The Ambulance in the valley and CASA

[axiom]

Picture this;

Mid seventies, or thereabouts, the "crash comics", Mcarthur Job era. A poem in same magazine circa DCA. (credits of course).

Upon reading "BELIEVE" in the fact that CASA have ignored the fence and the ambulance and, are now "PROSECUTING" the survivors.

Obviously for flying without a valid medical, maintenance release etc.

"T'was a dangerous cliff, as they clearly confessed,
But the walk near it's crest was so pleasant;
But over it's terrible edge there had slipped
A Duke and many a peasant.

The people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally,
Some said, 'put a fence round the edge of the cliff',
Some, 'an ambulance down in the valley'.

The lament of the crowd was frofound and was loud,
As their tears overflowed with their pity;
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day
As it spread through the neighbouring City.
A collection was made to accumulate aid,
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave dollars or cents, not to furnish a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.

For the cliff is alright if your careful, they said;
And if folks ever slip and are dropping.
It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below, when they're stopping.
So for years (we have heard), all these mishaps occurred
Quick forth would the rescuers sally,
To pick up the victims who fell from the cliff,
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Said one, to his pleas, it's a marvel to me
That you'd give so much greater attention
To repairing results than to curing the cause;
You had much better aim at prevention.
For the mischief of course, should be stopped at it's source;
Come, neighbours and friends, let us rally.
It is far better sense to rely on a fence
Than an ambulance down in the valley.

He is wrong in his head, the majority said;
He would end all our earnest endeavour.
He's a man who would shirk this responsible work
But we will support it forever,
Aren't we picking up all, just as fast as they fall,
And giving them care liberally?
A superflous fence is of no consequence,
If the ambulance works in the valley.

The story looks queer as we've written it here,
But things oft occur that are stranger.
More humane we assert, than to succour the hurt
Is the plan of removing the danger.
The best possible course is to safeguard the source
By attending to things rationally.

Yes build up the fence and let us dispense with the ambulance down in the valley.

:confused:

[ulm]

OK Ax, I'll buy in by asking Creampuff to explain his last post in the other thread.

CP, you state, inter-alia, that there is no grey in a medical. You are either fit to fly or you are not.

So how about my scratched knee (now slightly infected), or my mild hangover (will I be OK by 10, 12, 2 pm or perhaps tomorrow).

What about the bugsmash. I clean it off and find the bug had a hard head. A small nick in the perspex. Do I get a LAME. What if it is a little crack, do I get a LAME???

There is bloody grey everywhere, and the more prescriptive the regulation the greyer it gets. So the reg gets more prescriptive and around and around we go. Pretty soon if the CASA lawyers and RegWriters get their way we'll have a set of regs for every aircraft!!!!

Just before Chrismas I flew to HK via QF. The Stewards were so busy bitching about Christmas rosters they botched the safety brief, put the wrong tape on and generally stuffed everything up. The brief was never finished.

Where were CASA. Trying to write wordy useless Regs, based on JARs, to manage GA in a country so alien to Europe it was sheer folly from the beginning.

Grrrr :mad:

[Jamair]

I'm pretty sure that in the Phelan papers somewhere there is an example given of a CASA FOI being asked if a pilot can clean the windscreen. The FOI stated that as cleaning the windscreen was not specifically covered in the Schedule of Approved Maintenance, the answer was NO - it had to be entered on the MR and a LAME had to do it and sign it off.

As for grey areas - a recent CASA audit of a flying operation showed a MR overun. The aircraft in question was based remote to its operational centre and almost due for a 100hrly; the travel time was 1.5hrs (no wind) and it had 1.5 hrs to run. The wx was forecast to be VMC & favourable winds and was observed to be accurate. The pilot took off and headed for the maintenance base. At the CP, the flight time was reassessed and was within predictions.

On landing, the clock ticked over to 1.6hrs. Instead of pretending it hadn't and falsifying the documentation the pilot duly noted the accurate numbers when signing off.

So what should he have done to avert the 'wrath of CASA'? Falsify the documents? Land in a paddock? Disassemble the aircraft and trailer it to the maintenance facility? Black & White?

I think there is some room for professional judgement in aviation, just as there is in other professions. Sure, there ARE absolutes, but there are some areas where an individual should be able to apply professional judgement. If/When it goes pear-shaped, or as in the above example there is a breach, then the individual has the opportunity to justify his/her actions & decisions AS A PROFESSIONAL, rather than automatically be guilty. For those unable to apply this sort of professional judgement, then they can stay wholey within the rules and be safe. Only problem is, NO-ONE KNOWS WHAT ALL THE RULES ARE.

