CASA Legislation Must Be Fixed First
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think creampuff has been right all along.
the hard core of casa have the politicians above them well understood and know that if they keep up a sufficiently complex smoke and mirrors act "in the interests of a higher sense of safety" then the politicians will be as dumb as dog **** and pass it all into law.
gone is all the common sense wisdom in aviation.
there were Tee shirts in bangkok that seem applicable to casa.
"do not believe what you know,
do not believe what you see.
believe what you are told.
OBEY"
the sad thing in all this is that the core of casa seem to believe what they publish. and of course they would they don't own aircraft and never fly as we do so they have no clue.
what I find most disturbing is that casa and safety are looking more and more like an islamic religion. the parallels are disturbing.
the hard core of casa have the politicians above them well understood and know that if they keep up a sufficiently complex smoke and mirrors act "in the interests of a higher sense of safety" then the politicians will be as dumb as dog **** and pass it all into law.
gone is all the common sense wisdom in aviation.
there were Tee shirts in bangkok that seem applicable to casa.
"do not believe what you know,
do not believe what you see.
believe what you are told.
OBEY"
the sad thing in all this is that the core of casa seem to believe what they publish. and of course they would they don't own aircraft and never fly as we do so they have no clue.
what I find most disturbing is that casa and safety are looking more and more like an islamic religion. the parallels are disturbing.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry
Here is the latest skull monthly "rant".
Obviously, skull has forgotten the ICAO audit, the PelAir debacle and of course the Lockhart River problems.
Remember, the ICAO/ FAA audit of casa which gave an extremely poor outcome for casa.
The PelAir Senate report did not give anything like the skull "glowing report".
Just who is skull trying to impress??
Not me, not the 260 submitters to the ASRR.
Is this the follow up to the p gibson rant and the board "endorsement" of skull.
Just leave John, just leave.
Obviously, skull has forgotten the ICAO audit, the PelAir debacle and of course the Lockhart River problems.
Remember, the ICAO/ FAA audit of casa which gave an extremely poor outcome for casa.
The PelAir Senate report did not give anything like the skull "glowing report".
Just who is skull trying to impress??
Not me, not the 260 submitters to the ASRR.
Is this the follow up to the p gibson rant and the board "endorsement" of skull.
Just leave John, just leave.
From the Director of Aviation Safety
John McCormick
Most people in Australian aviation probably do not have the time or need to think about how our safety performance is viewed by the rest of the world. Internationally Australia and
CASA enjoy an exceptional reputation 
as a leader across many dimensions of aviation safety and safety regulation. Our contributions have long been and continue to be highly regarded by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), as well as by individual nations and regional authorities.
We work closely with ICAO on the council in which Australia has continued to maintain its standing as a tier one member for decades. CASA experts are eagerly pursued to participate in ICAO's development of global rules for aviation safety. Our staff currently serve on eleven ICAO panels, as well as ten task forces and study groups. In the Asia-Pacific region CASA provides important aviation safety related assistance to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and other Pacific island countries. We help to improve the safety of their aviation systems for the benefit of their citizens as well as the many Australians who travel in these areas.
Australia has entered into arrangements with a number of countries to ensure mutual recognition of maintenance, design and airworthiness certification processes. The most recent was with Singapore, which like Australia and a number of other Asian nations, has adopted the European Aviation Safety Agency rules as the basis for their regulations.
John McCormick
Most people in Australian aviation probably do not have the time or need to think about how our safety performance is viewed by the rest of the world. Internationally Australia and
CASA enjoy an exceptional reputation as a leader across many dimensions of aviation safety and safety regulation. Our contributions have long been and continue to be highly regarded by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), as well as by individual nations and regional authorities. We work closely with ICAO on the council in which Australia has continued to maintain its standing as a tier one member for decades. CASA experts are eagerly pursued to participate in ICAO's development of global rules for aviation safety. Our staff currently serve on eleven ICAO panels, as well as ten task forces and study groups. In the Asia-Pacific region CASA provides important aviation safety related assistance to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and other Pacific island countries. We help to improve the safety of their aviation systems for the benefit of their citizens as well as the many Australians who travel in these areas.
