How to ruin sport aviation. Fox in the chicken run.

[Frank Arouet]

From the CASA Director blurb.

New regulatory focus on sport aviation

The safety regulation of sport aviation is being given a new focus within CASA. The area in CASA that oversights sport aviation has been moved to the Office of the Director of Aviation Safety. Previously the sport aviation regulatory functions in CASA were located in the Standards Division. A new Self-Administering Sport Aviation Organisations section has been set up which will report to the Associate Director of Aviation Safety, Jonathan Aleck. Sport aviation covers about half of the aircraft operating in Australia, with about 40,000 people taking part in the various aviation sports. This includes light recreational and microlight aircraft, gliders, gyroplanes, hang gliders, parachuting and recreational ballooning.
There are a number of reasons for moving the regulation of sport aviation to CASA's Office of the Director. An important role of this Office is to oversee the introduction of new policies, functions and projects and the development and implementation of significant changes to existing policies and functions. It brings a sharp focus on governance, consistency, overarching government and CASA policies and relevant legal requirements. This is particularly important when policies and functions are new or being refined. When the policies and functions mature, they can be moved to the most appropriate area within a division of CASA. It is anticipated the regulation of the sport aviation functions will move to CASA's Operations Division in the future.

[VH-XXX]

I wonder if that is why they recently pulled all RAA approvals for amateur builts to operate over populous areas or in CTA. The start of something bigger maybe? Let's hope GA Exp isn't next.

[sprocket check]

Nearly there... (excuse the bad copy and paste)

91.1010 Experimental aircraft ␣ operating limitations
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person operates an experimental aircraft; and
(b) the operation contravenes a rule set out in subregulation (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) For paragraph (1) (b), the rules are as follows: (a) the operation must be:
(i) an operation of a kind for which the certificate was issued; or
(ii) an operation of a kind mentioned in subregulation (3) in support of an operation of a kind for which the experimental certificate was issued;
(b) if the operation is over a populous area ␣ the operation must be in accordance with an approval granted by CASA or an authorised person under regulation 91.050;
(c) the operation must take place: (i) by day and under the VFR; or
(ii) otherwise in accordance with an approval granted by CASA or an authorised person under regulation 91.050;
(d) the operation must not be an air transport operation; (e) if the aircraft is carrying a passenger:
(i) the total number of persons on board the aircraft must be 6 or fewer (or, if CASA or an authorised person has, under regulation 91.050, approved the operation of the aircraft with a greater number of persons on board, that number or fewer); and
(ii) the operator or the pilot in command must ensure that each passenger is told before boarding the aircraft that the design, manufacture and airworthiness of the aircraft are not required to meet any standards recognised by CASA; and
(iii) a placard bearing the warning set out in subregulation (4) must be displayed inside the aircraft in a way that is conspicuous to, and can be easily read by, each passenger on board the aircraft;
(3) For subparagraph (2) (a) (ii), the kinds of operation are as follows:
(a) taking the aircraft to or from a place where maintenance on the aircraft is to be done, or has been done;
MM07046A-110321A.doc, 22/03/2011, 3:59 PM
2011,
Civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. )
CONSULTATION DRAFT
233
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(c) training a person to qualify for an aircraft endorsement on the aircraft;
(d) practice in flying the aircraft; (e) carrying out a demonstration or test of the aircraft for sale;
(f) delivering the aircraft to a person under a contract of sale;
(g) for an amateur-built or kit-built aircraft ␣ flying training given to its owner.
For subparagraph (2) (e) (iii), the warning is: ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣
THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT
CASA DOES NOT SET AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AIRC␣␣␣␣␣␣
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person operates an experimental aircraft in a foreign ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣
(b) the operation is not in accordance with the approval of the national aviation authority of the country.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person operates an experimental aircraft; and
(b) ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣ ␣␣ a condition limiting the area within which the aircraft may be operated; and
(c) the operation takes place outside, or partly outside, that area.
Penalty: 50 penalty units. A person commits an offence if:
(a)
the person operates an experimental aircraft with persons on board the aircraft, other than crew members whose presence is essential to the operation; and
Amendments of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Schedule 1
MM07046A-110321A.doc, 22/03/2011, 3:59 PM
Schedule 1 Amendments of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
234
Civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. )
CONSULTATION DRAFT
2011,
(b) neither CASA nor an authorised person has certified in writing, before the operation, that the aircraft:
(i)
(ii)
Penalty:
is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all of the manoeuvres to be executed; and
has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features.
50 penalty units.
(8) An offence against subregulation (1), (5), (6) or (7) is an offence of strict liability.

