What in God's name would lead you to believe that the poll is a scam? That's just tinfoil hat territory.

As I keep saying, I don't believe that a different, real pruner has been randomly stumbling across this thread and deciding to cast a vote, once every couple of hours in the last couple of weeks.

I could be wrong.

If you consider that to be a basis on which to attack my credibility, good for you, but I note that ad hominem attacks seem to be becoming a habit. :=

In any event, and again as I keep saying, the poll is pointless. Whatever the numbers and whoever the voters, it won't change thing one.

Arm out window, Leaddie could be correct - some random number generator is randomly generating votes randomly in random polls.
Now my head hurts, on with the hat.:confused::confused:

Time to close
 

This thread is now not serving any useful purpose.

Mods... Time To close.

CAsA read this forum avidly. This particular thread serves to remind them on a daily basis that their strategy is flawed when it comes to dealing with the industry it fails to support.

What, now that the predicted flood of anti-CASA votes hasn't turned out to be a tsunami after all? I think the original issue is still well alive, and a, let's say, spirited debate is maybe getting somewhere slowly too.

Anyone attend the AFAP annual Convention this weekend. Very enlightening WRT certain airline's approach to dealing with reports of Fatigue!

Skidmore, are you reading this?

Lead Ballon: Then there is 61.360 about false or misleading entries in a logbook with reference to subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code. It goes on to state that CASA may give written direction to some-one to correct a logbook - does that mean that if we find an entry that needs correction we must apply to CASA for a direction and written instructions on how to make the correction?

In the case of a logbook in which you've made the last entry, DJ, I think the answer is yes. You commit an offence if you alter it after you've made the last entry, so it seems your only alternative is to ask CASA to give you a direction under 61.360(3) if you find an error and want to correct it, and hope .....

Hope that you don't disappear into a bureaucratic and costly vortex.

I think there's an element of intention or knowledge in the phrase "false or misleading" in 61.360. In other words, I don't think there's an offence if the information in the logbook is incorrect through an innocent error. But who knows.

I might add that 61.360 is appallingly drafted: The heading says "false" entries, the text of the substantive regulation says "false or misleading" entries, and directions under the regulation may require the recipient to "correct" entries. So it might be that CASA doesn't have power to direct you to correct an entry that is neither false nor misleading, but merely incorrect as a consequence of an innocent error.

All of this is, of course, in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

(AOTW: You seem to be of the opinion that valid inferences can be drawn from the results of the poll. What are those inferences?)

Just that the expectation before it went up from the 'no' side of the debate was that a massive burst of negative opinion would ensue from the poll, when as it turns out so far it's 199 not confident in Mark Skidmore, and 197 either confident, not sure or too early to decide - hardly a resounding smack in the face for CASA, although certainly not a resounding endorsement either of course.

Skidmore - Does he equal mccomick??
 

Look at the data AOTW, only 18% give MS a big tick straight off.

Even Malcolm T had a better response in the last few weeks and the industry was known to be looking for a big change. 18% tells us that this is not the way to go.

In fact, there are serious concerns, as MS started on 1st December 2014 and now is over 10 months into the job.

The current mess with Jabiru, where the data used is not valid can be sheeted directly at MS.

Be interesting to see a report into how the meeting with RAus went last week, particularly the effects of Jonathon Aleck.

Combining the actually positive votes with votes that could go either way is not an objective interpretation.

But that's normal: The people with an interest in the subject matter of a vote will always be biased on the interpretation of the votes. That's why all political parties always argue that the outcomes of an election are positive for them.

What do you reckon the probabilities are of all the 'not sures' and 'too early to decides' eventually deciding that they do have confidence? I'm biased because I've seen this cycle 5 times over, but I'll bet a lot of money that a substantial proportion of them don't come to that conclusion.

Don't know, it depends how he goes!

The categories are a bit too fuzzy too I reckon, having both 'not sure' and 'too early' - a yes, no, don't know would probably be closer to the mark. Anyhow, I suppose we'll see what transpires in the next few months with the whole upheaval.

Proof ? What proof, philosophies don't cut it.

Leadie - the drafters know, they deliberately made it a strict liability offence!

Intention doesn't come into it! :(

And when randomly checking the random votes, I noticed that not one random IP address occurred more than once.

Folks,
Don't blame the drafters, CASA sets the intended policy outcomes, the proof of the offense and the level of the penalty ---- very often in total defiance of Government legislative guidelines ---- and I see no indications that, in real terms, Skidmore is doing anything about it.
Tootle pip!!

Some of us are well aware of your amateur sleuth activities. Some of us are also aware of how easy it is to disguise and change IP addresses.

In any event ...

What, exactly, does the poll prove?

When all the "not sure's" become sure, how will we know of what they've become sure?

When there's been sufficient time for all the "too early to decide's" to make a decision, how will we know what that decision is?

And if, in the longer term, all of the votes settled around 50/50 "Confident" and "Not Confident", what would that prove? I'd suggest the answer is: "Not Thing One".

And if, in the longer term all of the votes settled at 100% "Not Confident", what would change? I'd suggest the answer is: "Not Thing One".

Give a it go with a poll on Martin Dolan.

Skidmore has not a hope in hell of changing CASA, its policies or its culture.

The reason being that all it takes to stymie change is inertia and a little creative negative thinking to make up reasons why proposed changes, any proposed changes, are too hard. The reformers energy is quickly expended on fighting endless battles, its like trying to attack a tank with a pea shooter. The entire CASA general management level is against any form of change that does not increase their power and decrease their accountability. This is why internal reform is mostly impossible.

Internal reform only works where you, as chief executive, take a sword to senior management ranks and remove anyone who represents a threat to the change agenda. This is relatively easy in the private sector but difficult in the public sector. Unless you do this, then despite outward allegiance to the new way of doing things, old habits will reassert themselves in a short while.

This is why in both the Public and the Private sector we have seen so many new technology systems fail to achieve promised savings. The people who should be displaced by the new system make up new reasons to do more make work and embed themselves in the new system. It is not unusual to see staff numbers actually increase when "labour saving" systems are introduced. The only safe way to implement a system that is say, supposed to reduce staff by 25%, is to fire 25% on the day you switch the new system on.

The only safe way to reform CASA is to disband it and create say, Two new agencies to do the work - and then be very careful about which former CASA employees, only the low level ones, you let in, otherwise the new organisations will get "infected" by the old CASA culture. This is clearly beyond Skidmore and his Minister.

Sunny days ...
 

Oh so true. The Iron Ring of upper level management of long term professional spin doctors like Aleck et al put paid to any positive changes imho.

The ONLY way to save GA on Oz is for a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry so that all the horror stories of bureaucratic buggery,cronyism, corruption and illegalities can be exposed. Once the REAL story is out about the rotten state of CAsA then maybe, just maybe the whole sh*t heap can be deconstructed, leaned out and rebuilt with new non CAsa pro aviation people and the FAA regs
:ok: And many things like investigations, FOI and MLO removed to independent bodies...so fair dealing and common decency might prevail:ok:

Otherwise it will just be the same old as for past decades... the circular saw of revolving ceos and crapulous "philosophies" and resulting regulations (sic) cutting GA to the death.