Apparently CASA’s “mandate” is to “make certain” aviation is as “safe as possible”
Thread Starter
Apparently CASA’s “mandate” is to “make certain” aviation is as “safe as possible”
Mr Carmody seems to think CASA’s has a mandate to “make certain” that aviation is “as safe as possible”
In Estimates on 22 February Mr Carmody said, in relation to the recent community service flight changes:
That would explain a lot.
I’m not sure from where Mr Carmody plucks that “mandate” but, assuming it is CASA’s “mandate”, CASA is failing miserably to fulfil it.
There are many, many things that CASA could do, but isn’t doing, to “make certain” that community service flights are “as safe possible”. These flights will continue to entail risks even when carried out in accordance with the latest bright ideas implemented by CASA. Those risks are “possible” to mitigate through further regulatory action by CASA. Having failed to do those things, CASA has failed to fulfil what Mr Carmody says is CASA’s mandate.
I suppose that once the normalised deviation of a government agency is to use whatever empty rhetoric sounds good to justify something illogical, the real meaning of words are forgotten.
In Estimates on 22 February Mr Carmody said, in relation to the recent community service flight changes:
We are trying to fulfil our mandate by making certain these flights are as safe as possible.
I’m not sure from where Mr Carmody plucks that “mandate” but, assuming it is CASA’s “mandate”, CASA is failing miserably to fulfil it.
There are many, many things that CASA could do, but isn’t doing, to “make certain” that community service flights are “as safe possible”. These flights will continue to entail risks even when carried out in accordance with the latest bright ideas implemented by CASA. Those risks are “possible” to mitigate through further regulatory action by CASA. Having failed to do those things, CASA has failed to fulfil what Mr Carmody says is CASA’s mandate.
I suppose that once the normalised deviation of a government agency is to use whatever empty rhetoric sounds good to justify something illogical, the real meaning of words are forgotten.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 23rd Feb 2019 at 01:39.
make certain??? Compared to what?
I cut my teeth on risk management. First at Esso, then at Ansett. There are already a whole suite of RM protocols, even ICAO has them, that could be used as a solid foundation for CASA to regulate, but the Act and CASA studiously ignores them in favour of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.
furthermore, The application of RM is guaranteed to produce “interesting results” in that it identifies what really matters as opposed to junk ideas that might provide a few surprises.
I cut my teeth on risk management. First at Esso, then at Ansett. There are already a whole suite of RM protocols, even ICAO has them, that could be used as a solid foundation for CASA to regulate, but the Act and CASA studiously ignores them in favour of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.
furthermore, The application of RM is guaranteed to produce “interesting results” in that it identifies what really matters as opposed to junk ideas that might provide a few surprises.
CASA has strenuously resisted genuine risk management applications, in part because of the above. I know, from the inside.
Whether it was the old AS/NZ 4360 or the current ISO standards, they are anathema to CASA, with the further unacceptable consequences that CASA would be forced to admit that Dick Smith's "Affordable Safety" was always and is fundamentally correct. Because, in the real world, it cannot be anything else.
I shudder to think how many millions of our $$$$ has been spent, either directly by DCA/DotATG/CAA/CASA, either directly, or by totally unjustified regulatory and other impositions on industry, completely without benefit of any consequent risk reduction ---- or, as CASA prefers, the rather stupid and dimensionless "more safety".
Tootle pip!!
Please Sir.....I want MORE...….(Safety …)
Moses was content with 'ten' of them....And his were, reputedly, FREE..!!.How many thousand M's $'s for us 'mere mortals'...?
No Cheers...
Moses was content with 'ten' of them....And his were, reputedly, FREE..!!.How many thousand M's $'s for us 'mere mortals'...?
No Cheers...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Griffo, there's an old analogy regarding Moses and the ten, some say is the "true" story.
In the beginning God created..etc..etc..etc................and at the end of the beginning, after creating all that stuff, God was pretty pooped and in need of a rest.
So He called in the Arch Angel and told him he was taking a few billion years off and left him in charge. He did warn him that he had given men free choice
so he needed to keep an eye on them as man could be a bit impetuous and make silly decisions every now and then.
The Arch angel called in all the heavenly bureaucrats and got them busy imagining strict liability sins and writing commandments in an attempt to control mans impetuous nature. Pretty soon there were thousands of commandments growing every day and people were inadvertently sinning all over the place.
Many were getting worried about their souls going to heaven and began pressuring Moses to go and have a chat with god as he was the only one who knew where he was vacationing. Rumour had it he was up some mountain somewhere skiing and trout fishing. For those of you who didn't know God is an avid angler, that's why he created Flies.
Anyway Moses hiked off and was gone for ages finally returning with two very heavy stone tablets.
The people gathered to hear the news. Moses told them "Good news and bad news I'm afraid, the good news I managed to cut him down to Ten commandments" The people cheered "The bad news adultery is still in" the silence was deafening!!
In the beginning God created..etc..etc..etc................and at the end of the beginning, after creating all that stuff, God was pretty pooped and in need of a rest.
So He called in the Arch Angel and told him he was taking a few billion years off and left him in charge. He did warn him that he had given men free choice
so he needed to keep an eye on them as man could be a bit impetuous and make silly decisions every now and then.
The Arch angel called in all the heavenly bureaucrats and got them busy imagining strict liability sins and writing commandments in an attempt to control mans impetuous nature. Pretty soon there were thousands of commandments growing every day and people were inadvertently sinning all over the place.
Many were getting worried about their souls going to heaven and began pressuring Moses to go and have a chat with god as he was the only one who knew where he was vacationing. Rumour had it he was up some mountain somewhere skiing and trout fishing. For those of you who didn't know God is an avid angler, that's why he created Flies.
