Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Senate Estimates - 2017-18.
Supplementary Estimates AQON update - Dodgy  

Courtesy the RRAT committee Secretariat... Wink

Quote:Subject: Supp Estimates QON due date?
 
Dear Estimates Officer,
 
Would just like to inquire to when the Supplementary Estimates QON are
due as it doesn't appear to be listed on the RRAT Estimates webpage?
 
Also are the AQON, in particular the CASA AQON, going to be published
before or early into the New Year?
 
Thank you in advance,
 
Kind regards,
 
P2.

Dear P2,
 
Thank you for your email. Answers to QONs for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee were due on 15 December 2017. We will update the web page to reflect this shortly.
 
We received and published a number of answers on Friday, however we have not yet been sent all the answers. If these are received before this Friday, they will be published this week, otherwise they will be published early in January.
 
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
 
Kind regards,

Dear Ms Ulcoq,

Thank you for your prompt reply. Can I confirm from the AQON supplied so far (ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat) that there is no answers from:

a) CASA;
b) Airservices Australia;
c) Aviation & Airports division;

Or is it that the answers are yet to be forwarded from the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Transport?

Regards,

P2.

Hi P2,
 
We have yet to receive any answers from CASA, Airservices Australia or Aviation and Airports Division, however I believe the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development are hoping to supply us with the remaining answers early this week.
 
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
 
Kind regards,
MTF (hopefully with the AQON)...P2 Cool
Reply
Comardy Capers - A year in review? Dodgy  

From this year's 1st SBG: The future - In the rear view mirror.

Quote:...At last NY’s day :-SBG #1 - .1/.1./.17. -" for example the Australian aviation industry, where, clearly, it is to everyone’s advantage to make things ‘better’. Did that happen in 2016? Of course not. Could it have happened in 2016? It bloody well should have – alas. Australian aviation enters the new year still burdened by the same troubles; the same unresolved issues, the same deft deflection of meaningful reform, the same denial that there are serious problems. Mind you, as the industry shrinks, real reform and good management become of less concern to the people who not only created the aberration, but have the power to fix it". Amazing...

It is rare thing for me to re read any of my scribblings; but I sat here and looked at the first SBG for 2017. Drones still feature high on the ‘to-do’ list; although the Senate Committee seem to be getting a handle on the matter – albeit at a snails pace; but, the consensus is that they at least will produce an outcome. Their inquiry has at least publicly highlighted the CASA attitude and lack of imagination; many believe their lack of competence has been exposed throughout the inquiry.

In fact, when you start to add up the lacklustre CASA performance on just about any subject mentioned at Estimates, you have to start wondering about cost v benefit...

With the departure before year's end of 6D AGAD, somewhat by default the 'lacklustre' and disappointing year of 2017 will now be recorded on the Carmody legacy register. Therefore I thought it worth reviewing the performance and achievements of DAS Carmody to this point in time and what better place to start than reviewing CC's performance in Senate Estimates... Rolleyes

To begin who could forget, under questioning from Sterlo at Budget Estimates (23/5/17), when Carmody tried to water down the fact that CASA had not even written the ToR for the drone review that the minister had requested CASA conduct some 8 months before:





While on drones what about the flippant Carmody attitude and 'up yours' insult under questioning from Chair Barry O... Huh





Then there was the 'vague', non-committal, obfuscated response by CC, when under questioning by NX on the subject of oversight of airport safety, in relation to the tragic Essendon airport accident (Add Estimates 27/02/17):





And from Supp Estimates who could forget the arrogance and disdain displayed by Carmody when NX (in his final Estimates) was questioning him on matters in relation to the DJ CASA embuggerance:




 
To wrap up the Carmody performance under Senate Estimates scrutiny, here is the list of outstanding QON that have now passed the due date to be answered (i.e. another blatant display of 'up yours' to the Senators):      
    
Quote:Question on notice no. 112

Portfolio question number: 461

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Janet Rice: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 23 October 2017—
What is the status of the flight crew fatigue rules, under CAO 48.1, currently?
1. Have the anticipated changes been delayed? If so, for how long, and why?
2. When is it anticipated that these fatigue rules will be in place?

