"Major" changes at CASA? [Archive]

Creampuff

18th Nov 2002, 19:17

From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website:Govt clips the wings of air safety body

The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.

The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The Transport Minister, John Anderson, says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.

The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.

Mr Anderson says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.

"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.

Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.

Accountability

The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.

Labor's transport spokesman, Martin Ferguson, says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.

"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.

Limits

Meanwhile, Australia's aircraft owners have called for further limits to the powers of the aviation safety regulator.

Bill Hamilton, from the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association. says despite the changes, there still will not be enough scrutiny of the authority.

He says CASA will continue to have a conflict of interest because it both licences and polices air safety.

"It has to go far more than abolishing a board and appointing a chief executive," he said.

Peace in our time!

I cannot find anything about this on the DoTRS or the Minister’s website – not even a press release. Some detail would be nice.

It’s about time political staffers got back to regulating Australian air safety, in the open. No need to dress politics up as safety any more – the most important consideration in any decision will be its effect on the government’s political interests. How wonderfully ….. wonderfully ….ummm …. third world.

I honestly can’t figure Mr Anderson. He’s either a complete fool or an utter genius. I struggle to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, CASA has scored another trifecta – staff numbers up in financial year 01/02 (a whopping 9%), taxpayer funding up accordingly, and a significant increase in the accident/incident rate.

Torres

18th Nov 2002, 20:42

7 Sunrise News this morning:

CASA Board "sacked". :D

Minister assumes Board responsibilities. :(

Chief Executive to be appointed. Present Director may apply. ;)

Suspension of AOC's to be ratified by a Court within five days. :D

Surprise, surprise. Staff numbers are up. How many lawyers in CASA now Creamie? And a Reg Services division - that seems to have migrated to sunny Brisbane - created to speed up issues of AOC's etc.

Talking of Brisbane, I see the Archerfield office seems to have migrated to a shed at the back of Hendra? Out of sight, out of mind perhaps?

PLovett

18th Nov 2002, 21:16

Oh dear.

Looks like yet another rearrangement of the deck chairs.

When will they realise that the problem lies in CASA taking on too many roles with absolutely no accountability with standards being whatever the local office thinks they should be.

Which court is going to ratify any suspension? Please do not tell me that the AAT provides an appropriate court of review if an AOC is suspended. Firstly, in that court it is up to the holder to show that the suspension was not justified, in other words you have to prove a negative.

Secondly there are no rules of evidence in the AAT so CASA can trot out the big smear without ever having to justify it ("If it pleases the tribunal, there are other matters which have caused CASA concern about this operator, however, we don't wish to take up the Tribunal's time at this point").

Who is going to advise the Minister and what aviation experience have they had? At least with the Board it was plainly obvious.

The ship's still sinking!

Lead Balloon

18th Nov 2002, 21:27

You can almost smell the deals being done here.

10 to 1 on that a Government toady gets CEO/President of CASA.

The only difference is (and I think Crempuff points this out Torres) is that for "real" change, you need an organisation with real accountability. Accountability, such as: the leader falls on his sword when both costs and accident rates rise. Not there simply as an easier to control "running dog" for the Government of the day.

If they don't have the accountability, and are in this political limbo land, CASA should be re-formed back into a real Government Department not a Stat Authority.

Torres

18th Nov 2002, 21:40

Lead Baloon. G'Day. Surprisingly (for once), I agree with Creampuff if he's saying what I think he's saying. Rumour is the Director may not be there much longer - but those rumours have been around before.

Isn't it a bit unique to have an "Authority" responsible solely to a Minister?

One would suspect this change is "temporary" or "interim", possibly until the next election or budget, when the time would be appropriate for CASA to revert to a Department - or a division of Dept of Transport? If they kept the old stationary over the past decade, the change would be cost effective......!

Plovett, spot on! Although I eventually got some justice in the AAT, it was a long, arduous process. At one hearing CASA simply didn't bother to attend! The Court wasn't mentioned but I read the news article as it being a real court, rather than the kangaroo variety.

Rich-Fine-Green

18th Nov 2002, 21:40

Despite the creation of a whole new department in Brisbane to handle AOC's -

It still bl00dy-well takes months just to add a type to an AOC!! :mad:

As long as the paperwork is still shuffled through area offices - AOC's (new issue & changes) will take forever.

The same goes for the new 'On-Line' AOC application. It actually adds another step to the process.

In effect, the new service center has been a waste of time & money.

Getting rid of the board, and asking Mr. T to 're-apply' for his position is window dressing. The problems largely do not come from CB but at the coal-face (area offices).

I can't see Mr Anderson or his staffers taking a keen interest in the 'little' issues that collectively hinder the industry.

Torres

18th Nov 2002, 22:06

NTS. It won't be the first. There have been other CASA payouts, shrouded by the cloak of secrecy agreements.

For example, I believe the operators of a Russian helicopter may have been suitably recompensed...........

grusome

18th Nov 2002, 23:00

What I can't figure out is why they didn't change the name!

We could have CAA = Continually Altered Authority; or
DOT = Done Over Threetimes; or even
DCA = Directorate Controlled by Anderson.

Take your choice, the appropriate stationery is in storage somewhere.
Gru

Icarus2001

19th Nov 2002, 02:33

When will they realise that the problem lies in CASA taking on too many roles

What about the US FAA and the UK CAA. They "run" the whole show no seperate authority for airspace. Would be interested to hear from anyone who knows how their suspension system works.

Isn't it a bit unique to have an "Authority" responsible solely to a Minister?

Does the Maritime Authority operate in this manner? They also must have a conflict since they issue maritime licences and are also the policeman?

Dogimed

19th Nov 2002, 03:05

CASA culture must change: pilots

The federal government must change the culture as well as the structure of the air transport regulator, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) said.

Federal Transport Minister John Anderson yesterday said he planned to sack the entire board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as part of sweeping moves to restore direct ministerial control over air safety.

With the CASA board abolished, the regulator's director Mick Toller will fill the new position of chief executive officer, reporting directly to Mr Anderson.

The minister would also be given power to set policy and performance standards, but leave day-to-day safety decisions with CASA staff.

But AOPA president Bill Pike said the government needed to change CASA's entire approach.

"You've got to remember that CASA has been known as the department of changing letterheads," he told the Ten network.

"It's had about six different names in recent memory and so it's a matter of changing the culture, not changing the name or even the structure."

Mr Pike said added bureaucracy did not equal increased safety and CASA needed to look at major problems, rather than grounding pilots for minor infringements.

"I would like to see the authority moving somewhere else, moving towards the grassroots, rather than just looking for symptoms and driving people out of the industry," he said.

"It must be remembered that the usage of aviation gasoline in this country is down 40 per cent in the last 10 years, so although safety is very important, just grounding the industry to achieve that safety doesn't get us anywhere."

Mr Toller earlier said the changes, aimed at ending a turbulent period in air safety, would help deliver greater accountability while ensuring safety in the skies.

But Australian Democrats transport spokeswoman Lyn Allison said the government's actions could make the skies more dangerous.

EndQuote!

Anyone got Miss Allisons email or po box?

Dog

CaptainMidnight

19th Nov 2002, 05:26

But AOPA president Bill Pike said the government needed to change CASA's entire approach.

"You've got to remember that CASA has been known as the department of changing letterheads," he told the Ten network.

"It's had about six different names in recent memory ...

Ah, AOPA - bless their hearts. Never let the truth get in the way of a few good lines.

CASA has, of course, had the same name since they were created in 1995 - "CASA" .

Creampuff

19th Nov 2002, 18:07

Lead – Bon jour - Got the photos thanks. Where on earth are you now?

NTS check – I assume you are talking about: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2002/1151.html I wouldn’t start counting my chickens quite yet. The Tribunal found that the operator had been conducting RPT without an RPT AOC, and that the correct and preferable decision was to suspend the AOC and Chief Pilot approval until the date of the Tribunal’s decision. Therefore, the operator was not without an AOC for any shorter or longer period than it should have been. I’d therefore calculate its ‘damages’ to be in the order of about $0, give or take $0. Give it a go though – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any ‘damages’ paid to the operator by the regulator.

Same with you, Torres – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any compensation ever paid by the regulator to any Russian helicopter operator. And yes: fortunately the regulator is employing more lawyers.

Icarus 2001 – One of the main reasons the FAA-regulated US system works is that the FAA is managed by professional bureaucrats, not technical experts pretending to be professional bureaucrats. The regulator of the greatest aviation nation on earth can be run by a women who doesn’t hold a pilot’s licence, yet the sky doesn’t fall in. Perhaps Mr Anderson needs to think more deeply about that.

nzer

19th Nov 2002, 18:10

Reports on the morning news I have heard indicate that CASA actions over the AN B767 groundings precipitated the reshuffle at CASA - dear me, is it remotely possible that the light is slowly dawning on some folk in Australia that forces other than/more powerful than ANZ were involved in the Ansett collapse?

axiom

20th Nov 2002, 04:43

The Director of Aviation Safety, (AKA Mick Toller). and I guess, the new CEO, "IS" "THE PROBLEM NOT THE SOLUTION".

Why don't we instill the Chief Counsel, CASA legal branch as CEO, makes about as much sense.

"civil disobedience is the answer".

Creampuff

20th Nov 2002, 06:37

Torres - you could learn a thing or two from NTS check!;)

Axiom - at least the General Counsel understands what the regulator's supposed to do, and how it's supposed to do it. Those are skills that are sadly lacking elsewhere in the authority.

Torres

20th Nov 2002, 19:01

Creampuff. "...at least the General Counsel understands what the regulator's supposed to do, and how it's supposed to do it."

Time for a reality check. I recommend Bex and a long rest...

"Those are skills that are sadly lacking elsewhere in the authority." Generally because the competent and experienced regulators with significant aviation operational experience have long since left CASA due to frustration with incompetent management.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Australian government took direct control of the national air safety regulator and introduced reforms to enforcement procedures against operators in a move to make the authority more accountable and ease industry concerns. Transport and Regional Services Minister John Anderson announced the sweeping reforms Monday, saying they will improve the aviation sector's confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

One of the key components of the package is the abolition of the CASA board from July 1, 2003, with the minister assuming responsibility for setting policy and performance standards for the body. The government will appoint the CEO--a role previously undertaken by the board. Current Director of Aviation Safety Mick Toller will take up the CEO position and report directly to the minister.

The reform program flows from a review of the structure and reporting arrangements for CASA that began in Feb. Measures also are being introduced to do away with CASA's much-criticized ability to act as "judge, jury and executioner" in cases involving safety breaches. This situation came under the spotlight with action taken by the authority following the Whyalla Airlines crash in 2000 and last year's grounding of Ansett's 767-200s.

Under the new system, operators can contest any decision to suspend or cancel operating licenses in the Federal Court within five days. If there is no immediate risk to air safety, the airline involved will be granted an automatic stay of the decision until the case has been heard by the court. The government also is establishing an air standards advisory body to ensure that the views of the industry are considered fully in enactment of new safety regulations.

"These reforms will only improve and strengthen CASA's ability to regulate our skies effectively, and boost the traveling public's faith in the aviation industry," Anderson said.

4dogs

21st Nov 2002, 07:41

Creampuff,

Seems that you might have missed my final comment to you on the "Question for CASA" thread (ID=64194), so I will gently recast my fly:

Oh, and by the way Creampuff, as great a fan of you and your ilk as I am, CASA buying another lawyer will not fix anything unless they buy a competent regulator to provide the policy for the lawyer to legislate.
I was actually looking forward in the current thread to your views on the changes announced as to whether the abolition of the Board in any way increases Mick Toller's accountability. I also failed to understand how arranging a court to conduct a merits review in lieu of the AAT in any way alters the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" arrangements - can you assist?

PS I love the attention to detail demonstrated in "Schutt" by CASA's mexican Area Manager - I would have loved to see Ian Harvey trying to get around that "own goal"!!

Hugh Jarse

21st Nov 2002, 08:31

:D:D
Nice one 4 Dogs :D:D

Torres

21st Nov 2002, 09:08

Score 10 points to 4dogs!!! :D :D (He's a bit more subtle than me!)

Is Harvey still on a retainer? :confused: With an ever increasing plethora of internal lawyers in OLC, one wonders why a relay team of external lawyers also needs to be retained.

Creampuff

21st Nov 2002, 19:24

Howdy 4dogs – long time no chat.

I apologise for my discourtesy in not responding to your observation in the other thread, that:CASA buying another lawyer will not fix anything unless they buy a competent regulator to provide the policy for the lawyer to legislate.I agree completely.

I think that in the various threads that have popped up criticising the legendary complexity of the Australian rules, I have consistently said that no one can turn a muddle-headed policy, or no policy at all, into crystal clear rules.

The fly that I was casting in making the comment related to the skills that the regulator is recruiting. Most of the 9% increase over the last year has comprised a whole bunch of people who ain’t pilots or engineers. Slowly but steadily the government is moving in the professional bureaucrats to get the authority working again.

Technical experts pretending to be professional bureaucrats often score ‘own goals’. I watched GI Joe in front of the Senate Committee recently. A senator asked him about an AOC he’d signed that purported to take effect weeks before he’d signed it. The point was completely lost on him! Uber spin doctor Rob Elder had to step in to put a fig leaf over that little bit of corruption. Makes you wonder what other documents GI Joe has gormlessly signed, doesn’t it?

How will these changes increase Mick Toller’s accountability? They won’t. Mr “I was overseas at the time/that is being considered by the board” will simply change his story to “I was overseas at the time/that is being considered by the Minister”. And we’ll now have to wait a couple of years for these “reforms” to bed down. Mr Toller will continue to play private school prefect to the Anderson headmaster, with Anderson remaining clueless as to what’s really going. The people who actually run the authority – the professional bureaucrats Gemmell/Elder/Ilyk – will continue to do so, on the instructions of Ministerial staffers.

Like youI also failed to understand how arranging a court to conduct a merits review in lieu of the AAT in any way alters the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" arrangements.

Anyone can ask the AAT or the Federal Court for a stay under the existing rules. The Federal Court does not and will not conduct merits review. (Airworthiness Directives are going to be an interesting are – can’t they have the effect of grounding aircraft?) The administrative fine system has been in the rules for years. Now we’re going to wait a few more years for a points system?

The only guaranteed outcome as a consequence of these changes (if they really occur – we haven’t seen any legislation yet) is that there will be more work.

For lawyers.

It will be off to court every time, automatically, instead of at the application of the licence or certificate holder.

Thanks John.
;)

feet on the dash

22nd Nov 2002, 03:24

I think they should sack all of CASA and hand it to the Kiwi's or Yanks to handle.
Casa these days is either too busy or doing training courses to assist the industry.
Sack the lot of them!

Creampuff

25th Nov 2002, 19:24

justapplhere

I'm sure you have a very high level of confidence in your own ability, and have a crystal clear understanding of what you are trying to say.

Could you explain to me how the regulator of the greatest aviation nation on earth is efficiently run by a women without a pilot's licence?

Torres

25th Nov 2002, 23:29

justapplhere :D :D

Creamie, old girl, your score card isn't looking very good in this debate, is it! I'm surprised Lead Sled isn't in here lending you support! :D

Creampuff

26th Nov 2002, 19:14

I am always comforted when Torres disagrees with me. Justapplhere disagreeing with me is – well – solid gold.

So sniffing all that Jet A1 has made you an expert, has it Justapplhere? Let’s see.

CASA issues an AD today, that must be complied with before further flight. Tesna Airlines will go broke if it can’t delay compliance with the AD. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Tesna does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to ADs?

CASA issues an AOC to ADNAY Airlines, and the AOC is expressed to expire on a date a year later. That date passes without CASA having issued a new AOC. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that ADNAY Airlines continues to operate? What power does the Minister have in relation to AOCs?

