Senate Estimates - 2017-18.
“QANTAS boss Alan Joyce says Moranbah residents should just drive to Mackay or Rockhampton if they want cheap flights”.

This pretty much sums up the attitude of the airlines towards airports, and on this occasion it’s the CEO of Rainbow Airways taking a shot at a local community. The Moranbah community is being gouged, and it started when Virgin pulled out. A familiar story Australia wide when one carrier takes a monopoly over an airport. What the arrogant little Irish mincer doesn’t realise is that not every person who resides in Moranbah is a rich Miner. General businesses are trying to survive there, people fly to Brisbane for health services and the list goes on. Joyce’s comments reflect the disgusting profiteering attitude that this little gnome has thrust upon Australia. F#ck him.

Article below;

https://m.themorningbulletin.com.au/news...r/3359965/
Reply
Update II - Dick Smith/AOPA Oz/IOS vs McCormack

(04-13-2018, 06:38 PM)Peetwo Wrote: 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...

Also via the Wagga Daily Advertiser:


April 15 2018 - 10:00PM
Wagga City Aero Club president backs federal election candidate as 'huge step' towards industry reform
  • Lachlan Grey and Jody Lindbeck

[Image: r0_101_2272_1378_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
SUPPORT: Aviators are calling for change and will consider running a Riverina candidate in the 2020 federal election.

Wagga City Aero Club has backed calls to run an aviation-focused candidate against Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Riverina Michael McCormack in the upcoming 2020 federal election.

It follows a sensational attack on the Nationals leader from aviation circles.

Both the Australian Aircraft Owners and ­Pilots Association and millionaire advocate Dick Smith spoke in favour of industry reform on Friday, challenging Mr McCormack to commit to changes to the Civil Aviation Act, which had been agreed to by former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and Labor’s Anthony Albanese.

A spokesperson for Mr McCormack said he was “open to reform”, but argued reform “such as this takes time”.

This response was branded “laughable” by AOPA president Ben Morgan, who floated the possibility of running a candidate in the Riverina electorate.

Challenging the Deputy Prime Minister on home turf seems a tough proposition, but WCAC president Geoff Breust believes it’s a “huge step” towards positive reform.

“It’s a big call to run against Mr McCormack but I think it’s a significant reflection of how the industry is feeling. We see a disconnect between the overall needs of our industry and the actions of the federal government,” he said.

Mr Breust said frustration had been building among pilots and industry members given the National Party’s affiliation with rural communities.

“Small aviation businesses are really struggling … and those are the businesses that the Nationals should be fighting for,” he said.

“Pilot schools, engineer programs and smaller pilots in rural areas are typically National voters but they’re not being looked after in this case.”


Short interlude - Rolleyes

Also for those remotely interested in the progress of the Senate Air routes inquiry here are the Hansard transcripts available so far:

Quote:03 Apr 2018 Broome, WA (HTML & PDF)

04 Apr 2018 Alice Springs, NT (HTML & PDF)

05 Apr 2018 Darwin, NT (HTML & PDF)

10 Apr 2018 Longreach, QLD (HTML & PDF)
   
Next - Wink

It looks like Senator Rex 'gets it' and may well be on his way back from the AP 'Hall of Shame':

Political Turbulence Exacerbates General Aviation's Bumpy Ride: Urgent Action Required On CASA Over-regulation
12 APRIL 2018
Claims by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Michael McCormack, that he will take his time to consider desperately needed reforms to General Aviation’s regulatory burden hides the real reason for the delay. 

“Inaction on mounting and calls for aviation regulation reform stems from the series of politicians flying through the Minister for Transport’s office”, said Senator Rex Patrick. “It’s busier than the Sydney-Melbourne air route, with Darren Chester being replaced by Barnaby Joyce who in turn has been replaced by Michael McCormack. 

“Any ministerial change causes delay. Minister McCormack is still trying to get his wings while the General Aviation that he’s responsible for is headed for a crash landing. An urgent change in flight path is needed."

The health of General Aviation has been in major decline over the past decade. Pilot numbers are falling, as are the number of small aircraft registrations. At the same time CASA’s staff numbers have gone from 621 in 2006/07 to 830 in 2016/17 and their operating budget has gone from $129 million to $180 million.
 
“Something has to change and quickly,” said Rex. “I am in absolute agreement with Dick Smith on this - we have to have a more pragmatic approach.

”Other jurisdictions provide a safe operating framework whilst having regard to the need for a healthy industry. We can and must do something here to arrest the decline in General Aviation - it’s a critical part of services to the regional areas.

“Right now we have pilots focusing so much on regulation they are distracted from doing what they are supposed to be doing - flying the plane safely.”

The ‘Cost of CASA’ has featured in submissions to a Senate Inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities. The Committee held hearings in Broome, Darwin and Alice Springs last week and in north-west Queensland this week (Longreach on Tuesday, Winton on Wednesday and Cloncurry today). A number of witnesses giving evidence to the Commitee have indicated that a shortage of pilots in regional areas is adding to the cost of regular public transport airfares. The Mayor of Cloncurry provided evidence at today’s hearing that they used to have a charter operator base out of their airport but this is no longer the case.

"General Aviation is the breeding ground for pilots. As General Aviation has been declining, so too have the number of freshly trained pilots entering the system," said Rex.

“Right now CASA seems to be taking a position that the best way to ensure there are no accidents in General Aviation is to make sure the cost of regulatory compliance is so high that planes just don't take off."

https://rex.nxtmps.org.au/media/releases...egulation/



Trouble is he is one voice in a committee that has a troubling record of very little impact on reforming a deeply entrenched aviation safety bureaucracy, which has been ably supported (for 30+ years) by a series of indifferent and ignorant Government Ministers responsible for aviation... Dodgy
 

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Its great to hear from Senator Rex Patrick. The realities of life and what is so obvious to anyone who cares to look at the disastrous effect of a runaway bureaucracy on rural General Aviation will come to the same conclusion.

And while the most direct disadvantage is plain, and keenly felt in the bush, there is a huge loss of GA businesses in the cities. In the Bankstowns and Moorabbins used to be all the specialists thriving in competition. At Moorabbin there used to be at least 4 engine overhaul shops, now none.

As so it goes, prop shops, avionics, component O/H, parts suppliers and general maintenance all far reduced. The losses go further, the refueling services, aeronautical theory courses and university programs all on the wane due to the impossible government controlled environment.

A failed airports policy of no freehold and giving over airport land to unrelated development while forcing up rents is another area of detriment. Add in super expensive $300/2yr valid aviation ID card system for pilots and you start to see the disincentives lined up sufficient to dissuade all but those with unusual imperative.
The Senator is getting the message because the frustration is showing and he has listened, this is a start.
Reply
Minister Mc’do’nothing and the toffee coated turd

Mc’do’nothing has delivered the standard government toffee coated turd - lick the top off it and there is just shit underneath. By halting the minor progression that Barn’find Joyce had made Mr Mc’do’nothing has again papered over the Aviation turd in an attempt to continue the game of obsfucation. Just because Joyce put a live round into his P.A and had to step aside does not allow for Mc’do’nothings instant obsfucation of Joyce’s progress. The Minister of any portfolio is just the window dressing. Any work Joyce had progressed has been through the hands of his staff and members of PMC. Just because Joyce received a pineapple does not mean all of his previous work is null and void. That, my friends is a crock of shit!

Mc’do’nothing has poked an already agitated bear right in the anus. The fire has been lit. Fielding an Independant in his electorate will be a joy to behold. In an already toxic LNP environment I am amazed that he, and the Point Piper Ponce would be stupid enough to further enrage and already fed up and pissed off avaition industry.

Ho hum Miniscule for Aviation Obsfucation, if it’s war you want it is war you will get. Tick Tock numbnuts



Reply
Bollocks or Brains – Your call.

“Both the Australian Aircraft Owners and ¬Pilots Association and millionaire advocate Dick Smith spoke in favour of industry reform on Friday, challenging Mr McCormack to commit to changes to the Civil Aviation Act, which had been agreed to by former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and Labor’s Anthony Albanese.”

[Image: Da-HYPoW0AURFUb.jpg]

You don’t have to wonder why the industry feels a need to ‘challenge’ a DPM on home turf to drive home a point which has been repeatedly made for three decades, it is self evident. But you may be forgiven for wondering why several CASA Boards and multiple CEO’s have failed to ‘see and understand’ the need to change the Act and sort out CASA. The Board and CEO must be aware of the ‘problems’ created, gods know, there have been enough inquiries, reports, protests, calls and pleadings made for change – it ain’t exactly a new concept.

Both Joyce and Albanese will tell you the same thing, if you ask ‘em politely – aviation is not a vote winner, in fact it is a political pariah. This myth is perpetuated by both mandarins and minions – “the blood will be on your hands – leave to the experts”. Which is a bollocks of the first water. A healthy industry is tax revenue, jobs, security and good for the rural communities; with revenue generating spin offs. Yet the ‘mystique’ of aviation safety holds sway – the politicians will fearlessly go after road, rail, maritime, industry OH&S and shopper safety. They will even champion the cause for land rights for gay whales – if there’s a vote or two in it. I don’t get it – why is aviation a pariah?

