The Sunday Brunch Gazette.

[Image: D4Hfa4iUUAADfP_.jpg]
Ref: AFAP come out firing on YMEN runway 08/26 width reduction

“All that glisters is not gold;

And, you think the Bledisloe Cup contest is a tough match; try beating ‘em at darts; blooming Kiwi’s: hard to beat. It all stems from that grounded security they have; simple, effective no nonsense rules about pretty much anything. They are, if nothing else a practical, pragmatic bunch, who know exactly who they are, what they are about and have little time for pony-pooh. We, the BRB scraped a win last evening – at the last minute; home ground advantage – and I’ll take it – same as they would. Great fun, a top night; and, as always, a pleasure. Aunt Pru calls the after match ‘chat’ a debate – I wish. I’ve had to referee some fairly heated ‘discussion’ in my time as ‘scribe’. But it was, to quote ‘the legendary’ McConvict “passing strange” that the NZ crews sat silent, enjoying their Ale and occasionally smiling during the shouting match. A natural break occurred, glasses were refilled and I said to one of the nicest blokes on the planet and a good airman - “Wuzzup?”. “You guys have got to be kidding – it’s a spoof; are you taking the Mickey out of us?” he said. I will say it took a while (half a pint) to convince him that the discussion was ‘real’ - live and Parliament was involved. To his dying day I still believe my good friend will not believe a quarter of what was discussed. No one, not even the politicians will – but it’s all true; every damning word of it, even the part where ‘Inquiry’ ‘Commission’ and general audit results are regarded as ‘soft white’ paper – for the use thereof.

FCOL – we were only ‘chatting’ about Angel Flight. Nothing too serious – just the general, run of the mill stuff; NTSB proactive resolutions and ‘fix’ v ATSB waffle. Of course the need to clearly define ‘operational classification’ came up; the need for CASA to begin to define and draft regulation to fit a narrower category of operation and to provide clear guidelines which would lead ‘different’ unique operations toward regulatory compliance. Angel Flight being a case in point.


[Image: DzGySY6UYAAVb2J.jpg]


There are many, many ways available to manage the good work these CSF folk do. The BRB ‘opinion’ was totally unanimous – even the Kiwi’s smiled at the end. It went something like this. (i) clearly define what is and what is not a ‘private’ operation. (ii) Clearly define what is and what is not a ‘public service’ flight – AF for example: they don’t fit into the existing rigid system. So accommodate ‘em. What, of themselves are they? Fish, fowl; or amphibian. Before defining a rule set, it is important to know the beast you are dealing with – ne c’est pas? AF want, nay, need to be ‘compliant’ . But with what? There is no categorical definition to accommodate their operation. So, why not make one? Simple – Community Service Flight; or follow the excellent FAA approach - even easier.

Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life has sold

I won’t - but I could, in about half a day, define and put into words a ‘system’ for managing both ‘safety and compliance’ for an operation such as AF. It is almost child’s play to qualify and legitimise the operation. CASA could/ should have had CAR 206 under control by now (or whatever it is today). A manual of some sort, a rule set of some sort, a ‘current’ C&T discipline – board responsible etc. Sound familiar? AOC ‘light’ type system. Of course this means CASA would have to actually work for their corn; progress into this century and stop relying on an antiquated, moribund rule set which prefers a punitive Eastern Bloc approach to control, rather than a pro-active approach which not only allows innovation, but is willing to assist – provided a demonstrable level of ‘safety’ (whatever that is) can be maintained.

The NTSB and Angel flight USA actually worked together to find an acceptable solution. It certainly did not please all – however; honest folk found a way to keep not only Angel Flight operational; but improved their operational ‘safety’. Seems like win- win to me and kudos to the NTSB. Not an FAA jacket to be seen. Why? Well that is your puzzle – the answer is easy enough to fathom.

The Budget Estimates sessions for AMSA, ASA , ATSB, and CASA came and went at an alarming pace last week. We did track ‘em and P2 did nearly as much work as the Secretariat, keeping up with it all. Speaking of which, I am to pass along the many  compliments Doc Jane (superstar) received; great work well done and - seems the new hair do is a winner.  

But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold

Shan’t rattle on about the AMSA session, although it was educational and informative. For mine, the really interesting part was the apparent ‘confusion’ relating to where the ‘agency’ becomes part of a prosecution case and the where and when the transfer to the CDPP begins. The session is worth a watch, many awkward matters were unearthed, for example the ‘statute of limitations’ and the decisions made (or not) in the event discussed. Not every mans cup of tea, but nonetheless, educational.

Poor old Halfwit had his turn, the wheel of fortune was spun and no big surprise, the appalling mess and sleight of hand surrounding the provision of Rescue Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) came up. P2 has posted a recording of the session which is worth watching. The many cynics amongst the crowd call it the great KPI rip off; others believe the hidden costs of the One Sky debacle are bleeding the monopoly business dry. 















Whatever is occurring the stark facts are easily understood; despite the polished, convoluted explanations – Australian travellers are at risk through a lack of fire and rescue services at all, but a few airports. There is a fatal flaw in the GBE model – profit. ASA is a monopoly, but why should it be ‘profitable’? IMO the ASA should be at Estimates to explain where the profits from last year were invested and perhaps even asking for top up, so they could continue to improve, expand and refine the safety and airways operating systems. ‘Nuff said.

Had you been as wise as bold,
Your in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been in'scroll'd

That only leaves us ATSB and CASA to consider, well that and the O’Sofullofit top cover factor. I’ll keep it short – once O’Sofullofit departs the fix there’ll be no one left to muddy the waters and perhaps then the Senators will get a chance to really open up this can of worms the snake oil salesmen have produced and surrounded in mystical smoke. If I had my way – St Commode would be forced to resign and take Hood with him. Brakes on: before I really get going. 









Take a look at the report on the C210 in flight break up, then compare the operational support, maintenance and the experience and qualification to the AF accidents. Spot the disconnections? AF is taking attention away from some of the very real safety management issues we have and some of the glaring deficiencies CASA have created, with ATSB support. Essendon being a classic example – and we ain’t done with that: no Sir, we most certainly are not. Well done AFAP - a Black Star call, it would be great if the other associations; chimed in to support the call - ?


[Image: 171bb8c7588fe5d372baa401a4d9ef06.194x259x1.jpg]

Fare you well: your suit is cold.' Cold, indeed, and labour lost: Then, farewell, heat and welcome, frost!” ― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.


I own a particularly old (very), elegant ‘marking knife’. For those not familiar, it is used to define the most accurate of lines used in fine woodwork. Cuts, accurate to a 1000th of an inch (old money) are defined using this ancient, venerable masterpiece of the Cutlers art. Alas; the mystique has been brutally ended. On my practice dartboard in a corner of the ‘fireplace’ area, near the Ale tap, a note was pinned to that very board – with my knife. The note was most elegantly hand writ, in a clear bold script entitled “Jobs to be done before Monday – or else”. Domestic Tyranny eh? (DT) Some things in the settled order of the planets just cannot be put off any longer. Even the dogs are looking ‘sheepish’ – reckon they’ve been told as well. Best make our outing of the fast type and early – lest the gods of the kitchen declare war and thunderbolts begin arriving. Aye; it is a rough, tough old world we live in. Handing over:-

Selah.
Reply

"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." ...

You can see – HERE – but a small sample of Australia’s attitude to ICAO compliance. Every time you turn around there are literally volumes (thousands) of ‘Notified Differences’ – (ND) to almost every ICAO Annexe. In every volume there is a large amount of ‘fluff and waffle’ related to minor deviances, but, you would need a half year to read through the whole thing and if you blink, you’ll miss some of the seriously ugly little cheats buried in the waffle and piffle. The whole notion of Australian ICAO compliance is a sham. The next government should, as a matter of some urgency, decide whether to continue to spend the huge sums required to remain an ICAO member. If they decide to persist then there is a mountain of work to be done. Either sort out the compliance scam or, save the dollars.

It set me to wondering ‘how’ did we end up in this mess; root cause and motive. It being a holiday weekend, and being idle to the bone, I looked for a shortcut which may explain, without me spending hours at my desk – just how we ended up one of the least ICAO compliant countries on the planet. Then the little light turned on – it may take a little effort on your part but it is food for reflection. From the pen of Jane Austin, the motivation for ICAO deviance– in a nutshell. That’s it – day off follows.

When he gave his promise to his father, he meditated within himself to increase the fortunes of his sisters by the present of a thousand pounds a-piece. He then really thought himself equal to it. The prospect of four thousand a-year, in addition to his present income, besides the remaining half of his own mother's fortune, warmed his heart, and made him feel capable of generosity.— "Yes, he would give them three thousand pounds: it would be liberal and handsome! It would be enough to make them completely easy. Three thousand pounds! he could spare so considerable a sum with little inconvenience."— He thought of it all day long, and for many days successively, and he did not repent.
 
Mrs. John Dashwood did not at all approve of what her husband intended to do for his sisters. To take three thousand pounds from the fortune of their dear little boy would be impoverishing him to the most dreadful degree. She begged him to think again on the subject. How could he answer it to himself to rob his child, and his only child too, of so large a sum? And what possible claim could the Miss Dashwoods, who were related to him only by half blood, which she considered as no relationship at all, have on his generosity to so large an amount. It was very well known that no affection was ever supposed to exist between the children of any man by different marriages; and why was he to ruin himself, and their poor little Harry, by giving away all his money to his half sisters?
 
"It was my father's last request to me," replied her husband, "that I should assist his widow and daughters."
 
"He did not know what he was talking of, I dare say; ten to one but he was light-headed at the time. Had he been in his right senses, he could not have thought of such a thing as begging you to give away half your fortune from your own child."
 
"He did not stipulate for any particular sum, my dear Fanny; he only requested me, in general terms, to assist them, and make their situation more comfortable than it was in his power to do. Perhaps it would have been as well if he had left it wholly to myself. He could hardly suppose I should neglect them. But as he required the promise, I could not do less than give it; at least I thought so at the time. The promise, therefore, was given, and must be performed. Something must be done for them whenever they leave Norland and settle in a new home."
 
"Well, then, LET something be done for them; but THAT something need not be three thousand pounds. Consider," she added, "that when the money is once parted with, it never can return. Your sisters will marry, and it will be gone for ever. If, indeed, it could be restored to our poor little boy—"
 
"Why, to be sure," said her husband, very gravely, "that would make great difference. The time may come when Harry will regret that so large a sum was parted with. If he should have a numerous family, for instance, it would be a very convenient addition."
 
"To be sure it would."
 
"Perhaps, then, it would be better for all parties, if the sum were diminished one half.—Five hundred pounds would be a prodigious increase to their fortunes!"
 
"Oh! beyond anything great! What brother on earth would do half so much for his sisters, even if REALLY his sisters! And as it is—only half blood!—But you have such a generous spirit!"
 
"I would not wish to do any thing mean," he replied. "One had rather, on such occasions, do too much than too little. No one, at least, can think I have not done enough for them: even themselves, they can hardly expect more."
 
"There is no knowing what THEY may expect," said the lady, "but we are not to think of their expectations: the question is, what you can afford to do."
 
"Certainly—and I think I may afford to give them five hundred pounds a-piece. As it is, without any addition of mine, they will each have about three thousand pounds on their mother's death—a very comfortable fortune for any young woman."
 
"To be sure it is; and, indeed, it strikes me that they can want no addition at all. They will have ten thousand pounds divided amongst them. If they marry, they will be sure of doing well, and if they do not, they may all live very comfortably together on the interest of ten thousand pounds."
 
"That is very true, and, therefore, I do not know whether, upon the whole, it would not be more advisable to do something for their mother while she lives, rather than for them—something of the annuity kind I mean.—My sisters would feel the good effects of it as well as herself. A hundred a year would make them all perfectly comfortable."
 
His wife hesitated a little, however, in giving her consent to this plan.
 
"To be sure," said she, "it is better than parting with fifteen hundred pounds at once. But, then, if Mrs. Dashwood should live fifteen years we shall be completely taken in."
 
"Fifteen years! my dear Fanny; her life cannot be worth half that purchase."
 
"Certainly not; but if you observe, people always live for ever when there is an annuity to be paid them; and she is very stout and healthy, and hardly forty. An annuity is a very serious business; it comes over and over every year, and there is no getting rid of it. You are not aware of what you are doing. I have known a great deal of the trouble of annuities; for my mother was clogged with the payment of three to old superannuated servants by my father's will, and it is amazing how disagreeable she found it. Twice every year these annuities were to be paid; and then there was the trouble of getting it to them; and then one of them was said to have died, and afterwards it turned out to be no such thing. My mother was quite sick of it. Her income was not her own, she said, with such perpetual claims on it; and it was the more unkind in my father, because, otherwise, the money would have been entirely at my mother's disposal, without any restriction whatever. It has given me such an abhorrence of annuities, that I am sure I would not pin myself down to the payment of one for all the world."
 
"It is certainly an unpleasant thing," replied Mr. Dashwood, "to have those kind of yearly drains on one's income. One's fortune, as your mother justly says, is NOT one's own. To be tied down to the regular payment of such a sum, on every rent day, is by no means desirable: it takes away one's independence."
 
"Undoubtedly; and after all you have no thanks for it. They think themselves secure, you do no more than what is expected, and it raises no gratitude at all. If I were you, whatever I did should be done at my own discretion entirely. I would not bind myself to allow them any thing yearly. It may be very inconvenient some years to spare a hundred, or even fifty pounds from our own expenses."
 
"I believe you are right, my love; it will be better that there should be no annuity in the case; whatever I may give them occasionally will be of far greater assistance than a yearly allowance, because they would only enlarge their style of living if they felt sure of a larger income, and would not be sixpence the richer for it at the end of the year. It will certainly be much the best way. A present of fifty pounds, now and then, will prevent their ever being distressed for money, and will, I think, be amply discharging my promise to my father."
 
