09-06-2016, 04:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2016, 06:37 PM by P7_TOM.
Edit Reason: Guiness affected keyboard - that's why
)
Uh'mm -I’ll have two bob’s worth.
P2 – “Hmm...no comment required me thinks –“
Certainly non required on the ‘CASA’ input; but I wonder. Has Fawcett ‘lanced the boil’ so to speak? At his last committee (above) he informed the ‘treaties’ crew to do their homework and be ready with answers, next time. Now then; if the ‘department’ have been relying too heavily on CASA ‘advice’ and assume that CASA actually know what they are about (ass-u-me) then this bus could be headed for the CASA bus stop. Make no mistake, if the ‘heavy-duty’ professional public servants are made to look foolish, or embarrassed by CASA, there will be no hesitation – under the bus they go – and a good riddance.
Fuel policy should be, and mostly is (at the big end of town) a company SOP, the regulation should be ‘flexible’ in that it allows for ‘an alternative means of compliance’ to the mandated minimum fuel on board – at the end of the landing roll. Provided that fuel meets the ‘flight fuel’ reserves; then CASA should be ‘satisfied’; ask Big Q if you have any doubts. But when it comes to playing fast and loose with ICAO compliance affecting ‘the simplicity’ of operations and interfering with high level inter governmental treaties; CASA and Aleck are way out of their weight class. Those as audit on behalf of the ICAO know their business, and know it well. Australia only just kept their status after the last adventure and escaped by the skin on their teeth, solely due to some pretty hefty political intervention.
Well, the puss is now flowing from the boil Fawcett lanced. Yes, it is an ugly analogy, but then the situation in Australia does equate to ugly, messy and painful. Let’s hope the grown ups know how to cure the canker. By the by – I have it on good authority that voodoo smoke and mirrors prescribed treatments, just don’t work; not worth a tinkers cuss.
P2 – “Hmm...no comment required me thinks –“
Certainly non required on the ‘CASA’ input; but I wonder. Has Fawcett ‘lanced the boil’ so to speak? At his last committee (above) he informed the ‘treaties’ crew to do their homework and be ready with answers, next time. Now then; if the ‘department’ have been relying too heavily on CASA ‘advice’ and assume that CASA actually know what they are about (ass-u-me) then this bus could be headed for the CASA bus stop. Make no mistake, if the ‘heavy-duty’ professional public servants are made to look foolish, or embarrassed by CASA, there will be no hesitation – under the bus they go – and a good riddance.
Fuel policy should be, and mostly is (at the big end of town) a company SOP, the regulation should be ‘flexible’ in that it allows for ‘an alternative means of compliance’ to the mandated minimum fuel on board – at the end of the landing roll. Provided that fuel meets the ‘flight fuel’ reserves; then CASA should be ‘satisfied’; ask Big Q if you have any doubts. But when it comes to playing fast and loose with ICAO compliance affecting ‘the simplicity’ of operations and interfering with high level inter governmental treaties; CASA and Aleck are way out of their weight class. Those as audit on behalf of the ICAO know their business, and know it well. Australia only just kept their status after the last adventure and escaped by the skin on their teeth, solely due to some pretty hefty political intervention.
Well, the puss is now flowing from the boil Fawcett lanced. Yes, it is an ugly analogy, but then the situation in Australia does equate to ugly, messy and painful. Let’s hope the grown ups know how to cure the canker. By the by – I have it on good authority that voodoo smoke and mirrors prescribed treatments, just don’t work; not worth a tinkers cuss.