A bit too busy earning a living at the momen to take in the detail. Can someone like Creampuff give me a quick analysis about who won and who lost and how aviation safety in Australia will be improved as a result of this inquiry?
1) The winner? The Rudd government by foisting an overwhelming 'whitewash' on the Australian public.
2) The loser? The Australian aviation industry and Australian public.
3) Safety enhancements? Absolutely 5/8ths of the square root of fcuk-all by the looks of things while the present idiot minister remains the minister, and the present idiot Secretary of the Department serves out his new term of appointment as Secretary.
There's an old saying Frank which says that no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still going to be a pig. What more can I say?
About what you would expect from an inquiry on short notice and only 3 days for hearings. Only 3 recommendations but many "you may need to look at''s.
1. Appoint a board - some merit, but depends on the quality. What we don't want is Labour hacks appointed for reward for services rendered.
2. Review funding - more costs to the industry on the user pays principle? to support a massive bureaucracy and enhance the lifestyle of the ineffective?.
3. Regulatory Reform Program to be pushed through - open slather to put up the same flawed and over prescriptive rules that the industry objected to, but CASA seem unable to acknowledge, but then again the Legislative Drafting is a lot of the problem
4. Audit by the National Audit office of CASA's SMS - a bureaurcratic response to a complete stuffup - 'Yes Minister' stuff.
The focus on the NQ CASA office is interesting, although CASA seems to think they've solved the problem already. There should be some restriction on appointing FOI's. AWI's and Area Managers to areas where they had previously been involved in the industry.
The potential for conflict of interest and pushing personal agendas' was not acknowledged by the committee, although strongly suggested in many of the submissions by those who were game enough to speak up i.e. those not subject to CASA oversight. Most disappointing.
How CASA let Qantas off the safety hook
Ben Sandilands writes:
The report of the Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA is not typical of the genre.
It is comparatively short, lucid and lethal about the poor state of the air safety regulator’s management under CEO Bruce Byron if read line by line.
Read in conjunction with what is known about the CASA special audit of Qantas, a dismal picture of the regulator’s capacity to regulate and the airline’s ability to maintain its fleet emerges.
Let’s summarise the key disclosures:
CASA totally failed to identify and act on deteriorating maintenance standards at Qantas during Byron’s tenure, which started in 2003 and ends this November up until it called for a special but commercial-in-confidence audit in August, weeks after the Senate inquiry had concluded.
In his evidence and tendered documents Byron sought to redefine CASA’s role from being an enforcer of the air safety laws to that of a co-operative mentoring industry partner urging the airlines to deliver safety outcomes on its behalf.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.
The Senate committee choked over the "naivety" of anyone seriously expecting CASA to actually perform its legislated obligations, especially in relation to Qantas, and criticised Mick Quinn, the deputy CEO of operations at CASA for being somewhat blasé about the spate of maintenance issues at the airline.
Its report discloses significant concerns by the airlines over CASA’s conduct under Byron, yet also documents their desire for the hand’s off approach to regulatory compliance to continue, as expressed in the hearings and submissions taken week’s before the failure of this policy in relation to Qantas was revealed.
The Virgin Blue position could be summarised as supporting the committee’s recommendation for a board to be appointed to oversee CASA yet maintain its role as the ‘industry facing organisation’ that proved so useless in relation to Qantas.
The sanitisation of the Senate report has already started with a press release from the self-styled ‘independent’ Safeskies communications fostering body which is part funded by CASA.
Safeskies claims that Australia has no option under its participation in the International Civil Aviation Organisation to "go back" to the "days of antediluvian aviation regulation".
This is a completely false representation of Australia’s ICAO obligations, as is its claim that the Senate has ‘endorsed’ the direction of CASA’s reforms.
Safeskies hasn’t responded to an invitation to withdraw the press release on the grounds that it isn’t supported by the actual report.
Jim, I don't know if there is any other way to reset the CASA's goals without some sort of public show. That's the CASA's lot. They're adults and they can live with it. The execs are paid the big bucks in part to cop it on the chin through Parlimentary privelege or not. Pay me the same amount and I'll stand up and waffle on with some management doublespeak about realignments, restructures and co-operative partnership male bovine excrement in front of politicians. Byron is the guy in charge. He set the direction. Yes, the previous ministers should wear a substantial amount of blame, but Byron is the guy in charge. Why is he the CEO if he can't handle responsibility and blame? Ultimately, if he didn't agree with Ministerial directions, then he should have resigned. What you're stating is similar to agreeing with the pilot who after flying a plane into a hill in cloud blamed the company manager for making him do it.
The Labor Party would be accused of petty vindictiveness if it went after the previous Ministers, and what would it achieve anyway? It would certainly give the green light to subsequent retaliatory accusations for the next Minister or party in power.
If anything, this inquiry has been nothing more than a slap on the wrist to the CASA. It got off very lightly. Too lightly in my mind.
Quote:
In his evidence and tendered documents Byron sought to redefine CASA’s role from being an enforcer of the air safety laws to that of a co-operative mentoring industry partner urging the airlines to deliver safety outcomes on its behalf.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.
I think Byron's mindset is flawed and naive. It's a concillatory cop-out of convenience. If the CASA is redefined from an enforcer of the air safety laws to a co-operative mentoring partner, then take it to its logical conclusion over time. Companies will see the CASA as an expense and argue it can do the same comfortably on its own. The CASA is becoming nothing more than a rubberstamp to its major "customers": a third-party authentication of a certain expectation of standards, where the "customer" can unduly influence the expectations. The trouble with this philosophy is that through an industry partnership, many of these standards appear to be for very specific commercial expediance rather than serious risk mitigation and generic industry benefit.
I think what the inquiry has completely missed is an opportunity to recommend a framework to strengthen the CASA to be a sound regulator. I would like to think it encourages a change of direction reasonably soon, otherwise we'll be going through this entire process again in a few years.
The CASA not only needs to enforce the laws so that the travelling public have faith in Australia's aviation industry, but it needs to greatly improve on encouraging new laws and law changes to remove outdated obstacles to modern commercial operations and equipment. By striving to be a partner in safety, the CASA has achieved prominance instead by becoming a huge promoter of the status quo, a hindrance to commercial innovation and a huge roadblock to further competitiveness and industry evolution.
Byron has tried to palm-off his partnership program as a way of improving safety. What rubbish! The partnership program has been nothing more than a means of maintaining paperwork and a ministerial reporting structure when the organisation has been gutted by continuous budget cuts and a greedy executive body focussed on year-end bonuses.
Last edited by Lodown : 19th September 2008 at 21:08.
Having dealt with Mr Byron, I would say he's executed his job pretty well, with the tools he was given.
Government has changed many thing for the worse, the most notable of all these is the "user pays system", so Byron picked up the ball he was given and ran with it as best he could ( even though there were various malignant cultures with the organisation, under funded, still with the same shitty base legislation ).
I believe Mr Sandilands is just another douche bag trying to make a name for himself by publishing more of the fanatical misinformation to scare the public into reading his writings, IMHO there is nothing intelligent in his writings.
Do we remember why the CASA board was disbanded, because it was the opinion of the government of the time that it was a failure, why else would they disband it ?.
Whilst I am far from an expert, all this humbug about rewriting the legilsation IMHO is a complete waste of time and money, we do not need to re-invent the wheel, the base legilsation is quite recoverable, it just need to be corrected, to fix the problems that many here are quite aware of.
MOS ( manual of standards ) - we need correction of these documents ( if not a complete removal of ), these documents often vary considerably from the legislated requirements, add to this equation an officious weaner that happens to slipped through the "HR" process as an FOI or AWI and you have a very unhappy region, refer the noting of the FNQ region by the Senate.
On that note, in most part I thought the FNQ culture had changed considerably for the better from say, 2003 ?.
I do not care if people disagree, but I believe Byron did a reasonable job, Government gave him two slices of bread and a turd, and they are suprised they are not having Roast Lamb for dinner ?.
So if Byron is so capable and was "set up", who is responsible for five years and $100 million of regulatory reform going no-where???
After all, in February 2005 he stated:
Quote:
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.
Obviously his plan to have a plan was not well planned??
The buck - infact, far too many bucks - stopped with Byron, who failed to achieve. A poor taxpayer investment!
