View Full Version : Now is your chance to remove unnecessary rules and costs/VOR airspace thread merged

Dick Smith
14th Jun 2007, 23:49
I have so far attended two meetings of the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce set up by Minister Mark Vaile. I believe there will be some very positive changes to assist aviation.

It is obvious to me that after many years of not really getting anywhere, in the last 18 months the people at CASA are focusing more on Government policy in relation to rule writing – that is, to only be prescriptive where required, harmonising internationally wherever possible, and ruthlessly removing any rule which adds to cost without effectively adding to safety.

In relation to this last point, I have been asking people of requirements in Australia which add to costs compared to requirements in other leading aviation countries. I ask one of the Moderators to “sticky” this thread so we can get a list of such items from anyone who is interested.

I will start off with a few here, and I look forward to dozens (if not hundreds) more.

Simply by listing these additional costly requirements does not mean that CASA will necessarily follow what happens (and is proven) overseas. In some situations – but not many – our conditions are different here in Australia. However if the differences can be brought forward, at least the people who have the responsibility in relation to regulatory reform can look at the issues.

I start as follows.

1. The requirement in Australia not to fly above 10,000 feet without oxygen. In the USA it is 12,500 feet for continuous flight and up to 14,000 for 30 minutes. A rough calculation shows that over $1 million per year could be saved in fuel costs alone if we harmonise with this requirement. And of course often the aircraft could be above the inversion layer flying in smooth air.

2. The requirement in Australia that if a pilot is to perform a straight-in approach it must be at least a 5 mile final. Imagine the time that is wasted by a farmer landing on his grass paddock or a cropduster wanting to do a straight-in approach. This is a unique Australian requirement – probably designed for 747s, but hardly necessary for the Piper Cubs and Cherokees which it applies to. A lot of fuel will be saved if this is harmonised internationally.

3. The requirement that flight instructors must operate under an AOC. In the USA, most flying training is by highly experienced instructors – quite often older, more mature pilots – who operate independently without the high cost of an AOC.

4. The unique Australian ADs, including AD/GEN/37, which requires the emergency exit of an aircraft such as a Citation to be operated and inspected every 6 months. Under the FAA requirements it is once every 3 years. This means the Australian cost is 6 times greater, possibly without any measurable increase in safety. There are many other costly ADs like this – such as AD/INST/9, which requires instruments to be removed from the panel every 3 years to be tested accurate. However many modern LCD indicators cannot be tested unless they go back to the factory – costing a small fortune (if indeed it is to be complied with).

These are just 4 examples. I look forward to others. I will compile a list of everything that is posted and send it off to the people who are developing the standards in CASA.

Condition lever
15th Jun 2007, 00:46

1. Just because they do it in the US does not make it better or safer. The US has far higher terrain and as such MSAs - in some cases necessitating flight above A100 - we don't. The physiological aspects of operating for extended periods with a cabin alt of over A100 must be considered and IMHO not worth the increase in risk in Australia.

2. It is my understanding that the requirement for rejoin via a 5nm final is for licenced airfields only and therefore your example of a farmer & paddock or a crop-duster (unless it is at a licenced field) is erroneous. Given the frequency of most recreational pilots flying I would think it prudent to maintain this requirement so as to facilitate identification of all circuit traffic especially now that you have allowed non-radio equipped aircraft to operate.

Perhaps you might look at how CASA can justify charging $130 (soon to become $75) to process medical licences for those without restrictions ie. no thinking required. Even at $75 this is ridiculously expensive.

15th Jun 2007, 01:45
Cessna 400 series spar cap inspection. Why is Australia the only country in the world requiring Cessna 400 series aircraft to go through a spar cap inspection and replacement each 8,500 hours, at a cost of $50,000 to $100,000?

The Aero Commander 500S was certified in Australia at < 10% above it's FAA Manufacturer approved Maximum Take Off Weight. Why is this aircraft permitted to operate in Australia on commercial passenger operations at weights at which it can not achieve minimum performance requirements?

15th Jun 2007, 02:19
There is a need for an air taxi category to be introduced. Low capacity RPT is dying. It is not viable to operate 9 seats to RPT in the bush.

Capn Bloggs
15th Jun 2007, 02:20
I've got one. Get rid of the useless non-radar E airspace band between 185 and 245. It prevents IFR aircraft from using block levels, thereby wasting fuel, discomforting passengers and preventing crews from easily finding smooth air to operate at the most economical speeds, all because of the VERY FEW Australian-registered VFR aircraft that are legally permitted to fly above FL200 and whose pilots are selfish enough to want to put themselves ahead of thousands of other airspace users.

probably designed for 747s, but hardly necessary for the Piper Cubs and Cherokees
There you go, living in your own vacuum again. Have you ever thought of the poor 737 crew trying to spot a bugsmasher joining a 1nm oblique final under their nose? I didn't think so. If you want to remove the rule for your paddock, then that's fine. Just make sure that's all that's changed. Aviation is getting dangerous enough without a free-for-all in the CCT.

15th Jun 2007, 03:00
What barra21 said. Re-introduce low capacity RPT operations similar to the previous ANR203 Exemption for aircraft less than 5,700 kg, maximum nine seats.

And why are AOCs not perpetually valid (until suspended or canceled) as was the case in previous years?

15th Jun 2007, 03:19
Dick, I agree with your third point. The US CFI system would be a benefit for Grade 1 qualified instructors.

My personal hate is the blunderbus approach for issue of ASIC. Surely there has to be something that could reduce the footprint of sterile areas to only those areas used by RPT. BDV with the same security req as BN is a joke. Surely a trigger would be a Dash8 service as a minimum and only then for an hour either side of ops and only within a confined area in front of that terminal.

Tell the Government to control its tenants wrt leases of GA airports.

Tell real estate hungry councils and developers that an aerodrome is for the exclusive use of aeroplanes and ancillary services. Aeroplanes will make noise around these aerodromes that non-aviation savy people will find offensive. Footprint maps must be included in all transactions over the sale of properties within an exposure area of these aerodromes to ensure that NIMBY groups (normally consisting of one owner making a lot of noise) are fully aware of what they are living next to.

Tell state governments to change their laws that allow mates to charge for the use of airspace above their airports. Unless an aid is bought and payed for by the owner of said airport, they should not have rights to charge for commonwealth owned and operated property.

Tell the Government to seriously look at the feasability of providing a WAAS capable signal from the Japanese MSAT to be beamed over the entire continent and surrounding oceans within the economic zone. This will be of more benefit to the wider community than just aviation. Travel/Tourism, transport, survey industry, shipping, customs, recreational sports,...a lot more people than you would expect. For us it gives a better outcome for regional and remote aerodromes to have a safe and viable option for vertical guided approaches that will not be available from ground based augmentation systems that are currently being promoted.

No one is asking for a subsidy. Aviation is an important piece of infrastructure that just simply falls off the radar when it gets outside the J curve from CNS to AD with a bit out in PH. A community aerodrome is just as important as a bitumen road. The only time it gets noticed is when someone has to move in a hurry, or medical emergencies and natural disasters.

Dick Smith
15th Jun 2007, 04:00
Condition lever, I knew this had to happen. I have never said that something is better or safer in the USA, I’ve just said that if we have higher costs, our industry will be destroyed – and that is happening.

1. If there was an increase in risk in operating above 10,000 feet without oxygen, this should surely be reflected in the US accident rate – however it is not. If you look at the GA accident rate in the USA there is no measurable difference to our accident rate - even though they have months of snow and ice, huge high mountain ranges and 15 times the amount of traffic.

You state it is:

IMHO not worth the increase in risk in Australia. Can you advise what information you have that there is a measurable increase in risk?

Also, do you think it is sensible for a pilot and passengers to be bashing around in the most incredible turbulence at 10,000 feet when they could be at 11,000 or 12,000 feet in smooth air? I certainly don’t.

2. Your understanding in relation to the 5 nautical mile final only being required at licensed airfields is wrong. The requirement is for all landings. This means that my example is not erroneous.

Once again, you are resisting change. Everything must remain the same, nothing must ever change. Then we will all be comfortable – won’t we?

15th Jun 2007, 04:04
The requirement that flight instructors must operate under an AOC. In the USA, most flying training is by highly experienced instructors – quite often older, more mature pilots – who operate independently without the high cost of an AOC.
I'm not sure that "most" flying training in the USA is by independent instructors and the downside is the higher number of hours that the FAA requires for their students compared to those of an approved school. Still, it seems to work well with "older, more mature pilots" called upon as FAA Safety Counsellors and involved in their WINGS programs etc.
Merging the bottom end of GA with RAA type ops would seem to be part of the answer.

On the hardware side:
There's a requirement for an "export airworthiness approval" per section 7.1 http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c22.pdf
Some relaxation of this should be considered. A part from the USA with a PMA comes with a release certificate from the manufacturer. If I order a part for my aeroplane I also need a Form 8130.
One example at B&C (http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?20X358218)- an oil filter adaptor for uncertified aircraft sells for $395. I don't have a problem in them recovering the extra costs for the PMA'd one at $450 (exactly same part, they just ask whether you want the extra bit of paper when it is delivered). I have a problem when they say it is for Australia so needs yet another bit of paper and the extra cost just pays for some-one to visit their factory and sign it - for an extra $100.

Dick Smith
15th Jun 2007, 04:21
Keep them coming! This is really important. In relation to the ASIC, my friends who fly a Falcon 10 in the USA do not have ASICs – they are not required.

What about this one? In Australia a student pilot needs to get an ASIC, with all of the costs and delays involved. In the USA there is no such requirement – and remember the US is the home of September 11 – the instructor simply has to check that the pilot is an American citizen by looking at a birth certificate or passport.

Djpil, you say:

I'm not sure that "most" flying training in the USA is by independent instructors I can assure you that the latest statistics show that over 60% of training in the USA is performed by instructors who are independent of a flying school which would hold the equivalent of an AOC in Australia. That’s a good idea too, but direct training by an instructor would have great advantages in reducing costs here in Australia – especially in our more remote country towns.

As I said, keep them coming.

Chronic Snoozer
15th Jun 2007, 06:30
How about a rule that allows you to write off an aircraft purchase in 3 years? That would kick start the industry.

Chimbu chuckles
15th Jun 2007, 08:23
I don't know that the Oz v US O2 rule is that big an issue in an urgent regulatory sense.

Things that do need fixing urgently...in no set order,

* Medical fees: Take it out of CASA's hands and put it in the DAME's..period.

* ASICs: Pure unadulterated stupidity of Pythonesque proportions...particularly as it effects student pilots but also airports that are effected...Toowoomba as just one example...Grafton another...there are LOTS more:ugh: They should ONLY be a requirement at capital city airports such as SY,ML,CB etc.

* Pilot training: There needs to be a way to facilitate experienced pilots who want to 'put something back'. Pilots with a background in training outside of the ab initio/flying school system but that have a great deal of training and checking experience within the broader regulatory framework. The US model is a good one in this respect.

* The ATO system: It needs modifying so schools cannot pick and choose 'easy' ATOs that pass just about anyone...yes it happens:rolleyes:

* Airspace: KISS. I would suggest back to the old CTA/OCA system. Rather than CTAF frequencies simply have all aerodromes operating on a (published on charts etc) area fequency basis with a very few basic mandatory radio calls. CTA would have few classifications...Class C (or B if deemed appropriate at somewhere like SY) and Class D at places like Coffs/BK/MC etc...Class D could be further broken down into 'Radar' D and 'Procedural' D (essentially what GAAP is) if required. Everything else is G with RIS within radar/ads-b coverage.

* User pays: It must be recognised that 'the system' exists only because of the 'big end of town'. I have posted this analogy before...imagine the system the day after every hi cap domestic/international RPT aircraft was grounded and then imagine it the day after every private GA/charter aircraft was grounded. Having recognised that the system requirements are purely driven by hi capacity operators recognise also that GA already contributes more than it costs via sundry indirect taxes, GST etc. As it stands we are being double taxed in many areas by paying GST on top of govt 'fees' for service...this is an obscenity.:ugh:

Chimbu chuckles
15th Jun 2007, 08:58
* CASA/AsA/BASI. Put them back together, slim the resultant regulatory body down ENORMOUSLY and recognise the fact that it should NEVER have been 'corporatised' in the first place and stop charging for services that federal taxes are paid for, essential national infrastructure. Imagine the political backlash against any state govt that corporatised the Department of Main Roads or Maritime Services Board..aviation is essentially no different:ugh:

* Fascilitate WAAS as a matter of extreme urgency so that every airport in Australia can have a GPS based version of an ILS with verticle guidance down to Cat 1 minimas. The one thing that would have mitigated the 'worst aircrash' in Australia's history and numerous other fatal accidents. As soon as WAAS is available shut down every NDB in Australia and most of the VORs.

* Fascilitate low level ADS-B.

15th Jun 2007, 09:55
"3) suggest CASA consider looking into the financial viability of a company that holds an AOC, send in appropriately trained accountants on audits."

No, no, no!!! When my accountant hires aircraft, CASA should get into the financial audit business!!! :mad:

CASA tried that - it is far too complex and subjective. On the basis of their debt to equity ratio, neither Qantas nor Virgin would hold an AOC.

Whilst the Act permits CASA to consider other matters in the issue of an AOC, don't give them ideas to re-visit financial viability!!! :sad:

15th Jun 2007, 12:44
Where, where, do we start?


We can but hope that sanity might eventually prevail, but the way the legal profession is driving our industry....I'm not hopeful. But, for the exercise, I'll try a few suggestions in regards to flight training:

(1) Security has become an obstacle to business. Airport 'security' has fenced off our school from public access, and we have lost, and continue to lose, business because of this. Airport owners were panicced into erecting fences willy nilly.....which they now concede are often in the wrong place. ASIC's are required for airports which are 'RPT' for 2 hrs daily - the rest of the time you couldn't find a human being there.

(2) Abolish the AOC system, and allow flight instruction to proceed as per the US model. The result will be flight instruction available to country citizens,on their own airport,at a reasonable price. As mentioned elsewhere - there's a lot of 'retired' instructing talent around Australia - and they could fill the current shortages of instructors. But, they are not about to buy an AOC and be subject to all the hassles.

(3) Appoint more ATO's - the current situation is pathetic. Why should we suffer a 3 month lead for booking a test? If there were enough ATO's - then it would be possible for every PPL test to be done independantly, rather than by the applicants CFI. Standards would improve when the product of each and every flight school is independantly evaluated via such a system. This will do more to lift the 'perceived' lowering of instructional success than any other change.

(4) Allow GA instructors to become RAA instructors subject only to type proficiency - not this silly business of 'you-must-start-at-the-bottom- as at present. The US and UK allow this - why not here?

(5) Allow all aircraft which are LAME maintained to operate in flight training for either GA or RAA....regardless of their registration. They are the same aircraft - just the numbers have changed.

Dick, I realise that we have a deeply conservative 'system' entrenched in Australia. Yes, the air is of a different density, and aircraft do fly 'differently' here.....but, we have to get over these attitudinal aberrations which have become the norm in Canberra.

I sincerely hope that you can represent us there,

happy days,

15th Jun 2007, 12:55
OZBUS - many good points there.
Assuming that training AOC's will stay, why the separate charges to add another light single or twin to the AOC? I note in the new scale of charges about to be introduced that MOST charges are HOURLY RATE - just wait till this kicks in!!
Dick, seeing as how you started this thread, could you distill the consensus periodically into some meaningful list - it seems most of us are on the same track.

compressor stall
15th Jun 2007, 13:16
Lots of good stuff here.

Re max alt without oxygen. I completely agree with the 12500 foot rule. The air is not that mouch different in oz as it is in USA. Not sure we need the 14000' for 30 mins rule (most likely introduced in the US to pop over the Rockies at a good height, then descent).

Straight in approaches - yep, should be allowed everywhere

Instructors without an AOC - bring it on! A great move. Will also allow people who are experienced and passionate about flight instruction to do it.

ASICs for capital city airports only. And not needed for students.

There should be no difference in maintenance standards and pilot experience for RPT and charter. I have the whole aircraft to myself and get it has to meet a lower standard of maintenance?

Define RPT and charter better - none of this shelf company cross hire stuff to get around it all. One rule for all lighties carrying fare paying passengers, whether it's a fixed terminal/schedule or walk in charter to Kiwikurra.

More to come!

