putytat
May I requote your post from earlier in the month as I am only just catching up with my reading.
From its content I would guess you may have been as close as I to the NAS2b implementation and its attempted replay with 2c.
There was a
real example of unnecessary rules and costs. I never saw the clusterfcuk actually costed but it had to be more than several hundred thousand dollars chasing an idiotology agenda.
Just so those who seem to have a comprehension problem and are terminally resistant to learning from past mistakes here's how change is affected......thank you
putytat. Eeeeeerm except for the little Kevie and his heavies maybe.
And it will be great fun for all if Marn Fern gets the Aviation portfolio.
1. Vote 1 - Kevin Rudd
2. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms and ensure that the risks are identified correctly and thoroughly. Ensure that identified risks have documented mitigators and safety requirements that must be met prior to implementation where necessary.
3. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms to be included in any cost benefit analysis that must be completed by the change proponent. Ensure that these issues are costed correctly and ensure that the change proponents are required to provide detailed information on any CBA to the workshop participants post the event. Ensure that the participants are periodically advised of any amendments to this analysis right through to implementation.
Request information from the change proponent up front regarding exactly what level of CBA would be acceptable for a change to be approved and progressed.
4. Ensure points 2 and 3 are included in the PIR. Ensure that the PIR is firmly programmed into the initial project timeline. Ensure that the same participants will be involved all the way through the process to the PIR stage.
5. Analyse the project plan and timelines to ensure that the appropriate methods of promulgation are planned to be used (unlike CTAFs where a 52 page AIP SUP was used to hand amend AIP book).
6. Ensure that the same participants are fully involved in the creation of the relevant training and education package, and ensure that the content is adequate for the level / type of change.
7. Ask as many questions as necessary regarding the compliance with ICAO of any change proposal.
8. Ensure that the participants sight and approve the required changes to the relevant AIS documentation prior to printing and distribution.
9. Resist at all costs the attempts to use TCAS as a risk mitigator (refer point 7).
There's a starting point, but let's hope the ALP has other ideas and agendas more important than these insignificant reforms that will not add anything to the Aus aviation industry.