Another Choc frog for Sandy.
Sandy - “Mr. Carmody repeatedly stated he would act on evidence based proposals.”
“Act on evidence based proposals” what a curious choice of words. Very curious indeed, I wonder what he can mean by them? For example, there are two ways to interpret the word ‘act’. The obvious implies that action will be taken, whether that ‘action’ will be positive or negative is not specified. Much of the CASA ‘action’ has meant a gross negative effect with massive impacts on industry. Did anyone think to ask him for an example of how me means to ‘act’? Thought not. Then of course, Carmody could mean ‘act’ as a thespian would, play a role, convince a gullible audience of the ‘gritty reality’ of the part. Proof that almost anyone can ‘act’ as DAS.
Then we have the dubious ‘evidence based proposals’ ; now I don’t know about you Sandy, but I can think of a few ‘evidence based’ proposals which have not been ‘acted’ on; reform of both regulator and regulation being one. I realise that the Senate recommendations after the Pel-Air inquiry were only ‘opinions’ and that the ASRR was given similar short shrift; but both were ‘evidence’ based, were they not? Seems to me Carmody has found the Skidmore little book in which the opening paragraph states “unless it happens on your watch, it is all history, ignore’. This is a handy little tenet, particularly when coupled with the words ‘yesterdays gone’ – now history. There are other examples of ‘evidence based’ items which have been conveniently flushed, CVD for a starter (or non starter), fuel levy to pay for CASA audit failures; Oh, it is too long a list to cite – but you do see, don’t you.
Sandy – “Jason Harfield of Airservices made an important point that they, Airservices Australia, are required to promote and facilitate aviation, etc.”
The only ‘imperative’ Halfwit is interested in is keeping his job; although WTD he thinks can be gained by eliciting the one candle power light of GA support to counter the glare of the Senate generated headlights, I can’t think. There is only one thing he’s interested in ‘promoting’ and it ain’t GA.
Sandy - “Greg Hood, peculiarly dressed in a high vis ATSB inspector's jacket, etc.”
Enough said right there; strange and wonderful are the manifestations of Hood. Whether wearing chaps, a toga or his birthday suit with tassels, there is still enough ‘evidence’ proposals based on his actions when he was ‘the man’ who signed many death warrants when entrenched at CASA. Hood has enough blood on his hands to justify the sack cloth and ashes of a true penitent. Hi viz, as a security blanket, not the best choice for a moving target.
Thanks for the briefing Sandy, nicely done as always. It only leaves a few question begging answers after the predictable ‘official’ behaviour. What did the AOPA members gain from attending: in real terms; what tangible improvements were gained, which goals were achieved, was the DAS convinced to support their aspirations, was ‘Eureka’ hailed by the minister as the answer to pagans prayer, was a direct instruction given to make AOPA ‘policy’ that of the government? Did AOPA inspect the runway to make sure it was actually acceptable for use; or that the painted containers were visible and had an AOPA sponsored strobe light to help in low visibility conditions?
Course they didn’t – every man-jack there thinking of politics and bullshit while the runway rots and the ‘containers’ remain a mystery. Maybe the GAAG troops had more luck with the minister – we shall see.
Toot toot.
Sandy - “Mr. Carmody repeatedly stated he would act on evidence based proposals.”
“Act on evidence based proposals” what a curious choice of words. Very curious indeed, I wonder what he can mean by them? For example, there are two ways to interpret the word ‘act’. The obvious implies that action will be taken, whether that ‘action’ will be positive or negative is not specified. Much of the CASA ‘action’ has meant a gross negative effect with massive impacts on industry. Did anyone think to ask him for an example of how me means to ‘act’? Thought not. Then of course, Carmody could mean ‘act’ as a thespian would, play a role, convince a gullible audience of the ‘gritty reality’ of the part. Proof that almost anyone can ‘act’ as DAS.
Then we have the dubious ‘evidence based proposals’ ; now I don’t know about you Sandy, but I can think of a few ‘evidence based’ proposals which have not been ‘acted’ on; reform of both regulator and regulation being one. I realise that the Senate recommendations after the Pel-Air inquiry were only ‘opinions’ and that the ASRR was given similar short shrift; but both were ‘evidence’ based, were they not? Seems to me Carmody has found the Skidmore little book in which the opening paragraph states “unless it happens on your watch, it is all history, ignore’. This is a handy little tenet, particularly when coupled with the words ‘yesterdays gone’ – now history. There are other examples of ‘evidence based’ items which have been conveniently flushed, CVD for a starter (or non starter), fuel levy to pay for CASA audit failures; Oh, it is too long a list to cite – but you do see, don’t you.
Sandy – “Jason Harfield of Airservices made an important point that they, Airservices Australia, are required to promote and facilitate aviation, etc.”
The only ‘imperative’ Halfwit is interested in is keeping his job; although WTD he thinks can be gained by eliciting the one candle power light of GA support to counter the glare of the Senate generated headlights, I can’t think. There is only one thing he’s interested in ‘promoting’ and it ain’t GA.
Sandy - “Greg Hood, peculiarly dressed in a high vis ATSB inspector's jacket, etc.”
Enough said right there; strange and wonderful are the manifestations of Hood. Whether wearing chaps, a toga or his birthday suit with tassels, there is still enough ‘evidence’ proposals based on his actions when he was ‘the man’ who signed many death warrants when entrenched at CASA. Hood has enough blood on his hands to justify the sack cloth and ashes of a true penitent. Hi viz, as a security blanket, not the best choice for a moving target.
Thanks for the briefing Sandy, nicely done as always. It only leaves a few question begging answers after the predictable ‘official’ behaviour. What did the AOPA members gain from attending: in real terms; what tangible improvements were gained, which goals were achieved, was the DAS convinced to support their aspirations, was ‘Eureka’ hailed by the minister as the answer to pagans prayer, was a direct instruction given to make AOPA ‘policy’ that of the government? Did AOPA inspect the runway to make sure it was actually acceptable for use; or that the painted containers were visible and had an AOPA sponsored strobe light to help in low visibility conditions?
Course they didn’t – every man-jack there thinking of politics and bullshit while the runway rots and the ‘containers’ remain a mystery. Maybe the GAAG troops had more luck with the minister – we shall see.
Toot toot.