[Peetwo]

E is for?? Part II: Proof is in the pudding...


Ferryman quoted post #407 from CASA meets the Press:

The Mourning Bride.

Congreve, writing in 1697, is not, today at least, an easy read.  The play could be related – in simple terms – to Romeo and Juliette. There is however more to it than that simple tangle.

HEL. Have Hopes, and hear the Voice of better Fate.
I've learn'd there are Disorders ripe for Mutiny
Among the Troops, who thought to share the Plunder,
Which Manuel to his own Use and Avarice
Converts. This News has reach'd Valentia's Frontiers;
Where many of your Subjects long oppress'd
With Tyranny and grievous Impositions,
Are risen in Arms, and call for Chiefs to head
And lead 'em, to regain their Liberty
And Native Rights.

I’ve no idea where Carmody thinks he’s heading; none. But, I know the beast he’s dealing with and the obstacles he must remove to achieve his stated goals. He has been witness to the beast defending itself; every day, more and more evidence of past travesties are revealed. Those, have long been evident. How will he deal with them? That, and only that, is the question which demands answer; for all else is platitude and time gaining.

The ‘problem’ is known, the crimes exposed, those responsible are known. Will he dare to deal with them, directly, forcefully , openly and honestly; in full public view?

I like Congreve; one of his most abused lines should sound the warning, clear and loud:-

"Heav'n has no rage like love to hatred turn'd
Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd."

Just saying.

Selah.

 Extract from Carmody hour post #58:

New instruction on using safety information

Date of Publication:
Thursday 28th September

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has taken another important step in implementing its regulatory philosophy and ensuring a 'just culture' approach is taken to safety regulation.

A new instruction from the Director of Aviation Safety to CASA staff sets out limitations on the use of information that may show a contravention of the safety rules.

The instruction clarifies how information can be used when CASA makes decisions about whether enforcement action may need to be taken.

Individuals and organisations found to have violated a provision of the safety rules will be given an opportunity to address and correct safety issues without CASA initiating enforcement action.

Enforcement action will only be taken where there is a deliberate, wilful or reckless breach of the aviation safety rules, where there is a pattern of repeated misconduct or there is a failure to take appropriate corrective or protective action to address identified safety issues.

CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said the new safety information instruction puts into practical effect key elements of CASA's regulatory philosophy.

"It is vital that CASA does not simply talk about taking a 'just culture' approach to regulation but actively implements the principles into our day-to-day operations and decision making," Mr Carmody said.

"Our rational 'just culture' approach means that where honest errors or mistakes are made CASA looks to support the efforts of individuals and organisations to make necessary improvements, correct identified problems and ensure safety risks are effectively managed in the process.

"Individuals and organisations with an understanding and commitment to safety need to take responsibility for addressing safety shortcomings and where they demonstrate the ability and willingness to do this CASA need not take action.

"CASA is encouraging a proactive approach to safety by the aviation community by clearly setting out how we will use safety information and the basis on which we will refrain from taking enforcement action based on that information.

"Of course, if the safety rules are deliberately flouted or action is not taken to address safety issues then CASA must and will take appropriate action.

"I am making it very clear to CASA staff and the aviation community that we will use information in the interests of safety and in a manner consistent with the 'just culture' principles reflected in our regulatory philosophy."

Go to the instruction on the limitations on the use of safety information.

