[Peetwo]

Blatherskite - Episode II

Totally related to all of the above, 2 days ago I received the following email correspondence from Amanda Palmer Branch Manager of the Fort Fumble Comms Branch (plus attachments)  :

OFFICIAL
 

Hi P2

Please find attached disclosure records in relation to the 4 March, 22 April and 2 July 2024 FOI release. 

Regards,

Amanda 

Amanda Palmer (she/her)

Branch Manager

Communications Branch

CASA\Stakeholder Engagement Division

 

1. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...y-2024.pdf

UNOFFICIAL

Dear ,

Further to your letter of request dated 8 August 2023, please find attached the following:

1. Letter in reply dated 19 September 2023
2. Attachment A being a timeline of events as referred to in the letter.
3. Appendix setting out various relevant terminology under the civil aviation legislation.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this email and the attachments.

I note that the information provided is based upon CASA conducting a review of its records and
available information. While we are reasonably confident it is an accurate summation of the
position this task has been conducted in the time allowed and if further information should
come to hand then CASA will notify you accordingly.

As indicated in the letter, I’d be pleased to answer any queries or issues which may arise from
our response.

Kind regards

Anthony Carter

A/g Branch Manager
Litigation, Investigations and Enforcement
CASA\Legal and Regulatory Affairs Division

2. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...l-2024.pdf

Coroners Court of Western Australia
Level 10, Central Law Courts
501 Hay Street
PERTH WA 6000

By email only:

Dear

Coronial investigation into the deaths of Amber Jess MILLAR and Troy Robert THOMAS

I refer to your letter of 8 August 2023 advising that the Coroner was presently considering whether
a coronial inquest into the deaths of the individuals named above was desirable in the
circumstances of this case. With a view to informing that decision, you requested the Civil
Authority Safety Authority (CASA) provide a report in respect of the matters set out in your letter.

We thank you for providing the opportunity to address the particular matters raised in your letter
and for allowing additional time to enable us to ensure we provide you with useful information.

Responses to the questions set out in your letter are provided below. As agreed, our input is
provided here in the form of a letter rather than a formal report. While we have endeavoured to be
reasonably comprehensive, the information we provide here is not exhaustive. If more detail
should be required, we will be happy to provide that. In the meantime, we would welcome the
opportunity to clarify or elaborate on any of the information provided below, in writing or in
discussion with you directly.

Recognising that no decision has yet been taken as to whether to proceed with an inquest, CASA
wishes to assure the Coroner of our full cooperation if it is decided that an inquest should be held.
Moreover, we signal here our support for the conduct of an inquest, with a view to ensuring that the
important issues a coronial inquest would canvass are fully and objectively explored.

Please note that important terms and concepts relevant to the issues to hand are defined,
described and explained in the Appendix accompanying this letter.

P2 - IMO it is easy to see why the WA Coroner was subsequently swayed to not conduct a proper Coronial inquest into this tragic accident, given the complete whitewash by the CASA Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division...

3. https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...h-2024.pdf

Extract from the ICC report:

Conflict of interest: observations and conclusions

104. The Civil Aviation Act and the Board Governance Arrangements delineate the functions of the Board and CASA: the Board sets CASA’s strategic direction; while CASA issues permissions. There is no scope for Board members to be involved in the issuing of permissions.

105. The Statement of Expectations imposes an obligation on Board members to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and industry. The Board Governance Arrangements require Board members to encourage CASA Officials to cooperate with others to achieve common objectives.

106. At the same time, the Board must also avoid any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

107. There is no guidance for Board members on how they should facilitate effective interaction between industry and CASA while at the same time avoiding perceived conflicts of interest. This is problematic in that from a Board member’s attempts to facilitate effective interaction s 47F Released under the Freedom of Information Act and co-operation with industry, there is a very real risk that a third party could reasonably form the view that a Board member’s facilitation or encouragement has created an advantage or benefit for the industry or industry participant.

108. The background to the CASA Board meeting in Darwin in June 2021 highlights this tension.

109. It is apparent that Mr Bridge facilitated effective interaction and co-operation between CASA and the crocodile egg collection industry. Examples of this include:

a. Mr Bridge was appointed to CASA’s Board on 1 October 2018. On 5 October 2018, Mr Carmody noted to Mr Mathews that he had been approached by Mr Bridge on behalf of about load certification for crocodile egg collection.
b. In March 2021, Mr Bridge arranged for Mr Crawford (as acting DAS) to meet with Mr and helicopter operators involved in crocodile egg collection to demonstrate the sophistication of their operations and equipment, and to discuss the status of ’ STC application.
c. Mr Bridge arranged the Board’s meeting with the light helicopter operators to discuss Part 138 in June 2021.

110. The tension between facilitating that effective interaction and co-operation between CASA and industry and the potential for conflicts of interest to arise is highlighted when reviewing how this facilitation was undertaken.

111. There is no evidence to conclude that Mr Bridge had an actual or potential conflict of interest.

112. However, based on how the relevant correspondence reads, it would also be open to a third party to reasonably form the view that Mr Bridge has a close association with which could (but did not) influence the performance of his duties and responsibilities, constituting a perceived conflict of interest.

113. The reason a third party could reasonably form that view when considering the following in conjunction, or as a series of events:

a. During Mr Bridge’s first week as a Board member, he raised issues with Mr Carmody as CEO/DAS CASA on behalf of .
b. Mr Bridge made subsequent approaches to each DAS (or acting DAS in the case of Mr Crawford) in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
c. Mr Bridge’s email exchange with Mr Carmody on behalf of crocodile egg collecting operators in February 2020 could be interpreted as implying an awareness that he should not be involved in escalating the operators’ concerns to CASA. 21 (Mr Bridge has stated that he had not wanted to be in the middle of communications between s 47F s 47F s 47F s 47F Released s 47F under the Freedom of Information Act CASA and industry participants, and therefore once the issue had been raised at the appropriate level he had expected further communications and resolutions to be handled by those parties.)
d. While Mr Bridge recognised that it was not appropriate for the Board to be involved in day-to-day operational matters or to have any say in any specific approvals, (as opposed to the impact of proposed or actual regulatory changes) on 26 November 2019 he requested CASA look at granting operators the same approvals they had been issued the last two crocodile egg seasons.
e. In his email to dated 26 May 2021, Mr Bridge appears to draw a connection between his remaining tenure on CASA’s Board expiring; the impending introduction of Part 138; and those involved in crocodile egg collection’s concerns with the requirements of Part 138.

114. It is recommended that guidance be developed and incorporated into the Board Governance Arrangements addressing the tension for Board members between their obligation to facilitate effective interaction and co-operation between CASA and industry while also avoiding perceived conflicts of interest arising

Hmm...not sure, after reading that extract (plus other contextual observations by the CASA ICC in his review report) how it is possible not to assess as extreme conflicts of interest (bordering on corruption) by certain Board members and former Executive Managers in the handling of the whole Croco-shite attempted cover-up?? - UFB!!   

MTF...P2 

PS: TICK TOCK FAA Audit...TICK TOCK INDEED!