Shame or fame for Chester?

Chester the charlatan transport minister - Dodgy
Quote:[Image: Chester-the-charlatan-Transport-Minister.jpg]
Besides the absurd statement by Chester...
Quote:[Image: Untitled_Clipping_012917_102448_AM.jpg]
...if you wanted a clear example of how absolutely wedded to political opinion this WOFTAM/NFI of a miniscule is observe the following tweeps in reaction to the SMH article... Confused

The first tweep was in response to this SMH comment..

"..Spending on jet hire to Canberra for sitting weeks is filed by the Finance Department under the little-known expense category of "special minister of state-approved" flights..."

Quote:[Image: 4D-1.jpg]

The 2nd tweep seems to be a tetchy response to the overall negative inferences in the SMH article... Rolleyes :

Quote:[Image: 4D-2.jpg]

Meanwhile miniscule while your justifying flogging around in bug-smashers on taxpayers hard-earned, CASA continues to be duplicitous in their dealings with industry - see A Grim Faery tale - and you wonder why it is that industry continues to distrust them - FFS.. Dodgy

On trust to quote from AMROBA's latest & 1st newsletter for 2017 Wink :

"...Australian general aviation, including aerial work operators, engineering: design, maintenance and manufacturing, is being constrained by over-regulation that delivers low participation, low utilisation of non-airline aircraft and over burdening requirements that are written in a style that works against safety.

If industry is regulatory treated as felonious, as ‘strict liability’ requirements infers, then ‘trust’ cannot be attained between CASA and industry participants.

Safety requires trust – without trust, safety is not fully achieved.

Safety management systems are based on each person having the skills and attitude (safety commitment) trusting the other person so aircraft are safe to fly and aircraft are then operated within the capability of the pilot. This overall safety approach should include trust by government and its agencies of this industry’s safety conscious workforce, many that are approved and/or licenced by CASA..."

Simply put miniscule 4D until you get it through your (obviously extremely thick skulled) cranium that the problem lies in your complete & utter trust with those that are doing the deceiving & obfuscating (i.e. CASA), then you will continue to receive much derision and scorn from those that you need to convince that you are advocating for (i.e. the industry)... Dodgy


MTF...P2 Cool

Ps #CASAJudicialinquiry NOW!

Here is a re-hash of the 'battle of the two Big Macks':




How things have changed? - NOT... Angry
Reply

 QON for the miniscule...Rolleyes - Part I  

Reference Ferryman M&M post:

(02-04-2017, 07:06 AM)kharon Wrote:  A classic – in the true sense.

CASA – “Description: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requires the services of a suitably qualified specialist or team of specialists independent of CASA to undertake a review of the latest fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013).”

Well held P2, good catch Sir. This is indeed so very much the ‘real deal’ so typical of our “air safety” agencies, particularly CASA, that it should be included in the politicians little book of ‘How not to get conned’. The CASA exercise highlights so much of the endless river of money which disappears every year down the CASA plughole.

CASA – “The fatigue rules for air operators and pilots have been updated as part of the CASA’s regulation reform program that seeks to align Australia with international standards, improve aviation safety, address known risks, and maintain our reputation for safety in aviation. The review will provide an informed basis on which CASA will complete the implementation of the new fatigue rules in the context of the current international and domestic regulatory environments.”

Got that? really got it? Good then we shall have a quick Q&A for the miniscule, just to make sure. We will even allow the questions to be ‘taken on notice’ a QoN if you will.

1) How many of our close neighbour countries have ICAO compliant fatigue rules in place which have been ‘satisfactory’ to all parties?

2) What was the total cost to those countries to achieve this desirable outcome?

3) In which year did industry request that the simple, standard industry exemption to CAO 48 be included in law?

4) In which year did the option of using FRMS or CAO 48 become acceptable?

5) In which year did this practice become not acceptable?

6) How much, so far, in total, has the abortive CAO 48.1 cost the tax payer?

7) Do we have a ‘new’, reformed, better, safer, fairer fatigue rule in existence today?

8) In which year did CASA employ two internationally recognised Human Factors/ fatigue specialists?

9) In which year did the said ‘specialists’ leave CASA in high dudgeon (and, for a bonus point) can you tell us why?

10) Can you nominate the two highly qualified ‘specialists’ most likely to return, at highly expensive consultant rates; to complete the task?

We do have the answers to these questions minister; do you? Perhaps Wingnut can help you out. No hurry with QoN – Estimates is a while off yet. Tick tock, tick tock.

Carmody is doing a magnificent job; pouring recycled oil onto the ministers troubled duck pond. Patching, papering, white-washing and dodging every bullet without changing, reforming or amending any thing. Well, some people can be fooled – sometimes. It is one thing to sooth the troubled ministerial breast; but to tame an angry beast is quite another – you need to play the right tune.  Spin away, roll the dice – delay and defer for another $100 millions on ‘reform’; obfuscate and hide behind manufactured safeguards – little ‘we’ can do about that.  But sooner or later, someone will use these travesties to decimate the government which allowed the cost of doing nothing, except looking good to destroy an industry.

"I am disgraced, impeach'd and baffled here,
Pierced to the soul with slander's venom'd spear,
The which no balm can cure but his heart-blood
Which breathed this poison"


Toot toot.

Dear miniscule 4D,

I am pretty sure that your faithful puppet-masters at the Department and indeed Comardy himself, will be able to supply the answers for PAIN QON 1 thru 6. However they maybe a bit sketchy and hesitant to provide the necessary intel/research for your minions to join the dots for AQON 7 thru to 10.

Therefore in the interest of transparency and industry 'olive branch' diplomacy, I have volunteered to be the BRB intermediary to help your minions unimpeded access to all the dots necessary to answer QON 7-10... Wink

Yours P2. 

To begin, unfortunately I will have to re-visit parts of previous Aviation Safety WOFTAM Inquiries/Reviews, including the infamous (still ongoing) Pel-Air (cover-up) Investigation/Inquiry/Review/Re-investigation/Clusterduck... Blush  

First up some handy refresher references... Wink :

1.
Quote:Who was it that once said... Huh

"...In the end it's only the pilot who can decide whether he is fatigued or he or she is fatigued and unable to conduct a flight..."

Video: Interview with John McCormick, Director Aviation Safety, CASA (Four Corners)

2.
Quote:Pilot training and airline safety; and Consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010

23 June 2011

Quote:Tabled document received from Senator Xenophon on 18 March 2011 in Canberra. Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) report titled on 'Special Fatigue Audit: Jetstar';(PDF 5210KB) 
 
3.
Quote:Aviation Accident Investigations

Quote:19 CASA Special Audit of Pel-Air Fatigue Risk Management System, received 10 October 2012;(PDF 5428KB)

[Image: cook2.jpg]


4.
Quote:Supplementary Submission(PDF 1183KB) 
[Image: cook.jpg]
5.
Quote:16 Internal ATSB email- reviewer wanting to look more closely at FRMS and re-interview pilots (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 535KB)

[Image: Cook-3.jpg]

MTF?- Definitely...P2   Tongue
Reply

P2, an old saying:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

Nice bit of detective work sherlock.
Reply

Cooke - Subordinate or Insubordinate?

Nicely joined up dots P2; just enough breadcrumbs to get them to ‘fact –city’. It don’t signify of course, not in any way which is of either intrinsic or practical value; well, not according to the tote board at least. Hot favourite is the ‘Carmody roll-off-the top’ – pick up some speed, back stick, into the loop and at the top, roll out, come out level – pointing the other way. As the great fatigue duck floats over the still waters of parliamentary indifference.

[Image: Big_duck.jpg]

The betting runs thus: the decisions of the then DAS will be upheld and it will be stated that he acted correctly – at the time – and those decisions have withstood the Senate examination; therefore – discussion over.

There is money for the ‘new approach’ supported by a ‘tiger team’ and independent assessment simply ignoring the history – and the vast sums expended. But there are no takers, at any odds, for the simple adoption of any existing ICAO compliant system.

But ‘fatigue’ is a serious problem and strongly conflicted.  Associations and unions want as much as possible for their members, for the least amount and see this as a way to create employment. Companies want quite the reverse; maximum hours for as little cost as possible. These are ‘acceptable’ reconcilable positions – history shows that eventually some sort of compromise is reached and life goes on. This does not address the core issues; that of ‘fatigue’; which IMO is a very personal and individual thing; a state which can be increased or decreased by many factors. There is, I believe, little that legislation can do about a sick child keeping the house awake all night, or a car alarm going off during the day – it is up to the individual then to decide if they are fatigued and cannot safely do their days work.

The area which intrigues me is ‘task related’ fatigue; which presents a good argument for individual company ‘fatigue’ rules to be set according to the fatigue level of a task requirement. Say, for example, your rota has you signing on at 0800, airborne by 0900, four sectors; back at base by 1700, free of duty by 1730.  You may, after five days of this be a little tired and looking forward to a weekend off – but ‘fatigue’ is not anywhere near a matter for concern. Then look to the other end of it – say a RFDS pilot on night call out; sleep pattern interrupted, night landing on a remote strip, no instrument approach, kerosene soaked toilet rolls for a flare path; a seriously damaged patient to transport; then back to base and the next flight is urgent, so off they go again.  This crew is absolutely knackered at the end of the shift and must now try to relax, get some sleep during daylight hours and do it all again the same night. There is a good case right there for genuine task induced ‘fatigue’ to be a safety factor. One rough night, acceptable fatigue, two in row, marginal: three in row - is looking for trouble.  I won’t bang on too much more about this – you can dream up your own examples. What I am trying to say is that perhaps some consideration should be given to the notion of individual companies, negotiating and tailoring ‘task’ specific fatigue rules, which encompass all the pertinent factors leading to real ‘fatigue’ becoming a real safety issue. Inflexible, prescriptive, black letter rules cannot cover all the bases. Perhaps Ben Cook can solve the riddle – given the chance.

