|
Failure to regulate
So now it appears that there is a rapidly growing group of relatives bent on retribution, most likely culminating in a class action against Boeing for the 737MAX accidents. It puts a spotlight on the practice of regulators who delegate or totally avoid their responsibilities v’s ensuring a worlds best practice approach to airline safety by actually regulating. If the FAA gets swept up and implicated in these accidents, what does that mean for the methods of our own regulator I wonder. The watering down of CAO48.1 at the behest of industry (airline) pressure, allowing organisations to strip back essential staff to sub-bare bones levels, potential cash for comments etc, etc....surely have to be seen as a window into our own regulatory future. What are your thoughts? |
It's posdble this 'could' open up a whole pandoras box but I doubt it ever will, why? We are talking about Boeing, the FAA here and the USA, a very powerful combination!! As for here! Will hardly cause a ripple, CASA and the big boys here have ways of making it go away! |
Can you imagine a regulator being successfully sued? Can you think of any cases world wide where this has occurred?
Here is an example. A statutory body that manages the water supply for Brisbane messes up so badly that hundreds of homes are flooded and millions of dollars of damage resulted. Estimated as an economic loss to Queensland of $10 BILLION. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E...ensland_floods Anyone successfully sued yet? |
Worlds best practice is a euphemism for doing the least you can possibly get away with; for being average.
|
My understanding is that only misfeasance (ie acting intentionally wrongly etc) is actionable against CASA. Malfeasance and non-feasance are not actionable...
|
At what point did the regulator’s paradigm shift? Or was there no single point and we’ve just been swimming in a pot of water that has been heated so slowly, we only now realise its boiling?
Once upon a time, it was the culture of the Aviation industry to “err on the side of Safety”. If there was suspicion of a systemic, design or manufacture issue, the type would be grounded until the issue was resolved. Instead, here we’ve had a situation where the both the Manufacturer and the regulator, refused to act until it was proven that there was a problem with the Max. Even after the second Max crash, both parties were initially saying there was no evidence to support a grounding. Two smoking holes in the ground and the Regulator is saying “prove it”? When did the onus shift from proving an aircraft is safe, to proving it is unsafe and what does it take to do that? Apparently the answer to the latter part of that question is 300+ dead bodies. |
My understanding is that only misfeasance (ie acting intentionally wrongly etc) is actionable against CASA. Malfeasance and non-feasance are not actionable... |
Originally Posted by michigan j
(Post 10444218)
My understanding is that only misfeasance (ie acting intentionally wrongly etc) is actionable against CASA. Malfeasance and non-feasance are not actionable...
Have a look at the Act. Tootle pip!! |
Icarus, the Qld Flood Class action has been heard in court (finished earlier this year) and a decision should be made in the second half of the year - then the loser will appeal so it will drag on for a while yet. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.