Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A ‘root and branch’ review of how the UK’s Air Navigation Order (ANO) impacts on general aviation (GA) has begun, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed today. The wide-ranging review will look at how a more proportionate and lighter touch regulation for general aviation can be achieved.
All attempts to have a real industry consultative forum in Oz have failed since the first was established in the mid 90's. It failed then because the then leader of one org wanted to go alone. It just didn't work, and wont until everyone, but everyone gets together and speaks with one united voice. In doing so, not everyone will achieve their aims, but the industry as a whole is more likely to have a win.
Maybe we can lobby the new DAS to consider something similar to what the UK CAA are doing... heaven help us, we certainly need it!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we can lobby the new DAS to consider something similar to what the UK CAA are doing... heaven help us, we certainly need it!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth
Thorn bird,
In the past I have had the good fortune of working for two regulatory authorities, D of A (which morphed into the CAA and then CASA) and the UK CAA, in that order. Things were simpler in those days I think, but the professionalism of the CAA was excellent. Things may have changed from my time with them but by the projected review as discussed previously shows that they have the will to get the job done. If it would be possible for CASA to use the CAA review model and experience then why not? We, as an industry are not that far apart surely?
Nkosi
In the past I have had the good fortune of working for two regulatory authorities, D of A (which morphed into the CAA and then CASA) and the UK CAA, in that order. Things were simpler in those days I think, but the professionalism of the CAA was excellent. Things may have changed from my time with them but by the projected review as discussed previously shows that they have the will to get the job done. If it would be possible for CASA to use the CAA review model and experience then why not? We, as an industry are not that far apart surely?
Nkosi
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nkosi,
Mate with due respect,
CAsA never uses anyone else's "Model"!!! a look at our 25 years in the making half a billion Dollar regulations would convince anyone of that.
All the rest of the world is totally wrong, Australia and our regulator are the only ones who know everything there is to know about aviation, a read of CAsA's press releases would convince most people of that.
Mate with due respect,
CAsA never uses anyone else's "Model"!!! a look at our 25 years in the making half a billion Dollar regulations would convince anyone of that.
All the rest of the world is totally wrong, Australia and our regulator are the only ones who know everything there is to know about aviation, a read of CAsA's press releases would convince most people of that.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thorn bird
You may well be right, but notwithstanding the obstacles and negativity that will be placed in the path of the incoming DAS I hope that he succeeds where others have not.
Nkosi
You may well be right, but notwithstanding the obstacles and negativity that will be placed in the path of the incoming DAS I hope that he succeeds where others have not.
Nkosi
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nkosi,
on my bended knees every night I pray, because after 48 years, I saw the best, and the dramatic slide into oblivion that has occurred since.
I don't know how many inquiries we've had, and reviews. Creamie would be the one to tell you that, and that they achieved absolutely ZILCH, at great taxpayer expense.
There is a cadre in CAsA who pull the strings, with top cover provided by a public servant Mandarins mandarin. Any DAS with reformist stars in their eye's are fairly smartly brought into line, and if that doesn't work, stabbed in the back.
From all indications CAsA is not a very pleasant place to work.
So please excuse us if we seem a tad skeptical, most of us have seen it all before.
For me it perhaps doesn't matter much, but I was one of those star struck kids once, hanging off the aerodrome fence.
Its their future I weep for.
on my bended knees every night I pray, because after 48 years, I saw the best, and the dramatic slide into oblivion that has occurred since.
I don't know how many inquiries we've had, and reviews. Creamie would be the one to tell you that, and that they achieved absolutely ZILCH, at great taxpayer expense.
There is a cadre in CAsA who pull the strings, with top cover provided by a public servant Mandarins mandarin. Any DAS with reformist stars in their eye's are fairly smartly brought into line, and if that doesn't work, stabbed in the back.
From all indications CAsA is not a very pleasant place to work.
So please excuse us if we seem a tad skeptical, most of us have seen it all before.
For me it perhaps doesn't matter much, but I was one of those star struck kids once, hanging off the aerodrome fence.
Its their future I weep for.
The disgrace that is GA in Australia. Thornbird, I concur,letter to Aus Ednot printed
In regard to Mark Skidmore being appointed as CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority there will be many in General Aviation (GA) who were hoping for a person with a wide background, especially in GA.
Steve Creedy's article in the Aus tells us that Mr. Skidmore has experience in civil aviation, quoting Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board Chairman Allan Hawke: “Mark has worked in civilian aviation as a test pilot, business development manager and company director,’’
From the article it seems that Mr Skidmore has very little commercial experience, he has been a career military man nearly all of his working life. No doubt Dr. Hawke, the Board and the Minister will try to deflect the criticism that will surely come about in General Aviation by this appointment.
I'm sure all of us in General Aviation (GA) will wish Mark Skidmore well, but, until there are positive signs to the contrary, we will be left thinking that Canberra has decided that a Canberra man will do what is best for Canberra.
Civil aviation is very different to the military scene, General Aviation is seriously in need of reform, it has stagnated or been declining for many years owing to a lack of airports policy and a regulator bent on hammering GA into oblivion. The recent Regulatory Review Panel has seen fit to suggest a number of reforms that might go some way to redressing the ills that have bedeviled GA for many years. We hope Mr. Skidmore will control CASA and help put General Aviation back on the map where it should be.
Maybe Canberra will once again have a flying school, airline pilots might be taken off the 457 visa list, and CASA might finalise the 25 year process of regulatory reform, reform that New Zealand did in five years. Maybe the taxpayer will get value for money and maybe GA will once again prosper, what is sure is that many skeptics will be watching.
Steve Creedy's article in the Aus tells us that Mr. Skidmore has experience in civil aviation, quoting Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board Chairman Allan Hawke: “Mark has worked in civilian aviation as a test pilot, business development manager and company director,’’
From the article it seems that Mr Skidmore has very little commercial experience, he has been a career military man nearly all of his working life. No doubt Dr. Hawke, the Board and the Minister will try to deflect the criticism that will surely come about in General Aviation by this appointment.
I'm sure all of us in General Aviation (GA) will wish Mark Skidmore well, but, until there are positive signs to the contrary, we will be left thinking that Canberra has decided that a Canberra man will do what is best for Canberra.
Civil aviation is very different to the military scene, General Aviation is seriously in need of reform, it has stagnated or been declining for many years owing to a lack of airports policy and a regulator bent on hammering GA into oblivion. The recent Regulatory Review Panel has seen fit to suggest a number of reforms that might go some way to redressing the ills that have bedeviled GA for many years. We hope Mr. Skidmore will control CASA and help put General Aviation back on the map where it should be.
Maybe Canberra will once again have a flying school, airline pilots might be taken off the 457 visa list, and CASA might finalise the 25 year process of regulatory reform, reform that New Zealand did in five years. Maybe the taxpayer will get value for money and maybe GA will once again prosper, what is sure is that many skeptics will be watching.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thorn bird
Your sentiments are understood.
My son sits in a cockpit of an RPT operated aircraft flying within Australia. My daughter trundles a trolley up and down the aisle of an international airline. I have now retired, but am drawn to the discussions on this medium in the hope of gaining an insight on the why's and wherefore's of the regulatory system that I was a part of for so many years and which appears to have gone 'wonky'!
At times I am at a loss to explain to my kids the reasons why situations have developed to the point of stupidity. So I say again, I hope the incoming DAS can get a grip and manage the situation to enable us all to slip away from the criticism that tends to colour our thoughts.
Nkosi
Your sentiments are understood.
My son sits in a cockpit of an RPT operated aircraft flying within Australia. My daughter trundles a trolley up and down the aisle of an international airline. I have now retired, but am drawn to the discussions on this medium in the hope of gaining an insight on the why's and wherefore's of the regulatory system that I was a part of for so many years and which appears to have gone 'wonky'!
