Accountability and Audit Trails

[gunshy67]

How is it that a CEO is not responsible for the total operation of his company..............and he is deemed acceptable, or otherwise, by CASA.

Similarly, why has CASA to right to interview a Chief Pilot, therefore, becoming a recruiting filter for the appointment. Why is it not a company responsibility, with accountability, alone?

It is a flawed managment practice to have a Chief Pilot (or anybody) reporting to two seniors - one a company one and one in CASA. The CASA point (normally an FOI making the decsion or recomendation) is invariably less experineved or unqualified in management!

The CEO and/or owner under all other legislation is reponsible for the running of the company and he/she should be the reporting point for the regulator....should that not be?

Consider the outcry if the Taxation Commisioner had the right to veto Chief Financial Officers' of a company prior to appointment

Does the Polcie Commsioner have interviewed the Security Managers of a company prior to appoinment.

Does the Road Transport Authority interview the Operartion Manager of a bus company.

Isn't it time that CASA regulate from the top down by real non-academic surveillance (get out there) and not cause conflicts within a company between Chief Pilot's/Maintenance controllers and their company seniors by regulating from the middle down?

And as for an operation suddenly becoming unsafe because a Chief Pilot leaves or is absent for a time (a short time) ...........why is it so?

The whole arrangement is flawed and guaranteed to cause continuing conflict in the indsutry and contempt for the regulator using this machinery of abuse.




total

[Mainframe]

A Chief Pilot is effectively a Delegate of CASA. The very nature of the position means that a CP often walks a tightrope, with CASA and safety on one side and the operator (needing a return on the investment) on the other side.

A CP will invariably always lean to the CASA side, even though they don't pay him, the operator does.

Effectively the CP is the licencee of the business, similar to say a publican or a real estate principal (poor parallels but all approved by government to uphold certain laws).

Until recently, the CP was totally responsible for the safety and compliance of an Air Operator. This has changed fortunately to the situation now where both the CP and the directors have joint responsibility and liability. Under the old system, an operator could attempt to cause dodgy things to happen, and if caught, the CP, not the operator, faced the magistrate.

I guess the possibility of a conflict of interest could arise if the owner of an aviation business was also the chief pilot. The law does make provision for an owner operator being CP, based on factors such as the number of aircraft etc. refer CAO 82.

There are many facets to the role of CP, pilot recruitment, check and training, maintenance issues etc that a non aviator may not have the experience or qualifications to adequately perform the role.

I guess from the regulator's point of view the rules allow them tol interface with a known quantity. And it's not the only industry where a regulator approves the appointment of a nominated person.

[gunshy67]

Hi Mainframe

"A Chief Pilot is effectively a Delegate of CASA. The very nature of the position means that a CP often walks a tightrope, with CASA and safety on one side and the operator (needing a return on the investment) on the other side. "

That's the very problem. The CP can still be a delegate but the reporting point should not be a dual one. The CE/owner is ultimately responsible and the CP/Maintenance Controller would not have a tightrope to walk on if he/she reported to the one point. CASA's role is not diminished providing surveilance of standards is applied.

"A CP will invariably always lean to the CASA side, even though they don't pay him, the operator does."

Again where is the company loyalty. I see very often the CP going first to CASA in an effort use CASA as baseball bat to action an agenda of the CP.....often a personal one.

"Effectively the CP is the licencee of the business, similar to say a publican or a real estate principal (poor parallels but all approved by government to uphold certain laws). "

Yet again the CP does not have his house or overdraft on the line. And you are correct he is a defacto licencee with no fianl accoutability for the business.

"Until recently, the CP was totally responsible for the safety and compliance of an Air Operator. This has changed fortunately to the situation now where both the CP and the directors have joint responsibility and liability."

Correct so why not have the CP apointed by the Directors. They have the responsibility and accountability.And the CP would only have one reporting point.......no conflicts and he/she still has access to the CASA.

"There are many facets to the role of CP, pilot recruitment, check and training, maintenance issues etc that a non aviator may not have the experience or qualifications to adequately perform the role."

Correct. But the Owner/CEO gathers around him people like Human Resource Managers or Ops Managers/Flight Standards Managers, Chief Pilots to advise and assist. Chief Pilots' are technical managers and in the audit trail and line of responsibility should they not report to their boss?

"I guess from the regulator's point of view the rules allow them to interface with a known quantity. And it's not the only industry where a regulator approves the appointment of a nominated person."

The Regulator still has all the interface it requires. I have personally see the conflicts of interest and actual job descriptions showing CPs' report to CASA first and then the managment. That is, and has been, a recipe for division, conflict and a continuance of a defacto dictatorship.

Finally, I do not know another industry where the Regulator has final say as to whom is appointed to a particular position. Can you see Government interfering with the appointment of a professor to a university? I think not.

We fought for democracy and I find it offensive that if I operate my business within the law, I should have the authority to appoint suitably qualified persons to assist me. Then if I am wrong then the Regulator can show me, tell me, and if necessary direct me.

But that requires effective communication, trust, and adequate surveillance and policies borne of genuine safety concerns - not political vote catchers.

I see a way out to revitalise our industry but not with the policies that exist under the present regime. Our industry remains forlorn, divided and intimidated and I only wish we could re-stabilise with proper fair-minded management practices.

Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

[gunshy67]

Apologies to all who read this thread for the typos.

I am using a foreign language computer and the spell checker is beyond me.

I know I am a sub-standard typist but isn't it the content that matters.

Grovel, grovel