Vag, I strongly disagree, more to follow.

Vag: Unfortunately the available evidence, for example the Forsyth review, indicates that rational fact based argument has utterly failed to change the behaviour of the regulator or its products except at the margins. This is not a criticism of CASA. CASA can only do what it’s “owners” will give it permission to do and that does NOT include meaningful reform.

We need to go back to first principles. One of the oldest evolutionary traits in our branch of the primate tree, right next to the fight or flight reflex, is a healthy fear of falling from height. In addition, we as humans are not very good a judging risks. In particular, we have a tendency to confuse the ease of imagining a certain risk with its actual probability. That is why we worry excessively about children being abducted and sexually assaulted by total strangers instead of worrying about them taking off a seatbelt while driving. Which risk translates into more injured children?

Similarly with aviation. I am not the first to point out the public’s fascination with air accidents. Now consider Government. Its primary job is to protect people from risk. An obvious risk is that perceived risk associated with aviation. You and I know that compared to cancer, heart disease and suchlike, the risk of sudden death in an air crash is minimal, as an old acquaintance the scientist Clive Coogan put it; “it’s about as likely as being nibbled to death by a duck”. However the public doesn’t want to know this. Furthermore the Government, overworked as it is, sees no return in trying the impossible task of educating them otherwise. Such an educational program is even more problematic when one considers the likely media and public reaction should we have a major aviation accident resulting in heavy loss of life.

Hence my observation that as far as the general public is concerned, aviation regulation cannot be too strict and any relaxation would be as electorally popular as prison reform. There is no incentive whatsoever for a government to undertake aviation regulatory reform - the general public will look on in horror and the media will crucify the government of the day when an accident occurs -“they changed the rules, and now this happens!” That will be the cry from the media when a Qantas B737 gets into trouble.

So given that the government has no incentive for reform and, of course thanks to the iron law of institutions, neither does the Department of Transport, how is reform to be achieved? You can fiddle at the margins by rational fact based argument with CASA but that is not going to produce the needed quantum leap to the FAA style laissez faire approach required. Indeed, CASA has just foreshadowed shackling the UAV industry with the same chains the rest of aviation now wears - licensing operators and registering all UAVs over 250 grammes, with annual registration fees to boot! How is that going to help the economy? Reform isn’t going to be internally generated which is perfectly natural, and it is silly to expect CASA to try and make a case for reform even if they had that desire. They will run into that same set of barriers we do with the added risk that their unwelcome overtures would result in budget cuts.

That leaves the only avenue open is the one of giving the politicians a bigger incentive to do something about reform than the incentive to do nothing. In time a major air crash or three might give them an incentive, as it has in the case of the aged care industry, but I think we should not wait for that. It’s immoral. Instead we should focus on giving politicians the greatest incentive possible - electoral self preservation. Please note that such efforts would need to be bipartisan. We want both sides of Parliament equally afraid of an aviation lobby group.

What Tailwheel said in #18. Ditto

Why would anyone who cares about aviation safety care about who’s the CASA CEO/DAS?

The new talking head in charge will put on the same legislative straight jacket that has been happily donned and reinforced by half a dozen of his or her predecessors. The circa $1million remuneration package will make it feel great.

Stand by for the empty promises from yet another thruster.

CASA are like a soiled pair of underpants - they are annoying, you know that they are there, and you know they are pretty much worthless. There is no respect for them as a Government agency and most of the staff have no respect for the Agency and its Minister. CASA is an old scratched record. The Act is outdated, the legislation a complete mess and the regulations are a joke. It doesn’t matter whether it is Old Mother Hubbard or Jesus himself working as the CASA DAS/CEO, the place is complete crap. Dealing with CASA is like jumping into the time machine with Doc Brown and Marty McFly and going back to the.....well certainly not the future. To quote the Screaming Skull - the place is tautological nonsense.

Haha...nailed it! (its not funny but)

Perhaps I'm a little backward in suggesting that fewf giis would make a good candidate and his current employment contract will end soon.

Dooh.. spelchek changed the name.

From the CASA website:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-campbell-7a534a74/

Five jobs in four years, hardly stable employment?

Tailwheel, I'm hearing its not him that has been selected.....

The new DAS
 

Of the candidates that got shortlisted, there were some exceptional applications. Apparently, the successful applicant is a female this time. I think thats pretty accurate, and came from one of the unsuccesful shortlisted applicants.

I’ve also heard the same alpha, having said that I believe he would be a good choice.

The number of jobs in recent years is really a HR legacy thing of the past particularly in government. Short term contracts appear to be the trend now particularly in government, obviously linked to projects and budgets.

I’ve actually found that short term jobs in different fields can be a very useful tool to gain good experience quickly, which opens up more opportunities in comparison to staying in a long term dead end job.

Just consider the fallout from the COVID- 19 pandemic with regards to plots who have been forced in alternative employment.

https://australianaviation.com.au/20...ief-executive/

That confirms what I heard, I didn't want to say it as I didn't know it was in the public domain.

Wouldn’t surprise me if they are looking to hire a woman as none of the blokes who have been CEO have any testicles. Plus the Guvmint gets to tick the ‘diversity box’. Heck, if she is gay and has autism then she meets all three criteria for Guvmint promotion. These things are much more important than aviation safety.

The only female I can think of that would do a good job is Marjorie Pagani. But would she switch to the dark side? Unlikely. Either way it would certainly be the proverbial throwing of the cat among the pigeons if they hire a woman as there are still a number of crusty old 1970’s tweed coat wearing outdated inspectors and managers roaming CASA’s hallowed hallways.

Regardless of whoever gets the job it will be BAU as the Minister and the Board are still the same old banjo players strumming the same Deliverance tune. And as we all know, a CASA CEO is not really a CEO at all. He/she takes orders from the Board who stand guarded around the Minister like Secret Service Agents guarding the President. It’s all a game, a very serious game, but all a game.

Oh yes Lead Balloon, they will certainly be looking to their personality profile chart to determine which personality best suits CASA’s needs. Certainly there will be no ‘concluder’ or ‘creator’ in the list of candidates. A ‘thruster’ is most certainly the likely personality, however that would greatly differ from the previous line of CEO’s whose main personality trait was Sociopath.

Mr Ramsey,
Couldn't agree more re 48.1
Try reading all that without nodding off.

Michael Quim would be a good choice.

Yeah, I’m a big fan of Quim....