CASA Links Serious Incidents to Pilot Attitude

[junior.VH-LFA]

CASA Links Serious Incidents to Pilot Attitude (http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-links-serious-incidents-to-pilot-attitude?utm_source=Direct&fbclid=IwAR3LUv7nJDk5O6VAvvQ9R-RJMVZIu3YKyx9_u5Xu10yzvh59zE10NHuocOU)

"We have had pilots who were constantly trying to get around the rules to suit themselves. They criticise CASA (and others) at every turn and they end up killing themselves and others. I could (but I won’t) cite in detail several tragic examples in the last two years or so involving pilots with a history of poor judgement, a history of ignoring regulation or skirting around it, a history of Facebook bluster or criticism of the regulator ... thinking they can operate above the rules, that they know better or they are bullet proof.
Read more at CASA links Serious Incidents to Pilot Attitude - Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-links-serious-incidents-to-pilot-attitude?utm_source=Direct&fbclid=IwAR3LUv7nJDk5O6VAvvQ9R-RJMVZIu3YKyx9_u5Xu10yzvh59zE10NHuocOU#tDi3VuwVFagTZKMi.99)

I'm not really anti CASA or anything by any means but this was an interesting thing to go on the record as saying.

[Lead Balloon]

Mr Carmody’s comments are, in my view, merely an admission of the abject failure of CASA to make any positive difference.

The people with a “history of poor judgement” to which Mr Carmody referred evidently continued to operate in breach of rules the substance of which have been in place since before CASA was ever created. So how do those rules and Mr Carmody’s hand-wringing contribute to safety?

For example, the prohibition on VFR pilots operating in IMC has been around forever. What has CASA done, differently, to deal with the non-compliance with that rule, other than Mr Carmody’s ‘tut tutting’?

Although the Australian flying public and everyone in aviation are better off for the fact that little-to-nothing that CASA does has any causal connection with safety, it would be better if the millions spent had some causally positive outcome for safety.

[Seabreeze]

Re; Critics of CASA end up killing themselves........

I pose the following serious question to Mr Carmody:

Mr Carmody, are your comments a summary of an objective study of fatal accidents?

if so please show us your methodology, the data, and your analysis.
If you cannot show such, then surely we can only conclude that your comments are a personal opinion, unsupported by any factual data, (and that you are making a political statement of the type made famous recently by Mr Trump!)

Steve Hitchen : Steve, perhaps you could follow up? Looking forward to Mr Carmody's response.

Seabreeze

[Sunfish]

I criticize CASA based on the findings of the Forsyth Senate review. Does Carmody mean that ANY criticism of the regulator reduces safety?

To put that another way, does destroying Glen Buckley’s business INCREASE safety?

[Lookleft]

Mr Carmody’s comments are, in my view, merely an admission of the abject failure of CASA to make any positive difference.

That is a reasonable conclusion to make based on his own statement. It also suggests that industry engagement with CASA is the industries problem.

[Squawk7700]

Re; Critics of CASA end up killing themselves........

I pose the following serious question to Mr Carmody:

Mr Carmody, are your comments a summary of an objective study of fatal accidents?

if so please show us your methodology, the data, and your analysis.
If you cannot show such, then surely we can only conclude that your comments are a personal opinion, unsupported by any factual data, (and that you are making a political statement of the type made famous recently by Mr Trump!)



Seabreeze

Read the story again

"Some of my own research is starting to indicate to me that it is often those who work hardest at pushing back against the regulator, are often the same ones who end up having serious accidents or incidents in flight," he said.
RJMVZIu3YKyx9_u5Xu10yzvh59zE10NHuocOU#i4JCUG2QJhKPEFii.99

[The name is Porter]

Wow, just wow...............

Investigation, methodology, analysis, data? Your qualification?

I have names, but I won't reveal them............go on Mr Carmody. Let us, the GA industry dare you to reveal the names of your 'research'. That would get REAL interesting. Is your house in your wife's name? How long ago was it transferred?

How to foster trust toward industry, any of you who dare speak up against the monolith, I've got personal research that says you'll crash. So don't speak up, there's an implied threat that we'll nail you in any number of non legal ways.

Yet another progressive step in industry harmony. Regulator and Industry, arm in arm.

ATSB can't call it pilot error so I will.

Classy Carmody, real classy.

[The name is Porter]

I could (but I won’t) cite in detail several tragic examples in the last two years or so involving pilots with a history of poor judgement, a history of ignoring regulation or skirting around it, a history of Facebook bluster or criticism of the regulator ... thinking they can operate above the rules, that they know better or they are bullet proof.

You're the regulator, what action did you take about this?

[Dexta]

It sounds a bit like the God Father, Shane “Big Tony” Carmody “If a you a criticise a me, you are a gonna have an accident”.

[megan]

why did/would [the] pilot knowingly fly into IMC Because it was the company expectation
why was the pilot flying after last light See above
why did the pilot have passengers on board when they shouldn’t have See above
why was the pilot engaged in manoeuvres in aircraft that they weren't licenced, skilled or qualified to undertake? See above

CASA was advised of the shortcomings and after not hearing anything for a month the person in question rang the person to whom the email was sent to be informed "send it to XXXX but don't tell them you had sent it to me". Notably XXXX to whom it was sent retired for reasons unknown some time following receipt. Coincidence? The REPCON program started a short time following receipt. Coincidence? But nothing changed at the operator. Still waiting for an answer to the edict that we may not fly when the temp is above 40°C.

[aroa]

Well he would say that wouldnt he !.
Now as ceo, he caught the CAsA BS pathogen some years before, infected by Smart Alec, Gibson and others.
As a long term CAsA critic ( and will continue) and made criminal by NON safety issue prosecutions, I can assure you that the embuggerance was aided and abetted by those above and more, with serious criminality, perverting the course of justice, breaches of their code, and a complete lack of ethics, honesty and regard for the PCSC Act..
Being an 'independent agency' for its inhabitants is a winner !
Due process and natural justice...both not in the CAsA lexicon.

CAsA is the Naked(city) Castle Keep/Drawbridge up.. there a a thousand horror stories out there that need airing to show the nation what a disgusting outfit CAsA really is.

The Australian today headlines the looney bureaucrazies in Oz , and their outrageous authoritarian approach to the citizen.
And on page 41...in the Sport section, but relevant to Aviation..." The great God of safety has officially gone mad" (WE know!!)
'we are a country dedicated to protecting people from non existent risks.
Everything one does in life has 'risks', but the individual will do as they see fit to minimise those risks. Or not.

Now that Ive made this criticism, I,'m 7 times more likely to kill myself and others

Please do tell, Mr Carmody, where and who did you get your "research" material from.?

[D B Cooper]

Since we now have “proof” that criticism of the regulator is an indication that a plane crash involving fatalities is an imminent certainty, then CASA is justified in taking “safety action”, in whatever form it decides, against those who are perceived as insubordinate.

To ensure transparency, the “safety action” must be in accordance with private research carried out by whichever individual CASA Officer is involved.

[BigPapi]

Crikey, imagine a CASA critic performing an Angel Flight!

Now THAT sounds dangerous!

[j3pipercub]

I could but I won’t. Whatever champ.

Seems like Mr Carmody is under significant pressure to make such a stupid, undefendable statement like that.

j3

[mates rates]

Every week or so I get an email from CAsA asking me to pay money for the Safety Digest.So you have your answer right there!!

[Squawk7700]

Perhaps if he had quoted the examples, we’d just agree and move on. What he has said is a personal observation and not at all unbelievable.

I’m coming across some of this “kind” where they refuse to install weather cameras, concerned that they will be incriminated by the images. If they followed the rules, they wouldn’t need to worry. It’s not fair on those that will benefit from them.

[aroa]

If he feels pressured to make such stupid and indefensable comments...then he should resign and move on. ( we wish !)
The bit that got me was the assembled multitude , applause, and 'well received'
Surely they are not all THAT dumb !! Or weren't they really listening .?

[Sunfish]

Perhaps if he had quoted the examples, we’d just agree and move on. What he has said is a personal observation and not at all unbelievable.

I’m coming across some of this “kind” where they refuse to install weather cameras, concerned that they will be incriminated by the images. If they followed the rules, they wouldn’t need to worry. It’s not fair on those that will benefit from them.

‘How could they be incriminated?

[Squawk7700]

‘How could they be incriminated?


It’s not hard to work out Sunfish dear chap.

Maybe if they took off into fog on a charter perhaps? NVFR charter in a single maybe ?

[Horatio Leafblower]

The bit that got me was the assembled multitude , applause, and 'well received'
Surely they are not all THAT dumb !!

It has been suggested to me that the RAAA work on the principle that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you look at the level of input they have with CASA compared to, say, AOPA, there is some evidence to support the theory.

Certainly the Part 135 and CAO48.1 rules have changed shape considerably as a direct result of constructive and cooperative RAAA spadework.

All that said, I am not a member of RAAA and I think Carmody's comments were well off the mark. He is essentially saying (as someone points out above) that criticising CASA in an online forum is prima facie evidence of a bad attitude to flight safety and therefore a justification for audit or other regulatory action. If he's prepared to say it in public, and have it reported in the press, presumably he is prepared to stand up before the Minister or in Senate Estimates and say it again.

....please note my friends say they sign an attendance sheet at the RAAA conference and they didn't sign our agreement to his statement!

[Lead Balloon]

Mmmm... but he is probably correct.

He doesn’t say all accidents. And he doesn’t say all critics.

But he does say that some accidents involve some past critics.

I’d be more amazed if he was wrong.
It always seems to be the new posters. Probably just correlation. Which raises the question...

So are you or Mr Carmody suggesting there’s a causal link between the two?