Another CASA gab fest
 

Should we be naive enough to think that the DAS and his band of henchmen will really be interested in what the actual ones with practical experience and knowledge in this industry will have to say?
Or, is it just another one of those box ticking exercises they go to so that when they want to put the KY in the drawer before shoving the pineapple in sideways they can still go to the minister and say "absolutely sir, we extensively consulted with industry".

My money is on the later.

You have to go, otherwise you will be at risk of being labelled as someone "who'll never be happy no matter what CASA does", thus justifying whatever CASA does to you. It is quite Orwellian: If you don't go and listen and participate and nod and smile and take it all seriously, you are labelled as part of the problem. It is neither here nor there that decades of CASA's empty rhetoric about the regulatory reform program and evidence-based and risk-based regulation would lead any rational person to ignore more of it.

And before AOTW jumps in and asks how else is anyone going to clean up the mess, the first step is for the CASA DAS to publicly acknowledge that the regulatory reform program is an abject failure and that CASA is not, and never will be, competent to clean up the mess. However, in the Orwellian world of facade government, we're expected to nod and smile as we're told for the thousandth time that it's all going to be cleaned up and fine ... this time by the year 2030. (Gosh - doesn't time fly? Remember when they said it was all going to be cleaned up and fine by the year 2005?)

CASA had a small safety seminar at our local aero club a while back, and the most notable presence, in a bad way, was a bloke whose clear mission was to heckle. He muttered, scoffed like a schoolkid and jumped in with off-topic points intended to put the speaker off. After a while someone turned to him and simply told him how rude he was being, which shut him up thankfully.

My point is, these things are only as useful as the intentions of those who turn up, so if you're already pre judging it as pointless, don't bother. A simple explanation of exactly how a CASA rule is degrading your operation or business, which they can then work to address (let's hope), beats 10 rants any day.

Jeez LB, you're quick this morning! I hadn't even finished typing and you're putting words in my mouth ... :)

Arm Out The Window, I accuse you of being a CASA troll because you continualy fail to admit there is any fault whatsoever with CASA, specifically, you completely refuse to acknowledge, let alone address the failings of CASA detailed in the Forsyth Report.

Let me address this latest Pollyana-ish post in more detail.


I will avoid the begging question of what CASA possibly knows about the safe operation of non military aircraft that the audience does not already know.

1. A "rude" Heckler? Perhaps the heckler had a grievance against CASA?

2. Intentions of attendees? That cuts both ways. Perhaps you failed to understand the chief finding of the Forsyth review - that CASA has lost the trust of the industry. Under such circumstances and absent any mea culpa from CASA, participants can be excused for assuming that CASA is insincere about wanting feedback except as it benefits their personal interests?

3. "A simple explanation of exactly how a CASA rule is degrading your operation " ?????? Are you kidding???? The cemeteries are full of aviation businesses that did just that - complained about CASA!!!! …And then were driven out of business by the resulting victimisation and harassment by CASA.

Let me make it quite clear. CASA is a failed organisation. CASA cannot be trusted AT ALL - except to pursue its members personal agendas! With such a reputation "consultation" is a meaningless exercise and nothing will improve.

To paraphrase the old Soviet joke "CASA pretend they are listening to our concerns and we pretend to believe they will do something about them".

…And I'm speaking as someone who organised plenty of "industry consultation" in a former existence in Government. We knew what we wanted to get - and we got exactly what we required - a mandate from industry to do what we wanted to do anyway. Sham consultation in simple and I'm sure CASA are masters of it.

What is really needed is a boycott.

Simple really, implement the recommendations of Forsyth.

CC

One thing might get their attention, turn up with a few crates of overripe tomatoes and time expired eggs.
A food fight would certainly gain some media attention.
Then again you'd probably be accused of wasting food by the loony left!
Be fun but:E:E

i cant wait for the 100th anniversary of CASA's great aviation reform..

I am with you totally Sunfish. I don't attend these or any other CASA nonsense meetings. It is high time everyone stopped attending these farces. AOPA (and others) should also stop promoting them. If CASA continually turn up to empty rooms hosting events that no one publicises they may just get a hint.

Let me respond in detail to you then, Sunfish.

Not at all - as I've said before, never worked for them and never had anything to do with them except get ramped and do a couple of instructor renewals.

,
Wrong - I do agree there are many faults with them, I just don't think boycotts or other similar bull**** will achieve anything.

Yes, he certainly did, but his manner did nothing except to turn the crowd against him - hardly achieving own aim, he made himself look like a total goose and the CASA rep good in comparison!

