Mr Skidmore resigned
The paradox is that a person capable of doing the DAS job correctly can never be chosen.
A person capable of doing the job correctly would realise that CASA is not competent to run, and has a conflict of interest in running, the regulatory reform program. That person would insist that the Minister and the Department did their job.
Given that the Minister and the Department decide who the DAS will be, they are always going to choose someone who's silly enough to pretend, or is so naive as to believe, that s/he is in control of, and therefore responsible for, something that CASA is not competent to do and cannot do.
The regulatory mess that Australia is in is nearly as much a straightjacket for the DAS as it is for the industry. The only partly-effective tools that the DAS has to change anything substantially are:
(1) the exemption making power, and
(2) the ability to influence the policy that drives new rules.
However, here's the problem: To use those tools effectively, you have to understand the detail and effect of the entirety of the current regulatory Frankenstein. CA Act, 1988 regs, 1998 regs, building regs, fees regs, CAOs, MOSs, exemptions, Chicago Convention, Carriers' liability legislation, Air Services Act and regs, Transport Safety Investigation Act and regs ....
I don't think there's anyone on the planet, other than perhaps JA, who understands the entirety and detail of the current regulatory Frankenstein. An ex-RAAF pilot might understand the flight crew licensing CAO and the rules of the air, and that's about it.
This means that the DAS can have all of the best intentions, but s/he has no choice but to hope that others have the knowledge, competence and authority to implement all the high-sounding ideas about simplification and risk-based and evidence-based regulation and red tape reduction and responsiveness etc etc. The fact is that those around him/her in CASA do not have the collective knowledge, competence and authority to do much of anything other than create more complexity. Further, they have a personal interest in creating more complexity. It justifies their existence.
And before anyone suggests that (2) is the solution, I note that a one sentence good idea at DAS level becomes a 10 page set of instructions a couple of levels down from the DAS, then becomes 100 pages of draft regulations and offences out of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, which generates a dozen unintended consequences requiring 100 pages of further instructions...
20 years of that kind of simplification gets you exactly where Australia is today.
All of that said, my opinion is that the CVD issue was a test that Mr Skidmore failed.
Miserably.
It was in his power to decide a valid 'third level test' instead of a test that even the inventors and "experts" conceded does not simulate an operational situation. An objective assessment of the evidence and risks would have justified that decision.
A two sentence memo with the DAS's signature would have done it.
Instead, he listened to the whispering scaremongers.
A person capable of doing the job correctly would realise that CASA is not competent to run, and has a conflict of interest in running, the regulatory reform program. That person would insist that the Minister and the Department did their job.
Given that the Minister and the Department decide who the DAS will be, they are always going to choose someone who's silly enough to pretend, or is so naive as to believe, that s/he is in control of, and therefore responsible for, something that CASA is not competent to do and cannot do.
The regulatory mess that Australia is in is nearly as much a straightjacket for the DAS as it is for the industry. The only partly-effective tools that the DAS has to change anything substantially are:
(1) the exemption making power, and
(2) the ability to influence the policy that drives new rules.
However, here's the problem: To use those tools effectively, you have to understand the detail and effect of the entirety of the current regulatory Frankenstein. CA Act, 1988 regs, 1998 regs, building regs, fees regs, CAOs, MOSs, exemptions, Chicago Convention, Carriers' liability legislation, Air Services Act and regs, Transport Safety Investigation Act and regs ....
I don't think there's anyone on the planet, other than perhaps JA, who understands the entirety and detail of the current regulatory Frankenstein. An ex-RAAF pilot might understand the flight crew licensing CAO and the rules of the air, and that's about it.
This means that the DAS can have all of the best intentions, but s/he has no choice but to hope that others have the knowledge, competence and authority to implement all the high-sounding ideas about simplification and risk-based and evidence-based regulation and red tape reduction and responsiveness etc etc. The fact is that those around him/her in CASA do not have the collective knowledge, competence and authority to do much of anything other than create more complexity. Further, they have a personal interest in creating more complexity. It justifies their existence.
And before anyone suggests that (2) is the solution, I note that a one sentence good idea at DAS level becomes a 10 page set of instructions a couple of levels down from the DAS, then becomes 100 pages of draft regulations and offences out of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, which generates a dozen unintended consequences requiring 100 pages of further instructions...
