[Kharon]

Red Rag or Red Flag?

Another top quality P2 post, it certainly is a ‘red-rag’ to those of us who want to see a full stop to the CASA story. Continued efforts to breakdown the stone wall of political deafness, shine a light into ministerial blindness and provide solid working facts for anyone who cares to listen.

But to those who have the power to bring the long awaited ‘real’ changes to the way matters aeronautical are ‘managed’ it will be a red flag. A red flag is usually a thing signifying danger – ‘stay clear’. And they do; in droves. Over the last three decades of recorded history, industry has been on a roller coaster ride of hope followed by disappointment. It always pans out the same.

An inquiry is announced – everyone gets busy, hundreds of hours spent researching, drafting, editing and confirming the veracity of submission. Time ticks by, the inquiry is listened to, watched or read, with hope and anticipation. The sound and fury coming from the Senators, pointed questions, the artful obfuscation, the devious ducking and artful weaving all part of the show. All great theatre; the only thing missing are the commercial breaks. Then time ticks by while evidence is ‘deliberated’. Soon a raft of ‘recommendations’ is floated; industry holds it’s breath to see the response.

And what a response – a 30 odd list of recommendations from the Senate committee; a ministerial inquiry, the politically easy justification for immediate action from good Rev Forsyth’s report. All seen by industry as something which must bring change – for the better.

But to the ‘politicians’ – it was a large red flag. The huddled under the bipartisan banner, they put up their Teflon umbrellas, stepped around the puddles of shit and blood and headed off the safety of their deep, bipartisan protection racket bunker.

Meanwhile – the ‘safety agencies’ skipped off to the local pub for a celebratory drink or two – on the public account – to toast, once again, their successful dodging of the bullets.


There are those who say that only a major hull loss will change things – then there are those who disagree. The bigger the accident, the greater will be the smoke screen, the mirrors even more highly polished and the bigger the red flag – the deeper underground will the politicians burrow.

Toot – toot….

[Kharon]

Time – Gentlemen please. (a twiddle of no import).

While he government is flapping about, trying to pull up it’s pants and find belts and braces to cover their exposed nether regions, the Senate inquiry clock is still ticking.

Jaded, disillusioned and as fed up with making submission to yet another inquiry, which will, in all probability, go the same way as the many others on which hopes have been pinned, industry must make the effort.

But, what can be said more than that which has been reiterated, over and over again over the decades? Yet nothing seems to ever change for the better. What to do?

Since being press ganged into the AP/PAIN set up, I have, on my own account, read through many (a great many) previous submissions to inquiry – from both sides of the fence, (or the great divide) – probably too many. For my sins and for P2’s heinous crimes against golf balls, we have now read through many Coroners inquiry and rulings, for we believe that is where the real skeletons are buried. We have also carefully studied ATSB response and investigation to accident, when they eventually appear. It has been a big job to define, clearly, that which was already universally known. But I digress – the point.

In primus, the great majority of submission made to inquiry are first class. Cleary written, eloquently expressed opinion, supportable fact and unimpeachable, mostly backed by impeccable operational logic. To ‘industry’ they are rock solid demands (albeit subtly phrased) for real reform, across the spectrum from legislation through to surveillance and approval. It begs a question. Why despite all, has nothing really changed?

That, boys and girls is the $64K question – ain’t it.

One of the great problems is ‘time passing’ – the new generations of aircrew coming through have now been brought up to accept the way things are – new chums simply accept, as gospel, an aberration like Part 61 as ‘the way things are’ – they know nothing else. Far too busy to check the systems employed by Canada, the USA or NZ – they just put up with the incubus. Same-same flight operations, they just groan, shake their heads and get on with it. This is particularly true of the big commercial operations; the costs imposed simply passed along to the consumer. These are significant costs, Part 61 as an example has added a real impost to operational budgets – to what end? ‘Operational safety’ they say. I say bollocks. There are over a hundred, identified ‘costs’ the Australian system Part 61 imposes which are simply not apparent in the systems of first world administrations; yet their safety record is better than Australia’s, despite our low terrain profile and mostly benign weather conditions. 

Aye well, back to the beginning – submissions. One thing clearly visible in the majority of entries to the Senate is the polite, proper, carefully phrased, non combative method of expressing a view. I reckon we should just drop the carefully phrased, cleverly parsed wording and just tell ‘em ‘how it really is’ – in plain terms, same as you would in the hanger or the Pub. You could draft a concise submission in about two minutes, with just a simple sentence or two.

Salutation.

We’re buggered up – getting more so every day. Do something, the Kiwi’s did and look at them go.

L&K

Disgruntled Angry Citizen.

Save a lot of time and effort – for precisely the same result. Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

While Australia burns: Bushfire thread drift and parliamentary inquiries??

Reference "K" post:

Time – Gentlemen please. (a twiddle of no import).

While he government is flapping about, trying to pull up it’s pants and find belts and braces to cover their exposed nether regions, the Senate inquiry clock is still ticking.

Jaded, disillusioned and as fed up with making submission to yet another inquiry, which will, in all probability, go the same way as the many others on which hopes have been pinned, industry must make the effort.

But, what can be said more than that which has been reiterated, over and over again over the decades? Yet nothing seems to ever change for the better. What to do?...

...Aye well, back to the beginning – submissions. One thing clearly visible in the majority of entries to the Senate is the polite, proper, carefully phrased, non combative method of expressing a view. I reckon we should just drop the carefully phrased, cleverly parsed wording and just tell ‘em ‘how it really is’ – in plain terms, same as you would in the hanger or the Pub. You could draft a concise submission in about two minutes, with just a simple sentence or two.

Salutation.

We’re buggered up – getting more so every day. Do something, the Kiwi’s did and look at them go.

L&K

Disgruntled Angry Citizen.

Save a lot of time and effort – for precisely the same result. Toot - toot.

Speaking of time, money and effort, have been monitoring the more rational social media commentary on the bushfire crisis. One of those rational commentators/observers is none other than Phil Hurst CEO of the AAAA's, who I would regard as a SME when it comes to such matters as developing effective strategies for preventing and combatting bushfires with the use of aerial firebombing resources.   

Therefore I was very curious when, yesterday via Twitter, PH tweeped the following:

https://twitter.com/PhilHurst62/status/1...4087623680

Interesting what has gone before - https://aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Busines...report.pdf. Some recs implimented. Some improvements made since 2003. But lots of lessons being relearnt. #bushfires

This lead me to the former parliamentary inquiry and lots of reading...  

---

House of Representatives Committees

Former Committee

House Select Committee on the recent Australian bushfires

On 26 March 2003 the House of Representatives established a Select Committee to inquire into the recent Australian bushfires. The Committee invited interested persons and organisations to make submissions addressing the terms of reference and it held public hearings around Australia. The committee tabled the report of its inquiry on Wednesday 5 November 2003. The tabling of the report concluded the committee's work and the committee was then dissolved.The Australian government presented its response to the report on Thursday 15 September 2005.

Report

• A Nation Charred: Inquiry into the Recent Australian Bushfires
  
  
• Government Response (PDF 193KB)
  

Inquiry information

• Terms of Reference
  
  
• Media releases
  
  
• Submissions
  
  
• Public hearings (and transcripts)
  

Other Committee information

• Resolution of appointment
  
  
• Committee Members
  

---

Although PH alludes that 'some' recommendations were implemented, this fully bi-partisan supported HoR Parliamentary inquiry received over 500 submissions, produced a 500 page report and generated nearly 60 recommendations. Yet it took the government of the day nearly 2 years to produce a response and if the 2 applicable links provided on the AAAA policy webpage (1 for 2008 and 1 for 2019) are anything to go by, then both Federal and State governments are very much dragging their feet on developing proactive aerial firefighting policies (refer ch6 pages 213 to 230).

Another classic example of a good well intentioned Parliamentary inquiry that generated many excellent, government backed recommendations being kyboshed by both the passage of time and the political will to see it through...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

ToARE: Part III 

This is timely - 

From Dick Smith, via the UP: 

An interesting letter from John Anderson regarding ultralights

---

I was recently going through some material from the old days and found a letter from John Anderson dated 16 March 1999. Surely this can start some interesting discussion on PPRuNe.

---

16.3.99 - Minister John Anderson to DS CASA Chairman re ultralights

Note that the correspondence from JA to DS was over 20 years ago; not sure what Dick's response was but in light of the latest Senate Inquiry into CASA this bit certainly perked my interest:



"...clear mandate to prepare a globally harmonised aviation safety regulatory framework.."

Hmm...I wonder if the present Muppet miniscule Mick Mack and Smoco Govt would now stand by the same mandate issued by the then Howard Coalition Government??

The JA period as Minister was the 2nd longest for a Federal Minister oversighting Aviation (6 years, 258 days). However, despite the stability JA brought to the role, IOS/BRB opinion on the worth of the man as Minister remains openly (50/50) divided...

However in the context of the JA letter to DS it would appear that if nothing else JA was well advised, informed and determined to ensure that CASA did not create further unnecessary imposts/delays to the economic detriment of the industry.

Again referring to the AS 1982-2011 timeline, 1999 was a busy year in Oz Aviation Safety. In August of that year ICAO conducted an audit of CASA (ref: https://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/in...999_en.pdf ). Although that audit was not a particularly glowing appraisal of CASA with many identified non-notified, non-compliances with ICAO SARPs; there was apparently nothing particularly outstanding that would warrant concerns from the FAA's IASA team.

Unfortunately the 2001 election provided what has now become a frustratingly familiar bureaucratic buffer for proper Parliamentary and/or Minister scrutiny of that particular audit report.

However, once Govt and Minister JA was back in power, the opposition spokesperson Martin Ferguson did pose a QoN in regards to the ICAO CASA audit recommendations:

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 December 2000:

(1) What recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) audit of Australian aviation safety referred to in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's Corporate Plan 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 were not accepted and who made the decision not to accept them.

(2) What reasons were given to ICAO for not accepting those recommendations.


Mr Anderson (Minister for Transport and Regional Services) —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised the following:

(1) The ICAO audit team made 16 recommendations in its report of the safety oversight audit of Australia in August 1999. All of the recommendations were accepted by Australia, however, in relation to three of the recommendations, Australia's acceptance was qualified or elaborated on by comment. ICAO fully accepted Australia's response to the audit findings and recommendations. Australia's response to the audit findings and recommendations was made by an Executive group of Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) officers with representation from the Department of Transport and Regional Services.

(2) Following are details of Australia's response to the three recommendations accepted with qualification or comment.

Legislation / 01: ICAO recommended, inter alia, that CASA should review requirements contained in its legislation to ensure full conformance with Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) contained in Annexes 1, 6 and 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention).

Australia agreed with the recommendation, but noted Australia's rights under the Convention to notify a difference in relation to particular SARPs. Typically, Australia might do this where a SARP infringes Australia's law in other areas, such as equal opportunity and anti-discrimination, and Australia is therefore unable to fully adhere to it.

Legislation / 02: ICAO recommended, inter alia, that CASA should establish a sound regulatory basis and develop adequate guidance material before structuring a transition plan from an operations inspection surveillance system to an audit system.

In its response, Australia noted that a sound regulatory basis already existed in the Civil Aviation Act, but agreed that some areas of guidance material were not adequately synchronised with actual audit practice.

Personnel Licensing / 02: ICAO recommended that the Australian Government clearly affirm CASA's role in controlling the air traffic controller licence and ratings. It further recommended, in relation to air traffic controller licences and ratings, that CASA should have clear enforcement power, should be directly involved in the approval of all training programs and Standards of Performance, and should have effective control of delegated testing authority and physical issuance of licences.

While Australia agreed in principle with the ICAO findings that led to the recommendation, CASA was able to confirm subsequent to the audit that there did in fact exist a binding legal instrument giving CASA the power to control and enforce matters relating to air traffic controller licences and ratings.

Q1/ Was this the point in time which started the Iron Ring pushback against international conformity and harmonisation with the ICAO SARPs, that has utimately led to the now record number of notified differences to the SARPs? 

Q2/ Was this also the point in time when, due to the wording of section 9A of the CA Act, the Iron Ring realised their potential as 'a law unto themselves' Big R-regulator with only a tokenistic gesture required to be accountable for their actions/persecutions to both the Minister and Parliament? 

Now FFWD a year and a half to the following AFR headline:

Anderson sacks CASA in air safety shake-up

..The Civil Aviation Safety Authority board was sacked yesterday in a shake-up that leaves the Federal Government in direct control of air safety.

Federal Transport Minister John Anderson also announced a significant downgrade of CASA's powers to impose restrictions on airlines following long-running industry criticism of the regulator's enforcement practices.

The decision to abolish CASA's status as an independent statutory authority comes as the Commonwealth considers moves to bring other key government regulators and offices under its direction.

Mr Anderson refused to guarantee that CASA's director, Mick Toller, would become the new chief executive of the restructured aviation regulator when the changes are formally implemented in July.

CASA has been in turmoil for almost a decade, in which there has been management upheaval and industry criticism of its power to act as "judge, jury and executioner".

This has included two periods during which aviator Dick Smith chaired CASA and its predecessor. Mr Smith was forced to resign before the end of his tenure in 1999.

"These changes strengthen the government's and minister's control considerably and the board will no longer exist," Mr Anderson said.

"There will be significant reform of the process of regulation and compliance."

The changes, which follow a review by CASA chairman Ted Anson, mean that Mr Anderson will have ultimate decision making power over aviation safety issues, although he said he would continue to rely on advice from continuing CASA staff.

The powers include empowering the Minister for Transport to directly set policy and performance standards for CASA, and powers to establish consultation mechanisms for industry and stakeholders.

Other measures will be introduced to curtail CASA's powers, including the granting of a stay of suspension and cancellation decisions not involving an immediate risk to air safety, and the introduction of the demerit points system for minor breaches of regulations.

Under the new structure to be fully implemented by next July, CASA will retain the power to ground airlines where there is an immediate risk to safety but the decision will require confirmation by the Federal Court within five days.

"Where a decision is taken to vary, suspend or cancel an aviation approval and a review is sought, an automatic stay of the decision will be granted," Mr Anderson said.

Mr Toller said he was broadly supportive of the changes and said he was ready to serve as the new chief executive officer.

"I'll be discussing with the minister whether I have the skills to meet CASA's needs in the future ... but I'll be here as long as the minister wants me," Mr Toller said..

Mr Toller's contract was extended for a further three years last year.

The Opposition's transport spokesman, Martin Ferguson, yesterday said abolishing the board was Labor's policy and that the Labor Party had always believed CASA should consult with the industry, not be run by it.

