A Quick "poll" if you have a moment. Much appreciated

[Sandy Reith]

Should we blame CASA ?

tail wheel;
The Neverending Story.......... It is a job to retirement for too many public servants for this story to ever end.

This is true because CASA is incapable of producing, let alone finishing a rational and fit for purpose set of rules or administering same.

The reason being that the model and legislative structure is wrong. Thirty one years of abject failure is proof enough. The all too numerous clashes, the universal distrust, the examples legion of CASA errors, waste and mismanagement and it’s hubris are historical facts. It seemed like a good idea at the time to create the independent corporate regulator outside the APS, and remote from the Minister, and it still does, for those that the system benefits. Namely for the feather bedded bureaucracy and, crucially, for the Minister by relieving him of direct responsibility. It is Parliament that can and should effect change.

We have to persuade MPs that change is required. Lambasting and calling out the leadership of CASA is legitimate where they have not served well but they are not the main game. Ring write or otherwise contact your federal MP and State Senators for action to stimulate jobs and growth. Join a political party and put in the hard yards. Channeling the anger and frustration into political action can produce results, even MacDonaught is making a small amendment to the Act which would not have happened without Ben Morgan and AOPA’s Tamworth and Wagga Wagga GA meetings.

[thorn bird]

Prune Gate

I think there was already a Poll done back in 2012 on Prune.

[glenb]

Someone DO SOMETHING about it

So why don't AOPA, RAAA, AFAP, an independent politician or some industry body take the lead on this. Ben Morgan specifically, as you have access to a very diverse membership. CASA are required as one of their FUNCTIONS to develop appropriate, clear, and concise aviation safety standards, and that failure by CASA is in fact the ROOT CAUSE of Industry's woes.

Surely it cant be this simple, although I would like to think it is. Simply ask in the appropriate judicial forum, or put to the Minister in Parliament.

Simply contend that no-one in CASA is prepared to stand up in court under oath, and state affirmative to the following question, ( or reworded)

Do you acknowledge in your role as (CEO,/Chairperson, etc) that the Civil Aviation Act requires CASA as one of its core functions "(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards" , and under oath do you believe that CASA has achieved that!



A Straw Poll on PPRuNe indicating about a 90% to 10% split may not carry much weight, but it certainly does indicate that something is substantially wrong, and that's why it is important that you vote in this poll if you are involved in Industry on either side of the fence. A properly conducted poll by one of our Industry groups or a couple of them might actually have some clout. Finally all those businesses and individuals might have something to hold CASA to account for. I appreciate that this isn't the poll to be waving around in a courtroom, but please someone get something going. Ben Morgan, go for it!!! Please


Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA Establishment of CASA
(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

((2) CASA:
(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;
(b) shall have a seal; and
(c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note:

The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.

(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.

9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;

by means that include the following:

(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;
(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing);
(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;
(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety‑related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;
(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety‑related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system; (
h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

(2) CASA also has the following safety‑related functions:

(a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety, through:
(i) comprehensive safety education and training programs; and
(ii) accurate and timely aviation safety advice; and
(iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and compliance with relevant legislation;

(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm wondering if perhaps the reality is 80%+ of pilots would have little to no involvement or familiarity with the Act, CASR, MOS etc.since gaining their licence, and instead their daily Bible is the AIP suite or Jepps.

I know the only time I looked at CASR in about the last 5 years was when there was a thread here about drones and Part 101.

[Sandy Reith]

How well does anyone know the criminal code?

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'm wondering if perhaps the reality is 80%+ of pilots would have little to no involvement or familiarity with the Act, CASR, MOS etc.since gaining their licence, and instead their daily Bible is the AIP suite or Jepps.

I know the only time I looked at CASR in about the last 5 years was when there was a thread here about drones and Part 101.

In the same vein most people have no cause to know the criminal code or all the remainder of the whole body of law. Cap’nM is quite right, you learn the basics and expect to stay within the law by behaving in a responsible manner. Flying or otherwise. Changing attitudes and changing practices for betterment can meet resistance but if properly explained and with education then we can maintain a happy and productive society. Unfortunately CASA has seen fit to continually push well past the practical, prudent, safe or efficient means to accomplish the aims of the Act. This flies in the face of the reasonable aspirations and freedoms we expect to enjoy as Australians.

