Poisoned Dwarf
Using your definition of persons who should have a say in safety reform, would you care to comment on the make-up of the original ARG that proposed 2b and 2c?
I think comparing senoir QF pilots to truck drivers is a bit harsh. Certainly ICAO and CASA would include them in any study panel as they would ATC who have to work daily guiding aircraft through 3 dimensional space.
Finally as the only organisation that did use professional airspace designers and airline captains and ATC ops personnel plus stakeholder interviews and pilot surveys in accordance with International and Australian Codes- Let me advise you, not to expect respect or rave reviews from those who attempted to impliment airsace reform without the personnel you state are needed.
The airlines have a legal and moral responsibility to protect their passengers. With our safety case findings and CASA- AsA studies plus the High Courts Chief Justice ruling on negligence what would you have done?
The Airlines have acted correctly and can not do otherwise until experts, like those you propose, prove there is no drop in safety under the proposed change. As without cost savings between Mandatory and Recommended calls you cannot impose a system that reduces safety, that is a negligent act and if you did it knowingly that would be wilful negligence.
However the Chief Justice is only a lawyer in a legal system designed by others, bit like a truck driver designing roads wouldn't you say?
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIAG