No Confidence. Vote here.

[gobbledock]

Two bob

Oh yes I see it now.

Match of the day on WWECASA, 'Mad Bob Hatter vs The Screaming Skull'. The match to be scheduled for one fall only, Katter wearing his bushwacker outfit and the Skull in his ridiculous Friday Hawaiin shirt while chomping on a stoogie.
Then followed closely by a cage match featuring 8 executives all fighting for a ringside seat at the trough! On offer are bonuses, ICAO ollie jollie's, business class travel and Chairmans Lounge membership. C/mon boys, lets bring home the bacon and leeeeeeeeeeeets get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kharon]

Not my fault.

Wasn't this the site that was advertising no confidence in CASA?

I wonder . Which one does he mean ??. I mean there are so very many options to choose from. Here are but two.

CASA integrity survey.

No confidence in CASA.

Puzzled now. (Not being too bright at all). Why does he wonder how all this occurred ?; after all the Senate swallowed the last lot of pony pooh, didn't they ??. Huh, they did, yes, yes ??.

They did, it's all cool boys, so back to the trough.

High Ho – away we go.

[Counter-rotation]

FlyingFiend wrote:

Well, if we look at the numbers that are in the public domain:

1. Pilots in OZ: approx 30,000.
2. LAMEs in OZ: approx 7000.

On the top line of the equation: your petition supporters, add in those who 'fear retribution' for good measure and what do you get with this recipe?

A dissatisfied percentage of .7%!!!

If you think that statement is correct, my god! Allow me to enlighten you (apologies if someone already has)...

If someone DIDN'T RESPOND, you can't assume their view (ie. "no problem with CASA") for them. Get it?

A dissatisfied percentage of .7%!!!

Ah, the number you are actually looking for is over 75% - That's the responses (of the total responses) that AGREE WITH THE PETITION

What does RTFQ stand for again?!

Even a "No" response to the poll doesn't neccesarily mean the respondent is satisfied with CASA! It just means they're not going to sign the petition.

Try this (then tell me things are OK with CASA!):

Agree with petition, versus Disagree with the petition (round numbers for the dum-dums)

ABOUT TEN FOR EVERY ONE!

I'm actually surprised it's not higher...

CR.

[Kharon]

Just caught up

Thanks CR, but unfortunately you too have it wrong. (Close but no ceegar).

The mini survey currently running is providing some up tp date results.

Viz: Q1), 1. Do you have confidence and trust in the regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority? Note: If you answered YES, please go to ( 16 ).

As of lunch time today 94.81%. Can you guess which box got ticked ??.

2 minutes and it's free ;- CASA Integrity Survey.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Would be interested in anybody with evidence of bullying and harassment by casa. Either as employee, delegate or anybody in industry.

Personally I think a few good cases will expose HR and others behavior.

[gobbledock]

Biscuit, history is littered with cases of bullying by this mob, both internally and externally. Not much can be done when they are protected by government.
CASA is a bully breeding ground as if they bully industry and you win your case against them te taxpayer kicks the tin and each CASA employee receives indemnity, that is standard. So they cannot lose!!
Internally if bullying is proven they still dont sack the bully, they simply move them on to another role, project, floor in the building and so the ferris wheel goes.

I like how they received additional funding of $89 million, a lot of that earmarked for 'select individuals' to give them salaries commensurate with industry yet they are financially rogering the inspectors, trying to cut endorsement allowances, allowing enterprise bargaining time frames to lapse, and currently there is talk of a 'walk out' and union action!
Again, more proof of a disconnected workforce and managements inabilty to oversight Australlian aviation when they can't pay their **** kickers properly!

Maybe the Board can address these issues when they have their once a year meeting?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Yes, understand how they operate. Tax payers money to the rescue. If you take any action they will wear you down financially and emotionally.

Heard some outrageous allegations made against people. Wingers, underperformers and even multiple personalities and deep hatred of casa. Although can't believe last two really? Surely with such a robust policy this wouldn't happen?

[Kharon]

Nah, all good.

Biscuit. If all we had to worry about was the odd bit of push and shove I would be in the pub, not a care in the world. But there's a lot more to it than that.

