CASA reply to PPRuNe email re TVL.
 

Folks;

Following a fairly determined discussion on this board in regard to an alleged incident involving a Mackay charter operator during a trip to Brampton and the subsequent allegations aired in regard to “protection” and “favouritism” of certain operators we were moved to send the following email to CASA o the 27th December.

Ms Nicola Hinder
Acting Executive Manager
Corporate Affairs
[email protected]
Copy:
Mr Bruce Byron
Chief Executive Officer
cc: by email.
Allegations involving CASA Offices in Far North Queensland
There has been a number of allegations of serious malfeasance, misconduct, oppressive staff management practices and harsh and unjust regulatory action, over a number of years, involving staff at CASA offices in Townsville and Cairns. Recently, those allegations have principally involved the CASA Townsville Manager.
You are invited to read of recent allegations regarding an aircraft accident at Brampton Island on December 15, 2004 (reported to the ATSB), involving Piper Aztec VH-ZHZ and in particular:
• the allegation the operator may not have complied with CASA requirements in respect to the operator’s post accident operation of the aircraft;
• an allegation the operator concerned may enjoy a preferential relationship with CASA, Townsville, by virtue of previous employment with CASA;
• an allegation CASA staff in Townsville are subject to oppressive management policies and practices, resulting in excessive staff stress leave; and
• allegations of vindictive and grossly excessive regulatory action against certain operators, a number of which have been subsequently overturned in the AAT, but at very significant cost to those operators and individuals.
Those allegations are contained in two threads on the PPRuNe bulletin board:
Aircraft incident at Brampton Island:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&perpage=15&pa genumber=1
BB, FNQ aviation needs your help:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=156838
This information is provided as a public service. PPRuNe Administrators and Moderators do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise contained in user posts to the PPRuNe bulletin board, nor express any opinion as to the veracity of the allegations or statements made.
Woomera
PPRuNe Dunnunda Forum Moderator



The following response, for which we thank Ms Hinder, was received Mon the 17th January 2005.

Woomera
Moderator
Dunnunda and Godzone
Professional Pilots Rumour Network

BY EMAIL: [email protected]



Dear Woomera

I refer to your email of 27 December 2004 enclosing the threads posted on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe) about the actions of officers of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in the Far North Queensland Region.

Firstly, thank you for bringing these posts to my attention and allowing CASA the opportunity to comment.

As you have noted in your email, there have been a number of allegations of serious malfeasance, misconduct and oppressive staff management practices and harsh and unjust regulatory action over the last number of years involving staff at CASA offices in Townsville and Cairns. I would like to note a key word here - allegations.

As a result of allegations relating to the behaviour of a small number of CASA staff in the Townsville office being brought to the attention of Mr Bruce Bryon, Chief Executive Officer of CASA, Mr Byron commissioned Mr Stephen Skehill to investigate those allegations. I do not intend to go into the specifics of the allegations themselves as I think it fair to say that the persons concerned have placed some of Mr Skehill's report and their allegations on the public record on PPRuNe and also the people involved deserve their privacy to be maintained.

The final report on the matters investigated by Mr Skehill was provided to CASA on 17 September 2004. The significant conclusion of the Skehill report was that the evidence did not support the allegations that had been raised.


-2-

Like any industry, gossip and rumour within aviation abound and free and open debate of any concerns should be encouraged. I am concerned however that a number of the matters posted about CASA's actions date from some significant time in the past.

I am also concerned that some of the posts imply, and may indeed encourage, threatening behaviour against CASA staff, and many posts seek to identify particular CASA staff as the subjects of the allegations and threats. While CASA is and always should be subject to scrutiny by those its regulates, and consequently have to deal with well-founded and objective criticisms, it is clearly inappropriate (and unlawful) to threaten and seek to intimidate individual CASA officers. I am astounded that posts containing material clearly intended to be threatening to specific individuals are permitted on PPRuNe.

It is clear that a proportion of the posters are motivated to make their comments by personal animosity or long-held grudges against particular individuals, the North Queensland Area Office, or CASA generally. At the end of the day, comments such as those posted about the past actions of the North Queensland Area Office do nothing to help establish a measure of trust and respect between that office and the aviation industry in North Queensland. However, I would like to note some of the positive comments about CASA that have been posted within this thread and echo the comment by Captain Starlight that if operators wish to raise concerns about the actions of CASA, that this be done direct to the CASA CEO, Chief Operating Officer or to myself. I also note the comments made by the 'Sword of Damocles' on
23 December 2004 where he asked that the rest of the North Queensland industry who are quite content with their regulator, not to be dragged into the vitriol.

CASA had thought and hoped that a fresh start had been made during the industry consultation meeting and open forum we held with FNQ operators last year, and had planned a follow-up visit to Cairns later this year. Due to the success of the meeting in Cairns a visit to Townsville has also been planned.

It appears however that despite this commitment to a fresh start, and the considerable efforts made by the new Area Manager of the North Queensland Area Office, Mr Alan Cook, and the stated intentions of Mr Byron, Mr White and myself at the meeting that an open and effective relationship between us be developed and maintained, there are some who remain unconvinced.

