The next CASA CEO/DAS
 

Stephen or Steven Campbell shortlisted as the next DAS apparently. Anyone know anything about him. Previously Aviation Adviser to the Deputy PM?

If he's not one of the senior public service clique they will eat him alive.

CC

next DAS
 

Just took a phone call and apparently very much part of the public service “clique”. A very political animal

I therefore suspect nothing will change in the regulator then.
Appoint a patsy so nothing changes. The iron ring continues its unfettered abuse of the industry, especially GA.
I am thankful that as I am retired I am no longer subjected to the exsistence of the Committee Against Safe Aviation.

CC

Just in time to over see the introduction if that steaming heap we call 48.1.

A pilot. Cathay, CASA. Advisor to government. Leader Part 61 TF. Currently AsA Govt relationships manager. Best of luck..

Steve has also flown in GA and a regional before moving to Cathay. Certainly has the credentials in my opinion, and he is an excellent leader.

Whilst he has been in the public service for a few years now, I’m sure he hasn’t been brainwashed enough not to forget the challenges that exist in GA. Certainly a great pick in my opinion, if he is lucky enough to get the position.

Quite an impressive background if this in indeed the person you refer to;

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

Between being at CASA and a Govt adviser, he knows which side his bread is buttered on.

Perhaps this time there might be meaningful and beneficial change? CASA seems, like AMP, to be a graveyard of management careers.

Steve would be a good appointment
 

I recall Steve (or however you spell his first name) made many of the senior managers at CASA very uncomfortable when he was advisor to Carmody. It's an enormous challenge for anyone to take on leading CASA, good luck to whoever gets the gig.

We live in hope. Finally someone who has started at the bottom and should know what it is, to pay their own way, from their own pocket. (i suspect). That itself has to be a vast improvement.

I bet he will not even get an interview.

You’re right, but for the wrong reasons.

The “selection process” comprises tapping the preferred appointee on the shoulder. All pretence at a competitive, merit-based process is just that: pretence.

The preferred appointee’s ‘interview’, if any, will be a discussion of start date and remuneration package.

LB, the question is; “who will best minimise the risk to Government associated with allowing aviation to occur?”. That then follows with the question of strategy: “Is the current strategy of over regulation and punitive micro management sufficient to protect the Government from all aviation related risk?”.

‘’In my opinion, change will only occur if the risk of maintaining the current regulatory lockdown is exceeded by the risk of an angry pilot customer base doing enough political damage to threaten the Governments majority. That is why I keep advocating negative political campaigning against sitting government members in marginal seats.

Sunfish
A question: Do you think 41,000 pilots and LAMEs scattered through out the country will make a difference in 537,000 enrolled voters. Especially when the general public knows little about, has no contact with or does not like general aviation?

Yes Vag, I do. The secret is to campaign against the incumbent in marginal seats. Flyers, mail drops, how to vote cards for “the aviation party” - not telling anyone to vote for US, but making a case NOT to vote for her.

‘’The current government holds a two seat majority.

Liberals hold two seats with less than 1% majority. Labor holds four.

So how about “the aviation group” invests in some advertising material in those six seats? All you say is vote / don’t vote for him/ her.

‘’You don’t think the government or opposition wouldn’t want your support? Think again. Both parties will dismember CASA if that’s what it takes to be in power.

Love these impractical political theories.........

Sunny, let us assume your impractical campaign works, you manage to unseat the present Government and end up with a coalition of the current opposition, the same as 2007 to 2013. Their administration of Transport and particularly Civil Aviation was arguably worse than any Conservative Government.

The solution is to work with the current government but campaign to put as much distance as possible between the Ministry of Transport and the National Party. Anderson started the rot in 1998 and it has all been downhill ever since.

Tail, I bow to your superior knowledge but I can’t help thinking about AOPA USA’s PAC which does exactly what I’m talking about.

It supports “friends” and by definition makes it more difficult for enemies to get re elected.

https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/take-a...tion-committee





‘’Can you think of any politician standing for re-election who wouldn’t like us to tell the voters why she is a good guy? .....and by definition, wouldn’t like us to support the competitor?

Two seats Tailwheel, and AOPA could have a personal invitation to Morrison or Albanese office any time they want. (well, unlikely, but you get the idea)

Sunfish

AOPA in the US has a significant difference to AOPA here and many parts of the Australian GA community. It does not scream abuse at the regulator or anyone else who seems to disagree with what seems to me to be an "entitlement" attitude.

In many cases the attitude expressed is also based on hear say. For instance, have you ever had a personal dealing with a CASA person? Do you have personal experience or just PPRUNE as the basis for your views? What have you done to "market" GA to the wider community?

If we as aviators are to be seen as credible to politicians and the public, we also have to be prepared to listen and negotiate on the basis of facts,not emotion.

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....