Lockhart River - CASA/ATSB Review Announced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockhart River - CASA/ATSB Review Announced
http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/m...V_2007.htm#TOR
MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon Mark Vaile MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Leader of the Nationals
05 October 2007
158MV/2007
VAILE ANNOUNCES REVIEW OF AIR SAFETY REGULATION AND INVESTIGATION
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, today announced a review of the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, with the aim of identifying potential areas for improved aviation safety outcomes through better co-operation and co-ordination.
Mr Vaile said the review was an important part of the Government's response to the Queensland Coroner's Inquest into the aircraft crash at Lockhart River.
He announced that he has asked Mr Russell Miller AM, a senior partner with Minter Ellison to undertake the review.
"In bringing down his findings on the Lockhart River crash, the Coroner raised concerns about the working relationship between the safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), and the safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). He recommended that the Minister for Transport consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is required.
"I am pleased to announce the appointment of an eminent aviation figure and legal expert to implement the Coroners recommendation," Mr Vaile said.
"Russell Miller AM will undertake a review into the potential areas for improved relationships between the ATSB and CASA so as to enhance the safety of passenger transport operations."
Russell Miller has extensive experience in aviation and administrative law, and in working with aviation agencies. He was a founding Commissioner of the International Air Services Commission, a former Chair of the International Bar Association's Aviation Committee and has held a series of directorships and government appointments.
Mr Miller will provide his report to Mr Vaile in December.
"The Australian Government has announced that it will do whatever it can to ensure that the Lockhart River tragedy is not repeated. The review is part of a series of measures aimed at ensuring improved safety outcomes," Mr Vaile said.
Terms of Reference attached
Media Contacts
Tanya Cleary ( Mr Vaile's Office )02 6277 7680 / 0418 615 280
ATTACHMENT
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Review of the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
Background
In bringing down his findings on 17 August 2007 into the Inquest into the 2005 Aircraft Crash at Lockhart River, the State Coroner of Queensland, Mr Michael Barnes expressed concerns about the interaction and working relationship between the ATSB and CASA.
In this regard, the Coroner recommended that "the Federal Minister for Transport consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is warranted." In publicly responding to the Coroner, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon Mark Vaile MP advised that he noted the Coroner's recommendations in this area and that he would act to implement the recommendation immediately. He further stated that he regards "the safety of the fare paying passenger...of paramount importance."
Terms of Reference
The review will consider the respective statutory roles and responsibilities of CASA and the ATSB and the relationship that has developed between the agencies and provide advice on matters including:
A written report is to be provided to the Minister by 21 December 2007.
MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon Mark Vaile MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Leader of the Nationals
158MV/2007
VAILE ANNOUNCES REVIEW OF AIR SAFETY REGULATION AND INVESTIGATION
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, today announced a review of the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, with the aim of identifying potential areas for improved aviation safety outcomes through better co-operation and co-ordination.
Mr Vaile said the review was an important part of the Government's response to the Queensland Coroner's Inquest into the aircraft crash at Lockhart River.
He announced that he has asked Mr Russell Miller AM, a senior partner with Minter Ellison to undertake the review.
"In bringing down his findings on the Lockhart River crash, the Coroner raised concerns about the working relationship between the safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), and the safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). He recommended that the Minister for Transport consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is required.
"I am pleased to announce the appointment of an eminent aviation figure and legal expert to implement the Coroners recommendation," Mr Vaile said.
"Russell Miller AM will undertake a review into the potential areas for improved relationships between the ATSB and CASA so as to enhance the safety of passenger transport operations."
Russell Miller has extensive experience in aviation and administrative law, and in working with aviation agencies. He was a founding Commissioner of the International Air Services Commission, a former Chair of the International Bar Association's Aviation Committee and has held a series of directorships and government appointments.
Mr Miller will provide his report to Mr Vaile in December.
"The Australian Government has announced that it will do whatever it can to ensure that the Lockhart River tragedy is not repeated. The review is part of a series of measures aimed at ensuring improved safety outcomes," Mr Vaile said.
Terms of Reference attached
Media Contacts
Tanya Cleary ( Mr Vaile's Office )02 6277 7680 / 0418 615 280
ATTACHMENT
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Review of the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
Background
In bringing down his findings on 17 August 2007 into the Inquest into the 2005 Aircraft Crash at Lockhart River, the State Coroner of Queensland, Mr Michael Barnes expressed concerns about the interaction and working relationship between the ATSB and CASA.
