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.

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.

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.

If if if...
 

If if if...

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.

Who's this 'we'? You're the voice of sweet reason, eh?

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.

This is a pearler too - what about the obedience to the boss (or at least the appearance of same), or get the sack! It seems you may not have spent much time in GA companies yourself if you haven't seen that one happen time and again!

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.

RAAF people in CASA
 

I believe Dick may be referring to the officer presently in charge of procedures - a former RAAF navigator.

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?

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.

• 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).

Now, in the case of this particular fly-in, why whoever in CASA refused the latter aspect is probably subject to an internal "please explain" :)

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.

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.

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.

I do have some insight into what the original Civil Aviation Act and every amendment since said and say about the powers of the Chairman when Dick was Chairman of the CAA and the Chairman of CASA. All of that legislation is available on line.

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.

Aussie Bob,
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.

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'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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Sunfish, you meet such people in all walks of life, they aren't limited to the RAAF.

I've seen it all now. The Somme > ?? > Demise of GA.... with the common factor being military 'minds'. You a$$hats have outdone yourselves this time.

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.

I thought it was a 1930s system?

They are actually tendering for someone/anyone (generally only ATC or recently ex-ATC qualify for the licence provisions now) to provide a CAGRS, which is a whole different kettle of fish to a Unicom. And I'll bet that the tender cost will be recovered by user pays.
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 about you show us the cost-benefit first. I see elsewhere that Australian ATC's already control twice as much traffic as your beloved Yanks. Who's going to provide the approach services?

Nor does Australia, nor will it...

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.

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.

No, that's Dick's job! He wants more service, he can 1/prove it will cost the same and if not, 2/will improve safety so much that the extra cost will be justified. If you want change, it is up to you to justify it, not for the incumbent to justify the status quo! You could have every crackpot wally shooter's party nut demanding this and that with the system then being tied up in knots probably for nothing. In the eyes of the majority, the law was not an ass when it was passed. It may be an ass now, but it not up to the current rulers to justify. It is up to the change-merchants to justify a change, not the other way around.

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".

Sounds impressive, LB, but it's irrational. Do you think training anybody to CAGRO standard is cost-neutral? Demarcation dispute...between whom? ATC? Do they want to put in a tower so are blocking a CAGRO? That ain't gunna happen because CASA (created by Dick, IIRC) has clear establishment criteria and it doesn't make the grade. A relic?? There is a cost objection for a CAGRO, I will give Dick that much. He wants Joe Bloggs "who might be on the airport" to provide critical info to RPT jets carrying 100+ punters because it won't cost. Surprising coming from an ex-businessman who would be keen to have his airport workers doing work for him instead of being untrained pseudo ATCs. CASA quite rightly has requirements for people passing operational info, and so it should. This costs money.

Perhaps a bit of a generalisation in itself?

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.

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.'

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.

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

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.

Funny, Sunny. For a few moments there, I seemed to remember that I had 36 years (and eight days). 40 years tomorrow (St Pat's), since I walked in the gates. And I studied countless 'military texts' at Staff College.

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 - Neither does the RAAF in the vast majority of Australian airspace. But I think you'll find that Navy does its bit, as well, in respect of national security and 'navigation.'

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?

andFor someone that seeks to lecture, your grammar sucks.