Oh, I have digressed – rambled even; no matter, I know where my knitting is and I shall return to my corner directly.

Toot toot.
Reply

QON for the miniscule - Part II

(02-05-2017, 11:20 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  4.
Quote:Supplementary Submission(PDF 1183KB) 
[Image: cook.jpg]
5.
Quote:16 Internal ATSB email- reviewer wanting to look more closely at FRMS and re-interview pilots (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 535KB)

&..

Quote: ..Nicely joined up dots P2; just enough breadcrumbs to get them to ‘fact –city’. It don’t signify of course, not in any way which is of either intrinsic or practical value; well, not according to the tote board at least. Hot favourite is the ‘Carmody roll-off-the top’ – pick up some speed, back stick, into the loop and at the top, roll out, come out level – pointing the other way. As the great fatigue duck floats over the still waters of parliamentary indifference.

[Image: Big_duck.jpg]

The betting runs thus: the decisions of the then DAS will be upheld and it will be stated that he acted correctly – at the time – and those decisions have withstood the Senate examination; therefore – discussion over...

Okay continuing with the paper/cyber trail, in particular in relation to former HF Manager at CASA Mr Ben Cook, I came across an old UP post of mine which helps fill in some of the chronological gaps in the crumb trail: Third MoP sponsor: The case of the shrinking Attachment B?? 

From about here:
Quote:....Extract subpara 2.9 – 2.10 Presumably (as stated in 2.10) BC was afforded the same courtesy to comment on the DRAFT version of CAIR 09/3, which made the following cursory statement in reference to the comprehensive & rather damning findings of the PelAir FRMS that were published in the FRMS Special Audit report (authored by BC & MC)...

...Put yourself in the shoes of BC at the time & you were the FF Manager of Human Factors and resident guru on FRMS, who was currently sitting on the ICAO Fatigue Risk Management Systems Task Force (FRMSTF) (see his CV here). And you were faced with the prospect of having to sign off on that report, what would you do?? Personally I’d jump ship and that is exactly what BC did and as they say the rest is history...


Quote:Experience
Deputy Director Human & Systems Performance
Directorate of Defence Aviation & Air Force Safety
August 2010 – Present (4 years)

Human Factors, Safety Analysis, Safety Education & Training
Air Safety Investigator
Directorate of Defence Aviation & Air Force Safety
August 2010 – Present (4 years)

Manager Human Factors
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
October 2007 – July 2010 (2 years 10 months)

Human Factors Field Operations
Airservices Australia
June 2006 – September 2007 (1 year 4 months)

Pilot, Flying Instructor, Aviation Safety Officer
Royal Australian Air Force
May 1991 – May 2006 (15 years 1 month) Various

If you have the time it is worth reading my UP post, & some of the posts before and after, in full to get a real sense of the amount of lies, deceit and obfuscation that surrounded the now infamous PelAir cover-up investigation - however I digress... Rolleyes

So Ben Cook in the middle of 2010, probably due to professional differences of opinion with the former DAS McCormick on the Pelair & Jetstar Darwin FRMS audits he conducted, decides to snatch it as the HF Manager for CASA.

This career hiccup did not apparently impede his career progression - see HERE - in fact it was probably the best career decision he ever made.

Now here is the irony, BC is now back in Canberra as CEO of HSE3. Which is one of the most highly credentialed Human Factors consultancy firms established in Australia:
 
Quote:Welcome

Human and Systems Excellence (HSE3) is a human factors consultancy for businesses such as those in the aviation, oil and gas, medical, mining, transport, agriculture, and energy industries. We remain at the forefront of contemporary human factors programs.
Through tailored solutions in human factors, safety management and workplace culture we help you enhance business excellence by building a solid foundation of trust, integrity and leadership through sustained, effective communication.

View our products and services
         
&..
Quote:[Image: Ben_profile_landscape_2.jpg]Ben Cook
Chief Executive Officer, HSE3

Ben has over 20 years of safety management and governance experience, the majority as an applied human factors specialist. He re-aligns Health, Safety and Environment (HSE3) capability to better support business strategy and corporate needs. The outcome is empowered individuals and teams capable of delivering innovative projects to achieve behavioural and cultural change.

A leader in safety, risk and human factors strategies, Ben supported the development of international safety standards now used in global aviation. He is one of Australia’s most senior human factors specialists, and has delivered real improvements in high performance teams across the aviation, military and transport industries. He provides specialist advice to senior management in the pragmatic application of safety legislation with a focus on human behaviour.

Ben’s extensive corporate experience and access to a diverse range of industry leaders and high performance teams, including the partnership with US-based Dr Tony Kern (Convergent Performance), Matt Hall Racing (Australian Red Bull Air Race Team) and elite military units, ensures HSE3 remains the contemporary Australian leader in applied human factors interventions to enhance organisational business performance.

What do you think the chances are that a perfectly placed and highly regarded HF firm like HSE3 will put in for the CASA FRMS review contract Huh Big Grin : CASA, ASA & ATSB - Up for tender?
Quote:Description: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requires the services of a suitably qualified specialist or team of specialists independent of CASA to undertake a review of the latest fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013).

The fatigue rules for air operators and pilots have been updated as part of the CASA’s regulation reform program that seeks to align Australia with international standards, improve aviation safety, address known risks, and maintain our reputation for safety in aviation. The review will provide an informed basis on which CASA will complete the implementation of the new fatigue rules in the context of the current international and domestic regulatory environments.

The role of the specialist/s will be to:
  • develop an appropriate methodology to fulfil the reivew Terms of Reference;
  • implement all aspects of the required research and report on findings;
  • make recommendations emerging from the findings including recommendations to support CASA to achieve the aim of the Terms of Reference.
Other Instructions: Please see the Terms of Reference for the conduct of an independent review of aviation fatigue rules for operators and pilots (CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013) document for further detail on the requirements for review

Conditions for Participation: Nil

Timeframe for Delivery: 10 September 2017
Address for Lodgement: AusTender at http://www.tenders.gov.au, in accordance with instructions in Request documentation
Addenda Available:
View Addenda



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

P2;

So Ben Cook in the middle of 2010, probably due to professional differences of opinion with the former DAS McCormick on the Pelair & Jetstar Darwin FRMS audits he conducted, decides to snatch it as the HF Manager for CASA.

I won't go into to much detail out of respect for Ben but a) he had to deal with that complete sociopath McSkull, and b) Ben was undervalued, underpaid and under appreciated. When he hit them up for more money as his salary was complete shite, they balked and he walked. He was always too good for a retarded outfit like CAsA.

P.S The guy also has integrity. Something Fort Fumble is still short on today, and even more so in the days when he was there putting up with the Screaming Skull, Farkwitson, Dr Voodoo, Hood and a host of other twats like P.Boyd, Wodger and others.
Reply

Trump gets it, Chester forgets it -  Dodgy

Maybe it is because Trump is a businessman that understands the financial imposition (bottom line) that unnecessary red tape places on businesses but I note the following parallel hemisphere dichotomy...  Rolleyes

Via US 'FLYING' publication:
Quote:Trump Promises ‘Big Changes’ During Sit-Down with Airline CEOs

The president’s first meeting with airline chief executives focuses on airport infrastructure improvements and ATC modernization.
By Stephen Pope February 10, 2017


[Image: donald_trump_airlines.jpg?itok=X9qqXUJT&fc=50,50] Enlarge
CNN

President Donald Trump met this morning with airline executives, promising "big changes" to the U.S. air travel system.

In his first meeting with airline CEOs, President Donald Trump bemoaned the “regulatory morass” he says is responsible for stonewalling air traffic control modernization efforts and airport infrastructure improvements, but promised “big changes” in the way Washington deals with the air travel system in the United States.

Noting that the country has spent trillions of dollars on wars in the Middle East with “nothing” to show for it, the president complained that American airports have fallen to the “bottom rung” compared with those in other countries as he also lashed out at NextGen ATC modernization failures.

On the campaign trail, Trump often derided New York LaGuardia Airport, JFK and Los Angeles International as no better than those in “Third World countries.” At today’s meeting with the CEOs of Delta Air Lines, United, Southwest, JetBlue and Alaska Airlines, the president said airport and rail infrastructure in the United States has become “obsolete” and “we have bad roads.”

“We’re going to change all of that, folks,” he told airline and airport officials attending the breakfast meeting this morning. “You’re going to be so happy with Trump.”

The president did not address the hot-button issue of ATC privatization, but it is on the wish lists of several of the chief executives in attendance and has already come up in conversations between backers in Congress and incoming administration officials.

On NextGen, Trump said “many people,” including his personal pilot, have told him the technology the FAA is pursuing for ATC modernization is the “wrong stuff” and is “obsolete the day they order it.”

“My pilot, he is a smart guy, and he knows what’s going on. He said the government is using the wrong equipment and instituting a massive multibillion-dollar project using the wrong type of equipment," Trump said. "So let’s find out about that.”
Versus:
(02-13-2017, 06:34 AM)kharon Wrote:  A question for the minister.

P2 – “With the ATSB now 2 plus year re-investigation, it should be safe to assume that there will more a proactive review of the historical CASA oversight/audit of the significant elements of the pre-ditching CASA approved Pel-Air AOC.”

PAIN – “5) We submit that any other form of investigation will not withstand the scrutiny of industry experts; as the initial premise is fatally flawed.  The potential for further disingenuous obfuscation is obvious.  This will, ultimately, be detrimental, not only to the travelling public and industry, but to the government which allowed one authority to investigate it's own wrong doings, but avoided investigating those agencies and their officers, those which aided and abetted the travesty, which is, in reality, exactly what the Pel-Air accident investigation became, internationally, recognized as.”

The incredible amount of time the ATSB have taken to revisit their own report is only a small part of the complaint and protest not only industry, but politicians of all parties should be making on behalf of the tax paying, travelling general population.

