[Peetwo]

E is for?? - Carmody on 'just culture' & the big "E"

Hitch – “But is this really the dawn of a new attitude within CASA, or is Shane Carmody just a very good illusionist? Like CEOs before him, Carmody has promised a sunset on the reform program and told the industry how important consultation is.”

Many members of the BRB would argue 'ad nauseum' why it is not appropriate for CASA to be effectively the rule maker, the Judge, jury and the executioner. Those members would cite many examples of duplicitous, black letter, McConvict endorsed enforcement actions (JQ, RDC & DJ a couple of prime examples) that has lead to major embuggerances seemingly at odds with the government accepted ASRR recommendations 17 & 18:

17. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority publishes and demonstrates the philosophy of ‘just culture’ whereby individuals involved in a reportable event are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training. However, actions of gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts should not be tolerated.

18. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reintroduces a ‘use of discretion’ procedure that gives operators or individuals the opportunity to discuss and, if necessary, remedy a perceived breach prior to CASA taking any formal action. This procedure is to be followed in all cases, except where CASA identifies a Serious and Imminent Risk to Air Safety.  

It would seem that Carmody - as per those recommendations and the Ministerial wet lettuce SOE - is determined to not shirk his responsibilities as CEO to CASA to embark on firmly and proactively addressing those government commitments to the Forsyth recommendations...

Via Oz Flying... :

CASA inspectors now have a new set of rules to operate by. (CASA)

CASA revises Enforcement Rules
29 September 2017

CASA CEO Shane Carmody has issued instructions to staff that will change the way CASA inspectors assess violations and enforce regulations.

The new instructions mean that individuals and operators will be given the chance to address and correct issues before CASA considers enforcement action, and that action will be considered only in cases of a deliberate or reckless violation.

CASA will also consider enforcement in instances of repeated violation or a failure on behalf of the person or operator to correct their actions.

According to CASA, the new instruction is part of the new "just culture" philosophy the regulator is putting in place in the wake of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

"It is vital that CASA does not simply talk about taking a 'just culture' approach to regulation but actively implements the principles into our day-to-day operations and decision making," Carmody said.

"Our rational 'just culture' approach means that where honest errors or mistakes are made CASA looks to support the efforts of individuals and organisations to make necessary improvements, correct identified problems and ensure safety risks are effectively managed in the process.

"Individuals and organisations with an understanding and commitment to safety need to take responsibility for addressing safety shortcomings and where they demonstrate the ability and willingness to do this CASA need not take action.

"CASA is encouraging a proactive approach to safety by the aviation community by clearly setting out how we will use safety information and the basis on which we will refrain from taking enforcement action based on that information.

"Of course, if the safety rules are deliberately flouted or action is not taken to address safety issues then CASA must and will take appropriate action."

"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."

The new instruction also details how information may be used by CASA, operators and service providers, and lays out the options people and organisations have for challenging the way CASA uses information.

The full instruction is available from the link below.

CASA Enforcement Instruction 2017 

• 1. Purpose and scope

• 1.1 The purpose of this Instruction is to spell out how and when safety information that comes to the attention of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) may be used by CASA in the interest of safety and for other related purposes.

• 1.2 To the extent the use of safety information collected or held by operators and other service providers is governed by requirements specified by or under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, CASA will assess relevant aspects of their compliance with those requirements in the light of the principles set out in this Instruction.

• 1.3 In keeping with CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy, and the Regulatory Policy and Practice framework within which the Philosophy was developed, this Instruction extends the application of CASA rational approach to ‘just culture’ to include safety information obtained or derived from sources other than reporting programs of the kind to which ‘just culture’ protocols normally apply, to cover the full range of information acquired in the normal course of CASA’s surveillance and audit processes.

• 1.4 The application and operation of this Instruction is consistent with the protective principles governing the appropriate use of safety information as set out in:

• • Annex 19, Safety Management to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (including Amendment 1 to Annex 19);

• • the guidance material appearing in the 4th edition of the Safety Management Manual to support the application of Annex 19;

• • the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) No. 376 of 2014 (on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation), which came into force in November 2016;

• • the guidance material published in December 2015 in support of Regulation (EU) No. 376 of 2014; and

• • international best practice related to the use and protection of safety information more generally, as reflected in the approach to these issues by other leading aviation countries.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...GvAGVGB.99

P2 comment: Note who the sponsor is to the Carmody Instruction:

　
Issue No One

Approval Tier Two

Approver Director of Aviation Safety
 
Sponsor General Manager, Legal Affairs, Regulatory Policy and International Strategy
 
Effective Date August 2017

Review Date August 2018

Is it any wonder the 'Instruction' is such a word weasel confection...

