“Safety of Air Navigation as the Most Important Consideration” - Mark Skidmore
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was sure I had seen the word accountable somewhere in the CAsA documents. There is of course an 'opt out clause'
From the Flight Examiners Handbook.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Flight Examiner Handbook
Director of Aviation Safety Preface
Foreword
As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that its decision-making processes are effective, fair, timely, transparent, consistent, properly documented and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.
This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.
Mandatory Use of Policy and Procedure Manuals
This manual is one of the set of manuals and other documents which comprise CASA’s authorised document set. The authorised document set contains the policy, processes and procedures with which CASA personnel are expected to comply when performing assigned tasks. All CASA personnel are required to have regard to the policies set out in this manual. Except as described in the Introduction, CASA decision-makers should not depart from these policies, processes and procedures.
Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety
Introduction
Regulatory Decision Making
Where the legislation provides for one, and only one decision—the “correct” decision—is the only decision open to CASA. However, most of the decisions CASA makes involve the exercise of discretion. In such cases, there may well be more than one acceptable or correct decision. In these cases, the law requires that CASA makes the “preferable” decision, that is, the most appropriate decision, having regard to the overriding interests of safety and the obligation to be fair.
In all such cases, CASA is bound to act in accordance with the applicable rules of administrative law. These rules govern how CASA arrives at the ‘preferable’ decision in any given case. Adherence to these rules is a requirement, not an option. Decisions and actions taken in contravention of these rules are unlawful, unenforceable, and in most cases invalid. CASA is legally accountable for the decisions it makes, and CASA decision-makers are obliged to avoid the appearance, as much as the reality, of unlawful decision-making.
Sound and lawful regulatory decision-making is generally governed by the 10 rules of administrative law summarised below. Adherence to these rules is essential to CASA’s obligations of accountability and good governance.
1. Natural Justice (Procedural Fairness)
• Hearing Rule. Persons affected by CASA’s decisions have a right to be heard. To be meaningful, the hearing rule normally requires that CASA provides persons with notice (usually in advance) that a particular decision is going to be taken, and the reasons for the decision CASA proposes to take. Without notice and a statement of reasons, there may be little point to providing a person with an opportunity to be heard.
• Rule Against Bias. Decision-makers should not have a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of their decisions. Neither may decision-makers prejudge (or pre-determine) matters in respect of which they are called upon to make a decision.
2. A decision-maker must not act for improper purposes. Even if the purposes for which a particular decision are lawful, the decision may only be taken for the purposes specifically authorised by the law under which the decision has been taken.
3. A decision-maker must not take any irrelevant considerations into account in coming to a decision.
4. A decision-maker must take all relevant considerations into account in coming to a decision.
Note: Applicable Policy is Always a Relevant Consideration.
5. A decision-maker must act on the basis of evidence, not mere supposition or speculation.
6. A decision-maker must not formulate requirements in vague or uncertain terms.
7. A decision-maker must not inflexibly apply policy (although departures from policy will normally need to be justified).
8. A decision-maker must not act under dictation (although this does not preclude adherence to formal directions, compliance with lawful conditions in relation to the process by which a decision is taken or the obligation to consult in the process of considering a decision).
9. A decision-maker must decide the matter within a reasonable time.
10. A decision maker must not act in a way that is manifestly unreasonable. A decision must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable person would make such a decision.
From the Flight Examiners Handbook.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Flight Examiner Handbook
Director of Aviation Safety Preface
Foreword
As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that its decision-making processes are effective, fair, timely, transparent, consistent, properly documented and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.
This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.
Mandatory Use of Policy and Procedure Manuals
This manual is one of the set of manuals and other documents which comprise CASA’s authorised document set. The authorised document set contains the policy, processes and procedures with which CASA personnel are expected to comply when performing assigned tasks. All CASA personnel are required to have regard to the policies set out in this manual. Except as described in the Introduction, CASA decision-makers should not depart from these policies, processes and procedures.
Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety
Introduction
Regulatory Decision Making
Where the legislation provides for one, and only one decision—the “correct” decision—is the only decision open to CASA. However, most of the decisions CASA makes involve the exercise of discretion. In such cases, there may well be more than one acceptable or correct decision. In these cases, the law requires that CASA makes the “preferable” decision, that is, the most appropriate decision, having regard to the overriding interests of safety and the obligation to be fair.
