turboplanner

See post #161, and a few following posts.

Unfortunately cancer can be very unpredictable, and one of the byproducts can be that in some stages you have to forget daily affairs and focus on keeping on. 

......Foxwhistle which he normally uses to attract foxes. The fix hears a sound like a rabbit trapped by the leg and creeps towards the sound and gets his head blown off by a 30.30, but now and again.....

I have just received the following email from OAIC, seem they have their own way of reading a

 

 

Privacy complaint about Recreational Aviation Australia

 

 

Dear Mr Norwood

 

Thank you for your complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) of 5 August 2019 about Recreational Aviation Australia (RAA), made under s 36 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act).

 

The OAIC has considered your complaint about RAA and formed the view that there has not been an interference with your privacy. The reasons for this view are explained below. You now have an opportunity to comment before I make a final decision.

 

 

Your allegations

 

 

You allege RAA has interfered with your privacy by altering its privacy policy. You say that in April 2018 RAA added a provision in its privacy policy that allowed the disclosure of personal information to a third party.

 

You say that you were not notified of this and that a disclosure was made to the third party without your consent. In our call on 22 October 2019 you stated that RAA had updated its privacy policy to disclose your personal information to the Airport Owners Association for the purpose of the Airport Owners Association billing individuals for using their runway.

 

 

The law

 

 

 

 

The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in the Privacy Act regulate the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information held by Australian government agencies and certain private sector organisations.

 

APP 1.3 requires an APP entity to have a clearly expressed and up-to-date APP Privacy Policy about how it manages personal information.

 

Under APP 6, an organisation is able to use personal information it holds if it is for the same purpose for which it was collected, or for a secondary purpose if the individual has consented, or an exception under APP 6 applies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our view

 

 

Based on the available information, it is my view that RAA has not interfered with your privacy as defined by the Privacy Act.

 

APP 1 does not prevent RAA from amending its privacy policy from time to time. APP 1.3 requires that RAA keep its privacy policy up to date.

 

Further, under APP 6, RAA is able to disclose personal information to third parties if the disclosure directly relates to RAA’s functions and activities and is a disclosure that you would be reasonably aware could occur.

 

The disclosure of personal information for the purpose of collecting fees associated with airport use and access would generally be considered to be related to the primary purpose of collection.

 

If RAA has updated its privacy policy to reflect which organisations it discloses to, you can be considered reasonably aware that this is a disclosure that could occur. I note that RAA also notified you by placing a notice in its monthly magazine, further making you aware of the circumstances of its disclosures. Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure.

 

As such it appears that RAA has met the requirements of the Privacy Act.

 

I'm no law expert , but this line flies in the face of reality,

 

" Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure." it appears this is the basis for their rejection of my appeal.

 

Could any of you more law literate folks out there enlighten me on this ??

 

I have about 14 days to appeal this.

 

Hire a lawyer.

That might be so, but to avoid it becoming a bowl of mud, you would have to separate the crashes by country so they made sense to the person visiting the site, and also to Australians.    We've had a few confusing ones from England and South Aftrica where the terms had different connotations and they go bogged down by people confusing each other.

No, not overseas and jouranlist driven reports.

Overseas aircraft will not always be the same specification as ours or built to the same standard as ours, the rules are different and a crash by a pilot carrying out a legal activity overseas may not be applicable here because we are prohibited from carrying out that activity here (eg aerobatics/turns over 60 deg.

Overseas aircraft may be operating in more cluttered airspace, and so be more prone to collisions etc.

And the jurisdictions are different, so the policies of governing bodies are different.

We've done very well over the years on this site in analysing, what might have happened in an Australian crash, and not only are we right most of the time, and so able to produce a learning experience from Australian pilota under Australian conditions, but we usually ring a few bells with the speculation too.

In the end what will count for us, in terms of getting more freedoms or losing freedoms is our own performance here in Australia.

Given the almost universal condemnation of journalists I'm a little surprised that this has come up. Anyone interested to an international extent could just tap into the reports direct, and I've done that, but what I found was the conditions were so different that the lessons really only applied to the home countries.

.......sleeve caught on the throttle. He hadn't noticed and when Foxy........

.....not every chook should be raffled.

