[Kharon]

Second and final verse.

All sitting comfortably?  Good, then I’ll begin.   Before we get too deeply embroiled in the Airtex saga a little more background is required.  One common misconception a lot of folk have is that Skymaster and Airtex were one and the same; they were not.  They were both owned and directed by Avtex as were a couple of other associated ‘sister’ companies, such as maintenance, travel agent, flight nurses system were yet another separate ‘sister’ entity, independently managed. One good result of the Botany Bay fatal and the operational conditions imposed was that the two AOC’s became clearly delineated; each company had an independent chief pilot, different SOP’s, philosophy and system management.  In truth there was only ever one ‘joint’ operational meeting scheduled, which the CP of Skymaster refused to attend – but I digress.  Suffice to say that the two AOC management ‘teams’ were very different animals, not given to spending time together.

Where there was a clear connection, the only one, was through the flight crews.  Both companies employed ‘permanent’ contract crew; no fly, no pay.  Skymaster operated single pilot, piston engine <5700 Kg; Airtex operated Metro II and III, multi crew.  But it made good sense to take Metro First Officers (FO) from the piston fleet and train them up.  This kept the troops busy enough and provided valuable experience for career future, so that was win-win.  It was through this in house cross pollination that some of the less than ideal practices of Skymaster were revealed.  It often happened that two or perhaps three aircraft would meet at a common destination for an over night stay; naturally enough whenever possible, the crews would get together for a couple of beers before dinner, even more natural that tall tales were swapped.  Now pilots bitch and moan; they do and an experienced man learns to take another’s tales with a pinch of salt in the spirit of the evening.  But once the same tales start to be repeated by others, in this case the Skymaster pilots, it’s prudent to pay a little more attention.  After series of ‘man to man’ confidential chats and some hair raising reports made to the Airtex senior pilots (N.B. not Skymaster), it was decided that something must be done before there was a serious accident.  So a report was drafted and sent to the company director, management, CASA, the independent auditors and the safety committee; and yes, it was that serious.  The report was distributed almost a 12 month to day ahead of  Canley Vale.   In less than 48 hours, two CASA FOI turned up.  Now a logical person would assume the Big R heavies had arrived panting to add their weight and considered opinion to the discussion.  Not so, in essence, the Airtex senior pilots were informed, in no uncertain terms, to forget about it and to remove the report from the SMS.  As late as last October, CASA still deny receipt of any such missive or taking such action.  Prove it, they snarl.  This from Skidmore mind you; so much for reform progress, right there.  But again, I digress, although it is germane to the Canley Vale crash.

So audit day arrived; now Airtex had, as part of the AOC conditions, employed a very professional, internationally respected, highly qualified and skilled team of independent auditors who turned up on a regular basis to monitor the Airtex growing up process and report back to CASA.  Their reports were all positive and often complimentary.  There had also been two CASA audits of the Airtex training and checking system and an initial series of CASA check flights to examine both system and the CT pilots involved, there had also been a couple of approvals made by CASA, all positive.  With this backing up a well run operation which had for 18 (or so) months being steadily improving there was every reason to expect Airtex to withstand a CASA audit; one supposedly designed to decide whether the remaining conditions, those not already removed through AOC re-issue, could be removed.  Bog standard stuff right?  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  

The story goes that the full Airtex front line were there to meet and greet the CASA FOI team; all seven of them.  Engineering was represented, flight operations and a special crew to discuss with IOSA auditors the proposed SMS which, if approved would become the ‘group’ standard.  Except for Skymaster who refused to be party to any of it, preferring to write their own.  Enough said.

So the two FOI armed with coffee and biscuits took over the chief pilots office, the two senior guys sat in visitors chairs waiting requests for the usual paperwork to be provided.  I would love to have seen their faces when the ‘senior’ FOI opened the bidding with the following statement; “there’s a load of shit coming down the pipe line and it’s all headed in your direction”.  It must have set the tone, it certainly rang the bells. Before lunch there was a small gathering in the directors office, the independent expert auditors and senior pilots.  No one is sure who actually said it first, for they almost in unison said “not audit -witch –hunt, get some legal weight in here now, before this gets out of control”.  It was a mistake to ignore that advice.  IMO the audit should have been stopped right there and then and a conference with CASA management arranged before it was allowed to continue; alas. So, it went on for Airtex, every full stop, comma and uncrossed ‘t’ was analysed and neither logic, reason or even sanity was allowed to gain a foot hold.  CASA was on a mission.

Did lunacy or pure evil prevail is a question still asked to this day.  One example of passing strange, to some observers clearly defines the malice aforethought.  This part has puzzled much cleverer folk than I, so rather than comment, I’ll just tell the tale and let you decide (if you can) – deep breath:-

You see some 24 months previous to ‘the audit’ it was officially decreed that the only way Airtex could continue to operate was with an entirely new suite of manuals and an upgraded check and training system to support multi crew operations, among other things.  It was quicker and easier to redraft the entire thing, soup to nuts, rather than attempt a repair of the ‘old’ manual which had not received the TLC it needed to keep it up to date and a good ‘fit’ for the proposed operations.  So, out with the old and in with the new.  Remember this takes time and note that although Airtex was not generating income, the CEO never, ever pressured those involved, never showed impatience and paid the freight on the spot, without quibble.  To my mind that spells responsible, executive management.  Anyway -A complete renovation was directed, roof top to cellar floor.  This was done, CASA received the manuals and after a series of CASA tests the AOC and Check Training was approved; it must have been.  Operations started, AOC re-issued, pilots checked and the doors opened for business.  Job well done some would say, the independent auditors certainly did.

“Not so” declares the new CASA manager, this statement made after some 18 months of operations under the ‘new’ manual suite.  A particularly useless, bumptious new start FOI declared that all previous check flights were illegal, because the head of CT proficiency check was ‘time’ expired; all operations to cease immediately.  WTF? It is fact that the CT pilot had been involved in no less than six ‘checks’ of his proficiency with independent ATO and CASA within the previous 12 month; it is fact that less than 48 hours previous to this remarkable edict, the CT pilot had passed a base check, MECIR with an independent ATO.  “Not valid” declares this worthy; the proficiency check conducted by Airtex to validate the independent ATO approval previously was deemed invalid, therefore last check was invalid also.  As was the previously CASA conducted check, all invalid.  Why?   All tests were conducted under the company operations manual, the immediate response; look here, here and here; all Kosher, by the book, done and dusted according to Hoyle.  

“Only under the ‘new’ manuals and they are not approved” says the manger with a smirk.  “The only approved manuals you have are these” and he fondly pats the redundant, long forgotten, single pilot manuals.  So it came to pass that a full blown safety alert was issued because CASA no longer accepted or approved the ‘new’, CASA demanded operational suite.  Go figure.  This notion was ruthlessly and relentlessly pursued.  How in the seven hells CASA ever got that crock to stick beats me hollow, it really does.  From there it was a classic CASA panzer attack.  I got to look over some of the RCA/NCN, some were risible, others plain bollocks, some lethal had they been allowed.  

One outstanding RCA (as was) springs to mind every time I revisit this shocking tale.  Under the old CAO 40.1, for a co pilot rating Metro, there was no requirement for ‘stalls’; even so approach to and recovery from was introduced into the training program, for sake of completeness.  It was asserted, that this was incorrect and that a co pilot endorsement required not only the full stall lexicon, but this must be conducted with the stall avoidance system (SAS) disabled.  You know, it took a very strongly worded letter from the certificate holder to convince the CASA FOI that this was not good thing to do, even for test pilots.  The RCA became woven into the fabric of the faery tale that Airtex training was deficient.  It’s also worth mentioning that the grossly deficient training given at Skymaster was carefully never mentioned.  Aye, it’s good to know that the robust, much touted safety watch dog knows it’s business.  Enough, there’s more, but the boiler is struggling to keep up.  

But mostly the RCA were straws gathered to make a haystack in which to hide the needle of truth; never the less even the acquitted ones were trotted out in the AAT, bent, twisted and untested, sworn into ‘evidence’  It is noteworthy that the ‘evidence’ (for wont of better) supposed to be presented by the bumptious new start was abandoned late in the piece and he ‘returned to industry’, in some haste, very shortly thereafter.  Even the ‘manager’ knew that ‘evidence’ could not withstand casual scrutiny, let alone a test under oath.  Aye well, more than one career went to the crapper as a result and Airtex was forced into closing, a million dollars and change worse off thereafter.  That’s history.

Two further elements require your careful consideration; one is Canley Vale; the other is the stark contrast in treatment between Airtex, who got hammered and Pel-Air, who danced off into the moonlight with barely a scratch, even after the Senate did it’s job.

Consider and compare the Airtex case to the remarkable eight day turn around for Pel Air and the picture emerges; eight days to a fresh, no penalty start for Pel-Air.  Doom and the destruction for Airtex, $100,000,000, a business, 40 jobs and a couple of careers ended with many others suffering through no fault of their own; all due to the difference of treatment.

Hitch wants FOI stories; well that has been one of them.  Not all of it; but the backdrop to some of the most venal, vicious embuggerance ever inflicted, by FOI on flight crew. If you think Dom James got the rough end of a pineapple; think again. Honestly, IMO he escaped lightly penalised in comparison, as did Pel Air.

There are other tales surrounding this matter, which, for the sake of prudence I will not tell, they are the stuff of nightmare, likely to scare the horses and frighten the little ‘uns.  The Canley Vale whitewash needs to be scrutinised as does the marked difference in treatment of audit by the same individual.  

Industry gossip is a hard beast to manage once it’s got a juicy story, no doubt truth plays little part in the great gabfests and tea room character assassination.  Too late to change any of it now, and anyway, why spoil a good yarn?  There is a sound case to reopen the whole sorry affair.  Should the Senate committee investigate?  I believe so, it may put an end to the current pantomime.

But, FWIW that’s my two bobs worth.  

Selah.

Now, “GD, saddle those elephants mate, lets go outdoors and play in the free wind.  I’m in great need of some fresh, clear air, a wide horizon and the silent companionship of something I can respect”.

[thorn bird]

Well well, I see our favourite murky mandarin received a gong last week,
best in class at the mandarin show and he gets to stay in the paddock for another
three years, unlike his mate in the airports debacle, he's losing his nuts I hear and is off to the knackers yard.
Now I just have to speculate who the judges are at these award events and on what criteria
the best of the best is assessed? .....aww come on you guys, have a guess, chokky frog for the best example.

[Peetwo]

Elephants have long memories (especially flying ones) -   



To compliment & for continuity on the Avtex (Airtex/Skymaster) timeline of embuggerance, I have been asked by P9 to re-hash my post off the CASA embuggerance thread...  

Embuggerance & investigative probity - In the Sleepy Hollow shelf-wared tales of embuggerance, there is one case, that of Airtex, that keeps on rearing its ugly, festering head.  Like the long trail of industry exemptions, the Airtex ET provides many puerile examples of CASA double standards in regulatory enforcement. How this - vindictive, hypocritical trail of nonsensical, big "R" embuggerance - all began is hard to define but it escalated not long after the fatal accident into Botany Bay of Metro VH-OZA and culminated with the tragic accident on 15 June 2010 of Skymaster (sister company) VH-PGW Mojave at Canley Vale.

Either way the Airtex case now sits as a benchmark of the extreme lengths of enforcement persecution that CASA deployed throughout the McCormick years.   
 
Another Airtex 'point of comparison'.

