CASA FLOT Conf identifies major risk to airsafety!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA FLOT Conf identifies major risk to airsafety!
The CASA FLOT conference held this week in Sydney seems to have been an outstanding success from all feedback. Certainly many of the issues associated with the rewrite of Parts 61, 91, 121B, 141, 142, 133/13/137 were reviewed by the 300 or so industry representatives there plus many who logged on to the web broadcast. CASA seemed to be quite serious in wanting to get it right. I guess the proof will be in what happens next.
An interesting view was put forward in that it was considered by representatives of industry that the greatest hazard to air safety was in fact the Attorney's General Department in demanding the rules fit a use all template in style and format and that Strict Liability offences be attached to many (read most) of the rules. It was suggested that this had the potential to destroy safety management systems and occurrence reporting and as a result reduce the levels of safety that many have worked for by causing a 'dry up' of reporting.
An interesting view was put forward in that it was considered by representatives of industry that the greatest hazard to air safety was in fact the Attorney's General Department in demanding the rules fit a use all template in style and format and that Strict Liability offences be attached to many (read most) of the rules. It was suggested that this had the potential to destroy safety management systems and occurrence reporting and as a result reduce the levels of safety that many have worked for by causing a 'dry up' of reporting.
Maybe instead of all this legal bu**** CASA through its Board/CEO should send a letter to all AOC holders, pilots, etc along the lines of the letter we all received from D.G Anderson all. thise years ago.
For all those "wet behind the ears" the letter allowed a person, who put their hand up for an error, to do so without fear of any action against them.
For all those "wet behind the ears" the letter allowed a person, who put their hand up for an error, to do so without fear of any action against them.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
601
I remember, but there is/was a bit of a difference between now and then in that they/we were even then, still writing the rules and most of the aircraft were then but mere children with the factory "liquid paper" stuff still intact on the engines and stuff.
Triadic, says it all, there is now an even more urgent need for this "proactive attitude" to be applied, given that the said "liquid paper" is a long gone memory and the "corporate memory" of the "way we were" (which actually worked) is a long gone memory for the oldies and a "never was" for the youngsters like RHS and others.
Otherwise it is just as futile as rearranging the deck chairs on the "Titanic".
Sir Donald has a lot to answer for, most of it very good to excellent.
His shadow towers over the strolling adventurers who would presume to "know", because they can indulge their hobby without the usual let or hindrance that ordinary mortals actually "know".
These "knowees" decided, unilaterally, that we needed to throw the baby and everything else that looked like the past, out with the bathwater.
Someone in these halls suggested that we need to go waaaaay back, throw everything out and start again from where we actually knew where we were, circa early 1980's or pre RHS.
It then, worked a whole lot better than it does now.
If nothing else but that came out of FLOT then it was worthwhile.
I remember, but there is/was a bit of a difference between now and then in that they/we were even then, still writing the rules and most of the aircraft were then but mere children with the factory "liquid paper" stuff still intact on the engines and stuff.
Triadic, says it all, there is now an even more urgent need for this "proactive attitude" to be applied, given that the said "liquid paper" is a long gone memory and the "corporate memory" of the "way we were" (which actually worked) is a long gone memory for the oldies and a "never was" for the youngsters like RHS and others.
Otherwise it is just as futile as rearranging the deck chairs on the "Titanic".
Sir Donald has a lot to answer for, most of it very good to excellent.
His shadow towers over the strolling adventurers who would presume to "know", because they can indulge their hobby without the usual let or hindrance that ordinary mortals actually "know".
These "knowees" decided, unilaterally, that we needed to throw the baby and everything else that looked like the past, out with the bathwater.
Someone in these halls suggested that we need to go waaaaay back, throw everything out and start again from where we actually knew where we were, circa early 1980's or pre RHS.
It then, worked a whole lot better than it does now.
It was suggested that this had the potential to destroy safety management systems and occurrence reporting and as a result reduce the levels of safety that many have worked for by causing a 'dry up' of reporting.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that the penny has started to drop!
As the national regulatory authority (ICAO definition), CASA has simply one role, that is, to regulate. CASA can never be accused of being an Authority on Safe Civil Aviation. They are regulators pure and simple. Lawyers in the Attorney Generals Legislative Drafting Branch and dear old CASA's Office of Legal Counsel know the regulations must be written so as to be enforcable and with a bit of luck (the small print) carry a punitive measure. Safety has nothing to do with it. All of us can point to some Law/Reg that complied with 100% adds nothing to safety, even in some cases being actually unsafe (New Flight Manuals for some aircraft).
All the huffing and puffing on some other threads about parliament making the laws etc is true in simplistic terms, what really happens is some happy chappy in DoT&RS swans off to Montreal and commits us to some obsure ICAO accorde/annex/whatever, and returns to the relevance! of Canberra. Then the 'system' takes over and we at some time later finish up with a new law/reg or whatever. The changes to the Flight Manual are a recent case in point (again). ICAO 'told' us to change the Manuals, not some CASA 'safety' expert having a bright idea.
I certainly understand where TRIADIC is coming from. Any regulation that "had the potential to destroy safety management systems and occurrence reporting and as a result reduce the levels of safety that many have worked for" is a truely sad indicment on regulation as a means of achieving safety. It is another sad fact that both the AG's LDB and CASA's OLC persist in seeing enacted regulations that whilst beatifully written in a legal sense, mean diddly squat to me as a safety manager and operating pilot.
As I said at the start "Could it be that the penny has started to drop!"
ding
As the national regulatory authority (ICAO definition), CASA has simply one role, that is, to regulate. CASA can never be accused of being an Authority on Safe Civil Aviation. They are regulators pure and simple. Lawyers in the Attorney Generals Legislative Drafting Branch and dear old CASA's Office of Legal Counsel know the regulations must be written so as to be enforcable and with a bit of luck (the small print) carry a punitive measure. Safety has nothing to do with it. All of us can point to some Law/Reg that complied with 100% adds nothing to safety, even in some cases being actually unsafe (New Flight Manuals for some aircraft).
All the huffing and puffing on some other threads about parliament making the laws etc is true in simplistic terms, what really happens is some happy chappy in DoT&RS swans off to Montreal and commits us to some obsure ICAO accorde/annex/whatever, and returns to the relevance! of Canberra. Then the 'system' takes over and we at some time later finish up with a new law/reg or whatever. The changes to the Flight Manual are a recent case in point (again). ICAO 'told' us to change the Manuals, not some CASA 'safety' expert having a bright idea.
I certainly understand where TRIADIC is coming from. Any regulation that "had the potential to destroy safety management systems and occurrence reporting and as a result reduce the levels of safety that many have worked for" is a truely sad indicment on regulation as a means of achieving safety. It is another sad fact that both the AG's LDB and CASA's OLC persist in seeing enacted regulations that whilst beatifully written in a legal sense, mean diddly squat to me as a safety manager and operating pilot.
As I said at the start "Could it be that the penny has started to drop!"
ding
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I smell a dead rat.
This is a plea for help. I'm told that yesterday the transcript of the entire conference was on the CASA web site. Today it isn't. Maybe it will reappear, and it would be educational to compare the final with the original. Did anyone download it? If so an e-mail to [email protected] would be very much appreciated.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: canberra
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The conference materials will be updated on the CASA website on Monday 10 March to include the closing plenary slides.
Getting the technology setup so that video replays are available takes a little longer to arrange - I'm aiming to get them online the week commencing 18 March.
By the way - I saw some of your comments coming through - and would like to thank you for participating in our on-line event.
Getting the technology setup so that video replays are available takes a little longer to arrange - I'm aiming to get them online the week commencing 18 March.
By the way - I saw some of your comments coming through - and would like to thank you for participating in our on-line event.
If the story told by Triadic is accurate - and I've no reason to doubt it is - I fear the Great Hope of AOPA has about as much chance of influencing the direction of regulatory reform as some of her current and erstwhile colleagues. I am not sure whether the shibboleth of strict liability was invoked merely to take advantage of the ignorance of her potential constituency, or whether the proponent genuinely believes the point to be a substantial one. (It's usually hard to tell with AOPA directors.) Either way, tilting at the strict liability windmill will merely confirm, in the minds of those who actually determine the direction of regulatory reform, what little weight, if any, should be attributed to AOPA's views these days.
Please do not waste your energy tilting at the strict liability windmill, unless you either have an understanding of all the facts and issues or you don't mind looking like a patsy.