Question on notice no. 113

Portfolio question number: 436

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October 2017


ACTING CHAIR: You are inconsistent you being CASA. Let's talk about the fellow
who flew the drone down to Bunnings to pick up the sausage. What fine did he get?
Mr Carmody: I don't know. One of my colleagues would know. Senator GALLACHER: $3,000, wasn't it?
ACTING CHAIR: Let's get it out. I'd ask it to be on the record so every Australian can hear it: as long as you are a pilot and it's the firsttime, you're going to get away with it. Ready kids? All the kids are going to get the drones for this Christmas. There are rules that say you can't do this, but it depends on
who you are. There seems to be one rule for one and rules for others. I'm waiting for
whoever you can bring up, Mr Carmody, because I really want to know why a pilot
can fly a drone over Parliament House and then just get a tap on the toenail. But let's
hear what happened to the gentleman who flew his drone down to Bunnings to pick
up a sausage. Mr Carmody: I haven't got the details. I'm waiting for one of my colleagues, who I hope will have the details of the offence. We'll have to dig it up...

Mr Carmody: Dr Aleck will have some details about penalties. Dr Aleck: I regret to
say that I don't have these identified by the Bunnings event. Senator STERLE: Do
you want me to google it? Dr Aleck: I recall I will confirm this that that matter did
invite an infringement notice. Senator GALLACHER: $3,000 is what was reported.
Dr Aleck: Whatever the penalty was, if that was the case. Senator GALLACHER:
He put it on Facebook that his drone went down, picked up a sausage, came back.
You looked at that and fined him $3,000. Dr Aleck: I believe that was the case, and
I'm not doubting it. I'll confirm it.


Question on notice no. 114

Portfolio question number: 437

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Barry O'Sullivan: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

CHAIR: I hope you don't mind me interjecting. I wasn't even going to buy into this I
was half asleep here when this started. Do you mind if I return to a line of questioning
of Dr Aleck? So far you've indicated that you identified one person and you reflected
on the inability to identify others because you weren't aware of their identity. So the
one person you spoke to was a member of parliament. Let me ask you, Dr Aleck:

surely, question 101 from your investigator would be to the member of parliament,
'Who else was here?' and I assume the member of parliament ought to be able to tell
you, with about 80 or 90 per cent accuracy, how many people were here and who they
were. My question is very specific: did your investigator ask the individual, the
member of parliament who you're about to identify, who else was present and how
many there were? Dr Aleck: If our investigator had the opportunity to speak with
them CHAIR: If you don't know the answer, Dr Aleck, say, 'I do not know the
answer.' Dr Aleck: I do not know the answer, but I can assure you that the question

CHAIR: No, there's no need for you to editorialise. I ask you to take on notice, with
your investigator, whether they asked the member of parliament about who was there
and how many there were. But you're about to identify the member of parliament who
was interviewed. Dr Aleck: The member of parliament whose office was contacted
was Michelle Landry and, as I explained, our efforts to interview Ms Landry were
unsuccessful at this point. CHAIR: So we're dealing in months here. How many
efforts have been made to engage with Ms Landry over the months? Dr Aleck: I'll
take that on notice, but Ms Landry was identified only relatively recently. We had
misidentified her as somebody else in the frame and that was corrected.


Question on notice no. 115

Portfolio question number: 438

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October 2017


Senator STERLE: I'll make a statement here, rather than a question. You ping any
other Australian for breaking these rules, and you don't think we're going to come
back here and say, 'Here we go again'? You cannot be serious. You are the enforcers.
You are the ones who lay down the rules. You are so blinded because politicians or
political employees can get away with murder around your rules defend that. Mr

Carmody: I'm happy to provide on notice lists of where we've provided counselling
letters for similar offences. I didn't realise that, from what Senator Gallacher said, you
were after a higher standard. I thought you were after the same standard. We're very
happy to provide on notice where we've issued counselling letters as well, if that
would help. Senator STERLE: Have you had to counsel any pilots for breaking your
rules for usage of drones? Mr Carmody: I'd have to take it on notice. We've
counselled a number of people. As I said, it depends on the circumstance. We've fined
a number of people, and it depends on the circumstance.


Question on notice no. 116

Portfolio question number: 439

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Barry O'Sullivan: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

CHAIR: I'm not done. If you'd like some names, Dr Aleck: the Deputy Prime
Minister, Senator Canavan, Mr Perrett, Mr McCormack and Mr Buchholz were there,
and I'll have some more for you in the fullness of time. My question to you is did your
investigators even interview the operator of the drone? Dr Aleck: Yes. CHAIR: Did
they ask him who else was present or what numbers were present? Dr Aleck: I'll take
that question on notice. I assume they conducted a normal investigation, which would
have involved questions of that.


