"Things That Make You Go Hmmm..."
#1

"Things That Make You Go Hmmm..." Huh




The purpose of this thread is kind of self-explanatory; so to kick it off here is my first..."thing(s) that makes you go hmmm...??" -  Shy        


Three days ago there was several iterations in the MSM of this story: AP ref - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-103...ml#pid9675

Quote:ATSB INVESTIGATING VIRGIN AUSTRALIA ATR 72 ENGINE FLAME-OUT INCIDENT
written by Australianaviation.Com.Au December 18, 2018


[Image: ATR72_VH-VPJ_SYDNEY_14MAY2016_SETH-JAWOR...jpg?w=1170]

File image of a Virgin Australia ATR 72-600. (Seth Jaworski)

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says it is investigating an incident involving a Virgin Australia ATR 72 where both engines on the regional turboprop airliner flamed out, one after the other, while flying in heavy rain.


The incident near Canberra airport involved ATR 72-600 VH-FVN while on a flight from Sydney, the ATSB said on Monday afternoon.


“While the aircraft was descending through 11,000ft in heavy rain, the right engine’s power rolled back (decreased) and the engine flamed out. The engine automatically re-started within five seconds,” the ATSB said.


“The descent continued and, while passing through 10,000ft, the left engine’s power also rolled back and that engine flamed out before automatically relighting. The crew selected manual engine ignition for the remainder of the flight and the landing.”


The aircraft landed safely without further incident, but the flight tracking website flightaware.com shows VH-FVN remained on the ground in Canberra for the following three days, before returning to service operating a flight to Sydney on Monday morning...



Quote:ATSB investigation page: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2018-081/

Summary

The ATSB is investigating an engine-related occurrence involving ATR 72-600, VH-FVN, near Canberra Airport, Australian Capital Territory, on 13 December 2018.
While the aircraft was descending through 11,000 ft in heavy rain, the right engine’s power rolled back (decreased) and the engine flamed out. The engine automatically re-started within five seconds. The descent continued and, while passing through 10,000 ft, the left engine’s power also rolled back and that engine flamed out before automatically relighting. The crew selected manual engine ignition for the remainder of the flight and the landing.
As part of the investigation, the ATSB has downloaded the flight data recorder and will be gathering additional information.
A final report will be released at the end of the investigation.
Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties so appropriate action can be taken.

Hmm...that 2nd one I would definitely like to see a weather radar depiction of the storm cell that could create a heavy enough rain shower to flame out both engines? - just saying... [Image: rolleyes.gif]

Then yesterday news.com.au came out with this story...  Rolleyes

Quote:Virgin Australia explains why thunderstorms impact flights so much

Nothing frustrates us more than a delayed flight, and lately we’ve had plenty. Now Virgin Australia explains why they have to happen.

[Image: lauren-mcmah.png]Lauren McMah @lauren_mcmah  news.com.au  

DECEMBER 20, 2018 11:41AM



Australians have been reminded lately how a spot of bad weather can send air travel into total meltdown.

Wild storms in Sydney in late November caused massive delays and cancellations that left thousands of passengers stranded, initially in Sydney and then with a ripple effect across the national network.

It came just a week after wild winds in Sydney made it difficult for planes to take off and land, delaying domestic and international travellers for hours.

And with the arrival of Australia’s summer storm season threatening more chaos, Virgin Australia has explained exactly why, and how, thunderstorms cause flights to be delayed.

The airline has released a video with expert commentary from a pilot, air traffic controller, meteorologist and other experts to explain why the difficult decision to delay flights is made.

“Thunderstorms are a very significant issue for airlines and can be very dangerous weather events,” Virgin Australia meteorologist Manfred Greitschus said.

[Image: 36c531c36c6a25e6520281cc9805ac03?width=650]
Recent wild storms in Sydney delayed thousands of passengers across the country. Picture: Virgin AustraliaSource:Supplied

“Depending on the severity of the storm, it has the potential to influence the way we plan flights to avoid flying through any dangerous storm cells.

“When thunderstorms are producing lightening within eight kilometres of an airport, we need to shut down operations on the ramp and this can cause delayed or cancelled flights.”

The video explains how operations will not only be affected by storms at the airport of departure or arrival, but storms that may be encountered en route.


And as airlines like Virgin Australia maintain complex schedule for planes, a storm disrupting one route can trigger delays across the grid.

“The ripple effect can be significant,” Virgin Australia’s OCC duty manager Damien Vezzoli said.

[Image: bfb2d9d5fd1bf5dbd33a83afe573d27a?width=650]
Airlines work closely with meteorologists. Picture: Virgin AustraliaSource:Supplied

“If we take off out of Melbourne, for example, (the aircraft) may not necessarily be going back to Melbourne. It may go Melbourne to Coolangatta and then on to Sydney and then onto Townsville, so that will obviously have an impact down the line.”

Airservices Australia air traffic controller Stefan Burroughs explained how the decision is made to ground flights in storms.

“During a storm event aircraft will deviate from their normal treks and this has an effect on us where we can only accept so many aircraft to arrive and depart,” he said.

“And it’s better to keep aircraft on the ground and it’s a lot safer for the aircraft and for the passengers.

[Image: dd663b8023b11120008c2f77c9e585ec?width=650]
The safety of passengers is the number one concern. Picture: Virgin AustraliaSource:Supplied

“When there is a storm event we work with the airlines to discuss options and what we have is a ground delay program when we can recalculate time of departures to facilitate better departure rates and arrival rates to try and minimise delays. This is done via our National Co-ordination Centre in Canberra and via all the major city airports.”

Virgin Australia’s customer disruption controller, Cameron Todd, said any planned or foreseeable delays to flights were communicated to passengers via text and email.

“It’s really important to us to be able to get in touch with you as quickly as possible,” he said. “What helps us do that is having your most up-to-date contact information.”

[Image: 6e2bcd9a79a637de87b6a0e844da095c?width=650]
Storms in one part of the country can impact air travel elsewhere. Picture: Virgin AustraliaSource:Supplied

The video on how thunderstorms affect flights is part of a series from Virgin Australia that explain behind-the-scenes decisions that affect passengers’ travel plans.

“We understand that cancellations and delays are very frustrating but we want guests to know that their safety is most important to us,” the airline’s general manager of network operations Andrew Lillyman said.

“We’re hoping these videos will also provide the public with some information about what happens behind the scenes and why we make the decisions we do.”

What’s important for passengers to remember is delays or cancellations caused by weather are considered outside an airline’s control, which means travel insurance may not cover any costs associated with changed travel plans.


Hmmm...see what I mean? -  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#2

Well: well, well, well. Text from BRB members not present just pinged on my aging ear. Verbatim I do quote it (orders).

“You forgot the list this years ‘best liked’ music piece”.

So, I check the votes and it’s a close run thing.

Leonard Cohen – “Hallelujah” – Driving home category.

Queen – “We will Rock You” – General protest category.

Meatloaf – “Bat out of Hell”  - Instrument approach to minima category. (Try it - we dare ya).

The WINNER, by BRB popular vote is: –



Hmmmm !
Reply
#3

Carmody amends embuggerance manual?  Rolleyes


References: 1) Faery dust sprinkles and Pony-pooh. https://auntypru.com/faery-dust-sprinkle...pony-pooh/

&..

(11-20-2018, 11:44 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  2) Oversight of CASA inquiry - Opportunity knocks?

Reference Senate Estimates thread post: https://auntypru.com/forum/thread-57-pos...ml#pid9547

(11-20-2018, 08:58 AM)Sandy Reith Wrote:  Ben Morgan and the other AGAA representatives have done great service in the Senate Committee. Ben in particular has drawn together the various threads and shown how CASA’s wrong policy, the creation of separate entities to be privately run in competition with each other, is against the national interest and out of step with the most effective and successful General Aviation environment, namely that of the USA.  

But towards the end of the videos attached to this thread, from yesterday’s, hearing a remarkable exchange between Carmody and Senator Sterle. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything quite like it. In the video Carmody emphatically declaring that AOPA and the other GA organisations “signed up” to CASA’s Part 149.

The signatures that purported to be AOPA’s (and other GA industry’s reps) agreement were on a paper that was a meeting attendance sheet. No wonder that an angry and swearing Senator Sterle was spitting chips. 

If Morrison has any antenae tuned in towards this dismal display of blatant bureaucratic degeneracy he might be calling in McCormack for some serious discussions. 

Wonder if the media picks up on this astounding scene. Let’s hope so.

For the benefit of Sandy and others - in pictures the attempted discrediting/deception of AGAA evidence given by Carmody and the CASA executive vs the RRAT committee discovery of the attempt by Carmody to once again potentially mislead the Senate: 

Quote:Hmm...not trying to mislead the Senate again are we Mr Carmody??

Ref: FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance https://auntypru.com/forum/thread-57-pos...ml#pid9547
     


Vs 




& deception 2:

Vs


This disgusting but typical behaviour by our STILL Big R-regulator has much documented evidence going back nearly 3 decades of the little regard the likes of Carmody as a professional bureaucrat and the Iron Ring cohort, have for the Senate oversight of CASA.. Dodgy

However I would argue that this time AGAA, the RRAT committee are developing an appetite to take CASA on and expose them for the bullies that they are. 

Reference from tailend of AGAA session Rolleyes :



Somewhat ironically, the RRAT committee Chair has opened up an opportunity for the many industry victims of CASA embuggerance (past & present) and duplicity in process, to finally have their say. However the clock is ticking 2 weeks and counting before the AGAA get the right of reply in a public hearing and to table the A-Z 'evidence' for the committee scrutiny.... Wink 

Ps A quick check - ref: https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and...ent-manual - still indicates that the Foreword still contains the former CEO of CASA John McCormick's signature:



[Image: DsaLnfAUwAAKK_z.jpg]


...It beggars belief that the current CASA Iron Ring cohort led by Carmody, want industry to ignore the embuggerances of the past and trust the regulator has their interests at heart when arguably the worst CEO to oversee the worst period of Big R-regulator intimidation and therefore industry distrust still has his moniker attached to their still discriminatory, black letter law enforcement manual... 

Not one for believing in coincidences, however it would seem that in a bit over two weeks (a blink of an eye for Fort Fumble -  Dodgy ) Carmody and his front row of trough feeding parasites, had a spur of mind blurring activity and after nearly 3 years of absolutely zilch acknowledgement of the major aberration in their embuggerance manual (see above post links), finally the former DAS McComic's foreword and moniker was deleted from the manual: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/fi...1544141238 (Note: If you click 'File' on the PDF document and then click on 'Properties' you will see that CASA created the amended document at approx 11 am on Friday the 7th of December)  


Quote:4.5 December 2018 Preface: The preface has been amended for consistency with the rest of the CASA manual suite



PREFACE

As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that its decision- making processes are effective, fair, timely, transparent, consistent, properly documented and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the law. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that all of our actions are consistent with the principles reflected in our Regulatory Philosophy.

Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. Frequently, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy may not be appropriate. In such cases, striking a proper balance between the need for consistency and a corresponding need for flexibility, the responsible exercise of discretion is required.

In conjunction with a clear understanding of the considerations mentioned above, and a thorough knowledge of the relevant provisions of the civil aviation legislation, adherence to the procedures described in this manual will help to guide and inform the decisions you make, with a view to better ensuring the achievement of optimal outcomes in the interest of safety and fairness alike.

Shane Carmody
Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety
   
Q/ Did you notice that Comardy Capers appears to have forgotten to sign the bloody thing?  Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#4

TP2 said

Q/ Did you notice that Comardy Capers appears to have forgotten to sign the bloody thing? Dodgy

Well noticed, my astute friend. No signature from Noddy Carmody? And the Embuggerance Manual - still has John Francis Skull’s name on it! Can you imagine if the ‘Big R’ Regulator audited your Flight Ops Manual or your mighty SMS Manual and it was current, in use, yet not signed at all, or not signed by the current Chief Pilot or the current Safety Manager, but it was signed by staff who had resigned 3 or 4 years previously? Heaven and hell, CAsA would be screaming ‘strict liabilty’ into your ear and preparing a ‘Friday fax’. But oh no, not CAsA, with them it is ‘do as I say, not as I do’. Not even the mighty Thor, mythical auditing hero and strong arm of ICAO picked up on this during his audit last year!


Tsk Tsk Fort Fumble, you aren’t leading by example.
Reply
#5

Testing few features.
Reply
#6

Now then;

I want you to all understand that this WAS NOT our very own, beloved Gobbledock playing the Johana, between darts matches, after a ‘few’. It was not, no way, didn’t happen.

Not this Christmas anyway – however………………………

Reply
#7

The Australian Govt 20+ year obfuscation of mitigating fatigue risk in aviation -  Dodgy  

Recent Aunty Pru archived references on the failure of the Australian Federal Govt and it's aviation safety agencies to effectively mitigate the risk of fatigue to aviation safety within the aviation industry: 

(07-25-2018, 09:02 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Fatigue - in another hemisphere.



While on the subject of fatigue and our still obstinate regulator's reluctance to embrace real science and human factors current day (21st vs 19th century) research/findings and practises on the subject, the following is an excellent BCA article that once again reveals the real insidious nature and safety risk of fatigue - Wink :


Quote:Flying Tired: Recovery From Sleep Loss Is Not So Simple
Jul 20, 2018
Patrick Veillette jumprsaway@aol.com Business & Commercial Aviation



Many of us as youngsters yearned to become pilots. We envisioned the “glamorous” jet-setting lifestyle with plenty of comely companionship on trips to exotic locations like Rio, Tahiti and Paris, feasting on the local cuisine and strolling along wide beaches and narrow cobblestone streets. Little did we know that the occupation would involve long duty days, early starts, multiple time zone changes, uncomfortable hours confined in a tight cockpit while breathing desert-dry air and forcing ourselves not to nod off.

John A. Caldwell, Ph.D., co-author of Fatigue in Aviation, is an internationally recognized scientist in the area of sleep deprivation and fatigue countermeasures. He asserts that “fatigue-related performance problems in aviation have been consistently underestimated and underappreciated” despite decades of research on pilots showing that insufficient sleep significantly degrades cognition, psychological mood “and fundamental piloting skills.”
[/url]
[Image: FLYINGTIRED_ImageSource-istockphoto.jpg]
Image Source: istockphoto 
   
Even though I might appear to be 'flogging a dead horse' Downunda; I note that the AA magazine last week refreshed the informative BC June article on 'understanding fatigue':   

Quote:
written by Ben Cook July 21, 2018
THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF FATIGUE

Last issue we highlighted the significant impact fatigue can have on crews. In the case of the Pel-Air Westwind ditching, the aircraft captain, having obtained only 3–3½ hours of average quality sleep, displayed a fixation on a simple plan to land. He and the remainder of the crew were too impaired to recognise growing evidence that the plan was not working. The flight nurse and doctor received minimal to no sleep during the day of the accident as they were too busy caring for the patient.

Even worse, the accident itself occurred on a remote island around 9.40pm, yet the crew were meant to be continuing from Norfolk Island to Sydney and then to Melbourne. This was well outside the acceptable limits of any mature fatigue risk management system (FRMS). This information has gained little attention even though it’s a clear example of failed company processes and regulatory oversight.

The impact of elevated levels of fatigue is that people do not realise their level of impairment. They press on ‘lethargic and indifferent’ with a simple plan. This can occur in large organisations to even the most experienced crews.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2018-07-19-at-6.15.02-pm-e1531996697944.png]
Pel-Air Westwind VH-NGA at Sydney AirportPel-Air Westwind VH-NGA at Sydney Airport (Tim Bowrey)

(09-27-2018, 11:51 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance Undecided

And for a perfect example on how much - under the warm & fuzzy CC stewardship - the CASA consultation process has become more conciliatory and efficient over time one cannot go past the more than decade old fatigue management regulatory (Order not Part) re-write (i.e. CAO 48.0).

Current progress: see - https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/fa...management

Quote:Next steps
In 2018, we will make amendments and develop guidance material to support the transition of the high capacity regular public transport operators.
We will continue to work with industry, including the Technical Working Group appointed by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, to road-test changes before public consultation on proposed changes to the regulations. Key changes this year will include amending the prescriptive flight duty limits in Appendices 2 and 3, and improvements to FRMS.

Now let's rewind 5 years when former Senator X had put forward a disallowance motion on CAO 48.1: reference link - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread...86#pid8186

Quote:Fast forwarding again, to 30 June 2013 the following are quotes from a AIPA Parliamentary Brief in support of the NX proposal to disallow CAO 48.1: https://www.aipa.org.au/sites/default/fi...3a_002.pdf


From pg 2 of the brief:

In summary, the Instrument is a step in the right direction but is unfinished business. There are serious concerns about the application or otherwise of the body of fatigue science and research and the preservation or extension of existing provisions already challenged by parts of the industry as unsafe.

CASA has an abysmal record of regulatory oversight of fatigue management, even without the pressure of trying to get some serious traction on the Regulatory Reform programs that have diverted them for the last 17 or so years. Parts of the industry believe that CASA has seriously underestimated the resources required to implement these new rules and that there will be an inevitable trade-off in surveillance activities of flight operations.

If not disallowed now, this legislation will continue with no incentive for improvement unless and until the inherent risk crystallises into an undesirable outcome. That is not a possibility that this Parliament should allow to persist
.
 

From pg 5:

ICAO recognises the importance of “operational experience”, but that is a tainted concept if it merely reflects what operators have been doing or what the regulator thinks they are doing.

In Australia, we have already seen how this concept is tainted - recent Senate inquiries that have touched upon Jetstar, Pel-air and Avtex/Skymaster fatigue management processes and largely exposed the gulf between sound fatigue risk management, what operators have really been doing and what the regulator didn’t really bother to see what they were doing. The CASA Special Audit conducted after the Pel-Air ditching revealed all three of those propositions, while explaining a lack of pilot complaints:


Quote: Wrote:…The short planning period, lack of knowledge of possible destinations and lack of support provided by operations staff once doors closed appears to add to this fatigue. All crew interviewed stated that they felt there would be no issues in stating that they were fatigued and pulling out of duty but also felt that they had limited opportunities to fly and had to take these opportunities when they arose… 8

… Most crew interviewed stated that they had been part of a duty that was greater than 15 hours in length but evidence could not be identified that showed fatigue related extension of duty processes had been followed, safety reports had been written following the duty or that management follow-up was conducted as is required in the company FRMS manual. Several interviewees believed that there is a lack of management adherence to safety management requirements and the fatigue risk mitigation strategies as laid down in the company's FRMS manual…9

When CASA was asked about the significance of Jetstar requiring crews on the Darwin-Singapore-Darwin night flight to extend beyond their normal flight duty period (FDP) limits on 12 of 21 flights in January 2011, they responded:

Quote: Wrote:CASA does not consider that these extensions require continual monitoring.
The duty extensions recorded in January 2011 by Jetstar were a result of flight crew agreeing to operate beyond the standard 12 hour initial limits as provided for within Civil Aviation Order 48 Exemption. No breaches of the 14 hour condition were recorded.10

Undoubtedly that is how CASA will regulate operations under the SIE until they expire in 2016, despite the fact that the same flights could not even be contemplated under The Instrument! Finally, from evidence given to the UK Parliament Transport Committee Inquiry into Flight Time Limitations in February 2012 (which we believe to be replicated in parts of the Australian industry):


Quote: Wrote:7.6. More importantly: fatigue is significantly under-reported by the pilots themselves. This is because pilots do not file reports on an aspect that has become a ‘normal’ part of their daily work. Many are afraid their fatigue reports could have negative consequences for their professional future (i.e. reprisals by management) – a phenomenon that is growing – particularly when pilots refuse to fly because they are too fatigued. Indeed UK polling results show that 33% of pilots would not feel comfortable refusing to fly if fatigued, and of those who would, three quarters would have reservations. Once a pilot has decided they have no option but to fly, a fatigue report would be tantamount to writing the evidence for their own prosecution…11

This under-reporting by pilots is exacerbated by CASA being widely seen by the aviation community as having actively disengaged in any intelligent discussion about fatigue regulation for many years. It is highly unlikely that CASA has any defensible
‘regulatory experience’ other than superficial ‘tick and flick’ audit activities and, as such, cannot and should not rely on its perception of the current state of fatigue management to set aside the science or to replicate current rules.

Now rewind to the previous year, before the PelAir cover-up inquiry began, at Senate Estimates: reference - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid8209

Quote:Coming back to the - unclosed loop - 2 decade old identified safety issue of fatigue, as a passing strange coincidence the following was a short passage of Hansard, from May 2012, that followed Sen Fawcett's ATSB safety loop questioning:

Quote: Wrote:Senator XENOPHON: I will try to make it a very quick one. I keep getting complaints from those who are in safety-sensitive positions in aviation about fatigue issues and that the fatigue issues seem invariably to accompany reports of an oppressive workplace culture, most recently in terms of air traffic controllers. How does the ATSB deal with the particular issues of fatigue management and the performance consequences of workplace culture, given the subjectivity inherent in those concepts? Do you see a role in ATSB monitoring the performance of the fatigue management systems or do you see it as a purely regulatory function? Do you think that the regulatory agencies are doing enough about fatigue risk management? I am happy for you to take it on notice.

Mr Dolan : With your indulgence, I can answer it quite quickly.

CHAIR: Yes, get to the point.