In this regard, the Coroner recommended that "the Federal Minister for Transport consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is warranted." In publicly responding to the Coroner, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon Mark Vaile MP advised that he noted the Coroner's recommendations in this area and that he would act to implement the recommendation immediately. He further stated that he regards "the safety of the fare paying passenger...of paramount importance."
Terms of Reference
The review will consider the respective statutory roles and responsibilities of CASA and the ATSB and the relationship that has developed between the agencies and provide advice on matters including:
- whether the objects and provisions of the legislation (the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and relevant regulations and instruments made under these Acts) governing the operations of both ATSB and CASA give clear primacy to the objective of promoting the safety of passenger transport operations;
- the adequacy of the current legislative provisions in ensuring that information which may contribute to improved aviation safety can be effectively and promptly obtained by agencies and communicated between the agencies;
- the extent to which the interaction, or any overlap, of the respective Acts creates barriers to effective safety action, communication and interaction between CASA and ATSB;
- the adequacy of current arrangements for the development and review of draft ATSB investigation reports, safety action reports and recommendations;
- the adequacy and effectiveness of current arrangements for responses to draft ATSB investigation reports, safety action reports and safety recommendations;
- the role and value of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place between CASA and the ATSB, and areas where the MOU can be strengthened or improved to achieve better working relationships between the agencies; and
- potential areas for improved co-operation and better co-ordination of safety investigation and information sharing.
A written report is to be provided to the Minister by 21 December 2007.
Not before time! 
Interesting that it will become the problem of the next Minister for Transport, whoever that may be.
I trust Mr Russell Miller has no conflict of interest with any of the legal profession thus far involved in the matter, CASA or the ATSB!
One can't help but feel that after Seaview and Monarch, Government has these type of inquiries down to a fairly "slick art"?
Interesting that it will become the problem of the next Minister for Transport, whoever that may be.
I trust Mr Russell Miller has no conflict of interest with any of the legal profession thus far involved in the matter, CASA or the ATSB!
One can't help but feel that after Seaview and Monarch, Government has these type of inquiries down to a fairly "slick art"?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would really like to think that something positive in the advancement of aviation safety could come out of this "Inquiry".
In reality the results will be left to gather dust like so many have before it as Torres has alluded to.
CASA is a regulator, nothing more, nothing less. The ATSB statutory role is an accident investigator.
Both roles are mutually exclusive and not strictly complementary. It might be nice to think they are complimentary, in reality they are not.
tipsy
In reality the results will be left to gather dust like so many have before it as Torres has alluded to.
CASA is a regulator, nothing more, nothing less. The ATSB statutory role is an accident investigator.
Both roles are mutually exclusive and not strictly complementary. It might be nice to think they are complimentary, in reality they are not.
tipsy
Peace for our time!
Thank heavens someone's thought of having a review, finally.
If only they'd had a review before. Everything would be fixed by now.
Thanks Minister. You're going to nail this issue, once and for all.
Thank heavens someone's thought of having a review, finally.
If only they'd had a review before. Everything would be fixed by now.
Thanks Minister. You're going to nail this issue, once and for all.
Last edited by Creampuff; 19th Oct 2007 at 11:16. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Insurance companies are needing to be taken to task for this sort of behaviour. They take the premiums, they do (or should have) done their homework, and just like a poker machine, when the numbers come up....they pay. Sure check for fraud, but this is not. Pay out the victims and then go chase whoever, but dont make the victims suffer more.
So who else do you recomend for aviation insurance then?
J
So who else do you recomend for aviation insurance then?
J
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance companies are all the same.
Their immediate response to any claim is to deny liability. When I was working as a solicitor I had a young lady come to see me about a motor vehicle collision. She was stopped at a red light when an ambulance (of all vehicles) failed to stop and hit her car in the rear.
The driver immediately went to my clients aid and while assisting her admitted that he had failed to see the light was still red.
My client had submitted a claim to the government insurance office and had received a response claiming that the collision was her fault and that the company would be pursuing a claim against her.
She was quite distressed about the letter and was on the point of discontinuing the claim for the repair of her car. I was able to assure her that the letter was a bluff and that her claim would succeed. I enjoyed writing the letter to the government insurance office stating very clearly what they could expect unless they paid up and quickly. They did.
The reaction from my client is why all insurance companies will initially reject any claim. The small percentage of people who feel threatened makes it worthwhile. Insurance companies are surely the offspring of unmarried parents.
Now, to get the thread back on track, the review. Does anyone seriously consider that it will achieve anything? The ATSB and CASA hate each others guts with an intensity not often seen in government circles. Given that one them is about as useful as tits on a bull makes it even more absurd. The review can only be seen as a public smokescreen designed to make the public think that someone has their hands on the levers of control. What folly!
Their immediate response to any claim is to deny liability. When I was working as a solicitor I had a young lady come to see me about a motor vehicle collision. She was stopped at a red light when an ambulance (of all vehicles) failed to stop and hit her car in the rear.
The driver immediately went to my clients aid and while assisting her admitted that he had failed to see the light was still red.
My client had submitted a claim to the government insurance office and had received a response claiming that the collision was her fault and that the company would be pursuing a claim against her.
She was quite distressed about the letter and was on the point of discontinuing the claim for the repair of her car. I was able to assure her that the letter was a bluff and that her claim would succeed. I enjoyed writing the letter to the government insurance office stating very clearly what they could expect unless they paid up and quickly. They did.
The reaction from my client is why all insurance companies will initially reject any claim. The small percentage of people who feel threatened makes it worthwhile. Insurance companies are surely the offspring of unmarried parents.
Now, to get the thread back on track, the review. Does anyone seriously consider that it will achieve anything? The ATSB and CASA hate each others guts with an intensity not often seen in government circles. Given that one them is about as useful as tits on a bull makes it even more absurd. The review can only be seen as a public smokescreen designed to make the public think that someone has their hands on the levers of control. What folly!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may also be aware that QBE Insurance, through their wonderful Lawyers Naughton White, are forcing each and every family to court in their attempts to pay nothing of the Carriers Liability insurance. Their behaviour and tactics are absolutely appalling.
I for one am not ignorant enought to believe that its that simple. Even if I was - I wouldn't be slandering (libelling?) on a public forum.
Di
Last edited by Diatryma; 2nd Jan 2008 at 01:20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diatryma. Are you for real?
There is no slander or libel here.
This is about keeping the readers aware of current issues.
Ask the opinions of anyone who has been involved in a fatal air crash. It's got nothing to do with "ït sells." Frankly, that is offensive.
The innocent victims aren't the customers
This operator had a policy of not insuring his pilots, as was the case with LHR. Their families got NOTHING!
The insurance for the loss of the plane was paid out within 12 months.
I'm sorry, but it IS that simple.
The victims' families are entitled to fair and just recompense under the current legislation, which was guided by the Warsaw Agreement about Carriers' Liability.
But its a maximum of $500,000 - not an automatic entitlement. They still have to show (ie: prove legally) that their loss of dependancy exceeds this amount before they are entitled to it. Believe it or not this is not always straight forward. Of course the media would have you think the big bad insurer should have just paid the Act limit as an entitlement. This is just wrong.
If you haven't been involved and don't know the content of the range of correspondence, threats and statements made to each of the families by the QBE solicitors, you are in no position to make such uninformed statements.
Just a word of advice - get your facts straight and be carefull.
Di
Last edited by Diatryma; 3rd Jan 2008 at 03:12.
Moderator
Justiceseeker
Welcome back. You continue to have total support of the aviation community in your quest for justice.
At law, the publishers of this forum are responsible for all comment posted by users. PPRuNe Moderators and Administrators assess each post, therefore it is not necessary for users to debate the legal liability of posts. If users suspect a post may be inappropriate or contain libel, the most helpful and useful action is to click on the "Report This Post" Icon (red outlined triangle) at the lower left of each post.
There is no post in this thread to give the publishers cause for concern.
Tail Wheel
Welcome back. You continue to have total support of the aviation community in your quest for justice.
At law, the publishers of this forum are responsible for all comment posted by users. PPRuNe Moderators and Administrators assess each post, therefore it is not necessary for users to debate the legal liability of posts. If users suspect a post may be inappropriate or contain libel, the most helpful and useful action is to click on the "Report This Post" Icon (red outlined triangle) at the lower left of each post.
There is no post in this thread to give the publishers cause for concern.
Tail Wheel
Thank you tail wheel. 
Justiceseeker said:
You can rest assured that a lot of us are watching, Justiceseeker, and closely too!
And, you'll find that a lot of us also agree with you and the notion that balance is a fair concept to strive for, so go for it!
