07-01-2020, 11:10 AM
Submission 15 -Name Withheld (PDF 278 KB)
In the context of the Dr K paper (above) and the AMROBA submission 2, sub 15 is very relevant and supportive...
MTF...P2
In the context of the Dr K paper (above) and the AMROBA submission 2, sub 15 is very relevant and supportive...
Quote:As an ex CASA employee, I have observed a progressive de-skilling of the of the inspectorate with each change of Director/CEO. This industry is a fast developing one with significant advances in technology, little opportunity is provided to staff to upskill and/or maintain their tradecraft knowledge base. From a regulatory aspect most CASA based staff training courses are designed to be a tick and flick exercise to meet external audit expectations, these external audits (typically ICAO and the FAA) do not delve sufficiently enough to look at course feedback and interview employees as to the worth/effectiveness or adequacy of the training...
...(pg 2)...This situation has been aggravated by the attrition of dedicated, experienced, highly qualified staff, inadequate training and supervision for new employees added to that the dumbing down of the broader inspectorate by reduction in scope of delegated functions previously held by front line inspectors and withdrawn and assigned only to managers. This situation continues in spite of being identified in a 1998 Plane Safe Report and again in an Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Audit Report No.19 1999–2000. I do not degrade the quality of ex-military applicants however their experience in not from a civil environment, granted that the Military Airworthiness regulations are modelled on the European regulations it is generally agreed that those applicants fo CASA jobs need some civil experience before joining the inspectorate...
MTF...P2