CASA unable to Regulate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA unable to Regulate
The latest court case regarding Aerotropics opens a can of worms for CASA and the government.
In regards to Aerotropics now flying again, who is responsible if they have an incident?
CASA, I think not as they tried to shut them down.
The Judge, I think not as they cannot be held reposnisble.
The Government, I think not because they have CASA in place as the regulator.
This puts CASA as an organisation into serious question as they cannot perform their regulatory obligations.
I can only see one outcome for CASA.
BB needs to inform the government that they cannot perform their function as a regulator and withdraw all delegations until the Aerotropics case has been finalised because they cannot operate with their hands tied behind their back.
At the moment, the court has rulled that NO ONE iIS RESPONSIBLE FOR AVIATION REGULATION.
In regards to Aerotropics now flying again, who is responsible if they have an incident?
CASA, I think not as they tried to shut them down.
The Judge, I think not as they cannot be held reposnisble.
The Government, I think not because they have CASA in place as the regulator.
This puts CASA as an organisation into serious question as they cannot perform their regulatory obligations.
I can only see one outcome for CASA.
BB needs to inform the government that they cannot perform their function as a regulator and withdraw all delegations until the Aerotropics case has been finalised because they cannot operate with their hands tied behind their back.
At the moment, the court has rulled that NO ONE iIS RESPONSIBLE FOR AVIATION REGULATION.
Niles.
The Court stay does not absolve the operator from it's responsibilities under the Act and Regulations, nor does it absolve CASA from it's regulatory responsibilities.
The stay relates to that specific suspension and circumstances. Theoretically, if CASA had new evidence it could again suspend the operator's AOC on new grounds.
Should be - but I doubt it. As it should be. I wouldn't hold my breath either! 
The Court stay does not absolve the operator from it's responsibilities under the Act and Regulations, nor does it absolve CASA from it's regulatory responsibilities.
The stay relates to that specific suspension and circumstances. Theoretically, if CASA had new evidence it could again suspend the operator's AOC on new grounds.
"New regulations might be a top priority now...hopefully without much industry consultation until after implementation. I won't hold my breath."
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sale, VIC, AUS
Age: 50
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is CASA have been investigating Aero Tropics for 12months or so.
This would indiciate there is no hurry to ground the operator. If CASA had something concrete that compromises safety it would have been bought up at the hearing - and the stay would have been denied.
It looks as though CASA needed to be seen to be doing something in light of the senate inquiry.
This would indiciate there is no hurry to ground the operator. If CASA had something concrete that compromises safety it would have been bought up at the hearing - and the stay would have been denied.
It looks as though CASA needed to be seen to be doing something in light of the senate inquiry.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively, CASA could put together a workable set of aviation legislation that removes the train crash of unworkable and often contradictory legislation that applies at present.
Then it could go about establishing a guide for its FOIs' so that they could give a common answer to a question rather than the subjective approach that applies at present.
Then when everyone understands clearly what is required CASA would have a much easier job in prosecuting those who refuse to comply.
Then it could go about establishing a guide for its FOIs' so that they could give a common answer to a question rather than the subjective approach that applies at present.
Then when everyone understands clearly what is required CASA would have a much easier job in prosecuting those who refuse to comply.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA UNABLE TO REGULATE - So since when has CASA ever made a regulation? Thats what the Parliament does. They are supposed to enforce the regulations and are subject to legal review process like everyone else.
Take a look at Paul Phelans' and Bill Hamiltons' submissions to the Senate enquiry and then look at Byrons' and Carmodys' comments on AeroTropics on the ABC tonight.
Grave and imminent danger. It almost made me laugh. Exactly to script.
They are now into the - 'How much money does Ric have for legal fees phase'.
Interesting to note that CASA also stated publically that the two other charter companies in the FNQ can cope with the passenger loads with AeroTropics out. Is that an equivalent safety determination by CASA that lives are no more at risk in Charter than RPT? Sort of makes a farce of the whole RPT Class A maintenance Ck & Trg etc requirements doesn't it.
Take a look at Paul Phelans' and Bill Hamiltons' submissions to the Senate enquiry and then look at Byrons' and Carmodys' comments on AeroTropics on the ABC tonight.
Grave and imminent danger. It almost made me laugh. Exactly to script.
They are now into the - 'How much money does Ric have for legal fees phase'.
Interesting to note that CASA also stated publically that the two other charter companies in the FNQ can cope with the passenger loads with AeroTropics out. Is that an equivalent safety determination by CASA that lives are no more at risk in Charter than RPT? Sort of makes a farce of the whole RPT Class A maintenance Ck & Trg etc requirements doesn't it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC are currently in a position where ASA have a directive that non-endorsed controllers are allowed to give short-term breaks at consoles.
This seems to breach a number of the CARs, CASA are taking weeks to answer and then only saying that they are referring it to ASA.
All we are asking is for CASA to say it is okay and legal when applied against the regulations.All we get is buck passing and stalling.
Either the procedure is legal and the controller is absolved from blame if anything happens, or it is against the regs and the directive needs to be amended.
This seems to breach a number of the CARs, CASA are taking weeks to answer and then only saying that they are referring it to ASA.
All we are asking is for CASA to say it is okay and legal when applied against the regulations.All we get is buck passing and stalling.
Either the procedure is legal and the controller is absolved from blame if anything happens, or it is against the regs and the directive needs to be amended.
If Aerotropics has been breaking the rules for the last 12 months, why hasn’t there been an administrative fine?
I understood that the plan of the administrative fine system was to give people a chance, then fine them if they didn’t comply, and this worked together with a point system. Then rather than having to go through the discredited system of closing an airline down as the first action, at least CASA could say to the court and to the media, “This company has already had 6 fines and has accumulated so many points.”
Could it be that no administrative fines have been given because it would open up such a can of worms (in relation to the lack of regulatory reform) that CASA still goes to the old discredited Seaview and Monarch system of doing nothing for a year or so, then attempting to close the whole operation down?
I understood that the plan of the administrative fine system was to give people a chance, then fine them if they didn’t comply, and this worked together with a point system. Then rather than having to go through the discredited system of closing an airline down as the first action, at least CASA could say to the court and to the media, “This company has already had 6 fines and has accumulated so many points.”
Could it be that no administrative fines have been given because it would open up such a can of worms (in relation to the lack of regulatory reform) that CASA still goes to the old discredited Seaview and Monarch system of doing nothing for a year or so, then attempting to close the whole operation down?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bilbert,
Parliament Legislates, that is, makes Legislature, the law.
CASA Regulates those laws, that is, the Regulator!
CASA does write regulations, they are then passed to the Parliment, voted on and become law. CASA then regulates and inforces the "Law". Exactly like most other government departments.
Quite simple really! Except now they are unable to Regulate, because the Federal Court Knows best!
Interesting that AT can operate with Training and Checking Restrictions, but they still do not have a Chief Pilot!
Parliament Legislates, that is, makes Legislature, the law.
CASA Regulates those laws, that is, the Regulator!
CASA does write regulations, they are then passed to the Parliment, voted on and become law. CASA then regulates and inforces the "Law". Exactly like most other government departments.
Quite simple really! Except now they are unable to Regulate, because the Federal Court Knows best!
Interesting that AT can operate with Training and Checking Restrictions, but they still do not have a Chief Pilot!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bilbert and Niles Crane
With legislation the only thing Parliament will normally vote on is changes to an Act of Parliament. In aviation that means the Civil Aviation Act.
Regulations and amendments to them are formulated by the controlling authority as named in the specific Act. The Civil Aviation Act gives CASA the power to formulate regulation in accordance with the Act. The actual regulation or amendment to one is drafted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Counsel's Office, a sort of legal advice and drafting office for the Parliament, but on instructions from CASA. CASA tells the PCO want it wants to achieve and then the PCO tries to draft something that will achieve that aim.
A new regulation or amendment to one is then tabled in Parliament for a number of sitting days (I forget now just how many) and if in that time no Member of Parliament wants to question or debate the new regulation then it will pass into law. The vast majority of regulations are never debated by Parliament.
Now under our administrative law system decisions by administrative bodies, such as CASA, are subject to review by the court system. If this were not the case you would get a dictatorial system totally out of control and unanswerable.
That is what has happend in this case, a court has said that CASA has got the law wrong or has misapplied its powers. There is nothing in that that says CASA is unable to regulate just that if it wants to then it must do it according to the law. To say it is anything more is mere hyperbole.
With legislation the only thing Parliament will normally vote on is changes to an Act of Parliament. In aviation that means the Civil Aviation Act.
Regulations and amendments to them are formulated by the controlling authority as named in the specific Act. The Civil Aviation Act gives CASA the power to formulate regulation in accordance with the Act. The actual regulation or amendment to one is drafted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Counsel's Office, a sort of legal advice and drafting office for the Parliament, but on instructions from CASA. CASA tells the PCO want it wants to achieve and then the PCO tries to draft something that will achieve that aim.
A new regulation or amendment to one is then tabled in Parliament for a number of sitting days (I forget now just how many) and if in that time no Member of Parliament wants to question or debate the new regulation then it will pass into law. The vast majority of regulations are never debated by Parliament.
Now under our administrative law system decisions by administrative bodies, such as CASA, are subject to review by the court system. If this were not the case you would get a dictatorial system totally out of control and unanswerable.
That is what has happend in this case, a court has said that CASA has got the law wrong or has misapplied its powers. There is nothing in that that says CASA is unable to regulate just that if it wants to then it must do it according to the law. To say it is anything more is mere hyperbole.
Last edited by PLovett; 4th Jul 2008 at 09:20. Reason: To clarify a thought
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: around oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA can regulate, but only if they apply the law. CASA shut aero tropics down because it says they were an "imminent and serious threat to the safety of aviation" - but when they were dragged by aero tropics into court on Wednesday, they could not put the evidence up to support their contention. They were required to seek a 40 day extension on Friday, they filed an application, but agreed to put it over until 18 July, because they still didnt have the evidence.
If they have been investigating for 12 months - where is the evidence?
If they have been investigating for 12 months - where is the evidence?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the truth of the current situation with Aero Tropics, it strikes me that we have a pretty clear case of the regulator exercising power via the proxy of media.
As far as the travelling public is concerned, the 'fix' is already in -they're most likely to avoid AT or any subsidiaries like the plague now. CASA have effectively achieved their aim, simply by making public statements of their "concerns". That's all it takes. No customers = no business.
CAA-NZ are pretty adept at this form 'regulation' to boot.
A ****ty trick IMO. Neatly absolves them of even the necessity of justifying/defending/testing their actions in a court of law, when the business has already failed due no punters. The court of public opinion does the job probably even more effectively.
As far as the travelling public is concerned, the 'fix' is already in -they're most likely to avoid AT or any subsidiaries like the plague now. CASA have effectively achieved their aim, simply by making public statements of their "concerns". That's all it takes. No customers = no business.
CAA-NZ are pretty adept at this form 'regulation' to boot.
A ****ty trick IMO. Neatly absolves them of even the necessity of justifying/defending/testing their actions in a court of law, when the business has already failed due no punters. The court of public opinion does the job probably even more effectively.
Sling Load, you asked if I made a submission to the Senate hearing on the administration of CASA. You probably know that I like to spend my time efficiently – i.e. allocate my limited resources to where they are most effective. Sending in a submission to a Senate hearing is, in my view from experience in the past, a complete waste of resources.
It is true that I did send in a copy of Unsafe Skies, however that took about 30 seconds, and that 30 seconds was probably wasted as I doubt if the Senators have even read Unsafe Skies. By the way, here is a link to it.
I (and others) despair to see the quality of our politicians these days.
It is true that I did send in a copy of Unsafe Skies, however that took about 30 seconds, and that 30 seconds was probably wasted as I doubt if the Senators have even read Unsafe Skies. By the way, here is a link to it.
I (and others) despair to see the quality of our politicians these days.