"To be sure it will. Indeed, to say the truth, I am convinced within myself that your father had no idea of your giving them any money at all. The assistance he thought of, I dare say, was only such as might be reasonably expected of you; for instance, such as looking out for a comfortable small house for them, helping them to move their things, and sending them presents of fish and game, and so forth, whenever they are in season. I'll lay my life that he meant nothing farther; indeed, it would be very strange and unreasonable if he did. Do but consider, my dear Mr. Dashwood, how excessively comfortable your mother-in-law and her daughters may live on the interest of seven thousand pounds, besides the thousand pounds belonging to each of the girls, which brings them in fifty pounds a year a-piece, and, of course, they will pay their mother for their board out of it. Altogether, they will have five hundred a-year amongst them, and what on earth can four women want for more than that?—They will live so cheap! Their housekeeping will be nothing at all. They will have no carriage, no horses, and hardly any servants; they will keep no company, and can have no expenses of any kind! Only conceive how comfortable they will be! Five hundred a year! I am sure I cannot imagine how they will spend half of it; and as to your giving them more, it is quite absurd to think of it. They will be much more able to give YOU something."
 
"Upon my word," said Mr. Dashwood, "I believe you are perfectly right. My father certainly could mean nothing more by his request to me than what you say. I clearly understand it now, and I will strictly fulfil my engagement by such acts of assistance and kindness to them as you have described. When my mother removes into another house my services shall be readily given to accommodate her as far as I can. Some little present of furniture too may be acceptable then."
 
"Certainly," returned Mrs. John Dashwood. "But, however, ONE thing must be considered. When your father and mother moved to Norland, though the furniture of Stanhill was sold, all the china, plate, and linen was saved, and is now left to your mother. Her house will therefore be almost completely fitted up as soon as she takes it."
 
"That is a material consideration undoubtedly. A valuable legacy indeed! And yet some of the plate would have been a very pleasant addition to our own stock here."
 
"Yes; and the set of breakfast china is twice as handsome as what belongs to this house. A great deal too handsome, in my opinion, for any place THEY can ever afford to live in. But, however, so it is. Your father thought only of THEM. And I must say this: that you owe no particular gratitude to him, nor attention to his wishes; for we very well know that if he could, he would have left almost everything in the world to THEM."
 
This argument was irresistible. It gave to his intentions whatever of decision was wanting before; and he finally resolved, that it would be absolutely unnecessary, if not highly indecorous, to do more for the widow and children of his father, than such kind of neighbourly acts as his own wife pointed out.

Big Grin - Luv it! - P2.. Tongue
Reply

ICAO a United Nations organisation.

Very hard to get exact figures on Australia's financial contribution, I guess that's kept secret, security or some such excuse, but I dug out one figure of around $20 million.

In terms of man power Australia contributes lots and lots. A senior FAA guy said "Australia punches way above its weight in ICAO, we all rather wish they didn't".

Some grabs from ICAO literature on what they do.

Vision and Mission

Vision:


Achieve the sustainable growth of the global civil aviation system.

Mission:

To serve as the global forum of States for international civil aviation. ICAO develops policies and Standards, undertakes compliance audits, performs studies and analyses, provides assistance and builds aviation capacity through many other activities and the cooperation of its Member States and stakeholders.

About ICAO

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a UN specialized agency, established by States in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).

ICAO works with the Convention’s 193 Member States and industry groups to reach consensus on international civil aviation Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and policies in support of a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector. These SARPs and policies are used by ICAO Member States to ensure that their local civil aviation operations and regulations conform to global norms, which in turn permits more than 100,000 daily flights in aviation’s global network to operate safely and reliably in every region of the world.

In addition to its core work resolving consensus-driven international SARPs and policies among its Member States and industry, and among many other priorities and programmes, ICAO also coordinates assistance and capacity building for States in support of numerous aviation development objectives; produces global plans to coordinate multilateral strategic progress for safety and air navigation; monitors and reports on numerous air transport sector performance metrics; and audits States’ civil aviation oversight capabilities in the areas of safety and security.

How ICAO Develops Standards

The establishment and maintenance of international Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), as well as Procedures for Air Navigation (PANS), are fundamental tenets of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) and a core aspect of ICAO’s mission and role.

SARPs and PANS are critical to ICAO Member States and other stakeholders, given that they provide the fundamental basis for harmonized global aviation safety and efficiency in the air and on the ground, the worldwide standardization of functional and performance requirements of air navigation facilities and services, and the orderly development of air transport.

Today, ICAO manages over 12,000 SARPs across the 19 Annexes and five PANS to the Convention, many of which are constantly evolving in concert with latest developments and innovations.

The development of SARPs and PANS follows a structured, transparent and multi-staged process – often known as the ICAO “amendment process” or “standards-making process” – involving a number of technical and non-technical bodies which are either within the Organization or closely associated with ICAO.

Typically, it takes approximately two years for an initial proposal for a new or improved Standard, Recommended Practice or procedure to be formally adopted or approved for inclusion in an Annex or a PANS. Occasionally, this timescale can be expanded or compressed depending on the nature and priority of the proposal under consideration.


ICAO GLOBAL AVIATION SAFETY PLAN (GASP)

The Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) sets out a strategy which supports the prioritization and continuous improvement of civil aviation safety. The GASP provides a framework for the development and implementation of regional, sub-regional and national plans. Through this document, ICAO promotes harmonization and coordination of efforts aimed at improving international civil aviation safety.

All very noble stuff. Notice the emphasis on "Foster and promote" compared to Australia's approach regulate until the industry is down to its last GASP.

Australia's attitudes are just not compatible with ICAO objectives, we play lip service to them( Geneva and Montreal are nice places for a sabbatical), but we consider or should I say our regulator considers, all the rest of the world is wrong. CAsA is the font of aviation knowledge, and the gospel according to CAsA are the only commandments that must be followed lest St Carmody and his minions smite thee, even unto the purgatory of bankruptcy, and they will persecute thee until the end of thy days.


Which sort of begs the question, other than the sabbaticals to Montreal and Geneva, why do we bother?
Reply

Three decades of Australia taking the piss out of ICAO - Part III

Thorny said:

Quote:All very noble stuff. Notice the emphasis on "Foster and promote" compared to Australia's approach regulate until the industry is down to its last GASP.

Australia's attitudes are just not compatible with ICAO objectives, we play lip service to them( Geneva and Montreal are nice places for a sabbatical), but we consider or should I say our regulator considers, all the rest of the world is wrong. CAsA is the font of aviation knowledge, and the gospel according to CAsA are the only commandments that must be followed lest St Carmody and his minions smite thee, even unto the purgatory of bankruptcy, and they will persecute thee until the end of thy days.


Which sort of begs the question, other than the sabbaticals to Montreal and Geneva, why do we bother?

Excellent question TB... Wink

Hmm...now would seem like a good time to re-hash the following post off the Mount NCN thread with additional reference to the Herbert D Ray Forsyth Review submission... Shy

(06-11-2018, 10:19 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Three decades of Australia taking the piss out of ICAO - Part II

P7 said: "...Perhaps we can get the issue raised by Mike Smith at the Wagga pow-wow. Have a choc frog mate...My shout next time around..."

Bloody good idea Ol'Tom, after all (according to the MS CV) there is no more informed independent Aussie ex-pat that knows the inner workings of FAA's IASA program than Mike Smith... Rolleyes

Quote from AvMassi promo for MS: ref - http://www.avmassi.com/about-us/our-team...smith.html

Quote:...Since leaving the Australian Civil Service, Mike has been engaged as a senior consultant by airlines and aviation regulators around the world, predominantly advising clients in the areas of regulatory reform, ICAO USOAP and FAA IASA compliance and the introduction of Safety Management Systems and risk based oversight principles into their organizations. Recent clients include the World Bank and the civil aviation administrations of Singapore, the UAE, Nigeria and Bahrain. Mike led the World Bank funded program that gained IASA category one status for Nigeria in 2010, allowing that country’s airlines to operate to the USA. Nigeria remains one of only six African nations to hold that status...

I have no doubt that MS will have a passing interest in some of the seriously deluded and disconnected correspondence recently tabled with the Senate RRAT committee in Estimates hearings from the Dept.

For example from the Secretary to the Dept:


  [Image: ICAO-ND-2.jpg]

And tabled from - the latest - Mr McFixit at Budget Estimates:


[Image: ICAO-ND-1.jpg]


So according to Lachie  ... 

Quote:..Australia was assessed in October 2017 by ICAO auditors and while the results are yet to be made public it places Australia in the top 10 States for safety oversight compliance... 

...and the Dept Secretary (see above) the results, which presumably means the report, were due to be published (February 2018) publicly by now. These results/report are important as they will go to the veracity of the Carmody/Dept Secretary/Mr Mc'Fixit/Lachie proclamations of all's good in Dodge City -  Undecided       

This brings me to an historical reference blog - posthumously from Ben Sandilands  Angel - which is still unfortunately very relevant to our international involvement with ICAO and our regional aviation member states - Confused : reference Herbert D Ray submission #47 to the Forsyth (ASRR) review.

Quote:US rehabilitates Israeli air safety, a lesson for Australia

Ben Sandilands | Nov 02, 2012 8:05AM | EMAIL | PRINT

The US Federal Aviation Agency’s rehabilitation of Israel as a Level 1 state in relation to air safety ought to be read as the clearest of warnings to Australia to get its act together without delay.

If Australia is busted down to Level 2, which on the evidence, it should be, the consequences include the prohibition under US law of code shares between Australian flag carriers and those of America.

The managements of Qantas and Virgin Australia need to carefully consider what losing their respective code share deals with American Airlines and Delta would mean, and ask whether the craven acceptance of the dismal state of affairs in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia is worth the damage such a downgrade would inflict on their shareholders, employees and commercial reputations.

When Israel flouted its responsibilities and was busted for almost four years, it failed to lobby its way out of trouble, which was quite surprising. But as Wikileaks showed earlier this year, when Australia provisionally failed the necessary audits to retain Level 1 status, our lobbying efforts saved the day.

Since then matters if judged by recent events, have gone backwards in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia, and the risk of a safety downgrade and all of its commercial consequences should be treated (as it may already be in high places) as being severe and imminent.

This is the FAA statement concerning Israel, released overnight:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced that Israel complies with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), based on the results of an October FAA review of Israel’s civil aviation authority.

Israel is now upgraded to Category 1 from the Category 2 safety rating the country received from the FAA in December 2008. Israel’s civil aviation authority worked with the FAA on an action plan so that its safety oversight system fully complies with ICAO’s standards and practices.

A Category 1 rating means the country’s civil aviation authority complies with ICAO standards. A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with minimum international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record keeping or inspection procedures

With the International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Category 1 rating, Israeli air carriers can add flights and service to the United States and carry the code of U.S. carriers. With the Category 2 rating, Israeli air carriers were allowed to maintain existing service to the United States, but could not establish new services

As part of the FAA’s IASA program, the agency assesses the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that operate or have applied to fly to the United States and makes that information available to the public.

The assessments determine whether or not foreign civil aviation authorities are meeting ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations

In order to maintain a Category 1 rating, countries with air carriers that fly to the United States must adhere to the safety standards of ICAO, the United Nations’ technical agency for aviation that establishes international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance.

This is the situation in Australia, in terse form:

CASA is accused in multiple places, including under parliamentary privilege before the Senate, of conspiring with the ATSB, to withhold vital safety information contrary to the provisions of the Transport Safety Information Act of 2003 in order to protect the reputation of operator Pel-Air in relation to the ditching of one of Westwind jets off Norfolk Island in 2009, in the final report into the crash published by the ATSB on 30 August.

The ATSB has admitted that the report is not one it can be proud of, through its chief commissioner Martin Dolan, and the general manager, air safety investigations, Ian Sangston, deposed that he didn’t even know what safety questions had been asked of the survivors, but signed off on a report that did not even say whether the safety equipment on the jet worked. (It didn’t.)



AirServices Australia has recently lost at least two airliners in Australian controlled airspace, and in the case of the Virgin Australia 737 that it lost track of for most of the way between Sydney and Brisbane, lied about to the media, and has not addressed evidence that the notification of the incident to the ATSB was so inaccurate in the first instance that it had to be amended after the fact.

There are many more areas of administrative and competency failures, as regular readers of Plane Talking would be aware.

The damage the situation in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia can do to life, property and the economic interests of this country are considerable. They are conveniently ignored in the general media and public life. The inconvenience that will arise without determined and urgent corrective action cannot be understated.

Coming back to the Herbert D Ray submission, although somewhat disjointed it provides an historical insight into the 30+ year disconnection between the metamorphosis of the big 'R' regulator from the real world of aviation safety and international aviation regulation harmonisation.

Extract from HD Ray submission:

Dear Sir,

The purpose of this submission is to respectfully draw the attention of the ‘Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (the Committee) to the effects of the ‘Clipping our Wings’ submission questioning the government ‘Where in all the World is our International Civil Aviation law- ?’

This complimentary submission argues a vital consequence of not ‘safety regulating’ compliant with the requirements contained in the Convention on International Civil Aviation which establishes delinquent operational matters and consequences attributed to by the airworthiness matters and consequences as regulated by FAR sterile national law standards and practices not recognized by FAR harmonized international civil aviation law and that laws standards and practices.

Our FAR sterile National Civil Aviation laws do not provide an equivalent ‘internationally acceptable standard of safety’ for persons traveling in VH aircraft transiting in national and international airspace as is afforded those persons traveling in aircraft registered in up to 870+ compliant ICAO Treaty States that are safety regulated compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and that Convention’s safety standards and practices.

