A straw – quick; grasp it. (Cranky now.)
“AMROBA's Ken Cannane has put forward the novel idea of freezing CASA's structure in the Civil Aviation Act to prevent successive CEOs from making changes that cause an exodus of expertise from the regulator.
Ken is, as usual spot on – in principal. Reality of course is a world away from logic and know-how. The ‘restructures’ are part of the great bluff and a great asset for muddying the waters. They also ‘buy time’. How many ministers and Senate inquiry have we seen now followed by a ‘re-structure’? More promises, more alignment and much more ‘front of house activity’. Lots and lots is the correct answer. CASA cannot, nor will not, under the existing system attract the ‘right stuff’. No one in the ‘iron ring’ will tolerate it.
“Restructures often do cause a loss of good people in any organisation because they are often accompanied by redundancies that act as incentive for the most re-employable to head for the door.
There are, believe it or not, some who would love to work for CASA, to help improve and to be part of building a vibrant aviation industry.
“The current structure was put in place under the whirlwind tenure of Mark Skidmore, enabling Shane Carmody to make only small tweaks to evolve the management hierarchy ... so far.
Yep – and look at what he hired. Many, and I mean a lot, believe Skidmore simply realised he was on a hiding to nothing – and simply walked away. It was a honourable thing to do. IMO he actually believed he had a chance of getting things sorted out – until he realised it was mission impossible. The problem is both at the coal face and in the top echelon; big job for one man without a truck load of ministerial support. Except the ministers ‘advisors’ play for the opposition. Skidmore could, with just a little support have rung the changes. Alas….
“Consequently, the drain of expertise from CASA has been stemmed,
What ducking expertise? The type that wrote Part 61 – the mob which brought 141/142 on line? Or would you like to dig down into the types who went after Buckley or several other ‘honest’ operators and closed ‘em down. FDS. What has been kept is about a low as can be politically supported. There is little in the way of ‘operational’ knowledge’ – take Crawford as an example – what, in the seven hells, would he know about ‘aviation operations’? Sweet fuck all is the answer. There’s a lot like him; poncing about, calling themselves ‘expert’ and loading their ‘ideas’ onto the industry – Weeks for example – he what wrote Part 61. Could not complete a charter in daylight with a tailwind, let alone run a charter outfit – and yet ……….
“but there's no guarantee that if Carmody doesn't stay in the role beyond his current contract that the flow won't start again.”
Bollocks Hitch. Those as can tolerate St. Commode want to be there; the rest will depart the fix. Find me an operational ‘senior’ pilot’ – management role – who’d leave industry to work in St Commodes sheltered work shop. Go on – write me a list. Most of the ‘men’ in aviation would deck the saint, - given the chance – but as he is a protected species – Aye well, the dream lives on.
“So, Cannane has a good point, but I don't think the solution is the right one. (Based on your expertise? Which is what, exactly?
The Civil Aviation Act is legislation that has to go through parliament and all the points-scoring rigmarole visited upon it by politicians. Making the structure part of that process would rob the regulator of flexibility.
There is the rub. They have far too much ‘flexibility’. Totally a law unto themselves, without any hope of control, in any way, shape or form being exercised at the moment. Beyond the law – so says the Australian court (Butson). Until CASA can be held ‘accountable and responsible’ for the travesties they inflict, noting will improve.
“You could argue that we don't want flexibility in the regulator because rigidity provides better stability that is often a key ingredient of investment.
Horse-Pooh. Utter crap. Investment is not silly – it is a school which does not only its homework and due diligence it also reads the tea leaves. An AOC is deemed a ‘liability’ – the time and money it takes to establish an operation far beyond any reasonable investment reality or expectation.
Here’s a dare. I dare Oz Flying to publish a ‘factual’ (no bullshit) report on the Falcon Air operation. Time, trouble, money, approvals etc. Even a burst on Check list’ approval would do. Never happen, my bet is safe. Falcon dare not speak and you would dare not print if the truth was ever told. Investment? Dream on.
"The flaw there is that the structure would have to be absolutely right from the get-go because making changes would mean introducing a bill to the house. We need to maintain flexibility within the regulator, but find a way to make sure it flexes in the right directions.
Hitch; (mate) do yourself a favour. Start at the beginning at bring an AOC on line. Try it. Or, if that’s too rich for your blood, try to get a new operation for an existing approved. You could try and get a factory check-list approved in less tan a six month and $30,000 bucks.
I don’t mind a bit of twaddle every now and then - tongue in cheek stuff. But: really you cannot, in this last epistle - be serious.
Aye well, mind how you go now. The pathway to integrity is both steep and slippery.
