Long existing rot...
Ziggy, Keep up the good work and keep fighting the fine fight.
Here are some snippets leading up to and including todays CASA.
I have put together some snippets of interest. Some past CASA pithy motherhood speeches but also some scathing statements against CASA. I believe those statements are still relevant today.
Links to the full speeches are included. I have cut and pasted my favourite highlights. (My bolding):
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:
c=PC_91688
New governance arrangements for CASA
3 February 2004
I have today issued fourteen Directives. The first four Directives relate to the need to review elements of the Regulatory Reform Program. This will involve a delay in the bulk of the overall Program, although hopefully the delay will not extend beyond 30 June 2004. There are two Directives covering reviews of Particular Parts, and another Directive relates to the planning needed to accommodate the overall delay, and the specific reviews.
And,
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:c=PC_91702
RAAA 2008 Convention
Hyatt Regency, Coolum, 18 September 2008
Threats, Challenges and Opportunities
You have anew Chief Executive, who I think is doing a really good job in representing your interests. CASA will soon have a new CEO and it just might be that this could be the right time to re-think the relationship, to ensure issues raised have genuine safety outcomes as objectives and to be ready to convince CASA that this is the case. For CASA's part, we must clearly be ready to engage with any group that has a clear safety.
When I came to CASA at the end of 2003, it was not as if I did not know what I was taking on. Way back, I had worked in the then Department of Aviation, CASA's predecessor. I was later appointed to the CASA Board. I chaired CASA's Aviation Safety Forum and I was appointed by the then Minister as a special industry adviser to CASA on regulatory reform.
The senior management team was tired, set in its ways, and not all that interested inasking the hard questions, such as whether CASA was actually effective infulfilling the expectations of the government, the industry, the travelling public and the taxpayer. I could go on, but I think you get the drift. The regulatory reform programis finally producing non-prescriptive outcome-based regulations stripped of requirements that do not contribute to safety, and supported by a transparent and comprehensive industry
We established a robust independent Industry Complaints Commissioner function toprovide an independent procedure for industry complaints against CASA to be addressed in an unbiased way.
It seems tome unlikely that a Board will be in place much before March 2009, perhaps later. Is this a threat? I don't believe so. Will the existence of a Board present any insurmountable difficulties for CASA or create great uncertainties for CASA or the industry? I don't believe so.
The successof a Board very much depends on the quality of the members and I am sure the Minister will be appointing people of the highest standing and experience to afuture CASA Board, assuming, of course, passage of the necessary changes to the Civil AviationAct.
Thank you
Bruce Byron AM
Chief Executive Officer
September 2008
And,
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/_assets/main/corporat/ceo/speeches/transcript_bris.pdf
CASA response to the Lockhart River investigation. No longer exists? Hmmmmmm
However, as a reminder:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/casa-admits-to-insatisfactory-response-to-lockhart/story-e6frg6nf-1111113846106
CASA admits to 'unsatisfactory'response to Lockhart
· From:The Australian
· June 28, 200712:00AM
ACIVIL Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) inspector has admitted the aviation watchdog's response to concerns about the airline at the centre of one of the nation's worst air disasters was "unsatisfactory".
Brisbane-based CASA inspector Max McRae today gave evidence to a coronial inquest into thecircumstances surrounding the Lockhart River plane crash on May 7, 2005.
All 15 people aboard died when the TransAir-operated Metroliner aircraft ploughed into a 500-metre high mountain on approach to the Lockhart RiverAboriginal community on Cape York, in far north Queensland.
Following a two-year investigation into the crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) found, among other contributors, CASA failed to detect and regulate safety problems inherent in TransAir.
The report showed CASA raised concerns with the now-defunct TransAir as early as 1998 about its director Les Wright, who was also the airline's CEO, chiefpilot and training and checking pilot.
The aviation body was concerned Mr Wright was “spread very thin” across the Australian and Papua New Guinea operations, compromising safety.
A 1999 CASA audit of TransAir uncovered a worrying degree of non-compliance,including inadequate management and issues relating to the airlines' operationsmanual.