Our National Civil Aviation regulations have never been audited by an ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Program (USOP) audit team as being classed as other than a ‘Non compliant ICAO Treaty State’

The US should ‘rehabilitate’ CASA’

The attached article “US rehabilitate Israeli air safety, a lesson for Australia” CASA was identified in a “Wikileaks document which showed late last year, that
Australia provisionally failed the necessary audits to retain Level 1 status, our lobbying efforts saved the day.”

Our national civil aviation laws have been consistently audited by the ICAO USOP teams as Australia being a non compliant ICAO Treaty State which by default qualifies our air carriers as FAA category 2 operators.

“A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with minimum international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record keeping or inspection procedures”

Maintaining the ICAO USOP audit findings as a ‘non compliant ICAO Treaty State and an FAA category 2 ‘safety regulator’ means our safety regulation laws are not compliant with the minimum international standards for the certification of aerospace products, which the submission ‘Clipping our Wings’ described, including a lack of technical expertise, trained personnel and inspection procedures, all elements mirrored by the FAA to qualify Israeli air carriers as ‘category 2’ operators.

Our national civil aviation laws are ICAO USOP audited and are in principle found to be not compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
CASA as a ‘safety regulator’ does not provide an equivalent ‘level of safety’ for persons traveling in VH aircraft transiting in national and international airspace as is afforded those persons traveling in aircraft safety regulated compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and that Conventions FAR harmonized safety standards and practices.

An FAA category 2 rating on our national air carriers both RPT and GA will have a devastating economic effect on the entire VH aerospace industry, as GA operator’s contract in foreign States and must maintain the diplomatically engineered FAA category 1 level to operate in compliant ICAO Treaty States airspace.

We are operating in foreign airspace as ICAO/FAA category 1 operators, hinged on ‘diplomatic camerade’ and this will surely ‘unhinge’.

The 1999 ICAO USOP audit ‘findings’ noted ‘ that an MOU had been signed between Australia and ICAO to resolve a raft of primary and civil aviation legislation delinquencies and CASA should review the requirements contained in its Regulation and Orders to ensure full conformance with the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) contained in Annexes 1, 6 and 8.

The 1996 USOP audit findings also noted that in June 1996, the Regulatory Framework Program (RFP) office of CASA(as directed by the Program Advisory Panel) commenced a Government endorsed review and revision of the Australian aviation safety requirements currently contained in the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and the Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs). The proposed new legislation is to be called the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs).

The ‘findings noted that “the future CASR Parts will ensure, ensure Australian regulations FAR harmonize with international standards and practices?

The ICAO USOP audit teams consistently ‘find’ Australian regulations do not FAR harmonize with international standards and practices and neither does the FAA ‘find’ a VH TC’d aircraft is returned to service compliant with FAA design standard law, and those laws instructions and orders that constitutes ICAO USOP ‘international standards and practices !

In 2004 CEO Bruce Byron’s unauthorized withdrawal of the Program Advisory Panel CASR /FAR sequenced Part 43/66/145 and 147 maintenance, licensing and training rules compliant with our ICAO USOP MOU and our treaty pledge and Article 37 of the Convention rules and those rules replacement with the FAR sterile CAR 1988 Part 1 and CASR Part 42/66/145 and 147 maintenance, licensing and training rules, are not compliant with our ICAO Treaty pledge nor are they Article 37 of the Convention compliant or correlated with international civil aviation laws and that laws standards and recommended practices.

If our civil aviation airworthiness laws are not article 37 compliant with the ICAO treaty States regulated compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International

Civil Aviations simply put we will never be classed as a ‘Compliant ICAO Treaty State’
Subsequent ICAO USOP audits have maintained Australia as a ‘non compliant ICAO Treaty State exacerbated by CASA being established as serially dishonoring promises to regulate to international ICAO USOP ‘Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP’s) and reneged on the 1999 promise ICAO USOP audit promise” “the future CASR Parts will ensure, ensure Australian regulations FAR harmonize with international standards and practices.

The ‘Summary ‘ duplicates the same ‘resolutions’ as ‘Clipping our Wings’ but maybe should include ‘The US should ‘rehabilitate’ CASA’ -to maintain a ICAO/FAA category 1 rating.?
The ICAO USOP audits findings display similar CASA non compliances with USOP SARP’s etc as the level 2’d Israeli air carriers!

Summary

We believe that it is a responsibility of ‘the Committee’ to ensure ‘Constitutional’ matters that vest a power to the parliament to promulgate legislation must be seen to make laws that are appropriate to meet those Constitutional obligations and responsibilities as pledged as an ‘ICAO Treaty State’

The government has entrusted a ‘rulemaking power to CASA who have serially dishonored Treaties, MOU’s, Charters and Pledges, made to the ICAO USOP audit teams to harmonize to airworthiness international standards, by taking the questionable privilege of submitting national airworthiness legislation to our parliament that is in conflict with the terms and conditions of matters our government has contracted to uphold as a Constitutional Section 51 (XXIX) ‘External Affairs’ instrument to be a compliant ICAO Treaty State regulated to FAR harmonized International Civil Aviation law.

The withdrawing of the PAP harmonized CASR/FAR Part 43/66/145/147 universal rules and the ‘putting‘ of national airworthiness legislation that is in conflict with the ICAO Treaty and absolves CASA of its international ‘safety oversight regulator ‘ responsibilities can be argued as being ‘unconstitutional law’.

The options the government should consider in resolving the ‘matter’ of CASA’s airworthiness ‘safety oversight’ management that jeopardizes ‘Safer Skies for All’ includes:

First and foremost

- Separating CASA’s ‘rule making power’ and resume the Program Advisory Panel of Industry experts. CASA can’t be trusted!
- Sack the CASA board and replace it with a ‘non partisan’ board with the ‘best interests’ of the nation at heart! –We don’t want any more ‘sword falling’ invitations for FAR harmonizing CEO’s!
- Revoking 1988 CARS and CAR 42/CASR Part 42 and Part 145 as the CAR 1988 PART 1 (2) dysfunctional behavior creating illegal CASA approved maintenance instructions permeates through CASR Part 42 and Part 145 and cannot positively contribute to ‘safer skies for all’
- Revoking the CASR Part 66 and Part 147 as these rules do not harmonize with the standards and values of either the **FAA or EASA rules.
- Australia should either resurrect the PAP FAR harmonized CASR 43/66/145/147 rules or adopt the NZCAA internationally recognized rules expanding the significant ANZA mutual operational agreement to include the NZCAA maintenance and personnel rules which are seen as the most cost efficient resolution to CASA’s perpetual and costly development of misaligned rules.
- The possibility of presenting the ANZA mutual operational agreement, and expanding the agreement to include maintenance and personnel as the SW Pacific Aviation Safety Agency (SWPASA) would be in line with our joint Trans Tasman Trade agreement principles should be held in view.
- Adapting the NZCAA rules ‘would be more cost effective than harmonizing CASA’s present costly and dysfunctional EASA agenda CAR 1988 and CASR 42/66/145/147 national rules with the EASA system and its guidance material , which favors the ‘big end of town’ at the expense of the ‘little end of town’.
- The transitioning of AME’s who may still hold ICAO Annex 1 license(Diamonds), to the NZCAR 66 AME license is preferable to transitioning to CASR 66 licenses as these are not ICAO Annex 1 rated. (Lemons)
- To overcome CASA’s skill resources dilemma CASA should contract industry IoA holders that specialize in design conformity inspections for C of A issues, and experienced LAME’s (retired) qualified to carry out this RTS function on CASA’s behalf until those LAME/ AWI’s in CASA’s employ receive re currency training. The ADF AW staff will need to obtain AME licenses and civil experience
or
- The government give consideration to extending the MRO industry’s present ‘self regulatory ‘ role to act as a ‘maintenance and AME licensing ‘safety oversight program regulator’ to administer the FAR harmonized ‘maintenance and AME licensing rules on behalf of the government supported by a resurrected ‘Program Advisory Panel’
- As noted adopting the NZCARS is popular with other NAA’s – and is the most cost effective solution to CASA’s skill based AW rules dilemma.
- Having FAR harmonized maintenance and AME personnel rules will see a pleasant change with the ICAO USOP audits finding Australia a ‘compliant ICAO Treaty State’ instead of findings to date of being a ‘non compliant ICAO Treaty State’ and our CAR form 1 ARCs being rated on a par with an **FAA 8130-3 ARC the global airworthiness certification standard

 It will be a pleasant change from being internationally recognized as a ‘lemon’!



Unfortunately for H.D.Ray et.al it would appear that our committee has been lost to the self-interested political survival of a totally disconnected National party... Confused

This was the observed attitude (former Senator Edwards) of the committee then (i.e prior to O'Obfuscation):



 Compare that to this recent totally 'soft cock' performance from the Senate RRAT committee headed up by a QLD LNP powerbroker:



&..


Hmm...well at least now Barry O'Obfuscation has effectively left the building... Rolleyes 


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

"Hmm...well at least now Barry O'Obfuscation has effectively left the building... Rolleyes"

Yup P2 but the same intractable incompetent mob remains.

During my trawl through the halls of ICAO one thing stood out to me was the fact that even though they are a bloated UN agency, ICAO fully grasps the concept that without civil aviation being viable in all its forms, their whole existence is fruitless.

CAsA however are so profoundly dumb and inept, that they imagine they can go on with their regulatory folly until the whole industry collapses under the sheer weight of their ineptitude. They imagine "The user pays" and pays while they and their minions grow fat and bloated until time immemorial. It's farcical and doomed to failure.

A previous DAS, named not by people within Australia, but from his previous employment, as the screaming Skull, a name etched in infamy in the annuls of Fort fumble.

He had the arrogance to name those in the industry beginning to object to his sociopathic bullying, as the ills of society, the so called IOS. How dare he! The current DAS is cut from the same mould.

The true IOS are those who given unfettered power by our politicians, misuse that power to undermine our democracy, where every citizen has, or should have, the right to complain about their governance and be listened to by those who govern.
Does not a citizen of Australia where a government entity through its own arrogance, uses an impossible to define excuse to decimate an entire industry through incompetent regulation have a right to complain.
Reply

TB. - “The current DAS is cut from the same mould.”

Dunno Thorny – Someone gave a ‘Skull’ bottle opener once as a present – I call it John, quite affectionately these days. McCormack was an outright ‘wrong-un’ no argument – but, he went to no great pains to hide his horrible nature- a honest villain if you will. This new fellah is every bit as venal, probably more so but he hides it so very well. That; more than his antics bothers me. “K” calls it the Cheshire Cat smile then tells the tale - again -  of the eviction of a persistent visitor demanding to 'see' someone - and sat, waiting,  in the coffee shop, with no less than the ICC; when a security detail marched in, fronted the bloke and threatened to have the fellah arrested by the Gendarme’s under some ‘law’ cited; if he didn’t depart fix at top speed. They were not polite or even civil – instructions from the top, not to be ignored. The ICC was gobsmacked. It is a small indication of the ruthless, arrogant methods St. Commode is prepared to use to be shut of was, at most, a minor irritation. The Cheshire Cat indeed – big, fat Tom’s have claws.

Apropos of SDA – “K’s” dogs grew up with the stable cat – and they are the very best of mates – other mogg’s must take their chances when they stray where not wanted. Just a thought.

The loudspeaker is playing my song – best it is that I shuffle along – and take my place amongst the throng. Gad, don’t’cha love humanity  - en-masse.
Reply

[Image: KathrynsReport.jpg]

First principals.

[Image: 148167-004-D41F4721.jpg]

“What is this thing in itself, in its own constitution? What are its elements of substance and material, and of cause? What is it’s function in the world? What is its duration?” - Marcus Aurelius.

Once you have passed through the shock of watching this video –



– take a quiet moment and consider the questions raised by Marcus Aurelius’ quite a long while ago. If you are a developer or a politician; or, even one of those folk who assist in bringing buildings in close proximity to active runways, take a moment to reflect on the stark similarity between the Fullerton accident and the Essendon DFO accident. An aviation layman, politician or developer will not spot the ex post facto lead to this event, nor will they notice the glaring differences between the Fullerton and Essendon accident.


[Image: D5M81sHVUAEao9i.jpg]

[Image: Dz5ds8tVsAAcnuP.png]

“The Emperor counsels simplicity: First principles Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its causal nature?" - Marcus Aurelius.


In primus; an engine failed. The rapidity with which the terminal event occurred may beggar the imagination of some, those not acquainted with reality. It is representative of the speed at which these rare events occur. What is not immediately apparent is the flight path of the aircraft. In the video, it looks as though it all happened – in a straight line. I can assure you – it did not. The aircraft travelled both forward and laterally (sideways) and fetched up in a fireball on the taxiway. Question 1: how far away from the runway centre line is the accident taxiway? Question 2 – how far from the runway centreline is the DFO at Essendon?


[Image: D5MzgNwUEAAYrZA.jpg]

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”


In secundus – take a stroll through ‘the Kathrynsreport’ – HERE -. Skip through the waffle and pay attention to the photographs – then count the RFFS units on site – and then check the response time; then check the equipment provided; parked on the taxiway about where the Essendon DFO sits now. I’d call the Essendon response a remarkable shortfall – wouldn’t you? No matter, the deeds are done; the stories writ and lip service to ICAO compliance all seems to have been worded properly. That only leaves us two aviation related tragedies to consider the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of – up to the lawyers now to sort out the legal ramifications of the events. Clean cut in the USA; in Australia a ten year event to discover that no one else had any part – bar the Essendon pilot – deceased. Aye; the Bard had the right of it - "Let's kill all the lawyers". Of course they ain’t to blame – well; not for all of it – but: there I’ll rest my case M’lud.




vs



vs




Now we must address more practical matters. I am always reluctant to weigh into ‘accident’ discussion, preferring to wait and see what the ‘Tin-Kickers’ come up with; they are mostly very good at what they do. For a topical example; the Fullerton crash is assumed to be a 1Inop or; EFATO. In short (apparently) an engine quit at a critical point. This, believe it or not is a very, very rare event. The staggeringly short period between ‘death’ and ‘needing a drink’ is the point of discussion. No doubt the investigators will – if it was an engine failure confirm this in due course. But, lets for for the moment assume that an engine did quit - stone cold – during the few heartbeats which matter. 
 
