|
they are here to "help" Go broke, maybe yes?:hmm: |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11155561)
I listened to some bureaucrat the other day in front of a Senate Committee. She's apparently currently responsible for the administration of the Airports Act and will therefore be some SES Band something or other on a six figure salary. She said it was in the interests of Airport owners to have a good relationship with the lessees of property on the Airport. So here we have a person who isn't on 'planet reality' pretending to administer the Airports Act. She doesn't know and probably doesn't care that many Airport owners couldn't give a toss about their relationship with aviation lessees and are happy to foster an acrimonious relationship: they want us all to f*ck off so they can get on with milking a public asset by erecting DFOs and warehouses on every square inch. The runways and aircraft are pesky inconveniences in the way of property development spivs. They're the people with huge wadges of money and therefore have the ear of many a politician.) Now, let me tell you what I really think of them… |
Before he resigned in frustration (and, sadly, soon thereafter died) erstwhile Commonwealth Chief Technology Officer Paul Shetler nailed it e.g. here. Some highlights:
“Nobody wants to engage with government. Nobody cares about the DTO, ATO, DHS, DSS — the whole alphabet soup — nobody cares about any of that. Nobody really wants to engage with it, because people just want to get stuff done.” ... The former DTA chief refrained from rattling off a list of high-profile tech wrecks or even comparing the extremely long wait times for Centrelink call centres with the notoriously meaningless average figures often trotted out by the Minister for Human Services and the department’s senior executives in denial of an obvious problem. ... Government is not simple, and making it more so is a radical reform task — not just an exercise in making better websites and online services to replace paper forms. First up, Shetler named the old “iron law of bureaucracy” that says big organisations tend to work towards maintaining, expanding and replicating themselves at least as much as their actual core purposes. ... Shetler also urged government leaders to “work with human nature” in the sense that the tribal, competitive nature of public services can be turned to support transformation. “There’s a lot of talk about collaboration. Kumbaya. All very important. But also, keep in mind that when you’re dealing with the highest levels of the public service, the SES, you’re dealing with highly competitive individuals,” he said. “Make that competition work for us. … In the UK they had a group in the civil service, they were the directors-general, they were next in line to become the permanent secretaries; they were called digital leaders. “And the message was given out very clearly from Francis that if you want to become the next perm-sec, you’re going to do some great stuff for your department in digital. So they competed with each other. This was not about collaboration, this was about Darwinian competition. “You need to know how to use both. And just understand that people are driven by fear and greed as well as more altruistic motives, and we need to use all of them to make the change you want to get to.” |
Get off Pprune and stop winging and become familiar with the new regs, the horse bolted on the 2nd of December.
Fact - The format in which the new regs have been drafted is here to stay. The language used in the new rules is not conducive to aviation safety in a practical sense. They have been drafted from a legal perspective, that in my opinion is totally wrong however I accept it… |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11155571)
No, I mean that there's a definition of AIP and AIP means what the Air Services Regulations 2019 (specifically reg 14) says AIP means.
Assuming I'm wrong, we should be seeing some SUP/AIC/NOTAM every time there's a change to VFG (and CAAPs and....) shouldn't we? By definition, the regulatory regime is always up to date. What it says and means and does today is what it says and means and does today. The regulatory regime includes exemptions and NOTAMs and other mechanisms to deal with 'short term' things (or at least what should be 'short term' things). If someone thinks it should say and mean and do something different, then that someone can organise for it to say and mean and do that different thing. I don't think 'translation' is the correct adjective to describe the process through which 200 pages of CARs 1988 have more than doubled in size and the CASR 1998 are thousands of pages long and growing. Then add MOSs. This isn't a translation process. It's a complexification process. Complicators can't resist creating more complication. It's in their DNA. The 'over-worked and under-staffed Standards Branch' is suffering a self-inflicted wound - a chargeable offence in the ADF. I'm sure the reliable six figure salary year after year after year helps to ease the pain though. I can assure you that from personal experience, the CASR Part 172 MOS is not “up-to-date”. I can therefore assume that many other CASRs are not “up to date”, a logical conclusion, I think so. Most exemptions are not as you say “short term” things, but if they were, I would expect the next iteration of the CASR/MOS would include the exemption. Clearly, it was deemed to be safe, otherwise an exemption would not have been issued. Or am I missing something?) I think we are wildly agreeing about the problem here, just using different language. Pax aviationus? |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11155561)
It's difficult to know where to start, Mr P. I'm guessing you haven't been involved in aviation in Australia for long. Not a criticism - just an observation of the naivete your questions and comments disclose.
