Government Support for Upgrade of GA Fleet

[Sunfish]

As reported by ABC News. Aviation Safety Foundation is calling for Government support.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1317971.htm

Not sure if this should be here or in the GA threads

[Atlas Shrugged]

Is the Air Safety Foundation still part of AOPA?

[Woomera]

No! never was and unlikely ever to be so.

[Icarus2001]

He says there is concern the fleet is ageing. Until there are a series of accidents involving deaths that can be directly linked to the age of the aircraft the government can argue that there is no data to support intervention by the federal government.

With a liberal controlled lower house and senate we can all look out anyway.

[Atlas Shrugged]

No! never was and unlikely ever to be so.
Good.

[Alternator]

While I agree about the need to support infrstructure, particularly airports, Mr Sharpe seems poorly advised when it comes to the GA fleet.

If you go into the FAA or NSTB sites you can sort fatal accidents by almost any parameter. So, do a sort by age.

At the big end of town it is the smaller regional aircraft involved in the most fatals, and nearly all of these are less than 5 years old.

But, in the area where our fleet is oldest, GA do a sort by age and then look at the stats. the most fatals in the last 5 years (by nearly 60%) were newer, high performance aircraft.

But, accept the point at face value, look at reasons for randomly picked a/c older than 30 years. In the last 5 years I found NONE that were the result of a structural failure due age. There was ONE that was moot, elevator flutter on a Beech V-35 which caused in flight breakup. OK, not 'age' related as this is apparently well reported in other V-35, but since the V tail is discontinued one could surmise the flutter was one of the reasons.

Now, to Australia. I found ONE instance of an aircraft more than 30 years (but NOT a vintage, there were some of those) with airframe failure. It was a '68 C-172 which suffered a tail collapse on the NSW south coast.

I left vintage out because they can hardly be considered the 'fleet' and collectors will still fly them regardless of any industry re-equip.

So, it seems to me that ASFA have got it wrong. The majority of accidents were weather related, followed by fuel, followed by engine problems.

Engine problems could be related to age, BUT, a hard working GA fleet a/c could be expected to have an overhaul every 2 years. So engine age doesn't really equate to aircraft age.

So if weather and fuel are the answer then training, not fleet age is the problem.

Haven't heard from ASFA for a while, but perhaps before they 'fire off' a missive they should do their homework.

[Sunfish]

Alternator, you are just plane wrong!

What you are seeing is natural selection at work, don't you know anything about evolution?

The older planes are involved in less accidents because they are older and smarter.

The newer planes are involved in accidents because they are young and stupid. Thats why premature failure is called "infant mortality".

I guess the same applies to pilots.

:}

[Alternator]

Ah Sunfish

But your theory breaks down at that very point. Younger pilots often fly older aeroplanes because they are cheaper.

Older pilots are the only ones with the money to buy younger aircraft, like the ex-Director of CASA and his Cirrus, or the one before him with lots of bright, shiny NEW, toys.

So, either the younger pilots are sharper (no pun intended) and can fly Sharp's 'unsafe' older aircraft better, or older pilots are more dangerous, or ..... even worse .... new aircraft are more dangerous than old ones :E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

First part is already legislation-

http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/register/life.htm

Second part should never have been allowed to happen. Proves the thickhead beancounters of twenty-five years ago got it wrong. For example, imagine what national54,71 and 66 to Mt Isa would have looked like if it was left to the local shires to pay for the upkeep out of their rate base. Granted a GA airport is not anywhere as important as a defence road. BUT, it still is an essential asset to the community.

Regards

Mark

[gaunty]

Hallelujah on the tax thing, at a guess I'd say the Taxation Dept (you and me actually) has paid for all the old clunkers in Oz charter/corporate by about ahhhh let's see, three or four times by now. :mad: and what have the owners got, why, an even older clunker, which they fondly imagine is still worth something.:(

John Sharp and ASFA are spot on track.

One of the better known onanists at a local "A" list society party was recently heard declaimimg loudly to the awestruck throng about his "new" corporate turbo aircraft (they hear jet) whilst ostentatiously ringing his "Captain" to arrange a flight to the vineyards next day... blah blah blah.
Oohs and aaaaaahs from surrounding fellow sycophants. :rolleyes:

Turns out to be a clapped out 30's something twin with a repaint and new upholstery.
Most of the cars parked out the front cost more money, than his "new" corporate turbo aircraft was worth and more than half the people there had boats not many older than 5-10 years worth $500,000 plus, paid pen and club fees in the thousands per year, $5 -10,000 insurance and thought nothing of spending $500 for the weekends fuel, not including booze.

His aviation "advisors" had obviously done a really good job on him. I wonder if they told him about the capped age tax bit.

There is something wrong with this picture.

Vintage shmintage, until the aviation industry gets its equipment and infrastucture up to speed and at the least, competitive with the equipment and infrastructure available in the marine leisure business it will continue on the road to perdition.

If the vintage aircraft owners want to play vintage aircraft, that's fine by me, just don't get in the way of the real world.

So there it is, proof positive that I am anti-GA. :{

[Sunfish]

Whats wrong with a bit of taxpayer funded onanism in the aviation industry? If you are a farmer, the politiicans will beat a path to your door.

We need something like a 25%-50% p.a. depreciation allowance on NEW aircraft, then watch the fleet change almost overnight.:p

[Alternator]

Gaunty

I can understand not depreciating something over about 15 years old, but why discriminate.

Go look at boats (charter yachts for instance) 15 years.
Buildings 15 years.
Macinery 7 - 25 years.
Ships (not yachts) 25 years. (and the definition of tonnage puts a 'ship' well withing the price range of a corporate turboprop.)

Seems aviation id copping the rough end yet again and ASFA (whoever they are) are supporting it.

[d_concord]

Of course ASFA are correct. Anyone who operates an old aircraft knows that it is a case of diminishing returns due to increased maintenance burdens.

The more you overhaul things the less reliable they become and hence by default less safe.

Given some of the arguments above, I'd like to know at what point you take your head out of the sand look to the future or do you wait till it hits you in the face and the problems are real and here and now. Sharp clearly raised an important issue for the welfare of the industry.

The arguments above about it being higher performance aircraft in the hands of inexperienced pilots is a completely different issue to fleet replacement. It is another safety issue. ( and I think ASFA have a position or a program for that as well)

The reality is no other business I can think of would survive competitively using equipment this inefficient and this old. It is only a matter of time before insurers and larger companies say they have a duty of care in this regard, dissallow operations and another whole segment of the industry will dissappear or decline into the hands of few players who do have deep pockets to the detriment of all.

No wonder Australian Aviation is in decline. Here we have a well known person taking the time and caring about the industry enough to raise an issue in a public forum and a successful outcome can only be good for the owners,the operators and for that matter the pilots who get to fly this equipment and you get a load of crap back saying that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He clearly does. If I was cynical I would suggest that a lot of the banter is raised by AOPA saying something is black because someone else called it white.

Anyone who was flying in the very early 1980's would know what a dramatic affect the 40% investment allowance had on our industry, the standard of aircraft and the boom that followed was incredible.

And as for not having good advisors, I would recommend you have a look at the ASFA website! When I looked today I thought it was rather impressive.

[piontyendforward]

No point for having support for aircraft that do not exist.

With the exception of the Baron, and Seneca, (6 seats) there are no "new" piston twins of that size (C402, Chieftan etc) available if they could be purchased. Getting a tax credit for something that is not obtainable?

How may new turbo prop aircraft are available that would also fit GA operation. B1900 out of production, Aero-comander out of production, Bandit out of production, J31/32/41 out of production, Piper 1040 and spin offs out of production, Cessna C441 C406 out of production.

King Air 350 and the Metro 23 are possibly the only ones left?

GA is dead and begining to smell, this generation of pilots are possibly the last to aspire to aircraft ownership. Why because at every turn CASA/CAA are driving us out. Cost of medicals go up for no increase in safety, cost of maint goes up for no increase in safety. Airports are closed down for housing, high fees are charge to land at those remaining, you get charged to talk to the tower, file flight plans, obtain weather briefings.

R.I.P. GA it was fun before the feds shot you in the chest!
Long live sport aviation without Govt interference

[Alternator]

There is balance.

ASFA (Sharp .... but more likely L-S who wrote the PR for him) are right, GA needs an 'tax break' to get more a/c in the fleet. This is nothing new, ASFA are just copying a US rule.

But, to go in citing 'safety' as the reason was wrong, can be proved to be wrong, and makes them look silly.

What it may cause is a rampant CASA to anter the affray, quoting ASFA, and trying to ground everything over 30 years. The post above makes that point sort of.

ASFA need to learn to talk to industry before making high and mighty pronouncements.

[Dogimed]

Long live sport aviation without Govt interference

Do you really believe that that will happen????


Dog

[piontyendforward]

That is how it mostly happens now (NZ, USA and UK) though I am not up to speed with AUS .

However when they bury GA, the "crats" will probably realise that the have done in their own jobs, and then try to move on into Sport Aviation to justify their own jobs.

[Dogimed]

PEF

Exactly!


D_concord
If I was cynical I would suggest that a lot of the banter is raised by AOPA saying something is black because someone else called it white.

Thats funny, but I dont get it.. where does it fit in?

Dog

[gaunty]

Alternator

I agree why discriminate, however IMHO 10 years or 15 years isn't the point so much as continuing to allow depreciation of older aircraft by their fifth or sixth owner in the race to the bottom.

You can't register or apply to operate a taxi or special charter (limo) vehicle here if it is older than 10 years and other fairly strict requirements. A repainted and refurbished 1970 Ford Galaxy with a new engine even needn't apply, unless it is considered in the "vintage class wedding vehicle only" mode.

Ships perhaps fall into the same category as airline aircraft, they are designed, and may be able to operate over a longer period, if you can stay in front of the capital v maintenance curve.

d_concord
Anyone who was flying in the very early 1980's would know what a dramatic affect the 40% investment allowance had on our industry, the standard of aircraft and the boom that followed was incredible. would also recall that this coupled with a short period of double depreciation was applied across the board to NEW capital equipment in an effort to get whole of Australian industry to replace post war type equipment and stimulate the economy. The aviation industry was not the target, just a beneficiary

It was unfortunately for us all, seriously abused in the aviation business.
If one is old enough to remember the JetCorp fiasco and be operating in the industry at that time they will understand the fundamentally and long term damaging effect of that particular misuse of a tax situation and that it is only now some 20 or so years later, that those negative effects are finally washing out of the aviation industrty.

So be very careful what and how you ask for it in tax relief.

Sharps release has to be read in the context of the whole of ASFA policy. From what I see and I am a member it is well thought out.

I see the lunatic idea that somehow this is all part of a conspiracy to open the door wider to enable CASA to them do GA in and then move on to Sport Aviation is still on foot.:rolleyes:


piontyendforward
Getting a tax credit for something that is not obtainable not so, you're looking in the wrong place.

Hmmmm, Cessna, Cirrus, Diamond, Adam, Eclipse, Raytheon and the rest will be delighted to sell you a NEW single or twin ALL of which will be new generation with new generation equipment.

Of course you will likely have to get in the queue.:}

Too expensive, you say, it didn't stop the buyers in the early seventies who were paying similar amounts in '70's dollars. :p

The rest of the industry has been living off their investment since.:ugh:

GA is dead and begining to smell, IF it is then it is only the part that contributes the least to the commonwealth.

Whilst they continue to believe that getting CASA and Airservices out of their hair is the answer to their salvation they too will join the scrapheap.

In the meantime the rest of us are getting on with it.

If they were to pay/charge what it really costs then the %age of compliance costs would be negligible or at the worst no more than other industries.

But then the ordinary punter couldn't afford to fly. So.

It never was, at this level, a right.

