View Single Post
Old 17th Jun 2014, 08:29
  #832 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Pineapples at dawn!

Although not nearly as long as Bor-it-up-em's... 6.13 word count, however 6.22 is worthy of respect (162 words by my count) as it is a full and complete para with no bullet-points. I can also (unbelievably..) understand large slabs of it, maybe because FF are quite proud of their achievements in the area of enforcement action.

With that in mind, and to put 6.22 in context I have decided to quote the whole relevant section.

WARNING : BYO bucket.. {I believe this warning is in red}:
Assessing the Effectiveness of Enforcement

6.21 As all regulators, and those who closely study the processes of regulation, know only too well, it can be difficult to accurately and reliably measure the effectiveness of enforcement action.55 One useful and objective measure of the effectiveness of CASA's enforcement processes is reflected in the number of CASA decisions affirmed in the AAT and the number of prosecutions mounted by the CDPP in which convictions or findings of guilt were obtained.

6.22 On these measures-which appear in CASA's 2012-13 Annual Report for that year and the preceding five years,56 and which have been updated to 31 December 2013 in material recently provided to the Review Panei-CASA's performance may fairly be characterised as very good and steadily improving. As the Review Panel will have seen in the data we have already provided, there has been a significant increase in the number of what might be described as 'successful' enforcement outcomes for CASA over the past three years. And whilst there may be a number of reasons for this, one compelling explanation is that the enforcement action taken in response to the breaches identified has been more appropriate, and the decisions taken were the product of greater circumspection and consideration. At all events, these results arguably reflect the positive effects of CASA's commitment to, and a growing appreciation amongst CASA's managers and staff for the importance of, better informed and better disciplined decision-making.

6.23 More importantly, as the majority of potential enforcement matters that have arisen in recent years have been subject to the Coordinated Enforcement Process, it is notable that, in the last 12 months, of the approximately 300 matters referred to the Coordinated Enforcement Process, 46 resulted in recommendations for initiating administrative action (usually to vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation), 103 infringement being notices issued and 14 matters being referred to the CDPP.
{I believe 6.22 is in green??} Besides the obvious self-congratulation going on in those paragraphs, I think what FF are inferring is..."We are a law unto ourselves"......however I'm not entirely sure??

On the same subject matter I noticed that the REX submission had this much more understandable summary (with stats) on page 15:

This has deteriorated in recent years. CASA seems preoccupied with acting as a ‘Big R’ regulator rather than working in partnership with industry to achieve better safety outcomes. The amount of enforcement activity has increased while the service delivery standards established in 2006 are no longer applied.

Examination of CASA annual reports show a strong upward trend in the number of infringement notices issued by CASA.

FY/Notices '05/79 '06/107 '07/109 '08/146 '09/153 '10/171 '11/135 '12/197 '13/190

The CASA Service Charter says, in part:
A good regulator will demonstrate fairness, good judgement, and be
flexible and responsive to the changing environment in which the aviation
industry operates… CASA must provide a high level of client service, and
treat clients with consideration and courtesy.

Rex is of the view that CASA is not fulfilling its obligations with respect to client services. As an example, there has been a lengthening of the processing time for aircrew medical certificates leading to periods when pilots are unable operate aircraft.

Over the past year Rex has lost 20 pilot days as a result of the late renewal of aircrew medical certificates.

The CASA approved Rex Group Audit Manual provides at section 2.2.4: 2.2.4 Third Party Supplier/Contractor Self Assessment Review and Reminder.

Self assessment forms are distributed to each supplier/contractor via email or posted via mail biennially. Once returned, the completed forms are reviewed, the supplier/contractor is risk rated and the relevant "Third Party Suppliers Register" is updated.

CASA is a supplier of regulatory services and accordingly was requested to complete a Third Party Self-Assessment Review form. CASA denied the request on the grounds that the services it provides to Rex are in accordance with its statutory obligations, and are not subject to contract.

Rex considers that the regulatory services functions of CASA are the same as any other supplier and should be subject to the same scrutiny. In some cases services have been contracted out by CASA to third parties where they are then subject to audit.

The relationship with CASA presents a significant business risk for the Rex Group and it is only prudent that Regional Express should seek to scrutinise the internal processes of CASA to ensure they comply with its statutory obligations and requirements.

Alternatively, CASA should be subject to scrutiny from an independent body. CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner is a part of CASA and reports directly to the Director so cannot be considered independent. Rex believes that CASA should be oversighted by a specialist Ombudsman similar to those that exist in other industries such as telecommunications.
Now there is a passage of text & stats that even the man at the back of the room can get his head around...

{Comment: On Section 6 Improving Oversight and Enforcement of
the Aviation Regulations,
I note that they forgot to mention the DAS (STBR) embuggerance loophole, as proudly stated (by the DAS) in the foreword of the enforcement (embuggerance) manual}:
Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.

Last edited by Sarcs; 17th Jun 2014 at 08:40.
Sarcs is offline