[Peetwo]

CAR 206 & the Mad World of Aviation Safety Legal Embuggerance - courtesy Dr A. 

On the Git I would 2nd the sentiment that it was the latter, however my point with copying and pasting that section of the Git's CV was that it would appear that he has absolutely zero executive management experience. Which is experience that I would have thought was essential in order to be the 2IC of CASA??

It is also disturbing when you purview the CV of one Mike Smith who also I believe put in for the Deputy Dog position...

Thorny - "..As for the Albert Einstein lookalike, they say there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Does Fort Fumble have a belfry? If they have, there's definitely bats in it..."  


The following 2008 Budget Estimates Hansard extract flows on (or flows back) from the 1st video off this week's SBG...

  

...and IMO perfectly highlights how deluded and out of touch with all reality the Einstein look-alike Dr A truly is...

Dr Aleck—As Mr Carmody said, I think there were many things in the coroner’s findings
with which CASA would disagree. That is inevitable. I cannot imagine that there would ever
be a coronial proceeding involving CASA in which everything that was said would be
something we would embrace wholly in terms of being so. We made a number of submissions
and a number of those submissions revolved around the fact that we had great difficulty with
the approach and some of the findings and conclusions in the ATSB report, and the coronial
was preceded on the basis of the ATSB report. That was certainly within the prerogatives of
the coroner but you can understand our concern that here is a report with which we had some
substantive and methodological concerns and then we have coronial proceedings saying,
‘What we are going to do is we are going to begin by taking as a given everything that is in
this report.’

So, CASA was really left with little option but to challenge that report because that was the
basis on which the coronial inquest proceeded. I do not want to go over old ground here but
there are many lessons to be learned from it and we have taken a great deal from that.
Recognising that there are areas in which our activities could be improved is not a concession
that the conclusions of the coroner, or the conclusions of the ATSB for that matter, were
necessarily entirely correct in every respect. I think that is the position that Mr Carmody—I
do not want to speak for Mr Carmody—has been consistently maintaining. I might also say
that the gravamen of the coroner’s findings was that there is this terrible relationship between
CASA and the ATSB, and I must say that, in the time since that report was issued, we have
covered a considerable amount of ground.

I think there is some more ground yet to be covered, but I would say that relations between
the ATSB and CASA are markedly improved on a number of bases and the concerns we had
about the methodology, I think, are understood by the ATSB. I say that because—this is really
a matter for the ATSB—not so long ago the ATSB released a fairly comprehensive report on
causality and these issues in the context of accident investigations, and they actually
canvassed the notion that, where organisational deficiency models are used, there is the
possibility, or at least the perception, that there is an inclination to look for organisational
faults to the extent of not examining individual responsibility. And, in fact, they refer to some
literature produced by James Reason who was the fellow responsible for this model who
recognised the ‘look what they have done to my song’, so to speak.

Sometimes these things are carried too far. I am not suggesting for a moment that the ATSB
said, ‘Oh, yes. Everything CASA said is true. We do seek to find organisational faults.’ But, I
think the recognition is that, in a complex world of human beings acting as individuals and as
parts of organisations, you will find things that can be sheeted home, noting that the ATSB
does not sheet home blame or liability, individual factors and organisational factors. And
CASA felt, I think fairly—I do not know that the term ‘skewing the evidence’ was ever used. I
have seen the transcripts. I cannot recall seeing that expression. But, what happened was
CASA presented a case to the coroner. The coroner then made some findings and conclusions
based on CASA’s submissions and it is open to the coroner to say, ‘I take into account
everything that CASA’s counsel said and it seemed to me that what they were saying is that
the ATSB was skewing the evidence.’ Whether or not that was said, I do not think we would
agree with that conclusion. What we were trying to suggest all along was that—

Senator O’BRIEN—If I can interrupt your rather long answer. 

Dr Aleck—Sorry.

Senator O’BRIEN—I want to interrupt because what you have just been saying goes to
the very nub of the original question that I asked, the answer that I was given and my
concerns about it. What you are now saying is not only is ATSB capable of criticising
themselves in a report, but to my estimation, they are a fairly objective organisation. That is
not to say they do not make mistakes, but they are fairly objective organisation. The coroner
categorises your dealing with their report as one of casting aspersions as to their integrity, and
when I asked for a response about that I get, ‘We do not basically think so and we do not
necessarily agree with the coroner’s report,’ as if that has been brushed aside. I am sure that
other officers of various organisations within the transport portfolio, had they looked at that,
would have taken the same view.

Dr Aleck—If they had looked at the coroner’s findings?

Senator O’BRIEN—If they had looked at Hansard of the last estimates round.

Dr Aleck—The point that was consistently made in response to that particular question
about whether CASA was attacking the integrity of the ATSB was that what we were doing
was challenging—and maybe attacking is a word that was sometimes used—the credibility or
the integrity of the report. An organisation with a high degree of integrity can produce a report
about which serious questions can be raised.

Senator O’BRIEN—What you are saying to me is the coroner was not competent enough
to write a report which said, ‘CASA did not take issue with the way ATSB were doing their
job. They just thought they had it wrong.’ The coroner’s report is very specific and spent some
time in drawing our attention to the fact that there was a pretty blistering attack on ATSB,
their integrity, whether there was a conflict of interest, the methodology, whether there was
bias, and potentially whether they were skewing evidence. That was the lead in to the whole
question and we get a brush-off at estimates, hence my revisiting it, having had a look at the
Hansard. I am keen to explore this issue if it is appropriate at the appropriate time of how the
organisations got into that position and the nature of the culture that drove it. Also, I am
disappointed that Mr Byron cannot be here for this discussion, but we may have other
remedies for that. Do you want to continue your long answer?

Dr Aleck—I am sorry for the extended response, but I would not suggest for a moment that
I was challenging the competency of the coroner, except that we will not always agree with
the findings that coroners make.

Senator O’BRIEN—How long have you been with the organisation now?

Dr Aleck—With the exception of five years that I remained an employee of the
organisation but was overseas, it has been about 13 years, I believe.

Senator O’BRIEN—CASA has been mentioned in dispatches, for want of a better term, in
a number of coronial inquiries.

Dr Aleck—A number of times.

Senator O’BRIEN—Can you, on notice, give us the details of over the last five years how
many times there have been specific references to the findings that reflect on CASA’s
performance from coroners?

Dr Aleck—As a matter of fact I can do that. We have them. We can do it on notice. We can
go back 10 years, in fact, if you like.

Senator O’BRIEN—That would be good. It may be a perception thing on my part and it
may be the way the media reports things, and it may be the fact that good stuff does not get
drawn to our attention as much as bad stuff, but every report I have heard of has been
somewhat critical and perhaps that is the role of coroners.

Dr Aleck—It is a little bit of all those things.

Senator O’BRIEN—Presumably, those reports are the sort of things that are colouring the
way CASA looks at its ongoing performance, its roles and its functions. We do not get a nod
on the Hansard, so is that a yes?

Dr Aleck—I am just saying presumably it is and I think presumably you are correct.

Mr Carmody—I was going to say that we do look seriously at all coronial reports and all
ATSB reports, implement the recommendations where we think they are appropriate. We
publish those on our website and we endeavour within the responsibilities that we have under
section 9 of the act to do just that.

Hmm...can we pretty please bring back the former Senator O'Brien from retirement - PLEASE??  

Remember the above extract was over 10 years ago and think on about how things have changed - NOT!...

Next this is a link - HERE - for the AQONs that were tabled for the CASA session QONs. However what perked my interest was the table provided by Dr A (ref: PG10) in response to this Senator O'Brien QON:

Senator O’Brien asked:

Senator O’BRIEN—Can you, on notice, give us the details of over the last five years
how many times there have been specific references to the findings that reflect on
CASA’s performance from coroners?

Dr Aleck—As a matter of fact I can do that. We have them. We can do it on notice.
We can go back 10 years, in fact, if you like.

Answer:

Set out in the table below are references reflecting on CASA’s regulatory
performance, as these have appeared in the reported findings of coronial proceedings:
in which CASA has been involved, or of which the Legal Services Group (and its
predecessor) had otherwise become aware.

It is conceivable that coronial proceedings involving the death of persons resulting
from aircraft accidents might be conducted with no involvement of CASA
whatsoever, and without CASA necessarily having been advised that those
proceedings were in train or concluded. With those considerations in mind, the
information presented in the table below may not be exhaustive...

 
This table has a very familiar point of reference (i.e Coroner recommendations to CASA) because some four years later PAIN produced a similar but more comprehensive research paper - see HERE - which included some of those very same Coronial inquiries. 
Example: 

The Coroner recommended that:—
? CASA consider regulating helicopter pilot training
to include night VFR;
? CASA and the industry move towards a national
system of accreditation and uniform standards for
provision of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in
Australia
? CASA investigate reclassification of EMS
helicopter operations into charter category, or create
a separate EMS category of aviation in order to
provide the benefits of increased level of regulation
and CASA oversight, than that presently available
under the aerial work category;
? CASA ensure that appropriate information be
provided to pilots on an ongoing basis regarding the
issue of special disorientation.

The Coroner supported draft regulations Parts 61 and 133
becoming final.

The above summary of the recommendations/findings from the 2003 CFIW EMS helo crash was also used by Senator Fawcett as an example of an 'open safety loop' that was still yet to be closed: ref - Scrambled dots & Angel Flight smokescreens - cont/- & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=97&page=3

However what I find 'passing strange' is that number 5 on the PAIN 'Coronial Analysis' paper was not captured in Dr A's AQON table?

This brings, nearly 20 years after the tragic C310 Police Airwing crash at Newman, me full circle to this video segment...   

Much MTF...P2