CASA Pulls Transair AOC.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the comment "my real concern is that Transair can continue to fly" is attributed to Queensland Labor Senator Jan McLucas in the article posted by the thread starter.
This is why you have to read these things carefully!
Di
This is why you have to read these things carefully!
Di
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at that Estimates session for most of the day for reasons unrelated to Transair, but I watched those exchanges with a great deal of interest.
Creampuff will agree with me I think when I say that there is always a delicate game being played here. Information offered by the victims
is sought and given under privilege, but the consequences of "innaccuracies" are also severe.
Senators are entitled to ask whatever they like and require answers, but the answers provided must also be able to be provided legally and without trampling the rights of the "subject". It might have appeared that CASA was tap dancing around but you had to be there to see that they were simply being responsible to all sides of the subject.
Yes they advised that the AOC had been cancelled but also that the company was entitled to a 5 working day stay under the legislation to exercise their rights to access the AAT.
This is the same legislation that was able to be enabled
by clearing a path for the "unobstructed passing" of routine regulatory amendments relating to strict liability the responsibility for which, if I recall correctly, I was cashiered out of the regiment, tarred feathered and run out of town.
The former rules would have made it available to CASA to shut em down, period, at least without a great deal of the folderol now required to "protect" the operator from an alleged CASA victimisation.
So which way do you want to play the game.
Whatever you may or may not feel about an operators suitability there is a process that makes CASAs job maybe fairer but even harder than it was, to protect those for whom they are responsible from those behaving irresponsibly.
Sen Mc Lucas was obviously very well prepared and determined to get the reults to which she is entitled, but asked her questions carefully and with respect. She will most certainly get the answers her questions deserve, but we all know that with the best will and motivation in the world from both sides of that fence, it is impossible for her and her constituents to understand the boundaries, nuance and context of the events before then and now.
The rules attitudes and people have changed from 2001 thru the accident to the present.
To attempt to examine and judge the past in the context of the present especially given the enormous and positive changes that have taken place, is like trying to do a Tap Dogs routine on a thin ice covered pond.
Overall insofar as CASA is concerned we are now in good hands and getting better.
And Senators O'Brien and the Hon Heffernans job will become that much easier.
Many of the other equally important sections of DOTARS were in and out almost it seemed in minutes, (or did I sleep thru those bits
) which is as it should be.
I'm sure Messrs Byron and Gemmell are driving towards that point.
Creampuff will agree with me I think when I say that there is always a delicate game being played here. Information offered by the victims
is sought and given under privilege, but the consequences of "innaccuracies" are also severe. Senators are entitled to ask whatever they like and require answers, but the answers provided must also be able to be provided legally and without trampling the rights of the "subject". It might have appeared that CASA was tap dancing around but you had to be there to see that they were simply being responsible to all sides of the subject.
Yes they advised that the AOC had been cancelled but also that the company was entitled to a 5 working day stay under the legislation to exercise their rights to access the AAT.
This is the same legislation that was able to be enabled
by clearing a path for the "unobstructed passing" of routine regulatory amendments relating to strict liability the responsibility for which, if I recall correctly, I was cashiered out of the regiment, tarred feathered and run out of town.The former rules would have made it available to CASA to shut em down, period, at least without a great deal of the folderol now required to "protect" the operator from an alleged CASA victimisation.
So which way do you want to play the game.
Whatever you may or may not feel about an operators suitability there is a process that makes CASAs job maybe fairer but even harder than it was, to protect those for whom they are responsible from those behaving irresponsibly.
Sen Mc Lucas was obviously very well prepared and determined to get the reults to which she is entitled, but asked her questions carefully and with respect. She will most certainly get the answers her questions deserve, but we all know that with the best will and motivation in the world from both sides of that fence, it is impossible for her and her constituents to understand the boundaries, nuance and context of the events before then and now.
The rules attitudes and people have changed from 2001 thru the accident to the present.
To attempt to examine and judge the past in the context of the present especially given the enormous and positive changes that have taken place, is like trying to do a Tap Dogs routine on a thin ice covered pond.
Overall insofar as CASA is concerned we are now in good hands and getting better.
And Senators O'Brien and the Hon Heffernans job will become that much easier.
Many of the other equally important sections of DOTARS were in and out almost it seemed in minutes, (or did I sleep thru those bits
) which is as it should be.I'm sure Messrs Byron and Gemmell are driving towards that point.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bendo, an astute observation.
There are many more longstanding operators, who never put a band-aid on a passenger, that have been forced out of business.
and regrettably there are many operators who have killed passengers and have been allowed to continue,
without the harassment accorded to the band aid frugal.
The Phelan papers are now five years out of date, the revised edition will make interesting reading.
It is rumoured that serial offenders within CASA will be named.
The current senate activity is not so much about Transair,
it is a genuine effort to initiate the long overdue inquiry into CASA.
Byron has got the ship back on course, some of the rogues have been allowed to leave with a golden handshake,
without facing disciplinary action, which in some cases should involve the AFP.
However, when some of the industry's friends in CASA suddenly take the money and run, it reinforces the need for the inquiry.
There are similar shades of a witness protection program, recently perfected with the Cole inquiry. That is not acceptable, and will be exposed.
The industry at large does not want less inspectors on the beat.
However, it does want inspectors who adhere to both CASA's charter, and to its code of conduct.
And as Australian citizens, we expect that public officials be accountable for their actions, and their misconduct.
It is also desirable that CASA operates within the constraints of the Australian Constitution, not outside of it as they can at present.
I am naive enough to believe that the previously thwarted senate attempt for an inquiry will succeed,
and that it will ultimately assist Byron's attempts at reform.
It is an inevitable fact of life that Truth and Justice, Ultimately and Always, Will Prevail.
It is the fabric of our Western system of justice and government.
over to the offended.
We have the ridiculous situation where long-standing real-world operators like Yanda and Ord Air
can be hounded out of existence on paperwork issues without so much as putting a band-aid on a passenger,
and yet you fly into a hill and it takes HOW long to generate some regulatory action?
can be hounded out of existence on paperwork issues without so much as putting a band-aid on a passenger,
and yet you fly into a hill and it takes HOW long to generate some regulatory action?
and regrettably there are many operators who have killed passengers and have been allowed to continue,
without the harassment accorded to the band aid frugal.
The Phelan papers are now five years out of date, the revised edition will make interesting reading.
It is rumoured that serial offenders within CASA will be named.
The current senate activity is not so much about Transair,
it is a genuine effort to initiate the long overdue inquiry into CASA.
Byron has got the ship back on course, some of the rogues have been allowed to leave with a golden handshake,
without facing disciplinary action, which in some cases should involve the AFP.
However, when some of the industry's friends in CASA suddenly take the money and run, it reinforces the need for the inquiry.
There are similar shades of a witness protection program, recently perfected with the Cole inquiry. That is not acceptable, and will be exposed.
The industry at large does not want less inspectors on the beat.
However, it does want inspectors who adhere to both CASA's charter, and to its code of conduct.
And as Australian citizens, we expect that public officials be accountable for their actions, and their misconduct.
It is also desirable that CASA operates within the constraints of the Australian Constitution, not outside of it as they can at present.
I am naive enough to believe that the previously thwarted senate attempt for an inquiry will succeed,
and that it will ultimately assist Byron's attempts at reform.
It is an inevitable fact of life that Truth and Justice, Ultimately and Always, Will Prevail.
It is the fabric of our Western system of justice and government.
over to the offended.
Mainframe: 10 out of 10 for jingoism and motherhood statements. 1 out of 10 for facts.
SWH: Looks like you were putting Senator McLucas’s words in Mr Byron’s mouth. A mea culpa might be appropriate.
Gaunty: As you say, considerable care needs to be taken in deciding the extent of information disclosed under parliamentary privilege. There can be very legitimate reasons for seeking to limit or resist disclosure.
Strict liability caused the sky to fall in, and it’s all your fault!
It seems to me that we’re simply going through the usual cycle. We’re swinging towards the ‘let’s be friends with industry’ phase, which will be turned around by the next Seaview or Monarch, if Lockhart River wasn’t enough. Witness this chapter in the latest repetition of history:
SWH: Looks like you were putting Senator McLucas’s words in Mr Byron’s mouth. A mea culpa might be appropriate.
Gaunty: As you say, considerable care needs to be taken in deciding the extent of information disclosed under parliamentary privilege. There can be very legitimate reasons for seeking to limit or resist disclosure.
Strict liability caused the sky to fall in, and it’s all your fault!
It seems to me that we’re simply going through the usual cycle. We’re swinging towards the ‘let’s be friends with industry’ phase, which will be turned around by the next Seaview or Monarch, if Lockhart River wasn’t enough. Witness this chapter in the latest repetition of history:
Senator O’BRIEN—I refer to your message of 11 October which recently appeared on CASA’s website. It commences with the line:
Is that true?
Mr Byron—We have already made fundamental changes to the regulation of aviation safety. I reported to the committee previously that I felt that the approach taken previously which focused very narrowly on some of our functions was not broad enough to achieve the objectives that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is empowered to under the act and that we needed to do some of our functions to a greater degree. We need to do additional functions which the Civil Aviation Act effectively directs us to do. Collectively, that is fundamental change. The announcement that was put out on 11 October in some ways reminds people in the industry of things that we have already embarked on over the last two years and some of the changes that are ongoing. It is really creating an awareness in the industry that the regulator will be taking, and has already taken, a different approach. In simplistic terms, people in the industry have already seen, and will continue to see, a lot more of us.
Senator O’BRIEN—This fundamental change is on all fours with the legislative environment in which CASA exists? Is that true?
Mr Byron—You mean is it supported by the legislation?
Senator O’BRIEN—Yes, does it comply with the legislation? Is it on all fours with the provisions of the legislation as it now stands?
Mr Byron—In my view, definitely; yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—Has Minister Vaile endorsed this fundamental change?
Mr Byron—I have had a briefing with Minister Vaile. I have explained to him the broad thrust of the changes that we are making at CASA, the reasons for the changes and given him an update on the progress. So I have done that and he, as minister, is aware of that.
Senator O’BRIEN—I understand that your message to staff says;
Does section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act not require CASA to develop ‘effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards’?
Mr Byron—Yes, but section 3 of the act says that everything that we do should be related to safety outcomes as measured by accidents and incidents. The functions, as listed in section 9 of the act, describe a range of activities, one of which is enforcement activities. In terms of the hierarchy of functions, I suppose one that we should be giving more attention to in my view is the surveillance of the aviation industry, particularly as the act tells us to take account of the contribution made to aviation safety by industry management and the quality of their safety related decisions. So whilst compliance with the regulations is unquestionably a function of the Civil Aviation Authority, it is not the end of the story.
Senator O’BRIEN—I would have thought it had never been the end of the story.
Mr Byron—There certainly have been people in this organisation and, I believe, people in the industry who have felt that that is the only role of CASA. We are making it clear that that is not the case. The act makes it quite clear that we should be doing more to effect safety outcomes.
Senator O’BRIEN—Does section 28BD of the act not require a holder of an AOC to comply with all applicable requirements of this act, the regulations and the civil aviation orders? What is wrong with those of us who expect CASA to enforce aviation safety rules established by and with the authority of the parliament expecting CASA to enforce them?
Mr Byron—There is nothing wrong with that at all, but what I am saying is that that is not the end of the activities of CASA. We certainly do that. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that. There is no change to that, but there are additional activities that we should be performing under the power of the act if we are going to make an actual contribution to safety in the real world.
The aviation industry, in managing its safety risks on a daily basis, certainly should be complying with the regulations; but there are many other activities that can impact on safety outcomes that are not necessarily covered by the civil aviation regulations or orders. In my view, and I believe the act gives us the requirement, we need to be finding out from industry additional work that they are doing to manage their risks. To make the assumption that all risks are covered by regulations is, in my view, naive. It is part of the task of CASA to do that, but it is not the only thing we should be doing. If some people are interpreting this approach as a change from checking compliance with the regulations, we are not saying that—
Senator O’BRIEN—You said that a fundamental change was being made to aviation safety regulation and then you went on to talk about this approach. I just want to be clear what it means, because frankly there is a legislative framework under which CASA operates and it requires the enforcement of regulations.
Mr Byron—That statement covers a range of information—and that is one item from it—but it also talks about CASA needing to act firmly when we are required to, but we still need to check compliance with regulations. No one is saying we are not going to do that, but we are going to do additional activity and we have started to do that.
Senator O’BRIEN—Let me quote from part of your statement:
How can I understand that other than that your focus is going to be on safety systems, culture and risk management rather than observance of regulations?
Mr Byron—Yes, but the next paragraph says:
Senator O’BRIEN—But it continues:
Mr Byron—That approach can never be an end in itself.
Senator O’BRIEN—So that is how CASA has been operating in the past, is it? You have just looked at ticking the regulatory box and there has not been a look at safety culture at the same time?
Mr Byron—I think some of our people have tried to do that, but certainly from an organisational point of view, going back a couple of years there has been a focus on simply checking compliance with the regulations as an end to itself. What I am saying is that that is not enough.
Senator O’BRIEN—What did you mean when you told staff:
Mr Byron—It says there will be less emphasis. What I mean by that is that that is not the only thing we are going to be doing. I am asking staff to do more. In the past some of our staff might have had the attitude, or the belief, that the organisation simply wanted them to check compliance with the regulations. We are asking them to do more. So it is a communication exercise which is trying to encourage people in the industry, and in CASA as well, to make sure that there is more to safety regulation in an attempt to achieve safe outcomes than merely just checking compliance with the regulations. There will continue to be regulatory compliance audits.
They are going on right now.
Senator O’BRIEN—Before today’s hearing I reviewed some of the findings of the Monarch coronial inquiry and the Seaview commission of inquiry and I noted that in 2000 this committee endorsed the findings of those inquiries in its report into CASA’s administration of ARCAS Airways. I understand your message to staff says you are committed to a ‘fresh definition of the relationship between the regulator and the industry’, and you say:
It sounds like you consider the industry to be a partner, Mr Byron, and that approach does worry me.