PAIN – “3) Our greatest concern is that a deliberate, calculated manipulation of the national aviation safety system was attempted. This, despite contrary, departmental input, is clearly not a 'one off' aberration. We firmly believe that the subsequent actions of both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB were proven, by the AAI committee, to grossly pervert the conclusions of the investigation, to suit a clearly predetermined outcome, thus denying industry valuable, safety related knowledge and information.”

Paragraph 3 of the PAIN introduction defines the radical concern. These concerns have not been addressed in any way shape or form. A fact independent research undeniably confirms.  The Senate AAI committee made some 30 recommendations for reform of the regulator; these have, for all practical purposes, been ignored. Those recommendations went to the heart of the matter; the complete lack of trust industry has in the probity of two safety agencies; the breaking of that trust was not of industries’ doing. The ASRR confirmed this as further proof of fact, with an additional 36 recommendations to the Senate deliberations.

One of the more alarming results of the independent study defines, very clearly, not only the very ‘soft ride’ the Pel-Air operating certificate was afforded in terms of operational scrutiny, but in surveillance of the CASA approved operations. Standing alone, this fact is worthy of investigation.  This is not however the most serious concern raised through investigation.

Any comparison between the actions of CASA and it’s officers involved in the closure of Airtex aviation and the almost indecent rapidity with Pel-Air were granted absolution provides a picture which is both stark and clear.

Not only were CASA prepared to overlook the glaring organisational and operational shortcomings at Pel-Air, they were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to minimise that lack. The treatment of Airtex was diametrically, demonstrably opposite. In depth analysis of the Airtex ‘treatment’ reveals numerous instances of what are alleged to be serious breeches of law, policy and accepted protocol committed by CASA officers during the Airtex audit and subsequent AAAT hearing.

It is not realistic to expect a whole industry to trust or be prepared to ‘co-operate’ in a any form of regulatory reform process until there can be a modicum of trust in the regulator. There is only one way to resolve the situation. The minister must open a judicial inquiry to allow complaints made by industry participants against CASA to be tested. This process is the only option available to ‘clear the air’. There is to be a new DAS; it would be highly desirable to begin the new administration with a ‘clean sheet’ and trust between the regulator and those it regulates re established.

As matters stand now there is little prospect of genuine regulatory reform or, trusting, genuine cooperation. Nor will there be, not until festering resentment is treated with open, fair, impartial rulings made against ‘law’ rather than malleable policy and questionable motives.

This could be achieved without the expense of a Royal commission or the natural delays which encumber the Senate process. A judicial inquiry, in camera would quickly reveal if there was indeed a case for CASA to answer.

A question directed to the minister, asking if he is prepared to resolve the conflicted opinions would reveal whether or not CASA is prepared to stand in a court of law, defend their past actions and be governed by the rule of law. The Pel-Air and Airtex comparison would be a good place to begin the journey.

Selah.

Spot the difference?-  Like chalk & cheese I reckon... Rolleyes
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Of chalk and cheese and a listening ear

Nice catch P2. Indeed some of the differences to Strayla are most interesting. Let's list some of what Trump actually does understand compared to the prehistoric dinosaurs governing our country now, and over the past decades;

- Trump listens. He has sat with airline executives, not in a manner to coverup systemic issues, but to address their concerns. He even talks shop with his own pilots - smart man. Talk to those at the coal face, not some bureaucrat in Canberra with one pencil in his hand and one in his ass. Picture the difference; Trump talking about aviation with a 30 year veteran Captain, or, one of Golman Sachs Turnbull's minuscules speaking to Jonathan Aleck. Hmmm, see the contrast? One leader is engaged, the other totally disconnected.

- Trump acknowledges trillions spent on wars, with nothing to show, leaving his own country go to waste and become a third world infrastructure disaster. Hallelujah! Trump gets it. Meanwhile we have the dickhead Turnbull propping up $50b for more Subs while our roads, airports and electricity network turn to ruins.

- Trump is slashing the regulatory strangulation grinding their country to a halt! Well done sir. He is a businessman, he understands it. Meanwhile, as an example, we in Australia permit consecutive PMC's to work with the Dr Voodoo's of this world to ensure that our key industry, aviation, is strangled to death.

- Trump understands FAA incompetence and the issues with air traffic management and technology in the USA. Unbelievable! Do you think The Don could sit with NFI Chester, Harfwit and Houston and teach them something?

There seems to be some benefits in having an experienced businessman who has not been a 'Stockholm syndrome politician' for the past 20 years, coming in fresh and managing the country. Yes?

Tick Tock Australia
Reply

(02-14-2017, 06:20 AM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Of chalk and cheese and a listening ear

Nice catch P2. Indeed some of the differences to Strayla are most interesting. Let's list some of what Trump actually does understand compared to the prehistoric dinosaurs governing our country now, and over the past decades;

- Trump listens. He has sat with airline executives, not in a manner to coverup systemic issues, but to address their concerns. He even talks shop with his own pilots - smart man. Talk to those at the coal face, not some bureaucrat in Canberra with one pencil in his hand and one in his ass. Picture the difference; Trump talking about aviation with a 30 year veteran Captain, or, one of Golman Sachs Turnbull's minuscules speaking to Jonathan Aleck. Hmmm, see the contrast? One leader is engaged, the other totally disconnected.

- Trump acknowledges trillions spent on wars, with nothing to show, leaving his own country go to waste and become a third world infrastructure disaster. Hallelujah! Trump gets it. Meanwhile we have the dickhead Turnbull propping up $50b for more Subs while our roads, airports and electricity network turn to ruins.

- Trump is slashing the regulatory strangulation grinding their country to a halt! Well done sir. He is a businessman, he understands it. Meanwhile, as an example, we in Australia permit consecutive PMC's to work with the Dr Voodoo's of this world to ensure that our key industry, aviation, is strangled to death.

- Trump understands FAA incompetence and the issues with air traffic management and technology in the USA. Unbelievable! Do you think The Don could sit with NFI Chester, Harfwit and Houston and teach them something?

There seems to be some benefits in having an experienced businessman who has not been a 'Stockholm syndrome politician' for the past 20 years, coming in fresh and managing the country. Yes?

Tick Tock Australia

As per usual, a succinctly nailed down post Gobbles - Big Grin

FYI Judith Sloan from the Oz also 'gets it... Wink

Quote:PM must show some mongrel

[Image: babcec09eb99b6e5cd6a1160115a34e1]JUDITH SLOAN

Red tape and renegade agency chiefs are evidence of a naive and weak leader.

Quote:..And after a promising start by the Abbott government to axe a number of wasteful, intrusive and damaging regulations and regulatory agencies, Malcolm Turnbull put his foot on the brake and has instead embarked on a massive program of new regulations, particularly in relation to financial services.


Do you remember Repeal Day? The Prime Minister has repealed it. Evidently, he thinks the deregulation agenda is complete, having made up some large figure — billions of dollars, naturally — to estimate the gains of the deregulation that had already taken place.

In the meantime, many federal regulators are running amok, with the heads of agencies increasingly behaving in brazenly political and activist fashion. Mind you, it is hardly surprising given some of the appointments — mainly reappointments. What was the government thinking when it reconfirmed the positions of so many openly partisan appointees heading key agencies?

Instead of quietly getting on with what should be the routine and low-key task of implementing regulations set down in legislation, far too many regulators think of themselves as players, expressing public views on how legislation should be changed as well as seeking publicity for prosecuting cases (many of which are subsequently lost).

They have sought more funding while pushing political buttons and, sadly, this government has been far too naive and weak to resist these self-serving pleas...

Listen up miniscule DDDD_MNFI a word of advice from JS... Wink

Quote:...There are very many other instances I could quote. But the message to ministers is this: wake up and instruct the regulators in your portfolios to pull their heads in. Keep regulation to an absolute minimum and always ensure the compliance costs are as low as possible.

You never know, being a good government could deliver a political dividend.

And 4D if you want some examples from your own department of overburdening regulations and a 'law unto themselves' regulator in action, here is a couple of handy references courtesy of Aunty Pru... RolleyesMythical reform./ Part 61 - For Dummies./ Proof will be in the Pavlova


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

(02-14-2017, 08:08 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-14-2017, 06:20 AM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Of chalk and cheese and a listening ear

Nice catch P2. Indeed some of the differences to Strayla are most interesting. Let's list some of what Trump actually does understand compared to the prehistoric dinosaurs governing our country now, and over the past decades;

- Trump listens. He has sat with airline executives, not in a manner to coverup systemic issues, but to address their concerns. He even talks shop with his own pilots - smart man. Talk to those at the coal face, not some bureaucrat in Canberra with one pencil in his hand and one in his ass. Picture the difference; Trump talking about aviation with a 30 year veteran Captain, or, one of Golman Sachs Turnbull's minuscules speaking to Jonathan Aleck. Hmmm, see the contrast? One leader is engaged, the other totally disconnected.

- Trump acknowledges trillions spent on wars, with nothing to show, leaving his own country go to waste and become a third world infrastructure disaster. Hallelujah! Trump gets it. Meanwhile we have the dickhead Turnbull propping up $50b for more Subs while our roads, airports and electricity network turn to ruins.

- Trump is slashing the regulatory strangulation grinding their country to a halt! Well done sir. He is a businessman, he understands it. Meanwhile, as an example, we in Australia permit consecutive PMC's to work with the Dr Voodoo's of this world to ensure that our key industry, aviation, is strangled to death.

- Trump understands FAA incompetence and the issues with air traffic management and technology in the USA. Unbelievable! Do you think The Don could sit with NFI Chester, Harfwit and Houston and teach them something?

There seems to be some benefits in having an experienced businessman who has not been a 'Stockholm syndrome politician' for the past 20 years, coming in fresh and managing the country. Yes?

Tick Tock Australia

As per usual, a succinctly nailed down post Gobbles - Big Grin

FYI Judith Sloan from the Oz also 'gets it... Wink

Quote:PM must show some mongrel

[Image: babcec09eb99b6e5cd6a1160115a34e1]JUDITH SLOAN

Red tape and renegade agency chiefs are evidence of a naive and weak leader.

Quote:..And after a promising start by the Abbott government to axe a number of wasteful, intrusive and damaging regulations and regulatory agencies, Malcolm Turnbull put his foot on the brake and has instead embarked on a massive program of new regulations, particularly in relation to financial services.


Do you remember Repeal Day? The Prime Minister has repealed it. Evidently, he thinks the deregulation agenda is complete, having made up some large figure — billions of dollars, naturally — to estimate the gains of the deregulation that had already taken place.

In the meantime, many federal regulators are running amok, with the heads of agencies increasingly behaving in brazenly political and activist fashion. Mind you, it is hardly surprising given some of the appointments — mainly reappointments. What was the government thinking when it reconfirmed the positions of so many openly partisan appointees heading key agencies?

Instead of quietly getting on with what should be the routine and low-key task of implementing regulations set down in legislation, far too many regulators think of themselves as players, expressing public views on how legislation should be changed as well as seeking publicity for prosecuting cases (many of which are subsequently lost).

They have sought more funding while pushing political buttons and, sadly, this government has been far too naive and weak to resist these self-serving pleas...

Listen up miniscule DDDD_MNFI a word of advice from JS... Wink

Quote:...There are very many other instances I could quote. But the message to ministers is this: wake up and instruct the regulators in your portfolios to pull their heads in. Keep regulation to an absolute minimum and always ensure the compliance costs are as low as possible.

You never know, being a good government could deliver a political dividend.

And 4D if you want some examples from your own department of overburdening regulations and a 'law unto themselves' regulator in action, here is a couple of handy references courtesy of Aunty Pru... RolleyesMythical reform./ Part 61 - For Dummies./ Proof will be in the Pavlova

Update: Comments from Sandy & Arlys... Wink 

Quote:Alexander


Judith is correct in pointing to an out of control Commonwealth bureaucracy. There has crept into this bloated body of government machinery a sense that they are the law as they interpret it resulting in bullying behavior and worse. I don't think there is another journalist who has perceived that this is becoming the norm. That this is now what can be expected from Can'tberra, 400,000 of the best paid hell bent on maintaining and improving privilege in the developed world's most soulless socialistic no freehold capital city.

Another example, among several euphemistically styled government business enterprises (GBE), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority created 29 years ago and tasked to rewrite (at its own behest) the aviation rules. Several hundred million later and still not finished but it has managed to smash General Aviation with the loss of thousands of jobs.

Air Services Australia is at present in oversight by a Senate Committee for the manner of tendering a billion dollar airways control system. Consultants being past employees and inside connections are being considered.

The Australian Transport Safety Board has been criticised for ineffectual accident investigation and the aviation industry is waiting after two years for a second, Senate inspired, report on the PelAir ditching off Norfolk Island. The first report was seriously flawed, ATSB being in cahoots with CASA to simply blame the pilot thus deflecting any concerns about institutional failings whether within CASA or within the airline parent company Rex. The same company that made an unusual and substantial donation to the Coalition around the time of the first report. Alex in the Rises.

arlys

@Alexander But one Airline, remains untouched.Right? By The Old Boys RAAF Club. Right?
 


 MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

A world of hurt.

Coming off the excellent P2 research HERE“Just saying - But how's that working out for you, oh carefully manicured & coiffured miniscule for NFI?”

I reckon we are all grown up enough here to realise that there is more to being a ‘government’ than just running the place in a peaceful, prosperous manner. To form a ‘government’ is a twisted, complex Gordian knot, deals within deals, promises within promises and favours; both owed and due. I can, sort of, live with that. But when it comes to the selection of ‘ministers’ there should/must be a line drawn between ‘politics’ and patronage. OK, you have ‘obligations’ to others – fine. But then government ministers do have a far greater responsibility, to ‘the people’ which should/must transcend petty alliances and favours owed.

Aviation is a perfect example of why it is essential to select ‘ministers’ carefully; or, at least prudently.  When a new start apprentice first enters a busy workshop they do not place the apprentice in sole charge of a complex, dangerous, expensive, vital machine – doesn’t happen for what should be self evident reasons. Yet they bring in some smooth talking, professional ‘vote catcher’ who used to be a snake oil salesman; plonk him in a big office somewhere and gift him the ‘transport’ portfolio – just like that.  It’s bollocks.

To ‘assist’ in ministerial decision making, with the big office comes a team of ‘advisors’. Now in the aviation case; there is much to hide. Hundreds of millions down the pipes, incompetence, intransigence, total unaccountability, and they do own a gift from the ‘gods’ –  the mystique of 'safety'. Our lucky, smooth talking swain has just landed on a very comfy Lilly pad, in the middle of a very dangerous swamp, filled with some of the vilest creatures known (and some yet to be identified). The secret to survival is to sit very, very still and under no circumstances go swimming. For to trespass in those dark, dank, smelly waters is lethal. So, there it sits, knowing that in time another passing Lilly pad, heading down stream to a greener, cleaner, much safer pasture will turn up. Just do as ‘advised’ – sign here – all good – thank you minister.

‘We’ cannot change this; not a cat in hell's chance. What we can/must do is ensure that the next CASA DAS, head of ATSB and; for pities sake, the next head of the ASA are the ‘right stuff’ and will provide the Snake oil salesman with sound, honest advice which will  help this ailing industry escape the fowl swamp. It is up to industry to ‘keep-‘em-honest’ – if not industry, then who?  

Selah.
Reply

(02-17-2017, 06:11 AM)kharon Wrote:  A world of hurt.

Coming off the excellent P2 research HERE“Just saying - But how's that working out for you, oh carefully manicured & coiffured miniscule for NFI?”

I reckon we are all grown up enough here to realise that there is more to being a ‘government’ than just running the place in a peaceful, prosperous manner. To form a ‘government’ is a twisted, complex Gordian knot, deals within deals, promises within promises and favours; both owed and due. I can, sort of, live with that. But when it comes to the selection of ‘ministers’ there should/must be a line drawn between ‘politics’ and patronage. OK, you have ‘obligations’ to others – fine. But then government ministers do have a far greater responsibility, to ‘the people’ which should/must transcend petty alliances and favours owed.

Aviation is a perfect example of why it is essential to select ‘ministers’ carefully; or, at least prudently.  When a new start apprentice first enters a busy workshop they do not place the apprentice in sole charge of a complex, dangerous, expensive, vital machine – doesn’t happen for what should be self evident reasons. Yet they bring in some smooth talking, professional ‘vote catcher’ who used to be a snake oil salesman; plonk him in a big office somewhere and gift him the ‘transport’ portfolio – just like that.  It’s bollocks.

To ‘assist’ in ministerial decision making, with the big office comes a team of ‘advisors’. Now in the aviation case; there is much to hide. Hundreds of millions down the pipes, incompetence, intransigence, total unaccountability, and they do own a gift from the ‘gods’ –  the mystique of 'safety'. Our lucky, smooth talking swain has just landed on a very comfy Lilly pad, in the middle of a very dangerous swamp, filled with some of the vilest creatures known (and some yet to be identified). The secret to survival is to sit very, very still and under no circumstances go swimming. For to trespass in those dark, dank, smelly waters is lethal. So, there it sits, knowing that in time another passing Lilly pad, heading down stream to a greener, cleaner, much safer pasture will turn up. Just do as ‘advised’ – sign here – all good – thank you minister.

‘We’ cannot change this; not a cat in hell's chance. What we can/must do is ensure that the next CASA DAS, head of ATSB and; for pities sake, the next head of the ASA are the ‘right stuff’ and will provide the Snake oil salesman with sound, honest advice which will  help this ailing industry escape the fowl swamp. It is up to industry to ‘keep-‘em-honest’ – if not industry, then who?  

Selah.

DDDD_MNFI - Olive branch or WWC... Huh (WWC - word weasel confection)

P2 - Before I begin I note that Chester's thread has quietly passed 40K views. Well done 4D and the choccy frog voucher is in the mail... Wink

Following on from the insightful offering from the Ferryman, today in the Oz the new aviation editor PG Cleary has written an article that ironically points towards the fact that the miniscule Muppet 4D & his Muppetmasters may actually be taking notice of PAIN, the IOS and some of the more credible Alphabet soups... Rolleyes

Quote:
Quote:Regional operators have Chester’s ear
[Image: 04f09c0c1a019434bbdc2d0ea3b48cb6]12:00amPAUL CLEARY
The General Aviation Advisory Group will form at an industry round table at the Avalon Airshow next month.

[Image: 59f15fc69c2760103660ef0b2a9849cc?width=1024]


Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester has responded to concerns about the pressures on general aviation by creating a new high-level advisory group.

The General Aviation Advisory Group will come together for the first time at an industry round table at the Avalon Airshow next month.

In a clear signal that the group will raise the concerns of operators in remote and regional Australia, the GAAP will be chaired by Martin Laverty, chief executive of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and will report directly to the minister.

Mr Chester, a Nationals MP from country Victoria, has been paying close attention to representations by regional airlines and is concerned about the increased regulatory burden on small operators.

“The General Aviation Advisory Group will ensure the industry has a voice at the heart of government by providing advice directly to me on matters affecting the sector,” Mr Chester said.

“Members have a range of expertise across a wide spectrum of general aviation activities, from flight training through to manufacturing and maintenance. I am looking forward to the feedback and ideas on the future direction of our general aviation sector.”

The new group will also act as a reference body for the general aviation study being conducted by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics.

Mr Chester said the study was examining the state of general aviation in Australia, and would identify the challenges and potential opportunities for the sector. “The study is well underway, with the study team having already consulted with a range of industry associations and businesses across multiple jurisdictions,” he said.

“Together with the advisory group, we can work towards the common goal of a safe, growing and sustainable general aviation industry.”

The first formal meeting of the advisory group will be held in Canberra next month.

The general aviation industry has been concerned about proposed fatigue rules that will put added cost pressures on small charter companies and regional airlines alike.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority last month announced a review of the rules, which it is due to report by September. This is the second time that CASA has delayed the introduction of the rules...
  
So is this a real olive branch being offered to the GA industry sector, or yet another one of those mirages that keeps disappearing over the horizon?

Coupled with the 4D letters to the TAAAF & AOPA - HERE -  the next part of the Cleary offering makes me suspicious that we are about to witness the pushback from M&M and his minions... Dodgy :

Quote:...Pilots who fly with the major airlines say that safety is being compromised. But the regulatory cost on the industry is also being increased by alarmist concerns about the standard of air traffic control.

Airservices Australia, which is responsible for air safety at all of Australia’s commercial airports, is trying to cut costs through a program known as Accelerate.

Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield said the cuts to back-office staff were needed to reduce costs.

He said the Accelerate program, which will cut 700 jobs, was needed to “minimise the cost burden on Australian aviation while continuing to safely perform our critical air navigation and aviation rescue fire fighting roles”.

Airservices has seen an “unsustainable” increase in overall staff numbers over the past 10 years, rising from 2996 employees in 2006 to 4468 employees in 2016.

Jim Davis, who chairs Regional Aviation Association of Australia, said he told the ABC this week that he had no concerns about air traffic control safety. He was asked by a journalist if the cuts would affect regional airports.

“I said there is no impact on operational safety issues with the changes Airservices Australia are making. I said that a couple of times. We are happy at this stage because the changes are not in a critical areas,” he said.

The ABC reported this week that the Accelerate program had created a “crisis” in air traffic control and it could cause an air disaster.
Quote:I gather the quotes are from this spiteful piece: 

ABC’s ‘selective’ safety reports
[Image: b9917b93037c6e016ad8e87127ab71f3]12:00amPAUL CLEARY
The ABC may have breached its charter by not reporting industry comments about air safety contrary to its reports.
Now it could be that this is a typical Newscorp v ABC journalistic ding-dong but from past experience, when the Oz was neutered by the government and it's self-serving aviation safety agencies under former aviation editor and CASA-sexual Steve Creepy, I am very cynical and suspect... Dodgy Especially when you consider some of the Aunty Pru archived 'that man' Higgins contributions on the subject of ASA & OneSKY trough funds etc..etc
Examples:
Quote:#26 Pilots, victims’ families call for change as planes fly blind

#40 Aviation watchdog CASA shares safety role  

#27 Pilots forced to weather cloudy service  

Helpful hints for Cleary... Wink  Besides referring to your work colleague Ean Higgin's archive of articles on the diabolical shenanigans at ASA, please refer to the PAIN Youtube archive: https://www.youtube.com/user/004wercras/...shelf_id=0 

Hint: Look for tags and/or titles with words like Airservices, performance, OneSKY, ANAO, KPMG, dodgy deals, audit or even Aunty Pru... Big Grin

Examples:





Happy reading and/or viewing... Wink

MTF?- Definitely...P2 Tongue
Reply

Oh, Sheeit; - I’m cranky.

DDDDD-miniscule of NFI – “The Civil Aviation Safety Authority last month announced a review of the rules, which it is due to report by September. This is the second time that CASA has delayed the introduction of the rules...”

BOLLOCKS – Darren; - Mate, 30 years and 400 (that’s four hundred) MILLION dollars have been pissed up against the Tamworth aero club wall waiting on REFORM.  There have been more investigations, committees, advisory groups, Royal commissions, Senate inquiries and serious questions about the aviation authorities than on any other subject in the history of this nation. That Sir, is a ducking FACT. Another FACT is that nothing – SFA, Nada, Zip has effected any semblance of change.  Well, except some ‘vested’ interest, minority groups got ‘enough’ latitude to ensure their ‘cooperation’ and acquiescence. Do you think, for one moment, that the AOPA attack dog has ‘backed off’ because of an offered bone. No fool, it was the naked threat of a closed down business which brought the ‘moderation’. Board approval of minister sanctioned bully boy tactics. Aye, ‘twas all done in ‘your name’ – didn’t you know?  Well, fancy that.  Shame, forever; on all concerned or associated by default.

Hell man, during your own time in politics; there has be a Senate inquiry into the gross distortion and manipulation of law, policy, investigation, audit and safety policy.  Result – censure – from the Senate for crying out loud; what changed? SFA is what. There has been a ministerial ‘review’, with censure; and, sweeping, much needed changes recommended. Nope; “that was an opinion” says the CASA flash git and what changed? – SFA is what. The Canadians were brought in, albeit on a short leash, to ‘have a look’ at the ATSB part of the Pel-Air fiasco; once again censure and recommendations.  – What changed? SFA is what.

Meanwhile operators get closed, or mowed down, jobs are lost, industry on it’s knees; while CASA get pay rises, promotions and carte blanche to continue, with full ministerial support. You dopey little bugger, they’re even milking and usurping your powers at the same time as they are setting you up for the big drop – if it all turns to shit on your watch. And now; you say we must endure the whole sad, sorry, tried and true ‘advisory group’ system again. Well; it’s worked just fine in the past; so it’s a fair call for the mandarins to make.  A totally pointless ministerial get out of jail card.  The same vested interest groups, winning the same old concessions; until the next election and the next miniscule – then?  Well we  just start the time proven  process all over again - again. (did I just repeat myself?)

It’s just the same story with the ASA prompted brawl between the ABC and whoever Cleary works for. ABC gets to the heart of the matter through research and hard yards – Cleary seeks the opinion of the RAAA and AIPA. I ask you, as a citizen – just WTD would any of the ‘alphabet soup group’ know about running a vital air traffic control network and logistical support. Don’t know. I’ll tell you – SFA is what; NFI at all.

Yet this acknowledged, crack ‘investigative’ journalist is quite prepared to give voice to the ignorant opinions of these folk.  Note well - I have a great deal of respect and admiration for many of the ‘Alphabet’ groups – within their ambit. AMROBA for example, knows exactly what’s wrong in their ‘field’.  RAAA are the bee’s knees for regional; AAAA have forgotten more about low level operations than CASA will ever know; TAAAF are brilliant in policy and ‘fixing’ things; but non; not one single solitary one of ‘em all put together would even know how to start running an ATC service. Mark you, they probably know more than Halfwit. But for some reason Cleary chooses to ignore empirical evidence, audits, censure, the Senate Estimates committee, industry and, even the ATCO’s themselves. One is left to wonder why?– Is it that easy for the devil to do deals on souls?

Mr Cleary needs his bottom smacked, hard. He also needs to do his bloody homework. The last two years worth of ‘Estimates’ and the ANAO should have proven quite clearly – to Clearly – that ASA, ATSB and CASA who ‘rule’ those agencies are a total, complete and utter basket case. Were it not for the ATCO and a few others; the whole edifice would have imploded into a massive hole in the ground. For which the minister of the day would be totally , utterly responsible. Seaview was but a drop in the bucket; but, it killed a minister and bloody near brought down a government. Told ya; Russian roulette is a very dangerous game; someone must, sooner or later – catch one. It’s inevitable, n’est-ce pas?

Finally minister; try to remember, that there are archives, records, Hansard, reports, investigations and inquiry – all faithfully recorded by parliament itself and kept pristine. There are also long, experienced memories and some very, very good, honest researchers. Whilst it may be fine for you to delude yourself; in fact I don’t give a flying fuck if you do; please, FCOL don’t try to fool those who actually know.

There now; trot off to the hairdresser, have another facial, relax and take another selfie before you next appear in front of aviation professionals. Be aware, professionally, we must deal in reality and fact – not some dream of dancing a Tango with Cash, while Barmybaby takes the pix.

In short – Just sod off, you sad tosser.

Yes, yes: “K” 10 minutes in the sin bin – self inflicted Sir. But I had bloody good reason.

“Barkeep – two more please; and, keep ‘em coming, there’s a good fellah.”
Reply

"Yes, yes: “K” 10 minutes in the sin bin – self inflicted Sir. But I had bloody good reason".

Nah mate, no red card, no sin bin and no punishment. What you speaketh sir was pure gold! Keep it coming......
Reply

Choc Frog “K”.

Perhaps the miniscule with NFI would prefer to watch as reading seems to cause him some pain. Sit here mate, comfy on the potty while Aunty turns on the TV so you can watch, listen and learn from your peers and betters.  Click:- roll it P2.

Reply

4D with NFI & still no policy on aviation Huh

Remember this from the tail-end of the 2016 election?
(07-02-2016, 02:30 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(06-29-2016, 03:27 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Albo mentions the "A" word - Confused

Quote:MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So this announcement today is not new money. You have already announced the $10 billion infrastructure funding model but what's new in today's announcement?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: What's new is that we're releasing a comprehensive plan for infrastructure as well as for shipping and aviation.

That's something that the current government simply hasn't done. It's extraordinary that they seem to have a 'make it up as you go along' policy when it comes to infrastructure...

Well after that Albo lisped and spat his way through more typical ALP propaganda and other than a Badgery's Airport comment aviation again wafted off into the never-ever... Dodgy

So naturally I then went in search of this elusive Labor aviation policy.
Quote:
Quote:“Ensure Australian regulations keep up with global standards.”

“Labor has always had a strong commitment to maintaining Australia’s excellent safety record.

“The former Labor government made the issue central to the production of the nation’s first Aviation White Paper in 2009, which underpins our ongoing approach to aviation.

“Aviation safety should be beyond politics and Labor will always work with other parties in the parliament to ensure Australian regulations keep up with global standards.”
 
Which basically confirms what we all suspected that Albo/ALP policy for aviation is - "Please refer to our White (Elephant) Paper".

This was further confirmed in the 8 page policy paper:
Quote:In 2009, the previous Labor Government released Australia’s only Aviation White Paper.

For the first time, the Federal Government’s long-term policy objectives for the industry were laid out.

