The next CASA CEO/DAS
Thread Starter
The next CASA CEO/DAS
Stephen or Steven Campbell shortlisted as the next DAS apparently. Anyone know anything about him. Previously Aviation Adviser to the Deputy PM?
I therefore suspect nothing will change in the regulator then.
Appoint a patsy so nothing changes. The iron ring continues its unfettered abuse of the industry, especially GA.
I am thankful that as I am retired I am no longer subjected to the exsistence of the Committee Against Safe Aviation.
CC
Appoint a patsy so nothing changes. The iron ring continues its unfettered abuse of the industry, especially GA.
I am thankful that as I am retired I am no longer subjected to the exsistence of the Committee Against Safe Aviation.
CC
Just in time to over see the introduction if that steaming heap we call 48.1.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve has also flown in GA and a regional before moving to Cathay. Certainly has the credentials in my opinion, and he is an excellent leader.
Whilst he has been in the public service for a few years now, I’m sure he hasn’t been brainwashed enough not to forget the challenges that exist in GA. Certainly a great pick in my opinion, if he is lucky enough to get the position.
Whilst he has been in the public service for a few years now, I’m sure he hasn’t been brainwashed enough not to forget the challenges that exist in GA. Certainly a great pick in my opinion, if he is lucky enough to get the position.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve would be a good appointment
I recall Steve (or however you spell his first name) made many of the senior managers at CASA very uncomfortable when he was advisor to Carmody. It's an enormous challenge for anyone to take on leading CASA, good luck to whoever gets the gig.
We live in hope. Finally someone who has started at the bottom and should know what it is, to pay their own way, from their own pocket. (i suspect). That itself has to be a vast improvement.
You’re right, but for the wrong reasons.
The “selection process” comprises tapping the preferred appointee on the shoulder. All pretence at a competitive, merit-based process is just that: pretence.
The preferred appointee’s ‘interview’, if any, will be a discussion of start date and remuneration package.
The “selection process” comprises tapping the preferred appointee on the shoulder. All pretence at a competitive, merit-based process is just that: pretence.
The preferred appointee’s ‘interview’, if any, will be a discussion of start date and remuneration package.
LB, the question is; “who will best minimise the risk to Government associated with allowing aviation to occur?”. That then follows with the question of strategy: “Is the current strategy of over regulation and punitive micro management sufficient to protect the Government from all aviation related risk?”.
‘’In my opinion, change will only occur if the risk of maintaining the current regulatory lockdown is exceeded by the risk of an angry pilot customer base doing enough political damage to threaten the Governments majority. That is why I keep advocating negative political campaigning against sitting government members in marginal seats.
‘’In my opinion, change will only occur if the risk of maintaining the current regulatory lockdown is exceeded by the risk of an angry pilot customer base doing enough political damage to threaten the Governments majority. That is why I keep advocating negative political campaigning against sitting government members in marginal seats.
Sunfish
A question: Do you think 41,000 pilots and LAMEs scattered through out the country will make a difference in 537,000 enrolled voters. Especially when the general public knows little about, has no contact with or does not like general aviation?
A question: Do you think 41,000 pilots and LAMEs scattered through out the country will make a difference in 537,000 enrolled voters. Especially when the general public knows little about, has no contact with or does not like general aviation?
Yes Vag, I do. The secret is to campaign against the incumbent in marginal seats. Flyers, mail drops, how to vote cards for “the aviation party” - not telling anyone to vote for US, but making a case NOT to vote for her.
‘’The current government holds a two seat majority.
Liberals hold two seats with less than 1% majority. Labor holds four.
So how about “the aviation group” invests in some advertising material in those six seats? All you say is vote / don’t vote for him/ her.
‘’You don’t think the government or opposition wouldn’t want your support? Think again. Both parties will dismember CASA if that’s what it takes to be in power.
‘’The current government holds a two seat majority.
Liberals hold two seats with less than 1% majority. Labor holds four.
So how about “the aviation group” invests in some advertising material in those six seats? All you say is vote / don’t vote for him/ her.
‘’You don’t think the government or opposition wouldn’t want your support? Think again. Both parties will dismember CASA if that’s what it takes to be in power.
Moderator
Love these impractical political theories.........
Sunny, let us assume your impractical campaign works, you manage to unseat the present Government and end up with a coalition of the current opposition, the same as 2007 to 2013. Their administration of Transport and particularly Civil Aviation was arguably worse than any Conservative Government.
The solution is to work with the current government but campaign to put as much distance as possible between the Ministry of Transport and the National Party. Anderson started the rot in 1998 and it has all been downhill ever since.
