<![CDATA[AuntyPru Forum - Senate Estimates. 2020]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/ Thu, 30 Apr 2026 11:12:56 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=193 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 21:07:37 +0000 Kharon]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=193 Caution: there will be some ‘long’ reads on this thread; but, it is, at least initially, a necessary evil. In short, many have expressed grave concern that through Legislative Instruments CASA have been given a ‘carte blanche’ and may do pretty much as they please, without check or balance. The Angel Fight fiasco as an example. Well, it turns out there is some scrutiny provided though the SSCRO, furthermore, the committee can and actually does elicit a response from the minister.
 
The rule through ‘exemptions’ (lots and lots of); the reluctance to reform a regulation to incorporate exemption and the almost unbelievable list of amendments to the 61/141/142 shambles and other ‘parts’ of the CASR has dragged on almost as long as the ‘reform’ process – thirty years and counting. Perhaps there is some light at the end of the mine shaft. We shall see.
 
“On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for tomorrow, proposing the disallowance of the Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019, etc.
 
Quite the title ain’t it -  “Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation”. We only stumbled over it through P2’s digging about for answers; so we took a look at the work and results of that committee’s work. Not too shabby at all, worth a thread here and further examination. For an intro and to whet the appetite- Post 840.  A start point.

MTF - ]]> Caution: there will be some ‘long’ reads on this thread; but, it is, at least initially, a necessary evil. In short, many have expressed grave concern that through Legislative Instruments CASA have been given a ‘carte blanche’ and may do pretty much as they please, without check or balance. The Angel Fight fiasco as an example. Well, it turns out there is some scrutiny provided though the SSCRO, furthermore, the committee can and actually does elicit a response from the minister.
 
The rule through ‘exemptions’ (lots and lots of); the reluctance to reform a regulation to incorporate exemption and the almost unbelievable list of amendments to the 61/141/142 shambles and other ‘parts’ of the CASR has dragged on almost as long as the ‘reform’ process – thirty years and counting. Perhaps there is some light at the end of the mine shaft. We shall see.
 
“On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for tomorrow, proposing the disallowance of the Helicopter Aerial Application Endorsements Exemption 2019, etc.
 
Quite the title ain’t it -  “Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation”. We only stumbled over it through P2’s digging about for answers; so we took a look at the work and results of that committee’s work. Not too shabby at all, worth a thread here and further examination. For an intro and to whet the appetite- Post 840.  A start point.

MTF - ]]> <![CDATA[20/20 Hindsight.]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=192 Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:04:30 +0000 Kharon]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=192 20/20 Hindsight.

> Or; an even money bet. One could even term it as a 30% less than a 50/50 even chance of getting something done.
 
“The mills of the gods grind slow” is an old saw. The point it struggles to make is that slow but certain divine retribution (from Wiki) is on the way. Well the 2020 Senate inquiry is certainly ‘slow’ – 24 months of grinding the grist in their mills. The ‘divine’ part is yet to be seen and ‘retribution’ is most certainly a vision splendid, far beyond the horizon.
 
Even so: the submissions have begun to trickle in – you can find them – HERE.
 
Aunt Pru will do her best to keep track of the whole thing on this thread; from soup to nuts. We have not seen a schedule or notice of pubic sessions; so patience is required.
 
There is little patience within the BRB /IOS – the question most asked is why don’t we save all the bother and simply enforce the 150 recommendations made between the Forsyth report and the Senate inquiry into Pel-Air. A close second is why not repeal 61/141 and 142 and simply adopt the FAA system. Both valid questions to be asked and fully answered.
 
There are two submissions logged at present – both worth the few moments it takes to read them.
 
A lot MTF I reckon.
 
Toot – toot.]]> 20/20 Hindsight.

> Or; an even money bet. One could even term it as a 30% less than a 50/50 even chance of getting something done.
 
“The mills of the gods grind slow” is an old saw. The point it struggles to make is that slow but certain divine retribution (from Wiki) is on the way. Well the 2020 Senate inquiry is certainly ‘slow’ – 24 months of grinding the grist in their mills. The ‘divine’ part is yet to be seen and ‘retribution’ is most certainly a vision splendid, far beyond the horizon.
 
Even so: the submissions have begun to trickle in – you can find them – HERE.
 
Aunt Pru will do her best to keep track of the whole thing on this thread; from soup to nuts. We have not seen a schedule or notice of pubic sessions; so patience is required.
 
There is little patience within the BRB /IOS – the question most asked is why don’t we save all the bother and simply enforce the 150 recommendations made between the Forsyth report and the Senate inquiry into Pel-Air. A close second is why not repeal 61/141 and 142 and simply adopt the FAA system. Both valid questions to be asked and fully answered.
 
There are two submissions logged at present – both worth the few moments it takes to read them.
 
A lot MTF I reckon.
 
Toot – toot.]]> <![CDATA[Begun-the drone wars have_MKII.]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=161 Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:36:30 +0000 Kharon]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=161  -  - - - - - - - - - -
Expert opinion continues;
 
Do you spot a trend developing; the real world facing up to the realities of ‘drone’ operation. The pilots, lawyers, licenced RPA operators, eyes wide open, considering the realities and risks associated with ‘drone operations’. Intelligently, rationally; and, more importantly, responsibly seeking to find a balance and system to address the ‘problems’; seen and undiscovered.
 
The stark contrasts between the smug, dismissive, ignorant, unimaginative CASA approach is self evident; what is not perhaps so immediately apparent is the arrogance. The submissions to the Senate inquiry have all sought to offer remedy and detailed examination of the potential dangers, operationally, commercially and legally. Not all of these matters lay within the ambit of the CASA remit, however, once a drone is ‘off the reservation’ and airborne it enters the world of not only a highly regulated ‘airspace’ but a highly regulated public domain. Hells bells, you cannot even allow the dog off a leash without breaking a rule, skateboards are banned in certain places; FDS even the poor homeless are not allowed to sully certain areas. But some idiot wanting to make ‘the’ greatest you-tube video; or, a thief checking to make sure no ones home; or a perv watching the children playing can purchase a camera drone and with complete anonymity do whatever pleases them best, without challenge or recourse. This before we even consider the dangers to helicopters operating over city streets, cars and heavy vehicles on the highways or even risks of collision between drones and the debris creating personal or property damage.
 
Well, CASA may not have the wit or imagination to see the problems, but our Senators do, the professional pilot bodies, the legal eagles do and, with any sort of luck – the general public do. That leaves the sad sack minister, his DoIT and CASA minions working out to avoid any and all responsibility, while watching the rest do their job for them.
 
CASA clearly expressed their risk management strategy; “a drone hitting the engine of a jet is not catastrophic mate; anyway it will go down the by-pass”. The face of Shameless O’Carmody is worth watching as his ‘expert’ makes those remarks – smug, self satisfied and completely at ease with the display. A classic example of why industry has had a guts full of CASA, the CEO and the minister who failed to appoint the right man.

 
Many will have good reason to be eternally thankful to ‘rogue’ drones. They are providing a perfect example of just how truly dreadful CASA is – across the spectrum. We must hope the Senators have the vision to understand that and force reform of the aberration which CASA has become. Starting at the top, there is no place for either Muppet or Puppet.

[Image: 300?cb=20131130142326]

I’d bet a good deal  of fine ale that the work hours being done now, by Aleck and Carmody et al on the Pel-Air draft report far exceeds any time or thought given to the responsibility our ‘aviation regulator’ has devoted to the ‘drone wars’, by a big margin. There are no holes in ‘drone’ defence – but the Pel-Air dyke is seriously breached. I digress, but really look forward to reading the CASA response to Pel-Air.
 
Aye well; they’ve wriggled off some bigger hooks in the past; and, after a drone has failed to oblige and disappear down a by-pass and cost just a little more than a few million in repair bills; maybe then we will get some sense out of ‘em. But I ain’t holding my breath; not so long as the McConvict signature is enshrined of the Enforcement manual foreword; until that is addressed the attitude of our aviation ‘regulator’ will never change.
 
Toot – up your by-pass Senator- toot.]]>  -  - - - - - - - - - -
Expert opinion continues;
 
Do you spot a trend developing; the real world facing up to the realities of ‘drone’ operation. The pilots, lawyers, licenced RPA operators, eyes wide open, considering the realities and risks associated with ‘drone operations’. Intelligently, rationally; and, more importantly, responsibly seeking to find a balance and system to address the ‘problems’; seen and undiscovered.
 
The stark contrasts between the smug, dismissive, ignorant, unimaginative CASA approach is self evident; what is not perhaps so immediately apparent is the arrogance. The submissions to the Senate inquiry have all sought to offer remedy and detailed examination of the potential dangers, operationally, commercially and legally. Not all of these matters lay within the ambit of the CASA remit, however, once a drone is ‘off the reservation’ and airborne it enters the world of not only a highly regulated ‘airspace’ but a highly regulated public domain. Hells bells, you cannot even allow the dog off a leash without breaking a rule, skateboards are banned in certain places; FDS even the poor homeless are not allowed to sully certain areas. But some idiot wanting to make ‘the’ greatest you-tube video; or, a thief checking to make sure no ones home; or a perv watching the children playing can purchase a camera drone and with complete anonymity do whatever pleases them best, without challenge or recourse. This before we even consider the dangers to helicopters operating over city streets, cars and heavy vehicles on the highways or even risks of collision between drones and the debris creating personal or property damage.
 
