Taking aim

This economic paradigm is not universally understood. There are some individuals – very few in number due to attrition – that think cutting corners and flying on the ragged edge are indicators of likely profitability. In the medium to longer term, nothing could be further from the truth as the odds will inevitably catch up with the bottom dwellers – even if the regulators don’t.

One of the most encouraging innovations in aerial application can be seen in companies willing to commit resources to the Aerial Improvement Management System developed and delivered by AAAA.

AIMS is a program that systemises a company’s operations and covers everything from WHS and logistics to chemicals, quality, management and flying safety. It includes a Safety Management System but is much more valuable than that. About 40 companies are participating in the program and 21 hold the coveted AIMS accreditation, normally only attained after 18 months of training, significant business systems development and a final independent audit.

Unlike template-driven compliance programs, AIMS is a living, breathing management system that connects employees and management to their responsibilities and opportunities for improving their workplace – both for safety and productivity goals. AIMS fundamentally realigns companies with continuous improvement and – from participant reports – is saving money, increasing efficiency and safety and lifting productivity. It puts company owners in charge of their own destiny, facilitates compliance and as a useful by-product, lifts performance in audits.

AIMS is a marker of a company that is really trying hard to improve safety.

So why wouldn’t an allegedly newly-enlightened CASA seize this opportunity to lift its own productivity by recognising such a program and thereby give effect to Forsyth recommendation number 27 to establish a system of recognising appropriate third party independent audits? Like so many of the Forsyth recommendations that are already government policy, this approach continues to be ignored, just like number 28 (classification of operations and risk), number 30 and 31 (three tier regs) and number 32 (review the penalties in the regs). How can an agency continue to ignore government policy and get away with it? And perhaps more importantly, why would it not embrace a clearly identified pathway to improvement that Forsyth mapped out? Perhaps the answer lies in a complete lack of understanding of productivity within CASA and what it could mean in very practical ways to improving the industry-CASA relationship. The big win for CASA employees would be a better workplace and even pride in positive outcomes.

Performance and actions count, and never more than when an already dysfunctional agency continues to inflict damage on the industry it is meant to regulate.

Industry has been incredibly patient with excuses offered for the lack of progress. First we had a new DAS, then a new board, then new senior management staff, then a restructure.

Meanwhile, the industry has almost been brought to its knees by the lack of efficiency, lack of drive for change and the ongoing war of waffle over action. The results of the industry survey now available on the CASA website are indicative of an organisation perhaps even further from productivity than when the Forsyth review was conducted.

New regulation has added massive cost and complexity (CASR Part 61 and 141) for no tangible advancement. CASA opinion continues to parade as science at the expense of previously safe operations (CAO 48. 1). Industry capability and training has been crippled (maintenance regs, firebombing training) and in the case of aviation medicine, a lack of trust of DAMEs, broken IT systems, slow turnarounds and no independent appeals system is actively damaging careers for no safety outcome.

There is now a real opportunity, with yet another change at the head of CASA, for the primacy of the CASA board to emerge as it plots a strategic course to systems of continuous improvement.

CASA remains overstaffed, wildly inefficient and apparently bereft of an ability to heal itself. The board must force modern systems, strategic thinking, transparency, accountability and productivity as key outcomes. Management must now align with the board and drive change.

As with most things in aviation, never mind what just happened – focus on what you will do next.

CASA opinion continues to parade as science at the expense of previously safe operations.