Senate Estimates - 2017-18.

Mr. Carmody stated to the Committee that there were 30,000 pilots and 800 operators.
A few years ago Paul Phelan extricated from the CASA website the numbers of current medicals. Contrary to a CASA claim at that time of 40,000 pilots there were only 18,000 with current medicals.
Many years ago pilot licences were declared to be valid in perpetuity, but the exercise of the rights conferred dependent on having a current medical and within recency requirements. Mr. Carmody’s 30,000 is virtually meaningless and it maybe that active pilots are considerably less, perhaps 15,000, not counting certificate holders in the low weight category. It would be also interesting to know what is the mechanism to delete from the records licence holders who have died, if such accounting does occur.
In regard to operator numbers, 800, nice round number, I would like to see the list.
Reply

Sandy, you should tell the Committe that they should demand comprehensively detailed lists of both.

"LISTS" would be the "ONLY" way Sandy.

Producing "lists", from the databases, is a "SIMPLE" task, for the SQL heads in IT, one that the CASA could not legally "fudge".

Perhaps the Committee should ask for the list of the operators, broken down by AOC type, by category, by initial issue date, and by current expiry / or renewal date. Those lists should also include hours flown per line, for each one of the last 20 years.

Similarly, the Committee should ask for the list of all pilots, broken down by licence type, by category, by initial issue date, and by current medical expiry / or renewal date, and / or recency expiry / renewal date, including hours flown per pilot, for each one of the last 20 years.

Only with these details "readily to hand", could the true health of the industry be gauged.

The committe should also replace the "ask" with "demand" - and the date for production should be tomorrow - not some time next century "on notice" - but tomorrow.

You see, a competent SQL head could write the QUERY in two minutes flat - and computers are "FAST".
Reply

Questions, from the man at the back of the room. Cont/..

Well, it seems the Invisible Manning is to remain so, which would be considered by some to be ‘passing strange’. I reckon Joe Q would have a couple of questions for him; and, would Manning not have added a little more credibility to the Hood burial party?

Hornby – “[it] was the fact that they weren't given the extra weather information that might have helped them make extra decisions about diverting before the point of no return.

This is a very glib statement and typifies the whole attitude of this report. The statement manages to convey the impression that the missing, never transmitted, weather reports were seriously considered as part of the causal chain. Acknowledged, mentioned and dismissed. The simple fact that they were crucial to in flight decision making is lost; the failure of safety system is lost, the BoM stuff up is lost, the Nadi stuff up is not mentioned. All critical safety elements – ticked, flicked and neatly tucked away, out of sight. This treatment of safety related matters, standing alone, is borderline criminal; but, the real indicator to the cynical, entrenched, underlying evil within the ‘report’ is clearly exposed here:-

Hornby –Likewise, the crew didn't proactively seek that weather information in time to allow them to make alternative decisions before reaching the point of no return.”

This guy cannot possibly be serious – can he? Now then, for the lay people on the Senate panel, I shall explain why this is so. There is an old aviation expression “Fat, Dumb and Happy” (FD&H). It essence it means ‘Fat’ as in plenty of fuel, ‘Dumb’ in being unaware of impending troubles; and, ‘Happy’ that all seems well. Step into my world for a moment gentlemen. Here we sit, fat, dumb and happy; we left with a good weather report, we have lots of fuel, the weather is good and it’s dark. At 8 pm the radio chirps – it’s Nadi with the routine weather bulletin for our destination – “all good” is the essence of the weather message; duly noted, we return to being FD&H. What we do not know (Dumb) is that 3 minutes later a revised forecast has been issued, which indicates that we must divert somewhere else. A little while earlier, a report was generated, this one clearly defines the need to consider going somewhere else. Without the crew being psychic, could someone please explain how the duck do we divine that the weather has (to use another ancient aviators expression) turned to Shite? Twice, the Pel-Air aircrew were not provided critical, decision making, imperative information, which carry legal implications: (references - PelAir & the wx gotchas of the APAC FIRs etc. , The 0739 key to the PelAir wx imbroglio ,The 0803 lost in White rabbit obfuscation. & The tale of the little White lie & the snowball effect )

Joe Q – Are the flight crew to be asking every ten minutes if there is a revised forecast for their destination? 0800 routine in flight report received; do we consult the Ouija board for the amendments; or, rely on the system to provide the new information at 0803; lest we all go for a midnight dip. Does ATSB not realise that the non transmission of the 0739 ‘Speci’ and the 0803 amended TAFOR were pivotal to decision making – the 0803 was an ‘operational requirement’ which would awaken even the sleepiest aircrew; why has this item be relegated to an also ran - and glibly dismissed as a minor matter, and the crew’s fault?

‘Joe Q’ – Why has the ATSB not raised an urgent SR relating to the ‘classification’ of operations? The RFDS do a very good ‘ambulance/ emergency’ service, but you cannot ‘book’ a ‘charter flight’ with them. Patient ‘transfer’ is a contracted, charter flight. Why can’t ATSB influence, through SR, CASA to finally address this aberration?

Once you accept as righteous the initial opening statements above from ATSB; you are lost. For the rest continues in the same vein; 500 odd pages which ‘address’ the issues – but nothing, absolutely nothing, identified as contributing has been addressed. The list of discrepancies is long, time is short and O’Sullivan fiddles while Rome burns and the foxes lift the lumber from the chook shed.

Toot – toot.
Reply

(03-08-2018, 07:59 AM)ventus45 Wrote:  Sandy, you should tell the Committe that they should demand comprehensively detailed lists of both.

"LISTS" would be the "ONLY" way Sandy.

Producing "lists", from the databases, is a "SIMPLE" task, for the SQL heads in IT, one that the CASA could not legally "fudge".

Perhaps the Committee should ask for the list of the operators, broken down by AOC type, ........

I have asked for numbers of flying schools a few times over the last 30 odd years.
There’s never been an answer. Patently obvious is that there are only a very small number of GA schools left, might be only 10% or 20% compared to the 1970s and 1980s.

A remarkable turn around in the Smart Country, the young country of freedom and opportunity.

An ever increasing number of independent Commonwealth statutory corporate bodies hived off from various Departments is the very much part of the problem. These bodies do shield the Minister from responsibility but lack real direction and please themselves. Make work salary factories, not tied to the normal structures and strictures of the conventional Departmental employees, sold to a gullible polity as the much loved ‘independent umpire,’ a shallow excuse for duck shoving as ever was.

From an APS publication there are now 403,000 Can’tberrans not counting those that live in Queanbeyan, and Commonwealth employees 157,000. Number of media advisors to Ministers around three times anyone else in the developed world. What used to be Question Time is now Dorothy Dixers (pre planned questions) from the Government benches or gotcha statements from the Opposition. Plainly, overtly and shamelessly party political government advertisements on TV and elsewhere abound, paid by us dumb taxpayers.

No wonder “Director of Air Safety” (fatuous title, Shane up there on cloud 9 with baton directing air traffic) hasn’t got a clue to where GA is headed or where it was once because it’s better for Can’tberra and all in government not to know the awful truth.

Why spoil the party?
Reply

Questions, from the man at the back of the room III.

Patrick did well enough, considering. He may have done a little better and penetrated a little deeper had he been briefed a little better; or, had he not been limited to questioning a lawyer and a man who played a major role in the persecution of the pilot. Both as desperate to bury this mouldering, corrupting Pel-Air corpse as the others lurking behind the curtains. Mind you, there was some tongue in cheek, slap-stick comedy relief:-

Senator PATRICK: Will you be presenting this particular report at the International Society of Air Safety Investigators conference this year?

Mr Hood: Not to my understanding.

Senator PATRICK: Normally you present significant reports to that conference. My understanding is the ATSB turns up and often makes presentations there.

As if. Cracked me up, the notion of Hood in his Hi-Viz outfit, standing up in front of the worlds leading accident investigators spruiking the Pel-Air report as a gold standard work piece. A ‘legal’ conference may appreciate the devious subtleties; they may well even applaud. But to an international convention of air safety folk, experts? Nah, best send O’Sullivan – he has more claim to expertise than Hood, just ask him, he’ll tell ya.  

The inimitable, ever pragmatic Gallacher puts the final touches to an ugly picture.

Senator GALLACHER: I don't think the issue will go away. That's my last comment.

Mine too.  Men like Sterle and Gallacher are not so easy to bamboozle and may not be brain-baffled by bull-pooh. Perhaps they may yet see that the ‘real’ story and the evil in it lay in the aftermath of the incident. Gods know, the ditching was a simple enough affair – it was the investigation and the fall out from that which prompted a Senate inquiry. The report is a red herring – what occurred afterwards was disgusting. Time the lid was ripped off that can o’worms.

Seems CASA are next on Joe’s menu; what a treat. This performance is a well rehearsed, highly polished and a masterpiece in the art of smoke and mirrors. One needs to be armed with ‘fact’ and listen very, very carefully to discern just ‘how’ the trick was performed. At the first ‘watch and listen’ the performance appears seamless. To discover just how it was managed you must not only break it down into small, bite sized pieces, but must look carefully at what is going on behind the spotlight. So, where to start? That is a tough question to answer, for example , if we had all the information about the Falcon-Air and the behind the scenes and were able to reveal ‘certain’ facts, then matters would be easier to understand. Alas. No matter we shall do our best with what we have.

I’ll leave it here for now; with a clue. In every bare faced lie, there must be a grain of truth. An inescapable fact – like ‘all the pilots were not properly qualified’ this supported by ‘audit’ evidence. That may well be fact, but is it all the fact? Is it a full explanation of ‘all’ the facts and circumstances? On a fine, legal point stretched to the extreme of the law, it is a lawyers picnic. Which is probably a good way to view the CASA tapes.

Joe Q, may have the day off – MTF.

Toot toot.
Reply

Oh the ironies are boundless - Confused


From about 12:10 here:



Senator PATRICK: Will you be presenting this particular report at the International Society of Air Safety Investigators conference this year?

Mr Hood: Not to my understanding.

Senator PATRICK: Normally you present significant reports to that conference. My understanding is the ATSB turns up and often makes presentations there.


..As if. Cracked me up, the notion of Hood in his Hi-Viz outfit, standing up in front of the worlds leading accident investigators spruiking the Pel-Air report as a gold standard work piece. A ‘legal’ conference may appreciate the devious subtleties; they may well even applaud. But to an international convention of air safety folk, experts? Nah, best send O’Sullivan – he has more claim to expertise than Hood, just ask him, he’ll tell ya...   Big Grin Big Grin

Indeed "K" a very amusing picture you paint... Big Grin

However if the veracity of the HVH statement is to be respected:

"..the largest and most thorough report ever undertaken by the ATSB—in excess of 500 pages..."

Maybe so the value of this report is not wasted and can be placed as a benchmark of excellence for Annex 13 Aviation Accident Investigation, could I suggest that Hood and Barry O'Obfuscation go with cap in hand to former Minister for Transport John Sharp to provide contextual background for a joint (ATSB & Senate) ISASI presentation... Huh

The following is a Hansard copy of a nearly 22 year old speech, that the former Minister John Sharp made that go to the bona fides of my suggestion and clearly highlights how much of grasp he has of the deeply in ground cultural problems that the aviation safety administration and regulation continues to have to this day in Australia (some noteworthy parts in bold).. Wink : Tuesday, 25 June 1996


Mr SHARP (Minister for Transport and Regional Development)(4.50 p.m.) —by leave—There can be few issues that touch the public closer than the safety of our public transport. And one of its most sensitive aspects, where there has been grave concern for some time now, is aviation safety.

On 3 May 1994 I rose in this House to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1994 and addressed in my speech the matter of the Monarch air crash that took place at Young, on 11 June 1993, killing all five passengers, the pilot and the co-pilot. I took a close interest in that tragedy because all the passengers were known to me and most of them were my constituents.

It is now over three years after that air crash and, on 6 June this year, the New South Wales coroner delivered his findings at the Young courthouse, following one of the longest coronial inquests in this country's history. His findings have confirmed many of the concerns that I put before the House on 3 May, two years earlier. I told the House then that the Civil Aviation Authority had been aware for some time of the deficiencies of Monarch Air and that, despite recommendations by airworthiness inspectors to ground the operator, these recommendations had been overruled by senior management. I told the House that:
The CAA has obviously fallen down in its prime responsibility to conduct safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia. It has no excuses. The CAA has been given the teeth. The problem is that it is not using them. My constituents, through no fault of their own, flew in an aircraft that operated and that the CAA knew was likely to operate in breach of air safety regulations and were the victims of a fatal accident.

I also alerted the House to the fact that the Monarch case was not the iceberg itself but merely the tip of the iceberg. I cited another airline—Seaview—which was also being allowed to operate despite the recommendation of an airworthiness inspector to ground it. I told the House:
The CAA has been aware of the situation for some time and, once again, nothing has been done to stop that operator from risking the lives of the unwitting passengers despite a CAA airworthiness inspector's recommendation that the operator be grounded.
In the week before I made that speech, a DC3 had crashed into Botany Bay narrowly avoiding sending its 21 passengers—a school party on their way to Norfolk Island to participate in Anzac Day celebrations—to their deaths. My warning regarding Seaview was not heeded. On 2 October 1994, a Seaview plane crashed on its way to Lord Howe Island killing all eight passengers and the pilot.
It is one of the great tragedies of our time that it took the senseless and needless deaths of 16 people to provoke action to deal with the situation that I put before the House on 3 May 1994: that the CAA had clearly lost sight of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of air safety above all other considerations.
When I brought that state of affairs to the attention of the House on 3 May, I said that there were several measures that were essential. I said then that the first action must be for the government to review the priorities of the Civil Aviation Authority. I said that it must investigate the association between flying operations inspectors and airline operators to ensure that no opportunity for corruption can occur. I said that viability must be included among mandatory criteria when the Civil Aviation Authority is considering an air operator's certificate. I also said that insurance arrangements should be changed so that unscrupulous insurance firms cannot weasel their way out of their obligations by claiming that the operator breached safety regulations, thus voiding the policy at the expense of the victims. Subsequently, I called for the removal of certain senior managers. It is unfortunate that the culture that then existed in the CAA involving a disposition to shoot the messenger rather than to listen to the message prevailed for some time despite the advice that I gave the then minister immediately following my speech in the House on 3 May. I advised the minister that he should separate the regulatory function of the CAA from its commercial service provider functions and should subject the organisation to rigorous examination. I offered him my bipartisan support in doing so.

