Well I'm not denying there needs to be changes in CASA, and probably at the top. Why???, because of an entrenched culture and those at the top allow it to happen. So, be rid of them and install those who are prepared to tackle the dinosurs head on.

Culture ruins a number of regulators, the ABA is captured by the broadcasters, the ACCC by a self promoting eccentric personlity and CASA it seems to me by not particularly talented lawyers and dinosaurs.

It is the Ill/sick lawyer types that have really stuffed things around. Posts here by now disenchanted rapid risers (and just as rapid fallers) in the lawyer stream don't help. CASA is waaay too full of the 'it should be done my way' creed. Each has their own interpretation of the law, the regs etc (because the latter are far too complex) and regulation is written not to make aviation safe and affordable, but to get 'safe' prosecutions.

Good for you, ulm.

Let's make a list of the mandatory selection criteria for employment at CASA.

1. must be prepared to tackle the dinosurs head on

2. must not be a dinosaur

Not too specific so far, but perhaps you can complete the list. How else will we know who to employ?

Identifying dinosaurs, well if you can't do it yet better take up basket weaving, there ain't no place for you in Can'tberra.

How about we put something like

'encourage development and growth in all forms of Australian aviation' (carefully separating them out so that no joker can kill, say the AUF, and build GA thus claiming victory) in the act or a CASA 'charter'.

We could make building each sector a reportable and measurable item, presented to the Minister and industry every quarter.

Then we link every 'senior' person's pay (all those at PS EL1 equiv and higher) in CASA to growth in their particular area of responsibility :) Positive growth is rewarded, No growth, no bonus. Negative growth, negative performance bonus. :D

(oh, and sack all the fr!kken lawyers!!!!)

Waiting for the cynical howls of safety based protest from those who wouldn't have a clue how to productively regulate.

Chuck

"Encourage growth" or something similar got the FAA into trouble after the Valujet crash in Florida. The regulator is there to regulate, not encourage growth.

Encourage growth is quite legit, one can regulate and support or regulate and destroy.

CASA do the latter. look at Whyalla, absolutely no justification for initial knee jerk CASA action. That is regulation by whim (again). Fine, if they are shonky shut em down, but changing regs for the sake of it, shutting operators down without fair process and making the regs too difficult to comply with is killing Australian aviation.

And saying the FAA got in the sh!t over value jet is more knee jerk pandering to ambulance chasing lawyers and journalists.

Gotta go with Lodown on this one.

Neither CASA nor any regulator is there to do anything other than regulate.
If that means the shonks get closed down (you say destroy:rolleyes: :) ) and allow the legitimate operators to charge what it really costs, then they are doing their job AND as a consequence encouraging growth by providing the environment for the bona fide market to operate with the revenues required to fulfil their safety obligations to the travelling public.
It's really that simple.
This is not negotiable; Game set and match.

Gaunty
Come to think of it, is there any Government agency charged with fostering and developing the aviation industry? :confused:

The job of fostering aviation can be left to those who have it's best interests at heart.- the vast majority of those who haunt this forum.

All I expect from CASA is to be a regulator that, at the very least, does not hinder the Industry.

BIKDoesn’t CASA have a Safety Promotion branch with a multi-million dollar budget?Beg to differ. It is the job of the Parliament to determine precisely where along the cost/benefit spectrum the minimum safety standard should be. It is the job of the regulator to do what the Parliament tells it to do. It might not be apparent from the performance of successive Head Dabblers, but CASA has been obliged to perform its functions in accordance with Australia’s obligations under the Chicago Convention, and has been obliged to regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration in exercising its powers and functions, since day one. There’s actually not much room for CASA to move on minimum standards – not much, that is, if it listens to the Parliament.But doesn’t that mean – on your argument – that CASA would have grounded everything by now?

BTW: Your expertise with computer modelling has been demonstrated on a few occasions on this forum. See if you can get your computer to work out the percentage of operators and individuals whose certificate or licence CASA suspends or cancels each year. 10%? 1%. 0.1%. 0.01%?

Also BTW: What is the number of operators and individuals who have been the subject of CASA administrative action, the outcome of which has not been suspension, cancellation or prosecution?

Folks,

I think we have been here before - and it seems we are doomed to an endless loop. I am with Gaunty and indeed the Puff:

Parliament sets the rules - CASA applies them.

It is irrelevant who convinces Parliament to create or modify a rule - the Bill and Disallowance procedures provide the exposure and opportunity for the members to exercise their responsibilities to act in the public interest.

There are a number of formal and informal processes that operate to ensure that CASA applies the rules as intended by the Parliament. They are not new.

There are safety rules and there are administrative rules. The administrative rules are intended to provide adequate organisations and management frameworks that desirably enhance safe operations and absolutely do not frustrate safe outcomes. There is a reasonable presumption that the rules were properly designed - if there is an unintended or undesirable outcome, then there are processes to alert Parliament to the failure of Parliament's rule(s).

In my experience, most of the whingeing about compliance comes from people who either failed to do their homework in the first instance or consciously choose to seek commercial advantage from limited compliance and resent being exposed as ignorant, incompetent or dishonest.

Yes, there are genuine cases of maladministration and abuse of power where CASA officers have acted equally as ignorantly, incompetently or dishonestly. Some cases may be the actions of individuals and some may involve elements of collusion and conspiracy. However, those situations are distinct from the rules themselves and one must be careful to see where the fault in each situation may lie in order to solve the problem.

If the Minister is truly interested in reform of the regulation of aviation in Australia, he must form some judgement about whether the system is actually failing to meet Parliament's ambitions for aviation regulation and, if he judges that the system is failing, then he must make some judgement as to what element(s) are causative and what are collateral.

And for that, I am still waiting...

Actually Parliament sets the standards (The ACT), CASA and DofT write the rules and generally Parliament rubber stamp them because they don't understand the issues.

It is a typical CASA cop out to say 'but Parliament write the rules' when in fact they invariably write the Regs and put them 'on the table'.

As for foster, there are a few. Go look at

www.aca.gov.au

for a start.

Facilitate is a good word though. Facilitate can take into account gaunty's problems with shonky operators without actually shutting down a good operator because of a bit of bad luck. I doubt the current CASA culture can facilitate though.

Facilitate means monitor and point out deficiencies, if they aint fixed take action, either remedial or punitive depending on the record of the operator. Trouble is this action needs to be unbiased. That can't/wont happen while FOI are partners in northern air charter operations, while relatives of CASA employees own businesses that benefit from selective decision making and while the rediculous concept of 'absolute safety' is used to baffle dim witted politicians.

Foster does not mean overlook intentional shonky practice. It means help when a Reg is too complex to understand. It means point out trends while they are fixable. It means understanding that better cash flow means more money for new equipment and better safety standards, but most of all it means understanding that lawyers aren't pilots!

AK

Now that the head dabbler has 90% of the minister's ear via a direct line and the rest of us compete for the 10% via various filters, it's really going to work well.

The minister's ear you refer to might be a part of the body a little higher than the area I am thinking.

For the record, justapplhere is as usual trying to revise history by deleting some of his posts.

justapplhere is a very senior person in CASA's Standards branch. His behaviour on this forum provides a very good insight into why the branch performs the way it does.

Are you suggesting the Standards Branch is a lower standard than any other CASA branch - including the area you were previously employed in? It appears to me the organisation has struck rock bottom and started digging! In the real world of commercial aviation, most senior staff would be out of their depth in a car park puddle.

I think you will find snarek is closer to the mark. The rules and regs are written by CASA and merely "tabled" in Parliament. Within the intent of the Act, CASA is able to get almost any rules it requires.

Actually, my partner was the Democrat staffer who pushed the Senator that disallowed Part 47. (so we both know a fair bit about the process) We KNOW that scared the F^@K outa CASA and we are ready to do it again.

Yeah, just for fun. But why not. They don't play by the rules, why should we.

Besides, they all learned a lot from that little exercise :D

AK

A little knowledge is dangerous
 

Snarek

In order that we can all be appropriately impressed by how much you know, it is useful to note precisely what was and was not disallowed.

If you go here: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/numrul/17/8768/top.htm you will find the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2000 (No. 3). What you actually “pushed the Senator” to bring about was the disallowance of a few items contained in schedules to those regulations, one of which items contained Part 47. (To be precise, the disallowed items were item [7] of Schedule 2 and items [1], [4] and [5] of Schedule 3.)

So far so impressive.

But …

The rest of the regulations had come or came into effect in their terms. One of those was subregulation 6(1), which said:[my bolding]

Whoops.

You managed to wipe the registration of every aircraft on the Australian register, because each had been deemed to be registered under Part 47.

Don’t worry though – there are very few messes that money can’t fix, and I’m sure your industry colleagues and other taxpayers didn’t mind paying the enormous bill.

You scare people alright, but almost certainly not for the reasons you think.

Casa's rules.
 

The Australian newspaper carried an article containing this"Democracy in australia was suffering because regulations were increasingly being made by government authorities and not directly by parliament, High court chief justice Murray Gleeson warned yesterday.
Australians were so over regulated there was a danger that law enforcement agencies could opress individuals and jeopardise the entire system of law and justice, Justice Gleeson told an international conference on regulatory reform in Sydney yesterday"

I believe he is right, and this is happening.

You really should think before you post, justapplhere.

Don't you realise that everything you post, and its origin, is recorded?

creampuff
 

Please explain ????????????????:confused: