[P7_TOM]

Top post from P2.  It is an interesting topic, subject of much debate and 'inspection'.  Posted here, under it's own banner for further discussion -  

P2 - Blast from the past

While sifting through the surprisingly interesting & informative ASAM blog archive, I stumbled across a truly remarkable article from February 18 2013, that I just have to reproduce. Why? Well to me it represents a totally unbiased, no skin in the game, summation of the extraordinary revelations that came out of the Senate PelAir Inquiry public hearing on 17 February 2013:
Quote:
18th of February 2013


Pel-Air Senate hearing sensation: CASA hid key safety audits from ATSB

In a set of extraordinary disclosures in the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air crash report today it was revealed that two key safety audits were kept secret by the safety regulator CASA from the safety investigator the ATSB in contravention of a cooperative memorandum of understanding between the two bodies.

The two most senior officers in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, its chief commissioner Martin Dolan and its GM air investigations Ian Sangston did not know of the existence of the audits, one of which was scathingly critical of CASA's oversight of Pel-Air, until about 30 minutes before they appeared at the inquiry immediately after an often intense examination of CASA's Director Aviation Safety John McCormick.

One document, the Chambers Review of CASA, ordered by McCormick and kept secret from the ATSB, found that the ditching of a tiny Westwind air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in November 2009 might have been avoided had the regulator been doing its job properly.

The other, a fatigue management review of the ill fated flight commissioned from the UK safety regulator, suggested that the captain of the flight Dominic James may have been unfit to fly the Careflight mission under its rules.

CASA's director of air safety John McCormick said he didn't consider either of them relevant to the cause of the accident, which he says was entirely the fault of the captain, but would have been made available to the ATSB if it has asked for them.

Senator David Fawcett, an experienced pilot, and Senator Nick Xenophon, the instigator of the hearing, pointed out to McCormick repeatedly in the exchanges between them and him that the ATSB could not ask for audits it didn't know existed, and that under the rules of co-operation between the two bodies, their existence had to be disclosed.

What then followed was a lengthy spectacle in which the most senior executive in CASA, McCormick, denied understanding or recognising the most basic and clearly written obligations that exist in the MoU between the two bodies concerning the exchange of information between them.

The Senate committee is inquiring in the final report by the ATSB into the accident, and how it became changed from one dealing with serious issues concerning the rules relating to fuel and route planning to one that blamed the crash almost entirely on the actions of the captain.

Senator Xenophon told ATSB chief commissioner Dolan that the Pel-Air report the ATSB had finally issued was less compliant with the standards of ICAO Annex 13 than those produced by its counterparts in Nigeria and Lebanon, a comparison strongly rejected by Dolan.

Both the fatigue audit and the CASA audit, which is separate from the CASA special audit into Pel-Air shortly after the crash, will be posted online on the Senate Committee website later today.

At the outset of today's hearing Senator Fawcett speaking for the committee said it accepted that errors in fueling the jet that was ditched off Norfolk Island were made by the captain, and that the purpose of the inquiry was not to exonerate the pilot but to examine more deeply how the ATSB report was arrived at, and among other things, understand why it said little to explain why the pilot might have made the errors he did.

The committee repeatedly sought information from the CASA team lead by McCormick as to why the regulator had not disclosed the Chambers Review, commissioned by McCormick, to the ATSB, quoting passages in which it found that had there been more effective auditing and oversight of Pel-Air, the operator of the jet, it would have discovered key failings in its performance and pilot training from interviews with the line pilots that if acted upon in a timely manner could have prevented the accident ever happening.

McCormick said he considered the Chambers Review a private document, which made no findings which would have altered the ATSB's eventual findings that the accident was caused by pilot error if not violations of the rules by him.
He said "I did say at the time that I wanted it warts and all."

Xenophon told McCormick his explanation for withholding the Chambers Review's existence and findings from the ATSB to be "curious and bizarre."

McCormick told the hearing that CASA had kept the findings of the Chambers Review from the ATSB in order "not to contaminate its decision making."

He stressed the importance CASA placed on the ATSB reaching its own conclusions.
However during the course of the hearing committee members read from emails which said, among other things, that the two bodies needed to avoid "putting egg on each other's faces", that a consistent policy was desirable as to whether flights should immediately divert to alternative airports when the weather deteriorated below minimums at destination airports, and other email discussions as to how the initially divergent views of CASA and the ATSB about the seriousness of the accident and were coming into alignment.

Senator Fawcett put it to McCormick that he had in his possession information that the surveillance and processes of CASA in relation to Pel-Air were inadequate, and that in not disclosing this to the ATSB he had shaped its report, which had found that there were no systemic operator or regulator failings that had contributed to the accident.

McCormick replied that the findings of the Chambers Review were not considered relevant to the ATSB's inquiries or findings, to which Senator Xenophone asked without audible answer "How would you know?"

Xenophon said "there is a positive obligation on CASA to disclose the document to the ATSB for its consideration. "

The SA Independent Senator said "You wanted this report to be downgraded in its safety important to protect CASA from the criticisms in the Chambers Review .... which found that if you had done the job the accident might have been avoided ....it was much more convenient to put all the blame on the pilot ...you've actually covered things up by not releasing the document."

McCormick strongly denied this, repeating that in his opinion this was a private document commissioned by him while he was early in the job to understand what was happening in CASA.

He conceded at one stage that he might have been wrong in this, and said that he apologised if he was wrong, and defended the now more advanced reform process he had undertaken at CASA describing it as a now much more efficient, competent and effective body that it had been at the time of the accident.

Senator Fawcett said several times that he accepted that progress had been made at CASA but also pointed out that this wasn't what the committee was set up to do in its examination of the ATSB final report into the Pel-Air crash and the relationship between the safety regulator and the safety investigator.

When the ATSB team began its appearance before the committee, having only just learned of the existence of the two CASA documents, its chief commissioner Martin Dolan said he could not give answers as to the effect on its Pel-Air report of not receiving that information 'on the run'.

Dolan said he would be able to give considered replies to such questions at a later date.
However in an exchange with the committee Dolan explained that the ATSB's starting point in its investigation was the factual evidence available at the time.

Senator Fawcett said "There is concern in the committee that there is some serious dsyfunctionality in your starting point because the evidence that you started with was not as complete as it should have been for the public or for you."

Dolan said "I'd prefer to give due consideration to this than make it on the run."
Not sure who the author was but IMO (on today's currency) a packet of Tim-tams would be a minimum reward for that effort Wink
MTF..P2 Tongue

[P7_TOM]

Good catch P2 – useful web-site.  A couple of statements made there could stand a little reasonable doubt cast over them.

"One document, the Chambers Review of CASA, ordered by McCormick and kept secret from the ATSB, found that the ditching of a tiny Westwind air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in November 2009 might have been avoided had the regulator been doing its job properly."

The ‘Chambers Report’ had and still has to this day, some large, dark clouds hanging over it; not only is it ‘mostly' copied and pasted, but is 'almost plagiarised’, shamelessly from the work of better, qualified men. It is badly written and ‘anally’ fixated on ‘confrontation’.  But it was, in the opinion of many, shall we just say, designed not to be complimentary to other 'qualified' officers ‘working’ the case.  

"CASA's director of air safety John McCormick said he didn't consider either of them relevant to the cause of the accident, which he says was entirely the fault of the captain, but would have been made available to the ATSB if it has asked for them."

Many believe the document was kept under wraps as it formed the basis for a weeding session, where certain rebellious, recalcitrant flowers in the garden were to be culled – all for the general good of course.  Not many would say that this second rate report had any great impact on safety outcomes; even less on regulatory reform.  It only ever firmly secured the willing accomplices to what has become an infamous event in the long, sorry history of that which we call the CASA.  

Yet the Lord Mayors parade keeps rolling along, leaving the mess in it’s triumphant wake; waiting for someone to turn up with a dust cart and broom.  

Shameful?– betch’a boots it is.   Anything done about it? -  Silly bloody question.

[P1_aka_P1]

Wondered when the rub would re surface – HERE – from the AP library.

[Gobbledock]

Fee, fye, foe, fum, I smell a Wabbits bum

Lads, firstly the Chambers report was indeed a 'stitch up'. It was a hatchet job orchestrated by Herr Skull. Skull knew there was dross that he needed to dispose of, he was well advised of this by his predecessor before commencing his tenure as DAS. So the plan was to use an internal person, someone with high ambitions and who was viewed as being intelligent as well as ruthless and willing to knife his opponents and potential competitors to get where he wanted to be. The wascally Wabbit was that man. Someone with a lack of conscience or moral compass just like the angry man! However, as with any devious plan, there are risks. Skulls secret 'report' came out in the wash and at the same time it exposed Wodger for being the piece of backstabbing Shite that he is. Had the covert operation succeeded several high ranked CAsA managers would have been rolled, Wodger would have been promoted as a reward and Herr Skull would have been rid of some very dangerous underlings.

Secondly, CAsA actually do know who the shonks are out there. I can assure you that well prior to the Norfolk ditching there were people at CAsA who knew that there were shysters running around the South Pacific on the smell of an oily rag. They also knew of shysters flying some fairly large aircraft from PNG and Timor to Cairns on the smell of an oily rag. To some CAsA folk the Pel Air ditching came as no surprise. No great shock. Nothing unexpected. Ho hum, finally happened, wow you could've fooled me, not! CAsA also knew that Transair was a two-bob chickenshit outfit well before they speared in near Lockhart, yet in typical style there were mates rates and politics involved. It all came too late for those poor souls on that fateful day.

Folks, if only that giant black hole of CAsA secrets - TRIM, could speak!! Oh the stories it could tell, the secrets it could reveal, some tidbits of truth it could purge from its bowels! But Captain Sentinel already knew that risk, that's why he had I.T do a sting operation and a certain somebody got done over at CAsA for looking at things on TRIM that he shouldn't have been looking at! The Senators will recall this event as discussed 'in camera'! 

"Vey safe secrets for CAsA"

[Peetwo]

Gobbles your inside knowledge is gold and it is very reassuring that we are on the right track...

Sometimes the audacious Mephistophelian spin, bollocks & sheer bastardry that was at play with the PelAir cover-up is so UFB that it is always good to get a reality check from our resident alien Gobbledock...

Gobbles - Secondly, CAsA actually do know who the shonks are out there. I can assure you that well prior to the Norfolk ditching there were people at CAsA who knew that there were shysters running around the South Pacific on the smell of an oily rag. They also knew of shysters flying some fairly large aircraft from PNG and Timor to Cairns on the smell of an oily rag. To some CAsA folk the Pel Air ditching came as no surprise. No great shock. Nothing unexpected. Ho hum, finally happened, wow you could've fooled me, not! CAsA also knew that Transair was a two-bob chickenshit outfit well before they speared in near Lockhart, yet in typical style there were mates rates and politics involved. It all came too late for those poor souls on that fateful day.

That kind of makes sense of the following passage of folly & shite from McComic & Tezza from the infamous (corrected) 15 Feb 2013 public hearing:

In retrospect (& the Gobbles summation) I wonder if NX now realises how close he was with that line of questioning to lifting the lid off the whole festering mess that was the PelAir cover-up & stitch up of Dominic James??

Hansard from 15/02/13 PelAir cover-up inquiry public hearing - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee - 15/02/2013 - Aviation accident investigations
..&/or some video footage for your trip down memory lane:

& from the ATSB POV:

Ahh..memories -  Plenty more where that came from - requests anyone?

MTF..P2

[Kharon]

Ugh - Pooh!

Aside  - “Is there dog pooh on the DAS boots?”  “Dunno, but something stinks to high heaven.”     

P7 – “Shameful?– betch’a boots it is.   Anything done about it? -  Silly bloody question.”

The whole Pel-Air shambles was at the time a disgraceful stain on the aviation ‘agencies’, so it remains today.  Hiding under the carpet, pretending it never happened and allowing time to erase the memory is a shame on the Minister and his minions, an insult to both Senate and industry and a FU message from the iron ring to the Rev. Forsyth.

One of the things that is truly disgusting and worse is the performance of the manager in charge of the Pel-Air audit, yet neither internally or publicly has this been investigated.  This is a basically unqualified, high salary earner with almost untrammelled power who can, with impunity do exactly as pleases and get away with it.  Proof? – read Hansard.

The lack of any remedial action from the DAS (IMO) reflects the true nature of the ‘Skidmore’ reform process.  The very event that created an inquiry, scathing criticism, serious recommendations, a ministerial report and much anger has not even been mentioned; let alone remedied. How are we to have any faith in anything Oliver-Skidmore-Twist says, when he does SFA about a clearly defined abomination, with empirical evidence?  WTF - A honest man would have fixed it first job and won some credibility.  This absence of ‘action’ reflects the Skidmore era; spin, bull and one way glasses.

Hell, the entire debacle sits in the Skidmore office like a pile of stinking, rotting garbage, lived with, accepted as being part of the scenery.  How does this DAS who appears evermore incompetent, change resistant and captive to the ‘system’ expect ‘industry’ to believe that reform of the regulator is happening when the likes of Wodger, his works and catamites are unchallenged and remain employed?  It begs the question – is this tacit Skidmore approval for more of the same behaviour from CASA officers?  

If Skidmore had one ounce of integrity, even the slightest intention of ‘healing’ the rift; or, could give a monkey’s about restoring industry confidence; he would holistically examine the entire CASA involvement with the Pel-Air debacle.  Publicly and openly investigate, make the required changes and make a statement promising that this type of behavior will not happen again – never again.  Not on his watch.  Make it a statement of intent. 

Fire Wodger or resign; preferably both.  There, is that simple enough. Anything else is window dressing, hot air and duplicitous, disgraceful behaviour, accurately reflecting the true character of He who Wannabe DAS.  

Declare it wabbit hunting season before the IOS start to do the investigating, in public, no frills, no pulled punches, no quarter given.  Will the mud stick? – Oh yes; absolutely.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

The whole Pel-Air shambles was at the time a disgraceful stain on the aviation ‘agencies’, so it remains today.  Hiding under the carpet, pretending it never happened and allowing time to erase the memory is a shame on the Minister and his minions, an insult to both Senate and industry and a FU message from the iron ring to the Rev. Forsyth.

One of the things that is truly disgusting and worse is the performance of the manager in charge of the Pel-Air audit, yet neither internally or publicly has this been investigated.  This is a basically unqualified, high salary earner with almost untrammelled power who can, with impunity do exactly as pleases and get away with it.  Proof? – read Hansard.

The lack of any remedial action from the DAS (IMO) reflects the true nature of the ‘Skidmore’ reform process.  The very event that created an inquiry, scathing criticism, serious recommendations, a ministerial report and much anger has not even been mentioned; let alone remedied. How are we to have any faith in anything Oliver-Skidmore-Twist says, when he does SFA about a clearly defined abomination, with empirical evidence?  WTF - A honest man would have fixed it first job and won some credibility.  This absence of ‘action’ reflects the Skidmore era; spin, bull and one way glasses.

Hell, the entire debacle sits in the Skidmore office like a pile of stinking, rotting garbage, lived with, accepted as being part of the scenery.  How does this DAS who appears evermore incompetent, change resistant and captive to the ‘system’ expect ‘industry’ to believe that reform of the regulator is happening when the likes of Wodger, his works and catamites are unchallenged and remain employed?  It begs the question – is this tacit Skidmore approval for more of the same behaviour from CASA officers?  

If Skidmore had one ounce of integrity, even the slightest intention of ‘healing’ the rift; or, could give a monkey’s about restoring industry confidence; he would holistically examine the entire CASA involvement with the Pel-Air debacle.  Publicly and openly investigate, make the required changes and make a statement promising that this type of behavior will not happen again – never again.  Not on his watch.  Make it a statement of intent. 

Fire Wodger or resign; preferably both.  There, is that simple enough. Anything else is window dressing, hot air and duplicitous, disgraceful behaviour, accurately reflecting the true character of He who Wannabe DAS.  

Declare it wabbit hunting season before the IOS start to do the investigating, in public, no frills, no pulled punches, no quarter given.  Will the mud stick? – Oh yes; absolutely.

Selah.

Luv it when the Ferryman gets all steamed up, kind of thought that ASAM blog-piece would hit the toot-toot switch... 

From the Horse's Arse..

ASAM Blog Feb 2013:

In a set of extraordinary disclosures in the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air crash report today it was revealed that two key safety audits were kept secret by the safety regulator CASA from the safety investigator the ATSB in contravention of a cooperative memorandum of understanding between the two bodies.

Couple more key moments from that infamous hearing, first from Doc JA - who definitely speaks with forked tongue:

CHAIR: Is there anyone at the table who would like to add to your remarks, if they have the authority?


Mr McCormick : Thank you, Chair. Perhaps Dr Aleck may wish to add something.

Dr Aleck : I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA.

The fact that the provisions read the way they do reflects a very appropriate form of reciprocity, in which the ATSB under its new leadership said, 'Yes, we will provide you with more information, and we expect you to provide us with the same.' In the spirit of that arrangement, and I agree it probably should be read largely, the question should that a default position should be: 'We'll give you as much as you possibly can and then you decide when we've given you too much.' By the same token, there comes a point where the question has to be asked: 'Is this relevant?' I do not have it in front of me at the moment, but I think the provision talks about reports. To be sure, there was a report there because it took the form of a report, and that is what Mr McCormick asked for. It is quite conceivable that this information could have been developed within CASA in a form that did not take the form of a report, and that would be playing smart: 'We'll put it in this form so it doesn't go there.'

This MOU is now up for review and one of the things we both agreed, between the agencies, but unrelated to these particular issues, is that we have to refine these points and say, 'How much information have we given you that you didn't really need? How much information has not been passed that really ought to have been?' I daresay these revisions will be refined with that in mind. That is not to suggest that people have been manipulating the provisions, but taking a view about how much should go and how much should not. In many situations, it is important that information—certainly that which passes to the ATSB from CASA—comes under a section 32 provision, to provide the kinds of protections that are available to people when the ATSB releases information. In that respect, it is in learning.

I do not mean to diminish the importance of anything, but the FRMS issues to the extent that they bore on the accident, which is what the ATSB was investigating, are somewhat debatable. I am not going to say whether it is irrelevant or relevant. But the fact of the matter—and it is a matter for Mr Dolan—is that it is quite conceivable that information that, on a liberal reading of that provision, ought to have been passed to the ATSB at a particular time and was not perhaps involved a less than fully faithful adherence to the provisions. But then the question is: was that a harmless error?

Now, in light of the evidence that was produced at the proceedings, one would say that FRMS was such a major issue, so how could this information not have been passed in the spirit of that provision? But I do not think there is a conclusion on that, and I think that is the context in which that needs to be looked at. I think Mr McCormick made it clear that it is perhaps something that needs to be looked at in terms of whether or not information of that kind should be passed. I am not suggesting it is the case but, as we have heard, certainly from people in industry, if the concern is that introspective examinations of one's own organisation then become a matter of public consideration, might that not then discourage the conduct of those activities? I think a slightly different standard applies to government agencies looking at themselves, as opposed to private entities, but the principle is the same. And I think that is a consideration that will need to be taken into account. Historically the ATSB—and I think everyone at the table will agree—spared no opportunity to have a go at CASA for some failing, legitimate in many cases. Whether or not it bore directly on the situation is questionable. And it is conceivable that some of those concerns vestigially remain: that if we tell them this, the whole focus is going to be on what we failed to do at a particular time.

