[Kharon]

Well caught, P7.

Interesting tale, it does shine a light in a couple of dark corners. The darkest that of the ‘whistle-blower’.

Kessaris had tried to take a stand against very serious and ongoing financial negligence by refusing to sign off on the DCS annual financial statements and putting his serious concerns into a four-page internal memo to other executives.

I wonder how many ‘honest’ dedicated public servants would love to take a stand, as Kessaris did. But cannot; or, dare not. You can see the trouble Kessaris landed in; just the anxiety and stress it must have caused at home would be enough to deterrent for most, let alone the fear of loosing a job. When you add the almost certain knowledge that your ‘career’ path may well turn into a deep mire, it is clear to see how much courage it takes to “tell it as it is”.

The problem for the government arose in March when the memo was leaked to the media by persons unknown, and Francis went on the defensive. Firmly grasping the wrong end of the stick, the minister said Kessaris was just a disgruntled employee who lost his job after he “got caught out through incompetence” and added he found it “amazing” the CFO “wouldn’t sign off on his own work”.

Above, the other side of the coin: DDDD_MNFI style. Only re election matters, not the country, not the people, not the tax money, not the responsibility of office, just the next election. ‘The Minister’ has no idea of the portfolio, but the executives have and in a perfect world, it is the execs who keep the ministerial arse out of the flames. Protection of income becomes a priority and advice is ‘tempered’, first and foremost, to suit the political agenda.  Provided the candidate for re election is not ‘embarrassed’ and unpleasant realities can be cleverly concealed within the scripted words; all is well for the ‘execs’.  It don’t take too much imagination to see how public servants, with kids, mortgage and ‘life style’ will sidestep or obfuscate. Particularly when that is what the ‘minister’ requires.

I say Bravo to Kessaris for effort; will that effort change anything? I will not even dignify that question with an answer; but, its nice to know there are some mandarins who care enough to risk the wrath of the incumbent minister for re election, with fact and truth.

Toot toot

[Peetwo]

M&M's Merry Xmas MP slush fund - 


 Reference from QOTM thread:

A call to outlaw the political trough!

I wasn't sure where to post this but just had to put it somewhere. Below is an email doing the rounds. It is worded perfectly and it also perfectly sums up what the general populous is sick and tired of;

"The Pension Assets Test to be implemented on 1 January 2017".
So here's fair warning to all politicians of any persuasion, this group of aged voters may be about to make the greatest impact on any Federal election in history, ignoring them may be the start of a changed political environment in this country.

Change the Entitlements I absolutely agree, if a pension isn't an entitlement, neither is theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn't sustainable.

Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable!

The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over: The author is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in Australia will have this message. This is one idea that really should be passed around because the rot has to stop somewhere.

Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now that the Age of Entitlement is over:

1. Scrap political pensions. Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most other working Australians are expected to do.

2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink. A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they're out of office. Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians. Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.

3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians' retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue. This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.

4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.

5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people. i.e. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.

6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.

7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/16. The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them. Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves. Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message.

Don't you think it's time? THIS IS HOW YOU FIX Parliament and help bring fairness back into this country!

Gobbledock footnote;

And may I humbly add; as a member of this countries middle class (well, not much of a middle class left) who pay's for and supports all the bong smoking dole bludgers and single mum's with 6 kids under age 7 while also propping up big business and multi millionaires who pay less tax than a lowly second year bakery apprentice, can we also make political bottom dwelling parasites pay there share of the burden?

Thanks and kind regards

Gobbles

Speaking of trough funds etc., I note in the Oz today that M&M and his minions are playing the part of Santa and his elves in Parliament House... :

Great $45m politician giveaway for croquet lawns and iPads

• Sarah Martin
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM December 30, 2016
  

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/da2273317fa2a9ba3bc44771d68a2766/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
New croquet lawns, a Finnish sauna and dozens of lawnmowers, barbecues and iPads are among the thousands of projects to ­receive federal grants under a $45 million slush fund used by MPs for hand-picked community projects.

The Stronger Communities program, announced in last year’s federal budget as an infrastructure initiative, was a two-year scheme that gave every MP $150,000 a year to spend on “small capital projects” in their electorates.

Details of the program ­obtained by The Australian from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development show that the grant scheme has been used for blatant pork-barrelling, with about 400 grants spent on items less than $5000, and millions of dollars spent to shore up the support of ethnic and religious groups in the lead-up to this year’s federal election.

The grant program faces an uncertain future, with the ­Coalition understood to be divided over whether it will receive ongoing funding in next year’s budget, with some MPs concerned about the ethics of the program.

Because the government held 90 of the House of Representative’s 150 seats before the election, Coalition MPs had $13.5m a year to splash on community projects, compared with $8.25m for Labor-held seats. In one example, Scott Morrison used some of the $150,000 available in his Cook electorate each year to give the Catholic Church $20,000 towards repainting in St Finbar’s parish in Sans Souci, which included the priest’s house and the religious and Catholic ­parishioners community house. The grant awarded in October was paid to the trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney.

[img=526x366]http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/871003138872573954/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-871003138872573954;1043138249'[/img]

The Xinjiang Chinese Association in Noble Park in Victoria, in Labor frontbencher Mark Dreyfus’s seat of Isaacs, received about $10,000 to buy 24 iPads and cooking utensils for use by its members. Presenting the grant in March, Mr Dreyfus said he was sure the “iPads and cooking utensils will be of great benefit to members of the association” and he had worked with a community advisory committee to identify “the best investment in our community”.

Another $5172 grant was given to the Chinese Xinjiang Senior Citizens Association in Endeavour Hills in Melbourne to buy 12 iPads and two computers to “assist senior citizens to obtain basic computer skills”.

The NSW, Victorian and Queensland branches of the Vietnamese Community in Australia each received grants, with $18,700 going to the Labor-held Queensland marginal seat of Oxley for a new community building that included an office, library, meeting room, training room, kitchen and carport.

While ethnic groups were well represented among grant recipients, sporting clubs, local councils, RSL and Rotary clubs were also favoured by MPs to receive the grants. More than 50 taxpayer grants bought new barbecues, about 20 paid for new lawnmowers for various community groups, and countless grants went to sporting clubs for equipment and facility upgrades, including to about a dozen croquet clubs.

In Wallsend, in the electorate of Newcastle held by Labor’s ­Sharon Claydon, taxpayers spent $7000 on mosaic artwork on planter pots, and paid to “fill the pots with flora”.
Ceiling fans were also a popular item among projects, with about $70,000 spent on fans, including $5000 to replace one at the Lions Club in Logan, south of Brisbane.

In Andrew Leigh’s Canberra seat of Fenner, $5000 was allocated for the Canberra Quaker Meeting House in Turner for it to install 16 solar panels.

While not known as a powerful voting bloc, the Finnish Society of Melbourne received $15,000 from Labor’s Tim Watts to build a community sauna in Altona, in the seat of Gellibrand.

Among Malcolm Turnbull’s hand-picked projects were $30,000 across two grants to the Jewish House in Bondi for security upgrades and for an electrical upgrade to its crisis care centre.

Grants in Bill Shorten’s electorate of Maribyrnong in Melbourne included $19,627 for a “rowing eight shell” for the Essendon Rowing Club and $10,000 for the Essendon Maribyrnong Park Ladies Cricket Club for new furniture, kitchen equipment and to “frame old photos”. He also gave the Vietnamese community $15,000 for a minibus.
Tony Abbott’s projects included a grant of $6750 for 200 new chairs for the Mosman Art Gallery in Sydney and about $5000 for St John Ambulance in Manly Vale to buy training mannequins.

The grant program is seen as a legacy program of Mr Abbott and his chief of staff Peta Credlin. Some believe it is unethical and inappropriate for MPs to have access to funds that they can spend at their own discretion.

Previous regional grants programs have come under attack for being partisan, including the Howard government’s Regional Partnership Program which ­became known as the “regional rorts” scheme, and which was criticised by a federal audit.

A spokesman for Regional Development Minister Fiona Nash said the Stronger Communities program was introduced after the 2013 election, and was “well under way” before she was appointed as minister in February.

“The SCP has invested in thousands of worthwhile projects applied for by small community groups and organisations which would often not have received funding another way,” the spokesman said.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development said the grant program was “put through a stringent assessment process, including community consultation”.

According to the program’s guidelines, a federal MP had to ­establish a “community consultation committee” or identify an existing committee to help it identify projects that could be ­eligible for a grant.

