Senate Inquiry into CASA.

[james michael]

at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/report/report.pdf

The way I look at it, a learning organisation would take note of the common threads within.

Congrats to a fellow poster (anon) for the Senate Report recognition of his credibility even if his enforcement philosophy is the same as that of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland 'off with their heads'. :)

[EMB120ER]

Everyone disapointed yet?

[Bob Murphie]

Recommendation 1
The committee recommends the Australian Government strengthen CASA's governance framework and administrative capability by:
 introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA; and
 undertaking a review of CASA's funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends, in accordance with the findings of the Hawke Taskforce, that CASA's Regulatory Reform Program be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office audit CASA's implementation and administration of its Safety Management Systems approach.

or;

Install Labor friendly faces to oversee strategic direction and oversight, throw money at it, finish the Regulatory Reform program irrespective of its present state and worth, and get the Auditors to watch what happens.:(

[Howabout]

Please don't tell me that the world's most favourite aviator is going to get another go...again.

[Frank Burden]

A bit too busy earning a living at the momen to take in the detail. Can someone like Creampuff give me a quick analysis about who won and who lost and how aviation safety in Australia will be improved as a result of this inquiry?

[SIUYA]

Frank...........

Sorry to say, but to me it looks like this:

1) The winner? The Rudd government by foisting an overwhelming 'whitewash' on the Australian public. :yuk:

2) The loser? The Australian aviation industry and Australian public. :{

3) Safety enhancements? Absolutely 5/8ths of the square root of fcuk-all by the looks of things while the present idiot minister remains the minister, and the present idiot Secretary of the Department serves out his new term of appointment as Secretary. :ugh:

There's an old saying Frank which says that no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still going to be a pig. What more can I say? :mad:

[bilbert]

About what you would expect from an inquiry on short notice and only 3 days for hearings. Only 3 recommendations but many "you may need to look at''s.

1. Appoint a board - some merit, but depends on the quality. What we don't want is Labour hacks appointed for reward for services rendered.
2. Review funding - more costs to the industry on the user pays principle? to support a massive bureaucracy and enhance the lifestyle of the ineffective?.

3. Regulatory Reform Program to be pushed through - open slather to put up the same flawed and over prescriptive rules that the industry objected to, but CASA seem unable to acknowledge, but then again the Legislative Drafting is a lot of the problem

4. Audit by the National Audit office of CASA's SMS - a bureaurcratic response to a complete stuffup - 'Yes Minister' stuff.

The focus on the NQ CASA office is interesting, although CASA seems to think they've solved the problem already. There should be some restriction on appointing FOI's. AWI's and Area Managers to areas where they had previously been involved in the industry.

The potential for conflict of interest and pushing personal agendas' was not acknowledged by the committee, although strongly suggested in many of the submissions by those who were game enough to speak up i.e. those not subject to CASA oversight. Most disappointing.

[1746]

How CASA let Qantas off the safety hook
Ben Sandilands writes:


The report of the Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA is not typical of the genre.
It is comparatively short, lucid and lethal about the poor state of the air safety regulator’s management under CEO Bruce Byron if read line by line.
Read in conjunction with what is known about the CASA special audit of Qantas, a dismal picture of the regulator’s capacity to regulate and the airline’s ability to maintain its fleet emerges.
Let’s summarise the key disclosures:
CASA totally failed to identify and act on deteriorating maintenance standards at Qantas during Byron’s tenure, which started in 2003 and ends this November up until it called for a special but commercial-in-confidence audit in August, weeks after the Senate inquiry had concluded.
In his evidence and tendered documents Byron sought to redefine CASA’s role from being an enforcer of the air safety laws to that of a co-operative mentoring industry partner urging the airlines to deliver safety outcomes on its behalf.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.
The Senate committee choked over the "naivety" of anyone seriously expecting CASA to actually perform its legislated obligations, especially in relation to Qantas, and criticised Mick Quinn, the deputy CEO of operations at CASA for being somewhat blasé about the spate of maintenance issues at the airline.
Its report discloses significant concerns by the airlines over CASA’s conduct under Byron, yet also documents their desire for the hand’s off approach to regulatory compliance to continue, as expressed in the hearings and submissions taken week’s before the failure of this policy in relation to Qantas was revealed.
The Virgin Blue position could be summarised as supporting the committee’s recommendation for a board to be appointed to oversee CASA yet maintain its role as the ‘industry facing organisation’ that proved so useless in relation to Qantas.
The sanitisation of the Senate report has already started with a press release from the self-styled ‘independent’ Safeskies communications fostering body which is part funded by CASA.
Safeskies claims that Australia has no option under its participation in the International Civil Aviation Organisation to "go back" to the "days of antediluvian aviation regulation".
This is a completely false representation of Australia’s ICAO obligations, as is its claim that the Senate has ‘endorsed’ the direction of CASA’s reforms.
Safeskies hasn’t responded to an invitation to withdraw the press release on the grounds that it isn’t supported by the actual report.:D

[Spikey21]

How CASA let Qantas off the safety hookOk, now lets all look surprised !!!!!!

[Lodown]

Jim, I don't know if there is any other way to reset the CASA's goals without some sort of public show. That's the CASA's lot. They're adults and they can live with it. The execs are paid the big bucks in part to cop it on the chin through Parlimentary privelege or not. Pay me the same amount and I'll stand up and waffle on with some management doublespeak about realignments, restructures and co-operative partnership male bovine excrement in front of politicians. Byron is the guy in charge. He set the direction. Yes, the previous ministers should wear a substantial amount of blame, but Byron is the guy in charge. Why is he the CEO if he can't handle responsibility and blame? Ultimately, if he didn't agree with Ministerial directions, then he should have resigned. What you're stating is similar to agreeing with the pilot who after flying a plane into a hill in cloud blamed the company manager for making him do it.

The Labor Party would be accused of petty vindictiveness if it went after the previous Ministers, and what would it achieve anyway? It would certainly give the green light to subsequent retaliatory accusations for the next Minister or party in power.

If anything, this inquiry has been nothing more than a slap on the wrist to the CASA. It got off very lightly. Too lightly in my mind.

In his evidence and tendered documents Byron sought to redefine CASA’s role from being an enforcer of the air safety laws to that of a co-operative mentoring industry partner urging the airlines to deliver safety outcomes on its behalf.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.


I think Byron's mindset is flawed and naive. It's a concillatory cop-out of convenience. If the CASA is redefined from an enforcer of the air safety laws to a co-operative mentoring partner, then take it to its logical conclusion over time. Companies will see the CASA as an expense and argue it can do the same comfortably on its own. The CASA is becoming nothing more than a rubberstamp to its major "customers": a third-party authentication of a certain expectation of standards, where the "customer" can unduly influence the expectations. The trouble with this philosophy is that through an industry partnership, many of these standards appear to be for very specific commercial expediance rather than serious risk mitigation and generic industry benefit.

I think what the inquiry has completely missed is an opportunity to recommend a framework to strengthen the CASA to be a sound regulator. I would like to think it encourages a change of direction reasonably soon, otherwise we'll be going through this entire process again in a few years.

The CASA not only needs to enforce the laws so that the travelling public have faith in Australia's aviation industry, but it needs to greatly improve on encouraging new laws and law changes to remove outdated obstacles to modern commercial operations and equipment. By striving to be a partner in safety, the CASA has achieved prominance instead by becoming a huge promoter of the status quo, a hindrance to commercial innovation and a huge roadblock to further competitiveness and industry evolution.

Byron has tried to palm-off his partnership program as a way of improving safety. What rubbish! The partnership program has been nothing more than a means of maintaining paperwork and a ministerial reporting structure when the organisation has been gutted by continuous budget cuts and a greedy executive body focussed on year-end bonuses.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Having dealt with Mr Byron, I would say he's executed his job pretty well, with the tools he was given.

Government has changed many thing for the worse, the most notable of all these is the "user pays system", so Byron picked up the ball he was given and ran with it as best he could ( even though there were various malignant cultures with the organisation, under funded, still with the same ****ty base legislation ).

I believe Mr Sandilands is just another douche bag trying to make a name for himself by publishing more of the fanatical misinformation to scare the public into reading his writings, IMHO there is nothing intelligent in his writings.

Do we remember why the CASA board was disbanded, because it was the opinion of the government of the time that it was a failure, why else would they disband it ?.

Whilst I am far from an expert, all this humbug about rewriting the legilsation IMHO is a complete waste of time and money, we do not need to re-invent the wheel, the base legilsation is quite recoverable, it just need to be corrected, to fix the problems that many here are quite aware of.

MOS ( manual of standards ) - we need correction of these documents ( if not a complete removal of ), these documents often vary considerably from the legislated requirements, add to this equation an officious weaner that happens to slipped through the "HR" process as an FOI or AWI and you have a very unhappy region, refer the noting of the FNQ region by the Senate.

On that note, in most part I thought the FNQ culture had changed considerably for the better from say, 2003 ?.

I do not care if people disagree, but I believe Byron did a reasonable job, Government gave him two slices of bread and a turd, and they are suprised they are not having Roast Lamb for dinner ?.

[Torres]

So if Byron is so capable and was "set up", who is responsible for five years and $100 million of regulatory reform going no-where??? :confused:

After all, in February 2005 he stated:

I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months.

Obviously his plan to have a plan was not well planned?? :confused:

The buck - infact, far too many bucks - stopped with Byron, who failed to achieve. A poor taxpayer investment!

[T28D]

Torres 100% correct, we all thought Toller was bad, Byron raised incompetence to a new level, unprecedented even in the public service.

[Torres]

The regulatory reform fiasco is merely one example of a Director setting low CASA standards, which he failed to achieve. The Senate Report is a litany of management failures for which the Minister must accept responsibility.

"...raised incompetence to a new level..." I would have thought "..hit rock bottom and continued to dig..." would be a more appropriate expression.

But, primary responsible for the CASA train smash is vested in a succession of incompetent Ministers. When will Government appoint a competent Administrator to manage CASA, rather than semi retired airline or air force pilots???? It would also help if the Administrator lived in Canberra and at least went to work each day.

[T28D]

Raised to a new level, or hit rock bottom, really both saying the same thing.

