Forsyth report - IOS monitoring of progress??
#1

The good
In CASA's latest missive - March CASA Briefing - where DAS Skidmore announced that he has initiated a full review of Avmed  he also linked to a recent speech he made to the Aviation Medical Society of Victoria. In that speech he also touched on the Government's direction in regards to aviation safety generally & more specifically to aeromedical issues:

Quote:Government’s Direction


  • As most of you are aware, the Government has set a clear agenda for CASA in 2015 and the years to follow through its response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), which was released late in 2014. I am glad the Government’s response to the Review has coincided with the commencement of my tenure as the Director of Aviation Safety, as this provides a clear basis for planning, action and achievement.
  • Aviation medical concerns were amongst the more contentious issues raised in submissions to the ASRR and continue to be the subject of industry stakeholder comment. We are aware of a range of concerns raised by some members of the aviation community in the Report in relation to administration and decision making processes with respect to the issuing of aviation medical certificates.
  • In response to the ASRR, CASA has already identified a range of administrative measures to improve turnaround in the processing of certificates.
  • In relation to more contentious medical conditions, the Government has asked that CASA ensure its processes are as transparent as possible to the applicant, including the supporting reasons for its decisions to grant or not grant a medical certificate or place conditions on licences. It is acknowledged that different specialists can reach a different view on particularly complex cases but ultimately CASA has to make its decision based on aviation safety grounds.
  • Moreover the Government has asked that CASA undertake a review of its aviation medical Branch to establish whether a more effective and efficient system might be put in place without adversely impacting on safety.
  • Although the Aviation Medicine (AvMed) capability in CASA has achieved a range of significant improvements in performance and outcomes over the past three years, CASA recognises the need to improve its service delivery and to ensure that its decision-making processes are transparent and evidence-based.
  • As with other similar regulators, CASA is having difficulty in recruiting and retaining medical staff and a continued high level of CASA resources are tied up in aviation medical case reviews, complaints and appeals. These and other competing work pressures are contributing to a significant backlog of cases for medical review.
  • However, on a positive note let me tell you that CASA has already commenced a process to permit approved DAMEs to issue and renew Class 2 medical certificates. A post implementation review of this process will be conducted in the second half of 2015.
  • The results of the post implementation review will be considered and assessed to inform future consideration of a detailed examination of issues involved with the potential ability for DAME’s to renew medical certificates for classes 1 and 3 as identified in the ASRR’s recommendation.
  • Further, we have commenced a full review of our AvMed capability to ensure that the delivery of its functions are effective and efficient, and fully aligns with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act, the expectations of Government and the needs of medical certificate applicants. The review will include looking at various options to improve service delivery and the options for obtaining timely expert advice on complex matters. The review will be completed by the second half of the year.
  • Let me provide a bit more detail on this review for your information. During this review, we will consider, amongst other things:
    • ongoing issues experienced with the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified and experienced aviation medicine medical practitioners,
    • the strategic approach to aviation medicine policy standards and clinical practice development, and
    • options for how the organisation can optimally deliver aviation medicine services into the future.
  • The review is planning to engage with stakeholders (applicants, broader industry and other key stakeholders) in the coming months to collate feedback on the business improvements currently being made to AvMed. Active engagement in the review is encouraged to ensure that all contributions are captured in improving the delivery of this important function.
 
The indifferent
Sounds quite positive but again the proof will be in the pudding and industry needs to show a certain level of trust that Skidmore's intentions are truly honourable for any of it too work?? It also wouldn't hurt if the miniscule pulled his finger out and showed support for the DAS with a SOE that guaranteed that the Forsyth review will be actively acted on ASAP - P2 "Dear Mr Truss..FFS stop with the procrastination & just get on with it!"  Dodgy     

And the bad

From the Oz:

Quote:CASA seeks to hike fees as $25m loss looms  


Steve Creedy
[Image: steve_creedy.png]
Aviation Editor
Sydney

AUSTRALIA’S air safety regulator is calling for comment on a raft of new fees it is proposing as revenues from aviation regulatory services fall more than $25 million short of costs.  

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority predicts the cost of ­activities for which it charges will be $40.8m this financial year, resulting in a deficit of $25.8m and predicts this will increase due to inflation to $30m in 2018-19.

While it is not planning to raise existing fees, which have traditionally produced cost recovery revenue from aviation regulatory services of below $15m, it has proposed applying hourly rates to a raft of new areas.

Many of these are associated with the controversial introduction of new Part 61 regulations on flight crew licensing that have ­angered aviation groups at the small end of town.

They include new fees for testing, approvals, professional development and endorsements.
CASA has not raised its four-tier hourly rates since 2007 and currently charges $100, $130, $160 or $190 per hour.
Which rate applies to which area depends on the complexity involved, what administration is involved and whether it requires the skills of specialist staff.

The top hourly rate of $190 applies where a senior CASA officer or an officer with specialist experience and qualifications are involved.
These now include services involving regular public transport, aerospace and aerodrome regulations, corporate jet and multi-­engine helicopters as well as flight simulators.

CASA emphasises in its Cost Recovery Implementation Statement that it will not change its overall fee and expense profile.
It says the new fees were made necessary by the introduction of part 61 as well as Part 64 authorisations for unlicensed personnel such as ground crew as well as parts 141 and 142 relating to pilot training.

“There are no increases in any existing fees,’’ the proposal says. “CASA forecasts that the revised costs recovery arrangements will be revenue neutral.

“Increases in revenue and expenditure from the new fee items are expected to be offset by a corresponding reduction in connection with existing fees.’’

The authority’s audited financial statements show it lost $4.2m in 2013-14, when expenses of $184.9m outstripped revenue of $180.7m.
The loss was down from a $12m surplus in 2012-13.

Aviation regulatory services last financial year brought in $14.6m. The government provided $42.7m and the aviation fuel excise generated $120.10m.

The new fees are already raising the ire of those affected.

"Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said there seemed to be a contradiction between CASA’s approach and government policy that new regulations should be cost neutral and red tape should be reduced." {Couldn't have put it better myself Phil Wink }

Mr Hurst said the industry was also still waiting for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to provide a letter of intent that gave effect to the findings of the Forsyth review on aviation safety regulation.

“And then CASA, oblivious to all that, puts out a draft CRIS which says they’re going to raise by their accounting 90 new charges,’’ he said.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the peak body for aviation groups, last month urged Mr Truss as well as the new Civil Aviation Safety Authority board and the authority’s boss Mark Skidmore to pursue “a fundamental improvement in aviation in Australia”.

"It called on Mr Truss’s letter of intent to direct CASA to follow a new path of co-operation that would cut outmoded regulation."  I repeat - [i]"Dear Mr Truss..FFS stop with the procrastination & just get on with it!"  Dodgy     [/i]
Hmmm....wonder what happened to the (89.9m) bucket Huh
MTF..you bet! P2 Tongue
Reply
#2

Bad in the good?

Quote:...It is acknowledged that different specialists can reach a different view on particularly complex cases but ultimately CASA has to make its decision based on aviation safety grounds.

It's probably just habit – using the hackneyed phrase "aviation safety"; but it is a misnomer and only of value to the word weasels fooling and frightening the children.  It is risk mitigation and should be called as such.  Insurance companies use a 'risk matrix' and they bet big money against that matrix.   E.g. What are the percentage chances of someone getting hurt riding a skateboard? –the first question is who?; now young spotty down the road rides his through traffic, to Uni, to the pub, to the girlfriends place and to see Mum on Sunday, is he a high risk – Yes – then up goes his premium.  Grand Mama (bless) only rides hers to Bingo every second Sunday, is she high risk – No.  The whole ethos of aviation medicals is not based on any logical risk analysis but shrouded in myth.  Reform should start with an insurance type 'risk assessment matrix' which can be and is defended in court.  Look at the mess and expense old Pooh-Shambollock created – and for what, and a what cost?  

