AUS GA- the state in 2015

[sprocket check]

In light of the recent release of the White Paper, the withdrawal of various aerodromes, refueling services, possible SIDs on most Cessnas, lack of skilled staff inc engineers, low rates of return on investment hampering new aircraft purchases, bad business models, etc etc I thought I would kick off a thread where anyone can pipe and and describe where they think GA in this country will be in 5 or more years time.

5 years is not too far away to predict and enough imagination and speculation is possible to make it interesting.

I think we can all see certain trends, I hope this might stimulate a bit of discussion. Perhaps it might even fall on influential ears.

I think in 5 years there will be:
a further 30% reduction in aerodromes

an increase in red tape and overregulation (yes more than now)

a reduction in the number of small businesses in GA

less flying schools but they will be bigger and foreign owned

at least one serious accident involving a PA-31 or similar due age resulting in CASA overreacting

pvt GA dying or dead replaced by RAA with limited power but overburdened with responsibility

No avgas at most aerodromes in regional areas


That's just to start the debate.


SC

[Under Dog]

Spoke to a Shell rep recently and he advised me that they have withdrawn their services from I think it was 10 airports nationally with more to follow.

The Dog

[spirax]

So long as CASA choose to follow the European regs, GA will continue to die. There is no way you can have the same set of rules for a 747 and a 172!! Go to Europe and the UK and see for yourself!

A replacement for Avgas will have to be sourced and put into production - at what cost ?

GA as we know it now will only survive at small private airfields where it is not killed by security and CASA red tape!

As for long distance trips... well that will depend on supply of fuel and how much you can fit in the tank.

The average age of LAME's is now well over 50 and will continue to get higher. New engineers with few exceptions will aim for the larger companies with some future and perhaps security of employment (??). This will obviously increase costs to owners!

Never in the history of aviation does GA need to get together and make noise and influence votes. It is a do or die effort. I think however many have already left the run too late........ trust I am wroing!
:E:E

[Ando1Bar]

A serious decay in the standard of flying instruction.

'Career' grade 1 and 2 instructors are less likely to hang around with an increase in the number of hoops they are required to jump through.
Potential grade 3 instructors are less likely to give instructing a shot once they realise everything that needs to be conquered just to gain an initial-issue, then realise they need to go through it all again in 6-12 months time to progress their career. Once the jobs 'up north' become more plentiful, why would you fork out $15K to do an instructor rating?
The upcoming pilot shortage and faster career progression will only increase many instructor's motiviation to 'get the hell out of dodge'. Less Grade 1 instructors mean less know-how passed down to the 2s and 3s.
GAAP to Class D will increase the operating costs for many flying schools with little or no increase in safety benefit. Amongst other things this will eventually force down staff wages causing more disharmony.

[tasdevil.f27]

Yes you will find Avgas becomes very scarce and the price where it does remain will sky rocket. Mobil are also decreasing there sites as well.

Tough times a head.

[Hasherucf]

So long as CASA choose to follow the European regs, GA will continue to die. There is no way you can have the same set of rules for a 747 and a 172!! Go to Europe and the UK and see for yourself!


Spot on !! EASA doesnt care about GA . CASA is making up a bulls&%t B3 license that trys to fill this gap.

[SM227]

My prediction, hardly any different then it is now ;)

[gobbledock]

Never in the history of aviation does GA need to get together and make noise and influence votes. It is a do or die effort. I think however many have already left the run too late........ trust I am wroing!
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Couldn't agree more.An old saying that is very true is that 'there are strength in numbers'.
If there is enough push and pressure by the majority then change will be forced,it has been proven over and over throughout history.
Also 'stunting' is a poltical practise which basically involves Governemnt sitting on their hands until forced to act.The Government is aware of the deficiencies in Aviation,and also aware that it is going to take a lot of coin to start fixing the problem,but they will not budge an inch so long as the issue is buried or can be deflected.With enough voice singing the same song they will listen,especially if they perceive a threat to their long term political career if they do not act on behalf of the masses,they fear nothing more than losing their highly prized gravy train.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I think in 5 years there will be: a further 30% reduction in aerodromes

A further 30% ?

In the last 35 years, the only aerodrome that I can think of that has closed is Surfers Paradise.

Dr :8

[Captain Nomad]

FTDK, a few more would be: Schofields, Hoxton Park, Cooranbong, Aeropelican, Warnervale (potentially). That's just a few NSW ones off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty more...

Not to mention closing of runways at Bankstown and Archerfield and significant threats/restrictions/drooling by property developers looming over other places.

[Arnold E]

Have to agree with the Doc, I cant see places to land being a problem, but AVGAS, Ahhhhh, that's another problem and I see it as being the biggest one. Dont actually see LAME's as being a problem either, coz I dont believe there is any shortage of them. :cool:

[harrip]

The state of play in five years time is interesting, but my experience this last week may help understand where we're heading.

I'm the holder of a PPL and on Monday I booked my aircraft hire online for the Saturday. On Friday I received a courtesy call from the flying school to confirm my booking.

On Saturday I arrived at the flying school to be met by a member of the ground team who always greet hirers to answer any last minute questions they may have. I then walked out to the aircraft, which had been refuelled based on my booking, and had obviously been cleaned inside and out. Even though it was 2 years old the aircraft looks and smells like new.

With the glass cockpit, safety parachute and airbags installed I feel confident in the modern technology available. My confidence is further increased through the friendly and processional training I have received over the years earlier to prepare me for any inflight emergency, however unlikely…

If you haven't already guessed the above three paragraphs are complete fiction. I'm in my 40's, not a career pilot, but I enjoy flying and have some disposable income available for this hobby. However, I really feel that flying schools, clubs and organisations need to raise their game - considerably.

If you hire a car for say $200 you'll be treated in a manner not unlike that described above. If you hire an aircraft for a weekend, at an investment of several thousand dollars your typically presented with a dirty 30 year old aircraft with unserviceable instruments and vastly lacking in safety features compared to the car you drove to the airport in. Online bookings are few and far between, and sadly the customer service skills also date to the time to when your aircraft was built.

My flight training supplier is probably the only business I have spent not a small amount of dollars with and do not get a courtesy call (let alone a christmas card) if I don't fly for a couple of months. It would be an easy way for them to get a booking for a few hours use of an aircraft.

When I read a description of an instructor along the lines of "If you are of delicate disposition and are lacking in truth-handling facilities, best move on." I can only feel such instructors are best to move on. Some people fly for fun and sarcastic bullying pilots/instructors will not get repeat custom yet each flying school seems to have at least one.

GA need not look much further than their own flying schools if they wish to understand why GA hours have dropped. Yes, there are external factors making the industry tough but great customer service and clean working aircraft (even if they are 30 years old) would go a long way towards getting at least this one PPL back into an aircraft and probably many more.

[Warbo]

and sadly the customer service skills also date to the time to when your aircraft was built
Was customer service a problem in the 70's? Most services today seem to be impersonal and, well, not 'service'. Try phoning telstra for instance (positively the most painful company to deal with on the face of the earth). What about 'service' stations?

[sprocket check]

Excellent points being made.

Ftdk: you can add Aeropelican now closed and owned by Meriton or Mirvac...
Rutherford apparently earmarked also.

Plenty of other battles always going on- Evans Head for example. Developers will keep pushing and will win some.

There will be places to land but you might have a long drive following...

There will be a shortage of pilots. Will it be filled by foreign imports because the pathetic wages our gen y will simply laugh at?

I for one would actually like to hear from Dick Smith - perhaps his experience might actually be really useful in this discussion (with all due respect, not stirring here).

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Schofields, Hoxton Park, Cooranbong, Aeropelican, Warnervale

They're all NSW aren't?

Doesn't really count! :E

Dr :8

[gobbledock]

Hi sprocket,
I agree with your mention of Dick.
He has actually started a GA post already in this area. I am hoping the MOD's might merge a couple of the threads as they are all along the same line of discussion and producing some interesting discussions.
I have stated previously in regard to Dick,whether you love him or hate him, he does have an element of clout that some people in the higher circles listen to, occasionally.I am sure that if Dick was willing to talk to the media and present a logical argument then the media would run his story. I reckon that deep down he would be itching to give a spray about the current GA situation, he could probably do with a show of support.Thoughts ?

