Yes but, do we really need CASA.

[Kharon]

Why not give the Federal Police an aviation related branch. At least investigations into an alleged 'breach' of regulation would be properly investigated, by trained professionals who are governed by code of conduct and ethical standards.

Why not expand the ATSB to oversight 'safety' related matters. At least we would get a logical, reasoned opinion as to why a thing is deemed 'unsafe'.

That only leaves the clerical details which could, with modern technology be done on a cost effective basis.

The only safety the present crew seem interested in is 'legally safe' prosecutions. They don't seem to able to do that very well either, looking down the long, sad and probably expensive list of judgements against them.

The negative impact on aviation safety that this body has must be of serious concern to this industry. The total cost, including 'legal' fees measured against the minuscule positive safety based outcomes and improvements offered is truly staggering.

Now we have to fund the cost of yet another inquiry and probably a Royal Commission. They need to hang their collective heads in shame

[feetonthedash]

I agree what do we need CASA for?
I have seen operators that clearly do the wrong thing,get caught and continue to operate????
Unless they get real power (Which they dont have) then get rid of them

:ok:

[Old Akro]

I don't believe CASA really has an interest in safety at its heart. Its driven by bureaucratic ease, 40 yo thinking, the A-G dept and having a public profile of looking after airline passengers. And its staffed by career public servants who don't understand or care about flying. Its lost its way.

[bushy]

Casa's real job is to protect governments from legal challenges which are triggered by aviation activities.

[atminimums]

Casa's real job is to protect governments from legal challenges which are triggered by aviation activities.

Spot on bushy.

[Dangly Bits]

I'm with Bushy too.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Why not give the Federal Police an aviation related branch.

Because in many ways they're even more defective than CASA.

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
Why not give the Federal Police an aviation related branch.

Because in many ways they're even more defective than CASA.

Cause they'll be setting up speed traps on tarmacs and issuing spot fines before you know it :ok:

[blackhand]

Yes but, do we really need CASA.
No more that USA needs FAA or Europe needs EASA.

What on earth are you on about???

Do you understand the difference between the AFP, ATSB and CASA??

[Chu Mai Huang]

Is CASA the only aviation body in the free world who lists 'the penalty' under each (CASR) regulation? So CASA has pre-decided all those penalties, not a court.:ok:

Why is Part 45 (aircraft registrations and markings) a 'safety' regulation?:= My aircraft will fly perfectly adequately without them, or even if they are the wrong style letters. Am I putting my passengers lives at risk if I have letters which are 1mm too small? Apparently so. Yes we should all have rego letters, but as an administrative regulation. It's got nothing to do with safety has it!

Is CASA the only aviation body in the free world to have two completely different aircraft registration regimes: VH for some, phone numbers for others.:eek:

Will CASA ever finish the regulatory reform and make them "outcome based" and easy to understand and comply? Sadly, no.:{

[blackhand]

Chu Mai Huang
Questions, questions Grasshopper.
Why not go look for yourself and find out which regulatory authority enforces what?
You have problem with VH registration and amateur build registration , pour quoi?

[Joker 10]

CASA main purpose is to provde employment for bureacrats

[tolakuma manki]

CASA main purpose is to provde employment for bureacrats

Thought it was to go on courses :cool:

[flying-spike]

This is so funny.. A thread bemoaning the presence of a regulator in their midst, coming from the same group of "professionals" who will bitch, moan back-stab and grovel to fight their way to the bottom of the pay and conditions barrel!
Yeah get rid of CASA and then you will be bitching about the lack of standards of all the other (of course not your own) pilots in the industry.
I suppose it will take the pressure off all the operators you love so much. But then again who really listens to the people who post that cr@p?

[Rose_Thorns]

Yea though we walk through the valley of no sense of humor.

Sycophants with their deck chairs please exit through the large pink door marked Ostrich, find a comfy (compliant) spot and wait for the show. The industry is close to a legislative and standards crisis, and those who wallow at the food through may watch, for free, while it implodes. (No energy left for explosion).

Imagine just for minute, Bloggs and Smith prang a Dash 8, the PIC was just at minimum 'legal' standard and the other bloke was a sprog (right or wrong ,. not my fight), what the media would do to the government, the department and the poor sodding company. Change of government, fair call, loss of an operator, probably, change at CASA, not bloody likely.

The industry, and only the industry will set and maintain 'standards', not the administrator. The administrator can only legislate 'minimum' standards for compliance. (No problem with this on a stand alone basis).

But when administrative policy is used to override or circumvent the law, when a whole sectors of the industry are slowly going nuts trying to work out selective, subjective compliance and, you can just about go to jail for farting on the ramp (rightly so), then it's time to take a stand.

Lets get this in some form of perspective, between 1988 and 2003 there were 19 separate inquiries (Refer Morris – to Darling), this includes parliamentary, judicial etc. In fact it is the sheer frequency and number of inquiries, into this outfit compared to other federal government departments that must at least beg some answers to these questions.

We are a standing joke in countries like NZ and PNG. Why is there is not a queue around the block to adopt Australian systems. So, yes I believe it Is it about time that someone read this cr$%p and took it seriously, for once.

If that ruffles a few egos, so be it. Time to remove ego from ear hole, accept the facts and get this bloody mess sorted.

End of rant.

[tmpffisch]

I think Kharon doesn't understand the role of CASA, let alone can pose a decent argument.

[kimwestt]

I can only read what you have written, and you say that you think - and not know- obviously.
It is way past time that most of the current CASA people, especially Dubious and Worthless types, who have a skull for a mascot, should be made to take a reality check on the totally negative impact their conduct and attitude is having on the industry. Alledged "smells of alcohol"on a pilots breath some 6 months or previously gave rise to CASA lifting that pilot's medical. Why, the question is, was not the DAMP system in that operators system activated?
A request for assistance is taken as an admission of wrongdoing. And the Boss of CASA states in a Senate inquiry that the industry is not and does not hide anything from CASA.
If you believe CASA about anything at the moment, much less trust them, you are most certainly a believer on the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny!!!!!

[blackhand]

tmpffisch
I think Kharon doesn't understand the role of CASA, let alone can pose a decent argument. An obviously antagonistic question posed to incite invective against the Regulator.

KimWestt
For years DOT then CAA and more recently CASA created a regulation regime that recognises the diversity and uniqueness of Australian aviation.
Recent changes emphasise the safety regime that is the new paradigm for our business models.
Sometimes it can be unfair on an individual, but beer breathe on the Ramp is always going to attract attention, do you know for sure whether CASA stood him down or was it a requirement of the company DAMP program to ensure uncompromised safety.
Rose_Thorns
Well spare me your rhetoric, some evidence for those emotive, selfserving anecdotes about destruction of industry by the monolithic uncaring bureaucracy please.

[Andy_RR]

...a regulation regime that recognises the diversity and uniqueness of Australian aviation.

There's little that is diverse or unique about Australian aviation that is not caused by regulatory meddling or government interference.

Australia is truly a "special" case, but only one of its own making.

[SgtBundy]

As a remote spectator to the goings on of CASA, judging by the commentary and issues I have seen raised in these threads the simple issue is the division of power within CASA. Practically all democratic systems rely on separating the executive and legislative arms of power - but this does not seem to be the case with CASA.

It seems the aviation community would be better served by having a purely legislative and standards department, a an independent investigation and compliance department, with the ATSB maintaining its independent role (as any safety investigations could possibly look at the role compliance played in an incident). Ideally there would be a transparent dispute resolution process through the justice system (say magistrate hearings etc prior to enforcement of sanctions etc).

