Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
Trevor:
With respect, Trevor, "competence", "professional" and "dedicated" are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons that I don't need to go into.
What I think Dick is talking about is a well known and highly dangerous and unique military mind set that is extremely resistant to change in any form and regards any disagreement by anyone as disloyalty, sedition, disobedience or outright treason, and therefore deserving of punishment. We are not talking about the personal attributes of individuals. Furthermore this mindset is exclusive to the military and has no "civilian" counterpart except perhaps in the imagined behaviour of very senior judges.
I have personally seen that mindset exhibited by RAAF officers outside the service and it is extremely unpleasant to observe. If this type of ex officer inhabits CASA then we are in deep trouble and people will eventually lose their lives because of it.
Furthermore, the behaviour I characterised above is a very well known military problem that has gotten a great many soldiers, sailors and aviators killed in a variety of wars.
Tp put that another way Trevor, "loyalty", "professionalism" and "dedication" have combined many times to frustrate efforts by experienced and knowledgeable subordinates to change the disastrous course of action taken by senior military officers in many campaigns and if CASA staff value those traits above the application of sound common senses proposed by Dick Smith then we are in very dangerous waters.
To put that yet another way Trevor, get a copy of "The Rules Of The Game" by Andrew Gordon and read about the Royal Navy and the problems from about 1870 to this day of the military mind coping with technological change and the tug of war between the desirable character traits of "Obedience" and "Initiative".
Disclaimer: my DIL is RAAF and she and her service sisters are wonderful, as are many of the fine RAAF gentlemen I know.
The RAAF was the most professional and competent unit with the best and most dedicated people I have ever been associated with.
What I think Dick is talking about is a well known and highly dangerous and unique military mind set that is extremely resistant to change in any form and regards any disagreement by anyone as disloyalty, sedition, disobedience or outright treason, and therefore deserving of punishment. We are not talking about the personal attributes of individuals. Furthermore this mindset is exclusive to the military and has no "civilian" counterpart except perhaps in the imagined behaviour of very senior judges.
I have personally seen that mindset exhibited by RAAF officers outside the service and it is extremely unpleasant to observe. If this type of ex officer inhabits CASA then we are in deep trouble and people will eventually lose their lives because of it.
Furthermore, the behaviour I characterised above is a very well known military problem that has gotten a great many soldiers, sailors and aviators killed in a variety of wars.
Tp put that another way Trevor, "loyalty", "professionalism" and "dedication" have combined many times to frustrate efforts by experienced and knowledgeable subordinates to change the disastrous course of action taken by senior military officers in many campaigns and if CASA staff value those traits above the application of sound common senses proposed by Dick Smith then we are in very dangerous waters.
To put that yet another way Trevor, get a copy of "The Rules Of The Game" by Andrew Gordon and read about the Royal Navy and the problems from about 1870 to this day of the military mind coping with technological change and the tug of war between the desirable character traits of "Obedience" and "Initiative".
Disclaimer: my DIL is RAAF and she and her service sisters are wonderful, as are many of the fine RAAF gentlemen I know.
Last edited by Sunfish; 13th Mar 2016 at 21:51.
Sunfish, do you have any idea how much the RAAF has changed in recent years, both culturally and technologically? Anyone who left 15 or 20 years ago, as I did, would barely recognise the place now. Perhaps, in doggedly sticking to your preconceived notions, you are resisting change yourself.
Dick: Endlessly repeating an untrue assertion does not make it true. It just makes you serially dishonest. If you keep it up on your forthcoming Major Publicity Campaign, then you deserve to be bitten on the arse for it.
Dick: Endlessly repeating an untrue assertion does not make it true. It just makes you serially dishonest. If you keep it up on your forthcoming Major Publicity Campaign, then you deserve to be bitten on the arse for it.
Sunfish, you may well have seen ex-military people exhibiting a change-resistant mindset, as we all have I'm sure, but your assertion that this trait is unique to the services is ludicrous. Any group has its share of them.
