The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Thread Starter
Scene 21 - The commandos act another resolution
REG: Right. Now, uh, item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Uh, Francis, you've been doing some work on this.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire within the next twelve months.
REG: Twelve months?
FRANCIS: Yeah, twelve months. And, let's face it. As empires go, this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it!
COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear!
LORETTA: I agree. It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear!
REG: You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Roman soldier!
FRANCIS: So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere!
COMMANDOS: Right!
LORETTA: I agree. This is a complete waste of time.
[door slams; enter Judith]
JUDITH: They've arrested Brian!
REG: What?
COMMANDOS: What?
JUDITH: They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him!
REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1: Yeah.
JUDITH: What?!
COMMANDO #2: Immediate.
COMMANDO #1: Right.
LORETTA: New motion?
REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--
FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...
JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, let's go now!
REG: Yeah. Yeah.
JUDITH: Please!
REG: Right. Right.
FRANCIS: Fine.
REG: In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith--
LORETTA: Ah, not so fast, Reg.
JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh!
[Judith exits; door slams]
REG: Hm. Hm.
FRANCIS: Oh, dear.
REG: Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists.
LORETTA: What?
FRANCIS: [whistling]
REG: Oh, sorry, Loretta. Ahh, oh, read that back, would you?
REG: Right. Now, uh, item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Uh, Francis, you've been doing some work on this.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire within the next twelve months.
REG: Twelve months?
FRANCIS: Yeah, twelve months. And, let's face it. As empires go, this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it!
COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear!
LORETTA: I agree. It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
COMMANDOS: Hear! Hear!
REG: You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Roman soldier!
FRANCIS: So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere!
COMMANDOS: Right!
LORETTA: I agree. This is a complete waste of time.
[door slams; enter Judith]
JUDITH: They've arrested Brian!
REG: What?
COMMANDOS: What?
JUDITH: They've dragged him off! They're going to crucify him!
REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1: Yeah.
JUDITH: What?!
COMMANDO #2: Immediate.
COMMANDO #1: Right.
LORETTA: New motion?
REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--
FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...
JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, let's go now!
REG: Yeah. Yeah.
JUDITH: Please!
REG: Right. Right.
FRANCIS: Fine.
REG: In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith--
LORETTA: Ah, not so fast, Reg.
JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh!
[Judith exits; door slams]
REG: Hm. Hm.
FRANCIS: Oh, dear.
REG: Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists.
LORETTA: What?
FRANCIS: [whistling]
REG: Oh, sorry, Loretta. Ahh, oh, read that back, would you?
Curse you Creamy
, I have got this delicious site of totally useless tid-bits of Monty stuff and I can't get it to link a picture.....damn damn damn. Look Judith there's the fall of the roman empire!
, I have got this delicious site of totally useless tid-bits of Monty stuff and I can't get it to link a picture.....damn damn damn. Look Judith there's the fall of the roman empire!
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 31st Aug 2005 at 04:56.
Thread Starter
So depressingly predictable:
[bolding added] See: http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/05_status.asp#oct
Budding spin doctors should note the new euphemism for “delayed again”. E.g. “Passengers on flight AB23 please note that the departure time has again been re-established. It will now be departing at 7.25.”
The target date for commencement of some of the ‘new’ rules is 1st quarter 2008, and it won’t be long before those dates are “re-established” again. And they’re still fooling around with the 1988 regulations (see for example the CAR 166 farce).
Appropriate adjectives elude me.
Target dates [have been] re-established for operational CASR Parts to reflect ongoing CEO Directive 016/2004 safety risk/outcome process.
Budding spin doctors should note the new euphemism for “delayed again”. E.g. “Passengers on flight AB23 please note that the departure time has again been re-established. It will now be departing at 7.25.”
The target date for commencement of some of the ‘new’ rules is 1st quarter 2008, and it won’t be long before those dates are “re-established” again. And they’re still fooling around with the 1988 regulations (see for example the CAR 166 farce).
