[Kharon]

Cabotage - dueced tricky stuff.

...P2 – "How very strange for M&M in Estimates no less?? M&M is not known for offering up so many words on a subject that should be totally within the remit of CASA.

Yes, you would thinks so, but FAOC issue is a very 'political' matter.  There are companies, reputable companies, who have almost given up sanity trying and many others who have; the cost of exercise being in direct proportion to the pre determined degree of difficulty.  The time, money, effort and frustration expended by some operators is truly horrendous; but for others it's a stroll in the park.  Strange and wonderful are the ways of 'the department'.  Bit of a litmus test for Skidmore, will he take steps to de-politicise the FAOC process and get some less contentious, competent people in to run that particular section.  There are some truly dreadful stories; e.g. did you know Jeppersen products are not considered adequate; sometimes.  

Now I know that's a bit cryptic but FAOC applications have not had much air time as they are commercially sensitive and easily identified, but I can assure you the stories are there, real, live and almost unbelievable.  Lets hope Skidmore gains clarity, time and space to deal with some very contentious issues in the FAOC department.  

P2 - Further to this - strange display of disharmony between the Department and agency - is the fact that M&M then goes onto table the same EU Airline blacklist that CASA does within the Skidmore retraction correspondence, minus the EU legislation:

There was a strange 'atmosphere' Merde'k leaping into the fray, Aleck whispering sweet nothings: desperately wanting to close down the discussion and offering behind closed door 'briefings'.  You could see this one of two ways – being helpful to the new boy; or, taking early control of what is, potentially, a happily ticking time bomb, before Skidmore put his foot, quite accidentally on a sensitive spot.  I know which horse my money will be on.  

The problem is this Senate committee is too well briefed, too savvy and trusted by industry. They are coming to grips with just how badly the whole expensive show is being run; everything from weekend pleasure pilots to the 'slippery' politics of cabotage.  Slowly the beast emerges.  No mans mug is Glen Sterle; non of them are, but it has been a treat to watch him over the past couple of years gain an interest in matters aeronautical, join up the dots, put party politics aside, roll his sleeves up and wade in; becoming a solid member of what is probably the best estimates committee ever assembled.   Cue – Round of applause.  

Senator STERLE:Spot on. Mr Mrdak, I am sorry to interrupt—while I am being nice and on my best behaviour—but as Senator Back did just say to me, that particular plane had been in service between Perth and Bali. So I think it is a fair question for us to put on the table. Let us have a go.

Senator STERLE: What are you laughing at, Mr Farquharson? Did I tickle your sense of humour? Are you picking on my mate Mr Quinlivan?

Mr Farquharson : I used to be the regional manager in Perth and I know Mr Quinlivan quite well.

Senator STERLE: Don't worry; I know he knows you. Anyway keep going. You look a bit like him from here.

Mr Mrdak : Perhaps if we come back to the committee with some advice in relation to, firstly, foreign air operators certificate requirements and then our safety surveillance program in relation to foreign carriers. If necessary, we can happily provide a briefing to the committee on those matters.

Dr Aleck : Can I just add quickly that, in 2009, we amended our legislation specifically to enable us to look at these issues more closely. We exercised those powers in connection with any operator who draws our attention to their activities, and an accident would be a flag.

Mr Mrdak : Generally, it starts with a concern about the safety regulator in that country in which the airline is based.

Mr Mrdak : Generally, it starts with concerns about the quality of the safety assurance process in the country in which the airline is based, and the safety regulatory record of the jurisdiction before it gets to the individual aircraft operator. It is much more complex than simply the operator itself.

Interesting; I am only left to wonder if the questions were designed to open up another can of worms; or if the committee's questions were innocent until the defensive, distracting rhetoric triggered the sensitive pony-pooh alarms.  No doubt we shall see.

Toot toot..

[Peetwo]

Cabotage - dueced tricky stuff.

...P2 – "How very strange for M&M in Estimates no less?? M&M is not known for offering up so many words on a subject that should be totally within the remit of CASA.

Yes, you would thinks so, but FAOC issue is a very 'political' matter.  There are companies, reputable companies, who have almost given up sanity trying and many others who have; the cost of exercise being in direct proportion to the pre determined degree of difficulty.  The time, money, effort and frustration expended by some operators is truly horrendous; but for others it's a stroll in the park.  Strange and wonderful are the ways of 'the department'.  Bit of a litmus test for Skidmore, will he take steps to de-politicise the FAOC process and get some less contentious, competent people in to run that particular section.  There are some truly dreadful stories; e.g. did you know Jeppersen products are not considered adequate; sometimes.  

Now I know that's a bit cryptic but FAOC applications have not had much air time as they are commercially sensitive and easily identified, but I can assure you the stories are there, real, live and almost unbelievable.  Lets hope Skidmore gains clarity, time and space to deal with some very contentious issues in the FAOC department. 

I must admit to not too much yawn..  ..interest in international aviation cabotage, I do however know how politically sensitive it can be. You only need to take a look at the Department website under International Aviation to see how convoluted it all is... Quite simply a bureaucrat's wet dream of smoke'n'mirrors & potential embuggerance to fill a lifetime of so called public service - no wonder M&M is particularly sensitive on the subject...

As an example, in international aviation circles the ICAO audit of Thailand has been causing a bit of a stir. From Planetalking article - Thai carriers under threat of air safety downgrade):

"..Should Thailand, or for that matter Australia, be busted down to Level 2
status,  the flag carriers of each country would be prohibited  from starting new services or adding capacity to existing flights to the US, or codesharing with US carriers, or face similar restrictions in some countries in Asia, with the latter situation already a problem for some Thai carrier access to Japan and South Korea as set out in the story linked to above.."

