[Peetwo]

Carmody's proof & pudding -

Apparently old mate Carmody was un-impressed that the ongoing embuggerance of DJ was dragged, by out going Senator Nick, into the hot bed of CASA vs the RRAT committee in Senate Estimates - 

Reference: Nick's final Estimates & tabled docs

Senator XENOPHON: Okay, but it seems, on the face of it, that it is having a bearing on the decisions made by CASA given that there was an email from Malcolm Campbell on 6 October 2017 to Fred van der Heide.

Or here at 09:35 -

  
...plus the docs were released under the FOI so technically they are available to anyone un-redacted if requested - or not...  ( see here: Vol 1 & Vol 2)

However the real 'proof in the pudding' (IMO) that Carmody Capers is nothing more than yet another bureaucratic footstool to yet another Ministerial WOFTAM, lies in the disturbing and overwhelming dichotomy of evidence that CC is talking the talk but not walking the walk on 'Just Culture': The Leopard (Carmody) reveals it's spots

"I am making it very clear to CASA staff and the aviation community that we will use information in the interests of safety and in a manner consistent with the 'just culture' principles reflected in our regulatory philosophy."

Go to the instruction on the limitations on the use of safety information.

 For example one of the areas of effective administrative transparency and trust with Government (& its agencies like CASA) can be effectively displayed, is through compliance with the FOI Act 1982.

In CASA's case compliance with the FOI Act would appear to be extremely dubious.

Reference from the 27/11/17 Senate Estimates Hansard:

Senator XENOPHON: But there's a CASA disclosure log on the web, of documents, isn't there?

Mr Carmody : Yes, there is.

Senator XENOPHON: Does that relate to documents such as standard form recommendations or not?

Dr Aleck : I think under the FOI legislation there are some limitations about what goes on there. But anything that we're required to post publicly will be on there.

Senator XENOPHON: So there's no question that these documents that weren't posted publicly should have been posted publicly? Can you take that into account?

Dr Aleck : If they were within the category of documents that ought to have been identified then I—

Senator XENOPHON: If you could take that on notice.

Dr Aleck : I will, yes.

However referencing the CASA FOI disclosure log it would seem that CASA is anything but forthcoming and transparent under the FOI Act (note the recent update date):

..Information attached to, or referred to, in CASA's disclosure log will generally be removed after 12 months, unless the information has enduring public value.

CASA's Freedom of Information Disclosure

FOI Reference

Summary

Exemption 9 September 2016
F16/4491

Seeking access to risk assessments for the changes to CASR Part 101 to determine any possible risk or hazard it would present to current aviation activities and the general public.
-
Last updated: 22 August 2017

     
IMO it is absolutely not possible that there has be no documents released by CASA under the FOI, since 9 September 2016, that meet the FOI Act ToR for disclosure.

The next proof in the pudding for CC lies in the fact that the CASA Enforcement Manual is yet to be amended since January 2016 and still contains former DAS McComic's moniker in the preface:

Enforcement manual

Our enforcement manual outlines the policies and strategies we have in place for aviation safety compliance.

Director's preface

Revision history (last update January 2016)

Table of Contents

1. About this manual
   
2. CASA's Enforcement Policy
   
3. Initiating the Enforcement Process
   
4. Compliance-Related Action
   
5. Civil Action - Enforceable Voluntary Undertakings (EVUs)
   
6. Administrative Action
   
7. Administrative Action - Serious and Imminent Risk
   
8. Infringement Notices (Administrative Fines)
   
9. Voluntary Reporting - Aviation Self Reporting Scheme
   
10. The Demerit Points Scheme
    
11. Criminal Action - Prosecution
    
12. Access
    
13. Gathering Evidence and Handling Exhibits
    
14. Note Taking
    
15. Interviewing
    
16. Detaining Aircraft
    
17. Police Assistance
    

• Appendix 1 - Flowcharts - Coordinated Enforcement Processes
  
• Appendix 2 - The Legal basis of Regulatory Enforcement
  
• Appendix 3 - Delegations and Exercise of Powers by Delegates
  
• Appendix 4 - Guidance on the term 'fit and proper person'
  

Complete manual

Last updated: 25 August 2017

   
Note again that the EM webpage recently updated and that CC in Estimates would appear to be cognisant of at least some of the contents contained within the CASA EM:

Senator XENOPHON: Some more than others! Time is limited. I wasn't in the room, but you said earlier that it's important that CASA applies rule in a consistent and fair manner in terms of enforcement.


Mr Carmody : That's correct.

Senator XENOPHON: You stand by that? I want to go to the issue of Dominic James, the pilot at the centre of the Pel-Air inquiry. You're very familiar with that inquiry. Mr James is at a point where he's ready to move from being copilot of a Falcon jet to pilot in command of a multicrew flight. And, by the way, I have permission from Mr James to raise these issues. There's a question as to whether CASA is imposing unreasonable requirements on him before they will permit him to be endorsed as a pilot in command. There's a standard form recommendation. You're familiar with the standard form recommendation?

Mr Carmody : Yes.

---

CHAIR: All right. You're well aware of the sensitivities, Senator Xenophon, so you have the call.

Senator XENOPHON: It is a sensitive issue. The standard form recommendation, as I understand it, is a document relating to adding references to a flight crew licence condition. Is that right?

Mr Carmody : In reality it's a recommendation that might have many functions. It's a way of combining information to a decision-maker like me, a recommendation for us to take a particular course of action. So it might not be licensing; it could be anything.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure, but the normal course is that for the document to be a valid document, it ought to be a signed document—is that right?

Mr Carmody : Yes, that would be reasonable.

Senator XENOPHON: That's in terms of the appropriateness. My understanding is that a recommendation was made, but it was not signed off. In other words, are you satisfied, and you may want to take this on notice, that the standard form recommendation that I have referred you to is appropriately executed so as to be a valid document?

Mr Carmody : I'd have to take it on notice. I haven't got the document. I don't know the date of the document.

---

Senator XENOPHON: So there's a question there: is the standard form recommendation incomplete? I asked you to take that on notice. If it is in some way incomplete or deficient, that may have some bearing on the decision-making process of CASA. It's a technical question, but could you take that on notice?

Mr Carmody : I'll take it on notice, but if it's a current standard form recommendation, then, as I said before, that's why I'd like to review it. The standard form recommendation that I assume underpins the original decision probably has not changed. Anyway, I'll take it on notice and have a look at it.

Senator XENOPHON: Okay, but there's a question as to the deficiency of that form. My concern is that an internal CASA email, which I've just referred to, reveals that an official is having regard to the draft ATSB report in his handling of Mr James' proficiency check. As a general principle, can you take that into regard? My understanding is that it breaches the Transport Safety Investigation Act?

Simply put the evidence presented by DAS Carmody at Senate Estimates would appear to directly contradict his 'just culture' instruction and protestations in defence of CASA's current  enforcement policy inflicted on industry stakeholders under his watch...

MTF...P2