Australia’s DAFT State – safety? Programme.
And so, we begin our journey with a quote from the inestimable Gobbledock.
I do, appreciate it – very much. But like it? Well that will be for another time.
Probably the best idea ever; as anyone who is even peripherally exposed to matters aeronautical must take the loyalty test and lobotomy; before learning to ‘draw the long bow’; for it is indeed a skill. This way, using a non combatant, no man may call ‘tainted’. The fact it knew SFA about ‘operational safety’ - CASA style was a plus. No matter; and so, to business.
The first question must be, are we building a chook shed or a faery tale? If you are of the ‘faery tale’ mind set the you will be satisfied with pages of ‘buzz words’; a PC dialogue; and, a tent revival style of happy tambourines underpinning the happy clap trap doled out. Not that that system doesn’t work, it works just fine - for the converted.
But; if your approach is a little more phlegmatic; or, even pragmatic, then you may have some reservations about throwing your two bob into the ‘collection’ plate.
Let me say that on a personal level, I can think of no finer thing than a cohesive, cross border, unilateral State Safety Programme (SSP). It is a fine notion and had I not personally witnessed the fate of some twenty odd reforms, reviews and finger painted ‘reform’ programmes being quietly put on a stretcher and carted out of the building – I could weigh in behind it. However.
This Daft SSP is a beautifully crafted document – when you know how to read it –that’s as it’s supposed to be. Reading lesson one is, of course, the Chambers report, lesson two the Pel-Air inquiry and lesson three the Forsyth review; all recent. The platitudes, buzz words and real purpose of the documents, if not fully understood can; and indeed does ‘relax’ the armchair reader into a stupor of acceptance. The ‘experts’ are on the job and we can all relax. Warning Will Robinson; warning. So lets examine motive, performance and true, measurable progress. Save you some time here; don’t’ bother – there ain’t none.
Page 1: -
So be it
There, off the hook by paragraph 2. No matter, we shall continue, but is the reality of ‘gov speak’ revealed, stark naked, in front of the house lights, right there? WTF the ‘coat of arms’ has to do with “State Safety” is beyond my peasant mentality.
Then we have the index – many don’t realise the importance of such a thing – but it creates a framework for the ‘edifice’; the bones of it all. Most skip over such a thing – which, on first encounter, much as with a flight manual, is acceptable – until you really get into the aircraft. But when dealing with gummint employed word weasels; one must be careful, from title to end piece.
For example – Index 1.1; calls up page five. Australia’s Aviation Legislation is described on page four; which has sod all to do with the bloody awful Aviation Safety Regulation described on page five. They should; alas. There’s much more to be gleaned from the ‘index; try 1.2 on for size and nut out just who is responsible for what. Save you some time – no one; not even the blessed coat of arms is responsible for sweet nuttin. Selah.
On to the ‘statement’ - I like, from a ‘dichromatic’ standpoint, dot points 1 through to 10. Words ‘worked’ to exactly page size, start at 1 and finish, logically at point 10. A masterpiece designed to prevent further reading. I mean why bother – the one page ‘statement (which ain’t) say it all: T–il pas?
Once you have discovered the rock solid ‘core’ of aviation surety; need you read further? The short answer is no, not if you value your time and will accept, quite happily, that all is well and this is just some rubber stamp exercise in box ticking. It says so, in the introduction:-
It is good to get the ‘big ones’ out of the way first – first sentence, next paragraph does that – by the time you realise it is almost, but not quite fiction, your eye and brain are already focussed on skimming the rhetoric, looking for the ‘meat and potatoes’. Folks, welcome to word weasel world, you just bought a ticket.
Aye well, tempus to fugit. But as the esteemed P2 says: More to Follow? Oh, You bet.
Toot – toot...
And so, we begin our journey with a quote from the inestimable Gobbledock.
Quote:K, you will like this.
I do, appreciate it – very much. But like it? Well that will be for another time.
Quote:After ICAO pineappled CAsA back in 2008 our friends at Fort Fumble panicked as they didn't have a SSP. So; CAsA ripped off a version of Indonesia's SSP and basically did a cut and paste and filled in the gaps! (so, it was well Wodgered).
Quote:Yep, the very country CAsA was concerned about, and with good reason, had it's own SSP long before Australia did.
Quote:It gets better. The chick that worked on it was a Can'tberrian who knew SFA about almost anything aviation.
Probably the best idea ever; as anyone who is even peripherally exposed to matters aeronautical must take the loyalty test and lobotomy; before learning to ‘draw the long bow’; for it is indeed a skill. This way, using a non combatant, no man may call ‘tainted’. The fact it knew SFA about ‘operational safety’ - CASA style was a plus. No matter; and so, to business.
The first question must be, are we building a chook shed or a faery tale? If you are of the ‘faery tale’ mind set the you will be satisfied with pages of ‘buzz words’; a PC dialogue; and, a tent revival style of happy tambourines underpinning the happy clap trap doled out. Not that that system doesn’t work, it works just fine - for the converted.
But; if your approach is a little more phlegmatic; or, even pragmatic, then you may have some reservations about throwing your two bob into the ‘collection’ plate.
Let me say that on a personal level, I can think of no finer thing than a cohesive, cross border, unilateral State Safety Programme (SSP). It is a fine notion and had I not personally witnessed the fate of some twenty odd reforms, reviews and finger painted ‘reform’ programmes being quietly put on a stretcher and carted out of the building – I could weigh in behind it. However.
This Daft SSP is a beautifully crafted document – when you know how to read it –that’s as it’s supposed to be. Reading lesson one is, of course, the Chambers report, lesson two the Pel-Air inquiry and lesson three the Forsyth review; all recent. The platitudes, buzz words and real purpose of the documents, if not fully understood can; and indeed does ‘relax’ the armchair reader into a stupor of acceptance. The ‘experts’ are on the job and we can all relax. Warning Will Robinson; warning. So lets examine motive, performance and true, measurable progress. Save you some time here; don’t’ bother – there ain’t none.
Page 1: -
Quote:Disclaimer
The material contained in this publication is made available on the understanding that the Commonwealth is not providing professional advice, and that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use, and seek independent advice if necessary
So be it
Quote:The Commonwealth makes no representations or warranties as to the contents or accuracy of the information contained in this publication. To the extent permitted by law, the Commonwealth disclaims liability to any person or organisation in respect of anything done, or omitted to be done, in reliance upon information contained in this publication. Etc.
There, off the hook by paragraph 2. No matter, we shall continue, but is the reality of ‘gov speak’ revealed, stark naked, in front of the house lights, right there? WTF the ‘coat of arms’ has to do with “State Safety” is beyond my peasant mentality.
Then we have the index – many don’t realise the importance of such a thing – but it creates a framework for the ‘edifice’; the bones of it all. Most skip over such a thing – which, on first encounter, much as with a flight manual, is acceptable – until you really get into the aircraft. But when dealing with gummint employed word weasels; one must be careful, from title to end piece.
For example – Index 1.1; calls up page five. Australia’s Aviation Legislation is described on page four; which has sod all to do with the bloody awful Aviation Safety Regulation described on page five. They should; alas. There’s much more to be gleaned from the ‘index; try 1.2 on for size and nut out just who is responsible for what. Save you some time – no one; not even the blessed coat of arms is responsible for sweet nuttin. Selah.
On to the ‘statement’ - I like, from a ‘dichromatic’ standpoint, dot points 1 through to 10. Words ‘worked’ to exactly page size, start at 1 and finish, logically at point 10. A masterpiece designed to prevent further reading. I mean why bother – the one page ‘statement (which ain’t) say it all: T–il pas?
Once you have discovered the rock solid ‘core’ of aviation surety; need you read further? The short answer is no, not if you value your time and will accept, quite happily, that all is well and this is just some rubber stamp exercise in box ticking. It says so, in the introduction:-
Quote:Australia was one of the first countries in the world to have a State Safety Programme (SSP)
consistent with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements.
It is good to get the ‘big ones’ out of the way first – first sentence, next paragraph does that – by the time you realise it is almost, but not quite fiction, your eye and brain are already focussed on skimming the rhetoric, looking for the ‘meat and potatoes’. Folks, welcome to word weasel world, you just bought a ticket.
Aye well, tempus to fugit. But as the esteemed P2 says: More to Follow? Oh, You bet.
Toot – toot...