Well, CASA may not have the wit or imagination to see the problems, but our Senators do, the professional pilot bodies, the legal eagles do and, with any sort of luck – the general public do. That leaves the sad sack minister, his DoIT and CASA minions working out to avoid any and all responsibility, while watching the rest do their job for them.
 
CASA clearly expressed their risk management strategy; “a drone hitting the engine of a jet is not catastrophic mate; anyway it will go down the by-pass”. The face of Shameless O’Carmody is worth watching as his ‘expert’ makes those remarks – smug, self satisfied and completely at ease with the display. A classic example of why industry has had a guts full of CASA, the CEO and the minister who failed to appoint the right man.

 
Many will have good reason to be eternally thankful to ‘rogue’ drones. They are providing a perfect example of just how truly dreadful CASA is – across the spectrum. We must hope the Senators have the vision to understand that and force reform of the aberration which CASA has become. Starting at the top, there is no place for either Muppet or Puppet.

[Image: 300?cb=20131130142326]

I’d bet a good deal  of fine ale that the work hours being done now, by Aleck and Carmody et al on the Pel-Air draft report far exceeds any time or thought given to the responsibility our ‘aviation regulator’ has devoted to the ‘drone wars’, by a big margin. There are no holes in ‘drone’ defence – but the Pel-Air dyke is seriously breached. I digress, but really look forward to reading the CASA response to Pel-Air.
 
Aye well; they’ve wriggled off some bigger hooks in the past; and, after a drone has failed to oblige and disappear down a by-pass and cost just a little more than a few million in repair bills; maybe then we will get some sense out of ‘em. But I ain’t holding my breath; not so long as the McConvict signature is enshrined of the Enforcement manual foreword; until that is addressed the attitude of our aviation ‘regulator’ will never change.
 
Toot – up your by-pass Senator- toot.]]> <![CDATA[Mount Non-compliance & upcoming ICAO/FAA audit?]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139 Sun, 04 Sep 2016 01:39:48 +0000 Peetwo]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139

Quote:Newsflash: JQ is Gobble's new chopper pilot in Montreal!
I was half way up Mt Noncompliance contemplating yet another FF crevasse followed by a geyser of FF pony pooh, when lo and behold JQ and Gobbles were hovering above me in a shiny new Bell 406. Gobbles manned the winch and within minutes I was pass the FF PNR onwards and upwards….we proceeded to a point 343 metres above sea level and this is what we found…

[Image: FAA_NCN_OPS03_zpsbe0c2e72.png]

Note: Creamy touched on this NCN briefly but perhaps it needs a bit more exploring to test the FF veracity on their proposed actions/inactions (by proxi notified differences) and it is also relevant in regards to the inquiry i.e. Flight recorders err OBRs…err CVRs!

1) FF said they were going to file a difference with ICAO by 31 October 2008! Did they?   
 
Well after much teasing, fluffing, huffing and puffing mixed in with a series of expletives (FFS there must be literally thousands of notified differences to ICAO![Image: eusa_wall.gif]) while reading over the extremely convoluted AIP SUP H12/11, I finally think I’ve found it in the Annex 6 section.

Here is what it says at Para 3.6.3.4.2.2…“No standards are specified in Australian legislation for the preservation of flight recorder records.”

However after you read the Annex 6 applicable reference, to which the FAA NCN supposedly refers, you begin to wonder if the notified difference really covers it??

Quote:6.3.11.2
To preserve flight recorder records, flight recorders shall be de-activated upon completion of flight time following an accident or incident. The flight recorders shall not be re-activated before their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.

Note 1.— The need for removal of the flight recorder records from the aircraft will be determined by the investigation authority in the State conducting the investigation with due regard to the seriousness of an occurrence and the circumstances, including the impact on the operation.
Note 2.— The operator’s responsibilities regarding the retention of flight recorder records are contained in 11.6.

And 11.6

Quote:11.6 Flight recorder records


An operator shall ensure, to the extent possible, in the event the aeroplane becomes involved in an accident or incident, the preservation of all related flight recorder records and, if necessary, the associated flight recorders, and their retention in safe custody pending their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.

I also question the paragraph reference ‘3.6.3.4.2.2’ (or any of the para references for that matter) and what on earth the correlation is to the applicable ICAO reference.[Image: pukey.gif][Image: pukey.gif]

Note: Just out of interest I decided to explore our ANZAC ‘brothers in arms’ over the ditch and how they sort out compliance with the ICAO Annexes, in particular Annex 6. Here is what I found ‘Click Here’.