At least in that model you can keep the bureaucrats happy in there legislative department, you are more likely to have aviation experienced or interested people within the compliance arm actually interacting with the aviation sector. Also when unclear or contradictory legislation is in place you have a body in authority who can argue for clearer legislation, because they are the ones enforcing it.

Yeah, I know. Tell him he's dreamin'....

[aroa]

People here should read Australian Aviation Advertiser... "To hell with the Rules"

Why is there 'strict liability' and a penalty for everything, because the psuedo-wankery legal dept in CASA want it that way.

A penalty ... and a CRIMINAL one at that !.. for having incomplete lines in yr log book,for something that has no relation to the definition of criminal intent or has any inkling of public abhorance of such immoral action.! And nothing to do with safety.. and this level of 'crime' was never suposed to fall in the criminal bin in the first place.! But CASA does THEIR thing and fcuk everybody else, Attorney General, Minister, Government, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. And the Industry
And strict liabilty is NOT a requirement of Government.

How's this from the 'model litigant'. One AWI lodges a (false) allegation against me for " illegal maintenance"
This goes to the Manager (sic- very sick) of Compliance and Enforcement or Enforcement and Investigation, whatever,... she couldnt even decide on her bloody title, but on the basis of that one statement SHE decides as judge, jury and executioner that I am guilty of a crime.

I decline to pay the penalty of $500 plus 3 demerit pints because I believe I am innocent and have done nothing wrong.

Off to the DPP it goes...AWI's statement corroborated by another 2 AWIs
that werent even involved and their SWORN statements are all basically the same .... and ALL LIES. So we have perjury and conspiracy to pervert etc..
If my name had been Dick Smith,( very well cashed up and high profile,) this would never have see the light of day, because CASA doesnt have the balls.(And some years ago a CASA person made that very statement)
But with an ordinary individual,... whoopee!, heave ho the taxpayers dollars, ..we have an easy "hit" here.

All this is nothing new.. after more than 50 years involved in aviation I dont think CASA is...I KNOW CASA is a cesspit of bureaucartic buggery,( by some, not all).
I could quote you stories of corruption and collusion that would make yr hair stand on end... but they'll keep for a major media push.

Meanwhile, back to the grindstone... trying to seek justice.

Will we ever get relief from CASA?. Only if an asteroid leaves Canberra as a smoking hole, and the odds of that happening are astronomical.

[Sunfish]

Backhand:

tmpffisch
Quote:
I think Kharon doesn't understand the role of CASA, let alone can pose a decent argument.
An obviously antagonistic question posed to incite invective against the Regulator.

KimWestt
For years DOT then CAA and more recently CASA created a regulation regime that recognises the diversity and uniqueness of Australian aviation.
Recent changes emphasise the safety regime that is the new paradigm for our business models.

Sometimes it can be unfair on an individual, but beer breathe on the Ramp is always going to attract attention, do you know for sure whether CASA stood him down or was it a requirement of the company DAMP program to ensure uncompromised safety.

Rose_Thorns
Well spare me your rhetoric, some evidence for those emotive, selfserving anecdotes about destruction of industry by the monolithic uncaring bureaucracy please.

1. The role of the regulator is to regulate. The role of enforcement should be separated or you end up with the current system where CASA is judge, jury and executioner. That conclusion is not open to conjecture, it is simple, straight forward, common sense that is enshrined in almost all legislation except that involving CASA.

2. There is absolutely nothing "diverse" or "unique" about Australian aviation. Your statement is a direct and deliberate attempt to suggest that comparisons between CASA, JAR, FAA and other regulators, all of which conclusively demonstrate that CASA is a complete failure by international standards, are somehow irrelevant for the simple reason that Australia is "special".

Let me tell you something sonny, the last persons who used that excuse on me were the senior executive management of Telecom (Telstras predecessor). I authored much of their confidential report on privatisation of telecommunications when the subject was first mooted by Government in 1986. As a senior consultant in corporate strategy at Coopers and Lybrand I examined all the International indicators of telecommunications peformance and every single one of them indicated that Telecom was hopelessly inefficient and way over-manned.

Their response was that Telecom was "special" because of the "diverse" and "unique" nature of Australia and my comparisons were therefore irrelevant. History proved me right.

Your attempt to even advance this argument conclusively demonstrates that CASA is a basket case. Thirty five pages of FAA regs for maintenance and CASA advances a Two Hundred Fifty page tome for the same purpose???? Just who do you think you are kidding?

3. You then intimate that "Natural justice" and "procedural fairness" be afforded to CASA (which is what your request for evidence is about). That makes you a ****ing hypocrite, since frequent and ongoing cases before the AAT conclusively demonstrate that CASA does not and never will afford natural justice and procedural fairness to anyone in the Aviation industry because it is not in CASA's narrow and perverted interests to do so.

Lets be quite clear on this : CASA makes Australian Aviation less safe than it should be through its deliberate and systematic pursuit of the self interest of its staff.

"Safety" is not an excuse for corruption.

[blackhand]

Sunfish
Another proponent of the unsubstantiated claims of bureaucratic corruption
interfering in "industry".
Spare me the "sonny" old man, your invective doesn't advance your argument one iota.

Your statement that the role of the Regulator is to regulate and NOT enforce is a self serving statement. All regulators regulate and enforce the rules, be they Aviation or other.

Your statement that I am a hypocrite for asking for evidence of the Regulator.s destruction of industry leaves me nonplussed to say the least; is there evidence or not??

Your understanding of the Law pertaining to CASA and enforcement leaves a lot to be desired and would suggest you educate yourself on these matters prior to posting about them.

Cheers
BH

[Rose_Thorns]

It is considered that the easiest way to gain knowledge is to listen.
Evidence, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif If you cant hear, learn to read. Start with the courts and AAT transcripts and sworn evidence that would be enough.
But wait ! there's more. Multiple official records, thousands of reports, millions of dollars and years of demonstrated bungling. That aught to do it. :ugh:
Expert editors, expert investigators, expert pilots, expert on operations. := This current crew could not find a pussy in a cat house with a searchlight.

Remove ego from ear hole, rose color glasses from face. Look about, ask any good officer, respect is hard earned, easily lost and almost irrecoverable.

[Old Akro]

The thing that is different about CASA is that it is user funded. I can't think of another regulatory body that operates under the user pays system. They have never been accountable for how they use my money or how efficiently they use it. Surely there is a way to collectively demand better performance for our money.

Basically, we fly US built aircraft, using US built radios to communicate in air that isn't aware of which country its over. I agree with Sunfish. There is nothing special about Australia. Except maybe that we have more favorable weather and terrain for aviation than nearly any other country. A fact that is never credited when there is a discussion about safety history.

I just got a Heavy truck licence. You reckon I can't do more damage with a 40t truck than a 2t twin? But the truck licence had no detailed medical, no security checks and overall cost less than an annual CIR renewal and was issues in a fraction of the time CASA took to process my medical.

I don't know what drives CASA, but I'm pretty sure its got nothing to do with safety.

[Andy_RR]

The thing that is different about CASA is that it is user funded. I can't think of another regulatory body that operates under the user pays system.


...and there is the fallacy of "user pays" writ large. It is the public at large that gain by aviation being (externally) regulated - not the user. If the public at large demands this type of regulator and regulation, then the public at large should be paying - i.e. out of consolidated revenue!

[aussiefan]

Customs legislation also has penalty units written into it.

Customs are also Judge jury etc.

I would imagine there are others out there.

[Worrals in the wilds]

True, and Customs got their fingers burned big time with the Mitford matter when (from memory) they were sued by a business that had been sent broke by slow cargo clearances. The business won and Customs substantially revised their clearance procedures.

Howvever, it took a law suit and Senate inquiry to make them do that. I can't see CASA being any different, until someone successfully sues them for ruining their business. Unfortunately law suits take a lot of money and most aviation businesses who believe they have been unfairly treated by CASA simply don't have the ready cash.

[LeadSled]

Lets be quite clear on this : CASA makes Australian Aviation less safe than it should be through its deliberate and systematic pursuit of the self interest of its staff. Folks,

Sunfish has got this more right than, I suspect, even he knows.

We kid ourselves about Australia's air safety record, as an unvarnished detailed examination of publicly available accident and incident statistics will show.

We keep telling ourselves how good we are, because we have never lost a jet aircraft --- a very small proportion of the civil register by numbers.

Indeed, as some of you will understand, Australian aviation is so small (just to quote one single US airline, South West has 630+ B737) that a single fatal accident to, say, a B737, would put Australia into the "African" category for air safety results.

We seem to have developed the ability to ignore all the other accidents that occur, including fatals.

An undeniable fact ( if you bother with the facts, as opposed to national stereotypes and vision blinkered by personal prejudice) is that, in every ICAO category, the US bests the rest of the world in air safety outcomes.

Imperfect as the US may be, they are getting something "righter" about aviation than Australia, and have always done so. In fact, 50 years ago, the US was marginally better than Australia, but with only minor improvement in Australia, and greatly improved air safety outcomes in US, the gap is now quite significant.

A strong case can be made that the major reason for any improvement in Australia, in recent years, is not better standards of operation or more "regulation", but the shrinkage of significant sectors of aviation operation.

The only aviation category in which Australia leads the world is in "regulation", by weight, volume or word count, take your pick.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Blackhand, your reply, asking for "evidence", is risible. There is more than enough in AAT rulings against CASA to substantiate everything I have said.

I note that you cannot attack my statement that Australia is not so "Diverse" and "Unique" that FAA rules would not be applicable, at a fraction of the cost of CASA. I've heard that argument before. If anything the American and European models are far more diverse that Australia since, among other things they deal with far worse weather conditions and traffic congestion than Australia ever faces.

If anything we could take a small subset of FAA regs and produce something infinitely better than CASA at a fraction of its cost.

Come on, you will have to fo better than pious requests for "evidence". By the way, what ever happened to CASA as "model litigator?"

I wonder what would happen if a CASA official wandered into the Lufthansa heavy maintenance base canteen in Hamburg and saw the LAMES all downing Two steins of beer at lunchtime?

[Andy_RR]

Imperfect as the US may be, they are getting something "righter" about aviation than Australia, and have always done so. In fact, 50 years ago, the US was marginally better than Australia, but with only minor improvement in Australia, and greatly improved air safety outcomes in US, the gap is now quite significant.

...and as someone pointed out to me, the Americans do this with greater traffic, more challenging terrain and more extreme weather conditions than Australian pilots ever have to deal with. Not to mention they also achieve this whilst enjoying an ease of use of the airspace/weather/info systems that Australians can only dream of and all with a generally helpful regulator to boot.

In this context, the Australian air safety record is a joke.

[davidgrant]

The matters raised in the article "To hell with the rules" in the aviation Advertiser should be enough to warrant an enquiry. A couple of hundred million bucks plus down the toilet, I was going to say of Taxpayers money, but in our user pays system, actually our money, with not a damn thing to show for it, except regulations nobody understands or impossible to comply with. I agree with those who say CASA's main function is to author rules that place protection of the government from liability at any cost, and to hell with safety, as long as we can blame someone else.
Perhaps a serious look at CASA's charter compared with the FAA's may shed some light on why the FAA works and CASA dosnt, words like promote and foster come to mind, Added to this, very healthy associations like AOPA, and the NBA who can direct millions of letters onto politicians desks the minute the FAA goes a tad too far.
It would seem our lot can tell the elected government to go to hell, what chance do we have.
Maybe we could subcontract the whole business to the FAA, the poor old Yanks seem to need a bit of help with their economy, and the savings we would make would sure help ours. Then again what would we do with all those redundent CASA guys, have to retrain them to wreck some other industry.

[601]

because we have never lost a jet aircraft

Better amend that statement to;

"because we have never lost an RPT jet aircraft"

There has been two jet losses in Qld, one in the NT and as old age is creeping on, maybe more in other States.

[SIUYA]

601.........

Don't forget, there was the Norfolk Island jet loss too! :eek:

QF1 doesn't come too far off being a hull loss either, despite what the QF spin doctors said at the time.

Add turbo-propeller hull losses in recent years, and Australia's safety record starting to look pretty shabby...........thanks CASA. :mad:

Add the 'near misses' reported on by the ATSB since, say, 2000, and it's looking pretty ominous (and there's quite a few that involve RPT jet aircraft, I can assure you).............thanks also CASA. :mad:

What all this SHOUD demonstrate to the electorate, AND to the idiot Ministers who have been responsible for aviation in Australia over the past 20 years or so, is that we have a totally dysfunctional and effete regulatory authority here in Australia that's completely out-of-control, competely out-of-touch with the realities of meaningful regulatory reform, is totally past its use-by-date, and that Australia's air safety record as a consequence is of real concern. :mad: :mad:

[Sunfish]

What we have now is a "don't ask, don't tell" safety regime.

When I first engaged with aircraft and airlines, the attitude was that safety was too important to associate it with penalties, let alone criminal penalties.

The idea was that if a mistake was made it was reported as a learning experience.

Not any more.

Even a Two hundred hour PPL neophyte like me now knows that.

[Sunfish]

To put it another way, If you are an employee of CASA, your next career move should be to join the scum in Macquarie Bank.

..And I've dealt with them and I know what I'm talking about.

[LeadSled]

601,
Of course, you are quite correct, that one in FNQ wiped out most of the Mareeba
Council. Slipped my mind.

Siuya,
If the reference to Norfolk is to the Westwind, there were no fatalities, was there another? The Citation written off at Lord Howe was, from memory, a private flight.

Of course, in our figuring, the wheels up in the DCA DH-125 isn't counted, either, or all the Viscounts lost, or the DC-3/4/6 and a few more, including the Connie at Mauritius. Or sundry Metro and Queen/ Kingairs, PA-31s --- etc, etc.

At one stage, Mick Toller came out with a statement that Australia was "twice as safe" as the US. This was based on a complete misreading of a Boeing "hull loss" study that ignored anything smaller than a B737/A320.

Ignoring all the RPT fatalities, because they are "not jets", and all accidents where there are no fatalities, is a great way to produce "world leading safety outcomes".

As to Qantas VH-OJH, despite rumours to the contrary, that B747-438 was nowhere near a write-off, a decision that insurance underwriter make, not the airline that leases the aircraft.

The cost of the rebuild was about 40% of the market valuation, and when it was finished, it was such a good job that it became one of the best performers in the fleet, with a fuel flow better than book, and about 1.2% better than before the golfing episode --- and it was one of only 2 or 3 in the whole fleet that didn't need any rudder trim in cruise --- I know, I did enough hours on it, before and after.
There are around 10 (maybe more) US operators that are, each in isolation, bigger than the whole Australian RPT/large Charter fleet combined.

Tootle pip!!

