I agree with your sentiments that CASA lacks the intellectual capital to deal with [the] issue.
I’m not
quite making that point. There are some extraordinarily intelligent and extraordinarily experienced people in CASA. My point is that their strategic paradigm is not to make political decisions.
Let’s take a hypothetical classification of operations proposal: All aircraft design, construction, equipment and maintenance standards be set at the current transport category standard, all crew qualification standards be set to the current RPT standard, and all aerodrome and airways and air traffic control services be set to the current RTP standard.
You get all the best pilots and engineers and ATC’ers and aerodrome operators on the planet together, and ask: is that a good proposal? With one voice they say: “Yes!”
Then someone says: “But hang on a sec’. If we set standards that high, vast amounts of aviation services that are currently provided would no longer be viable, absent billions in investment. There must be a balance between risk and cost and benefits and dis-benefits.
Where is the balance to be set?”
At that point, all the best pilots and engineers and ATC’ers and aerodrome operators on the planet say with one voice: “
That’s not our call.”
It’s like a solicitor’s client asking the solicitor: “Should I sign this contract?” The solicitor’s answer is: “That’s not my call. I’ve explained the potential risks and rewards. It’s
your decision to enter the contract or not.”
That’s why the regulatory ‘reform’ program will drift along forever.
[W]hy in all the hells are we letting mid level bean counters and bum wipers run the show? Why do we allow the snakes and weasels to spend so much time money to cover the ministerial arse with excuses (plausible deniability)[?]
Good question! The Orwellian reasoning to the answer goes something like this:
1. The government is there to govern in the public interest (not legally true in Australia, but that’s what governments tell you…)
2. Therefore, government agencies are there to serve the public interest (what else would they be there for?)
3. The government is elected by the people. Therefore, it’s up to the government, not agencies, to decide what’s in the public interest (of course it is!)
4. The government is elected by the people. Therefore the government’s interests and the public interest are one and the same (hello Mr Orwell …)
5. Therefore, government agencies are there to serve the government’s interests (disappearing into Orwellian vortex…).
6. The government’s interests are not served by people who bring bad news rather than solutions and options, or who insist that government make decisions or take responsibility for something that might upset someone.
7. Solution: Install in all government agencies a layer of “snakes and weasels to cover the ministerial arse”.
