Culture Change

Truss stopped short of callingfor a complete overhaul of the CASA board but acknowledged the sweeping nature of the changes recommended by the review.

“It looks like this will be a pretty fundamental restructuring of the safety regulations and if these 37 recommendations are accepted then clearly it will be the biggest shake-up in decades,” Truss told The Australian newspaper. “We are looking for a quick resolution to these issues so that we can start rebuilding trust and confidence in the aviation sector. ” Headed by former Airservices Australia chair and industry veteran David Forsythe, the ASRR panel also included Don Spruston, former Director-General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, and Roger Whitefield, former head of safety at British Airways. The panel received 269 submissions from a broad crosssection of industry and held targeted meetings with industry stakeholders.

The most common complaints

The larger criticism of CASA stemmed from perceptions of its institutional culture and leadership.

in the submissions and subsequent discussions, according to the report, regarded the pace and direction of CASA’s long-running regulatory reform program; the view that CASA’s regulatory approach was inflexible; and the need for better promotion of aviation, particularly GA. While the review concluded that promotion was not an appropriate function of the regulator, it largely substantiated the other two criticisms.

The regulatory reform effort, which was launched more than 20 years ago and has changed direction several times since, has led to “reform fatigue” within the industry, the report said. The review recommended a quick resolution of the current reform program, with future changes limited to those required to improve safety or ensure alignment with international standards. It also recommends “returning to a third tier of regulation, removing as much detail as possible from regulations, and using plain language standards in the third tier. ” It also noted industry criticism of existing regulations as overly legalistic, hard to understand, and too focused on punitive measures, and recommended the use of “plain language” in regulation.

The larger criticism of CASA, however, stemmed from perceptions of its institutional culture and leadership. While McCormick’s focus on firm regulatory oversight has a place, the review said, his hard-line approach had created a risk that operators may withhold information. “The result is an industry that has retreated from open dialogue and participation,” the report said. “The industry feels that CASA management does not listen. In their mind, CASA is good at providing briefings, but does not listen to industry’sresponse, or understand the issues that industry raises. ” The review also noted a wide discrepancy between how the industry and CASA perceive their relationship. “While CASA is clearly aware of specific instances of industry dissatisfaction, it does not appear to fully comprehend the level or breadth of ill-feeling across all industry sectors. This lack of comprehension is especially apparent at the senior leadership level, including within the CASA Board,” the report said. “The Board needs to be aware of, and engaged with, industry views about CASA’s performance. [However,] it is clear that the current Board is unaware of the depth of industry concern and frustration with the regulator. ” The review did put some of the blame on operators, however, noting that not all members of the industry were putting in the effort to understand regulatory changes.

For example, the panel “heard from many small companies that the new Part 145 requirements are too onerous; however, none of these companies seemed to have read the CASA discussion paper about the intention to have a special Part 145 for small operators, even though it had been on the CASA website for some time”.

But the overall assessment of CASA, measured against standard performance indicators, was damning. “In the panel’s view, CASA is falling short of the standards it ought to attain,” the report said.

“Based on industry’s perception, CASA falls short on transparency and openness, being seen by industry as closed to engagement. CASA’s leadership also appears wanting, with a failure to translate good procedures and policies on paper into effective behaviours across the organisation. While CASA appears to be trusted by many in government, the industry’s trust in CASA isfailing, compromising CASA’s stewardship, and industry perceives CASA’s accountability as being compromised. ” The panel’s 37 recommendations span a broad range of technical, structural and cultural changes.

Among the most important is selecting a new CASA director to replace McCormick, who will leave after deciding not to pursue a second term earlier this year. Though the panel said aviation experience was important in identifying a successor, it viewed it as less crucial than finding someone with the leadership skills to guide CASA through a period of cultural change.

The panel also recommended that the CASA board exercise “full governance control”, with nonexecutive directors appointed on the basis of key skills in aviation, safety, management, risk, regulation, governance and government.

The ASRR also called for structural change at CASA to better align its efforts with industry.

“Countries such as Canada and New Zealand have largely structured their safety oversight program to align with the industry, and have specific groups dedicated to industry sectors (eg GA, airlines, aircraft certification, maintenance, airports and air navigation services),” the report says. It recommends that CASA should adopt a “client-orientated output model” organisational structure similar to that used by the New Zealand CAA.

“Many variations of such a model are possible, and the proposal is not prescriptive. However, the key intention is to clarify accountability and improve the points of contact for the aviation community. ” Other recommendations for CASA included re-establishing small offices at major airports, developing an industry exchange program, that the CASA complaints commissioner report to the CASA board, and publishing key performance indicators for service delivery functions. More broadly, the report called for a more active role in aviation safety policy from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and recommended that the ICAO mandated State Safety Program (SSP) be used as the basis for a strategic plan for aviation safety in Australia.

“Over time the Department’s policy coordination role and policy leadership authority has either eroded or not been utilised to its full potential, and as a consequence, its governance and policy responsibility needs to be re-established and reinforced.

The Panel considers this could be done under the authority of a reinvigorated forwardlooking SSP. ” Such an SSP, the report says, should be developed as a “strategic plan for the aviation safety system”.

In addition to CASA, the ASRR panel also looked at the ATSB and Airservices. While it said those organisations were generally viewed in much more favourable terms by industry, it noted broad dissatisfaction with the ATSB’s controversial report on the 2009 ditching of a Pel-Air flight near Norfolk Island, which was seen by many as minimising regulatory failures by CASA. According to the ASRR report, ATSB officials acknowledged to the review panel that the Pel-Air report was “below its usual standard of work”.

However, the panel concluded that that ATSB’s handling of the case was an “aberration” and noted that the ATSB continued to enjoy a strong international reputation.