Pause, for thought.. (Before going Medieval)...
Idea 1) - Glen really needs to have his 'notes', particularly the ones sent off to an 'official' 'legal' operation put into 'proper' legal language. Many of us can 'understand' the points made and argument presented; however, …...............the 'legal' mind (with a few notable exceptions) operates differently from the way in which 'non legal' folk ruminate.
Idea 2) – Glen presents an excellent notion in the following paragraphs, extracted from his ramble: to wit:-
Buckley - “Mr Aleck claims that he first became aware of APTA in October 2018. It would be assumed that shortly after he became aware he would have promptly reviewed and accessed the system and reviewed the existing systems and procedures in order to identify any deficiencies that need to be attended to, if there really were any.”
Buckley - “It is very concerning that Mr Aleck, or in fact no CASA employee, including your own office ever accessed my systems or procedures, which would make it impossible for Mr Aleck to identify a deficiency. (Great point, badly mishandled and wide open to argument - silly waste).
A fair few of the Fellahin have, at one time or another been involved in drafting and having approved (accepted) Operations Manuals or 'system' section to that manual. Routine stuff for CP or HOTAC or OPS etc.. Usually, CASA bowl up, eat all the Tim Tams and depart the fix, manuals in tow. Sometimes it takes a while, sometimes the return is speedy. However, it is not uncommon for there to be a long list of 'amendments' or 'changes' and some correspondence (back and forth) before the desired 'Tick' of 'acceptance' is issued and paid for. CASA charge for this service. In effect, to the common man; this throws the onus back on the CASA. We proposed; CASA disposed; no 'tick' = ergo, no operation. Industry 'pays' for this (purchased if you like) 'expert' advice and proposed changes from the CASA. Arguably, anything that from then on, goes pear shaped, the question begged is – 'who's to blame'? An operational proposal altered at the behest of CASA, altering the 'operators' original, based on 'hands on' expertise IMO leaves a gaping hole in the 'safety net'. Enter the legal eagles – maybe?.
Idea 3. Having the Buckley operation 'approved' by the CASA delegates charged with the process; (as I understand it); the prohibition was issued on a 'legal' basis. Now then, put two lawyers in a room and fart; the case could go anyway of 50 ways, depending, drag on for a decade. This is the nature of a litigious mind. Put an aircon man and a plumber in the same room; same endless argument. However, when it comes to operational matters (aeronautical) – 'operational matters' – that safety assessment is probably best left to those who understand it. CASA have a legion of such folk and they are all (allegedly) full bottle on the 'legal' and operational levers.
I say, if Aleck can present an air tight legal reason for denying Buckley, then, in the full blaze of Jurisprudence, let him present it. If there is demonstrable proof that he has indeed, studied the allegedly complex Buckley system, then let him present his argument. That is after all the basis of 'the rule of law' – prove it or piss off.
Glen – mate. STFU and get a good legal counsel; what's the hold up? Why not get this resolved? Life is too short and there are many potential future airmen who could and probably would have benefited from the training system you proposed. Both Dr Aleck and yourself need to Piss, or get off the pot.
This is the last time I will weigh into this never ending 'he said' – she said' bitch slapping contest.
Ale, now, and keep it coming.
Idea 1) - Glen really needs to have his 'notes', particularly the ones sent off to an 'official' 'legal' operation put into 'proper' legal language. Many of us can 'understand' the points made and argument presented; however, …...............the 'legal' mind (with a few notable exceptions) operates differently from the way in which 'non legal' folk ruminate.
Idea 2) – Glen presents an excellent notion in the following paragraphs, extracted from his ramble: to wit:-
Buckley - “Mr Aleck claims that he first became aware of APTA in October 2018. It would be assumed that shortly after he became aware he would have promptly reviewed and accessed the system and reviewed the existing systems and procedures in order to identify any deficiencies that need to be attended to, if there really were any.”
Buckley - “It is very concerning that Mr Aleck, or in fact no CASA employee, including your own office ever accessed my systems or procedures, which would make it impossible for Mr Aleck to identify a deficiency. (Great point, badly mishandled and wide open to argument - silly waste).
A fair few of the Fellahin have, at one time or another been involved in drafting and having approved (accepted) Operations Manuals or 'system' section to that manual. Routine stuff for CP or HOTAC or OPS etc.. Usually, CASA bowl up, eat all the Tim Tams and depart the fix, manuals in tow. Sometimes it takes a while, sometimes the return is speedy. However, it is not uncommon for there to be a long list of 'amendments' or 'changes' and some correspondence (back and forth) before the desired 'Tick' of 'acceptance' is issued and paid for. CASA charge for this service. In effect, to the common man; this throws the onus back on the CASA. We proposed; CASA disposed; no 'tick' = ergo, no operation. Industry 'pays' for this (purchased if you like) 'expert' advice and proposed changes from the CASA. Arguably, anything that from then on, goes pear shaped, the question begged is – 'who's to blame'? An operational proposal altered at the behest of CASA, altering the 'operators' original, based on 'hands on' expertise IMO leaves a gaping hole in the 'safety net'. Enter the legal eagles – maybe?.
Idea 3. Having the Buckley operation 'approved' by the CASA delegates charged with the process; (as I understand it); the prohibition was issued on a 'legal' basis. Now then, put two lawyers in a room and fart; the case could go anyway of 50 ways, depending, drag on for a decade. This is the nature of a litigious mind. Put an aircon man and a plumber in the same room; same endless argument. However, when it comes to operational matters (aeronautical) – 'operational matters' – that safety assessment is probably best left to those who understand it. CASA have a legion of such folk and they are all (allegedly) full bottle on the 'legal' and operational levers.
I say, if Aleck can present an air tight legal reason for denying Buckley, then, in the full blaze of Jurisprudence, let him present it. If there is demonstrable proof that he has indeed, studied the allegedly complex Buckley system, then let him present his argument. That is after all the basis of 'the rule of law' – prove it or piss off.
Glen – mate. STFU and get a good legal counsel; what's the hold up? Why not get this resolved? Life is too short and there are many potential future airmen who could and probably would have benefited from the training system you proposed. Both Dr Aleck and yourself need to Piss, or get off the pot.
This is the last time I will weigh into this never ending 'he said' – she said' bitch slapping contest.
Ale, now, and keep it coming.