Just came across this interesting article from the Melbourne Age about CASA and the Senate Inquiry.
Quote:
On a wing and a prayer
· Richard Baker
· July 21, 2008
Are we safe up there? Damning evidence to a Senate inquiry suggests the Civil Aviation Safety Authority may be failing as a safety watchdog.
SENIOR executives from Australia's air safety regulator were disgruntled when they fronted a special Senate inquiry earlier this month. Surprised by the Federal Government's decision to call a snap inquiry into their administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, they made their displeasure clear.
"After we had given our evidence at the last estimates (in May), the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed ... a number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot," CASA's deputy chief Shane Carmody told the senators.
Carmody's comments highlight the friction that has developed between members of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and CASA management in recent years.
Labor's Kerry O'Brien and CASA chief Bruce Byron have been particularly prickly combatants, with the Tasmanian senator pursuing the Howard-government appointee over his expensive overseas travel, his scheduling of time-off to coincide with Senate hearings and his $350,000-plus annual salary.
In addition to showing their displeasure at being the subject of an inquiry, CASA's leadership let it be known they were disappointed that the many changes they had introduced to the organisation - including reform of its approach to safety regulation and a 50% staff turnover - had not been "broadly recognised in the community".
While it may be true that most Australians are unfamiliar with CASA's reforms, the policy changes - particularly regarding safety regulation - have not been lost on pilots, engineers, former CASA staff, families of air crash victims and other industry participants.
In fact, Byron's mission to have CASA seen as a "valued partner" of the aviation industry rather than a "nanny regulator" is a topic that features prominently in many of the 50 submissions received by the inquiry.
Critics of Byron's policy argue that the move towards self-administration is worrying, particularly as airlines look to cut costs to cope with soaring oil prices and a bleak global economic outlook. Submissions from pilots, unions and former CASA officials said such times demanded a rigorous regulator.
But Byron, an experienced pilot and former airline executive, has made little secret over the past three years of his desire to introduce a "more sophisticated" approach to CASA's role as safety regulator. It is, he said last year, "something that has really been dear to my heart for some time".
Looking to the aviation regulatory regimes in the US, Canada and Europe for inspiration, Byron has pushed CASA in the direction of educator rather than enforcer. "CASA will not be knocking on your door armed with the regulations and a plan to dig around until breaches are found," he said in 2006.
The desire for a smooth relationship with industry is evident right across CASA. Even its job advertisements contain the sentence: "CASA works to be a valued partner with the aviation industry."
Byron and his management team reject criticisms that this approach has led to a cosy relationship between CASA and the aviation industry. "When at times we have to be a firm regulator, that is what we have to do," he told the inquiry.
CASA's ostensibly firm hand was on display soon after the Senate inquiry was announced late last month, with the authority ordering a safety check of air operations in northern Australia, where in one of the nation's worst air crashes 15 people were killed at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005.
However, the initiative was not well received by some of the families of the Lockhart victims, who regarded it as a cynical attempt to appear tough as the organisation faced parliamentary scrutiny.
What the Senate inquiry has made clear is that CASA's approach to safety regulation has been the cause of considerable debate and angst within the organisation. Deputy chief executive Carmody revealed an almost 50% turnover in staff, with some choosing to move on and others going "because we no longer had a place for them".
Byron linked some of the 134 redundancies at CASA to the cultural change he and his team have tried to implement.
A victim of that change is the man who was its general counsel between 1995 and 2006, Peter Ilyk. The lawyer told senators that CASA was treading on dangerous ground by playing down its responsibility for safety regulation.
"It (CASA) was not set up to be a partner with industry. It was not set up to promote industry. It was not set up to bow to industry pressure. CASA was set up to regulate the industry and enforce the safety rules," Ilyk argued.
CASA's decision to stop publishing air operator suspensions or cancellations on its website suggests a dangerously close relationship between the regulator and industry, according to Ilyk. "Such publication would not be in the spirit of partnership," he said.
Ilyk told senators that governance failures had flourished under the new arrangements, including a reluctance to tackle the big operators such as Qantas. He said he had brought these to Byron's attention but "not long after raising my concerns, I was terminated".
"I think there was a lot of industry pressure to get rid of particular people that happened to criticise industry or took a tough stance," Ilyk said.
"Towards the end of my career, the CEO simply ignored all of my emails ... One of the ones I sent to the CEO at the time outlining my concerns about governance failures in CASA was never answered formally. We had a CEO meeting about three months later and the only response I got from the CEO was, 'Don't you ever send me a minute like that again.' At that point I knew I was on the slippery slope out."
Asked about Ilyk's claims, Byron said that to the best of his knowledge he always responded to concerns raised by senior staff, either by accepting what they said or rejecting it. He did not recall ever telling people not to send him certain material again and reminded senators that ex-CASA staff making submissions might be "disaffected".
Another former CASA employee, Joseph Tully, who was a policy manager in the general aviation group, supported Ilyk's criticisms. Tully told the inquiry that four senior CASA technical staff had been forced out of the authority since 2005 after registering concern about CASA's approach to safety regulation.
