2019 and the Election.
#1

2019 Elections and Aviation.
 
Seems like it was only yesterday we entered the expensive, disrupting uncertainty of ‘election’. It is an awful period, during the run up the politicians are focused on only one thing – getting re-elected; during the election, nothing progresses until the dust has settled and afterwards it takes a half year for the new to find their way to the ‘facilities’ and work out what they need to do. The process wastes a year, with little or no improvement or forward movement. Yes, I understand and value living in land where democracy prevails; I just wish they could get it done in speedy, less nauseating way.
 
The games have already begun: mind you, I support fully this one:-
 
“Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack is under fresh pressure from Nationals colleagues unhappy with his "lacklustre" leadership and fundraising efforts.”
 
It is mildly amusing that among his many faults – his ‘colleagues'  have selected only two for public scrutiny – and one is just a make weight – the really big one – you guessed it.

Oh well, it’s game on, we’ll just have to tough it out until we get a new crew established in their padded chairs (cells?) and maybe in a year or so we can get back to attempting to sort out matters aeronautical.
 
Toot – world weary,- Toot.
Reply
#2

THE GHOST WHO WALKS - MCCORMACK

Hilarious article;

Does anyone know who Michael McCormack is? We hit the streets to find out

From the article;

“In the end, only 10 per cent of people recognised him!”

https://www.2gb.com/does-anyone-know-who...-find-out/

There you have it. Nobody knows this dimwit. Is it because he is a scarecrow in a field? Is it because he is a cardboard cutout? Or is it because he is just another useless politician busy spending only 40 or so days per year in parliament and the rest of the time he has his head buried in the taxpayer trough bobbing for delicious taxpayer funded apples. A non-performer who has achieved NOTHING hence his not being recognisable.

Tick Tock LNP
Reply
#3

It’s no wonder he don’t know if he’s punched bored or countersunk; check out his ‘background’. If ever there was a less competent, less qualified man to act as deputy leader of this nation; I’d be surprised. Total, abject failure promoted well beyond his level of competence – well beyond indeed. If he had any integrity whatsoever he’d resign and save us all the embarrassment. Disgraceful in every department, but most of all, what sort of man is it to live happily with this sort indolence and gross ignorance; simply to feed his own twisted, vaunted ego.

Sheeit – I never thought too much of Barnaby either; but he at least knows what’s what; who’s who and he’s as smart as politicians come. But, best of all I could not see him being paraded as St. Comodey’s very own ‘Dummy’. Bring him back – sooner the better.
Reply
#4

WILL THE GHOST WHO WALKS GET ROLLED ON APRIL 1 ??

“Nationals MPs not ruling out move on leader Michael McCormack before next election”.

It would seem that the Carboard Cutout might only have a few weeks left to run as DPM. Although Beetroot Head Joyce is a loose cannon, he provides a lot more entertainment. But more importantly it was looking as if he may have been about to assist our ailing aviation industry, which we desperately need. But then of course he poked his todger into someone else’s furry purse and he suddenly became a backbencher and a Dad!! Tsk Tsk old mate.

Anyway, with the LNP on its death throes it probably doesn’t matter whether Mc’Do’nothing or Beetroot Head take up the Infrastructure portfolio because Albo the great white whale will be back in charge of Infrastructure come May. And it will be around about then that Mc’Do’nothing goes back to his little News Reporter job, Joyce will father another sprog and Morrison will be talking in tongues at the local Pentecostal church!

Australian politics - what a mish-mash of politically inept fucktards.....

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-1...k/10887816

Hallelujah and praise Australian politics. NOT!!!
Reply
#5

Aviation in Election 2019: 'Dead buried and cremated' - The MOAS strikes again.  Angry

The following is a link to the Hansard for the 2nd reading debate for the Civil Aviation Act Amendment Bill 2019:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...

& here is the vision:




A couple of things to note: 1) The Chamber is all but empty, signifying there is absolutely zero interest in matters aeronautical; 2) so much so the responsible miniscule McDo-absoutely-zero couldn't even front up to carry the Government's side of the debate; which brings me to the debate, there was only two slated responses to the 2nd reading rubber stamp. Apparently bi-partisanship for being totally mystified by aviation safety in this country is the reason - Hansard extracts :  


Quote:Former miniscule for Non-Aviation Albo the Great White Whale: ...For some in the aviation sector, this bill won't go far enough, and I accept that. But it does take an important step in the right direction. It's a sign of progress in an area where any change must be carefully considered, and that's why it has been the subject of broad support across the sector. For example, Regional Air Express, the airline that services much of regional Australia said in a statement:


"..Regional Express (Rex) welcomes the proposed amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1998 which requires the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to consider the economic and cost impact, in the development and promulgation of aviation safety standards, on individuals, businesses and the community and to take into account the differing risks associated with different aviation sectors..."

In closing, I thank the minister for his cooperation on this issue. The job of transport minister is a difficult one. I hope to be able to experience that again the next time this parliament sits. But, in government or opposition, I would say that I want to work with my counterpart when it comes to transport issues and, in particular, when it comes to aviation safety. That's why we've agreed on just one speaker a side in order to fast-track the passage of this legislation so it can get to the Senate. I commend the legislation to the House.  

&

miniscule Littledick: ...I thank the shadow minister for transport, Anthony Albanese, for his bipartisan support. I am pleased that this bill will support local aviation businesses and communities while ensuring CASA can still do its vital work of keeping us safe in our skies. I'd like to thank honourable members for their constructive contribution to the debate. I commend the bill to the House...

In other words no debate, no challenging the hugely authoritarian Big-R regulator's endless grinding down of the last remnants of a once proud and GDP adding General Aviation industry... Angry 


Therefore in 2019 Aviation is officially dead buried and cremated - FDS!


Don't believe me? Then refer to some of the commentary (so far)...

First from "K" this AM... Rolleyes

(04-06-2019, 07:44 AM)Kharon Wrote:  The carrot: &

Albo - "When it comes to issues of aviation, we have tried to ensure as much bipartisanship as possible," he said. "What that requires is a bit of compromise and perhaps not getting everything that you want–indeed, this legislation, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019, doesn't go as far as Labor would go if we were the government. But it is an important step forward."

- The stick.

Albo - "We must recognise that regulators, as well as the minister, face intense pressures in bearing the responsibility for aviation safety, and I certainly felt it when I was the minister. I know from discussions with Minister McCormack that he had considered these matters very carefully before bringing forward this legislation."

BOLLOCKS.    

This Daisy chain of useless, spineless politicians who are held in thrall and hamstrung by the mystique of aviation safety, living in fear of ‘the blood will be on your hands’ need to be sat down and talked to; most severely. Tea and no biscuits.

Please take the time to watch the AMSA hearing –



-. Then consider the implication of the Maritime safety brief AMSA execute very well. It is an extensive, complex remit every bit as potentially dangerous as aviation. Yet there’s Glenn Sterle in furious pursuit of the agency, baying for their blood, or at least a head to take home. He is completely unafraid of tackling ‘safety’ at sea. Yet the moment ‘aviation’ is mentioned, out come the tin hats and the escape vehicles. Why? What is it about aviation that scares ‘em so?

Even more of a mystery is why they don’t get it. People get killed every day – the road toll is a horror story, fire claims it’s share, building sites etc, etc. The list is long and continuous. Sterle wants and will get the changes rung at AMSA; no fear of having his name associated with any changes made. But you don’t see or hear a committee of Senators howling at the CASA about the Essendon DFO killing – hell no. But Angel flight loose a couple of aircraft and the whole of parliament is nodding in acceptance of a new rule set – for safety’s sake? Bollocks.

FDS more like – Essendon draws total political silence, nary a peep of the outrage we see in Sterle v AMSA. Then, this same bunch will be feeling all chuffed because they allowed CASA to bring a new rule set which will not, in any tangible way improve ‘aviation safety’. It’s nuts.

The aviation industry spends so much time ‘ticking boxes’ to ensure compliance with the latest load of pony-pooh to stay legally safe, operational safety is suffering. The ‘habit’ or; if you want to get technical, the ever increasing normalized deviance of ‘Oh it’s just some CASA bullshit’ is undermining real, live operational safety issues. So used to ticking so many boxes that the purpose and intent of basic operational safety is lost in the blizzard of paper work. First world countries have acknowledged this – even the French. Time our Australian politicians got with the program and put a full stop on the Act and demanded first class, effective legislation. The rules, as they stand have a better chance of causing another accident than they do of preventing one. Why should the mystique of aviation safety be treated in a different fashion to any other endeavour which kills and maims? Why are our politicians so afraid of ‘aviation’ blood on their hands and not in least concerned about the carnage on our roads?

With respect, Mr Albanese the changes to the Act are about as much use as a politicians hand shake.

Toot – toot.

Then from Hitch (sshh) in the LMH:

Quote:It felt like aviation week in Canberra this week. The Coalition has pledged millions for upgrading regional airports, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 passed the House of Representatives, Senator Rex Patrick moved to disallow CASA's community service flight (CSF) regulations in the senate and the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport (RRAT) estimates session saw CASA further questioned over the data supporting those regulations.

Shadow minister Anthony Albanese commended the amendment bill to the house on Wednesday, but in doing so said that a Labor government would have taken the issue further. Unfortunately, he didn't elaborate on what he meant by that. What else would Labor have done? As the Labor Party has said with metronome regularity that safety must remain the priority, he can't have been talking about that, and there is not much else the industry has been asking for that needs a change to the Act. With Canberra all agog about the impending election, we can't rule out this as simply being a play for votes, albeit a minor one.