Very user friendly they even have a web page devoted to ICAO Compliance……yet another tick for the Kiwi system![Image: eusa_clap.gif]

Anyway back to the FF promised actions and implementation dates…

2) “Address issue during CASR Part 91 drafting and development”…by 31 December 2008…hmm got a feeling this is heading for another FF crevasse but I could be wrong??

Ah that would be a no and also answers this proposed action by FF… 3) “Develop and promulgate CASR Part 91” by 31 December 2009!

So the jury is out but my bet is on a majority vote of 12 on this NCN![Image: eusa_naughty.gif]

Doin a Sundy arvo Kelpie![Image: evil.gif]

This post was part of a series of posts where we were climbing the ICAO notified differences - Mount Non-compliance... Confused (Ps Ironically since then, unlike most Mountains in the world, Mount NCN has grown to 3116 NCNs & 318 pages...UDB!) 

This series culminated ( I think??) in the following post:
Quote:“The future conundrum of Annex 19”
Started a review of the proposed Annex 19 but first a quote from PAIN post #1696 , which is particularly pertinent…

“The proposed ICAO Annex 19, is designed, in part, to assist less fortunate countries achieve compliance with ICAO benchmarks. The Australia - ICAO final report on Safety Oversight Audit of Australia (Feb 2008) released January 2009 provides an excellent starting point for comparison.

There is ever a widening gap between ICAO and the existing Australian version. Annex 19 is about to make that gap almost too large to span. The issues need to be addressed, urgently and properly if Australia is to retain a tenuous hold on its current classification.”

So to the review and warning this is a long post![Image: evil.gif]

From Page 19 of Annex 19:

Quote:3.1.2 The acceptable level of safety performance to be achieved shall be established by the State.


Note.— An acceptable level of safety performance for the State can be demonstrated through the implementation and maintenance of the SSP as well as safety performance indicators and targets showing that safety is effectively managed, built on the foundation of implementation of existing safety-related SARPs.
 

This means both FF and ATSBeaker will have to define what are acceptable levels of safety for different types of aviation and how they will measure those levels, probably with leading and lagging safety indicators. That way, all parties will know what they're being judged against, and FF will be called to account if (as is the norm) they launch an original punitive frolic.[Image: eusa_naughty.gif]

From page 26 (my bold):
Quote:3.3 The State shall ensure that inspectors are provided with guidance that addresses ethics, personal conduct and the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest in the performance of official duties.

Well, well Houston we may have a problem?? Not very accommodating for all those imbedded sociopaths like Wodger and that camp guy ‘Bull’.[Image: sowee.gif]

Then there is page 27 which is headed ‘Resolution of safety issues’(my bold):

Quote:8.1 The State shall use a documented process to take appropriate corrective actions, up to and including enforcement measures, to resolve identified safety issues.


8.2 The State shall ensure that identified safety issues are resolved in a timely manner through a system which monitors and records progress, including actions taken by service providers in resolving such issues.

It also looks like the 'gotcha loopholes' in the EM, SM (and presumably IM) may have to be revisited and the ‘due process’ documentation required in those docs will have to be strongly adhered to or else![Image: evil.gif]

Page 29 paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 would appear to mean that FF and ATSBeaker would have to have in place accountable managers that are answerable for compliance with documented SSP procedures. Hmm…wonder how that will go down with the FF and bureau execs currently running the shop?[Image: confused.gif]

Next on page 30 we have ‘2.1 Hazard identification’ and ‘3.1 Safety performance monitoring and measurement’, which are less immediate issues for the State service providers. However given the recent track record of blaming and flogging pilots (e.g Dom) these parts of the SSP could potentially cause some major areas of discomfort down the track.

Quoting from page 33 (my bold):
Quote:1.3 Accident and incident investigation


The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State. In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations.

Well although the bureau is supposedly ‘independent’ there is one thing that this inquiry has shown and that is the reality is an entirely different matter... “ Beaker please explain!”[Image: confused.gif]

Heading of paragraph 1.4 is ‘Enforcement Policy’, and there is enough people on here (and elsewhere..AMROBA, DK, DJ etc) that have an opinion on how that’s working out for the ‘State’, hmm..“Third Reich comes to mind!”

Page 33 and paragraph 2.1 is headed ‘Safety requirements for the service provider’s SMS’. Which again places a requirement on FF to have in place the policies/procedures to ensure transparency in administration. To ensure ICAO compliance these policies will be periodically reviewed…not sure if the Doc’s going to like that too much![Image: eusa_wall.gif]

Finally (for now at least) on page 34 we have:

Quote:3.1 Safety oversight


The State has established mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring of the eight critical elements of the safety oversight function. The State has also established mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls (requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies).
These mechanisms include inspections, audits and surveys to ensure that regulatory safety risk controls are appropriately integrated into the service provider’s SMS, that they are being practised as designed, and that the regulatory controls have the intended effect on safety risks.