Question on notice no. 117

Portfolio question number: 440

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Barry O'Sullivan: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

CHAIR: You're telling me someone started an investigation and interviewed an
individual, at least with a view to a prosecution, and didn't record it to the standard
that would be required to underpin that prosecution? Are there no notes, no
contemporaneous record of the conversation, no recording taped, no video or
otherwise? Is that what you're telling us? Dr Aleck: I will only say that the maximum
consequence of such an event was an infringement notice. I'm not aware of matters of
that kind. CHAIR: That is not the burden of my question. Are you telling this
committee that your investigator, confronted with a witness or a potential offender,
who you say wasn't totally cooperative, did not record in any shape or form the
interview that took place? Dr Aleck: I said I don't believe so, but I'll confirm that.



Question on notice no. 119

Portfolio question number: 442

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Nick Xenophon: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

Senator XENOPHON: It is a sensitive issue. The standard form recommendation, as
I understand it, is a document relating to adding references to a flight crew licence
condition. Is that right? Mr Carmody: In reality it's a recommendation that might
have many functions. It's a way of combining information to a decision-maker like
me, a recommendation for us to take a particular course of action. So it might not be
licensing; it could be anything. Senator XENOPHON: Sure, but the normal course is
that for the document to be a valid document, it ought to be a signed document is that
right? Mr Carmody: Yes, that would be reasonable. Senator XENOPHON: That's
in terms of the appropriateness. My understanding is that a recommendation was
made, but it was not signed off. In other words, are you satisfied, and you may want
to take this on notice, that the standard form recommendation that I have referred you
to is appropriately executed so as to be a valid document? Mr Carmody: I'd have to
take it on notice. I haven't got the document. I don't know the date of the document.

Senator XENOPHON: I'm happy for you to take that on notice, but I've got concerns
as to the validity of the document in relation to that. This document relates to Mr
James having to take a proficiency check prior to being able to act as a pilot in
command of a multicrew aircraft. I've provided you with a copy of that. It's a form
signed by Mr Roger Chambers, but my understanding is that it is not properly
endorsed. Are you able to confirm that, or do you need to take that on notice? Mr

Carmody: I'll take that on notice.



Question on notice no. 120

Portfolio question number: 443

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Nick Xenophon: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

Senator XENOPHON: So there's a question there: is the standard form
recommendation incomplete? I asked you to take that on notice. If it is in some way
incomplete or deficient, that may have some bearing on the decision-making process
of CASA. It's a technical question, but could you take that on notice? Mr Carmody:

I'll take it on notice, but if it's a current standard form recommendation, then, as I said
before, that's why I'd like to review it. The standard form recommendation that I
assume underpins the original decision probably has not changed. Anyway, I'll take it
on notice and have a look at it.


Question on notice no. 121

Portfolio question number: 444

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Nick Xenophon: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

Senator XENOPHON: I'll put this in general terms. There's an issue of process that
I'm concerned about. The names of the individuals aren't so key to this. Who was
authorised to see the draft report, as to the processes involved for that? Can you take
that on notice? Mr Carmody: Certainly. Senator XENOPHON: Were there any
individuals who weren't authorised to see the report who did see the report? Mr

Carmody: I'll take both of those on notice. The draft report is provided to us to
provide comment on, and you would expect my inspectorate those who are involved
in the matter to be reviewing that report and providing comment


Question on notice no. 122

Portfolio question number: 445

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Nick Xenophon: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

Senator XENOPHON: Does that relate to documents such as standard form
recommendations or not? Dr Aleck: I think under the FOI legislation there are some
limitations about what goes on there. But anything that we're required to post publicly
will be on there. Senator XENOPHON: So there's no question that these documents
that weren't posted publicly should have been posted publicly? Can you take that into
account? Dr Aleck: If they were within the category of documents that ought to have
been identified then I Senator XENOPHON: If you could take that on notice.

Dr [b]Aleck: I will, yes.[/b]


Question on notice no. 123

Portfolio question number: 446

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Nick Xenophon: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October
2017—

Senator XENOPHON: It's good to clarify that. I'm almost finished. The Senate
inquiry some time ago found that there were a number of points of fault in the Pel-Air
incident. It's clear there are a number of impositions on Mr James. Can CASA advise
what other officials or what other entities by title, not name have had a remedial
action placed on them in terms of whether there were multiple points of fault leading
to this incident? Mr Carmody: Sorry, Senator, can I just clarify that. Are you talking
specifically about the Pel-Air incident? Senator XENOPHON: Yes, I am. Mr

Carmody: And whether we have placed restrictions on anyone else? Senator

XENOPHON: Yes. Mr Carmody: I can take it on notice, but I understand the only
restriction that was placed would be a restriction placed on the pilot in command, at
this stage. I don't believe any other restrictions have been placed on the first officer,
but I can check. Senator XENOPHON: And not on management issues with Pel-Air
and their systems? Mr Carmody: I don't know whether that leads to any restrictions,
but I'll take that on notice. Senator XENOPHON: And, on notice, there are issues of
air traffic control and weather forecasting, so, if not restrictions, were there
recommendations made in relation to improvements of that? Mr Carmody: Certainly
I'm aware that a number of changes or improvements were made post that accident,
but I can provide those responses on notice. I think they've been provided before, but
I'm quite happy to provide them. Senator XENOPHON: Okay. On notice, after the
release of the report, can you advise the committee of every person who was
identified as contributing to the accident directly or indirectly and any action that
CASA has taken in respect of those persons. That is something that can be done after
the ATSB report. Mr Carmody: We will have to wait for the ATSB report, but
certainly.


Question on notice no. 124

Portfolio question number: 447

2017-18 Supplementary budget estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure and

Regional Development Portfolio

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 27 October 2017


Senator STERLE: Mr Carmody, I know you are just going to have a read of that, but
I want to be very, very precise here. Dr Aleck, I'm going to ask you, in terms of your
investigation and interviewing of Mr Ashby, did your investigators ask Mr Ashby if
he sought approval to fly the drone over Parliament House from any government
agency, department or bodysecurity agency? Dr Aleck: I will take your question on
notice as to whether he was asked if he had asked permission, but what we do have in
the material in fact that's before me now is that we inquired of the AFP and of the
organiser of the event, and no permission was sought of those Senator STERLE: I
will come back a couple of steps. Can you tell this committee: did your investigators
ask Mr Ashby or did Mr Ashby offer advice or answer your investigators' questions
that he sought approval from the AFP to fly the drone? Dr Aleck: That information I
haven't looked all through this yet, but I can't answer that question at the moment. I'm
not aware of that, but I haven't looked thoroughly at the materials. Senator STERLE:

How long would it take you to get that information? Dr Aleck: Whether our
investigator asked Mr Ashby that question? Senator STERLE: Whether Mr Ashby
offered an answer to your investigators that he sought approval to fly the drone over
Parliament House on that day from the AFP? Dr Aleck: It shouldn't take long.

Senator STERLE: Thank you. I'll wait for that answer.

Come on CC, how hard is it to provide the AQON to those questions? FDS!

In the words of the Heff... Dodgy



  

MTF...P2 Cool

Ps On the subject of Carmody's hypocritical duplicity, I note that the enforcement manual is yet to be amended (last amended 17 Jan 2016) and still contains the moniker of former Sociopath DAS McCormick: Director's preface - Dodgy
Reply
CASA AQON - so far... Rolleyes

Helen, from the RRAT committee Secretariat, replied today to my request for an update on the progress of the Supp Estimates AQON:

Quote:Dear P2,
 
Happy New Year. We received a number of responses to QONs for CASA, Airservices Australia and the Aviation and Airports division prior to Christmas but after our Secretariat had shut down. I will be publishing these later today. Please note, we are still awaiting some answers to these questions.
 
Kind regards,

Helen

 Okay so the following is the AQON (for CASA) received and processed so far... Wink

The first AQON is in reply (see above) to Barry O's QON No. 114:
Quote:Answer
• On 29 September 2017, an email was sent to Ms Landry’s office, seeking confirmation that it was her in video footage obtained by CASA of this event and whether she recalled the operation of the drone and could indicate what she believed to be the distance between her and the drone Mr Ashby was operating.

• On 11 October 2017, having had no response to his email, the CASA Investigator contacted Ms Landry’s office by telephone, at which time he was advised by an office staff member that it was not Ms Landry in the video, but rather, the staff member believed the individual to be the Hon Jane Prentice MP.

• On 11 October 2017, an email was sent to Ms Prentice’s office seeking confirmation that it was her in the video footage and putting the same questions to her as were put to Ms Landry.

• On 13 October 2017, having received no response to his email of 11 October 2017, the CASA Investigator contacted Ms Prentice’s office by telephone. A member of Ms Prentice’s staff advised the Investigator that Ms Prentice was unavailable to speak with him at the time, but that she would respond to his inquiries.

• On 18 October 2017, in the absence of any further response, the CASA Investigator again contacted Ms Prentice’s office by telephone. On this occasion, he spoke with Ms Prentice’s office manager, who advised the CASA Investigator that his email message had not been considered to be genuine.

• On 18 October 2017, the CASA Investigator re-sent his email of 11 October 2017 to Ms Prentice’s office manager. In response, the CASA Investigator was advised by the office manager that it was Ms Prentice in the video footage, and provided the CASA Investigator with contact details of the event organiser, Mr Andy Turnbull.

• On 18 October 2017, the CASA Investigator spoke to Mr Turnbull by telephone, at which time Mr Turnbull responded to the CASA Investigator’s question about the number of people present at the event on 21 June 2017, estimating that number to be have been 50 or 60 persons. Mr Turnbull also provided a group photo of a number of the people present on the day of the event and his estimation of the dimensions of the area in which participants and observers of the day’s event would have been located.

• On 18 October 2017, a further email was sent to Ms Prentice’s office, asking whether Ms Prentice recalled the operation of the drone by Mr Ashby on 21 June 2017, and if so, whether she could provide any information about that operation. No response has been received to this email.

• On 23 October 2017, on the basis of the evidence available and an assessment of the apparent risks involved, in keeping with the applicable enforcement-related protocols it was determined that further investigation was not warranted. Accordingly, a counselling letter was issued to Mr Ashby admonishing him about his drone flight on 21 June 2017. With the closure of the investigation into this matter, no further attempts were made to contact Ms Prentice.

Answered Date

22/12/2017


&..QONs 116 & 117:

Answer
In speaking with Mr Ashby about his operation of a drone at Parliament House on 21 June 2017, the CASA Investigator did not ask Mr Ashby how many people he (Mr Ashby) believed were present at the time, or the identity of any of those individuals who were present.

However, on 18 October 2017, the CASA Investigator spoke to Mr Andy Turnbull (the event organiser) by telephone. Mr Turnbull said the number of people present at the event on 21 June 2017 was estimated to have been 50 or 60 persons.

Download question with answer

Answered Date

22/12/2017
 

Answer
The CASA Investigator who spoke with Mr Ashby about Mr Ashby’s operation of a drone in the parliamentary precincts on 21 June 2017 kept written record of his exchanges with Mr Ashby.

Download question with answer

Answered Date

22/12/2017
Now this is where it gets interesting because we actually have the answers for the NX QONs related to the CASA Sydney Regional office 8+ year embuggerance of DJ... Rolleyes
The first one is a classic example of the legalese word weasel confections that CASA LSD (i.e. Dr Aleck) deploy when trying to subvert answering the question honestly... Dodgy
Quote:QON 119 to 123:

Answer
The standard form recommendation (SFR), as tabled, is incomplete in that the delegate has not indicated on the form whether they agree or disagree with the recommendation and signed accordingly. While a document signed by the delegate that agreed with the action has not been located, the SFR was acted upon in that the condition was added to the flight crew licence.

However, the condition on the flight crew member’s licence was not created by this SFR rather the SFR recommended the condition be printed on the licence. The condition originated from an agreement between the pilot and the Executive Manager CASA Operations contained in a letter to the pilot dated 27 March 2012. The conditions are valid because of this letter, regardless of whether the process to have the condition statement added to the flight crew licence was not completed correctly.

Download question with answer

Answered Date

22/12/2017

Answer
Refer to Committee question number 119.

Download question with answer

Answered Date

22/12/2017

Answer
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB) draft report for the reopened investigation into ‘Ditching of Israel Aircraft Westwind 1124A aircraft, VH-NGA, 5 km SW of Norfolk Island Airport on 18 November 2009’ (AO-2009-072) was distributed in accordance with the actions contemplated by sections 9 and 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the ATSB and CASA.

CASA personnel to whom copies of the draft report were provided were authorised to review the draft report in accordance with Section 26 (4) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, which permits disclosure and copying of draft reports necessary for the purpose of (a) preparing submissions on the draft report; or (b) taking steps to remedy safety issues that are identified in the draft report.

Download question with answer

Answered Date

22/12/2017

Answer
The documents in question were not provided in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). Rather, in keeping with principles reflected in the FOI Act, CASA provided the documents to the individual involved as personal information pertaining to him, in accordance with an administrative access arrangement, by which agencies are encouraged to release documents in response to requests outside the formal process set out in the FOI Act.

In accordance with the Commonwealth Information Publication Scheme, documents released pursuant to administrative access arrangements are not required to be published in an agency’s FOI Disclosure Log.

Had the documents in question been released to the applicant under the FOI Act, they would have been exempt from publication in CASA’s FOI Disclosure Log under section 11C of the FOI Act because, in CASA’s view, their publication would have involved an unreasonable disclosure of personal information.

Download question with answer

Answered Date

22/12/2017

Answer
CASA has taken no regulatory action against any person identified in the initial ATSB investigation report (AO-2009-072) released on 30 August 2012, or in the final ATSB investigation report published on 23 November 2017, who could be considered as contributing to the accident, other than the Pilot in Command.

Download question with answer


Answered Date

22/12/2017
 
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)