Poncy or Ponzi ?
1. a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
2. "a classic Ponzi scheme built on treachery and lies"
Item two puts the argument for it being a Ponzi rather neatly, don’t you think.
GD – “A useless political protection racket, nothing more and nothing less.”
For the public and industry, I’d have to agree with GD, “useless”; but for the rest it’s heaven sent and gift wrapped. I wonder what the Feds acting under a search warrant would find, then I wonder what a team of ‘independent’ Accident Investigators would make of the data retrieved. Accident reports seem to go through a ‘mysterious’ process, almost a metamorphism, data going in rock solid comes out as gooey, sticky mess of little structural integrity or practical value.
I can, at a pinch, understand the ‘need’ for a softly-softly approach. I mean it just wouldn’t do for the politicians to be embarrassed by exposing the ASA, ATSB, CASA or any ‘government agency’ as being a part of the causal chain. Can’t have that, can we children; Australia is supposed to be a world leader; ain’t it? The stark truth that the official management of aviation is a complete basket (bastard) case must never be allowed to gain solid form.
NB> Notice that Hoody doesn't tackle the figures actually quoted:
NB> Notice also that Hoody generalises 'reports' rather than final reports for a full blown investigation. This means the 'average time' also includes the desktop short investigation reports that feature approximately once a month in the SIBs (short investigation bulletins)
Weasel flummery. But I believe there needs to be a line drawn, which none dare cross. Safety recommendations, (if ever issued again) cannot be perverted or diluted, particularly where lives have been lost; or the potential for the loss of life is involved. Coroners and courts must be given the unvarnished facts; industry demands the unvarnished truth; how else are real, effective changes to be made. Every flawed, manipulated report leaves the door to a repeat episode wide open. Accidents happen, that is an undeniable truth. Why that accident occurred can be analysed. The causal chain can be clearly identified. The industry is mature enough, experienced enough and certainly ‘skilled’ enough to take the lessons gained and make the changes required to reduce the chances of a repeat event;- provided they have unbiased, accurate information to work with. “Sorry Vicar, a band aid wont’ work, stiches are needed”.
To even tinker with the truth of an event, tweak or massage the facts to suit an ‘acceptable’ conclusion, then provide a report with just enough fact to make that conclusion plausible is not only reprehensible, but, IMO criminal.
Farce or facts? Watchdog or kitten? An ATSB which can drive through to conclusion a Safety recommendation; or, a simpering catamite begging to have a carefully worded plea heard and acted on? ATSB needs independence, leadership, teeth and balls, in that order. Otherwise what’s the point – we may as well disband it, save the money and the embarrassment.
The first journalist who picks up a safety report, then has it examined, the implications and ramifications carefully explained by experts, not working for an ‘agency’ will have an award winning story, which no one will believe. Aye, another IOS member in the making.
Toot toot.
1. a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
2. "a classic Ponzi scheme built on treachery and lies"
Item two puts the argument for it being a Ponzi rather neatly, don’t you think.
GD – “A useless political protection racket, nothing more and nothing less.”
For the public and industry, I’d have to agree with GD, “useless”; but for the rest it’s heaven sent and gift wrapped. I wonder what the Feds acting under a search warrant would find, then I wonder what a team of ‘independent’ Accident Investigators would make of the data retrieved. Accident reports seem to go through a ‘mysterious’ process, almost a metamorphism, data going in rock solid comes out as gooey, sticky mess of little structural integrity or practical value.
I can, at a pinch, understand the ‘need’ for a softly-softly approach. I mean it just wouldn’t do for the politicians to be embarrassed by exposing the ASA, ATSB, CASA or any ‘government agency’ as being a part of the causal chain. Can’t have that, can we children; Australia is supposed to be a world leader; ain’t it? The stark truth that the official management of aviation is a complete basket (bastard) case must never be allowed to gain solid form.
NB> Notice that Hoody doesn't tackle the figures actually quoted:
NB> Notice also that Hoody generalises 'reports' rather than final reports for a full blown investigation. This means the 'average time' also includes the desktop short investigation reports that feature approximately once a month in the SIBs (short investigation bulletins)
Weasel flummery. But I believe there needs to be a line drawn, which none dare cross. Safety recommendations, (if ever issued again) cannot be perverted or diluted, particularly where lives have been lost; or the potential for the loss of life is involved. Coroners and courts must be given the unvarnished facts; industry demands the unvarnished truth; how else are real, effective changes to be made. Every flawed, manipulated report leaves the door to a repeat episode wide open. Accidents happen, that is an undeniable truth. Why that accident occurred can be analysed. The causal chain can be clearly identified. The industry is mature enough, experienced enough and certainly ‘skilled’ enough to take the lessons gained and make the changes required to reduce the chances of a repeat event;- provided they have unbiased, accurate information to work with. “Sorry Vicar, a band aid wont’ work, stiches are needed”.
To even tinker with the truth of an event, tweak or massage the facts to suit an ‘acceptable’ conclusion, then provide a report with just enough fact to make that conclusion plausible is not only reprehensible, but, IMO criminal.
Farce or facts? Watchdog or kitten? An ATSB which can drive through to conclusion a Safety recommendation; or, a simpering catamite begging to have a carefully worded plea heard and acted on? ATSB needs independence, leadership, teeth and balls, in that order. Otherwise what’s the point – we may as well disband it, save the money and the embarrassment.
The first journalist who picks up a safety report, then has it examined, the implications and ramifications carefully explained by experts, not working for an ‘agency’ will have an award winning story, which no one will believe. Aye, another IOS member in the making.
Toot toot.