The Sunday Brunch Gazette.

Part II - Hooded Canary cover-ups & libelous disconnections?  

Reference from Airports thread: 
(01-23-2019, 08:36 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Aeroplanes can ruin your stock....

Spotlight has teamed up with a group of Essendon Airport DFO retailers to sue the owner of a plane that plunged into the shopping centre, killing five people on board and ruining more than $6 million worth of stock. More here;

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...50t3z.html

Quote:Spotlight chases crashed DFO plane owner for millions in ruined stock
Tom Cowie


By Tom Cowie
23 January 2019 — 7:40pm


Spotlight has teamed up with a group of Essendon Airport DFO retailers to sue the owner of a plane that plunged into the shopping centre, killing five people on board and ruining more than $6 million worth of stock.

A volley of writs filed in the Supreme Court in the past week continues the legal fallout from the crash, after the families of the four American tourists killed in the disaster said they planned to sue the dead pilot's estate for millions of dollars over the February 2017 tragedy.


[Image: 9f5cfc36b0c16bebda085b979ae08bbe3f6c62ed]
Damage to the Spotlight store at DFO after a plane crash that killed all five on board.CREDIT:AAP

Spotlight has joined brands Herringbone, Victoria Station and Oz Design Furniture in suing the Bendigo-based company that owned the plane.

The crash left a gaping hole in the side of the shopping centre and the toll of the damage has now been revealed in court documents.

In its statement of claim, Spotlight said the explosion ignited a fire that activated the sprinkler system, damaging or destroying stock.


[Image: cf229fc3d05e90dadfc849b73bf052080c260446]
The B200 erupts into a huge fireball after crashing into the roof of Essendon Airport DFO.CREDIT:NINE NEWS

The sewing and crafts chain is seeking a further $850,000 for damage to the premises, business interruption and marketing costs to advertise the store's reopening after it was closed for eight months.

The other three companies are suing for loss of profits totalling about $45,000 while their DFO outlets were closed in the immediate aftermath of the crash.

The doomed B200 Super King Air was connected to an opaque web of companies before it crashed, raising concerns about the flight's insurance coverage and who would be held responsible legally.

Separate entities owned the plane, operated it, flew it, maintained it and chartered it.

[Image: 0253aea94bfea722f0023628120f81985cc0a6ce]
Analysis of the plane's wreckage from a report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.CREDIT:

The plane was registered to Bendigo-located company BB1544 Pty Ltd, which is owned by businessmen Dr Chris Richards and Andrew Hoare.

Dr Richards told The Age he was unaware of the latest legal action and that it was a matter for his insurance company. Previous action brought by the victims' families against the company is understood to have been settled.

The companies based at DFO claim in court documents that a lawyer representing BB1544 Pty Ltd had already admitted liability for loss, damage and destruction caused by the accident.

Under Commonwealth legislation, the owner of the aircraft can be found liable for a crash even if it is not the operator of the flight.

[Image: f4525fd58408b02e333ee0450f013b0a8cb91a40]
Four victims of the plane crash: Pilot Max Quartermain, and golfers Russell Munsch, Glenn Garland and Greg De Haven.

At the time of the disaster, the flight was operated by Corporate & Leisure Aviation, a separate company in the name of pilot Max Quartermain.

An investigation released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in September last year established that pilot error was to blame for the crash, after the plane's directional control system was mistakenly set to veer left before take-off.

A pre-flight checklist by Mr Quartermain should have discovered that the aircraft's rudder trim was in "full nose left position", the bureau found, which resulted in the aircraft plunging into the roof of DFO almost immediately after take-off.

The check should have also identified that the plane's voice recorder wasn't working before the flight.

[Image: 6f9594ed1504042ba27b00e03bcd41fa2f447bed]

John Washburn, from Texas, was the fifth victim of the Essendon Airport disaster.CREDIT:FACEBOOK

Mr Quartermain was killed in the crash, along with American tourists Greg De Haven, Glenn Garland, Russell Munsch and John Washburn, who were flying to King Island to play golf.

The widows of the four men said they planned to seek compensation when it was revealed that pilot error was the cause of the crash, with the potential payout running into the millions of dollars.

The law firm representing the four companies from DFO declined to comment while the matter was before the courts.

‘Safe stocktake sales for all’

P2 -WTF? Absolutely despicable, now it becomes plainly obvious why it was the Hooded Canary so blatantly and IMO fraudulently slated all blame for this tragic accident on the pilot... Angry     

P9: Where’s Spotlight's workers safety, evacuation and compensation plan? Where is the Victorian governments warning signs to shoppers? Where are the ever caring politicians looking after their constituents? Where is the Minister responsible for public and aviation safety? Where is the Union who allegedly protect their membership? All at the local trough perhaps? Aye; just a thought, or an opinion – as you like it.  But enough;;;;;;;;;;;;!

Thornbird: The big problem I have with all this is the ATSB report. Not a single shred of hard evidence proving the pilot

"Dunnit", just supposition and innuendo. The ATSB is not supposed to apportion blame, yet here stands the
yellow canary, Hood categorically stating the guilty party is the pilot, no question. Beggars belief.


I must admit to being a complete ignoramus on the strange wheelings & dealings and machinations of the aviation insurance industry. However the murky tale as writ by the Age IMO raises more disturbing, suspect disconnections than satisfactory, sensible and factual answers.

First QON: Why is a multi-national retail group trying to recover compensation for lost, fire damaged stock from the aircraft owners? Wouldn't Spotlight have an insurance policy that covers the loss of stock through fire related damage, including the fire sprinkler system?

Or; wouldn't the Essendon DFO owners and managers of the complex have to have insurance coverage for the loss of stock for all it's retail leases?

Hmmm....so dodgy arrangements perhaps? This led me to Wikipedia... Rolleyes 

Ref (my bold): 


Quote:Business model

Its model is to find cheap land, build a cheap but air-conditioned shopping mall.[1]

The Direct Factory Outlet retail chain is owned by the privately owned Austexx Group, led by David Goldberger and David Weiland with their first centre opened at Moorabbin Airport(Cheltenham) in 1997.[2] Former Australian Competition & Consumer Commission chief Graeme Samuel holds a $50 million interest in Austexx through a blind trust.[3] Valued at A$1.5 billion, in early 2010 the business was put up for sale with a number of retail investment funds expressing interest.[4]

DFO centres have traditionally been located around airports: a side effect of the Airports Act of 1996, the Commonwealth Government has planning control over the land, meaning state planning legislation can be bypassed by developers.[5] In addition the property developer is able to exploit the cost difference between retail and industrial rents, gives outlet centre operators a distinct advantage over traditional shopping centres. A survey by Melbourne newspaper The Age in 2007 found that in all three DFO-owned centres, most shops carried at least some full-price, current-season stock, available at normal shopping centres.[6] By 2008 five legal challenges to DFO developments have been made by competing retail developers and the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, all being unsuccessful.[5]

On 16 August 2010, lead bank Suncorp-Metway, along with St George BankNational Australia Bank and Lloyds Banking Group, issued a notice to parent company Austexx demanding repayment within 24 hours of the A$450 million they are owed.[7] The South Wharf centre was under a A$500 million debt, with work on completing the centre stopped after workers placed bans over non-payment. Parent company Austexx is understood to have total debts of A$1.2 billion, with the four relatively successful DFO sites used as cross-collateral for bank-funded expansion into five other less successful locations (CanberraCairns and Hobart). The group of banks appointed insolvency specialists KordaMentha as advisers, with the entire group facing receivership.[8] Negotiations continued until a deal was struck on Thursday 19 August, the four banks extending their funding to allow the South Wharf development to be completed. The ten DFO shopping complexes will then be sold off separately to repay the $1 billion owed to the banks.[3] The banks hope to recoup most or all of the money they are owed by avoiding a 'fire sale' of assets, but neither Austexx founders or other investors are expected to be repaid until the bank debts are settled.[3]
   
Hmm....could it be that the DFO (failed) business model also included skimping on such things as property and or 2nd party asset insurance?

What about 3rd party insurance? Which should, in the normal course of events, have  included 3rd party public and employee liability for the very real risk of an aircraft crashing into the DFO buildings?  