“Wagga City Aero Club has backed calls to run an aviation-focused candidate against Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Riverina Michael McCormack in the upcoming 2020 federal election.”

Bollocks - Unless you can talk the inestimable Fiona Nash to run for you, McComic will pay no more heed to the challenge than he would a flea bite on his arse.

What about an alternative plan – have everyone who is  ‘aviation’ related or dependent talk to everyone they know about the disgraceful state aviation safety has been allowed to fall into, the horrendous costs to the tax payer, the placebo accident reports, the rorts, the obscene salaries – tell a single mother of two living on the dole about that and see who she votes for; tell the unemployed in the regional and rural areas about the generous allowances and little work associated with aviation oversight; tell the Councils ‘ how a thriving aviation business would help them when it comes  election time, talk to local business owners - tell 'em: one and all - they vote.

Brains - You don’t need a ‘candidate’ – you have a voice, speak up, let the people you know understand just what a mess McCormack is actively supporting and what he is denying the voting population. But most importantly of all – get Dick back on the radio and TV – he tells the story so very well, folks listen to him, he has credibility, respect and is amiable. Best advocate for Australian aviation we have. Watch and listen - as he almost convinces a Senate committee to buy the Harbour Bridge (twice).

Toot - toot....
Reply
Winton/Cloncurry Hansard; & tabled docs.

Quote:11 Apr 2018 Winton, QLD (HTML & PDF)

12 Apr 2018 Cloncurry, QLD (HTML & PDF)

It has been relayed that parts of the Winton/Cloncurry Senate Inquiry public hearings were quite confronting for the committee, with some of the witness participant frustrations boiling over.. Confused

These common frustrations from regional and remote communities was also evident in the 11 tabled documents so far:

Quote:1 [Image: pdf.png] Written submission of Ms Susan Bradley, member, Regional Development Australia – Kimberley, tabled at a public hearing in Broome, WA on 3 April 2018.
2 [Image: pdf.png] Screenshot from Facebook (April 2018) regarding flights to Alice Springs, tabled by Ms Dale McIver, Tourism Central Australia at a public hearing in Alice Springs, NT on 4 April 2018.
3 [Image: pdf.png] Profile and statistics in relation to the Central Desert Regional Council, tabled by Ms Diane Hood, CEO, at a public hearing in Alice Springs, NT on 4 April 2018.
4 [Image: pdf.png] Opening statement of Ms Ingrid Stonhill, Deputy CEO, Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, tabled at a public hearing in Darwin, NT on 5 April 2018.
5 [Image: pdf.png] Opening statement of Professor Grahame Webb, Wildlife Management International Pty Ltd, tabled at a public hearing in Darwin, NT on 5 April 2018.
6 [Image: pdf.png] Opening statement of Queensland Airports Limited, tabled at a public hearing in Longreach, Queensland on 10 April 2018.
7 [Image: pdf.png] Qantas advertisement, ‘Longreach, we are listening’, tabled by Senator Rex Patrick at a public hearing in Longreach, Queensland on 10 April 2018.
8 [Image: pdf.png] Availability of Secondary Schooling in Queensland Shires, tabled by the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association Queensland at a public hearing in Cloncurry, Queensland on 12 April 2018.
9 [Image: pdf.png] Qantas advertisement, ‘Mount Isa and Cloncurry, we are listening’, tabled by the Cloncurry Shire Council at a public hearing in Cloncurry, Queensland on 12 April 2018.
10 [Image: pdf.png] Opening statement of Mrs Danielle Doyle, Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association, tabled at a public hearing in Cloncurry, Queensland on 12 April 2018.
11 [Image: pdf.png] Opening statement of Mr Glen Graham and supporting information, Mount Isa to Townsville Economic Development Zone Inc (MITEZ), tabled at a public hearing in Cloncurry, Queensland on 12 April 2018.

Interesting exchange from the tailend of the Cloncurry public hearing... Rolleyes  

Quote:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee

12/04/2018

Operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities

BIRD, Mr Ronald, Private capacity
[13:51]
ACTING CHAIR: We've got just a few minutes if you'd like to make a comment.

Mr Bird : I'm a resident of Cloncurry and a recreational aviation pilot. I've had another person who's had a great interest in CASA, their problems, their lack of investigation to finish off accidents and other things, and all the regulations. It's reducing the number of LAMEs entering the profession, which is all part of the elbows, the fingers and everything else. It'd be good to see a reversal. I don't know if this is in your area, but it would be good to see because of CASA and its regulations—and I know that we are tied in with the FAA of the USA in trying to get international consistency. I know that 10 pilots will give 10 different opinions on the subject.

Senator PATRICK: Eleven different opinions from 10 pilots!

Mr Bird : Yes, 11 different opinions.

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

We conducted an audit of the OneSKY program. You might be familiar with that, where we are changing the platform for air traffic control. That absorbed quite an amount of this committee's energy for about 18 months. But I suspect there's nothing new you can tell us about CASA—their popularity or otherwise—and about what people see as arrogance and sometimes an abuse of power. With the ATSB there is not so much. They're in a quite respected cycle of their lives. We are alive to it all. We are contemplating week by week as to whether we'll have an inquiry. If it gets to a point where this evidence that we've called for shows us that it's critical, we'll conduct an inquiry like this and may find ourselves back in Cloncurry—or Mount Isa next time, probably—to hear evidence of its impact, particularly on rural aviation.

We can only do so much. We've got an inquiry going on with drones at the moment, hoping to see that nothing interferes in the prolific use of drones in agriculture. We want to see that it's not caught up in the Jetsons argument about drones over the cities. So we're doing a lot in this space. In fact, aviation takes up pretty well more of the efforts of this committee than the other three or four important categories it oversees. So we're alive to it.

Mr Bird : I'm fully aware that drones have changed the way things are done and all the other things that go on in aviation. But CASA is a major headache for a lot of people. It doesn't seem to be my problem up here.

ACTING CHAIR: CASA's got a new administrator, Mr Shane Carmody. He's only been there for 14 or 15 months. I think he's making a real effort. He understands that there's a perception that the culture around CASA needs a bit of a polish, and I think he's working his way through it. But don't think that we're not completely eyes wide open with respect to the issues around general aviation and particularly its impacts in the bush.

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

ACTING CHAIR: You take credit for that. You're the one who brought it up!

Senator PATRICK: See my web page!

ACTING CHAIR: With that, again, our final thanks, and we will now adjourn.

Committee adjourned at 13 : 57


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Subodiosus incommodus.

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t forget to SMS Dick or AOPA – to wish ‘em well in the wilds of Wagga Wagga. Real representation for no more cost than a text message; money well spent.

Toot - toot.
Reply
THE RETURN OF THE WET LETTUCE LEAF!!

Oh Lordy, how robust! A presser release, PLUS, a list of recommendations will go back to the Government! Somebody please contain me, the anticipation is more than a Gobbledock can bear.......

Rinse off that wet lettuce leaf boys, it’s about to get used....even Pot Plant Pete is pissing himself laughing at hearing all this same ol same ol pony pooh. Pete was a mere pot plant at his first senate inquiry and threat of action. He is now a full grown sequoia tree.

“Safe Pollywaffling empty threats for all”.
Reply
It occurs to me K that many, many years ago when a young Sprog
with a dream to become a pilot set about fulfilling that dream, they were
completely free of the cost burden imposed in the modern world
by regulatory "Compliance".

Back then, with the shadow of the second world war so fresh in everyone's mind
and the critical shortage of pilots and aviation infrastructure that weighed so heavily
on the countriy's war effort, the imperative was to train as many pilots as possible
as quickly as possible. Anyone with any sort of "Aviation" experience was drafted into
the process and created a training framework that achieved the necessary competence as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
 
After the war had ended the framework they created became the template for training
civilian pilots, who would go on to serve a rapidly growing civilian industry recognized
as an essential service, to ameliorate the tyranny of distance, promote development and
connect far flung communities. Virtually every country town with an airstrip had an air-service.

Regulatory services were largely provided free, as a public service, they still are today in the USA.In Australia, somewhere, somehow, aviation came to be viewed as un-essential and a potential cash cow both for the government and a plethora of parasitic entities to feed off.

Australia with its isolation from the "real" world and perhaps a developing inferiority complex arrogantly decided that the rest of the world was wrong and set about re-inventing the wheel. The trouble with that was, forget about essential service, forget about benefit to communities, forget about what a healthy growingindustry could contribute to the economy, everything had a cost and that cost had to be met.
 
In the USA the benefits outweighed the cost. I'm sure the costs associated with running the FAA are more than covered by the benefits aviation returns to the country. Their aviation industry thrives ours is dying.


