Senate Estimates - 2017-18.
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
(04-09-2018, 12:30 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
(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.




Update: Worthy comments courtesy Kaz... Wink


Quote:Kaz: The apathy towards safety within the Aviation Portfolio is frightening. Political donations and persuasions from large co-operations are far more powerful incentives than factual safety issues. 

The safety loop is not being closed, despite the "philosophy" written on each Aviation agencies websites. This has a domino effect with a negative outcome on the economics associated with Aviation, in particular, general aviation.

I too have met with Senators, DP's, MP's, written mountains of requests into aviation safety, spoken to international aviation agencies, been involved in a Senate inquiry and much more.

It's not just Dick on this mission, it is many others too, but our voices are not heard as we are not "up there"on the social/media platform
I can assure you all that the obstruction of safety is real. Copious amounts of evidence has proven this, yet it has historically fallen on deaf ears within the Government as there is no monetary benefit for the agencies. The lack of accountability, on both sides, is phenomenal and no Minister has yet faced it head on to change the practice from reactive to proactive safety.
 

Our Aviation leaders need to be pulled into line by a gutsy Minister with the balls to face the bureaucrats that rule this country. As it stands, I see our Aviation Agencies as a kind of massive law firm that spends more money annually defending itself from accountability than it does on safety and general aviation issues.

This I know to be true, and a whole lot more that is very disturbing. All facts. 

Myself and many others have been actively involved with the Senate committee that have been attempting to deal with these issues over the past 8 years.
 

It is a merry-go-round of wasting tax payers money as there are few and far between recommendations adhered to. 

Millions I would estimate...alas, FOI's can not even find that sort of information.

I have witnessed this dangerous, self-serving behaviour to be true as I have had to battle for justice after being in a horrific plane crash myself in 2009. A preventable plane crash...IF, our agencies had done what us tax payers need them to do, protect us.

To this date, NO POLICIES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN FOR INTERNATIONAL AIR AMBULANCE SAFETY BY OUR GOVERNMENT, despite an air ambulance crashing into the ocean as it ran out of fuel at night, with the patient on board, who is now dead due to complications from the crash. Not one thing has changed..and that is just the tip of this great big, corrupt iceberg parked in the offices of the department of infrastructure aviation's division. 


POLITICS AND PLANES DO NOT MIX. It's not a game of egos you fools!

Do the bloody jobs that you are elected to do.


Dick
@Len If safety is the most important consideration it clearly means that the cost of the air ticket is secondary. That would result in most country towns having no air service as un- affordable control towers and radar are installed to improve safety. This would result in more people being forced on the far less safe roads- which is happening now!


Tim
 
I have watched , with despair , the gutting of my passion and livelyhood by successive governments for the last thirty years . The rudd/gillard/rudd years were the worst but the rot started before that .

I am now , prematurely retired and will be needing a part pension because these mongrels ripped my ability to function profitably to shreds so providing for my retirement was ripped away . In 45 years in this industry I saw what should have been a burgeoning general aviation seector turn into a shadow of itself . The majority of flying hours now seem to be concentrated in a few vertically intergrated flying schools with fifo students and staff with very little benefit to local communities and even their lives are made difficult .

Safety has always been a priority for us in this industry whereas red tape is the focus of government oversight . The benefit to the industry is non existent and the apparent improvements track almost precisley the recuction in hours . No benefit and scorched earth has been the result .


 
Kenneth

As a pilot and business owner in this sector I can tell you that unless the changes promised by Mr Joyce do not happen quickly there will be no general aviation industry in Australia shortly. Once again government intervention and over regulation has killed another once great Australian industry and this under a supposedly business friendly government. In fact the Libs have lost the plot and look more Labor and the Greens every day.


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Full steam Skipper? – not yet; but soon.

