[Peetwo]

Sic ‘em; or, sick of ‘em Rex?

Now I am confused, bamboozled and baffled by Bull-pooh (Or rather I think I am). Here I sit a peace with the world – casually mulling over the P2 offering above, you know the sort of thing – your eye just skims trough stuff, brain at taxi power. Then – you realize you have read a particular sentence before, you move on, then you discover you are once again, reading the sentence again. Time to up the amperage and pay attention. Here we have it, although it is really two ‘parts’ of two bullet points :-

“On a review of [Check Pilot 1] recent proficiency checks he was found to be non compliant with the Falcon Air CAR 217 requirements”.

“The check on Mr James continued as we decided to deem it a ‘private flight’ (not conducted under the Falcon Air CAR 217).

Consider those remarks, ponder them, then have a little run through the rule book and see if you arrive at the same WTD conclusion I did.

One must hope Ms. Spence seeks some independent, expert legal opinion before meekly accepting, as Carmody has, the happy horse-pooh provided. Ms Spence needs to hope that Counsel for Falcon Air has, as I did, skimmed past this part, although I feel obliged to point it out to them; - in the interest of truth, justice and the CASA way.

Once you begin to deconstruct the ‘Falcon Air’ background paragraphs, the bad taste left behind increases; take a careful plod through bullet point 3. Why was there any need to mention Dom James or the Pel-Air debacle? It could have been quite simply stated, without the venom, “a check was required etc.”

You could ask how a check flight may be conducted by an allegedly ‘non compliant’ check pilot, without any independent qualification or approval outside of a company system may conduct the flight – outside the scope and provisions of the company 217 system? Certainly Dom and Check 1 could go for a little jolly – for fun – as a private operation. But - without a delegation to ‘independently’ sign off on the DJ check flight, the ATPL command on type check ride, one could challenge both the validity and value of the flight. “Aha – but” begins the mob – “CASA was on board and that made it all legal”. “Furry muff” says I “believe it if you like – don’t care”. Those with an inquiring mind; or a load of skin in the game, will consider this farcical episode and arrive at the right conclusions. For instance – are either the not current or tested Worthington or passenger Campbell qualified or competent to make any assessment; either in law or in the practical world? Seems to me the more qualified to make the assessment were the blokes actually flying – alas. It seems only CASA can bend the spirit, twist the intent, work at the extremes of the law and manipulate a system to suit; and, the gods help anyone else who arrives at a different conclusion or interpretation.

I shall consider this the first of the three warnings we provide a new minister, a professional courtesy, extended while he actually works out what an ‘aviation industry’ actually is, who runs it, where the money goes and who benefits from the expenditure. And so begins the dance macabre with the new ministerial boy.

Toot – toot…..

Addendum: Senate Additional Estimates report.

Tabled in the Senate yesterday was the following report for the RRAT Additional Estimates:

Report
Additional estimates 2017–18
28 March 2018
© Commonwealth of Australia 2018
ISBN 978-1-76010-732-1

View the report as a single document - (PDF 201KB)

---

View the report as separate downloadable parts:

Membership of the Committee
(PDF 20KB)

Chapter 1 - Introduction
(PDF 28KB)

Additional estimates hearings
Questions on notice and Hansard transcript
Record of proceedings
Answers to questions on notice – Supplementary Budget Estimates 2017–18
Note on references

Chapter 2 - Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio
(PDF 56KB)

Infrastructure Australia
Australian Rail Track Corporation
WSA Co
Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Airservices Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Infrastructure Investment Division
Cities Division

Quote from page 8 of that report:

---

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

2.32 The committee's primary line of questioning concerned the grounding of eight

of the nine pilots who worked for the air ambulance company, FalconAir.

2.33 The committee sought information from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

(CASA) in relation to each pilot involved. CASA informed the committee that the

pilots' qualifications were either not current or had not been validly checked. CASA's

CEO, Mr Shane Carmody, noted that if the pilots had continued to fly, they would

have been in breach of both their own operations manual and the provisions of the

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. He concluded that, as many of the pilots were

outside the operational proficiency checks, he had no confidence that the checking and

training regime was operating to ensure that the pilots were proficient.26

2.34 The committee also considered the circumstances of a subsequent exemption

signed by Mr Carmody as Director of Aviation Safety on 21 December 2017 to allow

FalconAir's Falcon 50 to operate over the Christmas period.27

---

"...He concluded that, as many of the pilots were
outside the operational proficiency checks, he had no confidence that the checking and training regime was operating to ensure that the pilots were proficient..."

Now put the committee translated Carmody statement and put it alongside the insightful "K" post (above)?? - Hmm I think even 'the man at the back of the room' can understand the legal smokescreen that Carmody is trying to deploy in an apparent attempt to defend the hypocrisy, discriminatory bias and duplicity of process used by his Sydney Basin Regional Office in their oversight of the FalconAir AOC...


MTF...P2