Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
I'm not sure why you feel I need educating about what military officers do and don't do, Sunfish - I was one for over 20 years, and amazingly have been able to function pretty well in civilian life for almost as long, both in business for myself and as an employee. My comments are far from uninformed.
Dick's numerous provocative threads about how the RAAF have stuffed up Australia's aviation systems, cannot think outside narrow boundaries, are blindly obedient and so on are simplistic, offensive and plain wrong in my view.
Your suggestion is fundamentally that military training to follow orders renders people incapable of not doing so when the situation calls for it. I'm sure that as a Lieutenant you would have known that if an order is unlawful, it is your duty not to follow it.
The argument being made by Dick, and backed up by you, is that somehow being ex-military means any CASA employees can't think for themselves, will defend the established order at any cost, and want to kill GA.
This is rubbish. Why don't I want to kill GA? I should, being an ex-military automaton, but strangely enough I'd like to see it flourish, as I'm sure do the majority of my 'kind' who may have made their ways into various jobs throughout the aviation industry.
As for your habit of spraying off a volley and disappearing, I stand by that assertion and will back it up with examples if you like.
Dick's numerous provocative threads about how the RAAF have stuffed up Australia's aviation systems, cannot think outside narrow boundaries, are blindly obedient and so on are simplistic, offensive and plain wrong in my view.
Your suggestion is fundamentally that military training to follow orders renders people incapable of not doing so when the situation calls for it. I'm sure that as a Lieutenant you would have known that if an order is unlawful, it is your duty not to follow it.
The argument being made by Dick, and backed up by you, is that somehow being ex-military means any CASA employees can't think for themselves, will defend the established order at any cost, and want to kill GA.
This is rubbish. Why don't I want to kill GA? I should, being an ex-military automaton, but strangely enough I'd like to see it flourish, as I'm sure do the majority of my 'kind' who may have made their ways into various jobs throughout the aviation industry.
As for your habit of spraying off a volley and disappearing, I stand by that assertion and will back it up with examples if you like.
Not disappearing AOTW. I didn't say ALL ex service people behave that way, only some, obviously not including you.
The phenomenon I speak of - a rigid military mind, not every military mind, trying to cope in a laissez faire private sector is what we are talking about and I stand by what I said - its not a pretty sight because the military mind is not very good at handling dualities and decision making under considerations of great uncertainty.
My suggestion is that you get a copy of "The Rules Of The Game" by Andrew Gordon that documents the struggle between authoritarians, Autocrats and technical specialists from about 1870 to the present day in the Royal Navy.
Suffice to say is that if there are ex RAAF authoritarians in CASA then they need to be discovered and removed. The Two I worked for were nasty pieces of work with closed minds. One destroyed a public company, the other thousands of aviation jobs via government.
As for disappearing, I've given you one reference. I don't expect to have to run a training course. Do your own research.
The phenomenon I speak of - a rigid military mind, not every military mind, trying to cope in a laissez faire private sector is what we are talking about and I stand by what I said - its not a pretty sight because the military mind is not very good at handling dualities and decision making under considerations of great uncertainty.
My suggestion is that you get a copy of "The Rules Of The Game" by Andrew Gordon that documents the struggle between authoritarians, Autocrats and technical specialists from about 1870 to the present day in the Royal Navy.
Suffice to say is that if there are ex RAAF authoritarians in CASA then they need to be discovered and removed. The Two I worked for were nasty pieces of work with closed minds. One destroyed a public company, the other thousands of aviation jobs via government.
As for disappearing, I've given you one reference. I don't expect to have to run a training course. Do your own research.
AOTW, if you look at politics, it is a bunfight run by bull****artists. Lies, untruths and innuendos are the language politicians speak. If you want to draw attention to anything political you proceed to sprout rubbish about it with a few half truths and a few facts thrown in.
I can't stand it, I have no interest in politics and I am not going there. I never vote.
That said, all Dick is doing is what 99% of politicians do worldwide. Single him out if you like, but he is no different than our elected and wannabe politicians and I wish he would join the political party (as an independent).
I can't stand it, I have no interest in politics and I am not going there. I never vote.
That said, all Dick is doing is what 99% of politicians do worldwide. Single him out if you like, but he is no different than our elected and wannabe politicians and I wish he would join the political party (as an independent).
Sunfish, you can invoke this cartoon military image all you like, and blame all the ills of the aviation world on it, but it's not helping anyone. If anything, military competence implies the antithesis of what you're saying - the ability to make decisions under conditions of great uncertainty, such as in times of conflict!