[blackhand]

Sunfish
I note that you cannot attack my statement that Australia is not so "Diverse" and "Unique" that FAA rules would not be applicable,This would be due to the fact that I agree with you that the regulatory reform has taken far too long, although my preference would be for the NZ suite of rules.

Cheers
BH

[Sunfish]

Thank you for your measured comment Blackhand. Some of mine are over the top.... I've been reading a few AAT rulings.

I am still however of the opinion that I'm probably unwittingly committing some form of criminal offence every time I fly, thanks to the form of the regulations and nothing else.

For example, If I had finally flown to the MotoGp at Phillip Island, when the forecast included "inter, rain showers, 4000 (vis)" as well as "Inter, rain showers, 5000", am I committing the offence of flying in IMC?

I note I had Tooradin, Leongatha and Tyabb as potential alternates.

I also now think I know that forgetting to note an oil addition on the MR is a criminal offence, as is failure to write total time after last flight of day.

[tail wheel]

Leadie

....that one in FNQ wiped out most of the Mareeba Council.

I think Stan wiped out most of the Cairns City Council, not Mareeba Shire? Long time ago now.

There was also the B707 in Bass Strait, but that was not a civil aircraft.

Whilst not a hull loss with injuries, the AN B747 at Sydney certainly had the potential to turn very messy!

The short answer to the thread title is that every country must have a competent regulator and appropriate regulation.

Sadly Australia has neither.

[LeadSled]

tailwheel,
You may well be right about the council, it's a long time ago. A solicitor mate of mine worked on the case, I must ask him.

I was spending quite a bit of time up there in those days, I remember Stan well.

The "story" of how he even got his hands on a Citation is an interesting speculation in itself, and not entirely unadjacent to the indentity of the group who bought Silver Plains, after a "significant" donation Joe's "Foundation".

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

The Mt Emerald Air Disaster on 11. May 1990 ..killed Councilors from the following Tableland Shires: Eacham 2, Atherton 2, Herberton 2.
Coastal shires: Cairns City 2, Douglas 1. Also Catholic nun 1 And the pilot.

CASA was at its usual disgusting best with a comment in the Cairns Post.. if my memory serves me right, wording like so....
" An unnamed CASA spokesperson said ..'we knew he was a cowboy' and etc."

Not enough balls to put a name to the statement..!! (Ops normal) and very hurtful to the bereaved wife. But does CASA give a rats.?
Denigrate the target,its par for the course ( I know)

And that poses the question... If CASA knew that was the case, why didnt they do something about it.?

Has anything changed?? The Wilga crash at Straddie yielded a comment from someone that they had advised CASA that he was " a bit of a cowboy"
What did they do... nothing. (as far as I am aware).

A Cooperative approach to safety will NOT work, if everything you do is criminalised to buggery.
CASA is anally retentive/punitive-reactive.. if there's an accident... someone has to be flogged through the courts and/or punished somehow.
Ask the guys from Whyalla Air. And all the others.

The better path..? I urge everyone to hunt up, read and digest the article in US AOPA
Dec 2002-Jan 2003 by top Aviation lawyer, Kenneth P Quinn " Why Airline crashes arent criminal" ".. the accident itself is its own punishment to the individuals and companies involved"...and etc.

It just shows you the nature of the beast that a bastard bureaucrazy has made for us.

[Sunfish]

From reading AAT rulings, the truth of Leadsleads advice is apparent. Don't ever speak to CASA about anything without a lawyer present. Especially don't ever answer any question they may pose you.

I'm beginning to wonder if CASA is required to read you your rights before engaging in any conversation with you. There is one AAT ruling where a kid with a "chequered" past was denied a medical for alleged substance abuse and the majority of the evidence appears to have come from his own (badly advised) mouth.

Then there is the recently decided case of one Mr. Snook, that I don't have enough information to even comment on, except to say that Aviation maintenance criminality evidence seems to stretch back Thirty plus years with no statute of limitations. Did you know that there is an AD about Lycoming oil consumption? Did you know that unless you faithfully calculate consumption according to Lycomings formula at every maintenance interval and record the findings, you are guilty of a criminal offence?

There appears to be no end to the criminality of pilots and aircraft engineers according to CASA.

My one "conversation" with CASA now takes on a rather sinister interpretation. Did I face a criminal conviction and exclusion from the USA if I did not take their "suggestion" to heart?

...Yet ASICS are issued? I'm perplexed.

[Andy_RR]

Well, if CASA have the threat of criminal proceedings against anyone in the aviation industry, one should treat them like the policemen they appear to be.

NEVER, EVER, EVER make any statement to them, offer any evidence to them or help them in their investigations or prosecution. It will NEVER help you!

(Youtube search "don't talk to the police" if you're in doubt about this bit)

Of course, the question then becomes: if this is the relationship that aviation professionals have with their regulator, what chance have they of being safely and adequately regulated?

[havick]

There was a thread on here last year with a very informative post with regard to your actions should CASA issue you a show cause notice.. It took a while to sift through it all, but in essence what I gleened from it was never say anything, never hand over logbooks etc etc..

Not that I've ever been subject to said proceedings/investigations myself. But the way the industry is heading, it's money well spent to have a legal advice prior to entering any dialogue.

It's a shame that it's come to this.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

This story has been told before but it seems appropriate to tell it again here.

I have been flying for 37 yrs, in Oz and Godzone, and up until a couple of years ago I had a completely clean slate - OK, apart from that time in 1978 when I forgot to cancel my sarwatch.

A couple of years ago I flew the Bo on four occassions in the week after a mandatory AD was due on the aeroplane. The AD was for a rudder pedal inspection (crack check) - due every year. I was busy at the time and missed the entry on the MR. As soon as I realised what I had done, I put the aeroplane in for the AD to be done - nothing abnormal found. Private ops, only me on board - and you only use the peddles for TO and landing in the Bo - barely a safety issue.

My fluck-up was picked up by CASA in a random check of MRs. No point in denying it, I had signed the MR on four occassions before the AD was done and signed off.

First I knew that I was in a spot of bother was when I received a letter from CASA alleging multiple breaches of the CAOs, CARs etc and threatening me with up to eight (8) years gaol and $40,000 in fines.

I wrote back to CASA and explained the circumstances of my error. That resulted in a reply from CASA offering to settle the matter if I copped a $500 administrative fine and a bunch of demerit points!

So I rocked up to the local CASA office to pay the fine on the last day of the period for payment. Unfortunately, the office girl was having the morning off and a CASA guy was the only person in the office. He didn't know how to work the EFPOS machine and asked if I could come back that afternoon.

"Nope", says the Dr. "It says here that I can pay at the local CASA office and I am here to pay. You need to either get it done or cancel the fine"!

"You could cut me a bit of slack here", says the CASA guy. "I will cut you the same amount of slack as you cut me", says the Dr.

An hour or so later, after a couple of phone calls to Can'tberra head office, the job is done. CASA guy has to write on my paperwork that the fine is paid and the receipt is posted out latter, cause CASA guy doesn't know how to do that stuff.

So I think that that is the end of it!

WRONG!

Maybe six (6) months later I am refuelling the Bo at Leonora (WA) when my mobile phone rings. Its a guy from the CASA compliance section in Can'tberra. He tells me that I have an outstanding administrative fine that is six (6) months overdue. I reply that I paid the fine on such and such a date and have a receipt at home - a couple of thousand km away.

Read between the lines sunshine - "get stuffed"!

Never heard anymore about it.

I kid you not! I was threatened with a possbile eight (8) years goal and $40k in fines !!!!

