[ventus45]

Interesting.
http://jeffwise.net/2015/10/09/the-flape...on-riddle/
Operation Mincemet 2 (?)

Cue Movie:
"The man who never was"
= Operation Mincemeat
https://thepiratebay.gd/torrent/5560598/...Was_REPOST

[Kharon]

Aftermath.

What is a private Member?

For the purposes of private Members’ business in the House of Representatives, a private Member is defined as any Member of the House other than the Prime Minister, the Speaker, a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary. This is the definition used in this Infosheet—in other contexts the term is often defined as also excluding opposition leaders. The commonly used term ‘backbencher’, which is sometimes used as a synonym for the term private Member, strictly refers to Members who sit on a back bench in the Chamber of the House, as opposed to those Members who sit on the front benches reserved for Ministers and members of the Opposition Executive (shadow ministry). Shadow Ministers, technically, are private Members but not backbenchers

Under the procedures of the House, private Members have great freedom in the introduction of bills, with the important exception that only the Government may initiate a bill imposing or varying a tax or requiring the appropriation of revenue or money. Private Members’ bills (like Government bills) are unable to become law unless they gain the support of the majority of Members (and subsequently also pass the Senate). Since they are prepared by an opposition or non-aligned Member, or by a government Member outside the party’s formalised approval mechanisms this has not happened often (although it does happen, and even if a Government may not support a private Members’ bill directly, it may be influenced to adopt similar legislation). Nevertheless it is important that every Member of the House has the right to put legislative proposals before it. It is a way for Members to signal publicly matters they believe need legislative action or to stimulate a debate on specific items of concern.

Well, seems the tools are available to get the job done, but the debate is fierce.  Two fairly well entrenched lines, very hard to reach a majority.  Near as I can boil it down to a couple of sentences the positions are:-

Team A) - Adamant that no matter how the Act is changed the spinners and weavers within DoIT and CASA will take whichever narrow legal view suits them the best and very little will change, no matter how ‘tightly’ or ‘loosely’ the Act is redrafted.  In short the Iron Ring will circumvent the spirit and intent of any new Act and retain the status quo.  Rule of the regulator.

Team B) – Equally adamant that with a change of the Act; the ‘piece of string’ known as ‘Safety’ can be measured by using cost-benefit, risk mitigation etc. as a benchmark.  The purpose of change being to break the stranglehold (death grip) of the ‘Iron Ring’.  The argument – on constitutional grounds – is way beyond PAIN resources and expertise.  However; insofar as it can be understood; there seems to be reasonable doubt that the Act is ‘Kosher’.

Me? I reckon the Kiwi’s got it right; throw the whole lot out – start again, it’s the way the regulations are able to be ‘used’ as suits a pre-determined outcome, rather than the ‘rules’ themselves which create the problems.  That of course was the ‘old’ rules; the new ones are just a mutation of mindless, out of touch crap which can and will be used to rid the skies of the problem aircraft and leave those on salaries with no distraction from the endless round of doing nothing of any significance.  But then, I’m a cynic and I cannot perceive just how the ‘new’ regulations are going to take the aviation industry into a bright, brave new world.  Just more misery and poverty for industry; a better futures for the legal profession.  

Anyway – there you have it: all too much for my wooden head, first thing Sunday morning.  

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Well finally the AQON for last Budget Estimates have been received by the RRAT Committee.

The Committee Secretariat, after some 404 link hiccups, have published for public review.. :

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Questions on notice index: (PDF 805 KB)
Answers were due 10 July 2015.
Answers to Questions on Notice

QoN no.
Division/Agency
View File
Date received

1-4
Corporate
(PDF 52 KB)
06/10/2015

5-61

Infrastructure Investment Division
(PDF 2565 KB)
06/10/2015

62-64
Australian Rail Track Corporation
(PDF 74 KB)
06/10/2015

65-86
Infrastructure Australia
(PDF 309 KB)
06/10/2015

87-100
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(PDF 203 KB)
06/10/2015

101-103
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
(PDF 59 KB)
06/10/2015


104-107
Airservices Australia
(PDF 1118 KB)
06/10/2015

108-115
Aviation and Airports Division
(PDF 9588 KB)
06/10/2015

116
Office of Transport Security
(PDF 20 KB)
06/10/2015


117-129
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
(PDF 222 KB)
06/10/2015


130-143
Surface Transport Policy Division
(PDF 2649 KB)
06/10/2015

144-146
Local Government and Territories Division
(PDF 49 KB)
06/10/2015

147-149
National Capital Authority
(PDF 48 KB)
06/10/2015


150-164
Policy and Research Division
(PDF 1110KB)
06/10/2015

165-166
Western Sydney Unit
(PDF 32 KB)
06/10/2015

Read them, weep & wonder WTF the hold up was - UFB? Nope true to form for Murky & his minions..

MTF..P2  

Ps To get a feel for some of the spin & bullshit within, here is a typical 'up yours' from our resident MH370 Super Sleuth Muppet, to Nx & co (note when the REPCON was last updated):

Question no.: 102


Program: n/a

Division/Agency: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Topic: Breakdown in air traffic control coordination

Proof Hansard Page: 21 (28 May 2015)

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

…

Senator XENOPHON: No. I am not trying to do circle work. This is important. Will the ATSB at least look at the publicly available information on WebTrak out of the two airports for that three-hour period to see whether there was a loss of separation assurance?

Mr Dolan: We thought it was more effective to ask Airservices to take a look at the tapes and to provide us with their view as to whether there had been a loss of separation assurance.

Senator WILLIAMS: How long would it take you to look at what Senator Xenophon is requesting? How long would it take you to look at that information? A couple of hours?

Mr Dolan: Possibly. It would need to be done by someone with air traffic control experience so that they could understand it, and we have a range of priorities that we have got our limited air traffic control expertise focused on. This is a matter of the management of limited resources.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you please, Chief Commissioner, take on notice whether the ATSB will be taking this matter any further, at the very least, to look at the WebTrak for that three-hour period out of the Essendon and Melbourne airports, and also whether it would look at radar tapes? Also, it appears, from what has been put to me, that there is a fundamental issue that Airservices did not give you the full story initially.

Mr Dolan: In terms of not being informed of a three-hour period, that is true.

Senator XENOPHON: Does that not worry you, Mr Dolan?

Mr Godley: Could I just clarify something, Senator? We did have one of our air traffic control investigators review the whole three hours. What happened was that after the repcon we got back to Airservices. They reviewed the tapes and said there was no loss of separation or loss of separation assurance. Our ATC investigator then reviewed the three hours. She determined that there was a potential loss of separation between two aircraft. But, due to the limitations of WebTrak, she could not be sure.

…

Answer:

The ATSB does not intend taking any further action on this matter, noting that an ATSB air traffic control specialist did review the WebTrak information for the entire period following receipt of the REPCON and that the ATSB is satisfied with the response provided by both Airservices Australia and CASA to the REPCON report (see http://www.atsb.gov.au/repcon/2013/ar201300090.aspx).

REPCON

Mode

Aviation
Reference No.
AR201300090
Date reported
18 November 2013

Concern title
Possible loss of separation due to a breakdown of coordination

Concern summary
The concern related to the potential of a loss of separation or loss of separation assurance as a result of a breakdown of coordination between Essendon tower and Melbourne tower.

Industry / Operation affected
Aviation: Airspace management
Concern subject type
Aviation: Air Traffic Control

Reporter's concern
The reporter expressed a concern that a breakdown in communication, which occurred in November between Essendon Tower and Melbourne Tower, may have resulted in a loss of separation assurance or potentially a loss of separation between aircraft operating at Melbourne and Essendon.

Operator's response (Operator 1)

Airservices Australia (Airservices) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the reported concern regarding a breakdown in communication between Essendon and Melbourne.
Airservices confirms that the breakdown of communication was reported via Airservices Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System (CIRRIS).

The reported occurrence involved Melbourne Terminal Area Control who received coordination from Essendon Tower advising that they could not separate overshoots with Melbourne traffic due to the cloud base. The breakdown of communication occurred as the Melbourne Terminal Area Control passed the information to the Melbourne Approach Controller but failed to receive acknowledgement of the coordination resulting in the Approach Controller being unaware of the need to identify Essendon arrivals to Melbourne Tower.

A preliminary investigation confirmed that the documented procedure was not correctly followed in that the controller concerned failed to confirm acknowledgement of the coordination.

The investigation determined that no systemic issues existed and the potential safety impact that may have resulted from the breakdown of coordination was understood by the controller. Nonetheless, the Check and Standardisation Supervisors of the involved ATC group have been tasked with reviewing the coordination requirements with the aim of identifying potential opportunities to minimise the likelihood of a similar breakdown of communication reoccurring.

In the interim a temporary console display has been created to highlight separation responsibility for Essendon traffic arriving from terminal control unit (TCU) airspace.
With reference to the reporter's concern that the occurrence may have resulted in a loss of separation (LOS) or a loss of separation assurance (LOSA), Airservices can confirm that there was no LOS or LOSA occurrences during the time of the breakdown of communication.

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)

We note that there was no loss of separation and CASA does not intend to take any direct safety action with regard to this matter; however CASA will use this information to complement other information that informs us of Airservices Australia safety risk profile.
 



Last update 24 March 2014

Hmm...wonder what variety of wet lettuce the Senate Committee will choose to slap Dolan with this time...FCOL  

[Gobbledock]

Boys, we have a real problem

Not good P2, not good at all. Beakers response on just that one QON indicates;

A) As we already knew, none of the alphabet soup agencies could give a flying f..k what the senate says,

B) As shown by Beakers response in this QON, the ATsB has no intention of properly investigating safety issues and are happy to leave risk unmitigated,

C) The Sentors, although genuine in their concerns to which I wholeheartedly applaud them and appreciate them, have no big stick, 12 gauge or cattle prod. They are going to a gun fight and their opponent is armed with dual .357 Colt Pythons while the Senators are armed with cotton wool and lettuce leaves, wet ones at that,

D) Aviation safety will continue to decline until the inevitable big smoking hole. That is official. Aviation as an industry and revenue earner will continue to decline and as a result place additional pressure on an already deficient economy. Don't forget Mr Turdball, it costs billions to support meaningless international wars, build and maintain crap Defence infrastructure, and fund lavish lifestyles for former Prime Ministers who aren't worth a pinch of piss.

Anyway, I wish to digress no further and I will spend a bit more time sifting through the QON's, I just hope the Senators are willing to pull out everything in their bag of tricks because ol' Murky is running circles around them.

Tick tock 

[P7_TOM]

Choc frog GD – cracking good post, spot on. It will be, no doubt, a Cos lettuce leaf again for Beaker. Cos he keeps getting away with it. Murky is good, plays for the wrong team; but good, keeps running rings around the flat footed Senate team. Home ground advantage I expect.

[Peetwo]

DoIRD (Murky's mob ) - On the nose & in the red



The Senate Chamber primary colour is red (see above), even the daily running sheet is called the 'Dynamic Red' and considering the Senate is the 'House of review', red would seem quite appropriate. If the RRAT Committee Senators have an ounce of respect for the Senate, the Senate Estimates process & the importance of making sure the bureaucracy remains accountable & transparent, then they should being seeing RED for the complete disdain the DoIRD Mandarin & his Minions continue to display for the Senate Estimates & indeed Parliamentary process.

Hansard excerpts May 2013 Budget Estimates:    

Senator HEFFERNAN: Welcome, Mr Mrdak. I would just like to emphasise the disruption and the unfairness demonstrated—not necessarily by the department—on questions on notice. They came back, and I have no idea how long they were in the minister's office, and were received by this committee on Friday at two or three o'clock in the afternoon. Religiously and with great precision DAFF have their questions back on the given day, and we commended Minister Ludwig yesterday for that. But sadly the questions on notice from Minister Albanese's office are always late. It is unfair to the committee and, as a consequence of the late afternoon on Friday, the hardworking people in the secretariat had to work on Friday night and Saturday just to process the questions. I think that is most unreasonable. There is no strategic reason. Bugger it—the questions and the answers are the questions and the answers, and if they are on paper we ought to be entitled to see them in time to get our head around them. They can often be important issues—and I am sure that Senator Fawcett is about to raise important issues—that we need to thoroughly process in the best interests of the Australian public...

..&

...Mr Mrdak: I very much acknowledge the point raised by Senator Heffernan on the tabling of the answers by the portfolio. Again, my apologies, Senator. The department makes every effort to meet the time frame set by the committee; I can assure you of that. We do apologise in relation to the timing of the provision of those answers.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Can you tell us when the answers were submitted by you to the minister's office?

Mr Mrdak: There were 132 questions in total, 40 taken on notice on the hearing day and 92 written questions. The department did not this time meet our requirements to get the advice to the minister as we would have liked. The first 100 draft responses were provided to the minister on 28 March. The further 32 outstanding responses were provided on 8 and 18 April, owing to some delays in getting data from us. But the minister had all of the consolidated answers by 18 April.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Senator Thistlethwaite, do you have any indication of why it took the minister from 18 April until last Friday to deal with those things?

Senator Thistlethwaite: No, I do not, Senator. Again, I can seek to take that on notice and provide you with an answer.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It would be good if you could.

Senator NASH: Can I suggest that perhaps the good senator might like to do that over the next two days for us? I am sure he is able to call the minister's office and come back to us before the end of tomorrow.

Senator Thistlethwaite: I already indicated that I would.

Senator NASH: Thank you.

    
And this was the 'up yours' answer to the QON:

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Senator Thistlethwaite, do you have any indication of why it took the minister from 18 April until last Friday to deal with those things?

Senator Thistlethwaite: No, I do not, Senator. Again, I can seek to take that on notice and provide you with an answer.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It would be good if you could.

Senator NASH: Can I suggest that perhaps the good senator might like to do that over the next two days for us? I am sure he is able to call the minister's office and come back to us before the end of tomorrow.

Senator Thistlethwaite: I already indicated that I would.

Answer:

The then Minister advised that he had nothing further to add to this response.

The following is a link for the subsequent 2013 Budget Estimates process in the lead up to the 2013 Supplementary Estimates - DoIT 2013 AQON. You can see that the due date was 26 July 2013 and that all the AQON were received nearly four months late on the 10 October 2013. Now compare that to this year (in red):

Questions on notice index: (PDF 805 KB)
Answers were due 10 July 2015.
Answers to Questions on Notice

QoN no.
Division/Agency
View File
Date received

1-4
Corporate
(PDF 52 KB)
06/10/2015

5-61
Infrastructure Investment Division
(PDF 2565 KB)
06/10/2015

62-64
Australian Rail Track Corporation
(PDF 74 KB)
06/10/2015

65-86
Infrastructure Australia
(PDF 309 KB)
06/10/2015

87-100
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(PDF 203 KB)
06/10/2015

101-103
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
(PDF 59 KB)
06/10/2015

104-107
Airservices Australia
(PDF 1118 KB)
06/10/2015

108-115
Aviation and Airports Division
(PDF 9588 KB)
06/10/2015

116
Office of Transport Security
(PDF 20 KB)
06/10/2015

117-129
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
(PDF 222 KB)
06/10/2015

130-143
Surface Transport Policy Division
(PDF 2649 KB)
06/10/2015

144-146
Local Government and Territories Division
(PDF 49 KB)
06/10/2015

147-149
National Capital Authority
(PDF 48 KB)
06/10/2015

150-164
Policy and Research Division
(PDF 1110KB)
06/10/2015

165-166
Western Sydney Unit
(PDF 32 KB)
06/10/2015

Read them, weep & wonder WTF the hold up was - UFB? Nope true to form for Murky & his minions..

 
As a point of comparison have a look here for the RRAT committee's stable-mate the Department of Agriculture, where the AQON were only 12 days late. Plenty of time for Senators and their staff to assess & follow up on the answers prior to the Supp Estimates; or indeed in the Senate Chamber sitting days; or through written QON directly to the Minister.
However with the situation we have now with Murky's Department, the impact of the QON has been made null & void, unless of course the Senators already know the answers.
Taking the example with the Dolan 'up yours' AQON to Senator X..

Answer:

The ATSB does not intend taking any further action on this matter, noting that an ATSB air traffic control specialist did review the WebTrak information for the entire period following receipt of the REPCON and that the ATSB is satisfied with the response provided by both Airservices Australia and CASA to the REPCON report (see http://www.atsb.gov.au/repcon/2013/ar201300090.aspx).

 ..you can see that yet again more than 5 months has now been lost and the impact of now calling Dolan to account - on a serious incident that occurred nearly 2 years ago - becomes laughable, even if (as Gobbles points out) the safety issue is yet to be effectively risk mitigated -

So will team RED (the Senators) call Murky & his fellow obfuscating minions to account? Well I bloody well hope so, because to do anything less calls into question the worth & veracity of the RED House, the so called House of review -  



MTF..P2       

[Gobbledock]

P2;

" ..you can see that yet again more than 5 months has now been lost and the impact of now calling Dolan to account - on a serious incident that occurred nearly 2 years ago - becomes laughable, even if (as Gobbles points out) the safety issue is yet to be effectively risk mitigated"

And that P2 has been one of the major concerns of myself, you, and many members of and supporters of PAIN. The length of delay in answering questions about issues that could contain unmitigated safety risks is totally unacceptable. Every day that a risk or issue is raised and questions are asked and nothing is done is a day in which the risk remains open, active and very real. And we haven't even considered the potential latent risks that could be laying beneath. This shows that Murky and his minions either truly have no effing idea or they simply couldn't give a toss. Either way these people are absolutely dangerous. These people are a risk in themselves to aviation safety.

So apart from us IOS, tendentious bloggers and the bloody hard working safety conscious Senators, the rest of the Government agencies are asleep at the trough!

TICK TOCK MINISCULE TICK TOCK

[Kharon]

Is blood from stones Red?

