Cost benefit analysis.
Of Australia’s ICAO membership and SARP compliance. A simple enough study: it costs a bloody fortune and benefits no one, except CASA. So why do we persist with membership?
The pantomime reached a crescendo when McComic ruled; a match fit tiger team attempting to usurp the ICAO emperors. The ‘differences’ being used as a statement to demonstrate how Australia had got it right and the SARP’s were wrong in 3000 places. Which is why children McComic thought he should be running ICAO. I would like to see an audit of the cost that little soiree extorted from the CASA budget. Not only in terms of hard cash, but in loss of production. That list of important things that should have been getting done, but wasn’t, while the top team were poncing about in Montreal, pressing the flesh and posturing, was given a very low priority. So the cost to tax payer is a threefold rip off, the back end being that there will be even more cost involved in the loss of productivity while plans to rule the world are hatched and strategy developed. Not to mention the cost of maintaining the charade of compliance. Shameless, deceitful, expensive and useless; seem like a fair adjectives to me.
But what remains? What is the residual outcome and how does it benefit Australian aviation? In short it’s a repeat of the above; more unnecessary cost for little or no benefit, except when it comes to an audit of Australia’s aviation governance. 3000 get out of jail cards? Shirley, we can use those to wriggle around the awkward questions and prove that ICAO must abandon it’s philosophy and follow the CASA lead. Arrogant, ignorant, megalomania replacing consensus seems like a fair description to me.
The hard cash cost to consumer could stand a little detailed examination. It has cost a lot of money to develop the unique 300 pages of registered differences; a shed load. It will cost that much again to monitor, maintain and support those differences for the next decades. Much cost for little gain seems a fair description to me.
Qui Bono? Not industry, not the public, no one except CASA benefits from the ludicrous stance of being ‘technically’ in compliance with ICAO. The fact that the spirit and intent of the ICAO SARP’s is to provide best practice and enhance ‘safety’ (whatever that is) is rendered nugatory by CASA clutching academic, black letter law to maintain the façade of compliance seems not to trouble anyone. It’s crazy: we write regulation and pass it into law knowing it’s not ICAO ‘compliant’, then notify ICAO of a ‘difference’, which makes us technically compliant. Some would call that ‘legal’; I’d call it taking the Mickey Bliss. A constant, pointless drain on resources seems like a fair description to me.
I wonder what the political fallout from a real cost benefit analysis would be if Joe Public ever got a look at the true dollars cost. There would most certainly be an outcry if they ever got to see the real costs of the regulatory reform effort, the cost involved in continuing the current philosophy, particularly when the comparison is made to how little it would cost to adopt the NZ or FAA rule set. Hells bells the FAA is even redrafting and having new ‘philosophy’ legislation passed through their Senate as we speak.
Advance Australia Fair? – yeah, right, straight through to the aviation knackers yard.
Has Chester got the prerequisites to put the brakes on? If things don’t change and soon he will be able to drop aviation from his portfolio and CASA will only need to manage ‘foreign’ operators. We shall watch, listen and wait.
Toot toot.
Of Australia’s ICAO membership and SARP compliance. A simple enough study: it costs a bloody fortune and benefits no one, except CASA. So why do we persist with membership?
The pantomime reached a crescendo when McComic ruled; a match fit tiger team attempting to usurp the ICAO emperors. The ‘differences’ being used as a statement to demonstrate how Australia had got it right and the SARP’s were wrong in 3000 places. Which is why children McComic thought he should be running ICAO. I would like to see an audit of the cost that little soiree extorted from the CASA budget. Not only in terms of hard cash, but in loss of production. That list of important things that should have been getting done, but wasn’t, while the top team were poncing about in Montreal, pressing the flesh and posturing, was given a very low priority. So the cost to tax payer is a threefold rip off, the back end being that there will be even more cost involved in the loss of productivity while plans to rule the world are hatched and strategy developed. Not to mention the cost of maintaining the charade of compliance. Shameless, deceitful, expensive and useless; seem like a fair adjectives to me.
But what remains? What is the residual outcome and how does it benefit Australian aviation? In short it’s a repeat of the above; more unnecessary cost for little or no benefit, except when it comes to an audit of Australia’s aviation governance. 3000 get out of jail cards? Shirley, we can use those to wriggle around the awkward questions and prove that ICAO must abandon it’s philosophy and follow the CASA lead. Arrogant, ignorant, megalomania replacing consensus seems like a fair description to me.
The hard cash cost to consumer could stand a little detailed examination. It has cost a lot of money to develop the unique 300 pages of registered differences; a shed load. It will cost that much again to monitor, maintain and support those differences for the next decades. Much cost for little gain seems a fair description to me.
Qui Bono? Not industry, not the public, no one except CASA benefits from the ludicrous stance of being ‘technically’ in compliance with ICAO. The fact that the spirit and intent of the ICAO SARP’s is to provide best practice and enhance ‘safety’ (whatever that is) is rendered nugatory by CASA clutching academic, black letter law to maintain the façade of compliance seems not to trouble anyone. It’s crazy: we write regulation and pass it into law knowing it’s not ICAO ‘compliant’, then notify ICAO of a ‘difference’, which makes us technically compliant. Some would call that ‘legal’; I’d call it taking the Mickey Bliss. A constant, pointless drain on resources seems like a fair description to me.
I wonder what the political fallout from a real cost benefit analysis would be if Joe Public ever got a look at the true dollars cost. There would most certainly be an outcry if they ever got to see the real costs of the regulatory reform effort, the cost involved in continuing the current philosophy, particularly when the comparison is made to how little it would cost to adopt the NZ or FAA rule set. Hells bells the FAA is even redrafting and having new ‘philosophy’ legislation passed through their Senate as we speak.
Advance Australia Fair? – yeah, right, straight through to the aviation knackers yard.
Has Chester got the prerequisites to put the brakes on? If things don’t change and soon he will be able to drop aviation from his portfolio and CASA will only need to manage ‘foreign’ operators. We shall watch, listen and wait.
Toot toot.