20/20 Hindsight.

Memory lane, (not mine).

And, a strong sense of déjà vu prompted a return to 'the basement' for a rummage through the very old stuff from when the PAP kicked off, despite the blood curdling howls of protest from the the CAA top ranks. Better than 30 years ago. Yet the similarity of argument presented way back then, compared to the logic provided by AFAP at the recent Senate inquiry is remarkable. The underpinning tenets are unchanged. The statements made by Messrs Gray and Diamond, couched in slightly different language reflect the same plea that was made three decades ago.

The AFAP are clearly 'in touch' with industry and the harsh realities of operating an aviation company in Australia. If the Inquiry achieves nothing else other than ensuring that the AFAP gets a seat at the 'top table' then it will have done well for the industry.

The entire AFAP submission is well worth time and consideration. I've 'cherry picked' some of that, the whole may be read from Hansard – HERE -. p29 Hansard - p33 PDF.

Gray : “We say that the cost impacts upon the industry are largely symptoms of this. Cost is often referred to as a problem, but we refer to it as a symptom of the problem, because it is actually a symptom of the style and culture of CASA's regulatory philosophy. In particular, in the GA sector, because the organisations are smaller, the economies of scale mean that the GA sector and the people and organisations within it are much more likely to suffer the effects of that. Larger organisations do as well; however, with their economies of scale, it's less noticeable. It's no surprise to us that the GA community is the one that is raising the red flag and is the canary in the coalmine for the aviation sector.”

Gray :Quite simply, how does one achieve the intent of the safety standards when they're having trouble understanding what they actually mean and how to apply them in the real world? Cost and safety aren't warring with each other; they're actually partnered with each other against the complexity and inconsistencies.

Gray :Obviously, the CEO of any organisation is the person ultimately responsible for allthe decisions and the functions of that organisation, so it's circular that the person who's ultimately responsible also gets to decide the outcome of a review by the industry complaints commissioner. To put it quite simply, we're not fixed on who the ICCreports to but it should be to someone external and not to the board. Alternatively, maybe the CEO of CASA should not be on the board. We've got to break this circle just as a mere principle. I'm not particularly aware of any examples; it just seems like a broken means of accountability.

Diamond: We've all got different views on that. From my point of view, we know that ICAO are going to go down the track of safety management for regulators, because our regulator now must assess medium to large enterprises, andeven small enterprises now, on their safety management systems. How do you do that when you don't even have one yourself? Because they don't. It's a difficult area for them. They've got to have special training, but they really should have their own safety management system, which goes to everything that Lachlan has been talking about. That will come eventually through ICAO, but because ICAO deal with 150 states and all of the smaller states and the less well formulated regulators, they can't push it as a standard yet. We should be taking the lead here. We have in the past. Australia used to be a leader in aviation, and that is somewhere we could lead. Safety management is the holistic view of the system, and GA should be part of that.All of the things youhave been discussing with GA can be part of the system and can be paired off and looked at properly with everybody's point of view in mind, not just a blank set of regulations that fits across them all. That's my point of view anyway.

Pole: The point of view that I hear the most about becoming a pilot, which I think is affecting general aviation quite a lot and moving up through the ranks as well, is that the licensing system changed; part 61 came in. The difficulties in obtaining higher level qualifications now and the costs associated with getting airline transport licences make it nearly impossible, so that has stymied many people's careers and possibly may commit them to not actually ever coming out of general aviation because they won't be able to afford it or their employer won't be able to afford them the time for them to be able take these skills on. Probably that has been the worst and largest change in recent times that is affecting pilots being pilots.

All good, solid stuff for the committee to mull over.

Toot – toot.

PS. 'Captain' is a job description - not a rank or title. Off the flight deck plain old Mr. Mrs or Ms is the norm. Just saying......
Reply

Speaking of the Feds??

Slight thread drift here but while on the subject of the AFAP, remember this from almost a year ago... Huh

(02-07-2020, 08:09 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  O&O report: AI-2018-010 - The approval processes for the Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre 

Via the Oz:



Essendon Airport report delays slammed

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Follow @ironsider

[Image: ba7f3bc4fee8a2c521b6416633812774?width=650]

The aftermath of the DFO crash on February 21, 2017. Picture: Jason Edwards

An investigation into the building approvals process for land at Essendon Airport is taking almost twice as long as the plane crash investigation that triggered it.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau began its examination of the approvals process for the Bulla Road Precinct Retail Outlet Centre almost three years ago, after the crash of a King Air B200 into the DFO building on February 21, 2017.

All five people aboard the charter flight to King Island — pilot Max Quartermain and four American tourists — were killed in the incident.

The final report on the crash was released in September 2018, but more than a year later the related investigation into the potential hazard posed by buildings around the airport is still going.
Information obtained by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots under freedom of information laws showed the draft report was actually released to “interested parties” in November 2018.

Subsequently the investigator-in-charge contacted the coroner, saying the final report was due to be released in mid-December.

But that date came and went and more than a year later, AFAP is still waiting for the ATSB to release the report. In a letter to ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood, AFAP safety and technical officer Julian Smibert sought an explanation.

“During these delays in the publication of the report, development at Essendon Airport has continued unabated, including further construction within the OLS (obstacle limitation surface) and the narrowing of the runway in order to facilitate more construction,” Mr Smibert wrote.

“In addition the maximum permitted mass of aircraft using the airport has been increased from 45 to 50 tonnes, despite the reduction in runway width.”

The ATSB’s investigation summary showed the report on the approvals process was now due to be released by the end of next month.

An ATSB spokesman said the report had been delayed by detailed feedback from directly involved parties that prompted more discussion.

“A second draft of the investigation report incorporating and addressing feedback from all parties was provided to them on 30 September 2019,” he said.

The process was made more complex by the fact the approval process was put in place nearly 20 years ago, he added.



Hmm...maybe this might help explain the delay... Huh

[Image: DkXCAfRU8AAcZqH.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/setting-the-odds-and-playing-em/

The AFAP concerns around Federal government safety risk mitigation policy in regards to commercial development around airports, has been further highlighted several times in their allied submissions with AIPA (ie AusALPA) 

(Refer to submission 14 to Sterlo's current inquiry: 14 Australian & International Pilots Association  (PDF 1543 KB)  (from about page 17))

Quote:...To be clear, AusALPA recognises that the economic decisions surrounding airports, i.e. determining the balance between the economic benefits of developments and the detriments to the accessibility, efficiency and capacity of an airport, rest entirely with the relevant jurisdiction within which the airport is situated or which retains legal control. The issues of enforceability and dispute resolution of development approvals would remain consistent with those jurisdictional norms.

However, contrary to current practice, we are proposing that the assessment, mitigation and enforcement of the safety consequences of all relevant developments be ceded by those jurisdictions to CASA as an independent decision-maker.

Consequently, CASA needs to change its model of how airport standards are applied and enforced so as to obviate the gaming of the system so exemplified by the Essendon experience or by the uncontrolled expansion of the thousands of airspace penetrations at Sydney. As a further consequence, DITCRD should seek major amendments to the Airports Act 1996 that change the current subservient and excessively constrained role attributed to CASA and that also clarify the safety considerations that ABCs must undertake in regard to minor developments.

Furthermore, we are proposing that the visibility of developments affecting the safety outcomes at airports is vastly improved in all jurisdictions.

The public interest is best served by accepting that the potential hazard created by a development on or near an airport is not a function of cost but rather the amalgam of the issues set out in the Guidelines. Each jurisdiction should commit to a public register of development proposals that may present a potential hazard to safe airport operations, enhanced by a published list of stakeholders who are alerted to each new relevant development submitted to the jurisdiction for approval...

With that in mind, now check out the latest (typically unannounced) update to the ATSB Essendon DFO approval process investigation, remembering that this was the last Hooded Canary weasel worded committment made: 


Quote:Further investigation

In Quarter 4 of 2019, a draft report on the ATSB’s investigation into the Bulla Road Precinct approval was distributed to directly involved parties for comment.

During the review process, the ATSB determined that further evidence was required to consider the effect of the revocation of instrument 153/15. This has necessitated re-engagement with the airport operator, CASA, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Should safety issue/s be identified during the course of this ongoing investigation, relevant parties will be immediately notified so that appropriate safety action can be taken.

An amended draft report is expected to be distributed to directly involved parties in Quarter 4 of 2020.

Latest from the ATSB investigation webpage:

Quote:Anticipated completion: 1st Quarter 2021

Last update 15 January 2021
 SHARE THIS PAGE

Hmm...NO COMMENT!  Dodgy  

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Back to the future..

The 'future' of aviation inquiry is attracting an interesting raft of submissions; a list of those may be found – HERE - . There is a shed load of reading there; I am guilty of being one of the 'skim and flick' crowd; read the first bit, get the drift then either continue or flick. Haven't had the time (or inclination) to wade through the whole list, however, I note two of our most sane, sensible representative bodies have offered the committee some 'real' insight and advice. No doubt there will be other submissions of equal worth which merit the time taken to read and digest; and, we will get to them. But, just for now consider:-

AAAA.

AFAP.

As usual, spot on and worth the effort.

Toot – toot.
Reply

LMH catching up on 20/20 Brisvegas public hearingRolleyes

Via Oz Flying:



 [Image: 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??  Rolleyes




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..


[Image: images-4.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-10-11-19-no-dea...uch-safer/










[Image: D8sgMShU8AU0_HC.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/quiet-reflections-a...ndulgence/


[Image: Dr-A.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/whither-ah-whither-...these-etc/


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Additional Docs - Correspondence 2 & 3.

[Image: pdf.png] Correspondence dated 14 December 2020 from Mr Shane Carmody, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation Authority

Quote:[Image: corro1.jpg]
[Image: corro2.jpg]
[Image: corro3.jpg]


[Image: pdf.png] Correspondence dated 24 November 2020 and 11 December 2020 between Mr Shane Carmody, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation Authority, and to Senator Susan McDonald, RRAT Legislation Committee Chair.


Quote:[Image: corro4.jpg]
[Image: corro5.jpg]

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Basically, its a serious 'credibility' problem; ain't it.

Turn on the Bull-shit meter in the Pub and mention CASA; watch the needle immediately head toward the red zone. All of the clever, crafty 'legal' words spouted by anyone from CASA just adds to the score.

In court; or estimates, or even the current 'inquiry' (FWIW) the carefully worded 'justification' and legal by-play may well make the difference between a 'win' or a 'humiliation'. But is that what really matters?  Credibility within the industry matters. Franklin (Holmes & the Baskerville Hound). 

"It is a great day for me, sir—one of the red-letter days of my life," he cried with many chuckles. "I have brought off a double event. I mean to teach them in these parts that law is law, and that there is a man here who does not fear to invoke it.”

Yeah, but so what? A court win which signifies Sweet Fanny Adams to the general population – apart from 'inconvenience'. Of course CASA can win almost any court based battle; the 'rules' are set up to ensure that result; the time, money and effort required to attempt to beat 'em is a major hurdle, while all they have to do is simply call on unlimited resource, expert help and their 'reputation'. Commonwealth funding of the unlimited kind and the rest of their 'assets'. 'Tis a rigged game; designed to protect the ivory tower of 'safety' – CASA style and version.


