Originally Posted by
Sunfish
Para377, if CASA is indeed as bad as reports suggest, then that is tragedy for Australia. However I think it may just be part of a bigger problem; that is the increasingly risk averse nature of ALL Government and businesses, in fact the entire society, that is slowly paralysing the nation.
By "risk averse", I mean the inability to take any decision that is perceived as having any risk attached to it.
Examples:
- cost of insurance in areas deemed "prone' to bushfires.
- Cancellation of public events (Concerts, shows, etc) because of inability to obtain insurance or outrageous indemnity demands by local councils.
- The entire Government response to Covid19, as exemplified by the Victorian health Ministers press conference yesterday where he blathered on about regulations, procedure, protocols and advice when questioned about Victorias lagging response to the latest Sydney outbreak. Blind Freddy knows we should have closed the borders a day earlier and we should be at least back wearing masks as should Sydneysiders. We should also strictly quarantine all airline crews, domestic and international, cut flights and to hell with returning travellers.
- The business, sport and Government response to the screaming harpies of the feminist movement which has resulted in "Cancel culture" and the destruction of thousands of male careers out of political correctness and the demonisation of men.
- the increasing demand for "mandatory" sentencing for crime and the continuous extension of government control of previously unregulated activities.
So now lets return to Aviation and CASA; I would have thought that if aviation regulation was as bad as people here make out, then there would be some Government crusader who wishes to make a name for themselves by leading a reform agenda to restructure the whole box and dice, regulation, enforcement, etc. However then I thought about the question of risk. By its nature, rightly or wrongly, all aviation is regarded as a risky activity (due to fear of falling/heights, etc.). The regulations are totally focussed on purporting to reduce risk to the public.
Therefore any change that is perceived as altering the risk mitigation profile embedded in the community's psyche is going to be seen as INCREASING risk and danger and is automatically a bad thing. Furthermore it isn't rocket science that bureaucrats will fight back against reform by pressing the risk button. This is going to make aviation reform a very unpopular topic with politicians who understand that the next aircrash is going to be blamed on them for tampering with CASA.
So imagine the shock/horror whipped up by the press if favourite hobby horses were indeed acted upon:
- Medical self certification (Sick pilots! OMG!)
- Owner maintenance (Broken planes falling out of sky!)
- Weight increases, entry to controlled airspace for recreational aircraft (untrained amateurs near my airbus ride!)
- Simpler regulations (pilots are potential criminals, they should be investigated and punished! We need MORE, not less regulation!)
CASA are protecting us from a general public who would close general and recreational aviation down, or severely limit it, if they could. They make aviation possible in this increasingly litigious and risk averse society.
So perhaps Glen threatened the status quo and someone at CASA got worried. Is that a crime? I don't think the general public would think so and the arguments are too technical for them to understand or care.
Both the profession and Glen need to focus on how to explain to the general public what their case is and why the general public should support it. This is in fact a political question and should be treated as such. Before you explode, I wish Glen all the best and I hope the matters are resolved to his satisfaction, I'm just trying to explain what he is up against.
Better. Much much better. Now you are getting it my friend. Well written and strikes at the core of Aviation’s malaise.
One thing though, several senators have had a bit of a subdued crack at CASA - Heffernan and Xenophon and there are others. But it’s a pointless exercise and senate inquiries and senate estimates are just a game with no real meat and potatoes.
Secondly Sunfish, when you speak of risk aversion you left out Councils removing metal slides and climbing equipment from playgrounds and State Governments removing the Male/Female criteria off your car drivers lisence. All big ticket items. NOT