CASA Pulls Transair AOC.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will it help?
Just a thought, but revoking an AOC after 18 months does what? Apart from the obvious.
Why so long, and why have they not been educated and restructured so they do meet an acceptable standard now.
Revoking an AOC I guess will only force a number of people out of work, and ultimately into employment elsewhere, and possibly with the same bad habbits, work ethic, or whatever, unless they get tidied up by the next employer in a speedy manner.
So I wonder what the point of this is in terms of truly improving safety in a global sense. Sure it may take a rogue out, but does it really address the real issues or just band-aid them?
I have no axe to grind here, but wonder what the experts think!
J
Why so long, and why have they not been educated and restructured so they do meet an acceptable standard now.
Revoking an AOC I guess will only force a number of people out of work, and ultimately into employment elsewhere, and possibly with the same bad habbits, work ethic, or whatever, unless they get tidied up by the next employer in a speedy manner.
So I wonder what the point of this is in terms of truly improving safety in a global sense. Sure it may take a rogue out, but does it really address the real issues or just band-aid them?
I have no axe to grind here, but wonder what the experts think!
J
J430
This action may not be about the crews " bad habits " ect.
I think you have been unfair to bad mouth them without any facts.
Would you like to enlighten us on the present crews poor standards.
To my knowledge and observations they present well. Since the accident
the Company has had pretty well continuous audits. If the crews were as
slack as you state don't you think it would of been noticed.
Give the crews a break.
This action may not be about the crews " bad habits " ect.
I think you have been unfair to bad mouth them without any facts.
Would you like to enlighten us on the present crews poor standards.
To my knowledge and observations they present well. Since the accident
the Company has had pretty well continuous audits. If the crews were as
slack as you state don't you think it would of been noticed.
Give the crews a break.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No such thing so far from CASA
Just another rumour as this site is good for! The guys at Big Sky are still operating as usual so do you reckon it's just media crap or do you think it the AOC is really pulled? Who'd like to hasada guess? Contestant number one maybe?
I think LW has quite a few secret connections with CASA and a few hard enemies!
The guys at Big Sky still think they are operating under the Transair banner. No one there has heard crap!!! So, they keep operating, wouldn't you? You'd think CASA would make a few phone calls to these guys if they were suspended but nup! Just some media hype so far, maybe heard it from someone.
GOTTA LOVE CHINESE WHISPERS!!!
All the best to the guys at Big Sky! Standards are bit better there!
I think LW has quite a few secret connections with CASA and a few hard enemies!
The guys at Big Sky still think they are operating under the Transair banner. No one there has heard crap!!! So, they keep operating, wouldn't you? You'd think CASA would make a few phone calls to these guys if they were suspended but nup! Just some media hype so far, maybe heard it from someone.
GOTTA LOVE CHINESE WHISPERS!!!
All the best to the guys at Big Sky! Standards are bit better there!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who said crews?????
Megle2
Maybe you are one of the crews......hence your touchy reply. Mybe maybe not??
I did not refer to crews at all, I dont think. I meant anybody, tea lady, tech crew, engineers, management.........anybody.
So I will not give anybody a break, just everybody at Transair is under a cloud until proven otherwise, and revoking a AOC is hardly going to help them. Training and fixing issues is.
J
Maybe you are one of the crews......hence your touchy reply. Mybe maybe not??
I did not refer to crews at all, I dont think. I meant anybody, tea lady, tech crew, engineers, management.........anybody.
So I will not give anybody a break, just everybody at Transair is under a cloud until proven otherwise, and revoking a AOC is hardly going to help them. Training and fixing issues is.
J
From the Proof Hansard of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport’s hearing of 30 October 2006, page 81 (here: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9774.pdf)
This interesting exchange occurred immediately before the exchange above:
Methinks some Senators smell a rat.
Mr Byron—We issued a show cause notice on 14 August and a supplementary show cause notice [to Transair] on 29 September. In the interest of completeness in answering your question, I can tell you that on 24 October we cancelled the AOC.
Senator McLUCAS—Is the fact that you have cancelled the AOC public information?
Mr Byron—No.
Senator McLUCAS—Why not?
Mr Byron—Under the provisions of the legislation, once we take a decision to cancel the AOC, the operator has an automatic stay of five days under the legislation. Within that five days, it has the option to apply to the AAT for a further stay. I am advised that the operator has told us that it intends to apply to the AAT.
Senator McLUCAS—The five days have now expired; it is now the 30th. Is it five working days?
Mr Byron—Five working days.
Senator McLUCAS—The five working days have not yet expired, but they will appeal to the AAT?
Mr Byron—We have been told that that is what they intend to do.