On the release of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation report on the Monarch accident in July 1994, the then minister announced the separation of the regulatory function from the commercial function, but under the same chief executive officer. At the same time, he announced a reference to the House of Representatives Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for an inquiry into aviation safety in general aviation.
The inquiry became one of the most remarkable the committee has undertaken. Chaired by the member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), it heard some extraordinary stories and was witness to some of the most acrimonious evidence that could possibly be given to a parliamentary inquiry. The evidence led the committee to conclude that the CAA was an organisation at civil war with itself. It was clear that there were enormous problems based around personalities and interest groups which greatly reduced the effectiveness and capacity of the organisation to perform its duties.

In the chaos that ensued following the Seaview crash, the government of the day finally introduced legislation splitting the CAA into two separate organisations—much as I had suggested to the then minister in May. The House of Representatives Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure was closely involved in the refinement of the legislation, and the resultant bills gave rise to the new organisations known as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia—the former regulating aviation safety and the latter providing commercial services.

I have the greatest regard for my colleagues on that committee, and participants in and users of aviation in this country are indebted to them for the work they have done in identifying many of the issues in aviation safety regulation that urgently need improvement. Their report, Plane safe, has made many concrete recommendations, and the government will be responding to these shortly. That response will be a thorough one and a draft is currently undergoing several revisions that I have requested.

One of the most important initiatives to come from the Plane safe report will be a system of public reporting of serious deficiencies found by CASA in individual air operators. This will enable travellers to be informed as to the record of a particular operator. It will also mean that, if a particular operator contravenes regulations, they will pay the price in lost reputation and lost consumer confidence, with market consequences for them.

One of the hardest things for the victims of aviation tragedies—such as the Monarch and Seaview tragedies—to understand is that they live with the consequences of those tragedies daily, yet the operators and regulators who failed to do their jobs properly and who erred seriously in their duty of care seem to escape any consequences. Three years after the Monarch accident none of those who were negligent have been brought to account.

One of the first principles of regulation should be that the regulators themselves are accountable for their actions. They should be congratulated when their efforts to maintain safe travel are properly, carefully and fairly carried out. They should also be accountable when their failure to do so leads to tragedy or when their failure to do so exposes the very people they are supposed to be protecting to danger.

The Monarch coroner's findings have made specific criticisms—some of them about particular people and some of them about the organisation itself. The coroner has made several recommendations, some of which, such as those relating to insurance, have already been implemented. It is now mandatory for aviation operators carrying passengers for financial reward to have non-voidable insurance for their passengers. That has not helped the victims of the Monarch crash, who are still waiting for acknowledgment and settlement of their claims against the insurer of the operator. The changes to the legislation were made necessary largely because of the disgraceful treatment they have suffered, and still suffer, at the hands of Monarch's insurer.

There are other recommendations of the coroner that fall within the federal jurisdiction. I am referring them to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia for urgent advice and action.

This government is determined to ensure that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will not repeat the errors of its predecessor. I personally have a great deal of commitment to this. I have made it clear to the Director of Aviation Safety that I expect his officers to be fully accountable for their actions. There is no place in the new CASA for officers who hide behind a cloak of intimidation and secrecy to avoid the consequences of their failure to carry out their duties to the highest standards.

The Bureau of Aviation Safety Investigation report into the DC3 crash in Botany Bay, released earlier this year, identified several major systemic failures within the CAA and I have sought detailed explanations from the Director of Aviation Safety of what measures are being taken to identify why those failures occurred and who was responsible for them. I am not yet satisfied that everything that should be done to overcome them has been done.

Indeed, the report that CASA prepared for me has raised several issues that I wish to pursue further with the director before I will be satisfied that the problems that led to such major bungles as incorrect classification of the aircraft and improper extensions of engine hours have been adequately addressed and those responsible held appropriately to account.  I am concerned that the old culture still exists despite the change of name.

One of the most unsatisfactory elements of the old CAA was that its officers seemed to believe that they were somehow immune to the consequences of their own wrongdoing. That attitude will have to be well and truly purged from the new CASA. It is the job of the government to ensure that this happens and this government will not be repeating the errors of the previous government in allowing that attitude to continue uncorrected. The Monarch coroner noted:
There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the CAA refused to suspend Monarch's AOC before the crash.

He also spoke of an atmosphere of intimidation of officers who sought to take such action, and referred particularly to a memorandum of a particular officer as having a threatening tone. That kind of intimidation has no place in CASA, or any other responsible organisation.

Further, the coroner identified the Flying Operations Manager at Bankstown as having decided to take no action on the recommendation of an airworthiness inspector to revoke or suspend Monarch's air operator certificate, which had been made only a couple of weeks before the crash. Since the coroner concluded:
It is clear that had the CAA management paid more attention to the law and less to accommodating their "customers", NDU (the aircraft that crashed) would have been grounded and AOC suspended until the plane was safe to fly and these deaths would have been avoided.

This raises serious issues that have yet to be resolved but which must be resolved if the public is to have full confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The government agrees with the coroner that the culture that prevailed in the CAA was absolutely unacceptable. It is unacceptable in the CAA's successor regulatory body CASA and the government insists that this be absolutely clear and be seen to be so.

The coroner praised the Reason model of investigation and analysis utilised by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, yet counsel for the CAA spent a great deal of time and effort and taxpayers' money during the coronial inquest in seeking to discredit it. It is just that kind of self-interested defensive reaction—at the expense of the taxpayer and the industry—that must be shunned if the public is to have faith in the regulator.

It does not make sense for the regulator to spend more money in defending itself than the claims it was seeking to forestall would have amounted to. All that does is deny the victims' families their due compensation. There must be an open and honest culture, and that is still lacking in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
This government expects its safety regulator to admit its errors when appropriate and to take remedial measures to reform its culture in order to make it properly responsive to its very weighty responsibilities. The CAA was dismantled and split into CASA and Airservices Australia, but many of the people who were responsible for the dereliction of duty and the perversion of regulatory responsibility that gave rise to the Monarch, the DC3 and the Seaview accidents, as well as to countless other debacles, are still with the new regulator. It will be a major tragedy if the only thing that happens is that the shingle on the front door is changed.

The Director of CASA has already taken some measures towards cultural change. The government will be ensuring that the change continues and is achieved without delay. I noted in June last year during the debate on the legislation establishing CASA that a great deal of expectation and hope would rest upon the shoulders of the board of CASA. That board, I said, would need to be expert and effective.

This government went into the last election with a campaign commitment to ensure that the board of CASA had the necessary aviation experience to ensure expert and effective oversight of aviation safety. The present board does not in the opinion of the government contain that expertise. There is only one of the four non-executive members of the board with aviation expertise and this is, in the view of the government, inadequate.

On coming into government I made this position clear to the board. The chairman chose not to accede to my request to the board to offer their resignations. In putting their own interests ahead of the need to have the best available people with appropriate expertise and qualifications, the board members were effectively putting their own needs ahead of aviation safety.

Accordingly, the government has introduced legislation which will enlarge the board by two members, one of them in the new position of deputy chairman, to enable the appointment of people with appropriate expertise. I hope that this move to bring to the board of CASA greater expertise and depth will find bipartisan support from the opposition. The people of Australia are entitled to the very highest standards in aviation safety regulation and therefore those who are in charge of that regulatory function must have appropriate qualifications. If CASA is to be able to perform its task adequately, it must be governed by a board that is able to give it expert direction.

The next stage of the change of culture will be reviews of the regulatory framework and of the regulatory role. On 28 June, I will launch some important initiatives towards this end. They will involve the industry itself, through a series of technical committees, in reviewing and writing the rules that govern civil aviation.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communication and Infrastructure found in its inquiry into aviation safety that there was enormous confusion about the rules and regulations governing aviation safety not only among those participating in the industry but also among those regulating it. The rules conflict, are often ambiguous and are interpreted differently in different areas. The review of the rules will clarify them and rewrite them in ways that ensure they are comprehensible and consistent.