Australia has entered into arrangements with a number of countries to ensure mutual recognition of maintenance, design and airworthiness certification processes. The most recent was with Singapore, which like Australia and a number of other Asian nations, has adopted the European Aviation Safety Agency rules as the basis for their regulations.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 25th Mar 2014 at 07:48.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 trough panels - Cha Ching $$$$
UITA, there are some nice troughs on that list!
11 ICAO panels? I hope those are only advisory panels for things like:
- What fruit juice to serve at conferences
- Whether to place the ICAO logo on biro's and notepads at ICAO conferences (see above)
- Whether to use Arial 12 font or Calibri 11 font in all those SARP's and glossy brochures
- Whether to smoke Stadivarius Churchill cigars or Louixs cigars during those busy evening relaxation sessions in which 'beyond reason' type wank sessions are held.
Just as long as Fort Fumble or the Bumbling Beaker Boys aren't advising ICAO about anything related to aviation or safety they will be fine, otherwise the Holy Grail of troughs - ICAO, could be in deep pooh!
11 ICAO panels? I hope those are only advisory panels for things like:
- What fruit juice to serve at conferences
- Whether to place the ICAO logo on biro's and notepads at ICAO conferences (see above)
- Whether to use Arial 12 font or Calibri 11 font in all those SARP's and glossy brochures
- Whether to smoke Stadivarius Churchill cigars or Louixs cigars during those busy evening relaxation sessions in which 'beyond reason' type wank sessions are held.
Just as long as Fort Fumble or the Bumbling Beaker Boys aren't advising ICAO about anything related to aviation or safety they will be fine, otherwise the Holy Grail of troughs - ICAO, could be in deep pooh!
At least Dick's consistent!
Over the Blue Mountains where old Max lives..
Safety red tape is crippling regional airlines: Dick Smith
SMALLER commuter planes are safer than travelling via road, but will never be as safe as larger aircraft and it’s a reality bureaucrats should face by lifting restrictive safety measures crippling the aviation industry, according to Dick Smith.
Mr Smith said currently the government and the aviation regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) do not understand the best way of having high safety levels in aviation was to have a profitable industry.
“You can always increase safety by spending more money, but then you end up with less people who can afford an air ticket,” he said.
“It’s a balance, but in aviation people don’t admit it’s a balance. They lie and, from the minister down, they’ll tell you that safety is in front of everything else.”
Mr Smith said he was pushing to have the act changed to show higher participation in aviation was necessary to retain a high safety level.
“Unless it does we’ll have less and less people flying and you won’t have any regional aviation at all,” he said.
Although Regional Express’s (Rex) profits have recently slumped, Mr Smith said there was no reason why country towns could not have a safe and viable air service with a profitable company.
“I think we can have higher levels of safety but with less waste, less money wasted on the regulative system,” he said.
“We’ll kill more Australians because they all be driving to Sydney they won’t be going by air and that’s criminal.”
As CASA chair in the 1990s he pushed for safety to be made affordable with a concentration on reducing costs.
He said it was tougher for regional aviators because there were less passengers, but the same safety expectations.
“If you’ve got 300 people in a 747 they can afford a higher level of safety than 15 people in a Saab,” he said.
“But what’s been happening is the do-gooders in the bureaucracy have been trying to make a Saab as safe as a 747 and you can only do that by increasing the air ticket by 10 times to get the same income as 300 people.”
Mr Smith said it was likely Brindabella Airlines could not afford to comply with the safety rules when the carrier’s fleet was grounded by CASA forcing the company into receivership.
“Flying in a small commuter plane is probably 30 times safer than going by road and flying in big airline aircraft would be 40 times safer,” he said.
“If you want to make the small commuter plane 40 times safer you’ll have no one flying.”
Mr Smith suggests the government should model its aviation safety requirements on the United States and does not believe spending less on safety puts people at risk.
“You can have very high levels of safety without the enormous costs and that’s what you have to be smart at doing,” he said.
Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.
“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.
