CASA Restructure?? Game set and match to Bureaucracy!
Thread Starter
CASA Restructure?? Game set and match to Bureaucracy!
So according to "The Australian" and Steve Creedy, CASA is going to be restructured?
I told you so.
Skidmore is ****ed!
He has been sold the oldest dummy in the book "a restructure will fix all our problems". This conclusively demonstrates his failure and the triumph, once again, of senior CASA management (the alleged 'iron ring"). I will spare you the alleged Petronius quote, but really, who does CASA think they are kidding?
The reorganisation will allegedly flow from the outcome of the Forsyth review -" you wanted us to change and we are changing!" they will say if they have not done so already.
There will be a great deal of paper shuffling, new stationary, new job descriptions, change management consultants, business process redesign consultants, working groups, newsletters, etc. etc.
And the net result for us "consumers"?? A big fat round ZERO! In fact less than zero for Two reasons:
(1) Implementation of any Forsyth review recommendation will be postponed until 'after the reorganisation". In fact any and all delays, stuff ups, mistakes and rotten service for the next Two years will be blamed on "The restructure". No reform, amendment or change is possible or contemplated until "after the restructure". We have a state of organisational paralysis as of now.
(2) Long after the reorganisation is complete, including at least Six months for "bedding down the new structure" the Forsyth review recommendations will be discarded with the excuse that: " The review referred to the old CASA, not the new streamlined CASA, which was restructured to account for the review recommendations anyway, hence the Forsyth review recommendations are now irrelevant in that they do not refer to the organisation we have now become".
Of course by then we are in, or past, an election cycle so there is a new Minister, perhaps a new Labor Government, who will have to have a year to "get their feet under the table", hence we have delayed reform by at least Three years. Rinse and repeat……..
I forecast that restructure was going to be the likely CASA response some time ago. I can now assure you now that the end state will still be exactly the same:
- A rotten aviation Act administered by self interested bureaucrats.
- A Federal Government that just wants Aviation to go away. They trust the bureaucrats to make it so.
As I have repeatedly said, The only way forward is to mount a credible electoral threat to sitting members of Parliament in marginal seats. Nothing else will get their attention.
Rewrite the ACT to require the fostering of a vibrant aviation industry sector in all its forms. Separate rule making from rule enforcement - two organisations required. Guarantee the absolute independence of the ATSB. Adopt the plain English NZ/FAA regulations and throw out the EASA model. Get rid of the "government business enterprise" model.
As I have also said, the Mandarins in Prime Minister and Cabinet Department know exactly how to do this, but it is never going to be a priority unless politicians skin is threatened electorally - a political campaign is all that is left. The Bureaucrats will stonewall you for ever, as they have just done again by "reorganising".
I told you so.
The RAPAC concerns come as CASA is heading towards a restructure and is grappling with rising anger about the need to fix flawed regulatory reforms. It also faces criticism about the pace at which it has adopted recommendations by the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth.
The restructure is due to take place by the middle of next year and will collapse six existing operational groups into three under the broader headings of stakeholder engagement, aviation and sustainability.
The restructure is due to take place by the middle of next year and will collapse six existing operational groups into three under the broader headings of stakeholder engagement, aviation and sustainability.
He has been sold the oldest dummy in the book "a restructure will fix all our problems". This conclusively demonstrates his failure and the triumph, once again, of senior CASA management (the alleged 'iron ring"). I will spare you the alleged Petronius quote, but really, who does CASA think they are kidding?
The reorganisation will allegedly flow from the outcome of the Forsyth review -" you wanted us to change and we are changing!" they will say if they have not done so already.
There will be a great deal of paper shuffling, new stationary, new job descriptions, change management consultants, business process redesign consultants, working groups, newsletters, etc. etc.
And the net result for us "consumers"?? A big fat round ZERO! In fact less than zero for Two reasons:
(1) Implementation of any Forsyth review recommendation will be postponed until 'after the reorganisation". In fact any and all delays, stuff ups, mistakes and rotten service for the next Two years will be blamed on "The restructure". No reform, amendment or change is possible or contemplated until "after the restructure". We have a state of organisational paralysis as of now.