Quote: he's not going to harvest votes from general aviation for doing so

Part of his speech also included references back to the 2009 White Paper produced in Albo's time as minister, and he took pains to point out all the wonderful things that document had done for aviation. The sad thing for the shadow minister is that he's not going to harvest votes from general aviation for doing so. The White Paper is one of the most discredited documents ever written about aviation. A better tactic right now would be to point out their bipartisan support as expressed in the house on Wednesday, then never mention the White Paper again. Albo is always happy to point out that most of the recommendations of the White Paper were implemented, but where he misses the point is that most of the GA industry input to the preceeding Green Paper was almost completely ignored in the final product. The fact that 10 years later we're still fighting for genuine reform and revitalisation is plenty of evidence of the impotence of the White Paper.

Senate estimates on Thursday was really a bit of a fizzer. The aviation community had been eagerly awaiting CASA's data that justified the CSF regulations, and everything was set up for a ding-dong battle between Senator Rex Patrick and CASA. However, CASA was in the spotlight for only 10 minutes, during which time the most significant event was that CASA was warned that Angel Flight might not agree with their analysis of the accident statistics. That's been flagged from a long way out; Angel Flight was never going to agree with what CASA said was an accident rate "four-to-five times" higher than a regular private flight. So does it come down to "your mathematicians verses my mathematicians", a calculator show-down in front of a magistrate? It may very well be that Angel Flight needs to fall back on the motions of disallowance lodged in both the House of Reps and the Senate to kill off the rules once and for all time.

And now to address McCormack's millions. The Deputy Prime Minister announced $100 million for regional airports, something that has been desperately needed for as long as I have been writing about aeroplanes. Last year the Australian Airports Association also took up the call about funding shortfalls at regional airports, so this announcement has to be welcomed by the regional aviation community. You could argue quite well that every regional airport in Australia is in need of some form of upgrade, either runway surfaces, lighting, animal fencing or fuel bowsers. There will be a lot of airports sticking out their hands for money, but we're yet to see the eligibility criteria. Remote airports have benefitted from federal money for several years now, but those not classified as remote have been left to their own misery. As a result, the infrastructure has decayed without check, with local councils either unable or reluctant to spend the cash. And then there's the election. Victoria had a similar airport funding scheme under a Liberal government, which was immediately halted once the Labor Party took power. Will this scheme suffer the same fate if Labor sweeps to power at a federal level?

Speaking of which, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has taken time to lay out the Coalition's position and opinions on aviation. Similar details has been sought from the office of Anthony Albanese, but at the time this column was finished, nothing had been heard. I'll keep chasing them down.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...U3JuiWT.99

&..

(04-05-2019, 07:43 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  WARNING ELECTION IMMINENT! - Barry O racks the RRAT cue... Rolleyes 

With the calling of an election imminent, Barry O'Bfuscation was obviously tasked by the Govt with wrapping up RRAT budget estimates as quickly as possible. This didn't stop Carmody Capers passing up the opportunity to a) gloat over his grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX in Australia and b) his win over Angel Flight in the Federal court... Dodgy  

What a despicable trough feeding, fat cat bureaucrat using SAFETY as a big stick to ram home the unfettered power CASA has to squash any and all dissidents that dare to speak up or challenge their status quo - UFB!  Angry 

However there is a light for it would seem that Senator Patrick, who is not up for election, is not inclined to unfurl the white flag on the attempted bollocks Angel Flight embuggerance just yet - choccy Angel for that man... Wink






The final word goes to Sterlo... Shy

 

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

Finally for as good a summary as any of the above bollocks CASA estimates session, via BM at AOPA Oz:

Quote:[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-04-05-at-10.54.42-pm-1170x500.png]
CASA Continues Attack on Angel Flight: Senate RRAT 4th April 2019

READ MORE
 
MTF...P2  Dodgy
Reply
#6

Insurrection? Anyone?

“Armed” - is violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office.

Not certain that we need to go to such lengths. Although every citizen of the USA know this as a right, and; so do the government. Their declaration independence states it quite clearly. The government are accountable and theoretically rule ‘at’, by and with the will of the ‘people’. In theory.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

In reality; things are a little different however, on a smaller scale, people do have a perfect right to an expectation that a repeated, basic promise is kept, no matter who is running the joint. One of these promises is not being upheld – at governmental level. Now, you can shake and dance all you like – duck, weave, obfuscate and throw rhetoric around by the bucket full – it does not change the facts or; make the outright lie palatable. “Aviation Safety is our number one priority”. - Bollocks!

To honour this pledge to the travelling public; “Safety is our number one priority” (near enough) there is a long shopping list which needs to be filled before any semblance of credibility can be given to this fatuous statement, oft quoted by politicians and ministries alike. It is the ‘will’ of the people to be as safe as possible when travelling by air; the people provide significant monies to support this notion, the people expect that ministers will honour their will; the people expect that the appointed agencies, responsible for that safety perform design function. The Australian public is not only being ripped off, wholesale and retail: but, are actually being mislead. Deceived is too strong a descriptor, although there are those who would and probably could strongly defend that proposition. This however in not the subject of the BRB discussion; the ‘Shopping List’ is.

We’ll make it alphabetical when it’s done; but for now just tack on whatever is not in the pantry:- a must have list. Happy to accept ‘wish-list’ items.

A).
i) Airports. One of the least ‘safe’ big ticket items.
ii) Rescue and Fire fighting.
iii) Buildings in close proximity to active runways, e.g. Essendon
iv) Air traffic support e.g. Hobart.
v) Restriction imposed on aircraft traffic movement –  Sydney.
vi) Instrument Landing Systems from the last century.
vii) Silly runway use dictates due to ‘wind’ safety rules.

B).
i) Bulk recruitment – a cover for a deadwood clean out?

C).
i) Contamination.
ii) Cost to industry for regulatory compliance.
iii) Classification of operation.
iv) Clear, concise regulation in plain English.
v) Command discretion.
D).
i) Uncontrolled development.

E).
i). Environmental.

F).
i) Flight standards and training.
ii) Part 61 and the effects.
iii) Built in automation dependency.
iv) VFR into IMC.
v) NVMC operations.
vi) Graded instrument ratings.

G).

H).

I). ICAO compliance.
i) Lack thereof.
ii) Notified differences by volume and the secrets hidden therein.

J).

K).

L).
i) Loops – safety and the closing of same.

M)
The infamous MoU.

There is the starter. I have, for my own research drafted five full pages, in point form on ASA alone; ATSB running at four / five pages and CASA nearly seven. Bullet points only mind you.

When you start to put all the pieces of this puzzle together, rather than view them in isolation (as we do) you realise the enormity of the shambles we call a ‘safe’ – world class system. It ain’t; not by a long shot. I could probably, if I tried, care less who is the next ‘minister’ but it is for certain sure whoever gets the job will be made very, very aware of the bucket of snakes under the desk and know who put ‘em there. A sensible minister would call in the ICAO, the FAA, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, to help the ministry keep it’s pledge to the Australian public for safe skies. We are running on pure luck at the moment.

Toot – toot.
Reply
#7

A long list indeed.

As promised, the BRB and IOS weighed in on our ‘shopping list’ – it was, from my point of view an education. In fact it still is; as I carefully make up the ‘jig-saw’ picture from the pieces scattered about the bench top. You must have done it; open the box, tip all the pieces out on the table then begin to sort out the corners, the borders, then the rest into ‘colour’ batches and off you go, toward making the picture appear. Where I find myself is at the tipping the pieces out stage and finding the corners. It’s not until you have seen the size of the pile of pieces that you realise the scale of the monstrosity we are faced with. Standing alone each piece is insignificant – except it is a part of the whole and it matters.

This is where folk with good intentions make their first mistakes. Folks like our Senate Committee; they only focus on the one piece they are provided – not the whole picture. If someone gave you just one or two pieces of a puzzle, the chances of you ‘seeing’ the finished picture are slim to anorexic. You need the picture on the front of the box – they ain’t got that and no one in the bureaucracy is going to hand ‘em that. Makes it a tough job.

An early audit of the Australian system identified some of the radical – grass roots problems the ‘regulator’ has – one of these being a lack of serious operational experience within the ranks. This is reflected in some of the operational lunacy we have seen brought into ‘law’ – Part 61 for one example of the many. In essence it is a reflection of the way the bureaucratic mind works as opposed to the way an ‘operational’ mind works. Can’t help that; there will always be a natural tension between the two. The best we may realistically hope for is a ‘balance’. This nexus is where the problem lays – there is no balance. Some would say this is because the ‘crats are in the ascendency and simply won’t tolerate any form of ‘practical’ argument in which ‘they’ may have to accept responsibility; others, favour the notion that ministers and ministerial minders want complete protection and are prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of an outraged industry for that protection. There are other equally well supported reasons; but non of this will change the deeply entrenched status quo; despite n ICAO audit which hinted that it may be a good idea.

Lip service to ICAO compliance is one of the identified corner pieces of our jig-saw. Operational incompetence another. The visible and hidden imposts of the regulations another. The ‘mind-set’ of ministers, the CASA board and top management the last. Once you start to ‘see’ the framework and the picture begins to emerge, you realise that it is an ugly, expensive reproduction of a master piece – distorted and vandalised almost beyond recognition. Take a look at the small piece represented by an imploding small industry group – a distorted, disjointed, crudely reproduced imitation of the real thing – thriving in more fortunate countries across the planet.

Aye well; I’ll plug away at my picture; may even frame it and present it to the next ministerial buffoon; although it will probably scare some of the copious amounts’ of crap these folk are loaded with out of him; before it is consigned to the deepest, darkest shelf ware storage facility we have. Such is life for those who do jig-saw puzzles.