The only other point I will make is that the information that came to us in relation to the operations of Pel-Air were based on the routine auditing processes that CASA had had in place for many years. They were not deficient. Could they be better? Absolutely, and I think that is the point Mr McCormick has made. The Chambers report, coupled with the special audit report, was an extraordinarily incisive review both of the operator and of us—far more detailed and far more in-depth than a standard audit would ever be. With those considerations in mind, in relation to the question of whether things could have been done better, I do not think Mr McCormick has ever said—

Still sickens me to read this spin & bullshit from Dr A - FFS
"..if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA.."
"..Just sign the confession err..incident report/witness statement/interview record..here for our future embuggerance err..records"
Next study the body language in the now famous "person at the back of the room"  Hansard quote:

Then ffwd to the McComic response on questioning by Nx on the Chambers report at Budget Estimates 3 months later: 

And that is where I believe the whole NX 'Motion of Privilege' first started:

 161st Report

MTF..P2

[Kharon]

Choc frog P2, nicely done (again). Hindsight really is remarkable. As I recall, ‘we’ were fairly busy back then and sorting the sheep from the goats took a lot of doing. But when one revisits the video evidence, without the distractions, it really does show how ‘rotten’ the head was.

I wonder how long it will be before Oliver Slydmore Twist is sitting there with J Aleck, up to their arses in alligators. Mind you, looking back, seems to me the alligators hardly had a tooth amongst them; scary, but not lethal – more’s the pity.

Heigh Ho – back to my knitting.

[Gobbledock]

UAW's - Unmanned Aerial Wabbits

http://inmotionaero.com.au/safety-in-the-uav-industry/

Extract below;

"Recently the In Motion Aero Team attended a RAeS Lecture focused on “Teamwork – Implications of Safety Management”. It was great to see a good turnout with the lecture theater nearly full. Roger Chambers, the CASA Regional Manager for Sydney Operations presented a seminar about team factors, the opportunities to harness those factors to improve safety within an organization through the Safety Management System, and the hazards that can manifest within and between teams".
Roger’s personal recounts and learning through his own experiences only added to the impact of how much teamwork has to do with a safe outcome".

I just puked up some stomach lining......

[Kharon]

Sometimes, only one word will do.

[Peetwo]

PelAir - 'Lest we forget' Part II

I note that in the very entertaining Estimate's session on Monday, that there was several references to the PelAir cover-up & indeed the "Chambers Report"...
 
From CASA Hansard:

Senator FAWCETT:  ...In coming back to your regulatory philosophy, you are saying that CASA is committed to maintaining the trust of the Australian aviation community. One of the biggest breaches of trust recently was the ATSB investigation into the Pel-Air report where CASA maintained that the internal investigation, the Chambers report, the fatigue risk management report and the special audit were not necessarily pertinent. I think the term was they were a private, internal report. Now that ATSB has reopened that investigation could you assure the committee that it is your intention to share all that information about the inadequacies of CASA's oversight at the time with the team so that the new report reflects not just the actions of the pilot but the inadequate supervision of the organisation and the self-identified inadequacies of CASA at the time?


Mr Skidmore : I think it is fair to say that we have provided all the information that the ATSB has requested of us and we will take into account any recommendations that come out of the investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be your view that a report like the Chambers report should have been provided to ATSB voluntarily?

Mr Skidmore : I was not there at the time. It is very unfair for me to be making a statement of the organisation of the past.

Mr Aleck : One of the significant amendments we have made to the MOU with the ATSB is to put beyond doubt the kind of information that can and should be provided on request, or sometimes voluntarily. As you may recall, the existence of the Chambers report was conveyed to the ATSB. The circumstances under which that happened probably were not as concrete as they certainly will be in future.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Aleck, I think you might recall Mr Dolan found out about it 30 minutes before he appeared before the Senate committee because he had overheard the evidence where we had dug it out of half a truck load of cardboard boxes that CASA had dumped on our doorstep. I do not accept the contention that they knew about it before the report was issued; in fact, the Canadian peer review confirms that was not the case.

Mr Aleck : I will not challenge that except to say that I believe the former director gave evidence that he had mentioned this to Mr Dolan. Now, he might not have mentioned it by the term Chambers report, because that was a term that came into existence afterwards, but I think the information about some inquiry having been made internally had been conveyed. I guess the major point is that that kind of thing should not happen again under the new arrangements.

Senator FAWCETT: I am very pleased to hear that...

From ATSB Hansard:

Senator FAWCETT: I would like to go to the information-gathering stage. Going back to an answer to a question on notice that you took at the time of the original investigation, you said:


… the Chambers Report does not contain any new evidence that organisational factors were likely to have contributed to the accident.

You go on to say:
… the Chambers Report reflected what was separately reported (and available to the ATSB) in the reports of CASA’s accident investigation and of its special audit …

I challenged that at the time, and so did your Canadian peers ,who have done an independent peer review and who have made numerous comments in their report that in actual fact regulatory systemic issues to the organisation and oversight of the organisation by CASA were significant and were omitted. They go into some detail about the process within your organisation that resulted in those being omitted even though they were significant. Can you provide me with an assurance that the rework of this report will be considering the quite detailed information contained not only in the special audit but in the Chambers report and in the fatigue report that go to the heart of how the individual ended up having that accident?

Mr Dolan : Yes, I can give you that assurance. We have acquired from CASA not just the various reports but the core material they relied on to prepare those reports as part of the process of undertaking the reopened investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: I am pleased to hear that cooperation. Could you also comment on whether you still stand by the remarks that you made in the questions on notice?

Mr Dolan : I am not in a position to comment on that until I see the results of the reopened investigation. It is entirely possible. The Canadians have already alluded to the fact that we did not give sufficient weighting as an organisation to the organisational aspects of this investigation, and that is what we hope we can determine through the reopened investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: There are a couple of points that come out of this. There is one about the trust of industry in the organisations that are supposed to be having an oversight around safety and regulation, but the other is a very real impact on people. At the time, the committee were concerned about what we saw as a breakdown in the relationship between you and CASA and the inadequacies of the report. Subsequent to the Canadian peer review, which was quite scathing about the fact that there were very clear systemic issues which were not addressed, people who have been affected by this accident—being the pilot involved and potentially the nurse—have sought some remedy for the situation they find themselves in as a result of this report. In the pilot's case, correspondence I have seen from him has indicated that that report has essentially finished his aviation career. My understanding is that even after the Canadian report, when he has sought an act of grace payment from the Department of Finance, ATSB's recommendation is: 'Don't pay it. It was his fault.' Can you confirm that was the case?

Mr Dolan : I recall that there was some information sought from the Department of Finance in relation to an act-of-grace payment. We provided the facts as we understood them. It is not a purpose of our organisation to assign blame, and we would not have said that to the Department of Finance.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide the advice that Senator Fawcett has asked you for?

Mr Dolan : I beg your pardon?

Senator XENOPHON: Can you table that advice?

Mr Dolan : I cannot see any reason why we should not, so I will obtain it and table it for the committee.