Senator McLUCAS—Is the fact that you have cancelled the AOC public information?
Mr Byron—No.
Senator McLUCAS—Why not?
Mr Byron—Under the provisions of the legislation, once we take a decision to cancel the AOC, the operator has an automatic stay of five days under the legislation. Within that five days, it has the option to apply to the AAT for a further stay. I am advised that the operator has told us that it intends to apply to the AAT.
Senator McLUCAS—The five days have now expired; it is now the 30th. Is it five working days?
Mr Byron—Five working days.
Senator McLUCAS—The five working days have not yet expired, but they will appeal to the AAT?
Mr Byron—We have been told that that is what they intend to do.
Senator McLUCAS—Let us go back over that time, because I think that is only reasonable. You are telling me that there has been increased surveillance that has resulted in this EVU. But the EVU itself says that there has been ongoing non-compliance since November 2001. I have asked before for a copy of those four audits, and you have indicated that it is not possible to provide them.
What I would now like to know is what action was taken by CASA following the November 2001 audit, the August 2004 audit, the February 2005 audit and the February 2006 audit. It is only reasonable that this committee needs to get an understanding of what action CASA has taken. If you are saying that the noncompliance now is so dreadful in comparison to back then, then we need to understand that. The only way that I think I will get it is if you tell me what you did subsequent to every audit.
Mr Byron—Certainly from my looking at the records of the activities that were done back in 2001 or 2002 and even leading through to 2004, the various audit reports, recorded activities, were not anywhere near the same scale—
Senator McLUCAS—Mr Byron, you have said that to me. I am sorry; I need more than that.
Mr Byron—You also asked me what we have done in relation to other audits that have been done recently.
Senator McLUCAS—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, Mr Byron, 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.
What I would now like to know is what action was taken by CASA following the November 2001 audit, the August 2004 audit, the February 2005 audit and the February 2006 audit. It is only reasonable that this committee needs to get an understanding of what action CASA has taken. If you are saying that the noncompliance now is so dreadful in comparison to back then, then we need to understand that. The only way that I think I will get it is if you tell me what you did subsequent to every audit.
Mr Byron—Certainly from my looking at the records of the activities that were done back in 2001 or 2002 and even leading through to 2004, the various audit reports, recorded activities, were not anywhere near the same scale—
Senator McLUCAS—Mr Byron, you have said that to me. I am sorry; I need more than that.
Mr Byron—You also asked me what we have done in relation to other audits that have been done recently.
Senator McLUCAS—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, Mr Byron, 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.
J430
I'm sure the tea lady is looking forward to extra training and tea pot issues being resolved.
I don't have any connection to the Company.
I'm sure the tea lady is looking forward to extra training and tea pot issues being resolved.
I don't have any connection to the Company.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting silly
Megle2
The tea lady quite likely does not need safety training, but my point is that all staff of any organisationare hurt if they go out of business, and pulling the AOC rather than fixing the issues is not really solving anything. Mind you if the operator has a habitual disregard for safety related issues, well its probably best if they are taken out of the market.
No need to say any more
EOM
J
The tea lady quite likely does not need safety training, but my point is that all staff of any organisationare hurt if they go out of business, and pulling the AOC rather than fixing the issues is not really solving anything. Mind you if the operator has a habitual disregard for safety related issues, well its probably best if they are taken out of the market.
No need to say any more
EOM
J
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard the owner or MD on PM last night. His comment was along the lines that CASA had only identified paperwork issues and some deviation from the company procedure manuals etc. 
Of course, this is all CASA can identify now - they only do systems audits. Apparently this ensures safety because if there is a safety issue, there will be a piece of paper that sys so... won't there?
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?
Paperwork audits are an easy gotcha for the Gestapo but they don't reflect the actual safety of an operation. You can sit and look at my ops manuals and my student records all day but until you are here, on the ground, inspecting flight operations, you won't catch the local self-appointed legend flying LL circuits in an ultralight (while teaching a student...) with no Ultralight ticket, let alone instructor rating. Nobody here is going to dob him in - we have to live here
"Be careful what you wish for" - a wise saying to be sure but whoever wished for fewer Inspectors in the field has done aviaton safety a disservice.
*apocryphal tales are illustrative only and any resemblance to any goings-on at a real airport or aero club are purely coincidental
Of course, this is all CASA can identify now - they only do systems audits. Apparently this ensures safety because if there is a safety issue, there will be a piece of paper that sys so... won't there?
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?