[Image: image.axd?picture=2014%2f11%2fFuseli.jpg]

Toot – weary – toot.
Reply
#8

While the Cat's away the mice will play.  Dodgy

Via the BITN thread:
(05-02-2019, 09:42 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  RFFS Inquiry Update - BrisVegas Hancox opening statement etc.  Wink

Recently tabled by the RRAT Senate Committee Secretariat: 


Quote:[Image: pdf.png] ARFF Operational Bulletin OB-19-001 – Operating at reduced category due unavailability of ULFV Mk8, tabled by Mr John Hancox at a public hearing in Brisbane, Queensland on 16 April 2019
[Image: pdf.png] Email correspondence of 23 August 2013 regarding Rosenbauer Panther vehicles, tabled by Mr John Hancox at a public hearing in Brisbane, Queensland on 16 April 2019
[Image: pdf.png] Email correspondence of 12 July 2013 regarding the Fire Vehicle Replacement Program, tabled by Mr John Hancox at a public hearing in Brisbane, Queensland on 16 April 2019
[Image: pdf.png] Airservices Australia document – ARFF Fire Vehicle Replacement 5, Concept of Operations, tabled by Mr John Hancox at a public hearing in Brisbane, Queensland on 16 April 2019
[Image: pdf.png] Opening statement of Mr John Hancox, tabled at a public hearing in Brisbane, Queensland on 16 April 2019

IMO the passionate opening statement of ARFFS firefighter John Hancox is worth regurgitating in full as it so typifies the total disconnection between the aviation safety bureaucracy and the frontline EMS/aviation professionals when it comes to our commitment, as an original signatory State to ICAO, to protect and improve international aviation standards: 


Quote:Statement for Senate Inquiry.


Good morning Senators, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Firstly I support Justin’s position on the issues he has raised in his statement.

My background is that I'm a Leading Fire Fighter approaching 37 years’ service. I have been stationed at the old Brisbane airport fire station, Mackay in the 80's. Temporarily in Proserpine for two tours and two years in Mount Isa until it’s closure in 1991. I then returned to Brisbane's newer fire station in 1991 and am currently an operational firefighter on B watch.

I have also served as a station union delegate for 20 years and then as part of the Executive for 16 years. As Queensland BCOM and then South East Queensland BCOM I have seen most fire stations and been involved in many ASA/ARFF forums over a period spanning 16 years. My portfolio role was as delegate for Equipment and Vehicles and over 15 years this included the early fire station design working group.

I have been retired as a union official for over 4 years and have during this time actively tried locally to progress safety critical issues using ASA/ARFF processes, whilst consulting with all levels of ASA management. Successful outcomes are seldom achieved due to poor systems and processes, unnecessary red tape and empty promises from all levels of management.

I appear here today to represent myself and my operational colleagues concerns. My peers have pleaded with me to call on the senate to intervene. To correct the current mistakes arising from the poor management around safety critical issues. Unfortunately this is a long list.

Currently at the top of the list is the staffing model that allows “cross crewing” and the building of the new Brisbane station at the wrong site. Both big errors that will fail to deliver the best possible response time and resources allocation for the new runway. This therefore will immediately compromise the safety of the flying public. These issues need to be reconciled.

Correctly siting the station mitigates issues raised during the Concept of Operations by firefighting staff. Which in turn also future proofs the station against future Brisbane Airport development.

My view of “cross crewing” is simple it is WRONG. The phase one Category 10 workshops conducted at ARFFTE (Melbourne Training Academy) demonstrated that even with 17 staff or more it became apparent that we required more resources not less. AS management has been reluctant to do a full Category ten exercise with “cross crew” staffing of 14 or 11. To the best of my knowledge this has still not occurred. It is a regulated requirement that ARFF respond to various emergency incidents within an aerodrome not just aircraft hence the need for a dedicated Domestic response service.

I have previously been involved with the bow tie safety process but not a full SCARD. Brisbane staff initially involved in the "cross crewing" scard process safety work saw for the first time the process in action. All involved felt cheated and what “TRUST" we had in management that remained disappeared quickly. Our operational views and concerns were discarded, and not recorded correctly in the final document. The outcome was determined before we entered the room. We were only invited there to tick the box of peer participation. Furthermore as this became obvious all operational staff involved said they wanted their names removed from the document. Management refused this request even though this was a grave misrepresentation of our view.

Senators, staffing will always be manipulated under a corrupted safety system, hence we ask that the NFPA and a TRA (which is line with international standards) be the process that is used to determine such decisions. Unfortunately some in management are prepared to sign off on this current safety system process. They won’t be around when an incident occurs, they won't be held accountable. They won't have to deal with any of the negative impacts that may result. This Senate Committee has seen firsthand the changing of the deck chairs so no one takes responsibility and refers everything to being on notice.

Other safety concerns and issues around vehicles and the lack of them I will happily discuss if time permits. Alternatively I can provide a supplementary report. I would ask to submit an Operational Bulletin 19-001which is management of reduced category operations due unavailability of ULFV MK8. Also after being quite bemused watching the recent senate estimates hearing on Monday the 8th of April. I would like to submit for evidence a couple of documents that should clarify questions being raised by the committee on the day.

In Summary here are my points.

• Safe operational manning numbers need to legislated and the NFPA as minimum with a TRA completed is required. This is recognising International Standards as we should.
• This continued Attack on the Establishment/Disestablishment numbers needs to “stop” as it continually puts the provider ASA in a neutral position and the fire service goes backwards and it takes years to catch up again as a service.
• Safety critical issues and providing new/upgraded infrastructure as well a modern vehicle fleet isn’t happening in reasonable time frames through CAPEX program.

This after Head office management assured us Accelerate would deliver change and that the safety systems do work. Evidence does not support these statements.

• CASA need to maintain independence as the regulator with the provider. There needs to be a full rewrite completed ASAP of regulations to make them current with International Standards and recommendations. This rewrite is years overdue.
• Build Fire Stations in the appropriate position that achieves best response times for runway.
• If funding is issue ASA need to come clean, so it can be fixed. There has to be funding to meet regulations and provide a service that protects the flying public and airport.
• Finally I would like to acknowledge the EVT’s (Emergency Vehicle Technicians) This group are an integral part of our service and have suffered badly under this Accelerate program.

Senators we are here to look you in the eye and answer questions and not shuffle papers and bow our heads. We believe because we live and breathe the service. We should be able to provide the answers you have been seeking.

Thanks for your time today.
    

And via the Alphabets thread:
(05-02-2019, 10:41 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  AusALPA bemused by Harfwit E over D proposal -  Confused

By LMH, via the Yaffa:

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



Airline Pilots set to object to E over D Proposal
1 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The representative body of regular public transport pilots is likely to object to Airservices Australia's proposal to introduce Class E airspace over Class D towered airports.

This week, the Australian Airline Pilots Association (AusALPA) distributed an e-mail to various aviation groups stating that they were surprised that Airservices' reintroduced the concept to the Airspace Moderisation Program despite strenuous objections forwarded nearly a year ago.

In May 2018, AusALPA sent a submission to Airservices Australia responding to the proposal to trial Class E over D at Hobart and Launceston airports. In the submission, AusALPA stated that the changes would degrade rather than enhance safety.

"AusALPA ... views the proposal as a degradation of the airspace rather than an enhancement," the submission said. "We also question what problem this redesign of the airspace is aimed at solving, since we are unable to identify any safety or operational benefits for our members.
"Consequently, AusALPA considers that there is no justification for the airspace reclassification for trial purposes or otherwise."

In Class E airspace, IFR flights require an airways clearance, but VFR pilots do not, which means RPT flights into Class D towers need to rely on the see-and-avoid method of self-separation until they reach the Class D boundary. Currently, the airspace over Class D is Class C, which gives IFR flights protection all the way to the ground.

"The approach and departure phases of flight are relatively high workload phases of flight," AusALPA told Airservices last year. "Class E airspace increases the need to utilise ‘see and avoid’ measures when compared to that of Class C or D airspace.

"This is particularly problematic on descent where small aircraft can be almost impossible to visually detect due an array of ground clutter masking the ability to sight an aircraft."

It is believed that AusALPA will meet to form another response to the Airspace Modernisation Program that will closely reflect the feedback they provided last year.

Feedback to the Airspace Modernisation Program can be submitted on the Airservices Australia website.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...e0v3Q05.99

Reference quote from 8 May 2018 AusALPA response to ASA - 'TRIAL OF CLASS E AIRSPACE SERVICES AT HOBART AND LAUNCESTON AIRPORTS': https://ausalpa.memnet.com.au/Portals/5/...135400-690

Quote:CONCLUDING REMARKS

AusALPA remains unconvinced that this proposal is necessary, that it has been sufficiently risk modelled, and that it will provide efficiencies in any meaningful manner.

AusALPA strongly believes that the proposed reclassification of the airspace would result in a reduction of safety protections and an increase in pilot workload, whilst providing no real net savings in efficiencies.

Given that IFR traffic must be provided with a controlled airspace service in either airspace classification, that VFR traffic has the option of accessing the current airspace through a clearance request and that there is no demonstrated need to free up the airspace for greater VFR traffic use without clearances, it is unclear to AusALPA why there is any requirement to change the airspace classification in Tasmania. This is supported by the OAR review.

AusALPA believes that this proposal will result in a degradation of safety rather than an enhancement without any significant operational efficiencies.

AusALPA, therefore, strongly opposes this proposal.

Call me cynical but have you ever noticed how these fat cat bureaucrats suddenly come up with these money grubbing aviation safety downgrade proposals when the pollywaffles are otherwise distracted - note the consultation period ends less than a week after the 18th of May Federal election - ie no parliamentary scrutiny??  Dodgy  
Reply
#9

Clive to 'Make Aviation Great Again' - Via AOPA Oz: 

Quote:UNITED AUSTRALIA PARTY TO LAUNCH AVIATION POLICY 4TH MAY WAGGA WAGGA
May 1, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Clive Palmer and Riverina UAP Candidate Richard Foley challenging Deputy Prime Minister McCormack to 'Make Aviation Great Again'

[Image: PalmerII-960x500.jpg]

The United Australia Party have today announced a Saturday 11:30am 4th May 2019 Press Conference at Wagga Wagga in the federal seat of Riverina, with party leader Clive Palmer to launch their National Aviation Policy for the upcoming federal election.

The United Australia Party’s National Aviation Policy is tipped to be pro-general aviation, signalling a major overhaul of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Australia’s aviation regulatory frameworks, seeking to establish Australia as an aviation leader with strong flight training, regional charter and aircraft maintenance sectors.