However; recently the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has come out defending two of it's members - Thai & Bangkok Airways - saying the restrictions that certain countries are placing on them is unfair - IATA calls restrictions unfair

...Global airline industry body IATA has defended the operational safety of Thai Airways International (THAI) and Bangkok Airways in the wake of a blanket scepticism of Thailand's aviation safety standards.

Tony Tyler, director-general of the International Air Transport Association, made the statement adding it is unfair for some countries to restrict new charter and scheduled flights by Thailand-registered airlines. He said Thai airlines should not be penalised for Thai government regulatory errors raised by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)...

Also on the subject of cabotage - & as a strange coincidence - there was a presser put out yesterday from the miniscule titled - Talks boost Australia-Philippines aviation capacity

More flights between Australia and the Philippines will result from the latest air service negotiations between the two countries.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss said the new arrangements will provide for flights to increase by 55 per cent over the next year.

“Importantly, the settled arrangements expand code sharing opportunities for Australian airlines, providing potential for our airlines to expand their global networks and connectivity through cooperative marketing arrangements with overseas partners,” Mr Truss said.

“This is an important and growing bilateral aviation market, growing at an average of 10.5 per cent over the last five years.

“The new arrangements will allow this growth rate to continue for another four years, recognising the potential of Australia as a prime tourism destination within the Asia-Pacific region.

“Increasing the number of flights between Australia and the Philippines will help ensure that we have the aviation capacity necessary to meet future growth in demand.”

The new arrangements provide an immediate increase in capacity entitlements from 6,000 seats each way each week to 8,300 seats each week, rising to 9,300 seats from March 2016.

Airlines can continue to operate unlimited services between the Philippines and Australian regional locations, such as Darwin, Cairns, Adelaide and the Gold Coast.

Okay get the picture??

MTF...P2         

[Gobbledock]

Here is the 'inside' word from the Guvmint that you won't get told over the 6 o'clock news. 

After the 2007 Garuda crash Australia WAS going to follow suit and ban them from flying into Aus. However, our dear Indon friends told the Guvmint that if they banned Garuda then they (Indonesia) would ban Aus carriers using Indonesian airspace. The EU and the FAA had already banned them and the financial impost was starting to bite hard, so they didn't want Australia adding to their financial pain. But a bit further into this, if you cast your minds back you will remember that the Rat was pretty much the main Aus operator that would be drastically affected. 

It would have impacted, from memory, around 65% of their international flights and add around an extra 3-4 hours flight time. This, in turn would have meant that much of its fleet type would have become pretty much useless overnight. (The facts and figures are rough guesstimates from memory, but based on internal Government papers I was given). 

Now of course the Guvmint couldn't allow the Rat to be wounded, plus the political fallout and facial eggs may have cost those in political power their jobs, hence the Indonesian Transportation Safety Assistance Program was born. (It's probably on Google, somewhere,  but I couldn't be bothered breaking it down here). But the basis was to create a smoke screen, it was hatched so as to allow the Indons to keep flying to Aus while Aus provided funding an training for Indon carriers and the DGCA. 

End result? 'Improved safety' is achieved, Australia still gets to use the Indon's airspace, the Rat isn't disadvantaged, and the Pollies dodge some nasty political fallout! What a swell arrangement!

It was high level turd polishing of the highest order, not to mention that Australia yet again got a BOHICA from one of its neighbours, one who it has given, literally, billions to over the years!!
Now I wonder who the chief turd polisher was at that particular time? Well I will give you a hint - short, stocky, no neck, but has a giant head! 

Aagh friends, it's all a game of tautology.

P.S Don't ever ask the Screamer what he thinks about providing Australian CAsA resources to other countries for their 'assistance'! Oh my, it ain't pretty!

Safer skies for all? Not really.
Tick tock? Definitely
MTF? Absolutely.............

[Peetwo]

Here is the 'inside' word from the Guvmint that you won't get told over the 6 o'clock news. 

After the 2007 Garuda crash Australia WAS going to follow suit and ban them from flying into Aus. However, our dear Indon friends told the Guvmint that if they banned Garuda then they (Indonesia) would ban Aus carriers using Indonesian airspace. The EU and the FAA had already banned them and the financial impost was starting to bite hard, so they didn't want Australia adding to their financial pain. But a bit further into this, if you cast your minds back you will remember that the Rat was pretty much the main Aus operator that would be drastically affected. 

It would have impacted, from memory, around 65% of their international flights and add around an extra 3-4 hours flight time. This, in turn would have meant that much of its fleet type would have become pretty much useless overnight. (The facts and figures are rough guesstimates from memory, but based on internal Government papers I was given). 

Now of course the Guvmint couldn't allow the Rat to be wounded, plus the political fallout and facial eggs may have cost those in political power their jobs, hence the Indonesian Transportation Safety Assistance Program was born. (It's probably on Google, somewhere,  but I couldn't be bothered breaking it down here). But the basis was to create a smoke screen, it was hatched so as to allow the Indons to keep flying to Aus while Aus provided funding an training for Indon carriers and the DGCA. 

End result? 'Improved safety' is achieved, Australia still gets to use the Indon's airspace, the Rat isn't disadvantaged, and the Pollies dodge some nasty political fallout! What a swell arrangement!

It was high level turd polishing of the highest order, not to mention that Australia yet again got a BOHICA from one of its neighbours, one who it has given, literally, billions to over the years!!
Now I wonder who the chief turd polisher was at that particular time? Well I will give you a hint - short, stocky, no neck, but has a giant head! 

Aagh friends, it's all a game of tautology.

P.S Don't ever ask the Screamer what he thinks about providing Australian CAsA resources to other countries for their 'assistance'! Oh my, it ain't pretty!

Safer skies for all? Not really.
Tick tock? Definitely
MTF? Absolutely.............

That is both fascinating & extremely disturbing, but at the same time why am I not surprised...  

So let's get this straight good ol' pumpkin head Murky Mandarin is not only lurking behind the scenes with the Pink Batts fiasco; the Secondary Airports sell off that includes toxic soil emptying into the Georges River anytime it floods; overseeing several of his higher profile agencies (ASA) being less than transparent in Senate Estimates & consequently having to front up again to please explain their rather lacklustre performance again...

...& again

..& by the look of the QON index for the additional Estimates there is every chance they will cop a pizzling once again..

While on ASA there is also the small issue that the Airport Fire Authorities - to which ASA oversee - may have inadvertently been putting toxic PCB's into the water table of over 450 airport sites around Australia, if true this could add up to a bill in the umpteen billions in potential compensation?? 

Edit - Not to mention crushing the odd innocent Toyota while racing in their carefully camouflaged, environmentally friendly, toxic green behemoths to further contaminate even more land.  Two headed ducks for all.   Quack, bark, quack, bark.

Then there is some of the smaller issues to which M&M seemingly had some (or a lot) of bureaucratic persuasion; like the government endorsement of the angry man McComic for the ICAO SecGen possie - McComic in Montreal ;or the constant delay, obfuscation and basic thumbing of his nose of the parliamentary process in Estimates (mentioned here & not so long ago here) and by flipping the bird to the Senators with his obvious influence on the miniscule for keeping Dolan on as Chief Commissioner of the ATSB. This was despite Dolan's very public mauling by the Senators in the PelAir cover-up Inquiry...FFS..

The list domestically probably goes on & on..but wait there's more i.e. Gobbles post.
Is there no limit to the embuggerance & shady deals that this Mandarin is/could be somehow involved in?? 

Sure makes you wonder about the whole MH370 deal with the Malaysians when Ol'Pumpkin Head has been lurking in the shadows???

MTF?- Definitely P2..   

Ps See the following vid where M&M is squaring off the EU blacklist issue, notice that he also mentions in passing Garuda before the Heff starts softening up Staib & Co:

 
   
      

[Kharon]

GD – true dat.

FAOC and cabotage are highly (top draw) political – CASA is used as the foil (willing accomplice) to cover some of the less savoury aspects in matters of 'international' aeronautical wheeling and dealing.  There is a legal kafuffle over 'banknotes' which is deemed too scandalous for the hoi polloi to glimpse.  But, if the lid is ever taken off this can of snakes, a press gag would be the least you could expect.  You are now into the realms of top flight diplomacy and the land of golden trough's that the hacks, grunts and catamites of the murkier departments can only wistfully dream of.   This matter will have it's throat quietly cut and dropped into a deep dark chasm; watch and see.

Selah.

[Gobbledock]

Aagh yes the murky world of ASA! Love how the Heff can see through them and through Staib,right to the bone, Yes indeed. Jason Harfield, EM of nothing!! Great stuff.

On a lighter note and speaking of ASA, one Greg Russell's name is being thrown around behind the scenes according to a well placed source of mine, as a candidate for CEO Melbourne Airport!!

MTF?? Damn straight there is..

[Peetwo]

Aagh yes the murky world of ASA! Love how the Heff can see through them and through Staib,right to the bone, Yes indeed. Jason Harfield, EM of nothing!! Great stuff.

On a lighter note and speaking of ASA, one Greg Russell's name is being thrown around behind the scenes according to a well placed source of mine, as a candidate for CEO Melbourne Airport!!

MTF?? Damn straight there is..

Yep after the last Estimates ASA definitely need a consummate BS artist & fraudster to cover over the many shenanigans & bad press currently drawing attention in YMML...

While still on the subject of ASA Aunty Pru has tasked me to decipher & review the myriad of QONs that ASA received from the Senators at the last Estimates. This is to be done prior to Budget Estimates in a couple of weeks time & in anticipation for the AQONs. As this is rather a onerous & somewhat repetitive task I've decided to post my points of interest & review info on the ASA thread - Australian air traffic control - retrospective.

However before I start into this task I made a interesting observation from the RRAT Committee Estimates webpage this am, see below in red...

Estimates (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee)

On 8 February 2012, the names of the Senate standing committees on Rural Affairs and Transport were changed back to: the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.
Portfolio Coverage

• Agriculture
  
• Infrastructure and Regional Development                      
  

Information about the 2014-15 Budget Estimates
Estimates Hearings
2014–15 Estimates

• Budget - 26-30 May 2014
  
• Supplementary - 20, 21 and 24 October 2014
  
• Additional - TBA
  

---

2013–14 Estimates

• Budget - 27, 28, 29, and 30 May 2013
  
• Supplementary - 18 and 19 November 2013
  
• Additional - 24 and 25 February 2014
  

2012–13 Estimates

• Budget - 21, 22, 23 and 24 May 2012
  
• Supplementary - 15 and 16 October 2012
  
• Additional - 11 and 12 February 2013
  

2011–12 Estimates

• Additional - 13 and 14 February 2012
  

That's right the previous web linked Additional Estimates (24/02/15) web page has been taken down & returned to TBA..WTF?? As a long time observer of Senate Estimates proceedings & procedures I can safely say I have never seen that before..

