The danger of being half-right…

There is a big difference between making a decision using the best information available at the time and making a decision without genuinely trying to find out what other information may be available.

Detailed knowledge and skill, gained through sound initial training and followed up with ongoing professional development throughout your career, is essential to developing and maintaining the whole picture.

A significant amount of essential aerial application knowledge is based on a requirement to
understand the behaviour of droplets created by spraying equipment. Different size droplets can be used to tailor an application to different parts of a crop or to different types of plants. For example, larger droplets provide better coverage on horizontal leaf surfaces and better drift control, while smaller droplets are necessary for vertical leaves but are trickier to manage to protect the surrounding environment.

And then there is the critical need to understand the particular application being planned, the surrounding crops and susceptibles and the many hazards that can be identified before you meet them.

Add to that the need to continually learn about new chemicals, changed labels, new nozzles and improved research across the sector, and it starts to become apparent as to why being regarded as a true ‘professional’ is about a lot more than just sound stick and rudder skills – as important as they are.

You simply can’t keep up to speed and make the best decisions possible if you are not actively seeking out those who know more than you do – even if that is in a highly specialised and narrow area.

Given the challenges that pilots and operators face every day in maintaining their professionalism, it is perplexing when government agencies seem to close their ears to the very input that can provide them with a wider view of the issues in any policy discussion.

Talk of CASA introducing a ‘mental acuity’ test for all pilots over 65 years of age is an interesting example. Conceived, developed and possibly implemented seemingly without significant industry input – such as through an NPRM process required by CASA’s own policy on consultation – one is left to wonder as to whether industry has only part of the story or is it CASA?

Or the CASA proposed changes to fatigue management that appear to only conceive of aviation in an airline type environment, rather than one that may be characterised by seasonal variability, small meteorological or agronomic windows and the need to respond to rapidly evolving demand. And where is the actual safety case, rather than the false claims the current system is ‘not scientific’?

Or the move by the Council of Australian Government to reform the national agricultural chemical control-of-use framework that ignores the work of a previous committee that had almost completed a national approach to pilot licencing for chemical distribution that reduced costs, simplified compliance and enforcement and delivered a robust model for both aerial and ground application regulation.

Or the push by CASA to rip up the basis of a ‘no-blame’ culture by changing the regulations regarding reporting to ATSB.

There are of course, similar examples throughout industry, such as investments in aircraft that are made on other than economic or operational grounds and decisions to keep working in marginal conditions that demonstrates a critical lack of perspective. Or even the old ‘head in the sand’ approach when it comes to not adopting technology or practices that may have passed company principals by.

The difference, however, is that industry is playing with its own money – or at least that of its bankers. If it makes a mistake, unless it is the car industry, it is unlikely to be bailed out by taxpayers dollars.

Government money, however, is industry money. And that should make government deeply and intrinsically interested in getting the absolute best information from industry as well as other sources before it makes a decision.

Correcting policy directions once they have a head of steam is difficult and often upsetting to the proponents – but not as upsetting as it is to industry seeing the wasted time, money and effort that could have been invested in genuine improvements. Genuinely involving industry early on in policy discussions is not a sign of weakness or ‘capture’ – it is actually the best means of ensuring success and lasting improvements.

Policy development is at the core of good government – and good opposition.

With a federal election scheduled for 2013, being half-right may be a very ‘courageous’ position in the eyes of electors.