So if a share charter is booked today, to operate tomorrow and the route is defined on a Flight Plan, does that become RPT?
"Fixed Terminals" is also a legal requirement for an operation to be deemed RPT. For those who have been there, the "Fixed Terminal" at Bamaga (if the termites haven't finished it off) or the nine square meter shade roof and picnic table at York Island come to mind - with some amusement!
Regardless of Seaview, Coral Sea Air etc, CAR206 is meaningless in the context of current legislation, which clapton at least appears to acknowledge.
The fact is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has abysmally and woefully failed in it's duty to adequately define "scheduled air services" and provide an appropriate regulatory framework for essential air services to rural Australian communities for twenty years, since the abolition of ANR203 exempt air services in the previous Air Navigation Regulations in 1988.
The previous Board, a succession of Director/CEOs and plethora of CASA management should hang their head in shame for what they have done to Australian rural air services and general aviation.
I'm in full agreement with you Torres about the legislation. I'm looking forward to the day when someone finally determines that there really is no distinction between RPT and charter. RPT legislation was simply protectionist policies from Ansett/TAA days long gone when most of the world's governments felt it necessary to foster and protect their national aviation assets. In today's business climate, it's simply restraint of trade and anti-competitive that as you have pointed out, is impossible to justify without some very flexible interpretation of CAR's in favour of the incumbents. Just about any charter operator can be construed as operating RPT if deemed necessary by "the authorities".
Want to revitalize GA? Loosen the interpretation of what constitutes RPT. Let operators operate as many flights as they like, at scheduled and non-scheduled times, in competition with existing airlines if they want to, with specific flight advertising, and with pre-bookings. The market will sort out who succeeds and fails. Rural Australia will love it.
It's time we looked at reality. CASA seems to think that a C210 or a caravan is the same as a Boeing, and they all require an army of people on the ground doing huge ammounts of useless paperwork to keep them going. The licencing system implies to the general public that they are the same, and that is wrong.
The distinction between RPT and Charter is backwards, and rediculous. It's major use appears to have been as a tool to prosecute whenever they feel like it, as nearly all charters can be said to be illegal RPT. The distinction is rubbery and not properly defined. It was used for withdrawing AOC's. Read the Phelan Papers. Look at the Coral Sea Airlines case.
And yet it is ok to carry schoolkids in a Caribou, and RPT pax in a hercules without an AOC.
It probably grew from the old days of protecting the govt airline from those pesky charter operators in those new fangled Pa32's that could carry five pax. So they made a rule that flying charter along an established airline route was only permitted once every 28 days. This was commercial regulation, not safety regulation. And I believe they still do commercial regulation by stealth, using (or misusing) the regs. More than one operator has had AOC problems for running "scheduled flights". Apparently it is less safe if an aeroplane flies at the same time every day over the same (or similar) route.
I would have thought it would be safer, as there would be less variables.
And economically it is difficult to sell all the seats in the aeroplane to one buyer. Airlines do not do it. But apparently that is safer than selling individual seats. It must be, because CASA have taken operattors to task for
selling individual seats, and they are the "safety" authority are they not? Is this not commercial regulation? Small operators would be on a better financial basis if they could sell seats, and not have to worry about big brother watching for some small commercial (not safety) glitch that could put them out of business.
Apart from the commercial aspect, this uncertainty causes stress which is not a healthy thing for safe operation. Some operators have done these things for years and others have had their AOC withdrawn for this.
I fail to see how this improves safety. Instead I believe it has hindered the proper and safe operation of GA operators for years. It is time this stopped.
Also, if light aircraft are to be used , the public should know. We should stop pretending and have "licenced light aircraft" services. The public would then know that the charter operator system is different from a Boeing, and different from Mulga Bill's private 172.
And do we really need to re-write our ops manual every time the FOI visits?
Let's stop pretending, and get it right.
Bushy nails it with his comment about the difficulty of selling all instead of individual seats. I think that the trend over the last few years, of enforcing an essentially draconian requirement, has seen the demise of this section of the industry. God, charter ops used to be the life-bloood of the north and I cannot recall one single incident where pax safety was threatened because a 'charter operator' sold seats individually. And my recollection goes back to the earlies when the old tarmac opposite the 36 THOLD in Darwin was chokkas with aircraft belonging to 'charter operators'. If anyone can enlighten me to the contrary, I'd be interested.
Bob - I reckon you've been led well & truly up the garden path. Go back & ask that member to show you where they got the figure from
T28D - see first sentence above, maybe they should look at a franchise then
I think we also need to look at the current state of GA, and the damage that has been done by privatisation of the secondary airfields, which CASA has NOT been monitoring. If we look at Bankstown, Archerfield and Jandakot we see that the owners want to turn them into industrial parks, the owners being laws unto themselves are breaching the regulations and CASA doing nothing about the breaches.................
Here is a question, how close is the relationship between ATSB and CASA? What I mean is, do both parties take the word of the other as being correct and true without questioning the reply/answer.........
I would be very interested to know what Dick Smiths view on the issue is and what he thinks should be done.
The problem is that we have had years of a Department of Transport – now called the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – when there has been absolutely no policy initiated. Because of this, aviation, particularly general aviation, will be destroyed.
For example, I bet no one in the Department pointed out to the various Ministers that selling off Hoxton Park Airport so it could be used for freehold land would work very much against flying training in Australia.
The problem with the Department is that once a person comes up to speed on aviation matters – and there have been some very good people there – they immediately disappear. For example, we had a capable chap called Martin Dolan, who was in charge of aviation for about three years. He suddenly disappeared. Then we had Mike Mrdak, who had previously worked in Laurie Brereton’s office in aviation and came up to speed quickly. As soon as he was in a position to start setting some policy, he moved – I think to the Prime Minister’s Department.
Basically there is no one in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has any good in-depth knowledge of aviation. The Minister’s aviation adviser has no background in practical aviation and does not ask advice.
We are heading for a major tragedy in aviation. This is due to a lack of pilots, a lack of air traffic controllers, and a lack of any understanding that unnecessary costs must be reduced – otherwise safety will be affected.
This started when John Anderson de-skilled the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board so much that he then decided the Board was useless (which it was) and abolished it. He then placed a farmer, with no practical air traffic control or aviation experience, on the Airservices Board as Chairman.
We have had about a decade of no forward thinking policy being instigated.
I think most of us would 1000% agree with your statement:
Quote:
Basically there is no one in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government who has any good in-depth knowledge of aviation. The Minister’s aviation adviser has no background in practical aviation and does not ask advice.
That is a real concern.
But Queenslander asked:
Quote:
Here is a question, how close is the relationship between ATSB and CASA? What I mean is, do both parties take the word of the other as being correct and true without questioning the reply/answer.........
Your response to Queenslander's post included the statement:
Quote:
We have had about a decade of no forward thinking policy being instigated.
I also think most of us would also 1000% agree with that statement.
So what do you suggest should be done Dick to resolve the problems of a Minister who is being advised on aviation by someone who apparently has no background in practical aviation, and also the ongoing lack of forward-thinking [aviation] policy from the Government?
What happens if an accident occurs at a secondary airfield and it was contributed to a breach of the regulations by the airport owner, who do you go after, the airport owner for breach of the regulations or CASA for failing to enforce the regulations
As GA is considered the parasite in aviation, well that is how it feels sometimes being in GA, we are ignored or pushed away, who has/is listening to the GA communities interest/concerns?
If I’m not mistaken but was it not Labour that privatised the secondary airfields, so they created the problem, and have not done anything since being back in government rectify the mess they created, but they are quick enough to blame the last government for the mess………..
If I’m not mistaken but was it not Labour that privatised the secondary airfields, so they created the problem, and have not done anything since being back in government rectify the mess they created, but they are quick enough to blame the last government for the mess………..
Think that you are correct Queenslander, but I fear that the Krudd Government will not ''rectify the mess'' quite simply because they, like all Governments, will not admit to ever having made a mistake in anything they ever did!
They will of course, continue to blame the previous administration for all the percieved problems, and possibly tinker around the edges or most likely with the current lot, just hold yet another enquiry.
Chainsaw, what I see happening in the Canberra aviation bureaucracy is what I call “the Wheat Board plan.” We all saw the situation with the Wheat Board and Alexander Downer – where he was able to say that he wasn’t informed, therefore he could not be held responsible! I’m sure he wasn’t informed – that was the intentional part of the plan from the Department.
I see a similar situation occurring within the aviation bureaucracy, so when a catastrophe occurs, in their view the Minister will not be responsible as he “wasn’t informed.”
Of course this won’t work. None of us really cared about the Wheat Board situation because we all knew it would be impossible to sell to Sadam Hussein’s regime without providing some form of kick back. However in the case of an aviation catastrophe – especially when fatalities are involved – it will be quite different.
The Minister has been surrounded with people who “know nothing” and is then kept away from anyone who may be able to give him important safety advice. However I do not believe in this situation he will be able to claim – as Alexander Downer did – that he knew nothing and could therefore not be held responsible.
How do we solve the problem? I believe there is nothing we can do until it gets far worse and a catastrophe occurs. The aviation bureaucracy has got away with this since the days of John Anderson and it has worked well for them.
In fact, when John Anderson retired he was almost treated as a hero by his fellow Parliamentarians and by the media. This sent a clear message to politicians – even Deputy Prime Ministers – that is, don’t make any decisions you can be held accountable for and you will have an easy life.
It begs the question – why would someone want to become a Deputy Prime Minister, or a Minister, without at least achieving some worthwhile changes? I don’t know.
At the present time all we can do is sit and watch, but be very concerned.
In relation to the ATSB and CASA, the head ATSB investigator is ex-military and so is the head of CASA. They have come up through a culture which gives the message, “Never ask advice.” I believe that whilst this culture exists, we will never be able to move forward.
Last edited by Dick Smith : 24th June 2008 at 07:37.
Will the Lockhart River accident, which was the reason for the Senate Inquiry into CASA have a major impact in the review, knowing that CASA failed to correctly monitor and enforce legislation, their failing resulted in the deaths of those on board the aircraft.
Will the review be done without pressure and influence from EXTERNAL parties with an interest in the outcome, i.e. the government, and who is qualified enough to conduct the review knowing that they will be consistently harassed by EXTERNAL parties?
Or do you believe another accident will occur, that will bring things to the forefront for the general public and make CASA explain as to why they have failings in their procedures, but then again, they are arrogant enough and say not the departments fault
Linear Mode
