Senate Estimates - 2017-18.
A PelAir blast from the past - Dodgy

Via the Justinian in 2012  Wink :



[Image: James_Dominic_pilot_660.jpg?__SQUARESPAC...6809111363]Pilot Dominic James: put his case

MEANWHILE, your correspondent was diverted by watching Four Corners on Monday night (Sept 3)

It was all about a crash of a small Pel-Air jet off Norfolk Island in November 2009.

The two pilots and four passengers survived, but the story unfolded with the usual Australian bloody mindedness: officialdom in the shape of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had decided to blame the pilot for insufficient foresight in fuel calculation and planning for alternate landing sites. 

All that after he took off with information that the weather over Norfolk Island was clear.
The rigours of age have destroyed Procrustes' short term memory, but on the deep past he can be elephantine. 

Something stirred in the recesses: hadn't Pel-Air lost a small jet in the water, and with fatalities, in the 1980s?

Thanks to Google I found that was indeed correct, but was horrified to see that there had been another Westwind accident in 1985, with three dead at Alice Springs.

It was time to dive in my extensive, and now very yellowed clipping service (this is a joy the young of today will never experience). 

And lo, there it was, in The National Times of December 6, 1985, an article that revealed just how far the feet of corporate air service were entangled with those of Commonwealth regulators. 

The two pilots of the Pel-Air Westwind that went down off Botany Bay in October 1985 were not around to defend themselves, but what came out of the article was the extent to which the Department of Aviation had dispensed with safety standards at the request of Pel-Air.

The meat in the sandwich in any such departure from safety standards will always be the pilots, as the corporation, driven by profits, will demand performance to the limit of the new dispensation. 

Here's the 1985 story from National Times journalist Colleen Ryan:
Quote:"Under Air Navigation Order 48, pilots are permitted to fly on only two consecutive nights. But Pel-Air had a Department of Aviation dispensation which allowed its pilots to fly on five consecutive nights ...

The Department of Aviation has given Pel-Air a dispensation, which is outside the manufacturer's minimum guidelines for safe operation in the flight manual.

A spokesman for the Department of Aviation told the National Times that, 'There is nothing wrong with the dispensation. The department has the right to make this decision. If they thought it was dangerous they wouldn't do it'." 

This caused your correspondent's eyes to water: presumably thinking it's not dangerous trumps the evidence that it was fatally dangerous.

And then the killer explanation of the relationships between Pel-Air and the department's personnel:

Quote:"Pel-Air ... had a close association with some members of the department. Barry Lodge, the senior Westwind examiner for the South Australian region, is well known to Pel-Air personnel. It was Lodge's daughter who received trips on Pel-Air planes between Perth and the east coast of Australia."

One can hardly fail to note the likely factor of pilot fatigue as a result of the department's dispensation, which is exactly nowhere to be seen in the Pel-Air website account of the 1985 crash:

Quote:"Lost control in a turn at 5000 feet after takeoff from Sydney runway 16 at night; crashed into Botany Bay. The captain probably simulated a failure of all three flight attitude indicators while there was a known malfunction in the rate of turn indicator and no external references.

Relevant events and factors

  1. There was a known malfunction of the rate of turn indicator.
  2. The pilot in command possibly simulated simultaneous failures of all three flight attitude indicators.
  3. There were no external references by which the crew could assess the attitude of the aircraft.
  4. A loss of control of the aircraft occurred at a height of about 5000 feet.
  5. The crew did not recover control of the aircraft prior to impact with the sea." 

See, it was all the pilots' fault.

ASN report
Bureau of Air Safety investigation

That particular crew died, but Dominic James the skipper on the ill-fated 2009 flight, survived.

He's in a position to put his case, but it will need a body more detached than the regulators, CASA and the ATSB, to hear his evidence.

A posting on Crikey on the morning after the Four Corners story was damning of Pel-Air and CASA: the call was out for a Royal Commission to investigate Australian air safety standards.

Your correspondent travels by train out of distrust of these newfangled aircraft, but can only concur. Bring on that Royal Commission.



Ever get the feeling that the bureaucratic (i.e. Iron Ring) mystique of aviation safety is firmly stuck in some kind of a relentless timewarp... Huh







MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Update: comment from Sandy to the Justinian -  Wink  


(03-19-2018, 08:39 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Via the Justinian in 2012  Wink :



[Image: James_Dominic_pilot_660.jpg?__SQUARESPAC...6809111363]Pilot Dominic James: put his case

MEANWHILE, your correspondent was diverted by watching Four Corners on Monday night (Sept 3)

It was all about a crash of a small Pel-Air jet off Norfolk Island in November 2009.

The two pilots and four passengers survived, but the story unfolded with the usual Australian bloody mindedness: officialdom in the shape of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had decided to blame the pilot for insufficient foresight in fuel calculation and planning for alternate landing sites. 

All that after he took off with information that the weather over Norfolk Island was clear.
The rigours of age have destroyed Procrustes' short term memory, but on the deep past he can be elephantine. 

Something stirred in the recesses: hadn't Pel-Air lost a small jet in the water, and with fatalities, in the 1980s?

Thanks to Google I found that was indeed correct, but was horrified to see that there had been another Westwind accident in 1985, with three dead at Alice Springs.

It was time to dive in my extensive, and now very yellowed clipping service (this is a joy the young of today will never experience). 

And lo, there it was, in The National Times of December 6, 1985, an article that revealed just how far the feet of corporate air service were entangled with those of Commonwealth regulators. 

The two pilots of the Pel-Air Westwind that went down off Botany Bay in October 1985 were not around to defend themselves, but what came out of the article was the extent to which the Department of Aviation had dispensed with safety standards at the request of Pel-Air.

The meat in the sandwich in any such departure from safety standards will always be the pilots, as the corporation, driven by profits, will demand performance to the limit of the new dispensation. 

