Thorny – "Real experts, with real qualifications and real experience from industry, are largely ignored, in favour of CAsA experts"
Sadly, very true in many instances, but not all. It's the white hats v black hats war. From where you sit Thorny, you don't need to look very far to see two classic examples of the war in action. The quality of service and advice is very variable. If we ever manage to establish a board and anoint a new CEO and enter the phase of 'reform' as recommended by Senate and Rev. Forsyth, that will only impact the 'soft' top layer. The real issue, for me at least, is in addressing the very real mess in the lower layers.
Real reform needs to be generated from the top and made to penetrate all the way down to the very bottom. Strong, honest leadership from the top must encourage the 'white hats'; (those who have not resigned and left feeling dirty and disgusted), to step up to the mark and start 'persuading' the black hats to "return to industry", then the deadwood needs to be lopped and coppiced. Little rats nests of vermin need to be excised along with their 'leader'. The new boss of CASA will, as a matter of urgency, need to address the small issues first, if and it's a big IF, any sort of regulatory reform is to be effective. Mostly the howls for – regulatory reform – are used as a convenient cover for reform of the regulator. We have limped along with the old regulations for a long while and, in the right hands, they could remain serviceable for a few more years; provided those 'administering' the regulation were competent, honest folk. Regrettably, those are in the minority..
Take Part 61 for example or 145 if you prefer and see 'who' was the significant draftsman at the base, who drove the 'philosophy' on which the regulation is based, that research will answer many of your questions. Particularly the "who dreamt up this crock" one.
Back in the day, some of the very best rule sets we have were rooted in a 'sound' philosophy, the actual drafting of the rules reflected that intelligence, expertise and honesty. Some of the 'modern' stuff is not based on such expertise but on whimsy, 'personal' preference and the sort of bollocks junior pilots espouse in the mess room. Read the Australian 61 again against the NZ 61 and you shall see the benefit of researching the radical cause of the 61 catastrophe.
If you can spare the time and patience – try a little experiment – ask two of the most junior, least experienced (life and aviation) pilots to draft a part to go into the COM; say for routine, on line proficiency checks, tell them it must be 'black letter legal'. When you get the thing back, you shall see exactly how the part 61 abomination was cobbled together; true dat..
Anyway – I doubt any of us will live long enough to even see a response to the Senate effort, let alone anything more recent. We'll; just keep bumping along the bottom, trying to survive and find a way to avoid the garbage thrown into the once clear stream. Unless of course someone steps up and calls for a clean up drive. We may live in hope, but with little certainty and bugger all faith. Anyone in NZ need a slightly battered driver – airframe; will work for beer, baccy and a new pair of boots at Christmas???
Selah.
PS – TB. The pub wants it's lampshade back. Mrs Pub is miffed..