Byron presided as a Board member and then as CEO over one of the most disgraceful exhibitions of a Regulator out of control allowing its staff aided and abetted by internal legal support to act in absolute disdain for established legal principles as espoused by the Government Policy of being a model litigant.

Byron's stewardship goes beyond the period as CEO when he was the "Safety" expert in the board structure and ulimately allowed such disasters as Lockhart River whilst off on crusades against legitimte operators who to this day have not had an incident and are collectively (those still in the industry ) 100% in front of the "swiss cheese".

Operating from his home in Melbourne with the occasional appearance at the Castle in Canberra and never to be seen at the "coal face" was always going to be a challenge for a skillful CEO , but it was never viable for a CEO on trainer wheels.

Australia is just really lucky our major carriers as a group have maintained a viable safety mindset and we have not lost a wide body aircraft.

[Shell Management]

I thought Byron's biggest crime was allegedly to try to root out all the has-been ex airline/airforce pilots & engineers from their cozy pre-retirement jobs and replace them with people who understood safety.

[T28D]

If Byron had actually done that, root out the incompetents, CASA would be a different place.

Facts are however , the same faces appear, some on contract, and the Office of Legal Counsel is still the same bunch despite its leader getting his marching orders.

The machinations of the working bureacracy stifle any real change, CASA needs a real leader who understands the concept of unbundling bureacratic coverup and is prepared to make sweeping changes and bring in new "blood" who can understand how to apply effective regulation to a diverse and geographically spread Industry.

Public Safety must be the primary focus of the regulator, not nit picking audits on Engineers paper work, a great change would be to monitor the actual work being done, and maybe accept paperwork stained by oil from working hands.

Listen to the pilots and engineers who fly and maintain the fleet daily, apply the general wisdom and regulate for the safest outcome.

Remove the Office of Legal Counsel and concentrate legal work with Attourney Generals Dept and the Government Solicitor.

[Casper]

I thought Byron's biggest crime was allegedly to try to root out all the has-been ex airline/airforce pilots & engineers from their cozy pre-retirement jobs and replace them with people who understood safety.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has replaced all the old fashioned regulators with "touchy feely safety specialists" who have no experience from the University of Life.

[xinhua2]

North Queensland Office
2.77 The committee was concerned to hear evidence from a number of operators expressing concern about CASA staff forging unduly close relationships with some members of the industry and pursuing personal agendas against others.81 In particular,the committee received evidence which was openly critical of CASA’s North Queensland office. Witnesses before the committee told the committee of the North Queensland office’s reputation for ’turning a blind eye to the cowboys who operate up there and also some pretty ordinary behaviour of the offices themselves.’ 82
2.78 While the committee received very little first hand evidence regarding the North Queensland office, the committee was concerned that there appears to be a widely held perception that staff in CASA’s North Queensland office do not deal with all members of the industry fairly and do not apply regulations consistently.
2.79 The committee was keen to discuss this perception with CASA and
understand the steps being taken to address it. Mr Byron told the committee that there have been a number of reviews and investigations of the North Queensland office. He said:

------------“evidence” “concern” “persuing personal agendas” “evidence” “critical of North Queensland office” “witnesses” “turning a blind eye” “cowboys” “ordinary behaviour” ”while the committee received very little first hand evidence” ”concerned” “perception” “office does not deal with all members of the industry fairly” “do not apply regulations consistently” “number of reviews” “perception” ----------

Very little first hand evidence? How much does the committee need to establish there is entrenched systemic abuses of power as summed up in the text? Exactly what do you have to do to get the full force of the law brought down upon you for criminal perversion?

Save for those few who do the right thing, the whole organization is flyblown, cancerous, brain dead and needs a complete purge, not reviews.

[clapton]

Torres

But, primary responsible for the CASA train smash is vested in a succession of incompetent Ministers. When will Government appoint a competent Administrator to manage CASA, rather than semi retired airline or air force pilots???? It would also help if the Administrator lived in Canberra and at least went to work each day.

Well said.

Problem is that Albanses is now just as bad.

The fact that he re-appointed Taylor for 5 years shows how incompetent he is and can't see (or doesn't care) that Taylor must ulimately also share total blame for Byron's failings because the Secretary is meant to properly oversee the operations and policies dreamt up by Byron (which is why the Act was changed in 2003 to give the Secretary proper powers of oversight). Taylor knew exactly what was going on - and what was not going on eg regulatory reform, partnership policy, allowing now to come to work - and stood by and let it all happen. As a reward he gets re-appointed for 5 years. Shows just how out of touch Albanese is - I suspect that he will be just as bad as Anderson. Nothing will change. Regulatory reform will drag on forever - or at least until there is a a major airline accident.

It's a pity, because the Senate inquiry achieved nothing - it was a squandered opportunity. There's no doubt that Albanese and Taylor stepped in to sanitise the final report - hence the intractable delay in its release.

[Torres]

Not one of the Byron supporters attempted to justify over $100 million wasted on regulatory reform during the Byron era, for virtually no outcome! Then there is the litany of systemic failure within CASA during the period 2003 - 2008, identified in the Senate Report.

Anthony Albanese MP, Federal Member for Grayndler, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; Leader of the House. Another Clayton's Minister for Transport, in the same mold as his predecessors over the past decade or so!

