Mount Non-compliance & upcoming ICAO/FAA audit?
#91
 "Captain PM Malcolm you MUST listen!!" 

CASA puts at risk ICAO Cat 1 status and industry bottom-line contribution to GDP.

Slight thread drift here but there is, I think - Huh ,  a method in my madness... Blush

Reference Chester's thread... Wink
(02-14-2017, 03:04 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
(02-14-2017, 08:08 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
(02-14-2017, 06:20 AM)Gobbledock Wrote: Of chalk and cheese and a listening ear

Nice catch P2. Indeed some of the differences to Strayla are most interesting. Let's list some of what Trump actually does understand compared to the prehistoric dinosaurs governing our country now, and over the past decades;

- Trump listens. He has sat with airline executives, not in a manner to coverup systemic issues, but to address their concerns. He even talks shop with his own pilots - smart man. Talk to those at the coal face, not some bureaucrat in Canberra with one pencil in his hand and one in his ass. Picture the difference; Trump talking about aviation with a 30 year veteran Captain, or, one of Golman Sachs Turnbull's minuscules speaking to Jonathan Aleck. Hmmm, see the contrast? One leader is engaged, the other totally disconnected.

- Trump acknowledges trillions spent on wars, with nothing to show, leaving his own country go to waste and become a third world infrastructure disaster. Hallelujah! Trump gets it. Meanwhile we have the dickhead Turnbull propping up $50b for more Subs while our roads, airports and electricity network turn to ruins.

- Trump is slashing the regulatory strangulation grinding their country to a halt! Well done sir. He is a businessman, he understands it. Meanwhile, as an example, we in Australia permit consecutive PMC's to work with the Dr Voodoo's of this world to ensure that our key industry, aviation, is strangled to death.

- Trump understands FAA incompetence and the issues with air traffic management and technology in the USA. Unbelievable! Do you think The Don could sit with NFI Chester, Harfwit and Houston and teach them something?

There seems to be some benefits in having an experienced businessman who has not been a 'Stockholm syndrome politician' for the past 20 years, coming in fresh and managing the country. Yes?

Tick Tock Australia

As per usual, a succinctly nailed down post Gobbles - Big Grin

FYI Judith Sloan from the Oz also 'gets it... Wink

Quote:PM must show some mongrel

[Image: babcec09eb99b6e5cd6a1160115a34e1]JUDITH SLOAN

Red tape and renegade agency chiefs are evidence of a naive and weak leader.

Quote:..And after a promising start by the Abbott government to axe a number of wasteful, intrusive and damaging regulations and regulatory agencies, Malcolm Turnbull put his foot on the brake and has instead embarked on a massive program of new regulations, particularly in relation to financial services.


Do you remember Repeal Day? The Prime Minister has repealed it. Evidently, he thinks the deregulation agenda is complete, having made up some large figure — billions of dollars, naturally — to estimate the gains of the deregulation that had already taken place.

In the meantime, many federal regulators are running amok, with the heads of agencies increasingly behaving in brazenly political and activist fashion. Mind you, it is hardly surprising given some of the appointments — mainly reappointments. What was the government thinking when it reconfirmed the positions of so many openly partisan appointees heading key agencies?

Instead of quietly getting on with what should be the routine and low-key task of implementing regulations set down in legislation, far too many regulators think of themselves as players, expressing public views on how legislation should be changed as well as seeking publicity for prosecuting cases (many of which are subsequently lost).

They have sought more funding while pushing political buttons and, sadly, this government has been far too naive and weak to resist these self-serving pleas...

Listen up miniscule DDDD_MNFI a word of advice from JS... Wink

Quote:...There are very many other instances I could quote. But the message to ministers is this: wake up and instruct the regulators in your portfolios to pull their heads in. Keep regulation to an absolute minimum and always ensure the compliance costs are as low as possible.

You never know, being a good government could deliver a political dividend.

And 4D if you want some examples from your own department of overburdening regulations and a 'law unto themselves' regulator in action, here is a couple of handy references courtesy of Aunty Pru... RolleyesMythical reform./ Part 61 - For Dummies./ Proof will be in the Pavlova

Update: Comments from Sandy & Arlys... Wink 

Quote:Alexander


Judith is correct in pointing to an out of control Commonwealth bureaucracy. There has crept into this bloated body of government machinery a sense that they are the law as they interpret it resulting in bullying behavior and worse. I don't think there is another journalist who has perceived that this is becoming the norm. That this is now what can be expected from Can'tberra, 400,000 of the best paid hell bent on maintaining and improving privilege in the developed world's most soulless socialistic no freehold capital city.

Another example, among several euphemistically styled government business enterprises (GBE), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority created 29 years ago and tasked to rewrite (at its own behest) the aviation rules. Several hundred million later and still not finished but it has managed to smash General Aviation with the loss of thousands of jobs.

Air Services Australia is at present in oversight by a Senate Committee for the manner of tendering a billion dollar airways control system. Consultants being past employees and inside connections are being considered.

The Australian Transport Safety Board has been criticised for ineffectual accident investigation and the aviation industry is waiting after two years for a second, Senate inspired, report on the PelAir ditching off Norfolk Island. The first report was seriously flawed, ATSB being in cahoots with CASA to simply blame the pilot thus deflecting any concerns about institutional failings whether within CASA or within the airline parent company Rex. The same company that made an unusual and substantial donation to the Coalition around the time of the first report. Alex in the Rises.

arlys

@Alexander But one Airline, remains untouched.Right? By The Old Boys RAAF Club. Right?
  

In addition to Sandy's comment to the Oz Judith Sloan article, he also emailed JS directly his posted comment. This was Judith's response:
 
Quote:Sent: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:41:14 +0000
Subject: Re: FWA and so on re your Aus article, my comment, regards, Sandy Reith


Keep up the good work, Sandy.  And thanks for the interest.

Yes, I have heard that CASA is completely out of control, vastly expensive and ineffective. And the salaries at Airservices Australia are out of this world.

The sad thing is that nothing seems to change.

Cheers

Judith
 
Off that same email chain, Bill Hamilton has now weighed into the discussion... Wink
Quote:Dear Judith,


The financial depredation caused by CASA are almost incalculable, including, but not limited to, almost eliminating Australian from the global training market for pilots, and driving the great bulk of heavy aircraft maintenance off-shore.


An example of the first is China Southern Airlines abandoning an already large investment is WA, plus an almost US$750,000,000 expansion program, agreed with the WA government, because of CASA behavior. That investment all went to Canada, China Southern has a policy of conducting initial pilot training outside China, in a western environment.


As to aircraft maintenance, CASA justify the loss of heavy engineering in Australia  to "cheap labour", and not CASA ratbag regulation, which is not ICAO compliant, and like nothing else internationally.


Only if you can convince me that Germany is a "low wage" country (given the Qantas A330 and A380 work that goes to Hamburg) will I accept the CASA "low wage" argument, as opposed to the CASA "rules" that demand almost unbelievable (in this day and age) 19th century job demarcation, that prevents labor productivity that is normal in, say, NZ, CA, USA, UK or anywhere in the EC.


All this has nothing to do with "safety", but the public service machine, not limited to CASA, is very adept and very experienced at scaring the bejesus out of the gullible public with the "mystique of air safety", first identified as a "public service" tactic in the report of the first Lane inquiry in mid-1980s.


Indeed, the sad thing is that Australia's air safety record is NOT world beating, and the shortcomings are largely due to Australia refusing to accept internationally recognised developments that have improved air safety outcomes (reduced risk) over the years.


In fact, despite CASA public claims, the Body of (or the culture of) CASA resolutely refused to use modern risk management based and cost benefit justified rulemaking, rather relying of the judgement of "our air safety experts", who are no such thing, and do not become "air safety experts" simply by virtue of being on the CASA payroll.