First, the category of an offence as 'full' mens rea' or 'strict liability' or 'absolute liability', has got nothing - repeat nothing to do with the question whether a person may be given 'immunity' from prosecution or administrative action for committing the offence. Categorising an offence as 'strict liability' does not - repeat does not - have the effect that action must always be taken against a person who commits the offence.
On the question as to granting 'immunity' from prosecution, CASA does not have power under the existing legislation to 'grant immunity' from prosecution - irrespective of the category of the offence. CASA can have a policy not to recommend prosecution in specified circumstances, but the DPP can nevertheless decide to pursue the prosecution and indeed a private individual can launch a private prosecution. Nothing in the proposed legislation would change the status quo on that point. CASA can also have a policy not to pursue administrative action in specified circumstances. Nothing in the proposed legislation would change the status quo on that point.
Secondly, there is little doubt that under the current regulations and probably under the Act, offences are strict liability. Before anyone seizes on the equivocal words 'little doubt' and 'probably', to make the otherwise valid point that under the proposed regulations the matter would be put beyond doubt, let me make an important point that I will explain in greater detail. The only doubt in my mind is not whether the existing offences under the regulations are 'full ' mens rea offences instead of strict liability offences, but whether they are absolute liability offences instead of strict liability offences.
strict liability
Let's get clear what 'strict liability' means. It means the offence is proved once the physical element is proved - the car you were driving exceeded the speed limit; the plane you were flying entered controlled airspace without an airways clearance. The prosecution does not to prove a mental element – e.g. that you subjectively intended to exceed the speed limit or enter controlled airspace without a clearance – as an element of the offence.
However, with strict liability offences you can raise a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact - someone tampered with my speedo and I honestly thought I was travelling at the indicated, legal speed; I did my navigation and calculations and I honestly thought I was outside controlled airspace.
If the defendant leads sufficient evidence to support the defence prima facie, the onus then shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not make an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - how reasonable could it have been for you to believe your allegedly bogus speedo reading of 15 mph, when you were in fact travelling at 100mph; how reasonable could it have been for you to believe you were outside controlled airspace, when you had a radio conversation with ATC who repeatedly warned you that your track would take you through controlled airspace.
So strict liability offences in effect have a 'mens rea' element: It's the absence of an honest mistake that is objectively reasonable.
’full’mens rea offences
Offences that include a mental element that must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt along with the physical element are sometimes referred to as 'full' mens rea offences. The mental element is usually something like subjective intention (e.g. the defendant pulled the trigger with the intention to kill) - or was reckless as to the outcome (e.g. the defendant drove a truck into the side of a bar full of people, knowing they were there, with the intention of injuring them).
See if you can find the word “intentionally” or “recklessly” in any of the existing offences in the Act or regs.
absolute liability
Like strict liability offences, absolute liability offences are established once the physical element is established. However, there is no defence to an absolute liability offence. It doesn't matter how honest or reasonable your mistake or actions were in the circumstances. Someone might have pulled the speed limit sign out of the ground - doesn't matter; someone on the ground might have transmitted a bogus airways clearance to you - doesn't matter.
So if you think strict liability is bad, absolute liability is whole new world of pain.
what’s the status quo?
What category are offences under the existing regs and Act? When those sorts of questions are asked, I find out what judges have to say. After all, judges have ultimate authority to determine these questions.
In RQAC v CASA (judgment available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../2000/848.html ) CASA argued among other things that a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact would be available to a person prosecuted for breach of regulation 282 or section 20AB of the Act. Here is what the court said about that submission in its judgment:
[my emphasis]
Notice that although the judge did not determine the question one way or the other, he did not even entertain the possibility that these were 'full' mens rea offences. His response to the submission that an honest and reasonable mistake would be a defence was the observation that they may be absolute liability offences! The competing interpretations were strict liability and absolute liability.
If you think I am exaggerating or misconstruing this, have a look at the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 that popped up after RQAC v CASA. (It’s been gathering dust in the Parliament ever since. You'll find a copy in the Old Bills list at this link: http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/index.htm). Among other things, the Bill adds the following magic words to some of the offences in the Civil Aviation Act:
You’ve been flying with strict liability – and possibly absolute liability - for a long time. Notice the sky hasn’t fallen in.
Please do not waste your energy tilting at the strict liability windmill, unless you either have an understanding of all the facts and issues or you don't mind looking like a patsy.
First, the category of an offence as 'full' mens rea' or 'strict liability' or 'absolute liability', has got nothing - repeat nothing to do with the question whether a person may be given 'immunity' from prosecution or administrative action for committing the offence. Categorising an offence as 'strict liability' does not - repeat does not - have the effect that action must always be taken against a person who commits the offence.
On the question as to granting 'immunity' from prosecution, CASA does not have power under the existing legislation to 'grant immunity' from prosecution - irrespective of the category of the offence. CASA can have a policy not to recommend prosecution in specified circumstances, but the DPP can nevertheless decide to pursue the prosecution and indeed a private individual can launch a private prosecution. Nothing in the proposed legislation would change the status quo on that point. CASA can also have a policy not to pursue administrative action in specified circumstances. Nothing in the proposed legislation would change the status quo on that point.
Secondly, there is little doubt that under the current regulations and probably under the Act, offences are strict liability. Before anyone seizes on the equivocal words 'little doubt' and 'probably', to make the otherwise valid point that under the proposed regulations the matter would be put beyond doubt, let me make an important point that I will explain in greater detail. The only doubt in my mind is not whether the existing offences under the regulations are 'full ' mens rea offences instead of strict liability offences, but whether they are absolute liability offences instead of strict liability offences.
strict liability
Let's get clear what 'strict liability' means. It means the offence is proved once the physical element is proved - the car you were driving exceeded the speed limit; the plane you were flying entered controlled airspace without an airways clearance. The prosecution does not to prove a mental element – e.g. that you subjectively intended to exceed the speed limit or enter controlled airspace without a clearance – as an element of the offence.
However, with strict liability offences you can raise a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact - someone tampered with my speedo and I honestly thought I was travelling at the indicated, legal speed; I did my navigation and calculations and I honestly thought I was outside controlled airspace.
If the defendant leads sufficient evidence to support the defence prima facie, the onus then shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not make an honest and reasonable mistake of fact - how reasonable could it have been for you to believe your allegedly bogus speedo reading of 15 mph, when you were in fact travelling at 100mph; how reasonable could it have been for you to believe you were outside controlled airspace, when you had a radio conversation with ATC who repeatedly warned you that your track would take you through controlled airspace.
So strict liability offences in effect have a 'mens rea' element: It's the absence of an honest mistake that is objectively reasonable.
’full’mens rea offences
Offences that include a mental element that must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt along with the physical element are sometimes referred to as 'full' mens rea offences. The mental element is usually something like subjective intention (e.g. the defendant pulled the trigger with the intention to kill) - or was reckless as to the outcome (e.g. the defendant drove a truck into the side of a bar full of people, knowing they were there, with the intention of injuring them).
See if you can find the word “intentionally” or “recklessly” in any of the existing offences in the Act or regs.
absolute liability
Like strict liability offences, absolute liability offences are established once the physical element is established. However, there is no defence to an absolute liability offence. It doesn't matter how honest or reasonable your mistake or actions were in the circumstances. Someone might have pulled the speed limit sign out of the ground - doesn't matter; someone on the ground might have transmitted a bogus airways clearance to you - doesn't matter.
So if you think strict liability is bad, absolute liability is whole new world of pain.
what’s the status quo?
What category are offences under the existing regs and Act? When those sorts of questions are asked, I find out what judges have to say. After all, judges have ultimate authority to determine these questions.
In RQAC v CASA (judgment available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../2000/848.html ) CASA argued among other things that a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact would be available to a person prosecuted for breach of regulation 282 or section 20AB of the Act. Here is what the court said about that submission in its judgment:
CASA submits that an honest and reasonable belief that a person had passed a valid test and had, in consequence, a valid licence or rating would provide a good defence to such a prosecution. That reg 282 and s 20AB of the Act should be construed as incorporating the element of mens rea is not, however, self-evident, given CASA's own insistence in argument that air safety considerations dictate the conclusion it says flows from the lapse of Mr Harris' instructor rating in the period 1 May 1998 to 6 April 1999. If air safety considerations require ratings issued by Mr Harris in this period to be treated as invalid, the innocent ignorance of the holders cannot be sufficient to obliterate the risk to air safety created by Mr Harris' unauthorised issue of those ratings. The prohibitions in reg 282 and s 20AB of the Act, which are intended to be sanctions against putting air safety at risk, may be absolute.
Notice that although the judge did not determine the question one way or the other, he did not even entertain the possibility that these were 'full' mens rea offences. His response to the submission that an honest and reasonable mistake would be a defence was the observation that they may be absolute liability offences! The competing interpretations were strict liability and absolute liability.
If you think I am exaggerating or misconstruing this, have a look at the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 that popped up after RQAC v CASA. (It’s been gathering dust in the Parliament ever since. You'll find a copy in the Old Bills list at this link: http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/index.htm). Among other things, the Bill adds the following magic words to some of the offences in the Civil Aviation Act:
the person knows of, or is reckless as to, the matter or matters...
Last edited by Creampuff; 9th Mar 2003 at 19:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst Creampuff has wisdom and knowledge which I will not argue with, I believe the point of the post was the "way" or the "method" in which the new rules are been written. Having a strict liability clause at the bottom of most every rule, inserted I might add by the AG's Dept and with penalty's that seem to have no relation with the "crime" is not conducive to having a system of rules which PROMOTE safety.
It is obvious that the AG does not realise that compliance with rules does not ensure safety.
If we are to have a system which promotes safety and compliance then we must have
a) rules that are simple to understand
b) practical
c) reflect established international convention
If these simple criteria are used then it is likely that those that need to will read and understand the rules and as a result the level of compliance will be good. That been the case there really is no need to attach a pointed gun to each and every rule. It really has a very strong negative effect. Obviously there must be a system in place to address those that choose to cross the line, but it should not be at the risk of promoting sound safety practice.
Safety Management Systems rely on having a good reporting system as we can only fix things if we know about them. If there is any significant threat to the individual by reporting then you can bet that the chances of someone self reporting an occurrence that may place him/her in the sights of the pointed gun will be close to nil.
If that happens, you can say goodbye to most of the safety systems that we now have in place. And who's fault is that? Certainly not CASA, but the AG's Dept and maybe the Govt of the day, but then look at the influence that AGs has on Govt Policy and how it is all written.... hmmmm!
It is obvious that the AG does not realise that compliance with rules does not ensure safety.
If we are to have a system which promotes safety and compliance then we must have
a) rules that are simple to understand
b) practical
c) reflect established international convention
If these simple criteria are used then it is likely that those that need to will read and understand the rules and as a result the level of compliance will be good. That been the case there really is no need to attach a pointed gun to each and every rule. It really has a very strong negative effect. Obviously there must be a system in place to address those that choose to cross the line, but it should not be at the risk of promoting sound safety practice.
Safety Management Systems rely on having a good reporting system as we can only fix things if we know about them. If there is any significant threat to the individual by reporting then you can bet that the chances of someone self reporting an occurrence that may place him/her in the sights of the pointed gun will be close to nil.
If that happens, you can say goodbye to most of the safety systems that we now have in place. And who's fault is that? Certainly not CASA, but the AG's Dept and maybe the Govt of the day, but then look at the influence that AGs has on Govt Policy and how it is all written.... hmmmm!
Triadic – well put. I suspect you’re wiser than I by a long shot.
The concern as you describe it seems to be not so much the concept of strict liability, but of being constantly reminded of it.
If what everyone wants is the removal of the repetitive penalty provisions from the regulations, all that needs to be amended is one sentence in one piece of legislation. It’s section 4D of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, which section contains the magic word “foot”.
Here we see a far bigger problem writ large. Arguing with CASA about this is an utter waste of time and energy. Yet a steady stream of self-appointed experts will engage in the activity, thereby demonstrating (or re-confirming) that they really don’t understand what they’re talking about. Not a good way to impress the people who actually control the direction of regulatory reform.
The concern as you describe it seems to be not so much the concept of strict liability, but of being constantly reminded of it.
If what everyone wants is the removal of the repetitive penalty provisions from the regulations, all that needs to be amended is one sentence in one piece of legislation. It’s section 4D of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, which section contains the magic word “foot”.
Here we see a far bigger problem writ large. Arguing with CASA about this is an utter waste of time and energy. Yet a steady stream of self-appointed experts will engage in the activity, thereby demonstrating (or re-confirming) that they really don’t understand what they’re talking about. Not a good way to impress the people who actually control the direction of regulatory reform.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CP, thank you for your clear explanation.
The strict liability the issues were not discussed by the "rapporteur"(?! why not facilitator?) in the terms your post sets out. It was implied that CASA ALSO had issues with regard to the widespread inclusion of the strict liability provisions, and it was said that the issue was being taken up with the AG's Department. So if there was milage to be made, it was validated by acknowledgement from the rapporteurs that the strict liability issue was a matter which could and would be contested by CASA.
That aside, the feedback that I've heard from the conference was generally positive. The general impression I get is that people went away feeling that at last the voices of the wider aviation community were not only being sought, but actually listened to.
The strict liability the issues were not discussed by the "rapporteur"(?! why not facilitator?) in the terms your post sets out. It was implied that CASA ALSO had issues with regard to the widespread inclusion of the strict liability provisions, and it was said that the issue was being taken up with the AG's Department. So if there was milage to be made, it was validated by acknowledgement from the rapporteurs that the strict liability issue was a matter which could and would be contested by CASA.
That aside, the feedback that I've heard from the conference was generally positive. The general impression I get is that people went away feeling that at last the voices of the wider aviation community were not only being sought, but actually listened to.
Foyl
Thanks for that. Your final point is a very important one. It would be unfortunate if the conference had been for nought.
On the strict liability point, I wonder to what extent the opinions of the CASA hired help reflect the actions of the CASA management.
Assuming CASA management do not want breaches of the proposed regulations to continue to be strict liability offences, my point has greater validity: any argument with CASA on the issue is a waste of time and energy.
But let's not be fooled by peas and thimbles. We're talking about two related but different issues here. One is who has decided that strict liability will apply to breaches of the proposed regulations; the other is the ubiquitous penalty provisions.
Are you sure CASA was blaming AG's for the former?
Thanks for that. Your final point is a very important one. It would be unfortunate if the conference had been for nought.
On the strict liability point, I wonder to what extent the opinions of the CASA hired help reflect the actions of the CASA management.
Assuming CASA management do not want breaches of the proposed regulations to continue to be strict liability offences, my point has greater validity: any argument with CASA on the issue is a waste of time and energy.
But let's not be fooled by peas and thimbles. We're talking about two related but different issues here. One is who has decided that strict liability will apply to breaches of the proposed regulations; the other is the ubiquitous penalty provisions.
Are you sure CASA was blaming AG's for the former?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say that was my impression CP. Not as a whole, as it was acknowledged that in some parts it was there to stay, but the impression I got was it was still under discussion in others (Triadic did you get this impression too?). Strict liability already being in force was mentioned, but only briefly.
Mind you it did allow the session to move on to other issues which might have otherwise been rushed through due to time constraints. Not being able to discuss other issues would have severely devalued the process.
Mind you it did allow the session to move on to other issues which might have otherwise been rushed through due to time constraints. Not being able to discuss other issues would have severely devalued the process.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very clear impression I obtained was that CASA has no choice from the AG or the OLD. All the draft rules they say must be in the prescribed format with SL clauses inserted. I was also given the impression that rules that did not meet this requirement were either rejected (back to CASA) or the OLD inserted/amended the draft rules to suit. Many rules were returned with double negatives and exclusion wording (amongst other things) that made them very difficult to understand. As a result the rules are not written to promote safety but as we know to ensure prosecution.
This is the problem that the AG obviously does not understand, nor perhaps care about as they are just following Government policy on this matter (which I think they probably wrote?). Obviously the only fix is with the Minister and Government.
There were a number of media reps at FLOT and one can only hope that they also start asking questions. As far as promotion of safety is concerned the answers so far are all WRONG.
The risk to having successful safety management systems and a sound reporting culture is at risk unless the rules in both what they say and how they are written actually promote safety first.
The alternative is untenable.
This is the problem that the AG obviously does not understand, nor perhaps care about as they are just following Government policy on this matter (which I think they probably wrote?). Obviously the only fix is with the Minister and Government.
There were a number of media reps at FLOT and one can only hope that they also start asking questions. As far as promotion of safety is concerned the answers so far are all WRONG.
The risk to having successful safety management systems and a sound reporting culture is at risk unless the rules in both what they say and how they are written actually promote safety first.
The alternative is untenable.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were told that CASA were again going to raise these issues with the AG's department, and that they hadn't dropped it. Mind you at the end of the day it's a moot point, if the AG's department are going to insist on it then the aviation community and CASA will be in the same boat anyway.
Rather than getting the posts bogged down on just this issue, there were a lot of other things discussed at the conference. I will await with interest the results of the conference as a whole when "the NPRM following the next NPRM" is released. I still believe that the conference was productive in giving the aviation community a stake in the process.
Rather than getting the posts bogged down on just this issue, there were a lot of other things discussed at the conference. I will await with interest the results of the conference as a whole when "the NPRM following the next NPRM" is released. I still believe that the conference was productive in giving the aviation community a stake in the process.
Hang on a sec’. The waters are getting muddier again, at least from my perspective.
Let’s get crystal clear who is attributing what decisions to whom.
AG’s will insist that the penalty for breach of a provision be at the “foot” of the provision irrespective of the category of the offence. AG’s hands are tied by 4D of the Crimes Act. If – repeat if – an offence is strict liability, AG’s will insist the corresponding note required by the Criminal Code be included.
But that is not the same as saying AG’s have insisted that all the offences be strict liability.
Did anyone hear CASA say that AG’s have insisted that all offences in the proposed regs be strict liability?
Perhaps all CASA said was that AG’s have insisted that the strict liability note be included after each provision, but CASA forgot to finish AG’s sentence by saying “because CASA told us the offences are to remain strict liability”.
Let’s not confuse effect for cause.
Let’s get crystal clear who is attributing what decisions to whom.
AG’s will insist that the penalty for breach of a provision be at the “foot” of the provision irrespective of the category of the offence. AG’s hands are tied by 4D of the Crimes Act. If – repeat if – an offence is strict liability, AG’s will insist the corresponding note required by the Criminal Code be included.
But that is not the same as saying AG’s have insisted that all the offences be strict liability.
Did anyone hear CASA say that AG’s have insisted that all offences in the proposed regs be strict liability?
Perhaps all CASA said was that AG’s have insisted that the strict liability note be included after each provision, but CASA forgot to finish AG’s sentence by saying “because CASA told us the offences are to remain strict liability”.
Let’s not confuse effect for cause.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang On a Second
Lets get back to triadics original post and the worrying effect of (any) regulation.
The appropriate response to any incident/accident is to find out how NOT to repeat the incident/accident again in the future. With the potential (and proven in practice by history) of the regulator to get all legal about an incident/accident, IS, a real threat to an open and even frank reporting culture. Without such a culture 'things' will happen that go unreported, to the detriment of all. How can we learn to avoid and set up systems to monitor our flying environment without such an open and frank reporting culture.
Wonderfully written legislation, strict liability and all the other legal motherhood terms will count for absolutely nothing if the ultimate effect of any legislation is to reduce (even completely dry up) the reporting culture that is the real heart of Safety Management Systems.
I hope Prof's Reason and Hudson are not reading any of this.
Disco Stu
Lets get back to triadics original post and the worrying effect of (any) regulation.
The appropriate response to any incident/accident is to find out how NOT to repeat the incident/accident again in the future. With the potential (and proven in practice by history) of the regulator to get all legal about an incident/accident, IS, a real threat to an open and even frank reporting culture. Without such a culture 'things' will happen that go unreported, to the detriment of all. How can we learn to avoid and set up systems to monitor our flying environment without such an open and frank reporting culture.
Wonderfully written legislation, strict liability and all the other legal motherhood terms will count for absolutely nothing if the ultimate effect of any legislation is to reduce (even completely dry up) the reporting culture that is the real heart of Safety Management Systems.
I hope Prof's Reason and Hudson are not reading any of this.
Disco Stu
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gaunty
Yes and No
Yes, if they are reading this they may be able (certainly better than I) to influence the piliaks that can ony see the 'legal' view and not its effect.
and
No,I hope they aren't reading this for the angst it would cause for them to see all their hard and valuable work being threatened by 'legislators'.
Disco Stu
Yes and No
Yes, if they are reading this they may be able (certainly better than I) to influence the piliaks that can ony see the 'legal' view and not its effect.
and
No,I hope they aren't reading this for the angst it would cause for them to see all their hard and valuable work being threatened by 'legislators'.
Disco Stu
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a private conversation with Alister Polkinghorn. Perhaps I misunderstood him. But the way he explained it to me was. The AG tells CASA which offences ARE strict liability and which offences ARE NOT.