[P7_TOM]

“K”- [after] no corrective has been taken in the first event. Why wait for the tenth event?

Naughty; bad “K”. You know full well why not. If they went after him for one ‘breach’ it would have been tossed out. “Well M’lud, it had been a busy day and I mistook 48 litres for 43 litres; it was a simple clerical error; a 4 Kg error I will take care not to make again”. But with eight or ten such errors a trend can be shown and a conviction assured.– Bugger the safety risk (there ain’t one); bugger counselling and guidance; sod warnings given – allow the ‘safe’ risk to continue then go in hard. The only safety question then is that of ‘safe conviction’.

You are forgiven as I can see where this is heading. My bet is safe; can’t wait to see the tote board odds. A dollar on runner #3 for me please.

Two more here barkeep – I’ve just backed an ante post winner.

[Kharon]

Embuggerance Noose v Safety loop.

There will be many who think the latest foray by CASA into the AAT arena was ‘something-nothing’; there will be others who think the rules were broken by an individual who was rightfully punished for doing so; then there is the BRB who simply ask the questions – what was the safety outcome? Who benefited from the cost of the exercise? Was the safety loop closed? I'll try to keep it short:-

It could be argued ‘black letter’ law was broken; and, indeed it was – several times, according to the evidence provided. CASA patiently gathered evidence to support a ‘safety case’ then rather than prosecute the case, decided not to take it any further but waited then knocked back an application for an appointment, based against untested ‘facts and circumstances’ at a later date.

Do you see any benefit, to industry safety, from this course of action? Any at all.

As far as we can tell, when the accused was CP he was ‘slack’ with the paperwork; to wit, the Fuel on Board (FoB) at start should be recorded; the flight time should be recorded and the FoB at shutdown should be recorded. This is not only a world wide practice, but an important operational necessity. Much depends on the accuracy of these figures, operationally and legally. Payload and performance data is based against ‘weight’, there have been several instances quite recently where heavy jet transport have had ‘incidents’ simply because the wrong data was used for calculation. So, is recording the FoB status critical to safety? Yes, is the short answer.

One of the allegations made centres on the ‘weight and balance’ calculations – ‘the trim’. Aircraft have what is known as a centre of gravity (CoG) envelope. It has been proven, many times, that recklessly operating outside of the envelope limitations is dangerous; often fatally so. It’s a pretty fair bet that most professionals have experienced operating with a CoG on the raggedy edges and vowed never to let it happen again. This is particularly important when the CoG is not returning to within the ‘envelope’ as fuel is burned off; in some situations, as the fuel weight diminishes, the CoG can move further away from a critical limit, which is seriously dangerous stuff.

If one forgets about ‘law’ for a moment and considers the operational risk; the case for beating the importance of these calculations into the wooden heads of junior pilots becomes clear; the reasons for refusing to operate outside of theses tolerance ever clearer. It is truly essential. When there has been an incident or accident, the first things determined are the fuel status and CoG location. This can be calculated from recorded figures. When the time comes for sheeting home ‘blame’ (read liability) the fact that the aircraft was legally loaded and trimmed becomes pivotal.

Right, banged on about that enough, lets get down to brass tacks. The big question the BRB want answered is what the hell was CASA playing at?

Here we have an almost classic case of ‘normalised deviance’. Easy to understand; and not, standing alone, terribly dangerous – operationally. The R 22 range of CoG movement with fuel burn off is limited to a very narrow band; so narrow as not to be worthy of serious consideration – as a 'safety' (not legal) matter. The adding and subtracting of 10 or 20 litres of fuel insignificant to operational safety range – for that aircraft. For an experienced man, operating in the bush on say mustering duties  the notion of doing a CoG calculation for every flight would never enter his head; quite right too. But in a flight training operation, where the foundations of future operating practice are laid, not to do so would be a serious matter. Yes, it’s bloody tedious; weighing stuff, calculating the fuel burn, working out the payload, take off weight, landing weight, checking the graphs etc. But it is, at flight school level an essential element. CASA happily testify that they sat back and allowed several counts of a clearly defined, normalised deviance to occur – and did nothing. How many students now have a cavalier attitude toward these matters, because it was allowed to run on? More to the point; if CASA became aware of the practice, then why was the accused not taken aside, spoken to then monitored to make sure the message had been 'properly' delivered?.

Why then, if the practices prosecuted are so lethal and dangerous were they allowed to be continued until a case could be built. The reasons are obvious; there was a case for a serious chat and blood curdling threats to be made; but without a ‘history’ to support the case, CASA had nothing to work with. Dangerous (CASA says) practice allowed to continue, rather than intervention and education. BRB rules that CASA were much more likely to be the root cause an accident than the accused; they knew and failed to act in a proactive manner. Guilty, so say we all. Wotherspoon certainly needed his arse kicked, that’s why CASA have the big boots. Had they done so and the practice continued, then I would say prosecute and well done. But to lay in wait, building a ‘case’ over a period of time, while ignoring the ‘real’ safety issues smacks not only  of vendetta, but dereliction of duty.

Do we have any benefit to industry from this very, very expensive exercise?

Would industry have been better served by quick, immediate action followed by a briefing in the CASA magazine, warning, yet again of the perils of overweight out of CG operations. Perhaps not, but it would have achieved more for ‘safety’ than this fatuous affair in the AAT.

Has the ‘safety loop’ been closed on this issue, through CASA actions?

No, it has not. CASA have failed, yet again, to get the message through to the general population. Until it is understood why these calculations are important; there is no real deterrent or benefit provided.

What, in seven hells is Carmody going to do about it all?

Ayup, you guessed it – SFA. He and bureaucrats like him don’t see the disparity between CASA actions over several cases, that alone is risible. But the continued, selective, subjective, vindictive, pointless edicts of the self appointed judge, jury and executioners is one of the real root cause of industry problems with the CASA. Consistency of action and safety values matter to all, except to those who rely on those elements to weave their little plots and gain brown-eye points. Disgusting.

Reform of the regulator is paramount - just can’t see Carmody tackling that beast. Brains, balls and good will are required; all in short supply at Sleepy Hollow.

Selah.

Sorry P7 – I’ll keep the tote running, but SFA is the only entry so far; Negligence and Ineptitude are in training, Malice and Aforethought can’t decide on a rider and Vindictive is waiting on the Vet’s advice. Patience mate, patience.

[Peetwo]

Damned if you WIN and damned if you don't -

Remember this post? Attempted embuggerance & a Leopard's spots 

In particular this bit:

Which brings me to another classic example of how the more CASA profess they have embraced the findings and recommendations of the ASRR, the more evidence there is that they and the Department are merely paying lip service and playing for time (obfuscating) any real proactive actions on the ASRR..

 Keeping in mind that Dr A has been demoted to manager of LSD, the following is a clear example of the lengths CAsA will still go, with malice & aforethought, when it comes to attempted embuggerances of small inconsequential individuals or businesses.
 Reference from AAT: Bellamy and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2016] AATA 956 (29 November 2016)

CONCLUSION

122.Despite Mr Bellamy having had a very unfortunate experience in his attempt at restoration and testing his J2 gyroplane, I have found that was no evidence upon which CASA can soundly base a suspension of his PPL. All of the difficulties which Mr Bellamy encountered, including his conviction in the Magistrates’ Court, stemmed from his gyroplane involvement. I had no evidence before me that similar circumstances would arise in the future as far as his fixed-wing operations are concerned. Mr Bellamy did not blatantly ignore the advice given to him by CASA and he appeared to have made significant attempts to comply with all legislative requirements as they existed at the time, which were not as clear as perhaps they could have been. I have found that he is a fit and proper person to hold the PPL – aeroplane.

123.I find that the decision made by CASA on 16 March 2016 cancelling Mr Bellamy’s
PPL– aeroplane was not the preferable decision. I set aside that decision. Therefore, Mr Bellamy’s PPL – aeroplane remains valid and should be treated as never having been cancelled. CASA’s records regarding Mr Bellamy should be amended accordingly.

124.I certify that the preceding 123 (one- hundred and twenty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the written reasons herein of Egon Fice, Senior Member

Well apparently the head of the 'CASA Office of Enforcement Embuggerance', Dr A was "not happy Egon!!" and has subsequently decided to waste more ATP money on a second (double jeopardy) attempt at once again embuggering that poor bastard Mr Bellamy...

[b] Civil Aviation Safety Authority  v Bellamy [2017] FCA 829

[/b]

CASA’S APPEAL

30.CASA submitted that the Tribunal had made three errors of law. They were that:◦the Tribunal’s errant finding that reg 229 did not apply to the private operations that Mr Bellamy was undertaking at the time of the crash misled the Tribunal when it was considering whether or not the disqualification grounds had been made out;

◦the Tribunal had misapprehended the elements of the offence for which Mr Bellamy had been convicted, and had made findings of fact which were inconsistent with findings which had been made in the criminal proceedings; and
◦the Tribunal had assessed Mr Bellamy’s fitness and propriety to hold a private pilot’s licence in the aeroplane category on the mistaken basis that his fitness to hold such a licence was to be treated as being distinct from, and unaffected by, his conduct in relation to his operation of a gyroplane and his use of a false maintenance release with the specific intention of unlawfully misleading the CASA investigator and unlawfully influencing CASA’s investigation of the crash.

---

&..

DISPOSITION

53. The appeal should be allowed and the Tribunal’s decision set aside. Mr Bellamy should pay CASA’s costs of the appeal.

54. CASA submitted that the matter should be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal. Whilst acknowledging that the Tribunal had not made any adverse credit findings, it submitted that the case provided “a prime example of a case where a complicated process of fact finding has miscarried through a combination of factors”. Those factors included the assessment of Mr Bellamy’s fitness and propriety, the rejection of the evidence of CASA witnesses and of CASA’s submissions on matters which would fall for reconsideration upon remitter. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Seltsam Pty Limited v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208; (2005) 3 DDCR 1 at 8–9; [2005] NSWCA 208 at [13]–[16] (Mason P) and [141] (Ipp JA) and the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Rayney [2017] WASCA 78 at [243] (Martin CJ, Murphy JA and Corboy J agreeing).

55. Mr Bellamy, on the other hand, contended that there was no need for any rehearing to be conducted by a different member. He submitted that there was nothing, in the Tribunal’s reasons or in its conduct of the appeal, to suggest to a fair-minded observer that the member might not approach any further hearing with an open mind: cf Seltsam at [142]. Furthermore, it was submitted, the additional time and expense which would be involved if the appeal were to proceed afresh before a different member was not warranted in all the circumstances...

...60. In the present matter there is a range of competing considerations which must inform the exercise of the Court’s discretion. There is no suggestion that the member made any adverse credit findings against any witness, indicated a preference for the evidence of one witness over another or failed to afford the parties procedural fairness. On the other hand, the question of Mr Bellamy’s fitness and propriety to hold a pilot’s licence involved a value judgment based on an assessment of his conduct. The misconstruction of reg 229 played some part in this process and resulted from an analysis of the legislation and a conclusion which had not been urged on the Tribunal by either party. There was also an apparent inclination to minimise the implications of a criminal conviction for dishonesty.

61. This, in my view, is a case in which it would be fairer to the parties were the matter to be heard by a differently constituted Tribunal: cf Northern NSW FM Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 26 FCR 39 at 42–43; [1990] FCA 642 at p 6 (Davies and Foster JJ). Any rehearing should not take any longer than the first and may well be shorter if the parties are able to agree that the Tribunal can act on uncontroversial material which was considered by the Tribunal at the first hearing.

62. There will be an order that any rehearing proceed before a differently constituted Tribunal.

 Somehow I think this has less to do with the embuggerance of Mr Bellamy and more about the falling out of favour of the AAAT's Eggon Face - UDB!


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Warning Will Robinson.

This is a ‘point of view’ case though, ain’t it. The Federal Court ‘blurb’ – HERE - makes for interesting reading.

You can see the prosecution argument, it’s the Maintenance Release (MR) which has done the damage. Both sides of the argument ’stack up’ until you wonder why the MR was needed; or thought to be needed. Interesting argument from both sides; but, the court ruled, the fine and costs were imposed along with a ‘criminal’ record. Crime, punishment and an impartial judgement all part of the system, which, cynicism aside, works for the most part in a not perfect world. Mind you, many will argue that without ‘strict liability’ it could have been a lot more difficult for CASA to prove the case; there is also enough evidence of the ‘inspectorate’ not playing by the rules to create reasonable doubt in anyone’s mind. It matters not, the die is cast.

The ‘Egon’ element is interesting; I reckon he is one of the ‘converted’,finally realising that the antics of CASA in the AAAT are risible and that the Mickey was being taken out of what should be a ‘fair’ system, in short, he is reluctant to be convinced by CASA ‘evidence’. Rightly so; and, he may well be out of favour for daring to slap CASA back into it’s box. But, I don’t think that is the reason for  - “62. There will be an order that any rehearing proceed before a differently constituted Tribunal.” It will be Egon's ruling which is being appealed, so it only  makes sense that someone else should ‘judge’ that.

The real worry, IMO, is that CASA were not satisfied with the conviction, but wanted his (Bellamy) licence as well. Is this to become the ultimate goal? CASA proved their case with the MR, the guy has copped a fine and a record for the crime he was charged with; so why persist with taking away his pilot licence?  One crime, one punishment – fair enough; but to persist and extract a second punishment, that seems unreasonable to me.

As said, point of view case this one. I can see where the Fyce ruling may be challenged at law, but it seems to have more to do with unchallenged authority than ‘justice’. Dunno – but read the case through before rushing to conclusion. It’s time well spent – if you want to see how CASA legal operates and where the changes to the regulations need to be made..

Right then, back to my knitting. T-T.

[Peetwo]

CASA duplicity on embuggerance continues -

Yesterday in the Senate Drone Wars inquiry the subject of the duplicitous, double standard behaviour of the aviation regulator was touched on in regards to the alleged drone rule violations by the Senator Hanson led One Nation party - see HERE.

What I found interesting (from that segment) was when Carmody mentioned the fact that he has re-introduced the publication on the CASA website of enforcement decisions. IMO this is a good initiative by Carmody and parallels a similar system endorsed by the FAA, except they also publicly name, shame and fine Operators/Airlines in the interests of the travelling public. 

However the effectiveness of the Carmody initiative would appear to be undermined by the fact that only matters that go to a full blown enforcement decision and 'action' (Dr Hoodoo definition - ) will be published on the CASA website - see HERE and reference the following video segment at 01:50 minutes:  

 


The whole idea of publishing enforcement decisions/investigations is for the regulator to appear to be transparent and consistent in enforcement (i.e. not duplicitous). However once again Dr A undermines this executive initiative by blurring the definitions of what is an enforcement decision and/or action...

Lots MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

1 Down – ‘Hazard – A guess, perhaps (2, 2, 4, 6)'.

Through long, albeit remote association I have become familiar with the ‘cryptic’ cross word puzzle - Mama was a great fan and would often (in desperation) drag all and sundry into the tortured world of solving ‘the clues’. But, I noted over the years that those who indulge in solving the cryptic clues rarely – if ever – stray far from their ‘puzzle-setter’ of choice. For example when the Rev John Graham, better known to his legion fans as Araucaria passed away, the effect on ‘The Guardian’ and his legion of fans was remarkable. It seems that once the ‘code’ has been cracked then there is a chance that the entire puzzle may be solved; which explains why the ‘fans’ rarely attempt to resolve the puzzles set by other compilers. I mention this in passing as a prelude to attempting to resolve the puzzles set yesterday by Aleck in his word duel with the committee. One does need to study and be familiar with the byzantine word patterns to make any sense whatsoever of the cryptic clues on offer.

Here’s one – 14 Down - “As transparent as need be” (2, 4, 1, 6). Another at 8 across ‘Hazard defines as risk’ (3, 1, 4, 2). The Aleck cryptic offerings are in the same class as the legendary 'Poetical scene has surprisingly chaste Lord Archer vegetating (3, 3, 8, 12)’ for driving folk nuts.

The liberties taken with language, the latitude gifted for escape ploys, the scale of wriggle room on offer is breath taking. Almost every sentence uttered is so nebulous and confusing – to those who prefer straight answers – and confounding to those who may seek to legally challenge the ‘clues’ offered as to beggar the imagination.

Take the word ‘Hazard; for example: the WA government provide an adequate definition  - HERE – which does not conflict with the WIKI offering. Read ‘em, then have another listen the ‘Aleck’ application.

Fawcett is onto the game but, wisely, prefers to treat it exactly for what it is; refusing to be drawn into the cryptic games – arguing for ‘good sense’ by stating that all the levers at government disposal should be used to manage and control the ‘risk’. It is a whole different mind set; using all the tools to control and mitigate risk while allowing freedom to grow an industry; not a cryptic remark in sight. Wide screen vision as opposed to the narrow, restricted, self serving bottom of the silo view presented by our safety agencies. Provided the rest of the committee ‘get it’ it seems that the control parameters for the ‘drone’ population will be taken out of the hands of those who prefer to talk in riddles and placed into the hands of men of good will and responsibility. Well done the committee, Bravo.

One small puzzle has been resolved though – the urge to wear Hi-viz ‘yellow’. It’s quite Freudian really – Canaries are bright yellow and they love to sing. Was Hood issuing a warning ? – “we will sing”. Gods alone what the tune he would sing could sound like; probably 'sound like cell doors slamming (3.4.2,7)'. 

Aye well; it’s all a puzzle, deep, dark and cryptic, beyond my feeble powers, but the tote board line for the Senators went up a couple of points last evening. Any more of that and I’ll have to shorten the odds. Never a cross word when I do that.


Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

TAFE South Oz - 'Hazard a guess'; or embuggerance -  

Not my area but I note this breaking news (Weekend Oz and Adelaide Advertiser) story today:

Training flaws spark air-safety scandal

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie.

• Michael Owen
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 2, 2017
  

Almost 100 aircraft maintenance engineers from across the country have had key parts of their ­licences suspended since May after an air safety regulator audit exposed a serious training bungle that risked endangering the lives of air travellers.

An investigation by The Weekend Australian has revealed about 90 engineers, whose jobs are to ensure planes and helicopters are safe to fly, have been caught up in the scandal at the Parafield Airport campus of TAFE SA.

A Qantas spokeswoman said last night the airline would not recognise or approve the training qualifications of a “small number” of its engineers at TAFE SA while the Civil Aviation Safety Auth­ority continued its investigation.

“This training was part of the engineers’ continuous development, and over and above the standard base level training ­required by Qantas engineers,” she said.

She added Qantas no longer used TAFE SA for training.

The issue came to light after a routine audit by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority five months ago. An investigation is ongoing, with some training ­activities and licence conditions suspended “until further notice”.

South Australian Skills Minister Susan Close was informed of the investigation in late April. ­Although the minister “sought immediate and comprehensive advice on the matter and how it was to be resolved”, the public was not told.

TAFE SA course guidelines warn that “being a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer carries with it a lot of responsibility ... after all, you could kill people”.

One engineer, who is unable to carry out aspects of his job while privileges of his licence remain suspended, said the failure to teach to acceptable standards potentially had endangered lives. “This mess has affected lots of people and Australia is lucky it has not ended in a major aircraft disaster,” said the man, who asked not to be named.

A CASA spokesman said yesterday: “Aviation safety has been protected through the checks and balances built into the aircraft maintenance system. All maintenance licence holders ­exercise their licence privileges under the control of CASA-­approved aircraft maintenance organisations.”

TAFE SA operates a “maintenance training organisation” under approvals issued by CASA. There are three other centres in the country offering the training: TAFE NSW, Aviation Australia and Federation Training in Gippsland, Victoria. A CASA spokesman said the other centres were not affected.

More than 80 per cent of aircraft maintenance engineers in Australia have certificate or ­diploma level qualifications, while 3 per cent have bachelor degrees from universities.
Depending on specialisation, aircraft maintenance engineers inspect, maintain and repair the airframe and engine systems, the electrical and instrument systems, or the body of an aircraft.

In May, TAFE SA chief executive Robin Murt wrote to students advising that a recent CASA audit indicated that “certain training and assessment standards may not have been properly assured by TAFE SA in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements”. TAFE SA said yesterday the ongoing investigation, which involved a “student-by-student review of all material”, was expected to be completed within weeks.

Some affected engineers, who declined to be named for fear of industry repercussions, said they were losing up to $1000 a week in wages; others said they were in danger of missing out on promotions or job openings.

Some students told The Weekend Australian that most of those doing the course at Parafield Airport had not completed the practical component. When it was offered, it was fast-tracked, with some material already ­assembled to enable students to pass quickly.

One student said some were advised to sign enrolment and attendance logs to ­obtain practical qualifications that they would not be undertaking, in order to provide evidence of compliance. They said it ­appeared the course was designed to allow as many students as possible to pass exams with little emphasis on learning the ­theory or practical components.

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie said the issues identified by CASA, mainly around administration, were “critical in this environment”. “This is quite embarrassing,” he said. “The training itself was where it needed to be, but we couldn’t demonstrate it.”

He said retraining and compensation would be considered on a “one-on-one basis”.
A Virgin Australia spokeswoman said the airline had no relationship with TAFE SA.

 
&..

TAFE SA aircraft maintenance students hit after CASA finds course to be inadequate
The Advertiser 9h ago

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

TAFE South Oz - 'Hazard a guess'; or embuggerance -  

Not my area but I note this breaking news (Weekend Oz and Adelaide Advertiser) story today:

Training flaws spark air-safety scandal

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie.

• Michael Owen
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 2, 2017
  

Almost 100 aircraft maintenance engineers from across the country have had key parts of their ­licences suspended since May after an air safety regulator audit exposed a serious training bungle that risked endangering the lives of air travellers.

An investigation by The Weekend Australian has revealed about 90 engineers, whose jobs are to ensure planes and helicopters are safe to fly, have been caught up in the scandal at the Parafield Airport campus of TAFE SA.

A Qantas spokeswoman said last night the airline would not recognise or approve the training qualifications of a “small number” of its engineers at TAFE SA while the Civil Aviation Safety Auth­ority continued its investigation.

“This training was part of the engineers’ continuous development, and over and above the standard base level training ­required by Qantas engineers,” she said.

She added Qantas no longer used TAFE SA for training.

The issue came to light after a routine audit by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority five months ago. An investigation is ongoing, with some training ­activities and licence conditions suspended “until further notice”.

South Australian Skills Minister Susan Close was informed of the investigation in late April. ­Although the minister “sought immediate and comprehensive advice on the matter and how it was to be resolved”, the public was not told.

TAFE SA course guidelines warn that “being a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer carries with it a lot of responsibility ... after all, you could kill people”.

One engineer, who is unable to carry out aspects of his job while privileges of his licence remain suspended, said the failure to teach to acceptable standards potentially had endangered lives. “This mess has affected lots of people and Australia is lucky it has not ended in a major aircraft disaster,” said the man, who asked not to be named.

A CASA spokesman said yesterday: “Aviation safety has been protected through the checks and balances built into the aircraft maintenance system. All maintenance licence holders ­exercise their licence privileges under the control of CASA-­approved aircraft maintenance organisations.”

TAFE SA operates a “maintenance training organisation” under approvals issued by CASA. There are three other centres in the country offering the training: TAFE NSW, Aviation Australia and Federation Training in Gippsland, Victoria. A CASA spokesman said the other centres were not affected.

More than 80 per cent of aircraft maintenance engineers in Australia have certificate or ­diploma level qualifications, while 3 per cent have bachelor degrees from universities.
Depending on specialisation, aircraft maintenance engineers inspect, maintain and repair the airframe and engine systems, the electrical and instrument systems, or the body of an aircraft.

In May, TAFE SA chief executive Robin Murt wrote to students advising that a recent CASA audit indicated that “certain training and assessment standards may not have been properly assured by TAFE SA in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements”. TAFE SA said yesterday the ongoing investigation, which involved a “student-by-student review of all material”, was expected to be completed within weeks.

Some affected engineers, who declined to be named for fear of industry repercussions, said they were losing up to $1000 a week in wages; others said they were in danger of missing out on promotions or job openings.

Some students told The Weekend Australian that most of those doing the course at Parafield Airport had not completed the practical component. When it was offered, it was fast-tracked, with some material already ­assembled to enable students to pass quickly.

One student said some were advised to sign enrolment and attendance logs to ­obtain practical qualifications that they would not be undertaking, in order to provide evidence of compliance. They said it ­appeared the course was designed to allow as many students as possible to pass exams with little emphasis on learning the ­theory or practical components.

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie said the issues identified by CASA, mainly around administration, were “critical in this environment”. “This is quite embarrassing,” he said. “The training itself was where it needed to be, but we couldn’t demonstrate it.”

He said retraining and compensation would be considered on a “one-on-one basis”.
A Virgin Australia spokeswoman said the airline had no relationship with TAFE SA.

 
&..

TAFE SA aircraft maintenance students hit after CASA finds course to be inadequate
The Advertiser 9h ago

Update: Via CW...

Minister Susan Close pressured to ‘come clean’ over air safety bungle

The opposition has called for South Australian Skills Minister Susan Close to “come clean” over why she kept quiet for months after a national air safety regulator audit exposed a serious training bungle at TAFE SA that could have endangered the lives of air travellers.

