Senate Estimates - 2017-18.
Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts.

The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course...it probably isn't.

The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back.

That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige".
Reply
ATSB ADD Estimates - AQON 

For what it is worth here are the ATSB AQON: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...2-ATSB.pdf - again 'spot the disconnect?  Confused





Senator Rex Patrick asked:


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 report—and obviously this is a second attempt at that report—there 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.

Answer:
The analysis on page 298–299 of the ATSB report ‘Fuel planning event, weather-related event and ditching involving Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind 1124A, VH-NGA, 6.4km WSW of Norfolk Island Airport, on 18 November 2009 (AO-2009-072)’ addresses the question:

“…if the flight had departed with full fuel on this occasion, this would not have provided for alternate fuel given the upper-level wind conditions that existed on the night of the accident.

Nevertheless, departing with full fuel would have significantly reduced the risk associated with the flight. In general terms, extra fuel will:

‐ allow a flight to proceed closer to the destination aerodrome before the flight crew need to make a decision regarding a diversion, reducing the time and therefore the risk of weather or other conditions changing between the point of no return (PNR) and arriving at the aerodrome
‐ if the flight is continued to the destination aerodrome, allow the flight crew to have more time at or overhead the aerodrome to hold and consider the available options and/or wait for weather conditions to improve.

On this occasion, if the crew had departed Apia with full fuel, it is likely they would have arrived at the top of descent point with at least 2,400 lb, which is 1,040 lb more fuel than on the accident flight (see also Considerations regarding access to RVSM flight levels). This was sufficient fuel to divert to Noumea, New Caledonia or Auckland, New Zealand at that point. Given the weather reports at that time were consistently stating cloud was below the landing minima at Norfolk Island, it is very likely the crew would have diverted. Alternatively, arriving at the top of descent with about 2,400 lb would have allowed the crew to descend, conduct an instrument approach, hold at about 2,300 ft for about 60 minutes and then conduct another approach.”

Further information related to this topic is also provided on pages 155–156 and the last paragraph on page 296 of the ATSB report.



Senator Rex Patrick asked:

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.

Answer:
Safety action was taken by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) following the ATSB’s February 2000 safety recommendation and further action has been taken since that time.

Page 303 of the ATSB Report ‘Fuel planning event, weather related event and ditching involving Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind 1124A, VH-NGA, 6.4km WSW of Norfolk Island Airport 18 November 2009 (AO 2009-072), provides a summary of some of the action following the recommendation made in the February 2000 report:

“Unforecast low cloud had previously been identified as an issue for aircraft arriving at Norfolk Island in 1999. BoM subsequently initiated several activities to improve its forecasting ability, including the installation of a weather radar, ceilometer and visibility meter, access to minute-by minute data, and the introduction of processes to ensure forecasters were provided with more timely information on discrepancies between observations and forecasts.

These changes improved BoM’s capabilities for forecasting at Norfolk Island. Data from BoM’s TAF verification system indicated forecasting reliability improved from 2003 to 2009. Data from ATSB’s predictive weather analysis algorithm indicated that in 2009 there were 296 hours of conditions below the landing minima for a Category C aircraft (such as a Westwind), which equated to 3.4 per cent of the total time. However, unforecast weather below the landing minima (that is, where the TAF was forecasting conditions above the alternate minima) was rare, occurring for a total of 10.5 hours or
0.12 per cent of the time. Overall, the amount of unforecast weather below the landing minima was comparable to the average for remote islands and capital city airports (average of 0.13 per cent per year).

This relatively low level of unforecast weather appeared to be due at least in part to BoM using a more conservative approach to forecasting at remote islands compared to capital city airports, consistent with the difficulties in forecasting at such locations. Such an approach is also compatible with the inherent risk of operations to remote locations.”
Detailed information is at:

‐ Pages 80–86 which address the reliability of forecasting at Norfolk Island, including action taken by BoM during 2000–2004 (see page 82).
‐ Pages 381–383 which provide details of the changes associated with forecasting at Norfolk Island for the period from 2010 to the release of the ATSB re-opened investigation report.





MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
For those that give a RRAT's arse Big Grin 

If anyone is remotely interested? - it looks like afternoon tea & biccys followed by beer, nuts and possibly a Fort Fumble BBQ for this year's Budget Estimates... Rolleyes 


Quote:2018–19 Budget estimates
Monday, 21 May 2018
Infrastructure and Regional Development

Tuesday, 22 May 2018
Infrastructure and Regional Development (continued)

Wednesday, 23 May 2018
Agriculture and Water Resources

Thursday, 24 May 2018
Agriculture and Water Resources (continued)

 Program for 21 to 24 May 2018 (PDF 71KB)




[Image: RRAT-1.jpg]
[Image: RRAT-2.jpg]

I also note that the nearly a month overdue Additional Estimates AQON have finally arrived -  Dodgy  (see HERE.)     

Now if you ever wanted a clearer example of how much CASA are still  totally out of touch with all reality, a 'Big R-egulator' and 'law unto themselves', go no further than some of the answers to Senator Fraser Anning's  QON... Confused :

Quote:Senator Fraser Anning asked:

The AOPA Australia across the past 2 years has published a range of important data (from government sources, including CASA, BITRE and others) that demonstrates that Australian general aviation is in serious decline.

Whilst the broader Australian economy has enjoyed 103 quarters of continuous growth, Australia’s general aviation industry has experienced;
• 34% decline in pilot numbers over the past 10 years
• 35% decline in avgas sales over the past 10 years
• 18% decline in aircraft hours flown over the past 5 years
• 20% decline in serviceable aircraft for the past 12 months
• 15% decline in maintenance and repair organisations in the past 12 months

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

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

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

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

Answer:

The General Aviation (GA) Study released in December 2017 found that GA is a diverse sector covering a range of manned and unmanned flying activity from flying training, mustering, firefighting and emergency services, search and rescue, aerial surveying and photography, towing and private flying.

The Study did indicate that total manned GA activity in Australia has been decreasing but not all parts of GA have been affected and that GA activity internationally from available data covering the USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand also has been declining or is static.


Senator Fraser Anning asked:

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

Answer:

The BITRE General Aviation (GA) Study actually indicates approximately 17 per cent of the VH-registered GA fleet were not flying in 2002 (not 7 per cent), and a steady growth of registered aircraft since 1992 (see Figure 1.4 on page 9 of the study).

CASA acknowledges the findings of the GA study show changes in composition of the GA fleet and activity over the past few decades. For example GA sector flying hours, including those of non VH-registered aircraft, illustrate the emergence of the recreational sector (of over 3,000 non VH-registered aircraft) which has contributed to increased overall activity for the GA sector (taken as a whole) since 1980.

The study does show that since 2010, total manned GA activity in Australia has been decreasing, but it also shows that not all parts of GA have seen reduced flying activity e.g. aerial mustering and search and rescue activity.

It is also the case that available data covering the USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand, shows that GA activity globally has been declining or is static.

Importantly the study also notes that broader economic and demographic factors affect GA activity.



Senator Fraser Anning asked:

What is the difference between a GA private pilot and a RAAus recreational pilot? Furthermore, could you explain the risk difference between the two, given that both pilots can fly the same aircraft, from the same airport, with a passenger onboard?

Has CASA undertaken a study or risk assessment that details its concerns regarding the above? Has there been a report? If so, could you please on notice provide that report.

Answer:

The key differences between a private pilot licensed under Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and a pilot operating under a RA-Aus Recreational Pilot Certificate is that the private pilot:

(a) completes more extensive training;
(b) undergoes a higher order aeronautical knowledge examination;
© undertakes a more comprehensive skills and practical knowledge flight assessment;
(d) has greater responsibilities, such as carrying more passengers; and
(e) has broader operational privileges, such as conducting operations outside of Australia and operating more complex types of aircraft

The additional knowledge, examination, practical training and assessments are applied to mitigate the higher risk associated with the broader operational scope and privileges of the private pilot licence.

While in certain circumstances both pilots may be able to fly the same type of aircraft, the RA-Aus registered aircraft is not required to meet the same airworthiness standards as an Australian Registered Aircraft (i.e. a CASA registered aircraft). An RA-Aus pilot Certificate holder may only fly in an RA-Aus registered aircraft (limited to two seat aircraft up to 600kg or the type certificate maximum take-off weight, whichever is less).