Mr Byron—Did you say a partner?
Senator O’BRIEN—Partner.
Mr Byron—The regulator is the regulator and will always be separate from industry. Doing our function of checking compliance with the regulations is very much as a regulator to industry activity and does not imply a partnership and certainly cannot be done in a partnership. There are other activities that industry must undertake to manage risks on a daily basis—I know this from my own practical background in the industry—and there is a role, quite clearly, for part of the regulator to be working with industry to make sure we understand how they are managing their risks and, if they are not managing them adequately over and above compliance with the regulations, then assisting them to get there. Section 3 of the act makes it quite clear that the purpose of this organisation is to effect safety outcomes. There is a range of ways that you can do that.
Senator O’BRIEN—In the commission of inquiry into Seaview, Mr Staunton said:
And following its inquiry into CASA and ARCAS this committee said:
Are you walking away from those recommendations?
Mr Byron—No, I am saying there is additional work to be done. I read the report of the Seaview commission of inquiry and other associated documents at that time, and I am very much aware of the dangers of becoming too close to industry on everything we do. There is absolutely no suggestion that we are going to do that. What I am saying is that there is more to the job of an aviation safety regulator to satisfy the act than doing that. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced new capabilities into our workforce—people who are skilled in that area. There will always be a role for our frontline technical people to check compliance with the regulations.
Senator O’BRIEN—I am just baffled by some of the language in your statement. You say, for example:
Shouldn’t we focus on whether the regulations are being complied with?
Mr Byron—We need to be focusing on the safety outcomes as the primary activity, and below that there will be a subset of activities that we must do—one of which is, unquestionably, compliance with the regulations—but there are other activities and other work that contributes to that. It is a complex issue and it is not solved simply by ticking boxes, as you say.
Senator O’BRIEN—It may well be partly solved by ticking boxes.
Mr Byron—I agree.
Senator O’BRIEN—I am concerned that that statement implies a walking away from the rigorous auditing of organisations to ensure they are complying with regulations.
Mr Byron—I assure you that there is no walking away from rigorous compliance audit when they are necessary, without any question. Every organisation, particularly every large transport organisation, is subject to exactly that. It is also subject now to additional interface with CASA.
Senator O’BRIEN—I think Senator McLucas has got some questions that she wants to run at this time.
Senator McLUCAS—Yes. I want to ask some questions about CASA’s oversight of Lessbrook trading as TransAir Pty Ltd …
Fundamental changes are being made to aviation safety regulation in Australia.
Mr Byron—We have already made fundamental changes to the regulation of aviation safety. I reported to the committee previously that I felt that the approach taken previously which focused very narrowly on some of our functions was not broad enough to achieve the objectives that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is empowered to under the act and that we needed to do some of our functions to a greater degree. We need to do additional functions which the Civil Aviation Act effectively directs us to do. Collectively, that is fundamental change. The announcement that was put out on 11 October in some ways reminds people in the industry of things that we have already embarked on over the last two years and some of the changes that are ongoing. It is really creating an awareness in the industry that the regulator will be taking, and has already taken, a different approach. In simplistic terms, people in the industry have already seen, and will continue to see, a lot more of us.
Senator O’BRIEN—This fundamental change is on all fours with the legislative environment in which CASA exists? Is that true?
Mr Byron—You mean is it supported by the legislation?
Senator O’BRIEN—Yes, does it comply with the legislation? Is it on all fours with the provisions of the legislation as it now stands?
Mr Byron—In my view, definitely; yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—Has Minister Vaile endorsed this fundamental change?
Mr Byron—I have had a briefing with Minister Vaile. I have explained to him the broad thrust of the changes that we are making at CASA, the reasons for the changes and given him an update on the progress. So I have done that and he, as minister, is aware of that.
Senator O’BRIEN—I understand that your message to staff says;
... many people are still focusing on compliance with the regulations, not whether CASA and the industry are achieving the best possible safety outcomes.
Mr Byron—Yes, but section 3 of the act says that everything that we do should be related to safety outcomes as measured by accidents and incidents. The functions, as listed in section 9 of the act, describe a range of activities, one of which is enforcement activities. In terms of the hierarchy of functions, I suppose one that we should be giving more attention to in my view is the surveillance of the aviation industry, particularly as the act tells us to take account of the contribution made to aviation safety by industry management and the quality of their safety related decisions. So whilst compliance with the regulations is unquestionably a function of the Civil Aviation Authority, it is not the end of the story.
Senator O’BRIEN—I would have thought it had never been the end of the story.
Mr Byron—There certainly have been people in this organisation and, I believe, people in the industry who have felt that that is the only role of CASA. We are making it clear that that is not the case. The act makes it quite clear that we should be doing more to effect safety outcomes.
Senator O’BRIEN—Does section 28BD of the act not require a holder of an AOC to comply with all applicable requirements of this act, the regulations and the civil aviation orders? What is wrong with those of us who expect CASA to enforce aviation safety rules established by and with the authority of the parliament expecting CASA to enforce them?
Mr Byron—There is nothing wrong with that at all, but what I am saying is that that is not the end of the activities of CASA. We certainly do that. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that. There is no change to that, but there are additional activities that we should be performing under the power of the act if we are going to make an actual contribution to safety in the real world.
The aviation industry, in managing its safety risks on a daily basis, certainly should be complying with the regulations; but there are many other activities that can impact on safety outcomes that are not necessarily covered by the civil aviation regulations or orders. In my view, and I believe the act gives us the requirement, we need to be finding out from industry additional work that they are doing to manage their risks. To make the assumption that all risks are covered by regulations is, in my view, naive. It is part of the task of CASA to do that, but it is not the only thing we should be doing. If some people are interpreting this approach as a change from checking compliance with the regulations, we are not saying that—
Senator O’BRIEN—You said that a fundamental change was being made to aviation safety regulation and then you went on to talk about this approach. I just want to be clear what it means, because frankly there is a legislative framework under which CASA operates and it requires the enforcement of regulations.
Mr Byron—That statement covers a range of information—and that is one item from it—but it also talks about CASA needing to act firmly when we are required to, but we still need to check compliance with regulations. No one is saying we are not going to do that, but we are going to do additional activity and we have started to do that.
Senator O’BRIEN—Let me quote from part of your statement:
In short, CASA will not be knocking on your door armed with the regulations and a plan to dig around until breaches are found. When CASA carries out an audit or other surveillance the focus will be on your safety systems, safety culture and how you manage your risks.
Mr Byron—Yes, but the next paragraph says:
This does not mean CASA will stop examining how you are operating. Audits and surveillance, for example, will still include observations of line-flying, maintenance work and training.
But this will be done as a way of measuring the practical outcomes of safety systems—not as an end in itself.
Senator O’BRIEN—So that is how CASA has been operating in the past, is it? You have just looked at ticking the regulatory box and there has not been a look at safety culture at the same time?
Mr Byron—I think some of our people have tried to do that, but certainly from an organisational point of view, going back a couple of years there has been a focus on simply checking compliance with the regulations as an end to itself. What I am saying is that that is not enough.
Senator O’BRIEN—What did you mean when you told staff:
... there will be far less emphasis on getting involved in the operational detail of organisations through issuing administrative notices such as requests for corrective action, as this is in effect CASA doing the work of managing safety for industry.
They are going on right now.
Senator O’BRIEN—Before today’s hearing I reviewed some of the findings of the Monarch coronial inquiry and the Seaview commission of inquiry and I noted that in 2000 this committee endorsed the findings of those inquiries in its report into CASA’s administration of ARCAS Airways. I understand your message to staff says you are committed to a ‘fresh definition of the relationship between the regulator and the industry’, and you say:
CASA’s main emphasis will be on helping organisations and people to manage their own risks, by using motivation and education.
Mr Byron—Did you say a partner?
Senator O’BRIEN—Partner.
Mr Byron—The regulator is the regulator and will always be separate from industry. Doing our function of checking compliance with the regulations is very much as a regulator to industry activity and does not imply a partnership and certainly cannot be done in a partnership. There are other activities that industry must undertake to manage risks on a daily basis—I know this from my own practical background in the industry—and there is a role, quite clearly, for part of the regulator to be working with industry to make sure we understand how they are managing their risks and, if they are not managing them adequately over and above compliance with the regulations, then assisting them to get there. Section 3 of the act makes it quite clear that the purpose of this organisation is to effect safety outcomes. There is a range of ways that you can do that.
Senator O’BRIEN—In the commission of inquiry into Seaview, Mr Staunton said:
No doubt the benevolent treatment of industry and the apparent willingness to overlook quite serious breaches was given impetus by industry being declared the partner of the Civil Aviation Authority. Partnership envisages cooperation. Prosecution, cancellation or suspension are hardly the actions of a partner. They’re acts of hostility.
... that CASA take steps to recommit itself to strong action through prosecution or suspension of those operators who deliberately breach maintenance, airworthiness and reporting and recording requirements, thereby compromising air safety.
