Employed by CASA ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employed by CASA ?
I'm seeking information on the pros and cons of taking up a job with CASA,in particular a role as a FOI. Can anyone in particular who has taken this step pass on any constructive advise/help,wether it be positive or negative.
I am currently employed in GA and I'm looking at what kind of positive things this kind of a position can do for ones career,if I decide to move on later on. Eventually I would like to get involved in aviation auditing and management. Also what is the transition like from being fulltime in the cockpit to taking on such a challenging role,in particular with the aspects of learning the rules and regulations from a regulators point of view,opposed to an operators/pilots point of view.
Please feel free to post you comments,but please don't post sarcastic rubbish. I am fully aware that some people may have mixed and varied views on CASA for a large range of reasons.
I am currently employed in GA and I'm looking at what kind of positive things this kind of a position can do for ones career,if I decide to move on later on. Eventually I would like to get involved in aviation auditing and management. Also what is the transition like from being fulltime in the cockpit to taking on such a challenging role,in particular with the aspects of learning the rules and regulations from a regulators point of view,opposed to an operators/pilots point of view.
Please feel free to post you comments,but please don't post sarcastic rubbish. I am fully aware that some people may have mixed and varied views on CASA for a large range of reasons.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm. I am exercising great restraint here.
Best of sending a PM to Frank Arouet, he will give you a pretty good and accurate summary of what to expect. Otherwise Nick Xenaphon may be able to advise you !
Best of sending a PM to Frank Arouet, he will give you a pretty good and accurate summary of what to expect. Otherwise Nick Xenaphon may be able to advise you !
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry buddy;
I can't think of one positive thing.
I'll tell you one thing though. FOI's are trained under the "mentoring" system. This divorces you from any initiative or self determination and instills all the bad habits that perpetuate with each generation.
Good luck.
I can't think of one positive thing.
I'll tell you one thing though. FOI's are trained under the "mentoring" system. This divorces you from any initiative or self determination and instills all the bad habits that perpetuate with each generation.
Good luck.
in particular with the aspects of learning the rules and regulations from a regulators point of view,opposed to an operators/pilots point of view
Hot pot, if you want management experience then I suggest you get yourself a management job in private enterprise. THAT is management. Being a worker bee in CASA isn't much of a window on what it takes to make a business run and keep your staff between the lines, much less on what it takes to successfuly do the "business" thing ie: making money.
Chief Pilot roles are, conversely, an excellent opportunity to build rapport with people in CASA and to understand CASA's expectations of what "compliance" really is about. As a CP I have always tried to be open to the FOI's I am dealing with and I think that has, by and large, been reciprocated.
Neil is the exception to that... but anyway... 
I have toyed with the idea of working for CASA for years.
The ONLY thing that's attractive about working for CASA is the stable income and the job security.
I couldn't live with the politics and the policy constraints that would be a strait-jacket to your work every day. I don't think I could stand to be in a position of "power" while watching a lot of GA businesses wither (rightly or wrongly).
I get on pretty well with the CASA people I know but would I want their job?
...only if it was the last job available to me on earth
Chief Pilot roles are, conversely, an excellent opportunity to build rapport with people in CASA and to understand CASA's expectations of what "compliance" really is about. As a CP I have always tried to be open to the FOI's I am dealing with and I think that has, by and large, been reciprocated.
Neil
is the exception to that... but anyway... I have toyed with the idea of working for CASA for years.
The ONLY thing that's attractive about working for CASA is the stable income and the job security.
I couldn't live with the politics and the policy constraints that would be a strait-jacket to your work every day. I don't think I could stand to be in a position of "power" while watching a lot of GA businesses wither (rightly or wrongly).
I get on pretty well with the CASA people I know but would I want their job?
...only if it was the last job available to me on earth
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 26th Jan 2011 at 23:02.
Moderator
Yes. But at least there is logical Traffic legislation which has not been subject to re-write for the past 23 years.
And Police are fully and thoroughly trained through an academy.
And the Police Forces are accountable to State Parliaments.
And Police are fully and thoroughly trained through an academy.
And the Police Forces are accountable to State Parliaments.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wife recently got out of CASA.
Great place to work if you don't like having any sort of support or real backing or strategic direction from the top of the organisation in what you do, and if you don't mind joining well meaning people in putting your heart and soul into work that, at the end of the day, ultimately counts for nothing as far as aviation safety is concerned because of this.
ATSB, on the other hand, is supposedly a pretty damned good place to work.
Great place to work if you don't like having any sort of support or real backing or strategic direction from the top of the organisation in what you do, and if you don't mind joining well meaning people in putting your heart and soul into work that, at the end of the day, ultimately counts for nothing as far as aviation safety is concerned because of this.
ATSB, on the other hand, is supposedly a pretty damned good place to work.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You enforce the laws, you don't make them.
The Federal Police refuse to take action on alleged criminal misuse of these laws and complaints to The Commonwealth Ombudsman include the hurdle of an Industry Compliants Commissioner employed by CASA.
I have never seen a more naive statement to the quote above.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shameless plagerism
tmpffisch, sincere apologies, but honest, just couldn't, (I tried ask Joyce over there) but I just could not help myself.
