GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Discussions pertaining to Airline operations,safety and training for Flight Deck Crew. Open to anyone who would like to learn all aspects of the Airline industry from a pilots perspective.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9574
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 114 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by cage » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:57 am

GL wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:31 am
As cage noted - that article was sub edited by DM - who introduced a good few typos. But what they also did was take out my last line which in a sense summarised one of the major points I was making:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who guards the guards?”
Thanks Guy.
One of the points I had tried to make, that our local carpenters (tongue and groove experts ;) ), took umbrage with, was that had aunty Sara got her hands on the content a somewhat more polished version would have ended up in print.
That is, however, the nature of online media - they also do not need to follow the same journalistic standards as the more established media wrt to balance etc.
The general public are aviation ignorant (and in some cases phobic), so personally I had hoped for a little more "depth" on the subject since is was presented as insight from an aviation expert.
That said, it was an opinion piece, and while many can no longer tell the difference between traditional editorial and opinion, some will agree and others disagree with what was presented - which I suppose is the purpose, and nature, of the genre.
User avatar
GL
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9047
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 52 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by GL » Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:21 am

cage wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:57 am
GL wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:31 am
As cage noted - that article was sub edited by DM - who introduced a good few typos. But what they also did was take out my last line which in a sense summarised one of the major points I was making:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who guards the guards?”
The general public are aviation ignorant (and in some cases phobic), so personally I had hoped for a little more "depth" on the subject since is was presented as insight from an aviation expert.
Rule No 1 with this stuff. KISSS - keep it Simple Stupid - and Short. I limited it to 1000 words. As I said 2 posts above - a discussion on AOC conditions, RPFO qualifications and requirements and baggage assumptions would be a turn-off.
But the other point which I would have liked to make more explicitly is that there is indeed a difference between paperwork compliance and real safety. My observation about the Titanic being compliant seems largely to be skipped.
Uncommon wisdom:
The grand essentials to happiness in this life are:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• and something to hope for

Guy Leitch
ArthurDent
Taxiing
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:05 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 5 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by ArthurDent » Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:35 am

cage wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:57 am

The general public are aviation ignorant
Even aviation people seem generally ignorant about the matters discussed in this and other threads. It is obvious that those in the know were drowned out very early in the Cemair thread and then just kept quiet while the rest of the vocal, but ignorant proceeded to build a nice consensus using the usual Avcom confirmation bias.
Airwayfreak
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by Airwayfreak » Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:14 pm

A Corbett wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:16 am

The fact that CAA's gronding of an airline was completely unfounded
For the life of me I do not believe that. If true, CemAir would have massive grounds for legal action. Decisions to ground an airline are not left to an individual. There are many processes that occur, including a legal perspective.

I believe the grounding may have been harsh at most. As mentioned by Nugpot, we all have acquaintances in pretty much every airline operating globally, not all of whom are so called disgruntled ex-employees, so I tend to absorb as much information from as many sources as I can compile an informed opinion. So far much has been said on this matter but I have yet to see any form of definitive factual statement coming from either party. All comments have been vague references to carry on luggage for example. Nobody from CAA has said that on such and such a date, flight XYZ departed FAXX and was ABC Kg's over weight and nobody from CemAir has provided information to the contrary

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between.

I understand that it was an opinion piece. I also understand that people in such powerful positions should be very responsible when expressing opinions. A good example to my mind is Eusebius McKaiser who is using his radio 702 pedestal to propagate his liberal rhetoric. Imagine if 702 only had like minded talk show hosts. Thank goodness there are other talk show hosts offering different opinions. Similarly there are other aviation experts, and with respect, better experienced and equipped, such as Karl Jensen, Linden Birns et al who may have a differing view point but who are not as visible
A Corbett
Mags Dead Cut
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:51 pm
Closest Airfield: Hilversum
Location: Netherlands
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by A Corbett » Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:42 am

Airwayfreak wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:14 pm
A Corbett wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:16 am

The fact that CAA's gronding of an airline was completely unfounded
For the life of me I do not believe that.
What you believe is not relevant to t he case. CAA had all the time and money and legal resources to find and give real reasons to ground Cemair.