Quote:....These and other competing work pressures are contributing to a significant backlog of cases for medical review.

Self inflicted and I am certain Skidmore understands the military response to that old saw.  The DAME is competent; reduce the number of medico's laying about second guessing DAME and specialist opinion.  You cannot legislate against a Hempell, but statistically the risk of a 'bought' opinion are low, specialist and DAME have too much to loose.  Avmed is a service to industry, not a bloody empire FFS.

Quote:....The review is planning to engage with stakeholders (applicants, broader industry and other key stakeholders) in the coming months to collate feedback on the business improvements currently being made to AvMed. Active engagement in the review is encouraged to ensure that all contributions are captured in improving the delivery of this important function.

Once again, Skidmore is asking for industry comment and as he is no McComic perhaps that comment will be listened to.  Consider how much good the Rev Forsyth achieved with industry submission, every one who has a medical 'tale' should be furiously typing a submission, one page defining the issues.  From those submissions a pattern will emerge and; if Avmed act honestly, the corrections required can be applied and service restored.  But reform cannot work in a vacuum, full industry participation is required.  Hard to trust the regulator? it sure is, but what other option is there. Avmed is a critical yardstick, it's the only place where nearly all of industry meet the regulator, you could say industry response to that experience defines the CASA approval rating.  

Quote:... P2  "It also wouldn't hurt if the miniscule pulled his finger out and showed support for the DAS with a SOE that guaranteed that the Forsyth review will be actively acted on ASAP

Truss is being badly advised, hoodwinked and conned.  The Iron Ring and their mouthpiece whisper, cajole, threaten and offer sweeties.  All will be well if you stick with us Minuscule, we can cover your aging arse; if you don't and it all turns to worms, you will be all alone.   Bollocks, use Fawcett he is a party man, an expert, liked, trussed, respected and definitely no dummy.  If it goes pear shaped you can blame him, but it won't, everyone except those seeking control of a Minister acknowledges this.  

Quote:...Mr Hurst said the industry was also still waiting for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to provide a letter of intent that gave effect to the findings of the Forsyth review on aviation safety regulation.

“And then CASA, oblivious to all that, puts out a draft CRIS which says they’re going to raise by their accounting 90 new charges,’’ he said.

If CASA just stopped winding up in courts and tribunals every second day there would be no need to revise there 'accounting'; if they stopped pissing about with trivia and writing silly policy and rules, spending and wasting a millions on 'new' regulations;  Aww endit : said it all before.   Hurst speaks eloquently and accurately for all.
Toot toot..... Rolleyes ....
Reply
#3

Of costs and COSTS.

It occurs to me that the whole direction of Australian Aviation regulation is seriously out of whack.
If the whole intent and purpose of Australian Aviation regulation is "Safety" then something is seriously wrong with the way we are going about it because it appears we are simply not becoming any safer, in fact the opposite seems to be happening.
I don't believe general aviation is any safer today than back in 1966 when I experienced the adrenalin rush of my first solo flight and the sense of achievement as I passed each milestone up the career ladder.

Back then we had "Airmanship" which has morphed into Psycho Babble CRM and lately TEM to be followed by SMS.
I don't want to be an heretic, but has all that complicated stuff really added much to the old "Airmanship"?
The old greybeard instructor never left an opportunity pass to reinforce that message, airmanship, airmanship, or fail to compliment when good airmanship was demonstrated, which gave you a sense of pride in achievement.

Certainly quantum leaps in technology has bought about safer outcomes statistically in commercial aviation, but from a purely stick and rudder perspective has anything really changed?
Has reliance on technology eroded stick and rudder skills to a point where safety is being diminished?

One thing for sure there is a whole lot less general aviation occurring today and costs have skyrocketed.

Our Government seems embarked on a path that attempts to defy the law of diminishing return.
Driving up the costs of committing aviation certainly reduces the number of accidents as less and less aviation occurs.

Ultimately does that become self defeating?

Government stated policy and direction is cynically ignored by their regulator. Why is this so?

What price does Australia pay by trying to be unique? Does our uniqueness make us any safer?

Statistics would suggest not.

Our government insists the Aviation Industry must pay for this experiment in uniqueness which has sown the seeds of its ultimate destruction, somewhat like charging the family of the condemned for the bullet that kills them.

So questions for our Government.

Do you stand by the policy and direction you set for our regulator?

Is it government policy to have a vibrant growing aviation Industry?

If your answer is yes then some suggestions that may reduce government costs and allow the Aviation Industry to survive and thrive:

Accept that the Aviation Act is flawed and results in a regulator with no oversight or control and encourages corruption.

Accept that everyone, except the regulator, involved in aviation is NOT a criminal.

Amend the act as necessary to mirror that of the USA and other jurisdictions where aviation is thriving by including "Foster and promote"

Accept that knowledge and expertise resides largely with the Industry , not with the regulator.

Listen to the Industry, not pay lip service to it. Accept that industry has a vested interest in being safe.

Find those responsible within the ranks of the regulator who have defied government policy and direction and remove them.

Recognize that the "regulatory reform experiment has been a massive failure just as the rule set it was supposed to be modeled on has turned out to be.

Accept that rule sets adopted by other jurisdictions achieve far better outcomes for safety and industry wellbeing than we could hope to achieve with our heads stuck in the sand ignoring the outside world.

Copy them.

Accept that selling control of our airports to property developers has been an unmitigated disaster. That as the value of the real estate occupied by airports increased to stratospheric levels the potential for corruption would and has become irresistible.

Enforce the provisions of the leases you made them sign, they are supposed to be running airports not building shopping centers.

Find and remove bureaucrats who defied government policy, aided and abetted the breach of provisions of Airport leases by property developers thus diminishing the utility and safety of our airports and failed miserably in their duty of care to the aviation industry.

Accept that Australian doctors are competent and have integrity.

Follow the US example and allow DAME's to decide if a pilot is fit to hold a medical or not.

That will do for a start anybody got anything to add?
Reply
#4

Dear miniscule,

Please take note your Murky Mandarin could be leading you up the garden path...

Quote:Thailand admits 'urgent' need to improve aviation safety

 

[Image: 4989a253d5b90e90d9e06920e821b9a3e14cebf0-1ahj5dh.jpg]
Thailand admits 'urgent' need to improve aviation safety

Bangkok (AFP) - Thai authorities Monday said they would use special powers under junta rule to "urgently" improve airline safety as several carriers face bans on new international flights following concerns raised by a UN aviation agency.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations body, recently reported "significant safety concerns" to Thailand's Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) after an audit earlier in the year.

In response Japan last week blocked new flights from Thailand in a move affecting charter services by budget carriers Thai AirAsia X and NokScoot as well as Asia Atlantic Airlines, the DCA said, adding existing flights would not be impacted.

Flag carrier Thai Airways has also been hit, saying in a statement on its Facebook page Saturday that two charter flights scheduled for Japan next month had been affected.

At a press conference Monday junta chief and premier Prayut Chan-O-Cha told reporters he would use Section 44 of the interim constitution -- imposed after he seized power from an elected government last May and which gives him absolute powers over legislative, executive and judicial decisions -- to expedite safety improvements.

"We have to accept that we are losing revenue from this, I am serious about solving the problem," he said.

In what appears to be a growing fallout of the ICAO decision a transport ministry official, deputy permanent secretary Voradej Harnprasert, told reporters that airlines including Thai Airways and Nok Air may also face a potential ban on new flights from Seoul and Beijing. It was not immediately possible to confirm these bans.

Prayut also said that he had raised the aviation safety issue with the Japanese prime minister and the South Korean president on the sidelines of the funeral of Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew on Sunday.

- Slipped Standards -

The UN body has flagged several safety concerns including Thai aviation department personnel failing to meet international standards and a lack of full aviation regulations, Transport Minister Prajin Juntong told the press conference.

"The audit revealed some concerns relating to air operator certification procedures," ICAO spokesman Anthony Philbin told AFP by email, stressing that ICAO audits review the capability of civil aviation authorities to monitor and manage operational aviation safety.

Thai authorities have set up two new committees to tackle the concerns and will send teams to South Korea, China, Australia and Germany to discuss the issues following a trip to Japan late last week, Prajin added.

Earlier in the day the minister had said Thailand was warned about its aviation management after an earlier ICAO audit in 2005. "(They) asked us to improve our systems. I understand we have to improve urgently."

In its statement released last Thursday the DCA had said it would provide new training for staff and increase airline inspections as part of its overhaul.

Section 44 has been under the spotlight in Thailand in recent days after Prayut Friday said he was considering lifting martial law, imposed two days before May's coup, and replacing it with an order under this controversial portion of the interim charter.

Several local rights groups have urged the junta chief to rethink the plans, issuing a joint statement maintaining their call to lift martial law but saying the impact of invoking the new order would be "much worse".

Under martial law Thailand's generals have banned political gatherings of more than five people, outlawed criticism of the ruling regime and tried civilians in military courts.
Ben on the Thai admission:
Quote:Thai carriers under threat of air safety downgrade


Ben Sandilands | Mar 31, 2015 4:50PM |


[Image: BKK-more-trouble-610x413.jpg]
Past problems at Bangkok's main airport . Are they now coming back?

Thailand is at risk of an aviation safety downgrade by ICAO and is taking urgent action under martial law powers to avoid the damaging commercial consequences that would follow such a decision.

It’s a story that ought to be of concern to Australian international carriers, given factors that could also cause a similar outcome because of the scandals and failures associated with CASA and the ATSB in recent years, and the inability of regulatory reform programs to meet declared targets under successive Labor and Coalition governments.

Most of the world’s aviation sectors, including those of Thailand and Australia, are rated as Level 1 states when it comes to having comprehensive, properly functioning and resourced air safety regimens.

But the dog’s breakfast of the Pel-Air scandal, where the regulatory shortcomings were actively suppressed and denied, and then saw an ATSB accident report failed in critical parts by a peer review by its Canadian counterpart, persist nearly five and a half years after that particular air ambulance flight was ditched near Norfolk Island in 2009.

It isn’t necessary to have a recital of the many past stories about these problems to understand the seriousness of issues that Thailand is now attempting to address and how equivalent sanctions or restrictions on Australian flag carriers could prove damaging.

Should Thailand, or for that matter Australia, be busted down to Level 2 status,  the flag carriers of each country would be prohibited  from starting new services or adding capacity to existing flights to the US, or codesharing with US carriers, or face similar restrictions in some countries in Asia, with the latter situation already a problem for some Thai carrier access to Japan and South Korea as set out in the story linked to above.

Such sanctions applied to Qantas or Virgin Australia would be manifestly unfair. However they apply to the flag carriers of countries in which the public administration of air safety is derelict by standards, resources and effectiveness.

A potential case of airlines of the highest standard being punished for the sins of the bureaucracy supposed to regulate them, and the governments supposed to be deeply and meaningfully engaged in their performance as measured by an audit process.

Thailand’s problem is not with what its goals or ambitions for aviation administration might be, but with their current state of delivery. Critics of CASA and the ATSB have in the recent past documented the poor state of such administration in Australia, but neither the previous government nor the current one have lifted their game above taking the advice of the very bureaucracies that are failing to perform.

Taking the advice of the Australian public service that everything is fine in the administrative side of aviation for which those same bureaucrats are responsible can bring the Australian airline sector undone.

The Thai situation ought to jolt the Australian government into taking a similar interest in the aviation industry. It probably won’t.

Take heed miniscule...Thai takeaway might be the last thing on your mind but the big Q & the big V will not be happy if you have not considered the very real implications of an ICAO downgrade.

P2... Angel  
Reply
#5

Another Canberra gab fest extravaganza.

I expect Doug and/or Hitch will cover the details of the recent Cantberra 'big bash', whether Ben decides the details are news-worthy enough for his blog time will tell.  Anyway – enough coverage so anecdotes and snippets will suffice for Aunty Pru.  Although not much happened; certainly nothing electrifying, although there were a few bright moments and some interesting observations made which will served up at the next BRB indaba.  

For our reporters one of the highlights and points of interest was the Skidmore v Farquharson heavy weight bout.  It is clear the GWM boss has no intention of going and feels he is ahead on points after 'shirt fronting' Skidmore and getting away with it.  Ayup, the McComic legacy lives on.  Reflected in the voluminous piles of 'we can do our own thing' paperwork, thousands of pages of new, more complex rules which CASA intend to foist on industry, like it or not, as part of the justification for keeping their jobs and the significant increase in costs.

One observer remarked that the raging anger inside the aging satyr Terry is beginning to seep out through the red eyes, no longer just seen in moments of absolute fury; the red glow in now permanently visible as a warning to all who approach.  The madness of self delusion and arrogance seems to manifesting in some pretty wild statements though; do you know that Terry believes McComic was a biblical class saviour and the Rev Forsyth a daemon to be cast down – true dat.  Terry firmly believes that CASA is a warm, fuzzy, friendly, fluffy, feel good, happy-clappy, shining example of a perfect regulator and that Rev Forsyth was but a paid stooge of the IOS.  Skidmore should have fired the large Terry arse the moment it said Farq-u-hardson, but didn't.  Now Terry is there for life, creeping through the secret passageways; poisoning the wells.  Mind you, it was interesting to note that the LSD minders followed Terry about the place during breaks, never far away and always within earshot; coincidence ? perhaps.

Best moments, which will not be generally reported:-

A minion delivered a rambling, disjointed party piece about the subtle differences in the various 'Advisory circulars' went on to define the various acronyms in some detail.  It was amusing when he was very neatly tied up in his own red tape, by pure, unarguable logic which said that whatever you called them they were in fact all one and the same thing; "a means, but not the only means of compliance": and there was no need, apart from a 'make-work' to further classify the advice.  Big smiles behind hands everywhere, Oh dear looks from the FF crew.   CASA 0 – Industry 1.  Bravo.

Phil Hurst and the other stalwarts have not taken the collective foot off the accelerator, all spoke well and with conviction, you get the feeling that despite the glacial speed at which reform is not occurring, there is hope.  The grasp of the Iron Ring remains tight, but maybe just loose enough to allow the industry one final deep breath before it dies.  One thing, with folk like Hurst and Re batting, the GA industry will not be flogged off to the property developers, not just yet anyway.   Steve Re is worthy of special mention, he did very well for the ALAEA; succinct, but the powerful message was delivered, with ease, clarity and some style.  Bravo.  Industry groups should follow the ALAEA 145 plan against Part 61 and find a Re to do the heavy lifting and speeches, part 61 could be dismissed within a month, those boys are very good at what they do.  Spend some money, get professional help.

That only leaves Skidmore without comment; still an enigma.  Hard to get reading is the general consensus, perhaps that's how he wants to play it.  There are some indications that he is on the side of the angels though; the man has a tough job to regain some control after the McComic free reign era.  Firing a few would make a good start, he seems capable of doing it, but only after he has made his decision.  Which is a good thing, at least for the most part as that makes him, his own man.  Skidmore was overheard to remark during a sidebar conversation that he was 'pig headed but open minded'.

One can only hope that his mind is not open at both ends...... Wink .....

That's it from Cantberra – the group leaders will no doubt pass their take on proceedings along to the membership of the various alphabet clans, in due course.
Reply
#6

KC & the AMROBA Band - Latest Newsletter Vol 12 issue 03

Quote:Stop Press:

There is now a light at the end of the tunnel.