Indeed, in my view, the lack of relevant knowledge and experience in CASA has reached an appallingly low level, it has long been the "employer of last resort".


If you want an independent assessment of my background, to make these statement, ask Sandy Reith.


Best regards,

W.J.R.(Bill) Hamilton.


PS1: All Boeing and Airbus civil manufacturing in Australia is conducted under the oversight  US FAA or EC's European Aviation  Safety Authority, EASA, NOT CASA.


PS2: Australia is on the threshold (once again) of losing FAA/EASA Category 1 status (an assessment of the effectiveness of national aviation safety regulatory oversight) which would be a financial disaster for Qantas and Virgin groups, US law would require all US airlines to drop code shares and joint timetables with Qantas and Virgin, and that would be just the start.


PS: Needless to say, I am a regular reader of your contributions to The Australian.


"...Australia is on the threshold (once again) of losing FAA/EASA Category 1 status (an assessment of the effectiveness of national aviation safety regulatory oversight) which would be a financial disaster for Qantas and Virgin groups, US law would require all US airlines to drop code shares and joint timetables with Qantas and Virgin, and that would be just the start..."

Okay I think that brings the thread back to ToRs... Rolleyes


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#92
FACT CHECK: The true leader of the pack on ICAO non-compliance?

Without going into the semantics of why it is possibly acceptable for the US (being the most aviation active country in the world on any scale) to be highly non-compliant with the ICAO SARPs, I note that is often quoted by aviation safety savvy commentators that the USA is the most non-compliant of any other ICAO signatory State.

Example from '40 Years' off PT:
Quote:40years
March 10, 2017 at 9:09 pm
Dan,
What ‘Western Standards’ do you mean?
Do you mean European surveillance and traffic management systems in use in Australia over the last 50 years? Tick!
Do you mean adherence to ICAO SARPS with minimum differences? Tick! ( The USA nominates the most differences from ICAO of any country)
Do you mean appointing a CEO from overseas such as the USA or, god help us, New Zealand? Tick!
What ‘Western’ standards do you mean?
Steve 777: Give examples. We’re sick of Sky-God pronouncements from above.
Put some meat on the bones, or perhaps visit a Centre or two. It may surprise you to find that Pilots do not have all the answers, any more than a driver on the Monash Carpark can provide useful traffic resolution proposals.

Which got me thinking to whether the USA is truly the Kings of ICAO non-compliance? Or whether us Aussies, with our locally modified non-harmonised, non-generic rule-set, coupled with a bureaucratic CYA top-cover modification/amendment service, could still possibly take the top prize for taking the complete and utter piss out of the ICAO SARPs?? 

So first I took a visit to the USA FAA version of AIP GEN 1.7 - see HERE - for a basic page count. Compared to (and to be fair reducing) page count from the latest AIP GEN 1.7 SUP (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/...7-h24.pdf) with the individual links provided for each ICAO Annex notified differences (i.e. our complicated and extrapolated version of AIP GEN 1.7).

In summary the US FAA have managed to contain their notified differences to ICAO SARPs within the AIP GEN 1.7 reference to 108 pages. In contrast the Aussie Airservices AIP has out grown the GEN 1.7 to the point where they feel the need to create an AIP SUP with individual applicable links for notified differences to each ICAO Annex to a total of 345 pages.

So on a page count us Aussies win hands down by a factor of 3.2 to 1 on non-compliance to the ICAO SARPs... Blush (ps keep in mind this factor is calculated after Murky, and his merry band of minions, started tackling reducing the over 4000 NDs to ICAO)

And if you wondered if it is possibly advantageous for Australia to be so highly non-compliant with the ICAO SARPs, here is Ken Cannane's (AMROBA) considered opinion from their latest newsletter:
Quote:Australia’s Obligations under the Chicago Convention.

How close does Australia comply with ICAO [Minimum] Standards prescribed in the Annexes to the Convention? You can see what differences government has notified to ICAO quite simply by clicking on the link: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s17-h24.pdf , and open any of the Annex links in the Appendix of AIP H24-17. What it demonstrates is little policy is given to eliminating differences as new regulations and standards are developed and made. Many of the differences are failure to adopt the ICAO international terminology by creating our own or adopting terminology from other countries regulatory system. However, there are many ‘missing’ differences such as Annex 6: "a) the aeroplane is maintained in an airworthy condition". There should be a concerted effort to harmonise with the ICAO standards and practices, including adopting its international definitions. It is time for government to get serious and stop wasting resources. Adopt and harmonise.
   
  
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#93
Of course the CAsA sleight of hand in the so called "differences" P2, is where ICAO may advise "A" check, or inspection, or procedure, or standard, CAsA instigates four, then crows "we are just complying with ICAO". When you point out that ICAO only required one, not four, they reply "well Australia's standard is very much higher than the rest of the world". They never consider what cost all their extra's will inflict on industry nor the complexity it adds to our regulations and operations and the difficulty of marrying them with regulations overseas.

I give you an example. forty odd years ago I became involved with a charter company who operated a mixed fleet of piston twins, turbines and a light jet in transport category. All these aircraft were flying around 800 hours a year by around sixteen pilots. Their operations manual was barely a hundred pages and included international operations and RPT.
The company devoted considerable recourses to pilot training and mentoring, by its nature their crews were young and generally inexperienced, their safety record was exemplary.

All the information required to operate an aircraft is contained in the manufacturers pilot operating handbook or flight manual. In those days Australia had its own unique "flight Manual" the "little black book". It had bugger all in it except "P" charts for take off and landing performance. Our regulator at the time refused to accept the manufacturers data based on certification flight testing and insisted on flight tests for first of type to produce these "P" charts, in many cases the performance data produced was less restrictive than the manufacturers certification data. A simple statement in the Ops manual that the company would use the manufacturers operating procedures contained in the Pilot operating handbook was all that was required to comply.

In the modern era of CAsA, operations manuals have expanded to thousands of pages, probably to reflect the thousands of pages of regulation that has been added over the years, it now runs to part A to part H, volumes of what is euphemistically referred to as "Shelfware". These tomes provide CAsA employees a conduit to interfere in the conduct of operations even tinker with manufacturers recommended procedures.
The "Make work" result of this is hundreds of thousands of dollars and years to obtain an AOC, and hundreds of thousands of dollars and months to add a new type to an AOC.
There are many instances where unqualified, inexperienced FOI's have bullied Chief Pilots into promulgating procedures expressly forbidden by the manufacturer. Complaint is futile because your manual must be "accepted",
you have a million dollar machine sitting idle eating dollars, so you accept FOI's instructions, knowing what is being asked is unsafe, that you must accept responsibility for it, the FOI accepts none, because he accepts not approves, you toe the CAsA line or your machine sits idle.

In P2's post 91 Bill Hamilton makes a very relevant statement:

"Indeed, in my view, the lack of relevant knowledge and experience in CASA has reached an appallingly low level, it has long been the "employer of last resort".

The Part B of the modern day CAsA "accepted" operations manual, Aircraft Operating Procedures, runs to hundreds of pages, largely large parts of the flight Manual cut and pasted from the "Flight Manual" with added bits and pieces required by the FOI of the day. Yet the Flight Manual is the "Legal" document, it is mandatory to have a copy on the flight deck, there is no requirement to have Part B on the aircraft. The procedures contained in the flight Manual must legally be complied with, in fact the opening statement in most part B's is "Notwithstanding anything promulgated in this manual, the aircraft Flight Manual takes precedence". One could wonder therefore exactly what is the point of the part B in the first place other than a "Make Work" exercise for FOI's.

