Aiding & abetting; or under the busses??
Coming back to Ol'Tom's post above; there is several of the BRB etc. mulling over why Carmody would bother to include the following paragraph in his correspondence/clarification to the Senate Committee:
![[Image: CC-1.jpg]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CC-1.jpg)
One popular BRB hypothetical is that CC, on reading through the PelAir enforcement/surveillance records associated with the PelAir MAP and SAR, has discovered the huge discrepancies of due process and the paper-trail clusterduck of the oversight of the PelAir AOC post the VH-NGA Norfolk Island ditching. The BRB hypothetical continues that CC is now laying the spade work for actually cleaning out the dross from the Sydney Chapter of the Iron Ring...
In digging around to support both this BRB hypothetical, plus the PelAir v FalconAir comparison in CASA AOC oversight, I discovered that the CASA Surveillance manual recently received a major overhaul (see HERE) and the release of this 153 page amended document just so happened to occur in the middle of the attempted embuggerance of FalconAir by the CASA Sydney chapter...
Here is the preface of the CSM:
Preface
As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that the decisions we make, and the processes by which we make them, are effective, efficient, fair, timely, transparent, properly documented and otherwise comply with the requirements of the law. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that all of our actions are consistent with the principles reflected in our Regulatory Philosophy.
Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will lead to the achievement of these outcomes. Frequently, however, CASA decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy may not be appropriate. In such cases, striking a proper balance between the need for consistency and a corresponding need for flexibility, the responsible exercise of discretion is required.
In conjunction with a clear understanding of the considerations mentioned above, and a thorough knowledge of the relevant provisions of the civil aviation legislation, adherence to the procedures described in this manual will help to guide and inform the decisions you make, with a view to better ensuring the achievement of optimal outcomes in the interest of safety and fairness alike.
Shane Carmody
Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety
With much bemusement and a degree of scepticism I noted the following under sub-heading - 'AHPI assessment' (ref: Chapter 3 sub para 3.3.6.1):
An AHPI assessment is completed in Sky Sentinel using the AHPI tool, and is one of a number of factors used to determine if surveillance events are to be proposed. The AHPI tool is a questionnaire-based tool consisting of a number of factors and sub-factors. These factors are associated with organisational characteristics and performance commonly thought to affect or relate to safety performance behaviour.
The design of the tool is based on the Reason Model of accident causation, safety management systems and commonly identified safety risk factors, which exist at organisational and operational levels.
Q/ On the less pessimistic side, could this be a sign that CC has finally got around to reviewing the administrative nightmare of the McCormick 'BIG R' regulator regime?
Q/ Could we finally see a similar overhaul of the Enforcement manual; in particular the deletions of the black letter law exemptions which were a hallmark of the McCormick regime?
Oh well back to the Bankstown Chronicles boneyard...
MTF...P2
(03-29-2018, 07:23 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Point of orderM’lud.
P2 – “Hmm I think even 'the man at the back of the room' can understand the legal smokescreen that Carmody is trying to deploy in an apparent attempt to defend the hypocrisy, discriminatory bias and duplicity of process used by his Sydney Basin Regional Office in their oversight of the FalconAir AOC...”
My learned colleague is making an assumption – to wit; that CEO Carmody actually understands what he is defending. CEO Carmody has expressed his disgust, several times, of actually getting his hands dirty and his disdain for those as ‘whinge’ about what actually happens at the coal face. Not his fault, he simply exists in an other sphere, far removed from the troubles and tribulations of the common folk.
Wasn’t there some foreign lady – oh, good while back now, who mentioned something about hungry folk eating cake – when they were hungry? Got her fool head chopped off – if memory serves.
All in favour of a ‘leader’ defending his troops – part of the deal – but to aid and abet criminal activity is still illegal – I hope; or have CASA changed that regulation too?
Coming back to Ol'Tom's post above; there is several of the BRB etc. mulling over why Carmody would bother to include the following paragraph in his correspondence/clarification to the Senate Committee:
One popular BRB hypothetical is that CC, on reading through the PelAir enforcement/surveillance records associated with the PelAir MAP and SAR, has discovered the huge discrepancies of due process and the paper-trail clusterduck of the oversight of the PelAir AOC post the VH-NGA Norfolk Island ditching. The BRB hypothetical continues that CC is now laying the spade work for actually cleaning out the dross from the Sydney Chapter of the Iron Ring...
In digging around to support both this BRB hypothetical, plus the PelAir v FalconAir comparison in CASA AOC oversight, I discovered that the CASA Surveillance manual recently received a major overhaul (see HERE) and the release of this 153 page amended document just so happened to occur in the middle of the attempted embuggerance of FalconAir by the CASA Sydney chapter...
Here is the preface of the CSM:
Preface
As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that the decisions we make, and the processes by which we make them, are effective, efficient, fair, timely, transparent, properly documented and otherwise comply with the requirements of the law. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that all of our actions are consistent with the principles reflected in our Regulatory Philosophy.
Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will lead to the achievement of these outcomes. Frequently, however, CASA decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy may not be appropriate. In such cases, striking a proper balance between the need for consistency and a corresponding need for flexibility, the responsible exercise of discretion is required.
In conjunction with a clear understanding of the considerations mentioned above, and a thorough knowledge of the relevant provisions of the civil aviation legislation, adherence to the procedures described in this manual will help to guide and inform the decisions you make, with a view to better ensuring the achievement of optimal outcomes in the interest of safety and fairness alike.
Shane Carmody
Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety
With much bemusement and a degree of scepticism I noted the following under sub-heading - 'AHPI assessment' (ref: Chapter 3 sub para 3.3.6.1):
An AHPI assessment is completed in Sky Sentinel using the AHPI tool, and is one of a number of factors used to determine if surveillance events are to be proposed. The AHPI tool is a questionnaire-based tool consisting of a number of factors and sub-factors. These factors are associated with organisational characteristics and performance commonly thought to affect or relate to safety performance behaviour.
The design of the tool is based on the Reason Model of accident causation, safety management systems and commonly identified safety risk factors, which exist at organisational and operational levels.
Q/ On the less pessimistic side, could this be a sign that CC has finally got around to reviewing the administrative nightmare of the McCormick 'BIG R' regulator regime?
Q/ Could we finally see a similar overhaul of the Enforcement manual; in particular the deletions of the black letter law exemptions which were a hallmark of the McCormick regime?
Oh well back to the Bankstown Chronicles boneyard...
MTF...P2