Incidentally has the Styx houseboat sunk or something? or has Kharon been renditioned to Israel, he's gone awful quiet.
I'd say "K" is busy cogitating and studying the bottom of the 'Chamber Pot', besides the Ferryman does his best work at half past the witching hour!
By the way here's the lead up to Fawcett's line of questioning (from above) and perhaps highlights the angst that highly regarded ATOs have been feeling in recent times
:
Senator FAWCETT: What is your view on the future of approved testing officers versus inspectors? Industry feedback seems to be that ATOs are no longer favoured by CASA and there are situations where operators are required to use an FOI, as opposed to being allowed to use an ATO. I am wondering if you have a corporate plan or a strategic direction for the utilisation of ATOs?
Mr J McCormick: Some years ago—and we can give you the date on notice if you like—we did a review of the flying training organisations and their success rate at passing the initial instructor rating, the grade 3 rating. We centred that into some of the commercial flights and we found that there was a very large pass rate when most of those initial tests were being done by the industry. We, of course, always have the prerogative to do the test ourselves and anyone who proposes to carry out a test in the industry has to give us seven days' notice that they intend to carry out that test. We put much effort into carrying out a lot of those tests and we have quite a large failure rate. Since then we have seen that there has been a complete rebound in that sector and we are very pleased with the progress now being made by the flying schools and organisations around ATOs. So, in specific instances we still use our prerogative to check someone, particularly if there is any question over their competence or whatever, but we have no intention, to my knowledge, of removing or taking over all the duties that are done by ATOs. It would be beyond our capability.
Senator FAWCETT: A related issue, but not on the same topic of a grand plan, what flexibility do you give or should you or can you be giving regional officers to be responsive to commercial pressures? I think specifically here of an operator who was required to have one of their pilots renew an instrument rating. There was a qualified ATO in the state, qualified on the aircraft type who could have conducted it, but because he was not listed on that aircraft's check and training document, the company was required to fly that person from the west coast to the east coast to do the test in a simulator and then back to the west coast, where a suitably qualified person, with some discretion, could have conducted that test and saved the operator a lot of money. What options are there for CASA to have a responsiveness to commercial pressures in situations like that?
Mr J McCormick: Again, we are not a commercial regulator; we are a safety regulator. If you give us details of that particular test I can give you a specific answer. What I am getting at is that there are some instances now where we have mandated that certain asymmetric events et cetera must be carried out in a simulator rather than the aircraft, following on from the unfortunate Brasilia crash in Darwin, so if the test involves something of a multicrew or a multiengine aircraft or whatever, we may not have been prepared to allow that testing in the aircraft. Without knowing the specifics, I cannot tell you. If you give us the specifics we can give you an answer on notice.
Cheers TB
and good question GA
one of many that will come up over the coming weeks????