Fairly long winded I know, however it would appear that FF must have in place a robust fully accountable framework for administering the SSP.

Yeah like that’s going to happen while the present numbnuts are minding the Fort??[Image: boohoo.gif]

Much more to follow me thinks! [Image: thumbs.gif]


Okay so the reason for creating this thread is to; a) kick around and review Murky's latest bollocks SSP; b) attempt to scale (ICAO) Mount Non-compliance and establish whether c) it is possible to reign in the significant growth of NCNs prior to the upcoming ICAO/FAA audit... Big Grin


MTF...P2  Tongue]]>

Quote:Newsflash: JQ is Gobble's new chopper pilot in Montreal!
I was half way up Mt Noncompliance contemplating yet another FF crevasse followed by a geyser of FF pony pooh, when lo and behold JQ and Gobbles were hovering above me in a shiny new Bell 406. Gobbles manned the winch and within minutes I was pass the FF PNR onwards and upwards….we proceeded to a point 343 metres above sea level and this is what we found…

[Image: FAA_NCN_OPS03_zpsbe0c2e72.png]

Note: Creamy touched on this NCN briefly but perhaps it needs a bit more exploring to test the FF veracity on their proposed actions/inactions (by proxi notified differences) and it is also relevant in regards to the inquiry i.e. Flight recorders err OBRs…err CVRs!

1) FF said they were going to file a difference with ICAO by 31 October 2008! Did they?   
 
Well after much teasing, fluffing, huffing and puffing mixed in with a series of expletives (FFS there must be literally thousands of notified differences to ICAO![Image: eusa_wall.gif]) while reading over the extremely convoluted AIP SUP H12/11, I finally think I’ve found it in the Annex 6 section.

Here is what it says at Para 3.6.3.4.2.2…“No standards are specified in Australian legislation for the preservation of flight recorder records.”

However after you read the Annex 6 applicable reference, to which the FAA NCN supposedly refers, you begin to wonder if the notified difference really covers it??

Quote:6.3.11.2
To preserve flight recorder records, flight recorders shall be de-activated upon completion of flight time following an accident or incident. The flight recorders shall not be re-activated before their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.

Note 1.— The need for removal of the flight recorder records from the aircraft will be determined by the investigation authority in the State conducting the investigation with due regard to the seriousness of an occurrence and the circumstances, including the impact on the operation.
Note 2.— The operator’s responsibilities regarding the retention of flight recorder records are contained in 11.6.

And 11.6

Quote:11.6 Flight recorder records


An operator shall ensure, to the extent possible, in the event the aeroplane becomes involved in an accident or incident, the preservation of all related flight recorder records and, if necessary, the associated flight recorders, and their retention in safe custody pending their disposition as determined in accordance with Annex 13.

I also question the paragraph reference ‘3.6.3.4.2.2’ (or any of the para references for that matter) and what on earth the correlation is to the applicable ICAO reference.[Image: pukey.gif][Image: pukey.gif]

Note: Just out of interest I decided to explore our ANZAC ‘brothers in arms’ over the ditch and how they sort out compliance with the ICAO Annexes, in particular Annex 6. Here is what I found ‘Click Here’.

Very user friendly they even have a web page devoted to ICAO Compliance……yet another tick for the Kiwi system![Image: eusa_clap.gif]

Anyway back to the FF promised actions and implementation dates…

2) “Address issue during CASR Part 91 drafting and development”…by 31 December 2008…hmm got a feeling this is heading for another FF crevasse but I could be wrong??

Ah that would be a no and also answers this proposed action by FF… 3) “Develop and promulgate CASR Part 91” by 31 December 2009!

So the jury is out but my bet is on a majority vote of 12 on this NCN![Image: eusa_naughty.gif]

Doin a Sundy arvo Kelpie![Image: evil.gif]

This post was part of a series of posts where we were climbing the ICAO notified differences - Mount Non-compliance... Confused (Ps Ironically since then, unlike most Mountains in the world, Mount NCN has grown to 3116 NCNs & 318 pages...UDB!) 

This series culminated ( I think??) in the following post:
Quote:“The future conundrum of Annex 19”
Started a review of the proposed Annex 19 but first a quote from PAIN post #1696 , which is particularly pertinent…

“The proposed ICAO Annex 19, is designed, in part, to assist less fortunate countries achieve compliance with ICAO benchmarks. The Australia - ICAO final report on Safety Oversight Audit of Australia (Feb 2008) released January 2009 provides an excellent starting point for comparison.