In all such cases, CASA is bound to act in accordance with the applicable rules of administrative law. These rules govern how CASA arrives at the ‘preferable’ decision in any given case. Adherence to these rules is a requirement, not an option. Decisions and actions taken in contravention of these rules are unlawful, unenforceable, and in most cases invalid. CASA is legally accountable for the decisions it makes, and CASA decision-makers are obliged to avoid the appearance, as much as the reality, of unlawful decision-making.
Sound and lawful regulatory decision-making is generally governed by the 10 rules of administrative law summarised below. Adherence to these rules is essential to CASA’s obligations of accountability and good governance.
1. Natural Justice (Procedural Fairness)
• Hearing Rule. Persons affected by CASA’s decisions have a right to be heard. To be meaningful, the hearing rule normally requires that CASA provides persons with notice (usually in advance) that a particular decision is going to be taken, and the reasons for the decision CASA proposes to take. Without notice and a statement of reasons, there may be little point to providing a person with an opportunity to be heard.
• Rule Against Bias. Decision-makers should not have a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of their decisions. Neither may decision-makers prejudge (or pre-determine) matters in respect of which they are called upon to make a decision.
2. A decision-maker must not act for improper purposes. Even if the purposes for which a particular decision are lawful, the decision may only be taken for the purposes specifically authorised by the law under which the decision has been taken.
3. A decision-maker must not take any irrelevant considerations into account in coming to a decision.
4. A decision-maker must take all relevant considerations into account in coming to a decision.
Note: Applicable Policy is Always a Relevant Consideration.
5. A decision-maker must act on the basis of evidence, not mere supposition or speculation.
6. A decision-maker must not formulate requirements in vague or uncertain terms.
7. A decision-maker must not inflexibly apply policy (although departures from policy will normally need to be justified).
8. A decision-maker must not act under dictation (although this does not preclude adherence to formal directions, compliance with lawful conditions in relation to the process by which a decision is taken or the obligation to consult in the process of considering a decision).
9. A decision-maker must decide the matter within a reasonable time.
10. A decision maker must not act in a way that is manifestly unreasonable. A decision must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable person would make such a decision.
Yes it does:
These principles will guide CASA in all our dealings with the aviation community. CASA has a responsibility to communicate clearly, simply and effectively. If the aviation community does not understand CASA’s safety requirements we will not get the right safety outcomes. When CASA makes changes or takes decisions and actions we must consider the financial impact on both the aviation community and CASA and seek to keep it as low as possible-without of course compromising the achievement of optimal safety outcomes. While we are bound by legal requirements in the way CASA's legislation is developed and presented, we must do our very best to minimise complexity and provide clear explanations of what we require that are free of jargon and confusing language. Finally, CASA must be consistent in its decision making and actions. It is not acceptable for different areas within CASA to present different views on the same issues to the aviation community.
These principles will guide CASA in all our dealings with the aviation community. CASA has a responsibility to communicate clearly, simply and effectively. If the aviation community does not understand CASA’s safety requirements we will not get the right safety outcomes. When CASA makes changes or takes decisions and actions we must consider the financial impact on both the aviation community and CASA and seek to keep it as low as possible-without of course compromising the achievement of optimal safety outcomes. While we are bound by legal requirements in the way CASA's legislation is developed and presented, we must do our very best to minimise complexity and provide clear explanations of what we require that are free of jargon and confusing language. Finally, CASA must be consistent in its decision making and actions. It is not acceptable for different areas within CASA to present different views on the same issues to the aviation community.
From an HS125 to a Cessna 185, I don't think there is much DCA/CAA/CASA haven't pranged over the years. The fact CASA no longer have a Flying Unit, is probably a large plus for Australian air safety.
In (I think) 1966, DCA accounted for over 50% of the accidents that year, with credit for about 100% of the major accidents. As well as the DH 125 there was the NSW C-310 on its guts for the second time, a Musketeer wrecked on takeoff at YSBK (very interesting story), an F-27 dead stick'd into Mudgee ( shut down the wrong engine), and at least several more, the details of which do not immediately come to mind.