“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

This last missive from St. Commodious has the BRB rolling in the aisles; it is, without doubt the most predictable letter ever drafted and signed. P29 our 'go-to' legal eagle has won a free evening of Ale for producing an almost 'word perfect' version of the letter a week ago. “ Easy one” say's he - “oh so duckling predictable”.

“This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice. (OWH Jnr).

Ayup, the CASA may well win the legal battle; maybe not. However, the damage they do to not only industry, to this nation and to their 'street cred' is easily measured. Sure they may have 'dug-in' and stuck their multiple thumbs into the holes in the great dyke; but at what cost? International derision, domestic distrust and a safety record, despite their grandiose delusion that they, and they alone keep the travelling, tax payers 'safe' is not quite as good a record as it should be; despite their voluminous regulation, legal wriggle room and disenfranchisement from industry. In short; they have been seriously 'on-the-nose' for well over a decade now; and the stench is becoming unacceptable.

Remedy? A fire hose starting at the top floor and finishing at the basement; the rot is too far gone for cosmetic makeovers. I shall call 'order' very shortly on this BRB gathering and offer our traditional toast : “CASA stinks, duck 'em all, hard and often”.

As for their 'Buckley' response:-

[Image: D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg]
Reply

Additional Docs correspondence 2 cont/- (Oz Flying catching up)

Via the Yaffa:

Quote: [Image: apta_mb1.jpg]

CASA rejects Allegations of Misfeasance
9 February 2021
Comments 0 Comments


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has written to Senator Susan McDonald rejecting allegations of misfeasance on behalf of three senior managers.


Former flying school owner Glen Buckley made the allegations against then Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody, Executive Manager Legal and Regulatory Affairs Jonathon Aleck and Group Executive Manager – Aviation Graeme Crawford in a public hearing of the Senate Inquiry into the General Aviation Industry in November last year.


In a letter signed by Shane Carmody and dated 10 December last year, CASA said that Buckley's allegations were "unqualified" and reflected adversely on the integrity of the individuals named.


"CASA, and each of the individuals named, unqualifiedly reject and refute Mr Buckley's entirely unsubstantiated allegations of misfeasance," the letter says. "As said, an allegation of misfeasance is a very serious claim, which, by its nature, directly impugns the personal integrity and good faith of the individuals against whom such a egregious claim is made."


Carmody went on to say that CASA considered that Buckley "has offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any acts or omissions on the part of the individuals to substantiate his sweeping and indiscriminate claims."


Buckley was the owner of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) until it was forced out of business in 2019. CASA had issued APTA with a Part 142 approval that permitted the group to add new member flying schools that would share common managment and safety systems under the one AOC.


After a change of Certificate Management Team at CASA, APTA was issued with the seven-day notice for infractions that were later shown to be incorrect statements. The seven-day notice was later amended to three months whilst CASA tried to determine if the model was legal or not. During that period, CASA stopped processing APTA requests, which plunged the company into finanical strife.


Buckley believes that CASA's actions were reverse engineered, which is to say that CASA worked out what they wanted first and worked backward to achieve the result, an accusation CASA has also denied.


"The implication of this statement is that ... CASA perverted the process of administrative law and justice in order to achieve a pre-determined inequitable outcome," CASA stated in the letter. "This is manifestly false ... and Mr Buckley has offered no evidence or information to support this contention.


"CASA unqualifiedly rejects and refutes Mr Buckley's entirely unsubstantiated statement."


CASA also moved to defend Southern Region Flight Operations Inspector Brad Lacy after Glen Buckely told the senate committee that Lacy "has a very bad reputation as being somewhat vindictive and vexatious." Lacy was a member of the team that issued the original seven-day notice.


"Whatever Mr Buckley's personal opinion might be, and certainly without intending to lend any credence whatsoever to that opinion, CASA maintains that it was manifestly unfair and incorrect to aver that Mr Lacy as a 'reputation' of the kind described in the 'Victoria-Tasmania region' or anywhere else," CASA has said.


"CASA, and Mr Lacy, unqualifiedly reject and refute Mr Buckley's false and misleading claim about Mr Lacy's integrity or his reputation."


Glen Buckley is believed to be assembling formal allegations including supporting evidence for further action against the three CASA managers, which is expected to be lodged with the senate committee in the first instance late next month or early April.


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

The word -

'Responsibility' keeps nagging away at the back of my mind. I mean, just 'who' is ultimately 'responsible' for aviation safety – across the board?

The answer is writ large, clear, bright, in law, in blood and in reality.

It is not CASA; the 'law' clearly and unequivocally, lays every nuance of responsibility on the the operator or the humble fool sat at the controls. It is not CASA who have to face the music – they have all the fun of prosecuting a 'strict liability' charge (easy win) all the joy of claiming that they alone stood between an operator and the sudden death of innocent passengers; the added fillip being that 'they' and they alone, fearlessly stand between the rouges and charred remains combined with burned aircraft parts.

It is all a Bollocks of course; and, an expensive bollocks to boot. Not just in monetary terms, but constitutionally, operationally and even legally it is a con game imposed on the tax paying public. That standing alone is bad enough; but when it becomes a matter of almost every operator and pilot being 'uncertain' if they are operating within 'the law' and may face oblivion without 'proven intent' to break a complex, each way bet law, then you have to wonder why the industry tolerates such an incubus.

If as the law states – even your toothpaste can be transmogrified into a criminal action; why is industry not demanding 'control' of industry – they actually do carry every single whip and stitch of the 'responsibility' for air safety – in law, by law and for the law. So why the duck do we need a CASA? Surely, the professional 'investigators' of criminal behaviour; who are fully aware of what it takes to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, any case they choose to prosecute (evidence based) would be much better placed to understand 'criminal' behaviour.