All these pieces of "Shelfware" also require continuous revision as the juggernaught of regulatory ineptitude rolls on, thousands of pages added every year for which proof of compliance must be mandated. There is also continuous amendment required where rules already promulgated are found to have unintended consequences and need to be changed. Writing them properly in the first place would save a lot of angst.

CAsA is charged by the government to ensure safety, I don't believe it is any safer today than it was forty years ago, just a hell of a lot more expensive.
Reply
#94
Harmony? Forget it - the world according to CASA.  Dodgy

(03-17-2017, 08:50 AM)thorn bird Wrote: Of course the CAsA sleight of hand in the so called "differences" P2, is where ICAO may advise "A" check, or inspection, or procedure, or standard, CAsA instigates four, then crows "we are just complying with ICAO". When you point out that ICAO only required one, not four, they reply "well Australia's standard is very much higher than the rest of the world". They never consider what cost all their extra's will inflict on industry nor the complexity it adds to our regulations and operations and the difficulty of marrying them with regulations overseas.

I give you an example. forty odd years ago I became involved with a charter company who operated a mixed fleet of piston twins, turbines and a light jet in transport category. All these aircraft were flying around 800 hours a year by around sixteen pilots. Their operations manual was barely a hundred pages and included international operations and RPT.

The company devoted considerable recourses to pilot training and mentoring, by its nature their crews were young and generally inexperienced, their safety record was exemplary.

All the information required to operate an aircraft is contained in the manufacturers pilot operating handbook or flight manual. In those days Australia had its own unique "flight Manual" the "little black book". It had bugger all in it except "P" charts for take off and landing performance. Our regulator at the time refused to accept the manufacturers data based on certification flight testing and insisted on flight tests for first of type to produce these "P" charts, in many cases the performance data produced was less restrictive than the manufacturers certification data. A simple statement in the Ops manual that the company would use the manufacturers operating procedures contained in the Pilot operating handbook was all that was required to comply.

In the modern era of CAsA, operations manuals have expanded to thousands of pages, probably to reflect the thousands of pages of regulation that has been added over the years, it now runs to part A to part H, volumes of what is euphemistically referred to as "Shelfware". These tomes provide CAsA employees a conduit to interfere in the conduct of operations even tinker with manufacturers recommended procedures.

The "Make work" result of this is hundreds of thousands of dollars and years to obtain an AOC, and hundreds of thousands of dollars and months to add a new type to an AOC.
There are many instances where unqualified, inexperienced FOI's have bullied Chief Pilots into promulgating procedures expressly forbidden by the manufacturer. Complaint is futile because your manual must be "accepted", you have a million dollar machine sitting idle eating dollars, so you accept FOI's instructions, knowing what is being asked is unsafe, that you must accept responsibility for it, the FOI accepts none, because he accepts not approves, you toe the CAsA line or your machine sits idle.

In P2's post 91 Bill Hamilton makes a very relevant statement:

"Indeed, in my view, the lack of relevant knowledge and experience in CASA has reached an appallingly low level, it has long been the "employer of last resort".

The Part B of the modern day CAsA "accepted" operations manual, Aircraft Operating Procedures, runs to hundreds of pages, largely large parts of the flight Manual cut and pasted from the "Flight Manual" with added bits and pieces required by the FOI of the day. Yet the Flight Manual is the "Legal" document, it is mandatory to have a copy on the flight deck, there is no requirement to have Part B on the aircraft. The procedures contained in the flight Manual must legally be complied with, in fact the opening statement in most part B's is "Notwithstanding anything promulgated in this manual, the aircraft Flight Manual takes precedence". One could wonder therefore exactly what is the point of the part B in the first place other than a "Make Work" exercise for FOI's.

All these pieces of "Shelfware" also require continuous revision as the juggernaught of  regulatory ineptitude rolls on, thousands of pages added every year for which proof of compliance must be mandated. There is also continuous amendment required where rules already promulgated are found to have unintended consequences and need to be changed. Writing them properly in the first place would save a lot of angst.

CAsA is charged by the government to ensure safety, I don't believe it is any safer today than it was forty years ago, just a hell of a lot more expensive.

Excellent post TB and one that should (but won't) be avidly read by the miniscule, his obfuscating Mandarin and his minions - Dodgy   

Quite fortuitous that you mention Bill Hamilton because I have been monitoring an email chain that Bill instigated, that provides another classic example of how deeply CASA has diverged from the ICAO accepted standards (SARPs), for in this case maintenance regulations and procedures in relation to the use of lockwire... Dodgy :

Quote:Ken,

Are you across the latest paperwork “policy” of CASA: Every can of lockwire has to have an identity and history raised, and every time you cut off a piece of lockwire, where it went is to be entered on the job sheets by identity. Six lockwired nuts on an assembly equals six multi-line entries to identify said lockwire. In short, all parts and components are to be regarded as Class 1 parts, “fully documented”.
 
At Avalon East, the CASA Airstapo were out in force, the briefed intent to ramp check every arrival was not achieved, another CASA target missed?? I gather the issue of checking tyre pressures under Schedule 8 raised the “requirement” for “ calibration cards for the torque device required to refit the valve caps”. One aircraft had a valve cap missing, I haven’t heard whether CASA finally grounded it, but there were a lot of very unhappy people, and one aircraft was badly damaged because of the state of the east runway.
 
None of those people will ever fly to an airshow again. “Empty Skies are Safe Skies”.
 
Cheers,

Bill H.


Friends & Colleagues,


I flew in on the Tuesday, Avalon East around lunch time, probably the last to arrive (all of about 20 aircraft) and sadly missed the attentions of the Airstapo...

I can verify the poor surface of the grass runway which must have been prepared with a corrugated roller back and forth crossways.

Obviously CASA doesn't believe that checking the actual landing area warrants their time, a missing valve cap does. 

The lock wire.  How about spectrographic analysis from a CASA approved laboratory and tensile testing? Delivery between lab and workshop by ArmorGuard truck to avoid any switching or contamination. 

The basics are being lost;  and in the battle for commonsense, let alone reform, we are not gaining ground. Political action could drive policy in the right direction and is the only hope because it's proven over and over that the bureaucrats are totally intransigent. They will not be deflected from increasing their pressure, power, fee gouging and control. 

One downside, apart from the destruction of an industry, is that the incentive to hide maintenance and flying activities outside the system is greatly increased.

Bill thanks for that info.

Sandy


Folks,

As some of you will know, there are two US companies that produce just about all the annealed stainless lockwire used in the known western aviation universe, all to an NAS/MilSpec standard.

The two suppliers are distinguished by being in the mid-blue or light blue containers ---- that is the only obvious difference.

For CASA to determine that a completely artificial identity has to be raised for each little container ( each little container starts off at 1lb, from memory) and that must be recorded, as must each little bit cut off ---- what more can I say.

To say this is all about EASA "harmonisation" ---- WTF???

Stand by for the "no, you can't really change a battery" of "no, you can't legally wash your windscreen, only replace it" to get another run ----- remember, 'tis all on the CASA Schedule 8 MR CD.

Cheers,

Bill H.

Bill;

 
This is frog shit!
 
No better cause for public disobedience has been demonstrated to date.
 
I challenge everyone to use lockwire that has proven reliable in their own industry to date or make oath to the effect the paperwork has been stolen, misunderstood, (by purposeful and intended ignorance through purposeful ignorance by the end user). or proven to be a Chinese knock off and the responsibility of Barnaby Joyce and his sycophant Minister in Gippsland somewhere over the rainbow.
 
For God’s sake next we’ll have to use certified lock nuts and certified lockwire put in place by a certified 8” non chrome shifter, and yellow platinum pliers.
 
If I still owned my Auster I would seriously remove all lockwire in protest. In lieu I put a pox on the administration. (like yesterday).
 
I have an un certified 8” shifter probably now worthless for sale if anybody is interested. CHEAP!


Bill,

 
Until government/CASA Board/CASA commit to adopting the FAR system then GA will continue to struggle.

Maybe just pick up the NZ regulations and computer system to harmonise locally.

CASA needs to send their GA AWIs/FOIs to the FAA training academy in OK city to be properly trained.

Too many have their own interpretation of the rules.
 
GA will not recover until the independent flight instructor is re-introduced to provide competition to the approved training schools like the USA.
 
Independent FIs train 70% of pilots and that provides additional pilots to enter the commercial flying sectors.
 
Regards
 
Ken

Ken,


As a matter of interest, this was/is an HCPT matter, not GA, next time around the particular component overhaul contract will go to NZ or US, this was (for these components) the last man (or should that be person) standing in Australia, gone is gone.
I am deliberately being non-specific as to the components, as that would identify who.

Cheers,

Bill H


Bill,

 
If that is the case, nothing will turn the youth from entering aviation because of how it is treated.
Oh well, they still have the 457 process to keep our aircraft flying.
Every other industry uses them.
 
Regards

Ken
    
What next? Certifying & recording the use of speed (100 mph) tape? - UDB! Blush

  

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#95
[Image: CASAAusNotam.png?fit=676%2C455]

NOTAMS - 1920s format in a 21st century?? 

Bob Dylan: "..The times they are a-changin.."  





"..Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'..."

In a day and age of the internet with social media and an APP for just about everything, it is  UDB that our AIP SUPPs & NOTAMs are still littered with outdated, hard to decipher 1920s style abbreviations/aviation terminology that lends itself to confusion and complacency with the average flight crew.. Confused

Via the flightservicebureau.org:
Quote:The problem of Bullshit Notams
15 March, 2017 / Mark Zee /
This article created a firestorm of engagement – several hundred emails and 127,000 people that visited the blog. Most of it was overwhelmingly positive. Some of it wasn’t. Please read my follow up in response.
It’s absolutely ridiculous.

We communicate the most critical flight information, using a system invented in 1920, with a format unchanged since 1924, burying essential information that will lose a pilot their job, an airline their aircraft, and passengers their lives, in a mountain of unreadable, irrelevant bullshit.

Yes CASA Australia, that’s you. Yes, Greek CAA, that’s you. And you’re not alone.
[Image: AusNotam.png?resize=676%2C455]
In an unintended twist of irony, the agencies seeking to cover their legal ass are party to creating the most criminal of systems – an unending flow of aeronautical sewage rendering the critical few pieces of information unfindable.

This is more than just hugely frustrating for each pilot, dispatcher, and controller that has to parse through it all; it’s downright dangerous.

If you’re a pilot, you’ll either have already experienced this, or you’re going to – you stuff something up, and then be told: “but there was a Notam out about that”. Sure enough, there it is in black and white (and in big capital letters). Do you think that “but there were 100 pages of them” is going to be a valid defence?
 
Well, it should be. The same agency conducting your post-incident interview is busy on the other end stuffing the system full of the garbage that prevented you from seeing it in the first place.

There are three parts to the problem: the system, the format, and the content. The system is actually quite amazing. The AFTN network connects every country in the world, and Notam information once added is immediately available to every user. Coupled with the internet, delivery is immediate.

The format is, at best, forgivable. It’s pretty awful. It’s a trip back in time to when Notams were introduced. You might think that was the 1960’s, or the 50’s. In fact, it’s 1924, when 5-bit ITA2 was introduced. The world shifted to ASCII in 1963, bringing the Upper and Lower case format that every QWERTY keyboard uses today, but we didn’t follow – nope, we’ll stick with our 1924 format, thank you.

Read that again. 1924. Back then, upper case code-infested aeronautical messages would have seemed impressive and almost reassuring in their aloofness. But there weren’t in excess of 1 million Notams per year, a milestone we passed in 2013. The 1 million milestone is remarkable in itself, but here’s something else amazing: in 2006, there were only 500,000. So in seven years, Notams doubled. Why? Are there twice as many airports in the world? No. Twice as many changes and updates? Possibly. But far more likely: the operating agencies became twice as scared about leaving things out.

And so onto the culprit: the content. The core definition of a Notam is ESSENTIAL flight information. Essential, for anyone tasked with entering information into the Notam System, is defined as “absolutely necessary; extremely important”. Here’s a game you can play at home. Take your 100 page printout of Notams, and circle that ones that you think can be defined as essential. See how many fit that bill.

So why is all this garbage in the system? Because the questions that the creators of Notams ask are flawed. The conversation goes like this:

– “Should we stick this into a Notam?”
– “Yeah, we’d better, just in case”.

How many are actually asking, “Is this essential information that aircrew need to know about ?”. Almost none. Many ‘solutions’ to the Notam deluge involve better filtering, Q codes, and smart regex’s. This overlooks the core problem. It’s not what comes out that needs to be fixed, it’s what goes in.

Even in 1921, we had much the same problem. Obstacle, 18 feet high, several miles from the runway.
[Image: Jan1921.png?resize=400%2C301]

Nobody cares. Unless you’ve parked the Eiffel Tower on the threshold, leave this stuff for the AIP. And nobody cares about kites either. Nor about goat-grazing times. We don’t care if your bird scarer is U/S. We don’t care if there’s a cherry-picker fixing a bulb somewhere. We don’t care when you’re cutting your grass.

Nor do we care about closed taxiways. The only way I can get onto a taxiway is with an ATC clearance, and ATC will not clear me onto a closed taxiway.

We care if the airport is going to be closed when we get there. If we’re going to have to divert because the runway is shut. If someone might shoot at us. If there are new rules. We care about the critical items, but we won’t see them as things stand.
And so, about here is where a normal editorial piece might end with “we hope that the authorities improve the system”, and sign off.
 
But not here.

We’re in the business of doing things here at FSB, not just talking about them.
Last year we wrote a few pieces about the Greece vs Turkey Notam battle. This month we did a group look at Briefing Packages, and it was astonishing to see how many pages of this diplomatic drivel still appeared in all our members’ Briefings. All in all, on average 3 full pages of every briefing for a flight overflying Greece or Turkey contained this stuff.

So, we sent Greece a polite AFTN message on behalf of all of us.

[Image: lggg_1024.png?resize=676%2C817]
That’s just one piece of a thousand-piece puzzle, and it would be nice to think that one piece at a time we could fix the sytem. Let’s get real. It’s a monster, and it’s out of control.

We don’t think that we can fix the Notam system.

But, we can think about a different solution. And that’s exactly what we’re doing right now in OpsGroup. With almost 2000 members, we can make a difference. Watch this space. Or, if you want to help take action, send your thoughts to goatams@ops.group.

 MTF...P2
Reply
#96
(03-20-2017, 08:31 PM)Peetwo Wrote: [Image: CASAAusNotam.png?fit=676%2C455]

NOTAMS - 1920s format in a 21st century?? 

Bob Dylan: "..The times they are a-changin.."  





"..Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'..."

In a day and age of the internet with social media and an APP for just about everything, it is  UDB that our AIP SUPPs & NOTAMs are still littered with outdated, hard to decipher 1920s style abbreviations/aviation terminology that lends itself to confusion and complacency with the average flight crew.. Confused

Via the flightservicebureau.org:
Quote:The problem of Bullshit Notams
15 March, 2017 / Mark Zee /
This article created a firestorm of engagement – several hundred emails and 127,000 people that visited the blog. Most of it was overwhelmingly positive. Some of it wasn’t. Please read my follow up in response.
It’s absolutely ridiculous.