UAP candidate for the Riverina, Mr Richard Foley; “Australia’s aviation industry has been struggling for far too long under the weight of unnecessary regulations that are crippling small to medium business, with successive governments failing to show leadership.”

“Australia has been experiencing unprecedented declines in flight training, aviation maintenance and regional charter services, with industry pleading for assistance but being ignored.”

“It’s time to end the decline and put into motion clear achievable policies to ‘make aviation great again’ in Australia.”

The press conference will be held 11:30am at the Rules Club, 188 Fernleigh Rd Wagga Wagga.  Aviation industry participants are invited to attend, by registering on 0437 646 564

Big Grin Rolleyes Shy

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#10

(05-02-2019, 02:07 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Clive to 'Make Aviation Great Again' - Via AOPA Oz: 

Quote:UNITED AUSTRALIA PARTY TO LAUNCH AVIATION POLICY 4TH MAY WAGGA WAGGA
May 1, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Clive Palmer and Riverina UAP Candidate Richard Foley challenging Deputy Prime Minister McCormack to 'Make Aviation Great Again'

[Image: PalmerII-960x500.jpg]

The United Australia Party have today announced a Saturday 11:30am 4th May 2019 Press Conference at Wagga Wagga in the federal seat of Riverina, with party leader Clive Palmer to launch their National Aviation Policy for the upcoming federal election.

The United Australia Party’s National Aviation Policy is tipped to be pro-general aviation, signalling a major overhaul of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Australia’s aviation regulatory frameworks, seeking to establish Australia as an aviation leader with strong flight training, regional charter and aircraft maintenance sectors.

UAP candidate for the Riverina, Mr Richard Foley; “Australia’s aviation industry has been struggling for far too long under the weight of unnecessary regulations that are crippling small to medium business, with successive governments failing to show leadership.”

“Australia has been experiencing unprecedented declines in flight training, aviation maintenance and regional charter services, with industry pleading for assistance but being ignored.”

“It’s time to end the decline and put into motion clear achievable policies to ‘make aviation great again’ in Australia.”

The press conference will be held 11:30am at the Rules Club, 188 Fernleigh Rd Wagga Wagga.  Aviation industry participants are invited to attend, by registering on 0437 646 564


Big Grin Rolleyes Shy 

MTF...P2  Tongue



Ps With a word from our sponsors...  Big Grin

[Image: D5na-XjUIAAojOc.jpg]

Ref: https://www.9news.com.au/national/deputy...4d72d11a77

P7 - Oh: I dunno P2; - looks more to me like his standard  "duck nose the answer - but I don't" response to do we have actually have aircraft in Australia?  I could be wrong - maybe someone could point out where the relevant appendage is located.......
{-.. .....} - Wink
Reply
#11

Another Reality snapshot.

[Image: 77c446934a33cad22a74dcc07db5dd65?width=650]

I wonder, will any of our potential Ministerial wanabee’s deeply embroiled in attempting to be elected take the time to consider the accident in Moscow and draw the comparisons. If they do happen to notice it, perhaps the message from this event should be taken to heart and something done about the Australian situation. Our Rescue and Firefighting (RFFS) experts have been warning the government that through ASA’s efforts to pay for the One-Sky monster, the parsimony and KPI driven result is placing lives at risk.  A rare event in Moscow; but, not the first this decade, nor is it likely to be the last. It happens, it’s real and people die.

"Concerns were also raised about the length of time taken for fire crews to appear on the scene, with experts describing the response at Moscow’s largest airport as “extraordinarily poor”

There may well be several good reasons why the Moscow RFFS turned out late – we need to wait for the report; but one thing is certain sure, it was not the local fire brigade who had to wade through 10 K of city traffic to get to the accident.

"Veteran aviation commentator Neil Hansford said once a mayday was called, as in this instance, firefighters should have been mobilised. “It looks like they hadn’t even left the fire station when the plane touched down,” he said.

Here again – we need the report -

“although some Russian reports blamed a lightning strike for disabling radio communications and prompting the return to Sheremetyevo.”

Too much to speculate on – however, the salutary lesson for government is a simple reality fix:-

“It took 45-minutes for the fire to be extinguished, not helped by the large amount of fuel on board for the 2½ hour-flight to Murmansk.”

How much longer can the Halfwit’s luck hold out and who will be in the ministerial hot seat when Australia looses one at Mildura, in the fog, with no RFFS on site until 15 minutes after the fireball. Food for thought ain’t it.
Reply
#12

(05-08-2019, 07:04 AM)P7_TOM Wrote:  Another Reality snapshot.

[Image: 77c446934a33cad22a74dcc07db5dd65?width=650]

I wonder, will any of our potential Ministerial wanabee’s deeply embroiled in attempting to be elected take the time to consider the accident in Moscow and draw the comparisons. If they do happen to notice it, perhaps the message from this event should be taken to heart and something done about the Australian situation. Our Rescue and Firefighting (RFFS) experts have been warning the government that through ASA’s efforts to pay for the One-Sky monster, the parsimony and KPI driven result is placing lives at risk.  A rare event in Moscow; but, not the first this decade, nor is it likely to be the last. It happens, it’s real and people die.

"Concerns were also raised about the length of time taken for fire crews to appear on the scene, with experts describing the response at Moscow’s largest airport as “extraordinarily poor”

There may well be several good reasons why the Moscow RFFS turned out late – we need to wait for the report; but one thing is certain sure, it was not the local fire brigade who had to wade through 10 K of city traffic to get to the accident.

"Veteran aviation commentator Neil Hansford said once a mayday was called, as in this instance, firefighters should have been mobilised. “It looks like they hadn’t even left the fire station when the plane touched down,” he said.

Here again – we need the report -

“although some Russian reports blamed a lightning strike for disabling radio communications and prompting the return to Sheremetyevo.”

Too much to speculate on – however, the salutary lesson for government is a simple reality fix:-

“It took 45-minutes for the fire to be extinguished, not helped by the large amount of fuel on board for the 2½ hour-flight to Murmansk.”

How much longer can the Halfwit’s luck hold out and who will be in the ministerial hot seat when Australia looses one at Mildura, in the fog, with no RFFS on site until 15 minutes after the fireball. Food for thought ain’t it.

P2 addition: via https://simpleflying.com/aeroflot-crash/  

Quote:...One thing that strikes as surprising is that the fire crew seem to have a fairly long response time to reach the aircraft. Given that the aircraft was squawking 7700 prior to landing, one would assume that the fire crew would already have been en route to respond in a ‘just in case’ capacity. This is often the case when an aircraft lands after declaring an emergency. Instead, all the footage shows that at least 60 seconds after the aircraft came to a halt, the fire service was still not in attendance...

P2 - Watch for the fire trucks?? 



Ps Read some of the comments -  Undecided

[Image: D6AUvQaV4AA7VBc.jpg]

Ref: RFFS Inquiry Update - BrisVegas Hancox opening statement etc. 

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#13

The Devil’s Advocate –

In defence of the Moscow RFFS; more in hope that ‘the media’ may take a more balanced, intelligent look at aircraft accidents. Why? – Well grounded media reports could greatly assist the Australian governments see the need to listen to; and, act on the expert advice our own excellent RFFS offer. The following paragraph being a good example of the ‘short fall’ which IMO trivialises the enormous difficulties of ‘saving lives’ after an event has occurred.

“As a result, the main landing gear collapsed and the fuel tanks ruptured, leaving the aeroplane to careen off the runway on its nose gear and engines, resulting in a massive fire.”

The optimum time to ‘save lives’ was as soon as possible after the fire started – if not before. Had the aircraft simply ‘collapsed in a smoking heap on the runway – before the fire took hold – it is a good bet that the survival rate would have been 100%. This did not happen – what we see is a very heavy machine, at speed careering along the ground – ‘on fire’. There is not anywhere on this planet a RFFS service which could do anything – at all – to assist. As the aircraft slowed (ground) to a halt, the optimum time for saving life was reduced by a considerable margin; the situation as dangerous to rescue crew as to the passengers.

When an aircraft has a ‘problem’ which requires a return to land – a.s.a.p. the flight crew have options – “Mayday” requires no explanation: a PAN call whilst serious triggers a less intense response – maybe even the question from the ground – ‘do you require services’ if the crew have not requested the services required (routine SOP). Watch any of the video of aircraft in trouble and you will see the first response RFFS lined up ready to do their jobs once the aircraft comes to rest; they even ‘chase’ the aircraft to the end of the ground roll, so as to get busy at the first opportunity.  Provided the RFFS is on site and fit for purpose – any purpose necessary. This cannot happen if the required men (and women) are not ‘on-deck’ and trained. This cannot happen if those men and women do not have the equipment to do their dangerous, life saving work.

Air Services Australia (ASA) are required to ensure that these services are available. ASA are a monopoly, they make a profit. The top layers have KPI and bonus; there is no incentive to reinvest in the service – by turning a profit (and bonus) into a loss and seeking additional funds to properly acquit their responsibility.

The Moscow scenario could happen at any aerodrome in Australia any tick of the clock; think Mildura fog. What if one of those aircraft had a main gear collapse? What if one of those aircraft had a heavy landing and ran off the runway? Who would be there to assist? The short answer is no one – no one to dog the aircraft until it was safely off the runway. The Australian travelling public are travelling on pure luck once they leave a major airport for a regional centre. The RFFS services have been warning the government about the situation. – Perhaps, it’s time the government listened to the experts, not the Halfwits who work on ‘statistics’ instead of counting the ultimate cost in flesh and blood burning to death in fire.

It would be great if a journalist could do an expose on the warnings issued to a string of ministers; the lack of equipment and the ‘system’ in place for RFFS at regional destinations; said Journalist could even throw in the lip service paid to and the obfuscation of the obligations Australia has under the ICAO agreement.