We may well need an administrator of aviation – no quarrel with that; we may even need 'law' for guidance; fair enough. But if the case is one of 'criminal' intent; then the professionals need to be called in. Not some clutch of unemployable instructor pilots with large ego's, small brains and a penis to match the assembly.

Who is responsible? We are. So why do we need any more than an efficient 'administration' and professional police to keep us honest? I doubt half of the so called CASA 'professionals' could even begin to construct a brief of evidence to satisfy the prosecution – but strict liability precludes that. The poor old coppers have to labour long and hard to stand a chance – not CASA – just a hand knitted notion of 'wrong doing' will suffice for the machine to model another victory for 'air-safety'.

It is, without doubt, the biggest con game ever imposed on the long suffering tax paying public. Bring back the rule of law; I rest my case M'lud.

Drinks – now please – lots of......
[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

The ASC (Iron Ring) Devolution of Sector Risk Profiling?

Reference from Embuggerance thread -  Confused 

(02-25-2021, 09:02 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  GlenB embuggerance update: 25/02/21

[Image: srp-ph.jpg]


Via the UP... Wink




CASAS AVIATION SAFETY COMMITTEE


According to CASAs 2019/20 annual report, CASA has an Aviation Safety Committee (ASC), and that Committee is responsible for the "governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk". This sounds like a high-powered committee overseeing the "governance" of these matters. I have no doubt that the Closure of APTA would have been a topic at one of these meetings. Therefore I have sent a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request.

Provided that the public is entitled to know the membership of that committee, I look forward to being advised of the membership. I am quite confident that the names Aleck, Crawford and Martin will appear on that Committee, and may be the only members. Time will tell. I suspect CASA will have a reason not to advise the public of the Committee Membership.

"24/02/21 Please accept a Freedom of Information Request from Glen Buckley.

In this correspondence, I am making a request about CASAs Aviation Safety Committee (ASC), referenced in CASAs 2019/20 Annual report, with an excerpt below. Please note my bolding.

Under Freedom of Information can you please advise

1. The membership of the ASC.
2. Can I request the minutes of the meeting or any associated documentation from the meeting that APTA was discussed at. My assumption is that my matter would have been considered at the ASC level, and there would be correspondence reflecting that.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley
In the CASA 2019/20 Annual Report the following comments are made.On track


CASA’s Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) continually reviewed data from a variety of sources to inform its decision-making[b] [/b]and approach to surveillance and proposed policy development. Aviation safety data and trends were presented and discussed at ASC and CASA Board meetings.

The ASC produced 11 sector safety risk profiles, which are in various stages of completion in accordance with the Sector Safety Risk Profile Program. The program further informs surveillance planning through the National Surveillance Selection Plan. The governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk is managed by the ASC. The ASC met 11 times during the reporting period. The ASC reviews civil aviation safety incidents and accidents and surveillance findings which can lead to the revision of the sector safety risk profiles and/or the launch of sector-specific education activities.





[Image: 2018_0109c_.jpg]

"..The ASC produced 11 sector safety risk profiles, which are in various stages of completion in accordance with the Sector Safety Risk Profile Program..."

Ok, so the concept of SRP within the Worldwide Aviation Industry Sector is not a new thing and in a broader context is the basis for modern day aviation safety management systems (SMS). And at one time CASA appeared to have warmly embraced the principles of SRP and SMS.

Reference Mick Quinn ANZSASI presentation 2008 - https://www.asasi.org/papers/2008/Challe...0Quinn.pdf

..The underpinning initiative for CASA’s reform program has been reinforcement of industry sector priority policy with passenger‐carrying operations taking priority....

...Understanding of practical and relative risk management is at the core of successful implementation of a safety management system, whether it be in the context of regulation, operations or accident investigation...


However for some reason, despite 'talking the talk', our air safety regulator, in recent times seems to have stalled/O&O'd the SRP program and this aberration seems to have occurred with the formation of the ASC by the now former DAS St Carmodious??

Let me explain, here is the blurb from the CASA R&S webpage (note the last time the page was updated): https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and...statistics     


Quote:Research and statistics

The following information is about aviation activities, including safety statistics and reports.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority documents


Note: To assist Industry in understanding the risks that are identified within their Sector, CASA now can provide information called the Sector Analysis.

If your organisation is interested in learning more, please contact your CASA oversighting office to discuss the Sector Analysis applicable to you.


Australian Transport Safety Bureau documents

Federal Aviation Administration
The lessons learned from aviation accidents library represents some of the most major accidents and their related lessons. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, with support from many others plan to continue adding to this material on an annual basis.

Last modified: 9 August 2019

Referring to the individual SRPs, so far completed, it would appear that the last time a SRP was actually completed was five years ago in 2016. This timeline of O&O would seem to match the first recorded knowledge of the existence of the ASC.

Quote from the CASA 2017-18 Annual Report:

Quote:CASA’s sector risk profiling methodology was applied to develop risk profiles for seven sectors: aerial mustering, aerodromes, small aeroplane transport, large aeroplane (exceeding 97 seats) transport, aeroplane medical transport, helicopter medical transport, and commercial balloon. In addition, the Aviation Safety Committee directed that campaign surveillance be conducted in the small aeroplane transport and commercial balloon sectors.

Quote from the CASA 2018-19 Annual Report: 

Quote:CASA’s Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) continually reviews data
from a number of sources to inform its decision-making and approach
to surveillance and proposed policy development. CASA is actively
collaborating with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Bureau of
Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics and Airservices Australia
to develop a cross-agency identification and categorisation of datasets and
their associated use. Aviation safety data and trends are presented and
discussed at the ASC and CASA Board meetings.

Hmm...from my count there is still only 4 published SRPs, which you will remember were all publically available in 2016, so what has happened to the 3 extra SRPs developed in 2017-18 and the 11 SRPs 'produced' in 2019-20?  