"..Under Commonwealth legislation, the owner of the aircraft can be found liable for a crash even if it is not the operator of the flight..."


Huh - I think the Commonwealth legislation referred to is this: Damage by Aircraft Act 1999  https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00130

Quote:11  Recovery of damages without proof of intention, negligence etc.

                   Damages in respect of an injury, loss, damage or destruction of the kind to which section 10 applies are recoverable in an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australian territory against all or any of the persons who are jointly and severally liable under that section in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction without proof of intention, negligence or other cause of action, as if the injury, loss, damage or destruction had been caused by the wilful act, negligence or default of the defendant or defendants.

P2 comment: In light of the information provided so far by the Age and in regards to the murky financial arrangements obviously in play under the DFO 'business model', a qualified legal interpretation of the possible implications of section 11A would be interesting -  Rolleyes  

Quote:11A  Contributory negligence
             (1)  If, in an action under section 11, a defendant proves that the injury, loss, damage or destruction was caused by, or contributed to by, the negligence of the person (the sufferer) in respect of whom the injury, loss, damage or destruction was suffered, the damages recoverable must be assessed in accordance with this section.
             (2)  The court must determine the damages that would have been recoverable if there had been no negligence on the part of the sufferer.
             (3)  The damages determined under subsection (2) must be reduced to the extent the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the share of the sufferer in the responsibility for the injury, loss, damage or destruction.
             (4)  If any case to which subsection (1) applies is tried with a jury, the jury must determine the damages referred to in subsection (2) and the amount of the reduction under subsection (3).

However either way you put it the problematic and disturbing real implications for any aircraft operator, pilot or owner operating (or intending to operate) at any Federally leased airport that has a DFO complex, or similar commercial retail arrangement, within the boundaries of the Airport leased property are enormous if the legal liability case rules in favour of the DFO outlet retailers claims.... Confused    

This brings me to another interesting juxtaposition -  Huh 

Reference: Not a serious safety concern – Indeed: Part II


Quote:Next to step up to the plate on Airport safety was McComic and his motley crew of Iron Ring trough feeders:



Quote:Senator FAWCETT: My question, though, is: what framework is in place? If an operator is concerned with something—one of those slices of Swiss cheese in the James Reason model—that is impacting his safety, what avenue do they have to come to you, as the regulator, and to have you enforce, from the government's perspective, the intent statement of the white paper on aviation, the NASAG intent statement, the terms of the lease or the deed that transferred ownership of airfields to local government?


Mr McCormick : Some of those matters, such as the NASAG and those other issues that you raise on the airfield operation or who owns the airfield et cetera, of course are matters of government policy and rightly fit with the department. Off-airfield development is a similar thing, where, again, CASA has a limited role to play. Whether we should have a larger role or not is not a question for me to decide; but, as far as our available powers go, there are numerous heads of power where people can come to us directly, or write to us or email us or whatever, and we will take the issue on its face value.

Senator FAWCETT: What I am hearing there is that there are examples where there is a legitimate safety concern and you do not currently have a head of power that will enable you to act.

Mr McCormick : I do not think that is correct. I think we do have adequate heads of power, except for the off-airfield development. We have section 92 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, where we can give directions to airfield operators, and that is not restricted to certified and registered aerodromes. P2 comment - Remember that by definition the YMEN DFO complex is not an off-airfield development.

Ah yes the old buck passing exercise starts up once again... [Image: dodgy.gif] 

Note how Dr A passes across the CASR section 92 reference? As a head of power I am not sure how much teeth it has but nonetheless for those interested here it is:

Quote: Wrote:CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 92
Use of aerodromes
             (1)  A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:
                     (a)  the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;
                     (b)  the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a certificate granted, or registration, under Part 139 of CASR;
                     ©  the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraft engaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section;
                     (d)  the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or ©) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft;
and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.
Penalty:  25 penalty units.
             (2)   CASA may, in relation to an aerodrome, issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation.
             (3)  A person must not contravene a direction.
Penalty:  25 penalty units.
             (4)  An offence against subregulation (1) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.

Q/ I wonder which Act (i.e the Civil Aviation Act or the Damage By Aircraft Act) has a greater Head of Power -  Huh



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

One thing I'd dearly like to know is just what inducement was offered to a Murky mandarin and his side kick beaker when the whole airports privatisation was implemented. I just can't believe Murky and his mate could be so inept and incompetent.

Here we have the primary airports in the hands of foreign entities, essentially monopolies, generating enormous amounts of turnover, yet paying precious little in tax and investing bugger all back into actual aviation related infrastructure. Essentially the Government who owned the real estate, debt free, used privatisation as a tool to borrow money off the books through a third party, where interest on "borrowed" money would enable the third party to avoid tax.

Secondary airports different scenario, bugger all cash flow, but very valuable real estate, enter the development sharks.

A moments reflection:

When these airports were privatised the government of the day said it recognised that the land was to be reserved for aviation use because aviation was a unique industry which required clear open ground to operate from and these airports were, under the act, to be retained and maintained in their original form.

After privatisation aviation was basically forced off their "reserved" land by inflated charges based on the commercial value of the land as if it was freehold. The oft used excuse being they are entitled to a return to cover the costs of the money they borrowed to buy them, so essentially the government, who owned the land debt free, to the detriment of the aviation industry created a debt by privatisation.

Despite the protections for aviation in the act and the head leases, property development sharks have managed to subvert or bypass those protections.

Airports were not to be owned or controlled by property developers, yet they are.

Airports were not to be owned or controlled by trusts, yet they are.

Airports were to be maintained in their original condition, which they aren't.

The DFO's in Essendon clearly were constructed contrary to the Airports ACT and head leases in that they impinge on aviation activity as do many other airport developments.

The Essendon DFO's clearly impinge on safety in light of world best practice. Perhaps the DFO businesses should be directing their angst against those that allowed them to be built in the first place.
Reply

The Essendon DFO was built because some slippery loan sharks, property developers and various political influences sanctioned the deal. As part of any business deal, money exchanged hands. It’s always about the money, always has been and always will be.

Look at it this way - if a local Council can forward a DA application to an Airpprt Manager of a Council owned two-bit airport for review because potentially a street light or a bloody highset house might impinge on the Airports OLS, you don’t think SOMEBODY somewhere didn’t check the DFO’s design against the vast amount of publicly available aeronautical data pertaining to Essendon airport at the click of a button?????? Ha ha ha. Yeah right. I call BOLLOCKS! And if the DFO was constructed and approved without any of those checks being done, well....well again I call BULLSHIT!! Utter bullshit. Somebody knew right from the get-go. They rolled the dice and built the infringing DFO knowing that once it was built, the champagne cracked and the plaque unveiled which was signed my some greasy Politician, the DFO was never going to be rolled back.

‘Safe brown paper bags filled with glorious amounts of cash for all’
Reply

(01-30-2019, 01:22 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Part II - Hooded Canary cover-ups & libelous disconnections?  

Reference from Airports thread: 
(01-23-2019, 08:36 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Aeroplanes can ruin your stock....

Spotlight has teamed up with a group of Essendon Airport DFO retailers to sue the owner of a plane that plunged into the shopping centre, killing five people on board and ruining more than $6 million worth of stock. More here;

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...50t3z.html

Quote:Spotlight chases crashed DFO plane owner for millions in ruined stock
Tom Cowie


By Tom Cowie
23 January 2019 — 7:40pm


Spotlight has teamed up with a group of Essendon Airport DFO retailers to sue the owner of a plane that plunged into the shopping centre, killing five people on board and ruining more than $6 million worth of stock.

A volley of writs filed in the Supreme Court in the past week continues the legal fallout from the crash, after the families of the four American tourists killed in the disaster said they planned to sue the dead pilot's estate for millions of dollars over the February 2017 tragedy.


[Image: 9f5cfc36b0c16bebda085b979ae08bbe3f6c62ed]
Damage to the Spotlight store at DFO after a plane crash that killed all five on board.CREDIT:AAP

Spotlight has joined brands Herringbone, Victoria Station and Oz Design Furniture in suing the Bendigo-based company that owned the plane.

The crash left a gaping hole in the side of the shopping centre and the toll of the damage has now been revealed in court documents.