Good work Dick, and many here no doubt appreciate the ability to input. But please, may these suggestions please be tabled and put forward on their merits and not bundled up into an airspace agenda.

NB for the medical side of things - yes the $130 is outrageous, but I understand that your Doc is a Delegate of the CASA doc. If s/he did not pick up your heart irregularity and you have a heart attack killing 5 pax, your doc is covered by CASA' coverage. Can you imagine how large the insurance premiums would be for you local aviation doc? Mine said he'd stop doing aviation medicals.

Chimbu chuckles
15th Jun 2007, 13:43
The liability issues are adressed as currently. The issuance of a renewed medical should be solely at the discretion of your DAME in 99% of cases...he tests you, passes you fit (or not) and hits 'print' on his computer and it spits out new medical and sends notification to CASA...CASA database updated automagically and you go on your merry way $130 better off. For renewal of ATPL/CPL the exact same procedure but you provide your employer with copy of renewed medical for their files.

It should be so bloody easy:ugh:

An 'Air Taxi' classification is also an excellent idea. No AOC but with 6 or 12 mthly 'operational audits' that could be carried out by delegated ATOs as part of an increased licence/proficiency check protocol carried out on CPs of air taxi operations...initially 6 mthly and then with proven track record increased to annually and even over time it could be bi annually for really good operators.

It could be a very simple process...it's not like AOCs actually stop anyone breaking rules if they are that way inclined.:hmm:

15th Jun 2007, 13:59
simply have all aerodromes operating on a (published on charts etc) area fequency basis with a very few basic mandatory radio calls

Hear, hear. The amount of extra radio chatter that clutters a circuit nowadays is beyond the pale. Of course, pilots have no choice because it is set in stone in AIP. This superfluous use of radio is the direct result of knee-jerk legal and media attention following a couple of accidents in the circuit area. Unmerciful culling of mandated radio calls is needed if only because a Mayday call may go unheard over the din of such constant gems as "Vacating runway 17". and a few seconds later "Vacated runway 17" plus its various other radio call appendages

15th Jun 2007, 15:50
How about we make the ATPL licence actually mean something ?

ie: why is it that a CPL can fly, say, a Bandeirante with 15 pax on CHARTER, but cannot fly it over the same route RPT as PIC? unless he/she has passed the ATPL criteria ?
BUT... a CPL can fly, say, a B200 /c404 with 9 pax onboard over RPT routtes, and NOT have an ATPL ???

why does passing an outdated exam on b727 flight planning/wt and balance etc. make you more qualified pilot to fly 10+ pax on RPT ???

and WHY does it cost so much to sit an exam ? not just the ATPL's, but CPL/PPL/IREX ?

surely this can be outsourced to flying schools who can keep it inhouse at 1/10th the cost ?

15th Jun 2007, 18:16
Have more than one - preferably lots - of organisations who are approved to conduct exams. Nothing like competition to drop the price imposed under the current monopoly.

Re. Instructing without an AOC: There needs to be some means of quality control over the instructor. The US doesn't just let instructors instruct willy-nilly. The FAA monitors the instructor's pass rate for students s/he recommends for a test.

auto throttle
16th Jun 2007, 00:59
How about reducing the costs involved in importing an aircraft and putting it on the "VH" register. A lot of people including our company don't want to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars just to change it from "N" (US)registered to "VH" registered, especially if it is the first type in Australia. For example, there are about 80 "VH" (non commercial) jets compared to 80,000 "N" registered jets. It would be great to see more modern and safer aircraft operating on Australian AOC's. The aircraft are here, and I'm sure if the costs were reasonable, then some of the aircraft would change their registration and put it on an AOC... I know we would. Operators would also be able to justify the costs in updating all their aircraft, and with todays technology, this would mean more reliable and safer planes...just my two cents worth???

16th Jun 2007, 02:09
ooh danger with the competition for tests. They would not only compete on price but also pass rates. Casa already charges what is $150 to sit an exam why can't they do what are being done by these companies? All they have to do is make the questions and send them out to the flying schools even if they don't send out the answers but take the test back to be marked by a computer or over the net like now.

Also why can't all none passenger charter GA aircraft be RAA registered, or aircraft not belonging to an AOC be RAA. Some of the ultralights nowa days out preform some GA aircraft anyway.

16th Jun 2007, 02:48
A good idea would be to eliminate the silly requirement to have 10 hrs on type on a twin to instruct, even if you have hundreds and hundreds of hrs on a similar type eg BE76 to PA44.

Also allows CFI's to issue student licences so they can go solo when ready, not after CPL NAV 7 when it finally arrives.

16th Jun 2007, 06:04
I don't agree on a free-for-all - letting Instructors teach where, when and who they like.

How about a system that lets said Instructors gain a limited AOC with minimal expense and most of all - LITTLE DELAY!!.

The REAL cost for many small start-ups is the long, long, long time it takes to get an initial issue AOC or an Amendment to an existing AOC. A 6-12 month wait is not uncommon these days!!.

How about a system that allows for a one-man band Grade 1 Instructor become his/her own DAY/VFR/S.E. 'flight school' that teaches in a student's own aircraft by:

1. Establishing a Business Name.
2. Purchase a standardised Operations Manual 'On-Line'.
3. Have a quick interview by web-cam or telephone to save travel time.
4. CASA then emails the AOC in pdf for printing. No need to wait for 2 months while the signatory is away on long service or stress leave.

The process could be done in days - not months.

As suggested already, the quality of the Instructor can be measured by the pass rate. Few passes - No more Limited AOC.

Wind back a couple of decades when I first had an AOC, adding a new type for charter or aerial work did not need expense or approvals.

Also, how about giving a CP or CFI an INITIAL Interview only and not make the poor buggers go through the same process every time they change jobs. Why does one CASA office accept a CFI yet another CASA office knocks the same person back?.

16th Jun 2007, 10:01
Dick, good to see you asking for input.... are the others doing that as well?

Here is my 2c worth for consideration:

1) The regs should be made more user-friendly. Back at the CASA FLOT Conference in ‘03, one of the points that came out was that the greatest hazard to aviation was the Attorney’s Generals Department for the way they required the regs/rules to be drafted etc. Aviation is one activity where those in it, such as pilots etc work with the various regs/Acts etc in their face all the time. If you are learning to drive, you go down the newsagent and buy the rule book that covers all you need to know including pictures ! There is none of that in aviation, tho’ in the USA they have the AIM which most refer to before the FARs. We don’t have an AIM. All we have is a strict liability statement on every other page, making the document most un-user friendly – ugly in fact! Either we need an equivalent to the AIM or some major redrafting of our regs etc to make them more user friendly and readable.

2) Student pilot licences must be able to be issued by a CFI. The existing wait for security serves no useful purpose and certainly does not enhance security when you consider the risk and the cost.

3) Issue of ASICs must be streamlined. The existing system and charge is driving many away from the industry.

4) Independent instructors could be a good thing, but as said previously there must be some way to ensure standardisation.

5) ATOs must not be permitted to test their own students. PPL only with prior approval and certainly not CPL and IR.

6) It was said at an industry conference a few years back in support of increased flying training standards, that “there were approx 400 places in Oz where you could learn to fly, and only 15 or so places where you could train to be a lawyer!”. What that says is that not every flying school should be permitted to teach above PPL/NVFR. Schools that teach CPL/IRR must jump a higher bar. The standards of trainee CPL pilots coming out of the schools over the past few years are in a word poor! A pilot passing a CPL in the last year or so would not have passed a PPL 15 years ago – go figure!!

7) Get the FOIs out of the office and do more tests. The standards only went down when they stopped testing, now many of them are trapped in the office driving paper and not doing what they are trained (!) to do.

8) Aviation has change as its middle name; however that change over the past decade or more has been very poorly managed (if at all?) and certainly in the airspace world not at all managed as a major project with change management experts involved. This must change and all proposals for change, no matter what, must be properly managed accordingly. This must always include risk analysis and appropriate cost / benefit analysis. On-going education must be part of any change and not just for a few months, but for ever if the change is significant. (and, it must be in someone’s budget!!) Every change should have to pass a user-friendly test and one that considers how the change will encourage aviation and not drive it underground.

9) Various tax liability charges changed at the same time as GST was introduced. Prior to that, aircraft parts etc were duty free, now everything is +10% minimum. Aviation and aircraft operators are at a significant disadvantage post this change (and nobody seems to care?).(no votes in Aviation !!)

10) I agree re the write-off of new aircraft over 3 years or so.

11) In order to encourage GA, AirServices should consider not sending out an invoice if the total is less say than $100 per Qtr. This would encourage private GA in particular to fly more, keep current and use ATC airports in lieu of staying away, with perhaps increased risks (?). I am sure the lost revenue as a result would be minimal and the resultant increase in safety would be significant.

I will now go and think of some more.....


17th Jun 2007, 06:36

Why don't you reply to Capn Bloggs post? I think he has hit the nail on the head.

John Eacott
17th Jun 2007, 07:24

Whilst D & G has a tendency to FW, there is an enormous cost to the Australian helicopter industry as a result of our peculiar interpretation of the helicopter >2750kg ruling. Not only is the requirement that all (well, nearly all, your 109E being an exception!) helicopters >2750kg be maintained to Transport Class A regardless of complexity, there is also a doubling of hours required for endorsement training, compared to Class B helicopters.

A severe rationalisation of the training hours required is long overdue, and would save $10's of thousands per year for each helicopter currently >2750kg :ok:

17th Jun 2007, 12:40
My two bobs worth:
Adopt the US regime for IFR recency requirements
Develop some means of reducing the frequency of the issue and updating of approach plates and charts (and reduce the cost)

Charlie Foxtrot India
17th Jun 2007, 14:24
Agree with the points already mentioned:

CFIs to issue Student Pilot Licences

DAMEs to be able to issue immediate initial medicals for student pilots

Remove charges for medical issue and renewal unless they can justify it

Allow flying schools to conduct cyberexams up to CPL level

Minister to enforce the airports act on airport lease holders

Make AOCs perpetual

More independant ATOs and no more in-house flight tests

Reprint the VFR flight guide

Airservices to sort out their billing - it's a mess - earlier this year they tried to charge double for landings following a session of circuits - I hope everyone was checking thier invoices and only paying what is in the standard contract .

Remove the requirement for overseas ICAO licence holders to have to get a certificate of validation - delegate CFIs to approve ICAO licence holders to fly privately here as per other ICAO countries

17th Jun 2007, 22:52
On a broader picture, Australian procedures and regs seem to have (like the marsupials) developed in isolation to the rest of the world. For a country that is flat, has fine weather and is relatively quiet traffic wise, you seem to have made a science out of something that the rest of the world easily achieves. Europe and USA, with far more challenging natural and traffic conditions, achieve better with less fuss and expense and with the same or better level of safety. Why? Casting the thought a little further abroad to those that do a lot more of it on a daily basis is one step in the right direction. However, changing the "we know better" attitude that seems to often permeate through Aus aviation, will be your biggest hurdle. C'mon CASA, as a leader, show some initiative and leadership.

18th Jun 2007, 03:04

In a way, I am surprised that you have to ask this question. Given all that you have said about common sense and the self-evident way ahead with the rules, I would have thought that you (and folks like Leadsled) would have drafted them twice over by now. Why can't you (or Leadsled) simply plonk them on the table and say: 'Minister, sign these and the world of Australian aviation will be a better place.'

The reality is, of course, that there is no easy, clear, self-evident way ahead with aviation safety regulatory rules. If there were, it would have been taken decades ago.

The reality is that all rules are about reconciling irreconcilable differences - if they weren't, they wouldn't need to be made. That fundamental practical problem is exacerbated in Australia by the ever-increasing politicisation of what are supposed to be independent regulators. Most of the issues raised in this thread are about political compromises that have been imposed on aviation, not by CASA, but by broader government decisions in which political interests have been the determining factor. Why else would Australia have its current SPL arrangements, when similar arrangements were not considered necessary, and have not been imposed, in the USA, despite 9/11?

The government's only interest at the moment is to avoid bad headlines in the lead-up to the election. One person capable of generating bad headlines for the government is Dick Smith. That's why you got this gig, and David Hicks has been brought home.

Could you please describe precisely what the 'taskforce' of which you are a member is going to produce, when is it going to be produced, and what is going to be done about what you produce, when and by whom?

Surely you would agree that any body that is created by the government should be transparent and accountable.

Dick Smith
18th Jun 2007, 03:23
Thanks everyone for the really good posts – I understand the “powers that be” at CASA are already reading and taking notes. I will of course prepare a list of the changes which have been mentioned here (in précis form) and post it, as well as sending it to CASA and bringing it forward at the next Taskforce meeting.

In relation to the unique Australian requirements for an ASIC and approval of student pilots, at the next Taskforce meeting we are to have a presentation from the experts in the Department on this issue. I believe they have open minds, and if it can be shown that by harmonising with what they do in the USA money can be saved without any measurable impact on safety, I’m sure that will happen.

Remember, these requirements came in not so long after September 11 when everyone wanted to be ultra-conservative in their decision making. Now that we can look at what the USA and other countries are doing – without any terrorist problems from small planes – we can obviously make better decisions.

I find it fascinating that posters such as Rich-Fine-Green state that we should not follow the US system where an instructor is allowed to teach without an AOC, but believes that there should be some form of “limited AOC with minimal expense.” This adds unnecessarily to costs. Can you imagine if when Mark Vaile signed the Free Trade Agreement with the USA, that we ended up with a situation of a “limited duty” with “minimal expense” which worked against Australian farmers. This would be crazy! It would stop us competing.

Australia competes on the world market for flying training. If our costs are higher we will lose business – that is obvious.

My experience in business shows that the difference between success and failure is a razor’s edge. It is all the small costs which have been listed here which are the difference between a business being successful or not. During discussions, whenever I mention extra costs in Australia – such as VFR aircraft not being able to fly at high levels to save the enroute Airservices IFR charge, I’m told “Dick, that is only a small cost – you should be concentrating on other things.”

Please keep the list coming.

I have another one. In the USA a pilot can get a helicopter instrument rating in a Robinson 22. In Australia, the helicopter needs to be IFR certified – and there are virtually none available. The interesting thing is that the resultant level of safety for helicopter ops is about the same between Australia and America – in effect, all the extra high costs of training in an IFR machine doesn’t give a higher level of safety.

John Eacott
18th Jun 2007, 03:44
I have another one. In the USA a pilot can get a helicopter instrument rating in a Robinson 22. In Australia, the helicopter needs to be IFR certified – and there are virtually none available. The interesting thing is that the resultant level of safety for helicopter ops is about the same between Australia and America – in effect, all the extra high costs of training in an IFR machine doesn’t give a higher level of safety.


One step further: my NVFR BK117 has ILS/VOR/GNSS, etc, which I can use to maintain approach currency.

But I can't use it to do my IR renewal :hmm:

18th Jun 2007, 04:12
Mr Smith

Once again you present us with a dilemma. How to use your undoubtedly high profile and access, to progress Australian aviation in an atmosphere of positive and mutual respect for each others views, usefully, without those same views being "Dick Smithed".

It may or may not be news to you that PPRuNe has been read and discussed by those in the halls of power for way longer than you have been a member. It may or may not be news to you that PPRuNe was, and maybe still is although the jury is out on it for the moment, where those in the halls of power came to find out the "real story", as distinct from an agenda or distorted information that maybe their "advisors" were feeding them.

I need not dilate on the details, they are well known here and there and you were not as often the subject as you may imagine. PPRuNers discriminate equally in so far as loose logic or specious argument is concerned.

Yours has been but one view expressed here, it carries no more nor less weight that any other PPRuNer, anonymous or not. The only weight it does carry is whether it can support a logical and/or factual basis for argument and that opinion is clearly disscociated from fact.

One can only applaud your motivation in offering to present PPRuNers views as a "chance to remove unecessary rules and costs" by your membership of the Ministerial advisory group. My worry is, and the evidence of the past suggests it may be so that apart from the really obvious stuff that has appeared here it that will be your agenda and not the industries which will be ultimately presented.

I digress, back to the dilemma, and I'll be blunt, the very value of PPRuNe is its anonymous nature, the ability of posters to speak plainly, even against accepted employer, Goverment or regulatory positions without fear of retribution. You have not valued that in the past we do not have any evidence that you will present the views from here without personal comment.