Here's the 1985 story from National Times journalist Colleen Ryan:
Quote:"Under Air Navigation Order 48, pilots are permitted to fly on only two consecutive nights. But Pel-Air had a Department of Aviation dispensation which allowed its pilots to fly on five consecutive nights ...

The Department of Aviation has given Pel-Air a dispensation, which is outside the manufacturer's minimum guidelines for safe operation in the flight manual.

A spokesman for the Department of Aviation told the National Times that, 'There is nothing wrong with the dispensation. The department has the right to make this decision. If they thought it was dangerous they wouldn't do it'." 

This caused your correspondent's eyes to water: presumably thinking it's not dangerous trumps the evidence that it was fatally dangerous.

And then the killer explanation of the relationships between Pel-Air and the department's personnel:

Quote:"Pel-Air ... had a close association with some members of the department. Barry Lodge, the senior Westwind examiner for the South Australian region, is well known to Pel-Air personnel. It was Lodge's daughter who received trips on Pel-Air planes between Perth and the east coast of Australia."

One can hardly fail to note the likely factor of pilot fatigue as a result of the department's dispensation, which is exactly nowhere to be seen in the Pel-Air website account of the 1985 crash:

Quote:"Lost control in a turn at 5000 feet after takeoff from Sydney runway 16 at night; crashed into Botany Bay. The captain probably simulated a failure of all three flight attitude indicators while there was a known malfunction in the rate of turn indicator and no external references.

Relevant events and factors

  1. There was a known malfunction of the rate of turn indicator.
  2. The pilot in command possibly simulated simultaneous failures of all three flight attitude indicators.
  3. There were no external references by which the crew could assess the attitude of the aircraft.
  4. A loss of control of the aircraft occurred at a height of about 5000 feet.
  5. The crew did not recover control of the aircraft prior to impact with the sea." 

See, it was all the pilots' fault.

ASN report
Bureau of Air Safety investigation

That particular crew died, but Dominic James the skipper on the ill-fated 2009 flight, survived.

He's in a position to put his case, but it will need a body more detached than the regulators, CASA and the ATSB, to hear his evidence.

A posting on Crikey on the morning after the Four Corners story was damning of Pel-Air and CASA: the call was out for a Royal Commission to investigate Australian air safety standards.

Your correspondent travels by train out of distrust of these newfangled aircraft, but can only concur. Bring on that Royal Commission.


Sandy Reith • 7 hours ago

PelAir is a subsidiary of Rex Airlines with ex aviation Minister John Sharp as one Director. Rex made unusually large political donations, the timelines and joining the dots have kept many of us busy for years. 


It is noted by the aviation community that links may seen in personnel exchanges between CASA and ATSB. The ATSB had only just been hived off by Mr. Albanese out of his Department by the creation of yet another independent Commonwealth corporation when pilot Captain Dom James took off for Norfolk Island. It has become clear through the Professional Aviators Investigative Network studies that Captain James was not informed of crucial weather deterioration as he should have been, a fact that has been deliberately overlooked by the highly paid Can’tberra make work enquiry factories. 

Corporations like CASA and Air Services Australia are renowned for inefficiency, and much worse, like ‘blame the pilot’. Hardly surprising they run their own racer de-coupled from Ministerial control and able to pay ‘commercial’ rates whereby the CEOs pay may be twice that of the Minister. The Minister issues an occasional Statement of Expectations which only demonstrates either his total lack of interest or his desire to remove himself from any responsibility or both. 

http://disq.us/p/1r2sk49



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Carmody supports continued FalconAir embuggerance?? Dodgy   

Tabled today under additional information for RRAT Additional Estimates:

Quote:Mr Shane Carmody, Chief Executive Officer, Civil Aviation Safety Authority


Additional information regarding FalconAir matters 07/03/2018 - PDF 1439KB



[Image: Carmody-1.jpg]
 
Hmm...I think PAIN might just have to point out the huge discrepancies in 'key safety requirements' (non-compliances) between the PelAir operation and that of the attempted embuggerance by CASA of FalconAir, to what amounts to little more than administrative non-compliance to the overburdened, onerous, legal minefield of CASR Part 61... Dodgy  

MTF? - Definitely!...P2 Cool
Reply
A very neatly crafted set of ‘facts and circumstance’ - ala CASA. It may squeak through the AAT; it may even give the Senate Committee pause for thought.  The real test is; will it stand up to a determined, righteous challenge, in a ‘real’ court? Will Falcon take them on? Time will tell – but.

If this Senate committee is going to deal with this outrage, then maybe, perhaps the whole thing (Pel-Air, Airtex, Skymaster, Falcon)– soup to nuts - should be evaluated, in camera. Should the committee offer full protection to all and the factual, hard edged, cash and no bullshit truth of it all be revealed;then, there would be no way open except the complete rebuilding of the CASA 'servicing' of aviation.

CASA is a seriously buggered up outfit – Carmody has not got the balls, brains or backbone to sort it out. He stood back and watched Byron get shafted, shunted and shown the bloody door. What chance has he now? Nothing personal – he’s just a dancing bear, performing as directed by the music – simply because he just does not know what else to do.

The Skidmore dog and pony show, followed by the Carmody soft shoe shuffle has wasted two years (nearly three) of real reform, really happening. If this Senate committee get baffled by bullshit, this time around – well, its time to shuffle off to a quiet place – one without aircraft noise. Should be easy enough to find – probably on a landfill which used to be an aerodrome.

Enough with the polite, no outcome waffle and the O’Sullivan stone wall. He wants evidence – but won’t hear it, proof, but won’t read it; and fancy’s himself ‘the expert’. Not in my book he ain’t; not by a long shot. FFS – just get on with it, stop pissing about.