South Australian Liberal Opposition Deputy Leader Vickie Chapman today told reporters in Adelaide the revelations in The Weekend Australianexposed a “scandal”.

“We have a situation where TAFE are now under review in respect of an aviation maintenance and engineering course,” Ms Chapman said.

“This is not about greasing a bicycle chain. This is about keeping planes in the sky.”

As revealed by The Weekend Australian, around 90 aircraft maintenance engineers, whose jobs are to ensure planes and helicopters are safe to fly, have been caught up in the scandal at the Parafield Airport campus of TAFE SA.

Those affected include a small number of Qantas engineers.

An investigation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and TAFE SA is ongoing with some training activities and licence conditions suspended “until further notice”.

Ms Chapman called on Skills Minister Susan Close, who was informed of the bungle in April, to “come clean”.

“It is absolutely critical now that Minister Close come clean as to why she has kept this review a secret now for four months,” she said.

“It is totally unacceptable that such a serious allegation, resulting in a secret review should have continued to be concealed from the public.

“Minister Close had every opportunity to report to the parliament what had happened, what she was doing about it, and provide reassurance to the public.

“Instead she has been absolutely silent on this for four months.

“This government just continue in scandal after scandal and concealment of these events, which is not only unacceptable but leaves in this instance a situation of serious concern by the community.”

A spokeswoman for Dr Close said the minister was advised of the matter in late April and sought her own reassurance.

“The Minister was notified in late April and as a result sought immediate and comprehensive advice on the matter and how it was to be resolved,” the spokeswoman said.

Ms Chapman said the bungle had left scores of students in limbo and “who now have a certificate which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”.

“Clearly they will need to be re-skilled if they want to pursue this type of occupation. They are the first lot of victims,” she said,

“But the people of South Australia are victims when this type of scandal is continued to be concealed. We want to know what has happened and obviously some reassurance that this hasn’t permeated other aspects of TAFE.”

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie told The Weekend Australian that the issues, mainly around administration, identified by CASA were “critical in this (aviation) environment”.

“This is quite embarrassing,” he said.

“The training itself was where it needed to be, but we couldn’t demonstrate it.”

Mr Rungie said retraining and compensation for those affected would be considered on a “one-on-one basis”.

“From our internal perspective, this has been a situation that clearly is not satisfactory and we will be addressing internally,” he said. “We’ve let ourselves down.”

A CASA spokesman said, “issues were found with training assessments and outcomes”.

“These issues related to procedures that must be followed under their approved maintenance training manual,” the spokesman said.

“CASA will ensure all issues are fully rectified before normal training activities resume.”

Some affected aircraft maintenance engineers have told The Weekend Australian that the failure to teach to acceptable standards potentially had endangered lives.

But the CASA spokesman said: “Aviation safety has been protected through the checks and balances built into the aircraft maintenance system.”

There are only three other centres in the country offering the training; at TAFE NSW, Aviation Australia and Federation Training in Gippsland, Victoria.

An ongoing investigation into the TAFE SA course, which involves a “student-by-student review of all material”, is expected to be completed within weeks, Mr Rungie said.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Update to SA TAFE scandal -

Via the Oz & CW...

Helicopter firm CHC hit by fallout from training scandal

South Australian Skills Minister Susan Close. Picture: Campbell Brodie

• Michael Owen
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 5, 2017
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/30516814f413e39639e1d8a8f9493a05/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
  

The largest commercial helicopter operator in Australia has — like Qantas — been hit by a ­national air safety audit that exposed a serious training bungle at TAFE SA that could have endangered the lives of air travellers.

CHC Helicopter, which ­employs more than 400 people at 22 bases across the country, yesterday said some of its aircraft maintenance engineers were ­affected by the training scandal at the Parafield Airport campus of TAFE SA.

As revealed by The Weekend Australian, about 90 aircraft maintenance engineers, who work to ensure planes and helicopters are safe to fly, have had key parts of their licences suspended “until further notice” amid an investigation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Andy Johnson, CHC Helicopter regional maintenance manager Asia Pacific, told The Australian that TAFE SA was ­engaged for a “small number” of engineers to advance their skills and for a “handful” of basic ­licence training exams.

“The licence restriction removal training and exams were to extend certification coverage, but required further, as yet ­uncompleted, training on specific types of aircraft to be granted certification privileges,” Mr Johnson said.

He said the bungle had not ­affected the company’s day-to-day operations.
This comes after Qantas said the airline would not recognise or approve the training qualifications undertaken by a “small number” of its engineers at TAFE SA while CASA continued its ­investigation.

Yesterday, South Australian Skills Minister Susan Close confirmed a routine audit by CASA earlier this year found the TAFE SA students were not assessed to the correct standards and exams had raised questions as to ­whether they were taught the right skills. Dr Close was informed of the matter in April but did not tell the public.

She said the government was “looking at the legal advice on what kind of liability that TAFE has and what kind of compensation might need to be offered”.

“If we’ve done the wrong thing we need to be honest about that,” she told ABC radio.
Opposition spokesman David Pisoni and Greens MP Tammy Franks called on Dr Close to ­direct an audit of all TAFE SA processes and qualifications. However, Dr Close said this was unnecessary as “professions are audited in the appropriate way by the accrediting authority”.

A former student of the suspended aircraft maintenance course at TAFE SA yesterday said CASA was investigating allegations that many of those doing the course at Parafield Airport had not completed the practical component, and when it was ­offered it was fast-tracked, with some material already assembled to enable students to pass quickly.

He said CASA also was examining whether some students were advised to sign enrolment and attendance logs to obtain practical qualifications that they would not be undertaking, in order to provide evidence of compliance. It also has been alleged the course was designed to allow as many students as possible to pass exams, with little emphasis on learning the theory or practical components.

A CASA spokesman said he could not comment on that ­aspect of the investigation “at this stage”.

MTF...P2  

[MrPeaBody]

It would be interesting to see how long this has been hiding.........v5.10 of this AC indicates very early in the year.



I wonder why it took so long to break......is there a government department trying to hide something?

Surely not....Safe Skies For All!

[Peetwo]

The TAFE South Oz saga continues -

Courtesy Cap'n Wannabe, via the Oz:

Training scandals stretch to aviation

Parafield Airport’s flight training school

• John Ross
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 6, 2017
  

Two scandals at Adelaide’s Parafield Airport have raised fears that the training loans debacle has infiltrated aviation, potentially endangering passengers and dashing the career dreams of would-be pilots and maintenance specialists.

On Saturday, The Weekend Australian revealed that a “serious training bungle” at TAFE SA’s aviation training campus had forced the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to suspend parts of the licences of about 90 aircraft maintenance engineers.

While details of the failure have not been disclosed, students blamed fast-tracking and incorrect documentation of practical components of the training in an effort to graduate as many as possible.

Today, The Australian reports that another college based at the airport faces closure over an audit finding that it misled students and regulators, and profiteered from state and federal training funding schemes.

The Australian Skills Quality Authority investigation found that Bruce Hartwig Flying School had issued students “multiple contradictory transcripts”. ASQA’s report suggests the school failed to establish students’ capacity to undertake the training, denied them access to vital study resources and blamed their inability to progress on “learning difficulties”.

Three former students have applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the cancellation of debts — understood to be about $90,000 each — accrued under the VET FEE-HELP loans scheme.

They are understood to have been part of a class of 23 students who enrolled in late 2013, none of whom passed. Their requests for the college to cancel the debts were denied after reviews that dragged on for months.

South Australian senator Nick Xenophon took up the students’ cause during an estimates hearing last October. He told The Australian he had “serious concerns” about the treatment of students who had amassed huge debts under VET FEE-HELP.

He said the new revelations suggested a “broader issue” around aviation schools. “It’s such a high-profile, glamorous career, but people just don’t get work out of it.”

Some engineers affected by the TAFE SA bungle said it had cost them up to $1000 a week in wages. Others said they were in danger of missing out on job openings or promotions.

South Australian opposition spokesman David Pisoni called on the state government to conduct a full audit of TAFE SA processes and qualifications “to ensure this failure isn’t being repeated in other courses”.

Greens MP Tammy Franks, who was involved in two recent vocational education inquiries, warned the aviation training scandal was “likely to be the tip of the iceberg”.
Bruce Hartwig Flying School did not respond to The Australian’s requests for comment.

The ASQA investigation report suggests it played two funding schemes off against each other, incorrectly claiming money from both VET FEE-HELP and South Australia’s Skills for All scheme.

It had taught students certificate-level qualifications after enrolling them in an advanced diploma, with their hefty tuition fees covered by VET FEE-HELP — which is only available to students at diploma level and above. Meanwhile it had claimed state government subsidies for certificate training, even though it was not authorised to teach the certificates.

The school was an approved provider under the first six months of the VET Student Loans scheme that replaced VET FEE-HELP. A report last month found it had attracted almost $220,000 in loans and no students had passed any subjects. The school was left off the new approved provider list commencing in July.

---

&..

Air school crash left trainee pilots with sky-high tuition debts

Parafield Airport flight training school.

• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 6, 2017
  
• [size=undefined]JOHN ROSS
  
  Higher Education reporter
  Sydney
  @JohnRoss49
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/87cd1c5a9ea9d7fe70ed0978bfe815ea/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]MICHAEL OWEN
  
  SA Bureau Chief
  Adelaide
  @mjowen
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/30516814f413e39639e1d8a8f9493a05/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img][/size]
  

An aviation training scandal in South Australia has ensnared would-be pilots as well as aircraft maintenance engineers, with a private flying college adjoining a TAFE SA campus at Parafield Airport fighting moves to close it over multiple regulatory breaches.

Bruce Hartwig Flying School has commenced proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to overturn the national ­vocational training regulator’s May decision to cancel its registration. An investigation by the Australian Skills Quality Authority found the school taught courses it was not authorised to provide; gave contradictory documen­tation to regulators; and incorrectly claimed training funds from the federal and state governments.

The school also misled students about the requirements of the advanced diploma of aviation, issued them with “multiple contradictory transcripts” and blamed students’ “learning difficulties” when they failed to complete the course.

The AAT is processing appli­cations by three former Bruce Hartwig students seeking to expunge debts understood to exceed $80,000 each. The Australian understands they were among 23 students enrolled in late 2013 who did not pass after paying exorbitant tuition fees.

Debts were amassed under the now-scrapped VET FEE-HELP training loans scheme, which absorbed more than $8 billion of taxpayer funds and left thousands of students with massive debts.

Aviation courses were a key driver of this excess. Among the 96 students who accumulated $99,000-plus debts last year, while the program was supposedly being wound down, the most expensive course was a single subject from an aviation diploma at $45,389. The school did not respond to The Australian’s requests for comment. It was established in the 1960s in regional South Australia before relocating to Parafield, north of Adelaide.

It is believed it enrolled 25 to 30 students each year in courses costing upward of $90,000. The school claims its “unblemished” safety record has given it longevity at its base at Parafield Airport, where 17 other flying schools have closed their doors in recent decades. In May, its chief pilot, Paul Daw, died with two others in a plane crash in South Australia’s Riverland.
 
Parafield is also the base of TAFE SA’s licensed aircraft maintenance engineer training, where about 90 students have had parts of their licences suspended after an audit by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

As revealed by The Weekend Australian, South Australian Skills Minister Susan Close was informed of the scandal in late April.


Although the minister “sought immediate and comprehensive advice”, the public was never told.

Dr Close said legal advice was being considered on TAFE’s lia­bility. “The federal minister knows. If the minister (responsible) for CASA had felt (it) was necessary to go public, he was perfectly entitled to do that, but has not,” she told ABC radio.

Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester said the Weatherill government was accountable for the delivery of all courses at TAFE SA. “CASA’s role is to provide syllabus requirements and audit the course,” Mr Chester said.

“TAFE SA did not deliver the syllabus they agreed to deliver, to the required standard,’’ he said

Typical Chester - spin it around to politics and blame the Weatherill Labor government but you have got to wonder about CASA's oversight of this whole schmozzle...


MTF...P2  

[MrPeaBody]

Typical Chester - spin it around to politics and blame the Weatherill Labor government but you have got to wonder about CASA's oversight of this whole schmozzle...

You are not wrong there!!

The Australian Skills Quality Authority are an absolutely useless outfit when it comes to oversight and auditing of the education system; having had first hand experience of their ineptitude.

And yet a piss weak outfit manages to uncover this while in the mean time, the supposedly ultimate governing regulatory body uncovers F all. FFS!!!!!  

Where's the broom?

CASA BOHICA!

[Peetwo]

Typical Chester - spin it around to politics and blame the Weatherill Labor government but you have got to wonder about CASA's oversight of this whole schmozzle...  

You are not wrong there!!

The Australian Skills Quality Authority are an absolutely useless outfit when it comes to oversight and auditing of the education system; having had first hand experience of their ineptitude.

And yet a piss weak outfit manages to uncover this while in the mean time, the supposedly ultimate governing regulatory body uncovers F all. FFS!!!!!  

Where's the broom?

CASA BOHICA!

Yet another update with Hartwig's pushing back...

Flying school disputes regulatory breach claims

• John Ross
  
• The Australian
  
• 5:08PM September 6, 2017
  

[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/87cd1c5a9ea9d7fe70ed0978bfe815ea/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
An Adelaide aviation college has disputed accusations of regulatory breaches that have left its vocational training arm under a cloud.

Bruce Hartwig Flying School has challenged the national training regulator’s findings that triggered its May decision to cancel the college’s registration. That decision is now under review by the Adelaide registry of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Australian Skills Quality Authority found that the school had taught two certificates that it was not authorised to deliver, and broken other regulatory standards including failing to give students access to accurate records of their progress.

ASQA said had the college had also failed to comply with the rules of the VET FEE-HELP training loans program, by charging students fees for courses not permitted under the program.

College director David Johnston said the findings were untrue, and in any case related to a course established before he and fellow director David Blake bought the school in 2014.

“This is a historical issue relating to the previous owners,” he said.

Mr Johnston also disputed suggestions that the college had profiteered from state and federal skills funding schemes. He said the VET FEE-HELP rules had not been broken, with certificate-level training — which is not covered by the loan scheme — funded by extra “gap” fees paid by the students.

He said money obtained under South Australia’s Skills for All scheme had gone straight to the students. “Every cent of the Skills for All subsidy was applied to the students’ accounts in an effort to minimise their gap payments.”

Mr Johnston also disputed reports that none of a class of 20 students had passed an expensive advanced diploma course. He said 17 of them had opted to focus on obtaining flying licences rather than the vocational credential, after it became evident that some would struggle to finish the full course in time.

He said authorities had agreed to this “more flexible” arrangement, and more than ten of the students were now working as “fully qualified commercial pilots”.

An Australian Skills Quality Authority spokesman said the AAT had granted the college a stay, enabling it to operate without any restrictions until the review application was decided.

“As this matter is now before the tribunal, it would be inappropriate for ASQA to comment any further,” he said.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Update via Friday's the Oz:

TAFE SA vows to fix Parafield aircraft engineer training bungle

Ken Cannane of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Association. Picture: Renee Nowytarger\

• Michael Owen, Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 8, 2017
  

Executives at embattled TAFE SA say they are determined the ­organisation will remain as one of four training centres in Australia for licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, despite a serious bungle that has left students in limbo.

About 90 students have had parts of their licences suspended after an audit in April by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority found students at the Parafield Airport campus were not assessed to the correct standards and exams had raised questions as to whether they were taught the right skills. An ongoing CASA investigation is expected to be completed this month.

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie told The Australian that the issues, mainly around administration, identified by CASA were “critical in this environment”. He said the “training itself was where it needed to be, but we couldn’t demonstrate it”.

Mr Rungie insisted TAFE SA’s aviation training, currently suspended, would continue.

“We have students from all over the country and internationally,” he said.

“We have apologised to the students. This is not who we are ... we will continue to work with our students, the industry and CASA.

“TAFE SA is committed to staying within the aviation space as one of the training providers supporting South Australia both now and going forward, and nat­ionally. We need to ensure we drive that quality agenda and make sure students get the right experience.”

Mr Rungie said there were gaps in TAFE SA’s record keeping and they had accepted no new students since the audit in late March/early April.

The situation comes amid concerns about a looming shortage of trained maintenance workers and amid calls for funding for engineering apprentice training.

Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Association director Ken Cannane said the licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in general aviation was an ageing cohort.

“We need to get the younger people in and give them the experience before these blokes retire,” Mr Cannane said.

An issue for industry is that CASA part 66, which sets out the requirements for aircraft maintenance engineer licences, is not fully harmonised with the European Aviation Safety Agency system, which can cause problems getting the license recognised overseas.

CASA is looking at the issue as part of its review of part 66.

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said he wanted to see funding for the training, which ­relies now on state funding to be supplemented by the federal government to ensure adequate and consistent funding is available nationally.