It's the corporate mendacity, operational incompetence, outrageous arrogance and totally untouchable defence mechanism protecting what is, arguably one of the most pathetic regulators in the world keeps me ticking. Tick Tock: of course, not their fault, arses covered from here to next pancake day.

We are a total international joke, a light weight; FCS great weather, few aircraft, unlimited budget and PNG beats us hands down. No wonder etc. etc.

Arrgh – steam off.

[Sarcs]

Another probing article from Ben, well worth a read:Explosives detectors added at Melbourne Airport, uselessly | Plane Talking

As GD would say..."Tick Tock!"

[Counter-rotation]

Thanks Kharon, but I don't smoke anyway...

[gobbledock]

The day of reckoning draws closer. Tick tock

Ben is right on the money, as usual. Hopefully Senator X is at least listening to some of Ben's writings.
I have picked out some nuggets from his article. Most of it we already to know, but it is worthy refeshing the memories or educating those who don't know;

If it hadn’t been for significant diplomatic pressure and special pleading Australia would have lost its Level One safety rating with ICAO and more importantly the US Federal Aviation Administration. Substantial efforts are being made to fix those deficiencies, starting with CASA’s own infamously late program of regulatory reforms, but at times that process has thrown up strange decisions that threaten rather than enhance safety.

Oh yes, great job indeed CASA. Taking Australian aviation to an all time low. Three cheers for incompetence.

One of the casualties of that process has been the deliberate striking down of higher Australian safety standards to the levels of ‘world’s best practice’ as a process of international regulatory harmonisation.
A dangerous example of this has been CASA’s approval of the removal of special life rafts from the Qantaslink Dash 8 turbo-props that fly the very long and exposed over water route between Sydney and Lord Howe Island.
Why should Australians flying a Qantas turbo-prop across the sea for around 105 minutes have their life rafts taken away, when wide body domestic jets are fitted with a much higher level of raft capacity even though most of those flights scarcely cross water at all?
The answer appears to be to make us conform with international standards. And to give Qantas an extra row of seats, that in its wisdom, it had for many years sacrificed in order to minimise the obvious special operational risk of the Lord Howe Island route. CASA spent two weeks preparing what I understood was an answer to this question, only to shrug and walk away.

More pathetic decision making and mishandling. These unsafe decisions are what happens when bureaucrats, has-beens, lawyers and pensioners are in the drivers seat. TICK TOCK.

Reputational damage control appears to be the only plausible explanation of the ATSB having a final report shown as all but complete a year ago on the Norfolk Island ditching of a Pel-Air air ambulance flight and still not having an agreed final report that it can publish.
One of the key issues to be resolved over that incident is why CASA framed a regulation which appears to have been specifically designed to indulge small operators with the right to do incredibly stupid and dangerous things in planning over water flights classified as ‘aerial work.’ (A difficult issue for the head of air safety at CASA, John McCormick, since it happened before he took over, and is presumably one of many, many things he has to undo.)

This type of situation was predicted a long time before it ocurred, but of course the upper echelon of incompetents at CASA wouldn't listen to the Inspectors pointing out the risk.TICK TOCK.

While the government has substantially improved funding for CASA and the ‘independent’ safety investigator, the ATSB, it is reasonable to argue that both have been short changed, and need more in order to bring the reality of safety in Australian skies up to the same heights as the public perception.
The technical work of the ATSB is outstanding, but also very late. And at times, lacking in consistency.
There has been a rise in air traffic control incidents which ought not be excused by the rapid expansion of air travel, given that by any crash statistic flight in anything larger than a small piston engined commuter aircraft has improved to unprecedented levels of low risk.
In the past 12 months the ATSB has identified quite serious lapses in training and professional standards in AirServices Australia, yet, to date, the response from the Minister’s department concerning the need for an independent inquiry into its performance has been that it is perfectly appropriate for it to inquire into itself. It isn’t.
This is an extract from a report on this late last year.

On 8 October AirServices Australia cleared a private corporate jet, a Gulfstream IV, to descend through the same flight level that a Virgin Australia 737-800 was cruising at on a crossing path as it took around 180 passengers from Brisbane to Sydney.
The private jet was on its way to the Gold Coast, and the incident occurred in the air space near Armidale.
The ATSB recently published what is a truly damning report concerning a close encounter between a Qantas Cityflyer 767 (250 seats) and a Tiger Airways A320 (180 seats) above Tamworth on 1 July last year.
The incident was every bit as serious as two other instances of gross incompetence by AirServices Australia involving a near miss between an Emirates 777 and a Qantas 737-800 on 3 September 2009 and another involving a Cathay Pacific A330 and a Virgin Blue 737-800 near Darwin on 22 December 2009.
The common element in these reports is that the ATSB found that AirServices Australia had allowed inadequately trained officers to manage the separation of jets carrying hundreds of passengers.
When Plane Talking queried the situation with the office of the Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, it was told on the record that it was perfectly appropriate for AirServices Australia to undertake its own reviews of the issues, that public safety wasn’t compromised and, to revert to the short form of words, this writer should get lost.
These serial failures by AirServices Australia raise issues of criminal liability concerning public safety, they require urgent and diligent independent review, they require an action plan to replace a derelict administration of training and safety in AirServices Australia, and above all, they require corrective action before the Minister has to deal with heavy loss of life and an unavoidable Royal Commission.

Whether through approved statements by their chief pilots, or directly from management, all of the major carriers in Australia have expressed dissatisfaction, and even fear, of the risks of a collision in Australian air space, including situations where separation is the responsibility of military controllers where the airlines share an airfield, such as at the Newcastle and Darwin airports and air force bases.
Firing the head of a training college is not the solution to the problem, as happened recently, although it is perhaps a start.
Another operational risk to Australia’s reputation is Jetstar’s apparent serial inability to put competent first officers into its jets, and the ATSB’s reluctance to consistently inquire into major failures of what is known as cockpit resource management or CRM.
The ATSB inquired into an incident in July last year in which an experienced captain was actually found by Jetstar’s own internal inquiry to have struggled to deal with incompetency on the part of a first officer who seemed to believe in mental telepathy as to who was doing what during an aborted low level approach to Melbourne Airport.
However the ATSB decided not to inquire into a second incident in November last year in which Jetstar employed a first officer so incompetent that the incorrect wing flap setting was twice selected on an approach to Cairns.
If that sort of safety risk is manifested in the cockpit of an Australian airliner the ATSB ought to inquire. Not to inquire adds to the reputational damage recent events have caused to the conduct of aviation administration in this country.
Coming back to the press release that has encouraged this article, I’ve tested positive on about one occasion a year to an explosives trace at an Australian airport for the last two to three years. I live on a farm, so this isn’t surprising, given possible skin and clothing exposure to traces of fertilisers. However on each occasion I was asked if I lived or worked on a farm or near chemicals, and re-tested with the wand held backwards so that the problem would go away, making it obvious to me that this is all part of the theatre of airport security, and that if all those who tested positive were detained and thoroughly checked out, the airports would grind to a halt.

The ATSB has also been badly infected by 'Bureaucratitis' and has declined in it's ability to investigate or provide mitigation suggestions effectively due to its spin doctoring political footstool managers. TCK TOCK.

It is a charade.

Ben, indeed how true. A charad to the very end. To be played out on a runway or hillside near you soon. TICK TOCK.

[LeadSled]

Blind Freddy can see the coalition would do nothing. That's what they did all through the Howard years. That's when many of the criminal acts by CASA occurred and when $200 million plus was spent on the Regulation rewrite for ZERO result.

Not quite true, both Sharp and Vaile were activist Ministers for Transport, and between 1996 and 1998, we did get the reformed design, certification and manufacturing rules in place. They have been beneficial across the board, but have made a major contribution to the expansion of RAOz and home builts ---- the major number of new "Australian" aircraft come in these two categories.

However, it is quite true that from John Anderson on, CASA has been "back in the saddle", and the "results" are there for all to see, a voluminous increase in regulatory material, indeed an explosive growth by page count (the present Minister's preferred measure of effective Government) , but hardly "reformed".

Tootle pip!!

[Sarcs]

Minister Fumblenese plagiarising and blaming the mad monk!

Transport Minister used lines from Michael Douglas movie The American President | News.com.au

This is the bloke overseeing CASA, god help us!!!

Perhaps he could ask Ozzie of the year Geoffrey Rush for help with his lines and his speech impediment.

[jas24zzk]

albanese with cheese.