& from the Carmody Instruction: Download di-02-2017.pdf

7.Challenging the inappropriate use of safety information

7.1 A person who believes their interests have been or are likely to be adversely affected by CASA’s use of safety information in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms of this Instruction, may challenge CASA’s use of that information. Such a challenge may be made:

 
7.1.1 before CASA takes action to vary, suspend or cancel a civil aviation authorisation, to refuse to issue a civil aviation authorisation, to issue a direction under the civil aviation legislation or to issue an infringement notice—by writing to CASA and specifying in sufficient detail:
•the particular safety information involved (including, if known, the source of thatinformation, and the means by which the person believes CASA obtained or acquiredthe information); and
•the particular provision(s) of the Instruction with which the person believes CASA’s useof the information involved is or would be inconsistent; or

7.1.2 after CASA has initiated action to vary, suspend or cancel a civil aviation authorisation, to refuse to issue a civil aviation authorisation, to issue a direction under the civil aviation legislation or to issue an infringement notice—by raising that claim, including the information mentioned in 7.1.1 above, in:

•the person’s response to a show cause notice, or to a notice given for similarpurposes; or
•submissions in support of an appeal of CASA’s decision in the Administrative AppealsTribunal or an application for review in the Federal Court; or
•a request that an infringement notice be withdrawn in accordance with the provisionsof Part 17, Division 3 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

7.2 In claiming that CASA intends to use, or has used, safety information in a way that is inconsistent with this Instruction, the person making that claim will be expected to provide sufficient information to suggest at least a reasonable possibility that the alleged misuse actually occurred.5

7.3 If the person’s claim meets the evidentiary requirements in 7.2, the onus will shift to CASA to show that the use to which the information has been, or will be, put is consistent with the relevant provisions of this Instruction.

Ok considering all of the above perhaps the perfect litmus test for the Carmody Instruction would be the still outstanding (McConvict era) tale of embuggerance of Dom James...

First the 'bogus' safety case that was recently disproved by the research efforts of ATSB Willow: Willow brings up PelAir ditching at ISASI presentation - WTD?? 

This is because 2 weeks ago Willow made a presentation to the ISASI 2017 annual seminar (see HERE, day 2 between 1:30-2:30pm), which included much data related to unforecast wx at remote islands plus a reference to the VH-NGA ditching: Effect of ICAO Type Aerodrome Weather Forecasts on Aircraft Operations 

Comparison between remote islands and mainland airports

This algorithm was used by the ATSB to support an investigation of a serious weather-related incident at a remote Australian island. Specific hypotheses were put forward regarding the reliability of remote island forecasting, and the analysis conducted allowed definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding the relative reliability of these forecasts from the perspective of the historical likelihood of unforecast weather conditions below the landing minima.

        
This would seem to indicate that Willow's 'algorithm' will be featuring in the upcoming re-investigation final report into the ditching of VH-NGA...

So does this mean the ATSB finally acknowledge the very real parallel causal factors between the Mildura fog duck-up and the PelAir cover-up?

Well apparently not as it is rumoured that in the title of the 500+ page VH-NGA re-investigation final report, 'fuel management' is mentioned but not a serious weather-related incident (ditching).

   
&..

An amended Norfolk Island TAF that was valid for the aircraft’s ETA was issued by the Australian BoM at 0803. In that TAF, the visibility was forecast to be 10 km or more, with Broken cloud at 1,000 ft above the ARP. Those conditions indicated that the weather would be below the alternate minima for Norfolk Island at the aircraft’s ETA, but above the landing minima. The flight crew were not advised, and were not required by any international agreement to be advised, of the amended forecast and they did not request an updated forecast for Norfolk Island during the flight.

So on one hand we had two crew that were (nearly) fully aware that their alternate airport had a TAF operational requirement (60 minutes TEMPO YMIA), but on the other hand we had a crew who had no idea that an amended TAF had been issued which automatically placed a operational (alternate) requirement on the conduct of the rest of the flight...

Next: In order to meet the 'evidentiary requirements' of Part 7 (see above) of Carmody's Instruction, we need to revisit the DJ TOE (timeline of embuggerance)...

Courtesy of the FOI Act (note how many times Wodger et.al change the goal posts on DJ - ):

11 January 2011:  

---

---

---

---

---

4 April 2011:

---

---

---

25 July 2011:

---

---

---

27 March 2012:

---

---

---

30 March 2012:

---

---

TBC -

MTF? - Definitely...P2