[sprocket check]

oh, and it looks like NVFR and IFR is now out for experimental registrations. Ahh, all those RV10s...

[Sunfish]

Plans bought,

I think I will wait until I understand what CASA wants to do, and whether whatever regulations CASA now makes as a result of the Mull Inquest can be complied with.

When I read the Coroners report, I remembered reading that "dare to dream" article and thinking that it was fishy. I'm afraid I've met one or Two "dreamers" in the sailing world. Nothing is allowed to get in the way of their "dream". Every word of advice or caution you give them is interpreted by them as criticism or negativity. They have internalised that American "You can do anything you want if you have the willpower" sales pitch.

Sadly, a piece of junk is still a piece of badly designed junk and having a "positive mental attitude" to said junk doesn't change a thing.

The mindset of someone who doesn't want to build at least 51% of their aircraft also escapes me. I mean, that's part of the enjoyment.

[VH-XXX]

Slow down... pull in the reins before the horse bolts too far!

(ii) otherwise in accordance with an approval granted by CASA or an authorised person under regulation 91.050;

is what your SAAA AP is for that issues your C of A. He has the authority to issue this approval. At a glance there doesn't appear to be any noticeable changes from the existing regs. (I assume that post is the draft)

Nothing to worry about, except that CASA have pulled Approvals for RA-Aus amateur built which does make me worry a little about GA Exp.

It's full steam ahead Sunfish.

[Jabawocky]

VH-XXX has it right for a change

Nothing there is unusual at all. From a quick glance nothing looks different from the past few years anyway.

And Mr Sprocket Check.....Check ya rules my friend.

oh, and it looks like NVFR and IFR is now out for experimental registrations. Ahh, all those RV10s...

Or are you just getting a wind up out of me

There is no problem with NVFR or IFR is you follow ALL the rules. If so Boeing are going to have a lot of trouble getting the 787/747-8's through certification.

Wind up Alert

[VH-XXX]

There is no problem with NVFR or IFR

Just how many nauticals did you fly doing both of those last night eh Jabba?

Where's wally when you need him

(What's this about me being right "for a change?")

[sprocket check]

Jaba, yep, sort of wind up

I will read the draft again tomorrow but as I read it today experimental is day VFR only, 3c has the possible caveat in sub para iii.

I haven't found a definition of 90.050 and the approval process not a list of approved persons/organisations. As the regs stand the CASA can withdraw that approval anytime (to my understanding), as they have done with RAA.

And yes, when read in conjunction with CARs, ACs, CAAPs and all the non-existent parts like 175 the new regs don't change much, so why change? The new rules are more convoluted than the old ones.

[Sunfish]

My only prayer is this: Please CASA, do not dream up some unique Australian requirements for kit aircraft that make American and European kits ineligible for registration without major expense in redesign or certification. Please follow the FAA and JAA rules.

[rutan around]

rutan around

Frank
"How to ruin Sport Aviation"
That's a bit of a harsh statement about poor old CASA. First you should look at what they've done for GA. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA OMG Sorry about that.
Tears RA

[Jabawocky]

Just how many nauticals did you fly doing both of those last night eh Jabba?

That was 240nm of pure darkness...all under the IFR. Was a bit wet too!