..And back on topic. I now live pretty much under TOD for YMML. The suggestion that I use the area frequency for my bug smashing pursuits would be dangerous fortunately there is a local airstrip with a designated CTAF not too far away so I just call on that.
AOTW, I disagree, this "change resistant mindset" is a purely military phenomenon. There is no civilian counterpart. I will try to explain.
All military organisations rely on a structure of Officers and other ranks. The first and absolute requirement that is taught is "obedience to orders" of your superiors. There is absolutely no civilian organisational counterpart of this stricture in a democratic free market economy, ever.
It is drilled into the heads of every Officer and NCO that everything, including your very life, is subservient to the obedience of orders from a superior. This tension, between "orders" and "life" has been the subject of tens of thousands dramas since the dawn of time.
This is such a basic requirement that we later have to try and beat it out of some officers because we want them to show something called "initiative" not blind dumb obedience.
…So we then take an authoritarian ( in peacetime the authoritarians control the defence forces) officer who is used to being obeyed without question by his deemed subordinates and shove him in a civilian business environment where not only is there not a rigid hierarchy like she was used to, but people actually answer back! The horror! Quite a few cannot stand this and then seek to remould the organisation to their alma mater, chiefly by hiring their friends who have the same traits, being part of the same club.
Needless to say, if folk with this personality inhabit CASA then Dick is absolutely right to criticise the CASA culture.
I worked for Two of these military types at different times. It was an extremely unpleasant experience and of course entirely unproductive for the organisations concerned. Both of them presided over businesses that should have thrived except for their resistance to any form of change.
All military organisations rely on a structure of Officers and other ranks. The first and absolute requirement that is taught is "obedience to orders" of your superiors. There is absolutely no civilian organisational counterpart of this stricture in a democratic free market economy, ever.
It is drilled into the heads of every Officer and NCO that everything, including your very life, is subservient to the obedience of orders from a superior. This tension, between "orders" and "life" has been the subject of tens of thousands dramas since the dawn of time.
This is such a basic requirement that we later have to try and beat it out of some officers because we want them to show something called "initiative" not blind dumb obedience.
…So we then take an authoritarian ( in peacetime the authoritarians control the defence forces) officer who is used to being obeyed without question by his deemed subordinates and shove him in a civilian business environment where not only is there not a rigid hierarchy like she was used to, but people actually answer back! The horror! Quite a few cannot stand this and then seek to remould the organisation to their alma mater, chiefly by hiring their friends who have the same traits, being part of the same club.
Needless to say, if folk with this personality inhabit CASA then Dick is absolutely right to criticise the CASA culture.
I worked for Two of these military types at different times. It was an extremely unpleasant experience and of course entirely unproductive for the organisations concerned. Both of them presided over businesses that should have thrived except for their resistance to any form of change.
If if if...
If if if...
if folk with this personality inhabit CASA then Dick is absolutely right to criticise the CASA culture.
if CASA staff value those traits above the application of sound common senses proposed by Dick Smith then we are in very dangerous waters.
Thread Starter
Sunfish. You have explained the problem as I have experienced it over the past 30 years.
And it's holding back Australian aviation because many of the people with this military indoctrination have infiltrated the civil side.
All so sad- all they had to do was search around the world and copy the procedures that give the required level of safety at the lowest cost.
And it's holding back Australian aviation because many of the people with this military indoctrination have infiltrated the civil side.
All so sad- all they had to do was search around the world and copy the procedures that give the required level of safety at the lowest cost.
This is such a basic requirement that we later have to try and beat it out of some officers because we want them to show something called "initiative" not blind dumb obedience.
I understand that you want to put across the point that ex-military people don't understand the real world, and that only non-military and therefore 'real' people can understand, but that is such patent bull that only those wanting to jump on the RAAF-bashing wagon will swallow it, no matter how many times you and Dick repeat it.
