Who’s responsible????????? A Sunday ramble, sorry gentlemen, sometimes I despair.
Looking back over the years I ponder how an industry I have spent almost fifty years of my life in and about, finds itself in such a mess.
Under siege from every quarter, being slowly squeezed to a painful death.
I ponder on, the why, the how, the who, and what their motives were/are and who ultimately takes responsibility.
For sure the GA industry itself must carry some of the blame. Apathy and a failure to grasp the gravity of what is happening to it, close ranks, form a united front, and speak with a uniform voice to fight for its survival is perhaps its biggest failing.
In mitigation, the tyranny of distance and the attendant costs, (remember the airline duopoly where a one way ticket was a months salary, remember the telecommunications monopoly, where a three minute call to Perth cost half a days salary?)
This made it difficult for industry to communicate and confederate. It was not easy to get their message out into the wider community, aviation was not newsworthy unless there was a crash, therefore the only picture Joe public saw was negative.
It is a little easier today with the advent of the internet and mobile phones, but perhaps too late to change perceptions.
GA could be described as a loosely knit collection of “Cottage industries” spread across this vast Island Continent, sprouting when a need arose, diminishing as the need declined, only to spring up somewhere else. They employed a lot of people, gave a lot their start in aviation, and contributed to the national wealth by providing a vital service to their communities.
From the local town aero-club, to the one man band charter company, to the local maintenance shop, these were local industries that served their communities, and served them very well.
GA is diverse, it covers a multitude of disciplines each with a barrow to push, each with its own agenda, and each containing its share of ego’s. For as long as I’ve been a part of it, GA’s businesses have generally been owned and managed by passionate enthusiasts, generally under resourced, undercapitalized and very sensitive to price pressures.
It could be said, those that sought to manipulate and control the industry knew very well those weaknesses and exploited the “divide and rule” principle to the fullest.
This one simple weakness facilitated the rot that set in.
Who decided to take the words ”Foster and promote” from CAsA’s charter?
Was it deliberate? If so, why? and where were wiser industry heads and political leaders, who should have seen the dangers of giving bureaucrat’s unfetted power.
Back thirty years or so ago someone decided that our Reg’s were in need of reform.
Sensibly, since most of the aircraft we operate are manufactured and certified in the USA, a decision was made to align us with the FAR’s.
A start was made, working committees formed, with expert industry participation. Rule sets were written to mirror arguably the safest aviation industry on earth and most certainly the biggest.
In the US, regulation was born from the civilian side, not as an extension of the military. Rules were written to promote safety, therefore they had to be written in plain English, because the imperative was the regulated must understand them, but always there was an eye on the impact those rules would have on the health and well being of the industry, “Foster and Promote” was the mantra that sat at the core of aviation regulation, recognizing that expertise lay within the industry, not the regulator, clear unambiguous rules, education and mentoring would produce the best safety outcomes. The irrefutable truth is they were right, the US has the safest aviation environment in the world.
Unfortunately someone here decided to bin all the work that had been done to aline with the US rules and start again, embracing a flawed EASA rule set.
Why? nobody will say. We think we know who, but the jury is still out on that one.
Ultimately that flawed rule set destroyed European General Aviation and is about to do the same to Australia.
Our regulator set off on the EASA path, copied the headings but deceitfully filled in the content with our very own prescriptive, complicated, legalistic unworkable rubbish.
Predictably Australian General Aviation is suffering the same fate as our European colleges.
Who was responsible and why?
Our Industry directly and indirectly pay for our regulator. Those in its upper echelon are paid handsomely to manage competently and be responsible, they are most certainly not employed to bring the industry to its knees, regardless of the myth of the Safety Mantra they have used unmercifully to denigrate the industry and promote their own perception as savers of the Australian Public.
Can anyone remember when a positive statement has ever been heard from CAsA about the GA industry?
Destroying the GA industry is not stated government policy, we pay, so indirectly they are responsible to us, we are not paying to have them destroy us.
Whenever CAsA is held to account all we hear is excuses, such as, “We are only required to consider safety” or “I was in Montreal” or “I wasn’t at CAsA at the time”.
They take OUR dollar, they should earn it, but more than that, they should pay a price for incompetence, especially where malfeasance is established .
I particularly hate the excuse “we are only required to consider safety”.
It is a very cheap copout!
