[P7_TOM]

Practical, sensible and very democratic I'd say, but is it doomed to failure?

Buckley is a 'classic' example - of where much industry frustration and anger comes from. We have all witnessed this, in one form or another. Chief pilot mandates blue socks every Tuesday - the CASA fellah wants Pink. Impasse, followed by argument or acquiescence, bowing to the inevitable - Pink socks every day - no option or else.... 

It is the naked threat of 'or else' which shuts down the CP to a simmering rage. Blue socks on Tuesday may be an operational requirement; it meets the 'legal' mandate that socks must be worn - however, if the local FOI interpolates the rule as giving power to the 'non responsible' administrator i.e. him; then pink socks it must be.

Two options - cop it sweet; or, risk the ire of the local branch and challenge the edict. Hell, you may even win the rubber; but, as many within industry know - from that moment on your card is marked. From then on, nothing will be either easy, routine or 'cheap'.

There is a need for a 'middle earth' - somewhere a competent CP or HOTAC or HOFO can 'present' a case supporting the proposed Blue Socks argument. It may well be a 'flawed' argument - the ramifications clearly explained and the liability clearly defined - this is why we cannot approve your request. Fair enough - message received; Blue socks out. The CP folds his tent, shuts up and gets on with it.

But what if it turns out that 'by law' any colour socks may be worn and the FOI is put back in the box? Will it learn from the experience and work from the good advice given; or, toddle off snarling from being embarrassed and smarting from the loss of face; determined make every future hurdle a mine field? You see, when a FOI has been made to look like the inexperienced muff - the type model CASA like; is the one who will now wait an opportunity to regain face. We have all witnessed this a 100 times.

Haystacks built from one straw; the needle carefully concealed - off site'. Aided an abetted by 'the law' there is very little chance anyone can withstand the 'haystack' system. With time, money, no fiscal impost and even less assistance for the defence in any case brought - the chances are slim to anorexic of a win.

IMO; Buckley needs to pipe down and find a way through to a 'negotiating' position; but, most importantly he needs to find the underpinning reason for his treatment. A clear statement of 'fact' based in 'law' - a one page reason why his operation was shut down. There is a whirligig whipping up his haystack; a radical, a reasoned argument as why his operation was shut down - a legally tenable one would help him see how to turn off the wind. For the longer it blows, the more expensive the case; the more time available for 'reasons' to be added and the less chance resolution has. A ten point brief explaining why Blue socks are unacceptable would suffice. Item one: Blue socks are not permitted - here's why. That 'why' will provide the basis for a rebuttal - but 100,000 words writ to all and sundry will net no gain. You must know the charge before you can mount a defence. So then; what, exactly is 'the charge'?

Thirsty work this pontificating stuff; but, as it is my two bob (honestly earned) I shall spend it as pleases me best. I shall help myself to another from 'K's' long suffering keg and warm up on the dart board while I await the arrival of my peers and betters.