Why do positions like Chief Pilot, HOFO, HOTAC etc exist?

[Mr Proach]

Are the subject positions absolutely necessary? What purpose do they serve? Is it a case of the regulator mandates an organisation must have these positions whose sole purpose is to have interaction with the regulator (symbiotic existence). If these regulatory required positions ceased to exist would an aviation organisation (large or small) be incapable of functioning?
Does the road, rail & shipping industries have a similar situation with their regulators?

[megle2]

We safely functioned for decades without them but these days how else do you build your empire up

[Lazyload]

Lawyer’s delight. Purely there for someone to point the bone at when something goes wrong. Except of course if it’s Boeing in which case they all duck for cover until only the test pilot is left standing

[Roj approved]

More opportunity for more pigs to put their snouts in the bonus trough

[PoppaJo]

Good CPs are few are far in between. My frustration with many is they just don’t listen, so far lost in those ivory towers. Many that I have worked with, when promoted, go straight to the widebody command upgrade, then you never bloody see them!

Best I’ve worked with was Ken Broomhead. The rest after him in that specific place would probably rate as some of the most useless people I’ve seen in my time.

[cLeArIcE]

Lawyer’s delight. Purely there for someone to point the bone at when something goes wrong.
This. Also serves those pilots who love to have power over others but are generally terrified of flying themselves.

[geeup]

Long lunches and reach arounds are the first things that pop into my head with regards to those positions.

[neville_nobody]

It's just all empire building from CASA. They're bureaucrats and they have no knowledge of flat organisational structures. Just go and have a look at the CASA Organisational chart. They even impose that rubbish on small GA companies which only needs one manager but CASA insist on the same structure for 3-4 aeroplanes. You end up with more managers than actual pilots or aircraft.

However that thinking also pervades big airlines too as senior management generally measure their success on how big their department is. Any airline in Australia could have a very flat organisational structure, with one AOC and 1 Chief Pilot and a manager for each type but that isn't what happens in reality. They multiply the AOCs and management out 10 fold building bigger and bigger empires, more and more duplication of roles.

[Lapon]

As far as a large organization is concerned someone such as HOTAC has to design the C&T programme, tailor it for the operation and CASA appeasement, work out what to do with the 'outliers' and manage the check/trainer standards.

The HOFO has the uneviable job of sitting between the requirement of the company's business interests, pilot group, unions, and CASA and all the conflicting interests and requirements of each.

In organizations Ive worked for the above are also available to contact 24/7 if a situation dictates, and judging by the hours some emails get sent I'd certainly say its a job that follows you home.

As others have said, there are good and bad ones out there but someone has to be the boss and I sure as wouldn't want to do thier job.

[Mr Proach]

Is the reason for the very existence of these CP's HOFOs something like this:?

CASA decrees an organisation shall have a CP, HOFO, HOO, HOTAC, HAMMC etc because this will limit the number of people contacting the authority to ascertain what a particular rule actually means (and the authority doesn't always provide an immediate response). If these positions didn't exist there may be potentially lots of people contacting the authority enquiring about what the rules mean which would generate statistical evidence that the authority may not be fit for purpose. To avoid that scenario, the authority creates a structure of circular dependency. The authority mandates positions whose role is to report back to the authority.


The authority writes rules (thousands of them in great detail!). So would the industry cease to function on a structure of .... You, pilot.. engineer etc, adhere to the rules, if you don't, the regulator sends You an please explain/infringement notice?


If the authority provided rules in a decipherable format would you really need all this hierarchical structure?


One sector of the road transport industry involves heavy machinery travelling at speed in very close proximity to other vehicles, people, building and public facilities. Does the authority that regulates this industry, dictate what staffing positions a company must have to be granted permission to operate, to the same extent the aviation authority does?

If not, why not.

[Lead Balloon]

It's because aviation is 'special'. It's the 'mystique of aviation'.

Objectively, the aviation regulatory regime is a harmful overreaction to exaggerated risks. But it's about emotion rather than objectivity. Contemplating a truck full of fuel crashing into a kindergarten doesn't go to the same part of the human brain as does contemplating dying in a plane crash.

