Of delay and denial.
"Mistakes are not always the result of someone's ineptitude."
The report above intrigues me: 1352 days invested in a report which changes nothing. Why bother. Quick turn around and ‘on time performance’ are management and PR tools, nothing whatsoever to do with ‘aircrew’ duties and responsibilities. Now if the air crew are too worried about ‘pressure’ there is a union to complain to: but, and most importantly, there is a Safety Management System (SMS), which is legally binding and fully auditable.
A report in the SMS system demands attention; an incident, like the one mentioned above should have an open ‘action’ trail, in which the response from ‘management’ may be clearly seen and the ‘remedy’ examined.
An outfit like Tiger would have a SMS – probably a good one; they would have the required personnel, system, checks, balances and decision makers in place. The company SMS in a perfect world would have identified, much more quickly than the ATSB where the problem lay and been able to quickly effect a solution – which the ATSB have failed (again) to provide. The company can, in a heartbeat, issue ‘orders’ to change an anomaly in their system; ATSB cannot. So why even involve the ATSB in any way except as an ‘auditor’ of the SMS?
Tiger SMS team are obliged, by law, to investigate – there would be a paper trail. All ATSB need to do is send in a couple of auditors to check that all has been attended to – correctly and that should be the end of the story. We either trust and use the SMS; or, save the company the cost. This double up, where there are no effective cross checks or balances is ridiculous. Why not let Tiger sort out the problem, audit their response and ‘order’ any changes ATSB deemed necessary. Would save some time and money; we’d probably even get an accurate, valuable ‘report’ back in 13 days, not 1300.
The way the ATSB present this latest load of Tommy-Rot suggest that the aircrew need to back to planning their own fuel burns – for indeed they are ultimately responsible. But the amazing thing is Tiger get thumped for ‘systematic’ deficiencies – yet the Pel-Air system of abomination only gets a passing stroke with a wet lettuce leaf. Go figure.
[we] are not ill provided but use what we have wastefully.”
Toot toot.
"Mistakes are not always the result of someone's ineptitude."
The report above intrigues me: 1352 days invested in a report which changes nothing. Why bother. Quick turn around and ‘on time performance’ are management and PR tools, nothing whatsoever to do with ‘aircrew’ duties and responsibilities. Now if the air crew are too worried about ‘pressure’ there is a union to complain to: but, and most importantly, there is a Safety Management System (SMS), which is legally binding and fully auditable.
A report in the SMS system demands attention; an incident, like the one mentioned above should have an open ‘action’ trail, in which the response from ‘management’ may be clearly seen and the ‘remedy’ examined.
An outfit like Tiger would have a SMS – probably a good one; they would have the required personnel, system, checks, balances and decision makers in place. The company SMS in a perfect world would have identified, much more quickly than the ATSB where the problem lay and been able to quickly effect a solution – which the ATSB have failed (again) to provide. The company can, in a heartbeat, issue ‘orders’ to change an anomaly in their system; ATSB cannot. So why even involve the ATSB in any way except as an ‘auditor’ of the SMS?
Tiger SMS team are obliged, by law, to investigate – there would be a paper trail. All ATSB need to do is send in a couple of auditors to check that all has been attended to – correctly and that should be the end of the story. We either trust and use the SMS; or, save the company the cost. This double up, where there are no effective cross checks or balances is ridiculous. Why not let Tiger sort out the problem, audit their response and ‘order’ any changes ATSB deemed necessary. Would save some time and money; we’d probably even get an accurate, valuable ‘report’ back in 13 days, not 1300.
The way the ATSB present this latest load of Tommy-Rot suggest that the aircrew need to back to planning their own fuel burns – for indeed they are ultimately responsible. But the amazing thing is Tiger get thumped for ‘systematic’ deficiencies – yet the Pel-Air system of abomination only gets a passing stroke with a wet lettuce leaf. Go figure.
[we] are not ill provided but use what we have wastefully.”
Toot toot.