C2004/2186, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 549 (4 March 2005)

1800 534 258

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 10629

COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI

C2004/2186

s.170LW - application for settlement of dispute (certification of agreement)

Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, The
and
Qantas Holidays Limited
(C2004/2186)
Licenced Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways Limited) Enterprise Agreement IV [1998-2001]

SYDNEY

11.16AM, WEDNESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2005

Continued from 1/9/2004

PN1

MR C RYAN: I appear for the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association and with me today is MR T HEYWOOD.

PN2

MR D MILLS: I appear for Qantas Airways Ltd. Appearing with me is
MR P STYLES, also from Qantas Airways Ltd.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes Mr Ryan.

PN4

MR RYAN: Commissioner, this matter comes before you today by way of a section 170LW application by the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association with regard to a dispute between the ALAEA and Qantas regarding payment, appropriate payment or the awarding of points and to be more precise, for training and for a qualification known as 747 300 LE, which is short for life extension.

PN5

The background to this matter has been canvassed, I believe, fairly well in previously conferences before you, Commissioner, so I do not intend to reiterate unnecessarily or dwell on those facts of the history. And today I just want to present some evidence-in-chief, I want to focus on some of the areas of the submission of the company and indicate areas of disagreement with that. And I will be asking one witness today who will be seeking to ask to produce some evidence and to answer some questions on this matter.

PN6

In relation to the witnesses, Commissioner, could I just say that we have previously supplied to the company, our copies here, two witness statements and we did intend today to have two witnesses but one of our witnesses has become unavailable at short notice due to his wife giving birth to a child. So we have had some discussions with Qantas about how best to deal with that, and Qantas have a view that they want to put that I would be suggesting and Mr Mills will no doubt want to make a comment about this, that for the expedience and simplification of the proceedings if, and I have spoken to our witness, Mr Michael Torpey, about this, I would be asking that Mr Torpey adopt the parts of the statement of Mr Smith, who is the unavailable witness, when he is giving evidence from the witness box. That would enable him to talk to those aspects of Mr Smith's statement and then to be cross-examination by the company. That is the proposal that I would like to put for dealing with that and obviously, either now or later Mr Mills may have a comment or contrary view to that.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Mills, just on that basis?

PN8

MR MILLS: Commissioner, Mr Ryan, Mr Styles, Mr Heywood and myself had the opportunity to discuss this matter prior to the commencement of proceedings this morning. In the first instance, the company would suggest that the evidence of Mr Smith in the event that some of the key aspects are going to be adopted by Mr Torpey in his evidence be dismissed or not be tendered by the ALAEA. However, to assist the Commission in these proceedings, the ALAEA insists on seeking to have Mr Smith's statement tendered and submitted for the purposes of these proceedings, the company would suggest that we go through Mr Smith's statement. It would only take five minutes of the Commission's time, and outline the points in Mr Smith's statement that are not contested, outline the points that we believe are contested, and also reflect upon the similarities, some of the similarities, in Mr Smith's statement that are contained in Mr Torpey's statement and therefore can be examined or cross-examination by the company when Mr Torpey gives evidence.

PN9

But as we said, at first instance, we think that Mr Smith's statement should not be tendered. However, we are not going to pursue that with any great vigour in the event that the ALAEA seeks to continue to have Mr Smith's evidence put on record.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Ryan, I am a bit attracted to the second option.

PN11

MR RYAN: Yes.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Which is that rather than have Mr Torpey adopt something that really is not his statement it would be more likely that if there are issues that are raised by Mr Smith that Mr Torpey can talk about or has spoken about, well then let us rely on Mr Torpey and Mr Smith's material be perhaps tendered where it is unchallenged. Where it is challenged, I guess the company clearly outlines that it is a challenge, or it is challenged.

PN13

In matters such as this, and there have been other matters involving the two parties here, I do not think the Commission has ever taken the view that the differences between the parties is because someone is being untruthful. It has always just been a matter of opinion or distress or looking at it from one side rather than the other. So whether the position is a sworn one and then cross-examined as opposed to a statement that perhaps because of the events the person is not here, I do not know if at the end of the day a great amount will turn on it. I mean, it has normally been the case of well, this is one side, and this the other, and the Commission favours one because of the weight of it, not because of whether one person is being honourable in uttering it and others are not. So perhaps we can go down that past, Mr Ryan.

PN14

MR RYAN: Yes Commissioner. I am just conscious of the fact that Mr Smith has been part of this process and has provided a sworn statement, a copy of which in an unsworn form has been applied to the company. And I just feel that if Mr Smith was not - his efforts were not being awarded or recognised - - -

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: I would probably admit or mark his statement as an exhibit. But all I am saying is that it might be we could hardly make it a sworn position. Thus, as I have indicated previously, these matters have not normally turned on - they have turned on favouring one opinion over the other but it has never turned on saying, well, I believe one side, I do not believe the other. So whether they are sworn or not probably will not determine it. I guess the advantage of being sworn is that you or Mr Mills are able to clarify with each opposing witnesses exactly what they mean and to press them. That is not possible with Mr Smith's material and so the Commission has to treat with some caution what he says. I guess we will be stuck with Mr Mills saying, well, about that we do not agree, or, he has just got it totally wrong. So I do not know if that is of much help. But I think that is probably a better way than forcing Mr Torpey to say to things that he is not fully comfortable with.

PN16

MR RYAN: Yes Commissioner. I may then maybe suggest this course of action, that when Mr Torpey is giving his evidence from the witness box I would provide him with a copy of Mr Smith's statement and talk to him about some of the points that are in the statement.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, of what he knows.

PN18

MR RYAN: That may be a way that will help us to proceed on those issues, and gives Qantas then the opportunity to ask questions of Mr Torpey with regards to the statements that he makes from the box.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we will see how we go.

PN20

MR MILLS: Commissioner, we just want to go on record and just say, look, we are not here to obstruct the process. We think that what you are suggesting is fine. And what we hear you say is that Mr Smith's statement will be tendered as an exhibit to be relied upon probably by Mr Torpey in his provision of his evidence. If it is of any assistance to the Commission, we are happy just to spend 30 seconds outlining the three points that are of interest to us in Smith's statement.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN22

MR MILLS: The key issue for us that is not referred to in Mr Torpey's statement is the opening part of point 5 - - -

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I have not -

PN24

MR RYAN: The Commission does not have it.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: I do not think I have got the statement. I have got Mr Deahm's statement but I have not got -

PN26

MR RYAN: No Commissioner, that is an oversight of mine. I was intending to hand them to you at the proceedings this morning.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: I have the other materials of yours, Mr Ryan.

PN28

MR RYAN: They are the signed copies of Mr Torpey's and Mr Smith's.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: We will not worry about Mr Torpey at the moment, but Mr Smith's witness statement - I think you are right, we will mark that exhibit ALAEA 3.

EXHIBIT #ALAEA3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR SMITH

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand what you are going to do with that, Mr Ryan, but what did you want to say about that one, Mr Mills?

PN31

MR MILLS: Commissioner, I just wanted to in effect, assist the Commission on the points that the Commission has made by giving the Commission some level of clarification as opposed to ..... about where the parties have arrived at so that you can be reasonably satisfied that the parties are pretty happy where you are at the moment.

PN32

And all I want to say is that if we take ALAEA 3, point 4 really leads into point 5 and point 5 is really the meat of what we would want to press with Mr Torpey. It has been a substantial part of the argument or discussion I should say, not argument at all, with Mr Ryan and Mr Heywood this morning. There is part of point 5 that is consistent with - and I acknowledge that Mr Torpey's statement has not been tendered at this particular point in time but you do have it. So there is part of point 6 of Mr Smith's statement which is fairly much identical to point 13 of Mr Torpey's statement. And point 6, sorry, I should say part of point 5 of
Mr Smith's statement which is fairly consistent with point 13 of Mr Torpey's statement. And certainly point 6 of ALAEA 3 is fairly identical in its intent to point 9 of the statement that Mr Torpey will attest when he is giving evidence.

PN33

So really, in effect, the only issue that is similar between the two is the first part of point 5 and it is my understanding that that is - the examiner, Mr Ryan, will probably take Mr Torpey to that in examination-in-chief. That being the case then the parties, certainly the company, is satisfied with the process that has been proposed by the Commission this morning in relation to that matter.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes okay. Yes, Mr Ryan.

PN35

MR RYAN: Commissioner, I just move to the essential elements of the submission that the ALAEA wishes to make this morning on this matter.

PN36

The submission and a supporting documentation was provided to the company in November of last year and if I could just take you, Commissioner, briefly through the essential elements of that submission. As I mentioned earlier, some of these matters have been canvassed. The history of the LE aircraft and its integration with the fleet of Qantas and its development has been well canvassed in previous proceedings, including a conference before you, Commissioner. So in terms of today's proceedings, I intend to focus on the key elements of difference between ourselves and Qantas about essentially the remuneration or provision of points by Qantas under the greater pay structure for licenced aircraft maintenance engineers who receive training and then receive a qualification. And indeed a licenced endorsement to not only carry out work but to certify the work on the 747 300 LE or life extension aircraft.

PN37

Commissioner, under the Licenced Aircraft Engineers Enterprise Agreement Part 4 1998, 2001 Part C, clause 442, which - I am not certain, Commissioner, whether you have a copy of that?

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Well you attached I think, did you not?

PN39

MR RYAN: Yes.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN41

MR RYAN: Attached to the submission.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN43

MR RYAN: So it is that number of pages in there. If I just take you to from the centre of the page, if the Commissioner has that particular - - -

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Four point four two is it?

PN45

MR RYAN: Four point four point two.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN47

MR RYAN: It states as follows, that:

PN48

Points shall accrue from 16 August 1997 as follows -

PN49

And it has stipulations for one point, four points. And then it says, and relevant to this matter, Commissioner, in our view:

PN50

A single category Qantas aircraft type licence-

PN51

And then in brackets:

PN52

Engine, airplane, electrical or instrument two points

PN53

So I just draw that to your attention, Commissioner.

PN54

And also of course, the Licenced Aircraft Engineers Qantas Airways Pay Agreement 1997, clause 60, also attached to the submission, if I could just briefly take you to that. It says under the heading "6. Progression through greater wage structure", (d) says:

PN55

The points value of future training packages shall be negotiated and agreed by the parties prior to their introduction.

PN56

It is quite clearly in the view of the ALAEA contemplated by the parties in the construction of what is known as EBA 4 which is the first document I took you to, Commissioner, and the pay agreement 1997, that those agreements and those clauses would operated into the future from the date of certification and would encompass and include aircraft types and aircraft arrangements that were not in place at the time of making those agreements. Which is an important, Commissioner, which I will come to with regards to Qantas' submission.

PN57

In my submission, which I think you have a copy of, I talk a bit about the history. As I say, I am not going to go through the history of this other than to say that Qantas initiated the life extension program on its 747 300 fleet in order to extend the useful life of those aircraft. The program included as well as some cabin enhancements, improvements and refurbishment. Importantly for this matter, a fitment of a, what we say, is a different avionics package to the 300 aircraft to make it then the life extension aircraft.

PN58

The fact that those differences were significant has been attested to in our view by the fact that CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has indeed - requires to certify that aircraft a licenced aircraft maintenance engineer achieve successful completion of training, both theoretical and practical and received in their licence an endorsement on that particular aircraft from CASA. That is, an aircraft maintenance engineer with the 747 300 endorsement in, for instance, the instrument category, which is the one we are talking about today, cannot certify for work performed on the 747 300 LE aircraft. To do so, the licenced aircraft maintenance engineer must have completed the training and must receive the endorsement issued by CASA to be able to so certify.

PN59

So essentially, based on the pay agreement and based on EBA4 the claim of the licenced aircraft engineers association is that the training outlined or required, I will go into that in some detail in Mr Torpey's evidence, the training which is required and the issuing of a single category full instrument rating by CASA which is specified as a B747 300 LE Instrument warrant the granting of two points to LAMEs who are so qualified and licenced.

PN60

Further, it is our contention that if Qantas were to choose not to do this, it would be acting contrary to the certified agreement provisions which I have briefly taken the Commission to. And further, our claim which has been quite clearly set out for the company, is the additional two points should be from the date on which the licenced aircraft maintenance engineer received the licence from CASA and was thereby able to certify for the 747 300 LE aircraft.

