03-03-2015, 07:24 PM
Top post Thorny - the following courtesy of Creamy kind of follows on from your very good observations... 
A message from Creampuff - TAKE HEED!
Quote:
Easy: Governments don't care if a few hundred careers and potential careers are destroyed. To do otherwise would, in the words of the erstwhile Director of Aviation Safety, Mr McCormick, be "dangerous".
All CASA has to do is say: "risk to the safety of air navigation", and governments run like seven year olds from a brown snake. The cognitive bias of punters, and therefore the majority of voters, dictates this behaviour.
Gone are the days of governments regulating on the basis of objective evidence - they and their advisors wouldn't know what that was, if it bit them on the arse. And, if objective evidence does bite them on the arse and it's politically 'inconvenient' and expedient to ignore it, it will be banned as dangerous. (Don't be fooled by the rhetorical fist waving by Laborial Senators on Committees. Judge them by what the governments of which they are a part do, not say. Mr McCormick was rewarded for his efforts.)
The 'industry' doesn't help itself. With the signal exception of the people who signed the petition and wrote to their various elected representatives, the support of the industry for John O'Brien was PATHETIC.
But the 'good' news is that along with picking off the dangerous CVD people, CASA Avmed is now coming after everyone else because everyone else is presumptively dangerous and Avmed's crusade is to save the world from everyone. I anticipate that Avmed's crusade against people who commit the heinous sin of being ordinary Australians may goad all the Jacks and Jills into realising they aren't alright.
Have you consumed more than 8 standard drinks at one party in the last year? You're next!
And for those who think, because they've the memory of a gold fish, that Mr Skidmore is the Messiah for GA, I note some extracts from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review executive summary and Mr Skidmore's comments during the recent Estimates hearings, on the subject of 'trust'.
The executive summary of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review says this:
Quote:
Think about how much time and effort was put into that Review, by all concerned.
Fast forward to the Estimates hearing last week (24 Feb 15):
Quote:
You see: This lack of trust in the regulator is just a "perception". What would the ASSR panel members and the authors of submissions know?
No further comment required I reckon....P2
A message from Creampuff - TAKE HEED!
Quote:
Quote: Wrote:How can CASA continue to get away with wasting so much taxpayers money on prejudice and inequity on the basis of a spurious CVD testing methods being used to weed out those who can and cannot fly? There are decades of real experience that show the opposite?
Easy: Governments don't care if a few hundred careers and potential careers are destroyed. To do otherwise would, in the words of the erstwhile Director of Aviation Safety, Mr McCormick, be "dangerous".
All CASA has to do is say: "risk to the safety of air navigation", and governments run like seven year olds from a brown snake. The cognitive bias of punters, and therefore the majority of voters, dictates this behaviour.
Gone are the days of governments regulating on the basis of objective evidence - they and their advisors wouldn't know what that was, if it bit them on the arse. And, if objective evidence does bite them on the arse and it's politically 'inconvenient' and expedient to ignore it, it will be banned as dangerous. (Don't be fooled by the rhetorical fist waving by Laborial Senators on Committees. Judge them by what the governments of which they are a part do, not say. Mr McCormick was rewarded for his efforts.)
The 'industry' doesn't help itself. With the signal exception of the people who signed the petition and wrote to their various elected representatives, the support of the industry for John O'Brien was PATHETIC.
But the 'good' news is that along with picking off the dangerous CVD people, CASA Avmed is now coming after everyone else because everyone else is presumptively dangerous and Avmed's crusade is to save the world from everyone. I anticipate that Avmed's crusade against people who commit the heinous sin of being ordinary Australians may goad all the Jacks and Jills into realising they aren't alright.
Have you consumed more than 8 standard drinks at one party in the last year? You're next!
And for those who think, because they've the memory of a gold fish, that Mr Skidmore is the Messiah for GA, I note some extracts from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review executive summary and Mr Skidmore's comments during the recent Estimates hearings, on the subject of 'trust'.
The executive summary of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review says this:
Quote:
Quote: Wrote:The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel's view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
...
A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.
The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator. ...
Think about how much time and effort was put into that Review, by all concerned.
Fast forward to the Estimates hearing last week (24 Feb 15):
Quote:
Quote: Wrote:Senator XENOPHON: So you do concede that there have been, in the past, barriers between industry and CASA?
Mr Skidmore: I am aware the ASRR put that forward as a view.
Senator XENOPHON: So you are attempting to redress that view?
Mr Skidmore: I will attempt to redress a view of that perception. I cannot say, because I was not involved in that discussion, whether it was actually occurring or not.
You see: This lack of trust in the regulator is just a "perception". What would the ASSR panel members and the authors of submissions know?
No further comment required I reckon....P2