I wait with great interest to see how transparent the process will be appointing the next Director and the new Board!

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Torres, whilst i do not disagree with the meaning of your message, if Byron didn't take the post in 2003, who ever it was would have still wasted $100 million on reform.

I do not believe the outcome could have been any different, in many respects the CEO is a ministerial puppet, which then evolves into fall guy.

Torres, perhaps you gave forgotten the spate of "resignations and retirements" in CASA FNQ ~2003, that did not happen by accident.

Considering the tools Byron was given, I believe he did an OK job.

Government is to be blamed for the perception of wasted money and opportunity.

[clapton]

LRT

Considering the tools Byron was given, I believe he did an OK job.

Byron was paid more than the PM to actually achieve results - including the regulatory reform program. Instead, after 5 years he achived nothing except issue meaningless directives that no one could comprehend in an effort to delay making any decisions. His interminable system of committee after committee in order to placate warring factions was just an expedient ploy to avoid taking any hard decisions. While this may have been smart on his part (because it meant that no one would criticise him for not giving them what they wanted) , it demonstated his complete lack of management skills.

And that is the real problem. Byron was appointed to the position without ANY experience in managing a large organisation- and most of his jobs were at junior levels. He had no ability as a CEO and no proper experience or training - forget his military backround - he was just not equipped for the job.

And duirng all this time where was Taylor who was meant to be overseeing the Regulatory reform program. Obviously in bed with Byron instead of ensuring the results were achieved - after all the ultimate resonsibility for the regulatory program rests with the Minister who advises the Governor-general to make the regulations. But successive Ministers and Secretaries have failed miserably in this regard allowing Byron to procrastinate and delay to such a point that he can walk away after 5 years without any accountability for his failure whatsoever. It would have help had he actually come to work from time to time and took a proper interest in the job.

Unfortunately with Taylor and Albanese at the helm we can be guaranteed that nothing of any significance will be achieved during the next 5 years - except a huge bill for the taxpayer.

[james michael]

Clapton

Accepting what you say as reasonable, and ignoring bias bias (no that's not a typo), then much of the blame must sheet to the Government.

If Byron was not the man for the job and did not have the experience, then who selected him.

Likewise, the Rudd government by giving Albanese the breadth of portfolio without extra Minister support has made its focus on aviation clear - none.

I think the 50% staff churn, the Industry Complaints Commissioner, two powerful DCEO, are but three catalysts to long-term change. Given past attempts pre-B1, perhaps B1 is not as inept as some feel. His successor at least has a better start than B1 did.

Paid more than the PM? Agreed. Paid as much as the managers in private enterprise who have presided over enormous financial, staff, and morale disasters - that's a better comparison. He has done a better job without the same gold handshake as they.

[T28D]

The fact that more than $100 million has been wasted on a reform program that delivered nothing but flummery and obsfucation is testament to a total lack of any form of rational accountability.

Committee after Committee examined ways to change ,without ever really considering the actual change mechanism, "Positive Decision Making" this from the regulator of an Industry where "Positive Decision Making" skills are an inherent essential part of day to day operational necessity.

CASA is captive to the worst forms of bureacracy , that is the type of bureacracy that becomes unaccountable through process control and lack of personal discipline in decision making by those who day to day are charged with the active role of enforcement.

Byron entrenched this by showing a complete lack of up front management and total lack of "lead from the front" management ability.

Maybe a good Flight Leiutenant, but never qualified to be a CEO.

[james michael]

T28

I don't believe our thoughts are at odds but the point I am making is perthaps comparability.

Which previous leaders of CAA / CASA shall we benchmark Byron against - and what money was spent in their time/s only to hand over the Wreck of the Hesperus to Byron?

May not excuse the current situation but possibly indicates any CEO of CASA is about to meet the immovable object unless he is the irresistible force! Particularly given the Government lead weights he has to carry above his level.

[Air Ace]

James.

You totally miss the point. What purpose would you achieve by comparing Byron's performance to previous Directors? :confused:

Byron was paid more than the PM to achieve certain outcomes within reasonable time periods. Reference to his statements in Hansard, it is obvious he considered he was capable of achieving those outcomes.

Any amount of excuses or “mitigating factors” does not change the fact he failed to achieve his own objectives or achieve the mandates he was given when he accepted the position.

There is no “gray scale” in his executive role as Director - by any measure of performance, he failed and in the process cost Australia over $100 million in failed regulatory reform alone.

Your statement “His successor at least has a better start than B1 did” is also not correct. The next CASA Director probably has a far more difficult task achieving those objectives, than that faced by either Toller or Byron.

One would hope that this time the Minister will appoint a capable, competent, accountable and professional administrator.

Based on the Minister’s pathetic performance to date, I am not confident this will occur.

[james michael]

AA

The reason I'm comparing it is to perhaps indicate that the entrenched culture has long-term blocked change.

I disagree re the successor. The 50% staff change must assist the culture change in the long-term, although to the deficit of the knowledge base.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

T28D,

There has been considerably more than $100 Million wasted on the regulatory reform process, this was a white elephant long before Byron came along.

Air Ace,

If I was in Byron shoes:

1) Cut away some culturally challenged dead wood, he did this, perhaps should have done more, perhaps should have done less.

