The ’need’ for an exchange of views.
Night shift for me again and taking a Bo-Peep at the UP is on the list. One thread of interest is the GA Summit to be held in Wagga-Wagga. There is a battle raging on the UP thread between Sunfish, Look-Left and Lead Sled. I wonder why? They are all, essentially, in furious agreement.
There is a need for a ‘Regulator’ – true. I have seen during the decades some seriously ‘dodgy’ operations, operators and (dare I say it ) pilots who could, should, would; or will create headaches for not only industry but government. It only fair and most reasonable to expect a government agency, charged with the ‘safety’ of air navigation to protect and defend the innocent travelling public. To do this regulations must be developed along with an assurance those regulations are complied with. Compliance is the job of the ‘regulator’ – because; at the end of the wrangle that is what they are responsible for. The government expects this as do the public (who, one way or the other, pay for it). Fury Muff: we can accept that. The FAA do it, the CAA do it, even some outlandish places do it, so lets do it :– lets all comply. “Happily” scream the crowd – just show us how.
And there’s the rub. No one, not the CEO of Qantas down to the lowliest junior flight instructor ‘want’ to be non-compliant. No one, from Qantas operations to the humble one man show out in the GAFA want to fall foul of the regulations, simply because of loss of insurance for being ‘non-compliant’. It is in everyone’s best interests to not only be seen to be compliant; but, in law, actually be ‘compliant’. No one wants their operation be regarded as ‘dangerous’ – it is simply counter productive.
I have personally worked with several regulators; FAA, UK and a few others. Every operation or proposed operation brings new challenges – not problems – but challenges, real ones. Now, the regulator is obliged by law to make certain that the operation is within ‘compliance’; no other option. The operator may want or need to operate ‘outside’ of that compliance. Sometimes a compromise can be reached; sometimes that is not possible without an ‘exemption’. Often, with a restructure of the proposal, peace and harmony may rule. BUT; the natural, righteous ‘tension’ between operator and regulator must, as a sign of good health, be in place,
You may go to any country on this planet and you will hear ‘bitcin’ and moanin’ about the “bloody regulator”; it is almost a right of passage. You need to be ‘something’ before you start barking. But the basic tenets still apply – them - regulator with obligations; you - operator with an outfit to run. All good and proper, all managed under the natural tension and mostly , over an Ale, managed without too much harm being done to either. I’ve had some stand up shouting matches with ‘officials’ which were laughed about later – they made their point; I made mine – not personal – just business – good sense prevailed (Hallelujah).
Then you bring Australia’s CASA and their regulations into the mix. Here, you open up two lines of argument; Lead Sled (LS) and Look Left (LL) if you like a simple line to follow. Both correct; both wrong; both in furious agreement. LS has a serious track record with inquiry, commission and the formulating of regulation plus an encyclopaedic, in depth knowledge of history, plus an understanding of the way it all works. Good bloke, smart as they come and lethal. Of LL the BRB know little - however it must be said that when ‘on song’ he puts forward the case in support of a ‘good’ regulator very well. It is fair and reasonable that a ‘good’ regulator be given some elbow room and be able to control the more outlandish demands of a commercially challenged operation – rules is rules; etc…
So, to the real problem, as seen by the BRB and the IOS. There is a huge body of untested ‘evidence’ which, if proven, paints a very dark, very ugly and very old portrait if the CASA. There exists a large, well documented and supported list of claims where CASA have acted – outside of the regulations which constrain them, and not in the best interests of the CASA good name, of individuals or of companies. There is a mile of ‘evidence’ which support the notions of fraud, the notion of outright lies and the notion of ‘vendetta’. There is nowhere to have these claims tested. That said, because of the absolutely rubbish reputation CASA have made for themselves within industry, there is a complete lack of trust and faith in anything they do. Sad, but very, very true. The regulations are a pain in the arse; well they are. The FAR’s are much better (and almost ICAO compliant); but the reputation of the CASA is the major stumbling block. Sure, we all want a set of clear cut, easy to comply with rules; but most of all, IM (not so humble) O we need a regulator the industry can support and importantly trust;– not pay lip service to. Thanking the gods when they leave the building – they should be welcome, providing expertise and knowledge. Making matters aeronautical better, alas….Not here.
Until the ’White Hats’, the honest, hardworking, in the best interests of all crew CASA can gain the ascendency; and, the Black Hats are dismissed, there cannot be a mutual understanding of common goals –i.e. a safe, secure, compliant profitable industry. It is, after all what everyone wants.
Happy to send a boatload of ‘evidence’ to anyone who don’t, can’t or simply won’t believe it. Any test you like. LS knows this through direct contact. LL adopts an innocents’, reasonable view: but, yet to be kissed on the arse by a swamp creature – like Inutile Lad, or, Delay Mark I; or any one of the Camp snakes. There now: Challenge issued. For every good, productive, profitable thing those have done; I can show you an aberration of fact and tell you a story which will, perhaps, change forever the way the natural tension between regulator and those they choose to embugger is viewed. Perhaps not - …
There is no happy ending to be had, not before these matters are addressed; fully, openly, under the rules of evidence and matters unbecoming a regulator are scrutinized (on or off camera). Sod the regulations – reform the department.