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Clinton McKenzie on CASA AVMED and Noble Cause CorruptionShy  

I almost missed this but for my latest chocfrog nomination, for inputs to the 20/20 inquiry, IMHO you can't go past CM's supp submission - 5.1 Supplementary to submission 5 (PDF 4847 KB) ... Wink 

Pages 5-6:



[Image: cm-5.jpg]


[Image: cm-6.jpg]


Next CASA supp sub: 46.1 Supplementary to submission 46 (PDF 406 KB) 

And finally Dick Smith supp sub: 23.1 Supplementary to submission 23 (PDF 3671 KB) 

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(03-09-2021, 03:50 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Clinton McKenzie on CASA AVMED and Noble Cause CorruptionShy  

I almost missed this but for my latest chocfrog nomination, for inputs to the 20/20 inquiry, IMHO you can't go past CM's supp submission - 5.1 Supplementary to submission 5 (PDF 4847 KB) ... Wink 

Pages 5-6:



[Image: cm-5.jpg]


[Image: cm-6.jpg]


Next CASA supp sub: 46.1 Supplementary to submission 46 (PDF 406 KB) 

And finally Dick Smith supp sub: 23.1 Supplementary to submission 23 (PDF 3671 KB) 

Footnote: Dots & Dashes in the DAS office?

An OBS on the Fort Fumble supp submission... Huh

Quote:29 December 2020
Senator Susan McDonald
Chair
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs
and Transport Legislation Committee
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator McDonald

First Supplementary Submission of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to the
Senate Inquiry into General Aviation
Thank you for the opportunity to make a further submission, supplementary to the initial submission made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on 17 November 2020.

In this supplementary submission our comments focus on aspects of the testimony given in evidence before the Committee by Mr Glen Buckley, who appeared in a private capacity on 20 November 2020. We reserve our prerogative to make further supplementary submissions, so long as the Committee is prepared to receive submissions.

Comment on the testimony of Mr Glen Buckley, appearing in a private capacity

In his testimony before the Committee on 20 November 2020, Mr Buckley ventilated aspects of his personal grievances with CASA and certain individual CASA officials. He did so at some length, but with little supportive detail. Some of Mr Buckley’s remarks concern issues about which reasonable people might well differ—and CASA most certainly does disagree with many of Mr Buckley’s contentions in relation to those matters. Much of what Mr Buckley said, however, consisted of statements, claims and assertions purporting to be true and correct, but which are false, misleading, and unfair....  


MTF...P2  Cool

Ps P2 coment - Besides the fact that this supp submission is a perfect follow up to the CM submission, as to how CASA do 'embuggerance' business (and that this is classic Dr Aleck legal gobbledy gook), I find it intriguing that everyone knows that the former DAS/CEO Shane Carmody's last day in the DAS office was the 24th December 2020 and yet here he is (apparently) on the 29th December 2020 trotting out a supp submission to the Senate RRAT Committee?? - Yeah right... Dodgy  




Quote:Thank you, Chair and members. I'm very happy to take questions, and I have a copy of the statement to table if you wish.


CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Carmody. I understand that you have resigned from CASA. When do you finish up?

Mr Carmody : No later than 24 December.


Pps Hmm...remember this -  Huh  Oz aviation, safety compromised by political and bureaucratic subterfuge ?

[Image: JA-2.jpg]
Reply

CASA changing; & ASC (Iron Ring) revealed??

Good catch from Hitch, via the LMH... Wink :

Ref: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...march-2021

Quote:In the spirit of "when what you're doing is not working, you have to change what you're doing", CASA has announcedsomewhat crypticallythat they are changing starting 1 July. Other than a new centralised inquiries system, the announcement was short on detail, so there's not a lot to say at the moment. Except this. According to CASA, the changes are to try to add consistency to the way they deal with the aviation community, which has been a chronic problem since CASA was formed over 25 years ago. Too many people have suffered, and continue to suffer, from that inconsistency. People have been sent broke; people have been driven from the aviation community. Worst of all, CASA didn't seem to think there was a problem with issuing conflicting information, one of the greatest degraders of safety in aviation. But how far is this new-found consistency going to extend? Are the people on the end of the phones or typing the e-mails going to have the final say? That's a utopia that the aviation community needs, but CASA has proven themselves unable to deliver. We need information and rulings that, once delivered, cannot be rescinded even if contrary opinion is later expressed. Livelihoods and millions of dollars ride on what CASA says, so the aviation community needs CASA to deliver a single, correct ruling the first time, every time. That sounds a bit like Strict Liability, doesn't it?


Here is the CASA webpage message:


Quote:We're changing

24 March 2021

You might have heard we’re making changes to the way we deliver our regulatory services and surveillance functions. This is part of a transformation we’ve been undertaking to provide more consistent, standardised and timely services to the aviation community.


Over the coming months, you’ll start to notice we’re doing some things differently. We've already set up a centralised team to start handling your enquiries, and we’ll continue to expand this service over the first half of this year. The aim is to ensure we’re providing consistent advice to everyone in the aviation community, no matter where you’re located in Australia.


You may also find that your CASA contacts change as we form new teams and adjust and improve our internal processes. For now, please keep contacting us the way you normally do and our staff will continue to assist or redirect you if needed. We’re expecting to have our new arrangements fully in place by 1 July. Keep an eye out for more information as we gradually introduce these changes.

Kind of bizarre that it is not counter-signed by either the Ag DAS or the Chair of the Board, nor was it brought up in the last edition of the CASA briefing? This also begs the question on why it was the Acting and Wannabe DAS Crawford didn't seek to update the RRAT Committee at Estimates, not that the Scottish Git was given much of an opportunity to provide an update by the Chair... Wink

 

Perhaps the White Hats are finally in ascendancy??