[Xeptu]

How did it come about, from memory it all began in the early 90's when it became accepted that company pilots would no longer fly different (cross) types. As new types were brought online, created the need for a type specialist. (a pilot that already has experience in the type and knows what their doing) these created the position of fleet manager. as a consequence of that we now have essentially two very different training departments within the same company. The head of check and training was created in order to keep the companies training organisation as much as possible the same. The chief pilot in name only has varied over the years, manager flight standards, manager flight operations and most companies have more than one approved chief pilot in the event he needs to be replaced at short notice. The CEO and CFO is a companies requirement. I don't know what a HOO is or does. Anybody?

[PoppaJo]

HOO is Head of Operations. Generally would report to the CP. Is it needed probably not.

I’ve never understood why some places need soooo many managers. I mean some pilot bodies that are not even 100 strong have more management than my wife’s employer who has the same amount however ten thousand employees. Snouts in the trough as mentioned above pretty much sums this whole industry up.

[Xeptu]

I would have thought then that the HOO would be responsible for rostering and assuring all the hardware is where it supposed to be when it's supposed to be there. That would make sense, I guess another name for General Manager.

[Icarus2001]

Then add in a fleet training manager under the HOTAC or FSM and voila, lots more on the payroll.
More safety init.

[Xeptu]

The one I have never understood is Human Resources. What a waste of time and resources.

[PoppaJo]

The one I have never understood is Human Resources. What a waste of time and resources.
Commonly known as human waste.

[Bergerie1]

I was a Chief Pilot for some five years and let me tell you it is not an easy position. You find yourself to be the meat in the sandwich between the commercial aspirations of the company and the line pilot community. If you do the job properly, you have to communicate upwards on why spending money on training and other necessities must be done even though they may see such things as restrictions to their ambitions and you have to communcate downwards to explain why certain changes may be necessary. I most certainly did not do the job for power or for glory and many times I thought I needed my head examining for sticking it above the parapet.

I saw one of my main functions to be the fostering and protection of the good professional standards of my pilots and the aviation community for which I was responsible. Mostly this meant (a) providing sufficient and correct support so that the line pilots had what they needed to do the job properly, (b) sometimes it meant fighting battles on their behalf and (c) sometimes (more rarely) correcting those who strayed from the straight and narrow. Naturally, it was the latter (c) which was most often noticed and complained about, the other two functions (a) and (b) merely passed most people by.

There are many Chief Pilots who do this thankless task with integrity despite the brickbats that are thrown at them.

[Icarus2001]

I can honestly say that most of the CPs I have worked for have been good guys doing a difficult job.

[deja vu]

As long as you have a "respect in the workplace training officer" , that will be all you need for a kinder company.

[OldLurker]

The one I have never understood is Human Resources. What a waste of time and resources.”Human Resources” is a horrible title, IMNVHO, because it represents a management viewpoint that places human beings alongside finance, material, etc, as mere inputs to the organisation. “Personnel” was a better title. But whatever you call it, you do need a specialist who understands employment law, how to deal with pregnancies, harassment, bullying, redundancy, if necessary firing people, and so on, while navigating the intricacies and pitfalls of modern employment law, which can get you in deep sh*t if not carefully handled.

[Xeptu]

”Human Resources” is a horrible title, IMNVHO, because it represents a management viewpoint that places human beings alongside finance, material, etc, as mere inputs to the organisation. “Personnel” was a better title. But whatever you call it, you do need a specialist who understands employment law, how to deal with pregnancies, harassment, bullying, redundancy, if necessary firing people, and so on, while navigating the intricacies and pitfalls of modern employment law, which can get you in deep sh*t if not carefully handled.

And when you think about it all completely unnecessary. I either want you or I don't.

[KRUSTY 34]

The one I have never understood is Human Resources. What a waste of time and resources.

Ha!

Don’t get me started on those leaches.

[Ascend Charlie]

HR: "Tell me about a time when you used your superior problem-solving skills to avoid having to use your superior flying skill."

Me: "I stayed in bed."

[Cedrik]

HR: "Tell me about a time when you used your superior problem-solving skills to avoid having to use your superior flying skill."

Me: "I stayed in bed."
Another good one, "Tell us of your hobbies and how we can monetarize them in this company"

[Xeptu]

Another good one, "Tell us of your hobbies and how we can monetarize them in this company"

I make a nice Whiskey, but so does Jack Daniels

[airdualbleedfault]

I've only been in the industry for 3 decades but in my time there has always been a chief pilot (now usually called a HOFO) and a head of training. Now if you want to talk useless, oxygen thieving leeches, let's talk HR and safety departments, these 2 were definitely not around back in the day and have grown like cancer.

