JAA has failed
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Organigramme?
Isn't it interesting that the growth in the number of bureaucrats described in the text quoted above, is exactly as predicted by "Parkinson's Law"?
Yes there really is a Parkinson's Law - read "Parkinson's Law" by C. Northcote Parkinson (ISBN 0-345-30064-5) first published by Ballantine Books in 1957. I just happen to have a copy handy and here on page 12 the law is expressed in the formula x = 100(l + 2k to the m) divided by yn where k is the number of staff seeking promotion through the appointment of subordinates, l is the difference between the age of appointment and the retiring age, m is the fraction of total manhours spent on internal administration and n is the number of effective units being administered. Parkinson found that the value of x will lie between 5.17% and 6.56% (at the 95% confidence level) irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done. The British Colonial Office is an extreme example where the staff increased from 372 in 1935 when the British Empire still flourished, to 1,661 in 1954 at which time there had ceased to be any colonies left to administer. The Colonial Office was then absorbed into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - naturally with no loss of jobs or seniority.
Sorry to digress but the growth tendency of bureaucracies is a very interesting phenomena that is not entirely irrelevant to this thread. . . . .**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Blacksheep ]</p>
Isn't it interesting that the growth in the number of bureaucrats described in the text quoted above, is exactly as predicted by "Parkinson's Law"?
Yes there really is a Parkinson's Law - read "Parkinson's Law" by C. Northcote Parkinson (ISBN 0-345-30064-5) first published by Ballantine Books in 1957. I just happen to have a copy handy and here on page 12 the law is expressed in the formula x = 100(l + 2k to the m) divided by yn where k is the number of staff seeking promotion through the appointment of subordinates, l is the difference between the age of appointment and the retiring age, m is the fraction of total manhours spent on internal administration and n is the number of effective units being administered. Parkinson found that the value of x will lie between 5.17% and 6.56% (at the 95% confidence level) irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done. The British Colonial Office is an extreme example where the staff increased from 372 in 1935 when the British Empire still flourished, to 1,661 in 1954 at which time there had ceased to be any colonies left to administer. The Colonial Office was then absorbed into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - naturally with no loss of jobs or seniority.
Sorry to digress but the growth tendency of bureaucracies is a very interesting phenomena that is not entirely irrelevant to this thread. . . . .**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Blacksheep ]</p>
Although the document referred to in this thread specifies that the language of the JAA (and heirs and successors) will be English, there are a few minor references that get lost in the translation. It is quite possible that you Airbus types are wholly familiar with organigrammes, and it is just me!
Organigramme (French) definition; organigramme = flow chart *[noun-masculine]
I suppose an example application might be something like:
" Bonjour (Selamat Pagi) Monsiuer Mouton-Noir. Quell position votre dans le organigramme?"
Your note on the demise/exponential growth of the Colonial office is extremely relevant. With the granting of independence to the various colonies, there was truly one aspect of Colonial government that the emerging nations adopted as their own and have susequently mastered beyond compare. Beauracracies and Beauracrats! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Cyclic Hotline ]</p>
Organigramme (French) definition; organigramme = flow chart *[noun-masculine]
I suppose an example application might be something like:
" Bonjour (Selamat Pagi) Monsiuer Mouton-Noir. Quell position votre dans le organigramme?"
Your note on the demise/exponential growth of the Colonial office is extremely relevant. With the granting of independence to the various colonies, there was truly one aspect of Colonial government that the emerging nations adopted as their own and have susequently mastered beyond compare. Beauracracies and Beauracrats! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Cyclic Hotline ]</p>
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmmmh. The paper that Steamhead posted is comments on the document that's going to define EASA. For those with an interest I found it on the EU website as follows ....
<a href="http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st12/12664en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st12/12664en1.pdf</a>
(I've got less experience than Steamhead at creating shortcuts, so apologies if it doesn't work out)
<a href="http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st12/12664en1.pdf" target="_blank">http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st12/12664en1.pdf</a>
(I've got less experience than Steamhead at creating shortcuts, so apologies if it doesn't work out)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Wickford,Essex,England
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Done The Pod. .More bed time reading,the workings of the EU are a total mystery
I am trying to put together an answer to the letter from the CAA by Ron Elder sent to all and sundry asking for comment to three questions.
1 How much is already known or understood by you and your senior management regarding EASA?. .2 Do you consider that, on an individual basis or as a representative or member of an industry group,you have been adequately briefed and/or consulted on the proposals for EASA?. .3 What are your individual or your company's/association's views on the advantages and/or disadvantages of the agency's establishment for your part of the UK aviation industry;is there any balance between the two you feel you can identify?
Comments to:- Ron Elder . . Head of Personnel Licensing Department. . by 15 February
Regards
I am trying to put together an answer to the letter from the CAA by Ron Elder sent to all and sundry asking for comment to three questions.
1 How much is already known or understood by you and your senior management regarding EASA?. .2 Do you consider that, on an individual basis or as a representative or member of an industry group,you have been adequately briefed and/or consulted on the proposals for EASA?. .3 What are your individual or your company's/association's views on the advantages and/or disadvantages of the agency's establishment for your part of the UK aviation industry;is there any balance between the two you feel you can identify?
Comments to:- Ron Elder . . Head of Personnel Licensing Department. . by 15 February
Regards
Cosmo,
Do you perhaps mean that their decisions will be as binding on all member states as all other legislation in the EEC? Unless of course France does not like it and will not take it up. Or perhaps Germany will feel it disadvantages them in some way and will not teke it up.
Thats how the EEC and its bodies actually work.
Doc C.
Do you perhaps mean that their decisions will be as binding on all member states as all other legislation in the EEC? Unless of course France does not like it and will not take it up. Or perhaps Germany will feel it disadvantages them in some way and will not teke it up.
Thats how the EEC and its bodies actually work.
Doc C.
