The reasoned question – Why?
A ramble…
P2 – “Much like with the Angel Flight imbroglio, the biggest question with the APTA case of embuggerance is why?”
It is a fair question; one which demands an answer. Perhaps it could be asked as a lead up to an inquiry into a whole series of ‘events’ similar in pattern and execution to the APTA affair. When one begins to puzzle out the why’s there is a small, dim light, hidden in a corner which, for me at least, has just come on. I may ramble on a bit here – it’s a new notion and as yet untested. It begins with a conversation I had one evening with a fairly heavy duty, retired ex law enforcement type, as close to being a mate as you can get with folk who ‘work’ in that area, without being ‘one of them’ – i.e. an outsider. First class bloke – but there is a barrier and a unique ‘way’ of thinking and viewing the world at large which is not easily broken down - each to his own. No quarrel.
The discussion was about something - nothing – I thought there may be another way of ‘dealing’ with the subject. Then my mate explained it, carefully and thoroughly – from a ‘policing’ perspective. In short, while we could see each others point of view – we were miles apart in approach. Intrigued, I cited an aviation matter and asked his opinion on how best it could be managed. It was then that my small, dim bulb began to flicker. Bear with me, I’ll get there.
As an aviation type; the solution to me clear as clear as crystal – legal and honest. To him; the ‘fix’ was in the future after a ‘case’ had been built; his involvement would begin and end focused on the ‘allegation’. Perspective. I asked why and he growled ‘bloody lawyers’ and then it was my turn to go to the bar. Change subject and enjoy the evening. I’d almost forgotten it, until we got interested in GlenB and APTA.
All P2’s fault. We decided to do a bit of dust bin digging; see who was who and what they were before CASA. When you join up the dots in the ‘people’ map and ignore the ‘event’ map a very clear picture emerges; which IMO is alarming. Not ‘sinister’ but a matter of great concern.
P9 – “In the beginning APTA elected to go whole hog on a transition to Part 142 operations. In good faith, they invested their time, money and effort in the project. They worked hard and consulted often with a highly professional team of CASA’s best. It was an enormous, expensive team effort, clearly demonstrating how effectively industry and CASA could work together to achieve a better outcome – 600 ‘line items’ all addressed to the satisfaction of the operator and the CASA ‘A’ team. Good to go; congratulations all round. Bravo.”
The absolute best case scenario – aviation types from the regulator and industry working together to bring about a good result – despite the ‘bad’ law. The regulator team seeing things as aviation folk do and dealing with the roadblocks and hurdles in a sensible, practical, law abiding way.
P9 – “Pretty much ‘out-of-the-blue’ APTA had a change of oversight team. A reasonable person could assume that – give or take a bit – the same level of support and consultation would be available from the new CASA crew and their ‘manager’. Remember; a small mountain of time, money and effort had been invested – by both CASA and APTA achieving ‘compliance’ with what is arguably the worlds worst rule set, encompassed in Parts 61/141/142.”
The answer may be gleaned from the resume’s and past actions of the second team APTA was to work with; and, those who manage such teams. ‘Enforcement’ – CASA is obsessed with ‘enforcement’. Don’t just believe me; get weaving and check out how many ‘Spook’ and ‘Investigative’ types infest the halls of doom. There are a lot. Probably all decent blokes in their own way – but nonetheless – they take a ‘Coppers’ view and their thought patterns and processes are vastly different to those who puzzle out the riddles of aviation law and try to stay ‘legal’. The mere fact that an operator has to deal with an enforcement mind set, rather than an aeronautical mind set is enough to worry a stone idol. Yet, they seem to be in the ascendency.
All this in an attempt to answer P2’s question – “Why?” Which begs many other questions.
Why was the CMT changed? – Why was a Roger Chambers lookalike completion winner (a known ‘killer’ of aviation business) dragged out of Cairns and sent to the other end of the country to bugger up the APTA tea party? Why was the original team leader sent away on ‘leave’ or whatever? And many other questions.
But, for me I’m left wondering whether we are not over regulated but overly ‘enforced’ and why? It is a hellish weapon to place in the hands of a man like Crawford – Angel Flight, Bruce Rhodes and now APTA. But the big question is not will the DoIT get a rope on this bunch – but can they? Clearly something has to be done to clean out the ‘enforcement’ and return matters aeronautical to the folk who understand it. Plenty of ‘other’ enforcement agencies out there. So, do we really need another in the ‘private’ hands of an aviation regulator/administrator which is already beyond the law and ministerial control? I think not.
Toot – toot.
A ramble…
P2 – “Much like with the Angel Flight imbroglio, the biggest question with the APTA case of embuggerance is why?”
It is a fair question; one which demands an answer. Perhaps it could be asked as a lead up to an inquiry into a whole series of ‘events’ similar in pattern and execution to the APTA affair. When one begins to puzzle out the why’s there is a small, dim light, hidden in a corner which, for me at least, has just come on. I may ramble on a bit here – it’s a new notion and as yet untested. It begins with a conversation I had one evening with a fairly heavy duty, retired ex law enforcement type, as close to being a mate as you can get with folk who ‘work’ in that area, without being ‘one of them’ – i.e. an outsider. First class bloke – but there is a barrier and a unique ‘way’ of thinking and viewing the world at large which is not easily broken down - each to his own. No quarrel.
The discussion was about something - nothing – I thought there may be another way of ‘dealing’ with the subject. Then my mate explained it, carefully and thoroughly – from a ‘policing’ perspective. In short, while we could see each others point of view – we were miles apart in approach. Intrigued, I cited an aviation matter and asked his opinion on how best it could be managed. It was then that my small, dim bulb began to flicker. Bear with me, I’ll get there.
As an aviation type; the solution to me clear as clear as crystal – legal and honest. To him; the ‘fix’ was in the future after a ‘case’ had been built; his involvement would begin and end focused on the ‘allegation’. Perspective. I asked why and he growled ‘bloody lawyers’ and then it was my turn to go to the bar. Change subject and enjoy the evening. I’d almost forgotten it, until we got interested in GlenB and APTA.
All P2’s fault. We decided to do a bit of dust bin digging; see who was who and what they were before CASA. When you join up the dots in the ‘people’ map and ignore the ‘event’ map a very clear picture emerges; which IMO is alarming. Not ‘sinister’ but a matter of great concern.
P9 – “In the beginning APTA elected to go whole hog on a transition to Part 142 operations. In good faith, they invested their time, money and effort in the project. They worked hard and consulted often with a highly professional team of CASA’s best. It was an enormous, expensive team effort, clearly demonstrating how effectively industry and CASA could work together to achieve a better outcome – 600 ‘line items’ all addressed to the satisfaction of the operator and the CASA ‘A’ team. Good to go; congratulations all round. Bravo.”
The absolute best case scenario – aviation types from the regulator and industry working together to bring about a good result – despite the ‘bad’ law. The regulator team seeing things as aviation folk do and dealing with the roadblocks and hurdles in a sensible, practical, law abiding way.
P9 – “Pretty much ‘out-of-the-blue’ APTA had a change of oversight team. A reasonable person could assume that – give or take a bit – the same level of support and consultation would be available from the new CASA crew and their ‘manager’. Remember; a small mountain of time, money and effort had been invested – by both CASA and APTA achieving ‘compliance’ with what is arguably the worlds worst rule set, encompassed in Parts 61/141/142.”
The answer may be gleaned from the resume’s and past actions of the second team APTA was to work with; and, those who manage such teams. ‘Enforcement’ – CASA is obsessed with ‘enforcement’. Don’t just believe me; get weaving and check out how many ‘Spook’ and ‘Investigative’ types infest the halls of doom. There are a lot. Probably all decent blokes in their own way – but nonetheless – they take a ‘Coppers’ view and their thought patterns and processes are vastly different to those who puzzle out the riddles of aviation law and try to stay ‘legal’. The mere fact that an operator has to deal with an enforcement mind set, rather than an aeronautical mind set is enough to worry a stone idol. Yet, they seem to be in the ascendency.
All this in an attempt to answer P2’s question – “Why?” Which begs many other questions.
Why was the CMT changed? – Why was a Roger Chambers lookalike completion winner (a known ‘killer’ of aviation business) dragged out of Cairns and sent to the other end of the country to bugger up the APTA tea party? Why was the original team leader sent away on ‘leave’ or whatever? And many other questions.
But, for me I’m left wondering whether we are not over regulated but overly ‘enforced’ and why? It is a hellish weapon to place in the hands of a man like Crawford – Angel Flight, Bruce Rhodes and now APTA. But the big question is not will the DoIT get a rope on this bunch – but can they? Clearly something has to be done to clean out the ‘enforcement’ and return matters aeronautical to the folk who understand it. Plenty of ‘other’ enforcement agencies out there. So, do we really need another in the ‘private’ hands of an aviation regulator/administrator which is already beyond the law and ministerial control? I think not.
Toot – toot.