Guaranteed to be mouldy

[Sarcs]

RAT Senate Estimates 14/02/2012

I don't think CASA are going to duck this one! Onya Senator Eggleston

Senator EGGLESTON: I would like to ask a question about a company called Polar Aviation based in Port Hedland. Are you aware of that company?
Mr McCormick: Yes, I am.
Senator EGGLESTON: I wish to make some inquiries about the cost of CASA's various legal cases against Polar Aviation. Polar Aviation is a small Port Hedland aviation company which I understand has been in dispute with CASA since 2004. This has led to a series of legal actions beginning with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and then the Federal Court, all of which Polar Aviation has won and all of which cases have been appealed by CASA. I understand that now, eight years later, CASA is still appealing the decisions made about Polar Aviation. In fact, the managing director of Polar Aviation has said to me in a letter describing this process:
What followed was a relentless vendetta to close the company down. The court action that followed was defended in the AAT and the Federal Court and Polar Aviation has won on all occasions.
This case is now eight years old, as I said. All this man, Clark Butson, says he wants to do is:
… tell my story to a judge. All CASA wants to do is avoid that process at any cost. This case has real relevance and should be tested in a court. If CASA has nothing to fear why will they not bring it on?
What bothers me is that this is a small company. CASA represents the Commonwealth government and has used the financial resources of the Commonwealth government to try to shut down this very successful and respected airline in the Pilbara. I would like to have—and I ask for it to be provided on notice—a detailed summary of the costs incurred by CASA in the various legal actions against Polar Aviation.
Mr McCormick: I will ask the chief legal officer to actually give you some background. It is fair to say that Mr Butson is a bit delusional—
Senator EGGLESTON: I beg your pardon?
Mr McCormick: He is a bit delusional if that is what he thinks the outcome of the court cases has been so far.
Senator EGGLESTON: He has won them all so far. If that is a delusion, then perhaps we should go to the judges.
Mr McCormick: I have asked the chief legal officer, Mr Adam Anastasi, to fill you in.
Mr Anastasi: By way of background it is correct that in 2005 CASA cancelled Mr Butson's chief pilot approval and the air operator's certificate of Polar Aviation. There was a subsequent hearing of the AAT. In the course of that hearing the matters were resolved by consent between the parties and that resulted in the decision to cancel Mr Butson's chief pilot approval being affirmed and the decision to cancel Polar Aviation's air operator's certificate being set aside.
Subsequent to that, Polar Aviation and Mr Butson commenced legal proceedings against CASA and various of its officers in the Federal Court of Australia; that is, his action against CASA. In that regard, on 30 September 2011, the Federal Court dismissed his statement of claim in its entirety. Mr Butson and Polar Aviation have now appealed that judgment to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and, as I said, that is his action against CASA. It is a claim for damages against CASA. The court has dismissed his claim—so I will stop there.
CASA can provide information concerning its legal costs in the tribunal proceedings. The current Federal Court litigation is one in which Comcover, as our insurer, has instructed external lawyers to represent CASA and its officer, so CASA is not paying legal fees in that regard. That is a matter for Comcover as to whom they instruct and on what basis. But in that regard, at least at this point in time, Polar Aviation has been ordered to pay CASA's legal costs.
Senator EGGLESTON: Is it not the case that Polar Aviation’s operating licences were restored and the case against you was for damages, for loss of income and other factors? I am not so much interested in the legal issues, which of course at the moment are sub judice; I am very interested in the total cost of the legal cases which CASA has brought against this small company over the last eight years.
Mr Anastasi: CASA has brought no action against those persons or the company. On odd occasions it has been either Polar Aviation and Mr Butson’s applications either to the tribunal or to the Federal Court. Obviously, when a party is aggrieved with an administrative decision of the authority they can seek review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As I said, I am happy on notice to give you information about our legal costs in the tribunal proceedings. But in terms of the Federal Court proceedings, again commenced by those parties against CASA, we are not privy to Comcover’s legal expenditure.
Senator EGGLESTON: Your story is not quite what I have heard. I think you are resisting the damages claim. I would seek leave to table this letter.
CHAIR: Do you have further questions on those?
Senator EGGLESTON: No, I will not. I may put further questions on notice.
CHAIR: Thank you.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

I urge anybody with similar stories that can help show these tactics are not isolated to write to Senator Eggleston.


