I could, Dick but it's pretty lengthy..
"Dear Minister,
There are a number of matters that are presently of great concern to us, and I beg your indulgence while I bring them to your attention.
I was appalled recently when discussing the examinations process with a very senior member of the section writing the rules to hear him say, to my horror, in response to my plea that the system be more simplified like that in the United States: "you wouldn't want anything that easy out here would you"?
Minister, that IS what I want! Flying a Cessna 172 between two properties in the Outback is not rocket science: There is little reason to be required to know the difference between stoichiometric ratio and the saturated adiabatic lapse rate to safely perform this task. CASA just loves hurdles, (such as AOC's for example) and I believe that our examination system is more in the nature of a hurdle than performing any useful task.
Our exams system has been put in the hands of a monopolistic private body, and one operating for profit. Any person wishing to become a pilot pays its rates, which are many times those applicable tin the United States. This is a dreadful state of affairs. Who in CASA authorised this? Were tenders called? It is surely appalling that the pilot licence exams should have been gifted to a monopolistic private body, operating purely for profit, which has resulted in the exclusion of all flying training organisations from supervising commercial and ATPL exams.
The exorbitant rates charged are mandatory - the hopeful pilot has no choices available. Even the private pilot is forced into this uncompetitive system, where price-fixing is irrelevant, because there is untrammelled authority in the monopoly to set whatever rates it chooses.
What is wrong with the many highly-qualified training organisations throughout Australia having the right to compete with the private provider, as occurs in the rest of the commercial world?
On another note, I understand that your department proposes to allow councils to redevelop ex-Commonwealth airfields given them under the ALOP scheme some years ago, (accompanied by a grant as I remember) into non-aviation activities.
This would be a sad day for aviation. One only has to observe the residential development permitted under the arrival and departure ends of runways to see how irresponsible some councils can be in aviation matters. Many councils are very responsible, but each airport would require only one anti-aviation or even corrupt council to see that airport turned into windfall profits at the expense of aviation, and so be lost forever.
Developers are always lurking, and their power is great. Councils must not have such temptations put their way.
AOPA suggests that where councils wish to reduce the burden they claim the airport is to them, (and in my opinion it is the inefficient way that councils administer the airport that is often the problem,) local aviation bodies should be asked for expressions of interest to run the airport for the benefit of aviation.
I emphasise that I'm not asking for them to be privatised. AOPA would be happy to work with your Department to achieve and administer such a scheme. Anything would be better than thrusting the possibility of windfall profits under the nose of some councils."
................................
That is only a small part of Bill Pike's letter. I'm getting sore fingers typing it. And thirsty. But, Dick if you are prepared to send me a slab of Coopers Pale Ale, then I'll provide the rest...