LMH catching up on 20/20 Brisvegas public hearing - 
Via Oz Flying:
![[Image: sue_woods_jabiru1.jpg]](http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dmImage/StandardImage/sue_woods_jabiru1.jpg)
Jabiru labels CASA Culture a Manufacturing Obstacle
4 February 2021
Comments 0 Comments
Jabiru Aircraft Business Manager Sue Woods has nominated the culture of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as a roadblock to aviation manufacture in Australia.
Woods made the comments to a hearing of the Senate Inquiry into General Aviation held in Brisbane last week.
Jabiru once held CASA production certificates for aircraft, but allowed them to lapse in favour of making light sport aircraft (LSA), which enables manufacturers to self-certify the aircraft to ASTM standards, removing CASA from most of the process.
When asked by commiittee chair Senator Susan McDonald what changes would need to happen to kick-start GA manufacture in Australia, Woods did not hesitate to highlight the way CASA operated.
"There has to be a very big shift in the culture of CASA," she said by phone link. "I do think that there are fairly limited avenues to change that culture when it's in the act that the highest priority is safety. Although the regulations are set in black and white there, with some common sense the interpretation of those rules can be such that there's more leniency or leeway, depending on the purpose of the aircraft.
"The those rules don't have to be interpreted as if the aircraft's going to be an airliner carrying hundreds and hundreds of people. So, if the purpose of the aircraft is taken into consideration when the regulations are being audited, there's possibly some scope for manufacturing to go ahead. But there appears to be no desire to change the culture within CASA.
"Today, everyone in society seems to be getting more risk averse, and the aviation industry is no different. All organisations are trying to offload organisational risk, and CASA is like that as well."
In a statement prepared for the inquiry, Woods outlined the difficulties in dealing with the regulator on matters of manufacture.
"It is not viable for a manufacturer to operate under the CASA production regulations," she explained. "All companies that have tried in recent times have failed financially, no matter how good their product. The documentation, compliance and auditing are so draining of resources with little to add to safety.
"The only way for us to survive has been to give up our CASA production certificates and exclusively produce to the ASTM airworthiness standards for light sport aircraft and to self-certify our products. That way, CASA is relieved of the liability of certification of our products.
"This is in keeping with CASA's mission to dump their organisational risk, so is accepted by CASA. Because it is not possible for all the sectors of aviation to deliver airline-levels of safety, CASA has taken measures to shed its exposure to the risk of these other sectors."
Jabiru found itself at odds with CASA in late 2014 when the regulator applied operating restrictions to aircraft powered by Jabiru engines.
The Bundaberg-based manufacturer had a constant battle with CASA to try to get the restrictions lifted, but succeeded only in having them amended to exempt aircraft that are compliant with Jabiru's instructions.
Woods said the CASA action nearly forced the company to fold and she felt it was based on CASA's fear of litigation.
"CASA took very public action, without consultation, in the form of a CASA limitation that forced our customers and flying schools, among other things, to sign an acknowledgement that there was a risk of death by flying behind our engines," she said.
"In so doing, CASA could avoid any risk of litigation concerning past approvals given by CASA. This action was driven by Jonathan Aleck, head of the CASA legal department at the time. This action destroyed many flying schools using our aircraft and almost destroyed us, personally, and our business.
"We were engaged with CASA constantly for two years, until they gained an understanding of our sector of aviation, at our expense."
The senate inquiry is ongoing and schedule to table its final report in November this year.
Hansard ref etc. Brisvegas public hearing update, 30/01/21 - Hansard out..
Anyone else notice a common theme here??
Ref: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...st10982107
![[Image: images-4.jpg]](https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/images-4.jpg)
Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-10-11-19-no-dea...uch-safer/
![[Image: D8sgMShU8AU0_HC.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8sgMShU8AU0_HC.jpg)
Ref: https://auntypru.com/quiet-reflections-a...ndulgence/
![[Image: Dr-A.jpg]](https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Dr-A.jpg)
Ref: https://auntypru.com/whither-ah-whither-...these-etc/
MTF...P2
Via Oz Flying:
Jabiru labels CASA Culture a Manufacturing Obstacle
4 February 2021
Comments 0 Comments
Jabiru Aircraft Business Manager Sue Woods has nominated the culture of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as a roadblock to aviation manufacture in Australia.
Woods made the comments to a hearing of the Senate Inquiry into General Aviation held in Brisbane last week.
Jabiru once held CASA production certificates for aircraft, but allowed them to lapse in favour of making light sport aircraft (LSA), which enables manufacturers to self-certify the aircraft to ASTM standards, removing CASA from most of the process.
When asked by commiittee chair Senator Susan McDonald what changes would need to happen to kick-start GA manufacture in Australia, Woods did not hesitate to highlight the way CASA operated.
"There has to be a very big shift in the culture of CASA," she said by phone link. "I do think that there are fairly limited avenues to change that culture when it's in the act that the highest priority is safety. Although the regulations are set in black and white there, with some common sense the interpretation of those rules can be such that there's more leniency or leeway, depending on the purpose of the aircraft.
"The those rules don't have to be interpreted as if the aircraft's going to be an airliner carrying hundreds and hundreds of people. So, if the purpose of the aircraft is taken into consideration when the regulations are being audited, there's possibly some scope for manufacturing to go ahead. But there appears to be no desire to change the culture within CASA.
"Today, everyone in society seems to be getting more risk averse, and the aviation industry is no different. All organisations are trying to offload organisational risk, and CASA is like that as well."
In a statement prepared for the inquiry, Woods outlined the difficulties in dealing with the regulator on matters of manufacture.
"It is not viable for a manufacturer to operate under the CASA production regulations," she explained. "All companies that have tried in recent times have failed financially, no matter how good their product. The documentation, compliance and auditing are so draining of resources with little to add to safety.
"The only way for us to survive has been to give up our CASA production certificates and exclusively produce to the ASTM airworthiness standards for light sport aircraft and to self-certify our products. That way, CASA is relieved of the liability of certification of our products.
"This is in keeping with CASA's mission to dump their organisational risk, so is accepted by CASA. Because it is not possible for all the sectors of aviation to deliver airline-levels of safety, CASA has taken measures to shed its exposure to the risk of these other sectors."
Jabiru found itself at odds with CASA in late 2014 when the regulator applied operating restrictions to aircraft powered by Jabiru engines.
The Bundaberg-based manufacturer had a constant battle with CASA to try to get the restrictions lifted, but succeeded only in having them amended to exempt aircraft that are compliant with Jabiru's instructions.
Woods said the CASA action nearly forced the company to fold and she felt it was based on CASA's fear of litigation.
"CASA took very public action, without consultation, in the form of a CASA limitation that forced our customers and flying schools, among other things, to sign an acknowledgement that there was a risk of death by flying behind our engines," she said.
"In so doing, CASA could avoid any risk of litigation concerning past approvals given by CASA. This action was driven by Jonathan Aleck, head of the CASA legal department at the time. This action destroyed many flying schools using our aircraft and almost destroyed us, personally, and our business.
"We were engaged with CASA constantly for two years, until they gained an understanding of our sector of aviation, at our expense."
The senate inquiry is ongoing and schedule to table its final report in November this year.
Hansard ref etc. Brisvegas public hearing update, 30/01/21 - Hansard out..
Anyone else notice a common theme here??
Quote:"In so doing, CASA could avoid any risk of litigation concerning past approvals given by CASA. This action was driven by Jonathan Aleck, head of the CASA legal department at the time. This action destroyed many flying schools using our aircraft and almost destroyed us, personally, and our business..."
Ref: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...st10982107
Quote:glenb
..The matter had obviously been considered by CASA legal department in 2006, and CASA at the time had specifically briefed the flight training industry that the Aviation Ruling did not apply to them and evidenced by the fact that after placing the restriction on the Charter sector of the industry they permitted the practice in the flight training sector to continue as they advised flying schools that they would. CASA would have had ample opportunity to become “aware” of the way the business, as many others had operated over the previous decades.
I then worked side by side with ten CASA personnel on a new and substantially improved system for over two years. CASA assessed every one of their more than 600 requirements and granted me a Part 141 and 142 Approval in April of 2017. The Company had effectively been completely revalidated over a two-year period as I worked side by side with that 10 CASA personnel. At the time of CASA revalidating the business in April 2017, we were operating with the multi-base structure. The CASA procedure was extremely robust and thorough, with many hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into the two-year project to ensure I met or exceeded all CASA requirements. On completion of the approval process, the entire approval was passed on within CASA for a peer review and approval. It would be almost impossible that CASAs Legal Department would not have been fully aware, and especially so considering that was the actual Department that issued the Part 141 and 142 Approval in April 2017, eighteen months before CASA changed their mind, and reversed the businesses approval. Mr. Aleck had been the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs over an extended period, and would have been fully aware...
Paragraph377
Someone call a Doctor.....or maybe not
Glen, the biggest stumbling block to CASA reform, the biggest stumbling block to CASA leaving the dark ages, the biggest stumbling block to the aviation Regulator becoming a modern, just, safety focused Regulator is Dr Aleck. There is where the heart of the CASA machine lays. He has had 26 years to craft his trade and mold CASA into his own personal play thing. Every organisation has its ‘faceless men’. Remove Aleck and you will finally see CASA and it’s culture change.
Glen, you mention that you want to see names, names of the decision makers, names of those who have vilified you and made the decisions against you that have been made. I can guarantee you that Alecks name is hidden in there left, right and center. Nothing escapes the legal department. No decision is made without the legal department. No individual in industry is prosecuted, persecuted, vilified or sent to the wall without the full knowledge of the legal department...
(Read also Lead Balloon's post quoted here: GlenB embuggerance update - 4/02/21: DRAFT correspondence to the Ombudsman. )
Quote:..When I read this bit of the email, I figured out who'd weighed in to drive you into the ground, Glen..
Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-10-11-19-no-dea...uch-safer/
Ref: https://auntypru.com/quiet-reflections-a...ndulgence/
Ref: https://auntypru.com/whither-ah-whither-...these-etc/
MTF...P2