Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very valid point bushy and in many ways it is at the foundation of many of the issues raised in some of the submissions
Whether in RPT or GA we don't need CASA to be a nanny or even a friendly partner - we just want and expect precise and consistent standards as well as a not-negotiable stance on compromising the regulatory environment.
Sadly the swag of illogical precedents, dispensations and commercially driven exemptions, - (especially some of the pollie induced concessions to overseas operators), means that Australia's "multiple choice" aviation puzzle will still be missing a few important pieces.
Knowing the way these documents are "collectively proof read" before tabling in Parliament, I doubt there will be little significant change except maybe for the appointment of a token 'review/governance board' and the revival of an 'industry consultative committee'.
AT
Whether in RPT or GA we don't need CASA to be a nanny or even a friendly partner - we just want and expect precise and consistent standards as well as a not-negotiable stance on compromising the regulatory environment.
Sadly the swag of illogical precedents, dispensations and commercially driven exemptions, - (especially some of the pollie induced concessions to overseas operators), means that Australia's "multiple choice" aviation puzzle will still be missing a few important pieces.
Knowing the way these documents are "collectively proof read" before tabling in Parliament, I doubt there will be little significant change except maybe for the appointment of a token 'review/governance board' and the revival of an 'industry consultative committee'.
AT
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After that little matter 19 years ago, and suddenly out of a job, I looked at a Govt job in CBR relating to Aircraft accidents and incidents. (only because I had four little mouths to feed) what I found was a RAAF old boys club, tempered with ex crop duster pilots who were sick of dodging power lines, and as a suddenly out of work civil line pilot, I was as welcome as a leper out of a colony. Because my brain after years in the airlines, worked in what I thought was a logical, problem solving way, I soon found out I was wrong, very wrong, you have to go by THE SYSTEM. I was a fish out of water, because like you blokes if I have to go to MEL/SYD thats how I go, right? Wrong. In the public service you go via DRW, so to speak. I soon found out they ran their cricket clubs, car clubs, apex clubs, soccer clubs out of the office, and for a confused airline bloke like myself, (having joined TAA at the grand age of 19) and knowing nothing else it was mystifying. I was soon joined by a AN skipper, who was even less popular than I was, and we had adjoining desks and we sat and looked at one another, both pushing papers around, and (sadly hoping for a prang) to get us out of there. Needless to say we both lasted about a month, and headed for OS. What I am trying to say, if you have not already guessed (and things might have changed) but you are dealing with a monster that has a life of its own, makes little sense, (and as I guess most of you are tech crew, and tend to think logically (when sober) you are really pushing it uphill, because the depts have their own little empire building, their own little cultures, and for blokes like yourselves totally mystifying behaviour. For example going in hard on some poor bloke flying a old King Air out of Bogg Creek, that happens to have a busted port nav light, but allowing the Airlines to run their own show, without to much interference, but capable of a much bigger prang than the old King Air. It was a experience that I will never understand, but helps me to cope with dealing with any Govt Dept now. Don't expect to speak to anybody that knows anything, expect to be sent to some other dept, (that don't know either) and get off the phone before you drop kick it thru the window.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
It's a pity that he will be able to walk away without achieving anything in relation to regulatory reform..........
I'm not sure he decided not to renew his contract - I think he knew it would never be renewed.
With Byron deciding not to renew his contract, half the Government agenda has been achieved.
I'm not sure he decided not to renew his contract - I think he knew it would never be renewed.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interim report stated final report would be no later than 28th Aug. Senate advised there would be a delay. Now the 12th Sept - still nothing. Is it too political or does it need to be adjusted by the 'new' senate committee?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was announced the other day that Mike Taylor, the Secretary of the Department of Transport has been re-appointed for a further 5 years.
Given that he presided over casa for most of Byron's terms and clearly agreed with his direction and philosophy, it says little about the Government's credibility on aviation safety. It also points to a whitewash of CASA in the Senate report - because if CASA is found wanting that can only mean that Taylor must also be wanting because he did nothing to stop the rot in CASA and agreed with the partnership policy espoused by Byron as well as the virtual dismantlinmg of CASA and handing over responsibility to the industry that CASA was meant to regulate - as well as his failure to manage the reg reform program. It would be inapproaite for the Government to appoint him for a further 5 years if the Senate found all these failings in Taylor. So inevitably it will be a useless report.
Given that he presided over casa for most of Byron's terms and clearly agreed with his direction and philosophy, it says little about the Government's credibility on aviation safety. It also points to a whitewash of CASA in the Senate report - because if CASA is found wanting that can only mean that Taylor must also be wanting because he did nothing to stop the rot in CASA and agreed with the partnership policy espoused by Byron as well as the virtual dismantlinmg of CASA and handing over responsibility to the industry that CASA was meant to regulate - as well as his failure to manage the reg reform program. It would be inapproaite for the Government to appoint him for a further 5 years if the Senate found all these failings in Taylor. So inevitably it will be a useless report.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, it seems that the whole process has just been a silly little overblown exercise to replace the CEO and implement a board? Change of names to protect the guilty?
Okay, so whom of the Minister's buddies will be appointed to the new board?
All those considerate people who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry must be feeling really happy and content at present. I certainly appreciated reading their comments, even if they fell on deaf ears in Canberra.
One day CASA may achieve something productive and worthwhile with the funding it is allocated (other than being the bearer of media and public blame), despite the best intentions of the Minister du Jour, but it doesn't seem likely.
I hope there is more to the inquiry's result than Clapton's summation. There was a good opportunity for something worthwhile and it appears to have come to naught once again.
Okay, so whom of the Minister's buddies will be appointed to the new board?
All those considerate people who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry must be feeling really happy and content at present. I certainly appreciated reading their comments, even if they fell on deaf ears in Canberra.
One day CASA may achieve something productive and worthwhile with the funding it is allocated (other than being the bearer of media and public blame), despite the best intentions of the Minister du Jour, but it doesn't seem likely.
I hope there is more to the inquiry's result than Clapton's summation. There was a good opportunity for something worthwhile and it appears to have come to naught once again.
Last edited by Lodown; 12th Sep 2008 at 16:30.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see why this report has not been released yet ............they have more inportant things to focus on............Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport:Inquiry into matters relating to the establishment of an Australian Football League team for Tasmania: Terms of Reference
.................maybe they will wait until the footy season ends?.............Di ???????????
.................maybe they will wait until the footy season ends?.............Di ???????????
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in the Age (AAP)
"The committee recommends ... introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA," the committee's report said."
I wonder who amongst Labour's "chosen few" will get the five seats?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ort/report.pdf
The way I look at it, a learning organisation would take note of the common threads within.
Congrats to a fellow poster (anon) for the Senate Report recognition of his credibility even if his enforcement philosophy is the same as that of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland 'off with their heads'.
The way I look at it, a learning organisation would take note of the common threads within.
Congrats to a fellow poster (anon) for the Senate Report recognition of his credibility even if his enforcement philosophy is the same as that of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland 'off with their heads'.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends the Australian Government strengthen CASA's governance framework and administrative capability by:
introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA; and
undertaking a review of CASA's funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends, in accordance with the findings of the Hawke Taskforce, that CASA's Regulatory Reform Program be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office audit CASA's implementation and administration of its Safety Management Systems approach.
or;
Install Labor friendly faces to oversee strategic direction and oversight, throw money at it, finish the Regulatory Reform program irrespective of its present state and worth, and get the Auditors to watch what happens.
The committee recommends the Australian Government strengthen CASA's governance framework and administrative capability by:
introducing a small board of up to five members to provide enhanced oversight and strategic direction for CASA; and
undertaking a review of CASA's funding arrangements to ensure CASA is equipped to deal with new regulatory challenges.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends, in accordance with the findings of the Hawke Taskforce, that CASA's Regulatory Reform Program be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible to provide certainty to industry and to ensure CASA and industry are ready to address future safety challenges.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office audit CASA's implementation and administration of its Safety Management Systems approach.
or;
Install Labor friendly faces to oversee strategic direction and oversight, throw money at it, finish the Regulatory Reform program irrespective of its present state and worth, and get the Auditors to watch what happens.
A bit too busy earning a living at the momen to take in the detail. Can someone like Creampuff give me a quick analysis about who won and who lost and how aviation safety in Australia will be improved as a result of this inquiry?
Frank...........
Sorry to say, but to me it looks like this:
1) The winner? The Rudd government by foisting an overwhelming 'whitewash' on the Australian public.
2) The loser? The Australian aviation industry and Australian public.
3) Safety enhancements? Absolutely 5/8ths of the square root of fcuk-all by the looks of things while the present idiot minister remains the minister, and the present idiot Secretary of the Department serves out his new term of appointment as Secretary.
There's an old saying Frank which says that no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still going to be a pig. What more can I say?
Sorry to say, but to me it looks like this:
1) The winner? The Rudd government by foisting an overwhelming 'whitewash' on the Australian public.
2) The loser? The Australian aviation industry and Australian public.
3) Safety enhancements? Absolutely 5/8ths of the square root of fcuk-all by the looks of things while the present idiot minister remains the minister, and the present idiot Secretary of the Department serves out his new term of appointment as Secretary.
There's an old saying Frank which says that no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still going to be a pig. What more can I say?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About what you would expect from an inquiry on short notice and only 3 days for hearings. Only 3 recommendations but many "you may need to look at''s.
1. Appoint a board - some merit, but depends on the quality. What we don't want is Labour hacks appointed for reward for services rendered.
2. Review funding - more costs to the industry on the user pays principle? to support a massive bureaucracy and enhance the lifestyle of the ineffective?.
3. Regulatory Reform Program to be pushed through - open slather to put up the same flawed and over prescriptive rules that the industry objected to, but CASA seem unable to acknowledge, but then again the Legislative Drafting is a lot of the problem
4. Audit by the National Audit office of CASA's SMS - a bureaurcratic response to a complete stuffup - 'Yes Minister' stuff.
The focus on the NQ CASA office is interesting, although CASA seems to think they've solved the problem already. There should be some restriction on appointing FOI's. AWI's and Area Managers to areas where they had previously been involved in the industry.
The potential for conflict of interest and pushing personal agendas' was not acknowledged by the committee, although strongly suggested in many of the submissions by those who were game enough to speak up i.e. those not subject to CASA oversight. Most disappointing.
1. Appoint a board - some merit, but depends on the quality. What we don't want is Labour hacks appointed for reward for services rendered.
2. Review funding - more costs to the industry on the user pays principle? to support a massive bureaucracy and enhance the lifestyle of the ineffective?.
3. Regulatory Reform Program to be pushed through - open slather to put up the same flawed and over prescriptive rules that the industry objected to, but CASA seem unable to acknowledge, but then again the Legislative Drafting is a lot of the problem
4. Audit by the National Audit office of CASA's SMS - a bureaurcratic response to a complete stuffup - 'Yes Minister' stuff.
The focus on the NQ CASA office is interesting, although CASA seems to think they've solved the problem already. There should be some restriction on appointing FOI's. AWI's and Area Managers to areas where they had previously been involved in the industry.
The potential for conflict of interest and pushing personal agendas' was not acknowledged by the committee, although strongly suggested in many of the submissions by those who were game enough to speak up i.e. those not subject to CASA oversight. Most disappointing.
Sandiland's Opinion
How CASA let Qantas off the safety hook
Ben Sandilands writes:
The report of the Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA is not typical of the genre.
It is comparatively short, lucid and lethal about the poor state of the air safety regulator’s management under CEO Bruce Byron if read line by line.
Read in conjunction with what is known about the CASA special audit of Qantas, a dismal picture of the regulator’s capacity to regulate and the airline’s ability to maintain its fleet emerges.
Let’s summarise the key disclosures:
CASA totally failed to identify and act on deteriorating maintenance standards at Qantas during Byron’s tenure, which started in 2003 and ends this November up until it called for a special but commercial-in-confidence audit in August, weeks after the Senate inquiry had concluded.
In his evidence and tendered documents Byron sought to redefine CASA’s role from being an enforcer of the air safety laws to that of a co-operative mentoring industry partner urging the airlines to deliver safety outcomes on its behalf.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.
The Senate committee choked over the "naivety" of anyone seriously expecting CASA to actually perform its legislated obligations, especially in relation to Qantas, and criticised Mick Quinn, the deputy CEO of operations at CASA for being somewhat blasé about the spate of maintenance issues at the airline.
Its report discloses significant concerns by the airlines over CASA’s conduct under Byron, yet also documents their desire for the hand’s off approach to regulatory compliance to continue, as expressed in the hearings and submissions taken week’s before the failure of this policy in relation to Qantas was revealed.
The Virgin Blue position could be summarised as supporting the committee’s recommendation for a board to be appointed to oversee CASA yet maintain its role as the ‘industry facing organisation’ that proved so useless in relation to Qantas.
The sanitisation of the Senate report has already started with a press release from the self-styled ‘independent’ Safeskies communications fostering body which is part funded by CASA.
Safeskies claims that Australia has no option under its participation in the International Civil Aviation Organisation to "go back" to the "days of antediluvian aviation regulation".
This is a completely false representation of Australia’s ICAO obligations, as is its claim that the Senate has ‘endorsed’ the direction of CASA’s reforms.
Safeskies hasn’t responded to an invitation to withdraw the press release on the grounds that it isn’t supported by the actual report.
Ben Sandilands writes:
The report of the Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA is not typical of the genre.
It is comparatively short, lucid and lethal about the poor state of the air safety regulator’s management under CEO Bruce Byron if read line by line.
Read in conjunction with what is known about the CASA special audit of Qantas, a dismal picture of the regulator’s capacity to regulate and the airline’s ability to maintain its fleet emerges.
Let’s summarise the key disclosures:
CASA totally failed to identify and act on deteriorating maintenance standards at Qantas during Byron’s tenure, which started in 2003 and ends this November up until it called for a special but commercial-in-confidence audit in August, weeks after the Senate inquiry had concluded.
In his evidence and tendered documents Byron sought to redefine CASA’s role from being an enforcer of the air safety laws to that of a co-operative mentoring industry partner urging the airlines to deliver safety outcomes on its behalf.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.
The Senate committee choked over the "naivety" of anyone seriously expecting CASA to actually perform its legislated obligations, especially in relation to Qantas, and criticised Mick Quinn, the deputy CEO of operations at CASA for being somewhat blasé about the spate of maintenance issues at the airline.
Its report discloses significant concerns by the airlines over CASA’s conduct under Byron, yet also documents their desire for the hand’s off approach to regulatory compliance to continue, as expressed in the hearings and submissions taken week’s before the failure of this policy in relation to Qantas was revealed.
The Virgin Blue position could be summarised as supporting the committee’s recommendation for a board to be appointed to oversee CASA yet maintain its role as the ‘industry facing organisation’ that proved so useless in relation to Qantas.
The sanitisation of the Senate report has already started with a press release from the self-styled ‘independent’ Safeskies communications fostering body which is part funded by CASA.
Safeskies claims that Australia has no option under its participation in the International Civil Aviation Organisation to "go back" to the "days of antediluvian aviation regulation".
This is a completely false representation of Australia’s ICAO obligations, as is its claim that the Senate has ‘endorsed’ the direction of CASA’s reforms.
Safeskies hasn’t responded to an invitation to withdraw the press release on the grounds that it isn’t supported by the actual report.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim, I don't know if there is any other way to reset the CASA's goals without some sort of public show. That's the CASA's lot. They're adults and they can live with it. The execs are paid the big bucks in part to cop it on the chin through Parlimentary privelege or not. Pay me the same amount and I'll stand up and waffle on with some management doublespeak about realignments, restructures and co-operative partnership male bovine excrement in front of politicians. Byron is the guy in charge. He set the direction. Yes, the previous ministers should wear a substantial amount of blame, but Byron is the guy in charge. Why is he the CEO if he can't handle responsibility and blame? Ultimately, if he didn't agree with Ministerial directions, then he should have resigned. What you're stating is similar to agreeing with the pilot who after flying a plane into a hill in cloud blamed the company manager for making him do it.
The Labor Party would be accused of petty vindictiveness if it went after the previous Ministers, and what would it achieve anyway? It would certainly give the green light to subsequent retaliatory accusations for the next Minister or party in power.
If anything, this inquiry has been nothing more than a slap on the wrist to the CASA. It got off very lightly. Too lightly in my mind.
I think Byron's mindset is flawed and naive. It's a concillatory cop-out of convenience. If the CASA is redefined from an enforcer of the air safety laws to a co-operative mentoring partner, then take it to its logical conclusion over time. Companies will see the CASA as an expense and argue it can do the same comfortably on its own. The CASA is becoming nothing more than a rubberstamp to its major "customers": a third-party authentication of a certain expectation of standards, where the "customer" can unduly influence the expectations. The trouble with this philosophy is that through an industry partnership, many of these standards appear to be for very specific commercial expediance rather than serious risk mitigation and generic industry benefit.
I think what the inquiry has completely missed is an opportunity to recommend a framework to strengthen the CASA to be a sound regulator. I would like to think it encourages a change of direction reasonably soon, otherwise we'll be going through this entire process again in a few years.
The CASA not only needs to enforce the laws so that the travelling public have faith in Australia's aviation industry, but it needs to greatly improve on encouraging new laws and law changes to remove outdated obstacles to modern commercial operations and equipment. By striving to be a partner in safety, the CASA has achieved prominance instead by becoming a huge promoter of the status quo, a hindrance to commercial innovation and a huge roadblock to further competitiveness and industry evolution.
Byron has tried to palm-off his partnership program as a way of improving safety. What rubbish! The partnership program has been nothing more than a means of maintaining paperwork and a ministerial reporting structure when the organisation has been gutted by continuous budget cuts and a greedy executive body focussed on year-end bonuses.
The Labor Party would be accused of petty vindictiveness if it went after the previous Ministers, and what would it achieve anyway? It would certainly give the green light to subsequent retaliatory accusations for the next Minister or party in power.
If anything, this inquiry has been nothing more than a slap on the wrist to the CASA. It got off very lightly. Too lightly in my mind.
In his evidence and tendered documents Byron sought to redefine CASA’s role from being an enforcer of the air safety laws to that of a co-operative mentoring industry partner urging the airlines to deliver safety outcomes on its behalf.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.
"In the past there has been a mindset, both within CASA and some people in the industry, that safety was primarily the concern of the regulator and the regulations ... this mindset is flawed and naïve," Byron said.
I think what the inquiry has completely missed is an opportunity to recommend a framework to strengthen the CASA to be a sound regulator. I would like to think it encourages a change of direction reasonably soon, otherwise we'll be going through this entire process again in a few years.
The CASA not only needs to enforce the laws so that the travelling public have faith in Australia's aviation industry, but it needs to greatly improve on encouraging new laws and law changes to remove outdated obstacles to modern commercial operations and equipment. By striving to be a partner in safety, the CASA has achieved prominance instead by becoming a huge promoter of the status quo, a hindrance to commercial innovation and a huge roadblock to further competitiveness and industry evolution.
Byron has tried to palm-off his partnership program as a way of improving safety. What rubbish! The partnership program has been nothing more than a means of maintaining paperwork and a ministerial reporting structure when the organisation has been gutted by continuous budget cuts and a greedy executive body focussed on year-end bonuses.
Last edited by Lodown; 19th Sep 2008 at 19:08.