PN61

That is essentially the outline of the submission, Commissioner. I wish now to turn to briefly to refute some of the items in the submission of the company provided to me, or maybe it is more proper for me at this stage to call Mr Torpey.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: I think we should deal with the witnesses first.

PN63

MR RYAN: Yes.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: And before we call Mr Torpey, just to set the scene, the impact of this change affects your members both in flying maintenance and in heavy maintenance?

PN65

MR RYAN: It will, yes, Commissioner.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, it does.

PN67

MR RYAN: Yes, it does.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: And secondly, the life extension process, that is something that was generated by Qantas? Or is it something that Boeing does?

PN69

MR RYAN: As I understand it, I am not privy to the commercial details, but the company I believe chose some time in 2001, late 2000 early 2001, to extend the life of the useful operational life of the 300 aircraft. They retired - what is known as 747 classic aircraft, there is a series of 100, 200, 300. They retired - I am not certain if Qantas operated 100s, but they certainly operated some shorter aircraft, the special performance aircraft. Two hundreds, which have since been retired from the fleet, and the 300s, it was assessed late 2000/2001 that the aircraft to continue to be able to be operated usefully for an extended period, would require an update, a substantial update.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I think what I am asking is what Qantas has done, would you find that the other airlines who know that it is a Qantas thing - - -

MR RYAN: I do not believe, Commissioner. I think it is Qantas a decision that Qantas - - -

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: Anyway, we might hear more from Mr Deahm or in fact from Mr Torpey if he knows, yes. Yes, we will deal with Mr Torpey now.

<MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY, SWORN [11.40AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR RYAN

PN72

MR RYAN: Mr Torpey, you have prepared and signed a statement for today's proceedings, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN73

Do you have a copy of the statement with you?---I do.

PN74

And Commissioner, you have a copy, a signed copy of the statement?

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes I have.

PN76

MR RYAN: Just looking at your statement, sections 1 and 2 are recitals of address and employment history and your qualifications. So having looked at that, that is a true and accurate statement of your employment and licencing, and 3 indeed, your work history? Is that correct?---That is.

PN77

In section 5 you state that you have conducted or you have undergone training in the 747 300 LE, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN78

And when did you do that training assessed 2003, was it - do you roughly know what period of the year it was?---I could say for the first half of the year.

PN79

Thank you. And you spent roughly how long undergoing that training?---The classroom training was roughly three weeks, just under three weeks.

PN80

And that classroom training comprised what particular elements? Was it divided into modules, or was it a seamless three weeks of training in all aspects of the aircraft, the LE?---It was broken down, starting with electrical power on the LE, just basically all the LE differences for the avionic package.

PN81

So approximately three weeks, you are saying?---Approximately three weeks.

PN82

And that is all classroom instruction?---That is just the classroom.

PN83

In paragraph 6 you talk about practical training. Was this PCT training that you underwent?---That is correct.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN84

And could you just let the Commissioner know what PCT training is?---It is, Commissioner, it is a practical consolidated training. It is hands on around the aircraft, certain tasks you perform, locate or identify items on aircraft. Basically you crawl all over the aircraft and get familiar with it, do a few tests, safety procedures, remove/install tasks. You just get familiar with all the differences.

PN85

At paragraph 7 of your statement, Mr Torpey, you talk about submitting advices to CASA and you state here that when you collected it you checked that it had the 747 300 LE rating and subsequent to that it appears that you became a practical consolidation trainer yourself on that aircraft, is that correct?---That is correct. To be a PCT instructor you have to hold the rating, and mine was a bit slow in the mail so we had to go and make sure I had the rating to teach a class that afternoon.

PN86

So in order to be a PCT trainer, are you aware of any requirements that CASA has in terms of experience and knowledge and qualifications to qualify?---CASA has set guidelines. Part of it is a certain requirement of experience of the aircraft type. They do have set guidelines. You have got to do a, what they call a train the trainer instruction course as well as holding the licence for a specific amount of time.

PN87

So would it be right to say that generally PCT trainers are extensively experienced with regards to the aircraft on which they are providing the training? Is that implicit in CASA's requirements for issuing that qualification or that approval?
---Yes, I would agree with that.

PN88

Your statement would indicated, we are going back to earlier paragraphs in the statement, you have extensive work experience and you commenced work with Qantas is it 1984?---That is correct. I started as an apprentice at Qantas.

PN89

And worked for some time as an aircraft maintenance engineer unlicenced I take it?---True only for one year.

PN90

So most of your time has been as a licenced, Qantas licenced maintenance engineer. And then you have spent some time working for other employers at various times, but from 1995 to the present you have been working for Qantas?
---That is correct.

PN91

As a licenced aircraft maintenance engineer?---Yes. I was initially licenced in 1989.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN92

Thank you. And looking at point 9 of your statement, could you I wonder, with the indulgence of the Commissioner, if you just, as it is a very important part of your statement with regards to the matter before the Commissioner, I wonder if you could just read out paragraph 9 for me and for the Commissioner?---All right. Paragraph 9:

PN93

Based on the EBA, I am of the understanding I will receive two points for the additional rating 747 300 LE Instrument. I was prepared to undertake the training on the 747 LE and to activate the licence on behalf of Qantas. It is my understanding that I would receive the two points for achieving of a 747 300 LE licence.

PN94

And at - thank you for that. At paragraph 11 you state that you have provided a summary of the differences between the 747 300 and 747 300 LE, which in part has been used by the ALAEA to base its submission, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN95

And do you have with you today part of the training documentation which has been used in the courses for your training and for the training that you provide?
---I do.

PN96

Can you make that available?---I have got part of it here.

PN97

Could you just - - -

PN98

MR MILLS: Commissioner, I do not want to object at this particular point except to say that Mr Torpey is about to refer to material that we are not aware of or Mr Ryan may take me or may be able to point to in his submissions. But that is information that we are not aware of and he looks like he is about to ask questions of Mr Torpey on evidence that we do not see.

PN99

MR RYAN: Commissioner, maybe I can explain. I have no intention to delve into the detail of the volume that Mr Torpey has. My next question and my only question with regards to this documentation was, what proportion of the training course was constituted by this particular volume?. That was the only question I intended to ask. I am not certain if Mr Mills has an objection to that.

PN100

MR MILLS: The only objection we would have to it is that if Mr Ryan is going to rely on a particular volume of the training manual for the purposes of his evidentiary proceedings then, if that is what he is going to ask, then we would object. Because we do not have that and so therefore we are unable to make any question or ask any question or even to review the information and its relevance to our own defence of the application. This is information that has been brought to bear really at - well, it is well and truly past midnight now.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes Mr Ryan. What do you say to - well, it is information they have but they did not know that you were going to use it. What do you say about their objection?

PN102

MR RYAN: I have no - I will not persist with that. I will not ask the next question, Commissioner.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes okay.

PN104

MR RYAN: Thank you. Mr Torpey, clause 13 of your statement again, I believe this is a pivotal issue in terms of the current matter, could you just read out clause 13 for me and for the Commissioner?---Clause 13:

PN105

The 747 300 LE technology changes introduced to the 1960s base 747 model aircraft are vast. Additional airline databases have changed the appearance of both the original and the new systems fitted in the 747 in the avionics area. Additionally, existing instrument systems now perform different tasks in the new equipment. As a LAME carrying out work and certifying for work performed on the 747 300 LE, I must be constantly vigilant regarding the systems, changes on the aircraft and the interaction between the more modern updated systems and other unchanged systems fitted to the existing aircraft. The existing systems now interact with the new systems utilising difference methods than was the case in the original aircraft. These changes require a totally different train of thought for maintaining this aircraft as systems that were well known and understood on 747 model aircraft no longer operate in the same way.

PN106

Thank you for that, Mr Torpey. And so further, if you just go on to part 14 and 15, just to complete your statement?---Item 14:

PN107

The 747 300 LE now has systems installed that are not part of the 767 200/300.

PN108

Item 15:

PN109

The 747 300 LE has become a part modern aircraft and is unique.

PN110

If I could just ask you a question about the LE. The question was asked by the Commissioner earlier and I was not that familiar with Qantas' decision making process, but to your knowledge, are you aware of any other operator of 747 300 aircraft who have put their aircraft through an LE style program, or style of exercise to extend the life of their aircraft?---Not an LE program like Qantas'. I am aware that some freighters have changed some of the displays in the cockpit. But not to the whole life extension extreme.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN111

Okay. You may be aware, Mr Torpey, that Mr Smith who was also to provide a statement today is unavailable. Have you got a copy of a document which is know exhibit ALAEA 3, which is headed "Witness Statement of Gregory Kenneth Smith"? Do you have a copy of that?---I do, sir.

PN112

Maybe if I could just - and are you familiar with the contents of Mr Smith's statement, is that correct?---I am.

PN113

Obviously, in terms of the first three items or the first three paragraphs, they are to do with Mr Smith's residence, his employment history and his licencing, so I would not expect you to be able to comment on those. But if I could just raise with you or seek from you a comment with regards to paragraph 4 of Mr Smith's statement that essentially, if I can quote:

PN114

The aircraft requires a much broader range of skills and knowledge when maintaining and certifying this aircraft when compared to the original 747 series aircraft.

PN115

And in fact your statement contains a very similar sort of statement or assertion. Do you have a comment to make on that particular statement?---Yes I do. What we are implying there is that with this modification, a lot of the switching remains the same, it is labelled the same but it does different functions. There is a lot of systems that interact with each other that did not previously and there are systems which were not fitted to the original aircraft. You just have to put that into consideration when we work with the system, that there are differences.

PN116

Could I ask this; to what degree is that knowledge, that understanding, required of you when you approach a 747 300 LE aircraft? How mindful, that is, do you need to be in terms of understanding the details of the particular equipment on that aircraft vis-à-vis the 300?---You approach the maintaining the aircraft in a different manner because you have now got the FMCDU displays to - - -

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN117

Can you just explain what that is for the Commissioner?---Flight management computers and the central display units. The central display units, we can access various systems through them and they punch up messages on the screens, of the faults in systems. And that capability was not there on the earlier aircraft. And you have got to, well, address through those screens exactly - isolate what they are talking about and whether it is talking about an old aircraft style system or one of the new systems. And sometimes, if you are not aware of what it is saying, you can get I have found personally led astray by believing what the new computers tell me as opposed to translating the old aircraft systems. So in answer to your question, you have got to be mindful of all the differences when you attacked a problem in the aircraft.

PN118

It may be so, Mr Torpey, and I have heard it said that more modern aircraft have systems which simplify, if you like, for want of a better word, make it easier for a licenced aircraft maintenance engineer to carry out maintenance. How would you respond to such a statement with regards to the fitment of the controls or units that you talked about? Do you think it in fact does that?---No. From my experience the more equipment you fit to an aircraft the more that can go wrong, and the more you have got to fix.

PN119

MR MILLS: Your Honour, can I, before Mr Ryan asks another question, I have been very patient and allowed Mr Ryan a degree of latitude in the asking of the questions by virtue of some of the circumstances that have arisen beyond all parties' control, I do not object to any question that Mr Ryan has put at this particular point in time, I do however wish to make it quite clear that if Mr Ryan continues to make a submission in his question and simply lead Mr Torpey into an answer, we will object. We are prepared to give some latitude, but things are starting to become a little bit too obvious.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, yes, you should not lead Mr Ryan, but I will allow you, and I think that is where - on the basis of your question - you are entitled if you want to, to put to Mr Torpey his view as to or his response to what the Qantas witness is about to say. Mr Deahm has actually said things. So I do not know whether you want to put it that way. Perhaps leading, but I think you are entitled to get an opinion from your side as to what Mr Deahm is about to say, because no doubt he will have that opportunity to give an opinion on what Mr Torpey has said and what Mr Smith may have said. Go ahead, Mr Ryan, if you want to do it that way.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN121

MR RYAN: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate those comments. Mr Torpey, do you have in front of you a copy of a document headed "Witness statement of Bruce Roy Deahm"?---No I do not.

PN122

No. You now have such a document in front of you, is that correct?---I do.

PN123

Dated 22 February, the covering letter. Commissioner, I would like to ask Mr Torpey a number of questions; this statement has not bee officially tendered.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: We will not mark it but you can still ask questions.

PN125

MR RYAN: To the Commissioner. However, I think it may assist the proceedings if I can ask Mr Torpey a number of questions with regards to some of the statements made by Mr Deahm in his statement and it then obviates the need to recall Mr Torpey to respond at a later point.

PN126

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN127

MR RYAN: Have you had a chance to read and become familiar with Mr Deahm's statement, Mr Torpey?---I have read it once.

PN128

Looking at it, there is obviously some preamble which is to do with history and other things, but on the second page of the statement under paragraph 7 Mr Deahm makes comment about the degree of change in technology involved in the fitment of the LE package. And at the end of that paragraph he makes the following claim:

PN129

The LE has ensured that the avionics package is more reliable minimising faults and will actually make it easier for the LAME to maintain the aircraft.

PN130

Perhaps I can seek your comment on that particular statement?---Bringing a new, different type of system, as with any new system, you get a lot of, well, teething problems. We are still experiencing a lot of those teething problems on various systems, such as the lighting systems and some of the radio communications systems, software loading flight management computers. So no, at the moment while it is a whole new system, I would not say it is easier. For example, the flight management computer software procedures had been changed three times and we are still operating under what is called temporary provisions to maintain the entire instrument systems.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN131

So in summary, if you had to summarise your response to the statement that I read out of the last sentence of paragraph 7, in summary what would your comment be or your response be to that statement?---My response would be that it does not minimise faults and make it easier. We - I have to - we have to look at the aircraft at a different angle and perspective when we maintain it, because there is a lot of differences.

PN132

Moving down the page, paragraph 12. Paragraph 12 of Mr Deahm's statement talks about or is to do with the training that you underwent. And Mr Deahm states there that the training to obtain the 747 300 LE Instrument rating that you made of three weeks he says is not correct. He goes on to say, and if you are with me on that paragraph:

PN133

The required duration of the training package for this rating is four days of theoretically training and an additional two hours of practical training.

PN134

This seems to or it does contradict your statement, the statement in the document that you tendered, Mr Torpey. Could you make a comment on Mr Deahm's statement there and Mr Deahm's assertion?---The life extension training package is just short of three weeks. I have actually got the syllabus lay to here for the theory. I think what Mr Deahm is saying is that the specific instrument only items are four days, but that does not cover all the systems that the instrument interacts with regarding radio and electrical items.

PN135

To your knowledge, has any Qantas employee merely undertaken a training package of four days and the two hours practical training and then been able to achieve from CASA an endorsement or a rating on the 747 300 LE?---No.

PN136

And to your knowledge, how many Qantas licenced aircraft maintenance engineers have been through this training program?---Approximately between 70 and 90.

PN137

Thank you. That are the only questions I have of the witness, Commissioner.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: One thing I am not certain about, Mr Ryan, is exactly what - attachment B to your submissions, which is - does this include differences between - - -

PN139

MR RYAN: No.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. And that Mr Torpey made reference to it. I am just not quite sure - see, we cannot take attachment B as his evidence though is it, or his view, or is it partly his view? I am not quite sure what the status - - -

PN141

MR RYAN: Maybe if I take Mr Torpey to it, it might assist.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN143

MR RYAN: Mr Torpey, in your statement you indicated that, if I can just - - -

EXHIBIT #ALAEA4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, go ahead.

PN145

MR RYAN: Yes. In your statement, Mr Torpey, in paragraph 11 you say there - well, maybe if you could just read that paragraph 11 out to me?---Paragraph 11:

PN146

I compiled a summary of the differences between the 747 300 and 747 300 LE aircraft as used in the ALAEA submission in this matter based on extensive theory training notes and the maintenance manual temporary provisions.

PN147

Now, so as you said there, you provided a summary of the differences as used in the ALAEA submission in this matter. Mr Torpey, are you familiar with the ALAEA submission in this matter?---I am.

PN148

If I were to provide a copy of the submission to Mr Torpey and I would ask you to peruse in particular attachment B. Have you had a chance to look at that?---The whole submission?

PN149

In terms of essentially attachment B I am focusing on at the moment. While the format may not be familiar, can you tell me is that - are the details contained within attachment B of the ALAEA submissions familiar to you?---They are yes.

PN150

Your statement at paragraph 11 about the differences you compiled being used in the submission, is that what you have there in that attachment B, can you tell me, is that what you compiled?---It is.

PN151

Thank you. And that, to your knowledge and belief, is a true statement of the differences that exist between 747 300 and a 747 300 LE, is that correct?---It is a guideline yes.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XN MR RYAN
PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN153

MR RYAN: Thank you Mr Torpey.

PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes Mr Mills.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLS [12.09PM]

PN155

MR MILLS: Mr Torpey, how are you?---Good thanks.

PN156

Can I take you to point 5 of your statement. And can you read that out aloud for me?---It is point 5 of my witness statement?

PN157

Yes?---

PN158

In 2003 I underwent training to obtain a 747 300 LE endorsement. In order to do this, I completed theoretically training for three weeks as requested by my employer.

PN159

Is that statement to the best of your knowledge, correct?---Yes.

PN160

Could you just clarify for me and also for the Commission, the application by the ALAEA in this matter for two points is for a life extension instrument rating, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN161

Can I ask the witness to be shown the submissions of the ALAEA in this matter. He may already have them as the Commission took him to it. And in particular, can I ask you Mr Torpey, when it is provided to you, to go to attachment B. And if you let me just slowly take you through what I am about to ask you. Can I ask you also have available Mr Deahm' statement, right? And in particular can I ask you to have a look at Mr Deahm's statement at point 12. And I think Mr Ryan has already taken you to that so I do not really need you to repeat that other than to say, is it fair to say that you are familiar with the intent of what Mr Deahm has put in point 12 on the basis of the question that Mr Ryan has asked you?---Can you say that again please?

PN162

Certainly. Certainly, all I am interested in is to make sure that are you familiar with point 12, particularly seeing Mr Ryan has already asked you a question in relation to it?---I am.

PN163

What do you say to Mr Deahm's point 12, particularly in consideration of your own point 5?---It is - - -

PN164

Do you agree with that Mr Deahm is saying?---No. It has been - - -

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN165

Thanks. Okay. Can I ask you, you say that it is a three week course, the three week course is the theoretical part?---Correct.

PN166

How long is the practical part?---The practical lasts two hours.

PN167

Okay. So three weeks, two hours. Can I then ask you to have a look at page 2 of - no sorry, just bear with me. Can I take you to page 2 of attachment B of the ALAEA submissions on this particular matter. I think that pages starts with part 1 B747 300 LE theoretical training content, is that correct?---No. Oh, yes.

PN168

Now you have, in answer to some questions that I have asked you at the early stage of your cross-examination, that it is a three week course. You also said that the LE is an instrument rating for which you are seeking two additional points, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN169

In relation to differences training required, which is the second part of page 2 and in particular it talks about instrument items, does it not say in the ALAEAs own submissions that it is four days of examinable subjects?---That is the instrument specific items.

PN170

Which is what the claim is for, is that not correct?---No.

PN171

You are claiming two points - is that not correct? Are you not claiming two points for the differences training and the work that you have to perform on the instrument rating?---The instrument rating, yes.

PN172

Okay. So therefore, in the submissions of the ALAEA in this particular matter, is it not correct and what you are reading that the claim is for four days examinable subjects?---No because that is - there is more in it than just the four days but - - -

PN173

Mr Thorpie?---Torpey.

PN174

Mr Torpey, sorry. I have asked you a question in relation to what you have read?
---And my answer is still no.

PN175

Is it not correct that what you have read before you in the submissions by the ALAEA around instrument items says four days examinable subjects?---Yes that says four days examinable subjects.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN176

Thank you. So where are we? You have got the submissions of the ALAEA around the instrument rating in support of this matter saying four days, you say three weeks, but Mr Deahm's statement at point 12 concurs with the submissions of the ALAEA, what is the right answer?---The right answer is the instrument rating LE is not issued on the basis of just purely four days training. It is issued on a training package.

PN177

So your statement is inconsistent with the submissions of the ALAEA in this particular matter, would that be correct?---No. I am talking about the instrument rating issued by CASA is based on this training package.

PN178

And that training package in the ALAEAs submissions says four days examinable subjects and it is for the instrument rating is it not correct that you are seeking the additional two points? Take your time, this is a very important matter?---I understand that. I am seeking two points for the additional instrument rating. The instrument rating is not placed slowly on four days examinable subjects. There is five days examinable subjects written below it and there is electrical items above it. It is one training course, one package which gives me the instrument LE rating.

PN179

Okay. Let us extrapolate that out further. You have gone to that the radio items are worth five days examinable subjects and the differences training for the electrical items is two hours. Is the claim for ratings on the differences in the radio?---No.

PN180

Is the claim for the differences in the electrical items?---No.

PN181

So the claim is only for the instrumentation aspect of the differences training, is that correct?---Yes, it is, I believe, yes.

PN182

And the instrument rating in accordance with page two of that submission says four days examinable subjects, does it not?---Not for the instrument rating. Can you get rid of the word instrument rating - - -

PN183

Well instrument items, does it not say four days examinable subjects?---They are the instrument items, that is not the instrument rating as in the licence.

PN184

But you have agreed with me at least twice that the claim is for the instruments, not for radio and not for electrical, is that correct?---For Instrument rating, not instrument items. We are talking items, the instrument licence endorsement is a rating.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN185

The points are not for differences on the electrical items are they?---No.

PN186

The points are not for difference on the radio items, are they?---Not on the - not on their own, no.

PN187

The points are for the instrument items are they not?---It is for the instrument rating, but you are taking it out on its own.

PN188

I am just applying the submissions of the ALAEA, that is what I am asking you the question about. I have not even taken you to Mr Deahm's statement. In detail?---As I said, can you clarify - you are clarifying instrument items in a theoretical training as opposed to an instrument rating on a licence issued by CASA.

PN189

And you have the opportunity to give evidence. I am asking you, there are differences between the statement that you have made at point 5 and the submissions of your organisation, which is your evidence? I have asked you a question about both?---My evidence is approximately three weeks training to obtain the CASA endorsed licence rating on the instrument.

PN190

Which is inconsistent with the submissions you have just read, correct?---No. The items I am reading are broken down to instrument items, they are not related to the CASA issued rating.

PN191

Well even if we say that this is the theoretical training, even if we follow your line of logic, can you add that up for me? Two hours, four days and five days, what does that say?---Ten days.

PN192

I do not know when two hours is converted into a day. So let us assume that we say nine days plus maybe point 2 of a day, correct?---Well, if you are going to get specific on it, you cannot be examined on new content on the same day. So you will find that what is written here as far as days for theoretical training, by the time you throw in an exam here and an exam there, you have ended up losing a day because of that CASA requirement.

PN193

Mr Torpey, I will go to this point quite regularly in your evidence, in my examination. You have made a claim on behalf of the ALAEA at point 5 of your statement saying it is training for three weeks. Your organisation has in its own submissions, even if we take what you say to be correct, which is inconsistent with Mr Deahm's statement, you say - we say it is four days for the instrument, five days for radio, which we in some way concede that it is not what the two points is about, and two hours for electrical. You are required, if we take your line of logic, to do less than three weeks training, is that correct?---You have said less than three weeks training.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN194

I have?---Yes.

PN195

Even if we apply your logic?---I - approximately three weeks training. All right, less a day or two, yes.

PN196

Mr Torpey, can I ask you again to look at part 1, page 2 of appendix B. Can I ask you again to read and can you tell me where you find the total of three weeks in that submission?---Well, I do not find three weeks there.

PN197

Thank you. Can I ask you another question about training. How long does it take for you - or how much theoretical training does it take for a new licence? Say, pretend that you were asked to do the 767 300, which I understand you have anyway. But if you were to start that afresh, how long would it take? What is the theory training for a new licence?---Approximately?

PN198

Yes?---Depending on the systems fitted - electrical instrument radio, instrument, what?

PN199

If you were getting a full licence, a full licence as an avionic LAME on a 767 300. Just a straight answer, I do not have any special tricks on this one?---Three months.

