Oh J, you haven't been paying close attention, have you.
If you were capable of setting aside your blind prejudice against the person whom you guess Creampuff is, and just focussed on the merits of the views I post, you would see that I sometimes agree with Mr Ilyk's views, and I sometimes disagree with Mr Ilyk's views.
Perhaps you could walk us through the errors and weaknesses in his evidence and submission.
Your response appears to imply that I have mistaken your identity - may I suggest that your (relatively brief), employment by CASA is well known in these forums? How about a genuine answer to my previous in the interests of your readers?
I have no intention of commenting in this particular forum on the evidence given by a witness to a Senate Enquiry. It may well be the subject of discussion in other places.
Last edited by justapplhere : 16th July 2008 at 15:35.
I have been lurking seeking academic and rigorous debate on the Senate Inquiry and the possible censure of CASA. I againt went through the earlier posts on this thread this evening and came to the view that regular contributors were drooling with anticipation that CASA was heading for the final high jump. What comes after that no one said!
All I see on this thread is bs and bluster with some of the regulars saying that if they had of written the submission it would have said the same thing or contributors like Mach_1 who by his/her performance uses innuendo and tries to present it as evidence.
Where is the robust debate (except for the legal eagle wank earlier in the post about historical and irrelevant points) based on the rules of evidence.
I think Father O'Flaherty has a case to answer, he likes little girls so by inference Father O'Flaherty is a paedophile. Alternatively he could just be a compassionate human being? I am seeing too much the latter in this discussion.
Bill Hamilton often says things that are worth thinking about. So does Ronald McDonald!
J: You’re simply incapable of getting, aren’t you. My identity and any past association with any of the submitters or witnesses to the inquiry, cannot affect the merits or otherwise of their submission or evidence. The submissions and evidence are what the submissions and evidence are.
I happen, for example, to agree with many parts of Mr Hamilton’s submission but laughed out loud at other parts. (He even cites this very thread as authority for a proposition that isn’t supported by the content of this thread – bizarre!) If I’ve had a ‘past association’ with Mr Hamilton, does that affect the merits or otherwise of his submission? If so, how?
well bill i have read your ....very lengthy submission......and i must say having not agreed with you on a lot of occasions all be it as you the captain and me the LAME or as you and i on the SCC i must take my hat off to you on this one mate your dogmatic approach to CASA and the problems they have instigated in Australia aviation is hero like ....so well done hope we meet up some time and i will buy you a beer,unfortunately i am not involved in the SCC anymore and hopefully i will be on the end of a redundancy from my present employer....but you never know i might get involved in some aviation matters in my spare time good luck with it bill
Aviation has its crooks, cowboys and incompetents and that is why we need a firm authority to regulate aviation safety in the public interest. Mr Ilyk’s submission to the Senate inquiry http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub31.pdf argues this case persuasively and with comprehensive references to coronial findings, case law and judicial inquiries around the world. I totally agree with Mr. Ilyk.
Put bluntly, if self regulation worked God would have proposed ten guidelines; in a discussion paper.
In 1993, before Monarch, Seaview, Aquatic and other accidents attributable to our regulator’s “institutional timidity”, I wrote in the Canberra Times that Australia was following a recipe for disaster by ignoring US and Canadian sad experience of deregulation. I contended that Australia was deluding itself that industry would maintain standards without a robust, properly resourced regulator. At the time Mr Ilyk, on behalf of CAA disagreed. He accused me of selectively quoting from Justice Moshansky’s report into a fatal Air Ontario accident to support my contention. I note that Ilyk too is now quoting Moshansky to support our common viewpoint. I’m pleased that Mr Ilyk has come to my way of thinking.
Frank. I think you are wrong. Underpinning nearly all posts in this thread and media debate is an implied expectation of a strong, competent and accountable regulator, empowered by simple, unambiguous, appropriate and effective safety based legislation.
We have inappropriate and appallingly drafted aviation legislation, incompetent and untrained regulatory staff, ineffective management, managed by series of deplorably incompetent Ministers - including the current CEO and Minister.
The regulatory reform – twenty years and according to Clapton, hundreds of millions of dollars – has had more starts than Phar Lap and appears to have again stalled.
The following comment in Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005 aptly summarises both the regulatory reform process and the CASA CEO’s competence and capacity to manage that process:
Quote:
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Ostensibly, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was:
Quote:
• to examine the effectiveness of CASA's governance structure; and
• to consider ways to strengthen CASA's relations with industry and ensure CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator.
There were many excellent submissions to the Senate Inquiry and it would be detrimental to the Senate’s credibility if they were not to take serious account of those submissions.
The cynic in me suspects an underlying political agenda.
The regulatory reform – twenty years and according to Clapton, hundreds of millions of dollars – has had more starts than Phar Lap and appears to have again stalled.
According t0 CASA's own evidence to the Senate Inquiry (see page 120 of the transcript for 2 July 2008), CASA has spent at least $140 miilion dollars on the reform program since 2002/03:
Mr Carmody—Looking under the outputs in our annual reporting, under the standards section we list the costs in the annual report from years 2002-03 through until now...... I am rounding, but it was $20 million in 2002-03, $25 million in 2003-04, $26 million in 2004-05, $24 million in 2005-06, $23 million in 2006-07 and there is an estimate in the PBS of $24 million for 2007-08. ........ Mr Carmody—My estimate is about $144 million. Our estimate for 2007-08 is $24 million; the costs for 2006-07 were $23 million. That equals $47 million out to the end of the financial year.
