Required Expertise - not at Airservices
There is an old joke along the lines that God and the Devil have a telephone hook up each week; this week it's God's turn to ring Nick...
G: "Hey Nick, how is it going down there?
D: "Actually God, its going great - we have an engineer down here - he's installed air conditioning and flush toilets..."
G: "Nick, you know the rules, you are not allowed engineers, send him up here."
D: "No God, we rather like what he is doing for us."
G: "Send him up here or I'll sue.
D: "And tell me God, where would you get a lawyer?"
Now with apologies to an old mate who is a lawyer and regularly posts on here - this is exactly what applies to Airservices.
Air (no) Services have the power to issue those huge and complex NOTAMS in this post but they simply do not have the expertise to understand, evaluate and quantify the risks and effects of their decisions.
Airservices is simply a service provider; its responsibilities are in the AirServices Act.
It no longer has highly experienced, current IFR heavy aircraft pilots on staff. It has no performance engineers.
And nor should it. They do not belong with a service provider.
In short, AsA promulgates these changes without having the in house expertise to understand the safety consequences for aircraft operating in all manner of weather conditions in IMC and without ATC separation services.
By what imaginary expertise do they carry out a safety case covering their actions?
I suggest Australia return to the integrated FAA model where both regulation and service provision are in the one organisation with one CEO and one responsible Minister.
The currrent system is broken.
CASA apparently knows this but what can it do?
Take AsA to court as it would a pilot? That would help!!
Suspend or Cancel AsA's operating licences? I am not sure that would get much political or public support!
In short: we have a wholly imaginary safety system. It is broke and it needs fixing.... NOW would be good.