You may best advise your fellow members and the Govt et al to continue to do what they have since PPRuNe started get it directly from the horses mouth.

The argument or views presented here do not magically become logical or not when the PPRuNer does or does not identify themselves.

The sun may rise in the west before it happens, but there is a logical argument for you to post anonymously. At least there may be a chance that your arguments or views may get a chance to be assessed without the bagagge, there would be no more or less rigour and yes sometimes dumbosity applied to it but at the least you would find out, like some of the policy and rule changes floated here, whether it would fly or not.

18th Jun 2007, 07:30
Instructors to have a minimum 1000hrs TT
At about $200 per hr, CASA should supply a decent service under "User Pays"
Remove any need for ATPL Theory - or ATPL period

18th Jun 2007, 12:21
CB - How is it physically easier to see an aircraft flying a normal base leg of a full circuit than an aircraft joining an oblique final 1nm from the threshold? :confused:

If the issue is with heavy jet aircraft, don't impose restrictions on operations where heavy jets can't operate. Under the legislation as it stands, an ag pilot flying off an ag strip legally has to either fly three legs of the circuit or join a 5nm final, as does any pilot operating at ANY uncontolled aerodrome in VMC. :ugh:

This is not advocating a free for all in the circuit - currently if you are on a straight in approach you are legally required by CAR 166 to give way to ANY aircraft that is flying a normal circuit (at least three legs). Keep the rule the same, or even give jets priority if that will make you happier .

IMHO appropriate, accurate, concise radio communication is the key to collision avoidance in the terminal area. It is much easier to see an aircraft when you know where it is, and if you can't see it both pilots can positively separate themselves. At any airport that is serviced by jet RPT I believe that either CTAF(R) is in place if not Class D.

Do you want to go back to the "old" days (pre straight in approach) where everyone had to fly three legs of the circuit? :yuk: Back then I heard a regional turbo prop calling "joining downwind" when they were on a 5nm oblique final (a local at the airport said this was standard practice). Even earlier than that at another airport I watched / heard a regional turbo prop come barrelling in on a straight in approach and the aircraft backtracking down the runway had to make a hurried cross country departure from the runway. :eek:


BTW A few months ago a 737 nearly had to fly a full circuit as I was established on a 5nm final and he was no 2 also on a straight in approach. If I'd been able to join at 2nm I would have been 2 minutes further ahead (I was appoaching at about 90 degrees to the runway direction) with no pressure to clear the runway. There were only 2 aircraft within 10nm of the aerodrome at the time (the 737 and myself), and there is normally only around 5 jet movements a day at this aerodrome. (DS condemned this airport (YBPN) as being the most dangerous in Australia a few years ago even though there is very little activity apart from the jet RPT).

18th Jun 2007, 12:44
I find it fascinating that posters such as Rich-Fine-Green state that we should not follow the US system where an instructor is allowed to teach without an AOC, but believes that there should be some form of “limited AOC with minimal expense.” This adds unnecessarily to costs. Can you imagine if when Mark Vaile signed the Free Trade Agreement with the USA, that we ended up with a situation of a “limited duty” with “minimal expense” which worked against Australian farmers. This would be crazy! It would stop us competing.

Read My post again.....:rolleyes:

My point was MORE the real costs with an AOC is the incrediblely long delay.

and No, there should not be a free-for-all. We ALL know of Instructors out there that should not be let off the leash without some kind of check and control. Thankfully, these people are very much in the minority. A free-for-all approach will allow some of the few unemployable Instructors loose without any controls.

Call it an AOC, Training Approval or whatever. A quick and inexpensive way of checking and approving such an Instructor is not unreasonable.

What would be unreasonable and damn expensive is to delay this Instructor.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical as all issues posted here by our fellow ppruners are not new and have been flagged to the different forms of CASA over the decades - including when you held the reins Dick.

Now i'm sure you did your very best during your short stay in CASA. It's not my place to comment or judge what was or wasn't done when you had the chance to make changes.

As much as I would like to hope your Taskforce will actually be taken seriously, there has not been much evidence in the last few decades that Industry opinion is in any way valued by CASA or the Govt. Du Jour. I've lost count of the number of Industry taskforces, Forums and Focus Groups that have been assembled over the years - all without result.

Dick - have you considered that this Taskforce may be a great way of keeping you occupied before an Election?.

Use your talents Man!. A hint of a statement from DS will bring the Journos running.

18th Jun 2007, 14:47
Dick, I was in two minds whether to respond. You charge into a topic like a bull into a china shop, make a big impact, get people fired up with a few key phrases and then turn the tables and expectations by presenting your agenda and publicly claiming to have wide support. Call me cynical, but you appear to be doing it again! You burst in like a white knight and aviation saviour and then proceed to pooh-pooh any suggestion that doesn’t fit with your version of “common-sense”. Reread your post “correcting” Rich-Fine-Green. :=

Forgive me for thinking that you have a purpose in mind for starting this post counter to seeking ideas. I get the feeling that you’re trolling for a couple of good topics that you can hang your hat on to regenerate personal aviation support. In the process, maybe you intend to ditch your image as a Liberal backer and replace it with a preferred image in the current political environment once again as an apolitical crusader for aviation reform and cuddle up to Labor supporters. In the general period of government departmental inactivity preceding and briefly following the next election, maybe I could be pardoned for thinking that you anticipate cementing a new influence and are seeking additional support by starting somewhat conciliatory and emotional topics on Pprune.

The campaigning and political positioning for the next election is well and truly underway. A pox on me for my cynicism. :yuk:

18th Jun 2007, 19:43
1. Immediately introduce WAAS and forget about developing an (Australia only)ADS-B, in other words, stop developing instrumentation and use what the rest of the world uses. If someone wants to obtain a PhD in electronics, let them do it in their own time.

2. Harmonise and standardise what is taught in ab initio training and get rid of this stupid minimalist "outcomes based" or "Competency based" whatever its called CASA syllabus and go back to a traditional approach. One of the reasons I hang around Pprune is to pick up the odd Gem of wisdom that NO ONE has ever mentioned before, and believe me I fly with instructors as often as I can.

Examples include:

(a) Spending $1500 in insurance excess for a C172 firewall after bouncing one very badly because NO ONE had taught me what happens when you get it wrong and land too fast. I "demonstrated competence" on my endorsement without any understanding of what the potential errors were and what their effect would be. I understand that the C172 firewall thing is way too frequent - why?

(b) Doing a CS and Retractable endorsement and NO ONE mentioned the practice of checking manifold pressure and fuel flow as well as RPM and T's and P's on starting your roll. - I picked that up last week here. Anyone care to think how "expensive" that could be?

3. Iimmediately get rid of the requirement that a student needs an ASIC before First Solo and streamline the medical so that a DAME can issue one. Schools have lost students because of the delay.

4. DO NOT under any circumstances allow "accelerated depreciation" or any similar tax breaks for aircraft. If this happens, the tax scheme operators will dive in and rort it very quickly, totally distorting and poisoning the industry. PM me if you want more information as to why and how.

5. Most importantly somehow encourage CASA to adopt a culture of the "90 percent solution" BECAUSE IT IS INFINITELY CHEAPER. That means that if there is a system or practice overseas that meets 90 percent or more of Australias requirements, then CASA and the industry adopts it and WE CHANGE OUR BUSINESS PRACTICES to accomodate the 10 percent difference.STOP DEVELOPING ONE OFF SYSTEMS THAT MEET "100 PERCENT' OF A UNIQUELY AUSTRALIAN REQUIREMENT IMMEDIATELY! .

18th Jun 2007, 23:17
I agree with Huntsman with the 1000 min for instructing.

Also an ATPL has its place but should mean something in GA, Eg. I believe in the states with an ATPL and experience on type you can give an endorsement. Which makes sense, why can't I give an endorsement on a machine I have flown for thousands of hours yet an instructor with bare minimum time on type can.
I think the whole Instructor rating should be revised to enable more experienced pilots to teach, eg I have some flight time under my belt now with over a decade in commercial ops, however some pilot with 300hours total time can teach yet I can't? (I know I'm not perfect but hey I'm still alive with no broken aircraft around me)

I agree with Dick, Non pressurised flight above 10,000 feet should be allowed, I don't know how many times that flying @ 11 or 12 would have saved alot of bumping around for no real reason. It is safe we all know it.

Staight in approaches ARE the best things since sliced bread. I don't mind how a person joins the circuit, all I ask for is for them to TALK and make the right position/intention calls. I had a Kingair almost wipe me out once cause he stuffed up his radio procedures.

I look forward to your summary Dick and would love to help out if I can.

19th Jun 2007, 00:11
I will of course prepare a list of the changes which have been mentioned here (in précis form) and post it, as well as sending it to CASA and bringing it forward at the next Taskforce meeting... fabbie :hmm:
.. perhaps in the interests of openness and transparency, you might in turn post the correspondence and minutes here … all of it!
... does anyone really think the incumbents are gunna change tack on entrenched policies and priorities? .. sure …. if we believe pigs might fly unassisted to the moon .. cause it's made of swill don't you know!
.… 11 years of what exactly?
... the preceding discussion points are a good road map.. who is gunna run with it though? … would the other mob seriously look at these policy options ? .. depends if they have any cognitive ability or not (funny the people we happen across when travelling in commercial aircraft .. another story)!
... it/we might be a comparatively small (people numbers) industry … there are however a huge number of folks who are within ear shot of those comparatively small number of aviation people, not to mention the huge percentage of the population that have a direct interest in a safe, efficient and effective industry (powered hang gliders through to A380’s) ….. all in all a very significant mass!
… kind of sickly ironic that the PM would dare to ask of us ….
‘…. who do you trust … WHO … do YOU trust’?
... in aviation terms ….. 11 years of 'trust' delivered what exactly?
.… I know who I do not trust!
... this discussion is important only in context of the issues being picked up by those who may have a 'real' interest in looking for effective change policies (minus the tired, old and faulty baggage of the past)!
.. is that you?
.. from your past involvement (including your penchant for accusing others when the predictable occurs) ... sorry ... I don't buy it!
regarding CTA
.. you had the opportunity just recently …. did you take it up? …. No, just wheeled out the fishing buddy to make spurious statements about supposed ‘restrictiveness’ of our airspace … yes very appropriate! :ugh:
.. out of curiosity, which side do you recommend come Oct/Nov? ..who do you suggest will best look after the future stewardship of this most important industry?.
.. pigs might indeed fly!
... remember your support for that esteemed former minister leading up to the last election .. have you the same view of the current? .. who comes after him? ... Shrek or any of the other 25Wer’s on that bench? … maybe the Arch Bishop of the Northern burb's or Bishop Bronnie ... just the ticket for the next DoTaRS guru !! … you live near their electorate/s don’t ya … would made for easy gatherings at the OK corral! (.. just don’t get em started on stem cells though).:ugh:
.. a ridiculously impossible suggestion I hear you squeal? .... just as ridiculously impossible as the actual distance between reality and the utopian tenor of the thread … one could park Olympus Mons in that gap! :suspect:
an example If I actually knew who VOR was (especially in relation to the comments on Class E airspace) I would be doing everything I could to make this person or people succeed. .. the 'content' not the person/s is what needs to succeed.
IMHO .. if positive change is to occur, it will be in spite of your influence, not because of it! …. so keep at it!
For the interested cryptics amongst us:-
.. some may have noticed the absence of … well … the genuinely, altruistically minded amongst us who are unfortunate enough to be employed by Canberra!
.. there is a lot at stake at the moment .. trust is almost non-existent. The problem always was (and still is) the infected heads of the serpent! .. those obscenely paid 3 piece puppets .. the bazaar lap living pets of those equally bazaar, favour orientated political vandals whose self serving priorities are unsurprisingly aligned with the very ideals that require suppressing of considered dissent ...!
nup, attempting an ambush, raising security of tenure etc was a very very stupid thing to do! ... I am reminded of that famous Monty Python movie ... ye may think that hacking off arms and legs will do the trick .... wrong they are!
.. we will continue to expose and expurgate any attempts to pervert proper processes! Expect very little oratory here unless official channels are exhausted! ...! Contempt is a word often bandied about at the moment. No matter, it just builds bigger and better bullshit detectors, and bug repellents! … anyhow, enough said!
BTW ... My real name is *** ***** .. but you know that! ..what’s yours? .. more importantly who cares ... only you apparently :=
.. you well know that elected people are very keen not to have you on tele calling them names and making accusations .. it therefore follows, that it is easier for them to address the little people making your life uncomfortable ... no, you personally would not be involved in anything silly like that, trouble is, others may think that is what is needed, and you may in the process be assumed to have had an interest! ... even I do not think you are that spiteful .. others may be though! ... if you get my drift :ooh:
Lodown … spot on! …
tw .. guess who … thought you would have picked the style .. pretty obvious I thought!
..carry on :E

Dick Smith
19th Jun 2007, 01:54
Scurvy.D.Dog, your last post is a bit cynical and a bit obtuse for me to understand fully. However I will comment on the following:

... does anyone really think the incumbents are gunna change tack on entrenched policies and priorities? .. Yes, I do – because if they don’t, we will not have a general aviation industry in Australia.

The facts are simple. Both political parties have opened Australia up to a global world. Both parties have moved towards what is euphemistically called “free trade.” Because of this, Australian aviation has to compete internationally, and costs here (which often reflect in the cost of exports) must be competitive – or, to put it simply, lower.

I don’t think it makes any real difference as to which party is in power. When Labor was in power they made major reforms in aviation – the two airline policy removed, the major airspace changes in 1991, and the major regulatory changes at the same time are just examples.

Further reforms are necessary – otherwise we will find in a decade or so there will be virtually no general aviation industry, just lots of people flying around in ultralights.

You state:

regarding CTA
.. you had the opportunity just recently …. did you take it up? ….I’m not quite sure what you are referring to. Can you explain and I will answer? Better still, give me a ring on 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221.

You say in relation to reform that it is:

.. the 'content' not the person/s is what needs to succeed. Wouldn’t that be great if it were so? Unfortunately it is not just the content. The person, including their personality and leadership abilities, seems to be what counts. There are lots of good boffins around in Australian aviation, but they have little influence on reform – sometimes unfortunately.

I remain positive and I can see changes gradually happening – even the reversals of NAS 2B didn’t reverse everything. That is what always happens, so it is a slow incremental move to an improved system in my view.

A few years ago we had VFR pilots jamming up airwaves, consistently asking for area QNH - i.e. “Sydney Radar, I’ve just departed Hoxton Park for a local flight, request area QNH.” Now, because of the changes made under NAS, you hardly ever hear such a useless call. This is an improvement in both efficiency and in safety.

There are fewer pilots yakking as they fly up and down the light aircraft lane north of Sydney, which jammed up approach frequencies when they were coupled together. This must be a safety improvement.

Scurvy.D.Dog, let’s look to the positive side. It may be slow but gradually, things are getting better.

19th Jun 2007, 03:21
cynical and a bit obtuse ... oh were it to be so ... realist I would argue ;)
.. you said earlier that you could not find anyone in Australia that could do the job, as was pointed out by another esteemed contributor .. they are right under your nose ... it is assumed you choose to ignore them for fear of a different outcome to your desired end .. if that is not the case, explain to us who you have asked to be involved in the real process?
the rest is fluff ... if the world market was so heavily slanted away from practices in Australia, then why do we have the number of O/S companies (including large RPT) training/assessing pilots here ... I think we know why .. quality and services available (despite the difficulties) ... as far as GA regulation goes I agree with most of the previous points made here ... so where should the change emphasis be??
The structural and procedural issues raised by the VOR, are well understood, they were last time around (by the operational experts) as well, but that was not the problem was it?
… the comments regarding NAS2b and its reversal I will leave alone for fear of offence ... I will say this, the very point of these discussions it to remove the ridiculous costs of inappropriate change that in the end costs a fortune for what amounts to a small, largely insignificant change
... compare that to careful thorough process (as has been argued for years) that will determine what will work, how it will work, how much it will cost, and what is gained by that expense ... are you satisfied that that represents what the VOR and frankly many of us have been saying for years?
things are not getting better! ... better or worse from here is very much contingent on who does what and how ... I am not filled with light in this regard
how about you call me tomorrow morning (look in ERSA) .... fair warning though, if that contact is used for anything other than discussion of airspace process and/or design, or you attempt to identify me in public after the fact, or attribute comment to me as a result of those discussions, I will be making a lot of noise in a lot of quarters to seek an appropriate remedy ... agreed?
In the meantime, how about you and I shut the hell up, and let folks flesh out the issues without the distraction of hubris!

