Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shame or fame for Chester?
[Image: OlTom.jpg]

Beauty - through rose tinted glasses.

Ever since the Wright brothers there has been a requirement for regulation of matters aeronautical. In the early days, the rules which had worked on the ocean were adapted – after a fashion – to suit aviation. Within a short period of time; dedicated rules for aviation related activities were developed. Beginning with very ‘simple’, often one short paragraph was ‘All she wrote’.  Things really got moving in 1910 and since then, with an increasing complexity, ‘rules’ have been developed. Australia has one of, if not the most complex rule sets anywhere in the world. Australia must certainly hold the record for sheer weight and volume if nothing else, a rule set which subtly prescribes almost god like powers to those who work behind the curtain wall of the monolith. The upkeep of the castle costs the nation a steadily increasing significant amount of money; the latest budget reflecting this fact. There is  I note, a significant sum allocated to ‘Drone control’. I say this money is well wasted.

(05-12-2017, 09:28 AM)Peetwo Wrote: "..It would also be a first step in harmonising drone regulations across jurisdictions as the industry rapidly expands..."

6D aviation minion adviser to Comardy: "...The miniscule has had ICAO on the phone and he now wonders if it might be an idea if we harmonise our drone regs to the rest of the world.."

Comardy in reply:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=303]

(05-12-2017, 11:06 AM)Cap Wrote: Full story here

[Image: CxRMCJXUsAAAQ8w.jpg]

For those not familiar with totally inept shambles the CASA has become the matter of ‘drones’ is a simple, current example of why this moribund department needs to stripped back to the bone, reformed internally and the rules reformed. In short CASA have done as little as possible about the existing ‘drone’ situation and potential dangers, particularly in relation to ‘public safety’. They have however gone to extraordinary lengths to abrogate that responsibility and yet have the audacity to claim significant sums, from the budget, to ‘manage’ that responsibility. Had they demanded this sum before the ‘drone’ situation developed and grew out of control – I’d be first to say well done; foresight, imagination and direct, positive action applauded. But this not the case. CASA are playing catch-up and start from a long way behind the game. There is no imaginative foresight in the regulation, just another of the many neatly crafted escape hatches, leading to the 'wriggle room'.

Within the last half year there have been three events for which, IMO CASA ineptitude and incompetence, developed through legally supported abrogation have played a part of the root cause:-  

 [Image: Swan-River-Mallard.jpg]

The Swan river fatal. CASA approval for the Mallard flight required that the aircraft operate within the confines of an area too small to allow safe manoeuvring.

The margins required, although strictly the pilots responsibility, should have been examined – as a public safety case by CASA, prior to the approval being granted. Furthermore, had the pilot been requested and required to mathematically prove and physically ‘demonstrate’ that the aircraft could operate within the CASA prescribed ‘box’ then the accident may have been prevented. CASA went to great lengths to ensure the ‘pilot’ was ‘legal’ but failed to ensure the operation was ‘safe’; the public were put at great risk that day simply because real, interested, holistic safety ‘oversight’ failed.

The Essendon fatal. Here again we hear CASA at Estimates avoiding and abrogating all responsibility for ‘public safety’. Despite protestations of innocence, hidden under the guise of ‘advice only and strictly no liability’ this department is charged with, indeed brags about, it’s significant ‘safety’ role. Never a peep of protest about buildings, filled with the ‘public’ being allowed too damn close to an operational runway.

Now we have a potentially serious accident on the Sydney Harbour bridge. A drone has collided with a motor vehicle.

Please; don’t say ‘so –what’. The fact that it was a car and the there was not a multiple ‘pile-up’ on a seriously busy roadway is down to pure luck.  The cost in delays and disruption alone should be enough to have the minister screaming for better control of ‘drone’ activity, let alone the costs of emergency services being provided, hospital care, insurance cases etc. All this because CASA was too lazy, determinedly arrogant in the belief that ‘they’ will carry no responsibility; and, so inept that they failed to foresee the possibility of a major risk to public safety through uncontrolled ‘drone’ activity.

The Harbour bridge episode and the CASA response to the potential for more serious events, after the fact; has been less than impressive. The existing rule set designed purely to relive CASA of any and all responsibility. Now, gifted yet another huge sum of public money will they try to catch up and put things to rights? The short answer is no, they will not. What will happen is a huge volume of prescriptive regulation will be published, with draconian penalties and no thought of protecting anyone else, bar CASA from their mandated, stated duty of care to the Australian public.

Bollocks you say. Do you hear the minister howling for action? Do you see the CASA board looking grave and concerned for public safety, cracking the whip and making the DAS get off his arse and do something? Do you see the ‘officers’; at CASA leaving their lattes and presenting reams of bright ideas on how best the public may be protected? Do you here a strident call from the ‘member’ representing these folk for positive action – now?

Quote:[Image: 161012-Darren-Chester-with-Shane-Carmody.jpg]

6D Chester quote on drones: "..the government wanted to ensure the safety of drone operators, while also ­encouraging growth in the use of remotely piloted aircraft.."

No, you do not; do you hear the public asking WTD are you doing to protect us from the ‘drones’; or, the splash from the Swan river crash; or, the flames of the Essendon inferno? No Sir, you do not – each believes someone else is ‘doing’ something about it. Well someone has – the government have given CASA a whole heap of money to exactly that. As it was in the beginning, so it shall be, bullshit and abrogation without end. Amen.

Toot toot.

P2 comment: Perhaps title should be .."thru rose tinted webcams" - just a thought??
P2 comment: Perhaps title should be .."thru rose tinted webcams" - just a thought??

Or perhaps 'thru blood tinted body bags'? Because that is the way things are headed big time.
[Image: ?qa=blob&qa_blobid=13657415838128277270]

Apparently miniscule_ 6d NFI_Chester will very soon be announcing the Murky 'Mandarin's pick' for the new CASA DAS/CEO:

(05-24-2017, 09:21 AM)Peetwo Wrote: New DAS announcement imminent - Rolleyes

At the start of the CASA Estimates appearance yesterday, Senator Sterle with tongue slightly in cheek asked:

Also summarised by Oz Aviation:

Quote:New CASA CEO to be announced soon?
May 23, 2017 by 

[Image: S_Carmody1.jpg]Shane Carmody has been acting CASA director of aviation safety since October 2016.

The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester is now considering the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board’s recommendation for a new chief executive and director of aviation safety.

Previous CASA director of aviation safety and CEO Mark Skidmore resigned from the position in August 2016, with Shane Carmody appointed as acting director and CEO in October.

“The board has made its recommendation to the Minister, the Minister is now considering that recommendation and [a decision will be made] following the normal cahinet process,” Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Mike Mrdak told the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s Senate Estimates hearing on Tuesday.

“The advice has gone to the Minister very recently, in the last week,” Mrdak confirmed.
However after watching proceedings yesterday I believe the odds for Comardy continuing in the role have firmed. Besides looking remarkably more comfortable in the seat, he also kept on talking in future tense.


Now this could be because Comardy has been given a timeline of handover but somehow I don't think so... Dodgy

As you can see the general consensus is that Carmody is the unbackable favourite to take up the mantle of the next CASA DAS.

Therefore IMO it is somewhat ironic that in 6D rubberstamping Murky's pick for CASA DAS, he could find himself at odds with his National party peers and possibly a non-partisan Senate committee in his 'supposed' support for the appointment of Carmody as DAS:

Quote:“No faith in your administration”.

Some Senators join the club. It never, ever, ceases to amaze me. An astute, well briefed, plugged in committee being confounded by ‘team’ – whatever. Do you realise, that twice; not once, but two; not one, senior Senators, independently of each other made a singular statement. To wit “ I have no faith.” How wonderfully this reflects our sentiments.

In whom then, should we have faith? The word “opinion” is bandied about, not often, but, I say, often enough. Often enough to show even blind Freddy just how remote, far independent of ministerial, or even Senate control the grist mills of public safety are from actually doing anything; or even giving a flying monkeys about not doing anything.

I am amazed at the tolerance and forbearance shown by multiple Estimates committees; and not just this one. But I digress; For a worldly, savvy, smart, honourable man like Barry (O’braces ) O’Sullivan to almost lose his temper is – remarkable.

Folk like him don’t ‘loose it’; but, bejassus, he came close to, for real. Many can fain a pseudo anger, for a purpose. I’d hazard O’Sullivan is one. Tis but a pose, a ruse to emphasise a point; a clever tactic. However when you witness the likes of Sterle and O’Sullivan, both, genuinely about to loose it, for real, – you understand just how bad things really are and how frustrated even the government is with the monster. An anathema - government created; now totally beyond their control. Bit like the drones really – init?

Toot – Toot.

Of muppets, miniscules & aviation security - FDS!  Dodgy

Today 6D's response to the flight MH 128 bomb threat incident provides a clear example of how ineffectual and totally useless our Minister oversighting aviation truly is... Dodgy
Quote:Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester he's concerned about events around the airport.

Duration: 02:59

Mr Chester said he wanted to wait for further details before saying what the alleged device is... Blush

Like a broken record - Rolleyes

& a couple of other media events where the 6D muppet continues to squirm... Confused

Quote:3AW Mornings
01 June 2017
Subject: Malaysia Airlines incident in Melbourne

Neil Mitchell: On the line is the Federal Minister in charge of Aviation Safety and Security, Mr Darren Chester, in our Canberra studio. Good morning.

Darren Chester: Good morning, Neil.

Neil Mitchell: Okay, it seems not to have gone well.

Darren Chester: Well I think we should be waiting for the dust to settle a bit, Neil, and I understand you have got first reports from passengers on board raising concerns. But in a situation like this where we have had a passenger apparently seek to gain access to the cockpit, he was subdued—I'm not sure of the full details of how many people were involved in bringing that under control and the plane returned safely to Tullamarine. So I'm looking to the positive side in the sense that this was a worrying incident but all on board have returned safely to Tullamarine, which is a good outcome.

Now, in terms of what happened, exactly what happened, what happened then in terms of response on the ground from the security agencies, they will all be subject to a review to assess: are there things we could do better in the future? I understand that the tone of your conversation this morning with some of your listeners about what can we do better? And that's a constant process in terms of assessing the risk for the travelling public and making sure we keep people as safe as we possibly can.

Neil Mitchell: Okay, the three areas for concern I see: one, security. The device shouldn't have got through security, should it?

Darren Chester: Well, Neil, the early advice I have received is that the security screening arrangements that are in place at Tullamarine and in place at all our major airports which require luggage and passengers, 100 per cent of them, to be screened was operating at the time.

Neil Mitchell: But that is an even bigger problem though. If this device gets through and it gets through a system that is operating, then you're…

Darren Chester: But Neil, as you and I are having this conversation, I haven't seen the device or received a report on what the device actually was, and that is why I need to wait to see exactly what we are talking in terms of that piece of equipment.

Neil Mitchell: Fair enough, but what has been described by one of the people on board as being the size of a watermelon with wires coming out of it.

Darren Chester: Yes, well, Neil, from my experience and my background—I used to be a newspaper journalist—and from my background the early reports that I have received from incidents haven't always stacked up to what actually occurred when I get to the court and find out the details…

Neil Mitchell: Yeah, I'm not that inexperienced journalist, myself…

Darren Chester: No, I wasn't having a go at you, I…

Neil Mitchell: No, no, no, I know. But a lot of people—look a device has got through that is good enough to fool people into thinking it's a bomb. It shouldn't get through the system, should it?

Darren Chester: Well, in the context of what we are screening for we need to actually find out what this device is before we go any further. I don't want to talk on security protocols too much other than the fact that my early reports are that the screening equipment was working, that the passengers on board were screened, luggage was screened. As it appears, the plane has returned safely, the police' early comments indicate that this was not terrorism related, that it appears to be mental health related, and those are other issues there and we need to discuss them.

Neil Mitchell: And that does lead me to another issue. The police say the man who is in custody was known to them for his mental health issues, which means he has caused problems for police—either violent or erratic behaviour. Is there any system whereby people whose mental health issues are bad enough to be dealing with police some of them can be red flagged for air travel?

Darren Chester: Well you may be aware that this week the Foreign Affairs Minister and Minister for Justice announced plans to put travel bans in place for people who had been on the sexual offenders register in our bid to protect young children from sex exploitation, particularly in Asia. So you can suggest there is a precedent there in terms of protecting the public from unsavoury characters who seek to travel. Now, there's a broader conversation that we can have, but I don't know that just a few hours after an incident like this is the right time to get too…

Neil Mitchell: No, I agree, I agree. But the point I'm getting to: is that the sort of thing we could examine? I mean, I know it would be a breach of privacy, I know there will be all sorts of problems with it; but if you have behaved in a sufficiently erratic fashion to be involving the police, there should be some questions asked about it before you get on an aircraft.

Darren Chester: The concern I would have, Neil, and I'm getting into the territory of speculating well before I know all the details. But the concern I would have is then we are then labelling people with mental health issues as them being people who aren't fit to travel…

Neil Mitchell: Oh no, no, I'm talking about people who have had sufficient problems with mental health that the police have had to subdue them.

Darren Chester: Well I think these are conversations that I think are best left to when we have the full details in front of us. I am reluctant…

Neil Mitchell: Fair enough. I understand.

Darren Chester: to get into a conversation where we label all people with mental health issues as being problem travellers.

Neil Mitchell: Well no, I'm not doing that…

Darren Chester: No, I'm not saying you are. But I think if I start speculating on that we go down a path where I need a bit more information.

Neil Mitchell: And look the third area of concern is the delay: one passenger said 80 or 90 minutes—the police won't say. The plane's sitting on the ground having returned with the passenger subdued and they are sitting on the ground for at least an hour, possibly 80 or 90 minutes, thinking they have got a bomb on board. Now that has to be of concern, doesn't it?

Darren Chester: Well, as you would appreciate and I'm sure the passengers on board would understand, the number one priority has to be the safety of the passengers and crew and those responding. Now, if it was an incident where information was still evolving, it would have been difficult for the police on the ground to get the full facts in the time frame. So this is why we undertake a review of these issues, to find out what actually transpired, what did the passenger actually do, what led to him doing that, how was it resolved and then, when the aircraft landed, did we respond appropriately with our police and security agencies? Now, they are all things that will inform future decisions and inform security protocols that may be required into the future.

Neil Mitchell: Okay, so who will conduct that review?

Darren Chester: The Office of Transport Security, which I am responsible for will obviously be looking through the security arrangements in terms of screening and that type of thing. The police, I would imagine, as a matter of course of regular business, will then reassess how everything worked in response to this incident. You know, obviously it was worrying for passengers and crew and it would have been when the call first came through to our security and police I'm sure they would have been alert not alarmed as you would expect. So we are very fortunate. We do have world class security and police…

Neil Mitchell: Well we do, I'm really questioning the way it has operated this time. But as you say, that needs to be investigated. Do we still have an air marshal program, by the way?

Darren Chester: There are protocols in place which I don't want to go into all the details, but there are protocols in place on the ground and in the air which aren't necessarily made public but there certainly are some plain clothes detection activities which occur at our airports and in the air, and I think they are well known. There are protocols in place in terms of protecting the cockpit from attack and all those sorts of things that people are perhaps well aware of.

The bottom line is, Neil, I am particularly thankful to know that the passengers and crew returned to ground safely. And now we need to learn from the incident: are there things we can do better in the future? If we can learn from it, we will.

Neil Mitchell: Thank you very much. Darren Chester, the Federal Minister in charge of Aviation Safety and Security.

01 June 2017
Subjects: Malaysia Airlines incident in Melbourne, terrorism

Question: Firstly your response to what has happened in Melbourne with this plane hijacking. It would be quite a terrifying experience for those on board.

Darren Chester: Well first of all, I have to acknowledge that it was a worrying event, particularly for the passengers and crew on board, and I’m sure they have been through a pretty tough evening. What they thought was going to be an uneventful flight ended up with an incident which involved subduing a passenger and returning to Melbourne. So I am very thankful that the passengers and the crew worked well together, as I understand, to subdue this individual. From the early reports it appears that one of the passengers has attempted to gain access to the cockpit, he didn’t manage to achieve that—and keep in mind we have security protocols on board our planes with hardened cockpit security doors—but it would have been a worrying event for all involved.

Question: But what does this say about the security procedures in place that this man was even allowed on the flight?

Darren Chester: We need to wait until the dust settles over this and we fully assess what has actually transpired. The early reports aren’t always the most accurate reports in these types of incidents. We have all seen some footage and some photographs of what occurred, but we need to actually understand what has transpired. The early reports indicate that a passenger attempted to gain access to the cockpit and he was unsuccessful and he was subdued, certainly by passengers and maybe crew as well.
Now, as I understand it, the review of the security screening arrangements indicated that the equipment was all working so 100 per cent of passengers and luggage on board the aircraft were screened, as this occurs in the routine course of business on major airports here in Australia. So the message, I guess, to the Australian travelling public more generally is that if they’re travelling for business or travelling for pleasure, we have excellent security protocols here in Australia, but from time to time incidents do occur and we respond appropriately.

Question: Will there be a formal investigation into this?

Darren Chester: We are constantly reviewing our security protocols and constantly reviewing any activities that are deemed to be a threat to the travelling public, so that is an ongoing process. In terms of this actual incident, we will do a full and thorough assessment of what has occurred from the moment the passenger got on board the aircraft, to what occurred on the aircraft, and then the response from the security agencies. So naturally our number one priority is the safety of the Australian travelling public and we want to make sure we have got our best possible security protocols in place to ensure the safety and the wellbeing of the passengers and crew on board our aircraft.

Question: This is yet another incident involving Malaysia Airlines; does this raise any further questions about the protocols in place with that airline specifically?

Darren Chester: No, not at all. I think Malaysia Airlines has had a pretty tough time. MH17 was obviously a strike from a missile which was just extraordinary; the MH370 mystery continues and obviously that is extraordinarily troubling for the families of the passengers and crew on board; and now MH128, but it could have been any aircraft in the sense that it was an unruly passenger seeking to gain access to the cockpit. The police have been quick to indicate that it doesn’t appear to be a terrorism related offence, it seems more of a mental health issue. So the passengers and the crew have worked to subdue this individual, the passengers and crew have all returned safely and this is very, very positive news for us all.

But in terms of my role, and in terms of the Office of Transport Security, it is important that we assess the incident and get a better understanding of what occurred, and whether any changes need to be made in the future.

Question: Do you agree with Tony Abbott’s suggestions that there is some pussyfooting around the link between terrorism and Islam?

Darren Chester: Look, I think we have got to call it out for when we see it. If you have got extremist activity which is leading into terrorism related activities, call it out when you see it. But at the same time, you can’t label people on the basis of their religion across the board. There are people who claim to practice a wide varieties of religions around the world who do bad things and I wouldn’t want to label people because they are associated with a certain church.

Question: In that regard, you are suggesting that it is delicate issue and therefore it is something you should pussyfoot around then?

Darren Chester: Well I don’t think I’d use the word pussyfoot. My view of it is: if you have people who are extremists, preaching violence, doing the wrong—whether they be involved in the Islamic faith or other faiths—they need to be called out for that. That doesn’t mean you pussyfoot around the issue, it means you call out people who are doing the wrong thing. In my experience—I am nearly 50 years old this year—the vast majority of people want to live a peaceful, calm life, loving their family and friends, and want to get on with it. They don’t want to be involved in this extremism which seems to have infected some aspects of the Islamic faith.

Question: He said that Muslims living in Australia need to live by our rules; do you agree with that sentiment?

Darren Chester: Well we have one set of laws in Australia and we all need to live by them. That is a pretty self-evident fact, I would have thought. We don’t have rules for one people and rules for others in that regard. I believe that the vast majority of people in the Australian community just want to get on with living their lives; they want a government which delivers the services they need, which provides for the public infrastructure they want; and they want to live a safe and orderly life. Now, that is what the vast majority of Australians expect from their government and expect from their community.

Question: On the issue of terrorism, do you think Tony Abbott knows better than the head of ASIO?

Darren Chester: No, I don’t.
FDS! - In the history of transport Ministers we have had some real Wallies but have we ever had such a useless, self-centred individual as our 6D - God help our industry because Darren certainly won't... Confused

MTF...P2 Cool
Update to MH128 bomb scare incident. Sad

6D quote: "...The Office of Transport Security, which I am responsible for will obviously be looking through the security arrangements in terms of screening and that type of thing..."

If 6D was hoping for some good press from this now extremely high profile incident -

[Image: attachment.php?aid=303]

Via the Oz:
Quote:‘We were like sitting ducks’

[Image: eb42b861c019e9e6a52b1f4f1aa28da1]12:00amChip Le Grand, Simone Fox Koob, Samantha Hutchinson
Passengers trapped with a suspected bomb describe being forced to call triple-0 and plead with police to storm the plane.

Terrified airline passengers trapped with a suspected bomb on board an international flight were forced to call triple-0 and plead with police to storm the plane, while an elite squad of heavily armed tactical response officers waited on the tarmac below.

Passengers on Malaysia Airlines flight MH128 and the state ­opposition have rounded on police agencies and the government for a slow police ­response to what was ­initially treated as a suspected ­terrorist attack.