[Ascend Charlie]

Are there really enough drug- and booze-fuelled pilots turning up to work to require DAMP training / testing? What an equine rectum.

[Mr Proach]

Do the regulators of road, rail & marine transport industries mandate the respective companies have positions similar to that required by the aviation authority.

[airdualbleedfault]

Another good one, "Tell us of your hobbies and how we can monetarize them in this company"
My favourite :
Interviewer: what is your greatest weakness
Me: I'm too honest
Interviewer : I don't see that as a weakness
Me: I don't give a f**k what you think

[Mr Proach]

Do Accountable Managers have a genuine purpose or is it essentially a feel good title for an operations manual? What are they accountable for?

[coaldemon]

For the Regulator it is "one throat to choke". Read the legislation or have someone explain it to you.

[Mr Proach]

For the Regulator it is "one throat to choke". Read the legislation or have someone explain it to you.
Thanks CD. Would you mind to provide an elaboration of the legislation and an example when/where the regulator has taken that action?

[Lead Balloon]

If an operator has no Chief Pilot approved by CASA the operator cannot lawfully conduct flying operations. A threat by CASA to cancel a Chief Pilot approval, or to delay the approval of an operator’s nominee, gets the operator’s ‘attention’.

[Mr Proach]

If an operator has no Chief Pilot approved by CASA the operator cannot lawfully conduct flying operations. A threat by CASA to cancel a Chief Pilot approval, or to delay the approval of an operator’s nominee, gets the operator’s ‘attention’.
LB noted. However in my view I do not consider any of these positions are necessary to establish a functional air transport operation. I think you could start an operation and providing the aircrew, engineering and managers abide by the rules (which are very very extensive) then the operation will be compliant and safe. These "titled" positions don't contribute to the functionality of an operation, their main role is to generate and submit paperwork for the regulator who in turns reviews it to see that it is line with their guidelines. What does that achieve? The industry has been conditioned to think these positions are essential, they're not. That is evident by the your mention of CASA & lawful, there is the conditioning. Delete the law that stipulates an operation must have a chief pilot and the engines won't run, the wings won't produce lift, the crew will defy ATC instructions? The whole structure needs to be reviewed.

[Xeptu]

LB noted. However in my view I do not consider any of these positions are necessary to establish a functional air transport operation. I think you could start an operation and providing the aircrew, engineering and managers abide by the rules (which are very very extensive) then the operation will be compliant and safe. These "titled" positions don't contribute to the functionality of an operation, their main role is to generate and submit paperwork for the regulator who in turns reviews it to see that it is line with their guidelines. What does that achieve? The industry has been conditioned to think these positions are essential, they're not. That is evident by the your mention of CASA & lawful, there is the conditioning. Delete the law that stipulates an operation must have a chief pilot and the engines won't run, the wings won't produce lift, the crew will defy ATC instructions? The whole structure needs to be reviewed.

How far do you want to go with that. I think an operator does need to have good operational oversight and the most appropriate person to do that is an experienced pilot with good people and management skills. If not such a person then who, a bean counter perhaps.

[Lead Balloon]

If an air operator didn’t have a Chief Pilot, the other pilots would descend into unsafe anarchy. It’s what pilots do. (In other words, I agree with you.)

[Mr Proach]

How far do you want to go with that. I think an operator does need to have good operational oversight and the most appropriate person to do that is an experienced pilot with good people and management skills. If not such a person then who, a bean counter perhaps.
I concur with your point however, isn't the requirement for operational policies, standardisation etc covered under the regulations? The natural consequence would be to have such a person. An accountant developing SOP's would be an interesting scenario especially MCPs. Interesting that you mention BCs, despite all the regulations and titled positions their influence is growing in many sections of the industry and from what I have seen........ no thank-you.

[Derfred]

If an air operator didn’t have a Chief Pilot, the other pilots would descend into unsafe anarchy. It’s what pilots do. (In other words, I agree with you.)

If an air operator didn’t have a Chief Pilot, the other pilots would be ordered by their boss to descend into unsafe anarchy. It’s what pilots bosses do.

Pilots aren’t the problem. It’s the boss that loses coin when the pilot says the plane’s broken or the weather’s crap - it ain’t going. It’s the boss that says fly it or join the dole queue.