We communicate the most critical flight information, using a system invented in 1920, with a format unchanged since 1924, burying essential information that will lose a pilot their job, an airline their aircraft, and passengers their lives, in a mountain of unreadable, irrelevant bullshit.

Yes CASA Australia, that’s you. Yes, Greek CAA, that’s you. And you’re not alone.
[Image: AusNotam.png?resize=676%2C455]
In an unintended twist of irony, the agencies seeking to cover their legal ass are party to creating the most criminal of systems – an unending flow of aeronautical sewage rendering the critical few pieces of information unfindable.

This is more than just hugely frustrating for each pilot, dispatcher, and controller that has to parse through it all; it’s downright dangerous.

If you’re a pilot, you’ll either have already experienced this, or you’re going to – you stuff something up, and then be told: “but there was a Notam out about that”. Sure enough, there it is in black and white (and in big capital letters). Do you think that “but there were 100 pages of them” is going to be a valid defence?
 
Well, it should be. The same agency conducting your post-incident interview is busy on the other end stuffing the system full of the garbage that prevented you from seeing it in the first place.

There are three parts to the problem: the system, the format, and the content. The system is actually quite amazing. The AFTN network connects every country in the world, and Notam information once added is immediately available to every user. Coupled with the internet, delivery is immediate.

The format is, at best, forgivable. It’s pretty awful. It’s a trip back in time to when Notams were introduced. You might think that was the 1960’s, or the 50’s. In fact, it’s 1924, when 5-bit ITA2 was introduced. The world shifted to ASCII in 1963, bringing the Upper and Lower case format that every QWERTY keyboard uses today, but we didn’t follow – nope, we’ll stick with our 1924 format, thank you.

Read that again. 1924. Back then, upper case code-infested aeronautical messages would have seemed impressive and almost reassuring in their aloofness. But there weren’t in excess of 1 million Notams per year, a milestone we passed in 2013. The 1 million milestone is remarkable in itself, but here’s something else amazing: in 2006, there were only 500,000. So in seven years, Notams doubled. Why? Are there twice as many airports in the world? No. Twice as many changes and updates? Possibly. But far more likely: the operating agencies became twice as scared about leaving things out.

And so onto the culprit: the content. The core definition of a Notam is ESSENTIAL flight information. Essential, for anyone tasked with entering information into the Notam System, is defined as “absolutely necessary; extremely important”. Here’s a game you can play at home. Take your 100 page printout of Notams, and circle that ones that you think can be defined as essential. See how many fit that bill.

So why is all this garbage in the system? Because the questions that the creators of Notams ask are flawed. The conversation goes like this:

– “Should we stick this into a Notam?”
– “Yeah, we’d better, just in case”.

How many are actually asking, “Is this essential information that aircrew need to know about ?”. Almost none. Many ‘solutions’ to the Notam deluge involve better filtering, Q codes, and smart regex’s. This overlooks the core problem. It’s not what comes out that needs to be fixed, it’s what goes in.

Even in 1921, we had much the same problem. Obstacle, 18 feet high, several miles from the runway.
[Image: Jan1921.png?resize=400%2C301]

Nobody cares. Unless you’ve parked the Eiffel Tower on the threshold, leave this stuff for the AIP. And nobody cares about kites either. Nor about goat-grazing times. We don’t care if your bird scarer is U/S. We don’t care if there’s a cherry-picker fixing a bulb somewhere. We don’t care when you’re cutting your grass.

Nor do we care about closed taxiways. The only way I can get onto a taxiway is with an ATC clearance, and ATC will not clear me onto a closed taxiway.

We care if the airport is going to be closed when we get there. If we’re going to have to divert because the runway is shut. If someone might shoot at us. If there are new rules. We care about the critical items, but we won’t see them as things stand.
And so, about here is where a normal editorial piece might end with “we hope that the authorities improve the system”, and sign off.
 
But not here.

We’re in the business of doing things here at FSB, not just talking about them.
Last year we wrote a few pieces about the Greece vs Turkey Notam battle. This month we did a group look at Briefing Packages, and it was astonishing to see how many pages of this diplomatic drivel still appeared in all our members’ Briefings. All in all, on average 3 full pages of every briefing for a flight overflying Greece or Turkey contained this stuff.

So, we sent Greece a polite AFTN message on behalf of all of us.

[Image: lggg_1024.png?resize=676%2C817]
That’s just one piece of a thousand-piece puzzle, and it would be nice to think that one piece at a time we could fix the sytem. Let’s get real. It’s a monster, and it’s out of control.

We don’t think that we can fix the Notam system.

But, we can think about a different solution. And that’s exactly what we’re doing right now in OpsGroup. With almost 2000 members, we can make a difference. Watch this space. Or, if you want to help take action, send your thoughts to goatams@ops.group.

Some excellent comments to this 'nail on the head' article... Wink :

Quote:Charles Hunt
15 March, 2017 at 9:54 pm

B.S. NOTAMS….100% concur. Our whole world of aviation is being swamped by similar legal ass-covering paperwork. How can ANY pilot be expected to remember all the additional codicils that do NOTHING to improve safety of flight, but rather give an army of lawyers and providers more chances to fleece an already cash-strapped industry?…..Rant over!

Bill Harrelson
16 March, 2017 at 6:23 am

This information ceased to be “NOTAMs” long ago. Today they are “NOTOLs”, Notice To Litigants. Thanks for making an effort to change this ancient system.

Fergus
16 March, 2017 at 8:29 am

You are a mind reader.

You captured the issue perfectly and the historical context was excellent. While airspace and aircraft have all continued to develop our most basic system of communicating the status of an airport/airspace has not. I could take that further and say communication with ATC is still by AFTN for the most part.

So now put yourself in the position of dispatcher/FOO working a series of long haul ETOPS Flight. You might have 20 or more departure /Take off alternate station notams, a whole galaxy of FIR/UIR Notams, not to mention all of the ETOP alternates and if you re-dispatch/re-analysis, you will get to do it inflight once again. Now do that 15-20 times depending on workload.

Can you say human data saturation?

This article certainly illustrates the infrastructure issues we face, but it doesn’t come close explaining some of the processes and procedures we have had to put in place to ensure:

1. That we actually get NOTAMS.
2. That we get airport conditions as some countries don’t put them out as Series-S ICAO

NOTAM versus Series-A (Yes, theses are the countries that haven’t fully adopted ICAO standards which were adopted in 1944 and ratified in 1947 by the Chicago convention).

Question: What is the current year?

Antonio Chialastri
17 March, 2017 at 9:00 am

What is clear is the professional approach to the information received: too many inputs, disorderly given, contextually irrilevant, redundant and unusable.

A kind of “cry wolf” syndrome, making the pilot complacent about such a bullshit.

The very day someone of us is caught in a legal battle for a system-induced mistake leading to a incident, overlooking the NOTAMs will not appear as an excuse.
How to make these information valuable?

Alan Booth
17 March, 2017 at 4:13 pm

We train the pilots of tomorrow, they are inundated with everything the industry throws at them and the unintelligible Nonsense contained in some NOTAMS are just another accident waiting to happen. With all the technology at our disposal today, the filtering systems, electronics messages systems, integration tools and smart people to think about it, there is a solution out there.

I suppose we just need to make enough noise in the right places to make a change. Oh well best we get started. hmmm, perhaps a NOTAM about change is needed.



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#97
All aboard the ICAO express.....toot toot

Captain Kharon, crank up the Houseboat engines, grab the charts and pack plenty of beer because there are visitors coming....

I now see why NFI 6D Chester appointed another Board trough swiller and released his list of Excrementations - ICAO are coming. A source advises me that finally the ICAO have confirmed the dates and scope of the audit. Now when I started this thread I was aware that the 'conversations had commenced behind the scenes', however bureaucracies work ever so slowly so it has taken awhile to get to this point. Plus on this occasion, unlike last audit, they are asking for 'evidence'. Now a cynic might say 'evidence, of course, it's an audit'. But as we know most audits undertaken by government departments or tick and flick organisations like ICAO are somewhat pissweak. So a request by ICAO for actual 'evidence' is surprising. Nonetheless Murky and his team of turd polishers have managed to fool the ICAO, Senate, Public and every other force of nature repetitively for decades, so I'm not holding my breath.

But wait, there's more;

As an addendum I've also been advised that CAsA have been shitting themselves of late over PelAir, Essendon and the David Black water bomber crash, and Team Voodoo and The Flyingfiend have been very very busy. Lots of panic within the bowels of Sleepy Hollow.

P2, more to follow? I believe so good sir.

TICK TOCK (perhaps)
Reply
#98
GD – “I've been told that CAsA have been shitting themselves of late over Pel Air,”

Nice thought GD, but can’t see it myself; history is against it. CASA sailed through the Pel-Air storm un marked, untouched, unaccountable, not seriously challenged and unpunished - WTD. CASA strolled past the ASRR same-same, with even less ‘bother’.

Another Senate inquiry or even another Royal Commission won’t trouble ‘em overly much. It is time ‘the law’ was used. There needs to be a Judicial Inquiry based on the Pel-Air incident with no purpose other than to examine the actions of CASA officers, top to bottom. This could be expanded to focus on the actions of the Sydney Basin crew during the McConvict era.

Reform of CASA will only be effective when they realize that penalties can and will be imposed, that prosecution for crimes is a reality and that ‘they’ (CASA) are not above the law. A SI or RC may be jolly good fun, but they ain’t the same as the barrister prosecuting asking “is this your signature?” or; “who instructed you to. etc” CASA claim to be pure as the driven snow; I say, let ‘em, prove it. Hell I’ll even draft some of the questions, gratis, just for the fun of it..

Toot toot.
Reply
#99
Chicken Little: "ICAO is coming!!..ICAO is coming..!!" Big Grin


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBSuwGD2tRSskLb3kgjJB...4PTvoXcsOQ]

Gobbles: "...Plus on this occasion, unlike last audit, they are asking for 'evidence'. Now a cynic might say 'evidence, of course, it's an audit'. But as we know most audits undertaken by government departments or tick and flick organisations like ICAO are somewhat pissweak. So a request by ICAO for actual 'evidence' is surprising..."

'Evidence' ? Well in terms of evidence the ICAO/FAA USOAP team would do well to review this thread and I am sure Aunty Pru would welcome a tea party review of much of the PAIN_Net Sleepy Hollow archives...(hint) Wink

I am also guessing that there will be at least a tick & flick review of the progress of implementation (or obfuscation) of the last (2008) ICAO audit findings and recommendations (i.e. Mount Non-compliance).

 GD: "..Nonetheless Murky and his team of turd polishers have managed to fool the ICAO, Senate, Public and every other force of nature repetitively for decades, so I'm not holding my breath..."  

In order to sort the wheat from the chaff, on behalf of the IOS and PAIN BRB affiliated members and for the benefit of helping facilitate a fully transparent and independent non-conflicted ICAO audit process, here on Aunty Pru we will continue to run a parallel review of the 2008 Mount Non-compliance... Rolleyes

As an example and in light of the recent developments with the ATSB Essendon B200 accident investigation (References: A stitch in time saves - five? nine? ten? twenty? & The three card trick.), I note the following ICAO finding, recommendation and comment from Appendix 1-8-05:
Quote:[Image: ICAO-1.jpg]

And this was the proposed 'corrective action' plan and comments from Murky and his merry band of minions:
Quote:[Image: ICAO-2.jpg]

TICK..TOCK 6D, M&M & Comardy, TICK TOCK indeed... Dodgy



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
An interesting reading list - for the insomniacs ......

#1    #2    #3     #4   #5   #6   #7   #8    #9    #10   #11 - BRISBANE

Saved the best for last.

This graphic says it all really, and is from inside #12

[Image: attachment.php?aid=292]

Many will discagree with what follows, but I will say it anyway.

For my money, what concerns me most, is the effect that the sight of looming obstacles (that SHOULD NOT be there) has on a "modern day power pilot's" decision (on take off) to "continue", ie, to try to get into the air and climb over them, when in "former days", "good airmanship" would have dictated (even if slightly after lift off, ie, at a low height) to "abort" - "abort" - and land ahead - specifically accepting an over-run or an excursion into "the ruff" off the side of the strip, as the "very much lesser of two evils" outcome.  But that option doesn't really exist anymore, not for him, not there, that day, because there is no "field of ruff" there any more.

I am speculating for sure, I am not a certified human factors expert (never would want to be either), with a zillion degrees sticking out my arse, just an old glider pilot.  Glider pilots think differently to power pilots.  We have to.

Glider pilots have no options other than "down" if there is a "power loss" or "control problem" on take off.  In this context, our "power is one of, a winch (with cable), a tug aircraft (with rope).  If either the cable or the rope breaks, you are on your own. If the tug suffers a power failure (partial or total) you release immediately, or he pulls his release.  In all 4 possible case, you are "going down". There is "NEVER" an "option" to climb, not even if you run into "lift" off the end of the strip.  You plan accordingly.  You "land ahead" up to a certain point, beyond that you go somewhere else.  Every strip has it's "procedures" and "place to go".

Modern day power pilots on the other hand, are rigidly "GO MINDED" by both training and indoctrination. Take the problem into the air we are told.  Sort it, return, land, taxi-in, blast the LAME, and tell him to fix it, whilst we go have a coffe while he does it. Overly simplistic, but you get the point (I hope). Put bluntly, I think this "GO" mentaility is wrong. It has been "handed down" from the V1 - Rotate - V2 of the "big birds", and is simply not applicable to lighties,(in my view).

I think his repeated "maydays", with no other comment, are highly indicative of his "indecision" at a "critical point".  With some kind of obvious power or control proble (possibly both) apparent, and with left drift developing, he, as a good reliable modern power pilot, saw the DFO looming, and (ultimately) decided to "GO", to get up and over it.  He probably did "the correct thing", by the book, or at least, he tried to, but alas .......

BUT, if the DFO was not there, as in former times, and if the "airfield" was still a "large field with runways on it", instead of "runways poking out into the shopping centre", I am certain that he would have "plonked it back ON".  The YMEN accident would therfore most likely not have been a fatal, just a bent bird and a few bruises.

Moral of the story, ENCROACHING DEVELOPMENT "restricts" a pilot's "options" in critical situations, DECREASING safety, INCREASING the probability of a minor accident becoming a major accident, and DIRECTLY INCREASES the LIKELYHOOD of FATALITIES.

Enough for now.

"K" edit - Key to the Tim Tam cupboard for "V" - no discussion. Top stuff. P2 should get one too; but he already has a gold pass.


Attached Files
.gif   The facts - undeniable.GIF (Size: 80.67 KB / Downloads: 160)
Reply
"V" - next morning - 7th April 2017.

I was going to make additional comments in the post above yesterday, about the differences in mindset between glider and power pilots, and their importance, but restrained myself from doing so.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=293]

Low an behold, this morning, I awake, and I see on my twitter feed, that Flight Safety Australia has done it for me, only an hour or so ago !

Read this:  "No Second Chances"



.jpg   Gliding_f.jpg (Size: 286.98 KB / Downloads: 133) http://auntypru.com/forum/editpost.php?pid=6791#
Reply
Sully - ‘The short answer is, based on my experience and looking out the window, I could tell by the altitude and the descent rate that neither [airport] was a viable option,’ he told the magazine.

I get so very tired (old age grumpiness) of people degrading the ‘skills’ that make a first class pilot. Many, have much to answer for:-

Fancy footwork—learning (again) the importance of rudder.

Watch a formula car go into a ‘skid’ at a mere 140 KpH: the fact that it occurred is enough to make the purist belch. And that (mind you) is only in one dimension, in perfect conditions, with a whole support team and computer analysis. The average crop-duster works in three dimensions; day or night, with obstacles and not too much in the way of ‘support’; at those speeds all day and at night too. Tackle a bush firestorm at dusk, on one engine , then talk about 'flying skills'.

The Colombian lapped Monza in his Williams FW36 with an incredible average speed of 262.242kph (162.950mph) during the first part of qualifying, but despite setting the record, couldn’t match his time later in the session and qualified second for the race behind Rubens Barrichello. (FFS).

A dreary 130 knots; in perfect conditions; try to nail down an ILS on a ‘bad night’; the auto pilot can do it – every time. But these days, how many would relish and tackle a hand flown ILS, in the rough? Some still do; they respond to the challenge, glorying in the fact over a quiet ale later, that they can actually ‘do it’. These are of the true to the blood instinct, naturals who have learned and developed not just the skill, but the knowledge and confidence in that ability be rightfully called ‘skilled’. They are interested and did not just study to pass the exam; but to learn their trade from their lessons and carried those lessons into their profession as the basics of learning the job.

Pilots – gudduns: are not ‘bus drivers. They are easy to spot; watch the ballet of hands and feet, supported by the sound, feel and rhythm of wind, rain, engine; all senses engaged and that elusive charm, hard won experience. They are not particularly nice people, the profession is essentially a ‘lone wolf’ one; relying on self rather than herd. See it all the time – the jaw comes out as the head lowers and all attention is focussed on one end; getting the aircraft and the load home – in one piece. Cardboard cut out, autopilot dependents need not apply – unless HR is hiring exactly that. Those who understand will smile quietly; those who do not will be left, forever wondering WTD “V” and myself are banging on about. But we know “V”: we know it exactly.

Enough from me; bad old school influence on young minds. TOM 4 Genius 0. I may yet visit the houseboat stable, find a comfy seat and make it 6-0.
Reply
Tom;

I get so very tired (old age grumpiness) of people degrading the ‘skills’ that make a first class pilot. Many, have much to answer for:-

Gotta say Tom I really enjoyed your post. It connected with me perfectly for some reason. Pilots do indeed fly using myriads of procedures and processes, but more than one pilot has saved the day care of 'gut instinct'. You can't rely 100% on it, but it comes with time, age and experience. And it is an important skill in a pilots toolkit.

I once saw first hand a 35 year veteran Qantas Gingerbeer headsetting an aircraft during pushback. The Gingerbeer stopped the push and told the PIC he 'heard something that wasn't right'. Captain responded 'nothing has lit up on the panel mate'. As the PIC was saying that a master caution lit up on engine 2. From memory it was a generator. Point is - by all rights the Gingerbeer should have known second, the flight deck should have had an indicator and horn first, then the Gingerbeer informed. How did the Gingerbeer know? Gut instinct and a finely tuned ear. Only 35 years of experience and probably 25 of those on 737's and General Electrics had honed his skill and instinct. To this day I enjoy this story over an ale....

'Safety before schedule'
Reply
At the pinnacle of MNC.

“A second helping of Pony Pooh pudding, Vicar?”

One of the many reasons aeronautical elephants are so well liked by Aunt Pru is their incredible memories. Some of the ‘mature’ beasts residing at the houseboat sanctuary have particularly good ones, each generation holding specific details of the events which occurred during their working lives. It is easy, for those who wish to do so, to go back into history and provide a detailed picture of ‘significant’ events and factual analysis of the lead up to and the aftermath of those events. If nothing else is proven, beyond reasonable doubt, it is, unequivocally, that history is indeed repeated, by those who will not learn from it.

Far be it from me to decry or belittle the tremendous efforts made by RAAA, TAAAF, AAAA and AMROBA; or to dampen their enthusiasm for ‘dialogue’ with the powers that be. These expert industry groups and the inestimable Senate committee have generated enough energy to sustain yet another serious (expensive) attempt at true reform. The parallels to be drawn from 20 years back are remarkable, there are other similar events stretching back even further, which reflect the endless cycle: the persistent demand for changes; and, most importantly for true reform of the regulator and the regulations. Many of the current generation of 25 to 45 y.o. industry participants will not see the pattern emerging, they were but pups during the  subject event. Lets take a step back 20 years, then, lets have a look at ‘current’ events.

There are no prizes for making an accurate prediction of where this is all going to finish up – again. That is no challenge at all. The challenge lays in making sure that the same old wool is not pulled over the new, keen eyes of the next generation which must live and make a career or business out of the industry known as ‘aviation’.  {P2 - Gold star}.


February 1997

Vigorous debates in Parliament regarding CASA Board placements by Transport Minister John Sharp, who continued his criticism of the CASA Board in response to the Wheelahan report and Kimpton inquiry.

Australian, 13, 15 and 17 February 1997.

Some excerpts of historical & parallel intrigue...
Quote:April 1996

CASA board members rejected calls for their resignations from the new Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp MP.

Australian, 20 April 1996, 10 July 1997.
________________________________________

6 June 1996

NSW Coroner John Gould handed down findings into the 1993 Monarch Airlines crash critical of the airline, the former CAA and the NSW Air Transport Council. The Minister (Mr John Sharp) foreshadowed a review and other actions to address the report's recommendations.

Canberra Times, 7 June 1996; Minister for Transport Media Statement, 6 June 1996 TR46/96
________________________________________

25 June 1996

The Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp MP announced reviews of the regulatory framework and role in an aviation safety ministerial statement. (Why does that sound so familiar.. )  He also introduced the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1996 to increase the CASA Board size from four to six people. While the Opposition supported the Bill, it questioned the motives.

House of Representatives, Debates, 25 June 1996, p. 2653
________________________________________

26 September 1996

The Minister for Transport and Regional Development announced an industry-based panel to oversee the CASA regulatory review headed by Ansett's Mr James Kimpton. The review produced recommendations that could be implemented in 1998, while reporting monthly. Industry consultations continued throughout.
(Hmm..."Let's do the timewarp again.."
- but wait it gets worse.. )
Minister for Transport Media Statement 20 and 26 September 1996, TR101 and 110/96.
________________________________________

October 1996

The (Staunton) Report of the Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry into the Relations Between the CAA and Seaview Air was particularly scathing of CAA operations and identified a number of systemic problems. Recommendations included action against two CAA officers, and suggested mechanisms for responsibility, accountability and documentation. The minister urged changes to CASA and its management board positions. BASI undertook a separate investigation of the incident.

House of Representatives, Debates, 8 and 9 October 1996, p. 5046; Sydney Morning Herald and Australian 9 October (& worse.. )
________________________________________

10 October 1996

The CASA Board released a media statement in relation to certain findings of the Seaview inquiry and lamenting comments about it made by the minister in Parliament.

Australian, 12 October 1996; Sydney Morning Herald, 10 October 1996.
&..
________________________________________

30 October 1996

A large newspaper advertisement with 512 listed names published, later found to be sponsored by the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association, requested the CASA board members to stand aside. It followed the publication of a letter by the CASA Chairman stating why the board should remain in full control despite Ministerial denigration. Meanwhile, CASA developed a program known as Airspace 2000 planned for introduction in 1998. The scheme aimed to achieve an ICAO standard with the use of systems safety, harmonisation and staged delivery.