“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”
Tribute to Max
He reached for the sky: Dick Smith leads tributes to Max Hazelton
MAX Hazelton is an endangered species - a true blue Aussie who’s made money and ran a successful business in the tough aviation industry, according to entrepreneur Dick Smith.
Mr Smith flew into Orange in his helicopter on Saturday to launch Denis Gregory’s book chronicling the Hazelton legacy at the aero centre bearing the aviation legend’s name.
The launch began fittingly with Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines as friends and admirers of Mr Hazelton took to the lectern to praise the aviation pioneer.
Mr Hazelton was typified as a survivor.
Not just from his famed crash near Oberon in 1954 where against the odds he trekked for six days out of rugged bushland to Cox’s River and later managed to recover his plane.
But also for building a successful and profitable business in the aviation industry.
Mr Smith said Mr Hazelton was one of few people who could fly well and had the business acumen to match.
“He did things that other people put in the hard basket ... he stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right"
He said he had recently flown over the site of Mr Hazelton’s 1954 crash and planned to take him back in a 4WD.
Mr Smith thanked Mr Hazelton for being one of few in the industry to support his reforms while he was the chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
“We were able to change the rules so instead of Australia re-certifying aircraft [from overseas] we managed to pick seven leading aviation countries and we were able to accept their aircraft without modifications,” Mr Smith said.
“We’ve saved many, many lives because people have been able to fly in aviation from country towns compared to going by road which is far less safe.”
The Hazelton Story author Denis Gregory compared Mr Hazelton to the early explorers - charting the way for others to follow.
“He did things that other people put in the hard basket,” he said.
“He stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right.
“For me it wasn’t a matter of what to put in the book ... it was a matter of what to leave out, that was the hard part.”
'OUT AND ABOUT IN ORANGE' GALLERY: FORMER HAZELTON STAFF GATHER FOR DINNER
Among Mr Hazelton’s many legacies he was credited with convincing authorities to lift the ban on night flying to allow crop spraying in calmer conditions.
A story of a plane’s failed-landing gear being lassoed by two speeding cars on an airstrip exemplified his daring attitude.
Mr Hazelton said he was excited about the book’s launch.
He thanked all involved and congratulated the airline’s former employees for their achievements including pilots Ben Hazelton, Jonathan Hazelton and Andrew Flanagan who had “began their career as hangar rats” and were now pilots for Cathay Pacific, Virgin and Qantas.
“Virgin Airlines employs 50 ex-Hazelton pilots,” he said.
“It’s also a pleasure to see the flying continue with my son Toby, and now my granddaughter Georgie who has commenced her private pilot licence and grandson Lachie who is also about to start flying training at Orange Airport.”
Safety red tape is crippling regional airlines: Dick Smith
SMALLER commuter planes are safer than travelling via road, but will never be as safe as larger aircraft and it’s a reality bureaucrats should face by lifting restrictive safety measures crippling the aviation industry, according to Dick Smith.
Mr Smith said currently the government and the aviation regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) do not understand the best way of having high safety levels in aviation was to have a profitable industry.
“You can always increase safety by spending more money, but then you end up with less people who can afford an air ticket,” he said.
“It’s a balance, but in aviation people don’t admit it’s a balance. They lie and, from the minister down, they’ll tell you that safety is in front of everything else.”
Mr Smith said he was pushing to have the act changed to show higher participation in aviation was necessary to retain a high safety level.
“Unless it does we’ll have less and less people flying and you won’t have any regional aviation at all,” he said.
Although Regional Express’s (Rex) profits have recently slumped, Mr Smith said there was no reason why country towns could not have a safe and viable air service with a profitable company.
“I think we can have higher levels of safety but with less waste, less money wasted on the regulative system,” he said.
“We’ll kill more Australians because they all be driving to Sydney they won’t be going by air and that’s criminal.”
As CASA chair in the 1990s he pushed for safety to be made affordable with a concentration on reducing costs.
He said it was tougher for regional aviators because there were less passengers, but the same safety expectations.
“If you’ve got 300 people in a 747 they can afford a higher level of safety than 15 people in a Saab,” he said.
