Originally Posted by Cloudee
(Post 10131467)
It’s not about winning a seat. It’s about getting enough votes to scare the incumbent to do what you want them to do. The voters probably consider there are more important local issues to them e.g. health and support services, agriculture issues, infrastructure, utility costs etc. |
That does not mean to say one cannot drive a trailer through the district. Do it!
|
The voters probably consider there are more important local issues to them e.g. health and support services, agriculture issues, infrastructure, utility costs etc. |
Cloudee
I thought that the plan was to push Government into doing something? The loss of one seat wont change that unless there is very close to a "hung" Lower House. The loss of a single seat, even if it is a minister's seat is not a big deal. I agree that the locals will be more interested in medical, taxes etc and so even a number of angry aviation influenced voters have little chance to influence the outcome in a rural electorate. This is reflected by the Minister's initial statements on safety which as we all know is the usual cop out. Also given that Labor is looking better by the week, losing a country Coalition seat is no big deal to them. However targeting a Senate position in an era when the Senate and individual Senators are weekly, influencing the direction of Government is the way to go. Its not as "warm and fuzzy" as a Lower House seat because there is no obvious named target but as Roddy Muir and a string of others proved it gives a hell of a lot of influence. Just ask the heads of the big 4 banks if they think that the Senate and the independent Senators have power or not? Wunwing |
If you want to create change everybody should read today's Australian page 5 headed "Back paddling ensures kayaker so stay afloat". It is a lesson in how McCormack's department backed down under a deluge of emails and pressure from unpowered kayaks being charge by AMSA for search and rescue and yet fishing boat got let off with almost zero charges. |
McCormack is the Deputy PM and Leader of the National Party so he's not just a run of the mill backbencher. He has clout and needs to keep up a facade of public support.
In the Qld election a few years ago a billboard campaign against the LNP worked and got the candidates to change their tune. It is visible unlike emails... |
I don't think pushing McCormack to change words in the Civil Aviation Act will do a damn thing for the industry.
Even if he did change the words, what would you do then? What do you think would happen? It won't change CASA's culture. It won't speed regulatory simplification or reform. It won't foster expansion and investment in the various elements of the industry, and clearly the latter wasn't helped by "get out of aviation before you lose all your money" antics. To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support. My two cents - |
To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support. |
Keep it simple go with the FAA rules. |
Originally Posted by Piston_Broke
(Post 10132169)
I don't think pushing McCormack to change words in the Civil Aviation Act will do a damn thing for the industry.
Even if he did change the words, what would you do then? What do you think would happen? It won't change CASA's culture. It won't speed regulatory simplification or reform. It won't foster expansion and investment in the various elements of the industry, and clearly the latter wasn't helped by "get out of aviation before you lose all your money" antics. To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support. My two cents - I doubt that a nebulous "adopt FAA rules" would get up though. |
buckshot1777
I doubt that a nebulous "adopt FAA rules" would get up though. "If elected my party proposes to adopt worlds best practice in aviation control and development by using the rules and practices of the nation that invented flying and successfully manages safely 10 times the traffic we have in this country .It does all this in an airspace similar to our own at considerably less cost per aircraft. What is there not to like about this proposal? Iron ring excepted. |
Rutan:
AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support. Its the regulators job to handle that impossible task of balancing competing interests, including the public interest. That is what they are paid for. What is required is a rewrite of the Act to include the prime directive of the fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector. That makes the test of any regulation: 'Is it consistent with "fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector"? AOPA and other associations then can argue with the regulator over the potential outcomes of regulations instead of getting bogged down in useless detail. This is the only way forward that prevents the regulator from fulfilling its safety mandate by strangling the industry. To put that another way; The debate over the FAA regulations then becomes: "Would adopting the FAA suite of regulations do more for fostering a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector than the current system?". Such a rewrite of the Act makes the Board and Department responsible for the state of the industry in terms of not doing anything that kills it. To try and change anything without making this fundamental alteration is a waste of time. To put that yet another way, asking AOPA and the other alphabets to come up with a proposal for regulatory reform is impossible. There are too many agendas and that is without CASA inserting itself into the negotiations to divide and rule. |
Its the regulators job to handle that impossible task of balancing competing interests, including the public interest. That is what they are paid for. That's one of the primary reasons why Australia is in the regulatory mess it's in. It's like giving the police force responsibility for writing the road rules and setting speed limits, while making the police responsible for the road toll. |
Don't the FAR's include "foster and promote" the industry it regulates?
|
Well that's only true, IF they do some online training thing and apply to become a "DAME 2" So we've all been conned, again. |
Originally Posted by Stab Bar
(Post 10132996)
Jeez, imagine having to do some online training - oh the humanity!
|
To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support. Multiple reforms and proposals confuse punters and politicians alike. Chose just one that's simple and important to us and push it like hell. |
What is required is a rewrite of the Act to include the prime directive of the fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector. That makes the test of any regulation: 'Is it consistent with "fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector"? AOPA and other associations then can argue with the regulator over the potential outcomes of regulations The industry needs an injection of support now, not 5 - 10 years down the track. Agree with Piston Broke and others. Forget the Act, AOPA and the industry associations should meet and come up with a succinct list of proposals to push. |
Without a change to the Act. reform is pointless. You are building on sand. Do I have to spell it out?
P>S. Sorry for misquoting you Rutan around. |
The bureaucracy must be targeted through the Senate. The culture is toxic and needs to change. The regulations reflect the regulator, not the industry. Without change within the bureaucracy at under secretary, department head and deputy head...we will never see any improvment. Remove the office of legal council from regulation input would go a long way to seeing anything written in plain english.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.