The MP then invited the ­applicant to submit a grant application to the MP who then recommended it to the department for assessment.

Speaking of aviation & pollywaffle entitlements, also from NewsCorp 2 days ago:-

Empty VIP jets cost Australian taxpayers $600k
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/638317ad6bace8fe183cbb3c3cb9143d?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&t_product=HeraldSun&td_device=desktop[/img]ROB HARRIS, National politics reporter, Herald Sun
December 28, 2016 8:43pm
premium_iconSubscriber only
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/638317ad6bace8fe183cbb3c3cb9143d?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storymeta/index&t_product=HeraldSun&td_device=desktop[/img]

• Politician travel expenses list reveals thousands of dollars racked up on domestic flights
  
• Bob Katter biggest buyer of Aussie flags of all federal politicians
  TAXPAYERS picked up a bill of more than $600,000 for empty VIP jets to crisscross the nation in just one six-month period.

The Herald Sun can reveal RAAF jets chartered to pick up and drop off federal politicians flew without passengers on 107 occasions at a cost of $610,571 from July to December last year.

The publicly funded RAAF nine-seater Challenger Jet racked up the bulk of the bill when Perth-based ministers and MPs chose to fly from Perth to Canberra instead of taking commercial flights.

The “ghost flight’’ trips cost up to $18,000 just to fly to Perth without passengers. But wage costs for the RAAF crew push the total cost higher.

The latest figures include two passengerless flights made to pick up and drop off Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and her partner, David Panton, in October last year.
An empty plane flew from Canberra to Perth on September 20 at a cost of $17,996, to bring back Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash, Justice Minister Michael Keenan and Social Service Minister Porter to be sworn into Malcolm Turnbull’s first Cabinet.

media_cameraJulie Bishop and partner David Panton. Picture: Ray Strange
In November last year a jet again flew empty across the Nullarbor — costing $16,740 — to collect Senator Cormann and other MPs including Andrew Hastie, Senator Chris

Back, Steve Irons and Senator Linda Reynolds for a sitting week when commercial flights were available.

On flights, MPs and staffers are offered wine, craft beers, gourmet hot meals and heated hand towels by crew.

Former treasurer Joe Hockey — who infamously declared the age of entitlement as over — flew to Melbourne with advisers for a PricewaterhouseCoopers forum in July 2015, sending the plane back empty to Canberra at a cost of $2,930.

The RAAF operates five “special purpose aircraft” from the Fairbairn air base in Canberra. The taxpayer-funded jet service is usually only used when a commercial airline seat is not a viable option, but the Defence Minister can authorise travel.

COSTLY TRAVEL

October 17, 2015
Canberra to Perth ($18,414) to collect Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and partner David Panton (below)

October 24, 2015
Perth to Canberra ($15,066) after dropping Ms Bishop home

July 9, 2015
Mackay to Canberra ($9626) after taking Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce, wife Natalie and media adviser to a portfolio announcement

July 14, 2015
Melbourne to Canberra ($2930) returning after flying Treasurer Joe Hockey and to a PwC forum on 15 July

August 23, 2015
Horn Island to Canberra ($15,903) returning to base after dropping then PM Tony Abbott for a week-long visit to the Torres Strait

September 20, 2015
Canberra to Perth ($17,996) to collect government frontbenchers to be sworn in the following day

September 25, 2015
Canberra to Longreach ($8789) after dropping then deputy PM Warren Truss so he could charter a flight to Karratha

November 6, 2015
Gold Coast to Canberra ($5859) dropping Steve Ciobo off in Canberra

P2 comment - I'd be the first to defend this Can'tberra pollywaffle charter aircraft repositioning/ghost flight extravaganza, if the 600K had of been spent on local bizjet charter businesses instead...  

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Thanks P2, I threw up when I read that expanded list of trough swilling and money waste c/o the Goldman Sachs brigade.

But this gem;

"In Wallsend, in the electorate of Newcastle held by Labor’s ­Sharon Claydon, taxpayers spent $7000 on mosaic artwork on planter pots, and paid to “fill the pots with flora”.

I wonder if Senator Nash is reading this? Pot plant rides again??

The taxpayer says 'go', watch our Pollies at the taxpayer funded trough;

Oink oink

[Peetwo]

Sunday contemplation -


The raiders of the shrinking ATP trough..

Because of the Sussan Ley entitlements scandal there has been much MSM exposure of even more examples of rorts and blatant trough gorging by our political elite...

However the Mandarins & their minions seemingly get away untouched by any similar public  and/or MSM scrutiny - Why is this so..

The following is an article from the Canberra Times written in 2012, that does ask questions of the probity and the potential for COI within the senior executive bureaucracy, who are the true gatekeepers of the ATP trough... :

The faceless men who are supposedly 'public' servants

Until we know more about senior bureaucrats' conflicts of interest, we are inviting corruption.


Markus Mannheim

Senior public servants decide from whom to buy and, if there's a tender, who is invited to submit a bid. Yet we know nothing about them. 

Our dapper opposition leader, Tony Abbott, receives free suits from a Sydney tailor, Max Liondos. He also gets lycra bodysuits from Cycling Australia and is paid a trickle of book royalties by Melbourne University Press. Resources Minister Martin Ferguson stayed at the Hyatt Regency on the Gold Coast last year courtesy of the right-wing Centre for Independent Studies, so as to attend its conference. And I won't even try to describe Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull's extensive portfolio of investments and assets.
We know all about these perks and potential conflicts of interest because

We know all about these perks and potential conflicts of interest because every politician must disclose them via Parliament's website. And, probably because of that, there are few obvious concerns listed among them. Most of the entries are trifles; the occasional upgraded flight or a corporate ticket to a sports match. Nonetheless, these disclosures still matter, because we need to know what may influence our parliamentarians' votes.

It's a small part of what keeps Australia from sinking into the deep corruption in which so many other countries are mired.

But monitoring parliamentarians' interests misses a pretty big point. The federal government buys about $25 billion of goods and services a year, of which more than $10 billion worth is sourced directly (i.e. without competition). Ministers usually have nothing to do with these purchases; senior public servants decide from whom to buy and, if there's a tender, who is invited to submit a bid.

Yet what do we know about these decision makers? I can't check the companies in which these officials (or their spouses) own shares, the gifts they receive or the organisations to which they belong. Yes, the Public Service Act requires that public servants disclose and avoid conflicts of interest, but senior executives need only make such declarations privately to their agency head. As a result, the people best placed to actually discover a hidden conflict – such as those business owners who miss out on government contracts – are unable to scrutinise effectively most purchasing decisions.

Here's an example of what this means in practice. Over the past few years, a federal government agency has awarded tens of millions of dollars in contracts to a firm that's closely linked to one of its senior executives. (The executive's wife has a lead role in a company owned by the firm.) When I questioned the agency about this link, its spokesman said the executive had conducted himself with "the utmost probity and ethical standards in relation to contract procurement". Perhaps so. But the agency refused to show me the executive's declarations of interests. Instead, I was told simply to accept assurances that the official "is not and nor has he ever been involved in tender processes involving" the firm.

That may be an acceptable proxy for scrutiny in Nigeria, but it's a bizarre notion of accountability in a Western liberal democracy.

So I applied for the executive's declarations under freedom of information law. The agency knocked back my request, saying granting me access to the documents would breach the privacy rights of the people named in them. (For some reason, it overlooked the simple option of redacting the names.) The agency also told me that disclosing the declarations would "prejudice the management function of the department, noting staff may be reluctant to take up positions if conflict of interest declarations were routinely disclosed to the public".

Read that closely: the agency fears that asking senior public servants to account to the public is a step too far, and would even jeopardise government recruitment. That argument would deeply offend many of today's upstanding public service leaders.

I won't name the agency or the executive; this isn't about "shame". The point is there may be dozens, even hundreds, of similar cases here in our city, involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars of public money. We don't know how many of these conflicts of interest are disclosed internally, nor can we check.

There's a simple remedy: agencies could publish their executives' declarations of interests, as well as the names of all staff who sit on tender assessment panels. Until they do, they'll continue to invite corruption.

This article was first published in Forum on March 31, 2012.

Hmm...that example certainly has some similarities to the shonky deals and dodgy probity of the ASA OneSKY contract...

The 'Trust' quotient??

Although Markus did cop some flak in comments questioning his rehashing of an archived article, he also received kudos from those who understood the method in his madness...

chapman ACT, Jan 20 2017 at 10:28am

Republished article or not, the point is still valid.

