Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA WARRANTY CLAIM
Dear Senate - As a purahaser of CASA products and services, I wish to make a warranty claim. Some of the identified problems are -
1. Uses an extraordinary amount of power and very expensive to operate - 70% of CPU is used just to keep it running
2. Very slow to respond to commands, if at all.
3. CPU 'board' is still missing
4. Hardware is all over the place and not properly connected.
5. Promised software upgrade is over 5 years late.
6. Has picked up several viruses. Some identified as - apathy.exe flexiday.awi stresslv.foi egotrip.mgr ripoff.ind and IDGAS.tel
7. Seems to work very well with selected small operations while not recognising some others. Does not deal at all well with large operations.
8. Does not operate at all as advertised in Gibson Media.
Can I please have another one?, preferably from another country.
ys
Dear Senate - As a purahaser of CASA products and services, I wish to make a warranty claim. Some of the identified problems are -
1. Uses an extraordinary amount of power and very expensive to operate - 70% of CPU is used just to keep it running
2. Very slow to respond to commands, if at all.
3. CPU 'board' is still missing
4. Hardware is all over the place and not properly connected.
5. Promised software upgrade is over 5 years late.
6. Has picked up several viruses. Some identified as - apathy.exe flexiday.awi stresslv.foi egotrip.mgr ripoff.ind and IDGAS.tel
7. Seems to work very well with selected small operations while not recognising some others. Does not deal at all well with large operations.
8. Does not operate at all as advertised in Gibson Media.
Can I please have another one?, preferably from another country.
ys
Bilbert............
Ahah.........yet another PPRuNer who's having problems using CASA! But it sounds like you're one of the lucky ones if your system actually still works (albeit badly) with CASA. Are you sure you're using the latest version Ver: Regreform/iteration/100000000.35897621.135924?
My system simply stops altogether if I try to use CASA.
All I get is the BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) when I try to use it, which seems to suggest that something awful's happened, and the following information is displayed:
A problem has been detected and CASA is not working properly.
SESSION1_EFFECTIVE_AVIATION_REGULATION_FAILED
If this is first time you've seen this stop error screen, restart your computer. If problems continue, or if this message reappears, please write to the Australian Government to ask it to disable or remove CASA. If you need to use Safe Mode or disable components, restart your computer, press F8 and select JAR-OPS or FAA FAR Options, and then select Safe Mode.
Technical Information:
*** STOP: 0x0000006F (0xC0000020, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)
I'm no computer geek, but suspect that there are a very large number of system bugs in CASA that are presently decreasing it's functionality, and resulting in it more or less permanently hanging and preventing effective aviation regulation in Australia at this point in time.
Ahah.........yet another PPRuNer who's having problems using CASA! But it sounds like you're one of the lucky ones if your system actually still works (albeit badly) with CASA. Are you sure you're using the latest version Ver: Regreform/iteration/100000000.35897621.135924?
My system simply stops altogether if I try to use CASA.
All I get is the BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) when I try to use it, which seems to suggest that something awful's happened, and the following information is displayed:A problem has been detected and CASA is not working properly.
SESSION1_EFFECTIVE_AVIATION_REGULATION_FAILED
If this is first time you've seen this stop error screen, restart your computer. If problems continue, or if this message reappears, please write to the Australian Government to ask it to disable or remove CASA. If you need to use Safe Mode or disable components, restart your computer, press F8 and select JAR-OPS or FAA FAR Options, and then select Safe Mode.
Technical Information:
*** STOP: 0x0000006F (0xC0000020, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000)
I'm no computer geek, but suspect that there are a very large number of system bugs in CASA that are presently decreasing it's functionality, and resulting in it more or less permanently hanging and preventing effective aviation regulation in Australia at this point in time.
Last edited by SIUYA; 7th Jul 2008 at 03:08. Reason: Some additional thoughts.
Moderator
You're probably still using CAO.reg Ver 1 which is now 20 years old and never operated successfully with Windows 3.1, let alone Office 2007.
Delete the superfluous file byron.ceo and there is a fair chance CASA may run, although only in Windows 97.
Delete the superfluous file byron.ceo and there is a fair chance CASA may run, although only in Windows 97.
Very short 'interim report', hot off the press, here: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ort/report.pdf
Most important bit:
(The solecism "hearing's" is disappointing!)
Most important bit:
[T]he committee will present its final report no later than Thursday 28 August 2008.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems to sum up the problem.
I had a long read of Bill Hamilton's submission. It is thought provoking, and much of it accurately sums up the frustration of dealing with CASA, and the damage CASA has done to Australian aviation. He sees it mainly as a structural problem.
Bill is a retired Qantas captain who has been associated with aviation in Australia and elswhere for about half a century. He no longer has to worry about his next renewal, or endorsements, or dispensations so he can, and does express his opinions freely.(shock horror)
I recommend this to all. Read it. ALL of it. And think about it.
Bill is a retired Qantas captain who has been associated with aviation in Australia and elswhere for about half a century. He no longer has to worry about his next renewal, or endorsements, or dispensations so he can, and does express his opinions freely.(shock horror)
I recommend this to all. Read it. ALL of it. And think about it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt WRJ Hamilton _ Wow.
Yes, " Bill" is a little difficult to read, he assumes that the average " interested party" has an attention span a little longer than that of a well trained racing rabbit.
There are 3 important things which need to be remembered when reading his deep, seriously considered submission. Most of it was spelled out a decade ago. The man is ahead of his time, (Q) Why?, (A) Nothing (within DCA/CAA/CASA - whatever) has, in reality, ever changed.
1) (Q) Been proven correct?. (A) Yes, demonstrably, over time he bats about 98%.
2) (Q) Knows where the skeletons are buried and who the villans are?.
(A) Absolutly, no question.
3) (Q) Worth the trouble to read. (A) Short answer, YES. Long answer; OH + YURSSSS.
Take the time, understand the basic issues. Do not sit in the pub, bitching about CASA. Get involved, be part of the solution.
If you seriously want to be part of the industry, you cannot sit on your wallet, credentails or in a " cozy air conditioned cockpit.
The pioneers knew all about cold, difficulty and deep; very deep " authority frustration" , they did their bit. Where are you??.
Stand up and help ?. Hide in the corner ?. Step up and be heard ?. Your industry. Your call.
PS. The Metro is an "AO" aircraft and probably. the best, kindliest trainer, and introducer of junior " wannabe" turbine pilots to the real, hardcore, world of commercial operations.
There are 3 important things which need to be remembered when reading his deep, seriously considered submission. Most of it was spelled out a decade ago. The man is ahead of his time, (Q) Why?, (A) Nothing (within DCA/CAA/CASA - whatever) has, in reality, ever changed.
1) (Q) Been proven correct?. (A) Yes, demonstrably, over time he bats about 98%.
2) (Q) Knows where the skeletons are buried and who the villans are?.
(A) Absolutly, no question.
3) (Q) Worth the trouble to read. (A) Short answer, YES. Long answer; OH + YURSSSS.
Take the time, understand the basic issues. Do not sit in the pub, bitching about CASA. Get involved, be part of the solution.
If you seriously want to be part of the industry, you cannot sit on your wallet, credentails or in a " cozy air conditioned cockpit.
The pioneers knew all about cold, difficulty and deep; very deep " authority frustration" , they did their bit. Where are you??.
Stand up and help ?. Hide in the corner ?. Step up and be heard ?. Your industry. Your call.
PS. The Metro is an "AO" aircraft and probably. the best, kindliest trainer, and introducer of junior " wannabe" turbine pilots to the real, hardcore, world of commercial operations.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wot?
A new probationary member takes the piss and nobody understands what he is on about except the same tired, old, and bile filled suspects.
Get a life or read a submission that you like.
A new probationary member takes the piss and nobody understands what he is on about except the same tired, old, and bile filled suspects.
Get a life or read a submission that you like.
A pilot who has never experienced high standards of competence has no benchmark, human nature being what it is, all pilots believe they are “the best”.
Lots of stuff that is correct. However, is it my interpretation that safety in Aus aviation has occured DESPITE CASA?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murph, got here yesterday, not born then.
Seems to me this is a particularly typical, negative, unhelpfull VH response.
New chum, ah, (assume) must be an idiot, and perhaps, in the best VH style, I can bully or, better yet, big note "ME" . Fair dinks Murph, think again. Wanna piece of me, go on a diet. You will need to be hungry. I have probably written off more years of actual hands on real life experience than you have ever lived through ( even in flight operations). So listen up.
The kids are scared these days, not of ice, not of hills, not of engine failiure, not even of the CP; but of going to jail.
With the stakes at this level they are, essentially, not required or even interested to learn about engine managent, or to " See and avoid" , icing, high ground or operational problems. If you go in - go in legal, so quoted the last kid I buried. (16 so far).
But of the legistlator, they are feared. Absolutly. At all costs, cover yer ass, shut up and (if you survive) move on to a big shiny airframe toy which basically requires no more aeronautical ability than you initially posessed. Shame guys, shame. Never dreamed it was like this at flight school, that' s a safe bet. Probably the only safe one ever made.
Bugger the mountains, sod skill, whats ice?. Be "seen" to comply, comply, comply. Half of 'em would not know a mountain until it jumped up and bit them on their delicate, well covered arses. (Collective if you like). But they still persist, only keeping a job unti they do not any longer need it. These people persist in breaking the tenents of (aeronautical) common sense and denying the pilots following the Right to complain. " Well, the last pilot done it whats wrong with you". (New thread looming).
Standards reducing - you bet.
Most of theb current crop of whining pilots were, or are the people without the "moxie" to tell an operator to " go away and not be silly". In the "old" days the operator would not have even asked. Blame in part the desparate pilots,? Sure I do.
Look at CASA reallity; up to 6 months and $8000 to put an aircraft on a similar AOC. Doors kicked in. Illegal phone taps. Heart attacks caused, Vendettas funded through public money, (oh no, not us y're honour). Endemic, documented corruption.
All in the interest of air safety, I have to ask you the question?.
B@#$ ks, The list of atrocites is (a) factual and (b) endless. This is not supposed to be the "Gesttapo" or, despite the failed Eastern Eurpean dreams, the total commercial and operational control of aviation and (who knows) perhaps birth control .
For Petes sake, it is a CIVIL Aviation regulator. For crying out loud, a bunch of public servants presenting as barely qualified pilots (or, dare it be said, even practicing lawyers). Experts, B!$&*%#$t.
Safety experts, B!@#$%tX 2. My Mama has more idea, at least she will care if I do not turn up for tea.
Thousands and thousands of dollars (theirs and ours) to establish that CASA is not a model litigant; even worse, they keep loosing. This definately is taxpayer money. (err, thats You and me)
Flight Safety procedures contribited per dollar spent = to zero.
The way I see it is, that this is a procedure to ensure that each and evey " lawyer" (qualified or Un) has a back yard pool for Christmas. Got to (must) keep changing the goal post (where I learn that) to stay afloat. No options
P.S. Murph, Get reallity fix, get real, get involved or, get out. In any case, be a good lad and do not start with me on a personal level. Fair warning - no CASA speak.
New chum, ah, (assume) must be an idiot, and perhaps, in the best VH style, I can bully or, better yet, big note "ME" . Fair dinks Murph, think again. Wanna piece of me, go on a diet. You will need to be hungry. I have probably written off more years of actual hands on real life experience than you have ever lived through ( even in flight operations). So listen up.
The kids are scared these days, not of ice, not of hills, not of engine failiure, not even of the CP; but of going to jail.
With the stakes at this level they are, essentially, not required or even interested to learn about engine managent, or to " See and avoid" , icing, high ground or operational problems. If you go in - go in legal, so quoted the last kid I buried. (16 so far).
But of the legistlator, they are feared. Absolutly. At all costs, cover yer ass, shut up and (if you survive) move on to a big shiny airframe toy which basically requires no more aeronautical ability than you initially posessed. Shame guys, shame. Never dreamed it was like this at flight school, that' s a safe bet. Probably the only safe one ever made.
Bugger the mountains, sod skill, whats ice?. Be "seen" to comply, comply, comply. Half of 'em would not know a mountain until it jumped up and bit them on their delicate, well covered arses. (Collective if you like). But they still persist, only keeping a job unti they do not any longer need it. These people persist in breaking the tenents of (aeronautical) common sense and denying the pilots following the Right to complain. " Well, the last pilot done it whats wrong with you". (New thread looming).
Standards reducing - you bet.
Most of theb current crop of whining pilots were, or are the people without the "moxie" to tell an operator to " go away and not be silly". In the "old" days the operator would not have even asked. Blame in part the desparate pilots,? Sure I do.
Look at CASA reallity; up to 6 months and $8000 to put an aircraft on a similar AOC. Doors kicked in. Illegal phone taps. Heart attacks caused, Vendettas funded through public money, (oh no, not us y're honour). Endemic, documented corruption.
All in the interest of air safety, I have to ask you the question?.
B@#$ ks, The list of atrocites is (a) factual and (b) endless. This is not supposed to be the "Gesttapo" or, despite the failed Eastern Eurpean dreams, the total commercial and operational control of aviation and (who knows) perhaps birth control .
