Dear Nicola,
I notice your comment on regulatory affairs via this forum as a CASA representative. Your office's goal appears to remain one of convincing the Minister, the industry, the Parliament and the (non-technical) media that nothing’s wrong at CASA, therefore nothing needs to be changed – in the apparent tradition of CASA Public Affairs. Mine (as well as others’) is to demonstrate to them that the this is not the case. My comments on some of your assertions:
“I would like to note a key word here - allegations.”
Trivialising the issues which various people have validly raised by emphasising the word “allegations” reminds many industry identities of an occasion in which CASA actually published ten totally unsubstantiated allegations against an operator on its web site, which was the first shot in an eventually successful campaign to demolish a well-conducted and reputable business. At the same time CASA admitted that they were no more than “allegations” by explaining that the suspension of the operator’s AOC (ultimately for three successive periods) was for the purpose of investigating them (i.e. they remained “allegations” because they had not even been investigated.) The final outcome of this issue in the courts, is a matter of history which reflects no credit at all on CASA. If you check with the OLC you will doubtless be provided with a countervailing interpretation of the realities springing from the court hearing. Perhaps you could also ask Mr Anastasi and his colleagues what consideration a certificate holder’s response to a “show cause” letter would received, if it pointed out that the assertions made were “only allegations” as so many such assertions are.
“The significant conclusion of the Skehill report was that the evidence did not support the allegations that had been raised.”
You and I must have read two different versions of the same report. Your comment is dismissive and not in accord with any intelligent interpretation of the text of the report, which was prepared by a lawyer frequently engaged by CASA to conduct such inquiries and which (according to Mr Byron’s advice to a Senate inquiry) cost “approximately $50,000. Many individuals in the industry, including myself, accurately forecast the outcome of the inquiry.
“I am concerned however that a number of the matters posted about CASA's actions date from some significant time in the past.”
The relevance of that statement is difficult to understand. Everything that has happened since the beginning of the world is now “in the past,” regardless of whether it happened ten seconds, ten hours, ten months or ten years ago. There is no statute of limitations in the industry’s corporate mind; an injustice remains an injustice until it is reversed. The issue is whether the people who committed the unjust act, or who irresponsibly allowed it to be committed, are still in a position to do so again. In many cases they are, and it is my intention to expose their acts and identities in well-documented detail.
People and organisations whose lives and businesses have been or are being destroyed by various well-recognised practices amounting to apparent misconduct, will not be adequately consoled by your statement that the relevant events occurred “in the past.” This will especially be the case when they are made aware that the people – and the CASA “culture” – which facilitated them are still in place; that apparently nothing has been done to prevent these individuals from committing future similar misconduct; that nobody within CASA has been disciplined; and that as CASA’s representative you feel compelled to deny – or decline to admit - that any misconduct at all has occurred.
Of particular concern has been the practice of advising the commercial clients of AOC holders that various allegations against them were being “investigated,” which has caused the cancellation of contracts, whether the allegations were proven or not. In at least two cases, the allegations proved to be false, and arose only because of incompetence amounting to negligence on the part of CASA and/or its employees.
Take a hypothetical example:
……. might such a chain of events not constitute misconduct which (having caused the operator serious financial loss) would support legal action for damages against both the staff member and his employer?
To quote a legal opinion already in CASA’s hands on a similar issue:
“This [proposal] would give rise to considerable exposure to defamation actions, and to possible liability, particularly if the defence of qualified privilege is not available. CASA would be covered by the Indemnity in relation to defamation actions as with various other actions which may be brought (eg negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office etc). However, the Indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where the officer is guilty of serious or wilful misconduct.”
It would seem that parties to the investigation would be out on their own in such a hypothetical circumstance, which might be a deterrent for any individual tempted to cut corners in their inordinate haste to put someone out of business.
The same could also hypothetically apply to negligent misstatements in support of the withdrawal of a chief pilot or training & checking approval.
In some instances, not only negligence and liability for it, but also the question of criminality, should be investigated. One would suggest that the appropriate investigation agency in such a situation would not be a lawyer under contract to CASA, but the Australian Federal Police.
The role of CASA Public Affairs – past and present - must also be examined in such issues. You will probably note that in this forum, people are far more aviation-aware than the Minister, DOTRS, the non-technical media, and the general public. I wish you well in your endeavour to convince them there's nothing wrong.
regards,
Paul Phelan