Uncertain outcomes..
“Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.”
Monday, 4 November 2024.
“Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts”.
OK, so – Communications and the Arts are 'excluded'. The program reads as though 'outcomes' aka. 'reports' will be presented; in short 'work done' related to the subject matter; or, at least near enough to pass unmolested.
Pick a department – anyone of those mentioned will do; and, break it down to a 'cost' number – start at the beginning – premises, essential services to those premises, insurance, equipment, basic services, furnishings, staff to keep the place clean etc.. Then count up the cast and crew within; do a salary budget, add in expenses, add in all the nice little incentives and paid leave, add on bonuses etc. It becomes a staggering number, even for a 'small' outfit. Then, look across the room – Senators, cast and crew, tea ladies, security, video, Hansard and staff to manage it all. Senator's 'aides' plus crew, plus offices, travel, expenses etc. Not too much imagination required to gauge the eye watering per hour cost of the program. Fair enough, say the tax paying public; democracy and all that; couldn't agree more – it is the 'cost' of the freedoms we have in this wide brown land. No quarrel with that – but; what about results for the money?
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
How about those 'outcomes' then? What improvements do we have, if any, from this expenditure – in real terms, in real time? Are any of the nominated 'departments' able to show a tangible, measured improvement in any of the nominated 'subjects' and back it with 'proof' of theory; or, at very least, a list of quantifiable savings? You know the answers; you can estimate the cost and weigh that against 'outcome'. Say no more; the answers are writ large on nearly every industry balance sheet.
“Our inequality materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class.”
There's one undeniable fact related to matters aeronautical; get more than three people in a 'discussion' and the chances of consensus become slim. Had one lately with a couple of folks. Back in the day, the very first 'powered' approach and landing I did was after second solo. Prior to this, every approach was a 'glide approach' – the notion being that in the event of an engine failure, the forced landing would not be a first learning experience; just another 'glide approach'. It made – to me at least – good sense, made for a solid default setting and a knowledge of what to expect from the aircraft. The C 210 event at YSBK still troubles; for many reasons (as previously banged on about). For some reason, the event troubles me. A C210 is a junior grade entry level aircraft for professional crew; and not too much for a competent PPL to manage; good ship and a workhorse. There was – according to 'reports' not too much wrong with the aircraft; CASA issued a special (SFP) and charged for it - approving a one off to maintenance, so not too much awry with the aircraft. Which leads us back to the human equation – and (MO) to basic training. I wonder how much time and effort was devoted to 'forced landing' technique and current 'practice' of the same. Aye, a rare event – but one that is always on the cards. Then we must examine both systems management and aircraft performance; both essential items, intimate knowledge available within the AFM. I ain't saying there is a fault, but the whole thing just seemed a bit 'left handed' to me. There are most certainly questions for the ATSB to answer (No? - I wonder why not). For example:-
1) Specifically against what was the 'SFP' issued? Bald tyre, compass card out of date, MR overdue – what?
2) Did ATSB determine if the undercarriage had been extended manually on a previous flight?
3) Was there a fuel flow problem noted on previous flights? Strange thing, this massive fuel imbalance - as is taking off on the tank with the lowest fuel reading. Routine take off on the fullest tank and change at preset times to keep the fuel (and aircraft) balanced. Why take off on the low tank – perhaps there was a reason.
4) Not certain if the C210 manual calls for 'coarse' propeller to be selected as part of an OEI landing; but the benefit in glide performance is well noted, tried and tested.
Oh, there's more, all academic – although interesting and probably a worth while exercise for the ATSB – all in the name of safety and good airmanship of course. Alas; silence was the stern reply; that and a glib skim over. Lets see what (if anything) the ever present Popinjay makes of the Oaks collision, that will be interesting – given the disinterest shown in past events.
“Wisdom begins in wonder.”
Got to love this time of the year; warm enough, a breeze, bright light streaming in through open stable doors; dogs stretched out soaking up the rays: definitely beer o'clock. I shall take a sketch pad outdoors and attempt to design and execute my latest commission. Royal command no less; a 'short wheel base' Urchin (grubby) marched into the workshop, her acolytes followed struggling with a large 'lump' of Gum tree; no idea yet what it is, but its nicely figured.”I need a bedside cabinet of four drawers, no bigger than this (wide) this deep and this high. Specifications sketched with spread hands. So here I will sit, enjoy my Ale, smoke, sunset and try to make some semblance of design – for approval. Looks like I am alone for the while – the dogs heard the food bowls being sorted – loyalty eh?....
Selah..
“Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.”
Monday, 4 November 2024.
“Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts”.
OK, so – Communications and the Arts are 'excluded'. The program reads as though 'outcomes' aka. 'reports' will be presented; in short 'work done' related to the subject matter; or, at least near enough to pass unmolested.
Pick a department – anyone of those mentioned will do; and, break it down to a 'cost' number – start at the beginning – premises, essential services to those premises, insurance, equipment, basic services, furnishings, staff to keep the place clean etc.. Then count up the cast and crew within; do a salary budget, add in expenses, add in all the nice little incentives and paid leave, add on bonuses etc. It becomes a staggering number, even for a 'small' outfit. Then, look across the room – Senators, cast and crew, tea ladies, security, video, Hansard and staff to manage it all. Senator's 'aides' plus crew, plus offices, travel, expenses etc. Not too much imagination required to gauge the eye watering per hour cost of the program. Fair enough, say the tax paying public; democracy and all that; couldn't agree more – it is the 'cost' of the freedoms we have in this wide brown land. No quarrel with that – but; what about results for the money?
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
How about those 'outcomes' then? What improvements do we have, if any, from this expenditure – in real terms, in real time? Are any of the nominated 'departments' able to show a tangible, measured improvement in any of the nominated 'subjects' and back it with 'proof' of theory; or, at very least, a list of quantifiable savings? You know the answers; you can estimate the cost and weigh that against 'outcome'. Say no more; the answers are writ large on nearly every industry balance sheet.
“Our inequality materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class.”
There's one undeniable fact related to matters aeronautical; get more than three people in a 'discussion' and the chances of consensus become slim. Had one lately with a couple of folks. Back in the day, the very first 'powered' approach and landing I did was after second solo. Prior to this, every approach was a 'glide approach' – the notion being that in the event of an engine failure, the forced landing would not be a first learning experience; just another 'glide approach'. It made – to me at least – good sense, made for a solid default setting and a knowledge of what to expect from the aircraft. The C 210 event at YSBK still troubles; for many reasons (as previously banged on about). For some reason, the event troubles me. A C210 is a junior grade entry level aircraft for professional crew; and not too much for a competent PPL to manage; good ship and a workhorse. There was – according to 'reports' not too much wrong with the aircraft; CASA issued a special (SFP) and charged for it - approving a one off to maintenance, so not too much awry with the aircraft. Which leads us back to the human equation – and (MO) to basic training. I wonder how much time and effort was devoted to 'forced landing' technique and current 'practice' of the same. Aye, a rare event – but one that is always on the cards. Then we must examine both systems management and aircraft performance; both essential items, intimate knowledge available within the AFM. I ain't saying there is a fault, but the whole thing just seemed a bit 'left handed' to me. There are most certainly questions for the ATSB to answer (No? - I wonder why not). For example:-
1) Specifically against what was the 'SFP' issued? Bald tyre, compass card out of date, MR overdue – what?
2) Did ATSB determine if the undercarriage had been extended manually on a previous flight?
3) Was there a fuel flow problem noted on previous flights? Strange thing, this massive fuel imbalance - as is taking off on the tank with the lowest fuel reading. Routine take off on the fullest tank and change at preset times to keep the fuel (and aircraft) balanced. Why take off on the low tank – perhaps there was a reason.
4) Not certain if the C210 manual calls for 'coarse' propeller to be selected as part of an OEI landing; but the benefit in glide performance is well noted, tried and tested.
Oh, there's more, all academic – although interesting and probably a worth while exercise for the ATSB – all in the name of safety and good airmanship of course. Alas; silence was the stern reply; that and a glib skim over. Lets see what (if anything) the ever present Popinjay makes of the Oaks collision, that will be interesting – given the disinterest shown in past events.
“Wisdom begins in wonder.”
Got to love this time of the year; warm enough, a breeze, bright light streaming in through open stable doors; dogs stretched out soaking up the rays: definitely beer o'clock. I shall take a sketch pad outdoors and attempt to design and execute my latest commission. Royal command no less; a 'short wheel base' Urchin (grubby) marched into the workshop, her acolytes followed struggling with a large 'lump' of Gum tree; no idea yet what it is, but its nicely figured.”I need a bedside cabinet of four drawers, no bigger than this (wide) this deep and this high. Specifications sketched with spread hands. So here I will sit, enjoy my Ale, smoke, sunset and try to make some semblance of design – for approval. Looks like I am alone for the while – the dogs heard the food bowls being sorted – loyalty eh?....
Selah..