“But what’s been happening is the do-gooders in the bureaucracy have been trying to make a Saab as safe as a 747 and you can only do that by increasing the air ticket by 10 times to get the same income as 300 people.”
Mr Smith said it was likely Brindabella Airlines could not afford to comply with the safety rules when the carrier’s fleet was grounded by CASA forcing the company into receivership.
“Flying in a small commuter plane is probably 30 times safer than going by road and flying in big airline aircraft would be 40 times safer,” he said.
“If you want to make the small commuter plane 40 times safer you’ll have no one flying.”
Mr Smith suggests the government should model its aviation safety requirements on the United States and does not believe spending less on safety puts people at risk.
“You can have very high levels of safety without the enormous costs and that’s what you have to be smart at doing,” he said.
Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.
“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.
“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”
Tribute to Max
He reached for the sky: Dick Smith leads tributes to Max Hazelton
MAX Hazelton is an endangered species - a true blue Aussie who’s made money and ran a successful business in the tough aviation industry, according to entrepreneur Dick Smith.
Mr Smith flew into Orange in his helicopter on Saturday to launch Denis Gregory’s book chronicling the Hazelton legacy at the aero centre bearing the aviation legend’s name.
The launch began fittingly with Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines as friends and admirers of Mr Hazelton took to the lectern to praise the aviation pioneer.
Mr Hazelton was typified as a survivor.
Not just from his famed crash near Oberon in 1954 where against the odds he trekked for six days out of rugged bushland to Cox’s River and later managed to recover his plane.
But also for building a successful and profitable business in the aviation industry.
Mr Smith said Mr Hazelton was one of few people who could fly well and had the business acumen to match.
“He did things that other people put in the hard basket ... he stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right"
He said he had recently flown over the site of Mr Hazelton’s 1954 crash and planned to take him back in a 4WD.
Mr Smith thanked Mr Hazelton for being one of few in the industry to support his reforms while he was the chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
“We were able to change the rules so instead of Australia re-certifying aircraft [from overseas] we managed to pick seven leading aviation countries and we were able to accept their aircraft without modifications,” Mr Smith said.
“We’ve saved many, many lives because people have been able to fly in aviation from country towns compared to going by road which is far less safe.”
The Hazelton Story author Denis Gregory compared Mr Hazelton to the early explorers - charting the way for others to follow.
“He did things that other people put in the hard basket,” he said.
“He stood up for his beliefs and bucked authority when he thought it wasn’t right.
“For me it wasn’t a matter of what to put in the book ... it was a matter of what to leave out, that was the hard part.”
'OUT AND ABOUT IN ORANGE' GALLERY: FORMER HAZELTON STAFF GATHER FOR DINNER
Among Mr Hazelton’s many legacies he was credited with convincing authorities to lift the ban on night flying to allow crop spraying in calmer conditions.
A story of a plane’s failed-landing gear being lassoed by two speeding cars on an airstrip exemplified his daring attitude.
Mr Hazelton said he was excited about the book’s launch.
He thanked all involved and congratulated the airline’s former employees for their achievements including pilots Ben Hazelton, Jonathan Hazelton and Andrew Flanagan who had “began their career as hangar rats” and were now pilots for Cathay Pacific, Virgin and Qantas.
“Virgin Airlines employs 50 ex-Hazelton pilots,” he said.
“It’s also a pleasure to see the flying continue with my son Toby, and now my granddaughter Georgie who has commenced her private pilot licence and grandson Lachie who is also about to start flying training at Orange Airport.”
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Hazelton
Thankyou Max for welcoming me into the world of aviation some 20 odd years ago.
I know Max as the gentleman who opened the door into his business for me and then as a "fly-in" aviator for fuel.
He helped look up and down the Cudal runway for an errant lost fuel cap.
He was ably assisted by the oldest push bike I have ever seen.
Thanks Max.
I know Max as the gentleman who opened the door into his business for me and then as a "fly-in" aviator for fuel.
He helped look up and down the Cudal runway for an errant lost fuel cap.
He was ably assisted by the oldest push bike I have ever seen.
Thanks Max.
CASA enjoy an exceptional reputation
This, of course could be equally true as a compliment or a condemnation.
From a speech, some years ago, from a very senior ICAO functionary (and all round good bloke) who is/was just about a close to being a household name in the aviation standards and safety business, and for those of you who might have heard the same speech, please don't pick me up on a minor misquote, it is the sentiment that counts.
" Australia has made a contribution to ICAO and aviation, out of all proportion to it place in the aviation world. In balance, aviation would be better off, if Australia had not done so".
Perhaps 'an exceptional reputation" should be interpreted in that light.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Mar 2014 at 14:42.
Dick Smith:
"Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.
“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.
“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”
Small point. but if the Altimeter has to be removed to test it, then there is a good chance that testing it every Two years is actually less safe then every Five years. The reason? Infant mortality - stuffing up the reinstallation process.
The correct way to deal with this matter is to perfom a statistical hypothesis test: "That the difference between two and five year failure rates is statistically signifigant."
Take a sample of altimeter tests at the Two year mark and calculate the failure rate and standard deviation. Do the same at the Five year mark and do the same. Now compare. I did this sort of tedious stuff at Ansett for a few years back in the 70's and relaxed a lot of inspection requirements as a result.
My untutored guess is that the FAA would have done this. I would like to think that CASA has statistical evidence to back up the Two year requirement and hence can prove that the FAA is misinformed and seriously endangering the American public.
Hope to see you and Ian at Arkaroola this winter.
"Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.
“Of course it makes it safer, if you checked it every three months it would be even safer, but with the cost of flying I’ll be the only one who can afford to have a helicopter,” he said.
“It’s a matter of that balance between cost and benefit.”
Small point. but if the Altimeter has to be removed to test it, then there is a good chance that testing it every Two years is actually less safe then every Five years. The reason? Infant mortality - stuffing up the reinstallation process.
The correct way to deal with this matter is to perfom a statistical hypothesis test: "That the difference between two and five year failure rates is statistically signifigant."
Take a sample of altimeter tests at the Two year mark and calculate the failure rate and standard deviation. Do the same at the Five year mark and do the same. Now compare. I did this sort of tedious stuff at Ansett for a few years back in the 70's and relaxed a lot of inspection requirements as a result.
My untutored guess is that the FAA would have done this. I would like to think that CASA has statistical evidence to back up the Two year requirement and hence can prove that the FAA is misinformed and seriously endangering the American public.
Hope to see you and Ian at Arkaroola this winter.
The correct way to deal with this matter is to perfom a statistical hypothesis test: "That the difference between two and five year failure rates is statistically signifigant."
Where do we see a learning effect? Where is there signs of continuous improvement? Surely by now we can refine regulations and practices in an evidence based manner?
I think it's relevant to this discussion to mention at a recent CASA seminar when discussing combing RPT and charter AOCs the presenter said something along the lines of "Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207."
Most passengers I know don't expect the same level of safety in a light aircraft, in fact they are often expecting the light aircraft to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is! The presenter stressed CASA are doing their best to help AOC holders to make the transition as easy and cheaply as possible, whether that's true or not I will be very interested to see if charter accidents decrease over 5 years.
I doubt it will be significant.
Most passengers I know don't expect the same level of safety in a light aircraft, in fact they are often expecting the light aircraft to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is! The presenter stressed CASA are doing their best to help AOC holders to make the transition as easy and cheaply as possible, whether that's true or not I will be very interested to see if charter accidents decrease over 5 years.
I doubt it will be significant.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes Aviation safe here is two main things. Weather and hills. We really don't have bad weather or high hills. I worked higher than anywhere here in aust.
As for Easa it's ****. Lame lic now are crap. And reasons behind the change are floored as it's a hybrid system we now have. The industry has never been in a more dangerous position as where we are now. Sad but true. We not America and we not Europe we here alone doing our on thing. We weren't dangerous to the rest of the world. But for some reason we forced to bend for them. Our system may not have been prefect but there's Aren't ethier. But no we have to bend over and take it. Casa has a lot to answer for the quicker we have a royal commission into casa the better. My two cents worth.
