Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Failure to regulate

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th Apr 2019, 05:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sand dune
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Failure to regulate

So now it appears that there is a rapidly growing group of relatives bent on retribution, most likely culminating in a class action against Boeing for the 737MAX accidents. It puts a spotlight on the practice of regulators who delegate or totally avoid their responsibilities v’s ensuring a worlds best practice approach to airline safety by actually regulating. If the FAA gets swept up and implicated in these accidents, what does that mean for the methods of our own regulator I wonder. The watering down of CAO48.1 at the behest of industry (airline) pressure, allowing organisations to strip back essential staff to sub-bare bones levels, potential cash for comments etc, etc....surely have to be seen as a window into our own regulatory future.


What are your thoughts?


Blitzkrieger is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2019, 07:03
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's posdble this 'could' open up a whole pandoras box but I doubt it ever will, why? We are talking about Boeing, the FAA here and the USA, a very powerful combination!!
As for here! Will hardly cause a ripple, CASA and the big boys here have ways of making it go away!
machtuk is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2019, 10:47
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,878
Likes: 0
Received 246 Likes on 106 Posts
Can you imagine a regulator being successfully sued? Can you think of any cases world wide where this has occurred?

Here is an example. A statutory body that manages the water supply for Brisbane messes up so badly that hundreds of homes are flooded and millions of dollars of damage resulted. Estimated as an economic loss to Queensland of $10 BILLION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E...ensland_floods

Anyone successfully sued yet?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2019, 00:09
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 2 Posts
Worlds best practice is a euphemism for doing the least you can possibly get away with; for being average.
Kelly Slater is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2019, 12:56
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My understanding is that only misfeasance (ie acting intentionally wrongly etc) is actionable against CASA. Malfeasance and non-feasance are not actionable...
michigan j is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2019, 13:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East of Luxor
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
At what point did the regulator’s paradigm shift? Or was there no single point and we’ve just been swimming in a pot of water that has been heated so slowly, we only now realise its boiling?

Once upon a time, it was the culture of the Aviation industry to “err on the side of Safety”. If there was suspicion of a systemic, design or manufacture issue, the type would be grounded until the issue was resolved. Instead, here we’ve had a situation where the both the Manufacturer and the regulator, refused to act until it was proven that there was a problem with the Max.

Even after the second Max crash, both parties were initially saying there was no evidence to support a grounding.

Two smoking holes in the ground and the Regulator is saying “prove it”? When did the onus shift from proving an aircraft is safe, to proving it is unsafe and what does it take to do that? Apparently the answer to the latter part of that question is 300+ dead bodies.
Noeyedear is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2019, 22:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,048
Received 694 Likes on 190 Posts
My understanding is that only misfeasance (ie acting intentionally wrongly etc) is actionable against CASA. Malfeasance and non-feasance are not actionable...
So what you are saying is if CASA can make it look like they weren’t aware of any wrongdoing they won’t be held responsible? What about the raft of sumbissions from pilots regarding fatigue?
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2019, 16:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by michigan j
My understanding is that only misfeasance (ie acting intentionally wrongly etc) is actionable against CASA. Malfeasance and non-feasance are not actionable...
Where did you get that idea??
Have a look at the Act.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2019, 22:18
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,872
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Icarus, the Qld Flood Class action has been heard in court (finished earlier this year) and a decision should be made in the second half of the year - then the loser will appeal so it will drag on for a while yet.
Going Boeing is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.