Now that’s what I love - a physic bartender. Thank you – and keep the change.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply
Falconair embuggerance vs PelAir political donation favours etc. cont/-



And the legend grows

- [Image: hqdefault.jpg]



Further to the FalconAir timeline of embuggerance, the following are extracts off CASA documents released under the FOI in response to a Senator (sic'em) Rex FOI request:



[Image: RP-FOI1.jpg]

[Image: RP-FOI-2.jpg]



P2 comment - It is interesting to note that the 9 January correspondence from Carmody is obviously in response to a departmental query on the FalconAir embuggerance from Deputy Secretary Pip Spence. This makes sense of why Carmody took the stance that he did (& continues to take) at Senate Estimates - i.e. the script was already written and CC simply had no choice but to support it.


[Image: RP-FOI-3.jpg]

[Image: RP-FOI4.jpg]
[Image: RP-FOI5.jpg]

(P2 comment - 5 and half pages of S22 redactions followed)

&..

[Image: RP-FOI6.jpg]


P2 comments - Q/ Note in the above, that Fred didn't circle recommended and that the acting Aviation Group Manager John Grima did not sign, date or circle the audit SFR??

Q/ Carmody quote: "...The check on Mr James continued as we decided to deem it a private flight..."  - Besides the fact that there is many unexplained contradictions in the timeline, it would seem in the above quote that CC has tried to make it seem he was doing DJ favour by allowing the check to continue in a 'private' capacity - WTD??

Much..much MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
FalconAir vs PelAir - Part II.

Quotes from Carmody Capers:



[Image: RP-FOI1-1.jpg]

& from this week's SBG:





Q/ Carmody quote: "...The check on Mr James continued as we decided to deem it a private flight..."  - Besides the fact that there is many unexplained contradictions in the timeline, it would seem in the above quote that CC has tried to make it seem he was doing DJ favour by allowing the check to continue in a 'private' capacity - WTD??
 
P2 has provided the perfect example of CASA swinging a long line. Seriously, the spin and pony-pooh contained within the highlighted line defines CASA first XI methodology and spin bowling techniques. How for Pete’s sake can the flight be anything else – in law – but a ‘private’ flight – conducted as ‘Air-work’; one may also question, quite safely why there was a need for two CASA people to be on board. Seems to me there’s a ‘stretch’ of rules right there and a safety case.


Now although the final wash up of the "full level one audit" has not yet been publicly revealed, it is still possible from the above evidence and Hansard script to start to build a comparison between the ongoing attempted FalconAir AOC embuggerance and the PelAir AOC cover-up of 2009-10. 

To begin here is a link for the 2009 PelAir Special Audit Report: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...2-5471.pdf

The following are relevant extracts from that report:


[Image: PA-SAR-1.jpg]
 

[Image: PA-SAR-2.jpg]

[Image: PA-SAR-3.jpg]

[Image: PA-SAR-4.jpg]


Now because the original identified 'safety issue' with FalconAir revolved around non-compliance with administrative issues surrounding the company CAR 217 organisation, it is also IMO worth including a link and extracts from the CASA PelAir audit of 2008 which primarily focussed on the T&C (CAR 217) of PelAir: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/ne...-10004.pdf

This audit also included a 'safety alert':


[Image: PA-TC-Audit-1.jpg]
  
[Image: PA-TC-Audit-2.jpg]
[Image: PA-TC-Audit-3.jpg]

This 'safety alert' would appear to have been acquitted in record time by the operator.

Quote from ATSB PelAir cover-up report:

Quote:..As noted in Oversight of flight crew training and checking, the March 2008 audit resulted in a safety alert due to FRMS training not being conducted. After the operator promptly addressed the problem, and satisfied CASA it had processes in place to prevent reoccurrence, it reapproved the operator to conduct operations according to its approved FRMS for another 12 months...

&..

...When the Sydney region manager advised CASA senior management of the safety alert, he noted he did not think the matter would escalate to a need to consider a ‘serious and imminent risk’, given that the operator was demonstrating a willingness to address the issue. However, he was considering what further action may be necessary. At some stage after the audit, CASA held a meeting with the operator, with the attendees including the CASA Sydney regional manager, other CASA personnel, the chief pilot and one of the operator’s directors. During the meeting, CASA expressed concern with the chief pilot’s attitude to the importance of regulatory compliance and related cultural aspects. It also advised the operator it was considering action against the chief pilot.315...

Next we will look at the individual RCAs from the PelAir 2009 SAR and how those air safety deficiencies compare in severity of non-compliance to that of FalconAir.

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Sic ‘em; or, sick of ‘em Rex?

Now I am confused, bamboozled and baffled by Bull-pooh (Or rather I think I am). Here I sit a peace with the world – casually mulling over the P2 offering above, you know the sort of thing – your eye just skims trough stuff, brain at taxi power. Then – you realize you have read a particular sentence before, you move on, then you discover you are once again, reading the sentence again. Time to up the amperage and pay attention. Here we have it, although it is really two ‘parts’ of two bullet points :-

“On a review of [Check Pilot 1] recent proficiency checks he was found to be non compliant with the Falcon Air CAR 217 requirements”.

“The check on Mr James continued as we decided to deem it a ‘private flight’ (not conducted under the Falcon Air CAR 217).

Consider those remarks, ponder them, then have a little run through the rule book and see if you arrive at the same WTD conclusion I did.

One must hope Ms. Spence seeks some independent, expert legal opinion before meekly accepting, as Carmody has, the happy horse-pooh provided. Ms Spence needs to hope that Counsel for Falcon Air has, as I did, skimmed past this part, although I feel obliged to point it out to them; - in the interest of truth, justice and the CASA way.

Once you begin to deconstruct the ‘Falcon Air’ background paragraphs, the bad taste left behind increases; take a careful plod through bullet point 3. Why was there any need to mention Dom James or the Pel-Air debacle? It could have been quite simply stated, without the venom, “a check was required etc.”

