CASA Appoints new Safety Director
Maybe. But the head of the Reserve is not a teller from a local bank or a local bank manager, but likely someone with vastly more experience in a range of fields including administration of financial sector businesses or regulations, the Health authority is likely to be an experienced Medical Administrator not a local GP or Hospital Nurse. Similarly, a person with beyond the norm experience in educational theory and/or administration not a Prep or Grade 1 class teacher. A Pilot is one person in a vast eco system that is expert in only one thing, flying aeroplanes.
In aviation this is rarely the case and one of the reasons being that is takes so long to actually be a pilot in any sort of career job. It can take people circa 10 years+ plus to actually get into a jet airline, then another 10+ (20+ for QF) years before becoming a captain. Compare that sort of career path with other industries where people effectively walk into leadership roles straight out of University and spend their career in management.
How many pilots are on the QF and Virgin Boards for example?
Neville and aerial perspective are skirting the issue of the rise of so called "professional" management. This is the theory that if you have scientific training in the management arts, via an MBA or similar, you can manage any organization without coal face experience.
I can tell you this is BS from personal experience as an MBA and as a CEO. As a manager, you have no hope of understanding the finer points of the business if you don't speak the language.
Examples; humble stuff like working for three months resolving part interchangeability issues learning how to read a Boeing IPC teaches you a lot. Working as a baggage handler. Intricate financial, maintenance reliability and other stuff.
To put it another way, what hope has Carmody got if he doesn't know what an MEL or AOG means? He is automatically at a disadvantage if his subordinates "get technical" and I can assure you they will deliberately do that to demonstrate their superiority. Thus Carmody ends up as another "empty suit" with no contribution to make - a leader in name only.
You don't have to have detailed technical knowledge, but you must know how to speak the language.
What CASA needs, but won't get, is an aviation professional with serious public service experience of a non military kind.
I can tell you this is BS from personal experience as an MBA and as a CEO. As a manager, you have no hope of understanding the finer points of the business if you don't speak the language.
Examples; humble stuff like working for three months resolving part interchangeability issues learning how to read a Boeing IPC teaches you a lot. Working as a baggage handler. Intricate financial, maintenance reliability and other stuff.
To put it another way, what hope has Carmody got if he doesn't know what an MEL or AOG means? He is automatically at a disadvantage if his subordinates "get technical" and I can assure you they will deliberately do that to demonstrate their superiority. Thus Carmody ends up as another "empty suit" with no contribution to make - a leader in name only.
You don't have to have detailed technical knowledge, but you must know how to speak the language.
What CASA needs, but won't get, is an aviation professional with serious public service experience of a non military kind.
Neville and aerial perspective are skirting the issue of the rise of so called "professional" management. This is the theory that if you have scientific training in the management arts, via an MBA or similar, you can manage any organization without coal face experience.
I can tell you this is BS from personal experience as an MBA and as a CEO. As a manager, you have no hope of understanding the finer points of the business if you don't speak the language.
Examples; humble stuff like working for three months resolving part interchangeability issues learning how to read a Boeing IPC teaches you a lot. Working as a baggage handler. Intricate financial, maintenance reliability and other stuff.
To put it another way, what hope has Carmody got if he doesn't know what an MEL or AOG means? He is automatically at a disadvantage if his subordinates "get technical" and I can assure you they will deliberately do that to demonstrate their superiority. Thus Carmody ends up as another "empty suit" with no contribution to make - a leader in name only.
You don't have to have detailed technical knowledge, but you must know how to speak the language.
What CASA needs, but won't get, is an aviation professional with serious public service experience of a non military kind.
I can tell you this is BS from personal experience as an MBA and as a CEO. As a manager, you have no hope of understanding the finer points of the business if you don't speak the language.
Examples; humble stuff like working for three months resolving part interchangeability issues learning how to read a Boeing IPC teaches you a lot. Working as a baggage handler. Intricate financial, maintenance reliability and other stuff.
To put it another way, what hope has Carmody got if he doesn't know what an MEL or AOG means? He is automatically at a disadvantage if his subordinates "get technical" and I can assure you they will deliberately do that to demonstrate their superiority. Thus Carmody ends up as another "empty suit" with no contribution to make - a leader in name only.
You don't have to have detailed technical knowledge, but you must know how to speak the language.
