At the Bar Room Barristers last evening the topic was, what sort of inquiry would best serve the Industry. Cost v benefit and consideration of both domestic and international fallout was discussed in a fairly robust, although sanguine manner. Clearly, something needs to be done; and, importantly needs to be seen to be done.
In the end one of the several options discussed became the BRB choice. The 'lads' thought maybe (just maybe) the troops on Pprune had an opinion, so I agreed to ask.
Options 1 and 2) - A Royal Commission: or, Judicial Inquiry into CASA and ATSB.
Voted as being, too slow, expensive, 'general' and historically; not overly effective. Both are viewed as a blunt instrument; a vague, 'wide', broad brush enquiry could drag on for nearly as long as the regulatory reform program and probably be about as effective. CASA are veterans at avoiding flack during these stage managed events. (Long list available on application).
Option 3) - A 'surgical', narrow scope, independent investigation by IOSA (ICAO) qualified auditors. Centred on the actions, facts and circumstances surrounding the handling of the Pel Air fiasco. Investigate the "investigation"; audit the "audits"; test the subsequent actions. Clearly define just who did what to whom and who paid. Tight focus on the originating (Sydney) office, the actions of the manager responsible for running the Pel Air "Audit and investigation", the reporting of it and the degree of ATSB involvement in the matter would yield stellar results. The great "Townsville Office" debacle in Qld which Byron (bless) sorted out, was very effectively conducted in this manner.
We all agreed, this approach would provide a relatively inexpensive solution which could be executed with some degree of speed. The investigation would provide an 'in-depth' analysis of exactly what went on behind Oleo's famous "Chamber door". Such an investigation would produce 'hard', believable evidence; one way or the other, offering the Senate Committee a stable platform from which to generate meaningful recommendations.
Cheap, effective and cheerful.
A side benefit is that the 'honest' ATSB and CASA folk in other offices would not, at least initially be dragged into the embarrassing mess, which we believe can be attributed to the handiwork of only a few people. It must be stated that although only hearsay, there have been for a number of years now, horror stories leaking out of the Sydney region, all related to local management requirements impacting on the local CASA team. Perhaps there will be an opportunity at the inquiry to have the "Bankstown Stories" examined at the same time. Now there's a happy thought.
Anyway – you're all big enough, ugly enough and old enough to decide; but, that's the BRB's two bobs worth. What say you ????.
PS. I went for the 'tar and feathers' option, narrowly defeated - but it is a democracy and I can dream. Yuk, yuk, yak.
