[Kharon]

TB : "Oh dear, I despair, I really do."

Much to help one along the road to desperation and not too much relief in sight.  I feel a bit like one of those poor farmers, waiting for a drop of rain in the droughts.  Day after endless day, waiting, putting off the inevitable.  The government can’t make it rain for them, although there’s a few who could sell you a package (for a price).  

You can get the feeling that there is no end in sight; airports, airspace, ATSB, CASA and the dreadful regulations.; etc. etc.  Here’s an item of gossip which has set my teeth on edge; it is a persistent rumour, but I have no way to verify or confirm the veracity; so it’s a 'believe it if you like' job.

The big hold up to reform is entirely due, according to the whisper mill, to Abbotts female minder (not Truss) being anti doing anything which might have a negative impact on re election chances.  Anything to do with aviation change, in the event of an accident, may haunt the voting public and encourage the opposition to blame the accident on those changes and the government which made those changes. (Iron Ring implant?).

You would hope, most sincerely, that this is just one of those rumours which get kicked off in a pub somewhere; but if it’s even remotely true, or even has a drop of real life in it; then you may abandon all hope.  Problem is I find it so easy to believe, it’s scary.  How did I become so cynical (rhetorical).  

Aye well, lets hope Abbott gets rid of the encumbrance, before we are all out of business, made destitute by 61 and now 91, to be followed by 135.  Someone should tell him; if there is a ‘big-one’ on his watch, it will be because of the lack of reform, not because of it.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

Much to help one along the road to desperation and not too much relief in sight.  I feel a bit like one of those poor farmers, waiting for a drop of rain in the droughts.  Day after endless day, waiting, putting off the inevitable.  The government can’t make it rain for them, although there’s a few who could sell you a package (for a price).  

You can get the feeling that there is no end in sight; airports, airspace, ATSB, CASA and the dreadful regulations.; etc. etc.  Here’s an item of gossip which has set my teeth on edge; it is a persistent rumour, but I have no way to verify or confirm the veracity; so it’s a 'believe it if you like' job.

The big hold up to reform is entirely due, according to the whisper mill, to Abbotts female minder (not Truss) being anti doing anything which might have a negative impact on re election chances.  Anything to do with aviation change, in the event of an accident, may haunt the voting public and encourage the opposition to blame the accident on those changes and the government which made those changes. (Iron Ring implant?).

You would hope, most sincerely, that this is just one of those rumours which get kicked off in a pub somewhere; but if it’s even remotely true, or even has a drop of real life in it; then you may abandon all hope.  Problem is I find it so easy to believe, it’s scary.  How did I become so cynical (rhetorical).  

Aye well, lets hope Abbott gets rid of the encumbrance, before we are all out of business, made destitute by 61 and now 91, to be followed by 135.  Someone should tell him; if there is a ‘big-one’ on his watch, it will be because of the lack of reform, not because of it.

Selah.

Dear Tony....Ditch the Bitch err--um--ah--bollocks !!??

As far as rumours go Ferryman that is a shocker... However like you quite frankly nothing would surprise me. Have a read of this long, partly boring but extremely insightful piece from the Oz back in February:

Tony Abbott in command, but is Peta Credlin in control?  

• by: John Lyons
  
• From: The Australian
  
• February 21, 2015 12:00AM
  

Associate Editor
Sydney




Cartoon: Bill Leak Source: News Limited
 
AS he sat down for a meeting in Canberra on November 25 last year, Tony Abbott was a man under pressure.  

Only days before he had announced to the nation that he was going to clear the political “barnacles” off the ship of state.

Abbott was engulfed by domestic crises.

But on this day, he had something else on his mind: a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Abbott wanted Australia to take on Islamic State.

Australia, he told the meeting, could take a lead with an invasion of northern Iraq using 3500 of our ground troops.

His powerful chief of staff, Peta Credlin, offered no resistance.

Then Abbott tried out his audacious idea on military planners.

They were aghast.

As word of the proposal swept through the military hierarchy there was resounding opposition.

“Has he ever come up with something like this before?” one military official asked.
In fact, he had.

Four months earlier Paul Kelly had revealed in The Australian that following the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, Abbott wanted to put 1000 Australian troops into Ukraine. The Prime Minister had to be talked out of that idea.

This is Abbott the strong man, “shirt-fronting” Vladimir Putin and destroying the Islamic State “death cult”. This is the Abbott who works best with the public — providing his only glimmers of polling success in a miserable 17 months. It is little surprise that this is where he is comfortable. Insiders say that, these days, Abbott sits for much of the day in his office in Parliament House pondering national security, Islamic State and reading Winston Churchill. He has 50 staff in his office but he insists on writing many of his speeches as Credlin, sitting in the office next door, works the phones, managing the detail.

She is, as Abbott himself has said, “the fiercest political warrior” he has ever worked with.
This is the Australian duumvirate, a new form of government in which Abbott and Credlin run the country. They are, in reality, co-prime ministers.

ON election night in 2013, Abbott’s staff, journalists and friends gathered at the Four Seasons Hotel overlooking Sydney Harbour. Credlin was hosting a victory party and the mood was triumphant. When Tony O’Leary, long-time media adviser to John Howard and a key figure in Abbott’s successful election campaign, arrived, he was met by security guards who questioned his right to enter. The guards disappeared inside to check whether he was welcome. Twenty minutes later O’Leary was escorted from the premises by security.

It was a public humiliation for the Howard loyalist in front of many of the journalists he had been dealing with for 15 years.

Credlin denies she blocked O’Leary that night. But to many in the Liberal Party, O’Leary had been “Credlined”, a verb now commonly used by Liberal staff members. Asked for a definition, one cabinet minister’s staff member ran his finger across his neck.

“To be beheaded,” he said. “Anyone who is not on message is simply killed. It began when we were in opposition, then through the campaign, and it hasn’t stopped. I don’t think they’ve real­ised we’re now in government.”

One minister told Inquirer Credlin’s power would not continue. The party would bring down Abbott if they had to, he said. Ominously for Abbott, the minister is someone who has publicly been defending him.

“They (Abbott and Credlin) have unnecessarily made enemies which means there’s no reservoir of goodwill when they need it,” he said.

“The partyroom just won’t accept the management style of that office to continue. If the management style continues this way Abbott will not take us to the next election, Malcolm Turnbull will.”

One Liberal powerbroker told Inquirer: “Abbott has two problems — Credlin’s control and Joe’s (Hockey) poor performance as Treasurer.

“He’s trapped; he doesn’t want to get rid of Credlin for loyalty reasons and he doesn’t want to get rid of Joe because he knows he would blow the place up because he doesn’t want to be the fall guy.”

Another influential Liberal says that Abbott will inevitably face another challenge unless he acts.

“We warned you ‘take Hockey out and take Credlin out’ and you have done neither,” he said. “We can’t let this lot do another budget.”

IN opposition, Abbott and Credlin proved to be an extraordinary fighting unit as they destroyed two Labor prime ministers: Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. Across six years they have become an inseparable unit: in 2013, for example, Credlin spent 200 days on the road, mostly with Abbott.

But this duo in combat mode, in office, is now endangering the government. Their modus operandi is what helped drive 39 members of the parliamentary party to push for a leadership spill two weeks ago.

In this new order, Credlin interrupts ministers in budget meetings; effectively runs the Expenditure Review Committee as Abbott sits silently; and man­ages the Cabinet Office as well as the PM’s office. While previous prime ministerial advisers have coveted anonymity, Credlin makes no secret of her opinion.

Last year, standing next to Abbott, she told a group of Australian journalists that Barack Obama was “the lamest of lame ducks”. Abbott said nothing.

On one occasion, Abbott made no complaint when Credlin put her hand in front of his face to stop him replying to a question from an editor.

Sometimes the chief of staff even finishes the Prime Minister’s sentences. Sometimes she answers for him even as they sit alongside each other. At a dinner in Canberra last year Abbott was fired up over the international profile he had gained by threatening to “shirt-front” Putin over flight MH17. One guest asked Abbott about national security, but it was Credlin who answered. Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard all had strong advisers but none of them would have cut across their boss in this manner.

Remarkably, Credlin was a key architect of the budget, sitting in on ERC meetings, sometimes interrupting ministers.

“None of us told her to back off, which maybe we should have,” one of those in the meetings said.

In Canberra, politicians and journalists alike use the phrase “command and control” whenever they talk about the Credlin phenomenon. As former treasurer Peter Costello, once a close friend to Abbott, said in a recent newspaper column: “The command and control model is not helping the Liberal Party, it is strangling it.”

Credlin’s control over Abbott appears complete — she decides who he sees, what the agenda is, who is appointed to run the offices of cabinet ministers, the order of cabinet business.

“She even chooses his ties,” says one cabinet minister’s staffer. “She likes blue!”
One of Abbott’s oldest friends says the relationship between Abbott and Credlin is “an elusive male-female dynamic”.

At 180cm, the 43-year-old Credlin towers over the Prime Minister. But it’s Abbott’s “exaggerated gallantry towards women”, according to the old friend, which explains why Abbott allows her such a dominant role. The friend adds that Abbott is also “lazy on detail”, another reason Credlin has been left to micro-manage the government.

Indeed, many who know Abbott well say that he believes he cannot run the country without her.

“You wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Peta,” he has told colleagues who raised complaints with him.

Says political journalist Malcolm Farr: “If it wasn’t for some of those backbenchers attending a thousand sausage sizzles and Macedonian national days Abbott wouldn’t be there.

“Even if Peta Credlin has been a tyrant, it is Abbott’s office. He should be defending his own decisions, not hers. You wonder about Abbott’s maturity: he plays male games but he needs someone to look after him, to do the work for him.”

So insular has Abbott become that it took him 16 months after winning the election to have a meeting with his pollster, Mark Textor.

“Even the government’s pollster can’t get to see the PM,” one Liberal senator said in exasperation. “The problem is there is a ­funnel into the PM’s office, not a sieve. The funnel is Peta Credlin, and no ideas can get to Abbott unless people get them through Credlin.”

The PM’s office, says another insider, is riven with distrust. The bad blood started early in the government. When Jane McMillan was hired by Credlin as director of the press office Credlin told McMillan that another staff member had not wanted her to get the job. It was a revelation that created instant ill will within the office. Credlin would later fall out bitterly with McMillan. An indication of how dysfunctional the office has become is that last week the man who replaced McMillan, Andrew Hirst, was not able to answer a simple question: Does Jane McMillan still work for the PM?

“I’ll have to get back to you,” he replied.

Eight days later, Hirst came back: “Jane resigned in late January.”

Another source from the office said Credlin had tried to sideline anyone who had a direct line to Abbott and replace them with former colleagues from the office of Helen Coonan, where Credlin was chief of staff in the Howard years.

Says another insider: “Peta has put her plants all through the system, in many ministerial offices. This way she can know what’s going on.”

Another problem is that Credlin’s husband is the Liberal Party’s federal director, Brian Loughnane. Previously, if a minister or donor had a problem with the PM’s office they could approach the federal director, and vice versa.

Former Liberal Party federal treasurer Michael Yabsley was someone who dealt with the problem first hand.

In 2010, journalist Niki Savva detailed in The Australian the resignation of Yabsley.

She wrote: “Yabsley felt he could neither speak openly to Loughnane about the leader’s office (Abbott), nor did he feel able to speak candidly to the leader’s office if he had a complaint about the organisation or Loughnane. He has told friends he rang Lough­nane one day to discuss a matter involving the leader’s office that was troubling him. He was gob-smacked when Loughnane finished the conversation by telling him: ‘I’ll tell Peta when she gets out of the shower.’ ”

On other occasions, however, when commentators have sug­gested how the PM’s office could engage more politically with backbenchers or cabinet, Loughnane himself has offered the commentators some encouragement.

THE Prime Minister, such a street-fighter in opposition, is now fighting on too many fronts, including some created by his trusted chief of staff. Even as the government has been imploding, Credlin has insisted on approving appointments, not just for her own side but for independent MPs. Indeed, she has caused a revolt by crossbenchers over her control of their staff appointments, insisting all staff must live in Canberra or in the electorate of their member to save money.

The edict led to Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie recently threatening to sue the government for discrimination over the refusal to allow one of her staff to live in Brisbane. The staff member has health issues that require her to remain at her home in Brisbane rather than move to Tasmania. Abbott was forced to intervene personally in this case. It’s an example of his confused priorities: as his government crumbles around him, the PM takes time out to micro-manage a problem with a senator’s staff member.

Credlin’s policy has also led to a struggle with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop whose senior adviser, Murray Hansen, is Brisbane based. Bishop refused Credlin’s edict that he move to Perth.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has led the battle of the crossbenchers against Credlin’s — and by association — Abbott’s interference in their staffing arrangements.

Says Xenophon: “I really have lost confidence in him.”

In contrast, Xenophon says, Malcolm Turnbull, Bishop and Scott Morrison are “all very capable people with good communications skills”.

Through the government’s appointments committee, now referred to by some as the “Star Chamber”, Credlin has vetoed several candidates put forward by cabinet ministers. Under John Howard, Peter Reith chaired this committee and rarely used his veto, insisting that a cabinet minister should be trusted with being able to choose the person who ran their office. But Abbott has appeared happy to give Credlin her head.

One of the conventions in Australian government has been that the Treasurer has been free to hire or fire the all-important Treasury head. After winning office, Hockey decided that he wanted to retain Martin Parkinson as head of Treasury but Abbott and Credlin decided Parkinson would lose his job.

A CHAOTIC Prime Minister’s office has meant confusion in the government’s message. After Abbott promised to remove “barnacles” from the ship of state, his office briefed journalists about what this meant. Says one leading journalist: “There was total confusion — was the Medicare co-payment, for example, a barnacle or not?”

Another political observer said: “He (Abbott) has done all sorts of things John Howard would never have considered doing. He decided not to keep the car industry going and John Howard would have kept it going, and his move for a Medicare co-payment is something I’m sure Howard would never have done. Abbott has taken a series of decisions which are politically lethal. It’s worse than crazy brave, it’s ignorant brave.”

A central problem is that Abbott is not good on his feet. It’s not surprising that Credlin tries to keep him on a tight leash. When he speaks off the cuff he can say things that are controversial, including his comment last year that Australia was unsettled, or scarcely settled, before the British ­arrived.

It was in Melbourne on July 3. Abbott was the dinner speaker at the Melbourne Institute conference co-partnered by The Australian. Sitting at the main table was Abbott’s adviser on indigenous affairs, Warren Mundine.

Abbott delivered a solid speech, and then took questions, but reluctantly, telling the audience: “The reason why I tried to avoid any questions this evening was because the last time I answered questions at this gathering the answers to the questions were so colourful that the speech got no reporting whatsoever. So I’m going to do my best to be as dull as I possibly can in responding to that question.”

It was not to be. Answering a question on an unrelated issue, Abbott wandered into tricky territory: “I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or scarcely settled great south land.” At the top table, Mundine blanched.

One of Abbott’s close friends told Inquirer that she felt in Abbott’s mind there was a doubt about whether he had legitimacy as Prime Minister. The friend, who has been close to Abbott for 20 years, says: “It’s a bit like James Packer and Kerry Packer — for a long time James felt he had not lived up to his father’s legacy, and Tony Abbott feels he has not lived up to the legacy of his mentor, John Howard.”

The accidental nature of Abbott’s rise to the highest office is revealed by the manner in which he became opposition leader. When Liberals turned against Turnbull, it was Hockey who was well positioned. The night before the vote, the Nationals’ Barnaby Joyce visited Abbott’s Canberra flat to urge him to contest the leadership.

“There needs to be an anti-ETS candidate,” Joyce told him, a reference to the fact both Turnbull and Hockey supported an emissions trading scheme.

Abbott had not planned to run. He had been bruised by his experience in 2007 after the defeat of the Howard government when he could not get a single person in the partyroom to vote for him. The right wing in the party told him he was “too conservative”.

But on this occasion Joyce convinced him to run, and he defeated Turnbull by one vote.
Today, the view among his parliamentary colleagues is that while Abbott may “hang on” for a few months, he is terminally wounded. The dominant view is that the knighting of Prince Philip made a deeply unpopular leader a national figure of fun.

While there had been rumblings about Abbott’s judgment, for many colleagues the morning of Tuesday, January 27, was the crunch point.

It was the day after Australia Day and the full impact of Abbott granting of a knighthood to the prince reverberated across the country.

Abbott was savaged. Even in his heartland, Sydney’s 2GB radio, the audience mocked the PM. If Abbott was listening that day, he would have detected something much worse than anger — ridicule. One caller said Abbott should resign and be appointed “Lord Tony of Warringah”, a reference to Abbott’s Sydney electorate.

Peter Costello wrote in The Daily Telegraph: “Knighting Prince Philip was the barbecue stopper of the century. It completely hijacked Australia Day. Rarely have I heard such ridicule.”

TWO of Australia’s most successful PMs — Bob Hawke and John Howard — took advice from many advisers, but Abbott lacks an adviser of the stature of Dennis Richardson, who ran Hawke’s office, or Arthur Sinodinos, who ran Howard’s office. And, ironically, it is Sinodinos who proved a key player in Abbott’s recent turmoil.

Sinodinos was assistant treasurer until allegations before the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption led him to ­resign.

Abbott had held open Sinodinos’s position while ICAC considered matters relating to him but Sinodinos thought he should resign until ICAC had completed the investigation.

Abbott agreed and the plan was that on December 19 they would exchange letters in which Sinodinos would resign and Abbott would pay tribute. But the night before, the story was leaked to the media. It meant Sinodinos lost any control of how the story would be portrayed and that instead the impression was created that Abbott had forced him out.

Sinodinos was outraged. At 11.30 on the night of December 18 he phoned Abbott.

“This is the second time there has been a leak against me,” he told Abbott. “Why do you people keep pushing me like this, doing this sort of stuff to me?”

Abbott was on the defensive — he replied that there had been media inquiries and his staff had tried to “hose them down”.

Sinodinos was buying none of it. He was convinced — and remains convinced — that Credlin knifed him and had authorised the leak.

Both Credlin and McMillan insisted they had not leaked the information but the next day the two women had a blazing row, witnessed by many in the Prime Minister’s office.
It was a further fracturing in an already Balkanised workplace.

But Sinodinos got his revenge. It was he who ensured there would be a leadership spill motion against Abbott when he told Sky News’ David Speers that Abbott did not have his unconditional support.

Sinodinos, a former Treasury official with shrewd political judgment, was Howard’s closest confidant. But now Sinodinos has joined O’Leary as two of Howard’s most trusted advisers who have been humiliated by Credlin. It would be wrong to say Sinodinos is doing the numbers for Turnbull, but many of the 39 who voted against Abbott recently want Sin­odinos to be their strategist.

One of Sinodinos’s roles under Howard was to keep the backbench happy. He would organise access to Howard for any backbencher feeling left out and let Howard know when a back­bencher was having problems so Howard could telephone.

Sinodinos was a masterful political operator in Howard’s office. On one occasion when Abbott was health minister under Howard, ­Sinodinos saved Abbott from himself. Abbott appeared in the press gallery in Canberra with a draft speech announcing a federal government takeover of every hospital in Australia.

It was a radical idea and Abbott gave the speech to a journalist on the condition he waited until it was cleared. Abbott then gave it to Sinodinos, who thought it was a political disaster. The idea was quickly killed.

THE events of the past few weeks have devastated trust inside the government. Abbott has altered his language to reflect this, changing his prepared speech to the National Press Club from saying the public had elected “us” to govern without chaos, to the public elected “me”.

The relationship between Bishop and Credlin is now poisonous — the two despise each other. The rupture originated in an attempt by Credlin to control media appearances of ministers.

It came to a head when the Prime Minister’s office telephoned Bishop after a media appearance to register displeasure that the appearance had not been approved.

According to one insider, Bishop was outraged.

The message relayed back to Credlin was along the lines of: “I’m Foreign Minister of Australia and deputy leader of the Liberal Party — I do not need you to approve my media appearances.”

Abbott and other Liberals took great joy when, seven years ago, The Weekend Australian revealed the chaos in Kevin Rudd’s office, dubbing him “Captain Chaos.”

But at a dinner at Kirribilli House on December 29 one guest told Abbott: “They voted for you because they wanted to end the chaos — the real reason you’re in trouble is they’re seeing more chaos.”

Political commentator Paul Kelly says the origin of Abbott’s problems is the budget.

“He promised an ambitious agenda based on the idea we are in serious economic trouble but he misled people about how tough this would be. Abbott did not properly explain the plight of the country — that it is living beyond its means — and too many of the measures he introduced in 2014 had design flaws.”

Kelly adds: “Abbott’s achievements as opposition leader were extraordinary — he took over a party in a shambles, destroyed two prime ministers and won the 2013 election well. But the skills you need as prime minister are different from opposition leader and in this sense Abbott was found to be defective.”

Seasoned political observers are wondering whether Abbott has what it takes.
One talks of the fact that the qualities that make him a fabulous dinner companion, particularly after the second bottle of shiraz, could make him unsuitable as Prime Minister.

IT is impossible to avoid the conclusion that dysfunction is entrenched in the highest office in the land — and that Abbott and Credlin will survive or crash ­together. It is like a bizarre political death pact. The loyalty the PM is showing a staff member has rarely been seen in this country.

And the situation is growing worse all the time for Abbott. Even since the attempted leadership spill, Abbott has failed to stem the blood. As cabinet ministers bayed for the scalps of Credlin or Hockey, Abbott sacked Philip Ruddock, “the father of the house” who was one of the heroes of the Howard government for pursuing a tough line on asylum-seekers.

Last week, I spent more than two hours talking to Credlin. We spoke in her office, where the walls are covered with memorabilia, including a cartoon by this paper’s political cartoonist Bill Leak, and an illustration by the paper’s Eric Lobbecke. Both framed pieces make fun of the chief of staff’s relationship with the PM, but Credlin seems to be up for the joke.

In our conversation, she was open and gracious but I was left with the firm view that she has no intention of falling on her sword. And it is clear that Abbott has no intention of forcing her out.

Monday: Inside the bunker

 
Yawn---- zzzzzzzz ---- err bugger being PC  ...

Dear Tony, Ditch the Bitch!

MTF...P2     

[Gobbledock]

The Amazon woman has been out of control for some time, nothing new in that. It would be difficult, and brave, to punt her as she is not only powerful but she is well connected. However Chief of Staffs and PMC's always have a high level of power and influence, so it doesn't surprise me if Miniscule Truss is being overidden.

The risk in adopting the attitude of 'if we change the system it might cause an accident' is childish, outdated and uneducated. The current risks which have been well and truly exposed by the IOS and the Senators remain unmitigated, therefore there is a greater risk doing nothing than there is in making actual changes. You're playing with fire Frau Credlin, tick tock to you.

TICK TOCK

[Kharon]

Bureaucracy anyone?

The question ‘are we alone in the universe’? has been answered.  No we are not.  The article – HERE – is well worth the reading and IMO shows just far we have become removed from the rule of law.  Anarchy lives and thrives through a bureaucracy, near you. 

He detailed the intended functions for each branch of government: executive, legislative and judicial. “Even if we have a President who happens to have a pen and a cell phone the executive branch doesn’t make the law,” Lee emphasized. As for the judicial branch, “it’s not their job to make the law either.”

“Both of these structural protections have been weakened.”

Lee keeps two stacks of documents in his office. One, the smaller, consists of all laws passed in Congress last year and is but a few inches tall. The other, eleven and a half feet tall, 80,000 pages long, consists of last year’s federal register. The federal register is the “cumulative index of all new regulations that are issued each year by our executive branch bureaucracy,” he described. “Legally binding documents.”

80,000 pages of law produced each year. These laws are produced not by men and women who are elected for a limited number of years to make laws; they’re issued by executive branch bureaucrats who don’t work for you, who can’t be fired by you and don’t really work for anyone, at least directly, who is subject to an election

[P7_TOM]

A gold nugget from the UP.

Amongst the dross; occasionally a drop of gold dust.  Sunfish (embuggerance fame) bewails the prospects of any reform, let alone reform in our time in a good quality post.  That post sat there for a while to collect three responses.  

I’ll probably pay a pint premium for posting a UP ramble after “K” on ‘the’ AP Senate thread, don’t care; this post from “gcafinal” is worthy of consideration.  I have edited it slightly, just so the spacing fits a modern system; apart from that – it’s all the writers own work.   Bravo; 

GCAFINAL - Regulatory Reform?
________________________________________
I don't usually write on this forum and I do not have any evidence to support the thread above. What I do know is this.

Major regulatory reform has been going in this country for literally 20 years with an incredible expenditure applied. This expenditure represents the most obscene incompetence at taxpayers expense. Yet the Senate Estimates committee do not have any realistic approach as to how to deal with the situation that has been before us for so long. Agencies are routinely summoned to the Senate Estimates to detail their reports. Usually this is the particular Commissioner, CEO and at most his off-sider. Yet the last U-Tube I looked at showed CASA with 10-15 people present probably more sitting in the background, NONE OF WHOM WERE ABLE TO COMPETENTLY answer the questions asked by the Senators without waffling, "refer that to my colleagues for a response," or "we will have to take that on notice Senator because we do not have that information to hand!!!!!"

Words fail me. These people are being paid in the region of $180,000 plus to "not know."

They even have a group of lawyers permanently employed in the organisation who are paid even more to "not know!" The current Australian documentation is in quite a mess and has been for ages. The number of "Instruments," Notices of Rule-Making and Exemptions is positively ridiculous. Why are these items not in the main-stream documentation?

The problem now is the younger generation coming up the line, through no fault of their own actually don't know any different, because the "mess" is all that they have ever seen, so they think it is normal. It isn't normal.

We are laughed out of town by overseas aviation agencies.

We cannot even get our documentation to be all the same size and Airservices Australia are totally incapable of getting the ERSA into manageable sizes so that we are not carrying several States we do not need in our flight bag on every flight. The ERSA from my military days used to be a thin document that slid comfortably in the leg of your flight suit for when you needed it. It certainly doesn't now!

Regulatory reform? The only realistic way we are going to get on top of this is completely disband CASA and raise a new section in the Department of Transport under the direct control of a Minister with a totally brand new staff recruited from NZ/UK/Canada and the USA.

I am about to hand in my wings anyway and give it all away. I have had so many near misses with ultra-lights flying contrary to the circuit direction at CTAFs it is only a matter of time before a large aircraft is brought down or even I am brought down probably with a "pilot error" tag stuck on my headstone afterwards.

I hope the Senate Estimates are able to work through that properly when it happens.

Well said.  Choc frog at least.

Second thoughts 2 CF's. 1 short of a Tim Tam for salary errors.

Naw; bugger it; balls, brains, unafraid and prepared to speak out in a very sheltered workshop; TIM TAM.  Enjoy it mate, well done.

[thorn bird]

Buggrit!! Kharon..you do this to me all the time.
Great post from GCF, so muggings here has to go have a look at UP.
A whole string of intelligent posts, surprise surprise.

Even from tail wheel.

"New Zealand and Canada both took five years to re-write and simplify their Civil Aviation Regulations".

And I thought I gotta post this!!

"well aren't they paying for that now!!
I mean both countries actually have aviation Industries that are growing!!! absolutely outrageous!! cant have that!! Its even been suggested that aviation is the second biggest contributor to NZ GDP!! That would be tantamount to a National Disaster in Australia people would be on the streets demanding the Guvmint do something!!"

And after my tiny Miniscule bit of sarcasm, read back through the posts and god help me The Epiphany!!

Lookie Left actually put something up I agreed with!!!..enough to spoil your Sunday Roast!!

[thorn bird]

And again from GCF.
"I have spent half the day reading the CASA Annual Report 2013-14 and noted the salary ranges being paid to senior CASA management. I could hardly believe my eyes! Are they paid more than Australian politicians? Who in the Australian Government justifies such outrageous benefits for performance levels that have not in any respect, achieved the required aims in 27 years !! If that had happened in Woodside or BHP, they would have been fired years ago".
Yup!!
Apologies to Winston.
Never in the field of Guvmint regulation has so much been paid to so many for doing so little!!

[Gobbledock]

Just reading the above posts was interesting, especially the bit about $180k salaries as that is only mid tier CAsA salary. Dr Voodoo, the retired Fark'wit'son and Skid-Mark all pull between $330k - $500k approx. And that EXCLUDES allowances (huge when they travel), 15.75% superannuation, bonuses, 5 star accomodation, business class travel and Chairmans lounge membership. Below that there are some $250k piggy wiggy's at around the $180k - $250k mark, I shit you not!!
These muppets have their heads buried so far in the trough that it is a miracle they haven't yet drowned!!! I mean what does the f#ckin toilet cleaner earn, $120k FFS???

Anyway, the following clip is worth watching. Old mate CEO of JAL sets the lead. Can't imagine any of our Bureaucratic trough swillers or our equally parasitic airline CEO's doing this;

[P1_aka_P1]

Second the ‘gcafinal’ Tim Tam motion, good man; and, to speak out, in that environment, worth a Tim Tam any day.   

Well done all on 10,250 on forum reads of a very good thread.  See you at the next BRB.

I’ll get the beers in Tom.  

[Kharon]

Another AP worthy post from gcafinal, posting on Pprune.  Can't agree with all of it, but some of the points made are solid and reflect the tea room views of many industry professionals. Food for thought:-

I personally do not want anyone talking to me on the radio with unqualified opinion backed up by lack of standardisation and no formal training or proper understanding of flying procedures, particularly in an instrument environment.

If I am flying to a destination where there are no weather reports, then I adopt the AIP procedures for the management of my fuel and decision making for diversion requirements. If I am visual then I have my own traffic awareness. If I am in a busy environment then I will have ATC. (Depends on your definition of "busy.") I do not want my judgement marred by some unqualified person.

Up until 1989 we had a DCA service called "Flight Service." This was made redundant on the basis of cost. However, the costs were not that high, given the incredibly good world class standardised traffic/weather information and SAR alerting service we used to get. Recognition of its loss and the need for weather and traffic information came too late and instead of re-instating it, we saw the advent of Unicoms and CAGROs on the basis that this is what they do overseas (and we had better have something, whatever it is). Very poor substitutes from an air safety perspective.

Frankly, I don't care what they do in the USA. They have the population base to financially support their technology. For the Australian airport operators, this is still a cost add-on. No one will do for free. Do you want a free service. What sort of service would that realistically be? I do not want airport fire officers doing pseudo ATC/FS duties unless as I said above, they have been formally trained and a new duty statement has been accepted and they are certified/licenced without further cost imposts. ARO's, Fire Officers, Groundsmen, Airport Cleaners? You must be joking!

This whole matter was made worse in the late 1980s, when the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) was very poorly introduced by the then Department of Transport. Agencies like Local Councils suddenly discovered that they did not have the revenue to cope with running their newly acquired airports and overnight Australian Airports began cancelling their (then) airport licences to avoid compliance. Places like Port Hedland and Karratha tried to retain their ATC AND ARFFS but could not do so.

We either have a dedicated service or we do not. We would not accept a Fire Officer as a 1st Officer on the flight deck because it is cheaper! The opportunity for increased threats caused by imposing these latent failures into an already threatened aviation environment is highly questionable. I certainly do not support untrained people distracting me on the radio while I am in flight, especially if I am in IMC.

Tim Tam qualifier in Blue.........

[Kharon]

But, Is there a case to answer?

Find time to read a second, good post from Gcafinal:#90 this thread.  There were some sound points made.   One of the more interesting points raised was the disbandment of the Flight Service Units (FSU).

One of the things I never understood was why the FSU service was abandoned; it was first class, like flight watch, but on steroids.  Back in the day FS provided a ‘flight following service’ and a benign form of ‘operational support/control’, with almost everyone on a flight plan and mandatory position reports.  It was, IMO a first rate, worlds best system; no control service of course, but full traffic advice, up to date weather and accurate estimates (based on position reports) for traffic heading to a destination.  Much better than Unicom, which is mighty handy, but cannot, by nature, be as informative as the FSU.  With FSU advice you knew where all the traffic was, not just some of it.  Neatly filling the gap between ATC hand off and landing at ‘Kickatinalong’   But I digress.

The posting and discussion took Tom and I back to the Gordian knot which secures the binding around the package we call ‘aviation oversight’.  There are three elements, airspace, regulation and safety analysis, three separate, expensive departments which seem incapable of providing a ‘package’ which works, despite the stated, bi-partisan intent that cost shall have no bearing.  Great idea, but I am certain gross waste was never meant to be part of the deal.  Yet this is what we have achieved, a great waste and a truly awful system.  For example.

A simple issue, like should Unicom be made legal.  The sane ‘philosophy’ is that an aircraft approaching an aerodrome must have access to all the latest weather and all traffic information. So, we could reasonably expect that those charged with oversight would provide exactly that service – in an effective manner – within a reasonable cost frame work.  The basic tenet is simple to understand and we pay huge sums of money to the agencies involved to provide a system which delivers just that product.  

Had that service system been provided, then the Unicom debate could be resolved by a simple statement; perhaps, that there was no objection to Unicom, provided the PIC understood the limitations and bore the responsibility for determining the value and reliability of any information provided.  If the ‘official’ system was truly delivering the requisite product, there would be scant need for Unicom, except to order fuel, taxi’s parking and the like. 

So, the questions stand.  Why is there a call for an additional layer of home made ‘safety’?   Is there a need of an additional layer?   Who is to decide? 

The 'Cor Blimey' is controlled airspace and a manned tower at every airport; the 'ridicules' is open slather with no radio.  Somewhere between, there must be a ‘happy medium’.  This is why we hire expensive, alleged ‘experts’ in the field; to design and implement just such system.  But as it stands, the arbitrator of ‘Safety’ the ATSB cannot provide the checks and balances required to examine and report on any system presented; the ASA cannot present or provide a system which abrogates the need for Unicom and the regulator cannot provide a framework on which a system can be developed.  This to answer the very simple question of legalising Unicom.  It is no where near good enough, nor value for money. 

In short Senators; the blind are leading the deaf in ever diminishing circles toward the cliff and nothing seems to able to prevent the inevitable.  Inquiry recommendations are ignored, ministerial edicts are ignored, near accidents are ignored; in fact almost every single warning, prayer or curse is dismissed.  Forsyth wasn’t kidding neither were the TSBC, in fact the only ones who are joking about are the very agencies charged with maintaining the safety of the travelling public – that’s all the travelling public, by the way; your kids and loved ones included. 

 
Selah.

[Gobbledock]

Tick tock only a few sleeps to go until Staib leaves the ASA building and then the Senate Estimates commences! Fun times ahead starting next week.

Houseboat fridge has been stocked, big screen TV has been set up and lots of Kleenex has been ordered to wipe up the tears of laughter as the BRB Styx river chapter get ready to enjoy the show!

[Kharon]

Senators Race day.

GD – “[as] the BRB Styx river chapter get ready to enjoy the show!

No doubt, as the indefatigable GD points out; we shall, as always enjoy the show and the replays, but there’s catch this time around – we have to run a tote board.  It’s the only way to resolve some of the discussions going on.  I can’t split the discussions into a clear consensus, so it’s an open handicap race.  Track side rumour; from Willyleaks, the ‘fix’ is in. Seems the Stewards are to be provided certain details, just before the off relating to some of the more highly fancied, short price runners; which is expected to reduce the odds as the field diminishes.

Make your selection for the “In Camera Cup” from the field before betting closes at 1730 the day before:-

Whistle-blower : Top weight favourite.  Filly, by Untouchable out of Field of Dreams.  Not well supported by the ‘Insiders’ handicapping association on previous outings. Bickering and rivalry within the stable workforce is believed to have affected the temperamental filly. resulting in a general decline in fitness.  The owners and connections, for various, some say nefarious, reasons have remained resolutely at arms length, although many toys and trinkets were provided in an attempt to create a fluffy, feel good atmosphere in the lolly pink stable.  The trainer despairs of such artificial measures.  

Notre Dam Boy: Gelding by Russet Leaves out of Fly-by-Night.  Raced well overseas, particularly in Europe.  Considered by some as a dangerous competitor having mastered the trick of ‘goosing’ the horse in front causing a break in stride creating an opportunity for advancement.  The connections have been warned that this is illegal and unsavoury. Yet despite all manner of promises being made to correct this behaviour, the horse still luxuriates in first class stables and shows no sign of rehabilitation.  Track side intelligence has it that this will be one of the contenders removed before the field comes under starters orders.

Never-tell Lass: Mare by Hard Ridden out of Put-away-Wet.  Rumoured to be one of the field slated for elimination by steward inquiry. The mare is owned and raced by a consortium of shadowy figures who, though their connections, have managed to reduce the handicap by very careful race selection.  The most infamous of all was the Navy Cup affair where much damage was done to reputations of well respected trainers, stables and jockeys after the sport was over.  Ante post odds = bet five to win two – on a no show.  

Texas Hold ‘em: Gelding by Luv-a-flutter out of Credit card.   What can we say; this tried and true, ever reliable stayer has over the years done very well for his connections.  Not many big race wins, but being raced often in small provincial races has more than repaid the training fees and running costs for the owners; even provided a modest holiday or two.  This small, grey contender would and does get missed by bookmakers; slipping quietly into the saddling enclosure, as one the ‘also rans’.  The careful punter, watching closely will see that this animal is always just tucked in behind the front runners, quietly waiting a chance to slip through to the finish line; at good odds.

There are several other selections available, which, given the uncertainty hovering over the starting field makes it a difficult tote board to open.  We have houseboat pigeons perched in various locations who will, as soon as the mists clear, bring the latest up to date ante post odds to Aunty Pru.    By the by, should the race become a non event, called off by the Stewards as a result of their pre race inquiries into the field, all bets will be refunded.   Until then, you pays your money and takes your pick for the ‘In Camera Cup’.

Toot toot......

[Kharon]

To the hells with it – all of it.

It’s late, I’m tired and I am damn fed up, to the back teeth, with the buggering about.  The Casamites should not have started crowing, preening and licking their bollocks about duckling exemptions, but only for sparkling Casasexuals.  Believing the sainted Whatshisname is the bloody Messiah; e-nuff. – FFS exemptions, apologies, gab-fests, exemption, etc.  How’s a girl to know when to drop ‘em, when to hold ‘em; or, when to fold ‘em.  Aye well.

Full steam now: GD; keep it coming.

Seven short days remain before the Senate have a look under the ASA rug; to see what lurks between the cashmere and floor boards.  Couple of ways this could pan out; a forensic examination of the dust particles and a clean up; or will it be a curt directive to quietly sweep up the fluff and dispose of it be 'suggested'.

It has been very quiet.  I would like to think we are sitting through the calm before the storm, during which the Senate stamp their authority on the aviation public service.  It’s about time; in fact, it's well and truly, overdue.

Each of the three departments ASA, ATSB and CASA has basically ignored every Senate recommendation, directive or request.  This is blatant, cynical and demeaning.  The governing department takes the lead in this behaviour,  displaying open contempt, safe in the knowledge of total impunity.

