Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom
It cracks me up that there are people who think that all the FOIs and AWIs and investigators are sitting around wondering what the "regulatory philosophy" is this week compared to last, and changing accordingly.
The "regulatory philosophy" is manifested in and dictated by the volume and content of the thousands of pages of laws that have been made. Mr Skidmore is just as bound as everyone else, and there is no "regulatory philosophy" that can make those laws mean something that they don't.
The "regulatory philosophy" is manifested in and dictated by the volume and content of the thousands of pages of laws that have been made. Mr Skidmore is just as bound as everyone else, and there is no "regulatory philosophy" that can make those laws mean something that they don't.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOIs and AWIs can't change the way they do business without support from the top. A good boss sets the tone and changing the culture of an organisation can be a powerful tool for good. Neither an optimist or a pessimist but the noises coming from the top indicate that the new boss has correctly identified the problem and is trying to articulate a way forward.
I really feel for the GA industry in this country, my limited time working in GA did not leave me with great expectations either. A turn around in the industry as a whole really needs a Transport minister to champion GA. I don't think changes at CASA alone will help.
I really feel for the GA industry in this country, my limited time working in GA did not leave me with great expectations either. A turn around in the industry as a whole really needs a Transport minister to champion GA. I don't think changes at CASA alone will help.
We may all be bound by laws, but how they're policed and applied can be a particularly variable thing as I'm sure we all know.
I'd say there's quite a bit of flexibility in how public officers of any kind approach their work, and some firm direction from above as to how the job should be done could certainly make a difference to the end results.
It might be just because I'm having a pre-BBQ beer on a Saturday arvo, but I feel a certain positivity in the air regarding a lot of this stuff.
I'd say there's quite a bit of flexibility in how public officers of any kind approach their work, and some firm direction from above as to how the job should be done could certainly make a difference to the end results.
It might be just because I'm having a pre-BBQ beer on a Saturday arvo, but I feel a certain positivity in the air regarding a lot of this stuff.
This cracks me up too: The misconception that a law has no consequences if a regulator changes its "philosophy".
Try reading the terms of any contract of insurance that you hope will save your house if you are involved in an accident. Your contract of employment has an implied, if not express, compliance with law clause. Try telling a coroner that you didn't have to comply with the law because the regulator had a "philosophy". The content of the sick, expensive joke that is the ATSB's report on the ditching of NGA had nothing to do with the regulator's "philosophy".
Try reading the terms of any contract of insurance that you hope will save your house if you are involved in an accident. Your contract of employment has an implied, if not express, compliance with law clause. Try telling a coroner that you didn't have to comply with the law because the regulator had a "philosophy". The content of the sick, expensive joke that is the ATSB's report on the ditching of NGA had nothing to do with the regulator's "philosophy".
This cracks me up too: The misconception that a law has no consequences if a regulator changes its "philosophy".
Laws exist, but they can and are policed and applied in all sorts of different ways.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Balloon, as an aviation professional I found the NGA ATSB report and CASA's response to be amatuer hour stuff. Any risk assessment of the operation should have raised alarm bells and led to mitigation strategies by the operator well before any accident occurred. No amount of rule making by office dwellers remote from the operation would have helped, however CASA should have been aware that the safety system was deficient well before the accident and acted.
I think we can agree that aviation regulation in this country has been poorly handled and major change is needed in the way regulations are conceived and written. Trying to read and interpret current regulations is a nightmare, they seem to be written in such a way as to support prosecution of legal cases rather than supporting sound safety decisions by operators. I still believe a good place to start is articulating what you are setting out to achieve, and then following through with changes that meet the aim.
I think we can agree that aviation regulation in this country has been poorly handled and major change is needed in the way regulations are conceived and written. Trying to read and interpret current regulations is a nightmare, they seem to be written in such a way as to support prosecution of legal cases rather than supporting sound safety decisions by operators. I still believe a good place to start is articulating what you are setting out to achieve, and then following through with changes that meet the aim.
Laws exist, but they can and are policed and applied in all sorts of different ways.