[Frank Arouet]

A new Self-Administering Sport Aviation Organisations section has been set up which will report to the Associate Director of Aviation Safety, Jonathan Aleck

This, in my opinion, is the part which one should be most concerned.

Despite the fact that The Director of Aviation Safety, The Deputy Director Aviation Safety and now most probably, The Associate Director Aviation Safety are all protected from prosecution by parliamentary decree, it is obvious, in my humble opinion, that they are the problem, not the solution. Their record speaks for itself and political intervention is needed urgently.

[Frank Arouet]

I've been advised today that "they are not bad boys", simply misunderstood. In an effort to stave off undue barbs by overly criticizing them, I have agreed to give them all time to prove to us they are good guys and mean us no harm.

Until Easter - Temora where myself and a lot of other people would like to meet and discuss "stuff" with the three Amigo's.

Are you up to it John, Terry and Jon?

[aroa]

Uh Ohh..!

when I saw that a leading RAA light had moved to CASA, my immediate thoughts were... here we go again.!

Having done a job on GA, here's a thriving flying sector we can get our "expert" "safety" teeth into. Ggrrrr!!

We can give them the benefit of doubt re their intentions, but I suspect the history of, the mind set and the clasic chance to build another empire will prevail.

And light sport aviation will be the worse for it.

Thats my prediction.

[Jamair]

That was 240nm of pure darkness...all under the IFR. Was a bit wet too!

Cold and wet, alone and afraid in the dark........ bit like the first time you had sex hey Jaba

[gobbledock]

Farce

A new Self-Administering Sport Aviation Organisations section has been set up which will report to the Associate Director of Aviation Safety, Jonathan Aleck

Hilarious. A non aviation beaurecrat with interests in PNG Antiques is obviously the most suitably experienced person for the role !
These guys should be retained under the election rule process. A 3 year term then kick them out or introduce some sort of voting system.
15 -20 yeras in CASA IS PART OF THE SYSTEMS PROBLEM. Ask yourself why governments only get elected to 3 year terms ? Then apply that answer to the state of the CASA senior executive team and do the math.

[CASAweary]

let’s get down to business and the root cause of Australia’s present safety woes – CASA. In over 36 years of aviation experience around the globe I have never encountered such an immoral, corrupted, disconnected pack of inept cretins in all my life.
Firstly it was painful for me as an individual to watch Shayne Urquhart push and rally for years to have CASA cleansed after Lockhart River and after and the death of his dear daughter Sally. He endlessly petitioned and lobbied the government to fix and clean CASA, but sadly the government sat on its hands. He stood no chance from day one and he never knew it. Many of the same imbeciles who were around for that tragedy remain within their protective CASA roles today. How’s that for justice? It is disgusting. It is time for the Senator to either expand the inquiry or embark on inquiry ‘number two – the regulator’. The government has covered for CASA for decades and heads must roll at all levels. The time for accountability has arrived.
I have posted below just some issues currently taking place, but these examples of CASA’s behavior is just a sample of selected malfeasance over the past five years as anything that dates further back will be dismissed no doubt.
Let us start;
Why is CASA allowed to deliberately and purposefully harass, intimidate, punish and destroy individual’s reputations, livelihoods and businesses within the aviation sector and also within CASA’s staff ranks out of spite, incompetence, ego stroking and sheer maliciousness? Most lower level CASA employee’s within this multilayered labyrinth of incompetence along within industry agree that when issues are raised within CASA they are immediately covered up, manipulated, glossed over and hidden. What you don’t perhaps know is that the key drivers of much of this pathetic behaviour are none other than the human resource department and particularly the executive manager of corporate cervices. Yes you heard me correctly, the corporate services department including HR and finance is the ‘meat and potato‘of CASA. Nothing gets done without prior approval from this particular silo of slime. Mr. McCormack must hate it how he must beg and plead for approvals and permission to wipe his nose from HR, even though he is the director.
Also , why is CASA allowed to continue its path of cover-up’s and non-accountable actions at the most senior levels both previously and presently by management who have backgrounds notoriously based upon intimidation, segregation, harassment, bullying and general anti-social behavior along with an attitude of contempt, disregard and criminal behavior towards industry and its staff ? Ask anybody who knows a ‘former employee or two’ (and we all do) and they will tell you that each former CASA staff member hates the place with a stomach filled with burning fire. Never a kind word is purported. Ask yourself why would this be? It has been wisely suggested that any CASA staff member with more than 7 years service should be walked straight out the door. These people have been captured by their own pride, arrogance and ignorance by crossing the line between justice and criminality. They have had too long in the chair and must be cut off at the knees.

