PDA

View Full Version : Senate Inquiry into CASA.


Pages : [1] 2

Air Ace
3rd Jun 2008, 23:41
Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/tor.htm)


Terms of Reference
On 29 May 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport resolved, under Standing Order 25(2)(b), to conduct a formal inquiry into the administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and related matters. The proposed reporting date is 9 July 2008.

Noting the Government's announced intention to release a National Aviation Policy Green Paper in the latter half of 2008 and the importance of maintaining Australia's strong aviation safety record, the committee will conduct an inquiry into the administration of CASA and related matters:

to assess the effectiveness of administrative reforms undertaken by CASA's management since 2003;

to examine the effectiveness of CASA's governance structure; and
to consider ways to strengthen CASA's relations with industry and ensure CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator.

The committee invites written submissions, which should be lodged by Monday, 30 June 2008, to:

The Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

This could be the most important aviation related inquiry in over 20 years!

Submissions - not questions - must be forwarded in respect to:

Twenty years so far to re-write the CARs and the appropriateness of what has been achieved.
CASA's relationship with other Authorities, ATSB and AsA and the aviation industry.
CASA's "administrative actions" and it's ethics as a litigant and/or participation in Court processes.


And numerous other issues over the past years which have affected and diminished CASAs capacity to efficiently and safely regulate aviation in Australia.

SIUYA
4th Jun 2008, 00:33
Air Ace........

It sure will be an important aviation-related enquiry, but the first stumbling block is going to be who is going to define what the community expectations are with respect to CASA being a:

...firm safety regulator :uhoh:

More so, when (and IF) the Standing Committee considers:

- Twenty years so far to re-write the CARs and the appropriateness of what has been achieved.
- CASA's relationship with other Authorities, ATSB and AsA and the aviation industry.
- CASA's "administrative actions" and it's ethics as a litigant and/or participation in Court processes.


I guess that the Standing Committee should probably consider having a bit of a look at the tactics that have been displayed by our firm safety regulator in the Senate Estimates proccesses over the years as well, just for good measure.

Air Ace
4th Jun 2008, 01:48
It was Joh that once said: "Never hold an inquiry unless you first know the outcome." It was also his last (Fitzgerald) inquiry that got him.

I too noticed a few "controls and restrictions" in the Terms of Reference which may restrict the Committee's findings - particularly as the Minister's office appears to be members of the CASA Fan Club - however, the terms of reference are also broad enough to ensure they will consider and publish all reasonable submissions.

I am an advocate of a firm, strong, open and accountable aviation regulator. Fortunately, I've been around long enough to remember the last one - called DCA!

The concern is that if the Senate Committee accepted this gobble gook......
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. 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. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
on February 14, 2005, they will accept anything? :{

I think Mr Byron was indicating that the draft CARs would be delivered to the Minister's office over two years ago?

Did Mr Byron intentionally mislead the Senate Committee?

Mainframe
4th Jun 2008, 03:04
What can I say, other than,

BRING IT ON !!

SIUYA
4th Jun 2008, 03:46
Geez Air Ace.........

If you remember DCA then you'd obviously remember what it was like in the good old days BEFORE parliament passed the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003 in early 2003 to supposedly provide us with the benefits of giving CASA:

1. a greater range of enforcement tools;
2. greater accountability for the making of its decisions; and
3. greater impartiality in decision making by making some of its powers subject to an order of a court.

The bureaucrats in Canberra, having realised that the old system wasn't broken, insisted that it needed fixing, so after a lot of changes, we ended up with the CEO of CASA announcing on 25th November 2003 that:

“I wish to see CASA demonstrate world's best practice in the area of aviation safety regulation. In its daily dealings, CASA must exhibit those behavioural attributes of a good regulator including consistency, accountability, fairness, flexibility and efficiency. The CASA reform process must be taken forward to achieve the Government's aim of a simple-to-follow regulatory system and a new and improved organisational culture. These objectives must be accompanied by explicit benchmarks and a capacity within CASA to demonstrate in a measurable and accountable way how and when these objectives will be met.”

Really? :confused:

I certainly hope that the proposed Standing Committee can sort it all out, because after 5 years I'm buggered if I know exactly what those explicit benchmarks are that the CEO referred to, or how CASA has demonstrated in a measurable AND accountable way how and when those objectives are ever going to be met. :ugh:

Flyingblind
4th Jun 2008, 03:50
Very interesting times indeed.

10000
4th Jun 2008, 04:48
Senator the Hon Jan McLucas
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing
Labor Senator for Queensland

080604 MR LR CASA Inq

Media Release

Wednesday 4 June 2008

Queensland Labor Senator Jan McLucas has welcomed a decision to hold a Senate inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The inquiry is aimed at assessing the effectiveness of administrative reforms undertaken by CASA since 2003, examining the effectiveness of CASA’s governance structure and considering ways to strengthen CASA’s relations with industry and ensuring CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator.

“The safety of the travelling public is the Government’s highest priority, and the Senate Inquiry is an opportunity to have a good look at CASA's governance structures and CASA's relationship with industry and the community,” Senator McLucas said.

“In particular, the inquiry will provide an opportunity for the families of the victims of the Lockhart River crash in 2005 to put their views about ways of improving CASA directly to the Federal Government.

“On behalf of the Lockhart River families, I have consistently called for such an inquiry into CASA while Labor was in Opposition, and I am pleased to say that we have kept faith with those families in Government.

“The experience of the Lockhart River families will provide valuable information for the Senate Committee and the Government as we look to improve air safety and CASA.”

Submissions should be lodged by June 30, and the reporting date is July 9. Inquiry details are available on the Senate web site at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/index.htm

Contact: Mark Davis 0417-684-096

MacDonnells Law Building
Cnr Shields & Grafton Streets
PO Box 2733
Cairns 4870
Queensland

Tel: (07) 4031 6009
Toll Free: 1300 301 959
Fax: (07) 4031 6167
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.janmclucas.net

Torres
4th Jun 2008, 04:56
“In particular, the inquiry will provide an opportunity for the families of the victims of the Lockhart River crash in 2005 to put their views about ways of improving CASA directly to the Federal Government.

“On behalf of the Lockhart River families, I have consistently called for such an inquiry into CASA while Labor was in Opposition, and I am pleased to say that we have kept faith with those families in Government.

“The experience of the Lockhart River families will provide valuable information for the Senate Committee and the Government as we look to improve air safety and CASA.”

:ok: :ok:

Indeed, we do live in very interesting times, Flyingblind! :E

Creampuff
4th Jun 2008, 06:50
What’s the inquiry going to find out, that the Committee or its members haven’t already been told?

What is the government realistically going to do in response to the outcomes of the inquiry?

I mean realistically?

T28D
4th Jun 2008, 06:58
It is not what they find out that matters, it is what they do to change the culture going forward that matters, or what power they have to effect change.

SIUYA
4th Jun 2008, 07:08
Creampuff..........

What’s the inquiry going to find out, that the Committee or its members haven’t already been told?

I'm really not too sure. But if, as Air Ace says, "Never hold an inquiry unless you first know the outcome."then perhaps the Committee and its members already know that the new regulatory system IS broken and that it seems to many industry participants that at this point its beyond repair. :{

We can only hope so, and that they surprise us all by deciding to do something meaningful to remedy the situation. However, given the past inertia at achieving any real progress or reform, then the answer to your question:

What is the government realistically going to do in response to the outcomes of the inquiry?

is realistically, and unfortunately, probably going to be NOTHNG! :{

SIUYA
4th Jun 2008, 10:15
OK Justiceseeker..............

I'll go along with that, but how for something entirely different we have a PPRuNe plebiscite on the issue to tell the politicians and bureaucrats just how(pissed of) we feel?

That is, a PPRuNE forum that allows expression (within reason) about what's REALLY PISSES YOU OFF about CASA, and constructive suggestions on how to fix-up what's f*cked-up?

Usual caveats re Mods accepting/scrubbing acceptable/unacceptable comment to stand. Close of submissions 20th June, collated PPRuNe submissionto the good committee by c.o.b June 30 (per 10000's post).........

Any takers?

And NO, sorry, but I can't do the organising due to other 'priorities'.

SIUYA

GaryGnu
4th Jun 2008, 10:37
The ALP wanted an inquiry into CASA for ages when in opposition. By my guess they have called this one just in time so that they can't be tarred with any dirt that is turned up now that they are in government!!

Re the mention of 2003 in the TOR.... when was Mr Byron appointed as CEO?

Creampuff
4th Jun 2008, 10:42
When was the CASA Board abolished, justapplhere?

You were paying attention at the time, weren't you?

Fantome
4th Jun 2008, 18:23
FOUND ON CRIKEY'S WEBSITE YESTERDAY.

(for myself, entirely in favour of a plebiscite of pruners, BUT what worth is a poll or petition without real names?)

3 . Government launches inquiry into CASA. Why?

Ben Sandilands writes:

Seething anger by the relatives of the victims of the 7 May 2005 crash of a Transair flight at North Queensland's Lockhart River lies at the heart of the snap inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority sprung by the government this morning. But it will almost certainly go much further.

The terms of reference and reporting date of 9 July for the Senate Inquiry will not have caught the aggrieved parties by surprise, who have pushed hard for an investigation ever since they were confronted by an inquest by Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, in which he was ably assisted by Ian Harvey QC who is CASA's leading counsel in many legal matters.

That inquest failed to deal with the core concerns of the families of the 15 people who died when a pilot CASA admitted knowing was incompetent slammed the turbo-prop into a hill in driving rain.

CASA chief executive officer Bruce Byron was subsequently grilled by a Senate Committee last year over the regulator's inaction over the unsafe operations of the subsequently defunct indigenous community air operator Transair, including his failure to keep the public informed.

Byron went on to release a document in which he argued that CASA's role was to encourage air operators to be safe as distinct from enforcing the rules and performing the duties that are the regulator's obligations under the act.

However Byron's tenure at CASA has been blighted by a series of questionable decisions, including allowing Jetstar to self-investigate what turned out to be an incompetent missed approach to Melbourne Airport last July in fog, in which neither the pilots nor the airline showed any understanding of the gravity of the situation.

That particular Jetstar incident become the focus of a current investigation by the ATSB two months after the event, following an expose in Crikey and the on-line newsletter of Aviation Business magazine.

The CASA inquiry comes at a time when airlines world wide are turning to the costs of compliance with safety regulations including pilot duty and rest hours in an attempt to cut costs in markets where some are expected to go broke.

However, the difference between Australia and to a degree the US, and the EU, is that there is no countervailing and pedantic enforcement of the safety rules, nor any significant risk of sudden audits or inspections by the safety regulator itself.

Will CASA be asked to do its job, and do it transparently? That is the real issue that the proponents of this inquiry hope to get answered in the affirmative.

Send your tips to [email protected], submit them anonymously here or SMS tips and photos to 0427 TIP OFF.

Peter Fanelli
4th Jun 2008, 20:18
So, I guess CASA will soon be changing its name again so they can all point and say "Oh no that's not us, that's the former organization known as CASA!
We're totally different."

Ho Hum, seen it all before. :hmm:

Lodown
4th Jun 2008, 20:46
Can't do much when the resources aren't there to do it. The CASA has been underfunded and understaffed for years now and employees are encouraged to continually reduce costs. It seems to me that if and when the CASA managers have a situation that should warrant further action, the CASA "system" rewards the manager who can duck-shove the responsibility to another area; be that the operator, ATSB, AsA or whomever. Actions stymied by political intervention have weathered the desire for effective regulation. The CASA has a moderate to severe case of Regulatory Impotence born from an encouraged timidity towards enforcement. The organisation has leaned from a regulator to an administrator, and perhaps a description as a political scapegoat might not be too much of a stretch.

In my opinion, the CASA needs:
1. A clear course of action and direction supported by the Minister.
2. A commitment to appropriate funding.
3. Priority on incorporating a clear, workable set of industry regulations that minimise duplication, conflict and complexity (stolen, borrowed or invented).
4. A mechanism for high-level internal review, supplemented by occasional, and regular, external reviews on enforcement and regulatory actions (or lack thereof).

A thorough review process of the CASA is warranted and necessary. CASA has become an organisation primarily of economic accountability and not one of community accountability. Where would I lay the blame? Not so much within the organisation as with the political oversight, which I believe needs the most attention.

considering ways to strengthen CASA’s relations with industry and ensuring CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator

Jan McLucas is on the right track. The organisation doesn't need to be torn apart. It needs to be made stronger with knowledgeable and effective oversight and review, minus the political meddling. In my opinion, strengthen the CASA and the industry will reap the rewards.

Captain Starlight
4th Jun 2008, 22:19
Lodown

CASA's charter isn't too bad, just needs to be implemented.

Legal Services have a lot to answer for, and probably will.

CASA aims to be a model litigant.

Really? Troll through AAT transcripts, you may just find that they prefer to be a malicious, aggressive, vindictive and dishonest litigant.

Fair and transparent processes. Really?

What went on at the now sanitized (to some degree) Nth Qld Area Office was in fact criminal, and will be eventually exposed as such.

There are other area offices who will have egg on their faces in a proper, thorough and independant investigation.

Regrettably, Lockhart River, Australia's greatest aviation tragedy in 40 years, is the trigger for this, and how CASA conducted itself in the light
of ATSB finding them wanting.

There are many who have some evidence of the Inquest being stage managed,
this too will come to light.

Its time for CASA to conduct its business at the same calibre as ATSB, something the Miller report failed to grasp.

The Miller report is as close to the money as the Skehill report, which found no basis for allegations of misconduct in CASA Townsville,

sadly, history now reveals just how sordid and disgusting was the conduct of many CASA staff in that office.

Again, NQAO was not alone in the misconduct stakes, so far the only one to be reasonably effectively purged.

The terms of reference are broad, that is good,
but it must lead to a Judicial Inquiry so that the offenders can face a Judge or Magistrate,
depending on the severity of their misconduct.

Otherwise, as predicted, the realistic outcome will be nothing.

And Creamy, before you jump in defending the indefensible, maybe it was ethical when you left, that's a while ago now.

Understand that all is not as it seems, or as it should be, there are a lot of matters that, when properly aired, may or may not surprise you.

Creampuff
5th Jun 2008, 02:16
I doubt that there are many revelations that could surprise me any more.

The only revelation that would really surprise me is if the underlying causes of all of the terrible sins to which you constantly allude, Mainframe, turned out to be attributable to anything other than pressures, constraints and people imposed upon the regulator by politicians, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with aviation safety.

crisper
5th Jun 2008, 02:23
Lodown you are spot on mate. Casa needs the resources and support to ENFORCE its Regulatory responsibilities. To often we have seen CASA take all too easy approach to dodgy operators. I would like to see CASA take a much more pro-active role in enforcement. I dont blame the hard working CASA staff as most seem to have their hands tied by upper management . No one who is doing the right thing needs to fear CASA.

Torres
5th Jun 2008, 03:46
1993?
Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003
Appointment of the current Director?

Inquiry, post 2003, exempts those acts prior to 2003, eh Creamie? :E

max1
5th Jun 2008, 05:50
Surely ASA which made $106 million last year out of the industry, could assist with funding CASA, rather than paying $60 million into the Federal governments General Revenue which then goes God knows where.

Creampuff
5th Jun 2008, 06:34
Correct, Torres - That Act abolished the CASA Board, so that the CEO (nee Director) could …. well …. ummm … I'm not sure what the CEO was supposed to do.

That Act also put all those immediate suspension, automatic stay and EVU provisions into the 'main' Act. They were (of course) going to lead to aviation Nirvana.

Perhaps the Committee is trying to find out whether anything is better or worse, as a consequence of those 2003 changes.

My tip: reinstatement of the Board is on the cards, so that the government will have more spies seeing what's going on - or not - in the organisation.

Max1: Perhaps the government could increase CASA's 'service' fees, to ensure there's absolutely no chance of the safety regulator being confused for a service provider.

Pundit
5th Jun 2008, 10:34
The public servants are in a power grab.

The real purpose of this inquiry is strengthen the control of the Secretary. The Miller report will get Kym, this one will get Bruce.

While the reign of Bruce the virtual CEO has not been glorious, they need to go back before 2003 and have a good look at the mess that Mick and the astronaut created.

VH-MLE
5th Jun 2008, 14:07
"[I]Its time for CASA to conduct its business at the same calibre as ATSB"

Oh really Captain!! If you had made that statement 15 + years ago I might have agreed, but certainly not these days.

Lodown
5th Jun 2008, 16:52
Captain Starlight, you may be right, but I respectfully disagree.

CASA's charter isn't too bad, just needs to be implemented.


The charter has been in place for 15 years (?) through several Ministers, boards and CEOs and yet still "needs to be implemented"? I'd suggest there is something wrong with the charter if it hasn't been implemented by now.

you may just find that they prefer to be a malicious, aggressive, vindictive and dishonest litigant.


Maybe...but in their defence, once a case is up for prosecution, the time for niceties is over. The case has been, or should have been through many previous steps. At this stage, you don't pussyfoot around. You don't want labradors doing the work of junkyard dogs. Nice lawyers are unemployable.

Having said that, I don't have the facts, but if there is indeed a case of criminal, negligent or illegal actions by Legal Services or the NQAO, then I am in absolute agreement for a full investigation leading to prosecution where warranted under the terms of Australian law, followed by the subsequent prosecution of those who covered up or knowingly ignored the actions of, or protected the alleged offenders.

It's time for CASA to conduct its business at the same calibre as ATSB, something the Miller report failed to grasp.


The ATSB has the luxury of working with hindsight. The CASA has to use forethought and it's as rare as hens' teeth anywhere, but particularly in Canberra.

What went on at the now sanitized (to some degree) Nth Qld Area Office was in fact criminal, and will be eventually exposed as such.


How was this alleged activity allowed to happen? Why did it take so long to come to light? I would suggest a lack of checks and balances. Appropriate checks and balances may not have prevented the alleged occurrence, but they would have caught it and put a stop to it at a far earlier stage. Why were autonomous regional offices implemented without satisfactory checks and balances to minimise the potential for office misuse or abuse? Or, were the checks and balances initially put in place and then discarded?

In my mind, the CASA has one and only one, essential function: to regulate and enforce the Australian aviation industry and airspace users to national laws, standards and expectations. Political meddling for the purpose of keeping issues/personalities out of the press, deflecting public attention, personal favours or retaining office have no place in the CASA, but have been seemingly all too apparent in the last decade or so.

Suggestions of a board? The CASA already has several layers of supervision. Why aren't they effective?

Stick a CEO in charge. Provide him/her with the appropriate resources to do the job. Keep an eye on his/her progress. And sack his/her butt if he/she fails to do the job! And get rid of the "consensus" and "industry consultation" rubbish in everything the CASA has to do!

permFO
6th Jun 2008, 03:51
"The ATSB has the luxury of working with hindsight. The CASA has to use forethought and it's as rare as hens' teeth anywhere, but particularly in Canberra."

Not sure what this statement is getting at but safety investigation is all about hindsight and looking back at what went wrong and trying to apply those lessons in the future. If CASA was doing it's job properly it would be taking those lessons and applying them and ensuring that the industry applies them. What they did with Lockhart River was say that it wasn't their fault and it couldn't have been prevented and the ATSB are always picking on us.

The enquiry was always on the cards as Jan Lucas was very prominent in the Senate Estimates when the ATSB or CASA were in the chair.

Torres
6th Jun 2008, 03:55
Then hopefully she is back in the Senate Committee in this Inquiry, to prevent the inevitable whitewash! :=

clapton
6th Jun 2008, 15:03
Starlight

You are obviously on a different planet. If you have read the AAT reports and the Federal Court reports then you would know that CASA is inevitably successful in defending its decisons. There is no agrressiveness - that usually is reserved for the person bringing the case against CASA and their oft-times hostile legal counsel.

As for your claims about criminality etc - if you have the facts and evidence then take it to the police to investigate instead of continually bleating about it. However, when someone doesn't have facts or evidence they resort to throwing mud, hoping some will stick. So put up or shut up.

As for what this inquiry will find- hopefully it will expose Byron and his yes men and reveal the extent to which Byrion has abdicated his regulatory responsibilities in favour of placating his industry buddies. Regulatory capture is well and truly alive under Byron. Go and read the Monrach coronial report and you'll find that we are back to where it all began and institutional timidity is rife. Byron has sacked all those who stood up to industry in the public interest and replaced them with yes men and industry cronies who have no idea of regulatory management or policy.

Byron is wonderful at making grand motherhood statements that are devoid of any practical meaning. Take as an example his statement before th Senate on 31 January 2008 :

Every day of the week CASA is engaged in activities that are making tangible improvements to the way airlines and other aviation organisations operate.

By this count we should have some 480 wonderful tangible improvements. Can you name me a few??? Five years and $100 million - what do we have to show for the wonderful regulatory reform program. Bogged down in interminable consultative meetings that acheive nothing. Byron does not has the guts or the ability to make any real decisions because that would mean offending someone and a regulator can't do that - even though it is meant to be regulating not trying to be best buddies with those it is meant to be regulating.

Lodown is absoulutley correct in his astute appraisal of the situation. CASA has become focussed on being a business that is run by the finance area and has forgotten that it is a regulator. He is also spot on in his observation: Political meddling for the purpose of keeping issues/personalities out of the press, deflecting public attention, personal favours or retaining office have no place in the CASA, but have been seemingly all too apparent in the last decade or so.

Finally. it is inevitable that there will be a Board - it was a central plank of the ALP aviation policy before the last election. A Board is not a bad thing - because it can temper the excesses of of a single individual who believes his way is the only way and no dissent will be allowed.

Pundit
6th Jun 2008, 22:48
Well put clapton

Creampuff
6th Jun 2008, 23:59
clapton

Although I agree with your conclusion as to the celestial location of Mainframe, you are not correct when you say CASA is inevitably successful in defending its decisions. CASA's decisions are, occasionally, set aside or varied on review, and CASA's actions and management of the matters are, occasionally, criticised by the AAT or Court.

That's hardly surprising: nobody's perfect. That's the very reason for the existence of avenues for external review.

However, on any objective analysis, CASA's decisions and actions survive external scrutiny in almost all matters.

clapton
7th Jun 2008, 01:08
Creampuff

You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.

And none of the complaints against CASA by disgruntled losers for not acting as a model litigant have ever been upheld. CASA does bend over backwards to be fair and objective in all its dealings as far as I have been able to observe over the years and having actually read the reports of cases (unlike the persistent complainants on this site) who like to resort to unsupported and exaggerated criticisms to fuel their own self-importance. Rememenr all the nonsense about strict liablity and how the world would come to an end by self-professed experts like Hamilton et al.

clapton
7th Jun 2008, 03:07
Creampuff

Further to my earlier post (below), the date in my original posting about Byron's statement before the Senate should have been 31 January 2007 - hence by today we should have seen about 480 tangible benefits.

Also Lowdown I agree with Senator Lucas that CASA doesn't need to be torn apart - but the sad fact is that it already has been torn apart and gutted of anyone with any sort of pofessional integrity and replaced by Byron's yes men who have little knowledge of the regulatory system or understanding in whose interests they should be acting. Industry partnership is now the catchcry and this has led to the industry being viewed as CASA's customer- and as stated in the Seaview inquiry - once you get to this point the inevitable result is that the customer is always right - which is the clear Byron philosophy and vision. Hence sack anyone who industry complains about or who dares to have a contrary view. This should be the focus of the inquiry. The current management needs to be replaced by professional regulators who will act in the public interest (which is what CASA's role should be) - not industry apologists.

Creampuff

You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.