At times I am at a loss to explain to my kids the reasons why situations have developed to the point of stupidity. So I say again, I hope the incoming DAS can get a grip and manage the situation to enable us all to slip away from the criticism that tends to colour our thoughts.
Nkosi
Last edited by Nkosi; 1st Nov 2014 at 06:18. Reason: Additional verbiage!
Creampuff...
In your last post you responded to the quote:
I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle.
Because they confidently predicted that they would get away with it, scott free.
Their prediction has proved correct.
I have to agree with you Creampuff, but the $64K questions are:
1. What was the reason behind CASA and the ATSB taking the risks that they both did in the Pel-Air debacle?
2. Why did they do what they did?
I have to say, I'm buggered if I can work it out.
All I can conclude is that the stakes must have been mighty high for both to have done what they did.
Suggestions/answers anyone?
In your last post you responded to the quote:
I will never understand why CASA and ATSB took such risks and tried to convince a savvy Senate committee that 'they' were doing it all – according to Hoyle.
Because they confidently predicted that they would get away with it, scott free.
Their prediction has proved correct.
I have to agree with you Creampuff, but the $64K questions are:
1. What was the reason behind CASA and the ATSB taking the risks that they both did in the Pel-Air debacle?
2. Why did they do what they did?
I have to say, I'm buggered if I can work it out.
All I can conclude is that the stakes must have been mighty high for both to have done what they did.
Suggestions/answers anyone?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, Sharpe is written all over this. Also, a bully regulator and an incompetent investigator. I can't see Beaker trying to take on the Skull.
What's more bizarre is how there can be SO much damning public evidence and yet the government does SFA! So much for democracy. The whole case is a sad indictment on our country. Mrdak, you should be ashamed.
What's more bizarre is how there can be SO much damning public evidence and yet the government does SFA! So much for democracy. The whole case is a sad indictment on our country. Mrdak, you should be ashamed.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What risk?
SIUYA,
In the world to which Creamie refers, I think the answers are clear:
simply because there was no identified risk because both agencies thought that the event would be ignored - it was not RPT and no one was considered to be a passenger.
I think John Sharpe has a lot of friends and I think there were a lot of people who considered that their career trajectories meant that it would be wise not to make him (and therefore his political connections in both major parties) enemies...
I think that the three main agency players thought that they would sweep away the problematic issues while no one was paying attention, as so often had been the case before. However, as has thankfully been the case before, a number of players considered previously to be of no import chose not to read or accept the script and played with a straight bat, thus allowing the light to be shone where others wanted the dark to remain.
After that, it just became a test of damage control, reticence and political inertia.
Simple really...
In the world to which Creamie refers, I think the answers are clear:
1. What was the reason behind CASA and the ATSB taking the risks that they both did in the Pel-Air debacle?
2. Why did they do what they did?
2. Why did they do what they did?
I think John Sharpe has a lot of friends and I think there were a lot of people who considered that their career trajectories meant that it would be wise not to make him (and therefore his political connections in both major parties) enemies...
I think that the three main agency players thought that they would sweep away the problematic issues while no one was paying attention, as so often had been the case before. However, as has thankfully been the case before, a number of players considered previously to be of no import chose not to read or accept the script and played with a straight bat, thus allowing the light to be shone where others wanted the dark to remain.
After that, it just became a test of damage control, reticence and political inertia.
Simple really...
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is how you pass your mistake back onto the industry
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...awb/02/050.pdf
What engineer is going to do this after what has happened and then place them selfs and the lions door if they miss some thing.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...awb/02/050.pdf
What engineer is going to do this after what has happened and then place them selfs and the lions door if they miss some thing.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday ponderings.
