Reading between the lines.
The "Hitch" article containing 'the' paragraph which has angered so many needs to seen in context and in light of past experience. Before becoming embroiled in history; perhaps we should consider what it is 'industry' is actually being asked to provide feed back on.
CASA insists it is above the law, a law unto itself, divorced from the industry it serves. CASA has spent, we hear, in excess of AUD $230,000,000 dollars over nearly a quarter century producing reformed regulation; Part 61 is one of those reformed parts. CASA insists that it is a world class organisation and only CASA has the expertise to draft and implement these new regulations. They tell us so and more at every opportunity. This mark you, despite many reports and recommendations pointing out, in no uncertain terms that CASA is a moribund, failed organisation, which now, suddenly 'seeks feed back' and reassuring hugs from industry. An industry it has ruthlessly exploited, bullied, abused, swindled and denigrated. An industry who's advice it has consistently and arrogantly ignored now seeks assistance to understand not only what is wrong with 'their' Part 61 but how to fix it. This after writing the wretched thing and having spent (or wasted) an incredible sum to produce the perverted, preferred CASA version of Creampuffs Frankenstein monster.
Now industry is being asked to not only accept this flawed regulatory suite as is; but to willingly assist the people who created it, despite all previous advice. Had CASA taken a look at the FAA or NZ CAA part 61, they had a template on which they could have built a sound foundation. What we have is a 600 page regulation supported by a further 1000 odd pages detailing how we should tie our boot laces. Error upon error, flaw upon flaw and enough holes to drive a horse and cart through.
Being asked to repair and live with a flawed regulation is unacceptable, just the cost of the flawed product, stand alone, makes it a ridiculous proposition. But being asked to stand still while each individual alphabet group is picked off with platitudes, compromise, exemptions and 'special' approvals, as a mark of favour is the ultimate insult. This is history repeating.
Hitch calls for 'compromise' and 'understanding – I call for a revised regulation, on a par with the worlds best. No more, no less; it is what we paid for.
And pay for it we have, paid and waited many a long year for it and IMO industry deserves the very best, not this ridiculous school boy attempt at writing 'law'. Industry cannot and must not be fobbed off with a repaired, patched, legally unsound, operationally ludicrous regulation which was useless in the first place. A regulatory suite with which compliance will cost a small fortune. Not to mention that placing Part 61 in the hands of some officers is like giving a homicidal maniac a large axe and the keys to the sheltered workshop.
Repeating history is visible from the 24 years of failed, flawed reform accepted as routine by an industry scared of its own shadow, happy to accept whatever rubbish the peerless CASA dole out, as and when pleases. Only to find ways to 'satisfy' the regulator while trying desperately to find a 'work-around' solution to the lunacy. The rub is when the sound a fury has all died down, nothing, absolutely SFA will have changed, except more risk of being accidentally in breach, criminally prosecuted and deemed unfit, because the date on your flight plan was wrong; or some inutile twerp decides your radio call was not 'as per the book'. Cooperation with CASA has always been a one way street; their way, straight to hell; or an accident, or a life of abject slavery to the almighty exemption, issued by 'your' mate in the office up the road. Only in Australia would this third class, shabby treatment be accepted.
I'll second the BOLLOCKS motion. Hell, I'd even donate a skip for the garbage.
The "Hitch" article containing 'the' paragraph which has angered so many needs to seen in context and in light of past experience. Before becoming embroiled in history; perhaps we should consider what it is 'industry' is actually being asked to provide feed back on.
CASA insists it is above the law, a law unto itself, divorced from the industry it serves. CASA has spent, we hear, in excess of AUD $230,000,000 dollars over nearly a quarter century producing reformed regulation; Part 61 is one of those reformed parts. CASA insists that it is a world class organisation and only CASA has the expertise to draft and implement these new regulations. They tell us so and more at every opportunity. This mark you, despite many reports and recommendations pointing out, in no uncertain terms that CASA is a moribund, failed organisation, which now, suddenly 'seeks feed back' and reassuring hugs from industry. An industry it has ruthlessly exploited, bullied, abused, swindled and denigrated. An industry who's advice it has consistently and arrogantly ignored now seeks assistance to understand not only what is wrong with 'their' Part 61 but how to fix it. This after writing the wretched thing and having spent (or wasted) an incredible sum to produce the perverted, preferred CASA version of Creampuffs Frankenstein monster.
Now industry is being asked to not only accept this flawed regulatory suite as is; but to willingly assist the people who created it, despite all previous advice. Had CASA taken a look at the FAA or NZ CAA part 61, they had a template on which they could have built a sound foundation. What we have is a 600 page regulation supported by a further 1000 odd pages detailing how we should tie our boot laces. Error upon error, flaw upon flaw and enough holes to drive a horse and cart through.
Being asked to repair and live with a flawed regulation is unacceptable, just the cost of the flawed product, stand alone, makes it a ridiculous proposition. But being asked to stand still while each individual alphabet group is picked off with platitudes, compromise, exemptions and 'special' approvals, as a mark of favour is the ultimate insult. This is history repeating.
Hitch calls for 'compromise' and 'understanding – I call for a revised regulation, on a par with the worlds best. No more, no less; it is what we paid for.
And pay for it we have, paid and waited many a long year for it and IMO industry deserves the very best, not this ridiculous school boy attempt at writing 'law'. Industry cannot and must not be fobbed off with a repaired, patched, legally unsound, operationally ludicrous regulation which was useless in the first place. A regulatory suite with which compliance will cost a small fortune. Not to mention that placing Part 61 in the hands of some officers is like giving a homicidal maniac a large axe and the keys to the sheltered workshop.
Repeating history is visible from the 24 years of failed, flawed reform accepted as routine by an industry scared of its own shadow, happy to accept whatever rubbish the peerless CASA dole out, as and when pleases. Only to find ways to 'satisfy' the regulator while trying desperately to find a 'work-around' solution to the lunacy. The rub is when the sound a fury has all died down, nothing, absolutely SFA will have changed, except more risk of being accidentally in breach, criminally prosecuted and deemed unfit, because the date on your flight plan was wrong; or some inutile twerp decides your radio call was not 'as per the book'. Cooperation with CASA has always been a one way street; their way, straight to hell; or an accident, or a life of abject slavery to the almighty exemption, issued by 'your' mate in the office up the road. Only in Australia would this third class, shabby treatment be accepted.
I'll second the BOLLOCKS motion. Hell, I'd even donate a skip for the garbage.