Dad’s Army Update – Investigations Begin
CASA has engaged Melbourne-based external investigator aCkTiF Solutions to aid it in a review into Mr Rudd’s written (and later verbal) allegations that three its inspectors have “acted in a way that breaches the CASA Code of Conduct.” (See previous article – Dad’s Army Rides Again.)
Although there are lots of references to that code on the CASA web site, we’ve been unable to find a copy of the document, and a CASA spokesperson tells us that (unlike other enforcement and compliance documents) it’s only available on CASA’s internal intranet. So the actual Code of Conduct, the document that’s supposed to guide inspectors in matters of propriety, “due process”, “model litigator”, “natural justice” and all those other popular epithets, remains a secret.
On Wednesday May 20 Mr Glenn Birrell, an investigator of aCkTiF Solutions visited the site of the alleged offences with two of the three inspectors, Peter Larard and John Retski, and an unidentified CASA observer. Mr Rudd’s Wilga aircraft was parked in exactly the same position as before.
The third inspector, Ron Clark, didn’t attend and sources understand he has elected to take “early retirement.”
Mr. Larard (right) revisits the scene of the alleged crime with investigator Birrell (left)
Observers say the other two inspectors appeared “puzzled” when confronted with evidence that the aircraft had only one elevator, not two.
The investigation is ongoing and will hopefully resolve the issues Mr Rudd’s complaint has raised.
However it’s very concerning that the investigator’s terms of reference are limited to whether or not these officials have committed “breaches of the CASA Code of Conduct,” especially when that document is unavailable to the general public.
Surely it would have been more appropriate if the Investigator’s terms of reference had read:
…..a review of the allegation by you to the CASA that Peter Larard, John Retski and Ron Clark have acted in ways that are relevant to Mr Rudd’s allegations.
Mr Rudd didn’t accuse these officials of “breaches of the CASA Code of Conduct,” and could never have done so because he had no access to that “Code.” The investigator’s terms of reference therefore appear to (inadvertently or deliberately) preclude a full investigation of Mr Rudd’s complaints.
The three offences he alleged were:
- Perjury;
- Conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice; and
- Misfeasance in public office.
Two other areas of misconduct which perhaps could have been included in the Investigator’s terms of reference are:
- Injurious falsehood; and
- Negligent misstatement.
Some of the above, if they have occurred, are serious offences and should be investigated by suitably authorised and qualified government agencies with proper government-backed authority to conduct such investigations.
But the trend appears to be to subvert this by engaging contract external investigators to convey the public impression of independent external investigation. It is of growing concern which the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association now shares.
Brian Bigg, editor of AOPA’s Australian Pilot magazine, echoes the same sentiments that AviationAdvertiser has already expressed many times:
CASA’s rogue staff problem is so serious that it was mentioned in the recent government green paper as something they were actively trying to stamp out. Good luck ferreting out these weasels John [CASA’s new CEO John McCormick.]
To help him along, I’m working up a report for a future edition of the mostly nasty things (and sometimes nice things) done to us by CASA field staff and need to hear from you about your experiences (good and bad) of the past few years.
We’ll be sharing some of our files with Brian.
We also believe that any investigation into this matter should include the costs incurred by CASA in its relentless pursuit of Mr Rudd – including staff and management time and travel and the costs of the current investigation – and that similar probes should be conducted into several other current and past matters. Many of our sources believe some executives responsible for CASA’s compliance/enforcement; investigations and related legal activities are “out of control.”
Our readers comments would be appreciated.
On the CASA Website:
Our Conduct
The community has a right to expect high standards of service based on sound ethical values.
The CASA Code of Conduct states that CASA staff must:
act honestly and fairly;
be courteous and helpful;
comply with all lawful and reasonable instructions given to them by a person entitled to do so; and
so far as priorities and resources permit, apply the highest possible standards of professionalism in everything they do.
Refer also to the Attorney General’s
The Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a MODEL LITIGANT
Appendix B Legal Services Directions 2005 23
GOOD LUCK, IT WILL BE THE FIRST TIME A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT HAS FOLLOWED THE RULES.
Just be mindful we live in a BUREAUCRACY not a DEMOCRACY
Not the first time that Casa has caused lots of grief. Ask Brian Reddish, they sunk his business by suspending his chief pilot and CFI approvals then delaying approval of his nominated replacements. LAMES with long established maintenance businesses that Casa inspectors took a dislike to have been hounded out of business also, reducing competition and thus increasing costs.
Casa has far too much power and can hand out favours as well as brickbats.
In the States qualified mechanics don’t need a certificate of approval (CoA) to maintain aircraft. Instructors can teach without having an Air Operators Certificate (AOC).
Examples abound of the obstructionist make work philosophy that is all pervading in the Casa modus operandi.
Just a couple of cases where I have personal knowledge. Husband and wife charter business, one is lost in an aircraft accident. Their AOC was in the name of the dead partner and Casa would not transfer the AOC to the remaining partner.
I had a flying school AOC and had, in latter years, given over the business to a couple of instructors who did all the training with their own aircraft. One of them was Chief Flying Instructor. Again Casa refused to allow the transfer of my Company AOC. Same staff, airfield, aircaft, but no, this would be another make work and money($3000+) exercise for Casa.
It is incumbent on all of us to change the system, and we must advise our parliamentary representatives.
Sandy, there are many more examples like yours i’m sure, but sadly what is the point of going to our useless parliamentary Reps when the one responsible for Aviation (Albanese) just palms off every question to a junior staff member.
I think the time has come for some more drastic action, the industry needs to start demonstrating in a way that our elected officials will have to sit up and take notice. Why don’t we blockade Canberra Airport, that would get their attention perhaps???