Justiceseeker said:
As far as a review into the CASA/ATSB relationship..what a farce, furphy, red-herring..call it what you like. Behind the scenes, CASA is actually ramping up its targetting of the ATSB...they are certainly following what the ex-Minister "directed." Not! Here is another sign of the fear CASA has of their part around LHR issues being exposed.
Watch this space.
Watch this space.
And, you'll find that a lot of us also agree with you and the notion that balance is a fair concept to strive for, so go for it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justiceseeker
I could take issue with a number of the points you make (for example your involvement from two days before the accident???) - but its not productive.
I'm sure you are well aware of the CACL Act etc... but comments on this and other forums, and in various media since this accident occurred show that there are many who have no clue and are looking to take a swipe at the insurer (as is a common pastime these days). This is not only wrong, but distracts from where the focus should be - on determining what caused the accident, what could have been done to prevent it, and what can be learned to improve safety.
I agree that the CACL Act is not always fair - especially when it comes to accidents involving fatalities. But its what we have to work with! Hopefully the Montreal Convention will be finally ratified this year which should improve this slightly.
Don't get me started on the system of victims getting compensation for aviation accidents. I agree its all wrong. The only winners at the end of the day are the legal fraternity. Wouldn't it be refreshing for a claimant to approach an insurer direct, ask for a reasonable settlement, the insurer not appointing a lawyer either and the matter being settled amicably for a fair and just amount? Well it just doesn't work like that, and I can't see a simple solution.
Tailwheel - good to know we are in good hands.
Cheers,
Di
I could take issue with a number of the points you make (for example your involvement from two days before the accident???
) - but its not productive.I'm sure you are well aware of the CACL Act etc... but comments on this and other forums, and in various media since this accident occurred show that there are many who have no clue and are looking to take a swipe at the insurer (as is a common pastime these days). This is not only wrong, but distracts from where the focus should be - on determining what caused the accident, what could have been done to prevent it, and what can be learned to improve safety.
I agree that the CACL Act is not always fair - especially when it comes to accidents involving fatalities. But its what we have to work with! Hopefully the Montreal Convention will be finally ratified this year which should improve this slightly.
Don't get me started on the system of victims getting compensation for aviation accidents. I agree its all wrong. The only winners at the end of the day are the legal fraternity. Wouldn't it be refreshing for a claimant to approach an insurer direct, ask for a reasonable settlement, the insurer not appointing a lawyer either and the matter being settled amicably for a fair and just amount? Well it just doesn't work like that, and I can't see a simple solution.
Tailwheel - good to know we are in good hands.
Cheers,
Di
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Di
The only bit of true common sense spoken here in a long time
The bulk of societies problems today stem from the fact that this approach is not used in so many ways, nobody will accept any responsibility for anything! The more it happens the worse it gets, the less likely anyone will accept anything......spiral to the bottom! Lawyers Picnic!
J
The only bit of true common sense spoken here in a long time
Wouldn't it be refreshing for a claimant to approach an insurer direct, ask for a reasonable settlement, the insurer not appointing a lawyer either and the matter being settled amicably for a fair and just amount?
J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you can't blame the claimant for going to a lawyer. They are usually not experienced in this sort of thing, and need to ensure their rights are protected - fair enough.
So they place all their trust in the lawyer instead.
And we all know you can't trust an insurer to do the fair and equitable thing!
(partial sarcasm here)
So frustrating!
Cheers J,
Di
So they place all their trust in the lawyer instead.
And we all know you can't trust an insurer to do the fair and equitable thing!
(partial sarcasm here)So frustrating!
Cheers J,
Di
Last edited by Diatryma; 4th Jan 2008 at 01:15. Reason: clarify
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Jabawocky and Diatryma,
You ought to see just how REALLY fukced up the system can get when you as a layman get shafted by an incompetent lawyer, so you go to another lawyer because you're not experienced in that sort of thing and want to try to ensure that your rights are protected, and you win the case against the incompetent lawyer because he forces you to take him to court (there was no way he was EVER going to settle), and as a result you get awarded costs, and the incompetent lawyer then refuses to pay your costs and screams for help from his insurer (Law Cover), and then Law Cover's lawyers get involved and get to work on you wit their bag of dirty tricks (and it's a BLOODY BIG BAG too).................it's not too much fun, I can tell you!
That's when you REALLY feel that you're in spiral to the bottom, and at a Lawyers Picnic, believe me!
I won in the end, but Jeez..........it took it's toll!