At PAIN we have quite often compared the treatment/oversight by CASA of PelAir versus Airtex, with there being 'passing strange' aberrations/differences in enforcement policy from the very same overseeing CASA Office. Even more bizarrely this interpretation dichotomy was also reflected within the supposedly independent ATSB investigations of accidents involving both (one former) AOC holders & associated owner companies & management. This dichotomy may also be a reflection of the fact that the Airtex/Skymaster accidents involved fatalities & with the PelAir ditching pax & crew survived.   

Okay now, as luck would have it, we have a completed ATSB investigation of an occurrence very similar to VH-OZA, which fortunately this time did not end in a tragic accident or survived ditching. It also occurred in the jurisdiction of another CASA region.      

Two weeks ago the ATSB released a Final Report for investigation AO-2014-147, here is the summary for what happened in that incident:

On 3 September 2014, at about 0215 Eastern Standard Time (EST),[1] a Fairchild SA227 aircraft, registered VH-UUO, took off from Brisbane Airport, Queensland for a freight charter flight to Bankstown Airport, New South Wales, with one pilot on board. Following the take-off, when at about 200 ft above ground level, the pilot observed the horizontal situation indicator (HSI) indicating a right turn although the aircraft was still maintaining runway direction. The pilot reported that the attitude indicator (AI) displayed alternately a nose up and nose down attitude.

When at about 1,600 ft above ground level, the pilot advised air traffic control of a ‘minor problem with heading’ and was directed to conduct a right turn onto an easterly heading to avoid noise sensitive areas. The pilot turned the aircraft to the right, towards the Pacific Ocean, while referring to the HSI on the co-pilot’s instrument panel, which was providing more accurate heading information. The pilot was aware that the captain’s AI and HSI instruments were providing erroneous indications, but became disoriented by continuing to scan those instruments. The pilot looked out of the window in an attempt to gain a visual reference but could see only blackness.

The pilot continued a shallow right turn until the lights of runway 19 became visible. The aircraft landed back at Brisbane, on runway 19 about 150 kg above the aircraft’s maximum landing weight.

 
This incident had some very real similarities to the tragic accident of VH-OZA  (reference: ATSB - AO-2008-026): 

On 9 April 2008, at 2325 Eastern Standard Time, a Fairchild Industries Inc. SA227-AC (Metro III) aircraft, registered VH-OZA, departed Sydney Airport, New South Wales on a freight charter flight to Brisbane, Queensland with one pilot on board. The aircraft was subsequently observed on radar to be turning right, contrary to air traffic control instructions to turn left to an easterly heading. The pilot reported that he had a 'slight technical fault' and no other transmissions were heard from the pilot.

Recorded radar data showed the aircraft turning right and then left, followed by a descent and climb, a second right turn and a second descent before radar returns were lost when the aircraft was at an altitude of 3,740 ft above mean sea level and descending at over 10,000 ft/min. Air traffic control initiated search actions and search vessels later recovered a small amount of aircraft wreckage floating in the ocean, south of the last recorded radar position. The pilot was presumed to be fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

Both of the aircraft's on-board flight recorders were subsequently recovered from the ocean floor. They contained data from a number of previous flights, but not for the accident flight. There was no evidence of a midair breakup of the aircraft...

There were even similarities in the 'contributory factors' sections:

VH-UUO:
 
Contributing factors

• The pilot did not correctly configure some of the cockpit instruments and systems prior to taxiing, or detect or correct the problem with the primary heading reference prior to take-off. This led to erroneous heading information being presented to the pilot.

• The primary attitude indicator probably malfunctioned intermittently after take-off, leading to the pilot being presented with erroneous attitude information.

VH-OZA:

Contributing safety factors

• It was very likely that the aircraft’s alternating current electrical power system

was not energised at any time during the flight.

• It was very likely that the aircraft became airborne without a functioning

primary attitude reference or autopilot that, combined with the added workload

of managing the ‘slight technical fault’, led to pilot spatial disorientation and

subsequent loss of control.

However that is where the reports rapidly start to diverge:

VH-UUO:

Other factors that increased risk

• The attitude indicator had been in service for 1,783 hours, which exceeded its recommended time in service of 1,200 hours.

• The pilot did not declare an emergency or communicate the magnitude of the problem to ATC, but only advised of a minor heading issue. ATC issued a right turn due to noise abatement (and away from the city lights), and two frequency changes in accordance with normal ATC service provision. Had the pilot communicated the issue to ATC, they could have provided assistance.

Other findings

• The flight data recorder did not have any valid recorded data for vertical acceleration.

VH-OZA:

Other safety factors

• The pilot’s Metro III endorsement training was not conducted in accordance with the operator’s approved training and checking manual , with the result that the pilot’s competence and ultimately, safety of the operation could not be assured. [Significant safety issue]

• The chief pilot was performing the duties and responsibilities of several key positions in the operator’s organisational structure, increasing the risk of omissions in the operator’s training and checking requirements.

• The conduct of the flight single-pilot increased the risk of errors of omission, such as not turning on or noticing the failure of aircraft items and systems, or complying with directions.

Okay extracts from the individual safety issues & actions sections.
First from VH-UUO FR:

Safety issues and actions

Additional safety action

Whether or not the ATSB identifies safety issues in the course of an investigation, relevant organisations may proactively initiate safety action in order to reduce their safety risk. The ATSB has been advised of the following safety actions in response to this occurrence.

Operator of VH-UUO

The operator of VH-UUO created a simulator exercise based on the incident. The training managers are working towards a cyclic pattern for the company flight crew base checks to ensure systematic coverage of test scenarios.


Following the incident, the operator’s Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) reference for inverter failure was amended to become a ‘memory item’. Thus if an inverter fails, particularly at a critical phase of flight, the pilot can take the necessary steps to swap inverters without referencing the QRH.

The operator has subsequently removed the AIM 500 AI from the captain’s instrument panel and fitted an AIM 510, which carried the appropriate authorisation. The operator replaced the vertical accelerometer to provide valid FDR data. The engineering order (EO) was amended to label the accelerometer as a single vertical axis accelerometer. The test procedure for the accelerometer was amended to check for vertical acceleration data only.

 
That's it, finished, no further mention of the AI being 583 hrs overdue for replacement, no mention or apparent interest from CASA in this incident. All of which is fine because the operator has apparently heeded the safety message and has put in place effective risk mitigation measures.

Next VH-OZA:

SAFETY ACTION


The safety issues identified during this investigation are listed in the Findings and

Safety Actions sections of this report. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau

(ATSB) expects that all safety issues identified by the investigation should be
addressed by the relevant organisation(s). In addressing those issues, the ATSBprefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action,rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices.


All of the responsible organisations for the safety issues identified during this
investigation were given a draft report and invited to provide submissions. As partof that process, each organisation was asked to communicate what safety actions, ifany, they had carried out or were planning to carry out in relation to each safetyissue relevant to their organisation.


Conduct of training not in accordance with operator
and regulatory requirements.

Significant safety issue

The pilot’s Metro III endorsement training was not conducted in accordance with
the operator’s operations manual and Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulationsgoverning training and checking requirements, with the result that the pilot’scompetence and ultimately, safety of the operation cannot be assured.

Action by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

On 10 July 2008, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) officers met with the aircraft operator to discuss the results of the June 2008 risk-based audit. As a result of those meetings, on 11 July 2008 CASA imposed the following conditions on the air operator’s certificate:

• no passenger carrying charter or aerial work operations were to be conducted whilst the then chief pilot held that position, with such operations only to resume upon CASA approval of a new chief pilot.

• the operator was required to develop multi-crew procedures in order to crew Metro aircraft with two qualified pilots when carrying passengers, with those procedures to be in place prior to such operations.

• by 18 July 2008, the operator was required to implement a system that printed pilot flight and duty time records to ensure a permanent record is kept.

• by 25 July 2008, the operator was to implement a confidential reporting system to provide the chief executive officer (CEO) with information relating to poor operational standards or hazards and risks within their operations.

• by 31 July 2008, the operator duplicate, via a secure back-up process, all computerised operator records and keeps these back-ups in a secure place

• by 31 August 2008, the operator was to employ an appropriately-qualified independent auditor that was acceptable to CASA. The auditor was required to conduct comprehensive quality and aviation safety systems audits on a 6-monthly schedule, and provide CASA with a copy of each audit report within 3 weeks of the completion of the audit

• by 30 September 2008, the operator was required to develop a comprehensive, company-wide safety management system that was fully supported by the CEO

• by 30 September 2008, the operator was to review and where required, amended the operations manual, any amendments were to be submitted to CASA for acceptance.

Action by the aircraft operator

In response to the issues that were identified in CASA’s risk-based audit of June 2008, on 30 July 2008 the operator advised CASA of the following actions to rectify those issues:

• the operations manual was being rewritten to:

– bring the operator’s training and checking into line with the regulations and address multi-crew operations

– ensure that base and line checks accurately reflected the operator’s procedures and testing requirements by reference to specific test-content forms

– include the requirement for all inducted pilots to complete ‘wet drill’ training on the use of life jackets and life rafts. The results of that training would be recorded and renewed annually

– ensure the review of ground course theory examinations and that they were corrected to 100% knowledge of the subject

– ensure the completion of formal ground courses and that the training and syllabuses were documented

– ensure that pilots undertook pressurisation endorsement with a minimum training criteria

• several pilots were being retrained as required to meet the operator’s endorsement training requirements

• the operator’s computer-based flight and duty time records were password protected and a monthly copy of each crew member’s record would be printed out and placed on the individual’s file


• flight crews had been informed about the importance of accurately completing paperwork

• the head of training and checking had resigned and a new individual had been approved by CASA

• one pilot who had been identified as not having sufficient in command under supervision hours had been recertified.

Subsequently, on 17 September 2008, the operator provided an amended operations manual to CASA for review. That included amendments to Part C of the manual.

On 16 December 2008, CASA issued a new Air Operators Certificate to the operator.

ATSB assessment of CASA and operator action

The ATSB is satisfied that in combination, the action taken by CASA, and response to the CASA action by the aircraft operator, adequately addresses the safety issue.

Additional safety action

Aircraft operator

Although no safety issue was identified as a result of this investigation, on 6 August 2008, the operator notified CASA that, as part of its new safety management system, a safety committee had been implemented that comprised the CEO, general manager, chief pilot, head of training and checking, safety manager and a pilot or engineering representative.

Now again I am not being critical of the outcome, on the contrary it is a perfect example of how the system is supposed to work, the ATSB identifies significant safety issues with the AOC holders operations, which implicate CASA through some lack of oversight issues.

CASA (much like with PelAir) puts in place requirements they feel need to be addressed before granting the company an AOC renewal.

The company embraces & proactively addresses these requirements and even further to the CASA expectations puts in place a SMS to help identify & mitigate any future safety issues.

The trouble for Airtex was that Wodger (backed by McComic) then came on the scene and finally they were done by association with Skymaster & the Canley Vale tragedy. 

So ends my POC...  

P2 Obs: I need to go back over significant other events on corresponding timelines from the PAIN archives, but one thing that rang a bell from the VH-OZA 'other safety factors' section of the ATSB FR was bullet point 2...

"...The chief pilot was performing the duties and responsibilities of several key positions in the operator’s organisational structure, increasing the risk of omissions in the operator’s training and checking requirements..."

OK got that?? Now here is an extract from a significant other ATSB Final Report:

Transair’s organisational structure, and the limited responsibilities given to non-management personnel, resulted in high work demands on the chief pilot. It also resulted in a lack of independent evaluation of training and checking, and created disincentives and restricted opportunities within Transair to report safety concerns with management decision making.

(Safety Issue)

Then there was this from a CASA 2011 presser:

..These conditions required actions to improve the proficiency of Tiger Airways Australia’s pilots, improvements to pilot training and checking processes, changes to fatigue management, improvements to maintenance control and ongoing airworthiness systems and ensuring appropriately qualified people fill management and operational positions. CASA has been closely monitoring the operations of Tiger Airways Australia throughout 2011, with surveillance undertaken at a range of locations.

Since Tiger Airways Australia was served the show cause notice there have been further events raising concerns about the airline’s ability to continue to conduct operations safely.

In the circumstances, CASA no longer has confidence in the ability of Tiger Airways Australia to satisfactorily address the safety issues that have been identified...

 
 Q/ So was this the trigger for McComic (aided & abetted by Wodger), with malice and aforethought & extreme prejudice, to come down like a ton of bricks on Avtex?? If so then was the PelAir cover-up the true aberration in all this bizarre, knee-jerk behaviour by CASA??

Sometimes when reading about these shitty tales of embuggerance & the subsequent ass covering actions that follow, you need to pinch yourself and ask - what in the world has any of this got to do with effectively mitigating safety risk in aviation?? - FFS!  

MTF...P2    

[Peetwo]

Gold Senator Sterle, pure GOLD!  - The voice of a real man.

Slight thread drift but it is still relevant when contemplating the sheer, unadulterated, incredulity, that such tales of aberration invoke in a nanny state society that have vital industries over-regulated, sometimes to within an inch of extinction by an all encompassing, micro-managing bureaucracies.

So for the record here is Sterle's passionately delivered adjournment speech off Hansard:

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:29): I only have 10 minutes, but I could go on all night about this incident. I saw on Twitter, probably three or four weeks ago, a picture of a truck jackknifed on a major highway in Sydney. The exact date was 5 February 2016. It was a semitrailer—so, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, you know exactly what I am talking about—


Senator Nash: So do I.


Senator STERLE: And you, Senator Nash—fantastic. How many tonnes was it? Got ya! It was a 42½-tonne semitrailer—a bogie drive tri-axle trailer. I have great respect for Senator Nash because she understands the issue of road safety and the importance of our drivers being fully trained in handling these monsters running up and down our highways. I say 'monsters' with affection, because they are what I played with for many, many years of my life.


So here was this semitrailer jackknifed on the M5, I think it was. I went to the source of the story. Chris Reason at Channel 7 had done it. A couple of drivers were heading down the M5—I think it was the M5. I am led to believe it goes under Sydney Airport. There is a bit of a bridge. They saw it. They thought, 'Whoops-a-daisy, we don't know if we're going to fit,' so they pulled up. This pair of clowns—and those are the nicest words I can use for them—got out of the truck and then thought, 'We'd better back up,' on three lanes of highway. They could not even back up the semi; it jackknifed. I take it back: one was hiding in the cab like a coward while the other one was trying to back it up. One bolted. The driver bolted. The news people got out there.


These two, who were employed to operate a 42½-tonne rig on our highways, carting freight, were employed by a mob to which you would be no stranger, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher—a mob from Mt Gambier called Scott's Transport. I am going to take 20 steps out to my right, and I am going to go for Scott's. I am going for them. I am not hiding behind parliamentary privilege.


Scott's Transport used to be a very, very decent employer, I am led to believe. But the management of the company has been passed down a generation or two, I think—I stand to be corrected. Scott's Transport from Mt Gambier had employed these two drivers, who were Indian. Before you all start jumping up and down, foreign workers are always welcome in this country, but they are not welcome, in my view, when they are doing Australians out of jobs by working for lower wages and lesser conditions. I have not proved that yet. But what I have proved is that these two Indian drivers, who denied any responsibility, were not able to back up a semitrailer. On the news, they were asked by the reporter: 'Not only should you be able to back this semitrailer—I am worried about a 42½-tonner on our highways mixing with school buses and other road users—do you think you should know how to uncouple the semitrailer?' The clown sits there and says, 'No, why would I have to know how to uncouple the semitrailer?'


It is an absolute pox on our system that two foreign drivers have come into our nation and are driving 42½-tonne loaded rigs up and down our highways. For all I know, they could have been doing B-doubles or road trains the day or the week before; I do not know. There was a bit of misinformation. The TV reported that they were here on 457 visas. I wrote straightaway to the minister for immigration, and I commend the minister for immigration because he got back to me straightaway. He took this seriously. He said to me, 'They weren't; they weren't on 457 visas.'


What I want to find out—and I am going to find out as the chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, because we are looking into this—is who these clowns were working for. I want to find out who employed this pair and put them behind the wheel of a 42½-tonne rig running up and down our highways with other road users when they cannot even unhook it or back it. I want to know: were they directly employed by Scott's Transport in Mt Gambier, or were they working for a subcontractor or another company that was contracted to cart for Scott's Transport?

I am inviting Scott's Transport to come and face us. And, Scott's Transport, don't hide, because we know who you are, and I am on the warpath with this because, you see, you have responsibility. I do not care about any excuses. I want to know from Scott's Transport: who the hell was the client? What was in the back of this truck? How many trips has this pair of clowns done? Who are they working for? Are they here on some other visa? There is absolutely no way on earth that any Australian politician can accept that we have people on our highways who are not trained. Where the hell did their licences come from? We used to joke about it in the seventies: 'Did you get your licence out of a Wheaties packet?' I am absolutely flabbergasted. I can tell you this, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher; they were licensed in Queensland. So the Queensland government has something to explain here.


I had heaps of things going through my head. I was thinking to myself: is there something sinister here? These two peanuts do not have the skills to back this rig or unhook this rig, and yet they are licensed to drive this rig. Is there something shonky going on? Is there somewhere overseas you can go? Is there corruption somewhere? I am not suggesting anyone in Queensland is corrupt. Something has gone wrong.


I spent 12 years of my life pulling road trains through this great nation. No-one can deny me the passion that I have for keeping our roads safe and for making sure our truck drivers are safe. No-one can deny the anger I have inside me as part of a family with three generations of truckies. I know the skills that we obtained on our journeys. I learnt at my father's knee, in his truck. Unfortunately, my son did not have the same opportunity to learn at my knee, because I had hung up the riding boots before he started driving trucks. But I know the training that he has done and that all our fellow Australian truck drivers have done, and the rigorous training that they go through. In fact, there are that many bloody laws in this country, I do not know why you would even want to be a truck driver anymore.


Yet these clowns are in our country, driving for someone and carting someone's freight, and Scott's Transport have to answer why the hell that is. Scott's Transport might think they are going to get out of this, but they are notorious. Scott's Transport, you will have the opportunity to front me and the committee and you will have the opportunity to prove me wrong. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong, because your record disgusts me. You absolutely disgust me. How are you on our highways? You should be locked up, and I stand by that.


Let us look at Scott's Transport's infringements over the last few years. In May 2014, Scott's of Mt Gambier was fined a total of $1.2 million after pleading guilty to 165 speeding offences just in New South Wales. I am told it was reduced, on appeal, to $85,000. The buggers should be locked up. They should not be allowed to walk our streets when they have been fined $1.2 million, for crying out loud. In New South Wales, drivers of overheight vehicles who blatantly ignore the tunnel warning signs face a $2,200 fine and six demerit points off their licence, plus the truck can be grounded by suspending its registration for three months. My goodness me, there are some answers needed.


I will tell you what happened at the end of the day. There are these drivers in Sydney from a government organisation—or whatever it is—called RMS. I apologise; I do not know what 'RMS' stands for. If someone can help me out there, please set me straight. An RMS driver had to come out and move the rig. And this pair of peanuts then got into the truck and happily drove off. Where were the coppers? Why weren't the coppers saying, Whoa, just stop right there'? You could not back the damn thing up, you could not uncouple it; they had to bring a government employee in to back the bucket of nuts and bolts up. And the coppers sat back—the coppers can prove me wrong; if I am wrong, come and tell me—and let them drive off. What the hell is going on here?


We have a terrible record as a nation. Three hundred and thirty people are killed in heavy vehicle related accidents on our highways every year. And we think it is acceptable for two Indian drivers—one at the steering wheel and one in the bunk hiding like a coward—to end up behind the wheel of a 42½ tonne rig and strand it across a three-lane highway? They cannot even get the bloody thing back! I am as mad as hell. I apologise for my language. I tell you what, it is going to really fire up when I front Scott's.


Scott's and the Queensland government, I will leave you with this: there are questions that need to be answered. You cannot hide. I am not going to let you hide. I have been stewing over this since I first heard of it on 5 February, or whenever it was. Goodness me! It makes me want to put my hands around someone's throat and actually choke the living daylights out of them. What happens if these clowns go out there and kill someone? What does the Queensland government say? What are they going to say—'Oh, we didn't know'? You knew. Queensland, they were licensed in your state. I do not care what persuasion of government is in control in Queensland, I am going to go down the supply chain. I am going to expose—and I do not care if it takes every ounce of my fibre to find out—who the hell's freight they were carting and how many times they had carted this freight.


Clients of Scott's Transport or any other transport company who are using these people: I am coming for you. And I am not saying it lightly. I am wound up like a clock. I am not going to sit back when there is a responsibility, as a legislator in this country, to have that side of parliament doing everything it can to tear down our Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. The beautiful thing about this is that the coalition senators that I spoke to on my committee are 100 per cent behind me.


God help us! You can find a truck driver in this country with one phone call. (Time expired)

    
And here is the Sterle speech in pictures, unfortunately there is a lag between the audio & the video that suggests a glitch off the Parlview webpage :

IMO whatever kool-aid Senator Sterle is drinking, someone needs to distribute it, preferably via IV, to every member of Parliament - bucket of chocfrogs for Sterlo


MTF..P2   

[Gobbledock]

The good Senator almost blew a foofer valve. Very entertaining, and quite obviously the Senator is quite the subject matter expert in this case and he did a brilliant job in sniffing out the chickenshit. And Scott's transport truly is chickenshit.

I hope he takes a Valium or two on the day that Australia gets it's first smoking hole with over a 100 corpses in it.

TiCK TOCK hey Senator? Cheers mate, and good work with the road transport pineapple, Scott's transport won't be able to walk for a month!

[Kharon]

In the eye of the beholder.

Much about Sen. Sterle is to be admired and he has done his best with matters aeronautical.  Industry lost a great advocate to the truck driving world, pity his father was not a pilot and had taught him tradecraft and a deep understanding of the way thing are.  Then he could very easily draw the parallels between the incident under discussion and a couple of very similar situations related to air operations.  

Firstly, he will probably note how difficult it is to get fellow politicians interested in his righteous cause.  They do not understand the implications and even if they were vaguely aware, to actually get something done is border line impossible.

Secondly, he is about to receive an object lesson from the ‘crats who run the various ‘layers’ that must be gotten through, commonwealth, then state, then local.  The lesson of course is it’s damn near impossible to find a donkey to pin a tail onto, unless it’s some hapless politician.  Enter party and State politics, with little hope of reform except even more rules and restrictive law, which only penalise the ‘good guys’.

Thirdly; he is now dealing with the Chameleon of ‘safety’; not the practical man’s version where common or garden sense prevails, but that of the associated money spinner types where safety equals a gold seam.

Perhaps Glen Sterle can now understand how Part 61 (and others) are as outrageous and ridicules to us as a 42 ton truck, stuck before a bridge, no one capable of backing it up or decoupling it and one bloke buggering off before the shit hits the fan, is to him.  

Welcome to the IOS Glen; I propose the good Senator be included in the IOS hall of fame and be given the combination to the Tim Tam box.  Well done that man, Bravo.

Toot toot...

PS.  One good rant deserves another, see - HERE - 

[ventus45]

 Here is a link to the Daily Telegraph story of the M5 incident.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ns...0657ebb3e3

[Peetwo]

 
QON index & Senator Bullock on delayed AQON?

The QON index from Additional Estimates has been released - see HERE.

From the first read through there is the normal quota of curly QON that will be of interest to see how the usual suspects answer/obfuscate. However there was one QON up in the Corporate section that I found of interest because it was asked by, the soon to be departing,  the inestimable Senator Bullock So in somewhat of a tribute to Bullock's short but worthy contribution to the RRAT Committee, his QON addresses the regular issue/gripe of the Senators, that of the late AQON:

QON 12 - BULLOCK


Delayed answers to questions on notice



Senator BULLOCK: Can you outline the profile of what is left of that? But before I get on to that I will just have a whinge. We had 161 questions on notice. Your report date was 4 December. As at 4 February, of the 161 questions on notice we had failed to receive answers to 161 of them. That is all of them. What is the problem with getting answers to questions on notice, Mr Mrdak?



Mr Mrdak: I think on this occasion, from recollection, some 140 or so of the 161 were with the minister and his office before the due date. There were a number which were running—



Senator BULLOCK: Was that December?



Mr Mrdak: That is right.



Senator BULLOCK: So, 140-odd of the 160 questions were with the minister by the due date in December and we get them last Thursday?



Mr Mrdak: There were still a number which we took some time to complete across a number of—


Senator BULLOCK: 'A number' being the difference between 161 and 140-odd?



Mr Mrdak: That is correct.



Senator BULLOCK: That would give you a pass mark. If you were late on 20, I would not be raising it. But you are late on 161.


Mr Mrdak: The essence is that with the Christmas-New Year period and the delay at our end they were not cleared by the minister till quite recently.



Senator BULLOCK: Just to make it absolutely clear, the full blame for 140-odd of these answers lies with the minister's office.



Mr Mrdak: Some of them were returned to the department for amendments and changes to the answers. I will get that information for you. I am reminded that all 161 were provided prior to Christmas to the minister's offices. There were 49 responses returned on 12 January for changes with comments. Then some further 78 were later returned with comments. The final package was not signed off until lodgement on 4 February.

---

This was the Hansard that followed on from that QON:

Senator BULLOCK: I do not know the view of the chair on this matter, but for my part I would be happy to take such answers as are available as early as possible rather than wait until they are all answered and get them two months late. The chair nodded; I think he agrees with me.


Mr Mrdak : We do make every effort. I do apologise. I think it has just been the circumstances of the timing of the year and the availability of the minister and his office to look at these and delays on our part in getting them to the minister as well. Normally we do work very hard to make sure we are there with the committee, but obviously there is a clearance process which has to be gone through.

Senator McLUCAS: You did say that 140 were with the minister's office prior to the date of return of 5 December; is that right?

Mr Mrdak : That is correct.

Senator McLUCAS: I think you are being very generous taking the blame for your department. We need these answers so that we can prepare properly for estimates. I am now not being angry with your department as much as I am curious with the minister's office. That they would sit on those answers for two months in the knowledge that that would then delay our preparation for estimates. This is a part of the Senate process that is regarded internationally as exemplary. When ministers do not provide answers in a timely way, that means that our ability to do our job properly is limited. Would it be possible for this conversation to be relayed to the minister's office so that this does not happen again?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly.

Senator EDWARDS: I agree wholeheartedly and I remember having this conversation in 2011-12.

Senator McLUCAS: If the minister's office has received this by 5 December—

Senator Colbeck: I am happy to convey the conversation, but I was thinking exactly the same as Senator Edwards; on a number of occasions we did not receive any answers at all from Minister Albanese when he was in the portfolio. If you want to express outrage, that is fine. I agree with you, Senator Sterle. It does not make it right on either side.

Senator STERLE: No excuses.

[url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F00AOL%22;querytype=;rec=0][/url]Senator Colbeck: Let us be clear that it is not just one side of the coin that has issues here.

---

And for those that prefer here is the exchange in pictures..

  
Senator Madigan on Senator Bullock:

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (20:28): It is my pleasure tonight to speak of the qualities of integrity and authenticity. It was with sadness that I listened to Senator Bullock tonight announce his resignation, because if there is something that this place lacks it is people of conviction and courage. If there is something that this place lacks it is people of conscience and consistency. Certainly Senator Bullock is part of this rare breed.


Senator Bullock is someone who speaks his mind. In an age of political doublespeak and parliamentary deception, Joe Bullock is a man apart. As a former state secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, he proved himself a tenacious fighter for the working man. In the political arena, he has proved himself uncompromising and not for sale. When I think of Senator Bullock I am reminded of the words of Kipling:

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son.

Senator Bullock, you will be sorely missed and the Australian parliament and the Australian people will be a lot worse off for your resignation.

    
Farewell Senator Joe Bullock the IOS will miss you  


MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

A Bullocks tale

Here here!

"Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (20:28): It is my pleasure tonight to speak of the qualities of integrity and authenticity. It was with sadness that I listened to Senator Bullock tonight announce his resignation, because if there is something that this place lacks it is people of conviction and courage. If there is something that this place lacks it is people of conscience and consistency. Certainly Senator Bullock is part of this rare breed".

Three cheers for the Senator, and a fitting farewell commendation of him. Indeed a rare (and dying) breed of politician, one who had conviction, balls, and avoided political pony pooh speech but chose to say things the way they really are. You don't replace people like Bullock and Heff easily, especially as more and more Politicians do nothing but obsfucate, avoid the truth and generally dribble complete dishonest shit 24/7.

The Gobbledock seconds Peetwo's motion of a fond farewell dear Senator. The IOS will miss you, however you will always (if you want to) be an honorary member of Auntypru and we have reserved a guest seat on the viewing deck of the Houseboat for you old mate.

Cheers

[Kharon]

I too shall miss Joe Bullock and his ringside seat is reserved. I wonder, should we start a houseboat pool to buy lottery tickets; then, if we won one an IOS team of industry advocates could be afforded to represent our interests.

Joe Bullock.

David Forsyth.

Mike Hart.

Mike Smith.

Alan Strange.

I can think of several others who would complete a six pack; brief ‘em and then set them to their work.

Aye well, no additional cost for dreams is there? Although I expect they too are subject strict liability.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Senators & the 'Ides of March'. 

Something for the good committee Senators to contemplate while in Easter R&R and in the lead up to the next election whenever that may be?? Further evidence that the aviation safety bureaucracy is still blatantly taking the 'Mickey bliss' out of our elected representatives, the Minister of the Crown for all things aviation, all industry stakeholders & indeed all fellow citizens:

Enforcement manual

Our enforcement manual outlines the policies and strategies we have in place for aviation safety compliance.
Director's preface
Revision history(last update January 2016)
Table of Contents

1. About this manual
   
2. CASA's Enforcement Policy
   
3. Initiating the Enforcement Process
   
4. Compliance-Related Action
   
5. Civil Action - Enforceable Voluntary Undertakings (EVUs)
   
6. Administrative Action
   
7. Administrative Action - Serious and Imminent Risk
   
8. Infringement Notices (Administrative Fines)
   
9. Voluntary Reporting - Aviation Self Reporting Scheme
   
10. The Demerit Points Scheme
    
11. Criminal Action - Prosecution
    
12. Access
    
13. Gathering Evidence and Handling Exhibits
    
14. Note Taking
    
15. Interviewing
    
16. Detaining Aircraft
    
17. Police Assistance
    

• Appendix 1 - Flowcharts - Coordinated Enforcement Processes
  
• Appendix 2 - The Legal basis of Regulatory Enforcement
  
• Appendix 3 - Delegations and Exercise of Powers by Delegates
  
• Appendix 4 - Guidance on the term 'fit and proper person'
  

Complete manual

Regardless of whether the above is a reckless, indifferent administration error by the Legal Services Division, the fact still remains that Oliver Skidmore-twist condones the evil intent of the former DAS's black letter law dispensation that was lovingly abused & exploited by the likes of Wodger and Herr Campbell.

This would seem to be in direct contradiction of the CASA's adopting a 'Just Culture' and the new 10 point regulatory philosophy - OST Weasel Words to Qantas Group Safety Conference, [b]Sydney – 13 October 2015:[/b]
  

Following on from above quoted text from the embuggerance thread:

Questions on version 4.4 of the Enforcement Manual, the above is the revision history between the version 4.3 (2013) & version 4.4 (Jan 2016).

Q1/ What is the legal standing of the 2016 4.4 version, given that it appears to have been signed off by the previous DAS McCormick & not the present DAS?



Q2/ Did the former DAS also approve the 'use of discretion' changes recommended in the ASRR and reflected in CASA's revised regulatory philosophy in CH 2 & CH 3?



Q3/ Finally if the 'use of discretion' procedure has been now properly implemented why does the EM 4.4 still have the following included in the preface?

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/139146/down...n=2DsAaZo0

Departure from Authorised Policy

Adherence to CASA’s authorised policies will almost always produce an appropriate decision. As said, however, from time to time there will be circumstances in which the strict application of policy may not result in the “preferable” decision. In these cases it may be appropriate (and possibly necessary) to depart from otherwise applicable policy.

Any departure from policy must be justified in order to ensure that it:

• Is genuinely necessary in the interests of fairness.

• Does not inappropriately compromise the need for consistent decision- making; and, of course.

• Is not in conflict with the interests of safety.

Without fettering a decision-maker’s discretion, it is therefore expected that appropriate consultation will occur before a decision is made that is not the product of the policies and processes set out in this manual. The prescribed consultation process is described below.

    
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Full steam GD – Yes, NOW!

Well caught P2; the questions need to be framed and passed along for the next estimates. There is much there for our law makers to consider, not least of all the fitness of Skidmore to continue in his current role.

Despite the rhetoric and assurances that ‘on his watch’, the aberrations of the McCormick era will not be tolerated; despite the ’10 commandments’, despite lip service to the ASRR, promises made to ministers of the crown and much glad handing, the carte blanche gifted to the more venal inspectors is still very much in evidence.  The latest iteration published clearly with Skidmore’s full knowledge and approval, or was it?  One John Francis McCormick has signed it, in January, year of our lord 2016.  WTF.

Cut this up either way: the kinder method would be to accept that an ‘error’ has been made. That of leaving the McCormick moniker on the document was simply an oversight.  The obvious inferences are those of total incompetence; or, lack of control.  This; as an excuse, does not satisfy any questions.  An alteration of this scope requires a full dress parade, head of legal, the boss and any other office wallah who is a ‘stakeholder’ to be party to the changes.  Particularly as this is a significant rewording of an existing, despicable policy; changes only made to satisfy the ASRR.  Leaving it signed by John Mac opens all kinds of avenues; not least of which begs the question “is this document capable of surviving a court challenge?  Did JMac approve the changes made under his John Henry Hancock?, was he aware that he had authorised changes to ‘his’ get out of jail card?  Bollocks he did.  Would he go to an Estimates and swear that he, and he alone signed off on the changes; Bollocks he would.  Cock up or conspiracy? Usually cock up wins; not today children, (sotto voce) but not today.  Enough.

