CASA, Coroner's Courts and the Ombudsman
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA, Coroner's Courts and the Ombudsman
Here's the latest investigation into casa, this time by the Ombudsman, with a report released on 15th April 2015.
There's a bit to wade through if you go to the above.
A couple of extracts point to the general drift though -
THE aviation watchdog has been chastised for failing to respond to past coronial recommendations. (from 'The Australian')
COMMONWEALTH Ombudsman Colin Neave says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority needs to lift its game.
Mr Neave made eight recommendations in a report released on Wednesday, including improved links between CASA and state and territory coroners offices, as well as annual reporting on the progress of implementing recommendations.
Between 2009-2013, 153 people died in 120 general aviation crashes...
from Ombudsman's website -
Ombudsman says CASA needs to be more transparent
A report released today by the Commonwealth Ombudsman says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) needs to be more publicly accountable in responding to coronial recommendations.
“Between 2009 and 2013, 153 people in Australia died in 120 general aviation aircraft accidents,” Commonwealth Ombudsman Colin Neave said.
“Many of these accidents were the subject of coronial inquests, which perform an important function in publicly examining questions around public safety and making recommendations aimed at preventing similar deaths in the future.
“Yet a lack of public response or visible action by CASA to these inquests made it difficult for the public – and other coroners considering similar matters – to establish whether CASA had considered or acted on the coroners’ recommendations.”
Mr Neave said his report made eight recommendations.
and a comment from Jim Davis, longtime commercial pilot and writer
"The old guard at CASA remains in place with no changes to senior management foreshadowed and no changes to the CASA board leadership until 30 June 2015. Most of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review ( ASRR) recommendations relate to CASA and will need CASA’s active involvement and support to implement them. It defies logic to have the management team that created the problems highlighted by the ASRR report to be charged with fixing those very same problems."
A couple of extracts point to the general drift though -
THE aviation watchdog has been chastised for failing to respond to past coronial recommendations. (from 'The Australian')
COMMONWEALTH Ombudsman Colin Neave says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority needs to lift its game.
Mr Neave made eight recommendations in a report released on Wednesday, including improved links between CASA and state and territory coroners offices, as well as annual reporting on the progress of implementing recommendations.
Between 2009-2013, 153 people died in 120 general aviation crashes...
from Ombudsman's website -
Ombudsman says CASA needs to be more transparent
A report released today by the Commonwealth Ombudsman says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) needs to be more publicly accountable in responding to coronial recommendations.
“Between 2009 and 2013, 153 people in Australia died in 120 general aviation aircraft accidents,” Commonwealth Ombudsman Colin Neave said.
“Many of these accidents were the subject of coronial inquests, which perform an important function in publicly examining questions around public safety and making recommendations aimed at preventing similar deaths in the future.
“Yet a lack of public response or visible action by CASA to these inquests made it difficult for the public – and other coroners considering similar matters – to establish whether CASA had considered or acted on the coroners’ recommendations.”
Mr Neave said his report made eight recommendations.
and a comment from Jim Davis, longtime commercial pilot and writer
"The old guard at CASA remains in place with no changes to senior management foreshadowed and no changes to the CASA board leadership until 30 June 2015. Most of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review ( ASRR) recommendations relate to CASA and will need CASA’s active involvement and support to implement them. It defies logic to have the management team that created the problems highlighted by the ASRR report to be charged with fixing those very same problems."
Last edited by Fantome; 18th Apr 2015 at 09:53.
I'll refrain from commenting on the regulator - don't really know enough about their workings and plan to keep it that way, however I do know a bit about the coroners and believe there is a nasty case of the god complex doing the rounds there. If those muppets had their way, no-one would approach an aircraft unless they had completed a state approved hazard reduction course, were dressed in head to toe nomex and wearing a $1,000 approved helmet.
Perhaps CASA did not respond because the Coroners recommendations demonstrate that they are pig ignorant about aviation matters and their recommendations are costly, inefficient, pointless and do nothing useful to improve safety?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockhart River Inquest.
Counsel Assisting the Coroner: Mr Ian Harvey QC
Assisting Mr Harvey: Mr Robert Collins
http://www.pprune.org/7134194-post54.html
Counsel Assisting the Coroner: Mr Ian Harvey QC
Assisting Mr Harvey: Mr Robert Collins
http://www.pprune.org/7134194-post54.html
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casa needs a royal commission. End of story.
Awi,s with vicious vindictive actions need to be placed on notice that they may be sued and sacked for their actions.
Malicious grounding of aircraft , workshop approvals for minute infractions should not be accepted from these public servants.
A full independent complaints department not in any way part of casa is required.
They take you to court loose but still win. As you then have no chance of redeeming your legal costs.
Awi,s with vicious vindictive actions need to be placed on notice that they may be sued and sacked for their actions.
Malicious grounding of aircraft , workshop approvals for minute infractions should not be accepted from these public servants.
A full independent complaints department not in any way part of casa is required.
They take you to court loose but still win. As you then have no chance of redeeming your legal costs.
The coroner in the Lockhart River inquest, Mr Michael Barnes, on the face of it, produced what appeared to many close observers of the process, a reasonable summation of the causes. Without inviting a rehash of the multitude of detailed dissections of every aspect preceding and following that accident, what Mr Barnes had to say about animosity between CASA and ATSB is no less relevant today, where ATSB's role has undergone substantial undermining. Coroner bashing, rather than the reasoned analysis of their perceived failings, does little to serve the interests of our readership and the interests of seeking better outcomes, dare I say.
Interaction between the ATSB and CASA
Finally, I wish to return to the concerns
I expressed earlier about the working relationship
between CASA and the ATSB. In this and previous
inquests I
have detected a degree of animosity that
I consider inimical to a productive,
collaborative focus on air safety. CASA’s
submissions in this inquest suggest that there
was a danger of the ATSB's recommendations
being ignored and I continue
to detect a defensive and less than
fulsome response to some of them.
I am aware that others in the aviation
industry share these concerns,
although I anticipate the CEOs of
the two agencies will disavow them.
Interaction between the ATSB and CASA
Finally, I wish to return to the concerns
I expressed earlier about the working relationship
between CASA and the ATSB. In this and previous
inquests I
have detected a degree of animosity that
I consider inimical to a productive,
collaborative focus on air safety. CASA’s
submissions in this inquest suggest that there
was a danger of the ATSB's recommendations
being ignored and I continue
to detect a defensive and less than
fulsome response to some of them.
I am aware that others in the aviation
industry share these concerns,
although I anticipate the CEOs of
the two agencies will disavow them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And what gets done about the apparent, or seemingly apparent collusion between CASA and ATSB to cover someones butt/s?
Two other striking resemblance's to collusion come to mind.
Two other striking resemblance's to collusion come to mind.
One swallow does not a Summer make - or something to that effect.
I have no particular issue with what Coroner Barnes produced in the Lockhart River matter, howver the fact remains that the ratio of dung to diamonds rests firmly in the former camp when it comes to coronial recommendations, particularly when aviation is involved. If that is perceived as coroner bashing, then I plead guilty m'lud.
CASA vs the ATSB, there is certainly the appearance of a need to shine a bright light on things, but I am firmly of the opinion that the coroners are not qualified to aim that light.
I have no particular issue with what Coroner Barnes produced in the Lockhart River matter, howver the fact remains that the ratio of dung to diamonds rests firmly in the former camp when it comes to coronial recommendations, particularly when aviation is involved. If that is perceived as coroner bashing, then I plead guilty m'lud.
CASA vs the ATSB, there is certainly the appearance of a need to shine a bright light on things, but I am firmly of the opinion that the coroners are not qualified to aim that light.
yr right..
You are so very right. 
The WHOLE industry should be loudly beating the ROYAL COMMISSION drum. And sending that message to ALL politicians.
Forget Denmark, there is so much rotten in the state of CAsA ONLY a ROYAL COMMISSION can let it all hang out...and maybe, just maybe,.. positive changes will be made so an industry so vital to this wide brown land can fly on...and not be ground down into the dust by an overload of bureaurats and convoluted, impractical "safety" bull****.
2c
And more to spend.
The WHOLE industry should be loudly beating the ROYAL COMMISSION drum.
And sending that message to ALL politicians.Forget Denmark, there is so much rotten in the state of CAsA ONLY a ROYAL COMMISSION can let it all hang out...and maybe, just maybe,.. positive changes will be made so an industry so vital to this wide brown land can fly on
...and not be ground down into the dust by an overload of bureaurats and convoluted, impractical "safety" bull****.2c
And more to spend.
Folks,
Do you mean ANOTHER Royal Commission into CASA.
If you look at the record, CASA and its predecessors have been the most "inquired into" Commonwealth body since Federation.
