Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Mr Skidmore resigned

Old 29th Aug 2016, 09:33
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Every once in a while there is a thread where pilots openly and without the good sense of demonstrating respectful self constraint, show for all to see who and what many of them really are, this thread is one of those, which makes me ashamed to call myself a pilot.

IMO more head way has been made with the legislative changes in the last 20 months than the previous 20 years.

I wonder what a public survey on the highway patrol or tax office or court system would reveal ?

Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 29th Aug 2016 at 11:54.
Shed Dog Tosser is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 10:36
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 919
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Tosser, imagine what he could of achieved in that case if he saw out his contract rather than pull the pin in under 2 years.
megle2 is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 11:55
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,495
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Shed dog, you can stick "respectful self constraint" up your proverbial. The CEO role requires you to land on your feet, running. You have Six months to get a major run on the board and twelve months for a recognizable major achievement.

I cannot overemphasize this. You do not get 20 months to make changes. you have a twelve month window to metaphorically hack off heads and tear the place apart. After that you can spend your time repairing the wound and rehabilitating the patient.

To put that another way, the achievements come at the front of your tenure, not at the end. To do otherwise is like a football team relaxing for three quarters and pinning all their hopes on an all out effort in the final quarter.

this is why I said the good AVM was not going to succeed. A CEO needs to make an immediate and public impact on the organization. 'familiarization", "getting your feet under the table", "briefings" - all BS. You need to have an action plan ready to implement on day 1 week 1. if you have to dick around, you haven't done your homework.

"restructures" don't cut it. the same test awaits Skidmores replacement; immediate, public major real change that stamps the CEOs authority on the business.

the job is like being a football coach. no excuses. Sadly Skidmore didn't set the world on fire and after 29 months he wasn't going to be able to.

This is not a personal reflection on AVM Skidmore. I could go into more detail of the whys and wherefore so except I'm on the iPad.

Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Aug 2016 at 12:12.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 13:12
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A CEO needs to make an immediate and public impact on the organization. 'familiarization", "getting your feet under the table", "briefings" - all BS. You need to have an action plan ready to implement on day 1 week 1. if you have to dick around, you haven't done your homework.
From a previous senior DoT manager who has been following the thread on the DAS planned departure. His words "Fine to have an action plan ready to implement on day 1week 1. That might be operable in private industry but in the Public Service it can take up to three years to get rid of an incompetent employee due to the various legal processes that have to be followed. That means a DAS is hamstrung before he has his feet under the table. Enough to discourage the most courageous AVM's or their equivalent in CASA." From the voice of the experienced..
sheppey is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 22:11
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,495
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Agreed sheppy, your mate is correct you can't fire them (begs the question of how CASA has PS conditions when it is an NGO) but you can redeploy said employees to a basement office playing computer games or do other things that make their career pointless and miserable until they take the package. Furthermore, you can make their jobs just disappear In a reorganization leaving them to reapply for new positions.

This is why a new DAS needs the backing of cabinet and the help of PM&C to effect change. PM & C do this sort of thing routinely they are experts at it - the Sir Humphrey of Sir Humphreys.

One way to do it might be to split CASA into two new organizations.

To put that another way, wouldn't the cost to industry and Australia be cheaper if CASAs senior management were placed on administrative leave with full pay until they retired?

Last edited by Sunfish; 30th Aug 2016 at 00:43.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2016, 23:48
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet View Post
The concept of Australia being a Democracy is flawed. Australia is a "Bureaucracy" in the true sense of Sir Humphrey, and therefor there is no political solution to the CAsA conundrum. It doesn't take much digging to see who the powerbrokers are. Until this hurdle is behind us nothing is going to change. Sans a war, and the implementation of The Army Act, a more robust political without personal agendas needs to be bred from scratch and inserted into the system where they can resurrect the dead industry.
Actually, Australia is a two party dictatorship - abetted by the bureaucracy...
Aurora8 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 04:06
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm writing this as someone who has only ever worked in private enterprise, so I admit that I have no idea about the internal workings of a bureaucracy like the public service or CASA or any other Govt (or Semi Govt) dept.


Whilst I was less than impressed with Mr Skidmores stance on the CVD issue, I did feel that he was at least trying to effect some level of change in the organisation. It is extremely disappointing that he would not at least see out his initial term of appointment. Were things that bad behind the scenes that he just couldn't take it any more..? Was he forced out..? If so, by whom..?


How is it, that nobody including his predecessors, are being held accountable for the breathtaking clusterf*&@ that is the Regulatory Reform process..? The simply eye-watering waste of public money beggars belief, and it seems there is absolutely no end in sight. Why have there not been wholesale sackings/bloodletting in the organisation, of those responsible..? Who are these people, this 'iron ring' I keep reading about..?? Why can't a new DAS walk in there and cut a swathe through the place like it so clearly needs..? Are the employment contracts of these people so watertight that even if they waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and ruin the GA industry, they can continue to do so with no accountability..?