MTF...most definitely P2      

[Kharon]

The case of the disappearing QoN.

Perhaps the solution to this 'unusual' baffling mystery may be explained by an analysis of the following three questions.   Essentially, the same question is posed to three departments, all under the same governance and maybe, just perhaps, Xenophon has the answers.  That would create a need for the reissue of the TBA notice; give 'em all time to decide who is slotted for a BOHICA event. 

ASA p 62 – Q 156.

Cirrus #ATS-0125061 states that the ML TAC received coordination from Essendon Tower that it was unable to separate its Runway 26 aircraft from Melbourne’s departures but the ML TAC did not subsequently pass the coordination to the Melbourne approach controller. LOA_3263 para 4.5.3 (as provided in answer to QoN 237) indicates that a number of parties have responsibilities when Melbourne is using Runway 16 for departures and Essendon Tower is unable to separate its Runway 26 instrument approach from the Melbourne departures: 

1. What is the “MPL” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC? 

2. What is the “MLC” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC? 

3. What is the “MAE” and what relationship does it have to the ML TAC? 

ATSB p 66 – Q 166.

1. At the time ATSB reviewed Airservices Cirrus report #ATS-0125061 was it aware that approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected? 

2. At the time ATSB reviewed REPCON AR201300090 relating to Cirrus report #ATS-0125061 was it aware approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected? 

3. When and how did ATSB become aware of the three hour time delay between the error referred to in Cirrus #ATS-0125061 occurring and its subsequent detection and correction? 

4. Can ATSB provide a copy of the request it sent to Airservices for the radar tapes relating to Cirrus #ATS-0125061? 

5. When did ATSB seek the radar tapes relating to Cirrus #ATS-0125061 – after the CIRRUS report was received or after the REPCON report was received? 

6. When did ATSB review the radar tapes – after the CIRRUS report was received or after the REPCON report was received? 

7. What period of time did the radar tapes provided by Airservices Australia cover? 

8. Can ATSB provide a copy of the radar tapes it reviewed? 

CASA p 70 - Q174.

1. At the time CASA reviewed Airservices Cirrus report #ATS-0125061 was it aware that approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected? 

2. At the time CASA received ATSB’s advice that no loss of separation or separation assurance had occurred as suggested in REPCON AR201300090 was it aware that approximately 3 hours had elapsed between the time the reported breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected? 

3. When and how did CASA become aware of the three hour time delay between the error referred to in Cirrus #ATS-0125061 occurring and its subsequent detection and correction? 

4. Did CASA independently review the Cirrus #ATS-0125061/REPCON AR201300090 radar tapes or did it rely on the advice of Airservices and ATSB that no loss of separation or separation assurance had occurred over the three hour period? 

5. CASA’s response to ATSB with regards to REPCON AR201300089 states 

All passing strange - Toot toot.....

[Peetwo]

On a slightly different tack but IMO still very much Senate related, if for no other reason but for national pride, I came across an excellent and inspirational article from the Bangkok Post:

Up in the air  - The mess that Thailand's aviation regulator finds itself in is symptomatic of a bigger region-wide problem that needs creative solutions. 11 May 2015 at 03:30

 Now even if only partly true, that the interviewees are as engaged in addressing the many issues/deficiencies of aviation safety in the region, then sadly very soon we could see the Australian isolationism policy in aviation safety come to full fruition...   Ultimately we could see our nation locked out from our own region and going backwards in an aviation free trade world..

Quote from article:

...In the EU, for example, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is in charge of safety in the region. This helps the region to attract qualified personnel and achieve standards that truly meet international levels.

Asean has no regional agencies overseeing aviation safety or coordinating air traffic control, unlike in the European market.

That issue came to the fore after AirAsia flight QZ8501 from Surabaya to Singapore, carrying 162 people, crashed in the Java Sea on Dec 28, shortly after the pilot requested to change altitude to avoid bad weather.

Though the cause of the crash is still unknown, aviation experts have seized on the incident to point to the dangers of congested skies and a patchwork of differing safety standards in Southeast Asia.

"Hopefully, the QZ8501 crash will galvanise the states to make technical harmonisation a priority," Alan Khee-Jin Tan, a professor of aviation law at the National University of Singapore, told Reuters recently.

Experts point to Europe as the model to follow, where EASA oversees safety standards and crew training, while Eurocontrol coordinates air traffic control.

While Eurocontrol was established in the 1960s, EASA was only set up in 2002 when the EU was already a much more unified and better-funded bloc than Asean is today.

"There's a lot of work to be done to address, identify deficiencies and to strengthen regulatory oversight. That's true in Indonesia and it's true in a number of other markets," said Andrew Herdman, director-general of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines.

"There will be a lot of struggles and debates about it as each country may have to give up jobs or give up something, but all things can be worked out in a logical fashion," said another aviation expert. "With the apparent growth and potential growth in this region, it's worth it to start seriously engaging in discussion."

     
Hmm...wonder what they would call a SE Asian NAA - SEAASA perhaps??

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Good post P2. Interesting point;

"The boom in air travel in the region over the past decade, spurred by the growth of budget carriers, has stretched the resources of regulatory bodies and safety inspectors to the limit".