[Unhinged]

Agree with some of your sentiments, but not the first and last two points.

As some airports have closed, others have strengthened. Look at the huge growth at Wedderburn now that Hoxton Park has closed. Cooranbong closed, but there are plenty of options in that same area. I heard a rumour (it's ppRune, after all !!) that Warnervale is going to the developers in exchange for Pelican. It's not impossible ... Look at the fight, driven by the local business community, to keep The Oaks free of an antenna tower. Can't think of a single aerodrome that's closed in my usual stamping ground (Far North Queensland)

I have no confidence at all that RAA is in any position to take over GA, and CASA's recent decisions reinforce that. It may be that RAA would like to do so, but like-to and doing-so are a very long way apart. RAA is a good approach to private aviation, but it's certainly not an appropriate launching pad for a commercial career.

I also believe that there'll continue to be sufficient supply of avgas. It's a supply-and-demand/economics thing, but while there's demand there will be someone who sees benefit in supplying. I'll even predict that the price will continue to be affordable.

I do not believe that DS has experience that can help us here. He has strong opinions and plenty of money, but so do all politicians and it isn't the same thing at all (rather obviously).

Feel free to quote this post back to me in 5 years.

[The Green Goblin]

GA will be the same in 5 years as it is now. The same krusty old farts will still be there poling around their complex machinery that require exceptional flying skills to ever hope to get ahead of. On the flipside a new generation of ego sporting young pilots will be on watch moaning about the same crap we all have since the word GA was coined.

There will always be more dreamers prepared to loose more money than has ever been made in aviation and the Airlines will still be in a fragile balance of boom and bust. The only difference I see in 5 years will be less opportunity for an unscrupulous operator to make a quick buck (due to the regulator) However there will be new oportunities in the LSA catagory. The only operators that will be around will be the ones who invest in their staff, their fleet and their business and associated facilities.

Hardy in Darwin are a good example, they keep growing and growing adding more and more complex machines to the fleet while maintaining a high standard and reputation. Skytrans were in this boat when they had the large piston fleet and other companies like Sharp Airlines, Karratha Flying Services and Shine Aviation are great examples of how to grow and manage a GA business.

GG

[Mach E Avelli]

My crystal ball tells me: Within 5 years (already?) it will not be viable to be in the piston-engine charter business. Corporate customers will not accept any piston engine aircraft, and probably no turbine aircraft more than 20 years old. They won't have to, because the more progressive players in the industry are already moving to better equipment.
A 20 year old piston twin will be almost worthless, except those that fit a very limited training purpose (see below) and then only if they have been upgraded to glass cockpit.
Piston engines that run on MOGAS will become the backbone of the single-engine training industry, simply because turbines are too costly for that segment to bear.
We will see more 'plastic' aeroplanes with glass cockpits replacing the 'tin' ones currently in the training fleet - in fact for commercial training that is all we will see. The only pilots who will hire or operate analog aircraft will likely be recreational pilots over 60 years old (me, for example). Schools who do not embrace this new generation of training aircraft will be unable to attract customers and will certainly not be in the business of training foreign students.
Within 10 years the single-pilot command instrument rating will all but disappear in favour of the MPL. The CIR or something like it will survive mostly as a niche exercise for the limited upper end of the owner-pilot market. Most wanting a flying career won't even consider it - they will do the MPL.
Any pilot shortages will be transient, as they always are.
Pilot experience levels will drop, and operators will move the goalposts in response, and to accommodate supply and demand. Nothing new there.
With better equipment in our cockpits, and proper training, pilot-error accidents should decrease; however we will continue to have fatal accidents in the lighter end of the air transport sector; maybe more so as the fleet ages and until it is finally upgraded. Also, the longer we go without a big one, the closer we are to having it. Not 'if' but 'when'.......

[Orion Delta]

The Green Goblin > The first paragraph is sooo funny LMAO!:D so true.