Will then GA die, probably, if they don't get the infrastructure up to speed.

What's changed since the '70s, not much except, there are many many more attractive recreational alternatives competing for the dollars.

I am not now proud to take my friends to most GA airports and many hire operations. I do not wish to disappoint their perceptions.

Perhaps ASFA should link their new aircraft tax incentive to being dependent on renewal of the accompanying infrastructure.

Walking people through ex WW11 buildings and crappy kit home offices to a new aircraft parked on the freshly weeded cracked up pavement amongst a collection of rent a wrecks does not compute.

Of course it takes money it always did.

Dragging the whole thing down to the lowest common denominator is guaranteed to kill it.

[Alternator]

Gaunty

I have no objection to 90% of the press release. The bit I am at odds with is the 'safety' issue of older aircraft. It is pure, unproven conjecture and, in fact, can be shown to be false.

Grandstanding is a word that comes to mind.

I fully support the tax bits. I too would like to see a fleet of affordable new aircraft. A $350K price tag for a new 172 is NOT too steep for a syndicate of four. What is too steep is $35K GST, .65C a litre fuel excise, a $10,000 insurance bill and GST on parts and maintenance.

That is where the ASFA release begins to make sense.

However I take issue at your insinuation that 'the average punter can't afford to fly'. What is the average punter???

I began to fly at age 18 when lessons were $60/Hr and I earned $180 a week. I was single, I could afford it.

My first aircraft was a half share in a 20 year old PA-28, $5500 for the share and $100 a month, $28/Hr.

Yes that was a long time ago (nearly 30 years) but, PBJ is STILL flying SAFELY in someone else's hands.

My current aircraft is 28 years old and is LIKE NEW following a total refurbishment. Total cost of airframe and refurb, about $120K. It is a PVT a/c so no tax implications.

Have you ever owned an aircraft??? Do you have any link (or does ASFA) with new aircraft dealers that would drive the older aircraft out of the market????

Just wondering.

[gaunty]

Alternator me old.

What makes aviation/aircraft so special that it/they should be exempt from, GST, fuel excise, insurance, and GST on parts and maintenance?

I'm sure the average punter would think that was a really good idea as long as they also did not have to not pay the same for the family motor car. :rolleyes:

No mistake or insinuation in the comprehension of my previous post re the "average punter" I will say this and use your paraphrase of my comments if I may.
'the average punter can't afford to fly'

There that'll get the usual suspects salivating and cross posting. :rolleyes:

We can argue 'till doomsday about what the "average punter" looks like, when the answer really is what he can't afford to do.

Man, women, (probably another ex wife), sharing 1.67 kids, cat/dog, mortgage, utilities, motor car payments, food, health insurance (optional), pizza and beer and something for the annual holiday maybe and then they are skint.

The discretionary $1,500 or so pa ($30) for recreation, tinny boating, fishing, hobby, or whatever, plays out much longer and is more family friendly than vintage aircrfaft hire and goes nowhere if they had to pay what it costs for new. I get really cross when I see "enthusiasts" who basically beggar their families to feed their habit.

I don't have any shame in saying that because it is true.
I would love to own/hire a Princess 65 motor yacht too, it's not my right to have the owner subsidise my use, I could buy a quarter share but everybody wants to use it on the same days.

So I buy what I can afford and if I cant afford it at any level, then I join all the other "average punters' on the shore wishing it was me sailing by. Is there a problem with that or is there a special case or right for aviation.

I learned to fly in 1962 if my memory serves me correctly it cost 5 pounds 18 shillings for an hour of C150/Chippie. Basic wages then less than 10 pounds, Did it hurt yup, but that was my choice.
I stopped adding up after I got to $1,000,000 that it's cost me and my employers for my flying, licenses and various ratings, recurrencies and endorsements over the years. Try working it out for yourself one day and then tell me its for the "average punter".
Out of the group of half a dozen or so lounge lizards at the time, 4 were on RAAF scholarships, the others including me self funded. One is a recently retired Fleet Capt, another distinguished RAAF helo driver now in the sales business, a well known and respected RFDS driver and engineer, a succesful businessman no longer flying due health, an 89er who is no longer with us. :sad:

We all have the choice to participate at any level we can or wish.

Have you ever owned an aircraft??? Do you have any link (or does ASFA) with new aircraft dealers that would drive the older aircraft out of the market????

Dozens and the only rational response to the really dumb but revealing question that follows, is another question which seems to have been ignored here.

If the "non average punter" is not "incentivised" to buy :p new equipment, where do you think the late model used and so on down the tiers of ownership are going to come from, to enable that cascade of participation (see above) to take place?

If there is a single reason for the state of GA it is precisely that. The rate of introduction of new aircraft is not even a little bit close to the attrition rate of age and uneconomic maintenance burden out the other end.

And of course the typical Oz GA guru :confused: mantra that as the fleet ages it becomes cheaper every year, notwithstanding all of the natural costs increases, really encourages people to invest. NOT

And I can still buy a nights beer, a hamburger and a packet of fags and get change out of $2? :{
Why dont you go yell at Customs and Excise about their driving of drinkers out of the market, the Health Dept for demanding high standards, and the the States and Commonwealth for taxing ciggies to death, I'm a EX smoker BTW (22 Years 3 months ,2 days, 13hours and 26 minutes :}) , because I would need over $60 to do the same thing today. :sad:

[Alternator]

Gaunty

If the "non average punter" is not "incentivised" to buy new equipment, where do you think the late model used and so on down the tiers of ownership are going to come from, to enable that cascade of participation (see above) to take place?

I will admit I am not 'the average punter' and even know a married guy, one wife (I Think) on 8 week old baby and a mortgage on $90K who dreams but can't afford.

However, had he, like you and I, bit the bullet and spent around 50% of his income BEFORE the family, my guess is he would be able to afford to maintain the habit now.

I am not really suggesting we be tax exempt either. But there was NO quid-pro-quo for aviation when the GST came in. The family car you quote got cheaper, by around 15%.