For Petes sake, it is a CIVIL Aviation regulator. For crying out loud, a bunch of public servants presenting as barely qualified pilots (or, dare it be said, even practicing lawyers). Experts, B!$&*%#$t.
Safety experts, B!@#$%tX 2. My Mama has more idea, at least she will care if I do not turn up for tea.
Thousands and thousands of dollars (theirs and ours) to establish that CASA is not a model litigant; even worse, they keep loosing. This definately is taxpayer money. (err, thats You and me)
Flight Safety procedures contribited per dollar spent = to zero.
The way I see it is, that this is a procedure to ensure that each and evey " lawyer" (qualified or Un) has a back yard pool for Christmas. Got to (must) keep changing the goal post (where I learn that) to stay afloat. No options
P.S. Murph, Get reallity fix, get real, get involved or, get out. In any case, be a good lad and do not start with me on a personal level. Fair warning - no CASA speak.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been warned. I see. You attacked Bill Hamilton.
You are preaching to the converted about anything CASA, and Bill, Paul Rees, and Paul Phelan mirror any submission I may have written. Indeed I had prior knowledge of the basics of Bill's submission.
So I took your post personally.
Edit to add after waiting 2 hours past my Dr appointment with time for reflection.
Mate, I think you may have hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with half our industry. "particularly, typical, negative unhelpfull VH response".
Why is this peculiar to Australia, when someone gets some sort of qualification he becomes a professor of everything since Otto Lilienthal?
I make no boasts except having a licence since 1963 and a sum total of a little under 2000 hours on various forms of flying machine. I have owned an Auster, Maule and a Colt, just sold one hangar queen and have two more that may or may not fly depending on what it is likely to cost me to do so.
I look up to my seniors who mainly treat me with a mild indifference, but I listen and ask questions. They regard me as intelligent enough to hear their words of wisdom.
I try not to preach to those who don't want to hear.
I do have opinions however.
I am still alive despite having learned the hard, and scarry way, some things I would like to pass on to others. But I am sh!t scared that CASA may have some retrospective matter they want to deal with me about.
I'm not a genius, but I must be doing something right if I'm still here.
A lot are not, if you read the yearly statistics of hours flown and those that have given up due to over regulation, money grabbing, stupid laws, and new enforced gadgetry.
Bill is old enough to look after himself. He and I were around when we had the quadrantal rule.
You are preaching to the converted about anything CASA, and Bill, Paul Rees, and Paul Phelan mirror any submission I may have written. Indeed I had prior knowledge of the basics of Bill's submission.
So I took your post personally.
Edit to add after waiting 2 hours past my Dr appointment with time for reflection.
Mate, I think you may have hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with half our industry. "particularly, typical, negative unhelpfull VH response".
Why is this peculiar to Australia, when someone gets some sort of qualification he becomes a professor of everything since Otto Lilienthal?
I make no boasts except having a licence since 1963 and a sum total of a little under 2000 hours on various forms of flying machine. I have owned an Auster, Maule and a Colt, just sold one hangar queen and have two more that may or may not fly depending on what it is likely to cost me to do so.
I look up to my seniors who mainly treat me with a mild indifference, but I listen and ask questions. They regard me as intelligent enough to hear their words of wisdom.
I try not to preach to those who don't want to hear.
I do have opinions however.
I am still alive despite having learned the hard, and scarry way, some things I would like to pass on to others. But I am sh!t scared that CASA may have some retrospective matter they want to deal with me about.
I'm not a genius, but I must be doing something right if I'm still here.
A lot are not, if you read the yearly statistics of hours flown and those that have given up due to over regulation, money grabbing, stupid laws, and new enforced gadgetry.
Bill is old enough to look after himself. He and I were around when we had the quadrantal rule.
Last edited by Bob Murphie; 14th Jul 2008 at 05:48.
Oh J, you haven't been paying close attention, have you.
If you were capable of setting aside your blind prejudice against the person whom you guess Creampuff is, and just focussed on the merits of the views I post, you would see that I sometimes agree with Mr Ilyk's views, and I sometimes disagree with Mr Ilyk's views.
Perhaps you could walk us through the errors and weaknesses in his evidence and submission.
If you were capable of setting aside your blind prejudice against the person whom you guess Creampuff is, and just focussed on the merits of the views I post, you would see that I sometimes agree with Mr Ilyk's views, and I sometimes disagree with Mr Ilyk's views.
Perhaps you could walk us through the errors and weaknesses in his evidence and submission.
