The man who grounded state-owned airline SA Express because its safety processes were putting passengers' lives at risk says no pressure was brought to bear on the Civil Aviation Authority by the government to lift the suspension. SA Express was grounded on Saturday last week because its safety monitoring system was considered dangerously inadequate. On Sunday, just one day later, it was back in the air.The CAA's executive for aviation safety operations, Simon Segwabe, is hard-pressed to explain how such a serious systemic failure can be reversed overnight.A possible answer was provided by Minister of Public Enterprises Lynne Brown, who bears political responsibility for SA Express, when she said she had "noted" the decision by the CAA to suspend SA Express, and had "tasked" the department's director-general "to lead talks to resolve this matter".story_article_left1Hours later it was business as usual for SA Express.Segwabe says he was puzzled by the minister's statement because neither he nor anyone else at the CAA had any discussions with Brown's director-general or anyone else from the government."I am not aware of any of our team members having engaged with the DG of the Department of Public Enterprises," he says."I was leading the team on behalf of the CAA. I spent the whole weekend with the team in the office."There was no liaison with anyone from the government, he says. Nor was there any discussion with anyone from SAA.Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan said in his budget speech this year that the government was contemplating a merger between SA Express and SAA.SA Express is an important feeder airline for SAA, so any disruption to its operations would hurt the national carrier.Segwabe says he doesn't know what Brown was talking about.Which leaves the question of how a system which on Saturday was found by the CAA to be so dangerously defunct that it "poses serious safety hazards and risks to the crew, passengers, and the public at large" can have been hunky dory on Sunday."It can," he says.story_article_right2SA Express had been given 10 days to fix the system and had been warned that it would be suspended if it had not fixed it by Friday April 29. In spite of this incentive to get it right, it could not or did not do so."That is exactly the concern that we had," says Segwabe. "We flagged this, they were given an opportunity to rectify this. They did not."Then suddenly, overnight, they did?"They introduced new processes. They improved their procedure, they showed us the communication they'd embarked on with internal stakeholders."All in a matter of two days.On Friday, which was the deadline, SA Express gave the CAA "a corrective action plan" which was "inadequate"."SA Express was told: 'You've given us no option but to suspend your operations.'"On Saturday operations were suspended. The minister said her director-general would resolve the matter. SA Express requested a meeting with the CAA which took place on Sunday. At 5pm on Sunday the suspension was lifted.SA Express CEO Inati Ntshanga said it was just a matter of "paperwork".Nonsense, says Segwabe, 39, who was a maintenance engineer at SAA for four years before joining the CAA 13 years ago."Paperwork informs something, influences something or demonstrates something."So is the CEO lying?block_quotes_start What we found them doing was inadequate. Their system was inadequate, it gave us no comfort block_quotes_end"He was part of the meeting. We made it clear, 'You need to demonstrate to us what are your corrective action plans.' At no stage did we say to him we wanted documentation. We wanted evidence of what is done. Our engagement was not based solely on paperwork."If it was only a matter of paperwork there would have been no need to suspend SA Express, he says."If it was about paperwork we could have said, 'Give us the paper.' We wanted evidence, which includes records."He says SA Express had been given "adequate time" to address the CAA's concerns but was "not able to address them adequately".He says this does not raise concerns about SA Express being a competent airline, however.story_article_left3Shouldn't a competent airline have been able to address the CAA's concerns in the time given, which he says was perfectly sufficient?"Airlines differ from one to another. All I can say is they had to comply. In the absence of adequate controls we had to make a decision."He thinks the airline's approach was the problem."It was their attitude. They knew what the deficiencies were and they had an opportunity to correct them. They didn't."SA Express didn't take the CAA seriously, he says."If something is communicated to you and you understand the impact of it, and you fail to correct it, then you're not taking the CAA seriously."He agrees that given the "potentially tragic" consequences of not taking the CAA's concerns more seriously the attitude of SA Express could be described as "reckless"."It is not as if they didn't know. We engaged with them and they knew after our engagement that if they don't fix it we will suspend their operations because it's about the safety of passengers and crew."They may have said, 'Let's see what is going to happen.' Our role was to say, 'You failed to provide us with what we needed. We need to safeguard the safety of the public.'"Can the public have confidence in such an airline?"As far as individuals in management, I cannot dispute or agree with that. But the system that the company has now deployed in order to give us comfort that they are able to deliver on their responsibilities we have found to be adequate."But isn't the system dependent on management to ensure it works?"Correct."block_quotes_start Now we need to do continuous monitoring, we need to see it being implemented to see how effective it is. block_quotes_endCan the public be confident that the same people who were incapable of, or couldn't be bothered with, fixing a system which the CAA felt was so inadequate it put safety at risk are competent to oversee the proper working of the system going forward?"We verified what they gave us. We found it to be adequate to reinstate their licence."Can the public have confidence in the management of SA Express?"The public can have confidence that SA Express is a certified air operator."Under the same management that allowed critical safety monitoring processes to fail?"We're satisfied that the deficiencies we noted have been addressed. Remember, they were certified before."But allowed the system to deteriorate so badly under their management?story_article_right4He concedes something went "badly wrong" which could have had tragic consequences.Has SA Express been irresponsibly managed, then?"What we found them doing was inadequate to satisfy us. Their system was inadequate, it gave us no comfort."And now?"Now we need to do continuous monitoring, we need to see it being implemented to see how effective it is."We're going to embark on more intense safety oversight with them."Segwabe says local aircraft maintenance standards have not slipped, although South Africa is "not producing enough technicians like we used to in the past".More technicians are leaving the industry through retirement or jobs in other countries than are entering, he says."We don't produce at the same rate anymore."In spite of this there is no skills shortage at present, but "we may start to experience that quite soon", he says...