Reply
#14

UNCONCIOUS BIAS

Is CAsA infected with unconscious Bias against GA in Australia?

Quote:

"Unconscious biases are social stereotypes about certain groups of people that individuals form outside their own conscious awareness. Everyone holds unconscious beliefs about various social and identity groups, and these biases stem from one's tendency to organize social worlds by categorizing."

Google it, you might be surprised.
Reply
#15

Aviation – and the poison chalice piss take within? Dodgy 

Reference the McDonaught thread:

(05-14-2019, 08:33 AM)Kharon Wrote:  ...I wonder how St. Commode’s top team respond when he actually deigns to make an appearance; I also wonder how they have managed to fool him into relying on them – I do. Take a look at the St. Commode top line up – and despair. J (where’s my marbles) Aleck who is well known to industry and needs no introduction.– Crawford a workshop refugee who, happily, has nothing to do with maintenance, managing ‘aviation’ – although on what grounds he is qualified to do that defies logic and this Monahan – ex military high roller, who suddenly switches to ‘civil’. Aye, it’s a grand team – small wonder the politicians and journalists steer clear of interfering when matters aeronautical and public safety is such capable hands. 

But, not to worry – we have the TAAAF to defend us- look at their stellar accomplishments over the last three years; read their vision of the future in the huge changes they intend to ring in – after the election – when they know who to talk to. There now, you see – I was worried about nothing – we are all in such capable, qualified hands; with McDonaught at the helm. Aye-


Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here.

Toot - True dat – toot.

The following is an extract from this week's edition of the SBG: 

(05-12-2019, 12:32 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Nah! - Duck this – for a game of soldiers.



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


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

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

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

My attention was drawn to the video segment which with the benefit of time and hindsight now puts up some interesting quandaries -  Huh 

For the sake of history and to help understand the basis for my 'quandaries' here is the Hansard link: HERE

And this is the CASA Hansard broken into 2 segments, the NX questioning and the DF questioning:

Quote:P2 comment: Note how tetchy and defensive Skidmore is?

[18: 38]

CHAIR: Questions for CASA?.

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Skidmore, I understand there is a rally of general aviation taking place in Tamworth tomorrow. You are probably aware of that.

Mr Skidmore : Yes, I am.

Senator XENOPHON: As I understand it, there are a number of unhappy parties involved in general aviation who are concerned about a number of issues, including the ADS-B. Has CASA had an opportunity to engage with the various groups that will be at this rally in Tamworth tomorrow?

Mr Skidmore : I am not exactly sure who will be at the rally tomorrow so it is difficult to actually say we have engaged with anyone, but we have engaged with a number of people regarding ADS-B.

Senator XENOPHON: Is there any plan to delay the implementation of ADS-B, given some of the concerns that have been raised in the general aviation community? You are aware of the submission of Dick Smith, of 14 August last year and the evidence that he gave to a Senate inquiry in respect of this?

Mr Skidmore : Currently CASA has no plans to extend or change the mandate that we have for ADS-B.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are aware of the concerns of the financial impact it would have on general aviation.

Mr Skidmore : I am aware that concerns have been raised, yes.

Senator XENOPHON: Have those concerns been tested in any way or have there been attempts to ascertain in CASA's eyes the validity or otherwise of those concerns about the impact of ADS-B on general aviation.

Mr Skidmore : The mandate was set some time ago and a regulation impact statement was made at the time. We have not gone back and revised or updated that, because the mandate was established some time—I think it was in the 2012 sort of time frame. However, I will say that we have been engaging with avionics companies, getting an understanding of systems that are out there and looking at how costs could be reduced.

Senator XENOPHON: You are aware that we are due to start, I think, well before you New Zealand, for instance, with ADS-B. Is that your understanding?

Mr Skidmore : I would have to check the timing in regard to New Zealand. Ours is 2017. I am aware that the United States is 2020.

Senator XENOPHON: So we are starting three years before the US. I stand to be corrected, but I think New Zealand is due to start a year after the US.

Mr Skidmore : I believe it might be 2021, from memory. But the mandate that has been set was established some time ago, and the consultation that occurred with industry occurred back then in regard to establishing the time frames. I would have to find some of the details regarding.

Senator XENOPHON: Because of time constraints, what has been put to me by a number of people in the general aviation community is that many general aviation operators will hit the wall because of ADS-B, that it will be a significant financial impost and that costs would in all likelihood come down significantly once the US adopted by 2020, so why are we doing this several years earlier than the US, which is going to be the market leader, if you like, in rolling this out?

Mr Skidmore : I do not think that anyone disagrees that ADS-B is a good system. We are putting it in place and there are already 73, or 75, stations that Air Services has established. The system is up and running. It is already being used. There are a number of people who have already implemented ADS-B. We would be turning around and denying them the benefits of ADS-B if we—

Senator XENOPHON: What proportion of general aviation would have implemented ADS-B, do you think? Can you take that on notice.

Mr Skidmore : Can I just correct—the mandate is for IFR aircraft. That encompasses a number of operators and a number of systems; it is not just general aviation. In regard to the exact numbers of those who have implemented ADS-B in the general aviation space, I do not have those numbers with me.

Senator XENOPHON: Would you take that on notice.


Mr Skidmore : I can take that on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Is CASA still open to talking to representatives of the general aviation community about their serious concerns respect of ADS-B.

Mr Skidmore : Anyone can talk to us in regard to asking for an exemption if they can put forward a good safety case, and we are happy to look at it.

Senator XENOPHON: That was not the question. The question was about the implementation date, which many in general aviation fear will be disastrous for general aviation in this country.

Mr Skidmore : CASA has currently said—there is an established mandate in regard to the time frame for ADS-B and we have no plans of changing that at this stage.

Senator XENOPHON: Notwithstanding Australia's unique regime and the sort of evidence that Mr Smith gave when he gave evidence.

Mr Skidmore : There are also other arguments they would say that if we waited until America was implementing then there not be the systems around and the price would go up.

Senator XENOPHON: What, if there is more of it—

Mr Skidmore : No. Because all the systems would be being used and being implemented into systems in America.

Senator XENOPHON: Right, so there has been an analysis of that?

Mr Skidmore : I am just saying there are other arguments that support that.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but has that argument been tested as a subject to any analysis to verify that argument, both ways.

Mr Skidmore : Exactly, both ways. I haven't got the argument in regards to the other issues associated with ADS-B, either.

Senator XENOPHON: Have you been invited to attend the Tamworth meeting tomorrow?

Mr Skidmore : No, I have not, Senator.

Senator XENOPHON: I honestly did not know whether you had been invited or not.
 
To begin note the individual over Skidmore's right shoulder, it is none other than St Carmode. However at that point in time he wasn't the patron Saint of Oz Aviation Safety but rather he was in some obscure position as deputy dog to M&M:


Quote:Shane Carmody: Deputy Secretary (April to October 2016)

[Image: ShaneCarmody.jpg]
In his role as Deputy Secretary, Shane Carmody was responsible for delivering the transport security, air transport and services to territories programs.

Shane was the Department's representative on the board of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. He was also the Department's disability champion.
  
Note that St Carmode was only in the job for less than a month prior to the Senate Estimates. He did appear on the front row with M&M for the initial Departmental session but did not contribute one word to the Hansard. He then removed himself to the 2nd row for all other sessions ( ref -   [Image: video.gif]Watch ParlView Video ) which included the CASA session - gotta wonder why on earth he would be hanging around?

Then consider that not only was this Heffernan's last Estimates but it was also to be Skidmore's last hurrah, as he was to unexpectedly resign just over three months later. And of course that saw St Carmode step into the Acting CEO some five months after the 5 May 2016 Budget Estimates session. 

In hindsight it kind of begs the question to whether CC was parachuted into the (vaguely defined) M&M deputy dog position because it had already been decided that Skidmore did not fit the mould as a Iron Ring compliant CEO and therefore had to go??  

This brings me to the 2nd part of the session (from about 06:00 minutes on the video): 
   
Quote:CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, have you a couple of quick ones?

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put my questions on notice, given the time constraints. Mr Skidmore, the industry has been very positive about sector risk profiles. I would like an update on where CASA's view is with that process, who you have got working on it and what resources you are investing in it. It appears to be a good way of collaborating with industry.

Mr Skidmore : I will take that on notice, and thank you very much for those comments.

Senator FAWCETT: The ASRR, some of the updates you provided online, particularly your speech in Canada about some of the progress and things moving forward—can you give us an update against each of the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth report, just as to where you are at and your time frame for implementation.

Mr Skidmore : We can certainly give you an update with regard to the government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report and what our implementation is on those.

Senator FAWCETT: I know what the government response was. I am interested in where you are at and where your time frame for implementation is going, particularly around the issues that you are obviously aware of—48 paragraph 1 parts 61 and 141, the things that are concerning industry, but I am also interested, for example, in how well the industry complaints commissioner is functioning in the way that Forsyth envisaged to get quick turnaround times. I would appreciate some actual facts and figures around number of complaints, times for resolution, what the outcomes were and how many have had to go back to the board member to indicate that CASA has taken a view that perhaps the independent expert, the board member, did not think was going to be appropriate.

Mr Skidmore : We can certainly do that. The terms of reference for the ICC were amended to be 'report directly to the board.' That was one of the aspects of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review that we have implemented. We can give you more figures in regard to the ICC process and the complaints.

Senator FAWCETT: We have spoken on many occasions about colour vision deficient pilots. We spoke about the safety case that exists for implementing an individualised capacity or functional text test for somebody who has failed the bench level testing. I am wondering what your current position is on that.

Mr Skidmore : I have reviewed the paper and I have had the paper reviewed in regard to proposing an operational test to be conducted each year. I am concerned that we would be imposing another cost on applicants in regard to that. That worries me, to start with. I am also concerned that operational testing incorporates many variables that we have no control over. We are working internationally with other regulators—we are proposing papers to get some sort of common standard across all of us in regard to assessing CVD.

Senator FAWCETT: The feedback I have had from pilots who are affected by this is that they would prefer to wear that cost as opposed to having the door closed in their face, which is what many of them are facing at the moment. In terms of the evidence, as we have talked about before, I see very little difference to assessing somebody's capability to pass an IRT on a given day—and we assume they are then going to be safe for the following year. I will follow that with interest.

Mr Skidmore : Chair, can I say thank you very much for your support for aviation and regional aviation in particular. - P2 comment: That line suggests to me that Skidmore also knew that this would be his last Estimates session.

CHAIR: Thank you, and thank you for putting up with me.

The 'thank you for those comments' in regards to the Fawcett SRP QON suggests to me that Skidmore had taken ownership of the SRP concept and the AQON reinforces this hypothesis:

Quote:Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put my questions on notice, given the time constraints. Mr Skidmore, the
industry has been very positive about sector risk profiles. I would like an update on where CASA's view is with
that process, who you have got working on it and what resources you are investing in it. It appears to be a good
way of collaborating with industry.

Mr Skidmore: I will take that on notice, and thank you very much for those comments.

Answer:

CASA considers that Sector Risk Profiling (SRP) is an effective risk management tool to assist the aviation
industry in developing an understanding of the effects of risks in order to maximise their aviation safety
performance. SRPs that have already been developed are in the areas of aerial application and aerial mustering.
In 2016 CASA expects to publish SRPs in aerodromes, small aeroplanes, large aeroplanes and offshore
helicopter transport. The SRPs in helicopter emergency medical services and aerial ambulance sectors are
expected to be published in 2016-17.

The profiles are developed by a team of subject matter experts drawn from CASA’s operational areas that
collect and analyse relevant data. The data and other additional information are reviewed collectively by CASA
and representatives from the relevant sector prior to finalising the SRP.
   
According to the Fort Fumble R&S webpage the SRP concept mysteriously stopped at the small aeroplanes transport sector. Ironically the last official SRP to be produced was countersigned by St Carmode when he was in the Acting CEO role. Less than 2 months later CC was to become the latest CEO/DAS of Fort Fumble and since that time there has been no more SRPs published, including the promised SRPs in the above QON??

Finally this brings me back full circle to the Tamworth Aviation rally which occurred the day after the Senate Estimates session:

[Image: Tamworth-GA-Day-800x354.png] 

Ref: https://auntypru.com/friday-may-6-2016-industry-rally/

8 days later (i.e. tonight eve three years ago) Lead Balloon wrote the following extremely relevant and topical (today - i.e NOW) post on the UP thread - "Tamworth industry rally":    

Quote:...One substantial but largely unheralded recent victory for GA was a result of the community's response to CASA's knee-jerk after the tragic accident that occurred during an Angel Flight near Bendigo a while ago. 


The community worked out that the amount of good done by Angel Flight and other "community service" activities far outweighed the very rare accidents. The community grasped the concept that no activity is risk free, and going to hospital by road or not at all may be riskier than going by light aircraft. 

This filtered upwards to the people who actually make the decisions in aviation regulation. And that's not CASA.

GA has to remind the community of the value to the community of GA away from the big cities. 

The major parties and the public service in Canberra are now 'the protected'. Almost none of the mess they create for GA has any substantial effects on them. They don't care. Literally: they don't care. Because they don't have to. Individually and personally some of them may, but they're part of a machine that's evolved for only one reason, and it isn't to promote the public interest. They want to keep their job? They do what the machine demands. 

Ask yourself: How did Bill Heffernan, or David Fawcett, or Fiona Nash, or Jan McLucas, or Ian MacDonald, or Glen Sterle - or any other of the people who've expressed strong opinions in senate inquiries - actually vote on the floor of the Senate to change anything about what they'd heard or found.

It's a machine that's evolved to protect itself. At your expense. And it's fine tuned to take advantage of the false dichotomy between "one side" - Labour - and "the other side" - the Coalition.

So far as GA is concerned (at least) everyone needs to understand this: The major parties are the same side

Another inquiry is always welcome. More activity, more crumbs for the chooks in industry to pick at, more excuses for inaction, more hard-hitting recommendations, more questions at Estimates, more credulous fools thinking: "Finally, this time"... 

More ... pantomime.

The more Members of Parliament there are who represent their community, the less remote the chances that decisions will be made in the interests of the community

I don't particularly care whether a candidate's green, red, blue, pink, gay, straight, vegan, omnivore, carnivore, left, right, centre, illiterate, educated, male, female, any one or more of the letters in LGTBI, religious, agnostic or whatever. I just want to know that they're not wearing a party straightjacket. Then I have a remote chance of working out whether what they say has any potential connection to how they may vote on the floor of the Parliament...

Hmm...kind of begs the question - was there ever a SRP created that encompassed 'community service flights' -  Huh 

If not why not?


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#16

Interesting construct P2.

Couple of points there which make you go Hmmmn!

For instance – why has the SRP become moribund after Skidmore? It is a brilliant system, a proven, demonstrated and statistically supported winner. Look no further than the Air Ag sector; CASA and that industry nutting out the problems, finding solutions, making the whole thing work better, safer and compliant. Why would anyone want to deprive each industry sector of that advantage? Clearly the inestimable Fawcett thought it a good thing and he would know. Passing strange is the St. Commode attitude, I’d say.

P2 – “To begin note the individual over Skidmore's right shoulder, it is none other than St Carmode. However at that point in time he wasn't the patron Saint of Oz Aviation Safety but rather he was in some obscure position as deputy dog to M&M:”

I enjoyed the Hansard video – great to see ‘Heff’ in action. At the time, we all paid a great deal of attention to what was being said and etc. This time around, once I got past the terrible Skidmore tie – I happened to focus on the back row – and, you are correct, non other than St. Commode himself – rewind – take a closer look and watch. There is a sequence early on where Skidmore is rattling on about ADSB – Commode is sitting forward, arms on knees with a face like a slapped arse – then Skidmore says something and Commode makes a dismissive hand gesture, sits back clearly disgusted. The next time we see Commode – he has his name plate in his hand – and almost waving the thing – “ME, Me, Oh pick me”  - comes to mind. Well they did, didn’t they.



P2 – “Note that St Carmode was only in the job for less than a month prior to the Senate Estimates. He did appear on the front row with M&M for the initial Departmental session but did not contribute one word to the Hansard. He then removed himself to the 2nd row for all other sessions which included the CASA session - gotta wonder why on earth he would be hanging around?”

P2 - “In hindsight it kind of begs the question to whether CC was parachuted into the (vaguely defined) M&M deputy dog position because it had already been decided that Skidmore did not fit the mould as a Iron Ring compliant CEO and therefore had to go??

Indeed it does. Perhaps we were a little hard on Skidmore – he clearly supported the SRP system which St. Commode immediately binned and perhaps the union agreed – self supporting compliant sectors of industry would mean a smaller crowd at the Kool-Aid fountain and much less ‘make-work’ projects; add to that Skidmore being ex Military and not used to back chat or having his ideas undermined and there is an argument supporting the call – ‘he has to go’. It begs the question – was Commode parachuted in? One could also reasonably ask – did Skidmore jump or was he pushed?

Aye well ‘tis history now, CASA got the man they wanted – industry, as usual, got the rough end of the Pineapple – once again. Except for the chosen few – like TAAAF etc. who enjoy wallowing in the light of CASA’s largesse to its carefully selected Casamites. It’s a disgrace – but the politicians won’t touch it, not in a million, they’ve all said so.

Toot – toot.
Reply
#17

(05-15-2019, 07:31 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Interesting construct P2.

Couple of points there which make you go Hmmmn!

For instance – why has the SRP become moribund after Skidmore? It is a brilliant system, a proven, demonstrated and statistically supported winner. Look no further than the Air Ag sector; CASA and that industry nutting out the problems, finding solutions, making the whole thing work better, safer and compliant. Why would anyone want to deprive each industry sector of that advantage? Clearly the inestimable Fawcett thought it a good thing and he would know. Passing strange is the St. Commode attitude, I’d say.

P2 – “To begin note the individual over Skidmore's right shoulder, it is none other than St Carmode. However at that point in time he wasn't the patron Saint of Oz Aviation Safety but rather he was in some obscure position as deputy dog to M&M:”

I enjoyed the Hansard video – great to see ‘Heff’ in action. At the time, we all paid a great deal of attention to what was being said and etc. This time around, once I got past the terrible Skidmore tie – I happened to focus on the back row – and, you are correct, non other than St. Commode himself – rewind – take a closer look and watch. There is a sequence early on where Skidmore is rattling on about ADSB – Commode is sitting forward, arms on knees with a face like a slapped arse – then Skidmore says something and Commode makes a dismissive hand gesture, sits back clearly disgusted. The next time we see Commode – he has his name plate in his hand – and almost waving the thing – “ME, Me, Oh pick me”  - comes to mind. Well they did, didn’t they.



P2 – “Note that St Carmode was only in the job for less than a month prior to the Senate Estimates. He did appear on the front row with M&M for the initial Departmental session but did not contribute one word to the Hansard. He then removed himself to the 2nd row for all other sessions which included the CASA session - gotta wonder why on earth he would be hanging around?”

P2 - “In hindsight it kind of begs the question to whether CC was parachuted into the (vaguely defined) M&M deputy dog position because it had already been decided that Skidmore did not fit the mould as a Iron Ring compliant CEO and therefore had to go??

Indeed it does. Perhaps we were a little hard on Skidmore – he clearly supported the SRP system which St. Commode immediately binned and perhaps the union agreed – self supporting compliant sectors of industry would mean a smaller crowd at the Kool-Aid fountain and much less ‘make-work’ projects; add to that Skidmore being ex Military and not used to back chat or having his ideas undermined and there is an argument supporting the call – ‘he has to go’. It begs the question – was Commode parachuted in? One could also reasonably ask – did Skidmore jump or was he pushed?

