casa and economic control of the aircraft industry

[Up-into-the-air]

Is this financial blackmail, Personal blackmail or simply business blackmail??

How many actions by casa are on an AOC or MA are just "economic" and not related to safety matters and could be properly dealt with on a discussion basis??

This is particularly in the case of Central Maintenance and casa [Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (corrigendum 9 February 2009) [2009] FCA 49 (6 February 2009) ]

This resulted in a set of conditions, which effectively changed the relationship of Central’s ownership and business workings as a condition to allowing the maintenance authority to continue.

These conditions were set out by the Tribunal as follows, [when casa disallowed the owner to be the "LAME"]:

1. Central Aviation must employment on a full-time basis a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (the LAME) acceptable to CASA;

2. The LAME must supervise all maintenance activities and conduct all certifications for maintenance as required by and in accordance with Schedule 6 to the CAR;

3. The LAME may organise another appropriately qualified and licensed engineer (other than the first applicant), who is listed in the Register of Appointed Persons in Central Aviation’s Procedures Manual: To supervise and certify all maintenance carried out by Central Aviation during any periods when the LAME is absent due to sickness, leave or personal commitments;

4. Central Aviation must employ an appropriately qualified, independent auditor (the Auditor) acceptable to CASA;

5. The Auditor must conduct comprehensive quality and safety systems audits on a 6 monthly schedule and provide a report to Central Aviation within two weeks of the completion of each audit;

6. Central Aviation must cause a copy of each audit report to be provided to CASA (Sydney Region Office) concurrently with the provision of the report to Central Aviation; and

7. Central Aviation must employ a technical records clerk to maintain the maintenance data necessary for all operation.

Full reference is at Federal Court: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (corrigendum 9 February 2009) [2009... Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (corrigendum 9 February 2009) [2009] FCA 49 (6 February 2009)...
9 of 20 1/2/2012 10:16 AM

[Horatio Leafblower]

It's called QA.

The existing management team (whoever that may be) is obviously not doing an acceptable job.

CASA cannot be there to catch every mistake, shortcut or breach for any operator or CofA holder.

The onus is shifting onto industry to maintain its own QA processes in the belief (however correct or mistaken it may be) that a company that identifies its own shortfalls and takes action to prevent them will be safer than one that simply carries on covering things up, fat/dumb/happy until CASA turn up again.

The same approach is being applied to all sectors of the industry - You can try and fight it, but you will never win.

...and if you can't beat 'em...

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and economic stressors

The ultimate prescriptive control of CP's, AOC holders and MA holders, does not necessarily lead to good safety outcomes, nor to positive co-operation by all participants. This does not include the "beating up" of participants by the regulator.

A read of previous documents says:

1. Voluntary reporting of relevant safety information is a vital process which ensures airlines, regulators and manufacturers become aware of maintenance and operational issues and is an essential part of the process that has delivered, and continues to provide, improvements in aviation safety.
2. That view, about the importance and effectiveness of voluntary disclosure programs, has been recognized in other jurisdictions and, in particular in a 2 September 2008 report to the US Secretary of Transportation “Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: a Review of the FAA’s Approach to safety ”.
3. The proposition that it is essential to protect aviation related safety information from inappropriate use has been recognized as fundamentally important by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (“ICAO”).
4. On 3 March 2006 ICAO adopted amendments to Attachment E to Annexure 13 to the Convention on International aviation safety. (Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention on International aviation safety.. Section 3A of the Air Navigation Act 1920 approves the ratification of the convention. CASA is required, by section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act, to perform its functions consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Convention.)
5. The Convention amendments are intended to prevent the inappropriate use of information collected solely for the purpose of improving aviation safety. The attachment itself is aimed at assisting participating states to enact “national laws and regulations to protect information gathered from safety data collection and processing systems ..., while allowing for the proper administration of justice.”
6. The specific considerations expressed in the attachment are that safety information should not be used in a way different from the purpose for which it was collected.
7. Safety information should qualify for protection from inappropriate use according to specified conditions. Those conditions include, in particular, a stipulation that disclosure of the information would inhibit the continued availability of aviation safety information.

Source: ATA asta and Anor and Civil Safety Authority [2010] AATA 499 (6 July 2010)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I don't believe this is a case of CASA exercising "economic" management of the industry. This case is quite well known at YSBK, and in similar cases, similar conditions have been imposed.