The new government has recognised that the regulatory framework has grown out of outdated regulations with various amendments over the years and that this needs a complete overhaul. This overhaul will be done with full industry participation and leadership. That overhaul will not be effective, however, without a complete and complementary change in the way CASA goes about its business.

On 28 June, the Director of CASA and I will be seeking the comments of industry and its support for the proposed reviews. In particular, we will be seeking a commitment from industry to nominate appropriate representatives to the program advisory panel to oversee the reviews. That panel will nominate people from the industry with the appropriate expertise to work on the technical committees which are a key part of the regulatory framework program.

Industry will have an opportunity to have its input into the direction of the program and the timetable for change and to accept responsibility for applying the new rules in their own environment. However, the greatest challenge will be for CASA itself to accept a new culture of accountability not only to me as the minister responsible but also to the parliament and ultimately to the people of Australia.

The Monarch and Seaview deaths were a shocking waste and have left continuing heartbreak and tragedy for the families of the victims. The only recompense we can give them is the certainty that the lessons have been learnt and action taken to ensure that those tragedies are not repeated. When I spoke in support of the legislation creating CASA, I pledged to continue to act as a watchdog over its operations and to be vigilant. I said that I hoped that others associated with the industry would also be vigilant.

I have now been given a ministerial responsibility that makes that pledge and hope a duty—and one I am determined to fulfil. This government is fully committed to that goal. It will not allow the deaths of the victims of Monarch and Seaview tragedies to have been entirely in vain.

The review that I will launch on 28 June will be the most significant step taken towards ensuring aviation safety for many years and it will be accompanied by this government's insistence on the full accountability of our aviation safety regulators. There is much to do until we can be assured that there will not be another repetition of Monarch and Seaview.

I present the following paper:
Aviation Safety Regulation—Ministerial Statement, 25 June 1996.




"..Let's do the time warp again!!"  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Questions, from the man at the back of the room IV.

Or. What the Australian did not say? But, what about what the CASA did not say?

“One of the most unsatisfactory elements of the old CAA was that its officers seemed to believe that they were somehow immune to the consequences of their own wrongdoing. That attitude will have to be well and truly purged from the new CASA. It is the job of the government to ensure that this happens and this government will not be repeating the errors of the previous government in allowing that attitude to continue uncorrected." (John Sharp).



The last minute of CASA part one and from about 1:45 in CASA part two have created a minor, but relevant discussion within the BRB. Towards the end of tape one; Sen. Patrick is on a roll – actually getting down to the ‘nitty-gritty’ when O’Sullivan interrupts for the fourth time and breaks up the flow. Undeterred and unruffled, Patrick gets back on the wagon and begins to bring perspective into play until 1:45 on tape two when O’Sullivan completely derails the argument. Why? This is an easily missed element of the last estimates debacle but to many experienced Estimates watchers, it is a significant one.

Had this been a ‘one-off’ the act may have been interpreted as simply bad manners; however, once noted - as an irritant, it is difficult not to note the repeats. Once is coincidence, twice is circumstance, third time is enemy action. Should you find the 40 required minutes to re-examine the recordings, with this in mind, you will note some 20 interruptions of ‘flow’ and approximately five derailment of argument and at least one ‘take-over’ at a crucial moment, by O’Sullivan.

While you are at it – keep an eye on Glenn Sterle, who says nothing. I’m not certain P2 can find a recording of the opening minutes of the session which followed CASA. Sterle had requested a ten minute session with the CASA crew; O’Sullivan had released CASA and Sterle was fuming when he returned to the next session.

Aye, ‘twas neatly done and it’s a long wait, without any momentum to the next estimates; unless Fawcett can drag a reluctant rabbit out the governmental hat. The BRB and IOS along with Aunt Pru believe that armed with some suitable facts, the ‘moral’ high ground may be regained and the dubious ‘legal’ ground CASA stand on may be shaken – if not stirred.

Not many believe Falcon is without fault; there most certainly are areas which need to be improved and tidied up. There always is – that’s why audit is essential. A proactive approach to remedy is a mighty tool in the pursuit of ‘safety’ in both an operational and legal sense. What it is not acceptable is a hay-stacking event, designed to be used as a punitive tool to control or decimate an operation as pleases the like of Campbell and Crawford. Take the Pel-Air audit for example – some pretty significant breaches there; much worse than any Falcon alleged crime – yet Pel-Air got the velvet glove, Falcon get the big stick.

O’Sullivan may well have been trying to assist Patrick; but then you have to examine the Fawcett timetable and the O’Sullivan dismissal of a couple of groups which created a time conflict for Fawcett.

Aye well; just a pub discussion, interesting but insignificant to the wide world and likely to remain so – unless someone get’s the important questions raised and answered correctly. Anyway, watch the video – ignore CASA – watch O’Sullivan and make your own mind up as to the what (WTD) and ‘why-for’.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Some interesting OBS that you make "K"... Confused

As you know I too have strong reservations about the Chair of the RRAT Legislative committee and wonder if his nomination was nothing more than a strategic political manoeuvre to make nugatory the oversight of a once very effective non-partisan Senate committee.

The following was an interesting by-play that occurred prior to the dinner break, that may suggest there is some dissension within the ranks of the permanent committee Confused :   

Quote:From Hansard:

CHAIR: Mr Carmody, could you come up for one minute? I need to confirm something with you. But while you're coming up—Dr Kennedy?

Dr Kennedy : Yes.

CHAIR: I'm going on the record here: we have to do something about these schedulings at estimates. This is getting to a ridiculous point where we've got to let four and five agencies go that have been sitting here all day. It's not working, and I'll be taking that up with the Senate itself. We can release Aviation and Airports Division, Surface Transport Policy Division, Portfolio Coordination and Research Division, and Regional Development and Local Government Division.

Senator GALLACHER: You can't release all those people. That's not the way it works.

CHAIR: Then we'll have to have a private meeting, and the government numbers will release them. We're five hours behind, Alex.

Senator STERLE: We'll have a spillover day.

CHAIR: We're five hours behind. We're never going to get to them.

Senator GALLACHER: Surface Transport was next.

CHAIR: Don't make me call the team together and use our numbers on you.

Senator GALLACHER: He's threatened us with the numbers! Let's go and have a meeting.

CHAIR: I genuinely apologise to these officers as well. We try our best with scheduling, but even the best laid plans go. They go with our thanks and our wish that they arrive safely back at their home destination.

Mr Carmody, we want to confirm that Mr Campbell is with us.

Mr Carmody : Yes, he is.

CHAIR: Thank you. Excellent. I appreciate the effort there. We'll now break for lunch—dinner. It gets like that after a day of estimates!


It should be remembered that the person who has the power to ensure the committee strictly adhere to the published timetable would be the Chair - Just saying... Rolleyes


MTF? Definitely with Fawcett timetables and Chair nominations etc.etc... Confused
Reply

Dick Smith - so close but no cigar... Confused

Talking about politicians and government aversion to tackling anything to do with aviation safety regulatory reform and a seemingly untouchable Big "R"-regulator - the following article courtesy of the Oz shines a light on just how close we were to getting a legislative change to the Act Undecided before BJ was politically nullified:

Quote:Joyce saga sank aviation reform


[Image: cd7c00aa7b8af387b7f48c116a6c8b56]12:00amANDREW BURRELL

Dick Smith won approval for slashing crippling aviation costs, but the deal crashed with Barnaby Joyce’s resignation.