CASA’s Mark Skidmore has rejuvenated industry representatives at the SCC meeting, 31st March. His opening speech at the SCC has provided industry with some confidence that this CASA will be a different CASA to the last 2 regimes.

See pages 2 & 3 for more detail on the SCC and Operations Sub-committee meetings.

However, the long term answer to aviation's woes is still very political. The Civil Aviation Act must be changed to permanently implement some of the ASRR Report recommendations.

Even Dick Smith has identified that the problem is a political problem and has decided to financially back a political party with focus on government departments and agencies over regulation and spending.

Dick Smith Political Party

As Dick stated on the Paul Murray TV show, CASA has continued to create unnecessary regulatory and administrative requirements that can be replaced by simpler performance based regulations if needed with less CASA involvement.

There is now a very good chance that under Mark Skidmore’s stewardship, the SCC and its Sub-committees will once again vet regulatory/ standards development.

CASA has no option but to task the new Subcommittees with meeting the government’s “Red Tape Reduction” and “The Australian Guide to Regulation”.

Firstly, AMROBA is fully supportive of the government’s initiative to minimise regulatory impost.

If you look closely at many regulations they are not really needed.

Many ‘practices’ do not need mandating as they can be achieved simply by providing advisory material.

AMROBA doubts whether CASA has the right staff with the right mindset to implement the government initiatives as they are tarred with the same brush as the previous EASA regulation growth.

Why try to impose what other government law already requires???

Quote:SCC Meeting 31st March 2015

At last a Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) meeting where it was treated as it was intended; a ‘steering committee’ to vet regulations, standards and advisory material. CASA’s new DAS, Mark Skidmore co-chaired the meeting and right from his opening speech, industry representatives sensed a new approach by CASA. It was a constructive meeting with input from SCC members being accepted by Mark Skidmore.

I am now optimistic that a recommendation to Mark Skidmore on how the SCC should operate and the involvement and role of industry subcommittees to vet all proposed regulations, standards and advisory material will be sent to CASA.

Industry ‘working groups’ must return to reporting to the Sector Subcommittee for endorsement of change.

Working groups, who CASA has used to bypass the Sub-committees, are usually specialists who are biased to the subject of the working group and their recommendations may, or may not be beneficial to the wider community.

Mark Skidmore recognised that ‘working groups’ should be subsets of the SCC Sub-committees.

It was interesting that both the Maintenance and Certification reports to the SCC stated many tasks (ACs, MoS, etc changes) were being carried out that have never been raised at an applicable Sub-committee meeting simply because CASA does not hold Maintenance & Certification Sub-committee meetings. AMROBA made a point of this lack of consultation.

"CASA’s Avmed provided the decline in young pilots stats. From 1997 to 2012, the percentage of over 60 pilots has grown from 2.8% to 7.5% of the total pilot population. This clearly identifies that we are not attracting enough new pilots into this industry to make it grow."

One of the major discussion was the relevance of the SCC and it’s Subcommittee if they are not used to determine if there is a need for a regulation in the first place. The new approach by EASA’s Executive Director was also raised as a reason we are in a mess.

"Mark Skidmore has recognised that there needs to be a partnership with industry to fix these issues—it will be interesting to see action supporting the positive indications from Mark Skidmore."
{Ps In other words Skates - "actions speak (much) louder than words!" }

TICK..TOCK miniscule where's that SOE?? Sad

MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply
#7

The words "partnership" are very relevant. It can mean many things. Byron was attacked about it unfairly in the Senate Inquiry in 2008 particularly by Senator Kerry O'Brien. Now Skidmore is stating the same? The Senate got their argument wrong in 2008 and hopefully sanity prevails! I'll attempt to download the 2008 hearing. Don't hold you're breath. Ma salamah.
Reply
#8

A rotten way - to start your day.

You know, when P2 (Guru) kicked off this thread, I had expectations of filling up pages with good news, of the best kind; I did.  Which should be a lesson of some sort about expecting that things would improve.

After the Senate and Pel-Air, followed by a Ministerial report by the esteemed Rev. Forsyth and the appointment of a new DAS, even a hardened cynic could be forgiven a little hope, especially with a new board being slowly selected.  This time I thought, we may actually get somewhere which justified the great expense and erased some of the past aberrations.  Call me a mug if you like, but I did hope.

Time slips by, Skidmore banks a quarter million or so and we wait.  Then we wait some more; trying desperately to winnow some wheat from the chaff.  Sense from the rhetoric, facts from the smoke and some future in the mirrors.  I should have seen it coming, in fact I probably did, but the old rose coloured specs did their job.  Soon I thought.

The cruellest of deceptions and like lambs to the slaughter we went along with it all.  

Senate recommendations – Nope.
Forsyth recommendations – Nope.
TSBC recommendations – Nope.
Skidmore breath of fresh air – Nope.

Still we waited, but not so quietly for the small, alarming signs that disaster was impending were starting to emerge; and, they did.  One at a time.  Shush old fool I thought, give it a chance, many wrongs to be righted in Sleepy Hollow, it takes time.

Well, the jigs up now, the last disgusting missive from the new boy DAS not only fails to indicate which reforms he has initiated, but dismisses reform as a task for industry to complete.  It seems we are to now give them ideas and suggestions and write law; in our own spare time, gratis and perhaps CASA will consider those ideas.  Skidmore goes to some length to show us that this is no easy task and to point out that really, only the CASA experts, those who have completely and utterly buggered up the job, for going on 25 years now, are the only qualified, competent experts for the job.  Gods know, they’ve had enough practice.

It’s going to be up to Truss and the board to reign in the unfettered arrogance and quell the cynicism now.  The direction Skidmore is taking is wrong and dangerous.  We wanted reform, not bloody wabbits enshrined as hero’s of the more skid than traction era we must now endure.

Argh, FFS – a decent, honest crew would have the Rev. Forsyth purring like a well fed, warm kitten; I wonder if the present crew have unleashed a tiger.  Time will tell I expect.

Toot toot.  Hell the boiler ain’t even warm yet but the steam is building up.  

Patience exhausted – exeunt stage left – background noises of coal being furiously hurled into a boiler are heard.

Reply
#9

It's alright K, cyber hug coming your way!
You're a glass half full kinda guy, no harm in that. A cynical angry old git like me gave up on Herr Skates months ago. It's all tautological when it comes to CAsA and it's cronies.

Round and round the pony pooh goes, where it stops we all know!

P666
Reply
#10

It is a twelve month to the day that the esteemed David Forsyth and the 'team' presented their 37 recommendations to DPM Truss.  Those of PAIN monitoring the changes and the effects of change have had a pretty easy time of it - in fact nothing has changed.  Not even to those who perpetrated the Pel-Air disgrace; still working, still denying, still obstructing and frustrating industry attempts to move forward.  Until Skidmore, Truss and the board are prepared to remove and possibly prosecute those responsible for actively fostering the culture of 'embuggerance' as a pastime, enforcing some of the most risible operational decisions and 'building' evidence to assist the process; it safe to say, the Forsyth effort has been a complete waste of time, money and industry patience.  Our opinion below stands; as valid today as the day it was first drafted.  Shame on the minister. 

Quote:1) The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), through the Minister is legally and morally responsible to the Australian travelling public for competently assessing whether all the elements of an air operator 'certification' are compliant.  Civil Aviation Regulation 215 requires that an air operator provide an exposition; usually entitled the Company Operations Manual (COM) which is required by strict liability law carrying criminal penalties to provide detailed operational data. The 'manual' is tailored to form a 'rock solid' foundation supporting all facets of a proposed Air Operator Certificate (AOC) prior to operational approval being issued, by CASA.