Anyway Moses hiked off and was gone for ages finally returning with two very heavy stone tablets.
The people gathered to hear the news. Moses told them "Good news and bad news I'm afraid, the good news I managed to cut him down to Ten commandments" The people cheered "The bad news adultery is still in" the silence was deafening!!
Thread Starter
I was reading through the news this afternoon and was struck by this sentence:
Strictly observing and parroting dogmas while luxuriating in superior sanctity, indifferent to the human toll.
For some reason CASA immediately sprang to my mind.
In so many ways, Pell was the archetypal Pharisee, strictly observing and parroting dogmas while luxuriating in his superior sanctity, indifferent to the human toll.
For some reason CASA immediately sprang to my mind.
'Amen'...Mr LB, and,
Re "a mandate to “make certain” that aviation is “as safe as possible..... (#1)
= Keep all aircraft on the ground
= 'safe as possible'....n'est-ce-pas..???
NO Cheers here - NOPE! None at all...!!!=left
Re "a mandate to “make certain” that aviation is “as safe as possible..... (#1)
= Keep all aircraft on the ground
= 'safe as possible'....n'est-ce-pas..???
NO Cheers here - NOPE! None at all...!!!=left
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ensure our nest is feathered is the prime objective
The second objective is never to finish anything.
Consider the real beginnings of aviation regulation came after the second world war.
They were home grown regs based on the Pommie system, we tended to do that at the time, copy all things Pom.
They were written largely to protect the two airline policy hence Reg 206.
By the 1980's there was talk of reform. They were not fit for purpose, It was decided to base our new regs on the US System.
We made a start, wrote some pretty good regs, then somehow someone decided, Na let's go European.
The big question is Why? when almost all of our aviation business was with the USA.
As is proven, the European regs were a disaster for aviation in Europe and they are currently rewriting them.
From the 1945 to 1985.... forty years and your regs are out of date.
1985 to 2020......Our regs allegedly based on a completely failed system are still not complete and it is blindingly obvious are doing exactly what happened in Europe, the collapse of an industry. We are approaching the 40 year anniversary of regulatory reform, the last lot of reg's lasted forty years, will we embark on another cycle of reg reform? what will it cost this time? who's system will we base it on? My bet is the cost will triple given the number of regs tippled last time, Russian could be a good bet, too many people over this way have adopted NZ reg's, which for some odd reason we can't copy, nor the US FAR's, apparently CAsA believes they are not compatible with our Westminster system of government, there you go, bloody Poms again. But hang on? doesn't NZ have a Westminster System? Didn't they copy US FAR's?
For the life of me I cannot understand how any government could allow any of its agencies to piss 500 million dollars of taxpayers money away as CAsA has done with no checks no balances in place to keep the bastards honest.
We really do need a Federal Corruption Commission.
The second objective is never to finish anything.
Consider the real beginnings of aviation regulation came after the second world war.
They were home grown regs based on the Pommie system, we tended to do that at the time, copy all things Pom.
They were written largely to protect the two airline policy hence Reg 206.
By the 1980's there was talk of reform. They were not fit for purpose, It was decided to base our new regs on the US System.
We made a start, wrote some pretty good regs, then somehow someone decided, Na let's go European.
The big question is Why? when almost all of our aviation business was with the USA.
As is proven, the European regs were a disaster for aviation in Europe and they are currently rewriting them.
From the 1945 to 1985.... forty years and your regs are out of date.
1985 to 2020......Our regs allegedly based on a completely failed system are still not complete and it is blindingly obvious are doing exactly what happened in Europe, the collapse of an industry. We are approaching the 40 year anniversary of regulatory reform, the last lot of reg's lasted forty years, will we embark on another cycle of reg reform? what will it cost this time? who's system will we base it on? My bet is the cost will triple given the number of regs tippled last time, Russian could be a good bet, too many people over this way have adopted NZ reg's, which for some odd reason we can't copy, nor the US FAR's, apparently CAsA believes they are not compatible with our Westminster system of government, there you go, bloody Poms again. But hang on? doesn't NZ have a Westminster System? Didn't they copy US FAR's?
For the life of me I cannot understand how any government could allow any of its agencies to piss 500 million dollars of taxpayers money away as CAsA has done with no checks no balances in place to keep the bastards honest.
We really do need a Federal Corruption Commission.
With the very greatest of respect, you are far to easy on Australia and Australian bureaucracy on this subject.
Australia has always been a "world leader" in Aviation regulation ---- to the degree that the first Commonwealth aviation regulation came just after WW! ---- there was no aviation to regulate, but, by god, we had the "regulations" there, as soon as there was something aviation to bugger up.
Look at the date of the original Air Navigation Act.
Indeed, Australia was something like eleven years ahead of of USA's first comprehensive aviation regulation.How's that for leading the world, punching above our weight, setting sanctimonious examples.
We, in Australian aviation regulation, have always been very imaginative in foreseeing "air safety" problems, long before they existed (and in many cases, have never existed) but one example will do;
Cast you mind back to when you and I first started flying ---- the ANO 40 contained a reserved section for pilot licensing requirement for Ornithopters --- flapping wing aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Of course, to this day, there is a very big constitutional question over extent of the Commonwealth powers over aviation --- but that is another story with a long legal history, so we will adjourn it sine die
Thorny. I second that..... we REALLY do need a Federal Corruption Commission.
CAsA has become a law unto itself. AND there is NO OVER-SIGHTING agency that you can turn to for justice or redress.
CAsA has become a law unto itself. AND there is NO OVER-SIGHTING agency that you can turn to for justice or redress.