The less kind, but probably more accurate explanation (IMO) is that Skidmore, behind the open, smiling, tent revivalist face has allowed, on his watch, a disreputable, dishonourable act to be foisted on industry. An industry so overwhelmed by changes to unique regulation and rising costs has little time to devote to operational compliance, let alone plough through an esoteric document like the ‘Enforcement Manual’; until they wind up in court. It has enough to do without watching the cunning caprices of the back door embuggerance crowd.  More than anything seen to date, this duplicitous act typifies the two faces of the current regime.  The obscene determination to retain absolute power combined with the ability to bend and shape law, or stated policy to suit the predetermined outcome.  This mark you, without having the courage to sign a highly legally suspect document which basically says, “do as you will, we will find a way to make it legal”.

The choice between gutless duplicity or blind incompetence is yours to make.  At least McCormick would face up and spit in your eye if challenged on this piece shit; the smiling python simply hides his evil intent behind the façade and the gentle rattle of tambourines.

Either way, it’s a resignation job.  A honourable, honest man would correct the error and own up to the words being his own; a decent man would apologise; a real DAS would never, ever allow the situation to develop.  Clearly the job of true reform is beyond the Skidmore limited range of capability.  The Senate should not be suggesting resignation, but demanding it, for placing the minister in such an embarrassing position.

§ "I have nothing with this answer, Hamlet. These words are not 
mine."  Claudious (a true villain).

Steam off thanks GD; but keep the boiler stoked; we are nowhere near done with this.

Selah.

[Kharon]

A Midsummer Night’s dream?

While they are in the woods rehearsing, the fairy Puck, a mischievous sprite and minion of Oberon, king of the fairies, happens upon their rehearsal. He decides to have some fun with them, carrying out part of Oberon's orders in the process, and when Bottom (as Pyramus) exits the stage, he transforms his head into a donkey's. When Bottom returns, unaware of his own transformation, his fellow actors run away from him with Quince screaming, "We are haunted!" Bottom believes they are playing a prank on him, proclaiming,

"This is to make an ass of me, to fright me if they could."

So he stays in the forest by himself and sings loudly to show them he is not afraid. The Fairy QueenTitania is awakened by Bottom's song. She has been enchanted by a love potion, which will cause her to fall in love with the first living thing that she sees when she wakes (no matter who, or what it is), made from the juice of a rare flower, once hit by Cupid's arrow, that her husband, Oberon, King of the Fairies, spread on her eyes in an act of jealous rage.  During his enchantment over her, he utters

"Wake when some vile thing is near."

The first thing she sees when she wakes is the transformed Bottom, and she immediately falls in love with him. She even commands her fairy minions to serve and wait upon him. Later, Oberon finally releases Titania from her enchantment. After being confronted with the reality that her romantic interlude with the transformed Bottom was not just a dream, she is disgusted with the very image of him and also seems very suspicious of

"how these things came to pass."

After Oberon instructs Puck to return Bottom's head to his human state, which Puck reluctantly does, the fairies leave him sleeping in the woods, nearby the four Athenian lovers.

McComic, inevitably,  led me to Hamlet; but the Skidmore era seems more like the above. Perhaps when I ‘awaken; things will become clearer.  We shall see who has fallen under Puck’s spell.

Toot toot.

PS. #1 dog’s name is Puck (not to be confused with Duck)….

[Peetwo]

To Disallow or not to Disallow; that is the Q? 


Disallowance Motion CAO 48.1 - Part I 

CAO48.1 - PFOAG Chair David Fawcett rethink perhaps?

The following is the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation Group statement off the PFGs webpage:

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.

    
However the PFOAG members, which now includes the Minister for Transport, may have to reconsider their current strategy in applying their "key role".
The following is a quote from my post off the RAAA thread today:

RAAA News - Summer 2015/16

From the RAAA Summer newsletter in the LHS, Jim Davis opens up on the OTT CAO 48.1:

"..The closest it comes to offering any facts is when it references ATSB data. Here CASA make the extraordinary statement that ‘there have been approximately 65 incidents/accidents in the last 10 years in which human fatigue was identified as a factor (note: not a causal factor). A proportion of these occurrences have been in the Regular Public Transport (RPT) sector of the industry.’ This is manifestly absurd and hardly scientific analysis! The RAAA requested a copy of this data from CASA and when it was not forthcoming obtained the information by approaching the ATSB directly. After talking with the ATSB Chief Commissioner and Aviation Commissioner and having the data examined by industry experts no evidence of a systemic fatigue safety issue was found. .."

P2 comment: Hmm..that passage has some very disturbing similarities to the CVD Pilot's issue, especially when it comes to doctoring or ignoring empirical evidence that is contrary to the "Big R" regulator's subjective interest - now TFB (totally ducking believable) under OST    

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (13:08):..I am aware that CASA's point of view is that the drafting of 48.1 involved working groups with industry and scientific experts, but I would have to say that CASA's track record of engagement with industry has not been wholesome. On many occasions it appears to have been a one-way process where they might have listened but did not take due regard or, in some cases, they just transmitted what they were planning to do and called it consultation. There are examples where it has worked well, but there are many where it has not. This is one area where we need to fundamentally reform the process, not only at the drafting stage but also, importantly—as Senator Xenophon has highlighted—once a regulation comes into force, because there is often very little appetite to revisit it for an extended period...

..That strategy would go to the culture of the regulator, whether it is a big 'r' regulator—a policeman with a big stick—or further along the spectrum towards an educator and supporter. That balance in the middle needs to come through a strategic decision. So, regardless of who is the director of the regulator, we should see a consistent approach that industry can plan for and engage with—an approach that will keep the industry not only safe but viable in terms of the cost bases they have to meet. And there are many costs associated with changing or rejecting regulation.

 ..As I have stated, overall it is safer, and in the areas where there are points of contention we are no worse off than we were. If we were worse off in significant areas then clearly there would be a case to reject the regulation. But, if we are no worse off and in other areas we are better off, then the travelling public and the industry are better served in finding a way to effectively and quickly review the regulation and modify those areas of concern...

..Not only are we going a step backwards in safety if we adopt this disallowance but we are disadvantaging those industry players who have invested in adopting the new regulations. I am seeking to make sure that we have, in a very timely manner, the opportunity for the concerned parties in the industry—I know the Virgin Independent Pilots Association and the Qantas group have raised the concerns of, predominantly, long-haul pilots—to help select subject-matter experts who can form this independent panel to review the specific areas of concern. We would then have an independent umpire to bring a recommendation back to the minister so that he can work with the regulator to address those concerns in a timely manner...

..Obviously, I cannot speak for the review being led by David Forsyth, nor the recommendations that they will bring forward, but, having met with many players from the maintenance, manufacturing, engineering and operations areas of the industry, I am aware that one of the critical things that we need is a system whereby industry can have a timely remedy to decisions of the regulator that have a material impact on their business and where the safety case is disputed by industry. Whilst, hopefully, the remedy for this will not necessarily be part of the broader regulatory reform and a change of structure, it may well be a test case of how that could work. That may then lead to ideas around how we adopt the broader regulatory system and provide an opportunity for industry to have that timely remedy...

..The government will not be supporting the disallowance. I maintain the same position I have had since I was in opposition: in net terms we would do better to adopt the new 48.1. But there is a need to have that independent panel to work with industry and the regulator to review the points of concern and come up with an agreed position so that we can quickly amend that part of the regulation that needs changing.

  
   

 In hindsight how's that working out for you Senator Fawcett??

On reading the RAAA Chair's rant on CAO 48.1, would it have made any difference to the way he voted I doubt it. However I wonder if DF would like to revisit certain parts (particularly the parts in bold) of that oratory??  

That was now more than two years ago on 6 March 2014 - so where is the CAO 48.1 instrument now at?

Progress as of last week, off the CASA website, has the CAO in yet another round of consultation due to the numerous issues that industry continue to bring up  :

..Amendments to extend the transition period for the new CAO 48.1 were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 23 November 2015 and came into effect the following day. Therefore, operators who held an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) before the commencement of the new CAO 48.1 will now have until 1 May 2017 to comply with the new CAO 48.1. Operators can move across to the new rules at any time during the transition period. All operators that have not completed the transition by 31 October 2016 will need to submit draft operations manual amendments or a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) application to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) by that date...

Documents

24 March 2016

• SPC to CD 1510OS-2
  
• Annex A - Draft Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. x)
  
• Annex B - Consolidated version of CAO 48.1 taking into account proposed 2016 amendments (with changes shown)
  

Which makes now a good time to put up the NX reply to the Opposition & Government (Senator Fawcett) rebuttal to the DM debate : 

1:19 pm



Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will first go to Senator Bilyk's contribution to the debate. It was short but not so sweet. I do not think it addressed the issues. That is not a criticism of Senator Bilyk; that is the position of the opposition. There are a number of serious issues in relation to these regulations. This is an opportunity lost to fix what is clearly a most unsatisfactory situation that still exists.

In relation to Senator Fawcett's contribution—hopefully this will not damage Senator Fawcett's preselection chances with the Liberal Party!—we are lucky to have him in this place, given his considerable expertise in aviation safety. The contribution he has made on Senate committees on this issue has been outstanding. I am very grateful to have worked with him. I think both sides of the chamber can safely say that.

But the points that he makes to rebut this motion are, in fact, points that can be used to support it—equally or with greater force. Senator Fawcett acknowledges quite openly that the length of time to change regulations is unsatisfactory and that the industry should be more involved in the process. He says, in his usual diplomatic way, that 'the track record of engagement with industry from CASA has not been a wholesome one'. That is an incredibly polite way of putting a situation where industry is incredibly frustrated and concerned, and the pilots are gobsmacked that we are left with these regulations that do not address fundamental issues of fatigue. I outlined those concerns in my earlier contribution.

There are real problems in the regulation-making process, as Senator Fawcett, with his expertise and involvement in these issues, acknowledges. We need to have a mechanism to deal with these. The independent scientific panel is something that would see a way through this. That is what we need to have. To say that we are no worse off than we were does not address the fundamental issue that these regulations are simply inadequate. While this instrument does bring us, in some respects, to a relatively safer position than the previous regulation, we must take this opportunity to address the significant concerns about this instrument. In many respects, there are huge gaps in safety, and the concern of pilots—those whom we trust to fly us from A to B around this great continent—are still there. They have serious concerns about these regulations; I have outlined those.

Senator Fawcett is right when he says that the consultation process for these regulations has been long and almost dysfunctional. We simply cannot go through this process again. We cannot sit and wait for improvements to be made—because will it be another five years or six years or will it be 60 years before this process is revisited? We need to take a proactive stance and push for something better, and now is the time and the opportunity to do so.

I hope that the government will not let CASA wipe this task off its books. I hope, from Senator Fawcett's comments, that the government will be pushing for a continual consultation and a review process and not leave these issues at a dead end. And I hope that this instrument will not become another regulatory dead end, with all the implications it has for airline safety and passenger safety in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this disallowance motion.

Part II soon with the other (successful) NX CAA Disallowance Motion- see HERE for reference.   



MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Results v Rhetoric.

Fawcett and Xenophon have been; are, and I hope will continue to be great advocates for aviation sanity.  There are a couple of important qualifiers in the argument presented on the CAO 48.1 debate which, IMO, hindsight demonstrates the importance of real industry consultation before a ‘thing’ becomes law.  Having ‘poor’ law foisted on industry without industry putting up a fight is a large part of the current day problem.  But consultation has become a standing joke; how many really read, study and comprehend the edicts CASA send out, thinly disguised as consultation?  Not too many I’d hazard; and how many of those who read those offerings make considered, meaningful contribution to the discussion?  Again the same answer emerges.  Why is it so?  Fawcett sums it up neatly, even if in slightly ministerial gilded syntax:-  

Fawcett - “[On] many occasions it appears to have been a one-way process where they might have listened but did not take due regard or, in some cases, they just transmitted what they were planning to do and called it consultation.” Etc.

NX has a slightly different take, and bounces neatly off the Fawcett springboard, teamwork:-

Xenophon – “[He] says, in his usual diplomatic way, that 'the track record of engagement with industry from CASA has not been a wholesome one'. That is an incredibly polite way of putting a situation where industry is incredibly frustrated and concerned, and the pilots are gobsmacked that we are left with these regulations that do not address fundamental issues of fatigue.’ Etc.

This takes us directly to the nub of one part of the problem.  Some of the ‘good’ changes to legislation were made through an open, honest dialogue and supported by the minister of the day.  But the moment that minister was removed, the termites set to work and real, meaningful, open consultation was essentially abandoned. Disillusion and disappointment leading to a resentful apathy, which simply allowed CASA to walk any new law they liked through due process.  Once the minister becomes enmeshed in the mystique things like parts 61, 145 and 48.1 are almost ‘automatically’ passed into law.  There have been two ‘tests’ of system; one thrown out the other allowed into law.  The results could not provide a more perfect example of how a captive government can influence the outcome.  It starts here when an intelligent man toes the party line:-

Fawcett - “[..The] government will not be supporting the disallowance. I maintain the same position I have had since I was in opposition: in net terms we would do better to adopt the new 48.1. But there is a need to have that independent panel to work with industry and the regulator to review the points of concern and come up with an agreed position so that we can quickly amend that part of the regulation that needs changing.

This was, IMO a bad call by the minister; the notion of trying to patch up and emolliate an existing law is the reason the regulatory reform, now into it’s third decade is a complete waste of time, money and effort.  Meanwhile everyone suffers through the inherent flaws, over an extended period of time, dealing with a continuous stream of tweeks and amendments.  

Had the minister followed the Xenophon lead (or Fawcett instinct), things would be different.

Xenophon – “[Senator] Fawcett is right when he says that the consultation process for these regulations has been long and almost dysfunctional. We simply cannot go through this process again. We cannot sit and wait for improvements to be made—because will it be another five years or six years or will it be 60 years before this process is revisited? We need to take a proactive stance and push for something better, and now is the time and the opportunity to do so.

Xenophon – “[I] hope that the government will not let CASA wipe this task off its books. I hope, from Senator Fawcett's comments, that the government will be pushing for a continual consultation and a review process and not leave these issues at a dead end. And I hope that this instrument will not become another regulatory dead end, with all the implications it has for airline safety and passenger safety in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this disallowance motion.

You need look no further than the stark, very real differences in result created by the two disallowance motions. Through the ‘big boys’ maintenance unions and Ken Cannane’s (legend) unflagging efforts the disallowance motion on parts of the maintenance regulations have fostered ‘real’ hope for meaningful changes; done properly which should assist the ‘lighter’ end of town deal with compliance and resolve confusion.  Meanwhile, the CAO 48.1 reform farce limping it’s sad, sorry, band-aid covered way to more years of endless discussion against a regulator who no intention of changing anything, let alone listening to the proposed industry argument for change.  Window dressing consultation on fatigue versus hard, no nonsense logic on aircraft maintenance; no contest.   CAO 48.1 should have been stopped, dead in it’s tracks before it was made ‘law’ by industry apathy and acceptance of any old thing the regulator served up, without making complaint before hand. QED, refer Einstein on insanity.  

I would like to think, after re reading the Fawcett effort, that his heart was not fully committed to the make do and mend approach to regulation.  We may safely forgive this small blip on an otherwise pristine track record, there is after all a 30 year history of this method being the accepted norm; only in Australia and perhaps third world dictatorships.

It leaves me to wonder how the government will fare in the wash up of MH 370.  The same ‘heads’ that advise the minister on domestic matters aeronautical hold sway with international events.  This leaves any minister enmeshed in snares of bureaucratic power games; seduced by the siren song of political survival and completely captured within the fear and mystique of the mystique of ‘safety’.

Aye well, another twiddle wasted on deaf ears; no matter, the day is my own to do with as best pleases.  I may yet pop off and watch P2’s blue whales distributing spare parts about the coast of Madagascar.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

Results v Rhetoric.

Fawcett and Xenophon have been; are, and I hope will continue to be great advocates for aviation sanity.  There are a couple of important qualifiers in the argument presented on the CAO 48.1 debate which, IMO, hindsight demonstrates the importance of real industry consultation before a ‘thing’ becomes law.  Having ‘poor’ law foisted on industry without industry putting up a fight is a large part of the current day problem.  But consultation has become a standing joke; how many really read, study and comprehend the edicts CASA send out, thinly disguised as consultation?  Not too many I’d hazard; and how many of those who read those offerings make considered, meaningful contribution to the discussion?  Again the same answer emerges.  Why is it so?  Fawcett sums it up neatly, even if in slightly ministerial gilded syntax:-  

Fawcett - “[On] many occasions it appears to have been a one-way process where they might have listened but did not take due regard or, in some cases, they just transmitted what they were planning to do and called it consultation.” Etc.

NX has a slightly different take, and bounces neatly off the Fawcett springboard, teamwork:-

Xenophon – “[He] says, in his usual diplomatic way, that 'the track record of engagement with industry from CASA has not been a wholesome one'. That is an incredibly polite way of putting a situation where industry is incredibly frustrated and concerned, and the pilots are gobsmacked that we are left with these regulations that do not address fundamental issues of fatigue.’ Etc.

This takes us directly to the nub of one part of the problem.  Some of the ‘good’ changes to legislation were made through an open, honest dialogue and supported by the minister of the day.  But the moment that minister was removed, the termites set to work and real, meaningful, open consultation was essentially abandoned. Disillusion and disappointment leading to a resentful apathy, which simply allowed CASA to walk any new law they liked through due process.  Once the minister becomes enmeshed in the mystique things like parts 61, 145 and 48.1 are almost ‘automatically’ passed into law.  There have been two ‘tests’ of system; one thrown out the other allowed into law.  The results could not provide a more perfect example of how a captive government can influence the outcome.  It starts here when an intelligent man toes the party line:-

Fawcett - “[..The] government will not be supporting the disallowance. I maintain the same position I have had since I was in opposition: in net terms we would do better to adopt the new 48.1. But there is a need to have that independent panel to work with industry and the regulator to review the points of concern and come up with an agreed position so that we can quickly amend that part of the regulation that needs changing.

This was, IMO a bad call by the minister; the notion of trying to patch up and emolliate an existing law is the reason the regulatory reform, now into it’s third decade is a complete waste of time, money and effort.  Meanwhile everyone suffers through the inherent flaws, over an extended period of time, dealing with a continuous stream of tweeks and amendments.  

Had the minister followed the Xenophon lead (or Fawcett instinct), things would be different.

Xenophon – “[Senator] Fawcett is right when he says that the consultation process for these regulations has been long and almost dysfunctional. We simply cannot go through this process again. We cannot sit and wait for improvements to be made—because will it be another five years or six years or will it be 60 years before this process is revisited? We need to take a proactive stance and push for something better, and now is the time and the opportunity to do so.

Xenophon – “[I] hope that the government will not let CASA wipe this task off its books. I hope, from Senator Fawcett's comments, that the government will be pushing for a continual consultation and a review process and not leave these issues at a dead end. And I hope that this instrument will not become another regulatory dead end, with all the implications it has for airline safety and passenger safety in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this disallowance motion.

You need look no further than the stark, very real differences in result created by the two disallowance motions. Through the ‘big boys’ maintenance unions and Ken Cannane’s (legend) unflagging efforts the disallowance motion on parts of the maintenance regulations have fostered ‘real’ hope for meaningful changes; done properly which should assist the ‘lighter’ end of town deal with compliance and resolve confusion.  Meanwhile, the CAO 48.1 reform farce limping it’s sad, sorry, band-aid covered way to more years of endless discussion against a regulator who no intention of changing anything, let alone listening to the proposed industry argument for change.  Window dressing consultation on fatigue versus hard, no nonsense logic on aircraft maintenance; no contest.   CAO 48.1 should have been stopped, dead in it’s tracks before it was made ‘law’ by industry apathy and acceptance of any old thing the regulator served up, without making complaint before hand. QED, refer Einstein on insanity.  

I would like to think, after re reading the Fawcett effort, that his heart was not fully committed to the make do and mend approach to regulation.  We may safely forgive this small blip on an otherwise pristine track record, there is after all a 30 year history of this method being the accepted norm; only in Australia and perhaps third world dictatorships.

It leaves me to wonder how the government will fare in the wash up of MH 370.  The same ‘heads’ that advise the minister on domestic matters aeronautical hold sway with international events.  This leaves any minister enmeshed in snares of bureaucratic power games; seduced by the siren song of political survival and completely captured within the fear and mystique of the mystique of ‘safety’.

Aye well, another twiddle wasted on deaf ears; no matter, the day is my own to do with as best pleases.  I may yet pop off and watch P2’s blue whales distributing spare parts about the coast of Madagascar.

Selah.

Disallowance Motion CASR Part 145 - Part II 

P2 filling in the gaps -

Clues:

confusion, befuddlement, bewilderment, puzzlement, perplexity, disconcertment, discomposure, daze, fog, muddle, NFI etc ........

The MOAS causes Polly discombobulation (MOAS: Mystique of Aviation Safety) - Ventus made us aware of the condition called Discombobulation - see HERE. 

Now although considered to be a largely Pilot affliction suffered in today's modern high-tech airliner cockpits, I believe this is also a Polly affliction when presented with bureaucratic spin & bulldust in the highly technical world of aviation safety regulation.

The following is an attempt to present an example of how this affliction manifests itself within the walls of APH & how M&M and Co use this to their advantage to maintain the status quo.  
( Reference the recently released - Questions on notice index: (PDF 718KB) - & this post HERE)

There are some real curly written QON for CASA, especially from Senator X, which the answers will be of particular interest to ALAEA, AMROBA & the LAME/AME/MRO fraternity:

98 - 103 CASA/XENOPHON - Specialist maintenance

CASA provided advice that they "take the view" that any approval for additional Specialist Maintenance will require a legislative instrument. Where is this view reflected? Is it contained in a written policy or is this "requirement" to create an instrument also discretionary?

---

Are there companies operating with approvals in their Maintenance Organisations Expositions for Specialist Maintenance of the kind that was disallowed by the Senate in March 2015? How many? When were the approvals issued?

---

As there have been no actual changes to the Part 145 MOS in respect of the discretionary provisions for Specialist Maintenance approval since the creation of the MOS, how were the approvals for additional Specialist Maintenance for individual company’s Expositions made? Should they have been made under a legislative instrument? If so why weren’t they? What actions have CASA taken to ensure this doesn’t occur again?

---

In relation to the oversight of maintenance and differences between EASA and Australia – CASA indicated there were similarities and differences.

Does the European Aviation Safety Regulator require a licence qualified person to take an active role in all maintenance tasks and ensure they have been completed properly and signed off properly?

Is this the case in Australia, or is a non-licence qualified Specialist Maintainer permitted to sign off the maintenance?

---

In her speech to the Senate on 18 March 2015 in opposition to a motion to disallow the Amendments to Part 145 MOS Senator Cash, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development stated that CASA’s position in relation to specialist maintenance is consistent with that being applied in major overseas jurisdictions including Europe. Was the information being relied upon by the Minister accurate?

---

Can CASA supply a comparison of similarities and differences between the CASR system of certification and the EASR system, including any advice published by both EASA and CASA on their policy expectations? 

