[Peetwo]

BJ reply to GlenB -   

Courtesy the office of the DPM, via the AP email chains:

---

---

Also GlenB replies to Luce on the UP - :

Luce

Dear Luce and others,

Please be assured that I value your comments.

I understand your sentiment. My matter is unique, in that it has no safety element to it all. There has never been any allegation of any safety concern with my operation at all. It was simply an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act that states “An Air Operator Certificate cannot be transferred. It is that fact that makes my matter unique, and I do run the risk of “muddying “my own case.

I have taken your advice on board, and it will be in my “considerations” going forward. Cheers.

As a final thought about the Bruce Rhoades matter. Drawing on 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry, I am fully satisfied that the young back packer in that incident would still be alive if:

The CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) adopted this approach.

He/she was allocated 20 businesses by CASA, and committed to popping into each of those businesses once a month, for morning or afternoon tea, on a mutually convenient date.

They sat together for an hour and discussed matters with good intent. They built a relationship of confidence and then trust. A natural part of that conversation could have been as simple as “Run me through how you conduct adventure flights Bruce?” or “can I come along on one of your adventure flights Bruce”, or "how would you handle XXXXX Bruce?"

Any CASA concerns or questions could be resolved right back at that stage. The accident and fatality would most likely never have occurred.

Its hard to digest, but it really is that simple.

If the FOI turned up for morning or afternoon tea, and was told to bugger off, that would be a justifiable CASA concern.

The Operator that invites them in, as almost all would, with welcome arms is the Operator that will work collaboratively with CASA to improve safety and quality outcomes.

Its all well and good to have thousands of pages of documentation, laws, rules, advisories, regulatory philosophies, statements of expectation, exemptions, etc etc, but if the good intent and professional approach isn’t there, then it just won’t work. It really all starts with intent. Intent from the operator and intent from CASA.

The intent exists with the vast majority of operators, and CASA will know, because they will be invited in.

Sadly, and tragically, and most especially at the GA level, there would be less accidents if CASA choose to act with good intent. No amount of legislation can solve this very real problem that is so critical to flight safety in GA

That is what will improve safety outcomes. Good intent. CASA just doesn’t have the intent. Its not in the Organizational culture, and that stems from leadership..

In my own matter, and far closer to home. I operated only a few hundred meters from SOAR aviation. The truth is that industry, including other Government Departments raised safety concerns about that organization on multiple occasions, and repeatedly so over a protracted period. The Company had more accidents, incidents, than most, and even a fatality. That business went on right under CASAs nose and they knew about it. They ignored it. It wasn’t CASA that shut SOAR down. It was the students going to the Australian Skills and Qualifications Authority (ASQA), Its mind boggling.

ASQA was taking action against SOAR, while CASA was shutting me down. Its simply inexplicable at least.

By the way Luce, an industry colleague gave me a copy of “the art of war”, when this matter started. A very informative read, and after your post, I have located it for a re-read.

Cheers. Glen.

MTF...P2