PN200

Three months? Okay, so three months. How much is or how long is the practical training on a new licence?---As per the PCT guidelines?

PN201

That is fine?---That only applies for a second licence. That is a very hard question to answer. Some people take two years, some people take six months.

PN202

Can I make it a bit easier to answer this. Two years is fantastic for my argument, but I do not think that is fair if we are going to be reasonable about this. What I really need is, let us just say if someone is as experienced as you, and you have a lot of licences, you have a lot of experience, and it is your evidence, how much practical training do you believe that you would need if you were undertaking a new licence? A completely new licence?---Well under the practical consolidated training program, PCT program, it is about three weeks.

PN203

Thank you. So can I just summarise that point for you, or I will ask you to answer this, is it true that the answer you have just given is three months for - approximately three months for theoretical training for a new licence?
---Approximately.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN204

And approximately three weeks practical training for a new licence? How long is the practical training on the LE which you have just completed, or which you completed a couple of years ago?---Two hours.

PN205

All right. How many points do you get for most standard licences? An example I will give you to make it easier, how many points do you get or how many points is a licence for a 767 300 of which you are licenced on worth?---Four points.

PN206

And you are seeking two points for the instrumentation aspect, instrumentation ratings on the LE, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN207

So even if we do some semblance of mathematics and let us put a couple of examples too. Let us say we say that it is four days - this is what we say, you disagree, but humour me - let us say it is four days for theoretical training; that is significantly less than three months for a new licence, is it not?---Yes.

PN208

And let us say if the submissions of the ALAEA are right, where it is effectively 9.1 days or point two days, that is significantly less than three months of training for a new licence, is it not?---Yes.

PN209

The practical consolidation training, which we agree on, we agree it is two hours, you agree it is two hours?---Yes.

PN210

The practical consolidation training on the LE is two hours, is that correct?---Yes.

PN211

Is that not significantly less than the three weeks training required, practical consolidating training, on a new licence?---Yes.

PN212

Now, that interests me. Because if I take you to point 13 of your statement and I ask you to read out the first sentence of that statement please?---Which statement?

PN213

Of yours?---Mine?

PN214

Yes, clause 13 of your statement. At point 13 of your statement can I just ask you to read the first sentence please?---Point 13:

PN215

The 747 300 LE technology changes introduced to the 1960s base 747 model aircraft are vast.

PN216

I want to focus on the word "vast" in particular. And if I can just take you back through the maze of different ways of asking you a question, where we finished off in relation to training packages, if I am correct, is that you agreed that there was a significant difference in the training required for a new licence compared to the training you have had to undertake on the differences created by the life extension, is that correct?---That is correct.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN217

You have also made that same comment in relation to the word - sorry, in relation to the practical consolidation training, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN218

So why did you use the word vast when you talk about the technology changes when one considers the training you have had to undertake for the differences is even, if we assume that the ALAEA submissions are correct, is literally 10 weeks less than a new licence type? Why the word vast?---Well, to do that training I have already got assumed knowledge. So I have already done the 747 1960s version. I have already done the 747 400 radio. So I had a certain level of assumed knowledge before I did these vast differences, and that is why I chose the word vast.

PN219

Okay, you have chosen the word vast because, in your own words, you already had an assumed knowledge. So are you saying that the knowledge that you already have is vastly different now to the knowledge you have received? What are you saying in relation to the term vast?---The 747 as I knew it, to what we have today, the differences are vast.

PN220

Can I just come back to the point you made about assumed knowledge already. Your licenced on a 747 300 aircraft are you not?---I am.

PN221

You made a comment, in your view, that the reason why the training on the differences package is not significant, this is my word, so you tease them out yourself, is because you already had an assumed degree of knowledge on the 747 300, is that correct?---Can you say that again please?

PN222

Is it not correct that the reason that the differences training on the 747 300 life extension package is significantly reduced is because you already have a significantly strong technological understanding of a 747 300 series aircraft?
---That is the minimum requirement to do this training.

PN223

So that is why the training is not as significant as a new licence type, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN224

We have already given you four points for the 747 300, Mr - or should I say, in fairness to you, you have already earned four points for the 747 300 aircraft, is that correct?---Well, if you translate it. The point system did not exist when I held that rating.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN225

But you have been awarded an appropriate licence - - -?---Something appropriately.

PN226

- - - 747 300?---Yes.

PN227

So in reality, if I take that term, vast, the differences you refer to on the basis of your - in your words - assumed knowledge are not that vast, are they?---Yes they are. I have said vast - already being aware of the - - -

PN228

But you said you already had, and agreed with me, that you had an assumed knowledge?---Yes.

PN229

That made the differences training more or less significant than a licence training?---No, I did not say that.

PN230

I think you did?---I have already done the basic 747 training and I still feel the differences are vast. That is what I have stated.

PN231

In consideration then of your agreement with me that the training between a new licence type and the training required on the life extension ratings is not significant, the difference between the two is significant, that being a new licence type being more significant, is it not then fair to extrapolate that out and say that the differences between the life extension program and the 737 300 that you are already licenced on are not significant?---They are significant. CASA issued me a new additional instrument rating, they were that significant.

PN232

But I think it is fair to say that you said that the training differences between a new licence type and the LE were that the new licence type was significantly longer. So is it not fair to say that the differences then on the basis of that answer, between the life extension and the licence rating on the 747 300 are not significant?---You are trying to compare - - -

PN233

I am just asking a question?---The answer is they are significant differences.

PN234

Despite the difference in the length of training?---Yes.

PN235

Despite the fact that you have an assumed knowledge or it was assumed in the training that by virtue of the fact that you were already licenced on the 747 300 that the training would be significantly lower?---Yes.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN236

Can I just take you to - if I could take Mr Torpey to Mr Smith's statement, which is ALAEA 3. And could I ask you to familiarise yourself in doing that also with Mr Deahm's statement. And in particular, I would like you to have a look at Mr Deahm's statement and I think it might be point either 13 or 14. It is 13, and in particular, his attachment BD1. And I will give you the opportunity, sir, to read that. You may already have done so but you may want to refresh that?---Which document am I reading?

PN237

Sorry, in Mr Deahm's statement. Do you still have a copy of that. Could I take you to point 13 of that statement, could I ask you to have a look at attachment BD1. Take your time, familiarise yourself with it. And I also need you to have ALAEA 3 which is Mr Smith's statement handy or available. Have you had a chance to read it?---Yes I have.

PN238

And we will both have to take our time through this because I am a bit of a ..... when it comes to this type of technology. If I can just ask you to have a look at the last point on Mr Deahm's appendix or attachment which refers to the flight management computer system. And Mr Smith, at ALAEA 3, the first dot point, 4 and 5 refers to the flight management system. Give or take there is some different terminology or whatever, I do not really understand, is it fair to say that the flight management computer system introduced through the LE and the flight management system on the 763 are essentially doing the same thing? That they provide the same data, that they interface with APSs, EHSIs and EADIS?---Not entirely.

PN239

There are some differences, is that correct?---There are similarities and there are differences.

PN240

Are they essentially doing the same thing?---No. No, not quite. I mean, they are called flight management systems. Example, the 767 controls the throttle system, the 74 it does not. So.

PN241

Do you think the difference between the 767 300 and 747 life extension in relation to flight management systems is significant?---Yes.

PN242

How are they significant? You have said there are similarities, you are now saying that there are differences that are significant?---Yes.

PN243

Are they completely separate systems?---The 767 and 747 one or - - -

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN244

The 767 300 flight management system and the 747 300 life extension system?
---Hold on, you just said 747 300, did you mean 767 300?

PN245

I meant 767 300 and 747 LE. That is the distinction?---There are differences. They are two FMCs, tie ups with auto throttle, auto pilot, there are three boxes in 767, 747 there is nine boxes, no tie up with auto throttle.

PN246

But are you not applying the same skills in the maintenance of those systems?
---Same basic skills.

PN247

Okay, thanks. Can I refer you again to point 5 of ALAEA 3. And Mr Deahm's statement. Can I refer you to the electronic flight instrument system, EFIS, okay, which is point number 3 in Mr Deahm's attachment, or heading number 3 in
Mr Deahm's attachment. Now on my basic read, they are essentially the same things, are they not?---No.

PN248

Why not?---You want me to clarify?

PN249

Happy for you to?---Okay. The EADI system only has provisions on the 747. Qantas changed their mind at the last minute and did not fit them. The EHSI on the 747 is a stand alone LCD type screen. The 767 a cathode ray tubes with signal generator boxes to drive the signals. Basically the EHSI on the 747 is a stand alone instrument and does everything internally itself whilst the 767, they are just TV screens that rely on boxes downstairs to drive them.

PN250

In your opinion, which - is the technology on the 767 300 more advanced -particular [sic] of your most recent answer about Qantas not taking up a particular option, is that more advanced than the work or the systems on the 743 300 LE?
---As a general, no. You would have to get down to specific systems for me to answer that correctly.

PN251

Do you think the differences between the two are significant?---Yes.

PN252

How are they significant?---Which system?

PN253

How is the differences between 767 300 in relation to the electronic flight instrument system and the 747 300, how are those differences significant?---Well, as I said, the 767 is a TV - six TV screen set up with boxes for the signal generators in the belly with backup systems for all of the flight instrument displays. The 747 LE has an EHSI with two EFIS selection panels. The EFIS selection panels on the 74 do not have a memory capability, the 767 does. So they talk and communicate in totally different ways.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN254

But are they not essentially doing the same thing? Are you not required to apply the same type of skills when you are servicing two aircraft?---No. That is where you go wrong, if you service an aircraft assuming that what you know on one is - when you get down to specifics you assume that you know the EFIS in the 767, you are saying that I am assumed to be able to fix an EFIS on a 747, that is not correct.

PN255

Okay. At point 13 of your statement, you say you must be constantly vigilant regarding systems changes on aircraft, is that correct?---Yes.

PN256

Can I also just give you or remind you of what you - of an answer you gave to Mr Ryan, and I will just let you confirm that for me, Mr Ryan asked you to read out point 13 in statement, I do not ask you to do it again, and you gave an answer to say, and I am paraphrasing it, that you need to be vigilant in the manner in which you service the LE because of the interface between new and old systems, is that correct?---Yes.

PN257

How many different aircraft would you service per day, just on an average?
---Three or four.

PN258

How many customer aircraft could you do per day?---Well, avionic wise whether - it is three or four, whether it is customer or Qantas.

PN259

So is it not fair to say that you are comfortable with moving between different systems on a regular basis?---Yes.

PN260

Is it not also then fair to say that you have to be equally vigilant with work you perform on any aircraft and to move between different systems is not unfamiliar for you?---Yes.

PN261

So why is this aircraft any different? Why do you have to be more vigilant on this aircraft? That is what you are saying, is it not?---I did not say I have to be more vigilant on this aircraft. I said I have got to be - you have got to be vigilant with the differences.

PN262

But you have to be vigilant with every aircraft do you not?---Of course you do. That is what having a licence is about.

PN263

Right. So you apply the same vigilance as a licenced engineer on any aircraft that you work on?---Yes.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN264

Can I take you to point 15 of your statement. Actually, I will not ask that question. Do you ever do differences training for which you do not receive points? In your whole time as a LAME, which is quite modest, have you done differences training and not received any points?---Yes.

PN265

And that is not uncommon is it?---No. No, there is always differences.

PN266

Now at point 9 you explain - Mr Ryan took you to this as well - point 9, if I just ask you to have a look at and re-familiarise yourself with point 9. Have you had an opportunity to do that?---That is point 9 of my statement?

PN267

Yes?---Yes.

PN268

Now, you say based on the EBA you received two points additional rating, that you undertook the training on that basis. Did you not or were you not aware and can I take - you have got the submissions of the ALAEA there is that right?---I do have those.

PN269

Just take your - we will have lunch soon? And it is attachment A and attachment A really talks about licencing, enterprise agreement 4, and I really want you to go to the pay agreement. And the second page in on the pay agreement, particularly clause 6. And in particular what I would like you to explain to me is - I would like you to read 6(b) and 6(c) to yourself and let me know when you are finished. And also 6(d) please?---Where are we? Oh here we are.

PN270

Just take your time, there is no hurry?---Progression through the wage structure?

PN271

Yes, that is clause 6. Could you just familiarise yourself with clause (b), (c) and (d) please. You do not have to read them aloud, just read it to yourself?---Yes.

PN272

At the time the pay agreement became - was voted upon, which I assume you had an opportunity to vote on?---To vote on what, sorry?

PN273

The pay agreement?---Of the introduction of - - -

PN274

It does not really matter?---Yes.

PN275

I mean, I am assuming that you were a licenced engineer at the time it was implemented?---Yes.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN276

That is really what I wanted to ask. At the time it was implemented, did the life extension package exist?---No.

PN277

So if I take you to 6(d) is it not fair to say that this would apply, that:

PN278

Future training packages shall be negotiated and agreed by the parties prior to their introduction

PN279

?---It was already introduced before we - - -

PN280

I think you just told me that the life extension was not introduced at the time the pay agreement came into place?---That is right. Yes, and you have just read out clause (d):

PN281

The points value of future training packages shall be negotiated and agreed by the parties prior to their introduction.

PN282

And is that not what we are doing now?---I guess so.

PN283

Well we have not agreed and we are trying to negotiate?---It was already introduced before we negotiated it.

PN284

I hear what you are saying. Yes, I hear what you are saying. You are saying that the life extension was introduced and then we starting operating before we agreed on the points?---That is right.

PN285

That I acknowledge. But the point that I make is that at the time of the life extension - the time that the pay agreement was agreed upon and introduced, the life extension package was unknown at the time?---Sure.

PN286

Okay. So on that basis, what led you to believe that you would automatically received two points in additional rating?---Back to paragraph (b).

PN287

So you just assumed that because you had an additional rating you would get two points?---Yes.

PN288

Even though at the time the life extension package did not exist?---Well, single category Qantas aircraft type, which attract two points. The LE was introduced before, prior to any negotiation.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN289

If the ALAEA and receive two points, that would make an avionics licence on the life extension worth six points, is that correct? Sorry, on a 747 300, if you are successful in your claim will that not make a licence for an avionic licence on that type of aircraft six points?---For me today?

PN290

Well, for any avionic LAME who has undertaken work on a 747 300?---Well, no I cannot answer that accurately because the - a lot of the aircraft typed up with 747 training do not exist any more.

PN291

Maybe I had better rephrase that so - because it is a fairly simple question, I think. Let us assume the ALAEA is successful and the Commission awards them two points?---Okay.

PN292

Will that not automatically mean that a licence rating on the 747 300 LE is worth six points?---No. The LE is two points.

PN293

Yes but an avionic LAME - you have to be licenced on the 747 300 to be able to qualify for the differences training, do you not?---Currently yes.

PN294

So you already have four points is that not correct?---So - for me, yes.

PN295

Okay. And then the LE will give you an additional two points, is that correct?
---Me personally, yes.

PN296

So that makes a total of six points for the 737 300 LE aircraft avionic, is that correct?---For me yes.

PN297

Are there any other aircraft in the Qantas fleet that you are aware of that are worth six points, that you can get a licence for six points?---Yes.

PN298

There are? What are they?---Well, I am not an engine rated person but from what I understand if you started with a 74400 and you did the CF6 and the Rolls Royce training at the same time as your first initial licence.

PN299

But a 767 400 - - -?---You qualify for six points.

PN300

- - - that is avionics is four - as an avionic, it is four points is it not?---767?

PN301

Sorry, 747 400 is four points, is that correct?---Yes. Yes, for electrical instrument yes.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY XXN MR MILLS
PN302

So the 747 400 would only be worth four points as an avionic LAME would it not?---With or without the ER differences.

PN303

Even with the ER differences is it worth four points?---It is five points.

PN304

It is worth five points?---Five points with the ER.

PN305

Okay. Is the 747 400 ER more advanced technology?---Yes and no. It is down to systems.

PN306

Is the 767, what is the 767 300 avionic rating worth?---The electrical and instrument four points.

PN307

Does the 767 300 come into operation after the 747 300, or just say 300?---Yes.

PN308

So there is a 767 300 more advanced technology than the 747 300?---Just the 300 or the LE?

PN309

That is all I have asked you?---Just the 300?

PN310

Yes?---Yes.

PN311

Can I just also ask you a question, and my final one. There is a lot of debate or discussion from Mr Ryan and he spoke to you about you went and undertook - if I take you to in particular - if I take you back to your statement and I ask you to have a look at in particular at point 7. So you say you performed PCT training. At point 10, if you have a look at both of those. And Mr Ryan asked you some questions about how you had gone to a great deal of effort to get the practical consolidated training experience and that you were training licenced engineers. Do you get an allowance for that?---I do.

PN312

I have got no further questions at this point.

PN313

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes Mr Ryan.

PN314

MR RYAN: Commissioner, should I proceed with the re-examination at this stage?

PN315

THE COMMISSIONER: Would it take you that long?

PN316

MR RYAN: Five minutes, 10 minutes.

PN317

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes okay, we will proceed with the re-examination.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN [12.58PM]

PN318

MR RYAN: Mr Torpey, Mr Mills spent some time earlier in his cross-examination dwelling on the issue of the training provided by Qantas for the 747 300 LE and for - and then the requirement to complete that training for the issuing by CASA of a licence. Can I ask you a series of questions about this. To your knowledge, does CASA have a role in approving the content of the Qantas courses and in particular, in this case, the 747 300 LE course?---They do yes.

PN319

MR MILLS: Commissioner, that was not a question that came out of either the examination-in-chief or the cross-examination. Mr Ryan is, I believe, seeking to ask Mr Torpey being information that has not previously been put to him. The subject of CASA's involvement in Qantas maintenance procedures has not bee the subject of evidence yet for Mr Torpey.

PN320

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that - is that not right, Mr Ryan?

PN321

MR RYAN: I can explain myself with the question. As I said, I am going to ask a series of questions, and the purpose of the questions is ultimately to discover from Mr Torpey what CASA requires in order to issue the rating. So this is actually a building block in terms of the questions I intend to ask. It is not introducing new matter at all about CASA's involvement in specifically training. My interest in CASA's involvement is more, in this line of questioning, more to do with a requirement that CASA might have for certain training obligations to be met and to be undergone prior to issuing the rating. I am merely seeking to establish the connection.

PN322

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, proceed with that inquiry.

PN323

MR RYAN: Sorry?

PN324

THE COMMISSIONER: Go on, proceed with your line.

PN325

MR RYAN: So you, if I can just ask that question again Mr Torpey, to your knowledge does CASA approve the contents of the courses?---Yes.

PN326

Including this one. I recall you answered this question previously, but given Mr Mills' line of questioning it is probably worth asking again, how many LAMEs, avionics LAMEs have, to your knowledge, competed the 747 300 LE training package and received a licence rating endorsement?---Approximately 70 to 90.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY RXN MR RYAN
PN327

And to your knowledge, how many LAMEs of that number have proceeded to an instrument rating provided by CASA on the basis of only four days training, and perhaps an additional two hours practical?---Well, none, I - I have not instructed any.

PN328

To your knowledge all participants in the training have completed more than four days, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN329

You have undergone by the look of your licencing and qualifications, Mr Torpey, you have undergone fairly regular and extensive periods of training through the Qantas training school, would that be a fairly accurate assessment?---Yes.

PN330

And I am looking at your statement that - 737 licences, 767 licences, 747 licences, to ask you that question. Is it your experience that Qantas will provide training well in excess of a CASA requirement for the achievement of a qualification or rating? Has it been your experience that this has been the case?
---No.

PN331

And you say that on what basis?---Well, a lot of our training now is based on well, differences or conversion on previously received training.

PN332

Looking at your qualifications, you have licences in electrical, instrument and radio on a number of Boeing aircraft. In fact there are a few, the 737, 767, 747, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN333

And there are some variance within those major groupings, such as 300, 400 or 200, 300 is that correct?---That is correct.

PN334

Would you say that there is a degree of commonality in terms of the manufacturer, in terms of systems that they will fit or apply to the construction of aircraft at a given period?---What do you mean by commonality? There is the same manufacturers but they normally have something different to make it work with each particular type.

PN335

That is an interesting answer and if I could just ask you a bit further, so you are licenced on a number of Boeing aircraft, when you approach a 737 aircraft made by the Boeing manufacturer, you may very well be required to assess a defect with regard to the operation of a particular system, be it instrument, electrical or whatever. Could you tell me whether you can apply the knowledge from say a 767 with regards to operation a defect in the 737 aircraft that may appear similar?
---No I - basic trade knowledge you apply but specific system to aircraft type, that is where you have got to know - be aware of the differences. Does that help? My answer?

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY RXN MR RYAN
PN336

That is the answer to the question?---Mm.

PN337

I might ask you a further question. I will frame this question carefully. With regards to - you answered a question Mr Mills or you dealt with a question that Mr Mills asked you which seemed to me to be drawing parallels between functionality or purpose of an instrument or instrument system in an aircraft and the approach a licenced aircraft engineer might adopt; the question is to - if a system appears similar on a Boeing aircraft of one type, in your view does this necessarily mean that you may apply the same fault finding skills and the same logic - - -

PN338

MR MILLS: Commissioner, he is just leading the answer to Mr Torpey.

PN339

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN340

MR RYAN: I will withdraw that question. I was trying to be careful.

PN341

THE COMMISSIONER: I appreciate that.

PN342

MR RYAN: You said in answer to the previous question that you apply the same basic trade skills in approaching various aircraft types, is that correct?---Yes.

PN343

Can you take me through that a little bit further in terms of what that means with regards to your instrument training provided by Qantas. That is, instrument training in the generic sense?---Generic instrument training? Well, for example, using a multi meter or a pump for a ..... static system. You still pump pressure and suck air with a generalist instrument.

PN344

So methodology then would be applied across the board?---Yes, well, generic basic training.

PN345

So what do you believe the purpose of extensive training on different aircraft if you are merely applying the same skills or the same methodology? What do you understand is the fundamental purpose of training on the different aircraft types?
---So you can identify the specific differences and - yes, as far as how the system operates and issues of safety and some general maintenance, not damaging systems. That is the reason you have got to be aware specific different types.

PN346

So if you are allocated - - -

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY RXN MR RYAN
PN347

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ryan, have you got a few more questions?

PN348

MR RYAN: I have one or two, Commissioner.

PN349

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, maybe we should adjourn. We will resume at 2.15.

PN350

MR RYAN: Yes.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.09PM]
<RESUMED [2.21PM]

PN351

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes Mr Ryan.

PN352

MR RYAN: Thank you Commissioner. Mr Torpey, if I could ask just a couple more questions of you. You, in answer to some questions from Mr Mills, you talked about the need to be vigilant with regards to your approach to different aircraft types. Just want you to see if you can expand on that for me a little, as to the mindset, if you like, the mental discipline could I say, that you apply in terms of the assessment of different aircraft types?---Would you mind asking that again, please?

PN353

Regards this question of or the matter of vigilance was raised in answer to questions of Mr Mills prior to lunch, I am just looking for a little bit more information as to how vigilance evidences itself in your mind with regards to your approach to the work when assigned to different aircraft?---I guess the level of vigilance does not change, you are always vigilant. It comes down to, I guess, to the training you have had and the knowledge you have got of the aircraft and the systems as to how you would approach it. I think you - the question of vigilance you are tying in with the - or maintenance standard and airworthiness and so on, that does not change.

PN354

So if I just apply that or if I ask you to apply that to an aircraft type situation, can I ask; do you assume with regard to an aircraft similarities, differences between aircraft types?---No. That is, well I suppose a benefit of the licence and the training is you do not assume however similar the system appears, is different. It talks to different pieces and I guess that is the benefit of having the type training and so forth. You do not assume that they are all similar, you know what the differences are. And I guess that is the reason why you - if you hit a button that you do not know what it does, you could end up hurting someone or doing something nasty. So you just, I guess, that is part of the vigilance. You do not touch things you do not know what they do.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY RXN MR RYAN
PN355

And naturally, as I think you said earlier, the same button on different aircraft might very well trigger a different series of events, is that correct?---Well, that is true. I did refer that in the LEs they have kept some of the cockpit buttons the same, they have used the same button with the old identification but they do a different function.