As Australia has gone about reinventing the wheel, cost has been heaped on cost, new and inventive parasites have sprung up to add their impositions driving the downward spiral of an industry. Our inept regulator ignores the warnings and advice of industry, whilst  arrogantly pursuing their self serving agenda to the detriment of the whole country.
Someone once said "No taxation without representation" perhaps if that was modified to "No regulation without representation" Australian aviation would be in a much better position.
Reply
Subodiosus incommodus. - Part II


(04-25-2018, 07:01 AM)kharon Wrote: My Latin- through disuse – had gotten a little rusty; no matter, the rough translation is (more or less) “annoying interruptions”. Reading through the Hansard, posted above – I could not help beginning to count the O’Sofullame ‘interruptions’, they became so frequent, as to be annoying. Then tedium set in, so I quit reading and used a little computer magic to do a word count, by speaker. I’ll not bore you with the details, but, if you take out the ‘opening remarks’ made by those presenting a submission – guess who (for a Choc frog) leads the word count; and; for a bonus Choc frog, who does the most interrupting? This intrigued me, so I went after the points of ‘interruption’ in terms of crucial junctures, where critical supporting points are being made – have you guessed it - again? It was P7 who first brought these ‘oddities’ to my attention, we dismissed them as ingrained ‘style’ (and bad manners) at first; but, after some very tedious research back through the last couple of ‘Estimates’ Hansard; I am beginning to wonder if there is not an alternative motivation in play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Grin Big Grin Rolleyes Confused Blush Dodgy -  Yes that whole passage of Hansard seems extremely disjointed and out of all context with the rest of the Cloncurry proceedings... Huh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:"..We're aware of the current impacts on general aviation with new CASA regulations, the shortage of pilots and the maintenance issue with licensed aircraft maintenance engineers and the like. We as a committee have called for some figures—and I don't know if Ms Redden is in a position to update us. We want to look at comparisons with international standards. The FAA has done an audit on CASA in Australia. I understand it's going to be interesting reading. They're resisting publication of that at the moment. We're trying to muddle our way through getting that out into the open. So we're very alive, to the point where we have contemplated out loud whether we will hold an inquiry such as this into this regulatory environment—not just the operation of CASA but by extension the impact that that is having on general aviation..."
 
I'm pretty sure the Ag Chair meant to say 'ICAO' audit and not 'FAA'? But perhaps the FAA IASA team has been here as well? Or could it be it was a slip of the tongue and the committee is considering requesting the FAA follow-up the ICAO audit with a proper review of the identified CASA deficiencies/non-compliances?  Wink

The O'Muppet comment...

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

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


[Image: Dear-Barry-O-1.jpg]
[Image: Dear-Barry-O-2.jpg]

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

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

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

Certainly not ours: References - ATSB Aberrations.

Or indeed AAI expert Ben Cook Wink :
Quote:Ben Cook and the Choc Frog award.

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

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

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

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

For some as yet unidentified reason, Dolan and McCormick embarked on a very risky journey, never expecting for one moment, that it would blow up to a Senate inquiry; well it did that and more. Had Cook and ‘operational’ expert opinion been sought in the beginning then a report of real safety value could have been produced and the disgrace which followed the Senate Inquiry could have been avoided – alas. But I digress...
Perhaps the Barry O'Muppet currently has a hand up his ass that is merely continuing the ATSB protection racket that has been in place ever since the 'inconvenient ditching'?

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

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






MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
The last man standing.

One of the very good things about a ‘network’ is the ability to solve puzzles and resolve confusion – it’s a bit like a jigsaw puzzle; where everyone has a piece of the whole picture. The behaviour and actions of O’Sullivan has raised many eyebrows and the questions have been piling up. You must, in the interest of ‘truth’, factor in a mans basic beliefs, bias and natural instincts when you analyse behaviour – in a particular situation. If you considered putting a fox into a hen house out of the rain one dark and stormy – you would need to think it through, carefully. Same – same with O’Sofullame and ‘aviation’; as I said, the little red warning lights are beginning to flicker; and, the little bells rang when he said:-

"[With] the ATSB there is not so much. They're in a quite respected cycle of their lives..."

P2 - "Couple this with the obvious (conflicting with general consensus) favourable bias Barry O'Muppet has for the current HVH version of the ATSB - see HERE - one has to question whether the Chair has a serious COI which should preclude him from being involved in any present or future aviation related committee matters..."

The request for information was sent out over the wires – and the jigsaw pieces were sent back. The corner of the picture of true ‘conflict of interest’ has not been fully assembled – yet, However the corners of natural bias and external interests are shaping up nicely. Not clear or conclusive, but enough parts of the puzzle are there to develop a line of questioning.

P2 – “While on psychological trauma being defined as a physical injury for the purposes of aviation accident compensation under international agreements like the Montreal Convention, I note that a certain RRAT legislative committee Chair has a fairly deep insight into these matters in his former life as a business owner and insurance investigator with Asia Pacific Claims Management (plus reference: The man behind some of LNP's big decisions)."

Then, there is this nugget from ‘The Chronicle’.

P2 – “As many on here would be aware back in February certain PAIN members - which included P7, KC and DJ - attended a private RRAT committee meeting that was supposedly meant to be an opportunity for PAIN to brief the Senators on our assessment/opinion/review of the 500+page, multi-million dollar costed Pelair MKII Final report. History will now show that the requested Senate RRAT committee briefing was in fact hi-jacked by none other than the Chair Barry O'Obfuscation...”

There may well be nothing illegal or improper going on – in fact, that is probably a long dead horse, not worth flogging. – But, you have to ask the question, given past performance, is this the right man for the huge job of reforming and resurrecting aviation in Australia. Think on – there is a world wide shortage of pilots – and Australia is doing its level best to destroy what’s left of our flying school industry. We have it all – great weather, quiet skies, all the things to make for a booming industry. We also have another invisible minister to deal with and the looming menace of Senate committee chair, not only prepared to support the status quo, but actively assist maintain it.

"Many are wondering why the government is sitting on the last ICAO/FAA audit: indeed to quote O’Sofullame -  “I understand it's going to be interesting reading. They're resisting publication of that at the moment. We're trying to muddle our way through getting that out into the open.” WTD - “resisting releasing it”. Who or what is resisting and why FDS are 'they' allowed. by the Chair, to get away with it? Bollocks.

Many, myself included simply believe O’Sofullame is the wrong man to see the desperately needed reform of the aviation over-sight system through to a conclusion which will benefit the nation or the industry. Perhaps he could recuse himself from dealing with matters aeronautical and let more able men get this three decade old saga finished tidy and put away.

Will the last man standing please turn off the lights. Thank you....

Toot – toot..
Reply
Time lapse – P2’s day.

When he’s ‘on a hunt’ we often loose track of P2, so GD fitted a small transmitter to his collar, the image we got back was ‘interesting’ if muddled (not to mention muddied).

[Image: seamless-vector-pattern-bones-traces-260...123438.jpg]

The tangled world of vested interests and political connections was where he kicked off, looking for more pieces to the O’Sofullame jigsaw puzzle. The old bones P2 brought back provided some interesting pieces – but they don’t quite fit the matrix – Oh, they belong there alright, its just that the bridging pieces from the border need a another bit or two before the whole thing can be brought into focus. Some of those old bones are intriguing, one from Lockhart river, a couple from MH 370, a small one from Singapore and an interesting piece which looks very much as though it came from a Qld company. Can’t make heads nor tails of it at the moment and much depends on your point of view, perspective or perception of how things stand. No matter. P2 is home again, needing a bath a brush and a feed; conflicting elements can wait for a day or two.

O’Sofullame is a hot topic this week, he starred at the BRB indaba, if you can call attracting the most adverse comments I’ve heard in a long while; which is saying something. He’s in with a tough crowd to top; McConvict, Beaker, Electric Blue, HV Hood, Hoostoblame, Boyd and Chester, to name just a few. Now I’ve seen the BRB all fired up before, but then they railed against ‘immediate’ insult to honesty and integrity. The fire under O’Sofullame’s boots has been a slow starter, from a cool flame, not any longer. The last Estimates really fanned the flames but it was the performance in Cloncurry which generated the real heat. Aye well – it may all settle down – but my tote board is against that. Yes GD & TB when I firm up the board I’ll put it up, don’t even have the runners yet.

The subject did eventually change to other vested interests, to wit – those of the alphabet soup groups’. Hitch, in Australian Flying sums up the bare bones of the current ruck, but delves no deeper than ‘the facts’. But there’s much, much more to the tale. P7 nailed it at the BRB – "what in hell are the ‘leaders’ of these groups playing at" – when essentially they all want the same thing – reform now; yesterday would have been great, but tomorrow will do. The economic advantages, across the board, to both large and small of reduced compliance costs, standing alone, should be enough motivation for thinking men to put aside their self interest and stand united behind a reformation of the Act, the regulations and the regulator. You’d be forgiven for thinking that those in charge should see this and be acting in concert; you’d be wrong of course – unless you suspected some altruistic motive for staying ‘on-side’ and helping to divide and enjoying the spoils of conquest. Shame really, there are some good minds out there – selfish, purblind and scared – up to the membership to bring ‘em (screaming and kicking if needs be) to the sticking place I’d say.