Our entire application of the 'conflict of interest' is flawed. The proper approach is to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Therefore if someone is in the position where they 'could' exercise a conflict then the opportunity for conflict must be removed.

It is not enough to simply report on a potential and move on. A conflict can be almost impossible to prove. The intent must be to prevent the opportunity. This protects both the Government and the individual in question. They can't exercise a conflict nor can they be accused.

For too long highly intelligent and opportunistic people have been operating behind the scenes to feather their own nests. They realise that our current thinking means they can simply act nice and offer denial, with little threat of anything further. And we lap it up.

Volkswagen and various Government Departments have recently established the fact that people will cheat. This is the tip of the iceberg. As a related article on ethics suggests, they then claim compliance and wash over any questions of ethics.

Instead we must enforce the ethics that gave rise to the question in the first place - one must not have the opportunity to exercise a conflict of interest.

Besides the example of ASA executives and other silver-tailed dross feeding from the OneSKY trough, the above comment also brings to mind the unchallenged, 'law unto themselves', 30+year Iron Ring reign at CASA.

Yesterday, via the Comardy thread, we were reminded of how the Iron Ring culture of fear, intimidation and threat of future retribution/embuggerance remains firmly entrenched within the halls of Aviation House, reference starting from - HERE & Mark Newton1 day ago:

Newton – “Can you do another video to describe precisely what has changed within CASA since the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found in 2015 that you had been vindictively prejudicial in your enforcement action taken against Mr. Nagid Fadlalla in Perth? Like now, CASA claimed to be proponents of a "just culture." But the AAT found scant evidence of that, castigating CASA for denial of procedural fairness, disregarding evidence, and for behaving as if it had a vendetta against its target. The AAT decision is here, in case anyone wants to contrast CASA's promotional materials about "just culture" with their actual behaviour.”

---

P2 – “From the above decision by Egon Fice, Senior Member of the AAT, it is becoming apparent that the jig is up when it comes to CASA attempting to persecute individuals that have genuinely made an honest mistake/contravention of the regs. This case is also a classic for it shows how CASA manipulates a situation to suit it's own purpose with a dodgy investigation, with little to no factual evidence (sounds familiar hey?? ) and by using underhanded, morally corrupt tactics in an attempt to discredit the applicant.”

---

P9 - "For the GP3 test, Carmody has taken a line which, IMO, reflects the true nature of the risible ‘reform’ mantra being whispered through ‘video’ presentation. You see, boys and girls, once the ‘facts and circumstances’ have passed through the ‘system’ and a ruling handed down, CASA have the perfect defence case against any and all complaint. That their cases are built on outright fabrication, manipulated to a fare-thee-well, exaggerated as needed, shrunk where required, awkward parts buried and oaths sworn in vain makes a mockery of system, is of absolutely no concern to them, whatsoever. There is no appeal, to the gods or mankind, which can shame CASA into admitting ‘they lied’. CASA are totally convinced they are above the law, even have it in writing. CASA believe there is no power on this planet which can bring them to confess their crimes. This has been proven so many times now that it has become the normalized deviance an industry simply accepts; result, living in fear has become the norm.

How can true ‘reform’ ever take place when the Director chooses, of his own volition, not to examine the radical causes which necessitate that reform? How can trust and faith ever be restored when trust is constantly abused and faith, not only in ‘the law’ but in the system is viewed so cynically by those in whom industry should be able to hold in absolute trust?"

"K" finished off his excellent but disturbing post, with this 'reality check' OBS...

"..Aye; it is a sad state of affairs, the nails in the ASRR coffin being driven home now through ‘media’ releases which go unchallenged; produced at our expense to cover the ministerial arse. Risible? Yes, but the irony is on the industry, which sits back and watches the fight while protecting it’s own rice bowl. I am not certain where the blame lays; but industry has had a big part to play in allowing the current situation to develop, perhaps it is time industry got off its collective beam ends and shouted one simple word – Enough..."

  "Enough" indeed...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Mandarins - Not of this world.

In the aviation game those at the coal face are so bound by law, company policy and other concerns that they are obliged to ‘do the job’ properly and keep their rear ends covered. It has become a professional art form. Looking good, feeding politicians platitudes and just hoping that nothing goes pear shaped for which the blame can be sheeted home to your house of cards is not an option. Can fear of breaking an esoteric, prescriptive, black letter, strict liability, criminal code ‘law’ affect the command decision making process, of course it can. Is it possible that pressure to maintain ‘company’ SOP, solely generated to ‘satisfy’ some whim of a CASA official affect the decision making process, course it can. Can company pressure to meet schedules, take minimum fuel, shave the flight time and carry on even when fatigued be a safety risk - of course it can. Much depends on personal and company perspective; but, in essence, the crew at the pointy end face far more personal legal risk from ground based traps and bastardry than they ever will face dealing with machinery and weather hazards - in the air.  

Mandarins have no such concerns; they only need to look good and say pretty much whatever a minister wants to hear. Keep the snakes in the box and all is well. They need not concern themselves with ‘operational’ matters or even real life. The protective walls are built of stern stuff with added safeguards and escape paths; and, why not, there has been ample time to create this isolated Nirvana, unlimited funds to support the upkeep and a total lack of ministerial ‘interference’ in the process; even some encouragement - when the minister is included under the safety umbrella. One need look no further than CASA to see a classic example of this. For a perfect diorama of system mockery take a look back to the Senate inquiry into the ditching of a Pel-Air aircraft off Norfolk Island in 2009.

From that one incident a Senate inquiry was launched, which led to an independent review of the system and the ‘regulations’; which, by the by have been under revision for three long decades; the Forsyth report a.k.a. the ASRR was actually ordered by the then minister for transport. Between the two reports over sixty (that’s 60+) recommendations were made which ‘demanded’ that the CASA be reformed and the chronic disarray of regulatory reform be completed within our life time. No prizes for guessing what has happened (answers on the back of a postage stamp please). We hear a lot of hot air, we see a load of meaningless words, yet we are still bound to and governed by the same relentless stupidity.

CASA itself? What has changed there? The short answer is SFA. The last ministerial order through the ASRR for CASA to regain, trust, credibility and dialogue has been flagrantly ignored, bar some lip service and only the minister believes the rhetoric which moots changes in the wind. Look no further than the latest debacle in the AAAT – CASA at its very worst; happily, this time CASA were slapped down by Egon Fice.  How can there possibly be meaningful change when the same old crew are content running the same tired, old dog and pony show and the minister de jour is satisfied, redolent in blind ignorance.

There is no point arguing this is untrue; none whatsoever. The introduction to the CASA Enforcement Manual, writ by Aleck, enshrined by McConvict, worshiped by the lower levels of ‘top management’ still stands; to this day, without one iota of change. Not only is this  ‘the’ golden get out goal card, it has now been supported by two ‘directors’.  The flash git – Skidmore tacitly approved its use – well he did; for he never moved to strike it from the manuals. Now the illustrious mega Mandarin ‘Wingnut’, supposedly in ‘caretaker’ mode is not taking any care at all, happy to let the aberration exist.

Real reform?  Lets begin with removing the travesty of the enforcement manual; then, perhaps the coal face crews can relax just a little and concentrate on doing the job instead of being afraid. A good second move would be to remove the notion of instant, strict liability criminality from the books. Then maybe we can start asking just what have the highly paid, very secure ministers and mandarins achieved - done to earn their corn; for they all seem to make a great plenty by doing bugger all. I don’t know what they’ll work at to keep busy when hunting down ‘criminals’ becomes redundant.  I expect they’ll all go on strike and wander in the desert for 40 days and forty nights when the straw runs out. Ya can’t make bricks without it.

No straw for the straw men; perhaps some tea for the tiller man then?

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Rule By Brute Force: The True Nature Of Government

Today I unfortunately listened to a broadcast in which the Presstitutes were grilling that spineless, preened, lacrosse shirt wearing snob Malcolm 'Goldman Sachs' Turnbull. It was nauseating. The snivelling, obsfucating worm was pathetic.

Which brings me to an interesting article in the politically incorrect, yet hilarious media outlet the 'Pickering Post'. A news outlet that reflects the voice of the people that is growing in popularity. It was titled "TIME IS RUNNING OUT FOR BOTH", and of course it featured Bill Short'one and Malfeasance Turnbull. How ironic considering that many have thought that their clock has been ticking for some time. A couple of quotes from the article as follows;

"Australia has two men, whose only ambition is to be PM and nothing else, and they are starting to leave a sick taste in our mouths. Wherever Shorten moves, Turnbull shuffles into roughly the same safe, uncritical position, leaving an even greater chasm on the Right. And the Right now owns the future".

