Tail_Wheel
22nd Aug 2002, 02:30
Interesting and very thought provoking editorial from the September 2002 edition of Australian Flying
The meeting that may not have happened (Yet)
“Thank you for coming, people. I know you’re all busy, but I’d just like a quick update on the rewrite of the regulations covering general aviation. Let’s start with “World’s Best Practice’.”
“Good progress there Boss. Surprisingly, we’ve found that if you peruse enough rules, you can almost always find something more restrictive than JAR OPS-1. For example I’m told there are ICAO signatory countries where you not only need an ATPL to fly a GA aeroplane; you also have to be a member of the ruling family, or at least a Colonel who’s not on their current hit list.”
“Mmmmm – sounds promising. Can licensing look into whether that would create any problems? What else?”
“I think you’ll like this one. Pretty much everybody who shows somebody else how to do something in an aeroplane, or wants to check if they can do it already, will have to have an instructor rating.”
“Wow! Good one. How many more staff will we need to keep track of them?”
“Probably none, because we expect the way it’ll work out, just about everybody will need the rating. Might as well make it a condition of their PPL. The extra training in teaching skills, psychology and stuff like that should stop a few of them in their tracks.”
“Great. Well that’s enough workload for licensing for this week. How about flight operations for Part 135 aeroplanes? There are still a few flying you know.”
“That’s now called JAR OPS…. Oops, Part 121b. A lot to cover in a short meeting Boss, but as an example, we’re going to make controlled flight into terrain illegal. Look, it says here: “When undue proximity to the ground is detected by any flight crew member or by a ground proximity warning system, the pilot in command must ensure that corrective action is initiated immediately to establish safe flight conditions.’”
“That should incriminate quite a few of the blighters, if our safety statistics, (which are better than the FAA’s and Europe’s according to a non-AOPA study) are any guide. What’s the proposed penalty for non-compliance?”
“Er….. we think the Supreme Being will take care of that.”
“Well making CFIT illegal’s all very well, but you also need to cover flying into a towering thunderstorm, having an engine fire, seeing a Cessna in the windscreen or a camel on the airstrip, stalling, spinning, structural failure, or having a punch-up in the cockpit. There’s a lot more prescriptions to write.”
“Mmmmm – see what you mean Boss. How many pages do you reckon?”
“Couple of hundred should cover it; maybe you could make it a supplement that won’t fit in a nav bag and then book them for not carrying it. Now let’s move on. What about engineering?”
“Well at least at GA level we’ve pretty well made it illegal already, but if you think throwing in a mandatory university degree for LAMEs would enhance safety, we can take a look at it.”
“That’d be heavy going without a public opinion survey don’t you think? We’ll let PR handle that one. See if Morgans have anything on their plate tomorrow morning. Something hard-hitting like ‘Would you like your children to be killed in an aeroplane because it was badly maintained?’ followed by ‘Do you think there would be less plane crashes if mechanics didn’t have such terrible training?’ And ‘Do you think safety should be sacrificed because good training is expensive?’ Make it really comprehensive this time. Hit the supermarket queues, the peak hour buses, and the day care centres. Better do the CWA too. We don’t want the Minister to think we’re ignoring the rural vote.
Now let’s move on. What kind of responses are you getting from industry.”
“Bit of a worry Boss, we got eighty last week. Takes up a lot of admin time reading them and cut-and-pasting the ‘Thank you’ letters.”
“Humphhh! Wasting our time and theirs on letter writing when they should improving safety! Most of them can’t spell anyway. Send ‘em all a ‘Show Cause’ of some sort. That’ll keep ‘em busy.
”Now on the subject of safety, we’re getting a lot of feedback from what I call the ‘rabble’ about GA safety versus regulator safety. They’re claiming that pilots employed by DCA, DOT, CAA, and CASA and all those other entities that never even got around to printing a letterhead, have broken a lot of aeroplanes. Leaving out everybody before CASA, how many such accidents and incidents have been reported?”
“Er…………………..”
‘All right, how many unreported accidents and incidents?”
“Er………Well have to get back to you on that Boss, but about a year ago, we announced we were going to form a flying operations division and appoint a chief pilot.”
“And?”
“We haven’t been able to find an ex-military pilot who meets our exacting experience requirements and can pass a chief pilot interview.”
“Who was that chap who just got up and walked out?”
“Some 25,000 hour FOI from general aviation. No manners, those blokes. They never salute, either.”
“GA? What was he doing in a management meeting?”
“Topping up the water jugs.”
Paul Phelan, Executive Editor
The meeting that may not have happened (Yet)
“Thank you for coming, people. I know you’re all busy, but I’d just like a quick update on the rewrite of the regulations covering general aviation. Let’s start with “World’s Best Practice’.”
“Good progress there Boss. Surprisingly, we’ve found that if you peruse enough rules, you can almost always find something more restrictive than JAR OPS-1. For example I’m told there are ICAO signatory countries where you not only need an ATPL to fly a GA aeroplane; you also have to be a member of the ruling family, or at least a Colonel who’s not on their current hit list.”
“Mmmmm – sounds promising. Can licensing look into whether that would create any problems? What else?”
“I think you’ll like this one. Pretty much everybody who shows somebody else how to do something in an aeroplane, or wants to check if they can do it already, will have to have an instructor rating.”
“Wow! Good one. How many more staff will we need to keep track of them?”
“Probably none, because we expect the way it’ll work out, just about everybody will need the rating. Might as well make it a condition of their PPL. The extra training in teaching skills, psychology and stuff like that should stop a few of them in their tracks.”
“Great. Well that’s enough workload for licensing for this week. How about flight operations for Part 135 aeroplanes? There are still a few flying you know.”
“That’s now called JAR OPS…. Oops, Part 121b. A lot to cover in a short meeting Boss, but as an example, we’re going to make controlled flight into terrain illegal. Look, it says here: “When undue proximity to the ground is detected by any flight crew member or by a ground proximity warning system, the pilot in command must ensure that corrective action is initiated immediately to establish safe flight conditions.’”
“That should incriminate quite a few of the blighters, if our safety statistics, (which are better than the FAA’s and Europe’s according to a non-AOPA study) are any guide. What’s the proposed penalty for non-compliance?”
“Er….. we think the Supreme Being will take care of that.”
“Well making CFIT illegal’s all very well, but you also need to cover flying into a towering thunderstorm, having an engine fire, seeing a Cessna in the windscreen or a camel on the airstrip, stalling, spinning, structural failure, or having a punch-up in the cockpit. There’s a lot more prescriptions to write.”
“Mmmmm – see what you mean Boss. How many pages do you reckon?”
“Couple of hundred should cover it; maybe you could make it a supplement that won’t fit in a nav bag and then book them for not carrying it. Now let’s move on. What about engineering?”
“Well at least at GA level we’ve pretty well made it illegal already, but if you think throwing in a mandatory university degree for LAMEs would enhance safety, we can take a look at it.”
“That’d be heavy going without a public opinion survey don’t you think? We’ll let PR handle that one. See if Morgans have anything on their plate tomorrow morning. Something hard-hitting like ‘Would you like your children to be killed in an aeroplane because it was badly maintained?’ followed by ‘Do you think there would be less plane crashes if mechanics didn’t have such terrible training?’ And ‘Do you think safety should be sacrificed because good training is expensive?’ Make it really comprehensive this time. Hit the supermarket queues, the peak hour buses, and the day care centres. Better do the CWA too. We don’t want the Minister to think we’re ignoring the rural vote.
Now let’s move on. What kind of responses are you getting from industry.”
“Bit of a worry Boss, we got eighty last week. Takes up a lot of admin time reading them and cut-and-pasting the ‘Thank you’ letters.”
“Humphhh! Wasting our time and theirs on letter writing when they should improving safety! Most of them can’t spell anyway. Send ‘em all a ‘Show Cause’ of some sort. That’ll keep ‘em busy.
”Now on the subject of safety, we’re getting a lot of feedback from what I call the ‘rabble’ about GA safety versus regulator safety. They’re claiming that pilots employed by DCA, DOT, CAA, and CASA and all those other entities that never even got around to printing a letterhead, have broken a lot of aeroplanes. Leaving out everybody before CASA, how many such accidents and incidents have been reported?”
“Er…………………..”
‘All right, how many unreported accidents and incidents?”
“Er………Well have to get back to you on that Boss, but about a year ago, we announced we were going to form a flying operations division and appoint a chief pilot.”
“And?”
“We haven’t been able to find an ex-military pilot who meets our exacting experience requirements and can pass a chief pilot interview.”
“Who was that chap who just got up and walked out?”
“Some 25,000 hour FOI from general aviation. No manners, those blokes. They never salute, either.”
“GA? What was he doing in a management meeting?”
“Topping up the water jugs.”
Paul Phelan, Executive Editor