Mr Smith's observations of the current malaise affecting the aviation industry in Australia and the risks, which are not inconsiderable, of further damage to the viability of aviation, are essentially correct. They are a starting point for considering, what is a regulatory issue and what is an economic issue and the two necessarily intertwine.
The waste of public monies with few new rules is nothing but scandalous. Any competent legal firm could have drafted a new set of rules in months for the government.
The failure to progress and implement new rules is the result of executive failure in Government to direct and ensure that the rules are made law. The current Government and current Minister must bear responsibility for this and be held to task for not ensuring the rules were introduced. Government has also not ensured that the rules we have changed and are to get are, are, but the internal concoctions of CASA staff and have not ensured they are genuinely international best practice. Why should'nt we have just introduce basicICAO rules or simply adopted Canada's or New Zealands rules if we are not completly happy with some facets of the FAA's FAR's. There is no reason why any of those established rules sets could have been mixed and matched. It is also the responsibility of Government to ensure that as a matter of economic and transport policy competition should be fostered and facilitated in the area of air traffic services.
This maladministration continues into the areas of Air Traffic Services, RFFS but also results in the aviation industry being burdened with a safety regulator that has failed to progress or remove rules that hindered the development and operation of industy in Australia, thus it has resulted in a crippled Australian aeronautical manufacturing industry reliant on bit piece work from overseas manufacturers and the loss of engineering and design innovation to the point it no longer exists. The last innovative firm Gippsland Aeronuatics is now in the hands of a foreign owner.
The broader picture for aviation is very mixed indeed. Small aircraft transport and to a significant degree, recreational aviation and travel is in terminal decline. Flight training is not insignicant nor is the growth in medium to large capacity airlines and demand for these aircraft and pilots very strong from Asia and particularly China, however, the training process is shifting more to simulator based learning and traing and thus there is a diminished reliance on 'training aircraft' to train pilots. Australia has no entre or presence in this 'booming market' in any real sense.
The cost of fuel will continue to increase. It is simply a matter of demand and the gradual withdrawal from the market of supply once exported, to satisfy domestic demand in the oil producing countries. World production has plateaued. Only very efficient operators with low costs can manage in such a malign cost environment.
These are all significant negative factors.
Back however to Mr Dick Smith's points and general argument, which I support fully, and I would agree that it is; until the job of rule and competive reform is finished and quickly the industry will not be able to withstand nor has it little prospect of surviving the impact of global events nor have any hope of being able to see and take advantage of whatever opportunities in technology and services and air transport to ensure it's long term survival, may arise.
The rule rewrite must be removed from CASA and directed by Government from elsewhere. This must be done without any further delay and be completed within six months. Asking CASA to do the rule changes is like asking an alcoholic to give up drinking - more hope than prospect of change and reform.