11-04-2016, 05:41 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-05-2016, 05:54 AM by thorn bird.)
Had a few weeks sabbatical from the wonderful world of aviation.
A time free of the daily frustrations of trying to deal with the Frankenstein monster of our regulatory regime and reflect on just where we as an industry are and how we can save what little is left and perhaps see some light at the end of the tunnel that might encourage people to believe that a worthwhile future awaits them in this industry.
There is a need in Australia for the services commercial general aviation can provide, many of us are convinced this is so. Other countries, many of whom have far less potential for aviation business, have embraced change, unshackled their industry from unnecessary burdensome regulation and seen the resulting development of viable growth, built on encouragement and partnership with their regulators their industries now contribute tremendously to the well being of their economies.
The ethos of the “mystique of safety” must be pushed aside, shown as the myth that it is, in favour of the ethos of “foster and promote”. Aviation in Australia is safe not because of our regulator but despite it and I firmly believe it could become even safer, not by further masses of complicated, indecipherable, rules but by simplification. I don’t believe it is any safer today than it was in the sixties when I first learnt to fly and things were a hell of a lot simpler back then.
The complication of our rules may not be the only reason for the industries decline, but there is no doubt this has had a major effect.
It is a known fact that the more people fly the safer they become the converse is true, as costs go up people fly less.
Perhaps CAsA has a sneaking suspicion this is true illustrated by draconian and expensive recency requirements they impose on us for IFR operation.
On the non commercial side of aviation in the USA I know of few pilots who don’t have IFR ratings, in Australia I know of few who do.
Why is this so? Comparing the requirements for recency between the USA and Australia one can see there is hardly much encouragement here for pilots to undertake the training required to gain those instrument skills.
The cost of gaining the rating then maintaining it in Australia are prohibitive.
Over regulation leading to reduced safety?
Possibly, but one would think given the different requirements between the countries the statistics would prove Australia to be safer, unfortunately they do not, which begs the question, what are Australia’s unique stultifying regulations for? Maybe a little history may shed some light.
The original regulator was formed out of the department of defence, peopled by demobilised war time staff carrying all the ethos of wartime authoritarian attitudes. These people had precious little experience of commercial reality.
This attitude of “we know best” was maintained as the regulator became a place for ex military “Types” who had gone as far as their talents allowed in the military shuffled into the bureaucracy, the same military attitudes perpetuated
as each new wave cycled through the system.
That same recycling of “attitude” has continued till today.
The unfortunate thing is, as the post war industry blossomed, there was a total lack of any talented administrators with commercial experience, and as each new batch was recycled through the system, the same world war two attitudes remained, the upper level of the regulator peopled by bureaucrats with absolutely know idea of commercial reality, the lower front line staff peopled largely by industry rejects, the depth of talent, commercial experience, and expertise within CAsA is mind boggling to the extent that people within the organisation are tasked to perform duties that they themselves would not countenance by anyone in the industry.
This authoritive attitude entrenched for so long by incompetent egotistical sociopaths is illustrated by the regulators attitude to the truth.
A major inquiry some thirty years ago came to unpalatable conclusions which the regulator ignored. Since then year by year further inquiries were recycled and came to the same conclusions which were ignored by the regulator.
What did Einstein say was the definition of insanity?
The Minister calls for yet another inquiry, no doubt encouraged by his Arch Bureaucrat the Murky Mandarin as a way to discourage politically embarrassing dissent. It will come to the same or similar conclusions the recent Forsyth enquiry came to.
The problems of the industry have not changed. I would encourage the minister to read the submissions to that enquiry if he feels he needs education or his Murky Mandarin will allow him to.
I would encourage those that submitted submissions to that enquiry to resubmit
them in their original form if public submissions are called for this new enquiry.
I have been told the minister is aware there are problems but lacks the knowledge to counter CAsA. If this is so I would encourage him to get out into the industry and talk to real people not just carefully selected Casa-philes. I have heard some of these people have told him Part 61 is actually workable and does not increase their overheads, delusional rubbish!!
Finally the alphabet soup organisations must start to work together if there is any hope of change. Slagging each other off will not serve any useful purpose other than give CAsA a free kick. I just hope everyone can come together put aside their ego’s and find common ground, core issues and common aims then attack CAsA with those, the incidental barrows can be pushed later.