The Evidentiary Trail
Creampuff, et al,
I have been lurking seeking academic and rigorous debate on the Senate Inquiry and the possible censure of CASA. I againt went through the earlier posts on this thread this evening and came to the view that regular contributors were drooling with anticipation that CASA was heading for the final high jump. What comes after that no one said!
All I see on this thread is bs and bluster with some of the regulars saying that if they had of written the submission it would have said the same thing or contributors like Mach_1 who by his/her performance uses innuendo and tries to present it as evidence.
Where is the robust debate (except for the legal eagle wank earlier in the post about historical and irrelevant points) based on the rules of evidence.
I think Father O'Flaherty has a case to answer, he likes little girls so by inference Father O'Flaherty is a paedophile. Alternatively he could just be a compassionate human being? I am seeing too much the latter in this discussion.
Bill Hamilton often says things that are worth thinking about. So does Ronald McDonald!
Bartender, another mint julep if you please!!!
I have been lurking seeking academic and rigorous debate on the Senate Inquiry and the possible censure of CASA. I againt went through the earlier posts on this thread this evening and came to the view that regular contributors were drooling with anticipation that CASA was heading for the final high jump. What comes after that no one said!
All I see on this thread is bs and bluster with some of the regulars saying that if they had of written the submission it would have said the same thing or contributors like Mach_1 who by his/her performance uses innuendo and tries to present it as evidence.
Where is the robust debate (except for the legal eagle wank earlier in the post about historical and irrelevant points) based on the rules of evidence.
I think Father O'Flaherty has a case to answer, he likes little girls so by inference Father O'Flaherty is a paedophile. Alternatively he could just be a compassionate human being? I am seeing too much the latter in this discussion.
Bill Hamilton often says things that are worth thinking about. So does Ronald McDonald!
Bartender, another mint julep if you please!!!
FB: 
J: You’re simply incapable of getting, aren’t you. My identity and any past association with any of the submitters or witnesses to the inquiry, cannot affect the merits or otherwise of their submission or evidence. The submissions and evidence are what the submissions and evidence are.
I happen, for example, to agree with many parts of Mr Hamilton’s submission but laughed out loud at other parts. (He even cites this very thread as authority for a proposition that isn’t supported by the content of this thread – bizarre!) If I’ve had a ‘past association’ with Mr Hamilton, does that affect the merits or otherwise of his submission? If so, how?
My opinion is what my opinion is. Get over it.
J: You’re simply incapable of getting, aren’t you. My identity and any past association with any of the submitters or witnesses to the inquiry, cannot affect the merits or otherwise of their submission or evidence. The submissions and evidence are what the submissions and evidence are.
I happen, for example, to agree with many parts of Mr Hamilton’s submission but laughed out loud at other parts. (He even cites this very thread as authority for a proposition that isn’t supported by the content of this thread – bizarre!) If I’ve had a ‘past association’ with Mr Hamilton, does that affect the merits or otherwise of his submission? If so, how?
My opinion is what my opinion is. Get over it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bill's sub
well bill i have read your ....very lengthy submission......and i must say having not agreed with you on a lot of occasions all be it as you the captain and me the LAME or as you and i on the SCC i must take my hat off to you on this one mate your dogmatic approach to CASA and the problems they have instigated in Australia aviation is hero like ....so well done hope we meet up some time and i will buy you a beer,unfortunately i am not involved in the SCC anymore and hopefully i will be on the end of a redundancy from my present employer....but you never know i might get involved in some aviation matters in my spare time good luck with it bill
Crooks, cowboys and incompetents
Aviation has its crooks, cowboys and incompetents and that is why we need a firm authority to regulate aviation safety in the public interest. Mr Ilyk’s submission to the Senate inquiry http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub31.pdf argues this case persuasively and with comprehensive references to coronial findings, case law and judicial inquiries around the world. I totally agree with Mr. Ilyk.
Put bluntly, if self regulation worked God would have proposed ten guidelines; in a discussion paper.
In 1993, before Monarch, Seaview, Aquatic and other accidents attributable to our regulator’s “institutional timidity”, I wrote in the Canberra Times that Australia was following a recipe for disaster by ignoring US and Canadian sad experience of deregulation. I contended that Australia was deluding itself that industry would maintain standards without a robust, properly resourced regulator. At the time Mr Ilyk, on behalf of CAA disagreed. He accused me of selectively quoting from Justice Moshansky’s report into a fatal Air Ontario accident to support my contention. I note that Ilyk too is now quoting Moshansky to support our common viewpoint. I’m pleased that Mr Ilyk has come to my way of thinking.
