A two bob (non combative) ramble.
Gee Whiz GD, that Sir, is a very large worm can you have dragged home; the opening of such is a big task. Perhaps we should begin by visiting first principals and tackling the big questions first.
Is ICAO necessary? My vote would go to the ‘yes’ with a tick in the essential service box. Chaos would reign supreme without such a body. Conventions, contract, and all the paraphernalia which ‘bond’ national air operators to a universal charter makes perfectly good sense – both practically and philosophically. ICAO may well be subject to the usual afflictions of any large ‘corporate’ body, a natural development which may be seen in any large, complex outfit. Fortune 500 companies for example, are constantly looking for ways and means to stay ‘lean’ – match fit if you like – cleaning up the deadwood left behind from previous decisions which may impinge on the new; in short they either get ‘dynamic’ or doomed. There is no such incentive for ICAO to evolve; the operational ‘need for corporate speed’ is non existent – as it must be. Operators and governmental agencies across the globe cannot move with ‘speed’.
Time is essential– ICAO must, by default be ‘patient’. Take P2’s favourite drum; the State Safety Program (SSP). Every ICAO country is involved; consider the processes involved. ICAO first of all would need to come up with the first ‘notion’, then develop the notion into an idea. Once the ‘idea’ had been accepted, the ‘system’, in Toto would need to be developed, tested, examined and discussed before it got anywhere near the ‘public’ gaze. Huge task. Once the SSP had been tested and declared legally safe, operationally sound and ‘do-able’ then it must be ‘sold’ to the ICAO states. The time and money clocks have been ticking throughout. Things like an international agreement for a SSP is a massive undertaking which would probably create problems in any multi national, top flight private sector conglomerate, let alone a politically sensitive operation, dealing with international and domestic law; not to mention governments. So, perforce the ICAO version of ‘urgency’ is set at a different pace; more suited to dealing with ‘their’ world.
Now I ain't saying the situation is not being 'milked'; but you need not look too far to see where the ICAO problems lay. Having developed the SSP, sold it in principal, they now have to deal with the ways and means of implementation, then define ‘compliance’, then monitor not only that compliance but test and monitor ‘the system’ at the same time. It will take years to establish whether or not the ultra ‘expensive’ SSP system actually works; more years to iron out the bugs; more years to correct and have the corrections installed. All this to consider before a crew like CASA and DoIT get their grubby paws on it.
Enough – I can live with ICAO; it is probably too expensive, too fat, too hidebound, etc. But these things are true of even the best run agencies. For my two bob’s worth I would say the perceived ICAO problems can be easily defined. Compare the NZ and Nigerian willing approach to compliance with the Australian. Two relatively small nations embracing the idea - and acting; the other, nodding at compliance and sniggering behind the lunch menu.
Not addressing the difference between “how can we make this work” and “how can we be seen to meet minimum compliance” is, IMO, an easily corrected ICAO failing.
There (IMO) is where the problem lays; which begs the question, why is ICAO not kicking seven bells out of Australia? For this alone ICAO need a swift move along from a size 12 boot; but, as for the rest, well ‘tis but the system the world must work with.
Toot toot.
Gee Whiz GD, that Sir, is a very large worm can you have dragged home; the opening of such is a big task. Perhaps we should begin by visiting first principals and tackling the big questions first.
Is ICAO necessary? My vote would go to the ‘yes’ with a tick in the essential service box. Chaos would reign supreme without such a body. Conventions, contract, and all the paraphernalia which ‘bond’ national air operators to a universal charter makes perfectly good sense – both practically and philosophically. ICAO may well be subject to the usual afflictions of any large ‘corporate’ body, a natural development which may be seen in any large, complex outfit. Fortune 500 companies for example, are constantly looking for ways and means to stay ‘lean’ – match fit if you like – cleaning up the deadwood left behind from previous decisions which may impinge on the new; in short they either get ‘dynamic’ or doomed. There is no such incentive for ICAO to evolve; the operational ‘need for corporate speed’ is non existent – as it must be. Operators and governmental agencies across the globe cannot move with ‘speed’.
Time is essential– ICAO must, by default be ‘patient’. Take P2’s favourite drum; the State Safety Program (SSP). Every ICAO country is involved; consider the processes involved. ICAO first of all would need to come up with the first ‘notion’, then develop the notion into an idea. Once the ‘idea’ had been accepted, the ‘system’, in Toto would need to be developed, tested, examined and discussed before it got anywhere near the ‘public’ gaze. Huge task. Once the SSP had been tested and declared legally safe, operationally sound and ‘do-able’ then it must be ‘sold’ to the ICAO states. The time and money clocks have been ticking throughout. Things like an international agreement for a SSP is a massive undertaking which would probably create problems in any multi national, top flight private sector conglomerate, let alone a politically sensitive operation, dealing with international and domestic law; not to mention governments. So, perforce the ICAO version of ‘urgency’ is set at a different pace; more suited to dealing with ‘their’ world.
Now I ain't saying the situation is not being 'milked'; but you need not look too far to see where the ICAO problems lay. Having developed the SSP, sold it in principal, they now have to deal with the ways and means of implementation, then define ‘compliance’, then monitor not only that compliance but test and monitor ‘the system’ at the same time. It will take years to establish whether or not the ultra ‘expensive’ SSP system actually works; more years to iron out the bugs; more years to correct and have the corrections installed. All this to consider before a crew like CASA and DoIT get their grubby paws on it.
Enough – I can live with ICAO; it is probably too expensive, too fat, too hidebound, etc. But these things are true of even the best run agencies. For my two bob’s worth I would say the perceived ICAO problems can be easily defined. Compare the NZ and Nigerian willing approach to compliance with the Australian. Two relatively small nations embracing the idea - and acting; the other, nodding at compliance and sniggering behind the lunch menu.
Not addressing the difference between “how can we make this work” and “how can we be seen to meet minimum compliance” is, IMO, an easily corrected ICAO failing.
There (IMO) is where the problem lays; which begs the question, why is ICAO not kicking seven bells out of Australia? For this alone ICAO need a swift move along from a size 12 boot; but, as for the rest, well ‘tis but the system the world must work with.
Toot toot.