While CASA undertakes risk assessments (including detailed examinations of the risk profiles of particular areas of the aviation industry) in light of the current operational control measures in place, CASA has no concerns regarding the privileges of RA-Aus pilot certificate holders and there is no recent risk assessment of this area.



Senator Fraser Anning asked:

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

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

Answer:

CASA has decided to use the Austroads commercial driving standard, which includes a basic examination of certain physiological parameters (such as sight and hearing), as this standard includes factors that are relevant to aviation and is more appropriate for the risk profile related to what types of aircraft and airspace operations are permitted for a ‘GA’ licence holder.

The different licence standards for a CASA-regulated Private Pilot Licence and Recreational Pilot (sometimes referred to as ‘GA’) vis-à-vis an RA-Aus pilot licence, reflects that GA licence holders are permitted to fly all types of aircraft and operate in all airspace environments, whereas RA-Aus pilot licence holders are limited to operating an aircraft weight of a maximum of 600kg or less, with only one passenger, and only in uncontrolled airspace.



Senator Fraser Anning asked:

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

Can you explain how CASA is meeting its obligations under its regulatory philosophy, which requires the regulator to be inclusive of the entire process?

Under the new Class 2 Basic medical standard, CASA have removed the ability for a pilot to fly NVFR/IFR and Aerobatics. Given that all three modes of flight require significant additional training and demonstration competency, therefore improving the overall safety standard and surveillance of the pilot, can you please explain how CASA is improving GA safety by removing such privileges?

Answer:

The reforms to CASA Class 2 medical certification, after the initial industry consultation process, were considered by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, the primary industry advisory body to the Director of Aviation Safety through which CASA directs its engagement with industry prior to public release. The Panel includes individuals from Qantas, Virgin, the Australian Airports Association, the Australian Aviation Associations Forum (which has several general aviation associations as members), the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and Recreational Aviation Australia.

The process included a review of industry feedback as part of the discussion paper process. This approach is consistent with CASA’s regulatory philosophy.

The Basic Class 2 is aligned to a commercial road transport medical standard. The performance of flight crew tasks in a Night Visual Flight Rules (NVFR), Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and aerobatic environment place different aeromedical demands on a pilot in terms of visual acuity, spatial awareness and cardiovascular fitness that are not captured by the Austroads commercial road transport medical standard.

The exclusion of these privileges from performance by Basic Class 2 holders is a matter of medical fitness, and not one of pilot competency. CASA has not removed any privileges as Aerobatics, NVFR and IFR are all still available under the existing Class 2 medical certificate.

 
What a bunch of ducking arrogant pricks -  Dodgy



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
No. Not gunna doit: Nope.

Never have an ale with a ‘research guru’ particularly a statistician – new rule. I made that error; and, my poor old woodenhead is still aching, which is bad enough but he awoke the curiosity curse, which is not good.

It happened thus:- ‘the’ budget was being mulled over in a desultory, almost disinterested fashion when the allocations to ASA, ATSB and CASA got a mention. “Ferky Nell” exclaims he; “that’s a lot of dollars”. “So it is” I agreed: end of. He grabbed a coaster and produced a pen and sat quietly for a moment or two – then put his finger on the last figure at the end of a pile of scribble. “Wuzzat” say’s I. “Why that is a rough estimate of what it costs each person in Australia – every day to support those agencies” he replied, “but don’t quote me; it’s only rough”.

What is ‘rough’ is the staggering impost on the community to fund the mentioned outfits.
Then he threw down the gauntlet – the one that got me thinking. If you take a population base like say the USA and use that – say 100,000,000 folk and the total aviation support infrastructure cost 100,000,000 a year – that’s $1.00 per head – per capita.

He went on a little longer – but the end result showed fairly effectively that Australian aviation safety; on a per capita basis costs a shed load more than most of the successful first world aviation countries.

Of course a fellah like him can make the ‘stats’ say exactly what he wants them to; but it’s a curiosity; and, it depends on how you decide which data you use to divide into the total budget allocation – but, as this bloke demonstrated using the total population of Australia – the total per person is a seriously big number. It is a very good thing that the voting, tax paying community don’t get to see the true figures; there’d be hell to pay. If they (the public) ever worked out how little benefit the outlay provided, there’d be riots.

“Have a play with some numbers yourself” say old mate, “do the UK, USA and NZ – total outlay divided by population, see what you come up with, by comparison”.

Nope, Nah, not a chance, except the curiosity curse has kicked in. It is an intriguing idea.

Toot – toot. (No - repeat No 100 times).
Reply
NX - "Who guards the guards themselves?"


Good post "K", certainly gets a numerically challenged knuckle-dragger, like myself a'thinking.. Huh 

Following the latest iteration of the MH370 SIO search, plus the subsequent 60 minutes rehash of the 'pilot did it' hypotheses, got me thinking about the considerable ATP ( Australian taxpayer) funded costs sunk into aviation safety matters, such as MH370 (60+ $ million) or the 8+ year PelAir cover-up inquiries, reports, reviews etc..etc. 

Best guesstimates put upwards of 50+ million dollars having been spent on the PelAir debacle. This seems a bit steep but when you consider there was 500K spent on the recovery of VH-NGA's CVR/FDR alone; or one day of a Senate Inquiry public hearing reportedly costs over 30K to administer then 50 million over 8 years is entirely plausible... Undecided 

The worst part is that these ATP expenses could have been avoided if the aviation safety bureaucracy had of done their job properly in the first place. Still can't go past the irony that Beaker made the executive decision not to recover the black boxes purely on the cost outweighing the perceived benefit:



     

While on the pecuniary cost of the PelAir debacle and in the course of again reviewing parts of the Senate AAI inquiry report (see HERE), I could not go past the Additional Comments by Senator Nick Xenophon as a pointed example of how the aviation safety bureaucracy through the tyranny of time and ruthless obfuscation have effectively flipped the bird to any real and tangible Parliamentary reform to both the regulator and the investigator:


Quote:Additional Comments by Senator Nick Xenophon
Who guards the guards themselves?

1.1        I would like to acknowledge the many submitters to this inquiry, and in particular the individuals who were involved in the incident itself. Their information and testimonies were invaluable to the committee and I appreciate their contributions, particularly in light of how distressing it was for them to relive the accident.

1.2        As the committee states, this inquiry was not an attempt to re-examine the circumstances of the ditching of Pel-Air VH-NGA, or to conduct an aviation accident investigation. Instead, it focussed on the reporting standards and activities of the ATSB and CASA in relation to the ditching, and general governance, transparency and accountability issues.

1.3        However, what is clear from this inquiry is that, while the pilot of the flight did make some erroneous decisions, he essentially became a scapegoat for serious regulatory failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB.

1.4        I strongly endorse the comments made by the committee in its report. The evidence given by Mr McCormick of CASA and Mr Dolan of the ATSB was both shocking and disturbing.

1.5        What at first seemed a fairly straightforward inquiry, instead turned up evidence of withheld documents, poor reporting standards, institutional blindness and what appears to be CASA's undue and potentially dangerous influence over the ATSB and its investigation processes. It is clear to me that both agencies have been allowed to operate to a sub-par standard with little knowledge or intervention for too long.

1.6        The details of the ditching and subsequent report are complex and technical. However, the core of the issue is that the ATSB produced a report into the ditching over 33 months after the incident that, contrary to world’s best practice and the ATSB’s own standards, did not even touch on the systemic or regulatory environment in which the pilot was operating. Instead, it focussed primarily on the pilot’s actions. It did not examine the organisation for which the pilot was working, or the systems, procedures or environment in that organisation. This is despite the fact that a CASA Special Audit of Pel-Air after the ditching discovered serious regulatory breaches, and an internal CASA report (the Chambers Report) found significant failures in CASA's oversight of the operator. While neither of these documents were provided to the ATSB in a timely manner (the Chambers report was not released to them until after the inquiry had commenced), the ATSB's investigation should have discovered these problems. That there was no indication of this in the report is a serious concern.

1.7        Further, among the many documents provided to the committee by the ATSB and CASA, the committee discovered the following email, from an ATSB officer to Mr Dolan and Mr Sangston. It reads (bold emphasis added):

Quote:We were discussing the potential to reflect the intent of our new MoU that describes the 2 agencies as ‘independent but complementary’. We discussed the hole CASA might have got itself into by its interventions since the ditching, and how you might have identified an optimum path that will maximise the safety outcome without either agency planting egg on the other agency’s face.
Right now, I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support. If we were to contemplate an exit strategy, or an ‘out’, then CASA would need to recognise that it is ‘in’ something in the first place. This is my take on how I see their position at the moment.
When the aircraft ditched, both the flight crew and the operator stopped their Westwind Aeromedical operations. CASA coached and guided the operator very well as they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pel-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn’t happened to the flight crew. While they may not have been the ‘Aces of the base’ they were following the relevant procedure provided by both CASA and the operator. This is an opportunity for CASA to follow the same approach with the flight crew as they have done with the operator.
...
As we discussed yesterday, following the ditching, everything went (metaphorically) ‘up in the air’. CASA has done a good job in realigning Pel-Air while it was still in the air so that it returning to earth with a much better take on how to manage this risk. Unfortunately, they took action on the flight crew without first contemplating their end-game. If they re‑frame their pre-emptive action with the flight crew to show that they had managed all the levels of safety management simply by putting the pilots’ permissions to fly on hold until they had found the problem and remedied it, then they would look far better than if they tried to prosecute the probably indefensible and hardly relevant.
We will be telling this story in our final report (if not earlierWink so why not make the most of this opportunity for both agencies to publicly work harmoniously, in a parallel direction?[1]

1.8        It is important to note that 'this story' never made it into the final report, or into any other arena. This email clearly indicates there was a belief inside the ATSB that CASA had 'got itself into a hole', and that the ATSB’s priority was avoiding conflict between the two agencies, rather than holding CASA to account. Indeed, the ATSB's report makes no mention of the officer's concerns, and does not even hint at the whole 'story' outlined in the email.

1.9        It also makes it clear that, at least initially, the focus of the investigation was on systemic issues, and that the ATSB officer believed CASA's actions against the pilots were premature and unnecessary. Why the emphasis of the report changed is open to conjecture.

1.10      The report itself is of such a poor standard that many believe it could be considered a breach of Australia's international obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Annex 13 guidelines for accident investigation reporting.

1.11      Without distracting from the excellent work of the committee's report, I believe it is important to draw attention to two issues that the committee, due to time restraints, was not able to examine more closely.

1.12      Firstly, I believe relationship between CASA's Bankstown Office (responsible for the oversight of Pel-Air and run at the time in an acting capacity by the author of the "Chambers Report") and Pel-Air's management in terms of probity, transparency and impartiality deserves further scrutiny.

1.13      Secondly, I believe it would have been beneficial to publicly examine whether the "demonstrably safety-related" actions taken by CASA against the pilot by CASA were appropriate, reasonable and consistent with other such enforcement. I believe these two issues deserve further consideration.

1.14      Both of these issues could have cast some light on why the ATSB's focus shifted from systemic and human factors to the behaviour of the pilot.

1.15      Beyond the ATSB report itself, the committee also considered the regulatory environment in which such flights operate. As discussed in the committee report, there are significant industry concerns about the low safety standards for aeromedical operations, which come under the category of 'aerial work'. This category includes activities such as crop dusting and aerial surveys.

1.16      One of the significant issues in relation to the ditching was whether or not the pilot should have chosen to divert to an alternate destination due to the weather at Norfolk Island. The committee report discusses Mr McCormick's response to whether CASA should provide guidance in these circumstances, and whether the drafting of a new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation would address this.

1.17      The committee report stated that CASA has drafted Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 135, which may assist in dealing with this issue. However, CASA's website information on CASR 135 states:

Quote:A passenger transport operation is a transport operation in an aircraft involving the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is carried on the aircraft. A passenger transport operation does not include, cost sharing operations, aerial work operations or an operation for the carriage of passengers in an aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness other than a standard certificate of airworthiness.[2]

1.18      Further, the CASA website on CASR 136 indicates that Emergency and Medical Services Operations will remain under the category of aerial work.[3] Therefore, it seems that even though CASA has drafted the guidance under CASR 135, it would not have applied to this flight then or indeed in the future. Further, the guidance only states that alternates need to be provided for, not under what circumstances pilots must choose to travel to those alternates.

1.19      It is also important to note the committee's discussion of the ATSB's Canley Vale report. This incident (also a medical flight) tragically resulted in the deaths of both the pilot and the nurse onboard. The ATSB's response to this accident was similar to its report into the Pel-Air ditching. The ATSB also made it very clear in its report that it did not consider CASA's failure to oversee the operator appropriately as relevant.  The validity of that view is, I believe, a direct parallel to that exposed by this inquiry for the Pel-Air ditching and equally alarming.

1.20      The committee also recommended the establishment of an expert independent panel to oversee the ATSB's investigations and reporting. Given the circumstances raised in this report, I believe there is merit in expanding the role of this panel to oversee the performance of both CASA and the ATSB as a whole. There is currently no system to measure the activities of these agencies in an objective manner, and the need for expert oversight and monitoring has been made abundantly clear.

1.21      It is my view that the panel should instead take the form of an Inspector‑General of Aviation Safety. Such a body would have the appropriate resources, expertise and powers to oversee the ATSB and CASA to a greater degree. The current Inspector-General of Taxation would be an excellent model to follow as an independent office aimed at conducting systemic reviews and providing recommendations to government.

Recommendation 1
That the Government establish, as a matter of urgency, the role of Inspector‑General of Aviation Safety, with the necessary powers, resources and expertise to oversee and independently review the activities of CASA, the ATSB and other relevant organisations to an appropriate level.

1.22      Ultimately, this inquiry has exposed serious and significant flaws in Australia's aviation safety systems. The general industry attitude towards both the ATSB and CASA is incredibly concerning; it is a mixture of fear, suspicion, disappointment and derision.

1.23      It is my view that CASA, under Mr McCormick, has become a regulatory bully that appears to take any action available to ensure its own shortcomings are not made public. This poses great risks to aviation safety, and the safety of the travelling public. Equally, the ATSB—which should fearlessly expose any shortcomings on the part of CASA and other organisations to improve aviation safety—has become institutionally timid and appears to lack the strength to perform its role adequately. Both agencies require a complete overhaul, and I believe it is only luck that their ineptness has not resulted in further deaths so far. There is an urgent need for an Inspector-General of Aviation Safety, entirely independent of the Minister and his department, to be a watchdog for these agencies.

1.24      In the end, this report raises many questions. But if we wish to bring about change and improve aviation safety, we will clearly need to look beyond our inept regulators and ask: who will guard the guards themselves?
 
Senator Nick Xenophon
Independent Senator for South Australia
  
Consider the above comments from former Senator NX and reflect on the current state of affairs (especially 1.12 & 1.13) in aviation safety oversight and investigation (example FalconAir embuggerance). You then begin to understand, like NX identified back then, how endemic, deeply entrenched and seemingly immovable the bureaucratic behemoth is when it comes to adopting any real and transparent proactive reform - FDS!  Dodgy 

"Let's do the timewarp again?"

MTF...P2  Cool      
Reply
Senate to slap ATSB with a wet lettuce on MH370 -  Dodgy

Over on the Australia, ATSB and MH370 thread it was brought to our attention that Senator Rex and the RRAT committee intend to 'grill' HVH and his minions, at Budget Estimates, on the original ATSB botched $200 million MH370 search: Has the penny finally dropped on Aussie top-cover bureau?


Quote:“In any circumstance where $200m of taxpayer money has been spent and credible sources raise questions as to the approach or efficacy, some form of inquiry is worthy,” Senator Patrick said.

However I would argue that given the committee's recent performance and wet lettuce inquisition on matters of an aeronautical nature, combined with the current Chair Senator O'Obfuscation's apparently biased approval of the ATSB and his declared conflict of interests, which includes MH370...      

Quote:Barry O: Perceived COI on matters aviation??

Quote: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: Wrote:On chasing tales and washing spots [Image: huh.gif]  

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


Quote: Wrote: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?  [Image: rolleyes.gif] 

...IMHO this particular MH370 inquisition should be placed in the hands of the adults, with a combined ANAO audit and special joint Parliamentary inquiry at a minimum... Dodgy

MY two bobs worth - P2... Tongue
Reply
IF (big one). If the world ever paid serious attention to the goings and comings of Australia’s ATSB over the last decade, the shame this would bring to this once proud aviation nation would humble the idiots who allowed this to happen, by abrogating any and all responsibility while still taking the money and enjoying the faux kudos, into to leaving public office, forever and fervently hoping that no one ever noticed them again on the high street.

The ATSB is a national disgrace.– Now run by a person of interest in the Pel-Air debacle who took over from the Uriah Heep of SMH infamy. Was the 60 minutes show produced simply to expose this? How I wish it was. However - seems it has managed to do exactly that. Bravo.

The problem is that to call for a ‘police’ investigation into these and other notable matters; and, the results, would probably bring down a government, after publicly and internationally  shaming them, humiliating a nation, if not gaoling the ministers who tacitly approved the pantomimes, performed in their name.

SHAME is too little a word.
Reply
From Senator Rex, via Facebook:


Quote:MALAYSIA AIRLINES FLIGHT MH370

In any circumstance where $200 million of taxpayer money has been spent and credible sources raise questions as to the approach to or efficacy of that expenditure, some form of inquiry is worthy.

I'll be asking the Australian Transport Safety Bureau questions about the search for MH370 next week at Senate Estimates. 
...See More


[Image: safe_image.php?d=AQBy9J14ulPNuvgK&w=476&...h0KGdO_kHY]

MH370: $200-million taxpayer funded search is ‘troubling’

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) will face scrutiny over its handling of the search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.

6 HOURS AGO
BEN FORDHAM

Experts who led the operation will be grilled by senators next week over allegations they ignored key evidence.

So far, Australian taxpayers have forked out over $200 million for the search.

Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick tells Ben Fordhman it’s “troubling”.

“I understand it’s a big ocean and it can be very, very difficult to find wreckage and debris, particularly after such a long time.

“My big concern is that whether or not the ATSB who has been conducting the search actually conducted the search in a manner that considered all of the evidence.


“We have to make sure we have funded what is fair.”

Listen to the full interview below

http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...ubling.mp3

Three former captains believe the Captain of the plane hijacked his own jet and depressurised the cabin to kill passengers, before ditching it.

They include Byron Bailey who told Alan Jones he believes evidence to support their theory hasn’t been properly considered.
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
SECURITY BREACHES GALORE.....

Genuine risk or bureaucratic overkill?
Industry sources and some media outlets have reported several issues over the past few weeks including;

Cairns airport; OTS systems test with an IED and the airport failed twice. Numerous breaches over the past 2 years including security and airport staff tipping each other off regarding upcoming OTS audits. The Feds wanted to lay charges of hinderance. (ISS security)

Melbourne airport; security breach when a buffoon bolted through a pass-back door onto the tarmac and then kicked the shit out of a Onestar plane. (ISS security)

Adelaide airport; Numerous systems test failures where staff have not picked up weapons being smuggled through screening. (ISS security)

OTS hammering regional airports and uncovering checked baggage screening equipment deficiencies and non-compliance’s. (multiple security companies)

Body scanning introduction to lots of airports; a letter has been sent to airports outlining that over 60 airports will need to introduce full body scanners and up to 15 airports which currently don’t have any screening requirements will have to introduce security screening. My sources say that what airports now face is a bill of at least $120m worth of new equipment that needs to be implemented, not including the training of staff and screening point terminal upgrades. My question is this; if airports are struggling to maintain security with the current system in place, how can they be mature enough to handle full body scanning? And the impact upon the travelling public and even General Aviation of yet another level of ludicrous bureaucratic compliance that is costly and most likely ineffective because the bad guys will adapt and find another way to bring down a plane. The world, and the fucking government have gone completely mad..

Tick tock

Not to worry GD. Be happy that somebody and his mate will be making a shed load of money out of all this; the great Security Troughfest.  
Reply
MH370: Senate wet lettuce inquisition update.  [Image: dodgy.gif]  


Via 'that man' in the Oz:


Quote: Wrote:Bureau faces heat on MH370

[Image: a9ce2b71b4361ee1b9a71421659b8b5e]EAN HIGGINS

Australia’s air safety bureau has failed to explain an ­apparent double standard surrounding questions over the MH370 disaster.


MH370 questions unanswered

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has failed to explain an ­apparent double standard in which its officers divulge material supporting their theory of what happened to Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 but say information that runs against their hypothesis is restricted and cannot be ­released.

Pressure is mounting on the ATSB ahead of a Senate estimates hearing tomorrow where Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick intends to canvass claims the ­bureau allegedly ignored evidence about MH370 that should have changed its strategy for its failed $200 million search for the plane.

MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, and primary radar and automatic satellite tracking data showed it ended up in the southern Indian Ocean. At Malaysia’s request Australia led the first subsea hunt for the Boeing 777, and the ATSB defined a target zone based on a theory that the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft flew on autopilot until running out of fuel and crashing down rapidly in a steep dive.

Senior airline pilots have long disputed that conclusion, saying the evidence points to captain ­Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacking his own aircraft, flying it to the end and ditching it.

Last week, The Australian published extracts from a new book by veteran Canadian air crash investigator Larry Vance that claims a wing flap and flaperon from the aircraft found washed up off Africa in 2015 clearly show the aircraft was ditched by a pilot.

Mr Vance says ATSB investigators should have recognised their theory was wrong, but the bureau carried on with its original strategy.

Officers of the ATSB have had no hesitation in releasing information they claim supports their “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory.

In September 2016, when international experts were still examining the flap, the ATSB’s leader of the search, Peter Foley, said Australian analysis suggested it had not been deployed when it hit the water but was retracted inside the wing. A pilot attempting a soft landing would have extended the flaps.

“If it’s not in a deployed state, it ­validates, if you like, where we’ve been looking,” Mr Foley told Australian Associated Press.

But when The Australian recently requested any factual ­material that might have come over the past two years that indicated MH370 had been ditched, the ­bureau said that “to the extent documents exist they are likely to be classified as restricted information under section 3 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and exempt from ­release”.

Subsequently it said “the documents sought do not exist in the records of this agency.”

Among other Freedom of Information requests ­refused by the ATSB was one seeking the opinions of a panel of international ­experts of satellite data the bureau claims supports its “death dive” theory. The original request was refused because their release could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”.

ATSB media spokesman Paul Sadler did not respond to emails.

[Image: sleepy.gif] - I guess I'll have to tune in tomorrow to see what variety of wet lettuce is being presented by Senator Rex to HVH and his motley minions... [Image: dodgy.gif] 

For those remotely interested the ATSB is listed for an hour of wet lettuce slapping from 15:30-16:30 tomorrow and can be viewed via this link: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/W...tent-panel

Please keep in mind that the Estimates timetable is nearly always running late, especially if the Chair Barry O'Obfuscation is running interference -  [Image: dodgy.gif] 


MTF...P2  [Image: cool.gif]
Reply
MINISCULE LEPTON....

Firstly, deary deary me, security issues at Parlousment House? Perhaps the Office of Total Stupidity (OTS) needs to do an audit of the ivory tower of shite in Can’tberra and check all the manuals to ensure no pages are out of date, force the pollywafflers to install full body screening, make them put their briefcases through an X-ray screening machine, swab test them once they have passed through, make sure security officers training records aren’t out of date by one day, make sure security officers have their shirts are ironed and pants pressed?? You know, big ticket items such as that. As for the ‘white powder’ that was found, I believe it was the remnants of 30 Krispy Kreme donuts that Barry O’obsfucate shovelled down his throat as fuel for the days sitting in the Senate!

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-21...es/9783334

But alas as at the end of the day and getting back to aviation’s demise, Miniscule McDo’nothing reminds me of the Greek word ‘lepton’, meaning something ‘small and thin’. I think his dick is somewhat ‘lepton’...... To be con’t
Reply
BRB 2018 WOFTAM award winners unanimously confirmedDodgy

After viewing the ATSB MH370 Estimates session, at the regular BRB weekly briefing, the bookies odds were already firmly backing the Fat Controller Barry O'Obfuscation led Senate RRAT committee to take out the BRB 2018 WOFTAM award.  Confused

However once the BRB caught wind of the Senator Sic'of'Rex performance, aided & abetted by the Fat Controller's overbearing and blatant manipulations in the Fort Fumble session, there was a rather long pregnant pause followed by a resigned sigh emanating from the bar, when the BRB contingent realised they'd be shouting Ol'Tom - because he told them so - for a month of Sundays... Big Grin   

After much ranting and raving, eventually P9 began to settle down, at which point he surprisingly asked me if I could regurgitate one particular line from the bollocks "Sic'of'Rex" questioning - WTD... Huh 

 Anyway, so I don't end up in the doghouse -  Big Grin ,  here'tis x2:









Huh Huh
        
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Secura fulsit.