Selah…
Night shift for me again and taking a Bo-Peep at the UP is on the list. One thread of interest is the GA Summit to be held in Wagga-Wagga. There is a battle raging on the UP thread between Sunfish, Look-Left and Lead Sled. I wonder why? They are all, essentially, in furious agreement.
There is a need for a ‘Regulator’ – true. I have seen during the decades some seriously ‘dodgy’ operations, operators and (dare I say it ) pilots who could, should, would; or will create headaches for not only industry but government. It only fair and most reasonable to expect a government agency, charged with the ‘safety’ of air navigation to protect and defend the innocent travelling public. To do this regulations must be developed along with an assurance those regulations are complied with. Compliance is the job of the ‘regulator’ – because; at the end of the wrangle that is what they are responsible for. The government expects this as do the public (who, one way or the other, pay for it). Fury Muff: we can accept that. The FAA do it, the CAA do it, even some outlandish places do it, so lets do it :– lets all comply. “Happily” scream the crowd – just show us how.
And there’s the rub. No one, not the CEO of Qantas down to the lowliest junior flight instructor ‘want’ to be non-compliant. No one, from Qantas operations to the humble one man show out in the GAFA want to fall foul of the regulations, simply because of loss of insurance for being ‘non-compliant’. It is in everyone’s best interests to not only be seen to be compliant; but, in law, actually be ‘compliant’. No one wants their operation be regarded as ‘dangerous’ – it is simply counter productive.
I have personally worked with several regulators; FAA, UK and a few others. Every operation or proposed operation brings new challenges – not problems – but challenges, real ones. Now, the regulator is obliged by law to make certain that the operation is within ‘compliance’; no other option. The operator may want or need to operate ‘outside’ of that compliance. Sometimes a compromise can be reached; sometimes that is not possible without an ‘exemption’. Often, with a restructure of the proposal, peace and harmony may rule. BUT; the natural, righteous ‘tension’ between operator and regulator must, as a sign of good health, be in place,
You may go to any country on this planet and you will hear ‘bitcin’ and moanin’ about the “bloody regulator”; it is almost a right of passage. You need to be ‘something’ before you start barking. But the basic tenets still apply – them - regulator with obligations; you - operator with an outfit to run. All good and proper, all managed under the natural tension and mostly , over an Ale, managed without too much harm being done to either. I’ve had some stand up shouting matches with ‘officials’ which were laughed about later – they made their point; I made mine – not personal – just business – good sense prevailed (Hallelujah).
Then you bring Australia’s CASA and their regulations into the mix. Here, you open up two lines of argument; Lead Sled (LS) and Look Left (LL) if you like a simple line to follow. Both correct; both wrong; both in furious agreement. LS has a serious track record with inquiry, commission and the formulating of regulation plus an encyclopaedic, in depth knowledge of history, plus an understanding of the way it all works. Good bloke, smart as they come and lethal. Of LL the BRB know little - however it must be said that when ‘on song’ he puts forward the case in support of a ‘good’ regulator very well. It is fair and reasonable that a ‘good’ regulator be given some elbow room and be able to control the more outlandish demands of a commercially challenged operation – rules is rules; etc…
So, to the real problem, as seen by the BRB and the IOS. There is a huge body of untested ‘evidence’ which, if proven, paints a very dark, very ugly and very old portrait if the CASA. There exists a large, well documented and supported list of claims where CASA have acted – outside of the regulations which constrain them, and not in the best interests of the CASA good name, of individuals or of companies. There is a mile of ‘evidence’ which support the notions of fraud, the notion of outright lies and the notion of ‘vendetta’. There is nowhere to have these claims tested. That said, because of the absolutely rubbish reputation CASA have made for themselves within industry, there is a complete lack of trust and faith in anything they do. Sad, but very, very true. The regulations are a pain in the arse; well they are. The FAR’s are much better (and almost ICAO compliant); but the reputation of the CASA is the major stumbling block. Sure, we all want a set of clear cut, easy to comply with rules; but most of all, IM (not so humble) O we need a regulator the industry can support and importantly trust;– not pay lip service to. Thanking the gods when they leave the building – they should be welcome, providing expertise and knowledge. Making matters aeronautical better, alas….Not here.
Until the ’White Hats’, the honest, hardworking, in the best interests of all crew CASA can gain the ascendency; and, the Black Hats are dismissed, there cannot be a mutual understanding of common goals –i.e. a safe, secure, compliant profitable industry. It is, after all what everyone wants.
Happy to send a boatload of ‘evidence’ to anyone who don’t, can’t or simply won’t believe it. Any test you like. LS knows this through direct contact. LL adopts an innocents’, reasonable view: but, yet to be kissed on the arse by a swamp creature – like Inutile Lad, or, Delay Mark I; or any one of the Camp snakes. There now: Challenge issued. For every good, productive, profitable thing those have done; I can show you an aberration of fact and tell you a story which will, perhaps, change forever the way the natural tension between regulator and those they choose to embugger is viewed. Perhaps not - …
There is no happy ending to be had, not before these matters are addressed; fully, openly, under the rules of evidence and matters unbecoming a regulator are scrutinized (on or off camera). Sod the regulations – reform the department.
Selah…