Actually, Skidmore has come out and said explicitly that he understands they have stuffed things up in many ways, and he's asking what we think should be done to fix them (and I'm sure simplistic crap such as 'sack the goddamn lot of them will really help, won't it?)


All squeaky clean, no doubt.

Great, bring on the realistic and practical alternative.

Arm is right. We should not boycott these events, which are well intentioned and often conducted by mere underlings following their Team Leader's direction.

Instead, attend, take a leaf from the politicians and press the flesh, and rather than deride or heckle, engage in conversation to put your point of view across firmly but respectfully. What harm is there in this, as opposed to reinforcing the belief that we are all criminals who just have not been caught yet?

There are other more appropriate avenues for airing grievances. Complete the survey on line. Don't just whinge about how bad CASA is (we know, and by now they know that we know they are bad) but have the cojones to put your name to it and agree to be contacted for further input.

And that friends is 1500 posts. My new year's resolution was to quit posting at this number, so you can poke the bear all you like - there will be no more. Thank Christ for that I hear.

Arm,
There is no such thing as "squeaky clean" in a legal frame work where the "opinion" of the inspector creates the offense. Or a legal framework so complex, convoluted and contradictory that it creates "inadvertent criminals" -- as has been found (in similar words) in inquiry after inquiry.

One of the most glaring examples was Polar Air. Years of audits, then the boss has an argument with an FOI about twin training, the boss refuses to conduct manoeuvers contrary to the CAAP, and the aircraft certification, so said FOI comes back to do an "aggressive" audit.

A rough summary, said owner of Polar found out, after legal expanses in excess of AUD$1M, that , to quote him:"CASA can do whatever they like".

Do you really think all the adverse testimony to the Forsyth inquiry, from airlines down, was evidence of a fair and honest organisation.

Tootle pip!!

Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but it doesn't actually appear to be open forum. The website says:

I unfortunately made the silly decision to go to the website to see what style of questions were already there (but everything is a few months old for some reason)... Some excellent questions, but the canned replies from the moderator reeked of the standard Sir Humphries subterfuge of not answering the question but pandering to going through the motions.

Arm and others, I am afraid that you are accusing me of a negative viewpoint regarding CASA no matter what it does. This is not true.

Like all of us, I want a fair, efficient, proactive and safe regulatory regime.

My negativity comes from the simple fact of my experience as a corporate strategy consultant at Coopers and Lybrand, an MBA and as group general manager, of a reasonably sized IT systems integrator dealing with Government as well as a CEO of another business.

The problem with CASA is lack of trust, period, as described by Forsyth. WIthout trust,, nothing, and I mean nothing, can be achieved.

AVM. Skidmores problem is to restore trust, first and foremost. This cannot come from "consultation" and fine sounding words, the damage is too bad for a mea culpa from CASA and then business as usual. What is required to save CASA is what is called in consultancy speak "a circuit breaker event" or a reset event that indicates to all parties that the previous paradigm is now finished, kaput, over, ended - there is no more business as usual.

The circuit breaker is usually the removal of most of the management team and a new Board in business, and as CASA is a GBE - Government business enterprise the same logic applies to it. This is followed by a new strategic plan assembled by a new team with a new outlook.

The necessity for a circuit breaker event is that without it, CASA staff, the good ones anyway, will not give themselves permission to speak out about what needs to be done because under the old paradigm doing it is a career limiting move. Furthermore, industry is not going to step up to the plate if they see the same tired faces across the conference room table.

Forsyth and the appointment of Skidmore should have been the prelude of a major clean out of the senior management and the appointment of new and talented faces with a mandate for change. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Instead Skidmore and the Board were sold a dummy : the reorganisation of CASA, now underway, which is already a predictable failure if the same senior management remain.

The organisational design name for this phenomena is often called "Freeze" Unfreeze and refreeze" corporate culture is generally frozen in stone, the circuit breaker event - the removal of the senior management team and a round of new (and better) appointments is a signal for the organisation to "unfreeze" and open up to new possibilities, different ways of doing things, new ideas and so on. After a while, maybe Nine months or so, corporate culture then "refreezes" around the new paradigm. The Kennet Government in Victoria modelled this phenomena very quickly in its early days in office - things were so bad then that there was no opposition to the raft of changed the Kennet Government made.

Unless this circuit breaker event has occurred and I missed it, then there is no point in consultation, engagement or any other touchy feel stuff, the floggings will continue until that "circuit breaker", god forbid a smoking hole, galvanises Government into fixing this mess.

CASA is not a GBE. (However, I don't think that affects the relevance or validity of the points you make. )

It has always fascinated me how time produces different versions of what a coroner or court established and concluded about events. It happens all the time here when people try to rewrite the factual findings and substitute their own version of events. Generally, it is the version of facts that the court did not find but that the poster wishes they had.
Courts and tribunals are lauded when some posters agree with them and the same courts and tribunals are lamb blasted when they do not agree with some posters opinions.
I have been reading some of the major accident investigations in Australia. Particularly those that occurred when I was not in the country.
I am up to 'Transair' and I have read the voluminous PPRUNE postings on that event.
With all due respect and sympathy for all those touched by this event, the Coroner, Mr Michael Barnes, said on 17th October 2007 in Brisbane:

'I have highlighted what I consider to be a number of deficiencies in CASA's surveillance and audit of Transair and its departure from its own procedures. I have made recommendations about how some of those issues could be addressed, as has the ATSB.
That does not mean that CASA is to blame for the crash. There is no compelling evidence that if it had scrupulously followed all of its procedures and processes, the deficiencies that led to the crash would have been obviated, although it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the risk may have been reduced.
The families of the victims, understandably, want someone to blame for their loss. The passengers were entirely blameless and their deaths have caused extensive and on-going suffering. The pilots are dead; the company is in liquidation and its chief pilot has left the country. It is tempting for those bereaved by the deaths to identify numerous deficiencies or departures from proper standards that Transair had been guilty of in the various operations it was conducting around the country and internationally for five or six years leading up to the crash, aggregate those issues into a cumulative list of failings and say that CASA should have detected them and acted to prevent Transair from operating.
With all due respect to those families, the making of scape goats in that manner is not part of my function.

I find that CASA could have done more to insist that Transair improve certain aspects of its operations but I do not believe that the evidence supports a finding that they could reasonably have stopped it from operating or prevented the crash. (My bold).

All I am saying is that bashing and blaming the regulator, in any country not just Australia, is fine when all the parties, including the operators, are squeaky clean.

Sorry about the length of the post.

Actus Reaus, the CASA regulations and business practices make it impossible for any operator to be "squeaky clean" all the time. There is not even a definition of "clean" instead we have "accepted", "acceptable", "appropriate", "sufficient" but not of course "reasonable" appearing everywhere in the regulations so that "squeaky clean" becomes a matter of the opinion of a self interested CASA functionary.

Then of course there is the problem of contradictory regulations that are written in double negative format instead of plain English.

FFS, I spent Six years reading complex venture capital deal documents for a living, but they are like children's books compared to CASA regulations.

Even CASA tacitly admit that regulations are a total mess by the constant need to give exemptions for one thing or another.

To put it another way, it's broken. It can never work.


What we should all be engaged in is a "search for truth" to develop and exemplify safe aviation. CASA is not part of that search. It is instead an impediment. The latest outcome for me is going to have to be a refresher course on the legal pitfalls in filling out an MR. - nothing at all about how to conduct safe maintenance.

Would a rewrite of regs into pilot and LAME-speak to simplify them fall foul of the legal department? I'm guessing, most definitely, so the current regulatory mess is a symptom of lawyers being involved to write clauses that meet legal requirements but lose the audience much like a mobile phone contract does.

Is that entirely CASA's fault or a function of the Australian environment because this is far from the only area of Australian government tied up in red tape?

I couldn't agree more though that the art of simple, plain writing is being eroded before our eyes by PC and lawyers. 'I didn't do nothing' - catch phrase of a generation.

Rules speak
 

A CASA conference in Sydney over a decade ago came out with a observation that the greatest hazard to flight safety was the AG's Department (in the way the rules were written - strict liability Etc). It has only got worse. Take some of the iron ring out of the system and it might change(??).

Sunfish,
I do not disagree with you at all. Even though the 'rule' for drafting anything that may be used in court is that the wording has 'legal certainty', it does not mean that it should be impossible to discover the 'legal' way of doing things or comprehending an AMC without legal training.
If you really want a challenge, try using the NZ regs to certify an 'Asian' built aircraft operated by and registered in a Pacific island nation.
I thought it was going well until this Kiwi guy handed me the 1200 page NZ 'offence' regs!!
NZ regs? If you really want to see technical difficulties, look no further.
Needless to say, we went another way.

A sign of change perhaps:

At last: Some honesty. In plain English. Well done Mr Boyd. :D

I look forward to the next opportunity he has to speak candidly. At the point he states that the entire regulatory reform program is an abject failure and CASA has no hope of fixing the mess, I will hold a glimmer of hope of some restoration of trust in the regulator. :ok:

Agreed Leady. We can but hope.

