[Peetwo]

"Put another log on the fire.." - 

Okay a few more additions (logs -  ) for our useless NFI miniscule's aviation safety shitlist, which IMO the Senate RRAT committee should equally be concerned about...

As the man with a wooden leg said -

Aleck - '"..Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur..."

"It’s a matter of a pinion."

IMO – I never heard the like before -

IMO, this half baked type of ‘supported lunacy’ is what Buckley is dealing with. Opinion. We are all entitled to one of course – but.

I believe CASA was most satisfied with the shambolic ‘new’ method of ‘training pilots. Despite the fact that since Pontious, the basics have never, ever changed. Up – Down - Left – Right – Don’t hit ‘nuffin. What has changed, significantly, is the way pilots are ‘legally’ demonstrated to have ‘ticked all the boxes’ during training. CASA’s new system is an excellent example of how to waste valuable training time, and instructor time, filling out reams of ‘paperwork’.

Now them some, like Buckley went to a lot of trouble and expense to meet and comply with the ‘new’ system. Buckley went through the hoops, worked hard and long with ‘accredited’ CASA ‘subject experts’; together, they got the business over the approval line. Job done – time to recoup the horrendous costs.

Meanwhile, back at the asylum, someone has had a brain fart – an ‘opinion’ – with as much logic and tenable legal support as the fatuous remarks made by Jonathon (where’s me marbles) Aleck – (above) created doubt, fanned into outright paranoia; leading to Buckley’s ticket of leave being cancelled – Sine Die.

It is the validity of this ‘opinion’ which must be tested. The Aleck (no marbles) approach to safety is based on a risk matrix which any insurance company would love to use. “There is chance that we may have a regulatory risk here; if the Moon is upside down and a Zebra gets hit on a crossing in Bourke at 0137, on any Tuesday, which falls on the thirteenth and the Bogan moths fail to appear before dawn; then CASA and all who feed in the Cornucopia provided will be at risk of penury – you should have seen that loophole. No matter, we can all relax – I have a cunning plan.

Buckley must – categorically challenge the root cause of his troubles. Have the CASA ‘opinion’ tested – in court. Keep it simple, impersonal and to the pertinent points of law. Alek’s opinion is just that – an opinion. Be interesting to see what a crackerjack legal mind makes of it. There are some brilliant ones out there you know; they all don’t work for CASA. They will however toil in the very pits of Hell – if the money is right.

And: IMO it is not my shout.

And also related:

ATSB World Class? - My ASS: Version III  

Via LMH: 

---

ATSB reinforces Recommendation in Letter to Angel Flight
7 November 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has urged Angel Flight to reconsider its response to their recommendation to place passengers on airlines rather than private flights.

The recommendation was contained in the investigation report into the fatal accident of VH-YTM at Mount Gambier in 2017, but Angel Flight rejected the recommendation, preferring to stay with private flights as the primary service.

In a letter to Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani dated 4 November, ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said he would give Angel Flight another chance to reconsider their position before posting the response on the ATSB website.

"The reasons outlined for the decision by Angel Flight to maintain its current policy of giving priority to private flights where possible do not address the evidence on which the recommendation was made," Hood states in the letter.

"As outlined in the final investigation report, that evidence centred on that commercial passenger flights have an established lower safety risk for passengers than private operations. The reasons stated in your response only addressed your disagreement with other evidence in the ATSB final report concerning the relative safety of Angel Flights and other private operations.

"The ATSB Commission believes that Angel Flight should firstly consider the safety of Angel Flight passengers. Regional and rural people should not be exposed to unnecessary levels of risk as a passenger on a private community service flight, and as such, Angel Flight should consider the safer option as the primary option, where available, before considering private operations.

"The ATSB Commission is therefore asking you to reconsider your response to the safety recommendation."
Pagani told Australian Flying that the ATSB seemed out of touch with what it meant for Angel Flight to put passengers on RPT flights.

"They completely overlook the very personal nature of the service; the difficulties with families and elderly people navigating major city airports to find the pick-up spots and of course the drivers themselves, who prefer not to have to negotiate those airports. 

"You would be surprised at the high number of people we have who strenuously object to having to use RPT – they don’t like the waiting, the queuing, the big arrival airports and the lack of personal contact.

"We even have abusive responses at times when we want to move passengers to RPT."

It is believed that Angel Flight will not be reconsidering their position.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...vm9VPw3.99

---

Hmm...sounds like the Hooded Canary is a bit miffed that Angel Flight is basically saying up yours to the bollocks safety recommendation his top cover organisation issued...  