Aye well ‘tis history now, CASA got the man they wanted – industry, as usual, got the rough end of the Pineapple – once again. Except for the chosen few – like TAAAF etc. who enjoy wallowing in the light of CASA’s largesse to its carefully selected Casamites. It’s a disgrace – but the politicians won’t touch it, not in a million, they’ve all said so.

Toot – toot.

Quote:
[Image: D6kMuNEU0AAo-Rt.jpg]

...One substantial but largely unheralded recent victory for GA was a result of the community's response to CASA's knee-jerk after the tragic accident that occurred during an Angel Flight near Bendigo a while ago. 


The community worked out that the amount of good done by Angel Flight and other "community service" activities far outweighed the very rare accidents. The community grasped the concept that no activity is risk free, and going to hospital by road or not at all may be riskier than going by light aircraft. 

This filtered upwards to the people who actually make the decisions in aviation regulation. And that's not CASA.

GA has to remind the community of the value to the community of GA away from the big cities. 

The major parties and the public service in Canberra are now 'the protected'. Almost none of the mess they create for GA has any substantial effects on them. They don't care. Literally: they don't care. Because they don't have to. Individually and personally some of them may, but they're part of a machine that's evolved for only one reason, and it isn't to promote the public interest. They want to keep their job? They do what the machine demands. 

Ask yourself: How did Bill Heffernan, or David Fawcett, or Fiona Nash, or Jan McLucas, or Ian MacDonald, or Glen Sterle - or any other of the people who've expressed strong opinions in senate inquiries - actually vote on the floor of the Senate to change anything about what they'd heard or found.

It's a machine that's evolved to protect itself. At your expense. And it's fine tuned to take advantage of the false dichotomy between "one side" - Labour - and "the other side" - the Coalition.

So far as GA is concerned (at least) everyone needs to understand this: The major parties are the same side

Another inquiry is always welcome. More activity, more crumbs for the chooks in industry to pick at, more excuses for inaction, more hard-hitting recommendations, more questions at Estimates, more credulous fools thinking: "Finally, this time"... 

More ... pantomime.

The more Members of Parliament there are who represent their community, the less remote the chances that decisions will be made in the interests of the community. 

I don't particularly care whether a candidate's green, red, blue, pink, gay, straight, vegan, omnivore, carnivore, left, right, centre, illiterate, educated, male, female, any one or more of the letters in LGTBI, religious, agnostic or whatever. I just want to know that they're not wearing a party straightjacket. Then I have a remote chance of working out whether what they say has any potential connection to how they may vote on the floor of the Parliament...

MTF...P2  Big Grin Tongue
Reply
#18

Aviation – and the poison chalice? - Part II

Ref: Aviation – and the poison chalice?

Quote:[Image: D58jS9_V4AEpoox.jpg]

...One item Marg mentioned was a mail out to every politician in the country – all of ‘em. Apart from a handful; all, without fail responded in a similar vein. CASA knows best etc. Why, despite glaring evidence to the contrary do the people responsible for running this country believe that? How hard can it be to see beyond the smoke and mirrors? The answer is that it ain’t; the fear of repercussion is. The moment a politician engages brain and initiates any form of change to the Act or demands regulatory reform – the fear of CASA claiming that the ‘change’ brought about an accident because of their loss of power – “the blood will be on your hands” scares the beejasuss out of those without a functioning brain – like that McDoNothing fool in Wagga. Total abject subservience through ignorance – not quite what Australia needs in a deputy prime minister, is it? But there he stands on the hustings – irrelevant, useless and easily controlled. How can anyone so easily manipulated and gutless hope to run this land when he can’t even stand up to one of the biggest teams of snake oil salesmen ever put together? That is the worry, if the CASA crew can twist him into a pretzel what the hell are the real international heavies going to do with this Muppet?... 

[Image: D6FHbq6V4AAoo9t.jpg]

If one needs any further proof that the CASA Iron Ring mystique of aviation safety propaganda line, trotted out if an when required and especially before an election, is alive and well than one need go no further than do a Google search of aviation policy of the major political parties.  

The ALP's party platform webpage quite literally covers off on everything that moves, farts or has a pulse - see HERE. They even have a policy to help facilitate the Australian 'Space sector' and Shipping but not one mention about Aviation.

The Nat's have a similar webpage - see HERE.  Yet even inside of their tourism policy the dreaded word AVIATION does not get one mention... Confused 

In fact the only aviation policy related to Australia that I could find (besides the Departmental fairytale) was the ALP policy from the 2016 election - see HERE - which if you'll remember was just a rehash of their failed GWEAP (Great White Elephant Aviation Paper). Here's a bit of a rehash on how that turned out and was exploited by M&M and the CASA Iron Ring: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...ost7742885

Quote:...It would be a hellish world if there was nowhere to publicly discuss, for example the infamous Albo Aviation White Paper and decide whether it was a total farce, the ultimate in well polished Teflon coated pony pooh; or, to even dare examine if even one of the lofty goals was achieved. With a bit of a stretch and a good natured push, it could be said that, whilst the White paper had some good intentions CASA got nowhere near any targets. A cynic could argue that parts of the sub text were open to exploitation which could arguably be demonstrated; look at the Senate Inquiry into pilot training. Water off a ducks back with a white paper umbrella to boot.

Non aviation mate asked the other day – "with all the trouble in ASA, CASA and the ATSB what visible improvements to Air safety have been made over the last four years"? I told him we now have 'Hi-Viz' vest requirements, proposed penalties for not sending CASA a recent photograph and world class standards in Snakes & ladders, Musical chairs and occasionally pocket Chess. What else could I say??....

Never been much of a one for politics but this passage of play caught my attention and anyway. I swear if I see one more Pope story -

-and Paddington gave him a hard stare. "In Darkest Peru," he said, remembering all that Mr Gruber had told him, "we had fireworks every fête day."



The "Great White Elephant Act"!



Ah yes Albo's circus troupe and it's "Great White Elephant Act" guaranteed to woo away Tory voters in the next election...err [Image: pukey.gif][Image: pukey.gif]!

Had to laugh one Sundy arvo while quietly consuming some coldies and watching the box, the Mayor of Marrickville had left his home turf and dared to set foot in Melbourne to chunder out some politics in the heavily populated voters suburb of St Albans...the scene was a level crossing that had apparently claimed the lives of 16 people over more than a decade....

Ministers in funding spat over level crossing funding - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

...one could say that at least the minister for transport was proactively addressing a transport safety issue and hoorah for that!![Image: eusa_clap.gif]

But then my mind kept flashing back to Lockhart River..similar numbers of fatalities except those lives were lost in the space of seconds and have left an endilible stain on the reputation of Oz aviation safety standards and the responsible aviation safety agencies ever since and what has been fixed in the meantime??[Image: boohoo.gif] 

Well according to the Pel-Air debacle not much, in fact we've gone backwards...hmm so much for Albo's "Great White Elephant Act"! [Image: eusa_wall.gif]
        
And prior to the 2016 election: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...28#pid4228

Quote:Besides the usual Murky Mrdak spin & bollocks at the top about us being up their with other 1st World Nations in aviation safety (bucket please.. [Image: confused.gif] ), what really irks me the most is this flippant passing comment..


“Public and industry submissions received on a draft programme released for comment in December 2015 were also considered before the programme was finalised.”

I am yet to read the SSP but I reckon it is a fair bet that the excellent submission from the AAAA's Phil Hurst (above) & comments from the RAAA, as is custom for the Murky crew, will have been totally ignored.

However what is probably worse is that the SSP, which the Forsyth report recommended should be reviewed, was announced while a large body of industry stakeholders (including Phil Hurst) were being preached to by this WOFTAM, waste of space miniscule in Tamworth - [Image: angry.gif]

This is totally disrespectful for those sectors of the industry that have a vested interest in their being a properly implemented & functioning State safety program in accordance with ICAO Annex 19.

Oh well, all ancient history now I guess... Dodgy 

On a more positive note could we please have a ballot for some of the proactive aviation policies and/or governance of aviation - what in the world am I talking about... Huh 

Well when you Google - national aviation policy 2019 - the top of the list comes up with this from the Pakistani CAA: https://www.caapakistan.com.pk/upload/AT/NAP-2019.pdf

Quote:Vision

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


Key Objectives

 To improve governance and oversight for the compliance of ICAO standards of
aviation safety, security, efficiency, climate change and facilitation.
 To ensure safe, secure, efficient and a commercially viable aviation sector including
aircraft design / manufacturing and develop state of the art infrastructure, which
contributes positively towards the national economy.
 To provide a level playing field for all national operators to grow and compete
successfully in both domestic and International markets ensuring commercial
reciprocity based upon organic growth.
 To incentivize the Aviation Sector for socio-economic growth.
 To create conditions conducive for affordable general aviation activities, i.e., sports
flying and inter-city air travel by private aircraft / air-taxi service / charter & Aerial
Work operations, etc.

 So VOTE1 for Australia adopting the Pakistani National Aviation Policy -  Big Grin

Then VOTE1 for adopting the NZed government who seem to have no problem amending and changing their 1990 version of the Civil Aviation Act if an when required -  Wink : https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/0...-proposed/

 Hmm...while on the subject of NZed CAA regulations etc; I note that from the 31 May NZ CAA will lift their medical certification restrictions on CVD pilots - see HERE & HERE.

Well done to the long running advocacy of Arthur Pape, John O'Brien and the CVD Pilot's Association... Wink 


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#19

The Oz catching up on the Boyd whimper -  Dodgy

Quote:Industry calls for more aviators on CASA board

[Image: 561303498c228eb97ffb59a1d0d42908?width=650]

Jeff Boyd, chairman of the Australian Aviation Associations Forum. Picture: Ray Strange.

A former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has called for the regulator’s board to include more people with aviation experience, and curtail the role of the CEO.

Jeff Boyd, who handed over the reins of CASA to industry veteran Tony Mathews last year, is now the chairman of the Australian Aviation Associations Forum representing 13 organisations with 12,500 members.