It took 100 minutes after the plane returned to Tullamarine airport for Special Operations Group officers to board the plane.

By the time police moved in early yesterday morning, a mentally unstable man who allegedly bran­dished a suspicious ­object and threatened to blow up the plane soon after takeoff had been subdued and restrained by fellow passengers for nearly two hours.

He was later revealed to be 25-year-old Manodh Marks, a Sri Lankan trainee chef in Australia on a student visa, who was ­released from a psychiatric ward on the same day he boarded the busy flight to Kuala Lumpur.

Despite the 100 minutes it took police to board the plane, Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton said: “Looking at the chronology last night, I’m not seeing any time gaps or delays that were problematic.”

Mr Ashton said last night that the delay boarding the jet was because­ police were investigating who was on board, the potential for terrorism and the potential for another device or devices. “These things had to be assessed­ in the interests of the safety of the ­passengers,’’ he told the ABC.

[Image: 671b51ac451c9c8fc5fa5bf890a76ec4]Passengers Scott Lodge, left, and Robert Macdonald helped. Picture: Stuart McEvoy

He rejected outright a Fairfax claim that the response had been delayed because officers had been unable to find guns and armour.

In scenes reminiscent of the Lindt cafe siege, some passengers became so frustrated they called the police to demand action­.

“We rang triple-0 to say ‘Get us out of this flight’,’’ said Melbourne mother Priya Shanmuganathan, who was travelling to London with her husband and two young children. “Is it safe? Is it not a bomb? Is it contained? There was just no ­information whatsoever. We were just sitting there like sitting ducks.’’

[Image: 7b055ec61240d812298579f57092a5a7]Manodh Marks, pictured in a police car on his way to court.

Lawyer Dan Toner jumped out of his business-class seat to intervene when he saw a man holding an electrical device banging on the cockpit door in the first few ­minutes of the flight.

He described the police respons­e as a shambles. “Honestly, if it were a real terrorist we would have been toast,’’ Mr Toner said.

“You see this huge ring of police and firefighters in this perimeter all around the plane, all these flashing lights and personnel just standing around and doing nothing at all, while we’re just sitting there wondering what on earth was going on.’’

Mr Ashton defended the caution exercised by his offic­ers and described the dramatic midnight operation as a success, with all 337 passengers, the flight crew and the alleged would-be bomber taken safely off the plane.

The police response was hindered by conflicting descriptions about the device and incorrect inform­ation about a second offen­d­er and another device on board.

[Image: 133172a4a089b871afd6b773699cb790]Police in tactical gear board the plane in Melbourne.

Mr Ashton said police had to balance the risk of keeping passengers inside a plane that might have a bomb on board against the risk of police causing a detonation by moving in without due care.

“If we’d had an incident where there were further explosives that were triggered by door mechan­isms or something other had been triggered, we could have had a mass casualty incident,’’ Mr Ashton said. “That was avoided by having a proper approach to getting the passengers off.

“I absolutely understand it is frustrating when you are on the plane. It is scary when you are on the plane in that situation.

“A minute would seem like an hour in that scenario.’’

The police response was backed by Premier Daniel And­rews, who said the ultimate aim of the operation was to get everyone safely off the plane.

“I think people are understanding of the fact that police need to know exactly what they are ­dealing with before they gain entry to the plane and potentially make a bad situation much, much worse,’’ he said.

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy was not convinced. He called for an independent inquiry into why it took so long for police to bring passengers to safety.

“We need to know why did it take so long to get those people off this plane — it’s the obvious question that’s not clearly or properly answered today,” Mr Guy said.

“If there was a bomb on board, 200 people have been left sitting next to it, on a plane full of fuel on Melbourne Airport tarmac for 80 minutes.’’

[Image: 54d9688ba10d92096e04ac47fa44496a]A flight attendant restrained Marks until police boarded.

By the end of yesterday, a signif­icant discrepancy had emerged in the police timeline of the incid­ent.

All major airports have a permanent Australian Federal Police presence. Under national security protocols, command for all ­counter-terrorism operations is referred to state police.

Mr Ashton initially said it took about 20 minutes for Special Operations Group ­officers to arrive on the scene after Victoria Police took control. According to the latest Victoria Police timeline, it took 44 minutes — more than twice as long.

“If there was a bomb on that plane, we should have been evac­uated straight away, but we sat there for an hour and a half,’’ said passenger Stan Young.

“If security at the airport couldn’t come a bit quicker than that, there’s something wrong.’’

The caution displayed by highly trained police stood in contrast to the actions of quick-thinking passengers who unclipped their seat belts and confronted Mr Marks while the plane was still climbing steeply away from Melbourne Airport.

About eight minutes into the flight, the Tullamarine tower receive­d a call from inside the cockpit of Flight MH128. In measured tones, the pilot explained that there was a passenger on the other side of the door trying to get in and threatening to blow up the plane.

[Image: 82bf50c4005dd4e220b89ae28d4e7821]Police take statements from the passengers on the tarmac.

Andrew Leoncelli, a former AFL footballer seated in 4A, saw the man trying to approach the door of the cockpit and, over the roar of the engines, heard screams of help from the cabin crew.

“I said: ‘Mate, what the f..k are you doing?’,’’ he told Radio 3AW. The man allegedly replied: “Mate, I’m going to blow up the f..king plane, I’m going to blow up the f..king plane.’

“I thought: ‘God, he is f..king insane­.’ So I took a step back and said to my friend: ‘Mate, this guy is serious, we’d better f..king do something.’

“I approached him and then he ran down the side and ended up going down the back of the plane, and then two lads ­grabbed him and disarmed him and bashed the crap out of him and then put hog ties on him. We are turning around, full aircraft turning around, full load of fuel, crazy man restrained and, possibly, a device. So everyone is shitting themselves.’’

The device turned out to be a harmless Bluetooth speaker, but amid the chaos, passengers­ reported seeing wires, an antenna, a black box the size of a watermelon and a remote ­control in the alleged would-be bomber’s hand.

British biomedical salesman Scott Lodge and Robert Macdonald, a retired Scot on holiday, were among a group of passengers who overpowered Mr Marks near the back of the plane. Mr Lodge said he reacted to what looked like a physical altercation between Mr Marks and a flight attendant.

“It was really dark so it was hard to see if he hit her but I could see these arms flying and then she just shouted ‘Help!’ and that was it.

“It was headphones-off time. Within a second and a half, there were four people on him. One had a choke hold around him, the other was on his back.’’

Mr Macdonald said he thought the erratic passenger was on drugs and any resistance quickly faded. “He was struggling a bit at first but he had four or five of us, five big guys. He didn’t stand a chance.’’

Once Mr Marks was restrained and pinned to the floor between a row of seats, the plane was cleared to return to Tullamarine for landing. The last of the exhausted passeng­ers were released into the international arrivals hall just befor­e midday, nearly 13 hours after their ordeal began.



MH128 scare: call for in-flight security and better training

[Image: 50c855f433403939ba256feba32442fc?width=650]MH128 passengers after the flight was turned back to Melbourne Airport. Picture: Dan Toner The mid-air scare aboard a Malaysia Airlines flight has fuelled calls for more plainclothes security officers on flights and reviews of training for airline workers to identify potentially disruptive passengers on the ground.