I also wonder why it took him so long to respond remembering that AF issued their response (post [b]#282[/b] ) and made public on the Angel Flight Senate Inquiry web page over a month ago?? Probably wanted to keep it all hush...hush until  the bollocks Safeskies etc talk fests were over...

I also note a passing strange parallel disconnection when yesterday the ATSB issued the following media release in conjunction with the issuing of two preliminary investigation reports...

---

Weather a focus of fatal accident investigations


Following the release of two preliminary investigation reports into multiple fatality accidents where the aircraft involved were operating under visual flight rules (VFR), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is again highlighting to pilots the actions they can take to avoid a weather or low-visibility related accident.

---

Funny thing about that MR is when you delve into the helpful Hooded Canary links you come across some even more bizarre passing strange dichotomies...

Exhibit 1 link:  Accidents involving pilots in Instrument Meteorological Conditions

In the decade from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2019, 101 VFR into IMC occurrences in Australian airspace were reported to the ATSB. Of those, nine were accidents resulting in 21 fatalities. That is, about one in 10 VFR into IMC events result in a fatal outcome.

Exhibit 2 link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/200...e_weather/

The work of this study is based on a set of 491 aviation accident and incident reports drawn from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) occurrence database. The study compares three groups of pilots who differed in their response to adverse weather conditions encountered during their flight...

Now refer to the PDF link provided - HERE - and go to the reference pages (57-58). All that decades of factual evidence, statistics and repeated findings and yet the Mount Gambier accident final report slates the blame on Angel Flight? - Yeah right...   

&..

The LMH 8 November 2019: Angel Flight, a rod for the ATSB's back, who we pay the big money and some thanks. 

Via the Yaffa...

– Steve Hitchen

Sometimes draining the swamp does nothing but release crocodiles, and it seems that's what happened when the Federal Government took steps to curtail the activities of Angel Flight. Using creative interpretation of data, both CASA and the ATSB have come down on the charity pretty hard then vigorously defended their positions against missiles of simple logic. The ATSB this week has implored Angel Flight to adopt their recommendation of ditching private flights in favour of putting people on RPT. Quite rightly, Angel Flight has metaphorically told them to get stuffed; it is not reasonable to ask a charity to surrender their reason for existence. If people who need to travel long distances to medical appointments could use RPT they would! There's nothing stopping them from getting on webjet and making a booking on REX or Qantaslink. Doing that regularly costs time, raises stress levels and forces people to adhere to the airline timetables. Angel Flight alleviates all of that, which is why they've conducted over 46,000 missions. That sounds to me like a demand that needs to be met, and only through volunteer private pilots giving their time and lots and lots of their hard-earned money can that happen. But this Federal Government is not one willing to brook any embarrassment and I suspect a heavy hand is about to be laid on Angel Flight.

"..it's hard to believe that the conditions played no part in these accidents.."

That recommendation was contained in the accident investigation report into a crash in Mount Gambier that contained no conclusions about the fact that the pilot took off VFR into IMC. This week, the ATSB released preliminary reports into two accidents in NSW that have a factor in common with Mount Gambier: the flights were VFR and the conditions were IMC. In fairness, the ATSB has not put out any conclusion at this stage because the investigations are not complete, so there could be other factors. However, it's hard to believe that the conditions played no part in these accidents at all, and surely in a reflection of Mount Gambier, the weather will be listed as a contributing factor. The sticking point is that the continued flight into VMC at Mount Gambier was not considered crucial enough to warrant action and it's fair for people to believe that the same reasoning will be applied for these other two accidents. Does this leave the ATSB anywhere to go that will keep their integrity intact? I doubt it, but we'll have to wait.

Having a crack at people about their pay packets is considered a very cheap shot and one most people are reluctant to take, but sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. It was pointed out to me this week that CASA, the ATSB and Airservices are now obliged to make the salaries of their executives public knowledge. The mere mention of executive salaries always angries-up the people in the streets, especially when there are so many who are putting in hours just as long or even longer for take-home pays sometimes less than 10% of what top-level public servants get. It makes them only angrier when they consider the level of service returned from government bodies. Comparisons with private business execs are a common defence, but that is only likely to result in an acquittal if the salaries of private executives are considered reasonable as well, which generally they're not unless it is by the executive themselves. Seeing so much money flowing out of the industry at a time when the participants are struggling will result in much gnashing of teeth, but very little else. For the record: CASA CEO $688K, Airservices CEO $1021K, ATSB Chief Commissioner $474K.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...2W7RIjb.99

Hmm...I think we need to send a choccy frog or two to the Oz Flying/Yaffa editorial team...

And finally here's another log...

Dear CASA Board - L&Ks GlenB

Subject: Sorry Colin, cheers. Glen.
From: Glen Buckley <glen.buckley@mft.edu.au>
Date:  6/11/2019, 10:11 am
To: "McLachlan, Colin" <Colin.Mclachlan@casa.gov.au>

Dear Mr Colin Mc Lachlan,

Could you please pass this on to the Board. My expectation is that it will be shared with Mr Carmody.

May your days be filled with interest,

cheers. Glen.

---

To each and every Member of the Board:

My suggestion of making an allegation of malfeasance against Mr Carmody is sincere, well considered, properly intentioned, truthful, supported, and primarily intended in the interests of aviation safety.

I am calling on the Board for good governance to prevail, and to intervene if required.

On that “governance” consideration alone, the four personnel cannot continue to operate, in an operational role where they are making decisions that affect safety and businesses.

They must be stood aside until my allegations can be refuted, with no suggestion of innocence or guilt attached, and obviously on full pay and conditions. Obviously not my decisions to make, but that would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. That is what I would have done when I was CEO of my own “safety” organisation.

I am formally calling on the Board to intervene, and demonstrate the qualities that the industry, and the Australian public expect of any Board, and most certainly a Board with the Australian Coat of Arms hanging above it, and also as Australia’s safety regulator, CASA.  Seriously. It is reasonable.

Those four personnel must have the allegations made against them seriously considered, and especially  if they are to continue in an operational role.

If you will not act on good governance, I will clearly place the supporting safety case here.

The APTA 142 model provided all 10 members with a safety department with group funding of $250,000 per annum.

In the new CASA enforced system, being applied to APTA uniquely, and not other flight training organisations. The Ballarat Aero Club will become a 141 school, and lose any regulatory obligation to run a safety management system, or have a safety manager. I suggest the aero clubs safety budget will reduce to $5000, as it is forced out of APTA.

The new “direct operational” control model that is being forced on member schools against their clear preference is a system that provides significantly lower levels of auditing, mentoring, professional development courses, testing, feedback, safety resourcing etc.

The new CASA ‘model” is clearly failing, as I advised. Accidents and incidents are increasing at a concerning rate CASA have the statistics. This is exactly, as I repeatedly, and in writing advised, it is not the individual operators fault, it is the CASA  system being forced on flying school against their clear preference. Any system with less auditing, mentoring, professional development, testing, feedback, safety resourcing, funding etc will most likely result in degraded safety outcomes.

If you have any doubt, simply ask the Ballarat Aero Club, any of the instructors, any of the aircraft owners, committee members, the students, and their families. “Was the previously approved APTA system safer, or do you think the “direct operational control” model is safer.” You will be alarmed, I can assure you. I think you will find an overwhelming response.

This matter can only grow, and gain more attention. It will simultaneously become more “embarrassing’. If it wasn’t such a hazardous behaviour, I could only describe it as child like. It must be stopped at Board level.

At this stage, I have no intention to publish this letter, but will do so on Friday at 5PM, if important safety matters are not addressed.

For clarity. In my professional opinion, I believe that CASA actions and decisions being made by those four personnel, unacceptably increase the chance of an aviation incident or accident.

There are Board Members of CASA  who are, or have been, pilots. On that alone, and with that knowledge, those particular board members will be compelled to act.

This is not a matter to be engaging in bullying or intimidation.

I simply ask the same questions of you, that you should be asking of Mr Carmody:

1. What is the “safety case” supporting the initial action  over 12 months ago, against APTA?
   
2.     If there is no supporting safety case, please open the regulations and show me clearly and concisely the regulation/s that were broken if any.
   
3. If there is no supporting safety case, and there have been no regulatory breaches identified, we are dealing with opinion. Whose “opinion” is it? We need a name.
   
4. Are we (Mr Carmody and the Board), prepared to fully stand behind those four personnel that Glen Buckley has named?
   
5. Are we all (Mr Carmody and the Board) aware of CASAs regulatory philosophy, and other obligations and expectations placed on us.
   
6. Is it true that a number of businesses have closed down, and people have lost their livelihoods?
   
7. Please outline what we are now intending to achieve, and any positive safety outcomes achieved.
   

As I have repeatedly advised. I am fully available to travel anywhere in Australia, to meet with any two members of the Board, at short notice.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the Board with time to consider their actions and decisions.

In the interests of safety, and to encourage good decision making. I require only an acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received by all members of the Board. If CASA are compelled to provide a written response, I understand. I believe that there will be less pressure, and better decisions will be made if the obligation is a simple acknowledgement of distribution and receipt to all Board Members.

Respectfully, Glen.

MTF...P2