Senator FAWCETT: In the light of the Canadian report, which indicates there were very clear systemic failures on the part of the company and in terms of CASA's oversight, the whole concept of systems safety is that whilst the pilot was the last link in the chain these other considerations had a significant impact, which was borne out by the fact that the company had to cease operations after these investigations until remedial measures were put in place. With that now on the public record, with this new focus, would you consider providing the Department of Finance with alternative advice if he were to come back and seek some compensation for the fact that as a direct result of the report that your organisation issued, with all of the failings and how that was put together, his career has essentially been finished and all the financial loss that has gone with that?

Mr Dolan : That is not a matter that I can answer on the spot here. I am happy to turn my mind to that if any such request comes forward.

Senator FAWCETT: That would be very useful. I look forward to the report.

Senator EDWARDS: We will be very interested in that.

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, do you think it is inappropriate that you provide any opinion as to the appropriateness of an act-of-grace payment to the pilot involved, given your involvement in this particular matter, that there might be an issue of apprehended bias on your part and on the part of the ATSB, and that it really should be a matter that the ATSB either needs to get someone independent to comment on or not comment on it at all?

Mr Dolan : I am between a rock and a hard place here. I am being urged, on the one hand—

Senator Colbeck: If, through the administration of the act-of-grace process, the department is asked to provide some advice, that would not be an unusual process, I have to say. But during the administration of the act-of-grace payment there would be advice sought from a number of areas. At the end of the day that decision is a discretionary decision for the person making the decision.

Senator XENOPHON: But you understand the importance of the ATSB advice.

Senator Colbeck: I understand it very well.

Senator XENOPHON: If the advice were a thumbs down to the pilot, that could be quite damaging to the act of grace. I am very grateful that Senator Fawcett raised that issue.

Senator Colbeck: Having administered that myself previously, I can say there are a range of pieces of advice sought and it is at the discretion of the decision maker at the end of the day.

Senator XENOPHON: So we will get a copy of that advice. Mr Dolan has been good enough to indicate that we would get a copy of that advice in this committee as to what was said and all the correspondence in relation to that. I have a couple of questions.

Senator Colbeck: Further questions around that process probably should go back through the Department of Finance.

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to do that. My last comment is that the other two people deeply involved in this are the person who was the patient on the flight and particularly the nurse, and part of the mental anguish that those families have suffered is the clear disconnect between the facts that have been laid out for all the public to see through that Senate inquiry and the position that ATSB has taken. So I hope, Mr Dolan, for the sake—

Senator XENOPHON: It is no longer live.

Senator FAWCETT: I know that, but for the sake of everyone involved, particularly those who are still with us, I hope that this will be a fair and accurate report of responsibilities that led to the situation where, rightly or wrongly, the pilot did what he did. But very clearly it is a result of a system failure—regulator, company and individual—and not just the individual as that original report stated. Thank you.

That last passage is quite remarkable and hopefully will now result in 'natural justice' for the living victims of the Pelair ditching & hopefully recompense for DJ's anguish.

The most reassuring fact from the above Hansard excerpts is that the Senators (in particular DF & NX) will not allow the passage of time to dilute the serious aviation safety issues & deficiencies highlighted in the findings & recommendations of the Senate AAI (PelAir) Inquiry. 

TBC..P2

[Peetwo]

PelAir - 'Lest we forget' Part II

I note that in the very entertaining Estimate's session on Monday, that there was several references to the PelAir cover-up & indeed the "Chambers Report"...
 
From CASA Hansard:

Senator FAWCETT:  ...In coming back to your regulatory philosophy, you are saying that CASA is committed to maintaining the trust of the Australian aviation community. One of the biggest breaches of trust recently was the ATSB investigation into the Pel-Air report where CASA maintained that the internal investigation, the Chambers report, the fatigue risk management report and the special audit were not necessarily pertinent. I think the term was they were a private, internal report. Now that ATSB has reopened that investigation could you assure the committee that it is your intention to share all that information about the inadequacies of CASA's oversight at the time with the team so that the new report reflects not just the actions of the pilot but the inadequate supervision of the organisation and the self-identified inadequacies of CASA at the time?

Mr Skidmore : I think it is fair to say that we have provided all the information that the ATSB has requested of us and we will take into account any recommendations that come out of the investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be your view that a report like the Chambers report should have been provided to ATSB voluntarily?

Mr Skidmore : I was not there at the time. It is very unfair for me to be making a statement of the organisation of the past.

Mr Aleck : One of the significant amendments we have made to the MOU with the ATSB is to put beyond doubt the kind of information that can and should be provided on request, or sometimes voluntarily. As you may recall, the existence of the Chambers report was conveyed to the ATSB. The circumstances under which that happened probably were not as concrete as they certainly will be in future.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Aleck, I think you might recall Mr Dolan found out about it 30 minutes before he appeared before the Senate committee because he had overheard the evidence where we had dug it out of half a truck load of cardboard boxes that CASA had dumped on our doorstep. I do not accept the contention that they knew about it before the report was issued; in fact, the Canadian peer review confirms that was not the case.

Mr Aleck : I will not challenge that except to say that I believe the former director gave evidence that he had mentioned this to Mr Dolan. Now, he might not have mentioned it by the term Chambers report, because that was a term that came into existence afterwards, but I think the information about some inquiry having been made internally had been conveyed. I guess the major point is that that kind of thing should not happen again under the new arrangements.

Senator FAWCETT: I am very pleased to hear that...

That last passage is quite remarkable and hopefully will now result in 'natural justice' for the living victims of the Pelair ditching & hopefully recompense for DJ's anguish.

The most reassuring fact from the above Hansard excerpts is that the Senators (in particular DF & NX) will not allow the passage of time to dilute the serious aviation safety issues & deficiencies highlighted in the findings & recommendations of the Senate AAI (PelAir) Inquiry. 

TBC..P2  

Cont/-

While on the subject of the Chambers Report I had a...light bulb moment?  ...from this bollocks from Doc A off the Hansard:

...[b]Mr Aleck : One of the significant amendments we have made to the MOU with the ATSB is to put beyond doubt the kind of information that can and should be provided on request, or sometimes voluntarily. As you may recall, the existence of the Chambers report was conveyed to the ATSB. The circumstances under which that happened probably were not as concrete as they certainly will be in future....

..Mr Aleck : I will not challenge that except to say that I believe the former director gave evidence that he had mentioned this to Mr Dolan. Now, he might not have mentioned it by the term Chambers report, because that was a term that came into existence afterwards, but I think the information about some inquiry having been made internally had been conveyed. I guess the major point is that that kind of thing should not happen again under the new arrangements... [/b]

Casting my mind back to the latter part of the PelAir Inquiry there was a CASA supplementary submission, that partly due to its late arrival only received scant attention -
2nd Supplementary Submission of CASA 

I remembered that this submission was largely a rather cynical attempt by CASA to discredit  Ben Cook's FRMS Special audit report and to defend their actions in withholding both the Special Audit report & the Chambers report.