And;

"Turnbull is terrified of criticism and will not do a thing to reduce debt using expenditure cuts, rather he has made a sickeningly devious agreement with Shorten that the deficit will be under control by 2021 on the basis of an average five per cent annual GDP growth rate between now and then. Both leaders know this is impossible, unachievable nonsense but it gets the debt and deficit issue off the table for now... or does it? Turnbull is now more responsible for this increasingly parlous fiscal situation than are Rudd and Gillard"

Full article here;

http://www.pickeringpost.com/story/time-...-both/6864

The article then goes into some stomach churning detail and produces figures that show why we are heading towards a half trillion dollars in debt. This fiscal issue combined with a growing 'big brother is watching' mentality is pitting nations against governments, and it is no surprise. Malcolm you pompous fucktard, pack the private plane and head to NZ with the rest of your elitist buddies and go hide in your 'bug out' because the winds of change are blowing mate and the clock is ticking for you!

A salient yet unrelated quote by Ayn Rand;

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

TICK TOCK

[Gobbledock]

Of ass licking then ass kicking

So Goldman Sachs Turnbull had some 'dialogue' with The Donald. First he kissed Donald's ass and then Donald kicked his ass!

Of course the weasel Turdball wanted the conversation kept confidential. Boo hoo Malcolm. You got put back in your box you footstool. Perhaps you should have paid Trump $1.75m not to hang up on you? Shhhhhh, $1.75m that's another 'secret'!

The Donald burns Turdball;

'I will study this dumb deal': Trump speaks out after 'hanging up on Turnbull

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34323298/i-w...ull/#page1

News to Malcolm. The Donald's bank balance and his testicles are bigger than yours. And by the way, so are CAsA's, hence the reason they will continue taking the Mickey bliss out of you and your crony Chester. Neither of you have enough testicular fortitude to take a bulldozer to CAsA. Spineless, weak, poor excuse for human beings.

Tick Tock

[Peetwo]

CASA, ASA & ATSB - Up for tender? 

The Ferryman poses some interesting QONs in his latest 'please explain' OP offering, off the BITN thread:  

Your truly – Confused.

P2 – “It's probably just me but for some reason I find the financial gains by some of the ICCPM group for what appears to be pretty rudimentary business services is quite obscene. Especially when you consider that many of those individuals just so happened to be affiliated with the successful OneSKY contractor Thales.”

It is strange little set up; and, although not remotely qualified to evaluate the ANAO audit, or even dissect, for value, the things we have paid out for, the whole ‘thing’ just feels "wrong" - 'off'; from the beginning. I know, for a certain fact, that not everyone who works for government is a dummy; there are some extremely well qualified, very bright folk there scattered throughout the various departments. I also know that the ‘government’ through various departments ‘evaluate’ and ‘negotiate’ some very complex contracts. I wonder why at least parts of the One Shy project were not farmed out to ‘government’ departments? Even if there was a fee to be paid, surely keeping the bulk of this project ‘at home’ would have many benefits.

Why, for example are the ASA management drawing ‘expert’ range salaries not capable of providing the expertise and knowledge to this project? Looking down the list of ‘services’ provided one has to wonder if the military and civil experts could not have provided the services paid for: there seems little mentioned there which required ‘outsourcing’.

Take the “Development of change management process and documentation  - integrated master plan etc (four down, top list)”  Seems to me that the best folk to develop ‘change’ management is the department itself, from policy to paperwork; it is after all “their” department and those employed there are (or should be) placed best to evaluate and manage any changes.

Is it the avoidance of responsibility that creates this need for ‘outside’ consult and counsel. It provides a handy scapegoat and ‘in Montreal’ alibi. Which makes it fine to bring in consultants as and when required – provided those employed within the ASA are not drawing ‘expert’ consultant type salary for not taking the responsibility the consultant does.

You see what I am driving at – position, title and big money carry very real responsibility in the real world and you must earn it and get it right – that’s why the big bucks are paid. But to pay big bucks to someone who will simply dial 1300 Consultant every time a project or contract needs evaluation or managing seems borderline stupid to me. No doubt real dealings in the big world have nothing to do with the way ASA operate and it’s only public money anyway; always plenty of that.

Toot (puzzled) toot.

Across the various Government Departments and their agencies there are probably 100s of classic examples, like the ICCPM OneSKY consultancy rort. However for our purposes let's focus on M&M's Dept. & the three stooges (CASA, ASA & ATSB).

From the last few years I can think of a couple of examples of consultancy tenders. With M&M's mob there was the KPMG 'Functional & Efficiency Review', which is still waiting a Government response. Part of that review looked at the possible efficiencies of privatising ASA, which somewhat ironically was something the industry suggested (in the 2016 TAAAF Policy: Reference BITN #398.) but subsequently ignored by the Government presumably on the advice of the Mandarins.

However, probably the most recent example of 'consultancy for tender' was initiated 3 weeks ago by CASA in response to yet another regulatory cluster-duck on CAO48.1/FRMS: 

ATM ID: 16/160
Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Category: 93150000 - Public administration and finance services
Close Date & Time: 9-Feb-2017 5:00 pm (ACT Local Time)
Show close time for other time zones
Publish Date: 9-Jan-2017
Location: ACT, NSW, VIC, SA, WA, QLD, NT, TAS, Overseas
Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart
ATM Type: Request for Tender

---

Multi Agency Access: No
Panel Arrangement: No

---

Description: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requires the services of a suitably qualified specialist or team of specialists independent of CASA to undertake a review of the latest fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013).

The fatigue rules for air operators and pilots have been updated as part of the CASA’s regulation reform program that seeks to align Australia with international standards, improve aviation safety, address known risks, and maintain our reputation for safety in aviation. The review will provide an informed basis on which CASA will complete the implementation of the new fatigue rules in the context of the current international and domestic regulatory environments.

The role of the specialist/s will be to:

• develop an appropriate methodology to fulfil the reivew Terms of Reference;
  
• implement all aspects of the required research and report on findings;
  
• make recommendations emerging from the findings including recommendations to support CASA to achieve the aim of the Terms of Reference.
  

Other Instructions: Please see the Terms of Reference for the conduct of an independent review of aviation fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013) document for further detail on the requirements for review

Conditions for Participation: Nil

Timeframe for Delivery: 10 September 2017
Address for Lodgement: AusTender at www.tenders.gov.au, in accordance with instructions in Request documentation
Addenda Available:
View Addenda

---

Fatigue management rules: latest news

20 January 2017

First step in fatigue rules review

Work to set up an independent review of the new fatigue rules has begun. CASA has finalised the Terms of Reference for the review and issued a tender to engage the services of a suitably qualified independent specialist, or team of specialists, to undertake a review of the latest fatigue rules for air operators and pilots. The independent review of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 will provide CASA with an informed basis on which to finalise reform of the fatigue rules.

Learn more about the independent review of the fatigue rules

&.. from Comardy's thread... : Fort Fumble under siege on CAO 48.1

First there was this from Wingnut in the latest CASA bollocks missive:

..I am pleased CASA has recently delivered on two ongoing commitments, with the release of the medical certification discussion paper in December and the first steps taken to conduct an independent review of the new fatigue rules....

...We have gone to tender for the conduct of the fatigue review and will look to have the selection process finalised by March 2017 and a report delivered in the second half of the year...

    
Hmm...will definitely have more to say on this tender because CASA and in particular the former DAS McComic, have a very chequered history when it comes to fatigue and FRMS - Hint: Think PelAir cover-up...


MTF?- Definitely..P2

[Kharon]

A classic – in the true sense.

CASA – “Description: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requires the services of a suitably qualified specialist or team of specialists independent of CASA to undertake a review of the latest fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013).”

Well held P2, good catch Sir. This is indeed so very much the ‘real deal’ so typical of our “air safety” agencies, particularly CASA, that it should be included in the politicians little book of ‘How not to get conned’. The CASA exercise highlights so much of the endless river of money which disappears every year down the CASA plughole.

CASA – “The fatigue rules for air operators and pilots have been updated as part of the CASA’s regulation reform program that seeks to align Australia with international standards, improve aviation safety, address known risks, and maintain our reputation for safety in aviation. The review will provide an informed basis on which CASA will complete the implementation of the new fatigue rules in the context of the current international and domestic regulatory environments.”

Got that? really got it? Good then we shall have a quick Q&A for the miniscule, just to make sure. We will even allow the questions to be ‘taken on notice’ a QoN if you will.

1) How many of our close neighbour countries have ICAO compliant fatigue rules in place which have been ‘satisfactory’ to all parties?

2) What was the total cost to those countries to achieve this desirable outcome?

3) In which year did industry request that the simple, standard industry exemption to CAO 48 be included in law?

4) In which year did the option of using FRMS or CAO 48 become acceptable?

5) In which year did this practice become not acceptable?

6) How much, so far, in total, has the abortive CAO 48.1 cost the tax payer?

7) Do we have a ‘new’, reformed, better, safer, fairer fatigue rule in existence today?

8) In which year did CASA employ two internationally recognised Human Factors/ fatigue specialists?

9) In which year did the said ‘specialists’ leave CASA in high dudgeon (and, for a bonus point) can you tell us why?

10) Can you nominate the two highly qualified ‘specialists’ most likely to return, at highly expensive consultant rates; to complete the task?

We do have the answers to these questions minister; do you? Perhaps Wingnut can help you out. No hurry with QoN – Estimates is a while off yet. Tick tock, tick tock.

Carmody is doing a magnificent job; pouring recycled oil onto the ministers troubled duck pond. Patching, papering, white-washing and dodging every bullet without changing, reforming or amending any thing. Well, some people can be fooled – sometimes. It is one thing to sooth the troubled ministerial breast; but to tame an angry beast is quite another – you need to play the right tune.  Spin away, roll the dice – delay and defer for another $100 millions on ‘reform’; obfuscate and hide behind manufactured safeguards – little ‘we’ can do about that.  But sooner or later, someone will use these travesties to decimate the government which allowed the cost of doing nothing, except looking good to destroy an industry.

"I am disgraced, impeach'd and baffled here,
Pierced to the soul with slander's venom'd spear,
The which no balm can cure but his heart-blood
Which breathed this poison"


Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

My new nickname for Wingnut is 'Speed-tape'. That shit will patch over anything! It tends to hold up well over something that is seriously in need of repair. It lasts just long enough to keep the machine flying until it can be repaired late at nights well beyond any prying eyes. The cycle then begins again......the machine gets damaged, some robust speed-tape is applied, nobody sees what lays beneath and then the machine is fixed late at night when prying eyes are sleeping.

CAsA is covered in speed tape, it is used liberally and regularly. The problem is that one day the tape won't hold and the whole thing will end in tears.

Tick Tock

[Peetwo]

Mandarins in a parallel hemisphere...

In a matter of a fortnight from his inauguration Trump has turned the world on it's head..

Unlike the now largely abandoned Abbott RTR (Red Tape Reduction program), the first signs are good that Trump is deadly serious about reducing the regulatory burden in the interest of promoting big, middle and small businesses, like those that exist in the aviation industry:

Report: Trump halted $181 billion in regulatory costs on first day in office
By Elizabeth Harrington
Published January 31, 2017
Washington Free Beacon

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump effectively halted nearly $200 billion worth of regulations, according to a new analysis.

President Trump has taken aggressive action to curb regulations in his first week, promising to cut 75 percent or "maybe more," and signing an executive order Monday to cut two regulations from the books when every new rule is introduced.

The first move came in the form of a memo to all federal agencies from Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, freezing all recently finalized and pending regulations. The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, found the action resulted in stopping rules that would cost the economy $181 billion.

"On day one in office, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, signed a memo to all executive agencies imposing a regulatory moratorium," wrote Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy for the American Action Forum. "This may sound like an extraordinary action, but President Obama’s then-Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, penned an almost identical memo eight years ago."

"According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, this memo put a hold on $181 billion in total regulatory costs, including $17 billion in annual costs, and 5.5 million hours of paperwork," Batkins wrote. "This moratorium freezes 22 rulemakings with annual costs above $100 million and 16 measures with more than $1 billion in long-term costs."    

However what does it mean in the US for their aviation, aerospace and associated industries?

Well to start here is Christine Negroni's take, via Seattle PI blog:

Trump’s Somewhat Less-Than-Alarming Attack on Air Safety
By Christine Negroni on January 26, 2017 at 10:47 AM




The Washington Post tagged a story on Donald Trump’s first days as U.S. President with the alarming proclamation that he was “blocking regulations, including one to prevent plane crashes.” Without wading into the morass that is federal politics in America these days, let’s just be clear about what Trump actually did.

Shortly after taking office Friday, Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, ordered a number of government agencies to withdraw proposed rules from publication in the federal register, the last stop before the “proposed” comes off and the rule becomes law.



From the Department of Housing to the Interior Department, senior lawyers must have worked through the weekend, because come Monday (Monday, Monday, Can’t trust that day) the director of the office of the Federal Register was the recipient of letters from all of them.

Of particular concern to the flying public, according to the Post, was the letter from Jonathan Moss from the Department of Transportation.  “Please withdraw from publication”, it read, a rule scheduled to be published the following day.

Like the leak in your basement that just keeps seeping back no matter what you do, Boeing has been working for decades to deal with cracking on older models of the world’s most popular airliner, the Boeing 737.



Since 1988, when an Aloha Airlines 737 lost a chunk of its roof on a flight to Honolulu and a flight attendant was tossed to her death, the airliner has shown a propensity to metal fatigue and cracking. A number of fixes have been ordered since that time. The one sidetracked by the Trump administration got its start in 2005.

The Federal Aviation Administration issued a new rule that year which was modified in 2011. Had Trump not intervened, it would have been boosted again with an airworthiness directive expanding the areas on the fuselage that should be examined.

“We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin panels, which could cause rapid decompression of the airplane,” the rule reads.
All of which does sound alarming if the traveling public believes they are at risk of stepping onto one of these airliners. That’s unlikely to be the case. The rule applies to just nine planes in service in the USA, the very old 737-100, 200 and 200c series.

Southwest is the largest operator of the 737. I’m waiting to hear whether any of these antiques are in its fleet. Southwest has up-close-and-personal experience with fatigue and the rapid decompression that can sometimes result. No doubt its learned its lesson to inspect very, very carefully regardless of the latest iteration of the rule from the FAA. The Trump-imposed delay in inspections probably doesn’t amount to much.

Trump’s four year term in office has just begun. He will have plenty of opportunities to interfere with flight safety, but contrary to the Post headline writers his first action in office, doesn’t appear to be one of them.

 
Next JDA reviews what lies ahead for Trump's (nominee) DOT Secretary Chao:

1st Day at DOT: Secretary Chao’s Aviation Inbox


Posted By: Sandy Murdock January 31, 2017

DOT Secretary Chao’s 1st Day

3 High Profile Cases

The national news has been consumed over the Trump Tumult and it is possible that the Administration’s initiatives will flow into air transportation. [This will not be as heavily safety-oriented as normal content.]

As the Senate votes to confirm her nomination, here are some high profile aviation cases which Secretary Chao will find in her inbox (paper and/or electric) on her 1st day at 1200 New Jersey Ave. SW:
 
a)  Norwegian Airlines Awaits FAA Approval To Fly From Stewart International Airport


If you would like to earn some support from ALPA, here’s your chance to show your pro-Labor stripes. The airline pilot union thinks that this multinational low cost carrier poses a great risk. Though the debate over NAI’s economic rights may have been decided (maybe not irreversibly?), you could direct Administrator Huerta to assess whether the Irish Aviation Authority has the competence (technical and human resources) to surveil that sovereign authority of an airline which

a.  will be flagged in Ireland,
b.  will draw employees from around the world,
c.  may originate flights from anywhere within the EU and may operate from points within the EU and to cities around the world (subject to approvals).

This scope raises significant questions such as:

a.  Does the IAA have the human resources and the budget needed to be able to actively surveil NAI’ people and procedures at places around the EU and the world? For example, how will IAA assess NAS’ opening of a new station in East Asia prior to its first flight and over time?

b.  Will the NAS headquarters, not just the local Irish office but the facility where manuals are written and maintenance policy decisions are made, be in Ireland or Norway? If it is out of Ireland, will IAA have the sovereign powers needed to compel the production of documents and witnesses? If there is a need to take enforcement action, will the courts of Norway give the deference which a court normally affords to its executive branch?

c.  Will/can IAA rely on its own inspectors to watch over NAI? Must the Irish regulator use the staffs of other EU nations to help observe the daily operations of this far flung airline? If yes, what can be IAA’s expectations for consistency of interpretations from a multi-jurisdictional work force?

At a minimum, that review will require several months of study, during which the carrier will be estopped from flying to the US. Presuming that a country, particularly the IAA with limited regulatory resources, will be able to sustain the level of scrutiny over multiple countries in which the CAA has limited investigatory powers IS NOT AN INTUITIVE DECISION. If this is an acceptable safety structure, other nations may attempt to replicate this obvious “flag-of-convenience“ which has led to the diminution of global maritime safety. NAI’s approval to fly to Stewart may set a dangerous global precedent.
 
b)  New Emirates flight violates aviation agreement, say US airlines


Emirates proposes to fly from Dubai to Athens to Newark. In aeropolitical terms, that is a request to fly 5th Freedom traffic and an aviation coalition has declared that Emirates application is “flagrantly violating” the air services agreement between the US and United Arab Emirates. By deciding against Emirates, you will be pleasing both Partnership for Open & Fair Skies (ALPA and A4A). In a rare show of policy concurrence, they have created this lobbying organization. (American Airlines, Delta Air Lines United Airlines, Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l, Allied Pilots Association, the Airline Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Communications Workers of America, Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association) to restore a level playing field under the Open Skies agreements with Qatar and the UAE.
 
c)  Trump’s Somewhat Less-Than-Alarming Attack on Air Safety
Plus Trump’s Bid to Slash Regulations Faces Bureaucratic Roadblocks

Higher Barriers
Higher barriers to implement new rules, and periodically culling old rules may be effective, Gattuso said.

The Federal Aviation Administration enacts dozens of regulations a month to require critical repairs on aircraft. While Trump’s directive permits the budget director to exempt a category of rule from the two-for-one requirement, it’s not clear what would apply to the FAA’s safety actions.

“Are we really going to prohibit the FAA from putting out urgently needed rules for flight safety, which is their mandate?” said Steven Wallace, a former agency official who oversaw accident investigations and helped draft some regulations.



This article from the Seattle.pi demonstrates the degree to which the press is scrutinizing your Administration’s regulatory action, particularly where safety is involved. A number of Libertarian think tanks have published broadsides by authors with little or no aviation experience or competence urging that the FAA’s safety rules (i.e. Uber Plane Taxis, UASs and SSTs) should be drastically reduced or eliminated. Their primary, if not sole, policy driver is “free enterprise uber alles.” Any professional, with the credentials to qualify as an expert in this subject matter, would testify that the FAA’s rules attempt to balance the economic impact of a proposed rule with an effective safety line. Have there been instances in which the FAA may have leaned a bit toward the protection of the public? Yes, but not egregiously so. Secretary Chao, whether the author is Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or David Thoreau, a good rule to follow is “she that governs least, governs best”. In aviation safety, there should be no zero sum games, safety and free enterprise should be balanced. “Least” does not mean the absence of anything, just minimizing in proportion.

Finally from US GA 'FLYING' magazine...

Trump Executive Order on Regulations Means Potentially Big Changes for the FARs

A White House directive requiring federal agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation could require a major overhaul of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
By Stephen Pope February 3, 2017


Enlarge
Wikimedia Commons/MBisanz

The FAA will likely be kept busy responding to an executive order that requires federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation.

When President Donald Trump in his first days in office made good on a campaign promise to cut red tape by eliminating unnecessary regulations, workers at federal agencies knew they’d suddenly be very busy. Perhaps nowhere was this more true than at the FAA, where the enactment of new rules in the near future would seem to require a top-down review of the Federal Aviation Regulations aimed at combining, rewriting and eliminating rules already on the books.

Ironically, many of the new rules the FAA is about to introduce — for BasicMed third-class medical reform, the Part 23 rewrite and those dealing with operational credit for use of infrared enhanced-vision systems, to name a few — are aimed at reducing regulatory bureaucracy and benefiting pilots and aircraft operators. It’s unclear at this point whether the president’s executive order and a temporary freeze he has put on new regulations will lead to delays in enacting BasicMed or the Part 23 rewrite, but what we do know is the FAA will have its hands full trying to determine which regulations to jettison to make way for new ones.

The good news is that the Federal Aviation Regulations are rife with duplication and rules that are no longer necessary. The FAA through its history has preferred to tackle regulatory issues by heaping new rules on top of old ones, in many cases without regard for regulations that came before.

“There are plenty of regulations on the books that are outdated,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “Together we can find ways with the FAA to reduce cost and provide less bureaucracy. By looking closely at those old and dated regulations, we can come up with a list of rules to eliminate that could be beneficial to all of us and focus the FAA’s resources on the right things.”

BasicMed and the Part 23 rewrite are special cases, however, since these reforms were ordered by Congress. With the confirmation on Tuesday of incoming Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the Department of Transportation and FAA can begin the task of determining how they proceed with the enactment of these mandated reforms while satisfying the requirements of the Trump

Again 'pea-green' with envy...


MTF...P2  

Ps Funny how the DOT HQ building has a similar look to CASA's Fort Fumble...



...shame that's where the similarities end...

[Gobbledock]

Of diminished troughs and crying babies

It's not really 'hot off the press news' now, but a desperate Goldman Sachs Turdball is feeling the heat from the disgruntled IOS of Australia. He has pulled the pin on parasite Poliies piggy wiggy perk of Gold class travel entitlements that they get to slurp up once they have retired from being legalised shyster career criminals bleeding the taxpayers pockets;

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/na...d9eb1a754b

Poor possums. Some of them are most upset over the fact that they may now have to reach into their own pockets the way a normal human being does! Boohoo and harden up softcocks. After decades of working around public servants I can assure you that these grubs will be calculating their losses and making sure that they are compensated in some other generous way. Perhaps a 20% pay rise, all approved by the 'totally independent' remuneration board? Yeah right. Who knows, but they will make sure they skin the cat a different way. Seen it all before.

At least we are now seeing how desperate old soft hands Turdball is becoming. Malcolm mate, the game is up. The revolution is coming and you can't slow it down now. No pissy little rort removal such as these taking away these 'trough class entitlements' will be enough to quell the growing anger, fury, disgust and contempt that the citizens have for your double standard horse shit.


TICK TOCK indeed

[Peetwo]

POSITION VACANT -

Why it has taken this long is open to much BRB speculation but finally we get a commitment from CASA and its board to advertise the DAS/CEO position...

This announcement has understandably brought out various industry Alphabet groups /commentators offering their opinions on how the position should be advertised..

By Paul Cleary in the Oz today... :

Business mind needed to run CASA
12:00amPAUL CLEARY

The federal government has begun the process of recruiting a permanent air safety supremo

The federal government has begun the process of recruiting a permanent air safety supremo, prompting influential figures to push for a candidate with broad commercial experience.

At a time when general aviation in Australia faces increasing cost and regulatory pressures, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has told The Australian it has initiated the recruitment process to fill the position vacated last October by Mark Skidmore, who left after less than two years in the job.

Industry insiders say the pressure on this key executive will be immense.

The CASA chief executive is also known as the director of aviation safety

“CASA is preparing an updated position description in anticipation of a search being undertaken to identify the preferred candidate. In the interim, Shane Carmody has been ­appointed as acting director and CEO on a term of up to 12 months, to October 2017,” a CASA spokeswoman said.

Mr Carmody previously worked in a senior role in CASA as part of a long public service career that has included stints in defence and veterans affairs. He was a deputy secretary the Department of Infrastructure prior to stepping into the acting role last year.

Influential aviator Byron Bailey said the CASA board should “stay away from ex-air force guys”, noting that past three chiefs had started their careers in the RAAF.

“These guys are great leaders but they do not deserve to be in civil aviation. All these air force guys bring in more regulation. You don’t want an air force guy who doesn’t know about being profitable.”

Former CASA chairman Dick Smith said the appointment of former RAAF personnel had led to over-regulation of the Australian aviation industry.

“I think it is excellent they are advertising.

“(In the past) they’ve gone for military people who haven’t had to pay for anything, or from the bureaucracy,’’ he said.

“In the military you just dial up what you want.”

Before Mr Skidmore’s appointment, CASA was run for five years by John McCormick, who began his career in the RAAF. His predecessor was Bruce Byron, who had spent a decade in the RAAF and the former Department of Aviation.

But Regional Airlines Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said former ­pilots were “the wrong stuff” for the role.

“I have been in aviation all my life,’’ he said.

“I worked at CASA for nine years. We do not need another commercial airline pilot. What we need is someone who has experience in managing a large organisation, preferably in the public service, and preferably as a regulator.

“Aviation skills and qualifications are not mandatory because (the CEO) should be surrounded by experts who have that subject matter expertise.”

Mr Higgins said Mr Carmody would be an “excellent candidate”.

“I’m very, very happy to continue working with Shane. He’s got off to a great start,” he said.

After coming into the role Mr Carmody has had to juggle some complex regulatory reforms that were initiated by his predecessor. A key one is fatigue rules that regional airlines say put addtional costs on their operations.

Last month, CASA announced a review of the rules, which is due to report by September this year. The review was launched in response to pressure from regional airlines.

Mr Skidmore had sought to address problems with CASA regulations by introducing a 26-member internal group known as the Part 61 solutions taskforce.

The taskforce released its final report this week which in part urged the regulator to use plain English in all of its regulatory statements.

A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Darren Chester said it was up to the CASA board to run the recruitment process.

However, the government would be consulted prior to the new CEO being awarded the position, she said.

 
Okay Boyd & the Board time to earn your stripes... - & FDS don't procrastinate just get on with it...

MTF...P2

Ps Here is a reminder of where the DAS/CEO 'Position Vacant' 1st came up on AP...

Latest from the Aunty Pru blog

[Gobbledock]

Lick arses and loonies - the key element of the CAsA DAS position description

I will be shocked if another RAAF or Infrastructure suckhole doesn't get the DAS job. Why? Because in their previous roles these high level bureaucrats and ex RAAF minions have been trained, groomed and indoctrinated in the processes required to protect the Ministers and the Governments ass at all costs. That is their key function. And these greasy pole sliders have spent decades numbing their tongues to the taste of politicans assholes, which makes them perfect for the role. Safety? Who cares. Regulatory strangulation? DGAF. Commercial considerations? Yeah right.

And interstingly Bwuce Byron was a pissweak leader who would avoid talking to the troops at all costs because he was uncomfortable with it. Spineless.
Herr Skull was a sociopath who also couldn't communicate with people other than to rant and rave. Fruitcake.
And Skid'Mark fostered a queer approach by offering group hugs, balloons, tiger teams and other such poofy measures which scared people away. Homo.

Perhaps Turdball or Short'one will apply for the position? Could it get any worse than the past 15 years??

Tick Tock

[Sandy Reith]

Well good luck everybody but without a change to the Act wherein there is at least some word about the advancement of aviation (as in the USA), or some direction regarding the health of the industry, then little will change.

Everyone and anyone in Aviation House only has to say "safety" to justify the continuance of the status quo. From the top managers down to the tea lady they all know about it, all the cushy jobs and mighty pay packets rely on maintaining the current edifice no matter what.

In other words to rely on a personality to make the changes that are needed is to be clutching at straws, and will see hopes dashed yet again.

Only with Parliamentary backing, that is political willpower, can there be any hope of overcoming the continuing degeneration of General Aviation. How we achieve that is the big question, and it will not happen without work and publicity at many levels.

[Kharon]

Room to Let.

But Regional Airlines Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said former ¬pilots were “the wrong stuff” for the role.

“I have been in aviation all my life,’’ he said.

“I worked at CASA for nine years. We do not need another commercial airline pilot. What we need is someone who has experience in managing a large organisation, preferably in the public service, and preferably as a regulator.

“Aviation skills and qualifications are not mandatory because (the CEO) should be surrounded by experts who have that subject matter expertise.”

Chalk and Cheese (without the holes). The beauty of that short, succinct statement is the ‘credibility’ behind it; the supporting fact. There are some, creating havoc, ruffling feathers and getting slung out of buildings who could take a page from the ‘Higgins’ little book of how to influence and guide change.

Change is a needed. Acknowledged commodity. Everyone knows it. But the TAAF. RAAA and AAAA seems to understand ‘the game’. Screaming invective and poking a finger into the chest of those who actually have the power to effect the changes, to me at least, seems counter productive. It is ‘passing strange’, to me, that, for instance, a shrewd, successful business person should surround himself with what can only be described as ‘shamateurs’ in trying to achieve a win. To win, one must first know and understand the game, then have the skills, crew and experience to at least make a fist of the game and earn some respect.

Reform, real reform, is a high stakes game; top table, Senate, Reps, minister, PMC, DoIT, CASA, ATSB, to mention but a few.  All have ‘a position’; and, lots of skin in the game. I like, very much the Higgins/Davis/Hurst/Cannane ‘style’ and leadership; it may be fully supported.  No one man bands – just rock solid determination to get the tangle sorted; without frightening the horses.

Aunty Pru does her job; only a small part to play – that much at least, always,no matter what.  However, bad manners and self aggrandising foolishness, way outside the limits of good manners, decency and common sense; which ‘rocks’ a delicately balanced boat and endangers all, now that changes the ambivalence quotient.  

There are some players in this great game who are simply not ‘professional’. Any dog may bay at the moon; many have; noticed any changes up there recently?  No -thought not.

Selah.

[Gobbledock]

Another day, another trough, more Politicians caught with their hands in the cookie jar......

Will there ever be an end to the continuous misuse, abuse, malfeasance and theft of taxpayer money? That is, your hard earned money and my hard earned money. When will the people say 'enough'?

"Speaker, Deputy Speaker of Victorian Parliament resign over second residence controversy"
UPDATED SAT FEB 25 19:27:20 EST 2017

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA
The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Victorian Parliament have resigned following revelations they claimed parliamentary living allowances for second residences.

Key points
- Mr Languiller, the Labor MP for Tarneit, promised to repay $37,678
He acknowledged the 'error of judgement' that could damage the office of the Speaker
- Deputy Speaker Don Nardella also claimed the controversial allowance
Speaker Telmo Languiller and Deputy Speaker Don Nardella, both Labor MPs, have been under intense pressure since their allowance claims were revealed.

Mr Languiller had promised to repay $37,678 he claimed under the allowance for living in Queenscliff, more than 80 kilometres from Melbourne, rather than in his electorate of Tarneit, in Melbourne's west.

He told Parliament he moved to Queenscliff for complex personal reasons.

Under parliamentary rules, politicians are entitled to the "second residence" allowance if their home base is at least 80km from Melbourne's CBD and they keep a second property in the city.

In a statement, Mr Languiller said he recognised that offering to repay the money was not enough and that he accepted he should "pay for that error of judgement".

"For this reason I contacted the Premier to inform him that I would be resigning as Speaker of the Parliament," he said.
"I regret that this issue, if not addressed, could damage the position of Speaker of the Parliament."

Mr Languiller thanked all of his colleagues for the support he had been given.

"The Premier has provided me with much support over the last two years as I faced very difficult family challenges," he said.

"I reiterate my regret at the actions I have taken and hope that as a backbencher in the Andrews Labor Government I can rebuild trust by serving my electorate of Tarneit and my community."

Deputy Speaker Don Nardella announced his resignation only a few hours after Mr Languiller.

Premier Daniel Andrews, who had defended Mr Languiller on Friday, said the joint resignations were "the right decision".

"It is self-evident that the second resident allowance is meant for regional MPs who must travel to Melbourne for Parliament," he said in a statement.

Mr Andrews said he had asked the Special Minister of State to "urgently determine what changes are required so what has occurred in these instances does not happen again".

He thanked both men for their service and said he had no doubt they would continue to stand up for their communities.

He said the Labor Party would nominate candidates for both positions at the next regular Caucus meeting.

Government has a problem with 'rorting'.Mr Languiller's resignation came after Opposition leader Matthew Guy called for his sacking.

It also emerged the Deputy Speaker, Don Nardella, had also claimed the allowance.

Mr Nardella, who represents the seat of Melton, in Melbourne's north-west, has been living over 90 kilometres away at Ocean Grove on the Bellarine Peninsula and claiming the allowance.

Mr Guy said the Andrews Government "has a huge problem with rorting".

"The taxpayer, Victorians will be very angry, furious to know the Premier has two standards, one for everyone else and one for his own MPs," Mr Guy said.

"He's got to sack these people, he's got to sack the Speaker and sack the Deputy Speaker.

"They've been caught out rorting and they now deserve to go."

Confirming Mr Nardella had also claimed the allowance, a government spokesperson said the matter had been referred to the Audit Committee of Parliament and that the Premier urged the committee to provide recommendations on the use of the entitlement "as soon as possible."

A Government spokesperson said there would be no further comment on Mr Languiller's resignation.