Mr Dolan : Fatigue, when it is detected as a contributing factor in any investigation we undertake, we will look to fatigue management systems to see whether they can be improved to better manage the risk of fatigue in the system. I do not have any evidence in front of me that would allow me to give you an additional comment on the adequacy of regulatory oversight. We have not seen anything that would say it is inadequate. P2 comment - Err (vomit - [Image: confused.gif] ) BOLLOCKS!!

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you.

Next let's rewind a decade to Budget Estimates 2008 (reference Hansard -  ) to a long but IMO important passage of Hansard between the RRAT Chair Senator Sterle and Carmody (feebly backed by Mr Wight):

Quote:CHAIR—Are there any other questions of CASA? If not, I have some that I would like to
put to you, Mr Carmody. Firstly, I would like to talk about one of your orders. You might want to bring someone to the table that may assist with civil aviation order 48, general exemption.

Mr Carmody—Could you hold on for a second?

CHAIR—By all means.

Mr Carmody—It is regarding flight and duty times, I presume.

CHAIR—Do you have it in front of you?

Mr Carmody—I am not really sure.

CHAIR—You do not have the order in front of you. You can pull me up then and correct
me if I am wrong then. Civil aviation order 48, general exemption, refers to flight deck duty time and, in particular, it talks about the actual time the pilots spend in the cockpit; is that correct?

Mr Wight—That is correct.

CHAIR—I am led to believe the exemption order addresses the actual time from the time
they clock on to the time they actually leave the cockpit; is that correct?

Mr Wight—You are talking about the actual order itself?

CHAIR—Yes, sorry, the actual order.

Mr Wight—The order reflects two parts. It reflects the duty time so, as you correctly said,
from the time they essentially start duty to when they finish duty and then it talks about flight time limitations as well. That is the actual flight time, so essentially sort of from pushback tothe flight stopping.

CHAIR—Off the top of your head what would be the difference in hours, would you
know?

Mr Wight—It would depend on the flight pattern that was given to the crew. The crew
could conceivably do an eight-hour duty and only do three or four flight hours. That is
possible.

CHAIR—It is possible that pilots can spend up to another five hours performing other
duties, preparation for departure and what not?

Mr Wight—Or time in between flights where they actually may not be performing any
duties.

CHAIR—Does that affect any particular sector? Is it domestic or international or both?
Mr Wight—The exemption that 48 covers is wide-ranging; it is not limited to international
or domestic. CASA has also had some standard exemptions in place that covers various
sectors of the industry.

CHAIR—Is CASA aware that operators are using alternative flight-deck duty time
definitions to that required by the civil aviation order 48 general exemption?

Mr Wight—I am not specifically aware of that. CASA operators either work to the CA48
or they work to the exemption that has been issued by the authority.

CHAIR—I am talking about the exemption now.

Mr Wight—Okay.

CHAIR—You are not aware?

Mr Wight—I am not specifically aware of the event which you are referring to.

CHAIR—Are you aware then that Australian and International Pilots Association has
repeatedly raised this matter with CASA over a period of some three years?

Mr Carmody—Yes, I am aware that it has been the subject of a lot of discussion by the
Australian and International Pilots Association and others in the Standards Consultative
Committee of which AIPA is a member. Many other organisations are members as well. That is the organisation, the group, that we have in place to consult on our regulations.

CHAIR—Who is on that?

Mr Carmody—It is chaired by an external chair and has a wide range of industry
representatives from AIPA to representative organisations like the international pilots
association and the Flight Attendants Association. It has the major airlines. It has the Regional Airlines Association. It has the maintenance organisations. There are routinely about 60 people at the Standards Consultative Committee meeting. The point I am making is that my understanding is that the Standards Consultative Committee has discussed this at some length and has agreed that there are some issues with CAO 48 but that it is going to be managed under the fatigue risk management system that is being discussed and being brought into place at present. I understand that there is a proposed change to civil aviation order 48 which will offer fatigue risk management as an option for managing duty times. It is anticipated that a notice of proposed rulemaking for this CAO change will be released in September this year.

It has been a very long and complex process and I understand that the Australian and
International Pilots Association is very keen to have it resolved, but I also understand that the committee has discussed it on a number of occasions and this is the course that they have agreed to follow.

CHAIR—What were they discussing?

Mr Carmody—That there are some inadequacies with CAO 48 and that newer approaches
to looking at fatigue and fatigue risk should be in place and we should be offering
alternatives.

CHAIR—You might be able to help me out here, when you say, ‘some inadequacies’, did
it not suit some of the airline operators?

Mr Carmody—I do not know in detail. All I know is that discussions have centred on CAO 48. My presumption is that some operators are having difficulties, or some individuals
are having difficulties, and that is why it has been discussed at length.

CHAIR—I do not have a history in fatigue management in the aviation industry but, for
the record, I have a hell of a lot of experience of fatigue management in road transport. When we start talking about these representative bodies who are well and truly representing over 60 individuals; just about every stakeholder in the industry I would say would be represented on that AIPA; is that right?

Mr Carmody—No, the Standards Consultative Committee.

CHAIR—The Standards Consultative Committee. And if I am hearing correctly they are
having some issues around a fatigue management issue. The issues must be that obviously
they are not happy with it in terms of it being too tight for the operators, or is it too long for the pilots?

Mr Carmody—I would presume it depends on where you sit. Without trying to be
flippant, I would suggest that that is the case. I do not have all of the details but I do know that it is not new to us. It has been the subject of a lot of discussion and a lot of work.

CHAIR—That civil aviation order was not pulled out of a Weeties packet, was it?

Mr Carmody—CAO 48?

CHAIR—The exemption.

Mr Carmody—And the exemption?

CHAIR—They just did not fall out of the sky, did they? They were negotiated; is that
right? They were legislated?

Mr Carmody—I do not know what year civil aviation order 48 was created. I would
suspect that any exemptions to that order would have been on the basis of a request from
someone and I presume, using our latest terminology, some sort of a safety case for evaluation of that.

CHAIR—And it would be CASA’s role to enforce that exemption; is that correct?

Mr Carmody—Yes, I would expect so.

CHAIR—If we have got a host of people sitting around a table under the guise of a
Standards Consultative Committee having some extended issues with a law, it tells me that
something is not working. I am asking you, Mr Carmody or Mr Wight, have you been vigilant in enforcing that exemption or that law?

Mr Wight—Through our normal surveillance process that would be something that we
would routinely check, the exceeding of limitations of how they have been recorded within
organisations.

CHAIR—Do you have to hand your hit record, or score record, or those that are behaving
and those that might be working outside it?

Mr Wight—I do not on me, no.

CHAIR—You may want to take that on notice, if you can, and provide that information to
the committee. But I want to come back to it now. We have got some issues and obviously
there is a representation of the pilots. And I would have thought that if anyone wants to work to safe flying times the pilots would have a large input into that standard. Would that be a fair assumption?

Mr Wight—I think probably some explanation about 48 is that it is a prescriptive
framework that does not necessarily best manage the risks and the fatigue associated with
work and duties associated with work and so the move to the FRMS, the fatigue risk
management system, allows operators to better manage their risks and for them to provide education to their crews about management fatigue as well in a less prescriptive environment.

CHAIR—If we have got a law now that states certain guidelines. Let us say the drink
driving laws and suddenly we raise it from .05 to .07 but we are still talking about it so it is
still all right to drive at .07. Are you trying to tell me that you have set some standards that
you are handed to enforce to make sure the pilots are completely and safely rested in between shifts, that it is not being adhered to and it is creating dramas, but it is all right to break that law?

Mr Wight—I would say that even under the current CAO 48 the operator is still
responsible for ensuring that crews are not put on line that are fatigued.

CHAIR—What if they are not?

Mr Wight—Sorry, could you—

CHAIR—What if they are not enforcing that law? Who does it then?

Mr Wight—If the crews who are going onto line are fatigued?

CHAIR—If the crews are working greater hours than what is prescribed under the
legislation, do we turn a blind eye?

Mr Wight—We do not turn a blind eye, no. If we are aware of the issue then we certainly
would not be turning a blind eye.

CHAIR—I would say that if we had been talking—I should not say ‘we’—if the Standards
Consultative Committee has been talking about these issues of fatigue management for the last three years, then I am forming an opinion here that you are well aware of it; it is not being adhered to—and correct me if I am wrong—but it is not being policed?

Mr Wight—I might say that there is an issue with the 48—

CHAIR—It sounds like there is an issue.

Mr Wight—The question that you are asking is that: are the crews fatigued within the
limitations of 48 or are they actually exceeding the flight time or duty time limitations—

CHAIR—I think I said very clearly ‘exceeding the times’.

Mr Wight—That was an issue if we became aware of that.

CHAIR—You are aware of it now and you have been aware of it. Mr Carmody said there
have been some issues around this for the last three years.

Mr Carmody—I did not say that. I said there were some issues around this. To be fair,
there are some issues around CAO 48. I did not quite say that there were some issues where we knew that people were exceeding the requirements of CAO 48. My point is that the committee which has all these representatives on it is actually trying to resolve this matter and a number of parties are very interested in it. We are trying to work on it and resolve it as well.

CHAIR—In that case, are you aware that CASA Complaints Commissioner, Mr Hart, has
also asked CASA for an explanation of why they, meaning CASA, have not acted? Are you
aware of that?

Mr Carmody—Yes, I am aware of that, but I am also aware of the view that all the
representatives of the Standards Consultative Committee on which the complainants are
represented agreed that this was the way through this NPRM process that this fatigue risk
management work would be done.

CHAIR—Can I ask you then can you categorically commit to this committee that you are
enforcing this exemption to the letter of the law?

Mr Carmody—I would like to review the evidence that the ICC has in front of them
before I make that commitment.

CHAIR—Isn’t it true that Commissioner Hart recommended:

… that the wording and hence the meaning [of CAO48E’s) definitions with respect to …flight deck duty are clear and unambiguous …


and that it is subsequently:

… not within the lawful prerogative of any operator to place or invent any other interpretation with respect to the meaning of those words.


Mr Carmody—I understand that to be the case. I do also understand that in responding to
the question that was raised with the industry’s complaints commissioner I do not think he
was aware at the time of the deliberations of the Standards Consultative Committee and that those who had raised the complaints with him were also aware of the deliberations of the committee.

CHAIR—Carry on.

Mr Carmody—I think had he been aware of the deliberations of the Standards
Consultative Committee he may well have responded differently but I cannot confirm that.

CHAIR—So that I am very clear on that has Mr Hart been misled, has he, or is he
confused?

Mr Carmody—Neither. My point was that he received a request and responded to a
request as far as I know within the terms of that request. What I am not sure he was fully
aware of was that this was afoot, this had been debated and that the Standards Consultative Committee itself had worked out a way through this mechanism and was working assiduously to get itself there.