Regrettably, probably since the cave, the use of 'influence' has been an accepted norm; one way or another we all do it and by and large society accepts that this happens. So, no one is too surprised, shocked or even offended when Sharpe uses his 'influence' to shape an outcome; particularly if it is in defence of a company which employs a lot of folks, has sensitive contracts to protect and a public image to maintain. It would be quite natural to speak softly in receptive ears – to ensure that the accident was given a 'minimum fuss', low key treatment. I find it hard to believe a man like Sharpe would deliberately set out to conspire with 'the powers that be' to bury the incident or to crucify the pilot. It would be counterproductive, whereas a little judicious 'hosing down' of the situation would be expected and of benefit. Sharpe is probably clever enough to know that.
With a little imagination, one can see Sharpe 'having a word' – asking for a softly-softly approach, as little fuss as possible along with an iron clad guarantee to 'sort out' whatever problems or discrepancies were discovered; to keep the books balanced. McComic was away and Farq-u-hardson was on deck, he threw the juicy bone to his favourite dog and game on. The rest as they say – is history.
The 'risk' was subliminal; I doubt anyone factored in the overly enthusiastic, opportunistic, reactive, self serving, vicious response from the ambitious lower management levels. A careful study of the pertinent 'management' ploys reveals much, the pathway clearly defined through the paper-trail, where clearly defined breeches of policy, protocol and manipulation of 'the law' have been cobbled together, crudely and in some haste, not to promote safety; but to satisfy personal, twisted ambition, a symptom of a very deep psychosis.
No, the part that puzzles me is why so many gold stars were flushed down the pan. CASA could have said that 'they', through diligent audit had discovered some elevated systematic risk areas within Pel Air and their own system and was moving swiftly, in cooperation with the company to plug up the holes. Gold star and no more said you'd think.
Nope, quality audit and expert opinion was rejected or diminished, those that wrote the summaries were denigrated and the serious, systematic flaws in the CASA/Pel-Air cheese not only went unplugged, but were treated in a very cavalier manner. The fix to both systems being applied and accepted in a breathtakingly short period. The 'experts' rightly miffed, outraged and offended wanted no further part. And so, without really fixing up the identified problem in both areas, a magic wand (or golden pen) was twirled and all was, once again, rosy in the garden. Two bonuses were extracted, a pilot was crucified with the option to devastate a career and, a not so carefully plagiarised 'report' could be winnowed out, to help further career advancement.
I reckon Sharpe and even McComic were shocked at the depth of depravity; but, they were stuck with it, being the 'executive' and all. Whether it was dogged determination to defend his troops or old fashioned arrogance and bile that gave us the Pel-Air inquiry is not known (for certain): what is known is that with sane, calm management the Nick Xenophon quest could have been headed off at the pass. The real risks were taken not during the soft handling of the Norfolk ditching event, which could have been quietly (as requested) managed to insignificance; but in allowing the whole shambles to become public and subjected to Senate scrutiny. Once there, it was too late for anything else but honesty; even then, that was denied.
I doubt I'd have risked it all, not at those odds. I'd have sacrificed the management team so fast it would make your head spin. "Senator, we are revisiting the Pel Air incident, we find that the audit was badly handled by the management team, who have since been dismissed." "We have appointed an acknowledged, qualified expert to complete the task and look forward to implementing the across the board improvements to air safety, we at CASA are dedicated to providing". "Pel Air has been allowed, in the interests of procedural fairness to continue it's operations under a regime of monthly audit and increased surveillance". Gold star.
It turned out that they couldn't do the snow job properly: hadn't got the brains to spin their way out of bother; or even the nouse enough to get off the track when the train was coming, then it became a high risk, high stakes game. The world is watching the MH 370 effort, the PM has his nuts in a vice with Chemilnecal Trails looking to score off any loose words; and we put up an ATSB highly compromised by cooperation with a safety authority that can't manage a simple, low key fix of what was a fairly straightforward event.
