Memory lane, (not mine).
And, a strong sense of déjà vu prompted a return to 'the basement' for a rummage through the very old stuff from when the PAP kicked off, despite the blood curdling howls of protest from the the CAA top ranks. Better than 30 years ago. Yet the similarity of argument presented way back then, compared to the logic provided by AFAP at the recent Senate inquiry is remarkable. The underpinning tenets are unchanged. The statements made by Messrs Gray and Diamond, couched in slightly different language reflect the same plea that was made three decades ago.
The AFAP are clearly 'in touch' with industry and the harsh realities of operating an aviation company in Australia. If the Inquiry achieves nothing else other than ensuring that the AFAP gets a seat at the 'top table' then it will have done well for the industry.
The entire AFAP submission is well worth time and consideration. I've 'cherry picked' some of that, the whole may be read from Hansard – HERE -. p29 Hansard - p33 PDF.
Gray : “We say that the cost impacts upon the industry are largely symptoms of this. Cost is often referred to as a problem, but we refer to it as a symptom of the problem, because it is actually a symptom of the style and culture of CASA's regulatory philosophy. In particular, in the GA sector, because the organisations are smaller, the economies of scale mean that the GA sector and the people and organisations within it are much more likely to suffer the effects of that. Larger organisations do as well; however, with their economies of scale, it's less noticeable. It's no surprise to us that the GA community is the one that is raising the red flag and is the canary in the coalmine for the aviation sector.”
Gray :Quite simply, how does one achieve the intent of the safety standards when they're having trouble understanding what they actually mean and how to apply them in the real world? Cost and safety aren't warring with each other; they're actually partnered with each other against the complexity and inconsistencies.
Gray :Obviously, the CEO of any organisation is the person ultimately responsible for allthe decisions and the functions of that organisation, so it's circular that the person who's ultimately responsible also gets to decide the outcome of a review by the industry complaints commissioner. To put it quite simply, we're not fixed on who the ICCreports to but it should be to someone external and not to the board. Alternatively, maybe the CEO of CASA should not be on the board. We've got to break this circle just as a mere principle. I'm not particularly aware of any examples; it just seems like a broken means of accountability.
Diamond: We've all got different views on that. From my point of view, we know that ICAO are going to go down the track of safety management for regulators, because our regulator now must assess medium to large enterprises, andeven small enterprises now, on their safety management systems. How do you do that when you don't even have one yourself? Because they don't. It's a difficult area for them. They've got to have special training, but they really should have their own safety management system, which goes to everything that Lachlan has been talking about. That will come eventually through ICAO, but because ICAO deal with 150 states and all of the smaller states and the less well formulated regulators, they can't push it as a standard yet. We should be taking the lead here. We have in the past. Australia used to be a leader in aviation, and that is somewhere we could lead. Safety management is the holistic view of the system, and GA should be part of that.All of the things youhave been discussing with GA can be part of the system and can be paired off and looked at properly with everybody's point of view in mind, not just a blank set of regulations that fits across them all. That's my point of view anyway.
Pole: The point of view that I hear the most about becoming a pilot, which I think is affecting general aviation quite a lot and moving up through the ranks as well, is that the licensing system changed; part 61 came in. The difficulties in obtaining higher level qualifications now and the costs associated with getting airline transport licences make it nearly impossible, so that has stymied many people's careers and possibly may commit them to not actually ever coming out of general aviation because they won't be able to afford it or their employer won't be able to afford them the time for them to be able take these skills on. Probably that has been the worst and largest change in recent times that is affecting pilots being pilots.
All good, solid stuff for the committee to mull over.
Toot – toot.
PS. 'Captain' is a job description - not a rank or title. Off the flight deck plain old Mr. Mrs or Ms is the norm. Just saying......
And, a strong sense of déjà vu prompted a return to 'the basement' for a rummage through the very old stuff from when the PAP kicked off, despite the blood curdling howls of protest from the the CAA top ranks. Better than 30 years ago. Yet the similarity of argument presented way back then, compared to the logic provided by AFAP at the recent Senate inquiry is remarkable. The underpinning tenets are unchanged. The statements made by Messrs Gray and Diamond, couched in slightly different language reflect the same plea that was made three decades ago.
The AFAP are clearly 'in touch' with industry and the harsh realities of operating an aviation company in Australia. If the Inquiry achieves nothing else other than ensuring that the AFAP gets a seat at the 'top table' then it will have done well for the industry.
The entire AFAP submission is well worth time and consideration. I've 'cherry picked' some of that, the whole may be read from Hansard – HERE -. p29 Hansard - p33 PDF.
Gray : “We say that the cost impacts upon the industry are largely symptoms of this. Cost is often referred to as a problem, but we refer to it as a symptom of the problem, because it is actually a symptom of the style and culture of CASA's regulatory philosophy. In particular, in the GA sector, because the organisations are smaller, the economies of scale mean that the GA sector and the people and organisations within it are much more likely to suffer the effects of that. Larger organisations do as well; however, with their economies of scale, it's less noticeable. It's no surprise to us that the GA community is the one that is raising the red flag and is the canary in the coalmine for the aviation sector.”
Gray :Quite simply, how does one achieve the intent of the safety standards when they're having trouble understanding what they actually mean and how to apply them in the real world? Cost and safety aren't warring with each other; they're actually partnered with each other against the complexity and inconsistencies.
Gray :Obviously, the CEO of any organisation is the person ultimately responsible for allthe decisions and the functions of that organisation, so it's circular that the person who's ultimately responsible also gets to decide the outcome of a review by the industry complaints commissioner. To put it quite simply, we're not fixed on who the ICCreports to but it should be to someone external and not to the board. Alternatively, maybe the CEO of CASA should not be on the board. We've got to break this circle just as a mere principle. I'm not particularly aware of any examples; it just seems like a broken means of accountability.
Diamond: We've all got different views on that. From my point of view, we know that ICAO are going to go down the track of safety management for regulators, because our regulator now must assess medium to large enterprises, andeven small enterprises now, on their safety management systems. How do you do that when you don't even have one yourself? Because they don't. It's a difficult area for them. They've got to have special training, but they really should have their own safety management system, which goes to everything that Lachlan has been talking about. That will come eventually through ICAO, but because ICAO deal with 150 states and all of the smaller states and the less well formulated regulators, they can't push it as a standard yet. We should be taking the lead here. We have in the past. Australia used to be a leader in aviation, and that is somewhere we could lead. Safety management is the holistic view of the system, and GA should be part of that.All of the things youhave been discussing with GA can be part of the system and can be paired off and looked at properly with everybody's point of view in mind, not just a blank set of regulations that fits across them all. That's my point of view anyway.
Pole: The point of view that I hear the most about becoming a pilot, which I think is affecting general aviation quite a lot and moving up through the ranks as well, is that the licensing system changed; part 61 came in. The difficulties in obtaining higher level qualifications now and the costs associated with getting airline transport licences make it nearly impossible, so that has stymied many people's careers and possibly may commit them to not actually ever coming out of general aviation because they won't be able to afford it or their employer won't be able to afford them the time for them to be able take these skills on. Probably that has been the worst and largest change in recent times that is affecting pilots being pilots.
All good, solid stuff for the committee to mull over.
Toot – toot.
PS. 'Captain' is a job description - not a rank or title. Off the flight deck plain old Mr. Mrs or Ms is the norm. Just saying......