CASA Board; snouts in the trough?
 

The word is that the CASA Board is going to NZ for a Board Meeting.
Oh, there will be 'networking' opportunities for the board I guess.
MUST be SOME justification why a bunch of misfits would spend all that taxpayer money on a 'trip' to NZ?
BIG improvement with the new Chairman obviously. I see the 'old'
CASA board stayed in CASA offices.
Oh well, lets hope it goes as well as Brindabella did...

Bit of a cheap shot there, Actus.

Brindy's and Pelican were both decent little airlines, in their own differing ways, until Business Air Holdings got hold of each of them.

The man you are having a shot at ran his airline successfuly right up to the day he sold it, and got burnt by the incompetence of the buyers to boot.

If anyone on the CASA board gives a **** about GA, it is JB. In my view, he is about the only hope we have in there.

....and given the amount of bandwidth spent here spruiking the virtue of NZ CAA Regs and the vibrant NZ GA scene, I wonder if in New Zealand there might be found something real, valuable and tangible that Jeff can show the board? :ugh:

A 'message' to The board.......

Bring Home The NZ CAA 'rooles and regs'.........

P L E E Z E ..........

Not holding my breath....:=

'Cheap shot'?
Be congruent my friend. Brindabella had SERIOUS maintenance issues LOOONG before it was sold for $6millions.
NZ regs?
Fool's Gold.

Could the CASA Board please stay in New Zealand?

It's more than likely a lot cheaper for them to have a board meeting in NZ compared to Perth Darwin or Cairns, considering the cost of airfares to NZ.

+1

Has anyone counted the number of times, "to the satisfaction of the director", or words to that effect, appears in NZ regs?

Or is everyone too busy comparing page numbers, notwithstanding the different typeface and formatting :ugh::ugh:

Duck Pilot,

I couldn't agree more. It would be way cheaper. Cheap shot dead in the water!!!

Groggy

It is one of the subtle points in the NZ regs that works very well.

For example, Rather than "this is how you must comply" the New Zealand rules state that the operator has to show that they meet the requirements of a certain rule. To put it another way, the rule says you must comply with this requirement but you demonstrate how you will comply.

The CAA can publish an Advisory Circular (AC) on how you can meet the requirement. However if you can demonstrate to the director that you can use a different methodology to achieve the same intent of the rule then it is accepted. The AC is not law but is one way you can comply.

It is a collaboration of the CAA and the Operator to achieve the compliance required in the rules rather a dictate from the director how you fly your aircraft.

+1

However I suspect some aviators in the West Island are so used to very prescriptive rules they wouldn't understand.

Our CAA do some daft things but the NZCAA rules do work pretty well.

Cheaper still if they held it in... Canberra!

Oh dear me.... Should we not give them a go? :D

This is without doubt, potentially the best board we have seen, perhaps ever. Let's see how they perform during this year, before firing more bullets. :=

Being "better" than the last board isn't saying much is it?:hmm:

The CEO sits on the CAsA board I believe. Does he get paid directors fees?
I've never heard of a CEO sitting on the board in other corporations, is this just a unique CAsA thing?

If the usual rules of Governance are enforced at CASA (which may not be the case), the CEO does not "sit" on the Board. The CEO is "in attendance" at the Board meeting and certainly has no vote. To put that slightly differently, the CEO is an invited person and can even be asked to leave if sensitive matters need discussion.

The CEO makes his report to the Board and answers questions. More than that I will not tell you since you don't know the secret handshake :p

This is normal corporate governance. The CEOs of both Qantas and Virgin Australia, plus most of our major airports, are also directors and sit on their respective boards.

IMHO that for a Government entity you will get better corporate governance if the CEO is on the board.

Hiway to where we're all heading.

Judgement reserved on the current lot but for past decades your last statement just doesnt cut the mustard.

Corporate governance out of CAsA has been woeful/ pitiful /disgusting under the likes McComick.:mad:

Maybe, just maybe with Boyd etc there might be change for the better.

Personally I very much doubt it. The CAsA juggernaut has ground down many in the past, and the required changes just never get made.:mad:

Actually, it is much worse than that, enough aviation industry people demanded, via the Forsyth inquiry, a third tier of prescriptive regulation ----- all part of the "pingya" syndrome.

Spell it all out in fine detail, then do exactly what the "law" requires, no more, no less, then "they can't pingya".

This is probably the worst recommendation of the Forsyth report, which reversed the Howard government policy of 1996, that gave us two tier legislation plus Advisory Circulars, acceptable means of compliance ---- JUST LIKE NZ, US, EASA and many more.

A giant leap backwards, demanded by the industry!!

It is a condemnation of the CASA (and predecessors) approach to enforcement, combined with the lack of nous of large slabs of the industry, that we are in this situation.

Yet another case of what was described by Bob Hawke as: "Instead of finding a cure for polio, all we do is want to improve the iron lung**".

Actus,
Just accept that what the new CASA board is doing is holding a (long announced) combined meeting with their NZ counterparts, and doing it in good faith. The CASA board (or, more particularly, Skidmore) might learn something useful.

Even a decision to level the very lopsided AU approach to the TTMRA would be an improvement ---- just have a look at the Civil Aviation Act 1998 (Cth) versus the NZ equivalent, it fundamentally shows that CASA does not accept the terms, let alone the spirit, of the TTMRA.

They could look at why industry consultation is effective in NZ, versus Australia, and they could learn why any resulting NZ rules developed are "reasonable", as opposed to what gets churned out here --- but that would also require fundamental amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 2001, which, unfortunately, the Forsyth inquiry recommended against.

Without amendments to the Act, we cannot have genuine cost benefit justified risk based performance/outcome based rules ---- the kind that most of rest of Australian industry already has!!

They could also look at how NZ (very successfully) "promotes and fosters" aviation --- as a Ministerial responsibility, which is where the responsibility should be --- not with an administrative enforcement body.

I could go on, but that is enough for now.

Tootle pip!!

** Don't take me to task on the accuracy of the quote, but you get the general idea.

I believe you still need to give them some slack. Out of all the boards we have seen to date, this one seems to have a better idea of what the issues are, if only from industry experience.

Can someone tell me what the role of the CAsA Board is again?