casa and "specific intelligence"

[Up-into-the-air]

Question from the Senate estimates hearing on 23rd May 2012 and Senator X and Senator DF bears reading:

Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps you could take on notice that incident that was put to me about 12 February.

Finally, Mr McCormick, given that there has been the issue of an increase in separation breakdowns and given that CASA is undertaking this comprehensive review and overview of Airservices Australia, would it be fair to say that you would understand the concern that there has been in the aviation sector and amongst the public about some of the issues relating to Airservices Australia?

Mr McCormick: Certainly, breakdown of separation, loss of separation assurance, TIBA incidents or the use of TIBA: all of these things by themselves and individually are perhaps understandable and explainable and have been in some ways justified, if not totally justified. When you put them all together, you start to form a view that there may be more to this than meets the eye. We have no specific intelligence that is leading us to go to any particular area of Airservices and say, 'This is where we think there are issues.' With our normal surveillance program, we have a robust oversight of their training schools. We are doing work in that particular area and, of course, all of these incidents together will come under the spotlight when we complete our review of Airservices.

Senator XENOPHON: If people within the organisation or who have left the organisation are prepared to come forward with information, would they be given some protection in terms of their careers and any legal immunity?

Mr McCormick: I think I have said here before that my personal view is that I protect whistleblowers regardless of whether they have protection under some sort of legislation, as far as it goes—though it is safe to say that many whistleblowers are quite often disgruntled ex-employees and sometimes the veracity of their evidence has to be tested. We do not reveal the names of people who give us information. If anyone wishes to come forward, we naturally would take their input, but we do not plan to hold public hearings because it is not an issue in which the public has much interest; it is a technical issue from our point of view at this stage.
We are happy that the level of safety is acceptable. However, there is always room for improvement. We will form our full opinion on that when we have our report—it would be premature for me to state otherwise, I think, at this stage—and still allow procedural fairness to Airservices.

OH Yeah casa [caa]

[Frank Arouet]

I protect whistleblowers

You rely on them for your day to day activities old mate. Does the phrase, "compliant organisation" or "competitors non protection" and "cronyism" ring any bells.

This is the second most unbelievable statement I've heard this week.

[thorn bird]

Frank,
As Sheldon (Big Bang) would say "BAZINGA"!!

[aroa]

who protects whom...?

CASA also protects its own staff that have been proven to have behaved in a criminal manner. They wont be 'disgruntled'!! And CASA wont give a ****e about testing the validity of their evidence either

The Senate statements reinforce SS CEO qualifications...can spruik lots of meaningless blab. Its a researched fact that "managers" are proven blatherers. Its to make others believe they know everything and thus are right for the job. Alas......

And you can rest assured the quality of the "surveillance" will be robust.

Recent ad for a CASA office wally had requirements of..Microsoft office,
drivers licence, and techo offfice environment. Que?

NOT one word about any knowledge of/or having worked with aeroplanes, GA, Regs or the Industry...because in the fine print it stated said office wally will engage in "surveillance and compliance".
Need an "investigation" into an alleged breach...bring out the (brain) dead!
Been there, had that
CASA = CAA ?
20 years ago when it was CAA, it stood for "The Cunza etc".
And we produced a small sellout run of a T shirt to advertise the fact.
Its well past time to produce another Tshirt!
Many folk out there will have ideas for a logo...eg a heap of smoking pony poo.??

[Jack Ranga]

we have a robust oversight of their training schools.

Bullsh!t........

[Frank Arouet]

See post on another thread;

The Warfies are now threatened with MSIC arbitary removal on the basis of simple "intelligence".

Never thought I would stick up for them, but it is amusing to watch the CAA functionary's in disbelief that they didn't think of it first. Would have saved them heaps of time doing what they think they know best. But they know what they think they are doing.

Did anybody see and record any reply to senate estimates committee viz Fawcett? Video Link appreciated.

[fencehopper]

CASA=CAA+ Gerry Commerford = putz

[LeadSled]

aroa,
I've got my CAA (UK) Campaign Against Aviation t-shirt, does that count???
Tootle pip!!

[Dog One]

Didn't Jack Ellis publish a book a few years ago, similar in vein to Dick Smith's Hall of Fame, which made some serious allegations against the regulator. Any one know if any thing came of the allegations?

[Sarcs]

though it is safe to say that many whistleblowers are quite often disgruntled ex-employees and sometimes the veracity of their evidence has to be tested.