Why has and does CASA allow serving staff to take unpaid leave and work for AOC holders creating a conflict of interest, with full knowledge and approval of senior management including the executive manager of corporate services? Recently when the AOC audit of Strategic Airlines was conducted why did the CASA Brisbane field office manager agree to allow the two assigned audit FOI’s to go yachting with the Strategic CEO the weekend after the audit finished on a Friday? This same manager constantly covers up issues relating to Virgin Blue and its abysmal safety standards. The Sydney manager covers over the transgressions of Qantas and Melbourne’s field office manager actively prevents inspectors from taking punitive action against Jetstar which has some of the most serious, damning and frightening safety issues one could imagine. This is just a sample of a litany of questionable acts of misconduct. CASA management is a disgrace. Why does CASA hire back staff who resign as consultants, paying them triple the money to perform the same role they undertook weeks or months before? Again CASA’s executive manager of corporate services is privy to this rort and a proud supporter of the ‘mate’s rates scheme’. In fact his current HR representative based in Brisbane actually lives in North Queensland. She and her husband set up a HR business in North Queensland. The catch is this - because she used to work with the present serving executive manager of corporate services eons ago at a pharmaceutical company, he approved for her to travel weekly to Brisbane and commute for work with all expenses paid for by you guessed it - the unwary and none the wiser taxpayer. Nobody else is allowed this privilege and it is NOT accepted practice under CASA’s framework and accountable structure. Oh I am sure he will now come up with all sorts of spin in an attempt to cover himself now that the truth has been revealed, but the facts remain that this manager has had his hand in the cookie jar for a long time. Even recently one of his lackeys in HR resigned and left, but after 6 months decided she wanted to be ‘back in the fold’ and was given her job back – no interview, no due process, no following the public service code of conduct, he just handed it back to her no questions asked.
Many others within the iron gates of CASA are also disgusted by this managers actions as it goes against the principles of the public service act, is an act of willful and gross misconduct and should be investigated by an external body. You see you cannot trust CASA itself to act upon this information because Mr. McCormack set up an internal ECC consisting of none other than himself (director), the executive manager of corporate services, the assistant director (best mates with the corporate services executive manager) and lastly the poor old industry complaints commissioner (who surprisingly gets outnumbered) rendering her role pretty much void and useles. A beautiful system designed to cover over acts of incompetence and ritual abuse which is precisely what takes place. Anyway, now you know why Mr. Michael Hart left! Can CASA justify these actions? Also can CASA explain why many consultancy tenders are not actually advertised or tendered, rather just given to mates at very handsome rates with the corporate services executive managers approval?
Below is an extract of an article written by Paul Phelan, 22 October 2009, which pretty much covers this fact;
Industry identities this week were dismayed at a reported CASA decision to establish an in-house “Ethics and Conduct Committee,” apparently either bypassing or replacing the regulator’s Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC).
CASA will not comment on details of the new group, understood to have been instituted by order of CASA Director John McCormick,
We asked CASA today: “I am aware that the Director has ordered the formation of an ‘Ethics & Conduct Committee’ within CASA and that the committee’s membership includes Messrs:

• Terry Farquharson, who has recently been appointed Acting Executive Manager of the Office of the Director of Aviation Safety;
• Jonathan Aleck, currently Head of Legal Services; and
• Gary Harbor, Executive Manager, Corporate Services.

CASA advised it “can’t offer anything.”
We had also asked for missing details which would have defined the committee’s total membership, terms of reference, reporting lines, responsibilities in terms of published CASA policy, and means of ensuring its decisions will be able to be made independently of the committee members’ employers.
AviationAdvertiser holds ample documentation that reveals that at least two of the committee members we’ve named are the subject of numerous grievances currently under the scrutiny of the ICC, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and possibly other agencies – as well as a small mountain of even more unresolved issues.
Complainants cover the entire spectrum of industry activity within CASA’s responsibility. However we’re not identifying any of these at the moment because of the need to confer with each of the many victims, some of whom fear further adverse reactions from the regulator or from individual officials. They cover aircraft maintenance & overhaul services, aircraft and parts manufacturers, airworthiness issues, flight operations, AOC and workshop approval holders, and individual license and approval holders.
Other victims of alleged CASA abuses whose businesses and lives have been damaged by over-zealous and/or inadequately overseen, trained and supervised officials, say they are watching one of these matters – the events surrounding Polar Aviation’s lawsuit with great interest. See:
In 1996 the Attorney-General’s Department provided CASA with a legal opinion that (in part) warned that in relation to various legal actions which may be brought against CASA – such as negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood or misfeasance in public office – the government indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where that officer is guilty of serious or willful misconduct. “The likelihood that such actions would be brought, not only on the grounds of defamation, appears very high,” said the advice.
The Polar Aviation lawsuit, which was scheduled to be the subject of a directions hearing today, seeks unquantifed damages from three named CASA officials including Mr Farquharson, from three former officials, and also from CASA itself.
Industry figures believe the environment for generating further complaints is now increasing and that the risk exists, that members of the new committee may find themselves investigating complaints against themselves, many of which are already published documents. END
Are these the actions of an organization that is being lead by competent, trustworthy management in full control, or by a conglomerate of proud conceited bigots whose morals and ethics know no bounds? Is this acceptable to the Australian taxpayers to fork out for this act of arrogance, self confidence and self indulgence as they boast about being untouchable and unaccountable?

Can the government explain why taxpayer funds are needed to pay for the remuneration of a director, assistant director, associate director and a board made up of bureaucrats that when combined together do not have the ability or intellect or ability to wipe one another’s backsides ? A conglomerate of wine sipping government funded minions bleeding the system and laughing all the way to the bank. It is common knowledge that the board is made up of senior bureaucrats out for a free feed from the money trough, appointed through the internal government ‘mate’s rates system’. Their role is to provide strategy and direction, supposedly. I don’t think so. If the director, assistant director and associate director cannot provide direction and strategy (which they haven’t so far) then CASA has no hope, and it is no wonder regulatory reform has taken 22 years and counting. Even Noah achieved more in his first 22 years of building the ark! A bunch of incompetents and wordsmiths capable of producing squat is the truth.

Can CASA explain why they recently came within a hairs breadth away from receiving a downgraded safety category in part due to cost cutting measures in reducing staff numbers in areas such as training and standards, which is actually against the requirement for ‘the state’ under ICAO annexes and the geneva convention ? Why do those decision makers including the corporate services executive manager and assistant director remain employed after orchestrating this massive balls up? In fact they gave themselves self promotion, huge salary increases and yearly bonuses! Why were some of these decision makers not people from an aviation background but again from CASA’s corporate services executive manager and his department who have grown fat on the indulgences of taxpayer funded jaunts, trips, travel and spending sprees?

