Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lodown
I agree with you 100%. But it is a good start.
I agree that many of the politicians have a lot to answer for - but they will never be held accountable. Similarly with the Department of Transport which was meant to oversee CASA but just let it do what it wanted. However, the driving force behind all this was Byron ( and his hand selcted yes men) in his efforts to placate industry and stop any criticism of CASA (if you take no regulatory there will be no criticism of CASA from industry - if you let industry dictate what rules to write there will be critcism of CASA - if you get rid of all those who stand up to industry there will be no criticism of CASA) - all the time forgetting that CASA was created to protect the public in the wake of the Monarch and Seaview disasters.
The Senate inquiry is right on the heels of the US Congressional inquiry into the FAA and its cosy relationship with industry. Hopefully it will be as strong and forceful as the Congressional inquiry.
"CNN 1 April 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is putting the public at risk with lax oversight and a too-cozy relationship with the airlines, a top lawmaker and aviation experts said Tuesday.
The FAA has shown a dangerous lack of enforcement compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands of people flying on potentially unsafe aircraft, said Rep. James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"This is the most serious lapse in aviation safety at the FAA that I've seen in 23 years," the Minnesota Democrat said in an interview with CNN, a position he restated at a news conference Tuesday.
"The result of inspection failures and enforcement failure has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, un-airworthy and at risk of lives," he said.
Oberstar scheduled hearings to begin Thursday, after a congressional investigation uncovered that discount airline Southwest Airlines kept dozens of aircraft in the air without mandatory inspections -- and, in some cases, with defects the inspections were designed to detect."
Here's the link if you are interested:
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=430[/FONT]
I agree with you 100%. But it is a good start.
I agree that many of the politicians have a lot to answer for - but they will never be held accountable. Similarly with the Department of Transport which was meant to oversee CASA but just let it do what it wanted. However, the driving force behind all this was Byron ( and his hand selcted yes men) in his efforts to placate industry and stop any criticism of CASA (if you take no regulatory there will be no criticism of CASA from industry - if you let industry dictate what rules to write there will be critcism of CASA - if you get rid of all those who stand up to industry there will be no criticism of CASA) - all the time forgetting that CASA was created to protect the public in the wake of the Monarch and Seaview disasters.
The Senate inquiry is right on the heels of the US Congressional inquiry into the FAA and its cosy relationship with industry. Hopefully it will be as strong and forceful as the Congressional inquiry.
"CNN 1 April 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is putting the public at risk with lax oversight and a too-cozy relationship with the airlines, a top lawmaker and aviation experts said Tuesday.
The FAA has shown a dangerous lack of enforcement compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands of people flying on potentially unsafe aircraft, said Rep. James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"This is the most serious lapse in aviation safety at the FAA that I've seen in 23 years," the Minnesota Democrat said in an interview with CNN, a position he restated at a news conference Tuesday.
"The result of inspection failures and enforcement failure has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, un-airworthy and at risk of lives," he said.
Oberstar scheduled hearings to begin Thursday, after a congressional investigation uncovered that discount airline Southwest Airlines kept dozens of aircraft in the air without mandatory inspections -- and, in some cases, with defects the inspections were designed to detect."
Here's the link if you are interested:
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=430[/FONT]
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Ace
You raise some very interesting issues - with which I entirely agree.
Let me respond to some of them.
The QF prosecution is a good example (of QF's extraordinary power) - but you can't point the finger at CASA for what has happened here. CASA referred to matter to the DPP in a very timely manner (DPP are the only ones who can prosecute offences). QF is so powerful that it can stall a prosecution of its pilots for several years to the point that they can then apply to the Supreme Court for a permanent stay on the basis of undue delay (all caused by them). But you can't blame CASA for this as it is not responsible for prosecuting the case - if you want to blame anyone you need to blame the DPP and the Tasmanian legal system for allowing QF to delay the matter year after year.
QF has breached safety regulations on numerous occasions but the CASA approach is to let QF deal with the issue itself for fear of offending QF. Not even one infringement notice issued - whereas if the same contraventions had been committed by a smaller operator CASA would have thrown the book at them. This you can blame CASA for. It is the same mentality that has led to the recent US Congressional inquiry into the FAA
But to suggest that CASA has sytematically and methodically decimated the general aviation industry is a complete exaggeration. Perhaps economics, poor management, too many particiants chasing too few dollars has a lot to do with it.
I can't comment on this. That is really a matter for the coroner. But a perception of bias is certainly possible.
As for the regulatory reform program - I agree with you entirely. But the signifcant problem here was Minister Sharp discarding the regulatory rewrit program that was all but complete in 1996 because of pressure from various vocal sections of the industry. Since that time there has not been one government Minister with the guts to stand up and tell industry that it is the government's responsibility to regulate not industy's. Hence we have intractable never ending consulation trying to achieve consensus instead of the regulator and government doing what they should be doing ie governing and making decisions.
There was an interesting posting on the CASA website about this in 2005. It said amongst other things:
This is what gave rise to the Regulatory Structure and Validation Program (RSVP) ....... That Program was designed to restructure the existing regulations and Orders into a two-tier FAR format and numbering system. The exercise was about 90% completed when in 1996 the then newly created PAP managed to have the project disbanded. The then Minister formally dropped the RSVP project on 18 December 1996 when he advised the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances that “the draft regulations prepared for the RSVP will not be made into law”. Had the RSVP exercise been completed, I believe that many of the issues being encountered today would have been avoided.
While CASA has a large share of the blame for the failings of the regulatory reform program by its complete lack of fortitude (Byron's inane "directives" have certainly hindered the process), a large share of the criticims should also be borne by the vocal minority of bush lawyers in indstry who believe they have some expertise in the area but generally lack any understanding of regulatory development.
You raise some very interesting issues - with which I entirely agree.
Let me respond to some of them.
The QF prosecution is a good example (of QF's extraordinary power) - but you can't point the finger at CASA for what has happened here. CASA referred to matter to the DPP in a very timely manner (DPP are the only ones who can prosecute offences). QF is so powerful that it can stall a prosecution of its pilots for several years to the point that they can then apply to the Supreme Court for a permanent stay on the basis of undue delay (all caused by them). But you can't blame CASA for this as it is not responsible for prosecuting the case - if you want to blame anyone you need to blame the DPP and the Tasmanian legal system for allowing QF to delay the matter year after year.
QF has breached safety regulations on numerous occasions but the CASA approach is to let QF deal with the issue itself for fear of offending QF. Not even one infringement notice issued - whereas if the same contraventions had been committed by a smaller operator CASA would have thrown the book at them. This you can blame CASA for. It is the same mentality that has led to the recent US Congressional inquiry into the FAA
But to suggest that CASA has sytematically and methodically decimated the general aviation industry is a complete exaggeration. Perhaps economics, poor management, too many particiants chasing too few dollars has a lot to do with it.
According to the CASA Annual Report, Counsel Assisting the Coroner in the Lockhart inquest has a long and rewarding association with CASA. Whilst I accept he may be free to act in his private capacity, would not his acceptance of the appointment as Counsel Assisting be considered, ethically at least, a conflict of interest? Similarly, the consultant to that Inquest was a previous employee of both Transair and CASA, FNQ, surely a further conflict of interest?
As for the regulatory reform program - I agree with you entirely. But the signifcant problem here was Minister Sharp discarding the regulatory rewrit program that was all but complete in 1996 because of pressure from various vocal sections of the industry. Since that time there has not been one government Minister with the guts to stand up and tell industry that it is the government's responsibility to regulate not industy's. Hence we have intractable never ending consulation trying to achieve consensus instead of the regulator and government doing what they should be doing ie governing and making decisions.
There was an interesting posting on the CASA website about this in 2005. It said amongst other things:
This is what gave rise to the Regulatory Structure and Validation Program (RSVP) ....... That Program was designed to restructure the existing regulations and Orders into a two-tier FAR format and numbering system. The exercise was about 90% completed when in 1996 the then newly created PAP managed to have the project disbanded. The then Minister formally dropped the RSVP project on 18 December 1996 when he advised the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances that “the draft regulations prepared for the RSVP will not be made into law”. Had the RSVP exercise been completed, I believe that many of the issues being encountered today would have been avoided.
While CASA has a large share of the blame for the failings of the regulatory reform program by its complete lack of fortitude (Byron's inane "directives" have certainly hindered the process), a large share of the criticims should also be borne by the vocal minority of bush lawyers in indstry who believe they have some expertise in the area but generally lack any understanding of regulatory development.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Clapton. You have confirmed the need for an impartial Inquiry which will on this occasion, be knobbled by the time restriction of post 2003 only.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Ace
I think it will be knobbled by the fact that so little time has been provided for the inquiry. There is insufficient time to look at any of the matters properly, let alone write a proper report - all in the space of the few days allowed for the hearing and the reporting date.
I think it will be knobbled by the fact that so little time has been provided for the inquiry. There is insufficient time to look at any of the matters properly, let alone write a proper report - all in the space of the few days allowed for the hearing and the reporting date.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the board abolished?? ...........18 November 2002
The short nature of the inquiry and the period it covers makes me think it is simply to legitimise the reinstatement of a board over CASA.
TH
The short nature of the inquiry and the period it covers makes me think it is simply to legitimise the reinstatement of a board over CASA.
TH
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trash Hauler
I think you'll find that the Board was abolished on 21 October 2003, which is the day the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003 received the Royal Assent - see item 19 of Schedule 1 of that Act.
When was the board abolished?? ...........18 November 2002
The short nature of the inquiry and the period it covers makes me think it is simply to legitimise the reinstatement of a board over CASA.
TH
The short nature of the inquiry and the period it covers makes me think it is simply to legitimise the reinstatement of a board over CASA.
TH
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected clapton......................it was announced on the 18 November 2002.
http://www.minister.infrastructure.g.../A140_2002.htm
(mumble mumble.............read the detail before posting he says to oneself
)
http://www.minister.infrastructure.g.../A140_2002.htm
(mumble mumble.............read the detail before posting he says to oneself
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There is insufficient time to look at any of the matters properly, let alone write a proper report - all in the space of the few days allowed for the hearing and the reporting date."
This inquiry is intended to appease The Hon Martin Ferguson AM, MP; Senator the Hon. Jan McLucas; Senator Kerry O'Brien and the "Lockhart families", with an additional hidden agenda which probably includes replacing the CASA Director; create a CASA Board as a repository for political cronies; and reel in the ATSB so it ceases criticising CASA's inefficiency.
An Aviation Taskforce chaired by Mr Allan Hawke conducted extensive inquiries last year. Their report, which I understand contained a series of recommendations, has never been released by the Minister and probably never will be, wasting something like $500,000 and a lot of people's time and efforts.
This Senate Inquiry is intended to be a Clayton's Inquiry, not permitted to addressing the the Toller years, or the reign of what was arguably Australia's worst Ministers of Transport, or the excesses of certain CASA staff, but reviewing that brief period of time since 2003 when Mr Byron ascended the throne of the Aviation Hall of Doom and Gloom!
Unless of course, there is enough industry interest and public submissions to derail the true agenda.......
We can but hope.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a close race to the bottom but I think Anderson made it to the post by a good head. Truss wasn't in the job long enough to do too much damage, but he certainly demonstrated that unique Anderson training. Vaile had some ability as Trade Minister but failed to achieve anything of note in the Transport portfolio.
With Directors, I think Leroy Keith may have achieved some sanity had he not fallen foul of the then Chairman. Mick Toller wanted the profile but wasn't in touch with the systemic problems. Tell me again, who is the current Director?
I do not believe any regulator should be commercialised into an income generating machine, although certain Australian Police Forces may belie that statement! I do not believe a regulator should be managed by a Board as the legislation should be concise enough to effectively exclude the discretionary executive and non executive decision making process.
My career started in the days of DCA, under the ANO's and ANR's, a regulatory model that served Australia very well for many decades. I now think various Governments tried to fix something that wasn't broken!
With Directors, I think Leroy Keith may have achieved some sanity had he not fallen foul of the then Chairman. Mick Toller wanted the profile but wasn't in touch with the systemic problems. Tell me again, who is the current Director?
I do not believe any regulator should be commercialised into an income generating machine, although certain Australian Police Forces may belie that statement! I do not believe a regulator should be managed by a Board as the legislation should be concise enough to effectively exclude the discretionary executive and non executive decision making process.
My career started in the days of DCA, under the ANO's and ANR's, a regulatory model that served Australia very well for many decades. I now think various Governments tried to fix something that wasn't broken!
But it was 'the industry' who said it was broken, AA.
It wasn't simple enough; it wasn't harmonised enough; it was unnecessarily unique. Or so 'the industry' said.
It wasn't simple enough; it wasn't harmonised enough; it was unnecessarily unique. Or so 'the industry' said.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worst ever Minister - Anderson (even poor old Chas Jones looked good)
Worst ever Director - Toller (because he was vindictive)
Worst ever Chairman - the astronaut ( can't remember his name)
Worst ever Director - Toller (because he was vindictive)
Worst ever Chairman - the astronaut ( can't remember his name)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pundit
Two out of three ain't bad. The "astronaut" (who actually wasn't - but what's a little lie) was Scully-Power.
However, the worst Director has to be Byron. At least Toller came to work each day...
Worst ever Minister - Anderson (even poor old Chas Jones looked good)
Worst ever Director - Toller (because he was vindictive)
Worst ever Chairman - the astronaut ( can't remember his name)
Worst ever Director - Toller (because he was vindictive)
Worst ever Chairman - the astronaut ( can't remember his name)
However, the worst Director has to be Byron. At least Toller came to work each day...
Ah yes - the world's most qualified passenger. I tried to search for the posts on Scully-Power, but the pprune search facility appears only to go back a year.
I still get a laugh out of the small omission that was discovered in the qualifications quoted by Anderson in the press release when Scully-Power was appointed as CASA Chairman. 'Fast jet qualified' didn't mean he was actually qualified to fly a fast jet. Oh no. He was qualified to be a passenger in a fast jet. But let's not get hung up on minor technicalities...
I still get a laugh out of the small omission that was discovered in the qualifications quoted by Anderson in the press release when Scully-Power was appointed as CASA Chairman. 'Fast jet qualified' didn't mean he was actually qualified to fly a fast jet. Oh no. He was qualified to be a passenger in a fast jet. But let's not get hung up on minor technicalities...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Directors, I think Leroy Keith may have achieved some sanity had he not fallen foul of the then Chairman.
Last edited by Lodown; 10th Jun 2008 at 00:25.
Creampuff. Scully-Power Search back to 2001.
It makes very interesting reading ... including your thread of February 2002 regarding a pilot who: "... failure(d) to record a defect on a maintenance release; .... operation of an aircraft without an endorsement; and the incorrect operation of an aircraft at Moruya Airport."
I wonder what capital punishment CASA and OLC would have imposed had that pilot been anyone other than the CASA Director, who Senator O'Brien seems to be suggesting may have been protected or defended by CASA's legal counsel and another of CASA's consultant lawyers?
And your subsequent post in that thread:
Probably explains Mr Toller's comment to me that "It (the Uzu Air matter) should have been handled in a different manner."
I can't believe CASA, Mr Ilyk or OLC would ever be a party to a cover up!
I guess that also justifies raising the question of CASA's integrity and propriety in the matter of Lockhart River?
It is indeed unfortunate the proposed Senate Inquiry is limited to 2003 to the present.
It makes very interesting reading ... including your thread of February 2002 regarding a pilot who: "... failure(d) to record a defect on a maintenance release; .... operation of an aircraft without an endorsement; and the incorrect operation of an aircraft at Moruya Airport."
I wonder what capital punishment CASA and OLC would have imposed had that pilot been anyone other than the CASA Director, who Senator O'Brien seems to be suggesting may have been protected or defended by CASA's legal counsel and another of CASA's consultant lawyers?
"I have concerns about the propriety of those meetings and discussions between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill. Mr Ilyk's role at that time appears to have been one of damage control rather than ensuring that a proper and open investigation into the matter took place. He was, after all, at that time—or was shortly about to become—the senior officer responsible for investigation and enforcement of CASA's regulations, and Mr Skehill's involvement in the meetings meant that he was assisting Mr Toller to manage one of the breaches and at the same time was advising the authority about another of Mr Toller's breaches. I do not believe that Mr Skehill can credibly justify his conflict of interest in this case. So the initial response by Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill to the public disclosure of Mr Toller's breach of aviation regulations was inappropriate, to say the least.
I am advised that the Acting Assistant Director of Safety Compliance, Mr Farquharson, had similar concerns. In fact, I am given to understand that Mr Farquharson's concerns were such that he has committed them to writing. Now, if Mr Farquharson did express concerns about the relationship between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill in relation to what has become known as the Uzu breach, either orally or in writing, the integrity of the internal inquiry into this matter must be called into question. Mr Farquharson was, after all, charged by the chairman of the board with the responsibility of ensuring that the investigation into the Uzu breach was carried out in a proper manner."
I am advised that the Acting Assistant Director of Safety Compliance, Mr Farquharson, had similar concerns. In fact, I am given to understand that Mr Farquharson's concerns were such that he has committed them to writing. Now, if Mr Farquharson did express concerns about the relationship between Mr Toller, Mr Ilyk and Mr Skehill in relation to what has become known as the Uzu breach, either orally or in writing, the integrity of the internal inquiry into this matter must be called into question. Mr Farquharson was, after all, charged by the chairman of the board with the responsibility of ensuring that the investigation into the Uzu breach was carried out in a proper manner."
"The refusal does not smack of a cover up: it is itself a cover up.
If you read the material in my thread about flying training AOCs, you will see that the regulator is merely going through the pretence of consultation before announcing a decision on which its mind has already been made up."
If you read the material in my thread about flying training AOCs, you will see that the regulator is merely going through the pretence of consultation before announcing a decision on which its mind has already been made up."
I can't believe CASA, Mr Ilyk or OLC would ever be a party to a cover up!
I guess that also justifies raising the question of CASA's integrity and propriety in the matter of Lockhart River?It is indeed unfortunate the proposed Senate Inquiry is limited to 2003 to the present.
Last edited by Torres; 9th Jun 2008 at 21:43.
There's a simple lesson in all this: don't put a pilot in charge!
9 July 1997 Ministerial Press Release:
From the Senate Hansard of 8 November 2000:
9 July 1997 Ministerial Press Release:
Two new appointments have been made to strengthen the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board.
They are: Dr Paul Scully-Power, Australia's first astronaut (who travelled aboard the Challenger shuttle in 1984) and an aviation technical adviser, and Mr Bruce Byron AM, former RMF Wing Commander and expert aviation examiner.
Both appointments are in keeping with the Howard Government's commitment to have members on the CASA Board with the appropriate aviation experience, capable of questioning, challenging and monitoring the activities of the CASA bureaucracy - which in turn is responsible for enforcing aviation safety standards for all travellers.
The Government is determined to ensure that Australia has a world class aviation safety system.
The strengthening of the seven-member CASA Board, together with a range of other initiatives to improve the way aviation safety regulation is conducted in Australia, will enhance the effectiveness of our safety regulatory system.
Last year the Government launched the broadest review of aviation safety regulations in Australia's history.
Aviation is a complex and detailed industry that requires people to administer it who have appropriate qualifications relevant to aviation.
Attached are career details of the two appointees, who replace Ms Gabi Hollows and Mr Geoff Molloy.
Media enquiries:
Adam Connolly, 02 9251 9284
They are: Dr Paul Scully-Power, Australia's first astronaut (who travelled aboard the Challenger shuttle in 1984) and an aviation technical adviser, and Mr Bruce Byron AM, former RMF Wing Commander and expert aviation examiner.
Both appointments are in keeping with the Howard Government's commitment to have members on the CASA Board with the appropriate aviation experience, capable of questioning, challenging and monitoring the activities of the CASA bureaucracy - which in turn is responsible for enforcing aviation safety standards for all travellers.
The Government is determined to ensure that Australia has a world class aviation safety system.
The strengthening of the seven-member CASA Board, together with a range of other initiatives to improve the way aviation safety regulation is conducted in Australia, will enhance the effectiveness of our safety regulatory system.
Last year the Government launched the broadest review of aviation safety regulations in Australia's history.
Aviation is a complex and detailed industry that requires people to administer it who have appropriate qualifications relevant to aviation.
Attached are career details of the two appointees, who replace Ms Gabi Hollows and Mr Geoff Molloy.
Media enquiries:
Adam Connolly, 02 9251 9284
DR PAUL SCULLY-POWER: (NASA Astronaut and Aviation technical adviser). Age 53. Born in Sydney and educated at St Pius X College, Chatswood and the University of Sydney.
Dr Scully-Power is an internationally awarded expert in aviation matters. He joined the Royal Australian Navy as a pilot in 1967 and is Australia's first astronaut, flying on NASA's space shuttle Challenger in 1984.
Qualified as a high-performance jet pilot, he has been a flight crew instructor in the astronaut office and was a principal investigator for NASA's infra-red HCMM satellite program and for the joint US-USSR Apollo-Soyux manned spaceflight program.
…
Dr Scully-Power is an internationally awarded expert in aviation matters. He joined the Royal Australian Navy as a pilot in 1967 and is Australia's first astronaut, flying on NASA's space shuttle Challenger in 1984.
Qualified as a high-performance jet pilot, he has been a flight crew instructor in the astronaut office and was a principal investigator for NASA's infra-red HCMM satellite program and for the joint US-USSR Apollo-Soyux manned spaceflight program.
…
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Operations
Senator O'BRIEN (3.07 p.m.)—I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald), to questions without notice asked by Senator O'Brien today, relating to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
If we are to believe parts of Senator Macdonald's answer today, we must conclude that he needs a quick lesson in history. Who was John Sharp? He was the second most senior National Party member of the first Howard government—in fact, he was a cabinet minister. So if Senator Macdonald would seriously have us believe that he does not know who Mr Sharp is, perhaps that quick lesson will bring him up to speed. Obviously he has some short-term memory problems.
Mr Sharp had a few ideas about aviation—which distinguishes him from his successors and particularly from the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, who obviously has no idea about aviation. He certainly does not want to get his hands dirty because he has no idea what he is doing. Turning to Senator Macdonald's answer today—particularly his answer to my lead question—the minister said, as he did on Monday, that the government does not believe—I can believe that because it now knows—and has never believed that Dr Scully-Power is a high-performance jet pilot. That is, frankly, not believable; it is not the truth.
The press release of 9 July 1997 issued by the then cabinet minister Mr John Sharp—from which I will quote—contains a passage from the CV of Dr Paul Scully-Power. It states:
If the government did not believe in 1997 that Dr Paul Scully-Power was `qualified as a high-performance jet pilot' why did cabinet member and then minister for transport, Mr Sharp, issue such a press release? Of course the answer is because that is what he believed. He is telling journalists now that that is what he believed at the time and, more importantly, that is what he conveyed to other board members. It was an important factor in the appointment of Dr Scully-Power to his position. That is what the government believed.
I do not understand why Minister Anderson—through his representative in this place, Senator Macdonald—cannot fess up and say, `Look, we now know that Dr Paul Scully-Power was never a high-performance jet pilot. We now know that was never true. The cabinet was misled and we are looking into the matter.' The fact is that this minister does not want to look into such matters because he knows that a can of worms is lurking in aviation that he will have to do something about.
Can we really believe the government is completely satisfied with the performance of CASA, and of Mr Toller in particular, after a unanimous committee report about the debacle of an investigation of a company called Arcas led to the demotion of Mr Foley, Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance? That action was occasioned by a Senate committee report. It was not initiated by CASA but provoked by the actions of the Senate. If it has cost CASA $90,000 to answer questions, I do not have any problems with that: if that is the cost of CASA's accountability, it is cheap. The fact is that CASA and Minister Anderson were doing nothing about the Arcas matter and something happened because of a Senate committee report. There has been counselling of Mr Toller. We have had misrepresentation by the chairman of CASA about his aviation qualifications and today we have had the revelations—which were confirmed by the minister—of a move by at least one of the two national airlines to see the director of CASA, Mr Toller, stood aside.
When will this government do something? If Mr Anderson is not prepared to act—if he does not want to get his hands dirty on aviation—why will the Prime Minister not step in and replace him? There has been a failure of government administration in this matter. Unless the government is prepared to act, the crisis of confidence in CASA and throughout the aviation industry will only grow. This government needs to act. We have ample evidence that there is a crisis in CASA and the government must act now. (Time expired)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Operations
Senator O'BRIEN (3.07 p.m.)—I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald), to questions without notice asked by Senator O'Brien today, relating to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
If we are to believe parts of Senator Macdonald's answer today, we must conclude that he needs a quick lesson in history. Who was John Sharp? He was the second most senior National Party member of the first Howard government—in fact, he was a cabinet minister. So if Senator Macdonald would seriously have us believe that he does not know who Mr Sharp is, perhaps that quick lesson will bring him up to speed. Obviously he has some short-term memory problems.
Mr Sharp had a few ideas about aviation—which distinguishes him from his successors and particularly from the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, who obviously has no idea about aviation. He certainly does not want to get his hands dirty because he has no idea what he is doing. Turning to Senator Macdonald's answer today—particularly his answer to my lead question—the minister said, as he did on Monday, that the government does not believe—I can believe that because it now knows—and has never believed that Dr Scully-Power is a high-performance jet pilot. That is, frankly, not believable; it is not the truth.
The press release of 9 July 1997 issued by the then cabinet minister Mr John Sharp—from which I will quote—contains a passage from the CV of Dr Paul Scully-Power. It states:
Dr Scully-Power is an internationally awarded expert in aviation matters. He joined the Royal Australian Navy as a pilot in 1967 and is Australia's first astronaut, flying on NASA's space shuttle Challenger in 1994.
Qualified as a high-performance jet pilot ...
Qualified as a high-performance jet pilot ...
I do not understand why Minister Anderson—through his representative in this place, Senator Macdonald—cannot fess up and say, `Look, we now know that Dr Paul Scully-Power was never a high-performance jet pilot. We now know that was never true. The cabinet was misled and we are looking into the matter.' The fact is that this minister does not want to look into such matters because he knows that a can of worms is lurking in aviation that he will have to do something about.
Can we really believe the government is completely satisfied with the performance of CASA, and of Mr Toller in particular, after a unanimous committee report about the debacle of an investigation of a company called Arcas led to the demotion of Mr Foley, Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance? That action was occasioned by a Senate committee report. It was not initiated by CASA but provoked by the actions of the Senate. If it has cost CASA $90,000 to answer questions, I do not have any problems with that: if that is the cost of CASA's accountability, it is cheap. The fact is that CASA and Minister Anderson were doing nothing about the Arcas matter and something happened because of a Senate committee report. There has been counselling of Mr Toller. We have had misrepresentation by the chairman of CASA about his aviation qualifications and today we have had the revelations—which were confirmed by the minister—of a move by at least one of the two national airlines to see the director of CASA, Mr Toller, stood aside.
When will this government do something? If Mr Anderson is not prepared to act—if he does not want to get his hands dirty on aviation—why will the Prime Minister not step in and replace him? There has been a failure of government administration in this matter. Unless the government is prepared to act, the crisis of confidence in CASA and throughout the aviation industry will only grow. This government needs to act. We have ample evidence that there is a crisis in CASA and the government must act now. (Time expired)
"Mr Sharp had a few ideas about aviation—which distinguishes him from his successors and particularly from the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, who obviously has no idea about aviation. He certainly does not want to get his hands dirty because he has no idea what he is doing."
An understatement I would have thought - and ample justification for the Senate to look at CAA/CASA performance over the last 20 years.
An understatement I would have thought - and ample justification for the Senate to look at CAA/CASA performance over the last 20 years.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
I suggest that you read the full Sherman report. No doubt you will suggest Mr Sherman was a CASA crony as well - given that he does not agree with your conclusions.......
30 May 2001
A75/2001
SHERMAN REPORT ON THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY
The former chairman of the National Crime Authority, Tom Sherman AO, has found that the alleged regulatory breaches by the Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, released the Sherman report today. The report examines two incidents involving Mr Toller in 1999 and 2000.
"The first incident involved an allegation that Mr Toller did not fill in a maintenance release in accordance with the aviation regulations. CASA's compliance staff investigated the allegation and counselled Mr Toller. He then received special treatment. The allegation was investigated again. Mr Sherman concluded that there was no substantial evidence that Mr Toller has committed an offence. He also pointed out that the second investigation:
() was initiated for the wrong reasons namely some criticism that was perceived as relevant in a parliamentary committee report. If the principles of enforcement now set out in the Enforcement Manual was observed, the investigation would not have been commenced, particularly in circumstances where informal counselling had already taken place.
"The second incident involved an allegation that Mr Toller had taken the controls of a Cessna Caravan, even though he was not endorsee for the aircraft type. Mr Sherman concluded there was evidence that Mr Toller had committed a technical breach of one regulation, and said that:
I am however of the view that the matter should be the subject of formal counselling in accordance with the procedures of the CASA Enforcement Manual rather that refer the matter to the DPP. This is because the contravention was relatively minor and there appears to have been no threat to the safety of the aircraft particularly as both Mr Pennington and Mr Toller were experienced pilots.
"Mr Toller was formally counselled. The Sherman Report makes it clear that
Mr Toller received special and unfavourable treatment. He was investigated twice for the same alleged offence. He was pilloried by the Labor Opposition.
I suggest that you read the full Sherman report. No doubt you will suggest Mr Sherman was a CASA crony as well - given that he does not agree with your conclusions.......
30 May 2001
A75/2001
SHERMAN REPORT ON THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY
The former chairman of the National Crime Authority, Tom Sherman AO, has found that the alleged regulatory breaches by the Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, released the Sherman report today. The report examines two incidents involving Mr Toller in 1999 and 2000.
"The first incident involved an allegation that Mr Toller did not fill in a maintenance release in accordance with the aviation regulations. CASA's compliance staff investigated the allegation and counselled Mr Toller. He then received special treatment. The allegation was investigated again. Mr Sherman concluded that there was no substantial evidence that Mr Toller has committed an offence. He also pointed out that the second investigation:
() was initiated for the wrong reasons namely some criticism that was perceived as relevant in a parliamentary committee report. If the principles of enforcement now set out in the Enforcement Manual was observed, the investigation would not have been commenced, particularly in circumstances where informal counselling had already taken place.
"The second incident involved an allegation that Mr Toller had taken the controls of a Cessna Caravan, even though he was not endorsee for the aircraft type. Mr Sherman concluded there was evidence that Mr Toller had committed a technical breach of one regulation, and said that:
I am however of the view that the matter should be the subject of formal counselling in accordance with the procedures of the CASA Enforcement Manual rather that refer the matter to the DPP. This is because the contravention was relatively minor and there appears to have been no threat to the safety of the aircraft particularly as both Mr Pennington and Mr Toller were experienced pilots.
"Mr Toller was formally counselled. The Sherman Report makes it clear that
Mr Toller received special and unfavourable treatment. He was investigated twice for the same alleged offence. He was pilloried by the Labor Opposition.