Reece

These stories of course have two sides and quite often the dreaded department (or whatever name it chooses that year) is largely in the right, but quite often it is not and it is here where the problems of developing a working trust, confidence and respect between both parties arises.

The Federal Airports Corporation is now into the third quarter of its first year, the Civil Aviation Authority is just completing its first months while the remnants of the Dept of Transport & Communications, with its remaining small aviation related involvement, soldiers on exhibiting little external change.

For these bodies to work in the years ahead though we must all learn to get along. By that I mean that it is time that the bureaucracy (regardless of its name) must begin to be more commercially attuned with the day to day requirements of those it is tasked to serve. Next time any bureaucrat wilfully delays a decision affecting what are its clients, that bureaucrat must honestly question the true reason for the delay. In the real world, operators, pilots and quite often the travelling public see departmentally inspired delays and restrictions as simply bloody minded obstructionism. It is time that these bureaucrats understood that with responsibility goes accountability-after all their jobs exist only through the people they are slated to serve. Almost everywhere we go we hear both good and bad things against the various levels of the department. There almost seems to be two differing viewpoints that neither party appear to want to thrash out. A recent incident which happened to this writer specifically illustrates what perhaps is the root of the problem – a thorough misunderstanding and ignorance by the bulk of the bureaucracy of how the private sector (ie; the Real World) really works. I was attending a lunchtime function where I was seated next to a senior officer of the DoTC, he was notably unimpressed with the story we had run on the operational deficiencies at Bris- bane Airport (p42 Mar 88 AA), stating that it was all wrong and full of mistruths. Not that any of the mistruths or mistakes were pointed out and to our knowledge the story is based on fact, rather than fiction as obviously perceived by some elements of the DoTC at the time.

That afternoon I dropped in to see several corporate jet Operators at Sydney airport and the first thing one of them said was literally “congratulations on that great story on the Brisbane Airport fiasco!” He then went on to narrate a litany of woes that his company was experiencing in fitting into the new mega airport operationally and why had things to be designed in such an inappropriate manner in the first place. How two people can read two completely differing viewpoints from the same article tends to highlight the extent of the overall problem.

The point I make here is this story is typical. We talk with industry and get one story, we then talk with the department and get another, somewhere someone really needs to get their act together and address the real issues of truthful communication. By that we mean that the FAC, the CAA or whatever you like to call it must sit down with its clients and not give them the classic Yes Minister run around. Industry is far too busy to continue play- ing the petty, unrealistic and often counter productive games that bureaucracy constantly appears to demand of it. Industry would also have more overall respect for the department if it was seen to be more efficient in its own operation. How can anyone have great faith in a corpoprate body that has changed its name six times in the past decade and a half. That then aims to achieve 100% cost recovery, not only in an accelerated timetable but then changes the ground rules once that goal is achieved and merely increases its prices again without any recourse to the end user (refer p5 July 88 AA and Newsdesk items this issue). We appreciate that much of this sort of thing emanates from a political level but aren’t the newly founded Corporation boards capable of influencing their political masters? The powers that be, irrespective of their new identities, must also carry the can for a long litany of poorly thought out and instituted decisions from both the past and present. The present dismal situation regarding the Publications Sales & Distribution Section, where one waits months to get vital charts, etc is both a disgrace and a definite safety hazard in the longer term as pilots simply get fed up with dealing with such an inefficient organisa- tion. Then there is the fully budgeted specialist safety education unit within Aviation Standards that can’t even find the time to write regular educational air safety features for this magazine despite our years of trying to achieve same. In desperation we went to the RAAF which bent over backwards with enthusiasm to supply copy for our present, and very popular, Air Safety feature. Aviators, private and professional alike, may also query the intelligence that deemed the Brisbane Airport Taj Mahal necessary while such rapidly expanding centres as Cairns and Coolangatta did not even warrant radar. Indeed the spokesman for the CAA who appeared on the July segment of Sixty Minutes ‘defending’ the bureaucracy’s lack of foresight in this respect did little to win over the confidence of the aviation community – his totally non-accountable buck-passing attitude being reminiscent of the worst years of the dreaded DOT of a decade ago! Operators also wonder why we have such unusually stringent airworthiness standards when BASI report that around 90% of accidents are directly related to human error. We should have strict airworthiness standards by all means, but why can’t they be more in line with those of the US Federal Aviation Administration or the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority. Our CAA will be able to throw up figures to prove that it is really in line with the rest of the world but try telling that to the end user, the operator who has to pay the CAA’s wages cheque.

So much for the CAA, the Federal Airports Corporation also has a lot to do in winning the trust of its tenants.

Before its first year is through the FAC already faces a revolt by a large number of its airport tenants. The newly formed Federal Airport Operators & Tenants Assn (refer Newsdesk) is just an example of the way grassroots GA operators are feeling the sting of seemingly unfair decisions being made against them without meaningful consultation. For the FAC to institute large rental hikes just because its masters choose to milk aviation further is unacceptable and does little for building a trust between the new so-called commercially structured Corporations and the. very people they are supposed to serve and help prosper.

Elsewhere in this issue we interview the new Chief Exectuive of the CAA, Mr Col Freeland. What he has to say is interesting though what the entire industry must now collectively say to the heads of all three aviation hieráchies is that accountability is also a part of real world responsibility and that a new thinking must be put in place within these cosmetically transplanted bureaucracies if they are to win the long-term respect of those who make them possible. Is that too much to ask?