Dick Smith
19th Jun 2007, 04:53
Scurvy.D.Dog, you claim that people making rational comments about airspace such as VOR's views on Class E (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Is_Class_E_safe.php)) are:

right under your nose ... Can you give me some names – or are you referring to people who are anonymous on PPRuNe that are somehow supposed to be used to do airspace change? Would you have people sitting in a room at CASA involved in airspace changes with their heads in paper bags so their anonymity can be preserved?

It is pretty obvious that if a person with the same views as VOR in relation to Class E airspace was involved in regulatory reform at CASA, we would have Class E airspace above Launceston – as per NAS and as per the Class D towers that Airservices are operating in the USA. This is what you tell me you don’t want.

As I’ve said before, a nightmare has been created because whereas anonymity is important for PPRuNe to expose injustices, shonky practices and other important issues, such anonymity is completely useless if a person is in charge of regulatory reform including airspace. I’m sure you understand this.

I do not know the names of any airspace and regulatory reform experts who have the same views as VOR. If I did, I would be recommending to them that they get involved in the reform process – they would certainly have my support. The people I know by name claim that they are violently opposed to VOR’s views on Class E airspace.

By the way, I have looked in ERSA and I can’t find any entries under “Scurvy.D.Dog”. I will keep looking.

I’m not sure if Scurvy.D.Dog wants this thread to move off the topic, but I’d like to encourage people to keep the good suggestions coming and get this thread back on track.

19th Jun 2007, 06:51
Dick Smith,

Please address Capn Blogg's points. I am sure you are big enough to include his valid points to any airspace committee.


19th Jun 2007, 06:53

'white knight and aviation saviour'

It is pretty obvious that if a person with the same views as VOR in relation to Class E airspace was involved in regulatory reform at CASA, we would have Class E airspace above Launceston – as per NAS and as per the Class D towers that Airservices are operating in the USA. This is what you tell me you don’t want.

Is this what you want in class D Towers?:)

19th Jun 2007, 07:55

By the way, I have looked in ERSA and I can’t find any entries under “Scurvy.D.Dog”. I will keep looking.

Try ERSA FAC W-18/19

The phone number is in FLIGHT PROCEDURES, 2.a

As you appear to be running another self influencing agenda, maybe that number will help. I believe its close to home......

Your 'influence' would be better received if you posted under an anonymous

19th Jun 2007, 08:56
CrazyMTOWDog ... :} .. ain't it just :E

.. nurse .... nurse :8

19th Jun 2007, 09:55
If the aviation industry doesn't take a stance they will be forced out of existence by so called cost recovery fees. take a look at your latest Air Safety Digest and peruse the charges being implemented, especially the hourly rates! How honourable not to charge for the boffins overnight accommodation etc but to charge the applicable hourly rate from the time "they" leave base camp !! my goodness why do we pay taxes? Those of you who do hold an AOC and are in a remote or regional location, that audit is going to really drain your coffers. Observed flight tests, well that too will test your resources.There should be cost saving before cost recovery. Trim the fat. I agree with Dick in principle, why should we have our own unique set of rules in Oz, no wonder experienced grade 1's and CFI's are leaving in droves...........red tape BS.

19th Jun 2007, 15:19
I'll go against the trend and suggest some new rules.

1.All aircraft have fuel flow meters and fuel totalisers. In this day and age, we should know exactly how much fuel we are using, and how many litres are left in the tanks.

2. All 6 cylinder aircraft, especially turbocharged engines have individual cylinder head temp propes and EGT monotoring systems such as the EDM series. Charter/RPT aircraft to have the data logging facility.

Dick Smith
19th Jun 2007, 23:48
Here are a few more costs in Australia.

Type endorsements
Type endorsements are required for many more aircraft in Australia than in the USA and New Zealand. This would bring quite a saving.

Instrument rating renewals
In the USA instrument ratings do not have to be renewed every year. As long as the pilot complies with the recency rules that is all that is required. As stated before, the resultant levels of safety are not measurably different.

Joy flights within 25nm of the airport
In the USA these take place under Part 91 – i.e. no AOC is required. Obviously very large amounts of money are saved and you don’t see the sham where the AOC holder is in a different state for a Tiger Moth giving joy flights at a local country airport.

Free in G
In the UK and Canada, pilots can climb IFR through cloud without having to file a full IFR flight plan and pay a full enroute charge. In Australia, if you fly IFR for 30 seconds in one 600nm flight and you will be charged for the whole 600nm. Just think what a saving that would bring in!

The A & P system (Aircraft and Powerplant)
In the USA much of the maintenance is done by A & P holders, whereas in Australia we do not seem to have an equivalent qualification. Yes, our LAME system provides very highly qualified engineers – but shouldn’t we look at having less qualified personnel doing work under supervision and therefore saving large amounts of money? I understand the training for an A & P can only take 6 months.

UNICOMs in lieu of Certified Air/Ground Operators
I understand that the Certified Air/Ground Operator system at Ayers Rock costs around $400,000 per year because air traffic controllers or flight service licence holders have to be flown in and accommodated. In the USA similar systems are called UNICOMs and are normally operated by person who lives locally. The cost is probably 10% of the Certified Air/Ground cost.

20th Jun 2007, 00:05
:)What Dick is saying is correct and i say again COST SAVINGS BEFORE COST RECOVERY. Now is the time for all in the industry to stand up and be counted. Its your industry, its your future, have your say and make it heard.

89 steps to heaven
20th Jun 2007, 01:49
What Dick is saying is correct and i say again COST SAVINGS BEFORE COST RECOVERY.
PA39, I think it would be better if it were "Appropriate cost savings, properly assessed, before cost recovery"
We could all come up with ideas that would cut initial cost, but might turn out to not be such a good idea in the long run. That's where this type of process has fallen in a heap in the past. Too many ideas, assessed on the perceived required outcome, without proper recognition of the potential long term costs / risks.
Be damn fine if we could get it right this time though. :ok:

20th Jun 2007, 04:10
And whilst I am at it, why dont we just let them CASA get on with what they are currently struggling to cope for the moment.

What mebbee 20% naaah give em 25% of the CASA resources over the last dunno lets say 20 years spent on doing the job, the rest "managing" constant change on change fixing meddlers fcuk ups and fending off the zealots, enthusiasts and barbarians.:{

I dare not even think about what that has cost and we sit calmly here talking about removing unnecessary rules and costs:mad::mad::mad:

An operator has got over $30M worth of GA equipment laying around waiting for an AOC (maybe 'til Nov, maybe longer) and I know of at least 2 or three times as much with others, that can't strike a blow because CASA, with the best will in the world are so far under resourced its a joke. And this in a period of unprecedented expansion.

This is what needs fixing NOW Mr Smith because by the time you go through the current folderol we will have folded our tents and gone elsewhere with our money.

And before you start up on your "this is what I'm trying to do" routine, I'm here to tell you not ONE of the issues cost or otherwise, raised in this thread has been a deal breaker.
Yes it would be nice if it was all a bit neater and tidier and I'd rather not have to pay $170 ph to educate the relevant FOI on how it is actually done, but the real problem is not less of these things but waaay MORE resources = manpower. Qualified manpower = someone who knows the difference between FAR 23 and FAR 25 types and which types are one or the other. BTW its definitely NOT the FOI's fault NOR is it CASA's, it is their political masters and those who "advise" them. Given respect to the Brindabella chap, there is NOT ONE member of the "advisory group" who has any idea of what's required and what works in GA charter from the bottom up.
It has been said here before and I have defended CASA on it, that the best way to reduce costs in the industry is to not fly at all and we are coming perilously close to that ideal.

So, it's NOT popular and doesn't get you on 60 minutes, John Howard and Mark Vaile will hate it, BUT lets get the horse in front of the cart, if the Government wants a viable GA industry and for it to survive NOW, then TELL them to get real and INCREASE the CASA budget by whatever is needed to unstall the current progress and ditch the present cost recovery policy. The alternative is simply unacceptable.

There is another way.:ugh::ugh:

Chimbu chuckles
20th Jun 2007, 05:13
I'd rather not have to pay $170 ph to educate the relevant FOI on how it is actually done,

:} Been there, done that...thankfully before the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation starting charging for you to explain to them how something actually worked:E

My personal experience of FOIs has been they are out of their depth once the technology gets beyond Piper Chieftain.:ugh:

It is completely self evident that the Govt of the day (whichever persuasion) is trying to do 'it' on the cheap when it comes to aviation and we are expected to bump significant cash into the system too.

That CASA (and AsA) does not view itself as a service provider in the true sense of that expression is also self evident. It is completey captured by a sense of self that equates to Govt Department and yet the Govt demands it charge for 'services' when there is no mechanism that allows it to be 'punished' by the customer for bad service...competition would be that mechanism in the private sector...and that is the reason 'privatising' govt monopolies is doomed to failure right out of the blocks....actually 'doomed to failure' is not accurate...while it does fail it is not ackowledged to have done so and we pay for the consequences:ugh:

Examples of this are legion but one is the centralisation of licencing in Canberra...anyone want to imagine the reaction to a similar move with car registration and licencing?

Another is the fact that a current ASIC is not deemed good enough identification to secure renewal of that ASIC in minimal time and at minimal cost...instead when your current ASIC comes due for renewal you must start the whole process again from scratch as though that current ASIC never existed...and the cost for that has increased.

If that is not Govt Department thinking (like Passports) than what is?

Medicals are another...I could go on...and on :{

Chimbu chuckles
20th Jun 2007, 05:56

Type Endorsements

Just because the FAA doesn't mandate a type rating doesn't mean the insurance companies don't. In fact I would go as far as suggest that the lowered bar in this area actually increases costs.

New Zealand has less type ratings than Australia?

Nope...New Zealand doesn't have group endorsements like tailwheel, CSU, retractable undercarriage. A Bonanza is one type rating and C210 another:ugh:

Having said that NZ is a VASTLY more GA friendly country than Australia...it is palpable when you go there...it is like Australia was 25 years ago...in fact it is better.

Instrument Rating renewals

Well perhaps if we had the abundance of ILSs like the US? But then again I have read lots of US accident reports where it could be argued that more regular testing might have made a significant difference and saved a few lives. Again you probably need to differentiate between the FAA's hands off approach and the Insurance company's hands on approach. Is it better to have a yearly renewal with an ATO/FOI or have your insurance company mandate annual recurrent training?

Agree about joyflights.

Free in G

What...people actually upgrade to IFR in the circumstances you site?:E

Airframe and Powerplant

We do have that system..sorta...it's called the apprentice and we pay the same hourly rate as a fully qualified LAME to have him stumble around our aircraft taking twice as long to do the job but not do it is well.:ugh:

I would put it to you that the reality is that in the US A&P=LAME near as damn it and the quality varies as it does here...with experience.

You seem completely captured by the 'US system' and yet never quote the whole picture...perhaps because you only get a 'visitors' view of their system rather than a 'residents' view.

What is really sickening is their system is evolving towards our system in many ways...user pays and 'privitisation' are just two examples.

Chimbu chuckles
20th Jun 2007, 06:24
The pain the US system is being subjected to.


20th Jun 2007, 07:14
Whoa Chucky..........

"We do have that system..sorta...it's called the apprentice and we pay the same hourly rate as a fully qualified LAME to have him stumble around our aircraft taking twice as long to do the job but not do it is well."

Not correct! :=

An apprentice in any trade is indentured under both Federal and State VET legislation and must work directly under trade qualified supervsion. I doubt any employer of apprentices would charge for an apprentice's time and certainly not in Years 1, 2 and 3.

Normally an apprentice's costs is included in the qualified tradesman's charge out rate.

Aircraft engineering apprentices are indentured to complete a Certificate IV in Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Mechanical; Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Structures; or Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Avionics. Upon completion of their trade qualification, they are then required to sit and pass CASA's licensing examinations to become a LAME - God knows why, probably to justify the exhorbitant fees imposed for these exams! :*

In Australia, an AME is probably closer to the US A&P Mechanic, except the AME holds no formal CASA qualification and also must work under LAME supervision (unless he holds an "Approval" for a specific maintenance task.) An AME usually has a number of year's experience but does not hold trade qualifications or CASA recognition/licensing.

Some AME's I have known, particularly in PNG, were excellent.

I agree with the US A&P Mechanic qualification and believe it should be introduced in Australia to enable our current AMEs to conduct limited maintenance tasks, unsupervised. Having qualified as an Australian "A&P Mechanic" the AME could then proceed in time to full LAME licenses through the SOE (Schedule of Experience) process of RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning).

I believe Australia urgently needs the equivalent to the FAA A&P Mechanic!!! :ok:

Chimbu chuckles
20th Jun 2007, 07:38
Maybe not correct in theory but in practice?

Ask any aircraft owner. We pay enormous amounts of labour for engineers to 'learn' about our aircraft...that might not be ureasonable with a Cirrus but with a C210 or Bonanza you'd think the learning curve would have flattened out by now.:ugh:

I will admit to a certain degree of 'tongue in cheek' in that comment however:ok:

I agree completely that the L in LAME doesn't necesarily mean what it pretends.

Would I rather have an AME that has been hands on for 30 years or a newly qualified LAME work on my aircraft...silly question...but I don't equate 6 mths worth of qualification with necesarily better value for money.

20th Jun 2007, 09:20
:} .. it seems there is a reference in ERSA after all :p

.. and we didn’t swear at each other once :E

Chimbu chuckles
20th Jun 2007, 09:39
To take this LAME/AME/A&P thing further.

Just changing what they are called and varying the qualifications alone will do little to impact the costs of maintenance unless the regulatory burden is removed also.

That regulatory burden includes massive compliance red tape/costs imposed by CASA/AsA/EPA etc on top of increasing costs associated with hangar/site lease imposed by local councils/airport owners.

That regulatory burden has been solely responsible for chasing many self employed LAMEs out of the business and reducing competition for the private aircraft maintenance $. It all just got way too fecking hard and they closed up shop, retired or went to work for someone that had a thicker skin.

The analogy I will use is that of the tucker truck v Milk Bar/takeaway shop.

This may be one of the best arguments for GA self regulation for private/airwork category aircraft < 2000kg (for instance). A system where a LAME/AME/A&P can set up a business from home where he has a van set up and can travel to your aircraft and do annual inspections/general maintenance in your hangar...with none of the regulatory overheads that have zero effect on the quality of the maintenance carried out.

Annual inspections cost 6+ times what they did 20 years ago. Yes some of that expense is driven by the fact that we left a regulatory regime based around 3 yearly airworthiness inspections and moved to a annual inspection regime but that is not the whole story...the regulatory compliance burden imposed on licenced maintenance hangars is extreme both in a pure cost sense and a time wasted sense...and it has zero effect on the bottom line...maintaining an ageing fleet.

Labour rates for LAMEs are up around $80/hr...yet the individual gets probably only 1/2 that...the rest goes on covering the overheads. That is where the savings are in aircraft maintenance.

Chimbu chuckles
20th Jun 2007, 10:50
I have a question for you Dick.

AsA have deserted SBAS/WAAS in favour of GBAS/GRAS, despite the EU,US,India and North Asia adopting SBAS...GBAS/GRAS is a system that will very likely be uneconomical for GA aircraft...certainly those older aircraft not fitted with the integrated G1000 style avionics.

On that basis we appear to be starting down a path that could, in time, exclude most GA aircraft from the ability to carry out GPS based precision approaches.

Why would that be?:mad:

20th Jun 2007, 13:51
It is a sad fact of life that there are very few maintenance outfits employing apprentices. They scrounge for the LAME's they can get and supplement them with 'AME's, a loose term to describe unindentured apprentices, or mature people working on their schedule of experience in preparation for their LAME ticket.
As Chimbu said, almost ALL labour gets charged out at the same rate, LAME or otherwise.
The aircraft owners are paying for the training on type - not the maintenance organisations!
Sorry to get a bit off thread, but the subject is relevant given the high degree of regulatory cost involved in maintenance.

Dick Smith
21st Jun 2007, 00:45
Is it possible to focus again on requirements in Australia which add to costs compared to requirements in other leading aviation countries?