PN356

Just one final matter. With the 70 or 80 avionics LAMEs who have currently received the LE training and the endorsement from CASA, in order to undergo that training, they are required to be licenced on the 747 300, is that correct?
---That is correct.

PN357

Does Qantas currently operate 747 300 aircraft, non LE that is?---Right now no, I think the last aircraft has been modified, EBW. I think it has just completed its modification stage.

PN358

So without sort of second guessing why Qantas goes about its business, but based on your knowledge of the Qantas training system, would it be a fair assumption that in future, if someone is to be trained on the classic, that is the 300, they would in fact be trained on the LE by Qantas?---That is normal. They remove what is no longer applicable to the aircraft if they operating it.

PN359

And in the event that a LAME underwent that training in the avionics, that is we are talking about someone who does not have a 200 or 300 licence, but completed the 747 300 LE training, submits the licence and all the other relevant material to CASA and receives an endorsement, what is your expectation of the number of points that would accrue to that person who received a full avionics licence so there is instrument and electrical?---If he received - if he got trained as of today he would only get the 747 300 LE for the instrument side of things. Because that is included in the rating. If he has not got the old, he is trained from today, it would all be included in the one course. I honestly do not know where it would stand. It would come down to what CASA issued.

PN360

I will step you back through the question again. Currently, in order to undergo the LE training, a precondition requirement is that the engineer have a 747 300 licence, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN361

Qantas, it would appear from the answer to the previous question, that Qantas are no longer operating the 300 aircraft type, to you knowledge, to the best of your knowledge?---For the instrument side of things, that is correct.

**** MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY RXN MR RYAN
PN362

Therefore my question is if Qantas were to train someone on a 300 while we think that is probably pretty unlikely, is it fair to assume that that training would be on the 747 300 LE?---That would be included yes.

PN363

And in the event that the LAME underwent that training and was endorsed on the 747 300 LE from scratch, that is he did not have a 300 licence previously, what is your view based on your understanding of the agreement as to how many points that would generate in the avionics category?---That would generate four points.

PN364

Thank you. That is all the questions I have got.

PN365

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes thank you. Thank you, Mr Torpey, you can go.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.29PM]

PN366

THE COMMISSIONER: That is your witnesses, is it not, Mr Ryan?

PN367

MR RYAN: It is, Commissioner, yes. So I have no further - - -

PN368

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Mills, we should deal with your witness.

PN369

MR MILLS: Commissioner, I think we just go straight into Mr Deahm's evidence.

PN370

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Deahm is your only witness?

PN371

MR MILLS: Mr Deahm is our only witness. And clearly, our submissions have been provided to the Commission late last year - - -

PN372

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN373

MR MILLS: And we don't require to go through that.

<BRUCE ROY DEAHM, SWORN [2.30PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MILLS

PN374

MR MILLS: Mr Deahm, have you made a statement for the purposes of these proceedings?---I have.

PN375

Do you have a copy of the statement before you?---Yes I do.

PN376

Are you comfortable that that statement is a true and correct representation of what you seek to submit in this particular matter?---Yes I am.

PN377

I might have that tendered.

EXHIBIT #QF1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRUCE ROY DEAHM

PN378

MR MILLS: Mr Deahm, I have only got a couple of questions to ask you. First of all, if I could take you to points 3 and 4 of your statement. And in fact point 5 as well. I just ask you to familiarise yourself with those points. Can you just confirm in fairly succinct terms, to the Commissioner, your understanding of the LAME pay agreement? Firstly, your involvement and secondly, what the intention was around clause 4.5?---Yes. I was involved in the development and the final - reaching the final agreement. And in fact, I think, in the actually EBA award we actually listed, so that there would be no confusion, we listed the existing aircraft so we all knew which ones were set in concrete for then. And then over a period of time as new aircraft or training packages came along, we have had a process under the EBA to come to some sort of conclusion. Sometimes with the systems development .....

PN379

And at the time when this was agreed, in effect the pay agreement, did the life extension training package exist?---No. No in fact, I do not think there was any thought that we would modify an aircraft to a degree that would encompass this sort of change. Certainly it would be unusual.

PN380

So could you - clause 4.5 of the pay agreement, which is clarified at 4.4, is that the appropriate approach for the life extension training package?---Yes I believe so. It has been used quite a few times before and not similar circumstances but circumstances where we would have different aircraft - an aircraft, an existing aircraft, that has come into the fleet with a different engine, things like that.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XN MR MILLS
PN381

Can you just go to points 8, 9 and 10, and 11 as well, and could you explain to the Commission the circumstances surrounding that particular instance?---Okay. Right, the original fleet of 747 400, the aircraft that Qantas operated, were powered by Rolls Royce engines. And a few years back we decided to buy some second hand aircraft, three second hand aircraft from Asia and they were fitted with the CF6 engines. And so there was general instrument training for everybody to familiarise themselves with the changes between that particular model aircraft and the one that we operated, the engines, and over above the engines. And in the case of the engine people who were already licenced on the CF6 engine on our 767, they undertook more extensive training to gain the knowledge of the differences between the CF6 engine fitted to the 767 and the 747 400s that we bought second hand. And as a result of that, there was a rating issued by CASA, if you like, in the LAMEs licence, you would have for the engine guy, for his rating would be 747 400 Rolls Royce and there would be another rating under that for the Boeing 747 400 CF6.

PN382

And point 11 there is some reference to - - -?---Point 11. Also, there was also the 767. We leased some about four years ago, I think, or five years ago some 767s from British Airways. And that was the first situation where we had 767 300s with GEs fitted and we got some - we leased some British Airways 767 300s with Rolls Royce fitted. And so that was the first situation and simply the same population of people, if you like, with those engine wise and those licences. They did some training and under their entry in their licence they had 767 CF6, they had 767 Rolls Royce. Number 11, is just for - to make it even more complicated, there is a later series of CF6 engine which has a fully electronic control system as opposed to hydromechanical and that is called FADEC. And there was a training package that - and created a new rating. There was a training package for those LAMEs licenced on aircraft with CF6 engines and to be able to certify for aircraft fitted with CF6 engines which had the full electronic engine controls. There was a claim for payment for a range of those issues and in the end it was all put in one pile, if you like, and we agreed or there was a decision from the Commission, that if you had been converted from the 747 400 aircraft to the CF6, if you had been converted from the 767 to the Rolls Royce and you had been given the - and had the two ratings in your licence and you received the FADEC training and passed that course then there was a granting of one point extra to those engine LAMEs.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XN MR MILLS
PN383

Can I take you to point 13 of your statement. And in particular there is an attachment that you have completed. Can I ask you, firstly - take your time?
---Yes, I just want to acquaint myself with point of Mr Torpey's statement, that is all. Yes, okay.

PN384

In relation to attachment BD1 could you just advise the Commission where you sourced this information from?---BD1? Okay, I am not actually licenced on the 747 300 or 400 or even 767. We have a specialist group at Qantas called Maintenance Watch, they are a group of senior licenced engineers who provide information for our own engineer to do with troubleshooting, and the aircraft serviceable so a service to overseas airlines who might be looking after our aircraft, they provide feedback to our engineers on new troubleshooting techniques and any incidental data that might come out from the manufacturer. The group I am talking about looks after the Boeing 747 classic, the 300, they look after the 747 400, and they also look after the 767 300 as well. They look after that - they have got a separate group with the 73 in the next ..... and a separate group again for the airbus. So I sourced it from that group, being reasonably confident they would be able to give me the answers.

PN385

Now, in fairly sort of simple terms, for me and with all due respect, and for the Commissioner, could you just provide the Commission with a reasonable summary of what the intention of attachment BD1 is?---Yes. There was this suggestion that the 747 300 LE now has systems installed that are not part of the 767 200 or 300. I was interested in that point so I asked them to do a comparison of the changes to the 747 300, the LE modifications, to the 76 - I was interested that the 767 would not have similar sort of systems being the, sort of the upgrade from the 300, would not be similar to this technology so the 767 300.

PN386

Are you comfortable - I will ask you this question. In your view are the differences between the LE and the 67 300 significant?---No. The - I think the area about - the 300 LE has a system installed that is not on the 767 300 is the - I will read it out: the aircraft conditioning and monitoring system, the acams. And I will read from the document. I had that explained as well because that is - the rest of it sort of pound for pound, reasonably equivalent. Maybe there is two, maybe there is three, maybe there is a different manufacturer. But in that situation, if I read from it then I will make an explanation:

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XN MR MILLS
PN387

The ..... also contains a ACARS module, date access through any of the multipurpose control display unit -

PN388

I think there is three of them, and there is also an optical QAR, which is quick access recorder fitted multipurpose printer. In the 767 300, sure it does not have the multipurpose control display units, but similar data which comes from the digital, what is it called, digital - just give me a minute to think. It is fitted on the 737, I should know.

PN389

I will not be able to help you?---No, no.

PN390

I guarantee you?---Flight date acquisition - digital flight data acquisition unit, which - - -

PN391

Mr Heywood nodded, we will assume that that is right?---I tried to make it very simple. But there is a black box and it works on the whole ..... what is going on in the airplane and that data is processed, it is put into the digital flight date recorder, which is the famous black box, which is actually orange, which - if in the unfortunate circumstance an airplane crashes. But it is also used for - we have other, if not near crashes, but any other interesting things happening on an airplane, it is all recorded there and we can access it. On the more modern aircraft there is what is called a QAR, and the new one is an optical QAR, a quick access recorder that also records this sort of data. And that provides the same purpose but we can access that a lot quicker. We can get the information out - for instance, if an aeroplane has an interesting excursion, shall we say, if we pull the digital flight data recorder, that has got to be interrogated, it can take several days, it has got to be interpreted. With the quick access recorder that means we get the information a lot quicker and find out what happened. The 767 has a D for ..... digital flight acquisition unit. All that data is going into that unit and being processed. The difference with the 767 300 is that you go to the ACARS unit to access that data. A bit more difficult to access, whereas on the 747 300 it is on these display units and it can be brought up a lot easier. If it does not have a quick access recorder and we want the data for an excursion on a 767, we then have to remove the whole unit, as oppose to the small unit, and that takes several days to interrogate. So I think that is maybe what they were trying to get to. But really there is that system available to access the data, it is just done through a different unit and may be a little bit more complicated to access. There rest of it is all very similar.

PN392

I have only got one more question to ask you, this is to satisfy the Commission. If I take you to point 2 of your statement, and you are - I have to ask this question right. Are you traditionally an avionics - - -?---Yes.

PN393

LAME?---Yes. I hold avionics licences.

PN394

I have got no further questions for Mr Deahm in examination-in-chief, Commissioner.

PN395

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Ryan.

PN396

MR RYAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN [2.45PM]

PN397

MR RYAN: Mr Deahm, I have got a number of questions I would like to ask, a couple derives from your statement directly and others arise through earlier evidence I would like to get your view on or your response to. and also arising from Mr Mill's examination of questions to you. Looking at your statement at point 12, which you are familiar with that point 12?---Yes.

PN398

It refers to statements by Mr Torpey regarding the duration of the training required in order to achieve a rating from CASA.

PN399

MR MILLS: Commissioner, I do not have any problems with the question, it might just assist Mr Deahm if Mr Ryan takes Mr Deahm to the point that he is trying to make in Mr Torpey's statement. I think we gave the same privilege to his witnesses so that they could follow the question. That is all we say in the matter of the question. It is not an objection.

PN400

MR RYAN: If I take your point, Mr Mills, you would like me to - - -

PN401

MR MILLS: I just think it assists you when you put the question, that is all.

PN402

MR RYAN: Sure. Yes, and the point is well taken. I take it that Mr Deahm may not be familiar with Mr Torpey's statement. Just so that you aware of the background, I do not know how you could not be familiar with it because you responded to it?---I have responded to it there.

PN403

Yes. Nonetheless, Mr Mills would like me to draw your attention to point 5 of Mr Torpey's statement. He says he underwent training to obtain the 747 300 LE endorsement:

PN404

In order to do this I completed theoretical training for three weeks as requested by my employer.

