Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy nails it with his comment about the difficulty of selling all instead of individual seats. I think that the trend over the last few years, of enforcing an essentially draconian requirement, has seen the demise of this section of the industry. God, charter ops used to be the life-bloood of the north and I cannot recall one single incident where pax safety was threatened because a 'charter operator' sold seats individually. And my recollection goes back to the earlies when the old tarmac opposite the 36 THOLD in Darwin was chokkas with aircraft belonging to 'charter operators'. If anyone can enlighten me to the contrary, I'd be interested.
Bloody sad.
Bloody sad.
Bob - I reckon you've been led well & truly up the garden path. Go back & ask that member to show you where they got the figure from
T28D - see first sentence above, maybe they should look at a franchise then
T28D - see first sentence above, maybe they should look at a franchise then
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we also need to look at the current state of GA, and the damage that has been done by privatisation of the secondary airfields, which CASA has NOT been monitoring. If we look at Bankstown, Archerfield and Jandakot we see that the owners want to turn them into industrial parks, the owners being laws unto themselves are breaching the regulations and CASA doing nothing about the breaches.................
Here is a question, how close is the relationship between ATSB and CASA? What I mean is, do both parties take the word of the other as being correct and true without questioning the reply/answer.........
I would be very interested to know what Dick Smiths view on the issue is and what he thinks should be done.
Here is a question, how close is the relationship between ATSB and CASA? What I mean is, do both parties take the word of the other as being correct and true without questioning the reply/answer.........
I would be very interested to know what Dick Smiths view on the issue is and what he thinks should be done.
Queenslander, my views are simple, see here.
The problem is that we have had years of a Department of Transport – now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – when there has been absolutely no policy initiated. Because of this, aviation, particularly general aviation, will be destroyed.
For example, I bet no one in the Department pointed out to the various Ministers that selling off Hoxton Park Airport so it could be used for freehold land would work very much against flying training in Australia.
The problem with the Department is that once a person comes up to speed on aviation matters – and there have been some very good people there – they immediately disappear. For example, we had a capable chap called Martin Dolan, who was in charge of aviation for about three years. He suddenly disappeared. Then we had Mike Mrdak, who had previously worked in Laurie Brereton’s office in aviation and came up to speed quickly. As soon as he was in a position to start setting some policy, he moved – I think to the Prime Minister’s Department.
Basically there is no one in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has any good in-depth knowledge of aviation. The Minister’s aviation adviser has no background in practical aviation and does not ask advice.
We are heading for a major tragedy in aviation. This is due to a lack of pilots, a lack of air traffic controllers, and a lack of any understanding that unnecessary costs must be reduced – otherwise safety will be affected.
This started when John Anderson de-skilled the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board so much that he then decided the Board was useless (which it was) and abolished it. He then placed a farmer, with no practical air traffic control or aviation experience, on the Airservices Board as Chairman.
We have had about a decade of no forward thinking policy being instigated.
There will no doubt be more disasters in future.
The problem is that we have had years of a Department of Transport – now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – when there has been absolutely no policy initiated. Because of this, aviation, particularly general aviation, will be destroyed.
For example, I bet no one in the Department pointed out to the various Ministers that selling off Hoxton Park Airport so it could be used for freehold land would work very much against flying training in Australia.
The problem with the Department is that once a person comes up to speed on aviation matters – and there have been some very good people there – they immediately disappear. For example, we had a capable chap called Martin Dolan, who was in charge of aviation for about three years. He suddenly disappeared. Then we had Mike Mrdak, who had previously worked in Laurie Brereton’s office in aviation and came up to speed quickly. As soon as he was in a position to start setting some policy, he moved – I think to the Prime Minister’s Department.
Basically there is no one in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has any good in-depth knowledge of aviation. The Minister’s aviation adviser has no background in practical aviation and does not ask advice.
We are heading for a major tragedy in aviation. This is due to a lack of pilots, a lack of air traffic controllers, and a lack of any understanding that unnecessary costs must be reduced – otherwise safety will be affected.
This started when John Anderson de-skilled the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board so much that he then decided the Board was useless (which it was) and abolished it. He then placed a farmer, with no practical air traffic control or aviation experience, on the Airservices Board as Chairman.
We have had about a decade of no forward thinking policy being instigated.
There will no doubt be more disasters in future.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I think most of us would 1000% agree with your statement:
That is a real concern. 
But Queenslander asked:
Your response to Queenslander's post included the statement:
I also think most of us would also 1000% agree with that statement.
So what do you suggest should be done Dick to resolve the problems of a Minister who is being advised on aviation by someone who apparently has no background in practical aviation, and also the ongoing lack of forward-thinking [aviation] policy from the Government?
I think most of us would 1000% agree with your statement:
Basically there is no one in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has any good in-depth knowledge of aviation. The Minister’s aviation adviser has no background in practical aviation and does not ask advice.
But Queenslander asked:
Here is a question, how close is the relationship between ATSB and CASA? What I mean is, do both parties take the word of the other as being correct and true without questioning the reply/answer.........
We have had about a decade of no forward thinking policy being instigated.
So what do you suggest should be done Dick to resolve the problems of a Minister who is being advised on aviation by someone who apparently has no background in practical aviation, and also the ongoing lack of forward-thinking [aviation] policy from the Government?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responsibility
I have another question:
What happens if an accident occurs at a secondary airfield and it was contributed to a breach of the regulations by the airport owner, who do you go after, the airport owner for breach of the regulations or CASA for failing to enforce the regulations
What happens if an accident occurs at a secondary airfield and it was contributed to a breach of the regulations by the airport owner, who do you go after, the airport owner for breach of the regulations or CASA for failing to enforce the regulations
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interest of the GA Community
As GA is considered the parasite in aviation, well that is how it feels sometimes being in GA, we are ignored or pushed away, who has/is listening to the GA communities interest/concerns?
If I’m not mistaken but was it not Labour that privatised the secondary airfields, so they created the problem, and have not done anything since being back in government rectify the mess they created, but they are quick enough to blame the last government for the mess………..
If I’m not mistaken but was it not Labour that privatised the secondary airfields, so they created the problem, and have not done anything since being back in government rectify the mess they created, but they are quick enough to blame the last government for the mess………..
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
If I’m not mistaken but was it not Labour that privatised the secondary airfields, so they created the problem, and have not done anything since being back in government rectify the mess they created, but they are quick enough to blame the last government for the mess………..
They will of course, continue to blame the previous administration for all the percieved problems, and possibly tinker around the edges or most likely with the current lot, just hold yet another enquiry.
Like all Governments!!
Chainsaw, what I see happening in the Canberra aviation bureaucracy is what I call “the Wheat Board plan.” We all saw the situation with the Wheat Board and Alexander Downer – where he was able to say that he wasn’t informed, therefore he could not be held responsible! I’m sure he wasn’t informed – that was the intentional part of the plan from the Department.
I see a similar situation occurring within the aviation bureaucracy, so when a catastrophe occurs, in their view the Minister will not be responsible as he “wasn’t informed.”
Of course this won’t work. None of us really cared about the Wheat Board situation because we all knew it would be impossible to sell to Sadam Hussein’s regime without providing some form of kick back. However in the case of an aviation catastrophe – especially when fatalities are involved – it will be quite different.
The Minister has been surrounded with people who “know nothing” and is then kept away from anyone who may be able to give him important safety advice. However I do not believe in this situation he will be able to claim – as Alexander Downer did – that he knew nothing and could therefore not be held responsible.
How do we solve the problem? I believe there is nothing we can do until it gets far worse and a catastrophe occurs. The aviation bureaucracy has got away with this since the days of John Anderson and it has worked well for them.
In fact, when John Anderson retired he was almost treated as a hero by his fellow Parliamentarians and by the media. This sent a clear message to politicians – even Deputy Prime Ministers – that is, don’t make any decisions you can be held accountable for and you will have an easy life.
It begs the question – why would someone want to become a Deputy Prime Minister, or a Minister, without at least achieving some worthwhile changes? I don’t know.
At the present time all we can do is sit and watch, but be very concerned.
In relation to the ATSB and CASA, the head ATSB investigator is ex-military and so is the head of CASA. They have come up through a culture which gives the message, “Never ask advice.” I believe that whilst this culture exists, we will never be able to move forward.
I see a similar situation occurring within the aviation bureaucracy, so when a catastrophe occurs, in their view the Minister will not be responsible as he “wasn’t informed.”
Of course this won’t work. None of us really cared about the Wheat Board situation because we all knew it would be impossible to sell to Sadam Hussein’s regime without providing some form of kick back. However in the case of an aviation catastrophe – especially when fatalities are involved – it will be quite different.
The Minister has been surrounded with people who “know nothing” and is then kept away from anyone who may be able to give him important safety advice. However I do not believe in this situation he will be able to claim – as Alexander Downer did – that he knew nothing and could therefore not be held responsible.
How do we solve the problem? I believe there is nothing we can do until it gets far worse and a catastrophe occurs. The aviation bureaucracy has got away with this since the days of John Anderson and it has worked well for them.
In fact, when John Anderson retired he was almost treated as a hero by his fellow Parliamentarians and by the media. This sent a clear message to politicians – even Deputy Prime Ministers – that is, don’t make any decisions you can be held accountable for and you will have an easy life.
It begs the question – why would someone want to become a Deputy Prime Minister, or a Minister, without at least achieving some worthwhile changes? I don’t know.
At the present time all we can do is sit and watch, but be very concerned.
In relation to the ATSB and CASA, the head ATSB investigator is ex-military and so is the head of CASA. They have come up through a culture which gives the message, “Never ask advice.” I believe that whilst this culture exists, we will never be able to move forward.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th Jun 2008 at 05:37.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockhart River
Dick,
Will the Lockhart River accident, which was the reason for the Senate Inquiry into CASA have a major impact in the review, knowing that CASA failed to correctly monitor and enforce legislation, their failing resulted in the deaths of those on board the aircraft.
Will the review be done without pressure and influence from EXTERNAL parties with an interest in the outcome, i.e. the government, and who is qualified enough to conduct the review knowing that they will be consistently harassed by EXTERNAL parties?
Or do you believe another accident will occur, that will bring things to the forefront for the general public and make CASA explain as to why they have failings in their procedures, but then again, they are arrogant enough and say not the departments fault
Will the Lockhart River accident, which was the reason for the Senate Inquiry into CASA have a major impact in the review, knowing that CASA failed to correctly monitor and enforce legislation, their failing resulted in the deaths of those on board the aircraft.
Will the review be done without pressure and influence from EXTERNAL parties with an interest in the outcome, i.e. the government, and who is qualified enough to conduct the review knowing that they will be consistently harassed by EXTERNAL parties?
Or do you believe another accident will occur, that will bring things to the forefront for the general public and make CASA explain as to why they have failings in their procedures, but then again, they are arrogant enough and say not the departments fault
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank-you for your response Dick.
It seems as though the outlook is very grim indeed. But if, as you say, that the Minister will not be able to claim that he knew nothing and could therefore not be held responsible for the catastrophe when it occurs, then it defies belief that the Minister isn't doing something RFN to tin-plate his ar5e.
Which leads me to suspect that maybe the Minister is in fact a whole lot more stupid than he at present appears.
It seems as though the outlook is very grim indeed. But if, as you say, that the Minister will not be able to claim that he knew nothing and could therefore not be held responsible for the catastrophe when it occurs, then it defies belief that the Minister isn't doing something RFN to tin-plate his ar5e.
Which leads me to suspect that maybe the Minister is in fact a whole lot more stupid than he at present appears.
Dick may have handed back $10,000 which, even to a wealthy man is not chicken feed, but who is going to hand back the 100 to 200 million dollars, which has been wasted on the regulatory reform process over the past twenty years?
Surely failure to perform should be adequate reason to terminate Mr Byron's appointment?
Surely failure to perform should be adequate reason to terminate Mr Byron's appointment?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A representative of the Lockhart River families has published the following Press Release:
Northern Queensland, the Kimberley region in Western Australia and the Northern Territory will all be visited by officials from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA.)
Cities including Mt Isa and Cairns will be covered by the operation.
“Teams will arrive unannounced at large and small aviation operations, aerodromes and airstrips to conduct checks, provide safety advice and investigate any breaches of the regulations,” a statement from CASA said.
I am both astounded and appalled by the announcement yesterday by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that it would conduct a safety sweep through Northern Australia.
This announcement is a cynical and blatant attempt by CASA to divert attention away from the forthcoming Senate inquiry into its multitude of failures to monitor and regulate the aviation industry in this area particularly, and to ensure that people can fly in safety. CASA officers involved in this decision must think that we are stupid.
By announcing the sweep yesterday, in advance of visits by CASA inspectors to many places, the organisation has given a heads-up so operators can get their acts together before they receive a visit.
This will enable CASA to say to the inquiry that its monitoring and regulation efforts are working.
If CASA had bothered to do its duty prior to the Lockhart River crash in 2005, 15 people would not have died.
This sickening performance is wholly consistent with the deceit and dishonesty that CASA has displayed towards the families of the Lockhart River crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in its investigation of the crash, the Coronial Inquest and the Australian Senate.
PRESS RELEASE:
Canberra, June 24 AAP- The aviation regulator is conducting a month-long sweep across northern Australia in a bid to improve safety.Northern Queensland, the Kimberley region in Western Australia and the Northern Territory will all be visited by officials from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA.)
Cities including Mt Isa and Cairns will be covered by the operation.
“Teams will arrive unannounced at large and small aviation operations, aerodromes and airstrips to conduct checks, provide safety advice and investigate any breaches of the regulations,” a statement from CASA said.
I am both astounded and appalled by the announcement yesterday by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that it would conduct a safety sweep through Northern Australia.
This announcement is a cynical and blatant attempt by CASA to divert attention away from the forthcoming Senate inquiry into its multitude of failures to monitor and regulate the aviation industry in this area particularly, and to ensure that people can fly in safety. CASA officers involved in this decision must think that we are stupid.
By announcing the sweep yesterday, in advance of visits by CASA inspectors to many places, the organisation has given a heads-up so operators can get their acts together before they receive a visit.
This will enable CASA to say to the inquiry that its monitoring and regulation efforts are working.
If CASA had bothered to do its duty prior to the Lockhart River crash in 2005, 15 people would not have died.
This sickening performance is wholly consistent with the deceit and dishonesty that CASA has displayed towards the families of the Lockhart River crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in its investigation of the crash, the Coronial Inquest and the Australian Senate.
Last edited by Air Ace; 24th Jun 2008 at 21:16.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinky and Dick are quite right - the terms of reference are stuffed and the Parliamentary Enquiry set up is myopic at best.
As one who has written more than a fair share of Ministerial briefings at both State and Federal level I can affirm that the scenareo Dick paints is sadly true. (ie. - The downline flunkies will kill their own grandmothers to ensure the respective Minister and CEO are buffered - best bet would be an "unofficial" word in either of their ears at any function, event (or even on a flight) followed by a diary note and maybe even an 'on record' note on prune of what was said.)
Unfortunately like FOI's, the submission process is a facade and any departmental flunky will make sure that the good Minister & CEO have the intell to dodge the bullets with a few well placed, non disclosable post it notes on the briefing papers.
If the Government was serious the terms of reference would be widened to allow what is currently little more than a means to contain the Coroner's shadow of obligation and precipe for litigation.
For the families of the Lockhart incident - I'm happy to donate to what well may become a very winable (and very justified) a civil action. Too this end, for the Minister, I strongly advocate buying some EGN centimetres in the Australian inviting cv's and quickly start work on the restructure of the dept.
For journalists - refer B Byron's proclaimations at 'Safer Skies' last year and ask the hard questions.
AT
As one who has written more than a fair share of Ministerial briefings at both State and Federal level I can affirm that the scenareo Dick paints is sadly true. (ie. - The downline flunkies will kill their own grandmothers to ensure the respective Minister and CEO are buffered - best bet would be an "unofficial" word in either of their ears at any function, event (or even on a flight) followed by a diary note and maybe even an 'on record' note on prune of what was said.)
Unfortunately like FOI's, the submission process is a facade and any departmental flunky will make sure that the good Minister & CEO have the intell to dodge the bullets with a few well placed, non disclosable post it notes on the briefing papers.
If the Government was serious the terms of reference would be widened to allow what is currently little more than a means to contain the Coroner's shadow of obligation and precipe for litigation.
For the families of the Lockhart incident - I'm happy to donate to what well may become a very winable (and very justified) a civil action. Too this end, for the Minister, I strongly advocate buying some EGN centimetres in the Australian inviting cv's and quickly start work on the restructure of the dept.
For journalists - refer B Byron's proclaimations at 'Safer Skies' last year and ask the hard questions.
AT