ELECTION TIME
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Unfortunately, now back in 'the real world' of Australia, as all good things must eventually come to an end. Looking forward to returning to Japan next year, but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,912
Received 44 Likes
on
25 Posts
Most well argued Sunfish. And I think that your point 2 would be the most important.
I'm surprised though that no-one has commented on Post# 45 by Griffo.
FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with him.
How are ya btw Griffo?
I'm surprised though that no-one has commented on Post# 45 by Griffo.
FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with him.
How are ya btw Griffo?
43 inches;
I think a little engineering advice might help you.
1) In terms of the actual aerodynamic design of subsonic piston engined aircraft, the science is cut and dried, meaning the trade - offs are known. In other words, no one is likely to come up with an aerodynamic design that ticks all existing performance boxes and has twice the performance. Materials, Engines and avionics are a different matter. The changes in Avionics are amazing, Carbon fibre is here and there is steady incremental progress in engines. So in terms of pure technology, we are stuck with incremental improvements. I am told for example that the performance of a thirty year old Bonanza design is not too different from a Cirrus. The laws of physics don’t change much
2) The cost of certifying a new design is simply horrendous.
3) Some technological advances are not applicable to small piston engined aircraft, like variable valve timing etc. because the aircraft engine duty cycle is very different to an automobile. New battery technology, enabling greater performance and a better power to weight ratio and greater range would be a game changing stimulant for new designs.
Therefore the tendency is to leave things alone.
I think a little engineering advice might help you.
1) In terms of the actual aerodynamic design of subsonic piston engined aircraft, the science is cut and dried, meaning the trade - offs are known. In other words, no one is likely to come up with an aerodynamic design that ticks all existing performance boxes and has twice the performance. Materials, Engines and avionics are a different matter. The changes in Avionics are amazing, Carbon fibre is here and there is steady incremental progress in engines. So in terms of pure technology, we are stuck with incremental improvements. I am told for example that the performance of a thirty year old Bonanza design is not too different from a Cirrus. The laws of physics don’t change much
2) The cost of certifying a new design is simply horrendous.
3) Some technological advances are not applicable to small piston engined aircraft, like variable valve timing etc. because the aircraft engine duty cycle is very different to an automobile. New battery technology, enabling greater performance and a better power to weight ratio and greater range would be a game changing stimulant for new designs.
Therefore the tendency is to leave things alone.
Selling luxury vehicles is not all about performance, its about styling, status, comfort and a many other things. GA aircraft are firmly in the luxury market due to cost, otherwise the only other market is training. GA lost complete touch with the elitist market it needed to maintain to have reliable sales, so its now a dying hobby or training industry. Both with not much interest in touring to make the airport network viable outside of regional airline ports bar a few lucky locations that have bucked the trends with LSA/RAA or whatever its called these days.
On point 2 that is just unfortunately lack of market problems, again as the industry died back in about 1979. It's just been rotting away since waiting for someone to finally bin it. Cirrus is a good example that there was a continued market for GA types, but too late to push the others into real competition to produce anything of substance.
You do realise it was the conservative idiots that sold us a compromise
Which would have him fit in nicely on the left side of politics
It looks as if Labor will get a majority in its own right. (It is interesting to note that the AEC website still states that “0 of 151 House of Representatives seats have been declared”. So Australia has a new Prime Minister and other Ministers sworn in with zero seats declared one way or the other.)
Not good news for the ‘teal’ and other cross-benchers in the HoR. Subject to one possibility, the ‘teal’ and other cross-benchers should expect a courteous nod of the head by Labor members as they pass in the corridors of Parliament House, and not much more.