"Labor will fully scrutinise the new enforcement powers to ensure they will improve the rigour and effectiveness of aviation safety regulation while being fair to the industry," Mr Ferguson said in a statement.

Last week, Prime Minister John Howard appointed former Rio Tinto and Westpac chairman John Uhrig to conduct a sweeping review of the Commonwealth's existing structure for statutory authorities, which effectively reduces ministerial responsibility...

Hmmm...the beginning of the end perhaps??

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

ToARE: Part IV 

(Lead into: Timeline of miniscule corruption...err duplicity??   )

Reference posts:

There are posts which are worthy of cribbing – then, there are posts which, in a nutshell, say all that needs to be said. Lead Sled, at cobbed throttle; spot on:-

Sunfish. This is one time I am going to have to disagree with you, and I am speaking from the point of view of "being there". As "on the spot", "in the room" (or wherever we were), often with the only notes taken by the Minister and/or me, or a colleague with me.

Both Sharp and Vaile set things up so the real decisions were made without the "benefit" of set-piece formal meeting with "industry", the basic program was set before the end 1996 elections. Look up "Soaring into Tomorrow.

Interestingly, John Anderson followed the same pattern, with a "big bang" shakeup of CASA planned, but he got blown out of the water by OPM&C politics, John Howard got cold feet, even though Kim Beazley supported the plan, he had no time for CASA either, based on his Ministerial experiences.

I have a far better opinion of Anderson as a Minister than most, because I know what he wanted to do would have sorted the CASA KULTCHA once and for all --- essentially a "scorched earth" and start again approach.

Interestingly Martin Ferguson, and principal and aviation advisors agreed, that the problems in CASA were so intractable and so entrenched, that anything less drastic would fail. How do I know, because I discussed the matter at length with them.

And look where we are, all these years later!!

Tootle pip!

John Sharp is running rings around ‘the system’ – could not beat it, so now he exploits it. Lessons learnt; well done that man.

A matter of some interest.

“The Australian understands another scheduled flight training session at Soar was cancelled because of unsuitable weather conditions.”

The average student has not got a blind clue about what the current ‘weather’ conditions mean. Traditionally, it has always been up to the student’s mentor to decide if Bloggs should or should not be let loose in the prevailing conditions. For example; the ‘hate-sheet’ reflects more practice at cross-wind landings – before solo operations. "Sorry mate, too much wind today" end of....Commercial considerations never, not ever, entered into that decision.

"At the time of the crash, just before 10am on Thursday the winds were between 10 and 12 knots, with a 12 knot crosswind."

10 to 15 knots across a runway ain’t a problem – for an ‘experienced’ student. Not one who has had the X-wind landing box ticked – but one who can actually manage such a thing. It ain’t difficult – but it requires training and practice. The decision to send a fellahin out in a gusty X-wind is subjective, based on the instructors assessment of progress – not a bloody box ticked; but competency – tested, proven and documented…..


Another crash involving a Soar student pilot and training instructor remains under investigation by the ATSB.

It is of concern that a first class operator like Buckley is fighting for survival after attempting to bring in a system which would not have allowed the injured child out alone in a breeze he could not handle. Yet this ‘Soar’ thing, using airspeed, weight and CoG ‘critical’ aircraft to mass produce ‘legally’ qualified (tick a box) pilots is allowed to continue? WTD?

CASA, part 61 and Part 141/2 have a lot to answer for; before the operator gets to answer some fairly prickly questions. It seems to me that the aircraft being used, whist ‘cheap’ are intolerant of the fumbles new pilots make – does a speed, weight and centre of gravity critical aircraft really suit a training environment; despite a CASA ‘tick’? I think not. Great for the weekend warrior – but as a suitable platform for training? Seems there are some deeper questions which demand answers here.

Toot - hate AP night shift – toot.  {P7 has matters ‘Christmas’ related to attend}. Hurrumph!

Have been tasked by AP to dredge through the cyber dustbins to pull together the many related dots and dashes that are starting to form a disturbing picture of miniscule favouritism &/or duplicity in aviation safety administration...

However before I start digging, I refer to this recent P7 post     
 

---

Of Priests, lawyers and suchlike.


> I know – I know; there is a call to do away with the lot of ‘em. But just about now, I’m wishing I was one – they have indemnity when a crime is confessed – I don’t. I have however just completed a list, a fairly long one, detailing ‘information’ gathered related to SOAR. No bloody evidence, just a lot of hearsay without tangible proof. That said, smoke usually indicates fire.

The problem is a complex one: for those who have information to offer – in one way or another; no matter how the ‘breach’ came about, in many cases the informants signature is on the paperwork – making them complicit, in law.

I guess it is a perennial problem for the law enforcement agencies. I have no knowledge of how it works in practice, but I understand that in some cases an amount of relief is available. IMO the SOAR case demands ‘indemnity’ in some cases, to facilitate a clear view of ‘what’ was going on.

For example: I have listened to two pilots who admit that their signature was ‘forged’ onto approval paperwork and said nothing. Three admit to accepting supervisory roles without having met the mandatory requirements, accepted the role, signed the paperwork and went ahead in the role.

I have no names, no documented evidence or even a blind clue to the veracity of these claims. Sure, they were ‘confessions’ (to which I cannot grant absolution). Under the existing regime, ‘true confessions' are unlikely to be offered, considering the ‘criminal record’ element. However; for the greater good and operational integrity going forward; I believe that an ‘indemnity’ and anonymous (in camera) reporting would be of great benefit.

I will leave it there – not my puzzle nor responsibility. There are some good kids out there who deserve a break and a stern warning. The information they could provide, given opportunity without dire penalty – would greatly improve the integrity of flight training in Australia. Only my opinion of course; but, young, ambitious, cost conscious people have no real knowledge of just how evil some folk in this world can be. They are easily lead and if the deviance becomes normalised, through group acceptance that this is the ‘way things are done’ – when one of ‘em dies through flawed, faulty, fraudulent training – who carries the can (or coffin)?

The current system has created this environment – time to look deep and clear.

That’s it – I’ll have the BRB working on it – maybe even draft a submission – for what that’ll be worth. Ale, lots of please, much to consider when keeping a government honest.

DiD I just say ‘honest? Oh dear!

---

Although still hearsay (at this point in time -  ) this modus operandi IMO is a standard 'tell' for a dodgy operator.  It should also be recognised that the warning signs (for a dangerous and dodgy operator) not being heeded by the oversighting regulator are also historically SOP normalised deficiencies...

Related to the ToARE (above post) and in light of the very sad 15 year anniversary of the Lockhart River disaster coming up this year, the following is a archived Fairfax article posted 2 weeks after the tragedy:

...Transport Minister John Anderson has opened the way for two pilots to give off-the-record statements to safety investigators looking into the Cape York plane disaster.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating the crash of the Trans Air Fairchild Metroliner III commuter aircraft on May 7.

All 15 people died when it crashed into a hillside on approach to Lockhart River in far north Queensland.

The ATSB yesterday urged two former pilots understood to have information about alleged safety breeches by the airline to give formal statements about their claims.

The former pilots are only prepared to give off-the-record statements to the ATSB, which are virtually useless to investigators.

The former pilots apparently have no faith in the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), but the ATSB has offered to act as a mediator.

Mr Anderson today said he would ask the ATSB to review whether they could accept the pilot's statements off the record and pleaded with them to come forward.

"I don't know why they're reluctant," Mr Anderson told the Nine Network.

"I understand that it centres on concerns about their relationship with CASA and that's why I say, if they have that concern, then I plead with them to come forward and talk to the ATSB itself.

"If they really don't want to put it in writing then I'll ask the ATSB to again consider that," he said.

"It's a no-fault accident investigator. That's what it's there for.

"And in the interests of maximising the safety of the travelling public, if there's something of value that somebody has to contribute, we really do want that information."

CASA said yesterday it could treat the information from the pilots confidentially.

The twin-engined plane crashed while trying to land in rain, low clouds and strong wind on a stopover at Lockhart River on a flight from Bamaga near the tip of Cape York Peninsula to Cairns.

It was the worst civil aircraft accident in Australia since 26 people died in a crash near Port Hedland in Western Australia in 1968...

Now we reference the Durkin thesis (from page 138):

The ATSB report indicated that evidence strongly suggested that Captain
Hotchin was the handling pilot for the fateful flight from Bamaga to Lockhart
River. This would be consistent with the company policy for the Captain and
first Officer flying sector about, and the First Officer had flown the preceding
sector into Bamaga. As the cockpit voice recorder was inoperative during the
flight a certain amount of supposition was engaged in to try to determine why
the pilot in command had flown the aircraft into the ground. Expert witnesses
were examined, including those who were familiar with the 'modus operandi'
of Captain Hotchin from having flown with him in the past. The coroner came
to the conclusion that Captain Hochin, at some stage during the approach,
decided he could 'eyeball' his way through the cloud and become visual, as he
had previously described doing whilst giving evidence in a 2002 inquest.

… and so you look for a break in between the – the clouds so you can see a very white
light coming through the darkness of the clouds, so you aim for that point and you go
aiming for that point and then all of a sudden you notice that you‟re enclosed by two
cells on either side, but the only thing you can do once you‟ve made that decision is
keep going straight ahead because you know that at some stage before hand you saw
light beyond there.107

On evidence presented to him by other Transair pilots who had operated as copilots
with Captain Hotchin, the coroner concluded that Captain Hotchin was
at times inclined to engage in 'a dangerous departure from appropriate
approach procedures'.108

The coroner was critical of CASA's regulatory oversight of Transair. He
considered that the extent of CASA's assessment of Transair was well
documented, however it highlighted a number of inconsistencies between its
oversight of the company and its regulatory policies and surveillance
guidelines. He considered that CASA should have been in a position to know
that all was not well with the company Transair. It overlooked two pieces of
information that were in the public domain. The first piece of information
relating to newspaper articles had apparently been published locally,
indicating that there was an operator in the area who did not have an
appropriate Air Operating Certificate who was about to commence a Regular
Public Transport into Bamaga and later Lockhart River. The second piece of
information was the fact that CASA did not access the inquest and findings of
the transcript, into the death of the pilot of the aircraft that crashed on
Thursday Island in 2002. 'Had it done so I would have expected that the
evidence given in those proceedings by Mr Hotchin might have caused it to
raise a query with Transair about aspects of his flying'.109 The coroner
highlighted a number of deficiencies he considered relevant in CASA's
surveillance and audit of Transair, as well as drawing attention, on a number
of scores, to CASA's departure from its own procedures.110

Similarly the ATSB was quite critical of the role played by CASA as far as
safety oversight was concerned.

Given the significance of the problems within Transair, and the amount of interaction
CASA had with the operator, it is reasonable to conclude that some of these problems
should have been detected by CASA.111

Chapter six of this thesis will endeavour to look more closely at these
criticisms.

One interesting outcome that eventuated from this inquest, was that the
coroner was concerned enough about the friction in the relationship he
observed during this and several earlier coronial inquests between CASA and
the ATSB, that he wrote to the then Minister for Transport and Regional
Services, the Hon Mark Vaile, on 12 September 2007 recommending that the
Minister undertake a review to assess whether high level intervention was
required to ensure 'that there is a productive, collaborative focus on air safety
between the ATSB and CASA'.112 The Minister subsequently commissioned a
review, which was far reaching and comprehensive considering it had a very
limited time frame for completion. It involved examining the relationship
between the ATSB and CASA to identify the likely causes of friction between
them, including friction evident in the Lockhart River Inquest. It also focused
on positive recommendations designed to remove unnecessary impediments
legislative and organisational, to both agencies working together in the
interests of aviation safety.113

As they say the rest is now ancient history and supposedly the CASA oversighting systems (surveillance, audit etc.) and the ATSB/SSP early identification with proactive mitigation of safety deficiencies in the system have been thoroughly addressed. However I would suggest the overwhelming evidence, since the Lockhart River disaster (reference PelAir vs Airtex, APTA vs Soar..etc..etc), is that the system has gotten worse with the added topcover complicity of both the ATSB and a totally captured, duplicitous Minister...

Much MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

An embarrassment of epic proportions.

Or, a world class cock-up if you prefer; with the added fillip of mindless ministerial support, is about to unfold. This courtesy of SOAR flight training.

There’s precious little wriggle room for CASA and almost none for the ATSB. Oh, they’ll cite the ‘law’ as they wrote it and dance about ‘responsibility’ maypole; but, at the end of the shift they sat back and allowed it all to happen. The damage is deep on many levels, but IMO the most damaging element is the loss of ‘Safety’. Operational, legal and financial safeguards all compromised. These claims are self evident; we will be taking a long hard look at these elements. This will take a little time as some of the knots are complex, however with a thumbnail dipped in tar, some food for thought.

Operational. There a two major elements to consider. (i) Suitability of the airframes being used for ‘basic’ training. (ii) the quality of training provided. Any short investigation reveals certain truths. For example Stall/Spin fatal accidents. One of the very important lessons a trainee pilot must be full versed in is recognising the approach to, development of and recovery from a ‘Stall’. Solid training is a prerequisite but, importantly, the airframe used to develop this skill must be capable of recovery. The most likely time for a trainee to actually stall an aircraft is during early training, when they have not developed the skills required to avoid or recover from the situation. The aircraft must be capable of recovery from a developed stall and incipient spin. Here’s young Spotty out on a navigation exercise – solo – and he stumbles into cloud, rain and turbulence. While trying to execute a turn out of the clag – he stalls the airframe, and a spin situation is on the cards. Now then, lets say he has skill enough to recover but the airframe won’t cooperate – because it can’t. RIP.

So we bury him; then we look to the accident investigation for guidance and find twaddle like this:-

..."Inadvertent flight into IMC: The aircraft departed Narromine into significant smoke haze. At 500' the pilot could see objects out to about 10NM but could not see the horizon. At cruise altitude of 4,500' visibility became worse. The visual cues indicating the aircraft's attitude became degraded. The pilot could judge pitch and roll only by looking at the paddocks and roads within a 45 degree cone beneath the aircraft. When they were head-down looking up the latest weather details for their next stop at Griffith the pilot glanced sideways at the ground to see if they were still wings-level and all seemed OK until they saw the artificial horizon on the EFIS which indicated that they were in a 15 degree bank. The pilot knew then what IMC was they then engaged the autopilot so the next time they were head-down in the cockpit they weren’t going to give themselves another fright. The smoke progressively thinned out towards Griffith and visibility entering the circuit was satisfactory until initiating their turn to base. The pilot seemed to have descended into a lens of smoke which totally blocked their view of the runway, but views crosswind and downwind were relatively clear. The pilot estimated where the extended centreline of the runway was and turned final only to find, when exiting the smoke lens, that they had turned too soon, requiring a dog-leg correction to get back on the centreline...