It’s not so long ago we were called “customers”. Being a customer implies, having a choice to not reward incompetent service by withdrawing our custom.
Difficult when you are dealing with a monopoly.
Today we are referred to as “Stakeholders”, which implies we as an industry have a vested interest in how things are done, yet we are dismissed with contempt and disrespect.
Regardless of how they want to refer to us, or what they want to imply with weasel words, the fact remains, we pay and we should be entitled to have a say and receive competent service.
Ours is a service industry, where there is a need, we provide the service. If we screw up, we pay the price and must accept responsibility.
Why should we have to accept a service that ultimately sends us broke?
Or, perhaps more to the point, why do WE as an industry accept a service that ultimately sends us broke?
When GA is no more, will anyone in Government, or the bureaucracy pay a price?
Who decided to move aviation regulation into criminal law?
Which let loose the lawyers to write indecipherable regulation that absolve incompetence by the rule writers, absolve the regulator from any liability for anything and makes criminals of everyone on the Industry side.
Regulation for “Liability” not regulation for “Safety”
Who decided to flog off our airports to Property sharks and why?
Was there nobody in the bureaucracy with the acumen to counsel that this may not be a good idea? If there were naysayers, why were they ignored?
Our primary Airports are a national disgrace, with third world infrastructure, continually voted at the bottom of the world pile.
Our secondary airports are disappearing, as ever larger chunks are removed for any future aviation growth, for the immediate profits of development sharks, the airports utility diminished to unsafe levels and where it impinges on their viability as airports.
Perhaps this was the goal, billions of dollars of greenfield real estate too much of a temptation?
Who decided that a person, who, if you believe published information, displayed disturbing sociopath tendencies be employed as DAS? Despite evidence from overseas, thus unleashing a five year reign of terror on the GA industry and creating a culture within CAsA as policemen rather than partners in the promotion of real safety, not enforced embuggerance.
This culture is still in place today and will take a concerted effort and maybe years to change.
The current DAS will need a lot more than platitudes to convince industry that the same deceit, lies, corruption and incompetence will not continue under his watch.
If he started to atone for the sins of the past, and make restitution it would be a good start.
Unfortunately all the current signs point to Skidmore being a Mc Comic, Mini Me, sans the screaming.
Looking back over the years I ponder how an industry I have spent almost fifty years of my life in and about, finds itself in such a mess.
Under siege from every quarter, being slowly squeezed to a painful death.
I ponder on, the why, the how, the who, and what their motives were/are and who ultimately takes responsibility.
For sure the GA industry itself must carry some of the blame. Apathy and a failure to grasp the gravity of what is happening to it, close ranks, form a united front, and speak with a uniform voice to fight for its survival is perhaps its biggest failing.
In mitigation, the tyranny of distance and the attendant costs, (remember the airline duopoly where a one way ticket was a months salary, remember the telecommunications monopoly, where a three minute call to Perth cost half a days salary?)
This made it difficult for industry to communicate and confederate. It was not easy to get their message out into the wider community, aviation was not newsworthy unless there was a crash, therefore the only picture Joe public saw was negative.
It is a little easier today with the advent of the internet and mobile phones, but perhaps too late to change perceptions.
GA could be described as a loosely knit collection of “Cottage industries” spread across this vast Island Continent, sprouting when a need arose, diminishing as the need declined, only to spring up somewhere else. They employed a lot of people, gave a lot their start in aviation, and contributed to the national wealth by providing a vital service to their communities.
From the local town aero-club, to the one man band charter company, to the local maintenance shop, these were local industries that served their communities, and served them very well.
GA is diverse, it covers a multitude of disciplines each with a barrow to push, each with its own agenda, and each containing its share of ego’s. For as long as I’ve been a part of it, GA’s businesses have generally been owned and managed by passionate enthusiasts, generally under resourced, undercapitalized and very sensitive to price pressures.
It could be said, those that sought to manipulate and control the industry knew very well those weaknesses and exploited the “divide and rule” principle to the fullest.
This one simple weakness facilitated the rot that set in.
Who decided to take the words ”Foster and promote” from CAsA’s charter?
Was it deliberate? If so, why? and where were wiser industry heads and political leaders, who should have seen the dangers of giving bureaucrat’s unfetted power.
Back thirty years or so ago someone decided that our Reg’s were in need of reform.
