Binos well put my man.
Sultanas and Gin
And your point is??
May I suggest a course in remedial english with the accent on comprehension.
Now, tell me again it was just words. I would say the Airservices decision, and they didn’t need my help to make it, and the Ministers or rather the other ministers subsequent reaction would suggest otherwise.
I am still clinging desperately to the notion that the Minister is the honorable and straightforward person that I judge him to be, it is the quality, or lack of the advice he is given that seems to be the problem. That “directive” is one of the more cynically obscene pieces of “advice” I have seen for a bit and he didn’t think it up all by himself.
And if you were talking about the last AGM I suspect it could have been held in a telephone box and how many went to the AGM dinner? It was held in Sydney too.
Sunfish
You can safely ignore the petty BS that you see being touted around here; you see it is much easier to take the man down, than it is to rebut the argument intelligently.
One wonders why those who think so little about and spend so much time trying to belittle anyone that they find it so important that they should do so.
I can only offer that you and I are equally entitled to a view on any matter we choose and that the intelligent amongst us will have the wit and wisdom to work out the merit of it.
If you have to resort to slander, deceit, sleight of hand and all manner of smoke and mirrors to win the day, the “anything it takes” attitude and “anyway what would you know”, then it is hard to give whatever you are proposing any credence.
Is it possible for GA and RPT to co exist?
yes it is and they did, very well too, until the "we are here to save you brigade" came along. AOPA under Peter Patroni was a well respected and vital part of the aviation infrastructure. Almost all of the people that made it so and about 6,000 ex members have given up in disgust and walked away.
Is there any large group of sacred cows who are going to lose their jobs if the system is changed or is there some group who feel that there entitlements are challenged?
Simply NO, well amongst those that are left in any event.
There are however, a large group of disenfranchised aviation professionals including, it now seems, an entire regulatory organisation (both judged to be "world class" by their international peers), who have been sidelined and marginalised for a personal and political agenda disguised in the bankrupt clothes of "cost savings" recently estimated to be around negative$250,000,000 (means "cost" not "savings") because "they" are too stupid
to be able to see "the light".
Is there some universally agreed independent provider of technical risk management advice? If so do we have their advice?
Yes and yes. As I understand it, Airservices were
determined, in accordance with their duty of care and governance requirements and as a matter of professional responsibility, to use an internationally accepted DNV metric to ensure that
ANY changes had the metric ruler over them before implementation, of any stage of NAS.
DNV metric??
There are a number of international agencies the like of Lloyds, DNV, ABS, RINA and many others who offer independent risk and process analysis and certification. If you board a ship for example, that has been built, certified and maintained to their standards you are as safe as it is possible to be for that standard.
Go Here for Det Norske Veritas
That is until CASA, told Airservices they did not need one as
they had satisfied themselves so. Fair enough you say and from another regulator yet. But I suspect against their better judgment, and as it since been seen to be so.
On what basis and under what pressure that assurance was accepted remains to be seen. I'd be fascinated to hear what their insurers feel about it.
The
only independent study that has surfaced through all of this, the Broome DAS, commissioned by the owners of Broome Airport and audited by CSIRO, exposed a huge liability for the Government and Airservices in certain aspects of the NAS and provided the
only scientifically researched and intellectually rigorous risk analysis to that time, beyond the serial “I believes” and “it works fine there”.
The only responsible and legally defensible response to this should have been for the Government to have a similarly rigorous study conducted by an internationally recognized and accepted agency such as described above, to either confirm, refine or refute the data. It was however only days before an “expert” was wheeled out armed with a hatchet to question the academic bona fides.
It’s called consultant shopping, you just keep turning them over until you find the one who suits your agenda.
Rigorous it is not.
Now we have an assortment of psychologists, chemists, ballroom dancers, true believers, my viewers, self proclaimed legends, Uncle Tom Cobbleys' and all, having a bit of a go, arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, not one of whom has the credibility of the above agencies. I do not intend this as a criticism of any individual, it is simply that Australia deserves and we cannot afford to otherwise, an internationally recognised and respected circuit breaker to resolve the sorry mess created in the last 20 years of crusading.
Sunfish, I believe that we as a nation are supposed to be protected by our Public Service and Regulators by the execution and the professional and skilled implementation by them of Government policy.
We elect Government on
their policies, not any individuals personal agenda.
That's the basis on which they are selected, that is what we pay them for and they are entitled to absolute support from the Government of the day on the careful execution of the detail.
They are entitled to protection from harassment, second guessing and inappropriate influence in return for which we expect sound and balanced results.
However taking positions and fighting is not going to do anyone any good.
Dead set right! And every day spent by our servants, preparing ministerials, repairing staff morale, responding to endless criticism, endlessly justifying decisions and rebutting unjustifiable “advice”, endlessly second guessing the second guessers and when you get to the third time around it means that you do have to take a stand eventually.
Australia is overrepresented worldwide in the scientific, academic, athletic, musical and just about any other pursuit you could imagine. We are esteemed in every one of them,
including the quality of our public servants and their work.
Why do we then abdicate our aviation agenda to a couple of well meaning enthusiasts, is this the only place in the real world it happens ?
There is some hope that DOTARS have, or are taking back that ground and we can look forward to the return of the manner of professional public service that has separated Australia from the likes of The Grand Duchy of Fenwick for the last hundred years or so.
Lets hope so.