Barnaby Joyce affair ‘sank aviation reform’, says Dick Smith

Businessman Dick Smith won approval last month from Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese for a rewrite of the Civil Aviation Act aimed at slashing crippling costs, but the prospect of a bipartisan deal crashed days later with Mr Joyce’s resignation from cabinet.

Mr Smith began working quietly in January to convince Mr Joyce, then the Coalition’s new transport minister, to amend a key part of the act that requires the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to “regard safety as the most ­important consideration” in regulating the industry. Under the planned changes, CASA would instead be required to seek the “highest level of safety in air navigation” alongside the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

Mr Smith, a former CASA chairman, said yesterday the rewrite would stop bureaucrats using the act to impose extra layers of needless red tape, which had made the general aviation industry unviable and led to fewer people travelling by air.

Mr Joyce met Mr Smith on January 20 at the Promenade Cafe at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel — two weeks before revelations of Mr Joyce’s relationship with a political staffer, Vikki Campion, became front-page news. After winning the minister’s broad support, Mr Smith began lobbying Labor’s transport spokesman Anthony Albanese.

The Australian has obtained a copy of an email sent by Mr Albanese’s chief of staff, Jeff Singleton, on February 9 in which he supports the proposed amendments to the act and suggests several minor changes.

By that time, Mr Joyce had become engulfed in the scandal over his affair with Ms Campion. He resigned from cabinet on February 23 amid revelations that a ­sexual-harassment claim had been made against him.

Mr Smith said yesterday he had been told by a political source that Mr Albanese and Mr Joyce had discussed the planned changes and agreed on them.

Mr Albanese declined to comment yesterday and Mr Joyce’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr Smith said he considered Mr Joyce’s co-operation a breakthrough because the Coalition’s previous transport minister, Darren Chester, had been a “disaster” and had been unresponsive to changing the act.

“Barnaby told me he was the minister for transport, not just aviation, and he did not want to send more cars on the road and end up with more people dead,” Mr Smith said.

Mr Smith said he would try to convince new Transport Minister Michael McCormack to agree to the amendments.

“If he doesn’t, the whole future of aviation is doomed,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Mr McCormack said the minister could not comment on the content of any private discussions between Mr Joyce and Mr Smith.

The spokeswoman noted that CASA already had a requirement that its regulatory approach must consider the economic and cost impacts on individuals, businesses and the community.

[Image: RRAT-com-e1519516236143.jpg]

Come on Senators strike while the pan is still relatively warm...FDS! Dodgy  


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

P2 – “Come on Senators strike while the pan is still relatively warm...FDS!”

More to the point - piss on the pot or get off it. FDS the Senate has been pissing about with CASA for three bloody decades; it begs a question:-

Do they have any horsepower whatsoever or are they just another highly paid bunch of gum flappers?   It costs money to buy whisky where I drink – but talk is forever cheap.

Speaking of which, I prefer the Irish type; two more here barkeep. “K” don’t care for it – cunning eh?

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

Some comments from Sandy & co in reply to the Dick article Wink :

Quote:Andrew


Why quiet talks with the now ex-minister?

Surely things should be out in the open.

Enough secrecy in government.

The Other Andrew


Douglas

CASA blatantly does not consider the economic costs of its regulations. If we had an interested Minister in the Chair for more than 5 minutes they would see that. Anyway, general aviation will probably be safer soon as it will cease to exist on its current trajectory. I kid you not.


graham

Well done Dick, do not give up you never have.




Alexander

@ Graham, also thanks to Andrew Burrell and several other reporters and editors from the the Australian for keeping this glaring failure of government in the public eye. The rot is exposed and that is the only hope to stop the loss of General Aviation jobs, businesses and services, not to mention home grown airline pilots. 

Having led a deputation thirteen years ago to Mr. Warren Truss, the then Minister and leader of the National Party, pleading for reform was like talking to a stone wall in the wilderness. Amazing lack of action or concern when considering that the regions and those Aussies living in remote areas are hardest hit with shrinking air services and loss of General Aviation.
 
Will McCormack act? On the past performance of the Nats, and as Leader Barnaby Joyce had plenty of time to get things moving, not without continued publicity and so far the Oz is the only media that’s appreciated the disaster area we know as General Aviation.

Alex in the Rises.




Rick

Wow. Requiring CASA to seek the “highest level of safety in air navigation” alongside the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry” may be the first sensible idea I've heard from Dick Smith.



Alexander

@Rick. Being in the business of General Aviation from the 60s I can assure you he has had that message about aviation consistently.


Gary

@Rick It's getting close to 30 years now that Smith decided to "reform" our regs. Ask the hundreds of regulatory people who left when he started and now populate the worlds regulators to their delight, what they thought about the "reforms". The GA industry itself also has much to answer for.



Laurie


The current political malais has MANY victims not least the public purse our way of life and Defence. An excellent insight on aviation!





Alexander

“The spokeswoman noted that CASA already had a requirement that its regulatory approach must consider the economic and cost impacts on individuals, businesses and the community.”

This comment as reported from the new Minister in charge of aviation, Mr. McCormack, does not bode well. 

The facts are there for all to see; the ruination of General Aviation, not only because the Act needs to be rewritten with safety as an outcome of a healthy industry, but because the present model of governance some 30 years on has patently failed. 

Without a return in some form to Ministerial responsibility the present independent corporate structure cannot deliver rational or efficient management of civil aviation in Australia.

Virtually the only political input from us the public through our elected representatives is an occasional Ministerial Statement of Expectations. This farcical excuse for Ministerial control has proven to be totally useless and the regulator CASA continues to waste a perfectly good industry while feathering it’s own nest. A make work salary factory that has made rewriting the rules, 30 years and umpteen hundreds of $millions still not inished, an art form.

Inventing new permissions requiring enormous fees being one method to bolster it’s budget.

Alex in the Rises.

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Dick Smith recruits Byron to sell Act change message - Rolleyes

Follow up in the Oz today:


Quote:Aviation changes still safe: expert

[Image: 5b546accd74127f1b8655e327a641c9d]12:00amANDREW BURRELL
Australia’s aviation laws could be overhauled without compromising air safety, a former CASA chief says.


Aviation rule changes still safe, says former CASA chief

The nation’s aviation laws could be overhauled to reduce escalating costs for operators without compromising air safety, according to a former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief.

Bruce Byron yesterday backed key changes to the Civil Aviation Act being pushed by businessman Dick Smith, who has complained about a rise in needless red tape.

He said the changes “struck the right balance” and would filter down to bureaucrats at CASA, leading to “less proscriptive” regulations that would cut costs for airlines, aerodromes, maintenance organisations and the general aviation sector.

The Australian revealed yesterday that Mr Smith, a former CASA chairman, last month ­secured approval from Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese for a rewrite of the act, but the prospect of a bipartisan deal died with Mr Joyce’s resignation from cabinet on February 23.

Mr Joyce, then the Coalition transport minister, had agreed with Mr Albanese, his Labor counterpart, about removing a key part of the act that requires CASA to “regard safety as the most important consideration” in regulating the industry.

Under the changes, CASA would instead be required to prioritise the “highest level of safety in air navigation” with the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

Mr Joyce, who resigned in the aftermath of his affair with political staffer Vikki Campion, ­declined to comment yesterday, but he did confirm the details of the proposal he agreed to as ­minister.

Mr Smith praised Mr Albanese for his willingness to reform the aviation sector and said he hoped the Turnbull government’s new Transport Minister, Michael McCormack, would back the proposed amendments.

Mr Byron said he had tried to make similar changes to the act when he ran CASA ­between 2003 and 2009. “This part of the act has sat there in stone for 30 years and I think a review of it would be appropriate,” he said yesterday after being approached by The Australian.

Mr Byron said he did not ­believe the amendments would affect Australia’s excellent record in air safety because organisations including airlines, maintenance companies, air traffic controllers and airports were ­already required to have an effective safety management system.

It was now world’s best practice to recognise that aviation could not be completely free of hazards and associated risks.

“It’s realising that you can never achieve absolute safety,” he said. “If you want that, stay in bed.

“Any transport system will have attendant risks and it’s a matter of managing them. Having a recognition of that fact enshrined in the legislation might prevent various CASA ­administrations from going too far.”

Mr Byron said some of the regulations that had been imposed since he left CASA appeared to have imposed an unnecessary ­additional cost of compliance on operators.
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

AOPA Oz steps into the fray - Rolleyes

Via the Oz:

Quote:Pilots question CASA’s priorities

[Image: bedd0ddbec1068790ab4ece108f2aa71]

ANDREW BURRELL


The drastic decline of Australia’s aviation sector in the past 15 years could have been averted if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority was required to prioritise the need for a viable industry alongside its focus on safety, according to a key lobby group.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association chief executive Ben Morgan said a proposed update of the Civil Aviation Act, to be presented soon to Transport Minister Michael McCormack, would cut red tape and slash costs for businesses including financially-stricken flight schools.

The changes would be welcomed because they would bind the performance of the regulator to that of the industry.

“It would have a massive impact,” Mr Morgan said.

“The act sets the tone, and CASA is an instrument of the act.

“Australia has enjoyed 103 quarters of economic growth, and it is odd that our aviation industry in that period has declined. I have no doubt that if the act had been updated 10 to 15 years ago, the aviation industry would have followed the broader economy and we would have seen jobs growth.”

The Australian reported this week that former CASA chairman Dick Smith quietly won the backing last month of then transport minister Barnaby Joyce and his Labor counterpart Anthony Albanese for key changes to the act.

But the bipartisan deal died with Mr Joyce’s resignation from Cabinet after revelations of his affair with a staffer.

Mr Joyce and Mr Albanese wanted to remove a section of the act that requires CASA to “regard safety as the most important consideration” in regulating the industry. CASA would instead be required to prioritise the “highest level of safety in air navigation” alongside the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

The AOPA, which represents thousands of aircraft owners and pilots, has long lobbied CASA to allow independent flight instructors in regional areas.

Interestingly over on the UP the Oz coverage has drawn out some good debate and commentary, via wren 460... Wink :   


Albo....didn’t do nothing


Quote:Originally Posted by busdriver007 [url=https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/606520-dick-smith-initiated-change-civil-aviation-act-post10082885.html#post10082885][/url]

Albanese, The Minister for Doing Nothing!

Busdriver, certainly Albo did nothing to arrest the severe decline of GA, you could argue that he hastened the process by being talked (by CASA) into a one off, four years only, increase in the fuel levy. This levy was expected to raise $89.9 million for special safety studies or, my take,‘some such’. ‘Some such’ probably to fund (consultants?) a bunch of remedies to sort the CASA messups that the FAA had uncovered which was threatening to downgrade our international aviation status and burst onto the public consciousness. Wiki- Leaks for info on that one.

Then what? Trust Troglodyte Truss, rolled it over after the four years and its still there in general revenue, one count a couple of years ago upwards of $127 million and counting.
Mid 2009 Albo shoved off the ATSB out of his responsibility to be yet another ‘independent’ statutory Commonwealth corporate body to operate willy nilly like CASA, AirServices and many others outside aviation. ATSB CASA personnel interchange, Rex’s PelAir ditching late that year, Rex’s mighty political donations; all for consideration by timelines and probity.

Regarding the Dick Smith article, Quote:-
“The spokeswoman noted that CASA already had a requirement that its regulatory approach must consider the economic and cost impacts on individuals, businesses and the community.”

This comment as reported from the new Minister in charge of aviation, Mr. McCormack, does not bode well, the drawbridge is up already.

The facts are there for all to see; the ruination of General Aviation, not only because the Act needs to be rewritten with safety as an outcome of a healthy industry, but because the present model of governance, some 30 years on, has patently failed.

Without a return in some form to Ministerial responsibility the present independent corporate structure cannot deliver rational or efficient management of civil aviation in Australia. Virtually the only political input from us the public, through our elected representatives, is an occasional Ministerial Statement of Expectations.

This farcical excuse for Ministerial control has proven to be totally useless and the regulator CASA continues to waste a perfectly good industry while feathering it’s own nest. A make work salary factory that has made rewriting the rules, for 30 years and umpteen hundreds of $millions still not finished, into an art form. Inventing new permissions requiring enormous fees being one method to bolster it’s budget.

Every time a Minister abrogates his responsibility by hiving off part of his portfolio by creating a new Commonwealth corporate, to administer and regulate, the excuse is that an independent umpire is desirable. Unfortunately government is not a sport and the corporate naturally looks after itself and salaries reflect ‘commercial’ rates.

Goodbye responsible government, hello waste, mismanagement, hubris, ego and internal power plays unchecked.

Accountability is lost in a sea of independent bureaucrats, Can’tberra of 403,000 people on salaries much higher than the national average, home to 1200 Commonwealth instrumentalities. The APS, if you can call it a ‘service’ because it is now regarded as the Public Sector, is 157,000 and includes an Ombudsman for just about everything in place of your Parliamentary Representative.

The only hope for Australian aviation is continuous publicity adverse to government. Thanks to the Oz; being the only media outlet that can at least see the tip of the iceberg.


Come on Senators put this to bed by making this a non-partisan, whole of Parliament initiative - FDS! Dodgy  


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Change – ‘the Act’ or; ‘their act’.

It is a fair question and it was put the BRB – ‘the question’ created a not unexpected debate which centred on a which came first – ‘the chicken or the egg’ type of argument, before getting down to brass tacks. FWIW – you could throw a blanket over the votes – close enough to be called a dead heat. “Did the Act create the almost unbelievable present day CASA?” Or, is the ‘Act’ now a catspaw; used only to serve and support today’s CASA? Good points raised by both sides – in the end, agree to disagree was the safest road.

I mention it only to highlight the next part, which IMO was the interesting bit – ‘Will a change in the Act change the authority’? Short, swift and sweet came the unanimous response – No way. Not in a million years.

In a coconut shell – the Act, considered by many to be itself unconstitutional, has had the spirit and original intent progressively corrupted in order to justify past gross aberrations and the current lunacy. Cleverly utilized and manipulated by legal minds to suit purpose. This is an easily demonstrated claim; you do not need to travel far, nor go to any great expense to clearly see this demonstrated on every working day. Go to a courtroom, near you.

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice." - (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr).,

The legal profession earn their living by arguing points of law, exploiting any wriggle room afforded and either prosecuting or defending a case on very finely defined (thinly stretched) points of law, where the interpretation of ‘words’ within a law may be used to persuade a Judge or Jury that ‘their’ argument carries the most weight. In short; its called a trial. Exploitation and the ‘extremes’ of a law may be utilised to present and support the legal argument. At least, in court, there is a judge and often a jury to ‘balance’ the scales of extremes (so to speak). Right or wrong it is ‘our’ system, the law under which the case is being heard, is, in reality the only thing being considered.  