In its statement of claim, Spotlight said the explosion ignited a fire that activated the sprinkler system, damaging or destroying stock.


[Image: cf229fc3d05e90dadfc849b73bf052080c260446]
The B200 erupts into a huge fireball after crashing into the roof of Essendon Airport DFO.CREDIT:NINE NEWS

The sewing and crafts chain is seeking a further $850,000 for damage to the premises, business interruption and marketing costs to advertise the store's reopening after it was closed for eight months.

The other three companies are suing for loss of profits totalling about $45,000 while their DFO outlets were closed in the immediate aftermath of the crash.

The doomed B200 Super King Air was connected to an opaque web of companies before it crashed, raising concerns about the flight's insurance coverage and who would be held responsible legally.

Separate entities owned the plane, operated it, flew it, maintained it and chartered it.

[Image: 0253aea94bfea722f0023628120f81985cc0a6ce]
Analysis of the plane's wreckage from a report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.CREDIT:

The plane was registered to Bendigo-located company BB1544 Pty Ltd, which is owned by businessmen Dr Chris Richards and Andrew Hoare.

Dr Richards told The Age he was unaware of the latest legal action and that it was a matter for his insurance company. Previous action brought by the victims' families against the company is understood to have been settled.

The companies based at DFO claim in court documents that a lawyer representing BB1544 Pty Ltd had already admitted liability for loss, damage and destruction caused by the accident.

Under Commonwealth legislation, the owner of the aircraft can be found liable for a crash even if it is not the operator of the flight.

[Image: f4525fd58408b02e333ee0450f013b0a8cb91a40]
Four victims of the plane crash: Pilot Max Quartermain, and golfers Russell Munsch, Glenn Garland and Greg De Haven.

At the time of the disaster, the flight was operated by Corporate & Leisure Aviation, a separate company in the name of pilot Max Quartermain.

An investigation released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in September last year established that pilot error was to blame for the crash, after the plane's directional control system was mistakenly set to veer left before take-off.

A pre-flight checklist by Mr Quartermain should have discovered that the aircraft's rudder trim was in "full nose left position", the bureau found, which resulted in the aircraft plunging into the roof of DFO almost immediately after take-off.

The check should have also identified that the plane's voice recorder wasn't working before the flight.

[Image: 6f9594ed1504042ba27b00e03bcd41fa2f447bed]

John Washburn, from Texas, was the fifth victim of the Essendon Airport disaster.CREDIT:FACEBOOK

Mr Quartermain was killed in the crash, along with American tourists Greg De Haven, Glenn Garland, Russell Munsch and John Washburn, who were flying to King Island to play golf.

The widows of the four men said they planned to seek compensation when it was revealed that pilot error was the cause of the crash, with the potential payout running into the millions of dollars.

The law firm representing the four companies from DFO declined to comment while the matter was before the courts.

‘Safe stocktake sales for all’

P2 -WTF? Absolutely despicable, now it becomes plainly obvious why it was the Hooded Canary so blatantly and IMO fraudulently slated all blame for this tragic accident on the pilot... Angry     

P9: Where’s Spotlight's workers safety, evacuation and compensation plan? Where is the Victorian governments warning signs to shoppers? Where are the ever caring politicians looking after their constituents? Where is the Minister responsible for public and aviation safety? Where is the Union who allegedly protect their membership? All at the local trough perhaps? Aye; just a thought, or an opinion – as you like it.  But enough;;;;;;;;;;;;!

Thornbird: The big problem I have with all this is the ATSB report. Not a single shred of hard evidence proving the pilot

"Dunnit", just supposition and innuendo. The ATSB is not supposed to apportion blame, yet here stands the
yellow canary, Hood categorically stating the guilty party is the pilot, no question. Beggars belief.


I must admit to being a complete ignoramus on the strange wheelings & dealings and machinations of the aviation insurance industry. However the murky tale as writ by the Age IMO raises more disturbing, suspect disconnections than satisfactory, sensible and factual answers.

First QON: Why is a multi-national retail group trying to recover compensation for lost, fire damaged stock from the aircraft owners? Wouldn't Spotlight have an insurance policy that covers the loss of stock through fire related damage, including the fire sprinkler system?

Or; wouldn't the Essendon DFO owners and managers of the complex have to have insurance coverage for the loss of stock for all it's retail leases?

Hmmm....so dodgy arrangements perhaps? This led me to Wikipedia... Rolleyes 

Ref (my bold): 


Quote:Business model

Its model is to find cheap land, build a cheap but air-conditioned shopping mall.[1]

The Direct Factory Outlet retail chain is owned by the privately owned Austexx Group, led by David Goldberger and David Weiland with their first centre opened at Moorabbin Airport(Cheltenham) in 1997.[2] Former Australian Competition & Consumer Commission chief Graeme Samuel holds a $50 million interest in Austexx through a blind trust.[3] Valued at A$1.5 billion, in early 2010 the business was put up for sale with a number of retail investment funds expressing interest.[4]

DFO centres have traditionally been located around airports: a side effect of the Airports Act of 1996, the Commonwealth Government has planning control over the land, meaning state planning legislation can be bypassed by developers.[5] In addition the property developer is able to exploit the cost difference between retail and industrial rents, gives outlet centre operators a distinct advantage over traditional shopping centres. A survey by Melbourne newspaper The Age in 2007 found that in all three DFO-owned centres, most shops carried at least some full-price, current-season stock, available at normal shopping centres.[6] By 2008 five legal challenges to DFO developments have been made by competing retail developers and the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, all being unsuccessful.[5]

On 16 August 2010, lead bank Suncorp-Metway, along with St George BankNational Australia Bank and Lloyds Banking Group, issued a notice to parent company Austexx demanding repayment within 24 hours of the A$450 million they are owed.[7] The South Wharf centre was under a A$500 million debt, with work on completing the centre stopped after workers placed bans over non-payment. Parent company Austexx is understood to have total debts of A$1.2 billion, with the four relatively successful DFO sites used as cross-collateral for bank-funded expansion into five other less successful locations (CanberraCairns and Hobart). The group of banks appointed insolvency specialists KordaMentha as advisers, with the entire group facing receivership.[8] Negotiations continued until a deal was struck on Thursday 19 August, the four banks extending their funding to allow the South Wharf development to be completed. The ten DFO shopping complexes will then be sold off separately to repay the $1 billion owed to the banks.[3] The banks hope to recoup most or all of the money they are owed by avoiding a 'fire sale' of assets, but neither Austexx founders or other investors are expected to be repaid until the bank debts are settled.[3]
   
Hmm....could it be that the DFO (failed) business model also included skimping on such things as property and or 2nd party asset insurance?

What about 3rd party insurance? Which should, in the normal course of events, have  included 3rd party public and employee liability for the very real risk of an aircraft crashing into the DFO buildings?  

"..Under Commonwealth legislation, the owner of the aircraft can be found liable for a crash even if it is not the operator of the flight..."


Huh - I think the Commonwealth legislation referred to is this: Damage by Aircraft Act 1999  https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00130

Quote:11  Recovery of damages without proof of intention, negligence etc.

                   Damages in respect of an injury, loss, damage or destruction of the kind to which section 10 applies are recoverable in an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australian territory against all or any of the persons who are jointly and severally liable under that section in respect of the injury, loss, damage or destruction without proof of intention, negligence or other cause of action, as if the injury, loss, damage or destruction had been caused by the wilful act, negligence or default of the defendant or defendants.

P2 comment: In light of the information provided so far by the Age and in regards to the murky financial arrangements obviously in play under the DFO 'business model', a qualified legal interpretation of the possible implications of section 11A would be interesting -  Rolleyes  

Quote:11A  Contributory negligence
             (1)  If, in an action under section 11, a defendant proves that the injury, loss, damage or destruction was caused by, or contributed to by, the negligence of the person (the sufferer) in respect of whom the injury, loss, damage or destruction was suffered, the damages recoverable must be assessed in accordance with this section.
             (2)  The court must determine the damages that would have been recoverable if there had been no negligence on the part of the sufferer.
             (3)  The damages determined under subsection (2) must be reduced to the extent the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the share of the sufferer in the responsibility for the injury, loss, damage or destruction.
             (4)  If any case to which subsection (1) applies is tried with a jury, the jury must determine the damages referred to in subsection (2) and the amount of the reduction under subsection (3).