Australian, 21, 23, 25 and 30 October 1996; Canberra Times, 23 and 31 October 1996.

&.. worse
________________________________________


3 November 1996

Falcon Airlines plane crashed into the sea off Cairns with the occupants safely reaching the shore. The subsequent report by David Wheelahan QC found a possible conflict of interest between CASA, the airline and Minister John Sharp. The Minister had sought an independent report after stating that a response from CASA was inadequate.

AAP, 18 February 1997; Canberra Times, 8 November 1996.
________________________________________

19 November 1996

Concerns expressed in the letter of resignation of the CASA Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Robert Liddell, caused the Minister to ask the Board to reconsider safety.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR152/96; Age, 27 November 1996.
________________________________________

5 December 1996

Government response to the Plane Safe report tabled by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development the Hon John Sharp MP. (Refer to 14 December 1995). It included a monthly CASA update on safety breaches. The Senate decided to investigate the purchase of Australia's new search and rescue equipment after faults were found.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR167/96; Australian, 6 and 9 December 1996; Age 6 December 1996.
________________________________________

February 1997

Vigorous debates in Parliament regarding CASA Board placements by Transport Minister John Sharp, who continued his criticism of the CASA Board in response to the Wheelahan report and Kimpton inquiry.

Australian, 13, 15 and 17 February 1997.

Then finally in September 1997 John Sharp was given the bullet:
Quote:26 September 1997

CASA Director Mr Leroy Keith left after the Board passed a no-confidence motion in his management strategy. Chairman Justice William Fischer and member Dr Clare Pollock both resigned in protest at the Board's handling of the former Director. The New Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Mark Vaile MP, replaced Mr John Sharp.

Australian Financial Review, 26 September

P2 – “There is no doubt many critics of the tumultuous John Sharp period as the Minister responsible for aviation safety. However there is also IMO no doubt that Sharp understood his role as a Minister for the Crown and that he was in a dog fight with an entrenched bureaucracy operating solely in their own self-interest. Not in the interest of the travelling public nor for the betterment of Australian aviation safety standards”...

Sandy - Rex Deputy Chairman and Director of Rex Mr Sharp opens his defence of Rex with the modest statement that he's been "associated " with Rex for some time.

I believe President Trump is revisiting the question of retiring Government officials getting work with those private companies that were previously in the officer's area of jurisdiction. Personally I think they should not because there's no doubt its a grey area and our democracy should, like justice, be seen to be fair.

One may now see why the research done, the efforts made and even the threads in Aunt Pru’s knitting are, I believe, important. The total shambles which has emerged, unscathed from a history of total resistance to meaningful change. The  paying of lip service to demanded reform, the  premeditated connivance, with intent, to deceive the minister and the parliament; to thwart ICAO, denigrate the FAA and tell the Rev. that his report was merely ‘an opinion’ all symptoms chronic, all  a result of repeated history.

Yet our purblind minister is content to watch this expensive charade, this black pantomime repeat; believing, despite history and evidence, that all is rosy in the garden. Well It ain’t. Every fool in the Souk knows this. The question is, do we fall for it all over again?  Make no mistake; the machine is in action, working hard to confound, confuse and deflect. The snake oil salesmen are preparing their next advertising campaign to sell their dodgy lotions, potions and placebos. If we fail, this iteration, to achieve meaningful, tangible, demonstrable reform, in another 20 years the new entrants of today will have to fight this same battle, all over again.

"If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind."  Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Selah..
Reply
Is (ICAO) Thor armed with a hammer or a wet lettuce leaf - Huh

According to Hoody's media minion (but not the twitter minion), ICAO 'Thor' is already here strolling the halls of the ATSB HQ... Huh

Via the ATSB 'News' website:
Quote:Safety boost from Thor’s ICAO audit

Thor Thormodsson has spent the past eight years travelling the world undertaking safety oversight audits for the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
[Image: thor_icao.jpg]

The Continuous Monitoring Coordinator from ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme is a commercial and instrument-rated pilot. He believes his work makes a significant difference to safety, especially in nations with less sophisticated safety oversight.

“What we find is that in some of these countries there might be fewer resources devoted to aviation transport safety,” the former Iceland accident investigator said.

“This can manifest in, for example, a lack of training and documented procedures as well as less robust reporting culture around incidents.

“There is no doubt there are dedicated people working in these places but it is when we identify specific issues, and demonstrate how they can affect safety, that our work makes a difference.”

Based at ICAO headquarters in Montreal, and armed with a technical/business degree from the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in the US, Thor lives and breathes his auditing—to the point where he applies it to himself.

A keen footballer for many years before turning to distance running Thor, 53, was keen to take on a triathlon. A full body audit identified major flaws in his swimming.

“You really need to be competent in the freestyle which meant I needed to do a lot of work to get me through a 1500m swim in a Standard distance triathlon which also includes a 40km bike ride and a 10km run,” he said.

“I will put my training to the test in June when I do my first triathlon, back in Montreal.”
In the meantime Thor will complete his ICAO audit of the ATSB and schedule in several other audits, south and north of the equator.

He says his job has taken him to fascinating places, often with customs he feels ‘obligated’ to participate in. On a few occasions, this has resulted in headaches the morning after.

“On the whole, my job is highly rewarding,” he said. “It keeps me in touch with the outside world. I perform an audit, then go back to the country and see significant differences due to the audit findings and safety recommendations.”

Thor, who is on his first visit to Australia, hopes his personal audit will result in similarly positive outcomes in his first triathlon.

Naturally Thor can’t comment on the ATSB audit before it’s completed, but we can be sure it will be used only to further enhance aviation transport safety in Australia.

ICAO auditor Thor Thormodsson likes to keep fit with outdoor activities[Image: auditorthorthormodsson_icao.jpg?width=50...=341.40625]
 

[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 11 April 2017 

Not sure why Hoody's media minion is drawing attention to the fact that 'ICAO Thor' is here auditing the ATSB.. Huh  However after a short background check, if the intention is to flatter and therefore placate the dude, nice try but I think the minion may have 'Buckley's or none'... Rolleyes
Excerpt from a Kathryns Report blog post Wink : http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/01/ai...-body.html
Quote:On November 9, 2012, investigators of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) completed their probe into the crash which revealed that the incident occurred after the pilot lost control of the aircraft. The ICAO report also termed the CAA investigation report, available on its website, as incomplete and lacking vital information.

The reinvestigation, carried out by ICAO Technical Officer Dr Andre Dekok and Standards and Procedure Officer Thormodur Thormodsson, claimed the SIB was not an independent and impartial organization and could not investigate air crash incidents in a transparent manner. They had recommended that the SIB be turned into an independent entity to avoid misinformation and bureaucratic influences.

“At the ICAO’s headquarters in Montreal a few months back, we advised the ICAO to exert pressure on the Pakistani government to declare the SIB an independent entity,” Hamid said, adding that unless it became an autonomous body, the SIB would not be able to reveal errors of its parent organization (CAA).
 Hmm...shades of PelAir in that lot...  Blush

P7 (snipe) - Not kidding. Should fit right in with the ‘match fit’ crowd; two quick outings with Hoody and Halfwit, he’ll be tho thor he cant pith; anywhere, anytime. Will he enter the ‘wool-pulling’ comp; or, just join in the knitting – Pel one, Kintair two for a nice woolly jumper? Anything but make ATSB ‘independent’ they’d all rather jump off the nearest bloody cliff first.

Yes; yes, two more here barkeep: I know, but I’m in good company when drinking alone. MTF.

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)