You've had a few run-ins with ex military types? Well, me too, but just as many with similarly pig-headed people who never wore a uniform. One trait of most ex-military pilots and air traffickers I know is that they're generally (and there are exceptions of course) reliable, honest and have integrity. Perhaps if you don't get on with them, you might want to have a look in the mirror!
We can get into another to-and-fro match if you like, but your modus operandi is to make a bunch of sweeping pronouncements and then disappear when you get cornered in a logical argument, so perhaps not.
The first and absolute requirement that is taught is "obedience to orders" of your superiors. There is absolutely no civilian organisational counterpart of this stricture in a democratic free market economy, ever.
Thread Starter
The best change agent I ever had working for me at CAA was head of regulatory reform Ron Cooper.
Ron was ex RAAF and was responsible for amazing changes that saved the industry tens of millions of dollars.
So there are certainly ex military people who will both support and instigate change.
Just don't seem to be any in positions of influence at the present time.
Ron was ex RAAF and was responsible for amazing changes that saved the industry tens of millions of dollars.
So there are certainly ex military people who will both support and instigate change.
Just don't seem to be any in positions of influence at the present time.
RAAF people in CASA
I believe Dick may be referring to the officer presently in charge of procedures - a former RAAF navigator.
Last edited by cogwheel; 14th Mar 2016 at 02:18. Reason: Typo
So, ... If I organise a fly in at an ALA, not on the charts, where the area frequency should be used and I change procedures myself and tell everyone to use 126.7 to save area frequency congestion, am I breaking the rules?
In short, a few posting here would encourage me to do just this but my belief is that doing this is currently in contravention of some piece of legislation.
My next question is, if I can break this rule, surely I can break any rule if I think it operationally expedient or just plain common sense.
Finally, if it is simply common sense, does this make me immune from prosecution if it goes pear shaped?
In short, a few posting here would encourage me to do just this but my belief is that doing this is currently in contravention of some piece of legislation.
My next question is, if I can break this rule, surely I can break any rule if I think it operationally expedient or just plain common sense.
Finally, if it is simply common sense, does this make me immune from prosecution if it goes pear shaped?
If AIP says to do one thing and you tell people to do something else, then yes they would be in contravention of AIP.
For fly-ins where a large number of aircraft are expected and the likelihood of increased chatter on an FIA is likely and thereby present a problem to other airspace users, the procedure is to do what I note the organisers apparently attempted to do i.e.
It makes me wonder if the local CASA (VIC/TAS) office was involved, or instead CASA"s Office of Airspace Regulation.
For fly-ins where a large number of aircraft are expected and the likelihood of increased chatter on an FIA is likely and thereby present a problem to other airspace users, the procedure is to do what I note the organisers apparently attempted to do i.e.
- contact their local CASA office and request a NOTAM be published and in particular a tempo CTAF allocation (there are specific frequencies reserved for airshows/fly-ins).
It makes me wonder if the local CASA (VIC/TAS) office was involved, or instead CASA"s Office of Airspace Regulation.
Captain: CASA's explanation is that they have no power whatsoever to write exemptions against the directions given in the AIP. Therefor, no exemptions can be given for an ALA to nominate a frequency in contravention to the AIP instructions.
Simply put, no matter what the case may be, they cannot do it.
Simply put, no matter what the case may be, they cannot do it.
I should add to the above, if everyone at this ALA complied with the AIP, something would have been done by now. As well as the fly in, this ALA has recently been a major bush fire base with literally thousands of movements over a period of 6 weeks, all in contravention to the AIP.
Therefor, the question remains, if we can break this rule, what others can we break with impunity.
Therefor, the question remains, if we can break this rule, what others can we break with impunity.
Interesting.
The procedure I outlined is what they have been doing for years all over the country, tempo CTAFs for both fly-ins and airshows.
Sounds like either a newbie who has NFI or someone being pedantic. They do have the authority - they are the airspace and safety regulator.
The next Henty field day will be ...... interesting.
The procedure I outlined is what they have been doing for years all over the country, tempo CTAFs for both fly-ins and airshows.
Sounds like either a newbie who has NFI or someone being pedantic. They do have the authority - they are the airspace and safety regulator.
The next Henty field day will be ...... interesting.
Er, I think a look at Hansard may be enlightening.
I am talking about the CAA when Mr Smith was VERY involved; no?
THEN we have the CASA Board but that was the second time around when the current ACT was not the then ACT.
I am talking about the CAA when Mr Smith was VERY involved; no?
THEN we have the CASA Board but that was the second time around when the current ACT was not the then ACT.
The Chairman does not have, and has never had, any regulatory powers. The very limited internal governance powers are there for anyone who can and wants to read them.
Dick has political power. Pollies don't want to get him offside. That's why they keep giving him toys to play with, while nodding and smiling and ignoring him. This year should therefore be interesting.
CASA's explanation is that they have no power whatsoever to write exemptions against the directions given in the AIP. Therefor, no exemptions can be given for an ALA to nominate a frequency in contravention to the AIP instructions.
Looks like CASA's internal training/indoctrination has gone to hell in a handbasket again.
If an AIP reference to an enabling regulation is involved, that AIP entry is, in simplistic terms, enforceable, but everything in the regulations can be subject to exemption by Legislative Instrument. Indeed, the same process has purportedly been used to create exemptions from provisions of the Act, a very "creative" legal process of, in my opinion, very doubtful legal provenance. But be clear, there is nothing restricting creation of LIs under the LI Act, nothing the least bit improper.
CASA has hundreds, maybe thousands of LIs in force at any one time.
The rest of the AIP is useful information, not holy writ --- but you would never know, the way some FOIs "enforce" the AIP. The bulk of the AIP is not L-A-W
Tootle pip!!
Which perhaps explains why CASA want applications in writing and give a phone answer in return.
Thanks Leady, but clear as mud to me, if I never pick up a CASA rule book again it will still be too soon.
Thanks Leady, but clear as mud to me, if I never pick up a CASA rule book again it will still be too soon.
AOTW:
But for your last sweeping statement about disappearing, I would have let your uninformed comments through to the keeper and gone back to topic, however you accuse me of not following through on my argument and in any case it is better to get what we mean by "Military attitude problem" , whether RAAF, Navy or Army) precisely clear.
We do NOT mean that the Officers concerned are not fine, honest, decent upstanding fellows you would buy a beer for.
What we are talking about is the necessary military requirement that requires unquestioning obedience to an order, even unto possible death. I served as a lowly Lieutenant and I can assure you every officer knows what is taught and it hasn't and can't change. Going into battle is not "optional" if you run away from the enemy you can even get courtmartialed. There is no civilian equivalent. Your boss might sack you yes, but he can't put you up against the wall and shoot you for cowardice.
So what we are talking about is a habitual obedience to people higher in the hierarchy than you are. Everyone in the services knows this and accepts it. Try walking with half your platoon behind you carrying enough explosives and ammo to level a city block, you better believe they obey you. There are no doubt exactly similar requirements for trust an obedience in the RAN and RAAF.
The problem, again well documented, comes when a senior officer makes a mistaken order or one that is just plain wrong or based on faulty information. You are still required to obey that order. I say again, disobedience is not optional (leave Nuremberg out of it) in the military if you query the order, attempt to argue for something else or dispute the utility of what you are told to do, then that is insubordination or worse even up to the possibility of being charged with mutiny. This is again documented. It takes great tact and very quick wits to perhaps save a senior officer from their mistake this is again well documented.
Thousands of troops and Naval ratings have died because officers decided to "follow orders" when it was blindingly obvious that the orders were wrong or counterproductive, but hey, the military is not a democracy!
