Hi Jaba - truce called
I think we both agree about the fundamental philosophy change which is required at the regulator.
Your comments about training a dog apply to training a pilot. Any good instructor understands this most basic of principles - it's called POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. It seems the regulator doesn't understand this simple concept, which it itself requires flight instructors to understand and demonstrate.
And in 99.9% of cases - it works.
In the case of the 0.1% (say a Rottweiler bred for fighting, or pilots who tow water skiers on national TV) - the positive reinforcement technique, or in fact any other technique, is unlikely to work.
Only a few years ago, after a rather extensive audit, a CASA FOI told Milton's Chief Pilot that his organisation was "a model for the rest of the (mustering and outback tourism) industry".
That's fair enough, but things change in aviation - mighty fast! It could well have been the performance of said CP and not the owner which led CASA to this position. Is it the same CP now as then?
What you're seeing on television is on his own land, not for hire or reward and something that he's been doing (without one incident) for over 20 years.
Fair enough, but rules apply to private operations too. If he were such a model aviator, he would understand that simply by committing these acts (on national TV) he is setting a terrible example to junior pilots under his employ who look to him as a mentor.
Qantas didn't run off a runway for the 20 years before QF1.
Hopefully it turns out this was all computer graphics and we can all get down off our soap boxes