Next via the AP email chain GlenB gets a decision, with one readacted but released document, in reply to his FOI request... Rolleyes

Quote:From: Freedom Of Information <freedomofinformation@casa.gov.au>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 5:46 pm
Subject: FW: RMS: Request for composition of ASC. from Glen Buckley [SEC=OFFICIAL]
To: defendapta@gmail.com <defendapta@gmail.com>


OFFICIAL

Good afternoon Mr Buckley,

Please see attached letter and referenced document.

Kind regards

Georgie Hill

Freedom of Information Officer

Advisory and Drafting Branch

Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division

Ref: Mr Glen Buckley - FOI Decision- 26.03.21 & Document for release - Mr Glen Buckley - 26.03.21

Drum roll please!... Big Grin

[Image: ASC-revealed.jpg]

I guess no real surprises there; but that document was dated 'February 2020', so does the ASC still exist?  Sad

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

LARA, the bearded lady;

Not quite as famous as her tattooed cousin Lydia; however, it is pleasing to see the traditions established by Lydia have been faithfully followed by the ASC. We managed to smuggle out a video taken at one of the the top level ASC meetings and, as you can see, the spirit, intent and integrity of the modern version has not changed.

The gravitas and consideration of important matters during these clandestine, no minutes, unaccountable, not available for public scrutiny meetings is quite remarkable. But the really, truly remarkable thing is the notion that they alone can be trusted to investigate and evaluate their own actions. So when the pencil cupboard has been stripped bare, the chap in charge of that cupboard is in charge of that investigation – those results are closely guarded and protected by the committee. Wonderful system. Aye, integrity at work. Full, open and honest disclosure of the policy decisions which affect an industry.

So FWIW – our secret recording of the last 2020 ASC meeting.

Reply

What to expect from the independent Commonwealth corporate body which was born as a Government Business Enterprise (GBE) and has matured into a fee garnering monopoly provider?
The point well made thank you Lydia and Lara, and the redacted black hole below the ASC membership list perfectly sums up the area into which government has thrown Australia’s General Aviation.
Reply

CASA random, stratified, bollocks survey -  Dodgy

 Hmm...picked up by Hitch today but apparently the CASA Stakeholder satisfaction survey results were discretely and without zero fanfare released last week - WTF?... Huh 

(Warning: Bucket maybe required. -  Confused )


Quote:Survey supports ongoing improvement

Date of publication: 8 April 2021

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has made a commitment to continue to improve following the findings of its latest stakeholder survey.

The survey found a small increase in stakeholder satisfaction, with a rating of 6.3 in the latest survey. The rating in 2018 was 6.2.


The results showed 54% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with CASA’s performance. While 17% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.


CASA’s acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, Graeme Crawford, said the survey results highlighted the important work already underway to improve CASA’s performance.


“While it is pleasing to see the ratings have remained largely steady, the results show to gain more support from the aviation community we have to improve across the board,” Mr Crawford said.


“The good news is that we have a program of work happening right now that is delivering positive change.


“There are initiatives underway to improve consistent information and decision making through the new centralised regulatory guidance service. Other initiatives include the expansion of online services in myCASA to enhance service delivery and the roll out of plain English guides to make it easier to understand and comply with regulations.


“We are also continuing to work with our staff to make sure they have all the relevant training and skills to regulate, educate and serve.”


“Our focus is on creating better systems and processes that deliver the results needed by the aviation community.”


The survey’s rating given to ease of compliance with regulations improved since 2018, rising to 6.3 from 5.9. The rating for confidence in complying with safety regulations remained at 7.4. Satisfaction with the development of regulations also remained steady, at a 5.5 rating.


Other areas to remain steady were satisfaction with consistency of decision making and the likelihood to make a voluntary safety report. Satisfaction with service delivery dropped from a 2018 rating of 6.2 to 6.0.


The survey was open during November and December 2020 using a random stratified sample of CASA stakeholders, with 755 people taking part.

Plus from Hitch's article:


Quote:Among the key findings from the survey were:

  • the average satisfaction rating for service delivery was 6.0/10, down only 0.2 from 2018

  • 49% of respondents said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with service delivery compared with 54% in 2018

  • there continues to be low agreement that CASA explains regulations clearly

  • 45% agree that CASA audits are critical to aviation safety and 41% believe the audits are done in a professional manner

  • only 33% of stakeholders agreed that CASA are consistent in their decision making

  • respondents continue to rate CASA poorly for industry consultation with an average of 5.5/10, largely the same as 2018 (5.6).

Results also showed that industry people were more dissatisfied after dealings with CASA staff than they were two years ago, and that satisfaction levels with CASA audit and compliance is at 36%, stable with the 2018 returns.

Faster Horses also conducted in-depth interviews with some respondents who expressed poor relationships with CASA, revealing:
  • that some believe they are operating safely in spite of CASA regulations

  • concerns about inconsistent answers or advice

  • frustrations over timeliness and transparency

  • that some find regulations hard to understand and accept

  • a damning perception of CASA culture, particularly when it comes to admitting error.
The survey was catapulted in to the limelight in November last year when AOPA Australia CEO Ben Morgan distributed the link for respondents to all industry contacts, not just the 6600 tagged to be sent the survey.

This caused then CASA CEO Shane Carmody to delay the survey over fears it had been compromised.

Hmm...yep nothing to see here Miniscule -  Dodgy

Yet another damning document for the RRAT Committee to table... Rolleyes : https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/fi...y-2020.pdf

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

ANAO threaten to WACK Iron Ring with a Wet Lettuce -  Dodgy

Via the ANAO website: https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance...activities


Quote:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities
Due to table: March, 2022

The objective of this audit is to assess whether the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has implemented effective arrangements for the planning and conduct of surveillance activities.