National manager of the transport law department of Shine Lawyers Thomas Janson said there was a question why it was left to MH128 passengers to confront the unruly passenger. Other airlines had plainclothes security officers on many international flights.

Mr Janson, who has represented some families of victims of the MH17 and MH370 tragedies, said that practice “should be adopted by Malaysia Airlines”.

Malaysia Airlines said in a statement last night their cabin crew was trained, and had acted ­in ­accordance with their safety ­training.

Joseph Wheeler, principal of aerospace law firm IALPG and nat­ional head of aviation law for Maurice Blackburn, said airlines needed to review their staff training for identifying potentially disruptive passengers on the ground.

“Having security officers on board comes down to proper sec­urity risk management by airlines, as it is impractical and unnecessary to have them on every revenue flight,” Mr Wheeler said.

“This is why, in my view, the better approach would be to strengthen training of crews, who are the first line of defence.”

Mr Wheeler is also the International Federation of Airline Pilots Association’s representative on the International Civil Aviation Organisation taskforce looking at updating guidance on unruly passengers and pushing for harsher penalties by countries.

The International Air Transport Association has estimated that in 2015 there was one incident for every 1205 flights, compared with one incident every 1613 flights annually between 2007 and 2015.

Mr Wheeler said having in-flight security officers was an ­“irregular though growing practice among airlines”.

ICAO’s Montreal Protocol 2014 strengthened legal protection for such officers when dealing with an unruly passenger, answering concerns that the earlier Tokyo convention allowed many to escape punishment, but the protocol does not yet have enough signatories to come into force.

Transport Minister Darren Chester said the government had a range of on-board sec­urity measures that included hardened cockpit doors and in-flight security officers.

“This includes cabin crew training for handling suspect passenger behaviour and responding to sec­urity threats, incidents and breaches,” Mr Chester said. Huh Err - no comment

TICK TOCK 6D - that troublesome A-word shit-list continues to grow... Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Cool
But but it is Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turdball's beloved Malaysian counterparts involved. Surely Darren 6D won't be embarrassed by Australia being made to look like dickheads yet again?

It's ok Darren, your pithy statement about trained Cabin Crew puts all our minds at ease. After all, that's what prevented MH370 and MH17 crashing. It is also what prevented United Airlines and American Airlines crashing into skyscrapers, the Pentagon and almost the White House!

6D = DH!!
After due and careful consideration.

Good mate of mine is a ‘bricky’ - a bricklayer, master builder to be sure, but at heart still on the scaffolding trowel in one hand, brick in the other, pile of ‘mud’ close by. I have provided him many a laugh at my feeble attempts to get it right, yet despite his patient teachings; we have agreed – it ain’t my thing. “DS put it down Son” says he “you don’t even like touching the bloody things”. Tis true, I don’t. Reason I mention it is that we seem to have a minister with the same aversion to aviation. Darren 6D just does not seem to ‘like’ handling matters aeronautical. There is a long list of serious matters which he deigns not to touch with his Lilly white, well manicured…

This is bad enough; but when a top class man like Mike Smith is overlooked – again – for the top CASA job, you have to wonder if the ministerial intentions are not sinister. I would like to think ‘misguided’, but, the evidence precludes such ambivalence. The notion of a reform director and true fulfilment of the promises to implement - in real time, in a meaningful way – the ASRR hopes must die aborning. The corpse mutilated beyond recognition. I simply don’t believe the intention to reform CASA or the regulations is there. Shane Carmody is not CASA, but he is the handpicked pin up. A new face, fresh, clean and bonny plastered on the wall to hide the writing there.

You can easily imagine Mike Smith bringing in the Kiwi regs (slightly modified). I cannot, in my wildest dreams see Carmody doing that. The bureaucratic mind would not see the simple benefits in that act; it would rather preserve an ethos which has driven an industry to its knees and provided a gravy train for those who invent aberrations like Part 61 or 48; an endless make work for the power base.

You can, without too big a stretch, see Smith weeding out some of the pernicious growth, identifying those things which have leeched and strangled the garden. Carmody has no such intention – there is written proof now available now to support this notion.  He simply will not deal with root problem. No one can or will trust CASA while the bad apples lurking at the bottom of the barrel, still can close ranks, blackmail operators, involve themselves deeply in the hiring of flight crew remain untroubled, safe in the accepted behaviour patterns. Oh, we know full well who they are – but in a town this bad – who ya gonna rat to. Carmody could not give a monkeys, the board is next to useless, the ICC has both hands and feet tied; Senators mean well, but can do little at the coal face. “Proof M’Lud? Most  certainly; any place, anytime”.  

Its not too hard to imagine a Mike Smith identifying the little covens and kitchen cabinets which either convert new blood to old; or, make sure it is made so miserable it cannot stay. Carmody will not, proven now, tackle the miscreants and manipulators for they are embedded in the system, supported and abetted by those who created the perfect environment, legally supported for this type of person to gain ascendency.

Instead of a calm, peaceful, meaningful reform and treatment of industry ills we have been given yet another band aid; enough to cover the suppurating cankers but not enough to treat them. Make a careful study of the new ‘leader’, watch him through estimates; you will see the system supporting the system. Smooth and urbane, undoubtedly intelligent but with a rock solid allegiance to minister and department. Neither the minister or ‘the Department’ will tolerate the massive changes required; even if they did, the creatures of Sleepy Hollow would not allow them to do so.

That my tote has Carmody as an un-backable favourite is bad enough; but the scary line is the one which second favourites no tangible change until Carmody retires. That is a long way off; too far away for industry to survive.

Right little ray of sun shine today, ain’t I. But having considered all the evidence, watched the movies, read the script, taken note of the minister’s arms length attitude – it is the only call I can make. Australia will eventually regret dismissing Smith so rudely. Reform only means change partners in the danse macabre.

Toot - toot.

The miniscule & his three Aviation Muppets... Rolleyes

Reference from this week's SBG... Wink

Quote:[Image: c8ef7005b97eb6a98406866e4cc4b1fe.jpg]

..The miniscule’s last move came on the very last tick of the time clock; he has brought the Queens castle into the game; in the guise of a newly anointed director of aviation safety (silly name) or; boss CASA, the erstwhile Carmody. The popular ‘Australian Flying’ magazine asset ‘Hitch’ has penned another balanced, sensible comment on this appointment which is worth the time to read. Indeed, the article should, if matters aeronautical were ‘normal’, mark the end of the topic. Regrettably, this is not the case...

The miniscule has now put in place on the AOC (aviation obfuscation chessboard) what he obviously believes is an effective (smoke) screen of Muppet chess pieces - Harfwit, High viz Hoody & Comardy capers... Undecided  

Perhaps it is time to highlight what in fact 6D has now put at stake in his blind faith that his Muppet minions (2 pawns & a castle), will be able to obfuscate the potential A-word embarrassments for a further two years in the King's court... Big Grin

Quoting Comardy's miniscule swearing of allegiance at Senate Estimates:

Quote:Mr Carmody : No, I do not take into account the retail sector, but the statement of expectations from my minister is very clear:

… focus on aviation safety as the highest priority …

…   …   …

… consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new— regulations and regulatory changes.


Mr Carmody : And take 'a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies' to different industry sectors. I am fulfilling that mandate.
Quoting further from the 6D FF decree to which CC (above) says he will comply:
Quote:4.        Key Aviation Initiatives
I expect CASA, in conducting its responsibilities as the aviation safety regulator, to have regard to the following key aviation initiatives:

(a)   changes taking place in relation to air traffic services, including Airservices Australia’s (Airservices) new operating model and the transition to a new air traffic management system under the OneSKY Project;

In other words it would seem CC is not only obliged to protect the miniscule's posterior but also one Pawn Harfwit and the OneSKY trough fund... Confused

Which brings me to the weird & bizarre machinations of Pawn 'Arfwit and his oversight of the  the Great White elephant OneSKY and the rapidly shrinking sector of the Kingdom, County ATC... Undecided

In terms of the good book of bureaucratic obfuscation related to potential future bad press for the miniscule, perhaps Harfwit has the biggest challenges ahead of him.

For example 4 days ago P7 picked up on a Fairfax article that is still doing the rounds:

Quote:The wheels on the bus go round and round........Looking for a suitable 'bump'; the ASA bus stop is looking good. Class action for a ' no class' act.

...Airservices Australia faces a massive class action in the Federal Court following the slashing of more than 500 jobs in a controversial redundancy program.

The government entity could be stung as much as $12 million in payouts and penalties for the "systemic" use of allegedly unlawful contracts, said the Canberra law firm launching the claim.

[Image: 1496901182110.jpg] Former staff of Airservices Australia are launching a class action against the government entity. Photo: James Morgan
Rory Markham, the employment litigation director for Chamberlains, said the alleged contract breaches could have affected as many as 150 former employees.

"There was a large redundancy in 2016 – the largest on Airservice's record – where 150 people alone in the Canberra market at that level were let go," Mr Markham said.

"What appears to be the case is that there were a series of contracts that came into existence that didn't meet enterprise agreement standards.

"Those contracts were effectively relied upon to make those people redundant."

Former employees who signed such contracts could be due thousands of dollars in additional redundancy payments.

So far 78 former Airservices staff had registered for the class action, which Mr Markham expected to lodge in the Federal Court next week.

"The losses can range between $70,000 up to about $130,000 per person on our modelling," Mr Markham said.

"We suspect we have only reached about 60 per cent of the group from what we know.

"If you looked at the accumulative value, it would be somewhere in the total of about $5 to $8 million just on the redundancy shortfalls alone."

In addition to the redundancy payouts, Airservices could be eligible to pay around $4 million in penalties, Mr Markham said.

"The other thing that is significant is that – if our case is right – this would be the first time that a government has engaged in a breach of an enterprise agreement on a systemic level.

"Breaches of employment agreements carry penalties of up to $52,000 per contravention. It might cost as much as $10 to $12 million with penalties on that basis."...

...Throughout 2016 Airservices offered redundancy packages to 523 employees in a bid to cut operating costs and halt shrinking profitability.

Airservices profitability fell by 90 per cent between 2013 and 2015, from $45.5 million to $4.5 million.

The entity is responsible for air traffic control, fire fighting and navigation services at a number of federally-leased airports across the country.

Critics of the redundancy program feared that the loss of frontline staff would impact safety at these airports.

Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield has previously dismissed these claims as "irresponsible"...

Couple that with the ongoing Senate inquisition - see HERE - and the future prospects of massive compensatory class actions surrounding the PFOS soil contamination on Commonwealth Airports, the miniscule is sitting on some real ticking time bombs coming out of County ATC... Blush

MTF? - Definitely...P2 Cool
And the winner of the award for most incompetent arseclowns goes to..........Air Shortages Australia!

If it wasn't yours and my money being pissed away it would be funny;

"Airservices profitability fell by 90 per cent between 2013 and 2015, from $45.5 million to $4.5 million".

90%. In any normal world, pretty
much anywhere that exists outside of Can'tberra, heads would roll!! Harfwit and Houston have presided over this in one format or another. Yet they have been promoted, rehired, kissed and cuddled. FFS. These overpaid Muppets can't even run a monopoly organisation that has a virtual lisence to print money off the back of the airlines, at a respectable profit!

Here is a thought. Let's take Harfwit and Houston out of their protective bubble, a bubble in which reality has never existed and the only notable thing on their CV's is their ability to tongue places deep inside Politicians rectums that one wouldn't have thought possible! Then put them on as CEO or MD of one of Gina's companies, or perhaps one of JP Morgans valuable asset's.
Then see how long these amateur bum lickers last. Air Shortages Australia is laughable. Fools.

'Unprofitable skies for all'
Proactive Darren comes out swinging on drones - Confused

Reference: CC finally establishes ToR for drone review - [Image: dodgy.gif]
Not sure if it is just 6D's media minion regurgitating M&M's pre-prepared script ( Huh ) but it would appear that the miniscule's office (at least) is trying to get on the front foot with drones and aviation safety:
Quote:Drone safety review takes flight
Media Release
15 June 2017

  • Terms of Reference for drone safety review released today
  • Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) review will cover commercial and recreational drone operations
  • Discussion paper to be released soon for public and industry comment
CASA has released the Terms of Reference for the review of aviation safety regulation of remotely piloted aircraft systems, commonly known as drones.

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said the review's findings and recommendations would ensure future growth in drone operations has safely integrated into Australian airspace.

“The Australian Government is committed to fostering an environment that ensures the safety of commercial and privately owned aircraft, drone operators, and other people and property, while facilitating growth and innovation in the use of drones in Australia,” Mr Chester said.

“We are already seeing drones being successfully used in agriculture, mining, infrastructure assessment, search and rescue, fire and policing operations, aerial mapping and scientific research.

“CASA will be mindful that any proposed new regulatory requirements should also support the potential of drone operations to improve productivity, reduce costs and improve workplace safety across a range of industries and applications.”

Mr Chester said the review would examine a number of regulatory options raised by stakeholders with a view to improving aviation safety in Australia.

“We want to gain an understanding of how registration, education and training, geo-fencing and shielding capabilities could potentially impact on both commercial and recreational drone operations within Australia,” Mr Chester said.

“The review will also consider developments overseas, including work done by the International Civil Aviation Organization and other international aviation safety agencies.

“CASA will soon release a discussion paper for public comment on the range of safety issues to be examined during the review.

“I encourage those interested in aviation safety to contribute to this important review, the outcome of which will provide CASA with a firm basis to consider any future regulatory changes.”

The Terms of References are available at:
“..I encourage those interested in aviation safety to contribute to this important review..."

Here we have a Crown Transport minister who appears to believe 'aviation safety' is some form of entertainment for 'those interested' - typical... Angry 

MTF...P2 Cool

Ps Remember for 'those interested' and/or concerned citizens/industry stakeholders, that reside in or near Melbourne, tomorrow there is drone inquiry public hearing starting from 0830 am... Wink (see Drone Wars link above).
“CASA will soon release a discussion paper for public comment on the range of safety issues to be examined during the review.”

[Image: design.jpg]
[Image: 300?cb=20131130142326]

Fame at last -

First prize in our Muppets and Puppets photogenic competition goes to P2 for his intriguing “Master and Mate” study; hair by the Air Head Consortium; nails by Scratch-me-back, clothes stolen borrowed from St Vinnies. The microphone surgical implant by Dr Voodoo’s Misfits Chop Shop.
Sponsored by the BRB chapter for the preservation of Forensically Remastered Amateurish Unmitigated Duck-pooh (FRAUD).      

Big Grin
The cut & paste minion and 6D_NFI_SOEs - Dodgy

A quick Google search for the latest version of miniscule 6D's 'Statement of Expectations' for the three (aviation safety) stooges finds the following: 

.pdf   F2017L00288.pdf (Size: 585.29 KB / Downloads: 2)
.pdf   F2017L00526.pdf (Size: 554.45 KB / Downloads: 1)
.pdf   F2017N00037.pdf (Size: 488.83 KB / Downloads: 2)

We are now all fully aware of the latest Ministerial SOE weasel words for CC & his CASA minions... Rolleyes

CC even reminded us at Budget Estimates of his obligation as Ag (now real) DAS to adhere to the latest 6D SOE weasel words Sad

Quote:CHAIR: What harm is there in us going steady, with respect to the proliferation, before you finish your important work, Mr Carmody? No, look, that is a valid question. Do you take into account the retail sector as you make decisions about whether we should leave these things out of the air for the moment until your work is done?

Mr Carmody : No, I do not take into account the retail sector, but the statement of expectations from my minister is very clear:

… focus on aviation safety as the highest priority …
…   …   …
… consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new—

regulations and regulatory changes.


Mr Carmody : And take 'a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies' to different industry sectors. I am fulfilling that mandate.

CHAIR: All right.

Or from approximately 08:00 minutes here:

Apparently last week in parliament the Airservices Australia SOE was officially tabled as parliamentary instrument and the next time parliament sits the Hoody (ATSB) 6D SOE will also be officially tabled and recognised as coming into effect on the 1st July 2017.

This therefore gives us the perfect opportunity to review all three (IMO) WOFTAM Ministerial backside covering SOEs as a collective... Huh

The first to be released was the CASA SOE, so here it is in full... Dodgy

Quote:[Image: CASA-1.jpg]
[Image: CASA-2.jpg]
[Image: CASA-3.jpg]

   Now compare some of the subtitle headings to the yet to be officially released 6D ATSB SOE weasel words:

Quote:[Image: ATSB-1.jpg]
[Image: ATSB-2.jpg]
Now compare the CASA & ATSB (above) 'Stakeholder engagement' statements to the ASA offering:
Quote:[Image: ASA-1.jpg]
You begin to get the impression that the M&M 'cut & paste' minion has been hard at work ensuring the 3 aviation safety stooges are all on the same page in their primary objective of protecting the coiffured and waxed ministerial ass posterior... Big Grin   

MTF...P2 Cool

Ps Interesting timeline when you consider the 'properties' (right click) section of each individual SOE PDF... Huh

[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]
6D obfuscates PelAir cost QON... Dodgy

References courtesy the PelAir MK II thread:
Quote:D-D-D-D-D-Darren?? - Your shout mate!

Quote: Wrote:[Image: 96c237e3a4545d3c35d0c37b06f5de0a.jpg]

Reference: The raiders of the shrinking ATP trough.. [Image: dodgy.gif]

Perhaps this should really be a task for the Senate Estimates crew but at post #50 from the Comardy HR thread "K" asks some very interesting QON of 6D and the government that begins with trying to calculate the total cost to ATPs of the PelAir cover-up saga...

...PelAir re-re update - [Image: rolleyes.gif]

Would of missed this if I hadn't of been looking... [Image: confused.gif]

Via the PelAir re-re-investigation webpage:
Quote: Wrote:Updated: 26 June 2017
The ATSB has released its confidential draft investigation report (AO-2009-072) into the reopened investigation of the 2009 ditching of a Westwind 1124A near Norfolk Island to Directly Involved Parties on Friday 23 June 2017. Directly Involved Parties (DIPs) are those individuals or organisations that were directly involved in the accident or who may have influenced the circumstances that led to the accident and/or whose reputations are likely to be affected following the release of the final investigation report.

The DIP procedure is an important process, consistent with International Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommended practices, which provides an opportunity for natural justice for DIPs, and also serves to ensure factual accuracy of the report. The draft report has been released under s26 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, which includes significant protections to ensure confidentiality. Under Section 26, the report may only be copied and disclosed prior to its public release for the purpose of taking safety action or providing comment to the ATSB.  Disclosure of this report in any other circumstance prior to its public release date may constitute a criminal offence.

DIPs have been given until 31 July 2017 to provide the ATSB with any comments on the draft report, including factual information in support of any changes that may be sought.

Given the complexity and size of the draft report, which is over 500 pages long, - [Image: blush.gif] UDB! - it is possible that DIPs may seek an extension beyond that period. Once the DIP period has closed and the extent of comments and the likely time needed to give them appropriate consideration is known, the ATSB will be better placed to advise a likely release date for the final report.


Quote:P2: PS. Shirley, there must be some 'in the know' bean counter out there that could give us a rough Estimate on the total cost to date of the Pel-Air re-re-duck-up - anyone?

Bloody good question.

I don’t know what ‘we’ pay a Senator or, if there is an additional cost to the public purse for having them ‘sit’ on committee. The same can be said for the secretariat, the ATSB and CASA officials – witnesses are voluntary. The cost of Mrdak – per hour – or per diem; if you like and the ‘other troops, hanging about away from work to attend a ‘hearing’ is not too hard a number to get close to – man hours – by hourly rate will get you close. That children is just to manage a rough guess at the cost of the Senate Inquiry; stand alone alone.  

When you start breaking it down into component parts – it becomes a really big number; before the cost of ministerial hours, the Forsyth panel, the TSBC peer review and the ‘other’ elements are included. This before the cost of the re-re – rewrite and ‘re-view’.

FWIW; the BRB are running a competition to see who can justify the number they entered onto the beer mat estimates, made at the last indaba. I have to say the spreadsheet software has been running hot for a while now. The final ‘cost’ per page of this 500 page redraft is starting to look like a big number. I’ll keep you posted as things progress; but, on present indications, considering the state of the economy – lets say that on a cost per page basis; no one at CASA or ATSB who was involved should be paid for about two years.

PAIN associates competing need to have their final ‘estimates’ in before Manning let’s this thing go public – we have a final estimate for the final report which will not quantify any work done on ‘demanded’ changes to the draft. Why? Well that ain’t going to happen. The Terms of Reference for the competition can be found in the AP (PAIN) library. Closest wins the Tim Tam.

Toot – that’s all – toot.

Well apparently Kaz Casey has not given up on trying to extract the answer to her original QON but is still coming up against a miniscule (plus M&M's department) hell bent on covering his (& M&M's) backside(s) and shirking the issue till the next election at least... Dodgy

Email chain reference:
Quote:Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017 5:10 PM
Subject: Pel Air 2009 Cost

Minister Chester,

I recently submitted an FOI regarding the total cost of the Pel-Air ditching from 2009 to the current date addressed to the department of infrastructure.

