Algie and Prince N., what has been alleged in summary is that CASA predetermines outcomes of investigations to suit the personal motives of some members of its staff. It is also alleged that CASA initiates investigations to suit the personal motives of some members of its staff, to the point of allowing them to engage in personal vendettas against some pilots and operators while at the same time shielding others from investigation and punishment.
It is also alleged that CASA is not a model litigant, that it conceals and/or fabricates evidence, that it uses its unlimited financial resources to engage in or threaten to engage in litigation with the purpose of bankrupting its target.
Then there is the allegation of capriciousness, bias and a total lack of proportionality in respect to punishment. It is also alleged that it honors the concepts of fairness, equity and natural justice in the breach. What has been allegedly "legal" for twenty years is today "illegal" and "unsafe" and "criminal" when this allegedly suits a CASA operative.
To put that another way, it is alleged that Casa also appears to engage in an administrative form of barratry:
Barratry (pron.: /ˈbærətri/ BA-rə-tree) is a legal term with several meanings. In common law, barratry is the offense committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment.[
The best evidence for this may be the treatment of Polair in Western Australia - demanding that Polair produce maintenance records and evidence of compliance with AD's going back Thirty years on all its aircraft (from memory). Further evidence might be found in the use of CAR206 to shut down certain charter operations by alleging they are in fact RPT. Then there is the question of Barrier aviation who have effectively been bankrupted by administrative fiat without any due process.
Then there is the allegation that CASA is vindictive and administers the law in a manner desired to cause maximum pain and suffering on its target - to whit "the friday afternoon fax" - the legal equivalent of mailing someone a turd. The latest example being the grounding of Barrier aviation on the afternoon af Christmas Eve.
Then there is the question exactly how an administrative reform program was allowed to drag on for Twenty Five years, at the cost of some $250 million and has aparently produced even more complex and costly regulations than the ones they replace.
Then there is the allegation that the regulations are deliberately designed to be complex, ambiguous and difficult to understand because it gives CASA inspectors the ability to interpret them as they see fit to achieve their desired result and those interpretaions are inconsistent across the continent.
By way of example, an acquaintance on being ramp checked a few weeks ago asked the inspector why there was not a simple plain English statement from CASA of
exactly what the pilot of a single piston engined light aircraft was required to carry or posess in order to guarantee to pass a ramp check. The Inspectors response? "Too difficult and complex" because "all aircraft are different".
Then there is the allegation that CASA has forced various operators to employ certain operational practices that are not approved, or even forbidden, by various aircraft manufacturers, including engine failure training methods in multi engine aircraft.
Then there is the allegation that CASA has worked in collusion with the ATSB to circumvent the provisions of the TSA act regarding confidentiality of reporting and independence of the ATSB (and perhaps AsA as well).
Then there is the allegation that the regulatory overburden CASA has instigated has resulted in aircraft operating costs in Australia being Three times the North American equivalent which has resulted in economic damage to the Australian economy.
THen there is the alegation that CASA has engineered a situation where Australia no longer conforms to its treaty obligations regarding safety required as a member of the ICAO.
...That enough allegations for you?
Of course none of the allegations may be true, however....
And the "Safety" mantra doesn't wash if you simply look at the costs imposed in Australia versus the safety outcome. Contrary to popular opinion, risk management professionals can and do calculate the value of a human life and use that number along with probability estimates to calculate the economic return on investing in safety.
If one used those scores, I suspect that CASA and the ATSB would be showing a very negative rate of return to the Australian public.
And of course the ultimate hypocrisy; if the good Senators ever find that there is any truth in the allegations above, what will CASA immediately do?
Thats right, call to be treated with "fairness, equity and natural justice" - something they allegedly routinely deny to the rest of the industry.