However either way you put it the problematic and disturbing real implications for any aircraft operator, pilot or owner operating (or intending to operate) at any Federally leased airport that has a DFO complex, or similar commercial retail arrangement, within the boundaries of the Airport leased property are enormous if the legal liability case rules in favour of the DFO outlet retailers claims.... Confused    

This brings me to another interesting juxtaposition -  Huh 

Reference: Not a serious safety concern – Indeed: Part II


Quote:Next to step up to the plate on Airport safety was McComic and his motley crew of Iron Ring trough feeders:



Quote:Senator FAWCETT: My question, though, is: what framework is in place? If an operator is concerned with something—one of those slices of Swiss cheese in the James Reason model—that is impacting his safety, what avenue do they have to come to you, as the regulator, and to have you enforce, from the government's perspective, the intent statement of the white paper on aviation, the NASAG intent statement, the terms of the lease or the deed that transferred ownership of airfields to local government?


Mr McCormick : Some of those matters, such as the NASAG and those other issues that you raise on the airfield operation or who owns the airfield et cetera, of course are matters of government policy and rightly fit with the department. Off-airfield development is a similar thing, where, again, CASA has a limited role to play. Whether we should have a larger role or not is not a question for me to decide; but, as far as our available powers go, there are numerous heads of power where people can come to us directly, or write to us or email us or whatever, and we will take the issue on its face value.

Senator FAWCETT: What I am hearing there is that there are examples where there is a legitimate safety concern and you do not currently have a head of power that will enable you to act.

Mr McCormick : I do not think that is correct. I think we do have adequate heads of power, except for the off-airfield development. We have section 92 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, where we can give directions to airfield operators, and that is not restricted to certified and registered aerodromes. P2 comment - Remember that by definition the YMEN DFO complex is not an off-airfield development.

Ah yes the old buck passing exercise starts up once again... [Image: dodgy.gif] 

Note how Dr A passes across the CASR section 92 reference? As a head of power I am not sure how much teeth it has but nonetheless for those interested here it is:

Quote: Wrote:CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 92
Use of aerodromes
             (1)  A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:
                     (a)  the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;
                     (b)  the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a certificate granted, or registration, under Part 139 of CASR;
                     ©  the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraft engaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section;
                     (d)  the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or ©) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft;
and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.
Penalty:  25 penalty units.
             (2)   CASA may, in relation to an aerodrome, issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation.
             (3)  A person must not contravene a direction.
Penalty:  25 penalty units.
             (4)  An offence against subregulation (1) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.

Q/ I wonder which Act (i.e the Civil Aviation Act or the Damage By Aircraft Act) has a greater Head of Power -  Huh



MTF...P2  Cool

So many things to make me laugh here. One point made which doesn't seem to get a huge amount of attention, "Where is the union which is supposed to protect its members?" Hahahah! They are just as much of a joke as ATSB and CASA. Quite happy to take your money for 40 years then tell you to bugger off if your case doesn't fit into their neat, little criteria.

P7 - First post Choc Frog awarded. Cheers.
Reply



And the Angels wept.

[Image: 9ccfa7815f4845fc66d180d1b34d3ccc.jpg]

Tempted and tormented am I, this morning (a long, boozy BRB session last evening not helping). How do I address the Angel Flight imbroglio? Some fool even suggested that the post I put up – HERE – was suggesting a conspiracy theory – for ducks sake!.

Cambrige dictionary – “the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal:”

“We” at Aunt Pru ain’t ‘conspiring’; quite the reverse in fact. The ‘conspiracy’ was ‘fait acclompi’ i.e. "something that has already happened or been done and cannot be changed": many years ago. We are now dealing with the results of that egregious collusion, enacted Donkey’s years ago. ‘We’ are trying to undo that knitting you Muppet. But enough of the sound and fury of the idiot faction.

Do I elaborate the whole affair as a ‘horse-race’; or, treat it as a farce; or even a case of the ridiculous? Tough questions. It is time to open ‘the book”; my ledger. You may bet Ale if so inclined; but do we accept Choc Frogs and Tim Tams as valid currency. So to the odds.

You will need to bet five to win two on the short odds CASA entry in the Angel Flight Stakes. That may increase as the time for a result is nowhere near at hand. The date of this event is somewhere far off – trapped in the mystique of an election bun fight. It could take as long as a twelve month to even get a parliamentary mention, let alone ‘resolution’.




Quote:Senator Glenn Sterle with the 'mystique of aviation safety' in a nutshell - "CASA has an incredible power over ministers. You must have some fairy dust that you sprinkle on them, because they all believe every word that you say. The minister was put under the pump and so you say, 'Okay, minister, will do an inquiry. She'll be right. Go and announce it.' You have not even done the terms of reference and you are trying to tell us that it is going to be done in a couple of months. I have no faith in you..."

The CASA entry will be - “The Blood will be on your hands minister.” (Isaiah 59.3).

Simple enough statement; and a terrifying one for a ‘Wannabe’ politician. More than enough to assuage a DoNutin ministerial conscience; a great deal more. Perhaps; a dedicated, selfless, honest minister could, through a load of hard legal work actually prove that CASA had acted ‘illegally’ and contrary to their remit (unlikely). But; if one did, what would the CASA boss have to say, in answer to the question? “That’s fine Minister, overturn our changes to the licencing laws – say we were wrong – not a problem – BUT if there is another Angel Flight fatal accident or even an emergency declared – we will say but one thing”. “The government was advised of a dangerous situation; the minister overturned our rulings, against our ‘expert’ advice and the blood, ladies and gentlemen, is on his hands”.

There is no way known to man that a newly fledged minister is going to wear that – none. Can you imagine 6G McCormack facing down the CASA on those terms – be buggered if I can. So Angel Flight will die a slow death while a disinterested industry, which missed the point, watches on. The devil is in the detail – with a stroke of the pen - the democratic process is waved aside.

Angel Flight chief executive officer Marjorie Pagani slammed CASA’s planned direction, which was delivered just before Christmas and will not be subject to federal parliamentary scrutiny.

M. Pagani – Further unleashing her dismay at the potential the changes would have on what has become an essential service, conducting 4000 trips a year, Ms Pagani was critical of the way CASA had apparently circumvented the usual regulatory process, and what she said was the “invention” of a community service flight category.

[b]..But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process...
[/b]

I reckon some of the ‘outraged’ politicians:
Millar - “I am outraged that an unelected bureaucrat can ground the charity, Angel Flight, with a flick of a pen and no federal parliamentary scrutiny,” are in for a very rude wakening; when they discover that CASA is way beyond their reach; untouchable, a law unto themselves and beyond parliamentary control. The Senate can’t lay a glove on ‘em, try they have and failed; a couple of ministers have taken a crack at it – and failed. So who do reckon is going to get CASA to admit their collective ineptitude, own up to using the big stick for unclear reasons; admit to underhanded tactics and manipulation of parliamentary process; but most importantly to tell us Cui Bono from the cull of flying angels?



[Image: mm104_2018.jpg]

From left to right:
Richelle Koller, CEO Little Wings
Mick Frewen, CEO CareFlight
Jason Harfield, CEO Airservices Australia
Marjorie Pagani, CEO Angel Flight
The Hon Michael McCormack, Deputy PM and Minister for Infrastructure & Transport
Martin Laverty, CEO Royal Flying Doctor Service
Hon Robert Borbidge, Chairman LifeFlight

Ref: https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/m..._2018.aspx

What will emerge from the Angel Flight funereal pyre; like a phoenix? I’d look slightly South of Sydney if I was a betting man. Some serious, mysterious money being gifted down there to a ‘new’ charity/ monopoly which has had an almost miraculous run of luck with ‘approvals’. Now that, boys and girls, is ‘the’ dark horse to watch in the upcoming race. They will be at ‘short odds’ for sure; just how short will depend – I’ll let you know as soon as I nut it out. But, the games afoot Watson. I will give you a clue – in the form of a question. Why; after so many almost perfect years of operation have Angel Flight been targeted – now - on so slim an accident rate? 