However there was also a part where McComic preceded to try to throw Dolan under the bus, with the obvious aim to absolve CASA of all responsibility for the PelAir Duck-up, refer para 4.8-4.10  : 





Now refer to the Doc Aleck Hansard excerpt (above) and it now becomes quite obvious who the architect & author was of that spin & bulldust supplementary submission - that's nasty Doc

Hmm..guess that means the Doc doesn't think much of the MH370 super sleuth mi..mi..Muppet; & the BSW are alive & well in Can'tberra 


MTF...P2
    

[Gobbledock]

Aleck's comments quite simply confirm what some of us have always known - HE is the backbone of the completely dysfunctional mess that CAsA has been ALLOWED to morph in to over the past 20 years. 'Hello McFly, anybody home'?
FFS, at least in my opinion he is starting to be dragged into the spotlight where he belongs. Don't let the little old fuzzy haired grey bearded softly spoken 'I'm here to help you' bullshit fool you. He is a smooth salesman, a clever politician wannabe, and he has mastered the act of quietly slithering out of the way every time a fire is lit. He hasn't outlived multiple DAS's due to 'blind luck'.

And may by I add this comment towards Sen Fawcett and Sen Xenophon; Bloody hell gentlemen, congratulations and well done. You both remind me of former American Senator Ron Paul (not to be confused with son Rand Paul). You are Senators who are concerned about the fairness in the manner that people are treated. You have the balls to say (in a roundabout way) what we've all been saying - the treatment of Casey and James is a disgrace and they should be treated  fairly and ethically and as such they should be compensated. Well done Senators, you went up yet another notch in my book. Cheers

[Peetwo]

From CASA Hansard:

Senator FAWCETT:  ...In coming back to your regulatory philosophy, you are saying that CASA is committed to maintaining the trust of the Australian aviation community. One of the biggest breaches of trust recently was the ATSB investigation into the Pel-Air report where CASA maintained that the internal investigation, the Chambers report, the fatigue risk management report and the special audit were not necessarily pertinent. I think the term was they were a private, internal report. Now that ATSB has reopened that investigation could you assure the committee that it is your intention to share all that information about the inadequacies of CASA's oversight at the time with the team so that the new report reflects not just the actions of the pilot but the inadequate supervision of the organisation and the self-identified inadequacies of CASA at the time?

Mr Skidmore : I think it is fair to say that we have provided all the information that the ATSB has requested of us and we will take into account any recommendations that come out of the investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be your view that a report like the Chambers report should have been provided to ATSB voluntarily?

Mr Skidmore : I was not there at the time. It is very unfair for me to be making a statement of the organisation of the past.

Mr Aleck : One of the significant amendments we have made to the MOU with the ATSB is to put beyond doubt the kind of information that can and should be provided on request, or sometimes voluntarily. As you may recall, the existence of the Chambers report was conveyed to the ATSB. The circumstances under which that happened probably were not as concrete as they certainly will be in future.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Aleck, I think you might recall Mr Dolan found out about it 30 minutes before he appeared before the Senate committee because he had overheard the evidence where we had dug it out of half a truck load of cardboard boxes that CASA had dumped on our doorstep. I do not accept the contention that they knew about it before the report was issued; in fact, the Canadian peer review confirms that was not the case.

Mr Aleck : I will not challenge that except to say that I believe the former director gave evidence that he had mentioned this to Mr Dolan. Now, he might not have mentioned it by the term Chambers report, because that was a term that came into existence afterwards, but I think the information about some inquiry having been made internally had been conveyed. I guess the major point is that that kind of thing should not happen again under the new arrangements.

Senator FAWCETT: I am very pleased to hear that...

Cont/-

While on the subject of the Chambers Report I had a...light bulb moment?  ...from this bollocks from Doc A off the Hansard:

...[b]Mr Aleck : One of the significant amendments we have made to the MOU with the ATSB is to put beyond doubt the kind of information that can and should be provided on request, or sometimes voluntarily. As you may recall, the existence of the Chambers report was conveyed to the ATSB. The circumstances under which that happened probably were not as concrete as they certainly will be in future....

..Mr Aleck : I will not challenge that except to say that I believe the former director gave evidence that he had mentioned this to Mr Dolan. Now, he might not have mentioned it by the term Chambers report, because that was a term that came into existence afterwards, but I think the information about some inquiry having been made internally had been conveyed. I guess the major point is that that kind of thing should not happen again under the new arrangements... [/b]

Casting my mind back to the latter part of the PelAir Inquiry there was a CASA supplementary submission, that partly due to its late arrival only received scant attention -
2nd Supplementary Submission of CASA 

I remembered that this submission was largely a rather cynical attempt by CASA to discredit  Ben Cook's FRMS Special audit report and to defend their actions in withholding both the Special Audit report & the Chambers report.

However there was also a part where McComic preceded to try to throw Dolan under the bus, with the obvious aim to absolve CASA of all responsibility for the PelAir Duck-up, refer para 4.8-4.10  : 





Now refer to the Doc Aleck Hansard excerpt (above) and it now becomes quite obvious who the architect & author was of that spin & bulldust supplementary submission - that's nasty Doc

Aleck's comments quite simply confirm what some of us have always known - HE is the backbone of the completely dysfunctional mess that CAsA has been ALLOWED to morph in to over the past 20 years. 'Hello McFly, anybody home'?

FFS, at least in my opinion he is starting to be dragged into the spotlight where he belongs. Don't let the little old fuzzy haired grey bearded softly spoken 'I'm here to help you' bullshit fool you. He is a smooth salesman, a clever politician wannabe, and he has mastered the act of quietly slithering out of the way every time a fire is lit. He hasn't outlived multiple DAS's due to 'blind luck'.

And may by I add this comment towards Sen Fawcett and Sen Xenophon; Bloody hell gentlemen, congratulations and well done. You both remind me of former American Senator Ron Paul (not to be confused with son Rand Paul). You are Senators who are concerned about the fairness in the manner that people are treated. You have the balls to say (in a roundabout way) what we've all been saying - the treatment of Casey and James is a disgrace and they should be treated  fairly and ethically and as such they should be compensated. Well done Senators, you went up yet another notch in my book. Cheers

Can'tberra & Montreal in a parallel universe?? - The who's who of Hoodoo

I know the above is tracking over much trampled ground but seeing the seemingly ageless Doc A, fresh-faced and brimming with vim, vigour & much spin-n-bulldust at Estimates the other evening, got me thinking again about his role in the diabolical PelAir Cover-up.