[sprocket check]

I seem to be picking up a fair bit of difference between the states here. Seems FNQ, WA and NT have a totally different set of issues to the south of the Capricorn. Understandably so. Given that 10% of the population lives there it is a unique situation, both in type of activity, population density and infrastructure (lack of), supported I would hazard to guess by government contracts, tourism and mining. None of these are likely to go away in the near to mid term.

There is definitely a bigger struggle for survival in the southern half of the country. I don't think there will always be dreamers willing to give it all away for the love of flying. The capital cities are very expensive these days and levels of disposable income are dropping. Baby boomers are not so willing any more to fund their kids' fanciful ideas especially when the prospect of a return in terms of wages is pitiful and the career path to success rather long and uncertain. They also want to retain their lifestyles and not rock the boat too much.

I have met quite a few dreamers who have said 'Let's just make it a hobby then' when faced with the reality. It is much more difficult now than 10 years ago to live on the minimum wage. We will also have to start paying Krudds bills soon.

I agree with Mach E A, I think you have a fairly good model of the crystal ball. The end result will be the shrinking of the industry though, not growth.

Is it somehow possible to bring about ideas that will promote growth rather than simply natural change (which is inevitable, by law). By this I mean ideas the encourage a greater uptake and use of GA services by the general public and business (some have been mentioned-service and presentation), say education campaigns that promote GA and highlight the benefits it brings to the community, its usefulness as a mode of transport for anyone, not just the select few (seemingly). I think GA needs a serious image lift and a good PR campaign.

What I'm getting at is that unless we get a mass of support behind clearly defined goals or objectives GA will continue to decline-it may survive in some parts where it is an essential service for some time, but generally it will continue to die a slow death. There will be no mass support in the current disjointed and dysfunctional state.

Even the regulator-I have met wonderful and very highly skilled and capable people within that organisation, hampered by a stiff, inflexible, illogical, dysfunctional, conflicting, indecisive system that cannot and is incapable of taking responsibility or making progressive and evolutionary decisions. It is an organisation so deeply buried in its own sea of red tape and buck-passing that the only thing it can do is create more of what it has created already in order to create more layers of bureaucracy that require more layers of regulations to administer......and cannot make an end to CASRs. Even these are now so convoluted the only thing it can think of is to take someone elses instead-ie EASA, which are even worse than what it has now!

I think as far as the regulator is concerned the cost of compliance will be the quickest GA killer of all.

[gutso-blundo]

GA in 5 years time? Maybe the same, but the planes aren't getting any younger.
GA in 10 years time will be interesting, as I'd say it will become increasingly hard to keep 50+ year old aircraft economically viable, let alone safe. Think about it - 50 year old machinery expected to make money? What other non-niche industry has to put up with that?

I doubt you could launch a successful public awareness campaign to get them all geed up about flying when you look at the state of the GA fleet presently. If you're trying to get GA into the realms of something you'd expect the public to use by choice with any regularity you need to raise the bar to meet with people's expectations of modern travel. Even the local bus service has relatively new busses with comfy seats and air-con.
Let's face it - 90% of the current GA fleet are old, tired, noisy, smelly, cramped and sorry-looking frames that are well past their original design brief. The fact that there's nothing viable to replace the vast bulk of it with is a testament to how difficult (read expensive) it is to jump through all the legal hoops these days.
And to anyone who has a vision to revitalise the industry - best of luck. :hmm:
Try starting with a modern engine :{

[Frank Arouet]

In five years or ten years you will have a change in government's but the same faceless bureaucrats will still be there doing the same things to stifle and strangle the industry in the name of "productivity" which is directly proportional to how much paperwork they can generate.

Look at the good side however. When all industry is dead there will be no need for a regulator or it's bludging bureaucrats.:mad:

[Arnold E]

When all industry is dead there will be no need for a regulator or it's bludging bureaucrats.

Hmmm, dont know about that, what about Sir Humphrey Appelby's hospital with no patients. (yes Minister):O

[VH-XXX]

5 years from now.