20 years of that kind of simplification gets you exactly where Australia is today.
All of that said, my opinion is that the CVD issue was a test that Mr Skidmore failed.
Miserably.
It was in his power to decide a valid 'third level test' instead of a test that even the inventors and "experts" conceded does not simulate an operational situation. An objective assessment of the evidence and risks would have justified that decision.
A two sentence memo with the DAS's signature would have done it.
Instead, he listened to the whispering scaremongers.
Mr Skidmore resignation
Unfortunately CASA has a track record of Media Releases that are nothing less than 100% BS. Refer the reason for the Part 61 delay.
The DAS has resigned half way through a major program that was beginning to move. He appeared to have rallied the troops and put fire in the belly. It was a fast changing organisation, and for the better.
Someone in that Organisation owes Industry some facts and some truth. Too many Businesses are hanging on by their nails. This is serious.
I call on whoever is responsible for Media Releases within CASA to either start acting with honesty and Integrity in your dealings with Industry or step aside. We are entitled to the TRUTH. We need to know what is happening. Is this a change of direction. Is it a push, is it a jump, had you planned on this, what will be the direction over coming months.
Right now CASA must be absolutely hanging their head in shame. This is now so far beyond any "Yes Minister" episode, its an absolute blight on the Liberal Parties ability to run good Government.
I really cannot believe this fiasco.
Quote from Dick Smith: "get out of aviation" Not so ridiculous is it!
The DAS has resigned half way through a major program that was beginning to move. He appeared to have rallied the troops and put fire in the belly. It was a fast changing organisation, and for the better.
Someone in that Organisation owes Industry some facts and some truth. Too many Businesses are hanging on by their nails. This is serious.
I call on whoever is responsible for Media Releases within CASA to either start acting with honesty and Integrity in your dealings with Industry or step aside. We are entitled to the TRUTH. We need to know what is happening. Is this a change of direction. Is it a push, is it a jump, had you planned on this, what will be the direction over coming months.
Right now CASA must be absolutely hanging their head in shame. This is now so far beyond any "Yes Minister" episode, its an absolute blight on the Liberal Parties ability to run good Government.
I really cannot believe this fiasco.
Quote from Dick Smith: "get out of aviation" Not so ridiculous is it!
allthecoolnamesarego; I can spell mysogenist I know quite a few excellent female senior business leaders who have taught me a thing or two.
however i also know a few shockers of the female management variety that got promoted way beyond their abilities by boards and governments who were scratching the bottom of the barrel for female management talent.
one I worked for was a liar, fraud and cheat (literally) who cost her organization around $250 million before she was eased out....and she had an undeserved OA to boot. if we get one of these God help you. look up narcissistic personality disorder and business psychopaths and you will see what I mean.
to put that another way, there are worse people than retiredAVM's out there and my experience is that the proportion of female senior management psychopaths is higher than 50%. my building an aircraft is partially therapy after working for one for a few years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyc..._the_workplace
however i also know a few shockers of the female management variety that got promoted way beyond their abilities by boards and governments who were scratching the bottom of the barrel for female management talent.
one I worked for was a liar, fraud and cheat (literally) who cost her organization around $250 million before she was eased out....and she had an undeserved OA to boot. if we get one of these God help you. look up narcissistic personality disorder and business psychopaths and you will see what I mean.
to put that another way, there are worse people than retiredAVM's out there and my experience is that the proportion of female senior management psychopaths is higher than 50%. my building an aircraft is partially therapy after working for one for a few years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyc..._the_workplace
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skidmore's legacy was to restructure CASA with 3 main divisions, Aviation Group, Sustainability Group and Stakeholder Engagement Group. What a load of crap which resulted in 800 CASA staff now having about 25% of staff with an actual aviation background. How is 'stakeholder engagement' and 'sustainability' deemed far more important (do these titles even exist in any other organisation - sounds more like damage control and spin doctoring rather than doing the job right not requiring this).
The Government should have enforced the organisation structure recommended in the ASR Report, which was a lot different than the Skidmore model. Or CASA should have just used the ICAO model which is simply, Director, Operations Division, Airworthiness Division (any other staff are for support in HR, Payroll and IT).
