payroll after July 10???

Tick....tock....tick....tock

[Peetwo]

Just released today was the QON index from the Budget Estimates. As expected there was a number of outstanding Senator Xenophon questions to ASA, CASA & the ATSB on the Melbourne LOSA REPCON incident. But I do get the impression from the QON that the Senators are holding fire now that the ASA are slated to appear before the Committee again.

However there was one QON on the Melbourne incident to the ATSB that I will be very interested in seeing the answer for...

102/293/ATSB/XENOPHON/Breakdown in communication
…
Senator XENOPHON: No. I am not trying to do circle work. This is important. Will the ATSB at least look at the publicly available information on WebTrak out of the two airports for that three-hour period to see whether there was a loss of separation assurance?

Mr Dolan: We thought it was more effective to ask Airservices to take a look at the tapes and to provide us with their view as to whether there had been a loss of separation assurance.

Senator WILLIAMS: How long would it take you to look at what Senator Xenophon is requesting? How long would it take you to look at that information? A couple of hours?

Mr Dolan: Possibly. It would need to be done by someone with air traffic control experience so that they could understand it, and we have a range of priorities that we have got our limited air traffic control expertise focused on. This is a matter of the management of limited resources.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you please, Chief Commissioner, take on notice whether the ATSB will be taking this matter any further, at the very least, to look at the WebTrak for that three-hour period out of the Essendon and Melbourne airports, and also whether it would look at radar tapes? Also, it appears, from what has been put to me, that there is a fundamental issue that Airservices did not give you the full story initially.

Mr Dolan: In terms of not being informed of a three-hour period, that is true.
Senator XENOPHON: Does that not worry you, Mr Dolan?

Mr Godley: Could I just clarify something, Senator? We did have one of our air traffic control investigators review the whole three hours. What happened was that after the repcon we got back to Airservices. They reviewed the tapes and said there was no loss of separation or loss of separation assurance. Our ATC investigator then reviewed the three hours. She determined that there was a potential loss of separation between two aircraft. But, due to the limitations of WebTrak, she could not be sure.

Hmm...wonder if that bit in bold at the end from Mr Godley, was part of Dolan's prepared script??  

Anyway fill your boots...P2  

Ps For those who prefer pics..

    

[Kharon]

Strange, but hardly surprising.

One of the little problems dealing with ‘Estimates’ material is the volume, which makes it easy to miss an interesting point; the other is that the answers to QoN take a while to be work-shopped and returned.  It means that the implications of a passage may not leap off the page at first read.  For example 

Mr Godley: Could I just clarify something, Senator? We did have one of our air traffic control investigators review the whole three hours. What happened was that after the repcon we got back to Airservices. They reviewed the tapes and said there was no loss of separation or loss of separation assurance. Our ATC investigator then reviewed the three hours. She determined that there was a potential loss of separation between two aircraft. But, due to the limitations of WebTrak, she could not be sure.

By any standard, that’s an innocuous enough statement, sounds fair and reasonable.  But there is some serious betting on whether Mr. Godley got a kicking once they were out of the room.  It is, in essence, a signed confession.  Firstly, it admits that ASA were to be allowed to investigate their own mess (a growing trend);and, that despite ‘public transport’ service investigation being spared no expense Dolan was only prepared to expend the minimum amount of time, money and effort on a half baked ‘examination’, to top off the trifecta Web Track, despite it’s admitted limitations, was used rather than real data from ASA, .

IMO the Dolan attitude and professed reluctance to dabble in ASA affairs is a smoke and mirrors ruse, to baffle the masses i.e. thee and me.  The piece below from Jeff Griffith clearly and unequivocally shows that Dolan has been very familiar with ‘airspace’ matters, for a long period of time.  As Commissioner, he has a duty to so involve ATSB investigators in the aberrations such LOS etc.  He has been forewarned that all is not as it should be, he has the prior expert knowledge and he runs the outfit that is charged with ensuring the maximum public safety standards possible.  So why has he not?, we wonder.  Perhaps the invisible Manning has taken over that portfolio, to allow the Commissioner time to ‘Blog’ and have lunch with the media. Manning came into the picture on an airspace ticket did he not?; some crap about the dangers of military airspace and how he was going to sort it all out.  Perhaps he’s busy with the ‘Blog’ as well.  

Anyway, FWIW, we think it is all passing strange, but not surprising.




Toot (slightly puzzled)-toot.

[Kharon]

To qualify - just tick the boxes.

1.   A proud look

2.   A lying tongue

3.   Hands that shed innocent blood

4.   A heart that devises wicked plots

5.   Feet that are swift to run into mischief

6.   A deceitful witness that uttereth lies

7.   Him that soweth discord among brethren   (Proverbs 6).

TB – “Could this be the reason why CAsA is now becoming an impediment to safety?

