Could it be true? Mr Carmody seems to be walking the talk!
Thread Starter
Could it be true? Mr Carmody seems to be walking the talk!
I didn't think I'd live to say it, but for once I was applauding a DAS giving evidence at Estimates.
I may have dreamt it, but I'm pretty sure that Mr Carmody explained that CASA's approach to drones is based on:
- evidence of the risk posed by drones of a certain size
- evidence of the probable consequences of collisions with those drones
- evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of regulatory responses being urged on CASA, and
- (more importantly in my view) a comparison with the regulatory treatment of other, higher probability risks with potentially worse consequences.
I'm pretty sure I actually heard data quoted from US and Australian experience. I'm pretty sure I actually heard a calm explanation, from one of Mr Carmody's executives, as to the conclusions of a study on what is most likely to happen if a drone collides with an aircraft.
This was in the face of a couple of Senators who were doing a good impression of people with their hair on fire.
(As an aside, I do put my head in my hands and despair at industry sectors who scream for CASA to make even more regulations and do more regulating. I mean: Really? Have they not been paying attention for the last 20 or so years?)
I was also struck by the irony - the exquisite irony - of legislators baying for legislation to be made ... by someone else. I would have thought that if members of the Committee were so concerned about the safety implications of drones and CASA's inadequate regulatory response, those Senators would walk into the Senate and pass a law to deal with problem. If it is such a big risk to the safety of air navigation, and if the Parliament is not satisfied with CASA's lack of action, surely the Parliament would be convinced of the urgent need to pass a law to deal with the issue. Amend the Civil Aviation Act to ban drones, or to require them to be registered and their operators' licensed, or to require them to be fitted with ADS-B, or otherwise make whatever magic law as will give everyone the comfy feeling that the risk has gone away.
I earnestly hope that Mr Carmody continues with this refreshing approach of considering evidence of a risk and its consequences, both in isolation and in comparison with other risks and their consequences, as well as analysing the practical effectiveness of making yet more laws and creating yet more bureaucratic processes to actually mitigate the risk.
If he does continue with this approach, he'll shortly be staring down the CVD industry, AvMed and more Senators (minus Senator Fawcett) doing the burning hair impression.
More power to Mr Carmody's steely glare.
I may have dreamt it, but I'm pretty sure that Mr Carmody explained that CASA's approach to drones is based on:
- evidence of the risk posed by drones of a certain size
- evidence of the probable consequences of collisions with those drones
- evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of regulatory responses being urged on CASA, and
- (more importantly in my view) a comparison with the regulatory treatment of other, higher probability risks with potentially worse consequences.
I'm pretty sure I actually heard data quoted from US and Australian experience. I'm pretty sure I actually heard a calm explanation, from one of Mr Carmody's executives, as to the conclusions of a study on what is most likely to happen if a drone collides with an aircraft.
This was in the face of a couple of Senators who were doing a good impression of people with their hair on fire.
(As an aside, I do put my head in my hands and despair at industry sectors who scream for CASA to make even more regulations and do more regulating. I mean: Really? Have they not been paying attention for the last 20 or so years?)
I was also struck by the irony - the exquisite irony - of legislators baying for legislation to be made ... by someone else. I would have thought that if members of the Committee were so concerned about the safety implications of drones and CASA's inadequate regulatory response, those Senators would walk into the Senate and pass a law to deal with problem. If it is such a big risk to the safety of air navigation, and if the Parliament is not satisfied with CASA's lack of action, surely the Parliament would be convinced of the urgent need to pass a law to deal with the issue. Amend the Civil Aviation Act to ban drones, or to require them to be registered and their operators' licensed, or to require them to be fitted with ADS-B, or otherwise make whatever magic law as will give everyone the comfy feeling that the risk has gone away.
I earnestly hope that Mr Carmody continues with this refreshing approach of considering evidence of a risk and its consequences, both in isolation and in comparison with other risks and their consequences, as well as analysing the practical effectiveness of making yet more laws and creating yet more bureaucratic processes to actually mitigate the risk.
If he does continue with this approach, he'll shortly be staring down the CVD industry, AvMed and more Senators (minus Senator Fawcett) doing the burning hair impression.
More power to Mr Carmody's steely glare.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 26th May 2017 at 11:19.
(From 'Australian Flying', 'The Last Minute Hitch' 26th May 2017.)
"Right now, several people in Canberra know who the new Director of Aviation safety is. The CASA board has signed, sealed and delivered their recommendation to Minister for Transport Darren Chester. It is unthinkable that Chester will over-ride the final candidate, so what ever name is on that report is the person will probably get the gig. Is that name Shane Carmody? If we take the approach "what has he done to lose the job?" we don't come up with a lot of show-stoppers. If the board has really given priority to getting the ASRR recommendations embedded, and that mean bulldozing the pushback, then their selection needs to be someone who will get that done with the greatest efficiency and the least resistance. That's going to require not only a bull-headed stubbornness to stick to the program, but also a deft ability to make people within CASA believe that this is good for them too. Does Shane Carmody have that within him? Ask Senator Sterle. Carmody frustrated him to tears in senate estimates on Tuesday after stubbornly refusing to answer hypothetical questions about drone incidents."
Like Lead Balloon, I'd be happy to see Shane Carmody become the next DAS. A DAS who understands objective risks would be rather refreshing.
"Right now, several people in Canberra know who the new Director of Aviation safety is. The CASA board has signed, sealed and delivered their recommendation to Minister for Transport Darren Chester. It is unthinkable that Chester will over-ride the final candidate, so what ever name is on that report is the person will probably get the gig. Is that name Shane Carmody? If we take the approach "what has he done to lose the job?" we don't come up with a lot of show-stoppers. If the board has really given priority to getting the ASRR recommendations embedded, and that mean bulldozing the pushback, then their selection needs to be someone who will get that done with the greatest efficiency and the least resistance. That's going to require not only a bull-headed stubbornness to stick to the program, but also a deft ability to make people within CASA believe that this is good for them too. Does Shane Carmody have that within him? Ask Senator Sterle. Carmody frustrated him to tears in senate estimates on Tuesday after stubbornly refusing to answer hypothetical questions about drone incidents."
Like Lead Balloon, I'd be happy to see Shane Carmody become the next DAS. A DAS who understands objective risks would be rather refreshing.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A DAS who understands objective risks would be rather refreshing."
One small problem.
Carmody is a career bureaucrat, a glove puppet some would say. The "iron ring" controls CAsA, MrDak, Aleck, Anastasi and Co.
The only risk mitigation they are interested in is any risk of a change to the status Quo which would place their trough privileges in jeopardy.
Carmody by his very nature will resist any reform and reform from top to bottom is what is so desperately needed.
A reformer like Mike Smith is what is needed but he was wiped off like a dog turd stuck to their shoes.
One small problem.
Carmody is a career bureaucrat, a glove puppet some would say. The "iron ring" controls CAsA, MrDak, Aleck, Anastasi and Co.
The only risk mitigation they are interested in is any risk of a change to the status Quo which would place their trough privileges in jeopardy.
Carmody by his very nature will resist any reform and reform from top to bottom is what is so desperately needed.
A reformer like Mike Smith is what is needed but he was wiped off like a dog turd stuck to their shoes.
Thread Starter
But surely the 'Iron Ring' would relish the possibility of setting up a complex and expensive regulatory regime for 'small' drones? Think of all the fees and paperwork that would be generated by a registration and licensing regime. Kick in a requirement for TSO'd ADS and we'd be just oozing safety.
Surely the 'Iron Ring' would have been whispering in Mr Carmody's ear already about the impending disaster if CASA does not step in?
I don't think it's just about understanding the objective risks. It's also about understanding whether and if so what regulatory response would be a cost-effective and practical mitigation of that risk, as well as assessing whether there are any other bigger risks that might be a more appropriate use of finite risk-mitigation resources.