This is the message that that must be conveyed to our MPs.

[Dexta]

Originally Posted by glenb

Surely it cant be this simple, although I would like to think it is. Simply ask in the appropriate judicial forum, or put to the Minister in Parliament.

Most likely because the Minister will go straight to CASA as they are the Authority and ask the legal team there if the regulations are clear and concise. The answer of course be "Of course they are Minister, but maybe with some extra funding we could have a look over them just to make sure, should only take us 5-10 years, because you cannot put a price on safety."

[Sunfish]

Dexta is right. The Minister needs to say “I am inclined towards a rewrite of the Act along New Zealand lines together with a requirement to apply evidenced based risk management and the fostering of the aviation industry’. “By the way, I am under pressure from Cabinet to require the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit of your activities.”

[tail wheel]

The biggest issue for the future is that at some point the regularly rewrite will be seen for what it is, an expensive failure and the next rewrite will begin.......

Australian Foreign Aid funded implementation of the New Zealand Regulations in Papua New Guinea. Perhaps nick a set of NZ Regs, Fifty Bucks for some Whiteout and a few reams of paper and in a week or two we could have a new set of Regs that actually works, funded by skimming off the surplus staff and Clayton's Lawyers from CASA.

And we can put it all down to harmonization in the Trans Tasman Treaty, so no loss of face!

[Sandy Reith]

Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty (TTMRT)

Originally Posted by tail wheel

The biggest issue for the future is that at some point the regularly rewrite will be seen for what it is, an expensive failure and the next rewrite will begin.......

Australian Foreign Aid funded implementation of the New Zealand Regulations in Papua New Guinea. Perhaps nick a set of NZ Regs, Fifty Bucks for some Whiteout and a few reams of paper and in a week or two we could have a new set of Regs that actually works, funded by skimming off the surplus staff and Clayton's Lawyers from CASA.

And we can put it all down to harmonization in the Trans Tasman Treaty, so no loss of face!

Possibly no immediate need for action on the part of Australian legislation to change if the TTMRT was used for GA because there would probably be a pretty quick migration to the NZ regime.
In the same manner when Joh Bjelke-Petersen Premier of QLD did away with death duties all the other States followed suite with alacrity, for the obvious reasons.
Although I hear that there are a GA group in NZ by the initials of GAA who aren’t too happy with their CAA. Something to study but I’m sure they are having a much better time than our GA industry.
As the saying goes; “ The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. “

[thorn bird]

Strange you should bring the GAA up Sandy, I've also heard stories that
the NZ CAA is drifting back into its old Authoritarian ways. If its true its very
sad, considering the incredible effort they made and their success at true reform.
Sociopathy is such an insidious disease, very like a cancer, leave a shred
of it behind and it grows back with increased ferocity. Perhaps when they
cleaned out the CAA way back, they were not severe enough with their surgery.
Any Kiwis on here that could enlighten us?

[aroa]

All this, to CAsA is like water off a ducks back. Frankly, they DO NOT give a rats arse about what the industry and its aviation inhabitants have to say or think.

They are the "experts", we are the plebs that must be saved from ourselves, and only they can save the world from falling aeroplanes...AND they dont have to make rule that, or explain themselves in simple terms.
Its all about baffle 'em with BS..it works with most people. AND politicians and Ministers.

And when you have people like Smart Aleck leading the legal charge with voluminous verbal vomitus, we're fcuked. And CAsA's 'law of rules" supercedes the Rule of Law.

#65...how well do you know the criminal code.
A bit The AFP found that 3 AWI had breached the Criminal Code 1914 Sec 45 1 perjury and 31 1 conspiracy, and obviously collaborated in the making of their statements.
This verified my allegations of the same.
Net result after CAsA has squandered 300K plus....SFA. No court case, no prosecutions.
CAsA protects their own,,, whatever it takes.
And since there is NO interested Minister or Oversighting body into CAsA 's bureaucratic buggery, we are where we are today.
Sadly swirling clockwise down the southern hemisphere gurgler.
Only we the Av-people can prevent oblivion.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
And to any newcomers who doubt what aroa said above about the case to which he refers, he is spot on.

Indeed, one of the documents I have seen is minutes of a CASA management meeting in Townsville, the subject the above case.

