CASA reply to PPRuNe email re TVL.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

justapplhere, this is not that sort of party.

Everyone here has a history and everyone has made a mistake at some time in their life ( not suggesting that to be the case or not ), play nice.

This particular topic is very important to the livelyhoods of a great number of people and due to NH's response has become an avenue for industry input direct to BB, CASA.

[Creampuff]

Mainframe

If you review my comments on this forum, you will find that I’ve criticised CASA when I think it deserves criticism, and I defend it when I think it deserves defending.

If there’s fire, let’s get it exposed and extinguised. However, and to extend the conflagrational metaphor, there are lots of hoax callers out there, and many fire bugs are members of the fire brigade.

There is a regulator for the regulator. There’s the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Federal Police, the AAT, the Federal Court, your local member, your Senators, Parliamentary committees the Minister, the Prime Minister ….

Your point about resources is a fair one. However, each of the institutions/mechanisms set out above includes provisions for waiving of fees/hardship etc. A complaint to the ombudsman costs nothing, and can be made over the telephone. Indeed, I think the last time I chatted with the person who is now the ombudsman he was investigating a complaint against someone in the Townsville office, part of which complaint he agreed with.

The way it works in our society is that if you can’t convince one or more of them that someone’s done something wrong, or that something should be changed, then that’s it: game over.


Stink

I suggest you start here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/ with a search of the term “CASA”. I commend in particular this matter: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../1999/329.html which refutes your point about the “latex glove treatment” compared with other operators.

I agree with your point about “the industry not working together”, but disagree with your suggested cause. The feud in the area to which you refer just happens to be exacerbated because relatives of the Hatfields and the McCoys have at various time been employed by the regulator.

LRT

I am not quite sure I understand your question. There are exclusions from the obligation to disclose information under FOI. There are no exclusions (other than legal privilege) from discovery if you get into litigation, for example, if you make a claim that you are being or were denied natural justice in a CASA decision. But people often use the term "natural justice" without understanding what it actually means.

[Mainframe]

Cream Puff

There is a regulator for the regulator.

All of the avenues you suggest do exist.

Are you aware of any direct result from the Commonwealth Ombudsman with regard to CASA?

The AAT merely is the "Video Referee", it reviews and either upholds the on-field referee's decision, or dismisses it.
The AAT does not send anyone to the "Sin Bin".

The Minister has been involved, but only on the sidelines.
He directed, via parliamentary action,
that a stalled process (23 months to approve a check list for a simple GA Cessna) be actioned.

The local member has been involved in every instance of misconduct.
Whilst his intentions are good and he does go into bat,
it appears that for some reason he is not taken seriously by the Minister
and consequently doesn't seem to have many runs on the board.
It is also possibly his last term in office prior to retirement.

That still leaves some avenues, but the report already at hand alleges "No Problem",
and making it precarious grounds to revisit.

Despite all this, BB is actually astute enough to realise what is really happening
and will initiate appropriate strategies that will transparently remedy the problems that don't exist.

The need for transparency is essential to maintain the proper image of the regulator,
so people will just quietly move on, be transferred, pensioned off, even resign with subtle pressure.
Sackings are too obvious and present the avenue of vicarious culpability to an aggrieved litigant.

[Sunfish]

Following on from the Townsville investigation, I would like to suggest that CASA has done the right thing.

I will try and put this as delicately as I can.

Now that an investigation has occured and found no evidence, I would be very, very surprised if any of you ever again has cause (real or imagined) to make any allegation against that office in the foreseeable future.


Good solution CASA

[Stink Finger]

We need more CASA FOI's and AWI's on the ground, especially guys/girl from within the respective industry, NOT ex Military, ex Airline of PNG, Flying school/RFDS, Ansett, drop outs ( all pretty much NTE - "Never To Be Employed again" back grounds ).

I want to see FOIs/AWIs with succesfull career records, proven track records as CP and or ATO / CE, time on types, experience in the locality, industry contacts and a can do open door attitude.

[Woomera]

CEO DIRECTIVE – 016/2004
Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework
Date of Directive: 24 November 2004
To: Bruce Gemmell
Action Officer: Not Applicable
Title of Addressee: Not Applicable
Directive No: 016/2004
Response Required: Immediate Effect

Directive
This Directive is issued to establish guiding principles for the development of the regulatory framework and to provide clear guidance for the development of proposed aviation safety regulations.
Guiding Principles for Regulatory Framework
• Aviation safety regulations are to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks. Each proposed regulation is to be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety.
• Wherever possible, the CASRs are to be drafted to specify the safety outcome required, unless, in the interests of safety, and to address known or likely aviation safety risks, detailed requirements need to be presented.
• Wherever possible, aviation safety regulations are to be developed within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs, together with appropriate guidance material.
• Manuals of Standards (MOSs) are to be developed only where there is a clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to mandate standards that for the purpose of clarity should not be contained in the Regulations.
• The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the contribution made to aviation safety.
• A MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating advisory material and other information.
All proposed CASA Parts and MOSs are to be assessed against the guiding principles stated above.
Signed Bruce Byron Chief Executive Officer


As you can see it has been happening for quite some time.

Now everybody wants to claim Mr. Byron as their man following their guidance.

We choose to believe that Mr. Byron always had and has a very clear idea of where CASA needs to go.

Mr. Byron, Mr. Gemmel and his team will always listen politely and calmly to representations as they should, but will in the end do what is the best within their charter and the terms of their appointment. For any party to claim “ownership” of a change is, without direct acknowledgement, both insolent and impertinent.

This is supposed to be called working together.

[Creampuff]

Mainframe

Yes, I am aware of circumstances in which investigations by the ombudsman of complaints against CASA have been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.

As to the rest of your comments, I can only reiterate one of the points I made earlier. The way our society works is that if we can’t or won’t convince one of more of those institutions that something wrong has been done to us, or to change something that we don’t like, that’s it: game over.

If BB is indeed aware of someone who deserves to be sacked, I’d be very surprised and disappointed if he didn’t sack them.

Woomera:

I too looked askance at the claims made about the provenance and magical powers of that CEO directive. The head of an organisation signs a piece of paper that in effect says the standards division must do what it is allowed to do and must not do what it is not allowed to do, and the “Peace for our time!” crowd comes out of the woodwork. It’s not like the standards division hasn’t known that for the last decade. The problem is that everyone has a crystal clear understanding of what has to be done, but everyone’s crystal clear understanding is different from the others’, and the last thing any Minister or CEO is going to do is step in and make a decision, because then they would be responsible.

[Sunfish]

The directive sounds fine to me. So do CASA's actions as far as I can tell.

I suggest that those of you who are waiting for 'justice" over wrongs done years ago (real or imaginary) are wasting your time. CASA is looking at the future and I think it is neither productive or practical to rake over old grievances and reopen old wounds. There is not enough time.

[gaunty]

Sunfish

Amen to that.

and

Now that an investigation has occured and found no evidence, I would be very, very surprised if any of you ever again has cause (real or imagined) to make any allegation against that office in the foreseeable future.

this too.



Creampuff quite rightly, looks askance.

Problem is, the usual opportunists now see the chance to vindicate their past actions by continuing to be vindictive
both in their actions, mind numbing rhetoric, the form of language they continue to use to convey it and their hilarious and undignified scramble to the high ground.

Get on the bus folks or get out of town, there is men’s work to be done here. Sorry Nicola I couldn't think of a gender neutral word here, but you know what I mean.

[Mainframe]

Cream Puff and Sunfish

CP,
Thank you for your reassurance that the system has checks and balances.

Yes, when you have been genuinely wronged and can afford to be properly represented,
there is a strong possibility that the AAT will uphold your appeal.
This has happened for some of the wronged, no doubt about it.

HOWEVER, this costs buckets of money and the AAT does not award costs.

So we have a system that permits a government department to act improperly, unethically or what you will,
and an appeal tribunal that can restrain the effects of such activity.

The person and his government department that initiates the misconduct is taxpayer funded.


The defendant or applicant must personally fund the appeal (defence against misconduct),
and when the decision is handed down, there is no restitution, nor awarding of costs.

The offenders can then launch another taxpayer funded foray for their personal pleasure, often against the same entity.

If you work for the governement, this is a great system,
costs you nothing and you act with impunity.

For the victim, this process will see your cash reserves rapidly depleted, and no matter how much is spent,
there will be no compensation for that amount even if you are proven right.

As blatant lying and dishonesty often appears as the stock in trade of CASA,
it would seem that BB needs to introduce, and enforce, a Code of Conduct that has a strong Ethical flavour.


No wonder this has been CASA's playground for a long time.

SF,
You are on the right track with regard to the calibre and quality of CASA potential employees.
Nothing much can be done about the some of the misfits that crept in when no one was looking.

I don't have a serious problem with ex Mil, Ex APNG, ex RFDS/Flying school,

PROVIDED that they can substantiate a successful PREVIOUS aviation career.

That some of the present crop has an impressive history of failure and lack of achievement
is cause for concern, primarily because these attributes may be precursors to latent
psychological problems that will manifest themselves as behavioural problems
when implanted in an unaccountable environment, as we have seen happen.

The wording "or Military equivalent" should be interpreted with greater scrutiny.
BB and the AM have impressive and credible achievement records although from a military background
and I am more than comfortable with that. Others, definitely not.

I am not comfortable with under achievers with questionable backgrounds be they
Ex Mil, Ex RFDS, Ex Flying School, Ex APNG or whatever.

Ultimately BB needs respected professionals to deal with the respected professionals in the industry.

Industry expects to deal at a peer level, not as a paroled convict dealing with a police officer.

And lastly Sunfish, I share your optimism with regard to the problem that didn't exist being fixed.

However, I will fully believe it when the vocation redeployment of Batman and Robin
(The "Illustrious Leader" and his besotted "Pinnochio") has actually been implemented.

Only then, with the cancerous growth excised, can this office and the AM move forward.

[Captain Starlight]

SUNFISH

CS, yawning, stretching and waking up.

"What's this? The problem fixed? "

Mainframe, how about Batman and Robin driving off in the Bat Mobile to somewhere they are more needed!

I'm going back to sleep, please don't wake me until the problem can be seen to fixed.

[Bizpax]

Glad someone sees something positive coming out of the FNQ mess! Cos us passengers could sure do with a real regulator catching the cheats and freeing the good guys up to do what they do best.

like all government agencies, CASA already has a code of conduct/ethics and the posted Directive about safety regulation seems to be telling CASA how to suck eggs. Hey, strange notion that safety regulations weren't actually always addressed at known aviation risks! What the heck has it been trying to do for decades? CASA has got to be the most interfered with government aviation organisation in the world.

What CASA needs in order to be an effective safety regulator is some actual aviation policy (which no one has developed for the last decade except under the crazy malign influence of the Mr Smiths), lack of political interference (I mean the sort of interference that comes from sqeaky wheels hightailing it right to the Minister anytime they've got their knickers in a knot), a steady leader at the top (no more pilots just a bureaucrat please), no more reorganisations (scared people don't make good decisions), people with actual regulatory and safety management skills not pilots (luv you guys but pilots should be in aircraft), policy advisors in the Department that actually know a bit about aviation and constructive support from the industry (instead of constant undermining by ex-CASA dropouts and inflated egos).

Let's hope the mysterious and seemingly autocratic (what's with the 'directives') BB actually has some good ideas and doesn't further ruin what could be a world leading organisation.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

"people with actual regulatory and safety management skills not pilots (luv you guys but pilots should be in aircraft)"

So am i to understand that industry knowledge is not important ?, this must be a wind up as no one could seriously suggest that, unless they've been sniffing glue.

"constructive support from the industry (instead of constant undermining by ex-CASA dropouts and inflated egos)"

i definately have not seen that, most ga industry leaders, are usually ATO's and the like have worked for CASA, got their approvals, done a few years and gone back to their true passion, flying, there isn't too many that are disgruntled with CASA as an organisation.

[Mainframe]

Bizpax

Very interested to hear that CASA has a code of conduct/ethics.

As a concerned passenger, suggest you read "Murder of an Airline" and the lack of ethics used by CASA to selectively shut down Ansett.

You might also read some of the transcripts of AAT hearings and also parliamentary reports on dishonesty by CASA.

If there is a code of conduct no one seems to be aware of it.
Perhaps you could expound on this.

As a concerned passenger you might also read some of the threads on LCC's.
We have ignored the safety problems that resulted in multiple fatalities following the deregulation of carriers in the US.

QF1 Bangkok had undertones of the influence of cost cutting without proper impact analysis.

There appears to be emerging trends driven by $39 fares that will eventually come home to roost.

These are, as you suggest, the proper hunting grounds for CASA, not hounding established and compliant operators
while some less compliant operators benefit from the inappropiate diversion of resources away from them.

To a lay person, CASA is doing a great job. To those directly interfacing with them,
they understand that there is room for serious improvement and it is starting to happen.

The decline of the regulator in NZ, and it's subsequent rebirthing into a functioning body also make good study.

I suspect that BB may have observed their mistakes in their decline,
and learned from the culture change that brought them back into line with their mandated tasks.

Cultural change is always difficult, and always resisted.
Sometimes the only solution is "High Velocity Culture Change" and there is a published manifesto for achieving that.

Somehow I suspect that you are not a lay person and may have a deeper understanding of Civil Aviation.

[Creampuff]

Bizpaz: Hear! Hear!

Mainframe: I think you’re going to be a little disappointed if it turns out BB is not the Messiah, but just another naughty boy.

[Mainframe]

CP

I quite readily accept that he may be in fact just a naughty boy on $400,000+ per annum,
however, until proven otherwise, he IS The Messiah.

Minister Anderson and many others are watching to see if he actually can perform the odd miracle or two.
And, like the messiah, Judas is lurking somewhere in the background for his pieces of silver.

Given the rhetoric without action, he may also be the false prophet.

All very interesting, but somehow I think he has to actually prove that
he is the Messiah by doing something measurable, sooner or later.

And if he can survive on that miserable salary for another year or two,
and retire, do you really think he gives a rats a...se anyway?

[Stink Finger]

Heard on the grape vine today that CASA FNQ has just employed a new FOI for CS, wait for it.

He's the present CFI of BAE Flight Training in Adelaide, now does this guy know anything about the area, is he endorsed with considerable time on the fleets he will be over seeing ?, does he have any history in the region ?, has he any discernable charter experience?.

JM you must be on drugs to employ someone with this resume over some of the other applicants, particularly a well respected present FOI applicant from TL.

Creampuff, those AAT transcripts seem to be incompleted, particularly the CYAS/UZU ones, yeh the bits that make the TLFO looks less than competent dont seem to be there.

[Icarus2001]

does he have any history in the region ?,

I would venture to suggest that someone from outside the region would see the situation with unbiased eyes. Anyone with "a history in the region" would or could be seen to have bias.

[Stink Finger]

Icarus,

and what of the more important other stuff, that effects one ability to do their actual job, like:

"Is he endorsed with considerable time on the fleets he will be over seeing ?"

"has he any discernable charter experience?."

"does this guy know anything about the area ?"

these things are critical, employing these people from afar, to date have caused a great deal of problems for CASA, when will they learn ?.

This bloke may infact be an easy going, open door positive type, but the term "tits on a bull" comes to mind.

[bushy]

Our regulator has always been a COMMERCIAL REGULATOR. not a SAFETY REGULATOR like they should be.