Slats –"The special audit doesn't explicitly state that CASA had approved this delegation of training and checking at the time. However they surely must have given such approval, and this would be kept on file"
Nice to see Slats has 'nutted' it out; (Choc frog)...
.. The quote above clearly defining the highly 'selective' nature of the audit managers approach to gathering what may loosely be described as 'evidence'.
When the 'black box' from NGA is recovered (Yes, they are) and the Pel-Air investigation is re-opened there will be some very serious questions raised about the CASA management handling of the matter and Nuremburg notions just won't cut it.
There are, as we know two sides to a coin, ours has a Pel Air side and an Airtex side and, although crafted by the same hand they are vastly different. You can see, from the Slats quote where a matter of some importance has been skimmed over. The tenets of the Operations Manual (OM) being conveniently overlooked in the covert defence of one of the anointed. Turn that coin over and you will see one of the most bizarre uses of a document suite ever encountered by some fairly experienced, street wise legal counsel. Where not only were the tenets of the existing (accepted) OM interpreted at the very 'extreme' limits of sanity, but when that would not suffice, the very existence of the OM was denied and an old version was quoted and used, as best suited. Any comparison between the 'handling' of the two cases, by the same manager would simply beggar the belief of any balanced, rational inquiry.
Now it appears the Senate committee may demand further inquiry, in one form or another, into Pel-Air. A simple CASA board inquiry, reporting to the RATT committee; or even a repeat of the Reverent Forsyth's sterling effort would suffice. But if the effort is to be truly useful, a parallel investigation into the same management 'team' handling the Airtex matter, must be included. IMO any fair comparison, made by reasonable, honest folk would reveal the precise nature of why the industry calls for 'regulatory reform' are just a catch-cry, covering the desperate, urgent, essential need for investigation into and reform of the 'regulator'.
It is my understanding that Skidmore has been provided a briefing which should, in a sane world, provide enough facts to provoke a board (or ethics committee) inquiry, making the comparison of both Pel Air and Airtex, at the very least a feature. Any honest person comparing the two cases will see, very clearly, the absolute bastardry of which industry despairs and hopes Skidmore will eradicate; (or exterminate; for there are pleasures to be found in both).
Mark my words, if these matters, starting with Pel Air and the actions of those involved are not dealt with honourably, honestly and quickly, the reputation of the Australian regulator will be denigrated, forever, to be held in open contempt. Not to know about a thing and failing to act is, perhaps forgivable. But failure to act with full or even partial knowledge is, shall we say, frowned upon in certain circles.
When you toss a coin, there can only be one of two possible outcomes; unless you have been gifted one of the departmentally minted two headed jobs that is..
Selah.