Why do positions like Chief Pilot, HOFO, HOTAC etc exist?
Because if you're Uber driver doesn't follow the rules or breaks them, his cab doesn't come crashing down on a building killing hundreds of people onboard and hundreds in the building and wiping out a city block. That much should be obvious. Probably not on the same scale as a 747 crashing into a building but a threat none the less
Only to a point. It was certainly an interesting spectacle to see; a multinational disruptor (the regulated) telling state transport authorities (the regulator) how it was going to operate. For the most part they got their own way.
However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.
However, they were forced to ensure a medical for drivers, a new add on class on the drivers licence, plus insurance (strangely optional) and vehicle inspections required. So not quite a free for all.
The problem was that the governments were unwilling to actually enforce their own laws and thereby screwing all the law abiding taxi licence owners. They did the right thing and followed the law yet Uber came in illegally and screwed them all because the government wouldn't prosecute. Which then begs the question what is the point of regulation if you are not willing to uphold it?
Thread Starter
The problem was that the governments were unwilling to actually enforce their own laws and thereby screwing all the law abiding taxi licence owners. They did the right thing and followed the law yet Uber came in illegally and screwed them all because the government wouldn't prosecute. Which then begs the question what is the point of regulation if you are not willing to uphold it?
We'll have to agree to disagree on safety, I guess my point is/was jet aviation in Australia has always been inherently safe and this was usually due to flight ops/training and checking. We now have safety departments that are bigger than training departments quite often largely occupied by people with little or no aviation experience. I just think both safety and human remains have become a growth industry hell bent on justifying their existence. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a safety department just that they don't need to be gargantuan
I see exactly where you're coming and I agree - I think we need a safety department for oversight and as a resource for the operational arm, e.g. to investigate things that the ops people don't have time to deal with v.v. errors and avoidance of repetition of incidents.
You are right about 'growth industries', unless something is kept as large as it needs to be, it will grow exponentially and start to diverge from its original purpose.
My problem is I can accept safety, but I can't tolerate HR wankers who have never been of any use in any organisation I've worked for, in fact, their involvement has usually produced crappy results which compare unfavorably to the likely results if they were never there.
Then with that clarification, I'd say we agree completely. I too do not think a safety department has to be a monolithic bureau that has to send a team of ninety-seven people to investigate when someone gets a paper cut.
I see exactly where you're coming and I agree - I think we need a safety department for oversight and as a resource for the operational arm, e.g. to investigate things that the ops people don't have time to deal with v.v. errors and avoidance of repetition of incidents.
You are right about 'growth industries', unless something is kept as large as it needs to be, it will grow exponentially and start to diverge from its original purpose.
My problem is I can accept safety, but I can't tolerate HR wankers who have never been of any use in any organisation I've worked for, in fact, their involvement has usually produced crappy results which compare unfavorably to the likely results if they were never there.
I see exactly where you're coming and I agree - I think we need a safety department for oversight and as a resource for the operational arm, e.g. to investigate things that the ops people don't have time to deal with v.v. errors and avoidance of repetition of incidents.
You are right about 'growth industries', unless something is kept as large as it needs to be, it will grow exponentially and start to diverge from its original purpose.
My problem is I can accept safety, but I can't tolerate HR wankers who have never been of any use in any organisation I've worked for, in fact, their involvement has usually produced crappy results which compare unfavorably to the likely results if they were never there.
Good, effective safety departments are essential in an airline.
Unfortunately they are now a means to reach a workable consensus between operational teams and management. That is not an environment that adequately promotes safe operations. A case in point being the management of fatigue in most airline's operations and CASA.
In years gone by an operation would be established with the cost of a safe operation being a necessary part of the budget. Now an acceptable budgeted cost is established and 'safety' must fit within that budget even if that means significant compromises made in the process. Affordable safety……….
Unfortunately they are now a means to reach a workable consensus between operational teams and management. That is not an environment that adequately promotes safe operations. A case in point being the management of fatigue in most airline's operations and CASA.
In years gone by an operation would be established with the cost of a safe operation being a necessary part of the budget. Now an acceptable budgeted cost is established and 'safety' must fit within that budget even if that means significant compromises made in the process. Affordable safety……….
