[Peetwo]

The whole Pel-Air shambles was at the time a disgraceful stain on the aviation ‘agencies’, so it remains today.  Hiding under the carpet, pretending it never happened and allowing time to erase the memory is a shame on the Minister and his minions, an insult to both Senate and industry and a FU message from the iron ring to the Rev. Forsyth.

One of the things that is truly disgusting and worse is the performance of the manager in charge of the Pel-Air audit, yet neither internally or publicly has this been investigated.  This is a basically unqualified, high salary earner with almost untrammelled power who can, with impunity do exactly as pleases and get away with it.  Proof? – read Hansard.

The lack of any remedial action from the DAS (IMO) reflects the true nature of the ‘Skidmore’ reform process.  The very event that created an inquiry, scathing criticism, serious recommendations, a ministerial report and much anger has not even been mentioned; let alone remedied. How are we to have any faith in anything Oliver-Skidmore-Twist says, when he does SFA about a clearly defined abomination, with empirical evidence?  WTF - A honest man would have fixed it first job and won some credibility.  This absence of ‘action’ reflects the Skidmore era; spin, bull and one way glasses.

Hell, the entire debacle sits in the Skidmore office like a pile of stinking, rotting garbage, lived with, accepted as being part of the scenery.  How does this DAS who appears evermore incompetent, change resistant and captive to the ‘system’ expect ‘industry’ to believe that reform of the regulator is happening when the likes of Wodger, his works and catamites are unchallenged and remain employed?  It begs the question – is this tacit Skidmore approval for more of the same behaviour from CASA officers?  

If Skidmore had one ounce of integrity, even the slightest intention of ‘healing’ the rift; or, could give a monkey’s about restoring industry confidence; he would holistically examine the entire CASA involvement with the Pel-Air debacle.  Publicly and openly investigate, make the required changes and make a statement promising that this type of behavior will not happen again – never again.  Not on his watch.  Make it a statement of intent. 

Fire Wodger or resign; preferably both.  There, is that simple enough. Anything else is window dressing, hot air and duplicitous, disgraceful behaviour, accurately reflecting the true character of He who Wannabe DAS.  

Declare it wabbit hunting season before the IOS start to do the investigating, in public, no frills, no pulled punches, no quarter given.  Will the mud stick? – Oh yes; absolutely.

Selah.

Luv it when the Ferryman gets all steamed up, kind of thought that ASAM blog-piece would hit the toot-toot switch... 

From the Horse's Arse..

ASAM Blog Feb 2013:

In a set of extraordinary disclosures in the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air crash report today it was revealed that two key safety audits were kept secret by the safety regulator CASA from the safety investigator the ATSB in contravention of a cooperative memorandum of understanding between the two bodies.

Couple more key moments from that infamous hearing, first from Doc JA - who definitely speaks with forked tongue:

CHAIR: Is there anyone at the table who would like to add to your remarks, if they have the authority?


Mr McCormick : Thank you, Chair. Perhaps Dr Aleck may wish to add something.

Dr Aleck : I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA.

The fact that the provisions read the way they do reflects a very appropriate form of reciprocity, in which the ATSB under its new leadership said, 'Yes, we will provide you with more information, and we expect you to provide us with the same.' In the spirit of that arrangement, and I agree it probably should be read largely, the question should that a default position should be: 'We'll give you as much as you possibly can and then you decide when we've given you too much.' By the same token, there comes a point where the question has to be asked: 'Is this relevant?' I do not have it in front of me at the moment, but I think the provision talks about reports. To be sure, there was a report there because it took the form of a report, and that is what Mr McCormick asked for. It is quite conceivable that this information could have been developed within CASA in a form that did not take the form of a report, and that would be playing smart: 'We'll put it in this form so it doesn't go there.'

This MOU is now up for review and one of the things we both agreed, between the agencies, but unrelated to these particular issues, is that we have to refine these points and say, 'How much information have we given you that you didn't really need? How much information has not been passed that really ought to have been?' I daresay these revisions will be refined with that in mind. That is not to suggest that people have been manipulating the provisions, but taking a view about how much should go and how much should not. In many situations, it is important that information—certainly that which passes to the ATSB from CASA—comes under a section 32 provision, to provide the kinds of protections that are available to people when the ATSB releases information. In that respect, it is in learning.

I do not mean to diminish the importance of anything, but the FRMS issues to the extent that they bore on the accident, which is what the ATSB was investigating, are somewhat debatable. I am not going to say whether it is irrelevant or relevant. But the fact of the matter—and it is a matter for Mr Dolan—is that it is quite conceivable that information that, on a liberal reading of that provision, ought to have been passed to the ATSB at a particular time and was not perhaps involved a less than fully faithful adherence to the provisions. But then the question is: was that a harmless error?

Now, in light of the evidence that was produced at the proceedings, one would say that FRMS was such a major issue, so how could this information not have been passed in the spirit of that provision? But I do not think there is a conclusion on that, and I think that is the context in which that needs to be looked at. I think Mr McCormick made it clear that it is perhaps something that needs to be looked at in terms of whether or not information of that kind should be passed. I am not suggesting it is the case but, as we have heard, certainly from people in industry, if the concern is that introspective examinations of one's own organisation then become a matter of public consideration, might that not then discourage the conduct of those activities? I think a slightly different standard applies to government agencies looking at themselves, as opposed to private entities, but the principle is the same. And I think that is a consideration that will need to be taken into account. Historically the ATSB—and I think everyone at the table will agree—spared no opportunity to have a go at CASA for some failing, legitimate in many cases. Whether or not it bore directly on the situation is questionable. And it is conceivable that some of those concerns vestigially remain: that if we tell them this, the whole focus is going to be on what we failed to do at a particular time.

The only other point I will make is that the information that came to us in relation to the operations of Pel-Air were based on the routine auditing processes that CASA had had in place for many years. They were not deficient. Could they be better? Absolutely, and I think that is the point Mr McCormick has made. The Chambers report, coupled with the special audit report, was an extraordinarily incisive review both of the operator and of us—far more detailed and far more in-depth than a standard audit would ever be. With those considerations in mind, in relation to the question of whether things could have been done better, I do not think Mr McCormick has ever said—

Still sickens me to read this spin & bullshit from Dr A - FFS
"..if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA.."
"..Just sign the confession err..incident report/witness statement/interview record..here for our future embuggerance err..records"
Next study the body language in the now famous "person at the back of the room"  Hansard quote:

Then ffwd to the McComic response on questioning by Nx on the Chambers report at Budget Estimates 3 months later: 

And that is where I believe the whole NX 'Motion of Privilege' first started:

 161st Report

MTF..P2