From the NX written QON (above) there seems to be an underlying inference, that in regards to (IMO a historical day in the Senate - 17:57 Australian Senate Chamber 18 March 2015 ) the DM on Part145, that the miniscule was ill advised, given incorrect factual information and fed bureaucratic spin & bulldust from his head Mandarin Mrdak & the CASA Iron Ring.

To which the Ferryman replied in - Flummery - à la Mode.

P2 – “[that] the miniscule was ill advised, given incorrect factual information and fed bureaucratic spin & bulldust from his head Mandarin Mrdak & the CASA Iron Ring.

..Clearly he was; for had he not, then the decorative Cash would not be trotting out the departments words.  This is not the first miniscule to be led down the garden path, chanting the mantra of charlatans which refutes logic, ignores fact and shuns good governance.

P2 – ‘Last night Labor bowed to union pressure and walked away from the long-standing bipartisanship approach to aviation safety—voting in the Senate to disallow a regulation put forward by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to improve safety arrangements in aviation maintenance".

About bloody time someone had the brains and balls to walk away from the ‘bi-partisan’ fraud.  It’s lazy and robs industry of open discussion while allowing CASA to continue it’s merry way along the road to perdition.  The real fraud of course comes disguised as a ‘concern’ for safety.  Which is a bollocks.

P2 – ‘“In one fell swoop, Labor's reckless opportunism has now made aviation safety a political football.

Halle bloody lujah ; finally.  Now when Senators ask questions the answers can be debated, decisions reached and blame for cock up’s sheeted home to where they belong i.e. with the responsible minister and the department the minister should be managing – for the good of industry and the country.

The phrase above shows the fear instilled into politicians, by the department.  The fear comes in three flavours:-

Seaview: where the blame for another serious, fatal accident nearly squeezed through to the miniscule of the day.  There was hell to pay and it was decided that never again would it be possible to involve the ‘government’ directly with an aviation disaster.

Expert advice: where the escape path begins, it’s all too easy for those in power to throw up their hands and wail at a funeral.  We took the advice of our experts, we claim ignorance of matters aeronautical and are in awe of the mystique.  We take care to cover our arses with expert advice, which means we are not only bone idle, but blame free.


Blood: this is the beauty part.  

Miniscule: “This is wrong, blind Freddy can see that; I want it changed.  “Look here, this report spells it all out, makes sense, saves us money and is as sound as a bell”.

Mandarin: “Well minister, of course we can have it all changed, if that’s what you want.”  “But remember, this is against expert advice, you may be blamed if the report you favour is wrong; and the blood will be on your hands, should there be an accident”. “Why not keep it bi-partisan and blame free; I know it’s dishonest, lazy and a cop out, but it’s your arse on the line”.

Trifecta win for the mandarin; industry gets Cash reading the carefully prepared, workshopped official response, while Fawcett listens to the rubbish like an angry gargoyle and Xenophon unafraid, shrugs and continues the campaign.  Real power in the Senate on display.  It’s comforting to know there are some who can recognise it and be unafraid to call it what it is - BOLLOCKS.  

Calling it for what it is will win NX more independent power in the Senate, then who knows, we may even get some real reform done.  What a pleasant change that would make.

Shame Minister, shame.

And in recent developments...

P9 - Through the ‘big boys’ maintenance unions and Ken Cannane’s (legend) unflagging efforts the disallowance motion on parts of the maintenance regulations have fostered ‘real’ hope for meaningful changes; done properly which should assist the ‘lighter’ end of town deal with compliance and resolve confusion.

...reference AMROBA thread - Squeaky wheel gets the grease

Quote from Hitch: 

 It has to be a relief for the MRO industry that CASA has decided to retain CAR 4A and update it to suit general aviation. It shows that the hard work done by Ken Cannane and the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) is starting to leave a mark on the blackboards of Aviation House. AMROBA noted early that proposed new regs were simply not going to work if the same rules that applied to RPT aeroplanes were extended to GA. Cannane's work is not yet over (in fact it might be just starting); he and AMROBA will have a lot to do to make sure CAR 4A amendments are not infected with the same silliness that the proposed CASRs were going to have.

Hope that helps P9? -  L&Ks P2 

Ps Still playing with the whales down in the SIO -

The DOI (debris of inconvenience) - Part II

Mike Chillit - But, when debris turned up in the Mozambique Channel in February, and similar debris was then reported dating back to December 2015, CSIRO decided it had to rethink its position. That’s when it came up with this model that does exactly what Geomar did 9 months earlier. But neither CSIRO nor ATSB nor the Australian Prime Minister’s office acknowledged they suddenly realized they were searching the wrong part of the Indian Ocean. In fact, they still insist they are in the right location.

It is fairly clear at this point that Australia will do whatever Australia decides to do. It will not be reasoned with or cajoled into making changes that put the search where Australia doesn’t want it to be.


So, it doesn’t really matter what is or what is likely to be. The search will go on in a part of the Indian Ocean that cannot possibly be hiding a passenger plane.

[Peetwo]

Planes, trains boats and automobiles truckies -

There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Sterle wears his heart on his sleeve and is a true champion (advocate) of the workers & small businesses within the transport sector...

Aviation:

  
Maritime:

Trucking Industry:

As the examples above illustrate Sterlo is not above crossing the political void when he passionately believes it will achieve a greater good for the citizens, country and State that he represents. Combined with Senator Heffernan as co-Chairs of the Senate RRAT Committee, they have formed a formidable tag team in Senate Estimates and in inquiry:

So it must now place the good Senator Sterle in an unenviable political quandary as a former small business truck driver/owner, as he witnesses possibly the terminal destruction through bureaucratic red tape of his beloved industry, courtesy the Oz:

Truckies on the road to ruin

• Robert Gottliebsen
  
• The Australian
  
• March 29, 2016 12:00AM
  

Business Spectator columnist
Melbourne
Robert Gottliebsen has spent more than 30 years writing and commentating about business and investment in Australia. He has won the Walkley award and Australian Journalist of the Year Award, two of journalism's highest honours. He is an economic writer at The Australian, and he appears on television and various radio stations.
https://plus.google.com/117437899770513807614

The tribunal wants to stop owner drivers from driving too long by making them charge more for their services. Picture: Matthew Sullivan

About 35,000 people, mostly men, drive their own long-haul trucks. They have borrowed about $15 billion from Australian banks and other financiers to fund their vehicles. Most of the loans are also secured on the family home.

A government body — the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal — has made decisions that are set not only to destroy the livelihood of most of them but force them to sell the family home.

Tens of thousands of farmers around Australia rely on these efficient and safe road operators to get their produce to market and supply them with farming needs. These farmers are going to be forced to pay two and four times the present rate for transport as a result of arbitrary decisions by the same government body. It will wreck many farmers.

Overall, Australian transport costs are set to rise by between 30 per cent and 40 per cent, which will boost inflation and make the Reserve Bank look differently at interest rate adjustments. Banks don’t know it yet, but they are headed for big losses because their bad standing in the community will not allow them to sell so many houses and throw truckies on to the streets.

The big winners are the large transport companies and the Transport Workers Union. A grateful TWU will pay a proportion of its windfall gains to the ALP, which will gain funding capacity not matched by any other political party. The whole exercise is being timed for a period when parliament is in chaos, so legislative remedies look impossible.

Let me explain how this has happened. The long-haul road transport industry has three major components. First, there are the large companies such as Toll. Much of their fleet is operated by employees who are TWU members. The link between the TWU and Toll is particularly close.

Second, there are the owner drivers. They contract for majors such as Toll but they also work on their own and for a multitude of smaller transport companies that consolidate them. This mixture has given Australia one of the most efficient and safe road ­transport networks in the world and has helped make our agriculture industry world leaders.
But the third part of the industry, the TWU, has long been unhappy because too many owner drivers are not union members.

The Gillard government listened closely to the TWU. At the same time, there were concerns some owner drivers were taking drugs and driving their vehicles for long periods without a break. And so the Gillard government set up the Road Transport Remuneration Tribunal. Bill Shorten played a role in some of the appointees to the tribunal, which is now headed by a former ACTU official. Most of the other commissioners are linked to Fair Work Australia. It was a tribunal stacked with people who have backgrounds in social awareness.

The tribunal decided the best way to stop owner drivers from driving too long and taking drugs was to make them charge more for their services. But no such charging instructions were given companies using TWU employees, so they can undercut owner drivers.

Grace Collier in The Weekend Australian (March 19-20) blew the whistle on what was happening in her commentary “TWU can bring nation to its knees with ‘safe’ truckies rates”. She explained how “farmer Keith” now pays $175 for an owner driver to pick up a few head of cattle. After April 4, that owner driver is forced to charge $784 — and if he doesn’t charge $784, he can be prosecuted by the Fair Work Ombudsman and be fined up to $54,000.

But if the farmer uses a company with employed drivers, then that operator has no such restrictions and can charge $175. And this bizarre outcome applies across the whole gambit of long-haul transport in Australia. That means Toll and its TWU drivers can pick up as much business as they want.

My guess is large transport operators will use their entitlement to undercut small groups until they are driven out of business. Then prices will be increased to the levels allowed by the tribunal. Unless agriculture prices are booming farmers will not be able economically to transport their product to market once the full rates are charged.

This elimination of owner drivers will be fairly quick — and as they are forced to sell their trucks the prices of vehicles will slump, so they will be bankrupted.

The actual capital of many owner driver businesses is domestic homes, so they will be sold to cover the debt to the banks because of the fall in value of trucks. As the large operators begin to control the business owner drivers will be sent to the wall along with the small transport companies that co-ordinate them. Many of those are in South Australia.

One of the smartest politicians in the House is South Australia’s Nick Xenophon, who voted to set up the tribunal. In fairness, there was no way he could have known what the TWU and ALP were up to. Therefore, unfairly, Xenophon is going to be made aware of what he has done to his state and to the lives of 35,000 people.

Via Victoria’s RACV, Australia has been a world leader in transport technology. Cheaply, an instrument can be put into all trucks to monitor driving patterns. If that is linked to insurance, then any problem that emerges will quickly be resolved.

I believe the tribunal must be abolished, but that’s not easy given a chaotic parliament. Meanwhile, the 35,000 truckies love their trucks and their families. That is why local communities and mental health support services are bracing themselves for what might happen as these proud men are robbed of their beloved trucks and their homes.

  
For the aviation industry it sounds oh so familiar..
Perhaps it is time to combine as a band of brothers in transport to march, drive, fly & float to Can'tberra.  Combined we might actually get someone's attention, well at least Sterlo, Heff & Xeno will be cheering from the bleachers..  
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

P2 said;

"Perhaps it is time to combine as a band of brothers in transport to march, drive, fly & float to Can'tberra".

I think you're actually bang on the money mate - strength in numbers. The grotesquely useless, lamentable shit-for-brains politicians are nothing short of complete and utter fuckwits. So yet another industry full of working class people about to get rogered, and the flow on affect to the economy and other struggling sectors such as farming is incomprehensible.

We need another party, a large united and well supported party, call it the Piston Party if you wish, it doesn't matter, a political group who represent anything that has a piston and wheels, from taxi's and trucks to parcel deliverers and pilots, from tug boat drivers to aerial photographers. Enough is enough. How much more does the little bloke and blokette on the street have to cop in the arse at the hands of Government and big business?

All the major political parties are a pathetic joke, an embarrassment, an abboration on society. From Goldman Sachs Turnbull and his silver spoon zealots to that weasel Shorten and his thuggery, over to a laughable Green Party concerned more with saving a handful of bloody whales and promoting queer marriage. FFS, enough!