Mr Byron—No, I am saying there is additional work to be done. I read the report of the Seaview commission of inquiry and other associated documents at that time, and I am very much aware of the dangers of becoming too close to industry on everything we do. There is absolutely no suggestion that we are going to do that. What I am saying is that there is more to the job of an aviation safety regulator to satisfy the act than doing that. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced new capabilities into our workforce—people who are skilled in that area. There will always be a role for our frontline technical people to check compliance with the regulations.
Senator O’BRIEN—I am just baffled by some of the language in your statement. You say, for example:
Never-the-less, many people are still focusing on compliance with the regulations, not whether CASA and the industry are achieving the best possible safety outcomes.
Mr Byron—We need to be focusing on the safety outcomes as the primary activity, and below that there will be a subset of activities that we must do—one of which is, unquestionably, compliance with the regulations—but there are other activities and other work that contributes to that. It is a complex issue and it is not solved simply by ticking boxes, as you say.
Senator O’BRIEN—It may well be partly solved by ticking boxes.
Mr Byron—I agree.
Senator O’BRIEN—I am concerned that that statement implies a walking away from the rigorous auditing of organisations to ensure they are complying with regulations.
Mr Byron—I assure you that there is no walking away from rigorous compliance audit when they are necessary, without any question. Every organisation, particularly every large transport organisation, is subject to exactly that. It is also subject now to additional interface with CASA.
Senator O’BRIEN—I think Senator McLucas has got some questions that she wants to run at this time.
Senator McLUCAS—Yes. I want to ask some questions about CASA’s oversight of Lessbrook trading as TransAir Pty Ltd …
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie,
thank you for your kind words.
I am more than happy to be judged by the passage of time and the inevitable outcomes.
You've been on the inside, please don't pretend that they are all as professional and ethical as you were during your stint.
It is a sad fact that there are some within who don't understand that Integrity is a little bit like virginity.
Once you've lost it, it cannot be restored.
The high velocity culture change being implemented will unavoidably have some innocent victims, that is regrettable.
It will however, purge and cleanse.
I'm sure you must support the concept of accountability, that alone may cause adherence to the code of conduct.
any more offended?
thank you for your kind words.
I am more than happy to be judged by the passage of time and the inevitable outcomes.
You've been on the inside, please don't pretend that they are all as professional and ethical as you were during your stint.
It is a sad fact that there are some within who don't understand that Integrity is a little bit like virginity.
Once you've lost it, it cannot be restored.
The high velocity culture change being implemented will unavoidably have some innocent victims, that is regrettable.
It will however, purge and cleanse.
I'm sure you must support the concept of accountability, that alone may cause adherence to the code of conduct.
any more offended?
I wasn’t offended – I’m sorry if I gave that impression.
The point I am trying to make is that we’ve heard all this before. CASA and its staff are no more or less accountable now than they ever were before. There is no ‘culture change’ going on, high velocity or otherwise.
CASA’s ‘culture’ was, and remains, one in which a steady stream of head dabblers implement their bright idea about what needs to be done, the troops wearily put their greatcoats back on (or take them off, depending on which of the alternative bright ideas it is this time), trudge off into a direction in which they were told not to go by the previous head dabbler, wait for the inevitable consequences of having marched off in that direction, which consequences include a new head dabbler with the bright idea of turning the troops around, trudging in a different direction in which they were told not to go …. etc ad infinitum.
The point I am trying to make is that we’ve heard all this before. CASA and its staff are no more or less accountable now than they ever were before. There is no ‘culture change’ going on, high velocity or otherwise.
CASA’s ‘culture’ was, and remains, one in which a steady stream of head dabblers implement their bright idea about what needs to be done, the troops wearily put their greatcoats back on (or take them off, depending on which of the alternative bright ideas it is this time), trudge off into a direction in which they were told not to go by the previous head dabbler, wait for the inevitable consequences of having marched off in that direction, which consequences include a new head dabbler with the bright idea of turning the troops around, trudging in a different direction in which they were told not to go …. etc ad infinitum.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...680309,00.html
Air watchdog 'failed to act before disaster'
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
01nov06
THE air safety watchdog has been accused of incompetence after documents revealed it uncovered problems with the airline involved in the Lockhart River air disaster on at least three occasions in the four years leading up to the crash.
Documents tabled yesterday in federal parliament revealed that Civil Aviation Safety Authority audits conducted in 2001, 2004 and February last year found "ongoing compliance and structural problems" with Brisbane-based operator Lessbrook, trading as Transair.
Transair was operating the twin-engine Metroliner plane for Queensland airline Aero-Tropics in May last year when it slammed into a cloud-covered mountain in north Queensland, killing 15 people in the nation's worst air crash in four decades.
The documents also revealed that an audit 10 months after the crash found 14 areas of non-compliance, including problems with maintenance records, flight manuals and maintenance training.
Opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien tabled the documents after CASA revealed in a Senate committee on Monday that it had moved last week to ground Transair by cancelling its licence to operate.