Yes Vag, I do. The secret is to campaign against the incumbent in marginal seats. Flyers, mail drops, how to vote cards for “the aviation party” - not telling anyone to vote for US, but making a case NOT to vote for her.
The solution is to work with the current government but campaign to put as much distance as possible between the Ministry of Transport and the National Party. Anderson started the rot in 1998 and it has all been downhill ever since.
Tail, I bow to your superior knowledge but I can’t help thinking about AOPA USA’s PAC which does exactly what I’m talking about.
It supports “friends” and by definition makes it more difficult for enemies to get re elected.
https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/take-a...tion-committee
‘’Can you think of any politician standing for re-election who wouldn’t like us to tell the voters why she is a good guy? .....and by definition, wouldn’t like us to support the competitor?
Two seats Tailwheel, and AOPA could have a personal invitation to Morrison or Albanese office any time they want. (well, unlikely, but you get the idea)
It supports “friends” and by definition makes it more difficult for enemies to get re elected.
https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/take-a...tion-committee
AOPA PAC is an integral part of AOPA's efforts to promote the legislative and political interests of all aircraft owners and pilots. AOPA PAC is an independent fund of voluntary, personal contributions. The fund is strictly regulated by the Federal Election Commission and is used by political candidates to defray campaign costs. AOPA PAC is a completely non-partisan entity. Its primary goal is to elect a pro-general aviation majority in Congress.
Under federal law, AOPA is prohibited from giving dues money to candidates for federal office. Therefore, AOPA PAC has been created to identify and contribute money to qualified candidates who weigh the interests of general aviation when considering legislation. In addition to our proven friends in Congress, AOPA PAC works to cultivate new members and candidates who are supportive of the industry.
The AOPA PAC provides members with another collective tool to ensure the needs of general aviation are recognized in Congress. By contributing through AOPA PAC, your dollars are pooled with contributions from other pilots and aircraft owners nationwide. This means that each dollar you give carries far greater weight than if you contributed on your own. By acting through the PAC, you are part of a focused and effective campaign to achieve maximum returns from limited dollars.
By acting through the PAC, AOPA members are part of a focused and effective campaign on behalf of general aviation to achieve maximum returns from limited dollars. The PAC allows us to back our friends in Congress who support us day-to-day in defense of our freedom to fly.
Under federal law, AOPA is prohibited from giving dues money to candidates for federal office. Therefore, AOPA PAC has been created to identify and contribute money to qualified candidates who weigh the interests of general aviation when considering legislation. In addition to our proven friends in Congress, AOPA PAC works to cultivate new members and candidates who are supportive of the industry.
The AOPA PAC provides members with another collective tool to ensure the needs of general aviation are recognized in Congress. By contributing through AOPA PAC, your dollars are pooled with contributions from other pilots and aircraft owners nationwide. This means that each dollar you give carries far greater weight than if you contributed on your own. By acting through the PAC, you are part of a focused and effective campaign to achieve maximum returns from limited dollars.
By acting through the PAC, AOPA members are part of a focused and effective campaign on behalf of general aviation to achieve maximum returns from limited dollars. The PAC allows us to back our friends in Congress who support us day-to-day in defense of our freedom to fly.
‘’Can you think of any politician standing for re-election who wouldn’t like us to tell the voters why she is a good guy? .....and by definition, wouldn’t like us to support the competitor?
Two seats Tailwheel, and AOPA could have a personal invitation to Morrison or Albanese office any time they want. (well, unlikely, but you get the idea)
Sunfish
AOPA in the US has a significant difference to AOPA here and many parts of the Australian GA community. It does not scream abuse at the regulator or anyone else who seems to disagree with what seems to me to be an "entitlement" attitude.
In many cases the attitude expressed is also based on hear say. For instance, have you ever had a personal dealing with a CASA person? Do you have personal experience or just PPRUNE as the basis for your views? What have you done to "market" GA to the wider community?
If we as aviators are to be seen as credible to politicians and the public, we also have to be prepared to listen and negotiate on the basis of facts,not emotion.
AOPA in the US has a significant difference to AOPA here and many parts of the Australian GA community. It does not scream abuse at the regulator or anyone else who seems to disagree with what seems to me to be an "entitlement" attitude.
In many cases the attitude expressed is also based on hear say. For instance, have you ever had a personal dealing with a CASA person? Do you have personal experience or just PPRUNE as the basis for your views? What have you done to "market" GA to the wider community?
If we as aviators are to be seen as credible to politicians and the public, we also have to be prepared to listen and negotiate on the basis of facts,not emotion.