This occurred soon after the Lockhart River debarcle! I bet someone wrote a report saying how the Nth Qld cowboy pilots had been sorted out.

What a joke!

Dr :8

[601]

VH-ANQ Report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1990/aair/pdf/199003068.pdf

I cannot find any report on the Citation accident at Proserpine back in the 80s.

[SIUYA]

This what you're referring to Havick?

Post #178 at http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/329724-senate-inquiry-into-casa-9.html

CASA frequently sends out what are called "Show Cause" letters. These letters invite a certificate holder – an individual or a corporation - to show cause why a license or certificate should not be cancelled under CAR 269.

They usually allege that the certificate holder has broken the law. The material below only applies to Show Cause letters which make that allegation.
A "Show Cause" letter which alleges that you have violated the law is a trap.

A certificate holder who responds to that letter is like a small dog which puts itself at the mercy of a big dog by rolling on its back and offering the big dog its neck.

The small dog hopes that this act of submission will cause the big dog to act in a chivalrous fashion and walk off. For the small dog, that technique usually works.

But if you are up against CASA, your chances are not nearly as good as the small dog's.

If CASA alleges that you have broken the law, that allegation should be dealt with in a Court. Our Court systems have been developed over many centuries to guard us from unfair punishment.

If you engage in the Show Cause process you throw away all those very precious safeguards.

You throw away the right to require that the case against you be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
You throw away the right to know, and challenge, the evidence against you;
You throw away the right to know the identities of your accusers;
You throw away the right for you or your lawyer to cross-examine your
accuser(s) and other witnesses
;
Should CASA ever send me a "Show Cause" notice alleging that I have violated a law I will respond with "I have not been convicted of any of the breaches of the law that you allege. That is the cause I show.". Not one word more.

Every month I receive letters from people whose licenses have been cancelled by CASA. The sequence of events is always the same:

The victim receives a "show cause" letter alleging that he/she has violated a whole lot of Regulations.
The victim is invited to send a written response and to attend an "informal conference".
Sometimes the victim attends the "informal conference", sometimes not. If he/she does, he always comes away saying "what a misnomer" after being grilled and tape-recorded.
The victim then writes a response. In the course of the response he/she usually says things like "it was only a technical breach" or "I did not realise I was not allowed to change the main wheel tyres" or "there was no NEED for a forecast because I was only going 20 miles and I had rung the person at the other end".
CASA then decides to cancel or suspend the victim's license, or to do nothing. Most often the decision goes against the victim. CASA then sends a letter cancelling or suspending his/her license. This letter points out that the victim has the right of appeal to the AAT.

There is no effective right of appeal if CASA cancels your licence.

The victim then wastes his time and money appealing to the AAT. Appeals to the AAT against license suspensions or cancellations never succeed. They are a pointless routine which occasionally makes a victim feel better, because he has had his day in Court, but that is all.

If you are going to go to Court against CASA in response to a "Show Cause" letter, I recommend that you make that decision at the outset when you still have all our hard-won safeguards on your side. It is silly to throw away all your safeguards and then look to a Tribunal for help. If you are going to fight, fight while you are strong - not after you have thrown away all your weapons.

If you decide to go down the "show cause" route, and CASA cancels your license, don't throw away your money going to the AAT. Just take up another occupation (if you rely on aviation for your living) or another hobby (if you are a private pilot) and get on with your life.

If you are going to fight, consult a lawyer immediately. Remember that you need a CRIMINAL LAWYER - the family solicit or, or the best commercial lawyer from the most expensive firm in the city, is not the right person for this job. Nor is an aviation lawyer. You have been accused of a crime and you need a criminal lawyer. Subject to your lawyer's advice, respond to the "Show Cause" notice by simply saying that you have not been convicted of any of the alleged breaches of the law, and that is the cause you show.

Do not enter into any verbal discussions or attend any meetings no matter how "informal" unless your lawyer advises you to. If your lawyer does advise you to roll over and show your neck, get a second opinion from another lawyer before you do. Once you have received a "show cause" letter from CASA, you are playing for keeps. If you roll over and show your neck, there is better than a 50-50 chance that CASA will cancel or suspend your license.

If CASA still goes ahead and cancels your license, do not appeal to the AAT unless you have huge amounts of spare money, lots of spare time, and nothing else in your life. If your lawyer cannot work out a way to get you into a real Court (such as the Federal Court, under the ADJR Act), don't waste your resources on the AAT. Just accept the fact you have lost your license and get on with your life.

A practical example of how this can go wrong.

As an example, assume that you irritate a CASA officer, who then decides to show you who is boss. He demands that you produce your logbook for inspection, intending to go through it in the hope of finding evidence of breaches.

You refuse to produce your logbook because you fear that it will indeed reveal some inadvertent breaches. CASA then says you have breached CAR 5.56 and cancels your license under CAR 269(1)(a). You have clearly breached CAR 1988 5.56 if you read the words of that regulation alone. But there is a legal principle that a person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself.

Accordingly, if your logbook contains information which may tend to incriminate you, you may not have to produce it in spite of CAR 5.56. If you make that argument in a Court before a judge, CASA will argue against it but you are likely to win. However if you make that argument in a 'Show Cause' procedure, where CASA is both prosecutor and judge, you are certain to lose.

Why CASA sometimes prosecutes and sometimes uses 'show cause'.

It is always open to CASA to initiate a prosecution against a person whom CASA believes has broken the law. If the person is convicted, the Court can then impose an "exclusion period" which has the same effect as cancelling or suspending your license. That is the fair way of doing things. Our forefathers struggled for centuries to gain and retain genuine legal safeguards against heavy-handed treatment by too- powerful bureaucrats. Don't throw those safeguards away by allowing yourself to be tried, convicted, and sentenced by CASA's bureaucrats.

When CASA believes that a person has violated the law, CASA chooses whether to be fair and prosecute the person or be unfair and use the "show cause" procedure. You do not have to be Al Einstein to work out that the cases where the "show cause" procedure is used tend to be those where the evidence is not strong enough to get a conviction, or where a Court is unlikely to impose an "exclusion period" if the person is found guilty. What's more, CASA can do BOTH - cancel your license under the "Show Cause" procedure, and then prosecute you. If you engage in the "Show Cause" procedure, you will inevitably give CASA a whole lot of evidence it did not have beforehand!

IF EVER YOU GET A "SHOW CAUSE" LETTER, RECOGNISE THAT YOU ARE PLAYING FOR KEEPS! DON'T DO OR SAY ANYTHING UNTIL YOU HAVE WORKED OUT YOUR WHOLE PLAN.

KEEP THIS DOCUMENT IN A SAFE PLACE, eg. INSIDE YOUR AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL

[Kharon]

Boyd Monro's potted theory is absolutely spot on, provided you have very deep pockets and, are not depending on your job to pay the mortgage. The cost of defending a show cause is truly staggering. One case running at the moment is costing the defendant in excess of AUD $20, 000 per day. For the average Joe, this is serious money.

Fair enough, there needs to be as system for trapping the 'baddies'. Grossly unfair use, even abuse of the show cause system is a radical part of the systemic problems.

Take a simple case, such as 'Young Charlie' has cooked the flight and duty times to 'help' his boss out. The mermaids turn up, do an audit and shock horror, they unearth the crime of the century. No one denies Charlie is a very bad boy. The real safety issues here are obvious, Charlie needs a swift boot in the arse, but what about the real culprit.