Toot – toot.
“AMROBA's Ken Cannane has put forward the novel idea of freezing CASA's structure in the Civil Aviation Act to prevent successive CEOs from making changes that cause an exodus of expertise from the regulator.
Ken is, as usual spot on – in principal. Reality of course is a world away from logic and know-how. The ‘restructures’ are part of the great bluff and a great asset for muddying the waters. They also ‘buy time’. How many ministers and Senate inquiry have we seen now followed by a ‘re-structure’? More promises, more alignment and much more ‘front of house activity’. Lots and lots is the correct answer. CASA cannot, nor will not, under the existing system attract the ‘right stuff’. No one in the ‘iron ring’ will tolerate it.
“Restructures often do cause a loss of good people in any organisation because they are often accompanied by redundancies that act as incentive for the most re-employable to head for the door.
There are, believe it or not, some who would love to work for CASA, to help improve and to be part of building a vibrant aviation industry.
“The current structure was put in place under the whirlwind tenure of Mark Skidmore, enabling Shane Carmody to make only small tweaks to evolve the management hierarchy ... so far.
Yep – and look at what he hired. Many, and I mean a lot, believe Skidmore simply realised he was on a hiding to nothing – and simply walked away. It was a honourable thing to do. IMO he actually believed he had a chance of getting things sorted out – until he realised it was mission impossible. The problem is both at the coal face and in the top echelon; big job for one man without a truck load of ministerial support. Except the ministers ‘advisors’ play for the opposition. Skidmore could, with just a little support have rung the changes. Alas….
“Consequently, the drain of expertise from CASA has been stemmed,
What ducking expertise? The type that wrote Part 61 – the mob which brought 141/142 on line? Or would you like to dig down into the types who went after Buckley or several other ‘honest’ operators and closed ‘em down. FDS. What has been kept is about a low as can be politically supported. There is little in the way of ‘operational’ knowledge’ – take Crawford as an example – what, in the seven hells, would he know about ‘aviation operations’? Sweet fuck all is the answer. There’s a lot like him; poncing about, calling themselves ‘expert’ and loading their ‘ideas’ onto the industry – Weeks for example – he what wrote Part 61. Could not complete a charter in daylight with a tailwind, let alone run a charter outfit – and yet ……….
“but there's no guarantee that if Carmody doesn't stay in the role beyond his current contract that the flow won't start again.”
Bollocks Hitch. Those as can tolerate St. Commode want to be there; the rest will depart the fix. Find me an operational ‘senior’ pilot’ – management role – who’d leave industry to work in St Commodes sheltered work shop. Go on – write me a list. Most of the ‘men’ in aviation would deck the saint, - given the chance – but as he is a protected species – Aye well, the dream lives on.
“So, Cannane has a good point, but I don't think the solution is the right one. (Based on your expertise? Which is what, exactly?
The Civil Aviation Act is legislation that has to go through parliament and all the points-scoring rigmarole visited upon it by politicians. Making the structure part of that process would rob the regulator of flexibility.
There is the rub. They have far too much ‘flexibility’. Totally a law unto themselves, without any hope of control, in any way, shape or form being exercised at the moment. Beyond the law – so says the Australian court (Butson). Until CASA can be held ‘accountable and responsible’ for the travesties they inflict, noting will improve.
“You could argue that we don't want flexibility in the regulator because rigidity provides better stability that is often a key ingredient of investment.
Horse-Pooh. Utter crap. Investment is not silly – it is a school which does not only its homework and due diligence it also reads the tea leaves. An AOC is deemed a ‘liability’ – the time and money it takes to establish an operation far beyond any reasonable investment reality or expectation.
Here’s a dare. I dare Oz Flying to publish a ‘factual’ (no bullshit) report on the Falcon Air operation. Time, trouble, money, approvals etc. Even a burst on Check list’ approval would do. Never happen, my bet is safe. Falcon dare not speak and you would dare not print if the truth was ever told. Investment? Dream on.
"The flaw there is that the structure would have to be absolutely right from the get-go because making changes would mean introducing a bill to the house. We need to maintain flexibility within the regulator, but find a way to make sure it flexes in the right directions.
Hitch; (mate) do yourself a favour. Start at the beginning at bring an AOC on line. Try it. Or, if that’s too rich for your blood, try to get a new operation for an existing approved. You could try and get a factory check-list approved in less tan a six month and $30,000 bucks.
I don’t mind a bit of twaddle every now and then - tongue in cheek stuff. But: really you cannot, in this last epistle - be serious.
Aye well, mind how you go now. The pathway to integrity is both steep and slippery.
Toot – toot.