2) CASA have, over a period of years effectively blurred the distinction as to whether the exposition is "accepted" or "approved". Notwithstanding the fine legal distinctions, in reality if the CASA is not 'satisfied' then whatever is presented will neither be accepted or approved. In short, the CASA delegate 'must be satisfied'.  Hundreds of man hours and small fortunes are expended 'amending' expositions to the 'satisfaction' of individual CASA officers, who rarely seem to agree with one another on what should and what should not be written into a manual.

3) It is an untenable position and an outrageous notion that CASA can approve (or accept) an operation as compliant, then soon afterwards declare that the 'operator' is in breach of the regulations.   In both the Lockhart River (Transair) and Pel Air cases, the operators believed they were complying with the company procedures as accepted and approved by the CASA.

4) It appears that in both instances the COM assessed, accepted and where required 'approved' by the CASA as being suitable for the proposed operations were clearly and definitively substandard before the conduct of flight operations.  It appears, in both instances that the Training and Checking system accepted and formally approved by CASA was substandard and incapable of providing the level of flight safety protection expected and legally required for the safe conduct of the proposed flight operations.

5) The fatal Lockhart River crash occurred due to CASA allowing, accepting and approving procedures and operating practices which were clearly flawed and deficient. The near fatal Pel Air accident occurred for those very same reasons.

6) The Canley Vale fatal accident occurred due to CASA dismissing warnings and advice that an accident was inevitable and that the company operational management was dysfunctional, despite internal, executive efforts to address and correct serious issues.

7) The CASA manager overlooking the Pel Air audit has allowed much latitude to the company. The reason why is not a question we can answer; it is fact that the 'company manuals' with hasty (post-event) modification were deemed to still be 'acceptable' for continued operation albeit, with provisos attached to the AOC.

8) The same manager overlooking the Airtex 'special' audit deemed that CASA had not 'accepted' the extensive, CASA demanded modification to a manual which had been operationally 'in effect' for eighteen months, despite CASA removing several conditions from and reissuing the AOC against the revised manuals.  There was absolutely no latitude available to Airtex; no discussion which accepted reasoned, balanced argument, or indeed acceptance that the Inspectors conducting the audit opinion was technically incorrect in many areas and relied on CASA management support for some extreme definitions of operational 'law'.  Airtex, like Tiger Airways, Polar and Barrier Aviation were denied, administratively the right to continue operations under their CASA approved systems.  

P1 a.k.a P1.

P1 a.k.a P1.
Reply
#11

Time has beaten me; I really would like to revisit Forsyth and hammer home the points made. The main thrust, demanding (albeit politely, but firmly) that CASA must be reformed and changes made is being washed away in a tidal wave of spin, rhetoric and no action. The organisation has not, in the past year, changed one iota. In fact, the Skidmore capture has encouraged more disgusting behaviour; the miscreants are either feeling safe tucked up behind their desk; or, believe that change from the top down is simply a gabfest.

Minister Truss, Jeff Boyd and his board; Skidmore and the perhaps the Senators need to be reminded of what we asked for, what we paid and what they have, thus far, failed to deliver. There are about 60 far reaching, important recommendations outstanding.

Forsyth was not, as Skidmore terms it “a view”; it was a demand for positive action.

Selah and MMTF.
Reply
#12

(07-13-2015, 07:50 AM)kharon Wrote:  Time has beaten me; I really would like to revisit Forsyth and hammer home the points made.  The main thrust, demanding (albeit politely, but firmly) that CASA must be reformed and changes made is being washed away in a tidal wave of spin, rhetoric and no action.  The organisation has not, in the past year, changed one iota.  In fact, the Skidmore capture has encouraged more disgusting behaviour; the miscreants are either feeling safe tucked up behind their desk; or, believe that change from the top down is simply a gabfest.

Minister Truss, Jeff Boyd and his board; Skidmore and the perhaps the Senators need to be reminded of what we asked for, what we paid and what they have, thus far, failed to deliver.  There are about 60 far reaching, important recommendations outstanding.

Forsyth was not, as Skidmore terms it “a view”; it was a demand for positive action.  

Selah and MMTF.

Okay, think I know where the Ferryman is going with this, so in order to aid & abet his cause please find links & recommendations from the relevant reports... Wink


ASRR Report May 2014

List of recommendations

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel recommends that:

1. The Australian Government develops the State Safety Program into a strategic plan for Australia’s aviation safety system, under the leadership of the Aviation Policy Group, and uses it as the foundation for rationalising and improving coordination mechanisms.

2. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development plays a stronger policy role in the State Safety Program.

3. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigates as many fatal accidents in the sport and recreational aviation sector as its resources will allow.

4. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority utilise the provision in their bilateral Memorandum of Understanding to accredit CASA observers to ATSB investigations.

5. The Australian Government appoints an additional Australian Transport Safety Bureau Commissioner with aviation operational and safety management experience.

6. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Board exercises full governance control. The non-executive directors should possess a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds in aviation, safety, management, risk, regulation, governance and government.

7. The next Director of Aviation Safety has leadership and management experience and capabilities in cultural change of large organisations. Aviation or other safety industry experience is highly desirable.

8. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority:
a. reinstates publication of Key Performance Indicators for service delivery functions
b. conducts a stakeholder survey every two years to measure the health of its relationship with industry
c. accepts regulatory authority applications online unless there is a valid technical reason against it
d. adopts the same Code of Conduct and Values that apply to the Australian Public Service under the Public Service Act 1999.

9. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority develops a staff exchange program with industry.

10. Airservices Australia, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, reconsiders the policy on ‘Assessment of Priorities’ that stipulates that air traffic controllers sequence arriving aircraft based on category of operation, rather than on the accepted international practice of ‘first come, first served’.

11. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority amend the wording of their existing Memorandum of Understanding to make it more definitive about interaction, coordination, and cooperation.

12. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority delegates responsibility for the day-to-day operational management of airspace to Airservices Australia, including the designation of air routes, short-term designations of temporary Restricted Areas, and temporary changes to the classification of airspace for operational reasons.

13. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and Department of Defence (and appropriate agencies) establish an agreed policy position on safety oversight of civil operations into joint user and military airports.

14. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.

15. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority continues to provide appropriate indemnity to all industry personnel with delegations of authority.

16. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority finalises its Capability Framework and overhauls its training program to ensure identified areas of need are addressed, including:
a. communication in a regulatory context
b. decision making and good regulatory practice
c. auditing.

17. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority publishes and demonstrates the philosophy of ‘just culture’ whereby individuals involved in a reportable event are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training. However, actions of gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts should not be tolerated.

18. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reintroduces a ‘use of discretion’ procedure that gives operators or individuals the opportunity to discuss and, if necessary, remedy a perceived breach prior to CASA taking any formal action. This procedure is to be followed in all cases, except where CASA identifies a Serious and Imminent Risk to Air Safety.

19. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, without redaction or de-identification.

20. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers its safety education function to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

21. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its organisational structure to a client-oriented output model.

22. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes small offices at specific industry centres to improve monitoring, service quality, communications and collaborative relationships.

23. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority shares the risk assessment outputs of Sky Sentinel, itscomputerised risk assessment system, with the applicable authorisation holder.

24. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority provides full disclosure of audit findings at audit exit briefings in accordance with international best practice.

25. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority introduces grading of Non-Compliance Notices on a scale of seriousness.

26. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority assures consistency of audits across all regions, and delivers audit reports within an agreed timeframe.

27. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority implements a system of using third-party commercial auditsas a supplementary tool to its surveillance system.
 
28. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes a safety oversight risk management hierarchy based on a categorisation of operations. Rule making and surveillance priorities should be proportionate to the safety risk.

29. Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations, in coordination with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop mechanisms to ensure all aircraft to be regulated under CASR Part 149 are registered.

30. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two-tier regulatory framework (act and regulations) to a three-tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:
a. regulations drafted in a high-level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences
b. the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language.

31. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority structures all regulations not yet made with the three-tier approach, and subsequently reviews all other Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts (in consultation with industry) to determine if they should be remade using the three-tier structure.

32. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reassesses the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

33. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority applies a project management approach to the completion of all Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts not yet in force, with drafting to be completed within one year and consultation completed one year later, with:
a. a Steering Committee and a Project Team with both CASA and industry representatives
b. implementation dates established through formal industry consultation.

34. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Director of Aviation Safety meet with industry sector leaders to jointly develop a plan for renewing a collaborative and effective Standards Consultative Committee.

35. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination.

36. The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas, not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.

37. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority amends the current Terms of Reference of the Industry Complaints Commissioner so that:
a. the ICC reports directly to the CASA Board
b. no CASA staff are excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction
c. the ICC will receive complaints that relate to both the merits and the process of matters
d. on merits matters, including aviation medical matters, the ICC is empowered to convene an appropriately constituted review panel, chaired by a CASA non-executive director, to review the decision
e. while all ICC findings are non-binding recommendations, the original decision-maker is required to give reasons to the CASA Board if a recommendation is not followed.

Senate Inquiry Pel-Air report

List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1

3.68      The committee recommends that the ATSB retrieve VH-NGA flight data recorders without further delay.

Recommendation 2

4.41      The committee recommends that the minister, in issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the ATSB, valid from 1 July 2013, make it clear that safety in aviation operations involving passengers (fare paying or those with no control over the flight they are on, e.g. air ambulance) is to be accorded equal priority irrespective of flight classification.

Recommendation 3

4.43      The committee recommends that the ATSB move away from its current approach of forecasting the probability of future events and focus on the analysis of factors which allowed the accident under investigation to occur. This would enable the industry to identify, assess and implement lessons relevant to their own operations.

Recommendation 4

4.69      The committee recommends that the ATSB be required to document investigative avenues that were explored and then discarded, providing detailed explanations as to why.

Recommendation 5

4.78      The committee recommends that the training offered by the ATSB across all investigator skills sets be benchmarked against other agencies by an independent body by, for example, inviting the NTSB or commissioning an industry body to conduct such a benchmarking exercise.

Recommendation 6

4.79      The committee recommends that, as far as available resources allow, ATSB investigators be given access to training provided by the agency's international counterparts. Where this does not occur, resultant gaps in training/competence must be advised to the minister and the Parliament.

Recommendation 7

4.87      The committee recommends that the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 be amended to require that the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB be able to demonstrate extensive aviation safety expertise and experience as a prerequisite for the selection process.

Recommendation 8

4.101      The committee recommends that an expert aviation safety panel be established to ensure quality control of ATSB investigation and reporting processes along the lines set out by the committee.

Recommendation 9

4.103      The committee recommends that the government develop a process by which the ATSB can request access to supplementary funding via the minister.

Recommendation 10

6.41      The committee recommends that the investigation be re-opened by the ATSB with a focus on organisational, oversight and broader systemic issues.

Recommendation 11

6.52      The committee recommends that CASA processes in relation to matters highlighted by this investigation be reviewed. This could involve an evaluation benchmarked against a credible peer (such as FAA or CAA) of regulation and audits with respect to: non-RPT passenger carrying operations; approach to audits; and training and standardisation of FOI across regional offices.

Recommendation 12

6.55      The committee recommends that CASA, in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group (eg. Royal Flying Doctor Service, air ambulance operators, rotary wing rescue providers) consider the merit, form and standards of a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. The minister should require CASA to approve the industry plan unless there is a clear safety case not to. Scope for industry to assist as part of an audit team should also be investigated where standardisation is an issue. This should be completed within 12 months and the outcome reported publicly.

Recommendation 13

6.58      The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.

Recommendation 14

7.15      The committee recommends that the ATSB-CASA Memorandum of Understanding be re-drafted to remove any ambiguity in relation to information that should be shared between the agencies in relation to aviation accident investigations, to require CASA to:
  • advise the ATSB of the initiation of any action, audit or review as a result of an accident which the ATSB is investigating.
  • provide the ATSB with the relevant review report as soon as it is available.
Recommendation 15

7.16      The committee recommends that all meetings between the ATSB and CASA, whether formal or informal, where particulars of a given investigation are being discussed be appropriately minuted.

Recommendation 16

8.35      The committee recommends that, where relevant, the ATSB include thorough human factors analysis and discussion in future investigation reports. Where human factors are not considered relevant, the ATSB should include a statement explaining why.

Recommendation 17

9.18      The committee recommends that the ATSB prepare and release publicly a list of all its identified safety issues and the actions which are being taken or have been taken to address them. The ATSB should indicate its progress in monitoring the actions every 6 months and report every 12 months to Parliament.

Recommendation 18

9.40      The committee recommends that where a safety action has not been completed before a report being issued that a recommendation should be made. If it has been completed the report should include details of the action, who was involved and how it was resolved.

Recommendation 19

9.42      The committee recommends that the ATSB review its process to track the implementation of recommendations or safety actions to ensure it is an effective closed loop system. This should be made public, and provided to the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee prior to each Budget Estimates.

Recommendation 20

9.44      The committee recommends that where the consideration and implementation of an ATSB recommendation may be protracted, the requirement for regular updates (for example 6 monthly) should be included in the TSI Act.

Recommendation 21

9.45      The committee recommends that the government consider setting a time limit for agencies to implement or reject recommendations, beyond which ministerial oversight is required where the agencies concerned must report to the minister why the recommendation has not been implemented or that, with ministerial approval, it has been formally rejected.

Recommendation 22

9.77      The committee recommends that Airservices Australia discuss the safety case for providing a hazard alert service with Fijian and New Zealand ATC (and any other relevant jurisdictions) and encourage them to adopt this practice.

Recommendation 23

9.104      The committee recommends that the relevant agencies review whether any equipment or other changes can be made to improve the weather forecasting at Norfolk Island. The review would include whether the Unicom operator should be an approved meteorological observer.

Recommendation 24

9.106      The committee recommends that the relevant agencies investigate appropriate methods to ensure that information about the incidence of, and variable weather conditions at, Norfolk Island is available to assist flight crews and operators managing risk that may result from unforseen weather events.

Recommendation 25

9.108      The committee recommends that the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA) is updated to reflect the need for caution with regard to Norfolk Island forecasts where the actual conditions can change rapidly and vary from forecasts.

Recommendation 26

[b]10.35      The committee recommends that in relation to mandatory and confidential reporting, the default position should be that no identifying details should be provided or disclosed. However, if there is a clear risk to safety then the ATSB, CASA and industry representatives should develop a process that contains appropriate checks and balances.[/b]


 MTF P2 Tongue
Reply
#13

If you wake at midnight.

The ‘thing’ that forced the ASRR (Forsyth) was the Senate relentless pursuit of truth in the Pel-Air ‘affair’.  That committee was rocked by the small glimpse into the murky doings of CASA and their hold on the TSB, they even glimpsed the unholy plot to absorb ATSB into the ambit.  In short, the Senate inquiry revealed the true depths of depravity to which ‘our’ two safety watchdogs had sunk.  The Committee presented two excellent speeches (Fawcett and Xenophon), the minister (after a change of government) responded – eventually.  If we are to examine Forsyth, we must, I believe start with the Senate recommendations.  Skidmore has not belittled these as being “a view” ; in fact he has ran many a hard mile to distance himself from them.  Well, you can run; but you can’t hide (Joe Louis).  So, seconds out; ding-ding, Round 1.

From the Senate list:-

1) Slowly, reluctantly the CVR recovery is being ‘negotiated’.  Prevarication and time delay reduce the chances of recoverable data be obtained.  But this delayed action is allowed to continue. 

2) The ministers SoE has been issued, and ignored by ATSB; it has not, as of this AM been published by ATSB; let alone acted upon.

3) Is a joke, you all probably know the current incidents under investigation – draw your own conclusions; but, IMO the Committee has been told, silently; to put it where the sun don’t shine.  Read the latest batch – about as much use as a (fill in favourite useless thing).

4) Was a call for disclosure and clarity – (Insert maniacal laughter).

5) See (4) above.  

6) See (4 and 5) above.

7) Well; ol’ Beaker is certainly trying to convince the world he is qualified, his Mum and a lady journalist seem to agree.  Meanwhile, the world and it’s wife are laughing their collective socks off. Yet there sits Uriah Heep, arrogantly dismissing questions as he dares to front, once again, in the Committee room.  A man, with any self respect or honour would have resigned after Pel-Air; not our Beaker.    

8) Is an interesting confection – read it again – what exactly does it say?  Then ask, apart from the invisible Man (ning) who else is ‘involved’; try the Qantas incident as a test case.  The short answer is there is no one else apart from – you guessed it.  The long convoluted answer is ‘ Beaker is so good, he can do ‘em all; solo’.  

9) Not new; in fact it has long been acknowledged; world wide that when needs must, the coffers may be broached – disagree?  Check the MH 370 budget.  $90 Mill – no wukkers.

10) Yes, well; (Ahem): who is investigating and what, precisely is he investigating.  Oh, the original report.  But that was fine; it was what happened to after it was drafted which is of interest.  No matter, we know and once the ATSB has finally finished phase 1; we will produce Phase 1 and 2, as they should be.  That is a promise, but you must wait a little longer yet children.

11) Is a very strange item; but no matter CASA have simply ignored it, which simplifies matters somewhat.

12) I also a little ‘strangulated’ but as it has been a good 12 month now and the recommendation has been royally ignored, we can take it of our to-do list and consign it toi the ignored pile.  There now, that was easy.

13) Well, we did get Forsyth, which is another story, for another day.

14) Now this one is a winner.  The previous was so abused, patently dodgy, close to the wind; it was addressed with an almost indecent turn of speed.  The potential threat screaming liability was instantly corrected.  See, they can, when it pleases, move with an obscene turn of speed.  Funny that, ain’t it.

15) Was, before being completely ignored, a call for disclosure and clarity – (Insert maniacal laughter).

16) Big smile; ATSB must first know what HF are; no good asking CASA; they fired theirs.  Yuk, yuk, Yak…

17) Yeah, right.  Where are the three outstanding, dare we ask.  

18) See 17 (above).

19) Short intermission, need a wee-wee and another beer.  Fill this one in yourselves; for a bonus point.

20) Back now- Oh, just ICAO stuff, ignore.

21) Was, before being completely ignored, a call for disclosure and clarity – (Insert maniacal laughter)

22) Was, before being completely ignored, a call for disclosure and clarity – (Insert maniacal laughter)

23) How many times must the call for ‘better’ forecasting on Norfolk be made.  The Met boys out there do a fine job; 0900 to 1700 end of stoy.

24) Yawn, see any of the above; pick one, they all work.

25) Waste of time, effort and energy – everyone – except Pel-Air it seems, know the rules of Norfolk (read remote islands) operations. Silly recommendation. WOFTAM

26) Ditto, see 25 – Silly, if I were CASA or ATSB; I’d ignore it as well.  

So, we have, what, 24 valid, do-able’ and a couple of pot boilers.  The CASA and ATSB response is as uninspiring to us as it was to them.  Clearly, the Senate did a great job investigating and exposing, but it was just not quite enough to drive the point to the sticking place.  No prob: whistle up the Rev. Forsyth to sort it all out.

And so they did; sleep now children, if you are good, you shall see how the Rev smited (?) (smote?) the unholy foes of fair dealing and clarity, then righted the wrongs.  

Kipling best suits the mood, very nicely:-


Quote:IF you wake at midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie.
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by. 

Five and twenty ponies, 
Trotting through the dark - 
Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk.
Laces for a lady; letters for a spy,
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by! 

Toot, weary, toot.
Reply
#14

The latest offering from new AOPA president, Marc De Stoop seems positive, but without any sign of believing in fairy stories; which is good.  The editorial is worth reading and seems to indicate that AOPA will, once again become a voice for the industry and the aircraft owners. Which is jolly good. 

But for me, the best bit was the clear determination not to let the Rev. Forsyth’s hard work and sound advice slide away.  Pity DPM Truss don’t get it.

Anyway – FWIW, AOPA, Marc De Stoop  - HERE -
Reply
#15

Good catch Ol'Tom... Wink

[Image: Pres_Report_combined1.jpg]

This bit is most relevant & is where De Stoop nails the current impasse..

"..The members of the panel responsible for the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR) are disappointed nothing appears to actually be happening in implementing their government accepted recommendations.  There were many relatively simple recommendations that, if implemented, may have given the industry confidence that real reform from the ASRR recommendations were a reality.  Thus far none have been implemented and the panel are now distancing themselves from the DAS given the glacial pace of real implementation of the recommendations of the report.."

Followed by..

"..The perception is that the entrenched CASA bureaucracy, many of whom have weathered successive changes in leadership and policy, are blocking the real reform and need to be eliminated before genuine reform can occur.."

Well said that man.. Wink  

With the De Stoop report, the return of Parliament & the upcoming further Senate inquisition of ASA, IMO marks as good a time as any to start firing up the boilers and putting some heat under the usual bureaucratic, parasitic, vermin, that continue to kybosh any of the most recent (more than 60+) official recommendations related to aviation safety.

So for the benefit of the Senators a gentle reminder of some outstanding Senate agenda issues (besides next week's ASA inquisition) relating to aviation safety... Big Grin

Short statement from Labor Senator Ludwig (ref: Hansard December 02, 2013), my bold.. Dodgy :

Quote:Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (17:14): As a pilot and a glider pilot, and someone who is interested in aviation, I do want to speak to this document on the review of aviation safety regulation. As there is limited time available, I will get an opportunity to contribute at a later time. It is encouraging to see in the review that work will be undertaken to ensure that areas of aviation that I have a strong interest in will be consulted. It is very good to see that Mr Phillip Reiss, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, will take a particular role in this. General aviation play a vital role and, by and large, they have been overlooked by successive governments in the past. That is not to detract from the broader ambit of the Australian government's aviation safety regulation review and the strong case for the review made by all the previous speakers.


I will only take a moment of the Senate's time to reflect upon some of the more important areas that need to be addressed and the need to get it right. Through this review, we get an opportunity for eminent Australians to ensure that we can get safety in our airways at the regular public transport level, the general aviation level and what I would call the sports aviation level, so it can be an integrated whole and we have an outcome that provides a good result. I am always a little sceptical when it is 'just another' review. Governments use reviews as a way of not making decisions. I hope it is not going to be that. I hope that this review will be a real review of the operations and that real recommendations come out of the review, and that the government looks at those recommendations with a view to implementing them. Of course, I am not going to second-guess what those recommendations will be or call on the government to implement them. The government should take into account those recommendations to ensure that we get outcomes that will provide for better safety outcomes in aviation for all. With those short remarks, I will take this up at another time. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.
 
Indeed leave was granted and this adjourned debate remains on the notice paper to be further debated at a later date:

Quote:Orders of the Day

1 Transport—The Australian Government’s aviation safety regulation review—Ministerial statement

Adjourned debate on the motion of Senator Sterle—That the Senate take note of the document (Senator Ludwig, in continuation, 2 December 2013).
 
Maybe now would be a good time to reignite this debate, with the additional element of why the government accepted Forsyth recommendations have seemingly stalled?? Dodgy

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#16

Let's put the Forsyth (ASSR) review into lay-mans terms.

One could liken the Forsythe review to a third party audit of Australian aviation safety oversight. The auditor (Forsythe) has audited the operator (alphabet soup organisations). The auditor has found upward of 60 non conformances. What should the operator do? Well firstly respond in the agreed timeframe with root cause being identified by the operator, then initial fixes put in place, followed by a long term fix. Then of course later on at some point the operator would review the fixes to ensure mitigation has worked.

So what does our 'operator' do? Ignores the audit report for a long long period of time, doesn't bother to accept the auditors findings and do anything about it, and then ducks, weaves, obsfucates and basically allows all of the identified safety findings to just sit there, which in turn elevates the unmitigated risks to an extremely dangerous level.

Now unfortunately if we were talking about a real AOC or COA operation and someone like Wodger was involved then a safety alert followed by a show cause would be imminent, all done on a Friday at 16:59 PM.

Get my point? The auditors findings are serious, the safety findings remain unmitigated and as a result there is a real danger to industry and the travelling public, right now. Where to from here? Well it is time that ICAO or perhaps the FAA came in and did a follow up audit of the rogue 'operator' and took things to the next level. Heaven help us the IOS have tried to encourage change, the Senators have been trying for years to force change and Forsythe and Co have had a crack at it as well. Each time only to be ignored and a regulatory middle finger raised in defiance.

An unholy mess indeed, with unacceptable, unmitigated, already identified safety risk to industry and the public, with absolutely nothing being done about it. Tick tock Miniscule? Hmmm, I think so.

TICK TOCK
Reply
#17

AMROBA - Who cares?? Sad

Saw the following from off the AMROBA site, thought it needed some exposure and where better to put it than on the Reverend Forsyth's thread - Why? Well IMHO he is one of a minority who truly does care... Wink   

Quote:[Image: WC1.jpg]
[Image: WC2.jpg]
[Image: WC3.jpg]
Also in a much easy on the eye format AMROBA's latest newsletter is IMO very much required reading   Smile
Quote:Volume 12 Issue 8 August — 2015

Table of Contents

1. Resurrecting General Aviation — Deregulating GA

2. Is a Modified USA FBO system the Answer?

3. AME Training

4. The Role of the LAME

Well done KC & the AMROBA band.. Big Grin

However - except for bogus weasel-worded corporate plans, that say lots but mean nothing - the deathly silence from the Miniscule's office, his department & Murky's yes-men stooges (Skidmore, Harfy & Beaker) is deafening - could someone check if the Miniscule has a pulse?? Confused


MTF...P2 Tongue    
Reply
#18

The three Stooges.

What a trio; hell bent on copying the originals, the only difference being that the originals and their antics were pure fiction and made folks smile.

The Rev Forsyth could see, far and clear beyond the smoke and mirrors, so could his associates.  Skidmore deems that report as a ‘view’, the rolling road shows and ‘visits’ are designed to meet operators who, no surprise, mention that yes, they have a few small problems.  These ‘small’ problems are quickly translated into Forsyth jumping at shadows and reported back to the Minister as being easily solved and “all is well”.  So, Forsyth is rendered nugatory by industry feed back, a few well placed ‘exemptions’ and Bingo; all is well.  

The ATCO can see very well a top heavy system collapsing, yet not even the much vaunted ‘courage badges’ and a mile of Repcon can penetrate the well protected personal piggy banks and Govt. money making machine the top layers have built to protect and defend their ‘system’.  

ATSB can conjure 50 millions to continue their dialogue with Malysia, but cannot possibly investigate ‘all’ incidents; neatly drawing a line under even providing expert, in depth analysis of the Melbourne situation.  Their investigator given second class material and Dolan declaring that it was too expensive to investigate properly; and anyway, CASA and ASA said all was well; nothing to see, move along and the ATSB, most obligingly, did so.    

Here’s a Willy-Leaks video, smuggled out of the sacred halls of the Murky Machiavellian, detailing the latest ‘tripartite’ conference of our aviation saviour top management with their Big boss.



Toot toot.
Reply
#19

(09-03-2015, 09:39 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: Who-Cares-390x205.jpg]

AMROBA - Who cares??
Sad

Saw the following from off the AMROBA site, thought it needed some exposure and where better to put it than on the Reverend Forsyth's thread - Why? Well IMHO he is one of a minority who truly does care... Wink   



Quote:[Image: WC1.jpg]
[Image: WC2.jpg]
[Image: WC3.jpg]
Also in a much easy on the eye format AMROBA's latest newsletter is IMO very much required reading   Smile


Quote:Volume 12 Issue 8 August — 2015

Table of Contents

1. Resurrecting General Aviation — Deregulating GA

2. Is a Modified USA FBO system the Answer?

3. AME Training

4. The Role of the LAME

Well done KC & the AMROBA band.. Big Grin

However - except for bogus weasel-worded corporate plans, that say lots but mean nothing - the deathly silence from the Miniscule's office, his department & Murky's yes-men stooges (Skidmore, Harfy & Beaker) is deafening - could someone check if the Miniscule has a pulse?? Confused

Strange dichotomy?- Marine v Aviation Industries

I have often thought that, in a strange way, the non-partisan approach to aviation safety & the apathy of the aviation industry in general, is ironically doing our industry a huge disservice. Now I have further evidence to confirm my suspicions with a point of comparison with the Australian Maritime Industry... Undecided  

Two days ago the RRAT Legislative Committee tabled a report from an inquiry that looked into - Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 [Provisions]

However the findings of that report were not unanimously accepted by the members of the committee. Consequently two dissenting reports were also tabled, one from Labor & one from the Greens.

Both of these reports take issue with the CBA/RIS of the proposed amended legislation,  plus the potential loss of industry jobs if the legislation was to be accepted by the Senate:

[Image: Rice-3.jpg]

..&

[Image: Rice-1.jpg]

[Image: Rice-2.jpg]

This inquiry generated 20 submissions and as we know the ASRR (Forsyth review) generated 269 submissions, which was followed up by 48 responses to the Forsyth panel findings & recommendations. Yet the largely accepted by Government Forsyth recommendations have effectively stalled in bureaucratic obfuscation and as a consequence the GA industry (refer AMROBA - Who Cares?) sits on the precipice of losing yet more small to medium sized businesses which include Flying Schools, MROs & charter operators.

Quote from Farmer Truss opening speech to Safeskies gobfest:

Quote:The Aviation Environment


We all recognise that aviation is critical to our nation's future development and economic growth.

In 2014, Australia's aviation industry employed 56,600 people in Australia directly and in 2013–14, contributed over $7 billion to the Australian economy.

Domestic and international passenger movements through Australia's major airports are expected to increase by 3.7 per cent a year to 2030–31, reaching over 279 million passenger movements compared with 147 million last year.

Over the last few decades, the volume of freight flown into and out of Australia has also more than doubled and is expected to continue to grow.

However after an unprecedented growth period driven by the resources sector we are now seeing more challenging times for regional aviation.

The fall in commodity prices and the mining industry's transition to the operational phase of production has seen some downturns in some regional market sectors...blah..blah..blah
 
The jobs already lost and yet to be lost due to the strangulation through regulation impost and sociopathic embuggerance by CASA, would easily be counted in the 1000's. So why is there no outcry from either the Greens or Labor? 

Dichotomy?- You bet.. Dodgy

MTF...P2 Undecided   
Reply
#20

Estimates put aviations contribution into Australia's GDP at between $17 - 32 billion dollars annually.

Imagine if the Government and it's bureaucracies weren't fuc#ing up the industry so badly? We would be able to financially contribute to our full potential and even pay off some third world countries debts for them!

C'mon Turdball, your other gimps may not know jackshit about business the way you and many of us IOS do, but you have the knowledge and ability to make changes, or do you?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)