05-08-2021, 02:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2021, 06:03 PM by thorn bird.)
opinions...opinions...opinions,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you are trying to get at K but the devil is in the making.
How many times in the regulations does the statement "CASA must be satisfied" appear. The question is just who in CASA does the satisfying? what is their level of competence, experience and background? CASA is not a singular entity. It is a conglomerate of opinions and egos, all based on personal perceived experiences and notions of how or what something should be accomplished or carried out, or achieved. Unfortunately the level of experience and competence is so often lacking within the regulator, for sure there are some very fine people within it, but they alone cannot "Be satisfied" for every interaction CASA has with industry.
There are many within industry who believe based on bitter experience that CASA regulates and enforces based on their desire to above all else avoid liability, rather than an objective aim of improving safety.The Glen Buckley imbroglio is a classic example IMO, where well meaning people "got" what Glen was about, saw the safety benefits, and encouraged him to pursue his business plan. Others higher up the food chain perceived a threat, not to safety, but to liability, so poor Glen had to go. Its so hypocritical because within the regulations there is oft repeated "Acceptable means of compliance" recognising perhaps, that there are different ways of doing things to achieve what CASA continually throws in the industries face "Safety" that word that nobody seems able to definitively define, which CASA use as a blunt instrument to bludgeon industry participant's into complying with their opinions and egos and directions, where liability is born by the participant's for any flaws that may subsequently become apparent.
Because of the varying opinions residing within the regulator in Australia there can be multiple operators of the same aircraft all operating with different procedures, something you don't see with larger transport category aircraft, other than minor differences in call outs and workflow, operational protocols are remarkably similar throughout the world.
As much as CASA is violently risk averse when it comes to liability so are aircraft manufacturers, especially in the GA arena. A very large portion of an aircraft's cost is for product liability insurance. GA manufacturers therefore produce operating instructions and procedures which endeavour to cover every eventuality, with the cloud of litigation hanging over their heads for aircraft that have long passed their life cycle but continue in service, nobody could blame them, but that provokes another problem. With large RPT aircraft is can be assumed they will be operated by well trained and experienced professional pilots therefore procedures are developed to cater for practical commercial operations.
Most GA aircraft are produced for the "private" operator, approximately 80% of light jets produced by Cessna are flown by private operators. I'm not attempting to cast dispersion on private pilots, many if not most are highly competent safe operators.
The operational material manufacturers provide attempts to cover the lowest common denominator and therefore is sometimes impractical when used in a commercial sense. Technically, modern GA aircraft are now matching and sometimes surpassing large RPT aircraft in terms of technical sophistication making them a much safer vehicle than in the past. In some cases the Flight Manual operating procedures have caught up with modern thinking, but still impose impediments from a commercial sense and can be safely streamlined for commercial operation with practical solutions which reduce workload and still achieve desired safety standards.
The unfortunate problem in Australia endeavouring to do this ends up a buggers muddle of competing egos within the regulator which is why complication rather than simplicity rules the day, sometimes to the detriment of safety.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you are trying to get at K but the devil is in the making.
How many times in the regulations does the statement "CASA must be satisfied" appear. The question is just who in CASA does the satisfying? what is their level of competence, experience and background? CASA is not a singular entity. It is a conglomerate of opinions and egos, all based on personal perceived experiences and notions of how or what something should be accomplished or carried out, or achieved. Unfortunately the level of experience and competence is so often lacking within the regulator, for sure there are some very fine people within it, but they alone cannot "Be satisfied" for every interaction CASA has with industry.
There are many within industry who believe based on bitter experience that CASA regulates and enforces based on their desire to above all else avoid liability, rather than an objective aim of improving safety.The Glen Buckley imbroglio is a classic example IMO, where well meaning people "got" what Glen was about, saw the safety benefits, and encouraged him to pursue his business plan. Others higher up the food chain perceived a threat, not to safety, but to liability, so poor Glen had to go. Its so hypocritical because within the regulations there is oft repeated "Acceptable means of compliance" recognising perhaps, that there are different ways of doing things to achieve what CASA continually throws in the industries face "Safety" that word that nobody seems able to definitively define, which CASA use as a blunt instrument to bludgeon industry participant's into complying with their opinions and egos and directions, where liability is born by the participant's for any flaws that may subsequently become apparent.
Because of the varying opinions residing within the regulator in Australia there can be multiple operators of the same aircraft all operating with different procedures, something you don't see with larger transport category aircraft, other than minor differences in call outs and workflow, operational protocols are remarkably similar throughout the world.
As much as CASA is violently risk averse when it comes to liability so are aircraft manufacturers, especially in the GA arena. A very large portion of an aircraft's cost is for product liability insurance. GA manufacturers therefore produce operating instructions and procedures which endeavour to cover every eventuality, with the cloud of litigation hanging over their heads for aircraft that have long passed their life cycle but continue in service, nobody could blame them, but that provokes another problem. With large RPT aircraft is can be assumed they will be operated by well trained and experienced professional pilots therefore procedures are developed to cater for practical commercial operations.
Most GA aircraft are produced for the "private" operator, approximately 80% of light jets produced by Cessna are flown by private operators. I'm not attempting to cast dispersion on private pilots, many if not most are highly competent safe operators.
The operational material manufacturers provide attempts to cover the lowest common denominator and therefore is sometimes impractical when used in a commercial sense. Technically, modern GA aircraft are now matching and sometimes surpassing large RPT aircraft in terms of technical sophistication making them a much safer vehicle than in the past. In some cases the Flight Manual operating procedures have caught up with modern thinking, but still impose impediments from a commercial sense and can be safely streamlined for commercial operation with practical solutions which reduce workload and still achieve desired safety standards.
The unfortunate problem in Australia endeavouring to do this ends up a buggers muddle of competing egos within the regulator which is why complication rather than simplicity rules the day, sometimes to the detriment of safety.