"But screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we’ll not fail."


Toot - MTF - toot.
Reply
On chasing tales and washing spots - Huh  

[Lady Macbeth: "..Out, damned spot! out, I say!.."]

Still trying to wash away the stench of rotting, corruption from many of the bones... Undecided  Therefore please excuse the still disjointed visage that is slowly emerging from a grey and Murky paint spotted canvas... Blush

"K" said - "...The last Estimates really fanned the flames but it was the performance in Cloncurry which generated the real heat..."

Yes indeed my synapses were firing off like a box of crackers after reading some of the 'passing strange' passages of Hansard from the Cloncurry public hearing... Huh

Hansard extracts from :
Mr Graham
ACTING CHAIR
Senator CHISHOLM
Senator PATRICK
Senator COLBECK


&..

ACTING CHAIR
Senator CHISHOLM
Mr Griffin
Senator PATRICK


Quote:Mr Griffin : ...What I've prepared for today is a bit of an essay that was going to cover the history of aviation in the Cloncurry region, which Greg touched on. I've also got some information I want to talk about around an organisation called A4ANZ, who I refer to as a cartel...

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you, Hamish. That's been a tremendous amount of effort. I want to pick up on a couple of things. With respect to your reference to A4ANZ, could we anticipate that your evidence might be adverse evidence against—

Mr Griffin : Adverse? I don't believe so.

ACTING CHAIR: Because, again, we're very careful, obviously. If your evidence is adverse in the general normative sense of what adverse means, we'd probably be inclined to take it in camera in the first instance and then decide about its publication. If you think an answer to a question in any of the categories you've alluded to—because you've put a tremendous amount of work in—that your comments may be adverse to an identifiable entity, I'd like you to alert me so we can take a decision about how that evidence may be taken. I think the other consideration is whether we table your essay subject to the things that I've just said. We may have to redact parts of it if we're considering that they're adverse. There's a whole set of rules that we're bound by in terms of providing others with an opportunity to respond.

Mr Griffin : Understood.


Senator COLBECK: The other thing was the A4ANZ, but I think that's the Kimberley area, so we can come back to that.

ACTING CHAIR: I think we have to be a little bit cautious—

Mr Griffin : Can I read what I've written about dynamic pricing?

ACTING CHAIR: Well, be careful—is it in this space?

Mr Griffin : All it is is a definition of dynamic pricing.

ACTING CHAIR: Is that connected to A4ANZ?

Mr Griffin : No.

ACTING CHAIR: I think Senator Colbeck's intrigued about what you might say about A4ANZ. Have you got that written there so that we could look at it?

Mr Griffin : I have.

ACTING CHAIR: Perhaps if you share that with Ms Redden, Senator Colbeck can have a look at it and make a judgement as to whether he wants to explore it...

(NB: The Ag Chair would appear to be totally cognisant of the A4ANZ 'cartel' before reading the Griffin essay)

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Griffin, the committee is just contemplating accepting your essay to be tabled with one reduction. I prefer to redact that with your consent; I will redact it without your consent if we do not have it, for the record. We will receive it, but we will not publish it until the committee has had a chance to have a full and wholesome look. I'm happy to talk to you over the morning tea break to let you know the areas of sensitivity.

Mr Griffin : It is an area that I feel very, very strongly about. I listen to your conversations and your comments with the Mr Campbell and Mrs Morris about Qantas not wanting to operate the same routes as Virgin.

ACTING CHAIR: It is one thing to ask the question, which is what I've done. It is quite another to make a statement as if it is a fact. We just need to be careful.

Senator COLBECK: From my perspective, it's not an attempt to censor in any way. It's more about, as the Acting Chair said, the sensitivity of the operations of the committee. We're not trying to censor you at all. You can say what you like—that's your problem. Noting that, in this forum you do come under the protection of parliamentary privilege and I'm sure you understand all of that. But we also have a responsibility for other people who might be affected. There are processes for them to deal with that, but we also like to try not to create those circumstances if we don't need to.

Mr Griffin : Understood.

Senator COLBECK: So it's not a censoring exercise, it's the process of the parliament and the committee, getting good information in front of us in the interest of your communities and providing a good response. I think one of the things the chair hasn't mentioned yet is that we might be able to provide a lot more visibility for you and your communities than you currently appear to have.

ACTING CHAIR: We would more than likely reach out to you and ask you to particularise the indictment—show us what evidence you rely upon to form that view—and then make a decision about publication.

Senator COLBECK: And what we do and don't do will be done in consultation with you.

Mr Griffin : Okay.

ACTING CHAIR: Yes. We'll be in touch with you on that. Parliamentary privilege is an enormous privilege to all of us, and with it comes great responsibility not to abuse it, which might impact on a third party or their reputation.

Mr Griffin : I feel very strongly that the organisation in question needs to be looked at closely.

ACTING CHAIR: Let's be careful with our language. They've made a submission. They'll be before us, I imagine. Anyway, as they said in The Castle, we've got the vibe.

Senator PATRICK: We're always trying to be transparent, but, even when we have a confidential submission, the committee enjoys the benefit of the submission and everything that you say. We just don't necessarily publish them, because they're either sensitive to the person who's put the submission in or may be defamatory.

ACTING CHAIR: They're entitled to respond to allow us to test your evidence. Thank you, Mr Griffin. I really appreciate your effort. If you've got any additional stuff, you're more than welcome to submit it to any of the senators or through the secretariat in the future.

Mr Griffin : Okay. I have a number of examples here that I'd like to give as evidence if I could.

ACTING CHAIR: If you're able to produce copies of them and present them to the secretariat, they'll consider the appropriate pathway for it to come into our body of material.


Mr Griffin : My final question is to do with their A4ANZ cartel: could the committee look closely at that?

ACTING CHAIR: Your essay—if we want to identify the artefact—has been accepted. We'll consider that in private session at our next private meeting—when we are not under any time pressure and, indeed, when some of our other colleagues who ought to be with us are—and we'll engage with you if we need further information or if we need you to underpin any assertions made. There are also other processes. If they relate to an entity or entities and they are invited to submit to us a proportional and balanced response to the allegations, we will then weigh all that up and make a decision as to what, if anything, is published or, oftentimes, just simply returned or redacted from the document before the balance of the document is published.

Mr Griffin : That sounds fair.

ACTING CHAIR: That is the fairest way. Because of parliamentary privilege, you can say whatever you like. You could accuse me of being overweight and I could do nothing about that.

Mr Griffin : I have been accused of that sometimes. Thank you very much indeed, and safe travels.

A quick review of the Inquiry webpages reveal that the committee is yet to table Mr Griffin's essay/artefact.  

It is worth noting that because the committee has 'accepted' Mr Griffin's essay/artefact?? they now control it and if the committee decides to table the 'artefact' in camera, then Mr Griffin will be obliged to never make public that document in it's current format.  

Curious I decided to dig out the Hamish Griffin submission: 12 Mr Hamish Griffin (PDF 68 KB) 

Extract from sub 12:

Quote:I have also had informal conversations with Cloncurry mayor Greg Campbell who has said…

“While we have got to maintain the support for the services we currently have I am happy to look at any options, especially to make Cloncurry more accessible and more affordable for that accessibility to other parts of the country.”

The difference in landing fees between commercial airlines and charters fares was mainly to prevent Fly In, Fly Out workers, Cr Campbell said.

Yet he saw a difference between flights for FIFO workers and for local residents.

“If it is a charter flight for FIFO workers, that would be viewed potentially one way and if a flight to drive affordability for community members is there for a different reason,” Cr Campbell said.

Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter has said he was “most anxious” to speak with me about my ongoing push back against the major airlines and my charter proposal.

Finally, I have grave concerns about an organization known as A4ANZ

http://www.a4anz.com/

The web page states that they are an industry group established as a voice to represent airlines in Australia and NZ Including Quantas and Virgin who are supposed to be in direct competition with each other but I will not accept that they are not colluding with each other over airfares.

It should be remembered that A4ANZ was formed in March 2017: reference - BITN post #484

Q/ So why is the Ag Chair being so 'sensitive' about Mr Griffin's essay and additional information surrounding A4ANZ? Could it be merely Mr Griffin's labelling of A4ANZ as a 'cartel'; or could it be because the A4ANZ membership not only includes the major airlines but also a certain regional turboprop operator?

All very intriguing? - I look fwd to viewing in full the Griffin artefact - Big Grin



BO -"..The FAA has done an audit on CASA in Australia. I understand it's going to be interesting reading. They're resisting publication of that at the moment. We're trying to muddle our way through getting that out into the open..."

