But Sandy, that’s my point.
Sandy – “With the utmost respect, I suggest that we have plenty of existing controls and, unfortunately, Aviation Hearse, sorry, House, does not have the ability to contrive a sensible suite of rules fit for purpose.”
Had the concept of ‘Sector Risk Profile’ (SRP) been adopted for AF/CSF instead of being side-lined in favour of Eastern Bloc style of ‘governance’, then CSF would not be spending time with the RRAT committee.
A SRP worked incredibly well for the Air Ag crew, Phil Hurst doing a sterling job on behalf of his membership. Had AF been given the opportunity of taking the same road, a sensible approach to the risks the sector faced; then, perhaps an accident may have been prevented; and, should the worst happen, then there would be no quarrel; and, perhaps the ATSB could have investigated the accident properly, instead of being catspaw for the CASA heavy mob.
History 1 - P2 – “I agree with the context of your argument "K", however you will remember that we covered off on the previous CASA look at CSFs (ie 2014). This included what we both agreed was an excellent concept introduced by CASA the SRP (Sector Risk Profile), which apparently St Commode and his acolytes were not so keen on.” “Ironically the last official SRP to be produced was countersigned by St Carmode when he was in the Acting CEO role. Less than 2 months later CC was to become the latest CEO/DAS of Fort Fumble and since that time there has been no more SRPs published, including the promised SRPs in the above QON??
History 2 - “CASA said on Friday people power had persuaded the regulator to maintain the status quo on how not-for-profit community service flights were regulated, with the present guidelines sufficient for now.”
“We have listened to the feedback to CASA’s preferred option and we accept this is not the way to proceed,” Skidmore said in a statement.
“CASA is not proposing any changes to the existing regulatory requirements for community service flights at this time.”
Skidmore said this when there was every chance of a cooperative, equitable SRP was on the table. The rest is history now and the battle to prevent draconian ‘changes to regulatory requirements’ is on; for young and old. AF should be demanding a SRP be done, before the CASA sneak in some onerous, restrictive regulation. Because that's where CASA are heading, full steam.
Toot – toot.
Sandy – “With the utmost respect, I suggest that we have plenty of existing controls and, unfortunately, Aviation Hearse, sorry, House, does not have the ability to contrive a sensible suite of rules fit for purpose.”
Had the concept of ‘Sector Risk Profile’ (SRP) been adopted for AF/CSF instead of being side-lined in favour of Eastern Bloc style of ‘governance’, then CSF would not be spending time with the RRAT committee.
A SRP worked incredibly well for the Air Ag crew, Phil Hurst doing a sterling job on behalf of his membership. Had AF been given the opportunity of taking the same road, a sensible approach to the risks the sector faced; then, perhaps an accident may have been prevented; and, should the worst happen, then there would be no quarrel; and, perhaps the ATSB could have investigated the accident properly, instead of being catspaw for the CASA heavy mob.
History 1 - P2 – “I agree with the context of your argument "K", however you will remember that we covered off on the previous CASA look at CSFs (ie 2014). This included what we both agreed was an excellent concept introduced by CASA the SRP (Sector Risk Profile), which apparently St Commode and his acolytes were not so keen on.” “Ironically the last official SRP to be produced was countersigned by St Carmode when he was in the Acting CEO role. Less than 2 months later CC was to become the latest CEO/DAS of Fort Fumble and since that time there has been no more SRPs published, including the promised SRPs in the above QON??
History 2 - “CASA said on Friday people power had persuaded the regulator to maintain the status quo on how not-for-profit community service flights were regulated, with the present guidelines sufficient for now.”
“We have listened to the feedback to CASA’s preferred option and we accept this is not the way to proceed,” Skidmore said in a statement.
“CASA is not proposing any changes to the existing regulatory requirements for community service flights at this time.”
Skidmore said this when there was every chance of a cooperative, equitable SRP was on the table. The rest is history now and the battle to prevent draconian ‘changes to regulatory requirements’ is on; for young and old. AF should be demanding a SRP be done, before the CASA sneak in some onerous, restrictive regulation. Because that's where CASA are heading, full steam.
Toot – toot.