I don't remember the numbers, but it was close to one per annum, whether it be some form of Parliamentary inquiry, or a Royal Commission, of which there have been quite a few. The "Morris" inquiry was the longest running of any Parliamentary inquiry since Federation.
The amazing thing is that they have all been like water of a duck's back, as far as reform (as we would understand it) is concerned, and has all too often provided at springboard for CASA or its predecessors to introduce yet further restrictive policies/regulations. I know of no case where a Coroner's criticism of CASA or its predecessors has resulted in any changes that the aviation community would regard as beneficial.
A good example is the, in my opinion, quite deliberate misrepresentation of the findings of the Seaview Royal Commission, which, all these years later, you about to see in Part 121/135, and you are already seeing in CASA imposed restrictions by way of Operations Manual. Part 135 is going to be a bigger disaster for GA than Part 61.
AOC "regulation" was elevated from regulations to provisions of the Act, as a result of a Royal Commission, it is/was this that has enabled CAA/CASA to extend the requirement for an AOC way beyond the original intent for an AOC, and to be completely inflexible about the ever expanding requirements for an AOC.
For CASA to be "forced" to implement every recommendation of an inquest would make aviation regulation an even bigger disaster area than it already is.
Again, an example is Mull in Victoria, if the recommendations were carried out, it would eliminate Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, one of the few bright spots in light GA.
Tootle pip!!
Do you mean ANOTHER Royal Commission into CASA.
If you look at the record, CASA and its predecessors have been the most "inquired into" Commonwealth body since Federation.
I don't remember the numbers, but it was close to one per annum, whether it be some form of Parliamentary inquiry, or a Royal Commission, of which there have been quite a few. The "Morris" inquiry was the longest running of any Parliamentary inquiry since Federation.
The amazing thing is that they have all been like water of a duck's back, as far as reform (as we would understand it) is concerned, and has all too often provided at springboard for CASA or its predecessors to introduce yet further restrictive policies/regulations. I know of no case where a Coroner's criticism of CASA or its predecessors has resulted in any changes that the aviation community would regard as beneficial.
A good example is the, in my opinion, quite deliberate misrepresentation of the findings of the Seaview Royal Commission, which, all these years later, you about to see in Part 121/135, and you are already seeing in CASA imposed restrictions by way of Operations Manual. Part 135 is going to be a bigger disaster for GA than Part 61.
AOC "regulation" was elevated from regulations to provisions of the Act, as a result of a Royal Commission, it is/was this that has enabled CAA/CASA to extend the requirement for an AOC way beyond the original intent for an AOC, and to be completely inflexible about the ever expanding requirements for an AOC.
For CASA to be "forced" to implement every recommendation of an inquest would make aviation regulation an even bigger disaster area than it already is.
Again, an example is Mull in Victoria, if the recommendations were carried out, it would eliminate Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, one of the few bright spots in light GA.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to agree with LeadSled (
) on this one. Laymen (including Royal Commissioners) simply don't understand the industry, so they turn to 'professionals' for advice. And where do the 'professionals' come from? Why the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of course!
) on this one. Laymen (including Royal Commissioners) simply don't understand the industry, so they turn to 'professionals' for advice. And where do the 'professionals' come from? Why the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of course!
The framework within which this discussion is happening is a manifestation of the problem: governments have abdicated responsbility to the regulator.
Every sector says coroners "don't understand".
Coroners may, if they wish, make a recommendation that, in the interests of safety, all aircraft be fitted with at least 5 engines.
The decision whether to implement that recommendation is not, or at least should not be in a functioning representative democracy, the regulator's. The decision should be the government's.
That's because all decisions about where to set regulatory standards are, ultimately, political decisions. That's because all decisions about where to set regulatory standards should require an assessment of all the risks and benefits to society, and decisions about what benefits are not worth the corresponding risks.
Regulators are not competent to do that, because regulators are not competent to assess or know all the potential risks and benefits to society of various levels at which standards could be set. All that regulators are competent to do is decide that one standard may result in higher levels of safey and cost than another, within the closed system of the sector being regulated.
CASA, for example, doesn't know or care about whether setting higher standards for, for example, aerial ambulance operations will result in an overall dis-benefit to society as a consequence of more deaths on the road or lack of treatment for people who would otherwise have been medivac'ed.
But governments these days want everything to be 'win/win', and don't want to take responsibility for any decision that might be electorally unpopular. Best to leave that to ever-keen to please patsies who are rewarded handsomely for appearing to be responsible.