You could ask how a check flight may be conducted by an allegedly ‘non compliant’ check pilot, without any independent qualification or approval outside of a company system may conduct the flight – outside the scope and provisions of the company 217 system? Certainly Dom and Check 1 could go for a little jolly – for fun – as a private operation. But - without a delegation to ‘independently’ sign off on the DJ check flight, the ATPL command on type check ride, one could challenge both the validity and value of the flight. “Aha – but” begins the mob – “CASA was on board and that made it all legal”. “Furry muff” says I “believe it if you like – don’t care”. Those with an inquiring mind; or a load of skin in the game, will consider this farcical episode and arrive at the right conclusions. For instance – are either the not current or tested Worthington or passenger Campbell qualified or competent to make any assessment; either in law or in the practical world? Seems to me the more qualified to make the assessment were the blokes actually flying – alas. It seems only CASA can bend the spirit, twist the intent, work at the extremes of the law and manipulate a system to suit; and, the gods help anyone else who arrives at a different conclusion or interpretation.

I shall consider this the first of the three warnings we provide a new minister, a professional courtesy, extended while he actually works out what an ‘aviation industry’ actually is, who runs it, where the money goes and who benefits from the expenditure. And so begins the dance macabre with the new ministerial boy.

Toot – toot…..



Reply
(03-29-2018, 06:35 AM)kharon Wrote: Sic ‘em; or, sick of ‘em Rex?

Now I am confused, bamboozled and baffled by Bull-pooh (Or rather I think I am). Here I sit a peace with the world – casually mulling over the P2 offering above, you know the sort of thing – your eye just skims trough stuff, brain at taxi power. Then – you realize you have read a particular sentence before, you move on, then you discover you are once again, reading the sentence again. Time to up the amperage and pay attention. Here we have it, although it is really two ‘parts’ of two bullet points :-

“On a review of [Check Pilot 1] recent proficiency checks he was found to be non compliant with the Falcon Air CAR 217 requirements”.

“The check on Mr James continued as we decided to deem it a ‘private flight’ (not conducted under the Falcon Air CAR 217).

Consider those remarks, ponder them, then have a little run through the rule book and see if you arrive at the same WTD conclusion I did.

One must hope Ms. Spence seeks some independent, expert legal opinion before meekly accepting, as Carmody has, the happy horse-pooh provided. Ms Spence needs to hope that Counsel for Falcon Air has, as I did, skimmed past this part, although I feel obliged to point it out to them; - in the interest of truth, justice and the CASA way.

Once you begin to deconstruct the ‘Falcon Air’ background paragraphs, the bad taste left behind increases; take a careful plod through bullet point 3. Why was there any need to mention Dom James or the Pel-Air debacle? It could have been quite simply stated, without the venom, “a check was required etc.”

You could ask how a check flight may be conducted by an allegedly ‘non compliant’ check pilot, without any independent qualification or approval outside of a company system may conduct the flight – outside the scope and provisions of the company 217 system? Certainly Dom and Check 1 could go for a little jolly – for fun – as a private operation. But - without a delegation to ‘independently’ sign off on the DJ check flight, the ATPL command on type check ride, one could challenge both the validity and value of the flight. “Aha – but” begins the mob – “CASA was on board and that made it all legal”. “Furry muff” says I “believe it if you like – don’t care”. Those with an inquiring mind; or a load of skin in the game, will consider this farcical episode and arrive at the right conclusions. For instance – are either the not current or tested Worthington or passenger Campbell qualified or competent to make any assessment; either in law or in the practical world? Seems to me the more qualified to make the assessment were the blokes actually flying – alas. It seems only CASA can bend the spirit, twist the intent, work at the extremes of the law and manipulate a system to suit; and, the gods help anyone else who arrives at a different conclusion or interpretation.

I shall consider this the first of the three warnings we provide a new minister, a professional courtesy, extended while he actually works out what an ‘aviation industry’ actually is, who runs it, where the money goes and who benefits from the expenditure. And so begins the dance macabre with the new ministerial boy.

Toot – toot…..




Addendum: Senate Additional Estimates report.

Tabled in the Senate yesterday was the following report for the RRAT Additional Estimates:

Quote:Report
Additional estimates 2017–18
28 March 2018
© Commonwealth of Australia 2018
ISBN 978-1-76010-732-1

View the report as a single document - (PDF 201KB)

View the report as separate downloadable parts:

Membership of the Committee
(PDF 20KB)

Chapter 1 - Introduction
(PDF 28KB)

Additional estimates hearings
Questions on notice and Hansard transcript
Record of proceedings
Answers to questions on notice – Supplementary Budget Estimates 2017–18
Note on references

Chapter 2 - Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio
(PDF 56KB)

Infrastructure Australia
Australian Rail Track Corporation
WSA Co
Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Airservices Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Infrastructure Investment Division
Cities Division

Quote from page 8 of that report:


Civil Aviation Safety Authority

2.32 The committee's primary line of questioning concerned the grounding of eight

of the nine pilots who worked for the air ambulance company, FalconAir.

2.33 The committee sought information from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

(CASA) in relation to each pilot involved. CASA informed the committee that the

pilots' qualifications were either not current or had not been validly checked. CASA's

CEO, Mr Shane Carmody, noted that if the pilots had continued to fly, they would

have been in breach of both their own operations manual and the provisions of the

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. He concluded that, as many of the pilots were

outside the operational proficiency checks, he had no confidence that the checking and

training regime was operating to ensure that the pilots were proficient.26

2.34 The committee also considered the circumstances of a subsequent exemption

signed by Mr Carmody as Director of Aviation Safety on 21 December 2017 to allow

FalconAir's Falcon 50 to operate over the Christmas period.27


"...He concluded that, as many of the pilots were
outside the operational proficiency checks, he had no confidence that the checking and training regime was operating to ensure that the pilots were proficient..."