OUR OBJECTIVES
The White Paper listed four objectives for the industry:
n To give industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the long term.
n To maintain and improve Australia’s excellent safety record.
n To give proper consideration for the interests of travellers and users of airports.
n To better manage the impact of aviation activity on communities and the environment.
There was also a mention of the Forsyth (ASRR) review report:
Quote:..Labor supported the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review led by David Forsyth, which reported in 2014. Labor supports safety regulation that is effective, fair and firm. Labor supports constructive relationships between the regulator and the industry, but harmony should not replace rigour when it comes to the safety of passengers and crew.

Labor acknowledges the many small businesses in general aviation, and the relative burden that regulation places on them. Labor will work to remove unnecessary regulation.

Labor supports an evidence and risk-based approach to targeting areas for safety improvement across the sector...

Update:
via OzFlying
Quote:[Image: APH.jpg]
Parliament House in Canberra (Steve Hitchen)
Labor vows to support Forsyth Recommendations
1 July 2016
 
In a policy document released this week, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has promised to support the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

The policy states:

"In the last three years, the Abbott-Turnbull Government has completed a review into the regulation of aviation safety. Labor supported this review, and a Shorten Labor Government will maintain the thrust of the recommendations. Labor believes safety in aviation is the paramount concern, and that regulatory settings in this area should be measured, prudent, and not sudden. Labor supports a regulatory approach in aviation safety that is firm but fair."

The ALP has based its 2016 policy on the Aviation White Paper produced by the previous Labor government, which has since been widely discredited by the general aviation community.

"The White Paper listed four objectives for the industry," the policy states:
  • To give industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the long term
  • To maintain and improve Australia’s excellent safety record
  • To give proper consideration for the interests of travellers and users of airports
  • To better manage the impact of aviation activity on communities and the environment.

"These goals remain the elements underpinning Labor’s policy approach. The White Paper was released in the midst of the Global Financial Crisis but it anticipated better times, which have come to pass."

The ALP has also listed eight measures that it believes will support general aviation specifically:
  • Supporting the continued operation of secondary capital city airports, vital to general aviation
  • Ensuring secondary airports maintain a focus on aviation development
  • Not allowing non-aeronautical uses to compromise future aviation activity
  • Enhancing air traffic safety
  • Providing support for essential airport infrastructure and air services in remote areas
  • Ensuring the Civil Aviation Safety Authority places a high priority on supporting safety and increased professionalism in the sector
  • Backing Australia’s aircraft and component manufacturing industry through mutual recognition agreements
  • Continuing Federal Government support for exporting companies through the Export Market Development Grants scheme.

At the time of writing, no Coalition aviation policy has been released and none is likely to before the Federal Election tomorrow.

2016 ALP Aviation Policy

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...yvA9qjK.99

Now the reason why I am rehashing the above is because last week, the former miniscule for non-aviation, Albo referred to one of his least favourite 'Shadow' responsibilities 'aviation' several times in the context of a Transport Security Amendment (2016) finally introduced by 4D Chester. What surprised me was that Albo for once actually made a lot of sense:
Quote:..When it comes to ideology before common sense, what happened during the last term of government, in both the aviation and the maritime sectors, was that various people, some of whom have moved on—I speak of Andrew Robb, the former minister for trade—had a real flat-earth approach to competition in the sector. They refused to acknowledge that both aviation and transport are global industries that have within them, however, national interests and that governments around the world understand the importance of having either a domestic aviation industry or a domestic shipping industry and therefore put in place regulations that ensure that that can occur. P2 - WTD?


If we have unilateral disarmament, if you like, in the form of regulation unlike the rest of the world, there is the potential for Australia, as an island continent located where we are in the world, to not have an aviation or a maritime sector.When it came to aviation, the former minister had a view that I know was opposed by many—particularly in the National Party and regional members—which was that you could open up cabotage, remove the preference for Australian aviation, in the northern part of Australia, as a first step, and foreign carriers could come in, and that would somehow solve problems by providing reduced airfares. Of course, what Qantas and Virgin—and the various subsidiary airlines that they operate—stated would happen was that you would have a withdrawal of those sectors that rely upon cross-subsidy, if you like, within the aviation sector from operating in northern Australia. So you would have a withdrawal of Qantas and Virgin, effectively, from those regional airline routes and they would just concentrate on the highly profitable Sydney-Melbourne and Sydney-Brisbane and other major routes. So routes to and from places like Mount Isa, Cloncurry, Charleville and Bundaberg, and other routes in regional Queensland, in particular, would stop. Roma is the first step on the way to further destinations. In New South Wales, the same thing happens with routes like Taree and Grafton and other routes; you would have a withdrawal. Then, of course, the next step would be to just allow them to fly to Adelaide. And, because the Australian companies could not compete with those airlines offering fares based upon, essentially, Third World wages and Third World conditions and safety checks—safety checks that are not of the same standard that we have here in Australia—you would have a competitive disadvantage for Australian carriers and they would withdraw. That would lead to ongoing consequences for the people and the economies of regional Australia.

But in the end, that proposal was resisted and defeated in the early period of the Abbott government. It was defeated because of the principled actions of some people in the coalition and of the Labor Party, but also, of course, from those regional communities, themselves, who understood what the consequences were...
 
I guess it is much easier in opposition to speak your mind and propose common sense amendments to an Act when not under the same pressure to justify any possible political and fiscal (tax payer) impositions such amendments may cause... Confused


So despite Albo's well considered amendments, miniscule 4D repeatedly and completely disregarded any of the Labor amendments... Undecided  

Quote:Consideration in Detail

 And so it ended with the 4D (long delayed) amendments to Transport Security Act getting up... Dodgy  

However there was a couple of points within the Albo, Labor amendment to the amendment, motion that reminded me that the Turnbull government is yet to articulate any form of aviation policy:
Quote:(1) notes that the Government failed to articulate a policy for the aviation or maritime sectors at the 2016 Federal election;

(5) calls on the Federal Government to develop as a matter of urgency aviation and maritime policies, ensuring that such policies prioritise jobs and skills for Australians while also facilitating more reliable background checks".


MTF...P2 Tongue

Ps IMO in terms of Parliamentary performances 4D comes a long distant second to Albo, however a couple of days later in a MPI I believe Albo totally met his match... Big Grin

Hansard excerpts 15/02/17:
Quote:Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:18): We just saw, writ large in question time, the government's incompetence when it comes to infrastructure. Here we have a major investment in infrastructure in Perth, just weeks before the state election is due to be held, on 11 March, and they do not know two important facts. One is that they do not know that the Perth Freight Link project does not even go to the port. It stops three kilometres short. This is a $1.2 billion investment in freight transport infrastructure to a port, but it does not get there; it stops three kilometres short and vehicles will have to go through the suburbs of Fremantle in order to get the freight to the port. But it is worse than that because it is a road near a port that is at full capacity. We know that the port will be at full capacity in 2022, which is why the outer harbour is so important. The new port is what is critical if we are going to deal with exports and imports in the west. That is why during the election campaign we committed to fund the planning for that port project. That is what Mark McGowan is doing—planning for infrastructure for the future.


Of course, this is nothing new for the people of Western Australia. When we were in government, we engaged in the largest ever road project in Western Australia, the Gateway WA project. It was promised, funded and built on our watch, and yet those opposite came along at the end to the ribbon cutting, having opposed the nation-building program and the economic stimulus, and tried to suggest that they had something to do with it. It is not just that. When you land at Perth and leave the airport, the first road you go on is the Great Eastern Highway. It was widened and upgraded by Labor. If rather than east you go west, you will hit the work that is taking place on the Swan Valley Bypass, which is now called NorthLink under this government. Giving a road a new name does not make it a new road. It is the Swan Valley Bypass and it was funded by the former Labor government.

We understand that to deal with urban congestion you do not just need roads; you need rail lines as well. We invested in the Perth City Link project. It was promised, funded, built and opened under federal Labor. Those opposite talk about value capture. This project is a great example of value capture in action. You use the area where the road has been built to build the railway underneath and then you develop on top, to reunite the Perth CBD with the Northbridge entertainment precinct. It is a great example of Labor vision, Labor being engaged in urban policy and Labor being engaged in making our cities more productive, more sustainable and more livable.

We are not just engaged in cities, of course. We did the Great Northern Highway, the North West Coastal Highway, the work around Port Hedland, the work in Kalgoorlie, the Esperance port access road and the work around Bunbury—all delivered as part of the $6.9 billion that we put into Western Australia. We took investment from the Howard government's $92 per Western Australian to $261 per Western Australian—we tripled the infrastructure investment, because we understood that transport infrastructure was critical.

But of course we also did the National Broadband Network. We also did the support for hospitals. We also did the support for every school in Western Australia, because we understood that that was important.

At the last election there was a battle that will be played out on 11 March, which is: do you put money into a road to a port that is at full capacity, a road that does not even get to the port, or do you build rail infrastructure that will truly build on the legacy of Labor? That is the legacy that built the Mandurah rail link and the legacy that built the link up to the north, up towards Joondalup. Do you engage in that infrastructure investment? That is what is critical. WA Labor have made it clear that their commitment is to building the Morley-Ellenbrook line, building the Yanchep line, building the Byford line, commencing the circle line linking the suburbs, starting to fix level crossings and, of course, completing the Forrestfield to airport line. That is an example: $500 million was ripped out of the budget in 2014; two years later, in order to compensate for the GST, some funding is put back, and they pretend it is new!

The fact is that what we have seen under this government in Western Australia is symptomatic of their approach everywhere. Yesterday, there was a report into the funding of WestConnex in Sydney that followed the funding of the East West Link in Melbourne. In all these cases, commitments had been made; money was taken away from public transport projects like the Melbourne metro and Cross River Rail in Brisbane, and taken away from projects like the M80 in Melbourne that had been approved by Infrastructure Australia, and forwarded as advanced payments for projects that had no business case and that were not ready to proceed. And we wonder why it is having a negative impact in terms of the economy!

