18 Across: 'A moral obligation; perhaps'.
By law and the rest of the legal clap-trap attached, ASA, ATSB and CASA may well thumb their collective noses at a Senate Committee report as they done so now for more years than I care to remember. Its all well and good having 'inquiry' – the latest scheduled for a staggering two years. You can easily see the complete waste of time, money and energy involved - particularly in the dimming light of the ASRR. There's a farce and a classic example if you like. Senators roaring and shouting the odds, the minister demanding a report, the Canadians dragged into a mess; etc. CASA just said OK, shrugged their shoulders and toddled off to do exactly as pleased 'em best.
If we are to demand changes, the first item of business (IMO) is to bring the 'agencies' to heel, make 'em responsible and accountable – under law to the parliament. Until there is an enforceable 'Act' which obliges them to make the changes and address the edicts of a Senate Committee; or, explain why not – then we are simply pissing into the wind - again.
The RRAT committee had a taste of what they face with the Angel Flight shambles. The committee need look no further back than the Pel-Air scandal to see the contempt in which their 'recommendations' were treated and the insult to the good Rev. Forsyth report. Should the committee want to ask questions; perhaps they could start there. Review their own, the Canadian and Forsyth's recommendations and simply ask 'please explain'. Why have none of these been paid anything more than lip service? The answer is simple enough - “Not obliged to M'lud”.
Dear Senators; please don't bugger about feeding another paper tiger. Change the controlling legislation, make the agencies responsible and; while you're at it; demand proof positive that all (thirty years worth) of inquiry recommendations have been fully implemented to meet the demands of an industry which pays to be ignored and treated with contempt. No where near good enough is it.
Hitch – Oz Flying – HERE. History has shown us that breath spent on demanding formal inquiries into aviation is largely wasted. If the energy and political patronage of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) has failed to bring about any substantial change in the fortunes of the general aviation community, it's not a long bow to suggest that no inquiry will ... and that includes a Royal Commission.
Dick Smith has recently thrown his weight behind pilots who are starting to get loud about an RC into aviation, using four tragic events as the supporting evidence for his call. But, Dick may be preaching to the exasperated; the battle-weary aviation community that has endured inquiry after inquiry to achieve nothing. Although there may be merit is his call to go once more unto the breach, you can't really blame anyone for wondering what would be the point.
Good points raised by both Hitch and Smith – but is the game worth the candle – as it stands, considering the three decade track record? Methinks not.
Toot – toot.
By law and the rest of the legal clap-trap attached, ASA, ATSB and CASA may well thumb their collective noses at a Senate Committee report as they done so now for more years than I care to remember. Its all well and good having 'inquiry' – the latest scheduled for a staggering two years. You can easily see the complete waste of time, money and energy involved - particularly in the dimming light of the ASRR. There's a farce and a classic example if you like. Senators roaring and shouting the odds, the minister demanding a report, the Canadians dragged into a mess; etc. CASA just said OK, shrugged their shoulders and toddled off to do exactly as pleased 'em best.
If we are to demand changes, the first item of business (IMO) is to bring the 'agencies' to heel, make 'em responsible and accountable – under law to the parliament. Until there is an enforceable 'Act' which obliges them to make the changes and address the edicts of a Senate Committee; or, explain why not – then we are simply pissing into the wind - again.
The RRAT committee had a taste of what they face with the Angel Flight shambles. The committee need look no further back than the Pel-Air scandal to see the contempt in which their 'recommendations' were treated and the insult to the good Rev. Forsyth report. Should the committee want to ask questions; perhaps they could start there. Review their own, the Canadian and Forsyth's recommendations and simply ask 'please explain'. Why have none of these been paid anything more than lip service? The answer is simple enough - “Not obliged to M'lud”.
Dear Senators; please don't bugger about feeding another paper tiger. Change the controlling legislation, make the agencies responsible and; while you're at it; demand proof positive that all (thirty years worth) of inquiry recommendations have been fully implemented to meet the demands of an industry which pays to be ignored and treated with contempt. No where near good enough is it.
Hitch – Oz Flying – HERE. History has shown us that breath spent on demanding formal inquiries into aviation is largely wasted. If the energy and political patronage of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) has failed to bring about any substantial change in the fortunes of the general aviation community, it's not a long bow to suggest that no inquiry will ... and that includes a Royal Commission.
Dick Smith has recently thrown his weight behind pilots who are starting to get loud about an RC into aviation, using four tragic events as the supporting evidence for his call. But, Dick may be preaching to the exasperated; the battle-weary aviation community that has endured inquiry after inquiry to achieve nothing. Although there may be merit is his call to go once more unto the breach, you can't really blame anyone for wondering what would be the point.
Good points raised by both Hitch and Smith – but is the game worth the candle – as it stands, considering the three decade track record? Methinks not.
Toot – toot.