Please e-mail [email protected]

Delusional!

[flyingfiend]

tactics / Polar won every case?

I imagine you are referring to the tactics of Butson and Polar?

The case history is here:
AustLII Results - title(civil aviation safety authority )

It would appear that Butson and Polar have attempted to bring an action for damages against CASA and an action, including but not limited to, of misfeasance against various CASA officers.

There are questions of jurisdiction and questions of time elapsed since the AAT hearing from which these actions arise.

I fail to see where Polar has ever 'won'. Indeed, the last paragraph of the December 2011 hearing perhaps best summarises the action so far:


'The FASC ( amended statement of claim. i.e. what Butson and Polar rely on to support their various contentions. FF) pleads no cause of action other than those considered in these reasons. Accordingly, the whole of the FASC is struck out. There is nothing in the FASC, the evidence before the court, or the parties’ submissions that might discloses the existence of a cause of action beyond those already discussed. There is no proper basis to grant leave to re-plead. As Lindgren J said in White Industries (at 309 [47]: see [18] above), “[a] failure after ample opportunity to plead a reasonable cause of action may suggest that none exists and therefore that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success”. This is just such a case. Having regard to the history of the pleading, the evidence, and the parties’ submissions, I am persuaded that Polar and Mr Butson have no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. Accordingly, I would give judgment for the respondents against the applicants pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court Act. I would make orders accordingly'.

Butson and Polar are now appealing this decision to the Full Bench of the Federal Court.

The case histories indicate that CASA has brought NO action against Butson or Polar Aviation other than the original enforcement action in 2004 that Butson et al applied to the AAT to be reviewed.

The AAT appears to have affirmed CASA's decision to cancel Butson's CP approval and to have set aside the decision to cancel Polar's AOC. The AOC was issued with conditions including, it seems, with a prohibition on some of Butson's activities.

Butson's contention in the Senator's letter that CASA is pursuing him is not supported by the case records. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Every time Butson and Polar have pursued CASA, they have been unsuccessful which has lead to them applying for leave to appeal, which up to now has been granted.

This appeal to the Full Bench is most probably the last throw of the dice for Butson and Polar.

Interesting that the Senator has tabled that letter into Hansard, humm...

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Flying fiend You appear to hav a lot of information on this case and a strong supporter of casa? Please read this paragraph.

Senator EGGLESTON: Is it not the case that Polar Aviation’s operating licences were restored and the case against you was for damages, for loss of income and other factors? I am not so much interested in the legal issues, which of course at the moment are sub judice; I am very interested in the total cost of the legal cases which CASA has brought against this small company over the last eight years.

It appears to be more about how casa have treated this person and the company and how the power of a government department was used against him that has the senator concerned.

[Sunfish]

Let me get this straight. The owner of Polar Air has made enough money to pay for Lawyers to take his case to the highest court in the land and he is "delusional"?

We all know that laws and regulations can and are applied very selectively when a public servant feels like it. The CASA regulations, being deliberately vague and self referential, are an open invitation to temptation for an annoyed public servant.

What CASA appears to have successfully argued is that its actions were legal. The question however is a little wider than that.

It appears that the only long term solution is separation of regulation from enforcement.

[Sarcs]

Interesting to note how similar FF's post sounds to the regulator's CLO Ana'stasi' (see he has even got it in his name), is that a lawyer thing or is FF maybe AA's script writer? Now there's a rumour!

Mr Anastasi: By way of background it is correct that in 2005 CASA cancelled Mr Butson's chief pilot approval and the air operator's certificate of Polar Aviation. There was a subsequent hearing of the AAT. In the course of that hearing the matters were resolved by consent between the parties and that resulted in the decision to cancel Mr Butson's chief pilot approval being affirmed and the decision to cancel Polar Aviation's air operator's certificate being set aside.
Subsequent to that, Polar Aviation and Mr Butson commenced legal proceedings against CASA and various of its officers in the Federal Court of Australia; that is, his action against CASA. In that regard, on 30 September 2011, the Federal Court dismissed his statement of claim in its entirety. Mr Butson and Polar Aviation have now appealed that judgment to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and, as I said, that is his action against CASA. It is a claim for damages against CASA. The court has dismissed his claim—so I will stop there.