“Safety” is a meaningless nominative word that was deliberately used in the Act to destroy the actual pursuit of safety by the Government in favor of ensuring that the Government has no liability for safety outcomes and maximum freedom to do what it likes, when it likes, to whomever it likes for what ever reason it is feeling at the time. This attitude, by definition, taints ALL staff at CASA starting with the Board and management.
Let’s be clear on this; no professional company or institutional Director, CEO or Senior Manager, will willingly accept an appointment to an organisation charged with a Diaphanous, brainless and meaningless mission as “the pursuit of safety above everything” because it’s a meaningless mission that will one day come back to destroy their reputations possibly (sadly) at the hands of a Royal Commisioner.
The correct use of the term “safety” in an actionable context requires a measuring predicate: “compared to what??”. The Civil Aviation Act, CASA Mission and all other Australian documents are missing this predicate and therefore have built their entire regulatory edifice on foundations of sand. Let’s be clear on this; without some measurable concrete benchmark, there is no way anyone can know, let alone test, the integrity or value of anything that CASA does. You should note that the answer to the question of measurable benchmarks cannot be weasel words like “international standards”, “worlds best practice”, “industry norms”, “ICAO/FAA/CAA regulations” and suchlike, the actual benchmark HAS to be traceable back to an acceptable probability of “un - safety” meaning a probability of death or serious injury. If it can’t be traced back to that number, then you are regulating by guesswork at best and prejudice, laziness, hearsay, vengeance or corruption at worst.
Do I make myself clear? The Civil Aviation Act was written to avoid requiring this acid test, incidentally opening the way to the aforementioned evils.
To put that in plainer language that a defence force officer will already know, everything you do has to be in support of achieving your mission. If it can’t be shown to meet this test then it is superfluous.
As for the question of “comparable to what” genuine regulators, but not CASA, I think, will point to a probability of death. Additional to that is an actuarial cost of death. Taken together these two numbers tell us exactly how much money can and should be spent on regulations - every one of them, through the use of well known and understood risk management calculations that have been used by professionals of all sorts for at least forty years in my experience. There are even ICAO instructions on how to do this.
Does Australia measure the potential benefit of aviation regulation using this tool? No. The result? We have regulations that “someone” thinks might make us safer compared to a non existent standard in their own minds. As for actual proof? Sorry!
Choc Frog awarded - K....
Let’s be clear on this; no professional company or institutional Director, CEO or Senior Manager, will willingly accept an appointment to an organisation charged with a Diaphanous, brainless and meaningless mission as “the pursuit of safety above everything” because it’s a meaningless mission that will one day come back to destroy their reputations possibly (sadly) at the hands of a Royal Commisioner.
The correct use of the term “safety” in an actionable context requires a measuring predicate: “compared to what??”. The Civil Aviation Act, CASA Mission and all other Australian documents are missing this predicate and therefore have built their entire regulatory edifice on foundations of sand. Let’s be clear on this; without some measurable concrete benchmark, there is no way anyone can know, let alone test, the integrity or value of anything that CASA does. You should note that the answer to the question of measurable benchmarks cannot be weasel words like “international standards”, “worlds best practice”, “industry norms”, “ICAO/FAA/CAA regulations” and suchlike, the actual benchmark HAS to be traceable back to an acceptable probability of “un - safety” meaning a probability of death or serious injury. If it can’t be traced back to that number, then you are regulating by guesswork at best and prejudice, laziness, hearsay, vengeance or corruption at worst.
Do I make myself clear? The Civil Aviation Act was written to avoid requiring this acid test, incidentally opening the way to the aforementioned evils.
To put that in plainer language that a defence force officer will already know, everything you do has to be in support of achieving your mission. If it can’t be shown to meet this test then it is superfluous.
As for the question of “comparable to what” genuine regulators, but not CASA, I think, will point to a probability of death. Additional to that is an actuarial cost of death. Taken together these two numbers tell us exactly how much money can and should be spent on regulations - every one of them, through the use of well known and understood risk management calculations that have been used by professionals of all sorts for at least forty years in my experience. There are even ICAO instructions on how to do this.
Does Australia measure the potential benefit of aviation regulation using this tool? No. The result? We have regulations that “someone” thinks might make us safer compared to a non existent standard in their own minds. As for actual proof? Sorry!
Choc Frog awarded - K....