[Peetwo]

Submission 9 ANON, 10 AMROBA:  

---

9 Name Withheld (PDF 368 KB) 

Problem: CASA fails to set clear and concise aviation safety standards.

I suspect that the Committee will be aware of CASA’s Aviation Regulation Reform Program.
This program has taken greater than 30 years and is still unfinished(!). The time and public
money that this program has consumed, frankly, disgusts me. I understand that regulatory
change may take substantial time and expenditure, and could possibly even accept that if
the desired outcomes are achieved (greater net safety benefits to general aviation and the
public). However, this ongoing regulatory reform has resulted in little or no aviation safety
benefits. The public not only expects more than this from public entities, but is entitled to
more. (As an example of a proactive safety initiative, some of the cost of this reform
program would have been better spent on subsidising the cost to owners of fitting ADS-B
equipment to all VFR aircraft, reducing risk of collision in uncontrolled airspace. I have
further simple suggestions that would increase general aviation safety in a tangible manner,
however it is not my role to introduce aviation safety standards).

Many regional flying schools (mine included) are encountering difficulties transitioning to
CASA’s Part 141 and 142 flight training requirements. The time, money and efforts required
to comply with the staggering amount of new regulations is significant (and does not result
in improved safety). Due to the difficulties of the transition, my flying school cannot
currently deliver any training; all 5 instructors have had to move on. A once flourishing
regional aviation business has unfortunately been disbanded.

Section 9(1)© of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 requires that CASA develop “appropriate, clear
and concise aviation safety standards”. They are anything but. The standards are so unclear,
so unconcise, so conflicting and so ambiguous in nature that it could be (easily) argued that
CASA has not delivered its function under S.9 of the Act. (I note that CASA is currently
drafting a plain English guide to some legislation - is this not an admission of not meeting its
function under S.9?).

Aside from being neither clear nor concise, the sheer number of pages of legislative
requirements is overwhelming (I have seen estimates of the entire size at 1600 pages, I
don’t believe any person can know the exact number). Aviation in Australia is not uniquely
different to that of other developed nations. For clarity, I suggest the Committee compares
the physical size of Australian general aviation legislation with that of New Zealand or the
United States of America. I believe at this late stage in this very considerable legislative
mess, it would still be more cost effective to simply discard all Australian aviation legislation
right now and adopt the much clearer New Zealand equivalent.

CASA’s approach to constructing legislation is at odds with Government mandates to reduce
red tape and administrative burden on regulated entities. I note also that the legislation
does not take a contemporary, risk-based approach to achieving its objectives, and instead
is reliant on outdated prescriptive prose.

Solution: Organisational change is required to account for this legislative disgrace; the
agency is clearly incompetent, from the top down. Sack the Chairman, Board and executive
staff (note: I am not suggesting a ‘restructure’ of the agency). Prior to the drafting of any
new legislation, CASA should consider implementing that already operating efficiently in
other jurisdictions (or consider adopting it in full).

Problem: CASA’s structure fails to promote fairness and transparency.

One could argue that CASA’s failure to set clear and concise aviation safety legislation would
not be such a concern, if the ramifications of legislative breaches were not so serious. Many
breaches of the legislation are offences of strict liability, potentially resulting in criminal
convictions. This penalty system does not encourage compliance, particularly regarding
raising potential compliance issues with aircraft owners, aircraft maintainers or the
regulator.

In my dealings with CASA staff I have often encountered conflicting legislative
interpretations (no surprise given the unclear standards). Well-intentioned pilots receiving
incorrect regulatory information are put in a most difficult position, and can potentially be
severely penalised for following this information. Persons who believe they have been
unfairly treated by CASA can approach the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC).
CASA states that the ICC “does not sit within CASA’s organisational structure to ensure
independence and impartiality”; the ICC reports to the CASA Board - this arrangement is
akin to being the judge and the jury.

There is no need for the ICC. When the public feels aggrieved at government officials’
decisions, they have a right of review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT
currently requests that complainants firstly try to decide matters with the CASA ICC. In my
opinion, complainants are discouraged from approaching the ICC due to its relationship
within CASA. If CASA is serious about the impartial nature of the ICC, the ICC should be
required to publish all cases and decisions publically. I suspect these are not published as it
may show that the ICC is ineffective. It should be a simple matter to determine the
effectiveness of the ICC: for those complainants that proceed from the ICC to lodge their
grievance with the AAT, determine the rate of ICC decisions that are overturned by the AAT.

In my short time involved with general aviation I have heard of corrupt and unlawful
behaviour of CASA personnel. CASA previously had an internal Ethics and Conduct
Committee, who investigated fraud and illegal activity with the agency (Picture 1). This was
disbanded in 2016. To gain insight into the internal culture and behaviours of CASA, it may
be beneficial for the Committee to investigate the matters that the Ethics and Conduct
Committee were dealing with (along with the outcomes of any internal workplace surveys).

Solution: Remove strict liability offences from all but the most serious breaches of
legislation. Determine the effectiveness of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner – if
found to be effective, make publically available all complaints and decisions; if found to be
ineffective, abolish the function.

10 Aviation Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association Inc (AMROBA) (PDF 1277 KB) 

---

MTF...P2