Appropriate adjectives elude me.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
creampuff
I have been lurking, watching, reading your posts and gaunty's job application.
It was all very interesting, but please take care not to mix up the words 'lawyer' and 'know what they are doing' in the same sentence, it undermines your argument.
Other than that, see you in MER for breakfast some day.
I have been lurking, watching, reading your posts and gaunty's job application.
It was all very interesting, but please take care not to mix up the words 'lawyer' and 'know what they are doing' in the same sentence, it undermines your argument.
Other than that, see you in MER for breakfast some day.
Thread Starter
Readers may recall the thread I started around this time last year to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the loss, on 2 October 1994, of VH-SVQ and all nine souls on board. In that thread I stated among other things:
It's now nine years since that recommendation was made, and the 'target commencement date' for the new classification of operations rules has now been delayed – sorry, 're-established' – to 1st quarter 2008.
The CEO of CASA delivered a speech, entitled The CASA Safety Program - New Initiatives in a Time of Change at the 2005 Safeskies Conference on 27 October 2005. A transcript is available from the CASA website. In that speech the CEO said, among other things, that:
Well may the CEO say that the expenditure of resources on 'regulatory development' with limited output is "unacceptable", but he's already presided over nearly 2 years of it, with more to come, and the people involved will continue to get paid buckets of money whether they do nothing, do lots, achieve nothing or achieve lots, produce nothing or produce lots.
The lessons have been learnt before; the approach has been tried before.
Adjectives continue to elude me.
The report of the $20 million Commission of Inquiry into the Relations between the Civil Aviation Authority and Seaview Air followed 2 years and later. The Minister for Transport at the time the report was handed down noted in Parliament:
Commissioner Staunton's fifth recommendation was:
That recommendation was made eight years ago. Today, all of the problems identified by the Commissioner in Regulation 206 remain. The definition of the operation specifically mentioned at recommendation five - regular public transport - is in exactly the same terms.
According to sworn evidence by regulators, time and time again, in front of Senate Committees, the new classification of operations rules have always been 'in development' and 'just around the corner'. The current 'target date' is 4th quarter 2004.
Honeymooners Leeca and Anthony Atkinson were setting out on the first day of their new life together. Reg and Pam Drayton were setting out on what was for them a second honeymoon; Stephen and Carol Lake and two of their five children, Judith and Benjamin, were setting off on a family holiday. The report paints a picture of the young pilot, Paul Sheil, as also being a victim of this unsafe organisation. These are the tragic consequences of wanton operators and an incompetent and timid regulator. They are not just statistics.
That in respect of Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (relating to various forms of commercial operations, including regular public transport operations) urgent consideration be given to amending or replacing the Regulation to overcome the problems identified in the course of the Commission.
According to sworn evidence by regulators, time and time again, in front of Senate Committees, the new classification of operations rules have always been 'in development' and 'just around the corner'. The current 'target date' is 4th quarter 2004.
The CEO of CASA delivered a speech, entitled The CASA Safety Program - New Initiatives in a Time of Change at the 2005 Safeskies Conference on 27 October 2005. A transcript is available from the CASA website. In that speech the CEO said, among other things, that:
Some New Initiatives
Having described some of the principles that have guided the approach to change at CASA, it may be appropriate to say something of the individual changes.
Regulation Development
The making of safety regulations is one of our significant functions. In terms of lessons learned the history of regulatory development in CASA has not been one bathed in glory. There have been a number of programs aimed at regulatory reform over the near decade that CASA has been in existence. And each failed to deliver, for a variety of reasons. That represents quite an expenditure of resources for limited output, and that is unacceptable.
The most recent attempt involved a ‘big bang’ approach aimed at getting the whole spread of regulations reviewed and re-launched as a package. This approach was understandable because many regulations are cross-linked, so to develop one suite without another related suite meant potential difficulty. But the result was a massive effort tying up substantial resources across CASA and severely limiting the availability of those resources to be directed to endeavours which arguably might have a more direct and immediate influence on safety. And regulations were being produced which were overly prescriptive, excessively complex and in many cases offered minimal contribution to safety. I wasn’t prepared to accept that.
So the lesson here was that unless luck is on your side, a ‘big bang’ risks a subsequent implosion. The initiatives arising from that have included restructuring the way we do things to place the people working on regulatory development into the operational areas that work directly with the relevant industry sectors. Rather than trying to solve all the regulatory issues at once, we will be using small focussed teams to tackle individual regulatory packages, without ignoring the inter-relationship issue. We will also be careful reviewing, in association with industry representatives, all new regulations to make sure that they are outcome based, are simple, and make a genuine contribution to safety.
Maintaining the regulatory development focus, in the past we had an aversion to looking overseas for guidance. The line usually run was that the Australian aviation environment is special, and it was not feasible to pick up the regulatory structure of another aviation nation and apply it here. And in fairness there were limited options for suitable models. However, the newly formed European Aviation Safety Agency is taking a fresh approach to regulatory development, embracing a number of the rule-making priorities mentioned earlier, so we have established a small industry / CASA team to work with EASA on a trial program to test whether one particular set of their new rules may have some application here. This is something of a change for us, and a further recognition of the need to learn from past lessons.
Having described some of the principles that have guided the approach to change at CASA, it may be appropriate to say something of the individual changes.
Regulation Development
The making of safety regulations is one of our significant functions. In terms of lessons learned the history of regulatory development in CASA has not been one bathed in glory. There have been a number of programs aimed at regulatory reform over the near decade that CASA has been in existence. And each failed to deliver, for a variety of reasons. That represents quite an expenditure of resources for limited output, and that is unacceptable.
The most recent attempt involved a ‘big bang’ approach aimed at getting the whole spread of regulations reviewed and re-launched as a package. This approach was understandable because many regulations are cross-linked, so to develop one suite without another related suite meant potential difficulty. But the result was a massive effort tying up substantial resources across CASA and severely limiting the availability of those resources to be directed to endeavours which arguably might have a more direct and immediate influence on safety. And regulations were being produced which were overly prescriptive, excessively complex and in many cases offered minimal contribution to safety. I wasn’t prepared to accept that.
So the lesson here was that unless luck is on your side, a ‘big bang’ risks a subsequent implosion. The initiatives arising from that have included restructuring the way we do things to place the people working on regulatory development into the operational areas that work directly with the relevant industry sectors. Rather than trying to solve all the regulatory issues at once, we will be using small focussed teams to tackle individual regulatory packages, without ignoring the inter-relationship issue. We will also be careful reviewing, in association with industry representatives, all new regulations to make sure that they are outcome based, are simple, and make a genuine contribution to safety.
Maintaining the regulatory development focus, in the past we had an aversion to looking overseas for guidance. The line usually run was that the Australian aviation environment is special, and it was not feasible to pick up the regulatory structure of another aviation nation and apply it here. And in fairness there were limited options for suitable models. However, the newly formed European Aviation Safety Agency is taking a fresh approach to regulatory development, embracing a number of the rule-making priorities mentioned earlier, so we have established a small industry / CASA team to work with EASA on a trial program to test whether one particular set of their new rules may have some application here. This is something of a change for us, and a further recognition of the need to learn from past lessons.
The lessons have been learnt before; the approach has been tried before.
Adjectives continue to elude me.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
I'm not normally known for giving any latitude to CASA, however, I think you may be a little unjust on BB in your last post.
The regulatory reform process is, I believe, something like a supertanker. To get it to change direction is a massive operation that takes time and distance and there is still a lot of resistance within CASA to being told to change.
That said, I still think they may be better off adopting something like the FAA regulations and make as few changes as possible to suit Australia and our legal framework. I doubt that CASA has the expertise to complete the process and produce a satisfactory outcome.
I'm not normally known for giving any latitude to CASA, however, I think you may be a little unjust on BB in your last post.
The regulatory reform process is, I believe, something like a supertanker. To get it to change direction is a massive operation that takes time and distance and there is still a lot of resistance within CASA to being told to change.