That is an example of ‘internal’ investigation?

What the minister has sanctioned, what CASA have encouraged to develop and what has been taken advantage of demands immediate inquiry. IMO the AFP need to become involved and the inquiry needs to be oversighted and completed by an independent chair. This situation is wrong on so many levels, particularly when the likes of Angel Flight and Buckley are being beaten into the ground. I say enough is enough; time to stop the merry go-round. Start by disillusioning the minister.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

ToARE: Part V

Reference the Carmody HR:

OK, I’ll play.

P2 – “PS.  A very curious point of interest? This is the link for Shane Urquhart's 2014 submission to the ASRR:  You will note that document has been redacted?

P2 – “However if you refer to SU's original submission to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA you will see that there was no redactions?

Took about five minutes to cull the ‘redacted’ parts – and I’m left wondering why anyone would bother to ‘redact’ parts of the original in one version and leave ‘em in plain text in the other, original version. Why?

2. The appointment of long term CASA defender Ian Harvey as Counsel Assisting the Coroner. Despite Mr Harvey’s knowledge of the industry, his association with CASA constituted a gross conflict of interest. (ref: Letter from Gilshenan and Luton , Solicitors and on our behalf, to Coroner Barnes.) It was rejected out-of-hand. I would be very keen to know exactly, the circumstances surrounding Harvey’s appointment and what role CASA may have had.

5. - It is noteworthy that Mr Ian Harvey represented CASA in this instance.

8. Rob Collins issues.
• Mr Rob Collins is an ex-CASA senior officer who has a shadowy pall cast over him..My issues here are presented as questions.. What is the historical relationship between Mr Ian Harvey and Mr Collins, and between Mr Collins and Mr Les Wright. Under oath Mr Wright denied knowing Mr Collins very well. What were the circumstances surrounding Mr Collin’s appointment as a CASA consultant for the Inquest. What were the circumstances surrounding Mr Collins very quiet return to CASA as Industry Complaints commissioner only to leave after two or three days in the position.

13 - FOI Max McCrae when asked by Mr Harvey about what he understood had happened in the case of LHR. He replied: “A guy flew a plane into a hill didn’t he?”

Apart from the universally acknowledged notion that there were some very questionable facets to the Lockhart River inquiry; and that both Collins and Harvey have been on the ‘watch’ list ever since – so what? The whole crew associated with Lockhart could give you change for a nine dollar note in ‘three’s’. There were three of ‘em involved – Collins, Telling and Wright – everyone knows it – but; the powers that be won the day and there is nothing to be gained by barking or redaction. The redaction only raises 'suspicion' levels - nothing to hide? Why bother?

Past ancestry, present value and future worth – all measured and weighed by Karma. Tick Tock.

The solution may just be hidden in the ‘timing’ – depends on what was surrounding the issues. That rests firmly in the P2 ‘in-basket’.

Handing over.

Unfortunately I still can't nut it out -  I can only think that it has something to do with the original SU submission being protected under Parliamentary privilege rules and protocols, whereas the SU submission was part of a ministerial review (Forsyth - ASRR) which was administered by the Minister's Dept and therefore not subject to the same protections - 

It could also have been because there was still a large pile of blood, guts and horse pooh surrounding the fallout of the PelAir cover-up inquiry that needed to be effectively, for self-preserving reasons, stepped around and bureaucratically O&O'd by M&M and his minions

Remember this?

Senate to Refer CASA Actions to Federal Police
23 May 2013
Comments 0 Comments

The Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) will refer CASA's actions in the Pel-Air investigation to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

During the inquiry into the ATSB's investigation report, the RRAT found that CASA withheld from the ATSB a report into CASA's oversight of Pel-Air's operations (the Chambers Report). It is feared this could constitute a breach of Section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act.

"On the weight of the evidence reviewed," the RRAT report states,"the committee questions CASA's motivation in withholding the Chambers Report from the ATSB.

"This leads the committee to conclude that CASA may have breached section 24 of the TSI Act by withholding the document. To ensure that any appropriate action is taken, the committee will write to the Australian Federal Police, providing a copy of this report and supporting evidence for review."

• Section 24 of the TSI Act makes it an offence if a person engages in conduct that is reckless and adversely affects an investigation.
  

If it ever actually took place, the AFP investigation would have spooked many within the Can'tberra bubble including the DPM Warren Truss. As a freshly minted Minister, Truss would not have want any personal blow back or perceived association with malfeasance within the aviation safety bureaucracy. 

I know all mere speculation but what it does do is shine the light back on what was a particularly turbulent and Murky period on the ToARE? 

Referring to the original SU submission once again:

...The appointment of long term CASA defender Ian Harvey as Counsel Assisting the Coroner. Despite Mr Harvey’s knowledge of the industry, his association with CASA constituted a gross conflict of interest. (ref: Letter from Gilshenan and Luton , Solicitors and on our behalf, to Coroner Barnes.) It was rejected out-of-hand. I would be very keen to know exactly, the circumstances surrounding Harvey’s appointment and what role CASA may have had...

As P7 alluded to Harvey QC was a contentious figure as he seemed to be nearly always the preferred go to  hired gun on the more higher profile CASA cases of legal embuggerance and/or cover-up.

Extracts from CASA QoN Budget Estimates May 2006:

Senator McLUCAS—My next question is tangentially related to this issue. Can you
tell me what work CASA has employed Mr Ian Harvey QC to undertake over the last,
say, five to seven years?

Mr Gemmell—We can. Mr Harvey has done quite a bit of work for CASA. He very
commonly represents us. I have come across him representing us in the Federal Court
and indeed in coronial inquiries and various things. So he has done quite a bit, be we
would have to check all the details of that.

Senator McLUCAS—If you could just give me a list. I hope that is not too difficult
to find.

Mr Gemmell—No, we could find that.

Answer:

Over the past 5 years, Mr Ian Harvey QC has appeared for CASA in the following
matters:

In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
• Cole v CASA
• Brazier v CASA
• Aerolink v CASA
• Schutt Flying Academy v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA
• Polar Aviation v CASA
• Mulligan v CASA
• Heavylift v CASA

In the Federal Court
• Layton v CASA
• CASA v Boatman (led by P. Brereton QC)
• Byers v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA (led by R. Tracey QC)
• CASA v Hotop (led by P. Brereton QC)

Coronial Inquests
• Police Air Wing (Western Australia)
• Toowoomba (Queensland)
• Hamilton Island (Queensland)

Other Court Proceedings

• Sydney Heli-Scenic v CASA (NSW) (led by G. Hilton SC)

Mr Harvey has also provided training for CASA on five occasions.

And:

Senator McLUCAS—It would be quite simple to find. Would you describe
Mr Harvey as CASA’s preferred barrister?

Mr Gemmell—No. My understanding is that we have a contractual arrangement
with a panel of suppliers who we roll around with. Mr Harvey on occasions would be
representing our insurers. It would be a decision about representation coming from
both CASA and our insurers, and it depends on who our insurers are. I am not sure
the description ‘preferred’ would be correct, but I can check that to see if any part of
the contract does indicate that.

Answer:

Mr Ian Harvey QC is one of a small number of barristers with demonstrable
experience and expertise in aviation-related matters of the kind in which CASA tends
to become involved. In litigation before the courts and before coronial inquests,
CASA’s insurers and external solicitors determine who will appear on CASA’s
behalf. In many of those cases, Mr Harvey is their choice on the basis of his
recognised ability and expertise.

Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, CASA’s own in-house counsel appears
for CASA in about half of all matters brought. Mr Harvey has appeared in a majority
of the remainder of those matters in recent years.

As is customary with barristers, Mr Harvey is self-employed and is engaged on a
fixed daily rate in each matter briefed.

Then fast forwarding back to 2012-13 Harvey QC was involved in yet another high profile (CASA required cover-up) Coroners Inquest.

From Bedderseagle on the UP:

[b]Barry Hempel Inquest[/b]

---

CORONER’S COURT NO 4 BRISBANE

I attended many sessions of this inquest last week – an inquest into the deaths of Barry Hempel and Ian Lovell in the YAK-52 accidentof 3rd August 2008 off Jumpin Pin, South Stradbroke Island – yes, that’s almost 4 years ago! The assembled legal teams were numerous, with coroner, barrister assisting the coroner, CASA’s QC, insurer QBE's QC, Ian Lovell's family’s QC and then various legal representations from witnesses including Hempel's Aviation CEO, Mr Hempel’s widow and a string of Mr Hempel’s doctors and others. I was beginning to think I was at a major trial and not an inquest.

I'm surprised that the media does not appear to befollowing these proceedings, especially considering the numerous previous media reports at the time of the accident and following it. This is, or certainly should be, a major public interest case. As the inquest progressed, many cover ups, incompetencies and blatant lies were exposed.

There can be little doubt that Barry Hempel, in his prime, was ranked among the best pilots in Australia. His knowledge of his aircraft and his flying skills were of a high order. I am sure that many who were trained by him found those skills impressive. Then there was an upset. Evidence has been presented that following ahead injury in 2001, he underwent a major behavioral change. As a result of a hangar door accident he had brain damage and subsequent epileptic events. It appears that following partial recovery he was involved in a string of non-aviation offences.

During this last week, numerous witnesses were called, ranging from Queensland Police representatives, Ian Lovell’s partner, eye witnesses to the crash, doctors, the Hempel's CEO, Hempel's Chief Pilot and CASA. It was clear that some witnesses had been primed by their legal representatives, for many were their stock responses of “I do not recall”. The accounts from doctors involved with MrHempel were horrendous. They revealed many instances of malpractice, including alleged loss of records or the non-existence of them.

It was alleged that Mr Hempel had over one hundred violation notices issued by CASA. Itleft one thinking of what you really had to do to be struck off for good. It appears that he had his Commercial Pilot’s Licence revoked in March 2008. That being so, on the day of the crash, 31 August 2008, he should not have been taking up fare paying passengers. (Ian Lovell was the third such passenger that day).

Hempel's CEO stated that he wasn’t really a true CEO, only acting as one so that Hempel's Aviation could get it's Air Operator's Certificate, (AOC), with CASA. He stated that he knew that CASA had cancelled Mr Hempel’s Commercial Pilot's Licence, but believed, because Mr Hempel had told him so, that because he had held a special authority before entitling him to fly the YAK-52 aerobatic warbirds aircraft, that authority was still valid. Even the company's Chief Pilot, on the stand, stated that he had no knowledge of Mr Hempel undertaking commercial flights in the Yak-52.

The court heard scarcely credible accounts of cover-ups, deceits, malpractices and blatant lies which had the coroner, the coroner's QC and most of the public gallery patently shocked. It became clear that there were many who knew of the potential hazard who could have reported the dubious operations, or otherwise alerted others.

CASA should have have charged Barry Hempel and had Hempel's Aviation shut down.

The CEO should have attempted to stop Mr Hempel from flying and failing that should have resigned, requesting the Chief Pilot to do likewise.

The Chief Pilot should have requested Mr Hempel to stop flying. Were that request ignored, his only proper recourse would have been to resign and submit a full report laying out his reasons for this to the Authority.

The Hempel's Aviation company director turned a blind eye.

Mr Hempel’s doctors turned a blind eye.

Of Mr Hempel's many ‘mates’, (apparently including PPRuNe posters following the crash) – not one was prepared to blow the whistle on their 'mate'.

Had just one done so, then this accident would in all probability not have occurred.

It seems extraordinary that CASA could have issued over one hundred violation notices yet failed to bar him from flying as pilot in command- and this from a capital city secondary airport, not out in the sticks where renegades may still be found flying and flouting the law.

One can only hope that, as the inquest proceeds this week,eventually something good will come from it all. For instance, if found necessary, that amended legislation will be enacted and effectively policed. (The whole concept of effective policing combined with fair and equitable surveillance would appear to be in need of searching reappraisal at the top and within the ranks of CASA.)

I will not in any way presume to pre-empt the coroner's findings, but will say it is encouraging to see the thoroughness of the inquest's probings. I hope that when they are handed down, the findings, the outcomes and the recommendations can be acted upon sensibly so that this type of accident is less likely or never to recur.

  

The final report of that inquest was handed down less than a month after the 2013 election - see HERE.

This again brings me back to the SU 2014 ASRR submission where we find on pages 14-15 a summary headed 'Victims and families vs the System', which even today IMO almost totally encapsulates the status quo of all that is wrong, evil, negligent and corrupt within the self-serving, self-preserving Govt and bureaucracy both oversighting and administering the aviation safety system (SSP) in this country...

---

Victims and families vs the System 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

We know what they have been doing, how they operate and who the main players are, but we are ignored as an inconvenient presence in the milieu. eg ongoing difficulties in obtaining information, even through FOI, time wasting, blocking, denial, shifting personnel around and blatant lying. The personalities and operating methods of senior executives are a serious blight on the integrity of the Senior Executive Service of the Commonwealth and is a real factor in our frustrations etc etc. No survivors=pilot error every time. It could be legitimately believed that this is a preferred outcome of air crashes. Numerous Inquests and the subsequent findings and recommendations seem to support this belief. The general public would be appalled. 

Australian Transport Safety Bureau 

The ATSB has lost its integrity and trust of families as soon as it entered into MOU with CASA. There is ample documentation to demonstrate its now subservience to CASA. The ATSB was appropriately rigorous and unflinching in its reports and statements to the LHR Coroner. Now, it makes no major decisions or reports without permission from the DAS of CASA, despite what both organisations say in public. 

Government and politicians 

The government and most parliamentary members are only interested if there is a vote in it for them. They lose interest very quickly. Need guts and political will. Nothing changed with the change of government. Ministers duped by CASA speak and clever bureaucrats. Insurance liability for the Commonwealth plays a major role in the inaction of the government of the day and its continued backing of all CASA and ATSB decisions. 

Coronial Inquest system. 

Has a lot to answer for. Lazy Coroners are dudded by clever barristers and unlimited resources. Outcomes always support the pilot error theory, much to the delight of the Authority who works hard to achieve this. (redaction??) ...this is a well documented conflict of interest. It has been allowed to continue unquestioned by Coroners. We believe that it would not be unreasonable to call State Coroners, who have presided over Coronial Inquests related to Aviation fatalities, to be questioned about findings and recommendations that are related to this current Inquiry. 

(Reference:  https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...alysis.pdf & https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...-River.pdf )

Legal representation 

Lawyers and barristers really just making money...little understanding of issues and not really being rigorous in their representation of families in Inquests and Insurance issues. 

Insurance issues 

There is a double whammy of distress and pressure. 1. The distress of Inquests and their inadequate recommendations, but also, 2.the ubiquitous QBE and the unscrupulous Norton White and their relentless harassment and attempted intimidation of families to minimise payments under Air Carriers Liability Act. Again the lawyers win and collect huge fees; and the government is again not liable. 

The media 

Media outlets are only ever interested in the quick grab...if it is somehow sensational or salacious. No real interest shown in human cost and making the public aware of the issues. They promise everything and give nothing. Quite different coverage is afforded to “celebrities” who make news even if they pass wind. We believe that those of some perceived importance/status, would enjoy much better support and outcomes than any of us.

---

TBC...

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Dumbledore, knitting patterns and the stable cat.

Not balmy – last I checked, all marbles accounted for etc. But, I do crave your indulgence; a ramble is required to explain the last BRB/IOS ‘conference’ results. So we must begin with ‘knitting’ patterns.

I still own the two pair of ‘socks’ my Nana made for me when I began climbing; to this day they are without holes, warm and incredibly resilient to the wear and tear I subjected them to. And they got plenty of that – and never were my feet cold – not once; remarkable things. Now the ‘pattern’ she used has been handed down for generations – cragsmen and fishermen both need to be certain the clothes they wear will sustain life. But the ‘pattern’ is an intriguing mystery: stand alone. Think about it; lines of computer code in isolation mean nothing; as do lines in a knitting pattern. The results of those ‘lines of code’ may be anything from a moon orbiter navigation protocol or – a pair of socks. The pattern is the key. Nearly done now: a result of any ‘pattern’ completed eventually emerges as a ‘creation’ of some description.

It is the emerging ‘pattern’ of aviation which has the grown up’s concerned. Much like a line of computer code (or a knitting pattern) by it’s lonesome don’t really signify – it is all part of a grand plan, the finished results being the ‘whole’.

What has the stable cat to do with it? ‘We’ had been to the vet, on the way home I stopped at a friends place – the dogs know their way about, but Mog had never been there. I was impressed and fascinated by the way the cat identified and catalogued the place, all senses at full throttle, alert to possible danger, every step taken in exploration carefully considered and the best escape route back to the vehicle identified. It was an education in how to asses and evaluate a strange situation.

Although not quite as adept as the cat, the BRB/IOS have been in the ‘environment’ a long while and have had the time and freedom to roam and explore the place; so when –anything new emerges it can be quickly identified and easily evaluated.

CASA is always banging on about ‘risk’ – not to those flying – but of the legal variety to themselves and; of course, the benighted minister. Both a sinister and cynical system is emerging from the pattern they are using to ensure ‘safety’ for the ‘administration’. The CASA get away with some truly dreadful stuff simply by saying that the are the ‘expert’ body. They are not of course, but no one in government want’s to rock that little boat, for obvious reasons. What government can’t see is the finished article emerging from the pattern CASA are using. Each line in the knitting adds one more strand to what will become a straight jacket for restraining any form of entrepreneurial, independent development of aviation ventures. A further development is the castration of Australian flight standards. We used to produce world class pilots; now we simply provide a warm bodies, ‘legally qualified’ made by the mile, cut off as needed. That standing alone is bad, but the devious ‘splitting’ into a multi tier system is despicable.

RA Oz has been granted a mandate to ‘administer’ their own version of ‘governance’ for general aviation. They have freedoms a snake oil salesman would kill for. The way SOAR and RA OZ have manipulated their remit, with CASA blessing is slowly coming into focus. Reading through the RA Oz operations manual I was at first surprised, then progressively alarmed as the full picture emerged. You need to read it for yourself. The BRB did (at my insistence) the general reaction was the same – amazement at the depth and scope of the CASA deviance and paranoia. By granting an unfettered licence to become a pseudo ‘training academy’ without any CASA responsibility is a travesty. To foster and promote the mega ‘Company’ training schools is a further ducking of responsibility. In both cases, total responsibility lands squarely on the organisation – with CASA in the box seat to prosecute as it pleases, with the surety of a win. All care, but alas, no responsibility whatsoever. The determination to obliterate the small, independent flight schools and rural flying clubs clearly defined.

It is an international first and IMO an eternal shame on this nation and it’s government ministers, past and present. The USA is considered a world leader; their rules almost universally accepted as the prime example of simplicity and fairness. Even if they are not the ‘absolute’ last word they are streets and continents better than the tangled mass of the CASA ‘get out of jail’ jumble. Count the pages of FAA part 61, read it (and weep) – then take a stroll through the mindless blather supporting the RA Oz wet dream – and count the pages.

FAA deal with the RA Oz type of aircraft in about two pages in their Part 61. Part 141 deals with all flight training – from independent instructors working from home; through to fully integrated ‘academy’ type factory schools. Then, flick over a few pages and Part 142 appears. This covers ‘the rest’ – advanced training and checking – places like Flight Safety hold 142 approvals. All of these operations are monitored by FAA inspectors who carry responsibility for making sure all is as it should be.

That begs only one question remaining – who oversights an outfit like SOAR? Please don’t say RA Oz; at the end of the day they have about as much say-so as the tea lady; CASA will simply line up the top ranks, lop off their fool heads and put in a new team of fools who believe that they can rule the aviation world. Puppets on a string may amuse the crowd and distract them while the pickpockets work – but don’t forget, it is the puppet master who gets a cut at the end of the show. 

This is one of the easier patterns to follow for the neophyte knitter; there are other more complex patterns to attempt; some of ‘em so twisted and devious that one can spend a lifetime unravelling. But one thing is for certain sure; so long as this industry is prepared to allow CASA to operate as it does, without a single word of protest; the changes will continue, unabated. How many chief pilots have told a FOI to bugger off and take their ridiculous notions of what should be written into a manual part? Not too many I’d guess and not one still employed of those that did. Just go along to get along – and don’t look at the termites in the woodwork. Great idea……

Aye well, so much for knitting patterns and cats. The point of the ramble is to try and explain the awful tangle we are in – across the whole range of industry endeavours. Restriction, regulatory uncertainty, the ever present threat of being dragged into a court unable to mount a defence. The Glen Buckley saga, Angel Flight and of course SOAR all products of a seriously flawed system. ATSB now selecting which accidents they will investigate in an attempt to make their numbers look better and to hide their shame after the AF debacle. The accident rate increasing, the responsibility shifted, the pay packets growing and an industry caught up in a death spiral without the skill or legal tools to prevent the inevitable. Game, set and match I’d say.

The decision has been made; PAIN will not make a submission to the next Senate Inquiry. I have over 100 multi page notes on my ‘desk’ – to translate them all into a document of less than 1000 pages is not possible. The consensus is ‘the game ain’t worth the candle’. No, its not. Take a few moments and read through P2 Post #832 (above) – it is as good a clear view of what the Senate faces as any; its all been said before – many times – over many inquiries. The result is always, relentlessly, inevitably the same.. I could, on my own account, send in a very simple submission, condensing the very best of all comment and providing the government with the very best advice – free of charge and no favour sought.

1) Bring in a reform DAS and top dog crew.

2) Adopt the NZ or USA rule set immediately.

3) Have the political balls to do what is known to be necessary.

That’s it. End of ramble. I feel better now; that lot off my chest. This endless dancing and prancing about while ignoring the putrid corpse is beyond my simple understanding.

Selah……….

[Choppagirl]

ToARE: Part V

Reference the Carmody HR:

OK, I’ll play.

P2 – “PS.  A very curious point of interest? This is the link for Shane Urquhart's 2014 submission to the ASRR:  You will note that document has been redacted?

P2 – “However if you refer to SU's original submission to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA you will see that there was no redactions?

Took about five minutes to cull the ‘redacted’ parts – and I’m left wondering why anyone would bother to ‘redact’ parts of the original in one version and leave ‘em in plain text in the other, original version. Why?

2. The appointment of long term CASA defender Ian Harvey as Counsel Assisting the Coroner. Despite Mr Harvey’s knowledge of the industry, his association with CASA constituted a gross conflict of interest. (ref: Letter from Gilshenan and Luton , Solicitors and on our behalf, to Coroner Barnes.) It was rejected out-of-hand. I would be very keen to know exactly, the circumstances surrounding Harvey’s appointment and what role CASA may have had.

5. - It is noteworthy that Mr Ian Harvey represented CASA in this instance.

8. Rob Collins issues.
• Mr Rob Collins is an ex-CASA senior officer who has a shadowy pall cast over him..My issues here are presented as questions.. What is the historical relationship between Mr Ian Harvey and Mr Collins, and between Mr Collins and Mr Les Wright. Under oath Mr Wright denied knowing Mr Collins very well. What were the circumstances surrounding Mr Collin’s appointment as a CASA consultant for the Inquest. What were the circumstances surrounding Mr Collins very quiet return to CASA as Industry Complaints commissioner only to leave after two or three days in the position.

13 - FOI Max McCrae when asked by Mr Harvey about what he understood had happened in the case of LHR. He replied: “A guy flew a plane into a hill didn’t he?”

Apart from the universally acknowledged notion that there were some very questionable facets to the Lockhart River inquiry; and that both Collins and Harvey have been on the ‘watch’ list ever since – so what? The whole crew associated with Lockhart could give you change for a nine dollar note in ‘three’s’. There were three of ‘em involved – Collins, Telling and Wright – everyone knows it – but; the powers that be won the day and there is nothing to be gained by barking or redaction. The redaction only raises 'suspicion' levels - nothing to hide? Why bother?

Past ancestry, present value and future worth – all measured and weighed by Karma. Tick Tock.

The solution may just be hidden in the ‘timing’ – depends on what was surrounding the issues. That rests firmly in the P2 ‘in-basket’.

Handing over.

Unfortunately I still can't nut it out -  I can only think that it has something to do with the original SU submission being protected under Parliamentary privilege rules and protocols, whereas the SU submission was part of a ministerial review (Forsyth - ASRR) which was administered by the Minister's Dept and therefore not subject to the same protections - 

It could also have been because there was still a large pile of blood, guts and horse pooh surrounding the fallout of the PelAir cover-up inquiry that needed to be effectively, for self-preserving reasons, stepped around and bureaucratically O&O'd by M&M and his minions

Remember this?

Senate to Refer CASA Actions to Federal Police
23 May 2013
Comments 0 Comments

The Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) will refer CASA's actions in the Pel-Air investigation to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

During the inquiry into the ATSB's investigation report, the RRAT found that CASA withheld from the ATSB a report into CASA's oversight of Pel-Air's operations (the Chambers Report). It is feared this could constitute a breach of Section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act.

"On the weight of the evidence reviewed," the RRAT report states,"the committee questions CASA's motivation in withholding the Chambers Report from the ATSB.

"This leads the committee to conclude that CASA may have breached section 24 of the TSI Act by withholding the document. To ensure that any appropriate action is taken, the committee will write to the Australian Federal Police, providing a copy of this report and supporting evidence for review."

• Section 24 of the TSI Act makes it an offence if a person engages in conduct that is reckless and adversely affects an investigation.
  

If it ever actually took place, the AFP investigation would have spooked many within the Can'tberra bubble including the DPM Warren Truss. As a freshly minted Minister, Truss would not have want any personal blow back or perceived association with malfeasance within the aviation safety bureaucracy. 

I know all mere speculation but what it does do is shine the light back on what was a particularly turbulent and Murky period on the ToARE? 

Referring to the original SU submission once again:

...The appointment of long term CASA defender Ian Harvey as Counsel Assisting the Coroner. Despite Mr Harvey’s knowledge of the industry, his association with CASA constituted a gross conflict of interest. (ref: Letter from Gilshenan and Luton , Solicitors and on our behalf, to Coroner Barnes.) It was rejected out-of-hand. I would be very keen to know exactly, the circumstances surrounding Harvey’s appointment and what role CASA may have had...

As P7 alluded to Harvey QC was a contentious figure as he seemed to be nearly always the preferred go to  hired gun on the more higher profile CASA cases of legal embuggerance and/or cover-up.

Extracts from CASA QoN Budget Estimates May 2006:

Senator McLUCAS—My next question is tangentially related to this issue. Can you
tell me what work CASA has employed Mr Ian Harvey QC to undertake over the last,
say, five to seven years?

Mr Gemmell—We can. Mr Harvey has done quite a bit of work for CASA. He very
commonly represents us. I have come across him representing us in the Federal Court
and indeed in coronial inquiries and various things. So he has done quite a bit, be we
would have to check all the details of that.

Senator McLUCAS—If you could just give me a list. I hope that is not too difficult
to find.

Mr Gemmell—No, we could find that.

Answer:

Over the past 5 years, Mr Ian Harvey QC has appeared for CASA in the following
matters:

In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
• Cole v CASA
• Brazier v CASA
• Aerolink v CASA
• Schutt Flying Academy v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA
• Polar Aviation v CASA
• Mulligan v CASA
• Heavylift v CASA

In the Federal Court
• Layton v CASA
• CASA v Boatman (led by P. Brereton QC)
• Byers v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA (led by R. Tracey QC)
• CASA v Hotop (led by P. Brereton QC)

Coronial Inquests
• Police Air Wing (Western Australia)
• Toowoomba (Queensland)
• Hamilton Island (Queensland)

Other Court Proceedings

• Sydney Heli-Scenic v CASA (NSW) (led by G. Hilton SC)

Mr Harvey has also provided training for CASA on five occasions.

And:

Senator McLUCAS—It would be quite simple to find. Would you describe
Mr Harvey as CASA’s preferred barrister?

Mr Gemmell—No. My understanding is that we have a contractual arrangement
with a panel of suppliers who we roll around with. Mr Harvey on occasions would be
representing our insurers. It would be a decision about representation coming from
both CASA and our insurers, and it depends on who our insurers are. I am not sure
the description ‘preferred’ would be correct, but I can check that to see if any part of
the contract does indicate that.

Answer:

Mr Ian Harvey QC is one of a small number of barristers with demonstrable
experience and expertise in aviation-related matters of the kind in which CASA tends
to become involved. In litigation before the courts and before coronial inquests,
CASA’s insurers and external solicitors determine who will appear on CASA’s
behalf. In many of those cases, Mr Harvey is their choice on the basis of his
recognised ability and expertise.

Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, CASA’s own in-house counsel appears
for CASA in about half of all matters brought. Mr Harvey has appeared in a majority
of the remainder of those matters in recent years.

As is customary with barristers, Mr Harvey is self-employed and is engaged on a
fixed daily rate in each matter briefed.

Then fast forwarding back to 2012-13 Harvey QC was involved in yet another high profile (CASA required cover-up) Coroners Inquest.

