[Peetwo]

The Mick Mack aviation shitlist continues to grow?

More QoN for the Committee to delve into.

From 'The Australian'

"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has employed lawyers from the big end of town to threaten editors of the free press in a failed bid to suppress expert critic­ism of their actions, and has banned private-sector contractors from speaking to the media."

"In one FOI refusal, ATSB senior­ officer Colin McNamara said to release the information could damage international ties; while in another, ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood invoked laws under which bureau officials can be jailed for two years if they provide information to the media."

"When The Australian published analysis from a team led by senior Canadian air crash investigator Larry Vance concluding that the aircraft had been ditched by a pilot, the ATSB hired law firm Minter Ellison to write to the editor­s in a threatening tone asking­ that they “refrain” from publishing that style of article."

"The ATSB banned the leader of the search conducted by Dutch underwater survey firm Fugro, Paul Kennedy, from speaking, and ATSB spokesman Paul Sadler would not say why."

Lots of folk would like those questions answered; along with why government persists in defending a clearly dysfunctional 'Safety Agency'. Are we at a stage where government must begin questioning the actions of both ATSB and CASA? No brainer really - what say you GGGGG Mick Mac. Happy to risk your career betting on these outfits?

Toot - toot.

The LMH: 25 October 2019

"..McDonald looks prepared to put her feet where her mouth is.."

I don't remember anyone in parliament articulating the CASA problem so comprehensively as Senator Susan McDonald did last week. In an eight-minute speech, she said CASA was extraordinarily disconnected from reality, that it doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration or consultation, imposes regulation for the sake of it and imposes regulation that is costly, unreasonable and seeks to strangle aviation. It was cathartic to hear it expressed in the senate in terms that all of aviation can relate to. And McDonald is clearly prepared to back up her words, crossing the floor against the wishes of the Coalition she serves to side with the independents as they tried to have CASA's community service flight regulations disallowed. McDonald looks prepared to put her feet where her mouth is. The question all of this has brought to mind is "what now?" OK, we've a new superhero in the senate, but being a Nationals senator it's her boss who's in charge of CASA and probably arranged for the bipartisan support that sunk the disallowance in the first place. Is Senator McDonald prepared to march into the minister's office, take off her slipper and smack it up and down on his desk in a very Khrushchevian way? That's not likely to happen and could actually be counter-productive. Another option might be to start agitating for more inquiries; also pointless given that so many of them have been ignored or failed to have the desired impact. For all the will of Senators like McDonald and Patrick, the brick wall built by a lack of political will may be too high to climb over and too strong to break through, leaving a long and winding road around the wall as the only path ahead. We can only hope that general aviation has the endurance to make the journey.

McDonald slams CASA over Angel Flight Rejection

25 October 2019
Comments 1 Comment




Senator Susan McDonald addresses the senate over CASA's rejection of the RRAT recommendation on Angel Flight maintenance requirements. (still from Parliament House feed)

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

---

Greg Priest • 18 hours ago

Common sense should prevail unfortunately CASA appear as a benevolent dictators based on a belt and braces attitude. There are thousands of car accidents and crashes on our roads but we don't remove cars off the road or increase mandatory vehicle maintenance.

There is an extreme bureaucratic culture in CASA and its time most of the CASA staff be replaced with sensible people having a understanding and consultation culture to meet the objectives.

Finally from the Northern Daily Leader:

---

OCTOBER 24 2019 - 4:26PM

Air safety regulator must consider costs

• Marnie Banger
  
  

The general aviation industry raised concerns about the costs associated with new regulations.

Australia's aviation safety regulator will have to take into account the cost of making rules, under laws which have cleared federal parliament.

The shift comes after the general aviation industry raised concerns about the costs sometimes associated with fresh regulations.

Legislation making the change to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority passed the lower house on Thursday, after clearing the Senate in July.

"The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia, and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden," assistant minister Andrew Gee told the chamber on Thursday.

"It is important that we continue to support an aviation industry which is dynamic and sustainable."

Mr Gee insists safety in the industry will always be the most important consideration.

Labor backed the change, believing it strikes the right balance between keeping people safe and address the concerns of the aviation sector.

"While we understand that there will always be groups that say the balance is completely wrong one way or the other ... on balance, we are supporting this bill," Labor MP Catherine King told parliament.

Some commercial pilots had feared the changes could lead to weaker safety standards in favour of profits, but smaller industry players backed the bill because it aims to reduce costs.

Australian Associated Press
From the Hansard:

BILLS

Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading

Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:01): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy. It links our regions to our cities, and our cities to the world.