The audit results prompted CASA to draft a show-cause notice against Mr Wrightdemanding why he should be allowed to keep his chief pilot approval, which if stripped would have effectively grounded the airline.
But the notice was not issued because Mr Wright agreed to an urgent alternativecourse of action which included appointing someone to introduce and manage asafety management system within the company.
It was agreed Mr Wright would provide CASA with weekly reports and attendmeetings to ensure progress was being made.
However, the ATSB found CASA files showed little evidence TransAir compliedwith the agreement.
TransAir only appointed a safety manager in 2001 and a deputy chief pilot a year later.
Under cross examination, Mr McRae today was asked why CASA allowed TransAir to expand its operations to include additional routes while it deemed the airline,which hadn't kept its end of the agreement, “high risk”.
“CASA was in a position where we were trying to improve the organisation,” MrMcRae said.
When asked if these concerns weren't “followed through”, Mr McRae replied:“Yes”.
When further asked if this was unsatisfactory, he responded: “In those terms,yes”.
He said CASA had embarked on “a lot more operational surveillance” following the crash, but the onus was on the airline operators to do the right thing.
When asked what he believed was the cause of the accident, he responded: “I believe the guy flew into the hill”.
“I don't think one can form an absolute view,” he said.
And,
CASA under fire over Lockhart River crash
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 04/04/2007
Reporter: Karen Burkman
The Australian aviation regulator, CASA, isunder fire after an investigation found the authority should take part responsibility for the Lockhart River crash.
Transcript
TONY JONES: Error after error - that's how investigators have summed up the Lockhart River air crash almost two years ago. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau found mistakes made by two TransAir pilots working under pressure were the major cause but the airline's safety culture and lack of adequate supervision by the aviation safety watchdog, CASA, were also cited as contributing factors. Karen Berkman reports.
KAREN BERKMAN: The Australian Transport Safety Bureau report paints a terrifying picture of the last moments of Australia's worst civilian air crash in almost 40 years. In bad weather, the Metroliner came in for a complex instrumentlanding at Lockhart River, with the pilot overloaded and an inexperienced21-year-old co pilot. Add to that confusing maps and a basic ground proximity warning system that would have alerted the crew too late.
BRUCE BYRON, CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY: I have never seen rates of descent that high during an estimate approach when so close to the ground.
KAREN BERKMAN: Exactly why the TransAir plane descended too fast and too steeply may never be known because the cockpit voice recorder wasn't working properly. The ATSB attributed much of the blame to mistakes made by the overworked crew.
KYM BILLS, AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT SAFETY BUREAU: The pilot in command had a history of fast flying, including without properly endorsed crew, and had been surprised by high terrain, using this same approach 10 days before.
KAREN BERKMAN: TransAir was found to have contributed to the crash by inadequate training and supervision of pilots.
KYM BILLS: TransAir's safety management and culture were poor.
KAREN BERKMAN: The ATSB said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had not properly monitored the airline's structure in operations.
MARTIN FERGUSON, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN: If CASA had have been doing its job, the Lockhart River accident, which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
MARK VAILE, TRANSPORT MINISTER: I think that we are continuing to make improvements and I look forward to CASA's response.
KAREN BERKMAN: The inquiry found that CASA had not properly followed its own procedures and guidelines.
BRUCE BYRON: Yes, I saw that, and that's definitely an area of concern. I would say that across the board CASA’s surveillance needed improvement across all areas.
KAREN BERKMAN: CASA rejected the charge it contributed in any way to the crash, but says its monitoring of small operators has improved greatly in the two years since. Many of the report's recommendations have already been incorporated, including enhanced ground proximity systems.
And,
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
2:15 pm,4April2007,ParliamentHouse
MARTIN FERGUSON
Subjects: aviation industry reform, CASA, TransAir,Lockhart Review report findings
MARTIN FERGUSON:
On behalf of a number of families,who lost loved ones in the Lockhart River accident, can I firstly say: they have clearly expressed their dismay to my Office this afternoon at the inadequate response by the CEO of CASA, Mr Byron, to the ATSB Report.