Yet they could present nothing to the judge. Nothing. Niks. Nada. Boggerol.
User avatar
HJK 414
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5106
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 129 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by HJK 414 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:21 am

Airwayfreak wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:14 pm
A Corbett wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:16 am

The fact that CAA's gronding of an airline was completely unfounded
For the life of me I do not believe that. If true,

Let's have a somewhat broader look then.
SOE's - Those are the companies that are doing so well the last few years with their "new" management.
SAA - Eskom - Denel ......... do I need to go on ?
Perhaps the Tax office is the best example ?
Corruption - Incompetence - and outright theft of public funds .......
People appointed - supplier preferences - and Billions of Rands "relocated"
Not my opinion - well documented events ........ :(

Now if you work with the people at the coal face of these companies - you will find people that work hard - are engaged with their clientele and are trying their best to make it work ........ the problem seems to be in the exec wings of the businesses and the "holdings" that manage them. There seems to be a bit of "personal opportunity enrichment" going on .......

Now lets take CAA .............. good news it seems .....
They have managed to escape all aspects of the "rot" that has befallen all the other state owned / public companies and offices ?
They have managed to stay "clean" and are not engaged in any of the shenanigans that have "snuck in the door" of all the others ?
That is great news indeed ....

One would hate to think that it was possible that a regulator like the SACAA could be "used" by people of "questionable integrity" and or perhaps of "great ambition" to "regulate" a company into a position whereby a "takeover" - "participation" or a "voluntary sale of a % share of the company" would become a possibility.

I would hate to see some shady capital group suddenly putting up money for one of the airlines in South Africa with perspective and then - lo and behold - someone from the regulators offices becoming CEO or Strategic Management Officer of the new airline on behalf of the new Corporation ....(due to the persons "expertise" of course.......)

Now - thankfully such events only happen in other countries where Government and it's offices are not as well regulated - and oversight is not as well organized, but one would hate to think that a well managed and organized regulator in South Africa could slide into a position where such activities would become possible .......... [-(

Have a good Christmas

JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...
User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9574
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 114 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by cage » Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:28 am

A Corbett wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:42 am
Airwayfreak wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:14 pm
A Corbett wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:16 am

The fact that CAA's gronding of an airline was completely unfounded
For the life of me I do not believe that.
What you believe is not relevant to t he case. CAA had all the time and money and legal resources to find and give real reasons to ground Cemair.

Yet they could present nothing to the judge. Nothing. Niks. Nada. Boggerol.
Doesn't matter how much money you have if you arrive unprepared.
Drawing conclusions from the "non verdict" may provide a sense of affirmation but does little to show where the real issues with either party may be.
Airwayfreak
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by Airwayfreak » Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:34 pm

A Corbett wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:42 am

Yet they could present nothing to the judge. Nothing. Niks. Nada. Boggerol.
If you say so.
User avatar
tansg
Airspeed active
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:29 pm
Closest Airfield: OMAA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 22 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by tansg » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:55 am

This discussion in my opinion is seriously subjective and lacks a balancing viewpoint from a regulatory point of view. I have been working within the aviation regulatory environment for going on 20 years, I work for a regulator who is rated the most compliant in the world by ICAO and am actively doing similar types of audits on monthly basis. So I can appreciate the regulatory side of the argument. I am also no longer employed by CAA so can also comment on their present status.

One of the simple truths of a regulator is that they work on behalf of the government and by extension for everyone in South Africa not just the aviation community. There is also a misconception that the regulator is service provider with the aviation community as its customer.
This is incorrect, they are the regulator and the buck stops with them as they will be legally responsible for all failures in the aviation industry that have been approved by them and not overseen in a responsible manner. For example when a licensed operator disregrading regulations causing an accident which can be attributed to the regulator not performing its oversight and enforcement responsibility.
For this reason the regulator is also is sole adjudicator in disputes. In other words if the regulator is not comfortable with what is proposed then it has the right to say no. Reasons as to why the no are normally provided but are not mandatory.

The situation in simple terms is as following for the regulator:

1. Operator has a negetive history with respect to Aviation Safety - therefore higher level of oversight of known offender- Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.
2. Organisation has previously been grounded to non-compliance - therefore higher level of oversight of known offender - Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.
3. Organisation has a history of being combative to the regulator - why? Best form of defence is attack? What are they trying to hide? - Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.
4. Employee reports of non-compliances - Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.
5. High turn over of operational and technical staff - Why? - Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.
6. After a folow-up audit a Level 2? finding was made giving the organisation 30 days to comply. Organisation did not comply or was not able to convince the regulator that they had complied with or, supplied an acceptable Corrective Action Plan to the CAA (to possibly justify an extention of the Target Date) - this is what I have deduced from all the postings on this thread but may not be the close to the full truth- this is normally an automatic upgrade to a Level 1 finding which is immediate action item and the option to withdraw the AOC - Major Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.
7. Operator runs to court to relief - what are they trying to achive? -why aren't they just trying to negotiate an acceptable solution like all other operators? - Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.
8. Operator incorrectly claims victory in court proceeding to try and convince interested parties of victimisation - why? - Red Flag Safety Performance Indicator.

Do the above indicate victimisation or a heightened level of oversight for a repeat offender? Is this the behaviour of a responsible operator? This would depend on which side of the fence you sit. As a regulator this would all go into the profiling of the operator to determine the level of oversight required for that particular entity. My present employer has implented an Organisation Risk Profile spreadsheet containing 48 elements which are assessed to determine the level of oversight and periodicity of the oversight for each organisation. This spreadsheet is continually amended by the Principle Inspector of that organisation as evidence of their risk exposure is received. Most regulators have not yet reached this level of sophistication although all perform this Risk Profiling to balance resources and oversight requirements. So the bottom line is if you keep your nose clean and actively comply with what is required you will not be subjected to a high level of scrutiny.

Consider the following scenario; you have 2 organisations who have the same non-compliance. One has a track record of compliance, adhering to Corrective Action Plans and the closing of findings ahead of time. The other has a history of non-compliance, combatitive attitude, track record of not closing findings on time and continually claims victimisation. Which one would you more actively police?

Now with respect to the CAA. As an extension of government they are forced to adhere to certain government policies and practices. This has resulted in a general reduction in skills levels, competencies and experience in all levels but particularly hard felt in management group. This does not mean the people in these posts are necessarily incompetent. In the past the CAA had highly experinced technical experts and managers and so there was no need to document a large amount of policies, procedures and intents as these were considered self-evident. However with the loss of this cadre of experience this lack of written process has repeatedly come back to haunt CAA. This situation is not unique to the CAA and occurs all over the world. However the result of this generally that the regulators resort back to basics for audits i.e. compliance audits with little flexibility due to the fact that there is a lack of experience to be able to make a considered decision (based on operational experience) on the impact of findings. Is this wrong? No it is the foundation of the role of a responsible regulator. This will improve as experience and better documented policies, procedures and intent are developed. Does the CAA have the resources and capability to provide the required mentoring and research & development capacity?

I hope this post wasn't to long or complicated for most and I hope I could provide a coherent counter view to the large amount of subjective bumpf out there.

To conclude basic tenant told to me by a very experienced regulator many moons ago in a far land: the regulator is not your friend they are your regulator and as such your attitude to the regulator largely determines whether you receive the stick or the carrot.
User avatar
GL
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9047
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 52 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by GL » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:23 am

Hi G
Let me be the first to say that I am grateful for your post - it does indeed bring balance, and raises some interesting issues:
I don't entirely buy your argument that the industry is not the CAA's clients - the CAA even has a client services dept.
I still believe that the regulator has a duty to develop the industry by working with it, rather than against it.
I still believe that the regulator should sit down with a problem airline/pilot/ AMO whatever (over the proverbial cup of cold tea and no biscuit) and work together, rather than just wield a big hammer. (To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail).
Why does the CAA persist in grounding airlines at the worst possible time for passengers and the airline?
Why did the CAA wait four days after grounding CemAir, before informing CemAir of their findings?
Should a dispute on paperwork compliance be treated differently to actual physical safety findings - hence my comment about the Titanic being 100% compliant with regs yet still being unsafe?
I need to point out that my article gave no opinion as to the actual safety of CemAir - but merely addressed the CAA's process.
I wish the CAA would communicate better.
Uncommon wisdom:
The grand essentials to happiness in this life are:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• and something to hope for

Guy Leitch
User avatar
tansg
Airspeed active
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:29 pm
Closest Airfield: OMAA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 22 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by tansg » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:15 am

Hi G my comments in red below.
GL wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:23 am
Hi G
Let me be the first to say that I am grateful for your post - it does indeed bring balance, and raises some interesting issues:
I don't entirely buy your argument that the industry is not the CAA's clients - the CAA even has a client services dept.
I said they were not their customer not client. There is a difference:
Client: a person or organization using the services of a lawyer or other professional person or company or organisation.
Customer: a person who buys goods or services from a shop or business.
Customer implies a different level of engagement than client.

I still believe that the regulator has a duty to develop the industry by working with it, rather than against it.
A regulators role is safety and security foremost. The rest all ancillaries which depend on the resources and capacity of the organisation at any time.
I still believe that the regulator should sit down with a problem airline/pilot/ AMO whatever (over the proverbial cup of cold tea and no biscuit) and work together, rather than just wield a big hammer. (To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail).
I think that this would be largely be dependent on the risk profile, attitude and behaviour of the airline. You can't always work together with someone who doesn't want to work together, has a victim mentality, a suspect history of compliance, etc. Generally then the only thing that works is enforcement until the attitude, behaviour and compliance improves.
Why does the CAA persist in grounding airlines at the worst possible time for passengers and the airline?
Why do some airlines persist with risky behaviour when they know they under heightened oversight surveillance?
Why did the CAA wait four days after grounding CemAir, before informing CemAir of their findings?
Probably due to due process. Most Level 1 Findings need to be reviewed by Senior Management to ensure understanding of implications not always visible to the Inspector making the findings. This could reasonably be one of those policies or procedures which needs review that mentioned above. Our organisation requires us upon making a Level 1 Finding to immediately phone our manager and brief him and follow up with an email detailing the finding (we have a standard format that is cell friendly) and he will notify exec management and ratification normally occurs within an hour. Level 1 Findings are taken very seriously by my organisation. No excuses.
Should a dispute on paperwork compliance be treated differently to actual physical safety findings - hence my comment about the Titanic being 100% compliant with regs yet still being unsafe?
If the organisation cannot comply with simple paperwork requirements how can they be trusted to comply with actual physical safety requirements especially if they have a suspect history of compliance?
I need to point out that my article gave no opinion as to the actual safety of CemAir - but merely addressed the CAA's process.
Yep a lot of shortfalls which I would attribute to lack of experience of management.
I wish the CAA would communicate better.
What communication? :roll:
Further on this Guy below is Section 73 of the Civil Aviation Act 13 of 2009 with regards to the functions of the CAA. Note only one point on the development of the industry. Everything else is safety and security.
73. Functions of Civil Aviation Authority.—(1) The Civil Aviation Authority has the function of conducting the safety and security oversight of civil aviation in the Republic by—

(a) developing and promoting appropriate, clear and concise regulatory requirements, and technical aviation safety and security standards;

(b) developing effective enforcement strategies to ensure compliance with aviation safety and security standards;

(c) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;

(d) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety and security related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety and security;

(e) overseeing and regulating the flight inspection of navigational aids to aviation;

(f) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety and security in order to—

(i) monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry;

(ii) identify safety and security related trends and risk factors; and

(iii) promote the development and improvement of the system;

(g) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety and security developments;

(h) formulating and approving supporting regulations and technical standards through a consultative process with the aviation industry in terms of section 156 of this Act;

(i) monitoring, implementing and enforcing the National Aviation Security Program (NASP);

(j) the review and ensurance of the adequacy of security programs and associated documentation produced by airports, air service operators and cargo operations, monitoring their implementation to ensure continuing effectiveness and incorporation of amendments as required;

(k) the enhancement of aviation security by the development and dissemination of progressive administrative and technical practices, promoting their use by security services, airport administrations and air service operators;

(l) the formulating of a national aviation disaster plan;

(m) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety and security, through—

(i) comprehensive safety and security education and training programs;

(ii) accurate and timely aviation safety and security advice; and

(iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and security and compliance with relevant legislation; and

(n) promoting communication with all interested parties on aviation safety and security issues.

