Resetting the relationship

To have industry blamed for a deferral when the fundamental building blocks of regulation are simply not in place – such as the MOS or the many amendments proposed by CASA only in October – not only beggars belief, but sends a clear message that the regulator no longer has respect for the industry it regulates.

The argument posited by CASA in recent years of being a ‘big R’ regulator has been used to try and define industry out of any meaningful role in regulatory reform and to bully operators and licence holders out of challenging what have frequently been bizarre interpretations of regulations.

Has industry also been critical of the regulator? Yes – and for a long time. But that criticism – at least from AAAA – has always been based on clearly identified issues and shortcomings and has always been offered with suggestions on a way forward – a way of improving the relationship and the outcomes for both the regulator and industry.

Without a healthy and fully functioning relationship between industry and CASA, it is difficult to see how a mature national aviation safety culture can be nurtured and sustained. Open, honest and fair communication – without any overtones of bullying or intimidation – is the fundamental building block of an aviation safety system that is capable of moving forward.

Recent attempts by CASA to undermine the protection of incident and accident reporting to ATSB demonstrate where the CASA culture has gone in recent years. By not showing respect to ATSB processes and the underpinning importance of confidentiality to the aviation safety reporting scheme, CASA is demonstrating its lack of understanding of a ‘no blame’ commitment and a just culture.

AAAA has recommended to ATSB that none of its accident or incident reports or investigations can be considered ‘deidentified’ if they include aircraft registration details and locations. In an aviation community as small as Australia, protection of confidentiality is difficult enough, with the regulator using information from ATSB reports to mount their own actions. While CASA may think this is legally clever, it will simply undermine the already critical confidence in the reporting system – to the detriment of all in aviation.

The Minister has now announced a significant review into the regulation of aviation safety in Australia. While AAAA welcomes

The recent attempt by CASA to blame industry for the obvious need to delay Part 61 flew in the face of the facts of the situation.

such a move, it is on the understanding that things should not stand still while the review progresses.

There is ample evidence and policy work already in the public domain that should embolden the Minister to act in key critical areas to reset the industry/regulator relationship.

It appears the CASA board continues to be oblivious to the major challenges facing the reputation and performance of its organisation, seeing that an external review has been considered essential to get things back on track.

This level of intervention by a Minister will not have been taken lightly and represents a real commitment to addressing the obvious shortcomings of a public service agency.

AAAA, along with many other organisations and individuals, will be participating wholeheartedly in the Forsyth review because it offers a once in a generation opportunity to fix many of the longstanding issues that have plagued the regulator and its relationship with industry.

CASA does not have aviation issues – it has management issues. These issues can be addressed by the implementation of management systems that deeply embed principles such as transparency, consistency and quality assurance in the CASA culture.

Initiatives such as industry peer reviews of CASA decisions would do much to break down the secretiveness and lack of current expertise in areas ranging from aviation medicine to certification to regulatory development. Strengthening the position of Industry Ombudsman with a direct reporting line to either the head of the Department or to the Minister would further open up the organisation to accountability. Establishment of the Ministerial Advisory Council would make sure industry concerns cannot be swept under the carpet, and inclusion of industry expertise and representation on the CASA board would greatly enhance the earned respect flowing from industry towards the regulator.

All of these initiatives do not require a review to validate their worth. They are the stock-in-trade of many other leading-edge government and private organisations. They are low-hanging fruit that can make a speedy and significant improvement to the way CASA does business.

In the longer term, the Forsyth review is likely to identify a range of ways forward that go to the heart of how CASA does business and the inefficiencies that currently characterise CASA processes.

In the meantime, CASA has announced a $12 million profit over the last year, despite crying poor and making no inroads into greater efficiency. The Australian aviation industry and the Australian people deserve better from this relationship.