Well done TB, you know where the Tim Tams are....
TB – "If, as the Forsyth review recommends, CAsA is to genuinely seek rehabilitation within the aviation community then the opinion of Clough and many other aviation oriented counsel who contributed to the review must be considered essential to the dialogue."
Spot on, the galling thing is that 'industry', from top to bottom, has responded magnificently to each and every 'inquiry' made. Hours of research, checking, writing editing, re-writing ensuring the message is delivered in a manner 'acceptable'; yet silence has been the stern reply. The response from the other side is to actively and openly seek ways and find means to minimise and avoid as many of the recommendations as possible, history is trying to repeat.
TB – "The DC 9 incident rang the warning bells, very loudly. TAA acted, promptly and correctly, but the regulator's official slipped away unscathed. Since the incident was managed 'quietly' and in house, the regulator has not taken the steps required to ensure, that from their end, the DC 9 incident could not be repeated. Indeed, recent court hearings have demonstrated that the ability to act irresponsibly has been enshrined in law; under the banner of 'safety'."
Amen. Indeed, little has changed since the DC 9 incident and 'stalling' is still a major issue. There are those who are 'black letter' pedantic. One of many similar tales from the Bankstown Chronicles goes like this: an RCA was raised against an ATO, essentially claiming that 'stalls' had not been correctly executed during aircraft based type rating training and check. It seems the only right and acceptable way to do this was to fully disable the stall protection systems. It took a letter from the manufacturer and much argument to persuade the CASA team that this was not only a bad idea, but was prohibited both by certification and the AFM. No matter, the type ratings were disallowed (even the FO's, who where not required to risk it under 40.1) and the RCA was produced and used as 'evidence' later, which of course was the purpose of the exercise. It's only one of many stories attributable to inutile FOI who can and will use the rules as required to achieve a desired outcome, which has sod all to do with 'safety'. There is a bit more to that tale, but you get my drift. Tell you it all over the next beer.....
TB – "There are several individual cases from 'today' that I am aware of, and probably many more that I aren’t, where crew or trainers have refused to oblige the CAsA demands, the aircraft remained undamaged, lives perhaps saved, but because of their dissent, the effect of that refusal has been detrimental to the careers of those pilots who stuck to SOP and the manufacturers prohibitions contained within the approved aircraft flight manual."
It's one of the great ironies, we spend a fortune to get the 'top end' of CASA straightened out, but the real grass roots embuggerance continues without let or hindrance. Much for Mr. Skidmore and his merry bored to consider, if they want to do the job right, not just look like they're doing it. A reassessment of their coal face troops and managers would be a great place to start. (.
...Chuckle) – wouldn't it be a hoot if we started generating 'industry NCN' and sent them off to Skidmore......."Dear Mark this idiot (pick one) has just stated that we must (pick one). This is pony-pooh and we ain't having a bar of it. L&K the operator". That'd rock 'em..
...
..
Aye well; in the meantime I shall study the
Clough offering carefully, it seems to make a lot of sense. Bravo Mr. Clough. Thanks mate..
..
Toot toot.