There is ever a widening gap between ICAO and the existing Australian version. Annex 19 is about to make that gap almost too large to span. The issues need to be addressed, urgently and properly if Australia is to retain a tenuous hold on its current classification.”

So to the review and warning this is a long post![Image: evil.gif]

From Page 19 of Annex 19:

Quote:3.1.2 The acceptable level of safety performance to be achieved shall be established by the State.


Note.— An acceptable level of safety performance for the State can be demonstrated through the implementation and maintenance of the SSP as well as safety performance indicators and targets showing that safety is effectively managed, built on the foundation of implementation of existing safety-related SARPs.
 

This means both FF and ATSBeaker will have to define what are acceptable levels of safety for different types of aviation and how they will measure those levels, probably with leading and lagging safety indicators. That way, all parties will know what they're being judged against, and FF will be called to account if (as is the norm) they launch an original punitive frolic.[Image: eusa_naughty.gif]

From page 26 (my bold):
Quote:3.3 The State shall ensure that inspectors are provided with guidance that addresses ethics, personal conduct and the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest in the performance of official duties.

Well, well Houston we may have a problem?? Not very accommodating for all those imbedded sociopaths like Wodger and that camp guy ‘Bull’.[Image: sowee.gif]

Then there is page 27 which is headed ‘Resolution of safety issues’(my bold):

Quote:8.1 The State shall use a documented process to take appropriate corrective actions, up to and including enforcement measures, to resolve identified safety issues.


8.2 The State shall ensure that identified safety issues are resolved in a timely manner through a system which monitors and records progress, including actions taken by service providers in resolving such issues.

It also looks like the 'gotcha loopholes' in the EM, SM (and presumably IM) may have to be revisited and the ‘due process’ documentation required in those docs will have to be strongly adhered to or else![Image: evil.gif]

Page 29 paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 would appear to mean that FF and ATSBeaker would have to have in place accountable managers that are answerable for compliance with documented SSP procedures. Hmm…wonder how that will go down with the FF and bureau execs currently running the shop?[Image: confused.gif]

Next on page 30 we have ‘2.1 Hazard identification’ and ‘3.1 Safety performance monitoring and measurement’, which are less immediate issues for the State service providers. However given the recent track record of blaming and flogging pilots (e.g Dom) these parts of the SSP could potentially cause some major areas of discomfort down the track.

Quoting from page 33 (my bold):
Quote:1.3 Accident and incident investigation


The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State. In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations.

Well although the bureau is supposedly ‘independent’ there is one thing that this inquiry has shown and that is the reality is an entirely different matter... “ Beaker please explain!”[Image: confused.gif]

Heading of paragraph 1.4 is ‘Enforcement Policy’, and there is enough people on here (and elsewhere..AMROBA, DK, DJ etc) that have an opinion on how that’s working out for the ‘State’, hmm..“Third Reich comes to mind!”

Page 33 and paragraph 2.1 is headed ‘Safety requirements for the service provider’s SMS’. Which again places a requirement on FF to have in place the policies/procedures to ensure transparency in administration. To ensure ICAO compliance these policies will be periodically reviewed…not sure if the Doc’s going to like that too much![Image: eusa_wall.gif]

Finally (for now at least) on page 34 we have:

Quote:3.1 Safety oversight


The State has established mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring of the eight critical elements of the safety oversight function. The State has also established mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls (requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies).
These mechanisms include inspections, audits and surveys to ensure that regulatory safety risk controls are appropriately integrated into the service provider’s SMS, that they are being practised as designed, and that the regulatory controls have the intended effect on safety risks.

Fairly long winded I know, however it would appear that FF must have in place a robust fully accountable framework for administering the SSP.

Yeah like that’s going to happen while the present numbnuts are minding the Fort??[Image: boohoo.gif]

Much more to follow me thinks! [Image: thumbs.gif]


Okay so the reason for creating this thread is to; a) kick around and review Murky's latest bollocks SSP; b) attempt to scale (ICAO) Mount Non-compliance and establish whether c) it is possible to reign in the significant growth of NCNs prior to the upcoming ICAO/FAA audit... Big Grin


MTF...P2  Tongue]]> <![CDATA[Senate Estimates.]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=37 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:47:39 +0000 Peetwo]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=37 CASA AQONs
Okay less than a week out from the Additional Estimates & we finally have the AQONs... Huh Originally the answers were supposed to be in by the 12 December '14 so why the delay?? Well on the first run through it would appear that it had nothing to do with the agencies because there is much evidence that they had their answers in well before the due date.

