So; for the money.
Quite apart from the punctuation and grammar; the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the never ending story of ‘investigation of’ and ‘inquiry into’ CASA etc. beg some questions of their own – for instance:-
(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:
(i) it’s maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors;
“Efficient and sustainable” bring cost/benefit analysis to mind. The Angel Flight imbroglio for an example of the total cost weighed against benefit.
Let us set aside the mind bending cost of the whole AF ‘thing’ for the moment; it is estimated to be on the ‘significant’ side of expensive and leave it at that. That money has been spent; so we must look to see the benefit realised from the expenditure; what did we (Australia) get for the investment? Qui Bono?
Pivotal to the CASA argument were two cases of ‘pilot error’ which led to fatal accidents, due to Loss of Control (LoC) in instrument flight conditions by pilots not trained or qualified to fly in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).
So, for the money.
What steps and initiatives have CASA put in place to prevent a reoccurrence of a long standing, well documented and investigated fatal accident series?
How has the ATSB/CASA response to AF increased the efficiency and sustainability of industry?
How has the rural community benefitted from the expenditure and new regulation?
The answers are clear; despite the cost and rhetoric; nothing has been done which improves ‘safety’ or benefits the community AF has served. The Senate need to know why not. But that is a minefield question; one which CASA will be reluctant to answer; if they can. For it is a question as old as aviation itself.
In part, the Australian weather is responsible, unlike Europe and the USA, clear skies and benign weather condition preclude the need for instrument flight qualifications. Qualifications which are expensive to gain and complicated to maintain, in Australia. Not so in the USA, where the legislation encourages and supports the increased safety an Instrument Rating (IR) provides and the requirements for maintaining an IR are inexpensive, practical and user friendly. Increased safety through sensible regulation.
There is of course two sides to the coin; there is a strong case supporting an increase, at basic training levels, of instrument flying and continued independent practice. An equally weighted argument supports minimum exposure as a deterrent to pilots entering IMC. Despite reasoned argument, the death rate from ‘accidental’ (no such animal) entry into IMC continues to increase annually. Neither CASA nor ATSB have addressed the radical in relation to AF or more recent events of this nature.
As we are to have an ‘inquiry’ – then let us at least try to get down to brass tacks. The current massive, complex, rule set has been designed to benefit only one element of the nation – CASA. It has been proven, many times over that the regulations are neither operationally efficient nor financially sustainable. If we are to do this inquiry; let’s get it right this time.
Toot toot.
Quite apart from the punctuation and grammar; the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the never ending story of ‘investigation of’ and ‘inquiry into’ CASA etc. beg some questions of their own – for instance:-
(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:
(i) it’s maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors;
“Efficient and sustainable” bring cost/benefit analysis to mind. The Angel Flight imbroglio for an example of the total cost weighed against benefit.
Let us set aside the mind bending cost of the whole AF ‘thing’ for the moment; it is estimated to be on the ‘significant’ side of expensive and leave it at that. That money has been spent; so we must look to see the benefit realised from the expenditure; what did we (Australia) get for the investment? Qui Bono?
Pivotal to the CASA argument were two cases of ‘pilot error’ which led to fatal accidents, due to Loss of Control (LoC) in instrument flight conditions by pilots not trained or qualified to fly in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).
So, for the money.
What steps and initiatives have CASA put in place to prevent a reoccurrence of a long standing, well documented and investigated fatal accident series?
How has the ATSB/CASA response to AF increased the efficiency and sustainability of industry?
How has the rural community benefitted from the expenditure and new regulation?
The answers are clear; despite the cost and rhetoric; nothing has been done which improves ‘safety’ or benefits the community AF has served. The Senate need to know why not. But that is a minefield question; one which CASA will be reluctant to answer; if they can. For it is a question as old as aviation itself.
In part, the Australian weather is responsible, unlike Europe and the USA, clear skies and benign weather condition preclude the need for instrument flight qualifications. Qualifications which are expensive to gain and complicated to maintain, in Australia. Not so in the USA, where the legislation encourages and supports the increased safety an Instrument Rating (IR) provides and the requirements for maintaining an IR are inexpensive, practical and user friendly. Increased safety through sensible regulation.
There is of course two sides to the coin; there is a strong case supporting an increase, at basic training levels, of instrument flying and continued independent practice. An equally weighted argument supports minimum exposure as a deterrent to pilots entering IMC. Despite reasoned argument, the death rate from ‘accidental’ (no such animal) entry into IMC continues to increase annually. Neither CASA nor ATSB have addressed the radical in relation to AF or more recent events of this nature.
As we are to have an ‘inquiry’ – then let us at least try to get down to brass tacks. The current massive, complex, rule set has been designed to benefit only one element of the nation – CASA. It has been proven, many times over that the regulations are neither operationally efficient nor financially sustainable. If we are to do this inquiry; let’s get it right this time.
Toot toot.