BRB last evening – there being no darts challenge to meet, was a fairly routine affair; the big topic of course – the extraordinary statement made by the hush power minuscule who, even at the best of times, operates on minimum thrust, which well and truly buggers up the OTP figures.
Most of the BRB are 'practical' folk, not naturally inclined to spend sunny days pawing through legal tomes, getting all dusty. But the existing high level of outrage relating directly to the manner in which matters aeronautical, of some importance are being brushed aside created a fairly hostile atmosphere. It would not, not initially at least, have been a good idea for Truss to 'pop in' for quick one on his way home. However, good sense and sage advice managed to sooth the beast. It seems 'technically' one of the very few parts of the letter to the BCM was quite factual. Enter the legal eagles: herewith, the potted version, you will I hope forgive any inaccuracy due to my translation and reporting; so E&OE:-
The 'Angel Flight' conundrum for CASA is the 1988 Reg 2 (7) and 7A. It seems that by effectively having to turn a blind eye, CASA are exposed, in the event of death or injury. The 'problem' is make sure that the 'operations' are clearly outside the direct responsibility of CASA. This by either a change to regulation; or, some form of self administration system established and probably some minimum qualification regime. Note: there was a modicum of sympathy for the CASA position expressed and that says something, coming from the BRB..
The minuscule playing his 'get out jail card' works in this instance, the weasel words in the rest of the published missive just dump the whole shooting match back on the CASA doorstep (more sympathy). But in fairness, there is little he can do – upfront for Angel Flight, however it does indicate a general shout of like it or lump it as he slithers out the back door. The 'kicker', CASA must be satisfied, does not bode well for AF, but so far no blood on the minuscule's hands.
Next, as CASA is a statutory body, CA Act sections 8, 12, 12A and 12 B, seem to define the ministers role in CASA affairs. It's a top flight legal job to decode as there are more by-ways and back alleys leading to the wriggle room and although it all borders on the old 'constitutional' wrangle; (State v Commonwealth) it would take a brave, young, very wealthy individual or group to tackle it.
It was agreed that it all comes down to willpower; or in the minuscule case – won't power. He can issue broad directions (interpreted to suit) and in matters regulatory directions of a 'general' nature; CASA are obliged to obey those; but, and once again, the 'interpreted to suit' trump card is played and it's back to court. Much to the general satisfaction and future well being of the legal teams.
A stronger, more determined man could shake this all loose, some of the past ministerial types have had an impact and cracked the whip. Is Truss such man? – BRB verdict a resounding, unanimous NO..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
The MoP remains a 'hot topic' and served well to restore the usual bonhomie; theories abound. One of the crew suggested a new 'wrinkle' and a couple of questions which generated some discussion. (Q) Was Mike Watson interviewed by the Canucks ?, if not why not? (Q) Are the ATSB are playing footsy with the Canucks, swapping 'fact' checks and doing all that collective executive team and investigator in charge input crap. As this is a family show, the speculative comments and agreements may not be published, being as how we've gone all PC and coy. But the notion that Beaker and his merry band of word benders are going to get off, Scot free is a whimsical dream. If the lid is ever blown off this little lot, even the media may get beyond just publishing well crafted media releases, edited to suit.
And that's about it, for on topic subjects that is; unless you want the on going saga of TB's beloved lampshade?? Recherché?, of course it is.
Toot toot....