As for Easa it's ****. Lame lic now are crap. And reasons behind the change are floored as it's a hybrid system we now have. The industry has never been in a more dangerous position as where we are now. Sad but true. We not America and we not Europe we here alone doing our on thing. We weren't dangerous to the rest of the world. But for some reason we forced to bend for them. Our system may not have been prefect but there's Aren't ethier. But no we have to bend over and take it. Casa has a lot to answer for the quicker we have a royal commission into casa the better. My two cents worth.
I think it's relevant to this discussion to mention at a recent CASA seminar when discussing combing RPT and charter AOCs the presenter said something along the lines of "Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207."
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/435594...-067_final.pdf
Charter is already safer than low volume RPT.
Its interesting to do a benchmark against road safety. Australia has about 17 m vehicles. The ABS says they travel about 17 billion km per annum. A pretty good overall average speed is 50 km/h. This equates to 340 million hours. Last year 1188 people were killed on Australian roads. Or about 379 fatalities per million hours on the road. The equivalent charter figure is 4.2.
Why do we have such a double standard? Why isn't there any concern about making it as safe to get on a bus as a 207?
Canberra felt passengers deserved the same safety getting onto a 747 as 207
A 207 was not built to Transport Category standards.
For example, a 747 climbs much more 'safely' than a 207, with one engine inoperative.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few year ago, my company lost a regular charter client because they had to put the charges up, largely to cover compliance costs.
The clients found it cheaper to airline to a port a few hours drive from where they wanted to go and cover that in rental cars. I heard a couple of their senior exec's were killed in a road accident on that journey.
Should their statistics be added to CAsA's tally?? or to road safety tally??
The clients found it cheaper to airline to a port a few hours drive from where they wanted to go and cover that in rental cars. I heard a couple of their senior exec's were killed in a road accident on that journey.
Should their statistics be added to CAsA's tally?? or to road safety tally??
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Case
From this one - Where is the safety case casa??
Yes sunny:
and, where is the safety case??
Yes sunny:
Dick Smith:
"Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.
"Mr Smith cited the requirement to have his helicopter’s altimeter checked every two years instead of every five years like in the United States.
My untutored guess is that the FAA would have done this.
I would like to think that CASA has statistical evidence to back up the Two year requirement and hence can prove that the FAA is misinformed and seriously endangering the American public.
I would like to think that CASA has statistical evidence to back up the Two year requirement and hence can prove that the FAA is misinformed and seriously endangering the American public.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you guys are so innocent.
In australia you only ever have a "safety case" if you want to justify a preconceived idea.
if we actually went to safety cases we would see the introduction of Canadian Owner maintenance ...introduced in canada on the basis of a safety case that showed that their preconceived ideas were false.
but hell that's not the CAsA way, the "we know safety" way.
guys just admit defeat.
stop bucking the safety mantra. it's a religion you know.
now all say after me safety....obey....safety....obey....safety.....obey
now that didn't hurt did it. obey, obey, obey, obey.
In australia you only ever have a "safety case" if you want to justify a preconceived idea.
if we actually went to safety cases we would see the introduction of Canadian Owner maintenance ...introduced in canada on the basis of a safety case that showed that their preconceived ideas were false.
but hell that's not the CAsA way, the "we know safety" way.
guys just admit defeat.
stop bucking the safety mantra. it's a religion you know.
now all say after me safety....obey....safety....obey....safety.....obey
now that didn't hurt did it. obey, obey, obey, obey.
Should their statistics be added to CAsA's tally?? or to road safety tally??
Of course, the answer is yes, and when FAA does proper cost benefit tradeoff studies, it included just such costs.
An example, some years ago, Cabin Crew unions were demanding that young children should have a seat allocated, with a safety seat for very young children/babies, and no sitting on parent's laps.
The FAA CBA showed that the cost, in lives and injuries, from car crashes, from families that would no longer would be able to travel by air, far outweighed any remote chance of a young child surviving an air crash, because they were sitting in a seat and not on mum's lap.
Tootle pip!!
