Safety
Safety is a function of the integrity, resouces and knowledge of the operators, pilots and engineers. They can be helped or hindered by administrators and the regulator. But you cannot regulate, or enforce safety. The people who work in the industry determine that.
It appears that the real purpose of the regulator at the moment is to protect our government from any legal liability resulting from aviation.
We need to have rules and a regulator. But our present rules, and the way they are used seems very wrong. Too often it appears that they are used to manipulate the industry according to what Sir Humphrey thinks it should be. The same rules are taken to mean different things at different times.
An aeroplane has to have it's wing spars changed at 11,000 hours (only in Australia) when the maker says it can go to 70,000 hours.
Another aeroplane, which has a history of wing structural problems is given approval to carry a 100 kg overload, despite the recommendations of the maker.
Another aeroplane is rejected by the military as unsafe (after it has been in use for decades) but is perfectly safe for civilian use.
FOI's who will tell operators to rewrite part of their operations manual EVERY TIME they visit.
Massive operations manuals that duplicate what is written in the regs and in the flight manuals. WHY? To make it easy to prosecute? This massive paperwork is detrimental to safety. It should be simpler and less ambiguous.
And that "scheduled service" nonsense. It has been established that a flight that has been arranged a day before it's departure is a "scheduled" flight. Nearly every charter flight in the country is arranged this way. And the route is set at the same time. If this flight is advertised, and seats sold then it is illegal. ??????
So pre planning and advertising makes it more dangerous????? A number of charter companies have had their operating licences withdrawn for doing this.
Mail runs that used to be charter are now RPT????? They are done in the same way, over this same routes in the same aeroplanes, flown by people with the same licences.
And not just mail runs.
And it's ok because Sir Humphry wrote something different on a piece of paper. Nothing whatever to do with safety.
It seems to be a tool used to manipulate.
And the public see light aircraft services as the same as Boeing services, as they are licenced the same. It seems that this "non scheduled" nonsense is there to differentiate between big aeroplanes and small ones in the eyes of the pubblic.
Why don't we get real and stop fooling the public, by calling them "licenced light aircraft services" and doing away with this "non scheduled" nonsense. Let operators concentrate on their job, and not have to worry about the tricks that "big brother" may be up to, and the fine line they have had to walk. It will be safer that way.
And rename our regulator "The Australian Civil Aviation Service". The "Safety Authority" did not prevent Lockhart River. A different way is needed.
And try to help.
Our light aircraft service about 80% of our country.
Last edited by bushy; 27th Apr 2008 at 08:21.