I am concerned at your quote above, are you (or ASFA) suggesting a tax IMPOSITION on existing owner to 'incentivise' them into buying new machines???

I sincerely hope not (and do ask the qustion genuinely) as that would instantly make me the enemy of ASFA.

[gaunty]

Au contraire mon ami;

If the "non average punter" is not "incentivised" to buy new equipment was a round about way of me , and so is ASFA, saying that if we don't encourage NEW investment in aircraft with taxation incentives viz. investment allowance and higher depreciation rates, then the rebuilding of GA just might never get off the ground, so to speak.

There is no question of an imposition of anyone unless you follow that polticians bullsh!t habit of saying that the new tax cuts incentives or whatever are "costing" them X grillion $s because they have "foregone" the potential revenue.. :confused: :E :mad:

BTW I am a member of ASFA but I do NOT in any way claim to speak for them, you should support them too, it's not expensive and helps spread the message on Safety in Aviation.

They were originally seed funded out of the CASA Safety Promotion budget, but are now financially independent.

ASFA (http://www.asfa.org.au/)

Chaired by John Sharp and with a host of seriously well qualified and experienced Directors.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Not gonna enter the tax side of the argument....but!

Old aeroplanes unsafe...bollocks.

Any aeroplane not maintained properly is unsafe.

I too have a 35 yr old aircraft...theoretically. The engine, fuel cells, windows, radios, interior, rudder and main spar are all less than, variously, 2-3 yrs old...the prop was overhaulled with a new dome cylinder 4 mths ago....Ok much of the wiring is getting old but not as much as you'd think..very little behind the panel is more than a few years old...the wiring to the fuel tanks as well...yeah the nav light wiring, but not the units themselves, is probably 35 yrs old.

Plus I have installed new technology that montors the health of my engine and gives me accurate fuel information down to %s of a liter.

All for about 1/5th-1/4 of the cost of the, more or less, identical new aeroplane...depending on exchange rates.

Fuel cells, engines, props, radios and windows need periodic replacement overhaul no matter the vintage of the aircraft...if I'd bought a 1990s Bonanza instead of a 1970 Bonanza I would likely have had most of the expenses I have had on the older aircraft...but I would also have had a much increased capital outlay...4 times probably.

For any aircraft, whether private or commercial, that has very low utilisation the capital cost is the biggy. Most private aircraft are lucky to do 30hrs a year...divide that into a USD500,000 aircraft and then convert to Oz$...particularly the exchange rate of 2 yrs ago:uhoh: The aeroclub where I keep my Bonanza have just purchased a new C172...they are a busy little club and if the utilisation is good they are on a winner...if not they are on a road to a flogging. I find utilisation on my aircraft increased when I put new windows and radios in it...makes perfect sense too.

They have a C152A on line too...it's one of the aircraft I learned to fly in at Rex Aviation Bankstown 25yrs ago, when it was new. Apart from the fact that you'd be better off learning in a C172 for the $10/hr difference in hrly rate (of a similar vintage 172) is it a less capable trainer than 25yrs ago...no of course not.

If I could afford a new Bonanza I still wouldn't buy one...it's a waste of 700,000 bucks...over and above what I have spent!!!

There is a company in Alaska still using C46s to transport fuel and freight to out of the way places...because no other aircraft does it better for anywhere near the same cost of operation...a rare case I'll grant you...still see C47s in the Philipines and Thailand though.

CASA/ASA have had very little to no effect on the cost of running light personal aircraft...30 yrs of wage, fuel and insurance cost increases is where it's all at.

I have been advertising my aircraft for sale lately and 90% of enquiries go quiet after they read 1970..."Oh I was looking for something late 80s at the oldest". Good ********...go and look in the right price range...over 300K...and within 5 yrs most will have spent similar money to what I have spent fixing/replacing/overhauling things...but they'll be 120K+ further out of pocket...sound like astute, knowledgeable buyers to me:rolleyes:

I wanna mid/late 70s C182 next...one where some doppy moron like me has just replaced all the radios, interior, paint fuel cells etc:ok:....but I wouldn't mind the engine being time ex...imagine how well a 182 would go with an IO520 complete with Gamijectors in it...and a three bladed scimitar prop phooaaar:E :}

EDIT: I just remembered a good mate in the UK has a 1954 model C180 which I used to fly in PNG years ago when it belonged to another mate. It's as shinny as a new pin...immaculate in every respect and vastly better than when new in EVERY respect. Someone gonna tell me it's unsafe because it's 50 yrs old??? Wonder what Cessna would charge if they still made them...given that my aeroclub just spent 276K on a C172.

The only problems old aircraft suffer from is ignorance.

[maxgrad]

C C
Well said that man.
old does not mean dangerous.

[piontyendforward]

Gaunty,

Could you tell me which manufacturer make a C402, Chieftan size replacement?

If you want a new aircraft of that size you have only the C208 or the PC12, both SE, with the 40 year old PT6 design.

Where are the charter and small airlines going to get the replacement C402 and Chieftan aircraft for IFR ATO? Buy a fleet of B58 and fly in formation?

How many operators in AUS and NZ have replaced 1970's vintage C206 valued at $150K for one that does the same job at $850K. In NZ I can answer that for you, none!

When I bought my first aircraft 20 years ago I was the youngest owner that turned up to AOPA and aircraft type fly in's. I am still the youngest owner at these fly in's 20 years later. Where are the new owners?

[Alternator]

Gaunty

C-C echoes my sentiments, a properly maintained 30 year old aircraft is safe. I could argue safer because the 'bugs' have been ironed out.

I will concede that aeronautics has improved, but even the Cirrus has ADs. It takes time to work out all that is going on.

I am pleased that you and vis-a-vis ASFA aren't looking at increasing the burden on existing owners. But I ask why the attack on my GST suggestions. Why is it a purchaser of a new aircraft should get a tax break and not the owner (or purchasor) of a used one. You seem to make a distinction.