Thank you for finding these delightful moments.
Guys - You Tube; Tommy's new job - BBC 1.
He would fit in so well.
Thank you for finding these delightful moments.
Guys - You Tube; Tommy's new job - BBC 1.
He would fit in so well.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience, working for the government is fairly soul sucking. You are part of the Leviathan, so don't expect to be rewarded for initiative, hard work or actually fixing things. On the contrary, this sort of thing will be regarded with deep suspicion and you will be seen as a troublemaker.
Your mission (should you choose to accept it
) will be to make as few waves as possible, keep your boss looking shiny, make sure your own promotion path is secure at all times and keep the Minister off the front page of The Australian.
If you want a secure job with reasonable money and you don't care what you do at work, the APS is a viable career option. If you have any degree of initiative, ambition and/or a desire to achieve outcomes in the real world (rather than just on paper) stick with the private sector.
Of course this is just my 2 Turk lirasi. I haven't worked for CASA but I am an ex federal public servant and still have a lot of friends there in various departments. Despite the lack of security, getting out and going to the private sector was the best career decision I EVER made.
Your mission (should you choose to accept it
) will be to make as few waves as possible, keep your boss looking shiny, make sure your own promotion path is secure at all times and keep the Minister off the front page of The Australian. If you want a secure job with reasonable money and you don't care what you do at work, the APS is a viable career option. If you have any degree of initiative, ambition and/or a desire to achieve outcomes in the real world (rather than just on paper) stick with the private sector.
Of course this is just my 2 Turk lirasi. I haven't worked for CASA but I am an ex federal public servant and still have a lot of friends there in various departments. Despite the lack of security, getting out and going to the private sector was the best career decision I EVER made.
Why am I completely not surprised that an organisation with a bottomless budget and no commercial imperative can offer their employees a great salary, training and self-development opportunites and be "the best job in aviation I have had so far"?
Wow GreatLife - sounds like they got the very type they were looking for to fill the role. I mean, being an aviation regulator will mean there are plenty of feathers available for the nest, eh?
Wow GreatLife - sounds like they got the very type they were looking for to fill the role. I mean, being an aviation regulator will mean there are plenty of feathers available for the nest, eh?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send me a message and I'll be more than happy to have a chat.
Do so at your peril.
GreatLife is welcome to PM me with his details any time he feels so inclined. I will keep those details confidential;
I promise.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rise and rise of the regulators
The rise and rise of the regulators
• Robin Speed
• From:The Australian
• January 15, 2010 12:00AM
•
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY
• Paul Phelan of Mount Beauty Posted at 6:16 PM January 16, 2010
Congratulations! Almost every word of Mr Speed's article had relevance to the activities of the legal and compliance/enforcement offices of our aviation regulator. Their success rate in court and in the AAT is deservedly appalling, yet the organisation's track record in shutting down or damaging businesses and destroying the jobs of individuals through "administrative decisions" is awesome. With an aviation industry background and more recently as an aviation writer, I have followed and documented many dozens of such cases, and the most concerning aspect is the ability of wrong-doers at the regulatory body to evade scrutiny and retribution. One reason for this is the legal adventurism that is enabled by an apparently bottomless budget, and another is the lack of external legal oversight. I had literally no idea this malaise was so endemic across so many industries. Is there an acceptable end in sight?
• Robin Speed
• From:The Australian
• January 15, 2010 12:00AM
•
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY
• Paul Phelan of Mount Beauty Posted at 6:16 PM January 16, 2010
Congratulations! Almost every word of Mr Speed's article had relevance to the activities of the legal and compliance/enforcement offices of our aviation regulator. Their success rate in court and in the AAT is deservedly appalling, yet the organisation's track record in shutting down or damaging businesses and destroying the jobs of individuals through "administrative decisions" is awesome. With an aviation industry background and more recently as an aviation writer, I have followed and documented many dozens of such cases, and the most concerning aspect is the ability of wrong-doers at the regulatory body to evade scrutiny and retribution. One reason for this is the legal adventurism that is enabled by an apparently bottomless budget, and another is the lack of external legal oversight. I had literally no idea this malaise was so endemic across so many industries. Is there an acceptable end in sight?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the best job in aviation I have had so far"?
I know people at EL2 who aren't that enthusiastic about their career. The post reminds me of the recruitment blurbs on the big departmental websites (Airservices has similar) by some poor noob who's been strongarmed into writing an 'it's all awesome here' article with a cheesy photo attached. Sometimes they're genuine but usually only when the author has been there for about a week and a half and had a previous job cleaning out used wheelie bins.
Sorry if that's not the case in this instance. In fairness, as stated by happy chappy government departments usually do have a lot of training options available (management courses, degrees and the like) and generous study allowances. If further education floats your boat the APS can be a good way to work and study at the same time. In this regard, their conditions are better than most private companies can afford to offer.
Seriously, there's nothing wrong with joining the public service if you're happy to deal with the shortcomings and disadvantages, but go in with your eyes open to the pitfalls. It saves getting jaded and/or frustrated.
P.S. Out of interest, why can't I access that user's public profile? Everyone else's is fine, but I get a 'you do not have permission to view this page' message for that one.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 27th Jan 2011 at 03:47.