Surely the 'Iron Ring' would have been whispering in Mr Carmody's ear already about the impending disaster if CASA does not step in?
I don't think it's just about understanding the objective risks. It's also about understanding whether and if so what regulatory response would be a cost-effective and practical mitigation of that risk, as well as assessing whether there are any other bigger risks that might be a more appropriate use of finite risk-mitigation resources.
I,m with Thorny. Bureaurats can say all sorts of things...doesnt mean its true or they even believe it.
On the receiving of a "Carmody" issue ..and CAsA are still at it...calling criminal code breaches , CAsA code of conduct breaches. Fraudulent thinking.
Bringing the CAsA "code" out of the funny comic book and into the real world, as with the APSC /Aust Public Service Commission, ...and asked for in the ASSR, would be a start...THAT contains criminal provisions !! CAsAs does not.
Certain CAsA issues..."investigations", Model Litigant Rules and FOI should all be dealt with by a separate independent agency....with teeth and bite.
Any CAsA "investigation" when CAsA persons are the problem is already biased to favour the employee. CYA 101in full swing !!
And as for UAVs/Drones...let CAsA have their head of steam of endless regs, penalties, permits and fees and they'll send this industry the way of PVT VH and much of GA....down the gurgler.
What we all should be hammering Chester D, Minister with is a call for a Judicial Inquiry into the whole rotten edifice, 'iron rings' and all.
Then...just maybe...
On the receiving of a "Carmody" issue ..and CAsA are still at it...calling criminal code breaches , CAsA code of conduct breaches. Fraudulent thinking.
Bringing the CAsA "code" out of the funny comic book and into the real world, as with the APSC /Aust Public Service Commission, ...and asked for in the ASSR, would be a start...THAT contains criminal provisions !! CAsAs does not.
Certain CAsA issues..."investigations", Model Litigant Rules and FOI should all be dealt with by a separate independent agency....with teeth and bite.
Any CAsA "investigation" when CAsA persons are the problem is already biased to favour the employee. CYA 101in full swing !!
And as for UAVs/Drones...let CAsA have their head of steam of endless regs, penalties, permits and fees and they'll send this industry the way of PVT VH and much of GA....down the gurgler.
What we all should be hammering Chester D, Minister with is a call for a Judicial Inquiry into the whole rotten edifice, 'iron rings' and all.
Then...just maybe...
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
We've all been here before. I'm sorry if I can't believe any new Messiah while shackled to the Intelligentsia.
We've had 2 pilots fail abjectly as DAS.
Maybe another career public servant will restore proper order?
Can't be worse outcomes than the last 2.
Maybe another career public servant will restore proper order?
Can't be worse outcomes than the last 2.
As everyone knows, the last two were ex RAAF pilots.
CC
Lead Balloon,
Well said, and true, but history in not on your side, unfortunately, beware of false dawns.
Thorny et al are backing history, right up to some present CASA "enforcement" actions.
CC, how true, Bruce Byron, on the right track (see Directive 1 of 2007) was eventually shafted by the "iron ring". despite an initial victory that saw one of the "top floor" depart abruptly after the failed "Friday afternoon coupe".
Tootle pip!!
Well said, and true, but history in not on your side, unfortunately, beware of false dawns.
Thorny et al are backing history, right up to some present CASA "enforcement" actions.
CC, how true, Bruce Byron, on the right track (see Directive 1 of 2007) was eventually shafted by the "iron ring". despite an initial victory that saw one of the "top floor" depart abruptly after the failed "Friday afternoon coupe".
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
We shall soon see. Mr Carmody is facing the CVD test now. Mr Skidmore failed. Mr McCormick failed.
If Mr Carmody fails the CVD test I will concede your point and consign him to the ever-growing scrapheap of political patsies/prostitutes.
If Mr Carmody fails the CVD test I will concede your point and consign him to the ever-growing scrapheap of political patsies/prostitutes.