So bound up with legal liability and using it as an excuse to shirk their responsibilities, to not only strangle the industry but strangle safety as well."

I don’t think Australian aviation oversight is, as yet at crisis point; not quite, but man we’re close.  It’s a great credit to industry that it keeps rolling despite the impediments imposed by the ‘authorities’.  Reading the Sleepy Hollow Gazette a stranger could be forgiven thinking that this is a third world system, cobbled together from left overs, under funded and staffed by those the men in white coats didn’t scoop up off the streets.

You could, I suppose forgive the government, they don’t understand ‘aviation’ and the notion of being responsible for anything to do with aviation, particularly ‘safety’ (whatever TF that is) is unacceptable; so they hire ‘experts’, throw as much money at it as asked for and happily park in the directors lounge, away from the noise.  

Just when I think things can get no worse; up pops another example of the unbelievable, but true.  

Air Services, happily making a small fortune in bonuses off the back of broken promises and passing the cost of everything onto industry. In return they keep making bonus, abusing credit cards, taking holidays thinly disguised as training courses. Etc.  They will not provide the services required and now, declare that those services, such as Unicom cannot happen.  No matter we have the Staib vision splendid poster and our courage badges to cheer us, as we creep up, close and personal, to the lighty, scud running just beneath the cloud base trying to beat last light and staying off the radio, no transponder.  Is TCAS your only friend?  I keep hoping the Senate inquiry will sort it all out; but after Pel-Air and the historical track record, I won’t be holding my breath.

ATSB just scrambles the few remaining marbles I have left.  The fact that Dolan not only has kept his job, but is aggressively inserting himself is just unbelievable.  That, stand alone, is cause for concern but the latest round of reports scream danger.  Melbourne for example, clearly there are problems and it’s the short odds favourite as being the location of a ‘big one’.  Analysis, nope; it’s just fatigue and pilot error, again.  Blind Freddy can see that there are hidden traps which are always ready to spring shut.  These could, with proper analysis be removed or at least moved out of harms way, but ATSB choose to slide around the edges.  Then the fatigue factor is rolled in.  FFS – A simple forty minute IFR/IMC sector can leave you as exhausted as a 14 hour ‘rough night’, fatigue is, in one form or another always present.  A factor? Absolutely but to try and use that as a reason for not tearing the Melbourne airspace, automatics dependency, loss of situational awareness etc. issues apart is ludicrous.  The Newcastle incident should keep every honest investigator awake at night; the implications are awful.  The fact that it was not a one off should ring all the bells and blow all the whistles.  Never mind, we will always have Dolans blog to refer to and his Mum loves it.

That only leaves the old enemy, CASA to deal with.  What can I say, more than has been said.  It’s a walking, talking, living, breathing nightmare.  Any organisation that can dream up, support and force a thing like Part 61 on the industry it regulates is not a candidate for rehabilitation.  There is no hope of real change while most of the reasons the organisation is such a bloody mess are still employed.  Now I know Boyd & Co will try their very best, but until 75% of my listed items are escorted from the building; nothing will change.  Want to make me a smiling believer? Clean out the Sydney office, you know you want to; then we can do (pick an office).      

Just imagine the political repercussion after the ever closer unmentionable event happens and the world discovers, for itself, just what a basket case aviation oversight in Australia really is.  The warnings have been writ large, ignore them at your own peril.  Just how many more ‘nearly’ accidents are we to have before things are set to rights.

Selah.

[Kharon]

A Sunday ramble.

The Enforceable v Affordable safety twiddle.

 

Whether we get another chance to voice an opinion to a Senate committee is in the lap of the gods.  But, if we do, I’ve been playing about with some of PAIN associates theories and notions related to ‘safety’ as in the ‘mystique thereof’.  Some of the theory is academic but most is based on a the common sense thinking of practical folk, those who must grapple with the ever mounting pile of complex legislation and distil it into useable operational tenets. 

 

I won’t bore you too much with this, but I thought it worth a few words to elaborate a couple of points which keep appearing through the discussion.

 

Enforceable safety – is a clear point of conjecture; the increase in regulation which is written purely to aid ‘the prosecution’ of individuals and companies which, without intent have breached some points of ‘law’.  Any meaningful defence is ruthlessly eradicated, this is becoming clearer in the new regulation emerging; the complexity simply overwhelms the non legal brain and it's  London to brick, if the law was challenged, it would task even the skilled legal brain – for and against.   We seem to heading toward the high courts or accepting the penalty issued without a middle ground.  The AAAT certainly cannot any longer be viable, not with the complexity and often constitutional matters which could be parlayed into a defence.  The costs of this are prohibitive.  But the real issues, as far as the associates are concerned, is has this new approach to aviation legislation improved the operational safety analysis, or simply made ‘safety’  through law, after the event; easier to prosecute and lay blame?  Rather than preventing the 'event' which gave rise to the prosecution.  It’s an interesting debate when the construct is applied to an accident scenario, particularly a major one. 

