[Peetwo]

IOS response so far...

St Commode shuts down survey because of over participation - go figure??

Via Oz Flying:
 

CASA suspends Survey claiming AOPA Interference
13 November 2020
Comments 0 Comments

Response from Sandy: 

Casa has been ‘outed’ well and truly by the limited survey. Yes of course it can claim that it’s contractor (wonder at what cost and are there any former CASA or PS personnel employed?) is trying to configure the survey to compare to the last one.

Its just so obvious that it is trying to skew the survey to fight back against the ever louder voices crying for reform. Reform that it cannot countenance because it would give lie to the pocket lining CASA modus operandi, which has been operating since assuming it’s independent corporate status. This failed model of governance is further exposed. 

This contretemps does nothing to mitigate the General Aviation (GA) community’s certainty that CASA will not do anything to modify it’s disastrous dictatorship.  The extraordinary loss of flying services, jobs and businesses, notably in regional areas, are a direct result of the CASA fee gouging juggernaut armed as it is with it’s all encompassing criminal code regulations of several thousand pages.

Thankfully Aus Flying will publicise such items when GA, through AOPA and others, are trying to get the attention of Parliament.

Plus Sandy's take on this Hitch OP in this week's LMH:

CASA probably had no choice but to suspend their survey after AOPA published a direct link to the collector. Regardless of whether or not you believe that the regulator had designed the survey population to skew the results towards the positive, once the statistician set the methodology, a change in the population size can throw it all out ... especially if the extent of the population is unknown. Marketing surveys have become a science into their own, being rooted more in mathematics than the unquantifiable collection of opinions. Consequently, numbers become critical to the design. Quick example: with an open-ended population, there's no way of knowing what percentage of surveys were returned. The same for each category of person chosen: PPL, CPL, LAME, flying school and so forth. AOPA's beef is that they believe the 6600 chosen were done so to make CASA look good in the end report. I'm choking on this one a bit. Does CASA actually have the resources to go through every person on their list, double-check their backgrounds and affiliations to weed out those that might make them look bad? If the sample was 100-500, I would say its possible, but 6600? Would CASA actually find 6600 happy faces at the moment anyway? That's not to say some very well-known activists might not have had a red line put through their names, but at the most that would be 50-60 people, leaving a chunk of unknowns large enough to ensure the population is still representative.

Sandy:

Further to the discussion about the infamous survey, Hitch questions the dubious probability of skewing the results by some individual crossing out names, agreed that’s not what has happened. However a fair question is;  do we have knowledge of who are being surveyed? Obviously its not all pilots (why not?) because the numbers are not there.

Unless there’s a full disclosure of who are being surveyed then we can’t be satisfied because CASA has lost the confidence of virtually the whole of the aviation community. We won’t expect disclosure because the contractor will be reluctant to exhibit it’s methodology, so no doubt we have a cleft stick situation.

All we do know for sure that CASA will fight to retain its unfettered hegemony over the cowered cohort of commercial operators in a diminishing GA environment. In regard to the survey to which I was not invited but accessed via the AOPA link it was said that participants were de-identified but went on to ask if we would like to participate in further studies. I couldn’t help thinking maybe the de-identification wasn’t that strong. Again there is a lack of trust and no one should be surprised.

And the follow up from AOPA Oz CEO Ben Morgan:

AOPA Australia

CASA AVIATION COMMUNITY SURVEY SUSPENDED!

It has been reported today that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has suspended their 'Aviation Community' survey, following a surge in submissions from across the aviation industry, following a call from AOPA Australia for industry to participate.

Touted by CASA as an independent survey that sought ‘frank’ views and opinions from the ‘aviation community’, the now suspended survey appears to confirm that CASA are only interested in the answers they want, not those they need.

See report from AOPA Australia last week: https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=v...hXQQ%3D%3D

AOPA Australia CEO, Mr Benjamin Morgan, provides comment.

&/or for comments etc. - via FB: https://fb.watch/1Kj46gwSX-/

FB comments:

---

Mark Newton

If there was any other way for CASA’s regulatory targets to have a voice which could advise and influence the direction and actions of the regulator, none of this would matter.

CASA’s incessant sham consultations cause people who are motivated and interested in regulatory affairs to spend inordinate amounts of time preparing submissions, which make no difference at all to the evolution of CASA’s proposals. CASA has a box they need to tick to comply with a consultation requirement when rulemaking, they don’t need to subsequently take any of the feedback on board. In the end it all makes no practical difference to anything.

And there is zero potential for a normal citizen to say, “It’d be safer/more flexible/cheaper if this regulation was rewritten...” No vector for anyone other than CASA themselves to propose improvements to anything.

My take is that the only reason they run this survey the way they do, and the only reason AOPA is upset about it, is because there’s literally no other way to have a voice heard.

There are very few people in the world who genuinely care about what turns up in a CASA stakeholder engagement survey (and even fewer of them are actually inside CASA). If there were alternative ways to drive change, none of this would matter at all.

---

Mick Bawden


Unbelievable, I was looking forward for the results of this survey. What are you afraid to report CASA ? The hole just gets deeper and deeper.

---

Hayden Fulthorpe

Wait, isn't that how every CASA "consultation" always works?

---

Chookie Mitchell

Jacquie Kelly look at this report. Looks like CASA can’t handle the truth.

---

Mike Bodley

Funny how they can get upset when their deliberate orchestration of results gets upset.

I was one of the many who were “invited” to participate in the survey 2 years ago but having failed to give them a 10/10 on their report card was not “invited” to participate this time.

Every “click here to start survey” button had a unique code attached to identify you in this “anonymous” survey.

Author
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia

Mike Bodley and that is a shame, as given you were previously surveyed, you would be well placed to provide a perspective and opinion on improvement.

---

Simon McEwan

"... deliberate interference by an aviation group." Hmmm.
I wonder if said "aviation group" wanted the truth and not just contrived and orchestrated "facts"?.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Friday 20th November public hearing program -  

Via GA inquiry webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...alAviation

---

---

Plus recent submissions:

---

39 McDermott Aviation (PDF 2990 KB) 

40 Fleet Helicopters and Commercial Helicopters (PDF 279 KB) 

41 John Cameron Aviation (PDF 1753 KB) 

42 Confidential

43 Save Kempsey Airport Action Group Inc (PDF 719 KB) 

44 Australian Federation of Air Pilots (PDF 331 KB) 

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Friday 20th November public hearing program -  

Via GA inquiry webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...alAviation

---

---

Plus recent submissions:

---

39 McDermott Aviation (PDF 2990 KB) 

Extracts: 

---

---

---

40 Fleet Helicopters and Commercial Helicopters (PDF 279 KB) 

Extracts: 

..We consistently identify CASA as one of our highest risks with regard to safety. We are
continually forced to invest resources, (human, physical and financial), in order to analyse,
argue against and eventually implement bad regulation that provides no benefit to either
the industry or our clients with regard to safety. The extensive time our organisation has
been required to spend analysing and unpicking the confusing regulations and developing
ways to mitigate the detrimental effects of their implementation could be far better spent
internally within our business to further improve our systems and procedures increasing the
safety of our operations. It could also be time spent growing our business, in turn increasing
our capacity to focus on safety. The whole regulatory reform process has been significantly
detrimental to safety for the industry.

I would like to say up front that we are blessed with the front-line CASA staff (AWIs and
FOIs) we are lucky enough to work with on a daily basis. I know this is not the case in all
areas, but we have CASA staff that provide us with great service, and who have a positive
and realistic attitude to aviation regulation and consistently achieve beneficial results for us
in short timeframes due to our operational pressure. This, I would say, is despite the
organisational culture of CASA, not because of it. In general, the staff we work with have an
incredibly high workload and they are burdened with trying to find a way to achieve a
positive outcome for us despite being given a poor legislative framework to operate within.
Our issue with CASA is those that develop the overreaching, overly burdensome, financially
crippling regulations. It is plainly apparent by the legislation, regulations and manuals of
standards that are being produced that those responsible for developing the new
documents actually have no concept of what we as an industry do. Worse than this they
consistently fail to engage in meaningful consultation to find out...

...There has been a long-standing pattern of CASA not accepting the specialist advice that they
themselves ask for or allowing those delegated with responsibility to actually carry out their
functions. I have lost count of the number of pilots I know that have had an aviation medical
approved by their Designated Aviation Medical Examiner, (DAME), only to have the CASA
medical section overrule the assessment and delay the approval unnecessarily. Countless
times I have personally seen pilots have a medical denied and be required to seek specialist
medical advice for the resultant medical advice only to be refuted by the medical section
causing the pilot (and his company) further extremely costly delays. Why does the CASA
medical section not listen to the specialist medical advice and assume to know better than
the doctor actually assessing the pilot? I do not believe CASA understand the severe stress
and financial burden this places on a pilot. Their entire career is placed under threat and
their employer is faced with significant increased cost to source a replacement pilot while
the matter is under review. This is serious overreach by the regulator.

When it comes to the drafting of new regulations consultation is sought but often ignored.
We are the subject matter experts. Those drafting the legislation have little to no experience
in conducting the tasks we complete every day and yet they fail to listen to our concerns or
the issues we have with the regulations being presented for comment.

We understand that the regulations that are drafted and presented to the CASA legal team
often do not even closely resemble that which is handed back after being made infinitely
more complex, confusing and far less relevant to operations. This however does not excuse
CASA for allowing the overly complex and confusing regulations from being forced upon an
increasingly frustrated industry...

