XXX International Aviation Safety College
Tuesday, 4 May 1999
BASI Review – a GA industry perspective
Introduction
This submission is based on my personal experience of pro-activly working since 1993 till this date for the aviation industry by providing the CSIT Robinson Helicopter pilot safety awareness courses.
After delivering courses to over 810 persons (averaging between 7 or 8 courses per year through the country), I can authoritivly state that I have been instrumental in bringing about the dramatic reduction in the single engine piston helicopter training and aerial work accident rates through the documented period of 1993 – 1997. (see BASI accident rate data attached).
This coal face experience has enabled me to clearly understand were many industry problems stem and the consequential attitudes & accidents that follow.
Under Currents
Of concern is the current emphasis by both BASI and CASA to place passenger carrying AOC operations as their prime focus for attention – the perception to industry being that they are posturing and concentrating on reacting to pressures from the public, political parties and each other.
From talking with industry, it would seem to me that BASI & CASA have lost sight of the fact that pilots and engineers are members of the aviation family providing expert labour for the AOC holder and as such need to be nurtured and educated from the moment they enter the industry. The new chums are the professionals of to morrow – ignore them during early formative years and you end up with social and attitudinal problems similar to that experienced in many dysfunctional families today.
The current situation is also creating a widening chasm which isolates different industry levels and has created an additional “us and them” attitude by adding the difference between passenger and non passenger carrying operators to the standard industry v/s authority commentary.
Current levels of funding to both CASA and BASI plus the ever present inward looking Canberra based and focused centralisation off both bodies are contributing to the problem.
CASA
The Civil Aviation Act empowers and in fact requires CASA to be a safety regulator and educator.
Currently CASA appears to be 99.9% regulator and have little capacity to educate in the true sense.
CASA staff appear to be legally hamstrung and insular in their day to day interaction with industry in that they– since the case of CASA FOI Ian Paull & Seaview – are now not able to act as mentors in case it is taken in the wrong context, especially if there were to be an incident or accident.
Where does BASI fit into the equation?
Reading Dr Rob Lee’s “From the Director” (Asia Pacific Air Safety, March 1999), Dr Lee describes the legal structure supporting BASI and the tone of the article could be interpreted as BASI being an autonomous agency, removed from industry, which investigates safety deficiencies and then only makes recommendations for other agencies to follow.
The article mentions that “the Bureau has a strong emphasis on accident prevention through the pro-active identification of safety deficiencies in the aviation system which have the potential to contribute to accidents or incidents”. He then goes on to say that all their reports, studies etc are publicly available and that if a person wishes to be informed about BASI they should read the material.
Does this mean that BASI currently exists today as a quango to investigate some accidents, answer unsolicited CAIR reports, simply to write and make non compulsory recommendations?
Surely there has to be other purposes for BASI’s existence. If there are, then many industry members are unaware of them or BASI has not done a good enough job of communication at industry level and in industry language. The publication of a credible safety magazine is only a token gesture from such an organisation.
Is BASI interested in the safety of the grass roots of aviation – GA?
From my own experience in delivering courses, the support from certain BASI officers has been professional, forthcoming and much appreciated. However I note that of the many serious safety deficiencies shown to many officers who have attended over the years, I cannot recall even one being addressed by the BASI organisation. The same old deficiencies exist to this day.
As an example, both BASI, CASA and even federal ministers have been made aware since 1993 that many operators have not been recording maintenance release times in accordance regulatory requirements. It is well known to all that certain operators run a 1 for 3 or even 4 recording system. That is – one hour is recorded for every 3 or 4 flown.
CASA have done absolutely nothing about the problem to this date – see recent letters to CASA enclosed.
BASI – who Dr Lee purports to be pro-active etc, have also been conspicuous by their lack of action. A recent (April 99) verbal communication with BASI suggested that I might write an article in their magazine on the subject – I would call this buck passing!!
Summary
The purpose of this submission is to join with and generate discussion on why BASI exists and its roll as an organisation from a GA perspective.
Does BASI help, hinder or do nothing pro-active for GA?
If BASI’s roll is similar to that of CASA as a safety educator, why has it not conducted any safety programs for industry?
BASI purports to be pro-active – yet, (except through the CAIR system and a magazine) like in the TV program “yes Minister”, there appears to be a complete absence of anything (whatever “anything” could be defined as) happening; therefore BASI needs to either do something or communicate better what it is doing.
Australia cannot have best practice safe skies now or in the future unless either BASI or CASA accept the responsibility of industry safety education. BASI personnel have the resource of information through their investigative work, therefore they should shoulder this responsibility.
Please feel free to contact me at any time for further information or clarification of any point
Best regards
Tony Carmody
Associate Director
XXX International Safety College
1