One of the reasons ‘we’ have adopted The Mandarin, quite apart from the first class reporting and balanced opinion is the messages of ‘hope’ which creep onto the pages.  Modest, but essential changes that those who toil for the government initiate; where a honest, practical approach to perceived problems is offered; to both small and large – all for the benefit of Australia and it’s people and pride in the work.  Bravo   There are signs of change for the better from all manner of departments.  Australians are entitled to and happy to pay taxes for this type of evolution, where a ‘misconception’ or an ideology is creating an unnecessary burden; or thing could be done better; it is a natural progression of a modern government.  Most departments view ‘Estimates’ in a the way of an audit – done properly – which is of benefit to all, questions, ideas, accountability, result = gold star.  So WTF is it with Merdek’s departments?

Late, obfuscated, delayed, disingenuous and never a straight answer in sight.  This last round of Q&A is a masterpiece of non-answers and drop dead answers.  The P2 example is a classic, representative of many others.  In short, the Senators are told, oh so politely, to duck off – mind your own business and move along.  In the real world, it’s called taking the Mickey Bliss.

For my two bob, the only QoN worthy of consideration is how much longer are the Senators going to have rings run around them by a department which clearly has only one interest – to never change.  Merdek runs the three stooges like a clever ventriloquist at some RSL club big night out.

“Tell the ladies and gentlemen about Melbourne Beaker”   “Oh, mi, mi thinks I’m satisfied; anyway it was all ASA’s fault, nasty, nosey Senators can butt out”.

“And what about you Halfwit?  "What would you tell the Senators in the audience tonight about the Melbourne situation”   - “Well boss, they really make me cranky, FFS here I am climbing the slippery pole and they bring up all these pretend problems – we are safe and they should butt out that’s what”.

Then,  a pathetic skinny scrap parked behind the suitcase is grabbed by the scruff of the neck – “What say you Oliver?"  "Tell the good folk here what you think”.  “Well Sir, (think Bluebottle voice) much as I would like more talk (sotto) all this action makes me nauseous; I think part 61 is wonderful, ATSB are all good jolly chaps and the ASA is so masterfully technical; why, it makes my little wooden head spin."  “I say, lets have more tea biccies, a nice sit down and let the boys do what they do; that way, the MM crew feed us and pet us and even lets us speak at the RSL, between bingo and the magician”.

Senators better wake up and get a grip, before they too become an act for the RSL Thursday night pre Bingo warm up.  This is becoming farcical and dangerous; hundreds of aviation JOBS – GONE – more following? you bet your life.

P2 – I will (promitto) patiently wade through the pap served as answers; but it’s been a tough tour and I crave a day or two grace before I can tackle, once again, the steaming pile of elephant pooh, deposited on the Senators doorstep.  Seems if they can’t – someone must. FCOL.

Selah..

[Gobbledock]

K;

  "In short, the Senators are told, oh so politely, to duck off – mind your own business and move along.  In the real world, it’s called taking the Mickey Bliss".

It's not always done politely, sometimes  the Senators are even called dipshits!!! Mind you, I've called Truss worse than that when down at the local shooting darts. But sadly he wasn't there, he was watching Mary Poppins.

[Kharon]

I don’t know how much more of this crap I can stomach, dinkum.  It’s the same old game, Senators woof, bark and posture, the alphabet agencies spin, duck, dive and weave; stalemate.  More time, money, effort and patience wasted, same old result.  Maybe we should tell the new PM; at least he seems to understand the business of business.  Then again, perhaps not – Hoi. Malcom:-

Dear Prime Minister.

Your Civil Aviation Safety Authority is persisting with a reform of the aviation regulation which has already burdened the tax payer with in excess of AUD$250,000, 000 for an abject failure.  Then ‘new’ regulations place an intolerable cost burden on an industry which is failing, primarily due to the regulatory burden, shedding jobs, investors and has acquired no additional safety benefit from the impost of complex, confused regulations.  The behaviour of the regulator has been and remains, disgraceful; the Forsyth report clearly, unequivocally demands sweeping changes to the way aviation is managed i.e. the regulator.  There have been no progressive changes for the betterment; in fact retrograde action and repression is clearly apparent.

Your Air Transport Safety Bureau has become an international laughing stock; clearly incompetent, proven disingenuous and publicly exposed as being complicit with CASA of manipulating a safety report to suit a predetermined outcome.

Your Air Services, air traffic control management have been exposed in the Senate as worthy of an ANOA audit to determine to what extent the public purse has been misused.

All up, many hundred of millions of tax payer dollars have been wasted providing a flawed, bloated aviation management conglomerate which has achieved little of value and driven a thriving provider of employment to the brink of extinction.

Your Senate Standing Committee have dutifully tried to address these aberrations and keep running into the same brick walls; the Minister has ignored all calls for true reform.  If the Senators are powerless to halt the inevitable, the Minister will not see the inevitable, then Sir, we believe it is up to you to show the leadership required to halt and reverse this trend which will, sooner or later result in the collapse of an industry.

We are certain that an hour spent consulting with the Senators would convince you that there is clear and present danger surrounding all facets of aviation governance in Australia.

L&K the IOS

Nah, save the stamp GD; we may need to trade it for enough fuel to get home.   

[Gobbledock]

"Nah, save the stamp GD; we may need to trade it for enough fuel to get home"

I'm broke Kharon, can't afford a stamp, just put my last $5 diesel in the Houseboat. Here's to hoping.

[Kharon]

I find it amazing that the mere threat of a 1000 job loss in the shipping industry can generate howls of dismay from the Senators; but when aviation sheds that many this year; not a dicky bird is said – why is it so?

Bankstown is a classic hundreds employed diminishing to tens, the airport a barren waste ground, awaiting the developers bulldozer.  

Below, one of the many cries of anguish and appeals from industry falling on the deaf ears and no action from government on a critical situation, becoming worse everyday.  

As if all this were not enough,

I’ve just been advised by my LAME of the extent of the ‘SIDS’ that I am facing on my CT210G which has less than 5000hrs total time and is in very good condition.

The cost will exceed the value of the aircraft. I’m not going to do them it’s just lunacy.

Where is the safety case? If my aircraft was in the US I would not have to do them!! What’s so different about the air here?? Is it the CO² level at CASA in Canberra which has sent all and sundry there mad??

I may very well schedule – which I do now - inspections on a regular basis and attend to issues as and when they arrive, but this pull the aeroplane apart and then put it back together at a cost of 10’s of $’000’s for NO DEMONSTRATED REASON is just crippling. So my aeroplane is grounded and the parting out process will begin, unless there is some semblance of common sense applied. I just can’t see it.