AF is now stuck with new rulings; and, industry is left to wonder when the next Christmas Eve delivery of regulation will be slipped under the parliament door, unchallenged. But enough of other folks problems; my self inflicted malady demands peace, solitude and another cup of coffee. The stable awaits……

Selah.
Reply

K, it's the strangest thing.

When things make no sense to me, my mind always moves to the why? What possible motive could CAsA have for shutting down an obviously essential FREE service, a true charity, run by volunteers, no very highly paid directors, no very lucrative commercial government contracts. My Father used to say "If you need a WHY look for the money"

Mulling the Angel Flight imbroglio, I just couldn't see where there would be a quid in it.
The people who avail themselves of their services most certainly could never pay what those services would be worth on a commercial basis.

There is definitely a need as Angel flight itself has proved. So who's going to pay?

I cannot imagine the private owners and pilots, who so generously provide their aircraft and time are going to continue doing so if its going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars to comply with CAsA's "Commercial Lite" requirements.
Without those aircraft and pilots Angel Flight is finished.

Ah but there are always wheels within wheels.

There is no doubt politically, the inept minister or his successor is going to cop considerable stick for CAsA's actions.
No doubt as the groundswell of public outrage increases, considerable pressure will be placed on the minister to do something.
As you allude K whispering in the ministers ear will be the “The Blood will be on your hands minister.” brigade.

On the other will be the awful images of sick patients missing their various appointments or god forbid dying on the roads.

But will there be another voice in the ministers ear?

"All this could go away minister, just a paltry few million, chicken feed really, in the big scheme of things nothing really, and imagine what a hero you would become, Ah I can see the headlines now.

"MINISTER SAVES THE DAY> AGREES TO FUND VITAL MEDICAL AIR TRANSPORT COSTS".

I guess all we can do is Watch this space.
Reply

[Image: DzAR1_PU0AA-tY3.jpg]

References: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...79#pid9879https://auntypru.com/2019/02/

An evening with TOM.

[Image: old-man-2035427__340.jpg]

It was the dogs that knew first; they always do – we were ambling home in that quiet time between beer o’ clock and dinner, a quick, happy bark; and, off they went. Unconcerned and slightly distracted, I followed along at a more sedate pace until I found them at the new park bench, on which, comfortably ensconced was P7_TOM (The Old Man), his feet on a medium sized ‘Esky’. The dogs were already settled so it was safe to assume he had come to talk. Wrong. “Talk to me” says he; perceptive old sod knows me well; I did indeed need a sounding board. He’d brought Guinness and a proper glass, poured one out for me,  we sat in silence and watched the small miracle of the bubbles creating the head; lovely. “Patience, persistence and performance” we drank a silent toast; then, “say it in one word” he muttered. That made it my turn, I knew he’d say no more until I coughed up the lump I was choking on. The one word challenge is no easy puzzle – given the options available. A lot of words ran through my wooden head – disappointed, disgusted, dismayed, disheartened, confused, confounded, furious; etc. It took a moment to decide that no one word could cover my disbelief of what I was actually witnessing; nor my contempt for those committing the acts; and, my stunned amazement that the Australian public not only tolerate it – but pay billions to let it all happen.

The silence lasted through until the second Guinness had settled. The dogs heard the ‘dinner time’ whistle, looked askance, got the nod and headed off to eat. “Disconnection” says I. “That’ll do for a start” say’s TOM,  “now construe, a for instance, in a nutshell”.



[Image: DzGySY6UYAAVb2J.jpg]
Ref: 29 November 2014 http://www.reducedmobility.eu/2014112854...lying.html

[Image: DzG2UldVAAAv7yV.jpg]
Ref: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/p...__tn__=K-R


The Essendon debacle and the Angel Flight thing. The notion of holistic ‘safety’ and the best interests of the public and industry. CASA have spent a good deal of time (and by extension money) on the current Angel Flight How de Do. Ostensibly, related to their great concern for the safety of those folk who need transport to medical treatment. A real safety case which needs not only the minister’s support, but the Chair of the CASA board must be dragged out of whichever cat-house or opium den he was hiding in to support this great quest for public safety. The perpetrators of the great potential for disaster being Australian qualified Private Pilots; who are reimbursed their fuel costs by the charity. This all related to a debateable ’legal’ technicality in the very rules which CASA wrote. CASA have a remarkable number of operational ‘dispensations’ and ‘exemptions’ out there; some as old as industry itself. So, if the ‘technical’ illegality of AF pilots being reimbursed their fuel costs cannot be resolved; then CASA must either sort the rules out (mission impossible) or; issue an exemption until they finally do; or, perhaps find a way to fund the flights, through charter operators. That, or kill off one of the most useful charities in Australia. The espoused ‘public safety’ case is a gross nonsense: as risible, twisted and perverted as the mind which dreamed it up five years ago. There is barely a ‘real safety case’ to be discussed.



[Image: DzGvwD7U8AUu3On.jpg]
Ref: ABC News 22 February 2017 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/p...ss/8290906
 
[Image: DySQgsBU0AApaKC.jpg]
Ref: SMH 16 Jan 2019 https://www.smh.com.au/business/companie...50re4.html

Essendon and the DFO is a horse of an entirely different colour. You don’t hear or see the minister or the CASA chairman out there on the hustings beating their chests and denouncing a ducking great big concrete and steel monstrosity built into the operational safety width of an active runway. That DFO could, potentially hold a couple of thousand innocent, unaware people, shopping and working. There is an ever present threat that ‘something’ could go horribly wrong, during a take off; duri.htmlng a missed approach; or, during a landing. World wide there have been many horrific tales of aircraft and buildings meeting, with the inevitable results. Many nations – even the Italians – have taken steps to minimise the risk. Not our CASA though. They simply pull the string attached to the ATSB top dog’s collar and whistle up yet another ‘Pilot error’ charge; done and dusted; game over. Now let’s move on to really important matters like the technical ‘illegality’ of Angel Fight. 

[Image: Ive+seen+a+look]

And ‘we’ pay for this? Politicians all run away, the tax paying public meekly accepts the faery tales, industry shut’s up -  as usual, a’feared of the ‘enforcers’ and the ATSB cowers in the gilded cage. What a brave, brilliant future CASA and our elected officials have crafted for Australia aviation safety. The stellar thinking, the impeccable logic, he visionary foresight toward ultimate safety, the breath taking elegance of the rules supporting the mystique of aviation safety.


[Image: 585.jpg]

“It has always seemed strange to me... the things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. ― John Steinbeck, Cannery Row.

I glance up as the twilight deepens, for I’d been addressing my now empty glass; there sits TOM – a quiet smile playing about the eyes. “Feel better now?" expressed by a raise of the eyebrows. “Yes” say’s I reaching into the Esky to liberate some more of the Alfred Guinness fine offering; “yes, indeed I do”. No thanks required, although how he knew to turn up exactly when he did, with exactly the right ‘thinking’ fluid, I’ll never know. Cheers Pop.


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSE5GU9SemtiBfcwWIaVqw...EkySY1cRUq]

“If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones.”


Selah.
Reply

(02-10-2019, 08:01 AM)Kharon Wrote:  [Image: DzAR1_PU0AA-tY3.jpg]

References: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...79#pid9879https://auntypru.com/2019/02/

An evening with TOM.

[Image: old-man-2035427__340.jpg]

It was the dogs that knew first; they always do – we were ambling home in that quiet time between beer o’ clock and dinner, a quick, happy bark; and, off they went. Unconcerned and slightly distracted, I followed along at a more sedate pace until I found them at the new park bench, on which, comfortably ensconced was P7_TOM (The Old Man), his feet on a medium sized ‘Esky’. The dogs were already settled so it was safe to assume he had come to talk. Wrong. “Talk to me” says he; perceptive old sod knows me well; I did indeed need a sounding board. He’d brought Guinness and a proper glass, poured one out for me,  we sat in silence and watched the small miracle of the bubbles creating the head; lovely. “Patience, persistence and performance” we drank a silent toast; then, “say it in one word” he muttered. That made it my turn, I knew he’d say no more until I coughed up the lump I was choking on. The one word challenge is no easy puzzle – given the options available. A lot of words ran through my wooden head – disappointed, disgusted, dismayed, disheartened, confused, confounded, furious; etc. It took a moment to decide that no one word could cover my disbelief of what I was actually witnessing; nor my contempt for those committing the acts; and, my stunned amazement that the Australian public not only tolerate it – but pay billions to let it all happen.