Or, is it fulashit? I never know. Sorry I’m late – been busy

Well; that’s a first. Darts practice – CASA on the big screen – and the conversation never stopped, - nary once. Diu Noctuque. Strange and wonderful that is; not an ear pricked up, not a ribald comment; not even a muttered Bollocks. Not even the fly Scots git copped a Fur Ducks Sake – mind you, practice ceased while the ‘salute’ was delivered when it sat it’s sorry self down on the left hand of St Carmody (Aleck’s own). Remarkable really.

There is a temptation to actually ‘like’ Carmody; no idea why – except he manages to appear genuine. He ain’t of course. Mind you, he is smart enough to recognize that CASA has a tiny image problem and the ‘minister’ wishes to have that resolved. The dopey miniscule has actually swallowed the bait and believes that a couple of soft sessions at Estimates will make it all go away. WRONG. The miniscule needs to explain why all the ‘big guns’ effectively boycotted the ASA, ATSB and CASA sessions; and, why are Calm-Mode and O’Obfuscation almost drooling over each other when they meet? Ducking Fistucting is wot it is. Yuk.

Old Machiavelli (a 'real' realist) understood folk such as Carmody very well indeed:

“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”

Behind the smiling Carmody façade we find Aleck and Crawford; these are Carmody’s front line storm troops. No smiling assassin this man, no Sir – he hires it done while he has tea and scones wiv Bazza – his mate.

Carmody is certainly clever enough to very neatly avoided the important points Patrick not only missed; but then telegraphed the wrong point; then fumbled it, then failed to make; then let O’Obfuscation steal the ball and roll it neatly into touch. To wit – the ICC’s telling comment.






["[the] complex procedures CASA specify are often not complied with".

But then Patrick has (again) dropped the ball (if he ever had a firm grasp) – the ALAEA failed to brief him properly, Patrick never got a match to the fuse, and BoS tapped it into touch just as the whistle blew.  Failed Senators – failed. Definitely no Choc Frogs for that piss poor effort.

For practical men, under pressure to get a flight ‘out’ – off the stand, the ‘risk’ associated and procedures involved are too bloody silly for words. That tyre was (a) acceptable or; (b) too bad to be used. End of. Enter the political dragon, armed with excuses and back door passes.

Primarily - the ALAEA plot back-fired. O Sofullame couldn’t keep his trap shut, distracted Patrick; and then, not only aided but abetted an easy exit for the Kool Aid team. Then peace, understanding and fellowship prevailed. Hallelujah and praise the gods of get out of jail free cards. Indeed, I am all astonishment.

But, let’s call it for what it was; a marginal tyre (routine). Not some silly Americanism ‘line ball’ call. The tyre was marginal – fact. The LAME had but two options (i) ground the aircraft or; (ii) release the aircraft to service. The original cleft stick. Accident; the company would throw him under the next bus in a heart beat. Delay the flight and the company would kick the crap out of him. Fail to meet every one of the complex, draconian requirements of the regulation – CASA would pull his ticket, prosecute and probably jail him. The rule of the lesser of the three weevils prevails, pick one, then, cover your arse.. The LAME exercised his judgement; the pilots accepted that judgement and the arse covering commenced. One of the reasons Qantas have built and operate a heavy maintenance facility overseas is to remove the company from the lunacy surrounding maintenance regulation in Australia – well, that and to save a fortune.

But the ICC nailed it –





The bloody rules are just  too complex (and dangerous) to allow ‘discretion’ and ‘experience’ to make a judgement call against jail time. But it’s all good; O’Sofullame and Calm-Mode have a rapport. Move along – the CASA good PR machine is hard at work – for your safety. BOLLOCKS………..

Then, we have the little sidebar Patrick dredged up regarding TCAS highlights another problem – listen again as the story of a dud TCAS was only reported at the completion of the flight series. WTD?

And so, the CASA session ended without anyone noticing , the bar crew turned on some soothing background music, the ale flowed, darts practice continued and apart from some ribald comment, taking the piss out of the Scots git – and the odd guffaw, Estimates passed into insignificance as O’Obfusctaion raced off to a dinner engagement – leaving it all tucked up neatly and put to bed; while the big guns stayed away in droves.

Aye well, that’s why we pay the big bucks – I mean why would a Budget Estimates committee ever ask CASA to explain why it needed $189,000,000 next year; or when the endless ‘roll-out’ of complex, costly, punitive, unconstitutional regulation was going to cease, when there’s  a marginal tyre to discus. Pathetic. Totally, completely and utterly PATHETIC.





Toot- Bring back Bill - toot…
Reply
(05-23-2018, 07:33 PM)kharon Wrote: Secura fulsit.

Or, is it fulashit? I never know. Sorry I’m late – been busy

Well; that’s a first. Darts practice – CASA on the big screen – and the conversation never stopped, - nary once. Diu Noctuque. Strange and wonderful that is; not an ear pricked up, not a ribald comment; not even a muttered Bollocks. Not even the fly Scots git copped a Fur Ducks Sake – mind you, practice ceased while the ‘salute’ was delivered when it sat it’s sorry self down on the left hand of St Carmody (Aleck’s own). Remarkable really.

There is a temptation to actually ‘like’ Carmody; no idea why – except he manages to appear genuine. He ain’t of course. Mind you, he is smart enough to recognize that CASA has a tiny image problem and the ‘minister’ wishes to have that resolved. The dopey miniscule has actually swallowed the bait and believes that a couple of soft sessions at Estimates will make it all go away. WRONG. The miniscule needs to explain why all the ‘big guns’ effectively boycotted the ASA, ATSB and CASA sessions; and, why are Calm-Mode and O’Obfuscation almost drooling over each other when they meet? Ducking Fistucting is wot it is. Yuk.

Old Machiavelli (a 'real' realist) understood folk such as Carmody very well indeed:

“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”

Behind the smiling Carmody façade we find Aleck and Crawford; these are Carmody’s front line storm troops. No smiling assassin this man, no Sir – he hires it done while he has tea and scones wiv Bazza – his mate.

Carmody is certainly clever enough to very neatly avoided the important points Patrick not only missed; but then telegraphed the wrong point; then fumbled it, then failed to make; then let O’Obfuscation steal the ball and roll it neatly into touch. To wit – the ICC’s telling comment.






["[the] complex procedures CASA specify are often not complied with".

But then Patrick has (again) dropped the ball (if he ever had a firm grasp) – the ALAEA failed to brief him properly, Patrick never got a match to the fuse, and BoS tapped it into touch just as the whistle blew.  Failed Senators – failed. Definitely no Choc Frogs for that piss poor effort.

For practical men, under pressure to get a flight ‘out’ – off the stand, the ‘risk’ associated and procedures involved are too bloody silly for words. That tyre was (a) acceptable or; (b) too bad to be used. End of. Enter the political dragon, armed with excuses and back door passes.

Primarily - the ALAEA plot back-fired. O Sofullame couldn’t keep his trap shut, distracted Patrick; and then, not only aided but abetted an easy exit for the Kool Aid team. Then peace, understanding and fellowship prevailed. Hallelujah and praise the gods of get out of jail free cards. Indeed, I am all astonishment.

But, let’s call it for what it was; a marginal tyre (routine). Not some silly Americanism ‘line ball’ call. The tyre was marginal – fact. The LAME had but two options (i) ground the aircraft or; (ii) release the aircraft to service. The original cleft stick. Accident; the company would throw him under the next bus in a heart beat. Delay the flight and the company would kick the crap out of him. Fail to meet every one of the complex, draconian requirements of the regulation – CASA would pull his ticket, prosecute and probably jail him. The rule of the lesser of the three weevils prevails, pick one, then, cover your arse.. The LAME exercised his judgement; the pilots accepted that judgement and the arse covering commenced. One of the reasons Qantas have built and operate a heavy maintenance facility overseas is to remove the company from the lunacy surrounding maintenance regulation in Australia – well, that and to save a fortune.