And none of the complaints against CASA by disgruntled losers for not acting as a model litigant have ever been upheld. CASA does bend over backwards to be fair and objective in all its dealings as far as I have been able to observe over the years and having actually read the reports of cases (unlike the persistent complainants on this site) who like to resort to unsupported and exaggerated criticisms to fuel their own self-importance. Rememenr all the nonsense about strict liablity and how the world would come to an end by self-professed experts like Hamilton et al.

Fantome
7th Jun 2008, 09:53
clapton

You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.

Can you give an instance of a party bringing an action against CASA? Plenty the other way of course. One Queensland lawyer has successfully defended many clients charged on slender grounds.

clapton
7th Jun 2008, 11:02
Fantome

In case you weren't aware - every AAT case is brought against CASA. CASA is the defendant not the applicant..............Applications in the Federal Court challenging CASA's decisions are brought against CASA. CASA is the defendant not the applicant. I think if you troll through the law reports you will find all the cases you need.

Air Ace
7th Jun 2008, 11:36
Clapton. I guess from your perspective, you are correct. However that perspective is shared by very few outside the cloistered halls of Canberra.

clapton
7th Jun 2008, 12:56
Air Ace

It is not my perspective. It is fact.

Lodown
7th Jun 2008, 22:19
Clapton, the criticism of the CASA leadership shouldn't stop just at Byron. In fact, I think it would be warranted to go further up the line. He gets his marching orders from on high. A considerable part of the problem stems from Parliament House.

It appears that the CASA is just lurching from one Federal Royal Commission/Inquiry to the next. A board won't necessarily prevent the wayward application of administration within the CASA management. We saw that with Monarch.

The problem appears to stem from a Federal Government that puts an elected representative and his/her advisors in charge who might be outstanding strategists and politicians, but with absolutely minimal knowledge on the practical side of the application of regulation of aviation matters. At some stage, the political goals and aspirations of the Minister and the party in charge will inevitably clash with the goals of the CASA. For example, the unstated goal of the Minister is to stay in power. This is achieved through the cultivation of votes. It's not difficult for roles to get muddled and the CASA to be roped into vote cultivation through various means. So how do you change this short of having a referendum on moving to a republic? And even then, would anything change?

I mentioned before about external review processes. Somewhere, the current process is coming up short when the CASA situation advances to such a stage that the public feels it necessary for a Federal inquiry and a major house cleaning within the CASA. There has to be a way of getting a wayward organisation back on track before the damage is done. The CASA has been heading down this misguided path for at least ten years now. Ask anyone within the CASA aside from C level executives and the story is the same. So why has it taken so long for something to be done? The USA has some interesting policies in this regard: the General Accounting Office (GAO) on a federal level and state mechanisms such as the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. From its website:

In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member Commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The Commission questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative changes to improve each agency's operations and activities. The Commission seeks public input through hearings on every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically abolished unless legislation is enacted to continue them.


The Sunset Advisory Commission has just recently delivered a scathing report on the Texas Department of Transportation. It might not work in Australia, but it's certainly worth a look and appears to take some of the politics out of the day to day management of a government agency and regulator.

Air Ace
7th Jun 2008, 23:45
Clapton. I will not debate aviation law with you; from your posts and mutual admiration society with Creampuff, you obviously hold legal qualifications, which I do not.

You appear to be defending CASA’s performance over recent years? If so, you may care to comment on the following:
From my perspective, within the high capacity airline industry CASA is considered a mild inconvenience, toothless and not to be taken too seriously. One of the few, if not only CASA airline prosecutions in recent years is the alleged Qantas 737 departure from Launceston on 23 October 2001 without activating the runway lights, the pilots being committed for trial four years later on 4 November 2005 on charges brought under the Civil Aviation Act. Do you think it competent and reasonable for CASA to take four years to commence legal action and is still unable to resolved this matter in the Courts?
Whilst CASA appears unwilling or unable to act in respect to the airlines, there appears ample, if anecdotal evidence it has methodically and systematically attacked and decimated the general aviation industry, including CASA employees acting contrary to its legislation. This forum is not the place to name “names”, however there appear to have been a number of incidents where CASA employees have quietly received the “DCM” (Edited: see note below), whilst CASA has never rectified or recompensed the damage caused?
According to the CASA Annual Report, Counsel Assisting the Coroner in the Lockhart inquest has a long and rewarding association with CASA. Whilst I accept he may be free to act in his private capacity, would not his acceptance of the appointment as Counsel Assisting be considered, ethically at least, a conflict of interest? Similarly, the consultant to that Inquest was a previous employee of both Transair and CASA, FNQ, surely a further conflict of interest?
Regulatory reform began twenty years ago in 1988, through at least three Directors, with access to a large number of CASA lawyers, but regulatory reform is still far from complete. Considering a number of countries, including Canada and New Zealand carried out similar reforms in less than one quarter of that time period, do you believe CASA has the will, legal competence and capability to carry out that reform?It appears unfortunate the Senate Inquiry is limited to the period 2003 to date. An independent and impartial review of CAA/CASA performance from 1988 to date may have led to a far more competent, professional, capable and accountable Regulator, exercising it’s legislative function across the entire Australian aviation spectrum, as anticipated by Sect 9 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s9.html) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.


Note: This forum is not the place to even very obliquely identify individuals! :=

Tail Wheel

rotaryman
8th Jun 2008, 00:50
Well I got a free Fly swatter in the last edition of the Safety Mag...:ok:


I have no time for the CASA Boys Club.....:mad::ugh:

clapton
8th Jun 2008, 01:19
Lodown

I agree with you 100%. But it is a good start.

I agree that many of the politicians have a lot to answer for - but they will never be held accountable. Similarly with the Department of Transport which was meant to oversee CASA but just let it do what it wanted. However, the driving force behind all this was Byron ( and his hand selcted yes men) in his efforts to placate industry and stop any criticism of CASA (if you take no regulatory there will be no criticism of CASA from industry - if you let industry dictate what rules to write there will be critcism of CASA - if you get rid of all those who stand up to industry there will be no criticism of CASA) - all the time forgetting that CASA was created to protect the public in the wake of the Monarch and Seaview disasters.

The Senate inquiry is right on the heels of the US Congressional inquiry into the FAA and its cosy relationship with industry. Hopefully it will be as strong and forceful as the Congressional inquiry.

"CNN 1 April 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is putting the public at risk with lax oversight and a too-cozy relationship with the airlines, a top lawmaker and aviation experts said Tuesday.
The FAA has shown a dangerous lack of enforcement compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands of people flying on potentially unsafe aircraft, said Rep. James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"This is the most serious lapse in aviation safety at the FAA that I've seen in 23 years," the Minnesota Democrat said in an interview with CNN, a position he restated at a news conference Tuesday.
"The result of inspection failures and enforcement failure has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, un-airworthy and at risk of lives," he said.
Oberstar scheduled hearings to begin Thursday, after a congressional investigation uncovered that discount airline Southwest Airlines kept dozens of aircraft in the air without mandatory inspections -- and, in some cases, with defects the inspections were designed to detect."

Here's the link if you are interested:

http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=430 (http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=430)

clapton
8th Jun 2008, 02:07
Air Ace

You raise some very interesting issues - with which I entirely agree.

Let me respond to some of them.

The QF prosecution is a good example (of QF's extraordinary power) - but you can't point the finger at CASA for what has happened here. CASA referred to matter to the DPP in a very timely manner (DPP are the only ones who can prosecute offences). QF is so powerful that it can stall a prosecution of its pilots for several years to the point that they can then apply to the Supreme Court for a permanent stay on the basis of undue delay (all caused by them). But you can't blame CASA for this as it is not responsible for prosecuting the case - if you want to blame anyone you need to blame the DPP and the Tasmanian legal system for allowing QF to delay the matter year after year.

QF has breached safety regulations on numerous occasions but the CASA approach is to let QF deal with the issue itself for fear of offending QF. Not even one infringement notice issued - whereas if the same contraventions had been committed by a smaller operator CASA would have thrown the book at them. This you can blame CASA for. It is the same mentality that has led to the recent US Congressional inquiry into the FAA

But to suggest that CASA has sytematically and methodically decimated the general aviation industry is a complete exaggeration. Perhaps economics, poor management, too many particiants chasing too few dollars has a lot to do with it.


According to the CASA Annual Report, Counsel Assisting the Coroner in the Lockhart inquest has a long and rewarding association with CASA. Whilst I accept he may be free to act in his private capacity, would not his acceptance of the appointment as Counsel Assisting be considered, ethically at least, a conflict of interest? Similarly, the consultant to that Inquest was a previous employee of both Transair and CASA, FNQ, surely a further conflict of interest?


I can't comment on this. That is really a matter for the coroner. But a perception of bias is certainly possible.

As for the regulatory reform program - I agree with you entirely. But the signifcant problem here was Minister Sharp discarding the regulatory rewrit program that was all but complete in 1996 because of pressure from various vocal sections of the industry. Since that time there has not been one government Minister with the guts to stand up and tell industry that it is the government's responsibility to regulate not industy's. Hence we have intractable never ending consulation trying to achieve consensus instead of the regulator and government doing what they should be doing ie governing and making decisions.

There was an interesting posting on the CASA website about this in 2005. It said amongst other things:
This is what gave rise to the Regulatory Structure and Validation Program (RSVP) ....... That Program was designed to restructure the existing regulations and Orders into a two-tier FAR format and numbering system. The exercise was about 90% completed when in 1996 the then newly created PAP managed to have the project disbanded. The then Minister formally dropped the RSVP project on 18 December 1996 when he advised the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances that “the draft regulations prepared for the RSVP will not be made into law”. Had the RSVP exercise been completed, I believe that many of the issues being encountered today would have been avoided.

While CASA has a large share of the blame for the failings of the regulatory reform program by its complete lack of fortitude (Byron's inane "directives" have certainly hindered the process), a large share of the criticims should also be borne by the vocal minority of bush lawyers in indstry who believe they have some expertise in the area but generally lack any understanding of regulatory development.

Captain Starlight
8th Jun 2008, 03:51
Clapton,
check your PMs

Air Ace
8th Jun 2008, 06:27
Thank you Clapton. You have confirmed the need for an impartial Inquiry which will on this occasion, be knobbled by the time restriction of post 2003 only.

clapton
8th Jun 2008, 06:47
Air Ace

I think it will be knobbled by the fact that so little time has been provided for the inquiry. There is insufficient time to look at any of the matters properly, let alone write a proper report - all in the space of the few days allowed for the hearing and the reporting date.

Trash Hauler
8th Jun 2008, 09:08
When was the board abolished?? ...........18 November 2002

The short nature of the inquiry and the period it covers makes me think it is simply to legitimise the reinstatement of a board over CASA.

:confused:

TH

clapton
8th Jun 2008, 10:13
Trash Hauler

When was the board abolished?? ...........18 November 2002

The short nature of the inquiry and the period it covers makes me think it is simply to legitimise the reinstatement of a board over CASA.



TH

I think you'll find that the Board was abolished on 21 October 2003, which is the day the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003 received the Royal Assent - see item 19 of Schedule 1 of that Act.

Trash Hauler
8th Jun 2008, 12:02
I stand corrected clapton......................it was announced on the 18 November 2002.

http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/ja/releases/2002/november/A140_2002.htm

(mumble mumble.............read the detail before posting he says to oneself :ugh:)

Air Ace
8th Jun 2008, 13:24
"There is insufficient time to look at any of the matters properly, let alone write a proper report - all in the space of the few days allowed for the hearing and the reporting date."

God, Clapton, surely you don't think Politicians would ever give any Inquiry adequate time and broad enough terms of reference to make inquiries which will result in meaningful recommendations?

This inquiry is intended to appease The Hon Martin Ferguson AM, MP; Senator the Hon. Jan McLucas; Senator Kerry O'Brien and the "Lockhart families", with an additional hidden agenda which probably includes replacing the CASA Director; create a CASA Board as a repository for political cronies; and reel in the ATSB so it ceases criticising CASA's inefficiency.

An Aviation Taskforce chaired by Mr Allan Hawke conducted extensive inquiries last year. Their report, which I understand contained a series of recommendations, has never been released by the Minister and probably never will be, wasting something like $500,000 and a lot of people's time and efforts.

This Senate Inquiry is intended to be a Clayton's Inquiry, not permitted to addressing the the Toller years, or the reign of what was arguably Australia's worst Ministers of Transport, or the excesses of certain CASA staff, but reviewing that brief period of time since 2003 when Mr Byron ascended the throne of the Aviation Hall of Doom and Gloom!

Unless of course, there is enough industry interest and public submissions to derail the true agenda.......

We can but hope.

clapton
8th Jun 2008, 22:49
Air Ace

the reign of what was arguably Australia's worst Ministers of Transport,

Who in your view as the worst Minister? For my money it was Anderson.............

Air Ace
8th Jun 2008, 23:59
It was a close race to the bottom but I think Anderson made it to the post by a good head. Truss wasn't in the job long enough to do too much damage, but he certainly demonstrated that unique Anderson training. Vaile had some ability as Trade Minister but failed to achieve anything of note in the Transport portfolio.

With Directors, I think Leroy Keith may have achieved some sanity had he not fallen foul of the then Chairman. Mick Toller wanted the profile but wasn't in touch with the systemic problems. Tell me again, who is the current Director?

I do not believe any regulator should be commercialised into an income generating machine, although certain Australian Police Forces may belie that statement! I do not believe a regulator should be managed by a Board as the legislation should be concise enough to effectively exclude the discretionary executive and non executive decision making process.

My career started in the days of DCA, under the ANO's and ANR's, a regulatory model that served Australia very well for many decades. I now think various Governments tried to fix something that wasn't broken!

Creampuff
9th Jun 2008, 07:44
But it was 'the industry' who said it was broken, AA.

It wasn't simple enough; it wasn't harmonised enough; it was unnecessarily unique. Or so 'the industry' said.

Pundit
9th Jun 2008, 11:43
Worst ever Minister - Anderson (even poor old Chas Jones looked good)

Worst ever Director - Toller (because he was vindictive)

Worst ever Chairman - the astronaut ( can't remember his name)

clapton
9th Jun 2008, 12:26
Pundit


Worst ever Minister - Anderson (even poor old Chas Jones looked good)

Worst ever Director - Toller (because he was vindictive)

Worst ever Chairman - the astronaut ( can't remember his name)


Two out of three ain't bad. The "astronaut" (who actually wasn't - but what's a little lie) was Scully-Power.

However, the worst Director has to be Byron. At least Toller came to work each day...

Creampuff
9th Jun 2008, 12:47
Ah yes - the world's most qualified passenger. I tried to search for the posts on Scully-Power, but the pprune search facility appears only to go back a year.

I still get a laugh out of the small omission that was discovered in the qualifications quoted by Anderson in the press release when Scully-Power was appointed as CASA Chairman. 'Fast jet qualified' didn't mean he was actually qualified to fly a fast jet. Oh no. He was qualified to be a passenger in a fast jet. But let's not get hung up on minor technicalities...

Lodown
9th Jun 2008, 20:33
With Directors, I think Leroy Keith may have achieved some sanity had he not fallen foul of the then Chairman.

And that's an example of a failing with a board. There was a decent CEO in charge and the board cut him loose and took the CASA downhill. Different ideas on how to regulate and enforce?

Torres
9th Jun 2008, 20:45
Creampuff. Scully-Power (http://www.pprune.org/forums/search.php?searchid=3384737) Search back to 2001.

It makes very interesting reading ... including your thread of February 2002 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21374&highlight=Scully-Power) regarding a pilot who: "... failure(d) to record a defect on a maintenance release; .... operation of an aircraft without an endorsement; and the incorrect operation of an aircraft at Moruya Airport."

I wonder what capital punishment CASA and OLC would have imposed had that pilot been anyone other than the CASA Director, who Senator O'Brien seems to be suggesting may have been protected or defended by CASA's legal counsel and another of CASA's consultant lawyers?

"I have concerns about the propriety of those meetings and discussions between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill. Mr Ilyk's role at that time appears to have been one of damage control rather than ensuring that a proper and open investigation into the matter took place. He was, after all, at that time—or was shortly about to become—the senior officer responsible for investigation and enforcement of CASA's regulations, and Mr Skehill's involvement in the meetings meant that he was assisting Mr Toller to manage one of the breaches and at the same time was advising the authority about another of Mr Toller's breaches. I do not believe that Mr Skehill can credibly justify his conflict of interest in this case. So the initial response by Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill to the public disclosure of Mr Toller's breach of aviation regulations was inappropriate, to say the least.

I am advised that the Acting Assistant Director of Safety Compliance, Mr Farquharson, had similar concerns. In fact, I am given to understand that Mr Farquharson's concerns were such that he has committed them to writing. Now, if Mr Farquharson did express concerns about the relationship between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill in relation to what has become known as the Uzu breach, either orally or in writing, the integrity of the internal inquiry into this matter must be called into question. Mr Farquharson was, after all, charged by the chairman of the board with the responsibility of ensuring that the investigation into the Uzu breach was carried out in a proper manner."

And your subsequent post in that thread: "The refusal does not smack of a cover up: it is itself a cover up.

If you read the material in my thread about flying training AOCs, you will see that the regulator is merely going through the pretence of consultation before announcing a decision on which its mind has already been made up."

Probably explains Mr Toller's comment to me that "It (the Uzu Air matter) should have been handled in a different manner."

I can't believe CASA, Mr Ilyk or OLC would ever be a party to a cover up! :} I guess that also justifies raising the question of CASA's integrity and propriety in the matter of Lockhart River?

It is indeed unfortunate the proposed Senate Inquiry is limited to 2003 to the present.

Creampuff
9th Jun 2008, 21:18
There's a simple lesson in all this: don't put a pilot in charge!

9 July 1997 Ministerial Press Release:Two new appointments have been made to strengthen the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board.

They are: Dr Paul Scully-Power, Australia's first astronaut (who travelled aboard the Challenger shuttle in 1984) and an aviation technical adviser, and Mr Bruce Byron AM, former RMF Wing Commander and expert aviation examiner.

Both appointments are in keeping with the Howard Government's commitment to have members on the CASA Board with the appropriate aviation experience, capable of questioning, challenging and monitoring the activities of the CASA bureaucracy - which in turn is responsible for enforcing aviation safety standards for all travellers.

The Government is determined to ensure that Australia has a world class aviation safety system.

The strengthening of the seven-member CASA Board, together with a range of other initiatives to improve the way aviation safety regulation is conducted in Australia, will enhance the effectiveness of our safety regulatory system.

Last year the Government launched the broadest review of aviation safety regulations in Australia's history.

Aviation is a complex and detailed industry that requires people to administer it who have appropriate qualifications relevant to aviation.

Attached are career details of the two appointees, who replace Ms Gabi Hollows and Mr Geoff Molloy.

Media enquiries:

Adam Connolly, 02 9251 9284

DR PAUL SCULLY-POWER: (NASA Astronaut and Aviation technical adviser). Age 53. Born in Sydney and educated at St Pius X College, Chatswood and the University of Sydney.

Dr Scully-Power is an internationally awarded expert in aviation matters. He joined the Royal Australian Navy as a pilot in 1967 and is Australia's first astronaut, flying on NASA's space shuttle Challenger in 1984.

Qualified as a high-performance jet pilot, he has been a flight crew instructor in the astronaut office and was a principal investigator for NASA's infra-red HCMM satellite program and for the joint US-USSR Apollo-Soyux manned spaceflight program.


From the Senate Hansard of 8 November 2000:ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Operations

Senator O'BRIEN (3.07 p.m.)—I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald), to questions without notice asked by Senator O'Brien today, relating to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

If we are to believe parts of Senator Macdonald's answer today, we must conclude that he needs a quick lesson in history. Who was John Sharp? He was the second most senior National Party member of the first Howard government—in fact, he was a cabinet minister. So if Senator Macdonald would seriously have us believe that he does not know who Mr Sharp is, perhaps that quick lesson will bring him up to speed. Obviously he has some short-term memory problems.

Mr Sharp had a few ideas about aviation—which distinguishes him from his successors and particularly from the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, who obviously has no idea about aviation. He certainly does not want to get his hands dirty because he has no idea what he is doing. Turning to Senator Macdonald's answer today—particularly his answer to my lead question—the minister said, as he did on Monday, that the government does not believe—I can believe that because it now knows—and has never believed that Dr Scully-Power is a high-performance jet pilot. That is, frankly, not believable; it is not the truth.

The press release of 9 July 1997 issued by the then cabinet minister Mr John Sharp—from which I will quote—contains a passage from the CV of Dr Paul Scully-Power. It states:

Dr Scully-Power is an internationally awarded expert in aviation matters. He joined the Royal Australian Navy as a pilot in 1967 and is Australia's first astronaut, flying on NASA's space shuttle Challenger in 1994.

Qualified as a high-performance jet pilot ...

If the government did not believe in 1997 that Dr Paul Scully-Power was `qualified as a high-performance jet pilot' why did cabinet member and then minister for transport, Mr Sharp, issue such a press release? Of course the answer is because that is what he believed. He is telling journalists now that that is what he believed at the time and, more importantly, that is what he conveyed to other board members. It was an important factor in the appointment of Dr Scully-Power to his position. That is what the government believed.

I do not understand why Minister Anderson—through his representative in this place, Senator Macdonald—cannot fess up and say, `Look, we now know that Dr Paul Scully-Power was never a high-performance jet pilot. We now know that was never true. The cabinet was misled and we are looking into the matter.' The fact is that this minister does not want to look into such matters because he knows that a can of worms is lurking in aviation that he will have to do something about.

Can we really believe the government is completely satisfied with the performance of CASA, and of Mr Toller in particular, after a unanimous committee report about the debacle of an investigation of a company called Arcas led to the demotion of Mr Foley, Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance? That action was occasioned by a Senate committee report. It was not initiated by CASA but provoked by the actions of the Senate. If it has cost CASA $90,000 to answer questions, I do not have any problems with that: if that is the cost of CASA's accountability, it is cheap. The fact is that CASA and Minister Anderson were doing nothing about the Arcas matter and something happened because of a Senate committee report. There has been counselling of Mr Toller. We have had misrepresentation by the chairman of CASA about his aviation qualifications and today we have had the revelations—which were confirmed by the minister—of a move by at least one of the two national airlines to see the director of CASA, Mr Toller, stood aside.

When will this government do something? If Mr Anderson is not prepared to act—if he does not want to get his hands dirty on aviation—why will the Prime Minister not step in and replace him? There has been a failure of government administration in this matter. Unless the government is prepared to act, the crisis of confidence in CASA and throughout the aviation industry will only grow. This government needs to act. We have ample evidence that there is a crisis in CASA and the government must act now. (Time expired)

Torres
9th Jun 2008, 22:14
"Mr Sharp had a few ideas about aviation—which distinguishes him from his successors and particularly from the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, who obviously has no idea about aviation. He certainly does not want to get his hands dirty because he has no idea what he is doing."

An understatement I would have thought - and ample justification for the Senate to look at CAA/CASA performance over the last 20 years.

clapton
10th Jun 2008, 02:39
Torres

I suggest that you read the full Sherman report. No doubt you will suggest Mr Sherman was a CASA crony as well - given that he does not agree with your conclusions.......

30 May 2001
A75/2001

SHERMAN REPORT ON THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY


The former chairman of the National Crime Authority, Tom Sherman AO, has found that the alleged regulatory breaches by the Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, released the Sherman report today. The report examines two incidents involving Mr Toller in 1999 and 2000.
"The first incident involved an allegation that Mr Toller did not fill in a maintenance release in accordance with the aviation regulations. CASA's compliance staff investigated the allegation and counselled Mr Toller. He then received special treatment. The allegation was investigated again. Mr Sherman concluded that there was no substantial evidence that Mr Toller has committed an offence. He also pointed out that the second investigation:
() was initiated for the wrong reasons namely some criticism that was perceived as relevant in a parliamentary committee report. If the principles of enforcement now set out in the Enforcement Manual was observed, the investigation would not have been commenced, particularly in circumstances where informal counselling had already taken place.
"The second incident involved an allegation that Mr Toller had taken the controls of a Cessna Caravan, even though he was not endorsee for the aircraft type. Mr Sherman concluded there was evidence that Mr Toller had committed a technical breach of one regulation, and said that:
I am however of the view that the matter should be the subject of formal counselling in accordance with the procedures of the CASA Enforcement Manual rather that refer the matter to the DPP. This is because the contravention was relatively minor and there appears to have been no threat to the safety of the aircraft particularly as both Mr Pennington and Mr Toller were experienced pilots.
"Mr Toller was formally counselled. The Sherman Report makes it clear that
Mr Toller received special and unfavourable treatment. He was investigated twice for the same alleged offence. He was pilloried by the Labor Opposition.

Torres
10th Jun 2008, 04:05
Clapton.

In respect to Mr Toller "operatiing of an aircraft without an endorsement" I will agree the allegation is ludicrous. The flight in question was a private flight; Mr Toller occupied the co-pilot seat; the Chief Pilot, a Grade 1 Instructor with type endorsement and CAR217 approvals occupied the left pilot seat; and Mr Toller briefly flew the aircraft in cuise, under supervision. (I was seated behind Mr Toller and witnessed the event.)

Some years ago a DHC6 taxied in Cairns for the purpose of conducting a revenue flight, following completion of scheduled maintenance. The pilot was alerted to a yellow oil leak from one engine nacelle and returned to the terminal to have the defect rectified. He did not enter the defect on the MR as he had not attempted to become airborne but advised details verbally to a LAME; the LAME rectified the defect and entered the defect on the MR.

CASA took the view that to taxi an aircraft for the purposes of flight was considered to be commencement of the flight, the defect should have been entered on the MR and piloried the pilot.

Whilst I can't say I agree with CASA's decision and action in the above incident, if Mr Toller completed a flight with a known defect which should have been entered on the MR, why then was he exempted from similar CASA action?

I mention this incident for no other reason that to highlight the apparent inconsistencies in CASA's administrative decisions and actions over a number of years.

clapton
10th Jun 2008, 06:07
Torres

What are the exact details of the case to which you refer (who, when, where)? Exactly what action was taken? What does "piloried the pilot" actually mean?

And that is not the point you were making. The point you were making is that there was a cover up. That suggestion (and your current imputation) was entirely discredited by the Sherman report........

Creampuff
10th Jun 2008, 07:23
But clapton, are you sure Sherman wasn't misled? Senator O'Brien said this on 20 June 2001:Further, Mr Sherman, in his advice, is clearly of the view that the matter of Civil Aviation Regulation 228, in addition to 282 and section 20AB(1) of the Civil Aviation Act, had been referred to two independent law firms. He refers specifically to Civil Aviation Regulation 228 in response to questions asked on the last page of his advice. It is clear from the evidence—if we can accept it—that no such advice exists in relation to Civil Aviation Regulation 228. Either Mr Sherman formed some view that the matter referring the breach of 228 to the DPP had been considered by external lawyers and was rejected or he had been wrongly advised that such advice had been provided to the authority. So on the matter of referral of the Uzu breach to the DPP based on Civil Aviation Regulation 228, at best there are only two views: that of Mr Sherman and that of Mr Boys. As I said, Mr Sherman, in his opinion, incorrectly assumes that a possible Civil Aviation Regulation 228 breach had been considered and rejected by two independent legal assessors and gave some weight to that alleged advice. So there were not three legal views against Mr Boys at all; at best, there was one and one which would have to be qualified in that context.

Fantome
10th Jun 2008, 09:01
Will the view that prevails at the end of this particular debate leave us any the wiser as to what needs to be done now to give the regulator a higher measure of respect and trust than what has been the case in recent years? (At least the debate appears to be led by posters with a good grasp of finer points, the legal complexities. Those of us who are not required to exercise nous beyond ATPL air leg. can but spectate and try to follow the play.)

clapton
10th Jun 2008, 10:43
Creampuff

So on the matter of referral of the Uzu breach to the DPP based on Civil Aviation Regulation 228, at best there are only two views: that of Mr Sherman and that of Mr Boys.

There were 3 legal opinions. Sherman, Skehill and CASA's General Counsel. Mr Boys had a contrary opinion. Obviusly those who prefer conspiracy theories will side with Boys because it is convenient to do so - especially if you happen to dislike Toller et al. So why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. There was no misleading of anyone. Tom Sherman was smart and independent enough to make his own informed judgment based on facts - not innuendo.

clapton
10th Jun 2008, 10:54
Fantome

This particular debate won't. Lowdown had the right idea. Get CASA back to its core business of regulation rather than running the organisation as a business (completely discredited under Monarch and Seaview) and then get the politicians to stop using aviation as their own political football to curry favour with industry constituents. Either you have an authority that is meant tyo regulate - or you disband it and let the policiticians run the show directly.

They can't have their cake and eat it - which is what they all try to do - beating up CASA because it is too harsh (when some industry recalcitrant complains) and then in the same breath beating up CASA for not being tough enough as soon as there is an accident or incident. The shallowness of their approach is overwhelming and reeks of hypocrisy in the extreme. But what else would you expect from our elected leaders who are there to serve themselves rather than taking a proper and consistent moral stance on the issue.

Creampuff
10th Jun 2008, 21:26
I'm merely interested in the facts, clapton.

Are saying that Sherman was told that the 2 external law firms had not advised on the 228 issue, but had advised on the 282 and 20AB issue? Can you quote the bit of Sherman's report that makes that distinction?

Further, you must recognise the elephant-sized conflict of interest in the General Counsel of CASA advising on the whether his boss had broken the rules and, if so, how those breaches should be dealt with. His opinion was fatally tainted by that conflict, as was Boys's. Presumably the opinions of external law firms were sought because of that patent conflict. What is not clear is why those external opinions were not sought from all of the same advisers in respect of all 3 issues, but Sherman was told they had.

It may be that the outcome would have been exactly the same if all 3 issues had been referred in exactly the same way and Sherman had been given completely correct information. But that didn't happen. Instead, people started telling fibs suggesting that it had happened. That's the problem, clapton. When people start telling fibs about messes they've created, rather 'fessing up and tidying up, it naturally invites speculation that there's something serious in the mess, rather than the usual and more prosaic explanation that a mistake was made.

Creampuff
11th Jun 2008, 23:14
Two points, J

First, for those who were paying attention, the reason for the 2003 cut-off for the inquiry is obvious: that was the year the CASA Board was abolished, and the current government was elected with a policy of re-establishing the CASA Board. So, the current government needs an inquiry to prove that things got worse, not better, when the CASA Board was abolished, so as to retrospectively justify a decision that's already been made.

Secondly, you're about as sharp as a bowling ball.

bushy
12th Jun 2008, 01:29
I thought CASA got their instructions from the QANTAS board.

Torres
12th Jun 2008, 04:14
Now, Bushy, don't de-rail a rather interesting debate....... :}

clapton
12th Jun 2008, 13:12
Creampuff

Before I answer your question let me ask you whether when you provide legal advice to your clients who have allegedly done something wrong, you have an elephant-sized conflict of interest because you provide them with advice and they are your clients. Or do you act on the basis that you have high legal ethical standards and act with professional integrity?

Do you think you are the only one who maintains such standards?

In his adjournment speech on 20 June 2001, Senator O’Brien made numerous statements about the Toller incidents. Many of these statements are inaccurate. I have taken some time to reply to your post because it was necessary to speak to a number of the persons involved and to carefully read the Sherman report and Hansard transcripts rather than just assume because Senator O'Brien made some comments then they must be correct (as you have obviously done).

1.“… Mr Skehill’s involvement in the meeting meant that he was assisting Mr Toller to manage one of the breaches and at the same time was advising the authority about another of Mr Toller’s breaches. I do not believe that Mr Skehill can credibly justify his conflict of interest in this case”.

Senator O’Brien’s assumptions are incorrect. At the time of the meeting on 6 November 2001 Mr Skehill had no involvement in Brindabella. Mr Skehill was not asked to provide any legal advice in relation to the Brindabella incident until 16 January 2001. By that time he had long ceased to have any involvement in the Uzu matter. There was no conflict of interest of the nature suggested by Senator O’Brien.

Also, Mr Skehill was not assisting Mr Toller to “manage” any breach. He provided advice to enable the Board to decide what should be done in response to the hotline call. That advice was that the matter should be disclosed to the Board and that the matter should be investigated in accordance with normal CASA procedures i.e. Mr Toller should be treated in the same way as any other pilot. Hardly the stuff of a cover up.

2.“So the initial response by Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill to the public disclosure of Mr Toller’s breach of aviation regulations was inappropriate to say the least…”.

The initial response was completely appropriate and involved no conflict of interest.

3.“…Mr Farquharson’s concerns were such that he has committed them to writing. Now, if Mr Farquharson did express concerns about the relationship between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill … either orally or in writing, the integrity of the internal inquiry into the matter must be called into question…”.

Mr Farquaharson did express his concerns. However, this was done without any evidence to substantiate his concerns, simply based on unfounded allegations from Mr Boys. A month or so after expressing those concerns, Mr Farquharson retracted those concerns unequivocally. Senator O’Brien fails to mention the retraction.

4.“Mr Boys told the committee that he did not investigate the Uzu breach, and someone else was tasked with the inquiry. Mr Boys confirmed that such an investigation would normally have been referred to him but the investigation of Mr Toller was not…”.

This is not correct.

Whether matters were referred to the Manger, Enforcement and Investigations at that time depended upon various factors. Hotline calls were never automatically referred to a Part IIIA investigation as suggested in Mr Boys’ answer. It was for the relevant Manager to determine whether or not a request for a formal Part IIIA investigation should be referred to the Manager, Enforcement and Investigations. Paragraph 3.3.2 of the Enforcement Manual stated:

“If a Manager believes that a formal investigation by a Part IIIA investigator is required then the matter should be referred to the Manager, Enforcement and Investigations in accordance with the Enforcement Processes Flowchart at paragraph 3.7 and using the Request for Investigation Form (form 309). (See chapter 16. CASA Internal Documents for a sample of the form).

“The request for investigation will be considered by the Manager, Enforcement and Investigations, who will take into account relevant priorities and resources”.

Mr Farquharson correctly notes this same point in his evidence to the Senate on 4 May 2001 where there is the following exchange:

“Senator O’BRIEN – Breaches of the regulations normally go through Mr Boys?”

“Mr Farquharson – Not necessarily, no”.

“Senator O’BRIEN – That is Mr Boy’s evidence”.

“Mr Farquharson – If the matter is going to be considered for prosecution or there is a requirement to employ the assistance of Mr Boy’s investigators for the gathering of information, then his group will become involved. If the matter is an administrative matter and is considered to be solely an administrative matter, then Mr Boys may know nothing of it. Those matters may all involve breaches or technical breaches but fall within the ambit of administrative than prosecution”.

This distinction appears to be continually missed by Senator O’Brien. The distinction also appears to have been overlooked by Mr Boys in his evidence to the Committee.


5.“He [Mr Boys] said that the changed reporting arrangements should not normally affect the manner in which he progressed his investigations, but in relation to the Uzu matter they did. The treatment of Mr Boys in this matter and the Brindabella investigation was highly irregular, to say the least…”.

The Uzu matter was not a “Peter Boys” investigation as suggested by Senator O’Brien. The investigation was conducted in the normal way. The fact that it was not referred to Mr Boys for investigation is not irregular, it in fact reflects what normally happened in CASA at the time. The changed reporting arrangement did nothing to alter the way investigations are normally handled.

6.“…Mr Leaversuch ignored Mr Boy’s advice, effectively taking him off the case, and he sought no other advice. He then shut the Brindabella investigation down”.

This is simply incorrect. The investigation was never shutdown. It was completed by the investigator originally assigned to the case (Neil Enders). Mr Boys was not taken off the case. He was in charge of the investigation to its completion and referred the final report to the Acting Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance.

7.“I understand that all this information was provided to Mr Farquharson. If this is correct, it is difficult to understand how he could not have formed the view that there was significant doubt about the integrity of the process followed and, therefore, of the conclusions reached in relation to the investigation”.

The Brindabella investigation was conducted by a Part IIIA investigator under Mr Boys. The investigation was conducted without any involvement by Mr Toller. The irregularities were commented upon by CASA's General Counsel as indicating the inadequacy of the evidence in reaching a conclusion that there was a prima facie breach of CAR 50.

8.“So, when Mr Farquharson told the Committee that he was faced with a difference between the views held by Mr Ilyk, Phillips Fox and Mr Boys, that was not accurate. A possible breach of Civil Aviation Regulation 228 was not considered at all by Ilyk or Phillips Fox”.

In relation to both the Brindabella matter and parts of the Uzu matter there was a difference of view between General Counsel and Mr Boys. The fact that CAR 228 was not considered by General Counsel or Phillips Fox is completely irrelevant. It was because there was a difference of view on some significant legal issues that Mr Farquharson felt it necessary to have all the issues reviewed by Mr Sherman.

It should be noted that Mr Boys was not employed as a lawyer in CASA and was not qualified to provide legal advice in any event. That was the role of legal counsel in OLC.

9.“Mr Sherman, in his advice, is clearly of the view that the matter of Civil Aviation Regulation 228, in addition to 282 and section 20AB(1) of the Civil Aviation Act, had been referred to two independent law firms”.

This is not correct. Mr Sherman knew what had and had not been referred to the independent law firms. He had been given all the files and they clearly show what matters had been referred for external legal advice. He also had all the legal advices that had been provided, so he knew exactly what had been considered by the external law firms and what had not. It is clear from the files that he was given that CAR 228 had not been so referred and Mr Sherman was well aware of this.

10.“Mr Sherman, in his opinion incorrectly assumes that a possible Civil Aviation Regulation 228 breach had been considered and rejected by two independent legal assessors and gave some weight to the alleged advice”.

There is no basis for such a conclusion by Senator O’Brien. Any normal reading of Mr Sherman’s advice shows that he was under no impression that the CAR 228 matter had been assessed by two independent legal firms.

Additionally, as stated above, Mr Sherman had all the files and legal advices and could have been under no impression that CAR 228 had been considered by anyone other than Mr Boys (who was not employed or qulaified to provide legal advice). In his advice Mr Sherman makes no suggestion that the CAR 228 matter had been considered by any external or internal lawyer (as he does, for example, in relation to CAR 282). In fact he suggests the contrary. After referring to CAR 282 and the legal advices in relation to that matter he says:

“There remains however the question of the application of Regulation 228…”.


11.“In relation to the Brindabella investigation we know that Mr Boys did commence an investigation but was taken off the inquiry and the files were removed from his possession… he was basically sidelined on the matter…”.

This in not correct. The investigation of the Brindabella incident which was commenced by Mr Boys and conducted by investigator Enders was fully completed and a final investigation report was produced by Mr Enders and sent to Mr Boys who then sent it to Mr Farquharson.

Mr Boys was not sidelined in relation to the investigation. The investigation was conducted in the normal manner (except for the irregular way in which it was commissioned by Mr Foley) and the reporting arrangements did not change how the investigation was conducted. In relation to Uzu, Mr Boys was not marginalised as suggested by Senator O’Brien. The fact that the matter was not formally referred to him is not unusual as such a matter would generally not have been referred to him where the pilot was someone other than Mr Toller.

12.“We also have missing evidence, changing stories, an apparent backdating of a maintenance release coming to the aid of Mr Toller and irregularities in advice from Mr Sherman…”.

The missing note is not new and was never hidden. But it had nothing to do with Mr Toller. The other suggestions in this comment from Senator O’Brien are incorrect. In particular his suggestion that there were “irregularities” in Mr Sherman’s advice. There were no irregularities in Mr Sherman’s advice and Senator O’Brien has not shown any irregularities. Mr Sherman is a highly respected lawyer, a former Chairman of the National Crime Authority and a former Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department and a former Australian Government Solicitor. To suggest that Mr Sherman did not know what he was doing or was somehow misled (even though he had all the files, all the legal advices, Boys' views and all the facts) is simply taking the conspiracy theory to an absurd extreme and unjustifiably impugns a lawyer of the highest integrity.

Creampuff
12th Jun 2008, 20:55
let me ask you whether when you provide legal advice to your clients who have allegedly done something wrong, you have an elephant-sized conflict of interest because you provide them with advice and they are your clients.With the greatest respect clapton, the fact you asked that question and apparently do not distinguish between the circumstances of an independent legal adviser advising a client on the one hand, and an employed lawyer advising her employer on whether the employer's breaches should be referred to the DPP on the other, is breathtaking. I will simply leave your statement as is and let it speak for itself.

And the story appears to be changing. In your post of 10 June you quoted Senator O’Brien’s statement:So on the matter of referral of the Uzu breach to the DPP based on Civil Aviation Regulation 228, at best there are only two views: that of Mr Sherman and that of Mr Boys.You then immediately said:There were 3 legal opinions. Sherman, Skehill and CASA's General Counsel.In your post immediately above, you said:The fact that CAR 228 was not considered by General Counsel or Phillips Fox is completely irrelevant.I will review the rest in greater detail when I get a chance, but let me say again, clapton, this is the problem.

clapton
12th Jun 2008, 22:19
Creampuff

No you can review all you like. The problem is that you are not interested in facts.

As for the circumstances - they are not different. You are quite happy to provide advice to your "clients" - ie the persons who are employing you or your firm - hence your "employer". There is no difference - except that you seem to believe that is acceptable for you but no one else. Your conflicts are just as elephant sized because you are being paid (hence employed) to provide the advice to the client. But of course your professional integrity is such that you would clearly never be biased or provide convenient advice - but obviously everyone else is incapable of that. That is the problem Creampuff.

There is no discrepancy in my latest post - I actually checked with people who do know what happened (and read the reports) rather than relying on unsubstantiated allegations by a disgruntled Senator who was only interested in pursing a political agenda rather than getting to the truth.

Finally, do you think that Mr Sherman was so stupid and incapable of working out the real facts from all the files and papers (including all the withess statements) tat we was provided - nothing was hidden. He didn't need any external advices etc to bolster his views - he was more than capable of coming to an independent opinion himself given his status and experiece. The fact that he did seems to be completely discounted by you and others who are bent on seeing some sort of sinister cover up and are happy to impugn the integrity of others along the way without any facts or evidence - based on a political statement made by Senator O'Brien which was made in without any proper investigation of the facts. I hope that is not how you deal with all your cases...........

Perhaps you can call Mr Sherman himself and see if he was involved in a cover up. He is still around.

There is clearly nothing further to say on this from my perspective so I won't be rsponding to any more of your posts on this because you are clearly not interested in facts.

Creampuff
13th Jun 2008, 02:47
clapton, since you've chosen to press the issue in those terms…

I'm guessing by your misconceptions in respect of conflicts of interest that you have little or no experience in private practice.

If I were an external lawyer giving an agency advice on whether its CEO or equivalent breached the law and, if so, whether those breaches should be referred to the DPP in accordance with applicable policies and procedures, I wouldn't care less whether the agency or the CEO liked or didn't like the advice and was inclined to execute me as the messenger. External lawyers have lots of clients. I'd be better off not having a client with a CEO like that anyway.

In-house lawyers have one client: their employer. If they upset the person who makes the hiring and firing decisions and the person executes the messenger, the lawyer doesn't have a job. Therefore, if the in-house lawyer is asked for advice on whether the person who makes the hiring and firing decisions has breached the law and, if so, whether those breaches should be referred for prosecution in accordance with applicable policies and procedures, that lawyer has a patent conflict of interest in advising on those questions, notwithstanding that the lawyer has 'high ethical standards' and 'professional integrity'. Indeed, and ironically in the context of this discussion, it would be both of those characteristics that should lead that lawyer to refuse to act on instructions to advise on those questions, on the basis of that conflict.

The difference is obvious, at least to me.

There are circumstances in which a lawyer is not permitted to act, even though the lawyer may have unquestionably 'high ethical standards' and 'professional integrity'. If 'high ethical standards' and 'professional integrity' were enough, there would be no law or practice rules about conflicts of interest.

Judges are chosen because they have 'high ethical standards' and 'professional integrity', but they nonetheless stand aside in matters in which they have, or are reasonably perceived as having, bias in the matter. That's not a slur on their ethics, integrity or competence.

But let's assume I'm seeing a difference that doesn't exist. Walk me through the nuts and bolts of this, clapton. If the General Counsel of CASA is asked to advise on whether the CEO breached the law and, if so, whether those breaches should be referred to the DPP in accordance with applicable policy, who is the General Counsel's client? In acting in that matter, to whom does the General Counsel owe his or her fiduciary duties, including the duty of confidentiality? Whose interests is the General Counsel obliged to promote and protect? Does CASA spend money on external lawyers to promote and protect CASA's interests, or to promote and protect the CEO's interests?

If your view is that the CEO's and CASA's interests are, in those circumstances, one and the same, that would explain a lot.

Any objective analysis of my postings on pprune will demonstrate that I am very interested in facts, and I try very hard not to let my prejudices or emotions get in the way of sorting the fact from the fiction. However, I'm only human. So are you. You seem to be emotionally attached to this one. You even quoted a press release as if what it said was necessarily fact.

I haven't suggested that Tom Sherman is stupid or incapable of working out the real facts.

Let's test your objectivity in the circumstances: If Mr Toller committed a technical breach of CAR 282(1) by taking the controls of a Cessna Caravan, even though he was not endorsee for the aircraft type, do you agree that those circumstances would also constitute a technical breach of CAR 228(1)?

For the info of readers, CARs 228(1) and 282(1) said, respectively:228(1) A person must not manipulate the controls of an aircraft in flight if the person is not either:

(a) the pilot assigned for duty in the aircraft; or

(b) a student pilot assigned for instruction in the aircraft.



282(1) A person shall not, if the person is not specially permitted by or under these regulations, perform any duty or exercise any function or do any act for which:

(a) a licence;

(b) a certificate; or

(c) a rating or other endorsement on a licence or certificate;

is required under these regulations, without holding:

(d) the appropriate licence or certificate; or

(e) a licence or certificate containing the appropriate rating or other endorsement.Simple question, clapton: a technical breach of one regulation, or a technical breach of two regulations?

clapton
13th Jun 2008, 11:27
Creampuff

Not a surprising response from you given that you believe that private lawyers have a monopoly on acting with integrity.

As to you comments that in-house lawyers only have one client - you know that that is a gross oversimplification. In house lawyers aren't the personal lawyers of the CEO. They aren't employed by the CEO - don't forget there was a Board in existence at the time which was ultimately responsible for the management of CASA and the hiring and firing of senior staff - not the CEO. Im-house lawyers act with due regard to their legal ethics and duties to the law itself, the Boatrd and organisation itself. They are not the personal playtthings of the CEO. And they are accountable through parliamentary processes for what they do as well.

As to the wonderful ethics of private lawyers, can you name me one in-house lawyer who has been charged or convicted of obstructing the course of justice, destroying evidence, shredding documents, misappropriation of trust funds etc. Trawl through the law reports and you will find wonderful examples of partners of law firms extensively engaing in all these activities. So please don't be so condescending and try to tell me that lawyers in private firms don't act in a completely unprofessional and unethical manner (with huge conflicts of interest) to please their clients (ie their employers) because such firms are in it for the money and often do whatever it takes to keep that money rolling in to pay for their lavish lifestyles.

As to you question:

Let's test your objectivity in the circumstances: If Mr Toller committed a technical breach of CAR 282(1) by taking the controls of a Cessna Caravan, even though he was not endorsee for the aircraft type, do you agree that those circumstances would also constitute a technical breach of CAR 228(1)?

For the info of readers, CARs 228(1) and 282(1) said, respectively:
Quote:
228(1) A person must not manipulate the controls of an aircraft in flight if the person is not either:

(a) the pilot assigned for duty in the aircraft; or

(b) a student pilot assigned for instruction in the aircraft.



282(1) A person shall not, if the person is not specially permitted by or under these regulations, perform any duty or exercise any function or do any act for which:

(a) a licence;

(b) a certificate; or

(c) a rating or other endorsement on a licence or certificate;

is required under these regulations, without holding:

(d) the appropriate licence or certificate; or

(e) a licence or certificate containing the appropriate rating or other endorsement.
Simple question, clapton: a technical breach of one regulation, or a technical breach of two regulations?



The answer is that there has been a technical breach of one regulation only - CAR 228. There has been no breach of CAR 282.

Creampuff, like Mr Boys, in you eagerness to pillory Mick Toller you fail to read the legislation. While Mr Boys could possibly be forgiven because he was not a real lawyer, I would have expected you to pay more attention to the legislation.

Read CAR 282 carefully (you get paid by the hour as a private lawyer - so take you time, you can charge the client).

CAR 282 only applies to a licence or endorsement that is required under the regulations (note the words, UNDER THE REGULATIONS).

In relation to the Mick Toller incident, the endorsement was not "required under the Regulations". The effect of not having an endoresment is that, except in particular circumstances, a pilot's licence does not authorise the pilot to fly the particular aircraft (which of course has consequences for section 20AB of the Act - but it is not a breach of CAR 282). A fine legal distiction you may say - but that is how the legislation works.


The reason for this is that once upon a time the regulations did make it an offence to fly without a licence, endorsement etc and the regulations did require the person to hold the appropriate licence, endorsement etc. In those days, CAR 282 would have applied and there would have been a breach of CAR 282. However, this was changed in the early 1990s with the enactment of section 20AB of the Act, when those "requirements" were put into the Act.

CAR 282 now only appies to things that are "required under the regulations" - so it still has application - but not in the circumstances raised in your question - or the Toller incident.

So CAR 282 had no application to Mr Toller's actions. That is the legal point that was in dispute between CASA's General Counsel and Mr Boys. Phillips Fox confirmed General Counsel's view on this issue as did Mr Sherman. No doubt you will say that Phillips Fox had an elephant sized conflict of interest because they were part of CASA's external legal panel and so obviously they would agree with their client (who was paying their bills). Same goes for Sherman I guess because CASA also had to pay him as well so obviously he couldn't be trusted to provide honest and objective advice.........

Now where can we find an honset lawyer.............

Zhaadum
13th Jun 2008, 11:54
Ye Gods! Save us simple pilots from Lawyers (LIARS) spouting boring legal drivel posts. If you want to have a pissing competition about which Lawyers dick is biggest, then buggar off to the nearest bar in Macquarie Street (or Melb/Bris Equivalent) :yuk:

Lodown
13th Jun 2008, 16:23
I'll open my mouth and remove all doubt. In my interpretation of Creampuff's question, I would have a tough time assigning guilt under either reg. I would like to know the original intent and history of both laws, but in my layman's read, it seems to me that the intent is to prohibit the unauthorised operation of the aircraft's controls, or the operation of an aircraft without the appropriate permission, ie. the equivalent of stealing, grabbing the controls from the pilot for "fun" or to see what happens, or for joyriding.

Wasn't Toller invited to manipulate the controls by the PIC? (Entrapment perhaps?) If so, a technical breach of both regs, but were the laws written with the intent to prohibit this specific minor incident with little or no safety repercussions or something far more serious? On a hunch, I posture that the regs were meant to enable prosecutorial support for the more serious incident to protect the property and decisions of the aircraft owner, passengers, general public and PIC. In my opinion, in this instance, the PIC should get a smack on the side of the head accompanied with a "What were you thinking?" and Toller should receive a slap on the back of the hand with a "You should have known better!" and leave it at that. Seems to be a big mountain out of a molehill. I'm sure both will think twice before they do it again and isn't that the goal?

Zhaadum, young GA pilots might argue over who has the bigger member, watch and wings, but like older airline pilots, real lawyers argue over the relative size of their wallets and the views from their back verandahs.

clapton
13th Jun 2008, 22:42
Lowdown

As usual, you've hit the nail on the head. Well put..........

Torres
13th Jun 2008, 23:05
Clapton. Hopefully relevant to the Senate Inquiry will be CASA’s parlous mismanagement of the regulatory reform process since 1988 and the ambiguity which appears to exist in current regulations.

CAR 206 1 (c) states:
"the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals."

Nine years ago, CASA audited a number of AOC holders in the Torres Strait, based upon an interpretation of the above regulation by a Brisbane based CASA lawyer. He identified that five components of an operation must exist for a flying operation to be deemed “RPT”:


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


The CASA lawyer’s written definition defined the first three requirements but failed to provide any definitions of the last two “Fixed Terminals” and “Specified Routes”. Neither term is defined in any current CASA legislation definitions.

I understand the CASA lawyer’s interpretation was subsequently withdrawn.

I have an aviation barrister’s opinion of the meaning of the two terms. I would be very interested in your opinion of their meaning?

vans
14th Jun 2008, 00:18
Regarding the contents of this thread in general and the ensuing legal debate between Clapton and Creampuff, I must say that from my own point of view it has been a fascinating read. But what it has done more than anything, is to confirm that the current regs are a mishmash that layman such as myself have little hope of interpreting correctly with out the help of legal counsel. If lawyers can’t agree on what the regulations mean, what hope has the average pilot?

This demonstrates the great need for the entire regs to be overhauled and written in such a manner that they are not open to interpretation, and don’t require each pilot to engage a lawyer to make sure that he/she is abiding by the regulations as they stand. What it further demonstrates is the absolute disgrace of the regulatory reform process having taken so long to complete, with no end in sight, and little if any progress being made at present. Australia is a little better than a third world country in this regard, and the CASA should hang its head in shame.

Torres
14th Jun 2008, 00:42
"This demonstrates the great need for the entire regs to be overhauled and written in such a manner that they are not open to interpretation..."
(Or misinterpretation!)

What a great idea - but wait, isn't that what has been going on for the past twenty years? :confused:

"Australia is a little better than a third world country in this regard, and the CASA should hang its head in shame."

I don't agree! At least Papua New Guinea, a third world country by any standards, saved a fortune by adopting the NZ CAA Regulations, the exercise funded by the Australian tax payer!

But it's only millions of our tax dollars being expended on our regulatory reform process. Surely you have some sympathy for the long term job security of the many CASA employees involved in the process?

clapton
14th Jun 2008, 02:17
Torres

I agree with your sentiments about the regulatory rewrite program. It has been a debacle for at least 12 years. For 5 of those years Byron has been in charge.

Your comments on CAR 206 are spot on. Despite promise after promise there has been no progress on fixing the problems of CAR 206.

However, the fact is that the regulation rewrite program was just about completed in 1996, when Minister Sharp, aided by AOPA members like Mr Hamilton as well as Mr Munro and the industry representatives on the then PAP successfully managed to scuttle the whole process.

The RSVP as it was called was designed to restructure the existing regulations and Orders into a two-tier FAR format and numbering system so as to make the Australian and US system compatible as far as possible and to place existinbg rules into a two-tier format as far as possible rather than being scattred all over the place (we now have the Act, the 1988 regulations, the 1998 regualtions, the Orders, the MOSs, temporary Orders to plug gaps while the new rules are being prepared etc). No one could have come up with a bigger mess if they planned it themselves.

A lot of this has to do with the lack of any accountability of successive Ministers and Departments to discharge their responsibilities for making regulations and being too frightened of making a decision for fear of offending anyone - but that is what governemt is about - governing in the public ineterest, not to placate particular vocal minorities who are only interested in their own self-importance.

The CASA website provided the following information about the scuttled 1996 program:


"The exercise was about 90% completed when in 1996 the then newly created PAP managed to have the project disbanded. The then Minister formally dropped the RSVP project on 18 December 1996 when he advised the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances that “the draft regulations prepared for the RSVP will not be made into law”.

Since then it has been one debacle after anothet. Byron has been in charge of this for 5 years now and nothing has happened because he no idea what he is doing and neither do those he has put in charge in the regulation rewrite program. The wonderfully m named PAGO (probably should be called POGO) has no idea about regulatory development (what exactly are My Boyd's credentials in regulatory development apart from being a Byron yes man - same with Mr Gratton who can't even read legislation let alone know what it means). But these people are put in charge of the rule rewrite program. Byron's "directives" are typical of an individual who has no idea what he is doing and no idea of what his (ad CASA's) role is in regulatory development- even he doesn't seem to understand what his"diredtives" mean. How much has been spent on the rewrite program in the last 10 years. One or two hundred million dollars would be close to the mark. Good value??


Unfortunately you will never get a set of regulations that are not open to interpretation. This has never happened in area area of legislation and never will happen. The best you can do is to get a set of regulations that are, as far as possible, unambiguous in most instances. This has to be supplement by proper information and education material about the rules (similar to the road traffic experience).

Even those like Mr Hamilton who trot out the old furphy that the FARs are simple and easy to read clearly have little understanding of the FARs. Here is another extract from the CASA website that deals with some of these issues:


"Finally – FAR simplicity and unam\iguous legislation
Mr Hamilton and others have madea lot of unsubstantiated statements aboutthe simplicity and clarity of the FARs. AOPA continually contends that they are easy to comprehend and are written in plain English. This is refuted by the United States itself. In a report to the President of the United States on 12 February 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security found that the FARs were difficult to understand, were contradictory, open to different interpretations and needed to be rewritten in plain English.

The Commission found that the “current FARs and supporting Handbooks, Technical Standards Orders, Security Directions and Advisory Circulars have become too prescriptive and complex and increasingly open to misinterpretation. Sometimes they provide conflicting policy or procedural advice. In many cases, the FARs do not allow for advances in technology that increases security, safety or efficiency”.

The Commission also rcommended that “a bottom-up review of existing regulations should be conducted to identify those in need of rewriting as performance-based, plain English regulations. Such clarifications would improve and help the FAA resolve serious problems created by differences in interpretation of regulations by FAA officials across the country”.
A good example of the complexity of the FARs can be found in the definition of “public aircraft” in the regulation 1.1 of the FARs. The definition is almost incomprehensible. Perhaps Mr Hamilton can explain it to us:

Public aircraft means an aircraft used only for the United States Government, or owned and operated (except for commercial purposes), or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days, by a government (except the United States Government), including a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States, or political subdivision of that government; but does not include a government-owned aircraft transporting property for commercial purposes, or transporting passengers other than transporting (for other than commercial purposes) crewmembers or other persons aboard the aircraft whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function such as firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management, or transporting (for other than commercial purposes) persons aboard the aircraft if the aircraft is operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States. An aircraft described in the preceding sentence shall, notwithstanding any limitation relating to use of the aircraft for commercial purposes, be considered to be a public aircraft for the purpose of this Chapter without regard to whether the aircraft is operated by a unit of government on behalf of another unit of government, pursuant to a cost reimbursement agreement between such units of government, if the unit of government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration that the operation was necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and that no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet the threat."

Torres
14th Jun 2008, 03:13
Clapton

Your comments on CAR 206 are spot on. Despite promise after promise there has been no progress on fixing the problems of CAR 206.

You have my respect!! :ok:

One or two hundred million dollars would be close to the mark.

Jeezus!!! :mad: :mad: I expected a few million......... but no where near that cost!! :mad:

Whilst part of the blame is due to incompetent CASA executive management, the buck stops with a string of incompetent and incapable Ministers for Transport over the past twenty years.

The opinion on CAR206 that I have, not withstanding anything in Seaview or Monarch and which I no longer care to debate, is that CAR206 was "lifted" almost verbatim from the pre 1988 ANRs, out of context and is dependent upon ANRs 197 to 203 and other legislation for interpretation.

"Specified routes" were airline routes marked on pre 1988 DCA charts, over which an air charter or ANR203 exempt operator could not operate more than once in 28 days (later, from memory, the 4 hour/8 hour rule was implemented.)

"Fixed terminals" were dedicated Commonwealth owned airline terminals at Commonwealth owned airports, which were defined in then existing legislation.

That is a view I held ten years ago and hold today. It is a view supported by some experienced CASA FOIs but not necessarily supported by CASA's legal fraternity, who, to the best of my knowledge, have failed to provide an intelligent and authorative interpretation of CAR206.

Bob Murphie
14th Jun 2008, 04:01
Well, Monro has been gone from AOPA for quiet some time, as has Hamilton. I don't recall Munro being part of AOPA when Byron was anywhere near the scene.

One should ask what the three present policy makers have to say about the matter. They have experts on everything I am told.

One of their Troika will submit something if it pleases them and CASA.

clapton
14th Jun 2008, 11:01
BM

One should ask what the three present policy makers have to say about the matter. They have experts on everything I am told.

Who are the "three present policy makers"? There is a lack of any policy making in CASA. But I'd be interested to hear who you think these 3 are.

Creampuff
14th Jun 2008, 22:48
Oh clapton, I suppose I should ‘fess up on a very important point.

But before I do, in an amazing coincidence I was flicking through the June edition of the NSW Law Society Journal (Vol 46 No. 5) yesterday, and jigger me with a barge pole if there’s not an article headed In-house ethical dilemmas are many and varied. (see pp14-15) It’s based on a ‘Legalwise Seminar’ given by an academic from UTS (not one of those evil private lawyers). I commend to you the following paras:On the other hand, from an ethical viewpoint, there is obvious potential for conflict between an employer as legal client, and boss. Asked to do something improper, an in-house lawyer would find it more difficult to say no. Saying no might mean leaving the job instead of just ending the retainer.


If you are very entrenched in an organisation as in-house counsel, how can you bring detachment to the position?

To me, it’s more difficult when there’s client wrongdoing when you are employed by the client than in a traditional relationship …That’s at least two of us who can spot the difference.

And you must stop putting words in my mouth, clapton.

First, I didn’t say that ‘private lawyers have a monopoly on acting with integrity’. I just said that in the circumstances, the General Counsel of CASA had a patent conflict of interest. Your reasoning seems to be that private lawyers sometimes do bad things, therefore the General Counsel didn’t have a conflict in the circumstances. That does not follow. If you don’t agree with me, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. (As to your question about in-house lawyers, go to The Age website and do a search for the terms ‘General Counsel’ and ‘DMO’).

Secondly, I have never expressed an opinion as to whether there were any breaches by Mr Toller. Please clapton, read that twice. Your evident involvement in this is affecting your objectivity.

But now to my admission. (Drum roll) I confess to being emotionally involved in this, because I find it all so side-splittingly funny. I’d thought all the entertainment value had been extracted out of this years ago, but now I’ve got the opportunity to get some more laughs out of the revival tour!

What lies at the heart of this storm in a teacup? Is it regulatory breaches (if there were any)? No, it wouldn’t have mattered if Mr Toller was the most qualified C208 pilot on the planet.

What lies at the heart of this storm in a teacup is that Mr Toller, as the head of CASA, was silly enough to take the controls of an aircraft being operated by an organisation regulated by CASA. It’s like the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer having a go at an operation while on a tour of new hospital.

Now as it turned out, he wasn’t the most qualified C208 pilot on the planet, and the journalist in the aircraft was not overly impressed by the ‘firmness’ of the landing.

But is the response to admit the mistake and learn a lesson? Oh no.

And from there, it snowballed into the immensely amusing mess of inquiries this and opinions that, and Skehill this and Sherman that, and questions on notice this and press release that, all of which focused on the ‘management’ of the potential regulatory breach issues and all of which avoided the important issue.

It reminds me of The Simpsons episode in which Homer crashes the car while driving home drunk from Moe’s. The insurance investigator asks Homer: ‘And this ‘Moe’s’ place. What is that?’ Homer thinks really hard and says: ‘It’s a pornography store. I was buying pornography!’

clapton
14th Jun 2008, 23:14
Nice sidestep Creampuff

Now how many technical breaches of the regulations were there - given that you raised the question and implied the answer?

Torres
14th Jun 2008, 23:26
"....and the journalist in the aircraft was not overly impressed by the ‘firmness’ of the landing."

Thank you Creampuff. It could only have been the only other person on the aircraft - a 20 something female journo from the local rag. Toller did not fly the landing and the landing was perfectly normal for a C208 on a 400 meter runway.

Who cares? It's all ancient history anyhow.

Creampuff
14th Jun 2008, 23:33
Not a sidestep, clapton, but fact.

You should have read the question, and marked the significance of the word ‘if’. Instead, you jumped to a conclusion and made a number of entirely unjustified attacks on me.

I have not expressed a view, and will not express a view, on whether Mr Toller committed any breaches in the circumstances. After all, I may have a conflict of interest, and so it would not be appropriate for me to do so.

And Torres, you were the one who posted the link to the 'ancient history' in this thread!

Bob Murphie
15th Jun 2008, 01:16
clapton;

You mentioned AOPA, that's where the three wise men are, certainly not CASA. Sorry for the confusion.

clapton
15th Jun 2008, 02:44
BM

You mentioned AOPA, that's where the three wise men are, certainly not CASA. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks for the clarification. Understand perfectly now....CASA has long since abdicated its policy responsibilities

clapton
15th Jun 2008, 02:51
Creampuff

As I said - nice sidestep. Forget about the "if". The direct question you asked was:

Simple question, clapton: a technical breach of one regulation, or a technical breach of two regulations?

Creampuff
15th Jun 2008, 04:13
clapton

The objective answer to the question (given your view) would have been: If the assumption was correct, the answer would be two. However, the assumption is not correct, so the answer is one.

If you could just pull back from this a little and take a deep breath, you wouldn’t need to make personal attacks on me to make your point.

I’ve tried to explain that a conflict of interest is not a criticism of a lawyer’s ethics, integrity or professionalism, but you appear to have taken it that way.

Try not to.

Fantome
16th Jun 2008, 19:55
Canst hear the voice of Eliza now, a faint backdrop?

Words! Words! I'm so sick of words!
I get words all day through;
First from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do?
Don't talk of stars Burning above; If you're in love,
Show me! Tell me no dreams
Filled with desire. If you're on fire,
Show me! Here we are together in the middle of the night!
Don't talk of spring! Just hold me tight!

Lead Balloon
17th Jun 2008, 10:00
Never made a mistake JustAppl?

Or just never admitted it?

Play the ball not the man.

Having said that, I'm not a lawyer, so I will be duplicitous. When are you retiring with your cardigan collection anyway JustAppl?

bushy
17th Jun 2008, 10:20
Torres
From my reading of procedings of the case concerning Coral Sea Airlines i believe they concluded the fact that a flight is pre arranged, to operate at some future time (ie tomorrow) is sufficient to make it a scheduled flight, over a specified route.
Nearly all charter flights are arranged this way.

Torres
17th Jun 2008, 10:51
Good one Bushy! :ok:

So if a share charter is booked today, to operate tomorrow and the route is defined on a Flight Plan, does that become RPT? :}

"Fixed Terminals" is also a legal requirement for an operation to be deemed RPT. For those who have been there, the "Fixed Terminal" at Bamaga (if the termites haven't finished it off) or the nine square meter shade roof and picnic table at York Island come to mind - with some amusement! :E :E

Regardless of Seaview, Coral Sea Air etc, CAR206 is meaningless in the context of current legislation, which clapton at least appears to acknowledge.

The fact is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has abysmally and woefully failed in it's duty to adequately define "scheduled air services" and provide an appropriate regulatory framework for essential air services to rural Australian communities for twenty years, since the abolition of ANR203 exempt air services in the previous Air Navigation Regulations in 1988.

The previous Board, a succession of Director/CEOs and plethora of CASA management should hang their head in shame for what they have done to Australian rural air services and general aviation. :=

bushy
17th Jun 2008, 14:14
Rubbery rules.

Lodown
18th Jun 2008, 01:30
I'm in full agreement with you Torres about the legislation. I'm looking forward to the day when someone finally determines that there really is no distinction between RPT and charter. RPT legislation was simply protectionist policies from Ansett/TAA days long gone when most of the world's governments felt it necessary to foster and protect their national aviation assets. In today's business climate, it's simply restraint of trade and anti-competitive that as you have pointed out, is impossible to justify without some very flexible interpretation of CAR's in favour of the incumbents. Just about any charter operator can be construed as operating RPT if deemed necessary by "the authorities".

Want to revitalize GA? Loosen the interpretation of what constitutes RPT. Let operators operate as many flights as they like, at scheduled and non-scheduled times, in competition with existing airlines if they want to, with specific flight advertising, and with pre-bookings. The market will sort out who succeeds and fails. Rural Australia will love it.


Edited to change TATA to TAA.

bushy
21st Jun 2008, 07:26
It's time we looked at reality. CASA seems to think that a C210 or a caravan is the same as a Boeing, and they all require an army of people on the ground doing huge ammounts of useless paperwork to keep them going. The licencing system implies to the general public that they are the same, and that is wrong.
The distinction between RPT and Charter is backwards, and rediculous. It's major use appears to have been as a tool to prosecute whenever they feel like it, as nearly all charters can be said to be illegal RPT. The distinction is rubbery and not properly defined. It was used for withdrawing AOC's. Read the Phelan Papers. Look at the Coral Sea Airlines case.
And yet it is ok to carry schoolkids in a Caribou, and RPT pax in a hercules without an AOC.
It probably grew from the old days of protecting the govt airline from those pesky charter operators in those new fangled Pa32's that could carry five pax. So they made a rule that flying charter along an established airline route was only permitted once every 28 days. This was commercial regulation, not safety regulation. And I believe they still do commercial regulation by stealth, using (or misusing) the regs. More than one operator has had AOC problems for running "scheduled flights". Apparently it is less safe if an aeroplane flies at the same time every day over the same (or similar) route.
I would have thought it would be safer, as there would be less variables.
And economically it is difficult to sell all the seats in the aeroplane to one buyer. Airlines do not do it. But apparently that is safer than selling individual seats. It must be, because CASA have taken operattors to task for
selling individual seats, and they are the "safety" authority are they not? Is this not commercial regulation? Small operators would be on a better financial basis if they could sell seats, and not have to worry about big brother watching for some small commercial (not safety) glitch that could put them out of business.
Apart from the commercial aspect, this uncertainty causes stress which is not a healthy thing for safe operation. Some operators have done these things for years and others have had their AOC withdrawn for this.
I fail to see how this improves safety. Instead I believe it has hindered the proper and safe operation of GA operators for years. It is time this stopped.
Also, if light aircraft are to be used , the public should know. We should stop pretending and have "licenced light aircraft" services. The public would then know that the charter operator system is different from a Boeing, and different from Mulga Bill's private 172.
And do we really need to re-write our ops manual every time the FOI visits?
Let's stop pretending, and get it right.

Howabout
21st Jun 2008, 09:00
Bushy nails it with his comment about the difficulty of selling all instead of individual seats. I think that the trend over the last few years, of enforcing an essentially draconian requirement, has seen the demise of this section of the industry. God, charter ops used to be the life-bloood of the north and I cannot recall one single incident where pax safety was threatened because a 'charter operator' sold seats individually. And my recollection goes back to the earlies when the old tarmac opposite the 36 THOLD in Darwin was chokkas with aircraft belonging to 'charter operators'. If anyone can enlighten me to the contrary, I'd be interested.

Bloody sad.

Bob Murphie
22nd Jun 2008, 00:53
That was quick. And you have given yourself away as being one of the remaining 1455 odd members. Low pass indeed.

bushy
22nd Jun 2008, 01:37
I notice that Alice Springs has a "charter airline". Is this really anything new??

gupta
22nd Jun 2008, 04:41
Where'd you get the number of 1455 from, Bob?

Bob Murphie
22nd Jun 2008, 06:01
Ask a member like I did.

T28D
22nd Jun 2008, 06:32
Bob truly down to 1455, they are stuffed if that is true, can't pay wages at that level of income.

gupta
22nd Jun 2008, 22:33
Bob - I reckon you've been led well & truly up the garden path. Go back & ask that member to show you where they got the figure from
T28D - see first sentence above, maybe they should look at a franchise then

Bob Murphie
23rd Jun 2008, 00:20
Receipts from membership fees divided by the subscription I suppose.

I'm out of here before I get banned.

Queenslander
23rd Jun 2008, 22:06
I think we also need to look at the current state of GA, and the damage that has been done by privatisation of the secondary airfields, which CASA has NOT been monitoring. If we look at Bankstown, Archerfield and Jandakot we see that the owners want to turn them into industrial parks, the owners being laws unto themselves are breaching the regulations and CASA doing nothing about the breaches.................:=

Here is a question, how close is the relationship between ATSB and CASA? What I mean is, do both parties take the word of the other as being correct and true without questioning the reply/answer.........

I would be very interested to know what Dick Smiths view on the issue is and what he thinks should be done.

Dick Smith
24th Jun 2008, 00:18
Queenslander, my views are simple, see here (http://dicksmithflyer.com.au/index.php).

The problem is that we have had years of a Department of Transport – now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – when there has been absolutely no policy initiated. Because of this, aviation, particularly general aviation, will be destroyed.

For example, I bet no one in the Department pointed out to the various Ministers that selling off Hoxton Park Airport so it could be used for freehold land would work very much against flying training in Australia.

The problem with the Department is that once a person comes up to speed on aviation matters – and there have been some very good people there – they immediately disappear. For example, we had a capable chap called Martin Dolan, who was in charge of aviation for about three years. He suddenly disappeared. Then we had Mike Mrdak, who had previously worked in Laurie Brereton’s office in aviation and came up to speed quickly. As soon as he was in a position to start setting some policy, he moved – I think to the Prime Minister’s Department.

Basically there is no one in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has any good in-depth knowledge of aviation. The Minister’s aviation adviser has no background in practical aviation and does not ask advice.

We are heading for a major tragedy in aviation. This is due to a lack of pilots, a lack of air traffic controllers, and a lack of any understanding that unnecessary costs must be reduced – otherwise safety will be affected.

This started when John Anderson de-skilled the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board so much that he then decided the Board was useless (which it was) and abolished it. He then placed a farmer, with no practical air traffic control or aviation experience, on the Airservices Board as Chairman.

We have had about a decade of no forward thinking policy being instigated.

There will no doubt be more disasters in future.

chainsaw
24th Jun 2008, 01:05
Dick,

I think most of us would 1000% agree with your statement:

Basically there is no one in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has any good in-depth knowledge of aviation. The Minister’s aviation adviser has no background in practical aviation and does not ask advice.

That is a real concern. :(

But Queenslander asked:

Here is a question, how close is the relationship between ATSB and CASA? What I mean is, do both parties take the word of the other as being correct and true without questioning the reply/answer.........

Your response to Queenslander's post included the statement:

We have had about a decade of no forward thinking policy being instigated.

I also think most of us would also 1000% agree with that statement.:D

So what do you suggest should be done Dick to resolve the problems of a Minister who is being advised on aviation by someone who apparently has no background in practical aviation, and also the ongoing lack of forward-thinking [aviation] policy from the Government?

Queenslander
24th Jun 2008, 01:22
I have another question:

What happens if an accident occurs at a secondary airfield and it was contributed to a breach of the regulations by the airport owner, who do you go after, the airport owner for breach of the regulations or CASA for failing to enforce the regulations:confused:

Queenslander
24th Jun 2008, 01:38
As GA is considered the parasite in aviation, well that is how it feels sometimes being in GA, we are ignored or pushed away, who has/is listening to the GA communities interest/concerns?

If I’m not mistaken but was it not Labour that privatised the secondary airfields, so they created the problem, and have not done anything since being back in government rectify the mess they created, but they are quick enough to blame the last government for the mess………..:=

Pinky the pilot
24th Jun 2008, 03:23
If I’m not mistaken but was it not Labour that privatised the secondary airfields, so they created the problem, and have not done anything since being back in government rectify the mess they created, but they are quick enough to blame the last government for the mess………..

Think that you are correct Queenslander, but I fear that the Krudd Government will not ''rectify the mess'' quite simply because they, like all Governments, will not admit to ever having made a mistake in anything they ever did!:mad:

They will of course, continue to blame the previous administration for all the percieved problems, and possibly tinker around the edges or most likely with the current lot, just hold yet another enquiry.

Like all Governments!!:mad::sad:

Dick Smith
24th Jun 2008, 05:20
Chainsaw, what I see happening in the Canberra aviation bureaucracy is what I call “the Wheat Board plan.” We all saw the situation with the Wheat Board and Alexander Downer – where he was able to say that he wasn’t informed, therefore he could not be held responsible! I’m sure he wasn’t informed – that was the intentional part of the plan from the Department.

I see a similar situation occurring within the aviation bureaucracy, so when a catastrophe occurs, in their view the Minister will not be responsible as he “wasn’t informed.”

Of course this won’t work. None of us really cared about the Wheat Board situation because we all knew it would be impossible to sell to Sadam Hussein’s regime without providing some form of kick back. However in the case of an aviation catastrophe – especially when fatalities are involved – it will be quite different.

The Minister has been surrounded with people who “know nothing” and is then kept away from anyone who may be able to give him important safety advice. However I do not believe in this situation he will be able to claim – as Alexander Downer did – that he knew nothing and could therefore not be held responsible.

How do we solve the problem? I believe there is nothing we can do until it gets far worse and a catastrophe occurs. The aviation bureaucracy has got away with this since the days of John Anderson and it has worked well for them.

In fact, when John Anderson retired he was almost treated as a hero by his fellow Parliamentarians and by the media. This sent a clear message to politicians – even Deputy Prime Ministers – that is, don’t make any decisions you can be held accountable for and you will have an easy life.

It begs the question – why would someone want to become a Deputy Prime Minister, or a Minister, without at least achieving some worthwhile changes? I don’t know.

At the present time all we can do is sit and watch, but be very concerned.

In relation to the ATSB and CASA, the head ATSB investigator is ex-military and so is the head of CASA. They have come up through a culture which gives the message, “Never ask advice.” I believe that whilst this culture exists, we will never be able to move forward.

Queenslander
24th Jun 2008, 05:48
Dick,

Will the Lockhart River accident, which was the reason for the Senate Inquiry into CASA have a major impact in the review, knowing that CASA failed to correctly monitor and enforce legislation, their failing resulted in the deaths of those on board the aircraft.

Will the review be done without pressure and influence from EXTERNAL parties with an interest in the outcome, i.e. the government, and who is qualified enough to conduct the review knowing that they will be consistently harassed by EXTERNAL parties?:E

Or do you believe another accident will occur, that will bring things to the forefront for the general public and make CASA explain as to why they have failings in their procedures, but then again, they are arrogant enough and say not the departments fault

chainsaw
24th Jun 2008, 05:54
Thank-you for your response Dick. :D

It seems as though the outlook is very grim indeed. But if, as you say, that the Minister will not be able to claim that he knew nothing and could therefore not be held responsible for the catastrophe when it occurs, then it defies belief that the Minister isn't doing something RFN to tin-plate his ar5e.

Which leads me to suspect that maybe the Minister is in fact a whole lot more stupid than he at present appears. :eek:

Torres
24th Jun 2008, 06:37
Dick may have handed back $10,000 which, even to a wealthy man is not chicken feed, but who is going to hand back the 100 to 200 million dollars, which has been wasted on the regulatory reform process over the past twenty years?

Surely failure to perform should be adequate reason to terminate Mr Byron's appointment? :confused:

Air Ace
24th Jun 2008, 11:11
A representative of the Lockhart River families has published the following Press Release:


PRESS RELEASE:
Canberra, June 24 AAP- The aviation regulator is conducting a month-long sweep across northern Australia in a bid to improve safety.

Northern Queensland, the Kimberley region in Western Australia and the Northern Territory will all be visited by officials from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA.)

Cities including Mt Isa and Cairns will be covered by the operation.

“Teams will arrive unannounced at large and small aviation operations, aerodromes and airstrips to conduct checks, provide safety advice and investigate any breaches of the regulations,” a statement from CASA said.

I am both astounded and appalled by the announcement yesterday by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that it would conduct a safety sweep through Northern Australia.

This announcement is a cynical and blatant attempt by CASA to divert attention away from the forthcoming Senate inquiry into its multitude of failures to monitor and regulate the aviation industry in this area particularly, and to ensure that people can fly in safety. CASA officers involved in this decision must think that we are stupid.

By announcing the sweep yesterday, in advance of visits by CASA inspectors to many places, the organisation has given a heads-up so operators can get their acts together before they receive a visit.

This will enable CASA to say to the inquiry that its monitoring and regulation efforts are working.

If CASA had bothered to do its duty prior to the Lockhart River crash in 2005, 15 people would not have died.

This sickening performance is wholly consistent with the deceit and dishonesty that CASA has displayed towards the families of the Lockhart River crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in its investigation of the crash, the Coronial Inquest and the Australian Senate.

airtags
24th Jun 2008, 11:54
Pinky and Dick are quite right - the terms of reference are stuffed and the Parliamentary Enquiry set up is myopic at best.

As one who has written more than a fair share of Ministerial briefings at both State and Federal level I can affirm that the scenareo Dick paints is sadly true. (ie. - The downline flunkies will kill their own grandmothers to ensure the respective Minister and CEO are buffered - best bet would be an "unofficial" word in either of their ears at any function, event (or even on a flight) followed by a diary note and maybe even an 'on record' note on prune of what was said.)

Unfortunately like FOI's, the submission process is a facade and any departmental flunky will make sure that the good Minister & CEO have the intell to dodge the bullets with a few well placed, non disclosable post it notes on the briefing papers.

If the Government was serious the terms of reference would be widened to allow what is currently little more than a means to contain the Coroner's shadow of obligation and precipe for litigation.

For the families of the Lockhart incident - I'm happy to donate to what well may become a very winable (and very justified) a civil action. Too this end, for the Minister, I strongly advocate buying some EGN centimetres in the Australian inviting cv's and quickly start work on the restructure of the dept.

For journalists - refer B Byron's proclaimations at 'Safer Skies' last year and ask the hard questions.

AT

chainsaw
24th Jun 2008, 21:40
airtags,

If the Government was serious the terms of reference would be widened to allow what is currently little more than a means to contain the Coroner's shadow of obligation and precipe for litigation.

It seems to me airtags that if the government is not serious about this Parliamentary Enquiry, then perhaps it (the government), the Minister, Ministerial advisers, and the departmental flunkies don't fully understand the precepts of honesty and fair dealing. :mad:

Queenslander
24th Jun 2008, 23:48
I believe that it will be very difficult for the cRudd Government and CASA to hide from the truth, especially after the Lockhart River accident. The interesting thing is the press release from the families associated with this tragic accident, which we know could have been prevented if CASA had followed its procedures and reviewed the airline in question.

I think CASA and its middle and senior managers will be in damage control mode and looking for ways to protect themselves, but the truth is this, somebody needs to go through CASA with the brush and get rid of the “dead wood” and also remove the “Old Boy” network. This would allow some fresh blood into the place. I see on PPRuNe that Canada has a problem with their aviation regulator.

I have to say that it’s SAD that CASA thinks that this statement will do anything:

“Teams will arrive unannounced at large and small aviation operations, aerodromes and airstrips to conduct checks, provide safety advice and investigate any breaches of the regulations,” a statement from CASA said.

Can somebody please tell CASA what “unannounced” means, as I do believe that they do not know, by the above statement, I’ll copy the meaning for them as from the on line Compact Oxford English Dictionary…..

1 not publicized. 2 without warning; unexpected

I believe the old boy network is in progress here, “Guys we are coming clean up your paperwork”…….. how much warning can you give and how blatantly do it as well, thinking we are that stupid that we do not know what they are doing……….. :ugh::=

Bob Murphie
25th Jun 2008, 04:43
Air Ace;

I take the CASA media release as a threat.

Others;

The terms of reference do not address the one very important aspect of cronyism. This is the basis of many earlier failed inquiries from The Commonwealth Ombudsman to The Senate.

The terms of reference do not allow, (from what I see), for Mates, within, or recently departed from the Industry to be investigated. These Mates can be personal, professional, Military, or prick relations.

Only CASA is being investigated.

The LHR matter will go no further than investigating present day CASA, and more needs investigating on other aspects within the sequence of prior events leading up to and including base and corrupt politics and cronyism before the disaster.

The terms of reference do not address the problem, indeed they perpetuate it.

The Labor Party can exploit this if they have the guts.

Air Ace
25th Jun 2008, 05:03
The CASA Media Release a threat? :confused:

CASA officials are conducting unannounced checks at airstrips throughout northern parts of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

The tests will be carried out over the next four weeks and will gauge how safety is addressed - pinpointing general issues within the industry.


"unannounced checks" ... "over the next four weeks" ... a threat? :confused:

Call me cynical, but isn't the public announcement, timing and intent of this exercise soley to demonstrate to the Senate Inquiry that CASA is carrying out it's surveylance task? :*

Bob Murphie
25th Jun 2008, 05:16
It's not a threat to the Senate Inquiry, it's a threat to the PBP flying in the area. Read the rest of my post. Unless anybody can change the terms of reference this is going nowhere. Also note the date for submissions.

It's no use discussing the matter, write to, or ring someone. Try these;



The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister
Mr David Epstein – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7700

The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Deputy Prime Minister
Ben Hubbard – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7320

The Wayne Swan MP, Treasurer
Chris Barrett – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7340

Senator the Hon Chris Evans, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Michael Boyle – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7860

Senator the Hon John Faulkner, Special Minister of State
Kate Harrison – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7600

The Hon Simon Crean MP, Minister for Trade
David Garner – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7420

The Hon Stephen Smith MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Paul Grigson – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7500

The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP, Minister for Defence
Daniel Cotterill – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7800

The Hon Nicola Roxon MP, Minister for Health & Ageing
Michael Reid – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7220

The Hon Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Joanna Brent – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7560

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
Michael Chouiefate - Chief of Staff
02 6277 7680

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Mark Tapley – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7480

Senator the Hon Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Science and Research
Rachel Stephen-Smith – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7580

The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
David Williams – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7640

The Hon Robert McClelland MP, Attorney General
Jonathon Kirkwood – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7300

Senator the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water
David Fredericks – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7920

The Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Kirsten Andrews, Chief of Staff
02 6277 7520

The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP, Minister for Resources and Energy
Denise Spinks – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7930

The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP, Minister for Finance and Deregulation
Anthony Baker – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7400

The Hon Chris Bowen MP, Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Competition Policy & Consumer Affairs
Brett Gale – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7360

The Hon Bob Debus, Minister for Home Affairs
Michael Tatham - Chief of Staff
02 6277 7290

The Hon Justine Elliott, Minister for the Ageing
Walt Secord – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7280

The Hon Kate Ellis MP, Minister for Youth, Minister for Sport
Michael McGuire – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7350

The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP, Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation
Lynne Ashpole – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7450

The Hon Alan Griffin MP, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
Ross Bain – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7820

Senator the Hon Joseph Ludwig, Minister for Human Services
Simon Every – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7200

The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP, Minister for Employment Participation
Yvette Nash – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7630

The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, Minister for Housing, Minister for the Status of Women
Michael Woodhouse – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7780

Senator the Hon Nick Sherry, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Governance
Judith Downey – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7410

The Hon Warren Snowdon MP, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
Peter Reece – Chief of Staff
02 6277 7620



EDIT TO ADD The terms of reference, the whole three of them;

Terms of Reference
On 29 May 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport resolved, under Standing Order 25(2)(b), to conduct a formal inquiry into the administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and related matters. The proposed reporting date is 9 July 2008.

Noting the Government's announced intention to release a National Aviation Policy Green Paper in the latter half of 2008 and the importance of maintaining Australia's strong aviation safety record, the committee will conduct an inquiry into the administration of CASA and related matters:

to assess the effectiveness of administrative reforms undertaken by CASA's management since 2003;
to examine the effectiveness of CASA's governance structure; and
to consider ways to strengthen CASA's relations with industry and ensure CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator.
The committee invites written submissions, which should be lodged by Monday, 30 June 2008, to:

The Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Air Ace
25th Jun 2008, 05:26
I can't imagine why, but the terms of reference appear intended solely to:


Placate the Lockhart River families.

Terminate the CASA CEO/Director's appointment.

Justify re-installing a Board to manage CASA.

It would be a waste of paper writing to all those Ministers. The only elected representatives who have expressed an interest in this Inquiry are:

The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP,
Minister for Resources and Energy

Senator the Hon. Jan McLucas
Senator for Queensland

Senator Kerry O'Brien
Senator for Tasmania

Bob Murphie
25th Jun 2008, 06:06
The terms of reference still do not address the problems.

They will not alter the status quo except re-arrange the deckchairs. That includes Byron's position.

I don't see how it will placate the LHR Families unless liability is admitted, which it won't be.

The CASA Board will only be effective if it's members are "hands on" aviation people. Remember the last one?

Everyone who has been 'fingered' by the Funnelweb of CASA must put in a submission or an opportunity is lost. You can't rely on your 'representative' organisations to take up individual causes. It has to be done individually.

The problem as I see it is nobody currently working, or reliant on CASA's benevolence will stand up, and only those who have been touched by CASA's vindictiveness and heavy handed tactics will, and they will be classed as vexacious crusaders.

I mentioned prior that there is an opportunity for the Labor Government to gain some ground here, even if they extend the Inquiry to a Royal Commission, simply because they already know the outcome.

Queenslander
25th Jun 2008, 06:48
Bob, that’s my concern, they have already formulated the required conclusion to the review, a Royal Commission would be the more ideal review, that way the “Deckchairs” can only be moved so far without a please explain and more in-depth investigation would be required.:mad:

I’m with Dick on this one, it is going to take another LHR accident and THEN a Royal Commission will be required/demanded by the travelling public as their safety has been placed into jeopardy by CASA and it’s lack of ability to enforce it’s own regulations.

The Labour government under cRudd will do nothing, that’s labour, they promised the earth and have delivered nothing, well not really nothing, they have delivered us into this problem by privatisation of the secondary aerodromes.:{

Dick, question for you, can you not talk to the press or have a word in some bodies ear?????:E

Queenslander
25th Jun 2008, 22:55
Dick,

Is their anything that can be done before another LHR and more loss of life due to CASA being incompetent?

Dick Smith
26th Jun 2008, 00:08
I don't think so.

Queenslander
26th Jun 2008, 00:31
This is so frustrating that we can't do anything but just have to sit back and watch a "kangaroo" Senate Inquiry take place:mad:

Dick, can’t you become a politician and sort these dickhe@ds out, I’d do it myself, but I can't lie as efficiently as they do, and I also have to look at myself in the mirror in the morning, and I'm far to passionate about aviation and what is happening, to keep my mouth shut:E

Why are the journalists quiet on this, thought this would be a great story for them…….

Walrus 7
26th Jun 2008, 02:30
Dick and others,

I agree that nothing can be done with CASA until another LHR tragedy occurs. However, that is not a reason for us to stop trying.

The Democrats failed to keep the bastards honest, so now it's up to us.

Walrus

Queenslander
26th Jun 2008, 03:17
Walrus 7,

As Dick has said, we are very limited to what we can do, apart from sitting back and watching the already scripted conclusion to the senate inquiry be played out in the public arena.

The LHR families I think will not let this go away until they are happy with the outcome, I also hope that they keep fighting till both the Government and CASA are shown to have breached their care of duty, and held responsible, but alas, they will never do that.

I agree with you, we must continue to make the general public aware of the issues and problems with the department and the lack of ability for that department to enforce its regulatory obligations to safety.:ugh:

I agree with Bob Murphie when he says “The Labor Party can exploit this if they have the guts” but they are now showing that they talk the talk for the election and DO NOT walk the walk.:=

Bob Murphie
26th Jun 2008, 05:24
The latest CASA email blurb acknowledges that 19,998,474 out of a 20 million population are dissatisfied with CASA. Page 1 'The CASA Briefing'.

Only 1526 people were 'satisfied' in a recent representative? poll.

http://www.casa.gov.au/media/download/publicsurvey08.pdf

Queenslander
26th Jun 2008, 05:40
CASA must have supplied the names and contact details:E

Bob Murphie
26th Jun 2008, 06:00
I apologise.

Of the 1526 persons surveyed only 78% were satisfied, (1190 persons). Crikey, this is worse than I thought. There is a lot of grey fuzz out there that has more digits than my calculator.

I wonder what this cost us?

Bob Murphie
27th Jun 2008, 03:22
When Anderson dissolved the last CASA Board it seemed like a good idea at the time. Times change and I now wonder if it was a mistake after all?

Being alert to the fact that a Camel is a Horse designed by a Committee, perhaps there is merit in taking the decision process away from the Bureaucrats and Advisors who interfere with matters before they get to The respective Minister who can, and will mishandle any situation given the chance.

Just thinking out aloud.

Queenslander
27th Jun 2008, 03:35
justapplhere what do you think should be done:)

Torres
27th Jun 2008, 11:03
justapplhere

I see nothing in this thread which gives any credibility to your suggestion.

Care to elaborate? :confused:

Justin Grogan
27th Jun 2008, 12:11
:ugh:http://www.casa.gov.au/media/98_99/10mar99.htm (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/98_99/10mar99.htm)

james michael
27th Jun 2008, 22:06
Justice Seeker

I follow with interest your comments

If you examine the CASA survey it is about travel between capital cities on major airlines, where the travelling public is on a big bus trip and feeling safe because they are at flight levels with people in nice uniforms.

That is the statistical relevance of the survey. It has no relevance to the higher risk areas of charter and low end public transport in older aircraft and different circumstances.

Perhaps this lack of relevance is of benefit to your approach - where have the accidents been in recent years - not the big buses.

Torres
27th Jun 2008, 22:47
james.

I can't see any relevance of the CASA survey to their safety mandate. What would those surveyed know about CASA's functions and responsibilities - if they even know the Authority exists?

It is nothing more than a measure of CASA's spin doctors success.

james michael
27th Jun 2008, 23:36
Mr Torres

We are in agreement on this matter.

But, it is the old story of statistics and the drunk and the lamp post.

One suspects the timing of this survey is designed for support, not illumination, and any comment made to media or enquiry should perhaps articulate exactly as you and I have said.

Bob Murphie
28th Jun 2008, 03:57
On 29th May 2008 The Senate announces a formal inquiry into CASA with a submission date one Month later of 30th June 2008.

I have heard the Reporting date is one week later, 7th July?

Since then and co-inciding, is a blitz of operations in the North.

At 6.00pm on Friday evening (usual CASA tactics), Aerotropics get rolled by CASA.

CASA have been investigating Lip Air (T/A Aerotropics), since September 2007 according to their blurb.

It should be noted that after some 10 months of investigations, CASA choose to act now on the eve of the Inquiry closing to further input.

I make no comment on Lip Air or it's operations, it is covered on another thread, but find strange the sequence of events.

clapton
29th Jun 2008, 06:26
Bob

On 29th May 2008 The Senate announces a formal inquiry into CASA with a submission date one Month later of 30th June 2008.

I have heard the Reporting date is one week later, 7th July?

Since then and co-inciding, is a blitz of operations in the North.

At 6.00pm on Friday evening (usual CASA tactics), Aerotropics get rolled by CASA.

CASA have been investigating Lip Air (T/A Aerotropics), since September 2007 according to their blurb.

It should be noted that after some 10 months of investigations, CASA choose to act now on the eve of the Inquiry closing to further input.

I make no comment on Lip Air or it's operations, it is covered on another thread, but find strange the sequence of events.

A strange coincidence indeed. They need something to show to the Senate inquiry (like the "unannounced" blitz in NT). What a cynical exercise. They wouldn't do anything for 12 months, and now suddenly on the eve of the Senate hearing, it becomes a critical safety concern to CASA.

Funny how none of the safety breaches surrounding QF warrant any action on the part of CASA, not even an infringement notice. Why is that?? Because QF is allowed to regulate itself........

Bob Murphie
29th Jun 2008, 07:42
NT;

This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.

Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.

Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008) (http://www.austlii.edu.au:80//au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/866.html)

Boratous
29th Jun 2008, 11:03
Bob

NT;

This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.

Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.

Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008) (http://www.austlii.edu.au//au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/866.html)

I think what this is saying is that if CASA had suspended the AOC directly then there would have been an automatic stay. But rather than doing that, CASA cancelled the Chief pilot approval and check pilot approval, which had the indirect effect of suspending the AOC. But this tactic denied the operator the right to an automatic stay. The judge says that he believes this tactic is ultra vires when you look at the totality of the enforcement changes that were made in 2003 which were intended to make CASA decisions subject to effective review. On that basis he granted a stay of the CASA decision pending a hearing by the AAT to determine whether a stay should be granted (the point here is that although the Chief Pilot and check pilot decisions are not necessarily subject to an automatic stay, the AAT can grant a stay under its powers under the AAT Act -so the Federal Court stayed the decisions until the AAT could look at them and decide whether or not to grant a stay)

EMB120ER
29th Jun 2008, 12:23
Ohh Dear

A few good conspiracy theories going here, makes you wonder really I mean if CASA was run by guys like YOU there would not be any of these problems, right !

and before you leap to the keyboards, NO I don't...

By the way, The CASA "Blitz" or as I have heard it called "The big day out" (out of what I don't know) but anyhow I digress, as it has been said earlier the goss is that it was planned mid 2007. Call it "timing" if you wish.
How many times have we posted about the LACK of CASA oversight, and now we have a go because they are. talk about twisting the story to suit your own purposes.

Anyone know just how many senate enquiries/white papers and/or reviews of gov departments and offices are on the go at the moment. Yes an interesting question, with a VERY interesting answer (both real and percived).

Any how times up, so all the best and lets ask the real question?

Who will be the most dissapointed by the enquiry report!

ER

clapton
29th Jun 2008, 13:37
EMB

By the way, The CASA "Blitz" or as I have heard it called "The big day out" (out of what I don't know) but anyhow I digress, as it has been said earlier the goss is that it was planned mid 2007. Call it "timing" if you wish.
How many times have we posted about the LACK of CASA oversight, and now we have a go because they are. talk about twisting the story to suit your own purposes

I think you miss the whole point.

No one is querying the fact that CASA is taking action. The whole point is that CASA's action is timed to fit in with the Senate inquiry. Even the Lip Air suspension. The show cause was issued over 12 months ago - and nothing was done. Now on the eve of the inquiry CASA suddenly leaps into action.....

As for the blitz being planned in mid 2007 = perhaps ypu can enlighten us with some facts about this planning instead of just relying on the "goss". Whose "goss" is it? CASA's?

EMB120ER
29th Jun 2008, 14:19
That's OK Clapton, I admit many of the posts on this thread are lost on me.

I was deliberatly unclear in raising the issue of the "Blitz" because I don't actualy know the FACTS. No surprise there, I mean this PPRUNE.

But of course, I suppose that you folks would be good enough to recipricate and produce the facts that CASA has timed the "Blitz" and the Aero tropics AOC thing to coincide with the enquiry.

Surely you will be able to show that there is some other agenda, or perhaps this is just SPECULATION like most of the posts here.


I suspect that you may be in the unimpressed group at the end of the enquiry.

Edit - Just to clear up one bit though
"just before you jump to the keyboards, NO I don't.."
does that make it clear enough.

Tell you what I would be very interested in though.

Maybe you guys could help to make sense out of the Ministers press release of last week. I mean if thats the gov standard, what hope is there for departments trying to operate under them!
Not to mention the confusion it creates to operators like us.

clapton
29th Jun 2008, 22:27
Bob

NT;

This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.

Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.

Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008) (http://www.austlii.edu.au//au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/866.html)


What appears to have happened here is that rather than suspending the AOC , CASA cancelled the Chief/Check Pilot approval approval - which effectively meant that the AOC was suspended because you can't operate without a chief pilot. However, as the Court pointed out, if CASA had suspended the AOC then that decision would have been automatically stayed. But rather than doing this, CASA tried to circumvent the automatic stay by cancelling the Chief Pilot approval (as a back door means of suspending the AOC) as such decisions are not technically subject to the automatic stay - although the AAT can grant a stay on application under its general powers.,

The court said that CASA's approach was ultra vires because the changes to the Act which were made in 2003 were inteneded to provide a comprehesive and effectiove review of CASA decisions. So CASA can't try to avoid the automatic stay by using this sort of tactic.

On this basis the Court stayed the decision until the AAT had a chance to look at the matter and decide if the Chief/Check pilot decision should be stayed by the AAT under the AAT's general power.

T28D
29th Jun 2008, 22:41
Clapton-Narelle Yup typical CASA abuse of process, nothing changes.

clapton
29th Jun 2008, 23:42
The court said that CASA's approach was ultra vires because the changes to the Act which were made in 2003 were inteneded to provide a comprehesive and effectiove review of CASA decisions. So CASA can't try to avoid the automatic stay by using this sort of tactic.

A slight correction to my earlier post having re-read the Court's reasons. The Court did not say that these CASA's tactics were ultra vires. The Court said that this was the argument being advanced by the applicant. What the Court said that while the applicant's arguments were not self-evident, nevertheless there was an arguable case and for that reason the Court agreed to stay the decision

james michael
1st Jul 2008, 09:34
I have just been to the Senate Committee page showing submissions - there are 7 on display (if one counts CASA - not on display - that makes 8).

Where is everyone?

Creampuff
1st Jul 2008, 09:46
Hearing starts tomorrow (2 July 08) at 0900 EST. Webcast here: Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting (http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/)

bilbert
1st Jul 2008, 09:49
Enquiries are what Politicians call for when they have no idea what's going on. Control of the Senate changes as of today. Senate enquiry. Yeah right.

EMB120ER CASA 'Blitz-es' would be happening all the time or at least they would be according to CASA. The 'announcement' of this one at this time in the north, is pure spindoctor stuff designed for public consumption.

No submissions because those in the industry know that nothing will change

clapton
1st Jul 2008, 10:54
have just been to the Senate Committee page showing submissions - there are 7 on display (if one counts CASA - not on display - that makes 8).

Where is everyone?

I understand that there are at least 37 submissions. The secretariat advsied that it can't put the submissions on the website until the Committee has actually examined them and approved publication. Because the Senate was siiting for the last 2 weeks that hasn't been possible - and no doubt there are lots of last minute submissions - that's why there's only 8 there at the moment. I suspect most will be published by tomorrow........

james michael
1st Jul 2008, 21:49
Clapton & Creampuff

Thank you for that information. Thinking overnight, perhaps some submissions may request non-publication. Do we know if they list the submitter by name but no corresponding paper?

One is keen to read the CASA submission.

It also seems strange having some submissions publicised BEFORE the date for submission closes as it enables CASA to review them and gird its loins.

bushy
2nd Jul 2008, 01:21
Why bother publishing a list if only selected submnissions are listed. This sort of behaviour is what the problems really are. Maybe Paul Keating's "banana republic" remark was correct.

james michael
2nd Jul 2008, 01:25
Bushy

I hear what you are saying but knowing how aviation and CASA payback works there might well be good reason for some who submit to request their submission - and name - be kept silent.

bushy
2nd Jul 2008, 05:58
I understand the "payback" concept, but it is possible to list submissions in a way that keeps it anonymous.
The procedure of publishing only "approved" submissions could be misleading the public.

Diatryma
2nd Jul 2008, 06:03
49 submissions on the website now:

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport:Inquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters - Submissions received (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sublist.htm)

Di :ok:

james michael
2nd Jul 2008, 07:21
Thanks Di

The CASA submission was late and I believe they were smacked. Probably busy trying to cover the rockets in the 7 submissions they could view on the website.

Raises the point that the submissions should not be public until after closing date.

Bushy

Listening to Fiona, it was apparent there is real difficulty between submission content and what can be said on webcam. I don't think its easy to publish de-identified submissions as the content may be the giveaway.

Plus, the option rests with the submitter to request NFP anyway. Point 7 of "How to Submit" makes that offer (although final decision by the enquiry team).

I watched some of this morning in a break between clients and saw a little of AIPA, AOPA, Fiona, and Shane. Well done to them.

bushy
3rd Jul 2008, 01:20
JM
Are they permitted to publish incorrect lists?

Bob Murphie
3rd Jul 2008, 08:14
Oh yes a very meaningful comment?

however notwithstanding my own of axes to grind, (which I have put aside because of sensible advice), I do acknowledge there are some good and purposeful people in CASA.

I was impressed with Mick Quinn today and have always been impressed with greg Vaughan as a serious right hand man.

The voluminous submissions do credit to their Authors and there appears a common theme. One can only hope something good comes of all this.

james michael
3rd Jul 2008, 08:28
Bushy

I honestly don't know - I bow to Creampuff or Clapton on this question.

Bob Murphie

I agree a common theme. Although one that stood out to me was Ilyk and his 'off with their heads' submission, although having said that there was much meat in his many pages worth digestion.

Two thoughts do come to mind though - submissions should not be public posted until after close date, and the CASA submission being late should have been binned. Very poor taste.

Bob Murphie
3rd Jul 2008, 10:45
Yes all very good, I agree, but I responded to someone's post that was deleated after I answered. My post now seems to lack the intent.

Two thoughts come to my mind;

1) All the submissions should be held over until the inquiry has started and,

2) CASA should not have been permitted to submit anything written when they are the ones's called to account and have the floor to submit on the day's of the Senate Inquiry.

That being said I thought Mick Quinn did a better job of things than Byron.

Ilyk should share the same status as me, that of being old news involved in prior Ombudsman's and Senate Inquiries.

At least I had the good grace to review and tear up my submission lest I be labled a vexacious influence.

Creampuff
4th Jul 2008, 00:00
I think this is unfair, JS:[Mr Ilyk] was part of the problem for many years.

Mr Ilyk was an advisor. It was up to those he advised to act on the advice or not.

I thought Mr Ilyk's evidence and submission were excellent.

It's obvious from his evidence and submission - and that of others - that his advice started to fall on increasingly deaf and eventually hostile ears.

You're not suggesting that he would, for example, have advocated that CASA go easy on the LHR operator during audits or in respect of audit findings?

Bob Murphie
4th Jul 2008, 09:09
I can't open the link to submission #14, some PDF problem?

desmotronic
4th Jul 2008, 14:39
Reflexm,
Your first post from canberra, care to elaborate?

bilbert
4th Jul 2008, 20:30
I read Paul Phelans' and Bill Hamiltons' submission and then saw Byron and Carmody commenting on ABC TV about AeroTropics (AT). I wanted to laugh but couldn't. It was so according to the script and all done for public consumption.

1. CASA shut down an RPT (AT) operation for immediate threat to life reaons. Transair was Charter yet they publically stated that they considered both Aerptropics and Transair had the same safety issues and had exactly the same risks to life and limb. Another CASA comment on Aerotropics was that 'the two other charter operators in FNQ could cope with the passenger load while AT was grounded'. That, in CASA terms, would be an 'Equivalent Safety Determination' that charter operations are no less safe than RPT, which makes a farce of the whole Class A maintenance, Ch & Trg standards, safety of the fare paying passenger, RPT requirement.

2. CASA (Byron and Carmody) commented on Fionas' submission that a pilot paying for flight time was a safety issue and they would have a look at stopping it. Does CASA now finally recognise that Pilot Pay and Conditions are a Safety Issue?. AFAP and AIPA where are you?. If a pilot, Command or Co-pilot, meet CASA's qualification and experience requirements to occupy a control seat, what's the safety issue?. OK so we'll pay him a dollar an hour. That's OK?. Daddy bought junior an aeroplane to play with, or a charter company (I saw it happen), that's not OK? his isn't getting paid.

Both issues off the cuff for the benefit of the public and the senate that CASA is the sole guardian and in control of aviation safety. Don't mess with us. The hipocracy is appalling.

desmotronic
5th Jul 2008, 00:07
I read Paul Phelan lengthy submission. Bizarre is the only way to describe the events he relates. His advice is illuminating on how to deal with such a dysfunctional department:

CASA frequently sends out what are called "Show Cause" letters. These letters
invite a certificate holder – an individual or a corporation - to show cause why a
license or certificate should not be cancelled under CAR 269. They usually allege
that the certificate holder has broken the law. The material below only applies to
Show Cause letters which make that allegation.
A "Show Cause" letter which alleges that you have violated the law is a trap. A
certificate holder who responds to that letter is like a small dog which puts itself
at the mercy of a big dog by rolling on its back and offering the big dog its neck.
The small dog hopes that this act of submission will cause the big dog to act in a
chivalrous fashion and walk off. For the small dog, that technique usually works.
But if you are up against CASA, your chances are not nearly as good as the
small dog's.
If CASA alleges that you have broken the law, that allegation should be dealt
with in a Court. Our Court systems have been developed over many centuries to
guard us from unfair punishment.
If you engage in the Show Cause process you throw away all those very
precious safeguards.
•You throw away the right to require that the case against you be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt;
•You throw away the right to know, and challenge, the evidence against you;
•You throw away the right to know the identities of your accusers;
•You throw away the right for you or your lawyer to cross-examine your
accuser(s) and other witnesses;
Should CASA ever send me a "Show Cause" notice alleging that I have violated
a law I will respond with "I have not been convicted of any of the breaches of the
law that you allege. That is the cause I show.". Not one word more.
Every month I receive letters from people whose licenses have been cancelled
by CASA. The sequence of events is always the same:
•The victim receives a "show cause" letter alleging that he/she has violated
a whole lot of Regulations.
•The victim is invited to send a written response and to attend an "informal
conference".
•Sometimes the victim attends the "informal conference", sometimes not. If
he/she does, he always comes away saying "what a misnomer" after being
grilled and tape-recorded.
•The victim then writes a response. In the course of the response he/she
usually says things like "it was only a technical breach" or "I did not realise I
was not allowed to change the main wheel tyres" or "there was no NEED
for a forecast because I was only going 20 miles and I had rung the person
at the other end".
•CASA then decides to cancel or suspend the victim's license, or to do
nothing. Most often the decision goes against the victim. CASA then sends
a letter cancelling or suspending his/her license. This letter points out that
the victim has the right of appeal to the AAT.
There is no effective right of appeal if CASA cancels your licence
The victim then wastes his time and money appealing to the AAT. Appeals to the
AAT against license suspensions or cancellations never succeed. They are a
pointless routine which occasionally makes a victim feel better, because he has
had his day in Court, but that is all.
If you are going to go to Court against CASA in response to a "Show Cause"
letter, I recommend that you make that decision at the outset when you still have
all our hard-won safeguards on your side. It is silly to throw away all your
safeguards and then look to a Tribunal for help. If you are going to fight, fight
while you are strong - not after you have thrown away all your weapons.
If you decide to go down the "show cause" route, and CASA cancels your
license, don't throw away your money going to the AAT. Just take up another
occupation (if you rely on aviation for your living) or another hobby (if you are a
private pilot) and get on with your life.
If you are going to fight, consult a lawyer immediately. Remember that you need
a CRIMINAL LAWYER - the family solicit or, or the best commercial lawyer from
the most expensive firm in the city, is not the right person for this job. Nor is an
aviation lawyer. You have been accused of a crime and you need a criminal
lawyer. Subject to your lawyer's advice, respond to the "Show Cause" notice by
simply saying that you have not been convicted of any of the alleged breaches of
the law, and that is the cause you show. Do not enter into any verbal discussions
or attend any meetings no matter how "informal" unless your lawyer advises you
to. If your lawyer does advise you to roll over and show your neck, get a second
opinion from another lawyer before you do. Once you have received a "show
cause" letter from CASA, you are playing for keeps. If you roll over and show
your neck, there is better than a 50-50 chance that CASA will cancel or suspend
your license.
If CASA still goes ahead and cancels your license, do not appeal to the AAT
unless you have huge amounts of spare money, lots of spare time, and nothing
else in your life. If your lawyer cannot work out a way to get you into a real Court
(such as the Federal Court, under the ADJR Act), don't waste your resources on
the AAT. Just accept the fact you have lost your license and get on with your life.
A practical example of how this can go wrong
As an example, assume that you irritate a CASA officer, who then decides to
show you who is boss. He demands that you produce your logbook for
inspection, intending to go through it in the hope of finding evidence of breaches.
You refuse to produce your logbook because you fear that it will indeed reveal
some inadvertent breaches. CASA then says you have breached CAR 5.56 and
cancels your license under CAR 269(1)(a). You have clearly breached CAR 1988
5.56 if you read the words of that regulation alone. But there is a legal principle
that a person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. Accordingly, if your
logbook contains information which may tend to incriminate you, you may not
have to produce it in spite of CAR 5.56.
If you make that argument in a Court before a judge, CASA will argue against it
but you are likely to win. However if you make that argument in a 'Show Cause'
procedure, where CASA is both prosecutor and judge, you are certain to lose.
Why CASA sometimes prosecutes and sometimes uses 'show cause'
It is always open to CASA to initiate a prosecution against a person whom CASA
believes has broken the law. If the person is convicted, the Court can then
impose an "exclusion period" which has the same effect as cancelling or
suspending your license. That is the fair way of doing things. Our forefathers
struggled for centuries to gain and retain genuine legal safeguards against
heavy-handed treatment by too- powerful bureaucrats. Don't throw those
safeguards away by allowing yourself to be tried, convicted, and sentenced by
CASA's bureaucrats.
When CASA believes that a person has violated the law, CASA chooses whether
to be fair and prosecute the person or be unfair and use the "show cause"
procedure. You do not have to be Al Einstein to work out that the cases where
the "show cause" procedure is used tend to be those where the evidence is not
strong enough to get a conviction, or where a Court is unlikely to impose an
"exclusion period" if the person is found guilty. What's more, CASA can do BOTH
- cancel your license under the "Show Cause" procedure, and then prosecute
you. If you engage in the "Show Cause" procedure, you will inevitably give CASA
a whole lot of evidence it did not have beforehand!

IF EVER YOU GET A "SHOW CAUSE" LETTER, RECOGNISE THAT YOU ARE
PLAYING FOR KEEPS! DON'T DO OR SAY ANYTHING UNTIL YOU HAVE
WORKED OUT YOUR WHOLE PLAN.
KEEP THIS DOCUMENT IN A SAFE PLACE, eg. INSIDE YOUR AIRCRAFT
FLIGHT MANUAL

Pundit
5th Jul 2008, 00:30
Jim Irwin

You are correct the submission is gabbage, written by two individuals who are known to be "loopie".

I made an inquiry with ASFA and they do not support the submission.

As for the referee you refer to, I know he is a big fan of Hudson, infact I think he sponsored him to Australia at one stage (in 1999) . More recently he has been using Bow Tie in his business. I suggest his name might have been used in vain!

Justin Grogan
5th Jul 2008, 00:59
:confused:

Des,

I put to you the only 'advice' that is any way helpful is referring the matter to an appropriate legal practitioner. And no I am not drumming up business for the boys!

The rest of it is largely unhelpful and pla.....paraphrased from AOPA's Boyd Munro.

Refer IF CASA SENDS YOU A 'SHOW CAUSE' NOTICE (http://www.airsafety.com.au/9217aopa.htm)

desmotronic
5th Jul 2008, 01:24
Fair call. It's illuminating if you are not a lawyer or well versed in all these legal dirty tricks!

Justin Grogan
5th Jul 2008, 01:43
Des,

I am sure it is :ok:

I have only just finished reading said document too.

I do think your choice of the word 'bizarre' is apt and the document really needs to be viewed in light of his 'disclaimers' on page 5.

james michael
5th Jul 2008, 21:38
Jim Irwin

Apology for continuing slight diversion but do you know if there is a good text for 'Bow Tie' that is suitable for the common man to gain a good grasp of the fundamentals? I am certain others may be also interested.

Re Ilyk, the various comments triggered me to read his submission and - while I believe it is an 'off with their heads' mindset, there is much in it worth reading. I don't think it is a methodology for coaching, though :)

Creampuff
5th Jul 2008, 22:20
Long-time experienced and widely-respected GA industry members support my view and have done so with many examples of Mr Ilyk's role.Well I hope you and those industry members have given the Senate Committee some cold, hard, first-hand evidence as to what ‘role’ Mr Ilyk played in ‘the problem’. My first-hand experience is that ‘long-time experienced and widely-respected GA industry members’ often provide only half the story and never know the whole story.

As to the ‘payments issues’, if that’s a reference to the practice of some AOC holders to charge pilots to fly for them, I am not aware of any civil aviation law that says AOC holders must pay their pilots. The ‘financial position’ of an applicant for an AOC is a matter that CASA can take into consideration in reaching the requisite satisfaction under section 28 of the Civil Aviation Act. But it’s quite possible for an AOC applicant to be financially viable, notwithstanding it charges pilots to fly for it. Indeed, it might have been a lucrative source income for some operators, prior to the shift in market forces relating to pilot resources. (The practice struck me as speaking volumes about the character of both parties to the transaction, but that’s a different issue.)

Having said all of that, it will be very interesting if a law gets passed, the effect of which is that CASA could suspend or cancel the AOC of any operator who does not pay all its staff at or above the relevant award - some fairly complicated constitutional and enforcement issues would arise. (It will be extraordinarily interesting if CASA tried doing it now, without any change to the legislation.)

Stink Finger
6th Jul 2008, 01:41
Having also read all the submissions, it is my opinion Mr Phelan has hit the nail on the head for many many of the issues.

From all the documents there were consistent themes:

1) Base legislation is missing detail / is frequently mis-interpreted / mis-quoted (perhaps with malicious intent, perhaps not),

2) the manual of standards process has been a complete failure ( AOCM etc etc ), appears to draw some very long bows and appears to reflect some very "additional" restrictive requirements, not essentially for the betterment of "safety" ( e.g. EMB110 check list consideration in AOCM, LAME licence renewal etc etc) .

3) The Modus Operandi has been "shoot first and ask questions later",

4) apparent underhanded tactics have been used, CP/CFI approvals not renewed as a punitive response etc etc,

5) the EVU / Show cause process attempts to remove fundamental legal rights, and,

6) it baffles me that CASA can not see the importance of protection of pay and conditions within the industry, it does effect safety, there was a move for CASA to look at the financial viability of an operation, needs to be completed my someone that specialised in the field, THE PAY AWARDS NEED TO BE UPHELD, this IMHO does effect safety.

7) staff have not been punished to date for their illegal actions.

SIUYA
6th Jul 2008, 08:25
What I find totally laughable in the CASA so-called processes is the AOCM financial assessment 'ideals' that CASA appears to think will 'reveal all' about the AOC applicant. What's got me more than a little concerned is that the assessment appears to be limited to analysis to be performed by a Senior Risk Assessor. :eek:

Oh really? So, presumably (if the AOCM procedures are followed) those Senior Risk Assessors persons perform THE financial analysis based on the cashflow projections and the (preferably) audited financial statements of the applicant? :eek:

I wonder if folks at CASA who dreamt up the AOCM procedure have had a good look at the way that many financial statements are presented these days, and the fact that some are all but incomprehensible to anyone who is not a highly trained and expert financial 'specialist'.

I also wonder what sort of analysis these so-called CASA Senior Risk Assessors perform on the various balance sheet ratios that you'd normally expect them to look at? In fact, I wonder if the so-called Senior Risk Assessors have been provided by CASA with specific training to actually understand specific balance sheet ratios and the financial meaning that they convey?

Probably not. :ugh:

bilbert
6th Jul 2008, 23:29
CASA WARRANTY CLAIM

Dear Senate - As a purahaser of CASA products and services, I wish to make a warranty claim. Some of the identified problems are -

1. Uses an extraordinary amount of power and very expensive to operate - 70% of CPU is used just to keep it running
2. Very slow to respond to commands, if at all.
3. CPU 'board' is still missing
4. Hardware is all over the place and not properly connected.
5. Promised software upgrade is over 5 years late.
6. Has picked up several viruses. Some identified as - apathy.exe flexiday.awi stresslv.foi egotrip.mgr ripoff.ind and IDGAS.tel
7. Seems to work very well with selected small operations while not recognising some others. Does not deal at all well with large operations.
8. Does not operate at all as advertised in Gibson Media.

Can I please have another one?, preferably from another country.
ys

SIUYA
7th Jul 2008, 00:34
Bilbert............

Ahah.........yet another PPRuNer who's having problems using CASA! But it sounds like you're one of the lucky ones if your system actually still works (albeit badly) with CASA. Are you sure you're using the latest version Ver: Regreform/iteration/100000000.35897621.135924? :suspect:

My system simply stops altogether if I try to use CASA. :ooh: All I get is the BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) when I try to use it, which seems to suggest that something awful's happened, and the following information is displayed:

A problem has been detected and CASA is not working properly.

SESSION1_EFFECTIVE_AVIATION_REGULATION_FAILED

If this is first time you've seen this stop error screen, restart your computer. If problems continue, or if this message reappears, please write to the Australian Government to ask it to disable or remove CASA. If you need to use Safe Mode or disable components, restart your computer, press F8 and select JAR-OPS or FAA FAR Options, and then select Safe Mode.

Technical Information:

*** STOP: 0x0000006F (0xC0000020, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)

I'm no computer geek, but suspect that there are a very large number of system bugs in CASA that are presently decreasing it's functionality, and resulting in it more or less permanently hanging and preventing effective aviation regulation in Australia at this point in time. :{

tail wheel
7th Jul 2008, 13:08
You're probably still using CAO.reg Ver 1 which is now 20 years old and never operated successfully with Windows 3.1, let alone Office 2007.

Delete the superfluous file byron.ceo and there is a fair chance CASA may run, although only in Windows 97.

:}

Creampuff
9th Jul 2008, 06:01
Very short 'interim report', hot off the press, here: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/interim_report/report.pdf

Most important bit:[T]he committee will present its final report no later than Thursday 28 August 2008.

(The solecism "hearing's" is disappointing!)

Capn Bloggs
9th Jul 2008, 06:16
Sterle's probably Gen Y. Or maybe his staffer is...:}

bushy
12th Jul 2008, 03:58
I had a long read of Bill Hamilton's submission. It is thought provoking, and much of it accurately sums up the frustration of dealing with CASA, and the damage CASA has done to Australian aviation. He sees it mainly as a structural problem.
Bill is a retired Qantas captain who has been associated with aviation in Australia and elswhere for about half a century. He no longer has to worry about his next renewal, or endorsements, or dispensations so he can, and does express his opinions freely.(shock horror)
I recommend this to all. Read it. ALL of it. And think about it.

Mach_1
13th Jul 2008, 10:10
Yes, " Bill" is a little difficult to read, he assumes that the average " interested party" has an attention span a little longer than that of a well trained racing rabbit.

There are 3 important things which need to be remembered when reading his deep, seriously considered submission. Most of it was spelled out a decade ago. The man is ahead of his time, (Q) Why?, (A) Nothing (within DCA/CAA/CASA - whatever) has, in reality, ever changed.

1) (Q) Been proven correct?. (A) Yes, demonstrably, over time he bats about 98%.

2) (Q) Knows where the skeletons are buried and who the villans are?.
(A) Absolutly, no question.

3) (Q) Worth the trouble to read. (A) Short answer, YES. Long answer; OH + YURSSSS.

Take the time, understand the basic issues. Do not sit in the pub, bitching about CASA. Get involved, be part of the solution.
If you seriously want to be part of the industry, you cannot sit on your wallet, credentails or in a " cozy air conditioned cockpit.

The pioneers knew all about cold, difficulty and deep; very deep " authority frustration" , they did their bit. Where are you??.

Stand up and help ?. Hide in the corner ?. Step up and be heard ?. Your industry. Your call.

PS. The Metro is an "AO" aircraft and probably. the best, kindliest trainer, and introducer of junior " wannabe" turbine pilots to the real, hardcore, world of commercial operations.

Bob Murphie
13th Jul 2008, 10:21
Wot?

A new probationary member takes the piss and nobody understands what he is on about except the same tired, old, and bile filled suspects.

Get a life or read a submission that you like.

I Fly
13th Jul 2008, 11:36
I'm obviously not a computer wiz kid. Where do I find the Bill Hamilton submission?

OZBUSDRIVER
13th Jul 2008, 11:57
A pilot who has never experienced high standards of competence has no benchmark, human nature being what it is, all pilots believe they are “the best”.

Bill is an amazing old coot. Bill's submission (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub23.pdf)

Lots of stuff that is correct. However, is it my interpretation that safety in Aus aviation has occured DESPITE CASA?

Mach_1
13th Jul 2008, 13:39
Seems to me this is a particularly typical, negative, unhelpfull VH response.
New chum, ah, (assume) must be an idiot, and perhaps, in the best VH style, I can bully or, better yet, big note "ME" . Fair dinks Murph, think again. Wanna piece of me, go on a diet. You will need to be hungry. I have probably written off more years of actual hands on real life experience than you have ever lived through ( even in flight operations). So listen up.

The kids are scared these days, not of ice, not of hills, not of engine failiure, not even of the CP; but of going to jail.

With the stakes at this level they are, essentially, not required or even interested to learn about engine managent, or to " See and avoid" , icing, high ground or operational problems. If you go in - go in legal, so quoted the last kid I buried. (16 so far).

But of the legistlator, they are feared. Absolutly. At all costs, cover yer ass, shut up and (if you survive) move on to a big shiny airframe toy which basically requires no more aeronautical ability than you initially posessed. Shame guys, shame. Never dreamed it was like this at flight school, that' s a safe bet. Probably the only safe one ever made.

Bugger the mountains, sod skill, whats ice?. Be "seen" to comply, comply, comply. Half of 'em would not know a mountain until it jumped up and bit them on their delicate, well covered arses. (Collective if you like). But they still persist, only keeping a job unti they do not any longer need it. These people persist in breaking the tenents of (aeronautical) common sense and denying the pilots following the Right to complain. " Well, the last pilot done it whats wrong with you". (New thread looming).

Standards reducing - you bet.

Most of theb current crop of whining pilots were, or are the people without the "moxie" to tell an operator to " go away and not be silly". In the "old" days the operator would not have even asked. Blame in part the desparate pilots,? Sure I do.

Look at CASA reallity; up to 6 months and $8000 to put an aircraft on a similar AOC. Doors kicked in. Illegal phone taps. Heart attacks caused, Vendettas funded through public money, (oh no, not us y're honour). Endemic, documented corruption.

All in the interest of air safety, I have to ask you the question?.

B@#$ ks, The list of atrocites is (a) factual and (b) endless. This is not supposed to be the "Gesttapo" or, despite the failed Eastern Eurpean dreams, the total commercial and operational control of aviation and (who knows) perhaps birth control .

For Petes sake, it is a CIVIL Aviation regulator. For crying out loud, a bunch of public servants presenting as barely qualified pilots (or, dare it be said, even practicing lawyers). Experts, B!$&*%#$t.

Safety experts, B!@#$%tX 2. My Mama has more idea, at least she will care if I do not turn up for tea.

Thousands and thousands of dollars (theirs and ours) to establish that CASA is not a model litigant; even worse, they keep loosing. This definately is taxpayer money. (err, thats You and me)

Flight Safety procedures contribited per dollar spent = to zero.

The way I see it is, that this is a procedure to ensure that each and evey " lawyer" (qualified or Un) has a back yard pool for Christmas. Got to (must) keep changing the goal post (where I learn that) to stay afloat. No options

P.S. Murph, Get reallity fix, get real, get involved or, get out. In any case, be a good lad and do not start with me on a personal level. Fair warning - no CASA speak.

Bob Murphie
13th Jul 2008, 23:49
I have been warned. I see. You attacked Bill Hamilton.

You are preaching to the converted about anything CASA, and Bill, Paul Rees, and Paul Phelan mirror any submission I may have written. Indeed I had prior knowledge of the basics of Bill's submission.

So I took your post personally.

Edit to add after waiting 2 hours past my Dr appointment with time for reflection.

Mate, I think you may have hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with half our industry. "particularly, typical, negative unhelpfull VH response".

Why is this peculiar to Australia, when someone gets some sort of qualification he becomes a professor of everything since Otto Lilienthal?

I make no boasts except having a licence since 1963 and a sum total of a little under 2000 hours on various forms of flying machine. I have owned an Auster, Maule and a Colt, just sold one hangar queen and have two more that may or may not fly depending on what it is likely to cost me to do so.

I look up to my seniors who mainly treat me with a mild indifference, but I listen and ask questions. They regard me as intelligent enough to hear their words of wisdom.

I try not to preach to those who don't want to hear.

I do have opinions however.

I am still alive despite having learned the hard, and scarry way, some things I would like to pass on to others. But I am sh!t scared that CASA may have some retrospective matter they want to deal with me about.

I'm not a genius, but I must be doing something right if I'm still here.

A lot are not, if you read the yearly statistics of hours flown and those that have given up due to over regulation, money grabbing, stupid laws, and new enforced gadgetry.

Bill is old enough to look after himself. He and I were around when we had the quadrantal rule.

Creampuff
15th Jul 2008, 02:32
Oh J, you haven't been paying close attention, have you.

If you were capable of setting aside your blind prejudice against the person whom you guess Creampuff is, and just focussed on the merits of the views I post, you would see that I sometimes agree with Mr Ilyk's views, and I sometimes disagree with Mr Ilyk's views.

Perhaps you could walk us through the errors and weaknesses in his evidence and submission.

Frank Burden
16th Jul 2008, 12:27
Creampuff, et al,

I have been lurking seeking academic and rigorous debate on the Senate Inquiry and the possible censure of CASA. I againt went through the earlier posts on this thread this evening and came to the view that regular contributors were drooling with anticipation that CASA was heading for the final high jump. What comes after that no one said!

All I see on this thread is bs and bluster with some of the regulars saying that if they had of written the submission it would have said the same thing or contributors like Mach_1 who by his/her performance uses innuendo and tries to present it as evidence.

Where is the robust debate (except for the legal eagle wank earlier in the post about historical and irrelevant points) based on the rules of evidence.

I think Father O'Flaherty has a case to answer, he likes little girls so by inference Father O'Flaherty is a paedophile. Alternatively he could just be a compassionate human being? I am seeing too much the latter in this discussion.

Bill Hamilton often says things that are worth thinking about. So does Ronald McDonald!

Bartender, another mint julep if you please!!!

Creampuff
16th Jul 2008, 21:01
FB: :confused::confused:

J: You’re simply incapable of getting, aren’t you. My identity and any past association with any of the submitters or witnesses to the inquiry, cannot affect the merits or otherwise of their submission or evidence. The submissions and evidence are what the submissions and evidence are.

I happen, for example, to agree with many parts of Mr Hamilton’s submission but laughed out loud at other parts. (He even cites this very thread as authority for a proposition that isn’t supported by the content of this thread – bizarre!) If I’ve had a ‘past association’ with Mr Hamilton, does that affect the merits or otherwise of his submission? If so, how?

My opinion is what my opinion is. Get over it.

the rim
17th Jul 2008, 11:09
well bill i have read your ....very lengthy submission......and i must say having not agreed with you on a lot of occasions all be it as you the captain and me the LAME or as you and i on the SCC i must take my hat off to you on this one mate your dogmatic approach to CASA and the problems they have instigated in Australia aviation is hero like ....so well done hope we meet up some time and i will buy you a beer,unfortunately i am not involved in the SCC anymore and hopefully i will be on the end of a redundancy from my present employer....but you never know i might get involved in some aviation matters in my spare time good luck with it bill

Scurvy.D.Dog
17th Jul 2008, 13:25
... whose got a bucket ..... :yuk:

ozaub
18th Jul 2008, 10:03
Aviation has its crooks, cowboys and incompetents and that is why we need a firm authority to regulate aviation safety in the public interest. Mr Ilyk’s submission to the Senate inquiry http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub31.pdf (http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub31.pdf) argues this case persuasively and with comprehensive references to coronial findings, case law and judicial inquiries around the world. I totally agree with Mr. Ilyk.
Put bluntly, if self regulation worked God would have proposed ten guidelines; in a discussion paper.
In 1993, before Monarch, Seaview, Aquatic and other accidents attributable to our regulator’s “institutional timidity”, I wrote in the Canberra Times that Australia was following a recipe for disaster by ignoring US and Canadian sad experience of deregulation. I contended that Australia was deluding itself that industry would maintain standards without a robust, properly resourced regulator. At the time Mr Ilyk, on behalf of CAA disagreed. He accused me of selectively quoting from Justice Moshansky’s report into a fatal Air Ontario accident to support my contention. I note that Ilyk too is now quoting Moshansky to support our common viewpoint. I’m pleased that Mr Ilyk has come to my way of thinking.

Torres
18th Jul 2008, 23:19
Frank. I think you are wrong. Underpinning nearly all posts in this thread and media debate is an implied expectation of a strong, competent and accountable regulator, empowered by simple, unambiguous, appropriate and effective safety based legislation.

We have inappropriate and appallingly drafted aviation legislation, incompetent and untrained regulatory staff, ineffective management, managed by series of deplorably incompetent Ministers - including the current CEO and Minister.

The regulatory reform – twenty years and according to Clapton, hundreds of millions of dollars – has had more starts than Phar Lap and appears to have again stalled.

The following comment in Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005 aptly summarises both the regulatory reform process and the CASA CEO’s competence and capacity to manage that process:

Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?

Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. 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. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.

Ostensibly, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was:
• to examine the effectiveness of CASA's governance structure; and
• to consider ways to strengthen CASA's relations with industry and ensure CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator.
There were many excellent submissions to the Senate Inquiry and it would be detrimental to the Senate’s credibility if they were not to take serious account of those submissions.

The cynic in me suspects an underlying political agenda.

clapton
19th Jul 2008, 00:32
Torres

The regulatory reform – twenty years and according to Clapton, hundreds of millions of dollars – has had more starts than Phar Lap and appears to have again stalled.


According t0 CASA's own evidence to the Senate Inquiry (see page 120 of the transcript for 2 July 2008), CASA has spent at least $140 miilion dollars on the reform program since 2002/03:

Mr Carmody—Looking under the outputs in our annual reporting, under the standards section we list the costs in the annual report from years 2002-03 through until now...... I am rounding, but it was $20 million in 2002-03, $25 million in 2003-04, $26 million in 2004-05, $24 million in 2005-06, $23 million in 2006-07 and there is an estimate in the PBS of $24 million for 2007-08. ........
Mr Carmody—My estimate is about $144 million. Our estimate for 2007-08 is $24 million; the costs for 2006-07 were $23 million. That equals $47 million out to the end of the financial year.


This is probably a conservative estimate and the figure is probably closer to $200 million if you take into account overseas trips, meetings, conferences etc. This is significantly more that even I figured as my $200 million was based on the last 10 years. Here CASA is saying it has spent $140 million in the last 5 years......and nothing to show (sorry, Part 137 has been made). But of course it is always someone else's fault - never CASA's.

SIUYA
19th Jul 2008, 05:25
Torres.........

We have inappropriate and appallingly drafted aviation legislation, incompetent and untrained regulatory staff, ineffective management, managed by series of deplorably incompetent Ministers - including the current CEO and Minister.

Good call Torres, but I think you forgot to include the Department Secretaries in your list. It was a BIG loss when Alan Hawke left the Department, and the Secretaries since Dr Hawke's departure wouldn't warrant p1ssing on if they were on fire!:yuk:

Mind you, that's entirely my opinion, however I'm glad to say I wholeheartedly agree with your view of the current CEO and the Minister! :ok:

Torres
19th Jul 2008, 07:35
"According to CASA's own evidence to the Senate Inquiry (see page 120 of the transcript for 2 July 2008), CASA has spent at least $140 miilion dollars on the reform program since 2002/03:"

clapton. When you first mentioned a couple of hundred million I was mildly skeptical. But $140 mill for 2002 to 2007 only???

So the "process" from 1988 to 2008 would have cost far more than $200 million??

And at the current rate of regulatory reform, Australia is probably another two decades and another $300 to $400 mill plus away from a new, complete set of workable regulations?

Unbelievable!! :mad:

SIUYA
19th Jul 2008, 09:05
So to put it into context Torres, a total of about >30 years and possibly >$600 million for the 'package' by the time it's (hopefully) completed?

OUCH! :eek:

The respective Ministers, Secretaries, CEOs, Managers etc who have been individually and collectively responsibe for the totally incompetent debacle so far ought to bloody-well hang their heads in shame! :yuk:

And Rudd needs to now make sure that the current Minister gets off his bum and to start doing something constructive to begin to repair the damage that's already been done by the lunatics who've been running the asylum..........however given the present Minister's pathetic track-record so far, I won't be holding my breath waiting for THAT to happen though! :mad:

Bob Murphie
19th Jul 2008, 09:16
Yes Minister comes to mind.

Torres
19th Jul 2008, 11:26
Yes SIUYA. But it's not their money.

It's just tax money, just our money.....

And there is every probability the regulations Australia ends up with will be just as ambiguous as the present regulations.

:mad:

SIUYA
19th Jul 2008, 22:29
Torres...........

It's just tax money, just our money.....

Yes, I totally agree! :{

But if we are now at a point where 20 years down the track and with over $200M of OUR money having been more or less totally wasted with absolutely f#ck-all result, then it can really only be described as government maladministration at its worst! :mad:

Perhaps it's time that we as an industry called for help from the Government Ombudsman to bring a stop to this digraceful state of affairs?

Creampuff
19th Jul 2008, 23:19
Me, 16 March 2005:The overarching and chronic problem here is that the political cycle is simply too short, and its influences simply too self-interested, for the regulatory reform process to be commenced, managed objectively and in the public interest, then completed, before the use-by date of the person in charge of the process.I should add that since then I’ve come to the realisation that there is actually no one in charge of the process. That doesn’t help either.

james michael
19th Jul 2008, 23:22
Booooooooooooom!!!!!

Just joking. Makes absolute sense to me. To my simplistic view, as the Regs have grown they have been interwoven and exemptions included etc etc to the stage where trying to fix the mish-mash is so complicated it would be better to phase in a new suite.

There are probably all sorts of legal and regulatory considerations but your point is well made that it is highly unlikely a raft of Boards, execs, people, and committees have all been duds.

If what you are doing isn't working, time to try something different.

(Stands back with fingers in ears with 88 awaiting loud explosion)! :)

Torres
19th Jul 2008, 23:50
I can't help but feel all the industry consultation and consensus, vested interest lobbyists, submissions etc, is akin to letting prisoners run the goals or the Police taking referendums on speed limits.

It needs a Minister with the guts to set time limits and direct CASA to complete the job; a CASA CEO to manages the task; delegation of an accountable manager as per Creamie's comment and a will within CASA to urgently develop regulations appropriate to Australia's needs.

Propjet, it is a big task, but is it a twenty years, $200 million task - and the job still no where near finished??? :confused:

CASA's procrastination is obvious.

SIUYA
20th Jul 2008, 00:30
Propjet..........

I don't think that '...most of the correspondents...' have implied that the RR process is easy. What they are implying though is perhaps the annoyance that I expresssed in my previous posts about the huge amount of time and money that's been wasted in getting to the point where we are now at in the RR process, ie., in reality, back where we started! :ugh:

And there can really only be two reasons for that:
1. the process has been ill-defined and poorly conducted to date, and
2. no-one's actually been in charge of the process as correctly identified by Creampuff! :D

Your suggestion of adopting the NZ regs (and I presume you also want the Act in there too) is sensible. As I understand it, PNG have adopted the NZ regulations, and they are apparently also intended to be the model regulations for PASO. So, yes, it does seem to make good sense for Australia to 'harmonise' with the aviation regulations other regional countries.

But maybe we are naive in thinking that government would or could contemplate taking such a simple, pragmatic and (what seems to be) sensible solution to the existing debacle and in so doing stop any further unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money? :(

Torres
20th Jul 2008, 09:51
SIUYA.

Your suggestion of adopting the NZ regs (and I presume you also want the Act in there too) is sensible. As I understand it, PNG have adopted the NZ regulations, and they are apparently also intended to be the model regulations for PASO. So, yes, it does seem to make good sense for Australia to 'harmonise' with the aviation regulations other regional countries.

Interestingly, funding for Papua New Guinea to adopt the NZ regs, was courtesy of the Australian tax payer!

In view of the trans Tasman agreements, adoption of the New Zealand regs may be the only way Australia gets new regs, in reasonable time and at significant cost saving.

bilbert
20th Jul 2008, 22:34
There are also a lot of frustrated CASA people over Reg reform. An attempt to simplify regs. being torpedoed by interest groups and the legislation drafting a'-h'-s. who want to put all the complication back in just in case the guilty until proven innocent, dangerous aviation industry might get off prosecution, which of course is the aim of all regulations isn't it.

Reg reform must be taken away from CASA domination (i.e veto). Political will and a minister who knows something about aviation is required, not just PR. The inevitability of this Senate 'enquiry' not achieving anything is most frustrating.

T28D
21st Jul 2008, 00:24
The aim of all regulation should be the establishment of good behaviour, not compliance by prosecution, that should be a last resort.

If CASA keeps going along its current path soon we will see the death penalty for breaches.

Creampuff
21st Jul 2008, 01:53
How many pilots and LAMES were prosecuted for offences under the civil aviation law, last year?

Round figures to the nearest 10 will do.

bushy
21st Jul 2008, 02:52
T28D you have it right.
The real purpose of CASA is to protect the federal government from legal liability arising from any aviation related matters. They have tried to do this by insisting that pilots, engineers and operators spend hours and hours documenting everything they do, and keeping these records for a long period, in case CASA wishes to prosecute them. It does not make sense to see a LAME sitting at a desk doing paperwork most of the time. They are so pedantic that they have lost the respect of the industry.

It appers they also believe that they have the right to manipulate the industry by using (or misusing) the pedantic rules to affect parts of the industry commercially.
There are lots of dispensations, exceptions, approvals stc.
We have rubbery rules.

T28D has it right. Australia's reasonable air safety record has been achieved because it is too costly to have a prang, and those organisations that do usually go out of business. Safety is achieved by the peolpe who work in the industry doing their jobs well. You cannot "regulate" safety.

We are all part of one big team, and for good healthy, safe operation we must all work closely together, with two way communication and co-operation. This has not been happening for some time. I believe we should have a bulletin board similar to PPRUNE for pilots, engineers operators,CASA, ATSB etc to talk to one another, informally
Maybe PPRUNE is as close as we can get.

I wonder if CASA is a suitable organisation to supervise and co-ordinate this. In it's present state it probably is not.The word "Authority" should be removed from it's title, as this generates the wrong type of thinking that is more appropriate for the military. It should be replaced by the word "service" which is what the industry needs.
Maybe the "Civil Aviation Service" could do it better.

Diatryma
21st Jul 2008, 03:16
If CASA keeps going along its current path soon we will see the death penalty for breaches.

This already happens!

Di :oh:

Torres
21st Jul 2008, 04:11
"Has enybody heard them takeing on the big guys I know of no such case, if they did I bet they did not win."

Yes, the two pilot who allegedly departed Launceston with the runway lights extinguished. That was a looong time ago and still hasn't seen it's day in Court. CASA conveniently blame the procrastination on the Tasmanian DPP.

"Maybe the "Civil Aviation Service" could do it better."

"Service"??? You jest!! :{

How about something original and appropriate - like the "Department of Civil Aviation?"

T28D
21st Jul 2008, 06:28
Come back Sir Donald Anderson, all is forgiven.We need you !!!!!

Fantome
21st Jul 2008, 08:08
Yo . . .. Bushy


The word "Authority" should be removed from it's title, as this generates the wrong type of thinking that is more appropriate for the military. It should be replaced by the word "service" which is what the industry needs.
Maybe the "Civil Aviation Service" could do it better.

You've read Doc Fenton who called them the Uncivil Aviation Branch.

And his telegram to them way down in Melbourne, upon informing him he was grounded.

THEY'RE ROUND AND THEY BOUNCE. SIGNED FENTON.

StallBoy
21st Jul 2008, 09:22
In the Brisbane Courier Mail today " Dick Smith said we need more Airtraffic Controllers " Isn't he the one who wanted to get rid of all the ATC and replace them with pilot's sorting out their own separation's ??????:D:D:D

Boratous
22nd Jul 2008, 10:52
CASA they laid 7 charges under the air nav reg,s the charges when you read them are rubbish yesderday in the melbourne court all got dismissed all 7 not a dickey bird got up,a good win

Could we get a few more details of this case? Where did you read about it and where did you see the actual charges that were laid? Why would CASA lay charges under the Air Navigation Regulations? They have nothing to do with CASA as they are the responsibility of the Department of Transport.

Creampuff
22nd Jul 2008, 20:36
Actually, CASA doesn't lay charges under any legislation, regulations or otherwise. That (in the case of civil aviation law) is the DPP's job, and the decision to prosecute or not is made by the DPP in accordance with the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth (here: WebHelp (http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Publications/ProsecutionPolicy/HTML/Default.htm))

Boratous
22nd Jul 2008, 22:03
I saw the actual charges laid I suggest you speak to the person who was effected he will enlighten you even further

Bit hard to talk to the actual person if you don't say who it is. Which actual court was this matter dealt in and if you saw the charges perhaps you could provide us with some detail. I also can't work out the relevance of the self-self reporting system. Did this person self report the breaches?

gupta
22nd Jul 2008, 22:33
Read post 244 again - it spells out just who was charged

Boratous
23rd Jul 2008, 10:11
Acrobatic/Gupta

READ my previous post it names the school and the court be rest assured this the matter was only delt with 2 days ago within 2 weeks everbody is going to know about this case

In fact you have not provided any relevant details at all.

You say that the matter was heard in "the melbourne court ". There is no such court. There is a Magistrate’s Court, a County Court and a Supreme Court (along with lots of other courts) – which are all in Melbourne. So which court was it?

You say that you have provided the name of the individual concerned. But that is not the case. Your previous post refers to the owner of the Lilydale Flying School? There is no name provided – and when you go to the Lilydale Flying School website there are no details of the “owner”. There is a reference to Jonathan Merridew – is he the owner – the website does not say so.

You say that the charges were under the air navigation regs. But that seems improbable as CASA does not administer those regulations.

So at this stage you have not provided any relevant detail at all that would enable anyone interested to find out a bit more about this case to which you refer. And if you have the information then it’s not clear why you wouldn’t provide it in your posts given that if the matter has been to court then it is in the public domain anyway, So why all secrecy?

Creampuff
23rd Jul 2008, 10:37
Very good points, Boratous

This one smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story.

It’s funny, really. If the headline: ‘Plane in Death Plunge!’ appears in the paper, there are howls of derision and indignation among the learned aviation community. But a number of them seem not to comprehend any irony - or, dare I suggest hypocrisy - in some of the sensationalist, ignorant pap that passes for commentary about court and tribunal matters on D&G.

OpsNormal
24th Jul 2008, 00:00
boaccomet4, be careful - the problem with identifying individuals or individual cases means that there will always be someone who reads your words who may well have a greater knowledge of what really went-on (no, I am not saying I know any more than you on the instance you've raised - in fact I have had nothing really to do with that company ever, except on an inter-company level at one stage). I have been away from the QLD scene for over 12 months and I have no problem putting two and two together and identifying the organisation you allude to.

Whilst there may well be some truth in only some of what you say I cannot agree that you can lay the blame for the whole issue at the feet of the FOI involved. You see, this industry occasionally works in mysterious ways. An overheard word said about someone in a hangar, a first hand comment by a concerned outsider and all of a sudden someone else (usually the FOI) usually has the blame for the original protaginist shooting his/her mouth off to anyone who would listen..... Do you follow me?

Personal experience has me believing some people who only ever see the worst in everything also need to learn to use a typewriter/computer, especially if they have easily identifiable aspects to their handwriting..... :oh:

Jail at leas one of them and send a message to the industry

So just who do you propose to be your sacrificial lamb? :=

Regards,

OpsN.;)

PLovett
24th Jul 2008, 00:51
Ahhhh......the airline that dare not speak its name.:E

Ops, I have thought for some time that deliberate breaches of regs by pilots only benefits one person, the CEO/company owner. It would be amazing how few breaches would happen if they were to stand alongside the unfortunate pilot in the dock.:ok:

Captain Starlight
24th Jul 2008, 05:34
Boaccomet4

I'd think twice about using the CASA Hotline, that too has led to a pilot being sacked after the FOI on the hotline tipped off the company concerned.

The CASA Hotline did not take much notice of pilot A and pilot B in the Lockhart tragedy.

Who is watching the watchers?

Lodown
24th Jul 2008, 13:22
FOI's tipping off operators? That's the idea of good CASA/industry cooperation and togetherness isn't it?

Let's all sing Kumbayah around the campfire.

bushy
25th Jul 2008, 02:13
And there was once a job vacancy, so the Chief pilot phoned his mate at CASA to get information from a candidates file.
The military mafia was operating.

grip-pipe
1st Aug 2008, 08:23
Could not agree with CreamPuff more. Anybody who thinks CASA leads the Commonwealth DPP around by the nose is living in a parralel universe. IF these goons think this is correct why don't they say so to the DPP? I am sure the DPP would be delighted to follow it up.

As for the FOI getting the pilot the sack, seems the FOI got the sack as well.

Finally there are no pilot files, Dick Smith got rid of them all.

I warping back to the real universe.:eek:

Tee Emm
1st Aug 2008, 14:23
a person that has been in the industry for over 40 years and well respected

Was that the same chappie about ten years ago who continued to use a Cessna 172 for flying training when the ASI was known by all instructors to have a 20 knot error but which was not reported in the MR because of fear of retribution. Student authorised for solo circuits was warned by grade 3 instructor to "watch" the ASI as it had "errors". Student nearly went off the strip at far end due excessive float associated with ASI error. On the other hand it may not have been the same chappie.

Moral of the story. Just because someone is highly experienced in the industry doesn't always mean they are a "well respected" ace;)

Boratous
9th Aug 2008, 05:58
Just came across this interesting article from the Melbourne Age about CASA and the Senate Inquiry.


On a wing and a prayer

· Richard Baker
· July 21, 2008

Are we safe up there? Damning evidence to a Senate inquiry suggests the Civil Aviation Safety Authority may be failing as a safety watchdog.

SENIOR executives from Australia's air safety regulator were disgruntled when they fronted a special Senate inquiry earlier this month. Surprised by the Federal Government's decision to call a snap inquiry into their administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, they made their displeasure clear.
"After we had given our evidence at the last estimates (in May), the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed ... a number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot," CASA's deputy chief Shane Carmody told the senators.
Carmody's comments highlight the friction that has developed between members of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and CASA management in recent years.
Labor's Kerry O'Brien and CASA chief Bruce Byron have been particularly prickly combatants, with the Tasmanian senator pursuing the Howard-government appointee over his expensive overseas travel, his scheduling of time-off to coincide with Senate hearings and his $350,000-plus annual salary.
In addition to showing their displeasure at being the subject of an inquiry, CASA's leadership let it be known they were disappointed that the many changes they had introduced to the organisation - including reform of its approach to safety regulation and a 50% staff turnover - had not been "broadly recognised in the community".
While it may be true that most Australians are unfamiliar with CASA's reforms, the policy changes - particularly regarding safety regulation - have not been lost on pilots, engineers, former CASA staff, families of air crash victims and other industry participants.
In fact, Byron's mission to have CASA seen as a "valued partner" of the aviation industry rather than a "nanny regulator" is a topic that features prominently in many of the 50 submissions received by the inquiry.
Critics of Byron's policy argue that the move towards self-administration is worrying, particularly as airlines look to cut costs to cope with soaring oil prices and a bleak global economic outlook. Submissions from pilots, unions and former CASA officials said such times demanded a rigorous regulator.
But Byron, an experienced pilot and former airline executive, has made little secret over the past three years of his desire to introduce a "more sophisticated" approach to CASA's role as safety regulator. It is, he said last year, "something that has really been dear to my heart for some time".
Looking to the aviation regulatory regimes in the US, Canada and Europe for inspiration, Byron has pushed CASA in the direction of educator rather than enforcer. "CASA will not be knocking on your door armed with the regulations and a plan to dig around until breaches are found," he said in 2006.
The desire for a smooth relationship with industry is evident right across CASA. Even its job advertisements contain the sentence: "CASA works to be a valued partner with the aviation industry."
Byron and his management team reject criticisms that this approach has led to a cosy relationship between CASA and the aviation industry. "When at times we have to be a firm regulator, that is what we have to do," he told the inquiry.
CASA's ostensibly firm hand was on display soon after the Senate inquiry was announced late last month, with the authority ordering a safety check of air operations in northern Australia, where in one of the nation's worst air crashes 15 people were killed at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005.
However, the initiative was not well received by some of the families of the Lockhart victims, who regarded it as a cynical attempt to appear tough as the organisation faced parliamentary scrutiny.
What the Senate inquiry has made clear is that CASA's approach to safety regulation has been the cause of considerable debate and angst within the organisation. Deputy chief executive Carmody revealed an almost 50% turnover in staff, with some choosing to move on and others going "because we no longer had a place for them".
Byron linked some of the 134 redundancies at CASA to the cultural change he and his team have tried to implement.
A victim of that change is the man who was its general counsel between 1995 and 2006, Peter Ilyk. The lawyer told senators that CASA was treading on dangerous ground by playing down its responsibility for safety regulation.
"It (CASA) was not set up to be a partner with industry. It was not set up to promote industry. It was not set up to bow to industry pressure. CASA was set up to regulate the industry and enforce the safety rules," Ilyk argued.
CASA's decision to stop publishing air operator suspensions or cancellations on its website suggests a dangerously close relationship between the regulator and industry, according to Ilyk. "Such publication would not be in the spirit of partnership," he said.
Ilyk told senators that governance failures had flourished under the new arrangements, including a reluctance to tackle the big operators such as Qantas. He said he had brought these to Byron's attention but "not long after raising my concerns, I was terminated".
"I think there was a lot of industry pressure to get rid of particular people that happened to criticise industry or took a tough stance," Ilyk said.
"Towards the end of my career, the CEO simply ignored all of my emails ... One of the ones I sent to the CEO at the time outlining my concerns about governance failures in CASA was never answered formally. We had a CEO meeting about three months later and the only response I got from the CEO was, 'Don't you ever send me a minute like that again.' At that point I knew I was on the slippery slope out."
Asked about Ilyk's claims, Byron said that to the best of his knowledge he always responded to concerns raised by senior staff, either by accepting what they said or rejecting it. He did not recall ever telling people not to send him certain material again and reminded senators that ex-CASA staff making submissions might be "disaffected".
Another former CASA employee, Joseph Tully, who was a policy manager in the general aviation group, supported Ilyk's criticisms. Tully told the inquiry that four senior CASA technical staff had been forced out of the authority since 2005 after registering concern about CASA's approach to safety regulation.
Rod Bencke, a CASA veteran of 21 years, was blunt in his assessment of the authority's standing: "It is my belief that CASA will not be an effective regulator until its operations and ethos have been comprehensively reviewed and effective correction action taken."
On what has CASA based its controversial new regulatory approach? The answer is a mix of the "partnership" models adopted by aviation regulators in the US, Europe and Canada in recent years.
Unfortunately for CASA, these regimes, which emphasise industry self-administration, have this year come in for strong criticism from law-makers and public sector watchdogs in their respective countries.
In April, James Oberstar, the chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said the US Federal Aviation Administration had shown a dangerous lack of compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands flying on potentially unsafe aircraft.
Oberstar's comments came after a congressional investigation revealed a discount airline was flying 737s that had defects which should have been detected by FAA inspections.
"It reflects an attitude of complacency at the highest levels of FAA management, a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of regulatory compliance towards a carrier-friendly, cozy relationship with the airlines," he said.
Two months ago, the Canadian Auditor-General Sheila Fraser criticised Transport Canada's decision to let the aviation industry conduct its own safety inspections without first assessing any of the risks involved. Fraser said the policy "could have sweeping implications for air safety in Canada".
In Australia, it is not just former CASA employees who are worried by the authority's push for better relations with industry while moving away from the traditional role of a watch-dog style regulator.
Captain Ian Woods, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, told senators that CASA had failed to meet required standards in enforcing industry compliance with safety regulations. This failure, he said, meant CASA was "unable to act as a necessary counterweight to balance shifting economic and regulatory frameworks".
"Some people would say that it is never possible for the one organisation to balance safety regulation with commercial necessity and they should be separated," Woods said.
"A number of occurrences I have personally witnessed lead me to conclude that CASA gave due consideration to its obligations there and at times confused those obligations and was not clear and definitive enough standing up for safety regulation."
Adding weight to criticism of CASA's relationship with industry is its refusal to release its audits of the overseas facilities, mainly in Asia, that are increasingly used by Qantas and Virgin Blue to maintain their jets. This has caused the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association to accuse CASA of putting the interests of foreign-owned companies before those of the Australian public.
Though the Senate inquiry has been a bruising experience for CASA executives, they have not been without support. Qantas and Virgin Blue applauded CASA's regulatory policy.
"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.
Importantly, Byron can point out to his critics that Australia still enjoys an airline safety record the envy of the world. "I am the first to say that we, CASA, do not have an easy job, but I stand by the record of my organisation over the last few years. We do not expect to receive bouquets for the work we do, but I would like to believe that most of the industry, from time to time, and on considered and calm reflection, acknowledges that CASA delivers real safety outcomes," said Byron, who is not seeking re-appointment as CASA chief.
But critics, such as CASA's former chief lawyer Peter Ilyk, suggest Australia is more than ever in need of a strong aviation regulator, given the growing pressure on airlines to cut costs and the possible negative effect that could have on safety and maintenance standards. "The fact that there have not been any accidents and the fact that people have not died does not mean that there is no safety problem."

clapton
10th Aug 2008, 11:13
The interesting development will be to see the findings of the Senate Inquiry.

clapton
4th Sep 2008, 08:22
This is the official reponse from the Senate inquiry into the delay in publishing its report into CASA:

The committee has not yet tabled its report into the administration of
CASA. The committee has not set a new date for its tabling, but it is
still possible that the report may be tabled during this sitting
fortnight. The committee is currently finalising a number of reports and
my understanding is that the delays in tabling a number of these relate
to the committee's workload and the need for it to actively consider
each of the draft reports before it.

I will forward your concerns about the committee's inability to meet the
original tabling date to the committee.


Sounds a bit like the CASA regulatory reform program...........

clapton
7th Sep 2008, 14:13
Acrobatic

Mate you are liveing in a fools paradise no one gets hit with 11 charges and knocks them all over, who are you kidding, make one stick and you are out of the industry someone in CASA puts up to the enforcement section they like little rabbits run off to the dpp and there you go, give me a break please.But when they are privately accountable they will be hideing back in their burrows.

Don't understand any of this. What are you trying to say???

Torres
7th Sep 2008, 16:03
"What are you trying to say???"

I doubt even he knows. :confused:

With Byron deciding not to renew his contract, half the Government agenda has been achieved. I suspect the other half will be a recommendation to establish a Board, to shift the Minister's butt even further from responsibility.

Niles Crane
7th Sep 2008, 23:55
"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.

When has aviation not been "Risk Based".

I love when someone with a degree brings in "Touchy Feely" garbage into to an industry that only has 2 outcomes: Safety or Death!

A few months ago we had a CASA audit and I was asked by the CASA safety guy what "Risk Analysis" training I have. I told him my Pilots Licence. He did not accept this because it was not formal "Certificate" rated "Risk Analysis training. What a joke. Lets all go back to when DS said it was OK to get the weather from the Sydney Morning Herald!.....Its Summer, I'm just going 200nm and its fine here so it must be fine 200nm away, anyway the weather page in the paper tells me so!

This is what Industry Regulating itself means!

With less experience, more sophisticated aircraft, we are all going to regulate ourselves and fly the same types totally differently. Good safety outcome!

3 years ago I thought CASA had some redemmable features, now they have none.

bushy
8th Sep 2008, 03:04
We already have a situation where different operators have different SOP's for operating the same type of aeroplane.
We also have lots of dispensations, exceptions etc which allow specific operators to ignore certain rules.

airtags
8th Sep 2008, 03:37
very valid point bushy and in many ways it is at the foundation of many of the issues raised in some of the submissions

Whether in RPT or GA we don't need CASA to be a nanny or even a friendly partner - we just want and expect precise and consistent standards as well as a not-negotiable stance on compromising the regulatory environment.

Sadly the swag of illogical precedents, dispensations and commercially driven exemptions, - (especially some of the pollie induced concessions to overseas operators), means that Australia's "multiple choice" aviation puzzle will still be missing a few important pieces.

Knowing the way these documents are "collectively proof read" before tabling in Parliament, I doubt there will be little significant change except maybe for the appointment of a token 'review/governance board' and the revival of an 'industry consultative committee'.

AT

teresa green
8th Sep 2008, 08:08
After that little matter 19 years ago, and suddenly out of a job, I looked at a Govt job in CBR relating to Aircraft accidents and incidents. (only because I had four little mouths to feed) what I found was a RAAF old boys club, tempered with ex crop duster pilots who were sick of dodging power lines, and as a suddenly out of work civil line pilot, I was as welcome as a leper out of a colony. Because my brain after years in the airlines, worked in what I thought was a logical, problem solving way, I soon found out I was wrong, very wrong, you have to go by THE SYSTEM. I was a fish out of water, because like you blokes if I have to go to MEL/SYD thats how I go, right? Wrong. In the public service you go via DRW, so to speak. I soon found out they ran their cricket clubs, car clubs, apex clubs, soccer clubs out of the office, and for a confused airline bloke like myself, (having joined TAA at the grand age of 19) and knowing nothing else it was mystifying. I was soon joined by a AN skipper, who was even less popular than I was, and we had adjoining desks and we sat and looked at one another, both pushing papers around, and (sadly hoping for a prang) to get us out of there. Needless to say we both lasted about a month, and headed for OS. What I am trying to say, if you have not already guessed (and things might have changed) but you are dealing with a monster that has a life of its own, makes little sense, (and as I guess most of you are tech crew, and tend to think logically (when sober) you are really pushing it uphill, because the depts have their own little empire building, their own little cultures, and for blokes like yourselves totally mystifying behaviour. For example going in hard on some poor bloke flying a old King Air out of Bogg Creek, that happens to have a busted port nav light, but allowing the Airlines to run their own show, without to much interference, but capable of a much bigger prang than the old King Air. It was a experience that I will never understand, but helps me to cope with dealing with any Govt Dept now. Don't expect to speak to anybody that knows anything, expect to be sent to some other dept, (that don't know either) and get off the phone before you drop kick it thru the window.

clapton
10th Sep 2008, 05:32
Torres

With Byron deciding not to renew his contract, half the Government agenda has been achieved.

It's a pity that he will be able to walk away without achieving anything in relation to regulatory reform..........

I'm not sure he decided not to renew his contract - I think he knew it would never be renewed.

bilbert
12th Sep 2008, 13:49
Interim report stated final report would be no later than 28th Aug. Senate advised there would be a delay. Now the 12th Sept - still nothing. Is it too political or does it need to be adjusted by the 'new' senate committee?

clapton
12th Sep 2008, 14:24
It was announced the other day that Mike Taylor, the Secretary of the Department of Transport has been re-appointed for a further 5 years.

Given that he presided over casa for most of Byron's terms and clearly agreed with his direction and philosophy, it says little about the Government's credibility on aviation safety. It also points to a whitewash of CASA in the Senate report - because if CASA is found wanting that can only mean that Taylor must also be wanting because he did nothing to stop the rot in CASA and agreed with the partnership policy espoused by Byron as well as the virtual dismantlinmg of CASA and handing over responsibility to the industry that CASA was meant to regulate - as well as his failure to manage the reg reform program. It would be inapproaite for the Government to appoint him for a further 5 years if the Senate found all these failings in Taylor. So inevitably it will be a useless report.

Lodown
12th Sep 2008, 16:20
So, it seems that the whole process has just been a silly little overblown exercise to replace the CEO and implement a board? Change of names to protect the guilty?

Okay, so whom of the Minister's buddies will be appointed to the new board?

All those considerate people who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry must be feeling really happy and content at present. I certainly appreciated reading their comments, even if they fell on deaf ears in Canberra.

One day CASA may achieve something productive and worthwhile with the funding it is allocated (other than being the bearer of media and public blame), despite the best intentions of the Minister du Jour, but it doesn't seem likely.

I hope there is more to the inquiry's result than Clapton's summation. There was a good opportunity for something worthwhile and it appears to have come to naught once again.

Diatryma
14th Sep 2008, 23:52
I can see why this report has not been released yet ............they have more inportant things to focus on............Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport:Inquiry into matters relating to the establishment of an Australian Football League team for Tasmania: Terms of Reference (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/afl_tasmania/tor.htm)
.................maybe they will wait until the footy season ends?.............Di ???????????

james michael
18th Sep 2008, 00:44
Head for the webcast, it is being presented at this moment.

A small Board over CASA mentioned already.

Groaner
18th Sep 2008, 02:40
Senate report raises concerns about CASA - Breaking News - National - Breaking News (http://news.theage.com.au/national/senate-report-raises-concerns-about-casa-20080918-4j0e.html)

Torres
18th Sep 2008, 02:56
"The committee recommends ... introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA," the committee's report said."

Yup. The new Government got their second objective - a Board to distance the Minister's butt further from the train smash. 100% success rate! :yuk:

I wonder who amongst Labour's "chosen few" will get the five seats?