The meeting more or less concluded that, in future, CASA persons would have to be more careful to not get caught with their pants down, and advice to the direct participants to that effect.

In short, not the slightest recognition and acknowledgement, let alone repentance, for serious breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, plus, of course, breaches of various public service codes of conduct, and CASA implementation of same.

All largely, but not only, a product of S.9A(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

Tootle pip!

[aroa]

Minutes of the TVL management meeting...I'll have to go CAsA NON fOI on that...!!
But it gets better. On reminding the sole remaining AWI employee (J Retski CNS) of his perfidy, all I get is an obscene and bash threatening phone call from Mr Retski.
Hope to have a court house meet up shortly on that
CAsA just converts this criminal act into a 'code breach' ( which is constructive fraud in itself.. a crime is a crime.) and does a sh*tewash (worse than a whitewash) " investigation" by an HR lady.!!
Details of all this came not from CAsA NON FOI ( advised I would get nothing from the reports) but later from OAIC.
CAsA in amongst many of their BS motherhood statements claim.." We have robust systems in place for accountability and transparency" Ha ha faaarking ha to that ! What a load of arrant nonsense..!!
So there we have it
Rot right to the very top, and I have the proving docs. But for a corrupt and free range agency it all means nought when they can spruik to those that might matter Ministers and etc. serious BS and the all embracing buzz word "safety"..

[Lead Balloon]

For those who have given a genuine vote that the current aviation safety standards are “clear and concise”, I genuinely fret for you.

For those who’ve compared other complex legislative regimes with those of the aviation regulatory regime, I’d like to know what those other regimes are. There are, of course, many complex legislative regimes, but I’m not aware of any that have two sets of regulations spaced over a decade that have no coherent or logical explanation as to why one subject matter is dealt with in one set of regulations than the other (because the explanation is that there is no coherent or logical explanation other than incompetence), the amalgamation of which does not provide a complete insight into what the rules are, because the only way to obtain a complete insight is to refer to thousands of pages of CAOs, exemptions, directions, approvals, permissions, manuals of standards and other forests of paper.

I’d also note that the existence of other, more complex, regulatory regimes may be an indication of a systemic malaise rather than a reasonable excuse for the complexity of the aviation regulatory regime. The empty rhetoric of governments is simplification; the actions are ever-more complexity.

[Sunfish]

Let’s not lose sight of the real issue - aviation safety. The current Act and rules, in my opinion, work against the achievement of good safety outcomes because the underlying assumption is wrong. That assumption is that LEGAL compliance = safety. This is false because rules and regulations, written by humans, naturally contain errors and cannot possibly cater by definition with all circumstances that can give rise to an accident. This truism however, is anamantha to lawyers.

The result is a confusing mish mash of draconian and contradictory regulation, capriciously enforced. The outcome is pilots and engineers focused on doing what is legal, not what is right and totally failing to create a safe flying environment.

By way of example, In the Three incidents I participated in as a student, all of which have worthwhile (but not new) safety lessons*, not one of them was written up, as far as I can tell, as a cautionary tale. the focus instead was on ensuring that CASA either didn’t find out or was put off the scent in order to ensure that the school wasn’t penalized for “something”. Multiply this by the thousands and you have an unsafe culture.

Whats worse is RPT. CASA have no ability to regulate the major airlines. The size and scope of the technology was beyond then by the early 1980’s in my memory. We are thus reliant for RPT safety on the common sense and good intentions of the airlines and manufacturers because the combination : Modern technology + complex and contradictory and capricious CASA rules cannot possibly produce a safe outcome.

To put that another way, there is nothing in CASA, not people, rules or enforcement that could have stopped the Lion Air or Ethiopian accidents from happening right here.

The real defences against accidents are common sense and experience, two things CASA seems at pains to destroy.

* Lessons:

- don’t use rags to block holes in aircraft engines during maintenance.
- don’t do touch and go STOL training, make each STOL landing a full stop.
- Teach students what “pilot induced oscillation” means, how it happens and what it does.

[Sandy Reith]

Three lessons and one much larger

Sunfish, quote:-

- don’t use rags to block holes in aircraft engines during maintenance.
- don’t do touch and go STOL training, make each STOL landing a full stop.
- Teach students what “pilot induced oscillation” means, how it happens and what it does.

Very good examples of practices that could lead to an a accident or unsafe condition, and clear examples of the futility of CASA’s regime of criminal acts of strict liability.

What CASA and government have missed by a mile is just that none of such ill advised actions (in context) as Sunfish has illustrated here were wilful or otherwise with criminal intent. This is obvious, take the ‘rag in engine hole,’ this would be to prevent something from entering unseen, perhaps during some considerable time lapse (waiting for parts?) between closely working on that aircraft. The answer to that one could be that it becomes a practice to tie a string from the rag to the prop. In the same vein I learnt to loop a cord around my props from each nacelle plug, those plugs to prevent birds from nesting over the back cylinders. These days of instant communication means that there’s the possibility of exchange of information between aviation personnel. This is not possible with the present CASA regime and therefore Sunfish’s contention about CASA and it’s unsafe methodology is timely and more appropriate than ever before.

This leads conclusively to the understanding that CASA is not conforming to the Act in regard to it’s obligations to promoting safety of flight, it’s regulation of the industry is unsafe.

[triadic]

In the light of the above two posts - an old one but very valid:

You can be 100% compliant and not be safe, you can be as safe as possible and not compliant

Note: it is not possible to guarantee 100% safe! Pitty CASA does not seem to realise this!

[Sunfish]

With reference to the Forsyth review and the general feeling that there is no progress towards coherent safety culture in Australia the next stages of decline are:

1. Official corruption appears - the ideal breeding ground for corruption is a complex contradictory regulatory environment with onerous and expensive compliance costs and draconian penalties for non compliance, including loss of investment.

The corruption first appears as offers solicited or unsolicited, by an official to “help” by doing something as simple as filling in a form. I still recall my bewilderement in Germany when customs officers recoiled in horror when I asked them to do this for me - anti corruption rules were the reason.

Pretty soon the lower levels are “helping” smooth the way for “friends”. The level of “help” gradually increases as the “helpers” are seen to get away with it.

The next stage is when the kickbacks up the tree start. At this point we find that getting “help” from”friends” is no longer optional. Unless you pay, you get nothing. The boss is watching and wants his cut.

2. Return on investment is required. Now that the industry, or some of it, is paying, two things happen. Those with morals ethics and standards leave the industry. Those left - willing to pay for play, demand some return on their investment. This takes the form of relaxation of technical standards and other cost saving measures. Maintenance suffers for example but the regulator does nothing. Whistleblowers get fired because the regulator rats on them.

3. At some point we have a major accident. The regulator and company conspire to deflect responsibility elsewhere. Finally there is one too many accidents. The public demand accountability they get a royal commission. We go back to square 1. and the process starts again.

[Sandy Reith]

Rule by ‘opinion’ not law, or rule by the people with power.

Sunfish, right on the money and why the law should not be easily interpreted in a myriad different ways. Much like land zoning which is based on opinions, changeable opinions. So called ‘planning’ encourages corruption of which there have been plenty of examples in Australia. For anyone interested in this area Australia was possibly the richest country in the world before this new level of government control over private land use. For interest sake there is one modern first world city that has no land zoning. Its grown from four million to six million in the last twenty or so years and residential housing is half price, or better, than Melb or SY. Mortgage load is of course way lower, this is a rich city that was Earth base to put people on the moon. Just one example of a society that finds success without our idea that Government knows best. It called free enterprise but surprisingly many Australians don’t seem to understand the mechanism of free market economics, coupled with laws that protect fair exchange. This might seem like banging a different drum but the principles are the same; just look at the consequences of rule by opinion and subjective judgment by those who stand to gain by the system.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
In the mid-1990s the CASA CEO/Director of Aviation Safety was Leroy Keith, ex-FAA and a highly competent bureaucrat.
Similar to previous posts, Leroy continually told his troops that "A compliant organisation is not necessarily safe, a non-compliant organisation is not necessarily unsafe".
This, and Leroy's general approach to fostering aviation was absolute anathema to what we now call "the iron ring" at CASA, and said group conspired against him, successfully, to force his resignation.
If Leroy has remained, the rules re-write would have been completed in the original time frame --- 3 years.
Instead, all we achieved was Parts 21 to 35, over huge internal resistance and guerilla warfare within CASA.
Tootle pip!!