The ‘Duke’ comes with turbocharged Lycoming TIO541-B4 engines; these engines have a solid reliability history (properly maintained and operated) and are fitted to a number of aircraft variants. So far, so good. Now to the aircraft.

[Image: 990391as.jpg]

For my sins; I have operated (not just flown) almost every Beechcraft twin engine aircraft on the market; from Duchess to the mighty B18; through the impeccable King and Queen Air series to the ‘Twin Bonanza’. The only air-frame in the stable  I’d rather not fly is the Duke – B60. It has always felt ‘wrong’ to me; particularly in the slow speed phases – take off – of the envelope. Short ramble follows. Back in the ‘old’ days, before simulation took over, we were taught, by men who knew, the finesse required to survive an EFATO in a FAR 23 certified aircraft – and accepted, as a given, that single engine performance was a dream in the ‘critical’ stages of low slow operation i.e. take-off. So; and it is hard to define – we’d persuade the aircraft into a flight attitude; allow it to accelerate as swiftly as horse power and aerodynamics allowed through the crucial flight speed ‘gates’. Ever alert to the fact that it was better to go through a fence at 40 knots, rather than attempt to gain speed after an event on one engine. A healthy 10 knots over a stated Single engine ‘climb’ speed was always ‘preferred’ – assuming that the speed advantage would be lost during the initial stages of an EFATO episode; leaving the bare minimum for ‘survival’ and the task was always to regain that speed – before contact with the ‘solid’ stuff. It has served me well – still does. The point – sorry : I digress. 



[Image: tenor-18.gif?w=646]

“Nothing is more to the point than a good digression.” ― Ralph Caplan



The Fullerton aircraft and my (humble) speculation; based on the ‘Engine Failure’ scenario and the video of the take off profile. Modern and airline standard training techniques are sound and as safe as they can be – particularly about the demi god ‘Flight Director’ (FD). – Which has a lovely thing called the ‘Take off and Go-Around’ mode (TOGO). The touch of a button on the power lever sets the FD to the best angle for survival – in the engine out situation – it is a beauty. Provided - and only provided if (a) the aircraft has certified, guaranteed single engine performance; and (b) matters are attended to , promptly, swiftly with precision. It works just fine – with guaranteed performance. The techniques taught work great – except when there is no performance guarantee. More and more light aircraft today are being equipped with gadgets like the FD and TOGO. The B60 accident profile – to me – from the video – looked like a classic example of no available performance to meet the ‘FD’ dictated single engine profile. A straight line flight to VMCA loss of control. Been wrong many times; too many to count but I’d bet a beer – even two, that this fellah believed that the ‘Blue Line’ would save him – too late to realise it won’t. Speed rules – end of idle speculation. Airline techniques in aircraft with ‘guaranteed’ performance are ‘best practice’ – in those aircraft; but for aircraft without that certification – the pilot must always be certain sure that the ten knots lost in an engine failure does not take the aircraft outside it’s control envelope. It happens very quickly – as the Fullerton and Essendon video’s graphically demonstrate ( P7 - Not to mention Ross Air). There is a gum-tree, far, faraway on which I had time to carve my initials as I passed it by; struggling to find three knots. The Gods nodded that day.



[Image: 122092.jpg]

“In practical life we are compelled to follow what is most probable ; in speculative thought we are compelled to follow truth.” ― Baruch Spinoza, The Letters



That’s a lot of speculation without a skerrick of supporting data – but – IMO – today’s training attempts to Ape airline techniques - at 'Book speeds' (Blue line etc,) - rather than ensuring the FAR 23 aircraft gets through the speed gates as swiftly as possible and is flown correctly – within practical limitations, during EFATO are flawed. Remember - always - These speeds are test pilot generated, certification minimums, using a brand new aircraft, factory built and maintained – not a 30 y.o. Chieftain.  Enough; more than enough.


[Image: D5NLi-RUUAA_hkF.jpg]

Daylight saving has – thankfully – ended. No more 30 degree heat at 2000 hrs with the sun still blazing down. Cool mornings, no Dt duty, even the horses look refreshed. Aye well;  the dogs seem  know – second coffee – short bursts of key board noise (must get a new one) mean the Gazette (FWIW) is done and we can get on with the important stuff. Boots, jacket “lets’ go kids” and away; through the orchard gate - like mist on the wind.  Freedom………

Selah.
Reply

[Image: D5w3BIAUYAEtqH6.jpg]
Ref: #1AP Forum, #2 SU submission & #3 Hansard 2008.

A Scarlet pimple? – Nell?

[Image: ff3323b5ccf9bc7d040392a931d84b01.jpg]

We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere!
Is he in heaven? Is he in hell?
Where is that damn elusive Pimpernel! 

― Baroness Emmuska Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel

One may, in a quiet moment of idle reflection – see their point. Bloody frustrating – for both sides. Of course, it depends on your point of view. The French were slaughtering ‘aristocrats’ the elusive Pimpernel rescuing ‘em all. Entirely representative of the classic conflict which, periodically arises when one side decides enough is enough – and; ‘tuther decides it ain’t so.





And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth


Strangely enough; once the ‘anger’ has passed and sanity prevails – it seems both victor and vanquished manage to sort out an arrangement which, while not satisfying the wishes of all, is an ‘accommodation’ both sides seem to be able to live with – mostly. Which brings me to the point of the ramble.

‘Tis a strange battle we are engaged in, for the ‘White hats’ don’t want it; they keep working  away, quietly spinning and weaving – the threads which can bind and resolve the conflict – provided the ‘Black hats’ can become no more than a rabid minority voice. Alas, unlike the Hollywood version, where good always triumphs over evil – it ain’t, in the words of the prophet, “Necessarily so”.



What, through ‘deep’ research is becoming apparent is a deep divide between those we shall call ‘White hats’ and those who wear the black hats. To follow, you need to read and understand a small part of P2’s ‘dustbin rummaging’. – HERE.  P2 - “However it just so happens that I've been a given a perfect example of the evidence of which "K" mentions in his above post”.

Don’t seem like much do it. Until you join the dots. Shall I explain children; – or, do you want to try to answer the questions posed? Give in – OK; here we go.

“CASA is developing a safety risk profile for the maintenance of charter operations. To assist in the development of the risk profile a survey of relevant maintenance organisations will be conducted in May 2019 and CASA is encouraging participation. The survey will collect valuable data to accurately inform risk analysis and should only take 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Sector risk profiles are an important tool in understanding the safety challenges and issues for different segments of the aviation community. They present a picture of the current key safety risks facing a sector and assist in developing a deeper understanding of the effects of these risks.”

[Image: D5xC9X0V4AE8wW9.jpg]

The way the system is supposed to work is graphically and clearly illustrated by the ‘aerial agriculture’ industry. (1) a ‘safety risk profile’ (SFR) was honestly done by the ‘white hats’. (2) The ‘Ag’ boys responded and Phil Hurst set about HONESTLY ADDRESSING and ‘sorting’ the risks perceived. Eventually, without too much heartburn on either side, there was a concord. CASA still had some anxieties; Ag had others – but, despite the differences, together, they managed to reduce the Safety Risk Profile and, with a bit of good faith on either side – the Ag boys have never looked back. Risk analysis, discussion, remedy and the result? Probably the best example of common sense, expertise and negotiation significantly reducing ‘risk’ – from training to seriously ‘risky’ flight operations. It was a brilliant result from a SFR to discussion to real reduction in real risk in a joint effort to actually improve ‘safety’. Bravo Phil, Bravo Ag and Bravo, well done CASA white hats. Brilliant, world best.



[Image: D5xNg_LUwAAUR9u.jpg]
Ref: The first 100 days?

There are other SFR which have, treated properly, the potential to produce the same very desirable outcome across a wide range of operational areas. The NTSB, without involving the Administration; (FAA) managed to improve the ‘SRP’ of Angel Flight – again, with good intentions – BOTH sides came up with solutions and compromise. Were there risks left over for the NTSB to worry about – of course there were. Was some restriction placed upon Angel flight operations– of course there were. In both cases; at the beginning of a negotiated agreement – did either side get all it wanted? Of course not. – 

But - and it is a great big 12 point, bold BUT since the two sides got together and sorted out the ‘risk’ matrix – has the overall ‘safety’ improved? – Yes, in spades.

Has pilot education and risk awareness improved? Yes it has.

Has the good faith and open discussion contributed to better operational standards, better training, better performance, better overall safety statistics?

You bet it has. This is where the ‘white hats’ and operational common sense wins; hands down. It also the place where trust, faith, effort and honesty meet to provide a better everything, for everyone concerned.



[Image: 300px-Angel_Flight_West.JPG]

References: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/...02-104.pdf & Wikipedia & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...7#pid10237  




And yet, in over thirty years we, here in Australia have no trust or faith in the regulator or those who investigate accidents when their own operations are run by the ‘black hats’ who don’t know and could care less about anything but CASA being ‘the doyen’ of improving aviation safety. Three decades (download) is enough; in fact more than enough patience from industry. Reforming the regulator is an easy task for a minister, supported by an understanding Senate committee – simply fire the known Black hats – the reform will take place then. Wanna list?



[Image: 86168.jpg]

For lust of knowing what should not be known

We take the Golden Road to Samarkand. ― James Elroy Flecker


Aye well – for the want of a nail etc. But it intrigues why we cannot break the stranglehold of the protection racket CASA have invented to keep crown ministers content and safe. The Myth of aviation safety and a decade old prophecy fulfilled; yet still politicians whimper and pay up, when the black hats show up. Disgusted? Well yes I am – just a little bit.

No matter – SBG done Saturday night – Lasagne, friends and a good red await me; so I’ll bugger off, eat, sleep and early tomorrow – I’ll take the dogs fishing –unless that 200 y.o Mahogany trophy cabinet arrives early and catches us; but it can wait a while.    

[Image: D5zvgGpU8AEGVnP.jpg]

"The Gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent fishing" 

Selah.
Reply

Nah! - Duck this – for a game of soldiers.



Significant point in time reference: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...79#pid4279 


Quote:WTF are the CASA DAS and CASA Chairman suddenly all concerned over ‘commercial’ matters.

Skidmore trotted it out as a weasel worded platitude at estimates – concerned that it was unfair, so unfair to those who had spent their money fitting ADSB that he couldn’t possibly consider delaying full implementation...

...Then I listened carefully to the Boyd interview on ABC radio: and bugger me, there it was again.  CASA getting all concerned about ‘commercial’ matters, fairness of competition and costs, from Boyd.  Rewind, listen again – click.

It’s bloody near midnight – I keep waiting for the fury to subside (which it does - with patience) but not this night. Usually, when ‘the furies’ plague me, a couple of Ales in the workshop and a smoke, stroll with the dogs and ‘the furies’ depart the fix with little fuss – end of. Not tonight. 

Early this week, I’d a notion for the Sunday ramble, thought about it, worked it around – even found a title “Fire; and the Brimstone to follow” for there is much to consider with regard to Halfwit’s vision of his KPI, the dreadful lack of ICAO compliance, shortage of substantive RFFS in this wide brown land and; the appalling state of the ASA in general. 



Ref: Aviation safety and the rule of three?

The ‘fire’ is inevitable – statically; the Brimstone to follow, with politicians and ‘departments’ alike fleeing any and all responsibility. I counted myself content to add a little fuel to the RFFS fire; their cause is just – the logic impeccable; the facts undeniable. All was well until P2 rang – “seen this” says he; cheery like. I had not, and; 14 hours later – I’m still fuming. 

The village which managed to lose it’s idiot knows exactly where to find him – resident scribe to ‘Australian Flying’ – and the village don’t want him back. Today, this light minded commercial publication allowed the following to be published:- in a magazine which industry folk may read.

[Image: SH_Nov13_AF904AE0-3498-11E4-82B0020AB1EB208A.jpg]

The TAAAF policy released this week is likely to be the most rational, productive and effective document ever ignored by Canberra. The keystone to the paper is that CASA needs to be reformed with the board taking greater power and responsibility, with the role of the CEO/Director of Aviation Safety downgraded. At the moment, the board is an oversight committee that doesn't have a lot of power to effect change. That position gains integrity when you consider that the paper was signed by the immediate past chairman of the CASA board Jeff Boyd. Is there anyone out there in a better position to know what the problem is than the person who was regularly blocked from making significant change to the way aviation safety is regulated?

If ever there was a more wool-blind load of old twaddle inflicted on a suffering industry, adding insult to injury, the inutile Hitch has managed it. Why he don’t stick to vacuous scribblings about his vicarious flight time in ‘Tupperware’ I’ll never know – but to scratch out that vomitus piece of rubbish – and manage to have any credibility is beyond my reasoning powers.


[Image: D6cc1UoUYAgKAWg.jpg]
Reference: Chester and Mickey Bliss. 


