[Peetwo]

Hitch and the Choc frog award.

The latest ‘Last Minute Hitch’ article has been quoted three times this iteration; that’s a Tim Tam.  It’s not a loud voice, but it does have lines of communication with those who have slightly larger drums to beat and is another valuable asset to those who need to be not only heard, but understood.

We need to thank Hitch for his efforts and perhaps, like Ken Cannane – communicate more with Hitch and his fellow scribes.  The use of sane, balanced well crafted articles can and does have an impact of perception and can help gather support for what is a just cause; the Forsyth review.  The ASRR must be kept to the forefront – it’s a battle to do so as the opposition are trying to bury it in spin and rhetoric.  Industry must keep throwing the manure back over the dividing fence, if it is to survive.

Nice one Hitch, enjoy the TT with your coffee and the satisfaction of a job well done.  The piece may not win you an award, but it has earned our respect.   Cheers.

Toot toot.

Also Ferryman an additional quote from Hitch today on Australian ATC retrospective: 

Well according to Hitch in last week's weekly wrap the CASA OAR have stealthily & cynically white-anted the effective historical conduit with industry i.e the RAPACs -  : The Last Minute Hitch: 27 November 2015

Who's heard of RAPACs? These are the Regional Airspace Procedures and Advisory Committees, and there is one in your state. What they do is advise the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) on matters of airspace usage in the local areas. RAPACs are a way of getting the users heard in the OAR, but now it seems the OAR no longer wants to listen. What they've done is attempt to redefine the RAPACs to limit them to safety issues. That conveniently silences them over things like radio frequencies ... coincidentally (or not) a current topic being shuttle-cocked between Canberra and the aviation community. Happliy, CASA has announced a review of the OAR and the way it functions. Needless to say, those pesky RAPACs have made an inconvenience of themselves in their submission. If anyone in the aviation community wants to do the same, the details of the review and how to submit are on the CASA website.

Hmm..we were just talking about CASA's divide & conquer tactics in making industry submissive to Iron Ring/Fist policy... 
 
Q/ So Hitch will we get to actually see the RAPACs submissions?

&..next from Skimore Corner:

Sorry Hitch been busy mate but as always your weekly wrap was far better than the relevant blogpiece...cheers P2  : The Last Minute Hitch: 27 November 2015

CASA has announced a restructure into three client-focused groups. The idea is to improve communication and make the regulator more efficient. This was called for in Recommendation 21 of the Forsyth Report, and should result in major changes within. Here's hoping it works. History has shown that when large organisations restructure, the result can be one of two things: a quantum change that revolutionises the entity and is subsequently copied throughout an industry, or an expensive reshuffle that looks brilliant on the outside, but does either nothing or makes things worse. Over time, the latter tends, through natural process, the morph back into the original structure. In this case, CASA, through our input to the Forsyth Report, is complying with our demands. Putting on my "between-the-lines" glasses, I see a mathematical problem. Each group will probably need an executive or deputy director (or some other title) as its head. Currently, there are nine positions within CASA commensurate with a role of that type. Some are currently vacant, but not six of them, so the carpet to the front door might get some extraordinary wear and tear in the coming months from the feet of those exiting. Nailed it mate... 

&..finally from off the AMROBA thread:

And speaking of reforms, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has again called for the Civil Aviation Act to be reviewed and some of the promised culture changes included. This would, theoretically, make them permanent rather than just current policy. Well, it would make them as permanent as the government anyway. If it's easy to make changes to the Act to include, it has to be just as easy for the next government to change the Act to exclude. Still, it would make a statement to the industry that the minister is at least very serious about keeping the reforms going.

But in the eyes of AMROBA, just what are the reforms won for their membership? Whereas we have seen plenty of action on Parts  61, 141 and 142, the maintenance regs, which have the capacity to do some serious mischief to the health of the industry, don't seem to me to be getting similar attention. Either that or the new leadership just doesn't get the point. I would think the MROs issues would also warrant a task-force approach.