Bloggs Airlines’ Chief Pilot spits the dummy and leaves. What specific rules, if any need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Bloggs does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to Chief Pilots?

On how many occasions does CASA suspend unilaterally, without claiming an immediate threat to air safety may exist, given that the very power to suspend unilaterally turns on CASA’s belief that an immediate threat to air safety may exist?

In 25 words or less, state the precise and only circumstances in which you believe any licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled.

Which body or court do you believe should decide whether a licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled? If it’s someone other than CASA, what are the mandatory aviation-related selection criteria for persons to become members of that other body or court?

What aviation qualifications does the Minister have? If the Minister has no aviation qualifications, how can direct accountability to him achieve what you’re trying to achieve?

karrank

26th Nov 2002, 21:33

I believe the two things Dick screwed out of Anderson before the last election was NAS & a new organisation that will exist to tell CASA and ASA what to do, and CASA & ASA just get on with doing what they are told. I think Dick had it in mind to be the boss of said organisation, but it would appear Anderson would rather do it himself??

Tail_Wheel

27th Nov 2002, 00:14

Interesting hypothetical examples, Creampuff. Thank goodness Tesna and Abmay are mythical operators, figments of a very fertile imagination…..

However, imagine if mythical operator, Abmay, had it’s AOC suspended for a relatively minor infringement involving one pilot, then the regulator, ASAC’s (Authority Supervising Aviation Controls) mythical Mr Snilloc simply declined to renew the AOC, I suppose that’s one method of removing a mythical operator from a phantom whiteboard?

An interesting twist to our hypothetical example would be if mythical ASAC employee, Mr Redle suggest execution of a “Voluntary Enforceable Agreement” could result in the AOC being restored? Of course, any sensible businessman such as Mr Seer, owner of mythical Abmay, would decline the offer rather than risk losing his legal rights.

“Voluntary Enforceable Agreements” – now there’s a great regulator’s concept for any democracy! Any operator foolish enough to sign the Agreement would automatically waive all rights of legal review through a Court, thus leaving the operator solely at the mercy of regulator, ASAC’s excesses. I hope some pilyk doesn’t dust the concept off and haul it out to counter the Minister’s proposal that suspended AOC’s be immediately reviewed by a Court?

Considering ASAC would take no AOC regulatory action against the operator of a heavy multi (or many) engine airline aircraft if a pilot were to erroneously retract flaps in lieu of undercarriage (creating a very interesting spectacle at, perhaps, a tropical resorts), a commuter operator would never suffer suspension of AOC for something as simple as, for example, a trim error in a commuter aircraft?

All hypothetical, of course…… Can’t happen in our Australian democracy. Thank goodness we don’t have that mythical ASAC, rather the caring, competent, understanding and industry loved CASA and it’s well trained management and operational staff.
:D

Torres

27th Nov 2002, 01:20

Creampuff, how about this new scam:

An AOC is due for renewal. The local FOI sends a Show Cause to the AOC holder requiring him to show cause why he (the FOI) should recommend to the Delegate that the AOC be renewed.

No administrative decision, therefore the ex AOC holder has no right of appeal to the AAT!

So simple. Game, set and match!

I believe the scam has been successfully tried – and proven. Minister shafted again!

4dogs

27th Nov 2002, 13:28

Tail_Wheel,

Do you know what the legal basis of this supposed "Voluntary Enforceable Agreement" relies upon? I saw something similar in some recently subpoenaed documents but felt that it was likely to be unenforceable because it was obtained under duress.

Torres,

Interesting twist - clearly designed by a person or persons who chose a "clever" procedure to get a result without the required level of integrity to act properly in the first instance by taking formal action against the existing AOC. Notwithstanding, I suspect that if CASA decides that the application for a new AOC requires the recommendation of an FOI before the delegate makes a decision, then any decision by the relevant FOI to recommend or not to recommend is an administrative decision and is reviewable in the Tribunal and the Courts.

The ability to remedy this sort of situation rests entirely within the hands of CASA, firstly because the term of the AOC is at the discretion of CASA (see s27(7) of the CAA 88), and secondly, because CASA management should exert appropriate control over the initiation of any form of administrative action such that the action is procedurally fair in all respects.

I saw what unlimited life AOCs created in terms of expectations of untouchability among the bandits and I don't think we want to resurrect it now that we have achieved some recognition that compliance is a constant requirement rather than a "once-off" at application. But I do think that it is within the power of the Director to issue a limited term AOC to permit the matter to be fairly reviewed and resolved before the AOC lapses through the effluxion of time or, preferably, to embody a condition that any administrative action commenced against an AOC will automatically extend the life of the AOC to permit review of any adverse decisions.

But all of this ignores the continuing problem with CASA - the lack of leadership, command and control - not one of which will be affected by the recent announcements by the Minister.

Torres

27th Nov 2002, 21:12

Creamie, wonder if this proposal was added for my benefit? :D

119.150 Appointment of chief executive officer

(1) An operator must not appoint a person as CEO for the operator’s organisation unless the appointment is acceptable to CASA.

CEO, Chief Pilot, Head of Training & Checking, Maintenance Controller - all will require CASA "acceptance"!

4Dogs, ....to get a result without the required level of integrity to act properly in the first instance.... I won't go there! :rolleyes:

Creampuff

28th Nov 2002, 08:29

Geez Torres, I can’t imagine how those dumb bureaucrats keep coming up with these ingenious ideas.

Had the operator sniffed enough Jet A1 to be as experienced and knowledgeable as justapplhere - whom I am sure is busy putting the finishing touches on a superbly crafted response to my questions above – the operator would have figured out that no AOC is “renewed”. In fact, what people call “renewal” comprises the expiry of an AOC and the issue of a new consecutive AOC in the same terms, save for the dates and the purely administrative number. This new AOC should be the subject of a new application, which application, if refused, is reviewable by the AAT. If the regulator isn’t requiring some form of application – even just a one pager - for each new consecutive AOC, or operators aren’t submitting one in any case each time to protect their interests, perhaps somebody’s been sniffing a bit too much Jet A1.

If I was as knowledgeable and experienced as justapplhere, I’d probably come up with the idea of seeking review of the decision as to the duration of the expired AOC. The AAT rarely turns late applications away, and likes to find jurisdiction where it can. I’d probably also toss around terms like “constructive refusal” and provisions like section 7 of the ADJR Act. But I’m sure justapplhere’s on to it.

BTW: I thought you weren’t a fan of the AAT. Isn’t it your view that an appeal to the AAT is pointless? Why not go straight to what you call “a real court”. Just because something is not reviewable by the AAT, or is reviewable by the AAT but you think it isn’t, does not stop you going to the Federal Court. You could even put on some affidavits from your “independent experts” to show that something done or refused to be done by the regulator was so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have done or refused to do it, or was unlawful, or was ….

Tail-Wheel – you don’t post often, but you post quality.

I’m sure the mythical Mr Redle would never make improper deals like that in real life.

And Abmay could have sought review of the refusal. They could even have got Torres’s “independent experts” to give evidence.

4-dogs – objective and thorough, as usual.

I’ve just had another sniff of Jet A1. I’m thinking of this legislation I’ve read that says if you have an approval, and you make an application for a new approval before the date the old one is expressed to expire, and the decision-maker fails to make a decision before that date, the old one is deemed to remain in force until the date 1 month after the date the decision is finally made.

Couldn’t work in aviation I suppose – too complicated.

Tail_Wheel

29th Nov 2002, 05:20

Thank you for the compliment, Creampuff. Wish I could return the favour! :D

Seldom indeed, do I haunt these hallowed domains of aviation wisdom.

Interesting and contradictory use of the words "mythical" and "real" in the same sentence? Very few in our mythical organisation, ASAC, would have a real life.

Mythical Abmay unquestionably would have right of review of the refusal decision. I suspect mythical Mr Seer had a gut load of BS and derived far more pleasure advising mythical Messrs Snilloc, Redle, Yoh and Co where they could shove the AOC! :) No doubt one of the few real pleasures left to mythical Mr Seer!

As you know, Creampuff, once a mythical operator featured on the phantom whiteboard only a masochist would persist......... And that's no adverse reflection on your persistent and successful efforts, Torres.

4Dogs. "Voluntary Enforceable Agreements", interesting concept and one which my learned colleague, Creampuff, may have significantly more knowledge than he's prepared to reveal.

Whilst I am inclined to concur with your suggestion the document may not be enforceable, it protracts the suspension creating further financial hardship and provides grounds for further immediate suspension/cancellation of AOC if all conditions are not met. It may not be kosher at law, but who said the game was ever played by any rules?

In light of HIH proposed multi billion dollar damages claim against the Government insurance industry regulatory authority, I would be interested in your opinion of whether CASA's expanded list of "approved" operator personnel (as per Part 119) may also expose CASA to increased damages liability if they "approve" a person (in particular the CEO) and the operation subsequently goes pear shape?

Torres. Nice scam. Tried and proven! :(

Creampuff

3rd Dec 2002, 19:06

From pages 9256-9257 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 2 December 2002, copy at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr021202.pdf
Aviation: Reform

Mr JOHN COBB (2.32 p.m.)—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of progress the government has made in airspace reform? What benefits to the travelling public will flow from these reforms, and are further reforms being undertaken?

Mr ANDERSON—I thank the honourable member for his question. We have been pursuing quite a bold and aggressive program of aviation reforms, and a key element of that is airspace reform. Whilst it has been acknowledged that in Australia for many years we have had the best upper level airspace system in the world, it is also the case that in relation to low level airspace there is room for improvement in Australia. Properly carried forth, those reforms can produce improved safety outcomes and a more economically competitive environment, particularly for light aviation, and we want to see light aviation in Australia continue to grow and to enjoy better growth prospects, frankly, than perhaps has been the case in recent years. We are seeking to reform the present system in a way that will make it easier to use, reduce costs for the industry and for the travelling public, and at the same time maintain the highest possible safety standards.

To progress this, I established a special aviation reform group, comprising the chairman of CASA, Ted Anson; the chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth; the secretary of my department; the head of the Air Force, Air Marshal Angus Houston; and Mr Dick Smith. They have been reporting on how best to harmonise Australia’s airspace arrangements with best international practice, and it has been an engaging process.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr ANDERSON—I am glad that the opposition is so interested and supportive. The group reported at the end of March and recommended the adoption of the American national airspace system, NAS. On 13 May the government considered it and agreed with the recommendation. We set up an implementation group. That is well and truly under way, established and operating out of Fairbairn with the cooperation and help of Defence. The implementation of NAS will proceed in three stages. I am delighted to be able to say that the first two elements of stage 1 took effect on 28 November. We are now formally embarked on airspace reform in Australia. The third element, which will involve new procedures for the climb into E airspace will be introduced in March 2003. The aviation reform group is currently finalising the timing for stages 2 and 3, and I expect to be advised shortly in relation to this.

That is only one element of our aviation reform program. A couple of weeks ago I announced major changes in relation to CASA that will involve the establishment of a regulatory reform task force and new, enhanced and fairer enforcement procedures which have been very widely welcomed by industry. I welcome that. They have been welcomed too, I think, by CASA, recognising that they will improve relationships between the regulator and the aviation industry and the players in it. I note too, and welcome, the opposition’s support. We are also moving to corporatise Airservices Australia, which, incidentally, has just announced a cut in the costs of its services, a welcome boost to aviation at a time when it needs all the competitive pressures being brought to bear that are possible. That, incidentally, amounts to a very significant real reduction in its charges over recent years—always something to be glad of. So there is a lot happening in aviation. We have a very forward looking reform agenda, but I am particularly pleased to be able to tell the House that airspace reform—long needed, in my view, in this country—is now under way and cannot be stopped.

I hadn’t realised there was going to be a “regulatory reform task force”. Heaven’s knows you guys were crying out for another committee to fix aviation.

Tail-Wheel – it’s unfortunate you are apparently unable to overlook your prejudices and assess the argument rather than your (misguided) prejudices.

I think you’ll find that the company by whom Torres was employed was wound up by its creditors. A perfectly normal and mundane event when a company does not pay its bills, and public record.

Ho hum. Yes: I had a whyteboard with a list of all the operators who were going to be put out of business, come what may. Of course, that list could have been kept in my head or on a small piece of paper in my pocket. But instead, I put it on a whyteboard for all to see. My stupidity knows no bounds. And I shot JFK and I know where Jimmy Hoffa’s buried. Ho hum

The defining feature of aviation in Australia is the capacity of otherwise intelligent people to demonstrate, time and time again, their unerring willingness to ignore any fact that gets in the way of their prejudices.

Torres

3rd Dec 2002, 19:41

"....we want to see light aviation in Australia continue to grow and to enjoy better growth prospects,...."

I think Anderson forget to tell CASA about his cunning plan!

Oh dear, Creampuff. Usual vintage rant and rave.

Rich-Fine-Green

3rd Dec 2002, 21:00

We are also moving to corporatise Airservices Australia, which, incidentally, has just announced a cut in the costs of its services, a welcome boost to aviation at a time when it needs all the competitive pressures being brought to bear that are possible.

I guess the cut in the cost of services does not include increases in the cost of publications.

I wonder if Dick Smiths appointment to the special aviation reform group had something to do with D.S. not running against John Anderson in the seat of Gwydir.

Tail_Wheel

4th Dec 2002, 00:42

Unable to overlook my prejudices? In a mythical organisation? Hardly Old Chap, I don't have any such prejudices!

Indeed, I don't really care either way.

Simply repeating the words of a mythical person (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) who confirmed the phantom white boards mythical existance and that it had been in his office.

I can hardly see how you can now claim credit for the phantom white board as your idea and in your previous office.

And you are a bit young to start boasting involvement in the demise of JFK. I doubt you were even a dirty thought in your father's mind when that occurred. :cool:

Chimbu chuckles

4th Dec 2002, 03:56

Torres,

119.150....you, or more likely CASA, have to be joking.

That just does not happen.

Chuck.

Torres

4th Dec 2002, 04:47

You attended my CASA CEO interview! Think I passed? :D :D

Creampuff

4th Dec 2002, 18:35

Tail_Wheel - “Don’t care either way”? 3 posts in 1 week on this thread, out of only 14 posts in over 4 years. Actions speak louder…;)

Justapplhere –We know that you think that the person you think I am is incompetent. Shall I alert the media?

A chap with your level of confidence in your own abilities should be able to knock these over before breakfast.CASA issues an AD today, that must be complied with before further flight. Tesna Airlines will go broke if it can’t delay compliance with the AD. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Tesna does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to ADs?

CASA issues an AOC to ADNAY Airlines, and the AOC is expressed to expire on a date a year later. That date passes without CASA having issued a new AOC. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that ADNAY Airlines continues to operate? What power does the Minister have in relation to AOCs?

Bloggs Airlines’ Chief Pilot spits the dummy and leaves. What specific rules, if any need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Bloggs does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to Chief Pilots?

On how many occasions does CASA suspend unilaterally, without claiming an immediate threat to air safety may exist, given that the very power to suspend unilaterally turns on CASA’s belief that an immediate threat to air safety may exist?

In 25 words or less, state the precise and only circumstances in which you believe any licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled.

Which body or court do you believe should decide whether a licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled? If it’s someone other than CASA, what are the mandatory aviation-related selection criteria for persons to become members of that other body or court?

What aviation qualifications does the Minister have? If the Minister has no aviation qualifications, how can direct accountability to him achieve what you’re trying to achieve?Cat got your tongue? Jet A1 got your brain?

ulm

5th Dec 2002, 07:43

OK creampuff, what say I give you an actual real life event and seek your infinite wisdom.

Small viable aero club needs a temp CFI (just normal people flow, nothing sinister at all). One guy volunteers and it is all Ok, even CASA agree.

2 years later the same thing happens, the same guy is willing to fill in. This time it aint OK. The club suspends trading, costs it heaps (something I find CASA absolutely unable to comprehend ... cash flow!!!). Same personalities, same rules, different breakfast cereal perhaps.

Regulation by whim and fancy or what???

(oh, and where do you stand on the seatbelt fiasco???)

Chuck

Creampuff

5th Dec 2002, 18:21

Ulm

Beats me.

I don’t know how “automatic stays on suspension decisions” (whatever that means) or the removal of the board will make any difference to the two scenarios you raised.

That’s my point.

justapplhere, who fancies himself as an expert, is going to explain it for us.

Justapplhere?

ulm

6th Dec 2002, 01:16

Well I'm not denying there needs to be changes in CASA, and probably at the top. Why???, because of an entrenched culture and those at the top allow it to happen. So, be rid of them and install those who are prepared to tackle the dinosurs head on.

Culture ruins a number of regulators, the ABA is captured by the broadcasters, the ACCC by a self promoting eccentric personlity and CASA it seems to me by not particularly talented lawyers and dinosaurs.

It is the Ill/sick lawyer types that have really stuffed things around. Posts here by now disenchanted rapid risers (and just as rapid fallers) in the lawyer stream don't help. CASA is waaay too full of the 'it should be done my way' creed. Each has their own interpretation of the law, the regs etc (because the latter are far too complex) and regulation is written not to make aviation safe and affordable, but to get 'safe' prosecutions.

Creampuff

6th Dec 2002, 20:43

Good for you, ulm.

Let's make a list of the mandatory selection criteria for employment at CASA.

1. must be prepared to tackle the dinosurs head on

2. must not be a dinosaur

Not too specific so far, but perhaps you can complete the list. How else will we know who to employ?

ulm

6th Dec 2002, 23:08

Identifying dinosaurs, well if you can't do it yet better take up basket weaving, there ain't no place for you in Can'tberra.

How about we put something like

'encourage development and growth in all forms of Australian aviation' (carefully separating them out so that no joker can kill, say the AUF, and build GA thus claiming victory) in the act or a CASA 'charter'.

We could make building each sector a reportable and measurable item, presented to the Minister and industry every quarter.

Then we link every 'senior' person's pay (all those at PS EL1 equiv and higher) in CASA to growth in their particular area of responsibility :) Positive growth is rewarded, No growth, no bonus. Negative growth, negative performance bonus. :D

(oh, and sack all the fr!kken lawyers!!!!)

Waiting for the cynical howls of safety based protest from those who wouldn't have a clue how to productively regulate.

Chuck

Lodown

7th Dec 2002, 00:22

"Encourage growth" or something similar got the FAA into trouble after the Valujet crash in Florida. The regulator is there to regulate, not encourage growth.

ulm

7th Dec 2002, 01:37

Encourage growth is quite legit, one can regulate and support or regulate and destroy.

CASA do the latter. look at Whyalla, absolutely no justification for initial knee jerk CASA action. That is regulation by whim (again). Fine, if they are shonky shut em down, but changing regs for the sake of it, shutting operators down without fair process and making the regs too difficult to comply with is killing Australian aviation.

And saying the FAA got in the sh!t over value jet is more knee jerk pandering to ambulance chasing lawyers and journalists.

gaunty

7th Dec 2002, 02:11

Gotta go with Lodown on this one.

Neither CASA nor any regulator is there to do anything other than regulate.
If that means the shonks get closed down (you say destroy:rolleyes: :) ) and allow the legitimate operators to charge what it really costs, then they are doing their job AND as a consequence encouraging growth by providing the environment for the bona fide market to operate with the revenues required to fulfil their safety obligations to the travelling public.
It's really that simple.
This is not negotiable; Game set and match.

CoodaShooda

7th Dec 2002, 13:25

Gaunty
Come to think of it, is there any Government agency charged with fostering and developing the aviation industry? :confused:

Rich-Fine-Green

8th Dec 2002, 00:07

The job of fostering aviation can be left to those who have it's best interests at heart.- the vast majority of those who haunt this forum.

All I expect from CASA is to be a regulator that, at the very least, does not hinder the Industry.

Creampuff

8th Dec 2002, 08:14

BIKCASA is very focused on compliance, but generally ignores safety.Doesn’t CASA have a Safety Promotion branch with a multi-million dollar budget?It is the job of the regulator to determine precisely where along this continuum the minimum regulated safety standard should be.Beg to differ. It is the job of the Parliament to determine precisely where along the cost/benefit spectrum the minimum safety standard should be. It is the job of the regulator to do what the Parliament tells it to do. It might not be apparent from the performance of successive Head Dabblers, but CASA has been obliged to perform its functions in accordance with Australia’s obligations under the Chicago Convention, and has been obliged to regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration in exercising its powers and functions, since day one. There’s actually not much room for CASA to move on minimum standards – not much, that is, if it listens to the Parliament.Unless you insist that the safety regulator also has a duty to "facilitate" you will get ABSOLUTE SAFETY with no regard for utility. But doesn’t that mean – on your argument – that CASA would have grounded everything by now?

BTW: Your expertise with computer modelling has been demonstrated on a few occasions on this forum. See if you can get your computer to work out the percentage of operators and individuals whose certificate or licence CASA suspends or cancels each year. 10%? 1%. 0.1%. 0.01%?

Also BTW: What is the number of operators and individuals who have been the subject of CASA administrative action, the outcome of which has not been suspension, cancellation or prosecution?

4dogs

8th Dec 2002, 09:02

Folks,

I think we have been here before - and it seems we are doomed to an endless loop. I am with Gaunty and indeed the Puff:

Parliament sets the rules - CASA applies them.

It is irrelevant who convinces Parliament to create or modify a rule - the Bill and Disallowance procedures provide the exposure and opportunity for the members to exercise their responsibilities to act in the public interest.

There are a number of formal and informal processes that operate to ensure that CASA applies the rules as intended by the Parliament. They are not new.

There are safety rules and there are administrative rules. The administrative rules are intended to provide adequate organisations and management frameworks that desirably enhance safe operations and absolutely do not frustrate safe outcomes. There is a reasonable presumption that the rules were properly designed - if there is an unintended or undesirable outcome, then there are processes to alert Parliament to the failure of Parliament's rule(s).

In my experience, most of the whingeing about compliance comes from people who either failed to do their homework in the first instance or consciously choose to seek commercial advantage from limited compliance and resent being exposed as ignorant, incompetent or dishonest.

Yes, there are genuine cases of maladministration and abuse of power where CASA officers have acted equally as ignorantly, incompetently or dishonestly. Some cases may be the actions of individuals and some may involve elements of collusion and conspiracy. However, those situations are distinct from the rules themselves and one must be careful to see where the fault in each situation may lie in order to solve the problem.

If the Minister is truly interested in reform of the regulation of aviation in Australia, he must form some judgement about whether the system is actually failing to meet Parliament's ambitions for aviation regulation and, if he judges that the system is failing, then he must make some judgement as to what element(s) are causative and what are collateral.

And for that, I am still waiting...

snarek

9th Dec 2002, 06:18

Actually Parliament sets the standards (The ACT), CASA and DofT write the rules and generally Parliament rubber stamp them because they don't understand the issues.

It is a typical CASA cop out to say 'but Parliament write the rules' when in fact they invariably write the Regs and put them 'on the table'.

As for foster, there are a few. Go look at

www.aca.gov.au

for a start.

Facilitate is a good word though. Facilitate can take into account gaunty's problems with shonky operators without actually shutting down a good operator because of a bit of bad luck. I doubt the current CASA culture can facilitate though.

Facilitate means monitor and point out deficiencies, if they aint fixed take action, either remedial or punitive depending on the record of the operator. Trouble is this action needs to be unbiased. That can't/wont happen while FOI are partners in northern air charter operations, while relatives of CASA employees own businesses that benefit from selective decision making and while the rediculous concept of 'absolute safety' is used to baffle dim witted politicians.

Foster does not mean overlook intentional shonky practice. It means help when a Reg is too complex to understand. It means point out trends while they are fixable. It means understanding that better cash flow means more money for new equipment and better safety standards, but most of all it means understanding that lawyers aren't pilots!

AK

I Fly

10th Dec 2002, 00:12

Now that the head dabbler has 90% of the minister's ear via a direct line and the rest of us compete for the 10% via various filters, it's really going to work well.

Lodown

10th Dec 2002, 00:44

The minister's ear you refer to might be a part of the body a little higher than the area I am thinking.

Creampuff

12th Dec 2002, 18:20

For the record, justapplhere is as usual trying to revise history by deleting some of his posts.

justapplhere is a very senior person in CASA's Standards branch. His behaviour on this forum provides a very good insight into why the branch performs the way it does.

Torres

12th Dec 2002, 22:51

Are you suggesting the Standards Branch is a lower standard than any other CASA branch - including the area you were previously employed in? It appears to me the organisation has struck rock bottom and started digging! In the real world of commercial aviation, most senior staff would be out of their depth in a car park puddle.

I think you will find snarek is closer to the mark. The rules and regs are written by CASA and merely "tabled" in Parliament. Within the intent of the Act, CASA is able to get almost any rules it requires.

snarek

13th Dec 2002, 03:44

Actually, my partner was the Democrat staffer who pushed the Senator that disallowed Part 47. (so we both know a fair bit about the process) We KNOW that scared the F^@K outa CASA and we are ready to do it again.

Yeah, just for fun. But why not. They don't play by the rules, why should we.

Besides, they all learned a lot from that little exercise :D

AK

Creampuff

13th Dec 2002, 08:14

Snarek

In order that we can all be appropriately impressed by how much you know, it is useful to note precisely what was and was not disallowed.

If you go here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/numrul/17/8768/top.htm you will find the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2000 (No. 3). What you actually “pushed the Senator” to bring about was the disallowance of a few items contained in schedules to those regulations, one of which items contained Part 47. (To be precise, the disallowed items were item [7] of Schedule 2 and items [1], [4] and [5] of Schedule 3.)

So far so impressive.

But …

The rest of the regulations had come or came into effect in their terms. One of those was subregulation 6(1), which said:An aircraft whose registration under CAR 1988 was current immediately before the commencement of this regulation is taken to be registered under Part 47 of CAR 1998.[my bolding]

Whoops.

You managed to wipe the registration of every aircraft on the Australian register, because each had been deemed to be registered under Part 47.

Don’t worry though – there are very few messes that money can’t fix, and I’m sure your industry colleagues and other taxpayers didn’t mind paying the enormous bill.

You scare people alright, but almost certainly not for the reasons you think.