The silence lasted through until the second Guinness had settled. The dogs heard the ‘dinner time’ whistle, looked askance, got the nod and headed off to eat. “Disconnection” says I. “That’ll do for a start” say’s TOM,  “now construe, a for instance, in a nutshell”.



[Image: DzGySY6UYAAVb2J.jpg]
Ref: 29 November 2014 http://www.reducedmobility.eu/2014112854...lying.html

[Image: DzG2UldVAAAv7yV.jpg]
Ref: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/p...__tn__=K-R


The Essendon debacle and the Angel Flight thing. The notion of holistic ‘safety’ and the best interests of the public and industry. CASA have spent a good deal of time (and by extension money) on the current Angel Flight How de Do. Ostensibly, related to their great concern for the safety of those folk who need transport to medical treatment. A real safety case which needs not only the minister’s support, but the Chair of the CASA board must be dragged out of whichever cat-house or opium den he was hiding in to support this great quest for public safety. The perpetrators of the great potential for disaster being Australian qualified Private Pilots; who are reimbursed their fuel costs by the charity. This all related to a debateable ’legal’ technicality in the very rules which CASA wrote. CASA have a remarkable number of operational ‘dispensations’ and ‘exemptions’ out there; some as old as industry itself. So, if the ‘technical’ illegality of AF pilots being reimbursed their fuel costs cannot be resolved; then CASA must either sort the rules out (mission impossible) or; issue an exemption until they finally do; or, perhaps find a way to fund the flights, through charter operators. That, or kill off one of the most useful charities in Australia. The espoused ‘public safety’ case is a gross nonsense: as risible, twisted and perverted as the mind which dreamed it up five years ago. There is barely a ‘real safety case’ to be discussed.



[Image: DzGvwD7U8AUu3On.jpg]
Ref: ABC News 22 February 2017 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/p...ss/8290906
 
[Image: DySQgsBU0AApaKC.jpg]
Ref: SMH 16 Jan 2019 https://www.smh.com.au/business/companie...50re4.html

Essendon and the DFO is a horse of an entirely different colour. You don’t hear or see the minister or the CASA chairman out there on the hustings beating their chests and denouncing a ducking great big concrete and steel monstrosity built into the operational safety width of an active runway. That DFO could, potentially hold a couple of thousand innocent, unaware people, shopping and working. There is an ever present threat that ‘something’ could go horribly wrong, during a take off; duri.htmlng a missed approach; or, during a landing. World wide there have been many horrific tales of aircraft and buildings meeting, with the inevitable results. Many nations – even the Italians – have taken steps to minimise the risk. Not our CASA though. They simply pull the string attached to the ATSB top dog’s collar and whistle up yet another ‘Pilot error’ charge; done and dusted; game over. Now let’s move on to really important matters like the technical ‘illegality’ of Angel Fight. 

[Image: Ive+seen+a+look]

And ‘we’ pay for this? Politicians all run away, the tax paying public meekly accepts the faery tales, industry shut’s up -  as usual, a’feared of the ‘enforcers’ and the ATSB cowers in the gilded cage. What a brave, brilliant future CASA and our elected officials have crafted for Australia aviation safety. The stellar thinking, the impeccable logic, he visionary foresight toward ultimate safety, the breath taking elegance of the rules supporting the mystique of aviation safety.


[Image: 585.jpg]

“It has always seemed strange to me... the things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. ― John Steinbeck, Cannery Row.

I glance up as the twilight deepens, for I’d been addressing my now empty glass; there sits TOM – a quiet smile playing about the eyes. “Feel better now?" expressed by a raise of the eyebrows. “Yes” say’s I reaching into the Esky to liberate some more of the Alfred Guinness fine offering; “yes, indeed I do”. No thanks required, although how he knew to turn up exactly when he did, with exactly the right ‘thinking’ fluid, I’ll never know. Cheers Pop.


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSE5GU9SemtiBfcwWIaVqw...EkySY1cRUq]

“If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones.”


Selah.

P2 Addendum: Via Ben Morgan CEO AOPA Australia.



 
&..
Quote:Dear Angel Flight Supporter

You will be aware that the government agency, CASA, has taken steps to restrict our volunteer pilots, and to ban helicopters, to the extent that the viability of the charity may be placed under threat. Despite repeated requests, the agency has declined to give us, or the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPS), any safety case, or risk analysis, to support these restrictions. Importantly, CASA has deliberately bypassed its own policies, protocols and ethical standards, by failing to adhere to its regulatory reform criteria. Instead, the CEO of CASA has issued a Direction, simply a ‘law’ which is signed by him. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’.

I have asked the National Operations and Standards Exec Manager, what the new rules have to do with the two volunteer flight accidents which have occurred in the last 16 years (both involving bad weather), and his answer to me was to effect that they bore no relationship to the accidents. The ATSB (Safety Bureau) has not yet released its report into the last of these accidents, in 2017.

These accidents (two in 46,000 flights) are attracting unprecedented attention from CASA, and in particular, when compared with the high number of fatal accidents which have occurred in commercial operations in Australia during the same period. Initially, CASA was underpinning its rules on the basis that our passengers are ‘uninformed’ (that is, they don’t understand that they are not travelling on an airline or commercial operation, or understand the differences). We have provided CASA with our entire suite of documents which the pilots and passengers (and drivers) must read, sign and acknowledge, and the videos which the passengers must watch prior to flying. We are perplexed as to why CASA thinks that our disadvantaged rural passengers cannot understand what they read, see or sign.

They are also implying that they have no confidence in the training, testing and licensing of their own pilots. You all know that we only accept as volunteers, those pilots holding CASA licences, and flying CASA registered and maintained aircraft for private flight in Australia. Many of our volunteers are airline pilots, commercial pilots, and of course, private pilots. Their new rules do nothing to address CASA’s training or licensing issues – they merely seek to restrict those pilots, after issuing their licences, so that they can fly anyone else in Australia subject to the provisions of their licences, but not rural people coming into the cities with Angel Flight volunteer pilots for scheduled non-emergency medical appointments.

Angel Flight does not know why there has been such a concerted attack on these volunteer pilots and aircraft – given that it is CASA’s responsibility to ensure a proper level of training before issuing the licence – it is not Angel Flight’s job to take responsibility for training under CASA regulations: we rely on them to give licences only to those who have qualified.

After first alleging that they were introducing these rules, with what seemed undue haste just before Xmas, to improve safety (although they don’t relate to the two accidents since 2003), it then moved to relying on the ‘uninformed’ argument, then changed its thrust to ‘ we are doing what the USA is doing’. That is also grossly misleading, as the private flights in the USA are not regulated in this fashion. They only regulate what they regard to be commercial operations and give an exemption if they are flying for a charity. Finally, last Friday, the chair of the CASA board said we are not ‘technically private flights’. How that relates to their restrictive proposals is perplexing- particularly as CASA has never challenged our private status, and the statement bears no relationship to the proposed restrictions.

A very worrying event occurred last week – CASA called a regional TV station, offering them an exclusive statement if they would embargo the story until this Wednesday. That statement was from the chair of the CASA Board, Tony Matthews, who said CASA was going ahead with all but one of the rules. He alleged they were to table it in parliament on Tuesday, but not release that information until Wednesday – thereby limiting the time within which to lodge a Notice of Motion to Disallow the Directions. More worryingly, they did not tell Angel Flight about this – merely advised a TV station. Quite alarming behavior from a government agency, particularly that it issued the statement on 7 February, a mere 5 working days since the close of the brief public ‘consultation’ – there were 230 submissions, many of them being lodged on the last couple of days. It is difficult to see how they could come up with this decision if they were taking these submissions into account (and Angel Flight has privately received many copies of these). The leaked exclusive was then conveyed to The Australian newspaper, and published on 8th February : again, neither the CASA Board, nor CEO, nor anyone else from CASA, had advised Angel Flight of either its decision or its intention to make a statement or table the proposals, : there was no communication from the agency of any kind, nor to AOPA, represents thousands of general aviation pilots, and who had been communicating with CASA over the issue.