The Government should have enforced the organisation structure recommended in the ASR Report, which was a lot different than the Skidmore model. Or CASA should have just used the ICAO model which is simply, Director, Operations Division, Airworthiness Division (any other staff are for support in HR, Payroll and IT).
Last edited by aussiexpat; 25th Aug 2016 at 21:06.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: in the clouds
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh, while you're up there on your high horse, Aussie, you might want to use that view to have a look at the FAA head office structure and compare it to CASA's org chart. Drill down a bit to account for the size and additional responsibilities of the FAA (Commercial Space Transportation probably not taking up vast amounts of CASA's time) and they aren't too dissimilar. Wouldn't be at all surprised if that's where the bare bones of the CASA restructure were sourced.
As for the oft heard complaint that too many CASA staff don't have actual aviation backgrounds, how many would be enough? A third? One half? All of them? Should the DAS' executive assistant have a ATPL?
Fact is, the majority of government departments and authorities are staffed by a lot of people that aren't, and never have been, in the jobs of the people they serve. The Department of Agriculture isn't completely staffed by farmers. The Department of Education isn't full of teachers. And I have it on good authority that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet DOESN'T HAVE ONE SINGLE FORMER PRIME MINISTER WORKING IN IT!
You don't need most of the people in a government authority to have experience working in the industry they serve. Just the right people. In the right jobs. And THAT's what CASA seems to have been lacking for some time now. The Government takes the advice of the regulator - that's what the regulator is there for - unless it has been demonstrated that that advice is poor. Seems like we haven't managed to do that yet.
It's going to be an interesting few months.
As for the oft heard complaint that too many CASA staff don't have actual aviation backgrounds, how many would be enough? A third? One half? All of them? Should the DAS' executive assistant have a ATPL?
Fact is, the majority of government departments and authorities are staffed by a lot of people that aren't, and never have been, in the jobs of the people they serve. The Department of Agriculture isn't completely staffed by farmers. The Department of Education isn't full of teachers. And I have it on good authority that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet DOESN'T HAVE ONE SINGLE FORMER PRIME MINISTER WORKING IN IT!
You don't need most of the people in a government authority to have experience working in the industry they serve. Just the right people. In the right jobs. And THAT's what CASA seems to have been lacking for some time now. The Government takes the advice of the regulator - that's what the regulator is there for - unless it has been demonstrated that that advice is poor. Seems like we haven't managed to do that yet.
It's going to be an interesting few months.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's going to be an interesting few months."
Well, let's see.
One could only hope to hear the sounds of "much wailing and gnashing of teeth" from fort fumble.
I somehow doubt we'll be hearing that anytime soon, though
When a tick has embedded itself deeply within a wrinkle, it's quite difficult to remove.
.
Well, let's see.
One could only hope to hear the sounds of "much wailing and gnashing of teeth" from fort fumble.
I somehow doubt we'll be hearing that anytime soon, though
When a tick has embedded itself deeply within a wrinkle, it's quite difficult to remove.
.
Last edited by Stanwell; 25th Aug 2016 at 15:13.
Surely they have an effective change management policy for when a key member of personnel leaves like we all have to in our manuals? (sarc)
Or how about like us operators they could just simply have to cease operations and have no income until they find someone stupid enough to take on the poison chalice.
I have seen more incompetence from CASA in the last few months than in the 20 plus years I have held an AOC.
Or how about like us operators they could just simply have to cease operations and have no income until they find someone stupid enough to take on the poison chalice.
I have seen more incompetence from CASA in the last few months than in the 20 plus years I have held an AOC.
godot64:
Actually yes, it would help! it would allow the EA to screen and filter all the crap from reaching the boss and send it where it needs to go.
it is axiomatic in successful organizations that decision making is driven as far down the organization as close to the coal face as possible. That means you need qualified, experienced people - pilots and engineers, at the front line.
They need to be managed by similarly qualified and experienced people, or the poor bastards on the frontline will have to translate and explain every issue they bring to their boss for decision or review. And so on upwards.
To put that another way, populate a command or decision tree with people from a variety of professions - lawyers, arts graduates with history majors, economists with no flying experience and watch the issues get garbled as they go up the chain.
this is the very disease that is killing our entire economy - the belief that anyone can manage anything without having first hand experience of the thing, if only they apply "scientific" management principles acquired via an MBA.