Not much different in our neck of the woods really. The aviation industry is doing it's part (well, trying to) and bringing in the money for the Government. However the incompetent Government(s) then piss all the money away and don't reinvest it in adequate oversight, in properly structured bureaucratic departments or in modern infrastructure. Then because the departments are so poorly managed decisions aren't being made in a timely manner, and many of the decision makers come from a sheltered workshop of bureaucratic indoctrination and simply are not capable of making any decision and accepting accountability. This flows on to the industry in which efficiency and speed are paramount to its success. Don't stand a chance do we??

"Underfunded and stalled skies for all"

[Kharon]

Sent to Coventry?  Could happen.

Good catch P2, interesting developments.

P2 – " [then] sadly very soon we could see the Australian isolationism policy in aviation safety come to full fruition... Ultimately we could see our nation locked out from our own region and going backwards in an aviation free trade world"..

Isolated maybe the wrong word there P2; perhaps excluded.  All around the Pacific, nations small and large are pretty much on the same song sheet while Australia is buggering about drafting 'agreements', making arrangements and accommodations which support our increasingly 'different' rules.  It costs a fortune to allow Australia to be 'out of step' and unique. Do you remember, there was a passage of play in the Senate a while back, where 'someone' was grilled about an 'agreement' which had been made at great expense, simply because 'our' rules clashed with an ICAO compliant state?  It drew hardly any attention at the time, mostly because the bigger issues were being discussed.

I believe if we continue on the isolation track, developing rules which do not dovetail with 'the rest' there will come a time when we must be 'excluded', simply because it's too much trouble to negotiate with what will be seen as an awkward, spoilt child.  A brat demanding that it be given special rights and privileges, simply because it's Mummy say it is unique.  

From EASA to the FAA national regulators are realising the benefits of (for wont of better) 'simplified' rule sets.  The esteemed Rev Forsyth and just about everyone else realised this; but what do CASA do – well they foster and promote a thing like 61, which is so far removed from the rest of the world current philosophy as to make it even harder to use an Australian 'professional' licence and rating anywhere overseas.  Barring NZ, who are by default, kith, kin and obliging, sensible folk.

As the world clearly has no intention of following Australia's unique lead; perhaps it's time heads were pulled in and we meekly followed as befits a small player in the wide world of aviation heavy weights.  

Extract – PAIN submission to the ASRR: 

1) The CASA, despite industry objections, has chosen to (almost) follow the EASA approach to regulation; this has been proven, as it was in Europe to have a significant detrimental impact on some Australian aviation sectors. The EASA approach to regulation of the general aviation sector has been to take the basic rule set applicable to large commercial air transport operations and adapt those rules for general and regional aviation. 

2) In many cases, where CASA has adopted EASA rules as the basis for Australian regulations they have gone beyond even EASA member states in their implementation.

       a) For example, when CASA introduced the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 66 Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) licensing (2010) introduced a requirement for the applicant to have been 'trained and assessed' by a Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO).

      b) This requirement removed the option for an AME to gain the required practical experience with a maintenance organisation (i.e. an apprenticeship) and to complete the required examinations for license issue, without attending any formal training course at a dedicated MTO. 

3) This option remains available in the UK (EASA) and is available to AME in both New Zealand and the USA.  The cost, availability and practicalities of attending MTO, particularly for intending AME living and working in rural or regional Australia contributes significantly to the demonstrable decline in the number of skilled AME in Australia, this hardest felt away from the major cities.  This clearly defines the safety and economic reasons for reform of this and many other imposed regulations.

4) Direct comparisons of the level of safety achieved by mature regulatory systems are problematic because of the variations in the nature of data collected by different authorities. 

5) There is however an established, supported argument that over-regulation may present a threat to air safety and investment made in existing safety enhancing measures and action might be degraded.

6) There is strong support for the argument that too much regulation inflicts a time-consuming, administrative burden together with additional financial imposts which are difficult to absorb.  Considering the economic constraints under which aviation business currently must operate this can divert funding from true safety enhancement.  Some regulation is deemed too detailed and complex, therefore not readily comprehended, significantly increasing the risk of accidental non-compliance. 

7) In recent years, EASA has adopted an enormous number of new aviation 'safety' regulations.  Industry and individuals alike have complained that this constant flux of regulation has caused them great inconvenience without always achieving any demonstrable safety benefit. 

8) On March 13 2012, the EASA board met and agreed a different approach to regulating general and regional aviation was needed. The Board agreed that although the subject was complex and difficult, action needed to be taken because there were serious risks that general aviation would significantly decline and/or that 'non-compliance' would increase.

9) It was further agreed that the acceptable level of risk for general aviation must be higher than that for commercial air transport operations, that more effort was needed to avoid mixing regulations for these different types of operation; and, that the simplicity of and accessibility to general aviation rules should be increased. ../ Cont..

They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
   In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all their friends could say,
On a winter’s morn, on a stormy day,
   In a Sieve they went to sea!
And when the Sieve turned round and round,
And every one cried, ‘You’ll all be drowned!’
They called aloud, ‘Our Sieve ain’t big,
But we don’t care a button! we don’t care a fig!
   In a Sieve we’ll go to sea!’
      Far and few, far and few,
         Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
      Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
         And they went to sea in a Sieve.   (E. Lear).

[thorn bird]

Well "K" me old mate, your dire predictions are slowly becoming reality.