That said, I still think they may be better off adopting something like the FAA regulations and make as few changes as possible to suit Australia and our legal framework. I doubt that CASA has the expertise to complete the process and produce a satisfactory outcome.
Thread Starter
I doubt that CASA has the expertise to complete the process and produce a satisfactory outcome.
CASA has the expertise to have completed the process 3 times over, in satisfaction of whatever differing criteria anyone wanted to choose. The real problem is that despite what its critics might think, the folks in CASA aren't stupid. The people in CASA know perfectly well when there's a policy decision to be made, and they know perfectly well that the people who are supposed to make those decisions are hoping that some other muggins will make them instead.
The recent history of regulatory 'reform' is a litany of Ministers, Ministerial staffers and advisors, dabblers and others, who want someone else to make and take responsibility for their decisions. The people at the coal face in CASA aren't that dumb.
They say: "Here are your options, here are the risks and benefits of each option, now you tell us which option you wish to take, because it is your decision."
Ouch! That could mean that a CEO, or a staffer or some other politician might be held accountable for a decision!
We can't have that now, can we.
So, let's just drift around year after year, spouting motherhood statements, and hope that everyone stops noticing the obscene waste of time and money that's left in our wake.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moorabbin
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business
Here's the solution:
On 12 October 2005 the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a taskforce to identify practical options for alleviating the compliance burden on business from Government regulation, to report on 31 January 2006.
The taskforce has released an issues paper and request for submissions. One topic is recognition of foreign regulations, the relevant paragraph is reproduced below.
"The Taskforce also seeks information on any areas in which Australian Government regulation duplicates international regulation. For example, are there any Australian licensing or vetting procedures for production processes, products or professionals that duplicate similar or equivalent licensing or vetting procedures conducted by foreign regulatory agencies?"
Its taken so long to get parts 61, 91 & 183 up and running let's just grab the American ones and continue the debate once the've been implemented here. I especially like the American rule about aerobatics.
On 12 October 2005 the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a taskforce to identify practical options for alleviating the compliance burden on business from Government regulation, to report on 31 January 2006.
The taskforce has released an issues paper and request for submissions. One topic is recognition of foreign regulations, the relevant paragraph is reproduced below.
"The Taskforce also seeks information on any areas in which Australian Government regulation duplicates international regulation. For example, are there any Australian licensing or vetting procedures for production processes, products or professionals that duplicate similar or equivalent licensing or vetting procedures conducted by foreign regulatory agencies?"
Its taken so long to get parts 61, 91 & 183 up and running let's just grab the American ones and continue the debate once the've been implemented here. I especially like the American rule about aerobatics.
Thread Starter
Good news: The deadlines are "specific" this time!
The Proof Hansard of the hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 12 February 2006 reports, at page 96, that Mr Byron said:
(I'd post the link but don't know what the current PPRuNe policy is.)
By all means please post the link. Links to Government and aviation general interest sites are no problem it is only an issue when they point to advertising, porno or personal agenda W
Roger. Here's the link: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9095.pdf
What's that joke about 'deadlines'?
I have also set specific deadlines and introduced a new approach to the management and delivery of the regulatory reform program.
By all means please post the link. Links to Government and aviation general interest sites are no problem it is only an issue when they point to advertising, porno or personal agenda W
Roger. Here's the link: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9095.pdf
What's that joke about 'deadlines'?
Last edited by Creampuff; 15th Feb 2006 at 18:30.
RRP deadline mentioned in media release.
This appeared a few days ago...
Regulatory reform program refined
The framework for the development of Australia's aviation safety regulations is being refined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The framework will make it easier for the aviation industry to comply with the safety rules, as well as streamlining the process of updating regulations.
At the heart of the new approach to regulatory development are two tiers of legislation, underpinned by supporting safety advisory material.
The tiers of legislation are the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
CASA plans to support the legislation with material which will provide guidance to the aviation industry on how to comply with the regulations and Act.
CASA's preference is to replace the current three tiers of legislation: the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders.
The big advantages of this framework are that the supporting guidance material will be written in easy-to-follow technical language rather than legal language and there will be flexibility in how the aviation industry complies with the rules.