What we see from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are remarkable figures. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures in this graph, where the red is Labor and the blue is the coalition, show that, for every single one of the 12 quarters that the coalition has been in office, public sector infrastructure investment has been less than in any single one of the 21 quarters where Labor was in government, from the time of our first budget in the June 2008 quarter right through to September 2013. Indeed, in their first two years in office, what we saw was a drop in infrastructure investment of some 20 per cent. And they stand up and speak about the $50 billion fantasy that they have; they stood up at the 2014 budget and said: 'Going forward, we have a $50 billion plan.' There is just one problem there, which is that budget papers get produced and show how much investment is actually occurring. And what we know is that up to 2019-20 the investment is $34 billion, and beyond that it is $8 billion at some unforeseen time, booked into the future.

What we know is that there have actually been cuts each and every year to projects like the Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway. When you compare what they themselves said they would spend with what actual spend is, last financial year the underspend was something like $1.2 billion.

This comes at a time when the resources sector is moving from the investment phase to the production phase. The Reserve Bank governor, last Thursday night, warned again on, and called for, investment in infrastructure. We have record low interest rates. We have a demand that is there, with a massive need for infrastructure, particularly in dealing with the challenges of urban congestion, and in dealing with the challenges of freight—projects like finishing off the freight line from Mascot to Port Botany; that is an absolute no-brainer, but they will not even proceed with that.

What we see from this government is all politics and no substance. They have abandoned the processes of Infrastructure Australia, they have cut funding for Infrastructure Australia, and they have not listened to what Infrastructure Australia has had to say.

They have ministers who cannot even agree on who is in charge of what particular issue or project. This failure comes at a time where infrastructure is one of the keys to growth and to future jobs. If it is in the right projects, it boosts productivity and returns to government. That is why this government stands condemned, whether it be in Western Australia or any other state or territory in the nation, for simply failing when it comes to infrastructure.
(Time expired)


In reply:

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:28): Look, it is tough being the people's choice. It is tough being the people's choice when you are preferred by the rank-and-file, you have got a book, you have got a beer named after you and you are a disc jockey, but it has taken months and months and months to get a question and to get an MPI because you lost out to Backroom Bill. Backroom Bill had the numbers in the party room, in the caucus, and unfortunately being the people's choice just did not cut it.


What you soon learn in dealing with the member for Grayndler is: you would go mad looking for internal consistency in what the member for Grayndler has to say. Here he is today, waxing indignant that we have not immediately signed on to Labor's METRONET proposal in Western Australia. I might add: step 1 of Labor's METRONET proposal is the Perth to Forrestfield airport link—being delivered by the Barnett Western Australian government. I was at the sod-turning myself with the Premier and with the state minister just a few months ago. So we hear from the shadow minister that somehow this side of politics is claiming credit for things that Labor has done, but it seems the shadow minister is not at all above doing that. And then he waxes indignant that we will not immediately sign on to METRONET, at the same time as criticising this government for proceeding with projects before they have been approved by Infrastructure Australia. Where is the Infrastructure Australia approval of METRONET? Shrieks of silence from the shadow minister on that particular issue. You would go mad looking for consistency from this man.

Let us have a look at what he has had to say on WestConnex. Let us have a look at his inglorious record of inconsistency on WestConnex. What did we see from the shadow minister on WestConnex when he was in government? I will read you a media release issued by the then minister in 2013:

The Federal Government has committed to providing funds towards the Westconnex road project …
…   …   …
This infrastructure commitment is also helping western and south-western Sydney residents to cut back on travel times and improve the quality of life they can enjoy with their families.

WestConnex was terrific! In fact, Labor committed $1.8 billion to WestConnex at the 2013 election, as yesterday's Auditor-General's report found. Labor committed $1.8 billion to WestConnex, and in 2014 the shadow minister was on the radio, on Ellen Fanning's show, proudly trumpeting Labor's contribution to WestConnex. Here is what he had to say:
Take WestConnex for example. We funded the work in terms of planning. $25 million was already spent from us and $1.8 billion was included in last year's budget for the WestConnex project.

There was the shadow minister proudly beating his chest, claiming credit for WestConnex: $1.8 billion! But then something very mysterious happened. In 2016, the very same shadow minister, discussing the very same project, was on ABC Radio with Fran Kelly. Fran Kelly asked him, 'Did you provide that money?' And here is what he said—listen very carefully: 'We provided $25 million for planning, Fran. That's the whole point. They say they support planning. We provided $25 million. Not for construction; not a dollar did we provide for construction.' In 2014 it was: 'We provided $1.8 billion. What heroes we are!' In 2016 it was: 'No, no, no. I was nowhere near it.'

Why did that happen? Why that inconsistency? I will tell you why that inconsistency—because he was running scared from the Greens. The Greens threatened the member for Grayndler. The Greens hate roads; the Greens hate road projects. Of course, all of a sudden for the member for Grayndler it was a 180-degree turn with reverse pike in degree of difficulty. He had nothing to do with WestConnex. 'Not me!' he said. He tells a community meeting in his electorate that if he is the minister there will be not a dollar more for WestConnex.

This architect of rank hypocrisy stands up and criticises this government on its infrastructure spending because it rankles with him that we are spending more on infrastructure than occurred under the Labor government. These are the facts. There is more spending from this government on infrastructure. We hear this standard run of criticisms from the shadow minister. In a speech in 2015—one of his best—he criticised this government for continuing with Labor projects like WestConnex and NorthLink and then criticised us because we had cancelled Labor projects.

The shadow minister runs this ridiculous argument, this factually incorrect argument, that there have been no new projects under a coalition government. Let's just go through some of them: the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, 41 kilometres and $1.137 billion; the Northern Connector in Adelaide, 15 kilometres and $788 million. What about the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan: the Northern Road, which is being upgraded to four lanes all the way; and the M12, which will connect Western Sydney Airport to the M7? We have committed $2.87 billion of Commonwealth money to the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. Then, of course, there is Western Sydney Airport. This government has committed to it—something that Labor never achieved. The Perth Freight Link is a commitment of nearly $1.2 billion.

Mr Keogh: Zero dollars for rail! It's in your budget!

Mr FLETCHER: And then of course there is the other standard claim we hear that there are no rail projects that this government is committing to. That is not true either. With this shadow minister you have to check the facts. For the Perth-Forrestfield Airport rail link $490 million was committed by this government.

Those opposite claim that we are not spending any money on rail, but we are. There is the Flinders Link, the connection between the Flinders Medical Centre and the Adelaide metropolitan rail line: $43 million. There is the Sydney Metro, a transformative rail project in Sydney: $1.7 billion committed by this government. There are the Gold Coast Light Rail, $95 million; Canberra light rail, $67 million; and inland rail, $894 million. The claim that there are no new projects is completely wrong. The claim that there are no rail projects is completely wrong. Do not trust what you hear from this shadow minister, because the reality is that this government is delivering on a $50 billion infrastructure program. Announced in 2014, our commitment was that the package we announced that night would take the government's total investment to $50 billion by the end of the decade, spending between 2013-14 and 2019-20, and we are precisely on track towards delivering that.

Then, of course, we hear the claim from the shadow minister that in some way the coalition government is spending less on infrastructure than Labor did, and that is simply not true. Here is a simple comparison, which I encourage anybody who has got the budget papers to engage in. Take the four-year forward estimates in Labor's last three budgets and the four-year forward estimates spending on infrastructure in the coalition's first three budgets. The average under the coalition is $27.9 billion, 54 per cent more than under Labor in the last three years.

Mr Hartsuyker: How much more?

Mr FLETCHER: Fifty-four per cent more. The fact is that this government is spending more on infrastructure and we are delivering on infrastructure projects all around the country, because infrastructure is vitally important to productivity, to efficiency, to getting people moving to and from work quickly and to getting freight moving around quickly, and it requires careful planning and careful distribution of projects. So the premise of the matter of public importance debate this afternoon is completely incorrect. This government has a comprehensive plan for infrastructure all around the country. There are an enormous range of projects underway.

Let me just remind you of some of the projects that have been announced and/or commenced since this government began: the North-South Corridor in Adelaide, the Northern Connector, $788 million; the East West Link—$3 billion is available for any Victorian government that stands ready to build the East West Link; the Western Sydney infrastructure package, $2.87 billion; the M80 Ring Road upgrade, $350 million; the Monash Freeway upgrade, $500 million; the Murray Basin Freight Rail, $220 million; the Capital Metro in the ACT, $67 million. The projects go on and on. This government has a strong infrastructure— (Time expired)

Reply

Hmmmm, apart from the smell of bullshit I also smell a familiar smell called 'election'.
Anybody else smell this coming out of Can'tberra?

For the record and for the education of our international friends, Australia's Governments have maintained a robust and long term record of piss poor aviation investment and oversight. Part of that legacy contains the names of Albanese, Chester, Truss and others. They are synonymous with our aviations failure. In general the Australian aviation community treats these men with the same enthusiasm as one would have if they found out they had an anal fissure or a dose of the clap.

More reading can be found on Willyleaks.

Gobbles
Reply

DDDD_MNFI Chester: Like a Roo in the spotlight on YMEN tragedy - Confused

Latest applicable references via Airport's thread:
(02-26-2017, 10:15 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Essendon fatal crash & Airports - continued.

Via Echo Netdaily... Wink :

Quote:Evans Head group calls for Royal Commission into aviation safety

[Image: aerodrome-copy.jpg]
The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome. (supplied)



& via the Accidents - Domestic thread:
Quote:Update 24/02/17: YMEN VH-ZCR CFIT fatal accident.

We get confirmation that the gear remained down, plus Hoody comes under fire in the latest from the Weekend Oz  [Image: confused.gif] :
Quote: Wrote:Pilots’ anger as facts lost amid plane crash fallout

[Image: 17c2c3bd477b87d0314eb290bcaf213c?width=650]Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood speaks to the media about the fatal plane crash at a Melbourne shopping centre that claimed the lives of five men.
[Image: ef9d90e35cc6495acda8ef910ff2cf8f?width=650]The plane, with landing gear down, about to crash.