Anyway, you reckon ex-RAAFies have stuffed aviation, I don't, so perhaps we should just leave it there. I venture to say that if you sacked all these military people and replaced them with people from any other sector of the community, they wouldn't fare much differently, you just wouldn't have such a convenient handle with which to attack them.
Aussie Bob, yes, politicians live in a world of bull**** and media spin. That's the opposite of what I'd like to see but apparently we're stuck with it. However, if this is Dick's style of getting a message across there's no way I'd vote for him - it's blatant **** stirring in my book, not honesty, and he seems to just say any provocative thing to get a reaction, a bit like any publicity is better than none. Classic shock journalism - pose a provocative question, throw in a bit of suggestion and innuendo, but then when it comes down to it the real story is a disappointment after the hyped buildup.
Anyway, you reckon ex-RAAFies have stuffed aviation, I don't, so perhaps we should just leave it there. I venture to say that if you sacked all these military people and replaced them with people from any other sector of the community, they wouldn't fare much differently, you just wouldn't have such a convenient handle with which to attack them.
Aussie Bob, yes, politicians live in a world of bull**** and media spin. That's the opposite of what I'd like to see but apparently we're stuck with it. However, if this is Dick's style of getting a message across there's no way I'd vote for him - it's blatant **** stirring in my book, not honesty, and he seems to just say any provocative thing to get a reaction, a bit like any publicity is better than none. Classic shock journalism - pose a provocative question, throw in a bit of suggestion and innuendo, but then when it comes down to it the real story is a disappointment after the hyped buildup.
Unfortunately AOTW, it is not a "cartoon military image" as thousands of accounts confirm, Gallipoli, the Somme and Jutland being proximate examples.
If these clowns inhabit CASA as Dick suggests, then we are in trouble. You are entitled to argue that robust CASA hiring practices exclude such folk, but not that they exist.
If these clowns inhabit CASA as Dick suggests, then we are in trouble. You are entitled to argue that robust CASA hiring practices exclude such folk, but not that they exist.
Thread Starter
How come Sir Angus Houston supports the 1950s system where the Firies at places like Ballina are prevented from manning a Unicom like they do in North America?
It's all about protecting the " System" and the status quo.
He has been quoted in the media about this.
Ballina airport management now have a tender out for ATCs to provide a Unicom as a paid service.
The cost will be passed on to every pilot who uses the airport doing further damage to GA. The US does not have one Unicom operated by paid ATCs.
How come we have never trialled at least one non tower airport in Australia with class E to 700 agl? It's all about zero leadership and resisting change.
Who has been in charge of CASA for the last 15 years? You have it. - ex military people who clearly can't even think of leadership is testing just one airport with class E operated by existing en route controllers to see if it could work.
It's all about protecting the " System" and the status quo.
He has been quoted in the media about this.
Ballina airport management now have a tender out for ATCs to provide a Unicom as a paid service.
The cost will be passed on to every pilot who uses the airport doing further damage to GA. The US does not have one Unicom operated by paid ATCs.
How come we have never trialled at least one non tower airport in Australia with class E to 700 agl? It's all about zero leadership and resisting change.
Who has been in charge of CASA for the last 15 years? You have it. - ex military people who clearly can't even think of leadership is testing just one airport with class E operated by existing en route controllers to see if it could work.
Ballina airport management now have a tender out for ATCs to provide a Unicom as a paid service.
Why doesn't one of the local operators at Ballina provide a Unicom now? There is nothing stopping them. Wait...maybe because they see no value in it perhaps? So the alternative is basically forcing the AD operator to provide some sort of service, so of course they are going to recover their costs. After all, having any sort of ground to air service comms is not going to cause an increase in traffic into Ballina, so where is the cost benefit to the council? They will simply be providing additional services to people who would already be going there, even if that service wasn't there.
How come we have never trialled at least one non tower airport in Australia with class E to 700 agl? It's all about zero leadership and resisting change.
The US does not have one Unicom operated by paid ATCs.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point on cost-benefit, Bloggs.
When I was still in the game, I advised the incoming GM of the OAR that the only way he was going to resist unrelenting pressure from 'Mr I Want' was to have an ironclad defence when it came to stuff like Senate Estimates. From my perspective, it was bloody obvious that some of these gormless politicians were being fed their lines.
I told the guy that no one would be able to take him down if his basis for justifying/rejecting airspace change was underpinned by two fundamentals - cost-benefit and risk analysis - and that he held firm in that respect. Logical, really. I'm sure you will agree!
That said, on the subject of Unicom, I reckon that a fair argument could be put for its introduction. Costs would be minimal, but benefits would need to be quantified formally, as opposed to 'I believe.'
Secondly, those proposing change, in my opinion, should be the ones to put their case forward with solid cost-benefit and risk analyses. There are some decent consultants around (I'm not one of them; I'm permanently retired) that could put together a credible argument for Unicom and submit same to the OAR. But it must be a formal submission with the 'i's dotted and the t's crossed. 'I want,' or 'I believe' is just not good enough.
Finally, Sunfish appears to me to have taken on the mantle of the 'wise philosopher.' Unfortunately, IMHO, he fails philosophy 101 in respect of the military having a 'unique mindset,' and blows his argument out of the water with that sweeping generalisation in one fell-swoop.
You see, Sunny, all arguments are based on underlying assumptions; otherwise it would not be an argument, it would be fact. If an underlying assumption is flawed, then the argument falls in a heap. I won't rehash what you've said previously; it's on the record. But check out the 'Church,' as one example, for some of those flaws you subscribe to the military as being 'unique.' Your underlying assumption is flawed. Consequently your argument don't amount to a hill a beans.
When I was still in the game, I advised the incoming GM of the OAR that the only way he was going to resist unrelenting pressure from 'Mr I Want' was to have an ironclad defence when it came to stuff like Senate Estimates. From my perspective, it was bloody obvious that some of these gormless politicians were being fed their lines.
I told the guy that no one would be able to take him down if his basis for justifying/rejecting airspace change was underpinned by two fundamentals - cost-benefit and risk analysis - and that he held firm in that respect. Logical, really. I'm sure you will agree!
That said, on the subject of Unicom, I reckon that a fair argument could be put for its introduction. Costs would be minimal, but benefits would need to be quantified formally, as opposed to 'I believe.'
Secondly, those proposing change, in my opinion, should be the ones to put their case forward with solid cost-benefit and risk analyses. There are some decent consultants around (I'm not one of them; I'm permanently retired) that could put together a credible argument for Unicom and submit same to the OAR. But it must be a formal submission with the 'i's dotted and the t's crossed. 'I want,' or 'I believe' is just not good enough.
Finally, Sunfish appears to me to have taken on the mantle of the 'wise philosopher.' Unfortunately, IMHO, he fails philosophy 101 in respect of the military having a 'unique mindset,' and blows his argument out of the water with that sweeping generalisation in one fell-swoop.
You see, Sunny, all arguments are based on underlying assumptions; otherwise it would not be an argument, it would be fact. If an underlying assumption is flawed, then the argument falls in a heap. I won't rehash what you've said previously; it's on the record. But check out the 'Church,' as one example, for some of those flaws you subscribe to the military as being 'unique.' Your underlying assumption is flawed. Consequently your argument don't amount to a hill a beans.
Regulatory arrangements based on cost-benefit and risk analyses? There's a novel proposition.
Proponents for change must provide the cost-benefit and risk analysis to justify the change? There's a political proposition. The status quo is treated as an objective truth - an approach that is, in effect, merely an appeal to authority. "Someone in authority made the rules, so the rules must be OK because why else would that someone have been given authority to make the rules?"
I'd be interested in your thoughts, Howabout, about how pilots with CVD would go about changing CASA's return to the Middle Ages. Given that there is no material risk to which the regulator's approach to CVD is a rational response, there is no cost-benefit data to support the regulator's approach. How does one have a risk and cost/benefit based argument with an authority that simply sticks its fingers in its ears and chants: "lah lah lah lah lah lah lah"?
How is it that the arrangements in first world aviation countries, facilitating movements of traffic at volumes that would cause most of the staff of the government alphabet aviation agencies in Australia to adopt the foetal position, are not evidence of the efficacy of those arrangements?
It may be that those arrangements would require more tarmac and more resources to work equally effectively in Australia. If that's true, let's hear that as a response to Dick's arguments.
We all know Dick's off with the fairies with some of his arguments. (My favourite is his assertion that millions were "saved" by "the industry" as a consequence of the reforms that have occurred over the last couple of decades. What actually happened was that the consolidated revenue that was otherwise paying for aviation infrastructure as a public good is now being p*ssed up against the wall by profligate governments.) But let's not join him at the bottom of the garden. Let's instead identify the objective increases in risk or the objective increases in costs that are not justified by what he's advocating.
For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.
Proponents for change must provide the cost-benefit and risk analysis to justify the change? There's a political proposition. The status quo is treated as an objective truth - an approach that is, in effect, merely an appeal to authority. "Someone in authority made the rules, so the rules must be OK because why else would that someone have been given authority to make the rules?"
