CASA FOI conflict of interest - or not?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA FOI conflict of interest - or not?
So how do you react when a CASA FOI tells you your school should have an accredited Synthetic Training Device, then says, "oh and I happen to own a company that can sell you one"?
I'm pretty sure that would constitute a major conflict of interest. If so, would CASA do anything about it, or will my sense of righteous indignation sputter out in the archives of PPRuNe?
I'm pretty sure that would constitute a major conflict of interest. If so, would CASA do anything about it, or will my sense of righteous indignation sputter out in the archives of PPRuNe?
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Geez, there can't be too many FOI's who fit that description!
However I would agree with your premise, I suspect the government would almost certainly have rules prohibiting that type of thing.
However I would agree with your premise, I suspect the government would almost certainly have rules prohibiting that type of thing.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it's really the CAO's that tell you that you need it; the FOI is probably only reminding you of that. I personally don't see anything wrong with FOI's selling synthetic trainers.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you do require one (because thats what the regs state, not what the FOI tells you) , you don't have to buy from him if you don't wish to.
He was simply offering you an alternative to where you would otherwise go. there would be no ramifications if you didn't buy his, but bought from elsewhere.
If you did/didn't buy elsewhere, and there were some positive or negative ramifications that could be construed as victimization/favoritism, then that would be both illegal and immoral.
He was simply offering you an alternative to where you would otherwise go. there would be no ramifications if you didn't buy his, but bought from elsewhere.
If you did/didn't buy elsewhere, and there were some positive or negative ramifications that could be construed as victimization/favoritism, then that would be both illegal and immoral.
Was he/she saying you 'should' as in 'you must' or was he saying 'this would be a good idea!' The way you have written the post implies the first alternative, but the question I have for you is was it because he/she thinks it could improve your product? A simple play on words, but that is all it takes to be seen as a slanderous comment: You may not have named names but I am sure the number of people in a position to make this 'recommendation' is limited.
Did you point out to him/her at the time of the discussion that you thought this was a conflict of interest-if so what was his response? If not......why are you posting this here????? You are walking a fine line!
Did you point out to him/her at the time of the discussion that you thought this was a conflict of interest-if so what was his response? If not......why are you posting this here????? You are walking a fine line!
If the Mains Road Department told you that the Regulations say that you must have a thronomister in your Datsun 180B, and then they said, We/I just happen to sell thronomisters ... would you be right in wondering about the validity/need for that Regulation in the first place.
There may very well have been a good reason for the Regulation, but you must not only be fair ... you must also appear to be fair.
There may very well have been a good reason for the Regulation, but you must not only be fair ... you must also appear to be fair.
smells "fishy"
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I wonder if its the same guy who I thought was an ATO not an FOI, that has supplied one to a school I know, and is having some nasty software bugs .
If he is alerting you to something in a CAO and giving you an option....its not a problem.
He might just be one of the few at CASA that are genuinely interested in helping you!
Despite Forkies previous comments he knows how well the go out of there way to help
.If he is alerting you to something in a CAO and giving you an option....its not a problem.
He might just be one of the few at CASA that are genuinely interested in helping you!
Despite Forkies previous comments he knows how well the go out of there way to help
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My interpretation for what it's worth is that the guy is out there on the CASA's shekel and should be doing the work solely associated with the duties for which he is being paid. If he/she wants to sell STD's (what a lovely acronym) at the same time, then he should be reimbursing some share to the CASA with the approval and full knowledge of the CASA. If he/she tells you that you need an STD and then provides a list of suppliers from whom you can purchase from and discloses that he/she is the director (?) of one of them and leaves it at that, then I think that is acceptible and appropriate. But to take off the CASA cap and put on the sales hat is unethical to my way of warped thinking. It might not be quite crossing the line to a conflict of interest, but that's where it will inevitably lead and there have been more than a few CASA staff blaze that trail ahead of him. A short diplomatic email or phone call to his/her supervisor that touches the subject, but doesn't make accusations might be an appropriate response.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Unfixed
Age: 50
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know where the CARs say that some types of training ops require them? I don't think they do...
In which case, if you don't want one, you simply say "No thanks", and smile politely.
On the flipside, perhaps he's offering you a bargain. Did you even get pricing info from him?
He has no conflict of interest. He can't make you get one if there's no regulatory requirement, and he doesn't write the regs. Perhaps he shouldn't be pedaling his wares on CASA's time, but that's a gripe for another post.
In which case, if you don't want one, you simply say "No thanks", and smile politely.
On the flipside, perhaps he's offering you a bargain. Did you even get pricing info from him?
He has no conflict of interest. He can't make you get one if there's no regulatory requirement, and he doesn't write the regs. Perhaps he shouldn't be pedaling his wares on CASA's time, but that's a gripe for another post.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FOI's pedalling his wares on CASA's time (and as a representative of the regulator) implying that his product would make the operator compliant to the regulator (and obtaining monetary gain from the sale), he most definitely DOES have a conflict of interest.
I'd be having a chat with his boss, and if not satisfied, would escalate the matter as high as necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
I'd be having a chat with his boss, and if not satisfied, would escalate the matter as high as necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
std
C'mon - you need one, he's got one... what's the problem? Petty concern unless he spent considerable time trying to flog it off. WGAF? However, Peuce gives an interesting comment.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 60 was developed to update, consolidate and replace current rules found in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 45.0, and documents, FSD-1 and FSD-2, that define requirements for flight simulators and synthetic trainers. Part 60 prescribes the rules for the manufacture, supply, and use of Synthetic Training Devices (STDs), a term which covers a broader range of devices.
Part 60 will allow pilots training in Australia to use a wider range of training aids. Previously pilots were permitted to use an actual aircraft, an approved flight simulator or synthetic trainer. The provisions in the Part will allow pilots to use an aircraft or the choice of STDs.
Part 60 will allow pilots training in Australia to use a wider range of training aids. Previously pilots were permitted to use an actual aircraft, an approved flight simulator or synthetic trainer. The provisions in the Part will allow pilots to use an aircraft or the choice of STDs.
Do I win a prize?