 

Affordable safety – Gee whiz, you hear this topic, you see this topic, you read this topic; but it’s never quite ‘quantified’ and rarely analysed.  Risk analysis.  Insurance companies do it very well, maybe to their advantage, but that is the business they are in, so it’s to be expected.  But does ‘aviation’ do it?  Lots of lip service, lots of discussion and everyone bangs on about ‘safety’ whatever that is.   But when you start to break it down, in terms of legal risk you can clearly see that the operational ‘risk’ and risk mitigation has changed very little; but the risk of prosecution has increased.  There are so many examples on my files where the operational risk mitigation message is lost, completely and utterly in the miles of paper and thousands of word devoted to mitigating the risk of prosecution and identifying ‘someone’ to blame for whatever occurred.

 

This is not the way things should be, IMO the regulator and the regulated should be stripping away the clumsy, complex legal rigmarole and refocussing on what is essential and how to make the essentials foremost in mitigating risk whenever and where ever possible. 

 

Ends Sunday ramble, wishing (wistfully) for an end to present legal domination of aviation and the resurgence of the practical, honest practitioner of clear rule writing – like those Kiwi blokes and blokettes have.

 

Aye, dreams are made of this. The lament of the practical man.

 

Toot toot.       

[thorn bird]

Ferryman, you pose some very interesting questions in your Sunday missive.
Things I have been pondering for quite a while.
 
The biggest question is of course Who, and Why?

Was it a political direction to, contrary to almost every other developed nation, move our aviation law into the criminal code, or were the politician's manipulated by the bureaucracy that that was the way to go?
 
That one thing, more than anything else I believe, set the stage for the unmitigated disaster that Australian aviation regulations have become for the industry, and set the cause of aviation safety back to the dark ages.

Way back in January 2010 the Australian ran a story on a paper written by Robin Speed, the president of the Law association of Australia, that highlighted the dangers the citizens of this country faced as the regulators flouted the rule of law.

[My Bolding] This paper could very well have been written exclusively about CAsA.

IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.  

The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.

(This perhaps could explain the general frustration that pervades the industry,
"We want to comply but with what?")
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community.

And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators.

(The hundreds of thousands of dollars spend each year by industry for approvals)
This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions.

For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.

(Strict Liability?)
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws.

( CAsA's spin doctors continually try to create an impression in the publics minds that aviators are a bunch of homicidal maniacs, held in check by CAsA.)
This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law.

It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.

What I find so hard to get my head around is, our regulator appears staffed by people so inept, so incompetent that it takes them thousands of pages and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to enunciate rules and standards that many would say require a law degree to be understood.
Part 61 for example.
 2400 pages of legislature that very few if anyone completely understand, compared with New Zealand or the USA 80 odd pages that everyone understands. Will any of these thousands of pages have the slightest affect on safety, extremely debatable, businesses will struggle to survive, and as their regulatory costs double and triple with each new plethora of regulation, money will get diverted from real safety initiatives. People will attempt to comply but when they see that its impossible they will attempt to become invisible to the regulator and hope for the best, such is the level of mistrust that currently exists between the regulated and the regulator.
Less aviation may help the statistics, but ultimately be self defeating, we can only dream of a safety environment that exists in the USA. 

I cannot accept that there are not people in CAsA intelligent enough to realize the impossible task they have set the industry.

Comply with rules only half understood, comply with rules that are impossible to afford, comply with rules that are impossible to comply with, comply with rules that serve no definable purpose, let alone advance the cause of safety.

Nobody could be that stupid therefore I surmise a hidden hand directing all this.
For what purpose I can but guess.

[Kharon]

Speedy solution required.

Nice to see that article appear, yet again; nice colouring in – perhaps we should all change to using a magenta line; then we could follow it to a logical conclusion.  

Been a long time admirer of Robin Speed (legend) the thing concerns me is the lack of concern people have for what he says.  It’s not just aviation, although that is probably the best illustration of what can and does happen; but you hear it from all quarters of life.  I just wonder why the politicians have not stamped out ‘policy’ and taken us back to the basic tenet of ‘law’.  Being a political dunderhead is no help; but when out national leaders are wasting time bickering and sniping about taxi fares and other non-essential items the ‘crats are allowed to have the run of the place.  Gods alone know how much money the wasted politicians time costs, which is bad enough; but to leave the running of the shop to the public service while they fill in time until the next election is shameful.  To allow the rule of law become redundant while they play a ‘politics’ is a terrible waste of the democracy we hold so dear - and paid for; so very dearly.  