TAFE SA operates a “maintenance training organisation” under approvals issued by CASA.

There are only three other centres in the country offering the training; at TAFE NSW, Aviation Australia and Federation Training in Gippsland, Victoria.

A CASA spokesman said the other centres were not affected.

More than 80 per cent of aircraft maintenance engineers in Australia have certificate or diploma level qualifications, while 3 per cent have university degrees.

&..

Training conflicts raise safety fears

VET has become an important avenue for aviation students. Picture: Darren Leigh Roberts

• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 8, 2017
  

• [size=undefined]JOHN ROSS
  
  Higher Education reporter
  Sydney
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/87cd1c5a9ea9d7fe70ed0978bfe815ea/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img][/size]
  

Conflicts between two “parallel” aviation training systems have prompted safety concerns and warnings that Australia risks squandering an opportunity to cash in on business opportunities from southeast Asia.

An Adelaide flight school has highlighted “unintended consequences” of a mismatch in aviation training, in which one stream ­focuses on Civil Aviation Safety Authority credentials and the other on vocational education and training qualifications.

The private college, based at Parafield Airport, faces Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings related to three students’ failure to complete VET diplomas.

The co-director of the college, Bruce Hartwig Flying School, said a VET focus on pass rates — appropriate for many disciplines but not the high-stakes world of aviation — had left colleges in a bind.

David Johnston cited Education Department requirements for colleges to achieve pass rates of at least 50 per cent in order for their students to qualify for Vocational Student Loans.

“This puts a flight school in an invidious position,” he said. “It can lose its accreditation to offer students VET funding, and potentially be out of business, if it sticks to its safety mandate.

“Or it can try to shove people through who ­potentially shouldn’t be flying, in an effort to maintain its business viability.

“The unintended consequences are horrific. I’m convinced there will be accidents if the policy’s not changed.”

Authorities shrugged off the warning. The Education Department did not comment.on safety concerns, while a Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman said issues relating to the loan scheme were “not under our area of responsibility”.

“If CASA has evidence of the required training standards not being met we will take appropriate action,” he added.

VET has become an important avenue for aviation students since the introduction of the VET FEE-HELP loans scheme in 2012. The HECS-style loans, which allowed students to defer paying their hefty tuition fees until they were earning reasonable wages, opened a new door into an occupation often previously reserved for ­people with sufficient cash.

The scheme was marred by wide-scale rorting, unsustainable growth and subterranean completion rates. Loans have been curtailed under the far more restrictive VSL program, which replaced VET FEE-HELP this year.

Bruce Hartwig Flying School has now lost access to VSL, and could be denied any VET funding, after the Australian Skills Quality Authority moved to cancel its registration over alleged breaches.

The school disputes ASQA’s findings, which mostly relate to activities before Mr Johnston and co-director David Blake bought the college in 2014.

The matter is being reviewed by the AAT.

A report into the first six months of the VSL scheme says no students at the school have passed any of their subjects, even though the college has attracted almost $220,000 in loans covering that period. Two other flight schools recorded similar results.

Mr Johnston said subjects typically took six months, and the students had been in the courses for only about three months of the ­period covered by the report.

He said VET measures often failed to capture the complexity of aviation training.

For example, a student might pull out of a course after earning a commercial pilot’s licence, and build up flying hours before re-­enrolling a couple of years later to obtain an instrument rating. “Statistically, we have to report that as a withdrawal,” Mr Johnston said. “That’s seen as a failure.”

He said the field was replete with “perverse” outcomes, such as students failing VET courses but nevertheless earning their aviation licences.

“Paradoxically, you can pass your course and come out with no licences. You may have a diploma, but you’re unemployable.”

Mr Johnston said problems like this could deny Australia a place in a growing export training market: southeast Asia is unable to skill up an estimated 228,000 ­pilots needed over the next 18 years. While they had traditionally trained in the US, the lower dollar had made Australia more competitive.

“From a safety and quality standpoint, Australia is arguably the best place to train in the world,” he said.

“We’ve got a huge opportunity to earn export income.”

MTF...P2  

[thorn bird]

The headline in this debacle perhaps should read:

"PART 66. ANOTHER MONUMENTAL CAsA FAILURE"

[Peetwo]

Update via Friday's the Oz:

TAFE SA vows to fix Parafield aircraft engineer training bungle

Ken Cannane of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Association. Picture: Renee Nowytarger\

• Michael Owen, Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 8, 2017
  

Executives at embattled TAFE SA say they are determined the ­organisation will remain as one of four training centres in Australia for licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, despite a serious bungle that has left students in limbo.

About 90 students have had parts of their licences suspended after an audit in April by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority found students at the Parafield Airport campus were not assessed to the correct standards and exams had raised questions as to whether they were taught the right skills. An ongoing CASA investigation is expected to be completed this month.

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie told The Australian that the issues, mainly around administration, identified by CASA were “critical in this environment”. He said the “training itself was where it needed to be, but we couldn’t demonstrate it”.

Mr Rungie insisted TAFE SA’s aviation training, currently suspended, would continue.

“We have students from all over the country and internationally,” he said.

“We have apologised to the students. This is not who we are ... we will continue to work with our students, the industry and CASA.

“TAFE SA is committed to staying within the aviation space as one of the training providers supporting South Australia both now and going forward, and nat­ionally. We need to ensure we drive that quality agenda and make sure students get the right experience.”

Mr Rungie said there were gaps in TAFE SA’s record keeping and they had accepted no new students since the audit in late March/early April.

The situation comes amid concerns about a looming shortage of trained maintenance workers and amid calls for funding for engineering apprentice training.

Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Association director Ken Cannane said the licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in general aviation was an ageing cohort.

“We need to get the younger people in and give them the experience before these blokes retire,” Mr Cannane said.

An issue for industry is that CASA part 66, which sets out the requirements for aircraft maintenance engineer licences, is not fully harmonised with the European Aviation Safety Agency system, which can cause problems getting the license recognised overseas.

CASA is looking at the issue as part of its review of part 66.

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said he wanted to see funding for the training, which ­relies now on state funding to be supplemented by the federal government to ensure adequate and consistent funding is available nationally.

TAFE SA operates a “maintenance training organisation” under approvals issued by CASA.

There are only three other centres in the country offering the training; at TAFE NSW, Aviation Australia and Federation Training in Gippsland, Victoria.

A CASA spokesman said the other centres were not affected.

More than 80 per cent of aircraft maintenance engineers in Australia have certificate or diploma level qualifications, while 3 per cent have university degrees.

&..

Training conflicts raise safety fears

VET has become an important avenue for aviation students. Picture: Darren Leigh Roberts

• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 8, 2017
  

• [size=undefined]JOHN ROSS
  
  Higher Education reporter
  Sydney
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/87cd1c5a9ea9d7fe70ed0978bfe815ea/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img][/size]
  

Conflicts between two “parallel” aviation training systems have prompted safety concerns and warnings that Australia risks squandering an opportunity to cash in on business opportunities from southeast Asia.

An Adelaide flight school has highlighted “unintended consequences” of a mismatch in aviation training, in which one stream ­focuses on Civil Aviation Safety Authority credentials and the other on vocational education and training qualifications.

The private college, based at Parafield Airport, faces Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings related to three students’ failure to complete VET diplomas.

The co-director of the college, Bruce Hartwig Flying School, said a VET focus on pass rates — appropriate for many disciplines but not the high-stakes world of aviation — had left colleges in a bind.

David Johnston cited Education Department requirements for colleges to achieve pass rates of at least 50 per cent in order for their students to qualify for Vocational Student Loans.

“This puts a flight school in an invidious position,” he said. “It can lose its accreditation to offer students VET funding, and potentially be out of business, if it sticks to its safety mandate.

“Or it can try to shove people through who ­potentially shouldn’t be flying, in an effort to maintain its business viability.

“The unintended consequences are horrific. I’m convinced there will be accidents if the policy’s not changed.”

Authorities shrugged off the warning. The Education Department did not comment.on safety concerns, while a Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman said issues relating to the loan scheme were “not under our area of responsibility”.

“If CASA has evidence of the required training standards not being met we will take appropriate action,” he added.

VET has become an important avenue for aviation students since the introduction of the VET FEE-HELP loans scheme in 2012. The HECS-style loans, which allowed students to defer paying their hefty tuition fees until they were earning reasonable wages, opened a new door into an occupation often previously reserved for ­people with sufficient cash.

The scheme was marred by wide-scale rorting, unsustainable growth and subterranean completion rates. Loans have been curtailed under the far more restrictive VSL program, which replaced VET FEE-HELP this year.