I have agreed to make up a list to present at the next Taskforce meeting on 2 July.

Here is another one.

Helicopter low flying endorsements
In the USA under the FAA system, a low flying endorsement (with all the additional costs) is not required. The FAA regulations are written so this is not required. This is logical as once a helicopter pilot gets his or her licence, he or she can land basically anywhere that they have the owner’s permission – which obviously means they must be trained at flying low.

I should point out that lots of people are complaining about the new CASA costs for regulatory services. I agree this is a real impost, however compared to the on cost from unique Australian requirements, they pale into insignificance.

Also if we update the rules and harmonise as per Government policy, there will be no need to make these extra payments. For example, the cost of getting a low flying endorsement will be removed as it won’t be required for helicopters.

John Eacott
21st Jun 2007, 01:58

Helicopter low flying endorsements

Technically, no such animal: a common industry misnomer!

For some applications, CASA require a pilot to have completed the low flying syllabus of either the Ag or the Mustering endorsement. The Low Flying Approvals on my AOC require pilots to have this for filming & photography, and I must confess that I have no issue with it as a condition. It goes some way toward ensuring that pilots are trained and up to speed before they get down in the weeds tracking a car in a commercial, or similar.

But otherwise, there is no Helicopter Low Flying Endorsement from CASA: has someone raised this with you as an issue?

Dick Smith
21st Jun 2007, 03:20
John, point taken – maybe they are just letters of dispensation.

Can you advise how a private pilot gets approval for low flying – say for private photography purposes?

I will look forward to your advice.

21st Jun 2007, 06:10
Re low flying endorsements- Unfortunately the rules have to cater for the lowest common denominator. A poorly trained chopper pilot might fly low and spook livestock such as a horse and cause all sorts of problems such as throwing a rider off one's mount.

John Eacott
21st Jun 2007, 06:28

Interesting point re a PPL(H), and one which I haven't had to deal with :hmm:

My best guess would be to apply to CASA for a Permission against CAR157, but (as we all know....) the answer will vary from State to State and from FoI to FoI :p

Have you had any direct experience of such a requirement?

Dick Smith
22nd Jun 2007, 02:05
Why hasn’t anyone come up with this big money saver? We all know that Airservices are now operating Class D towers in the USA at a claimed 50% reduction in cost compared with the cost of the FAA running them. This is because of the FAA Contract Tower program. It has saved the American aviation industry tens of millions of dollars.

Why hasn’t anyone proposed it here? It is in fact Government policy. I’ve been contacted by many air traffic controllers and a group of firies who want to run their own businesses. They say that savings could be up to 50%.

I understand the main reason the Government hasn’t gone ahead is that there has been no support from industry. Why would this be so?

If the FAA can get a 50% saving, and if virtually every other country in the world (other than possibly Russia) operates fire stations locally at the most competitive price, why can’t we? The last time I looked, the Australian average per tonne landed fire fighting charge was double that of the average charge in New Zealand – where the fire stations are locally run by the airports at the most competitive price.

I look forward to comments on this.

Dick Smith
22nd Jun 2007, 02:08
We presently have a crazy system in Australia, where if you want to charter a Navajo from Dubbo to Narromine, it has a completely different regulated system of safety compared to flying on a scheduled service on the same route with the same plane. This is ridiculous. As pointed out in the Commission of Inquiry into the Seaview crash, passengers could not possibly understand the difference.

In the USA they have Part 135 Air Taxi, and Part 135 Scheduled Air Taxi. Surely that is what we should be going to here. I understand it could save a huge amount of money, because presently our scheduled 9 passenger services have to comply with some type of sham airline regulations – even though this is obviously not possible.

Is there any support for this?

Dick Smith
22nd Jun 2007, 05:17
John, you say you have no issue with the CASA requirement for a pilot to complete the low flying syllabus of either the ag or mustering endorsement – but this adds to costs compared to an equivalent business in the USA. I’m sure you understand this. Why should we have higher costs here if they are not required in the USA, and if the resultant level of safety is the same?

This is one of the problems I see. With virtually every potential saving I can see, there is someone in the industry who says that they support this particular “extra cost” but they are against others. When CASA goes to change the rules to harmonise with other leading countries, they get many people saying we should have higher costs and more regulations!

In relation to flying below 500 feet, when I flew around the world I obtained some type of approval to fly lower, as you will probably see in some of the documentaries I made. I’ll dig out the approval – I must have it in my files somewhere.

The main point once again is that getting this approval costs time, and in future will cost money. In the USA a pilot can fly at these lower levels without extra costs and bureaucracy.

22nd Jun 2007, 05:43
... could you explain where one could obtain information (from a credible source) to the support those claims?

.. following on, if the 50% claim is credible, where is the efficiency difference generated and who pays??

John Eacott
22nd Jun 2007, 06:56

Re the "cost" of low flying. I understand your point, but I do believe that high risk low level operations require a degree of control, albeit that control is at a cost. Where do we draw the line as to who is capable/qualified enough to be filming and chasing a car at 10 feet, avoiding power lines/trees/turbulence? Is a 1000 hours enough? 50 hours? By complying with a known syllabus of training, there is a good chance that the pilot is aware of risk factors, and will plan and fly accordingly. What about firefighting: what do you consider a suitable endorsement to be to qualify a pilot to lug a tonne or more of water on the end of a 100 foot line through smoke and turbulence?

I would strongly suggest that some aspects of aviation do require a higher degree of skills, and achieving those skills must come at a cost. What height would you consider plausible for a new PPL/CPL(H) to be allowed down to as part of his everyday operation?



22nd Jun 2007, 07:01

Here's one for you.....

Currently, Single-Engine Piston aircraft can not conduct IFR Charter Flights or VFR Night Charter Flights.

However, this is now possible in the USA.

Check this company out: http://www.satsair.com

SATS Air is authorised by the FAA to conduct Part 135 Air Taxi in a Single-Engine Piston aircraft - In this case it is the Cirrus SR22.

Apparently, SATS Air has this approval because: SR22 has downloadable Engine Data for trend Monitoring, The SR22 has multiple backup systems (2 x Alternators etc), SATS Air Maintenance program and the Cirrus Parachute System.

In order to save costs, CASA should consider certain operators to be able to use single-engine piston aircraft for IFR Charter if:

1. Suitable Operations Manual proceedures in place.
2. Suitable Single-Engine Piston Aircraft (need not be an SR22 as a C182 can be also be fitted with a parachute as an after-market mod).
3. Suitable maint. program with trend monitoring and oil analysis etc.

22nd Jun 2007, 09:24

We presently have a crazy system in Australia, where if you want to charter a Navajo from Dubbo to Narromine, it has a completely different regulated system of safety compared to flying on a scheduled service on the same route with the same plane. This is ridiculous. As pointed out in the Commission of Inquiry into the Seaview crash, passengers could not possibly understand the difference.

We used to have ANR 203 scheduled services in Australia (approval to conduct scheduled air services without holding an airline license).

Read the pre 1988 ANR 197 to ANR 203.

Reg 203 air services developed rural Australia and were the origins of many airlines, including Eastern and Hazelton/REX.

Neither ANR203 scheduled services, nor rural air services exist in Australia. My estimate, 100 plus rural Australian air ports lost their services in the past 20 years.

SM4 Pirate
22nd Jun 2007, 11:38
Why hasn’t anyone come up with this big money saver? We all know that Airservices are now operating Class D towers in the USA at a claimed 50% reduction in cost compared with the cost of the FAA running them. This is because of the FAA Contract Tower program. It has saved the American aviation industry tens of millions of dollars.

Why hasn’t anyone proposed it here? It is in fact Government policy. I’ve been contacted by many air traffic controllers and a group of firies who want to run their own businesses. They say that savings could be up to 50%.

I understand the main reason the Government hasn’t gone ahead is that there has been no support from industry. Why would this be so?

If the FAA can get a 50% saving, and if virtually every other country in the world (other than possibly Russia) operates fire stations locally at the most competitive price, why can’t we? The last time I looked, the Australian average per tonne landed fire fighting charge was double that of the average charge in New Zealand – where the fire stations are locally run by the airports at the most competitive price.

I look forward to comments on this.
Was waiting for this one.

There are two things wrong here, still. 50% cheaper than the FAA doesn't mean cheaper than Australia and 2) Because they are doing it doesn't mean it is profitable, now does it? The paper cost to industry hasn't changed at all; just the way the buckets have shifted the money. Since ASA moved in providing the costs at 50% of the FAA have charges gone down by 50%? No didn't think so. With the greatest respect you love a headline; but what is the substance of the story. ASA is probably making a break even type operation; but now that they have to change the hours of coverage will they be able to do so 'profitably'?

You may note that under the new business structure ASA is positioning the RFF for a "fire sale"; can't see it being sold as single station units, just one business; want to buy it; how else do you get a monoply type business not subjected to true competition. The private equity money men will be beside themselves to secure that baby; will the industry benefit; hah! Of course there will be strict service limitations legisilation about minimums etc. but watch the costs spiral shortly after they "own the business"; in the same way that FIS provision has been done in the USA; $3M in fines for $170M or so in extra revenue; all in the name of cost savings that aren't realised in practice.

Who are this 'group'? I want to talk to them and get on board; it won't save the industry a cracker, but I'm willing to line my pockets.

22nd Jun 2007, 12:18
If it was me I'd remove Dick Smith AND all the high-drag stuff he has imported. Class E airspace f'rinstance. 250 knots below ten. What is the use of letting yourself be ruled by other country's solutions to problems you don't have?

22nd Jun 2007, 13:28
2) Because they are doing it doesn't mean it is profitable, now does it? ASA is probably making a break even type operation;

I would be appalled if Australian taxes, or income from my charges was being used to subsidise the cost of airways services in the USA!!!!!

I trust there is no truth to your allegations.


23rd Jun 2007, 00:33
Wouldn't surprise me. Transfer pricing isn't limited to the supermarket chains. We sell the world's best quality wheat at a discount to the domestic price ! Australia is possibly unique in that you are asked to 'tender' a price to Government or big business - when you are the only providor of that service!

happy days,

Dick Smith
25th Jun 2007, 03:48
SM4 Pirate, it all depends on the way it is handled. Look at what has happened to air fares since competition was allowed. Not only have air fares dropped dramatically, but nearly three times as many Australians now travel by air. It is cheaper to go by air to many places than to go by bus.

It must be handled correctly. If the Government handles it like they did the sale of Sydney or Bankstown airports, it will be a disaster.

It is interesting that in New Zealand, where it is open to competitive tender, the costs are way lower. What about Ardmore Aerodrome, which is New Zealand’s equivalent to Bankstown? It was costing a fortune when being operated by the Airways Corporation of New Zealand. It is now – or was when I last looked into it – run by the flying schools at Ardmore Aerodrome. I think the cost is about 10% of what it was previously and they still have very high safety outcomes.

The information in relation to ASA restructuring their rescue and fire fighting for some type of sale is really interesting. This is why we need PPRuNe. Can you find out if that is what they are doing? It will be a disaster if the rescue and fire fighting is sold off so someone like the Macquarie Bank at the highest price. We will all be ruined!

By the way, it is current Australian air traffic controllers who have told me that they can run these towers at a far lower cost to the industry, while actually earning more money for themselves. It is probably tied up with more enlightened rostering, without huge amounts of money going the Canberra head office.

I happen to love competition – especially when it is genuine competition. When I head off to Harvey Norman, or (dare I say it) the Dick Smith Powerhouse, I totally believe that these businesses give me a competitive price without collusion.

Dick Smith
25th Jun 2007, 04:18
Chimbu Chuckles, in relation to WAAS, you state:

On that basis we appear to be starting down a path that could, in time, exclude most GA aircraft from the ability to carry out GPS based precision approaches. This is very simple. The people that have been making the decisions on this have been from Airservices Australia. Airservices is a profit making business which is not in the game of funding infrastructure that does not benefit their organisation – in fact, would most likely lower their profitability.

This is why the industry needs people such as myself, as well as many others who are undoubtedly more competent but behind the scenes, constantly pointing out to the Minister that Airservices should not make these decisions as there is a conflict. The Government has recognised this in removing the airspace regulatory side from Airservices. Now they have to get policy decisions on matters such as WAAS, into an organisation which does not have a conflict of interest.

I can assure you I will do everything I can to make sure that any decisions relating to WAAS are made in the interests of all Australians – not just the major airlines and Airservices Australia.

25th Jun 2007, 05:53
Dick, I have never seen a competitive price from Harvey Norman yet!!

SM4 Pirate
25th Jun 2007, 06:03
If the Government handles it like they did the sale of Sydney or Bankstown airports, it will be a disaster.Can you honestly see it going any other way?

It's not like there will be co-located ATC services wanting your business, like the airlines can do. So even if you 'privatise' ATC towers/TMA/Enroute into UPS/ECS/RS; can you really get benefits from competition?

They are single businesses with no competitors at what ever particular location is being privatised; it could only possibly go the way of SACL etc. Maximise their profitability within the contraints defined by the laws; is this a benefit to industry, honestly could you possibly say yes what would be different by privatising ATC; if you make it not profitable who would buy it?

The example of Ardmore is facinating; a non profitable aerodrome with huge costs (relatively, like BK) replaced by a not for profit business model resulting in reduced costs mostly due to overheads and services being provided by those that want/need the service; but nethertheless not getting the control service it used to. Does this (still?) happen outside the ATC Tower hours at Jandakot (CAGRO)?

An Australian example could have been when Port Headland Tower closed, if the areoclub there moved in and provided CAGRO or similar (an offer at some stage), but lets face it that's nothing to do with privatisation and everything to do with service vs dollars.

Dick Smith
25th Jun 2007, 06:42
SM4 Pirate, I haven’t mentioned the word 'privatisation' - I would prefer to see local ownership. For example, the Coffs Harbour Council operates Coffs Harbour Airport. Yes, some of the costs are high but it is not like the Macquarie Bank running Sydney Airport.

If the Coffs Harbour Council was responsible for the tower, I believe they would get the best price and hand those savings on to the industry.

I can’t see that there is an advantage for a local Council to rip-off aviators. Yes, Councils want to cover their costs – otherwise ratepayers complain. However I haven’t seen many local Councils (especially in country areas) wanting to make rip-off profits from aviation.

25th Jun 2007, 13:34
RPT priority at capital city aerodromes - get rid of it!


Don't fly above 10,000 ft without oxy - get rid of it (erm, as in not just willy-nilly, use the US rules instead)! This makes two more levels available, FL115 & FL125. It would work even better than it does for the septics, coz they would have to check the QNH to see whether they can use 12,500 FT coz its based on cabin pressure altitude which we can read off the altimeter. On the other hand we wouldn't be able to use 10,500 FT because of our silly altimetry rules, which (despite NAS changes), don't conform to the US.

Transition altitude - get rid of it!

Transition level - get rid of it!

Transition layer - get rid of it!

Lowest available flight level remains FL110 if QNH >1013, FL115 if QNH between 997 & 1012, etc.

Set 1013 when climbing through 11,000 FT

Set QNH when descending through lowest available flight level.


Dick Smith
26th Jun 2007, 00:55
How come no one has mentioned the exam system? I understand in the US the cost of exams for a commercial licence is $60. In Australia it is something like $600 – i.e. ten times the amount. In the USA all of the questions are published – around 1,200 questions, from which you could be asked about 80. This means that the FAA saves the cost of preparing a separate syllabus. Whenever they need to cover extra issues they publish them in the exam questions.

I’ve heard criticism of the US system, however the resultant level of safety is the same in Australia, and this is despite the terrible conditions and high mountain ranges in the US. It doesn’t look as if the ten times higher cost actually leads to higher safety outcomes. What do others think?

26th Jun 2007, 04:28

The US exam system is widely know world wide as beeing completely corupt. I know many guys who have come throught the US system and almost all went through schools where they simply had copies of all the possible questions, and learnt the answers.

American pilots are not generally well though of internationally as they are percieved as being under-educated and indoctrinated in the unique American system.

Your constant theme is the everything is done beter in the USA.

It isn't.

Dick Smith
26th Jun 2007, 06:01
Mr Ken Cannane from AMROBA has asked me to post the following information entitled "CASA's Failure to Adopt Proposed Cost Savings". Ken's contact details are at the end of the post.