It begs the question – are the Senators toothless, impotent lame ducks producing lots of sound and fury, signifying Nada.  It has been a long while since the fiery closing speeches were heard at the end of the disgraceful Pel-Air affair, which changed absolutely nothing. Makes those who spoke appear quite harmless now; just huffing and puffing; unable to blow the houses of straw, sticks and bricks down.  Made them look good and shine; but, follow up action, pressing for their vital safety recommendations to be executed, closing the loop is not evident.  These are valid questions to which a patient, long suffering industry should be demanding answers.  Fire and brimstone turns to milk and water.

We currently have the ATSB head on a sojourn to Toulouse; unqualified, un-required and of neither practical or intrinsic value, to anyone; not only brushing off Senate committee censure, but keeping his job, but now spending his long protected budget to boot.  Now creating an international embarrassment with his obfuscated management of the search for MH 370.  In trouble now, is he?  No, now taking a holiday in France at twice the cost of retrieving the CVR (Black box) from the Pel-Air aircraft; not counting allowances.  Does the Senate really believe that the ‘re-vamped’ report into the Norfolk ditching will be a game changing epiphany.  Even if it was, can they; or will they do something about the disgraceful standard of ATSB reports?  

We have the current head of the CASA buggering about; capering for the masses;  talking about 15 and 30 year plans, while sweet talking and ‘listening’ to the multitude.  Perhaps the Senate could persuade him to attend a couple of 'hands on' meetings with real industry; those dealing with real problems, created by his management staff.  There’s one due shortly; let him attend that and see for himself exactly what the problem is, who it is and ask why it is. Then report back to the Senate with a result and a head on a pike to prove he has the balls to do this job.  Ho ho; fat chance, he'll issue yet another bloody exemption to cover their sorry, inutile asses and smile while doing it.  Plonker.

Then we have the ASA.  Not too important, they only keep our aircraft separated; which has SFA to do with lazy lunches in expensive restaurants, afternoons spent gambolling in king sized beds, before going home for dinner, with the wife and kids.  Credit cards, used as and when required, dodges, lurks, cute little ways to earn a bonus.  All of this has sod all to do with the business of preventing a shower of aluminium and body parts descending on Melbourne.

Will the Senators roll off the top and point at DPM Truss, to salve their conscience?  Will they force the systems to address the myriad problems, large and small which have been created, fostered, promoted and nurtured by the appalling lack of control government has over those who are paid, very well, to do just a little better than we have witnessed over the past half decade.  Yes Wazza; my word, how time does fly by, don't it?

We shall see; but soon or late; like it or not; someone must call for a reckoning.  But wait; there’s an election erection due in May; can’t rock the boat before that, can we now?  

Turn it off GD – we’re done here; for today.

Selah and good night.

[Gobbledock]

Yep, agreed, time to turn in. Now, where is my shutdown list? Oh here it is;
- Cat in for the night. Check
- Houseboat engine shut down. Check
- Maintenance log filled out. Check
- Mary Poppins umbrella outside. Check
- PC and Poohtube switched off. Check
- Straight off the cupboard top shelf, unsoiled Ribald magazine collectors edition No 42. Check

Lights out..............

[Kharon]

Night mate, thanks for the support steam. Was going to edit again, lest I be found wanting.  But sod it; tomorrow will arrive fast enough.  It's a long way to Tipperary; and, we have many to tip. First job in morning will do.

Toot toot; finished with engines.   ..

[Peetwo]

Okay quoting a full post of mine from the Rev Forsyth thread - Why? Well because it is probably even more relevant to the Senate & the RRAT Senate Committee, so here goes..

Good catch Ol'Tom...




This bit is most relevant & is where De Stoop nails the current impasse..

"..The members of the panel responsible for the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) are disappointed nothing appears to actually be happening in implementing their government accepted recommendations.  There were many relatively simple recommendations that, if implemented, may have given the industry confidence that real reform from the ASRR recommendations were a reality.  Thus far none have been implemented and the panel are now distancing themselves from the DAS given the glacial pace of real implementation of the recommendations of the report.."

Followed by..

"..The perception is that the entrenched CASA bureaucracy, many of whom have weathered successive changes in leadership and policy, are blocking the real reform and need to be eliminated before genuine reform can occur.."

Well said that man..   

With the De Stoop report, the return of Parliament & the upcoming further Senate inquisition of ASA, IMO marks as good a time as any to start firing up the boilers and putting some heat under the usual bureaucratic, parasitic, vermin, that continue to kybosh any of the most recent (more than 60+) official recommendations related to aviation safety.

So for the benefit of the Senators a gentle reminder of some outstanding Senate agenda issues (besides next week's ASA inquisition) relating to aviation safety...

Short statement from Labor Senator Ludwig (ref: Hansard December 02, 2013), my bold.. :

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (17:14): As a pilot and a glider pilot, and someone who is interested in aviation, I do want to speak to this document on the review of aviation safety regulation. As there is limited time available, I will get an opportunity to contribute at a later time. It is encouraging to see in the review that work will be undertaken to ensure that areas of aviation that I have a strong interest in will be consulted. It is very good to see that Mr Phillip Reiss, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, will take a particular role in this. General aviation play a vital role and, by and large, they have been overlooked by successive governments in the past. That is not to detract from the broader ambit of the Australian government's aviation safety regulation review and the strong case for the review made by all the previous speakers.


I will only take a moment of the Senate's time to reflect upon some of the more important areas that need to be addressed and the need to get it right. Through this review, we get an opportunity for eminent Australians to ensure that we can get safety in our airways at the regular public transport level, the general aviation level and what I would call the sports aviation level, so it can be an integrated whole and we have an outcome that provides a good result. I am always a little sceptical when it is 'just another' review. Governments use reviews as a way of not making decisions. I hope it is not going to be that. I hope that this review will be a real review of the operations and that real recommendations come out of the review, and that the government looks at those recommendations with a view to implementing them. Of course, I am not going to second-guess what those recommendations will be or call on the government to implement them. The government should take into account those recommendations to ensure that we get outcomes that will provide for better safety outcomes in aviation for all. With those short remarks, I will take this up at another time. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

 
Indeed leave was granted and this adjourned debate remains on the notice paper to be further debated at a later date:

Orders of the Day

1 Transport—The Australian Government’s aviation safety regulation review—Ministerial statement

Adjourned debate on the motion of Senator Sterle—That the Senate take note of the document (Senator Ludwig, in continuation, 2 December 2013).

 
Maybe now would be a good time to reignite this debate, with the additional element of why the government accepted Forsyth recommendations have seemingly stalled??

  
Okay on top of that I would like to add that there is still a Senate MoP that is very much outstanding and needs to be addressed...

&..

Possible imposition of a penalty on a witness before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee or a person providing information to the committee.


In the context of an inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations and Budget estimates hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in May 2013:

(a) whether disciplinary action was taken against either a witness before the committee or a person providing information to the committee; and
(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in respect of those matters

Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committee of Privileges
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 62773360
Fax: +61 2 62773199
priv.sen@aph.gov.au

Come on Senator Mack & Co - What's the bloody hold up??

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Not contempt, but I'll be Wodgered?

Bugger did my dough on the MOP Stakes a rank outsider 'Sky Sentinel' stole the field...

The following is extracted from Senate Hansard for Wednesday 12th August 2015:

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (16:54): I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendation at paragraph 1.47 of the report that no contempt be found in respect of the matter referred to.

In February of 2013, an employee of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, or CASA, gave in camera evidence to the Rural and Regional Affairs References Committee inquiry into aviation safety. CASA later initiated code of conduct proceedings against the employee, leading to a recommendation that his employment be terminated. Those proceedings related to the employee's use of IT systems, but the references committee was concerned that they were linked to his appearance as a witness. The question for the privileges committee was whether a contempt may have been committed.

Improper interference with a witness ranks amongst the most serious of all possible contempts, so any suggestion that a penalty has been imposed on a witness is treated very seriously. In this case, it was not disputed that action was taken against the employee. What was at issue was whether that action was taken as a result of his giving evidence.

The privileges committee concluded that, on the evidence before it, the requisite causal connection could not be demonstrated. Without that connection, the committee cannot recommend a contempt be found. In reaching this conclusion, it was significant that CASA did not know that the employee had given evidence and did not know what evidence he gave.

Although the code of conduct proceedings were indirectly prompted by subsequent use of the in camera evidence, the committee considered that CASA's actions were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given its limited knowledge of the relevant matters.

I want to draw to the attention of senators comments in the last part of the report about the protection of witnesses. The committee notes the increasingly prevalent but incorrect view that the protection of committees afford their witnesses is akin to whistleblower protection. This view is founded on a misunderstanding of the Senate's contempt powers, which are significant but apply only in respect of conduct tending to improperly interfere with the Senate, its committees or senators.

The immunity of parliamentary proceedings before courts and tribunals under the Parliamentary Privileges Act more closely approximates whistleblower protection, but the interpretation and application of that immunity is a matter for the courts, not for the Senate.

It is important that committees and individual senators give witnesses accurate and measured information about their protections so that they are aware of the scope, source and limitation of that protection. It is equally important that committees are as forthright as possible when dealing with people they apprehend will take adverse actions against witnesses in dealing with their concerns.

The processes which require committees to investigate adverse actions against witnesses provide the opportunity to caution against conduct which might amount to a contempt but can only be effective when parties have sufficient information to guide their actions.

The committee emphasises the preventative and remedial nature of these processes.

Experience has shown that effective intervention by committees while their proceedings are in train generally will often provide a more satisfactory outcome than recourse to the Senate's formal contempt powers.

If no other senator wishes to speak at this time, I seek leave to continue my remarks to preserve the matter for any further debate.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

 
Hmm...so a CASA employee squealed to the committee, any guesses to who that might be?? Bet you can't I didn't...
Well on page 22 of the report we finally get an answer:



 No comment required I reckon...
MTF...P2
"Safe Skies are dodgy (Sentinel) Skies"  

[Gobbledock]

You gotta admit that they did a pretty good job on poor ol Ben! Ben, unfortunately, was outfoxed by some pretty intelligent and intellectual sociopaths. I do feel for the bloke, I really do, but unfortunately he underestimated the enemy, big time!
And it's amazing how that shitty useless system called TRIM does have certain technological features that work when combined with CAsA's I.T gurus - The ability to track down nosy or curious staff who poke around in the wrong backyard!

Interesting how one of the words that was searched in TRIM was ASOP. That was an interesting little group under Boyds oversight who spent 2 years and a couple of million bucks tinkering with projects, ideas and general philosophising and actually achieved nothing and didn't finish any of the projects. Herr Skull put the kybosh on that little gang once he started at Fort Fumble, Herr Boyd slithered away from the mess and one of the 'team' ended up on Skulls hit list for several reasons and eventually resigned and went away. Interesting though is that McSkull has resigned and guess what - she is back as a manager southern region!! It's a Blues Brothers reunion, we're getting the band back together! Once again, the ever trusting Skid-Mark has been duped again by remaining members of the GWM!!! Be careful Marky-poo, somebody might be stacking the numbers against you ol mate. Could be tick tock for you sir!

Finally a message to current CAsA staff; Be careful where you go poking around because big brother is watching. And as for those IPhones you boys are all packing, well those devices are very easily 'monitored' and there is software available to big brother which can even track the last time you broke wind in one of the Comcar's!!!

Tsk tsk tsk Safety First boys!!

[Ziggy]

You gotta admit that they did a pretty good job on poor ol Ben! Ben, unfortunately, was outfoxed by some pretty intelligent and intellectual sociopaths. I do feel for the bloke, I really do, but unfortunately he underestimated the enemy, big time!
And it's amazing how that shitty useless system called TRIM does have certain technological features that work when combined with CAsA's I.T gurus - The ability to track down nosy or curious staff who poke around in the wrong backyard!

Interesting how one of the words that was searched in TRIM was ASOP. That was an interesting little group under Boyds oversight who spent 2 years and a couple of million bucks tinkering with projects, ideas and general philosophising and actually achieved nothing and didn't finish any of the projects. Herr Skull put the kybosh on that little gang once he started at Fort Fumble, Herr Boyd slithered away from the mess and one of the 'team' ended up on Skulls hit list for several reasons and eventually resigned and went away. Interesting though is that McSkull has resigned and guess what - she is back as a manager southern region!! It's a Blues Brothers reunion, we're getting the band back together! Once again, the ever trusting Skid-Mark has been duped again by remaining members of the GWM!!! Be careful Marky-poo, somebody might be stacking the numbers against you ol mate. Could be tick tock for you sir!

Finally a message to current CAsA staff; Be careful where you go poking around because big brother is watching. And as for those IPhones you boys are all packing, well those  devices are very easily 'monitored' and there is software available to big brother which can even track the last time you broke wind in one of the Comcar's!!!

Tsk tsk tsk Safety First boys!!

Seems like this is a fart in a hurricane in the Aviation Portfolio!
So many more broken wings..wind to implode perhaps??

One must beg the question:

What/Who on Earth, our grounds of the APH are impeding Australian Aviation Safety via Bureaucracy on Steroids sitting on their hands unaccountable?

Complexities versus Simplicities. 
The choosing of complex Regs, when other countries "have it together" in Simple, Effective Safe Regs, no depth of learning from past incidents is an absurdity to the Souls Flying in our Skies.

Stay Safe.