(2) Long after the reorganisation is complete, including at least Six months for "bedding down the new structure" the Forsyth review recommendations will be discarded with the excuse that: " The review referred to the old CASA, not the new streamlined CASA, which was restructured to account for the review recommendations anyway, hence the Forsyth review recommendations are now irrelevant in that they do not refer to the organisation we have now become".
Of course by then we are in, or past, an election cycle so there is a new Minister, perhaps a new Labor Government, who will have to have a year to "get their feet under the table", hence we have delayed reform by at least Three years. Rinse and repeat……..
I forecast that restructure was going to be the likely CASA response some time ago. I can now assure you now that the end state will still be exactly the same:
- A rotten aviation Act administered by self interested bureaucrats.
- A Federal Government that just wants Aviation to go away. They trust the bureaucrats to make it so.
As I have repeatedly said, The only way forward is to mount a credible electoral threat to sitting members of Parliament in marginal seats. Nothing else will get their attention.
Rewrite the ACT to require the fostering of a vibrant aviation industry sector in all its forms. Separate rule making from rule enforcement - two organisations required. Guarantee the absolute independence of the ATSB. Adopt the plain English NZ/FAA regulations and throw out the EASA model. Get rid of the "government business enterprise" model.
As I have also said, the Mandarins in Prime Minister and Cabinet Department know exactly how to do this, but it is never going to be a priority unless politicians skin is threatened electorally - a political campaign is all that is left. The Bureaucrats will stonewall you for ever, as they have just done again by "reorganising".
Last edited by Sunfish; 4th Dec 2015 at 20:18.
or, it may achieve something positive.
Don't bother with the flurry of 'oh how naïve, this will never change', because with that attitude on either or both sides, it never will.
Don't bother with the flurry of 'oh how naïve, this will never change', because with that attitude on either or both sides, it never will.
Correct.
They can restructure until the cows come home, but it will make little-to-no practical difference while there's a yawning gap between the rhetoric and the action.
For example, Mr Skidmore had his chance to take an evidence-based and risk-based regulatory approach to colour vision deficiency. He failed. He's left Avmed free to wreak continuing havoc.
The regulatory bugger's muddle they're administering will be the same, irrespective of their structure. And governments don't care what it's doing to GA, because there's no political advantage gained by caring.
They can restructure until the cows come home, but it will make little-to-no practical difference while there's a yawning gap between the rhetoric and the action.
For example, Mr Skidmore had his chance to take an evidence-based and risk-based regulatory approach to colour vision deficiency. He failed. He's left Avmed free to wreak continuing havoc.
The regulatory bugger's muddle they're administering will be the same, irrespective of their structure. And governments don't care what it's doing to GA, because there's no political advantage gained by caring.
"Industry must engage for reforms to succeed" - Australian Flying
I suppose if we stop struggling, it is no longer rape.
My local member rang me back this week and left an apologetic message basically saying that once "Aviation Safety" measures are put in place, no politician wants to roll anything back. He made a couple of snide comments about Truss (which he attributed to Albo) being a non-action man in the Transport role.... but little consolation.
Who wants to run on an Aviaiton Reg Reform ticket at the Feral election?
If Ricky Muir can get in, surely an Aviation person could get in?!?
I suppose if we stop struggling, it is no longer rape.
My local member rang me back this week and left an apologetic message basically saying that once "Aviation Safety" measures are put in place, no politician wants to roll anything back. He made a couple of snide comments about Truss (which he attributed to Albo) being a non-action man in the Transport role.... but little consolation.
Who wants to run on an Aviaiton Reg Reform ticket at the Feral election?
If Ricky Muir can get in, surely an Aviation person could get in?!?
Don't 'we' already have an 'aviation person', in the form of Sussan Ley, Minister for Health?
Ex ATC, Commercial Pilot Licence......
And, what exactly, is happening with health?
p.s. Ask our Vets.......
No cheers
Ex ATC, Commercial Pilot Licence......
And, what exactly, is happening with health?
p.s. Ask our Vets.......
No cheers
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish is spot on.
2010/11 McCormick transformational change announced.
2005/6 Byron change program.
This stakeholder engagement thingy could that have been harmed further by moving offices from busy GA airports ?
2010/11 McCormick transformational change announced.
2005/6 Byron change program.
This stakeholder engagement thingy could that have been harmed further by moving offices from busy GA airports ?
Thread Starter
Leafblower:
Mr. Leafblower, you don't have to run an aviation candidate to exert political power.
It is much cheaper to run a negative campaign against sitting members of the Government in marginal seats. I assure you that will get politicians attention.
There is only one thing in the known universe that bureaucrats are powerless against: A Government or politician afraid that they might not get re-elected!
I cannot properly convey the fear that infects a bureaucrat when they discover that a Minister is on the warpath! Get a Minister enraged over CASA behaviour and everything can suddenly be done to placate the industry, no change is too big! Watch how fast CASA is dismantled!
The list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-e...election,_2013
Take Barton. The sitting Lib member got 50.31 percent of the vote on a Two party preferred basis. There was less than a thousand votes in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Barton
There were less than a thousand votes in it.
Total votes 90,000.
Now what you do is print some literature in the next campaign - sitting member Nickolas Varvaris.
You say words to the effect that "your kids want jobs in airlines or want to fly planes when they grow up? If yes, then don't vote for Nick Varvaris!" (Nothing personal against Mr. Varvaris)
Since the margin was less than a Thousand votes, if your letter dropping campaign in Barton convinces just One percent of the electorate not to vote for Varvaris then he is gone.
There are some Twenty Eight Lib/LNP marginal seats where the margin is less than Ten percent.
P.S. Want bipartisan support for reforming CASA? Target the Thirty something Labor marginals as well. Your message is exactly the same; "want you kid to have a job as a pilot? If yes, then don't vote for buggalugs."
This is the only way, absent a Royal Commission into a catastrophic accident, that you will get meaningful change, and if it is the Royal Commission route CASA can probably withstand their findings, after all look what they did to neuter the Forsyth review recommendations..
Who wants to run on an Aviaiton Reg Reform ticket at the Feral election?
If Ricky Muir can get in, surely an Aviation person could get in?!?
If Ricky Muir can get in, surely an Aviation person could get in?!?
It is much cheaper to run a negative campaign against sitting members of the Government in marginal seats. I assure you that will get politicians attention.
There is only one thing in the known universe that bureaucrats are powerless against: A Government or politician afraid that they might not get re-elected!
I cannot properly convey the fear that infects a bureaucrat when they discover that a Minister is on the warpath! Get a Minister enraged over CASA behaviour and everything can suddenly be done to placate the industry, no change is too big! Watch how fast CASA is dismantled!
The list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-e...election,_2013
Take Barton. The sitting Lib member got 50.31 percent of the vote on a Two party preferred basis. There was less than a thousand votes in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Barton
There were less than a thousand votes in it.
Total votes 90,000.
Now what you do is print some literature in the next campaign - sitting member Nickolas Varvaris.
You say words to the effect that "your kids want jobs in airlines or want to fly planes when they grow up? If yes, then don't vote for Nick Varvaris!" (Nothing personal against Mr. Varvaris)
Since the margin was less than a Thousand votes, if your letter dropping campaign in Barton convinces just One percent of the electorate not to vote for Varvaris then he is gone.
There are some Twenty Eight Lib/LNP marginal seats where the margin is less than Ten percent.
P.S. Want bipartisan support for reforming CASA? Target the Thirty something Labor marginals as well. Your message is exactly the same; "want you kid to have a job as a pilot? If yes, then don't vote for buggalugs."
This is the only way, absent a Royal Commission into a catastrophic accident, that you will get meaningful change, and if it is the Royal Commission route CASA can probably withstand their findings, after all look what they did to neuter the Forsyth review recommendations..
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm reminded of the state of suburban rail in Sydney some years back when millions were spent investigating and seeking community input. The problems were solved by printing new timetables to reflect the actual times of arrival not the desired times.
A CAsA restructure to cover up the refusal to act on a plethora of reviews, and inquiries will probably result in a name change. Something like CAA to offset any perception the organization is in any was responsible for aviation safety. They must think people are idiots.
A CAsA restructure to cover up the refusal to act on a plethora of reviews, and inquiries will probably result in a name change. Something like CAA to offset any perception the organization is in any was responsible for aviation safety. They must think people are idiots.
