You totally miss the point. What purpose would you achieve by comparing Byron's performance to previous Directors?
Byron was paid more than the PM to achieve certain outcomes within reasonable time periods. Reference to his statements in Hansard, it is obvious he considered he was capable of achieving those outcomes.
Any amount of excuses or “mitigating factors” does not change the fact he failed to achieve his own objectives or achieve the mandates he was given when he accepted the position.
There is no “gray scale” in his executive role as Director - by any measure of performance, he failed and in the process cost Australia over $100 million in failed regulatory reform alone.
Your statement “His successor at least has a better start than B1 did” is also not correct. The next CASA Director probably has a far more difficult task achieving those objectives, than that faced by either Toller or Byron.
One would hope that this time the Minister will appoint a capable, competent, accountable and professional administrator.
Based on the Minister’s pathetic performance to date, I am not confident this will occur.
There has been considerably more than $100 Million wasted on the regulatory reform process, this was a white elephant long before Byron came along.
Air Ace,
If I was in Byron shoes:
1) Cut away some culturally challenged dead wood, he did this, perhaps should have done more, perhaps should have done less.
2) Try a completely new approach in a number of area's, for example mend some bridges with Industry, he tried this, incidently a vast number of the submissions to the senate dated before his time.
3) Take that fat pay cheque knowing that in time I would be the scape goat for what ever perceived evil has occured, unless CASA grounds all aircraft there is bound to be an accident and that is bound to bear a new crusader to the media. ( not many speak high of those before him - Toller / Smith, why should he expect this be any different ?).
“mitigating factors”, did you try to get involved with the NPRM process ?, I did, what a waste of time that was, went to them with several suggestions, in writing, these never saw the light of days as this individual did not like my suggestions.
So IMHO many within the process of regulatory reform process have been sabotaging the process, no suprises there really.
Byron actually got the industry together and asked questions, then stuff me if he didn't actually listen to our answers, that was a very positive approach.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower : 23rd September 2008 at 05:36.
Reason: tailwheel gave me a spanking, and i liked it.
Ok so the enquiry achieved nothing for the industry. Next challenge will be the raft of Regulatory Reforms that will be rushed through in the form that was deemed "totally unacceptable" by the industry. I'll take money on it.
Dusted off a copy of the NRPM for 121b the other day 2003 variety. Now wasn't that a coincidence?. BB appointed.
What CASA does not need is an administrator at the helm!!!!
Absolutely nothing will get done.
The good people who are left at CASA will go and no one with talent will look at CASA for employment because they know their voice will not be heard!
The person at the helm needs wide based industry knowledge so meaningless directives and regulations and the Act itself does not become even more pointless than they are. He/she needs to know the industry very well for CASA to function, the second in command needs to be the administrator and held accountable to the director (CEO - whatever).
Just look at the mess aviation security is now in with the various directives with no knowledge of life committing aviation on a daily basis.
If a professional administrator was at the helm, aviation would grind to a halt faster than it is currently.
A professional administrator would hide behind the office of legal council and not have the balls to tell them that something is not possible and their is better way to stay safe.
If you bench mark Byron against almost any other head of Department in Canberra he comes up a very poor second place. In his defence he was left a pile of Poo by the pretender Toller.
CASA needs a well qualified CEO, a leader who is not afraid of change and who can motivate a cynical and bitter middle management that has struggled for years, under resourced in critical areas ( not bodies ) tools to do the job.
A clear set of regulations to work to and legal backing that does act as a model litigant when it is necessary to go beyond the warning stage.
I would not call Toller a pretender either, he was given the same turd sandwich as Byron.
Next comes pointing the bone at Smith, I believe Mr Smith was the last man that could have got the job done, he is very savvy when it comes to "co-ordinating Ministers" ( read strong arming in the media ). I believe his was the greatest opportunity lost.
Left Hand, If either Toller or Byron were really CEO material they would have seen the Turd sandwich as you so colourfully put the situation inside CASA and then being smart CEO qualified material they would have run a mile.
But THEY DIDN'T which really shows the lack of depth and experience they both had and in the case of Byron still has today.
Smith, different animal he Chaired the Board that oversaw CASA which is a Governance role not an executive position. There can be no comparison.
LHRT Just how is NAS attributable to failures in the management of CASA ??? apart from NAS being a part of the aviation landscape which was open to commentary by Uncle Tom Cobley and all, I fail to see the connection.
Happy to agree to disagree, the gentlemans debate.
I just think Aviation deserves better than misguided time servers, in a world where technology is making Aviation safer and air travel is an established part of everyday life we need good leaders who can cope with the rigours of Change Management and progress entrenched negative thinking into the bright new world of risk based regulation AKA the U.S. FAA.
I agree with your statments regarding change management, that is where I believe the greatest challenges lay, humans generally resist change.
IMHO the problems with the legislative framework are in essence minor, but due to so many half hearted stabs at fixing the problem ( rulings, exemptions etc etc ), without consulting the industry ( far too much reliance on OLC's tea leaf and Tarot card readings in my opinion, i.e WTF is interposed travel, have not seen that in the regs, what is a fixed terminal, we all know what it was twenty years ago, but you know, things change ? ).
The Senate hit the nail on the head stating the "Industry" does not know which way is up when dealing with some challenged individuals within CASA ( incidently there are many many great persons also within the organisation who are no doubt as frustrated as the rest of us ).
Having dealt a little with the FAR/AIM, would have to say I'm suitably impressed, for one no more ammendment.
Personal note: I am so sick a tired of writing or reading about these regs, still no relevant change/progress.
Anyone thinking of taking a Chief Pilot position for a Charter or RPT organisation think carefully, in the current environment it can be a soul destroying.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower : 24th September 2008 at 06:01.
I believe Mr Smith was the last man that could have got the job done, he is very savvy when it comes to "co-ordinating Ministers" (read strong arming in the media). I believe his was the greatest opportunity lost.
Let’s look at the facts. After Mick Toller had been employed at CASA for six months I decided that he was not the reformer he claimed to be. During his job interview, he made out that Australia was the “Galapagos” in aviation(with its many unique and expensive rules) and that he was a real reformer. Months after taking the job, Mick Toller appeared to change his mind. Of course this could have been because he got a clear message from the Department that the Minister was anti-change, and therefore he would get no support.
I only accepted the position as Chairman because I wanted to oversee important change. Because of this, I made it clear that I had lost confidence in Mick Toller, and I wanted to appoint a “change” CEO. I had Board support for this, but when I went to the Minister (John Anderson) he was totally opposed to Mick Toller going. After all, Mick was strongly supported by Qantas and Ansett.
I made it clear to Minister Anderson that I would never remain as Chairman of CASA – and therefore be held accountable – if I did not have the authority to appoint people I had confidence in. I said Mick Toller must go, and we must appoint a person who will support change. I said that if Mick Toller was not going, I would.
John Anderson, being a minimalist, said I should bury the hatchet and remain. He missed the point. I always liked Mick Toller as a person – it was just obvious to me that he was not going to make the changes that were necessary. I realised that I would have another four years of frustration with no change at all, and merely being a figurehead. I had no intention of doing this. I resigned, and I’m glad I did.
One day we may get a Minister who will support reform – let’s hope it is before a major accident. Then we will be able to concentrate on finishing the reform process to remove the enormous number of unnecessary costs that completely strangle an industry that could be successful. When this happens, I may be available to assist – however I may be doing something else, or into the onset of dementia!
Last edited by Dick Smith : 24th September 2008 at 03:59.
I am not convinced Australian Aviation needs "to be reformed", much of the current legislation is cast in blood,,,,,, it works.
Wasn't the CAA reformed into the CASA, what form will this mystical confused creature take next ?.
Fix the current legislation, eg:
Is dingo baiting an "aerial ag operation" or just run of the mill "airwork", simple answer I would suggest ( in contradiction to CAR 2 ), but due to incomplete legislation it went to the big man ( Toller from memory ) for ruling, then, HERE, then uh oh, changed again, even more uncertainty.
Dick, if you would indulge me, why was NAS so high on the agenda, when the base legislation was in dire need of repair ?, thanks in advance.
Max, you are 100% correct however one person can only do so much.
Behind the scenes I have being doing everything I can about the airport situation and lots of other things.
However as stated on another thread, with Mike Taylor being renewed as transport head for another 5 years, I think we are doomed. Look at what he has presided over for the last 4 years. And remember during that time lots in the industry have attacked me and no one has criticised Taylor!
John Anderson was a disaster because he was completely under the control of the Department with no vision or policy of his own.
I have the time and ability to reverse the situation however to be successful I have to have the support of like minded people who are prepared to stand up and take flack from the very people they are trying to help.
It was the Transport Department bureaucrats who set the policy in train for our airports to be sold off however they are never identified or held accountable.
Have you ever seen Mike Taylor give an interview on what his vision is for Australian aviation? No - and you probably never will , because his training is in Agriculture and his knowledge of the real effects of the airport sell off would be virtually nil.
* Transporting passengers or cargo;
* For hire and reward;
* In accordance with fixed schedules;
* From fixed terminals;
* Over specified routes;
Sounds like scenic (joyflight) operations conducted across OZ. I believe that a joyflight operator in SE Qld was notified by a FOI that their operation was a RPT operation and would have bring their operation up to that level.
The coral sea airlines case concluded that a flight that was planned for the following day was in fact a scheduled flight, and the route as defined by the flight plan made it a "fixed route". No-one knows what a "fixed terminal" is.
This made it RPT.
Nearly every charter flight in Australia operates this way, but if they prosecuted everyone who did it there would be chaos and ridicule. They use it to put companies out of business when they want to. Selected cases.
This should be better defined. The uncertainty it causes is one of the reasons for the decline of GA. (maybe that is what they want)
Let's cut the thread drift, shall we?
Tidbinbilla
Linear Mode