From Bedderseagle on the UP:

[b]Barry Hempel Inquest[/b]

---

CORONER’S COURT NO 4 BRISBANE

I attended many sessions of this inquest last week – an inquest into the deaths of Barry Hempel and Ian Lovell in the YAK-52 accidentof 3rd August 2008 off Jumpin Pin, South Stradbroke Island – yes, that’s almost 4 years ago! The assembled legal teams were numerous, with coroner, barrister assisting the coroner, CASA’s QC, insurer QBE's QC, Ian Lovell's family’s QC and then various legal representations from witnesses including Hempel's Aviation CEO, Mr Hempel’s widow and a string of Mr Hempel’s doctors and others. I was beginning to think I was at a major trial and not an inquest.

I'm surprised that the media does not appear to befollowing these proceedings, especially considering the numerous previous media reports at the time of the accident and following it. This is, or certainly should be, a major public interest case. As the inquest progressed, many cover ups, incompetencies and blatant lies were exposed.

There can be little doubt that Barry Hempel, in his prime, was ranked among the best pilots in Australia. His knowledge of his aircraft and his flying skills were of a high order. I am sure that many who were trained by him found those skills impressive. Then there was an upset. Evidence has been presented that following ahead injury in 2001, he underwent a major behavioral change. As a result of a hangar door accident he had brain damage and subsequent epileptic events. It appears that following partial recovery he was involved in a string of non-aviation offences.

During this last week, numerous witnesses were called, ranging from Queensland Police representatives, Ian Lovell’s partner, eye witnesses to the crash, doctors, the Hempel's CEO, Hempel's Chief Pilot and CASA. It was clear that some witnesses had been primed by their legal representatives, for many were their stock responses of “I do not recall”. The accounts from doctors involved with MrHempel were horrendous. They revealed many instances of malpractice, including alleged loss of records or the non-existence of them.

It was alleged that Mr Hempel had over one hundred violation notices issued by CASA. Itleft one thinking of what you really had to do to be struck off for good. It appears that he had his Commercial Pilot’s Licence revoked in March 2008. That being so, on the day of the crash, 31 August 2008, he should not have been taking up fare paying passengers. (Ian Lovell was the third such passenger that day).

Hempel's CEO stated that he wasn’t really a true CEO, only acting as one so that Hempel's Aviation could get it's Air Operator's Certificate, (AOC), with CASA. He stated that he knew that CASA had cancelled Mr Hempel’s Commercial Pilot's Licence, but believed, because Mr Hempel had told him so, that because he had held a special authority before entitling him to fly the YAK-52 aerobatic warbirds aircraft, that authority was still valid. Even the company's Chief Pilot, on the stand, stated that he had no knowledge of Mr Hempel undertaking commercial flights in the Yak-52.

The court heard scarcely credible accounts of cover-ups, deceits, malpractices and blatant lies which had the coroner, the coroner's QC and most of the public gallery patently shocked. It became clear that there were many who knew of the potential hazard who could have reported the dubious operations, or otherwise alerted others.

CASA should have have charged Barry Hempel and had Hempel's Aviation shut down.

The CEO should have attempted to stop Mr Hempel from flying and failing that should have resigned, requesting the Chief Pilot to do likewise.

The Chief Pilot should have requested Mr Hempel to stop flying. Were that request ignored, his only proper recourse would have been to resign and submit a full report laying out his reasons for this to the Authority.

The Hempel's Aviation company director turned a blind eye.

Mr Hempel’s doctors turned a blind eye.

Of Mr Hempel's many ‘mates’, (apparently including PPRuNe posters following the crash) – not one was prepared to blow the whistle on their 'mate'.

Had just one done so, then this accident would in all probability not have occurred.

It seems extraordinary that CASA could have issued over one hundred violation notices yet failed to bar him from flying as pilot in command- and this from a capital city secondary airport, not out in the sticks where renegades may still be found flying and flouting the law.

One can only hope that, as the inquest proceeds this week,eventually something good will come from it all. For instance, if found necessary, that amended legislation will be enacted and effectively policed. (The whole concept of effective policing combined with fair and equitable surveillance would appear to be in need of searching reappraisal at the top and within the ranks of CASA.)

I will not in any way presume to pre-empt the coroner's findings, but will say it is encouraging to see the thoroughness of the inquest's probings. I hope that when they are handed down, the findings, the outcomes and the recommendations can be acted upon sensibly so that this type of accident is less likely or never to recur.

  

The final report of that inquest was handed down less than a month after the 2013 election - see HERE.

This again brings me back to the SU 2014 ASRR submission where we find on pages 14-15 a summary headed 'Victims and families vs the System', which even today IMO almost totally encapsulates the status quo of all that is wrong, evil, negligent and corrupt within the self-serving, self-preserving Govt and bureaucracy both oversighting and administering the aviation safety system (SSP) in this country...

---

Victims and families vs the System 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

We know what they have been doing, how they operate and who the main players are, but we are ignored as an inconvenient presence in the milieu. eg ongoing difficulties in obtaining information, even through FOI, time wasting, blocking, denial, shifting personnel around and blatant lying. The personalities and operating methods of senior executives are a serious blight on the integrity of the Senior Executive Service of the Commonwealth and is a real factor in our frustrations etc etc. No survivors=pilot error every time. It could be legitimately believed that this is a preferred outcome of air crashes. Numerous Inquests and the subsequent findings and recommendations seem to support this belief. The general public would be appalled. 

Australian Transport Safety Bureau 

The ATSB has lost its integrity and trust of families as soon as it entered into MOU with CASA. There is ample documentation to demonstrate its now subservience to CASA. The ATSB was appropriately rigorous and unflinching in its reports and statements to the LHR Coroner. Now, it makes no major decisions or reports without permission from the DAS of CASA, despite what both organisations say in public. 

Government and politicians 

The government and most parliamentary members are only interested if there is a vote in it for them. They lose interest very quickly. Need guts and political will. Nothing changed with the change of government. Ministers duped by CASA speak and clever bureaucrats. Insurance liability for the Commonwealth plays a major role in the inaction of the government of the day and its continued backing of all CASA and ATSB decisions. 

Coronial Inquest system. 

Has a lot to answer for. Lazy Coroners are dudded by clever barristers and unlimited resources. Outcomes always support the pilot error theory, much to the delight of the Authority who works hard to achieve this. (redaction??) ...this is a well documented conflict of interest. It has been allowed to continue unquestioned by Coroners. We believe that it would not be unreasonable to call State Coroners, who have presided over Coronial Inquests related to Aviation fatalities, to be questioned about findings and recommendations that are related to this current Inquiry. 

(Reference:  https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...alysis.pdf & https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...-River.pdf )

Legal representation 

Lawyers and barristers really just making money...little understanding of issues and not really being rigorous in their representation of families in Inquests and Insurance issues. 

Insurance issues 

There is a double whammy of distress and pressure. 1. The distress of Inquests and their inadequate recommendations, but also, 2.the ubiquitous QBE and the unscrupulous Norton White and their relentless harassment and attempted intimidation of families to minimise payments under Air Carriers Liability Act. Again the lawyers win and collect huge fees; and the government is again not liable. 

The media 

Media outlets are only ever interested in the quick grab...if it is somehow sensational or salacious. No real interest shown in human cost and making the public aware of the issues. They promise everything and give nothing. Quite different coverage is afforded to “celebrities” who make news even if they pass wind. We believe that those of some perceived importance/status, would enjoy much better support and outcomes than any of us.

---

TBC...

MTF...P2 

[Choppagirl]

Having just read the inquest report into Barry Hempel and Ian Lovell, I have to say I am totally speechless!

I cannot believe that the media didn't find this interesting!

[Kharon]

Exemptions – Friend or Enema?

As he often does – P2 has turned up a juicy bone and once again amazed us with his determined digging to get to real, honest facts. Modestly, he states  “Aw, just stumbled upon it”. Not 100% correct; he and I were both running down some ‘interesting’ anomalies. He just kept digging after I’d knocked off. It is well worth the time spent for any serious student of the near catastrophic mess our regulations have created; the clever ways CASA have milked the never ending ‘regulatory reform’ program; spent over a half a billion dollars and presented one of the most glorious piles of horse-pooh to the government. To make it worse, through the bi-partinsane top cover protection racket – all of the new law has been sanctioned without one single, solitary protest – or even a humble ‘please explain'. 

The whole thing is farcical – legally, operationally, financially and in contravention of world best practice for ‘safety’ (Whatever that may be). Let me introduce to you, (cue fanfare) –
- the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

P2’s excellent posts – 272 and 273 will take you on a new journey. Essential reading. P7 and I both read the long posts through – twice – P7 “Well, I’ll be buggered”. I’ll not spoil the journey for you by paraphrasing; and anyway, you lazy lot would let it pass by without a “Whoa’. So I shall assume (ass – u – me) you’ve all done the homework and ready to move to the next step on the ‘exemptions’ snakes and ladder game.

In primus; what is an exemption? Good question, bravo. There are three separate ways to view ‘an exemption’ – poetic licence allowed here:-

(i) A rule says: before making a pass under the Sydney Harbour Bridge a pilot must hold an Agricultural rating and have completed at least 50 hours of operations in that role. Furry Muff – however – the Ace-O-Base company have been contracted to do just that on New Years eve. Their pilots are all top notch military pilots with many hours of ‘low-level’ experience etc. Equivalent safety standard? Oh yes. Qualified Oh yes: Insured to the max – Oh yes. But, the proposed operation is ‘technically’ against the law as writ. No problemo. Exemption issued to that company.

(ii) Another company can match Ace-O-Base and want the same thing – to compete in the market. Enter the exemption dragon. You see the Crop dusting outfit has been shunted out and now the New boy’s want a piece of the action. Instant legal conflict?

(iii) As the safety case has been demonstrated and proven – the ‘exemption’ should, before the next round of head banging, have been brought into law. Herein lies the rub.

Exemptions are bloody handy things; a sensible ‘suggestion’ on a different approach to that writ in stone in the regulation may well turn out to be beneficial to all. However, once an ‘exemption’ has grown whiskers – without the sky falling in – then it should be made available to all; brought into law and ‘promulgated’ (hate that word). If not; why not?

Clearly – if a better way (cost and operationally) to do thing, with an equivalent ‘level of safety’ which reduces costs and opens up markets then – democratically – it should become the ‘new’ version of ‘the law’.

There needs to be a very good reason to deny upgrading a law based on demonstrated equivalent safety. Tried, tested and proven sound.

Yet there, clear as crystal in P2’s efforts are the lengths CASA will go to in order to maintain the ‘law’ and not implement those very clever (safe) innovations which save time, trouble energy and - importantly – cost to the operator. Any reasonable man could be forgiven for asking why not?

Why not indeed? Would CASA play favourites? Surely not. Would CASA see an exemption as a control lever? Surely not. Wel then, what’s left? Does the volume of ‘exemption’ indicate a flawed rule set? Does the reluctance to consider amending a rule to incorporate a long standing exemption mean that pride, self delusion, lack of operational competence and the  overweening conceit of those who have NDI about the operations they manage prevent them saying – We ducked it up. Royally and have NDI how to fix it, but we’re too close to embarrassing a minister, so we couldn’t fix it – even if we knew how. Which – by-the-by – they don’t.

Kudos P2. Respect and bloody well done. There’s even another tick in Chester’s box, he did try – just not hard enough. No matter – On’ya Dazza. ‘A’ for effort; shame about the ‘advice’. At least he’s making McCoramck 5G’s look entirely useless for longer.

You do know of course why the outside toilet was brought inside; nothing to do with ‘dark of night’ and cold seats – ‘twas but dog pooh in the backyard. Nothing else.

Toot - toot.

[Choppagirl]

Toot - toot yourself haha

https://www.governmentnews.com.au/global...y-corrupt/

[P7_TOM]

Out of the mouths of babes etc.

“K” – “I took a long drink and lit a smoke; “but it’s all been done before – went nowhere – fast”. “The travesty gents, as you all are very well aware, lays in the ‘termination’ not in restoration”. “The victims are long gone in political minds”. “Operations get shut down; not corrected a’la the USA system”. “The industry is literally ‘terrified’ to speak the truth – find me a chief pilot who dare say his FOI is a dickhead?”

“The travesty” is well documented and a long read. IMO it is one of the great failures of the ‘system’. When an ‘independent’ audit is conducted – whether ‘safety’ or ‘operational’ or even for an approval; the brilliant thing is (when done properly) at the end of the shift there is a sit down. Each perceived ‘hole in the cheese’ is discussed, from every sensible point; legal etc. More often than not ‘common sense’ prevails, ways and means of rectification are nutted out and life returns to normal. 100% happiness is not always achieved, but mostly things get ‘sorted’.

Last I checked, in the USA the FAA adopt a similar approach – potential or actual ‘breaches’ of ‘law’ or ‘policy’ are noted. FAA have been known to assist in rectification and rehabilitation – that is ‘on the record’. It is a sound system. A second chance is always on offer.

This is not always the case in Australia. Prior to the McCormack (screaming skull) era; operators had to mind their P&Q’s. Back in the DCA and CAA days it was most sensible to operate as closely to the ‘law’ as circumstances allowed. But, the rules were not cast in the manner of some Eastern Bloc hell hole. One could always argue the toss and even seek ‘justice’ through the democratic court system. Mostly though, contentious matters were resolved through ‘discussion’ with the ‘Authority’. Some heated discussions and blood curdling threats were part of ‘doing business’. Nearly always resolved – ending in a hand shake (muttering in the pub came later). There was always a natural, healthy ‘tension’ between regulator and those regulated; robust ‘discussion’ to be expected; with respect and ‘fairness’ expected from both sides.

That is no longer the case. It seems to have begun changing after Staunton. An erosion of mutual respect, a lack of trust and the sly introduction of ‘strict liability’. To my mind, the true ‘evil’ inherent in the system came to light during McCormack’s term. The ruthless extremes of law being used support the whims and notions of some very ordinary talent ensconced within the protected halls of Sleepy Hollow. The era is notable for the amount of operations arbitrarily shut down and personal vendetta being conducted under the guise of ‘safety’. Notable is the lack of any ‘rehabilitation’ of those who seemed (in CASA opinion) to have strayed from the straight and narrow – without any hope of a realistic reply or defence. This is no idle fancy of mine – all there; in the Abandon All Thought of rule of law (a.k.a. AAT annals. The rules of ‘evidence’ therein effectively prevent this. Present day CASA can and does make great mountains out of small molehills – by simply stacking up the ‘evidence’ and ‘strict liability’ misdemeanours into a pile too high for the humble ‘shoes of the regulator’ AAT to safely jump over.

To be frank – the whole set-up scares the beejasus out of me; a criminal record for a clerical error? A career trashed on a persona bias? Hand crafted ‘evidence’ parlayed into a ‘heinous’ breach? Bollocks you say – put your money where your mouth is – “I’ll happily take it off you”.

