[Kharon]

Cabotage - dueced tricky stuff.

...P2 – "How very strange for M&M in Estimates no less?? M&M is not known for offering up so many words on a subject that should be totally within the remit of CASA.

Yes, you would thinks so, but FAOC issue is a very 'political' matter.  There are companies, reputable companies, who have almost given up sanity trying and many others who have; the cost of exercise being in direct proportion to the pre determined degree of difficulty.  The time, money, effort and frustration expended by some operators is truly horrendous; but for others it's a stroll in the park.  Strange and wonderful are the ways of 'the department'.  Bit of a litmus test for Skidmore, will he take steps to de-politicise the FAOC process and get some less contentious, competent people in to run that particular section.  There are some truly dreadful stories; e.g. did you know Jeppersen products are not considered adequate; sometimes.  

Now I know that's a bit cryptic but FAOC applications have not had much air time as they are commercially sensitive and easily identified, but I can assure you the stories are there, real, live and almost unbelievable.  Lets hope Skidmore gains clarity, time and space to deal with some very contentious issues in the FAOC department.  

P2 - Further to this - strange display of disharmony between the Department and agency - is the fact that M&M then goes onto table the same EU Airline blacklist that CASA does within the Skidmore retraction correspondence, minus the EU legislation:

There was a strange 'atmosphere' Merde'k leaping into the fray, Aleck whispering sweet nothings: desperately wanting to close down the discussion and offering behind closed door 'briefings'.  You could see this one of two ways – being helpful to the new boy; or, taking early control of what is, potentially, a happily ticking time bomb, before Skidmore put his foot, quite accidentally on a sensitive spot.  I know which horse my money will be on.  

The problem is this Senate committee is too well briefed, too savvy and trusted by industry. They are coming to grips with just how badly the whole expensive show is being run; everything from weekend pleasure pilots to the 'slippery' politics of cabotage.  Slowly the beast emerges.  No mans mug is Glen Sterle; non of them are, but it has been a treat to watch him over the past couple of years gain an interest in matters aeronautical, join up the dots, put party politics aside, roll his sleeves up and wade in; becoming a solid member of what is probably the best estimates committee ever assembled.   Cue – Round of applause.  

Senator STERLE:Spot on. Mr Mrdak, I am sorry to interrupt—while I am being nice and on my best behaviour—but as Senator Back did just say to me, that particular plane had been in service between Perth and Bali. So I think it is a fair question for us to put on the table. Let us have a go.

Senator STERLE: What are you laughing at, Mr Farquharson? Did I tickle your sense of humour? Are you picking on my mate Mr Quinlivan?

Mr Farquharson : I used to be the regional manager in Perth and I know Mr Quinlivan quite well.

Senator STERLE: Don't worry; I know he knows you. Anyway keep going. You look a bit like him from here.

Mr Mrdak : Perhaps if we come back to the committee with some advice in relation to, firstly, foreign air operators certificate requirements and then our safety surveillance program in relation to foreign carriers. If necessary, we can happily provide a briefing to the committee on those matters.

Dr Aleck : Can I just add quickly that, in 2009, we amended our legislation specifically to enable us to look at these issues more closely. We exercised those powers in connection with any operator who draws our attention to their activities, and an accident would be a flag.

Mr Mrdak : Generally, it starts with a concern about the safety regulator in that country in which the airline is based.

Mr Mrdak : Generally, it starts with concerns about the quality of the safety assurance process in the country in which the airline is based, and the safety regulatory record of the jurisdiction before it gets to the individual aircraft operator. It is much more complex than simply the operator itself.

Interesting; I am only left to wonder if the questions were designed to open up another can of worms; or if the committee's questions were innocent until the defensive, distracting rhetoric triggered the sensitive pony-pooh alarms.  No doubt we shall see.

Toot toot..