41 John Cameron Aviation (PDF 1753 KB) 

---

---

42 Confidential

43 Save Kempsey Airport Action Group Inc (PDF 719 KB) 

44 Australian Federation of Air Pilots (PDF 331 KB)

Summary and Recommendations

82. Regulation of aviation safety is a necessary task and the AFAP cautions the making of any
recommendations by this committee which are predominantly focused on merely superficially
appeasing the many frustrations raised through submissions to this inquiry. We strongly suggest
that the majority of frustrations and issues raised as problems for the GA sector and with CASA
are more accurately symptom-problems of more structural and systemic issues. For this reason,
we strongly recommend that resolution is not through quick-fix solutions, rather structural reform
is necessary.

83. The AFAP reminds the committee, and other aviation stakeholders, that the 2008 RRAT Report
identified very similar issues as to those currently being raised and we stress that the
recommendations implemented post that inquiry should be considered an insufficient set of
remedies.

84. The AFAP asserts that a legislative amendment is the necessary mechanism to ensure that
necessary aviation and CASA improvements and reforms both occur and remain regardless of the
composition of the CASA Board and executive level staff.

85. The AFAP proposes that the options available, to ensure that there is appropriate and adequate
parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation, are through the creation of targeted outcomesbased
expectations .

86. The AFAP thus provides specific recommendations:

• The AFAP proposes a specific amendment to s9A of the Civil Aviation Act to address the
current issues associated with civil aviation focused delegated legislation and standards, and
a lack of holistic and outcomes focus: the inclusion of a consideration of a system-of safety.
• The AFAP proposes that the accountability and oversight of CASA requires enhancement
through a review and reform of the Board composition. Furthermore, this should include
professional pilot representation to the Board.
• FOI provisions should be enhanced so that they can provide an effective and viable means
for community and industry sector-based oversight and accountability.
• The AFAP recommends that the Industry Complaints Commissioner should be established as
a separate statutory office to CASA, with powers to investigate and report to an authority,
independent of CASA and responsible to the Parliament.
• The AFAP notes the many poor consultation outcomes and recommends that the Aviation
Safety Advisory Panel be reformed to include member-based association representatives,
critically a professional pilot representative.
• The AFAP requests that the committee make specific recommendations to address the
deterioration of the expertise and resources of the Inspectorate staff in CASA.
• The AFAP recommends that the committee set up a process to reform the current structure
for regulation and standard documentation with an aim to genuinely decrease the complexity
so that the intent of standards is more readily comprehensible. The AFAP recommends that
this be the stated outcome expectation upon CASA by the Minister in the next version of the
Ministerial Statement of Expectations upon CASA.

---

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Big Rock Candy Mountain....

A mystery, one which has evaded explorers for donkey's years, finally discovered – 'Candy Mountain' exists, within the Canberra Bubble.

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
All the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs
The farmers' trees are full of fruit
And the barns are full of hay
Oh I'm bound to go
Where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall
The wind don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

All true; and, RA Aus seem to have found a Nirvana – and now are invited to appear before the RRAT committee – on Friday. WHY?

They ain't remotely connected to 'GA' – in fact, they are about as far removed from 'GA' as it is possible to be, and a protected species. WHY?

What's the ducking point of them having a say? They are as for removed from 'GA' as  it is possible to be. They even operate to a wholly different rule set; a different ethos; a different medical standard; are a government (CASA) subsidised (from CASA fees), a for profit, private enterprise. Their very existence, in the current format, is an aberration. IMO 87% of the current 'membership' would breathe a sigh of relief to be shot of 'em – IF there was parity in the Class two medical system. The USA managed to find a 'happy medium' and did it well – in style  - with little fuss or bother. Suddenly, two kids and Mum could actually fly in a FAR certified, tried and tested aircraft of a type which, three decades on are still proving to be reliable and effective transport - (subject adequate maintenance). 

All this, before we wheel in the 'Bogey Man' of government responsibility – REAL demonstrated SAFETY.

Now, Angel Flight (AF) have been put through a wringer – IMO for no good reason: except, perhaps CASA would like them to hold an Air Operator Certificate (AOC). Two fatal accidents in years; not remotely attributable to AF operations! - Will the Seante Committee please take a look at the RA Aus current list of accident and incident.. - HERE -. Then ask for published, valuable reports on those accident and incidents. Save you some time – there ain't any – nary a one; not one of value to the general safety equation of 'aviation'. It is a shambollick farce; pure, unadulterated bollocks, of the first water; and, government supported to boot. (Refer questions to the Minister). ROTFLMAO.

You will note, since the last (of many) 'fatal' accidents at Jacobs Well there are no less than 11 pages; of 15 'incidents' logged – without one published report being provided as to cause or circumstance. It is bloody ridiculous that CASA hound Angel Flight – yet support and protect what is, in essence, a secondary, no responsibility system for operating ;'private flight'. Offer the average private Pilot Licence (PPL) holder the choice of operating the venerable Beechcraft, Piper, Cirrus, Cessna aircraft range or any of the wonderful, safe, tested FAR certified fleet, on an equivalent 'medical' standard – and watch the divide and conquer gambit fall on it's sorry, scrawny arse. The whole situation is completely and utterly ludicrous.

Take RA Aus back to it's beginnings – let them enjoy what they do; but for 'safety's' sake and general harmony – put 'em where they belong; in the original notional exercise – one with SFA to do with General Aviation – in real aircraft – for those who love to fly 'em. Balance the books Senators; take a look at the 'statistics' for RA Aus accident and incident, since the fatal at Jacobs Well. - Then take a look at Angel Flight's  peerless record. Then; ask CASA what the Devil they think they are playing at,  ask Aleck he will know – the bloody whiskered weasel.

To allow RA Aus equal time in a GA inquiry is a gross insult and a waste of time and money. It also signifies that the RRAT committee have NDI about what they are dealing with. Best to stop this farce now – lest it become even more embarrassing than it already is.

Ayup; but not to worry – I've a full panel IOS crew, parked at the dartboard; waiting to ask WTD happened at Albury and just what was the ATSB thinking publishing the report they did about the near mid-air collision of a public transport, scheduled service and a light aircraft . One could say, without too much exaggeration that the IOS is just slightly miffed. Just enough time for a quick Pint before all hell breaks loose; - that's also probably heading toward the Canberra Bubble.

[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-19-01-20-as-the...-leg-said/

Big Rock Candy Mountain....

A mystery, one which has evaded explorers for donkey's years, finally discovered – 'Candy Mountain' exists, within the Canberra Bubble.

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
All the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth
And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs
The farmers' trees are full of fruit
And the barns are full of hay
Oh I'm bound to go
Where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall
The wind don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

All true; and, RA Aus seem to have found a Nirvana – and now are invited to appear before the RRAT committee – on Friday. WHY?

They ain't remotely connected to 'GA' – in fact, they are about as far removed from 'GA' as it is possible to be, and a protected species. WHY?

What's the ducking point of them having a say? They are as for removed from 'GA' as  it is possible to be. They even operate to a wholly different rule set; a different ethos; a different medical standard; are a government (CASA) subsidised (from CASA fees), a for profit, private enterprise. Their very existence, in the current format, is an aberration. IMO 87% of the current 'membership' would breathe a sigh of relief to be shot of 'em – IF there was parity in the Class two medical system. The USA managed to find a 'happy medium' and did it well – in style  - with little fuss or bother. Suddenly, two kids and Mum could actually fly in a FAR certified, tried and tested aircraft of a type which, three decades on are still proving to be reliable and effective transport - (subject adequate maintenance). 

All this, before we wheel in the 'Bogey Man' of government responsibility – REAL demonstrated SAFETY.

Now, Angel Flight (AF) have been put through a wringer – IMO for no good reason: except, perhaps CASA would like them to hold an Air Operator Certificate (AOC). Two fatal accidents in years; not remotely attributable to AF operations! - Will the Seante Committee please take a look at the RA Aus current list of accident and incident.. - HERE -. Then ask for published, valuable reports on those accident and incidents. Save you some time – there ain't any – nary a one; not one of value to the general safety equation of 'aviation'. It is a shambollick farce; pure, unadulterated bollocks, of the first water; and, government supported to boot. (Refer questions to the Minister). ROTFLMAO.

You will note, since the last (of many) 'fatal' accidents at Jacobs Well there are no less than 11 pages; of 15 'incidents' logged – without one published report being provided as to cause or circumstance. It is bloody ridiculous that CASA hound Angel Flight – yet support and protect what is, in essence, a secondary, no responsibility system for operating ;'private flight'. Offer the average private Pilot Licence (PPL) holder the choice of operating the venerable Beechcraft, Piper, Cirrus, Cessna aircraft range or any of the wonderful, safe, tested FAR certified fleet, on an equivalent 'medical' standard – and watch the divide and conquer gambit fall on it's sorry, scrawny arse. The whole situation is completely and utterly ludicrous.

Take RA Aus back to it's beginnings – let them enjoy what they do; but for 'safety's' sake and general harmony – put 'em where they belong; in the original notional exercise – one with SFA to do with General Aviation – in real aircraft – for those who love to fly 'em. Balance the books Senators; take a look at the 'statistics' for RA Aus accident and incident, since the fatal at Jacobs Well. - Then take a look at Angel Flight's  peerless record. Then; ask CASA what the Devil they think they are playing at,  ask Aleck he will know – the bloody whiskered weasel.