Earth to politicians - you pricks are useless and you are corrupt. Look at the American presidential reality show, Hitler vs Hitlery, what an embarrassment. Australia is no better. Just a mob of overpaid suckholes who sit in parliament and whinge about chair colours and the font size on Xmas cards while the real working folk are suffering a miserable existence. You should all be ashamed. You couldn't manage a lemonade stall at a school fete. Shame on you, the lot of you. May you all get pancaked against a guardrail by a Kenworth double.

Disgusted

[Peetwo]

Meanwhile in the Empire of the RAeS -

Quote from "K" off the minister's thread:

Willyleaks exclusive.

At great personal risk, the intrepid GD has managed to get a peep at the minister for transport personal diary:-

Dear diary.

What a lovely day I’ve had.  It was easy away from my office, the team were coping well with some minor, non essential transport issues but still managed to get my driver and new car to the front door, so I could wave and smile at the press gallery, such nice folk.  

Memo 1– speak to the parking people about all those derelict, burned out trucks parked on the lawn and in the drive way; bloody vandals.  I shall speak sternly to our parking attendants, never too early to show them who’s boss.

Anyway, my mission today was to visit the lovely boys and girls in the air traffic control tower at Melbourne’s big airport.  

Of course I couldn’t disturb them, but I did ask one if the thing on the runway was – in fact – an aeroplane.  So nice to see one in real life; the response I drew from the ‘ATCO’ (new word for the dictionary) was a nod and a terse “Yup”, he was a pale, pallid, tired looking thing, about 60 y.o with a definite twitch in his right eye.  I strolled back to my minder: “that man looks dreadful, I expect he’ll be retiring soon”, I said.  “Oh no Sir” said the minder, “that is Charlie he’s only 25 and a senior trainer, valuable asset indeed”.  Must be the night shift look I thought.

Well my visit was short but sweet, I did get a photo opportunity which was great and as they were all so busy I didn’t get to speak to any of the troops about how things are; which was good as I would have been late for my hair dresser (big No No).  Anyway, I am assured by that nice fellah in the electric blue uniform that all is well and another $150 billion dollars will keep things ticking over nicely.  Great system, wonderful folks, terrific day.

Home for tea and cake by 4 pm.  What a productive day, it’s so great to be ‘the minister’.

All in a day's work for our intrepid minister...

Meanwhile over in the bureaucratic, trough dwelling, evil Empire of the RAeS there apparently is "nothing to see here..move along", from 'that man' via the Oz :

Harry Bradford defends ICCPM’s Airservices contract

• Ean Higgins
  
  
• The Australian
  
  
• April 1, 2016 12:00AM
  
  
  

The former RAAF test pilot dubbed the “Million Dollar Man” by Airservices Australia dissidents has hit out at his critics, denying any conflict of interest in a lucrative Airservices contract he secured...

Hmm...the Thales conglomerate seems to have their sticky fingers stuck in a lot of murky (read corrupt) pies, there is even a possible link to the Malaysian PM Najib..

A case involving allegations of high-level bribery, blackmail, betrayal and the murder of a glamorous Mongolian socialite in Malaysia has resurfaced in France, only days after Malaysia's prime minister Najib Razak was cleared of corruption charges at home.

French prosecutors have charged a French businessman involved in Malaysia's $US2 billion ($2.8 billion) purchase of two French-Spanish built submarines with paying illegal kickbacks to a Malaysian official linked to Mr Najib, according to the French newsagency AFP.


Mr Najib, who was defence minister at the time of the purchase, has denied any wrongdoing but the case has been the subject of hot rumours and speculation in Malaysia's social media during his seven-year rule.


The French report named Ferrari-driving Malaysian businessman Abdul Razak Baginda, one of Mr Najib's best friends and policy advisers, as the person who allegedly received the kickbacks.



While the submarine deal was being negotiated, Mr Baginda was the lover of 28-year-old Mongolian socialite Altantuya Shaariibuu who was murdered by two of Mr Najib's bodyguards in a patch of jungle in the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur in 2006.


Ms Shaariibuu was dragged from a car, knocked unconscious and shot twice in the head, according to court testimony.


She had begged for the life of her unborn baby and then her body was wrapped in C4 explosives and blown up, ensuring the fetus was destroyed, along with the identity of the father.


Ms Shaariibuu, who was abducted outside Mr Baginda's house, had reportedly demanded $US500,000 to remain silent about her knowledge of the submarine deal.


French authorities who opened an investigation into the submarine purchases almost four years ago have issued an indictment against Bernard Baiocco, 72, the former president of Thales International Asia, according to an AFP report in the French language, that was translated by the Malaysiakini news website...


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/troubles-resurface-for-malaysias-najib-in-europe-20160130-gmhmn0.html#ixzz44WSRDLgK
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Oh but that's not 'Thales Australia', there is no association at all, 'nothing to see here move along'
 

Busy day on Aunty today, here is a bit more goss?? - Better watch out Jase & Oliver, Dick is now writing for the Oz

Controlled airspace still under a cloud 25 years on

• Dick Smith
  
  
• The Australian
  
  
• April 1, 2016 12:00AM
  
  

It’s a nightmare. No wonder I have sleepless nights.



A series of articles in this newspaper last year covered how commercial pilots at dozens of Australian airports (Ballina in NSW and Bairnsdale in Victoria are just two examples) are forced to blunder around in cloud attempting to call other aircraft to avoid a collision.



It’s a 1930s system of calling in blind uncontrolled airspace. There is not even a radio operator on the ground at these airports to confirm an aircraft’s radio is working correctly and to give local weather conditions.



After five flights around the world where I closely studied airspace procedures, I found the Australian system was unique and existed only because of union demarcation issues after controlled airspace was introduced worldwide in the 1940s.



In 1991 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority decided to follow proven international practice and introduce controlled airspace at these busy country airports so aircraft in cloud were directed by controllers and kept apart using a proven safety standard. Twenty-five years later not one Australian airport has been upgraded to this safer level of service.



How can this be, I hear you ask. The answer is resistance to change and a lack of leadership from those entrusted with aviation safety in this country.



Airline pilots are tested psychologically to follow existing rules and those who have flown only in the Australian system oppose change. Many believe only incompetent pilots require controlled airspace and a local radio operator. So far we have not had an airline accident caused by these 1930s procedures — but we have been close. Here are two examples:



● On May 16, 1997, an aircraft was on approach in cloud to the airport at Bundaberg, Queensland, while another aircraft was on the same approach in the same cloud at the same time. Only luck prevented a collision. The investigators’ report revealed one of the professional aircrews had used the wrong “calling in the blind” frequency — a simple human error.



● On June 23, 2006, a Rex airline aircraft was on approach to NSW’s Orange airport in cloud from the east as a commercial pilot in a Baron aircraft was approaching in cloud from the west. They were on a head-on course. A collision was prevented only when the pilot of one aircraft broke the rules and turned away at the last moment from the prescribed route.



As covered in this newspaper last year, on July 28, 2004, a Cheyenne aircraft was on approach to Victoria’s Benalla airport in bad weather. Because of an error of navigation the commercial pilot was many miles from the correct approach and all six on board were killed when the aircraft hit a mountain.



Previously an alarm had sounded numerous times in the Melbourne air traffic control centre; however, the controller was not required to inform the pilot as the aircraft was heading towards uncontrolled airspace.



Such is the resistance to change of those involved in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that, even after these two serious incidents and one fatal accident, not one recommendation was made to even consider introducing controlled airspace at these airports as per the 1991 policy.



After numerous false starts to update controlled airspace, John Anderson, the federal transport and regional services minister at the time, appointed me to the Aviation Reform Group in early 2002. This group was to recommend how much-delayed airspace reforms should go ahead.



Other members of the five-person group included the chief of the air force at the time, Angus Houston. A unanimous decision was made to move to the National Airspace System used in the US and this was accepted by the Howard government and announced as policy. Houston was particularly supportive of the system because he had flown in the US during active service.



Anderson agreed that I would be a member of an implementation group; however, I was told later by Houston I should not be “hands on” and therefore I should not be involved with the working group. I was shocked by his request; it was a complete surprise to me.


(Editor’s note: Sir Angus has said he did not run the implementation committee and therefore did not have the power to veto Mr Smith’s appointment.)



The rest is history. Millions were spent in an attempt to introduce NAS and some good changes were made, only to be wound back later because of a lack of pilot education and the removal of CASA personnel who understood the NAS system.



Sadly, not one airport has been updated to the safer NAS class E controlled airspace and not one airport has the safer Unicom radio operator to give local weather and confirm the airline radio is working. “Calling in the blind do it yourself airspace” will remain until a major accident with fatalities brings in the change. I despair!



Dick Smith is a businessman, adventurer, philanthropist and former chairman of CASA.

Hmm...Sir A is getting a bit prickly isn't he??


MTF...P2

[ventus45]

Robert Gottliebsen should look at the "big picture" when it comes to "big business" and "big politics" combining to destroy "small business".

The clasic case is the good old "corner shop".

I have lived in the same house since 1962, that is 54 years.

When I was a kid, in the 60's, there were 6 corner shops, which between them stocked "everything" you needed to run a family home, with never a need to even consider going to a "supermarket" (all were family run - the people lived upstairs, on-site), two servo's (with mechanics workshops), one butcher, one chemist, two doctors (GP's) and one vet (animal doctor) all within a 500 metre radius.

Today:-
(a) there is only one corner shop, with a very limited range of "daily needs" high turnover stock items, run by a Chinese family who live upstairs. The woman and her daughter run the shop 7 days a week, open 6am to 8pm, whilst the husband and the son drive a cab 24/7.
(b) both the servo's are long gone. One is now a cafe, the other had a block of flats built on it.
© both the doctors (GP's) are long gone, with both places knocked down and rebuilt as "mansions".
(d) amazingly, the butcher, the vet, and the chemist have survived (I get my blood pressure and cholesterol pills there these days).

Now, where do the "supermarkets" fit in this story ?
Answer, centre stage.

First, the supermarkets "killed" the corner shops through the 60's & 70's.
Second, the supermarkets "screwed" the farmers through the 70's & 80's. Most "food" in Coles and BigW is not grown here now, and a lot of it comes from dubious places with dubious health standards, how many "contamination" related "recalls" have we had in recent years Mr Gottliebsen ? How many were "local" produce, how many were "imported" produce ?
I won't even raise the subject of the ludicrous, deceptive, dishonest, packaging and labelling regulations (but CASA is no doubt studing them intensly for any "useful" = evil ideas).
Third, the supermarkets "screwed" the truckies through the 70's & 80's & 90's and are still doing it, job almost done, as per the post a few above.

The point is "big business" ALWAYS gets what it wants from "big government", either directly, or by subterfuge, (they are very smart).

"Institutionalised collusion, graft & corruption", between big business (duopololy or cartel), big government (duoploy), and big unions (ACTU - cartel), is indemic in this country, as poor little independent Senator XENOPHON is about to have driven home to him re the next shafting of a "little independent" band of "business brothers", the looming independent owner-driver truckie crisis.

Now, what happened to the GA charter industry ?

What is going to happen to the Liverpool Plains ?

Hey you !! Mr Robert Gottliebsen, perhaps it is time for somone with your years of experience, to step back from "the story of the day", get your head out of the weeds, see the trees, the forest, and vast food bowl plains beyond. Look at the "big business - big politics" story of the last 50 years, see the bigger picture, "connect the dots", and write a "blockbuster".

Come on mate, step up to the plate mate, you know you want to !