The Devil; is in the detail.
In this modern day of 'quick' information 'grabs' provided by the I-phone & etc. it seems there is little time to read the message before passing onto the next; a quick read, flick, next. While this may be entertaining, requiring little in the way of serious consideration, there are some items which demand not only attention but serious involvement. For example – Australia's alignment with ICAO; or lack thereof.
The volume of 'registered' differences has long been a 'puzzle'; if there is good reason for this shortfall, then (Shirley) those reasons should be clearly defined and presented to the ICAO. Perhaps then ICAO could adopt the differences and the world would follow the home grown lead, – Alas; although the 'differences' are 'legal' and accepted; I can't seem to find where the 'differences' have been adopted on a global basis. Why, if the Australian version of compliance is so good is it not universally accepted and adopted?
The endless pettifogging with ICAO SARPS only seems to matter within the public service sectors; but not reflected within airline operational manuals. Pick up an 'Ops Manual' from any of the major international airlines and the ICAO SARPS are not only clearly visible; but built into safe, 'efficient' economically sound operating systems. The twiddles submitted as 'differences' are essentially ignored as being redundant to safe, efficient operating procedures. Australia's many registered differences are counterproductive, a make work project attempting to be 'significant' on a global stage. Bollocks...!
AMROBA ably led by Ken Cannane are shining a bright light on the results of this faux legal arrogance; the industry is paying the price; declining by the day while nations like the USA , Canada, Singapore and many others are expanding and getting along just fine with the ICAO tenets. Even in Canada, where the audit report was leaked there is a positive response to the mild rebuke – operationally as sound as any and a lot better than some, considering the weather conditions they operate in; but, the discrepancies will be addressed as they progress toward 'compliance' without penalty. That is the upside of an audit, an outside view which identifies areas which could be improved; sensible folk will, as best they may make the improvement. Not so in Australia; there will be a mad scramble to be 'seen' as compliant, but with 'work- around' clauses woven in.
Take the time and consider the AMROBA missives, the logic and a plea for serious change which could improve the state of small to medium operators, promote business and drag the industry into this century. But most importantly ask why Australia has a significant number of registered 'differences' with the world wide accepted ICAO system and the reasoning behind this deceptive, artful arrogance. Perhaps the rest of the world is out of step - ...
Toot – toot.~!.!...
In this modern day of 'quick' information 'grabs' provided by the I-phone & etc. it seems there is little time to read the message before passing onto the next; a quick read, flick, next. While this may be entertaining, requiring little in the way of serious consideration, there are some items which demand not only attention but serious involvement. For example – Australia's alignment with ICAO; or lack thereof.
The volume of 'registered' differences has long been a 'puzzle'; if there is good reason for this shortfall, then (Shirley) those reasons should be clearly defined and presented to the ICAO. Perhaps then ICAO could adopt the differences and the world would follow the home grown lead, – Alas; although the 'differences' are 'legal' and accepted; I can't seem to find where the 'differences' have been adopted on a global basis. Why, if the Australian version of compliance is so good is it not universally accepted and adopted?
The endless pettifogging with ICAO SARPS only seems to matter within the public service sectors; but not reflected within airline operational manuals. Pick up an 'Ops Manual' from any of the major international airlines and the ICAO SARPS are not only clearly visible; but built into safe, 'efficient' economically sound operating systems. The twiddles submitted as 'differences' are essentially ignored as being redundant to safe, efficient operating procedures. Australia's many registered differences are counterproductive, a make work project attempting to be 'significant' on a global stage. Bollocks...!
AMROBA ably led by Ken Cannane are shining a bright light on the results of this faux legal arrogance; the industry is paying the price; declining by the day while nations like the USA , Canada, Singapore and many others are expanding and getting along just fine with the ICAO tenets. Even in Canada, where the audit report was leaked there is a positive response to the mild rebuke – operationally as sound as any and a lot better than some, considering the weather conditions they operate in; but, the discrepancies will be addressed as they progress toward 'compliance' without penalty. That is the upside of an audit, an outside view which identifies areas which could be improved; sensible folk will, as best they may make the improvement. Not so in Australia; there will be a mad scramble to be 'seen' as compliant, but with 'work- around' clauses woven in.
Take the time and consider the AMROBA missives, the logic and a plea for serious change which could improve the state of small to medium operators, promote business and drag the industry into this century. But most importantly ask why Australia has a significant number of registered 'differences' with the world wide accepted ICAO system and the reasoning behind this deceptive, artful arrogance. Perhaps the rest of the world is out of step - ...
Toot – toot.~!.!...