Dear reader.
May I suggest that before you contemplate reading this post; you consider the advice provided – HERE. Our very own, much treasured Terrier has, once again, been hard 'at it'. Verbatim I do quote him - “Go to Part 2 Goal 1 and scroll to the 3rd excerpt starting with 'On track'.”
As is his wont; he has been digging about (again) the cryptic message landed with a link to the following – HERE-.
“CASA’s Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) continually reviewed data from a variety of sources to inform its decision-making and approach to surveillance and proposed policy development. Aviation safety data and trends were presented and discussed at ASC and CASA Board meetings.”
“The ASC produced 11 sector safety risk profiles, which are in various stages of completion in accordance with the Sector Safety Risk Profile Program. The program further informs surveillance planning through the National Surveillance Selection Plan. The governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk is managed by the ASC. The ASC met 11 times during the reporting period. The ASC reviews civil aviation safety incidents and accidents and surveillance findings which can lead to the revision of the sector safety risk profiles and/or the launch of sector-specific education activities.”
So, who are these masked men? Where are the minutes? Where are the findings? What 'matters' have been dealt with? The short answer is we have NDI.
“Sector risk profile” is a big deal. IMO it is the nuts and bolts on which 'risk' may be managed and should not be placed in the hands of those who have no knowledge of the inherent and operational 'risks'; in short, a matter best left to the experts in the field. Take for example a 'long line' heavy sling load from a helicopter, being delivered to a tall building 'downtown'. The potential for catastrophe is immediately apparent. The vast amount of technical and aeronautical experience required can only be gained through 'experience' – on task. I defy anyone who has not 'been there – done that' to identify each and every 'risk' nuance; let alone define a rule set and 'method' of getting a job done without a 'hiccup' – operational or legal.
So, to clearly identify a 'sector risk' and to define risk mitigation, seems to me that the experts in the field should hold a seat at the top table and have a say. It is also seems reasonable that the 'results' of such a gab-fest should be made publicly available; published and identify those making the decisions which benefit all.
The costs associated with an Aviation Safety Committee are borne by industry. Their deliberations are important to industry. It begs the questions; who are they, and what have they produced of value (intrinsic or otherwise) to the aviation industry? We don't know. Time we did, methinks. Perhaps an FOI request for the minutes of meetings (all 11 of 'em) would be in order. That will be fun – won't it?
Toot – toot. + MTF.
May I suggest that before you contemplate reading this post; you consider the advice provided – HERE. Our very own, much treasured Terrier has, once again, been hard 'at it'. Verbatim I do quote him - “Go to Part 2 Goal 1 and scroll to the 3rd excerpt starting with 'On track'.”
As is his wont; he has been digging about (again) the cryptic message landed with a link to the following – HERE-.
“CASA’s Aviation Safety Committee (ASC) continually reviewed data from a variety of sources to inform its decision-making and approach to surveillance and proposed policy development. Aviation safety data and trends were presented and discussed at ASC and CASA Board meetings.”
“The ASC produced 11 sector safety risk profiles, which are in various stages of completion in accordance with the Sector Safety Risk Profile Program. The program further informs surveillance planning through the National Surveillance Selection Plan. The governance of aviation regulatory and safety risk is managed by the ASC. The ASC met 11 times during the reporting period. The ASC reviews civil aviation safety incidents and accidents and surveillance findings which can lead to the revision of the sector safety risk profiles and/or the launch of sector-specific education activities.”
So, who are these masked men? Where are the minutes? Where are the findings? What 'matters' have been dealt with? The short answer is we have NDI.
“Sector risk profile” is a big deal. IMO it is the nuts and bolts on which 'risk' may be managed and should not be placed in the hands of those who have no knowledge of the inherent and operational 'risks'; in short, a matter best left to the experts in the field. Take for example a 'long line' heavy sling load from a helicopter, being delivered to a tall building 'downtown'. The potential for catastrophe is immediately apparent. The vast amount of technical and aeronautical experience required can only be gained through 'experience' – on task. I defy anyone who has not 'been there – done that' to identify each and every 'risk' nuance; let alone define a rule set and 'method' of getting a job done without a 'hiccup' – operational or legal.
So, to clearly identify a 'sector risk' and to define risk mitigation, seems to me that the experts in the field should hold a seat at the top table and have a say. It is also seems reasonable that the 'results' of such a gab-fest should be made publicly available; published and identify those making the decisions which benefit all.
The costs associated with an Aviation Safety Committee are borne by industry. Their deliberations are important to industry. It begs the questions; who are they, and what have they produced of value (intrinsic or otherwise) to the aviation industry? We don't know. Time we did, methinks. Perhaps an FOI request for the minutes of meetings (all 11 of 'em) would be in order. That will be fun – won't it?
Toot – toot. + MTF.