A time free of the daily frustrations of trying to deal with the Frankenstein monster of our regulatory regime and reflect on just where we as an industry are and how we can save what little is left and perhaps see some light at the end of the tunnel that might encourage people to believe that a worthwhile future awaits them in this industry.
There is a need in Australia for the services commercial general aviation can provide, many of us are convinced this is so. Other countries, many of whom have far less potential for aviation business, have embraced change, unshackled their industry from unnecessary burdensome regulation and seen the resulting development of viable growth, built on encouragement and partnership with their regulators their industries now contribute tremendously to the well being of their economies.
The ethos of the “mystique of safety” must be pushed aside, shown as the myth that it is, in favour of the ethos of “foster and promote”. Aviation in Australia is safe not because of our regulator but despite it and I firmly believe it could become even safer, not by further masses of complicated, indecipherable, rules but by simplification. I don’t believe it is any safer today than it was in the sixties when I first learnt to fly and things were a hell of a lot simpler back then.
The complication of our rules may not be the only reason for the industries decline, but there is no doubt this has had a major effect.
It is a known fact that the more people fly the safer they become the converse is true, as costs go up people fly less.
Perhaps CAsA has a sneaking suspicion this is true illustrated by draconian and expensive recency requirements they impose on us for IFR operation.
On the non commercial side of aviation in the USA I know of few pilots who don’t have IFR ratings, in Australia I know of few who do.
Why is this so? Comparing the requirements for recency between the USA and Australia one can see there is hardly much encouragement here for pilots to undertake the training required to gain those instrument skills.
The cost of gaining the rating then maintaining it in Australia are prohibitive.
Over regulation leading to reduced safety?
Possibly, but one would think given the different requirements between the countries the statistics would prove Australia to be safer, unfortunately they do not, which begs the question, what are Australia’s unique stultifying regulations for? Maybe a little history may shed some light.
The original regulator was formed out of the department of defence, peopled by demobilised war time staff carrying all the ethos of wartime authoritarian attitudes. These people had precious little experience of commercial reality.
This attitude of “we know best” was maintained as the regulator became a place for ex military “Types” who had gone as far as their talents allowed in the military shuffled into the bureaucracy, the same military attitudes perpetuated
as each new wave cycled through the system.
That same recycling of “attitude” has continued till today.
The unfortunate thing is, as the post war industry blossomed, there was a total lack of any talented administrators with commercial experience, and as each new batch was recycled through the system, the same world war two attitudes remained, the upper level of the regulator peopled by bureaucrats with absolutely know idea of commercial reality, the lower front line staff peopled largely by industry rejects, the depth of talent, commercial experience, and expertise within CAsA is mind boggling to the extent that people within the organisation are tasked to perform duties that they themselves would not countenance by anyone in the industry.
This authoritive attitude entrenched for so long by incompetent egotistical sociopaths is illustrated by the regulators attitude to the truth.
A major inquiry some thirty years ago came to unpalatable conclusions which the regulator ignored. Since then year by year further inquiries were recycled and came to the same conclusions which were ignored by the regulator.
What did Einstein say was the definition of insanity?
The Minister calls for yet another inquiry, no doubt encouraged by his Arch Bureaucrat the Murky Mandarin as a way to discourage politically embarrassing dissent. It will come to the same or similar conclusions the recent Forsyth enquiry came to.
The problems of the industry have not changed. I would encourage the minister to read the submissions to that enquiry if he feels he needs education or his Murky Mandarin will allow him to.
I would encourage those that submitted submissions to that enquiry to resubmit
them in their original form if public submissions are called for this new enquiry.
I have been told the minister is aware there are problems but lacks the knowledge to counter CAsA. If this is so I would encourage him to get out into the industry and talk to real people not just carefully selected Casa-philes. I have heard some of these people have told him Part 61 is actually workable and does not increase their overheads, delusional rubbish!!
Finally the alphabet soup organisations must start to work together if there is any hope of change. Slagging each other off will not serve any useful purpose other than give CAsA a free kick. I just hope everyone can come together put aside their ego’s and find common ground, core issues and common aims then attack CAsA with those, the incidental barrows can be pushed later.