And among those ways are "inconsistently" and "arbitrarily" and "unpredictably", and the more laws there are the greater the scope for the foregoing. (You realise of course that no "regulatory philosophy" can stop or dictate the way in which FOIs and AWIs and investigators exercise their powers, even if it's the DAS's thought bubble?)
You should read the Report of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review, and mark the significance of Mr Skidmore's comments about it in front of the Senate Committee as well as his recent statements about Part 61. He's just going to keep on keeping on running the system that's adding rules to the regulatory dog's breakfast.
I suppose your point is that it doesn't matter if there are another couple of thousand pages of regulations in a few years, provided the regulator has a "philosophy" of policing and applying them ... what word encapsulates the concept ... hmmm ... "nicely"?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Balloon, agree laws should be simple enough that interpretation is not the problem. The sheer volume of our aviation regulations shows that there has been a problem in the approach used in the past.
My vote for understatement of the decade:
Ya reckon?
And they're about a quarter of the way through the process. However, because of the problems in the "new" regulations already made, projects to fix them will mean the program won't finish in the year 2075 as projected, but instead a considerable time after that.
Let's hope the rules are enforced "nicely" until at least then.
The sheer volume of our aviation regulations shows that there has been a problem in the approach used in the past.
And they're about a quarter of the way through the process. However, because of the problems in the "new" regulations already made, projects to fix them will mean the program won't finish in the year 2075 as projected, but instead a considerable time after that.
Let's hope the rules are enforced "nicely" until at least then.
*&^% CASA's "philosophy". &^%$ the DAS "new broom". Period.
What "philosophy" implies is that CASA staff have even more power to interpret the regulations to suit themselves to the detriment of safety, the aviation industry and all of us!! At best it is a well meaning temporary measure.
The essence of Weberian bureaucratic regulation as practiced by a Westminster democracy is strict delineation of authorities, processes and criteria for decision making. It was created thus to stamp out nepotism, corruption and a host of other ills. The key concept is again "the reasonable man" this time acting as a bureaucrat. Needless to say, CASA pays lip service to such concepts.
What "philosophy" is doing is saying the equivalent of an FOI saying: "the regulations say I can cut off your head for taking off with a tail wind, but instead, today, because I am a good guy, I like your face, the DAS says to play nice and the sun is shining I'm only going to fine you $500.00.".
Real reform is a rule stating " the penalty for taking off downwind is $500.00".
To put that yet another way; while a tolerant common sense "philosophy" is welcomed, it can be replaced in seconds with a draconian "zero tolerance" philosophy". Reform of regulations is required.
What "philosophy" implies is that CASA staff have even more power to interpret the regulations to suit themselves to the detriment of safety, the aviation industry and all of us!! At best it is a well meaning temporary measure.
The essence of Weberian bureaucratic regulation as practiced by a Westminster democracy is strict delineation of authorities, processes and criteria for decision making. It was created thus to stamp out nepotism, corruption and a host of other ills. The key concept is again "the reasonable man" this time acting as a bureaucrat. Needless to say, CASA pays lip service to such concepts.
What "philosophy" is doing is saying the equivalent of an FOI saying: "the regulations say I can cut off your head for taking off with a tail wind, but instead, today, because I am a good guy, I like your face, the DAS says to play nice and the sun is shining I'm only going to fine you $500.00.".
Real reform is a rule stating " the penalty for taking off downwind is $500.00".
To put that yet another way; while a tolerant common sense "philosophy" is welcomed, it can be replaced in seconds with a draconian "zero tolerance" philosophy". Reform of regulations is required.
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Sep 2015 at 11:16.
Are you suggesting that gestures like "philosophies" and "directives" should, in and of themselves, be a basis on which people should be "pleased"?
If so, it is an odd suggestion.
An objective assessment of both the law relating to the effect of things like "philosophies" and "directives" on the exercise of the powers conferred on individual delegates in CASA, and the outcome of similar gestures in the past, prove them to be almost completely empty.
Devoid of practical effect.
Except to fool the young and the perpetually gullible.
If so, it is an odd suggestion.
An objective assessment of both the law relating to the effect of things like "philosophies" and "directives" on the exercise of the powers conferred on individual delegates in CASA, and the outcome of similar gestures in the past, prove them to be almost completely empty.