Now put the committee translated Carmody statement and put it alongside the insightful "K" post (above)?? - Hmm I think even 'the man at the back of the room' can understand the legal smokescreen that Carmody is trying to deploy in an apparent attempt to defend the hypocrisy, discriminatory bias and duplicity of process used by his Sydney Basin Regional Office in their oversight of the FalconAir AOC... Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Point of orderM’lud.

P2 – “Hmm I think even 'the man at the back of the room' can understand the legal smokescreen that Carmody is trying to deploy in an apparent attempt to defend the hypocrisy, discriminatory bias and duplicity of process used by his Sydney Basin Regional Office in their oversight of the FalconAir AOC...”

My learned colleague is making an assumption – to wit; that CEO Carmody actually understands what he is defending. CEO Carmody has expressed his disgust, several times, of actually getting his hands dirty and his disdain for those as ‘whinge’ about what actually happens at the coal face. Not his fault, he simply exists in an other sphere, far removed from the troubles and tribulations of the common folk.

Wasn’t there some foreign lady – oh, good while back now, who mentioned something about hungry folk eating cake – when they were hungry? Got her fool head chopped off – if memory serves.

All in favour of a ‘leader’ defending his troops – part of the deal – but to aid and abet criminal activity is still illegal – I hope; or have CASA changed that regulation too?



Reply
Auditing an Audit?

Well, yes and my pot of midnight oil needs a top up; all P2’s fault, but the oil was burned in a worthy cause.

P2 – “Now although the final wash up of the "full level one audit" has not yet been publicly revealed, it is still possible from the above evidence and Hansard script to start to build a comparison between the ongoing attempted FalconAir AOC embuggerance and the PelAir AOC cover-up of 2009-10.”

To begin here is a link for the 2009 PelAir Special Audit Report: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...2-5471.pdf

The above prompted the notion to run the Pel-Air ‘audit’ findings against the chronology; you know the type of thing – events in date order; who did what, to whom and who paid etc. The Campbell well rehearsed, ready defence of the Pel-Air management plan at last estimates caught my attention, it was glib enough and certainly deflected questions; but would it withstand serious scrutiny? ‘We’ decided to check, to audit the audit.

It will take a little while to prepare a Senate committee quality report on the matter; in the meantime, for those who would seek the truth and are prepared to do their own research, the following should be considered:-

1) The size and scope of the Pel-Air audit findings in an operational context, as related to the time involved - receiving the audit, developing a 'plan', having the 'plan' approved, getting it all done through to acquittal and rehabilitation. The serious student should consider the date the audit was ‘complete’, the date on which the ‘management plan’ was provided, the date it was accepted and the date phase 2 was successfully executed.

2) The dates and signatures on the second ‘raft’ of RCA which began arriving the day before CASA had accepted that Pel-Air had met all the requirements agreed for completion Phase 2 of the MAP.

Pretty slick work I reckon. Can’t demonstrate it, beyond a reasonable doubt; not yet, but it is starting to shape up as a some ‘awkward’ questions session. One could opine that some RCA were held back and not released until after Pel-Air returned to full operational status – there certainly is enough scope for conjecture along that line of inquiry. But, non the less - it is a passing strange coincidence of interest.

Another point of interest is the acquittal of the RCA’s has been omitted from the FOI request response. Perhaps – if the Senate committee was serious about exploring the marked variations between three audits and resulting treatments, as executed by the ‘Sydney’ chapter of CASA; a FOI request for the ‘acquittal’s’ and acceptance of ‘cure’ for all three audits would prove both instructive and useful. O'Sullivan is always banging on about 'evidence' - well there's a truck load, right there ready and waiting - or; have we buried Senate probity along side ministerial responsibility? Aye well..........

Of particular interest (to me at least) are the series of RCA which were released after Pel-Air regained full operational status – those without the signature of the person who raised them, signed by our old mate Wodger the report Wabbit; there are several of these which arrive intriguingly close to operational rehabilitation. Of course it could just be coincidental; it could be there was a 'third audit'; it could be the RCA were part of the 'rehabilitation - we shall see.

Well, I thought we’d cured P2’s terrier instincts and digging up the graveyard habits, seems not. Details of the excavation to follow, when we have isolated the RCA which turned up late, unsigned by the ‘author’ – P2 job.  

Toot - toot -
Reply
Auditing an audit - Part II 

"K" - Well, I thought we’d cured P2’s terrier instincts and digging up the graveyard habits, seems not. Details of the excavation to follow, when we have isolated the RCA which turned up late, unsigned by the ‘author’ – P2 job.

With much time to spare (yawn - Sleepy ) over the Easter long weekend I decided to start doing some digging on the extraordinary disconnections prevalent within the Bankstown Chronicles of the PelAir 2009 Special Audit Report... Dodgy

To begin I decided to start with the 4 RCAs supposedly associated with the Ben Cook and Mal Christie 21 December 2009 FRMS Special Audit report (see pages 79 to 87 of audit report).

 Example RCA #321074:

[Image: RCA-1.jpg] 

Notes:
1) For all 4 RCA Chambers signed on behalf of (per) Ben Cook;
2) Chambers issued the RCA on the 8th January 2010. This happens to coincide with the same day that Chambers released the SAR?;
3) However the Chambers counter signature is dated 5/01/2010?;
4) Unlike all other 8 January 2010 issued RCA, the Ben Cook (FRMS) initiated RCA do not appear to have any components as causal factors?;
5) Finally (like all other RCA) none of the supposedly Ben Cook (BC) RCA would appear, on paper at least, to have been properly acquitted?

