GlenB embuggerance update - 11/09/20
Via Youtube and Facebook:
Plus FB link for over 200 comments: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/v...874287614/
#SBG 6/09/2020: The shout of outrage!
Plus via the UP:
Lead Balloon
All CASA is going to do is argue that APTAs activities had grown to such an extent that CASA was no longer satisfied that Glen had full operational control over those activities. Once the criterion is some bureaucrats subjective satisfaction, its game over.
Dont forget it was Dr Aleck who came up with this logic to justify the CSF kneejerk: If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.
CASA couldnt wait for APTA to bring down an A-380 or B-747 over a playground full of innocent children, but CASA knew thats where your business was heading, Glen. You should be grateful that CASA saved you and those children.
Sunfish
I’m not sure I said this before but the most frightening thing for a manager or a bureaucrat of any sort is to lose control of the agenda by having their formalposition as a leader challenged, innocently, by an informalthought leader. I know exactly what this feels like from both sides of the table.
I put it to you that Glen and APTA had developed a better understanding of the regulations as they applied to their operations than CASA had. They were then in a position to tell CASA what works and what won’t work and where improvements could be made. They knew more about the game then CASA did. Once the higher management understood this deeply unsettling fact, APTAs fate was sealed because no one must know more than CASA.
The reason for that animosity? Because if the government finds out that your so called clients know more than you do, your job and position is surplus to requirements. Furthermore, it would only be a matter of time before other training organisations, seeing APTA’s supremacy, sought them out because they were the informal leader of the training sector and potentially able to marshal support so that the industry was driving the agenda, not CASA.
its sad when it happens. I’ve never felt so useless as when chairing a meeting on high level software architecture for a $60 million system and realising that I didn’t have the faintest idea about what the participants were discussing. I was tempted for a second to replace these experts with people as dumb as I was. Similarly, I’ve never been so frustrated as trying to explain to a manager that what he wanted to do for the business was counterproductive-and had been known to be a waste of time for thirty years.
These confrontations are encapsulated in the managers lament : “I don’t care if it works in practice - make it work in theory!”
glenb
You got it!
Sunfish and Lead Balloon, you have hit the nail on the head.
Interestingly, CASA will have several written offers from me over the years prior to the introduction of the new legislation.
I made repeated offers to fund $180,000 over a 12 month period to have a CASA Flight Operations Inspector based in the Company. Together we would write the manuals to CASAs full satisfaction. They would then become the Company procedures. Importantly those templates would be made freely available to industry.
I felt this was a wise business decision, as it would overall work out the most cost-effective option for the business. CASA refused those multiple offers. Years later they did provide templates that were "impractical".
Without wanting to sound arrogant, I have no doubt that I had a better understanding of the safe applcation of the legislation than the CASA Executive did.
A quick recap.
I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.
I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.
It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.
As I've said before. CASA has an enormous pool of talent available to them now due to the Pandemic. Let's hope the Minister takes action and implements a handful of new personnel into the Organisation.
Lead Balloon
Gosh, I stand corrected and apologise for calling the CASA officers concerned ‘arseclowns’.
I feel safer already. (P2 -
)
vne165
"Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.
(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations."
:LOL...
Lead Balloon
The safety of air navigation is no laughing matter, vne165. Leave the approval of the design, construction, erection and display of aviation-related signs to the experts.
Vref+5
Is there a MOS for that? Oh. It’s next to the ones for 141 and 142....
Lead Balloon
Correct. Obviously there’s ongoing risk of aviation signage-based accidents during the period in which the MOS is being finalised, but that’s been dealt with by interim Directions from CASA. I’ll post copies of those shortly.
MTF...P2
Via Youtube and Facebook:
Plus FB link for over 200 comments: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/v...874287614/
#SBG 6/09/2020: The shout of outrage!
Plus via the UP:
Lead Balloon
All CASA is going to do is argue that APTAs activities had grown to such an extent that CASA was no longer satisfied that Glen had full operational control over those activities. Once the criterion is some bureaucrats subjective satisfaction, its game over.
Dont forget it was Dr Aleck who came up with this logic to justify the CSF kneejerk: If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.
CASA couldnt wait for APTA to bring down an A-380 or B-747 over a playground full of innocent children, but CASA knew thats where your business was heading, Glen. You should be grateful that CASA saved you and those children.
Sunfish
I’m not sure I said this before but the most frightening thing for a manager or a bureaucrat of any sort is to lose control of the agenda by having their formalposition as a leader challenged, innocently, by an informalthought leader. I know exactly what this feels like from both sides of the table.
I put it to you that Glen and APTA had developed a better understanding of the regulations as they applied to their operations than CASA had. They were then in a position to tell CASA what works and what won’t work and where improvements could be made. They knew more about the game then CASA did. Once the higher management understood this deeply unsettling fact, APTAs fate was sealed because no one must know more than CASA.
The reason for that animosity? Because if the government finds out that your so called clients know more than you do, your job and position is surplus to requirements. Furthermore, it would only be a matter of time before other training organisations, seeing APTA’s supremacy, sought them out because they were the informal leader of the training sector and potentially able to marshal support so that the industry was driving the agenda, not CASA.
its sad when it happens. I’ve never felt so useless as when chairing a meeting on high level software architecture for a $60 million system and realising that I didn’t have the faintest idea about what the participants were discussing. I was tempted for a second to replace these experts with people as dumb as I was. Similarly, I’ve never been so frustrated as trying to explain to a manager that what he wanted to do for the business was counterproductive-and had been known to be a waste of time for thirty years.