To allow RA Aus equal time in a GA inquiry is a gross insult and a waste of time and money. It also signifies that the RRAT committee have NDI about what they are dealing with. Best to stop this farce now – lest it become even more embarrassing than it already is.

Ayup; but not to worry – I've a full panel IOS crew, parked at the dartboard; waiting to ask WTD happened at Albury and just what was the ATSB thinking publishing the report they did about the near mid-air collision of a public transport, scheduled service and a light aircraft . One could say, without too much exaggeration that the IOS is just slightly miffed. Just enough time for a quick Pint before all hell breaks loose; - that's also probably heading toward the Canberra Bubble.

P2 - Addendum/Ad nauseum/Deja vu 


From the AP forum archives it would appear that BRCM is a common theme when it comes to the 'passing strange machinations and questionable disconnections between the regulatory embuggered (TRUE) GA industry and the Iron Ring anointed private enterprise of RA Oz ...

Skip, skip, skip to my lou.

Wiki – “Skip to My Lou" is a simple game of stealing partners (or swapping partners as in square dancing). It begins with any number of couples skipping hand in hand around in a ring. A lone boy in the centre of the moving circle of couples sings, "Lost my partner, what'll I do?

Perhaps this is the ministers new theme song (that, or Jail House Rock). All the agencies skipping about him; he without a partner to dance with or even a leg to stand on. Not his fault of course; but ultimately, in public perception at least it will be. No matter how much you wriggle and dance etc. You see being totally ignorant, he was a prime candidate for ‘capture’. Without question he has accepted, as gospel, the words of his aviation advisor. Too late now to say I was led astray – for he is now so far beyond ‘astray’ that it will take every bit of influence the Nats can muster to save him from shame and ridicule.

It is not too complex a scenario; on the surface. But below that thin layer of surface ice, there is a deep, murky pit waiting to swallow the unwary. No one has control of the beasts which lurk beneath that surface. They are beyond ministerial or indeed government control and are voracious. A snack of ministerial size will only be shared by the biggest and most dangerous beasts below the icy surface; minister for breakfast – yummy.

You see the SOAR debacle is about to implode. The minister, whether willing participant or simply an actor saying it’s lines, is but a cats paw for those who control matters aeronautical. Without prejudice; this SOAR episode is not only a matter for the Royal Commission, but one for the AFP. It gooses CASA in a most robust fashion, ropes the ATSB in as willing accomplices; gives Angel Flight and Gen Buckley’s legal advice a rock solid platform from which to shout “foul” long, loud and backed up to the hilt. It places RA OZ is a ‘difficult’ position – for they must, by association be tainted. Membership matters raise questions; particularly ‘temporary’ training matters raise even more questions. Aircraft suitability for purpose is a genuine problem alongside of training pilot qualification. All this even before the nitty-gritty is exposed.

For exposed, in all it’s villainy, it will be. That you can take to the bank. For far too many years now CASA has been a law unto itself; the results of that uncontained, unmodulated, arrogant thinking are being shown in accident and incident reports. Well, those that get published that is. The problem lays not in what is known – but in what is not known. i.e. Pilots who don’t know what they don’t know. Honest kids led to believe they are being given top line training for example. RA Oz recorded 31 (thirty one) events in the last 12 months (1 Dec 2019 to today) of these many have had the potential to be serious; indeed many were. All swept under the carpet; as CASA and ATSB have engineered a situation where ‘they’ are not responsible. Not only that, they actively promote the division between ‘established’ GA training and the RA Oz version.

The damage done to the spirit and intent of ‘flight training’ will be clearly seen in future accidents. Paperwork does not a pilot make, despite protestations of being ‘legal’ and compliant’ (tick-a-box). Even now, we see ‘incidents’ which can be backtracked to ‘tick-a-box training methods. We even see the degradation of standards being supported in what the ATSB describe as ‘reports’ and ‘recommendations’ of airline incidents no less. What they did to Angel Flight being (IMO) the pinnacle of gross manipulation.

Fair warning minister – there is no way that this happy horse-pooh is going to become the new ‘norm’.  Not if it’s the last thing I and my crew do. So grab your tin hat, muster up all the mates you have in the Nats; this is only the beginning. Will we rock you? – Bet on it. We don’t live on Candy Mountain – don’t want to hit it either.

Selah.

To back up P7's last and for the benefit of the RRAT committee. please put into the AP forum search function 'RA Oz'.

Here's some useful references for starters...

RAAus v ATSB: Occurrence reporting disconnections?

“Soar Aviation did not respond.”

The what the Heck accident (cont)..

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Carmody Capers - Final Episode 

Wasn't going to give any oxygen to the cynical, 'up yours' submission composed by St Commode and the self-serving, evil spin-meister Dr Hoodoo Voodoo Aleck...

However, despite being fairly typical of past divisive (ie 'divide and conquer'), subjective reply submissions from Fort Fumble, there are certain parts that I feel really need to be exposed to highlight the extreme disconnection with reality that still exists within the ranks of the executive management and by default the current CASA board...

Ref RRAT GA inquiry webpages:   

46 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (PDF 408 KB) 

Extracts:

Numerous submissions to this Inquiry made positive comments about CASA’s improvements in its approach to stakeholder engagement, such as the following statement by the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA):

The efficacy of CASA’s engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation, has never been better. Talk about cherry picking/selective bias -   

---

The performance of CASA’s stakeholder engagement and communication with industry is tracked through a regular stakeholder relationship health survey – Measuring our Performance. The scores from the most recent survey in 2018 demonstrate a marked improvement in performance when compared to the 2015 survey #1. CASA is currently conducting the 2020 survey #2. 



P2 - #1 for some historical references on the 2018 bollocks survey refer: Carmody hour comes to the Senate & Dear Miniscule 8G McDo'Naught - L&Ks AGAA (the real voice of General Aviation)

#2 refer from post #58 (above) on how that's working out??  

---

Inquiry Submissions

CASA acknowledges the considerable effort made by various individuals and groups who have provided submissions to this Inquiry. In considering their submissions we believe it is important to identify and comment on some themes and to address some apparent misconceptions.

The appropriateness of the Act is a theme in many submissions. Some, such as Mr Dick Smith AC, consider the amendment to the Act in 2019 to ensure that amongst other things, CASA considers cost in developing and promulgating certain aviation standards was not sufficient and that further changes are needed. Alternately, the Australian and International Pilots Association opposes the inclusion of economic considerations in the Act as it conflicts with CASA’s mandate to curb unsafe behaviour. Others, such as the Aerial Application Association of Australia (AAAA), push for an independent review of the Act. It is CASA’s view that the Act is generally fit for purpose and amendments are a matter for Government.

Some submissions question the appropriateness of CASA’s regulatory model, stating it is too complex, prescriptive, and burdensome. For example, the AAAA maintains that the CASRs are ‘engorged’ compared to the previous regulations. It outlines regulations around pilot licensing, stating the previous approach in Part 40 of the CAOs was around 208 pages while the new CASR Part 61 (flight crew licensing) is about 700. The AAAA appears to have confused the Regulations (which has 242 pages of regulatory text) with the MOS which is 698 pages. Hmmm...that's gotta smart, wonder if PH will let that comment ride...

The reality is that CASA has simplified the flight crew licensing system -  Perhaps we need a line out of Alice in Wonderland in response to that line out of a faerie tale (hint "K" -  ) , with industry only needing to refer to Part 61 and its supporting MOS, rather than 24 separate pieces of legislation or standalone syllabuses of training. The Recreational Pilot section (sub part 61.G) is only one page. We acknowledge that while the Part 61 MOS is long, it also contains numerous syllabuses of training. The important point is that only the chapters relevant to each pilot licence type and sub-sector need to be reviewed.

After many recent amendments, CASA acknowledges that the implementation of Part 61 has not been well explained or well received. We have learnt from this by setting up a taskforce to review Part 61 operations and making changes in consultation with industry. Building on this experience, CASA is now undertaking detailed preparations for the transition to the flying operations suite to improve the understanding of both CASA staff and industry of how these regulations operate before they come into force.

Another common theme in the submissions is that the economic burden of regulatory compliance is too high. However, as outlined in submission 16 by Anjum Haweed and Kyriakos Kourousis, the ageing fleet in the general aviation sector means that the costs for keeping these aircraft flying are higher than for new aircraft. The cost of maintenance has increased, along with the cost of parts, particularly for older aircraft which require more maintenance more often. As outlined earlier in this submission, the relative cost of adhering to safety regulations is relatively minor at four per cent.

The submission from Professionals Australia suggests CASA is experiencing cultural problems and workforce challenges, particularly in relation to technical roles. CASA acknowledges that technical staffing numbers have fluctuated over the past few years, however it is important to note that CASA is in transition to a new centralised, cross-regional office approach that enables allocation of resources where they are required and is designed to deliver consistent national outcomes. The strong feedback on the 2019 Census results around being proud to work at CASA (77%) and engagement and confidence in their direct managers (78%) does not support the allegation of poor culture.

Many of the submissions, such as that from the RAAA and the AAAA, refer to the positive changes CASA has made to its approach to consultation and stakeholder engagement. CASA is grateful that the industry has noted the significant efforts made to improve this. CASA is committed to further improving engagement with the aviation community to ensure safety solutions are practical, proportionate and effective.