The one possibility is a repeat of Labor’s ‘Operation Slipper’ – that is, a defection from the opposition or cross-bench (in the case of ‘Operation Slipper’ it was Peter Slipper from the LNP) in return for some juicy reward (in Peter Slipper’s case, the Speakership) so that Labor has some ‘padding’ above a bare majority. After all, the Libs and the cross-benchers will be tempting Labor members to defect and there’s always the possibility of inconvenient coronaries. I suspect the faceless men in Labor will be looking, very carefully, at particularly the cross-bench, to see if someone’sripe for defection ready to step up to the Speakership in the public interest. (I’d jump for joy if Bob Katter became Speaker – talk about entertaining!)
That possibility aside, the main legislative game is now the Senate (assuming the AEC eventually declares HoR seats in the way the pundits are predicting they will go). I predict that Labor and the Coalition will vote together on many Bills in the Senate.
Not good news for the ‘teal’ and other cross-benchers in the HoR. Subject to one possibility, the ‘teal’ and other cross-benchers should expect a courteous nod of the head by Labor members as they pass in the corridors of Parliament House, and not much more.
The one possibility is a repeat of Labor’s ‘Operation Slipper’ – that is, a defection from the opposition or cross-bench (in the case of ‘Operation Slipper’ it was Peter Slipper from the LNP) in return for some juicy reward (in Peter Slipper’s case, the Speakership) so that Labor has some ‘padding’ above a bare majority. After all, the Libs and the cross-benchers will be tempting Labor members to defect and there’s always the possibility of inconvenient coronaries. I suspect the faceless men in Labor will be looking, very carefully, at particularly the cross-bench, to see if someone’s
That possibility aside, the main legislative game is now the Senate (assuming the AEC eventually declares HoR seats in the way the pundits are predicting they will go). I predict that Labor and the Coalition will vote together on many Bills in the Senate.
When the Howard coalition government legislation defining a marriage to be something only between a man and a woman hit the Senate, do you think Penny Wong and her Labor colleagues voted against it? You’d think they’d vote against it.
She and they didn’t. Only 7 noes, none of them Labor.
She and they didn’t. Only 7 noes, none of them Labor.
The LNP have to learn to negotiate first.
Yes he contemplated joining the Labor Party at one point
It's pretty obvious how few people monitor the proceedings and resolutions of the Federal Parliament. That's why they don't know how often the Coalition and Labor vote together to defeat cross-bench legislative proposals or amendments in the Senate.
As I noted earlier, the acid test will now be whether Labor introduces legislation for a federal ICAC with real teeth and jurisdiction to investigate retrospectively. Both Labor and the Coalition have plenty of skeletons in the closet (though the latter has more) and would prefer a cuddly puppy rather than watchdog ICAC. Now that Labor has a majority in its own right in the HoR, the cross-bench can't force through its own ICAC legislation nor force through amendments to Labor's proposed legislation to toughen it up. And when the legislation hits the Senate, the cross-bench there can huff and puff and fulminate at how flawed the legislation is, but if Labor and the Coalition choose to vote together....
But I live in hope that I will be proved wrong and that Labor will walk the talk on a federal ICAC. We shall see what we shall see.
As I noted earlier, the acid test will now be whether Labor introduces legislation for a federal ICAC with real teeth and jurisdiction to investigate retrospectively. Both Labor and the Coalition have plenty of skeletons in the closet (though the latter has more) and would prefer a cuddly puppy rather than watchdog ICAC. Now that Labor has a majority in its own right in the HoR, the cross-bench can't force through its own ICAC legislation nor force through amendments to Labor's proposed legislation to toughen it up. And when the legislation hits the Senate, the cross-bench there can huff and puff and fulminate at how flawed the legislation is, but if Labor and the Coalition choose to vote together....
But I live in hope that I will be proved wrong and that Labor will walk the talk on a federal ICAC. We shall see what we shall see.
Given Labor has been out of power for a decade I'd expect the LNP has far more to fear from a federal ICAC, if nothing else because they've been in power and have doled out the money. Of course bribery and corruption come in many forms so they'll be far from the only targets.
It's pretty obvious how few people monitor the proceedings and resolutions of the Federal Parliament. That's why they don't know how often the Coalition and Labor vote together to defeat cross-bench legislative proposals or amendments in the Senate.