PS- thanks for the reprint of 'Ambulance in the Valley' - it is a classic and I've been on the lookout for a reprint for a while!

[ulm]

I think we need to decide what we want from regulation and what the public wants.

In private ops the 'public' flies at their own volition. They don't (usually) pay and cannot expect absolute safety (just as if they purchase a tandem meat bomb experience).

So the regs should be simple "For private operations the pilot in command should satisfy him/her self that the aircraft is airworthy and that adequate preparations have been made for the journey".

But instead we get stuff telling us that if we take off and the FORECAST weather is no good, we have committed an offence!!!

If CASA would get their act into gear, write real regs for real ops in AUSTRALIA (ie NO JARs) and write those regs to the level required, ie ****** all for PVT, a little more for AWK, stricter for charter and prescriptive for RPT, then there would be no problem.

Instead we have a bunch of idiots trying to run a fleet of VWs as if they were a fleet of leapoard tanks.

Time to get the concept right, then we can worry about the detail.

[axiom]

Now we are going somewhere,

Lawfull and settled authority is very seldom resisted when it is well employed.

Samuel Johnson.

most of the CASA legal fraternity failed "PLASTICINE" in kindergarten.

"STRUTH"

can't we get a nibble somewhere ? or is simplistic talk too simplistic ???:rolleyes: :rolleyes: bugga.

[Creampuff]

Ulm

I am fast coming to the conclusion that your comprehension skills are less than optimal.

You state that I said:there is no grey in a medical. You are either fit to fly or you are not.I never said that. What I said was:Fit to fly is not at the pilot’s discretion.I even quoted the rule to you, which rule says:The holder of a medical certificate must not do an act authorised by the flight crew licence … while his or her ability to do the act efficiently is, or is likely to be, impaired to any extent by an illness or injury, no matter how minor.You ask:So how about my scratched knee (now slightly infected), or my mild hangover (will I be OK by 10, 12, 2 pm or perhaps tomorrow).If you need someone to help you apply a set of simple facts to some simple statutory criteria, your scratched knee and mild hangover are probably the least of you worries.

The Regs? Who do you think sent the train down the track that leads to the current traincrash of regs? Who do you think keeps adding to the pile? If you haven’t guessed it, you and Ax are probably the last ones to find out.

I’ll tell you something most of you colleagues figured out a while ago: The current traincrash of regs was caused by a bunch of people who thought that because they could drive a train, they could design a railway regulatory system. The process of ‘simplification’ and ‘harmonisation’ that has produced the bulging beer belly of regs that bends your bookshelf was started and run by some self-proclaimed aviation experts who really didn’t have much of a clue. They’re all standing around the wreckage scratching their heads, or pointing the finger at someone else, or slinking into the background, or calling for more trains to be sent down the track. But none of them can fix the problem.

Here’s an idea: Repeal the traincrash, remake the 88 regs, and put a real professional in charge (the name Leroy Keith springs to mind).

[ulm]

Cream.

Ah, reappoint the guy who promoted you well beyond the legendary level and sack the guy that saw it for what it was.

That's bound to help GA!!!

But, since you have questioned my comprehension but, as is typical for the legal profession, skated around the question, how about you tell me how;

"while his or her ability to do the act efficiently is, or is likely to be, impaired to any extent by an illness or injury, no matter how minor"

is not grey, or of it is black and white, please explain then how it is not absolutely over-prescriptive and thus plain stupid. Seems to me if it isn't open to interpretation then all you pilots with dandruff better find another job. (and those of you in Alice and places around the East-Pit better hire your own personal DAME!)

What we need is to sack 80% of the current mob (keeping those few with the genuine interests of aviation at heart) and then set out some benchmark standards that the NEW regulator will abide by instead of constantly trying to corrupt. And Mr Cream, that corruption was well in train before Smith, so you can't use him as your standard whinging post!!!

Grrr. Bl@@dy lawyers!!! :mad: :yuk:

[gaunty]

Aaaaaaaaah now at last we are getting to it.

Smith has very much to answer for.

The current traincrash of regs was caused by a bunch of people who thought that because they could drive a train, they could design a railway regulatory system. The process of ‘simplification’ and ‘harmonisation’ that has produced the bulging beer belly of regs that bends your bookshelf was started and run by some self-proclaimed aviation experts who really didn’t have much of a clue. They’re all standing around the wreckage scratching their heads, or pointing the finger at someone else, or slinking into the background, or calling for more trains to be sent down the track. But none of them can fix the problem.