But the ICC nailed it –





The bloody rules are just  too complex (and dangerous) to allow ‘discretion’ and ‘experience’ to make a judgement call against jail time. But it’s all good; O’Sofullame and Calm-Mode have a rapport. Move along – the CASA good PR machine is hard at work – for your safety. BOLLOCKS………..

Then, we have the little sidebar Patrick dredged up regarding TCAS highlights another problem – listen again as the story of a dud TCAS was only reported at the completion of the flight series. WTD?

And so, the CASA session ended without anyone noticing , the bar crew turned on some soothing background music, the ale flowed, darts practice continued and apart from some ribald comment, taking the piss out of the Scots git – and the odd guffaw, Estimates passed into insignificance as O’Obfusctaion raced off to a dinner engagement – leaving it all tucked up neatly and put to bed; while the big guns stayed away in droves.

Aye well, that’s why we pay the big bucks – I mean why would a Budget Estimates committee ever ask CASA to explain why it needed $189,000,000 next year; or when the endless ‘roll-out’ of complex, costly, punitive, unconstitutional regulation was going to cease, when there’s  a marginal tyre to discus. Pathetic. Totally, completely and utterly PATHETIC.





Toot- Bring back Bill - toot…

Chair O'Obfuscation top-cover for ATSB & CASA cont/-


To further highlight this 'passing strange' disconnection with what I would of thought is the primary purpose for Budget Estimates, this from the ATSB MH370 thread today:


Quote:MH370: OI search ends & 'he said, she said' wars heat up   [Image: undecided.gif] 


While the OI search wraps up the MH370 theorists once again (yawn -  [Image: sleepy.gif] ) fire up debate on end of flight and the pilot did, err..didn't do it - FDS!  [Image: dodgy.gif] 



P2 comment - Putting aside all this tedious 'he said, she said' palaver, I still can't fathom how a Senate committee at Budget Estimates did not ask the simple questions like:

Q/ Based on all the available evidence provided to the ATSB/CSIRO/DSTG to define the 2x high priority search (125k sq km & now 25k sq km) areas, how come not one bit of physical piece of debris/evidence has been found in those areas? 

Q/ Does this indicate that the 'Bayesian methods' used to help define these high priority areas was indeed a flawed and limited approach?     

Q/ Why was Fugro the best value tender choice given that OI have covered so much territory in less than 3 months under a potential $70 million 'no find, no fee' contract? 
 
From the tail end of the ATSB MH370 questioning it becomes pretty damn obvious (much like the total PelAir cover-up cost) that O'Obfuscastion has effectively put the MH370 'wet lettuce' inquisition to bed -  Dodgy





Next this quote from "K" above:

"..Estimates passed into insignificance as O’Obfusctaion raced off to a dinner engagement – leaving it all tucked up neatly and put to bed; while the big guns stayed away in droves...

...Aye well, that’s why we pay the big bucks – I mean why would a Budget Estimates committee ever ask CASA to explain why it needed $189,000,000 next year; or when the endless ‘roll-out’ of complex, costly, punitive, unconstitutional regulation was going to cease, when there’s  a marginal tyre to discuss..."
 

To again highlight this 'passing strange' disconnection where not one solid question pertaining to the CASA's budget was transgressed, the following segment highlights in my mind the obvious cozy relationship BO has with SC and his endeavour to disregard a small minority of IOS whinging about the justified injustices still being inflicted by the Iron Ring 'Big R-egulator' -  Angry





MTF...P2  Cool      

Ps Will supplement post with Hansard when it becomes available... Wink
Reply
(05-24-2018, 11:20 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
(05-23-2018, 07:33 PM)kharon Wrote: Secura fulsit.

Or, is it fulashit? I never know. Sorry I’m late – been busy

Well; that’s a first. Darts practice – CASA on the big screen – and the conversation never stopped, - nary once. Diu Noctuque. Strange and wonderful that is; not an ear pricked up, not a ribald comment; not even a muttered Bollocks. Not even the fly Scots git copped a Fur Ducks Sake – mind you, practice ceased while the ‘salute’ was delivered when it sat it’s sorry self down on the left hand of St Carmody (Aleck’s own). Remarkable really.

There is a temptation to actually ‘like’ Carmody; no idea why – except he manages to appear genuine. He ain’t of course. Mind you, he is smart enough to recognize that CASA has a tiny image problem and the ‘minister’ wishes to have that resolved. The dopey miniscule has actually swallowed the bait and believes that a couple of soft sessions at Estimates will make it all go away. WRONG. The miniscule needs to explain why all the ‘big guns’ effectively boycotted the ASA, ATSB and CASA sessions; and, why are Calm-Mode and O’Obfuscation almost drooling over each other when they meet? Ducking Fistucting is wot it is. Yuk.

Old Machiavelli (a 'real' realist) understood folk such as Carmody very well indeed:

“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”

Behind the smiling Carmody façade we find Aleck and Crawford; these are Carmody’s front line storm troops. No smiling assassin this man, no Sir – he hires it done while he has tea and scones wiv Bazza – his mate.

Carmody is certainly clever enough to very neatly avoided the important points Patrick not only missed; but then telegraphed the wrong point; then fumbled it, then failed to make; then let O’Obfuscation steal the ball and roll it neatly into touch. To wit – the ICC’s telling comment.






["[the] complex procedures CASA specify are often not complied with".

But then Patrick has (again) dropped the ball (if he ever had a firm grasp) – the ALAEA failed to brief him properly, Patrick never got a match to the fuse, and BoS tapped it into touch just as the whistle blew.  Failed Senators – failed. Definitely no Choc Frogs for that piss poor effort.

For practical men, under pressure to get a flight ‘out’ – off the stand, the ‘risk’ associated and procedures involved are too bloody silly for words. That tyre was (a) acceptable or; (b) too bad to be used. End of. Enter the political dragon, armed with excuses and back door passes.

Primarily - the ALAEA plot back-fired. O Sofullame couldn’t keep his trap shut, distracted Patrick; and then, not only aided but abetted an easy exit for the Kool Aid team. Then peace, understanding and fellowship prevailed. Hallelujah and praise the gods of get out of jail free cards. Indeed, I am all astonishment.

But, let’s call it for what it was; a marginal tyre (routine). Not some silly Americanism ‘line ball’ call. The tyre was marginal – fact. The LAME had but two options (i) ground the aircraft or; (ii) release the aircraft to service. The original cleft stick. Accident; the company would throw him under the next bus in a heart beat. Delay the flight and the company would kick the crap out of him. Fail to meet every one of the complex, draconian requirements of the regulation – CASA would pull his ticket, prosecute and probably jail him. The rule of the lesser of the three weevils prevails, pick one, then, cover your arse.. The LAME exercised his judgement; the pilots accepted that judgement and the arse covering commenced. One of the reasons Qantas have built and operate a heavy maintenance facility overseas is to remove the company from the lunacy surrounding maintenance regulation in Australia – well, that and to save a fortune.

But the ICC nailed it –





The bloody rules are just  too complex (and dangerous) to allow ‘discretion’ and ‘experience’ to make a judgement call against jail time. But it’s all good; O’Sofullame and Calm-Mode have a rapport. Move along – the CASA good PR machine is hard at work – for your safety. BOLLOCKS………..

Then, we have the little sidebar Patrick dredged up regarding TCAS highlights another problem – listen again as the story of a dud TCAS was only reported at the completion of the flight series. WTD?

And so, the CASA session ended without anyone noticing , the bar crew turned on some soothing background music, the ale flowed, darts practice continued and apart from some ribald comment, taking the piss out of the Scots git – and the odd guffaw, Estimates passed into insignificance as O’Obfusctaion raced off to a dinner engagement – leaving it all tucked up neatly and put to bed; while the big guns stayed away in droves.

Aye well, that’s why we pay the big bucks – I mean why would a Budget Estimates committee ever ask CASA to explain why it needed $189,000,000 next year; or when the endless ‘roll-out’ of complex, costly, punitive, unconstitutional regulation was going to cease, when there’s  a marginal tyre to discus. Pathetic. Totally, completely and utterly PATHETIC.