Some submissions, such as from the Sports Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA), identify perceived inequities for medical standards between recreational pilots and private general aviation pilots. The content of the SAAA’s submission fails to acknowledge that the reasoning behind recreational aviation pilots having lower medical requirements, is because they are limited to fly aircraft under 600kg, are only allowed to carry one passenger, may only fly in non-controlled airspace and are restricted to fewer airports. In contrast, this very difference is supported by the RAAA who understand and appreciate that recreational pilots have less onerous regulation because they may not operate in the commercial world and are generally restricted only to private flying outside of controlled airspace.

CASA is pleased that the RPAS industry recognises the work CASA has undertaken in the RPAS sub-sector and looks forward to working with the Australian Association of Unmanned Systems and other RPAS associations to progress the regulatory framework for this area.

Conclusion

CASA strives to ensure a positive and collaborative safety culture through a fair, effective and efficient aviation safety regulatory system. To achieve this, CASA works diligently to improve the regulatory environment for all aviation sectors. CASA regularly consults in a variety of ways to ensure that all issues are considered in the development of any new or amended regulations or standards. A great deal of effort is exerted to ensure that CASA’s client-facing systems are efficient and effective. While CASA’s systems and processes have improved, there are always further improvements we can make. CASA looks forward to working together with industry to ensure Australia’s aviation environment remains one of the safest in the world. 

Much MTF...P2 

ps For the benefit of the Senators for what should be (IMO) a submission to this inquiry please refer to this archive post plus links for the DJ Llewellyn submission in support of Bruce Rhoades (may he RIP -  ): 

 What’s wrong with CASA (and the Aviation Industry)?

[P7_TOM]

BOLLOCKS!

BULLSHIT!

and a right royal 'up yours' to any and all 'OPINIONS' the Senate may have. Refer ASSR multi million debacle.

If the 'heavy mob' – full of empathy and sympathy for the population don't weigh in - ('they' are supposed to look after us all) – then; it's Good Night Vienna. Time to stop being baffled by bullshit – engage political brain – and bring an end to this 30 year, half a billion dollar, useless rip off.

Kiwi or USA regulation – NOW – it's all over in a twelve month, then watch 'aviation' flourish.

Will someone – anyone – please ring the big bell on top of the government hibernation centre; please................

Sorry P2 - I cannot read past the first paragraph of the unmitigated Baloney CASA have cobbled together - the world is a safer place if I don't. Where's GD? He had the bucket last............

[Sandy Reith]

P7 Tom, agree wholeheartedly with every statement and with your restrained words. Prefer USA rules, they don’t gabble on about Mrs Windsor conferring privileges to her ‘subjects,’ the medieval hangover from when the Monarch held all rights ‘Mon Droit’ and dished out privileges to the favoured at court. We’ve got to improve our democracy with more emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual. You meet community set standards and have the right to fly. This is not a privilege but an earned right to exercise a freedom of individual action.

Will the worm turn? Much as I hate to say it, very doubtful. They could have read all 269 submissions to the 2014 Forsyth review, but its much easier to sit, talk and look like there’s much deep and important deliberations to be seriously digested. Also much safer than telling the useless Minister where to get off and causing a huge ruckus in the Party room.

But hope springs eternal and one day someone in government with a brain, and courage, will make changes. That person or persons maybe watching, probably from a safe distance at the present time.

We will watch the show tomorrow as GI-I grinds away in its galling time wasting manner (GI-I, Government Industries, sub sec. Inquiries). Fiddling while Rome is burning and by later next year the Job Keeper runs out, watch this space.

[thorn bird]

We are a strange lot aren't we Sandy, unique in the animal world.
Rather frail in stature, not particularly speedy, lacking venomous fangs, claws and jaws with which to defend ourselves against our adversaries. We have survived evolution to become preeminent in the animal kingdom because, some would say, god endowed us with a magnificent brain, with the power to reason and recall history and record it for posterity. History is recorded by winners, therefore it should give us clues as to how they won. Unfortunately another human trait is to ignore history and blunder into making the same errors over and over again, our ability to be inventive can find us solutions but often our inventiveness can makes things worse.

Consider warfare as a handy means of population control.

The American civil war was, as wars go, going along nicely, the tide going back and forth between the adversaries, until some smarty on one side invented a repeating rifle, exploding cannon shells and god forbid a machine gun. Suddenly marching bodies of men in close formation towards the enemy became problematic, the slaughter shocked the civilian population, even the generals became concerned they would run out of troops before a winner was decided.
the American civil war was perhaps the only war fought for altruistic reasons, to free humans from slavery, then again it probably was really about money and power.

Along came the first world war. Had we learnt anything? Nope. Same tactics same slaughter.
Allegedly the war stated because someone assassinated someone aristocratic. In reality it was probably about money and power.

The second world war was somewhat different. It started allegedly because a whole bunch of people believed in the rantings of a homicidal maniac, but in the end it was probably about money and power. This war however was a bit different in that far more civilians were slaughtered than combatants and was ended with another human innovation called mutual assured destruction.This invention has been very handy keeping the megalomaniacs in check, no point being a tyrant if your dead, the religious nutters are a worry but.

Since then the world has been fairly peaceful, other than a few minor skirmishes.

Money and power remains the primary motivation for humans to kill each other, it's very hard to kick a habit.

In our little democracy its a tad hard to become a megalomaniac. No Tyrant can ascend the throne without the support of others, hardly likely in a democracy. By the time we got through arguing the merits, pros and cons of the potential megalomaniac they would be long dead and buried. Becoming a Megalomaniac difficult, notwithstanding, mankind is very capable of producing petty Tyrants, lots of them. In Australia we call them the "Public Sector". Thats not to say that the Private Sector doesn't have its share of tyrants, its just they don't seem to have the same shelf life as the Public kind.

Sociopaths are drawn to the Public sector because it is relatively easy to become tyrannical and get away with it. Its also pretty well paid and you don't have to do a lot to earn the pay if you don't want to.

It could be said that Australia is the lucky country, for me that is a true statement, we've had it very good for a long time. Apathy has lead us to ignore the lessons of history and take our freedoms for granted. Subtly the sociopaths have undermined our freedoms and with very weak and pathetic oversight by the political class, over time the nanny state has arisen along with the Public sectors power, 1984 may be a little late in coming but its nearly here all the mandarins have to do is repeat the mantra over and over, Australians have become so risk averse their frightened of their own shadow willingly accepting whatever claptrap effluent that flows from the CantBerra bubble that convinces them its to keep them safe.

The aviation industry must accept a lot of the responsibility for its current predicament. We allowed mandarins sirens song to enthral the public that Australia is the safest place in the world to fly, which it ain't. We sat by while they managed to inure into the publics consciousness that those who commit aviation are homicidal criminals that must be crushed. General aviation in particular are the worst of the worst and really has no useful purpose anyway so the country is better off without them. We let them get away with that. When you listen to high officials, even the Governor General, when they mention aviation they espouse the CAsA mantra, "We are the safest" once fear is instilled it's very hard to counter. Fear is a very useful tool in a sociopaths armoury, "we and only we are keeping you safe, you might die of starvation next year, or decide to end it all, but for now you are safe because of us and you better be grateful".

We believed the politicians and mandarins that privatisation of our airports would be beneficial for the industry, they would be protected as airports safe from the hands of development sharks. What a lie that has turned out to be, even Joe public in their innocence doesn't realise they have been swindled out of billions.

The herd mentality trumps reason and common sense every time, a little bit of corruption greases the wheels.

[Sandy Reith]

Today Senator Susan McDonald has shown herself to be made of the right stuff. The path she treads is narrow, uphill and with many wide, smooth, downhill seeming short cuts. Politics, so fraught with the difficulties of human nature, often derided by the citizenry but still respected deep down because its the way we can live peaceably and prosperously together.

It’s been called the art of the possible. This Senate hearing is surely showing what’s not possible. Not possible to continue with the failed model of governance that is embodied in divorcing aviation regulation and administration away from Ministerial responsibility. The very antithesis of responsible representative government is to palm of such functions of government to unelected independent bodies.

I hope that Senator McDonald and her fellow Committee Senators, Rex Patrick and Glenn Sterle will derive the satisfaction that is due to them for persisting in their efforts, and hopefully will see real benefits coming to Australia through a revitalised General Aviation industry. But still a long way to go and little of lasting substance will be accomplished until Parliament changes the model of governance.

Well done to the GA stalwarts who’ve been brave enough to speak publicly, and forthrightly express their opinions. Most particularly to Glen Buckley who speaks very well of CASA’s utterly untenable actions in his own extraordinary case, but he also stands for GA generally and all those others who have been treated unfairly, bullied and harassed without proper cause by this out of control regulator.

To mention with gratitude some others. Mary Brown’s calm but firm and clear exposition of why they are running down their GA business. John McDermot explaining the time delay factors of CASA and how much more effective and business friendly are operations in other jurisdictions. Phil Hurst exposing the machinations of CASA to derail the recommendations of the industry working parties. Robert Cassidy effectively comparing the workable rules of the USA to our new super costly procedures particularly as they relate to recency and re-validation of different ratings and licences.

Medicals came in for a mention but the full import was not developed. Arguments about the RAAUS self declared car driver being appropriate for the restricted airspace allowed to that category were not dissected.
Firstly RAAUS training schools do exist in controlled airspace, notably at Moorabbin airport.
(Insert photo of Minister McCormack sitting in an RAAUS registered training aircraft of Soar Aviation).

Furthermore no mention of the efficacy or history of medical incapacitation problems that would substantiate some risk factor that would preclude operations in any civil airspace. One might imagine that by now after more than thirty years of self declaration in this category some trends, if undesirable, would have been evident.

Secondly, the USA (very successful) reformed medical standard for private flying (BasicMed) is a model that could easily be adopted which would put many pilots back flying. Mr. Carmody today quoted statistics of how many applied for CASA medical certificates and how many were rejected. What he failed to reveal or consider were the hundreds or thousands who have been required to undertake such costly and frequent investigations, well in excess of their regular GP recommendations, who have simply given up trying.
Thirdly nothing was said about the failed CASA reform, the much vaunted Basic Class 2, a GP validated exam which was CASA’s answer to the new BasicMed standard of the USA. We’ve now found out that it’s not available for many because one has to reach the highest standard, ‘unconditional’ applicable to a commercial bus or truck driver. Perversely, truck and bus drivers can still work with a conditional pass, but that’s not good enough for a private pilot.

Might have missed something but didn’t hear a word about the Commonwealth’s airports being overrun with factories and shopping centres or runway closures. Nothing either about the two Aviation Security Identity Cards, one is the biennial $300 ASIC requiring presentation at limited venues at each renewal, the other five year ‘AVIC’ is available but the use of same is not defined in an understandable manner and so not recognised by many, often officious, airport reporting officers or managers with big badges. No such special identity cards in the USA, no reports to us of the efficacy or history of real usefulness in actual security around airports. Who cares?

[Kharon]

Of Pop-Guns and Battleships.

'Tis a ramble – no mistake, no apology. But, we may begin here:-

Sandy “It’s been called the art of the possible. This Senate hearing is surely showing what’s not possible.

Many, many years ago, 'shooting' was taught to me; the first lesson, provided by an ex military gentleman (turned poacher) was a simple one. He walked away from where I was deposited about 100 yards and pinned the Ace of Spades to a stump. “Hit that” said this worthy – just the card will do for now. I took six shots – the worthy then ambled away, stopped ten yards short of the daemon card and picked up my rounds. From his pack he produced a flask of tea – sat on a log – and showed me six pristine 'bullets'. “On line” say's he “but whats the lesson for today?”. “They didn't make the distance” say's I. “Correct” say's he; “now bugger off and think about it”. End of number one shooting lesson. Next came 'pipping the Ace”. It is an old, old game – back when the USA was but a wasteland – it was a game which involved 'driving' a six inch nail tacked into a tree, at maximum range – or, taking out the Ace 'pip' with a single shot at maximum effective range. Try hitting treble 20 three times. Not easy; not easy at all. The point my taciturn friend was making – before I'd even learned which end the smoke came out of was simple, eloquent and completely accurate. In short; you cannot stop a battle ship with a pop-gun – no matter how good you are (or imagine you are). But, my first lesson was the most instructive – if you cannot deliver 'the load' with enough energy and accuracy then you are wasting your time trying to hit anything – bar fresh air. Again, try hitting treble 20 three times; or the stumps on a wicket with a ball twice the size of the stumps from slips – it is all about speed, accuracy and the momentum of 'delivery'. So; what is the fool banging on about this time?

I actually got my 'I-pad' to work today (miraculous I know) so I could work and listen at the same time to the 'Estimates' session. Back to guns again – shotguns spray a load over a wide range, but a short distance. You cannot stop a Battleship with a 'spray'. They worked this out back in the cave – when they only had rocks. IMO there were two 'submissions' which had the potential to do some damage – real damage – of the lasting kind to 'the Beast' from Sleepy Hollow.

Phil Hurst – what can I say – brilliant, aware, fully plugged in and lethal. Fact, data, track record, credentials, experienced, and a completely honest assessment of life's little realities in aviation world. He should be the next DAS. Accuracy and payload delivered; Bravo that man. Expert? Oh, you bet. Thank you.

McDermott – another. Bang on target, lucid, rational, controlled and an absolutely brilliant, accurate assessment of where the problems he is willing to assist in solving reside. Expert? Oh, you bet. John ain't got his Tim Tam cupboard key yet – but it is on it's way. Thank you.

Both men have seriously contributed; and, continue to offer real, valuable, practical, sensible 'solutions' to the obvious problems. If the minister has two parts of a brain to rub together (alas) then he would beg, on bended knee, for blokes like Hurst and McDermott and etc. to assist him – rather than scampering about for 'photo – ops' with the likes of SOAR aviation.

These two blokes should be advising the minister, not the bearded Billy Goats posing as experts. Did you ever hear the likes of the Aleck waffle today? I turned it (the I-Pad) off; due a shortage of buckets.

You do realise dear Senators, that the solutions are fully and freely available. Industry  has many such expert, experienced, qualified men and women who could be, if asked, of great assistance in sorting out the unholy travesties the likes of Aleck, his monolithic ego and his new best 'mates' have created. Don't care what it costs – get rid of 'em all – now would be acceptable (in Spades).

The emotional shot-gun blasts, spraying shot over a short distance, cannot and will not penetrate the thick hide of the beast from Sleepy Hollow. For that you need accuracy, control, the right load, and wisdom. The true 'experts' are within industry; they live and breath in it; risk all in it; -  use 'em, or; be damned as just another wet lettuce leaf costing taxpayers a small fortune every second year or so. Get on with it - or get off the hustings.

Toot – toot - (Aye, it's been a long day - Oak). M MTF.

[Sandy Reith]

At these hearings we have a variety of individuals, its instructive to not only listen to their information and opinions but how they deliver their thoughts. Below that, out of immediate sight, lies the motivation. 

Sometimes closer to the surface and readily discerned due to an open, honest and forthright manner. But people can be fooled and we won’t make the correct judgment always and in every case. But as Abe Lincoln famously said, “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.”

Think on some good examples from yesterday. This one, tick; that one, cross; this one, maybe.
Where a witness was evidently playing both sides, no prizes for guessing why.

Particularly struck by one comment, no specific reflection on the witness involved, that flying about noticed there were still numbers of small airfields scattered about. I couldn’t help thinking of the thousands more that used to be available but have now disappeared. That witness certainly hadn’t been flying about too much in the ‘60s, ‘70s or ‘80s. Closed, finished or simply grown over airstrips can sometimes still be discerned if you know where to look. Earlando, QLD, Penneshaw, Kangaroo Is., Whittlesea, Vic., Sunset Strip, NSW and so on for page after page.

There was also an argument that low cost airlines had eaten into the market for charter flying and hence it had died away, and virtually dead it is today, for single and twin engine low capacity aircraft. Some truth in that argument but nowhere near a complete explanation. Airlines of course don’t fly everywhere or at any time, then wait and return when it suits. The hundreds if not thousands (CASA don’t keep the figures) of small charter operators gave up their operating permits because they were crushed by the weight of paperwork and new and unworkable operational requirements accompanied with ever increasing fees. Not to mention new and unnecessary maintenance expenses. One highly experienced ag operator told me he wanted to offer charter flights with his personal light twin engine aircraft but was told by his CASA contact don’t bother its all too hard.

[Peetwo]

P2 Gold Star nominee(??), GlenB does well while St Commode loses the plot -      

Sandy I totally agree with OP on that particular witness, so much so I haven't even bothered reviewing the aforementioned witness because why give him oxygen?? It is worth noting however, that despite that particular Alphabet group totally owning the McDonaught Muppet, the Chair seemed to be on our side of the fence on the worthiness of that particular biased contribution to the public hearing, dismissing him well inside the 30 minutes allotted.  

Have made some Youtube videos at this stage of three particular segments of yesterday's public hearing (If anyone has any requests for certain segments/sessions please feel free to let me know and I will endeavour to make good on your request).



Number 1 was my nominee for the Gold Star award, Phil Hurst from the AAAA's with a totally clinical, fact backed presentation, that IMO completely deconstructed the CASA Iron Ring 'mystique of aviation safety' - well done that man...

Next of course was the GlenB session followed closely by the Carmody Capers response but first to set the tone, this UP post from Para 377 (aka Gobbles)...  ref: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...sa-68.html

 

Carmody and his tautological nonsense

---

Just got to get this out of the way, but what is it with Crawford and Carmody with the goatee beards; which one is mini-me? Two marionette puppets! Fools.

Glen; good, honest and respectful delivery of your message. You can be proud of what you have said and your family can be proud of their husband and father. Respect.

Mr Carmody; what an absolute embarrassing human being. The body language - hands flat on the table and ready for a fight from his opening statement. He even admits to being ‘emotional’. This is the organisations CEO? The anger, belittling speech and hostility Jug Ears displayed is evidence that the fish rots from the head. This is what represents CASA. Shame shame shame. Carmody’s last hoorah as he retirees fat and happy after having never held down a real job, just a career bureaucrat. There are only two options for CASA and they are the same two options that have been discussed for many years now;

1. A Royal Commission, or;
   
   
2. A complete dismantling, now.
   

And then from GlenB:

Mr Carmodys blatant lies

---

Allegations raised by Mr. Carmody regarding "assault" and stalking"


21/11/20

Dear Mr Carmody, CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,
I refer to your attendance at the Senate RRAT Estimates Committee and associated comments that you made about me on 20/11/20.

I made my presentation between the 3-hour 50 minute mark through until 4 hours and 32 minutes. Immediately after my presentation, you were offered the right to reply and I have attached a link to your presentation at that inquiry. Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 ? Parliament of Australia

I refer to comments that you made at the 4 hour and 38-minute mark where you claimed “He has assaulted my staff, he has stalked my staff”

Whilst I appreciate that in making such comments you are protected by Parliamentary privilege. That Parliamentary privilege is intended to allow full and frank disclosure of matters. It is not intended for the CEO of CASA to make false allegations against an individual or to blatantly lie and mislead Parliament, and more so considering your position as the CEO of CASA.

Whilst I do appreciate that you were somewhat “rattled” and may not have had the clarity of mind that would be ideal in such a situation, I would like to afford you the opportunity to correct that blatant untruth.

For clarity, I absolutely and totally refute that claim, and as you will appreciate that comment has bought angst to my family.

The purpose of this correspondence.

If you stand by that claim that I assaulted and stalked your staff, can I request the details of those allegations? Are you able to provide any supporting details of such incidents? Ideally, this would include details of the alleged incidents such as dates, times, and circumstances of the alleged assault or stalking matters.

My assumption is that such matters would be held by CASA on file, there would be Workcover documentation, a formal complaint lodged within CASA, or something similar.

If you are unable or unwilling to support those allegations my intention would be to make a Freedom of Information request to obtain any supporting documentation and fully refute that scurrilous allegation and a blatant untruth.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley.

Then back to Para 377 

The Carmody bubble

---

Unfortunately for Mr Carmody, who is a weak man only familiar with being protected by teams of legal folk, secure buildings, and of course the protective cocoon of the Canberra bubble and the taxpayer teat, he wouldn’t know what the intent ‘of assault and stalking’ actually is in the real world.

I guess that to Mr Carmody, an overly firm handshake would constitute assault, or perhaps Glen ‘stared down’ one of Carmody’s CASA minions while Glen was being pineappled? Poor Poor Shane, heaven help him if ever one of his staff were assaulted with a wet ball of cotton wool! And stalking, oh dear. Did Glen repeatedly watch Carmody Capers on YouTube or perhaps inadvertently hop in the same elevator as a CASA employee in one of their buildings? Naughty Glen, you could hear the fear in Mr Carmody’s heavy breathing and nervous speech during his 45 minutes. I would imagine Me Carmody has sought out and received AFP protection and Morrison’s office has permanently assigned Shane two officers.

I never thought that Carmody would completely lose his marbles before Dr Dolittle Aleck, but I’ve now repealed that thought and it seems that Shane is in the midst of some form of mental or emotional decline.

How long til this fool leaves CASA, 1 week or so? Go pack up your desk Shane, grab your bag and the box of Kleenex tissues on your desk and depart the building immediately. Don’t slam the door on your way out.

And then the 'tautogical rubbish' from the departing Patron Saint of Oz aviation safety - St Commode...

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

There's nothing more bitter than a rotten Mandarin.
what a crock!!
Note Carmody says they had to complete the reg's, in the next breath he says they need to look at them again???
They have spent half a billion dollars plus so far to complete them and taken thirty years to produce an unworkable crock of excrement and they want to start again!!!
We could put in place simpler, safer, FAA regs now, as New Zealand did, cost them five million dollars. No doubt the way Australian Bureaucracy works allow...oh what the hell...ten times that.
Its still cheaper than half a billion and we might just end up with an industry that contributes to the national well being as well.
As for the Albert Einstein lookalike, tho I note he's lost the hairdo. Well he just confirms there must be a special place in hell for sleazy lawyers.

[Peetwo]

Lead Balloon of the UP nails it - 

Ref: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...31844.html

---

You could not make this stuff up.

Amazingly, we heard that the CMT initially allocated to APTA comprised a bunch of delicate petals who had been captured by Mr Buckley, and Mr Buckley has harassed, stalked and assaulted CASA staff! Naturally, none of these allegations have been put to Mr Buckley or referred to police. You just make the allegations under Parliamentary privilege. Brave man, Mr Carmody!

CASA 'tries to accommodate' McDermott Aviation's business model. How kind of you! It must be mindbogglingly difficult to deal with the operator of N-registered aircraft. All those 'hoops' CASA has to 'jump through' to 'accommodate' a foreign registered aircraft in Australia. The potential risks to aviation safety of an N-registered aircraft in Australia must be catastrophic. And we all know why people keep aircraft on the N-register: Because of Australia's Galapagos regulatory regime whose outputs are not recognised in first world aviation nations. It is 'kinda handy' keeping aircraft on the N-register, Mr Carmody, for reasons that we all know.

More than 70% of McDermott Aviation's jobs had been completed by CASA within 30 days. Wow! Give yourself a bonus! Does McDermott Aviation pay fees for those jobs to be done?

CASA "approved" 25,000 aviation medicals in the last 12 months and "rejected" 84. Tell us, Mr Carmody: Out of the 25,000 "approved" medicals, how many of the applicants were subjected to tests and have conditions imposed on their certificates, which tests and conditions the applicant's doctor and specialist medical advisors say are not necessary? How much did and will those tests cost in terms of time, dollars and risk exposure to the persons subjected to the tests? How is it that a bunch of glorified GPs in CASA know better than qualified specialists?

And then there's the pilot accused of low flying. Mr Carmody literally said this:

"That's not what the instruments on his aircraft say, Senator. They say he was at 125'."

I shit you not: That's what Mr Carmody said.

Was Mr Carmody or someone from CASA in the aircraft looking at "the instruments" during the flight in question? Methinks not.

Methinks that CASA might be going on the output, not of "the instruments", but of a transponder or GPS 'chip'. Gosh, transponders and GPS 'chips' now reliably transmit or record the actual distance, down to the foot, of an aircraft above the actual terrain/water below? Who knew? And I'm sure the punters to whom I wave adjacent to me on the South Head Signal Station when I fly down Victor 1 would swear on a stack of bibles that I'm 'low flying'. And on a nice high pressure day, my transponder says I'm at minus 100'. I guess the punters must be right!

Methinks CASA would have some considerable difficulty convincing the CDPP to prosecute on the basis of these kinds of 'evidence'. So what does CASA do when it doesn't have evidence to support the prosecution of someone? It persecutes them administratively and condemns them under Parliamentary privilege. Brave man, Mr Carmody!

And I just shake my head at the regulatory reform bullshit.

CASA announced, in July 2020, that Mr Carmody had achieved "the resolution of CASA's long standing Regulatory Reform Program" and "oversaw the end of the epic safety regulatory reform program". But in the hearing, Mr Carmody said "the reg program is pretty much complete". Which is it? (Rhetorical question. We all know the answer. It's back to the weasel words that we've been hearing for decades. The "major parts" have been completed and, of course, like Part 61, will be fantastic when they come into operation.)

Mr Carmody seemed to me to be saying that anything 'before his time' in the regulatory reform program is not a problem. All of his predecessors' contribution to the regulatory train wreck is just - well - it just is. A whole bunch of people from industry were involved in consultations throughout, so apparently they have no grounds on which to complain. Apparently, that makes the regulatory train wreck - which has none of the promised characteristics and achieves none of the promised outcomes - OK.

Apparently, turning 200 pages of complex, convoluted dross into 73 pages of complex, convoluted dross in the form of the Part 138 MOS is a 'good' thing from Mr Carmody's perspective. And apparently the industry asked for it! What the industry actually asked for, Mr Carmody, was blessed relief from the process: The production of something - anything - to just 'make it stop'. And, of course, the Part 138 MOS is incomplete. It has "reserved" Chapters. And we all know why.

And then Mr Carmody said that the whole of the regulations should be reviewed!

I say again: You could not make this stuff up.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Don't forget the airports??

Via the airport thread:

Sunny Coast shows up aviation safety bollocks - 

Via 20/20 inquiry submissions page:

45 Flight Path Forum Inc (PDF 797 KB) 

---

Executive Summary

Flight Path Forum (FPF) is an incorporated community association formed in 2019 in response to a
failed consultation process by Airservices Australia in relation to changes to airspace and flight paths
to support operations forum runway 13/31 at Sunshine Coast Airport.

Since April 2019, FPF has focussed on researching many aspects of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) and Airservices Australia’s (ASA) ’s environmental and risk assessment processes for changes
to airspace and flight paths., including regulatory frameworks and national operating standards and
most importantly engagement between the two agencies on these issues. Concerns over the
assessment process for environmental risks to aviation safety have arisen and FPF believes it
necessary to set before the Senate Inquiry the full context of the particular circumstances
surrounding new airspace and flight path designs for runway 13/31 at Sunshine Coast regional airport
and to call for an immediate review of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) aviation safety
management functions and aviation safety frameworks.

Whilst FPF appreciates the current inquiry is mainly focussed on Australia’s general aviation industry,
decisions made by CASA in conjunction with other relevant Australian Government agencies, in this
case ASA, in relation to airspace changes and new flight paths have had a ripple effect on the safety of
general aviation operations occurring in the vicinity of Sunshine Coast Airport (SCA).

As the safety regulator for Australian airspace, every decision CASA makes in relation to airspace
changes, to accommodate flight paths for Regular Passenger Jet (RPT) aircraft, has the potential to
create a knock-on effect for all airspace users including general aviation (GA) operators and it is for
this reason FPF now presents this submission as a ‘related matter’.

CASA’s engagement with ASA, on the issue of aviation safety, is of particular concern in the case set
out below. FPF is of that view that any Inquiry related to aviation safety frameworks and relative risks
must consider the circumstances that have recently unfolded on the Sunshine Coast...

---

From pg 9/...