CHAIR—The Standards Consultative Committee are working around something more
flexible; is that what you are trying to say?

Mr Carmody—That is right. A CAO 48 arrangement, if I understand it correctly, that
includes modern fatigue risk management principles rather than being very prescriptive,
trying to move away from a prescriptive nature to a more outcomes focused result, as we are with all of our regulations.

CHAIR—I have no problem with moving forward with the times. If that is the wish of
both sides of industry it is very hard to argue against, but if we have a recommendation—or, sorry, a law now, not a recommendation—how can you justify not enforcing it until a new one is in place?

Mr Carmody—I do not think I said that we were not enforcing it. I said I would like to see
what the details are.

CHAIR—Commissioner Hart has raised his concerns. Would I be right in assuming that
you have not implemented his recommendations?

Mr Carmody—I have not got his recommendations in front of me but I would say that we
are considering his recommendations in the context of the Standards Consultative Committee deliberations. That is my understanding.

CHAIR—You are saying that the breach has been committed because the FMRS rules are
being developed?

Mr Carmody—Without having the full details of the response, I am not saying that a
breach has been committed. I would be happy to take the matter on notice and look at what the ICC’s response has been. And I will look at the FMRS as well.

CHAIR—I will help you out. And the pilots association who represent the pilots are
making it very clear that for three years they have been bringing to your attention many
breaches. Sorry, I will rephrase that. There is not enforcement of that order.

Mr Carmody—Hmm.

CHAIR—Mr Carmody, we can sit there and ‘hmm’, but if we are talking about fatigue
management obviously there are laws around it for a very good reason and I want to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps this law is not being enforced. I am not talking about my colleagues on the committee here who happen to spend too much time on airplanes now but for the whole general public. We like to think that our pilots are safely rested and ready for duties. But if we have major operators who are getting away with not enforcing the law because they cannot do it themselves and the major enforcement body, CASA, is not policing it, it sends a very worrying message when the pilots are out there saying, ‘Hey, how many more times do we have to scream out: “Enforce the law.”?’ If a new one is negotiated and a new one is enforced, good luck to all. Would that be a fair assumption? It is now 3.30 pm and there is a long way to go. You have taken on notice and you are going to come back to the committee with the records that you have for whatever breaches there have been to this exemption; is that right?

Mr Wight—We can if—

CHAIR—I am actually asking you to take it on notice if you can and come back to us.

Mr Wight—I will take that on notice.

CHAIR—If it is possible to come back before we adjourn by tomorrow night that would
be appreciated. Does CASA believe it has discretion enforcing compliance with the
regulations under its authority?

Mr Carmody—I do not believe we have discretion.

Mr Wight—Not within the current CAO 48.

CHAIR—Why are you permitting airlines to not comply with the law?

Mr Carmody—If I may respond, as I have said before, I am not sure that we are. I would
like to review that information.

CHAIR—Okay. You did say that. That is fair and I will wait with bated breath for you to
come back with that information. Is it correct to say that if CASA were to enforce the CAO
48E definition then the operators would need additional crew to operate some of their
currently scheduled sectors and hence incur additional costs? Would that be a fair statement?

Mr Carmody—I would have to couple that with my previous response. I do not know the
answer to that.

CHAIR—Were such commercial considerations a factor in CASA withdrawing its initial
acknowledgement in 2005 to AIPA that the CAO 48E duty time definitions were being
breached?

Mr Carmody—I do not know the answer to that, either.

CHAIR—Take that on notice, thank you. Are there any other questions of CASA? If not, I
thank you Mr Carmody and Mr Wight and we will now call Australian Transport Safety
Bureau.

This was how the QON was cynically obfuscated answered some months later by Carmody & CO... Dodgy  

Quote:Senator Sterle asked:

CHAIR—And it would be CASA’s role to enforce that exemption; is that correct?
Mr Carmody—Yes, I would expect so.
CHAIR—If we have got a host of people sitting around a table under the guise of a
Standards Consultative Committee having some extended issues with a law, it tells
me that something is not working. I am asking you, Mr Carmody or Mr Wight, have
you been vigilant in enforcing that exemption or that law?
Mr Wight—Through our normal surveillance process that would be something that
we would routinely check, the exceeding of limitations of how they have been
recorded within organisations.
CHAIR—Do you have to hand your hit record, or score record, or those that are
behaving and those that might be working outside it?
Mr Wight—I do not on me, no.
CHAIR—You may want to take that on notice, if you can, and provide that
information to the committee.

Answer:
Compliance against CAO Part 48 and any exemptions under CAO Part 48 is assessed
on all system audits. Enforcement action has been taken three times in relation to
CAO 48 since 1 January 2007. Requests for Corrective Action have been issued 26
times in the same period. CASA also undertakes a range of other administrative
action in addition to Requests for Corrective Action. Disaggregating this data is not
practicable at this time.

&..
Senator Sterle asked:
CHAIR—Commissioner Hart has raised his concerns. Would I be right in assuming
that you have not implemented his recommendations?
Mr Carmody—I have not got his recommendations in front of me but I would say
that we are considering his recommendations in the context of the Standards
Consultative Committee deliberations. That is my understanding.
CHAIR—You are saying that the breach has been committed because the FRMS
rules are being developed?
Mr Carmody—Without having the full details of the response, I am not saying that a
breach has been committed. I would be happy to take the matter on notice and look at
what the ICC’s response has been. And I will look at the FRMS as well.

Answer:
If a breach has occurred it would necessarily be a breach under the existing
requirements, not any proposed rules being developed by the Standards Consultative
Committee.

I still keep pinching myself to the reality that all of the above Hansard etc. was from over a decade ago and features the same bureaucrat (ably supported by the Iron Ring), who now sits in the CASA top job - Leopards and spots INDEED??!! Dodgy

(11-20-2018, 11:44 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Oversight of CASA inquiry - Opportunity knocks?

For the benefit of Sandy and others - in pictures the attempted discrediting/deception of AGAA evidence given by Carmody and the CASA executive vs the RRAT committee discovery of the attempt by Carmody to once again potentially mislead the Senate: 

Quote:Hmm...not trying to mislead the Senate again are we Mr Carmody??

Ref: FRMS & the timeline of regulatory embuggerance
     

Now fast forward to the here & now; and it would appear that the fatigue elephant in the room is about to make another brief appearance, via Daily Mail today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...mance.html

Quote:The terrifying statistic putting your life at risk: Long-haul pilots are flying with 'impaired performance' because of one VERY alarming factor
  • An alarming number of pilots fly commercial jets with 'impaired performance' 

  • One in four long-haul pilots get under five hours' sleep before flying, study found

  • Study of 625 pilots found long-haul operators most likely to be sleep deprived

  • Experts say survey didn't ask: How many accidentally dozed off while flying? 

By MAX MARGAN FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA 


PUBLISHED: 09:02 AEDT, 23 January 2019 UPDATED: 09:13 AEDT, 23 January 2019

An alarming number of pilots are flying commercial jets with 'impaired performance' because they don't get time to sleep, according to an industry report.


An Australian Transport Safety Bureau survey found one in four long-haul pilots have under five hours' shut-eye the night before they take control of an aircraft.

Nearly a third of long-haul pilots surveyed reported getting less than a total of 12 hours of sleep in the two days before flying. 


[Image: 8856952-6620659-An_alarming_number_of_pi...228254.jpg]

An alarming number of pilots are flying commercial jets with 'impaired performance' because they don't get time to sleep, according to an industry report (stock image) 


'These sleep thresholds have been shown to be associated with impaired performance,' the report found. 

The study of 625 pilots, which included those who flew domestic, international, charter and medical aircrafts, found long-haul operators were most likely to be sleep deprived. 

And about 15 per cent of international pilots said they had no rest at all during their last long-haul flight. 

The Australian and International Pilots Association said the survey didn't ask one important question: How many pilots had accidentally dozed off while flying?

[Image: 8856944-6620659-An_Australian_Transport_...228258.jpg]+4

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau survey found one in four long-haul pilots have under five hours' shut-eye the night before they take control of an aircraft (stock) 


'I've seen that asked live to a group of 250 to 300 pilots and it is almost shocking when you see how many people put their hand up,' the Association's safety and technical director Shane Loney told [url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pilots-on-longhaul-flights-fatigued-says-report/news-story/ea5690ec94a7ce0c5889b96375ed87ab]The Australian. 

'What is worse is the odd occasion when you have two pilots who have unintentionally fallen asleep. It happens a lot more often than we'd like to imagine.'

About one third of pilots surveyed said they had removed themselves from duty at least once in the past year, mostly between one and three days. 


Those who did perceived their actions left a negative impression with management - with the exception of aeromedical pilots - and did not feel comfortable doing so.

[Image: 8856938-6620659-_These_sleep_thresholds_...228259.jpg]
'These sleep thresholds have been shown to be associated with impaired performance,' the report found (stock)

'Responsibility to manage the risk of fatigue lies with both the individual pilot and organisation,' the report found.

'It is the individual pilot's responsibility to use rest periods to obtain adequate sleep and to remove themselves from duty if they feel fatigued.' 

A 2018 British study found that 20 per cent of commercial pilots are 'clinically burnt out' with over three quarters starting their shifts 'fatigued'. 

[Image: 8856940-6620659-And_about_15_per_cent_of...228264.jpg]

And about 15 per cent of international pilots said they had no rest at all during their last long-haul flight (stock) 
 
Okay so maybe that is just a little bit too dramatic, so for a little bit more balanced media coverage here is a link for the Oz Aviation take on that ATSB report... Rolleyes : http://australianaviation.com.au/2019/01...igue-atsb/

Quote:PILOTS “UNCOMFORTABLE” REMOVING THEMSELVES FROM DUTY DUE TO FATIGUE: ATSB
written by Australianaviation.Com.Au January 23, 2019


[Image: A320_Family_cockpit.jpg?w=750]
[img=760x0]https://i1.wp.com/australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/A320_Family_cockpit.jpg?resize=750%2C463[/img]
The cockpit of an Airbus A320 aircraft. (Airbus)

Pilots believe withdrawing from flying duties due to fatigue leaves a negative impression with management, an ATSB report has found.

The findings are in an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report “Fatigue experiences and culture in Australian commercial air transport pilots” published on Tuesday...

 However it was this comment from the Hooded Canary that caught my interest:


Quote:ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood said the report showed fatigue was not common in Australia. However, it did find some pilots faced “operating in conditions conducive to fatigue”.

“While small in number, some pilots did report operating in conditions consistent with thresholds that have been shown to be associated with impaired performance due to fatigue at the end of their last flight,” Hood said.
 
