CASA Board conflicts
CASA Board conflicts
When CASA’s own tame Inept Corrupt Cretin says something wasn’t right, what is really being hidden?
https://thenightly.com.au/australia/...ash-c-14688345
https://thenightly.com.au/australia/...ash-c-14688345
Those who have been in the Industry / Aviation long enough will be aware that the uncontrolled unaccountable “safety” agency CAsA gives many opportunities for “illegalities”, and corruption to its employees.
They are masters at the arts of obfustication, bs and CYA. CAsA is it’s own unchecked failed state.
And with BS artists in the legal division like the mad Dr anything goes.
They are masters at the arts of obfustication, bs and CYA. CAsA is it’s own unchecked failed state.
And with BS artists in the legal division like the mad Dr anything goes.
The following 2 users liked this post by aroa:
If there wasn’t a conflict of interest in this, I’ll walk naked through Myer’s!
Talk about egg on CASA’s face, all because they simply do not have any idea on how to consult with industry.
I’m not taking sides, however the accident currently under investigation may never have happened if CASA would have provided better consultation and effective surveillance on the operator, opposed to bull****ting around with inefficient crap relating to risk management.
Sadly CASA employs good people with great experience, and most of them get totally frustrated with the bureaucracy and go back to industry after a few years in the job.
Lots of lessons to be learn’t from this tragic accident, and some of the things that have been reported against the operator have been common practice within the industry for years both in rotary wing and fixed wing. I’ve worked for some dodgy outfits and got sacked for speaking up on at least two occasions - Falcon Airlines and Tasair. I reported my concerns to CASA at the time and I was intimidated and ignored, then many years later I decided to join CASA in an effort to kill the poison, it didn’t work however the experience and knowledge gained was great as it’s given me great opportunities.
I’ve since had dealings with CASA after leaving the place and nothing has changed. I’ve got a clanger of an email on file from the current CEO to me that demonstrates her shear incompetence, relating to the regulation reform specific to the implementation of an SMS for Part 135 operators. Some puppet within had obviously drafted the crap and she had signed on it and forwarded it to me. It will be framed and put in my man cave when I retire with a few other gems mostly related to funny **** that I’ve collected over the years in PNG.
Talk about egg on CASA’s face, all because they simply do not have any idea on how to consult with industry.
I’m not taking sides, however the accident currently under investigation may never have happened if CASA would have provided better consultation and effective surveillance on the operator, opposed to bull****ting around with inefficient crap relating to risk management.
Sadly CASA employs good people with great experience, and most of them get totally frustrated with the bureaucracy and go back to industry after a few years in the job.
Lots of lessons to be learn’t from this tragic accident, and some of the things that have been reported against the operator have been common practice within the industry for years both in rotary wing and fixed wing. I’ve worked for some dodgy outfits and got sacked for speaking up on at least two occasions - Falcon Airlines and Tasair. I reported my concerns to CASA at the time and I was intimidated and ignored, then many years later I decided to join CASA in an effort to kill the poison, it didn’t work however the experience and knowledge gained was great as it’s given me great opportunities.
I’ve since had dealings with CASA after leaving the place and nothing has changed. I’ve got a clanger of an email on file from the current CEO to me that demonstrates her shear incompetence, relating to the regulation reform specific to the implementation of an SMS for Part 135 operators. Some puppet within had obviously drafted the crap and she had signed on it and forwarded it to me. It will be framed and put in my man cave when I retire with a few other gems mostly related to funny **** that I’ve collected over the years in PNG.
Last edited by Duck Pilot; 24th May 2024 at 08:51.
The following users liked this post:
I have no issues with Industry lobbying members of a Board in order to demonstrate the operation being discussed.I do not, however, believe that CASA conducts safety assessments properly.
It would be interesting to be able to see what safety work was done to over-ride a decision to confine the underslung human cargo to turbine powered helicopters, by allowing the operation from an ICE-powered helicopter. After all, there must have been safety work done to support the original turbine decision? Or was there?
If there was then, because the consequence of failure was critical, in that someone would die, the safety case would have to have determined that the likelihood of the event was much higher for an ICE-powered helicopter, than for a turbine-powered helicopter. Hence, the legislation.
It is almost impossible to then create a safety argument that allowing the operation from an ICE-powered helicopter is acceptably safe.
The decision must therefore have been made by someone, that the original legislation was flawed, and that ICE-powered helicopters are equally safe for the underslung operation as turbine-powered helicopters. This person is accountable for that decision.
This, in a nutshell, is the safety process required by the Australian Government and is based on ISO 31000 Risk Management. It is mandatory in Australia, not optional.
It would be interesting to be able to see what safety work was done to over-ride a decision to confine the underslung human cargo to turbine powered helicopters, by allowing the operation from an ICE-powered helicopter. After all, there must have been safety work done to support the original turbine decision? Or was there?
If there was then, because the consequence of failure was critical, in that someone would die, the safety case would have to have determined that the likelihood of the event was much higher for an ICE-powered helicopter, than for a turbine-powered helicopter. Hence, the legislation.
It is almost impossible to then create a safety argument that allowing the operation from an ICE-powered helicopter is acceptably safe.
The decision must therefore have been made by someone, that the original legislation was flawed, and that ICE-powered helicopters are equally safe for the underslung operation as turbine-powered helicopters. This person is accountable for that decision.
This, in a nutshell, is the safety process required by the Australian Government and is based on ISO 31000 Risk Management. It is mandatory in Australia, not optional.
The death led to the bad regulatory decision being exposed in stark relief, which then led to the bad management of conflicts of interest of members of the CASA Board being exposed in stark relief.
On my reading of the public documents, the conflict issue didn’t arise from an operator lobbying the CASA Board. The conflict issue seemed to me to have arisen from what a reasonable person might perceive as a member of the Board giving ‘gentle nudges’ about how the operator’s circumstances should be dealt with by the regulator.
On my reading of the public documents, the conflict issue didn’t arise from an operator lobbying the CASA Board. The conflict issue seemed to me to have arisen from what a reasonable person might perceive as a member of the Board giving ‘gentle nudges’ about how the operator’s circumstances should be dealt with by the regulator.