Devoid of practical effect.
Except to fool the young and the perpetually gullible.
AOTW, I am regularly "pleased" in a variety of glorious ways!
However that is not the same as sleeping soundly, safe in the knowledge that CASA has my best interests at heart.
Let us say then that the alleged reinterpretation of CASA "philosophy" is delightful, titillating, foreplay.
Whether CASA genuinely wants to go to the altar or just 'love you long time' is still to be determined. Now back to the fourth quarter of the roos and the swans.
However that is not the same as sleeping soundly, safe in the knowledge that CASA has my best interests at heart.
Let us say then that the alleged reinterpretation of CASA "philosophy" is delightful, titillating, foreplay.
Whether CASA genuinely wants to go to the altar or just 'love you long time' is still to be determined. Now back to the fourth quarter of the roos and the swans.
Real reform is a rule stating " the penalty for taking off downwind is $500.00".
So do we want rigid enforcement or some flexibility; directives or no directives; consultation or no consultation? Whatever they do, they're never going to do anything good in the eyes of some.
I think you're mixing up the issue of the clarity of the rules on the one hand with the issue of the "philosophy" of enforcement and the enforcement tools available to the regulator on the other.
Sunfish's theoretical 'rule' is effectively the current rule summarised. However, the penalty for breaching the current rule is $2,500 instead of the $500 proposed by Sunfish, and the regulator has lots of other enforcement tools to 'deal' with the miscreant.
On the current state of the rules, the regulator can choose to do any one or more or all of the following to pilots who land and take off downwind due to incompetence or deliberate decision contrary to what a reasonble pilot would do:
- educate and counsel them
- issue an infringement notice or recommend prosecution action - the presumption of innocence applies here
- commence licence suspension/revocation action and require testing of the pilot - there is no presumption of innocence or standard of proof here. If a 'show cause' is issued and the pilot chooses not to respond or the regulator isn't persuaded by the response, the regulator's decision will be effective to suspend or revoke the miscreant's licence and require the miscreant to undergo testing.
If the enforcement options available to the regulator were instead, for example, only education, counselling or proving, to the civil standard of proof, that the pilot's licence should be suspended or revoked, I reckon most of CASA's critics on the enforcement front wouldn't give a toss about the regulator's "philosophy". That's because the regulator's "philosophy" could change to "nuke everybody" and it wouldn't matter - the regulator wouldn't have the weapons to implement its "philosophy".
Sunfish's theoretical 'rule' is effectively the current rule summarised. However, the penalty for breaching the current rule is $2,500 instead of the $500 proposed by Sunfish, and the regulator has lots of other enforcement tools to 'deal' with the miscreant.
On the current state of the rules, the regulator can choose to do any one or more or all of the following to pilots who land and take off downwind due to incompetence or deliberate decision contrary to what a reasonble pilot would do:
- educate and counsel them
- issue an infringement notice or recommend prosecution action - the presumption of innocence applies here
- commence licence suspension/revocation action and require testing of the pilot - there is no presumption of innocence or standard of proof here. If a 'show cause' is issued and the pilot chooses not to respond or the regulator isn't persuaded by the response, the regulator's decision will be effective to suspend or revoke the miscreant's licence and require the miscreant to undergo testing.
If the enforcement options available to the regulator were instead, for example, only education, counselling or proving, to the civil standard of proof, that the pilot's licence should be suspended or revoked, I reckon most of CASA's critics on the enforcement front wouldn't give a toss about the regulator's "philosophy". That's because the regulator's "philosophy" could change to "nuke everybody" and it wouldn't matter - the regulator wouldn't have the weapons to implement its "philosophy".
I think you're mixing up the issue of the clarity of the rules on the one hand with the issue of the "philosophy" of enforcement and the enforcement tools available to the regulator on the other
The gist of Sunfish's argument is, it seems to me from that last post, that he wants rigid rules with no room for interpretation, which will remove the possibility of CASA officers either being lenient or harsh depending on their wishes. I think that would just lead to more grief, as it would be a strict liability (i.e. no excuses) thing when perhaps a warning, or no action, might be more appropriate. I like the idea that the cops might be able to let me off if I'm speeding to get my pregnant wife to hospital or something like that.
Only having the options of educating, counselling or proving makes the system even less workable, because unless they're going to effectively let you off, they are forced to go to court with the associated pain and cost. A middle ground like an on-the-spot warning and / or fine is needed, I think.
I take your point about the suspension / revocation / testing process - that seems to be a weapon readily available for misuse by the authority, given that it can put a person or operation out of business while the matter's being (or not being) resolved. I don't know what would be better there.
Back to the previous point, though; Sunfish was implying that a 'philosophy' or directions about how to approach interaction with the aviation community is bad because it implies that CASA staff will have more power to interpret rules to suit themselves. He seems to be saying that all flexibility of interpretation should be removed from the working staff and that any direction from above is pointless in the organisation.
I say that the directions being issued are steps in the right direction, and while you can be cynical and say it's just window dressing veiling their real evil intentions, I don't think so. This, for example:
9.CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice
I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities," Skidmore said.
“To regain trust, we must earn that trust.
“To regain trust, we must earn that trust.
Only having the options of educating, counselling or proving makes the system even less workable, because unless they're going to effectively let you off, they are forced to go to court with the associated pain and cost.
It would, indeed, be "less workable" if a regulatory authority had to go through "pain and cost" of doing that which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our civil society.
Let's make it "more workable" then.
And people wonder how fascism gets hold and thrives.
Pain and cost...
CAsA doesnt give a rats about yr pain and costs. They would hound someone to the last taxpayer dollar as long as the result showed their 'philosiphy' of "All control, No liability, No accountability"
Just ask J Quadrio.! And plenty of others.
Preferably with strict liability for EVERTHING, it helps CAsA avoid the courts where the justice system may not give them the result they require..!!
Damn the requirement that the evidence must be to the standard of proof for a prosecution...just issue a penalty notice instead.
Pay up or get flogged. Just ask.
"progress" is being made tho ??. I was advised NINE years ago that CAsA was looking to make minor "safety"(sic) reg breaches..eg incomplete lines in your log book, civil offences instead of criminal.
Havent heard a squeak since...must be one loooong hard look.
Or has disinterest, bureaucratic sloth or the incompetant, corrupted system just stayed with what they do best giving us Just Arse instead of Justice.
Facism thrives with this outfit.
Dont know if Skidmore has read thru all theASRR submissions, but the only way to let it hang all out is for a Judicial Inquiry or a Royal Commission.
There are people still / or were at the CAsA coal face that should be in jail.
THEN there maybe some philosophical changes regs notwithstanding.
Just ask J Quadrio.! And plenty of others.
Preferably with strict liability for EVERTHING, it helps CAsA avoid the courts where the justice system may not give them the result they require..!!
Damn the requirement that the evidence must be to the standard of proof for a prosecution...just issue a penalty notice instead.
Pay up or get flogged. Just ask.
"progress" is being made tho ??. I was advised NINE years ago that CAsA was looking to make minor "safety"(sic) reg breaches..eg incomplete lines in your log book, civil offences instead of criminal.
Havent heard a squeak since...must be one loooong hard look.
Or has disinterest, bureaucratic sloth or the incompetant, corrupted system just stayed with what they do best giving us Just Arse instead of Justice.
Facism thrives with this outfit.
Dont know if Skidmore has read thru all theASRR submissions, but the only way to let it hang all out is for a Judicial Inquiry or a Royal Commission.
There are people still / or were at the CAsA coal face that should be in jail.
THEN there maybe some philosophical changes regs notwithstanding.
Pain and cost to the accused, I mean.
Although I could nominate many, many examples, I'd just suggest you contact Dr Arthur Pape or John O'Brien. They'll be happy to talk to you.
Ask them how painless and cost-free CASA's acts of pure bastadry in relation to pilots with CVD were for Dr Pape and John. Those acts of bastadry were committed through mere administrative decisions made at the whim of medicos with a biased opinion. Ask Dr Pape and John how much stress and cost they incurred, and continue to incur, in order to get objective decisions made on the basis of real evidence.
Please: ask them.