On yet another 'passing strange' coincidence I note that HVH's future biographer and CASAsexual, Steve (creepy) Creedy has inexplicably scooped the aviation MSM pool again, with a summary (at approximately 1700 EST [0700 UTC] time) of a Carmody Capers bollocks propaganda piece  Dodgy :  


Australian safety oversight in ICAO global top six.
By
Steve Creedy
276
April 27, 2018
[Image: 091209genairport2202.jpg]

Australia’s aviation system has been judged one of the world’s safest after an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) audit ranked it sixth among member states for safety oversight.

The UN-Backed organization audited Australia in 2017 on a range of issues including operations, airworthiness, accident investigations and air navigation services. It gave the nation a safety oversight score of 95 percent, according to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Australia achieved above average scores in all areas of ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme with percentage scores for five of seven measures above 90 percent.
[Image: icaoresults2.jpg]<img class="wp-image-30974 size-full" src="https://www.airlineratings.com/wp-content/uploads/uploads/icaoresults2.jpg" alt="Australia top six safety oversight" width="710" height="419" />Australia’s safety oversight results versus the global average. Source: ICAO.

The weakest score was in terms of aviation legislation, which has been a contentious issue among smaller Australian aviation organizations. But even here the score of just under 81 percent was higher than the global average of 71.77 percent.

The nation achieved full marks for its civil aviation organizational structures and 99.42 percent for air navigation services.

ICAO also rated its accident investigation capabilities highly at 97.06 percent. This was more than 40 percentage points ahead of the global average of 55.61 percent and marked the widest gap between the two scores across the seven safety measures.

The aviation licensing system pulled a score of 97.5 percent, while aerodrome safety was rated at 95.71 percent and airworthiness at 93.16 percent.

Operations narrowly missed out on being in the top 10 percent with a score of 89.08 percent.
CASA director of aviation safety Shane Carmody said everyone in the aviation industry could be proud of the top six ranking.

“The audit delivered a 95 percent safety oversight score, which we must now work to maintain,’’ he said in a briefing note. “This means Australia currently ranks sixth out of International Civil Aviation Organization member states for effective safety oversight.”

Carmody said the ranking demonstrated Australia had a robust aviation safety system “supported by public sector agencies with a deep commitment to achieving the best possible safety outcomes”.

“Credit for the ranking also goes to the commitment to safety by the people and organizations who make up Australia’s aviation community,’’ he said. “It is your day-to-day work, delivering safety during every flight and every aviation activity, that makes Australian skies amongst the safest in the world.”



Hmm...I wonder how much that ICAO rubberstamp 'bollocks' cost us? Not to mention the cost to HVH in wining, dining (plus extra curricular activities), while pulling the wool over the eyes of ICAO (wet lettuce) Thor in the course of his wanderings through the Halls of AAI top-cover experts the ATSB Dodgy : Mount NCN post #106

Got a feeling my next Aunty task will be to systematically pull apart that complete and utter load of BOLLOCKS - Angry

In the meantime here is a challenge for CC, given our stellar standing in the world of aviation safety administration can we now request that the FAA IASA team come back and doubly reassure the members of the A4ANZ that we are in the stratosphere of Category 1 member States? Come on CC, money where your mouth is mate!!  

Now back to big, bad, Bazza and his COI with RRAT committee matters of an aviation nature... Rolleyes

Digging around on BO's CV I note that he was listed as the proprietor of a company called - ASIA PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD.

Here is the website homepage for that company: http://asiapcmanagement.com/



[Image: Runway100x360.jpg]




Quote:INDEPENDENT
ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
FOR VICTIMS OF AVIATION DISASTERS

At Asia Pacific Claims Management we specialise in providing independent advice and assistance to individuals, estates and corporations affected by aviation accidents around the world where civil litigation and claims for compensation are involved. We have a long history of success in assisting clients navigate the very complex world of civil litigation as it relates to aviation. Our expertise is extensive and our advice unbiased.

We operate completely independently; we are not lawyers, attorneys or solicitors nor do we act exclusively for any single law firm. Our sole aim is to provide unbiased, independent advice and assistance to our clients regarding the potential of any civil claim for compensation, the most appropriate path to perusing such a claim should one exist and advocating on behalf of our clients throughout the legal process.

 


Now go to the 'experience' webpage: http://asiapcmanagement.com/portfolio/


WE HAVE ASSISTED IN ALL TYPES OF AVIATION ACCIDENTS FROM CASES INVOLVING SINGLE ENGINE AIRCRAFT THROUGH TO THE LARGEST COMMERCIAL JETS

CURRENT CASES

MALAYSIA 370
AIR PNG 1600

MAJOR CASES

GARUDA 200
ADAM AIR 547
LION AIR 538
GARUDA 421
EGYPT AIR 900
GARUDA 152
SILK AIR 185
KOREAN 801

CASES BY JURISDICTION

ALL CASES
AUSTRALIA
INTERNATIONAL



MH370?  Rolleyes

Next go to the AUSTRALIA cases webpage: http://asiapcmanagement.com/service/australia/

From the QEC website I also found that in the course of 2008 and 2009 that BO, on behalf of APCM, declared just over 20K donations to QLD LNP:

https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets...ty-Ltd.pdf

https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets...ment-1.pdf


These APCM donations would appear to coincide with when BO was in the role of honorary treasurer of the newly formed QLD LNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_O%27Sullivan

Quote:In the lead up to the merger of the Liberal and National Parties, O'Sullivan was asked to assist in overseeing the registration of the new entity, the LNP. He was appointed honorary treasurer. O'Sullivan served in that role during the 2008 merger until his pre-selection to the Senate seat vacated by Barnaby Joyce, who had resigned to contest the House of Representatives seat of New England at the 2013 federal election.

Digging around some more it would seem that APCM may have been dissolved in March last year??


ASIA PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD 601 496 244 ...
https://insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au › Browse/search notices[size=undefined]
Mar 17, 2017 - NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEREGISTRATION - VOLUNTARY Subsection 601AA(4) - Registered | Published : 17/03/2017.
[/size]




Still studying bones, so standby for updates - MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
Steal the coins from a dead man’s eyes.

The idiom has but one meaning and makes for a clear one. “Bit grim and dark on the old Gazette today” says P2. “I know” says I; "but, when you are faced with people who would, cheerfully steal the coins from a dead man’s eyes, it is difficult to remain sanguine and all cheery like.” - “I had to get it off my chest; what else can you do?" "This poor benighted industry is running on fumes and in enough trouble, without the establishment having a tame Senator running the only chance a meaningful reform effort has, through the RRAT committee and there’s Sweet Fanny Arbuckle we can do about it etc." “Yeah but” chimes in a wise owl "Turnbull is within a year of an election and knows, full well, that even the hint of a perceived conflict of interest scandal could and would be used against him.” Anyway, we wrangled around the topic for a while before on to lighter matters.

Dick Smith did well down there in the DPM's electorate - and it all made perfect sense. There is not a man, woman or child in this land who will not benefit from ‘reform’ of matters aeronautical. The CASA budget alone is obscene – particularly on a value for money basis – and considering the small and reducing industry they ‘over-sight’ - - - . Bureaucratic Obesity, it is said, that once one becomes obese, it is almost impossible to loose weight and keep it off. Time we had a slimmer, fitter more able aviation department, backed up by accountability, a constitutional Act and a rule set which was not only comprehensible, but easily and economically complied with. A few less ‘criminals’ to pursue would help reduce the outrageous legal costs CASA run up every year. We look to the Senate committee to make this happen – and what do we get? Enough said, except for well done Dick Smith.





The little party in Wagga was a far cry from the Tamworth bun-fight and probably even achieved something –although, just what that ‘something’ is we have yet to discover. If it was a ‘one off’ then it has been an entertaining amusement. If it is the beginning of a concerted effort then, my goodness, it has been worth the efforts made. Everyone, from Qantas down to the lowliest flying school and Australia would benefit from that reform; one simple, singular change would do the trick – and yet it seems impossible to get a united front. Even the pilot and engineers unions must see the sense, even if it is just the protection of their members from ‘criminal’ prosecution. I know,(sigh) I know: I’m banging on again; but even those with vested interests must see the fiscal benefits attending ‘reform’.

Of course when we had a RRAT committee which was actually trying to undo the knots binding aviation to the ground, there was at least the slim hope of reform. However, lately, we have come to realise that the dynamic has changed and not (IMO) for the better. Have a read through P2’s post – HERE – Yes, it is a long one, but go right through the whole thing – then draw your own conclusions; we have. Doing anything about it is a bridge a little too far – we shall seek some advice; but I fear that without some serious political support, we are stuck with the opposition running any inquiry for proposed changes and doubling the already extensive ‘waiting period’ for any results to filter down to the grass roots. Sad though, ain’t it?

“Common sense prevails” – Oh, how I wish…The laws of Unintended Consequence hold sway – with some highly paid assistance.

Toot - toot.
Reply
Barry O: Perceived COI on matters aviation??

The spots so far: First from the Kaz Casey thread post: PelAir disconnections: Of guilty consciences; &/or legacies?

Quote:While on psychological trauma being defined as a physical injury for the purposes of aviation accident compensation under international agreements like the Montreal Convention, I note that a certain RRAT legislative committee Chair has a fairly deep insight into these matters in his former life as a business owner and insurance investigator with Asia Pacific Claims Management (plus reference: The man behind some of LNP's big decisions).

Keeping the previous seemingly bizarre back flip by Dr A in mind - now read the following short 2010 ETB Travel news article:


Action group on Qantas QF72 expands worldwide

October 11, 2010 Australia, Aviation News No comments

Passengers on board the Qantas flight QF72 are building an army to seek compensation for psychological trauma.

The group originated in the US have teamed up with Wisner Law Firm to sue Airbus and manufacturers Northrup Grumman after the plane nose air dived twice in mid-air on route from Singapore to Perth.

Wisner Law Firm deployed agents from Asia Pacific Claims Management (APCM) to recruit 15 of the 38 Singaporeans who were on board recently joined the group made up of approximately 100 passengers, Today Online reported.

Last month the pilot flying the plane also joined the action group.

APCM Director Barry O’Sullivan said people are not aware that they are able to seek compensation without physical injury.

“[US] law provides quite expressively for claims to be made against trauma and there is no question that this is a particularly traumatic event for passengers,” Mr O’Sullivan said.

Singaporean man on board the plane Mr H S Ng said on the first dive people standing were thrown against the roof, plates went flying and luggage fell out of the overhead compartment.

On the second descent many had their seat belts on “but it was more terrifying this time because we all thought we were going to die,” Mr Ng said.

Airbus Spokesperson said the investigation into the cause of the nose dives was ongoing.

While Qantas provided passengers on board the flight with counselling, paid medical expenses, fares were refunded and they were given ex-gratia payments. 

 
Read more at http://www.etbtravelnews.global



As many on here would be aware back in February certain PAIN members - which included P7, KC and DJ - attended a private RRAT committee meeting that was supposedly meant to be an opportunity for PAIN to brief the Senators on our assessment/opinion/review of the 500+page, multi-million dollar costed Pelair MKII Final report. History will now show that the requested Senate RRAT committee briefing was in fact hi-jacked by none other than the Chair Barry O'Obfuscation.... [Image: dodgy.gif]

However it was also pointed out to me that in the course of the hijacked briefing KC mentioned several times the deficiencies in both the Montreal convention and the uniquely deficient regulations surrounding air ambulance operations in Australia. Yet never at anytime did the Chair indicate he had invaluable prior professional exposure to international aviation insurance law in this area??

[Image: Jerry_Nelson_Mr_Johnson.jpg]

Couple this with the obvious (conflicting with general consensus) favourable bias Barry O'Muppet has for the current HVH version of the ATSB - see HERE - one has to question whether the Chair has a serious COI which should preclude him from being involved in any present or future aviation related committee matters... [Image: rolleyes.gif]

And then from above post:
(04-28-2018, 11:31 AM)Peetwo Wrote: On chasing tales and washing spots - Huh  

...Here is the website homepage for that company: http://asiapcmanagement.com/



[Image: Runway100x360.jpg]




Quote:INDEPENDENT
ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
FOR VICTIMS OF AVIATION DISASTERS

At Asia Pacific Claims Management we specialise in providing independent advice and assistance to individuals, estates and corporations affected by aviation accidents around the world where civil litigation and claims for compensation are involved. We have a long history of success in assisting clients navigate the very complex world of civil litigation as it relates to aviation. Our expertise is extensive and our advice unbiased.

We operate completely independently; we are not lawyers, attorneys or solicitors nor do we act exclusively for any single law firm. Our sole aim is to provide unbiased, independent advice and assistance to our clients regarding the potential of any civil claim for compensation, the most appropriate path to perusing such a claim should one exist and advocating on behalf of our clients throughout the legal process.

 


Now go to the 'experience' webpage: http://asiapcmanagement.com/portfolio/


WE HAVE ASSISTED IN ALL TYPES OF AVIATION ACCIDENTS FROM CASES INVOLVING SINGLE ENGINE AIRCRAFT THROUGH TO THE LARGEST COMMERCIAL JETS

CURRENT CASES

MALAYSIA 370
AIR PNG 1600

MAJOR CASES

GARUDA 200
ADAM AIR 547
LION AIR 538
GARUDA 421
EGYPT AIR 900
GARUDA 152
SILK AIR 185
KOREAN 801

CASES BY JURISDICTION

ALL CASES
AUSTRALIA
INTERNATIONAL



MH370?  Rolleyes

Next go to the AUSTRALIA cases webpage: http://asiapcmanagement.com/service/australia/

From the QEC website I also found that in the course of 2008 and 2009 that BO, on behalf of APCM, declared just over 20K donations to QLD LNP:

https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets...ty-Ltd.pdf

https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets...ment-1.pdf


These APCM donations would appear to coincide with when BO was in the role of honorary treasurer of the newly formed QLD LNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_O%27Sullivan

Quote:In the lead up to the merger of the Liberal and National Parties, O'Sullivan was asked to assist in overseeing the registration of the new entity, the LNP. He was appointed honorary treasurer. O'Sullivan served in that role during the 2008 merger until his pre-selection to the Senate seat vacated by Barnaby Joyce, who had resigned to contest the House of Representatives seat of New England at the 2013 federal election.

Digging around some more it would seem that APCM may have been dissolved in March last year??


ASIA PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD 601 496 244 ...
https://insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au › Browse/search notices[size=undefined]
Mar 17, 2017 - NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEREGISTRATION - VOLUNTARY Subsection 601AA(4) - Registered | Published : 17/03/2017.
[/size]

Curious about BO's ongoing involvement with APCM PTY LTD I first explored BO's Parliamentary Senator interests/disclosure pages:

Quote:

And from when BO 1st entered Parliament:
.pdf   OSullivanB_Astat_140725.pdf (Size: 1.54 MB / Downloads: 1)

The above reveals that yes indeed BO had declared his original and continuing interests as a Director of the ASIA PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PTY LTD:



16 July 2014:

[Image: APCM-2014.jpg]

& 15 September 2016:

[Image: APCM-2016.jpg]



However this is where we get a 'passing strange' disconnect because the entity that was created on the 27/08/2014 - under the same name but minus the 'corporation' and with a different ABN (see link above) - then (IMO suspiciously - think #MH370 Dodgy ) deregistered on 17/03/2017 appears not to be declared by BO - Confused

This is despite the visible appearance that the APCM PTY LTD (without the 'corporation') entity would seem to be owned by the same 'declared' parent companies that on paper also own the APCM 'corporation' PTY LTD - Huh   

Quote:[Image: APCM-1.jpg]
[Image: APCM-2.jpg]
[Image: APCM-3.jpg]

Oh well there is probably some simple explanation for what appears to be a 'passing strange' disconnection... Undecided

However this still would not quell the obvious PAIN/IOS serious suspicions that this present Standing Senate RRAT Legislative Committee Chair has at least a perceived conflict of interest on any matters of an aviation nature... Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
THE TIME HAS COME TO INVESTIGATE O’SULLIVAN

Peetwo has succinctly pulled all the jigsaw pieces together in one place and put them altogether to create a perfect fit. The picture is disturbing. Very very disturbing. In fact through O’Sullivan’s own actions, or should I say lack of action, his refusal to delve down various obvious paths and his what has become blatant obsfucation he has brought himself into the spotlight. It’s been as obvious as a headjob from a hedgehog - leaves absolutely no doubt about what is taking place. This bloke should be removed from current duties and investigated. The smell surrounding this individual is rank.

Barry, Barry, Barry, did you really think you could fool the IOS forever? Everyone’s dirty laundry eventually gets aired, and it seems that you have a washing basket filled to the hilt with skidmarked apple catchers.

Tick tock LNP
Tick Tock Butthole O’Sullivan
Tick tock DPM McComic
Reply
Fit for purpose?

“(of an institution, facility, etc.) well equipped or well suited for its designated role or purpose.”

P2’s foray into the corporate dustbins has provided some interesting information and an individual could be forgiven for perceiving an O’Sullivan ‘conflict of interest’. On the surface, at first glance, that perception is worthy of discussion. Whether or not that ‘perception’ would withstand serious scrutiny is beyond my remit and qualification. Identifying, concisely, in legal terms, just what that perceived conflict is; of itself, nigh on impossible.  

What may be more easily defined is ‘fit for purpose’. Rather than ramble on I will refer you to a talk delivered by The Honourable Murray Gleeson AC Chief Justice of Australia in 1998.

“There are four aspects of judicial status or performance that will form the basis of my remarks. These are independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence.”