The RRAT committee is gearing up for an inquiry. Please consider parking your own wheelbarrow and grindstone in the lot; how about submitting your own analysis of the ‘system’ and how it impacts on your business operation – or aeronautical pleasure – even a career that should have been. Lots of you out there – I even know some of you. Think on it. 

Bugger this – I am definitely a glass half full man – look at the state of that on the bar. Nearly empty! Not acceptable. Barkeep!

[Peetwo]

Senator Lambie nails it on ScoMo Govt pork barrels & rorts - 



Ref: Wikipedia - Pork Barrel.

Senator CORMANN: Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I have indicated, this is a document that was prepared for the consideration of the public governance committee of the cabinet, which is part of the deliberative processes of cabinet. As is well recognised in the Westminster system, it is in the public interest to preserve the confidentiality of cabinet deliberations to ensure the best possible decisions are made following thorough consideration and discussion of relevant proposals within cabinet. Disclosure of the document subject to the motion is not in the public interest, as it would reveal, and therefore harm, cabinet deliberations.

However, as I did also note in my letter, the report was the subject of a press conference from the Prime Minister on 2 February 2020, which is on the public record. Further, Mr Gaetjens has advised the Prime Minister that he intends to make a public statement in due course; in fact, I understand that he will have the opportunity to appear in front of the select committee established by the Senate to inquire into these matters.

(P2 comment: From OBS of the whole debate the whole body language and demeanour when Senator Cormann issued this bollocks statement and then scurries off speaks volumes IMO..  )

From Parlview  (via Youtube) Sen Jacqui Lambie in reply...  

 

...I find it very shameful. What a sorry, sorry affair this is, and what a poor show from our government. Australians deserve an explanation. You can tell us whatever rot you want to in here. This is why there is no trust from the Australian people. Senator McKenzie stepped down because she had not declared her membership of a shooting club that received $36,000 under the Community Sport Infrastructure Grants Program to pay for new toilets. The government still maintains that she didn't do anything wrong in targeting the sports funding to marginal electorates that the coalition wanted to win in the 2019 election.

It was the right thing for Senator McKenzie to resign—well, better late than never! I said within 12 hours she had to go, and I had no problem in texting her and telling her that either. Her behaviour was disgraceful. But, by pinning her resignation on a conflict of interest, the government are trying to pretend that using taxpayers' money to bolster their re-election campaign is acceptable behaviour. They're saying that pork barrelling is acceptable behaviour. They're saying that using a supposedly independent $100 million grant scheme as a slush fund is, once again, acceptable political behaviour. They're telling us that they don't see a problem with using a spreadsheet colour-coded by electorate to overrule the independent advice of Sport Australia. They don't see any issue with the fact that worthy projects missed out on funding because they weren't in electorates that the coalition needed to win and knew they did haven't the numbers to win...

Also from Sic'em'Rex:

...To inform us in relation to that fact, we have to go to some of the statements made by the Prime Minister when he announced that this document was being formed. He basically stated that he had asked the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for advice in relation to any action in the application of the statement of ministerial standards. The Prime Minister is awaiting the secretary's advice and will continue to follow due process. That's what the Prime Minister indicated. There is nothing in there that says this was for cabinet. I will read from section 109 of the latest version of the Cabinet Handbook to give a feel of how important this dominant purpose is. It says:

If an attachment or supporting document has been brought into existence for the dominant purpose of submission for consideration by the Cabinet, then the attachment or supporting document must clearly state this. This ensures each document is appropriately identified as a Cabinet document and handled in line with the security requirements for Cabinet material.

I would like the government to return to this chamber some evidence—because we're dealing with a question of fact—that this document was intended at birth to be a cabinet submission. That should be very easy. If, indeed, there is no evidence of that then they must table the document.

I've FOIed this. I've been through the FOI process before and I have managed to have released to me documents that were purportedly cabinet documents. I know this space really well. As I said, I have FOIed this document. Won't it be a shame, when I get to the end of the two-years the process is likely to take me, if it's revealed to me that Mr Rex Patrick can get it, under FOI, but the Senate couldn't? We'll see how that pans out...

Here is a link for the Hansard: Report on Ministerial Standards and Sports Grants

While on barrels of Pork and political rorting; I note the following extensive PDF document from RRAT Supp Estimates and provided by Mick Mack's Dept in regards to questioning from Sen Sterle:

---

There follows 61 tabled pages of absolutely staggering amounts (billions of dollars) of government expenditure into regional grants and community funding which I'm sure is mostly above board and genuine. However after the ongoing ScoMo Govt sports rorts imbroglio you do wonder??? 

MTF...P2 

ps Choccy frog to Sen Lambie...

[Peetwo]

SSCSDL: 'Dear Chair Connie' -   

I do believe that the 'Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation' has rapidly become my new FAV Senate committee...  

Previous reference:

Exemptions – Friend or Enema?

As he often does – P2 has turned up a juicy bone and once again amazed us with his determined digging to get to real, honest facts. Modestly, he states  “Aw, just stumbled upon it”. Not 100% correct; he and I were both running down some ‘interesting’ anomalies. He just kept digging after I’d knocked off. It is well worth the time spent for any serious student of the near catastrophic mess our regulations have created; the clever ways CASA have milked the never ending ‘regulatory reform’ program; spent over a half a billion dollars and presented one of the most glorious piles of horse-pooh to the government. To make it worse, through the bi-partinsane top cover protection racket – all of the new law has been sanctioned without one single, solitary protest – or even a humble ‘please explain'. 

The whole thing is farcical – legally, operationally, financially and in contravention of world best practice for ‘safety’ (Whatever that may be). Let me introduce to you, (cue fanfare) –
- the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

P2’s excellent posts – 272 and 273 will take you on a new journey. Essential reading. P7 and I both read the long posts through – twice – P7 “Well, I’ll be buggered”. I’ll not spoil the journey for you by paraphrasing; and anyway, you lazy lot would let it pass by without a “Whoa’. So I shall assume (ass – u – me) you’ve all done the homework and ready to move to the next step on the ‘exemptions’ snakes and ladder game.

In primus; what is an exemption? Good question, bravo. There are three separate ways to view ‘an exemption’ – poetic licence allowed here:-

(i) A rule says: before making a pass under the Sydney Harbour Bridge a pilot must hold an Agricultural rating and have completed at least 50 hours of operations in that role. Furry Muff – however – the Ace-O-Base company have been contracted to do just that on New Years eve. Their pilots are all top notch military pilots with many hours of ‘low-level’ experience etc. Equivalent safety standard? Oh yes. Qualified Oh yes: Insured to the max – Oh yes. But, the proposed operation is ‘technically’ against the law as writ. No problemo. Exemption issued to that company.

(ii) Another company can match Ace-O-Base and want the same thing – to compete in the market. Enter the exemption dragon. You see the Crop dusting outfit has been shunted out and now the New boy’s want a piece of the action. Instant legal conflict?

(iii) As the safety case has been demonstrated and proven – the ‘exemption’ should, before the next round of head banging, have been brought into law. Herein lies the rub.

Exemptions are bloody handy things; a sensible ‘suggestion’ on a different approach to that writ in stone in the regulation may well turn out to be beneficial to all. However, once an ‘exemption’ has grown whiskers – without the sky falling in – then it should be made available to all; brought into law and ‘promulgated’ (hate that word). If not; why not?

Clearly – if a better way (cost and operationally) to do thing, with an equivalent ‘level of safety’ which reduces costs and opens up markets then – democratically – it should become the ‘new’ version of ‘the law’.

There needs to be a very good reason to deny upgrading a law based on demonstrated equivalent safety. Tried, tested and proven sound.

Yet there, clear as crystal in P2’s efforts are the lengths CASA will go to in order to maintain the ‘law’ and not implement those very clever (safe) innovations which save time, trouble energy and - importantly – cost to the operator. Any reasonable man could be forgiven for asking why not?

Why not indeed? Would CASA play favourites? Surely not. Would CASA see an exemption as a control lever? Surely not. Wel then, what’s left? Does the volume of ‘exemption’ indicate a flawed rule set? Does the reluctance to consider amending a rule to incorporate a long standing exemption mean that pride, self delusion, lack of operational competence and the  overweening conceit of those who have NDI about the operations they manage prevent them saying – We ducked it up. Royally and have NDI how to fix it, but we’re too close to embarrassing a minister, so we couldn’t fix it – even if we knew how. Which – by-the-by – they don’t.

Kudos P2. Respect and bloody well done. There’s even another tick in Chester’s box, he did try – just not hard enough. No matter – On’ya Dazza. ‘A’ for effort; shame about the ‘advice’. At least he’s making McCoramck 5G’s look entirely useless for longer.

You do know of course why the outside toilet was brought inside; nothing to do with ‘dark of night’ and cold seats – ‘twas but dog pooh in the backyard. Nothing else.

Toot - toot.

Additional reference: https://auntypru.com/sbg-9-2-20-time-gentlemen-please/

---

Okay so that was where the tale of CASA EX101/19 – Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019 [F2019L01132] was at prior to the New Year. This progress was highlighted on page 5 of the SDL committee's 1st DLM (Delegated Legislation Monitors) for the year:

..Awaiting implementation of ministerial undertaking made on 07/11/2019 to amend the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in 2020...

And also under Appendix C - Undertakings for both the CASA EX101/19 and the CASA (DAMP) EX70/19 were recorded:

...The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development undertook to amend the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in 2020 in response to the committee's concerns...

07/11/2019

---

...CASA EX70/19 — Implementation of Drug and Alcohol Management Plans (Non-DAMP Organisations) Instrument 2019 [F2019L01414]

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority undertook to amend the instrument in response to the committee's concerns...

27/11/2019

 
This brings me back to the SDL committee notified disallowance motion for CASA EX101/19, where I refer to the Hansard from both the 12th and 13th of February:

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (15:32): On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for tomorrow, proposing the disallowance of the Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019, and... 

&..

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (11:45): Pursuant to notice given yesterday, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw:

Business of the Senate notice of motion number 1 standing in my name for today, proposing the disallowance of the Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019 [F2019L01132]; and..

From that it was obvious that something had changed? This led me back to the DLMs and in particular the 2nd DLM for 2020 where I found this under Appendix B - Concluded matters, subheading - Ministerial engagement (page 15): 

...Concluded following response from the minister on 03/02/2020.


The minister undertook to progress amendments the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 for completion in mid-2020.

'Protective' notice of motion to disallow was placed on 14/11/2019...

This of course led me to the 'Ministerial response' for 03/02/20: (reference pdf page 26 of 'Ministerial responses')

---

---

Hmm..fascinating especially this bit...

"...These amendments will remove the requirement for the issuance of an exemption of this type in the future..."    

I then went back to the committee correspondence where I found this statement from the Chair:

Dear Minister,

CASA EX101/19 – Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019 [F2019L01132]
Thank you for your response of 31 January 2020 to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, in relation to the above instrument.

The committee considered your response at its private meeting on 12 February 2020. On the basis of your advice that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is progressing amendments to Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 with a view to completing the amendments by mid-2020, the committee has concluded its examination of the instrument. The committee has also resolved to withdraw the 'protective' notice of motion to disallow the instrument. The committee will continue to monitor the implementation of this undertaking.

In the interests of transparency, I note that this correspondence will be published on the committee's website and recorded in the Delegated Legislation Monitor.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
Chair
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation

P2 OBS & QON: Hmm...in the interests of transparency QONs for Mick Mack: Q1/ How many of the other 30 odd exemptions for Part 61, listed HERE , fall under the category of "this type in the future"? Q2/ How many of "this type in the future" exemptions (including under other CASR Parts) will be up for renewal in the following 6 months (mid-2020)? 

I wonder if it wouldn't be in the best interest of both the industry and the ScoMo Govt if perhaps the Minister was to encourage CASA to escalate that promised timetable? 

  

Finally I note that on the 2nd DLM (2 of 2020) the Chair has linked a 'Tabling statement' which IMO highlights the relevance of my posting on the Estimates thread...

---

...Chapter 2 of the Monitor identifies instruments which the committee has resolved to draw to the attention of the Senate and relevant legislation committees under standing order 23(4), because they raise significant matters or matters otherwise of interest to the Senate. In practice, these may include instruments which contain significant policy matters or significant elements of a regulatory scheme, instruments which amend primary legislation, and instruments which have a significant impact on personal rights and liberties.

As a technical scrutiny committee, the committee does not express a view as to the policy merits or otherwise of these instruments. However, it has resolved to draw these instruments to the attention of the Senate in an attempt to promote greater scrutiny of the increasingly significant and complex matters contained in delegated legislation. It will, of course, remain a question for the Senate and the relevant legislation committees as to Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 02 6277 3066 | sdlc.sen@aph.gov.au www.aph.gov.au/senate_sdlc
whether they decide to further examine the instruments raised by this committee under standing order 23(4).

The committee has identified one such instrument in Chapter 2 of Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2020. The Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Dairy) Regulations 2019 establish a mandatory Dairy Code of Conduct that sets out a regulatory scheme for enforceable minimum standards of conduct for business practices between dairy farmers and processors of milk. In doing so, the instrument appears to implement significant elements of a regulatory scheme, and addresses matters which have been subject to a number of significant external reviews. Accordingly, the committee has resolved to draw this instrument to the attention of the Senate and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee under standing order 23(4).

The committee has also resolved to add a third chapter to the Monitor, to identify all legislative instruments which, in combination with their enabling Acts, authorise the Commonwealth to spend public money. Chapter 3 of Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2020 contains 10 such instruments, which together specify expenditure in excess of $300 million. In the committee's view, the scrutiny of these instruments is an essential aspect of parliamentary scrutiny and control of Commonwealth expenditure.

The committee trusts that these additions to the Monitor, combined with the recent amendments to the committee's standing orders, will further promote parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation, in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the committee's 2019 inquiry...

---

Hmm...Dear Chair Susan cc Chair Connie...L&Ks The IOS..

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Couldn't help picking this up from UP, just brilliant and perhaps if you just can't be bothered submitting to another inquiry, just send this.

In 1998 The Australian Parliament introduced The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, providing a basis for, among other things, implementation of the Regulatory Framework Reform Program.

Quote:
As a result of reviews of aviation regulation between 1988 and 1991, the Civil Aviation Authority began, in 1993, a program of redrafting the legislative structure of safety regulations. Since its establishment in 1995, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has continued the process of rewriting the entire safety regulations and associated advisory documentation. This process currently also reflects the Government's requirement, expressed in its policy statement Soaring into tomorrow,(1) that aviation regulations should be simple, straightforward and internationally harmonised.

Within CASA, this project has been entitled the Regulatory Framework Program. The present legislative framework is being reviewed with the objective of replacing the current Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders with new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. The principles underlying the new regulations require that they:
- are harmonised internationally with the US Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) and the European Joint Aviation Regulations (JARs)
- are clear, concise and understandable

- have a safety outcome approach

- are enforceable

- avoid over-regulation, and

- are consistent with the role of CASA.

I would express concern that the current regulatory framework is clear or concise (it has dramatically increased the amount of shelf space required to hold the new regulations compared to the old 'non-concise' regulations it has so far replaced). Particularly compared to other examples of nations that have attempted to reform their regulations to harmonise with international civil aviation regulations.

This drawn out process has left me bewildered by the length of time taken and the spaghetti of regulations that have resulted. I found the original CARs/CAOs that the new system replaces (well will replace real soon) was far more concise and easy to follow.

There are people here with a better grasp of the history of regulatory reform and history of regulation, perhaps submissions outlining this process and the ongoing uncertainty and impact on operators of this process would be of benefit.


You can look up the CASA Annual Reports from 1999 to today and search for "Regulatory Reform Program". It is constantly referenced in the reports. I quickly extracted some bits from many of these showing the progress of the reforms to regulation that were intended to provide the industry with a set of regulations that would be: clear, concise and understandable, avoid over-regulation and have a safety outcome approach.


2000-2001
Quote:
CASA has been undertaking a major programme of regulatory reform since 1996. The Regulatory Reform Programme involves comprehensively reviewing existing regulatory documentation against a set of criteria that reflect the objective of ensuring our aviation standards are appropriate, clear, concise and aligned with international practice. Under the programme,CASA is progressively consolidating the 1988 CARs and the CAOs into a single set of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) with major Parts addressing different aspects of aviation operations.

2001-2002
Quote:
CASA’s Regulatory Reform Programme has been re-focused and is on target to deliver a world standard aviation safety regulation regime.

During the year the Regulatory Reform Programme was reviewed and, in consultation with industry, a target date of December 2003 was set for the rewrite of the regulations. We are well on track to achieving this goal.

2002-2003
Quote:
Over the past four years, CASA has brought a major program of regulatory reform near to completion with a comprehensive rewrite of aviation safety regulations. The reforms will underpin enhanced aviation safety with Australian standards that are clearer, more concise, unambiguous and better aligned with international practice.
...

The Regulatory Reform Program, a major initiative to re-write the bulk of Australian aviation regulations, remains essentially on track for completion by December 2003.

2003-2004
Quote:
The current Regulatory Reform Program (RRP), begun in 1999, is CASA’s vehicle for achieving a quantum improvement in the quality of Australia’s civil aviation safety standards. Following a review of progress in 2001, the program was scheduled for completion on 31 December 2003.2 This timetable was based on achieving the substance of reform without an unduly protracted change process. While ambitious, the timetable was intended to address industry expectations about an end to the extra demands of consultation and to restore regulatory certainty as soon as possible.In 2003–04, six CASR Parts were made, bringing the program total to 30 out of a planned 58. Substantial progress was also made in developing regulatory packages for the remaining CASR Parts. However, it became apparent that the December 2003 deadline could not be met without sacrifi cing the quality objective and the Minister asked that CASA review the timetable. CASA is now taking whatever time is necessary to refine the remaining Parts in further consultation with the industry. It is also looking again at how closely the rules target established safety risks and will make a real difference to safety outcomes.
...
CASA has been under considerable pressure, including from members of the aviation industry, to finalise the Regulatory Reform Program. I firmly believe, however, that if we are to achieve CASA’s goal of ‘safety through clarity’, the objective must be to get the rules right rather than completed quickly. As the Minister urged in his Charter Letter, we must take care not to squander the unique opportunity we have to achieve a world’s best practice regulatory system.
...
CASA’s intention is that the bulk of the Regulatory Reform Program will be completed during 2004-05.

2004-2005
Quote:
Rules for the sake of rules is not an acceptable outcome of reform. It is also extremely important for the new regulatory regime to be easy to understand and work within. Complex rules without good reason are not acceptable. This means new rules need to focus on the safety outcomes we are seeking to achieve and must be developed within a simple two-tier framework of the Civil Aviation Act and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

2005-2006
Quote:
CASA is committed to completing the Regulatory Reform Program, which will provide new rules in response to industry changes. This will require continuing resource investment by CASA and the industry, but reform will enable the industry to position itself well for the future.

2006-2007
Quote:
CASA is progressively combining and updating the requirements currently set out in the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders into new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations under its regulatory reform programme

2008-2009
Quote:
Parliamentary scrutiny CASA’s operations underwent intense scrutiny by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport through its Inquiry into the Administration of CASA and Related Matters. The inquiry received 61 submissions from the aviation industry, individuals and CASA, and held public hearings for two days in July 2008. In its report the committee made a number of recommendations, including: ... bringing the regulatory reform program to a conclusion as quickly as possible

2009-2010
Quote:
Many of the aviation safety regulations have been
reviewed and revised, and that process will continue
into 2010–11. The Aviation White Paper presented CASA
with some significant regulatory reform challenges,
including a requirement to complete the reform in 2011.
‘Regulatory reform’ is partly a misnomer—we currently
have an effective set of regulations in place, but we are
enhancing, modernising and refining them.
To date, approximately one-half of the 60 proposed CASR
Parts have been made and implemented. The remaining
half, however, form the core of our aviation safety
regulatory program, comprising the Maintenance suite,
Operational suite, and Flight Crew Licensing suite. The
Sport and Recreational Aviation suite of CASRs are also
yet to be finalised and implemented.

2010-2011
Quote:
2010-2011

In 2010–11 there was particularly strong performance in advancing the regulatory reform program; continuing to implement the objectives stated in the 2009 National Aviation Policy White Paper, Flight Path to the Future, and in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010;


CASA Corporate plan 2009-2012

to complete the Regulatory Reform Program in a timely manner

Finalising the remainder of the CASA Regulatory Reform Program by December 2011 Result Priority was assigned to the passenger-carrying regulations, which have involved an intensive and extensive body of drafting work. The aerial work, sport and recreation, and other outstanding CASR Parts will be finalised in 2012.
2011-2012

Quote:
2011-2012
The year covered by this report saw material progress in the delivery of the regulatory reform program

CASA Corporate plan 2011-2014
Complete the Regulatory Reform Program in a timely manner

2013-2014
Quote:
2013-2014
Developing new aviation safety regulations, taking account of best international practice and aligning Australian requirements with relevant overseas practices. Measure Working in conjunction with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) to finalise the outstanding parts of the operations regulations (by June 2014)

Work will continue on the development and implementation of the regulatory reform program, which includes transitioning the governance of flying training organisations, multi-crew training, checking organisations and design organisations to the new regulations.

2015-2016
Quote:
There was a new level of communication and transparency to complete the aviation regulatory reform program. A detailed timetable covering 20 regulatory change projects to be undertaken over the next three years was published after extensive consultation with aviation representative groups and individuals from all sectors of the aviation community.

The Regulatory Reform drafting, incorporating the classification of operations, a three tier structure where possible and meeting the Government’s requirements for new and amended regulations, will be completed by December 2015

2016-2017
Quote:
Regulatory reform and progress achieved in key areas CASA’s Board is working closely with the organisation to drive a practical approach to regulation. We have set some ambitious targets for the release of all outstanding regulations, and we will meet them by working to a deadline with defined deliverables and being transparent by making the regulatory reform timeline public. We are challenging ourselves to release regulations that are reasonable and relevant.

CASA will continue to focus on new regulations and instruments adhering to Commonwealth legal drafting practices and avoiding inconsistencies with other pieces of relevant legislation. Rules will continue to be prepared in accordance with a three-tier regulatory structure and using easy to understand language. CASA is committed to the remaining reform program regulations drafted for public and industry consultation by the end of 2018.

2017-2018
Quote:

Regulation reform program: Significant progress was made on CASA’s regulation reform program. CASR Part 149 – Approved Self Administering Aviation Organisations was made in July 2018. It had been hoped that completion of this Part would take place earlier in 2018, but important policy-related developments requiring additional consideration and associated drafting adjustments contributed to a longer than expected delay.

Develop and commence implementation of the final tranche of regulatory reform Result: The final tranche of regulatory reform – Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Parts 91, 103, 105, 119, 121, 131, 133, 135, 138 – has commenced. Public consultation for CASR Part 91 and the Part 91 Manual of Standards was completed in May 2018. Aviation Safety Advisory Panel technical working group meetings were conducted for CASR Parts 121, 133 and 135. CASR Part 119 was discussed at each of the three working group meetings. CASR Part 149 was made in July 2018.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority structures all regulations not yet made with the three-tier approach, and subsequently reviews all other Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts (in consultation with industry) to determine if they should be remade using the three-tier structure. Agreed in Principle The Government will support appropriate regulatory reforms in the future noting that there needs to be sufficient time for CASA and industry to transition to the changes, recognising this can often take several years.Rules will continue to be prepared in accordance with a three-tier regulatory structure. Subsequent reviews of other CASR Parts will determine if they need to be remade, noting that CASA, working with industry, has set out the immediate priorities for regulatory reform. Implementation is ongoing as drafting of the remaining parts of the regulatory reform program are progressed.

CASA expects all remaining parts of the regulatory reform program to be drafted by the end of 2018, noting that transition periods and final rule application may extend beyond the date of regulations being made.
So after this process since the 90s, have we a clear, concise and not over-regulated set of regulations?

As of 2020 the regulations now consist of all the documents at Current rules
jonkster is online now  Report Post  Quote  Quick Reply

[Peetwo]

Friday Arvo Fax.

There are some equally ‘silly’ reports on the RA Oz reporting card, but the one which jumps off the pages is this one:- HERE -. I asked P7 to give it a gentle ( five minute) once over – just to make sure that once the laughter stopped, there were indeed not only several very serious breaches of basic common sense ‘flight safety’ and a certain disregard for the rules which govern both. The whole thing was fraught with peril from before even the engine was started. The manner in which the final approach to landing was conducted is not only reckless, but a danger to any other aircraft operating within the aerodrome precincts and the very airport infrastructure.

There are many parallels to be drawn between this episode and the Angel Flight fatal at Mt. Gambier. The most obvious being deliberately persisting into non VFR conditions, then continuing an approach in less than prescribed minimum visibility conditions. One led to a fatal accident, the other just got lucky.

CASA brought the boom down on AF after Mt. Gambier and yet the RA Oz crew have been allowed to present a ‘signed confession’ of dangerous operational practice and neither St. Commode nor his henchmen have raised an eyebrow, ATSB have simply filed the thing in the ignore bin.

The report provided speaks of some piss poor training – across the spectrum. Glen Buckley gets a severe hammering while the idiot posing as minister sings the praises of SOAR and their wonderful CASA sanctioned training systems.

St. Commode said this:

If; as he claims, all the gods bestowed the right to be responsible for “keeping Australians safe” does this refer to only a select group or to all? Seems to me it is time CASA accepted that responsibility and took a very close look at the incident cited in relation to rules being broken, poor airmanship through training and the possibility of a mid air; or, collision with an aircraft on the duty runway or even a CFIT. Alternatively, have CASA questioned RA Oz in relation to this matter and shown them some of their famous ‘tuff-luv’?  Told ‘em to straighten it out – or else. Did ATSB run some statistics? 31 'incidents' reported by RA Oz since Dec 2019 (6 weeks worth). Time someone paid attention I’d say…..

Nah to all of the above. Why no?. Why has the patron Saint of aviation safety not swooped in, cleaned up the mess, drafted some new onerous, restrictive rules to make RA Oz a compliant citizen of the land where St. Commode rules as the supreme doyen of aviation safety? Because it’s not his responsibility is it. Course its not, that has been ‘delegated’.

It’s not only a farce, an insult and a cop out, it betrays the very standards CASA have set but fail to enforce. Stall and spin training is now being diluted because many of the ‘cost effective’ - ‘bar-code’ aircraft ain’t tested and not certified as fit for task. What a brilliant start to a professional career that makes.

Sooner or later, the RA Oz system needs to be discussed. In principal it is a fine idea for
‘Recreational pilots’.  Personally, I have no quarrel with it, in it’s rightful place. Seems to me to be a really good thing for many folk; those who just love to fly, recreationally potter about, tour the country side: those on the land who use an aircraft in much the same way as a ute. It is a blessing for those who can safely drive a vehicle but just fall short on CASA medical standards. The benefits are many, the ‘risks’ when sensibly addressed acceptable and the restrictions placed not too draconian at all – considering.

But – (there’s always a but) as a pathway to a Commercial pilot licence and higher? In theory there is a cost saving. In reality the savings are marginal, when you do the numbers – for real. Then, there is the ‘quality’ question. I know many of the RA instructors hold a CASA IR; but many do not. No doubt these are well intentioned and properly mentored by the CASA approved senior crew; but I wonder; if there is a ‘gap’?

It is a truism, that one may teach Granny to ‘fly’ a simple aircraft in a very short period of time – up, down, left, right - try not to hit anything. Does this create a sound basis for progression to the jet command most of those (in debt) ‘training’ aspire to? It is a fair question for open, friendly discussion. BRB opinion to follow…I raise the issue because (IMO) the ‘basic’ training a pilot receives is very, very important. Essentially, that period is of very short duration – the time it takes between first lesson and first solo is the only time a pilot is actually ‘taught’ to ‘fly’ an airframe. After that it becomes a matter of further education, the basics the platform on which advanced training, ‘experience’ and operational knowledge is built. If the foundations are flawed, sooner or later the cracks will begin to appear

With the crew involved in the incident cited (above); the cracks seem o have appeared at a very early stage. Is this a good enough platform from which to build an airline career? The minister seems to think so – but then…………..

Anyway, I ramble. The whole thing is going to a full house (IOS and BRB) - - session (no darts). The agenda is far reaching, beginning from the blatant CASA misrepresentation of a 1999 ministerial directive to the current day legislative mess. Should be interesting –

Toot – toot.

Oops! Bristell plastic fantastics back to bite - 

Via the CASA:

---

---

Hmm...I wonder where the Hooded Canary's ATCB back up to that is? - Certainly not HERE as yet??   

Soar - Going...going...going??

Via the Oz:

Soar Aviation still training pilots during review

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Follow @ironsider




The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued a warning for Bristell light sport aircraft due to their inability to recover from spins. Picture: ATSB

A decision on Soar Aviation’s future as a registered training organisation is expected within two weeks.

The flight training school had its registration cancelled in mid-December following an audit by the Australian Skills Quality Authority, which is responsible for Vocational Education and Training courses and VET training providers. The audit found Soar was not compliant with the standards for RTOs and had not supported the needs of individual students or met the requirements of the aviation training package.

At the same time, training partner Box Hill Institute was informed its approval to offer Commercial Pilot Licence courses was being revoked.

Both Box Hill and Soar sought reviews of ASQA’s decisions, which meant they could continue to recruit and train students.

An ASQA spokesman confirmed that while the review progressed, Soar could continue to “operate without restriction”.

“Should the cancellation decision be affirmed by the internal review, it would take effect 35 days after Gobel Aviation (trading as Soar) is notified of the decision,” the spokesman said. “In that instance, the provider could also seek an external review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.”

Similarly, the decision to amend Box Hill Institute’s scope of registration would not take effect while the review was ongoing.

Latest statistics from the Department of Employment show 193 students were enrolled in the CPL course at Box Hill in the second half of 2019, for whom $4.3m worth of loans were paid. In that period, no one graduated despite the data suggesting the course had a 93.6 per cent completion rate.

In a further setback, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority this week issued an urgent safety notice in relation to Bristell light sport aircraft.

According to CASA’s aircraft register, Soar owns 12 of the single engine, two-seat aeroplanes.

The CASA notice warned pilots to exercise extreme caution when conducting any manoeuvre in the Bristells that may lead to an intentional or unintentional stall.

“Bristell NG4 and NG5 operated in flying training should not be used for stall training,” said the notice. “Available information shows the aircraft may not comply with relevant international standards relating to the ability to recover from a spin.” The lack of compliance was due to the fact some countries allow light sport aircraft manufacturers to make a self-­declaration that their aircraft met accepted standards.

“This system has been put in place to lower compliance costs, reduce the time to bring new aircraft to market and allow new technology to be introduced more easily,” said CASA’s statement.

Two investigations are under way into crashes involving Soar-operated Bristell aircraft, one of which was observed to enter a spin from which it could not recover.

A spokeswoman for Soar Aviation confirmed the training school was continuing to fly students “who are reaching their goals of achieving licences”.

---

Comments:

Jock
1 HOUR AGO
I would suggest that this article is well due. Caveat Emptor

David
3 HOURS AGO
Fasten your seat belts.

Turbulence ahead.

If it is not already the Soar saga definitely needs to be on the good Senators radar...

MTF....P2 

[Peetwo]

Sic'em'Rex sounds the regional aviation drum for Estimates - 

Sen Patrick adjournment speech, from 27/02/20 Senate Hansard:

Aviation

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:52): The federal coalition government have introduced regulations into the parliament that will require security screening at regional airports. They've offered to pay for the equipment but not for the much more significant cost of the ongoing employment of security guards and, indeed, maintenance. I'm quite happy for there to be security screening at regional airports. If that's what Home Affairs says is required then that is what is required, but it must be the government that pay the cost. National security is a national responsibility, not a local council responsibility. It is the local councils that own the airports and will be charged this cost, and they, of course, will have to pass it on to passengers.

The former Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development did a case study on Whyalla—I'll just point out that Whyalla is serviced by both Rex Regional Express and Qantas—and found that the new requirement will increase a per person flight by $53 or $69. If the screening is only carried out on the Qantas passengers, the cost will be an extra $69. Now, clearly, if it costs an extra $69 to fly Qantas, fewer people are going to accept that option and, in fact, Qantas will end up pulling out of that route. If it's carried out on both Rex and Qantas passengers, the cost will be $53. This will just reduce people's willingness to fly. They'll go back on the roads.

In this instance, it'll reduce loadings on the aircraft and it will reduce the viability of the routes and again will result in flights being cut. So the two best options are that flights are cut or routes are cut completely. The government have botched this up. They've failed to do proper due diligence from the beginning and they're only now discovering what devastating impacts this proposal will have on regional communities. Whyalla and Port Lincoln will be seriously affected by this bungle. However, it is the thin end of the wedge—Kangaroo Island and Mount Gambier will likely be next.

When bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble first dreamed up this policy, they thought the annual operating costs of the equipment would be somewhere between $530,000 and $760,000. They were wrong. We now know that the numbers are something around $1.2 to $2 million. How do we know that? Because the RRAT committee conducted an inquiry and caught on to the idea that this was going to happen and asked a lot of questions. Amazingly, again, the government had done no analysis on the effect. I can tell you that regional air travel is the lifeblood of these regional cities. It's how people get to education services. It's how they get to medical services. It's how medical locums get into a local community. It's how we support agriculture, business and tourism. And it just allows families to travel to see one another. It is their lifeblood. If you start taking away flights, it will have an impact on communities. In the analysis, the department actually claim that the increased costs might not be passed directly on to ticket pricing. That just shows how hopelessly out of touch the government is. I can assure you that the costs will get passed on.

I have moved to disallow this regulation. The Senate will get to vote on this on 12 May this year. It's not just Whyalla that will be affected, and it is not just Port Lincoln. The department conducted case studies into other airports—Rockhampton, Geraldton, Wagga, Longreach and, indeed, Kangaroo Island, which is not even on the list. They're looking at that, and I'm now trying to get some more information on that. When this disallowance motion is voted on, it will be a real test for coalition senators who often claim to represent regional Australia. So I'm going to give them the opportunity to buck the system and vote with me on the disallowance.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sic'em'Rex sounds the regional aviation drum for Estimates - 

Sen Patrick adjournment speech, from 27/02/20 Senate Hansard:

Aviation

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:52): The federal coalition government have introduced regulations into the parliament that will require security screening at regional airports. They've offered to pay for the equipment but not for the much more significant cost of the ongoing employment of security guards and, indeed, maintenance. I'm quite happy for there to be security screening at regional airports. If that's what Home Affairs says is required then that is what is required, but it must be the government that pay the cost. National security is a national responsibility, not a local council responsibility. It is the local councils that own the airports and will be charged this cost, and they, of course, will have to pass it on to passengers.

The former Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development did a case study on Whyalla—I'll just point out that Whyalla is serviced by both Rex Regional Express and Qantas—and found that the new requirement will increase a per person flight by $53 or $69. If the screening is only carried out on the Qantas passengers, the cost will be an extra $69. Now, clearly, if it costs an extra $69 to fly Qantas, fewer people are going to accept that option and, in fact, Qantas will end up pulling out of that route. If it's carried out on both Rex and Qantas passengers, the cost will be $53. This will just reduce people's willingness to fly. They'll go back on the roads.

In this instance, it'll reduce loadings on the aircraft and it will reduce the viability of the routes and again will result in flights being cut. So the two best options are that flights are cut or routes are cut completely. The government have botched this up. They've failed to do proper due diligence from the beginning and they're only now discovering what devastating impacts this proposal will have on regional communities. Whyalla and Port Lincoln will be seriously affected by this bungle. However, it is the thin end of the wedge—Kangaroo Island and Mount Gambier will likely be next.

When bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble first dreamed up this policy, they thought the annual operating costs of the equipment would be somewhere between $530,000 and $760,000. They were wrong. We now know that the numbers are something around $1.2 to $2 million. How do we know that? Because the RRAT committee conducted an inquiry and caught on to the idea that this was going to happen and asked a lot of questions. Amazingly, again, the government had done no analysis on the effect. I can tell you that regional air travel is the lifeblood of these regional cities. It's how people get to education services. It's how they get to medical services. It's how medical locums get into a local community. It's how we support agriculture, business and tourism. And it just allows families to travel to see one another. It is their lifeblood. If you start taking away flights, it will have an impact on communities. In the analysis, the department actually claim that the increased costs might not be passed directly on to ticket pricing. That just shows how hopelessly out of touch the government is. I can assure you that the costs will get passed on.

I have moved to disallow this regulation. The Senate will get to vote on this on 12 May this year. It's not just Whyalla that will be affected, and it is not just Port Lincoln. The department conducted case studies into other airports—Rockhampton, Geraldton, Wagga, Longreach and, indeed, Kangaroo Island, which is not even on the list. They're looking at that, and I'm now trying to get some more information on that. When this disallowance motion is voted on, it will be a real test for coalition senators who often claim to represent regional Australia. So I'm going to give them the opportunity to buck the system and vote with me on the disallowance.

A first for RRAT Senate Estimates - No Aviation oversight? 

On review of the Additional Estimates program for next week - see HERE - it would appear that I will get the week off for monitoring matters aeronautical normally put before the RRAT legislative committee - 

Due to the GA inquiries ToR, I'm not surprised that CASA wasn't appearing but I am perplexed that Airservices, ATSB and the department's Aviation & Airports division are not listed for an appearance??

This prompted me to put a call through to the, always helpful, committee secretariat - 

Their response was that the committee had adopted a pragmatic approach and decided that rather than make the false pretense that they will get through all the agencies in the allotted time available, that all the aviation related agencies and dept division won't be called to give evidence unless there is interest from a number of Senators for those agencies to appear, in which case there will be a further spillover hearing.

Hmm...still contemplating whether that is a satisfactory answer??        

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sic'em'Rex sounds the regional aviation drum for Estimates - 

Sen Patrick adjournment speech, from 27/02/20 Senate Hansard:

Aviation

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:52): The federal coalition government have introduced regulations into the parliament that will require security screening at regional airports. They've offered to pay for the equipment but not for the much more significant cost of the ongoing employment of security guards and, indeed, maintenance. I'm quite happy for there to be security screening at regional airports. If that's what Home Affairs says is required then that is what is required, but it must be the government that pay the cost. National security is a national responsibility, not a local council responsibility. It is the local councils that own the airports and will be charged this cost, and they, of course, will have to pass it on to passengers.

The former Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development did a case study on Whyalla—I'll just point out that Whyalla is serviced by both Rex Regional Express and Qantas—and found that the new requirement will increase a per person flight by $53 or $69. If the screening is only carried out on the Qantas passengers, the cost will be an extra $69. Now, clearly, if it costs an extra $69 to fly Qantas, fewer people are going to accept that option and, in fact, Qantas will end up pulling out of that route. If it's carried out on both Rex and Qantas passengers, the cost will be $53. This will just reduce people's willingness to fly. They'll go back on the roads.

In this instance, it'll reduce loadings on the aircraft and it will reduce the viability of the routes and again will result in flights being cut. So the two best options are that flights are cut or routes are cut completely. The government have botched this up. They've failed to do proper due diligence from the beginning and they're only now discovering what devastating impacts this proposal will have on regional communities. Whyalla and Port Lincoln will be seriously affected by this bungle. However, it is the thin end of the wedge—Kangaroo Island and Mount Gambier will likely be next.

When bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble first dreamed up this policy, they thought the annual operating costs of the equipment would be somewhere between $530,000 and $760,000. They were wrong. We now know that the numbers are something around $1.2 to $2 million. How do we know that? Because the RRAT committee conducted an inquiry and caught on to the idea that this was going to happen and asked a lot of questions. Amazingly, again, the government had done no analysis on the effect. I can tell you that regional air travel is the lifeblood of these regional cities. It's how people get to education services. It's how they get to medical services. It's how medical locums get into a local community. It's how we support agriculture, business and tourism. And it just allows families to travel to see one another. It is their lifeblood. If you start taking away flights, it will have an impact on communities. In the analysis, the department actually claim that the increased costs might not be passed directly on to ticket pricing. That just shows how hopelessly out of touch the government is. I can assure you that the costs will get passed on.

I have moved to disallow this regulation. The Senate will get to vote on this on 12 May this year. It's not just Whyalla that will be affected, and it is not just Port Lincoln. The department conducted case studies into other airports—Rockhampton, Geraldton, Wagga, Longreach and, indeed, Kangaroo Island, which is not even on the list. They're looking at that, and I'm now trying to get some more information on that. When this disallowance motion is voted on, it will be a real test for coalition senators who often claim to represent regional Australia. So I'm going to give them the opportunity to buck the system and vote with me on the disallowance.

P2 - The inevitable result...

Labor again bi-partisan's Regional and General Aviation - 



Via Sic'em'Rex throws up the challenge on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Senator_Patrick/stat...6572796934

---

Rex Patrick
@Senator_Patrick

@AustralianLabor has just sold out regional Australia. A number of regional air routes will now see flights reduced or abandoned. The only chance for these communities now is for @The_Nationals to force a change in Govt thinking @SenMcDonald @Barnaby_Joyce @mattjcan #auspol

Katharine Murphy: Ref - https://twitter.com/murpharoo/status/126...3984830471
@murpharoo

Labor has this morning resolved to oppose a move by @Senator_Patrick
to disallow regulations requiring regional airports to undertake security screening, (despite some internal angst, & Coalition angst) https://theguardian.com/australia-news/l...5ecde582b6 #auspol

---

P2 OBS: Totally aware that the miniscule will simply soft cock the issue deferring to ScoMo and Skull Dutton, Rex notably hasn't included Mick Mack's Twitter handle in his tweet...

Industry needs to get onboard the Sic'em'Rex initiative and support both his petition - see HERE - and attempts to disallow this OTT legislation...

Via FB:

REGIONAL AIRPORT TAX WILL AFFECT SA REGIONS


A final report by the Federal Department of Transport confirms that a cost of $51.20 per passenger will be added to a flight from Whyalla to Adelaide if my disallowance motion does not get supported in the Senate this Wednesday.

Regional Express appeared before a Senate Committee last Thursday and stated, “It certainly makes it unviable for us, because we don't make that extra 35 per cent of the ticket price—the $52 per passenger—out of the service to Whyalla at the present time. That's a real problem for us, because if we can't operate profitably we obviously can't continue to provide a service.” QANTAS has made similar remarks to the Senate in the past.

Whyalla, Port Lincoln and Roxby Downs are all in line for fare increases. Mount Gambier and Kingscote may end up in a similar situation further down track. It’s totally unacceptable - I don’t mind there being security screening at regional airports but the Federal Government needs to cover the costs.

Before the vote on Wednesday I intend to file a petition in the Senate to make it clear that regional Australia doesn’t want this new form or tax. Please join the more than 1,000 South Australians who have already signed the petition.

Aviation did get mentioned in one Senator's adjournment speech yesterday - see HERE - however there was NO silver lining for GA and Regional Aviation in that one...

Quote: (WARNING: Bucket maybe required??)

"..But the families of the aviation industry have a friend in the federal Labor Party, especially in our Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, who, as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, released a national aviation white paper whilst he was the minister. This contrasts with the absence of policy from Deputy Prime Minister McCormack. Maybe he should have read it and then he would have had something to base some policies on. I might also suggest to him that, if he hasn't got a copy, I'm more than happy to send one to him so he can read it. That policy paved a path for industry: certainty; maintaining and improving safety and security; and creating jobs right across the country.."

Hmm..all quite depressing really - 

MTF...P2