07-13-2015, 12:20 AM
P2, please forgive me if I don't quote in full. It gets tiring for an old man to wade through wholesale quotes so I'll abbreviate somewhat.
You said, inter alia, "However I disagree with your assessment that the Dick Smith/NewsCorp campaign is only about airspace reform, especially in light of these comments..."
"..The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.."
This is back to the future stuff. You may recall that in the days when the great satan was known as the CAA, that they received a severe spanking after the Monarch and Seaview crashes where it was held that they were too close to the industry and that henceforth they were to have no concern with the commercial impact of their fiefdom.
"..The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”..."
Well they bloody well did that and came up with the EASA model. Thanks a bunch.
"...Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.
Well whoopee. That happens to be its legislatively assigned task. But I quibble, yes there are ways of being a regulator without being an R.
The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.
At any new regulations, its the bloody existing ones that need to be looked at. Now if he had said that he would take a second look at THE new regulations, it would mean something but not the former phrase.
“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.
Thus spake CASA. That is their mantra. I'm sure every morning at Fort Fumbles they gather in the executive floor and recite that to get their day off to the best possible start.
“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”..."
Hah! Since when is the government concerned about how much the industry has to pay. Anyway, can you imagine the Senate estimates hearing next year when CASA fronts up and says that the millions it has spent creating the Galapagos Duck of our regulations is all going to be thrown out. An attack of the vapours all round me thinks.
I am possibly being too cynical. I am currently having my own battles with CASA and while I'm not bitter I have become very critical of the incredible lengths they are going to to embugger the industry. At present I see very little chance of major change in the situation. Although, I have now heard from a couple of sources (definitely NOT reliable though) that Truss thinks well of the Forsyth inquiry and wants to see the changes implemented and that we should watch that space. Mmmmm.......last time I held my breath I was turning blue before I gave in. Not doing that again.
Crankybastards, you say, "Greens support would be forthcoming if a copy of the US reg's were shown to highlight the destruction of trees impacting all "Earthiens".
Very easy. An En Zed instructor at the aviation establishment where I attempt to keep body and soul together, has a copy of the total sum of NZ aviation publications. 5 or so A5 folders. Put that in front of them and then stack the volumes of Aust aviation garbage besides. Then just say, "think of the trees". Job jobbed.
You said, inter alia, "However I disagree with your assessment that the Dick Smith/NewsCorp campaign is only about airspace reform, especially in light of these comments..."
"..The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.."
This is back to the future stuff. You may recall that in the days when the great satan was known as the CAA, that they received a severe spanking after the Monarch and Seaview crashes where it was held that they were too close to the industry and that henceforth they were to have no concern with the commercial impact of their fiefdom.
"..The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”..."
Well they bloody well did that and came up with the EASA model. Thanks a bunch.
"...Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.
Well whoopee. That happens to be its legislatively assigned task. But I quibble, yes there are ways of being a regulator without being an R.
The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.
At any new regulations, its the bloody existing ones that need to be looked at. Now if he had said that he would take a second look at THE new regulations, it would mean something but not the former phrase.
“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.
Thus spake CASA. That is their mantra. I'm sure every morning at Fort Fumbles they gather in the executive floor and recite that to get their day off to the best possible start.
“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”..."
Hah! Since when is the government concerned about how much the industry has to pay. Anyway, can you imagine the Senate estimates hearing next year when CASA fronts up and says that the millions it has spent creating the Galapagos Duck of our regulations is all going to be thrown out. An attack of the vapours all round me thinks.
I am possibly being too cynical. I am currently having my own battles with CASA and while I'm not bitter I have become very critical of the incredible lengths they are going to to embugger the industry. At present I see very little chance of major change in the situation. Although, I have now heard from a couple of sources (definitely NOT reliable though) that Truss thinks well of the Forsyth inquiry and wants to see the changes implemented and that we should watch that space. Mmmmm.......last time I held my breath I was turning blue before I gave in. Not doing that again.
Crankybastards, you say, "Greens support would be forthcoming if a copy of the US reg's were shown to highlight the destruction of trees impacting all "Earthiens".
Very easy. An En Zed instructor at the aviation establishment where I attempt to keep body and soul together, has a copy of the total sum of NZ aviation publications. 5 or so A5 folders. Put that in front of them and then stack the volumes of Aust aviation garbage besides. Then just say, "think of the trees". Job jobbed.