A couple of very relevant quotes from PT blog - 

A video reminder that the redone Pel-Air report is now due


 

1
comet
Posted February 7, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

There also needs to be another investigation into why our aviation safety organisations are failing to investigate / regulate properly.
Otherwise they’ll do it again.

2
Simon Gunson
Posted February 9, 2016 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

Whilst I agree with you Comet on the need to investigate the investigators, to borrow a phrase from Brock McEwan, Real Politik is that ATSB are faithfully doing their master’s bidding. If that means covering for CASA, then so be it. In a word, it is called political corruption.

It is their masters who have the back of Dolan & co covered. Dolan knows he can do no wrong. In Monopoly they call it a get out of jail free card.

The ATSB has to be seen for what it is. A political animal. A taxpayer funded PR spin agency masquerading as an impartial investigative agency. As long as the leadership of ATSB has no integrity and no backbone, nothing will ever change.

I know it is semantics but from the video (above) I have been trying to capture Doc A's name plate to see what his title now says. If anyone can do that then it would be much appreciated .  The reason being that the Doc is quoted in an excellent article from Airlines International (published a mere week ago) on 'Just Culture' :

3 February 2016

• just culture
  
• Safety
  
• regulation
  

Just culture can improve safety

It is only natural that people and organizations would be less willing to report their errors and other safety issues if they are afraid of punishment or even prosecution
Just Culture achieved prominent recognition in the European Union (EU) last month, and there are new provisions calling for the protection of safety-related information anticipated to be adopted by the ICAO Council very soon. But, it is what you do with the tremendous amount of data that a just culture enables to be captured, through various mandatory and voluntary reporting systems, that magnifies its positive effect.

“The new EU regulation is about encouraging aviation personnel to tell their employer when things aren’t working well. It isn’t always that someone has made a mistake, it’s that something hasn’t worked out as expected on this occasion. They need to feel that they are being supported by their employer and that this information is useful and will be used to improve things,” said U.K. Civil Aviation Authority’s Performance Based Regulation Safety Data Lead, Sean Parker.

Beyond Europe, global standards beckon for Just Culture [See box Explaining Just Culture]. In October, ICAO member states filed their responses to proposals that include the addition of Safety Culture to Annex 19 of the Chicago Convention. Safety Culture is a broader concept, in which Just Culture is part. Just Culture enables a Safety Culture to exist. Following the anticipated final approval in March 2016, ICAO member states could be required to adopt Safety Culture through the amended Annex in November. Experts foresee a 2018-2020 timeframe for Safety Culture’s incorporation into the domestic regulation of the 190 ICAO member states.

Safety Culture and the need to protect safety data and safety information, collected for the purpose of maintaining or improving safety, was a notable theme at the second ICAO High Level Safety Conference, held earlier in 2015 in Montréal. It was agreed that quick progress in this regard is critical for the improvement of aviation safety.

“It is only natural that people and organizations would be less willing to report their errors and other safety issues if they are afraid of punishment or even prosecution,” noted Gilberto Lopez Meyer, IATA Senior Vice President, Safety and Flight Operations. “These protections are essential for the ongoing availability of safety data and safety information, and forms the basis of a Just Culture.”

The adoption of Just Culture will not only widen the array of data sources that can feed into a company or industry-wide predictive tool, but also increase the quality of the data provided. It is the predictive data analysis that can deliver more than simply local improvement at an airport or maintenance hangar, which a conventional mandatory reporting system for the immediate line managers may do.

Such predictive analysis can also be useful for accident prevention and investigation. A diversity of data to analyse is good because accidents are, “always a confluence of a variety of different factors, which nobody would ever have guessed would have come together at the same time,” IATA General Counsel Jeffrey Shane said.

The quantity of data produced from mandatory and voluntary reporting systems cannot be understated. Legal firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Partner and Head of its aviation practice, Kenneth Quinn said: “You’re getting 10,000 bits of data from the widest possible variety of sources from airlines, as well as voluntary occurrence reports, [and] your getting it from repair stations.” And all of that can go into powerful computers.

“A big benefit is you can benchmark against other people,” Quinn said. “If you have five engine shutdowns over the course of a year and airline B has none then you have a higher than normal average of in-flight shutdowns, how are you monitoring things?”
Quinn points to the work the United States’ Federal Aviation Administration has done. All of that occurrence data, Quinn said, “goes into very powerful computers…and you take that and implement mitigation strategies to correct that, its having demonstrable safety benefits.” Because of the FAA’s work, Quinn explained that other authorities are examining the potential for such mass data reporting based predictive technology.

At the European Commission’s Aerodays 2015 conference in London in October, the European Aviation Safety Agency talked about its big data safety project that will spend about 31 million euros from 2015 to 2017. The project will seek to demonstrate an ability to predict an unsafe situation.

The adoption of Safety Culture, and by default Just Culture, by ICAO, will, however, present a challenge to some member states and access to all the diverse data that could make a difference could be hindered.  “We recognize there are sovereign legal systems that regard an accident as, in the first instance, something that is a potential criminal act,” said Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Associate Director of Aviation Safety, Jonathan Aleck.

Australia is not a country that begins with a criminal investigation, Aleck highlighted. Its airlines have adopted Just Cultures and in its latest annual review for 2015, Qantas said: “We are proud of our strong, ‘just culture’ of reporting and our dedication to learning from our experiences. And we strive to maintain an environment that encourages trust and confidence in our people to report hazards and incidents and suggest safety improvements.”

Nations whose airlines do face a criminal investigation team, whether they have Just Cultures or not, according to Aleck. He said: “In some jurisdictions there is a strict program [of aviation regulation]. The idea of just culture doesn’t fit well with those kinds of regimes, where the first people on the scene are often criminal investigators.” - Classic from the man who speak with fork tongue

Before the likely cause of the 31 October crash of Metrojet flight 9268 had been identified as a bomb, the Russian authorities initial announcement regarding its investigation was the start of a criminal one. The concern is that people who know what led to an accident will say nothing for fear of prosecution, when their information could help stop potentially fatal incidents from occurring again.

Shane is positive about changes to national legislation where Just Culture is not already codified following the expected ICAO March decision. He said: “The benefits can be demonstrated so powerfully that I expect [legislatures to adopt it in the next few years].”

The expansion of Just Culture has grown momentum. For those that have or are employing it, they find that it delivers new insights into how things go wrong. But, questions remain as to how far nations, whose instinct is to investigate possible criminal action first, can succeed in gaining all the possible benefits from the additional information that becomes available.

IATA Member & External Relations, ICAO, Director, Michael Comber sums it up simply. “It’s a tremendous advantage to have people come forward and speak because it’s the best way to prevent as well as figure out how [accidents] happened.” And that points us in the direction of improving safety.

