[Peetwo]

On Crossbenches and Boards - 

Chocfrog for you Wombat (yet again ) you've totally nailed it, the Board is indeed a toothless tiger whose main role, it would seem, is to provide an expensive, tax payer and industry funded fig leaf for the incoming miniscule...   

Quote from this week's LMH: 

...It all comes down to tomorrow. The red, the blue, the green and the teal have all had their say and the fate of the 47th parliament now lies with the voters. Will general aviation come out of this smelling rosy or more like decaying mulch? That's a conundrum with an evasive answer; regardless who wins, GA won't be on the first page of their priority list, if at all. Both the Coalition and the ALP have made their positions clear-ish, but as D-day draws closer analysts and pundits seem even surer that the parliament is going to be hung. That means whoever forms government will need the co-operation of the cross-benchers to do so, and other than a small few, the cross-benchers haven't really embraced the problems of a minority like GA. So whilst a good outcome for GA is very hard to get a handle on, a worst-case scenario is much more obvious: nothing happens at all. The time for revitalising our community is right now, not during the 48th parliament or any other parliament to come. The weight of work done to open the eyes of politicians has put us in the best position ever to get something concrete done, and if that is all ignored in the coming months because it doesn't gel with poltical will, then it all will have been wasted. There won't be any more chances; this is the one we have and somehow we need to make it happen for us, and that may mean deeper engagement with the minor parties...

Teal it is?? -   

And now with Albo as PM and the imminent return of the GWEP (Great White Elephant Paper), the chances of the Board concept being once again abandoned; and/or the CA Act being amended; or the Board being given greater powers of proper oversight; become marginal at best, given Labor's love affair for large Government industries in the guise of independent statutory authorities/agencies...  

However perhaps there is a glimmer of hope that under a parliament where the balance of power in both houses will potentially be controlled by the crossbench, that with an allied block of Nationals (and some Liberal) Senators, the Sic'em Rex MAYDAY proposition (even if he isn't reelected) may (ironically) have a better chance of getting up if sold properly as a non-partisan (save an industry) Bill?? 

Flashback in time to highlight how we've been at this same fork in the road before...

But remember, under slightly different circumstances, we've been here before...

Ref: https://auntypru.com/catchers-in-the-wry/

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
23 June 2010

…CASA, the nation’s independent aviation safety watchdog, will recruit almost 100 additional frontline staff with the $89.9 million in new funding provided by the Budget. This extra investment in safer skies will be funded via a small increase in the aviation fuel excise, from 2.8 cents per litre to 3.5 cents per litre. The Government considers this to be a reasonable and responsible step considering the industry’s continued growth depends on the public’s ongoing confidence in its safety standards. Following the ICAO and FAA audits this investment in CASA’s staff and training is critical, and will strengthen the organisation’s oversight of the industry. Aviation safety should be bi-partisan, and the Government puts the safety of passengers ahead of other interests…

---

If the crossbench, the supporting Nationals and the department bureaucrats want further evidence that the industry concerns in regards to the toxic culture, maladministration and red tape embuggerance continues unabated, without control or proper oversight, under the current CASA executive, then go no further than following excerpt from the ANAO WLR - 

4.8 The ANAO assessed whether CASA’s performance reporting to the Board was appropriate and found that performance indicators for measuring against CASA’s portfolio outcome were only partly reliable or complete.38

4.9 CASA does not reliably report against its KPIs relevant to surveillance. CASA financial year reporting39 against KPIs on incident and accident data requires improvement because the key performance indicator relies on the availability of data which is published by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) on a calendar year basis. In April 2021, the CASA Board were provided with a briefing from the CASA executive indicating that BITRE data used to calculate the accident and incident rates was deficient ‘…as “hours flown” data [is] often estimated leading to a weakness in the veracity of any calculated statistics’.

4.10 CASA annual reporting is focussed on trends rather than its identified KPIs on the number of incidents/accidents per hours flown. The DAS, in reporting to the Board in June 2021, acknowledged the need for a lead indicator and improvement in analysis and reporting with a CASA action item to:

Improve Accident Trend Data analysis of sector specific and/or aircraft specific matters to bring to the Board’s attention. A lead indicator is required that highlights emerging issues.

4.11 The CASA executive does not report to the Board against performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of its surveillance approach for its planned, targeted or response surveillance activities. Rather, it reports on the percentage of planned surveillance achieved in a year. While CASA’s method of calculating this outcome has changed over time, CASA does not provide this information in its reporting which impedes robust analysis of the data. There is limited information provided on the methodology it adopts in its calculation of surveillance event outcomes by CASA in its reporting.

4.12 There is minimal detail reported to the Board on the NSSP. The NSSP report does not provide information to the Board on AHPIs overdue, despite the AHPI being a key indicator used to assess risk (see paragraph 3.6 for further detail). The Board requested in April 2021 that NSSP reporting should be more granular. As at January 2022, surveillance reporting to the Board is not more granular and there is no reporting on overdue AHPI’s.

4.13 The primary CASA oversight body for aviation safety, the Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) commenced reporting to the CASA Board in June 2021 (see paragraphs 2.15 and 3.52 to 3.56 for further detail on the ASC) and CASA has indicated that ‘…the Aviation Safety Scorecard is a recent initiative that includes reporting on the AHPI assessments which now also goes to the Board’.

4.14 CASA’s internal audit of its performance framework in October 2021 found ‘CASA’s approach to developing, analysing and reporting CASA’s performance through its performance measures could be improved to ensure full compliance with the PGPA Act and PGPA Rule’. Specifically:

• The performance reporting terminology used in CASA’s Corporate Plan is not consistent with PGPA Rule and RMG requirements
  
• The methodology used in, and the structure of, CASA’s Corporate Plan makes it difficult to identify what performance measures CASA uses to determine whether its Purpose is being achieved, and what targets are applicable to these measures
  
• Aspects of CASA’s presentation of performance information in the Annual Performance Statement could be clarified to support readers’ understanding of CASA’s performance
  
• Although CASA’s performance measures broadly align with best practice, CASA’s performance measures could be more effective in demonstrating whether CASA’s is achieving its Purpose
  
• CASA’s performance measures could be documented more comprehensively and completely
  
• Internal guidance for performance reporting material should be updated to more accurately reflect CASA’s legislative obligations.
  

4.15 CASA agreed to all three recommendations to address these issues.

4.16 The ANAO found that reporting to the Board is not always as transparent as would be expected and does not reflect some of the performance issues and delays CASA has identified with its surveillance activity.40

---

4.23 CASA is required to report to the Minister, consistent with the Regulator Performance Guide July 202141 and the Minister’s Statement of Expectations requires reporting on a quarterly basis.42

4.24 The CASA Board Chair writes to the Minister generally at the beginning of each quarter providing a progress dashboard for the previous quarter on CASA’s delivery against the Minister’s Statement of Expectation and the CASA Corporate Plan.

4.25 The ANAO reviewed the regularity of the CASA quarterly performance reports over the period from 2017–18 to 2020–21. CASA provided all mandated reports to the Minister over this period, although the Minister requested more timely reporting in feedback to CASA for one of the reports.

4.26 CASA’s quarterly reporting on surveillance to the Minister is aligned with the reports provided to the CASA Board. There has been a marked reduction in the level of detail in surveillance reporting over time with recent reporting not accurately reflecting some of the performance issues and delays CASA has identified that increases risk to surveillance activity, including:

• while CASA has implemented its Learning and Management System, it has not established an effective monitoring system for key skills training (for instance, flying currency and training);
  
• the delay in establishing the EAP system; and
  
• decommissioning Sky Sentinel (which has been identified as being deficient in providing appropriate data for monitoring and reporting purposes).
  

     
In other words the CASA executive have simply thumbed their noses at CASA's statutory reporting obligations under both the PGPA and Civil Aviation Acts...  

In particular, CASA notes that given that the ANAO uses different audit methodologies to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), CASA does not consider the ANAO’s findings in any way invalidate the outcome of ICAO’s 2017 assessment, which concluded that Australia’s effective implementation of ICAO standards and recommended practices related to surveillance obligations was 96.25%.

The Iron Ring has also mislead the ANAO in regards to the above as it should be remembered that the 2017 ICAO audit only examined the self-assessment survey completed by the applicable Govt dept and agencies...

Maybe it is time for the FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) team to come back and properly audit the Australian aviation safety system...

MTF...P2     

Ps P2 OBS: Note the two footnote (41 & 42) links were not in force during the period reviewed by the ANAO (ie 2017-18 to 2020-21), nor was BJ's SOE referred to??:

41 Available from https://deregulation.pmc.gov.au/sites/de...-guide.pdf [accessed 24 January 2022].

42 Available from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00929 [accessed 24 January 2022].