Keep in mind that the Hooded Canary was the decision maker in the CASA certified embuggerance of Dom James in the PelAir cover-up where the overwhelming human factors empirical evidence (see Ben Cook Oz Aviation series from here: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...50#pid8550 ) proved that DJ was operating at an extremely impaired level of fatigue when he ditched PelAir aeromedical Westwind jet VH-NGA... Dodgy   

Finally as a passing coincidence and in another (sane) hemisphere the subject of fatigue in aviation also came up... Wink 

 
Quote:Jan 21, 2019, 10:00am
How Do You Feel About Pilots Napping In The Cockpit During Flight?
[img=64x0]https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3f986bd0c42092c83f27edeb29e47d48?s=400&d=mm&r=g[/img]
Stephen RiceContributor
Aerospace & DefenseI teach and conduct research in Aviation Human Factors at ERAU.


[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg....it%3Dscale]

Fatigue, a universally recognized problem in aviation, contributes to many aviation accidents. Currently, the aviation industry tackles this problem directly with fatigue mitigation techniques such as work and rest scheduling, minimum rest requirements before flights, and sometimes pharmacological countermeasures (in the military). Some argue that another mitigation technique—controlled rest in position (CRIP)—should also be implemented. Some other countries, including Canada and Australia, already use the technique, but it’s currently banned in the United States.

Some research suggests that CRIP is an effective fatigue countermeasure, although the evidence is admittedly sparse. One study found that pilots who took a 40-minute nap (compared to a control group who did not nap) had faster reaction times and higher subjective alertness ratings. Another study concluded that in-flight napping increases alertness during future critical portions of the flight. It should be noted, however, that the period of time just after waking up, called sleep inertia, results in cognitive and mood impairments, as well as over-reactions to events.

Because of these potentially negative effects, CRIP, where used, is heavily regulated. Pilots who plan to take a nap must inform both the co-pilot and lead flight attendant of their desire to sleep. They are only allowed to sleep for a certain time window, and the co-pilot must stay awake during this timeframe. When they awaken, the pilot must sit idle for a certain amount of time before resuming duties in order to overcome sleep inertia.

How do consumers feel about CRIP? A series of studies from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University concluded that consumers in general are not that excited about having their pilot sleeping during the flight. In general, consumers are less willing to fly on a commercial flight if they know the pilot is allowed to take naps, even when the details of the rigorous requirements are outlined for the participants. Interestingly, female participants were less willing to fly in this condition compared to their male counterparts. Lastly, the research concluded that these decisions were based mainly on emotional responses to the potential scenarios. This is not surprising, given that humans often base these types of decisions on their feelings rather than on any type of cognitive/rational appraisal of the situation.

So how do pilots in the United States feel about CRIP? In another study from Embry-Riddle, this question was posed to a group of licensed commercial pilots who responded to a survey that included a series of questions about their favorability of CRIP, and how they felt it should be implemented (if at all). The average respondent had 13,469 total flight hours, which represents many years of commercial piloting. About two-thirds flew “narrow-body” aircraft, while the rest flew “wide-body” aircraft. About a third flew “red-eye” or overnight flights.

The results were fascinating. About two-thirds of the pilots approved or strongly approved of using CRIP in the United States, while 16% disapproved or strongly disapproved. The remaining 14% were neutral. On average, the pilots felt that no more than two naps should be allowed during a four-hour block of time, with each nap being about 45 minutes long. They also felt that 15 minutes was enough time to overcome sleep inertia once they had awaken from the nap. If multiple naps were taken during a single flight, then pilots felt that at least an hour should pass between naps. Most pilots reported that certain conditions (e.g. bad weather) should preclude CRIP, and of course, both pilots should remain awake during all emergencies and/or disruptions.

While many pilots extolled the benefits of using CRIP, there was quite a bit of interesting dissent. One important issue was how to ensure that the co-pilot didn’t also accidentally fall asleep. This has been a real concern for many years in aviation, with some studies reporting that as much as 50% of pilots accidentally fall asleep during flights. A second issue was whether their passengers would feel as safe knowing that one pilot might be sleeping. Lastly, quite a few pilots were concerned that this would be “a patch for failed scheduling.” In other words, they felt that the airlines should do a better job of crewing and staffing so that napping is not necessary. They were concerned that the airlines might use CRIP as a crutch and revert to even less optimal scheduling.

This study also tapped into some foreign pilots who extolled the benefits of CRIP. A Qantas pilot claimed that “CRIP works VERY well,” while an Air Canada pilot concurred. One pilot also pointed out that the US Military uses it effectively, and wondered why the United States hadn’t adopted it yet. It seems that this is another one of those rules that other countries tend to adopt first while we wait and watch how it plays out.

So if your pilot is allowed to take controlled naps in the cockpit, under very strict guidelines, would you be comfortable flying in that airplane?

As a scientist, my job is to report the data. I do not have any strong personal opinions one way or the other about the topics that I research.
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#8

And now a bit of humour that makes you go hmmm... Big Grin  

From Captain Roger Victor, via Youtube:




MTF? - Hmmm...maybe - P2  Tongue
Reply
#9

Things that make you go hmmm...?? - LMH.  Dodgy  


(02-09-2019, 07:34 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-08-2019, 08:33 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: Dy1fKuhUYAA0IC9.jpg]

Letter from Anderson 


(02-08-2019, 08:09 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-07-2019, 04:38 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Sterle the legend;

Comment from the super coach;

”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”.

No Senator, not fairy dust, it’s a bit more simple than that; the Minister and his fellow politicians are dumb. Pure and simple. They have no idea, their life has revolved around lying, deceiving, buying off, paying off, dealing, selling promises and backstabbing. That is their skill set, that’s why they are politicians, that is their trade. So, no, fairy dust doesn’t enter the equation, quite simply you have a bunch of slimey used car salesmen who care only about themselves. They wouldn’t know a flight deck from a Qantas lounge. Fools.

Fair call Gobbles, I do believe you've nailed the problem with our gormless NFI Miniscule McDo'Naught -  Wink 

Speaking of 'nailing it' -  Rolleyes While trolling through old media links that referenced the 1st attempt by the CASA Iron Ring (2014-15) to embugger Angel Flight, I noted a comment in reply from Anderson to this Oz Flying article - http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/...hreat-casa - that 4.5 years later barely needs an edit/update... Dodgy  

 
Quote:Anderson • 4 years ago

CASA serves only the
interests of CASA.

First and foremost -
self-perpetuation.

Closely followed by
reaching its claws into the pocket of every GA participant to extract
the maximum bounty to fund said self-perpetuation.

It long ago
became an unwieldy beast that shed even any sort of pretence it might
actually serve the aviation community that funds it through the
regular extortionate gouging, both direct and indirect.

CASA certainly does
"make no apologies" - never has, never will (if past
behaviour is any guide)...

Why then does it
expect anyone with a brain and even the slightest modicum of
historical fact into aviation in Australia to believe anything the
self declared non-apologist has to say on any topic?

It has
been proven time and time again to be untrustworthy on almost every
level (secret collusion to influence ATSB investigations and doctor
accident reports - anyone, anyone...?).

An organisation that
simply lacks credibility within the real aviation community (ie, not
the segment that benefits from the largesse, corporate favours and
behind the scenes political shenanigans) cannot be taken at face
value.

Bureaucratic
regulation for all is the panacea for everything.

By now it is
clear the regulatory behemoth seeks to destroy GA and everything
associated with it, to not only bite the hand that feeds it but to
chomp, mangle and swallow to the GA armpit and beyond.

Whatever any new
purported "safety measures" might be from CASA for the
community service flight sector, it will be a rocky transition to yet
more rules that will do nothing to protect anyone.

The only new
protection needed is for the selfless humanitarians in the community
service flight sector (and GA generally) from the CASA
bureaucrats.

The "safety measures" will come with
some new fee or charge associated - nominal at first of course so as
not to create too much resistance - and given some fashionable
newspeak name to allay any unease, which will of course be
simultaneously denounced as “misplaced concerns” when the CASA PR
machine swings into action.

We all know by now
where “nominal” fees end up down the track – the next CASA cash
cow.

Remember this all well folks, for what will be sold out
of both sides of the CASA mouth in the months and years ahead will be
nothing but a wolf in the guise of a sheep. Harmless at first, only
to reveal a savage bite when it's far too late to fully comprehend
what really occurred.

Given the behaviour of CASA over the
past years, one really does need to wonder whether they are a
completely delusional bunch (given the continued expectation we will
blindly accept anything they broadcast), but more importantly whether
there is indeed a hidden agenda to completely rout GA - to destroy it
so completely that nothing remains but empty crown land, devoid of
the now GA aerodromes and ripe for redevelopment – which will all
be a sheer coincidence of course.

This latest little trojan
horse from CASA is undoubtedly but the next distraction to interfere
where none is needed and to spew forth but more needless regulation.
This time it will be aimed squarely at those who provide a tremendous
service and benefit to the community.

A type of actual
service that CASA would not recognise if it were placed directly in
front of its bloated waistline.

Hmm...MTF - P2  [Image: cool.gif]

Finally a word from our sponsor -  Big Grin


I see that Hitch has allowed a response to Anderson (4.5 years later) from Sandy to be published... Big Grin 


Quote:Sandy Reith  Anderson • 18 hours ago

The comment and sentiments expressed by Anderson and his jaundiced view of CASA about their attempt to regulate Community Service Flights I’m sure would be unchanged today. 

Isn’t the internet amazing? here we are nearly five years later and we have the same regurgitated CASA beat up to regulate CS flights right in front of us. 

This obvious assault on our freedoms, and what would be the suffering of so many ill people that benefit from CS flights like Angel Flight provides, seems to have had little or no weight in the minds of the CASA bureaucracy.

I well remember when CASA adopted the twelve year rule mandating this maximum period from engine overhaul for charter aircraft. This one mooted new condition for CS flights would certainly be a killing move for a large portion of CS flights. Several points about this ill advised move are even more pertinent today.

This twelve year rule was inappropriately adopted in Australia from the manufacturer’s recommendation without any evidence based rationale. The manufacturer has obvious vested interests, liability and sale of parts for two particular items. The operating environment for aircraft engines in Australia is more benign, our climate being less severe and fewer aircraft put away for long periods during the severe winter weather in large areas of the USA. In addition the expense of engine overhauls in Australia is far higher compared to the USA.

It really is time for a total reform of CASA, one element is clearly urgent and that is the need to insulate it from the risk of litigation. The current structure is wrong because it encourages behaviour of CASA which is inimical to a healthy and prosperous General Aviation industry.


http://disq.us/p/1zkjbjy

Hmm...'passing strange' OBS? I note that by Hitch allowing the Sandy reply post to Anderson he is by association acknowledging the latest CASA attempt to embugger/ground Angel Flight through a non-evidence based, underhanded, undemocratic, dictatorial instrument to be slammed through Parliament next week without the chance of any proper industry and/or Parliamentary scrutiny. Yet this week in the LMH (or indeed Oz Flying online) there is not one solitary mention of the AF imbroglio..??? 