 
Due to a strange lag in the miniscule's media updates ( Huh ), I nearly missed this transcript from last Thursday morning's RN Breakfast Fran Kelly interview:[/url]
Quote:Radio National Breakfast
Interview
DCI020/2017
23 February 2017

Subjects: Essendon plane crash, Hazelwood power station closure

Fran Kelly: Melbourne's Essendon airport is due reopen to general aviation this morning after that terrible plane crash on Tuesday morning which killed all five people on board, including the pilot. The charter plane had just taken off from Essendon airport when it crashed into a nearby DFO shopping centre. The cause of the crash is still unknown but the incident has raised fresh concerns over the safety of having an airport in such a densely populated suburban area.

Unlike some other countries, Australia's major airports don't require public safety or buffer zones around them to minimise the risk to people living, working or even shopping - near the runways we're talking. Yesterday here on Breakfast, we spoke with local resident Helen van den Berg who's campaigned for years to close Essendon Fields, the scene of Tuesday's tragedy.

[Excerpt]
Helen Van Den Berg: If you're looking at Essendon North, if you're living in Elm Grove, you're within 100 metres from runway 35. That's how close homes are to the end of the runways. That's how close people are. When there is some space, they clutter it up with buildings.
[End of excerpt]

Fran Kelly: That's Helen van den Berg, who lives just a kilometre and a half from Essendon Airport. Well Darren Chester is the Federal Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Minister, welcome back to Breakfast.

Darren Chester: Good morning, Fran.

Fran Kelly: I'll come to Helen van den Berg's concerns in a moment but first the latest on the – I think there's now four investigations underway into Tuesday's crash - is there any new information yet?

Darren Chester: Well the critical investigation is by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The ATSB team had access to the site yesterday for the first time. It was unsafe on the day of the tragic crash. Their critical task now of gathering evidence and I guess there was something of a breakthrough yesterday with the cockpit voice recorder was recovered from the wreckage yesterday and that's on the way to ATSB laboratory in Canberra this morning for further analysis.

So that could contain some important information for the investigators but there's a lot of other work going on in terms of speaking to eye witnesses, securing any video footage that may have been taken by the public or from nearby buildings that exist. There's already about 100 people have indicated they've witnessed something involving the crash or leading up the crash who want to talk to the ATSB so that will go on. It's quite an exhaustive task obviously and the investigators will be on the scene for the next few …

Fran Kelly: Sure so this is a black box effectively that's been recovered. I mean we know effectively from the footage we all have seen that the plane crashed very, very quickly – or got into trouble very quickly after take off. I don't think there's even – well I'm not sure if there was a mayday call or not but is the black box likely to have recorded in there what went on within the engine processes?

Darren Chester: Well the cockpit voice recorder may contain some important information for the investigators and that's why it's gone to Canberra for further analysis. It will feed in to the further investigation task from the ATSB experts. So as much as they're collecting forensic evidence on the ground, it's also about talking to eye witnesses. There were some pilots apparently at Essendon Airport yesterday who, well not yesterday but the previous day who witnessed the incident. They'll be interviewed with other people who may have information for the ATSB.

Fran Kelly: Okay.

Darren Chester: That process will go on and then within 28 days we'll have a factual – preliminary factual report made available to the Government and made available to the public.

Fran Kelly: Talking of pilots there's been some pilots speaking out in the last couple of days since the crash, voicing concerns about governments, state and federal, putting commercial interests and money making ahead of safety and they're talking about the amount of development going on in and around the airports. It was the Howard Government back in 1996 that started to offload airports on long term leases to private owners and after that we started seeing shopping centres being built at the end of runways. In hindsight was this a bad idea?

Darren Chester: No, no it wasn't Fran and it's important to remember that all of this [inaudible] have an enviable safety record when it comes to aviation. I guess that's why it takes us completely by shock when we do have a major incident of this nature. Now last year – and I'm talking 2016, there were 19 fatalities involved in the aviation sector and primarily that involved recreation and general aviation so smaller aircraft and that is in comparison to other nations in the world or even in comparison to our own roads.

Fran Kelly: Sure but no one's questioning our safety record I suppose the point is given that crashes will happen - and you say there were 19 last year and we've seen this tragedy this time - isn't it best to put every rule in place we can to minimise fatalities? And having hospitals or hotels or shopping centres built in and around runways doesn't seem like a great idea.

Darren Chester: Fran, I wasn't trying to downplay the accidents that do occur but in relation to Essendon, we need to keep in mind there were 50,000 aircraft movements through Essendon last year and has a great safety record of - particularly when it comes to delivering essential services to the regional Victorian community. It's critically based in terms of Royal Flying Doctors Service, Air Ambulance, Police Air Wing and the fire bombing services that operate out of Essendon. So there is a risk associated with aviation and we'd need to try and manage those risks as you're describing.

But in terms of any development on or off an airport like Essendon that impacts on the protected airspace around it, it can only be approved or can only proceed if it's approved by my department and if CASA – the Civil Aviation Safety Agency - advises the proposed development would – it is acceptable on a safety basis. So the department mustn't approve the project unless it has CASA approval. So we do have a very stringent set of safety regulations. But tragically accidents or crashes like that have occurred this week do occur from time to time. It's important we do the investigation that's underway right now and not second guess what may or may not …

Fran Kelly: [Interrupts] Sure we do have safety regulations, I know, but what we don't have is these public safety zones, these buffer zones. Now Premier Andrews told us yesterday let's see what the findings are of the inquiry but he's up for having that discussions. Are you up for having that discussion?

Darren Chester: Well what – the discussion I'm up for having, Fran, is very much around the fact that these airport development plans that are put to me are checked by the Department of Infrastructure, they're checked by Air Service Australia and CASA before they will even come to the Minister and the safety of the travelling public and those on the ground is obviously of paramount importance to everyone …

Fran Kelly: [Interrupts] Okay so sorry to interrupt you there but let me ask you that then, if they are checked from you, we now know that the group who manages this airport in Essendon in the Essendon precinct were getting ready to announce plans to extend the DFO to add a second hotel and a hospital. Those plans are now on hold. Were you aware of that? Had that gone to you? And should that expansion now go on hold?

Darren Chester: Well the airports put their major development plans, sorry the federally leased airports put their major development plans to the department and the Minister for approval and it's assessed on a safety basis. Now no one is suggesting that we should be putting development in place which poses an unacceptable safety risk for community. And as Premier Andrews indicated and we're (inaudible)talking today we need to see the outcomes of this investigation before we leap to any conclusion. I think it's premature to be speculating on what may or may not happen in the future until we get the ATSB report. But we have got and I'm going to reassure the flying public that we have got an enviable safety record here in Australia. We're constantly working on improving aviation safety and we need to find out what actually occurred this week before we leap to conclusions...


&.. from the RNB website:

Quote:Black box recorder may contain important information: Chester Broadcast:Thursday 23 February 2017 6:48AM (view full episode)

[Image: 8295524-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Image: National Party MP for Gippsland, Darren Chester (ABC/Nick Haggarty) Link to larger image.
Image: National Party MP for Gippsland, Darren Chester (ABC/Nick Haggarty)

Melbourne's Essendon Airport is due to re-open to general aviation this morning, after that terrible plane crash on Tuesday morning which killed all five people on board including the pilot.

The charter plane had just taken off from Essendon airport when it crashed into a nearby DFO shopping centre.

The cause of the crash is still unknown, but the incident has raised fresh concerns over the safety of having an airport in such a densely populated area.

Unlike some other countries, Australia's major airports do not require public safety or buffer zones around them to minimise the risk to people living, working, or even shopping near runways.

Federal Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Darren Chester, said the cockpit voice recorder had been recovered from the crash site and may contain 'important information'.
'I am talking to Premier Andrews today, and it is important we don't speculate until we get the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report', he said.

Mr Chester said the 'preliminary factual report' would be available to government and the public within 28 days.

The Minister said 'Australia has an enviable track record when it comes to aviation' with 19 fatalities last year linked to general aviation.

On the imminent closure of the Hazelwood power station, the Minister said 'There are some tough times ahead but that's why we need the state and federal governments working together'

The Minister said some small local infrastructure projects had already been announced, but he flagged rail as one future larger prospect.

'The Gippsland rail line is one of the least reliable in the state and it's one I am keen to see upgraded'.

So 4D again defaulted to the usual NFI 'mystique of aviation safety' Motherhood statements and bureaucratically stitched up stats & weasel words etc...etc - what a fool... Angry


MTF...P2 Dodgy
Reply

P2 - “The cause of the crash is still unknown, but the incident has raised fresh concerns over the safety of having an airport in such a densely populated area.” BOLLOCKS.

What a fatuous, stupid remark. It makes it sound as though the aerodrome was deliberately, with ‘safety’ agency approval, built in the middle of a shopping mall.  The fact that greed has allowed the ‘buffer zones’ around airports to be built in and up seems to be ignored. Building close to airports endangers passengers and flight operations, now who OK’d that – minister?
Reply

Of Murky activities, airport shopping precincts and Tom joining up the dots and dashes

Tom raises an interesting 'connection'. He said the following;

"It makes it sound as though the aerodrome was deliberately, with ‘safety’ agency approval, built in the middle of a shopping mall. The fact that greed has allowed the ‘buffer zones’ around airports to be built in and up seems to be ignored. Building close to airports endangers passengers and flight operations, now who OK’d that – minister"?

To help NFI Chester out, may I recommend dear Miniscule that you go and speak to that wily old Murky Pumpkin Head Mike M'ere'dk. He has been in a position of power now for almost 20 years in which he has been aware of each large developer application pertaining to airports. Yes indeed, our own Pumpkin Head and his mandarins have approved most airport developments. I wonder why that is?


Tick tock
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)