Example from the ATSB AQONs: 
 
Quote:Senator Xenophon asked:

   
1. Does the ATSB have a date for the Canadian TSB to complete and table its report?

a. At what stage is the investigation?

b. Has a draft report been completed?


Answer:
 
1. The Canadian TSB has advised the ATSB that they expect to release the final report by 1 December 2014.

1a. The ATSB has been advised that the report is currently undergoing the TSB’s standard final editorial and language translation processes.

1b. Yes.
 
So the blame lies either with the Department or the miniscule's office for the delaying tactics on the arrival of the AQONs... Angry
We also know that Heff & Co will be livid; see here from Budget Estimates 29 May '13 a week after the Senate AAI inquiry report was handed down:
Quote:Senator HEFFERNAN: Welcome, Mr Mrdak. I would just like to emphasise the disruption and the unfairness demonstrated—not necessarily by the department—on questions on notice. They came back, and I have no idea how long they were in the minister's office, and were received by this committee on Friday at two or three o'clock in the afternoon. Religiously and with great precision DAFF have their questions back on the given day, and we commended Minister Ludwig yesterday for that. But sadly the questions on notice from Minister Albanese's office are always late. It is unfair to the committee and, as a consequence of the late afternoon on Friday, the hardworking people in the secretariat had to work on Friday night and Saturday just to process the questions. I think that is most unreasonable. There is no strategic reason. Bugger it—the questions and the answers are the questions and the answers, and if they are on paper we ought to be entitled to see them in time to get our head around them. They can often be important issues—and I am sure that Senator Fawcett is about to raise important issues—that we need to thoroughly process in the best interests of the Australian public.

& further down

....Mr Mrdak: I very much acknowledge the point raised by Senator Heffernan on the tabling of the answers by the portfolio. Again, my apologies, Senator. The department makes every effort to meet the time frame set by the committee; I can assure you of that. We do apologise in relation to the timing of the provision of those answers.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Can you tell us when the answers were submitted by you to the minister's office?

Mr Mrdak: There were 132 questions in total, 40 taken on notice on the hearing day and 92 written questions. The department did not this time meet our requirements to get the advice to the minister as we would have liked. The first 100 draft responses were provided to the minister on 28 March. The further 32 outstanding responses were provided on 8 and 18 April, owing to some delays in getting data from us. But the minister had all of the consolidated answers by 18 April.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Senator Thistlethwaite, do you have any indication of why it took the minister from 18 April until last Friday to deal with those things?

Senator Thistlethwaite: No, I do not, Senator. Again, I can seek to take that on notice and provide you with an answer.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It would be good if you could.

Senator NASH: Can I suggest that perhaps the good senator might like to do that over the next two days for us? I am sure he is able to call the minister's office and come back to us before the end of tomorrow.

Senator Thistlethwaite: I already indicated that I would.

Senator NASH: Thank you.
  
Or if you prefer here is the video version... Wink
Now although Heff & Co in that case blamed it on the miniscule's office I strongly suspect that this time round the delay is of M&Ms doing. Why?? Well take a look at the answers to the Senator X line of questioning on Angel Flight:
Quote:Senator Xenophon asked:


I understand that CASA has put forward a discussion paper in relation to community service flights, which cover organisations like Angel Flight and so on.

1. What prompted the issuing of this paper?

2. What concerns have been raised in relation to the safety of these flights?

3. How many community service flights have been involved in incidents in the last 12 months?

4. Does CASA have a view on whether people choosing to use community service flights have a full understanding of the safety regulations such flights are required to meet?

5. Depending on the outcome of the discussion paper, is it likely to have an impact on the regulation of medical charter flights?

Answer:
 
1. The growth in the number of community service flights prompted CASA to take a proactive approach to examining future options for the appropriate level of regulatory oversight for these flights.

2. CASA determined a number of significant potential risk factors needed to be considered; including pilots with varying experience and qualification levels and the variable types of aircraft potentially involved and their maintenance standards.

3. None reported.

4. The discussion paper has appropriately raised the importance of the Australian public having a good understanding of the safety regulation of community service flights.

5. Medical charter flights are regulated separately from community service flights. The Discussion Paper did not seek to examine medical charter flights.
  
Now given that last week CASA put out a presser through the DAS Skidmore - indicating they have backed down on the NPRM Charity flight thing - wouldn't you think the miniscule's office would have got CASA's answer to reflect the good news story before releasing the AQONs to the Senate committee??
I'll be back with MTF... Tongue

   ]]> CASA AQONs
Okay less than a week out from the Additional Estimates & we finally have the AQONs... Huh Originally the answers were supposed to be in by the 12 December '14 so why the delay?? Well on the first run through it would appear that it had nothing to do with the agencies because there is much evidence that they had their answers in well before the due date.

Example from the ATSB AQONs: 
 
Quote:Senator Xenophon asked:

   
1. Does the ATSB have a date for the Canadian TSB to complete and table its report?

a. At what stage is the investigation?

b. Has a draft report been completed?


Answer:
 
1. The Canadian TSB has advised the ATSB that they expect to release the final report by 1 December 2014.

1a. The ATSB has been advised that the report is currently undergoing the TSB’s standard final editorial and language translation processes.

1b. Yes.
 
So the blame lies either with the Department or the miniscule's office for the delaying tactics on the arrival of the AQONs... Angry
We also know that Heff & Co will be livid; see here from Budget Estimates 29 May '13 a week after the Senate AAI inquiry report was handed down:
Quote:Senator HEFFERNAN: Welcome, Mr Mrdak. I would just like to emphasise the disruption and the unfairness demonstrated—not necessarily by the department—on questions on notice. They came back, and I have no idea how long they were in the minister's office, and were received by this committee on Friday at two or three o'clock in the afternoon. Religiously and with great precision DAFF have their questions back on the given day, and we commended Minister Ludwig yesterday for that. But sadly the questions on notice from Minister Albanese's office are always late. It is unfair to the committee and, as a consequence of the late afternoon on Friday, the hardworking people in the secretariat had to work on Friday night and Saturday just to process the questions. I think that is most unreasonable. There is no strategic reason. Bugger it—the questions and the answers are the questions and the answers, and if they are on paper we ought to be entitled to see them in time to get our head around them. They can often be important issues—and I am sure that Senator Fawcett is about to raise important issues—that we need to thoroughly process in the best interests of the Australian public.

& further down

....Mr Mrdak: I very much acknowledge the point raised by Senator Heffernan on the tabling of the answers by the portfolio. Again, my apologies, Senator. The department makes every effort to meet the time frame set by the committee; I can assure you of that. We do apologise in relation to the timing of the provision of those answers.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Can you tell us when the answers were submitted by you to the minister's office?

Mr Mrdak: There were 132 questions in total, 40 taken on notice on the hearing day and 92 written questions. The department did not this time meet our requirements to get the advice to the minister as we would have liked. The first 100 draft responses were provided to the minister on 28 March. The further 32 outstanding responses were provided on 8 and 18 April, owing to some delays in getting data from us. But the minister had all of the consolidated answers by 18 April.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Senator Thistlethwaite, do you have any indication of why it took the minister from 18 April until last Friday to deal with those things?

Senator Thistlethwaite: No, I do not, Senator. Again, I can seek to take that on notice and provide you with an answer.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It would be good if you could.

Senator NASH: Can I suggest that perhaps the good senator might like to do that over the next two days for us? I am sure he is able to call the minister's office and come back to us before the end of tomorrow.

Senator Thistlethwaite: I already indicated that I would.

Senator NASH: Thank you.
  
Or if you prefer here is the video version... Wink
Now although Heff & Co in that case blamed it on the miniscule's office I strongly suspect that this time round the delay is of M&Ms doing. Why?? Well take a look at the answers to the Senator X line of questioning on Angel Flight:
Quote:Senator Xenophon asked:


I understand that CASA has put forward a discussion paper in relation to community service flights, which cover organisations like Angel Flight and so on.

1. What prompted the issuing of this paper?

2. What concerns have been raised in relation to the safety of these flights?

3. How many community service flights have been involved in incidents in the last 12 months?

4. Does CASA have a view on whether people choosing to use community service flights have a full understanding of the safety regulations such flights are required to meet?

5. Depending on the outcome of the discussion paper, is it likely to have an impact on the regulation of medical charter flights?

Answer:
 
1. The growth in the number of community service flights prompted CASA to take a proactive approach to examining future options for the appropriate level of regulatory oversight for these flights.

2. CASA determined a number of significant potential risk factors needed to be considered; including pilots with varying experience and qualification levels and the variable types of aircraft potentially involved and their maintenance standards.

3. None reported.

4. The discussion paper has appropriately raised the importance of the Australian public having a good understanding of the safety regulation of community service flights.

5. Medical charter flights are regulated separately from community service flights. The Discussion Paper did not seek to examine medical charter flights.
  
Now given that last week CASA put out a presser through the DAS Skidmore - indicating they have backed down on the NPRM Charity flight thing - wouldn't you think the miniscule's office would have got CASA's answer to reflect the good news story before releasing the AQONs to the Senate committee??
I'll be back with MTF... Tongue

   ]]>