Remembering ( Wot!! No checklist??) to extend the gear seemed to be a major DCA problem, Dove at Camden, DH 125 Avalon, C-310 Lismore ( in front of an airshow crowd) and ?, G-1000 twice in WA. AC 560E, NT? Most of us from that time will remember Bill Lord flying into a glider cable with the NSW Region Bonanza.
Interestingly, the G-1000 above is still flying in US, the current owner was most interested to learn the "history" of the aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Two Dogs, arm out the window,
As apologists for CASA, maybe you don't want to understand the shortcomings of the Act, well canvasses on pprune, which, without amendment, will means nothing of significance will change.
The shortcomings are well know, up to and including Ministerial level, I discussed them with Laurie Brereton, when he was Minister for Transport. Every responsible Minister since (except Truss) has solemnly promised to amend S3A and S.9 of the Act, none have.
In short, the bureaucrats have had a complete stranglehold, and as Creampuff has pointed out, time and again, the present situation suits the politicians, the damage to Australian aviation runs a very poor last to political survival.
As to hundreds and thousands of pages of CASA "policy", the law (and the attitude of "certain" CASA employees) trumps policy, every time - particularly in court, or any other legal/quasi legal proceedings.
Tootle pip!!
As apologists for CASA, maybe you don't want to understand the shortcomings of the Act, well canvasses on pprune, which, without amendment, will means nothing of significance will change.
The shortcomings are well know, up to and including Ministerial level, I discussed them with Laurie Brereton, when he was Minister for Transport. Every responsible Minister since (except Truss) has solemnly promised to amend S3A and S.9 of the Act, none have.
In short, the bureaucrats have had a complete stranglehold, and as Creampuff has pointed out, time and again, the present situation suits the politicians, the damage to Australian aviation runs a very poor last to political survival.
As to hundreds and thousands of pages of CASA "policy", the law (and the attitude of "certain" CASA employees) trumps policy, every time - particularly in court, or any other legal/quasi legal proceedings.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled, I'm not an apologist for CASA, rather a realist.
I do know and respect Mark Skidmore, though, and to see the long bows being drawn by some in regard to his statement I feel the need to try to redress the balance somewhat.
Jumping up and down about whether safety should be stated as the first, second or last priority for CASA is ineffectual, as is ranting and raving about whether the new rules and DAS are likely to be any good or not - they're here, like it or not, so we have to work with them.
What would you have in place of S3A and S9 that would make any real difference? CASA, under any name or guise, will still be responsible for regulating aviation with the stated aim of keeping it safe, because any government making laws about aviation will have that as a priority.
Mark Skidmore closes his statement by saying he wants to see as many people flying as possible - I believe he actually does, and would also be aiming to fix what's wrong with the organisation he's now responsible for.
I do know and respect Mark Skidmore, though, and to see the long bows being drawn by some in regard to his statement I feel the need to try to redress the balance somewhat.
Jumping up and down about whether safety should be stated as the first, second or last priority for CASA is ineffectual, as is ranting and raving about whether the new rules and DAS are likely to be any good or not - they're here, like it or not, so we have to work with them.
What would you have in place of S3A and S9 that would make any real difference? CASA, under any name or guise, will still be responsible for regulating aviation with the stated aim of keeping it safe, because any government making laws about aviation will have that as a priority.
Mark Skidmore closes his statement by saying he wants to see as many people flying as possible - I believe he actually does, and would also be aiming to fix what's wrong with the organisation he's now responsible for.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Mark Skidmore closes his statement by saying he wants to see as many people flying as possible"
He will, in New Zealand perhaps, in Australia aviation is unaffordable and becoming increasingly so as the regulation factory continues to churn out ever increasing volume of gobbledegook.
Are Australian regulation writers and lawyers so inept, so incredibly incompetent that it takes them thousands of pages of indecipherable hogwash to annunciate a rule set that keeps aviation safe and the industry solvent?
Other countries manage to, and achieve much higher safety standards than us.
If our regulator can't they should be sacked and replaced with someone who can.
Thats the thing I fail to understand.
Why when in comes to anything to do with bureaucracy, Australians are expected to accept, without complaint, mediocrity and incompetence?
Mr Skidmore needs to understand, if things continue as they are, there won't be an industry in Australia to regulate.
But then again perhaps that's the governments aim.
He will, in New Zealand perhaps, in Australia aviation is unaffordable and becoming increasingly so as the regulation factory continues to churn out ever increasing volume of gobbledegook.
Are Australian regulation writers and lawyers so inept, so incredibly incompetent that it takes them thousands of pages of indecipherable hogwash to annunciate a rule set that keeps aviation safe and the industry solvent?
Other countries manage to, and achieve much higher safety standards than us.
If our regulator can't they should be sacked and replaced with someone who can.
Thats the thing I fail to understand.
Why when in comes to anything to do with bureaucracy, Australians are expected to accept, without complaint, mediocrity and incompetence?
Mr Skidmore needs to understand, if things continue as they are, there won't be an industry in Australia to regulate.
But then again perhaps that's the governments aim.
The rules are hard to decipher, it's true - they need to fix that. An accepted recommendation of the Forsyth report is that there should be a plainly-written version of the regs, and I hope they get that out quickly.
However, this kind of conspiracy theory talk -
are you serious, that any government wants to kill something that contributes greatly to tourism, an extremely important sector of the economy?
You mean this bit?
OK, he doesn't say 'remove existing unnecessary costs' directly, but the intent is there, surely?
However, this kind of conspiracy theory talk -
if things continue as they are, there won't be an industry in Australia to regulate.
But then again perhaps that's the governments aim.
But then again perhaps that's the governments aim.
Why then is there no mention of removing every unnecessary cost?
When CASA makes changes or takes decisions and actions we must consider the financial impact on both the aviation community and CASA and seek to keep it as low as possible-without of course compromising the achievement of optimal safety outcomes.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"However, this kind of conspiracy theory talk -
Quote:
if things continue as they are, there won't be an industry in Australia to regulate.
But then again perhaps that's the governments aim.
are you serious, that any government wants to kill something that contributes greatly to tourism, an extremely important sector of the economy?"
Arm out the window I have recently had my charter business unlawfully shut down by CASA's Pooshan Navathe for 15 months. Walk a mile in my shoes and you may change your view point about what Governments do. I would be happy if CASA's administrators followed policy and regulations diligently as set out in Two Dog's post.
Quote:
if things continue as they are, there won't be an industry in Australia to regulate.
But then again perhaps that's the governments aim.
are you serious, that any government wants to kill something that contributes greatly to tourism, an extremely important sector of the economy?"
Arm out the window I have recently had my charter business unlawfully shut down by CASA's Pooshan Navathe for 15 months. Walk a mile in my shoes and you may change your view point about what Governments do. I would be happy if CASA's administrators followed policy and regulations diligently as set out in Two Dog's post.
When CASA makes changes or takes decisions and actions we must consider the financial impact on both the aviation community and CASA and seek to keep it as low as possible-without of course compromising the achievement of optimal safety outcomes.
I don't read that as stating anything more than a token gesture to cost control. I do read that the goal of optimal safety will not be compromised though, and that will cost particularly when implemented by a litigation adverse government organisation.
As for killing off GA, an unlikely case, kept on its knees and subjected to regulatory control that stifles future growth no doubt what so ever.
I don't read that as stating anything more than a token gesture to cost control. I do read that the goal of optimal safety will not be compromised though, and that will cost particularly when implemented by a litigation adverse government organisation.
As for killing off GA, an unlikely case, kept on its knees and subjected to regulatory control that stifles future growth no doubt what so ever.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled, I am also not a CAsA apologist. I was simply pointing out the difference between the official policy and reality. I thought my post read this way and conveyed my disgust. Maybe I should have used some of those smiley things? 
I think Arm out the window, mack44 and myself would be happy to operate according to the official doctrine rather than the ambiguity we currently endure.
As far as understanding the shortcomings of the Act. I have enough trouble keeping up with Part 48 (2013), Part 61 (664 pages), and just can't wait for Part 135.