PN405

Your point 12 is in response in large part to that particular statement of Mr Torpey's and your response, the relevant part of point 12, is that:

PN406

The required duration of the training package of this rating is four days of theoretically training and an additional two hours practical training.

PN407

Is that what you have said?---Yes. That is for the instrument endorsement, that is right.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XXN MR RYAN
PN408

Do you know how many Qantas LAMEs have, to your knowledge or you know, your best guesstimate, how many Qantas LAMEs have undergone the training on the 300 LE?---I think there is, if I said 100, it might be a ball park figure.

PN409

So it is more than 20 but less than - closer to 100?---Yes, it is probably 100. I am not too sure.

PN410

All right. And what is - to your knowledge, CASA has some involvement in approving the content and duration of Qantas provided courses to LAMEs?
---Well, it gets a bit confusing here because the engine in the aircraft and the electrical and the radio was two one four, which is really up to the company to determine. Certainly CASA are interested and if they saw that it - believed it was not adequate they might intervene. But of course, we have a lot of expertise and engineering skill. In respect to the instrument training, because CASA had decided it would be a new endorsement with a new rating and a new rating endorsed on your LAME licence, they would have been involved to a lot higher degree. The length of training is not something that is really set by CASA, I will give you a good example. At the moment we have just developed a stand alone next generation 737 training course for - in the past what we have been doing is converting people from the classic 73 to the next generation 73. And now we are doing some stand alone training. There are two organisations in Brisbane that run that training approved by CASA, they do it in six weeks. The first CAR of the Qantas school was eleven weeks and now they have dropped that down to seven weeks. So that is sort of range you can get. All Qantas - all CASA approved, but they can range from those sorts of - in that case from six weeks to eleven weeks.

PN411

Bringing your thought processes back for a moment to the 300 LE, if I may ask you to do that, what is your knowledge of the total duration of the course including the instrument specific part of that course?---I thought it was about a couple of weeks, I am not too sure. The question I asked for my - to answer my statement, was how long the dedicated instrument part was, which is all the stuff that is listed in attachment BD1. And the answer I was given by my training coordinator of training skills, four days.

PN412

Do you know of any Qantas LAME who has simply undergone the four days instrument specific training on the 300 LE and whatever required practical training follows from that, and then sought endorsement for the rating from CASA?---That would be a waste of time because we have an obligation to provide the 214 training for the electrical and the radio. And we had the CAR30 requirement to train on the instrument. The people we trained were all so we just put in that package. It would be a waste of time having somebody that could not sign out the instrument side of the LE and not be able to sign out the radio or the electrical side of the LE.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XXN MR RYAN
PN413

So there is not in fact an instance of someone to your knowledge who has done a four day instrument segment and then asked CASA to provide them with an endorsement for that rating on their licence?---No. It would be futile to do that.

PN414

Can you speculate as to what you think CASA might do in that circumstances in regards to such an application?---I guess theoretically, I do not think - it probably has not been done, if, if the LAME was licenced on the 747 300 and he was trained, for some reason just trained on the instrument side of it, there would be nothing stopping him from - and getting the practical training, going to CASA and getting that rating put on his licence. In fact, there is a bit of an example of that because 747 300 licenced people who have not done the LE training, meaning any of it, the electrical, the radio or the instrument, can, under the regs, still certify for an LE aircraft as long as it is not in any area that is being impacted by those earlier modifications. We have seen that before with different series aircraft where an aircraft goes from the 200 to a 300, whereby the company is obligated to provide CAR214 training on any differences. If there is a system that is not effected by those differences and there is not another rating issued, in this case there is for instrument but certainly for electrical and radio, there is nothing to stop somebody certifying that aircraft.

PN415

Do you know how many LAMEs there would be at Qantas that are 747 300 licenced but not 747 300 LE licenced?---I could take - I would be taking a real stab at it. I think we are halfway - you know, we have done about half of the LAMEs, but I could be wrong, but I would say we have probably done half the LAMEs.

PN416

So it is proposed to continue training is it?---It depends. There is a big question mark about the aircraft itself, how long we will keep it, where it is going to operate to, whether we need more people licenced. You have got to remember there is only six aircraft. There is not a lot of aeroplanes. There's not a lot of aircraft we could confine it to. If there's just a couple of faults we would not have trained anywhere near as many as we did train and we tended to send them to a lot of - through a lot of stations and therefore we had to do a lot of training. But there is only six aircraft. I think there is only five flying at the moment.

PN417

So some of the training has been provided to engineers stationed in Qantas overseas ports?---Yes.

PN418

Yes. I asked this question of Mr Torpey, but you may be able to cast some light on it as well. Do you know of any other airline which has applied the LE modification package?---I do not. However, I do know that it is a package that has been - was put together for that particular reason. And I assume that it is not just been isolated to Qantas, it is not just a Qantas only package, it is a package that was made available, electronics package. The other stuff, the sort of the stuff that airlines could - one airline might take this bit, one airline might take another bit. Airlines and aircraft are not like cars where you sort of get a pretty sort of standard model. Airlines can sort of pick and choose as to what systems they have on an aircraft and what brand, what brand of electronics, what brand of ..... hydraulic pumps. So there are those options.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XXN MR RYAN
PN419

Mr Mills talked initially about your understanding of the LAME pay agreement, particularly clause 4.5, and that is reproduced in your statement at paragraph 4 and it talks about:

PN420

Points value of future training packages shall be negotiated and agreed between the parties prior to -

PN421

So you are familiar with that clause and the way it operates. Can you tell me roughly when the negotiations or discussions commenced between the ALAEA and the company on appropriate remuneration or a claim for remuneration on the LE, the 300 LE?---When discussions started?

PN422

Yes?---The discussion, there would have been informal discussions when it was announced that we were going to - oh sorry. There would have been informal discussions when the LE modification program was announced, and certainly as we worked towards the fact that the instrument rating would be a separate, an additional rating, that certainly got people's attention. The - I do not know what date it was, I have got one of my first memorandums to staff which was in November 2003. And I refer here to the fact that the ALAEA and Qantas - this is a regular notice I sent out to all my staff, the LAMEs:

PN423

The ALAEA and Qantas have agreed to postpone actioning a claim for the above until after EBA6 was concluded. It has also been recognised that this is an unusual situation whereby an existing aircraft has had modifications to such an extent that a new licence rating was required. As this was not anticipated and may actually be the only time this ever happens, we have suggested to the ALAEA that we should seek the assistance of the AIRC to resolve this matter, Qantas to assist the ALAEA in presenting the facts surrounding the claim.

PN424

So I guess EBA6, which was - as we know, was drawn out and quite protracted, meant that we did not address this issue in the timely manner we should have.

PN425

And so consequently further discussions took place?---Yes, I think after - - -

PN426

Early 2004?---Yes, after the EBA got out of the way. And this was my - I just went through just to see what my communication was on these ones. This was a similar flight maintenance operations update from September 2004:

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XXN MR RYAN
PN427

As advised some time ago, -

PN428

The year before -

PN429

- the ALAEA and Qantas have sought the assistance from the AIRC to conclude this matter. A conference was held in Sydney this week -

PN430

So we must have had a conference in September 2004 -

PN431

- where it was determined that we should be able to achieve an outcome following a one day hearing which will held in October.

PN432

As you know, that got postponed and postponed and we eventually had it and we are here now. So it has been long and drawn out.

PN433

But would you say the process -I mean, I will ask you a question, the process that you have just outlined there by, you know, by reference to your memos, is it consistent with a process that was envisaged or contemplated under clause 4.5 of what is known as the LAME pay agreement?---Yes, we have always come unstuck with that because we talk about 'prior to their introduction'. And of course the problem is of course, until we get there and get the - whether it is a new aircraft or a new engine type or a training package, until we actually get there and get people trained on it, there is not - it is not easy to argue a case. So where we have always fallen over, or not fallen over, it is there is an expectation that we get all these things sorted out well before they happen. But until they happen it is very difficult for people to get together and argue and decide where it should sit.

PN434

So notwithstanding the unavoidable delays that occur on these occasions and in these instances, is it your view that the parties have acted in accordance with clause 4.5 of the pay agreement, as quoted in your point 4?---

PN435

Points value of future training packages shall be negotiated and agreed between the parties prior to their introduction.

PN436

Well, we did not get it negotiated and agreed prior to their introduction.

PN437

Leaving aside the prior to introduction?---I am sorry, okay yes.

PN438

Because of the problems that always arise?---Yes, yes.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XXN MR RYAN
PN439

So apart from the prior to introduction, the parties have, in your view, acted in accordance with the - - -?---Yes. We have done it many times, with the ER model, all those things. Different engines variants I mentioned with new aircraft with the separate - with the A330, the next gen aircraft. We have done it many times.

PN440

You, just correct me if I am wrong, because I do not have it in front of me, but you did indicated earlier I think in answer to Mr Mills that you are not licenced on a 767 300?---No.

PN441

Is that correct. So not licenced in the avionics area or any other area of the aircraft?---No.

PN442

Right. Just drawing your attention for a moment to point 7 of your statement, and in particular the last sentence there. If you could just read that for me and then I will ask you a question?---

PN443

In fact the LE being in modification has ensured that the avionics package is more reliable -

PN444

That is a fact, that is why it is called a life extension.

PN445

- minimising faults and will actually make it easier for maintenance to maintain the aircraft.

PN446

Once again, a discussion with the Maintenance Watch people as opposed to - in regards to this sort of technology, being able to access data, being able to troubleshoot, keep the system going. If we did not think the aircraft - sorry, these systems were more reliable, we would not have spent the money and fitted them in the first place.

PN447

Well, interesting that you say that. Mr Torpey in evidence this morning stated that in fact there are a number of issues that regularly occur and faults that regularly pop up and are carried on these aircraft. And his evidence was that - to the point that in fact contrasted with your statement here, Mr Torpey of course is an engineer licenced on the 300 and the 300 LE in the instrument category, and he instanced a number of areas where there have been problems experienced consistently with the LE aircraft. Of course, not being a technical person I can just rattle off a few acronyms here which I jotted down at the time but they may mean more to you and they certainly mean more to Mr Torpey than they mean to myself, Mr Mills or indeed the Commission, I think. But ACARS regularly locks up or regularly malfunctions and ECLS lighting system has a number, or quite a significant number of items, that is defects that are carried regularly on these aircraft. Is that consistent with the package being more reliable in minimising faults, in your view?---The ECLS is part of the electrical system, it is the lighting system, which is a very complicated lighting system which did not seem to work very well from day one. As far as the ACARS, the ACARS is fitted to all our aircraft and ACARS locking up is a common fault that ACARS has on all aircraft, so that is nothing unusual to me.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XXN MR RYAN
PN448

I will just double check. In points 9, 10 and 11 you outline some circumstances which are to do with, if I might summarise, situations where CASA has granted or issued a rating endorsement for a licence, however, that in itself has not generated the payment. That summarises those circumstances, does it not?---Yes.

PN449

You say at the end of 9 no points were awarded and no points were awarded with regards to the 76 and the 747 in those instances. And I take it that there is some parallel that you were drawing with the LE arrangement, it is not clear to me what it is, but can I just ask a couple of questions regarding that. With a person who was originally engine licenced on the Qantas - original Qantas operated 747 400, it has a Rolls Royce engine, is that correct? Subsequently, Qantas obtained, brought into the fleet, some 747 400 aircraft with GE engines?---Yes.

PN450

Now, it is my understanding, and you may correct me if I am wrong, and I hope you do if I am wrong, that the issuing of the rating by CASA was to those people who already had those engines but fitted to a different Qantas type?---That is right.

PN451

That is an occasion - a subsequent GE engine, a LAME may have had the GE engine on a 767 and it was essentially translated on the fitment to the later aircraft, so - - -?---Just like for the 747 300 LE, that rating was issued to people who already had the 747 300 instrument rating.

PN452

I think it is different, but - and I am just trying to get to the bottom of it. With regards to the 767 it had a CF6 engine, that is the original Qantas fitment and when the BA aircraft were eventually leased and maybe are now purchased, but any way, operated, they had Rolls Royce engines. So is it the case then that most people who obtained the rating had the Rolls Royce off the - - -?---Yes.

