CASA Appoints new Safety Director

[bluesideoops]

Once again Aviation gets it wrong and puts a bureaucrat in charge! -"The new Director of Aviation Safety was chosen after an international search for the best available person to further develop CASA as a world leader in aviation safety regulation." - couldn't have been much of a search! No piloting experience, no engineering experience, no operational experience, no senior management in aviation positions, no form four or accountable manager experience, no aviation qualifications, no prior safety or quality qualifications or experience. Would CASA accept an operators submission for nominated post-holder if they did not have appropriate qualification or experience? Yet, the guy they put in overall charge has neither. :D

Incredible that those responsible for safety would be so negligent in their duties in appointing someone who has no front-line experience. :ugh:

Jobs for the boys methinks :\

https://www.casa.gov.au/media-release/new-director-aviation-safety

[Horatio Leafblower]

I wonder if the best person to run a public service agency is a person with previous public service administration experience?

At the end of the day, He/She does not need to fly or fix aeroplanes or load bags or do anything else in an operational sense - the DAS manages the Department to ensure the law is implemented as it stands, with the guidance of the Board. At least there is a pilot/engineer on the board (but he is a Nationals appointee and he will be removed if the ALP win govt).

The Law is written and amended by the Parliament.

The Parliament is the People's representative body as voted in by the good people of Australia.

The last two Pilot-DASs have been miserable failures either in their attitude to the GA sector (McCormack) or in their ability to manage and influence the culture of the department (Skidmore).

My grandfather was a teacher who became a schools inspector and eventually the head of the NSW Education Dept. Sadly that was a different era (he retired in 1968) and heads of department have since included Tanya Plibersek's drug-convicted husband and Mark Scott, ex head of the ABC.

What other Federal Govt agencies have an "experienced industry operator" at the helm?
Does the banking regulator have an ex-banker? Would any of us think that is a good outcome?
Does the health regulator AHPRA have a Doctor in command? if so why not a Nurse?
Does the Education dept have a Teacher or a school principal?
While it makes sense to us, does it make sense from a best-outcomes-from-public -policy angle?

Discuss.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Now that Shane Carmody has been confirmed in the job, at least let us hope he gets on with the job, putting substance to the comments he has made so far.

He is up against it, as I hear he has already had the "Iron Ring", present iteration, blocking him doing some of the things he wanted/tried to do as "Acting".

Top of the list simply must be injecting some rational risk management into all CASA activities --- starting off with medical standards --- we have a "driver's license" medical that isn't, for the RPL, and the travesty of what has been done on Colour Vision should be immediately reversed, and the AAT decision that served us so well for so many years, become the standard again.

There is no reason (and the "CASA Kultcha" is not a reason) why we have to have medical standards that are so much tougher than USA, and long standing reforms reversed.

Even at this stage, it is not too late to bring the "ADS-B" mandate into line with risk management criteria, and have a mandate more in line with USA/EU, preferable even more limited, given the very limited traffic in the greater volume of airspace than US or western Europe. ---- and "being fair" to all the poor sods who have already spent millions is not a reason to maintain the present mandate.

Unfortunately a non-aviation CEO/DAS needs expert input for his decision making, and I see evidence that such genuine (as opposed to self-confessed) expertise is pretty thin on the ground ---- with the possible exception of obtaining draconian judgements in cases of trivial regulatory infringements.

Tootle pip!!

[AerialPerspective]

Once again Aviation gets it wrong and puts a bureaucrat in charge! -"The new Director of Aviation Safety was chosen after an international search for the best available person to further develop CASA as a world leader in aviation safety regulation." - couldn't have been much of a search! No piloting experience, no engineering experience, no operational experience, no senior management in aviation positions, no form four or accountable manager experience, no aviation qualifications, no prior safety or quality qualifications or experience. Would CASA accept an operators submission for nominated post-holder if they did not have appropriate qualification or experience? Yet, the guy they put in overall charge has neither. :D

Incredible that those responsible for safety would be so negligent in their duties in appointing someone who has no front-line experience. :ugh:

Jobs for the boys methinks :\

https://www.casa.gov.au/media-release/new-director-aviation-safety
At least it wasn't GT.

[Dangly Bits]

I give everyone a fair go and will give Mr Carmody a fair go also. I personally think Mike Smith would have been better for the industry, however Mr Carmody will be better for the government possibly. The FAA is run by an Administrator, so why can't CASA?

We should help Mr Carmody weed out the "road blocks" in CASA.

[bluesideoops]

I think you are right in the respect that everyone should be given a 'fair go' and furthermore if he was CEO or COO I wouldn't even bat an eyelid but Director of Safety is a very specialised role requiring a deep understanding of safety & risk principles and also having experience in the industry, knowledge of aircraft and maintenance operations and I just don't think this guy is qualified or experienced in this respect. If you're an FO, do you expect the Capt to be well qualified and experienced? how about lead engineers or Eng. Mgrs...I don't know of many organisations, if any who would recruit someone who doesn't have the qualifications or experience to do the job...

[Eyrie]

Let's give him a chance. After all how many qualified individuals from O/S would be prepared to take on the stinking swamp of incompetence that is CASA?
That said, I'm not hopeful.

[Band a Lot]

I give everyone a fair go and will give Mr Carmody a fair go also. I personally think Mike Smith would have been better for the industry, however Mr Carmody will be better for the government possibly. The FAA is run by an Administrator, so why can't CASA?