What Dick Smith is alluding to is this habit among a percentage of senior military officers thrust into a non military environment of expecting obedience to their wishes from their imagined subordinates as if they are still in the military and equating any query, disagreement or challenge as a direct personal affront. I agree 100% with Dick on this because I've had the unfortunate honour of working for Two of them at different times and it is both unpleasant and inefficient with no good outcomes for anyone, least of all the organisation.
I am not saying that all ex military are this way inclined, far from it, but there are a certain percentage that will pine for the service they left and try and replicate it in the organisation they inhabit. This is the source of reference for remarks about "group captains clubs" and suchlike cliques and exclusive sets and its a rotten way of running an organisation if it occurs.
I understand that you want to put across the point that ex-military people don't understand the real world, and that only non-military and therefore 'real' people can understand, but that is such patent bull that only those wanting to jump on the RAAF-bashing wagon will swallow it, no matter how many times you and Dick repeat it.
You've had a few run-ins with ex military types? Well, me too, but just as many with similarly pig-headed people who never wore a uniform. One trait of most ex-military pilots and air traffickers I know is that they're generally (and there are exceptions of course) reliable, honest and have integrity. Perhaps if you don't get on with them, you might want to have a look in the mirror!
We can get into another to-and-fro match if you like, but your modus operandi is to make a bunch of sweeping pronouncements and then disappear when you get cornered in a logical argument, so perhaps not.
You've had a few run-ins with ex military types? Well, me too, but just as many with similarly pig-headed people who never wore a uniform. One trait of most ex-military pilots and air traffickers I know is that they're generally (and there are exceptions of course) reliable, honest and have integrity. Perhaps if you don't get on with them, you might want to have a look in the mirror!
We can get into another to-and-fro match if you like, but your modus operandi is to make a bunch of sweeping pronouncements and then disappear when you get cornered in a logical argument, so perhaps not.
We do NOT mean that the Officers concerned are not fine, honest, decent upstanding fellows you would buy a beer for.
What we are talking about is the necessary military requirement that requires unquestioning obedience to an order, even unto possible death. I served as a lowly Lieutenant and I can assure you every officer knows what is taught and it hasn't and can't change. Going into battle is not "optional" if you run away from the enemy you can even get courtmartialed. There is no civilian equivalent. Your boss might sack you yes, but he can't put you up against the wall and shoot you for cowardice.
So what we are talking about is a habitual obedience to people higher in the hierarchy than you are. Everyone in the services knows this and accepts it. Try walking with half your platoon behind you carrying enough explosives and ammo to level a city block, you better believe they obey you. There are no doubt exactly similar requirements for trust an obedience in the RAN and RAAF.
The problem, again well documented, comes when a senior officer makes a mistaken order or one that is just plain wrong or based on faulty information. You are still required to obey that order. I say again, disobedience is not optional (leave Nuremberg out of it) in the military if you query the order, attempt to argue for something else or dispute the utility of what you are told to do, then that is insubordination or worse even up to the possibility of being charged with mutiny. This is again documented. It takes great tact and very quick wits to perhaps save a senior officer from their mistake this is again well documented.
Thousands of troops and Naval ratings have died because officers decided to "follow orders" when it was blindingly obvious that the orders were wrong or counterproductive, but hey, the military is not a democracy!
What Dick Smith is alluding to is this habit among a percentage of senior military officers thrust into a non military environment of expecting obedience to their wishes from their imagined subordinates as if they are still in the military and equating any query, disagreement or challenge as a direct personal affront. I agree 100% with Dick on this because I've had the unfortunate honour of working for Two of them at different times and it is both unpleasant and inefficient with no good outcomes for anyone, least of all the organisation.
I am not saying that all ex military are this way inclined, far from it, but there are a certain percentage that will pine for the service they left and try and replicate it in the organisation they inhabit. This is the source of reference for remarks about "group captains clubs" and suchlike cliques and exclusive sets and its a rotten way of running an organisation if it occurs.