I'd be interested in your thoughts, Howabout, about how pilots with CVD would go about changing CASA's return to the Middle Ages. Given that there is no material risk to which the regulator's approach to CVD is a rational response, there is no cost-benefit data to support the regulator's approach. How does one have a risk and cost/benefit based argument with an authority that simply sticks its fingers in its ears and chants: "lah lah lah lah lah lah lah"?
How is it that the arrangements in first world aviation countries, facilitating movements of traffic at volumes that would cause most of the staff of the government alphabet aviation agencies in Australia to adopt the foetal position, are not evidence of the efficacy of those arrangements?
It may be that those arrangements would require more tarmac and more resources to work equally effectively in Australia. If that's true, let's hear that as a response to Dick's arguments.
We all know Dick's off with the fairies with some of his arguments. (My favourite is his assertion that millions were "saved" by "the industry" as a consequence of the reforms that have occurred over the last couple of decades. What actually happened was that the consolidated revenue that was otherwise paying for aviation infrastructure as a public good is now being p*ssed up against the wall by profligate governments.) But let's not join him at the bottom of the garden. Let's instead identify the objective increases in risk or the objective increases in costs that are not justified by what he's advocating.
For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.
It may be that those arrangements would require more tarmac and more resources to work equally effectively in Australia. If that's true, let's hear that as a response to Dick's arguments.
Dick's not making arguments, he's demanding, with no justification apart from the old mantra "this is the way they do it in the USA".
For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.
For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO as well is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.
I haven't done one, and perhaps no one has....but I daresay a risk analysis of the Firies doing CAGRO may uncover a few worries. A few things that pop into my mind:
- Increased training = increased fatigue
- Increased time concentrating and listening out for radio calls = less time available for fire fighting training and development
- Increased time managing a potential complex communication exchange during an emergency = less time available to put out fires = more staff required
I'm sure there's more.
My point is...it's possibly not as simple or clear cut as it may seem.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB,
CVD, and the approach to it, in my opinion, is stupid.
But that has nothing to do with this topic.
There must be a rational, facts-based system for change. Otherwise it will always be opinion and the 'might is right' path. What else would you suggest?
Allowing someone to dictate change based on emotion and opinion?
What we have ain't perfect, but it's a damned sight better than 'I want.'
CVD, and the approach to it, in my opinion, is stupid.
But that has nothing to do with this topic.
There must be a rational, facts-based system for change. Otherwise it will always be opinion and the 'might is right' path. What else would you suggest?
Allowing someone to dictate change based on emotion and opinion?
What we have ain't perfect, but it's a damned sight better than 'I want.'
Howabout:
You are showing your complete ignorance of anything to do with the military mind as documented in thousands of texts.
As far as "unique mindset" I am referring to the requirement for obedience unto death. That is everything and there is no civilian equivalent.
I have referred to again a well documented military mindset resulting from the latter which regards anything other than unquestioning obedience to the wishes of a senior officer as a crime. This is again we'll documented.
Further documentation is provided by the endless stream of papers attempting to reconcile obedience to orders with "initiative - which b definition may include disobedience of orders.
I have therefore made the less than stellar deduction that if CASA employes any of the latter mindset that we are in trouble.
That we are in trouble is already documented in the Forsyth review.
To put it another way; the Navy does not assert a right to control navigation in Australias maritime zone, nor do former naval persons infest our maritime authorities.
On a personal note; The Army and Navy ( including naval aviation) in my experience get on famously and I have the headaches to prove it. Why did I leave the odd RAAF dining in night with both a headache and a feeling that i was watching a variety of axes being ground? However my argument is not based on these personal perceptions, there is a wealth of military scholarly work on the subject of dealing with military officers who are convinced beyond reason that its there way or the highway..
---and there are tens of thousands of dead to illustrate each case.
Finally, Sunfish appears to me to have taken on the mantle of the 'wise philosopher.' Unfortunately, IMHO, he fails philosophy 101 in respect of the military having a 'unique mindset,' and blows his argument out of the water with that sweeping generalisation in one fell-swoop.
You see, Sunny, all arguments are based on underlying assumptions; otherwise it would not be an argument, it would be fact. If an underlying assumption is flawed, then the argument falls in a heap. I won't rehash what you've said previously; it's on the record. But check out the 'Church,' as one example, for some of those flaws you subscribe to the military as being 'unique.' Your underlying assumption is flawed. Consequently your argument don't amount to a hill a beans.