Starting on a wish list released by the association ahead of tomorrow’s federal election, Mr Boyd said greater aviation experience on the board would help increase industry confidence in CASA. And he said making the CEO an ex-officio to the board, rather than a voting board member, would increase the role’s ­accountability.

Currently three of the seven board members, including Mr Mathews, have strong backgrounds in aviation.

Another director, chartered accountant Anita Taylor, is a glider pilot, while other directors including CEO Shane Carmody have backgrounds in the public service, politics, law and business.

Mr Boyd said other wish-list items for the aviation industry included boosting the resources of CASA’s legal department and ensuring the level of regulation fitted the sector to which it applied.

“The guys in CASA legal work hard but there always seems to be a bottleneck and we’d like a review of that,” he said. “If that shows it requires extra resources as we believe it would, then those extra resources should be given to CASA legal to speed things up and stop slowing things down within the industry.”

The Liberal Party has not released a specific aviation policy, but Labor yesterday published its plan for aviation and airports.

The plan promises to ensure safety regulators and investigative agencies are properly resourced and says a Shorten government would support measures that lowered the cost burden on the general aviation industry.
MTF...P2  Dodgy
Reply
#20

While we wait? -  Dodgy

Regardless of the bollocks election result today Aunty Pru is already sharpening the keyboards and reviewing the archives for a full on frontal assault of the latest incumbent miniscule for non-aviation.

As we all know one of the hottest topics AP will be continuing to pursue is that of aviation safety around airports. So in the meantime in order to keep our loyal IOS followers amused (or not) here is one of my contributions to the AP blog with a letter/post (with many links) to Christine -  Wink


Quote:Essendon DFO accident: No MSM speculation here Christine?
by Sarcs | Nov 5, 2018 | Accidents and InquiryASAATSBCASAMinister for TransportSenate Estimates - Unplugged

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_091018_103524_AM.jpg]

[img=855x0]https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Untitled_Clipping_091018_103524_AM.jpg[/img]

Quote:Speculation About the Cause of an Air Crash Yep, That’s a Good Thing
November 2, 2018 / Share your comments…
[img=640x0]https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/q_glossy,ret_img,w_640/http://christinenegroni.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Orville-Wright-Thomas-Selfridge-crash-1908.jpg[/img]
In what other area of journalism are reporters asked to surrender their own judgment and analysis and wait for the “officials” to weigh in?  From the very first air accident, the crash of the Wright Flyer that killed Thomas Selfridge in 1908, observers have opined about what the facts seem to suggest before and after the official probable cause is determined. And what’s wrong with that?

Today, the internet connects pundits, armchair investigators and hyperspecialists. This is how, in the hours after the crash of Lion Air 610, we first learned of the plane’s erratic climb and flight and reports that the Boeing 737 MAX had come out of maintenance immediately prior to the doomed flight. An army of folks with an interest in the subject and access to social media began filling the pool with data.

Reliable or something less, this stream of clues is a largely positive development. It is one of the most significant assists to air safety investigations in decades because it allows educated speculation and opens a path for folks whose expertise in earlier times might never have been heard.

Where oh where would our knowledge about the disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 be if the only source of information was the Malaysian government?

In my book, The Crash Detectives, I devote an entire section to official investigations that were challenged through the perseverance of outsiders and journalists. They did not lap up the official story like a kitten being served a saucer of milk.
[img=400x0]https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/q_glossy,ret_img,w_400/http://christinenegroni.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/makeshift-morgue.jpg[/img]
Had it not been for intrepid reporting the Arrow Air Flight that killed US military personnel in 1985 would still be thought of as an icing incident as the first Canadian investigation concluded. Air New Zealand Flight 901 which flew into Mt. Erebus might still be attributed to pilot error as the government investigation initially claimed. The airline’s coverup of its own culpability would have remained a secret.
[img=600x0]https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/q_glossy,ret_img,w_600/http://christinenegroni.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ANZ-901-wreckage.jpg[/img]
The American National Transportation Safety Board took 4 years to get to a probable cause in TWA Flight 800 though evidence  within days of the crash on July 17, 1996 indicated an internal ignition of the fuel tank.

Following the 2017 crash of a BAe 146 in Colombia that killed a Brazilian soccer team, a quick search showed the plane’s range was two-thousand miles. The flight was 1,800 miles. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to report the possibility as I did for Forbes that fuel starvation may have been a factor.

It’s not sensible or desirable to tell journalists to hold off on reporting anything but what official investigators tell them. My job is to consider facts from many angles and many perspectives. Today’s communication landscape makes it possible to learn more than we ever could about the details of an accident providing information to a public yearning to understand what happpened. For investigators, however, what happened is only the first step, why it happened is the part that takes time.

A transparent and thorough investigation covered by an informed and skeptical press corps, fueled sometimes by contributors via social media, is the best way to respect victims of air accidents and assure that their deaths will lead to safer skies.

http://christinenegroni.com/speculation-about-the-cause-of-an-air-crash-yep-thats-a-good-thing/ …

Absolutely spot on Christine so totally agree, the speculation fueled by the facts and evidence as it comes in also (I believe) forces the hand of the aviation safety bureaucracy and leads as you say to greater transparency and honesty.

Unfortunately in Australia (unlike the USA) we seem to have a tame and almost captured MSM that are seemingly blinded by what we call the mystique of aviation safety (MOAS). The classic example is the recent release of an ATSB report into the Essendon Airport DFO accident of B200 VH-ZFR which killed 5 people including 4 US citizens see here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-024/ …



Quote:In so many ways, the ATSB report into the Essendon accident is dangerously misleading. (MTF). The report skips past, with a very quick, light foot, one of the very important items, i.e. development alongside of runways. Hells bells – they almost herald the DFO as a life saver FDS.  The ATSB went to considerable lengths to parallel a ‘similar’ (‘cept it wasn’t) accident at Hayward (California) to our home grown variety. There are some rudimentary similarities; however, I digress.

The Estimates committee struggled with the concept of ‘Safety Zones’ and were, IMO, led astray by clever distraction to Runway End Zones, rather than ‘Safety Zones’. So; before the next committee outing, perhaps the Senators could find a trusted assistant to read through a thirty page document which will be of great assistance to future inquiry. The document – HERE – provides a fine exemplar of how grown up, sensible, responsible, rational people set about keeping their citizens safe from burning aircraft in their shopping centres, schools and hospitals. 



Much like the PelAir cover-up the ATSB would lead the MSM and public to believe that the pilot was operating in some isolated bubble and was therefore totally to blame. See here: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-post-9329.html#pid9329 … & http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-103-post-9398.html#pid9398 … & http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-post-9336.html#pid9336 …
The ATSB even had the mendacity to suggest that the aircraft hitting the DFO building may have actually saved lives, report reference:

Quote:…It was unlikely that the outlet centre had an influence on the severity of the accident. In the absence of the Retail Outlet Centre buildings, the aircraft’s trajectory would likely have resulted in the aircraft colliding with the Tullamarine freeway, east of the Bulla Road overpass. Dashboard camera footage provided to the ATSB indicated that there was a significant amount of traffic on the Tullamarine Freeway at the time, with potential for casualties on the ground…

Under ‘Other findings’ they also bizarrely speculated  that the building did not effect the severity of this accident. This speculation seemingly ignores the fact that had the DFO complex not been there the pilot would have had far more options for completing an emergency forced landing.
We strongly believe that in any mature ICAO aviation signatory State, like the US, the DFO building would not have received a building approval (at least not in it’s current form) eg: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-post-9391.html#pid9391 …

Quote from the ATSB report:
Quote:…The reasons for the OLS breaches were complex and related to the airport operator’s obligation to establish an OLS in accordance with applicable standards and CASA advice to, and oversight of, the airport operator. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to adequately examine the issues found with the outlet centre building approval processes. Consequently, the ATSB has initiated a separate investigation, AI-2018-010. That investigation will examine the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development on aviation operations at Essendon Airport…

Although the ATSB is examining the Bulla Rd building approval in a ‘separate’ investigation, we all know that this is really code for we will obfuscate this until the MSM and public have forgotten. After all it was only 5 years ago that the ATSB started a very similar investigation into building/obstacle approvals around the same airport. This investigation report was completed in May this year? see http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-30-post-9476.html#pid9476 … & https://avlaw.com.au/atsb-report-no-safety-management/ … & https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774258/ai-2013-102-final.pdf …


Although it took nearly 5 years to complete (ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv…-2013-102/ ) the ATSB did manage to identify a significant hole in the cheese:

Quote:The use of risk management principles when considering an application under the Airports (Protected Airspace) Regulations

Quote:The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities adopted a prescriptive approach to the Hume City Council building application within the obstacle limitation area of Essendon Airport, which was in accordance with the process prescribed under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, but did not require the application of risk management principles to the department’s consideration.

Quote:Safety issue details Issue number: AI-2013-102-SI-01
Who it affects: Airports managing protected airspace associated with their runways
Status: Safety action pending

The question there is when was this significant safety issue 1st identified? Another question is – why wasn’t the 2013 investigation and final report referred to in either the YMEN DFO accident final report; or in the (AI-2018-010) above summary??  



However there was no mention of this report whatsoever in the ATSB YMEN DFO accident FR. In our opinion this suggests that the ATSB is once again (like with MH370 and PelAir etc..etc) providing topcover for the Govt, the Dept and their aviation safety agencies. Remember that this safety issue (ie inappropriate approved building development around airports) was 1st identified by ICAO in the 2008 USOAP audit of Australia:

[Image: DrC3n4xU4AAhD9i.jpg]
https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ICAO_USOAP_Final_Report2008.pdf 

… and again re-identified in the 2017 ICAO audit conducted over 1 year ago:

[Image: DrC4MctUUAE67m1.jpg]
https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/files/Australia_ICVM_Final_Report_full.pdf …

And that is no speculation at ALL! – Cheers P2.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)