Vaile announces Dick Smith in new Task Force members.

[Bob Murphie]

Welcome back Dick.
Just announced: In what can only be described as NOT a "back room deal", Mark Vaile has come through with something that will put the Regulatory Reform process in ALL the aviation spectrum, back on track.
http://www.markvaile.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=832

[Creampuff]

Oh Dick, I can't believe you fell for the 'keep him quiet until the election' trick again!

Such naivety in one so experienced.

That 'task force' is going to have to make some important recommendations with respect to the regulatory reform dog's breakfast. I reckon your first action item will be to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when you plan to have the recommendations to the minister.

[gaunty]

Bob Murphie

The obvious question from this is on whose track??

[Bob Murphie]

Regulatory reform is a "dog's breakfast. It has no focus, has been derailed, has gone from wide to narrow gauge, and will certainly drag on forever. Anything that may impinge on the status quo is welcome, if only to get on with things. I can't believe there is an "agenda". It would appear that the whole aviation spectrum is covered.

[CaptainMidnight]

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon Mark Vaile MP, has established an industry taskforce to assist him and the CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Bruce Byron AO, set key directions and priorities for aviation regulatory reform for the next 5 years. and The Group will work closely with the aviation industry and provide advice to me on matters including:

• the best practice safety regulatory model for Australia;
• priorities for the Government’s future regulatory reform programme, including the development of the timetable prioritising regulatory reforms and key performance measures;
• the consultation arrangements between the Government’s aviation agencies and the industry; and
• the change management and education and training requirements in implementing regulatory changes. Hmm - nothing about airspace reform there :)

[gaunty]

CaptainMidnight

The Group will work closely with the aviation industry quite so, but on the evidence so far with one exception. I'm yet to be convinced that we wont once again have the usual one way discussion.

Bob Murphie

Cynical old me is agreeing with me old friend Creamie

My other serious concern is whether "the Group" or individual members of it feel that they can second guess or run CASA defacto. Bruce has a big enough internal rebuilding job on his hands without having to make decisions on the basis of who has the loudest voice on the committee. I have a very bad feeling of deja vu about this. Must go get that Groundhog Day movie out for Easter Friday.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Nothing about airspace change, Midnight?

the change management and education and training requirements in implementing regulatory changes.

You sure?

[Air Ace]

"Regulatory reform is a "dog's breakfast. It has no focus, has been derailed, has gone from wide to narrow gauge, and will certainly drag on forever. Anything that may impinge on the status quo is welcome, if only to get on with things. I can't believe there is an "agenda". It would appear that the whole aviation spectrum is covered."
And that of course, is the optimistic view. You should hear the pessimists! :}

Dick, you were only 44 when the "regulatory reform" process commenced in 1988. If you are going to see this one out, I trust you are planning on a very, very long life indeed!

[GORN ROUND]

Hi Dick,

Is it true that during your speech as the newly appointed head of CASA some years ago, that you told the world that you wanted to be known as a hands on manager?

How is the Wine Bar at Gundaroo going?

[Lodown]

The Group will work closely with the aviation industry and provide advice to me on matters including:
• the best practice safety regulatory model for Australia;
• priorities for the Government’s future regulatory reform programme, including the development of the timetable prioritising regulatory reforms and key performance measures;
• the consultation arrangements between the Government’s aviation agencies and the industry; and
• the change management and education and training requirements in implementing regulatory changes.
We're all a bunch of cynics. So the tasks are:
1. find a suitable overseas model to copy
2. make a list of the recommended rules that should be worked on first and then put together some advisory measures that another anointed group might use if/when they feel so inclined after receiving additional ministerial approval to proceed with actually working towards changing these rules
3. present a list of who to speak with, why and what might be achieved from it, which will cover off the entire aviation industry in 1000 words or more, followed by a sublist of how another "ministerially appointed research group" might go about gathering their research if ever tasked with doing so
4. make one more list of who to involve and then slap a timeline together including a sublist of who to educate with a best guess of when this might possibly take place and then include a subsublist of what they'll need to be educated on and how they'll be educated without actually knowing what they need to be educated on
Is there anything about doing some regulatory reforms? No! Just another chain pulling exercise to get through the election. Brilliant!

[Crosshair]

Can someone please explain the anti-Dick Smith sentiment that seems common on these forums?

It would seem that having a voice for GA on various government advisory panels would be helpful.

Just the fact that Dick participates in these forums seems like a good thing to me. You don't see a lot of other government advisors here, speaking openly. And it would be easy for the government to appoint some sort of puppet to "represent" GA and in fact sit quietly while the moneyed interests had their way.

This is not a windup. I am new to the region and really don't know why the guy is so unpopular. Or maybe it's just his detractors who are vocal.

[squawk6969]

Crosshair

Not sure where you are from, but in te land downunder we are a fairly harsh lot, but at the same time can be your best mate. I bet most of those who give Dick a big spray here would actually sit around with a few coldies and chew the fat with Dick if given the chance.

In fairness I think overall his contribution to aviation is great, many can benefit from his experience in not just flying. Unfortunately there will be imes in any democratic process where some will get a little wound up and start being negative and just plain rude and ignorant. Others will debate various things and often ther is some common ground.

I think flying aircraft, and airspace systems are far less complex that human nature in debate. So hence what you see here.

I can't say I am on his dinner party list, but having spoken with him on a few occasions over the years I think he is a pretty good bloke, and until someone else gets up of their butt and does some speeking for GA it will have no voice at all.

Now I bet even this post will cop some flak, just watch, although now I mention it it may be left well alone. Some on here love to take a swipe:ouch: with their identity concealed.:=

SQ6869

[peuce]

SQ6869

I'm not gunna leave you alone.

I agree with a lot that you said. Dick has achieved a lot in his lifetime, more than I ever will.

However, in the Aviation Regulatory(especially aispace) context he has achieved little support ... and only for 1 reason ... he does not acknowledge his democratic responsibilities.

That is, it's Dick's way or the highway.

No matter how many ATC or Pilot professionals urge a certain course of action, if it's not on his agenda ... it's, more than often, written off as "fundamentalist" rubbish.

[Diatryma]

Hi Dick,

Just thought you might like to take some advice from the bottom of my desktop calendar:

'I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure - which is: try to please everybody.

Herbert Bayard Swope."

I'm sure you already knew this though. :ok:

Di

[triadic]

If one casts one's memory back to the CASA FLOT conference in SYD in March 2003 one of the statements that came from the summary was that the greatest hazard to flight safety in Australia was/is the Attorneys Generals Department.

The reason for this was because they (AG's) set the format and the standard in the ways the regs/rules/Acts were written. This often means changing the wording to legal gobblegook to keep it compliant with their policy/s. Not much good for the aviator tho' !

Both Toller and Byron were in the front row when this was presented and I don't recall Byrons reaction, but Toller was clapping !!

The gist behind it was that in aviation, perhaps more so than almost any other regulated activity we work with our face in the regs etc. It does no good at all to read almost between every para what sort of offence you are breaching if you don't abide and what the fine/penalty is. The end result is that in many instances the documents are not used.

The Conference was good, but I don't see any of the recommendations from it in place as yet.... now I wonder why that is ? Politics and Culture I would guess (?).

Perhaps this task force might seek a review of the recommendations and comments that came from that Conference. It certainly had many of the key industry players in attendance including all the Major Airlines and I don't think much has changed since!

No point in making a new wheel if there is one already there !!

Good Luck
:ugh: :ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

It would seem that having a voice for GA on various government advisory panels would be helpful.


Let's see:

• Championed User Pays and privatisation, causing untold headaches for GA at our regional airports;
• Championed Regulatory Reform, now causing untold headaches for everybody and costing millions as CASA gets sidetracked from doing it's real job of protecting the flying public;
• Championed (and forced upon us with political help) airspace "reform", endangering the lives of hundreds of RPT passengers and other airspace users with E airspace and airspace trials as the rules changed virtually continuously over the last 15 years;
• Wrecked CASA by turning the board and staff on their heads, forcing out good people in their droves.

Yes, lets have a voice...

[gaunty]

Bloggs :D

And of course the boon of location specific charging? :ugh:

And then there was leading an attempted coup of the leading advocacy organisation supporting the aero clubs in Australia. :ugh:

Yup lets hear it for GA.:D

triadic spot on as ever:ok: but I think Byrons actions recently in regard to the reform process supports your thesis.

Personal opinion only but with the exception of the DOTARS old hand, Brindabella person and the consultant, the makeup of this Group is likely to create more of a problem than provide any solution.

[whogivesa????]

The Group will work closely with the aviation industry...
call me cynical, but this phrase has beeen used and abused in the past!



the best practice safety regulatory model for Australia
ie cheapest for GA?

the consultation arrangements between the Government’s aviation agencies and the industry
ie... who will you vote for ??

the consultation arrangements between the Government’s aviation agencies and the industry
ie: we've listened to what you have to say, but OUR way will make us more money!(user pays, and pays and pays!)

Believe it or not, I am not a Dick supporter, nor a Dick detractor!!!
I think that IF someone has a good idea on how to improve safety AND cut costs, then go for it!!!----IF it is practacal, workable, feasable, economical !!

IO also think that CONSULTATION means talking with the people that fly inn the airspace everyday! not just the PPL who visists a CTAF(R) once a month. not JUST the CITATION pilot who strolls into an aerodrome once evey 3 months, blithely unaware of who or whast he/SHE has disrupted in the mesntime.

DICK... I do not know you either personally OR professionally. I have read what people have to say about you, and I have also keenly followed your exploits. I as yet have reserved my opinion on you.I beg of you... PLEASE PLEASE listen to what EXPERIENCED people have to say. LISTEN to the people who fly in this airspace regurlarly. Encourage the "weekend warrior" to have hteir say. OPEN the line of discussion!!!!! do NOT just adopt the cheapest/US/easiest option.