PN453

- - - Qantas operated 747?---Yes.

PN454

Right. So in those instances, these people already had a rating in their licence for those particular engines?---Yes.

PN455

Thought fitted to a different aircraft?---Yes.

PN456

Type, in both cases?---Yes.

PN457

Okay. Sorry, it is complicated and I am just trying to make sure that we get it right when we get to the bottom of this one. Yes. Because - yes, I think that will do on that one. I do not have any further questions.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM XXN MR RYAN
PN458

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Mills. Before you ask, Mr Deahm can I just take you to the points table that is in the agreement. What does full Qantas aircraft type licence for four points mechanical or avionics ..... , what does that actually mean?---If it is mechanical and you must have both the engine licence and the airframe licence.

PN459

Yes?---This is a new system that CASA has been heading for for the last 10 years, and have not quite got there yet. But generally, this is the way we operate and then the avionics is the electrical, instrument and radio.

PN460

Right. But, - - -?---Apart from the radio is handled separately.

PN461

Yes I saw that. Full Qantas aircraft type, what does that mean?---Full means mechanical and avionics, not just an engine or not just an airframe, not just an electrical, not just a - - -

PN462

Right, I see. So, and you say you get four points for having the electrical or instrument - the electrical and instrument?---Yes.

PN463

If you only have the electrical you would only get two points, that is - - -?---Only two points.

PN464

I see. And what is this 10, Qantas radio category? What is that 10 points it says?
---There is difference between the radio ratings and all the other ratings. With the other ratings, they are aircraft by aircraft by aircraft. With radio, you do an amount of training and pass a whole range of exams, it might be 10 different exams, on all different radio systems. But the radio systems on the aircraft are usually pretty similar. Basically, when you do all that training and get your first radio rating, which may be on any aircraft, then to get you to the next aircraft might only be a small amount of training depending on what sort of radio systems are fitted to that different aircraft. So, if you like, the money is paid when you get the initial rating because that basically prepares you then to pick off every other aeroplane as they come along.

PN465

But the maximum would be 10 points?---Yes.

PN466

If you were radio rated?---Over and out for radio is 10 points.

PN467

With the others, with the engineers, they would - it is possible that they could have the classics with the 747, the 747 400?---Yes.

PN468

And at least a 767. So they could have 12 points, is that right?---That is correct.

PN469

Yes, okay?---Which would be three grades.

PN470

Yes, yes. Yes thank you. Sorry Mr Mills.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLS [3.10PM]

PN471

MR MILLS: Commissioner, I think I really only have probably one, if not only two questions. The final questions Mr Deahm that Mr Ryan was asking you were in relation to your points 9, 10 and 11. He asked you, I think he asked you, the question were LAMEs already licenced on that type, is that correct?---Already had a rating on the engine.

PN472

Is that consistent with the LE circumstances?---Yes. This is where there is a bit of a difference. I will give an example. If a LAME was not licenced on the 747 300 and he did that four day instrument, that four day part of the course which is for instrument, he would not get a 747 300 LE instrument licence. He must have already had the 747 300 instrument rating to get the LE rating with the four day training. There is no difference between that and the - it is easier to understand with the engine if it is a stand alone unit, but certainly there is no difference. There is the prerequisite to have the engine, the prerequisite to have the engine rating, prerequisite to have the instrument rating. You then do that four day training and then you get the LE bolted on top.

PN473

One final question, potentially in two parts. During Mr Torpey's examination, cross-examination in particularly, there was a question raised with him around why the life extension differences training was, at best, two weeks?---Yes.

PN474

At best, if we assume Mr Torpey's evidence, compared to a full licence type which is that - Mr Torpey said three months and I am paraphrasing what Mr Torpey was saying just to give you some background. I am happy for Mr Ryan to intervene if he thinks I may have got it wrong. Mr Torpey was asked why was the difference so significant. He responded by saying it was because he already had awareness, had some awareness, of the 747 300 technology. What is your view of that comment?---In other words, because he had a 747 400, because he had a seven - - -

PN475

The 747 300 he was really saying. What is your view of that comment?---You will have to do it again.

PN476

Okay. To paraphrase it, Mr Torpey was of a view that the training on the LE, the differences training, was significantly reduced to a full licence type training because he already had awareness of the technology because of his licence training on the 747 300, what do you say to that statement?---He was being trained on the differences, the differences between the 300 and the 300 LE.

**** BRUCE ROY DEAHM RXN MR MILLS
PN477

In your view - - -?---So - - -

PN478

Sorry?---There is - and let us just stick to instrument to keep it simple; there is a whole range of things in the instrument category, a whole range of things all over the aircraft, of this modification, the LE modification, really concentrated on what the pilot could see and what he used in the cockpit, which is a proportion of the total instrument package of an aircraft. Therefore, the modifications are only applying to a percentage of the total instrument package on the aircraft only required four days training. Because there is a lot more to the instrument category on an aircraft than just those things in the cockpit.

PN479

I have got no further question, Commissioner.

PN480

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Deahm, you can go.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.14PM]

PN481

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Ryan or Mr - - -

PN482

MR MILLS: We just had one particular point we would like to raise. And it is only a point of clarification. If I get it wrong Mr Styles happily might try to put it to you in a more appropriate way. Towards the end of the re-examination of
Mr Torpey, we sort of got an understanding that we do not quite know what the claim is for any more. We think it is still for an additional two points, but we do not know now whether it is for four points or for six points in effect, and what I am really saying is if an employee has an licence, should you agree to the claim of the ALAEA and has a 747 300 LE licence, is it going to be - are the ALAEA claiming it is worth six points or are the claiming it is worth four. That is really - we just want clarification on that, for existing employees versus future employees.

PN483

MR RYAN: I think I know what the question is about and in fact I had a conversation several days ago with Mr Styles to try and clarify, but I understand we would probably like to see it also in the transcript. It is the ALAEAs claim that with regards to a person who is currently employed by Qantas and has a licence on the 747 300 avionics, so consequently for that has two points against their name - sorry, four points, for the two categories, and subsequently has received or will receive in future a 747 300 LE instrument training, the avionics package which will lead to an instrument rating being issued by CASA, the claim is for two additional points with reference to the 747 300 LE rating which is in the LAMEs licence.

PN484

Having said that, the import of a few questions asked about the composition of the fleet, that is, is Qantas going to continue to operate 747 300s, that is, non LE aircraft. I think the answer to that is no, that the current status of all the aircraft is not known. I think the last one is undergoing conversion.

PN485

So then, the subsequent question is if someone came as a new employee or indeed there was an existing employee who had no 747 300 current rating or endorsement and they were to be trained up on 747 300, he would be trained up on the LE package because that is the only aircraft type operated by Qantas. And our position will be that for the avionics training that person would receive four points. Not six. Six is in - the additional two is in recognition of the LE sitting on top of the existing four points for avionics as a 300. So it is 300, an instrument rating on the LE that generates an additional two points, and that is what our claim is.

PN486

However, for someone who does not have the 300 licence at all at the moment and were to be trained up on the 300 in the event that Qantas does not have the 300 non LE in operation, only the LE, that would be - - -

PN487

THE COMMISSIONER: The only way they could be trained up, if they came from Melbourne where they only have 737s I think - no, someone is shaking their head. But anyway, if they came from an area where they never had 767s either new or current Qantas people, and they wanted or it was required of them to be trained in the 747 300 LE, well their training would be longer than three weeks, it would be probably around about three months. They would actually be trained in total, would they not?

PN488

MR RYAN: Yes, that is correct. Yes.

PN489

THE COMMISSIONER: My question is, it does create that sort of trick situation of course, is why should they get four points and somebody else get six points for the exact same aircraft?

PN490

MR RYAN: Well someone else got six points because they have the 300 endorsement as well as the 300 LE endorsement in instrument, which generates in our view the additional two points.

PN491

THE COMMISSIONER: I suppose it is the same as people who have aircraft that are out of service that might have been around years ago, I do not know that they are - - -

PN492

MR RYAN: Yes it - - -

PN493

THE COMMISSIONER: 727s or something.

PN494

MR RYAN: It is similar to the situation that used to occur with what was called redundant licences and redundant or, you know, retired aircraft types.

PN495

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN496

MR RYAN: But that is not what we are talking about here. It is just a circumstances where someone, because they have a 300 endorsement he got a 300 LE instrument and we say that generates two points. But for someone who has trained afresh on the 300, if the LE is the only version of the 300 being operated, well they are going to be trained fully on the 300 and that will generate four points for the avionics strand for that individual. So it is not double dipping, it is not saying that person will get six or, you know, from scratch.

PN497

Mr Heywood informs me the training package itself would of course be amended and be updated so that it is training specifically on the aircraft as operated, that is the 747 300 LE. And that is the licence endorsement that the person would receive. Now, the LE would presumably in CASA's view, retrospectively encompass the 300 as it is an advance on the other package. Though, I am not certain about that either. I withdraw that statement. So I will not say anything further, I have got myself well and truly stuck in the mud here.

PN498

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. I have interrupted you. You have clarified the situation for Mr Mills - - -

PN499

MR RYAN: I am just about to declarify if I keep going any further.

PN500

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, that is the evidence and would you like to proceed to submissions?

PN501

MR RYAN: There is another matter, Commissioner. Thinking about final submissions, I am not in a position to make final submission today. I received some material only yesterday, as a consequence of some timing issues that have clicked in over the last couple of weeks. And I have had a brief discussion with Mr Mills and Mr Styles about setting a time for final submissions in writing to be provided to you, and I suggest it may only be on a very short timeframe, say, slightly over a week.

PN502

MR MILLS: Commissioner, there is two points. I hear Mr Ryan and I am not going to take him to the point the reason as to why the ..... yesterday. It was consistent with the timeframe that we had set. The issue for us is that we would be prepared if the Commission was of a mind to take a break for about 25 minutes and that we would be in a position to make final submissions. The issue for us of course is that we are not going to make our client's submissions now if the ALAEA are unable to do that. And the Commission can obviously direct the ALAEA to do that today, but it can be half of one and half of the other. So we would be ready at about quarter to four, 10 to four, to give final submissions. We will only be giving final submissions if the ALAEA were in a similar position. I am not saying this because I am trying to snooker Mr Ryan into a difficult position. I did write as much of my final submissions as possible, this morning knowing full - thinking that we would be in a position where we are now.

PN503

If the Commission is of a mind to entertain Mr Ryan's concerns or position as opposed to what the company has presented, the company has one concern. And that is that in a previous matter the timeframe spun out to a point that was really quite unreasonable and we would want any directions that were set to be complied with hard and fast. And if either party fails to comply with those directions then be it on their head, on the basis that you will make a decision on the evidence before you.

PN504

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Ryan, you are the applicant in these proceedings and I take it you would - as long as it is reasonable, the Commission should listen to your request as to how you want to progress your claim. And you say you would prefer to have - not to proceed to submissions this afternoon.
I am - - -

PN505

MR RYAN: I am suggesting final written submissions, no more. Not a hearing.

PN506

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, no.

PN507

MR RYAN: Final written submissions.

PN508

THE COMMISSIONER: I am happy to allow that. I note Mr Mills' comment. I would expect that your final submissions in writing - and I must say both yours and Mr Mill's are pretty comprehensive, that you have already filed. So it is no great much more than a brief touch up perhaps in the light of what people have said and the transcript will be available. I would expect that that material would be filed in the Commission from your side and then also to Qantas by Friday week and then by the Wednesday after, so two weeks from today, that gives Mr Mills three days, I do not think it is unreasonable, I think he has almost got it now. And then Qantas will do their bit in. So you have got 10 days, and they have got 14 or something like that. Until then, and of course then the Commission will issue a decision, or consider it and issue a decision. On that basis, these proceedings are now adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [3.25PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #ALAEA3 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR SMITH PN29
MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY, SWORN PN71
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR RYAN PN71
EXHIBIT #ALAEA4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PHILLIP TORPEY PN143
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLS PN154
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN PN317
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN365
BRUCE ROY DEAHM, SWORN PN373
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MILLS PN373
EXHIBIT #QF1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF BRUCE ROY DEAHM PN377
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RYAN PN396
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLS PN470
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN480