CASA sued for negligence by passenger.

[Icarus2001]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...mages/11872540

Almost three years after being brought out of an induced coma, Ms O'Dowd and her parents have launched a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in the Supreme Court of Queensland, accusing it of negligence.Among the allegations are that the watchdog failed "to put in place reasonable steps to prevent or regulate the flight being conducted in a dangerous, unconventional, unreasonable and unsafe manner".

[gordonfvckingramsay]

IF this lady wins, it will open up an absolute Pandora’s box for CASA, that makes me think it will be settled out of court with terms subject to a non disclosure statement. Whatever happens with this law suit, Australian aviation will continue to hollow out the carcass of a once very pro active industry.

[machtuk]

Remember CASA has VERY deep pockets! There would be a never ending supply of funds and legal knots that could take years to untangle, if ever!

[Icarus2001]

Yep, must have brain damage to think she can win that one. #sorrynotsorry

Well there must be a legal firm that thinks she has some chance. Even with no win no fee types...

[Sunfish]

If the regulator was aware of previous transgressions an i nothing, then the courts will grow book at them.

Why have regs if not enforced?

[KRviator]

Oh, they are enforced, Sunfish, just not fairly, equitably or evenly...

From the ATSB report into the prang:

Originally Posted by The ATSB

In August 2008, after the pilot completed the examination and flight test, the licence suspension was lifted. CASA documentation indicated that the pilot was informally counselled regarding his actions, and it was noted that he appeared to have learned his lesson and demonstrated a positive attitude to compliance.

Originally Posted by The ATSB

CASA’s files on the operator indicated that, during the 2009 investigation, the operator’s personnel advised CASA officers that passenger charter flights to the Middle Island ALA did not carry any of the passengers’ equipment on board the aircraft. Instead, this equipment was transported by an amphibious vehicle, so there were no issues with overloading or carriage of dangerous goods. Given the assurances provided by the operator’s personnel, CASA concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue the complaint any further.

So in July 2009, he pleaded guilty to:

• conducting commercial operations without an AOC
• giving instruction without holding an appropriate rating
• failing to record aircraft total time in service on a maintenance release
• failing to record details of each flight in a logbook

yet only 4 months later the company requested appointment of this person to the role of CP, during which he failed the initial CP assessment, and retook it,

Originally Posted by The ATSB

CASA conducted a second assessment of the candidate in September 2010, and he was then approved as the chief pilot.

, so in a little over 14 months CAsA took what I would consider extreme action to the point the DPP was involved in criminal charges, to which the pilot was found guilty, yet they considered this person to be suitable for a position as CP.

Now fast forward to scheduled site inspection in 2011.

Originally Posted by The ATSB

The report included four findings; three requests for corrective action (RCAs) and an observation.52 Two of the RCAs and the observation related to maintenance records and documentation, but there was no indication that required aircraft maintenance had not been conducted. The other RCA related to flight crew records. The findings included:

• the hours flown for each day was not entered on the maintenance release for several days (although the progressive total was entered) (RCA)
• portable ELBs carried on the operator’s aircraft were not receiving a monthly inspection as required by the ELB manufacturer (RCA).

(My note from the report footer: An RCA was issued when there was a failure to comply with regulatory requirements, which necessitated the operator to take corrective or preventive action.)

And yet again it is found, by CAsA, that the operator is non-compliant with the regulations insofar as record-keeping, an issue that was previously identified - and for which he had a criminal conviction - yet

Originally Posted by The ATSB

A CASA flying operations inspector (FOI) stated that the candidate had responded positively to the licence suspension and court action, and had realised the importance of regulatory compliance

Clearly not, if this was picked up in a planned inspection...

In May 2012, they applied to extend their AOC for 3 years, and in June 2012 another complaint was received about the schenanigans going on, yet

Originally Posted by The ATSB

...CASA personnel noted that it had insufficient resources and time remaining before the expiry of the AOC (30 June 2012) to conduct a full investigation of the complaint. They considered whether they should renew the AOC for a shorter time period than the standard 3 years. It was noted that it would be very difficult from the video to determine the aircraft registration and operator and the manoeuvres were ‘not excessive’. It was also noted that the operator’s chief pilot had a prior history of conducting aerobatic manoeuvres in non-aerobatic aircraft (see Investigation of a complaint in 2007). Ultimately, CASA personnel concluded that they could reissue the AOC for 3 years and deal with any matters that might arise from an investigation through an enforcement process. The AOC was reissued on 29 June 2012

Originally Posted by The ATSB

A note on CASA’s files on the operator in December 2013 stated that an FOI had viewed a social media site and identified some ‘unprofessional behaviour’ but no regulatory breaches. CASA later advised the ATSB that CASA management had suggested the FOI review the social media site to see if there was further evidence to substantiate the complaints from the resident of Agnes Water. 53 The February 2011 inspection report was completed in August 2011, with a due date of formally responding to the RCAs in September 2011. The operator’s formal responses were received on 20 July 2012 and the RCAs were then acquitted. The inspector had identified some questionable manoeuvres but was unable to determine whether there was a breach of legislation.

Here's a pretty damning comment...It is one thing to say "There has not been a breach of regulations", it's another thing entirely to say "I work for the Air Safety Regulator, but I cannot tell you if a rule has been broken"...

[romeocharlie]

I've deleted my comments, and apologise for the insensitivity. Yes, my sense of humour is dark and I'm genuinely sorry if I offended anyone.

[Icarus2001]

If it does make it to the inside of a court it will be very interesting to see the processes and thinking exposed. Whether or not she "wins" may well be of less interest to the industry than the exposure of how the regulator "works" or doesn't.

[Another Number]

Seems pretty obvious, but, given their form, I'd say CASA will take heed of any laxity on their own behalf ... and make it even more fun getting approvals (for CP, etc). They can continue growing the business. (CASA, that is, not their clients').


NB: Quick question : how long until we reach the CASA "utopia" goal? (More CASA officials than pilots in Oz).