We should help Mr Carmody weed out the "road blocks" in CASA.



That's a hell of a lot of "weeding"!

[neville_nobody]

What other Federal Govt agencies have an "experienced industry operator" at the helm?
Does the banking regulator have an ex-banker? Would any of us think that is a good outcome?
Does the health regulator AHPRA have a Doctor in command? if so why not a Nurse?
Does the Education dept have a Teacher or a school principal?
While it makes sense to us, does it make sense from a best-outcomes-from-public -policy angle?

The answer to all those questions is yes!!

The banking/insurance regulator are all from that sector

The health regulator are all boards filled with their own. The national board has a mixture of people and their website makes a point that they have a bunch of health professionals
The CEO whilst not a medico has been on the WHO.

The Secretary of the Federal Education department was once a teacher it would appear.

[Mr Approach]

I think you all have the job definition wrong - all contracted public servants have one aim, to protect the Minister who appointed them. The previous pilots thought they were running a Civil Aviation Authority; no the new incumbent's qualifications for the job are perfect.

He seems to be a clear thinker though and well across his brief so maybe he can do both jobs...

[B772]

Let us give him 100 days to make some changes starting with either draining the swamp or introducing FAA or NZ regulations.

[Eyrie]

Once more, YOU DO NOT WANT THE NZ REGULATIONS. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE FAA.
Worse than CASA.

However their review of the medical requirements for private pilots is a model of clarity and brevity, unlike the amateurish and mushy CASA one which Shane Carmody signed off on.

[B772]

I see Donald Trump is of the belief the FAA Administrator should be a pilot.

[hiwaytohell]

FWIW our dealings with Carmody since he has been in the acting role have been fair, reasonable and prepared to listen to common sense!

[Horatio Leafblower]

I see Donald Trump is of the belief the FAA Administrator should be a pilot.

Best evidence in support of my position I have ever seen.

[bluesideoops]

@hiwaytohell its commendable that he is fair and has an open approach to what he does. However, he is responsible, as Director of Safety for Aviation in Australia at a national level; which incorporates public transport, GA, AMO's, ATC, training, CASA etc etc etc....there is a need for a DEEP understanding of safety & risk management and aviation law and principles. Even if he is reasonable and prepared to listen to common sense, how can he possibly formulate opinions or make educated decisions with ZERO aviation or safety experience to fall back upon. If the argument is that he listens to his advisers then they should have cut the middleman out and had one of them in the seat. Introducing such an inherent risk at the core of the national safety authority should be extremely alarming and I doubt there are many safety & risk managers/practitioners that would disagree - remember, introducing risk mitigations and changes should never bring about further risk themselves and in this regard the Aussie public should be concerned. Would you put a fresh PPL without a rating in the left seat of a 747? I think not!

[Oldmanemu]

If Shane can manage out the long standing senior lawyer/polcy manager, he may then be able to make Australian aviation great again, provided he takes counsel from the good guys in CASA and experienced and sucessfull industry players.
If he can't, he is doomed from the start. I think he is more than capable of the task.

[Sunfish]

Carmody is very likely doomed from the very start because it is axiomatic that you cannot manage what you don't understand, and Carmody is not and never has been a pilot.

While Carmody obviously has superb public service management skills, which are not to be sneered at, that alone is not enough. The reason you need both skill sets is because at some point early in his tenure, Carmody will be called on to chair a meeting involving both legal, administrative and technical issues, at that time experts will argue their positions and Carmody will be called upon to adjudicate. With no first hand experience, Carmody will not be able to smell the BS, not a whiff, while everyone else around the table can. At that point he is finished. How do I know this? it happened to me as a group general manager of an IT organisation. There is nothing worse than the feeling that your subordinates are talking about subjects of which you have not the slightest knowledge.

Of course I am talking from the perspective of someone who believes "success" for the DAS means a thriving aviation industry in terms of jobs, investment and growth. I think Carmody's appointment indicates that the Government, Infrastructure Department and the Minister define "success" as preventing Aviation from being any embarrassment to the Federal Government or distraction from their other policy pursuits, hence I do not expect Carmody to actually reform anything at all, although if he is sufficiently artful, beneficial change may appear to have been achieved through a smoke and mirrors show.

To put that another way, Carmody is another "safe pair of hands" who can be trusted to maintain the status quo.

[AerialPerspective]

I see Donald Trump is of the belief the FAA Administrator should be a pilot.
The FAA also administers the regulations relating to parts suppliers, manufacturers and engineering facilities and individual licensing. Why should it be a pilot. Personally this is typical of Trump's ridiculous stupidity - "we'll just replace the healthcare deal, it'll be easy, it'll be simple". Then: "Who knew? Who knew? Who knew healthcare was so hard?"

The man is an imbecile and anything he says I would be inclined to do the opposite. So Trump is an aviation expert now is he???

IMHO, there is no reason why the authority should not be headed by a Pilot, but there is also no reason why that should be essential. Pilots bring many skills to the table, so do engineers but just being a Pilot or an Engineer is not a guarantee of the ability to run a large authority with legal responsibility like the FAA or CASA.

[AerialPerspective]

The answer to all those questions is yes!!

The banking/insurance regulator are all from that sector

The health regulator are all boards filled with their own. The national board has a mixture of people and their website makes a point that they have a bunch of health professionals
The CEO whilst not a medico has been on the WHO.

The Secretary of the Federal Education department was once a teacher it would appear.
Maybe. But the head of the Reserve is not a teller from a local bank or a local bank manager, but likely someone with vastly more experience in a range of fields including administration of financial sector businesses or regulations, the Health authority is likely to be an experienced Medical Administrator not a local GP or Hospital Nurse. Similarly, a person with beyond the norm experience in educational theory and/or administration not a Prep or Grade 1 class teacher. A Pilot is one person in a vast eco system that is expert in only one thing, flying aeroplanes.

I would not want someone with that experience alone in charge of something like the FAA - the same as I would not want them to be CEO of an airline, without any other experience at all. We have seen how badly in the past pilots and engineers and other 'specialists' have done at running airlines. I'm sure many have done OK but coming to that sort of job or any high level non-specialist role like that with only the skills of an aviator (or a ground manager for that matter) is not a guarantee of success.

Besides, if that is Trump's philosophy, why has he put a billionaire with zero education background in charge of the Education Dept. and a serial violator and complainer and hater of the EPA in charge of the EPA, with no scientific background. These all go against his line that a pilot should be in charge of the FAA.

The man is a fool who tweets and makes comments without thinking.

Covfefe.

[neville_nobody]

Maybe. But the head of the Reserve is not a teller from a local bank or a local bank manager, but likely someone with vastly more experience in a range of fields including administration of financial sector businesses or regulations, the Health authority is likely to be an experienced Medical Administrator not a local GP or Hospital Nurse. Similarly, a person with beyond the norm experience in educational theory and/or administration not a Prep or Grade 1 class teacher. A Pilot is one person in a vast eco system that is expert in only one thing, flying aeroplanes.

Most are people who have all worked their way through their industries. The Secretary of the Federal Education Department was once a school teacher but has gained various extra degrees over the years and worked in various management roles. The Health board is quite proud to announce on their website that their board has Drs and Nurses on it. Again they're probably not people who are about to walk out of a board meeting and slot in a catheter but still they have a understanding how the front line works.

In aviation this is rarely the case and one of the reasons being that is takes so long to actually be a pilot in any sort of career job. It can take people circa 10 years+ plus to actually get into a jet airline, then another 10+ (20+ for QF) years before becoming a captain. Compare that sort of career path with other industries where people effectively walk into leadership roles straight out of University and spend their career in management.

How many pilots are on the QF and Virgin Boards for example?

[Sunfish]

Neville and aerial perspective are skirting the issue of the rise of so called "professional" management. This is the theory that if you have scientific training in the management arts, via an MBA or similar, you can manage any organization without coal face experience.

I can tell you this is BS from personal experience as an MBA and as a CEO. As a manager, you have no hope of understanding the finer points of the business if you don't speak the language.

Examples; humble stuff like working for three months resolving part interchangeability issues learning how to read a Boeing IPC teaches you a lot. Working as a baggage handler. Intricate financial, maintenance reliability and other stuff.

To put it another way, what hope has Carmody got if he doesn't know what an MEL or AOG means? He is automatically at a disadvantage if his subordinates "get technical" and I can assure you they will deliberately do that to demonstrate their superiority. Thus Carmody ends up as another "empty suit" with no contribution to make - a leader in name only.

You don't have to have detailed technical knowledge, but you must know how to speak the language.

What CASA needs, but won't get, is an aviation professional with serious public service experience of a non military kind.

[cattletruck]

another "empty suit" with no contribution to make

Reminds me of the multi-decade old Telstra joke still in use today:

"Can't do the job but likes wearing the suit."

[AerialPerspective]

Neville and aerial perspective are skirting the issue of the rise of so called "professional" management. This is the theory that if you have scientific training in the management arts, via an MBA or similar, you can manage any organization without coal face experience.

I can tell you this is BS from personal experience as an MBA and as a CEO. As a manager, you have no hope of understanding the finer points of the business if you don't speak the language.

Examples; humble stuff like working for three months resolving part interchangeability issues learning how to read a Boeing IPC teaches you a lot. Working as a baggage handler. Intricate financial, maintenance reliability and other stuff.

To put it another way, what hope has Carmody got if he doesn't know what an MEL or AOG means? He is automatically at a disadvantage if his subordinates "get technical" and I can assure you they will deliberately do that to demonstrate their superiority. Thus Carmody ends up as another "empty suit" with no contribution to make - a leader in name only.

You don't have to have detailed technical knowledge, but you must know how to speak the language.

What CASA needs, but won't get, is an aviation professional with serious public service experience of a non military kind.
Not skirting the issue at all. I don't think the acquisition of an MBA qualifies anyone for anything. I have substantial University quals in Aviation but I also worked at the coal face and worked my way up, in many different environments within the industry, including dealing with flight ops, IT, ground, marketing, head office/corporate and offshore. Exposure to those environments gave me a rounded set of qualifications.

One of the best managers I ever worked for had come into the industry as what was in those days called a 'graduate trainee'. He never worked on check in or chucked a bag for example but he knew what those people did and he knew a LOT about regulation of the industry and was respected. He was a decent person and a very good people manager.

What I was saying is sitting in a Flight Deck for 20 years and that ONLY does not qualify someone for the sort of job you're talking about. There needs to be some other experience. It's wrong to think that just because you can fly an aeroplane that you can be CEO.

If Carmody can come to an understanding of what an AOG or an MEL is (I know what they are and I am not a pilot, but I have a brain and can appreciate their gravity). You don't need to be a pilot to do that.

Leadership ability is key and I don't care what anyone says, you can't teach that as much of it is innate and a result of the environment and the way the person has grown up.

By the way, the reason it takes 20+ years to become a fully qualified 'jet' pilot is because it is an extremely complex task that requires layers of knowledge and experience in one discipline, being an aviator. It is similar in many respects to someone becoming a nuclear physicist or a chemist, they usually, unless they're lucky, become very successful at the end of their careers - studying and perfecting complex tasks such as this at the exclusion of anything else does not qualify someone to lead an entire organization.

It doesn't lessen the value of the task or the qualification, it's just a different type of occupation. People need to get over this idea that just because you can be a good pilot you can be a good administrator. That doesn't mean there aren't people who can divert careers and achieve both but it's rare.

[Sunfish]

perspective, we are in furious agreement. pilots don't necessarily make good administrators or managers. what i am saying is that without coal face experience, the odds of Carmody making a successful attempt at reform are near zero.

[Air Ace]

The Law is written and amended by the Parliament.

Theoretically yes, in practice no. Australian aviation legislation and regulation starts with CASA.

He is up against it, as I hear he has already had the "Iron Ring", present iteration, blocking him doing some of the things he wanted/tried to do as "Acting".

If Carmody does not have the authority from the Board and personal strength and leadership to impose his policies and decisions on CASA, he should not be in the job. Not one DAS in CAA or CASA's history (at least since Leroy Keith) has been able to manage, control or at least neuter the "Iron Ring".

If this 2012 Organisational Chart from the CASA web site is correct, Carmody will be at the same level as other senior managers:

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100174/figure_7.gif

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/corporate-governance-4

He has the "Iron Ring" up there at his level? Good luck with that one!

I don't see fifteen years in the Army; Deputy President, Repatriation Commission; COO, Dept of Veteran's Affairs; Deputy Secretary, Dept of Infrastructure and Regional Development; and fluency in Bahasa Indonesian as providing the technical and administrative skills to manage an aviation regulator with CASA's history and reputation.

Another hopeful picks up the career destroying poison chalice.

[cogwheel]

Geez! How out of date is that org chart??

[Checklist Charlie]

Geez! How out of date is that org chart??

Oh I don't know, perhaps it demonstrates how out of date the whole organisation is.

CC

[bluesideoops]

@Aerial, I stated before and again that being a good pilot or engineer doesn't make a good manager nor does not having these backgrounds necessarily make a bad administrator.

However, we are talking about a vastly complex industry that requires a deep understanding of how it works, how is organised, how it is structured etc and it would be better to get someone with a mix of aviation experience and as head of safety someone who has a safety background - how much do you want to bet, he couldn't state the definitions of what a 'hazard' a 'risk' an 'incident' or an 'accident' are or stating the '4 pillars of SMS' etc.

As for this:

One of the best managers I ever worked for had come into the industry as what was in those days called a 'graduate trainee'. He never worked on check in or chucked a bag for example but he knew what those people did and he knew a LOT about regulation of the industry and was respected. He was a decent person and a very good people manager.

In all the cases I have dealt with graduate trainees they have spent a minimum of two years in the business being cycled through the various departments the reason your guy 'knew what those people did' is because he probably did something similar. And by that rationale send Carmody on a two year graduate trainee program then we'll all be happy because as it stands he hasn't done this and in fact hasn't done anything....

As for learning terms, citing MEL and AOG, thats a pretty purile argument as we all know the jargon used in aviation is vast and sometimes related to extremely complex concepts - knowing what a term is, is one thing, understanding it is another! The DOS job shouldn't be a 'learn on the job' post, it should be one where the applicant has a good idea of what is going on.

And c'mon fellas, how many of you, if you were the boss would employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job? (and we are not talking grad/trainee positions we are talking frontline) - anyone who says yes is either mad or lying.

As a safety and risk manager, if I did a 'risk analysis' of appointing this guy to the position he would end up in the 'intolerable' region which is defined as 'unacceptable under any circumstances' and that about sums it up.

[Lead Balloon]

[I]f you were the boss would [you] employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job?And what do you say are the qualifications and experience requirements to do the DAS job?

I'll guarantee there is a yawning gap between your strong opinions of what the requirements should be, compared with what the requirements are in fact.

[bluesideoops]

@lead balloon, I would expect the 'job ad' to be something like this:

Director should have a CV with a professional flight crew licence/engineering licence/ATCO qualification + operational/AMO experience + senior management experience (OM/QM/SMS) + aviation safety experience + recognised safety qualifications.

In my view the guy in such a responsible position should have 15-20 years aviation experience, a management degree, at least 10 years aviation management experience of which a minimum should be in a safety role and they should be safety qualified (preferably to a postgraduate level) and I would recommend experience in safety & quality auditing too.

That's what my 'job advert' would be and anyone who didn't meet all of that criteria would automatically be eliminated from the mix. If the requirements are any less than this IMHO I would say that the regulator/Gov't are not acting accordingly in their responsibilities to the general public, who at the end of the day pick up the bill!

Let me say that these are the 'technical' requirements, I would also expect him to be a good communicator, negotiator, experienced in budgeting and financial management etc etc (most of which you would hope he'd have from senior management positions).

I would also hope there would be significant screening and assessing of the candidates for the position too and a very robust interview process. Again, I am pretty skeptical that the recruitment of the new appointee was an honest and transparent process and I'm not convinced that the 'international search for the best available person' according to the CASA press release truly resulted in the best person being chosen - seems a lot like 'jobs for the boys' to me and that the international search was a 'tick box' exercise to comply with labour regs and on the point ofwhat the requirements should be, compared with what the requirements are in fact well I think the requirements were not set around what the job requires but what would match most closely to the experience of the new DOS. That way no one could say he wasn't experienced or qualified for the role.....except for the whole industry that know otherwise.

[thorn bird]

"Director should have a CV with a professional flight crew licence/engineering licence/ATCO qualification + operational/AMO experience + senior management experience (OM/QM/SMS) + aviation safety experience + recognised safety qualifications."

Those qualifications sound very close to Mike Smiths.

He got knocked back for lack of "Administrative" experience, even though he had been a past deputy DAS, but I don't think that was the real reason.

The "Iron Ring" would never allow a reformer in the job, especially one who perhaps knows where all the skeletons are buried.

Who signed off on the employment of the screaming Skull? some would say the biggest disaster ever to befall an industry, and probably the most expensive.

[Mr Approach]

I'm not sure that the "iron ring" is where we all think it is - apparently there is a select group right at the top of aviation in Australia that meets regularly.

I'm told it comprises the head of the Department (DIRD?), the head of CASA, Airservices, the RAAF and perhaps others (ATSB?). They agree on policy and then direct the policy of their various organisations to make sure it happens. Given their positions, maintenance of the status quo (change is very dangerous and unpredictable - you've all seen Yes Minister!) would be high on the agenda.

The Minister would only want change if something was going wrong, and Australia's accident figures will be evidence that nothing is going wrong. Review committees (Forsyth) are the perfect vehicle for convincing everyone that the Government is doing something. Inevitably they all start their reports with "Australia is the safest place in the World to fly" before recommending lots of administrative, consultative and chair shuffling changes such as those happening to CASA and Airservices.

Perhaps the iron ring is right at the top and those we think are the iron ring are simply obeying orders? After all that is how most organisations work.....

[Lead Balloon]

... I would expect ...

Director should have ...

In my view ...

I would also expect ...

I would also hope ...

I think ... What your expectations, hopes and views as to the qualifications and experience requirements of the DAS position should be are, alas, irrelevant. As predicted, you did not identify the actual selection criterion (singular).

Anyone who's been paying attention for the last couple of decades would know what that selection criterion is.

[AerialPerspective]

perspective, we are in furious agreement. pilots don't necessarily make good administrators or managers. what i am saying is that without coal face experience, the odds of Carmody making a successful attempt at reform are near zero.
I don't disagree Sunfish, I was just making the point about one skill set not being enough.

[AerialPerspective]

@Aerial, I stated before and again that being a good pilot or engineer doesn't make a good manager nor does not having these backgrounds necessarily make a bad administrator.

However, we are talking about a vastly complex industry that requires a deep understanding of how it works, how is organised, how it is structured etc and it would be better to get someone with a mix of aviation experience and as head of safety someone who has a safety background - how much do you want to bet, he couldn't state the definitions of what a 'hazard' a 'risk' an 'incident' or an 'accident' are or stating the '4 pillars of SMS' etc.

As for this:



In all the cases I have dealt with graduate trainees they have spent a minimum of two years in the business being cycled through the various departments the reason your guy 'knew what those people did' is because he probably did something similar. And by that rationale send Carmody on a two year graduate trainee program then we'll all be happy because as it stands he hasn't done this and in fact hasn't done anything....

As for learning terms, citing MEL and AOG, thats a pretty purile argument as we all know the jargon used in aviation is vast and sometimes related to extremely complex concepts - knowing what a term is, is one thing, understanding it is another! The DOS job shouldn't be a 'learn on the job' post, it should be one where the applicant has a good idea of what is going on.

And c'mon fellas, how many of you, if you were the boss would employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job? (and we are not talking grad/trainee positions we are talking frontline) - anyone who says yes is either mad or lying.

As a safety and risk manager, if I did a 'risk analysis' of appointing this guy to the position he would end up in the 'intolerable' region which is defined as 'unacceptable under any circumstances' and that about sums it up.
Bluesideoops, I didn't mention AOG and MEL, someone else put them up as an example of what Carmody might not know and I simply stated that you don't have to be a Pilot or Engineer to understand what they are or what their importance is... just a brain, an open mind, the ability to read and some understanding of legal responsibilities.

I'm not saying that Carmody has any of that, I'm not saying he doesn't need it, I was simply saying he doesn't have to be a Pilot.

As for choosing someone with no experience, it depends on the position being filled and the state the organization is in or the transition it's going through. Any manager who comes from outside and doesn't have the ability to determine who is taking him/her for a fool and who is telling the truth and displaying integrity (and not manipulating with jargon) should not be in the position. There's an art to good management and those with lots of experience in similar industries can sort the wheat from the chaff if they have enough experience and a modicum of judgement.

Of course it is desirable for someone to have some exposure to the industry and yes it is complex but the view is usually from a high level, not the nuts and bolts of what everyone does on a daily basis.

I don't know if this guy will be good or not, time will tell.

I can think of at least one CEO of Qantas that came from outside, had worked in the private sector and the public service at very high levels and we all rolled our eyes but he turned out to be quite probably the best CEO the company had in my time there - he had enough nouse to know right from wrong, he stopped the flight ops department from taking minimum fuel because 'the rules allowed it' which won him praise from Pilots and Engineers but hey, he wasn't a pilot or an engineer.

We all thought the same thing. Maybe this guy appointed to CASA isn't in the same ballpark as the person I'm thinking of but by any objective measure, this particular QF CEO had the ability to absorb the complexity, critical elements but not the day to day detail of the airline and the industry and made good business decisions, saw record profits and just about everyone in the company held him in very high regard and there was almost a revolt when he was maneuvered out by the Board (and no, it wasn't Strong or Dixon or Joyce obviously).

My point is overall, yes there needs to be some understanding or appreciation of the complexity, but people can surprise you and sometimes people you would least expect.

[Sunfish]

Blueside, your comments on the qualities of a successful DAS make sense if the Government actually wanted to reform regulations and foster a growing aviation industry.

Sadly, in my opinion the Government doesn't want that at all. Both sides of parliament consider aviation as unpopular, politically risky to play with and a waste of time. That is why they employed Carmody as I wrote in my post:

Of course I am talking from the perspective of someone who believes "success" for the DAS means a thriving aviation industry in terms of jobs, investment and growth. I think Carmody's appointment indicates that the Government, Infrastructure Department and the Minister define "success" as preventing Aviation from being any embarrassment to the Federal Government or distraction from their other policy pursuits

If I am correct, then the only way to get meaningful reform is to make it less painful for the Government and opposition of the day to support an aviation reform policy then not.

The political pain is most easily generated, as I have said before, by a negative political advertising campaign targeted only at marginal seats for both parties. I assure you that such a {legal} campaign will get the attention of Liberal and labor parties very quickly and a reaction out of all proportion to funds employed, for there is nothing like the threat of losing ones seat to galvanise a politician.

Until this is done, absent an aviation catastrophic accident, the Iron ring will be permitted to do what they like to whoever they like.

We need an aviation action coalition to design a campaign to target labor, liberal and country party marginal seats, and we need it now.

[Lead Balloon]

Almost everyone labours under the misconception that the "iron ring" comprises people. It doesn't.

The "iron ring" is the regulatory and political straightjacket placed on the DAS. And straightjacket is the correct metaphor, because the easiest way to send someone crazy is to make them responsible for tasks over which they have no control or competence to complete.

The people mistaken for the "iron ring" are the small number of senior people who've been lurking in the corridors of the aviation and transport halls of doom in Canberra for decades - never responsible for anything - but always in the background, ready to whisper advice in the ear of whoever happens to be the current resident of the straitjacket. Alas, the advice they whisper is correct. Practically, the DAS has free reign to do .... almost nothing. Things like the 'Directives' issued by Mr Byron and so breathlessly lauded by some in industry were vacuous motherhood statements.

CASA will never finish the regulatory reform program. Because it can't. I use the word "can't" in its correct sense. CASA physically, politically, conceptually - and whatever other word ending in "ally" you want to use - is not capable of finishing the regulatory reform program. (And, in any event, CASA staff have a positive incentive for the regulatory reform program never to end. It's a self-licking ice cream.) The straitjacket forces the DAS to pretend otherwise. To tell the truth would be political suicide.

Mr Carmody's first utterances on CVD and the completion of the regulatory reform program will signal whether he is going to try to loosen the shackles of the straitjacket. If he leaves Avmed to its devices and announces that he hopes that the regulatory reform program will be completed mid-whatever year he wants to pluck out of anywhere, you can safely write off any chance of him changing anything for the better for industry, and focus your energies elsewhere.

[thorn bird]

Lead I totally agree with your and Sunnies take on the situation.
I see no logic in what is happening now, even a self licking ice cream, as you so eloquently put it, melts eventually.
The decline of the industry is so apparent its sickening, and it makes no sense to continue along the same path, its self defeating.

When its cheaper to ferry a medium sized corporate jet all the way to the US for a major maintenance check it becomes absurd.
Major international airlines are pulling their flying training out of Australia to NZ or Canada, its obvious where the industry is heading and why, but they still persist.

At what point will someone in Authority finally step up and say enough with this experiment.
Then again, look at the debacle our energy industry has become, that threatens to consign the whole of Australia to absolute third world status.

I really despair for the future my grandchildren will face.

[Sunfish]

I disagree with Lead Balloon about the nature of "The Iron Ring" = it isn't the regulations and the Act at all, still less one or Two evil masterminds. It is the Fifty Four managers I counted on that organisation chart that are your problem.

Even with the best will in the world, each one of them will have a thirty page justification at to why their job needs to exist, why their powers should be increased, why they are critical to success, what sections of the Aviation Act and enabling legislation makes their role necessary, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not one of these managers is in favour of changing the status quo as it affects them.

The reason I can say that with confidence is because its simple organisational behaviour - where you stand is where you sit. Everybody is in favour of the other guy changing, but me? My role? No way!

What this means in practice is that there is no hope that CASA will gradually change to benefit the industry - ever. What you will see of course is the other sort of change - parasitic administrative growth as the organisation continues to fatten itself at the expense of the host, for example, I will bet my left one that we now have an office of Drone regulation and several fully staffed projects and inter departmental committees studying this subject.

In such an environment gradual change is impossible, even for relatively agile private corporations without that extra layer of rules and regulations that clothe CASA. Carmody would know this, but he still accepted the DAS job. That means he is another 'safe pair of hands".

From my corporate experience, you cannot change CASA, the only solution is to break it up and start again. This requires either a traumatic aviation disaster or a political trauma severe enough for the Government to get off its fat arse.

The actual mechanics of a break up and restructure of CASA are easily managed by the Department of PM & C. That requires the creation of a small first class team tasked with rewriting the Act and adopting the FAA regulations as a template. Any tendency to develop a "unique Australian system" must be avoided or we will end up with another unworkable monstrosity.

Once a new Act and regulations are produced and legislated, it is relatively simple to create the two new successors - separating regulation and enforcement, developing a transition plan and going through a restaffing exercise and hopefully separating wheat from chaff in the process.

[Lead Balloon]

But Sunny, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of names in that organisation chart that are still part of the organisation. Almost all of the others have moved on for reasons of sanity, or have been moved on for reasons of political expediency.

I'd agree with you if most of the names in that organisation chart were still in the organisation, standing their ground and fighting to increase the size of their empires. But they aren't.

[Sunfish]

Then who are filling those roles Balloon? One of the problems for large organisations is the potential to promote narcissists. If good people are "moving on" and their roles are picked up by narcissists, then CASA is doomed.

[Vag277]

See here for the most recent organisation chart https://www.casa.gov.au/files/casaorgstructurepng
and here for info on the current executive group
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/ar1516_part3.pdf?v=1476938214

At least pontificate on reality, not the past!

[Sunfish]

Vag277, I see you have fallen for the old "reorganisation = change" trick. It was predicted by myself and others after the release of the Forsyth review report that CASA would respond by reorganising.

My quick scan of the before and after org charts shows indicates that the number of functional entities in CASA has increased from about 14 to 24. I haven't done a comparison of staff numbers yet.

[LeadSled]

Fifty Four managers I counted on that organisation chart that are your problem.

Even with the best will in the world, each one of them will have a thirty page justification at to why their job needs to exist, why their powers should be increased, why they are critical to success, what sections of the Aviation Act and enabling legislation makes their role necessary, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not one of these managers is in favour of changing the status quo as it affects them. Lead Balloon,
With respect, Sunny is on to the structure of the "iron ring", the custodians of the CASA Kultcha, the "true believers" that they, and only they, can "manage" air safety in Australia ---- bathed in the "mystique of air safety".

What you very accurately describe is “the other big problem”.

Quite some time ago, I had a very interesting few hours with a very senior (Labor) staffer discussing what was a clearly understood problem, those hours were spent discussing whether any reform was possible , without “blowing the place up” (probably not a description you would use in the present day and age). The conclusion was that what frightened his boss was how you handled the “day to day” of CASA while you rebuilt the whole place from the ground up.

John Anderson, as Minister, came to the same conclusion, that only wholesale change would work, but he got “blown up” instead, when his plans for radical change were blocked stone cold by PM&C.

It is pretty clear that neither side of politics has any real interest in taking on "air safety", short of a catastrophe of some kind that can be sheeted home to CASA.

The not so slow demise of Australian aviation is the result of the timidity of the industry and the politicians, to tackle a (let's be honest) obvious problem.

Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

You're confusing cause for effect. What you call the 'iron ring' is caused by - is the product of - an abdication of political responsibility for aviation regulation.

Your 'iron ring' didn't force successive ministers to abdicate all practical responsibility for aviation regulation to CASA. It was a deliberate choice of successive ministers. The 'iron ring' merely seized upon the opportunity presented by the stultifying mediocrities that have presumed the title "government" over the last couple of decades. Someone has to be the last bastion between the innocent public and aviation industry anarchy.

The "industry" being "timid" is not the problem. The problem is that most of the "industry" votes for the same side: The Laborials.

[Lookleft]

Do you two want to sort out whether PM&C can/cannot fix CASA?

Sunfish wrote:

The actual mechanics of a break up and restructure of CASA are easily managed by the Department of PM & C. That requires the creation of a small first class team tasked with rewriting the Act and adopting the FAA regulations as a template. Any tendency to develop a "unique Australian system" must be avoided or we will end up with another unworkable monstrosity.

Leadsled wrote:

John Anderson, as Minister, came to the same conclusion, that only wholesale change would work, but he got “blown up” instead, when his plans for radical change were blocked stone cold by PM&C

[Sunfish]

Lookleft, PM&C have the capability to fix the CASA mess, most probably by rewriting the Act, adopting an FAA template, terminating CASA and making people reapply for positions in two new organisations.

However as leadsled wrote, the Government first needs to authorise such a project - which they won't do unless forced by a catastrophic accident or serious well thought out pressure applied by GA industry (negative political advertising in marginal seats).

Note also that Qantas, Virgin, etc. don't care about CASA. The airlines have too much political pull and CASA hasn't had the technical capacity to regulate the major airlines since at least as long ago as my time - 1976.

I confirmed that with a big airline 'driver" a few months ago. CASA asks to see something about something e.g. iPads in cockpit, the airline just tells CASA technical BS that they don't understand and they go away again for another two years.

CASA is more at home prosecuting little fish like Gyrocopter and Jabiru pilots.

[Lookleft]

Have another look Sunfish. Leadsled stated that the minister did go ahead and try and restructure CASA but his plans for radical change were blocked stone cold by PM&C. which contradicts what you just said!:ugh:

CASA still has the ability to ground Tiger and to deny the 737 on its AOC until they could prove to its satisfaction that it was ready. I'm talking present day not when Malcolm Fraser was PM.

[Oldmanemu]

Agree with the sentiment but the Act rewrite (or not) is controlled by Dept of Infrastructure, not PM&C.

[Sunfish]

Lookleft, PM & C trumps the Minister every time. It would need a Cabinet decision to go after CASA, not just the Minister.

As for Tiger, well of course CASA can make Tiger wait for its AOC, but that is all it can do unless their is a major public failure it cannot ignore.

[Lookleft]

You would have been very good as a public servant Sunfish. Using an ATC phrase to put it another way "Clear to backtrack.":ok:

[Captain Sherm]

My dear Winston!

You can't possibly appoint Lord Beaverbrook as Minister for Aircraft Production !!!! Young Sunfish (my fag at Winchester don't you know ) tells me Max isn't an RAF Pilot. He's a bally newspaper man. Even worse.....a Canadian!!! Gosh. What would he possibly know about aircraft?

Fast forward to 2017. Captain Sherm and the Shermettes all speak fluent German. Still......thanks young Sunfish

[tail wheel]

Some of us have been around aviation long enough to remember the forerunner of the "Iron Ring", which was the "Group Captain's Club" in DCA.

Same old boys club, same philosophy, same agenda, mostly newer Members!

[Sunfish]

My dear Winston!

You can't possibly appoint Lord Beaverbrook as Minister for Aircraft Production !!!! Young Sunfish (my fag at Winchester don't you know ) tells me Max isn't an RAF Pilot. He's a bally newspaper man. Even worse.....a Canadian!!! Gosh. What would he possibly know about aircraft?

Fast forward to 2017. Captain Sherm and the Shermettes all speak fluent German. Still......thanks young Sunfish

Que? Beaverbrook is just the sort of "crash through or crash" leader who could fix the CASA problem, making himself unpopular in the process. He would be the exact reverse of the "safe pair of hands" we now have in my opinion.

[john_tullamarine]

My dear Winston!

Some of us have been around aviation long enough to remember

.. however, one might opine that Max's son might have fitted the second quote's necessaries ..

[Beechjet]

Several references to the 'Iron Ring' in this thread.

I'm lost - who or what is the 'Iron Ring'?

[tail wheel]

Beechjet

It is those Dick was referring to here:

"That's the way the system works. They think: "We are powerful and we are totally unaccountable. "' DICK SMITH, August 1998.

You will need to ask around. :oh:

[fdr]

Sherm, Lord Beaverbrook wasn't doing the much harder task of managing a program dunnunda, he only had to deal with the Germans.

A competent manager would have access to sufficient resources to give specialist advice if and when needed. Keeping pilots in cockpits seems a better use of talent.

Heck, next someone would say that Trump is not fit for the office of POTUS as he had bone spurs! Golly.

[FAR CU]

LeadSled #45 -

It is pretty clear that neither side of politics has any real interest in taking on "air safety", short of a catastrophe of some kind that can be sheeted home to CASA.

The not so slow demise of Australian aviation is the result of the timidity of the industry and the politicians, to tackle a (let's be honest) obvious problem.


What would be the chances of an effective quorum getting up, representative, gathered from across all sectors of the industry, empowered to investigate any and every relevant aspect of political and bureaucratic governance, primarily so as to explain and justify necessary reforms?

[Capn Bloggs]

What would be the chances of an effective quorum getting up, representative, gathered from across all sectors of the industry,
I'll be in it. I want Dick on my left and Leddie on my right! :}

[FAR CU]

Well, that's not going to happen. Each section or branch of the industry might nominate who they think best to represent them on a well thought out 'think-tank'. Unless a nominee has a demonstrable background, showing in the main, great good sense without bias and without any political allegiance, he or she should not be in the running.

[tail wheel]

What would be the chances of an effective quorum.....

Statistically, about one in a million. Or less.

Bye Bye Barnaby, thanks for nothing. Who is the next incompetent to step up to Minister for Transport's job?

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Do we actually need a minister for aviation ?, (or even any ministers ?)
It seems to me that most of them are simple figureheads who have effall actual knowledge of, or experience in, their portfolios and policy is determined by lobbyists and the squeaky-wheel crowds.

A pox on all of them.

[Dick Smith]

I would be there with you Bloggs. At least you have proven that you have a long term love for Aviation.

So often people have been placed in high paying positions and the day they finish is the day they disappear from Aviation.

I despair at the moment. I wonder if the new minister will take two or three years to come up to speed and then move on? All very sad for our once viable GA industry.

[Capn Bloggs]

Now I've done it... :{ :)