Sandy and the Elephant in the room.
“It is a predisposition of human nature to consider an unpleasant idea untrue, and then it is easy to find arguments against it.”
Sandy makes some shorthand comments related to 'the way things are' – which correctly identifies the 'regulations' as counter productive, expensive and burdensome, which they undoubtedly are; no quarrel with that concept. However: the incredible cost and the tangled 'mess' is for government to sort out. Without a 'minister' who see's, cares and is game to take CASA on; (McKenzie for example) then there's sod all 'industry' can do; not short term anyway. The 'body count' don't signify, nor does 'standards', not even the 'fiscal' cost seems to trouble any of the ministers or their minions we see at Estimates. Well and carefully protected are those bastions (with your money).
To explain the ramblings of the fool; lets take a look at the 'road traffic' accident rate. Take a drive through any city and count the number of times you shake your head; or curse or even resort to the horn. As with aviation, there are requirements and skill levels which must be demonstrated and Standards to be examined before any from of licence may be issued. Once that licence is issued, there are no further barriers and the potential for accident is created simply by 'attitude' developed toward the 'rools'. How many folk drive in the manner demonstrated during the driving test? How many progress to an advance driving course?
I wonder; on a pro rata base, how many pilots, outside of a company system, fit into the passed the test and forget those parts which 'don't suit 'em'. The classic is the VFR deliberate penetration into 'illegal' weather. This seems to claim many lives on a regular basis. Is this a system fault? I don't believe so. You see it on the roads every day; particularly in wet weather. Spend a half hour on a 'Dash Cam' video – all there; despite training, warnings and regulation. This is not the 'regulators' problem; this one 'belong you'. Nothing to do with standards, little to with the training outfit, much to do with 'options'. The regulations are clear enough, the warning stark enough, the body count well documented and the ATSB reports clear as day.
The word 'inadvertent' is often bandied about. This is a screaming misnomer, nothing 'accidental or inadvertent about it; nothing. The rules for VFR are almost universal, distance and visibility set in black and white, no defence at law. The majority can 'read' a forecast, apply it to a proposed route, scheme and wiggle to avoid getting 'trapped' and always leave a back door open. Then there are those who insist on pushing their luck. Nothing to do with standards set, got away with it 100 times, so roll the dice and believe 101 will be the same. One of the underpinning reasons for the many rules and restrictions imposed is because #101 comes to grief on a regular basis. What cannot be managed by the 'authority' is the attitude – no amount of regulation will prevent the 'Oh, that's just bullshit' mindset. IFR operations have set in stone 'limitations' which very, very few pilots ignore; for many bloody good reasons; its considered highly unprofessional and dangerous to play at Silly Buggers when the chips are down, and even then, events can happen. Perhaps those operating under VFR minimums could adopt the same approach. Or, as the song says - “you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em” at lifes big roulette wheel.
Don't know – perhaps it is the 'lack' of connection to human nature portrayed within the official approach that is, (IMO) in need of some 'adjustment'.
“You may talk o' gin and beer
When you're quartered safe out 'ere,
An' you're sent to penny-fights an' Aldershot it;
But when it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water,
An' you'll lick the bloomin' boots of 'im that's got it.”
Toot - toot. (Just like that poem - a whim).
“It is a predisposition of human nature to consider an unpleasant idea untrue, and then it is easy to find arguments against it.”
Sandy makes some shorthand comments related to 'the way things are' – which correctly identifies the 'regulations' as counter productive, expensive and burdensome, which they undoubtedly are; no quarrel with that concept. However: the incredible cost and the tangled 'mess' is for government to sort out. Without a 'minister' who see's, cares and is game to take CASA on; (McKenzie for example) then there's sod all 'industry' can do; not short term anyway. The 'body count' don't signify, nor does 'standards', not even the 'fiscal' cost seems to trouble any of the ministers or their minions we see at Estimates. Well and carefully protected are those bastions (with your money).
To explain the ramblings of the fool; lets take a look at the 'road traffic' accident rate. Take a drive through any city and count the number of times you shake your head; or curse or even resort to the horn. As with aviation, there are requirements and skill levels which must be demonstrated and Standards to be examined before any from of licence may be issued. Once that licence is issued, there are no further barriers and the potential for accident is created simply by 'attitude' developed toward the 'rools'. How many folk drive in the manner demonstrated during the driving test? How many progress to an advance driving course?
I wonder; on a pro rata base, how many pilots, outside of a company system, fit into the passed the test and forget those parts which 'don't suit 'em'. The classic is the VFR deliberate penetration into 'illegal' weather. This seems to claim many lives on a regular basis. Is this a system fault? I don't believe so. You see it on the roads every day; particularly in wet weather. Spend a half hour on a 'Dash Cam' video – all there; despite training, warnings and regulation. This is not the 'regulators' problem; this one 'belong you'. Nothing to do with standards, little to with the training outfit, much to do with 'options'. The regulations are clear enough, the warning stark enough, the body count well documented and the ATSB reports clear as day.
The word 'inadvertent' is often bandied about. This is a screaming misnomer, nothing 'accidental or inadvertent about it; nothing. The rules for VFR are almost universal, distance and visibility set in black and white, no defence at law. The majority can 'read' a forecast, apply it to a proposed route, scheme and wiggle to avoid getting 'trapped' and always leave a back door open. Then there are those who insist on pushing their luck. Nothing to do with standards set, got away with it 100 times, so roll the dice and believe 101 will be the same. One of the underpinning reasons for the many rules and restrictions imposed is because #101 comes to grief on a regular basis. What cannot be managed by the 'authority' is the attitude – no amount of regulation will prevent the 'Oh, that's just bullshit' mindset. IFR operations have set in stone 'limitations' which very, very few pilots ignore; for many bloody good reasons; its considered highly unprofessional and dangerous to play at Silly Buggers when the chips are down, and even then, events can happen. Perhaps those operating under VFR minimums could adopt the same approach. Or, as the song says - “you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em” at lifes big roulette wheel.
Don't know – perhaps it is the 'lack' of connection to human nature portrayed within the official approach that is, (IMO) in need of some 'adjustment'.
“You may talk o' gin and beer
When you're quartered safe out 'ere,
An' you're sent to penny-fights an' Aldershot it;
But when it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water,
An' you'll lick the bloomin' boots of 'im that's got it.”
Toot - toot. (Just like that poem - a whim).