Nicely done by Mr Boyd.
Out damned spot comes to mind, as old Bill wrote.

However the problems go deeper than regulation, just look at the cluster**** of the Cairns office fitting up a helicopter pilot.

Pantovic and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2015] AATA 992 (18 December 2015)

Basically once they decide to "get" you, they leave no stone unturned. There is no presumption of innocence and the AAT gleefully joins in the process.


Furthermore a person can make an allegation about you years after the alleged event.

Have you been to Mt Molloy Sunfish?

No Eddie, I don't think so. Have you read the AAT transcript?

Sadly All Too true...
 

Sunny.
It goes well into, and past just the use and abuse of "regulations."
Its a sign of immorality, dishonesty and lack of integrity displayed by so many CAsA employees. All requirements of their 'code'...what a sick joke.

The financial destruction of Pantovic by courtesy of CAsA and a cuckcolded witness with revenge intent is another classic case with 'discrepancies" in the evidence and a 'botched' approach. Nothing new there for CAsA.
Like you say...whatever it takes to make the 'hit'.

And the total cost to the taxpayer was $$s ???
And the safety benefit to Oz aviation is , as usual a big ZERO.

And out of this (infamous) office there is yet another debacle supreme regarding an R 22 ..the damage to. flying of, false MR entries re, evidence dispersed, NO penalties applied to the perp...and many innocent others, falsely accused ending up having to foot the substantial legal bills.!!

The anecdotes about this exercise/half arsed"investigation" would read like some mad criminal comedy script if it wasnt so serious with allegations of bribery and corruption by the perp as well..
CB claim no knowledge of.
Draw your own conclusions as to why.

Until there is a Judicial Inquiry into these issues, so they can be bought out into the open and rectified, nothing will change.

Power corrupts etc .. you know the rest. :mad::mad::mad:

What I fail to understand is why a decent, honest, person would wish to work at CASA with the likes of the CASA Cairns office "investigators" whose behaviour, according to the contents of the AAT transcript and in the opinion of the Commissioner, falls rather far short of anything remotely like procedural fairness, equity and natural justice….and I'm being kind.

I doubt that CASA can be 'saved". It's too far gone judging by the crap they spew at AAT hearings as in the case against Pantovic.

To put that another way; CASA is the problem with Australian Aviation. We are never going to see jobs, investment and growth in the aviation industry while they are in power..

Your joking aren't you?
You are using the findings in that report to suggest CASA shouldn't have gone on the offensive with that guy?
Tell me you are joking?
None are so blind...

No joke..
 

Oz b..its the method in their madness.

With Pantovic they got lucky that some video existed of the low flight over water with beer in hand. And from the witness with malice.

read #28 and suggest why CAsA did NOT go on the offensive with THAT guy !

Or is the only thing consistent with CAsA is its inconsistencies.?

Examples abound of CAsA serial madness...

Barrier Aviation TERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.
And NO ONE ever prosecuted or found guilty in a court of law.

J Quadrio. Destroyed job wise and financially. NEVER prosecuted or found guilty in a court of law.
A la Pantovic... a dodgy "witness" as well... but that does not worry those in CAsA with an agenda. The end result is all ...however achieved.
Cost to the taxpayer..$million +. Safety benefit ZERO

Sunny's last sentence is ABSOLUTELY TRUE :ok::ok::ok:

Yes Sunfish, I have read the transcript of Mr Pantovic's appearance before the AAT.

I know the pub, the publican, the bloke who was back doored, his missus, as well as the tree in question.

As to three up in a R22, I have seen more than one take off with 100kilo pilot, ringer not much smaller, a swag and 20 litres of avgas, plus all the other bits and pieces for a three day muster.

And yet....

The sky didn't come crashing in.

I'm not saying activities like those are 'acceptably safe' and not an accident waiting to happen, Eddie. I'm merely saying that it's an extraordinary amount of resources to allocate to addressing risks to - what - three people at a go?

Lots of other accidents waiting to happen seem to me to get a different treatment from the regulator. The operator of VH-NGA comes to mind. But I'm probably not sufficiently expert to understand the extraordinarily complex grounds for the ostensibly different treatment, if any. ;)

Indeed Leadballoon, the beer run and excess AUW may be but a trifle to one of your legal background; the AAT Member also viewed it as much ado about nothing, so you may well be correct. On the other hand a belt slip and engine over speed would have made the whole tree backdoor johnny, and helicopter AUW into quite an adventure.

As for your lack of expertise, do not hide your light under a bushel mate.

As old Bill said, kill all the lawyers

Are you new here?

Ozbiggles, the guilt or innocence of Pantovic is not the issue. The issue is the method CASA used to deal with him.

The normal requirement of the application of ALL law in this land is fairness equity and natural justice or procedural fairness and/or due process. I will not bore you or anyone else with the definitions, you can google them yourselves.

It is sufficient to say that Pantovic received none of the above from CASA and only a small bit of it at great cost from the AAT. Convicted murderers have more rights and access to justice than pilots do, and for free.

To put it another way, CASA investigators have the exact same mentality as an American lynch mob. The evidence of the behaviour of the CASA investigators is contained in the AAT transcript. They set out to "get" Pantovic by whatever means, fair means or foul, they could find. Furthermore the "safety" justification does not cut it. We are talking about a mustering pilot in the middle of nowhere.

This brings the entire organisation into disrepute which leads to my question as to how an honest and upstanding person can continue to work in that place, I certainly could not as I value my reputation.

A vexatious witness and a vexatious prosecutor make for poor maintenance of the rule of law. CAsA are a poor example of the model litigant.

Sunny none of your supposed reputation has much weight when you put these positions down on your CV.

Hmm, interesting how Quadrio is considered a hero.
What was said?

'The expression “fit and proper person” is not defined. I discussed the expression in my reasons in Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 820. In that case, I concluded the applicant had demonstrated remarkably poor judgment in the operation of a helicopter, while accepting he was a skilful pilot. Good pilots have good judgment, although I accept even good pilots occasionally make errors of judgment. Errors of judgment are a problem where they suggest the person’s judgment is flawed. A person with bad judgment (as opposed to a person who has merely made a mistake) is not fit to hold a pilot’s licence, no matter how skilful he or she may be.
Flying low over water at high speed while consuming alcohol demonstrates remarkably bad judgment, as opposed to a series of individual errors in judgment. (Leaving the helicopter unattended while the engine was running in the mistaken belief that the collective lock was an adequate safeguard was an error of judgment, as was failing to insist that passengers wore life jackets. Either of these transgressions might not, in isolation, reflect on the applicant’s fitness.) It follows I accept the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the flight crew licences. But what action should be taken?

I decided Mr Jones’s judgment was not irredeemably flawed in Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I accepted he had the intelligence and insight to appreciate his errors and learn from them. On that basis, I decided a more lenient regulatory response was justified. The position of Mr Jones can be contrasted with that of the applicant in Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709. In that case, the applicant actively ignored the rules in order to entertain his passengers. The Tribunal took a tougher line. Mr Pantovic’s errors were in at least one respect more serious than those of Mr Jones: I concluded Mr Jones did not knowingly flout the rules, whereas Mr Pantovic knew he was not permitted to consume alcohol while flying, for example. Having said that, Mr Pantovic’s judgment does not strike me as being as flawed as that of Mr Quadrio, who apparently regarded the regulatory action against him as a form of persecution'.

I wonder what is in paragraphs 16-22 of the decision which have been redacted?

Will CASA appeal to the Federal Court?

The whole thing, this entire event, is a pathetic example of the low level that aviation gets down to in OZ.

Drinking and flying? What are we talking about here while we jump up and down about CASA!!

Too many fools...

Heroics...
 

The only people who think they are heroes are the CAsA "investigators" who score a "hit". All without any due consideration of how they go about doing it. Legal or otherwise.

Quadrio's no hero, nobody thinks he is, BUT his case is a classic example of the CAsA way of bastardising an individual. Whatever it takes.
And the true story has yet to emerge.

The phrase 'not a fit and proper' person can be as readily applied to people within CAsA as without. No question. Its just that the result differs.

That CAsA even talks about 'due process', 'fairness' and " a just culture".. WETF that might be...is bs/ rubbish/ meaningless.

Individuals can do nothing.. and get slaughtered, and other very serious issues just dont quite seem to make it to the score board.
Why is that..corruption, cronyism, mates or bureaucratic sloth.? Go for the easy bash of an individual?

Which gets us back to the ASRR. One of the changes required,,URGENTLY.

When breaches of the regs are found, the evidence be passed to an agency independent of CAsA to fully and properly investigate the matter.
NOT CAsA dealing with its own interpretations of regs, running any agenda and protecting its own as required.
And convictions and penalties only made in a court of law. Not in the AAT.

What about the other phrase.. 'a dire and imminent threat to aviation safety'

CAsA is just that,:mad::mad::mad:... To the safety of the GA industry and the sanity of aviation participants.