Put bluntly, if self regulation worked God would have proposed ten guidelines; in a discussion paper.
In 1993, before Monarch, Seaview, Aquatic and other accidents attributable to our regulator’s “institutional timidity”, I wrote in the Canberra Times that Australia was following a recipe for disaster by ignoring US and Canadian sad experience of deregulation. I contended that Australia was deluding itself that industry would maintain standards without a robust, properly resourced regulator. At the time Mr Ilyk, on behalf of CAA disagreed. He accused me of selectively quoting from Justice Moshansky’s report into a fatal Air Ontario accident to support my contention. I note that Ilyk too is now quoting Moshansky to support our common viewpoint. I’m pleased that Mr Ilyk has come to my way of thinking.
Frank. I think you are wrong. Underpinning nearly all posts in this thread and media debate is an implied expectation of a strong, competent and accountable regulator, empowered by simple, unambiguous, appropriate and effective safety based legislation.
We have inappropriate and appallingly drafted aviation legislation, incompetent and untrained regulatory staff, ineffective management, managed by series of deplorably incompetent Ministers - including the current CEO and Minister.
The regulatory reform – twenty years and according to Clapton, hundreds of millions of dollars – has had more starts than Phar Lap and appears to have again stalled.
The following comment in Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005 aptly summarises both the regulatory reform process and the CASA CEO’s competence and capacity to manage that process:
Ostensibly, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was:
There were many excellent submissions to the Senate Inquiry and it would be detrimental to the Senate’s credibility if they were not to take serious account of those submissions.
The cynic in me suspects an underlying political agenda.
We have inappropriate and appallingly drafted aviation legislation, incompetent and untrained regulatory staff, ineffective management, managed by series of deplorably incompetent Ministers - including the current CEO and Minister.
The regulatory reform – twenty years and according to Clapton, hundreds of millions of dollars – has had more starts than Phar Lap and appears to have again stalled.
The following comment in Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005 aptly summarises both the regulatory reform process and the CASA CEO’s competence and capacity to manage that process:
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
• to examine the effectiveness of CASA's governance structure; and
• to consider ways to strengthen CASA's relations with industry and ensure CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator.
• to consider ways to strengthen CASA's relations with industry and ensure CASA meets community expectations of a firm safety regulator.
The cynic in me suspects an underlying political agenda.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
According t0 CASA's own evidence to the Senate Inquiry (see page 120 of the transcript for 2 July 2008), CASA has spent at least $140 miilion dollars on the reform program since 2002/03:
Mr Carmody—Looking under the outputs in our annual reporting, under the standards section we list the costs in the annual report from years 2002-03 through until now...... I am rounding, but it was $20 million in 2002-03, $25 million in 2003-04, $26 million in 2004-05, $24 million in 2005-06, $23 million in 2006-07 and there is an estimate in the PBS of $24 million for 2007-08. ........
Mr Carmody—My estimate is about $144 million. Our estimate for 2007-08 is $24 million; the costs for 2006-07 were $23 million. That equals $47 million out to the end of the financial year.
This is probably a conservative estimate and the figure is probably closer to $200 million if you take into account overseas trips, meetings, conferences etc. This is significantly more that even I figured as my $200 million was based on the last 10 years. Here CASA is saying it has spent $140 million in the last 5 years......and nothing to show (sorry, Part 137 has been made). But of course it is always someone else's fault - never CASA's.
The regulatory reform – twenty years and according to Clapton, hundreds of millions of dollars – has had more starts than Phar Lap and appears to have again stalled.
Mr Carmody—Looking under the outputs in our annual reporting, under the standards section we list the costs in the annual report from years 2002-03 through until now...... I am rounding, but it was $20 million in 2002-03, $25 million in 2003-04, $26 million in 2004-05, $24 million in 2005-06, $23 million in 2006-07 and there is an estimate in the PBS of $24 million for 2007-08. ........
Mr Carmody—My estimate is about $144 million. Our estimate for 2007-08 is $24 million; the costs for 2006-07 were $23 million. That equals $47 million out to the end of the financial year.
This is probably a conservative estimate and the figure is probably closer to $200 million if you take into account overseas trips, meetings, conferences etc. This is significantly more that even I figured as my $200 million was based on the last 10 years. Here CASA is saying it has spent $140 million in the last 5 years......and nothing to show (sorry, Part 137 has been made). But of course it is always someone else's fault - never CASA's.