Resistence to Change and Reform -- Anywhere.
 

Folks,
The below is from the Friday Australia, it is not about aviation, but it encapsulates, precisely, why any real reform is so bleeding difficult that it is bordering on impossible, and that goes double if aviation is involved.

I am old enough to remember the fight by the then pilots union domestic pilots branches of the APA, AGAINST the fitting of weather radar to Australian airline aircraft, as just one lunatic example. In another thread, recently, the refusal of AVM(Rtd.) Don Bennett to countenance the use of radio navigation aids at BSAA was detailed.

The quote is from William Morris (Billy) Hughes, the "Little Digger", several times Prime Minster of Australia.

• Greg Melleuish
• The Australian
• April 8, 2016 12:00AM
• Save
• Print

Does that strike a chord??

Tootle pip!!

And, strangely, peacetime ex-military officers are some of the most change resistant of all.

And in wartime, both WWI and WWII, many of our most brilliant commanders were "weekend warriors", John Monash being one outstanding example. This was also true for other Commonwealth countries, like Canada, NZ and SA.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Does anybody have the full details of, during the Malaysian Emergency, the "Academy Ace" doing a bit of "hand on" in an RAAF Lincoln dropping his bombs with the bomb bay doors closed.

Lead. So true. Especially about airspace. It's all about clinging to the old and "perception" not rational evidence as you have correctly pointed out in the past.

ADS-B anyone??? CASA rule changes??? Seems it's only change resistance when you're not having the change inflicted on you. Hypocrites.

Le Ping,

Your post says more about you than anybody else.

The opposition to the " change" in your post is all about rejection of crippling costs for completely unjustified impositions, by regulation.

The difference between the "Rule of law" and the "Rule by law".

Tootle pip!!

This utter rubbish about 'ex-military' has really, really run its course. There are professionals in all walks of life having wrested themselves from the wretched world of status quo, and gone on to make a very good career for themselves, IN NON-GOVERNMENTAL careers. But lets not toss up them as examples.

This constant whinging about ex-military spectres ruining CASA or Airservices is just that, whinging. Constant carping about individuals who happen to be ex-military is feckless and disrespectful, unless you can provide specific examples that illustrate you know that person, and are in a position to provide an objective opinion about their suitability for post.

Why is this strange? Aren't there libraries dedicated to describing this phenomenom, cataclysmic events precipitated on one individual's refusal to move at other than a glacial pace?

Fatuous generalisations aren't worth the data packet they're sent by.

What is ironic is the way the Australian quote has immediately been applied to dreaded 'ex-military' by the usual suspects rather than acknowledging that resistance to change exists in society at large.

Leady, I do not know whether you have seen an associated observation by one Greg Melleuish, Professor of Politics and History at the University of Wollongong (8/4/16) in a letter to the Australian.


Does that strike a chord??

Leady, that is a very perspicacious observation on the part of the Professor if you are trying to draw some sort of parallel between, 'airspace reform,' 'resistance,' and Billy Hughes!

How,
I think your quote came from the same article in the Friday Oz?
Tootle pip!!

I'll just add a couple of things to my last after getting the Giant Border Collie back from his run.

Your listeners are not a bunch of brain-dead idiots that resist for the sake of 'resistance.' Most are intelligent professionals that are willing to listen, but not be brow-beaten by someone that says 'I know what's good for you.' That approach just gets people's backs up.

Having been around the game long enough before retirement, I know that people are receptive to logical, cogent arguments. And if those arguments hold water, people need to be brought along, not bludgeoned into submission. That's the primary cause of resistance. People just turn off and get resentful to what is no more than a paternalistic approach. I'll say again: 'I know what's good for you.' It is not the avenue to win friends and influence people.

Personally, and it's just MY OPINION, I happen to believe that there is merit in Dick's push for IFR/IFR separation, and traffic on known VFR down to 700 AGL, where we have radar coverage at some of the busier places. But my OPINION AND BELIEF count for little. People need to be persuaded that such a move is a safety enhancement and not blind allegiance to ideology. If the latter is the case, they'll just turn off again.

That said, I've seen some posts where the boys and girls have said they'd be happy to provide the service, but that training and current regs don't allow. Hardly their fault in acting within current constraints. That is not 'resistance,' it's reality.

Give them the tools, provide logical argument in respect of a thorough safety case and risk analysis and, dare I say, you'd have them jumping on board to provide the service. Most I've known over the years have that thing called 'professional pride' in respect of doing all they can to facilitate traffic, whether IFR or VFR.

Change I can believe in
 

I renewed my instructor rating the other day. It could only be done in a single, that's all that was available. It also counted as my flight review SEA

So, with the part 61 changes I can now instruct SEA. I can no longer instruct multi, that needs another flight review. I can no longer instruct at night, that needs another review again.