However he did manage to get side tracked by the at least 8 month old story that Dick Smith had put up 'change the Act' billboards on the highway approaches to Wagga:


Quote:Dick Smith has turned up the heat on Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack by erecting billboards in Wagga Wagga. Dick is spending $25,000 on ramping up his campaign to have the Civil Aviation Act 1988 changed to remove the primacy of safety and force CASA to take cost into account. The embattled DPM has indicated that changes will be made (theoretically bipartisan) to include taking cost of regulation into account, but there is equal bipartisan support for leaving safety as the absolute priority ... which sort of negates the cost thing completely. When I asked Mr McCormack if his changes were going to make it to the house during the 10 days sitting that are programmed before the election, he rebuffed the question by saying effectively it didn't matter because he was confident of getting back into power. I'll take that as a "No" given that they will want to use the 10 days to push through what will get them the most votes in marginal electorates. So, in reality, we're not going to be dealing with McCormack for much longer (Australia doesn't seem to be sharing his confidence of retaining power) and the question will likely soon be testing the bipartisanship of Anthony Albanese. I hope Dick has booked space on billboards in Marrickville.



&..



[Image: dick_smith_billboard.jpg]



Dick Smith Billboards target the DPM
8 February 2019
Comments 2 Comments
    

Aviation activist Dick Smith has erected billboards in the Wagga Wagga district aimed at pressuring the Deputy Prime Minister into changing the Civil Aviation Act.

Wagga Wagga is in the electorate of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack.

According to Smith, he has spent $25,000 erecting three billboards calling for the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to be changed to remove the primacy of safety and force the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to take into account the cost of regulation...


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



& comments:

Krator • 17 hours ago
Sounds like Australia has its own versions of Trump, who also likes to get around safety regulations in the name of “costs.”



Sandy Reith  Krator • 16 hours ago
I won’t be the only reader wondering who Krator is comparing to Trump? Not one of the principals written about in the article could possibly have anything in common with US President Trump.

If Krator you are referring to Dick Smith then Krator you are sadly ill informed. Dick Smith is one of a great host of General Aviation people who strongly hold the view that the Parliament must make change to the Civil Aviation Act. This is required to revitalise the GA industry which has been crushed by thirty years of dysfunctional administration and the ever changing rules which have been inappropriately codified into criminal law with ease of prosecution through the strict liability provision.

Krator please understand that thousands of your fellow Aussies have lost their GA jobs, and regions lost their flying services. Many hundreds of flying schools have closed and now our airlines can’t get enough locally trained pilots so they are having to import them.

All of the above disaster situation is completely unnecessary and would not have happened had we followed the successful civil aviation rules set and administration of the USA. Lastly Dick has done a great deal for GA and other causes for the public good, including individuals with little or no fanfare.
    

Well just in case Hitch has still got the blinkers on after crawling out from under some CASA audited rock, here is a few helpful links to get him up to speed on the despicable 5 year tale of attempted embuggerance by CASA of Angel Flight -  Angry :

Ref: 1. https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...79#pid9879

2. https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/?epa=SEARCH_BOX

3. https://auntypru.com/and-the-angels-wept/

4. https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...83#pid9883

Quote:Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia[/b]CASA's public statements serve to demonstrate a vast inconsistency with respect to their core argument for implementing changes and leaves more questions than answers with respect to their thinking and direction.



[b]Hedley HardingAnd how many commercial charter flights have had fatal accidents in the past 10 years Tony MATTHEWS are you going to impose more regulatory measures on charter operators to.

Over regulation is killing private charter operators already,, now CASA wants charter operators to employ a safety audit officer to oversee the charter business which will cost thousands.

CASA needs a kick in butt.






Michael Henderson CASA is out of control. There needs to be a Royal Commission into CASA to bring back to earth. They make rules without listening to pilots etc. This just shows they are going to bring in changes without looking at submissions as they had already made their mind up. It is all in the name of safety well why don't they just ground all aircraft including RPT then there will be no accidents. No Pilot will put themselves or others in danger. The two accidents that where just that accidents and it could happen to anyone we're all human except CASA they think are beyond all mistakes, time they had a real good look at themselves. GA is dying because of them.



Steve Fenech This was never about consultation it was about appearing to have consulted prior to enforcing their fascist edicts. Typical CASA SOP.




Is it just me ? 


Matthews - “We had to go back in as CASA and see what level pilots should be at to be flying passengers around on technically what is not a private flight,” Mr Matthews said. 

All the fuel is paid for, so we’re just looking at what level of safety that is suitable for what they’re actually doing.”

Bollocks, if the AF pilots paid for their fuel, it would be safer? 

Furry Muff – but for whom? The insurance company, Carmody, the miniscule – who. If the ‘technical details’ of fuel cost being refunded is a ‘problem’, why not simply amend the rules to allow for ‘charity fuel’ costs to be reimbursed – provided the flight actually qualifies as a ‘charity’ flight. 

This all leads back to the reluctance of CASA to address the ‘operational classification’  horror. The endless wrangles over ‘scheduled’ services v multiple ‘charter tours’ for e.g. has never been properly addressed, many a battle fought over that and similar messes. Same-same in the AF situation – ‘technically’ not a private flight – by CASA’s cock-eyed definitions. Does AF affect the local charter operators business? No it does not; the folk who travel by AF could no more afford to charter an aircraft than they could fly to the moon. That is why the charity services are essential; unless the RFDS in a fit of uncontrollable largess could squeeze these folk onto one of their services from bush to big town; Ah, but then getting them back home would be ‘problematic’. 

Perhaps it is time for a few of our Senators to ‘man-up’ weigh in and ‘disallow’ the latest back door attempt to disable Angel Flight. This is a five year battle and no one can really understand why CASA have a hard on for Angel Flight; particularly on a very, very slim safety case. I, for one would like to hear it fully explained, under oath at a Senate Q&A session. 

CASA have almost untrammelled power, they can, for once, earn their money. Hell they could even honour the ‘arrangements’ made with AF instead of sneaking around the back alleys and dark doorways of the law. It is way past the time when CASA needs to be, very firmly, put back in their box, bottoms smacked and their wings clipped. 

Disgraceful behaviour, supported by a minister and the CASA Chairman. Shame on them. We can only hope that the white hat Senators will step up and do the right, Australian thing. 

Toot – toot.

[Image: DyowqOtUwAE__Pe.jpg]

   
 
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#10

The failed experiment of the GBE? 

(Def: GBE - Government Business Enterprise)

This week courtesy of the Conversation, via the Mandarin... Wink

Quote:Vital Signs: when watchdogs become pets – or the problem of ‘regulatory capture’

By Richard Holden  15/02/2019

[Image: what-could-go-wrong.jpg]
[img=750x0]https://www.themandarin.com.au/content/uploads/2016/11/what-could-go-wrong.jpg[/img]
Markets require regulators. As Adam Smith, the champion of the invisible hand, notes in The Wealth of Nations, when individual interests are left unregulated they work to turn competitive markets into monopolies.

But what happens when regulators meant to check individual interests fail to promote the public interest?

Consider Australia’s banking sector. The banking royal commission has found plenty of fault in the ways the corporate and prudential regulatory agencies performed their vital roles – due not to lack of power but an unwillingness to use that power.
University of Chicago economist and 1982 Nobel laureate George Stigler was the first to outline how regulators can become “captured” by the very firms and industries they are meant to be regulating, beginning with an article in 1971.

Stigler’s idea has come to be known as “regulatory capture theory”, and it causes us to confront the uncomfortable question of how to ensure regulators act in the public interest, not in the interest of the firms they regulate.

Supply and demand

Stigler thought about regulation through the lens of supply and demand. Self-interested politicians supply regulation. Firms demand it – usually because they want a competitor regulated.

His classic example concerned regulations on the weight of trucks that could travel on state roads in the United States in the 1930s. He found empirical evidence that where trucks were more of a threat to traditional train transport (like on short-haul routes where railroads were less competitive) more stringent weight limits were enacted.

Rather than the regulator being a beneficent protector of the general public interest, it had become a self-interested actor responding to political pressure from the railroad owners.

This may strike you as rather cynical, but there is a swathe of evidence that across industries and time, regulators often act more in the interests of industries than the public.

These regulations usually have a plausible rationale behind them. Consider licensing of doctors. Nobody wants a poorly trained doctor let loose on them, so some form of certification makes sense. But does the medical profession limit the number of doctors and exclude foreign-trained doctors to push up their incomes? You be the judge.

It’s easy to think of other examples: “tickets” in the construction industry, certification of train and truck drivers in mining, licensing of plumbers, and on and on.

There are lots of ways this can arise. Politicians often depend on support and campaign contributions. And there is all too often a revolving door between regulators and the regulated.

Financial regulators

This brings us to the regulation of Australia’s banks.

The corporate and prudential regulatory agencies may have been unwilling to use their power, but the the big four banks were not.

And the banks have plenty of power – financial and political. They are utterly vital to the operation of the entire economy. They are among the very largest companies in the country (so a lot of retirement savings are invested in them). And they employ a lot of people.

We should stop assuming the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australia Prudential Regulatory Authority, among others, are unquestionably acting in the public interest and start asking a bunch of questions.

What are the backgrounds of the people who head up these organisations and what perspective does that lead them to bring to the job? What jobs do they get after they leave the regulator, and how might that affect their motivations while acting as regulator? What would be the social sanction imposed on them if they decided to get really tough with financial industry players?

What about the politicians who make the laws in the first place? Are they really acting for all Australians with a thoughtful and balanced perspective? Or do they represent tribal interests?

Regulators typically aren’t bad people. But sometimes they have bad implicit incentives. And the laws they are tasked with enforcing often favour a particular group – quite frequently those being regulated.

We need to close revolving doors, provide more resources to regulators and scrutinise what they do much more. Let’s not be naive about regulation.[Image: count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic]

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW. This article was first published at The Conversation.

It could be effectively argued that the creation of independent Government statutory bodies (GBEs) has led to the bureaucratic phenomena of regulatory capture. To a degree that is fine and dandy for the big end of town major airlines and large MROs. However eventually even those high end businesses will also suffer through needless red tape suffocation of the middle to small aviation businesses by CASA. A healthy industry is dependent on the grassroots of the industry also being sustainable and flourishing. 

I could pick hundreds of references/quotes from the guru on the failed GBE model (i.e. Sandy Reith) but the following will suffice... Wink (ps click on the link to understand the context of this quote)      

(09-06-2017, 05:07 AM)Sandy Reith Wrote:  Mr.Mrdak might have some credibility if he could show that he has ever taken any steps to reverse the fantastic waste and mismanagement in the Commonwealth's administration of aviation, and especially the General Aviation industry which is in disastrous bureaucratically caused decline.

Can'tberra is a black hole for the taxpayer's dollar and Mr. Mrdak's complaints smack of the arrogance and almighty smugness from what we used to think of as the public service.

If Mr.Mrdak would explain how he's tried to manage the handover of airports and maintain a semblance of responsibility and watchfulness towards the original intent to maintain the aviation priority then we might find some plausible cause for his extraordinary outburst.

We will hope that Parliament takes note that all the PR consultants fees wasted on coaching our senior public officials how to pull the wool over Senate committees is further proof that the bureaucracy needs to be firmly taken in hand.

Parliament might also come to realise that the unelected independent Commonwealth Corporate style of governance has failed, and that its not possible to relinquish responsibility away from the will of the people's representatives and maintain good governance or prudent use of taxpayer moneys.

This brings me to yet another example of the failed GBE model and it's got nothing to do with aviation.  Rolleyes  

The following is the video footage off the Senate RRAT committee AMSA session yesterday... Confused  







Now although this is clearly a bad look for the CEO of AMSA Mr Kinley, I would suggest that his biggest fault is simply ineptitude and a man that is quite obviously out of his depth (either that or the guy is suffering early stage dementia??). However it is also obvious that this senior bureaucrat seems to be totally unperturbed and disconnected from the concerns of the Senate RRAT Committee. And why would he be or should he be concerned, after all he is the CEO of, a supposedly independent, Government statutory autocracy - FFS!  Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Angry
Reply
#11

Hmmmm,

As the debate raged about the place concerning CAsA embuggerance of community service flights, in an attempt to put some perspective into the alleged safety concerns CAsA had, I pointed out that a whole lot more people died each year from many innocuous pursuits than community flights. One of those was falling off ladders, seems in Victoria alone three people a year on average get killed falling off ladders against one per year on Angel Flights.

On page six of todays Australian Air Services, no doubt driven by direction from a CAsA robust risk assessment, has acted and banned its fire service officers from climbing higher than two meters up their nine meter ladders. Even the Firies themselves and their union are tad embarrassed by that direction.

Aint OH&S wonderful.
Reply
#12

Hmmmm!

I note the world is up in arms because Fraser Anning thumped a fellah he's being branded as the next leader of the fourth Reich. I reckon this world has gone mad. Here’s an elected member of the government, exercising his right to speak his mind.

“Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” Voltaire.

Then someone who, with malice aforethought brought an egg into the building with the express purpose of assaulting Anning with it; which stand alone smacks of the intimidation tactics used by the very dictator they claim Anning to be.

The thing that really and truly makes me see red is the sneak attack from behind. What a gutless, cowardly act. This arse wipe is not man enough to face Anning, debate the issues or even put forward an argument; just an act of violence from behind. Then this creature and the idiot press get all upset because Anning thumped the shit bag. Egg him by all means – but do it face to face; not the cowardly, bully’s way - from behind. Despicable behaviour all around, reflecting the very world they say Anning is trying to bring in – where you will be attacked for voicing an opinion, from behind, by a coward and a bully. WTD is that.

I reckon Anning was quite gentle – all things considered. If the press want to see what happens in the real world when you sneak in, break an egg on a mans head, from behind – come to my place and do it – DO NOT forget to order the ambulance in advance; you’ll need it. I guarantee you will not be walking anywhere for quite a while.

Having got that off my chest - we must congratulate ScoMo for a very genuine, honest, without political agenda expression of the horror we all feel regarding the appalling events in Christchurch. His heartfelt press statement can be watched - HERE -. He speaks sincerely on behalf of all thinking Australians who value the freedom and safety this fine land offers - to all comers .

Thanks ScoMo; nicely done. Bravo.........
Reply
#13

Teenager inspired twiddle.

Stray thoughts while teaching a Kid to drive. Driver training and the driver licence road test – quite a challenge; and a perfect example of a ‘thing’ neither the politicians nor general public don’t get; WHY ‘aviation’ regulation is a shambles and slowly killing off an industry. Let me explain, patience: it has taken quite a while to find a suitable analogy, so work with me here.

RTA – “Make sure you indicate for at least 5 seconds before leaving the kerb to re join traffic. You should check your mirrors and head check your right blind spot for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.”

Here’s the rub. How many of us sit and indicate – for a count of ‘one – one hundred etc. before pulling out from a parked position? You don’t is the real answer. Blinker On (tick) no one coming (tick) – off you go – unless some idiot is passing you, then you wait and when the alleged ‘idiot’ is past – off you go (to catch ‘em at the lights). It is illegal and a ‘strict liability’ offence to leave the kerb in less than five seconds – after you have turned on the blinker – Yes: it is and you will fail your driving test for not doing so. Here endeth the lesson.

Now then – how many people do you think ‘police’ this regulation? The answer is none of course – unless you have a bingle and it can be proven that you took off in less than five seconds. Then, the do-do gets deeper. But who in a sane world would police your blinker operation? Well, CASA would. A great deal of the CASA ‘regulatory enforcement’ relies on doing exactly that.

This small, but eminently sensible rule of the RTA in CASA hands would become a monster. For the car manufacturer CASA would demand a recording timer fitted; this ‘box’ would have meet a specified standard, have two power sources,  and pass through a reliability process before certification. Once the unit leaves the factory it would then go the installer i.e. the mechanic. The unit would then be the subject of a series of ‘store keeping’ protocols and a small hill of paper work to go into the store; then a slightly larger hill of paper before being released. Then, our doughty mechanic must ensure that only ‘certified’ spanners and screwdriver are used during the installation; he must also use the correct screwdriver; the book says three turns with screwdriver #14 (and only driver#14) is mandatory. Penalties apply for not using the ‘approved’ screwdriver. Once your unit is installed, then inspected, it must be tested – special approval needed – penalties apply. Before entering service all documentation MUST be signed, stamped and filed correctly – penalties’ apply for any incorrect data or clerical errors. Eventually, after a mountain of paper work and expense the unit is released to service. Now the real story begins.

It begins in the Chief pilot’s office. Someone must now generate ‘words’ and music to support the use of the unit and the intention to comply with the rules appending to the use of the unit. A check list addition is required, a procedure for executing that check is required, a training system for use thereof must be provided ; all of this must be ‘accepted’ by CASA. So finally the book work is right, the pilots are trained and the unit goes ‘live’. End of long story? Nope, only the beginning. Audit is waiting in the wings – enter the dragon.

After carefully analysing three months of data a list of transgressions will be produced:-

1, April 2025. At Kickinatinalong aerodrome, at 0300 hours, Aircraft number 4, operated by Fred Nurk used the blinker for 3.7 seconds. This is an offence of strict liability etc.

1, May 2025. At Big Smoke aerodrome, at 0100 hours, Aircraft number 4, operated by Fred Nurk used the blinker system for 3.4 seconds. This is an offence of strict liability etc.

1, June 2025. At Big Smoke aerodrome, at 1200 hours, Aircraft number 4 operated by Charlie Bloggs used the blinker system for 4.4 seconds. This is an offence of strict liability etc.

These three items can and will be used to generate a safety case, which will take weeks to sort out, it may (if the mood is right) be used to  close down an operation. CASA will say there is clearly a systematic disregard for safety; Nurk is a danger to navigation and Bloggs reflects the criminal intent of the operator to flagrantly disregard important safety matters, gross neglect by failing to adequately monitor aircrew behaviour and a blatant attempt to influence aircrew checklist procedures. Your jail cell awaits.

Some may think I’m kidding; but I assure you, I am not. That small sensible rule of the RTA accurately represents a very large proportion of the ‘rules’ which govern air operations.  And there is a mountain sized pile of them. It is not a criminal offence to use less than five seconds of blinker and failure to do so will not cost you a licence or a business. Pray – every day, that CASA do not take over ‘road safety’ – there’d be a revolution.

Toot – toot.
Reply
#14

Karon,

Hmmmmmm!

Nice analogy.
Reply
#15

An (illicet) on leave twiddle;

I’m sending this link – HERE - through to “K” for no other reason than it explains, quite well, a thing we have been discussing more and more lately. Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘aviation’ -  except probably everything. I taught him to ride – by teaching how to modify the basics with understanding and ‘sensitivity’ to the animal – an understanding of the ‘team effort’ to achieve a harmony betwixt man and beast. Same – same wood and the working thereof; same in sailing a boat and; even more so in an aircraft. – “Skill” is not a gift naturally given at birth; an aptitude in a certain direction for sure – provided there is an ‘understanding’ of limitations and the work that must be done to become a ‘part’ of any task. To his credit – the lad has learned, the skill came with practice and a refinement of a natural aptitude. I have noted that those who ‘take’ to a task with an intention of mastering it do better than those don’t realise early that ‘this’ ain’t for me – which is at least honest and confidence boosting. Knowing that a thing ain’t your bag is a positive step – like myself and bricklaying – one of my great friends is a ‘master’ of the art and I have broken his heart – “just put ‘em down mate” he said one day as I stood cursing and sweating in a pile of rubble – “you don’t even like touching the things”. Bricklaying days over – same - same welding and many other practical things; but the failures help define me and my limitations. That: is a very good thing to know.

Anyway – the reason for this rambling is in the two paragraphs below. It triggered a deep response to some of the aviation ‘problems’ we are seeing develop. Food for quiet contemplation and reflection. I had ‘mentors’, I also had some seriously good instructors and I was blessed by once having a CP who said– after a very narrow squeak: “you payed attention and made your own luck – and that is the best kind”.

Whimsy- or something we are starting to note a lack of? FWIW- old school thinking.

"He wasn’t a boss, who grunted and groaned at everything awkward to me. He was a mentor, though he would never have referred to himself as that. It’s core to the wellbeing of any apprentice to have a mentorship with the artisan supervising the work. You don’t need a teacher, a lecturer, a boss, a professor. You need those people to own the additional qualities of mentorship. Without that there’s no sense of companionship."

"Skilfulness must be earned by the doing of skilled things even when they have not reached any level of skilfulness and that is why so many people forfeit skilfulness by relying on what has indeed become artificial intelligence. To develop skilled workmanship means you must take time out from the fast pace of our present age to take up the tools and learn them, if, or should I say when, you earn them they become your possession. No one can take them from you - you see."

I quite like the system here – tap your glass, nod and licketty-split – more drink appears; marvellous. They call it ‘service’ – what a great concept……………..I wonder; -  is it a new idea?


Has the bloody  ‘election’ been called yet?
[Image: D33xGQ2WkAA32RK.jpg]
Reply
#16

The election countdown is in full motion and us gullible fools are nightly being fed the usual political half truths and vast piles of misinformation. The world is promised in the hope of a vote, as the Polliwaffles indulge themselves in sanctimonious bullshit which rarely if ever gets realised after the vote has been cast

Last night I watched the Jones and Credlin show on Sky and a piece about the NDIS set my mind wandering.
A 22 billion project to ease the suffering of disabled people and allow them to lead a life as close to normal as they were capable of achieving.