Not many people know this, but long ago, when Turbo was working at Batchelor in the NT on the Base he bought a ticket in a raffle for a DH82B, and won. The raffle ticket has only cost him $20.00, but it cost $3,000 to get the thing shipped to Melbourne.

Even less people know that the DH82B was also called the DeHaviland Queen Bee, apparently named after the actres Olivia De Havilland.

As he walked around it, Turbo immediately saw that the wings were very high loading, the coupling was a bit too short for comfort, and the undercarriage was a little too far back. Aerodynamics hadn't been perfected to the standard of the Sonerai in those days.

Despite these shortcomings, Turbo knew, with his precise touch, that he could handle it easily, but he thought of how his mate Foxhunter would love to fly it, so he put in a call to the Mongols headquarters. The moll there said Foxy was out with the others shooting up the bandidos HQ, but would call back.

NES readers wil recall Foxhunter's frequent comparison of any engine and any aircraft with the DH82 he used to fly, and how difficult and unforgiving it was.

It doesn't come through in his posts, but Foxhunter used to knock around with Biggles and the team and spoke with the same affected gung ho accent.

The phone rang and the familiar "Helleau!" rang out, and before Turbo could answer "Or you receiving me?" and to Turbo's invitation to come and fly the kite, he said "Of course old chep!"

An hour later he turned up at the airfield on a 1927 Indian patched in his Mongols colours, and tears came to his eyes when he saw the DH82B.

"Hop in, let's go!" he said  (Astute readers of this forum will notice that FH never talks about pre-flight; 12,745 posts but not a word about preflight; in Biggles days they thought preflights were for girls.

Knowing what was likely to happen, Turbo declined the offer, citing a sore throat, but Foxhunter said "you wouldn't want me to tell Captain you're a coward would you?" and he was into that cockpit like a rat up a drainpipe. "Er, you'll have to get out again to swing the prop, Old Boy" said FH, and Turbo turned bright red.

The engine caught on the 37th swing and Turbo jumped back into he seat, there was no engine runup, just a fast taxy, with the aircraft swinging wildly from side to side, due to the short coupling.

Turbo should mention at this point, that Foxy had made literally thousands of references to his, many flights in the DH82, the Tiger Moth, but this was a different piece of equipment, designed to be sling shotted off a destroyer for surveillance, with no particular need to come back once the enemy was sighted.

A series of grunts, groans and oaths coming from the rear cockpit indicated Foxy was just fining this out, and as the aircraft jumped into the sky, Turbo saw the ground, the sky, the ground again, a close up of the control tower and blue sky.

Turbo was quite composed, because he had flown in TAA Boeing 727 three holers with Foxy for many years, and this was the way he took off every time, but what happened next was.....

Sounds like this is to catch the Sudanese gang members. So far they’ve been outrunning the cops.

.....with bull that’s a bad sign. Bone has a pub on each corner and they lure people in with chook raffles, but they found him sawing off the tips of the Jab’s wings to.....

Chief of staff who posted him back home as an EBay order. He got around the had fact that Australian Customs would know that no one would be likely to order Captain, by marking that parcel “Free Sample”. Hey was at the freight terminal with an itemized repair cost invoice, and demanded......

...........applied for Turkish Citzenship, and........

. To get out of trouble he had to make a Fatwa (big baby) and this would be difficult because....

...aught it in the winnower which began.....

Turbo knew the answer was No2 from his own personal experience of the skunk-like smell of Rape, which was why his family farmed pigs instead,  and his sister had also had a close up experience with the euphamism, Canola. (Just imagine if the wife said "what would you like on your toast dear?" and you said "Rape".

So he told the Captain to say nothing. Now Cappy especially since his gender change could throw a good hissy fit and proceeded to question the marriage status of Turbo's parents.

"I'm only trying to help you abvoid what happened to my sister when she said she'd been canola'd after rubbing her leg up against a young farmer at the Deni Ute Muster. The problem came when......

QUOTE: {What Turbo said}

 

Just goes to show how little most of us know of how the Government works. Most of us would think that matters of governance were sorted out in the Chambers of the two Houses. Looks like things are examined and plans of actin are made in committee rooms. I suppose that doing things this way is efficient, saving the theatrics of both Houses to be performed during Question Time.