So, the question M’lud is a simple one – will changing the Act change CASA?

I could I expect provide a reply over a couple of pages, writ in colourful, robust Anglo –Saxon, all of which would say the same thing. The ‘Act’ has long been an excellent shield against ‘change’; not that the Act itself prevents change, it simply provides a lovely high, thick hedge surrounding the legal maze within.

[Image: hever-castle-attractions-mazes-yew-maze-1020x599.jpg]

That same Act, will just as easily lend itself to reform of regulation as it does to the creation of regulation – it is within the ‘interpretation’ of the words the devil resides. As it stands ‘the Act’ is presently being used to justify the many pages of counterproductive, subjective opinion and amateur foolishness passed off as 'safety-law' – all in the name of ‘safety’ – whatever that may be. Look no further than Part 61 – the sole purpose of the horrendous impositions that one rule inflicts only serves one purpose. “The safe conviction of (- - - - - - - ).” That rule set no more serves ‘operational safety’ than my cat serves the dog protection league.

Until CASA is brought to book and reformed there will be no way forward. Bring in the 'new' Act – watch and wait – nothing will change, except new ways to exploit the laws will be found and CASA will continue, unchanged, unchallenged and unaccountable.

BRB opinion - There is no bloody ‘mystique’ to aviation safety – despite the CASA foolishness and paperwork mountain our operating companies, engineers, pilots and operations staff will continue to do their work and maintain Australia’s safety record. Reform the regulations all you like – until CASA is completely reformed, they are just words on paper, open to subjective opinion.

Toot toot.
Reply

Well me old mate K,
As a great man once said "Its not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning"

But the sad truth is I have to agree with the BRB, the "self servants" will rule the day.

From the top down our government has become rotten to the core. The so called "National Interest" replaced with self interest.

Is there nobody left in Australia with principle and probity? I really do wonder.
Reply

A PelAir blast from the past - Dodgy

Via the Justinian in 2012  Wink :



[Image: James_Dominic_pilot_660.jpg?__SQUARESPAC...6809111363]Pilot Dominic James: put his case

MEANWHILE, your correspondent was diverted by watching Four Corners on Monday night (Sept 3)

It was all about a crash of a small Pel-Air jet off Norfolk Island in November 2009.

The two pilots and four passengers survived, but the story unfolded with the usual Australian bloody mindedness: officialdom in the shape of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had decided to blame the pilot for insufficient foresight in fuel calculation and planning for alternate landing sites. 

All that after he took off with information that the weather over Norfolk Island was clear.
The rigours of age have destroyed Procrustes' short term memory, but on the deep past he can be elephantine. 

Something stirred in the recesses: hadn't Pel-Air lost a small jet in the water, and with fatalities, in the 1980s?

Thanks to Google I found that was indeed correct, but was horrified to see that there had been another Westwind accident in 1985, with three dead at Alice Springs.

It was time to dive in my extensive, and now very yellowed clipping service (this is a joy the young of today will never experience). 

And lo, there it was, in The National Times of December 6, 1985, an article that revealed just how far the feet of corporate air service were entangled with those of Commonwealth regulators. 

The two pilots of the Pel-Air Westwind that went down off Botany Bay in October 1985 were not around to defend themselves, but what came out of the article was the extent to which the Department of Aviation had dispensed with safety standards at the request of Pel-Air.

The meat in the sandwich in any such departure from safety standards will always be the pilots, as the corporation, driven by profits, will demand performance to the limit of the new dispensation. 

Here's the 1985 story from National Times journalist Colleen Ryan:
Quote:"Under Air Navigation Order 48, pilots are permitted to fly on only two consecutive nights. But Pel-Air had a Department of Aviation dispensation which allowed its pilots to fly on five consecutive nights ...

The Department of Aviation has given Pel-Air a dispensation, which is outside the manufacturer's minimum guidelines for safe operation in the flight manual.

A spokesman for the Department of Aviation told the National Times that, 'There is nothing wrong with the dispensation. The department has the right to make this decision. If they thought it was dangerous they wouldn't do it'." 

This caused your correspondent's eyes to water: presumably thinking it's not dangerous trumps the evidence that it was fatally dangerous.

And then the killer explanation of the relationships between Pel-Air and the department's personnel:

Quote:"Pel-Air ... had a close association with some members of the department. Barry Lodge, the senior Westwind examiner for the South Australian region, is well known to Pel-Air personnel. It was Lodge's daughter who received trips on Pel-Air planes between Perth and the east coast of Australia."

One can hardly fail to note the likely factor of pilot fatigue as a result of the department's dispensation, which is exactly nowhere to be seen in the Pel-Air website account of the 1985 crash:

Quote:"Lost control in a turn at 5000 feet after takeoff from Sydney runway 16 at night; crashed into Botany Bay. The captain probably simulated a failure of all three flight attitude indicators while there was a known malfunction in the rate of turn indicator and no external references.

Relevant events and factors

  1. There was a known malfunction of the rate of turn indicator.
  2. The pilot in command possibly simulated simultaneous failures of all three flight attitude indicators.
  3. There were no external references by which the crew could assess the attitude of the aircraft.
  4. A loss of control of the aircraft occurred at a height of about 5000 feet.
  5. The crew did not recover control of the aircraft prior to impact with the sea." 

See, it was all the pilots' fault.

ASN report
Bureau of Air Safety investigation

That particular crew died, but Dominic James the skipper on the ill-fated 2009 flight, survived.

He's in a position to put his case, but it will need a body more detached than the regulators, CASA and the ATSB, to hear his evidence.

A posting on Crikey on the morning after the Four Corners story was damning of Pel-Air and CASA: the call was out for a Royal Commission to investigate Australian air safety standards.

Your correspondent travels by train out of distrust of these newfangled aircraft, but can only concur. Bring on that Royal Commission.



Ever get the feeling that the bureaucratic (i.e. Iron Ring) mystique of aviation safety is firmly stuck in some kind of a relentless timewarp... Huh





MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Update: comment from Sandy to the Justinian -  Wink  


(03-19-2018, 08:39 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Via the Justinian in 2012  Wink :



[Image: James_Dominic_pilot_660.jpg?__SQUARESPAC...6809111363]Pilot Dominic James: put his case

MEANWHILE, your correspondent was diverted by watching Four Corners on Monday night (Sept 3)

It was all about a crash of a small Pel-Air jet off Norfolk Island in November 2009.

The two pilots and four passengers survived, but the story unfolded with the usual Australian bloody mindedness: officialdom in the shape of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had decided to blame the pilot for insufficient foresight in fuel calculation and planning for alternate landing sites. 

All that after he took off with information that the weather over Norfolk Island was clear.
The rigours of age have destroyed Procrustes' short term memory, but on the deep past he can be elephantine. 

Something stirred in the recesses: hadn't Pel-Air lost a small jet in the water, and with fatalities, in the 1980s?

Thanks to Google I found that was indeed correct, but was horrified to see that there had been another Westwind accident in 1985, with three dead at Alice Springs.

It was time to dive in my extensive, and now very yellowed clipping service (this is a joy the young of today will never experience). 

And lo, there it was, in The National Times of December 6, 1985, an article that revealed just how far the feet of corporate air service were entangled with those of Commonwealth regulators. 