Rod Bencke, a CASA veteran of 21 years, was blunt in his assessment of the authority's standing: "It is my belief that CASA will not be an effective regulator until its operations and ethos have been comprehensively reviewed and effective correction action taken."
On what has CASA based its controversial new regulatory approach? The answer is a mix of the "partnership" models adopted by aviation regulators in the US, Europe and Canada in recent years.
Unfortunately for CASA, these regimes, which emphasise industry self-administration, have this year come in for strong criticism from law-makers and public sector watchdogs in their respective countries.
In April, James Oberstar, the chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said the US Federal Aviation Administration had shown a dangerous lack of compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands flying on potentially unsafe aircraft.
Oberstar's comments came after a congressional investigation revealed a discount airline was flying 737s that had defects which should have been detected by FAA inspections.
"It reflects an attitude of complacency at the highest levels of FAA management, a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of regulatory compliance towards a carrier-friendly, cozy relationship with the airlines," he said.
Two months ago, the Canadian Auditor-General Sheila Fraser criticised Transport Canada's decision to let the aviation industry conduct its own safety inspections without first assessing any of the risks involved. Fraser said the policy "could have sweeping implications for air safety in Canada".
In Australia, it is not just former CASA employees who are worried by the authority's push for better relations with industry while moving away from the traditional role of a watch-dog style regulator.
Captain Ian Woods, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, told senators that CASA had failed to meet required standards in enforcing industry compliance with safety regulations. This failure, he said, meant CASA was "unable to act as a necessary counterweight to balance shifting economic and regulatory frameworks".
"Some people would say that it is never possible for the one organisation to balance safety regulation with commercial necessity and they should be separated," Woods said.
"A number of occurrences I have personally witnessed lead me to conclude that CASA gave due consideration to its obligations there and at times confused those obligations and was not clear and definitive enough standing up for safety regulation."
Adding weight to criticism of CASA's relationship with industry is its refusal to release its audits of the overseas facilities, mainly in Asia, that are increasingly used by Qantas and Virgin Blue to maintain their jets. This has caused the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association to accuse CASA of putting the interests of foreign-owned companies before those of the Australian public.
Though the Senate inquiry has been a bruising experience for CASA executives, they have not been without support. Qantas and Virgin Blue applauded CASA's regulatory policy.
"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.
Importantly, Byron can point out to his critics that Australia still enjoys an airline safety record the envy of the world. "I am the first to say that we, CASA, do not have an easy job, but I stand by the record of my organisation over the last few years. We do not expect to receive bouquets for the work we do, but I would like to believe that most of the industry, from time to time, and on considered and calm reflection, acknowledges that CASA delivers real safety outcomes," said Byron, who is not seeking re-appointment as CASA chief.
But critics, such as CASA's former chief lawyer Peter Ilyk, suggest Australia is more than ever in need of a strong aviation regulator, given the growing pressure on airlines to cut costs and the possible negative effect that could have on safety and maintenance standards. "The fact that there have not been any accidents and the fact that people have not died does not mean that there is no safety problem."
This is the official reponse from the Senate inquiry into the delay in publishing its report into CASA:
Quote:
The committee has not yet tabled its report into the administration of
CASA. The committee has not set a new date for its tabling, but it is
still possible that the report may be tabled during this sitting
fortnight. The committee is currently finalising a number of reports and
my understanding is that the delays in tabling a number of these relate
to the committee's workload and the need for it to actively consider
each of the draft reports before it.
I will forward your concerns about the committee's inability to meet the
original tabling date to the committee.
Sounds a bit like the CASA regulatory reform program...........
Mate you are liveing in a fools paradise no one gets hit with 11 charges and knocks them all over, who are you kidding, make one stick and you are out of the industry someone in CASA puts up to the enforcement section they like little rabbits run off to the dpp and there you go, give me a break please.But when they are privately accountable they will be hideing back in their burrows.
Don't understand any of this. What are you trying to say???
With Byron deciding not to renew his contract, half the Government agenda has been achieved. I suspect the other half will be a recommendation to establish a Board, to shift the Minister's butt even further from responsibility.
"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.
When has aviation not been "Risk Based".
I love when someone with a degree brings in "Touchy Feely" garbage into to an industry that only has 2 outcomes: Safety or Death!
A few months ago we had a CASA audit and I was asked by the CASA safety guy what "Risk Analysis" training I have. I told him my Pilots Licence. He did not accept this because it was not formal "Certificate" rated "Risk Analysis training. What a joke. Lets all go back to when DS said it was OK to get the weather from the Sydney Morning Herald!.....Its Summer, I'm just going 200nm and its fine here so it must be fine 200nm away, anyway the weather page in the paper tells me so!
This is what Industry Regulating itself means!
With less experience, more sophisticated aircraft, we are all going to regulate ourselves and fly the same types totally differently. Good safety outcome!
3 years ago I thought CASA had some redemmable features, now they have none.
We already have a situation where different operators have different SOP's for operating the same type of aeroplane.
We also have lots of dispensations, exceptions etc which allow specific operators to ignore certain rules.
very valid point bushy and in many ways it is at the foundation of many of the issues raised in some of the submissions
Whether in RPT or GA we don't need CASA to be a nanny or even a friendly partner - we just want and expect precise and consistent standards as well as a not-negotiable stance on compromising the regulatory environment.
Sadly the swag of illogical precedents, dispensations and commercially driven exemptions, - (especially some of the pollie induced concessions to overseas operators), means that Australia's "multiple choice" aviation puzzle will still be missing a few important pieces.
Knowing the way these documents are "collectively proof read" before tabling in Parliament, I doubt there will be little significant change except maybe for the appointment of a token 'review/governance board' and the revival of an 'industry consultative committee'.
After that little matter 19 years ago, and suddenly out of a job, I looked at a Govt job in CBR relating to Aircraft accidents and incidents. (only because I had four little mouths to feed) what I found was a RAAF old boys club, tempered with ex crop duster pilots who were sick of dodging power lines, and as a suddenly out of work civil line pilot, I was as welcome as a leper out of a colony. Because my brain after years in the airlines, worked in what I thought was a logical, problem solving way, I soon found out I was wrong, very wrong, you have to go by THE SYSTEM. I was a fish out of water, because like you blokes if I have to go to MEL/SYD thats how I go, right? Wrong. In the public service you go via DRW, so to speak. I soon found out they ran their cricket clubs, car clubs, apex clubs, soccer clubs out of the office, and for a confused airline bloke like myself, (having joined TAA at the grand age of 19) and knowing nothing else it was mystifying. I was soon joined by a AN skipper, who was even less popular than I was, and we had adjoining desks and we sat and looked at one another, both pushing papers around, and (sadly hoping for a prang) to get us out of there. Needless to say we both lasted about a month, and headed for OS. What I am trying to say, if you have not already guessed (and things might have changed) but you are dealing with a monster that has a life of its own, makes little sense, (and as I guess most of you are tech crew, and tend to think logically (when sober) you are really pushing it uphill, because the depts have their own little empire building, their own little cultures, and for blokes like yourselves totally mystifying behaviour. For example going in hard on some poor bloke flying a old King Air out of Bogg Creek, that happens to have a busted port nav light, but allowing the Airlines to run their own show, without to much interference, but capable of a much bigger prang than the old King Air. It was a experience that I will never understand, but helps me to cope with dealing with any Govt Dept now. Don't expect to speak to anybody that knows anything, expect to be sent to some other dept, (that don't know either) and get off the phone before you drop kick it thru the window.
Interim report stated final report would be no later than 28th Aug. Senate advised there would be a delay. Now the 12th Sept - still nothing. Is it too political or does it need to be adjusted by the 'new' senate committee?
It was announced the other day that Mike Taylor, the Secretary of the Department of Transport has been re-appointed for a further 5 years.
Given that he presided over casa for most of Byron's terms and clearly agreed with his direction and philosophy, it says little about the Government's credibility on aviation safety. It also points to a whitewash of CASA in the Senate report - because if CASA is found wanting that can only mean that Taylor must also be wanting because he did nothing to stop the rot in CASA and agreed with the partnership policy espoused by Byron as well as the virtual dismantlinmg of CASA and handing over responsibility to the industry that CASA was meant to regulate - as well as his failure to manage the reg reform program. It would be inapproaite for the Government to appoint him for a further 5 years if the Senate found all these failings in Taylor. So inevitably it will be a useless report.
So, it seems that the whole process has just been a silly little overblown exercise to replace the CEO and implement a board? Change of names to protect the guilty?
Okay, so whom of the Minister's buddies will be appointed to the new board?
All those considerate people who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry must be feeling really happy and content at present. I certainly appreciated reading their comments, even if they fell on deaf ears in Canberra.
One day CASA may achieve something productive and worthwhile with the funding it is allocated (other than being the bearer of media and public blame), despite the best intentions of the Minister du Jour, but it doesn't seem likely.
I hope there is more to the inquiry's result than Clapton's summation. There was a good opportunity for something worthwhile and it appears to have come to naught once again.
Last edited by Lodown : 12th September 2008 at 18:30.
"The committee recommends ... introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA," the committee's report said."
Yup. The new Government got their second objective - a Board to distance the Minister's butt further from the train smash. 100% success rate!
I wonder who amongst Labour's "chosen few" will get the five seats?
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends the Australian Government strengthen CASA's governance framework and administrative capability by:
introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA; and
undertaking a review of CASA's funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends, in accordance with the findings of the Hawke Taskforce, that CASA's Regulatory Reform Program be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office audit CASA's implementation and administration of its Safety Management Systems approach.
or;
Install Labor friendly faces to oversee strategic direction and oversight, throw money at it, finish the Regulatory Reform program irrespective of its present state and worth, and get the Auditors to watch what happens.
Linear Mode