As such, Mr White, Mr Cook and I are planning a visit to the area in the near future.
Should there be any persons who have posted on PPRuNE who would like to opportunity to personally raise their concerns during this visit, they
should feel free to contact my office on (02) 6217 1010. While I note your
post that there are operators who are afraid to raise their concerns, even anonymously, I can nothing more than assure PPRuNE readers that should matters be raised, they will be dealt with seriously and in-confidence.

-3-

Alternatively, may I suggest that commencement of topics that lead to threats of violence or specifically mention CASA officers, be re-considered.


Yours sincerely



Nicola Hinder
Acting Executive Manager
Corporate Affairs

Whilst I must reiterate
PPRuNe Administrators and Moderators do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise contained in user posts to the PPRuNe bulletin board, nor express any opinion as to the veracity of the allegations or statements made.
We simply moderate according to the rules of PPRuNe, the direction of the forum discussion is yours not ours.

I would also remind PPRuNe users:
my bolding.

Objective, calm and deliberative discussion is always welcome and indeed encouraged here, particularly if it fosters constructive dialogue between the parties especially including DOTARS, CASA and Airservices and contributes to the well being and safe operation of our industry.

I have no doubt that should you wish to use these forums to address specific or general issues directly to the regulators here in a calm, responsible and deliberative manner you will receive an appropriate response.

If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing Foyls succinct observation in the manner of conducting dialogue with our industry partners.

The tools are right there on the screen in front of you, these pages are monitored by the regulators and you may and should speak directly to them.
If you do so with the same respect that you are in the habit of demanding from them and others you might just resolve your problem or clarify the issue.
You may not always get the answer you want or expect, but unless you engage with them, you will never find out the why and the wherefore of their decisions, nor have the opportunity to provide the input that they seriously and sincerely desire in order to resolve the issue to your mutual satisfaction.

Creampuff avers;We all have the choice which one would you choose to be:

Part of solution

Or

Part of the problem.

Mr Byron and his team sincerely want us all to be part of the solution, they are doing their part to the best of their individual abilities, what are you doing. They will always have the support of PPRuNe to enable them to express their point of view whenever it is appropriate. You of course will always, within the bounds of PPRuNe rules, have the right of reply.

Next time you want to “slip it to em”, let’s see if we can do it in a non confrontational and constructive form, from which point both parties can learn and go forward.

Over to you, it’s your Forum, use it constructively, it’s entirely possible that as a pretty broad cross section of the industry, you can collectively be more effective than some of the narrow focus organisations that claim to represent your interests to Government.

The Woomeri

I support both Pprune's right to raise matters of concern and CASA's right to respond, but something strikes me as odd.

So, do CASA monitor these pages or not? If they do, why are they reluctant to admit it? And if not, why not?

While my personal experience doesn't support the Skehill report I must say the behaviour of many on PPRuNe seems to have dont any credibility it may have had a lot of harm.

Max

Woomeri

This augers well for the future.

There is natural scepticism on reports though, that do not encompass all concerned.

Starlight, yes, I agree with some of what you say.
There is rational and reasoned thoughts contained here by both NH and the Woomeri

Binos

Woomeri drew CASA's attention to the PPRuNe threads. I would not suggest CASA religiously "monitor" these pages, however it's a fair bet far more people read these pages than care to admit - after all, PPRuNe gets over a million page hits per day. And if a regulator wants to stay in touch with industry thinking, PPRuNe is one measure available.

After all, this is a public forum with both significant aviation industry user contribution and significant readership.

Woomera

Bino,

I know a lot of FOI's do read pprune...

I think they are a bit gun shy about using the "information" posted here on pprune as in the past the AAT threw the "information" (pprune posts) out as it was deemed not to be "evidence".

I know FOI's have in the past picked up the phone and had a friendly chat to people after reading something on pprune, and I know CASA have issued two aviation rulings based upon some stuff I have posted here on pprune.

:ok:

In response to the letter from CASA , I would like to assure readers that I was in no way implying or encouraging any threats toward any CASA staff.
I was only expressing surprise, that if these alledged incidents were occuring with as much vindictivness and regularity as was being reported, that somebody hadn't lost the plot and got all personal about it.
I in no way encourage or condone such behaviour.

I haven't fully followed this thread as it all just got too churlish but I say good on CASA for responding and monitoring the boards anyway. Why should they tolerate angry little halfwits making threats on their staff without response ?

Good to see some of those who were involved now trying to clarify what they reaallllly mean't isn't it!

As stated on the other thread, I am forced to accept that CASA has fully investigated the Townsville office by way of the Skehill report.
That report found that there was no basis for the allegations made.

There was no problem.

The problem, that didn't exist, was investigated and confirmed that, it didn't exist.

Therefore I suggest we all go on our way,
happy in the knowledge that CASA does and will investigate properly any complaints against it.

This was all just a silly misunderstanding on the industry's part
and all that money shouldn't have been spent defending the operators
from what the AAT could clearly see was misconduct.

A cup of tea and a chat hopefully will in future save everyone from repeating such embarrassing mistakes.

As stated elsewhere, I'm going to rest a while
and wait for the problems that didn't exist being handled in an appropriate manner.

The Truth is out there, and the Truth will prevail.

bye for now, CS

Nicola, well done on becoming an active part of this process, all of us here want our industry to be able to work hand in hand with CASA and work towards common goals.

Quote: I also note the comments made by the 'Sword of Damocles' on 23 December 2004 where he asked that the rest of the North Queensland industry who are quite content with their regulator, not to be dragged into the vitriol.

Response: as this is Sword of Damocles first and only post on the forum and responding against the general consensus, perhaps this person has a personal interest in this stopping in its tracks ( as we all do to ensure it doesn't), could i be as rude as to suggest this poster is one of the persons we are talking about within this topic, as opposed to someone within the industry?.

How many people have posted in support of Sword of Damocles ?.

For information, within the BPI topic, there is right now a total of 64 posts from 25 different posters, of these twenty five, only one has had anything positive to say about CASA TL's performance, as has been mentioned, it is not all the members of CASA TL we are finding it impossible to work with.

82.8 % of posts in the BPI are critical of the TLFO TL ( and the other three FOI's previously described ),
15.4 % of posts in the BPI were of a neutral nature,
1.8 % of posts were supportive of the TLFO TL,
18 of the 25 posters are critical of the TLFO TL,
5 of the 25 posters were neutral, and
1 of the 25 poster was supportive of the TLFO TL.

To look at the other posts, BB, FNQ and Does CASA have .....
its again all the same faces, the new addition to the pro CASA group is Creampuff - for those of us that know who creampuff is in the real world, it makes perfect sense ( creampuff, nothing but respect to you, you are entitled to your opinion ).

For quite some time information like what is being presented here has been presented to CASA Management in CB, in just about every form possible, irrate CP's/Directors on the doors step, Motivated Local Members, members of the media ( who were shown the door ), letters, faxes, emails, Documentarys on ABC, AAT hearings, Court Hearings, pretty much every medium available, apparently no action.

If CASA wants to turn over a new leaf, they have to get rid of this dead wood, there is far too much bad blood in the industry from having dealt with these four fools, they have to go before you will be taken seriously.

Soon enough you have to look at the trend here, gee theres alot of people complaining, mmm?.

As a member of the industry i feel it is a shame that the new enforcement proceedures have been commissioned, yes it protects us, but from whom or what ?, now CASA effectively can't do squat, without a long drawn out trip to the AAT, to date CASA has a pretty terrible record at the AAT, to what end, De-empowering of CASA, is this good ?.

These new proceedures have been commissioned to control over zealous CASA types as described within these topics.

I, and i am sure many others like me will engage in this process, but if no action is seen, and soon, we will vote with our feet, assuming of course Australia is still a democracy.



Stink. The Woomera team accepts implicitly the necessity of an accountable regulator and accepts that the vast majority of CASA employees are dedicated to ensuring safe air travel. If rogue elements exist, we are totally confident CASA management will take appropriate action.

The fact CASA saw fit to respond to an anonymous aviation bulletin board is indicative of their desire to work harmoniously with industry to achieve their legislative objectives. That in itself is possibly a fundamental philosophical change from what many believe has been their historical perspective. For that, Ms Hinder and CASA management must be applauded.

I believe our task is now to support CASA to ensure change both benefits the industry and the traveling public.

Woomera

Victor two, in response to your addition.
First off,If I intended to make a threat, I would have done it without hiding the fact that it was a threat. I aint a little angry halfwit, until know all, smart ass, cowards like your self piss me off. then I'm an big angry halfwit thats likly to kick your ass if you have the brass to front me your self..............but alas, it will never happen because you like hide under a clever name on a public board, so I won't bother getting angry.
second, after rereading the thread, I notice that, unless some posts have been deleated, mine was one of the comments that could be construed as threatening, and this wasn't my intention, so I posted to make that clear. why do you have a problem with that?.
could be coz your a friggen half wit maybe?.
If I intend to say sumint buddy, I'll say it. straight out, no hidden meanings or any of that crap, and I make no secret of who I am in the real world.
I think it might be you that really has a problem, not me.:hmm:
Have yerself a bloody Bonza day.
cheers, Wiz.

Very positive times ahead, NH, i'd also like to thank you for your input.

I have had dealings with AC, he's exactly what we need in FNQ to bring these new ways of doing business into operation.

It's probably been 5 years since i've seen an FOI / AWI at the aeroclub for a friday arvo drink, does CASA employ tea toaters now ?.

Woomera - it is most definately a fundamental phylosophical change, and good to see.

Wiz - I personally would not have taken what you said as an attack on any individual, more of an ocker australianism for your disbelief of what you were reading.

There is at least one other explanation which makes perfect sense, Stink Finger, and that’s that the allegations are unsupported by the facts.

We may just be seeing another lap of the tired old aviation merry go round, during which a new CEO and AM in CASA will have their intelligence and integrity insulted when they beg to differ from the same tired old accusers. We can certainly add Mr Skehill to the list of eminent and powerful people insulted this time ‘round.

There’s no trend here. It’s the same people bearing the same grudges, year in, year out. They’ll go to the grave bearing those grudges. It’s the aviation equivalent of the family feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys, and it’s no coincidence it occurs in the aviation equivalent of Deliverance territory.

If there is any corruption in CASA - and I’m sure there is a tiny minority of bad apples in any organisation - I hope it is exposed and dealt with immediately. If I didn’t have anything important to do, I’d start with exposing the mates of Torres and Walking Eagle in CASA, who, rather than doing what the taxpayers are paying them to do, leak half truths and selective information, in breach of various criminal laws.

CreamPuff,

I agree it is a small group within CASA, in most part the CASA folk i've delt with have been great

quote:If I didn’t have anything important to do, I’d start with exposing the mates of Torres and Walking Eagle in CASA, who, rather than doing what the taxpayers are paying them to do, leak half truths and selective information, in breach of various criminal laws.

Creampuff, i dare you to, lets see where that will take us.

You may consider this a merry go round, there are alot of new faces here and they don't appear to be spectators, they share their experiences, and the pattern of inpropriety continues, different operators, different directors, different CP's, different routes, different aircraft, years apart, but one thing stays the same.

Torres for example recieved his special treatment 5 odd years ago, how many cycles have we been through since then, perhaps it is still an issue that is well and truly alive, has justice been served, i think not.

If, lets say an allegation can't be proved, but many many people are making pretty much verbatim the same allegation, is this grounds for concern ?, it would certainly indicate a trend.

These allegations have in the AAT been proven a number of time, by CASA being booted out of the hearing, MAINFRAME, what was the term that was used at the AAT describing TLFO TL conduct, " Despicable ", i believe ?.

Stink

Thank you for making my point.

If we want to cite the AAT’s comments about CASA as evidence of impropriety (a reasonable thing to do, in my view) we need to review everything the AAT has said about CASA in order to make an objective assessment of the extent of the impropriety. Otherwise, we’re being a little selective and prejudiced, don’t you think?

For every AAT hearing in which CASA has been criticised, there are 2 dozen where the AAT has decided that CASA has made the correct and preferable decision. Crunch those numbers for me, and let me know how you interpret them.

That outcome is a little inconvenient for CASA’s accusers. So they take the logical next step and say that the AAT runs scared every time CASA says “safety”. But the duplicity of that position is exposed when, upon sober reflection, one releases that CASA always says “safety”, and yet, as you have pointed out, the AAT occasionally disagrees with CASA and even gives it a caning now and then. That’s why the AAT was created.

And then there’s the line about the AAT not being “a real court”. If we look at superior court decisions, the success rate is not as high for CASA, but it still ‘wins’ more often than not. However, I note that the side which ‘wins’ battles in administrative law sometimes doesn’t win the war, so it’s difficult to extrapolate from the decisions. Except to say I haven’t seen a judgement in which a Federal Court judge describes any action of CASA as corrupt or malicious. In the only Federal Court matter of which I am aware that those accusations were levelled against CASA, the judge was so unimpressed with the case that he awarded costs against the accusing counsel personally.

Torres didn’t receive any “special treatment”, at least not in a negative sense. The organisation for which he worked broke the rules, regulatory action was taken, and when the regulator was satisfied the organisation was capable of complying with the rules, the regulatory action ended. While Torres and any journalist around are of course free selectively to quote whatever facts they like about the circumstances, and to put whatever spin on them they like, they’re more than a little naïve if they think no one’s going to tell the other side of the story, on the first and only occasion the accusations were investigated.

Torres’ legitimate complaint relates not to corruption, but to the complete policy vacuum and progress on classification of operations “reform”. The government doesn’t know what it wants for GA and, in case you haven’t worked it out by now, it doesn’t care.

Creamy.

Spot on with your last comment.

Unfortunately while GA continues to gnaw its own arm off by way of infigting, attacks on competetors, attacks on kid pilots struggling for the first few hours, attacks on AOPA, attacks on ATC and while the 'bigger end' continues the myth of 'commercial airspace' and a them and us attitude, why should the government care. ( if they get worried for a second they only have to read these threads to reassure themselves we remain in disharmony and subsequent dissaray).

GA is effectively neutering itself as a lobby force.

Max

Creamy, i would agree with you on a number of points:

1> the inpropriety can be measured by looking at the results of the AAT, why hasn't actual positve action been taken.

2> the term "safety" being used as a get out of goal free card for CASA TL.

3> he who wins the battle does not neccesarily win the war, is this natural justice ?.


Points i disagree with:

1> the AAT successes out weight failures, i do not see this and this is a terrible shame, either CASA has been effectively de-empowered by the actions of the rogue elements or CASA has crap lawyers.

2> the industry is not working together, due to the nature of the vindictive individuals within TL, by covert means, through the AM, Current Affair, web sites, hundreds of hours talking between competing companies, sharing of information between companies, it is pretty much building a two camp policy, the industry front and CASA's front, i want to see this stop, i want to see trust and an open door policy, have you ever tried to get a straight yes or no answer out of a FOI or AWI ?.

3> Torres recieved a fair go, he was not the only operator conducting these operations in the Straits, but he got the latex glove treatment, which essentially caused the financial demise of the company, he was made an example of, what about all the other examples of good and bad outcome for different operators, BPI incident, Mark peert/ cloncurry mustering, there are more.

Vacumm policy, where the hell does it talk about fixed terminal, routes or shared charter within the Regs ?, nothing has in essence changed, there are still the same inconsistencies, since before Torres's time ( for example ), it still all comes down to ones interpretation of the intent of the regulation, i.e. the delegate must be satisfied, satisfied with what ?.

Cream Puff

Where there is smoke there is fire !

Whilst Skehill was satisfied that there was no basis in the allegations,
it seems that quite a number of entities and identities were harmed by misconduct.
The majority were in the industry, but some are / were CASA employees.


Do you really suggest they all were confused or mistaken?

Trips to Canberra from Cairns cost money and they were not undertaken lightly.
There must have been an overwhelming sense of injustice to consider undertaking such a trip,
not only were there travel expenses, there was loss of revenue, and the cost of legal teams.
As most of your travel and expenses were taxpayer funded in the past,
you may not appreciate the costs, except when glancing at your travel expense form when you handed it in.

These people were not taxpayer funded,
and the decision to travel to Canberra, although expensive, was driven by despair.

Maybe the terms of reference for Skehill's report were either selective or perhaps too narrow?

Perhaps BB might have been well advised to also have had Skehill investigate the recent Head Office rogue element revolt,
they too may have been found free of blame by Skehill and might still be in their positions of influence.

If CASA was once your source of income, your loyalty is commendable,
but loyalty sometimes has to stand aside for reality.
There is some smoke out there, and just maybe there is a fire.

That Skehill saw the smoke but couldn't find the fire is a possibility that you may need at some time to concede.

On the whole, the regulator has some fine people working for them.
And as you correctly observe, they may also have a small rogue element, as BB recently discovered.

On the whole, the industry has some fine people working within it. And it too has a small rogue element.
(Isn't this the reason we have a regulator?)

However, there is no regulator for the regulator.
Invariably, misconduct can be conducted with impunity,
and laughed about in the sanctuary of their unassailable fortress.

The "Phelan papers" meticulously document the history of misconduct, and will continue to do so.

Having said that, I am of the sincere belief that Bruce Byron
intends to make life uncomfortable for the rogue element

Nicola Hinder has signalled her intent to support Bruce Byron's reforms
and the appointment of Alan Cook to Area Manager, Townsville is seen by most to be a very positive move.
(almost all who deal with AC are surprised and impressed by his very genuine sincerity and consequently he is restoring trust at long last.)

Mainframe :ok:

Quite so;

Quite so;

AND he would gain some real credibility if he were also to;
of the operators whom he is wont to describe as the "victims".

Two wrongs don't make a right and neither is justice served by a self serving journalistic beating up without the other side being appropriately represented.

It is true that in the past, despite the pathetic bleating of self appointed retired airline captain gurus, the only thing that they, CASA (and I may exclude the TVL bits) or whatever they may have been called at the time, may be guilty of, is the lack of a really effective apparatus to prosecute the real villains in the industry.

I can hear the howls of limelight deprived anguish in the background, preparation of stakes for witches burning thereof and with the usual demonising of anybody who suggests that CASA may well have had some justification, however misused, in attempting to prosecute their mission. :rolleyes:

I.E regulating the industry, fairly and equitably..

Mr. Byron has a difficult task; there is/are no end of people in the organisation who are very capable of supporting him. The problem is that they are so gunshy, (see journalistic beating up above) that it will take no end of encouragement and building of trust within the organisation to winkle them out.

Mr. Byron has the means, ably supported by Mr. Gemmel, mr Cook and Ms Hinder to whom we should give our unequivocal support; we do not have any choice. :ok:

The serious almost terminal damage they are earnestly trying to repair is a result of the unrelenting years (about a decade or so circa 1995 RH Smith et al) of egomaniacal posturing of self appointed “industry gurus”.

That was then this is now.

Get with the programme people, or bugger off. :)

Stinky,
for info, its Mark Peart, Carpentaria Helicopters. :)

Creampuff,
with the concept of natural justice be commisioned within our industry, where does the line between "Freedom of Information" and "Natural Justice" lie ?, for example in the past an operator may have requested info under FOI, and was subsequently denied this info, can this now be requested as a part of the " Natural Justice" concept ?.

Thanks.

justapplhere, this is not that sort of party.

Everyone here has a history and everyone has made a mistake at some time in their life ( not suggesting that to be the case or not ), play nice.

This particular topic is very important to the livelyhoods of a great number of people and due to NH's response has become an avenue for industry input direct to BB, CASA.

Mainframe

If you review my comments on this forum, you will find that I’ve criticised CASA when I think it deserves criticism, and I defend it when I think it deserves defending.

If there’s fire, let’s get it exposed and extinguised. However, and to extend the conflagrational metaphor, there are lots of hoax callers out there, and many fire bugs are members of the fire brigade.

There is a regulator for the regulator. There’s the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Federal Police, the AAT, the Federal Court, your local member, your Senators, Parliamentary committees the Minister, the Prime Minister ….

Your point about resources is a fair one. However, each of the institutions/mechanisms set out above includes provisions for waiving of fees/hardship etc. A complaint to the ombudsman costs nothing, and can be made over the telephone. Indeed, I think the last time I chatted with the person who is now the ombudsman he was investigating a complaint against someone in the Townsville office, part of which complaint he agreed with.

The way it works in our society is that if you can’t convince one or more of them that someone’s done something wrong, or that something should be changed, then that’s it: game over.


Stink

I suggest you start here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/ with a search of the term “CASA”. I commend in particular this matter: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../1999/329.html which refutes your point about the “latex glove treatment” compared with other operators.

I agree with your point about “the industry not working together”, but disagree with your suggested cause. The feud in the area to which you refer just happens to be exacerbated because relatives of the Hatfields and the McCoys have at various time been employed by the regulator.

LRT

I am not quite sure I understand your question. There are exclusions from the obligation to disclose information under FOI. There are no exclusions (other than legal privilege) from discovery if you get into litigation, for example, if you make a claim that you are being or were denied natural justice in a CASA decision. But people often use the term "natural justice" without understanding what it actually means.

Cream Puff

All of the avenues you suggest do exist.

Are you aware of any direct result from the Commonwealth Ombudsman with regard to CASA?

The AAT merely is the "Video Referee", it reviews and either upholds the on-field referee's decision, or dismisses it.
The AAT does not send anyone to the "Sin Bin".

The Minister has been involved, but only on the sidelines.
He directed, via parliamentary action,
that a stalled process (23 months to approve a check list for a simple GA Cessna) be actioned.

The local member has been involved in every instance of misconduct.
Whilst his intentions are good and he does go into bat,
it appears that for some reason he is not taken seriously by the Minister
and consequently doesn't seem to have many runs on the board.
It is also possibly his last term in office prior to retirement.

That still leaves some avenues, but the report already at hand alleges "No Problem",
and making it precarious grounds to revisit.

Despite all this, BB is actually astute enough to realise what is really happening
and will initiate appropriate strategies that will transparently remedy the problems that don't exist.

The need for transparency is essential to maintain the proper image of the regulator,
so people will just quietly move on, be transferred, pensioned off, even resign with subtle pressure.
Sackings are too obvious and present the avenue of vicarious culpability to an aggrieved litigant.

Following on from the Townsville investigation, I would like to suggest that CASA has done the right thing.

I will try and put this as delicately as I can.

Now that an investigation has occured and found no evidence, I would be very, very surprised if any of you ever again has cause (real or imagined) to make any allegation against that office in the foreseeable future.


Good solution CASA

:ok:

We need more CASA FOI's and AWI's on the ground, especially guys/girl from within the respective industry, NOT ex Military, ex Airline of PNG, Flying school/RFDS, Ansett, drop outs ( all pretty much NTE - "Never To Be Employed again" back grounds ).

I want to see FOIs/AWIs with succesfull career records, proven track records as CP and or ATO / CE, time on types, experience in the locality, industry contacts and a can do open door attitude.

CEO DIRECTIVE – 016/2004
Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework
Date of Directive: 24 November 2004
To: Bruce Gemmell
Action Officer: Not Applicable
Title of Addressee: Not Applicable
Directive No: 016/2004
Response Required: Immediate Effect

Directive
This Directive is issued to establish guiding principles for the development of the regulatory framework and to provide clear guidance for the development of proposed aviation safety regulations.
Guiding Principles for Regulatory Framework
• Aviation safety regulations are to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks. Each proposed regulation is to be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety.
• Wherever possible, the CASRs are to be drafted to specify the safety outcome required, unless, in the interests of safety, and to address known or likely aviation safety risks, detailed requirements need to be presented.
• Wherever possible, aviation safety regulations are to be developed within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs, together with appropriate guidance material.
• Manuals of Standards (MOSs) are to be developed only where there is a clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to mandate standards that for the purpose of clarity should not be contained in the Regulations.
• The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the contribution made to aviation safety.
• A MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating advisory material and other information.
All proposed CASA Parts and MOSs are to be assessed against the guiding principles stated above.
Signed Bruce Byron Chief Executive Officer


As you can see it has been happening for quite some time.

Now everybody wants to claim Mr. Byron as their man following their guidance. :rolleyes:

We choose to believe that Mr. Byron always had and has a very clear idea of where CASA needs to go.

Mr. Byron, Mr. Gemmel and his team will always listen politely and calmly to representations as they should, but will in the end do what is the best within their charter and the terms of their appointment. For any party to claim “ownership” of a change is, without direct acknowledgement, both insolent and impertinent.

This is supposed to be called working together.

Mainframe

Yes, I am aware of circumstances in which investigations by the ombudsman of complaints against CASA have been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.

As to the rest of your comments, I can only reiterate one of the points I made earlier. The way our society works is that if we can’t or won’t convince one of more of those institutions that something wrong has been done to us, or to change something that we don’t like, that’s it: game over.

If BB is indeed aware of someone who deserves to be sacked, I’d be very surprised and disappointed if he didn’t sack them.

Woomera:

I too looked askance at the claims made about the provenance and magical powers of that CEO directive. The head of an organisation signs a piece of paper that in effect says the standards division must do what it is allowed to do and must not do what it is not allowed to do, and the “Peace for our time!” crowd comes out of the woodwork. It’s not like the standards division hasn’t known that for the last decade. The problem is that everyone has a crystal clear understanding of what has to be done, but everyone’s crystal clear understanding is different from the others’, and the last thing any Minister or CEO is going to do is step in and make a decision, because then they would be responsible.

The directive sounds fine to me. So do CASA's actions as far as I can tell.

I suggest that those of you who are waiting for 'justice" over wrongs done years ago (real or imaginary) are wasting your time. CASA is looking at the future and I think it is neither productive or practical to rake over old grievances and reopen old wounds. There is not enough time.

Sunfish

Amen to that.:cool:

and this too.

:ok:

Creampuff quite rightly, looks askance.

Problem is, the usual opportunists now see the chance to vindicate their past actions by continuing to be vindictive
both in their actions, mind numbing rhetoric, the form of language they continue to use to convey it and their hilarious and undignified scramble to the high ground. :{

Get on the bus folks or get out of town, there is men’s work to be done here. Sorry Nicola I couldn't think of a gender neutral word here, but you know what I mean. :ok:

Cream Puff and Sunfish

CP,
Thank you for your reassurance that the system has checks and balances.

Yes, when you have been genuinely wronged and can afford to be properly represented,
there is a strong possibility that the AAT will uphold your appeal.
This has happened for some of the wronged, no doubt about it.

HOWEVER, this costs buckets of money and the AAT does not award costs.

So we have a system that permits a government department to act improperly, unethically or what you will,
and an appeal tribunal that can restrain the effects of such activity.

The person and his government department that initiates the misconduct is taxpayer funded.


The defendant or applicant must personally fund the appeal (defence against misconduct),
and when the decision is handed down, there is no restitution, nor awarding of costs.

The offenders can then launch another taxpayer funded foray for their personal pleasure, often against the same entity.

If you work for the governement, this is a great system,
costs you nothing and you act with impunity.

For the victim, this process will see your cash reserves rapidly depleted, and no matter how much is spent,
there will be no compensation for that amount even if you are proven right.

As blatant lying and dishonesty often appears as the stock in trade of CASA,
it would seem that BB needs to introduce, and enforce, a Code of Conduct that has a strong Ethical flavour.


No wonder this has been CASA's playground for a long time.

SF,
You are on the right track with regard to the calibre and quality of CASA potential employees.
Nothing much can be done about the some of the misfits that crept in when no one was looking.

I don't have a serious problem with ex Mil, Ex APNG, ex RFDS/Flying school,

PROVIDED that they can substantiate a successful PREVIOUS aviation career.

That some of the present crop has an impressive history of failure and lack of achievement
is cause for concern, primarily because these attributes may be precursors to latent
psychological problems that will manifest themselves as behavioural problems
when implanted in an unaccountable environment, as we have seen happen.

The wording "or Military equivalent" should be interpreted with greater scrutiny.
BB and the AM have impressive and credible achievement records although from a military background
and I am more than comfortable with that. Others, definitely not.

I am not comfortable with under achievers with questionable backgrounds be they
Ex Mil, Ex RFDS, Ex Flying School, Ex APNG or whatever.

Ultimately BB needs respected professionals to deal with the respected professionals in the industry.

Industry expects to deal at a peer level, not as a paroled convict dealing with a police officer.

And lastly Sunfish, I share your optimism with regard to the problem that didn't exist being fixed.

However, I will fully believe it when the vocation redeployment of Batman and Robin
(The "Illustrious Leader" and his besotted "Pinnochio") has actually been implemented.

Only then, with the cancerous growth excised, can this office and the AM move forward.

SUNFISH

CS, yawning, stretching and waking up.

"What's this? The problem fixed? "

Mainframe, how about Batman and Robin driving off in the Bat Mobile to somewhere they are more needed!

I'm going back to sleep, please don't wake me until the problem can be seen to fixed.

Glad someone sees something positive coming out of the FNQ mess! Cos us passengers could sure do with a real regulator catching the cheats and freeing the good guys up to do what they do best.

like all government agencies, CASA already has a code of conduct/ethics and the posted Directive about safety regulation seems to be telling CASA how to suck eggs. Hey, strange notion that safety regulations weren't actually always addressed at known aviation risks! What the heck has it been trying to do for decades? CASA has got to be the most interfered with government aviation organisation in the world.

What CASA needs in order to be an effective safety regulator is some actual aviation policy (which no one has developed for the last decade except under the crazy malign influence of the Mr Smiths), lack of political interference (I mean the sort of interference that comes from sqeaky wheels hightailing it right to the Minister anytime they've got their knickers in a knot), a steady leader at the top (no more pilots just a bureaucrat please), no more reorganisations (scared people don't make good decisions), people with actual regulatory and safety management skills not pilots (luv you guys but pilots should be in aircraft), policy advisors in the Department that actually know a bit about aviation and constructive support from the industry (instead of constant undermining by ex-CASA dropouts and inflated egos).

Let's hope the mysterious and seemingly autocratic (what's with the 'directives') BB actually has some good ideas and doesn't further ruin what could be a world leading organisation.

"people with actual regulatory and safety management skills not pilots (luv you guys but pilots should be in aircraft)"

So am i to understand that industry knowledge is not important ?, this must be a wind up as no one could seriously suggest that, unless they've been sniffing glue.

"constructive support from the industry (instead of constant undermining by ex-CASA dropouts and inflated egos)"

i definately have not seen that, most ga industry leaders, are usually ATO's and the like have worked for CASA, got their approvals, done a few years and gone back to their true passion, flying, there isn't too many that are disgruntled with CASA as an organisation.

Bizpax

Very interested to hear that CASA has a code of conduct/ethics.

As a concerned passenger, suggest you read "Murder of an Airline" and the lack of ethics used by CASA to selectively shut down Ansett.

You might also read some of the transcripts of AAT hearings and also parliamentary reports on dishonesty by CASA.

If there is a code of conduct no one seems to be aware of it.
Perhaps you could expound on this.

As a concerned passenger you might also read some of the threads on LCC's.
We have ignored the safety problems that resulted in multiple fatalities following the deregulation of carriers in the US.

QF1 Bangkok had undertones of the influence of cost cutting without proper impact analysis.

There appears to be emerging trends driven by $39 fares that will eventually come home to roost.

These are, as you suggest, the proper hunting grounds for CASA, not hounding established and compliant operators
while some less compliant operators benefit from the inappropiate diversion of resources away from them.

To a lay person, CASA is doing a great job. To those directly interfacing with them,
they understand that there is room for serious improvement and it is starting to happen.

The decline of the regulator in NZ, and it's subsequent rebirthing into a functioning body also make good study.

I suspect that BB may have observed their mistakes in their decline,
and learned from the culture change that brought them back into line with their mandated tasks.

Cultural change is always difficult, and always resisted.
Sometimes the only solution is "High Velocity Culture Change" and there is a published manifesto for achieving that.

Somehow I suspect that you are not a lay person and may have a deeper understanding of Civil Aviation.

Bizpaz: Hear! Hear!

Mainframe: I think you’re going to be a little disappointed if it turns out BB is not the Messiah, but just another naughty boy.

CP

I quite readily accept that he may be in fact just a naughty boy on $400,000+ per annum,
however, until proven otherwise, he IS The Messiah.

Minister Anderson and many others are watching to see if he actually can perform the odd miracle or two.
And, like the messiah, Judas is lurking somewhere in the background for his pieces of silver.

Given the rhetoric without action, he may also be the false prophet.

All very interesting, but somehow I think he has to actually prove that
he is the Messiah by doing something measurable, sooner or later.

And if he can survive on that miserable salary for another year or two,
and retire, do you really think he gives a rats a...se anyway?

Heard on the grape vine today that CASA FNQ has just employed a new FOI for CS, wait for it.

He's the present CFI of BAE Flight Training in Adelaide, now does this guy know anything about the area, is he endorsed with considerable time on the fleets he will be over seeing ?, does he have any history in the region ?, has he any discernable charter experience?.

JM you must be on drugs to employ someone with this resume over some of the other applicants, particularly a well respected present FOI applicant from TL.

Creampuff, those AAT transcripts seem to be incompleted, particularly the CYAS/UZU ones, yeh the bits that make the TLFO looks less than competent dont seem to be there.

I would venture to suggest that someone from outside the region would see the situation with unbiased eyes. Anyone with "a history in the region" would or could be seen to have bias.

Icarus,

and what of the more important other stuff, that effects one ability to do their actual job, like:

"Is he endorsed with considerable time on the fleets he will be over seeing ?"

"has he any discernable charter experience?."

"does this guy know anything about the area ?"

these things are critical, employing these people from afar, to date have caused a great deal of problems for CASA, when will they learn ?.

This bloke may infact be an easy going, open door positive type, but the term "tits on a bull" comes to mind.

Our regulator has always been a COMMERCIAL REGULATOR. not a SAFETY REGULATOR like they should be.