Our unique and costly maintenance suite is slowly strangling the maintenance side of our industry. Our older highly experienced engineers are slowly retiring, where they can, or else hanging on by their fingernails because they have nowhere else to go. The younger ones left are deserting their chosen profession and taking their skills to more lucrative industries, not that they have much choice, they cant do a runner overseas because now nobody recognizes our unique qualifications.

Where are the wannabe's advancing through the clusterf.ck of our training system?

How long before our pilots are in the same position? There seems to be a few still having a go, but I wonder how many there would be without the government subsidizing their training?

Our sausage factories still seem to attract one or two foreign students, nowhere near the number they used to.

I wonder how many of them are here to gain a passport rather than a pilots license?

I'm told every campus in New Zealand is full and has wait lists for entry.

I wonder why?

To quote our mate Gobbles, "457 Visa's for all"

[Peetwo]

Well finally - true to form with less than 2 weeks to Budget Estimates - the Murky Mandarin & Co have released the aviation agencies AQON for 14'-15' Additional Estimates...FFS!

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development


Questions on notice index: (PDF 569KB)
Answers were due Friday 17 April 2015

Answers to Questions on Notice

1-4 Corporate (PDF 123KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

60-91 Infrastructure Australia (PDF 335KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

92-94 Australian Rail Track Corporation (PDF 911KB)
Received: 22/04/2015

95-96 National Transport Commission (PDF 37KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

105-109 Australian Maritime Safety Authority (PDF 93KB)
Received: 22/04/2015

110-121 Policy and Research Division (PDF 161KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

122 Office of Transport Security (PDF 25KB)
Received: 22/04/2015

123 Office of the Inspector of Transport Security (PDF 16KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

140-160 Airservices Australia (PDF 825KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

161-166 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (PDF 77KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

167-177 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (PDF 183KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

178-181 Local Government and Territories (PDF 229KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

182-183
Western Sydney Unit (PDF 33KB)
Received: 22/04/2015

184-186 National Capital Authority (PDF 39KB)
Received: 15/05/2015

Still no sign of the RRAT Committee final report for the DoIRD Estimates '14-'15, I suppose it is a bit hard to write when you've only just received the AQON...

MTF...P2..

Ps Notice QON 124 - 129 are still missing?? - Passing strange that is for the Department section Airports & Aviation... trouble afoot perhaps..

[slats11]

I have attached the transcript for 24 February 2015, and also the response provided in October 2012.

Not sure the general answer provided in 2012 (i.e. we had an interview) addresses the specific question about due diligence asked by NX in February 2015.


Question no.: 172
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Pel-Air Chief Pilot
Proof Hansard Page: 103 (24 February 2015)
Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: I am happy to ask you further questions on this, because it was quite a seminal report about aviation safety investigations and interrelationship between the agencies. Further, in respect of that report, you may be aware of the significant regulatory failures found within Pel-Air by CASA after the ditching, both in that special audit and in the Chambers report. Does the former chief pilot of Pel-Air, who was with the company when these breaches occurred, now hold, or has he held recently, a regulatory compliance position within CASA?

Mr Skidmore: I cannot answer that with my estimation—

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Farquharson may know.

Mr Farquharson: I am aware that he did.

Senator XENOPHON: This is something that Senator Heffernan was particularly interested in, in terms of the former chief pilot of Pel-Air working with CASA.

Mr Farquharson: I am aware that he did join CASA. I am not sure whether he is still with us.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you take that on notice, please, and if he did leave, on what date did he leave?

CHAIR: That was with regard to the downgrading of the incident judgement call.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes. What due diligence did CASA undertake to ensure this individual was not responsible for the many and significant breaches found within Pel-Air and was arguably unsuitable to hold such a role within CASA? I am happy if you take it on notice, but it is a key—

Mr Skidmore: I think we will have to take it on notice.

Answer:
The relevant officer is still employed by CASA in the Operations Division.

The response to this matter was provided for in Question on Notice: CASA08 provided to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee after the Inquiry into Aviation Accident and Investigations (Pel-Air) hearing on 22 October 2012 and referenced in the Hansard for the 22 October 2012 hearing from pp. 33-52.



Questions on Notice – Monday, 22 October 2012

CASA08: Recruitment of John Wickham to CASA Hansard: p.52

Senator NASH: Also, just regarding Mr Wickham and his appointment to CASA, could you—again on notice, if you would not mind—provide for the committee how many applicants there were for that position and who was on the selection panel? I think, as the chair has raised, it looks extremely odd that CASA would employ the chief pilot from Pel-Air while ATSB was currently conducting the investigation around the report. It is very, very strange. So if you could take on notice for us the applicants and who was on the selection panel.

Mr McCormick: Certainly, Senator.

Answer:
Mr Wickham originally applied for a position as a Flight Training Examiner in August 2010. That recruitment process involved 9 applicants, 4 of whom were interviewed. The panel consisted of (Manager Flying Standards), (Team Leader Flight Training) and , (Team Leader Administration).

In October 2010 Mr Wickham was selected as the second ranked candidate and placed on a merit list for future vacancies. The preferred applicant for the Flight Training Examiner subsequently withdrew and Mr Wickham was then offered the role. He elected to continue with the Flying Operations Inspector (FOI) application as outlined below.

When a vacancy for a FOI arose in June 2010, a review of candidates available from a merit lists was conducted and Mr Wickham was identified as meeting all the mandatory qualifications for an FOI position in December 2010. An additional interview and background checks were completed on Mr Wickham by a new panel made up of (Acting Manager General Aviation GA Field Office Sydney) and (Recruitment Consultant) to assess Mr Wickham for the FOI position. A report was submitted and following approval by the delegate an offer was made to Mr Wickham in late January 2011. He commenced in CASA on February 2011.

Both Flight Training Examiner and Flying Operations Inspector positions have similar mandatory and desirable criteria including holding a current Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane) and Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) Licences, a Command (Multi Engine Aeroplane) Instrument Rating, a current Class 1 Medical certificate and to hold or have held Approved Testing Officer delegations, Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating, Chief Pilot and/or Chief Flying Instructor approval and have had extensive training and checking experience. Mr Wickham met or exceeded these criteria.

[Kharon]

Dear Nick –

We too wondered how it came to pass. - Many of the tribe fellahin have been, or are Chief pilots – I can without trying too hard reach out to about 200 collective years of experience across a wide range of operations.  Without fail, each and every one of 'em has wondered at the charmed, bullet proof life and ease of Whickham progress.  For example:-

That would be the responsibility of the Chief Pilot to ensure the C&T system is compliant. Now in this case Wickham delegated those duties to the former Chief Pilot, Wally, which he can't unless a formal dispensation is approved, which it wasn't. I wonder who did the CP interview for Wickham, considering he doesn't meet the criteria, particularly regarding the Westwind Ops??    Mmm, more bad smells.

Much debate at the BRB and in cockpits has only raised questions; many of those questions draw in the 'speed' at which Chambers acquitted Pel-Air, the ready acceptance of piecemeal repairs to an operational structure and culture.  But by far the most commonly arrived at point of discussion is how Whickham, as CP slid off a hook which has decimated the careers of much more competent men; and, how he ended up on the CASA books.  A quick history study of the 'Chambers' hand picked 'Black hat' crew operating in the Sydney region, provides as fine a rogues gallery as any police station could wish for.  If Skidmore has any sense of propriety an open examination of 'events' managed by and executed from Sydney office, by this crew would provide a first class example of why industry is disconnected from and distrustful of "CASA".  

Perhaps I should send him the Bankstown Chronicles, for a bit of weekend reading.

Toot toot...MTF? most certainly.

[Peetwo]

I have attached the transcript for 24 February 2015, and also the response provided in October 2012.

Not sure the general answer provided in 2012 (i.e. we had an interview) addresses the specific question about due diligence asked by NX in February 2015.


Question no.: 172
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Pel-Air Chief Pilot
Proof Hansard Page: 103 (24 February 2015)
Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: I am happy to ask you further questions on this, because it was quite a seminal report about aviation safety investigations and interrelationship between the agencies. Further, in respect of that report, you may be aware of the significant regulatory failures found within Pel-Air by CASA after the ditching, both in that special audit and in the Chambers report. Does the former chief pilot of Pel-Air, who was with the company when these breaches occurred, now hold, or has he held recently, a regulatory compliance position within CASA?

Mr Skidmore: I cannot answer that with my estimation—

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Farquharson may know.

Mr Farquharson: I am aware that he did.

Senator XENOPHON: This is something that Senator Heffernan was particularly interested in, in terms of the former chief pilot of Pel-Air working with CASA.

Mr Farquharson: I am aware that he did join CASA. I am not sure whether he is still with us.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you take that on notice, please, and if he did leave, on what date did he leave?

CHAIR: That was with regard to the downgrading of the incident judgement call.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes. What due diligence did CASA undertake to ensure this individual was not responsible for the many and significant breaches found within Pel-Air and was arguably unsuitable to hold such a role within CASA? I am happy if you take it on notice, but it is a key—

Mr Skidmore: I think we will have to take it on notice.

Answer:
The relevant officer is still employed by CASA in the Operations Division.

The response to this matter was provided for in Question on Notice: CASA08 provided to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee after the Inquiry into Aviation Accident and Investigations (Pel-Air) hearing on 22 October 2012 and referenced in the Hansard for the 22 October 2012 hearing from pp. 33-52.

slats here is the moving pics that match the Hansard which you quote from CASA QON 172:

In regards to the Wickham line of questioning by the RRAT Committee in the PelAir Inquiry, there was also another classic McComic (foot in mouth) retraction that bears some relevance to the topic of the inestimable Mr Wickham... :



Hmm...do you reckon that Nick is going to drop this line of questioning now that it is confirmed that CASA LSD (the Iron Ring ringleaders... ) still obviously have much to hide in the dubious veracity of Mr Wickham's appointment to Fort Fumble FOI ranks?

Q/ I wonder if Mr Wickham has in anyway - since the above retraction - been involved in any regulatory oversight operations of the REX/PelAir AOCs?

MTF...P2    

[Gobbledock]

1. McComicks letter of response is a major red flag - Why? Well Wickham, once joining CAsA, did not need to undertake any work on Pelair to receive any personal certification or training to help qualify him as a CAsA FOI. Due to a potential conflict of interest he could have undertaken personal training requirements elsewhere in Australia, or even overseas like many other FOI's do. I smell pooh here, and so do the Senators. It would be interesting to see the exact date Wickham commenced employment with CAsA and what date he participated in the Pelair assessment. I guarantee you it was not long after commencing employment at Fort Fumble.

