Make work projects.
The first two paragraphs in the AMROBA newsletter _ HERE _ shine a light on two very fundamental question. Why the need for 'complexity' and re-work of existing regulation; and, what does this achieve? Can the benefits of CASA make work be demonstrated?
'Safety' is the catchall used to justify the endless, ever more restrictive, complex, legally binding way of saying the same thing. But, take a look at any of the video from a Senate Estimates session. Count the heads at the table and behind; average the salaries, then multiply that number the attendees. Big number, huge and they all have 'jobs' to do. However, in the real world, once 'a job' is done; the tools are packed away, the floors swept and the actors exit - stage left. But not within the protected realms of user pay-us 'public service'.
The base regulation philosophy lends itself to endless 'twerking' and 'tweaking'. The relentless re working and, some would say 'working around the ICAO / Chicago tenets takes time and cost money. Is there even a need to have 'unique' Australian regulations and the rest of the guff foisted – eventually – onto the fare paying public? Cost v benefit analysis of the additional 'paper work' and oversight of that paperwork and the endless 'wriggle room' copious amounts of expensive shelf ware could tell a different story.
The AMROBA stated position is based in law, logic and long experience in the training, qualifying and surveillance of 'aircraft maintenance and engineering standards' presented by qualified, expert opinion. So why is there cohort of people madly rewriting that which has been accepted world wide as a gold standard.?
Has CASA simply become a 'make work' haven, one of small, disjointed little empires crewed by jobsworths? A collective made up of parcel pushers who manage to avoid all semblance of real responsibility feeding a network which achieves little but self protection? Fair questions – IMO – but I can't see 'the' Minister wanting to upset that cozy little kitchen clutch by asking 'embarrassing' questions, let alone awkward ones, without getting anywhere near the pointed ones, which, if asked would see a major change to the basic way CASA do business.
Full marks to AMROBA for tenacity and daring to ask the right questions and providing the way to repair the damage and expense; which, for no tangible, demonstrable gain CASA not (demonstrably) provided in any way shape or form to the 'efficiency' or 'safety' of the aviation industry. The costs horrific – benefits non.
Toot – toot.
The first two paragraphs in the AMROBA newsletter _ HERE _ shine a light on two very fundamental question. Why the need for 'complexity' and re-work of existing regulation; and, what does this achieve? Can the benefits of CASA make work be demonstrated?
'Safety' is the catchall used to justify the endless, ever more restrictive, complex, legally binding way of saying the same thing. But, take a look at any of the video from a Senate Estimates session. Count the heads at the table and behind; average the salaries, then multiply that number the attendees. Big number, huge and they all have 'jobs' to do. However, in the real world, once 'a job' is done; the tools are packed away, the floors swept and the actors exit - stage left. But not within the protected realms of user pay-us 'public service'.
The base regulation philosophy lends itself to endless 'twerking' and 'tweaking'. The relentless re working and, some would say 'working around the ICAO / Chicago tenets takes time and cost money. Is there even a need to have 'unique' Australian regulations and the rest of the guff foisted – eventually – onto the fare paying public? Cost v benefit analysis of the additional 'paper work' and oversight of that paperwork and the endless 'wriggle room' copious amounts of expensive shelf ware could tell a different story.
The AMROBA stated position is based in law, logic and long experience in the training, qualifying and surveillance of 'aircraft maintenance and engineering standards' presented by qualified, expert opinion. So why is there cohort of people madly rewriting that which has been accepted world wide as a gold standard.?
Has CASA simply become a 'make work' haven, one of small, disjointed little empires crewed by jobsworths? A collective made up of parcel pushers who manage to avoid all semblance of real responsibility feeding a network which achieves little but self protection? Fair questions – IMO – but I can't see 'the' Minister wanting to upset that cozy little kitchen clutch by asking 'embarrassing' questions, let alone awkward ones, without getting anywhere near the pointed ones, which, if asked would see a major change to the basic way CASA do business.
Full marks to AMROBA for tenacity and daring to ask the right questions and providing the way to repair the damage and expense; which, for no tangible, demonstrable gain CASA not (demonstrably) provided in any way shape or form to the 'efficiency' or 'safety' of the aviation industry. The costs horrific – benefits non.
Toot – toot.