Q/ Does an 'Instruction' have the same legal meaning as 'Directive'...   

And via the Oz today...

CASA threatens to get heavy on repeat offenders
Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief executive and ­director of aviation safety Shane Carmody.

• Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 29, 2017
  

The nation’s aviation safety watchdog has moved to spell out how it will use safety information when making decisions about taking enforcement action, ­declaring it will strike when the rules are deliberately flouted.

But Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief executive and ­director of aviation safety Shane Carmody said ­action would be taken only when breaches of the aviation safety rules were “wilful, deliberate or reckless”; there was a pattern; or a failure to move to rectify deficiencies.

Mr Carmody said: “Our ­rational ‘just culture’ approach means that where honest errors or mistakes are made, CASA looks to support the efforts of individuals and organisations to make necessary improvements, correct identified problems and ensure safety risks are effectively managed in the process.

“Individuals and organisations with an understanding and commitment to safety need to take responsibility for addressing safety shortcomings and where they demonstrate the ability and willingness to do this, CASA needs not take action.”

CASA declared in 2015 that it would demonstrate a “just culture” approach.

This approach was one of the recommendations of the Forsyth review on aviation safety regulation, which said regulators in most jurisdictions had moved this way. The Forsyth review, which was released in 2014, had warned that the aviation industry “does not consider just culture principles are adequately applied in Australia and, as a result, is reluctant to disclose information to CASA”.

Under a “just culture” approach, pilots, engineers and others who report incidents are not normally pursued unless the ­action was wilful or grossly negligent.

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said it was “critical” that aviation staff felt they could report safety occurrences without fearing being punished for genuine mistakes.

Last month, Mr Carmody issued a directive on limitations on the use of safety information that CASA gets from its normal surveillance and audit processes. This extended the approach beyond reporting programs where “just culture” normally applied.

The RAAA, whose members include Rex, Alliance Airlines and Sharp Airlines, backed the move to explain where safety information would be used to cancel or suspend a ­licence.

But the association said CASA needed to “refine” what it classified as unacceptable conduct, saying that getting counselling once in the past three years for similar conduct would not of itself comprise a wilful violation or gross negligence.

“The RAAA would like to work with CASA to better refine the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable conduct,” Mr Higgins said.

“Clear and fair boundaries will maintain a healthy culture of reporting that is so fundamental to safety management.”

Mr Carmody said CASA wanted to encourage a proactive ­approach to safety.

“Of course, if the safety rules are deliberately flouted or action is not taken to address safety issues, then CASA must and will take appropriate action,” he said.

K said: "..One of the ‘big ticket’ items on the ‘negative’ side is Carmody’s flat refusal to look retrospectively at what has been done at grass roots level to engender the total lack of trust and respect for CASA at the coal face. I say – if he will not ‘see’ where the radical causes lay, then his vision of ‘reform’ is doomed...

...Get some respect at grass roots level, reform the regulator - without that, reformation of the regulations will change nothing.."

However unless Carmody is prepared to 'root out' all - the evil and vindictive Sociopathic, McConvict era CASA-mites - then all his good intentions and proactive policies of reform will be all for nought...

As an example of what Carmody is up against; I have heard a rumour that a long standing, not legally sanctioned, black letter law embuggerance agreement, has just had the 'goal posts' moved by these McConvict era CASA-mites - why? Because according to the current version of the EM - that still has the McConvict moniker/endorsement on the preface: Download preface.pdf - they still can:

Departure from Authorised Policy

Adherence to CASA’s authorised policies will almost always produce an appropriate decision. As said, however, from time to time there will be circumstances in which the strict application of policy may not result in the "preferable" decision. In these cases it may be appropriate (and possibly necessary) to depart from otherwise applicable policy.

Any departure from policy must be justified in order to ensure that it:

• Is genuinely necessary in the interests of fairness

• Does not inappropriately compromise the need for consistent decision- making; and, of course

• Is not in conflict with the interests of safety.
 
Without fettering a decision-maker’s discretion, it is therefore expected that appropriate consultation will occur before a decision is made that is not the product of the policies and processes set out in this manual. The prescribed consultation process is described below.

          

MTF...P2