|
Oh. I stand corrected.
It's surprising that someone with such long experience in aviation regulation in Australia could believe that there's some magic beans AI software out there that could be programmed to provide accurate and authoritative answers to questions about what the regulatory regime permits and requires. But I hasten to add, again, that I'm happy to volunteer my time to do Beta testing on some software that will prove me wrong. |
My head hurts…….
|
DP the essence of the thread was to assess if an APP might be a more practical method to provide guidance on the rules than endless scrolls of legal script. The comments suggest the challenges opposing the development of an APP would come from organisational hurdles rather technological capability. Remember the TAXI industry? That had a regulatory authority similar to the CASA and yet an APP (UBER) effectively invalidated it's very existence. Whilst this thread is in a different context, I think that example shows the potential capability of an APP. Albeit a bit off topic, if you consider the scale of impact a ride share APP had on the taxi industry I wonder how the CASA would fare if a similar ride share took hold in the air transport industry?
|
The prerequisite for an app is that there are clear yes/no answers for every decision. The reasons this wouldn't work with the current set of regs are:
1. They are not consistent, complete or unambiguous, therefore there's plenty of scope for the same question arriving at multiple different answers. 2. They are sometimes unclear in both intent and detail, so good luck with expressing each sub-reg as a clear statement. 3. Practically no rule set, unless it's extremely simple, can cater for all situations, so the common CASA fallback answer (sometimes justified, sometimes not) of 'it depends on the context' will further cloud the issue. Fundamentally, to make something like this feasible you would need to first get the razor gang onto the current schemozzle and strip it back to the most basic possible state, then there might be a chance. The problem is forcing the CASR authors to state simply and clearly what they mean by each bit and how it all fits together - again, good luck with that. It would be an easy thought experiment to pick one of the new regs (e.g. Part 135) and just try it - work through from the start and see if you can write out a decision tree that would provide suitable clarity. I'd like to be proven wrong, for sure - I just don't understand how anyone in a position to influence the production of the so-called six pack can put their hand on their heart and say it's a success. My vote to at least try to cut through the crap is to mandate plain English guides for every Part, publish every answer to anyone from the new CASA Guidance Centre online for all to see, and to have a set of FAQs for each Part that is continually updated. |
Is it the case, that time in the industry grows one's awareness (and cynicism) of all the contradictions the exist within it? Have matters regarding the regulator's administration deteriorated, improved or stayed the same since the 80's? Has this age of information fuelled a paper tiger beyond it's own capacity to cope?
|
CASRs Part 61, 91, 121 written by rank amateurs - no concept of real world regulation and how industry is supposed to manage this change and still survive commercially. Everyone would do well to think about Glen Buckleys' experience with CASA and how faceless organisations acting under a government umbrella can destroy the industry they are supposed to look after. :mad:
|
AI
I’d like to know; how one can use artificial intelligence to sort out that which is not intelligent in the first place?
I think the CASASTROPHE has already quietly applied a little known program to their whole regulatory suite, the ASI, to speed up the difficulties of drawing up rules that have so many unnecessary parts and impossible interpretations. (ASI = the Artificial Sentient Inhibitor program) |
Who reads that crap anyway?
In over 3000 hours of flying I never needed any of that crap.