...ICAO’s Risk Management framework articulates the following process for risk assessment:

• Identify the risk
• Evaluate the consequence of the risk eventuating
• Determine the likelihood of the risk occurring
• Determine acceptability of risk
• Either accept the risk or act to mitigate the risk

It appears that neither CASA/OAR or ASA have undertaken any of the above in relation to
safety conflicts between bird strike, blasting operations at KRA 54 and the proposed new
approach and departure routes for 13/31 other than the final point, to accept the risk. This is
a failure of process.

ICAO also articulates the following risk mitigation strategies:

a) Exposure Avoidance. The risky task, practice or operation or activity is avoided
because the risk exceeds the benefits.
b) Loss reduction. Activities are taken to reduce the frequency of unsafe events or the
magnitude of the consequences.
c) Segregation of exposure (separation or duplication). Action is taken to isolate the
effects to the risk or build in redundancy to protect against the risks, i.e. reduce the
severity of the risk (for example, protecting against collateral damage in the event of
a material failure, or providing backup systems to reduce the likelihood of total
system failure). 1

To maintain compliance with ICAO principles, risk assessment of both bird strike and blasting
operations at KRA 54 should be subject to an approved and documented process in order to
inform the Safety Management System (SMS). The potential loss of an airliner, passengers,
crew and other consequences, as outlined in Section 2.2, would in any rational circumstance,
present as an intolerable risk. Whereupon ICAO asks the primary question:

Can the hazards and related safety risk(s) be eliminated? 2

Cleary the answer in the case of new flight paths for runway 13/31 at SCA, is yes.

So why have these risks not been eliminated through the development of alternative flight
paths? Perhaps for one of the following reasons?
• The risks were not identified by anyone
• The risks were assumed to have been identified and assessed by another entity.
ICAO states that the optimal solution should be found. 3

ASA’s proposed flight paths cannot be regarded as the optimal solution, not just for safety
reasons alone but also due to constraints which will necessarily be imposed on RPT airlines
and GA businesses operating from SCA in order to accommodate the risk from KRA 54 in
particular.

Failure to follow ICAO’s SMS risk management process 4 which would have resulted in the
identification of the optimal solution should be regarded as a systemic failure.

CASA/OAR and ASA have made no attempt, through the evaluation of alternative routes, to
avoid the risks, instead electing to accept them unnecessarily and thus ignoring the existing
opportunity to mitigate through exposure avoidance as espoused by ICAO. This appears to be
a conscious decision by CASA/OAR and ASA and as such should be regarded as a systemic
failure.

ASA have elected to increase air traffic movements directly over the quarry site. Use of a
curved approach and departure procedure, which is widely agreed to be a critical, high work
flow phase of flight means this design adds a layer of complexity for pilots. According to
aviation experts this contrary to preferred operating procedures for both pilots and Air Traffic
Control (ATC), that is, complexity should be reduced wherever possible, not increased
unnecessarily.

Para 377 off the UP:

The Senator is sniffing around Essendon Fields

---

Senator McDonald is also pushing for a deeper review of airport infrastructure particularly concerning the Essendon Fields crash. The scary thing is that the Essendon Fields executive team has basically no aviation experience, except for one individual, a so-called expert who has left a trail of destruction behind him at little airports. Airport management are all commercial people and are still completely obsessed and focused with retail development, office space leasing and putting little thought or care into safe airfield operations. Hopefully the Senator carves open the blatant folly of the ATSB investigation which is a standing joke within industry. Again, another CASA airport debacle that was swept under the carpet.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sandy on Facebook - 

Ref:

P2 Gold Star nominee(??)     

Sandy I totally agree with OP on that particular witness, so much so I haven't even bothered reviewing the aforementioned witness because why give him oxygen?? It is worth noting however, that despite that particular Alphabet group totally owning the McDonaught Muppet, the Chair seemed to be on our side of the fence on the worthiness of that particular biased contribution to the public hearing, dismissing him well inside the 30 minutes allotted.  

Have made some Youtube videos at this stage of three particular segments of yesterday's public hearing (If anyone has any requests for certain segments/sessions please feel free to let me know and I will endeavour to make good on your request).



Number 1 was my nominee for the Gold Star award, Phil Hurst from the AAAA's with a totally clinical, fact backed presentation, that IMO completely deconstructed the CASA Iron Ring 'mystique of aviation safety' - well done that man...

Sandy FB comment:

Sandy Reith

Phil Hurst for CASA CEO, Senator Susan McDonald for Minister for Aviation.
Outcome? Thousands of new aviation jobs, businesses and flying services throughout Australia and aviators Australians feeling like they are free people living in a free country.

Plus a reply to that from KP:

Keith Page
Sandy Reith now they are sensible suggestions.
BUT who will listen.?
Susan was right on to Carmody.
Fancy Monk and Linke turning up without a prior submission and just having a spruik.
What was being hidden in the medical issue.
Their answer was not entirely correct.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Hansard up and Hitch on 1st Senate 20/20 public hearing - 


Finally Hansard is up:

---

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

20/11/2020

Australia's general aviation industry

Download PDF 

---

Senator PATRICK: Yes, thank you very much, Chair. This goes to your statement about A380s versus Cessna 172s. I have two questions. Back on 24 October last year, the parliament passed a bill that caused a change to the Civil Aviation Act, most relevantly in section 9. There was a section 9A(3) added, which says:

Subject to subsection (1),—

which is about safety—

in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)©, CASA must:

(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and

(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.

Firstly, are you aware of that change to the primary legislation and, secondly, noting it's a year gone by, have you seen a change in approach by CASA, mindful of that new law?

Mr Vercoe : I'll take that one first. I was aware that that change had been discussed for a long time. I actually wasn't aware that it had been enacted. Certainly we haven't seen any evidence of that—any outward evidence, anyway. I'm not sure what the discussions may or may not have been in CASA, but we haven't seen anything related to that at the coalface.

---

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. As I said, I only have one question. I have heard your evidence across a number of different committees in this place. This is a question I asked of McDermott Aviation, relating to the amendment to the Civil Aviation Act back in October 2019—so a year ago. Firstly, are you aware of that change in the regulation?

Mr Morgan : It was AOPA Australia that led the push to get that change implemented.

Senator PATRICK: Okay. The fundamentals of that regulation are that CASA, in making its regulations and safety standards, must:

(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and

(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.

Have you seen a change in the way in which CASA exercises its powers over those rights to organise, in relation to that provision?

Mr Morgan : No, we have not. In fact, what we've seen take place over the past 12 months is almost like a worsening of the situation.

---

Senator PATRICK: I want to go to a question I asked other witnesses. Last year in October, the parliament changed the Civil Aviation Act, requiring CASA to have regard to GA, making sure that it considered the commercial effect of its regulations—its effect on businesses and individuals—and also to recognise there's a difference between an A380 and a Cessna 172. Have you, in the last year, seen any changes that might be a result of that command from the parliament?

Mrs Brown : I'd have to be really honest and say no.

---

Senator PATRICK: Are you aware of the changes to section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act?

Mr Hurst : Yes, we were involved in supporting those changes.

Senator PATRICK: Have you seen any shift in CASA's approach since that law came into effect in October last year?

Mr Hurst : Absolutely zero compliance.

---

Next via Oz Flying...



 

CASA under the Microscope: the Scrutiny begins
26 November 2020
Comments 0 Comments

Amidst the amorphic society that COVID-19 has created, the senate last week pressed ahead with their inquiry into the impact of safety regulation on general aviation, with all but CASA themselves appearing via video link. Even the chairperson, Senator Susan McDonald, was present in the room as a disembodied face on a video screen.

But the difficulties didn't let CASA off the hook.

The public hearing on Firday 20 November was the first for the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the state of the GA industry, with particular focus on the operation and effectiveness of CASA.

Over the five hours, the inquiry–which included also senators Rex Patrick and Glenn Sterle–heard evidence from nine groups including operators, associations, private individuals and CASA itself. Overall the picture being painted was one of an industry struggling under the weight of regulation and a regulator deaf to the appeals.

From calls to adopt the Federal Aviation Administration system of regulation to accusations of misfeasance and a negative impact on aviation safety, CASA and its system of regulation endured a litany of slings and arrows, with only the Regional Aviation Association, Recreational Aviation Australia and CASA itself providing any tempering input.

John McDermott, of QLD helicopter operator McDermott Aviation, told the inquiry that the complexity of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) was failing to make aviation safer than countries with simpler systems such as Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the USA, and that it was the GA industry itself that ensured safety.

"CASA doesn't make industry safer; regulations don't make industry safer," McDermott testified. "We make industry safer because there are so many reasons for us to be safe other than just adhering to a regulation, which we've got to do.

"I believe we're safe despite CASA. At the moment I would suggest there are operations in Queensland that are operating outside of CASA's regulations, probably unknowingly, that are operating safely because the regulations that are there at the moment, for example, certifying of some aircraft or various type ratings ... are not being complied with, but are actually being done and being done safely despite the regulations."

McDermott also went on to tell the inquiry they have seen no evidence that the changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 that require CASA to take into account cost have made any difference "at the coalface."

That position was later supported by North Queensland Aviation Services' Mary Brown, who admitted the situation had become so tenuous that the company had developed a strategy to exit the aviation industry.

AOPA Australia's Ben Morgan–one of CASA's more strident critics–went so far as to say he thought the decline of general aviation was intentional and reiterated calls for a Royal Commission into safety regulation.