CASA chief executive officer Bruce Byron says the approach is one used in other leading aviation nations and has a proven track record.
“This means we can make the regulations shorter, with a clear focus on safety outcomes, while leaving the detail about compliance to the supporting material,” Mr Byron says.
“The supporting material will consist of an Acceptable Means of Compliance, advisory circulars and other documentation as required.”
CASA will also be establishing a simpler process for developing the new regulations, while maintaining a high level of consultation with the aviation industry.
“We are forming small industry/CASA teams to develop the supporting material for each set of regulations. These teams will start with the safety outcomes we need to achieve and work out the best and most practical ways of delivering the safety results.
“CASA will then review the relevant regulations to determine what changes need to be made.”
During 2006 the maintenance suite of regulations will be finalised, along with rules relating to aerial work application and the sports aviation suite. The majority of the remaining rules will be completed next year.
For more details on CASA's reform program for 2006-07 go to: www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/changes.htm
The framework for the development of Australia's aviation safety regulations is being refined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The framework will make it easier for the aviation industry to comply with the safety rules, as well as streamlining the process of updating regulations.
At the heart of the new approach to regulatory development are two tiers of legislation, underpinned by supporting safety advisory material.
The tiers of legislation are the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
CASA plans to support the legislation with material which will provide guidance to the aviation industry on how to comply with the regulations and Act.
CASA's preference is to replace the current three tiers of legislation: the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders.
The big advantages of this framework are that the supporting guidance material will be written in easy-to-follow technical language rather than legal language and there will be flexibility in how the aviation industry complies with the rules.
CASA chief executive officer Bruce Byron says the approach is one used in other leading aviation nations and has a proven track record.
“This means we can make the regulations shorter, with a clear focus on safety outcomes, while leaving the detail about compliance to the supporting material,” Mr Byron says.
“The supporting material will consist of an Acceptable Means of Compliance, advisory circulars and other documentation as required.”
CASA will also be establishing a simpler process for developing the new regulations, while maintaining a high level of consultation with the aviation industry.
“We are forming small industry/CASA teams to develop the supporting material for each set of regulations. These teams will start with the safety outcomes we need to achieve and work out the best and most practical ways of delivering the safety results.
“CASA will then review the relevant regulations to determine what changes need to be made.”
During 2006 the maintenance suite of regulations will be finalised, along with rules relating to aerial work application and the sports aviation suite. The majority of the remaining rules will be completed next year.
For more details on CASA's reform program for 2006-07 go to: www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/changes.htm
Thread Starter
I will repeat something I said a year ago, in this very thread (slightly amended text in bold):
I note also the very large loophole created by the word "majority".
It’s taken over 10 years to build the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose in that hangar on the corner of Northbourne and Barry. No one’s going to redesign and rebuild it in 22 months. If they do, it’s going to be one ugly, inefficient bird.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eeeeerm I recieved my February issue yesterday of Business & Commercial Aviation
Two fascinating articles.
One a review of the MU2 which left more unsaid than said, and for which the FAA now requires amongst other things Part 121 training sytems but the more interesting one was the article about the FAA.
Its called Caught in the Middle and accurately describes the problem that the operators and FAA have in uniform interpretation and application of the regs.
The hazardous "work arounds" some operators have used and the problems the FAA have in that area.
It is a mirror of the Australian experience where we have a widely dispersed aviation population and regulatory effort.
For those who are in the habit of paying out on the regulator it should give them an understanding that the problem is not necessariloy with the regulator per se and for CASA some solace that they are not alone with this problem.
If you are serious about understanding the issue and dont subscribe, either do or go buy it off the shelf.
When I have a minute I'll try to summarise the dot points but buy it any way.
They also refer to a previous article which appeared in the Aug 2005 issue, "Lighting the Dark side of Charter" which should be required reading or incoporated in the ops manual for operators and a tool for CASA in what to look for.
Two fascinating articles.
One a review of the MU2 which left more unsaid than said, and for which the FAA now requires amongst other things Part 121 training sytems but the more interesting one was the article about the FAA.