Bruce Hartwig Flying School has now lost access to VSL, and could be denied any VET funding, after the Australian Skills Quality Authority moved to cancel its registration over alleged breaches.

The school disputes ASQA’s findings, which mostly relate to activities before Mr Johnston and co-director David Blake bought the college in 2014.

The matter is being reviewed by the AAT.

A report into the first six months of the VSL scheme says no students at the school have passed any of their subjects, even though the college has attracted almost $220,000 in loans covering that period. Two other flight schools recorded similar results.

Mr Johnston said subjects typically took six months, and the students had been in the courses for only about three months of the ­period covered by the report.

He said VET measures often failed to capture the complexity of aviation training.

For example, a student might pull out of a course after earning a commercial pilot’s licence, and build up flying hours before re-­enrolling a couple of years later to obtain an instrument rating. “Statistically, we have to report that as a withdrawal,” Mr Johnston said. “That’s seen as a failure.”

He said the field was replete with “perverse” outcomes, such as students failing VET courses but nevertheless earning their aviation licences.

“Paradoxically, you can pass your course and come out with no licences. You may have a diploma, but you’re unemployable.”

Mr Johnston said problems like this could deny Australia a place in a growing export training market: southeast Asia is unable to skill up an estimated 228,000 ­pilots needed over the next 18 years. While they had traditionally trained in the US, the lower dollar had made Australia more competitive.

“From a safety and quality standpoint, Australia is arguably the best place to train in the world,” he said.

“We’ve got a huge opportunity to earn export income.”

Further update:

TAFE SA put on notice over health and trade courses

• John Ross, Michael Owen
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 28, 2017
  

Reeling from an aviation training bungle, South Australia’s public vocational colleges now risk losing the right to teach a bundle of trade and health courses.

The vocational education and training regulator has outlined its intention to suspend or revoke TAFE SA’s approval to offer 16 qualifications over unspecified breaches.

TAFE SA has been given 20 days to respond to the notice from the Australian Skills Quality Authority. An ASQA spokesman would not provide details of the failings ahead of the deadline.

“(TAFE SA) has been co-operating with ASQA to work through and rectify the noncompliances,” he said. “ASQA will consider any response before making a final decision on whether to impose the sanction.

“With very large providers with an extensive scope of registration — like TAFE SA — it is not unusual to identify areas requiring attention.”

TAFE SA’s executive director of education, Brian Rungie, said the agency would respond “quickly”, and would continue working with ASQA to address the issues it had raised.

He said the organisation took quality and compliance “extremely seriously” and its internal quality systems had already identified and rectified some of the issues. “We have made significant progress to address other elements.

“TAFE SA will provide additional information to ASQA on the corrective action taken both before and post the audit.”

ASQA’s action follows a routine audit in May. The threatened sanctions involve courses in automotive work, meat processing, commercial cookery, health, hairdressing, visual merchandising, building, plumbing and electrotechnology.

The audit did not cover aviation training. However, ASQA said it was separately investigating problems in aircraft maintenance training raised by the air safety regulator.
Earlier this month the Weekend Australian revealed that a Civil Aviation Safety Authority audit five months ago had determined that the maintenance course, offered at a TAFE SA campus at Adelaide’s Parafield Airport, had failed to meet training and assessment standards.

The discovery led to the suspension of the course and parts of the licences of about 80 aircraft maintenance engineers, pending further investigation.

A CASA spokesman said the agency had last week reinstated its approval for some of the course activities. He expected other activities to be approved progressively, provided that TAFE SA managed “to address the issues successfully”.

He said that while some of the engineers had also had their full licences restored, the remaining 60 or so would “need to demonstrate to CASA or an approved training organisation that the shortcomings in their training and assessment have been addressed”.

---

And a quote from the Adelaide Advertiser: TAFE SA warned by national regulator that 16 courses could lose accreditation within four weeks

...The course came under scrutiny five months ago after CASA found worrying issues with the courses assessment procedure during a routine check.

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman yesterday said its investigation into that issue was complete, but would not be made public.

“TAFE SA have taken corrective actions and a number, but not all, of their approvals have been reinstated. They need to do further work to get back all approvals but are going in that direction,” he said.

“There is still some aviation engineer training and assessment they cannot deliver and they are working to make the necessary improvements to be able to reinstate these elements of their courses.”

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

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


Ferryman quoted post #407 from CASA meets the Press:

The Mourning Bride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying.

Selah.

 Extract from Carmody hour post #58:

New instruction on using safety information

Date of Publication:
Thursday 28th September

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.Challenging the inappropriate use of safety information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison between remote islands and mainland airports

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

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

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

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

   
&..

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

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

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

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

11 January 2011:  

---

---

---

---

---

4 April 2011:

---

---

---

25 July 2011:

---

---

---

27 March 2012:

---

---

---

30 March 2012:

---

---

TBC -

MTF? - Definitely...P2

[Kharon]

"Ah, With your indulgence M’lud".

I would like to draw the courts attention to the following paragraph:-

"As the assessment not only involves a proficiency check but ‘an assessment of the holder’s management of an unplanned weather related diversion designed to assess the holder’s in-flight command decision making’ this will involve a flight of significant duration with a diversion near a critical point in the aircraft’s flight range. It would be impractical and unsafe to conduct this assessment during actual flight so the assessment will need to be conducted in a flight simulator."

To the uninformed; this may seem like a fair and reasonable requirement, placed on a pilot. To those who understand the ‘system’ it is an unmitigated stupidity. My learned colleague will object, however, with your indulgence, I will point out some salient details, which have been neatly been brushed over in the unseemly haste to justify an untenable position.

Item 1) ‘[an] assessment of the holder’s management of an unplanned weather related diversion designed to assess the holder’s in-flight command decision making’ this will involve a flight of significant duration with a diversion near a critical point in the aircraft’s flight range.

This ‘check’ is routinely conducted as part of the basic flight test for a Private pilot licence. The PPL flight test is a ‘navigation’ exercise; the diversion is called for at the discretion of the testing pilot. At some point during the planned flight from Mud-hut to Kickatinalong; the examiner will say “OK, the weather is lousy ahead; let’s divert to Mums Farm. The candidate then is obliged to execute the diversion, in a timely manner, without compromising any of the tenets of ‘safe navigation’.

The same pilot, a little later in his training will undergo exactly the same test to gain a basic ‘commercial’ pilots licence.

Further along the road to becoming a professional pilot the same man will undergo exactly the same test; only by reference to instruments and navigation aids, to gain an instrument rating.

Even further down the road, the pilot will require an Airline Transport Licence. To achieve this, there are some ferocious, theoretical, complex questions to be answered in the examination which require the calculation of Critical (Equal) time points and complex Point of No Return (PNR) questions. These questions involve engine and other systems failures, which further complicate the manual (head scratching) calculations. These questions must be resolved, under time pressure – in short, they ain’t easy.

The rubbish at Item 1 ignores the fact that the proposed ‘checks’ have been passed many times previously as have the examinations. To add insult to injury, the proposal ignores the basic pattern of any ‘jet’ class operation – the critical areas of flight are identified, pre departure, and there are no ‘unexpected’ or unanticipated ‘diversions’. The gateways are always identified; for all critical scenarios. Release points, if you like. If AB or C happens before X then we divert to Y. If AB or C happens after X then we divert to W.

So, I humbly ask the court to consider the value of the ‘safety case’ which will be served by this proposed ‘check’; particularly as the ‘victim’ is due for a routine proficiency check, which could be observed as part of the routine check flight system, approved by the CASA.

I call bollocks M’lud, with a dash of bastardy and a spoon full of embuggerance. I ask the court to order that CASA stick it where the sun don’t shine. Thank you.

Toot – bloody - toot.

[Peetwo]

E is for?? Part III: Delegate or delegate -

Under Appendix 3 paragraph 3.4 of the CASA Enforcement Manual (version 4.4 January 2016) it states:

..A delegate who is entrusted with a discretion must determine the matter for himself or herself and not merely adopt or rubber stamp a decision made by someone else...

 Now in the 8 year DJ CASA embuggerance case I would query whether the former CASA delegate/decision-maker Greg Hood has in fact 'rubber stamped' his 27 March 2012 'notice of variation/notice of revocation'...