Too much for my wooden head.  If a luminary like Speed can be rendered nugatory by the likes of the ‘fat crats’ and the national leader can’t or won’t acknowledge, let alone attempt to fix up the problems; then I’m afraid my twiddling away on AP can't help much.  But at least I can drink the water and have my say – FWIW.

I wonder, could we get Speed voted into parliament, that’d be a good start. 

Toot toot. 

[P7_TOM]

Wait, there’s more.

Well, here’s one for our aviation Senators; a brawl of epic proportions needing an umpire.  Reading the latest offering from Smith and that man ‘Iggins; it seems that Air Services; managed by that doyen of probity, colour posters and courage badges has, according to their lights, done a splendid job of the Tasmanian radar system, all AUD $6, 000,000 worth, claimed their bonuses and shut the file.

“Not so” says Smith.

"Yes we have" they argue, "it’s CASA who won’t let us use the system".

“Not us” says CASA, "their system does not meet our robust standards”.

“Well”, says Smith, “why did you spend 100% of the money and only do 90% of the job?”

You can, dear Senators see the need for the hair pulling to stop.  Is the system inadequate?, did the public get ripped off?; is it dangerous? .  Who’s to bless and who’s to blame?

We should be able to call in our independent safety analysts, the ATSB, to make a ruling; tell CASA to stop being so precious or, tell ASA to get it done right or return the bonus payments and buy all the required equipment.

But I forget, the ATSB is neither competent or independent and cannot be fully relied on to make an independent, serious safety rulings, can they?.

You see the problem, a side issue may be that with radar coverage, the airlines would save the cost of ‘procedural’ separation, which over a two year period would pay for the whole thing. Any chance of a little refereeing getting done, within a reasonable time frame; anything under two years would be stellar.

Bloody silly when think about it; ain’t it?

[Gobbledock]

Yes it's a sad state of affairs when an air traffic issue cannot be resolved by the 3 alphabet soup agencies. I'm surprised they didn't all say 'don't know, I was in Montreal at the time'! It's a strange state of affair considering the millions and millions of taxpayer gravy that was tipped into the system. I am also concerned that there may be an addition latent safety risk for helicopters which could endanger our frequent flying 'Speaker for rorts' Beehive Bishop? Speaking of which, the 'Independent for stamping out fatcat troughs and incompetence' has fired off his first salvo! Good work Nick;

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/pol...iespo.html

[thorn bird]

Oh dear,
I despair, I really do.
Our good senators should really start to look at our used and abused system.

Someone, somewhere, a very clever person, saw an opportunity and began manipulating an end game. One that would make a gift of the potential profits available from our major airports, a billion a year turnover completely tax free, added to the massive capital gains that could be generated by development sharks, the biggest contributors to political parties election funds by the way, converting our secondary airports into industrial estates. Just what will be this persons final reward??

Never has anyone heard "What about someone, somewhere considering the public Interest"

Someone, somewhere gifted McBank a billion dollars a year in tax free income, to develop what have become recognized internationally as some of the worst airports in the developed world.

The AAT judgment on Archerfield sends shivers down the spine of everyone who relies on our secondary airports for their livelihood, while the development sharks cheer that their political contributions were money well spent. Fully 40% of Jandakot is to be swallowed up, Bankstown to follow, public ASSETS raped, Rightful public money diverted into the development sharks bank accounts, more than likely offshore, so to add insult to injury, the public don't even get a few bucks in tax.

To obtain any meaningful examination of the corruption that went with the rape of our aviation industry would require expenditure of massive funds who our master manipulator knew full well the industry could not afford.

As things are our industry is in crisis, drowning under thousands of pages of insanity served up to us by a government corporation more concerned with regulation to avoid liability than safety, when we should be looking at ways to reduce the burdens on industry before the industry completely collapses.

We hear all the to and fro regarding ASA, a monopoly Government corporation.
They used to be a government entity that concerned itself with providing "Public service"
It would seem now its incorporated its more about providing a service to its directors, and protecting a government monopoly.

For goodness sake, who gives shit who and how and what qualification is required to run a Unicom service. Its been about in the US forever, it costs nothing and it provides a safety benefit. I think this argument is more about protecting union interests than safety interests.
ASA holds the monopoly providing fire services to Australian airports. Is that why it costs twice as much as new Zealand where its open to tender, or three times as much as the USA?
Really, its not required by ICAO except for international airports, why the hell do we need them for domestic? Have they every saved anyone in the past thirty years?

With a bit of extra training, couldn't the local fire brigade with some bucks for their time, be present for RPT arrivals and departures, surely more costs effective than paying 23 million for a fire service at Ballina. I'd rather that was spent on a tower or at least a Unicom.