Here's your 'one' for today Rex, chew on this. - Back in the day, some chap with a beard and a walking ‘staff’ came down off some godforsaken mountain with a couple of stone tablets. Ten simple rules – that was all, the god de jure reckoned that was plenty of rules to see the world right and keep things on the square, the straight and the narrow. The quote below ain’t eloquent or even well drafted – but it does, much like the stone tablets, set down ten good guidelines for a starting off place – along the road to true reform. “We’ the people who pay for the politicians salaries, perks, little fiddles and general fiscal well being are becoming just a tad weary of the way things are done; or to be precise – ain’t done. The bloody aviation industry is in a hell of a state – a mess – simply because the politicians can’t get off their well fed beam ends and read the words below. What they scared of? The ‘Safety Boogie-man’? Well they should be – he was invented for the control of gutless, inutile, self serving, greedy useless bastards – by the agencies the politicians built to cover their sorry arse ends. Shame on the whole lot of you. One of the very few ‘dinkum’ things Australia had was the pride taken in providing aviation excellence. No longer – Reform the Act, rebuild ATSB and CASA, copy the FAA regulations; but above all – man up, grow a set. You take the money, kudos and pension don’t you? Well do the job properly, with a good heart or piss off back to the sheltered workshop that spawned you.

1. A regulation rewrite by a government body that has taken decades longer than anticipated and is still ongoing (and NZ who did similar achieved and implemented decades faster). At what cost? To achieve not a simpler system but a more arcane one.

2. An aviation industry that is struggling to survive. Closures of maintenance, charter and training organizations across the country. Loss of facilities, skills, corporate knowledge. Loss of public benefit that having a viable GA industry provides.

3. A shortage of pilots in the airlines. Australian flying schools disappearing and talk of having to get overseas pilots to fill vacancies because we are not able to train our own. We used to train not just our own pilots but large numbers of overseas pilots.

4. Regional aviation industries, jobs and services disappearing. Higher costs to regional residents for transport and closures of local business and loss of employers.

5. The body responsible for overseeing the industry keeps growing larger and is imposing more and more onerous restrictions on the industry and there is much doubt within the industry about the actual safety value of those restrictions.

6. Huge antipathy and distrust between the regulatory body and the industry it serves.

7. An industry in crisis that wants a regulatory body that includes in its charter some responsibility for assisting maintain the viability of the industry it serves instead of its current narrow focus on imposing regulation without any need to consider the practical impact of those regulations on the viability of the industry.

8. An industry whose health and viability depends on maintaining a high level of safety but that feels it is having onerous and often poorly thought out regulations imposed on it that are not so much about practical safety outcomes as the appearance and ease of enforcement by the regulator.

9. Governments over decades that have washed their hands and allowed the regulator to continue to act without regard for the viability of the industry because they are too scared to make decisions that may impact safety (or the perception of safety).


10 Handing over of commonwealth aviation assets that have served a vital role in the aviation industry (and its benefit to the community) to private hands who then develop and those assets to maximise their profits in ways that reduce or remove aviation from the facility.



Reply
I would, very much, like to remind the lawyers, journalists and other alternate ‘lifestyle’ wannabe politicians of the very real  roots of aviation excellence, paid for in blood, and the type of men and women who by paying a bitter price, made it so, guided by real leadership, and a simple, fundamental will to make this a better world – not a trough of plenty for the few.



Reply
THE TURD IS STILL BEING POLISHED......

Unfuckingbelievable! So I do a stint working within the bowels of ICAO Montreal and spend the good part of a year shredding CAsA audit reports, destroying photos of the Screaming Skull dancing naked in his apple catchers on the flight deck of a CX plane, and I spend the past 3 months trying to hide the fact that I am actually the father of the baby gestating in the womb of Barnaby’s girlfriend - only to hear that McCormack (yes, almost a Screaming Skull but not quite) has beaten down Dick and reneged on Barnfind’s promise!! All these magical political hands massaging the aviation turd to no avail. SHAME SHAME SHAME. Mr McCormack you pathetic weasel - we are watching you. As you fail the Australian aviation public just as your predecessors did we will be highlighting, spotlighting and displaying your ineptitude. With a Federal election on the cards within the next 12 months you are taking a big risk by banging nails into the aviation coffin.

Oh honorable Minister, if you think Barnfind and Cancer Head Truss copped some shit well then you better hold on to your britches bitch cos you ain’t seen nothing yet. TICK TOCK

With love
The Gobbledock
Reply
(04-11-2018, 10:05 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: THE TURD IS STILL BEING POLISHED......