Toot- Bring back Bill - toot…

Chair O'Obfuscation top-cover for ATSB & CASA cont/-


To further highlight this 'passing strange' disconnection with what I would of thought is the primary purpose for Budget Estimates, this from the ATSB MH370 thread today:


Quote:MH370: OI search ends & 'he said, she said' wars heat up   [Image: undecided.gif] 


While the OI search wraps up the MH370 theorists once again (yawn -  [Image: sleepy.gif] ) fire up debate on end of flight and the pilot did, err..didn't do it - FDS!  [Image: dodgy.gif] 



P2 comment - Putting aside all this tedious 'he said, she said' palaver, I still can't fathom how a Senate committee at Budget Estimates did not ask the simple questions like:

Q/ Based on all the available evidence provided to the ATSB/CSIRO/DSTG to define the 2x high priority search (125k sq km & now 25k sq km) areas, how come not one bit of physical piece of debris/evidence has been found in those areas? 

Q/ Does this indicate that the 'Bayesian methods' used to help define these high priority areas was indeed a flawed and limited approach?     

Q/ Why was Fugro the best value tender choice given that OI have covered so much territory in less than 3 months under a potential $70 million 'no find, no fee' contract? 
 
From the tail end of the ATSB MH370 questioning it becomes pretty damn obvious (much like the total PelAir cover-up cost) that O'Obfuscastion has effectively put the MH370 'wet lettuce' inquisition to bed -  Dodgy





Next this quote from "K" above:

"..Estimates passed into insignificance as O’Obfusctaion raced off to a dinner engagement – leaving it all tucked up neatly and put to bed; while the big guns stayed away in droves...

...Aye well, that’s why we pay the big bucks – I mean why would a Budget Estimates committee ever ask CASA to explain why it needed $189,000,000 next year; or when the endless ‘roll-out’ of complex, costly, punitive, unconstitutional regulation was going to cease, when there’s  a marginal tyre to discuss..."
 

To again highlight this 'passing strange' disconnection where not one solid question pertaining to the CASA's budget was transgressed, the following segment highlights in my mind the obvious cozy relationship BO has with SC and his endeavour to disregard a small minority of IOS whinging about the justified injustices still being inflicted by the Iron Ring 'Big R-egulator' -  Angry




Chair O'Obfuscation top-cover for ATSB & CASA - Hansard extracts: 

Hansard is out see HERE

ATSB extracts:

Quote:[14:42]
CHAIR: Welcome to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. We've received correspondence in response to our request about the notifications of differences to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices from the department. With the concurrence of my colleagues, we will table it and recommend it be published. There may be colleagues who have some questions for you on it.

Mr Hood, I want to open with a compliment. I recently spent quite a bit of time with all those old-timers with the magnificent old flying machines, the antiques and that. They've got the highest regard for your department, reputation wise.

Mr Kefford : Thanks, Senator.

CHAIR: It wasn't shared by all departments in aviation, but yours was one. I just wanted to give you that feedback. I want to ask about the drones issue, because we're starting to get towards the sharp end of work. Were you involved at all with CASA? Did you guys make any submissions or engage with CASA on the question of their review?

Senator Scullion: Now they're at the table, I understand that Mr Hood may wish to make a brief contribution before we go to questions.

CHAIR: My apologies. Mr Hood, please, you have the floor. (P2 - see Mount NCN post #135 )

CHAIR: Can I suggest something, because I could go for an hour here. I know that some members of the committee have had approaches about this, and there's been some public speculation that this committee might take on a references inquiry in relation to this search effort. I don't think there's any mood for that. No-one's expressed anything to me. But it might be useful—through you, firstly, Dr Kennedy and, you, Mr Hood—if we could invite Mr Foley to give the committee a briefing when we've got a bit of time and space—

Mr Hood : We'd be delighted to.

CHAIR: and then each of the members with a particular interest can exhaust their lines of inquiry. It might equip us better for an inquiry, if there's persistent pressure for us to contemplate an inquiry. I'd leave that to the next chair, to be honest. But it might help us in managing that.

Senator PATRICK: I think that's an agreeable path.

CHAIR: Are you patient enough to wait until we get together?

Senator PATRICK: Absolutely. Can I ask one more question?

CHAIR: Yes, of course. You can ask as many as you like.

Senator PATRICK: In your report, the pilot had his mobile phone on, and we all know that's bad during a flight.

Mr Foley : No, the co-pilot.

Senator PATRICK: The co-pilot, sorry. I apologise. I've actually been in the jump seat while landing at an airport—I won't mention which airline, and it was a long time ago, before 9/11—and I watched mobile phones being turned on by pilots. Is that something that's common in this type of analysis? They picked this mobile phone up as the aircraft was going over Penang, I think, so it logged on and did its own handshaking with the plane. Is that common?

Mr Hood : We do find that from time to time. In fact, I think there's an ATSB investigation of an Australian aircraft on descent into Singapore where the captain had the mobile phone on. It wasn't so much that the mobile phone interfered with instruments; it was the distraction factor of it.

Senator PATRICK: Sure.

Mr Hood : When you go into Singapore, all of a sudden you get SingTel logging on and you get all the SMS messages. So we do see it from time to time, and we certainly discourage it in terms of practice.

Senator PATRICK: Sure. You can't make referrals, though, can you, for—

Mr Hood : No. Once again, these are reported to us and conveyed also to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It's a matter for them.

Senator PATRICK: The best thing we can say to all the pilots out there is they're being watched!

Mr Hood : They are.

Senator PATRICK: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR: No-one else has any burning issues? No. Mr Foley, before you go, you've been an impressive official witness before us today. Truly, you really were able to take the questions and understand them, and give good, plain-English answers, which you could have avoided doing. With your efforts over the four years, it's got to torment your soul, as much as anything else—

Mr Foley : It certainly does.

CHAIR: doing a job like that. Our thanks to you for that. With Dr Kennedy's agreement, we'll send Mr Hood an invitation for you—the good doctor here will make arrangements—and we'll try and get some time and space when we're not interrupted, because it is a very, very serious question. - P2: Code for..."this is the last you will hear of this in public forum.."  Dodgy

Mr Foley : My very great pleasure.

CHAIR: Mr Hood, thank you. We know what preparation goes into coming here. We thank you and, through you, all your staff, and we wish you all the very best in your journey home. We'll now suspend until 3.55 pm.

P2 - Standby by for the sickening 'nudge..nudge..wink..wink' Hansard exchanges between on the nose BO and the Fat Cat Bureaucrat CC - all in the interest of covering the miniscule's ass of course... Dodgy
Reply
Hell hath no furies like a thirsty P7.

It is becoming more apparent, by the day, that there is a not so subtle, blatant even, miniscule directive to ‘cool’ the Estimates down. Far too much dirty washing (and laundered money) with half washed skid marks hanging out for the media to spot. It is all so very politically sensitive at the moment, all things considered.

They tried this flummery on with Skidmore – and it bloody near worked too; ‘cept he was  bit too limp wristed to be believed for very long – some of the people some of the time etc.. Now we have what was a very effective RRAT committee transmogrified into soothing ‘bedtime stories’ read by Mama O’Sofullofit; at the ministers request?

I call bullshit; and, of those of that committee who did not have one single question – using the ‘Montreal’ alibi get out of goal card – last used by whispering John, now invalid: should hang their collective heads in shame.

You know; I’d wear Fawcett not turning up; I’d countenance Sterle being needed at some big deal union show; Gallacher is his own man and has much to deal with – valid no show card – there are others, from both sides of the house who could have attended the Barry O’ show. I am only left with the slim hope that, as honourable men, they wished to have no part of the ministerial charade and would want to help (if allowed) put some very serious matters aeronautical to bed. Flimsy top cover miniscule – practically non existent. I seriously (even devoutly) hope that you do not consider this last Estimates pantomime of the clowns as ‘enough’. It is a very small thumb you have jammed into a huge dam holding back a tidal wave of anger, frustration and economic hardship, not to mention the ever present spectre of prosecution on a whim.

You would be a fool deceived if you believed that the likes of Qantas and Virgin were ‘ecstatic’ or even remotely happy with the Act and Regulations as they stand. The rules are senseless, incomprehensible, designed to ensure swift, safe prosecution, with prejudice, as and when it suits. The big companies bottom line would improve overnight by at least 15% if they could cast off the leaden weight of ‘compliance’; do not believe, not for a moment, that they would not tacitly support significant change, while serving you lunch in first class.

