What we wanted.
![[Image: r0_0_5184_3456_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/r0_0_5184_3456_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
For those not familiar, the video posted above serves as an introduction to the good Senator. The quietly spoken, calm surface and patient demeanour are part of the mans natural charm. A natural leader who is genuinely interested ‘matters aeronautical’ of all weights and kinds. I, for one of many, would not like to be on the spot and being subjected to one of those quietly asked questions; no sir. Not without the answers at my finger tips. Quite rightly, Fawcett assumes that you are ‘all over’ your subject and can make a fist of answering a question associated with your remit, you may be sure he is. More often than not the question catches the departmental lizard flat footed and needing to (a) lay the blame on another department; (b) referring to notes which never seem to have the right answer or, © the classic – ‘take it notice’, which is get out of goal free card and a chance to workshop an answer either related to a and b above: or, a non answer. The non-answer is a classic tactic in which a long time to answer is taken and forces the Senator to rephrase the question, many months later, which will be taken on notice again. Such is the atmosphere Fawcett works in. I digress.
When the response to a question prompts the following:
Sen. Fawcett –“They are fairly fundamental questions if you are asking us to sign off on these agreements. So, yes, take it on notice, but for future inquiries it would be good to have that sort of information to hand.”
You can almost bet your socks that DF is onto the ICAO ‘differences’ racket and intends to do something about it. For far too long Australia has been milking this system, dancing around the spirit and intent of the convention, side stepping real commitment while enjoying the benefits. That said, a careful read of the registered differences reveals two carefully concealed motives for the massive amount tabled.
On the one hand, many of the differences are beneficial to our major carriers, do not affect the ‘safety’ of operations but provide an easement where lack of infrastructure or an imposed restriction artificially constrains sensible, safe operations. These ‘differences’ are to be maintained, for they benefit the country.
On the other hand, you have the rest – the bulk. These differences need to be forensically examined for they have little to do with aviation safety or the national interest. They are simply governmental ‘arse covers’ whereby all care, but no ministerial responsibility can be laid at the governments door. The differences also very neatly cover the departmental and CASA rear ends from any and all responsibility. Almost without exception the iron clad rule ‘strictly no liability’ applies.
What we got.
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2016-05-12-at-1.21.57-PM.png]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-12-at-1.21.57-PM.png)
(Spello deliberate I'm told)
So it is with the new Annexe 19, the State Safety Program, a forged –copy of a masterpiece which celebrates the masters art.
ICAO compliance is a state of mind and within tolerances, is flexible and user friendly, with only one purpose – the well being of citizens, not the government of the day or its minions. The Australian system of aviation safety oversight is in a dreadful state. If as GD suggests audit time is approaching then the guts must be lugged into the neighbour room, windows cleaned, boots polished and all the paperwork neatly stacked.
If Fawcett and his Senate colleagues have decided that enough is enough and the self correction measures they have strongly recommended continue to be flaunted, then, maybe, they have called in the big guns to sort it out, once and for all.
The ICAO topic is not to everyman’s taste, its dry, complex and requires much time to plough through the ‘guff’. “Why do it?” groans the crowd; well we all want reform; right? To achieve that the ‘official’ mindset needs to change, to do that ICAO compliance (or near enough for practical purposes) should be a ‘want to do’ thing, not a ‘see and avoid’ game of words and escape clauses.
Enough, ‘tis P2’s parade we are only here to hold his jacket.
When in one line two crafts directly meet.
(indicates POLONIUS )
This man shall set me packing.
I’ll lug the guts into the neighbor room.
Mother, good night. Indeed this counselor
Toot – handing over – toot.
For those not familiar, the video posted above serves as an introduction to the good Senator. The quietly spoken, calm surface and patient demeanour are part of the mans natural charm. A natural leader who is genuinely interested ‘matters aeronautical’ of all weights and kinds. I, for one of many, would not like to be on the spot and being subjected to one of those quietly asked questions; no sir. Not without the answers at my finger tips. Quite rightly, Fawcett assumes that you are ‘all over’ your subject and can make a fist of answering a question associated with your remit, you may be sure he is. More often than not the question catches the departmental lizard flat footed and needing to (a) lay the blame on another department; (b) referring to notes which never seem to have the right answer or, © the classic – ‘take it notice’, which is get out of goal free card and a chance to workshop an answer either related to a and b above: or, a non answer. The non-answer is a classic tactic in which a long time to answer is taken and forces the Senator to rephrase the question, many months later, which will be taken on notice again. Such is the atmosphere Fawcett works in. I digress.
When the response to a question prompts the following:
Sen. Fawcett –“They are fairly fundamental questions if you are asking us to sign off on these agreements. So, yes, take it on notice, but for future inquiries it would be good to have that sort of information to hand.”
You can almost bet your socks that DF is onto the ICAO ‘differences’ racket and intends to do something about it. For far too long Australia has been milking this system, dancing around the spirit and intent of the convention, side stepping real commitment while enjoying the benefits. That said, a careful read of the registered differences reveals two carefully concealed motives for the massive amount tabled.
On the one hand, many of the differences are beneficial to our major carriers, do not affect the ‘safety’ of operations but provide an easement where lack of infrastructure or an imposed restriction artificially constrains sensible, safe operations. These ‘differences’ are to be maintained, for they benefit the country.
On the other hand, you have the rest – the bulk. These differences need to be forensically examined for they have little to do with aviation safety or the national interest. They are simply governmental ‘arse covers’ whereby all care, but no ministerial responsibility can be laid at the governments door. The differences also very neatly cover the departmental and CASA rear ends from any and all responsibility. Almost without exception the iron clad rule ‘strictly no liability’ applies.
What we got.
(Spello deliberate I'm told)
So it is with the new Annexe 19, the State Safety Program, a forged –copy of a masterpiece which celebrates the masters art.
ICAO compliance is a state of mind and within tolerances, is flexible and user friendly, with only one purpose – the well being of citizens, not the government of the day or its minions. The Australian system of aviation safety oversight is in a dreadful state. If as GD suggests audit time is approaching then the guts must be lugged into the neighbour room, windows cleaned, boots polished and all the paperwork neatly stacked.
If Fawcett and his Senate colleagues have decided that enough is enough and the self correction measures they have strongly recommended continue to be flaunted, then, maybe, they have called in the big guns to sort it out, once and for all.
The ICAO topic is not to everyman’s taste, its dry, complex and requires much time to plough through the ‘guff’. “Why do it?” groans the crowd; well we all want reform; right? To achieve that the ‘official’ mindset needs to change, to do that ICAO compliance (or near enough for practical purposes) should be a ‘want to do’ thing, not a ‘see and avoid’ game of words and escape clauses.
Enough, ‘tis P2’s parade we are only here to hold his jacket.
When in one line two crafts directly meet.
(indicates POLONIUS )
This man shall set me packing.
I’ll lug the guts into the neighbor room.
Mother, good night. Indeed this counselor
Toot – handing over – toot.