The response is attached.

A response which raises many questions regarding the transparency of money (tax payers) spent over the duration of this investigation.

A copy of the FOI will be sent to the Australian Information Commission for further investigation.
Extracting honest information over the past seven years from the agencies has been met with a stonewall.

It is abundantly clear that the Pel-Air ditching was a consequence of complete incompetence on many levels.
I am confident in saying that the government, the department of infrastructure, failed to protect my safety whilst working as a flight nurse. No regulatory underpinning for flying adhoc missions at the time of the ditching. My life was in the same category as agricultural spraying. How insulting and disappointing. Unsafe is an understatement. If I knew this, I would not have flown. I trusted the authorities to maintain safe, robust regulations for international air ambulance flights. A very noble profession which I worked extremely hard for as it was my passion was taken in a split second. A preventable accident.
I understand that extraordinary efforts were taken to avoid acknowledgement of the systemic failures of not only the operator, but the agencies involved pre and post ditch . Ignoring the ASRR recommendations, Senate recommendations, commissioned reports and the unexplainable length of time. The aberration of a report into Australia's first international aviation accident.
Transparency for the cost of this unfortunate accident seems a reasonable request. Assessment of the cost in comparison to the lessons of safety issues that have been actioned.

Kind Regards,

Karen Casey

...I spoke to Ministers office on Monday. Also spoke with AIC & Att General office. The Ministers office called back concerned about me contacting the AIC & said they spoke with DC, he said to give the FOI info directly to him to check if he could find that information. I said he should already know that, it's his budget! Secondly, I do not trust that this will be done with integrity, history proves, therefore the Aust Info Commish will be receiving the FOI complaint regardless....
Go you good thing... Wink

MTF...P2 Cool
6D & CC's aviation isolationism policy - [Image: dodgy.gif]

[Image: Comardy-Capers.jpg]

In the course of doing research into the background/history of PASO (refer PelAir thread post: PASO, dots, dashes & an unfortunate ditching - Part II) and the international aviation safety politics of the Asia Pacific (i.e. CAANZ vs CASA, the PASO Bledisloe Cup; I came across some interesting references that highlight how out of touch with reality our government and aviation safety bureaucracy is with the rest of the world... [Image: blush.gif]

From December 2010 Asian Development Bank publication (Note how many times harmonisation is mentioned):

Quote: Wrote:2. All developing member countries of PASO have acceded to the Pacific Islands Aviation Safety and Security Treaty, which requires regulatory harmonization. To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of PASO operations and create a least-cost operating environment for airlines, the legislation and regulations of member countries must be harmonized to create a common inspection regime and common compliance protocols. The technical assistance (TA) will assist developing member countries of PASO to update and harmonize their legislation and regulations. The TA will also examine the financial performance and revenue model of PASO with respect to both its fee structure and member countries’ aviation revenue base, and assist PASO to refine its management systems to ensure sustainability. The design and monitoring
framework is in Appendix 1.


4. The developing member countries of PASO are signatories to international and regional treaties that commit them to meeting aviation security and safety standards through the uniform application of ICAO standards. In recent years, these standards have been greatly expanded, particularly those related to security. However, most PASO members are unable to fully meet all of their oversight obligations. As a result, many Pacific island countries have received less than satisfactory results from the ICAO-mandated Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program and Universal Security Oversight Audit Program.

5. Audits and inspections must be undertaken in accordance with the legal environment of the state of operation, based on national regulations and the standards and recommended practices (SARPs) of ICAO. While improved compliance with these obligations is essential, aviation safety and security regulatory frameworks across the region are inconsistent. Variations in the rules cause increased compliance costs for airlines, and make efficient implementation of the PASO work plan more challenging. A harmonized operating environment will produce benefits to airlines, national civil aviation administrations, and travelers.

11. The outcome is expected to be revision and harmonization of national aviation legislation and regulations. Indicators will be final legal documentation that is consistent with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (NZCARs) to provide a uniform set of standards and recommended practices and inclusion of authority to raise aviation oversight revenues in national laws, expected by the end of 2012. A third outcome indicator is legislative adoption of the revised legislation and regulations, which may take a further year for all countries to achieve.

12. The direct beneficiaries of the project include the governments of PASO member
countries that will be able to rationalize their civil aviation administrations and lower public sector costs, regional air transport operators that will experience lower regulatory compliance costs and more responsive services, and users of air transport that will benefit from higher security and safety standards.

B. Methodology and Key Activities

13. The outputs of the project will achieve regional harmonization of aviation legal frameworks and financial sustainability of PASO...

14. Assisting with revisions to national aviation legislation and regulations will continue from the base established by the review of national legislation and regulations (para. 7). The TA will reconfirm the detailed aspects required for revision through preparation of new or amended legislative acts and rules. Two particular concerns are that national laws should provide for adequate delegation of authority and enforcement by civil aviation authorities (CAAs), and should be consistent with international law instruments which may require ratification or accession to ensure they are given effect in national laws. Since six of the 11 participating countries have primary legislation modeled on NZCARs and will require minor updates, whereas the other five will require more comprehensive legal drafting, standardizing the New Zealand rules provides the most efficient and effective path to harmonization. With respect to regulations, most states can expect to adopt the NZCARs by reference. The TA will then prepare detailed drafts of revised legal instruments based on standardized models with necessary adaptation to national circumstances. National legal advisers will provide extended assistance for the adoption and adaptation of the system of aviation regulations and technical guidance material.

Fortunately for PASO & the Pacific Island nations the Kiwis again win the Bledisloe Cup... [Image: wink.gif]


Quote: Wrote:1.6 The Strategic Goals of PASO are to:
1. Develop regional capacity and provide for a long-term improvement in the quality of aviation safety and security oversight services.
2. Ensure that the Pacific aviation sector complies with international requirements established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for safety and security regulation and oversight.
3. Reduce service fee and operator compliance costs through economies of scale, achieved by sharing resources through a single regional organization.
4. Harmonise safety standards and security provision across the Pacific region, building on the adoption of New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules.
5. Promote an efficient oversight capability in member States.
6. Encourage member State participation in RSOO activities with the objective of assisting other States in the certification or approval of organisations in aviation activities.
7. Establish regional training programs for member State’s technical personnel
8. Develop an information and reporting system, which facilitates access to safety-related and safety critical information in the region.

 And from the MOC (Memorandum of Cooperation) between PASO & the CAANZ, it would appear that despite Australia being one of two nations to fully implement ICAO Annex 19 (SSP), PASO would prefer to be guided by the Kiwis in implementing a State Safety Program... [Image: rolleyes.gif] :
Quote: Wrote:[Image: MOC-1.jpg][Image: MOC-2.jpg][Image: MOC-3.jpg]
Good to see the miniscule Chester (Government), M&M and Comardy Caper endorsed aviation policy is reaching its penultimate goal of totally isolating our aviation industry from the rest of the world - UDB! [Image: dodgy.gif]

MTF...P2 [Image: cool.gif]

[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)