This statement says it all in regards to CAA take on people who have serious concerns for the 'culture within' in regards to safety.

These (CAA) guys are not only the kings of spin but the kings of intimidation, work place bullying, harassment, subterfuge and they blatantly thumb their noses at their model litigant obligations ( see here: http://www.ruleoflawaustralia.com.au...provisions.pdf ).

To top it off they are seriously breaching the civil liberties of individual pilots and operators with a 'fit and proper person' ruling or show cause, that seems to be defined by 'skullacracy' and not the true rule of law!

Maybe it's past time that we exposed these snouts in the trough and the inept Albo's circus for what they truly are? There has to be enough story line fodda in the latest Senate Estimates to bait a respectable journo....maybe??

[aroa]

MLO...

I can assure you dear readers that the Model Litigant Obligations are a load of old bollocks. Not worth the paper they are written on. They should be abandoned as 'not to be used', ignored and unworkable.

Not much point in quoting MLO to CASA if their only response is (up yours, we have more $$s than you) to deny any liability, see you in court.

AG McClelland, since departed, gave brief voice to MLO and its non use and abuse by Govt agencies. But talk-talk was all. Nix on the action front.
New AG Ms Roxon, (prob short term anyway) ... she doesnt even answer her mail about such a tricky bit of paperwork as MLO.

Now for something new? and exciting... this week the CDDA show.!! We'll see what sort of a circus..???... this is.
From the Ombuds office.. Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration. Whoooaa !! CASA are into defective admin OK.
Comm Omb.Fact sheet #9...worth a read
Plenty of high falutin' words and intentions ...BUT does it work ??

Been dudded by the Unmentionables ?... and they havent played by even THEIR rules or the law.
Just chucked in a grenade. What chance of it going off, I wonder.?

[gobbledock]

Aagh yes the good ol whistleblower being supported by King Skull and Co?
Yeah right, that was one of the funniest things I have heard in years!
Maybe if you are blowing the lid on a two bit pony pooh outfit based in the forgotten land of the Simpson Desert. I would love to see how far a
Whistleblower would get when tipping a load on the national icon?? Exactly what I thought.
And that was an interesting comment about the job advertised at CAA. Wouldn't a job description as such contain references to safety in the PD? Certainly CAA will slap you with a NCN if they find safety critical people in your organization without 'safety' in the persons PD.
Fuc#king hypocrites.

[rutan around]

SEVERELY DISAPPOINTED

Last week I received a letter from CAA. A quick scan indicated it involved renewing current aircraft information. Apparently 2 years is all they can remember. Never mind, I thought, it's nice to receive a CAA letter which doesn't contain threats of penalties. However closer scrutiny has lead to severe disappointment. There was the threat contained in regulation 47.050, for non-compliance. Has any ppruner EVER received a CAA letter that didn't contain penalty threats? Even a Christmas party invitation?

Frank correctly advocates deleting the S for Safety from their name. I suggest also deleting the C for Civil, as I've never yet receive a civil letter from them. I think AA would be a most appropriate acronym, considering how drunk with power they are.

Cheers, RA

[Stan van de Wiel]

Whistleblower protection by J.McC

Mr McCormick: I think I have said here before that my personal view is that I protect whistleblowers regardless of whether they have protection under some sort of legislation, as far as it goes—though it is safe to say that many whistleblowers are quite often disgruntled ex-employees and sometimes the veracity of their evidence has to be tested. We do not reveal the names of people who give us information.

Dear Screaming, or should that be Mr Skull.

I am impressed by your statement to the PPrune public and the Senators, about protecting Whistleblowers.
My experience dealing with CAA and in particular in communicating with the CEO has been the opposite but maybe you have undergone some transformation in the last months. I look forward to your reopening the case of the Authorities role in the AvGas contamination Cover-up, no can't really call it re-opening as I was the party who supplied you with all the evidence which you nor any of your predecessors chose to act on. I don't think I should have given all the damning evidence, but then such is whistleblowing or commonly referred to by your organisation (pardon the pun) as CONfidential reporting, but then again we can't claim we weren't warned, the first 3 letters say it all!

Again now that you have proclaimed your support in the form of protecting Whistleblowers/CONfidential reporters, I look forward to your offer to settle my losses. But then again that was already an ORDER by the previous Minister as you may recall. I could again send you a copy should the previous half dozen have been misplac by OLC or is that LSD this month.

That implication in your most recent correspondence and that of the charming Ms Elizabeth Hampton to "Sue" if I don't like it or words to that effect appear contrary to your re-birth statements to the Senators!!

SW.

[Frank Arouet]

Stan;

CAA copies of that data would have been lost, or misplaced, or destroyed, or just plain gone into the ether. I'm sure you kept all the copy to poke them in the eye with.

Keep the faith.

[LeadSled]

Didn't Jack Ellis publish a book a few years ago,---

Dog One,
Yes, he did, no they didn't. No bodies, so no interest in the media. It was a hair raising book.
Tootle pip!!

[gobbledock]

A trio of tosspots.

Stan, not sure if you have done this yet but flick any remaining evidence you have to the Senators who are slowly applying the deserved blowtorch to the CAA. Who knows, an aviation miracle may occur and the 'axis of evil' removed indefinitely. Most of the upper echelon need retiring anyway- bad hips, false teeth, saggy balls and past the 70 years of age mark!
CAA love to use evidence, albeit some very very flimsy evidence to pursue those least expecting it.

What WE need is evidence against them. Video footage, recordings, anything at all that backs industries cries of foul. Not one individual, not ten but hundreds, we need hundreds to come forward and dump the evidence into the laps of the senators, media, all and sundry. It's time to give these Nimrods a taste of their own medicine. Strength in numbers boys, time to go for the jugular, no mercy, an all out attack by strength in numbers. These idiots need to quite simply do one thing - act in fairness, unbiased and reasonable. Industry would be quite content with that. But no, they make it personal, exceed the bounds of their role and act as executioner. Screw them, time to fight fire with fire boys.

[Stan van de Wiel]

Jack Ellis book -murder of an airline

For anyone interested, I have the original electronic copy of the book available, the pre edit version. Just PM me your details and will forward. Any voluntary payment care of Paul Phelan for a fighting fund.

The book was sent around to each and every parliamentarian in 2005. Jack consulted a lot with his local member for Flinders but usual futility.

The opening fatal accident involving Holly Smith was a preventable one, had CAA implemented my suggestion of "sequence numbers" in night circuits, this as a result of a near collision at night between a PA 31 and an unlit PA 28 on Final a year before at MB. The 2 CAA "idiots" I explained this to appeared dumbfounded at the time and off course nothing happened. This is what real safety is all about.

[Stan van de Wiel]

Coroners court

Gobbledock[QUOTE][These idiots need to quite simply do one thing - act in fairness, unbiased and reasonable. Industry would be quite content with that. But no, they make it personal, exceed the bounds of their role and act as executioner. Screw them, time to fight fire with fire boys./QUOTE]

We call them idiots but by that we are doing an injustice to real idiots. These are calculated deliberate moves by "control freaks" who in most cases have little or no understanding of aviation. Many are rejects from the industry. We should be satisfied that most of them no longer fly and in the case of F.O.I.'s they always have a capable student with them. This is the real contribution by the CA(S)A to safety. When was the last time we had a near wheels-up or belly scrape by an F.O.I.? Since reducing their flying program Safety has improved markedly.

I made an earlier reference to the Coroners enquiry into the death of Holly Smith at YMMB. There was never a mention of ATC procedures. My article to Flight Safety was declined because it referred to a certain inaction by our CAA. Yet same could have saved a life. Was the Coroner made aware of this, very unlikely for the same reasons.

Maybe the group researching Coroners inquests and lack of co-operation by CAA could look further into this matter or ring Mr Harvey !

Remember they got Al Capone for Tax Evasion!

[Sarcs]

Latest from Fearless Phelan:

Confusing, isn’t it! Polar update, June 5, 2012



A number of senators are now taking a growing interest in the ongoing legal tussle between the civil Aviation Safety Authority and Polar Aviation, and Polar’s proprietor Clark Butson. The following exchange from Hansard on May 23 may have failed to leave the senators as well informed as might have been possible:
Senator EGGLESTON: This has gone on for a very long time. There seems to be some quite serious issues about the way CASA has treated Polar Aviation which raise—quite rightly—some issues of public concern about your methodology, the way you operate in dealing with some of these small airlines.
Mr McCormick: The issue with Mr Butson and Polar is, of course, that many times his actions have been struck out by the Federal Court and he has had to file an amended statement of claim on each occasion.
Senator EGGLESTON: His actions were struck out?
Mr McCormick: That is correct.
Senator EGGLESTON: He says that you have ignored Administrative Appeal Tribunal findings, ignored court findings and sought to prolong this case deliberately to exhaust his financial reserves. He says: ‘CASA has in the past treated this matter with total contempt,’ and, ‘It is about time this nonsense stopped and that CASA was made properly accountable for their outrageous behaviour’. He has a different point of view to you, as I said at the last estimates hearings. I will pursue this matter on Mr Butson’s behalf until we get some satisfactory answers.
Mr McCormick: Certainly. But I do reject most of what Mr Butson has said. In actual fact, CASA applied to have a strike-out application in the Federal Court on January 2011. On 30 September 2011 the court struck out the FASC [further amended statement of claim] in its entirety. In summary, the court found the action as pleaded by Polar and Mr Butson either did not properly identify a known cause of action or is otherwise unsustainable.
Senator EGGLESTON: As I said, there is a huge difference of opinion about the way you have treated Polar and Polar’s view of this matter. We will continue to raise these matters in this forum until there is some satisfactory resolution.
Mr McCormick: Certainly, Senator. Mr Butson has filed a notice of appeal to that decision and it was due to be heard approximately now.
Comment
Mr McCormick is certainly right in saying Mr Butson’s understanding of these matters differs markedly from his own. Had he been briefed in closer detail, Mr McCormick might have been able to expand his clarification to cover the following points:
1. The matter began when CASA took administrative action against Polar and Clark which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside.
2. The Commonwealth AAT (unlike its State counterparts) does not have the power to order costs or other remedies other than power to set aside a decision
3. Clark and Polar commenced a proceeding against CASA for damages in the Federal Court. There was a technical issue which required a re-pleading.
4. Justice Kenny struck out the statement of claim which contained the technical issue, but allowed the current statement of claim (No 255 of 2010) to be filed.
5. Justice Kenny later struck out the second statement of claim without hearing evidence at the trial of the proceeding.
6. On granting leave to appeal, Justice Middleton said that a court should not ordinarily strike out a claim without hearing any evidence.
7. Mr McCormick stated to the Senator that the claim had been struck out “many times” but in fact it was struck out twice, and the second occasion is now sent up for appeal.
8. The Federal Court proceeding is complex and voluminous. The costs of CASA would, in the opinion of informed lawyers not involved in the case, far exceed the figure given by Mr McCormick to the Senate.
9. The reasons published by Justice Kenny (which is before the Full Court on Appeal…decision reserved) appear on the Federal Court records. In essence:
10. The first appeal ground states that the learned judge erred in holding that the claim against CASA in negligence had no reasonable prospect of success.
11. The second appeal ground states, among other things, that the learned judge erred in holding that CASA owed no duty of care to Clark and Polar.
12. The process of discovery of documents has not been completed. The matter is much more complex than Mr McCormick’s statement would suggest.
THE LEGAL ISSUE
The primary question is where to draw the line between the duty of a statutory authority which exercises its powers and the common-law rights of the citizen.
One side of the argument is that where a public authority exercises its statutory powers, a potential conflict could arise between the carrying out of the public duty, and acting defensively for fear of an action in negligence being brought.
The other side of the argument is that an improper exercise of statutory powers may unnecessarily cause economic harm to persons subjected to the exercise of power
The High Court in Kirkland-Veestra put it this way:
“Evaluation of the relationship between the holder of the power and the person or persons to whom it is said that a duty of care is owed will require examination of the degree and nature of control exercised over the risk of harm that has eventuated, the degree of vulnerability of those who depend on the proper exercise of the relevant power, and the consistency or otherwise of the asserted duty of care with the terms, scope and purpose of the relevant statute. Other considerations may be relevant”
Senator Eggleston also queried a previous CASA response to the question of its total expenditure on the case; a figure totalling $65,305 in legal fees since the audit that started this chain of events on 14 May 2 006.
The Senator asked (on notice) how much CASA and the Commonwealth spent with International law firm Blake Dawson, the total cost of legal expenses including all internal and external inputs with respect to legal representation in or out of court, all legal costs engaged to represent CASA in this matter, and what part Commsec has played to date and at what cost. observers believe that those costs are likely to exceed $65,305 by “an appreciable margin.”

I think that this coupled with the Hempel inquest could inflict some mortal wounds to Fort Fumble and Albo's circus...damn where's a good investigative journo when you need one!

ps No offense PP and a carton of Crownies to you and Butson!

pps ...and Sen Eggleston, Sen X and Sen Fawcett