Perhaps CASA never, ever, for a moment considered that answers would be sought. Had it been managed properly, from the off, those questions would never have been asked. Had 'they' allowed normal process under policy to take place, the Senate would not be anything other than vaguely aware that there had been an incident and CASA was in control.
So, Creamy and Nick – I can agree that there was no consideration of 'being caught' in the matrix – but I doubt the cognitive or intellectual horsepower was available to 'predict' the eventual outcome. I could believe arrogant assumption, in fact, I'd bet on it. Apart from McComic (and the honourable resigned), do you know everyone involved with Pel Air is still drawing wages, expenses and super. Some have even been promoted.
The sad part is that the Pel Air disgrace was but a 'minor' embuggerance compared to some of the better covered, non examined cases CASA have 'managed'. Instead of gold stars and choc frogs for 'clever' management they have deeply annoyed a Senate, almost endangered two minuscules, embarrassed an industry and now, though association the ATSB is set to compromise the government; as any shadow passing over the MH 370 situation will be closely examined by the world.
Absolutely stellar: the stuff of legend; and, quite a legacy for the new chum to live down. Get in first mate – demand a judicial (or Senate) inquiry, even if only for top cover – lest the tar brush be applied to some nether regions when all is revealed. Guilty by association is not a great way to start.
Ends Sunday ramble, saddles up the Gobbledock's mighty beast, whistles up dogs and heads off along the river bank anticipating fresh coffee and blueberry muffins (gods willing – weather permitting) on return.
Selah.
With a little imagination, one can see Sharpe 'having a word' – asking for a softly-softly approach, as little fuss as possible along with an iron clad guarantee to 'sort out' whatever problems or discrepancies were discovered; to keep the books balanced. McComic was away and Farq-u-hardson was on deck, he threw the juicy bone to his favourite dog and game on. The rest as they say – is history.
The 'risk' was subliminal; I doubt anyone factored in the overly enthusiastic, opportunistic, reactive, self serving, vicious response from the ambitious lower management levels. A careful study of the pertinent 'management' ploys reveals much, the pathway clearly defined through the paper-trail, where clearly defined breeches of policy, protocol and manipulation of 'the law' have been cobbled together, crudely and in some haste, not to promote safety; but to satisfy personal, twisted ambition, a symptom of a very deep psychosis.
No, the part that puzzles me is why so many gold stars were flushed down the pan. CASA could have said that 'they', through diligent audit had discovered some elevated systematic risk areas within Pel Air and their own system and was moving swiftly, in cooperation with the company to plug up the holes. Gold star and no more said you'd think.
Nope, quality audit and expert opinion was rejected or diminished, those that wrote the summaries were denigrated and the serious, systematic flaws in the CASA/Pel-Air cheese not only went unplugged, but were treated in a very cavalier manner. The fix to both systems being applied and accepted in a breathtakingly short period. The 'experts' rightly miffed, outraged and offended wanted no further part. And so, without really fixing up the identified problem in both areas, a magic wand (or golden pen) was twirled and all was, once again, rosy in the garden. Two bonuses were extracted, a pilot was crucified with the option to devastate a career and, a not so carefully plagiarised 'report' could be winnowed out, to help further career advancement.
I reckon Sharpe and even McComic were shocked at the depth of depravity; but, they were stuck with it, being the 'executive' and all. Whether it was dogged determination to defend his troops or old fashioned arrogance and bile that gave us the Pel-Air inquiry is not known (for certain): what is known is that with sane, calm management the Nick Xenophon quest could have been headed off at the pass. The real risks were taken not during the soft handling of the Norfolk ditching event, which could have been quietly (as requested) managed to insignificance; but in allowing the whole shambles to become public and subjected to Senate scrutiny. Once there, it was too late for anything else but honesty; even then, that was denied.
I doubt I'd have risked it all, not at those odds. I'd have sacrificed the management team so fast it would make your head spin. "Senator, we are revisiting the Pel Air incident, we find that the audit was badly handled by the management team, who have since been dismissed." "We have appointed an acknowledged, qualified expert to complete the task and look forward to implementing the across the board improvements to air safety, we at CASA are dedicated to providing". "Pel Air has been allowed, in the interests of procedural fairness to continue it's operations under a regime of monthly audit and increased surveillance". Gold star.
It turned out that they couldn't do the snow job properly: hadn't got the brains to spin their way out of bother; or even the nouse enough to get off the track when the train was coming, then it became a high risk, high stakes game. The world is watching the MH 370 effort, the PM has his nuts in a vice with Chemilnecal Trails looking to score off any loose words; and we put up an ATSB highly compromised by cooperation with a safety authority that can't manage a simple, low key fix of what was a fairly straightforward event.
Perhaps CASA never, ever, for a moment considered that answers would be sought. Had it been managed properly, from the off, those questions would never have been asked. Had 'they' allowed normal process under policy to take place, the Senate would not be anything other than vaguely aware that there had been an incident and CASA was in control.
So, Creamy and Nick – I can agree that there was no consideration of 'being caught' in the matrix – but I doubt the cognitive or intellectual horsepower was available to 'predict' the eventual outcome. I could believe arrogant assumption, in fact, I'd bet on it. Apart from McComic (and the honourable resigned), do you know everyone involved with Pel Air is still drawing wages, expenses and super. Some have even been promoted.
The sad part is that the Pel Air disgrace was but a 'minor' embuggerance compared to some of the better covered, non examined cases CASA have 'managed'. Instead of gold stars and choc frogs for 'clever' management they have deeply annoyed a Senate, almost endangered two minuscules, embarrassed an industry and now, though association the ATSB is set to compromise the government; as any shadow passing over the MH 370 situation will be closely examined by the world.
Absolutely stellar: the stuff of legend; and, quite a legacy for the new chum to live down. Get in first mate – demand a judicial (or Senate) inquiry, even if only for top cover – lest the tar brush be applied to some nether regions when all is revealed. Guilty by association is not a great way to start.
Ends Sunday ramble, saddles up the Gobbledock's mighty beast, whistles up dogs and heads off along the river bank anticipating fresh coffee and blueberry muffins (gods willing – weather permitting) on return.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Nov 2014 at 20:57.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now also please remember that the AAAA are trying for self regulation. Casa went against the manufacture in allowing the we'll over weight limitation. Plus we lost life's over this.
The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.
1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.
The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.
1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now also please remember that the AAAA are trying for self regulation. Casa went against the manufacture in allowing the we'll over weight limitation. Plus we lost life's over this.
The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.
1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.
The Pel air incident could easy been afforded by following the regulations that they should have been. It was fortune-it that there was no loss off life.
1% of brain power to make a change 200% of brain power to relies what the 1% of change will produce.
I note that I didn't say they confidently predicted they would not get caught.
What I said was they confidently predicted they would get away with it, scott free.
Eddie O'Beid got caught. His response is to yawn. There's a reason for that.
What I said was they confidently predicted they would get away with it, scott free.
Eddie O'Beid got caught. His response is to yawn. There's a reason for that.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
second reading
I kept seeing "yr right" as "you're right", but now I see that it is actually "yeah, right!"...
And, reluctantly, I disagree with Creamie in that repetition made it even worse!
But I am in heated agreement with Creamie that a little bit of embarrassment is quite bearable when there is no real consequence. The days of men of integrity falling on their swords for a failure to maintain the public's (or shareholders') expectations of fiduciary excellence are long gone.
And, reluctantly, I disagree with Creamie in that repetition made it even worse!
But I am in heated agreement with Creamie that a little bit of embarrassment is quite bearable when there is no real consequence. The days of men of integrity falling on their swords for a failure to maintain the public's (or shareholders') expectations of fiduciary excellence are long gone.