Its called Caught in the Middle and accurately describes the problem that the operators and FAA have in uniform interpretation and application of the regs.
The hazardous "work arounds" some operators have used and the problems the FAA have in that area.
It is a mirror of the Australian experience where we have a widely dispersed aviation population and regulatory effort.
For those who are in the habit of paying out on the regulator it should give them an understanding that the problem is not necessariloy with the regulator per se and for CASA some solace that they are not alone with this problem.
If you are serious about understanding the issue and dont subscribe, either do or go buy it off the shelf.
When I have a minute I'll try to summarise the dot points but buy it any way.
They also refer to a previous article which appeared in the Aug 2005 issue, "Lighting the Dark side of Charter" which should be required reading or incoporated in the ops manual for operators and a tool for CASA in what to look for.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a link to Gaunty's article ( avery long one):
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/mu2_0206.xml
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/mu2_0206.xml
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tacan400
Thanks mate now if we can only find
I have brought both articles to the attention of the appropriate people with the suggestion that they might seek to reprint them in the FS mag.
Both of which give the lie to the allegedly "different" treatment we get from our regulator and the allegedly "diiferent" method of operation of our "charter" operators.
I also recieved my AOPA mag yesterday, same old same old tirade against the Minister. I believe their President was summoned to his office the other day, would love to have been a fly on the wall, I hear it was not all sweetness and light.
Thanks mate now if we can only find
but the more interesting one was the article about the FAA. ........ "Caught in the Middle" and the preceding....."Lighting the Dark side of Charter"
Both of which give the lie to the allegedly "different" treatment we get from our regulator and the allegedly "diiferent" method of operation of our "charter" operators.
I also recieved my AOPA mag yesterday, same old same old tirade against the Minister. I believe their President was summoned to his office the other day, would love to have been a fly on the wall, I hear it was not all sweetness and light.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One not being a member and having no acces to the magazine, (but I may join one day), can you enlighten me on the details of the Minister's meeting as reported to members but not to the Infidel's
I am also curious which magazine edition you refer to, normally the Jan/ Feb edition has the election rules and timetable and nomination forms. If they are leaving this to March it is a bit tight for time. Are they soliciting nominations?
I am also curious which magazine edition you refer to, normally the Jan/ Feb edition has the election rules and timetable and nomination forms. If they are leaving this to March it is a bit tight for time. Are they soliciting nominations?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
At the risk of perpetuating thread drift.
Magazine published before the Ministers meeting.
No nomination or election material enclosed.
My only point was to point out that the habit of habitual haranguing is not safely based on our regulator being any worse or any better than any other, they have a job to do, neither is it productive as we have seen over the years.
Back to the topic.
At the risk of perpetuating thread drift.
Magazine published before the Ministers meeting.
No nomination or election material enclosed.
My only point was to point out that the habit of habitual haranguing is not safely based on our regulator being any worse or any better than any other, they have a job to do, neither is it productive as we have seen over the years.
Back to the topic.
Thread Starter
Take it to AGACF assylum please people.
To get the thread back on track, I note that there may be any number of excuses and analogous circumstances to explain why the regulatory reform progam is drifting along forever. Why not just be honest about that, rather than perpetrating a cruel and expensive hoax on the industry and taxpayer year after year?
The Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme was implemented in a shorter time and with less money than this farce! The 'dambuster' bombs were designed, built and tested, and the crews were trained and successfully completed their mission, in a matter of weeks for Christ's sake.
See you all back here at the end of 2006, for yet another depressingly predictable announcement.
To get the thread back on track, I note that there may be any number of excuses and analogous circumstances to explain why the regulatory reform progam is drifting along forever. Why not just be honest about that, rather than perpetrating a cruel and expensive hoax on the industry and taxpayer year after year?
The Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme was implemented in a shorter time and with less money than this farce! The 'dambuster' bombs were designed, built and tested, and the crews were trained and successfully completed their mission, in a matter of weeks for Christ's sake.
See you all back here at the end of 2006, for yet another depressingly predictable announcement.