Many people, myself included, regard the Senate RRAT committee as the ‘Judges’, the final arbitrator; and yes, that is probably an over simplification – but it will serve my purpose. The notion that an Estimates panel should be independent, impartial, fair and competent is a widely held belief. Particularly with regard to matters aeronautical. For a number of years now, various Senate committees have acknowledged the deeply entrenched ‘problems’ which beset aviation. Many Senators, Ministers and Commissions have tried to correct the ‘problems’ and strike a balance between ‘Safety’ and sanity. The Senate committee’s are seen (rightly or wrongly) as the last court of appeal. Over the last few years, with both Heffernan and Sterle in the chair, much has been done to reveal how deep the ‘problems’ go. Through committee examination the deep, detrimental effects of that poor regulation and flawed industry oversight have been revealed.

When the O’Sullivan era began, it was expected that the committee would continue the good work, slowly, but determinedly, working toward the outcomes an ailing industry demanded.

Many, myself included, are of the opinion that O’Sullivan has done much to thwart that progress. Delays, a dismissive approach combined with an almost hostile approach to legitimate complaint, encompassed within a narrow focus typify the current view of the committee’s recent performances. Hansard clearly defines this; the O’Sullivan dismissal of Griffin at the Cloncury inquiry into aviation provides the quintessential example.

There may be a perception of a conflict of interest which, no doubt, will be endlessly discussed in the pub; but IMO, there it will remain. The more interesting discussion will be on ‘fit for purpose’. Leopards don’t change their spots – not in my jungle they don’t. Considering the approach to aviation matters demonstrated and recorded; the deep background and mind set of the Senator – it would be (IMO) a fair call to ask that he recuse himself for the Chair during Senate inquiry into ‘matters aeronautical’. Just in the interests of publicly perceived “independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence” of course.

“…it’s better in fact to be guilty of manslaughter than of fraud about what is fair and just.”

Handing over. Toot - toot.
Reply
On Mandarins and their minions taking the Mickey Bliss on the Senate -  Wink   

Had to laugh at this comment from former RBA board member and leading economist Dr John Edwards to Elysse Morgan on 'The Business' last night... Wink


It is misjudged" if the Govt thinks that the personal income tax cuts will make the corporate tax cuts more palatable "The Senate is not completely witless". Dr John Edwards on #TheBusiness tonight at 9.45pm AEST #Budget2018 #auspol

[Image: 9736274-16x9-medium.jpg]

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/993428645900242944

7:53 PM - 7 May 2018


Perhaps Dr Edwards is just reflecting on the disdain and low respect the average (former or current) bureaucrat has for the Senate and the Senate democratic processes, which includes the committees and Senate Estimates?

Historically with the Senate RRAT committee there is no clearer example of the disrespect the Mandarins and their minions hold for the Senate and Senators than with their obvious obfuscation and delaying of answering ( almost always past the due date) the Senate Estimates QON -  Dodgy

As an example you can visit this webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat

Go to the current questions on notice list/ for 'SHOW' click 'ALL'/ then click portfolio to select 'Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities' / then click 'status' to 'unanswered'. 

This will show that 2 weeks out from Budget Estimates that there is not one solitary QON answered for the Additional Estimates. This is despite the fact that the QON answers were due on the 13 of April. 

However there are signs that the AQON is imminent as yesterday there was leaked some attachments, presumably in preparation for answering a certain Senator Patrick QON?:
 
Quote:Senator PATRICK: Or ever on that vessel? Thank you very much, that's very helpful. I'd like to move to the Pel-Air report that came out in November, quite a voluminous report. In reading that reportand obviously this is a second attempt at that reportthere were some things that struck me. I've got a PPL licence, but I won't call myself an expert. A lot of the report focused on fuel management. It's my understanding that when the pilot in command left the east coast of Australia to fly to Samoa, to Apia, he had enough fuel onboard to divert if Norfolk weather had closed in. On the way back, because of the distances involved, he only had 87 per cent fuel. But had he had 100 per cent, it would have made no difference in terms of his ability to divert once he'd arrived on the scene in Norfolk. Would you agree with that assessment? ...

Senator PATRICK: Sure. Where I'm going with this, just to be completely transparent with you, is that I understand that there have been a whole range of different changes that have resulted from this report; however, weather didn't seem to get a lot of focus in the report. And yet we've seen situations in 2013 where we had a Virgin aircraft and a Qantas aircraft land at Mildura with basically no opportunity for go-round because they'd run out of fuel. We had a situation on Lord Howe where someone on the ground wanted or was able to provide weather information to inbound aircraft but was prohibited because CASA wanted them to do a $20,000 training course - and this is just someone who's a volunteer. Where I'm going to with this - and we have talked with the committee on this - is that weather didn't seem to feature prominently in the report. In fact, it's my understanding that the title of the draft report that came out talks about fuel management and weather, but in the first report weather wasn't mentioned in the title. Just going back to my original question, it's my understanding that, had the pilot in command had 100 per cent fuel in the tanks, it would have made no difference to the outcome other than that he perhaps could have had a few more attempts at landing before he ditched. Would that be fair? 

Mr Hornby: We're happy to take any questions on notice in relation to the technical elements of the report. As Chief Commissioner Hood mentioned, the investigator in charge is based in Brisbane, but we can take that on notice. But in the report itself it said that, if there had been maximum fuel on board and he had reached Norfolk Island, there would have been opportunities to make other decisions and spend more time.
       
Appendices:
Attachment A_QoN147_Aviation forecasting - review of Pel-Air and Mildura
Attachment B_QoN147_Aviation forecasting - review of Pel-Air and Mildura

These attachments are the original ATSB requested BOM meteorological reports for both the PelAir Norfolk ditching and Mildura fog occurrence investigations. 

Hmm...from the PelAir BOM met report - spot the disconnect? (ps: Keep in mind this BOM report was produced nearly 6 months after the VH-NGA ditching)

Quote:...This TAF was amended at 0803 (valid from 0800) to reflect deteriorating conditions at the aerodrome. It indicated a broken layer of cloud at 1,000 feet (below the alternate minima) from 0800 until the end of the validity period. The TAF maintained the forecast for light showers with a wind shift to the southeast at 12 knots from 1500. The TAF was again amended at 0958 (valid from 1000), forecasting a further deterioration in conditions...


Under 'Summary':

..The TAF was first amended at 0803 to include a broken layer of cloud below the alternate minima, following the receipt of the first SPECI (a special report of meteorological conditions at the aerodrome) at 0739. The TAF was amended again at 0958 to include a further lowering of the cloud base, following a period of fluctuating observed
conditions between 0830 and 0930...
IMO 'Appendix 8' is also key to the now 8+ year disconnection Rolleyes :

[Image: BOM-Appendix-8.jpg]


Hmm...I am guessing that there may be some incoming on this... Big Grin


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
Witless, clueless or, part of the problem?

“Not completely witless” – so witless then, just not completely so, how perfectly apt. Although, had he said ‘clueless’ the dart may have been closer to the mark. The RRAT committee have certainly failed to follow the breadcrumb trail leading to the Pel-Air worm can.

We did try to help ‘em out and had it have been the Heffernan/Sterle show, we may have had a different result. For example; one can clearly see at least two of the gaping holes in that famous cheese; easy to spot as the mice have been nibbling away at them. A close study of  the original report from the Met office regarding Norfolk Island defines the first ‘hole’. It is clear the Met officer on duty that night was ‘on the ball’, spotted the weather deteriorating and amended the forecast to reflect that. The 0739 and 0803 updates were critical as they clearly indicate the need for an alternate aerodrome. Had James been provided with that information, he would simply have diverted to Noumea – end of.

The BoM chap has done his duty; the Norfolk Island station crew were all off duty while the automatic system made the revised forecast available to all. So why was that vital information not relayed to the flight crew?

As I read it, once the BoM transmit revised forecasts it becomes an ASA task to make sure the delivery system works – from BoM to flight crew. We can see that both Fiji and NZ received the revised forecast; what we cannot see is that forecast getting to where it was most needed – i.e. on the Westwind flight deck. So why was that vital information not relayed to the flight crew?

This point lays in the gateway to some serious questions for ASA, CASA and the ATSB. Question which have nor been asked and not likely to be asked in the current dichotomy. Which is shame really as some safety recommendations of worth and merit could have been generated by the committee. (Hah) Not that those recommendations would be given any better treatment than the original 30 odd the RRAT committee made – but they would have been at least on the record; and, the committee conscience would be clear. They could even suggest a couple of simple, not too expensive (compared to the cost of the Pel-Air debacle) plugs to put into the holes. For example 1:- that there is always a company operational someone following the flight to make sure that assistance and operational data is available. Too easy to do these days and with an aircraft operating during the night over a very remote area to one small island a 1000 miles from anywhere – a necessity I’d have thought. Example 2: why would the Norfolk budget not be stretched to a little overtime and make sure there was someone on deck to provide local information to the crew of a scheduled arrival ?