...Hence my concern that there will be a temptation to appoint an aviationally marginally qualified female to help Canberra achieve its oft stated goal of gender equity.
As for the oft heard complaint that too many CASA staff don't have actual aviation backgrounds, how many would be enough? A third? One half? All of them? Should the DAS' executive assistant have a ATPL?
it is axiomatic in successful organizations that decision making is driven as far down the organization as close to the coal face as possible. That means you need qualified, experienced people - pilots and engineers, at the front line.
They need to be managed by similarly qualified and experienced people, or the poor bastards on the frontline will have to translate and explain every issue they bring to their boss for decision or review. And so on upwards.
To put that another way, populate a command or decision tree with people from a variety of professions - lawyers, arts graduates with history majors, economists with no flying experience and watch the issues get garbled as they go up the chain.
this is the very disease that is killing our entire economy - the belief that anyone can manage anything without having first hand experience of the thing, if only they apply "scientific" management principles acquired via an MBA.
...Hence my concern that there will be a temptation to appoint an aviationally marginally qualified female to help Canberra achieve its oft stated goal of gender equity.
But being a pilot or an engineer does not confer experience relevant to the management of a government regulatory authority and administration of a regulatory system. Being a pilot or an engineer might make you more efficient at "it", but "it" involves skills that no amount of flying or engineering will ever confer.
Lead Balloon #42
These astute observations, plus what follows in the post, are deserving of the closest 'study and digest'. In this entire thread, thus far, there is sufficient cool-headed logic, based sometimes on bitter experience, to warrant categorising as 'expert feedback'. How this resource can be employed to the benefit of the regulator and the sectors that are overseen, and those employed therein, might take the wisdom of Solomon. (and that's not Solomon Grundy.)
The paradox is that a person capable of doing the DAS job correctly can never be chosen.
A person capable of doing the job correctly would realise that CASA is not competent to run, and has a conflict of interest in running, the regulatory reform program. That person would insist that the Minister and the Department did their job.
Given that the Minister and the Department decide who the DAS will be, they are always going to choose someone who's silly enough to pretend, or is so naive as to believe, that s/he is in control of, and therefore responsible for, something that CASA is not competent to do and cannot do.
A person capable of doing the job correctly would realise that CASA is not competent to run, and has a conflict of interest in running, the regulatory reform program. That person would insist that the Minister and the Department did their job.
Given that the Minister and the Department decide who the DAS will be, they are always going to choose someone who's silly enough to pretend, or is so naive as to believe, that s/he is in control of, and therefore responsible for, something that CASA is not competent to do and cannot do.
The "action plan" reads like a guide to Wank Word Bingo, Sir Humphrey would be proud. No wonder the people who are paying for all this, the so-called "stakeholders" are getting more and more fed up with it.
CASA Relationship Survey shows Low Satisfaction Levels - Australian Flying
Some people in CLARC that can do basic clerical work would be a good start. It's got worse and worse since things were moved from the regional offices to Canberra.
CASA Relationship Survey shows Low Satisfaction Levels - Australian Flying
Some people in CLARC that can do basic clerical work would be a good start. It's got worse and worse since things were moved from the regional offices to Canberra.
LB:
With the greatest respect LB this is completely and utterly wrong. The entire essence of Weberian bureaucracy as applied in the Westminster system is a rigid system of procedures and authorities that is transparent and designed to be strictly followed by a public servant with very limited discretion. There is no formal "training" to be a public servant - anyone can do it, just follow the instructions on the packet.
Even me, Sunfish, passed as a credible public servant for Two years, and I was initiating, handing out, and managing Government grant money in the hundreds of thousands. All you do is follow the written procedures to the letter!
This very issue is at the core of my disbelief in the incompetence of CASA when I first heard of it - multiple interpretations of the regulations by sundry CASA staff, capriciously applied. I couldn't believe what I was reading! There is no room for "nuance", "art", or "divination" in the application of bureaucratic principles. To allow such nonsense is what causes the capriciousness and maybe corruption within CASA!
There needs to be simple rules like the FAA set which anyone with the basic training of a common policeman, pilot or engineer can safely interpret and apply. Public service is not rocket science!
Of course at Ministerial level it is a different game - Sir Humphrey does exist, and there is a need for highly trained generalists to design policies and systems but for the folk in the trenches, they should be following simple procedures and instructions.
Designed by genius for execution by idiots as the saying goes.
But being a pilot or an engineer does not confer experience relevant to the management of a government regulatory authority and administration of a regulatory system. Being a pilot or an engineer might make you more efficient at "it", but "it" involves skills that no amount of flying or engineering will ever confer.
Even me, Sunfish, passed as a credible public servant for Two years, and I was initiating, handing out, and managing Government grant money in the hundreds of thousands. All you do is follow the written procedures to the letter!
This very issue is at the core of my disbelief in the incompetence of CASA when I first heard of it - multiple interpretations of the regulations by sundry CASA staff, capriciously applied. I couldn't believe what I was reading! There is no room for "nuance", "art", or "divination" in the application of bureaucratic principles. To allow such nonsense is what causes the capriciousness and maybe corruption within CASA!
There needs to be simple rules like the FAA set which anyone with the basic training of a common policeman, pilot or engineer can safely interpret and apply. Public service is not rocket science!
Of course at Ministerial level it is a different game - Sir Humphrey does exist, and there is a need for highly trained generalists to design policies and systems but for the folk in the trenches, they should be following simple procedures and instructions.
Designed by genius for execution by idiots as the saying goes.
From the 1930's...although would probably have made a more accurate press release.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.
Ok, ok, ok!
Time to step in and sort this mess.
I'll need a paper shredder, a pair of size 10 Blunnies (for kicking flunkies out the door)
And finally, I'll need to approach the NZCAA, hat in hand, with a polite request for help.
Easy peasy.
Time to step in and sort this mess.
I'll need a paper shredder, a pair of size 10 Blunnies (for kicking flunkies out the door)
And finally, I'll need to approach the NZCAA, hat in hand, with a polite request for help.
Easy peasy.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proof of the pudding???
This is a strictly ..... mathematical viewpoint... and it goes like this:
What Makes 100% ????
What does it mean to give MORE than 100% ????
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100% ??? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103% ???
What makes up 100% in life ???
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
And
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But ,
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there.
Its the Bull**** and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top and CAsA are the living proof of this!!!!
Now you know why MrDak's minions are where they are! There will be a lot of chapped lips at Fort Fumble in the coming weeks.
Have you ever seen a better explanation for the disfunction of CAsA than this formula???
Except how true it is.....across the board in Australia's public service.... service it aint, the huge pay rises plus the 15% super is the obscene manifestation of why there needs to be a redefinition of SERVICE, closely followed by COMPETENCE. Why, if you choose to become a bureaucrat, does that entitle you to be entitled to reward and conditions way beyond those who's taxes provide your award. I know the Pollies are just glove puppets or talking heads for their Sir Humphries, but if the illusion that its the politicians who actually control anything is to be maintained. The Sir Humphries being remunerated double what their alleged bosses are paid sort of knocks holes in that Hypothesis
Apologies to purist mathematicians, I was never was much good at two times two.
This is a strictly ..... mathematical viewpoint... and it goes like this:
What Makes 100% ????
What does it mean to give MORE than 100% ????
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100% ??? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103% ???
What makes up 100% in life ???
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
And
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But ,
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there.
Its the Bull**** and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top and CAsA are the living proof of this!!!!
Now you know why MrDak's minions are where they are! There will be a lot of chapped lips at Fort Fumble in the coming weeks.
Have you ever seen a better explanation for the disfunction of CAsA than this formula???
Except how true it is.....across the board in Australia's public service.... service it aint, the huge pay rises plus the 15% super is the obscene manifestation of why there needs to be a redefinition of SERVICE, closely followed by COMPETENCE. Why, if you choose to become a bureaucrat, does that entitle you to be entitled to reward and conditions way beyond those who's taxes provide your award. I know the Pollies are just glove puppets or talking heads for their Sir Humphries, but if the illusion that its the politicians who actually control anything is to be maintained. The Sir Humphries being remunerated double what their alleged bosses are paid sort of knocks holes in that Hypothesis
Apologies to purist mathematicians, I was never was much good at two times two.
Last edited by thorn bird; 26th Aug 2016 at 09:59.