The full article on the escapades of these two political pigs and their journey through the taxpayer trough here;

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.thea...uklo7.html

Politicians and politics are a disgrace. If it's not the greedy pigs abusing taxpayer money one moment then it's in-house fighting and shenanigans such as Abbott and Turdball, more concerned about ego and pride rather than the good of the nation. It was no different when that fool Rudd and Girrard were at war.....what a pack of deadbeats and arseholes the politicians are. Their greed and incompetence alone would cost us more annually than the cost of smoking related deaths and cancer combined!

Duck em, duck em all. Politicians - who needs them.

OINK OINK

[thorn bird]

Having been laid up for a couple of months with nothing much to do I’ve had a chance to actually read a newspaper from front to back rather than just skim through, picking out the bits and pieces that caught my eye.

One thing I have noticed the past couple of months, perhaps not necessarily aviation related, but more generally. There appears amongst the commentators to be a growing awareness of what Robin Speed (president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.)  described as “The rise of the regulators” he warned of the terrible burden regulators were placing on Australia in terms of cost, loss of freedoms, abrogation of the rule of law, and the strangling of growth and ultimately the prosperity and wellbeing of every Australian citizen.

Aviation is perhaps a striking example of what occurs when Murky Mandarins, given unfetted power, can do to a whole industry.
Our political elite, so self absorbed with their own survival, are no match for the Mandarins and acquiesce to their “Sir Humphry’s” manipulations without the slightest attempt to garner the facts , consult their constituents or seek advice from the true “Experts” the industry, not CAsA where the level of incompetence is truly staggering.
Our current crop of politicians are ill informed and to be frank bloody lazy. They are not doing their elected job, they are leaving it to unelected bureaucrats and their smoke and mirror tricks.

The weekend Australian carried an edifying article by “Danny Gilbert”.

Some excerpts:

“Red Tape costs every Australian $7300 a year – four times the Medicare levy”

“Australians are only beginning to witness the massive economic opportunities ushered forth by the resurgence of Asia. However, we are being held back by a noxious culture of over regulation that has infiltrated almost every aspect of our lives”.

“Federal regulations alone burdened consumers and business to the tune of $65 billion in 2014”.

“Its more than what Australians pay in GST every year and about four times what’s raised by the medicare levee”

“ Its more than the cost of Sydney’s second airport at $43bn (Why is it that expensive? Wellcamp was built for $200 mil and took two years to complete) or the National Broadband Network at $49bn. It’s almost double the total output of Australian agriculture, equivalent to the entire economy of Croatia, Lebanon or Macau.”

“ If the social and economic costs of a rule are not outweighed by the public benefit, it is bad regulation”.

“If we are serious about seizing the opportunities of the coming decades, our culture of hastily drafted and ill-conceived regulation must be stamped out”.

“Some regulations simply defy logic”

“We could learn from countries like New Zealand and accept that in general, products cleared by European or North American regulators should be made available here”

“It’s no wonder that Australia despite being the world’s 12th largest economy, has slipped to 22nd on the Global Competitiveness Index”.

“Hastily drafted and ill-considered regulation must be stamped out”

It all sounds so familiar doesn’t it?  We’ve been banging on about it for years as we’ve witnessed our industry being regulated into oblivion. All our protests falling on deaf ears.

Let us hope that these glimmerings of awareness awaken our political masters from their self indulgent torpor and they start to do what they were elected to do.

P2 - Excellent catch TB...  

For those interested here is the link for the full article:

Prune the jungle of regulations
Danny Gilbert
Red tape costs every Australian household $7300 a year — four times the Medicare levy.

[Peetwo]

Having been laid up for a couple of months with nothing much to do I’ve had a chance to actually read a newspaper from front to back rather than just skim through, picking out the bits and pieces that caught my eye.

One thing I have noticed the past couple of months, perhaps not necessarily aviation related, but more generally. There appears amongst the commentators to be a growing awareness of what Robin Speed (president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.)  described as “The rise of the regulators” he warned of the terrible burden regulators were placing on Australia in terms of cost, loss of freedoms, abrogation of the rule of law, and the strangling of growth and ultimately the prosperity and wellbeing of every Australian citizen.

Aviation is perhaps a striking example of what occurs when Murky Mandarins, given unfetted power, can do to a whole industry.
Our political elite, so self absorbed with their own survival, are no match for the Mandarins and acquiesce to their “Sir Humphry’s” manipulations without the slightest attempt to garner the facts , consult their constituents or seek advice from the true “Experts” the industry, not CAsA where the level of incompetence is truly staggering.
Our current crop of politicians are ill informed and to be frank bloody lazy. They are not doing their elected job, they are leaving it to unelected bureaucrats and their smoke and mirror tricks.

The weekend Australian carried an edifying article by “Danny Gilbert”.

Some excerpts:

“Red Tape costs every Australian $7300 a year – four times the Medicare levy”

“Australians are only beginning to witness the massive economic opportunities ushered forth by the resurgence of Asia. However, we are being held back by a noxious culture of over regulation that has infiltrated almost every aspect of our lives”.

“Federal regulations alone burdened consumers and business to the tune of $65 billion in 2014”.

“Its more than what Australians pay in GST every year and about four times what’s raised by the medicare levee”

“ Its more than the cost of Sydney’s second airport at $43bn (Why is it that expensive? Wellcamp was built for $200 mil and took two years to complete) or the National Broadband Network at $49bn. It’s almost double the total output of Australian agriculture, equivalent to the entire economy of Croatia, Lebanon or Macau.”

“ If the social and economic costs of a rule are not outweighed by the public benefit, it is bad regulation”.

“If we are serious about seizing the opportunities of the coming decades, our culture of hastily drafted and ill-conceived regulation must be stamped out”.

“Some regulations simply defy logic”

“We could learn from countries like New Zealand and accept that in general, products cleared by European or North American regulators should be made available here”

“It’s no wonder that Australia despite being the world’s 12th largest economy, has slipped to 22nd on the Global Competitiveness Index”.

“Hastily drafted and ill-considered regulation must be stamped out”

It all sounds so familiar doesn’t it?  We’ve been banging on about it for years as we’ve witnessed our industry being regulated into oblivion. All our protests falling on deaf ears.

Let us hope that these glimmerings of awareness awaken our political masters from their self indulgent torpor and they start to do what they were elected to do.

P2 - Excellent catch TB...  

For those interested here is the link for the full article:

Prune the jungle of regulations
Danny Gilbert
Red tape costs every Australian household $7300 a year — four times the Medicare levy.

Sandy's contribution to the discussion (via the Oz)... :

Alexander


An excellent article but I would opine that the costs are far higher. In just one field, that of General Aviation, there has been a staggering loss of pilots, jobs and businesses. This has occurred at the hand of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority which has beaten down the industry into a shadow of it's former self. Now its a shrinking industry too small to be noticed but the combined losses and multiplier factor would amount to billions. An $8000 upfront fee and many months waiting for a flying school permission. In the US not required.

A large part of the problem is governance through the failed model of the independent statutory government corporation. This unfortunate side effect of the great Thatcherite privatising reforms has blighted our country. The facts of life are that these bodies are prone to make work, read rules and regulations, then require fees and obedience, surveillance and conferences.

Nothing short of legalised protection racketeering simply because without day to day political oversight the incentives for increased power and money become the real drivers. Can'tberra, 400,000, the developed world's most socialist, no freehold, no free enterprise capital bent on growing importance privilege and power at untold expense to our nation. Alex in the Rises.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

The shrinking of testicles and the formation of a vagina - the decline of Malcolm Turdball escalates

Farewell Malcolm, it was fun while it lasted;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/...29586d2240

This time next year we will likely have that other farkwit Bill Short'one as PM. What would that mean for aviation? Well, nothing good really. It means we lose the selfie loving Minister for NFI, Derwin Chester, and we likely regain the Great White Elephant himself, Anthony All'be'it'on'his'knees. Wonderful!!! Neither party know how to govern, let alone understand the needs of aviation. All that these inept twats know how to do is burden our country in unsustainable debt while shoving their political noses deep into the taxpayer trough.

Personally I don't really look forward to having my wallet raped by Albo as he forks out $43b on Badgerys Creek airport. I guess one highlight will be him spitting and spluttering on TV and posing for one of those legendary 'hands in the air' photos, possibly in front of an ARFFS station (if they build them at Badgerys) or perhaps in front of an Uber taxi rank?

Ho him at least Malcolm can go back to having daily luncheons with his buddies from the Wall Street white shoe brigade while living the dream at Point Piper, poncing about in his white Lacrosse polo shirts while contemplating what it would be like if his shit actually stunk.

Then again we may end up with the Stick Insect Bishop as PM......heaven effing help us. Tick Tock