Learnt more talking to an older pilot for 20 minutes. It warms my heart knowing I can happily burn my outdated copy of CASR now. Yes yes I know it's an offence to have an outdated copy - penalty points and a week in a Cantberra Gulag reeducation camp?:ugh: |
App? Or simplified rules with index?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1c0d6af4af.png
US:- $14.95 book with index. Start immediately with ins. rating. Australia:- CASASTROPHE edited library $thousands in fees during negotiations for a Part 141/142 permit which might take months or years, maybe permissible eventually or not. One local senior instructor was required to put up $8000 to CASA just to commence the flying school permit process, but gave up after a couple of years. The ‘US’ comment refers to the ability of an instructor to teach without having a Part 141/142 approved organisation. According to John King (John & Martha King Aviation, USA, and one time advisor to CASA) some 70% of USA pilots are trained outside of the 141/142 regime. The Airman’s Information Manual (AIM) has an index. I’m informed that that publication covers virtually all areas of regular flying ops., including training. Cost has increased to $15.99 last time I looked. In terms of hope for reform there is none until the Minister takes charge. Prior to disbanding CASA and administering aviation through a Department of Government, the system of responsible and accountable government in the proven Westminster manner, he could issue a new detailed Statement of Expectations. Evidence that the current administration is not salvageable, if not seen already, have a look at the video of the last RRAT Senate Committee hearing, the segment with Majorie Pagani of Angel Flight (AF) confronting CASA. You could conclude that CEO Pip Spence, one, had not been briefed, two, had not done her homework, three, J. Aleck is the de-facto CEO, In regard to AF’s court case against CASA, and CASA’s RRAT evidence in session, of a safety case justification (nil) for new restrictions on AF (via Mr. Monahan), I don’t think you’d ever see more convincing and compelling reason to disband this completely dysfunctional entity. And thus commence regulatory reform. |
The following is a copy of a post I have made elsewhere, twice I think, but with respect I feel that it is worth putting up yet again.
I made the following quoted post in another thread back on 30th September and I feel it is worth quoting here; finestkind posted Quote: One of these was whilst training a chap who happened to be a Barrister ( with obviously too many spare neurons) and going through CAO, CAA and the ABC’s said Barrister made the comment “I can hardly decipher this sh*T. Quote I replied; Quote: Precisely! A Lawyer aquaintance of mine once had a need to go through the old ANO and ANR documents (quite some years ago, obviously) and he made the observation that 'You need to have a legal background to even begin to understand some of this sh*t...'https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/eusa_wall.gif He also pointed out several direct contradictions in the ANR's. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/icon25.gif His parting comment was that they were obviously written by a Lawyer who specialised in legalese and pettifoggery! |
Legal opinions
Pinky, well worth a repeat which reminds me of another lawyer’s (also pilot and a/c owner) opinion of the ever more all encompassing criminal code offences as invented by CASA.
Namely that practically anything of any real seriousness would be covered by common law irrespective of CASA’s dictats. |
practically anything of any real seriousness would be covered by common law irrespective of CASA’s dictats. I think I already know the answer; Common Law would prevail, but I have a grave suspicion that it wouldn't stop CASA trying to see that it didn't!:ugh: And wasting huge amounts of Taxpayers money in doing so!:mad: Cynical, who....me??? |
I'm convinced you're spot on. The big and obvious problem is that it's not aviation reality being considered when these regs are drafted and made into law, it's a few people's idea of what 'should' be done, which in many instances is far from what's right and proper in any common sense world.
These people in my opinion are the at root of everything that's wrong with CASA now, and Sandy's photos of FAR vs CASR and the associated piles of waffle eloquently tell the story. Get angry, aviation community, and go direct to the DAS, CASA board director, ministers, senators and anyone else who you think can be of influence. This is bull****, and should never have gotten to its current state of shambolic ridiculousness. |
Cynical, who.....................YOU..???
Nah Mate - yer just tellin' it like it IS..!! Area QNH 1013................Cheeerrrsss. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.