Here’s an idea: Repeal the traincrash, remake the 88 regs, and put a real professional in charge (the name Leroy Keith springs to mind). my bolding

Why has nobody asked the 'dilletante dabbler' why Mr Keith (ex senior FAA administrator), a man of great, deep and actual relevant experience in a system that is now being touted by said 'dilletante dabbler' as the means of our salvation, found it necessary to throw in the towel so soon after his appointment.:sad:

It was not because of any actual or perceived shortcomings in his highly respected skill set, abilities or experience, remember, he was appointed, after all, after a rigorous International search and appointed by the 'dilletante dabbler ' himself, or at least whilst he was boss boss. The Chairman from Hell.:uhoh:

So who takes responsibility for the failure which I don't believe was on Keiths part and you can be sure the dabbler will have had his armada of sycophantic apologists spinning it away from himself.
What chance Keith against Australias' teeming proletariat Boys Own Hero.???
Goodness, I mean Keith hasn't nearly shot himself down, or stage managed epic matinee adventures, starring himself as Aussie battler hero, heck, what would he know about Regulating Aviation.
In any event the basic rules of governance lay the final responsibility on the Chairman. Yeah right!!

Either I missed it or it was buried, but I never saw or can't recall the public reason for his retirement, but I understand from some pretty reliable sources that when you have the inevitable shoot out between an experienced and knowlegable Public Servant tasked with running his Dept and a wealthy, politically connected and appointed boss with a know nothing half baked personal agenda there will only be one result.
At least that's how it works in Oz.:rolleyes:

I vote back to the future 1988.:)

[Creampuff]

Ulm

You probably don’t comprehend any hypocrisy or irony in your berating me for using “Mr Smith” as my “standard whinging post”, when all you ever do is blame “lawyers” for most, if not all, of the problems that you perceive GA to face.

I don’t attribute responsibility for what I perceive to be the problem to any individual. Indeed, my recollection – which may well be inaccurate – is that to the extent I have expressed opinions critical of anything done or not done by Mr Smith, I have been at pains to attribute responsibility to those around him for pandering to rather than managing him. I fear that, like Michael Jackson, Mr Smith may have too few people keeping him appraised of reality.

If Mr Smith had no money, how much influence do you think he would wield?

I said “a bunch of people” is responsible for the current traincrash of regs. “Bunch” is a collective noun and “people” is plural. I said none of “them” – plural – can fix it.

Here’s the point at which you and I disagree: You think that if CASA was staffed by people “with the genuine interests of aviation at heart”, the problems you perceive in GA would be resolved. I think the regulator’s job is to do what the parliament says it should do.

Having “the genuine interests of aviation at heart” may or may not qualify someone to do what the parliament says the regulator should do, any more than having the genuine interests of corporations at heart necessarily qualifies someone to regulate corporations, or than having the genuine interests of insurance companies at heart necessarily qualifies someone to regulate the insurance industry, or than having the genuine interests of builders at heart necessarily qualifies someone to regulate the building industry, or than…..

I’ve given up challenging people on this forum to spell out the rules they want. If the people who claim to have the genuine interests of aviation at heart really had a viable alternative, why haven’t they spelt out, in detail, what it is? If there is a simple, easily understood, and universally acceptable set of rules, why aren’t they spelt out here? Hang the lawyers: surely the self-proclaimed experts could have done it by now for all to see and support, five times over.

Not a jot. Not a single draft regulation.

You don’t realise it, but I’m actually on your side. I’m trying to get you to realise who actually casts the shadow that you waste your energy boxing. Most of them are people that you think, want you to think, and in many cases themselves believe, have the genuine interests of aviation at heart.

Of course Mr Keith promoted me frequently: we played golf on weekends and I was good at my job. But I don’t recall ever drafting any rules for him.

[Torres]

.....some self-proclaimed aviation experts who really didn’t have much of a clue.

.....I was good at my job.

Nah, Torres, don't go there................ :D :D :D

[PLovett]

Torres

I know that you and Creampuff are as one in your opposition to each other, however, he said something in an earlier post that I would like your view on.

Here’s an idea: Repeal the traincrash, remake the 88 regs, and put a real professional in charge (the name Leroy Keith springs to mind).

If you feel its all too defamatory, send a PM. ;)

p.s. Have you changed your private email address? I can't seem to send any to your address.

Cheers :cool:

[axiom]

Took me a while, but I finally got it !

It's the "traincrash in the valley", not the ambulance ?

But is it the train driver, the station master, the guard, the ticket seller or the victim that's getting shafted ????

Will Rogers said, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.:p :p