CASA issues $108,000 in administrative fines in the year 2017/2018

[Sandy Reith]

It appears in the year before (2016/2017) the total fines were $127,000 so it looks as if the administrative fines are coming down.

It is amazing this is kept such a secret.

Does anyone have any idea of what the fines are for? It appears a private pilot went about 5 hours over time on a maintenance release and was issued with a fine. It would seem sensible if we were to know where CASA is concentrating it’s effort in this space. But then appealing to sensibility might be too optimistic so how about CASA’s advertised transparency?

[no_one]

It appears in the year before (2016/2017) the total fines were $127,000 so it looks as if the administrative fines are coming down.

It is amazing this is kept such a secret.

Does anyone have any idea of what the fines are for? It appears a private pilot went about 5 hours over time on a maintenance release and was issued with a fine. It would seem sensible if we were to know where CASA is concentrating it’s effort in this space. But then appealing to sensibility might be too optimistic so how about CASA’s advertised transparency?

I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to compare to the fines issued by the FAA.

With 22 times the number of pilots and their skies being a lot safer the FAA must be raking in the cash... /sarcasm

[Lead Balloon]

It would also be interesting to see how many were issued to Qantas and other airlines.

Last I heard is that and Qantas has never been issued with an infringement notice. Truly amazing if Qantas has never committed a strict liability offence under the civil aviation rules. I realise that the stock ‘spin’ is that ‘there was no risk to passenger safety’, but that’s just spin (unless there is no causal nexus between breaching a rule and safety).

[Sandy Reith]

Comforting to hear that apparently Qantas is so unblemished and has avoided the wrath and vengeance of The Almighty Authority. Perhaps Qantas runs a department devoted to expunging the tendency to err, or could it be that automation has taken over more completely than was realised. Interesting information, thank you LB.

Also following No One statsistics and information from the UK, Canada and NZ could be compared.

[Progressive]

I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to compare to the fines issued by the FAA.

With 22 times the number of pilots and their skies being a lot safer the FAA must be raking in the cash... /sarcasm

Between $400, 000 and 1.5 million PER QUARTER in 2017 according to this:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/enforcement/reports/

Plus numerous suspensions. Be careful what you wish for.

[Sandy Reith]

Between $400, 000 and 1.5 million PER QUARTER in 2017 according to this:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/enforcement/reports/

Plus numerous suspensions. Be careful what you wish for.
Good info, time to get out the calculator? Browsing their statistics its remarkable that approaching half of the number of infringements are titled ‘drug testing’. The utter failure of criminalising drugs is showing here, I hope we don’t have anything like that problem embedded in our aviation industry.
CASA might look at the presentation which would give us all a better appreciation where our dollars are spent in compliance and prosecution.

[Sandy Reith]

Some USA history of fines to their airlines.

In 2017 there were 9 fines totalling US$ 3,019,625, including a $2.8m fine for one operator. From 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017, each of the 10 major airlines were subject to at least one fine, some had multiple fines. Two of the three regional carriers had been fined and three of the four freight operators had been subject to one or more fines. Fines to individual operators during the period were generally in the US$20,000 to US$100,000 range but in a number of cases were much higher.

It is really extraordinary that Qantas and Virgin never, ever appear to break the legislative requirements. We might ask why? Obviously our Airlines do have good records and perhaps have developed strong means of compliance. In fairness to them it could be that we don't have the depth in CASA to undertake the analysis and surveillance in our operating environment in the same way that occurs in the USA. It might be that there is some degree of the US operators testing the system also, although one would imagine that their insurers would have a strong input. Of course Ansett was forced out in one fell swoop, I don"t recall if there were a number of specified or detailed charges, I don't think they paid fines but might stand corrected on that issue.

Out of this one factor is clear, we have no equivalent or similar regulatory reporting or transparent and detailed records which could be expected from our regulator, a regulator costing upwards of $200 million per annum. We probably should have, the old bureaucratic habit of keeping quiet and shelving anything that might have an embarrassing element won't play well in the information age. Otherwise one can't help wondering if the small General Aviation operator is the easy prey, leaving the big boys alone with CASA fearing to be shown up as incompetent and not worth that $200 million pa.

[LeadSled]

Otherwise one can't help wondering if the small General Aviation operator is the easy prey, leaving the big boys alone with CASA fearing to be shown up as incompetent and not worth that $200 million pa.
Sandy,
The answer is quite simple and straightforward ---- the airlines have very impressive legal backup, are prepared to use it, and you will never find then in the AAT.
You will only ever find a QANTAS in a real court, where the rules of evidence apply, and hearsay and innuendo are inadmissible.
You are quite correct, the little guy is easy prey, and the CASA spin ensures that "the public" "know" CASA is protecting them from "aviation".
After all, SAFETY IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY!!
Tootle pip!!

PS: Their direct political access doesn't do them any harm, either.

[Checklist Charlie]

Whilst our dear regulator would like us to believe they are a (knowledge of) safety organisation they are after all a regulator first and foremost.
Perhaps CAsA could advise us of the positive safety enhancements achieved by the issue and collection of 'administrative fines'.
Am I correct in regarding administrative fines as being for some kind of administrative (paperwork) failure or oversight, like a spelling mistake etc?
If that be the case then I am glad the public has such diligent and capable people in CAsA looking after the publics air safety.
If not then unfortunately CAsA are still a bunch of muppets creating solutions and then going looking for a problem.

CC

[LeadSled]

Am I correct in regarding administrative fines as being for some kind of administrative (paperwork) failure or oversight, like a spelling mistake etc?
CC
CC,
Sadly, you are not correct, the quantum of an Administrative Fine is one fifth of the maximum fine a court can impose for a particular offense, but you avoid the cost and inconvenience of going to court, even if you win the case---- a powerful incentive to effectively plead guilty and close the file, even if you genuinely believe you have committed no offense.

One of the most galling, to my mind, is allegations of violation of controlled airspace, based on radar observations and contestable aircraft identification, for incursions that are less than the the accuracy of the ATC radar.

A close second is offense "discovered" in a ramp check, genuinely "innocent" paperwork offense like log book entries are a happy hunting ground ---- a reason why advertised "fly-ins" have very much lost favour, all they do is present concentrated "targets" for "enforcement". Remember the dramatic drop in visiting aircraft at NatFly at Narromine, as soon as CASA started turning up mob-handed, likewise at the Avalon Airshow "Avalon East" strip.

Tootle pip!!

[Checklist Charlie]

Thank you for the clarification Leady.
I was issued with an "administrative fine" for arguing against and refusing to place a "Remove Before Flight" label on the INSIDE of the full canopy cover of my aircraft.
It apparently mattered for nothing that I had to remove, fold and stow the canopy cover before I could open the canopy and then get into the aircraft let alone fly the thing.
Pigheadiness by the AWI that was appropriately dealt with from further up the food chain.

CC

[Dick Smith]

Can we get a few more examples of these secret fines. How much has been paid and what for

Is it true the powerful airlines have never been fined even one dollar in Australia?

Is is this a corrupt system or is there another explanation?

[Vref+5]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x366/cc6fa51a_0b3d_426d_a4fd_47196311f23b_b2af5de9567d2d26f0af286 c5c8ed6a169c6f3ca.jpeg

CASA inspectors act after receiving a tip off about a CPL student flying an aircraft with an unserviceable Nav light:

[Rated De]

Comforting to hear that apparently Qantas is so unblemished and has avoided the wrath and vengeance of The Almighty Authority. Perhaps Qantas runs a department devoted to expunging the tendency to err, or could it be that automation has taken over more completely than was realised. Interesting information, thank you LB.

Also following No One statsistics and information from the UK, Canada and NZ could be compared.

Called Chairman's Lounge, this department uses soft corruption

[Derfred]

Whilst I’m not suggesting that all CASA fines or actions benefit safety, I suspect the reality that CASA faces is that the major airlines are not killing people, whilst smaller operators are.

How would placing small administrative fines on airlines change that statistic?

Don’t believe for one second that major airlines operate with impunity from CASA. But they have so much at stake that they need to go above and beyond every day to satisfy their regular CASA inspections and audits, not to mention the cost of a fatality. This costs a lot of money and resources, and with a few exceptions in recent years, they devote that money and resources. That achieves the outcome.

If small operators would stop killing people (or themselves), then CASA could relax.

[Sandy Reith]

[QUOTE=Derfred;10341203]
Don’t believe for one second that major airlines operate with impunity from CASA.

If small operators would stop killing people (or themselves), then CASA could relax.
[/QUOTE
Well Der Fred, why should not “belief” be factual knowledge? It beggars belief that in, say, the last twenty years there’s been no cause for fines or administrative action against our major airlines. Legal actions that would be public knowledge.

As for the “killing people” argument, this is an uncalled for slur on thousands of your fellow Australians making a living by serving their customers. And doing so under the worst aviation adminstration and a rule set everchanging and still not complete after thirty years. I’m sure you don’t consider yourself out there to “kill people” every time you drive on the roads, in principle just the same.

As for CASA “relaxing”, many in GA would consider feather beds all around right now when compared to your fellow Aussies trying to make a living in work that is obviously a type of vocation not familiar to many of the 450,000 population of Can’tberra & Queanbeyan. A population on average salaries 40% higher than the rest of the country, according to government figures.

[Sandy Reith]

[QUOTE=Derfred;10341203]
Don’t believe for one second that major airlines operate with impunity from CASA.

If small operators would stop killing people (or themselves), then CASA could relax.
[/QUOTE
Well Der Fred, why should not “belief” be factual knowledge? It beggars belief that in, say, the last twenty years there’s been no cause for fines or administrative action against our major airlines. Legal actions that would be public knowledge.

As for the “killing people” argument, this is an uncalled for slur on thousands of your fellow Australians making a living by serving their customers. And doing so under the worst aviation adminstration and a rule set everchanging and still not complete after thirty years. I’m sure you don’t consider yourself out there to “kill people” every time you drive on the roads, in principle just the same.

As for CASA “relaxing”, many in GA would consider feather beds all around right now when compared to your fellow Aussies trying to make a living in work that is obviously a type of vocation not familiar to many of the 450,000 population of Can’tberra & Queanbeyan. A population on average salaries 40% higher than the rest of the country, according to government figures.

[LeadSled]

Thank you for the clarification Leady.
I was issued with an "administrative fine" for arguing against and refusing to place a "Remove Before Flight" label on the INSIDE of the full canopy cover of my aircraft.
It apparently mattered for nothing that I had to remove, fold and stow the canopy cover before I could open the canopy and then get into the aircraft let alone fly the thing.
Pigheadiness by the AWI that was appropriately dealt with from further up the food chain.
CC

CCharlie,
Of equally astounding positive contribution to air safety by eliminating the criminal elements in aviation were all the grounding notices and fines, some time ago, for having rego. letters that did not comply with the "regulations".

Potential fatality producing non-compliances included letterer that did not have a complying height the width ratio, or in the case of some small Cessna's, the rego letters were not "vertical", but sloped in style to match the swept fin. Likewise, shadow multi-coloured lettering is a severe threat to air safety. One helo. operator complained that none of his machines had a surface big enough to fit "regulation" size letters.

It was claimed, at the time, by the "relevant" AWI, that the rego. letters on many Qantas aircraft "failed" the proportion test, the height to width of the letters, but I was never able to confirm that allegation.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Of course, in each case, the cost of repainting was substantial, equal to or more than the fines, but " Safety Is Our First Priority".

[Checklist Charlie]

I clearly remember the airline I worked for having to repaint the registration letters on the aircraft fuselage because those same letters painted on the engine cowls (DC9 & B727) were deemed not be a "structure". The safety benefit was immeasurable (literally).

CC

[aroa]

CAsA will only be totally relaxed about "safety" when there is NO GA, (they are working strenuously on that) ergo..NO accidents.
To show how idiotic this Looney place is, there is a strict liability offence for incomplete lines in yr log book..$5000/10K ?
Has that ever bought down an aircraft ..?.
Not that long ago CAsA made song and dance how they were going to crack down on those who smoke in airliner toilets.
Now that HAS caused a crash and fatalities due to an uncontainable fire, and other serious events.
.Fine was to be increased to $800. !!
Yep !!...'Safety is our first priority'
Of course by the time the international passenger gets the paperwork, they may probably not even still in the country