I think ANYTHING that improves safety should be tax exempt!!!

[drshmoo]

Chimbu chuckles
What is a C46 and a C47?

[Alternator]

DC-3 I think :)

Gaunty, posted from AVWEB (This is US AOPA .... OK :E )

Last year's preliminary GA accident data from the NTSB shows the fewest GA accidents since record-keeping began in 1938 and the lowest number of fatal accidents since 1945, AOPA said last week. The number of GA accidents in 2004 dropped 8.4 percent compared to 2003, and the number of fatal accidents declined 11.4 percent, AOPA said. The numbers also improved for flying during instruction. There were 17 fatal instructional accidents in 2004, half the total of 2003. Total instructional accidents were down almost 12 percent.

[Chimbu chuckles]

C46 is a Curtiss Commando...like a MUCH bigger DC-3.

C47 was the mil version of the DC-3.

[gaunty]

Alternator

C-C echoes my sentiments, a properly maintained 30 year old aircraft is safe. I could argue safer because the 'bugs' have been ironed out., my bolding, can't argue with that, neither would I, with our friend Chuckles as I know the very high standards to which he operates.

Neither would ASFA, in fact one of the Directors owns an immaculate Mooney, he has served as a director of the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) – Vice President & Treasurer - and was a founder of the Australian Mooney Pilots Association (AMPA) serving at various times as President and Secretary. Russell was jointly responsible for the establishment of the highly successful and award winning Mooney Pilot Proficiency Program. He operates the airport at Mitta Mitta (Vic) and is a active supporter of aviation safety as it pertains to General Aviation.

ASFA are working closely with the various other type organisations.

I'm not sure quite how this subject got around to suggesting that in ASFAs media release ASFA is trying to "drive the older aircraft out of the market". .:confused: Lets get back to tors shall we.

Here it is in it's entirety;

The Aviation Safety Foundation of Australia claims that an ageing aviation fleet is compromising safety.

A national aviation conference in Hobart has been told that more than 80 per cent of planes in Australia are almost 30-years-old.

The foundation's John Sharp says there are almost 10,000 commercial and recreational planes in Australia.

He says there is concern the fleet is ageing.

"Eighty-four per cent of our general aviation fleet is now more than 25 years of age, in fact, closer to 30 years of age," he said.

"There's a need for the Federal Government to address this issue to look at financial incentives for the industry to renew their aircraft."

Mr Sharp, who is a former federal transport minister, also says regional airport infrastructure is not being adequately maintained.

He says local communities cannot afford the up-keep and it is time the state and federal governments pitch in.

"Those airports are vital to our regional communities," Mr Sharp said.

"They are vital for emergency evacuation, medical evacuation for business and for normal day-to-day living.

"We do need to maintain that infrastructure."

Yes safety is compromised by older aircraft with the ever increasing shortage of LAMES trying to keep up with an ever increasing maintenance burden and the difficulty sourcing replacement parts for aircraft that have been out of production for decades.

Ease the burden with NEW modern technology that will in turn cascade down into the used market.

Everybody wants to increase the number of pilots to ease the overall burden, what are they going to fly? Increase in utilisation places increasing load on an already tired fleet, what do you expoect will happen, why spend more money keeping them going oof course and consume even more of our precious engineering resources.

And whilst I'm on that subject how do you think the LAMEs young and old feel about the same old same old every day with 30 year old technology and no sight of new technoilogy onm the horizon.

Why, if they can they're off to the airlines or somewhere they can stretch their professional qualifications. Fewer LAMEs to keep the older stuff going, costs go up and the new low maintenance burden aircraft are looking pretty interesting now.

piontyendforward

C402/Chieftain replacement sure they're called the Citation Mustang, CitationJet series, Eclipse 500, C208, TBM700, PC12, Adam etc/etc.

Your 40 yr old PT6 design comment is a bit precious. Ask FedEx how they feel about the engine reliability on their C208 fleet.

Where are the charter and small airlines going to get the replacement C402 and Chieftan aircraft for IFR ATO? , easy for charter, see above for small airlines they are called FAR Part 25 type aircraft Brasilia, Dash 8 and so on.

The C206 still a brilliant type for its purpose. They are going to have to replace the oldies some time and that's what ASFA is on about with the tax incentives.
The last new ones I sold in the mid eighties all had tax benefits attached.

Which brings us to the real issue, you have to be making profits for the tax incentives to be of any real value.
Profit seems to be a dirty word arounfd Oz insofar as the operation of aircraft is concerned.
Those that say they make one do so in isolation from the real world.
Nah until they start charging the real cost of operations instead of using the finance companies, their creditors and investor owners to subsidise their operations, they will never have the money to replace them. They are giving their users a free ride.

If the users baulk at the real costs then they never had them in the first place, which is why there was a Government subsidy for rural and remote communities in the first place, until some bright spark worked out that if you could find an old and cheap enough aircraft you could fake out the existing operator and convince the Govt they didn't need a susbsidy.

And what Govt doesn't like the sound of that. Hence the parade of would be's over the years and why they are trapped in the old aircraft paradigm

[Jamair]

Chuck - howyergoin? That 182 I flew a coupla years back (the R model wet-wing I went to WA x 2 in) is on the market, lemme know if ya wanna look.............

Gaunty, this is the same debate we had in LRE on the 747 night, and nothing has changed. We are in essential agreement but there is still nothing to replace those 30-year-old aircraft with. Who will pay 2mil + for a Baron that still can't do what my Aztec does; and what client will swallow a rate hike of that magnitude to allow it? I would buy or lease a new B200 in a heartbeat, if my clients would pay the extra - and I DO charge the REAL rate, including replacement etc.

I, like Chuck, would argue that my updated 30+ Aztruck is probably safer now than when it was new, with all new avionics, GPS, AP, engine monitor etc, as well as 30+ years of type experience to guide its maintenance.

Bring on the tax breaks.....:ok:

How did you get your reply in while I was still writing mine.......:confused:

[d_concord]

I've been trying to find this so called Press release by ASFA to get the full transcript and couldn't find one. So I called one of the directors of ASFA who I know well (who by the way owns a 28 YO twin himself!) and he said that there was none.

It would seem that what is being quoted was a part of a speech given by Sharp at the Aero Club conference in Hobart and needed to be looked at in the wider context of the speech.

His take on all this was while it could not be said that as a general rule older aircraft are unsafe if well maintained and he would be sure that that was not said, it defied logic to say they were as safe and the ever increasing maintenance burdens supported that. His take was that it would just become increasingly more difficult the older the aircraft become to maintain them effectively. He also said at what point do we stop justifying the lack of fleet replacement 30 years, 40 or 50 and that we don't want this debate in another 20 years. His take is that it needed to be put on the agenda as it takes time and momentum to affect the change.

As far as he was concerned safety was an incremental thing and it was just a matter of how far you took it and/or how far you could afford to take it.

He did say that ASFA had deep concerns for the industry in terms of infrastucture across the country and that extended to fleet replacement. Of particular concern is entry and preservation of skilled personnel whether that be aircrew or engineers and the rundown of GA was a major contributor to that skills shortage and hence safety. He also felt that if something wasn't done in the regard it would eventually have a flow on affect to the airlines.

It was felt that the commercial well being of the industry was one of the more important factors in overall safety and was one of the reasons why ASFA strongly supported the development of AUSAC.

Interestingly he said that ASFA were aware of the debate going on here and they thought it was all very healthy and if this is what came out of Hobart what a great result.

[Alternator]

There has apparently been another pree statement attributed to a Russel Kelly saying that if Pilots don't upgrade their skills with additional training, as per ASFA reccomendations, then they could be liable in the case of a crah.

Ok, now this is silly. CASA have standards, ASFA shouldn't make and then attempt to mandate more. That is what will COST industry $$$$ and cause a bigger drop out.

Without numbers in the game profitability will decline, insurance premiums increase and the industry grind to a halt.

Whoever these people are, it seems to me they are making self motivated pronouncements in an attempt to secure some sort of funding! Not helpful!!!!

[Rudder]

Alternator,

Is that a press statement by ASFA or a comment claimed to be from Kelly and may be a personal opinion. I looked at their website and could find nothing on thier position as to increased training. In fact from what I could see they were looking to develop accrediation for alternative programs that may replace the BFR and if not it was purely optional.

I would suggest that the idea that the directors of ASFA are trying to make a job for themselves would appear to missplaced when you look at their profiles and they would have better things to do. They already appear to have major sponsors.

It's interesting to see that ASFA in fact has three ex AOPA directors one of which is Peter Petroni who by any measure led AOPA though its' heyday. It has been in decline and continues to be heading that way ever since. The others are of course Stott and Kelly so you would expect that they would have an idea of what issues confront GA in the wider sense and bring that to the board of ASFA.

I doubt a call from an anonomous entity on Pprune will encourage them to change their position either.

[Alternator]

A comment from someone saying they represent ASFA is a comment from ASFA.

I don't care if they change their position, they are entitled to their view. However there are too many organisations trying to squeeze blood from the dry and crumbling stone that is GA without another one pushing up costs by trying to mandate standards above those in place.

If a standard, in this case a training standard, is lacking then lobbying CASA is the way to go, not making statements likely to get lawyers drooling at the mouth.

Now I agree that some standards have slipped. I think a 150 hr CPL is laughable, I think not teaching spins is criminal! I think not teaching X-Wind landings properly is the same.

Add to this list slipping, not needed on a day to day basis, but when the engine has quit and you are high for a very short field it could save your life.

ASFA have seen the light, trouble is the one they are looking at is underpowered and they need funding, like all other 'dim' organisations they think they can get this from GA.

They are wrong.

[d_concord]

Alternator

I think you just contradicted your previous comment about CASA setting the standards while at the same time decrying those same standards. Must admit I agree with you though.

However burrowing your head in the sand about duty of care in this day and age won't make it go away. Nor will standing by and knowing something is wrong and not doing something about it. You clearly care about the issues which is great but want to run down people putting in and trying to make a difference. I would suggest the best way to make a difference is to get involved and perhaps talk to them direct and get it all from the horses mouth as I did.

I imagine ASFA are in fact communicating with CASA all the time about issues. You only have to look at the people on the board to realise that CASA also probably listen to them as them. I'm cynical and said listen not heed!!

Again, I don't know where you get the info about ASFA setting standards however you clearly must know more than what is apparent to the rest of us. All I see is them developing program's which people and organisations can do or adopt if they choose. I do like the mentoring program which they are developing and hope that gets off the ground. There doesn't appear to be any compulsion to do anything by anybody from what I can see.

I would imagine that their sponsors are not supporting them out of the goodness of their heart and any increase in safety is good for them all in some way or another which is as you would expect.

As for the rest of the comment, you obviously know something the rest of us don't as to funding and the motivation. I don't see anything they are doing taking anything from GA. Seems to me they are in fact putting more in than they will ever take out. They are generally senior people from diverse parts of the industry that I guess are unpaid but could be wrong.

[bushy]

That report could heve been written by an aeroplane salesman.
There are fundamental problems in G.A. that cannot be fixed by the politician's kneejerk fixall reaction of throwing money at something. That is a temporary stimulant like alcohol, When the effect wears off the problem is still there. Sure money is needed, but let's think about it and get it right.
The last time they had an investment allowance it brought lots of new machinary to the country, and the industry was flooded by the white shoe brigade, freeloaders and taxdodgers. all after a quick quid.
Charter flying was done mainly by the aircraft sales companies, in aeroplanes they were trying to sell. Nothing wrong with that. They got their spare parts under warranty, did very quick and easy 100 hourlies, (it' s a new aeroplane isn't it?) and sold them as they were becoming rattly, and before the engines and propellors needed overhaul
So the "trickle down effect" happened and many rattly aeroplane s found their way into the industry. There was an investment allowance not a maintenance allowance. So the aeroplanes were sold and new ones purchased before maintenance became due. This pjilosophy is still with us, and is one of the major problems. Everyone talks about maintenance costs.
And the big sales/charter companies were able to set very low charter rates that were not sustainable. They are still with us.
The government is still meddling, and some operators get more dispensations, concessions, grants, and subsidies than others.
There should be none. This can lead to what appears to be corruption. Or favouritism. Or something. Whatever it is it is wrong. Any stimulant should be applied evenly to all operators. Like a reduction in the fuel taxes.
There are four main problems with G.A.

