[P7_TOM]

There is an important element I think “K” and Sandy have missed. I could use the term the blind leading the blind; redoubled. While getting the manual accepted – not approved mind you – but ‘accepted’; the individuals responsible for that ‘acceptance’ are mostly as legally blind as the bloke who wrote it. The hundreds and hundreds of minor manuscript amendments demanded by the FOI assigned are; as often as not – incorrect; even capable of misdirection. The FOI’s are probably more of a danger to operational safety than ice or storms. A little knowledge, attitude, half baked ‘legal’ training and the notion that a lobotomised FOI is always correct, in the mix are a dangerous thing. Particularly when combined with the fact that at the end stages of an acceptance – you’d just about write anything into the manuscript to be done with it. These tales are legendary, founded in absolute truth with volumes of evidence detailing FOI stupidity or worse, personal preferences. This before they begin to interfere with the Flight Manual requirements.

Some of the CASA interpretations of what a FM means are literally illegal garbage; yet they are tolerated and ‘stepped’ around. Take the Part B of an OM you will see, as often as not, huge swathes of the AFM regurgitated there; pages and pages and pages. All of which could be replaced with a simple statement “the company will operate the aircraft in compliance with the AFM. End of, unless the company have ‘specific’ requirements (technical).

All of this leads to mega problems when a court or an inquiry is happening. The judiciary (or whoever) do not have the technical expertise; or, operational savvy to see past the alleged ‘CASA expert’ and can read ‘the law’. Makes it really hard to present a sensible response – primarily because your expensive lawyer has even less idea of what you rely on as a defence than the blessed judge does. But court still trumps the AAAT- every time – if you can afford it. (different matter).

Any official inquiry into the antics and pronouncements of CASA FOI on operational matters would reveal – beyond any reasonable doubt – that at GA level and probably, though to a lesser degree, at airline level some of the bizarre ‘demands’ made to suit an uninformed, inexperienced shite for an ‘amendment’ to company operating manuals; which is ‘accepted’ : then ignored as being neither of intrinsic, operational or practical value. Until the next opinionated fool decides that the amendment was ‘wrong’ and must be changed – immediately. Reading ain’t a strong point of some of these buffoons; let alone comprehension – operational sanity beyond their grasp. And will someone for Ducks sake tell me what engineering or enforcement types know about ‘operating’ aircraft? I’d love to know. SDA is the right answer; but you knew that. Do not suffer an FOI who is ‘below’ your paygrade – for you will regret it.

A CASA FOI should, as they used to, be able to provide the benefit of their operational expertise and collective experience to guide and ensure safety first, operational practicality second and ‘black letter law’ – as they interpret it, a last consideration.

Remove CASA discretion and remove the liability; reduce the word count and; for pities sake – hire in some professionals; who know their business. Bar Room Barristers need not apply; those who cannot make a living from flying need not apply; and narcissistic rejects with an ‘agenda’ need not apply. It would be helpful, in the extreme, if a CASA new hire had actually held the qualifications equal to the operating Chief pilots they supervise and took some lessons in plain English writing; balm, for the poor slobs driving airframes.

If you must write a manual - tread carefully – less said – soonest mended; for you write your own epitaph.

BRB indaba soon: we are going to try and solve ‘a puzzle’ – the Glen Buckley sponsored chess game. There are some intriguing elements like, for example the sudden disappearance of one David Jones from Buckley’s game board. It leads to all manner of questions – like who pulled the first CMT crew off the job and why? Like why is Crawford at the root of three cases of embuggerance and who’s man is he? It will be an ‘interesting’ session with some perennial favourites featuring in starring roles. Like St Commodes and his swift, in almost indecent haste in responding to Buckley and sending in no less a person than Peter White to oversight matters. There is no way the Saint would do that – not voluntarily. Then there is the questions about the ‘delays’ involved. All speculation, all for the sake of a puzzle; but good fun nonetheless. MTF is more than likely……..

My small campaign to drown notions of fair, open governance continues - unabated. “Yes; one for the road is a good idea.” - “Unless some has brought their darts.?” “Oh good man! – game on………..