What CASA needs, but won't get, is an aviation professional with serious public service experience of a non military kind.
One of the best managers I ever worked for had come into the industry as what was in those days called a 'graduate trainee'. He never worked on check in or chucked a bag for example but he knew what those people did and he knew a LOT about regulation of the industry and was respected. He was a decent person and a very good people manager.
What I was saying is sitting in a Flight Deck for 20 years and that ONLY does not qualify someone for the sort of job you're talking about. There needs to be some other experience. It's wrong to think that just because you can fly an aeroplane that you can be CEO.
If Carmody can come to an understanding of what an AOG or an MEL is (I know what they are and I am not a pilot, but I have a brain and can appreciate their gravity). You don't need to be a pilot to do that.
Leadership ability is key and I don't care what anyone says, you can't teach that as much of it is innate and a result of the environment and the way the person has grown up.
By the way, the reason it takes 20+ years to become a fully qualified 'jet' pilot is because it is an extremely complex task that requires layers of knowledge and experience in one discipline, being an aviator. It is similar in many respects to someone becoming a nuclear physicist or a chemist, they usually, unless they're lucky, become very successful at the end of their careers - studying and perfecting complex tasks such as this at the exclusion of anything else does not qualify someone to lead an entire organization.
It doesn't lessen the value of the task or the qualification, it's just a different type of occupation. People need to get over this idea that just because you can be a good pilot you can be a good administrator. That doesn't mean there aren't people who can divert careers and achieve both but it's rare.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 14th Jun 2017 at 13:21. Reason: add
perspective, we are in furious agreement. pilots don't necessarily make good administrators or managers. what i am saying is that without coal face experience, the odds of Carmody making a successful attempt at reform are near zero.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Law is written and amended by the Parliament.
He is up against it, as I hear he has already had the "Iron Ring", present iteration, blocking him doing some of the things he wanted/tried to do as "Acting".
If this 2012 Organisational Chart from the CASA web site is correct, Carmody will be at the same level as other senior managers:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...e-governance-4
He has the "Iron Ring" up there at his level? Good luck with that one!
I don't see fifteen years in the Army; Deputy President, Repatriation Commission; COO, Dept of Veteran's Affairs; Deputy Secretary, Dept of Infrastructure and Regional Development; and fluency in Bahasa Indonesian as providing the technical and administrative skills to manage an aviation regulator with CASA's history and reputation.
Another hopeful picks up the career destroying poison chalice.
Last edited by Air Ace; 14th Jun 2017 at 20:23.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Aerial, I stated before and again that being a good pilot or engineer doesn't make a good manager nor does not having these backgrounds necessarily make a bad administrator.
However, we are talking about a vastly complex industry that requires a deep understanding of how it works, how is organised, how it is structured etc and it would be better to get someone with a mix of aviation experience and as head of safety someone who has a safety background - how much do you want to bet, he couldn't state the definitions of what a 'hazard' a 'risk' an 'incident' or an 'accident' are or stating the '4 pillars of SMS' etc.
As for this:
In all the cases I have dealt with graduate trainees they have spent a minimum of two years in the business being cycled through the various departments the reason your guy 'knew what those people did' is because he probably did something similar. And by that rationale send Carmody on a two year graduate trainee program then we'll all be happy because as it stands he hasn't done this and in fact hasn't done anything....
As for learning terms, citing MEL and AOG, thats a pretty purile argument as we all know the jargon used in aviation is vast and sometimes related to extremely complex concepts - knowing what a term is, is one thing, understanding it is another! The DOS job shouldn't be a 'learn on the job' post, it should be one where the applicant has a good idea of what is going on.
And c'mon fellas, how many of you, if you were the boss would employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job? (and we are not talking grad/trainee positions we are talking frontline) - anyone who says yes is either mad or lying.
As a safety and risk manager, if I did a 'risk analysis' of appointing this guy to the position he would end up in the 'intolerable' region which is defined as 'unacceptable under any circumstances' and that about sums it up.
However, we are talking about a vastly complex industry that requires a deep understanding of how it works, how is organised, how it is structured etc and it would be better to get someone with a mix of aviation experience and as head of safety someone who has a safety background - how much do you want to bet, he couldn't state the definitions of what a 'hazard' a 'risk' an 'incident' or an 'accident' are or stating the '4 pillars of SMS' etc.
As for this:
One of the best managers I ever worked for had come into the industry as what was in those days called a 'graduate trainee'. He never worked on check in or chucked a bag for example but he knew what those people did and he knew a LOT about regulation of the industry and was respected. He was a decent person and a very good people manager.
As for learning terms, citing MEL and AOG, thats a pretty purile argument as we all know the jargon used in aviation is vast and sometimes related to extremely complex concepts - knowing what a term is, is one thing, understanding it is another! The DOS job shouldn't be a 'learn on the job' post, it should be one where the applicant has a good idea of what is going on.
And c'mon fellas, how many of you, if you were the boss would employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job? (and we are not talking grad/trainee positions we are talking frontline) - anyone who says yes is either mad or lying.
As a safety and risk manager, if I did a 'risk analysis' of appointing this guy to the position he would end up in the 'intolerable' region which is defined as 'unacceptable under any circumstances' and that about sums it up.
[I]f you were the boss would [you] employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job?
I'll guarantee there is a yawning gap between your strong opinions of what the requirements should be, compared with what the requirements are in fact.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@lead balloon, I would expect the 'job ad' to be something like this:
Director should have a CV with a professional flight crew licence/engineering licence/ATCO qualification + operational/AMO experience + senior management experience (OM/QM/SMS) + aviation safety experience + recognised safety qualifications.
In my view the guy in such a responsible position should have 15-20 years aviation experience, a management degree, at least 10 years aviation management experience of which a minimum should be in a safety role and they should be safety qualified (preferably to a postgraduate level) and I would recommend experience in safety & quality auditing too.
That's what my 'job advert' would be and anyone who didn't meet all of that criteria would automatically be eliminated from the mix. If the requirements are any less than this IMHO I would say that the regulator/Gov't are not acting accordingly in their responsibilities to the general public, who at the end of the day pick up the bill!
Let me say that these are the 'technical' requirements, I would also expect him to be a good communicator, negotiator, experienced in budgeting and financial management etc etc (most of which you would hope he'd have from senior management positions).
I would also hope there would be significant screening and assessing of the candidates for the position too and a very robust interview process. Again, I am pretty skeptical that the recruitment of the new appointee was an honest and transparent process and I'm not convinced that the 'international search for the best available person' according to the CASA press release truly resulted in the best person being chosen - seems a lot like 'jobs for the boys' to me and that the international search was a 'tick box' exercise to comply with labour regs and on the point of
well I think the requirements were not set around what the job requires but what would match most closely to the experience of the new DOS. That way no one could say he wasn't experienced or qualified for the role.....except for the whole industry that know otherwise.
Director should have a CV with a professional flight crew licence/engineering licence/ATCO qualification + operational/AMO experience + senior management experience (OM/QM/SMS) + aviation safety experience + recognised safety qualifications.
In my view the guy in such a responsible position should have 15-20 years aviation experience, a management degree, at least 10 years aviation management experience of which a minimum should be in a safety role and they should be safety qualified (preferably to a postgraduate level) and I would recommend experience in safety & quality auditing too.
That's what my 'job advert' would be and anyone who didn't meet all of that criteria would automatically be eliminated from the mix. If the requirements are any less than this IMHO I would say that the regulator/Gov't are not acting accordingly in their responsibilities to the general public, who at the end of the day pick up the bill!
Let me say that these are the 'technical' requirements, I would also expect him to be a good communicator, negotiator, experienced in budgeting and financial management etc etc (most of which you would hope he'd have from senior management positions).
I would also hope there would be significant screening and assessing of the candidates for the position too and a very robust interview process. Again, I am pretty skeptical that the recruitment of the new appointee was an honest and transparent process and I'm not convinced that the 'international search for the best available person' according to the CASA press release truly resulted in the best person being chosen - seems a lot like 'jobs for the boys' to me and that the international search was a 'tick box' exercise to comply with labour regs and on the point of
what the requirements should be, compared with what the requirements are in fact
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Director should have a CV with a professional flight crew licence/engineering licence/ATCO qualification + operational/AMO experience + senior management experience (OM/QM/SMS) + aviation safety experience + recognised safety qualifications."
Those qualifications sound very close to Mike Smiths.
He got knocked back for lack of "Administrative" experience, even though he had been a past deputy DAS, but I don't think that was the real reason.
The "Iron Ring" would never allow a reformer in the job, especially one who perhaps knows where all the skeletons are buried.
Who signed off on the employment of the screaming Skull? some would say the biggest disaster ever to befall an industry, and probably the most expensive.
Those qualifications sound very close to Mike Smiths.
He got knocked back for lack of "Administrative" experience, even though he had been a past deputy DAS, but I don't think that was the real reason.
The "Iron Ring" would never allow a reformer in the job, especially one who perhaps knows where all the skeletons are buried.
Who signed off on the employment of the screaming Skull? some would say the biggest disaster ever to befall an industry, and probably the most expensive.
Last edited by thorn bird; 16th Jun 2017 at 07:30.
I'm not sure that the "iron ring" is where we all think it is - apparently there is a select group right at the top of aviation in Australia that meets regularly.
I'm told it comprises the head of the Department (DIRD?), the head of CASA, Airservices, the RAAF and perhaps others (ATSB?). They agree on policy and then direct the policy of their various organisations to make sure it happens. Given their positions, maintenance of the status quo (change is very dangerous and unpredictable - you've all seen Yes Minister!) would be high on the agenda.
The Minister would only want change if something was going wrong, and Australia's accident figures will be evidence that nothing is going wrong. Review committees (Forsyth) are the perfect vehicle for convincing everyone that the Government is doing something. Inevitably they all start their reports with "Australia is the safest place in the World to fly" before recommending lots of administrative, consultative and chair shuffling changes such as those happening to CASA and Airservices.
Perhaps the iron ring is right at the top and those we think are the iron ring are simply obeying orders? After all that is how most organisations work.....
I'm told it comprises the head of the Department (DIRD?), the head of CASA, Airservices, the RAAF and perhaps others (ATSB?). They agree on policy and then direct the policy of their various organisations to make sure it happens. Given their positions, maintenance of the status quo (change is very dangerous and unpredictable - you've all seen Yes Minister!) would be high on the agenda.
The Minister would only want change if something was going wrong, and Australia's accident figures will be evidence that nothing is going wrong. Review committees (Forsyth) are the perfect vehicle for convincing everyone that the Government is doing something. Inevitably they all start their reports with "Australia is the safest place in the World to fly" before recommending lots of administrative, consultative and chair shuffling changes such as those happening to CASA and Airservices.
Perhaps the iron ring is right at the top and those we think are the iron ring are simply obeying orders? After all that is how most organisations work.....
... I would expect ...
Director should have ...
In my view ...
I would also expect ...
I would also hope ...
I think ...
Director should have ...
In my view ...
I would also expect ...
I would also hope ...
I think ...
Anyone who's been paying attention for the last couple of decades would know what that selection criterion is.
I don't disagree Sunfish, I was just making the point about one skill set not being enough.
@Aerial, I stated before and again that being a good pilot or engineer doesn't make a good manager nor does not having these backgrounds necessarily make a bad administrator.
However, we are talking about a vastly complex industry that requires a deep understanding of how it works, how is organised, how it is structured etc and it would be better to get someone with a mix of aviation experience and as head of safety someone who has a safety background - how much do you want to bet, he couldn't state the definitions of what a 'hazard' a 'risk' an 'incident' or an 'accident' are or stating the '4 pillars of SMS' etc.
As for this:
In all the cases I have dealt with graduate trainees they have spent a minimum of two years in the business being cycled through the various departments the reason your guy 'knew what those people did' is because he probably did something similar. And by that rationale send Carmody on a two year graduate trainee program then we'll all be happy because as it stands he hasn't done this and in fact hasn't done anything....
As for learning terms, citing MEL and AOG, thats a pretty purile argument as we all know the jargon used in aviation is vast and sometimes related to extremely complex concepts - knowing what a term is, is one thing, understanding it is another! The DOS job shouldn't be a 'learn on the job' post, it should be one where the applicant has a good idea of what is going on.
And c'mon fellas, how many of you, if you were the boss would employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job? (and we are not talking grad/trainee positions we are talking frontline) - anyone who says yes is either mad or lying.
As a safety and risk manager, if I did a 'risk analysis' of appointing this guy to the position he would end up in the 'intolerable' region which is defined as 'unacceptable under any circumstances' and that about sums it up.
However, we are talking about a vastly complex industry that requires a deep understanding of how it works, how is organised, how it is structured etc and it would be better to get someone with a mix of aviation experience and as head of safety someone who has a safety background - how much do you want to bet, he couldn't state the definitions of what a 'hazard' a 'risk' an 'incident' or an 'accident' are or stating the '4 pillars of SMS' etc.
As for this:
In all the cases I have dealt with graduate trainees they have spent a minimum of two years in the business being cycled through the various departments the reason your guy 'knew what those people did' is because he probably did something similar. And by that rationale send Carmody on a two year graduate trainee program then we'll all be happy because as it stands he hasn't done this and in fact hasn't done anything....
As for learning terms, citing MEL and AOG, thats a pretty purile argument as we all know the jargon used in aviation is vast and sometimes related to extremely complex concepts - knowing what a term is, is one thing, understanding it is another! The DOS job shouldn't be a 'learn on the job' post, it should be one where the applicant has a good idea of what is going on.
And c'mon fellas, how many of you, if you were the boss would employ someone in your companies to do a job with no experience or no qualifications for that job? (and we are not talking grad/trainee positions we are talking frontline) - anyone who says yes is either mad or lying.
As a safety and risk manager, if I did a 'risk analysis' of appointing this guy to the position he would end up in the 'intolerable' region which is defined as 'unacceptable under any circumstances' and that about sums it up.
I'm not saying that Carmody has any of that, I'm not saying he doesn't need it, I was simply saying he doesn't have to be a Pilot.
As for choosing someone with no experience, it depends on the position being filled and the state the organization is in or the transition it's going through. Any manager who comes from outside and doesn't have the ability to determine who is taking him/her for a fool and who is telling the truth and displaying integrity (and not manipulating with jargon) should not be in the position. There's an art to good management and those with lots of experience in similar industries can sort the wheat from the chaff if they have enough experience and a modicum of judgement.
Of course it is desirable for someone to have some exposure to the industry and yes it is complex but the view is usually from a high level, not the nuts and bolts of what everyone does on a daily basis.
I don't know if this guy will be good or not, time will tell.
I can think of at least one CEO of Qantas that came from outside, had worked in the private sector and the public service at very high levels and we all rolled our eyes but he turned out to be quite probably the best CEO the company had in my time there - he had enough nouse to know right from wrong, he stopped the flight ops department from taking minimum fuel because 'the rules allowed it' which won him praise from Pilots and Engineers but hey, he wasn't a pilot or an engineer.
We all thought the same thing. Maybe this guy appointed to CASA isn't in the same ballpark as the person I'm thinking of but by any objective measure, this particular QF CEO had the ability to absorb the complexity, critical elements but not the day to day detail of the airline and the industry and made good business decisions, saw record profits and just about everyone in the company held him in very high regard and there was almost a revolt when he was maneuvered out by the Board (and no, it wasn't Strong or Dixon or Joyce obviously).
My point is overall, yes there needs to be some understanding or appreciation of the complexity, but people can surprise you and sometimes people you would least expect.
Blueside, your comments on the qualities of a successful DAS make sense if the Government actually wanted to reform regulations and foster a growing aviation industry.
Sadly, in my opinion the Government doesn't want that at all. Both sides of parliament consider aviation as unpopular, politically risky to play with and a waste of time. That is why they employed Carmody as I wrote in my post:
If I am correct, then the only way to get meaningful reform is to make it less painful for the Government and opposition of the day to support an aviation reform policy then not.
The political pain is most easily generated, as I have said before, by a negative political advertising campaign targeted only at marginal seats for both parties. I assure you that such a {legal} campaign will get the attention of Liberal and labor parties very quickly and a reaction out of all proportion to funds employed, for there is nothing like the threat of losing ones seat to galvanise a politician.
Until this is done, absent an aviation catastrophic accident, the Iron ring will be permitted to do what they like to whoever they like.
We need an aviation action coalition to design a campaign to target labor, liberal and country party marginal seats, and we need it now.