G.A. is regulated away from the money. A charter operator who plans a flight the day before is considered to be running a sceduled flight, and he is not allowed to do this. Each operator has a "sword of Damocles" over his head, and can be shut down by CASA at any time. Runways must be 80 meters wide, for an aeroplane with a 11 meter wingspan. It used to be 45meters width required. I see no safety requirement here, and believe it is commercially motivated. If the Metros cannot get in, then no-one is allowed to. There should be an Air Taxi or similar category so that G.A. can function properly. There are plenty of places the metros cannot go, and there are many places with no air service. The regulations are made by coastal dwellers.

The industry generally does not trust the regulator.(and probably the reverse). We do not know what is coming next, and no-one will invest or borrow money under these circumstances. Have a look on the CASA website about the Cessna SIDS. The last part of that virtually says that this will disadvantage the Cessna twins, so they will have to think up something for Piper and Beech twins, to make it even.????

G.A. is flooded with young commercial pilots who do not want to be there, but believe they have to in order to get to fly jets next year. Their attitude is negative from the beginning. Some operators may be exploiting them, and they are also exploiting the G.A. operators. G.A. is not a tertiary flying school where you get paid. It is too important for that. We need experienced, enthusiastic pilots who have local knowledge, and can do a difficult job well. It's not for beginners. Too many inexperienced pilots are one of the main causes of a high accident rate(although not as high as ATSB says)
The way to fix this is to introduce a Multi crew pilot licence for airlines, which is not valid for single pilot flying. Then pilots would know where they are going, or not going.

Because of the above, finance and insurance is expensive, and getting more complicated.

And the maintenance problem is huge. Not because the aeroplanes are old (most of our military aeroplanes are the same age or older) but because the maintenance facilities, and skilled people are not there. The older aeroplanes are simpler, and parts are cheaper than for the new ones. If we can use money to train LAMES and reduce fuel costs we may start getting somewhere.
30 year old aeroplanes are safe if maintained properly.Our G.A.fleet is valuable and badly needs maintenence. It will cost tens of Billions to replace it, and in many cases the replacements are not available.

We need safe, viable, and sustainable flying, not just shiny paint.

[Alternator]

Bushy

Well said and well argued. I can recognise experience and I do in your post just as I recognise politically inspired drivell from what gaunty tells us are a few PPLs and an ex-Pollie in ASFA.

Ex-Pollies should just do us all a favour and fade away. Ex-AOPA Board members should do the same.

[Tachycardia]

Alternator

Just looked at the ASFA site.
The list of those on the board looks very impressive.
It's unfortunate that AOPA couldn't muster a board with 10% of their calibre. Not sure what your/AOPA's hangup is with ASFA?
Wouldn't it be better to debate about ASFA's policies rather than attack the personalities ?
My guess is that ASFA is considerably more influential politically than AOPA would ever be. However I have to say I don't know that much about ASFA other than what is on their website. If they are at Avalon this week I will look them up.

Bushy

During the last investment allowance in the 80s' there was a masive influx of new aircraft and I am amazed that GA operators would oppose another round of accelerated depreciation. Surely it is to the advantage of GA to have a newer fleet with lower maintenance ? The lack of business accumen amongst some of those in GA is very apparent !

Tachy

[Lodown]

Bushy,

You make a number of points. I have a difficult time following your generalised line of reasoning at times though.

They got their spare parts under warranty, did very quick and easy 100 hourlies, (it's a new aeroplane isn't it?) and sold them as they were becoming rattly, and before the engines and propellors needed overhaul. So the "trickle down effect" happened and many rattly aeroplanes found their way into the industry. There was an investment allowance not a maintenance allowance. So the aeroplanes were sold and new ones purchased before maintenance became due. This philosophy is still with us, and is one of the major problems.
What’s the major problem? Isn’t this a capitalist philosophy you describe? I do the same with cars, boats, computers and almost anything else I own. Some people purchase new and others second hand. Buyer beware. Am I missing something in your argument here?

And the big sales/charter companies were able to set very low charter rates that were not sustainable. They are still with us.
If they weren’t (aren’t) sustainable, how come “they are still with us”? Do you propose that CASA legislates prices?

The government is still meddling, and some operators get more dispensations, concessions, grants, and subsidies than others.
That’s the nature of dispensations, grants, etc. Without these dispensations, etc, several companies will go out of business because they cannot afford to conduct business. The reasoning behind these things in the first place is that no operator can afford to run a service without the government support.

Or something. Whatever it is it is wrong.
Excellent point! But “it” could also be right.

Any stimulant should be applied evenly to all operators. Like a reduction in the fuel taxes.
Why the need for any stimulant in costs? Aren’t fuel taxes applied evenly to all operators already? Why not stimulate the market instead? (Ooops, if the market was stimulated, the beneficieries would be the RPT operators.)

G.A. is regulated away from the money.
Well, I agree with your thoughts behind this paragraph and I would be interested to hear how charter categories and RPT categories can be merged fairly to allow healthy and fair competition. It wasn't this way 50 years ago, but is now and I agree that changes need to be made. The airlines will have a cow!

The way to fix this is to introduce a Multi crew pilot licence for airlines, which is not valid for single pilot flying.
And then we can introduce airspace that also completely separates IFR and VFR, single engine from multi-engine, etc.

Our G.A.fleet is valuable and badly needs maintenance.
Why has it come to this? Shouldn’t the GA fleet have been maintained correctly in the first place?

Perhaps I have misunderstood your arguments and forgive me if I have, but the major issue I have with your statements is that you make no mention of any market. Who pays??? I don’t think you can try and improve anything in aviation without a viable market at the end pulling the changes along and making them stick. Otherwise, you’re just flogging a dead horse.

I can remember years ago when a customer’s choice to get somewhere not on the major routes was GA (rent or hire), a well used RPT Navajo or a car over bumpy roads. Now we have GA (with the same aircraft), a modern RPT turboprop flying fast and relatively inexpensively above the bumps or a very comfortable car on sealed roads. GA is not keeping up and has been falling behind for years.

Additionally, when I wanted to go for just a fun flight years ago, there wasn’t the same level of competition for my disposable income. In fact, I go out to the local GA airfield now and I have more traffic to deal with to get there. Once there, I have the same tired old office staff that I had years ago with the same old facilities. The aircraft is either late from a previous flight or maintenance, not refueled or parked somewhere down the line about a half mile from the office with the chains on looking like it hasn’t been cleaned from sometime in the last century. The paperwork is not ready. An instructor for a check flight has just dived out for lunch, is washing his/her car or busy debriefing a student. I put up with this those many years ago, but I don’t have to anymore. I have better things to do with my time and money. …And that’s the story for the GA market. I don't care if this is aviation, fast food, manufacturing or any other industry. These operators do not deserve to be in business and the market is driving them out.

Which leads to a question from me to you.

"Why should the government (read: taxpayer), CASA, Airservices or any other organisation see a need to fund changes to GA?"

Until GA shows some sign of competition, get-up-and-go, sustainable growth and innovation, what's the point?

[gaunty]

Lodown perzactly right and beautifully put, thanks for saving me the trouble. :ok:

These operators do not deserve to be in business and the market is driving them out.

There is a bit missing from the above.

"These operators do not deserve to be in business and have almost driven the bona fide operators out.
These operators do not deserve to be in business, the destruction of which has been of their own making."

I hesitate to connect my thoughts to yours lest you be tarred with the same virulent "Anti-GA" brush that has been applied to me by the usual suspects.

I hereby declare that I do not know nor have any connection whatsoever with Mr Lodown save through these forums, we do not act in concert, the fact that we share similar views on some matters should not be construed in any other way than a serendipitous confluence of streaming consciousness.
Any abuse here or in other places should be directed and reserved entirely to myself and I unreservedly apologise in advance to Mr Lodown for the depositing of any excreta on his person as a result of my actions. :p :rolleyes: :cool: :)


If I may however, pick a nit.

There has developed by theses operators over the years the notion that the incorrectly termed "charter or charter airlines" can be the same cost per seat mile as RPT.

1. It should more correctly be reffered to as "Air Taxi" and when they finally get around to Part 135 that's what the people who use them will properly understand them to be.
The use of the word "airline" should be the legal preserve of the holder of an RPT Transport Category AOC.

2. By definition "Air Taxi" never was, nor can it ever be "cheaper" by any definition than RPT.

3. Air Taxi can be anything up to an A380, but it is still not an "airline".

Even Childe Harold knows that a taxi costs more than a bus and why. :rolleyes:

The only way it is possible to "level the field" as bushy suggests is to significantly reduce safety levels below what is currently available and operate progressively older aircraft.

I suspect the only reason we are not seeing Dragon Rapides and Fox Moth in use is because their collectors capital value exceeds what can be sustained against old Cherokees and Cessnas.:p

Oh and one other thing, I have managed and/or operated two succesful major charter and commuter organisations including premium turbine, with nary the hint of an aircraft sales organisations participation beyond as Lodown points out the impoortant warranties and product support you would expect with any product new or otherwise.

I also have a fair bit of experience from the other side of that fence.

Aircraft sales and support operations support those who support them.

They have an obligation to carry in stock all items that an operator may need on a day to day basis.

It is hard to jump through hoops for operators who cherry pick their parts requirements, buying generic parts some place else for 10c cheaper, then abuses you about the price or availability of the important part you have been holding in stock for a cuppla years in the knowledge that sooner or later someone will need it and the parts vendor only builds them on request or in small batches.

One cut price turbine operator was wont to complain loudly to his customers and anybody else who would listen, that the reason he was unable to offer a reliable service was that the aircraft was cr@p and the manufacturer did not stock a particularly important part that was taking 6 months to source elsewhere.
In the meantime he "made" his pilots operate illegally whilst he sorted it out.
Facts were, the part was in stock in OZ, 6 off @ USD$3,000 ea. if I recall, We offered to deal at fleet price, a substantial discount, for him.
We subsequently found that he was sourcing "overhauled??" parts out of somewhere in the US. Legal ? Well they had tags. The particular parts could not be overhauled except at the vendors factory and they weren't coming from there.

Why would we "give" these parts away to this guy when the bona fide operators might call on them.

Level the field? bring it on.:ok:

[Lodown]

These operators do not deserve to be in business and have almost driven the bona fide operators out.
These operators do not deserve to be in business, the destruction of which has been of their own making.
I hesitated to make those distinctions Gaunty because the next step in the argument is to make the point that effective and appropriate enforcement action works much faster than market forces in getting rid of dodgy operators, thereby lessening the pressures on extinction and protecting the business of bona fide operators and creating a level playing field where everyone has to work from the same position with the same options in the toolkit.

Bushy can work that out for himself.

As you know, this opinion does not sit well with people who hold the belief that less enforcement and less government charges will automatically translate to a revitalised GA industry.

Re: your musings on Part 135. The big benefit of Part 135 will be in granting access to new markets for the innovative and cashed up GA operators, if there are any left. The airlines won’t like the attacks on their high revenue customers. As you mentioned, air taxi services will never match costs with the RPT services. GA has to compete in other areas. The continuation of services in ancient aircraft from run down 1960's facilities does nothing to improve the lot of GA operations overall.