 

It's too bad that the politicians don't think it is worthwhile to ensure that the mechanics of government decision making are put out in the open so that the electors begin to learn what is involved in running the country.

 

I'm not criticising the committee room work, which I suppose is mainly non-partisan. I'm just lamenting the failure to explain how things are done.

 

It probably is explained somewhere on the APH site. To be fair to the Senators, governance is by Acts, mainly kicked off in the House of Representatives, and back in the 1990s they came up with an Act to form CASA and have it do day to day safety management. The Senate members represent their States, and their main function is to review the Acts the House of Representative comes up with and try to find any faults before passing them, so most of their work IS in the Chambers and not in Committee rooms. The Senate also has some extra powers and can inquire into any issues it thinks might not be clear, or right or have gone off the rails, and this is how Senator Patrick raise his issue with what CASA had done, so it shows that someone is always watching. In this case most members decided if the changes hadn't affected AF's delivery of service, then there was no practical issue.

34 road fatalities between 2012 and 2016 in one corner of South Australia. No mention of the serious, but not fatal injuries. How many non-commercial aviation-based fatalities. During 2017, there were 14 fatalities from 21 accidents in commercial air transport operations, 21 fatalities from 93 accidents in general aviation operations, and five fatalities from 53 accidents in recreational aviation operations. The source of that information did not say how many of those GA fatalities were from airwork or commercial non-transport. We do know that three were from the Mt Gambier Angel Flight.

 

We no longer use the old history based accident triggers, except where the various State Governments have retained prescriptive control.

So we not longer have an "allowance" for people to die before action was needed.

 

 

This I find disgusting: 

 

Only Senators from The Greens, Centre Alliance and One Nation supported the motion along with Senator McDonald. All other National senators, plus traditional aviation supporters such as Senators Brockman, Fawcett and Sterle did not have their votes recorded or were absent from the senate when the vote was taken.

 

 Senator Brockman did not support the Patrick NOM, and didn't need to be there because the NOM had virtually no support and was clearly going to fail.

 

 

 

 

Also this gem: Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham from SA stated that the government would not over-ride advice given to them by CASA. Therefore, given our regulator's advice, the government does not support the disallowance motion before the Senate."

 

You need to find the whole discussion (which I had a lot of difficulty in doing because it seems to be in bits and pieces on the APH website), but during the discussion it was pointed out that the CASA instrument has had no effect on availability of Angel Flight pilot volunteers (so no effect of reducing operations).

Also, what's missing from all the public information so far is what triggered CASA to step in. That they did this since 2017, and the suggestion that they took their decision from the ATSB report, seems to have people thinking that's what happened, but CASA can step in as soon as they see a risk, at any time. Even if it was the 2017 crash that caused them to decide on something they should have done before, they still have a duty, if they see a risk to take action. It would help if someone came out and said "Our decision did not come from any material in the ATSB report, just from our own activities of about that time." That would clear it up.

Is it any wonder that people have lost respect and trust in our politicians, and have come to realise that the un-elected Public Service is running the country.  Shades of Yes, Minister. 

 

This was a single Notice of Motion from a single Senator, who, if he had some compelling evidence, chose not to disclose it.

Several other Senators discussed it and it was dropped.

76 Senators opted not to support it.

No "Yes Minister" in any of that; if you go and have a trawl through Hansard and look at the Senate Committees you will see a similar pattern on dozens of current committees. Someone raises an issue in the Senate, the Senate looks at it; if its no big deal they send it back to the committee. Checks and balances.

Here's what Senator Rex had to say. You'll notice that he tipped a bucket over both pilots which is the more relevant issue at the present time.

 

Link added: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/d7431ad9-4e44-466a-bdda-464ed807c97f/&sid=0222

 

I found this Australian Flying summary of what happened:  https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/angel-flight-disallowance-defeated-in-the-senate

Yes, indeed it was about AF, the Senator Rex Patrick(?) motion to disallow (to not approve) the CASA instruction to AF was indeed clubbed to death. Rex had a go.

 

Here's what Senator Rex had to say. You'll notice that he tipped a bucket over both pilots which is the more relevant issue at the present time.

