We need to turn the heat down on regulatory reform. McComic only pushed that agenda hard because of bonus and, of course an eye on a plumb ICAO job. Although I doubt even ICAO is that 'Fick'.
Hmm...maybe, maybe not...
If ICAO is run anything like the UN or (god forbid) FIFA then there is probably more graft than reviewing of CVs going on...
How much was it again - that we the tax payers - forked out for those two campaigns (one successful one not)??
ICAO is celebrating 70 years (today) since inception...
However like so many other proud institutions there is much recent evidence (e.g. involvement in MH17/MH370) that ICAO is fast becoming a 70 year old toothless tiger - so maybe the signatory states would vote in favour of a dictatorial, big 'R' type like McComic.
I know it doesn't bare contemplating but imagine if you will that this chamber were to become McComic's personal star chamber:
And if the duck-up of the cover-ups is required for both MH370 or MH17 who better to deflect the suspect millions of WWIOS members...
"Nothing to see here it was a psychotic pilot that did it!"
or..
"Nothing to see here it was that mad bloody Vlad that did it!"
For those signatory states that are currently being wooed by the smooth, Hoodoo Voodoo, Murky Machiavellian contingent from Downunda here are 269 reasons (besides the TSBC peer review of the PelAir cover-up - read Kharon post) why you should seriously consider the other bloke...
:
Public Submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Add the Forsyth Report to your reading matter: Report of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review
PDF: 1598 KB
And a couple of recent Senate Inquiry reports:
Aviation Accident Investigations &
Pilot training and airline safety; and Consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010
It is also worth running a critical eye over the recently expanded - signed off by McComic/Stabbed in the Dark/M&M - list of Oz notified differences to ICAO SARPs (all 97 pages of it):
H18/14
On a lighter note - but still with relevance to the McComic years - I came across an interesting article where another toothless tiger regulator is seriously considering adopting some of the big "R" CAsA terms of embuggerance...
:
ASIC to crack down on financial planners exam
THE corporate watchdog has said it will ensure a national exam for financial planners can not be “gamed” as it called for a test to be structured in a similar way to exams sat by aspiring aircraft pilots.
Australian Securities & Investments Commission chairman Greg Medcraft has called on a national exam to be set by the financial planning industry, with ASIC to oversee exams to prevent cheating.
“We want a system not unlike the one the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) uses to test pilots,” Mr Medcraft told a Senate committee on Friday.
“I understand that pilots sit an exam set by CASA to test their skills and knowledge acquired from both training and experience.”
Regarding a national exam, concerns have been raised about its format and difficulty level.
In the US, aviation education for prospective pilots involves providing prospective students with a manual containing several hundred questions and corresponding answers, from which all exam questions are directly drawn.
CASA was immediately unclear whether the same system operated here.
The ASIC spokesman said the regulator would “ensure that the (national exam) system could not be ‘gamed’.”
Before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on Friday, Mr Medcraft made no mention of ASIC’s previous calls for all financial planners to hold university degrees in “relevant fields”.
The failure to do so, and instead focus only on a national exam, suggests ASIC has been unable to gain support for mandatory university education from the financial planning sector.
ASIC has been dealing closely with the sector in recent months and a week ago filed with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann a joint ASIC/industry report making recommendations for improvements in financial planning education standards.
An ASIC spokesman said the regulator had “not abandoned its support for a uni-level degree” in favour of an exam.
Love this bit..
"...CASA was immediately unclear whether the same system operated here..."
Perhaps Anthony Klan should have contacted Adam at CAsA LSD as they seem to have an excellent understanding of the exam system and are very..very determined that it cannot be gamed:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Marsh [2014] FCA 1253
Conclusion
60 In my view the learned Tribunal member adopted an incorrect approach in his interpretation of reg 298A(1)(c)(iii). Further, the Tribunal ought to have made the findings identified by the applicant in grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the notice of appeal. Although the Tribunal made a finding on the facts that Mr Marsh was a fit and proper person within the meaning of reg 269(1)(d), I consider it necessary that this decision be revisited in light of this judgment. As the underlying facts were fully explored by the Tribunal it may be that the decision of the Tribunal remains the same concerning Mr Marsh’s fitness and propriety, however that is an issue for the Tribunal. The appropriate order is to remit the matter to the Tribunal for determination according to law.
61 CASA seeks costs of the appeal. Although as a general proposition costs follow the event, in this case Mr Marsh has made no appearance and has not opposed the appeal. It was for the applicant to substantiate its case, and while it has done so in part, it was in the face of a Tribunal decision in Mr Marsh’s favour and without opposition in this Court from Mr Marsh. The better order in the circumstances is that there be no order
as to costs.
Ahh..the sheer embuggerance of it all..wonder how much that little case has cost us so far??
Sundy ramble over...MTF...
