snarek
Good to see you around (since Feb I see
and I hope we can have some interesting debate about our passions (except perhaps my mrs gaunty and yours
)
I have had a bit of experience with the media and they do need careful handling, but at the end of the day, they are doing their job feeding the beast that they have created, and it is a bit of a symbiotic relationship.
Getting
your stuff on the public agenda amongst all of the
other noise without attracting sensationalist headlines is a bit of a trick.
Say nothing, nobody hears anything, say anything and you are front page.
I gave at a recent Coronial, evidence that some say was "controversial and damaging to the industry"
about the different levels of safety, based on cost rather than an understanding, available to FIFO operators and their clients.
The "contoversial and damaging to the industry" evidence was a simple explanation of the
difference in safety and surveillance levels between FAR Part 23 and 25 which are a matter of regulatory fact and the relevant cost issues they exposed in the choices made by the miners for the transport of their staff in this manner as a
cheaper substitute for RPT to the nearest port.
The knowledge of which is held by very few, including many who should (including most pilots) and not the
least bit understood by the FIFO pax and travelling public
I was as could be expected, met by a barrage of press and TV outside the court who after a looong morning of very dry technical and relatively uncontested testimony most of which they barely understood and were looking for some relief.
My evidence as far as I can tell was actively supported by CASA and particularly the ATSB.
They, the press, tried about one hundred and sixty different ways to get me to say that charter "wasn't safe" which was
not what I said.
What I said was, that there was SAFE, SAFER and SAFEST and that there was an obligation on the part of the charterer to his staff to understand those differences in relation to the cost,
which in the REAL world should be similiar, when selecting the appropriate level for travel.
Of course, and that is my point/agenda, for the passenger there should
not be a "choice" or a "difference" unless they are
FULLY informed.
as this is not practically possible then the Govt/regulator has to do something about it on their behalf.
After some vigourous discussion I agreed to be interviewed only on the understanding that they did not cut and paste a simple statement, to which they agreed.
And that was to the effect that the level of what we currently call
SAFE was set well over 30 years ago in the light of the
then available technology, but that the world has moved on a very long way to
SAFER and it is way way past the time, that the industry moved with it
I guess the point is, I was only a "former aviation consultant", so I guess the effect was limited to whatever peoples preception of what one of "those" is or was.
If I had said it as an AOPA VP (Technical) I would have, not should have, been sacked in the ensuing uproar from your members.
So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As I said at the beginning I happen to agree with Bill on the REX thing and the underlying issues on which he commented.
The problem is that my/this "SAFE, SAFER, SAFEST) agenda" is I suspect, directly contrary to the "perceived" interests of your operator constituency and would not be something on which you would win an election.
It is an agenda that is yet inevitable, so it must be better to lead than follow it.
Your organisation seems to be the last one standiing at least with any "visibility" to the public.
It may be, in Australia anyway, you need in these turbulent times to shift towards a broader representation of the "public" at large than the smaller and rapidly and unfortunately permanently diminishing "sectional" interests and to take hold of that vacant ground in order to remain relevant.
I use the words smaller, rapidly and permanently diminishing as I believe that this is a reality, relative to the past and population for the long term.
You can cut CASA and ASA costs to zero and it will not make one speck of real difference to the viability of Australian aviation until the punters learn or are taught to pay 2002 costs for 2002 technology and that includes Rexs passengers.
A look at the growth of the AUF anf the types that they fly are very real evidence of this.
In closing (at last they say)
"The planes dont change, the route doesn't change, the weather doesn't change. Only thing that changes and gets worse are the regs. So I don't read em."
So you see, complexity breeds contempt. Therefore I put it to you that the CASRs are actually the CAURs. They are UNSAFE becuse they are fast losing relavence.
How could I disagree with that in that context.
Though I think the point that comes out of that is, because
The planes dont change
the
worse are the regs.
code for CASA have to increase the regulatory surveillance and impose inspections in direct proportion to the age of the aircraft and inversely proportional to the operators revenue to keep em shiny side up.
that's why
So I don't read em
and the spiral to the bottom continues.
How do we stop what you call CAUS?
As I used to say my ATPL students, the answer is always in the question.