The organ grinders have let the monkey loose.
Every sector says coroners "don't understand".
Coroners may, if they wish, make a recommendation that, in the interests of safety, all aircraft be fitted with at least 5 engines.
The decision whether to implement that recommendation is not, or at least should not be in a functioning representative democracy, the regulator's. The decision should be the government's.
That's because all decisions about where to set regulatory standards are, ultimately, political decisions. That's because all decisions about where to set regulatory standards should require an assessment of all the risks and benefits to society, and decisions about what benefits are not worth the corresponding risks.
Regulators are not competent to do that, because regulators are not competent to assess or know all the potential risks and benefits to society of various levels at which standards could be set. All that regulators are competent to do is decide that one standard may result in higher levels of safey and cost than another, within the closed system of the sector being regulated.
CASA, for example, doesn't know or care about whether setting higher standards for, for example, aerial ambulance operations will result in an overall dis-benefit to society as a consequence of more deaths on the road or lack of treatment for people who would otherwise have been medivac'ed.
But governments these days want everything to be 'win/win', and don't want to take responsibility for any decision that might be electorally unpopular. Best to leave that to ever-keen to please patsies who are rewarded handsomely for appearing to be responsible.
The organ grinders have let the monkey loose.
Last edited by Creampuff; 19th Apr 2015 at 23:09. Reason: Corrected typos
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enter Sandman
Interesting thread. Now there is a nightmare of epic proportions which covers all aspects of scary: CASA, Seaview, Lockhart, Harvey and Collins. Christ I won't be able to sleep for a month now!!!
Creamie . . . Your last post is not exactly a haunting bugle blast. It reads a little like a preamble to a lengthy thesis, in which there may or may not be reference to Machiavelli and "The Prince". The framing of sensible rules for the guidance of those who need to know and abide by set limits within the society, or the airspace, in which they function, is these days a multi-layered task.
It is the compounding complexity of the acts, the statutes, the orders, and by-laws, that tend to do in the head of your average layman.
For every daily activity, of whatever kind, it would be so much simpler if there were straightforward, clearly written codes of conduct.
'The Rules of the Air' need not require a brace of shopping trollies to be trundled into court. Or be a necessary part of a student's study library.
Indeed, as you say, the organ-grinders are now monkeyless . . .
As of old, the monkeys have set themselves up line abreast, ears, eyes and mouths all stopped.
They see no point at all , anymore, in saying that the law is an ass.
It is the compounding complexity of the acts, the statutes, the orders, and by-laws, that tend to do in the head of your average layman.
For every daily activity, of whatever kind, it would be so much simpler if there were straightforward, clearly written codes of conduct.
'The Rules of the Air' need not require a brace of shopping trollies to be trundled into court. Or be a necessary part of a student's study library.
Indeed, as you say, the organ-grinders are now monkeyless . . .
As of old, the monkeys have set themselves up line abreast, ears, eyes and mouths all stopped.
They see no point at all , anymore, in saying that the law is an ass.
And so....
..if a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry isnt the answer...then what are we left with.?
Civil disobedience?
Revolution ?
Burning of the CB Reichstag.?
Something has to give....
Civil disobedience?
Revolution ?
Burning of the CB Reichstag.?
Something has to give....
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe after the next coroners report on this just past fatality, the coroner may just have enough sense to make one very simple and easy to enforce ruling of mandatory fitting of EPIRBS. May not stop people dieing but will speed up the search and recovery process.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll what I find strange is the amount of input from people that are not even commercially involved in aviation. Then complain about changes to an AD that they don't understand makes me wonder how we got to where we are now.
When we have awi, and foi,s being police , prosecuter , jury, judge and executioner with no recourse we are doomed.
When they ground and aircraft for a missing decal on the outside or wing walk that may interrupt airflow over a wing or how about a aircraft that has manufactures improvements fitted when being manufactured. Being on aust rego over 30 years then being asked for it's details even though the M/M s# says it what it is .
Face it they lie and cheat and they do it in court. However some of us still have wins over them.
When we have awi, and foi,s being police , prosecuter , jury, judge and executioner with no recourse we are doomed.
When they ground and aircraft for a missing decal on the outside or wing walk that may interrupt airflow over a wing or how about a aircraft that has manufactures improvements fitted when being manufactured. Being on aust rego over 30 years then being asked for it's details even though the M/M s# says it what it is .
Face it they lie and cheat and they do it in court. However some of us still have wins over them.