It’s CASA that provides a legal framework to attempt to avoid this - by making one person, other than the pilot, accountable.

I am bewildered that anyone who has flown commercial GA has a problem with this.

[Lead Balloon]

And you think there’s no existing law prohibiting the boss from ‘ordering’ that?

What’s preventing the operator from giving the ‘order’ to the Chief Pilot?

[Xeptu]

I concur with your point however, isn't the requirement for operational policies, standardisation etc covered under the regulations? The natural consequence would be to have such a person. An accountant developing SOP's would be an interesting scenario especially MCPs. Interesting that you mention BCs, despite all the regulations and titled positions their influence is growing in many sections of the industry and from what I have seen........ no thank-you.

You need to understand how the regs and operating procedures came about in the first place. They are developed as a consequence of aviation itself, all the way back to the very beginning, they evolve with technology. Only those exposed to the risks can see the need to implement or change those procedures. It doesn't happen by someone dreaming them up because it seemed like a good idea at the time, even though we all know that does happen within individual companies, a good overseer will develop, change or remove those. Developing sound, unambiguous SOP's in a written format is a skill in it's own right. very few can do it well.

[Icarus2001]

You need to understand how the regs and operating procedures came about in the first place. They are developed as a consequence of aviation itself, all the way back to the very beginning, they evolve with technology. Only those exposed to the risks can see the need to implement or change those procedures.

All of which could be said of the marine world, trains or road transport.

An interesting point.

[hotnhigh]

The change/revolution/bs beginning can probably be sourced back to the late 80s early 90s where there was an explosion of aviation degrees…..the must haves to begin your career in some minds.
you only had to reference some of the so called industry leaders that were running these shows to understand how the industry has morphed into what it is today.
Aviation isn’t the only one. Have you considered how many expert epidemiologists have been pulled out of the woodwork in the last two years and placed on (insert whichever broadcaster) to advise of your subsequent demise. LinkedIn will share a wealth of knowledge and lack of practical experience for many of them, however they are professors and what they so, goes. Just ask them.
sadly, from the biggest airline in the country right down to the smallest operator, many are afflicted by which piece of paper do you have to gain the job and therefore build the empire. Most add very little except angst amongst the pilot fraternity but one thing uni did teach was how to protect oneself in organisations. Regulators love all of it.

[Xeptu]

The change/revolution/bs beginning can probably be sourced back to the late 80s early 90s where there was an explosion of aviation degrees…..the must haves to begin your career in some minds.
you only had to reference some of the so called industry leaders that were running these shows to understand how the industry has morphed into what it is today.

And for what purpose, no Degree, Certificate IV or any other qualification supersedes the Grade One Flight Instructor and remains the only qualification that truly matters in all things flight training.

[MickG0105]

And you think there’s no existing law prohibiting the boss from ‘ordering’ that?

What’s preventing the operator from giving the ‘order’ to the Chief Pilot?
There's nothing preventing the CEO from also being the Chief Pilot (Head of Flying Operations) so long as they are suitably qualified. The roles of CEO, HoFO and Head of Training and Checking can all be held by the same person so long as that person is suitably qualified. The only "regulatory" role that needs to be held by someone other than the CEO is that of Safety Manager. At least that's my understanding of the regs.

For all the debate about the necessity or otherwise of specific roles, all that CASA is really saying is that if you want us to give you an AOC, to allow you to take money from Joe and Joanne Six-pack in return for some sort of commercial flying, your organisation needs to have given due consideration to three functions; flying operations, training and checking, and safety. Someone needs to head up each of those functions; the same person can head up ops and training but safety needs to be a different person.

[Lead Balloon]

…which makes a nonsense of the argument that the Chief Pilot is some kind of bastion between the commercial imperatives of ‘the boss’ and the poor benighted ‘ordinary’ pilots.

[MickG0105]

…which makes a nonsense of the argument that the Chief Pilot is some kind of bastion between the commercial imperatives of ‘the boss’ and the poor benighted ‘ordinary’ pilots.
That's certainly what I've been thinking as this discussion has unfolded. Practically, it likely varies from one outfit to another, but from the regulator's perspective the only "bastion" that needs to have separate representation is that of Safety.

[Xeptu]

That's certainly what I've been thinking as this discussion has unfolded. Practically, it likely varies from one outfit to another, but from the regulator's perspective the only "bastion" that needs to have separate representation is that of Safety.

So then we are left with:
Safety at a price
I either want you or I don't
You either want to work for me or you don't
It hasn't really changed in the last 40 years then.

[Lead Balloon]

… as if ‘safety’ is separate from ‘flying operations’ and ‘training and checking’.

[Chronic Snoozer]

All of which could be said of the marine world, trains or road transport.

An interesting point.

So true. It is quite surprising what existing regulations of the sea stem from the sinking of the Titanic.

[Chronic Snoozer]

… as if ‘safety’ is separate from ‘flying operations’ and ‘training and checking’.

Oh no, safety is way more important than any of those things.........

[Mr Proach]

All of which could be said of the marine world, trains or road transport.

An interesting point.
The road transport industry evolved just like it's air and sea counterparts. Despite all that accumulated experience and growth in knowledge, the regulator of the part that is concerned with fare paying public was superseded with a smart phone APP. Why should the aviation industry be any different?

[Icarus2001]

Despite all that accumulated experience and growth in knowledge, the regulator of the part that is concerned with fare paying public was superseded with a smart phone APP. Why should the aviation industry be any different?
Only to a point. It was certainly an interesting spectacle to see; a multinational disruptor (the regulated) telling state transport authorities (the regulator) how it was going to operate. For the most part they got their own way.

However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.

https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/requirements/

[Lead Balloon]

I can’t see many of those requirements in the link you provided.

[Icarus2001]

Strangely in our federation it varies from state to state. Rolls eyes.

https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/perth/get-started/

[AerialPerspective]

How did it come about, from memory it all began in the early 90's when it became accepted that company pilots would no longer fly different (cross) types. As new types were brought online, created the need for a type specialist. (a pilot that already has experience in the type and knows what their doing) these created the position of fleet manager. as a consequence of that we now have essentially two very different training departments within the same company. The head of check and training was created in order to keep the companies training organisation as much as possible the same. The chief pilot in name only has varied over the years, manager flight standards, manager flight operations and most companies have more than one approved chief pilot in the event he needs to be replaced at short notice. The CEO and CFO is a companies requirement. I don't know what a HOO is or does. Anybody?

A HOO is the person in charge of flight operations in a Part 142 or 141 FTO or in a Part 138 Aerial Work operation (Part 141 an 142 are their own approval type, Part 138 comes under Part 91 but not Part 119 as 138 has sufficient regulatory requirements to manage the varied and complex aerial work types that it doesn't need the overarching certification requirements of 119). HOOs don't exist in large airlines (or small) unless they conduct very specific operations under Part 138 which have their own unique requirements, an organisation that has a HOO does not need to have a HOFO, unless they are also conducting air transport operations. HOO used to be called CFI so it's nothing new. Some companies still call it CFI as some companies still call their HOFO, the CP.

To my mind, these positions have always existed. HOFO used to be called Chief Pilot, yet different companies call them by different names but they are nevertheless, the person approved by CASA to be in charge of Flight Operations. There needs to be accountability somewhere. As for HOTC, it is roughly analogous to the manager of the training department. HOTC exists because it needs (like the other positions) to have certain mandatory qualifications and experience. I have come across at least one organisation way back (last 10 years or so) where the HOTC equivalent was a complete muppet with zero idea of what the purpose of T&C was and suitably minuscule knowledge to go with it - imposing the requirement for the position and minimum standards to be considered is simply an attempt to address that sort of scenario.

[AerialPerspective]

Only to a point. It was certainly an interesting spectacle to see; a multinational disruptor (the regulated) telling state transport authorities (the regulator) how it was going to operate. For the most part they got their own way.

However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.

https://www.uber.com/au/en/drive/requirements/

Because if you're Uber driver doesn't follow the rules or breaks them, his cab doesn't come crashing down on a building killing hundreds of people onboard and hundreds in the building and wiping out a city block. That much should be obvious.

You could ask why cars don't require multiple back up systems and a Minimum Equipment List and DDG, again, the answer is obvious. The same reason a bicycle doesn't require traction control.

[AerialPerspective]

There's nothing preventing the CEO from also being the Chief Pilot (Head of Flying Operations) so long as they are suitably qualified. The roles of CEO, HoFO and Head of Training and Checking can all be held by the same person so long as that person is suitably qualified. The only "regulatory" role that needs to be held by someone other than the CEO is that of Safety Manager. At least that's my understanding of the regs.

For all the debate about the necessity or otherwise of specific roles, all that CASA is really saying is that if you want us to give you an AOC, to allow you to take money from Joe and Joanne Six-pack in return for some sort of commercial flying, your organisation needs to have given due consideration to three functions; flying operations, training and checking, and safety. Someone needs to head up each of those functions; the same person can head up ops and training but safety needs to be a different person.

Spot on. It's not complicated.

[AerialPerspective]

I've only been in the industry for 3 decades but in my time there has always been a chief pilot (now usually called a HOFO) and a head of training. Now if you want to talk useless, oxygen thieving leeches, let's talk HR and safety departments, these 2 were definitely not around back in the day and have grown like cancer.

Don't agree with you about safety, although I have come across some truly idiotic people who saw their safety job as an end in itself rather than a conduit for getting problems addressed.

Totally with you on HR (Human Remains), have worked for organizations where the HR department spent its time dictating about being nice to people and not 'offending' them. Ramming down our throats all sort of nonsense about virtually (I'm using an extreme and made up example here to illustrate the point) suggesting the sack would be your reward if you told someone to 'get the f-ck out of the way' when a roof beam was about to fall on their head because you shouldn't have 'yelled' at them - funny how it seems to me that the concept of yelling is virtually applied these days to the act of whispering disagreement - yet when someone tries to use the system and manipulate it to get out of work and doing their job by accusing a fellow employee or supervisor of 'bullying', the supervisor has to endure weeks or months of stress and concern over their job while these latte sipping, half-witted morons with about as much substance as ectoplasm, completely ignore their own rules by showing no regard for the accused 'feelings' and leave them hanging while they take literally MONTHS to investigate.

Any success I've had in recruiting has NOT been based on so-called 'targetted selection' but on can this person do the job, are they level-headed enough to take a step back and think and will they deal as professionally as possible with people in the workplace then act accordingly. Not whether they solved a problem in their football team or some nonsense, most of which is rehearsed and made up. I've seen plenty of people that interviewed slickly and got jobs that turned out to be as useless as a mud fence when the obvious candidate might not have been as polished but the ability was there.

Is it just me or have we lost sight of reality and what the purpose of someone working in a particular job is meant to achieve and instead concentrating on their 'scorecard' of correct/wanted answers??

I promoted someone many years ago and others said the person was abrasive and rude. I had observed them prior and said 'no, they are just focused on getting the job done'. There was much wailing and hand-wringing until the person actually started doing the job and did it more effectively than anyone else. In comes the chorus of hand-wringers and human remains people saying what a wonderful choice the person was and how they were right behind their appointment.

[airdualbleedfault]

Don't agree with you about safety, although I have come across some truly idiotic people who saw their safety job as an end in itself rather than a conduit for getting problems addressed.

Totally with you on HR (Human Remains), have worked for organizations where the HR department spent its time dictating about being nice to people and not 'offending' them. Ramming down our throats all sort of nonsense about virtually (I'm using an extreme and made up example here to illustrate the point) suggesting the sack would be your reward if you told someone to 'get the f-ck out of the way' when a roof beam was about to fall on their head because you shouldn't have 'yelled' at them - funny how it seems to me that the concept of yelling is virtually applied these days to the act of whispering disagreement - yet when someone tries to use the system and manipulate it to get out of work and doing their job by accusing a fellow employee or supervisor of 'bullying', the supervisor has to endure weeks or months of stress and concern over their job while these latte sipping, half-witted morons with about as much substance as ectoplasm, completely ignore their own rules by showing no regard for the accused 'feelings' and leave them hanging while they take literally MONTHS to investigate.

Any success I've had in recruiting has NOT been based on so-called 'targetted selection' but on can this person do the job, are they level-headed enough to take a step back and think and will they deal as professionally as possible with people in the workplace then act accordingly. Not whether they solved a problem in their football team or some nonsense, most of which is rehearsed and made up. I've seen plenty of people that interviewed slickly and got jobs that turned out to be as useless as a mud fence when the obvious candidate might not have been as polished but the ability was there.

Is it just me or have we lost sight of reality and what the purpose of someone working in a particular job is meant to achieve and instead concentrating on their 'scorecard' of correct/wanted answers??

I promoted someone many years ago and others said the person was abrasive and rude. I had observed them prior and said 'no, they are just focused on getting the job done'. There was much wailing and hand-wringing until the person actually started doing the job and did it more effectively than anyone else. In comes the chorus of hand-wringers and human remains people saying what a wonderful choice the person was and how they were right behind their appointment.
We'll have to agree to disagree on safety, I guess my point is/was jet aviation in Australia has always been inherently safe and this was usually due to flight ops/training and checking. We now have safety departments that are bigger than training departments quite often largely occupied by people with little or no aviation experience. I just think both safety and human remains have become a growth industry hell bent on justifying their existence. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a safety department just that they don't need to be gargantuan

[neville_nobody]

Because if you're Uber driver doesn't follow the rules or breaks them, his cab doesn't come crashing down on a building killing hundreds of people onboard and hundreds in the building and wiping out a city block. That much should be obvious. Probably not on the same scale as a 747 crashing into a building but a threat none the less



Well no you could very easily plough into a crowded street or shop/school/kindergarten causing chaos. There still is a real threat to public safety and there have been numerous high profile cases of this very thing happening in the last 10 years.

Only to a point. It was certainly an interesting spectacle to see; a multinational disruptor (the regulated) telling state transport authorities (the regulator) how it was going to operate. For the most part they got their own way.

However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.



The problem was that the governments were unwilling to actually enforce their own laws and thereby screwing all the law abiding taxi licence owners. They did the right thing and followed the law yet Uber came in illegally and screwed them all because the government wouldn't prosecute. Which then begs the question what is the point of regulation if you are not willing to uphold it?

[Mr Proach]

The problem was that the governments were unwilling to actually enforce their own laws and thereby screwing all the law abiding taxi licence owners. They did the right thing and followed the law yet Uber came in illegally and screwed them all because the government wouldn't prosecute. Which then begs the question what is the point of regulation if you are not willing to uphold it?

Was is it the case, the government wouldn't prosecute or that the regulator's legislation was ineffective? And does that also apply to the aviation regulator?

[AerialPerspective]

We'll have to agree to disagree on safety, I guess my point is/was jet aviation in Australia has always been inherently safe and this was usually due to flight ops/training and checking. We now have safety departments that are bigger than training departments quite often largely occupied by people with little or no aviation experience. I just think both safety and human remains have become a growth industry hell bent on justifying their existence. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a safety department just that they don't need to be gargantuan

Then with that clarification, I'd say we agree completely. I too do not think a safety department has to be a monolithic bureau that has to send a team of ninety-seven people to investigate when someone gets a paper cut.
I see exactly where you're coming and I agree - I think we need a safety department for oversight and as a resource for the operational arm, e.g. to investigate things that the ops people don't have time to deal with v.v. errors and avoidance of repetition of incidents.

You are right about 'growth industries', unless something is kept as large as it needs to be, it will grow exponentially and start to diverge from its original purpose.

My problem is I can accept safety, but I can't tolerate HR wankers who have never been of any use in any organisation I've worked for, in fact, their involvement has usually produced crappy results which compare unfavorably to the likely results if they were never there.

[airdualbleedfault]

Then with that clarification, I'd say we agree completely. I too do not think a safety department has to be a monolithic bureau that has to send a team of ninety-seven people to investigate when someone gets a paper cut.
I see exactly where you're coming and I agree - I think we need a safety department for oversight and as a resource for the operational arm, e.g. to investigate things that the ops people don't have time to deal with v.v. errors and avoidance of repetition of incidents.

You are right about 'growth industries', unless something is kept as large as it needs to be, it will grow exponentially and start to diverge from its original purpose.

My problem is I can accept safety, but I can't tolerate HR wankers who have never been of any use in any organisation I've worked for, in fact, their involvement has usually produced crappy results which compare unfavorably to the likely results if they were never there.

Yep, HR, the cancer of every industry

[C441]

Good, effective safety departments are essential in an airline.

Unfortunately they are now a means to reach a workable consensus between operational teams and management. That is not an environment that adequately promotes safe operations. A case in point being the management of fatigue in most airline's operations and CASA.

In years gone by an operation would be established with the cost of a safe operation being a necessary part of the budget. Now an acceptable budgeted cost is established and 'safety' must fit within that budget even if that means significant compromises made in the process. Affordable safety……….