There were many ways this incident could have been prevented. And yet, despite the rhetoric, the time, the money, the inquiry, the Forsyth report, NTSBC review and subsequent Senate questioning; nothing, absolutely nothing has been done to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Aye, the Committee may not be completely witless; but I could support clueless and toothless. Indeed I could. The word useless creeps to mind – O’Sullivan had the opportunity to see it all clearly and perhaps do something positive; but he blew that, well and truly. The Norfolk disgrace is now consigned to history along with other shameful events; Lockhart River, Seaview, Monarch etc. To mention just a few where the Senate was involved, where time, money and effort was spent to make changes. The results are spectacularly good; the agencies learned very well how to cover both their own and the ministerial arse – and they are very, very good at it now.

No matter, soon or late there will be another accident, bigger and better than Essendon and we can start the whole process all over again. Wow what a future.

Toot – toot.
Reply
Correcting the PelAir bollocks - Blush

Coming back to these attachments: 

Attachment A_QoN147_Aviation forecasting - review of Pel-Air and Mildura

Attachment B_QoN147_Aviation forecasting - review of Pel-Air and Mildura

Trying to make head or tail of the 'QoN147' reference the penny finally dropped -  Undecided 

Blush - I have discovered that QoN 147 is not related in any way to the Senator Patrick ATSB QoN above -  Blush

Senator Patrick had earlier in the day (approximately 10 am) attended the BoM session and it was there that QoN147 was put... Wink 

Via the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Additional Estimates Hansard:

Quote:Senator PATRICK: Congratulation is in order. Where that question is leading—and it may be my misunderstanding of how aviation get their weather—is that I'm aware of a few incidents that have occurred where weather has been a factor and the forecast has caused issues with Pel-Air. There was a Qantas and Virgin flight that had to divert to Mildura at one stage and almost caused an accident. Do you provide those services to air services? Do you examine those incidents separate from the ATSB?
Dr Johnson : I might again make an overarching comment. We have a deep and longstanding relationship with the aviation sector in this country. We have a hardwired commercial relationship with the aviation sector that's reviewed regularly. In fact, in just the last 12 months we renewed our commitment with our aviation partners and customers. That's not just the big domestic players but also the international carriers that fly into Australia as well as the general aviation sector. We are well aware of some of the incidents that you've referred to there. I think it's important to state for the record that the bureau's performance in each of those incidents was endorsed. There was no question around the forecasts that the bureau provided, so those ATSB investigations had no adverse findings towards the bureau in that regard.

Senator PATRICK: For example, in the Pel-Air situation there was a forecast of weather sufficient for the pilot to be able to land, yet when the pilot arrived the cloud floor was something like 600 feet.

Mr Webb : One of the realities of working with aviation forecasting is that we do work in probabilities. It's a steady stream of information that's used in our forecast to keep the latest information, and the way pilots work is that they refer to information en route as well to see how much it's changed. The absolute details of what wasn't on that forecast at the time I haven't got to the top of my mind, but often, for instance, for fog and thunderstorms we typically, as per international standards, don't start to mention them until there's a 30 per cent probability, as per working with our aviation colleagues.

As for your earlier question about whether we are reviewing our services outside the ATSB: absolutely. We work with major airlines after incidents and do our own reviews, and there are always lessons to be learnt. That's one of the things we take on board. Whether it be pilot education or staff education around ways to deal with certain incidents, the three you mentioned, although having no adverse findings against the Bureau of Meteorology, have lessons to be learnt.

Senator PATRICK: Did you do one for the Pel-Air incident and one for the Mildura incident?

Mr Webb : Absolutely.

Senator PATRICK: Is it possible to get those independent reviews provided to the committee?

Dr Johnson : I believe so.

Mr Webb : I see no reason why not.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you.

Credit where credit is due -  Wink 

It makes me smile to think that Senator Patrick went into the ATSB Estimates session armed with the knowledge that he was going to receive the original BoM meteorology reports for both the VH-NGA ditching and the YMIA fog cock-up -  Big Grin

It is just a shame that the opportunity for PAIN to brief/explain to the Committee on the significance of the weather issues surrounding both the 0739 Auto SPECI and the 0801 AMD TAF was missed because the Chair O'Obfuscation hijacked the briefing - FDS!  Dodgy  

Extract from ATSB Additional Estimates Hansard:

Quote:Senator PATRICK: Okay. Flowing to the question of weather, had better forecasting models been available for the Bureau of Meteorology, perhaps in that instance we wouldn't have had the same incident, because the pilot simply wouldn't have taken off or would have taken a different route.

Mr Hornby : The report does address the Bureau of Meteorology and forecasting at Norfolk Island. It mentions that it is difficult. In this situation, a number of events happened with the weather that were difficult to predict.

Senator PATRICK: Sure. I'm just running through a few scenarios in relation to the weather. ATC passed on several amended weather reports. So the ground were aware of weather changes that weren't passed on. Had they been passed on, the pilot in command could have been presented with options much earlier to divert and could have avoided the incident.

Mr Hornby : The report does pick up on all those things as contributing factors. There are quite a number of weather related contributing factors, including the fact that there was an 8.30 special weather report that showed that the weather at Norfolk Island was deteriorating to below the landing minimum. That wasn't provided to the crew. What about the 0739 SPECI & 0801 AMD TAF? Oh that's right the VH-NGA flightcrew didn't get them either - Dodgy ..That's in the context of a changeover of operations from Nadi to New Zealand air services. We weren't able to determine the exact reasons why that weather information wasn't provided to the crew. But we did acknowledge that, if it was provided at that point, the crew may have been able to make some other decisions—because they still had enough time before the point of no return to decide on another aerodrome.

Senator PATRICK: We would all love BOM to have a better model that would give more accurate information or perhaps more sensors. However, in this situation advice was available but not provided. I understand from my reading of the report that no-one breached any of the regulations. It wasn't a mandatory requirement to pass the information on. But just as the pilot in command could have contacted a home base if they'd had a full-time person on the ground looking at this, or used another method—just as that could have happened from the operator and the pilot's perspective—we could have had a situation where air traffic control could have advised the pilot in command earlier. Yet there don't seem to have been any recommendations made to suggest that we ought to be moving in that direction.

Mr Hornby : That's in the context of whether or not there was a systemic issue. We didn't have enough evidence to suggest that there was a systemic issue, that this would happen in other circumstances for Nadi's international flight information services or for New Zealand's air traffic services. Certainly it was a contributing factor in this accident. But in terms of a wider problem, we didn't have evidence to say that.

Senator PATRICK: We're looking at a number of incidents now that are dealing with weather related concerns. Surely that's something you might turn your mind to in the context of that.

Mr Hood : In the Pel-Air accident report we devoted two full appendixes—H and J—to remote island weather and to Norfolk Island weather. I think out of the 500-odd-page report about 10 per cent, about 50 pages, are devoted specifically to weather. We certainly did have a pretty good look in the report at the weather factors. The other point you make is about general Australian weather. We do have a pretty good look at what we're seeing in Australia in relation to weather events. In most years we have around 12 to 15 reports of unforecast weather where aircraft have been faced with decision-making in relation to diversion because of unforecast weather. That reduced in 2017. We had eight of those. So we are actually looking very carefully. We don't think there's a systemic issue in Australia in relation to weather events currently, but it is certainly under watch.

Senator PATRICK: There was a recommendation made, I believe in 2001, in an ATSB report that weather forecasting be improved at Norfolk. My understanding is that that wasn't actioned, and there's still no action in relation to that. Is something happening on that?

Mr Hornby : There was some safety action at Norfolk Island that the BOM did take, I understand, after the Senate inquiry—I think it was in 2012—regarding this investigation. The BOM did take some safety action to put in place new infrastructure there. So there was some safety action taken.

Senator PATRICK: Could you provide me with that, perhaps on notice?

Mr Hornby : It's in the report. Safety action is towards the back.

Mr Hood : We're still happy to provide that on notice.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. Once again, when the draft report had come out, my understanding was that the report didn't have as much focus on weather. Would that be a fair assessment?

Mr Hood : As I said, at least 50 pages, or 10 per cent, of the report are devoted to weather, with two specific appendices. So I don't think that's the case.

Senator PATRICK: Will you be presenting this particular report at the International Society of Air Safety Investigators conference this year?

Mr Hood : Not to my understanding.

Senator PATRICK: Normally you present significant reports to that conference. My understanding is the ATSB turns up and often makes presentations there.

Mr Hood : I'm looking at my budget currently in terms of whether we can send someone to the ISASI conference. But from time to time the ATSB presents detailed reports. It is not to my knowledge that we're preparing to present this one.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you very much

HVH: "...As I said, at least 50 pages, or 10 per cent, of the report are devoted to weather, with two specific appendices. So I don't think that's the case..."

Hmm...wonder why such a comprehensive, 500+ page, OTT, bollocks report did not include copies of the original BoM meteorology report?  Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)