Unfuckingbelievable! So I do a stint working within the bowels of ICAO Montreal and spend the good part of a year shredding CAsA audit reports, destroying photos of the Screaming Skull dancing naked in his apple catchers on the flight deck of a CX plane, and I spend the past 3 months trying to hide the fact that I am actually the father of the baby gestating in the womb of Barnaby’s girlfriend - only to hear that McCormack (yes, almost a Screaming Skull but not quite) has beaten down Dick and reneged on Barnfind’s promise!! All these magical political hands massaging the aviation turd to no avail. SHAME SHAME SHAME. Mr McCormack you pathetic weasel - we are watching you. As you fail the Australian aviation public just as your predecessors did we will be highlighting, spotlighting and displaying your ineptitude. With a Federal election on the cards within the next 12 months you are taking a big risk by banging nails into the aviation coffin.

Oh honorable Minister, if you think Barnfind and Cancer Head Truss copped some shit well then you better hold on to your britches bitch cos you ain’t seen nothing yet. TICK TOCK

With love
The Gobbledock

Where'ya'bin Gobbles? Luv your style and great timing it seems we have another miniscule bunfight on our hands... Tongue



[Image: 181b2ecb9259f5fac900f901039c1462]

The Australian
McCormack faces aviation dogfight. Deputy PM Michael McCormack in Townsville. Picture: Alix Sweeney

McCormack faces aviation dogfight

Australia’s general aviation ­industry will campaign against Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack in his electorate, potentially even standing a candidate against him, if he fails to endorse regulatory reform.

The Aircraft Owners and ­Pilots Association yesterday told The Australian it would set up a campaign office in Wagga Wagga, in Mr McCormack’s Riverina electorate, and consider running a candidate, if he failed to commit to changes to the Civil Aviation Act.

“The general aviation industry is in a perilous situation,” AOPA chief executive Ben Morgan said. “For the minister to come out and say he needs time (to consider reform) … is almost laughable. The Nationals have had carriage of the transport portfolio for many years.

“If our minister is not going to listen, I wonder if the people of Wagga would be prepared to have a conversation. We may even need to consider putting candidates forward (in Riverina and other electorates) … to see that these issues are resolved.”

AOPA, which represents thousands of pilots and business owners in general aviation across the country, is backing changes to the act negotiated by former civil aviation safety chief Dick Smith. Mr Smith in February revealed he had found consensus on amendments that then-deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and Labor’s ­Anthony Albanese both indicated they could support.

These would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to ­operate in a manner that recognised the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”, as well as the “highest level of safety in air navigation”. Many in general aviation, which includes charter, air emergency, pilot training and agricultural operations, believe the act’s current requirement on CASA to “regard safety as the most important consideration” has led to a tangle of costly, needless regulation.

Mr McCormack, who succeeded Mr Joyce on February 26, this week declined to endorse the Smith changes.

But yesterday Mr McCormack said he was happy to meet AOPA to discuss its concerns and reform ideas. “The deputy PM is certainly open to reform, after due consideration is given to any proposals put forward,” his spokesman said. “Reform such as this takes time to ensure everyone’s views are considered and to ensure there are no unintended consequences.”

CASA argues it already considers the financial impact of its regulations, but the issue is gaining traction nationally, with a Senate inquiry taking evidence about the impact of regulation on regional aviation costs.

Inquiry member XNT senator Rex Patrick called for urgent action to tackle the “cost of CASA” and produced CASA data showing revenue from its regulatory service fees rose from $2.9m in 2000 to $13.9m in 2017.

CASA’s staff ballooned from 621 in 2007 to 830 in 2017, while its operating budget rose from $129m to $180m over the same period. “Something has to change,’’ Senator Patrick said.

Mr Morgan said the decline in general aviation was undeniable, with 25 per cent of the fleet of 2993 aircraft not in use. 




Good to see your back and the key to the Tim Tam cupboard is in the mail... Wink


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
BRING ON THE CAMPAIGN TO OUST MCCORMACK AND EVERY OTHER OBSFUCATING LNP ARSECLOWN.

Thank you P2, it’s good to be back! I don’t yet feel as if I’ve earned that prized AuntyPru possession ‘the key to the Tim Tam cupboard’. Plus I’ve put on 20 kg’s from eating caviar, truffles and lobster while swilling champagne while working as a bloated bureaucrat at the ICAO Montreal precipice of Aviation luxury !

Down to business. Ben Morgan is a trooper. A champion. And he has more hair on his balls than any limp wristed politician will ever have. AOPA mean business. I can’t wait to see the AOPA campaign bus complete with anti McCormack slogans pull up behind every event that McCormack attends in his electorate as he pork barrels his way to what will be an election thrashing anyway. Hopefully the media will have a field day. And placing candidates in the electorates of these current muppets is a great idea that will
be very well supported. McCormack has drawn first blood so war it is.

You know, it’s strange how in a supposed robust Western democracy such as Australia, a country in which Turdball purports that there couldn’t be a better time to be alive, we have Aviation business and individuals dying in droves, pensioners starving, unaffordable health care and low wages, all of this while our Government gives billions away in foreign aid and drops $650k bombs on Afghanistan.

TICK TOCK LNP. ‘Unsafe seats for all’.
Reply
Comments in reply to the invisible DPM Oz article - Rolleyes

1st from Sandy... Wink


Quote:Alexander - The dam wall will burst soon and all over the Nats who have allowed Can’tberra bureaucracy to get away with blue murder for years. CASA was set up 30 years ago as an independent Commonwealth corporate, to neatly avoid Ministerial responsibility and to charge fees for ‘service.’ Its priority was to rewrite the rules, its still not finished, and never will until Parliament wakes up. CASA always cries “safety,” like crying “wolf,” maybe now that the public is becoming aware we will see some action. Thanks much to the Oz.

Meanwhile yippee, a salary factory make work program untrammelled by any rational constraints resulting in a devastated General Aviation industry. Devasted by fee gouging, fees for all sorts of unnecessary permissions none of which needed in other jurisdictions, such as the US which arguably has a better safety record. Unworkable rules that require new staffing positions, CASA approved persons, which is sending businesses broke and denying flying services, training charter and scheduled, to rural areas.

Mr McCormack we are up to HERE with consultations, reviews, discussions, Parliamentary investigations, Minister commissioned reports, Darren Do Nothing Chester BITRE report and waffle.

The independent corporate CASA is the most wasteful entity in Canberra, a failed model of governance that has cost GDP and loss of tax revenue far in excess of its fees gouged from a shrinking GA industry. We even have got to find airline pilots from overseas, how mad is that! Alex in the Rises


& fm George :

The Ministers take advice from their bureaucrats who always seem to get their way. If it is not in the interests of the current departmental/bureaucratic policy, it won't happen. The more regulations and red tape, the more bureaucrats are needed to administer it, meaning bigger budgets and more staff all of whom have a vested interest in making regulations where non existed and where none are needed, to keep their sweet pie expanding.

& in reply Leonard:

You are right about the bureaucrats George. Remember CASA's unofficial policy, "We are not happy until you are unhappy".

& fm Peter:

This Mc Cormack will tread slowly like a tortoise. It sounds like CASA needs som cutting of staff, trimming of useless regulation and a refocus on safety. The senate inquiry should force some of the changes required. Conservatives by nature will be like dynamic inertia in the face of change. That's why they have the label Conservative

Just a short reminder that the present invisible, 'do nothing' DPM just so happened to make this 'luv speech' pitch to the Chairman of REX on the airlines 10th Anniversary; a week after the PelAir inquiry motion was passed in the Senate; and in the same year that REX donated 96K and 250K to the NATS and Labor respectively... Dodgy  

http://www.rex.com.au/NewspaperClip/Matt...k%20MP.pdf



[Image: 1211_201208Sep_4173.jpg]

Mr McCORMACK  (Riverina) (19:20): Regional Express Airlines celebrated a tremendous milestone in aviation the weekend before last. The company commemorated its first 10 years with an open day and a gala dinner in its home base of Wagga Wagga. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals were there to mark this auspicious occasion. Rex Airlines was born in troubled times. Just three days after those terrible events of 9-11, Air New Zealand, owner of Ansett Australia, could no longer support the haemorrhaging of funds at Ansett and grounded the airline. Ansett was placed into voluntary administration with PricewaterhouseCoopers. With the stroke of a pen, 16,000 jobs were lost and many more placed in jeopardy.

Hazelton and Kendell Airlines, traditional solid country carriers, were caught up in the maelstrom and, through no fault of their own, went under too. But there were those who believed; there were those who tried to resurrect what they could from the collapse. The former member for Riverina, Kay Hull, was one of them. She saw what a disaster it was for a city the size of Wagga Wagga not to have capital city air services, and she acted.

The then Deputy Prime Minister, Nationals Leader and Minister for Transport and Regional Development, John Anderson, listened and responded. He came to Wagga Wagga and advised a worried group of Kendell staff members that they would get their entitlements. To this, a heavily pregnant Amanda Myers—whose husband, Jason, was a pilot with Kendell and, happily, still is a pilot with Rex—called out: 'We don't want our entitlements. Put our money into getting our airline into the sky again!' Gravely ill Don Kendell was at that meeting. It would have broken his heart to see the airline he built on a wing and a prayer fail in his dying days. Don was promised that the region's air services, to which he dedicated his life, would be rescued, and thankfully that has happened.

Singaporean investor Lim Kim Hai was generous enough to put up his money and Rex took to the air on 2 August 2002, with 21 Saab 340 aircraft and seven Metroliner 23 aircraft. Kim Hai and Lee Thian Soo were the two largest founding shareholders. They initially intended being passive investors, but Rex became something of a passion for them. They saw the commitment of the staff, the dedication of the people who strove to make the airline succeed, and they reinvested heavily when Rex lost $30 million in its first financial year.

Lim and Lee then took up the challenge of running an airline, even though they had no experience in this field.

They flew in for a week every month to oversee all aspects of the operations and they dug deep to help keep Rex flying. The recovery was, as the recently published, beautifully presented hard-bound book detailing Rex's first decade recounts, 'slow and painful' but, at the end of the first year under their leadership, the company made a profit of $1 million. Since then Rex has made a profit each and every year and, in its 10th anniversary year, the Rex Group made more than $35 million profit before tax, with accumulated PBT of more than $213 million under their stewardship.  

At the end of the first 10 years Rex now has 35 ports in its network, 51 Saab 340 aircraft, 95 aircraft in the Rex Group and 1,059 staff members. Pilots have spent 60,000 hours in the simulator and there have been 575,756 take-offs and landings—that is a lot of hostess safety instructions—with 11,300,250 passengers. All up, Rex planes have flown 196,675,217 kilometres, equivalent to 255 trips to the moon and back, and have used 327,953,572 litres of fuel.

I am pleased to report that it was announced just yesterday that Rex has been ranked the best domestic airline for customer satisfaction for the month of July 2012 in the Roy Morgan Customer Satisfaction Awards. Rex received an 88 per cent satisfaction rating in the surveys conducted by Roy Morgan, one of Australia's leading research companies.  

I congratulate all involved in Rex and particularly some of those key figures, who, as well as those mentioned, have helped make the company what it is today: Director Jim Davis; General Manager Engineering, Dale Hall; Executive Director, Chris Hine; General Manager Network Strategy and Sales, Warrick Lodge; 'Jack of all Trades' Warren O'Halloran, whose combined years with Rex and Kendell total more than 40 years; Deputy Chairman John Sharp; and Rex Chief Operating Officer, Garry Filmer.  

Rex is also training pilots of the future at its state-of-the-art Australian Airline Pilot Academy in the aptly named Don Kendell Drive at Wagga Wagga Airport.

Aviation is a volatile industry. I am confident, however, that Rex, with committed owners, diligent flight crew and ground staff and the spirit of Don Kendell and Max Hazelton in its wings, will have clear runways and blue skies for many more years to come.







Coincidence? - Yeah right and 'pigs might fly'!  Angry  

[Image: pigs-might-fly.jpg]

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
IF PONY POOH COULD FLY

Wow, what a wonderful opposition Minister that McDo’nothing was. All touchy-feely, supporting poor REX, being an outspoken advocate for all matters Aviation! So what went wrong? Tsk tsk today he is now Minister for all things including Aviation and oh how the tables have turned. A good-for-nothing muppet sitting on two thumbs and firmly pressing the obsfucation button.

I wonder if McDo’nothing will host a gala ball at Parlousment House in a few months time celebrating the 30th anniversary of Australian Aviation Regulatory Reform? That’s right, the year before Rhode Island scholar and crusty old dingbat Bob Hawke jammed a monumental pineapple up the Australian pilots during the 89 debacle. 30 years and half a billion dollars later and what have we got to show - a bloated regulatory bureaucracy and decimated industry.

Mr McCormack (the word ‘honorable’ quite simply cannot be used) you are a political pustule on the buttocks of aviation. It’s time for you to sit down, shut up, and listen to industry. Your political future and unstoppable gravy train depends on it. Tick Tock Miniscule, Tick Tock.
Reply
Dick Smith/AOPA Oz/IOS vs McCormack update - Rolleyes

Via the Daily Advertiser:


April 13 2018 - 3:43PM

Dick Smith is backing aviators’ fight against Michael McCormack
  • Jody Lindbeck

[Image: r0_0_3397_2461_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
Millionaire aviator Dick Smith on a previous visit to Wagga.

Millionaire aviator Dick Smith is helping to bring an industry battle right to the doorstep of Member for Riverina, Michael McCormack.

Mr Smith has committed to being in Wagga for a fly-in rally which is being organised by pilots, who say their industry is being destroyed by delays in a planned overhaul of aviation safety legislation.

Mr McCormack took over the aviation portfolio when he replaced former Nationals Party Barnaby Joyce in February.

Aircraft Owners and ­Pilots Association (AOPA) chief executive Ben Morgan said his organisation wanted Mr McCormack to commit to changes to the Civil Aviation Act, which had been agreed to by Mr Joyce and Labor’s Anthony Albanese.

According to the AOPA, Mr McCormack has not yet agreed to these changes and was instead in favour of more consultation.

Mr Smith is also pushing to have Mr McCormack honour the previous Joyce-Albanese agreement.

The crux of the issue is that the current legislation requires the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to “regard safety as the most important consideration”.

The previously agreed amendments would ask that weight be given to the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”, as well as the “highest level of safety in air navigation”, AOPA says.

“Basically, our general industry is nearly destroyed,” Mr Smith told The Daily Advertiser.

The pressure is already being applied with an AOPA campaign bus visiting Wagga and Deniliquin over the weekend.

“The general aviation industry is in a perilous situation,” Mr Morgan said.

“The Nationals have had carriage of the transport portfolio for many years. For the minister to come out and say he needs time is almost laughable. 

“If our minister is not going to listen, I wonder if the people of Wagga would be prepared to have a conversation?”

Earlier this week, Mr Morgan floated the possibility of the general aviation industry running a candidate against Mr McCormack in the next federal election.

He is already on the lookout for a retail space that will serve as an unofficial campaign headquarters and a “hangout” for people who want to know more about aviation.
Mr McCormack has been approached for additional comment.


And via Oz Flying today... Wink



[Image: Ben_Morgan-2.jpg]AOPA Australia CEO Ben Morgan. (Steve Hitchen)

AOPA to open Wagga Wagga Office
13 April 2018

AOPA Australia will open a campaign office in Wagga Wagga to take the fight for general aviation reform to the general public.

Wagga Wagga is in the electorate of Riverina, currently held by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack.

According to AOPA CEO Ben Morgan, the idea behind the field office is to recruit the people of Riverina to help lobby McCormack to make positive decisions to reform general aviation.
"This is now the battle for general aviation," Morgan told Australian Flying. "This is now the moment in time that we've been working for over the past 30 years. The industry has got to the point where its making a decision that we're making no ground, no progress towards meaningful reform and we have one option. If you can't get the minister to make a decision, if you can't get the minister's attention, the only other choice is to prosecute the argument to the people and let them decide the types of decisions that need to be made.

"The entire general aviation industry is at near-peak frustration. Decades have passed, associations have spent years lobbying government, lobbying CASA, lobbying ministers, and unfortunately we're having the same discussion we were having 20 years ago.

"AOPA's decision to come out and announce that we would set up a campaign office and take the fight to the electorate of Riverina is a direct reflection of the fact that we need to see action. We need to see political leadership, decision-making and support for the thousands of ordinary Australians who are working hard and are relying on general aviation to put food on the table, put their kids in school, to put rooves over their heads and have a superannuation fund available when they retire."

Morgan said he expected to be in Wagga Wagga this afternoon to meet with media and call for real estate agents to come forward with proposals for an AOPA office, which Morgan wanted to be large enough for the association to engage with the local membership and run events in the area.

Morgan said funding for the new office was to come from sponsors within the general aviation industry and a financial plan was currently being developed.

The Wagga Wagga office is part of a plan to always have an AOPA office in the electorate of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and AOPA is seeking terms that would give them the flexibility to relocate the office to other electorates should the minister be changed.

"It will be a challenge," Morgan said, "and given the number of ministers we've had over the past couple of years and the instability there's a high likelihood we could end up with another minister in another electorate. The purpose is to demonstrate to the government that AOPA believe it is vital that we have field office location that is always in the transport minister's electorate.

"Although it's a frustrating decision, it's a very sensible and measured decision."

Morgan was very quick to quash suggestions that the concept of having a presence in the minister's electorate was an aggressive move designed to hamper the minister in his efforts to get re-elected in next year's federal election and said that the idea was to maintain direct lines of communication to the minister.

"The whole idea is not to go there to create upset, it's not to go there and trash the minister, it's to go there and have the conversation with the people in the electorate of Riverina and have those people start to encourage their representative, who is in charge of aviation, to make the responsible decision," he said.

Morgan also said that it would actually be beneficial to the general aviation industry to see McCormack stay in the portfolio for an extended period.

"AOPA would like nothing more than to have some stability in the Minister for Transport that will give us the opportunity to get on with the task of getting these problems fixed. We need to support that, and AOPA is absolutely ready to work with the Deputy Prime Minister.

"We are fully committed to providing every resource we can to assist the Deputy Prime Minister to achieve the reforms and outcomes that are necessary to get this industry going."

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...8lUkmPu.99



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Read ‘em and weep – ABC and ‘The Land’. Then consider…Real Australians...(not city folks).

[Image: 9640646-3x2-700x467.jpg]

A wise man once said -

I’d rather have ‘a-bottle-in-front-of-me’ than a frontal lobotomy. It sounds furry muff, unless you happen to be a minister of the crown. Seems that then, there is no option but to submit to the induction process. I mean what is it with these ‘ministerial types’? They go in there one assumes, fairly compos mentis –as in they can at least tie their boot-laces; and capable of at least basic, reading, writing and comprehension of same. So what happens after?

Look at the heartbreak about to be inflicted on the population of Far North Queensland (FNQ) and the Territory with regard to air routes, air fares and supporting infrastructure. This, without we even venture close to ‘control’ without subsidy – and who is Goanna is to pay for that? (Silly question really).

For those innocent, honest hopefuls  in FNQ and the NT; purely as a humanitarian gesture, I shall tell you exactly what will happen after this expensive, time consuming effort – SFA is what; now, get used to that notion. This ‘Senate inquiry’ and any recommendations issuing, will be treated as an opinion by the regulator, by the airlines and anyone else who wishes to take the Mickey out of a Senate inquiry. ‘Tis true – evidence out the Ying Yang to support.

They will listen to your arguments, speak softly of your pain and make you believe – absolutely; that something will be done. In truth, something will be done – over the next two or perhaps three years, they will ask many questions. Those questioned will, eventually send  the answers to questions ‘on notice’ – after taking quite a long while to provide ‘non answers’ which, in the meantime, Senators being ‘busy’ will be accepted, without challenge. At the end of it all, the believers will be ‘disappointed’ that the good guy Senators tried to change things; but - Etc Etc.

It is cynical and dishonest to let good folk believe things will change, when they never do.

It is cynical and dishonest to let good folk believe that anything they say or spend hours writing matters, when it just don’t signify.

It is cynical and dishonest to let good folk believe that the significant amounts of money paid out for these ‘inquires’ will ever lead to a meaningful outcome, when they never have, nor never will.

Never has; nor, never will this pantomime which has been running and publically funded for thirty odd years now ever produce an outcome. The bureaucrats are running the joint – with ministerial permission in place of ministerial responsibility (at the same rate of pay by the way). Neither the Senators or government have any control over ‘matters aeronautical’; they simply do not, having abrogated it to ‘the departments’ (at the same rate of pay).  

The really bad bit is they want the voters to believe they do. You see, before they lost control (gave it away for fear of taking responsibility) they could actually ‘do something’. Now they just make the right noises, take the money (big money for an inquiry); issue their recommendations, then bugger off to the pub – job done. All at tax and air fare payers expense; you don’t think they paid their travel, meal and accommodation allowance, as you did -  do you? (Tell me that ain't true).

One of the more cruel deceptions is that if the Senate actually grew a set and got CASA under control – small, regional air services could, once again, flourish. A Dash service from Isa to Bris, via Charleville; operationally easiology, financially do-able – but with Qantas opposition and CASA reluctance = mission impossible – these days. Used to be do-able – when governments actually governed the public service. This is no longer the case.

Not to worry – be happy that O’Sullivan has made more on this tour than any poor sod, on the land, trying to get his kids to school will in the next year of drought, flood, fire and pestilence. Don’t blame me: I just exist here – I don’t run the joint.

Ah!- Bugger it all –[whistle] – two more here – I have a great need of solace….Liquefied? But of course.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)