The (Ills of Society) IOS indaba.
Two great shouts of BOLLOCKS erupted from the assembled IOS this evening.
Stunned disbelief preceded the first for a moment – then; from what began as a growling noise – the shout emerged. I called ‘em all to order and, when they returned from the bar, I asked, quietly, could someone elaborate. Eventually one of the Bar Room Barristers (BRB) stepped out; (they tend to cross refer) and made a simple, but succinct statement. “On what grounds does the court believe that CASA would not have made rules, if there was not a safety case?” “On what tangible evidence was the decision made?" “Certainly not factual evidence’ for non was provided”. “Is the threat of ‘the blood on your hands’ enough to even influence a judgement on a point of law?"
Consensus - Angel Flight may not have proven their argument; but CASA has not provided the Senate Committee with the empirical data – BRB seconded the IOS ‘BOLLOCKS’ motion. So the motion was carried - . Once again CASA above the basics of law – failing to provide the data and working within the rule system they have developed to ensure any and all legal challenges become nugatory.
About this time P7 strolled in; I called a brief adjournment and took the offered glass with some relief – ‘can you do the rest?” “OK” was the reply – ‘they’re a handful when roused ain’t they though”. So I sat back to observe ‘round two’.
“Order, order – gentlemen please – Order” said TOM; and they did settle down. “ I want to read you two short paragraphs from the ‘Horse- pooh’ first; then call for a group opinion”. – Then he read out the following:-
Hatch – “Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.
Hatch – “The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.
BOLLOCKS – came the second great shout. As the ‘IOS chronicler’ it falls to me to translate the reasons why; so, I begin.
“Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime”.
Opinion (i) There is no proposal which even vaguely suggests that the ‘financial well-being’ of operators or business interests should take any sort of precedent in the changes to ‘the Act’. This is pure fantasy. CASA is being asked to consider the financial impact their regulations are having on industry – in comparison to the NZ, UK and the USA systems. The Act as it stands allows CASA a free reign to do pretty much whatever they like, unchallenged, in the name of ‘safety’ - whatever that is. The paragraph in the SMH is ‘misleading’ to the point of being disingenuous. Many ( a great many) of the CASA ‘regulations’ impose great cost, much of it not remotely associated with anything other than ‘safe conviction’ and allocation of blame – to the benefit of the big insurance companies. It begs the question – who gains financially from the CASA edicts? Not the industry, such as it is; nor those involved in 'accident' that is for certain sure.
“The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.
(ii) This statement begs two questions. I say this is a cynical, self promoting, headline grabbing, politically beneficial, ultra safe gambit to impress on the public and hapless politicians; how the great con game works. I pose only one simple question M'lud – had Qantas, Jetstar, Tiger and Virgin been operating the 737 Max variant – how fast do you think ATSB and CASA would have been to scream ‘safety’ and ground ‘em. You all know the answer as well as I do. Hypocrisy and Hubris don’t quite cover it – but they will do for now.
And so; when P7 called for the vote – I joined in the last great shout of the evening #3 – BOLLOCKS, as loud and as hard as I could. I will add there was real venom in that shout. Impervious and protected is one thing, exposed to daylight is another. Game on I’d say. Let’s see what ‘Hatch, Match and Dispatch’ can do with a reality fix; one without Gibson faery tales; or, even Casa financial leverage over the AFAP. That will be fun -
![[Image: D1_76vXXcAIugGl.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1_76vXXcAIugGl.jpg)
Toot – Toot
Two great shouts of BOLLOCKS erupted from the assembled IOS this evening.
Stunned disbelief preceded the first for a moment – then; from what began as a growling noise – the shout emerged. I called ‘em all to order and, when they returned from the bar, I asked, quietly, could someone elaborate. Eventually one of the Bar Room Barristers (BRB) stepped out; (they tend to cross refer) and made a simple, but succinct statement. “On what grounds does the court believe that CASA would not have made rules, if there was not a safety case?” “On what tangible evidence was the decision made?" “Certainly not factual evidence’ for non was provided”. “Is the threat of ‘the blood on your hands’ enough to even influence a judgement on a point of law?"
Consensus - Angel Flight may not have proven their argument; but CASA has not provided the Senate Committee with the empirical data – BRB seconded the IOS ‘BOLLOCKS’ motion. So the motion was carried - . Once again CASA above the basics of law – failing to provide the data and working within the rule system they have developed to ensure any and all legal challenges become nugatory.
About this time P7 strolled in; I called a brief adjournment and took the offered glass with some relief – ‘can you do the rest?” “OK” was the reply – ‘they’re a handful when roused ain’t they though”. So I sat back to observe ‘round two’.
“Order, order – gentlemen please – Order” said TOM; and they did settle down. “ I want to read you two short paragraphs from the ‘Horse- pooh’ first; then call for a group opinion”. – Then he read out the following:-
Hatch – “Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.
Hatch – “The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.
BOLLOCKS – came the second great shout. As the ‘IOS chronicler’ it falls to me to translate the reasons why; so, I begin.
“Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime”.
Opinion (i) There is no proposal which even vaguely suggests that the ‘financial well-being’ of operators or business interests should take any sort of precedent in the changes to ‘the Act’. This is pure fantasy. CASA is being asked to consider the financial impact their regulations are having on industry – in comparison to the NZ, UK and the USA systems. The Act as it stands allows CASA a free reign to do pretty much whatever they like, unchallenged, in the name of ‘safety’ - whatever that is. The paragraph in the SMH is ‘misleading’ to the point of being disingenuous. Many ( a great many) of the CASA ‘regulations’ impose great cost, much of it not remotely associated with anything other than ‘safe conviction’ and allocation of blame – to the benefit of the big insurance companies. It begs the question – who gains financially from the CASA edicts? Not the industry, such as it is; nor those involved in 'accident' that is for certain sure.
“The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.
(ii) This statement begs two questions. I say this is a cynical, self promoting, headline grabbing, politically beneficial, ultra safe gambit to impress on the public and hapless politicians; how the great con game works. I pose only one simple question M'lud – had Qantas, Jetstar, Tiger and Virgin been operating the 737 Max variant – how fast do you think ATSB and CASA would have been to scream ‘safety’ and ground ‘em. You all know the answer as well as I do. Hypocrisy and Hubris don’t quite cover it – but they will do for now.
And so; when P7 called for the vote – I joined in the last great shout of the evening #3 – BOLLOCKS, as loud and as hard as I could. I will add there was real venom in that shout. Impervious and protected is one thing, exposed to daylight is another. Game on I’d say. Let’s see what ‘Hatch, Match and Dispatch’ can do with a reality fix; one without Gibson faery tales; or, even Casa financial leverage over the AFAP. That will be fun -
Toot – Toot