To think that CASA can simply dismiss ATSB findings as being wrong and to effectively seek to distance himself and CASA from the findings of the ATSB Report simply says there is a lack of leadership at the most senior level of CASA.
On that basis the Opposition has come to the conclusion that there is no alternative but to call for the resignation of Mr Byron.
The ATSB Report is a scathing report, not only in terms of the performance of TransAir but more importantly, in terms of the performance of CASA; the safety organisation responsible for the aviation industry in Australia.
I think itis also fair to say that we need a root and branch reform of CASA as an organisation. Unlike Air Services Australia and ATSB, organisationssimilarly involved in aviation in Australia, we have no confidence in CASA and its leadership.
Some years ago both the Government and the Opposition came to the view that perhaps the best way of actually taking CASA forward was to abolish the Board. Our decision required a Minister to actually have an interest in holding CASA accountable.
In the period since the Board was abolished, there have been three Howard Government Ministers for Transport. None of those Government Ministers have been actually prepared to do the hard work or actually have the interest in reforming and taking CASA forward.
Side by side, with a resignation from the CEO of CASA, who has 18 months to run on his contract, I believe that the Government has to think about separating enforcement in terms of the role of CASA, actually putting the finger on theindustry going to issues of aviation safety, and policy development and regulation setting.
The Government is required to go out of its way to recruit someone who is a professional with an intimate knowledge of the aviation industry, be it domestically or internationally.
I also believe that rather than appointing a Board, as it has on a number of occasions of mates, it has to put in place a small body to actually assist the CEO to bring about fundamental cultural reform andmethods of operations of CASA.
As for the Government’s response today, I also believe that, like CASA, it leaves a lot to be desired.
The ATSB Report is a scathing report of not only CASA but potentially aviation safety inAustralia.
With respect to the issue of the Government, weneed a professional response.
To put Dick Smith back in the ring is just plain wrong. I might also say there are serious questions about a further member of the Taskforce, Mr Boyd, and obviously we will be having something further to say with respect to the Taskforce in the foreseeable future.
The Government should not be about putting croniesin place to try and cover its trail to protect itself. We all have to comeclean and say we actually got it wrong. I say on behalf of the Opposition, thatwe actually supported the abolition of the Board as did the Government. But we have been proven to be wrong.
Today requires honesty, integrity and aprofessional approach to fixing aviation safety in Australia. It seems that the Howard Government and CASA is incapable of actually responding to thechallenge.
JOURNALIST:
What is wrong with Dick Smith? You seem to be blackening his name, what is the cause for that?
MARTIN FERGUSON:
There are serious questions not only in the mind of the Opposition but I might also say in the Government about Dick’s performance.
It was John Anderson, who was then the Minister for Transport, who finally sacked him and said enough is enough. Any suggestion that Dick Smith be brought back into any role in aviation regulation reform in Australia today, has sounded the alarm bells in the aviation industry.
Not only have I had Lockhart River victims’ family members on the phone today complaining about CASA’s response, I have also had calls from senior representatives in the aviation industry saying, "Martin, you have to stand up. Dick Smith is a problem."
We have to go forward in a proper non-emotional,professional way. Dick Smith is at best an enthusiastic amateur, too emotionally involved in the industry, who likes to get his own way without regard to what I regard as of fundamental importance to aviation safety and how we get it right.
JOURNALIST:
What is wrong with CASA? It is abody of professionals who must be all reasonably good at their jobs. How is it that the organisation doesn’t meet air safety regulations?
MARTIN FERGUSON:
Well compare Air ServicesAustralia. It has a Board structure where the CEO is actually prepared to standup and hold people accountable.
CASA simply is not able to do the job. There is a cultural problem throughout the whole organisation. In the last three years, you think they would have got it right.
CASA has spent over $9 million on so-called management change. Where are we today? It is almost as if that money was just poured down the drain because of the failure of leadership, a lack of ministerial interest and without a doubt - as the ATSB Report clearly states in black and white - if CASA had been doing its job, theLockhart River accident which saw 15 Australians lose their lives, could have been avoided.
Thank you.
‘2013 - Safe and improved skies for all’? I think not.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 23rd Apr 2013 at 02:00.