(2) In addition to the functions referred to in subsection (1) the Civil Aviation Authority has the following functions:

(a) Advise the Minister on matters associated with any action or condition which—

(i) is capable of causing any actual or potential threat of harm or damage to persons or property;

(ii) the Minister refers to the Civil Aviation Authority; and

(iii) the Civil Aviation Authority considers necessary in the furtherance of its objects;

(b) for purposes of this Act, act as the national competent authority in connection with aviation transportation;

(c) to administer this Act and the Acts mentioned in Schedule 5 and 6;

(d) to recommend to the Minister the introduction or amendment of civil aviation safety and security legislation;

(e) to make recommendations to the Minister in respect of the conclusion of any international agreement with other States, Governments or international organisations;

(f) to perform any other functions conferred on it by or under any other law;

(g) to execute an order issued in terms of section 100;

(h) to implement any mutual agreements and Conventions;

(i) to perform any other functions as prescribed;

(j) to promote the development of South Africa’s civil aviation safety and security capabilities, skills and services for the benefit of the South African community;

(k) to provide consultancy and management services relating to this Act, both within and outside the Republic;

(l) to perform any functions incidental to any of the functions specified in this section;

(m) to investigate aircraft accidents and aircraft incidents that the Aviation Safety Investigation Board has determined not to investigate in terms of Chapter 4 and for purposes of regulatory compliance with this Act; and

(n) to perform its functions in the most cost-efficient and cost-effective manner and in accordance with section 195 of the Constitution in order to achieve the objects as referred to in section 72.

(3) The Civil Aviation Authority may perform its functions outside the Republic when it is necessary in order to achieve the objects under this Act.

(4) The functions of the Civil Aviation Authority as contemplated in subsection (1) and (2) must be performed by the Director and staff appointed by the Director.
Airwayfreak
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by Airwayfreak » Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:49 am

Thank you tansg for bringing a sense of level headedness to this discussion.
Trent772B
Pre-take off checks
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:27 pm
Closest Airfield: HONG KONG
Location: Cape Town
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 10 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by Trent772B » Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:45 pm

It always amazes me how facts silence a discussion. Thanks G
B727, B747, A320, A330, A340, Alo3, Oryx, King Air, Beech 1900, T6
Flying Sourcer
Mags Dead Cut
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:56 am
Closest Airfield: Lanseria
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by Flying Sourcer » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:27 am

Now with respect to the CAA. As an extension of government they are forced to adhere to certain government policies and practices. This has resulted in a general reduction in skills levels, competencies and experience in all levels but particularly hard felt in management group. This does not mean the people in these posts are necessarily incompetent. In the past the CAA had highly experienced technical experts and managers and so there was no need to document a large amount of policies, procedures and intents as these were considered self-evident. However with the loss of this cadre of experience this lack of written process has repeatedly come back to haunt CAA.
The paragraph above can be condensed to the following "Employment equity at all costs." We are now talking about managers that are "not necessarily incompetent" . Does this mean that there is a small chance they have some ability?

This is the most serious allegation against CAA that I've yet read anywhere.

Thank you for bringing this into the debate. Dumbing down to meet political objectives does not come without it's price. Now we have it from an articulate ex-employee. Thank you for your insight.
User avatar
Jack Welles
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3056
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 64 times

Re: GL's commentary on CemAir vs the ‘Commission Against Aviation’

Unread post by Jack Welles » Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:06 am

Flying Sourcer wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:27 am
This does not mean the people in these posts are necessarily incompetent.
The paragraph above can be condensed to the following "Employment equity at all costs." We are now talking about managers that are "not necessarily incompetent" . Does this mean that there is a small chance they have some ability?
This is the most serious allegation against CAA that I've yet read anywhere.
Thank you for bringing this into the debate. Dumbing down to meet political objectives does not come without it's price. Now we have it from an articulate ex-employee. Thank you for your insight.
With the greatest respect you have written the complete opposite of what tansg wrote by deliberately leaving out words crucial to understanding what he wrote (see highlighted below) and then based the rest of your thesis on that false premise. He wrote: "that does not mean the people are incompetent", ie, he believes they are competent (and went on to say but just not as experienced as would be preferable).

You turned that on its head to mean: "small chance of ability" and then using that misrepresentation to say: "dumbing down has a price".

Tansg didn't write that at all.
Jack Welles (thriller_author pen name)
https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Welles/e/B073VJQTTX
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Textbook - "The Lore of Negotiation"
http://www.loreofnegotiation.com

Return to “Airline Chatter”