Link added: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/d7431ad9-4e44-466a-bdda-464ed807c97f/&sid=0222

Yes, indeed it was about AF, the Senator Rex Patrick(?) motion to disallow (to not approve) the CASA instruction to AF was indeed clubbed to death. Rex had a go.

 

Here's what Senator Rex had to say. You'll notice that he tipped a bucket over both pilots which is the more relevant issue at the present time.

...........and then there was silence as the Cherub's engine cut out. He pulled back hard on the stick, and the Cherub dropped a wing and headed for the ground. Lockily he remembered Turbo's sound advice "Engine out, stick forward fast" amd he salvaged the situation fifty feet from the ground only to be blinded by the yellow haze of 500 acres of Canola crop. The Cherub had a glide ration like a cross cut saw and settled into the Canola, which ripped the bottom out of the Cherub allowing Canola seed to squeeze up his legs into his underpants and under his shirt and wipes all over the exposed parts of his body. He stank like a skink. Quickly turning the fuel tap to "ON" he waited for someone to come along, and it was Turbo, running as fast as he could, but as he good nearer he hesitated. "POOOH!" he yelled, "you stink worse than a polecat!"

"I might be dying" replied the Captain, his voice breaking in fear. "I................"

…….. superglued himself to the bull's horn (I think that is what it is called).

 

The bull was angrier than a delayed London train commuter and …………..

 

......flopped his horn all over the place until the ARA was pulling 5Gs positive (avref), and ripped all the skin from his bum.

Smelling the blood, the second bull.........

HELP PLEASE ………...

 

Your dedicated newshound Skipper has been fascinated with the US/Ukraine discussion and the term used there "Quid pro quo" and Skipper is confused (which is very unusual) as your ace reporter Cappy had heard stories from his great mate Turbo from back in the '50's (He used to be known as "SU Carby" back then) that when in Woolloomooloo he would often pay a quid to a pro named Quo, so how come Tink's lascivious past is coming up again when Tink no longer can?

 

The Captain must be unaware that a building was being demolished in the Loo recently and an old tin MacRobertson's chocolate box was found.

In the box was a manuscript for a boo written by Quo entitled "The Best and the Worst of the Daily Grind". Turbo was interviewed by a journalist who was writing a story about some of the gentlemen who had come into Quo's life, and Turbo had been picked for Chapter Four - How I became a Stud.  "Who is this Captain?" he asked Turbo "and what does "it took forever allude to". Turbo had known about Captains affliction for years and artfully covered it up with the story about Quid pro Quo.

Quid pro Quo was simply a pact between Turbo and Captain (who has conveniently forgotten, to cover his tracks) where they shared a jar on the mantlepiece and put a quid in it whenever they could (they were both paperboys at the time), and when they had enough money for two they went to see Quo. Turbo just happened to mention this to Don Trump when they were at Princeton together.

Turbo presumes is is the President of the United States saying "You screw them first (the Democrats), and then I'll have a go"

Same applies in an RA aircraft. On another thread, some of the loads which are carried by the pilot are significant enough to warrant a one-time calculation which is then just added to the sub totals in the pre-flight calcs

....got ready to make contact. bull had been brought up tough in the old school “never give up” and “snoozers are losers” and he nearly pushed the throttle through the firewall. Turbo knew the Hereford bull (not bull from bone) had to give way, and he knew the bull ( not bull etc) was a stud worth $30,000, but he was also conscious of the feelings of the Animal Rights people and these days used a Lash-Less Whip which he now pulled from behind the seat of the Land Cruiser and loaded with two No 6 bird ticklers. He snapped it up and let both barrels go at once, and the bull rose a full metre into the air and swerved towards Turbo, as the Jab went skimming past. Turbo had only grabbed two cartridges from the glove box and he knew that kissing the bull on the nose (known as the Animal Rights method) probably wasn’t going to pacify the bull, when an Animal Rights activist driving past on the highway pulled to a stop, jumped the fence and .....

[Note to prospective authors: the story now has three bulls, but only two animals. There are still three animals but one of them is the Captain. Bull with a lower case b, from bone is an ace pilot, but we’re not sure what he identifies at this stage.]