CASA Confidentiality

[Greedy]

This is a cautionary tale for the pprune pilot community that I think many would be interested in.
Ben Sandilands (Plane Talking) wrote a blog on the 26th APR concerning a Capt X and Airline Z. The email and attachment refered to in the story was provided by CASA to Airline Z .
I am Capt X. That email that was given to Airline Z without reply to me. The email text I sent to Associate Director of Aviation Safety , Dr Jonathan Aleck contained the following words " this is information I have provided to the ATSB Repcon system. I think CASA should be aware of it as well " .
Some may take the cynical view that it is what I should have expected. Maybe so, CASA has a long history of this sort of behaviour.
I urge ppruner's to read what Dr Aleck stated to the Senate Inquiry on 18 Mar 2011. (Hansard page 61 top of page.) My view is he has misled the Senate Inquiry.
The purpose of this post is to try to ensure I am one of the last to be treated in such a manner.

[tail wheel]

Have you looked at the Privacy legislation and did your email contain a warning regarding confidentiality?

CASA has leaked like a sieve for years, officially and unofficially.

[Greedy]

Yes I have lodged a complaint with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. ( the old privacy commissioner)
I am still waiting to be allocated a "case officer" some twelve months later. CASA has admitted the written email was supplied to Airline Z by a FOI overseeing Airline Z( I will name them as "FOI Y".)
The material I supplied to Dr Aleck made reference to an incident within Airline Z that concerned management pilots and the possible non reporting of this incident to ATSB/CASA. FOI Y was also mentioned perhaps adversely.Perhaps not. I was not sure of FOI Y involvement . In any case it was not the main subject of that report. The subject as Ben Sandilands indicated was that company Rejected TO instructions were not clear and the Chief Pilot nor the Check Pilots I asked could or would explain them to me. This of course begs the question of how RTO training and assessment got a "tick in the box" from CASA in the first place.
Unfortunately the subject matter was ignored and I was seen as a "dobber" with respect to FOI Y and management pilots. That is why the email was provided to Airline Z.

[The Kelpie]

Greedy

'dobbing' is something done by schoolkids. In the adult world, and particularly where safety is involved we call it 'being responsible'!!

Cheers

The Kelpie

[tail wheel]

Yes, it does tend to make a mockery of any confidential reporting system. I have also known CASA staff to release confidential information to the media.

[Greedy]

Kelpie,
The other thing about being labelled a dobber or "not on our side" is that the persons labelling me did have something they wished to remain hidden.
You can rest assured I have no embarassment or regrets about my reports.
Greedy

[gobbledock]

I urge ppruner's to read what Dr Aleck stated to the Senate Inquiry on 18 Mar 2011. (Hansard page 61 top of page.) My view is he has misled the Senate Inquiry.
Can somebody please copy and paste the link ? I cant find it for some reason. Thanks.

[mmciau]

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S13676.pdf

From top of Page 61

Dr Aleck—I mentioned this at last estimates. I corrected the dates, but I offered the first time
that, as of February 2010 and December 2009, regular public transport operators are required to
have in place a safety management system. That system is required to have in place an internal
reporting scheme which provides for these kinds of reports to be made to the operator. The order
that is a condition on the air operator’s certificate provides that there may not be a punitive
element within the organisation for that kind of reporting. The point I was making when I first
raised this was that, if it came to our attention that an operator took punitive action against a
reporting operating member of the operating crew under the safety management scheme, that
would be inconsistent and would be a breach of a condition on their air operator certificate. That
is relatively new legislation, but we would need to be aware of the fact that this happened before
we could take action.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

CASA released my personal licencing details to another candidate in our union elections without advising me. It broke every bloody Freedom of Information Law in the land. When I spoke to their head legal person in the FOI section his words were as follows -

Well you expect us to release information to you about audits of overseas maintenance facilities, you've even taken us to court over it.

I've since had an apology and have left it at that. Greedy, if they have released your personal information because of an FOI request by airline Z, they must contact you first and get written permission from you to do it.

If you need help with this case I would be more than pleased to assist. Just send me a PM.

[Greedy]

ALEA Fed Sec,
Thanks for your offer however I am hoping the case is open and shut. The Information Commissioner should do the job if they ever get around to it.
Airline Z management had a written copy of at least one of my emails on the desk in front of me during a meeting following the disclosure by CASA.

CASA have admitted the disclosure however Flying Operations Inspector Y denies supplying the written copy. FOI Y admits discussing and naming me with Airline Z.

There was no Freedom of Information Request.

The Airline Z meeting I attended (with AFAP rep attendance) was described by Airline Z Management as "non disciplinary".

Following the meeting management directed crewing not to roster me flying training. Management did not inform me of this action.

Greedy

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

That's how discrimination works in this country. It is rife and all over the place but no written records are kept. CASA know very well that they can say -

if it came to our attention that an operator took punitive action against a
reporting operating member of the operating crew under the safety management scheme, that would be inconsistent and would be a breach of a condition on their air operator certificate.

because to prove it is practically impossible.

[Shell Management]

Greedy

This is a terrible tale.

However surely the leak to the airline could have come from 3 places:
1) ATSB who had the data originally
2) CASA
3) The Inquiry

No matter which way, surely this is a police matter as information provided under privildge has been abused?

[Greedy]

Shell Management,
The CASA ICC and "Ethics" Committee have already established that the leak came from CASA. I do not think there is any doubt about that.Chief Pilot H of Airline Z informed me FOI Y handed material to him in a coffee shop. FOI Y denies this but does admit discussing it and naming me.CASA ICC only admits material being handed over by FOI Y is the most likely course of events.
The ICC and ethics committee decided not to deal with the matter under Repcon because I began my email with:
" Dear Dr Aleck, This is information I have provided to the ATSB Repcon system and I think you should be made aware of it as well..... "
The commitee determined that because it was addressed "Dr Aleck" confidentiality was not required.
I believe Dr Aleck is a member of the "ethics" committee.
The explanation then went on to provide an excuse for the leak.
I believe this rationalisation and excuse will not "hold water" in an independent investigation.

Greedy

[The Kelpie]

Greedy

Sounds like CASA clutching at straws.

Given that the letter stated that the issue had been reported under the ATSB REPCON system, the good Dr Aleck should have known that the requirement for confidentiality was implied.

As you stated I doubt whether the CASA argument will stand up to independent scrutiny.

Cheers

The Kelpie

[mcgrath50]

Surely ATSB REPCON works both ways, by providing details outside the system to someone, you have broken the confidentiality of REPCON.

On the other hand, as you addressed the letter to a single person and noted it's confidential nature, there also surely is implied confidentiality there.

Just my thoughts for discussion, probably wrong!

[The Kelpie]

On the other hand, as you addressed the letter to a single person and noted it's confidential nature, there also surely is implied confidentiality there.

Yes, a personal liability for Dr Aleck possibly??

[gobbledock]

Yes, a personal liability for Dr Aleck possibly??
Yeah, right. Do you honestly think an 18+ year bureaucrat is going to get marched straight out the door, let alone receive a slap on the wrist ? I doubt it very much. You would have more chance of The Screaming Skull finding inner peace and tranquility or Boston Bruce donating his yearly bonus to charity than that happenning.
Safe flying.

[bankrunner]

If legal action is brought against a CASA scumba.. err.. official, would CASA actually foot the bill for their legal expenses, or would they go have to pay their own legal expenses?

[FlareArmed]

This situation strikes at the heart of how CASA relates to airlines. The actions of CASA are akin to a copper tipping off a gang about an informant – it's unforgivable.

A proper leader would hasten the official report – but instead – the Chief Pilot gets told there's a dobber in his company.

CASA is supposed to be at arms-length from the airlines; that's one of the reasons the FOIs were pulled out of casually crewing aircraft with the companies they monitored – they were getting too matey.

I suspect some kind of friend-friend thing happening here, but if the FOI concerned can't see the invisible line of wrong-doing, he/she is not suited to being a "copper" in aviation. If Aleck doesn't put the FOIs head on a stick: he's no better.

[rodchucker]

Bankrunner,

Dont know about Govt but in commercial land you only get indemnity for legal costs if the acts were legal under normal D&O covers. If not, you are on your own.

Then again, suspect CASA will need to keep individual close to control what happens here if the facts are as stated.

Pity this wasn't out there for senator X a few weeks ago, it could have got more interesting.

Agree it goes to the heart of the relationship of regulator/industry and the integrity of the reporting system that everyone in the industry is spruiking as working.

That stench is coming back.

[The Kelpie]

Rod Chucker

It was stated in Ben Sandiland's blog that Captain X did give evidence to the Inquiry Committee on this very subject albeit in Camera together with a number of other witnesses who were not publicised.

Did you not spot the leading questions from the Committee towards CASA and particularly Dr Aleck??

Rule 1 in politics. Never ask a question you do not already know the answer to!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[rodchucker]

Kelpie,

You are way too smart for me, so well done.

I will take a slam dunk any way I can get it with this lot.

Keep up the fight.

[FlareArmed]

I recall a legal briefing on a similar subject in the RAAF: to incur personal legal liability as a supervisor, there had to be serious dereliction of duty; piss-poor judgement (which is probably the case here) was not strong enough.

IMHO, the target of legal action would end up being CASA; not individual staff. Consequences for any individual(s) would more likely come from within the organisation/government; not the legal system.

[rodchucker]

FlareArmed,

Agree that CASA should be the target BUT if there has been a breach of the law (and I say IF) then the individual could be held accountable.

Based on the accounts to date, it may be possible for the individual to establish this was accepted CASA Policy which is a whole new ball game but no defence in a criminal arena.

Having worked in this area (not CASA) you can have winks and nods BUT actual disclosure of names is another ball game in my view.

[Sunfish]

CASA will argue that by providing info outside the repcon system, Greedy was not protected by the confidentiality provisions, and they will probably be able to make that stick.

They will argue that "natural justice" and "Fairness and equity" requires them to advise the subject of the allegations of the nature of the allegation and the name and position of the person who made it.

...which is why the Repcon system was established in the first place, however there is no feedback mechanism to ensure that action was even considered, let alone taken.

Deliberately toothless Tiger. Read your "Yes Minister" scripts. The system exists to protect the bureaucrats first and foremost and any protection afforded the traveling public is a byproduct.


Nothing will happen until there are Three large smoking holes in the ground.

[The Kelpie]

......so where is CASA's confidential reporting system. Dolan and McCormick both told the committee that ATSB and CASA do not share information and are linked very loosely by a memorandum of understanding only.

CASA cannot therefore rely on the REPCON system as a matter that ATSB decides not to be in it's remit or warrant further investigation will just get binned without referring it to CASA.

The Kelpie

[Greedy]

Just to clarify something Kelpie posted earlier. I have made written submission to the Inquiry, believe some of my material has been discussed in camera but have not appeared in person.
Sunfish makes the point that I provided the material outside the Repcon system to CASA as well. I did this because I believe I had an obligation to do so.

Some items I have provided to the ATSB and CASA were that I was repeatedly pressured to fly an aircraft with a U/S pilot oxy mask mic . The MEL on this item is ambiguous at best but I and the crew decided we required the mask mic in accordance with our written responsibilities. This decision was not respected by Airline Z Chief Pilot who continued to ask us to fly , would not fax any guidance or instructions for smoke procedure communication. He stated he would take the matter up with CASA. I have heard nothing further and believe he did not do so.

Another report I provided concerned a situation were I was informed by a crew member that they had been pressured by Airline Z Chief Pilot to fly an aircraft after a bird had been ingested into the engine. The crew member informed me that they had flown the aircraft, that the crew member now realised that they had made a error of judgment and they had written to Airline Z Chief Pilot expressing remorse and the fact that it would not happen again.

At that time I was a member of a 217 organisation that had just been informed by a crew member that the law had been broken. I believe I had an obligation to report that. Documentary evidence in the form of the aircraft maintenance log, and the letter to the Chief Pilot exists.(If it hasn't been shreded)

When I discussed these items in a meeting with FOI Y I was thrown out of the CASA offices. And I mean literally.

If anyone would like to sue after reading this post a date time and meeting location and I will be there to pick up the writ.

Greedy

[The Kelpie]

Greedy

Thanks for clarifying that, I must have misread Ben's article.

Cheers

The Kelpie

[mmciau]

Greedy,
It appears that if a crew member logs an aircraft fault that is perhaps critical to on-going aircraft performance, it may well be that the Reporting Crew Member may have to take an image of the report on the Crew's personal mobile phone so that his/her integrity is not trashed at a later date!!



Mike

[Greedy]

Lester Burnham,
I think you may have misconstrued the point I was trying to make. That was that I provided the same information to both the ATSB and CASA.
The ATSB acted in accordance with their rules ( and warned me I was not covered by whistleblower legislation)
CASA (Dr Aleck) on the other hand did not reply at all and my written "Repcon" material was passed to Airline Z . The matters could have been addressed by proper oversight of the airline. They were essentially technical in nature. Individuals were named however the technical material could have been addressed without reference to me.

I understand that the ATSB and CASA have different responsibilities and communication between the two depends on "memorandum's of understanding". This is why I informed both.

I was not infering any "conspiracy" between the organisations.
the word "Law" was used by me because I understand that operating an aircraft contrary to my written directions could result in me being prosecuted. The circumstances of the bird ingestion could have led to prosecution.(or worse).

In reference to mmciau's post I was not trying to "trash" any reputations. There is not a pilot in existence that has not made an error of judgment.

Hope that clears it up
Greedy

[4dogs]

Greedy,

The ATSB acted in accordance with their rules ( and warned me I was not covered by whistleblower legislation)

I am intrigued by this statement. One of the things that the Senate Inquiry was supposed to examine was the adequacy of existing protections in Australian law, but it got fairly well glossed over by "more interesting" issues. :ugh: :ugh:

Would you care to PM me with exactly what was communicated to you, how it was communicated to you and what you felt was your situation as far as any protection on offer?

I for one am not satisfied that the question was properly examined in the Inquiry. The delay in reporting may provide the opportunity to explore the issue with a bit more depth (hopefully).

Stay Alive,

[Greedy]

4dogs,
Happy to answer on the forum. When I submitted the repcon reports the written reply from the repcon co-ordinator contained the warning. It did not appear to be a "standard disclaimer" or anything.
After the report was "closed" by the ATSB I was notified that Airline Z did not respond at all. As Sunfish said a "toothless tiger" system.
I have indicated to Senator Xenophon that while I initially requested confidentiality with my submission to the Senate Inquiry I have reviewed that and would be prepared to go on the public record.
Greedy