The same dirty old 172's will be at my local flying school, I'll book one and it will be u/s.
Some schools will have many more glass cockpit Archers and G1000 172's but they will be $400 ph dual +
CFI's will still mostly be old and crusty.
A few more fields will close.
In Melb, much pressure will be applied to shut down Moorabbin and Essendon.
RAA will grow, but not as quick as they are now (market flooded).
LSA imported aircraft will get more expensive, too expensive for the average man or syndicate.
Pprune will still be here under again renewed ownership.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Lotta glass half empty people here.

Pure fun aviation is thriving.

Is it cheap? No but then again it NEVER has been. It may have been more affordable in the past before politicians inflated our currency to almost worthlessness but it was never cheap.

Is it ubiquitous? No but then again it NEVER has been.

30-50 year old ****boxes? Age does not HAVE to equal poor condition - how many 60+ year old Mustangs are in poor condition? A lot fewer than 40 years ago when they were common and of no great value.

I am in the middle of restoring a 40 year old Bonanza - it will be better than new when I am finished and at a cost somewhere around 20% of the cost of buying a new Bonanza. A 50 year old V tail (in remarkable structural condition due to a life hangared out west) is in a hangar at Redcliffe. Its just been bought by someone for 30k (they probably paid 5-10k too much) and will be restored at a cost of probably another 100k. It may not be 'worth' 130k when it is finished (because 'the market' is populated by idiots) but it will be a wonderful aircraft for its new owner at a cost dramatically less than many other options. A mate owns a 1971 A36 that is immaculate after a new interior/avionics/paint and inspection/correction of ALL structural issues - thanks largely to it being properly corrosion proofed at the factory in 1971, unlike mine, there were remarkably few of those. A 40+ yr old Piper Commanche turned up in the same hangar mine is in recently - apparently virtually abandoned in the long grass on some airfield far from the sea air and in great structural condition - I don't know what was paid for it but I bet it was next to nothing - its going to have LOTS of money spent on it and when its finished it will be as reliable, efficient and beautiful as it was when new - at a fraction of the cost of a new equivalent.

Other mates have done the same with Twin Commanches, Commanche, C180s, 182s, 185s, 195s, Stearmans, Tiger moths, Piper Cubs and Chipmunks - others, like Jaba, have spent similar money to build an RV10 which is a remarkable aircraft both in its flying qualities, load carrying ability (true 4 seater+bags) and the technology in the panel. It does 165kts on 40 liters/hr!!.

If you don't want to hire tatty old ****boxes then don't. No one I know does. But NONE of the aircraft in the above list will EVER again grace a flying school/aeroclub flight line because its the hirers that turned them into ****boxes!!!. The only reason hire cars are so nice is the fleet is rolled over every 2 years or so - they get treated about the same, maybe worse, than rental aircraft - except unlike a Ford Falcon a G1000 C182 costs 1/2 million dollars. And you people whinge because it costs $400+ to rent one for an hour? That's CHEAP!!!

Instead of whining about the death of GA why don't you eschew your next new car and get together with 1 or 2 others and buy a nice older Cessna/Piper/Beechcraft and restore it to as new condition? Or buy one someone else already has restored. Or get a fast build kit for a RV7,8 or 10?

Engines? Well all those who whinge about 50yr old technology need to accept that the engines we bolt on our Bonanzas or RV10s are NOT the same as their forbears - they may look the same and function similarly (magnetos etc) but they are vastly more efficient, 20%+, thanks to aftermarket mods like gamijectors and engine monitors. The economies of scale just DO NOT exist, and NEVER will, for other than that sort of incremental improvement. A mate who restored the Tiger moth I have been flying of late incorporated modern Slick mags, sodium filled exhaust valves and an alluminium head and has a Gipsy 1C that is vastly more reliable than when new - you can buy NEW Lom engines in eastern europe that look the same (inline inverted 4) but are vastly better than the 1930s/40s equivalent - yet another mate is restoring his Ryan STM after a crash with one of those to replace the original Menasco that failed on him. People have tried and failed to shoehorn car technology into certified airframes. Maybe it will work next time someone tries.

You think recreational GA is dead? Come out to Redcliffe or Caboulture on a weekend:ugh:

SAA/LSA both fixed and rotary? They are like flies:E

Recreational GA will be BETTER in 2015 than now:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CC, Ditto for Tyabb:ok:

When those doors open it is amazing whats stored around a "quiet" little aerodrome.

Chuck, just remember one thing and go ask Mr Poiet (I think that is how he spells his name..ex councillor and drives a really nice 177 or used to) for confirmation. If the City Council had it's way. Redcliffe would have been closed over ten years ago.

Five years from now? Around here, probably little difference. More warbirds will be flying. My club will finally start getting into some late model glass ships at a reasonable price....Have you seen the price of C182S' with low hours in the US lately? Reading here about AVGAS and looking up on the web..methinks a new product called 92UL will be the norm. Excepting for the CASA BS for quality it will be easier for the refiners to produce because of no risk in contamination of fuel stocks with TEL.

I know I will never have my 182RG that I lust over....Maybe an RV-10 will be a better choice.:}

[PA39]

Good post Chimbu. I agree with what you say. If you talk it down (the industry) then it will go down. There will always be the "flying school", be it RAA or GA in general. there will ALWAYS be the WANT to fly. Nobody can predict tomorrow let alone what is going to be in place in 5 years time.

The interest in aviation is still strong. i was out at AF to see the old DC4 go and i can tell you it was amazing to see how many of the "public" were there to watch. It was like a mimi airshow, people walking through hangars to get airside, people who haven't even heard of an ASIC card, the road was chockers with traffic and people trying to find a parking space. I don't believe there was any advertising or public notices for the old girls departure (DC4). There will always be GA. The structure, and costs in 5 yrs are unknown. If we're not happy with the regulator or the system, get together and stand up and be counted, after all they are supposed to be representing you guys! Think positive and get off our arses and make it happen. (Off the soapbox now).

[Chimbu chuckles]

I dont agree about Redcliffe - its safe until 2034 at least. Caboulture probably the same but hard to believe it will be still under the auspices of the aeroclub. Caloundra is a different story - it will be gone eventually.

[Ultralights]

Add Kempsey to the list of soon to be removed aerodromes.

[gas-chamber]

Chimbu the fun end of aviation that you describe may be thriving now, but CASA is already doing their darndest to kill it. Engines that must run on avgas will be for the wealthy only because the stuff will become as rare as rocking horse guano. The sorts who can afford racing cars and other assorted costly toys. Fun aviation like you describe is not really a commercial industry except for those who specialise in restorations. So the authorities and airport operators etc really don't want to bother with it. If they could legally ban it they probably would.
Recreation aviation will be the go for enthusiasts but that will remain limited to very light planes, not your Bonanzas etc because it would be a very brave CASA that allowed 50 year old general aviation airplanes into the hands of self-maintainers. CASA has already signalled that it does not attach any priority to a weight upgrade so it will probably stay where it is for a long time, with CASA calling the shots on anything over 1200 lbs weight. In any case the recreational self-governing body is not in any position to assume any more responsibilities than it currently has. It does not have the experience or expertise. The CASA knock-back has done them a favor even if they don't appreciate it. Liability insurance is a further problem for them.
But, I like your positive outlook. Let us hope that magnificent older airplanes soldier on for another 50 years so our kids can see what it was like.

[Orion Delta]

Ultralights> Why whats happening to Kempsey? just curious.

[Ndegi]

A well reasoned and excellent post Charles (CC). Well done and keep them coming.
:ok:

[frigatebird]

All we need, that we are losing, to keep the older ones flying, is the fuel availability sorted. Engines that run on high quality Diesel, (or Avtur), and high octane Mogas that is readily available for vehicle use as well, as a replacement for the Avgas engines, can be speced or fitted at overhaul time. There will always be a need for PERSONAL transportation, at all levels, even moreso in the next 10 years, and it is different from mass airline use.

[Ultralights]

reported by the ABC a few days ago, Kempsey shire council can no longer afford to maintain the airport. fed govt wont help.

[Frank Arouet]

Was Kempsy one of those with a hand out during the local airport ownership scheme?

A lot of airports similarly smitten with government handouts for security may have to pay for new gear as per the White paper.

Interesting given that taxpayers owned most of the airports that were given away to ratepayers so they could charge taxpayers for using what they used to own. Now they want to give them back?

[Chimbu chuckles]

And what does it cost each rate payer to maintain the aerodrome at Kempsey - $1 each/annum?

Small price to pay for a place where RFDS/Air Ambo/Fire Bombers can operate from.

100LL surely will go the way of 80/87 and 115/145 - was always going to happen eventually after the airline industry stopped using it when the jets came along and then the SGFs (Simpering Gaian Fckwits) in the EPA set there sights on TEL.

BUT go to General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (http://www.gami.com) and you will see they have technology in the wings that will allow the big bore flat 6s to run on lower octane/unleaded fuel - PRISM - apparently George is also working on a new fuel. The flat 4s and radials/inline engines as found in Stearmans/Tigers/Cubs/Cherokees/172s etc were running/will run perfectly happily on lower octane fuel before TEL was discovered so I guess they will again.

CASA cannot destroy GA any more than the MSB can destroy private boat ownership.

Edit: This would seem to indicate that avgas has some future yet as a viable fuel.

http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/storage/gamag/oct06/Avgas.pdf

[Lodown]

The term GA is very broad. In terms of private flying, I'm in full agreement with the comments of Chimbu. In commercial/charter flying, there is no reason why many piston aircraft cannot continue with long life, but recip engines are slowly succumbing to turbines as the equipment becomes less expensive (in comparable terms)and the growth in RPT services. Rules are favouring the growth industry: turbines. New designs (turbines) favour new and innovative instrument panels and control options. IMO, the sooner the CASA drops route protection associated with RPT the better. It will revitalize the commercial side of the GA industry and encourage competition and better services.
Airports being over-run by development are a fact of life. We all need to make sure we have relationships with our local government officials to be able to press the importance of regional airports. There's nothing wrong if one is developed (just like the drive-in movie theatres), but there needs to be an alternative to take its place and prefereably something that has aspects that are improved over the old one: ease of access, close to a freeway and/or public transport, away from airline routes, better access to/from tourism services, etc.

[flying-spike]

"the sooner the CASA drops route protection associated with RPT the better."

Blame CASA for a lot of things but is that accurate?

[Lodown]

I'm not blaming the CASA. Not intentionally anyway. It's outdated legislation at odds with modern business practices and standards. There's another thread running about a potential RPT route Toowoomba-Sydney. If I own/operate a charter company, why can't I sell tickets, publish flight times, run regular flights and adjust the times of those flights as I see fit to meet demand and aircraft availability to a schedule between points A, B and C? Business owners in other fields can have sales when they see fit, establish a business where and when they see fit and operate it as they see fit (within the boundaries of local and national restrictions that promote competition and capitalism) and importantly....advertise individual products.

Supposedly the CASA is protecting the fare-paying passenger. What's the difference between fare-paying passengers on Lodown Air Services and those on a current RPT service?

Why does a passenger have to arrange his/her schedule around current scheduled flight services when another operator emphasising flexibility might be able to sell tickets in advance to a changeable schedule? Assuming I can operate 5 days a week Tamworth-Sydney in a Citation, then why can't I vary the schedule over the other 2 days to run via Moree, Coffs Harbour or Brisbane if I can match the aircraft's availability to that of some well-heeled passengers? An operator of a 50 passenger RPT turboprop based in a capital city wouldn't be able to do it, but why does that restrict a locally based operator from attempting to do it? Why can't a potential passenger who wants to do a trip to some real estate in Grafton in a day from Sydney contact me and see if I am able to pick him up within the schedule to get him back again close to the time he wants to get back? He can't justify the cost of a dedicated charter, but if he can combine the expense with 3 or 4 (or more) other people with similar requirements, and I have the ability to cater to them, then why can't it be done? The digital age has made the contacts and organisation possible, but aviation regs are still stuck in the dark ages.
At present, Lodown Air Services might be able to run a little money-making venture between points A and B on a small-scale charter operation. An RPT operator can get route approval and snatch a significant portion of my business overnight and lock me out of running an effective competitive campaign. I embrace competition, but this isn't competition when I am essentially bullied off a route by paperwork. This has occurred many times at regional airports all over Australia where a locally based operator has for years operated a charter service to regional demand; employing and buying locally. An RPT operator from the big smoke has seen an opportunity and muscled in. The local operator has seen his/her bread and butter disappear overnight and has had his hands tied in responding through protective RPT legislation. It's left local councils wondering why they should be funding airports that are only used sparingly and any monies generated have been going out of the local area. It's no wonder GA commercial operations are suffering.
When an RPT operator has approval, there is very little impetus for efficiency gains and improvements and it's almost impossible to compete within the bounds of legislation. It's a significant force behind the scrapping of the 2 airline policy. I'd like to see those advances promoting competition between airlines go a little further to promoting competition between ALL commercial passenger carrying operations.

[PA39]

:( Kempsey, Redcliffe, Caboolture, Maroochy (Caloundra) Shires are all looking at the $$ to be made from subdivisions, either residential or industrial.

[Frank Arouet]

What's the difference between fare-paying passengers on Lodown Air Services and those on a current RPT service?

Nothing: In fact one approved airline, with encouragement, sold tickets, promoted the business, put their name on the aeroplane and then another mob flew the same fare paying RPT aircraft into the side of a mountain.

The other mob were held accountable.

[LeadSled]

----it would be a very brave CASA that allowed 50 year old general aviation airplanes into the hands of self-maintainers.Gas Chamber et al,
That's exactly what Canada did years ago,( admittedly not for retractables--yet!) for a whole range of GA aircraft, with the same result as owner maintained Experimental and Recreational aircraft ---- in virtually ALL cases audited, far better maintained and presented aircraft than the run-of-the-mill GA aircraft.

In 1996, several of the more enlightened people in CASA Airworthiness, with the encouragement of the then Director, Leroy Keith (an Airworthiness/Certification Engineer), started a project to produce the rules to emulate what the Canadians had (already- in 1996) done.

After all, the AUF/RAOz weight increase from 488kg to 544kg was also largely based on what the Canadians had already done - by 1996.

Needless to say, with the departure of Leroy, and shortly after, the PAP, the "CASA traditionalists" in Airworthiness (heavily represented in the ranks of the ALAEA) re-asserted themselves, and the project was dropped. Some remarkably similar names have just made another re-appearance (close to a resurrection, really) in CASA Airworthiness, so don't expect anything but further obstruction to beneficial change.

Indeed, expect considerable effort to hobble all classes of Experimental, Limited, Restricted and Sports/Recreational, and not "just" RAOz.

All these years afterwards, we are still arguing about who can maintain an Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. We still have individual CASA AWIs heavying LAMEs to prevent the provision of supervision of owners working on their own aircraft, beyond Schedule 8, as LAMEs are perfectly entitled to do in law --- but contrary to union "policy".

And the ALAEA is still arguing that there should be no "Schedule 8" Pilot Mainteance, and see today's papers, ALAEA are arguing that the EASA/FAA rules for pilot maintenance (beyond Schedule 8, as we already do with individual MAs, and have done for years) should not be emulated in Australia, because Australian owners/pilots cannot be trusted to carry out such duties without the "benefit" of "full" LAME qualifications --- in the all-hallowed and sacred name of safety, you understand, absolutely and definitely nothing to do with union perceived and vested interests

Amazing how many things in aviation, that work just fine elsewhere, ( just another example, PFA C.of A aircraft in UK) "won't work in Australia" (can't upset union vested interests - its "not safe") so let's not even try.

When is the GA community collectively going to wake up and act together, instead of chipping away at each other, while GA dwindles.

Tootle pip!!

[Under Dog]

Ultralights
The council may have to secure funds from the state cos Air Ambulance use it on a regular basis. If they have to transport patients to Port than it may have a significant effect on Ambulance response times due to the crews being out of town for extended periods.


Regards The Dog