I don’t really know if I have the resolve to continue with a near 30 year interest which I adore.

How many others are in the same boat? – there must be hundreds.

The endless wait for reform – and answers to questions – while an industry slowly bleeds to death and the CASA hyena waits to feed on the near dead carcass.

Disgraceful Senators, the rank stench of hypocrisy becoming stronger in the stale air of no positive improvement, just more hot air.

Selah.

[Gobbledock]

The above is just one terrible story. One story out of thousands, literally.
People like Skidmore or Skull, who are themselves recreation pilots, don't have any issues. Sure, they have to spend a few extra dollars but hey, when you're filthy rich or earning half a million per year, no problem. It's the battler, the pilot who can barely afford to put fuel in his beloved aircraft to take the grandkids for a spin around the block, or the pilot of a small business trying to eek out an existence under our draconian regulatory, tax and Westminster system that suffers. And our industry suffers. And our economy suffers. And yes you dumb ass fu#king politicians your bottom line suffers also!!!

Only one thing will snap these political tyrants and incompetent lazy vermin out of their coma - political pressure. Sorry Dick, you're a good man, smart businessman, philanthropist and someone who has the people's ear, yes from the small punter all the way to the top of the ladder. You're 71 old mate, understood, but we need you, and right about now. Make a run for parliament. Cut a deal with Clive, Muir, the Greens, even old Lucifer himself if you have too. We will support you, give you some teeth in the house! 3 years mate, that's all we ask. Unseat some of these bastards, shake them from their ivory towers, scare them into action. The only thing that will force change is the threat of these parasites losing their trough. After 3 years Dick you can bail, enough change will have been introduced and the rest of us will continue the fight. Make this your  last big impact for a positive cause as you put your feet up for a well deserved, albeit late retirement. But for now you're it buddy.
Leave your grandkids the best legacy you could hope for - a surviving aviation industry. 

Tick tock Dick, our industry is almost extinct.

[Peetwo]

kharon
I find it amazing that the mere threat of a 1000 job loss in the shipping industry can generate howls of dismay from the Senators; but when aviation sheds that many this year; not a dicky bird is said – why is it so?

Bankstown is a classic hundreds employed diminishing to tens, the airport a barren waste ground, awaiting the developers bulldozer.  

Below, one of the many cries of anguish and appeals from industry falling on the deaf ears and no action from government on a critical situation, becoming worse everyday.  

As if all this were not enough,

I’ve just been advised by my LAME of the extent of the ‘SIDS’ that I am facing on my CT210G which has less than 5000hrs total time and is in very good condition.

The cost will exceed the value of the aircraft. I’m not going to do them it’s just lunacy.

Where is the safety case? If my aircraft was in the US I would not have to do them!! What’s so different about the air here?? Is it the CO² level at CASA in Canberra which has sent all and sundry there mad??

I may very well schedule – which I do now - inspections on a regular basis and attend to issues as and when they arrive, but this pull the aeroplane apart and then put it back together at a cost of 10’s of $’000’s for NO DEMONSTRATED REASON is just crippling. So my aeroplane is grounded and the parting out process will begin, unless there is some semblance of common sense applied. I just can’t see it.

I don’t really know if I have the resolve to continue with a near 30 year interest which I adore.

How many others are in the same boat? – there must be hundreds.

The endless wait for reform – and answers to questions – while an industry slowly bleeds to death and the CASA hyena waits to feed on the near dead carcass.

Disgraceful Senators, the rank stench of hypocrisy becoming stronger in the stale air of no positive improvement, just more hot air.

Selah.

In case you were wondering what provoked this short, sharp, outburst from "K" - & the copied quote from a PAIN email chain - it was this post off the Rev Forsyth's thread: 

AMROBA - Who cares??

Saw the following from off the AMROBA site, thought it needed some exposure and where better to put it than on the Reverend Forsyth's thread - Why? Well IMHO he is one of a minority who truly does care...   

Strange dichotomy?- Marine v Aviation Industries

I have often thought that, in a strange way, the non-partisan approach to aviation safety & the apathy of the aviation industry in general, is ironically doing our industry a huge disservice. Now I have further evidence to confirm my suspicions with a point of comparison with the Australian Maritime Industry...  

Two days ago the RRAT Legislative Committee tabled a report from an inquiry that looked into - Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 [Provisions]

However the findings of that report were not unanimously accepted by the members of the committee. Consequently two dissenting reports were also tabled, one from Labor & one from the Greens.

Both of these reports take issue with the CBA/RIS of the proposed amended legislation,  plus the potential loss of industry jobs if the legislation was to be accepted by the Senate:



..&





This inquiry generated 20 submissions and as we know the ASRR (Forsyth review) generated 269 submissions, which was followed up by 48 responses to the Forsyth panel findings & recommendations. Yet the largely accepted by Government Forsyth recommendations have effectively stalled in bureaucratic obfuscation and as a consequence the GA industry (refer AMROBA - Who Cares?) sits on the precipice of losing yet more small to medium sized businesses which include Flying Schools, MROs & charter operators.
 
The jobs already lost and yet to be lost due to the strangulation through regulation impost and sociopathic embuggerance by CASA, would easily be counted in the 1000's. So why is there no outcry from either the Greens or Labor? 

Dichotomy?- You bet..

Now because of the two dissenting reports (Labor & Greens) the proposed Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, is at real risk of being rolled once passed into the Senate.

The Miniscule's office has subsequently been provoked into an almost instantaneous response in an attempt to diffuse the Labor/Green motion of dissent:

Senate Committee backs coastal shipping reform

Media Release
WT328/2015
14 October 2015


The Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Senate Committee has backed the Government's Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 in its report tabled in the Senate.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss thanked Committee members for their consideration and said the Government had to act now to ensure coastal shipping is a viable and long term part of Australia's freight transport network.

“The Australian Government plans to help deliver more affordable freight costs for businesses and greater choice between shipping companies, which will lead to better services being provided to Australian industries,” Mr Truss said.

“Evidence, supplied by shippers, shows that Labor's Act has increased the price of coastal shipping services and reduced competition, hitting Australian businesses hard and adding uncertainty and red tape without improving the viability of Australia's shipping sector or the quality of shipping services.

“Without changes to our regulatory settings, shipping will not be able to deliver the competitive, efficient services that Australian businesses need.

“Industries like aluminium, gypsum, cement, sugar, resources, fertiliser, petroleum, grain, manufacturing, and a plethora of other producers that can or could use coastal shipping services if it was more competitive, will benefit from the Government's proposed reform.”

The Senate Committee in its report acknowledges that Labor's current coastal shipping legislation is “clearly inadequate” and “intent on making things as difficult as possible for those seeking to use its services.”

The Senate Committee notes that Labor's Act has “failed to revitalise coastal shipping—indeed it seems, perversely, to have facilitated its continuing decline, making it often more economic to import goods than to ship them locally.”

The Senate Committee has acknowledged the Government's Bill will allow shipping users access to more competitive coastal shipping services; “It removes impediments, leverages strengths and reduces costs, and its passage will benefit the economy greatly.”

Just think what the GA industry could do with that kind of horsepower if such a scenario involved the CAA Act being up for amendment, i.e. along these lines -  Balancing Acts & reform? - Part I & Balancing Acts & reform? - Part II:

Next order of action from the DAS has to be a demand that the Minister amend, the root of all evil, the currently un-constitutional S9A of the CAA Act.


To help explain why this is essential I refer to the WJR Hamilton 'Response to the ASRR report':

    
{*1 IOS - 'Ills of society' McComic 2012 - "Do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics; they are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer ‘facts’ when engaged in discussions; not hearsay and tautological rubbish that some others seem to regard as promising material.” }

And if we need any further historical proof of why this is essential we can't go past many of the Ken Cannane & AMROBA references on the subject. In particular I refer to the latest AMROBA newsletter - Volume 12 Issue 9 (September 15)


Ref page 2-3:

2. Regulatory Reform Keeps General Aviation in the Past

For 30 years regulatory reform has been reshaping the same requirements over and over again.

Without conceptual change to the structure of the regulatory framework, government will continue to produce recycled ideas and concepts. This cannot continue – a complete conceptual change is required to properly empower the general aviation individuals and organisations to enhance safety and once again grow this industry...

Ref page 3-4:

Is the Civil Aviation Act supporting General Aviation?

When the ASRR Report recommendations were almost totally supported by the government, AMROBA made a submission to government stating that many provisions of the Act would need amending to permanently implement the recommendations of that Review. If the Act is not changed then this or the next regime of CASA will revert to the same processes that continues to create unrest, thus requiring another government funded review into aviation.

The basic problem with the Act is Sec. 98 where government/CASA have made numerous changes over the years because they will not use Sec 9(1)© to promulgate Aviation Safety Standards, as proposed by the ASRR Report. Basically, the Report states, to comply with Article 37 of the Chicago Convention, the Sec 9(1)© Standards should be consistent to the Convention and other mature aviation systems like Europe, North America and NZ.

However, as industry has experienced in the past, implementing the recommendations depends on public servants and, in particular, those in the Department of Infrastructure to make changes to the Civil Aviation Act to make these changes permanent. When compared to the NZ Act, the current Act does not have the same detail based on the Convention Articles...

MTF..P2


Ps A note for Senator Fawcett who appears to be MIA?

Yesterday the 'Parliamentary Friends of Rail'...

Parliamentary Friends of Rail Group


The vision of the group is to strengthen the rail industry in Australia, through creating opportunities for leaders in both government and the business sector to meet and discuss issues of key importance to Australia's economic future.  Members of the group will be engaged on key rail issues, participate in policy discussions and interact with top industry leaders and fellow rail advocates.

Contact Persons:
Mr John Alexander  MP
Mr Stephen Jones  MP
(Co-convenors)

..got excellent coverage on social media, partly because Rail is currently topical in politics e.g.

‏@M_McCormackMP 16h16 hours ago

Great to speak to the Parl Friends of Rail and @AustRail mtg tonight. Well done @JohnAlexanderMP & @StephenJonesMP.

Hmm...guess who is the Chair of the 'Parliamentary Friends of Aviation'?

Parliamentary Friends of Aviation Group

As legislators, we have a key role in keeping aviation both safe and viable as an industry and the friendship group will provide members a great opportunity to stay informed about the issues the industry is facing.

Contact Persons:
Senator David Fawcett – Chair person
Senator Joe Ludwig – Deputy Chairperson

[P7_TOM]

Spot on P2, “K” is a little irritated at the moment, but with good reason as you so eloquently point out.  He told me the parable of Vic and verbatim I do quote it:-

Did you hear the one about a fellah, Vic - who fell off the pier; as he was being swept out to sea a fisherman grabbed a life ring and threw it just ahead of Vic; “grab that” he shouted, “I’ll pull you in”.   “No” shouted Vic, “I’m a religious man, my god will save me”.  

A while later, about 200 meters out to sea, the Bondi lifeboat was out for a training run; they stopped rowing and Vic drifted close to the boat; “here mate” says one oarsman holding out his hand, “hang on and we’ll have you on board in a jiffy”.  “No, no thankyou” says Vic “I’m a religious man, my god will save me” and he floated further out to sea.

Couple of miles later, the boys in the Westpac chopper spotted Vic, pulled up in a hover, winched down the swimmer with a harness for Vic; “no worries mate, we got you safe now” shouts the swimmer, “pop this over your head and we’ll take you ashore: Vic, being a bit knackered by now just shook his head and dog paddled away, later the swimmer reported the Vic’s last words - “I’m a religious man, my god will save me”.

Well, he drowned; died and went upstairs, barged past St Pete and marched into the gods office “Damn it all” he said; “all my life I’ve been good, devout and followed all your teachings and you let me drown you bastard!  “Well, what have to say?”

His god looked puzzled and checked his computer screen; “seems it’s not my fault Vic, we sent you a life ring, a life boat and a helicopter; don’t see what else we could have done, not really”

.




You just know how it's going end if someone don't move things along - pronto.

[Kharon]

More aggrieved than angry (I think).

