Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

CASA reply to PPRuNe email re TVL.

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

CASA reply to PPRuNe email re TVL.

Old 19th Jan 2005, 14:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 69
Posts: 4,275
fish CASA reply to PPRuNe email re TVL.

Folks;

Following a fairly determined discussion on this board in regard to an alleged incident involving a Mackay charter operator during a trip to Brampton and the subsequent allegations aired in regard to “protection” and “favouritism” of certain operators we were moved to send the following email to CASA o the 27th December.

Ms Nicola Hinder
Acting Executive Manager
Corporate Affairs
[email protected]
Copy:
Mr Bruce Byron
Chief Executive Officer
cc: by email.
Allegations involving CASA Offices in Far North Queensland
There has been a number of allegations of serious malfeasance, misconduct, oppressive staff management practices and harsh and unjust regulatory action, over a number of years, involving staff at CASA offices in Townsville and Cairns. Recently, those allegations have principally involved the CASA Townsville Manager.
You are invited to read of recent allegations regarding an aircraft accident at Brampton Island on December 15, 2004 (reported to the ATSB), involving Piper Aztec VH-ZHZ and in particular:
• the allegation the operator may not have complied with CASA requirements in respect to the operator’s post accident operation of the aircraft;
• an allegation the operator concerned may enjoy a preferential relationship with CASA, Townsville, by virtue of previous employment with CASA;
• an allegation CASA staff in Townsville are subject to oppressive management policies and practices, resulting in excessive staff stress leave; and
• allegations of vindictive and grossly excessive regulatory action against certain operators, a number of which have been subsequently overturned in the AAT, but at very significant cost to those operators and individuals.
Those allegations are contained in two threads on the PPRuNe bulletin board:
Aircraft incident at Brampton Island:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&perpage=15&pa genumber=1
BB, FNQ aviation needs your help:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=156838
This information is provided as a public service. PPRuNe Administrators and Moderators do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise contained in user posts to the PPRuNe bulletin board, nor express any opinion as to the veracity of the allegations or statements made.
Woomera
PPRuNe Dunnunda Forum Moderator



The following response, for which we thank Ms Hinder, was received Mon the 17th January 2005.

Woomera
Moderator
Dunnunda and Godzone
Professional Pilots Rumour Network

BY EMAIL: [email protected]



Dear Woomera

I refer to your email of 27 December 2004 enclosing the threads posted on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe) about the actions of officers of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in the Far North Queensland Region.

Firstly, thank you for bringing these posts to my attention and allowing CASA the opportunity to comment.

As you have noted in your email, there have been a number of allegations of serious malfeasance, misconduct and oppressive staff management practices and harsh and unjust regulatory action over the last number of years involving staff at CASA offices in Townsville and Cairns. I would like to note a key word here - allegations.

As a result of allegations relating to the behaviour of a small number of CASA staff in the Townsville office being brought to the attention of Mr Bruce Bryon, Chief Executive Officer of CASA, Mr Byron commissioned Mr Stephen Skehill to investigate those allegations. I do not intend to go into the specifics of the allegations themselves as I think it fair to say that the persons concerned have placed some of Mr Skehill's report and their allegations on the public record on PPRuNe and also the people involved deserve their privacy to be maintained.

The final report on the matters investigated by Mr Skehill was provided to CASA on 17 September 2004. The significant conclusion of the Skehill report was that the evidence did not support the allegations that had been raised.


-2-

Like any industry, gossip and rumour within aviation abound and free and open debate of any concerns should be encouraged. I am concerned however that a number of the matters posted about CASA's actions date from some significant time in the past.

I am also concerned that some of the posts imply, and may indeed encourage, threatening behaviour against CASA staff, and many posts seek to identify particular CASA staff as the subjects of the allegations and threats. While CASA is and always should be subject to scrutiny by those its regulates, and consequently have to deal with well-founded and objective criticisms, it is clearly inappropriate (and unlawful) to threaten and seek to intimidate individual CASA officers. I am astounded that posts containing material clearly intended to be threatening to specific individuals are permitted on PPRuNe.

It is clear that a proportion of the posters are motivated to make their comments by personal animosity or long-held grudges against particular individuals, the North Queensland Area Office, or CASA generally. At the end of the day, comments such as those posted about the past actions of the North Queensland Area Office do nothing to help establish a measure of trust and respect between that office and the aviation industry in North Queensland. However, I would like to note some of the positive comments about CASA that have been posted within this thread and echo the comment by Captain Starlight that if operators wish to raise concerns about the actions of CASA, that this be done direct to the CASA CEO, Chief Operating Officer or to myself. I also note the comments made by the 'Sword of Damocles' on
23 December 2004 where he asked that the rest of the North Queensland industry who are quite content with their regulator, not to be dragged into the vitriol.

CASA had thought and hoped that a fresh start had been made during the industry consultation meeting and open forum we held with FNQ operators last year, and had planned a follow-up visit to Cairns later this year. Due to the success of the meeting in Cairns a visit to Townsville has also been planned.

It appears however that despite this commitment to a fresh start, and the considerable efforts made by the new Area Manager of the North Queensland Area Office, Mr Alan Cook, and the stated intentions of Mr Byron, Mr White and myself at the meeting that an open and effective relationship between us be developed and maintained, there are some who remain unconvinced.

As such, Mr White, Mr Cook and I are planning a visit to the area in the near future.
Should there be any persons who have posted on PPRuNe who would like to opportunity to personally raise their concerns during this visit, they
should feel free to contact my office on (02) 6217 1010. While I note your
post that there are operators who are afraid to raise their concerns, even anonymously, I can nothing more than assure PPRuNe readers that should matters be raised, they will be dealt with seriously and in-confidence.

-3-

Alternatively, may I suggest that commencement of topics that lead to threats of violence or specifically mention CASA officers, be re-considered.


Yours sincerely



Nicola Hinder
Acting Executive Manager
Corporate Affairs

Whilst I must reiterate
PPRuNe Administrators and Moderators do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise contained in user posts to the PPRuNe bulletin board, nor express any opinion as to the veracity of the allegations or statements made.
We simply moderate according to the rules of PPRuNe, the direction of the forum discussion is yours not ours.

I would also remind PPRuNe users:
While CASA is and always should be subject to scrutiny by those its regulates, and consequently have to deal with well-founded and objective criticisms, it is clearly inappropriate (and unlawful) to threaten and seek to intimidate individual CASA officers.
my bolding.

Objective, calm and deliberative discussion is always welcome and indeed encouraged here, particularly if it fosters constructive dialogue between the parties especially including DOTARS, CASA and Airservices and contributes to the well being and safe operation of our industry.

I have no doubt that should you wish to use these forums to address specific or general issues directly to the regulators here in a calm, responsible and deliberative manner you will receive an appropriate response.

If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing Foyls succinct observation in the manner of conducting dialogue with our industry partners.

We can only go forward from here by a shift of view away from the stance that CASA and Airservices are evil entities with the sole aim of maliciously destroying GA. We need to come up with solutions instead of yelping about issues and telling everyone how unfair we think it is. We need to move far, far away from the current rhetoric in order to regain credibility, with the regulators.
The tools are right there on the screen in front of you, these pages are monitored by the regulators and you may and should speak directly to them.
If you do so with the same respect that you are in the habit of demanding from them and others you might just resolve your problem or clarify the issue.
You may not always get the answer you want or expect, but unless you engage with them, you will never find out the why and the wherefore of their decisions, nor have the opportunity to provide the input that they seriously and sincerely desire in order to resolve the issue to your mutual satisfaction.

Creampuff avers;
Perhaps the vocal minority’s the problem, not the solution
We all have the choice which one would you choose to be:

Part of solution

Or

Part of the problem.

Mr Byron and his team sincerely want us all to be part of the solution, they are doing their part to the best of their individual abilities, what are you doing. They will always have the support of PPRuNe to enable them to express their point of view whenever it is appropriate. You of course will always, within the bounds of PPRuNe rules, have the right of reply.

Next time you want to “slip it to em”, let’s see if we can do it in a non confrontational and constructive form, from which point both parties can learn and go forward.

Over to you, it’s your Forum, use it constructively, it’s entirely possible that as a pretty broad cross section of the industry, you can collectively be more effective than some of the narrow focus organisations that claim to represent your interests to Government.

The Woomeri
Woomera is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2005, 15:58
  #2 (permalink)  

Just Binos
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 1,397
I support both PPRuNe's right to raise matters of concern and CASA's right to respond, but something strikes me as odd.

(From CASA) Firstly, thank you for bringing these posts to my attention and allowing CASA the opportunity to comment.
(From PPRuNe) The tools are right there on the screen in front of you, these pages are monitored by the regulators
So, do CASA monitor these pages or not? If they do, why are they reluctant to admit it? And if not, why not?
Binoculars is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2005, 22:26
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 53
While my personal experience doesn't support the Skehill report I must say the behaviour of many on PPRuNe seems to have dont any credibility it may have had a lot of harm.

Max
Maximus B is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2005, 22:40
  #4 (permalink)  

Check Attitude
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 470
Woomeri

This augers well for the future.

There is natural scepticism on reports though, that do not encompass all concerned.

Starlight, yes, I agree with some of what you say.
There is rational and reasoned thoughts contained here by both NH and the Woomeri
Mainframe is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2005, 23:17
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 69
Posts: 4,275
Binos

Woomeri drew CASA's attention to the PPRuNe threads. I would not suggest CASA religiously "monitor" these pages, however it's a fair bet far more people read these pages than care to admit - after all, PPRuNe gets over a million page hits per day. And if a regulator wants to stay in touch with industry thinking, PPRuNe is one measure available.

After all, this is a public forum with both significant aviation industry user contribution and significant readership.

Woomera
Woomera is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2005, 03:25
  #6 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,929
Bino,

So, do CASA monitor these pages or not? If they do, why are they reluctant to admit it? And if not, why not?
I know a lot of FOI's do read PPRuNe...

I think they are a bit gun shy about using the "information" posted here on PPRuNe as in the past the AAT threw the "information" (pprune posts) out as it was deemed not to be "evidence".

I know FOI's have in the past picked up the phone and had a friendly chat to people after reading something on PPRuNe, and I know CASA have issued two aviation rulings based upon some stuff I have posted here on PPRuNe.

swh is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2005, 14:12
  #7 (permalink)  
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,857
In response to the letter from CASA , I would like to assure readers that I was in no way implying or encouraging any threats toward any CASA staff.
I was only expressing surprise, that if these alledged incidents were occuring with as much vindictivness and regularity as was being reported, that somebody hadn't lost the plot and got all personal about it.
I in no way encourage or condone such behaviour.
the wizard of auz is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2005, 00:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
I haven't fully followed this thread as it all just got too churlish but I say good on CASA for responding and monitoring the boards anyway. Why should they tolerate angry little halfwits making threats on their staff without response ?

Good to see some of those who were involved now trying to clarify what they reaallllly mean't isn't it!
victor two is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2005, 00:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
As stated on the other thread, I am forced to accept that CASA has fully investigated the Townsville office by way of the Skehill report.
That report found that there was no basis for the allegations made.

There was no problem.

The problem, that didn't exist, was investigated and confirmed that, it didn't exist.

Therefore I suggest we all go on our way,
happy in the knowledge that CASA does and will investigate properly any complaints against it.

This was all just a silly misunderstanding on the industry's part
and all that money shouldn't have been spent defending the operators
from what the AAT could clearly see was misconduct.

A cup of tea and a chat hopefully will in future save everyone from repeating such embarrassing mistakes.

As stated elsewhere, I'm going to rest a while
and wait for the problems that didn't exist being handled in an appropriate manner.

The Truth is out there, and the Truth will prevail.

bye for now, CS
Captain Starlight is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2005, 11:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Nicola, well done on becoming an active part of this process, all of us here want our industry to be able to work hand in hand with CASA and work towards common goals.

Quote: I also note the comments made by the 'Sword of Damocles' on 23 December 2004 where he asked that the rest of the North Queensland industry who are quite content with their regulator, not to be dragged into the vitriol.

Response: as this is Sword of Damocles first and only post on the forum and responding against the general consensus, perhaps this person has a personal interest in this stopping in its tracks ( as we all do to ensure it doesn't), could i be as rude as to suggest this poster is one of the persons we are talking about within this topic, as opposed to someone within the industry?.

How many people have posted in support of Sword of Damocles ?.

For information, within the BPI topic, there is right now a total of 64 posts from 25 different posters, of these twenty five, only one has had anything positive to say about CASA TL's performance, as has been mentioned, it is not all the members of CASA TL we are finding it impossible to work with.

82.8 % of posts in the BPI are critical of the TLFO TL ( and the other three FOI's previously described ),
15.4 % of posts in the BPI were of a neutral nature,
1.8 % of posts were supportive of the TLFO TL,
18 of the 25 posters are critical of the TLFO TL,
5 of the 25 posters were neutral, and
1 of the 25 poster was supportive of the TLFO TL.

To look at the other posts, BB, FNQ and Does CASA have .....
its again all the same faces, the new addition to the pro CASA group is Creampuff - for those of us that know who creampuff is in the real world, it makes perfect sense ( creampuff, nothing but respect to you, you are entitled to your opinion ).

For quite some time information like what is being presented here has been presented to CASA Management in CB, in just about every form possible, irrate CP's/Directors on the doors step, Motivated Local Members, members of the media ( who were shown the door ), letters, faxes, emails, Documentarys on ABC, AAT hearings, Court Hearings, pretty much every medium available, apparently no action.

If CASA wants to turn over a new leaf, they have to get rid of this dead wood, there is far too much bad blood in the industry from having dealt with these four fools, they have to go before you will be taken seriously.

Soon enough you have to look at the trend here, gee theres alot of people complaining, mmm?.

As a member of the industry i feel it is a shame that the new enforcement proceedures have been commissioned, yes it protects us, but from whom or what ?, now CASA effectively can't do squat, without a long drawn out trip to the AAT, to date CASA has a pretty terrible record at the AAT, to what end, De-empowering of CASA, is this good ?.

These new proceedures have been commissioned to control over zealous CASA types as described within these topics.

I, and i am sure many others like me will engage in this process, but if no action is seen, and soon, we will vote with our feet, assuming of course Australia is still a democracy.



Stink. The Woomera team accepts implicitly the necessity of an accountable regulator and accepts that the vast majority of CASA employees are dedicated to ensuring safe air travel. If rogue elements exist, we are totally confident CASA management will take appropriate action.

The fact CASA saw fit to respond to an anonymous aviation bulletin board is indicative of their desire to work harmoniously with industry to achieve their legislative objectives. That in itself is possibly a fundamental philosophical change from what many believe has been their historical perspective. For that, Ms Hinder and CASA management must be applauded.

I believe our task is now to support CASA to ensure change both benefits the industry and the traveling public.

Woomera

Last edited by Stink Finger; 21st Jan 2005 at 12:52.
Stink Finger is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2005, 12:33
  #11 (permalink)  
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,857
Red face

Victor two, in response to your addition.
Why should they tolerate angry little halfwits making threats on their staff without response ?Good to see some of those who were involved now trying to clarify what they reaallllly mean't isn't it!
First off,If I intended to make a threat, I would have done it without hiding the fact that it was a threat. I aint a little angry halfwit, until know all, smart ass, cowards like your self piss me off. then I'm an big angry halfwit thats likly to kick your ass if you have the brass to front me your self..............but alas, it will never happen because you like hide under a clever name on a public board, so I won't bother getting angry.
second, after rereading the thread, I notice that, unless some posts have been deleated, mine was one of the comments that could be construed as threatening, and this wasn't my intention, so I posted to make that clear. why do you have a problem with that?.
could be coz your a friggen half wit maybe?.
If I intend to say sumint buddy, I'll say it. straight out, no hidden meanings or any of that crap, and I make no secret of who I am in the real world.
I think it might be you that really has a problem, not me.
Have yerself a bloody Bonza day.
cheers, Wiz.
the wizard of auz is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2005, 13:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 842
Very positive times ahead, NH, i'd also like to thank you for your input.

I have had dealings with AC, he's exactly what we need in FNQ to bring these new ways of doing business into operation.

It's probably been 5 years since i've seen an FOI / AWI at the aeroclub for a friday arvo drink, does CASA employ tea toaters now ?.

Woomera - it is most definately a fundamental phylosophical change, and good to see.

Wiz - I personally would not have taken what you said as an attack on any individual, more of an ocker australianism for your disbelief of what you were reading.
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2005, 02:33
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
There is at least one other explanation which makes perfect sense, Stink Finger, and that’s that the allegations are unsupported by the facts.

We may just be seeing another lap of the tired old aviation merry go round, during which a new CEO and AM in CASA will have their intelligence and integrity insulted when they beg to differ from the same tired old accusers. We can certainly add Mr Skehill to the list of eminent and powerful people insulted this time ‘round.

There’s no trend here. It’s the same people bearing the same grudges, year in, year out. They’ll go to the grave bearing those grudges. It’s the aviation equivalent of the family feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys, and it’s no coincidence it occurs in the aviation equivalent of Deliverance territory.

If there is any corruption in CASA - and I’m sure there is a tiny minority of bad apples in any organisation - I hope it is exposed and dealt with immediately. If I didn’t have anything important to do, I’d start with exposing the mates of Torres and Walking Eagle in CASA, who, rather than doing what the taxpayers are paying them to do, leak half truths and selective information, in breach of various criminal laws.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2005, 03:18
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
CreamPuff,

I agree it is a small group within CASA, in most part the CASA folk i've delt with have been great

quote:If I didn’t have anything important to do, I’d start with exposing the mates of Torres and Walking Eagle in CASA, who, rather than doing what the taxpayers are paying them to do, leak half truths and selective information, in breach of various criminal laws.

Creampuff, i dare you to, lets see where that will take us.

You may consider this a merry go round, there are alot of new faces here and they don't appear to be spectators, they share their experiences, and the pattern of inpropriety continues, different operators, different directors, different CP's, different routes, different aircraft, years apart, but one thing stays the same.

Torres for example recieved his special treatment 5 odd years ago, how many cycles have we been through since then, perhaps it is still an issue that is well and truly alive, has justice been served, i think not.

If, lets say an allegation can't be proved, but many many people are making pretty much verbatim the same allegation, is this grounds for concern ?, it would certainly indicate a trend.

These allegations have in the AAT been proven a number of time, by CASA being booted out of the hearing, MAINFRAME, what was the term that was used at the AAT describing TLFO TL conduct, " Despicable ", i believe ?.
Stink Finger is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2005, 08:13
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Stink

Thank you for making my point.

If we want to cite the AAT’s comments about CASA as evidence of impropriety (a reasonable thing to do, in my view) we need to review everything the AAT has said about CASA in order to make an objective assessment of the extent of the impropriety. Otherwise, we’re being a little selective and prejudiced, don’t you think?

For every AAT hearing in which CASA has been criticised, there are 2 dozen where the AAT has decided that CASA has made the correct and preferable decision. Crunch those numbers for me, and let me know how you interpret them.

That outcome is a little inconvenient for CASA’s accusers. So they take the logical next step and say that the AAT runs scared every time CASA says “safety”. But the duplicity of that position is exposed when, upon sober reflection, one releases that CASA always says “safety”, and yet, as you have pointed out, the AAT occasionally disagrees with CASA and even gives it a caning now and then. That’s why the AAT was created.

And then there’s the line about the AAT not being “a real court”. If we look at superior court decisions, the success rate is not as high for CASA, but it still ‘wins’ more often than not. However, I note that the side which ‘wins’ battles in administrative law sometimes doesn’t win the war, so it’s difficult to extrapolate from the decisions. Except to say I haven’t seen a judgement in which a Federal Court judge describes any action of CASA as corrupt or malicious. In the only Federal Court matter of which I am aware that those accusations were levelled against CASA, the judge was so unimpressed with the case that he awarded costs against the accusing counsel personally.

Torres didn’t receive any “special treatment”, at least not in a negative sense. The organisation for which he worked broke the rules, regulatory action was taken, and when the regulator was satisfied the organisation was capable of complying with the rules, the regulatory action ended. While Torres and any journalist around are of course free selectively to quote whatever facts they like about the circumstances, and to put whatever spin on them they like, they’re more than a little naïve if they think no one’s going to tell the other side of the story, on the first and only occasion the accusations were investigated.

Torres’ legitimate complaint relates not to corruption, but to the complete policy vacuum and progress on classification of operations “reform”. The government doesn’t know what it wants for GA and, in case you haven’t worked it out by now, it doesn’t care.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2005, 09:44
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 53
Creamy.

Spot on with your last comment.

Unfortunately while GA continues to gnaw its own arm off by way of infigting, attacks on competetors, attacks on kid pilots struggling for the first few hours, attacks on AOPA, attacks on ATC and while the 'bigger end' continues the myth of 'commercial airspace' and a them and us attitude, why should the government care. ( if they get worried for a second they only have to read these threads to reassure themselves we remain in disharmony and subsequent dissaray).

GA is effectively neutering itself as a lobby force.

Max
Maximus B is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2005, 10:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Creamy, i would agree with you on a number of points:

1> the inpropriety can be measured by looking at the results of the AAT, why hasn't actual positve action been taken.

2> the term "safety" being used as a get out of goal free card for CASA TL.

3> he who wins the battle does not neccesarily win the war, is this natural justice ?.


Points i disagree with:

1> the AAT successes out weight failures, i do not see this and this is a terrible shame, either CASA has been effectively de-empowered by the actions of the rogue elements or CASA has crap lawyers.

2> the industry is not working together, due to the nature of the vindictive individuals within TL, by covert means, through the AM, Current Affair, web sites, hundreds of hours talking between competing companies, sharing of information between companies, it is pretty much building a two camp policy, the industry front and CASA's front, i want to see this stop, i want to see trust and an open door policy, have you ever tried to get a straight yes or no answer out of a FOI or AWI ?.

3> Torres recieved a fair go, he was not the only operator conducting these operations in the Straits, but he got the latex glove treatment, which essentially caused the financial demise of the company, he was made an example of, what about all the other examples of good and bad outcome for different operators, BPI incident, Mark peert/ cloncurry mustering, there are more.

Vacumm policy, where the hell does it talk about fixed terminal, routes or shared charter within the Regs ?, nothing has in essence changed, there are still the same inconsistencies, since before Torres's time ( for example ), it still all comes down to ones interpretation of the intent of the regulation, i.e. the delegate must be satisfied, satisfied with what ?.

Last edited by Stink Finger; 22nd Jan 2005 at 11:41.
Stink Finger is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2005, 14:24
  #18 (permalink)  

Check Attitude
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 470
Cream Puff

Where there is smoke there is fire !

Whilst Skehill was satisfied that there was no basis in the allegations,
it seems that quite a number of entities and identities were harmed by misconduct.
The majority were in the industry, but some are / were CASA employees.


Do you really suggest they all were confused or mistaken?

Trips to Canberra from Cairns cost money and they were not undertaken lightly.
There must have been an overwhelming sense of injustice to consider undertaking such a trip,
not only were there travel expenses, there was loss of revenue, and the cost of legal teams.
As most of your travel and expenses were taxpayer funded in the past,
you may not appreciate the costs, except when glancing at your travel expense form when you handed it in.

These people were not taxpayer funded,
and the decision to travel to Canberra, although expensive, was driven by despair.

Maybe the terms of reference for Skehill's report were either selective or perhaps too narrow?

Perhaps BB might have been well advised to also have had Skehill investigate the recent Head Office rogue element revolt,
they too may have been found free of blame by Skehill and might still be in their positions of influence.

If CASA was once your source of income, your loyalty is commendable,
but loyalty sometimes has to stand aside for reality.
There is some smoke out there, and just maybe there is a fire.

That Skehill saw the smoke but couldn't find the fire is a possibility that you may need at some time to concede.

On the whole, the regulator has some fine people working for them.
And as you correctly observe, they may also have a small rogue element, as BB recently discovered.

On the whole, the industry has some fine people working within it. And it too has a small rogue element.
(Isn't this the reason we have a regulator?)

However, there is no regulator for the regulator.
Invariably, misconduct can be conducted with impunity,
and laughed about in the sanctuary of their unassailable fortress.

The "Phelan papers" meticulously document the history of misconduct, and will continue to do so.

Having said that, I am of the sincere belief that Bruce Byron
intends to make life uncomfortable for the rogue element

Nicola Hinder has signalled her intent to support Bruce Byron's reforms
and the appointment of Alan Cook to Area Manager, Townsville is seen by most to be a very positive move.
(almost all who deal with AC are surprised and impressed by his very genuine sincerity and consequently he is restoring trust at long last.)
Mainframe is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2005, 16:21
  #19 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,408
Mainframe

On the whole, the regulator has some fine people working for them.
And as you correctly observe, they may also have a small rogue element, as BB recently discovered.

On the whole, the industry has some fine people working within it. And it too has a small rogue element.
Quite so;

The "Phelan papers" meticulously document the history of misconduct, (CASA) and will continue to do so.
Quite so;

AND he would gain some real credibility if he were also to;
meticulously document the history of misconduct,
of the operators whom he is wont to describe as the "victims".

Two wrongs don't make a right and neither is justice served by a self serving journalistic beating up without the other side being appropriately represented.

It is true that in the past, despite the pathetic bleating of self appointed retired airline captain gurus, the only thing that they, CASA (and I may exclude the TVL bits) or whatever they may have been called at the time, may be guilty of, is the lack of a really effective apparatus to prosecute the real villains in the industry.

I can hear the howls of limelight deprived anguish in the background, preparation of stakes for witches burning thereof and with the usual demonising of anybody who suggests that CASA may well have had some justification, however misused, in attempting to prosecute their mission.

I.E regulating the industry, fairly and equitably..

Mr. Byron has a difficult task; there is/are no end of people in the organisation who are very capable of supporting him. The problem is that they are so gunshy, (see journalistic beating up above) that it will take no end of encouragement and building of trust within the organisation to winkle them out.

Mr. Byron has the means, ably supported by Mr. Gemmel, mr Cook and Ms Hinder to whom we should give our unequivocal support; we do not have any choice.

The serious almost terminal damage they are earnestly trying to repair is a result of the unrelenting years (about a decade or so circa 1995 RH Smith et al) of egomaniacal posturing of self appointed “industry gurus”.

That was then this is now.

Get with the programme people, or bugger off.
gaunty is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2005, 04:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 842
Stinky,
for info, its Mark Peart, Carpentaria Helicopters.

Creampuff,
with the concept of natural justice be commisioned within our industry, where does the line between "Freedom of Information" and "Natural Justice" lie ?, for example in the past an operator may have requested info under FOI, and was subsequently denied this info, can this now be requested as a part of the " Natural Justice" concept ?.

Thanks.
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.