It did this without informing the public and after the carrier was given six months to fix the problems. The airline will be allowed to continuing flying while it appeals the decision.
Fiona Norris, whose husband, Paul, was killed in the crash, said the tabled document highlighted CASA's incompetence.
"Why were they still allowed to operate?" she said.
"Why wasn't something done earlier to actually bring them into line? Clearly, they found all these compliance and structural problems but allowed them to continue on their way. It's very distressing."
Senator O'Brien said the revelations that CASA was aware of non-compliance by Transair as far back as 2001 underscored the need for a full Senate inquiry into the watchdog. "That CASA knew about these breaches beginning in 2001 and, even when faced with the tragedy of 15 deaths last year, took nearly 12months to act is proof that CASA is out of control," he said.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the problems found before the Lockhart crash were not as serious as those that emerged this year.
"The magnitude of the issues being raised previous to this year were lower and therefore more appropriately dealt with using things like requests for corrective action," he said.
Mr Gibson said the issues escalated this year and CASA had elevated its action to an enforceable voluntary undertaking and then a "show cause" notice before moving to cancel Transair's licence. But CASA had found no obvious links between the problems at Transair and the Lockhart accident.
Di
Air watchdog 'failed to act before disaster'
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
01nov06
THE air safety watchdog has been accused of incompetence after documents revealed it uncovered problems with the airline involved in the Lockhart River air disaster on at least three occasions in the four years leading up to the crash.
Documents tabled yesterday in federal parliament revealed that Civil Aviation Safety Authority audits conducted in 2001, 2004 and February last year found "ongoing compliance and structural problems" with Brisbane-based operator Lessbrook, trading as Transair.
Transair was operating the twin-engine Metroliner plane for Queensland airline Aero-Tropics in May last year when it slammed into a cloud-covered mountain in north Queensland, killing 15 people in the nation's worst air crash in four decades.
The documents also revealed that an audit 10 months after the crash found 14 areas of non-compliance, including problems with maintenance records, flight manuals and maintenance training.
Opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien tabled the documents after CASA revealed in a Senate committee on Monday that it had moved last week to ground Transair by cancelling its licence to operate.
It did this without informing the public and after the carrier was given six months to fix the problems. The airline will be allowed to continuing flying while it appeals the decision.
Fiona Norris, whose husband, Paul, was killed in the crash, said the tabled document highlighted CASA's incompetence.
"Why were they still allowed to operate?" she said.
"Why wasn't something done earlier to actually bring them into line? Clearly, they found all these compliance and structural problems but allowed them to continue on their way. It's very distressing."
Senator O'Brien said the revelations that CASA was aware of non-compliance by Transair as far back as 2001 underscored the need for a full Senate inquiry into the watchdog. "That CASA knew about these breaches beginning in 2001 and, even when faced with the tragedy of 15 deaths last year, took nearly 12months to act is proof that CASA is out of control," he said.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the problems found before the Lockhart crash were not as serious as those that emerged this year.
"The magnitude of the issues being raised previous to this year were lower and therefore more appropriately dealt with using things like requests for corrective action," he said.
Mr Gibson said the issues escalated this year and CASA had elevated its action to an enforceable voluntary undertaking and then a "show cause" notice before moving to cancel Transair's licence. But CASA had found no obvious links between the problems at Transair and the Lockhart accident.
Di
Mr Gibson said:
As Senator McLucas said to Mr Byron:
Indeed.
The magnitude of the issues being raised previous to this year were lower and therefore more appropriately dealt with using things like requests for corrective action
… you have said that to me. I am sorry; I need more than that. … I want the detail of what actions CASA took following each of the four audits. It might be something that you want to take on notice, but we have talked very generally … for a couple of years now and very unsatisfactorily, in my view. Now I am asking for the detailed actions that CASA took in relation to the full audits that have operated on Transair, and I think it is a very reasonable thing to ask.
Moderator
We have removed a number of posts from this thread, into a new thread titled What Constitutes Regular Public Transport? in D&G General Aviations & Questions.
The posts were peripheral to this thread topic but constitute an equally important subject in their own right.
Dunnunda Moderators
The posts were peripheral to this thread topic but constitute an equally important subject in their own right.
Dunnunda Moderators
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another era, another inquiry, another government, same old CAsA
I don't think Senator McLucas ever got adequate and satisfactory answers to those questions mentioned above did she? I do emphasise adequate and satisfactory.
Perhaps some satisfactory answers will be provided to Senators Xenophon, Sterle, Fawcett, Heff and Nash this time around in this inquiry?