The message is clear – reform the regulator, change the Act and get some sane, sensible rules in place – save the nation a fortune (in indigestion remedies for a start). Ministers come and go – but the beat goes on – forever. Ask DDDDDD – Darren, for he greatly offended Aunt Pru and finished up in the orchestra pit with the other Banjo players.

That’s all – yes; yes, I know where the keg is child – and I shall expedite the transaction.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply
"But the ICC nailed it" - Duplicity in process.. Rolleyes  

Sorry to rain in on the excellent, insightful, no punches pulled P7 post, however I need to rewind once again to the P9 Secura fulsit post:

Quote:["[the] complex procedures CASA specify are often not complied with".

But then Patrick has (again) dropped the ball (if he ever had a firm grasp) – the ALAEA failed to brief him properly, Patrick never got a match to the fuse, and BoS tapped it into touch just as the whistle blew.  Failed Senators – failed. Definitely no Choc Frogs for that piss poor effort.

For practical men, under pressure to get a flight ‘out’ – off the stand, the ‘risk’ associated and procedures involved are too bloody silly for words. That tyre was (a) acceptable or; (b) too bad to be used. End of. Enter the political dragon, armed with excuses and back door passes.

Primarily - the ALAEA plot back-fired. O Sofullame couldn’t keep his trap shut, distracted Patrick; and then, not only aided but abetted an easy exit for the Kool Aid team. Then peace, understanding and fellowship prevailed. Hallelujah and praise the gods of get out of jail free cards. Indeed, I am all astonishment... 

"...Patrick has (again) dropped the ball..."  - After reading the tabled 'Letter from the Industry Complaints Commissioner regarding CASA complaints' (PDF 2830KB) I totally agree and second the motion that Senator Rex has criticallly fumbled the ball in front of the goal, at a time when he had the whole field to himself -  Blush

To put it in context how much of a missed opportunity it was, the whole passage in the ICC letter leading up to the quote (in red above) needs to be regurgitated:


[Image: ICC-quote.jpg]

...wasn't completed in accordance with...

...did not follow both the CSM and Surveillance policy.. 

Hmm...why do those lines sound so familiar... Huh

(Hint: see HERE & HERE)

Now compare the alleged handling of the CASA surveillance visit to Townsville to say the attempted embuggerance of FalconAir; or indeed (links above) the embuggerance of DJ; or the embuggerance of Airtex - just for starters... Dodgy 

"...That tyre was (a) acceptable or; (b) too bad to be used..."

On the tyre damage:


[Image: damaged-tyre.jpg]

       

Do you seriously call that a shredded, totally U/S tyre - seriously?  Rolleyes

The following pics are of 2 totally shredded U/S tyres that I can confirm were both very much 'within limits' (i.e serviceable) prior to the incident landing: 


[Image: Picture001.jpg]


[Image: Picture002.jpg]


Note these were the skidmarks from that incident which caused the damage to the two tyres:


[Image: Picture017-1.jpg]

[Image: Picture016.jpg]


The threshold in view is RW 08 at YMEN and in the background lies the Tullamarine freeway.

Ironically CASA also investigated this incident, with the investigation outcome being totally obfuscated/white-washed (by a certain Worthless FOI) to pretty much the same degree as the QF YBBN incident - again CASA oversight duplicity in process... Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply


Clever Lad P2…

Good job P2 – glad you posted ‘the letter’ from the iCC. I asked ‘K’ why he had gone after a Patrick muffed chance – twice. Read the ICC say’s he, so I did. It’s a bit rich when industry must sweat blood over every spelling mistake in a manual; or, something not done to CASA’s liking; or, gods forbid a wrong date or some other heinous crime. But CASA can and do as they please, there are literally hundreds of episodes where CASA have (a) failed to comply with their own procedures, (b) used a subjective interpretation of a small part of a manual to facilitate and expedite their agenda or pre determined conclusion and © ignored everything in their own protocols except the bit that suits. Oh yes; they'll stone you.

If anyone in government ever was remotely interested why CASA is distrusted and disliked they’d only need to read the MCConvict’s preface to the infamous Enforcement Manual to garner a fairly severe case of disgust. That has been valid now through two CEO’s and Carmody ain’t in a rush to change it.

The ICC nails it down with a feather duster; time he bought a proper man sized hammer; a bloody big one.

Time to plod back through the garden to the workshop fridge and liberate a sextuplet from her sisters; quiet, cold and it’s nearly a full moon – Awooow!!
Reply
Chair O'Obfuscation pleads ignorance on perceived COI on matters aviation Dodgy  

Via 'that man' in the Oz today:

Quote: Senator denies MH370 conflict of interest

[Image: cf0ba7142aa0d989baba2c9ad3be63f7?width=650]

Coalition Senator Barry O'Sullivan. Picture: AAP
Nationals senator Barry O’Sullivan has admitted he failed to ­declare he was part-owner of a company which for three years after Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 went down sought business from plaintiff law firms ­including those representing MH370 victims’ families.

But the Queensland senator insists he never knew the company was created in 2014, had no involvement with it, and records show it never traded and obtained no clients.

While there is no suggestion of a conflict of interest, Senator O’Sullivan chairs the Senate’s rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee, some of whose members last week grilled the Australian Transport Safety Bureau over its failed underwater search for MH370.

Labor senator Murray Watt said, “Senator O’Sullivan must say why he failed to declare this interest to the Senate”, and Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, who is a member of the committee, said Senator O’Sullivan should also make a statement to its members.

MH370 disappeared in the southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board, having deviated 40 minutes into its scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with its radar transponder off and radio contact broken.

Senator O’Sullivan yesterday said that after inquiries from The Australian, he had determined one of his family companies had had a 50 per cent shareholding in Asia Pacific Claims Management, which was registered on the Australian Business Register from September 2014 to November 2017.

APCM’s website, which was still operating last week but ­appeared to be down yesterday, said “we have assisted in all types of aviation accidents”.

Under a heading “current cases” it lists MH370 and Air PNG 1600, and has a photograph of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 with the caption “Flight 370”.

The website says: “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.”

Senator O’Sullivan said his shareholding in APCM was a legacy of a claims-adjustment investigation business dealing with aviation accidents that he had run up until about 2008.

When he was running for preselection in 2013, he said, his ­accountants started separating his financial interests in 30 companies.
Finally the lid may have been lifted and someone maybe paying attention to what AP has noted for quite some time, references: 
Chair O'Obfuscation top-cover for ATSB & CASA cont/-
On chasing tales and washing spots 
Don’t pay the Ferryman.

But why stop there (i.e MH370)?

"..Senator O’Sullivan said his shareholding in APCM was a legacy of a claims-adjustment investigation business dealing with aviation accidents that he had run up until about 2008..."

Isn't the potential for many at least 'perceived conflict of interests' when you consider the clients that sit on both sides of the fence of aviation accident investigations and insurance claims/cases?

 For example let's use the case of QF 72... Rolleyes

From ETB travel news:


Quote: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.   

Read more at http://australia.etbtravelnews.global/101864/action-group-on-qantas-qf72-expands-worldwide/
  
So have these QF 72 compensation cases been settled? 
And what about the perceived incestuous relationship between the LNP/National Party and PelAir. The parent company Rex just so happens to have a former National party leader John Sharp as one of its Directors. Plus PelAir are apparently still arguing the toss with some of the victims claims for compensation? Yet BO did not recuse himself from any committee Estimates deliberations on the PelAir MKII cover-up report?
PelAir disconnections: Of guilty consciences; &/or legacies?

Quote: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??
  
Hmm....standby for incoming me thinks -  Confused

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Barry O’bullshit guilding the Lilly

The bloated Colonel Sanders lookalike speaketh with forked tongue. I call bullshit!!!

Barry’s ‘chestnut’ moment includes these beauties;
- ‘I forgot to mention it’’.
- The family has many businesses, it’s their fault.
- But but the business isn’t earning money.
- It’s the lawyers fault, they should’ve tidied up loose ends.

All bollocks tubby, and all non-excusable. Your failure to declare a conflict of interest or ‘perceived’ conflict of interest is no excuse. You broke (and continue) to break Parliamentary percunary rules. You should be removed immediately from any involvement with aviation matters in the Senate. IMMEDIATELY.

What’s next - perhaps we will find out that Barry O’bese has business interests with I.Ron Bar and Herr R. Collins??

TICK TOCK
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)