Example RCA #321074 pg 2:

[Image: RCA-2.jpg]

Combining this with passing strange disconnection the audit time frame and the apparent world's quickest acquittal of phase 1 and 2 of the Management Action Plan (MAP) (ref pg 7 of SAR):

[Image: MAP-1.jpg]

 This was how Chambers summarized the significant deficiencies, identified by Cook and Christie, of the CASA approved PelAir FRMS exemption:

[Image: FRMS-1.jpg]

And from page 21 to 24:

[Image: FRMS-2.jpg]
[Image: FRMS-3.jpg]

This naturally got me revisiting the BC PelAir FRMS report to check the veracity of the Chambers SAR and whether it reflected the seriousness of the original identified safety deficiencies of the FRMS... Huh

Given the disjointed chronology of the conduct of the special audit(s); the acquittal of P1 & P2 of the MAP (leading to return to service of the Westwind operations in world record time) and; then the 2nd issue of serious RCA which do not appear to have been properly recorded as acquitted; I was first drawn to bullet point 7 of pg 1 of the appendix H titled - "CORE PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION TO BANKSTOWN FIELD OFFICE":



[Image: FRMS-5.jpg]
       
          

Hmm...so I guess Chambers & Co paid a whole lot of attention to that piece of advice from the resident CASA HF manager - WTD? Confused

The next revealing part of this incisive report (which I was drawn to) is under sub-para 2.2:

[Image: FRMS-6.jpg]
[Image: FRMS-7.jpg]

  
Hmm...why does bullet point 3 sound so familiar... Huh  (Hint: Please refer to Example RCA #321074 pg 2 pic -  Wink )

All starts to make sense of this bollocks evidentiary McCormick overreaction from the infamous 15 February 2013 Senate Inquiry hearing:





Verdict: Besides the obvious Wodger cut & paste pugmarks, the disassociation/disconnection between the unbiased professional expert analysis of the Ben Cook/Mal Christie PelAir FRMS SAR and that of Wodger's chronologically fragmented tick-a-box SAR is fundamentally obvious. Therefore the verdict IMO is guilty on all counts of duplicity and hypocrisy 'Your Honour' - Dodgy           


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Aiding & abetting; or under the busses??


(03-29-2018, 07:23 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Point of orderM’lud.

P2 – “Hmm I think even 'the man at the back of the room' can understand the legal smokescreen that Carmody is trying to deploy in an apparent attempt to defend the hypocrisy, discriminatory bias and duplicity of process used by his Sydney Basin Regional Office in their oversight of the FalconAir AOC...”

My learned colleague is making an assumption – to wit; that CEO Carmody actually understands what he is defending. CEO Carmody has expressed his disgust, several times, of actually getting his hands dirty and his disdain for those as ‘whinge’ about what actually happens at the coal face. Not his fault, he simply exists in an other sphere, far removed from the troubles and tribulations of the common folk.

Wasn’t there some foreign lady – oh, good while back now, who mentioned something about hungry folk eating cake – when they were hungry? Got her fool head chopped off – if memory serves.

All in favour of a ‘leader’ defending his troops – part of the deal – but to aid and abet criminal activity is still illegal – I hope; or have CASA changed that regulation too?

Coming back to Ol'Tom's post above; there is several of the BRB etc. mulling over why Carmody would bother to include the following paragraph in his correspondence/clarification to the Senate Committee:

[Image: CC-1.jpg]


One popular BRB hypothetical is that CC, on reading through the PelAir enforcement/surveillance records associated with the PelAir MAP and SAR, has discovered the huge discrepancies of due process and the paper-trail clusterduck of the oversight of the PelAir AOC post the VH-NGA Norfolk Island ditching. The BRB hypothetical continues that CC is now laying the spade work for actually cleaning out the dross from the Sydney Chapter of the Iron Ring... Rolleyes

In digging around to support both this BRB hypothetical, plus the PelAir v FalconAir comparison in CASA AOC oversight, I discovered that the CASA Surveillance manual recently received a major overhaul (see HERE) and the release of this 153 page amended document just so happened to occur in the middle of the attempted embuggerance of FalconAir by the CASA Sydney chapter... Shy  

Here is the preface of the CSM:


Preface

As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that the decisions we make, and the processes by which we make them, are effective, efficient, fair, timely, transparent, properly documented and otherwise comply with the requirements of the law. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that all of our actions are consistent with the principles reflected in our Regulatory Philosophy.

Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will lead to the achievement of these outcomes. Frequently, however, CASA decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy may not be appropriate. In such cases, striking a proper balance between the need for consistency and a corresponding need for flexibility, the responsible exercise of discretion is required.

In conjunction with a clear understanding of the considerations mentioned above, and a thorough knowledge of the relevant provisions of the civil aviation legislation, adherence to the procedures described in this manual will help to guide and inform the decisions you make, with a view to better ensuring the achievement of optimal outcomes in the interest of safety and fairness alike.

Shane Carmody
Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety   




With much bemusement and a degree of scepticism I noted the following under sub-heading - 'AHPI assessment' (ref: Chapter 3 sub para 3.3.6.1):



An AHPI assessment is completed in Sky Sentinel using the AHPI tool, and is one of a number of factors used to determine if surveillance events are to be proposed. The AHPI tool is a questionnaire-based tool consisting of a number of factors and sub-factors. These factors are associated with organisational characteristics and performance commonly thought to affect or relate to safety performance behaviour.

The design of the tool is based on the Reason Model of accident causation, safety management systems and commonly identified safety risk factors, which exist at organisational and operational levels.



Q/ On the less pessimistic side, could this be a sign that CC has finally got around to reviewing the administrative nightmare of the McCormick 'BIG R' regulator regime?
Q/ Could we finally see a similar overhaul of the Enforcement manual; in particular the deletions of the black letter law exemptions which were a hallmark of the McCormick regime?


Oh well back to the Bankstown Chronicles boneyard... Big Grin


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
Inbred, ingrained and incorrigible.

Well caught P2: and, in a honest world, you’d have to say well done Carmody. But is his preface indicative of the inbred, professional bureaucratic mind set which ensures the back door is always well and truly open – the exit signs clearly marked? The opening stanza more less screams ‘exit here’.  

"As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that the decisions we make, and the processes by which we make them, are effective, efficient, fair, timely, transparent, properly documented and otherwise comply with the requirements of the law."

It depends how you read it and which glasses you use to assist; the Rose coloured ones or the far seeing clear vision type. The deeply ingrained notion that CASA is in fact above the law and way beyond any form of ministerial control has been demonstrated and proven many times over the last three decades. I will take a little more than some nebulous, candy coated placebo to convince a hard eyed industry that the bastardry of the past has ended. Read the opening paragraph again – but put yourself in the place of a FOI (FU for short); you know from the first words that you are safe to continue – business as usual.

Without clearly defined penalties for CASA officials ‘getting it wrong’ or, buggering about with ‘evidence’; or, shading the truths; or, even telling faery stories crafted to suit, those words will not restrain the incorrigible. Look no further than the Pel-Air debacle for a historical reference or Falcon Air for a current demonstration.

"Frequently, however, CASA decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy may not be appropriate. In such cases, striking a proper balance between the need for consistency and a corresponding need for flexibility, the responsible exercise of discretion is required."

You can just imagine that paragraph striking terror into the hearts and minds of the likes of Campbell, Chambers, De’Marco and Worthington. They’d have that paragraph tattooed on their arses, in mirror writing – just to have it handy when required – to avoid having their rear ends being kicked – hard and often.

"In conjunction with a clear understanding of the considerations mentioned above, and a thorough knowledge of the relevant provisions of the civil aviation legislation, adherence to the procedures described in this manual will help to guide and inform the decisions you make, with a view to better ensuring the achievement of optimal outcomes in the interest of safety and fairness alike."

Yeah, right Shane – dream on. Or better yet come back on Sunday, bring a coffee, sit a spell while we walk you through the Pel-Air audit process, before we get down to the serious stuff. You see, it may well suit you not to deal with what preceded ‘your reign’. Indeed pretending that the past is gone and forgotten and you are writing a new page in the history of CASA is all well and good – in theory; but in real life, with real people, it just don’t work thataway. This industry would build a statue to the first DAS who stood up and declared a determination to reform the CASA, probably throw in a bag of sweeties and night with someone’s sister to boot. But lip service and fluffy word weasel ‘reforms’ carefully tucked away in the preface to an obscure manual just don’t do it – does it now.

By the by – you are not dreaming; the ride through the swamps of Sleepy Hollow in the Devil's own handcart is really happening.

“If there were a sympathy in choice,
War, death, or sickness, did lay siege to it,
Making it momentary as a sound,
Swift as a shadow, short as any dream,
Brief as the lightning in the collied night
That, in a spleen, unfolds both heaven and earth,
And ere a man hath power to say 'Behold!'
The jaws of darkness do devour it up;
So quick bright things come to confusion.”

Careful compliance - for all - I don't think so, No Sir! indeed I do not.

Toot - toot.....
Reply
(03-14-2018, 07:17 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Dick Smith - so close but no cigar... Confused

Talking about politicians and government aversion to tackling anything to do with aviation safety regulatory reform and a seemingly untouchable Big "R"-regulator - the following article courtesy of the Oz shines a light on just how close we were to getting a legislative change to the Act Undecided before BJ was politically nullified:

Quote:Joyce saga sank aviation reform


[Image: cd7c00aa7b8af387b7f48c116a6c8b56]12:00amANDREW BURRELL

Dick Smith won approval for slashing crippling aviation costs, but the deal crashed with Barnaby Joyce’s resignation.



Hot off the press this evening... Rolleyes

Via the Oz:



Aviation reform ‘grounded’ by Barnaby’s successor

[Image: 07f96a7bf0d97d54e34e164599fb4e0f?width=650]

Barnaby Joyce and Deputy PM Michael McCormack in Question Time. Picture: Kym Smith

The Australian 8:50PM April 8, 2018



[Image: matthew_denholm.png]

MATTHEW DENHOLM
Tasmania Correspondent Hobart
@MatthewRDenholm



A push to reform aviation laws to reduce crippling costs and red tape appears grounded, with new minister Michael McCormack refusing to embrace changes agreed by his predecessor.

Former air safety boss Dick Smith in February claimed to have secured a commitment from then-deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and Labor’s Anthony Albanese for bipartisan changes to the Civil Aviation Act.

The changes were aimed at reducing what Mr Smith and others in the industry see as a needlessly costly and onerous regulatory burden on general aviation.

Mr Smith told The Australian that in discussions last week with Mr Joyce’s replacement, Michael McCormack, he refused to embrace the reforms. Mr McCormack, who became Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister on February 26, yesterday confirmed he was yet to back changes.

However, he insisted he was still considering them. “I have met Dick Smith and spoken to him a number of times on the general aviation regulations,” he said. “While I understand Mr Smith’s passion on this matter, my job is to ensure policy changes are given the due consideration needed. I will take the time needed to consider options and to have further conversations with industry and my colleagues. You cannot rush policy outcomes, especially when it involves people’s safety. If changes are possible, they will be properly considered and broad consultation will be held before any decision is made.”

[Image: 51817ce6f570b37da371166b3d92ea0c?width=650]

Michael McCormack in the House of Representatives. Picture: Kym Smith

Mr Smith said he was convinced Mr McCormack had effectively dumped the reforms. “It was very clear to me that he was going to do absolutely nothing — he will sit on the fence,” Mr Smith said.

“I just feel sick. Barnaby Joyce was absolutely definite: this is what was going to happen. Michael McCormack is the complete opposite.

“It looks as if we will have another five to 10 years leading to the complete destruction of our once viable general aviation industry.”

Backed by many in the general aviation sector, Mr Smith negotiated with Mr Joyce and Mr Albanese to amend the section of the act that requires the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to “regard safety as the most important consideration” in regulating the industry.

Under the planned changes, CASA would instead be required to seek the “highest level of safety in air navigation” alongside the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

Mr Smith said the act’s current wording on the primacy of safety was “a lie”, with big airlines able to use their clout to balance safety with affordability, leaving the less powerful general aviation sector to cop the brunt of needless red-tape.

General aviation includes charter and air rescue operators, agricultural and firefighting aviation, training, surveying and recreational and sports flying. Many complain inflexible regulations have hit viability, including of pilot training and contributed to a shortage of regional pilots.

CASA says it is already obliged to consider the cost impacts of decisions, although Mr Smith said this obligation was contained in guiding principles, rather than being a key feature of the act. Mr Joyce could not be contacted. Mr Albanese declined to comment.





MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
RRAT Additional Senate Estimates QON?

Not that it really rates a mention but today the QON index for last Estimates was released:

 Download the index (PDF 803KB)

Skimming through the largely 65 pages of waffle, I cannot but wonder how much tax payer money is wasted on administering useless QON that the bureaucracy essentially obfuscates with word weasel spin and scorn in their written AQON - FDS!  Dodgy

However I am actually pleased to announce that in amongst the mostly inane and pointless QON there was one choccy frog award to be handed out to the originally ON but now new independent QLD Senator Fraser Anning... Wink




Question on notice no. 58

Portfolio question number: 59

2017-18 Additional estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Fraser Anning: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 26 February
2018—

How many GA aircraft are CASA responsible for? Out of these GA aircraft how
many are currently airworthy, meaning that they have a current maintenance release?    


Question on notice no. 59

Portfolio question number: 60

2017-18 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Fraser Anning: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 26 February
2018—

The AOPA Australia has released data (based on BITRE reports) that shows that in
2002, just 7% of the GA fleet was inactive, and however, by 2015 this number has
increased to 23% or 2,930 aircraft. Does this increase from 7% to 23% indicate there
is a problem in GA?


Question on notice no. 60

Portfolio question number: 61

2017-18 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Fraser Anning: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 26 February
2018—

Has CASAs annual budget increased across the past decade?



Question on notice no. 61

Portfolio question number: 62

2017-18 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Fraser Anning: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 26 February
2018—
The AOPA Australia across the past 2 years has published a range of important data
(from government sources, including CASA, BITRE and others) that demonstrates
that Australian general aviation is in serious decline.

Whilst the broader Australian economy has enjoyed 103 quarters of continuous
growth, Australias general aviation industry has experienced;

• 34% decline in pilot numbers over the past 10 years
• 35% decline in avgas sales over the past 10 years
• 18% decline in aircraft hours flown over the past 5 years
• 20% decline in serviceable aircraft for the past 12 months
• 15% decline in maintenance and repair organisations in the past 12 months

The 2015 BITRE report clearly identifies that the vast majority of commercial
activities for general aviation are in decline, with pilot training, charter, test, ferry,
survey, photography and aerial work all recording losses.

Furthermore;
The Australian newspaper ran the following news articles between April 2016 and
December 2017

• 7th April 2016 Red tape crushing general aviation
• 21st April 2016 soaring rents pushing general aviation to the brink
• 16th August 2016 CASA concedes: Our red tape stifles industry
• 3rd September 2016 Airport privatisation and CASA rules hurting businesses
• 27th October 2016 General aviation review may pull sector out of dive
• 13th December 2016 Allianz to shut local aviation insurance unit
• 21st February 2017 Calls for urgent airport safety review
• 1st March 2017 Government grapples with general aviation decline
• 2nd June 2017 Over-regulation killing aviation
• 13th July 2017 AOPA tips general aviation crisis
• 2nd August 2017 General aviation sector faces ruin
• 22nd December 2017 China swoops on flight schools to solve pilot shortage
• 27th December 2017 foreign pilots given two-year visas to cover Australias pilot
shortage
• 27th December 2017 need to cut red tape, costs to restore pilot training

Question: On 16th August 2017, CASA conceded that general aviation was in fact in
decline (as published by the Australian) . Given that just about all of AOPA
Australias predictions and warnings across the past two years have been balanced and
accurate, please explain as to why AOPA has not been engaged directly on your
ASAP panel?



Question on notice no. 63

Portfolio question number: 64

2017-18 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Fraser Anning: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 26 February
2018—

Given that the UK and the USA based their private pilot medicals on a private drivers
license standard, why have you based the Australian GA license on a commercial
drivers standard, noting that the RAAus recreational pilot certificate is based on a
private driver standard?

Could you please explain how CASA can deem a GA private pilot unfit for flight,
then these same pilots move across to RAAus where they can continue to fly on a
drivers license medical in the same aircraft carrying a passenger?



Question on notice no. 64

Portfolio question number: 65

2017-18 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Fraser Anning: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 26 February
2018—

Its noted that CASA produced a discussion paper that sought industry feedback
regarding Class 2 medical reform. However, following the industry responses, CASA
did not seek to discuss its considerations, views or intentions, thereby denying the
industry an opportunity to work in partnership with the regulator to deliver the best
outcome for the industry at large.

Can you explain how CASA is meeting its obligations under its regulatory
philosophy, which requires the regulator to be inclusive of the entire process?
Under the new Class 2 Basic medical standard, CASA have removed the ability for a
pilot to fly NVFR/IFR and Aerobatics. Given that all three modes of flight require
significant additional training and demonstration competency, therefore improving the
overall safety standard and surveillance of the pilot, can you please explain how
CASA is improving GA safety by removing such privileges?





MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)