As I said before - I neither know you either professionally or personally. I have not met you, and I have not flown with you or near you to the best of my knowledge.I have NO hidden agenda (agendum!). All I want is to be able to fly safely, happily and cheaply (ie get paid a days pay for a days work, without the boss trying to scew me over due nav charges etc)... ie PROFESSIONALLY!!. to be able to go home to my girlfriend at the end of the day and say "I had a wonderful day. Every where iwent it was SAFE. I flew LEGALLY, and economically. I feel like a professional. I get PAID as a professional, and I look forward to going to work tomorrow."


that is all I want.

[Crosshair]

Aha, okay. I'll read about the things CptBloggs listed.

Anyway, moving ahead constructively, here are things I'd like the committee/regulators to consider:

- PROTECTION of airport quality...I'm not sure what to call this issue, but Bankstown Airport is a prime example that's been discussed here plenty. It's an *aerodrome*, not a supply of land to be sold. The loss of runway 36/18 there was symbolic. I never used it, but I liked having it there in case I needed it. The new Toll hangar there, close to the runway complex is another example.

- PROMOTION of aviation, as a basis for business and as an important aspect of our culture, if that makes any sense.

What I mean is, flying clubs seem to comprise two types of members: Old people who learned to fly in the 1960s and 1970s and fly privately because they love it, and under-30s who want to make a career out of being a pilot (granted, they often love it, too, but wouldn't be there if someone else weren't paying, or going to be paying).

The Australian public, as represented by its government, seems to regard GA as the domain of the wealthy. Class-divided Australia likes nothing better than to punish the wealthy, and so GA (once quite accessible) has been regulated to the point where it really is incredibly expensive.

It's unfortunate because flying small aircraft promotes all sorts of good skills and qualities, and more young people should be into it.

- PROMOTION of innovation in aviation. We have some great equipment manufacturers down here. Let's promote them domestically and overseas. Where are the proposals for commercial space facilities in the Outback? I hope that doesn't sound silly -- but if a company in New Mexico can profitably build a spaceport, why can't someone here? Imagine the vacation packages -- fly Virgin from Europe or the States to the Virgin Spaceport in the Centre somewhere, see Australia as part of your big adventure, pay a premium for it...I am rambling. But why not?

Maybe we can continue this thread with positive suggestions for the task force to consider.

[gaunty]

This is where it gets complicated.:\

The problems with GA (anything not RPT) has little if anything to do with the speed of Regulatory reform, compliance costs or imagined Airservices rapacity.
As a percentage of real costs they are better than they have ever been.

Even if you could today "magic" the reform process complete and private ops exempt from Airservices charges, the problem would remain.

The answer lies within the industry itself, some of it "gets it", there is till a large rump that either wont nor cant.

[Dick Smith]

Triadic, you state:

The Conference was good, but I don't see any of the recommendations from it in place as yet.... now I wonder why that is ? Could it be that there isn’t a person around who would be hands on in pushing for reform? You will find that just about every good idea has someone opposed to it – and if you don’t want to offend anyone, you then don’t do anything.

I find it fascinating that I often meet professional pilots and air traffic controllers who claim that they support 80% of what I support. This gives me a great opportunity for reform, because even if I could get 50% of what I believe to be necessary, it would be great.

However there is a problem. When I ask each individual what the 20% is that he or she does not agree with, it is always a different 20% to that disagreed with by others. This means of course that if you do any reform, you are always bound to offend somebody!

The main reason we have had virtually no reform is that people love to achieve consensus, and if they can’t achieve consensus they do nothing. This is not much good for the future of aviation in Australia.

Capn Bloggs, when referring to me you state that I:

Championed User Pays and privatisation, causing untold headaches for GA at our regional airports This is a distortion. I did not get involved in the aviation process until after the Labor Government decided to introduce “User Pays and privatisation” – as you claim it to be. After this decision was made, and after it was obvious that the opposition or the democrats would not support a reversal, I made it clear that it would be better to concentrate on removing unnecessary costs.

Yes, I know that you would probably prefer to have the old duplicated flight service system back, as well as operational control being performed by the Government – with an extra total of 1,000 or so staff, and $100 million per year costs. However that would have meant our industry would have had another $1.4 billion in total costs over the last 14 years - obviously a disaster.

In relation to “privatisation” you are referring to the fact that I would like to see the fire fighting service and towers open up to competition as they are in the USA. Well, that is correct. At the present time a charter company can pay up to 100% additional cost per tonne landed for fire fighting and tower charges at Cairns than they would if operating at Sydney. This is grossly unfair – especially when there are air traffic controllers who would like to operate the Cairns approach and tower at a far lower cost. There are also firies who are interested in running fire fighting services at Australian airports at up to a 50% reduction – i.e. without the huge Airservices Canberra overheads.

If the USA, Canada, the UK and New Zealand can have competition and local ownership with such services, why can’t we?

[GORN ROUND]

Is it possible to land a Cessna Citation on a runway that is 400m shorter than the required landing distance?

Or is it just stupidity to even try?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

400m shorter than the required landing distance

Must be a gate guard by now if that was the case.

GR, what are you smoking because my wife could rrrrealy use some of that?

EDIT- Dick, as a member of the taskforce. Could you see your way clear to suggest re-introduction of VFG with amendments for SPL and above?