Having said that, I am of the view that CASA ( or probably more correctly, some individual employees of CASA) exercise a level of defacto economic control, despite the Act clearly prohibiting CASA from making decisions on other than safety grounds.

Predecessors of CASA have had power to regulate the commercial activities of the aviation sector, old habits die hard.

Then, of course, there are always a steady flow of allegations of what is "favoritism", but sometimes probably bordering on low level corruption, where some operators (regarded by their peers as being rather spotty operators) seem to have a dream run, while their competitors are in never ending trouble.

The matters of which I am aware in detail, that turned out to be justified complaints, were very smartly resolved by the then CASA CEO, particularly Bruce Byron. In each case, the problems came about by the actions of individual FOIs or AWIs, and previous employers or "friends".

Tootle pip!!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Then, of course, there are always a steady flow of allegations of what is "favoritism", but sometimes probably bordering on low level corruption, where some operators (regarded by their peers as being rather spotty operators) seem to have a dream run, while their competitors are in never ending trouble.

Is this a failing of CASA where different inspectors or offices have differing views on an individual or operator for example. In previous threads numerous people have stated we do not have clear rules but 'opinions' open to interpretation. Clearer regulations and better training of staff would result in a more consistent approach. The FAA also has a rule to stop individuals dealing with previous employers (or other conflicts) for minimum of 2 years.

[LeadSled]

Halfman---
And the FAA has very clearly laid down standards for all its inspectors, the various handbooks are available on-line, and FAA do a more than reasonable job in training and standardizing inspectors.n

Just as important, FAA have quite high minimum experience requirements for employment as either a (their equivalent of) FOI or AWI.

Most of the "new" CASA inspectors I have recently come across are not within a bulls roar of the minimum FAA standards, quite apart from the lack of training and standardization ---- of which FAA made a point in its CASA audit some little time ago.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

There are rival operators until someone's CASA mate comes along and all bets are off. "CRONYISM" is the word that keeps coming to mind.

[gobbledock]

Clowns

Biscuit, there is a good reason why the rules aren't clear. There is a good reason 'opinions', 'personal interpretation', and 'intent' are so prevalent with CASA. The current structure of Australian aviation is a hybrid monster, it is a lawyers creation that has been created with the intent to protect the regulator and government at any cost and prevent them being found to be wrong on any matter. It is a game of stacking all the cards in their favor, they cannot lose.

CASA is not about safety or regulations, it is about individuals self gain, what THEY can get out of the system at any cost. Passenger safety is the last thing on their minds. It is about personal vandettas, payback, persecution and punishment of anybody who dare prove that they are in the wrong or incorrect on a matter. In fact they are a government sanctioned and accepted public service entity granted full power to quite simply do whatever they wish, whether it be right or wrong, fair or unfair, justifiable or unjustifiable, with no accountability to anyone. Here lies the heart of the problem.

Only two things will fix this problem. Some miracle stemming from the senate inquiry or a smoking hole. That is the point we are at. It can be avoided. To use a CASA analogy you need to be proactive not reactive. Well the voices have been shouting out loud from within industry for some time now - FIX THE PROBLEM. CASA has to go. Sadly that would take a proactive approach and the government prefers the reactive approach, so we sit back and await the 'coming day of change', the day that will make everybody from bureaucrat to critic sit up and listen, yep a hole full of smoldering torso's.

TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

[Kharon]

The root of all Evil

Ah, but there is method in the madness; now we see there is a good reason for the P. P. Performance. We are being protected from over spending on the bonus system. You can see it; if they turned in a stellar performance we simply could not afford to keep the little darlings. Yup, it all makes sense now.

Performance bonus.
2010 - $458,704.
2011- $643,516.

Source – Willyleaks;
CASA 2012 Bonus Points system.

Talk believable bollocks at the Senate - 200. (Conditions apply).
Develop a long delay tactic for regulatory reform. - 199.
Develop a short delay tactic for regulatory reform. = 198.
Defer ICAO downgrade - 197. (Conditions apply).
Delay FAA downgrade - 197. (Conditions apply).
Invent new money wasting project - 196. (Refer Spin rules)
Totally Wreck a business - 195. (Variable scale).
Partially destroy a business - 194.

N.B. Additional points for each Pilot of LAME crucifixion. Additional points may be awarded on a variable scale against the perceived qualities of your efforts against the industry. Spin must be supported by policy.

Pork crackling and bacon sambo's anyone.


CASA Integrity Poll

[Up-into-the-air]

More casa data

From the casa 2009 - 2010 - 2011 annual report [in millions]:

Balance Sheet items from casa's annual report:


and casa sought a further $89 million from the Government

In raw terms, some $189,173 per employee.


And as for ATSB, who are responsible for investigations of life's problems, have a budget as follows:

[Up-into-the-air]

casa and Conflict of Interest

SUGGESTION 1 for a positive change to go forward in 2012.

The US - FAA regs provide for a seperation of employment by a period of two years in FAA employees who seek work in the private sector, then have dealings on the part of an employer or in a contractural sense with the FAA.

This makes sense, as it would go a long way towards dealing with preferential treatment as already seen in Australia in operators having AOC's granted or preference shown to AOC holders or applicants in other matters by casa.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAR [119.73] is as follows:

§ 119.73 Employment of former FAA employees.

(a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years—

(1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and

(2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder.

(b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector.

(c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before October 21, 2011.

[Doc. No. FAA–2008–1154, 76 FR 52235, Aug. 22, 2011]

[T28D]

This will never see the light of day here, too many snouts in the trough, post employment contracting is a CASA way of boosting superannuation for its loyal jackboot group.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

119.73 wasn't mentioned in the Senate Inquiry despite such a situation being discussed. One person had two hats on during questioning, previous role as CASA manager of office over sighting the airline he joined.

It may not be on the agenda here although bet it is on the agenda for FAA audits of overseas NAA's.

[roulette]

Is CASA supposed to make a profit? A government regulatory authority? Why bother reporting EBIT?

Needless to say, this is not a good measure of dollars spent vs safety outcomes!

[gobbledock]

Snort snort

Biscuit, Good pick-up. Glad to see somebody else apart from myself noticed that joke.

119.73 wasn't mentioned in the Senate Inquiry despite such a situation being discussed. One person had two hats on during questioning, previous role as CASA manager of office over sighting the airline he joined.

Lets call this airline person Mr X. Now, when employed at CASA Mr X worked alongside another CASA colleague whom we will call MR Y. Now after Mr X leaves and goes to work for the airline in question Mr Y resigns from CASA for other reasons. Not long afterwards Mr Y returns to CASA as a 'consultant' of course. Mr Y then goes and participates on the AOC audit of the airline in question, where Mr X is of course working!!
And no, they were not miles apart during the audit, they were very close together as previously at CASA both Mr X and Mr Y worked hand in hand.

Nothing unusual in that. One chump in Brisbane was also allowed to take LWAO from CASA for several months and go and set up an AOC holders SMS, then return to CASA. He also had building access at CASA during that time frame and used to come in and check his emails etc!! No conflict of interest in that one!
I am still waiting for all the dirty laundry to be aired as to why the HR Manager left! I know why, but waiting for the dirt to slide out from under the carpet...It will gradually. Senior management are a joke.

Roulette,

Is CASA supposed to make a profit? A government regulatory authority? Why bother reporting EBIT?

No, they cannot earn a profit, that is a no no. The reason for EBIT is the usual government bull**** - to produce financial facts to show the 'taxpayer' that there hard earned money is being used in a 'clear, transparent, robust, effective and correct manner', which is a crock of **** when you look at how much they are wasting on luicrous salaries, international buiness travel, jollies, folly, bonuses, failed projects, failed reg reform, and unnecessary legal actions against innocent people.

[Kharon]

“Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”

“Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric moved:
To rear me was the task of Power divine,
Supremest Wisdom, and primeval Love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

(Dante Alighieri; 1265-1321).

Seems very appropriate to me.

Translation - You're stuffed mate, whichever way you wriggle.

[Kharon]

Bump then.

I know it's all numbers, but should a large profit be made in an environment where industry makes very little profit (ask Alan he'll tell ya).

Never was so much given, by so many for the benefit of so few.

My sincere apologies to Winny and his Black Dog.

[Dangly Bits]

Gobbledock, what is LWAO?

I'm assuming it is some sort of Leave if it was for several months.

DB

[gobbledock]

Dangler, basically it is leave without pay while still employed at Fort Fumble. It was for approximately 3 months.
At the time this occurred it was agreed upon and approved because a very senior person was good mates with a very senior person at the Operator in question.

[Dangly Bits]

Thanks Gobbledock.
Sounds a bit like the FOI in the same office selling Synthetic Trainers to the schools he oversights! Conflict of interest means nothing to some.
DB