"Over the last four-and-a-half years, I've taken [many issues] to CASA on numerous occasions, and they've been thoroughly ignored," Morgan said, "and so the decline of the Australian general aviation industry is not [an] accidental occurrence, it's an intentional occurrence, because CASA are aware that these things have been driving broad decline in our industry, but they have been unwilling to either listen to industry or even consider that they must change direction in order to stop the industry being forced out the back door."

Phil Hurst, CEO of the Australian Aerial Application Association (AAAA) supported the position that CASA was reluctant to listen to the GA industry, saying that the regulator was the "primary restriction" on GA and that the consultation process was "appalling window-dressing".
"The consultation consists of CASA telling you what they've decided and then you trying to talk them down off the high building," he told the committee. "Sometimes we're successful, sometimes we're not."

Hurst, who sat on the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) was also critical of the way CASA used the Technical Working Groups (TWG), in particularly the Part 138 group, claiming there was a disconnect between real risk management and what the regulations call for. He also stated that TWGs were given misleading information on what was to be included in the final regulations.

However, Malcolm Sharp, chairman of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) said that he believed what was hurting general aviation was competition, citing young people finding more exciting things to do, the proliferation of recreational aviation and the rise of low-cost carriers as concerns. RAAA's position according to Sharp is that CASA shouldn't be a "punching bag" for everything.

Sharp supported the AAAA's contention that the work of the TWGs was being "hijacked" within CASA and also said he believed there were people within the regulator who were intentionally blocking reforms and that those people needed to be weeded out.

Sharp also said that as an industry, GA needed to move on because CASA was only part of the issue.

The most passionate evidence came from former Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) boss Glen Buckley, who was scathing in his assessment of CASA to the point of making pointed accusations of misfeasance, and said that he believed CASA "reverse engineered" process in the case of APTA in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome.

In defending his organisation, CASA Director of Aviation Safety and CEO Shane Carmody said that he believed not all the evidence given was accurate.

"Listening to all the statements today, there's certainly been some positive contributions to the debate on general aviation, but there have also been some highly negative statements about CASA, some possibly valid, but some have to be contested because I would argue that they are wildly inaccurate," he said.

Carmody also said that he was disappointed that some of the issue raised were made to sound as if they were current when they had been raised several years ago. He also pointed out that CASA had inherited the regulatory reform program in 1995 and that in the period 2000-10, 22 new regulations were finalised with a further six between 2010-16.

"A number of the people who spoke today were involved with the process from the outset," he pointed out, "and they still might be a bit unhappy with the outcome, but they were involved with the consultation for 15 years. Since 2015, I've created the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, and within three years we completed the 11 remaining regulations and they have been made.

"The were all consulted under the Technical Working Groups, and some people have made the point that in the past three to four years there has been increased consultation."

Carmody said that suggestions made in submissions that the regulatory reform program was still underway was "disingenuous."

A visibly emotional Carmody went on to address several issues raised directly, indicating that CASA had approved 25,000 aviation medicals and rejected 84, which he believed hardly constituted "systematic abuse" as claimed by AOPA. He also contested Ben Morgan's claim that CASA regularly ignored AOPA, saying they had responsed to him many times.

After several witnesses stated that there had been no change to the way CASA operates after the changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 had passed through parliament, Carmody responded to a question by Senator Patrick by saying that CASA genuinely considered cost and had processes in place to try to comply with the legislation.

The senate inquiry is ongoing and is still taking submissions, with an interim report still due on the last parlimentary sitting day of 2020, currently 10 December.

---

MTF...P2 

P7 - Hitch balanced - appropriate - MTF you can rely on it.

[Peetwo]

BRM Aero correcting the record - 

Via RRAT 20/20 inquiry submissions webpage:

47 BRM Aero/Edge Aviation (PDF 562 KB) 

Mr Ben Morgan gave evidence of a foreign aircraft manufacturer and the treatment of that
manufacturer. As the Australian technical representatives for BRM Aero the manufacturer of
the Bristell Light Sport Aircraft, we submit this in response and as further evidence of the
adverse impact of CASA and decisions made by CASA that appear to me, not based necessarily
on sound evidence or fact.

Mr Shane Carmody stated;

‘The third matter relating to the aircraft registration it concerns me that, that point is made
with that company misrepresented the aircraft when they introduced it into Australia. It’s a self
declaration & we caught them.

I would also say that the Legal Representative for that company is actually on the AOPA Board.
Something that yet that does not get mentioned. So we get the issue raised but disingenuously
not completely.

It would appear to me that Mr Carmody is not across this matter as it is not to do with aircraft
registration, it is to do with aircraft certification and compliance with an international standard.
It is not a self declaration it is self certification of compliance against an international standard.
The CASA in my opinion did not ‘catch’ BRM Aero as the aircraft have been flying in Australia
for eight years without incident until an unfortunate accident resulting in one fatality which
was deemed by the Victorian State Coroner to not be a result of a faulty aircraft. The Legal
Representative for BRM Aero has nothing at all to do with them being on the AOPA Board in
my view. This Legal Representative acts for many aviation businesses and individuals in the
aviation industry and has done for many years as his area of expertise is aviation related
matters. The issue has been raised and most definitely completely. We have been involved for
one year of a two-year dispute. BRM Aero the manufacturer has attempted to address all the
queries made of CASA in the document attached ‘BRM Aero Response to CASA PowerPoint
Presentation Document dated 3 April 2020' BRM Aero does not dispute a number of
administrative issues related to understanding the CASA Form 681 compliance document, that
issue has been rectified, will not occur again into the future, and yet it appears to me that the
CASA continue their relentless attack on this manufacturer. Note: The administrative issues
resolved was not safety related and did not render the aircraft ‘unsafe’

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Of Pied Pipers and - Earplugs.

He advanced to the council-table:
And, "Please your honors," said he, "I'm able,
By means of a secret charm, to draw
All creatures living beneath the sun,
That creep or swim or fly or run,
After me so as you never saw!
And I chiefly use my charm
On creatures that do people harm,

The measuring and marking of humans has been a long standing problem with which even Solomon had some bother. In any 'isolated' situation, say aircraft operations, a man may be judged purely on his performance of the job skills alone. Enter a cabinet making competition, one piece of work which demonstrates a particular level of 'skill'. Walk to the dartboard and watch a wizard at work using four inch nails and marvel. On that one particular alone, it is an easy matter to declare that the bloke (or blokette) is a good egg and all around prince (or princess) - but; even so, be careful with that.

But, remove that one point of 'judgement' and you run into Solomon's problem; without a 'track record' and a complete 'history - you can never be absolutely sure of very much to do with character or 'personality'. For example; I have been party to five suicides; two were completely out of the blue and a great shock. Two were, with hindsight, possibly preventable (all things being equal) and one which, to this day I never once saw (or imagined) possible, let alone happening. One just never, not completely, ever, ever knows the workings of the 'machinery' of the human mind.

However: a long association with an individual, particularly to those who pay attention, can provide an insight. No guarantees of course; but in a forty or thirty year study, paying close attention to what 'was done' (just the facts; no dribble) then a better understanding of the 'man' behind the controls, the chisel; or,even the darts game becomes 'clearer'. Not complete you understand – but given 'fact' and a long associated 'observance' a personality appears. 100% accurate – never: but if you have to lay odds on a particular 'performance' then, the years of study become almost invaluable.

'We' being the 'senior' BRB & IOS members have paid close attention for three decades to the behaviour; and, more importantly, 'the actions' of one Jonathon Aleck. A close study, beginning with his acolyte servitude to one Peter Iillich. Add a very close scrutiny of performance in Senate Estimates; add the behind the scenes operations; add unpublished advice to both CASA DAS and Board; add the advice provided to ministers; all documented – and a fairly 'concise' appreciation of both character and 'intent' becomes clearer. How many DAS have been led astray; how many Ministers have been cleverly played, how many cases of serious moment have been derailed? It is, dear Senators a high body count; can it ever be proven? Not a cat in Hell's chance; but, IOO, more time spent with his remaining marbles would be a graceful end to a toxic substance preventing the healing of many wounds; for that has been the only 'constant' factor throughout the last three decades of 'legal' unrest within the aviation industry. Legal mind games and unlimited power to 'modify' a simple rule, to play even more complex 'legal' mind games is a radical cause of what the latest committee is trying to fathom.

It is way past the time for 'explanation' of motive or even reasoning to be explained. It is time the 'whispering' voice behind every throne was silenced, before it mauls another with good intent – (e.g. Skidmore) . It was a bad enough thing to watch and witness when all the marbles were 'in the bag'. Last performance in the Senate inquiry needs to be subjected to a psychological analysis against the publicly available 'facts', as in performance and intent. It is time the true architect of the bloody awful 'legal' (national and international) buggers muddle of Australian aviation law was gently sedated and taken home, (with his marbles) to 'rest' for a good long while.

Should the current committee fail to address this chronic, self evident flaw in the structure of 'the Act' and latitude for ' playing the system'; then, they should not be surprised when 'their' inquiry goes the way of the multiple, expensive, long running other 'inquiries'  which have landed on their collective arse, as 'opinion' - in the bushes; and of neither practical or intrinsic value.

That is the verdict (opinion if you prefer) of the BRB – which will never be resiled. Handing over; and, do (please) try to remember the ending of the Pied Piper of Hamlelin:-

The Mayor was dumb, and the Council stood
As if they were changed into blocks of wood,
Unable to move a step or cry,
To the children merrily skipping by--
And could only follow with the eye
“That joyous crowd at the Piper's back”.

Toot – toot!  Aye PWP.