You see, Sunny, all arguments are based on underlying assumptions; otherwise it would not be an argument, it would be fact. If an underlying assumption is flawed, then the argument falls in a heap. I won't rehash what you've said previously; it's on the record. But check out the 'Church,' as one example, for some of those flaws you subscribe to the military as being 'unique.' Your underlying assumption is flawed. Consequently your argument don't amount to a hill a beans.
As far as "unique mindset" I am referring to the requirement for obedience unto death. That is everything and there is no civilian equivalent.
I have referred to again a well documented military mindset resulting from the latter which regards anything other than unquestioning obedience to the wishes of a senior officer as a crime. This is again we'll documented.
Further documentation is provided by the endless stream of papers attempting to reconcile obedience to orders with "initiative - which b definition may include disobedience of orders.
I have therefore made the less than stellar deduction that if CASA employes any of the latter mindset that we are in trouble.
That we are in trouble is already documented in the Forsyth review.
To put it another way; the Navy does not assert a right to control navigation in Australias maritime zone, nor do former naval persons infest our maritime authorities.
On a personal note; The Army and Navy ( including naval aviation) in my experience get on famously and I have the headaches to prove it. Why did I leave the odd RAAF dining in night with both a headache and a feeling that i was watching a variety of axes being ground? However my argument is not based on these personal perceptions, there is a wealth of military scholarly work on the subject of dealing with military officers who are convinced beyond reason that its there way or the highway..
---and there are tens of thousands of dead to illustrate each case.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plazbot,
You got it 100% correct.
The thing that seems to me to be missing is the simple issue of 'personal responsibility'.
It is everyone else's fault and now, as the options to find someone to blame and the available patsies are rapidly running out, we have decided that it is the 'military mind' that is at fault.
FFS
You got it 100% correct.
The thing that seems to me to be missing is the simple issue of 'personal responsibility'.
It is everyone else's fault and now, as the options to find someone to blame and the available patsies are rapidly running out, we have decided that it is the 'military mind' that is at fault.
FFS
Sunfish,
May I commend an interesting book for you to read? It has lots about the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The book is: "Gas! The story of the Special Brigade." by Major General C.H. Foulkes. (My paternal grandfather was a Cpl member). They were the British army guys who did the gas plumbing and gas attacks on the Western Front. (All the Special Brigade Corporals were young guys who importantly had degrees in chemistry.) It was accepted then that most of the army troops came from rather poor, uneducated backgrounds. The troops were issued with gas masks but some of them thought that simply wearing them around their necks would suffice!
These Special Brigade people were recruited from the British Merchant Class. And were wisely rather dubious of the talents of the Upper Class from where the officers came.
My copy of the book was edited by my Grandfather long before he passed away in 1965. He certainly wasn't a "yes- man" for his bosses. (Indeed quite the opposite.) From my 12 year experience in the RAAF, Australians never simply blindly followed their leader there either. Leadership respect had to be earned.
May I commend an interesting book for you to read? It has lots about the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The book is: "Gas! The story of the Special Brigade." by Major General C.H. Foulkes. (My paternal grandfather was a Cpl member). They were the British army guys who did the gas plumbing and gas attacks on the Western Front. (All the Special Brigade Corporals were young guys who importantly had degrees in chemistry.) It was accepted then that most of the army troops came from rather poor, uneducated backgrounds. The troops were issued with gas masks but some of them thought that simply wearing them around their necks would suffice!
These Special Brigade people were recruited from the British Merchant Class. And were wisely rather dubious of the talents of the Upper Class from where the officers came.
My copy of the book was edited by my Grandfather long before he passed away in 1965. He certainly wasn't a "yes- man" for his bosses. (Indeed quite the opposite.) From my 12 year experience in the RAAF, Australians never simply blindly followed their leader there either. Leadership respect had to be earned.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are showing your complete ignorance of anything to do with the military mind as documented in thousands of texts.
So, yeah, Sport, I do have a bit of a clue!
'Obedience unto death?' There's a hoot. Get a commander that unnecessarily puts his peoples' lives at risk and his will be. That's reality.
In all my time, I dealt with rational, motivated and professional people that exercised logic. There were a few dickheads, for sure, but they were just reflective of wider society.
And, not finished yet -
the Navy does not assert a right to control navigation in Australias maritime zone
I remain stumped over your assertions regarding 'military incompetence' and Navy and Army getting on. Can't see the point there.
Look, and this is just a personal plea: if you are going to pontificate, will you please get your syntax in a pile?
'Australias maritime zone'
its there way or the highway..