An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.


Good reads

Oil Prices


ASRR, ANAO, CASA and previous reviews

In reading regarding previous submissions and the current submissions, the ANAO [Australian National Audit Office] is interesting and they have the following comment to make [within many] about how CASA does it’s work. This is one of the most important comments made by ANAO [Full Report made to the Senate in 2002] in this review made by the “top Dog” of audit in Australia.

In the audit, the effect of


Other files:

1. CASA Safety System Audit http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Documents/2010%2011_audit_report_13.pdf

2.Investigation into Air Services [ASA]  http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Documents/2000%2001_audit_report_48.pdf

3.Investigation into CASA:  http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2001-2002/Aviation-Safety-Compliance-Follow-Up-Audit

Casa and surveillance – Aviation Safety Compliance Follow-up Audit by Australian National Audit Office in 2002.

The objectives of this follow-up audit were to determine, in respect of the issues addressed by the 1999 audit recommendations, whether:

• CASA has made satisfactory progress to improve its aviation safety surveillance and compliance activities; and
• the introduction of new strategies for further improvement is being appropriately managed.

Due to the scale of the changes to CASA’s Aviation Safety Compliance activities since the 1999 audit, the ANAO adopted an issues-based approach and incorporated the 1999 audit recommendations into five main themes: risk identification; surveillance; enforcement; resources; and corporate governance.

As was the case with the 1999 audit, the follow-up audit focused on the surveillance and compliance of organisations that CASA has certified to:
• operate aircraft for prescribed commercial purposes (Air Operator’s Certificates (AOC) operators); and
• maintain, design or distribute aircraft and their components (Certificate of Approval (COA) operators).
The follow-up audit methodology included consultations with a range of key personnel in CASA’s Head Office in Canberra and at its various locations throughout Australia; consultations with the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS); examining comments made by members of the Aviation Safety Forum; and examining documentation held by CASA concerning its surveillance and compliance activities.

Overall conclusions

Overall, CASA has improved its management of aviation safety compliance since the 1999 audit, particularly in areas such as the identification of risks at the operator level; the frequency and coverage of surveillance; and enforcement of the Act. CASA has adequately addressed the majority of the recommendations from the 1999 audit and has partially implemented the remaining relevant recommendations.

Risk identification

CASA has improved its means of identifying and prioritising risks to aviation safety at the operator level. The Safety Trend Indicator (STI) is a useful tool for doing this. It will improve further with the introduction of STI version 2.
Recognising the potential increased risk to safety posed by financially marginal operators, CASA has targeted its financial viability assessment (FVA) process according to the areas of perceived greatest financial risk.
However, the ANAO considers that CASA has not improved its means of identifying and prioritising risks to aviation safety at the sector or industry level.
Progress with the development and implementation of the Safety Intelligence System (SIS) has been overly protracted. There is much that CASA can do to improve its analysis of aviation safety data to help to identify emerging risk issues and trends; And to apply the results to CASA’s strategic decision-making about where to best allocate its resources to achieve required performance.

Who supplied the data??

Where was the data cross checked against the industry experience??

The following shows principal [or only] source was CASA. Was the audit strong enough??

By it’s own admission, the ANAO Audit directed towards the “big end” of town, relying on directions from the Minister [Departmental Head??] and the report goes to this, an area that is well resourced and robust.

Hence an audit of this will largely give a postive end-point. Yet CASA cannot get this right either in terms of the issues that revolve around use/ misuse of STI’s. The classic of these is Lockhart River, when the STI’s pointed directly at there being a problem.

The ANAO certainly directs CASA to this issue – still a problem 4 years later and 15 people die.


From the ANAO report: