pprune report: jab engine failure Oct 28th

[Frankus1aust]

Regarding peak bodies, my definition did not come from the internet, I was involved in starting one a few years ago and am the elected secretary so I'm pretty familiar with the whole subject. We need to forget the idea that CASA is a peak body as far as a representative of the amalgam of private interests is within an industry. the definition I put up on an earlier post re CASA's role came quoted directly from the CASA home page.

 

A peak body representing private interests is also not necessarily a "hat dump" organisation to save the government money or PR risk. All of the preceding is possible though if it is not set up well at the start. I am not advocating that we should have yet another pilot group to compete with the existing associations. For a GA/RAA orginisation to really represent the industry to government it needs to be composed of all (or almost all) the existing associations whether they are getting some funds from CASA/Government or not. A really representative body would have a board that is nominated by the associations who were ready and able to participate in an industry collective. An association made up from industry associations is not new. In fact it gives you more clout and cred. Not to mention a more coherent agenda.

 

When you consider a formal collective industry group with member groups representing GA training, GA operations, RAA, Parachuting, Agricultural, aviation manufacturing and wholesale distribution and the other elements directly affected by government, (for better or less optimum), It is a sizable collection of interests. Most of them are not at crossed purposes most of the time. The only down side I see to this is some of the larger associations may may just want to run their own race, but so far, we see the results of that policy direction in a declining industry.

 

The key is a well constructed constitution, written simply in plane language, a president/chairman with only a casting vote and who's position is to represent the board and a committee system for dealing with the industry sectors. The association would not be doing CASA's job for them and a good peak body would encourage higher standards and compliance through their association members. An effective body would also represent the industry's interests without fear or favor under the terms of their constitution in a transparent manner.

 

The question is..... Are the existing association/groups up for it, or will they just descent into a negative rabble at the prospect of having to work collaborative with each other? I hope as pilots we are better than that. Just stick to the checklist.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Ga

I think you might have got those definitions from the internet Frankus. A Peak Body is part of the Delphi technique beloved of governments to minimise the number of feet coming through the door every day with complaints.

 

CASA is a stand alone body; in fact CASA, Airservices Australia, and part of Australian Transport Safety Bureau are the three bodies that represent aviation, but CASA is the key one for aircraft owners and pilots.

 

The CASA Sports Aviation Section operates under self regulation and includes:

 

Amateur Built and Experimental Aircraft

 

Gliding

 

Gyroplanes

 

Hang Gliders and Paragliders

 

Parachuting

 

Recreational Ballooning

 

Ultralight and weightshift microlight aircraft

 

Warbirds

 

Technically there could be a Peak Body sitting above CASA, Airservices Ausltralia and ATSB, buit its representation would come those three bodies.

 

I'm one of thousands of pilots who've had no problem flying within the structure of CASA, and while I could see CASA offloading the bottom end of non-commercial aviation to one of the existing, or new, Sport Aviation bodies, only Mr McGoo would think CASA would relinquish their current role and step aside in favour of a bunch of disaffected people who are not happy with their present station on the tree.

Thanks and see my reply down the end somewhere. Bearing in mind I am the secretary of a peak body I helped start, though in a different industry, I'm guessing there are a lot of parallels. I hasten to add that one of the two regulators we deal with is has with us an excellent working relationship. The other.... we are working on it.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Ga

I think you might have got those definitions from the internet Frankus. A Peak Body is part of the Delphi technique beloved of governments to minimise the number of feet coming through the door every day with complaints.

 

CASA is a stand alone body; in fact CASA, Airservices Australia, and part of Australian Transport Safety Bureau are the three bodies that represent aviation, but CASA is the key one for aircraft owners and pilots.

 

The CASA Sports Aviation Section operates under self regulation and includes:

 

Amateur Built and Experimental Aircraft

 

Gliding

 

Gyroplanes

 

Hang Gliders and Paragliders

 

Parachuting

 

Recreational Ballooning

 

Ultralight and weightshift microlight aircraft

 

Warbirds

 

Technically there could be a Peak Body sitting above CASA, Airservices Ausltralia and ATSB, buit its representation would come those three bodies.

 

I'm one of thousands of pilots who've had no problem flying within the structure of CASA, and while I could see CASA offloading the bottom end of non-commercial aviation to one of the existing, or new, Sport Aviation bodies, only Mr McGoo would think CASA would relinquish their current role and step aside in favor of a bunch of disaffected people who are not happy with their present station on the tree.

Sorry, a point above I missed, A peak body would not be above CASA creating another tier. The whole point of a peak body is to work as an incorporated association representing private interests to government. It has no power, is not a regulator and is a vehicle by which consultation with a private industry becomes less burdensome. To represent an industry wide position they need to have filtered out the dross and arrive at a reasonably member representative position.

 

In general, I don't have a problem with CASA on my limited forays into the air (except maybe Avmed, but it's a process), My whole point is that with a declining industry, living the past as we are and with the existing processes, will deliver the industry more decline. The job of a peak body is more than dealing with the regulator about rules, it is about taking action to create a future for the industry. That is not CASA's job or mandate. In growing the industry it is necessary for the private interests and CASA to have a functional relationship that meets the objectives of both groups. As for any disaffected people who just want to vent their resentment or indulge in a grudge match, they are a liability to everybody.

 

 

[cooperplace]

Having dealt with a number of governments via various committees and so-called peak bodies, I've cynically come to the conclusion that the term "peak body" is (but not necessarily) just another of the weasel techniques used by governments. I've several times seen, and been involved in, the situation in which the minister (or their delegate) has established a "peak body" to ostensibly provide advice and governance.

 

The government department then (i) does whatever the hell it pleases, even if this is the opposite of the peak body recommendation, and (ii) claims that it has fully consulted with and been guided by the peak body. The term "peak body" has no legal significance, nor any agreed definition, and it's one that I avoid.