Have I misread the changes or are they good for me and everyone else?

I am not resistant to change at all, these are great changes (not) :(

i blame the legal professions.

Sled, in any change there are winners and losers. You are judging the objections of others by the value you put on those things and not how they see them. Taking your attitude I don't give a rats about the cost of ADS-B as I'm not paying and it makes my job easier. Whereas in fact I can entirely see why people are objecting.

Whereas I do give a rats about replacing C with dirt tack E when it's purely for ideological reasons and nearly killed a 737 of pax.

Le Ping,

That's an ideological statement, if ever there was one, with no basis in fact. And I do mean fact. Not my opinion, fact.

As has been said, ad infinitum, as nauseum, the light aircraft pilot had the B737 in sight at all relevant times.

He could not have mistaken sighting another aircraft, there was only one other aircraft in the area, the B737. The probability of a collision was as near nil as it is possible to be -- "vanishingly small" is the correct technical term.

To suggest he was just going to sit there and fly smack into the B737 is just too silly for words, is idealogical ---- and I don't care what the ATSB report said, because all too often ATSB reports are far from unchallengeable.

To suggest that somebody who is smart enough to be a leading local businessman, who is smart enough to have accumulated a considerable number of hours as PIC without problems, who has flown that route many times, was going to sit there until a collision ---- I really wonder about your mental processes.

I guess the real issue is that you do not accept the whole basis of modern ICAO airspace management and separation assurance standards, and want to revert to the previous "everything controlled/nothing controlled" so called system.

It looks to me like you are the one who can't accept change, has never accepted, in this case, change.

Here's a change for you, and on your thinking, should be accepted as change --- make all airspace A, effectively grounding VFR entirely, that would obviously be "safer".

But, in the real world, it would not be reasonable --- or, maybe to people like you, it would be.

I narrowly avoided death or injury several thousand times, today, driving to YSBK and back home, by taking the normal precautions to avoid collision, competent driving. The Tobago pilot was a competent pilot.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Not that long ago, ATSB wasted who knows how many $$$ investigating a "near miss" between two VFR aircraft in G, SW of Sydney, on a severe clear day, not just CAVOK, but CAVU. The "near miss" distance was assessed to be 3nm and 500' vertically --- and this warrants "investigation"?? A completely worthless report.

Well, he clearly failed basic geometry and navigation. Would you call 2 degrees at 12 miles adequate separation? I don't call an RA a vanishingly small risk of collision.

He did just sit there and nearly have a collision - he was amazed when the 737 appeared to move laterally in front of him. What makes you think he could have manoeuvred enough when he realised it was seriously going to poo? Having something in sight doesn't mean you won't be hit by it.

You know very well that eyewitness statements are some of the least reliable evidence available. People are very poor observers. Being a business man changes this not one tiny bit

You've clearly never worked in ATC - the only constant is change.

P.S. I'm not the one trying to impose a whole system of ideas, something that is generally referred to as ideology.

Leddie, you do amaze me sometimes, but that last post takes the cake.

Le Ping The E over D at Broome and Avalon is clearly not for ideological reasons.

It follows an objective risk criteria.

Le Ping. You support C over D at Launceston because you believe that's what we had before and as per the original post quoting PM Billy Hughes you resist change in every way you can.

The airspace at Launceston is clearly upside down. Or reversed.

It's obvious that the collision risk in link airspace is far lower than airspace close to the runway.

The C would clearly be safer if it was adequately manned. This is not so in Launceston. Some of the C is controlled by the tower controller which means attention has to be taken away from the higher risk circuit and runway operations.

If putting C above D could improve safety at no extra cost other countries would have copied this by now.

Le Ping. You should learn that safety costs money and it's not possible to get something for nothing.

I have spoken to FAA Air Traffic Control experts about the system you so strongly support. They say the allocation of the airspace simply shows an incompetent resistance to change.

If it's so good why is there not one other country in the world with this type of reversed airspace?


To quote and paraphrase " What Hughes identified was the extraordinary resistance to change of most Australians- they are hostile to almost any change"

Ideology..........

So, Dick is the airspace ICAO compliment in Tasmania?

Should you write to the AFAP and ask them to tell its members not to fly into Wynyard, Devonport, Launceston and Hobart until the issues are resolved with airspace design?

What about after hours when Launceston and Hobart towers are closed, is it safe for RPT aircraft such as B737 and A320 to fly into those places with no radar, high terrain, poor weather, limited met information, pilot activated lighting-sounds like a disaster waiting to happen!

Dick, you owe it to the Australian public to save them from this unfolding disaster happening in our skies.