Why has CASA as a government department in the past 12 months received an alarmingly and disproportionate increase in staff resignations and staff harassment actions which are stacking up against managers? There has been a jump in union membership by 23% due to a systematic campaign of bullying, harassment, intimidation and victimization by senior managers at the executive management level and above, particularly again orchestrated by the corporate services executive manager and his team of untouchable human resources lackeys ? Why do these same people boast about not having to answer to the director, the Minister of even the taxpayer, and they have also boasted that they are above the law because they make the law? Why is the level of litigation instigated from aviation community members rising monthly with the majority of these cases being for harassment and intimidation? It seems CASA does not comply with its own mantra to assist industry, provide transparency in its actions and accept accountability, yet industry is expected to do all of this? Perhaps the endless bucket of money at CASA’s disposal to fight and crush the little man has something to do with it?


Why did CASA employ a working group called ASOP who were allowed to commence 34 projects over a period of 3 years, yet not one project was completed, all at the taxpayer’s expense and no accountability was taken by senior management, particularly the now assistant director who was mostly responsible for this debacle as well as the executive manager of corporate services? It is actually still the standing joke within the walls of CASA. The assistant director recently pulled his usual stunt of ‘fiddling the books’ as he often does before a senate hearing. After the FAA threatened to downgrade CASA’s safety category he instigated a mass training exercise and put almost half a million dollars into the program. As soon as the FAA gave the ok to CASA for their mitigation strategy the assistant director cut off funding but left the projects ‘books open’ to make it appear that the project continues. He did this to fool the senate into believing that the implemented program of training is continuing. CASA does this every time ICAO or the FAA audits them, they throw a tonne of money into supposedly fixing things but slyly pull the pin on those fixes as soon as the FAA or ICAO walks away. This rort has gone on for years and wasted millions of taxpayers’ dollars which is of no concern to CASA. Dr Aleck has been instrumental in these types of smoke and mirror games since the days of Dick Smith as the CEO.
Speaking of jokes, why was a female inspector remunerated well above fellow inspectors after becoming ‘involved’ with the then DCEO of CASA as well as the then acting general manager of CASA who incidentally himself was also ‘involved’ with the current female head of human resources? All this under the watchful eye of the current deputy director and corporate services executive manager yet again. Oh dear, I see a pattern by now, don’t you? The then DCEO Mick Quinn got away with more malfeasance than imaginable due to his higher level supporter in government in Canberra.

Why has CASA learned nothing from ‘Lockhart River’ and in fact developed a systemic internal system void of any solid leadership and technically skilled inspectors? Until 12 months ago CASA did not have a structured quality training program for inspectorate staff until hearing that the FAA and ICAO were going to tear through the place again in November then they introduced a program which they pulled the pin on after the FAA went away. Can CASA explain why they are solely a reactive organization rather than an oversight body that should act predicatively to prevent accidents happening? Can the director explain why he is unable to make a sound decision on any matter without the permission of the corporate services executive manager who boasts continually about how ‘he and his staff ‘run the place as they see fit, and are proud of this fact and proud of how they laugh at how the director has his balls held between the Minister and the corporate services executive managers hands? Maybe the corproate services executive manager can explain why a ‘number of individuals’ still serving within CASA have in their current portfolio’s evidential documents and audio recordings which contain details of the executive manager of corporate services corrupt practices, non compliance with legal responsibilities, gross misconduct while performing the role of a public servant and wilful, planned and purposeful disregard for internal procedures? The individuals who hold this damning evidence are waiting for the correct moment to unleash this information, so stay tuned as it is coming.


Can CASA explain why it told a senate enquiry two years ago that it has a system in place to train inspectors (did not actually commence until thirty weeks ago), and why it did not truthfully state that it has undergone cost cutting exercises to remove the amount of inspectors, remove flying and lisense certification and endorsements for aircraft type from its inspectors so as to save money, again actioned by the executive manager of corporate services, the current assistant director and the former head of finance, who was there former partner in crime? Where is the accountability? Can CASA explain why its senior managers remain in those roles when they have multiple litigation issues pending against them internally and externally due to abysmal intimadatory behavior?