A political thought bubble with actual noble intentions, bipartisan support, free from self interest.

When it was announced I couldn't help feeling a little pang of pride in Australia seeking to take care of its most vulnerable, but in the pit of my stomach a nagging doubt, I desperately wanted to see it work, but as with so many government projects, that started with noble intentions, I feared it would get swallowed up in the miasma of Canberra bureaucrats who's self interest and pure ineptitude at managing anything would create a vortex of rules and paperwork that would suck money from the funds available like a Dyson vacuum cleaner, feeding an ever enlarging bureaucracy. My fears it appears have been realised.

Nothing in the public arena ever comes in on budget, not even close to budget, deals are struck with unions to siphon funds into nefarious union entities in exchange for industrial peace, supply gets overpriced by suppliers with a nudge and a wink from those supposedly managing the public purse, deals get done, soft corruption they call it, but there's nothing soft about it, I often wonder just how much of the allocated 22 bullion gets eaten up by administration.

The NDIS is buried in bureaucratic bullshit, its "clients" that's what they call them buried in paperwork trying to obtain the simplest things that would make their life easier. Each application carries a fee, that fee is deducted from their entitlement, how the hell does that help them? Giving on one hand and taking back on the other. A fire wall of call centres separates the 'clients" from the decision makers who make an art form out of not being available, classic bureaucrat obfuscation. The tragedy is the bastards who manage this don't give shit about their clients as long as their rice bowl gets filled every month.

Sound familiar?

The aviation industry is managed in the same way. CAsA don't give a shit about the industry they run. The big airlines are not so easy as they are cashed up with lots of legal and political pull, but the soft target of GA is ripe for the picking and picking they do. Sad really because its all so futile because once GA is finished they themselves become irrelevant.
Reply
#17

‘Crat’s at work.

[Image: D4XqvH2WsAALuy4.jpg]

Thorny’s post above  - HERE – starts with a Credilin/Jones ‘look-at’ the situations as it stands now. Which is fantastic for about two minutes of air time which makes folks aware of the dire circumstances facing the less fortunate – so what? Where is the follow up; where is the resultant change emanating from this exposure of the dreadful treatment the ‘victims’ receive? Where is it? It is blowing in the wind of the ether. That’s where, gone and forgotten. Those responsible know the public have the attention span of a well trained racing rabbit; they also know that the next day, the kids need to be organised, the car needs washing, the garden mowing and the mortgage is due and ‘baby needs new shoes’. The 30 seconds of compassion felt lasts no longer than the end of the next advert break and is well gone by the time MKR starts.

If you're short of a quid, don’t ask a rich man; the bloke who will help you when you’re on crutches is the fellah who has been there and done that - the rest will simply view you as a nuisance, impeding their progress. It is a fact of life which is ruthlessly exploited by those in safe, secure billets – like the bureaucracy. Not one of them is wondering how to pay the latest electricity bill on a pension – too busy planning their long weekend escape with the latest squeeze. Whatever it was that made Australia a desirable place to live is lost to the next generation – ground down into a sludge of endless ‘approval’ for this – that – or the other. FDS what happened to the ‘spirit’ of this wide brown land? Lost, forever, in the never ending bureaucratic swamp.

Our politicians are ‘remote’ from the agencies running the system – and; they like it that way. Take ATSB or CASA as an example – those agencies, through the gutless chicanery of the political minders are so far beyond public control as to be scary. They are totally unaccountable to anyone for anything at all. Not even a Senate Committee. Hells Bells they even get ‘trained’ in ‘estimates’ management – can you believe that - or even imagine the cost associated with training the agencies to duck, weave, dive and obfuscate their way through questions a committee may ask? It is not a small number; which by-the-by, those getting ‘managed’ pay for. Ridiculous? Absolutely. And yet, like good little lambs to the slaughter we toddle along to the knife and happily say we live in a free country. I say it is time to end the rule of the bureaucrat and reclaim a ‘democracy’ which, even vaguely  represents ‘the will of the people’.

Everyone seems to want someone else to ‘do something’ – wake up for pities sake.

Low on the will of the people scale is aviation.

Thorny – “The aviation industry is managed in the same way. CAsA don't give a shit about the industry they run. The big airlines are not so easy as they are cashed up with lots of legal and political pull, but the soft target of GA is ripe for the picking and picking they do. Sad really because its all so futile because once GA is finished they themselves become irrelevant.

The entire industry is slowly going mad trying to understand what CASA at playing at – or with. Yet, the changes despite serious opposition keep getting pushed through. Why? BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY, LIKE GOOD LITTLE SHEEP ALLOW IT. Say NO – tell ‘em to bugger off and put it where the sun don’t shine. 

Awww! – Whatssamtta? Scared of the Boogey Man?

Boo!
Reply
#18

Hmm...blast from the past - can someone please bring back the Heff -  Wink


Ref - PelAir & beyond: A.."cover-up or a balls-up"..? http://auntypru.simplesite.com/413938066/2481979/posting/pelair-beyond-a-cover-up-or-a-balls-up

For cutting through the bulldust and calling it for what it was, IMO there were none better than the Heff. As luck would have it yesterday via the Daily Mail, we were privileged to a perfect blast from the past that highlighted the true cut through abilities of the Heff Big Grin

Quote:‘Chooks coming home to roost’: Former senator warned of water deals years ago

[Image: 1555983049-Barnaby-Joyce-Bill-Heffernan-...60x540.jpg]
Barnaby Joyce and Bill Heffernan together in the Senate. Photo: AAP
[Image: 1543281930-Samantha-Maiden-96x96.png]Samantha Maiden

For years, former senator Bill Heffernan was a lone voice in the Liberal Party, warning big water buybacks by taxpayers were “a fairytale” a “con job” and “a fraud” and “cooking the books”.

Now, as controversy swirls about the $80 million deal that then water minister Barnaby Joyce signed off on two years ago, the maverick former politician is warning that both sides of politics need to quit playing games and work together to avoid a calamity.

Mr Heffernan, a Junee farmer, does not believe water licences should have ever been issued to the two Queensland farms – Clyde and Kia Ora – at the centre of the latest controversy.

“The chooks are coming home to roost,” he told The New Daily.

His principle objection is that the water involves overland flows – water that depends on rainfall and flooding.

“Where do you think the water is stored?” he said.

“They say, ‘Oh Bill, it would be in the various dams’. I said ‘No, it’s not’.

“It’s in the clouds. It doesn’t exist. So how can you sell a licence? It exists when you have a storm or a flood.

“This particular deal, the Queensland government should never have issued the water licences.”

Mr Heffernan’s criticism applies across the board – to Liberal and Labor ministers.

“There’s been a series of blunders, because of the lack of dirt under the fingernails by various ministers,” he said.
Mr Heffernan, who retired from Parliament in 2016, has never been afraid to challenge the status quo.

He once brandished a fake pipe bomb in a Senate committee to prove the building was no longer secure.

On just another day in the office, he also got into hot water for bringing an 18-centimetre knife into Parliament House.
Seven years ago, he broke with the Liberal Party and abstained from voting on the Murray-Darling Basin plan.

Mr Heffernan said at the time that “the science is warning us. If the prediction of the science is 40 per cent right, the only water that will be reliably available in the Murray-Darling basin will be the environmental flows for the fish and high-security water”.

“I voted against the plan when it was in the Senate. I told them, as they were voting, they they were making a grave error. They didn’t take into account what the science was saying about the future,” he told The New Daily.

“The buying of supplementary water, and expecting you can allocate it is fairyland stuff. And it’s going to take co-operation from all sides to fix the problem.

“To think somehow majestically and magically, if you let people harvest the flood waters coming out of the floodplain will it get to the lake?

“Of course it bloody well won’t.

“To buy that water back thinking you can allocate it to the environment, it’s dreamtime stuff.”

As chair of the Senate Inquiry into Murray-Darling Basin management, Mr Heffernan also protested against a NSW and Commonwealth offer to buy back water from irrigators on the Nimmie-Caira floodplain, between Hay and Balranald in south-west NSW.

“We’re actually buying some of this water, which is floodwater, from a floodplain, where it’s going to go back down the same floodplain in a flood to somehow return it to the environment?” he said.

Eastern Australia Agriculture, the company that owned the Kia Ora and Clyde farms when the water rights were sold, was set up 2007 by Liberal frontbencher Angus Taylor, who worked in investment banking for companies, including Port Jackson Partners.

Mr Taylor quit his involvement in the business when he entered politics. He has said he had no involvement in sale of the water and did not make any profit from it. Nor did his family.

Eastern Australia Agriculture’s parent company is the Caymans-based Eastern Australia Irrigation. But its actual ownership is hidden through the offshore structure.

Senior government sources have told The New Daily that Australia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, may have “indirectly” benefits because it invests with Pacific Alliance that invested in EAA.

The Agriculture Department has defended the sale.

Mr Heffernan doesn’t believe that Mr Taylor has done anything wrong.

“Eastern Agriculture? I don’t know who they are. They are not breaking the law these fellas, they’ve just outsmarted it,” he said.

“I don’t think Taylor has got anything to do with it. He was just in business doing business.

“They saw an opportunity and cashed in on it. You send your profits to the tax haven and your bills to other place.”

On Tuesday, the Water Minister David Littleproud referred the matter to the Auditor-General. He has asked that the investigation also include the years when Labor presided over the Murray-Darling Basin.

“I don’t think there’s any need for a royal commission. I think governments of all persuasions have got a huge problem with the Murray-Darling Basin because when they issued the plan they took no consideration of what the science was saying the future would hold,” Mr Heffernan said.

“At the time, I was cabinet secretary, I said the people who trade the water will make more out of it than the people that use the water. The water will go to the highest bidder.

“It’s going to take an enormous effort to get this right.

“There are people who have bought the licences with goodwill and hard cash which, in some instances, is not going to work out.

“It’s all a bit of worry. The greatest challenge facing the human planet is going to be feeding itself.
“They’ve got a calamity coming.”

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#19

Aw- poor little jurno’s.

Yesterday, their industry got a very small taste of what it is to be mauled by ‘government’. They are screeching like the Banshee about ‘rights’ and calling meetings of unions and generally kicking up a dust cloud. Welcome to an inside glimpse of how matters stand within aviation – you have just felt the fowl breathe of ‘the beast’.

Not that we give a monkey’s – the media has ignored the abuse and absurd behaviour of politicians and their agency treatment of a once flourishing industry; rights denied; justice denied; aberrations ignored; public safety at risk; business closed down without recourse.

Just one question for the media; how does it feel?

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)