Paperwork audits are an easy gotcha for the Gestapo but they don't reflect the actual safety of an operation. You can sit and look at my ops manuals and my student records all day but until you are here, on the ground, inspecting flight operations, you won't catch the local self-appointed legend flying LL circuits in an ultralight (while teaching a student...) with no Ultralight ticket, let alone instructor rating. Nobody here is going to dob him in - we have to live here
"Be careful what you wish for" - a wise saying to be sure but whoever wished for fewer Inspectors in the field has done aviaton safety a disservice.
*apocryphal tales are illustrative only and any resemblance to any goings-on at a real airport or aero club are purely coincidental
J430
Thanks for your informed reply.
I'm still giving support to the crews.
Bendo is alot closer to the mark.
Thanks for your informed reply.
I'm still giving support to the crews.
Bendo is alot closer to the mark.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No actually I think Bendo is a long way from the mark and should pull his head in. To make a statement I quote" You fly an aircraft into a hill and how long does it take for regulatory action to take place", is disrespectful and one making to many assumptions about to many things. LW is one of many GA operators trying to run an operation in a marginal environment with little community and goverment support, however I do not beleive he would do anything to deliberately jepodise safety which is more than can be said for some other operators. Someone who made a comment earlier in the post, has a good idea. Education. Education and support is what is needed.
Last edited by Todd River Skier; 4th Nov 2006 at 04:22. Reason: typo double negative
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory, as long as they appeal within 5 working days to the AAT then they can continue to operate for at least another 90 days. After that if the case has still not come before the AAT then they will be granted an extension until it does. It is feasible that the issue may not be resolved for another 6 months. CASA do have the authority to pull an AOC if they consider the operator to be a threat to public safety blah blah blah - but in my opinion if they are taking the AAT route then they probably don't have much of a case and it will probably end up as an Enforceable Voluntary Undertaking (EVU) - again CASA talk for we've got nothing but have to look like we are doing something.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TRS
1. No assumptions or allegations made or intended about the operator.
2. Megle was probably thinking that I am closer to the mark in terms of what has occurred betwixt Transair and CASA. I am sure that all reading this thread have realised that it is not "chinese whispers" but that CASA HAS cancelled Transair's AOC, subject to the usual AAT stuff;
3. With respect to 1 above, my post is more about the process which CASA uses to regulate aircraft safety. I do not believe that paperwork audits will save lives or enhance the safety of an operation. The result for small operators is that you spend time doing paperwork compliance shiite instead of flying with your guys and girls, developing their skills and keeping them on the ball.
1. No assumptions or allegations made or intended about the operator.
2. Megle was probably thinking that I am closer to the mark in terms of what has occurred betwixt Transair and CASA. I am sure that all reading this thread have realised that it is not "chinese whispers" but that CASA HAS cancelled Transair's AOC, subject to the usual AAT stuff;
3. With respect to 1 above, my post is more about the process which CASA uses to regulate aircraft safety. I do not believe that paperwork audits will save lives or enhance the safety of an operation. The result for small operators is that you spend time doing paperwork compliance shiite instead of flying with your guys and girls, developing their skills and keeping them on the ball.
Creampuff,
I was of the understanding that CASA and Transair entered into a Enforceable Voluntary Undertaking (EVU) on 4 May 2006, which was to run for 6 months.
By doing so I was of the understanding that CASA is to ask the Federal Court to make orders against the individual or organisation enforcing the EVU. What you have posted, and the comments made by Byron on the press seem to indicate that CASA wants to bypass the EVU process.
If CASA hypothetically has cancelled an AOC while an EVU was in process without getting orders from the Federal Court to enforce a EVU, would CASA hypothetically not be following the law in such a situation ?
I note that the EVU in the case was for "organisational structural problems, systemic documentation and reporting problems impacting on its maintenance procedures, and quality control and review.
Lessbrook has undertaken:
to review and adjust its organisational structure and infrastructure
to revise its System of Maintenance;
to review its maintenance tracking data;
to conduct internal and external audits of its maintenance system and tracking processes; and
to provide CASA with progress reports on implementation."
From the comments made by Byron to McLUCAS, I get the impression that CASA maybe beating up the situation at Transair.
I also smell a rat when Byron said "my real concern is that Transair can continue to fly", if someone in his position as a safety regulator had real concerns why did they enter into such a lame EVU almost 6 months ago after 4 audits. He seems to be acting under section 30DC, “serious and imminent risk to safety” for the issue of a suspension notice.
Would the section 30DC application to the Federal court by the CASA OLC be publicly available ?
To me this smells of a organizational vendetta, not regulation. Byrons’ comments in the press sound to me like politics.
I was of the understanding that CASA and Transair entered into a Enforceable Voluntary Undertaking (EVU) on 4 May 2006, which was to run for 6 months.