2) Try a completely new approach in a number of area's, for example mend some bridges with Industry, he tried this, incidently a vast number of the submissions to the senate dated before his time.

3) Take that fat pay cheque knowing that in time I would be the scape goat for what ever perceived evil has occured, unless CASA grounds all aircraft there is bound to be an accident and that is bound to bear a new crusader to the media. ( not many speak high of those before him - Toller / Smith, why should he expect this be any different ?).

“mitigating factors”, did you try to get involved with the NPRM process ?, I did, what a waste of time that was, went to them with several suggestions, in writing, these never saw the light of days as this individual did not like my suggestions.

So IMHO many within the process of regulatory reform process have been sabotaging the process, no suprises there really.

Byron actually got the industry together and asked questions, then stuff me if he didn't actually listen to our answers, that was a very positive approach.

[bilbert]

Ok so the enquiry achieved nothing for the industry. Next challenge will be the raft of Regulatory Reforms that will be rushed through in the form that was deemed "totally unacceptable" by the industry. I'll take money on it.

Dusted off a copy of the NRPM for 121b the other day 2003 variety. Now wasn't that a coincidence?. BB appointed.

[Niles Crane]

What CASA does not need is an administrator at the helm!!!!

Absolutely nothing will get done.

The good people who are left at CASA will go and no one with talent will look at CASA for employment because they know their voice will not be heard!

The person at the helm needs wide based industry knowledge so meaningless directives and regulations and the Act itself does not become even more pointless than they are. He/she needs to know the industry very well for CASA to function, the second in command needs to be the administrator and held accountable to the director (CEO - whatever).

Just look at the mess aviation security is now in with the various directives with no knowledge of life committing aviation on a daily basis.

If a professional administrator was at the helm, aviation would grind to a halt faster than it is currently.

A professional administrator would hide behind the office of legal council and not have the balls to tell them that something is not possible and their is better way to stay safe.

[T28D]

If you bench mark Byron against almost any other head of Department in Canberra he comes up a very poor second place. In his defence he was left a pile of Poo by the pretender Toller.

CASA needs a well qualified CEO, a leader who is not afraid of change and who can motivate a cynical and bitter middle management that has struggled for years, under resourced in critical areas ( not bodies ) tools to do the job.

A clear set of regulations to work to and legal backing that does act as a model litigant when it is necessary to go beyond the warning stage.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

T28D,

I would not call Toller a pretender either, he was given the same turd sandwich as Byron.

Next comes pointing the bone at Smith, I believe Mr Smith was the last man that could have got the job done, he is very savvy when it comes to "co-ordinating Ministers" ( read strong arming in the media ). I believe his was the greatest opportunity lost.

[T28D]

Left Hand, If either Toller or Byron were really CEO material they would have seen the Turd sandwich as you so colourfully put the situation inside CASA and then being smart CEO qualified material they would have run a mile.

But THEY DIDN'T which really shows the lack of depth and experience they both had and in the case of Byron still has today.

Smith, different animal he Chaired the Board that oversaw CASA which is a Governance role not an executive position. There can be no comparison.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

If I was Toller or Byron, as you put it, I would look at it as an easy way to top up my Super, enjoy the ride and try to do some good, in that order.

You may not see the comparision between the three, i do. Wasn't NAS Mr Smiths idea ?, it certainly did happen, directly.

Lets agree to disagree.

[T28D]

LHRT Just how is NAS attributable to failures in the management of CASA ??? apart from NAS being a part of the aviation landscape which was open to commentary by Uncle Tom Cobley and all, I fail to see the connection.

Happy to agree to disagree, the gentlemans debate.

I just think Aviation deserves better than misguided time servers, in a world where technology is making Aviation safer and air travel is an established part of everyday life we need good leaders who can cope with the rigours of Change Management and progress entrenched negative thinking into the bright new world of risk based regulation AKA the U.S. FAA.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

T28D,

I agree with your statments regarding change management, that is where I believe the greatest challenges lay, humans generally resist change.

IMHO the problems with the legislative framework are in essence minor, but due to so many half hearted stabs at fixing the problem ( rulings, exemptions etc etc ), without consulting the industry ( far too much reliance on OLC's tea leaf and Tarot card readings in my opinion, i.e WTF is interposed travel, have not seen that in the regs, what is a fixed terminal, we all know what it was twenty years ago, but you know, things change ? ).

The Senate hit the nail on the head stating the "Industry" does not know which way is up when dealing with some challenged individuals within CASA ( incidently there are many many great persons also within the organisation who are no doubt as frustrated as the rest of us ).

Having dealt a little with the FAR/AIM, would have to say I'm suitably impressed, for one no more ammendment.

Personal note: I am so sick a tired of writing or reading about these regs, still no relevant change/progress.

Anyone thinking of taking a Chief Pilot position for a Charter or RPT organisation think carefully, in the current environment it can be a soul destroying.

[T28D]

Good leaders consult widely, the most effective tool a real leader has are his/her ears, listening is such an important skill.

The Legislation does require consultation with Industry.

However I don't accept that Consultation dulls leadership skills or takes away the Right of Management to manage.

Good leaders are decisive, close to the people they lead and enjoy universal respect.

I would submit Byron is none of the above.

[Dick Smith]

Lefthanded Rock Thrower, you state:

I believe Mr Smith was the last man that could have got the job done, he is very savvy when it comes to "co-ordinating Ministers" (read strong arming in the media). I believe his was the greatest opportunity lost.

Let’s look at the facts. After Mick Toller had been employed at CASA for six months I decided that he was not the reformer he claimed to be. During his job interview, he made out that Australia was the “Galapagos” in aviation(with its many unique and expensive rules) and that he was a real reformer. Months after taking the job, Mick Toller appeared to change his mind. Of course this could have been because he got a clear message from the Department that the Minister was anti-change, and therefore he would get no support.

I only accepted the position as Chairman because I wanted to oversee important change. Because of this, I made it clear that I had lost confidence in Mick Toller, and I wanted to appoint a “change” CEO. I had Board support for this, but when I went to the Minister (John Anderson) he was totally opposed to Mick Toller going. After all, Mick was strongly supported by Qantas and Ansett.

I made it clear to Minister Anderson that I would never remain as Chairman of CASA – and therefore be held accountable – if I did not have the authority to appoint people I had confidence in. I said Mick Toller must go, and we must appoint a person who will support change. I said that if Mick Toller was not going, I would.

John Anderson, being a minimalist, said I should bury the hatchet and remain. He missed the point. I always liked Mick Toller as a person – it was just obvious to me that he was not going to make the changes that were necessary. I realised that I would have another four years of frustration with no change at all, and merely being a figurehead. I had no intention of doing this. I resigned, and I’m glad I did.

One day we may get a Minister who will support reform – let’s hope it is before a major accident. Then we will be able to concentrate on finishing the reform process to remove the enormous number of unnecessary costs that completely strangle an industry that could be successful. When this happens, I may be available to assist – however I may be doing something else, or into the onset of dementia!

[james michael]

T28

Yes, but ...

Agreed re good leaders.

The question is whether CASA on Byron's arrival needed just a 'leader'.

Given what has been written about the state of the organisation, and what has happened since, he was certainly decisive but could hardly be close to the fifty percent of staff departing or enjoy their respect as his role was to ensure the change.

It is often said organisationally that there is a need for a slash and burn CEO followed by a peacemaker to work with the changed culture. Happened with the council amalgamations to some extent.

[Lodown]

Don't get consultation confused with consensus or unanimous support. Consultation isn't an excuse for not making a decision or determination.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Dick, welcome aboard.

I am not convinced Australian Aviation needs "to be reformed", much of the current legislation is cast in blood,,,,,, it works.

Wasn't the CAA reformed into the CASA, what form will this mystical confused creature take next ?.

Fix the current legislation, eg:

Is dingo baiting an "aerial ag operation" or just run of the mill "airwork", simple answer I would suggest ( in contradiction to CAR 2 ), but due to incomplete legislation it went to the big man ( Toller from memory ) for ruling, then, HERE (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/137/ruling.htm), then uh oh, changed again, even more uncertainty.

Dick, if you would indulge me, why was NAS so high on the agenda, when the base legislation was in dire need of repair ?, thanks in advance.

[Dick Smith]

Max, you are 100% correct however one person can only do so much.

Behind the scenes I have being doing everything I can about the airport situation and lots of other things.

However as stated on another thread, with Mike Taylor being renewed as transport head for another 5 years, I think we are doomed. Look at what he has presided over for the last 4 years. And remember during that time lots in the industry have attacked me and no one has criticised Taylor!

John Anderson was a disaster because he was completely under the control of the Department with no vision or policy of his own.

I have the time and ability to reverse the situation however to be successful I have to have the support of like minded people who are prepared to stand up and take flack from the very people they are trying to help.

It was the Transport Department bureaucrats who set the policy in train for our airports to be sold off however they are never identified or held accountable.

Have you ever seen Mike Taylor give an interview on what his vision is for Australian aviation? No - and you probably never will , because his training is in Agriculture and his knowledge of the real effects of the airport sell off would be virtually nil.

[Tidbinbilla]

People, I have removed virtually all posts from the last 36 hours and created a separate thread named "Australian Airspace Discussion".

http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/344668-australian-airspace-discussion.html

Feel free to continue your issues with airspace over there.

This thread is about the CASA inquiry. Lets keep it that way, thanks.:=

TID

[ozoilfield]

* Transporting passengers or cargo;
* For hire and reward;
* In accordance with fixed schedules;
* From fixed terminals;
* Over specified routes;


Sounds like scenic (joyflight) operations conducted across OZ. I believe that a joyflight operator in SE Qld was notified by a FOI that their operation was a RPT operation and would have bring their operation up to that level.:ugh:

[bushy]

The coral sea airlines case concluded that a flight that was planned for the following day was in fact a scheduled flight, and the route as defined by the flight plan made it a "fixed route". No-one knows what a "fixed terminal" is.
This made it RPT.
Nearly every charter flight in Australia operates this way, but if they prosecuted everyone who did it there would be chaos and ridicule. They use it to put companies out of business when they want to. Selected cases.
This should be better defined. The uncertainty it causes is one of the reasons for the decline of GA. (maybe that is what they want)

[Trash Hauler]

Has RPT not been re-defined in the current regs because of the expectation that the new regs will solve the problem??

[Dick Smith]

We were to go to part 135 which totally solves the problem.

Under part 135 you can have "scheduled air taxi"

But no one at CASA makes a decision.

[Torres]

Bushy. Coral Sea Airlines did not operate RPT flights as defined by CAR206(1)(c). But it was a good excuse to take Mostafa out, considering the range of other issues including the amphibious Shrike.

[VH-MLE]

Mr Smith,

You, while holding a significant position on the CASA Board not all that long ago was in a position to make such a change occur, why didn't you do anything about it???

[Dick Smith]

Because the dopey industry members who came to the Part 135 meeting I organised at the CASA building were totally opposed to any change and no doubt got the ear of the Department.

On monday I will post a copy of the article from the CASA publication "Aiming Higher" which covered the issue.

[StallBoy]

Mr Smith didn't Qantas and the other airlines want a totally self regulated flying industry in australia. And let us not forget the removal of controlled airspace to a system of pilot's working out their own separation over their radio's.:eek::eek:
Best thing you did was resign, pity it wasn't sooner:ok::ok::ok:

[VH-MLE]

Thankyou Mr Smith, I will look forward to reading it.

Given your previous chairmanship's of the CASA Board and the associated power that goes with it, I would be extremely surprised that you couldn't fix the CAR 206 Charter versus RPT problem if you really had wanted to.

At this point in time, simple blaming "dopey industry members" doesn't wash with me, given your perceived (by me) crash or crash through approaches with other aspects of Australian aviation.

[bushy]

That's exactly the point. If there were "other issues" then appropriate action should have been taken concerning the other issues. The charter/rpt ambiguity is a tool that has been used to take a number of operators out, and it can be used to take almost any charter operator out any time they wish.
No industry can operate properly with this degree of uncertainty.
This is one reason why our regulator does not have the respect of the industry.

[zalt]

Is ignoring the cause of an accident & arguing over the nature of the flight ususal in Australia?

[westinings]

creamy did not ''leave.''

[Dick Smith]

VH-MLE, I promised I would post the article from Aiming Higher (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Aiming_Higher_Air_Taxi.php)which covers the Part 135 meeting. Please note in the article the statement which says:

Industry representatives were fundamentally opposed to the proposal for one standard, one common approach

I can only do so much as an individual – even as a Chairman. When the industry members are opposed to changes that will bring a benefit to the industry, there is not a lot I can do.

[Justin Grogan]

So,

I may be showing my age here but I do remember the old "Flaming Liar" (Aiming Higher to the young folk). The bloke sitting next to Dick (Grant Mazowita) has since returned to CASA circa 2005/6 responsible for that being argued (?)

From his first representation since being back:


4.5
Reclassification of Operations project Update
4.5.1 Grant Mazowita opened the presentation by advising that since the Discussion Paper presented at the May SCC meeting there had been further refinements to the policy.

Grant advised that a Draft policy notice was approved in principle by the CEO in October 2006, subject to further discussions with the aviation community. The paper has been posted on the SCC discussion forum and also provided to members of the Operational Sub-committee. Grant advised that the policy has been revised into three categories, and separates passengers and freight.

Grant advised that while this is not consistent with ICAO classifications, the intention is to separate passengers from freight at the policy level but to bring large freight back together with passengers in the regulations, under Part 121.

Part 91 was discussed and also the type of occupant and their knowledge level of risk will dictate what regulatory policy is applied. A question was asked why CASA was placing the freight only operations into the lower category. Grant responded that ‘passengers are more important than packages’ and that CASA wanted to recognise this at the policy level.


4.5.2 Grant advised that as well as SCC members and the Operational Sub-committee the ASF has also been briefed and a copy of the draft CEO policy notice provided to the Department of Transport & Regional Services (DOTARS). Grant advised that CASA will meet with DOTARS and the ATSB, further refine the Policy Notice (as required), then promulgate and implement. Concern was raised regarding having Aerial ambulance classified as passenger transport. However, Grant advised that these operations would still fall under Part 136. The cut-off by weight for 121/135 aircraft was also questioned.

Source: http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/scc/scc_meetings/SCC25_record.pdf

From his latest representation 19 March 2008:


5. Classification of activities

5.1 Grant Mazowita opened this item by advising that it stemmed from an action item from the last SCC meeting, raised by Phil Hurst.

Grant indicated that three (3) short presentations would be given. These had a common theme that ‘one size does not fit all’. Grant asked that all questions and discussion be held to the end of the presentations.

Source:

http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/scc/scc_meetings/SCC29_minutes.pdf

My underlining and bolding.

The names in the SCC crowd look familiar. Is it a case of suffering fools gladly or is lunch at the Canberra RSL that good??
:confused:

[Dick Smith]

And what is your point?

[max1]

We are currently having a discussion on the Civilair members site about the pros and cons of fully privatising ASA a la UK NATS, and the ability of CASA to then regulate properly, in that it wouldn't essentially be one government owned agency, saying that the other government owned agency is doing nothing wrong, it is safe to have TIBA, it is safe not to have duty times for ATC,etc,etc.

The argument was that ASA are bonus driven now ,what would happen if they were fully privatised.

I threw in there seemed to be the same perception of Qantas(privatised) and CASA, i.e. CASA saying everything is OK, Qantas are looking after it and we are keeping a close eye,blah,blah,blah.

This got me to thinking (theres some big holes in this I know , but might foster discussion) that maybe the one to PARTIALLY privatise would be CASA. Bring in the bonus system for when they successfully prosecute an infringement or create a JUSTIFIABLE safe practice,etc. (Later on I will tell you who is doing the judging)

That would move them to wrap up their regulation reform and get moving. Also to have a good look at the big end of town, they wouldn't 'waste' resources on 'dubious' claims against small operators that they had slim chance of winning, but sending the poor bugger broke in the meantime, just to say they tried for a scalp.

Big scalps means big bucks, and might cause to temper the bonus driven culture of those they are supposed to be regulating.
e.g. Chairman to CEO "Your 'inventive' way of shaving the safety margin to the bone cost us $X, its coming out of your pocket, and every bonus down the line". This $X dollars then goes into a fund to pay bonuses for CASA.

We then create an Aviation Ombudsman ( Yes, I know more bureaucracy )who is an INDEPENDENT third party.

At the moment CASA is policeman, and pretty much judge and jury. Appeals are through the courts, going through CASA is like complaining to your mother-in-law about your wife.
This Ombudsman would be legislated as separate from CASA, and take complaints and input about, contentious regulations or practices, disputed hearings, etc, direct from the public,industry employees, flying Associations , etc and give directions to CASA to justify decisions and regulations, investigate practices etc. They would set timeframes for CASA to investigate and report back with PENALTIES for non-compliance. These penalties would come out of the CASA bonus pool of money quoted above. The Ombudsman WOULD NOT make or suggest regulations, it would be up to concerned people to ask the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman could ,may be, appointed after Senate hearings like they do in the USA when handing out contentious jobs, and voted on in a bipartisan way. Try to avoid political flunkeys.

I just thought that with a bonus driven culture for a profit driven industry that may 'shave' safety to save a buck , that maybe it was time for a bonus driven safety culture. Nothing else seems to be prodding some of these buggers along.

P.S. If this gets up I want a bonus.

[Flying Binghi]

The argument was that ASA are bonus driven now ,what would happen if they were fully privatised

Privatised airports have worked well - for some :)

[james michael]

Max

Usually I'm with you; not on this one.

Privatisation of essential services has been a dismal failure resulting often in less services and accountability and preferential treatment of the major breadwinner/s to the detriment of the majority.

Mixing bonuses with safety may actually encourage maladministration. I have recently commented to CASA that the Coordinated Enforcement Program (CEO-PN015-2007) - and I don't have a link I apologise - is an excellent document PROVIDED the 'order of march' is:
Counselling
Remedial Training
Enforceable Voluntary Undertakings
Immediate Suspensions for Serious and Imminent Risk to SafetyVariation,

Suspension and Cancellation of Authorisations


I'm uncertain how bonuses could effectively link to making safety happen as distinct from measurable enforcement action. This has always been a drama with performance based money - actually finding measurables that reflect what is really desired as outcomes. My approach is that people make genuine mistakes and should be coached where the mistakes are neither deliberate nor repetitious.


Happy to debate if you want to flesh it out further.

[xinhua2]

if you cannot measure, you cannot manage

[max1]

My ramblings were just a thought for discussion.
xinhua2,

You state if you cannot measure you cannot manage.

Unfortunately in some cases the measurement becomes the goal, rather than the result. The way management works is driven, in a bonus environment, to always have an improvement on these measurements.

An example given by a friend whose wife worked in a social services area. The manager measured the workload and was judged on how many 'clients' the social workers saw in a week, this number climbed and climbed. In the end they were no longer able to do their job effectively, as it became a race around with box ticking exercises. Targets were met, but actual outcomes were seen as secondary.
When you have a CEO whose bonus is predicated on their ability to cut costs those underneath must also adopt this mindset. Cut rosters, cut training, hold meetings with 'stakeholders that resolve nothing but can be measured, allow others to self regulate (not MY measurement then),assign every area of business a cost even if that cost is intrinsic, this may cause long term damage to the company but is ignored.
I agree that if you cannot manage you cannot measure, but there are some things you can't measure and a good manager needs to also be appreciative of these areas and prepared to argue UP the line, the risks of focusing on KPIs,targets, etc. Just managing with measurements is a dangerous business.

Another example, when travelling years ago I worked in a pub in London that was one of many run by a large corporation. They decided to bring in a measurement system that counted how many punters each bar staff served. You punched in a personal PLU number at the till on each transaction. There was a lovely older lady there who knew everyone and spent most of her time chatting. The guvnor was told to get rid of her, he fought and lost. She moves to the pub down the road and all the regulars go with her.

Having said all that , I would love to see how the regulatory reform area measures things. Is it how many meetings they have held?

[rotaryman]

Remember the CASA Moto.

We Are Not Happy! - Till your Not Happy..:ok:

[Bob Murphie]

Performance based Empire building;

Orders, Counter Orders -Disorder.