A strong aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the regulatory system which governs it. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety—built on a modern regulatory framework—any regulator must continue to keep pace with the industry it regulates.

Some sectors of the general aviation industry are seeking assurance that CASA takes into consideration the economic and cost impacts on industry, and the relative risk environment in the different aviation sectors, when developing broadly applicable aviation safety standards.

The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden.

We are committed to aviation safety being the most important consideration in safety regulation and recognise that CASA must be allowed to ensure aviation in Australia is safe and reliable.

Costs and risks are both carefully weighed by CASA when it develops aviation safety standards. The requirements behind this process are spelt out in the government's statement of expectations issued to the CASA board.

Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that incorporates those guiding principles from the government's statement of expectations into the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is in direct response to the concerns raised by the general aviation industry.

The bill will allow the government to ensure CASA continues to consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community. It will take into account the differing risks posed by those sectors when developing legislative aviation safety standards.

It is important we continue to support an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is responsive and proportionate to risks. The government seeks a level of regulation that maintains the safety of the system without unreasonably restricting innovation and growth.

I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (16:04): The opposition has a very proud record of bipartisanship when it comes to aviation safety. There are, frankly, no margins for error when it comes to aviation safety. As more and more travel, freight movement and recreation is undertaken in our skies, it is important that our aviation safety system keeps people safe. At the same time, Labor understands that the viability of the general aviation industry can be jeopardised by unreasonable regulatory burden.

We understand the importance of the aviation industry in the day-to-day lives of Australians, and this is nowhere more the case than in regional Australia. We also understand that some members of the general aviation sector have raised concerns about red tape and the impact on their operational costs, and the viability of the general aviation sector and jobs in the general aviation industry. Clearly, the regulatory burden that small airline operators in general aviation can carry is vastly different to what can be carried by the larger airlines. If we as legislators don't get that right it could have unintended consequences for the smaller operators and, by extension, regional communities and aviation sector jobs.

We are broadly satisfied that this bill the government has brought forward does take a balanced approach between the need to protect the safety of the travelling public as the pre-eminent operating reason for CASA's existence—it's primary operating order, in essence—and, of course ensuring that red tape does not get in the way of the general aviation sector being viable. This bill responds to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that overregulation is costly for smaller operators. While we understand that there will always be groups who say the balance is completely wrong one way or the other, and that the legislation will never be perfect, on balance we are supporting this bill. We will continue to monitor implementation, however, of these reforms. We do know that this bill does not go as far as some in the general aviation sector would like, but we also know that there are others concerned that any change in the Civil Aviation Act could be seen to water down CASA's primary purpose of ensuring that aviation safety is paramount in their regulatory activities. They are concerned about this bill as well.

We are very strong in and very proud of our track record when it comes to the aviation industry. In government, the now Leader of the Opposition, as transport minister, delivered Australia's first, and only, aviation white paper. One of the stated objectives of that white paper was the maintenance of a safe, efficient and innovative general aviation sector. The white paper provided a comprehensive and balanced framework, bringing together all aspects of aviation policy into a single, coherent and forward-looking statement. Importantly, it included initiatives designed to give the general aviation industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the longer term. To this end, the former Labor government introduced more generous accelerated depreciation rates for aircraft as an incentive for owners to upgrade their aircraft; reduced the number of 24-hour restricted airspace areas from 81 to 15; committed to the continued operation and growth of secondary capital city airports; ensured that the master plans for secondary airports maintained a strong focus on aviation development, not non-aeronautical uses that could compromise future aviation activities; and we lessened the financial burden of regulation on the sector by restricting increases in CASA regulatory service charges to rises in the consumer price index.

These were very important reforms, and I would say to the government that I think there is a distinct lack of coherence today when it does actually come to aviation policy. It may well be time for the government to look, particularly, at the general aviation sector but also at the overall aviation sector in a more comprehensive way once again. Labor will continue to advocate for the aviation sector, to ensure safe and effective aviation services are available to the Australian community.

In conclusion, the opposition will continue to monitor the implementation of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 to ensure that safety is not compromised and that the regulatory burden remains manageable for the sector. But with that, we will be supporting this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

And so it was without little to no fanfare or honest, open and transparent debate, that the CA Act was amended, all under the guise of the political bi-partisanship, 'self-protection' racket of course...    

---

And now from off the UP an update (from the man himself) to the CASA attempted embuggerance of GlenB...

A stern message from Glen

---

I have been chased out of the industry by the conduct of Mr Brad Lacy, Jason Mc Heyzer, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Graeme Crawford. Their conduct has left me on the cusp of being declared bankrupt. My actions improved safety, theirs have reduced safety. That is measurable and demonstrable.

Soon i will initiate a legal action to have their conduct tested. That is a fact.

Soon Mr Mathews as Chair of the Board, and Mr Carmody as the CEO will have to make an important decision. Will they continue to stand behind these personnel. If they are aware of their own CASA Regulatory Philosophy, they will not be able to stand behind them. Its that simple. They will lose all credibility. Mr Mathews will tarnish a distinguished career, and Mr Carmodys credibility as the Head of a Government Department will be tarnished at least.

I am here with my laptop on the roof of my borrowed car, and I am parked at Essendon Airport. Drawing on happy memories, and trying desperately to re-energise myself, and my mind drifted to all the wonderful people that work within CASA. Right back to Robyn Maleki, Phil Betts, Nishi, John Costa, the entire CLARC team over the years, the people in licencing, to the Mathew Fords, and the Peter Finches, to Owen Richards, Peter White, Graeme Taberner, Ben Cook, Tim Baker,John Lindsay, Mr John Hanton, Grant Howard, David Gobbitt, Gavin Secombe, Teoh, Bill Cox, Tim Penney, Michael White,Michelle Massey, Harold Bankien, Colin Mc Lachlan,and many others.

I apologise because I know I have missed many, but that is not the point of this post. There are probably well over 800 well intentioned people in that organisation, people that genuinely want to work with industry and conduct themselves in accordance with CASAs own Regulatory Philiosophy. They really want to go into work, and play their part in improving aviation safety, they really do.

There are others, that I have named above that choose not to.

Is that defamation. Absolutely not. I write it to protect all the good people that work within CASA. If I bitch and moan about “CASA” then I only bring harm to them, and that is not my intention.

Mr Carmody simply cannot allocate any more public funds to this "project", it is a clear breech of his obligations under the PGPA Act. As individuals they are welcome to initiate action against me. I relish the opportunity to tell the truth, and will demonstrate that it is in the public interest. I am actually protecting the reputations of the vast majority of CASA personnel.

In fact if all of those named people stepped aside, and others within CASA stepped up, that would be a measurable and demonstrable increase in aviation safety in Australia, and 100% og the General Aviation industry will concur with that statement. I repeat 100%. Every business owner, every regional aero club, every charter business, flying school, engineer, and pilot will concur.

So where to from now. As my legal process begins, I know my legal team will tell me to stop posting, and I will. So what will I be doing.

I will be working diligently in the background, on my well prepared, and well documented case.

I will be seeking employment outside of aviation.,

I will commence an active campaign commencing at the end of next week, to promote myself as an independent candidate for the seat of Chisolm, and I will topple Gladys Liu, at the next opportunity.

One thing I will not be doing. Once this process commences within the next 21 days, I will not back down. A condition of engaging my legal firm, is that there must be no compromises. This must absolutely, go ALL the way to a determination. A settlement is a bribe. This will go to a determination, so we actually know who is right or wrong.

I encourage Mr Carmody to make the right decisions over the next 21 days, or an irreversible path will commence.

The time has arrived. Any person within CASA that is involved in this process, must now display ethics. You must choose to step aside, or be complicit.

Those of you with ethics will say. ""Sorry, but im not comfortable being involved in this process". Its that simple. You will be fully protected by your union, but more importantly, you will be displaying ethics.

I can assure CASA, that if they choose not to sit down with me in the next 21 days. I am going all the way. You cannot bring so much totally unnecessary harm to me and my family, and not be held fully to account. I mean it, I really do.

The only thing that will stop it, is me having a stress induced heart attack. My wife said the other day. "If you have a heart attack, im going inmto CASA, and im going to slap Brad Lacey" You have been warned.

  
And finally back to the ATSB off Twitter: 

OBVIOUS from ATSB THREATENING whistleblower staff that telling truth about #MH370 is not their piority. @cryfortruth so the next question is what are ATSB hiding?

And speaking of coverups... #MH370

"The Australian news asked for internal SSWG memos under the freedom of information act, and the ATSB got their heavy mob lawyers to put on the frighteners." (12.16.18 @ 2:19 pm)

Correct.

Ah yes the Chief Commissioner Greg Hood's threat of criminal prosecution (ie 2 years jail) if any ATSB employee even hinted at talking out of school ie blowing the whistle? (especially those involved in the SSWG &/OR the #MH370 Annex 13 AAI)

TICK...TOCK - times up Minister time to show you Aunty Pru's cards...




MTF...P2