Challenge dichotomy, is diremption or bifurcated not appropriate?  There was certainly a split, to the advantage of Australian shipping.  The Bullock and Sterle statement certainly carried some weight and understanding; even the Greens managed to impress; and something is going to change – for once – for the betterment of an industry.  Stellar.    

You can with some ease, swap shipping for aviation and the results are startlingly accurate; the impact of bad legislation clearly visible and the simple, powerful solutions easily understood – Hell, even the Greens could see it – for shipping.

The need for investment which returns a profit, which creates jobs and revenue is essential to all business; so why is aviation thrown to the wolves?

A private members bill to change an Act is needed; the rest has been mapped out in the government sponsored Forsyth report – the Senators all sat through the disgraceful Pel-Air inquiry, they are fully aware of the problems and of the urgent need for immediate changes. Hell, they even made some speeches full of sound and fury; which inspired the belief that with a sane DAS a new ATSB commissioner and a the rubble scraped away from the ASA the industry could be returned to health.  What happened? – SFA that’s what.  Oh we got the three stooges and more pony-pooh to shovel, but little of a practical nature or any intrinsic value.

Unless you want to count the latest regulations as progress or rampant duplicity as reform.    CASA are now making grandiose ‘statements’ on how they are dealing with regulatory transgression in an enlightened manner.  This means that instead of the tumbrils heading to the guillotine in broad daylight, they now creep along the back alleys, under the cover of darkness.

Has the Senate Committee been rolled, Wodgered and pineappled?   Perhaps they could ask an expert like Fawcett – but I forget; he forgot.  One happy snap, round of smiles and hearty hand shakes, exeunt stage right and it’s onwards and upwards.  Leaving a trail of disappointment in it’s wake, the bus of hope fails to stop leaving the passengers stranded wondering WTF.

So, my QoN to the Senators - WTF?  Heroics and positive action for shipping – SFA for aviation, is that it?   Certainly seems that way.

Aye, no doubt I'll wait quite a long wait for an answer.

Toot. 

[Gobbledock]

The game of politics is a complex beast at many levels, way too heavy to discuss this time of morning. But one of the problems for us in aviation, an ironic problem at that is aviation, in a sometimes perverse sort of a way grabs lots of attention. Now attention can be a good thing when managed correctly, but if not then you have a real problem.

You see two cargo ships can rub paint in Botonay bay without so much as a whisper raised. An international investigation could reveal that our cattle being shipped overseas are of a sub-standard quality compared to the rest of the worlds cattle and hardly a whisper will flow through the media. However should a parked Cessna being gently blown into a security perimeter fence during a thunderstorm then it is splashed across every front page! So what I am saying is that many ministerial portfolios generally fly beneath the radar plus they don't directly impact tens of thousands of lives daily, generally speaking. But aviation is much much different. So when you have a high risk area of oversight it requires the correct resources, funds and
Ministers and minions who have the appropriate skills, power of reason, intelligence and grass roots to handle such a portfolio. Australia has sadly been let down in this regard for decades. The level of obsfucation and disconnect from Team MrDak for many many years is not only breathtaking, as evidenced in their continued folly in not only the senate, but as evidenced in the type of character and department heads that has been respectively sanctioned and appointed to lead the alphabet soup agencies, and the resulting organisational poor cultures and the ineptitude of their staff.

Yes, a spectacular failure, billions in prospective revenue and income lost, an overall industry shattered and in itself lost, hundreds of millions wasted on reform program's and many other dismal project failures. Ironically the fixes ARE out there, but those fixes will never be embraced whilst you have a poisonous toxic framework.

Tick tock. Smoking holes wait for nobody Miniscule. Tick tock

[Peetwo]

More aggrieved than angry (I think).

Challenge dichotomy, is diremption or bifurcated not appropriate?  There was certainly a split, to the advantage of Australian shipping.  The Bullock and Sterle statement certainly carried some weight and understanding; even the Greens managed to impress; and something is going to change – for once – for the betterment of an industry.  Stellar.    

You can with some ease, swap shipping for aviation and the results are startlingly accurate; the impact of bad legislation clearly visible and the simple, powerful solutions easily understood – Hell, even the Greens could see it – for shipping.

The need for investment which returns a profit, which creates jobs and revenue is essential to all business; so why is aviation thrown to the wolves?

A private members bill to change an Act is needed; the rest has been mapped out in the government sponsored Forsyth report – the Senators all sat through the disgraceful Pel-Air inquiry, they are fully aware of the problems and of the urgent need for immediate changes. Hell, they even made some speeches full of sound and fury; which inspired the belief that with a sane DAS a new ATSB commissioner and a the rubble scraped away from the ASA the industry could be returned to health.  What happened? – SFA that’s what.  Oh we got the three stooges and more pony-pooh to shovel, but little of a practical nature or any intrinsic value.

Unless you want to count the latest regulations as progress or rampant duplicity as reform.    CASA are now making grandiose ‘statements’ on how they are dealing with regulatory transgression in an enlightened manner.  This means that instead of the tumbrils heading to the guillotine in broad daylight, they now creep along the back alleys, under the cover of darkness.

Has the Senate Committee been rolled, Wodgered and pineappled?   Perhaps they could ask an expert like Fawcett – but I forget; he forgot.  One happy snap, round of smiles and hearty hand shakes, exeunt stage right and it’s onwards and upwards.  Leaving a trail of disappointment in it’s wake, the bus of hope fails to stop leaving the passengers stranded wondering WTF.

So, my QoN to the Senators - WTF?  Heroics and positive action for shipping – SFA for aviation, is that it?   Certainly seems that way.

Aye, no doubt I'll wait quite a long wait for an answer.

Toot. 

The game of politics is a complex beast at many levels, way too heavy to discuss this time of morning. But one of the problems for us in aviation, an ironic problem at that  is aviation, in a sometimes perverse sort of a way grabs lots of attention. Now attention can be a good thing when managed correctly, but if not then you have a real problem.