The two pilots of the Pel-Air Westwind that went down off Botany Bay in October 1985 were not around to defend themselves, but what came out of the article was the extent to which the Department of Aviation had dispensed with safety standards at the request of Pel-Air.

The meat in the sandwich in any such departure from safety standards will always be the pilots, as the corporation, driven by profits, will demand performance to the limit of the new dispensation. 

Here's the 1985 story from National Times journalist Colleen Ryan:
Quote:"Under Air Navigation Order 48, pilots are permitted to fly on only two consecutive nights. But Pel-Air had a Department of Aviation dispensation which allowed its pilots to fly on five consecutive nights ...

The Department of Aviation has given Pel-Air a dispensation, which is outside the manufacturer's minimum guidelines for safe operation in the flight manual.

A spokesman for the Department of Aviation told the National Times that, 'There is nothing wrong with the dispensation. The department has the right to make this decision. If they thought it was dangerous they wouldn't do it'." 

This caused your correspondent's eyes to water: presumably thinking it's not dangerous trumps the evidence that it was fatally dangerous.

And then the killer explanation of the relationships between Pel-Air and the department's personnel:

Quote:"Pel-Air ... had a close association with some members of the department. Barry Lodge, the senior Westwind examiner for the South Australian region, is well known to Pel-Air personnel. It was Lodge's daughter who received trips on Pel-Air planes between Perth and the east coast of Australia."

One can hardly fail to note the likely factor of pilot fatigue as a result of the department's dispensation, which is exactly nowhere to be seen in the Pel-Air website account of the 1985 crash:

Quote:"Lost control in a turn at 5000 feet after takeoff from Sydney runway 16 at night; crashed into Botany Bay. The captain probably simulated a failure of all three flight attitude indicators while there was a known malfunction in the rate of turn indicator and no external references.

Relevant events and factors

  1. There was a known malfunction of the rate of turn indicator.
  2. The pilot in command possibly simulated simultaneous failures of all three flight attitude indicators.
  3. There were no external references by which the crew could assess the attitude of the aircraft.
  4. A loss of control of the aircraft occurred at a height of about 5000 feet.
  5. The crew did not recover control of the aircraft prior to impact with the sea." 

See, it was all the pilots' fault.

ASN report
Bureau of Air Safety investigation

That particular crew died, but Dominic James the skipper on the ill-fated 2009 flight, survived.

He's in a position to put his case, but it will need a body more detached than the regulators, CASA and the ATSB, to hear his evidence.

A posting on Crikey on the morning after the Four Corners story was damning of Pel-Air and CASA: the call was out for a Royal Commission to investigate Australian air safety standards.

Your correspondent travels by train out of distrust of these newfangled aircraft, but can only concur. Bring on that Royal Commission.


Sandy Reith • 7 hours ago

PelAir is a subsidiary of Rex Airlines with ex aviation Minister John Sharp as one Director. Rex made unusually large political donations, the timelines and joining the dots have kept many of us busy for years. 


It is noted by the aviation community that links may seen in personnel exchanges between CASA and ATSB. The ATSB had only just been hived off by Mr. Albanese out of his Department by the creation of yet another independent Commonwealth corporation when pilot Captain Dom James took off for Norfolk Island. It has become clear through the Professional Aviators Investigative Network studies that Captain James was not informed of crucial weather deterioration as he should have been, a fact that has been deliberately overlooked by the highly paid Can’tberra make work enquiry factories. 

Corporations like CASA and Air Services Australia are renowned for inefficiency, and much worse, like ‘blame the pilot’. Hardly surprising they run their own racer de-coupled from Ministerial control and able to pay ‘commercial’ rates whereby the CEOs pay may be twice that of the Minister. The Minister issues an occasional Statement of Expectations which only demonstrates either his total lack of interest or his desire to remove himself from any responsibility or both. 

http://disq.us/p/1r2sk49



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Carmody supports continued FalconAir embuggerance?? Dodgy   

Tabled today under additional information for RRAT Additional Estimates:

Quote:Mr Shane Carmody, Chief Executive Officer, Civil Aviation Safety Authority


Additional information regarding FalconAir matters 07/03/2018 - PDF 1439KB



[Image: Carmody-1.jpg]
 
Hmm...I think PAIN might just have to point out the huge discrepancies in 'key safety requirements' (non-compliances) between the PelAir operation and that of the attempted embuggerance by CASA of FalconAir, to what amounts to little more than administrative non-compliance to the overburdened, onerous, legal minefield of CASR Part 61... Dodgy  

MTF? - Definitely!...P2 Cool
Reply

A very neatly crafted set of ‘facts and circumstance’ - ala CASA. It may squeak through the AAT; it may even give the Senate Committee pause for thought.  The real test is; will it stand up to a determined, righteous challenge, in a ‘real’ court? Will Falcon take them on? Time will tell – but.

If this Senate committee is going to deal with this outrage, then maybe, perhaps the whole thing (Pel-Air, Airtex, Skymaster, Falcon)– soup to nuts - should be evaluated, in camera. Should the committee offer full protection to all and the factual, hard edged, cash and no bullshit truth of it all be revealed;then, there would be no way open except the complete rebuilding of the CASA 'servicing' of aviation.

CASA is a seriously buggered up outfit – Carmody has not got the balls, brains or backbone to sort it out. He stood back and watched Byron get shafted, shunted and shown the bloody door. What chance has he now? Nothing personal – he’s just a dancing bear, performing as directed by the music – simply because he just does not know what else to do.

The Skidmore dog and pony show, followed by the Carmody soft shoe shuffle has wasted two years (nearly three) of real reform, really happening. If this Senate committee get baffled by bullshit, this time around – well, its time to shuffle off to a quiet place – one without aircraft noise. Should be easy enough to find – probably on a landfill which used to be an aerodrome.

Enough with the polite, no outcome waffle and the O’Sullivan stone wall. He wants evidence – but won’t hear it, proof, but won’t read it; and fancy’s himself ‘the expert’. Not in my book he ain’t; not by a long shot. FFS – just get on with it, stop pissing about.

Now that’s what I love - a physic bartender. Thank you – and keep the change.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

Falconair embuggerance vs PelAir political donation favours etc. cont/-



And the legend grows

- [Image: hqdefault.jpg]



Further to the FalconAir timeline of embuggerance, the following are extracts off CASA documents released under the FOI in response to a Senator (sic'em) Rex FOI request:



[Image: RP-FOI1.jpg]

[Image: RP-FOI-2.jpg]



P2 comment - It is interesting to note that the 9 January correspondence from Carmody is obviously in response to a departmental query on the FalconAir embuggerance from Deputy Secretary Pip Spence. This makes sense of why Carmody took the stance that he did (& continues to take) at Senate Estimates - i.e. the script was already written and CC simply had no choice but to support it.


[Image: RP-FOI-3.jpg]

[Image: RP-FOI4.jpg]
[Image: RP-FOI5.jpg]

(P2 comment - 5 and half pages of S22 redactions followed)

&..

[Image: RP-FOI6.jpg]


P2 comments - Q/ Note in the above, that Fred didn't circle recommended and that the acting Aviation Group Manager John Grima did not sign, date or circle the audit SFR??

Q/ Carmody quote: "...The check on Mr James continued as we decided to deem it a private flight..."  - Besides the fact that there is many unexplained contradictions in the timeline, it would seem in the above quote that CC has tried to make it seem he was doing DJ favour by allowing the check to continue in a 'private' capacity - WTD??

Much..much MTF...P2 Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)