Boy JetA_OK you sure stepped into that one...but the point that "K" was originally trying to make was the "us" and "them" approach that the regulator constantly displays across the aviation spectrum.
Most industry stakeholders are not asking for more regulations but just a level playing field that isn't littered with hidden mines.
As you say it is about the "über rich" but not because they can afford to fix the problems it's more to do with how much political influence you can afford and how much you can contribute to the trough.
It is also interesting to note that none of the wheeling's and dealings, backdoor handouts, obfuscation, maladministration, regulatory capture etc..etc that is becoming revealed by this whole sordid, squalid affair has anything remotely to do with aviation safety. On the contrary it is all severely counter productive to our aviation safety reputation and could threaten Australia's ICAO level one standing.
It is worth also going back in time to when the current system of regulatory oversight was first promulgated, here's a letter from a former DAS which highlighted this change:
You published a letter from Mr John Wood on 25th January 2001 under the title Cracks in Safety. In that letter Mr Wood alleges that CASA is promoting industry self-regulation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the days when Mr Wood was employed as a Flying Operations Inspector, the main way the Authority gauged the activities of the major airlines was by a system of product auditing. This meant that the inspectors sat in the cockpit and watched the operation of the aircraft, nominally for up to 0.5% of all hours flown by the airline. And they had to check each area of operation, so annual visits to London, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, Honolulu, Tokyo and other interesting destinations were the norm. Nice work for the likes of Mr Wood, but of no value in understanding what was really happening in the airline, nor of ensuring compliance with the regulatory requirements.
We did not know what we did not know in those days, and in the late 1980s and early 1990s almost certainly did not understand that the approach was wrong. The influx of strong professional experience to the Authority in the last few years has changed that position to one where we know our approach was wrong and what needed to be done to ensure the necessary changes took place. Mr Wood chose to leave the Authority around the time of implementing these changes.
Under the newly adopted approach we undertake a system audit, which is in line with all top quality management and auditing programmes. This approach is being endorsed by all the leading aviation authorities in the world, and Australia is proud to be at the forefront.
Under a systems audit regime the pressure is put on the operator to have all the correct management systems in place to ensure full compliance with all regulatory requirements and to encourage a total safety culture. Under no stretch of any imagination can this be called self-regulation. It is an effective way of focussing industry attention on their obligations.
It is not CASA's role to run the airlines, that is the role of the Airline Manager. Hence, unless we are to employ the same numbers of staff and duplicate an airline's efforts, we can never know everything that happens in an airline. Neither does any regulator in any field. Our responsibility for air safety is best served by ensuring the airlines understand their legal responsibilities and act on them.
Already we have found that we have had great success in identifying problem areas that we could never have found in Mr Wood's days, and ensuring corrective action is taken. All this is a great leap forward for our safety in Australia, where we already enjoy a safety record twice as good as Europe or North America.
That is something of which Australians can be proud.
So can we still feel proud today??
And do we really have a safety record twice as good as Europe or North America??
If we do it can only be through dumb luck and is definitely not through good management!
Now we have this PA total clusterfcuk revealing more and more shennanigans, coverups, subplots etc within the very same system that the former DAS was fully endorsing (above), can we really be proud of such a system??
No sorry the new tick'a'box routine appears not to be working and as is evidenced here quite obviously open to abuse!
It is also interesting to note that way back then (2001) the DAS had already started to "play the man and not the ball", a tradition that is vigorously endorsed by the current DAS.