 Jeff Boyd – FCOL – Hitch was scurrying about at Tamworth and had he had his ears open and paying attention, he could have seen and heard the mouse that tried to roar defend CASA – explaining what a difficult job they had invented for themselves. A little further down the track he would have noted the not so subtle change in the Boyd language and stance. You won’t know, but Boyd actually wanted to meet PAIN – set up a meeting was the order – well we put a scratch team together – nothing heavy – just a couple of ‘experts’ mixed in with ordinary folk. We sat – he arrived late (without apology) and talked and talked. Not too much in the listening department was noted; and, no interest whatsoever in the minor ‘test’ points raised. We ain’t altogether silly. A phoney. CASA Mouthpiece. – Full of it – Ignore – was the verdict of the BRB and so we did. I almost lost my shirt on ‘the book’. Shaded the odds to give the bloke a chance to run. Bad call – Mea Culpa. We all watched and despaired as Boyd became an appendage to the CASA Frankenstein. Ineffectual was the least insulting comment I could get at several BRB sessions - when his name was mentioned. When this short wheelbase Muppet left the board, hardly a soul broke wind. Then; up he pops with TAAAF. Well, he’s in the right sphere now – rubbing shoulders with the other Casamites and system bilker’s – Russell, Monk and all of St Commode’s best boys – and; “they” are going to ‘reform’ CASA, the Act and allow a board and minister to have a say-so. BOLLOCKS. We in the industry may be dumb – even honest – maybe even gullible – but non of us is anywhere near stupid – bar Hitch – who seems to find it all a slightly amusing ‘something – nothing’. 

There is only one solution and one solution only. A director who can not only assist the minister, reduce the budget and sort out the creatures which have taken up residence in the Sleepy Hollow swamps; but can actually reform the department, get sensible operational safety ensconced in law and let everyone breathe easier. It is that simple – fire St. Commode and hire an expert – let him pick his crew; give ‘em all a baseball bat and turn ‘em loose. The changes would amaze even the most hardened cynic. Hell; the industry may even survive after CASA, Boyd and his TAAAF mates have almost bled it dry.

There; not a quote or even an attempt at humour. This has just got serious kids; now, run and hide as you always do until the Bogey Man has passed by.



If you wake at midnight, and hear a horse’s feet,

Don’t go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,

Them that asks no questions isn’t told a lie.

Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!


Five and twenty ponies Trotting through the dark;

Brandy for the Parson, ’Baccy for the Clerk

Laces for a lady, letters for a spy,

And watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!

Selah.
Reply

[Image: D6kMuNEU0AAo-Rt.jpg]

“God make our blunders wise”

[Image: D7DlrMNU8AAIXxB.jpg]
Ref: https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/litany-heroes & https://www.aviationcv.com/aviation-blog...on-history

A Litany: an endless repetitive prayer for the salvation of Australian aviation  I trot out the mantra without much hope and less belief after every election. Perhaps, this time the elected government will provide not only a policy for reform, but a minister capable and willing to make the necessary ‘adjustments’ to the sad, sorry mess the industry is forced to exist in. Alas, Australia has just voted in a government who went to an election without an aviation policy and one of the most useless, in a long Conga line of the same ilk – wool blind fools posing as ‘the’ minister. This is not whimsy – this is not some notion I dreamed up over an Ale or two. It is fact, demonstrable and emphatic.


[Image: D6_k_96UIAA6Spt.jpg]
Ref TICK...TOCK miniscule McDo'Naught the clock is ticking on?



Across the globe ‘aviation’ is booming  - except in Australia, where it is being slowly bled to death by a restrictive dictatorship which empowers a certain kind of people with little to no experience of the industry itself. What CASA is very good at is ‘managing’ the minister and manipulating the mystique of ‘safety’ to keep politicians afraid, deaf to the continual pleas for relief and reform. This is also supportable ‘fact’.

CASA insist that all is well and they are a world leader in the aviation stakes.

[Image: D6_qq_4VUAEL0z0.jpg]

We need look no further than our closest neighbour, good friends and allies across the Tasman to see the stark, very real differences an aware government and a realistic regulator can make toward improving the way in which aviation is managed. For many, too  many long weary years, pilots with Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) have battled to prove they are as safe as those who do not suffer the same problem. The subject has been through arbitration, the Senate and on the desk of many ‘politicians’. First class evidence provided, miles of research, mountains of data and yet the Australian CASA chose to stonewall and keep the goal posts moving. Not the Kiwi’s; despite having one the most vehement opponents of CVD easement as part of their medical hierarchy, have managed, very nicely, to reform their regulations and develop a safe, sensible equitable scheme to allow CVD pilots a fair go. Bravo NZ, well done indeed. One example of a proactive, progressive government addressing a ‘safety case’. They have, by – the – by, managed to reform their Aviation Act – government, authority and industry coming to terms with the modern world. Australian government not only does not have a ‘policy’ – but continues to hide under the bed when ‘matters aeronautical’ are mentioned. 




Ref: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=32


A new government – with a minister for Transport held captive by fear, terrified to address the urgent need to reform the Navigation Act, restructure the regulator and bring Australian aviation into the real world and let it prosper – as it should. A government minister, held Catamite to a bunch of amateurs, with unlimited power. Shame on us for allowing it, without protest.



[Image: OlTom.jpg]

Ref: Of bureaucratic stonewalls & Fort Fumble embuggerances

“You can fool some of the people some of the time -- and that's enough to make a decent living.” ― W.C. Fields


The TAAAF have come up with a ‘suggestion’.

“TAAAF wants to see the lapsed Civil Aviation Amendment Bill re-introduced to parliament with amendments that bring about legislative changes to CASA.”

•  Amendments that address safety issues and High Court challenges to the primacy of the Civil Aviation Act
•  addition of cost and sector risk approaches
•  CASA board to have full powers over strategy, operation and administration
•  CASA board to be comprised of people with relevant and significant aviation experience
•  Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) to be ex-officio member of the board
•  revision of CEO/DAS position to increase accountability to the board
•  establishing formal consultation with peak aviation bodies.

Whether they can actually make all that go ‘bang’ within the next decade has its own tote board – even with some ‘ministerial’ support. It is a great notion, no mistake; BUT, the almost total lack of faith and confidence in those who are espousing the proposed changes radically affects the betting odds. 



There is a large ‘no confidence’ vote to overcome before those odds will change. Then of course, we must weigh in the truly dreadful top team at CASA and the evil therein, alongside a useless minister. Long odds for the brave at heart.

Vision:-
“Safe, secure, efficient, profitable, sustainable and
facilitating Aviation Sector in Pakistan at par with
best international aviation practices, contributing to
National development based upon the organic
market growth”

On the other hand – I can only offer very short odds on a major incident; there have been far too many ‘close calls’. Tall buildings on active runways; broken aircraft flying about the countryside; fog and fuel near squeaks, coal loaders in peril; training accident rates under the ‘new’ rules’ : there is a long list. Then there is the hangman’s noose of the safety loop – coronial recommendations, Senate recommendations, Rev Forsyth’s opinion; in a long list of ignored ‘safety’ recommendations all neatly stacked away in the deepest, darkest dungeon of castle CASA.  

No matter; I’ll take your wager and hazard the odds; I’d actually really enjoy paying out all the markers to be proven wrong – been wrong before.

[Image: 82951.jpg]

“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ”― W.C. Fields

Not often I decide on a ‘do-nothing’ day; quiet spot, good book, no phone – just the dogs, far, far away from the clamour of modern life.

[Image: 17151e8de63d8cdc2dec327307a3fb39.jpg] 

“Far from the trouble and toil of town,
Where the reed beds sweep and shiver,
Look at a fragment of velvet brown–
Old Man Platypus drifting down,
Drifting along the river.” ― A.B. Paterson

Selah.
Reply

Latest Oz Aviation rumours, innuendo and commentary -  Rolleyes  

Via Carmody Capers:

(05-21-2019, 08:25 AM)Kharon Wrote:  The Silent Majority; what a great team.

And; what a great pity it is that the Silent (and not so much) Majority of aviation folk can’t vote for the top deck crew at CASA; that would ‘rock ‘em’. Aunt Pru ran that ‘pol’ – the results NFP – but suffice to say the next miniscule will be shocked to discover the general, local and international, disgust, disquiet and lack of confidence in our overblown ‘safety’ agencies.

One interesting snippet – pure speculation now, based on some very small straws blowing about in a stiff breeze is that St. Commodes days are numbered. Just whispers and dot joining – but, rumour has it that our part time DAS not only wants to go, but there is a push from below, within the CASA ranks to be shed of the incubus. Naked ambition and political disquiet combined with a touch of madness seems to be in the air.

Nothing like a whisper of good rumour to start the week – believe it if you like.

Toot – toot.

&..
(05-21-2019, 02:18 PM)thorn bird Wrote:  Not bad K as rumours go. Sets the mind to cogitating just how the apparatus of CAsA works, especially when it's difficult to imagine any logical explanation to what they do.

Their mantra is "Safety", yet they don't achieve any better safety outcome than any of their peers. They maintain they are first and foremost safety regulators, yet their regulations have very little positive affect on safety, some would say a negative effect. There is also the intended or unintended (you choose) consequence that it is now plainly obvious, their regulations have decimated a whole industry. To what end?

To my mind CAsA is a complete and obvious failure at what was intended, so why have they been allowed to continue as they are?

Ever since they were separated from mainstream governance as a government independent Statutory Authority, the key word there is "independent", there has been a subtle movement behind the scenes to separate its workings from any form of scrutiny or outside control.

There are those who would say the so called "Iron Ring" was responsible for that and to some extent is probably true, but I really do wonder how much influence their union has. Given they are paid extremely generous salaries, way above industry standard for equivalent positions or level of expertise and given everyone will endeavour to protect their rice bowl it would be understandable their union would be working very hard behind the scenes to maintain the status quo, no matter what affect their efforts have on the well being of the industry that supports them.

Whispers abound, that within CAsA the atmosphere is like a modern day game of thrones, especially amongst the upper echelon, the old saying power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, perhaps rings true.

Has CAsA become so inwardly focused that it has become blind to what their actions are doing?

And Sandy in reply to the SBG on Farcebook: https://www.facebook.com/sandy.reith.31/...ed_comment

Quote:Sandy Reith Behind all worthwhile endeavours for improvements in life’s organisation it pays to keep an eye on principals and definitions. 

The then Minister Anthony Albanese in 2009 created the independent Commonwealth entity of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) by removing the body of the same name out of his Department.

Mr. Albanese made it clear that it would be a great advantage to have this body removed from political influence, hence ‘independent.’ By reason it follows that Mr. Albanese expected ATSB to be altruistic, efficient and generally act only in the public interest. Unfortunately Mr. Albanese did not consider that by creating a monopoly funded by the taxpayer, similar to Air Services Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, that these bodies will, to some extent, exhibit all the undesirable attributes of monopolies of any stripe. 

These attributes will show characteristics of inefficiency and expensive bureaucratic procedures.

We see ever more complex rules, arrogance and worse because the governing law is so broad it becomes interpretive by the officials in charge. 

Without a much more direct linkage between responsibility and accountability back to the aviation industry and the general public little progress is possible. 

This has been the principal problem of aviation in Australia for a very long time and Mr. Albanese has not been alone in divesting himself of Ministerial responsibility and using a flawed rationale to justify his detrimental actions.

TBC...P2   Cool
Reply

Do not get me started.

TB – “[yet] their regulations have very little positive affect on safety; some would say a negative effect. Etc.

This is a discussion we have not had on forum. The subject gets discussed at BRB & IOS indaba – a lot – there is even a draft ‘report’ I’ve sketched out (from the discussions) on the effect and ramifications some of the ‘regulations’ produce which identifies ‘real risk’ through bad law. (Lives 'on the shelf' , no one who gives a goddamn to give it to).

Many categories of faux ‘risk’ are subject to the CASA ethos; and it is becoming apparent that much of the ‘regulation’ is misdirected away from the core purpose; as in, what exactly is CASA trying to achieve. Shirley reckons the sole purpose should be to protect life and limb; those airborne and those below; which, standing alone, is a grand notion.

But from what and how? That is the question. From conception to the grave; each human is ‘at risk’ every moment of every day. The level of risk is a constantly changing ‘number’ – you’d think you were fairly safe tucked in bed after a good dinner – a fair bet to see the next sunrise – not so. Check out the statistics; lot’s of folk never make it through the night.  I digress…

It is possible to ‘identify’ and even enumerate ‘risk’. Insurance companies do it all the time – and they are pretty damn good at it – the higher the risk – the higher the premium and they don’t mess about. Their business is a ‘high risk’ one – big money, nerves of steel and teams of lawyers which would challenge the Ten Commandments if needed. In short, they are quite capable of defending their risk analysis (and investors money).

This is all well and good for insurance companies – but do the  ‘aviation’ agencies need this same level of protection, through ‘law’? Does aviation safety really need a mighty, complex rule set to keep the industry safe? Most would argue it does not. The notion of ‘sector risk analysis’ is (IMO) a brilliant one. At a very simple level, a stellar example is the Flight Safety Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) analysis. For a start it’s ‘free’ – no cost and no legal binding or escape clauses. You download the paperwork, work through it and come up with a ‘risk score’ – say 25 (for sake of a number). Then – pre flight you run the numbers for the planned flight – if you arrive with a score of say 27 – then the ‘risk’ is higher than the norm. Then, pre flight the increased risk area can be identified and reduced. It ain’t infallible but and, here’s the rub; you are made aware – early in the piece – that there may be an increased ‘risk’. Takes about five minutes to do this. It is called ‘risk management’.

Australian aviation ‘rules’ are not about managing ‘flight risk’ – it could be argued that they are contradictory to their intended purpose. If anyone can prove that a silly thing like Part 61 (a) produces a better pilot (b) reduces the ‘risk matrix’ and © allows instructing pilots the use of discretion or judgement – I’ll stand bare arsed in Pitt St. Part 61 is a typical CASA abomination and an expensive, counterproductive detriment to safe training practice. Ticking a box don’t mean sod all – if the sequence is only ‘done’.

CASA arse covering began when the corruption associated with Lockhart River nearly got out of the box: CASA lost it’s way after the Seaview debacle – the terminal result of this clearly demonstrable through the Pel-Air fiasco. So long as the agency is a protection racket for useless crown ministers – nothing will improve. The worst of it is a simple matter – this is exactly how the politicians want it to be; no responsibility whatsoever.

It could all be sorted in a heartbeat – with the right minister and expert management of CASA – then again, I could win Lotto tomorrow and would not ever, never once look back at this shambles. CASA in the rear view mirror – Paradise here I come…….

Curse you Thorny; my bloody coffee’s gone cold.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Latest Oz Aviation rumours, innuendo and commentary -  Rolleyes  

(05-21-2019, 09:34 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Via Carmody Capers:

(05-21-2019, 08:25 AM)Kharon Wrote:  The Silent Majority; what a great team.

And; what a great pity it is that the Silent (and not so much) Majority of aviation folk can’t vote for the top deck crew at CASA; that would ‘rock ‘em’. Aunt Pru ran that ‘pol’ – the results NFP – but suffice to say the next miniscule will be shocked to discover the general, local and international, disgust, disquiet and lack of confidence in our overblown ‘safety’ agencies.

One interesting snippet – pure speculation now, based on some very small straws blowing about in a stiff breeze is that St. Commodes days are numbered. Just whispers and dot joining – but, rumour has it that our part time DAS not only wants to go, but there is a push from below, within the CASA ranks to be shed of the incubus. Naked ambition and political disquiet combined with a touch of madness seems to be in the air.

Nothing like a whisper of good rumour to start the week – believe it if you like.

Toot – toot.

&..
(05-21-2019, 02:18 PM)thorn bird Wrote:  Not bad K as rumours go. Sets the mind to cogitating just how the apparatus of CAsA works, especially when it's difficult to imagine any logical explanation to what they do.

Their mantra is "Safety", yet they don't achieve any better safety outcome than any of their peers. They maintain they are first and foremost safety regulators, yet their regulations have very little positive affect on safety, some would say a negative effect. There is also the intended or unintended (you choose) consequence that it is now plainly obvious, their regulations have decimated a whole industry. To what end?

To my mind CAsA is a complete and obvious failure at what was intended, so why have they been allowed to continue as they are?

Ever since they were separated from mainstream governance as a government independent Statutory Authority, the key word there is "independent", there has been a subtle movement behind the scenes to separate its workings from any form of scrutiny or outside control.

There are those who would say the so called "Iron Ring" was responsible for that and to some extent is probably true, but I really do wonder how much influence their union has. Given they are paid extremely generous salaries, way above industry standard for equivalent positions or level of expertise and given everyone will endeavour to protect their rice bowl it would be understandable their union would be working very hard behind the scenes to maintain the status quo, no matter what affect their efforts have on the well being of the industry that supports them.

Whispers abound, that within CAsA the atmosphere is like a modern day game of thrones, especially amongst the upper echelon, the old saying power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, perhaps rings true.

Has CAsA become so inwardly focused that it has become blind to what their actions are doing?

And Sandy in reply to the SBG on Farcebook: https://www.facebook.com/sandy.reith.31/...ed_comment

Quote:Sandy Reith Behind all worthwhile endeavours for improvements in life’s organisation it pays to keep an eye on principals and definitions. 

The then Minister Anthony Albanese in 2009 created the independent Commonwealth entity of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) by removing the body of the same name out of his Department.

Mr. Albanese made it clear that it would be a great advantage to have this body removed from political influence, hence ‘independent.’ By reason it follows that Mr. Albanese expected ATSB to be altruistic, efficient and generally act only in the public interest. Unfortunately Mr. Albanese did not consider that by creating a monopoly funded by the taxpayer, similar to Air Services Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, that these bodies will, to some extent, exhibit all the undesirable attributes of monopolies of any stripe. 

These attributes will show characteristics of inefficiency and expensive bureaucratic procedures.

We see ever more complex rules, arrogance and worse because the governing law is so broad it becomes interpretive by the officials in charge. 

Without a much more direct linkage between responsibility and accountability back to the aviation industry and the general public little progress is possible. 

This has been the principal problem of aviation in Australia for a very long time and Mr. Albanese has not been alone in divesting himself of Ministerial responsibility and using a flawed rationale to justify his detrimental actions.

(05-22-2019, 08:29 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Do not get me started.

TB – “[yet] their regulations have very little positive affect on safety; some would say a negative effect. Etc.

This is a discussion we have not had on forum. The subject gets discussed at BRB & IOS indaba – a lot – there is even a draft ‘report’ I’ve sketched out (from the discussions) on the effect and ramifications some of the ‘regulations’ produce which identifies ‘real risk’ through bad law. (Lives 'on the shelf' , no one who gives a goddamn to give it to).

Many categories of faux ‘risk’ are subject to the CASA ethos; and it is becoming apparent that much of the ‘regulation’ is misdirected away from the core purpose; as in, what exactly is CASA trying to achieve. Shirley reckons the sole purpose should be to protect life and limb; those airborne and those below; which, standing alone, is a grand notion.

But from what and how? That is the question. From conception to the grave; each human is ‘at risk’ every moment of every day. The level of risk is a constantly changing ‘number’ – you’d think you were fairly safe tucked in bed after a good dinner – a fair bet to see the next sunrise – not so. Check out the statistics; lot’s of folk never make it through the night.  I digress…

It is possible to ‘identify’ and even enumerate ‘risk’. Insurance companies do it all the time – and they are pretty damn good at it – the higher the risk – the higher the premium and they don’t mess about. Their business is a ‘high risk’ one – big money, nerves of steel and teams of lawyers which would challenge the Ten Commandments if needed. In short, they are quite capable of defending their risk analysis (and investors money).

This is all well and good for insurance companies – but do the  ‘aviation’ agencies need this same level of protection, through ‘law’? Does aviation safety really need a mighty, complex rule set to keep the industry safe? Most would argue it does not. The notion of ‘sector risk analysis’ is (IMO) a brilliant one. At a very simple level, a stellar example is the Flight Safety Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) analysis. For a start it’s ‘free’ – no cost and no legal binding or escape clauses. You download the paperwork, work through it and come up with a ‘risk score’ – say 25 (for sake of a number). Then – pre flight you run the numbers for the planned flight – if you arrive with a score of say 27 – then the ‘risk’ is higher than the norm. Then, pre flight the increased risk area can be identified and reduced. It ain’t infallible but and, here’s the rub; you are made aware – early in the piece – that there may be an increased ‘risk’. Takes about five minutes to do this. It is called ‘risk management’.

Australian aviation ‘rules’ are not about managing ‘flight risk’ – it could be argued that they are contradictory to their intended purpose. If anyone can prove that a silly thing like Part 61 (a) produces a better pilot (b) reduces the ‘risk matrix’ and © allows instructing pilots the use of discretion or judgement – I’ll stand bare arsed in Pitt St. Part 61 is a typical CASA abomination and an expensive, counterproductive detriment to safe training practice. Ticking a box don’t mean sod all – if the sequence is only ‘done’.

CASA arse covering began when the corruption associated with Lockhart River nearly got out of the box: CASA lost it’s way after the Seaview debacle – the terminal result of this clearly demonstrable through the Pel-Air fiasco. So long as the agency is a protection racket for useless crown ministers – nothing will improve. The worst of it is a simple matter – this is exactly how the politicians want it to be; no responsibility whatsoever.

It could all be sorted in a heartbeat – with the right minister and expert management of CASA – then again, I could win Lotto tomorrow and would not ever, never once look back at this shambles. CASA in the rear view mirror – Paradise here I come…….

Curse you Thorny; my bloody coffee’s gone cold.

Toot – toot.


TBC...P2   [Image: cool.gif]
Reply

Aviation Safety in Downunda and Godzone - Like Chalk & Cheese?? Rolleyes

Reference from Mount NCN:


(05-23-2019, 02:31 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Reversing through the Swiss Cheese??

Following on from the last under the ICAO Annex 14 minimum standard and recommended practice for RESA it says...

Dimensions of runway end safety areas

3.5.3 A runway end safety area shall extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least 90 m where:
— the code number is 3 or 4; and
— the code number is 1 or 2 and the runway is an instrument one.

If an arresting system is installed, the above length may be reduced, based on the design specification of the system, subject
to acceptance by the State.

Note.— Guidance on arresting systems is given in Attachment A, Section 10. 

3.5.4 Recommendation.— A runway end safety area should, as far as practicable, extend from the end of a runway

strip to a distance of at least:

— 240 m where the code number is 3 or 4; or a reduced length when an arresting system is installed;

— 120 m where the code number is 1 or 2 and the runway is an instrument one; or a reduced length when an arresting

system is installed; and

— 30 m where the code number is 1 or 2 and the runway is a non-instrument one...

And in Australia this is the notified difference (both of which are listed as less protective for those two SARPs:

Quote:Australia requires the RESA to be provided at the end of the runway strip and is to extend for the distance of 90m for a code number 3 or 4 runway used by air transport aeroplanes. In all other cases, the minimum length of the RESA is to be 60m for Code 1 or 2 runways.

With that in mind read the following article from two days ago by the Fort Fumble (white hats) at Flight Safety Australia magazine... Wink 


Quote:At the sharp end
By staff writers -
May 20, 2019


 
The Swiss cheese in reverse: "....and an airport operator that took its runway safety obligations seriously, had downgraded a tragedy into a hull loss and an anecdote to thrill future generations..."

The ICAO SARPs are generally regarded as the minimum recommended standard that a signatory State should be complying with. How have we got to the point in Australia where we are actively encouraging to set safety risk mitigation standards below even the minimum recommended international practice... Dodgy  

TICK...TOCK miniscule - whom ever you maybe??  Confused

Meanwhile across the ditch...it is refreshing to see that not only are the Kiwi's unafraid to review and amend their version of the Civil Aviation Act (1990), but also the NZ CAA are actively taking responsibility and making proactive changes, to improve their oversight of helicopter operations, after the damning findings from the tragic 2015 Fox Glacier accident -  Wink 

Via TVNZed's One News:

Quote:CAA admits safety inspection capability was low at time of fatal 2015 Fox Glacier chopper crash, inspectors were 'too trusting'

REF: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zeal...o-trusting

MON, MAY 20

1 NEWS

The aviation watchdog has acknowledged that its oversight of the helicopter industry was not up to scratch at the time of the 2015 Fox Glacier crash, which killed seven people.

On November 21, 2015, an AS350 Squirrel helicopter crashed after taking off from the Chancellor Ice Shelf at the top of Fox Glacier, killing the pilot and six international tourists on board.

On Friday, James Patrick Scott and Aviation Manual Development were convicted over health and safety failings in the lead-up to the crash, with Mr Scott receiving a fine of $64,000.

The Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) has been investigating the cause of the crash, and is due to release its findings on Thursday.

At a media conference today, CAA Chairman Nigel Gould said that, now the court case had been settled, the CAA was able to reveal more about what it had done to improve since 2015.

Mr Gould first said the delay of several years between the crash happening and an investigation being completed was not to his liking, and apologised to family members of the victims.

He went into the process of the CAA's inspection of Scott's business following the crash, saying that initially they had concluded it was safe for them to continue flying, but that as time went by "we became aware that there were discrepancies between what the operator was telling us and what our investigators were unearthing.

"Our formal investigation revealed that the operator had a poor safety culture, with significant shortcomings in its management and systems," Mr Gould said.

"We also discovered that the operator had previously on multiple occasions misled CAA officers about matters that were relevant to its compliance with Civil Aviation Rules.

"Our investigation concluded that JP Scott and AMD did not take all practicable steps to prevent employees and passengers being harmed."

Mr Gould said an internal review on the CAA's response to the accident was then undertaken in 2017, designed to identify shortcomings in their regulatory processes prior to the crash.

"This revealed that the way our inspectors documented their interactions with this helicopter operator were inconsistent," Mr Gould said.

"Non-compliances had not always been formally reported as 'findings' - inspectors were also too trusting and did not verify the information being given to them.

"With the benefit of hindsight we can say that our oversight of JP Scott should have been better - if it was, we would have placed more pressure on the operator to lift their safety performance."

Mr Gould stressed that the Authority has now substantially changed the way it trains inspectors, with a strong focus on rigorously reporting findings and asking for proof of compliance, rather than relying on assurances.

He also said that "the majority of staff who were involved in the oversight of JP Scott's operation have since moved into other employment".

Mr Gould said PricewaterhouseCoopers had been retained to audit all of the CAA's inspections between 2014 and 2018, which had revealed some "inadequate" evidence gathering by inspectors during the early part of that period.

He ended by saying he now has full confidence in the CAA's inspection and regulatory systems, adding that there has been a decline both in scenic helicopter flight accidents since the 2015 crash, and the number of CAA prosecutions brought against non-compliant operators.

"The CAA of 2019 is a considerably more effective regulator than when we conducted the oversight of J P Scott in the years leading up to the 2015 crash."

CAA Deputy Director Steve Moore said the number of CAA inspectors on staff had been quadrupled - from two up to eight - since the 2015 crash, and that all inspectors had been giving addition training in "critical thinking, problem solving and using judgement.

"A requirement has also been introduced for operators to have a formal system for safety management - this squarely puts the onus on operators to identify safety risks unique to their business and then prove to the CAA how they are managing those risks," Mr Moore said.

"This takes them beyond just complying with the rules."

OVER-WORKED INSPECTORS MAY HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE

New Zealand has the highest number of helicopters per capita in the world - about 900 helicopters and 100 operators - and about half of those helicopters operate in the tourism industry.

Mr Moore admitted that the fact there were only two inspectors to check on the compliance of that fleet "might have been a factor in the scrutiny that they were providing on the operators".

