Paul Phelan 's latest

[Kharon]

Regulatory sanity

This makes more sense to me. Breath of fresh air.

Dear Mr. Phelan,

How can this be? I refer to your article regarding the prosecution of Mr Quadrio.

CASA is a Regulator and its role is clearly defined in the Act, Regulations, Orders etc, but there is a fundamental lie in the way Mr. Quadrio has been hounded. This has now resulted in the AAT upholding a decision, an administrative decision by CASA, the basis of which had been rejected by the public prosecutor.

How can any person or operator, without matching financial resources to CASA’s, ever seek protection from the abuses of power and privilege, or receive justice, against the methods employed by CASA as you have described in your article?

The procedures described in this case can only be described as draconian and applying administrative persecution of an individual until CASA’s agenda has been satisfied i.e. win at all costs, regardless of the safety result.

This win, I doubt would have provided little, if anything, in the way of an improvement in flight safety. Certainly it would have caused much heartache and financial loss for Mr.Quadrio. Here is another pilot forced from the industry due, in the main, to the procedures applied by several CASA persons.

In my time as Regional Manager in the previous, CAA, reporting to the then CEO, now renamed “Director”, we battled, sometimes successfully, at times unsuccessfully, several minor “Fiefdoms” that evolved during a restructure. I lament what I now see what CASA has become – one very large “Fiefdom” and one that seems to have unlimited legislative manpower resources and what can be perceived as an almost fanatical desire to use them.

Regardless of what the Director advises in his monthly newsletter, some of the staff identified in your article have become corporate bullies, seemingly protected and allowed by senior management to intimidate the industry with little regard for the real issues of flight safety. Tactics born from dictatorial attitudes, dogmatic agendas, innuendos and intimidation, not to mention threats to an employee’s employer, create nothing but contempt for the individuals. Furthermore, those attitudes tarnish those staff trying to operate professionally and in accordance with the published Government and CASA Charter.

Indeed, the good personnel in CASA all become typecast and stereotyped when the poor behavior and processes you describe are placed in the public arena.
In respect of the CASA Charter, I wonder how many staff, managers especially, actually know of it and how it describes clearly the methods CASA staff are to conduct business?

Here is the link for those who would like to acquaint, or reacquaint themselves with the document.
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_92927

I wonder also how the industry feels about the value of the monthly advisories of Director Mr McCormick, compared to the actions of some staff and the Charter? It would surprise me if many did not reach a conclusion where one or both documents were classified as meaningless Spin.

I would hope that not to be the case.

In my own CASA executive life I sought to achieve clear objectives, the first being to seek out the “cowboys”. The good operators actually needed little regulation – only communication and some education as to both organisation’s responsibilities. There are still policies mandated by CASA either as Regulations, Orders and/or Policies that are counter-productive to safety.

Power can be a seductive influence; but with power there must also be responsibility, accountability, reasonableness and a focus oy n real aviation issues. It should not be used as a cloak for a near paranoid legislative determination in the false name of safety.

Yours sincerely,
Maurie Baston.

Aviation Advertiser 4/11/11.