Audit criteria

The ANAO proposes to examine:

  • Has CASA established an appropriate surveillance approach?

  • Is CASA effectively monitoring compliance and regularly reviewing its planning and conduct of surveillance activities?

  • Is there regular reporting to the Board and the Government?




Big Grin Big Grin

MTF...P2  Tongue

Ps
Quote:Paragraph377

Time to dust off the wet lettuce leaf.



Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by Stickshift3000 [Image: viewpost.gif]
The Australian National Audit Office has commenced an audit into how CASA plans and conducts its surveillance operations, possibly open for public contributions soon:

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perform...nce-activities
Folly. The ANAO are another toothless tiger who will receive the CASA treatment - bedazzled with glitter, flashing lights and disco balls. They will be fed herrings to the point where John West can’t supply any more! There will be a display of procedural manuals, flowcharts and a few robust policies on display, and then it will be over. The ANAO shall leave with a briefcase full of..............nothing.

Oh there might be an “Observation” or three, but it will all be lightweight staff. You know, a page number in the enforcement manual written in the wrong font type, or perhaps some naughty Inspector is found to be working from Version 3 of the surveillance procedurals manual when version 4 is the current one. The ANAO will dust off its trusty wet lettuce leaf, give the Scotsman a gentle tap on the buttocks and then present a rosy report to the CASA Board and the impotent DPM McCormack. Next........[/size][/font][/color]

Wink - Oh Gobbles how I sometimes miss you -  Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Finally the running of the DAS Cup - Or is it??  Rolleyes

[Image: FlemMelbourneCupModernGrandstands.jpg]

Via the LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...april-2021


Quote:...Intrigue is stalking the corridors of Aviation House as everyone eyes the empty corner office with some unease. It has been nearly 10 months since CASA knew they were going to need a new Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), but still there is no name on the door. It took 10 months from the time he took over as Acting DAS for Shane Carmody to be confirmed in the role, but in that case there was really no other person in the race; Carmody was always the front runner. Things are different this time around. The Acting DAS Graeme Crawford has not been installed as the bookies' favourite the way Carmody was. And that's where the intrigue comes in. If not he, then who? Is there another internal candidate ready to leapfrog Crawford and get the best seat in the building, or does the CASA board have their eye on someone from outside the organisation? We've debated endlessly on whether CASA needs a DAS with aviation experience or bureaucratic strength, and experiments with both have resultedfrom a GA point of view[i]–[/i]to be inconclusive. That leaves the door completely open for both internal and external candidates to slog it out. Not until the appointment is made will we know what the CASA board is thinking, and indeed what they want CASA to be in the future...

And then from Para 377, via the UP:


Quote:Saturday 24 April announcement - New CEO/DAS



Supposedly the DPM’s office will formally announce who the new CEO/DAS is on Saturday 24 April (tomorrow). I guess the truthful response to that is ‘who gives a sh#t’. Whether it is true or not, nothing will change anyway, you can’t put lipstick on a pig. She/her/he/him/it/non-binary will be a puppet at the mercy of the Board and dopey DPM. Another trough dweller who is narcissistic, sociopathic and arrogant. It’s all tautological.

Not sure if the rumour is correct but I will be monitoring the WOFTAM WWW (Witless Wonder from Wagga), throughout the course of the day, to see if indeed he makes any such announcements.

Referring to my last post I note that the Fort Fumble ANAO audit is now open for contribution... Wink


Quote:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities


Audit is now open for contribution, with contribution expected to remain open until 26 September 2021
Update published Apr 22, 2021 02:15 pm
View on the ANAO website »

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(04-24-2021, 10:26 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Finally the running of the DAS Cup - Or is it??  Rolleyes

[Image: FlemMelbourneCupModernGrandstands.jpg]

Via the LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...april-2021


Quote:...Intrigue is stalking the corridors of Aviation House as everyone eyes the empty corner office with some unease. It has been nearly 10 months since CASA knew they were going to need a new Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), but still there is no name on the door. It took 10 months from the time he took over as Acting DAS for Shane Carmody to be confirmed in the role, but in that case there was really no other person in the race; Carmody was always the front runner. Things are different this time around. The Acting DAS Graeme Crawford has not been installed as the bookies' favourite the way Carmody was. And that's where the intrigue comes in. If not he, then who? Is there another internal candidate ready to leapfrog Crawford and get the best seat in the building, or does the CASA board have their eye on someone from outside the organisation? We've debated endlessly on whether CASA needs a DAS with aviation experience or bureaucratic strength, and experiments with both have resultedfrom a GA point of view[i]–[/i]to be inconclusive. That leaves the door completely open for both internal and external candidates to slog it out. Not until the appointment is made will we know what the CASA board is thinking, and indeed what they want CASA to be in the future...

And then from Para 377, via the UP:


Quote:Saturday 24 April announcement - New CEO/DAS



Supposedly the DPM’s office will formally announce who the new CEO/DAS is on Saturday 24 April (tomorrow). I guess the truthful response to that is ‘who gives a sh#t’. Whether it is true or not, nothing will change anyway, you can’t put lipstick on a pig. She/her/he/him/it/non-binary will be a puppet at the mercy of the Board and dopey DPM. Another trough dweller who is narcissistic, sociopathic and arrogant. It’s all tautological.

Not sure if the rumour is correct but I will be monitoring the WOFTAM WWW (Witless Wonder from Wagga), throughout the course of the day, to see if indeed he makes any such announcements.

Referring to my last post I note that the Fort Fumble ANAO audit is now open for contribution... Wink


Quote:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Planning and Conduct of Surveillance Activities


Audit is now open for contribution, with contribution expected to remain open until 26 September 2021
Update published Apr 22, 2021 02:15 pm
View on the ANAO website »

MTF...P2  Tongue

Addendum: AND THE WINNER IS?? https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/m...trols-casa


Quote:Experienced leadership crew to take the controls at CASA

The Australian Government has today announced the appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), and a new Chair of the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) – the statutory authority that regulates aviation safety in Australia.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Michael McCormack said Ms Pip Spence (CEO and DAS) and former Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, AC (Board Chair) would bring vast experience to these critical roles.

“These appointments are a critical part of shaping the makeup of the CASA Board and the culture of the organisation more broadly,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.

“The depth and breadth of experience that Ms Spence and Air Chief Marshal Binskin bring to bear show the Government is serious about ensuring CASA performs its critical role effectively.

“Their combined skills and experience will be essential for leading this critical regulator in keeping Australians safe while flying, as well as supporting an efficient, effective and reliable aviation industry – which is economically crucial for communities right across the nation.

“Ms Spence comes to CASA from a senior leadership position within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. She offers substantial experience in aviation policy and regulation, as well as government administration and public policy – including a strong track record of leading organisational change.

“Air Chief Marshal Binskin brings outstanding leadership and expertise in both aviation and defence, including significant experience within general aviation.

“These appointments send a strong message about our commitment to high-quality leadership for Australia’s aviation safety regulator, while providing certainty to CASA personnel and industry.”

Ms Spence will commence in her new role in the coming weeks for a period of up to five years. Air Chief Marshal Binskin will commence in August for a period of three years, when the term of the current Chair concludes.




[Image: 1564986388777?e=1624492800&v=beta&t=UHbm...x5yO-5A8MM]

Pip Spence
Deputy Secretary,
Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

Government

Pip Spence is the Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities where her responsibilities include Aviation and Airports, Surface Transport Policy and Portfolio Coordination and Research.

Prior to returning to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development in December 2015, Pip had a number of senior leadership roles in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, including running the Cabinet Division and the Ministerial Support Division.  She was also closely involved in the establishment of the National Broadband Network in the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and was awarded a Public Service Medal for her contribution to the telecommunications regulations reform associated with the implementation of the NBN. She commenced her career in the then Department of Transport and Communications, where she worked in a number of aviation-related areas, including as adviser to the then Minister for Transport.  She has significant policy and regulatory experience.

Pip has a Bachelor of Economics from the University of Tasmania and a Graduate Diploma in Economics from the Australian National University.



[Image: 220px-Mark_Binskin_2018.jpg]

Mark Binskin

Description

Air Chief Marshal Mark Donald Binskin, AC is a former senior officer in the Royal Australian Air Force. He served as Chief of Air Force, Vice Chief of the Defence Force, and Chief of the Defence Force from June 2014 until his retirement in July 2018. Wikipedia

Hmm...BATTER UP!  Tongue
Reply

The model is still broke. We can hope that Ms. Spence and Mr. Binskin will recommend in short time that the Act be changed to create a new CAA as a Government Department with it’s own Minister.

How hopeful should we be? On a scale of 1 to 100 a rational estimate would be around .01.

Its said that hope springs eternal. In the case of General Aviation the springs have sprung and the season is a bleak unrelenting winter.

I will wish Pip Spence the best in her new job. It won’t take long to measure the variation from my .01.
Reply

A how to: On taking industry on the journey??

(04-24-2021, 06:34 PM)Sandy Reith Wrote:  The model is still broke. We can hope that Ms. Spence and Mr. Binskin will recommend in short time that the Act be changed to create a new CAA as a Government Department with it’s own Minister.

How hopeful should we be? On a scale of 1 to 100 a rational estimate would be around .01.

Its said that hope springs eternal. In the case of General Aviation the springs have sprung and the season is a bleak unrelenting winter.

I will wish Pip Spence the best in her new job. It won’t take long to measure the variation from my .01.

Top post Sandy and totally concur... Wink 

I will also add the following, courtesy of Para 377 over on the UP: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zea...st11033209

Quote:..Two more slippery pole sliders who have proven their ability to subserviently kneel before their Government masters and do as they are told. And of course the Government chooses a female so they can tick another box on the political correctness manifest. She has no idea what she is in for, I can assure you of that. No idea!


But to prove what kind of effective ‘leaders’ they are going to really be, let’s see them execute the following top 3 moves;

1. Send Crawford packing
2. Send Aleck packing
3. Issue an apology to Glen Buckley and compensate him as he should be.

If these two new muppets can do the above then their is a tiny semblance of hope that CASA can be reformed, and regain industry trust and confidence. If they can’t do the above, then the same sh#t will continue as it has for the past 40 years...

...
Hi Aroa, seems like some w#nkers (CASAsexuals) have an axe to grind around here, but back to the topic of CASA. As you have also been given the ‘Buckley treatment’ let’s hope for the remaining aviation industry’s sake that the Regulator is reformed. Morrison has certainly been putting the knife though other government departments and demanding less red tape and more efficiency. CASA requires the same treatment. New leadership always brings a tiny glimmer of hope. However those of us who have been in the industry 40+ years and are on our last legs or have gotten out altogether, aren’t holding our breath...


Totally 2nd the 3 suggested moves by Para 377, if Spence were to enable both 1 & 2 to happen ASAP (like tomorrow) and Biskin was to make No 3 happen as soon as taking up the mantle and then the Board (with the support of the dept) were to facilitate...

Quote:..that the Act be changed to create a new CAA as a Government Department with it’s own Minister... 
   
...then I believe you would see an industry actively promote the appointments of Spence and Biskin and engage with on the road fwd... Rolleyes

However if none of the above (as a minimum) happens and the status quo remains, then I believe you will see the industry fortunes decline further with mass exodus of many industry participants including RPT & Charter operators, MROs and flying schools... Undecided   

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)