A reasonable mermaid would look at the entire picture, is this a regular event or a one off ?. If it's a one off, and there is no real reason to suspect regular, chronic rule busting, perhaps a fine and a period of monitoring to make sure that the 'gentle warning' was headed. So, RCA, administrative fine, good ear bashing,. Job done. If it's a chronic normalized deficiency, sure, throw the book at them, no excuses.

It's when a simple (or complex) issue arises and the mermaids go off half cocked that the multiple alleged breaches (facts they like to call them) end up with the dreaded Show Cause. Think about it, you now need to justify, they don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

It ain't the system that too badly flawed, it's just that 'they' know, on balance that even the $1500 to lodge a case at the AAT plus the thousands it will cost to defend against a litigator that is anything but model (ignore moral) will beat you. Common sense and natural justice need to applied. Not rough justice and the devil take the last bloke standing.

[601]

The mermaids turn up, do an audit and shock horror, they unearth the crime of the century

Especially when two FOIs argue over 0.1hr difference in times entered by the PIC and Co-pilot. Ping one or both or do nothing.

[tail wheel]

Should CASA ever send me a "Show Cause" notice alleging that I have violated a law I will respond with "I have not been convicted of any of the breaches of the law that you allege. That is the cause I show.". Not one word more.

Fine - in theory! Impractical in practice.

Mostly CASA suspend a license or AOC then send a Show Cause seeking reasons why the license or AOC should not be cancelled.

The "miscreant" has no option but to respond.

[Worrals in the wilds]

I'm beginning to wonder if CASA is required to read you your rights before engaging in any conversation with you.


Sunfish raises a really interesting point.
‘Rights’ in Australia are more strictly speaking privileges (we have no bill of rights) and are provided by the federal Crimes Act 1914 s23F – W. These sections provide for the ‘reading of rights’ everyone is familiar with on the TV (or if you are unfortunate enough :}) in person.

Crimes Act 1914
Act No. 12 of 1914 as amended
Division 3—Obligations of investigating officials
Note: These obligations apply in relation to protected suspects as well as to people under
arrest.
23F Cautioning persons who are under arrest or protected suspects
(1) Subject to subsection (3), if a person is under arrest or a protected
suspect, an investigating official must, before starting to question
the person, caution the person that he or she does not have to say or
do anything, but that anything the person does say or do may be
used in evidence.
(2) The investigating official must inform the person of the caution in
accordance with subsection (1), but need only do so in writing if
that is the most appropriate means of informing the person.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply so far as another law of the
Commonwealth requires the person to answer questions put by, or
do things required by, the investigating official.

I don’t see anything in the Civil Aviation Act about CASA requiring persons to answer questions, so I don’t see that subsection 3 applies. Apologies if it does and I’d appreciate the reference.

The protected suspect from (1) is defined in the Act as:
(2) A person is a protected suspect (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s23b.html#protected_suspect) if:
(a) the person is in the company of an investigating official (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s3zqa.html#investigating_official) for the purpose of being questioned (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s23b.html#question) about a Commonwealth (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s85zl.html#commonwealth_offence)offence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s85zl.html#commonwealth_offence); and
(b) the person has not been arrested (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s23b.html#arrested) for the offence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s3c.html#offence); and
(c) one or more of the following applies in relation to the person:
(i) the official believes that there is sufficient evidence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s15k.html#evidence) to establish that the person has committed the offence (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s3c.html#offence);
(ii) the official would not allow the person to leave if the person wished to do so;
(iii) the official has given the person reasonable grounds for believing that the person would not be allowed to leave if he or she wished to do so; and...

This would seem to apply in the case of a CASA official asking questions about any offence that they reasonably believe has been committed.

The list of rights continues...

23G Right to communicate with friend, relative and legal
practitioner
(1) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected
suspect, an investigating official must, before starting to question
the person, inform the person that he or she may:
(a) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a friend or
relative to inform that person of his or her whereabouts; and
(b) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a legal
practitioner of the person’s choice and arrange, or attempt to
arrange, for a legal practitioner of the person’s choice to be
present during the questioning;
and the investigating official must defer the questioning for a
reasonable time to allow the person to make, or attempt to make,
the communication and, if the person has arranged for a legal
practitioner to be present, to allow the legal practitioner to attend
the questioning.

Sections 23H-K, N and P cover the other various rights such as interpreters, interview friends etc. Section 23 L lists the exceptions to this Act (i.e. when these rights need not be given). There are very few and they only really apply where there is a risk that evidence may be fabricated or destroyed or there is a risk to public safety.

S23S asserts that only another Act can force a person to answer questions. As I said, I can’t find anything in the Civil Aviation Act that covers this. In any case, such exclusions are not supposed to usurp the person’s right not to incriminate themselves but more to provide information, e.g. the Customs Act has a couple of these exclusions that relate to identifying imported cargo, where you are obliged to tell them which goods are from overseas.


23S Right to remain silent etc. not affected
Nothing in this Part affects:
(a) the right of a person to refuse to answer questions or to
participate in an investigation except where required to do so
by or under an Act; or
(b) any burden on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of
an admission or confession made by a person; or
(ba) any burden on the prosecution to prove that an admission or
confession was made in such circumstances as to make it
unlikely that the truth of the admission or confession was
adversely affected; or
(c) the discretion of a court to exclude unfairly obtained
evidence; or
(d) the discretion of a court to exclude illegally or improperly
obtained evidence.

Illegally or improperly obtained evidence generally includes evidence collected by interview without these rights being read.

S23 U/V are interesting, because it doesn’t sound like CASA are following them.

23V Tape recording of confessions and admissions
(1) If a person who is being questioned as a suspect (whether under
arrest or not) makes a confession or admission to an investigating
official, the confession or admission is inadmissible as evidence
against the person in proceedings for any Commonwealth offence
unless:
(a) if the confession or admission was made in circumstances
where it was reasonably practicable to tape record the
confession or admission—the questioning of the person and
anything said by the person during that questioning was tape
recorded; or...

Given the advent of personal recording devices I can’t see any situation where a confession couldn’t be recorded. Every proper LEA in the country has been doing this for some years, and I know of at least one case lost by the Qld Police because they did not record a confession made in a car. There are several exceptions, but all are fairly special-case, like the only recorder breaking down in the middle of the desert or similar.

Are CASA recording investigations at the moment? A copy also has to be provided to the interviewee.

These are the rights provided by the government to all Australians that are routinely read and accorded to every suspect by every law enforcement organization in the country.

I’m far from a lawyer and I’m not overly familiar with the Civil Aviation Act, but these rights generally apply to any person being interviewed by an investigating officer, once that officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. They are par for course in all police investigations and with the border agencies (AQIS, Customs and DIMIA) the minute the officer believes that something potentially prosecutable has come up.

It would be interesting to hear a proper legal opinion on the subject.
If CASA wants to be a big tough law enforcer, they should follow the practices and constraints that come with that responsibility and not railroad people into believing they have to talk to the government. If the AFP aren't allowed to do that, why should CASA?

[blackhand]

There seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour here.
Reading through the thread I see CASA being responsible for:
Boeing 747 overshooting a runway in SE Asia
WestWind running out of fuel and options in the south Pacific.
Metro hitting a hill below LSALT in North Queensland.
Citation jet hitting the ground when reported 6000 ft at Mareeba.
Chieftan double engine failure in South Australia

Criticism of CASA not enforcing - i.e. Cowboy Operators.
Criticism of CASA enforcing too much - poor hard done by Operators and Pilots.

Maybe you should try running a 145 or 135 Org in PNG, to see what Micro management by the Regulator is.

