Well said Tailwheel
Our aviataion system and regulations seem to contain a number of huge confidence tricks which pretend that there is no difference between a Boeing and a Cessna, and the air services required by a very remote community with 200 people is the same as that required for a capital city with a few million.
The aeroplane sales people found that the words "light aircraft" was a bit scary for some people (bigger is safer??), so they called light aircraft "general aviation aircraft". This was and still is completely wrong and misleading. The word "general" means "completely or almost universal" and so the term "general aviation" includes Boeings, airbusses military and other aircraft. Not just light aircraft. The term "GA"is misleading.
So is our licensing system. The public can look up the CASA website and check to see if a particular operator is licensed but will almost certainly not know the difference between RPT and airwork or charter. They will not know if the service is in a large or small aircraft. They will expect a large aircraft if it is a licensed service.
If every service in aircraft below 5700kg was called a light aircraft service the public would know. Surely our regulator should be more trustworthy than the sales people who started this "general avitaion" nonsense. It appears not.
They also appear to be confusing the public.
Yes Tailwheel, the reg 203 exemption system seemed to work well. And they discontinued it. It should be still operating.
Last edited by bushy; 25th Aug 2009 at 13:39.