.
I think Arm out the window, mack44 and myself would be happy to operate according to the official doctrine rather than the ambiguity we currently endure.
As far as understanding the shortcomings of the Act. I have enough trouble keeping up with Part 48 (2013), Part 61 (664 pages), and just can't wait for Part 135.
.
Mack44, very sorry to hear of you, or anyone, having their business stuffed around by unlawful interference if that was the case, and I don't doubt your word.
My point has simply been that I don't accept that CASA is totally corrupt and can only be fixed by firing everyone and starting again; it's like when people say all politicians are bastards and throw up their hands in despair, as if things could never change.
My point has simply been that I don't accept that CASA is totally corrupt and can only be fixed by firing everyone and starting again; it's like when people say all politicians are bastards and throw up their hands in despair, as if things could never change.
Part 61 (664 pages)
You must have the Readers Digest version, including MOS and CASA policy/ training material, it is over 2200 pages and growing.
The draft Part 91 is a dreadful document, who knows what Part 135 will look like, but we already know that, if the Part 135 draft remains the same, "aerodrome standards for public transport" alone will wipe out most light aircraft "charter" as we have known it.
Part 133 is just as bad, the proposed severe limitations on single engine helicopters is completely unjustified by any risk analysis, much less cost/benefit justification.The impact on SAR/EMS will be substantial, right back to a load of nonsense first aired in about 2003.
What would you have in place of S3A and S9 that would make any real difference?
A re-written Act, as recommended by the PAP in 1998, to allow compliance with bi-partisan Government policy that all regulation must be justified, and all regulation must be cost/benefit justified. You should really look at how well the NZ or US legislation handles the balancing act.
It was well put in Byron's directive 01/2007 (now expunged, like much else from the CASA web site), which was recommended in the Hawke Report, and claimed by CASA to the Forsyth Review to have been incorporated as a Hawke recommendation within CASA rule making.
I have yet to see a CASA cost/benefit study of any serious nature (and I have been around quite a while), and certainly not one that satisfies the Productivity Commission or the OBPR definitions. In fact, it is clear that many in CASA do not know the difference between cost/benefit and cost effectiveness studies.
Tootle pip!!
Fluff n puff
GA ...or some of it will continue in Oz... altho at a reduced/and reducing rate.
In spite of CAsA not because of it.
All the statements about principles and protocols and what CAsA staff will do is just plain crap. Its all been said before in various guises for the last 30 years And where has that got us..apart from deeper in the mire
Because there is no Oversighting Agency with very BIG and powerful teeth, to do something about CAsA methods and its wrongdoers, then they know they are home and hosed...NO accountability. NO liability. No worries, then.
When the JQ affair was in full flight did the Legal office or the DAS see that a grave and disgusting injustice was being done. NO.
When 3 AWIs swore false testimony, what did the DAS do?.. just went into protection mode to subvert any action against "his staff" and invoke corruption and Cronyism 101
And time after time, individuals and businesses are damaged, and the smiling assassins/ incompetants just wander off brushing their hands of that debacle or whatever and on to the next one.!!
And it just keeps on happening BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY
While Mr Skidmore may be a very nice ex-RAAF chappie, a hide-bound bureaucracy is a very different kettle of fish
to deal with.
Great plans and policies have been adopted by Ministers and the Board in decades past and they all vanished into CAsA like snowflakes in hell.
A bucket of serious material is on its way. How it is dealt with and his reaction will prove his credentials or otherwise.
Cajones or snowflakes , we shall see.
In spite of CAsA not because of it.
All the statements about principles and protocols and what CAsA staff will do is just plain crap. Its all been said before in various guises for the last 30 years
And where has that got us..apart from deeper in the mireBecause there is no Oversighting Agency with very BIG and powerful teeth, to do something about CAsA methods and its wrongdoers, then they know they are home and hosed...NO accountability. NO liability. No worries, then.
When the JQ affair was in full flight did the Legal office or the DAS see that a grave and disgusting injustice was being done. NO.
When 3 AWIs swore false testimony, what did the DAS do?.. just went into protection mode to subvert any action against "his staff" and invoke corruption and Cronyism 101
And time after time, individuals and businesses are damaged, and the smiling assassins/ incompetants just wander off brushing their hands of that debacle or whatever and on to the next one.!!
And it just keeps on happening BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY
While Mr Skidmore may be a very nice ex-RAAF chappie, a hide-bound bureaucracy is a very different kettle of fish
to deal with.Great plans and policies have been adopted by Ministers and the Board in decades past and they all vanished into CAsA like snowflakes in hell.
A bucket of serious material is on its way. How it is dealt with and his reaction will prove his credentials or otherwise.
Cajones or snowflakes , we shall see.
Leady:
The AC560E was a take off accident (premature gear retraction, as I recall) at Wittenoom WA.
The pilot went on to be the WA Regional Director(!).
The AC560E was a take off accident (premature gear retraction, as I recall) at Wittenoom WA.
The pilot went on to be the WA Regional Director(!).
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
Why then is there no mention of removing every unnecessary cost?
That has been the problem for the last 15 years
We should get some good general insight from the first senate estimates in February.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Age: 17
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
I suppose you can add this one at Mangalore
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...198901547.aspx
For some reason I feel there was another gear up around this time?
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...198901547.aspx
For some reason I feel there was another gear up around this time?
Last edited by Paul O'Rourke; 25th Jan 2015 at 20:04. Reason: US hyperlink
Arm Out The Window:
I am going to make the assumption that you are a genuine seeker of truth and not some troll and attempt to explain why you are completely wrong in your belief that the words don't matter.
Ultimately all CASA strategy, policy and regulation activities must conform to the intention of Parliament when they made the Act.. The ultimate arbiter of this is the High Court Of Australia; it is they who will construe the meaning of the words:
"establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
The High Court makes no judgement on the reasonableness of what these words mean save that they don't conflict with the Constitution or other law. They will examine the literal meaning of what has been written without making any value judgements on what CASA has done with them.
...And what we find when we construe these words is that they give CASA unfettered power to do what it bloody well likes - which is exactly what it has done, capriciously,, corruptly, expensively, unjustly, inequitably and without a shred of procedural fairness and natural justice being afforded to its victims.
Furthermore your appeal to sweet reason and AVM. Skidmores good offices fails on the existing mountain of evidence of CASA's serial misbehaviour - no, they can't be trusted to be reasonable. Precisely because the Act doesn't require them to be reasonable!
This is how CASA gets away with it:
"establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation"
Nowhere does it define what Safety actually is. "Safety" is a nominative word that can mean what you want - it is not defined, thus CASA can and does do anything it likes and when challenged, retreats behind the mantra of "safety" without defining the term.
Furthermore, with absolutely no constraint on what CASA can do to achieve safety, they can do anything they like, including shutting down all aviation completely which is what they do regularly to people they don't like and who CASA judges don't have the political influence to complain.
Lest you think I'm joking, that is why the second strange looking phrase is included:
"with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
This specifically refers to CASA the power to achieve it's safety imperative by preventing accidents and incidents.
Now a reasonable person would assume that such an objective would be the outcome of a safety system, but instead what the Act does is supply CASA with an effing great big axe in the form of a specific power to prevent aviation at all if it thinks that this might prevent an accident ro incident, and of course this relies on "negative evidence" for if there is no aviation how can one prove that the prohibited operation was actually safe?
To put that another way; the Act has redefined safety as the act or preventing accidents and incidents, not the outcome of a properly operating safety system.
This phrase is the source of the strangely convoluted legal language used by CASA to justify so many of its worst atrocities: - those regulations that state: "CASA must not issue / approve / permit / authorise, unless it is satisfied that.....". In other words CASA can do what it likes to its satisfaction. In a sane and just country these regulations would state that "CASA will issue / approve / permit / authorise on presentation of evidence that ..the person has satisfied the following criteria."
There is no constraint on CASA's activity except the High Court and Constitution. There is nothing in the Act that constrains CASA not to kill aviation stone dead and it kills parts of it every year.
What should have been in the Act are a series of constraints as follows:
- Perfect safety is impossible to achieve. By definition its cost is infinite as it can only be achieved by doing precisely nothing. CASA needs to be constrained to achieving worlds best practice benchmarks.
- CASA needs to be constrained to promote a safe and growing aviation industry, ie: remove its ability to achieve its objective by preventing aviation. This then introduces a requirement that CASA engage in evidence based rule making that includes cost benefit analysis.
Others have written more extensively on all this. Words matter, until the Act is changed, the industry will continue to decline.
Seems there is a lot being read into Mark Skidmore's, to me, quite reasonable-sounding words, to somehow twist it into a statement of his intention to do nothing!
Quote:
There are five principles CASA must embrace when making decisions or taking actions that affect the aviation community. The first principle is of course aviation safety. The Civil Aviation Act makes this certain by stating its main object is to "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
Struth! Imagine having a regulator that aims to prevent accidents.
Quote:
There are five principles CASA must embrace when making decisions or taking actions that affect the aviation community. The first principle is of course aviation safety. The Civil Aviation Act makes this certain by stating its main object is to "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
Struth! Imagine having a regulator that aims to prevent accidents.
Ultimately all CASA strategy, policy and regulation activities must conform to the intention of Parliament when they made the Act.. The ultimate arbiter of this is the High Court Of Australia; it is they who will construe the meaning of the words:
"establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
The High Court makes no judgement on the reasonableness of what these words mean save that they don't conflict with the Constitution or other law. They will examine the literal meaning of what has been written without making any value judgements on what CASA has done with them.
...And what we find when we construe these words is that they give CASA unfettered power to do what it bloody well likes - which is exactly what it has done, capriciously,, corruptly, expensively, unjustly, inequitably and without a shred of procedural fairness and natural justice being afforded to its victims.
Furthermore your appeal to sweet reason and AVM. Skidmores good offices fails on the existing mountain of evidence of CASA's serial misbehaviour - no, they can't be trusted to be reasonable. Precisely because the Act doesn't require them to be reasonable!
This is how CASA gets away with it:
"establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation"
Nowhere does it define what Safety actually is. "Safety" is a nominative word that can mean what you want - it is not defined, thus CASA can and does do anything it likes and when challenged, retreats behind the mantra of "safety" without defining the term.
Furthermore, with absolutely no constraint on what CASA can do to achieve safety, they can do anything they like, including shutting down all aviation completely which is what they do regularly to people they don't like and who CASA judges don't have the political influence to complain.
Lest you think I'm joking, that is why the second strange looking phrase is included:
"with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
This specifically refers to CASA the power to achieve it's safety imperative by preventing accidents and incidents.
Now a reasonable person would assume that such an objective would be the outcome of a safety system, but instead what the Act does is supply CASA with an effing great big axe in the form of a specific power to prevent aviation at all if it thinks that this might prevent an accident ro incident, and of course this relies on "negative evidence" for if there is no aviation how can one prove that the prohibited operation was actually safe?
To put that another way; the Act has redefined safety as the act or preventing accidents and incidents, not the outcome of a properly operating safety system.
This phrase is the source of the strangely convoluted legal language used by CASA to justify so many of its worst atrocities: - those regulations that state: "CASA must not issue / approve / permit / authorise, unless it is satisfied that.....". In other words CASA can do what it likes to its satisfaction. In a sane and just country these regulations would state that "CASA will issue / approve / permit / authorise on presentation of evidence that ..the person has satisfied the following criteria."
There is no constraint on CASA's activity except the High Court and Constitution. There is nothing in the Act that constrains CASA not to kill aviation stone dead and it kills parts of it every year.
What should have been in the Act are a series of constraints as follows:
- Perfect safety is impossible to achieve. By definition its cost is infinite as it can only be achieved by doing precisely nothing. CASA needs to be constrained to achieving worlds best practice benchmarks.
- CASA needs to be constrained to promote a safe and growing aviation industry, ie: remove its ability to achieve its objective by preventing aviation. This then introduces a requirement that CASA engage in evidence based rule making that includes cost benefit analysis.
Others have written more extensively on all this. Words matter, until the Act is changed, the industry will continue to decline.
Last edited by Sunfish; 25th Jan 2015 at 19:31.