And Jaba............you're right, those who governed definitely seemed to be in bed with the wigged folk in this disgraceful episode, as the responses to my complaints to the relevant Attorney General made LOUD and CLEAR to me!
You ought to see just how REALLY fukced up the system can get when you as a layman get shafted by an incompetent lawyer, so you go to another lawyer because you're not experienced in that sort of thing and want to try to ensure that your rights are protected, and you win the case against the incompetent lawyer because he forces you to take him to court (there was no way he was EVER going to settle), and as a result you get awarded costs, and the incompetent lawyer then refuses to pay your costs and screams for help from his insurer (Law Cover), and then Law Cover's lawyers get involved and get to work on you wit their bag of dirty tricks (and it's a BLOODY BIG BAG too).................it's not too much fun, I can tell you!
That's when you REALLY feel that you're in spiral to the bottom, and at a Lawyers Picnic, believe me!
I won in the end, but Jeez..........it took it's toll!
And Jaba............you're right, those who governed definitely seemed to be in bed with the wigged folk in this disgraceful episode, as the responses to my complaints to the relevant Attorney General made LOUD and CLEAR to me!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
thread drift i realise.....but what the heck
I reckon I could be the arbitrator in insurance disputes, bring the policy, bring the agreed facts.....I decide. With plain and simple fairness.
No fraud, no unfair rejection of claims, insurance companies earn a good reputation and spend less on lawyers, payouts become far and reasonable, not telephone numbers and just as big legal bills.
Holy Insurance claim Batman!!!! Premiums have just gone down!!!
All ends happily!!!
I know some might scoff at the simplistic view, but in reality it could be achieved.
Just a side note of a real case where smart ar$e big end of town lawyers, sat on some retained funds from the proceeds of a large sale, where stamp duty was the purchasers responsibility. Took vendor 2 years and $60- $80K fighting their case, and won........total cost to vendor over $100K and probably more in real terms. All for $300k which was rightfully the vendors. Whats worse and ex-friend of mine was the lawyer behind it all. Just s happens I knew both sides of the story
Life is all about managing risks.......the biggest risk is getting tangled up in one of these sh!tfights.
thread drift OFF
J
I reckon I could be the arbitrator in insurance disputes, bring the policy, bring the agreed facts.....I decide. With plain and simple fairness.
No fraud, no unfair rejection of claims, insurance companies earn a good reputation and spend less on lawyers, payouts become far and reasonable, not telephone numbers and just as big legal bills.
Holy Insurance claim Batman!!!! Premiums have just gone down!!!
All ends happily!!!
I know some might scoff at the simplistic view, but in reality it could be achieved.
Just a side note of a real case where smart ar$e big end of town lawyers, sat on some retained funds from the proceeds of a large sale, where stamp duty was the purchasers responsibility. Took vendor 2 years and $60- $80K fighting their case, and won........total cost to vendor over $100K and probably more in real terms. All for $300k which was rightfully the vendors. Whats worse and ex-friend of mine was the lawyer behind it all.
Just s happens I knew both sides of the storyLife is all about managing risks.......the biggest risk is getting tangled up in one of these sh!tfights.
thread drift OFF
J
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon I could be the arbitrator in insurance disputes, bring the policy, bring the agreed facts.....I decide. With plain and simple fairness.
No fraud, no unfair rejection of claims, insurance companies earn a good reputation and spend less on lawyers, payouts become far and reasonable, not telephone numbers and just as big legal bills.
No fraud, no unfair rejection of claims, insurance companies earn a good reputation and spend less on lawyers, payouts become far and reasonable, not telephone numbers and just as big legal bills.
http://www.codeofpractice.com.au/
and
http://www.insuranceombudsman.com.au/
But it doesn't apply to claimants on liability claims such as the LHR matter, or to big business matters (they are big enough to take care of themselves), or to matters which have already "gone legal" as it were.
Holy Insurance claim Batman!!!! Premiums have just gone down!!!
Thread drift probably my fault - sorry - thread drift OFF now.
Di
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabaswocky, perhaps the simplistic view to fixing these sort of problems perhaps doesn't need to extend beyond the judicious and short-range application of a Glock 17??? 
The reality (fortunately) is that such a solution isn't going to be achieved, but there's a nice warm feeling to be had from thinking about the possibilities!
The reality (fortunately) is that such a solution isn't going to be achieved, but there's a nice warm feeling to be had from thinking about the possibilities!