 

Having seen state govt health and education departments up close (and they love the term), I think that the concept of a peak body would get full approval from Joseph Goebbels. No doubt there are many people who will point out examples of a peak body that works well.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Having dealt with a number of governments via various committees and so-called peak bodies, I've cynically come to the conclusion that the term "peak body" is (but not necessarily) just another of the weasel techniques used by governments. I've several times seen, and been involved in, the situation in which the minister (or their delegate) has established a "peak body" to ostensibly provide advice and governance.The government department then (i) does whatever the hell it pleases, even if this is the opposite of the peak body recommendation, and (ii) claims that it has fully consulted with and been guided by the peak body. The term "peak body" has no legal significance, nor any agreed definition, and it's one that I avoid.

 

Having seen state govt health and education departments up close (and they love the term), I think that the concept of a peak body would get full approval from Joseph Goebbels. No doubt there are many people who will point out examples of a peak body that works well.

 

Having dealt with a number of governments via various committees and so-called peak bodies, I've cynically come to the conclusion that the term "peak body" is (but not necessarily) just another of the weasel techniques used by governments. I've several times seen, and been involved in, the situation in which the minister (or their delegate) has established a "peak body" to ostensibly provide advice and governance.The government department then (i) does whatever the hell it pleases, even if this is the opposite of the peak body recommendation, and (ii) claims that it has fully consulted with and been guided by the peak body. The term "peak body" has no legal significance, nor any agreed definition, and it's one that I avoid.

 

Having seen state govt health and education departments up close (and they love the term), I think that the concept of a peak body would get full approval from Joseph Goebbels. No doubt there are many people who will point out examples of a peak body that works well.

Yes I get the picture and I can also see examples where this is a polishing job for a dud deal. I think the term has different meanings for whatever side of an argument up are on. Especially when it comes to "After consultation with all industry stakeholders" from a Minister. I recall spending two years in a process with a ministry and the final press release of the "consultation process" the government release was 180 degrees from the industry's real position. I assumed from that point on that the government's ears were "painted on" for decorative effect. My point is that regardless of whether or not they listen to you as a peak body, governments definitely won't listen to individuals or single associations unless it backs up their existing position. With the exception of an association that has a very good relationship with a government department. I'm sure it happens but I suspect it is a Unicorn.

 

I am promoting the idea of a joint task force/association - amalgam/collective/peak body/call it what you will that can address CASA/Department etc as a single entity when it comes to issues that impede or negatively affect significant parts of the industry. For example, is the Minerals Council of Australia a lap dog of the government? APPEA representing the gas and oil industry? Lots of others. They carry weight. In my experience a government makes its mind up about something to solve a political or revenue problem and then unloads it on the industry. The regulator (if there is one) cops it and then has to impose it on the private industry. A peak body puts political pressure on the Minister and with luck, they get change/concessions. The regulator is often the meat in the sandwich.

 

Speaking again from personal experience, if you have a functional relationship with the regulator or presiding department you can make life better for yourself as an industry. I notice that in aviation and the regulator, there areas where the relationship is combative. There's a long history of this. And on occasions when the regulator listens to representations and makes changes to reverse or moderate a previous position, the media calls it a "Backdown on..... " or whatever inflammatory language. So that's a great reward for cooperative engagement. A point scoring exercise against CASA is the opposite of what a cooperative collaboration is.

 

I am interested to get any views on this. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. If you just have a of all-time unanimous agreement, sooner or later we all make the same mistake.

 

Is this fantasy land?

 

 

[facthunter]

Plenty of times CASA just say we are the AUTHORITY and have had to back away from reactive and inappropriate required actions many times in the past. AOPA have been the group predominately who have "reversed" the decision or moderated it. Sometimes it might be a pilot's union or a world body, also. Aircraft OWNERS and PILOTS association would cover a lot of those who would have genuine skin in the game, and who would be appropriate to have their opinions listened to I would hope.

 

RAAus can't act for the authority AND it's members at the same time in many situations. This has been obvious from day one of the move to divest power from the AUTHORITY to another body, and it wouldn't matter WHO that body was. As far as CASA's performance lately, and for the last 20 plus years there have been numerous inquiries all with much the same result.ie that change and reform is needed. The CULTURE of the organisation is not conducive to the best outcomes. Common theme. Nev

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Plenty of times CASA just say we are the AUTHORITY and have had to back away from reactive and inappropriate required actions many times in the past. AOPA have been the group predominately who have "reversed" the decision or moderated it. Sometimes it might be a pilot's union or a world body, also. Aircraft OWNERS and PILOTS association would cover a lot of those who would have genuine skin in the game, and who would be appropriate to have their opinions listened to I would hope.RAAus can't act for the authority AND it's members at the same time in many situations. This has been obvious from day one of the move to divest power from the AUTHORITY to another body, and it wouldn't matter WHO that body was. As far as CASA's performance lately, and for the last 20 plus years there have been numerous inquiries all with much the same result.ie that change and reform is needed. The CULTURE of the organisation is not conducive to the best outcomes. Common theme. Nev

AOPA seem to have been the most active group recently as far as pilot interests go. Especially with issues like AvMed and other GA issues related to aircraft ownership. Re the RAA, I don't know for sure but I think that RAA finances are only partially covered by CASA. The main finance core is from the membership (someone might like to contribute some data here). Realistically they still have to work in a collaborative relationship with the regulator. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Hence it follows a representative group across the board would have more clout than any single member. I would consider we need something like a "council of aviation associations" to be taken seriously when it comes to promoting the common GA/RAA interests to the government bodies. As for the sectional interest stuff, these groups have their own programs.