These confrontations are encapsulated in the managers lament : “I don’t care if it works in practice - make it work in theory!”
glenb
You got it!
Sunfish and Lead Balloon, you have hit the nail on the head.
Interestingly, CASA will have several written offers from me over the years prior to the introduction of the new legislation.
I made repeated offers to fund $180,000 over a 12 month period to have a CASA Flight Operations Inspector based in the Company. Together we would write the manuals to CASAs full satisfaction. They would then become the Company procedures. Importantly those templates would be made freely available to industry.
I felt this was a wise business decision, as it would overall work out the most cost-effective option for the business. CASA refused those multiple offers. Years later they did provide templates that were "impractical".
Without wanting to sound arrogant, I have no doubt that I had a better understanding of the safe applcation of the legislation than the CASA Executive did.
A quick recap.
I was called into the CASA Head Office very early on. The entire CASA team of half a dozen was sitting across the table in a confronting manner. They explained to me that I had breached the regulations regarding signage requirements. Apparently, I didn't meet the stipulated regulations in regard to signage and the size of the associated dimensions of that signage.
I explained to them that I wouldn't knowingly breach those regulations so could we have a look at them now in the Head Office. They didn't have access to the regulations apparently. I let them go on. They explained that they would send me a copy of the regulations the next day to support the allegation of the breach.
It was an awkward situation, I didn't want to publicly embarrass them and explain that I thought they were confused with the size requirements for aircraft call signs. Needless to say, CASA never got back to me with the legislation, as it obviously didn't exist. Graciously they didn't issue a Finding against me.
As I've said before. CASA has an enormous pool of talent available to them now due to the Pandemic. Let's hope the Minister takes action and implements a handful of new personnel into the Organisation.
Lead Balloon
Gosh, I stand corrected and apologise for calling the CASA officers concerned ‘arseclowns’.
Quote:Subdivision 203.ZD.4.1—Safety of aviation-related signage
203.976 Interpretation for Division 203.ZD.4
For this Division
(a) aviation-related signage includes any mark, symbol, figure, words and depictions, whether represented in electronic or physical form, of any object, service, person or place connected with aviation, if the mark, symbol, figure, word or depiction, or any combination of them, is visible to any person whether through electronic means or by physical observation;
(b) Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage means the manual approved from time time by the Authority under regulation 203.979.
203.977 Prohibition on display of aviation-related signage.
A person must not cause or permit the erection or display or publication of any aviation-related signage unless the signage:
(a) complies with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and
(b) has been approved by CASA for erection or display or publication (as the case may be).
203.978. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.977
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
© the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
© the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977; and
© the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.977.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
203.979 Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage
The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify the following matters:
(a) if the signage is physical - the dimensions of the sign;
(b) if the signage is electronic - the maximum number of bytes of data that the signage may contain;
© the words, symbols, figures that must not be depicted in the signage;
(d) safety procedures that must be followed in the design, construction and location of the signage;
Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.
(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations.
203.980 Annual review of aviation-related signage
A person must not cause or permit the continued display or publication of any aviation-related signage for a period in excess of a cumulated period of twelve months unless, during that period, the person has:
(a) undertaken or caused the undertaking of a review to confirm the ongoing compliance of the signage with the Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage; and
(b) obtained from CASA a renewal of the approval for the continued display or publication (as the case may be); and
© made a written record of the review conducted in compliance with paragraph (a).
203.981. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.980
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
© the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
© the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980; and
© the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.980.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
203.982 Keeping of records of reviews of aviation-related signage
A person who undertakes or causes the undertaking of a review to comply with paragraph 203.980(a) must keep the records created to comply with paragraph 203.980(b) for a period of at least seven years from the date of creation and make those records available for inspection by the Authority on demand by the authority.
203.978. Offences relating to contravention of regulation 203.982
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
© the person intends the act or omission to create a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or 15,000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
© the person is reckless as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982; and
© the person is negligent as to whether the act or omission creates a risk to the safety of air navigation.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act or omits to do an act; and
(b) the act or omission contravenes regulation 203.982.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (4) is an offence of strict liability.
I feel safer already. (P2 -
)vne165
"Example for paragraph (d): The Manual of Standards for the safety of aviation-related signage may specify that the the corners of physical signs be rounded so as to avoid risks created by pointy corners.
(e) requirements for the display of material worshipping our dear leader (the Director of Aviation Safety - blessed be the DAS) and his regulations - blessed be his regulations."
:LOL...
Lead Balloon
The safety of air navigation is no laughing matter, vne165. Leave the approval of the design, construction, erection and display of aviation-related signs to the experts.
Vref+5
Is there a MOS for that? Oh. It’s next to the ones for 141 and 142....
Lead Balloon
Correct. Obviously there’s ongoing risk of aviation signage-based accidents during the period in which the MOS is being finalised, but that’s been dealt with by interim Directions from CASA. I’ll post copies of those shortly.
MTF...P2