Cheers
BH

[Andy_RR]

There seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour here.
Reading through the thread I see CASA being responsible for:
Boeing 747 overshooting a runway in SE Asia
WestWind running out of fuel and options in the south Pacific.
Metro hitting a hill below LSALT in North Queensland.
Citation jet hitting the ground when reported 6000 ft at Mareeba.
Chieftan double engine failure in South Australia

Criticism of CASA not enforcing - i.e. Cowboy Operators.
Criticism of CASA enforcing too much - poor hard done by Operators and Pilots.

Maybe you should try running a 145 or 135 Org in PNG, to see what Micro management by the Regulator is.

Cheers
BH

So, we have to travel to PNG to get world's best practice? Great stuff!

And if CASA isn't responsible for all of the above, what is it responsible for?

[blackhand]

Andy RR

And if CASA isn't responsible for all of the above, what is it responsible for?I rest my case about lack of intellectual rigour, in fact I would say that you sir are an intellectual dwarf.

Which reminds me, in a recent survey it was found that 6 out of 7 dwarfs are not happy.:cool:

So, we have to travel to PNG to get world's best practice? Great stuff!The PNG CASA Rules are a copy of NZ CAA Rules, so yes you should come and have a look.

Cheers
BH

[blackhand]

Jim Irwin
Far too long friend.

Cheers
BH

[davidgrant]

Hey black adder...err sorry blackhand..." U savi Long Pidgin??"

[megle2]

and the seventh dwarf is named casa
He's not happy unless everyone else is unhappy!

[Rose_Thorns]

For some strange reason,

'People paid the Black Hand extortionists with the knowledge that American law had no understanding or power to help them, and that the threats carried in Black Hand letters were likely to be carried out if payment was not made'.

It just sounded so familiar. :D

Courtesy Gang Rule. Com

.

file:///tmp/moz-screenshot.png

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect Blackhand, don't we need to get back to first principles?

The suggestion is that CASA is taking an approach to its duties that is at variance with worlds best practice.

It is an approach that does not appear to encourage industry participants to engage with CASA at all, on the basis, suggested in Pprune, that any engagement with CASA is likely (according to Pprune), to be deleterious to operators and pilots. This ultimately has to have a negative effect on safety.

We need a regulator. There are cowboys. No one is disputing that. What is being disputed is the question of fairness and natural justice in CASAs activities.

I am already aware that I have (unwittingly) committed criminal offences under a strict interpretation of the Civil Aviation Act through no fault other than being trained as a pilot. No Aviation textbook or instructor ever made me aware of certain legal procedural requirements associated with flying an aircraft and there you have it.

I have since consulted more than one aviation authority regarding my innocent (and totally immaterial) transgressions, and the advice I received was to forget about it since nothing can be done. Should I incur the wrath of CASA I will experience an investigation that ignores the concept of a statute of limitations or the concept of a guilty mind (Mens rea).

I challenge each and every pilot, commercial and private, to declare that they are procedurally and legally (in the opinion of the CASA office of legal counsel) as pure as the driven snow.

Getting back to first principles, such a relationship between regulated and regulators, assuming it is not a fiction dreamed up on Pprune, is not in the public interest.

Paul Phelans article, if true, regarding CASR 91 - 35 FAA pages vs. CASA's 250+ pages, suggests that this is one part of Australian Government that is both expensive and dysfunctional .

[Andy_RR]

Andy RR
I rest my case about lack of intellectual rigour, in fact I would say that you sir are an intellectual dwarf.


argumentum ad hominem

[SIUYA]

There seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour here.
Reading through the thread I see CASA being responsible for:
Boeing 747 overshooting a runway in SE Asia
WestWind running out of fuel and options in the south Pacific.
Metro hitting a hill below LSALT in North Queensland.
Citation jet hitting the ground when reported 6000 ft at Mareeba.
Chieftan double engine failure in South Australia

The ATSB QF1 Report attributed Significant Latent Failures to CASA. You DID read the report, didnt you? :confused:

The ATSB Lockhart River Report also attributed a number of contributing (and other) factors to CASA:-

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS RELATING TO THE CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY'S PROCESSES

CASA did not provide sufficient guidance to its inspectors to enable them to effectively and consistently evaluate several key aspects of operator management systems. These aspects included evaluating organisational structure and staff resources, evaluating the suitability of key personnel, evaluating organisational change, and evaluating risk management processes. (Safety Issue)
CASA did not require operators to conduct structured and/or comprehensive risk assessments, or conduct such assessments itself, when evaluating applications for the initial issue or subsequent variation of an Air Operator's Certificate. (Safety Issue)

OTHER FACTORS RELATING TO TRANSAIR PROCESSES [RELATED TO REGULATORY OVERSIGHT]
- Transair's flight crew proficiency checking program had significant limitations, such as the frequency of proficiency checks and the lack of appropriate approvals of many of the pilots conducting proficiency checks. (Safety Issue)
- Although CASA released a discussion paper in 2000, and further development had occurred since then, there was no regulatory requirement for initial or recurrent crew resource management training for RPT operators. (Safety Issue)
- There was no regulatory requirement for flight crew undergoing a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft to be trained in procedures for crew incapacitation and crew coordination, including allocation of pilot tasks, crew cooperation and use of checklists. This was required by ICAO Annex 1 to which Australia had notified a difference. (Safety Issue)
- The regulatory requirements concerning crew qualifications during the conduct of instrument approaches in a multi-crew RPT operation was [sic] potentially ambiguous as to whether all crew members were required to be qualified to conduct the type of approach being carried out. (Safety Issue)
- CASA's guidance material provided to operators about the structure and content of an operations manual was not as comprehensive as that provided by ICAO in areas such as multi-crew procedures and stabilised approach criteria. (Safety Issue)
- Although CASA released a discussion paper in 2000, and further development and publicity had occurred since then, there was no regulatory requirement for RPT operators to have a safety management system. (Safety Issue)
- There was no regulatory requirement for instrument approach charts to include coloured contours to depict terrain. This was required by a standard in ICAO Annex 4 in certain situations. Australia had not notified a difference to the standard. (Safety Issue)
- There was no regulatory requirement for multi-crew RPT aircraft to be fitted with a serviceable autopilot. (Safety Issue)

OTHER FACTORS RELATING TO CASA PROCESSES

CASA's oversight of Transair, in relation to the approval of Air Operator's Certificate variations and the conduct of surveillance, was sometimes inconsistent with CASA's policies, procedures and guidelines.
CASA did not have a systematic process for determining the relative risk levels of airline operators. (Safety Issue)
CASA's process for evaluating an operations manual did not consider the useability of the manual, particularly manuals in electronic format. (Safety Issue)
CASA's process for accepting an instrument approach did not involve a systematic risk assessment of pilot workload and other potential hazards, including activation of a ground proximity warning system. (Safety Issue)
You also read the Whyalla report too, didn't you? :confused:

CASA certainly attracted some criticism in that one too, and its acceptance of the recommendations made seem to suggest that some of it's failed regulatory processes contributed to the outcome of that event.

Confusion on interpretation of CASA fuel requirements will most likely be an issue when (if ever) the ATSB issues the Norfolk Island ditching report.

IMHO, the facts from just a few of the mishap events you refer to seem to support the 'intellectual rigor' shown for the most part on this thread. CASA obviously isn't (and can't be) 100% responsible for the events referred to, but it's continued lack of ability (22 years worth, in fact, maybe even longer) of being a model regulatory authority which is able to effectively produce a set of clear and readily understood regulations, together with its take-no-prisoners approach (refer to various of the posts above, in particular, those concerning show-cause), seem to suggest the responsibility for the quoted mishap events doesn't solely reside with the operators, and that CASA has some responsibility for the unfortunate outcomes referred to.

But, I certainly support your right to disagree. :ok:

[Cactusjack]

Hey Blackhand, how is Sargent Shultz going up there anyway ? Settle into the CAA ok ?
Heard that the dust up between Shultz and MQ was interesting, hence MQ`s demise from the role of DCEO in AUS. !

[blackhand]

As the antagonist in this CASA denigration one should accept the puerile thoughts of all and sundry.
CACTUSJACK
I am perplexed by your ambiguous missive.
JIM IRWIN
I am not alluding that PNG CASA is the epitome of regulators rather that the suite of rules in use is superior to Austalian regs.
SIUYA
I do not subscribe to this paradigm of systemic failures
this merely spreads the blame.
All of the examples you
give are pilot error and incorrect command decisions.

Cheers
BH

[SIUYA]

I do not subscribe to this paradigm of systemic failures
this merely spreads the blame.
All of the examples you
give are pilot error and incorrect command decisions.


So........let me guess. You're a member of the Flat Earth Society too, aren't you blackhand?:p

[bushy]

The finding of "pilot error' is too often a convenient way of avoiding a proper investigation and a proper finding.
Did we not learn anything from the Erebus investigation?
There is usually a reason why the "pilot error" occurred (if there was one), and often factors outsde the aeroplane are significant. There is usually a chain of significant events.

[Kharon]

The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related, that it is difficult to class them separately. One step above the sublime, makes the ridiculous; and one step above the ridiculous, makes the sublime again". T. Paine. The Age of Reason. 1793.

When I kicked this thread off, it was only with the intention of trying to see if it were feasible to reestablish 'the voice of reason'. You can't blame CASA for a hole in your franga or that the cockpit seat hasn't got neat little slot for your wallet. There are some bloody good folks in the organisation, although they seem to be muzzled, or made to tow the 'party' line (like it or not).

What I hope for is a legally safe, balanced approach to the way their business in conducted.

We know there have been some God awful mistakes made, leading to failed prosecution, rather than negotiated safety based outcomes.

There are countless anecdotes of meddling, operational inconsistency, subjective personalized interpretations of the rotten regulations, purblind mindless adherence to the 'letter' of the law (in one man's opinion).

These issues are matters of respect that the administrator has to address. No one wants administrative or legal anarchy, especially of the type we currently endure. It is unsupportable.

The problem, for my two bob's worth is, that there is clear conflict of interest between 'enforcement', administration and safety action. Add this to an often bloody minded determination not to enforce the law, but the authority of the Authority. (or it's policies).

As some one posted, sadly, "they have lost their way", lost the respect and thus the unstinting cooperation of the industry. IMHO it is this which needs to change first. We can manage with crappy laws, but not with bad administration of the industry.

[bushy]

And 22 years to update the regs???? It appears to me that this is not a delay, it is a refusal.

[davidgrant]

Ah Kharon...a voice of reason,Yup you are.
Have to agree with you mate, (whoever or where ever you are?)...There are, (where?somewhere) some wonderful people in CASA.
I think back over my 45 odd years in the aviation industry in OZ. As a young sprog chief pilot way back when, the Russes (especially him), the Curlewises, the Sly's, the ?? memory fails me. How we respected them...they shoved, cojoled, mentored, counciled and were always there if you needed advice,they lead you down the safety path, and stomped all over you if you didnt.
Those kind of people are still there, but muzzled by incompetent idiots, who favour prescriptive B...**** over common sense, and call it a safety outcome.
A tick in the box is more important than an actual safety outcome.
In todays world I spend more time auditing paper work trying to protect the company from malicious attack ( is the tick in the right box?, are the dates right?, are the crews additions correct?) I spend more time trying to protect the companies AOC, and by default myself, because I'm the one who will go to jail if someone makes a mistake, than training, mentoring, and supervising my pilots.CASA HAS lost its way, a tick in the box is more important now than competence.
I have just promelgated a direction to our staff that there is to be no communication with CASA without our legal representatives present. Our ops manual now carries a disclaimer, that notwithstanding, some of the material contained within this publication is required by CASA and the Company will not be held responsible for material required by them.
The work load increases, my company recognised that the 30 year old aircraft can not go on forever and introduced something new. CASA's response??..MY GOD!!!...it has jet engines!!!...Hmmm/...how can we make some money out of this??Hmmm...Jet? Hmmm = Rich!!!...Yeah!!! make em put reg 217 in place, Reg 217??? written for an airline such as Qantas or large operation of a single type aircraft, totally impractical and not cost effective for a single aircraft. So the safety outcome?? two to three hundred bucks an hour on the operating cost and a modern, quantum leap in safety becomes uncompetative.
Sad thing guys, an owner comes with a brand new modern jet type to manage and find some work for...adds up the cost to put it on the aoc, etc...etc
TOO hard...TOO expensive....TOO much Bu...sh...t!....leave it on the US register and just operate it private( still in our airspace, just without oversight).....aint it sad the fare paying public is condemed to 30 to 40 year old machinery because CASA want a buck or bul...st

[aroa]

The 22 yr re-write of the re-write of the amended amendments to add to your exposition(?) which will have to have exemptions...exclusions and etc...etc ...etc..blah blah. Interspersed with a few 'worlds firsts' rushed thru..
Its not a refusal.!.. its a cunning plan for continued employment in the sinecure, the growth of staff numbers and the building of an empire.

WTF has "safety" got to do with it.? Bureaucratic complexitization just makes it LESS safe.

And on another point, made elsewhere. EVERY pilot and budding pilot should be briefed on.."Talking to the Regulator 101"
1. DONT EVER do it alone. Get a witness,take notes, tape deck, video... anything, because some of these buggers have an agenda and you must have a self protection program to CYA, if you do speak.
2. Or better still, exercise yr right to remain silent.

When these people come knocking.. it really is time we told them to piss off and shut the door.
But even that can have its repercussions...
I did have a CASA person come into my hangar one day; no name given , no ID shown, no request for permission to enter the premises, no business stated (all requirements) Launched into some aggressive Qs about someone elses aircraft parts. I requested that he absent himself from my presence and premises.

Next week I had an "investigator" (sic- very, very sick/a real head case ) come to our house and throw a Summons at my wife. I was away at the time. It was an intended stress inducing exercise for me, and a nice day in the country for him.
The summons was for 'Threatening a Commonwealth Officer'.
I had been alone in the hangar... and unfortunately for him ( and me!), also solo, so he couldnt have a back up mate for his BS story. Never turned up at court.!

Must be in their job descriptions,.. How to piss up taxpayers time and money for nil result. What lovely people they are.
And at what great cost to the Industry and the country.

The revolution WILL come eventually. (I live in hope.)

[Cactusjack]

blackhand, such beautiful wording you use. Sorry to cause you any angst or confusion with my superfluous missive -

CACTUSJACK
I am perplexed by your ambiguous missive.

John Bromley.

[blackhand]

SIUYA
So........let me guess. You're a member of the Flat Earth Society too, aren't you blackhand?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Ad hominem comes to mind - but you already knew that.:=

CACTUSJACK
As long as I didn't amplify your tarry at this convoluted discourse - hamanas tu mus stap long mi.

[Andy_RR]

Ad hominem comes to mind - but you already knew that.:=


Pots and Kettles, blackhand...