Angel Flight takes a proactive position in relation to safety, but does not accept that CASA should bypass proper regulatory reform procedures to rush these changes through, knowing they will have an adverse effect on these valuable services, and that they are unsupported by any safety case or risk analysis. This should be workshopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before reforms are proposed, and these should be done by regulatory amendment – the proposed administrative directive cuts across many regulations, pursuant to which the pilots achieved their licences. CASA appears to be saying that Angel Flight is responsible for CASA’s own licensing standards. This administrative directive both restricts the rights of pilots to fly under their CASA licences, and could jeopardise valuable volunteer work. Even more extraordinary is that CASA has banned helicopters from flying for Angel Flight, although there have been no heli accidents in the volunteer service,: more astounding is that CASA say it is acceptable to get the total aeronautical time required, in a helicopter, but then ban helicopters! This is particularly unfortunate when many of our rural people in flooded communities may need help getting their families to medical treatment when airfields are flooded. They have offered no explanation for this ban.
We urge you all, and your colleagues, to urgently contact both your local Member of the House of Representatives, and all Senators, requesting they lodge a Notice of Motion for Disallowance, so that the issue of safety can be assessed in a measured, educated, and fact-based fashion, adopting the usual protocols and industry input. There is only a brief window of opportunity to do this -the Notice must be lodged this week, possibly Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, on the basis that CASA will deliver it on Tuesday (but again, they have not allowed us this information – we are relying upon what the chair of their Board has said to a television station).

Let’s all pull together to help people in the bush have a better quality of life – contact all federal members of parliament now by email or phone (link to a list attached).

Senators: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Memb...gen=0&ps=0
Members: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Memb...gen=0&ps=0

Thanks for your support,

Marjorie Pagani CEO
Angel Flight
Reply

CAsA HAS FAILED THE MINISTERS STATEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS

So with the thought in mind regarding Bens recent interviews and taking into account what Ben said about a very serious topic and subsequent conversation with Carmody, which went as follows; “I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’, I highlight the following;

CAsA has monumentally failed to comply with its charter, the Statement of Expectations as legally implemented by the Minister.

As a subsequent result we demand and highlight the following;
- The CAsA CEO must be removed immediately. Industry has no confidence in him.
- The CAsA Board Chair must be removed immediately. Industry has no confidence in him.
- The Minister for Infrastructure, Michael McCormack must be removed immediately. Industry has no confidence in him.

Successive breaches of the SOE must be dealt with immediately. Failure to do so will only leave the LNP looking more stupid than they already are and place sections of the aviation industry and the general public who rely on Angel Flight, in an untenable position.

Vote with your feet ladies and gentlemen......
Reply

SBG Addendum: 13 Feb '19

(02-12-2019, 08:19 PM)P7_TOM Wrote:  Hook, Line and Sinker.

The bait taken; the catch assured. As the wondrous CASA ‘smoke and mirrors’ machine defers and deflects public attention away; far away from the real story. History GD; never, not ever forget it.

GD – “There needs to be an immediate halt to CAsA’s actions (I mean CAsA’s sanctions and violations) against Angel Flight and a high level inquiry needs to be enacted. It frightens me to say this, and hold no hope, but the Miniscule needs to intervene AND DO IT RIGHT NOW. Either that or all of industry must come together and act as one now.”

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course…it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call “The Prestige”.

Sure, the Angel Flight bagatelle is of passing interest; it is despicable etc. However the actors in this little charade are ‘winding the audience up’ to a fever pitch’ Much like a magician needs to distract the careful watcher; so must CASA. Carmodiy’s arrogant statements are designed to be inflammatory; and, boy-oh-boy – ain’t it working.

CASA, the DoIT, Ministers and many other ‘big guns’ are in deep do-do. If the big underwriters ever get close to the flames, those emanating from the government assisted cooling of the  fires lit by the Essendon DFO disaster; heads will roll; lots of ‘em. The ‘serious players in the insurance world and there are very few of ‘em must be farting blue lights.  If the Unions – like the SDA - ever get down to brass tacks and see just how little insurance is available; or, may be legally counted on there will be hell to pay.

You see there is not an underwriter (not a broker) who will acknowledge a legitimate claim against them if it can be demonstrated that the DFO was ‘knowingly’ built within the area designated as a ‘runway’. There is not a Union in this world which would, without full foreknowledge of the associated risk, place it’s members in a high risk situation – not without ‘insurance’, risk pay and an evacuation plan. Not going to happen – right.

And there it is. No one body is responsible for ‘approving’ the DFO grand scheme. The DFO operation is in so much debt as to beggar the imagination. Their building insurance does not cover being hit by an aircraft having a ‘legitimate’ accident within a mandated runway area. The insurance boys will be out of that so fast it would make your head spin. The only folks happy are the legal eagles – years and years of work there – it is a true legal paradise.

It begs the question. Where was our much vaunted CASA safety oversight when the DFO master plan of madness was approved? Hiding behind some legal interpretation of ‘Commonwealth’ land and ‘approvals’ perhaps? They are supposed to be the ‘be all and end all’ of ‘safety’.  Did they realise the risks the DFO crowd were taking? Did they even stop for a moment and think Whoa? No, they bloody well did not, which is bad enough. But did they also, knowingly, turn a blind eye to the aberration?

There is a multi story building, within the mandated confines of an active runway. It is widely known that the building should never have been approved. It is not widely known that the DFO could not, not at any price, buy insurance for an arguably illegal building being in a collision with an aircraft.

Angel Flight is a worthy cause and has my full support – but it ain’t the headline; not anymore. The CASA smoke and mirrors deflection system is at full throttle. Why else resurrect the done and dusted AF drama. To perhaps avoid a Royal Commission asking why CASA appear to be and seem determined to continue taking no responsibility for the Essendon DFO accident at all. If not the much vaunted, all seeing, all powerful, all wise, ‘safety watchdog, then whom? –Now that is a question I should like answered - fat chance, right.

Like Ol'Tom I'm still scratching my head at the sheer mendacity of Carmody Capers & the CASA Iron Ring to face down the critics of their manafactured non-safety case embuggerance of Angel Flight... Angry 

Quote:...Importantly, CASA has deliberately bypassed its own policies, protocols and ethical standards, by failing to adhere to its regulatory reform criteria. Instead, the CEO of CASA has issued a Direction, simply a ‘law’ which is signed by him. I have repeatedly asked the CEO why he has done this, and the response was, firstly, ‘because I have the authority’, and then when pressed further, ‘because it’s easy’... 


The above relayed statement simply beggars belief but does effectively highlight the extent to which Carmody is prepared to smear Angel Flight,AOPA Oz and by extension all CASA licensed pilots all for the  single purpose of distraction, diffraction, obfuscation of what is we believe to be the real cover-up story. In case you missed the reference (above)... Rolleyes 


Essendon crash: Locals say plane smashing into shopping centre 'a tragic mess'
By Jane Cowan
Updated 22 Feb 2017, 3:26pm


[Image: DzGvwD7U8AUu3On.jpg]
Ref: ABC News 22 February 2017 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/p...ss/8290906

Just the other day, Robert Fisicaro, who works inside Essendon's DFO shopping centre, was talking to a friend from the airport. An idle chat.

"There's gonna be an accident here," his mate said.

The conversation is eerie now, as a black hole gapes in the side of the DFO building at Essendon and five people are dead.

Robert works at Berkowitz Furniture inside the complex and was moments away from work when the plane crashed.

"This airport's smack in the middle of suburbia. Planes are going to come down always. We've all been saying that. We say it in jest, but now it's happened," he said.

"It's not something you think, 'Oh gee, it should have never happened'. It happens. If you're gonna put a shopping centre next to a runway this is what happens."

The crash has him rethinking the safety of his workplace.

"Our biggest problem here is one way in, one way out. The entry and exit points here are actually pathetic, so we're very lucky.

Quote:"Half an hour later and the general public would have been in here, so it could have been a whole different ball game. And if it was a weekend, that's 10,000 cars blocked up first thing in the morning."

He said staff had been through an evacuation drill for a potential terrorist attack, but not for a plane coming down.

"Which is weird because we've got an entire two runways that run opposite our stores," he said.

"Literally customers can stand and watch planes come in. It's a spectacle. So they'll have to get their act together here."


Locals concerned about airport buffer zone


So who approved the DFO in that location?

The Howard government allowed the privatisation of Australian airports, including Essendon, by providing them very long-term leases.

Since then the airport has proceeded to put a series of commercial, non-aviation enterprises on the land including the DFO.

Because the airport is on Commonwealth land, it does not require local or state planning approval.

It has always been the view of locals that Essendon's buffer zone is not big enough and compares poorly with the buffer zones for other airports around the country.

They say the airport is built on a 300 hectare site when it should more properly be 1,200 hectares.

In 1978 a family was incinerated when a light plane crashed into their house in Airport West — a gas heater in their house ignited fuel from the aircraft's ruptured wing tank.

In 1986 five died when an air ambulance plummeted into a paddock.

Seven years later in 1993, a plane crashed into houses without killing anyone in what was dubbed the "Miracle on Gilbertson Street".

All of these accidents have happened within the 1,200-hectare zone that residents argue should buffer the airport.

[Image: 8289740-3x2-700x467.jpg]

PHOTO: Police in front of a wheel on the Tullamarine Freeway that came from the crashed plane. (ABC News: Jane Cowan)

Plane crash a 'tragic mess'

"It's tragic mess," said resident Helen van den Berg, who used to organise a group of residents called the Close Essendon Airport Campaign.

Eventually she closed the protest group down, because no-one was listening.

"We were ignored by everyone. CASA, ministers. Any voice from the community is ignored."

Some of the strongest pushback against relocating it comes in the form of the argument that it's an essential location for police and emergency services, crucially close to city hospitals.

But emergency flights are just a fraction of the aviation activity at Essendon which is mostly general light planes and charter aircraft.

"You see a tragedy like this and think of the decades and decades of people who've tried to highlight the safety concerns," said resident Helen van den Berg.

"It could have killed people at DFO, it could have hit the freeway. That's why the buffer zone should be there."

Quote:"For 25 years there have been community-minded people here raising concerns about the operation of an airport that has no protection zone.

"Why, if you've got something there for the common good, like an airport, why do you at the same time put other people in danger? It's inconsistent."

Commercial development too close to runways, advocate says

[Image: 8289304-3x2-700x467.jpg]

PHOTO: Fire crews work to put out a blaze after a plane crashes into DFO at Essendon Fields. (Metropolitan Fire Brigade)

Marcus Diamond from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) said his members had previously raised concerns about commercial shopping developments being built on airport land at Essendon

The DFO shopping centre, which the plane crashed into, is on land owned by Essendon airport. It was built in 2005.

"If this was a grass field as it used to be, it could be a different situation," Mr Diamond said.

While stressing the cause of the crash was still unknown, he said inappropriate developments at airports across Australia were increasingly hindering access to runways.

He said many light plane crashes occurred close to the runway, so it is important that the area is clear.

"It's an increasing problem at airports around Australia. We've put in multiple submissions to government on this," he said.

DFO has been contacted by the ABC about its emergency response plan.

Essendon Airport chief executive Chris Cowan said counselling would be available for any DFO staff and the airport's emergency plan covered all contingencies "from minor to full scale emergencies including on airport and off airport responses".



MTF? - Yes much...P2  Cool

[Image: Dy7gmM-U8AE-NA2.jpg]
Reference: https://twitter.com/PAIN_NET1/status/109...9776233473
Reply

A twiddle - Of Hero’s and Villains.

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals."

If only Hamlet’s words reflected the real world of mankind. I have long suspected that the adoration of our very few real ‘Hero’s’ is fed by an unobtainable desire to have the properties which make up heroism. The feet of clay most folks walk around on are in the ascendency; mean, venal, self interested, dangerous, greedy etc. – all the seven deadly sins loaded into one small package. Few and far between are the ‘truly’ selfless; take a look at the Parliament for an example. There is an arena from which a true hero could emerge, a statesman with no other ambition than to see this country be a safe, prosperous, progressive land of a free people and make it a life’s work. Alas; he would be outvoted and out manoeuvred at every whip and stitch. And to our shame, we allow, pay for and even cast our precious votes in support of those who’s motivation is questionable, who’s allegiances are questionable and who’s consciences appear, at best to be malleable. In days gone by, when a man swore an oath or made a promise; his next step was not to race off to the lawyers to find out how to avoid the words spoken – it was a matter of honour to hold that oath. The current system seems only to pay lip service to honour, integrity and ‘public service’ the notion of ‘leadership’ having long been abandoned in the pursuit of power, influence, and of course, the daemon dollar.

How long has it been since we had a ‘transport minister’ who accepted any responsibility for aviation? Have we ever had a minister who did not Kow-Tow to the harmful, often bizarre edicts of the ‘authority’? When was the last time a ‘minister’ put a stopper in the CASA genie bottle? Aye, it’s been a good long while now since a minister even showed the slightest interest in matters aeronautical; a good long while. Which is why we have an autocratic ‘department’ which is, by it’s own admission above the law, beyond parliamentary control and completely capable of telling any Senate committee to go boil it’s head – with impunity.

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

Unlike Henry II, the Senate cannot be easily rid of their nemesis. They wouldn’t know where to start – even if there was a will to accept the ultimate responsibility for aviation and ‘safety’ (whatever that may be). The Senators most certainly have the power to disband CASA; the Kiwi’s grasped the nettle; drew a line and started all over again – and they seem to not only have survived the surgery, but are thriving on it. But then, men of honour, integrity and a genuine interest in the nations well being made that happen. The NZ CAA which was torn down was nowhere near as dangerous a beast as CASA is today. Now is the time for reform; aviation is teetering on the brink of destruction – even Qantas is deserting the country of it’s birth; just to survive.

What about it Senators? Will you roll up your sleeves and get the desperately needed reform of the regulator moving; or, will you sit at Estimates, frustrated while the likes of Aleck, Carmody and Walker publicly take the Mickey Bliss. Publically, on Hansard video, making mock of yourselves, your recommendations and render your clumsy questions nugatory? Our national notion of a ‘fair go’, freedom and democratic governance is in jeopardy. Your call.

I accept it will be difficult to put the Angel Flight contretemps in second place – elections, emotive issue, the Bush, drought, flood, fire and all the other serious issues which have been allowed to escalate. – Did I previously mention control burning? Or; preserving the abundance of water the wet provides this dry land – probably not. No matter: they are big, grown ups problems, requiring brains, balls and the leadership qualities our politicians seem not to have. I digress. Should those ‘big’ problems be too much to manage; how about tackling a couple of smaller issues; just to get your heads around the swearing of oaths, keeping to that oath and governance. Let’s see; an easy one to start you off. Uhhm!

I know; tall buildings inside the mandated minimum runway width. Tall buildings with lots and lots of innocent voters inside, working, shopping, eating – all completely uninsured – if not now, they sure will be when the case comes to court room. A feast, a veritable cornucopia of fees for the legal fraternity, not too much fun for those involved – those that survived the holocaust of fire, jet fuel, no emergency plan and the roof falling in that is. Men, women, children – sacrificed on the altar of greed, a fast buck and making ‘useful’ friends along the way. The Essendon DFO accident was, is and likely to remain a national disgrace, provided nothing is done by the men and women elected to honour their obligations to the general public.

It has been said:  "that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing."  - (Careful P2; try Aked).  

It is no wonder ‘evil’ is winning the rubber – the ‘good men’ are few and far between, thin on the ground and scared to speak out; lest they offend somebody. I am somebody and I am offended, deeply and grievously, by those who do nothing but use the system to their own ends. That minister is definitely  'UN-Australian'.

Aye well; the dogs neither know nor care; they know my coffee mug is empty, that I’ve just put out an illicit smoke and I’m looking for my boots – time to go out. That is a promise I always keep – easy enough to keep promises; you just have to practice a little – it’s amazing how good you get at it, with patience. Deep and dark are the woods of promises.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.


Selah…………
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)