#SBG 10/07/22: It’s a long way to the top – if you want to Rock ‘ Roll…

Ref: Regional regulatory harmonisation and the #PICASST (Pacific Aviation Treaty)?  & Miniscule King’s (Albo Govt) priorities on Aviation?? & http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates…af-council & https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c…-breakfast

It’s a long way to the top – if you want to Rock ‘ Roll… – AP forum version

Hitch – “Another good move would be to permit instructors who have ratings and endorsements to be able to teach those aspects without having to go through even more training. Right now, an instructor can have an instrument rating or an aerobatic endorsement, but no matter their skill or experience they can’t teach those skills because CASA says they need to be taught to teach those skills. A pilot who has an Instructor Rating and has a CASA syllabus in their hand is likely to be very competent at teaching any skill they already have. Being barred from doing so is simply a bureaucratic roadblock that the training industry can’t afford to pander to anymore.”

Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph…9#pid12919

Fair enough comment – on the results; or, rather on the effects. Where the logic of ’cause and effect’ is lost in the wet dream of a fool; or, in the purblind rhetoric of a snake oil salesman; or, is a manipulated radical entry to the equation, the results reflect the error. No matter how one views or determines the base line argument; if the initial premise is flawed – the result cannot be defined as ‘accurate’. The effect of Parts 61/141/142 etc. and all that it entails is now clearly apparent. A straight forward look at the ‘per capita’ numbers of pilots in the USA trained to a basic PPL /VFR licence under that system against the Australian version clearly demonstrates the effect of the radical cause. But, for a really big number take a look at the numbers who transition to multi engine IFR as PPL holders – advanced training which enhances the basic (for wont of better) “Safety” equation. The more ‘education’ experience and exposure to ‘real flying’ the ‘safer’ the pilot is – QED. The Australian system is counter intuitive; it places restriction after restriction on ‘progress’. Say (for example) the basic licence is issued on a C150 – it is only natural that a pilot would want to upgrade to a ‘cross country’ vehicle – even a twin; the exposure to that level of training would greatly enhance ‘awareness’ and ‘improve’ operational thinking. In the USA, want to go multi/IFR –  you toddle down to the local FBO – see the office – grab an instructor and – off you go. Try that in Oz – you need to be determined, have deep pockets and almost saintly patience; (and/or a robust sense of humour)…

---

“Whether it’s personal foibles or a bureaucrat’s ego, the stubborn defence of stupidity is unforgivable.” ― Stewart Stafford

---

But then, lets say our newly minted or even an old hand has a prang; what comes next? Oh yes, the ‘investigation’. “Pilot continued into conditions less then VMC” – Yes; but why? ‘Tis a fair question and a deep, searching one. We asked an expert for an opinion:-

(Anon expert) – “You know my feelings. It’s hypocritical when the ATSB themselves have an accident like their Pel-air report (and numerous others), that there’s no systemic review (Swiss cheese) into their own operation. That’d make interesting reading and we all know enough about that to base it on facts! Not to mention the “safety culture” of the place or in reality, “ministerial well-being culture”. In their own words, “we don’t want either agency (CASA/ATSB) to end up with egg on its face”. It went largely unnoticed that the rewrite of the Pel-Air report costs us poor taxpayers $1.74 million (it’s buried in the 2018 ANAO report on the ATSB), not to mention the grief to those involved, reputation all loss to the agency (and Australia), and importantly, any real change to improve safety!”

Well said; it begs the question – ‘define any real, meaningful ATSB provided improvement/analysis to the accident rate produced in the last decade?’

Which brings us full circle back to the ubiquitous influence of CASA and MoU – who, despite being fully aware of the success of NZ and the PASO system in Pacific nations where aviation is an essential, persist with being the most non ICAO compliant western nation. About now, it seems to me that we need to maintain good relationships and deep alliances with our near neighbours. It don’t make any sense to persist being the odd man out; standing alone with a unique rule set which fails to accommodate both international and domestic progress of an industry. Adopt the NZ rules, be a serious contributor to the PASO alliance and take the bloody brakes off. Australia faces not only international isolation but stands a good chance of becoming a pariah – on any analysis – crippled, moribund and so deep in the mire of its own creation, subject of derision and ridicule. IMO a legally conflicted, morally bankrupt influence, almost beyond redemption or saving. The solution is simple; follow the example of the leading aviation nations – sure their rules get growled about – but they ain’t the cause of industry decimation or a laughing stock. Ask why most of the free world follows the USA model and system – not the Australian one. Then take a long hard look at the homespun cloak of political motley, the disinterest, the bipartisan rubber stamp and the blatant disavowment of all responsibility: – tragic don’t cover it. 

---

“The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians.”― Benjamin Disraeli

---

I had to cut some roof rafters this week – long wide planks piled up a foot high on the bench: enter the new moggie. Near the end of my bench I keep a dustbin into which shaving get swept from the work top – Mog backs up to the end of the three metre (9ft) plank, hits the gas (think carrier take off) and launches into the bin. You could be forgiven for thinking that once would be enough – wrong – ever heard a cat giggle – three times I watched it; then I moved then lumber; – protest on going.

Selah.-.