Sensibly, since most of the aircraft we operate are manufactured and certified in the USA, a decision was made to align us with the FAR’s.
A start was made, working committees formed, with expert industry participation. Rule sets were written to mirror arguably the safest aviation industry on earth and most certainly the biggest.
In the US, regulation was born from the civilian side, not as an extension of the military. Rules were written to promote safety, therefore they had to be written in plain English, because the imperative was the regulated must understand them, but always there was an eye on the impact those rules would have on the health and well being of the industry, “Foster and Promote” was the mantra that sat at the core of aviation regulation, recognizing that expertise lay within the industry, not the regulator, clear unambiguous rules, education and mentoring would produce the best safety outcomes. The irrefutable truth is they were right, the US has the safest aviation environment in the world.
Unfortunately someone here decided to bin all the work that had been done to aline with the US rules and start again, embracing a flawed EASA rule set.
Why? nobody will say. We think we know who, but the jury is still out on that one.
Ultimately that flawed rule set destroyed European General Aviation and is about to do the same to Australia.
Our regulator set off on the EASA path, copied the headings but deceitfully filled in the content with our very own prescriptive, complicated, legalistic unworkable rubbish.
Predictably Australian General Aviation is suffering the same fate as our European colleges.
Who was responsible and why?
Our Industry directly and indirectly pay for our regulator. Those in its upper echelon are paid handsomely to manage competently and be responsible, they are most certainly not employed to bring the industry to its knees, regardless of the myth of the Safety Mantra they have used unmercifully to denigrate the industry and promote their own perception as savers of the Australian Public.
Can anyone remember when a positive statement has ever been heard from CAsA about the GA industry?
Destroying the GA industry is not stated government policy, we pay, so indirectly they are responsible to us, we are not paying to have them destroy us.
Whenever CAsA is held to account all we hear is excuses, such as, “We are only required to consider safety” or “I was in Montreal” or “I wasn’t at CAsA at the time”.
They take OUR dollar, they should earn it, but more than that, they should pay a price for incompetence, especially where malfeasance is established .
I particularly hate the excuse “we are only required to consider safety”.
It is a very cheap copout!
It’s not so long ago we were called “customers”. Being a customer implies, having a choice to not reward incompetent service by withdrawing our custom.
Difficult when you are dealing with a monopoly.
Today we are referred to as “Stakeholders”, which implies we as an industry have a vested interest in how things are done, yet we are dismissed with contempt and disrespect.
Regardless of how they want to refer to us, or what they want to imply with weasel words, the fact remains, we pay and we should be entitled to have a say and receive competent service.
Ours is a service industry, where there is a need, we provide the service. If we screw up, we pay the price and must accept responsibility.
Why should we have to accept a service that ultimately sends us broke?
Or, perhaps more to the point, why do WE as an industry accept a service that ultimately sends us broke?
When GA is no more, will anyone in Government, or the bureaucracy pay a price?
Who decided to move aviation regulation into criminal law?
Which let loose the lawyers to write indecipherable regulation that absolve incompetence by the rule writers, absolve the regulator from any liability for anything and makes criminals of everyone on the Industry side.
Regulation for “Liability” not regulation for “Safety”
Who decided to flog off our airports to Property sharks and why?
Was there nobody in the bureaucracy with the acumen to counsel that this may not be a good idea? If there were naysayers, why were they ignored?
Our primary Airports are a national disgrace, with third world infrastructure, continually voted at the bottom of the world pile.
Our secondary airports are disappearing, as ever larger chunks are removed for any future aviation growth, for the immediate profits of development sharks, the airports utility diminished to unsafe levels and where it impinges on their viability as airports.
Perhaps this was the goal, billions of dollars of greenfield real estate too much of a temptation?
Who decided that a person, who, if you believe published information, displayed disturbing sociopath tendencies be employed as DAS? Despite evidence from overseas, thus unleashing a five year reign of terror on the GA industry and creating a culture within CAsA as policemen rather than partners in the promotion of real safety, not enforced embuggerance.
This culture is still in place today and will take a concerted effort and maybe years to change.
The current DAS will need a lot more than platitudes to convince industry that the same deceit, lies, corruption and incompetence will not continue under his watch.
If he started to atone for the sins of the past, and make restitution it would be a good start.
Unfortunately all the current signs point to Skidmore being a Mc Comic, Mini Me, sans the screaming.