But they won't vote together on budget matters for instance..
Le Pingouin, bit naive isn't it? One party is more corrupt than the other? Serious? They are all as bad as each other. And if the new commission has retrospective investigation power, we'll see that.
tossbag, please reread what I've written. One party has been in power for the last decade, that is what I'm saying. That means they've been the ones with the power and influence over funding thus more subject to bribery and corruption. Very hard to ignore departmental advice and favour your mates if you aren't in government.
Now that is roughly the cost of one nuclear powered submarine
tossbag, please reread what I've written. One party has been in power for the last decade, that is what I'm saying. That means they've been the ones with the power and influence over funding thus more subject to bribery and corruption. Very hard to ignore departmental advice and favour your mates if you aren't in government.
But don’t forget: Corruption is not just a party political issue.
When an agency head engineers a restructure or review which magically results in the creation of a senior position for a mate, that’s corruption. When a senior official intervenes in a selection process to make sure his or her favoured candidate gets the promotion, that’s corruption. When purportedly open recruitment and procurement processes are run simply to legitimise a foregone conclusion, that’s corruption.
I anticipate that if a federal ICAC with real teeth is established and given jurisdiction to investigate circumstances which arose before its creation, many of the complaints will come from inside government agencies. Plenty of people with long memories know what goes on inside government agencies, but don’t trust the public interest disclosure legislation which has been described by a Federal Court judge as "technical, obtuse and intractable".
The judgment in which that statement was made arose from documents mailed by a security guard to a federal MP containing a range of allegations against high-ranking staff at the Department of Parliamentary Services, including its handling of investigations and review processes. The guard told the court there were also allegations relating to answers given in Senate estimates proceedings about a security incident. He also alleged a senior DPS officer had sought to cover up and avoid formal processes over a threat of physical violence made by a supervisor against a subordinate. He alleged multiple breaches of the parliamentary services code of conduct "including deception by providing and attempting to provide false, misleading and deliberately incomplete evidence to Senate estimates hearings and answers to questions on notice".
Plenty of very senior federal officials and retired federal officials will be sweating if a real federal ICAC is set up.
(You are correct, le P: a federal ICAC would not have jurisdiction to investigate ‘purely state’ matters.)
When an agency head engineers a restructure or review which magically results in the creation of a senior position for a mate, that’s corruption. When a senior official intervenes in a selection process to make sure his or her favoured candidate gets the promotion, that’s corruption. When purportedly open recruitment and procurement processes are run simply to legitimise a foregone conclusion, that’s corruption.
I anticipate that if a federal ICAC with real teeth is established and given jurisdiction to investigate circumstances which arose before its creation, many of the complaints will come from inside government agencies. Plenty of people with long memories know what goes on inside government agencies, but don’t trust the public interest disclosure legislation which has been described by a Federal Court judge as "technical, obtuse and intractable".
The judgment in which that statement was made arose from documents mailed by a security guard to a federal MP containing a range of allegations against high-ranking staff at the Department of Parliamentary Services, including its handling of investigations and review processes. The guard told the court there were also allegations relating to answers given in Senate estimates proceedings about a security incident. He also alleged a senior DPS officer had sought to cover up and avoid formal processes over a threat of physical violence made by a supervisor against a subordinate. He alleged multiple breaches of the parliamentary services code of conduct "including deception by providing and attempting to provide false, misleading and deliberately incomplete evidence to Senate estimates hearings and answers to questions on notice".
Plenty of very senior federal officials and retired federal officials will be sweating if a real federal ICAC is set up.
(You are correct, le P: a federal ICAC would not have jurisdiction to investigate ‘purely state’ matters.)
Australia is the world leader in 'soft' corruption, it is endemic. And the penalties for corruption in this country are a bit of a joke. Embezzle a million, spend a year in a come and go as you please prison farm, sounds like a value proposition to me.
