[Peetwo]

Subodiosus incommodus. - Part II

My Latin- through disuse – had gotten a little rusty; no matter, the rough translation is (more or less) “annoying interruptions”. Reading through the Hansard, posted above – I could not help beginning to count the O’Sofullame ‘interruptions’, they became so frequent, as to be annoying. Then tedium set in, so I quit reading and used a little computer magic to do a word count, by speaker. I’ll not bore you with the details, but, if you take out the ‘opening remarks’ made by those presenting a submission – guess who (for a Choc frog) leads the word count; and; for a bonus Choc frog, who does the most interrupting? This intrigued me, so I went after the points of ‘interruption’ in terms of crucial junctures, where critical supporting points are being made – have you guessed it - again? It was P7 who first brought these ‘oddities’ to my attention, we dismissed them as ingrained ‘style’ (and bad manners) at first; but, after some very tedious research back through the last couple of ‘Estimates’ Hansard; I am beginning to wonder if there is not an alternative motivation in play.

Not that it matters of course and there is precious little to be done even if it were proven to be the case; but it makes you wonder. There is a lighter side of course – the Patrick ‘infomercial’ – cracked me up. “But, but - I’ve put out a press release” well, ducking well, well – Wow! That will really have an impact. I can see ATSB and CASA quaking (quacking) in their boots now, heading for absolution and fervently praying for redemption, penitently returning the money to general revenue.

"And if it makes you feel any better, whilst this hearing has been on, my media adviser has done a press release for which the headline is 'Urgent action required on CASA over-regulation'. So even whilst I've been sitting here I've been pushing that cause, and I'm told I've got a media interview immediately after the suspension. So we are very alive to it."

On the bright side – there will be ‘recommendations’ made by the committee:-

“In the formal sense, a the end of the inquiry there will be a report made with a number of recommendations to government. Likely from this committee you will be unanimous recommendations from all quarters of politics that will go to government for government to consider.”

Amazing – CASA make a ‘recommendation’ and the ‘government’ claims ownership. The Senate makes ‘recommendations’ and the government treats them as ‘opinion’’. You really have to wonder:-

Let's not flinch: they're not CASA's regulations; they're the government's regulations that are often recommended by CASA.

Aye, I can just see it all now – air service utopia for the good folk of FNQ brought about by a Senate committee’s recommendation. I sincerely hope those folk are not holding their collective breath. Aviation has been waiting 30 years for ‘recommendations’ to become a little more than an opinion. But no matter – we do have the Patrick Press Release; that’ll rock ‘em: probably to sleep, if it don’t keep ‘em awake laughing.

-  Yes that whole passage of Hansard seems extremely disjointed and out of all context with the rest of the Cloncurry proceedings...

 Not that I'm trying to defend the Senator Rex 'in committee' 'off the cuff' statement...

  "..(sic) press release for which the headline is 'Urgent action required on CASA over-regulation'..." 

...however IMO this shows a certain level of naivety from Senator Rex and given Barry O'Obfuscation's derogatory remark that followed...

"..You take credit for that. You're the one who brought it up!..."

...I wonder (from a political POV) whether it would've been more prudent for Rex to keep that information under his hat? 

I also query what it was that prompted both this exchange and the issuing of the Senator Rex MR? According to the Hansard there certainly wasn't any 'in committee' lead up to this 'passing strange' discourse?

Hmm...thinking out loud I wonder if it had some connection with the fact that a certain maverick local federal MP was apparently at the back of the room?

Senator PATRICK: Noting that it’s a state issue, have you consulted with your local member on the feelings of council? Have you maybe as a collective got to together and said to local members, 'We want some input on the issue of regulated air routes around this area'?

Councillor Walker : I think the local member—I think they are still at the back of the room—is very aware that we are concerned about the airlines. That is why he is here. He has been very outspoken in the parliament on the subject. We have approached him, and he probably has a heap of emails and letters and has had phone calls to that effect. As you know, things do go along fairly slowly.

Senator PATRICK: I think Mr Katter is giving us a lift from Cloncurry to Mount Isa.

Councillor Walker : I can assure you, Senator Patrick, that our local members are interested in this. They are very outspoken on this. Our federal representative is also very outspoken—as you would be very well aware, I'd imagine. As I said, it is a dollars and cents thing in some respects, but it also part of a decline in this area. As the area goes up with our mining and production and all the rest of it, we still want quality of life. You’ve got the FIFO and all the rest of it, but we still need a quality of life for the people who choose to live here. Airline pricing is one part of this. There are the fuel costs and bits and pieces. If you said to a person on the Gold Coast that diesel is $1.81 or ULP is $1.80, you'd have civil disobedience. But, out here, if we have to go somewhere we fill up. It is as simple as that. The caravanning grey nomads have their websites and they bypass towns because of fuel costs. A lot of these towns can't afford to get the fuel any cheaper. It affects the economies of the towns right the way through. As I say, the airfares are a part of the problem.