...to reflect in whole the 'Standard Form Recommendation' from one Wodger Chambers (reference FOI 4):

---

---

---

---

P2 comments:

1) Note that Hoody has straight up copied & pasted part b) of the RC SFR 'Available Options' to his 27 March 2012 notice to DJ.
2) Note that on page 4 next to 'Implications of taking recommended actions', Hoody has annotated 'Sydney to prepare'; and on page 1 Hoody has annotated - 'Roger will you be preparing a brief for DAS and Corporate'. This would appear to indicate that Hoody has 'rubber stamped'/delegated to Wodger to articulate the 'reasons for the decision' in a brief to the DAS, Corporate and therefore by association the Minister.

Besides appearing to be a COI by delegating this responsibility to a CASA Officer who was directly implicated in prosecuting an enforcement action against DJ; this also seems to conflict with part 3.6 to 3.8 of Appendix 3 of the Enforcement manual:

..Since that is the underlying purpose to the obligation to give reasons, any such statement of reasons should set out the decision-maker’s understanding of the relevant law, any findings of fact on which his or her conclusions depend and the reasoning process which led him or her to those conclusions. This must be done in clear and unambiguous language, not in vague generalities or the formal language of legislation. In particular, the decision-maker is under a clear obligation to explain his/her decisions in terms which can be understood by the persons affected by the decision (see Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v. Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500 at 507; Commonwealth of Australia v. Pharmacy Guild of Australia (1989) 91 ALR 65 at 67).

Given the potential for any statement of reasons to be used in litigation, a statement of reasons should generally not be issued without first discussing it with Legal Services. 

 
3) I note that it was agreed that the conditions on DJ's ATPL would not be recorded on his FCL (reference top of page 3 of Chambers SFR). however apparently they have since reneged on that part of the CEP agreement:

       
  
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

E is for?? Part IV: Reporting & recording.

Extracts from CASA EM Download 009r03.pdf (139.46 KB); under Para 3.5.2 - 'Steps in the CEP and responsibility for reporting and recording information':

After the CEM and on an on-going basis

The Controlling Office Manager:

Once a course of action is agreed, either at the initial coordinated enforcement meeting or a subsequent meeting, arranges their administrative officer to:

 Amend the TRIM file title to show the course of action (see 3.10 for further details) and flowchart - Coordinated Enforcement Process A.

 Record the recommendation on the Coordinated Enforcement Referral Form and on-going action required:

o In relation to a new matter - on the Coordinated Enforcement – Referral Form;

or
 
o In relation to on-going matters – on the agenda/summary (for regular pre-arranged CEMs) and on the EAR (for all on-going matters).


As a matter proceeds, ensure that:

• Any interim action taken by the Controlling Office is recorded on the EAR;

• Dates of service of SCNs, counselling and other notices and decision letters are recorded on the EAR calendars;

• Dates of examinations and the result of examinations are recorded on the EAR calendars;

• All documents are TRIMed and placed on the appropriate Coordinated Enforcement –Referral file;

• Consistent with CASA’s regulatory philosophy, the relevant aviation participant is regularly informed as to CASA’s positon on the relevant issue, and provides ongoing opportunities for the participant to contribute to the resolution of safety issues (but this does not enable the participant to direct CASA’s regulatory response);

• Checklists are followed for the appropriate action taken (see the relevant checklists under Enforcement Forms on the CASA Intranet).

---

Where a decision involves the variation of an authorisation by the addition of conditions:

• Ensures that these conditions have preferably been drafted by and, in any event, cleared by the Manager Legal Branch and that the on-going monitoring, or any proposal to vary the conditions, is also carried out in consultation with the Manager Legal Branch.

Where LSD and the Controlling Office Manager do not agree on the recommendation and that recommendation includes action for which the Controlling Office Manager or their EM would ultimately make a decision (ie action which is not a criminal response such as AINs or referral to the CDPP):

• Follows the process set out at Paragraph 2.9.

3.9 Role of the Legal Services Division (LSD) in relation to the Enforcement Process

Although it is only part of LSD’s functions, the Division plays a critical role in the conduct of, and the processes leading to, any enforcement action CASA may take. The Executive Manager, Legal Services Division and each of the Division’s two branches may be involved in those processes.

LSD Enforcement Officer: This officer is the starting point for all matters where, in accordance with the Coordinated Enforcement Policy, it becomes apparent to the technical or operational areas that enforcement action is or may be appropriate (see flowchart Coordinated Enforcement Process A and paragraph 3.5.2.) This officer will also arrange for the publication of decisions as set out paragraph 6.23.

1. Legal Branch: Once an initial Coordinated Enforcement Meeting has been conducted, and it has been agreed that some form of enforcement action (other than solely an AIN or request for a Part IIIA Investigation) is required, Assigned Legal Counsel (ALC) will ‘case manage’ the particular matter (ensuring time-limits are met) until the enforcement action is completed.
 

Manager, Legal Branch

Where the agreed recommendation is that the matter should proceed by, or include:

• Administrative Action;

• Serious and Imminent Risk;

• CAR 265 suspension;

• Enforceable Voluntary Undertaking (EVU);

• Counselling; or

• Any other action coming out of the CEM in which it is decided that legal assistance is appropriate,
　

the Manager, Legal Branch will:

• Assign legal counsel to assist;

• Ensure assigned legal counsel (ALC):

o Place their name on the register as ALC;

o Case-manage the matter assigned to them to its conclusion. Where the matter results in a decision that is appealed, either continues to case manage the matter or ensures that they brief any other ALC that is responsible for handling the appeal. Note: This new ALC must place their name on the EAR and is responsible in the same manner as the original ALC;


o Continue to update the EAR with any progress in relation to action for which they have responsibility ie writing to legal representatives of the party against whom a decision is being made or for whom an appeal has been lodged, notification of stay periods and results of tribunal hearings. This includes ensuring that the dates on the EAR calendar in relation to tribunal and court decisions are recorded;

o Arrange to TRIM any finalised versions of documents and place them on the appropriate Coordinated Enforcement - Referral file which has been opened by the referring office;

o Arrange to amend the EAR to show the offences for which such action is agreed to be taken (as shown in the SCN etc);

o Arrange to open a new TRIM file for any appeal to a tribunal or the Federal court; and

o Arrange to advise licensing/industry permissions when a matter is finally concluded or a stay period ended so that the relevant licence or certificate, and relevant CASA systems, can be updated appropriately.

• On receipt from the LSD Enforcement Officer, approve the wording of the paragraph summarising reasons for decision in relation to cancellations and suspensions in relation to decisions relating to authorisations normally held by an organisation for publication and advise the LSD Enforcement Officer.

LSD Enforcement Officer

The LSD Enforcement Officer will:

• Once notification is received through the Enforcement Policy and Practice Outlook Mailbox of any SCN, Serious and Imminent Risk suspension notice or CAR 265 suspension notice being served, or suspension, cancellation or variation of an authorisation, arrange to place alerts on CASA systems;

• Once notification is received through the Enforcement Policy and Practice Outlook Mailbox of a suspension or cancellation – (where the decision is in relation to an authorisation normally held by a corporate entity - even if the authorisation is in fact in the name of an individual) together with the paragraph summary of the reasons ensure the wording is approved by the Manager Legal Branch and request the webmaster to publish on the external CASA internet website.

• Ensure regular audits are carried out on the Enforcement Action Register and TRIM Enforcement files.
 

My reasons for extracting such a large slab of chapter 3 of the FF Embuggerance manual is to highlight how much the current actions within the DJ CEP (Coordinated Enforcement Process) have subverted the due legal processes as directed by the current EM.

"..In any event, the accident demonstrated deficiencies in your flight planning and judgment, and the weather related diversion, as is expressed on the condition, is designed to assess your “in-flight command decision making.” On this basis, CASA considers the condition is appropriate and reasonable..."

Now I have it on good authority rumour that there has been no recent (from 12 September 2017) entries that would normally be required for 'reporting and recording information' in the CEP.

We are also inquiring to whether there has been any entries that reflect the variation to the original agreed to CEP conditions on DJ's FCL(see previous post); and/or if there is any appropriate report/record/ 'delegate notice' that would reflect the change to the condition that the command CTL prof check now has to be conducted in the simulator...  

Of course as "K" indicates in - "Ah, With your indulgence M’lud" - all of this is totally unnecessary and irrelevant as there is no such thing as an "unexpected" or "unplanned weather related  diversions in high capacity and/or Jet AOC operations.

MTF...P2

P2 comment - The called for observed, practical demonstration could simply be displayed by watching DJ check all inputs to the aircraft FMS flight plan with references to the applicable PNR/CP pages and a brief from DJ outlining what his actions will be if a diversion is required prior to and after those calculated diversion points? - or am I missing something?