Explaining Just Culture
The definition of Just Culture is an open way of working in which employees are not punished for decisions taken in good faith and commensurate with their experience and training. The employees can report mistakes, by them or others, and know that that information will feed into the safety management system.

However, gross negligence, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.
Just Culture has been required within the EU since November under its regulation 376/2014 that also renews earlier mandatory reporting law. For Just Culture, the EU is requiring that organizations have protection for the reporting staff member, and for persons mentioned in the report, rules for confidentiality, and protection from an employer.

Prior to the European law coming into effect, a European declaration in favor of Just Culture was published in October. The declaration is supported by the Airports Council International, European regions airline association, European Cockpit Association, Aircraft Engineers International, IATA, and other aviation organizations.

As well as European efforts to implement Just Culture, this non-punitive reporting system was included in the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s new regulatory philosophy published in 2015. Prior to Australia’s CASA action, the United States, New Zealand and the UK had their own rules in place. 

 
From the man who brought us the toxic 2010 ATSB/CASA MOU & some extra 1000s of pages of legalese to the regulations, that make the Bible pale into insignificance, yet even he cannot accept that with the CASA organisational restructure, that he has been demoted, shuffled sideways & down a bit in the pecking order; or is this just another sign that OST is just dribbling weasel words to appease his political masters & that nothing has really changed...  

MTF..P2     

[Peetwo]

Can'tberra & Montreal in a parallel universe?? - The who's who of Hoodoo

I know the above is tracking over much trampled ground but seeing the seemingly ageless Doc A, fresh-faced and brimming with vim, vigour & much spin-n-bulldust at Estimates the other evening, got me thinking again about his role in the diabolical PelAir Cover-up.

A couple of very relevant quotes from PT blog - 

A video reminder that the redone Pel-Air report is now due  

1
comet
Posted February 7, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

There also needs to be another investigation into why our aviation safety organisations are failing to investigate / regulate properly.
Otherwise they’ll do it again.

2
Simon Gunson
Posted February 9, 2016 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

Whilst I agree with you Comet on the need to investigate the investigators, to borrow a phrase from Brock McEwan, Real Politik is that ATSB are faithfully doing their master’s bidding. If that means covering for CASA, then so be it. In a word, it is called political corruption.

It is their masters who have the back of Dolan & co covered. Dolan knows he can do no wrong. In Monopoly they call it a get out of jail free card.

The ATSB has to be seen for what it is. A political animal. A taxpayer funded PR spin agency masquerading as an impartial investigative agency. As long as the leadership of ATSB has no integrity and no backbone, nothing will ever change.

I know it is semantics but from the video (above) I have been trying to capture Doc A's name plate to see what his title now says. If anyone can do that then it would be much appreciated .  The reason being that the Doc is quoted in an excellent article from Airlines International (published a mere week ago) on 'Just Culture' :

Just culture can improve safety:

The adoption of Safety Culture, and by default Just Culture, by ICAO, will, however, present a challenge to some member states and access to all the diverse data that could make a difference could be hindered.  “We recognize there are sovereign legal systems that regard an accident as, in the first instance, something that is a potential criminal act,” said Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Associate Director of Aviation Safety, Jonathan Aleck.

Australia is not a country that begins with a criminal investigation, Aleck highlighted. Its airlines have adopted Just Cultures and in its latest annual review for 2015, Qantas said: “We are proud of our strong, ‘just culture’ of reporting and our dedication to learning from our experiences. And we strive to maintain an environment that encourages trust and confidence in our people to report hazards and incidents and suggest safety improvements.”

Nations whose airlines do face a criminal investigation team, whether they have Just Cultures or not, according to Aleck. He said: “In some jurisdictions there is a strict program [of aviation regulation]. The idea of just culture doesn’t fit well with those kinds of regimes, where the first people on the scene are often criminal investigators.” - Classic from the man who speak with fork tongue

 
From the man who brought us the toxic 2010 ATSB/CASA MOU & some extra 1000s of pages of legalese to the regulations, that make the Bible pale into insignificance, yet even he cannot accept that with the CASA organisational restructure, that he has been demoted, shuffled sideways & down a bit in the pecking order; or is this just another sign that OST is just dribbling weasel words to appease his political masters & that nothing has really changed...       

Just a confirmation that Doc A is still listed as the ADAS, from Hansard released today:

Pg 5 -


Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Mr Mark Skidmore, Chief Executive Officer

Dr Jonathan Aleck, Associate Director of Aviation Safety - FFS haven't you inflicted enough damage? You parasite just 'GO AWAY'

Mr Roger Weeks, Acting Executive Manager, Standards

Mr Gerard Campbell, Executive Manager, Operations

Mr Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation

Mr Craig Jordan, Acting Executive Manager, Industry Permissions

Mr Adam Anastasi, Executive Manager, Legal Services

Ms Eleanor Dean, Acting Group Manager Stakeholder Engagement

Mr Brian Keech, Acting Executive Manager, Corporate Services

Mr Simon Frawley, Acting Chief Finance Officer

MTF...P2

[crankybastards]

How mastaboritorial. A bunch of scullers pulling in unison. Apologies to the clitorialists seated at the rear.

[Kharon]

Gone, but not forgotten.

I doubt many will notice but the news of the Chambers departure from Sleepy Hollow has been placed in mothballs, for safe keeping until we see where he fetched up in the ASA.  Much like the Truss departure, except for a few heartfelt sighs of relief, there is little to discuss except the carnage and damage left behind, for others to clear up.

On balance, you’d have to say Truss caused less mayhem; certainly less damage to the CASA reputation and a good deal less to individuals.  Not so for Wodger, the long serving McComic catamite who has left behind a legacy of such distrust of CASA within the Sydney region it can; and often does beggar the imagination.  PAIN has presented some fairly clever ‘legal types’ with clear cut facts, all supported, relating to some of the Weport Wabbit's doings.   Mind you these are clever folk well versed in the venal arts, one particularly sanguine fellahin summed it up in one laconic, elegant sentence “Clucking unbelievable”.

The side bar to that was, that without serious support, from below and above, the bending,  twisting  and 'bad faith' use of 'law' and manipulation of power could not have happened; not even in the deepest, darkest recesses of corporate shenanigans. “Do you know who else is associated?” is often asked; our answer, “Oh yes M’lud”.    

Aye well, it’s good the poison dwarf has departed the fix; no doubt he’ll fit in well with the Halfwit methodology.  Perhaps those who assisted the rat off the sinking ship, like most who have been gulled by a super sales pitch will, as have others tainted by the association eventually come to regret offering that life line.  That is short odds on my tote board, but it’s a long race yet to run.

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Toot toot.