 
Which could also explain the Barry O'Muppet out of context statement of defence in regards to the publicly (in)-visible committee inactivity on oversight of bureaucratic aviation safety administration and regulation:

"..We're aware of the current impacts on general aviation with new CASA regulations, the shortage of pilots and the maintenance issue with licensed aircraft maintenance engineers and the like. We as a committee have called for some figures—and I don't know if Ms Redden is in a position to update us. We want to look at comparisons with international standards. The FAA has done an audit on CASA in Australia. I understand it's going to be interesting reading. They're resisting publication of that at the moment. We're trying to muddle our way through getting that out into the open. So we're very alive, to the point where we have contemplated out loud whether we will hold an inquiry such as this into this regulatory environment—not just the operation of CASA but by extension the impact that that is having on general aviation..."

 
I'm pretty sure the Ag Chair meant to say 'ICAO' audit and not 'FAA'? But perhaps the FAA IASA team has been here as well? Or could it be it was a slip of the tongue and the committee is considering requesting the FAA follow-up the ICAO audit with a proper review of the identified CASA deficiencies/non-compliances? 

The O'Muppet comment...

..We as a committee have called for some figures—and I don't know if Ms Redden is in a position to update us. We want to look at comparisons with international standards...

...would appear to indicate that the committee is still waiting on the Dept/ICAO response to the 9 February committee request for information in relation to the current 4280 Australian notified differences to the ICAO SARPs: reference Update: Tabled docs & more video.

---

---

 
One has to ask - "what's the bloody hold up??"

Finally I simply can't let this condescending Barry O'Muppet bollocks statement, especially in regards to the ATSB, come to pass without challenge:

"...But I suspect there's nothing new you can tell us about CASA—their popularity or otherwise—and about what people see as arrogance and sometimes an abuse of power. With the ATSB there is not so much. They're in a quite respected cycle of their lives..."

Oh yeah Bazza, under whose measure?

Certainly not ours: References - ATSB Aberrations.

Or indeed AAI expert Ben Cook :

Ben Cook and the Choc Frog award.

The Ben Cook article published in the  Australian Aviation magazine is of great value in that it casts a wider net over the inherent contributing factors, the systematic failures and the lack of ‘real’ safety related oversight from the CASA, rather than safe, minimum compliance with ‘the law’.

Ben is a respected, acknowledged expert in his field of endeavour, the article reflects that expertise – from his point of view.

BC – "For many of us, we assume that CASA and the ATSB are the key players to make sense of the why in these types of accidents – that they will search for the root causes to ensure the broader aviation community can genuinely learn some lessons to prevent reoccurrence. Yet it appears this wasn’t the case for those aboard that medical evacuation flight in 2009.”

Your opinion depends of course on how ‘thorough’ and meticulous your own analysis of the incident has been and where and when the seeds of this accident were sown. For PAIN those seeds were sown with the Lockhart River tragedy. The abominable behaviour of both CASA and the ATSB before, during, after and since that event leaves much to be desired – from an operational safety point of view. The ATSB fall from excellence began with Lockhart. Many believe their ‘spirit’ was broken from then, routed, repressed and regressing to the pathetic ‘milk and water’ PR guff they provide today. The Pel-Air v1 and Pel-Air v2 reports stand testament to their shameful degeneration. ATSB should have drawn many of the same conclusions as Cook, the reports provided fail, dismally, to do so.

For some as yet unidentified reason, Dolan and McCormick embarked on a very risky journey, never expecting for one moment, that it would blow up to a Senate inquiry; well it did that and more. Had Cook and ‘operational’ expert opinion been sought in the beginning then a report of real safety value could have been produced and the disgrace which followed the Senate Inquiry could have been avoided – alas. But I digress...

Perhaps the Barry O'Muppet currently has a hand up his ass that is merely continuing the ATSB protection racket that has been in place ever since the 'inconvenient ditching'?

Reference:  Oz aviation, safety compromised by political and bureaucratic subterfuge ?

Certainly explains why the committee let the HVH get away with this response to the Senator Rex questioning on the multi-million dollar, 500+ page, PelAir MK II final report...    
 

MTF...P2