2. The Pelair NCN acquittals by Wodger - The time frame of a mere few 'days' after Pelair responded is simply not logical, possible or in any way likely. Any operator response is sent to the field office, sorted, passed on to the lead auditor and then input is sort from the relevant technical Inspector from the audit team. If for example the finding was in DG's then the DG Inspector would review the response and advise the team leader/lead auditor that root cause had been accepted as well as the mitigation of the finding. Then a letter of acquittal is sent back to the operator. The fact that Wodger signed off after just a few days is absolute evidence of mates rates, a tick and flick, and an 'it's ok Minister, your mates have been protected'. It's utter bullshit. It takes CAsA months as a rule to respond to an operators NCN response. Perhaps the Senators can examine other similar occurrences with other airlines where NCN's have been issued by CAsA, operator responses provided back, then CAsA acquitting the NCN. Find one that has been done in just a few days and I will personally eat Wodgers ass!! It simply doesn't happen. Why Skidmore continues to keep Wodger on the books is beyond belief. I think Skidmore ought to update his internal risk matrix, you know the one that includes the 'risk of reputation damage to CAsA or the Minister' to include the risk of 'executive management or Inspectors acting fraudulently, corruptly or without due to care and damaging CASA's credibility as well as the governments'.

3. And I have mentioned this before - Captain Sentinel and His mates response to the QON regarding 'Wickhams whereabouts', is he here, is he there, where art though Wickham!!! Bullshit. They knew exactly where he was, if he was employed, not employed, taking a morning shit or combing his hair in the coffee shop across the road, they knew. When Fort Fumble is under the spotlight they make sure they have all their t's crossed. They knew where he was and what he was doing.

It's an amazing turn of events isn't it? NCN miracle sign off's, Pelair CP hired by CAsA after a prang, political donations, even current Miniscules posing for photos with a Pelair executive who himself is an ex Government minister for aviation matters!! But wait, CAsA just don't seem to be concerned by the airline in question, and nor does the ATSB!! But no, silly us, we are all conspiracy theorists, tendentious bloggers who see the glass as half empty, how dare we raise an eyebrow or two at this whole sorry saga. And what's more those silly Senators are just wasting their time poking around looking at a non-issue, looking into a matter that in itself is clear, transparent and open..........

No, nothing to see here folks, you're all making things up, it's a fiction of your imagination. Go home, watch some TV and relax.....

"Questionable skies for all"

[P7_TOM]

Batter Up - Oh dear; oh deary me.

Agree with GD.  Bad answer to a QoN, silly, arrogant, dismissive and probably dangerous.   The Senators know the whole thing stinks to high heaven.  Pel-Air is not the only 'suspicious number' in wee Wodger's repertoire of artful, high handed embuggerance; nor is it the only one where executive level decisions have been manipulated or even circumvented.  It is also not the only time a pre CASA employment act of bastardry has been empowered by team Wabbit; almost as an initiation, a right of passage.  There are at least two other tame black hats who have some serious questions to answer.  I had hoped Skidmore had the brains and integrity to at least investigate and seek some answers for himself, before the lobotomy.    

But, the response posted above to the Wickham question exposes what IMO are the actions of an apologist puppet making the right noises to 'pacify' industry pundits and seduce the industry press (such as it is), into regurgitating the propaganda, while business as usual is quietly continued.   This, to gain the time needed to assist in getting everyone chanting the 'calm down, forgive and forget' litany.  So that small, inconvenient items like the Rev. Forsyth's report and recommendations, Senate censure and peer review condemnation all drift away on a happy, clappy cloud of exemption powered horse pooh.

In Baseball three strikes is OUT; the arrogant defence of Campbell must count as one: the mindless provision of top cover and hiding behind the McConvict response on the Wickham question must make two; I wonder, is Wodger going to be strike three?

What the dark side seem to be forgetting is that in days of yore, most Senators did not have the right answers, before framing a question; or, if they did, then lack of 'technical' understanding and support information only allowed them to penetrate the veil so far; then no further.  Driven back by the 'mystique', afraid of smoke, scared of mirrors and an abject terror of the scary, whispered - 'well the blood will be on hands' mantra.

Not any longer, if Skidmore believes or has allowed himself to be persuaded that Xenophon raised the Wickham issue a second time, just for a bit of slap and tickle, to fill in the estimates time, he has just made a fateful error of judgement.  Questions to which the answers are known, as any decent counsel will tell you, may be turned into a lethal weapon, in the right hands.

You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?

[Peetwo]

Draft schedule for next week's Estimates is out: Senate RRAT Committee - Budget Estimates 2015-16.

It looks like Beer'n'nuts followed by Dinner on the Wednesday: 



Followed by first cab off the rank Thursday for the Department's Aviation & Airports...



MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Tardy, but tidy.

Finally, the DoIT word weasels have finished their AQON and they are good, very good.  Mind you the answers should be, considering the amount of time and care lavished on them.  But will anyone read through the entire offering?   Is it going to be a battle, or "Ok, thanks boys, that's just fine and dandy" from Heff?  It's going to come down to homework I expect.  The MM crew seem to have done theirs, lots of tidy corners, a little 'poetic' licence here and just a dab of legal sleight of hand there.  You could, if you were naive enough, take it as gospel and believe that development was a fine thing, which, provided you didn't want to run an aviation business or live in a quiet, clean, residential area free of heavy traffic, it is.  

But it's curious thing, just past Warwick farm, Liverpool way toward Holsworthy there is another 'reasonable' development looming on the residential horizon.  This too will cause no great inconvenience or bugger up anything, the word weasels assure us this is true.  Just like Bankstown and Archerfield, this development is touted to be highly beneficial: to whom, remains a mystery.

We shall have to wait and see what cards Heff has to play. 

Links below, for those who like puzzles.......

1    2    3