BIK
Seeing as you're not playing the man
... I respect your right to hold an opinion even if that opinion is that my views are incorrect.
I was going to start quoting your quoting of my quotes however the fact is, I can't be bothered. Of course you will most likely take that as a sign of defeat, which I can assure you is not the case. The level of detail which you go into in your lengthy responses is IMHO a debate which needs to be carried out face to face.
Despite your assertion that my, and others view are not worthy of your time... I don't particularly care
Having been involved in RPT for twenty years , I am of the opinion that the LAME's contribution to the safety and efficiency of the Australian industry is a significant resource that is currently under threat by those who would remove a 'slice of Swiss Cheese ' from James Reason's accident model... in the name of economic rationalism. You may take this as a personal affront on behalf of all the professional pilots out there... you appear to desire to do so. But if I may speak TO all those pilots ' I have the utmost respect for your skills, training and professionalism. However, in an industry which is moving to competency based training you have not received that training. That is not to say that you cannot be trained. (And then BIK may get the Industrial posture that he is so keen on developing) However at this point in time, and until otherwise, I believe the LAME is the appropriately qualified person.'
And as I have said in the past (BIK will be able to quote me chapter and verse I'm sure - in or out of context) there is a broader issue down the track if this continues - and that will be the commercial pressure on Tech Crews to carry defects because of a lack of an Engineering presence.
Cheers
'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much. If I can paraphrase another old saying 'Small things annoy small minds')