Can CASA explain why its workforce have been secretly discussing putting forward a motion of no confidence in the director, assistant director and corporate services executive manager, all who have all been campaigning against past and present staff as well as members of industry, sullying these peoples reputations and destroying individuals careers all while representing an Australian government department and Australian interests? Is this acceptable to the taxpayers of Australia? In fact members of the aviation community are providing inspectors documented proof of proven factual accounts of conspiracy and harassment from managers at the highest level of this self imploding organization. Inspectors across CASA also have and are keeping personal ‘dirt files’ which consists of evidence of bullying behavior by executive managers along with documented evidence of doctored reports and findings that are changed at the highest levels to prevent embarrassing leaks to the outside world about CASA’s softly softly approach to sweeping matters under the carpet to protect certain large operators. Your alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear by now folks. This is not fantasy, it is fact.


Is it feasible that the director of CASA be known as a bully, tyrant, and an integral part of the Cathay Pacific star chamber prior to employment with CASA, and he is a legend at harrassing, bullying and sacking innocent honest staff? Is it acceptable that the deputy director be promoted to that role while under investigation for his actions of bullying, intimidation and his preposterous dealing and manner involving a certain innocent West Australian operator and a host of others? Is it acceptable that the former DCEO of CASA be known as a drunken racist bully who promoted a female staff member he was ‘involved’ with while all the staff knew of these activities including the former CEO of CASA and executive manager of corporate services?

Executive management has deliberately, systematically and willfully turned their backs on public service laws, government laws and accountability requirements. Ritualistic and systemic abuse of staff and industry is a daily event. It is time for the public and media to accept that Ausralia has a basket case on its hands and demand answers and justice. Mr. Albanese you also have a lot to answer for. I would suggest that the memebers of the inquiry stand up and get rid of this empire of incompetence because the system has failed beyond repair. CASA senior management are a bunch of overpaid oxygen thieves bulging with greed and ego and spend their days protecting their own self interests rather than serving and protecting the travelling public. While all this takes place safety remains compromised and we draw ever closer o the inevitable major catastrophe that those inside the aviation community are aware is imminent.
Does the public know that even the government acknowledges internally that it cannot control Mr. McCormick and his arrogant disdain for fellow humans in general, hence it concocted the associate director role for Mr. Alleck? You see Mr. Farquharson, the deputy director in this charade has a mountain of litigation against him (refer to Polar Air vs CASA for starters) so he won’t ever become director. The government need a backup plan which is Mr. Alleck, a lawyer by trade who is notorious for acting slower than an injured tortoise (which incidentally costs the taxpayer millions of dollars annually in lost time through his ridiculous inept decision making) and he will step in as director the next time Mr. McCormick completely puts his foot in his mouth. Mr. Aleck is a puppet master and truly ingenious shuffler of facts and hider of truths and has for years set up distractions, untruths and fictitious data before each senate session CASA is called to. A truly horrid waste of money paying this three ringed circus to run the regulator. And let’s not forget the other facts emerging in the senate inquiry painting a thoroughly disgraceful picture of the true workings of this malfeasant government empire. Not to mention the public input and the privately backed large scale multi party action against CASA currently taking place. The situation is parlous and unmanageable.
Although I am one of many who are a victim of this draconic insepid regulatory outfit, I choose to remain annonomous not for my benefit, but for the benefit of family, friends and the god people who work at CASA who are also innocent victims in this dangerous safety chess game called CASA.

[Frank Arouet]

Sh!t mate. Watch your back, we need you to stand up one day and tell this story without having the fear of exposing your identity.

You can trust your post will get a lot of airing on various mediums world wide now you have put this in the public domain.

I'd like to shake your hand and share a beer one day Digger.

[VH-XXX]

I concur. Remember back as to how much money was spent finding out a particular PPruner's identity through the legal system so you need to be prepared to back up your comments.