This is probably a conservative estimate and the figure is probably closer to $200 million if you take into account overseas trips, meetings, conferences etc. This is significantly more that even I figured as my $200 million was based on the last 10 years. Here CASA is saying it has spent $140 million in the last 5 years......and nothing to show (sorry, Part 137 has been made). But of course it is always someone else's fault - never CASA's.
We have inappropriate and appallingly drafted aviation legislation, incompetent and untrained regulatory staff, ineffective management, managed by series of deplorably incompetent Ministers - including the current CEO and Minister.
Good call Torres, but I think you forgot to include the Department Secretaries in your list. It was a BIG loss when Alan Hawke left the Department, and the Secretaries since Dr Hawke's departure wouldn't warrant p1ssing on if they were on fire!
Mind you, that's entirely my opinion, however I'm glad to say I wholeheartedly agree with your view of the current CEO and the Minister!
"According to CASA's own evidence to the Senate Inquiry (see page 120 of the transcript for 2 July 2008), CASA has spent at least $140 miilion dollars on the reform program since 2002/03:"
clapton. When you first mentioned a couple of hundred million I was mildly skeptical. But $140 mill for 2002 to 2007 only???
So the "process" from 1988 to 2008 would have cost far more than $200 million??
And at the current rate of regulatory reform, Australia is probably another two decades and another $300 to $400 mill plus away from a new, complete set of workable regulations?
So to put it into context Torres, a total of about >30 years and possibly >$600 million for the 'package' by the time it's (hopefully) completed?
OUCH!
The respective Ministers, Secretaries, CEOs, Managers etc who have been individually and collectively responsibe for the totally incompetent debacle so far ought to bloody-well hang their heads in shame!
And Rudd needs to now make sure that the current Minister gets off his bum and to start doing something constructive to begin to repair the damage that's already been done by the lunatics who've been running the asylum..........however given the present Minister's pathetic track-record so far, I won't be holding my breath waiting for THAT to happen though!
Last edited by SIUYA : 19th July 2008 at 12:33.
Reason: typo......ggrrrrrr!
But if we are now at a point where 20 years down the track and with over $200M of OUR money having been more or less totally wasted with absolutely f#ck-all result, then it can really only be described as government maladministration at its worst!
Perhaps it's time that we as an industry called for help from the Government Ombudsman to bring a stop to this digraceful state of affairs?
The overarching and chronic problem here is that the political cycle is simply too short, and its influences simply too self-interested, for the regulatory reform process to be commenced, managed objectively and in the public interest, then completed, before the use-by date of the person in charge of the process.
I should add that since then I’ve come to the realisation that there is actually no one in charge of the process. That doesn’t help either.
I can't help but feel all the industry consultation and consensus, vested interest lobbyists, submissions etc, is akin to letting prisoners run the goals or the Police taking referendums on speed limits.
It needs a Minister with the guts to set time limits and direct CASA to complete the job; a CASA CEO to manages the task; delegation of an accountable manager as per Creamie's comment and a will within CASA to urgently develop regulations appropriate to Australia's needs.
Propjet, it is a big task, but is it a twenty years, $200 million task - and the job still no where near finished???
I don't think that '...most of the correspondents...' have implied that the RR process is easy. What they are implying though is perhaps the annoyance that I expresssed in my previous posts about the huge amount of time and money that's been wasted in getting to the point where we are now at in the RR process, ie., in reality, back where we started!
And there can really only be two reasons for that:
1. the process has been ill-defined and poorly conducted to date, and
2. no-one's actually been in charge of the process as correctly identified by Creampuff!
Your suggestion of adopting the NZ regs (and I presume you also want the Act in there too) is sensible. As I understand it, PNG have adopted the NZ regulations, and they are apparently also intended to be the model regulations for PASO. So, yes, it does seem to make good sense for Australia to 'harmonise' with the aviation regulations other regional countries.
But maybe we are naive in thinking that government would or could contemplate taking such a simple, pragmatic and (what seems to be) sensible solution to the existing debacle and in so doing stop any further unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money?
Your suggestion of adopting the NZ regs (and I presume you also want the Act in there too) is sensible. As I understand it, PNG have adopted the NZ regulations, and they are apparently also intended to be the model regulations for PASO. So, yes, it does seem to make good sense for Australia to 'harmonise' with the aviation regulations other regional countries.
Interestingly, funding for Papua New Guinea to adopt the NZ regs, was courtesy of the Australian tax payer!
In view of the trans Tasman agreements, adoption of the New Zealand regs may be the only way Australia gets new regs, in reasonable time and at significant cost saving.
There are also a lot of frustrated CASA people over Reg reform. An attempt to simplify regs. being torpedoed by interest groups and the legislation drafting a'-h'-s. who want to put all the complication back in just in case the guilty until proven innocent, dangerous aviation industry might get off prosecution, which of course is the aim of all regulations isn't it.
Reg reform must be taken away from CASA domination (i.e veto). Political will and a minister who knows something about aviation is required, not just PR. The inevitability of this Senate 'enquiry' not achieving anything is most frustrating.
Taxpayers money NOT at work!
Linear Mode