What do you think Mr Truss? Time for Australia's over sighting agencies to step up to the plate? After all, your government will likely pull two terms this time, at least 6 years. That's a long time for one to spin, obsfucate, deceive and postulate when it comes to aviation (lack of) safety
6 Years, a lot can happen in 6 years - truths can be unveiled, stories told, documents provided to media outlets, consciences stoked, a smoking hole or two could occur or even ICAO and the FAA could return and conduct another audit after receiving damning evidence from within the Australian aviation industry in relation to poor regulatory oversight. A downgrade would be most embarrassing.
Perhaps some satisfactory answers will be provided to Senators Xenophon, Sterle, Fawcett, Heff and Nash this time around in this inquiry?
What do you think Mr Truss? Time for Australia's over sighting agencies to step up to the plate? After all, your government will likely pull two terms this time, at least 6 years. That's a long time for one to spin, obsfucate, deceive and postulate when it comes to aviation (lack of) safety
6 Years, a lot can happen in 6 years - truths can be unveiled, stories told, documents provided to media outlets, consciences stoked, a smoking hole or two could occur or even ICAO and the FAA could return and conduct another audit after receiving damning evidence from within the Australian aviation industry in relation to poor regulatory oversight. A downgrade would be most embarrassing.
Last edited by 004wercras; 8th Sep 2013 at 11:36.
a smoking hole or two could occur
Centaurus,
When you mention, "no ethnic culture issue" you are showing great diplomacy toward our trans Tismin cuzzy bros
When you mention, "no ethnic culture issue" you are showing great diplomacy toward our trans Tismin cuzzy bros
Last edited by illusion; 8th Sep 2013 at 22:10.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centarus,
I understand your wanting to use the sentence, (Australia) "It is a safe place to fly."
However, I also understand that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the use of the word "safe" even among professional pilots. As there are a lot of young pilots on these forums trying to learn here as well, I feel the need to clarify the use of the word "safe".
Oxford Dictionary - safe
free of danger, out of or not exposed to danger, affording security or not involving danger or risk,....
Thus, flying in Australia is NOT safe. We are not FREE from dangers or FREE from risks here when we fly.
Flying in Australia, due to the nature and make up of the Australian flying environment, the Australian safety system "S.C.H.E.L.L. Model", is a better one, (less dangers and risks), than most other areas of the world. But even here, as you know, there are many "holes" in the many various safety systems in place. What we do have is a much better "Risk Management".
I know I'm not talking to you on this but, I did want to clear this up for others. Thanks for the "subject drift".
I understand your wanting to use the sentence, (Australia) "It is a safe place to fly."
However, I also understand that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the use of the word "safe" even among professional pilots. As there are a lot of young pilots on these forums trying to learn here as well, I feel the need to clarify the use of the word "safe".
Oxford Dictionary - safe
free of danger, out of or not exposed to danger, affording security or not involving danger or risk,....
Thus, flying in Australia is NOT safe. We are not FREE from dangers or FREE from risks here when we fly.
Flying in Australia, due to the nature and make up of the Australian flying environment, the Australian safety system "S.C.H.E.L.L. Model", is a better one, (less dangers and risks), than most other areas of the world. But even here, as you know, there are many "holes" in the many various safety systems in place. What we do have is a much better "Risk Management".
I know I'm not talking to you on this but, I did want to clear this up for others. Thanks for the "subject drift".
Last edited by b55; 8th Sep 2013 at 23:08.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, I normally agree with most of your posts. However on this occasion i respectfully disagree. Australia is not the aviation safe haven some may think.
Just because we haven't had a giant hull loss, yet, doesn't make us safe. Accidents such as Lockhart, Pel Air, The Canley Vale Piper crash, are 'indicators' of an industry that has some issues. How long til we see a smoking hole containing 200 fragmented bodies?
The irony is that in each of the aforementioned accidents there was a measure of information known to the Regulator about the operator in question.
Said it once and I will say it again 'TICK TOCK'
Just because we haven't had a giant hull loss, yet, doesn't make us safe. Accidents such as Lockhart, Pel Air, The Canley Vale Piper crash, are 'indicators' of an industry that has some issues. How long til we see a smoking hole containing 200 fragmented bodies?
The irony is that in each of the aforementioned accidents there was a measure of information known to the Regulator about the operator in question.
Said it once and I will say it again 'TICK TOCK'
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget Australia. The airlines are generally well run and we don't have an ethnic culture issue. It is a safe place to fly. The elephant in the room as far as flight safety is concerned is Indonesia and Asia. With the rapid expansion of aviation in those areas and floods of inexperienced newbies recruited, then watch this space for more accidents. Some are kept quiet due absence of media attention.
The regulator allowed that scheme to go ahead despite a lot of disquiet within the senior pilot ranks that the standard of training that the company contracted for was deficient. A point that was subsequently proven.