By doing so I was of the understanding that CASA is to ask the Federal Court to make orders against the individual or organisation enforcing the EVU. What you have posted, and the comments made by Byron on the press seem to indicate that CASA wants to bypass the EVU process.
If CASA hypothetically has cancelled an AOC while an EVU was in process without getting orders from the Federal Court to enforce a EVU, would CASA hypothetically not be following the law in such a situation ?
I note that the EVU in the case was for "organisational structural problems, systemic documentation and reporting problems impacting on its maintenance procedures, and quality control and review.
Lessbrook has undertaken:
to review and adjust its organisational structure and infrastructure
to revise its System of Maintenance;
to review its maintenance tracking data;
to conduct internal and external audits of its maintenance system and tracking processes; and
to provide CASA with progress reports on implementation."
From the comments made by Byron to McLUCAS, I get the impression that CASA maybe beating up the situation at Transair.
I also smell a rat when Byron said "my real concern is that Transair can continue to fly", if someone in his position as a safety regulator had real concerns why did they enter into such a lame EVU almost 6 months ago after 4 audits. He seems to be acting under section 30DC, “serious and imminent risk to safety” for the issue of a suspension notice.
Would the section 30DC application to the Federal court by the CASA OLC be publicly available ?
To me this smells of a organizational vendetta, not regulation. Byrons’ comments in the press sound to me like politics.
I cannot find any provision of the Civil Aviation Act that prevents CASA from taking regulatory action against someone who happens to have given CASA an EVU that remains in force.
30DC is about suspensions, not cancellations, and 30DC suspension decisions take effect immediately without application to the Federal Court by CASA, rather than being automatically stayed by an application by the certificate holder to the AAT for a review of the decision. Therefore, CASA appears not to have used 30DC. It appears (I have no first hand or even second hand knowledge of the particular facts) that this was a bog standard 28BA(3) cancellation, following a show cause process.
It appears (I have no first hand or even second hand knowledge of the particular facts) that the rat smelt by the Senators is that the grounds on which the AOC was cancelled may have been known by CASA well before the Lockhart River accident
30DC is about suspensions, not cancellations, and 30DC suspension decisions take effect immediately without application to the Federal Court by CASA, rather than being automatically stayed by an application by the certificate holder to the AAT for a review of the decision. Therefore, CASA appears not to have used 30DC. It appears (I have no first hand or even second hand knowledge of the particular facts) that this was a bog standard 28BA(3) cancellation, following a show cause process.
It appears (I have no first hand or even second hand knowledge of the particular facts) that the rat smelt by the Senators is that the grounds on which the AOC was cancelled may have been known by CASA well before the Lockhart River accident
If the accident was not serious enough to be the straw that broke the camels back, one would imagine something extremely serious has happened recently for Byron to say "my real concern is that Transair can continue to fly"
When and where did Mr Byron say: "my real concern is that Transair can continue to fly"?
Assuming he said that, I note it is exquisitely ambiguous. It could mean that he is concerned Transair won’t be able to continue flying while the AAT review process is on foot, or it could mean he is concerned Transair will be able to continue flying while the AAT review process is on foot.
If he meant the latter, his hands are tied by the process in the Act, unless he has reason to believe that the holder of the AOC authorising the operations about which he is concerned has engaged in, is engaging in, or is likely to engage in, conduct that contravenes the prohibition upon the holder engaging in conduct that constitutes, contributes to or results in a serious and imminent risk to air safety.
Assuming he said that, I note it is exquisitely ambiguous. It could mean that he is concerned Transair won’t be able to continue flying while the AAT review process is on foot, or it could mean he is concerned Transair will be able to continue flying while the AAT review process is on foot.
If he meant the latter, his hands are tied by the process in the Act, unless he has reason to believe that the holder of the AOC authorising the operations about which he is concerned has engaged in, is engaging in, or is likely to engage in, conduct that contravenes the prohibition upon the holder engaging in conduct that constitutes, contributes to or results in a serious and imminent risk to air safety.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.
The straw that broke the camel's back. There must have been a multitude of previous straws which would have been piled up on the camel's back over the last few years before the last one had it's effect.
Does CASA's action of revoking Transair's AOC now amount to an implied admission that they have not done their job properly?
It will be interesting to see how many Writs they end up on.
This matter might just be one of the final few straws on CASA's back!
Di
The straw that broke the camel's back. There must have been a multitude of previous straws which would have been piled up on the camel's back over the last few years before the last one had it's effect.
Does CASA's action of revoking Transair's AOC now amount to an implied admission that they have not done their job properly?
It will be interesting to see how many Writs they end up on.
This matter might just be one of the final few straws on CASA's back!
Di