Ennui; the last refuge.
Or; “How to Tell Whether You've Got Angst, Ennui, or Weltschmerz”
Perhaps it is the snail like approach speed of the next RRAT 'inquiry' into matters aeronautical; or, just that we've all travelled down that weary road before, to end up with nothing to show but sore feet and dusty boots. It may simply be that despite the very best efforts of some very clever, savvy folk, nothing has affected the juggernaut of 'aviation oversight' and service to the industry which keeps the monster fed and well watered.
History tells the story very clearly – major event; inquiry, industry weighing in with articulate, supported submission, great expectations of serious reform, many hours of discussion and happy support of the great expense such 'high level' inquiry demands. So, why is there only a few pages submitted to the latest Senate initiated round. Plenty of ammunition laying about from the last couple of years events, this year so far has had it's fair share of events which touch on the highly visible flaws in all three 'services' grudgingly provided to industry.
The latest two submission 16 and 17 are worth the candle light; a read of
Submission 16 (Dr K & Dr Naweed)
“We feel that this study is highly relevant to the scope and the terms of reference of the inquiry,thus we formally submit this for the consideration of the committee.”
Absolutely. That is no amateur concoction, it is a surgical analysis of an important element of real air safety – maintenance of aircraft – writ by highly qualified men (as in fair dinkum qualifications, not qualifictions).
That, closely followed by the submission of the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA). Another outfit which has managed it's affairs for many years now exceedingly well. They also manage to turn out skilled pilots. A worthy body, talking good sense; smart enough to see through the legal maze and 'understand' the ramifications of the latest smoke and mirrors attempt to baffle with legal bullshit.
17 GFA.
“With respect to the Inquiry’s terms of reference, the legislation is still not fit for purpose,does not balance safety and economic impacts, does not adequately assess relative risks,does not balance immediate and long term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions, does not foster the maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian
aviation industry including viable general aviation and training sectors, and does not foster
accessibility to regional aviation across Australia.” - Bravo.
You may feel disinclined to draft yet another submission; indeed, I can sympathise with that notion, but it would take only a little time to write a note of support for your choice of submission. The two above for instance; there are others worthy of support; read 'em, cast a vote; takes about five minutes - “What 'they' (- - - - ) said” will do.
Two great submissions; thank you for making the effort. Tim Tam's all around.
Toot – toot.
Or; “How to Tell Whether You've Got Angst, Ennui, or Weltschmerz”
Perhaps it is the snail like approach speed of the next RRAT 'inquiry' into matters aeronautical; or, just that we've all travelled down that weary road before, to end up with nothing to show but sore feet and dusty boots. It may simply be that despite the very best efforts of some very clever, savvy folk, nothing has affected the juggernaut of 'aviation oversight' and service to the industry which keeps the monster fed and well watered.
History tells the story very clearly – major event; inquiry, industry weighing in with articulate, supported submission, great expectations of serious reform, many hours of discussion and happy support of the great expense such 'high level' inquiry demands. So, why is there only a few pages submitted to the latest Senate initiated round. Plenty of ammunition laying about from the last couple of years events, this year so far has had it's fair share of events which touch on the highly visible flaws in all three 'services' grudgingly provided to industry.
The latest two submission 16 and 17 are worth the candle light; a read of
Submission 16 (Dr K & Dr Naweed)
“We feel that this study is highly relevant to the scope and the terms of reference of the inquiry,thus we formally submit this for the consideration of the committee.”
Absolutely. That is no amateur concoction, it is a surgical analysis of an important element of real air safety – maintenance of aircraft – writ by highly qualified men (as in fair dinkum qualifications, not qualifictions).
That, closely followed by the submission of the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA). Another outfit which has managed it's affairs for many years now exceedingly well. They also manage to turn out skilled pilots. A worthy body, talking good sense; smart enough to see through the legal maze and 'understand' the ramifications of the latest smoke and mirrors attempt to baffle with legal bullshit.
17 GFA.
“With respect to the Inquiry’s terms of reference, the legislation is still not fit for purpose,does not balance safety and economic impacts, does not adequately assess relative risks,does not balance immediate and long term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions, does not foster the maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian
aviation industry including viable general aviation and training sectors, and does not foster
accessibility to regional aviation across Australia.” - Bravo.
You may feel disinclined to draft yet another submission; indeed, I can sympathise with that notion, but it would take only a little time to write a note of support for your choice of submission. The two above for instance; there are others worthy of support; read 'em, cast a vote; takes about five minutes - “What 'they' (- - - - ) said” will do.
Two great submissions; thank you for making the effort. Tim Tam's all around.
Toot – toot.