You see two cargo ships can rub paint in Botonay bay without so much as a whisper raised. An international investigation could reveal that our cattle being shipped overseas are of a sub-standard quality compared to the rest of the worlds cattle and hardly a whisper will flow through the media. However should a parked Cessna being gently blown into a security perimeter fence during a thunderstorm then it is splashed across every front page! So what I am saying is that many ministerial portfolios generally fly beneath the radar plus they don't directly impact tens of thousands of lives daily, generally speaking. But aviation is much much different. So when you have a high risk area of oversight it requires the correct resources, funds and
Ministers and minions who have the appropriate skills, power of reason, intelligence and grass roots to handle such a portfolio. Australia has sadly been let down in this regard for decades. The level of obsfucation and disconnect from Team MrDak for many many years is not only breathtaking, as evidenced in their continued folly in not only the senate, but as evidenced in the type of character and department heads that has been respectively sanctioned and appointed to lead the alphabet soup agencies, and the resulting organisational poor cultures and the ineptitude of their staff.

Yes, a spectacular failure, billions in prospective revenue and income lost, an overall industry shattered and in itself lost, hundreds of millions wasted on reform program's and many other dismal project failures. Ironically the fixes ARE out there, but those fixes will never be embraced whilst you have a poisonous toxic framework.

Tick tock. Smoking holes wait for nobody Miniscule. Tick tock

For those interested here is the program for Estimates on Monday..






The usual suspects are on from 14:45 so it will be largely a tea & biccys session. However given this - "there was a movement at the RED House, for the word had got around.." 

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:04): I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

"..It is a critical principle in a responsible system of government that the parliament on behalf of the people can ask questions of the executive and that such questions be answered in a reasonable time frame, and, in accordance with standing order 74, I have moved this motion.."

A number of questions have been asked since July of this year about the competitive evaluation process for the SEA 1000 system in relation to combat systems and technical commands and control systems...

...These are matters that ought to be answered under standing order 74.

I know it was short notice, but I did give advance notice to the acting minister's office in respect of this. The issue is that we have Senate estimates coming up. As a courtesy, I did write to the Minister for Defence's office and the Prime Minister office yesterday to give notice of this situation so that this motion could be obviated. If there is some undertaking from the government to give an answer or answers prior to Senate estimates commencing, that would be very helpful in the context of what this standing order is meant to enforce.

- it could also be worthwhile watching the start of proceedings...

MTF..P2

[thorn bird]

China’s leading aircraft maker has begun work on an industrial and operations centre dedicated to general aviation.

The Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) this week held a ceremonial for a complex planned to occupy 30 square km in Jingmen City, in the of central Chinese province of Hubei.

AVIC will invest 20 billion yuan ($A4.25 billion) over eight years in the base, which will be dedicated to manufacturing aircraft, research and training.

The China Daily quoted AVIC chairman Lin Zuoming, as saying AVIC would build 50 similar complexes across China.

‘These would serve 90 per cent of the country’s population and build a national light aircraft operation network,’ Mr Lin said.

General aviation aircraft are restricted to flying in low-altitude airspace below 1000 metres (3280 feet) in China, but the China daily reports that ‘policymakers are mulling loosening that regulation.’

China’s general aviation sector, consisting of about 1500 aircraft, recorded 591,000 flying hours in 2013, but is expected to hit the two million hour mark by 2020, according to the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC).

In contrast, Australian general aviation flew 1.7 million hours in 2012, according to the Bureau of Transport and regional Economics (BITRE)".

Online news service.

"General aviation aircraft are restricted to flying in low-altitude airspace below 1000 metres (3280 feet) in China, but the China daily reports that ‘policymakers are mulling loosening that regulation."

Chokky frog for who guesses who's reg's they will use as a template???

Australia's world leading concoction??...Well??? Skidmark says the whole world is beating a path to CAsA's door to copy us!! Soo...Skids old mate, where are they???

I think the Chinese are astute enough to not want to kill their industry before its even started.

[Kharon]

I find it amazing that the mere threat of a 1000 job loss in the shipping industry can generate howls of dismay from the Senators; but when aviation sheds that many this year; not a dicky bird is said – why is it so?

Bankstown is a classic hundreds employed diminishing to tens, the airport a barren waste ground, awaiting the developers bulldozer.  

Below, one of the many cries of anguish and appeals from industry falling on the deaf ears and no action from government on a critical situation, becoming worse everyday.  

As if all this were not enough,

I’ve just been advised by my LAME of the extent of the ‘SIDS’ that I am facing on my CT210G which has less than 5000hrs total time and is in very good condition.

The cost will exceed the value of the aircraft. I’m not going to do them it’s just lunacy.

Where is the safety case? If my aircraft was in the US I would not have to do them!! What’s so different about the air here?? Is it the CO² level at CASA in Canberra which has sent all and sundry there mad??

I may very well schedule – which I do now - inspections on a regular basis and attend to issues as and when they arrive, but this pull the aeroplane apart and then put it back together at a cost of 10’s of $’000’s for NO DEMONSTRATED REASON is just crippling. So my aeroplane is grounded and the parting out process will begin, unless there is some semblance of common sense applied. I just can’t see it.

I don’t really know if I have the resolve to continue with a near 30 year interest which I adore.

How many others are in the same boat? – there must be hundreds.

The endless wait for reform – and answers to questions – while an industry slowly bleeds to death and the CASA hyena waits to feed on the near dead carcass.

Disgraceful Senators, the rank stench of hypocrisy becoming stronger in the stale air of no positive improvement, just more hot air.

Selah.

I’m certain the powers that be can and will continue to ignore the woes and troubles of general and regional aviation.  The AOPA (Australia) are trying to resurrect and assist, a while back we had a thread running which suggested that if an olive branch was extended to the ‘cousins’ a better result may be achieved.   Well AOPA (USA) have decided to weigh in; it will up to De Stoop to capitalise on the offer.  The classic tale (above) of one poor sod and his encounter with the blind, mindless organisation which purports to manage aviation in this country personalises and clarifies exactly the state CASA have brought this industry to.

"So next time you start griping about the high cost of personal flying, you might pause and thank your lucky stars that you’re based in the U.S. and not in the land down under. Compared to the rest of the world, we American aviators have it mighty good."

A must read - HERE - 

If the cousins think this is a sorry tale – wait until the real horror stories start to emerge.

Only in Australia, where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

Baa, Bah, Bah!