He also admitted the inspectors which worked for the CAA prior to the crash had not been fired from the Authority, but had left for other reasons - before Mr Gould interjected and said the CAA could not comment on employment arrangements for privacy reasons.

Mr Gould said that there had been a significant shortage of appropriately skilled inspectors, but that shortage has now been addressed.

"We had a difficulty filling some roles," he said.

"We were aware of the fact that we were having difficulty in maintaining a capability in that area."

Mr Gould said that he had disclosed the level of vacancies in the Authority to "appropriate Parliamentary committees" and through annual reports.





And from NZALPA, via Scoop News:

Quote:Civil Aviation Improvements Must Continue
Thursday, 23 May 2019, 6:47 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association

Civil Aviation Improvements Must Continue, Not Just Following Major Accidents – Pilots’ Union
Changes to the way the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) manages safety inspections have been welcomed by the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association (NZALPA) but pilots are cautioning that these improvements must continue, not just occur in the wake of tragic accidents.

The changes were announced earlier this week by the CAA at the conclusion of a court case resulting from the crash of a helicopter at Fox Glacier in 2015. 

The crash killed the pilot and all six passengers on board the scenic flight.

The helicopter operator and the quality assurance manager’s company were both convicted for health and safety failings in the lead up to the crash.

Today the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) released its report on the tragedy, identifying safety issues relating to the operator’s system for training pilots. TAIC also faulted the helicopter operator’s ability to continue operating in spite of acknowledged non-compliances even with its own training system, as well as instances of managerial oversight.

“NZALPA has been very concerned about what emerged during this accident investigation and how it was being inspected. We’d raised our concerns with the CAA, initially with little response. Naturally we are relieved to see that the CAA has acknowledged its own shortfalls and is responding positively to the outcomes of the investigation,” said NZALPA President Tim Robinson.

“Upping their game on the supply and training of aviation inspectors and working with the helicopter industry to improve standards and practices are overdue and badly needed.


“It is a saddening that it took a major accident like this to force change.


“We only hope that the CAA continues with all the changes it needs to make and NZALPA is offering to help in any way we can, including through our involvement in the current review of the Civil Aviation Act.


”It is also crucial that the CAA is properly resourced to do its work upholding standards in a safety-led organisation.


“The safety of pilots and their passengers depends on it,” Tim Robinson said.


ENDS


© Scoop Media 

         
 Compare that to this... Angry



&..




MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

[Image: D7dEs6gU8AA3Jef.jpg]
Ref:  ScoMo message to Mandarins - real intent or just rhetoric?? via The Mandarin.

“Don’t get in our way”.

“Or what” - was the slightly amused answer.

Wouldn’t it be nice if this came to pass. It would be even better if we had a PM ‘of the people' acting for ‘the people’. The greater majority of ‘ordinary’ folk living in Oz are not hysterical agenda driven zealots; in fact they are a quiet, fairly conservative bunch wanting no more than to live in peace; pay the mortgage, get the kids to school on time and be able to go out for dinner once a while. Jobs, a future for their offspring, clean water, reasonable roads etc. But how is the PM to bring the bureaucrats to this realisation? They exist on what is, essentially, a different planet. For example the current CEO of CASA ‘sleeping rough’ for one safe night – for charity. What in the seven hells would he know about ‘sleeping rough’ or ‘doing it tough’ - SFA is the answer. It is believe it or not insulting to those who have had or are having a tough time. The simple things like getting a shirt clean and shaving become an extraordinary problem; finding the money to buy a paper to find a job is a challenge; bus fare to the potential employer means nothing for lunch and probably a long walk to wherever the swag has been hidden. No comfy home to return to, where wounds may be licked, dinner will be served and a hot shower to wash away the grime and humiliation. Good luck with ‘humanising’ the exalted ones PM.

[Image: D7c-jESVsAAV9us.jpg]

Behind a veil, unseen yet present, I was the forceful soul that moved this mighty body. ― Jean Racine.

Then there is the ‘ministers’ to consider. I can feel a soupçon of sympathy for these folk – not a lot – but enough to see their ‘problems’. They fall neatly into the trap of terminal ignorance and must rely on ‘advice’ from ‘experienced', trusted ministry “experts”. Thus, the will of the people becomes the will of the ‘Crats. What chance has a Muppet like Whatisname – him from Wagga (or wherever) got against the likes of St. Commode, the evil of Crawford and the voodoo Aleck weaves? None whatsoever; when you add his own ex CASA ‘advisor’ to the crew you can easily recognise a captured spirit. The wishes and will of an entire industry have been ignored and subverted, through the ‘minister’ for thirty years now. And you blithely trot out a “Don’t get in our way” statement. I’ll bet they are laughing their collective socks off in Canberra. “You want it when? I wish you Bon Chance mon ami – with bells on it. Get your minister some sound, sane advice – you may get lucky.

[Image: D2AxoX4U4AAC5Mq.jpg]

What men call knowledge, is the reasoned acceptance of false appearances. Wisdom looks behind the veil and sees. ― Sri Aurobindo.

I note that finally, carefully shrouded in ‘white noise’ the ATSB have released their report into the ATR event.  Oh!  What a delightful confection; and a masterful exit from blaming anyone for anything; hells bells not even the tea lady could be cross with this report. Facts of course have little to do with the guff ATSB are spreading these days – when they eventually get around to doing it. The flight crew broke the aircraft; doing as trained using auto pilot and flight director – not mentioned. The maintenance folk ‘inspected’ the aircraft and returned it to service with no more done than a clean windscreen, not mentioned; several pilots failed to notice that the arse end of the thing was cock-eyed, not mentioned; and, it flew merrily on it’s way for several days. Absolutely ducking stellar. At the cost of covering political arse another scam has been allowed to slip by without a ripple in the ministerial pond. PM these folk are not in your way – they are leading ministers around like performing bears. It is embarrassing.



[Image: 10710.jpg]

“I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color-line I move arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls. From out the caves of the evening that swing between the strong-limbed earth and the tracery of the stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius... and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the Veil.” ― W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk


Now to the serious stuff – the TAAAF policy. What a conundrum. If you take away the ‘history of attempted reform’; the native cynicism, the internal politics and vested interests – it is a brilliant platform. Right then, I do know, I’ve hammered the topic this week, torn between ‘hope’ and history. For a Bookie it’s a raving nightmare; yet, run the book I must. Much depends on the PM’s own department and his promise to serve the needs of Australia – that department does matter and has an almost unbelievable degree of ‘clout’. Make no mistake – the PM’s mandarins know more about the way the aviation world wags than any ‘industry’ guru – skeletons, cupboards etc. They are the elite of the mandarin class and bloody good at what they do. IF they could remove the CASA tick from the ministerial posterior and IF they can see benefit in the TAAAF platform and IF this industry gets off it’s collective – then, maybe, the minister could become a hero of this land by simply nodding. However: if -“IF’s and But’s were Candy and Nuts– what a Christmas we would have”. Anyway ‘the book’ is open and I’ll post the runners later this week, when I get a look at the entries, form and track. Could be the best race ever; could be a total fizzer – don’t know – yet. MTF a racing certainty.

[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...af_web.jpg]

“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli

Come daylight the stable pot belly will be lit, a coffee and an illicit smoke before I ‘loose the hounds’ and trot along behind; to find a place of quiet while I work out how to repair a large (very old) blanket box made with irreplaceable timber: ‘Aye, ‘tis a puzzle; perhaps a short while spent by the river will assist – then again, maybe not – but, the time spent would never be counted as wasted by the pagan gods.

[Image: tintern09.jpg]

That on the banks of this delightful stream
We stood together; and that I, so long
A worshipper of Nature, hither came
Unwearied in that service: ― William Wordsworth

Selah.
Reply

[Image: teddy-roosevelt-teddy-bear.jpg]
Ref: http://www.rhymes.org.uk/a127-round-and-...garden.htm

Round and round the garden; like a Teddy Bear; and etc.

[Image: D8A4DTCUcAMjSQC.jpg]

Seems to me those Teddy Bears must, eventually, get fed up with it: pissed off with doing nothing but poncing about the garden all day and getting ‘tickled’ for their pains. It has to stop: you can only presume on good nature so far – before there’s bother. Of course, it would have to be a collective 'bother' effort – one little hacked off Teddy is easily managed – bottom smacked, no tea and early to bed – repentant and chastised. Aye, ‘tis whimsy – but how easily does it fit with the AUSPTA story? Here we have one small bear with a great idea; a thinking man’s concept of how to work within an idiotic system, deliver world class service and be legally compliant with rules which would puzzle Methuselah. Not a bad effort – not too shabby at all. Enter the Dragon – in the form of a failed ‘engineering’ guru with feet of clay and delusions of not only grandeur but notions of how best to manage ‘aviation’. This by being determined to prevent good sense, safety management and benefit to a beleaguered industry. AUSPTA is in the same boat as Angel Flight Au – under threat. Our poor old Teddy Bear is in the same boat – unless his mates – also pissed off with tramping around the garden all day back him up. There is a time to man up and speak up – Now would be good. The words are NO MORE- ENOUGH. Lest  Buckley and his sensible, (quite legal) innovative notions be left, like Oliver Twist, to suffer the consequences of daring to ask a question. T’was a beating, if memory serves, while all the other hungry boys watched on; and, said nothing.  But, as it is Sunday I’ve rambled. The point of it is simple enough. Stand alone, not only will Buckley be ‘beaten’ but so will every other flight school in Australia. NOW is the time to weigh in, speak up and shout the odds. This cause should be supported by every single Alphabet soup outfit in this wide brown land; not to mention those with international affiliations. Speak up, get involved: or, live forever subservient, cowed, a’feared to ever speak up again– it really is that simple.






“Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.” Troo Dat…..




The decimation of flight training looms large this week. We must take a careful, long look at the disgraceful, much delayed and magnificently obfuscated ATSB report into the very dangerous ATR in-flight damage - see HERE. The potential for an in flight breakup of a 70 passenger aircraft was very, very real. The home grown holes in that famous Swiss cheese have been written out of the script – this is completely unacceptable, disingenuous and bloody dangerous. The report distracts so much from the root cause, causal chain and the plain facts as to be, potentially, more dangerous than the incident itself - through that which is carefully stepped around. This report – standing alone, apart from the other aberrations foisted on the tax paying public demands a Senate inquiry – at very least. ‘We’ have identified over 50 unmentioned nor acknowledged contributory (ignored or edited out) elements which potentially placed 70x 13 = 910 passengers,+ 26 pilots and at least 13 flight attendants in jeopardy - a situation where an in-flight air frame break up could have occurred. It didn’t – all thanks to the structural integrity and design of the ATR aircraft. Yet the top Canary at the ATSB, who can barely manage a circuit, in good weather, in a light aircraft brings it all back to the aircraft manufacturer – and EASA certification. BOLLOCKS. The real causes of the damage to the aircraft have NOT been revealed, let alone ‘examined’ nor mitigated. For example – it is an almost automatic habit for a crew to turn the ‘ignition’ (jet engine same- same diesel) to ‘continuous’ (spark) before getting anywhere near ‘heavy rain’ – fact. Yet we hear of a ‘crew’ i.e. two qualified pilots who sat and waited – (One one hundred; two one hundred: three one hundred; four one hundred; five one hundred) for an engine to ‘re-light’ after rain had put the ‘fire’ out. Then waited the same time again for the second engine to relight after the same thing happened; before, eventually deciding to turn the ignition ON to continuous. I, for one of many, cannot believe that ‘Continuous’ was not ON before the water put the flame out; but it is incredulous to sit and wait for a re-light once – but twice. WTD?? It is ludicrous. Yet we trained ‘em and qualified ‘em, turned ‘em loose and then sent them, all legal and ‘nice’ out there to cart Joe Public, his wife and kids about the country side. What if - the preventable control separation happened during multiple, preventable flame outs? Dunno - Maybe it’s me that’s barking mad: maybe not: but one of us is. The minimum result should be a Hood resignation and the report re-done to accurately reflect “cause and circumstance” – the real ones.


[Image: D8H393cVUAApywg.jpg]
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAdSebTTbJE

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. ― Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Homes).


Truth. A rare commodity these days; for example – how many of the travelling public believe that in the rare event of a crash there will be highly skilled, qualified Rescue and Firefighters on hand to save them and (gods willing) their carry on baggage? How may passengers believe they are always protected by our excellent Air Traffic Control system? Ayup: a fair few would be a good bet; and, I’d take their wagers; even give ‘em good odds. I wonder how long our Electric blue, parsimonious, KPI oriented Halfwit can go on fooling the people? A monopoly which cuts the corners; thumbs it’s nose at not only ICAO compliance but best practice, with impunity. See – HERE – the latest ‘big change’ notions for making Australians in crashed aircraft ‘safer’. It is comforting though to know that ASA are considering allowing fire fighters to climb above two meters on ladders to fight fire – with the latest equipment – sometime in the future. To wit:-

  • Eventually fire crew will get ‘replacement’ of non existent (too dangerous) rescue saws.

  • Eventually of fire crew will get training (on ladders) heights above two meters  ‘improving’.

  • Eventually of fire crew will get ‘improvements to essential ‘breathing’ apparatus and maybe some training in use thereof.

  • Eventually; once the One Sky project is paid for (by the public) maybe national, location specific reviews (not action) will be undertaken by a new acronym Task Resourcing Analysis (TRA). (Retch – heave – looks for bucket).


But, don’t hold you breath – best save it – because if another flamed out, damaged ATR crashes at a regional airport after a heavy landing – basically – YOU are on your own lonesome way to the Pearly Gates. But please don’t worry – ATSB will blame the design and certification; CASA will crucify the aircrew – if they survive; ASA will say that they were completely compliant with their stated policy; and   the minister will be sitting pretty: absolved of all blame; with lots of wriggle room and a mountain of tax payer funded legal mumbo-jumbo telling you how very, very safe you are in Australian skies and airports. 

[Image: D2tIk-3WwAInfEo.png]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/better-by-candle-light/ 

Aye, ‘tis a wondrous waddle about the garden - for Teddy bears, their heads full of stuffing and bugger all to do with the unbelievably shocking state Australian aviation standards have been diluted to. Even more incredible is that not only  ‘we’ but the politicians have been intimidated or bullshitted into allowing it to become so. Expert advice rules.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-02-05-at-2.20.45-pm-1170x500.png]

Don’t care – not today. I was given some rare, old, dry Australian Western Red Cedar which escaped export to the UK. Odd bits; dry and straight. I’ve made a new workbench stool out of it (the old one – Grandpa’s - was seriously weary). Today, (gods willing) the cramps come off and I shall try it out while contemplating designing a staircase as an excuse for sitting in the warm stable; in peace, solitude and quiet. Measure twice; cut once and curse less. Throws a Tasmanian Oak off-cut into the stove, picks up fresh coffee; lets the dogs sleep a while longer; before the devil drives to those needs which must.

Selah.

P7 - butt in:-And so – the great art of turning large lumps of wood into small ones continues. Can I have my Dad’s stool back now? {Quiet chuckle-.-.} Wink

[Image: bill-wakefield-and-carl-fie.gif?w=300&h=235]
Reply

[Image: D8k6nzkVUAEhnaL.jpg]


Quiet reflections – a ramble, with your indulgence.

[Image: D8k_Aa-UEAAGSU1.jpg]

"Not all those who wander are lost;" ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring.


Back in the day; when folks were ‘blunter’ but a little more kindly; when someone was uncertain where, exactly, their marbles were - folks said they’d ‘wandered’. The Brit’s referred to this as eccentric and made it a national part of the rich heritage. It was a kindly way of tolerance to those who, while not barking mad, had ‘acceptable peculiarities’. But, what of those who were clearly ‘barking’? These days there are all manner of descriptors and handles which define a treatment; the old fashioned ‘alienist’ although an interesting word to research, it is an almost forgotten trade. However, I’m starting to wonder if it’s what we need. Being only average bright, pragmatic and practical, I have enough sense to call in a specialist as and when required e.g. plumber not required for brain surgery and vice versa. I have, on occasion even sought and taken ‘specialist’ advice. Patience Thorny – patience.


Dr A and his remaining marbles? : 6 years ago. 



2017: Reference - Worthwhile or Inutile – can’t decide. 



& cont/-.. ref: ATCB & FASA beyond redemption on Pelair cover-up 

[Image: D8sgMShU8AU0_HC.jpg]





Something is deeply and I believe cataclysmically wrong within Australia’s aviation safety system and management of the same. Fundamentally flawed and locked into a decaying orbit which, without assistance, will end in disaster. Not a major prang, although that is on the cards; but a gradual slow decline into airlines, sanctioned middle weight corporate and  military operations only. Bollocks, howls the mob. But, regrettably ‘tis true; undeniable and statistically substantiated. Natural attrition due to demand, economy and people’s needs I could understand; that is a given progress of any evolving nation. (Horse and cart to trains). Yet, most ‘other’ nations are going ahead – aviation wise – in leaps and bounds. They seem to realise that a thriving aviation industry, in the modern day, is as essential as sailing ships were when ‘sail’ and matters maritime were essential to empire, colony, communications and trade. The world has moved on since then. It took up to a six month to sail from India to Britain – and the same back. Consider an urgent communique taking up to a year to be answered instead of the few seconds it does now. Now, I do digress. Mea culpa.

Research, today is a doddle. One can within minutes cross check data, time lines and ‘people’. It is also possible to track ‘trends’ from recent historical data. Clear time lines and events are easily constructed; and, the ‘net’ does not forget data. The term ‘web’ is concise; much as one may watch a spider trap a fly, it is possible to track actions, decisions and results of individuals and their doings. What has this to do with ‘alienist’s’ and spiders – everything. We are in great need of an alienist to exorcise our spiders.

Unequivocal data points to a history, which, stand alone is unsettling enough in the way consecutive government ministers have not only happily abrogated their sworn duty but gladly given power and money to the ‘safety’ agencies. That is unforgivable, but: it is understandable. Brain surgery required = plumber not called. The government hire ‘experts’ and must not only rely on their advice, but support it and pass ‘law’ to support ‘expert’ opinion. Furry muff – but: it also opens the doors for ‘megalomaniacs’ and sociopaths. There has been a steady inflow of both into the safety agencies. The opportunity for ‘corruption’ of principal and the steady garnering of ‘power’ has resulted in the those agencies becoming ‘corrupt’ – as in of total power etc. Of course, this leads to nasty little cliques who want to usurp that gifted power – result; like it or not, games are played with the industry business folk used as pawns. 


Ref: 2018 - https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...87#pid8387



“Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


This is not ‘whimsy’ or even pub talk – it stands as documented fact. I’ll take any challenge – anywhere – in any court of law. Baksheesh is not the problem – unless you count ‘power’ as currency. There are a few individuals at the centre of the spiders web – as easily identified as their track record. Don’t give a bugger about ‘internal’ wrangles – but the damage these people not only have done, but, with impunity can do is of grave concern. The system is truly dreadful – no argument – that can be repaired. But before that may happen as a natural, repugnant response from honest folk of good intention – an Alienist is required to oust the daemons and drive away the madness. For madness, believe it not, is what the Australian aviation industry is subjected to – daily. Well, that and fear of retribution, fear of being fitted up as being ‘in breach’ and the massive teams of ‘investigators’ finding ‘immanent threat’ to navigation safety and shutting down yet another soft target operation. (“because it’s easy” says St. Commode). The body count is truly amazing; the ‘facts’ blurred, the numbers scary. The Spanish Inquisition had nothing on these boys – except their system was embraced, refined and transmogrified into law; for which there is no defence – Strict liability? Hells Bells, you can’t even prove your innocent. Guilty, without option. 


Ref: 2019 - https://auntypru.com/whither-ah-whither-...these-etc/



“I haven’t the slightest idea,” said the Hatter”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland


I could bang on more – but I hope you get the picture – ugly though it is. The one happy notion is that if things go along at their present rate – CASA will implode and Alecks marbles will do the damage. Be nice if one of his own shot him in the arse, on his way out of the door; n'est-ce pas ? Aye : "The time has come", the Walrus said, "To talk of many things”.

No matter. Even more of a puzzle –

[Image: D8oBdjbUIAEmvzt.jpg]

- how satisfy the demands of a three y.o. princess for a home made (under strict supervision)  ‘pirates treasure chest’ of a size and design acceptable to royalty (with a secret compartment no less). There is a misty, cool morning forecast: ideal for orchard gate escapes and perfect for quiet contemplation. So, another Ale to help my wooden head; another log in stove to ward off the chill; supper, and to prevent the ravelled sleeves of care unravelling – sleep. Dawn will come soon enough.

“Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care,
The death of each day's life, sore labor's bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course,
Chief nourisher in life's feast. ― William Shakespeare, Macbeth

Selah,
Reply

A treasure chest.

Royalty commanded my presence in the stable workshop; so I pitched up as requested and required. I wish I could ‘paint’ – the camera does not do justice to the scene which met my aging eyes. Holding court on a workshop stool, dressed for party perched royalty, her abject slave laying billets of various wood across the workbench – colour, grain figure, feature and texture was of great concern. Eventually a selection was made and royalty departed the fix. ‘K’ and I looked at each other for a second; smiled, shook heads and buckled down to task. Uncles, Godfather and devoted artisans. As it turned out, it was an interesting job. I couldn’t count the number of ‘boxes’ I’ve made, but ‘the chest’ required some thought, the domed lid seemed to present some problems. Simple geometry and common sense solved the puzzle. !80˚/3 = 60˚. Three runs: one at 90 and 30; one at 30/30 last one 90/30. A most satisfactory curve was produced. This dictated the radius of the internal semi circle, which in turn decided the size of the ‘box’ it sat on. With two of us ‘at the bench’ it took two coffee refills, a short break, only a little cussin’ lots of laughs and – it was done, glued and clamped – ready by afternoon tea time – bar the straps, hinges and finish. The smile of the ‘princess’ was worth the small trouble and one splinter.

I bring this to your attention, because I feel there is a lesson in the something-nothing tale. We are beset by many aviation administration problems; brought to us by ‘royalty’ demanding all manner of things which must be done. The key is to define the exact nature of the ‘problem’ then find the most simple solution – the KISS principal (keep it simple stupid): work out how best to construct it, even if it defies ‘habit’. Many hands make light work with a laugh along the way.

“Old fool’s lost his marbles” says the mob; “wandered”. No I ain’t – just trying to point out that by working together, intelligently, calmly and to a single purpose; the CASA yoke may be thrown off; maybe even a modicum of sanity can be installed. So long as this industry remains divided, pursuing ‘individual’ agenda’s and ‘arrangements’ the chances of real reform are somewhere between slim and anorexic. This battle cannot be won by whining in the lunch room, snivelling at meetings or trying to make ‘friends’ with the powers that be. Work out the material, find the tools and get on with it – but ‘KISS’. All together now – Reform and how to achieve it.
Reply

Firing squad sounds like a good start Tom.
Reply

FFFR (Fort Fumble Front Row)


[Image: D8WnqQ5U0AA2__b.jpg]

Hmm...reckon it's about time we took a look (& took apart) the Fort Fumble front row... Huh 

To begin the Hoodoo Voodoo of Aviation safety Dr A... Blush


[Image: D8xzfbgUIAEZYmm.jpg]


If we were to try and put Dr A into the context of the RRP (Regulatory Reform Program - 1988 to 2019?) then he is the one common element since 1993 (except of course from 1998 to 2003 when he spent time in purgatory running the Montreal office to ICAO???) and it would appear the one common element i.e the hand behind the throne: ref - http://auntypru.com/a-cabaret-in-the-temple-of-doom/ & https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/20...-enforced/ & Quiet reflections – a ramble, with your indulgence. 

Next in the front row is an enigma - i.e the Scot's Git? 


Quote:So who hired the Git??

For a classic example of the sheer mendacity, arrogance and willful ignorance of the Scots Git go no further than the following (note the body language from St Commode and M&M):



Next from the glenb embuggerance file I can confirm the email correspondence from the Git:

Quote: Wrote:3. I have made four submissions to the CASA Board, and they were totally ignored. I did not receive an acknowledgement from the Board, or a response. The Acting CEO of CASA did write back on 04/01/19 with the following email;

“Dear Mr Buckley,
For clarity, we will not be arranging a meeting with APTA and the CASA Board and whilst I appreciate you may not like that outcome, I kindly request you accept that is CASA’s position.”

04/01/19? So while St Commode was recovering from Xmas pud and a few too many NYE Champers, the 'Git' was busy pretending to be the legitimate Saint of aviation safety and sitting Board member writing up notices of embuggerance to the likes of Angel Flight and APTA,,,now why does that modus operandi sound so familiar?  [Image: rolleyes.gif] 

 So who's root'in for who and whose in the 2nd row pushing for a straight line to the MOAS try line... Tongue

Ps Serious narcissistic, sociopath and possibly psychopathic tendencies aside one wonders what on earth they were thinking when they hired the Scottish Git as 2IC to CASA? FFS he didn't even reach the level of middle management at the Red Rat??


Quote:[Image: 0?e=1568246400&v=beta&t=lKsID2-7EQpFQduR...Pn2OeRhv_U]

Head of LEAN, Six Sigma & BPR
May 2015 – August 2015 4 months
Sydney, Australia

Lead the initial setting up of LEAN Six Sigma across Qantas Engineering including the establishment and implementation of both the project governance structure and project selection methodology.
Deployed the LEAN Six Sigma core team to support the QE business units lauch and progress thgeir respective projects using DMIAC.

General Manager, Operational Availability, Warehousing & Logistics
February 2014 – April 2015 1 year 3 months
Sydney, Australia

Leading Qantas Engineering's Operational Availability, Warehousing & Logistics team to deliver the key Supply Chain drivers including on time performance (part availability & service delivery), total cost of ownership (inventory & asset utilisation), safety (flight & employee) and employee engagement (connected leadership). Enabling business transformation and sustained performance improvement through the introduction of a new operating model delivering agility, clear accountability, strong collaboration, connected leadership and enhanced visibility.

General Manager, Global Material Flow & Repair Management
November 2011 – May 2014 2 years 7 months
Sydney, Australia

Leading Qantas Engineering's Material Flow (Global Logistics, Warehousing & Line Maint Sub Stores) and Aircraft Component Repair Management organisations to delivery sustained value for the Qantas Group. Leading the Business Re-engineering focus on agility, process simplification and enhanced service to Aircraft (Base & Line), Engine & Component Maintenance.

General Manager Engine & APU Management
July 2010 – October 2011 1 year 4 months
Sydney, Australia

Leading Qantas' Engine & APU Management organisation to optimise Engine & APU life cycle costs while maintaining safety and performance requirements. Chief negotiator of Total Care maintenance solutions with OEM's/MRO's on the significant Engine/APU fleets in order to deliver sustained value for the Qantas Group. Initiated and lead the organisational redesign of Engine & APU Management to a Fleet Stream solution delivering improved accountabilty, teaming and efficiency.

General Manager Engine & Component Maintenance Services
February 2008 – June 2010 2 years 5 months
Sydney, Australia

Responsible for running Qantas's Engine and Component Maintenance businesses based in Sydney and Melbourne.

Chief Executive Officer, JTS
September 2007 – January 2008 5 months
Melbourne, Australia

Responsible for running Qantas's CF6 & CFM56 Engine maintenance business based in Melbourne, Australia.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: P7_TOM, 2 Guest(s)