Sorry for all the questions and the rant but this whole situation makes me
IFEZ is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 07:13
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would seem Chester sacked him as his leaving would have wound up the alarms in the public service directed/leaked media because his contract was broken. If so he leaves with a taxpayer funded handshake plus his remaining remit. All of which may appear to solve a problem but leaves the real barrier to a competent regulatory authority. It's been mentioned a senior lawyer welded to the CAsA payroll for years should step up to the plate. If he does nothing will change in my opinion. He, like the departed DAS are designated sacrificial cows to act as a fusible link to the senior public servant who's next job will probably be at McBank as a corporate psychopath. Until then he will protect his position and no amount of reasoning or common sense will alter his preordained agenda. In short, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Chester and Joyce should address this problem before claiming any medals.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 07:54
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,651
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
IFEZ

I agree that Mr Skidmore should not be blamed for the outcomes of the survey. Subject to a couple of exceptions, he inherited a mess that has been created over a couple of decades and was never going to be cleaned up during Mr Skidmore's fleeting tenure. (The exceptions were his response to CVD and the ASRR Report. Both were unnecessarily self-inflicted wounds for which he would have been charged if still a member of the ADF.)

The reason that nobody in CASA is held responsible for the regulatory reform Frankenstein is that they cannot be held responsible. The reason they cannot be held responsible is that they are not responsible in fact. The people who are responsible in fact don't in fact work in CASA. But they are happy to let CASA take the blame. That's CASA's job.

Are the police responsible for reforming the criminal code? Nope.

Is ASIC responsible for reforming the corporations law? Nope.

Is the ATO responsible for reforming the tax law? Nope.

Name me any regulator that's successfully driven the reform of the regulatory system that the regulator itself administers.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 09:09
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,495
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
why did Chester sack him? is Chester pro aviation or just another career politician?
Sunfish is online now  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 09:27
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 508
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
why did Chester sack him?
Maybe the puppet master (MrC47) told him too.

CC
Checklist Charlie is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 09:59
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,953
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Name me any regulator that's successfully driven the reform of the regulatory system that the regulator itself administers.
Name me the alternative body with the appropriate expertise in the field who could produce the required reform in this case, then.
Arm out the window is online now  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 10:39
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AOTW: NZ CAA on a five year contract.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 22:35
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,651
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Name me the alternative body with the appropriate expertise in the field who could produce the required reform in this case, then.
There is no government body with the required competence to carry out the aviation regulatory reform program.

That's the point.

That's why Australia is stuck with the regulatory dog's breakfast it has.

There is a government body with responsibilty for carrying out the aviation regulatory reform program. It's not CASA.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 22:53
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Before too many more instant solutions get thrown around.....


Please read the latest edition of Australia's "Aviation State Safety Programme", ICAO Document 9734 (Safety Oversight Manual-Part A-The Establishement and Management of a State's Safety Oversight System), ICAO Annex 1 and Annex 6 (and especially Appendix 5: State Safety Oversight of Air Operators) and ICAO Document 8335 (Manual of Procedures for Operations Inspection, Certification and Continued Surveillance).


Then some of the instant solutions can be better benchmarked.


And for those wanting lock stock and barrel adoption of the FAA rules.....you will have time, in the midst of reading the above, to start to figure out how to explain to all the co-pilots in Australia with less than 1500 hours why they will no longer have jobs and explain to EASA why we have stopped requiring MCC training. Just for starters.
















Captain Sherm is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2016, 23:47
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cairns
Posts: 1,306
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Status quo needs to be changed, CASA regulate and the Department of Infstructure (our what ever they call themselves) should be the regulation drafters. The current system clearly has failed badly and costed the taxpayer and industry dearly. Until someone in government steps up and changes the government's policy on who makes the new rules, we are never going to get out of the existing rut. To take over 20 years to achieve nothing with the ops regs is a total disgrace.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2016, 07:59
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 70
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
armout the window, the eternal CAsA apologist, is completely missing the point.
there was no reform of aviation regulation needed.
what is needed is a sensible set of regulations.
australia's massive clusterfcuk breaches human rights and individual rights in a number of areas because it was written with an ex-raaf mentality.
a mentality that has no real clue when it comes to private aviation.

you as who could do the job competently?
transport canada have an existing set of regulations that work well.
no need for reform at all.
just import their regulations and more importantly their attitudes to flying and we would be better off.

if we really must keep CAsA them make them the Commercial Aviation Safety Authority and get them out of Aeronautical Engineering Standards and private aviation completely.

I keep getting told that CAsA are actually competent.
trouble is I have 46 years aviation background, own aircraft, and I have yet to see them ever be competent.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2016, 08:41
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep, Canadian rules would be fine. Similar to FAA, but includes owner maintenance of simple light aircraft.
Also none of the nonsense of dividing up recreational aviation into "silos" with CASA creation of monopoly private bodies and compulsion to join. ONE set of rules only.
The need for RAAus would go away completely if owner maintenance of aircraft up to RAAus weight limit was allowed along with ordinary car driver's licence medical for same. Likewise for GFA and gliders. The sky would not fall in.
This would save huge amounts of money and avoid having volunteers spending lots of time writing operations and maintenance manuals for each branch of sport aviation, with differing standards and rules for no good reason.
Eyrie is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2016, 11:56
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 81
Posts: 3,053
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The post needs an ex FSO...desparately!

FSO Creed -

"We, the Willing,
Being led by the Unknowing,
Have been doing so much, for so long, with so little,
That we are now qualified
To do Absolutely Everything with Nothing.....!!!

1st 'Action Due' - A spill of all positions under the DAS>
2nd 'Action Due'- as 'Frank' has said - Cap in hand to our Bros across the detch....
3rd - 'Action Due' - to actually FOSTER / ENCOURAGE G.A.
That is all.....
Zimples.....
Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2016, 15:36
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool story bro!
The name is Porter is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.