Sadly, in my opinion the Government doesn't want that at all. Both sides of parliament consider aviation as unpopular, politically risky to play with and a waste of time. That is why they employed Carmody as I wrote in my post:
Of course I am talking from the perspective of someone who believes "success" for the DAS means a thriving aviation industry in terms of jobs, investment and growth. I think Carmody's appointment indicates that the Government, Infrastructure Department and the Minister define "success" as preventing Aviation from being any embarrassment to the Federal Government or distraction from their other policy pursuits
The political pain is most easily generated, as I have said before, by a negative political advertising campaign targeted only at marginal seats for both parties. I assure you that such a {legal} campaign will get the attention of Liberal and labor parties very quickly and a reaction out of all proportion to funds employed, for there is nothing like the threat of losing ones seat to galvanise a politician.
Until this is done, absent an aviation catastrophic accident, the Iron ring will be permitted to do what they like to whoever they like.
We need an aviation action coalition to design a campaign to target labor, liberal and country party marginal seats, and we need it now.
Almost everyone labours under the misconception that the "iron ring" comprises people. It doesn't.
The "iron ring" is the regulatory and political straightjacket placed on the DAS. And straightjacket is the correct metaphor, because the easiest way to send someone crazy is to make them responsible for tasks over which they have no control or competence to complete.
The people mistaken for the "iron ring" are the small number of senior people who've been lurking in the corridors of the aviation and transport halls of doom in Canberra for decades - never responsible for anything - but always in the background, ready to whisper advice in the ear of whoever happens to be the current resident of the straitjacket. Alas, the advice they whisper is correct. Practically, the DAS has free reign to do .... almost nothing. Things like the 'Directives' issued by Mr Byron and so breathlessly lauded by some in industry were vacuous motherhood statements.
CASA will never finish the regulatory reform program. Because it can't. I use the word "can't" in its correct sense. CASA physically, politically, conceptually - and whatever other word ending in "ally" you want to use - is not capable of finishing the regulatory reform program. (And, in any event, CASA staff have a positive incentive for the regulatory reform program never to end. It's a self-licking ice cream.) The straitjacket forces the DAS to pretend otherwise. To tell the truth would be political suicide.
Mr Carmody's first utterances on CVD and the completion of the regulatory reform program will signal whether he is going to try to loosen the shackles of the straitjacket. If he leaves Avmed to its devices and announces that he hopes that the regulatory reform program will be completed mid-whatever year he wants to pluck out of anywhere, you can safely write off any chance of him changing anything for the better for industry, and focus your energies elsewhere.
The "iron ring" is the regulatory and political straightjacket placed on the DAS. And straightjacket is the correct metaphor, because the easiest way to send someone crazy is to make them responsible for tasks over which they have no control or competence to complete.
The people mistaken for the "iron ring" are the small number of senior people who've been lurking in the corridors of the aviation and transport halls of doom in Canberra for decades - never responsible for anything - but always in the background, ready to whisper advice in the ear of whoever happens to be the current resident of the straitjacket. Alas, the advice they whisper is correct. Practically, the DAS has free reign to do .... almost nothing. Things like the 'Directives' issued by Mr Byron and so breathlessly lauded by some in industry were vacuous motherhood statements.
CASA will never finish the regulatory reform program. Because it can't. I use the word "can't" in its correct sense. CASA physically, politically, conceptually - and whatever other word ending in "ally" you want to use - is not capable of finishing the regulatory reform program. (And, in any event, CASA staff have a positive incentive for the regulatory reform program never to end. It's a self-licking ice cream.) The straitjacket forces the DAS to pretend otherwise. To tell the truth would be political suicide.
Mr Carmody's first utterances on CVD and the completion of the regulatory reform program will signal whether he is going to try to loosen the shackles of the straitjacket. If he leaves Avmed to its devices and announces that he hopes that the regulatory reform program will be completed mid-whatever year he wants to pluck out of anywhere, you can safely write off any chance of him changing anything for the better for industry, and focus your energies elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead I totally agree with your and Sunnies take on the situation.
I see no logic in what is happening now, even a self licking ice cream, as you so eloquently put it, melts eventually.
The decline of the industry is so apparent its sickening, and it makes no sense to continue along the same path, its self defeating.
When its cheaper to ferry a medium sized corporate jet all the way to the US for a major maintenance check it becomes absurd.
Major international airlines are pulling their flying training out of Australia to NZ or Canada, its obvious where the industry is heading and why, but they still persist.
At what point will someone in Authority finally step up and say enough with this experiment.
Then again, look at the debacle our energy industry has become, that threatens to consign the whole of Australia to absolute third world status.
I really despair for the future my grandchildren will face.
I see no logic in what is happening now, even a self licking ice cream, as you so eloquently put it, melts eventually.
The decline of the industry is so apparent its sickening, and it makes no sense to continue along the same path, its self defeating.
When its cheaper to ferry a medium sized corporate jet all the way to the US for a major maintenance check it becomes absurd.
Major international airlines are pulling their flying training out of Australia to NZ or Canada, its obvious where the industry is heading and why, but they still persist.
At what point will someone in Authority finally step up and say enough with this experiment.
Then again, look at the debacle our energy industry has become, that threatens to consign the whole of Australia to absolute third world status.
I really despair for the future my grandchildren will face.
I disagree with Lead Balloon about the nature of "The Iron Ring" = it isn't the regulations and the Act at all, still less one or Two evil masterminds. It is the Fifty Four managers I counted on that organisation chart that are your problem.
Even with the best will in the world, each one of them will have a thirty page justification at to why their job needs to exist, why their powers should be increased, why they are critical to success, what sections of the Aviation Act and enabling legislation makes their role necessary, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not one of these managers is in favour of changing the status quo as it affects them.
The reason I can say that with confidence is because its simple organisational behaviour - where you stand is where you sit. Everybody is in favour of the other guy changing, but me? My role? No way!
What this means in practice is that there is no hope that CASA will gradually change to benefit the industry - ever. What you will see of course is the other sort of change - parasitic administrative growth as the organisation continues to fatten itself at the expense of the host, for example, I will bet my left one that we now have an office of Drone regulation and several fully staffed projects and inter departmental committees studying this subject.
In such an environment gradual change is impossible, even for relatively agile private corporations without that extra layer of rules and regulations that clothe CASA. Carmody would know this, but he still accepted the DAS job. That means he is another 'safe pair of hands".
From my corporate experience, you cannot change CASA, the only solution is to break it up and start again. This requires either a traumatic aviation disaster or a political trauma severe enough for the Government to get off its fat arse.
The actual mechanics of a break up and restructure of CASA are easily managed by the Department of PM & C. That requires the creation of a small first class team tasked with rewriting the Act and adopting the FAA regulations as a template. Any tendency to develop a "unique Australian system" must be avoided or we will end up with another unworkable monstrosity.
Once a new Act and regulations are produced and legislated, it is relatively simple to create the two new successors - separating regulation and enforcement, developing a transition plan and going through a restaffing exercise and hopefully separating wheat from chaff in the process.
Even with the best will in the world, each one of them will have a thirty page justification at to why their job needs to exist, why their powers should be increased, why they are critical to success, what sections of the Aviation Act and enabling legislation makes their role necessary, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not one of these managers is in favour of changing the status quo as it affects them.
The reason I can say that with confidence is because its simple organisational behaviour - where you stand is where you sit. Everybody is in favour of the other guy changing, but me? My role? No way!
What this means in practice is that there is no hope that CASA will gradually change to benefit the industry - ever. What you will see of course is the other sort of change - parasitic administrative growth as the organisation continues to fatten itself at the expense of the host, for example, I will bet my left one that we now have an office of Drone regulation and several fully staffed projects and inter departmental committees studying this subject.
In such an environment gradual change is impossible, even for relatively agile private corporations without that extra layer of rules and regulations that clothe CASA. Carmody would know this, but he still accepted the DAS job. That means he is another 'safe pair of hands".
From my corporate experience, you cannot change CASA, the only solution is to break it up and start again. This requires either a traumatic aviation disaster or a political trauma severe enough for the Government to get off its fat arse.
The actual mechanics of a break up and restructure of CASA are easily managed by the Department of PM & C. That requires the creation of a small first class team tasked with rewriting the Act and adopting the FAA regulations as a template. Any tendency to develop a "unique Australian system" must be avoided or we will end up with another unworkable monstrosity.
Once a new Act and regulations are produced and legislated, it is relatively simple to create the two new successors - separating regulation and enforcement, developing a transition plan and going through a restaffing exercise and hopefully separating wheat from chaff in the process.