|
Lead Ballon,
I cannot answer your question as yet as I'm only up to pg 10 at present (So far no mention of the Angel Care Flts). But I feel fairly certain that you have not read his submission (Emmerson's) anywhere near its entirety. My guess is he pretty much against DS and changes he brought about. |
Once you get to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, please post your answer. Your answer to my question.
|
Lead Ballon,
Having finished Emmerson's submission I have neither a Yes or a No for you. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the difference in standards to be able to make any comparison and I have no expertise in the area. I also presume the submission precedes the Angel Flight saga (of which I'm only vaguely aware) and I have no idea to whom it was made or the reasons. However I assume your beef is with his argument against CBA. To be honest I'm somewhat flummoxed by your attitude towards him, I don't see him as a technocrat in the derogatory way as you and Sunfish have described him and I found his attitude and position on regulation to be well argued and I didn't find him to be ideologically fixated in his professional opinions. I believe a good example of of his lack of ideology is evident on page 23 under the heading: The relative Roles of Standards and Good Judgement (for some reason I cannot C & P from the PDF). In my opinion I found him to be arguing for a professional regulator free of undue industry influence and not suffering from regulatory capture as was demonstrated in the Hayne RC (ASIC & APRA). |
The problem Exfocx is that “good judgement” of which you speak exists only in the brain of the judge. ‘’What we have currently in CASA is exactly the same as a priesthood. Like the Catholic Church, they have their dogma and anyone who argues against it risks excommunication or being burned at the stake, like Glen Buckley. A harmful part of that dogma is to reject cost benefit analysis as preached by ICAO. This is exactly the same as the Catholic church rejection of the heliocentric model. Ever heard of FMEA? |
Sunfish,
Imo he'd most likely agree with you about the present setup! His argument is about a professional CASA, which some may argue we had 30+ yrs ago. If you have read his piece on CBA you have the same situation as what you have said about judgement. I'd say his view of CBA is that it is nothing like your actuarial work, but bloody subjective and open to selective use of data etc. No (FMEA), but have since looked it up. My guess is he would state that CBA is not on par with that. I cannot help but feel you may not have read it completely. Why don't you try and contact him and get a better idea of where he stands, maybe you'll find you're a lot closer than you think. He doesn't come across to me as a closed minded idiot. |
As to your comments on the ATSB findings on the Community Service Flight accident rate I'd like to see a counter argument on their stats, using statistical analysis, not just someone in a senate hearing claiming they got it wrong. By saying this I'm not making judgement on it, but it would be pretty stupid of them to just randomly make statements like that when it would be easy enough to get a statistician to review it. I would add I think CASA and the ATSB are way too close for my comfort. Angel Flight rejects the claim in the ATSB report that, for Angel Flight passenger carrying flights, the “fatal accident rate was more than seven times higher per flight than other private flights” as invalid. A valid analysis addressing passenger risks would require comparison of passenger carrying Angel Flights and other passenger carrying private flights. Since no such data are available for other private operations, the only reasonable comparison is between all Angel Flight operations and all other private operations. Even then, results must be treated cautiously because an unknown proportion of private operations involve circuit training and short local flying whereas all Angel Flight operations involve flights with an average sector length of 1.5 hours. The analysis in Table B2 on page 69 shows that, when all Angel Flight sectors are included, the fatal accident rates are 0.5 and 0.2 per 10,000 flights for Angel Flight and other private flights respectively, and the difference is not significant. Furthermore, when all accidents are included, the rates are 1.1 and 1.5 per 10,000 flights for Angel Flight and other private flights respectively. Being the defenceless end of the ‘food chain’, GA just has to cop whatever intuition-based mumbo jumbo the safety zealots come up with. |
Lead Ballon,
I don't accept the old "there are lies, damn lies and statistics", I would agree there are stats and there are stats, statistics don't lie, but they are open to the manipulation of data to produce desired results. Thus there is a problem, claim and counter claim via stats! With regards to the Angel Flt situation, I don't know, however I still agree with the view of Emmerson, which I think you are confusingly tying into this. |
Exfocx, I did the statistics on Angel Flight months ago and showed that the ATSB was talking BS. I used to do analysis work like this professionally for an airline, including setting up monitoring systems to pick trends, data that we shared with the regulator. CASA is a regulator that thinks the aircraft knows when it is doing an Angel Flight and then, like the vicious creatures they are, decides to deliberately break or fail. That is why extra maintenance is needed for Angel Flight aircraft. Aircraft also know when they are flying over water.....you can hear the engine note change; ta pocketa pocketa pocketa.......... |
Sunfish no offence, but what is your training on stats?
As to water, that's risk management. What happens when one stops, which statically will happen? I doubt anything will statisfy you. p.s. I'm done. |
In simplest of terms...CASA are nothing but professionalised knee jerks.
|
Exfocx; statistical quality control. I used to even do it at an ammunition factory as a Uni student. |
ozbusdriver...sure its the knee.? I'm convinced its something else.
|
Re ...'
'Aircraft also know when they are flying over water.....you can hear the engine note change; ta pocketa pocketa pocketa....'...… Maybe not quite correct Sunny,....but I can tell you that each time I crossed Torres Strait, to & from, I could hear those valves opening and closing......TROOLY...…. And, its only 105nm....with a couple of 'options'..... But we all survived..... Cheeerrrsss... |
The secret life of walter mitty reference: “ta pocketa pocketa pocketa “ |
Over water...if the engine does stop ...then with the prop standing up, unmoving, I guess exfocx is "statically" correct.
Then one considers the options available.!! Forget the engine ,it has absolutely no idea where it is , over water or jungle covered mountains. Its all in the pilots head. And where you fly depends on the risks you are prepared to take. and the preparations you have made in the unlikely event of... ....pocketa, pocketa, BANG.! and.silence but for the wind noise. A forced landing sure does concentrate the mind..!! |
Folks,
Apparently, unlike any post to date, I have actually made the acquaintance of, and had professional dealings with, the gentleman who is substantially the subject of this thread. In my opinion, it is the attitude conveyed in his submission that encapsulates an approach to civil aviation regulation that is the basis for so many of the "Australian" aviation problems. Described in an inquiry report, many years ago, as the Mystique of Aviation safety, bamboozling politicians and the public alike, used as a management technique that aggregates all power for the management of civil aviation (NOT just administration of air safety regulation) to "the authority" --- If you believe aviation is best served by "the authority" having absolute and unfettered power of every aspect of civil aviation, the "authority" to micro-manage every aspect of civil aviation, without intrusion from industry, political or any international influence, or real world commerce, I believe you will have found a supporter.. Tootle pip!! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.