The regulatory reform fiasco is merely one example of a Director setting low CASA standards, which he failed to achieve. The Senate Report is a litany of management failures for which the Minister must accept responsibility.
"...raised incompetence to a new level..." I would have thought "..hit rock bottom and continued to dig..." would be a more appropriate expression.
But, primary responsible for the CASA train smash is vested in a succession of incompetent Ministers. When will Government appoint a competent Administrator to manage CASA, rather than semi retired airline or air force pilots???? It would also help if the Administrator lived in Canberra and at least went to work each day.
Raised to a new level, or hit rock bottom, really both saying the same thing.
Byron presided as a Board member and then as CEO over one of the most disgraceful exhibitions of a Regulator out of control allowing its staff aided and abetted by internal legal support to act in absolute disdain for established legal principles as espoused by the Government Policy of being a model litigant.
Byron's stewardship goes beyond the period as CEO when he was the "Safety" expert in the board structure and ulimately allowed such disasters as Lockhart River whilst off on crusades against legitimte operators who to this day have not had an incident and are collectively (those still in the industry ) 100% in front of the "swiss cheese".
Operating from his home in Melbourne with the occasional appearance at the Castle in Canberra and never to be seen at the "coal face" was always going to be a challenge for a skillful CEO , but it was never viable for a CEO on trainer wheels.
Australia is just really lucky our major carriers as a group have maintained a viable safety mindset and we have not lost a wide body aircraft.
I thought Byron's biggest crime was allegedly to try to root out all the has-been ex airline/airforce pilots & engineers from their cozy pre-retirement jobs and replace them with people who understood safety.
If Byron had actually done that, root out the incompetents, CASA would be a different place.
Facts are however , the same faces appear, some on contract, and the Office of Legal Counsel is still the same bunch despite its leader getting his marching orders.
The machinations of the working bureacracy stifle any real change, CASA needs a real leader who understands the concept of unbundling bureacratic coverup and is prepared to make sweeping changes and bring in new "blood" who can understand how to apply effective regulation to a diverse and geographically spread Industry.
Public Safety must be the primary focus of the regulator, not nit picking audits on Engineers paper work, a great change would be to monitor the actual work being done, and maybe accept paperwork stained by oil from working hands.
Listen to the pilots and engineers who fly and maintain the fleet daily, apply the general wisdom and regulate for the safest outcome.
Remove the Office of Legal Counsel and concentrate legal work with Attourney Generals Dept and the Government Solicitor.
I thought Byron's biggest crime was allegedly to try to root out all the has-been ex airline/airforce pilots & engineers from their cozy pre-retirement jobs and replace them with people who understood safety.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has replaced all the old fashioned regulators with "touchy feely safety specialists" who have no experience from the University of Life.
North Queensland Office
2.77 The committee was concerned to hear evidence from a number of operators expressing concern about CASA staff forging unduly close relationships with some members of the industry and pursuing personal agendas against others.81 In particular,the committee received evidence which was openly critical of CASA’s North Queensland office. Witnesses before the committee told the committee of the North Queensland office’s reputation for ’turning a blind eye to the cowboys who operate up there and also some pretty ordinary behaviour of the offices themselves.’ 82
2.78 While the committee received very little first hand evidence regarding the North Queensland office, the committee was concerned that there appears to be a widely held perception that staff in CASA’s North Queensland office do not deal with all members of the industry fairly and do not apply regulations consistently.
2.79 The committee was keen to discuss this perception with CASA and
understand the steps being taken to address it. Mr Byron told the committee that there have been a number of reviews and investigations of the North Queensland office. He said:
------------“evidence” “concern” “persuing personal agendas” “evidence” “critical of North Queensland office” “witnesses” “turning a blind eye” “cowboys” “ordinary behaviour” ”while the committee received very little first hand evidence” ”concerned” “perception” “office does not deal with all members of the industry fairly” “do not apply regulations consistently” “number of reviews” “perception” ----------
Very little first hand evidence? How much does the committee need to establish there is entrenched systemic abuses of power as summed up in the text? Exactly what do you have to do to get the full force of the law brought down upon you for criminal perversion?
Save for those few who do the right thing, the whole organization is flyblown, cancerous, brain dead and needs a complete purge, not reviews.
But, primary responsible for the CASA train smash is vested in a succession of incompetent Ministers. When will Government appoint a competent Administrator to manage CASA, rather than semi retired airline or air force pilots???? It would also help if the Administrator lived in Canberra and at least went to work each day.
Well said.
Problem is that Albanses is now just as bad.
The fact that he re-appointed Taylor for 5 years shows how incompetent he is and can't see (or doesn't care) that Taylor must ulimately also share total blame for Byron's failings because the Secretary is meant to properly oversee the operations and policies dreamt up by Byron (which is why the Act was changed in 2003 to give the Secretary proper powers of oversight). Taylor knew exactly what was going on - and what was not going on eg regulatory reform, partnership policy, allowing now to come to work - and stood by and let it all happen. As a reward he gets re-appointed for 5 years. Shows just how out of touch Albanese is - I suspect that he will be just as bad as Anderson. Nothing will change. Regulatory reform will drag on forever - or at least until there is a a major airline accident.
It's a pity, because the Senate inquiry achieved nothing - it was a squandered opportunity. There's no doubt that Albanese and Taylor stepped in to sanitise the final report - hence the intractable delay in its release.
Not one of the Byron supporters attempted to justify over $100 million wasted on regulatory reform during the Byron era, for virtually no outcome! Then there is the litany of systemic failure within CASA during the period 2003 - 2008, identified in the Senate Report.
Anthony Albanese MP, Federal Member for Grayndler, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; Leader of the House. Another Clayton's Minister for Transport, in the same mold as his predecessors over the past decade or so!
I wait with great interest to see how transparent the process will be appointing the next Director and the new Board!
Torres, whilst i do not disagree with the meaning of your message, if Byron didn't take the post in 2003, who ever it was would have still wasted $100 million on reform.
I do not believe the outcome could have been any different, in many respects the CEO is a ministerial puppet, which then evolves into fall guy.
Torres, perhaps you gave forgotten the spate of "resignations and retirements" in CASA FNQ ~2003, that did not happen by accident.
Considering the tools Byron was given, I believe he did an OK job.
Government is to be blamed for the perception of wasted money and opportunity.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower : 23rd September 2008 at 05:50.
Reason: more goodera spelling
Considering the tools Byron was given, I believe he did an OK job.
Byron was paid more than the PM to actually achieve results - including the regulatory reform program. Instead, after 5 years he achived nothing except issue meaningless directives that no one could comprehend in an effort to delay making any decisions. His interminable system of committee after committee in order to placate warring factions was just an expedient ploy to avoid taking any hard decisions. While this may have been smart on his part (because it meant that no one would criticise him for not giving them what they wanted) , it demonstated his complete lack of management skills.
And that is the real problem. Byron was appointed to the position without ANY experience in managing a large organisation- and most of his jobs were at junior levels. He had no ability as a CEO and no proper experience or training - forget his military backround - he was just not equipped for the job.
And duirng all this time where was Taylor who was meant to be overseeing the Regulatory reform program. Obviously in bed with Byron instead of ensuring the results were achieved - after all the ultimate resonsibility for the regulatory program rests with the Minister who advises the Governor-general to make the regulations. But successive Ministers and Secretaries have failed miserably in this regard allowing Byron to procrastinate and delay to such a point that he can walk away after 5 years without any accountability for his failure whatsoever. It would have help had he actually come to work from time to time and took a proper interest in the job.
Unfortunately with Taylor and Albanese at the helm we can be guaranteed that nothing of any significance will be achieved during the next 5 years - except a huge bill for the taxpayer.
The fact that more than $100 million has been wasted on a reform program that delivered nothing but flummery and obsfucation is testament to a total lack of any form of rational accountability.
Committee after Committee examined ways to change ,without ever really considering the actual change mechanism, "Positive Decision Making" this from the regulator of an Industry where "Positive Decision Making" skills are an inherent essential part of day to day operational necessity.
CASA is captive to the worst forms of bureacracy , that is the type of bureacracy that becomes unaccountable through process control and lack of personal discipline in decision making by those who day to day are charged with the active role of enforcement.
Byron entrenched this by showing a complete lack of up front management and total lack of "lead from the front" management ability.
Maybe a good Flight Leiutenant, but never qualified to be a CEO.
Linear Mode
