McCormick, on your way out can you pick Mr. Navathe up as well? dumber and dumber...
Nail in head..
And a choccy frog for Sunny..
Folks, this is called "projection" in psychiatry - the act of attributing the characteristics of your own behaviour to your critics...
...The rest of the article indicates a man totally out of touch with reality because, unless the submissions and the conclusions contained in the inquiry report to Government are totally wrong, he has presided over a total basket case...
And if you want evidence here it is...
Notice that the SS still believes that he will have the final say on the CVD decision making process...
As Sunny indicates the guy is seriously delusional...
Anyway (FLICK..
) back to business...
Noticed that the AA mag carried an article from Senator David Fawcett in their July edition where he gives his appraisal of the Forsyth (ASRR) report..
A turning point
The Aviation Safety Regulatory Review
It is my genuine hope that the Australian aviation community will be able to look back on June 2014 when the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) was tabled in Parliament and see it as a milestone that marked the beginning of a turnaround for the industry.
The review was undertaken by David Forsyth (Australia), Don Spruston (Canada) and Roger Whitefield (UK) but their work was only made possible because individuals and companies proved willing to engage with them in a constructive manner. This cooperation has resulted in a sweeping but balanced evaluation of the current state of industry-regulator relations. Most importantly, it has identified a number of achievable measures to create a safe and sustainable aviation industry across each of the various sectors involved.
Space dictates I can’t hope to comment on all 37 recommendations but I will pick up on some key themes and outcomes.
Leadership
The panel acknowledges that there were positive comments about the regulator, reflecting the fact that many CASA staff work hard to support those whose livelihoods or recreation are tied up with aviation. The review makes clear however that the majority of industry feedback was critical, highlighting that CASA has become more heavy-handed in its approach to regulation over recent years and that communication or engagement with industry can no longer be characterised across the board as constructive.
To their great credit, the panel has taken a “whole of system” approach and highlights the role of leadership, from government, Department and the CASA board in promoting and developing a safe, secure and sustainable aviation industry in Australia. In my view, “sustainable” is a key word here as there is a strong link between commercial viability and capacity for safe operations. This concern also extends to the protection of airport flight paths and operations from the encroachment of on- and off -airport developments with the panel identifying this as an urgent policy issue with an emerging risk to the long term viability of Australia’s existing aviation infrastructure.
In addition to an enhanced Departmental role, I am pleased to see the panel’s view that the board should exercise full governance over CASA with non-executive directors possessing a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds in aviation, safety, management, risk, regulation and governance.
The panel also sees a leadership role for industry, particularly in respect to collaborative rule making, which is critically important to acceptance and commitment, but which in practice does not currently exist.
This increased accountability to a better informed and engaged Department, board and industry, perhaps allowed the panel to make a recommendation that while aviation or other safety industry experience is highly desirable, the next Director of Aviation Safety must have leadership and management experience with demonstrated capabilities in cultural change of large organisations. This will be an interesting space to watch.
Regulatory reform and future rule making
I’m not surprised that the long and sometimes tortuous process of regulatory reform was a key feature which the panel estimates will take at least another five years to complete if the current approach is retained.
More significantly, the review notes that the final product of the current regulatory reform process is unlikely to meet the aviation community’s needs and is unlikely to be consistent with the ICAO principles for plain language safety rules.
The panel therefore recommends a structured project management approach to complete all outstanding CASR Parts, overseen by a steering committee.
Linking back to the importance of accountability and leadership, I’m pleased to see the recommendation that this committee would report to the CASA board and would include a Department representative as well as two industry representatives appointed by the Minister.
Industry will also have a key role in the subject matter sub-teams for relevant aviation disciplines (spanning operations and maintenance ranging from high capacity RPT through to charter, airwork, agricultural and training to private GA operations).
These teams would include representatives from CASA and the industry selected on the basis of their knowledge, ability and commitment.
I’m very conscious that many in industry have expressed deep disappointment with what they see as “one-way communication” by CASA in the consultative arrangements that currently exist. I believe that the commitment to a meaningful role for industry’s voice in this new process is backed up by the panel’s recommendation that not only is industry’s time and knowledge required in this collaborative rule making effort, but that CASA would need to compensate them for it.
Culture and organisation
Key concepts here include trust, the appropriate use of discretion and service. Leading overseas regulators are using a ‘trust and verify’ approach which leads a generally collaborative relationship, working with industry to build safety outcomes, but taking a hard line when necessary. Most industry representatives I’ve spoken to would have no problems with such an approach.
The panel notes that CASA may need to be more reliant on industry delegates to issue low-risk approvals on its behalf. This builds on the successful ATO scheme and in a move that will be welcomed by industry, the recommendation is that CASA must continue to indemnify industry delegates, when they are making decisions on behalf of the regulator, to ensure that they are able to carry out these functions with confidence and legal certainty.
While not supporting the many calls for Australia to adopt the NZ CAA regulations outright, there is a call for CASA to adopt an organisational structure similar to that developed for New Zealand, which would structure CASA along the lines of industry’s activities (a client-oriented output model) rather than being structured around CASA’s activities. While I know many CASA staff already try to provide a service to industry, having a service oriented corporate structure and culture would make their job so much easier.
This could see a move back to having small, industry focused teams at secondary airports to assist industry in coordinating approvals and performing routine monitoring and ramp inspections. To overcome some of the current issues that lead to “office shopping” by industry, system audits would be conducted by audit teams from other CASA offices.
Having seen the success of third party industry audits such as BARS and IOSA, I’m really pleased to see a focus in the review on the potential for CASA to increase the acceptance of third-party expertise to contribute to ongoing audit and inspection schedules. There is also a focus on ensuring that CASA abides by international best practice in respect to audits through measures such as full disclosure of findings at exit briefings.
Finally, one of the measures that will be most welcome is a completely new approach to providing individuals and companies with a timely and affordable appeal mechanism. The proposed Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) review panel would provide a suitably separate and impartial review mechanism that gives the board direct insights into the impacts of CASA decision-making. It allows for timely review by a panel chaired by a CASA board member, supported by independent experts which will consider both the merits and process of matters (including AVMED). No officer of CASA is exempt from the ICC’s jurisdiction and while CASA can object to the ruling, they have to explain their decision to the board and parties still have recourse to the AAT.
The ASRR is not a silver bullet that will fix everything overnight, but it is a long overdue recognition that the concerns raised by all industry sectors over many years are valid. Importantly it provides a framework for stronger leadership, improved accountability, culture and regulatory process which I trust will enable Australia to have a safe and sustainable aviation industry into the future.
"..Another turning point a Fawcett stuck in the road.."
MTF..