AMROBA Objective 9 – “Reducing government overheads — assist government, and CASA, in recognising and implementing processes that will reduce costs to the MRO industry. The reduction of government, and CASA costs will assist and encourage a safer internationally competitive Australian MRO industry.”

Assisting government/CASA to reduce government costs whilst maintaining or enhancing safety has been actively proposed by AMROBA Management to CASA. The following is an abstract of 5 of such proposals to reduce costs for the GA/Aerialwork segments. One proposal reduces costs for all certificate holders.

1. Reduce costs to GA/Aerialwork – Regulatory Change – Use FAA outcome based rules, with minimum maintenance standards, for GA/Aerialwork operator/organisations and EASA rules for airline operations.

a. Adopting EASA rules for GA will retain the current requirement for all maintenance organisations, including an organisation that works out of the back of a truck (mobile workshop), to be approved by CASA. Adopting EASA proposed outcome based rules will also increase paperwork for small GA operators/organisations. This proposal by CASA will increase costs on GA/Aerialwork operators/organisations.

b. Many FAA non airline operators/organisations are NOT approved by the FAA as long as they are a Fixed Base Operator. There are numerous flight training organisations, aircraft maintenance organisations and avionic maintenance organisations that are not approved by the FAA – this system will reduce costs.

i. A Fixed Based Operator/Organisation is the same as an Australian Registered Business (ARB) meeting conditions. e.g. “Industry Codes of Practice” agreed by CASA/Industry Associations.

ii. E.g. Non CASA approved operators/organisations would need to be a member of industry association to comply with industry segments “Codes of Practice”. Same practice as used in other Australian self compliant industries. (e.g. Broadcasting Industry)

iii. One of the conditions in the US is that these operators/organisations must use a FAA licensed person to do/sign the tasks – e.g. Graded Flight Instructor or Rated IA/A&P mechanic.

c. In addition, FAA rules for private operation are based on setting minimum standards for aircraft that removes the subjective interpretations of the current rules and would also reduce CASA involvement. FARs limits manufacturers recommended maintenance schedules depending on operational status.

d. CASA regulatory oversight of GA/Aerialwork (same as FAA) would be based on product surveillance NOT system surveillance. It works – the US just had its safest year in GA/Aerialwork for 40 years.

e. Adoption of the FAA GA/Aerialwork system will save hundreds of thousands dollars for participants in the GA/Aerialwork industry and also save CASA a million dollars in reduced manpower costs.

2. Removal of Unique Australian Airworthiness Directives

a. Many General ADs are additional requirements to what the same aircraft would have to be maintained to if the aircraft was registered in North America – these ADs should be cancelled.

b. Some General ADs implement mandatory maintenance requirements that are only specific to specific operational segments in the US – these ADs should be amended to make the requirement applicable to the operational segment only.

c. Some ADs actually duplicate manufacturer maintenance requirements; some make mandatory one aspect of a manufacturer’s supplementary maintenance document. These ADs should be cancelled.

d. Many ADs raised in the past were not based on a safety situation that existed in the Australian fleet – many were based on a manufacturer’s recommended maintenance requirement.

e. Adoption of automatic acceptance of ADs issued by the country responsible for the aircraft’s Type Certificate ensures aircraft maintenance complies with international standards – makes resale value better and reduces CASA costs. CASA should only promulgate country of design AD title and web link on the CASA website.

f. Justification to retain an Australian AD should expire after ten years. This ensures that a review is made of expiring ADs to justify that they still addressed a known safety issue – if needed to be retained permanently, make them a regulatory requirement.

g. Cost savings to owners/operators/organisations and CASA as unique requirements would be abolished, unless a known Australian safety case had been used to justify the issue, thus making it easier to maintain to the same standards as used in other countries, especially the aircraft’s country of design.

3. Interim Approach – One CASA certificate – Under current legislation AOC holders such as flying training and Aerialwork operators that do their own maintenance should only have one CASA approval document. The AOC document should have a permission added to it without the need to hold a CASA maintenance organisation approval.

a. This would remove CASA regulatory administrative costs thus lowering costs of pilot training.

b. AOC holder would still need to employ a LAME to certify maintenance.

c. Maintenance would still meet regulatory standards - save thousands of dollars.

4. Capability List – Adopt single page operator/organisation approval document with a condition to maintain a Capability List of the kinds or types of aircraft or components that they operate or maintain.

a. It becomes an operator/organisation function and responsibility to add or remove kinds of aircraft/components to the Capability List – not a cost recoverable CASA approval system.

b. Enables flexibility for the operator/maintenance organisation to react to customer demands quickly.

c. Reduces operators/organisations overhead costs of obtaining separate approvals from CASA and reduces CASA costs as the function and responsibility is transferred to industry. Big savings.

d. Reduction in regulatory imposed costs saving hundreds of thousand of dollars.

5. Aircraft Log Book Statements (LBS) should harmonise with aircraft country of design standards for maintenance based on the operational basis of aircraft.

a. For example, a FAA Normal Type Certificate aircraft used for private operations should meet the same maintenance standard as that in the US. That is, an annual inspection using the manufacturer’s 100 hourly inspection schedules as long as they meet the requirements of FAR Part 43 Appendix.

b. The FAA regulations only require a private aircraft to do 100 hourly inspections if used for flying training of other private commercial operations.

c. Standard LBS should be adopted for the majority of GA normal category aircraft – this would reduce costs and adopt the same maintenance standards used in the country of design.

d. Removes CASA unique additional inspections to manufacturer’s inspection schedules that the rest of the world uses. Standardisation with US minimum standards will reduce costs & improve safety.

Ken R Cannane
Executive Director
61 (0)2 9759 2715 (phone)
61 (0)2 9759 2025 (facsimile)
0408 029 329 (mobile)
[email protected]

26th Jun 2007, 06:05
Exams had already been mentioned earlier.

26th Jun 2007, 09:40
Dick simply will not respond to posts that contradict his "I love everything to do with America"

Dick - The FAA exams are a joke- Multi guess questions. But hey, doesnt prove to be any less safe according to Dick and its cheap so lets go that way.

27th Jun 2007, 11:54

You make a very valid point. Your method of delivery might be seen as cynical and sarcastic, however the point is very valid.

I do believe that coucls should be given the chance to do their community folk a better service and the aviation community in general. They need to be convinced its worth their trouble preserving such assets.

Watch the video Sixteen Right. If you do not have it, "Do yourselves a favour" and buy it.

Example is Ballina, I bet they are glad that they never turned that strip into a housing estate years ago..........Its not what we say its how we say it. Same goes for us (or Dick) selling this to Governments at all levels.


28th Jun 2007, 02:20

Just a note of caution about quoting Ardmore NZ as a shining example...

Landing fees are my third highest expense!

$15 + for a full stop and rents have quadrupled over the last 5 years, $350 a month for an old standard shared hanger...

Cross runway closed... and guys leaving left right and centre for other, more friendly places NZTG.

Current owner against aviation $$$$ are the only important thing.....

It's a shambles !

Chimbu chuckles
28th Jun 2007, 02:36
Maroochydore Shire Council (I think it is) have told the tennants at Caloundra they can pack their bags...they want the land for a housing development.

It's hardly surprising when councils are usually stacked with developers who do a stint in council to change zoning laws.:ugh:

Wombat35 that is genuinely sad to hear...that is/was a great little airfeld.

So Dick...another one of your naive ideas shot in the ass...next.:ugh:

28th Jun 2007, 03:58
Coral. I don't think you understand the airport cost dilema in rural communities, or even appreciate the cost to maintain a rural airport to a level appropriate to the communities needs.

I live in a rural community which receives Dash 8 scheduled air services, 24 hour aero medical services and a small amount of GA aircrsft movements.

Some years ago the then Minister (Anderson) "granted" rural airports to local communities under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP). At that time financial inducements could be negotiated but the bottom line from the Minister was simply "take over the airport or we close it".

Rural Councils were forced to assume operational and financial responsibility for airports which in most cases, were essential infrastructure, critical to the needs, welfare and delivery of services to that local community. In many cases, the airports required extensive initial and on going maintenance and since Councils assumed control, additional requirements have been imposed including the recent security fencing requirement.

The dilema for most Councils is that their rate base is simply too small to support their airport to the required standard to sustain, in the case of the community in which I live, 24 hour aero medical operations and daily scheduled airline services. Landing charges were introduces, generally a nominal sum of $10 to $15 for a light SE aircraft, however with less than twenty flight movements per day, the resultant revenue versus cost was but a mere "drop in the bucket". Also, aeromedical services, which constitute many of the movements each day (and night), are generally exempt from landing fees - as it should be.

Why should my Council rates and taxes subsidise your private aviation interests?

Another argument in rural Councils is that many rural airports serve multiple council residents (in our case, seven Councils), whilst one Council is required to bear all the cost.

I do not know of one rural Council that makes a profit on it's airport ownership and operation.

There is a very strong case for the Federal Government to rebate it's profits from capital city airport leases, ASA operational profits and aviation fuel excise and GST, back to rural councils, which are striving to provide for essential air services to their communities.

We both know that will not happen.

Chuck. Whilst not commenting on Maroochydore, I can think of a number of airports where the land should indeed be converted to residential or commercial use, Toowoomba being one example! Inclement weather (particularly fog), proximity to Oakey, town center location and a host of other reasons indicate it will only be a matter of time before Toowoomba airport land is put to far better use.

Dick Smith
28th Jun 2007, 05:17
MMSOBGYTAST, you’ve got me completely wrong. I simply don’t have a view that everything in America is positive. I suggest you look at some of my comments in relation to globalisation and huge US companies such as Wal-Mart potentially taking over the world.

Having said that, because the US has a very litigious society which is very wealthy, and because it has some of the worst weather conditions in the world, with high mountain ranges, I believe it has evolved aviation-wise into a very good system of balancing cost and benefit.

Remember, we used to spend a huge amount of money in modifying aircraft from the USA so they could meet Australian certification standards. As Chairman of the CAA I was responsible for the decision to remove that requirement. Many millions of dollars have been saved since then and there has been no measurable impact on safety.

You say that the FAA exam system is a joke. If this is so, why is their resultant level of safety about the same as Australia – despite snow and ice for 4 months of the year and the high mountain ranges? I have a feeling that we put in all this extra cost and complexity in the theory system when there is no measurable safety advantage.

I have heard about of the recent questions in our theory exams and it is more about testing your ability in comprehension and English than actually knowing the real answer. This doesn’t add to aviation safety.

28th Jun 2007, 05:46
At Alice Springs I paid about $80 to land a C340, and $3000-00 a month to rent a 60 year old hangar.
The old days of "freebies" are long gone.

28th Jun 2007, 07:28
Bushy......at $3K/mth.....let her sit outside and reapint it every two years and keep the change!


Chimbu chuckles
28th Jun 2007, 07:29
Yup sorry......Caloundra not Caboulture.:\

Hey Bushy hangarage becomes marginally worthwhile at $300/mth...at $3000/mth you're paying the equivalent of a new paint job and interior every 18-24 mths...was $3000 a typo?

28th Jun 2007, 07:45
Coral. HID/TI is a case in point. If memory serves me correctly, initially the Torres Shire Council wanted nothing to do with the airport ownership but were told "take it or we'll close it".

They were enticed by - I think - resheeting the tarmac at Commonwealth expense plus $3 mill towards future costs.

Then the Torres Shire Council complained they were responsible for the total cost of operating the aerodrome, whilst the benefit was enjoyed by the residents of approximately twelve or thirteen Councils.

That was the justification to introduce the RPT Passenger Head Tax to fund the HID airport operation.

I don't think Dick is interested in cost saving - or redistribution of Government aviation based profits to rural airports.

In the rural town in which I live, which has a Base Hospital, hardly a night passes without an RFDS King Air flying over my house. Our airport is as important to this town as ambulance services, train and bus services (which we don't have) and Pizza Hut restaurants are to city dwellers.

28th Jun 2007, 07:51
what town are you in, you don't get to the big smoke much. No More PH restaurants anymore. Take away is the rage.....apparently:\


PS I second your post though, well said.

28th Jun 2007, 08:42
To the contrary, I get to the city quite often. Sorry, never been to Port Headland. :confused: :confused:

29th Jun 2007, 05:15
Here ! Here !

Chris Higgins
29th Jun 2007, 11:51
Dear Dick,

Having coming up through the frustration of the Australian examination process from 1984 through 1987 and obtaining the Australian ATPL in 1989, it's only now I'm really seeing the benefits.

What I'm seeing in the "Pavlovian School of Aeronautics", graduates is a failure in three specific areas.

1. A failure in cognitative reasoning:
- Lack of mechanical aptitude.
- No "cause and effect" logic.

2. Lower levels of IQ:
- Inability to "keep the plates spinning".
- Poor thought processes in converting problems like weather, mountain airports, runway calculations..right down to loading bags so they fit in a baggage compartment.
- A huge reliance on rote learning.

3. "Arrogant" Ignorance:
-Some newer candidates believe that they should know the bare minimum to get through life. No striving for excellence in performance..no pursuing of a higher level of knowledge.

By dumbing down the exams and allowing any old ATO to hand out certificates, you will dumb down the Australian system even further than it is now. We all know that in the early 1990's it already saw one major "dumbing" down.

Personally, I think it's time to make the exams tougher again.

30th Jun 2007, 05:30
Whatever happened to ....Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better!


Chris Higgins
1st Jul 2007, 14:36

The problem with a passing generation of mediocrity is that it is very difficult to raise standards to what they once were, when the people doing the teaching were never exposed to it in the first place.

Islander Jock
2nd Jul 2007, 04:14
Security -
Get rid of screening for GA aircraft. It achieves NOTHING! I suspect if we don't the next thing will be that when screeing is brought into regional airports, the screening will also include baggage being loaded onto a GA aircraft from an apron shared with an RPT service. This no doubt will come at a cost. "Oh you want us to x-ray your bags sir / madam - no worries that will be $10.00 per piece thanks".
Stop screening aircrews period. If they are going to cause carnage with an aircraft, nothing found by the security at a screening point is going to stop it happening. THis would have had to been the most il conceived part of the regulations.
Extend the screening exemption to all aeromedical flights and police aircraft departing from an RPT apron. By the legislation at the moment they are not exempt so it is left, on advice from DOTARS, to the ad operators to use "discretion" in these cases. In fact advice has even been given by these clowns on how to screen patients boarding an RFDS flight during the operational period. Buggered if I can find a definition for discretion in ATSRs though :ugh:

Surely it's time for consultation with industry (now there's a novel concept for DOTARS) and a review of this mess.

2nd Jul 2007, 04:48

consultation with industry 2:00PM Homebase Subi today, you or CFI should have an invo be there or be square. :):ok:

2nd Jul 2007, 10:59
Three Things,

Infrastructure -

Parallel runway for Perth - Even a 1800m one that will ease the burdon for charter operators and RPT flights! I know other airports could use a bit more black stuff too! Greater Radar coverage at lower levels in busy areas and around busy capital city airports. More AWIS units too could really help.

Contractors -

The grey dark cloud that many CPL's have to deal with. Put something in the CARs that the holder of an air operators certificate must not use contractors and staff must be classified as an employee. Obviously exceptions are made for ATO's and Check and training etc. Give someone the power to enforce it, because nobody will at the moment!

Security -

An ASIC renewal should be valid 2 years from the issue date, not the day the security check was done! Most pilots will not suddenly become a terrorist between their AFP check and the day their ASIC expires.

The sooner the government realises pilots are professional people and not terrorists the better we will all be! Prehaps we should have security checks for politicians seeing they are in charge of our country after all!

Dick Smith
2nd Jul 2007, 23:26
Thanks everyone for all of the work you have put into this thread. I have made up a list of all of the changes that could reduce costs and assist Australian aviation in competing in a global environment. I’ve handed this list on to the powers that be.

I find it fascinating that as well as the savings we can make, we seem to get as many individuals who want more onerous rules with extra costs compared to other leading aviation countries.

This is always the problem I have found. If you ask a large group of aviators about regulatory reform, you find that you actually get no reform at all if you want consensus – because just about every individual has a different view on what should be changed. Many want simpler rules with cost reductions on some issues, and just as many want more prescriptive rules which will increase costs on the same issues.

Thanks again to everyone who assisted.

3rd Jul 2007, 03:33
In the interests of transparency and good faith (seeing as you formulated the 'list' from here), how bout posting it here for readers :ok:

3rd Jul 2007, 09:06
Fat chance!

As we have seen before, Richard's idea of consulting is to ask you want you want - then tell you what you're going to get - usually a day or so before you get it!

I suspect he's already made his mind up about our priorities, and was just looking for a few loose quotes that he could attach to his proposals and say "there you go, they asked for this".

Sorry to be cynical, but haven't we all been bitten too many times before?

3rd Jul 2007, 10:35
hmmm :suspect:
Borat (the real fictional character) is in for 4 weeks of hell :hmm:
.. back in 4 weeks apparently :*

3rd Jul 2007, 10:45
[QUOTE]This is always the problem I have found. If you ask a large group of aviators about regulatory reform, you find that you actually get no reform at all if you want consensus – because just about every individual has a different view on what should be changed./QUOTE]

Here lies the major problem in airspace reform in recent years. Instead of consulting the majority of users and stake-holders, decisions are made by the politically driven influential minority with personal agendas.

This statement reeks of arrogance; all major players are entitled to provide detailed input on any change proposal and the discussions prior to implementation should last as long as necessary. Forced change within minimal timeframes has been a major contributing factor to poor implementation and industry education in previous NAS reforms.

It would appear that the influential minority have learnt nothing. :ugh:

3rd Jul 2007, 11:10
.. absolutely!
.. so what are we gunna do about it?

3rd Jul 2007, 11:40
1. Vote 1 - Kevin Rudd

2. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms and ensure that the risks are identified correctly and thoroughly. Ensure that identified risks have documented mitigators and safety requirements that must be met prior to implementation where necessary.

3. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms to be included in any cost benefit analysis that must be completed by the change proponent. Ensure that these issues are costed correctly and ensure that the change proponents are required to provide detailed information on any CBA to the workshop participants post the event. Ensure that the participants are periodically advised of any amendments to this analysis right through to implementation.
Request information from the change proponent up front regarding exactly what level of CBA would be acceptable for a change to be approved and progressed.

4. Ensure points 2 and 3 are included in the PIR. Ensure that the PIR is firmly programmed into the initial project timeline. Ensure that the same participants will be involved all the way through the process to the PIR stage.

5. Analyse the project plan and timelines to ensure that the appropriate methods of promulgation are planned to be used (unlike CTAFs where a 52 page AIP SUP was used to hand amend AIP book).

6. Ensure that the same participants are fully involved in the creation of the relevant training and education package, and ensure that the content is adequate for the level / type of change.

7. Ask as many questions as necessary regarding the compliance with ICAO of any change proposal.

8. Ensure that the participants sight and approve the required changes to the relevant AIS documentation prior to printing and distribution.

9. Resist at all costs the attempts to use TCAS as a risk mitigator (refer point 7).

There's a starting point, but let's hope the ALP has other ideas and agendas more important than these insignificant reforms that will not add anything to the Aus aviation industry.

3rd Jul 2007, 11:51
Yup :D
Keep an eye on ya PM's tomorrow :ok:

Chimbu chuckles
3rd Jul 2007, 15:29
I have an idea...lets only change 1 thing every 12 mths instead of confusing the crap out of everybody with great rafts of ill thought out change for change sake.

I think we could all concentrate on just one thing and thrash it out properly...if it is good and most people think it is good it is implemented...if not no other ideas are introduced until next year and the dick-head:E who thought of it is sinbinned for 5 years.

Each January 15 one idea is floated...it is then discussed and thrashed out...by September 15 it is either approved and implemented or thrown in the dustbin....implmentation date is the following January 15.

Now here is the great bit...if it is a REALLY good idea and everyone thinks so and it is implemented in say July nothing else happens until the following January....no more stress and everybody enjoys their xmass break without worrying about a NAS2b style pressy.

I would also suggest that if it also just so happens to be not ICAO compliant we just tell ICAO the news and get on with life...every country has differences from ICAO...live with it Dick:ugh:

Based on a 1 change per year schedule I reckon we can have our airspace tweaked to near perfection in 7-10 years...and with non of the angst we have seen in the last 20...where I might point out Dick we have achieved way less than 20 good changes...or even just 20 changes:rolleyes:

My vote for first change is;

Transition altitude moved up to 13000' and the transition level to FL150.

It gets it the **** out of everybody's way...high enough to never be a concern for GA/Private ops and low enough so it is never a concern for a pressurised aeroplane.

We can forget losing levels due low pressure...it's is 2000' thick and in a piece of sky no one uses...who cares about 997mb?

Added bonus in that it brings us in line with our immediate neighbours to the north west and east...PNG we REALLY don't care about.

Safety case?

Demonstably a non issue.

Cost benefit annalysis?

At the rate those nice people:ugh: at AsA send out ammendments it can simply be incorporated in the next one...or the one after that...cost $0...oh yeah I forgot...$130 for some 3rd grade secretary to send an email to ICAO:ugh:

I think you will all agree that it could save industry at least $30 million over the next 3 years...or thereabouts:ok:

ICAO compliant?

Who really cares?...the Brits have theirs at FL060..really dumb...but you don't see them losing sleep over it.

Ok...done and dusted...we don't talk about anything else until January 15 2008. On that date...and not one fecking nanosecond earlier I propose we nut out scurvy's CTA/OCTA airspace idea with the emphasis on KISS.

galaxy flyer
3rd Jul 2007, 15:57
As a seppo visiting BN: Sign at GA area gate says, "Unauthorized weapons are prohibited" Are there locations allowing unauthorized weapons on the apron? Considering weapons are damn near banned everywhere in Oz, what is an "unauthorized weapon" or an authorized one, for that matter.
GF, who notes the US isn't alone in stupid signs and security ideas

Excellent idea Chimbu: why do we continue to deal with widely varying tranisition levels? I suspect it is because some inspector flunked meteo and their exams and are punishing us for their idiocy.

Islander Jock
3rd Jul 2007, 23:13
G'day Galaxy Flyer, Welcome to Oz and our wonderful aviation security system. Regarding the "Unauthorised Weapons" signs. You will, or should, find them at every gate, door or other entrance to the airside area of a security controlled airport.
Now here's a thought. I wonder if a GA pilot with his shotgun or .22 in the back of his aeroplane can be prosecuted for not obeying the warnings? I know, I know - ignorance is no excuse blah blah blah. But that was the whole reason for the signs going up in the first place.

4th Jul 2007, 00:13
Gooday Islander Jock, apart from the signs on the gates I thought there were more regs about guns in planes......:E...ohhh of course WA is the Wild West for good reason:E.

Okay sorry for thread drift, could not help it...back to normal viewing!

Chuck I do think we humans can cope with more than one change at a time, however they should be kept very much apart, so say two or three no more, but not all from the same family. So your transition layer is a good example, plus say radio frequecy boundaries (Scurvy space perhaps) and some other. However before they start changes a long term plan is to take what we have and as you say fine tune it.

I think the CTA/OCTA idea needs exploring. Take the US system and take all the good bits that compliment the outcomes we need. I now understand slightly better the USA Class E over the ICAO class E and see why the US version would have been better, but we ended up with an ICAO hybrid, or at least I think thats what it was.......thats the kind of confusion we need to avoid. Hence the KISS.



SCE to Aux
4th Jul 2007, 06:10
The U.S. does have ICAO Class E airspace. Where do you think ICAO got the idea from? What we have in Australia is a hybrid, and that's putting it politely!

4th Jul 2007, 13:30
Interesting story that, because the way the US apply various instruments to their E is .. well different to ICAO E, which is in turn very similar to Aus E … i.e.
ICAO and Aus E
In the context of IFR/IFR sep and traffic info on known VFR it is the same … HOWEVER
There is a cross pollination of ICAO E,F and G (comms requirements and the provision of FIS) in our E and G .. why?
I suspect it is because of:-
1. a lack of surveillance coverage
2. a lack of ICAO F classification; and
3. providing FIS in G when ICAO defines OCTA FIS as F,
The result is a hybrid of comm’s requirements and FIS services OCTA
If you can get access to ICAO (Annex 11 Appendix 4), and compare with the AIP http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/aip.asp
ENR 1.4 4 (table of airspace). The Manual of Air Traffic Services Australia is identical to the AIP the differences become apparent.
Now, as far as FAA E goes, here is the nub.
There are several instruments that refer, the basis result is this:-
E exist outside terminal areas (climb and descent areas) of B,C and D. In other words, where non-radio VFR will not likely interfere with arriving and departing IFR at (jet) RPT serviced towered airports.
Alaska was sited numerous time in the past. What was glossed over was the VFR two way comms/clearance requirements (see below)
Chapter 3
Section 1
3-1-3. Hierarchy of Overlapping Airspace Designations
a. When overlapping airspace designations apply to the same airspace, the operating rules associated with the more restrictive airspace designation apply.
b. For the purpose of clarification:
1. Class A airspace is more restrictive than Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
2. Class B airspace is more restrictive than Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
3. Class C airspace is more restrictive than Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
4. Class D airspace is more restrictive than Class E or Class G airspace; and
5. Class E is more restrictive than Class G airspace.
... there’s a big clue right there …. and;
Section 2. Controlled Airspace
e. Types of Class E Airspace:
1. Surface area designated for an airport. When designated as a surface area for an airport, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures.
2. Extension to a surface area. There are Class E airspace areas that serve as extensions to Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas designated for an airport. Such airspace provides controlled airspace to contain standard instrument approach procedures without imposing a communications requirement on pilots operating under VFR.
3. Airspace used for transition. There are Class E airspace areas beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet AGL used to transition to/from the terminal or en route environment.
4. En Route Domestic Areas. There are Class E airspace areas that extend upward from a specified altitude and are en route domestic airspace areas that provide controlled airspace in those areas where there is a requirement to provide IFR en route ATC services but the Federal airway system is inadequate.
5. Federal Airways. The Federal airways are Class E airspace areas and, unless otherwise specified, extend upward from 1,200 feet to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL. The colored airways are green, red, amber, and blue. The VOR airways are classified as Domestic, Alaskan, and Hawaiian.
Section 4. Special Use Airspace
3-4-6. Alert Areas
Alert areas are depicted on aeronautical charts to inform nonparticipating pilots of areas that may contain a high volume of pilot training or an unusual type of aerial activity. Pilots should be particularly alert when flying in these areas. All activity within an alert area shall be conducted in accordance with CFRs, without waiver, and pilots of participating aircraft as well as pilots transiting the area shall be equally responsible for collision avoidance.
Section 5. Other Airspace Areas
3. Remote Airport Information Service (RAIS) is provided in support of short term special events like small to medium fly-ins. The service is advertised by NOTAM D only. The FSS will not have access to a continuous readout of the current winds and altimeter; therefore, RAIS does not include weather and/or Final Guard service. However, known traffic, special event instructions, and all other services are provided.
Code of Federal Regulations
Class D
Carriage and use of TXPDRS
Airports where the above is mandated
An airport (servicing jets) with VFR VHF contact REQUIREMENTS
§ 93.57 General rules: All segments.
(e) Except as provided in §§93.63(d) and 93.67(b), each person operating an aircraft in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area shall maintain two-way radio communications with the ATCT serving the segment containing the arrival or departure airport.
Now why do you suppose that is??? …. no surveillance?? ;)
And last but not least:-
FAA ORDER 7110.65
Nite all

9th Jul 2007, 03:57
12 years professional pilot in Aus/NZ with ATPL/instructor both countries, ATPL from UK and now 13 years ATP/CFI/CFII/CFMEI in the US flying and teaching on many single and multi engine airplanes including skis, floats, amphib, conventional gear as instructor/line pilot with airline (Part 135/91), flying schools and as an independent CFI , I believe I am qualified to say that the US system is so much better than that found in Aus/NZ/UK from the perspective of cost and efficiency, and is demonstrated to be safer, that I am astounded you guys have your blinkers so firmly fitted to your faces. Is it a case of NIH? (Not Invented Here).
I particularly like the rules for Instrument flying and for instructing. I don't need to do an instrument competency check unless I don't fly enough. I do an online course to keep my instructor certificate alive. If I get caught by weather I pop up for an IFR clearance and get one every time. I don't have to worry about how much that will cost me since all the regulatory costs are in fuel taxes. Flying IFR is cheaper because I can go direct. I can fly at 12500 feet without oxy and without pressurisation. I teach on airplanes I have not previously flown, I can teach my own kids in my spare time. I am not checked as to my success rate unless I want to be a DPE (designated examiner), but the results of my teaching will show in the results of my students. I fly single pilot IFR at night in single engine airplanes without autopilot (not on airline business), I only have one AI and T&B. My medical takes two hours and costs $100. In short, the system in the US is based on what works; practicality is the aim.
While you live by rules and restrictions, US pilots are tested for competency as pilots and if they pass the practical test (which has tough aurals) they are good to go. They log PIC time whenever they touch the control column, no matter what their assignment in the cockpit, and I know several long-haul pilots who log the time in the bunk, so they are more competitive in the international market too. (OK, that one is not a good example).
The only area I have concern is that the examinations for certificates (they don't have licences) are too easy. But the exams in Aus/UK are way to tough and irrelevant. Maybe something in between?

Chimbu chuckles
9th Jul 2007, 09:14
I don't think too many of us would argue with your assertion that the US system is simpler and cheaper than the Australian system....'better' remains to be seen.

I, and many others, having been saying to Smith for years..."You want the US system then great, give it to us lock, stock and barrel"...but that is not what has been going on...Smith cherry picks bits of the system he likes and then tries to railroad the changes with no thought as to the consequences given the other realities of the system in Australia.

The biggest difference is radar coverage...US=85%, Australia=15%.

Instead of comparing Australian airspace to the US contigous 48 states compare it to Alaska...a much more valid comparison.

USAOPA and sundry other alphabet groups are fighting against a FAA re
authorisation bill which will see them introduce 'user pays' in the US too.

The airlines are fighting touth and nail for it because it will transfer enormous amounts of their costs into GA. The same thing is happening in the UK which is already close to twice as expensive as Australia. The same thing happened in Australia many years ago when Dick Smith was chairman of CAA...user pays.

This is just typical corporate short termism and greed...the system exists ONLY because of the (statutory) requirements of airlines...the big end of town. 'GA' has already effectively been 'priced' out of capital city airports...how many light twins and singles do you see at Mascot etc these days? They were common in the old days when we paid fuel tax.

The fact that we (all airspace users) were already paying, via fuel tax, more than it cost (double is what I remember reading at the time) to run the entire airspace system was conveniently forgotten as that money dissappeared into consolidated revenue and was replaced with 'user fees' paid to govt business enterprises (GBE= 'privatised' Govt department where 'public service' inneficiency is charged out at a rate that returns a profit to govt) :ugh::mad: and later GST on user fees...that is double taxation.:mad::mad:

And it wasn't enough for one govt department, CAA, to be turned into a GBE the crunts split into two, CASA and FAC (later AsA), and the Govt demands they both return a dividend to govt...although they claim CASA is still 'subsidised by the taxpayer' AsA is highly profitable...ignoring for the moment that the tax payers of Australia are the ultimate beneficiaries of the airspace infrastructure/system...it would seem reasonable for a profitable AsA to offset an unprofitable CASA given they were once one govt department...but no can't do that.:ugh:

The Govt also sold off all the airports...something the US has not done...YET. That was when the Federal Airports Corporation became AsA.

The overall US system is, to date, so different to Australia that it is impossible to compare the two...for how long remains to be seen.

sprocket check
9th Jul 2007, 09:34
If I may chime in with my 2 cents.

A relative newbie to aviation though not so newbie in other areas.

It seems to me CASA is hindering both commercial and recreational aspects of aviation unfer the current system.

I know of an operator that's applied for an AOC for a single type of aerial work. Submitted all required manuals etc and paid thousands in the required fees. CASA informed him he can expect an answer in 6 months. Is there any other industry in Australia subjected to this level of bureaucratic muscle flexing?

An AOC should be issued within 4 weeks from the lodgement of required documentation unless there are errors or omissions. E&O when corrected must be cleared within 7 days. This should be legislated.

Exams-I am currently sitting CPLs. I pay ASL for the exam and I pay CASA for the exam. CASA also pays ASL for the exam in the contract, to the tune of $4,789,000 or so. Interesting...

As far as the FAA version of the exams being better or worse- sure you can get the questions off the FAA web site and learn the answers-but you are still learning. The good thing is you are probably learning the relevant things you actually need to know. Also on the FAA web site are books and guides-and a LOT of them, everything from detailed information on meteorology to systems, instruments, techniques, aerobatics, aerodynamics. It's a wealth of reference material, all free. We don't even have a VFR guide anymore (though there is a pdf on the CASA site now).

Under AU system you pay Bob Tait or AT for the books and then get the questions included.

Instruction: A driver with 2 years on a full license is allowed to teach a new driver under the L/P plate system. No need to go to a special training organisation unless one wants to. Similar thing should be adopted for aviation, perhaps not that loose, but certainly if a person progresses themselves to a standard where they become authorised as an instructor, I see no reason why there should be a need for an AOC. They should be allowed to freelance and operate independently. The AOC does not provide any greater level of confidence or safety, it seemingly only hinders progress. Dodgy operators and instructors I hear you say? Well, they exist now and always will, their reputations stick like the brown stuff and it doesn't matter if there is an AOC involved, so let's dump the AOC requirement for flight training.

sprocket check
9th Jul 2007, 09:40

On ya Dick for coming out with this publicly-for those that criticise putting your name on this thread, it is imho a good thing to do - can you imagine the suspicion and mistrust that would go on if this thread was started under an alias? Those kinds of games belong in little country aero clubs...actually not even there...

GA needs to change to survive, else more airports, etc, etc will go. Fact.

And let's not just survive, let's thrive.

Flight Me
9th Jul 2007, 09:44
I am a Professional Pilot and Taxpayer. The bloody Government should pay for my exams, my medicals and while they are at it fix up the bloody road into Brisbane airport so I can get to work without getting up 2 hours earlier than I should just to beat the traffic. This government has been an absolute penny pinching, tight ars% government, and has spent all the bloody money on a friggin war that has served no purpose.
If the CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY were exactly that, then we would not have this problem. It all started back when every friggin aircraft owner said " we want user pays", well that they certainly got.

I cannot believe that you ask on this forum for ideas to cost cut. How bloody unprofessional is that. You cannot be serious, the amount of money the CASA staff are on I would expect a little bit more than that.:=

So number one cut your pay packets, that might help. Streamline the business and employ people who perform, not ask for help!:*

And listen to Chimbu Chuckles, there is a lot of truth in there.:ok:

sprocket check
9th Jul 2007, 10:18
DCA - Department of Constant Aggravation
CAA - Constant Aggravation Authority
CASA - Constant Aggravation Supreme Authority?

Chimbu chuckles
9th Jul 2007, 10:22
CASA=C*&ts Against Sensible Aviation.

SM4 Pirate
10th Jul 2007, 00:30
My concern with this thread is that inevitably it's a cost argument. I'm all for user pays; but what exactly is it that you are paying for?

The USA user pays vs. taxes of various types is a hot debate in the USA.

The biggest user pays recovery argument here is that Airservices is a profit making arm of the government. Last year after taking reserves of cash for capital works the dividend after tax was something near $70M. That is the government is making somewhere near $100M profit on the 'user pays' philosophy.

Before you all get on that bandwagon of course; were did the actual profit come from? Qantas/Virgin/International airlines; of course. The user pays cost recovery from GA runs at a relatively healthy loss. Don't mention the regional subsidies for smaller than Dash-8s etc.; would REX be profitable without them? The government gives to the regionals who give it to the government, is that money laundering?

The realities of our system is that pax are paying the airlines a contributory cost of a ticket so they can then operate and pay the provider; the airlines probably in general terms charge more per-head for that per pax than it costs them, hedging and all and yield management is far too complex for this thread.

So indirectly the airlines are charging a tax on a ticket (just not calling it that) to pay for the aviation system. So why would the US get rid of this system and why are the airlines pushing so hard? Yes GA is probably a bigger sector and growing in comparison; but ultimately what's in it for the airlines? Well IMHO they realise that they have revenue to be made in removing the taxes on tickets (and fuel) as then those charges (that they'll still charge) don't automatically get forwarded to the big bucket.

But what has any of that got to do with regulation? On the face of it in Australia things move prohibitively slow; what is the solution, decrease the regulation, or increase the resources available and up the costs? Most would baulk at the later, but perhaps the realities to promote aviation is to increase the resources.

Now coming back to the above text, that ASA/It's owner make about $100M profit from aviation perhaps some of the costs associated with regulation could be put directly into the CASA budget. This would pay for about 1000 very well paid employees etc. without cost to industry. Of course it would have an effect on general revenue, but in GDP terms absolutely bugga all.

We will see an argument over wages for ATCs in the next 12 months; this will inevitably turn into the same debates as the past. Various individuals taking public positions about what people deserve (or don't usually); the ASA/It's owners argument will be along the lines of "A fair offer made in an industry that can not afford increases". And the controllers will be saying that they have had a significant reduction in real term wages over the past 10 years.

But really where are the true unnecessary costs going, to general revenue, no doubt about it.

Flight Me
10th Jul 2007, 08:55
Back to the original question, Mr Smith, why is it now our chance to have a say? Or is it just another way of saying, " well we asked everyone in the industry",(Pprune), and no one really had anything to say. So we will implement stage 4 504 564 of the national, oppps I mean USA airspace system.
I cannot believe this is still going on, get on with it and fix it. You seem to want to let everyone know you can, honestly mate, I am not having a go. Just do what you think best, after all you will be the one responsible when an airbus or boeing smack fair into a 182 taildragger who was making a .5nm final into Ballina.:D

10th Jul 2007, 10:06
[QUOTE]Just do what you think best, after all you will be the one responsible when an airbus or boeing smack fair into a 182 taildragger who was making a .5nm final into Ballina./QUOTE]

That would only apply if one's signature appears on the relevant documents. This has not been the case in the past. The benefits of sitting in a recommendatory capacity only is that one can exert significant influence on others, without taking any responsibility.

There was some carnage last round, and history appears to be repeating itself.

10th Jul 2007, 11:00
... Yup ... with one glaring exception!
CASA will have the governance this time around :oh:
... the staff at the regulator are left holding this 'tickin parcel' on top of the small mountain of other issues they have to field :(
poor bugga's cannot take a trick :ouch:.
think happy thoughts .... think happy thoughts .... think hap .... :ooh: eewwww me' guts .... :uhoh:

10th Jul 2007, 19:05

Please consult the industry operating out of Margaret River Airport.

The local council has prevented anyone from building a hanger or shed adjacent to the airstrip to prevent any expansion of the airport. Apparently it has something to do with noise and the councils aim of shutting down the airport.

Seems a strange decision given that the owners and pilots on the receiving end of this are ratepayers and that some of the operations into the airport are of commercial benefit to the region.

I'm not convinced that all local governments could provide the best facilities, safety and commercial governance needed to operate an airport in the best interests of the local community and the industry.

Again, Dick, please consult the industry in WA... and preferably sometime this year.

11th Jul 2007, 23:11
In the absence of a list of suggestions from Mr Smith I have attempted to summarise the key suggestions under a number of headings rather than simply collating them to create a post of limited usefulness. The order chosen is entirely arbitrary and reflects no preference on my part. The standalone suggestions are gathered together at the end. The comments are my own.
As usual PPRUNERS have contributed with the best will and intention, some with more success than others.
For what it’s worth when you have finished reading this post, go back and re-read Gaunty’s thoughts and views and then think about what Creampuff and Lowdown have had to say. All three, from their distant vantage points, make some very pertinent comments about the efficacy of the entire change process for aviation in Australia.
ASICs and security
The delays in obtaining ASICs and the requirements associated with them are clearly a major problem and are seen as a deterrent to new students, among others. The level of security, especially at regional airports, was also highlighted as a problem and a major irritant.
Comment – Given the current security issues associated with aviation worldwide there is no likelihood of the situation changing. If the current activity in the freight forwarding industry is anything to go by we can expect more onerous and time-consuming security procedures in the near future. There is no chance the situation associated with ASICs for students will change, given the 9/11 experience in the US.
Unique ADs
Some examples were offered (Cessna 400 series wing spar caps, Aero Commander 500 series MTOW) and there are undoubtedly more.
Comment – The challenge for industry is firstly collating the inconsistencies and then, secondly, arguing for their abolition or modification. Doing that also requires trying to determine why they were introduced in the first place and addressing the concerns behind that decision. And arguing that we should follow the US example will not, by itself, be enough to sway the decision makers.
Ideas raised included the abolition of Class E, or parts if it, transition altitude, height and level and the 250kt speed limit below 10,000ft. The arguments for and against ADS-B and WAAS turned up several times as did the suggestion to return to a form of the old CTA/OCTA arrangements. Throw on the straight-in approach v circuits discussion and concerns about radio procedures, or the lack of them, and you have the usual grab-bag of bleats that get repeated almost every time the industry gets together.
Comment – The industry does itself no service at all when it makes these suggestions without any evidence to support its position other than the usual bluster, assertion and repetition. If you want WAAS let’s see the colour of your money. The absence of any credible representative body for the industry to speak on this, or any other matter, is the fundamental issue.
Training and instruction
The vexed question of who instructs, on what basis and how has been with the industry since the first flight at Kitty Hawk. Suggestions ranged from allowing CFIs to issue student licences, a 1000hrs total time requirement before people can instruct, allowing people to instruct without an AOC and reducing endorsement requirements to removing the requirement for a minimum of 10 hours on twins before instructors can give endorsements.
Some inconsistencies associated with helicopter training were also highlighted and IFR recency/renewal requirements discussed.
It was also suggested that schools should be limited so that only certain schools should be allowed to train the CPL levels and others limited to training to PPL level only.
The arguments about exams, cyber and otherwise, was also canvassed.
Comment – The industry is well aware that there are pilot mills churning out marginal aviators and others producing quality operators. Changing the instructional part of the industry will require more than tinkering with bits of the problem. As an example imposing a 1000hrsTT requirement before you could instruct would wreck the instruction business for years to come and might lead to pilot shortages.
The bigger challenge is a coherent and reliable business model for the instruction industry that enables it to draw on a pool of properly trained, reasonably-paid career instructors able to produce well-trained aviators at a sustainable profit.
Air taxi and charter
Single-engine IFR charter and VFR charter at night, the return of ANR203 and limits on charter operations generally were raised although, yet again, without supporting argument, other than pointing back to the past and its alleged successes.
AOC issues
The bureaucracy of getting and keeping an AOC remains, as it always has, a huge source of frustration. Suggestions ranged from moving towards a permanent issue of an AOC through to general pleas to reduce the delays and paperwork requirements associated with AOCs.
Comment – Seeking changes to the way aviation businesses are dealt with and policed will not be helped by looking back to the past ie. hoping for ANR203 to return or by pleading for relaxation of the existing regime, Looking back will only remind politicians and decision makers about Monarch, Whyalla and Seaview. And the current coronial inquiry into the Transair disaster, and the evidence given so far, suggests the possibility conditions on AOCs, and the process of granting and maintaining them, could become even more onerous. SE IFR and VFR charter at night are not going to get a tick from politicians concerned about maintaining margins for safety.
User-friendly regulations, a long-time industry bugbear, was thrown into the mix by Triadic, another suggestion called for the amendment cycle for DAPs to be addressed and one correspondent hoped for the return of the VFR Flight Guide. Legislative issues bothered others as well.
Comment – The challenge of developing user-friendly documentation is broader than the aviation industry. It took the banks a decade to really make an effort to make documentation easier to understand. The problem is that the lawyers, draftsmen and aviation regulators are under no pressure to change. And the dear old orange book some of us can vaguely recall – I hear the voice of Darryl Kerrigan: “Tell him he’s dreaming”.
Several posters wanted the US-style A+P to make their appearance in Australia, citing cost savings.
Comment – Any suggestion that might raise in the public’s mind that costs are being cut in maintenance is just not going to be considered. The union backlash alone would guarantee failure. At a practical level who’s going to train the A+Ps and maintain their standards? And how long will it be before the first cadre becomes available? And who’s paying? My own experience in the field of trade training and the associated development of syllabus, training packages and training the trainer programs suggests a 3-4 year lead time at least.
There were some suggestions that fall into the category of “only if you’re paying”:
1. Fuel flow meters/totalisers; cylinder head gauges and EGT gauges on turbo 6’s;
2. Second runway at PH, more AWIS, more radar coverage; and
3. More UNICOMS.
and one that fell into the truly outrageous category - that CASA should have some role in determining the viability of aviation businesses.
And in closing some “fat chance” thoughts – Chimbu Chuckles would like to see CASA, Airservices and the ATSB re-amalgamated (too many SP Greenies me thinks Chuck) ; CFI wants to see the Airports Act enforced on leaseholders (by whom pray tell) and one brave poster suggested scrapping the priority for RPT flights (incoming!).
While I personally have little time for Mr Smith and his antics at least give him credit for trying to get some input from the industry.
My own experience is that petty issues, local irritants, personal grudges and dislikes and a complete inability to focus on major issues are just some of the reasons why the GA industry simply isn’t heard by decision-makers.

Chris Higgins
11th Jul 2007, 23:38
A good post Mate! Now if I could only get the QF website to give a stopover in Auckland on the way down to Sydney, I'd be better able to tell you when I could offer you a beer.

Nothing, including this industry is impossible to fix. We can fix it and again, Dick Smith has tried his best to affect change, only to have people take cheap pot-shots; yet again.

Goodonya Dick! I dunno why you do it.

12th Jul 2007, 08:50
oxygen at 10,000 = 14.2%
11,000 = 13.7%
12,000 = 13.2%

not a huge risk flying at 12K as opposed to 10K

Chimbu chuckles
12th Jul 2007, 09:40
tssnake that was a pretty negative post...not that I necesarily dissagree with you on the likelyhood of sundry outcomes.:ugh:

911 was not a failure of airport security, pilot licencing or anything else to do with our industry...it was an intelligence failure pure and simple...and yet we pay?

Spend the money where it is needed...it aint needed at SPPL level or anywhere else in GA.

In a country with such a relatively small aviation industry and few aircraft/airports we should be blessed with a very simple system...that we are not is a disgrace.

Appropriate use of Class C around major airports, D/GAAP around secondary airports and G everywhere else is all that is required...E has no net benefit.

As far as user pays is concerned the 'user' needs to be better defined...and the beneficiaries of aviation infrastructure,Every Australian, needs to be recognised...aviation infrastructure is no different to road, rail or shipping infrastructure...aviation is a basic requirement of a modern society and should be funded as such.

Maintenance requirements need to better fit the operation...no-one is suggesting cutting corners but a privately owned Cessna, Piper or Beechcraft does not require the same regulatory oversight and paperwork as a commercially operated Cheiftain or Kingair. We already, effectively, have an A+P system...they're called AMEs...widen their authority to sign off basic maintenance.

The problems facing GA in Australia ARE simple and DO have simple answers...but the lunatics running the asylum CANNOT admit that...overcomplication and obfuscation keeps them employed in numbers far greater than this industry can afford.

12th Jul 2007, 10:41
Hi Chris,
I have not addressed your responses prior to this. You state that there are many cheap shots being thrown at Mr Smith; again.

People rarely doing things for nil reason. The large majority in aviation are passionate about their job and the industry in general. The biggest whinge continually appears to be the absolute waste of resources directed at reforms that achieve little or in some cases, reduce the integrity of the overall system and increase the level of confusion. The available resources could be directed to much better use for the benefit of all; particularly those stakeholders who actually pay for a service.

RNP and Flextrack / UPR implementation immediately come to mind. Real benefits to the industry in fuel savings and the environment.

I have tried to recall a reform since the turn of the century in aviation initiated by Mr Smith that has been beneficial in any way to the Australian industry; and cannot think of one. CTAFs was and is an absolute debacle. Education was poor, but so was the model and the method of implementation. This was all under the control of the change proponent; the NASIG. Industry did not want it, but there was no way of stopping it.

The next round of NAS reforms will achieve nothing for the industry; and will in fact have a negative impact in some ways. Take low level Class E airspace surrounding a regional port; Gladstone for instance. Marginal VMC or IMC exists. One in, one out is all that can be achieved. Increased numbers of controllers and consoles will be required, and significant ATC training; and what is the gain?

Lower the Class E airspace to FL145 without surveillance will restricted turboprop operations obtaining a clearance above FL145. Currently aircraft not able to be cleared can cruise below FL180 with some economy. I would suspect cruising below FL145 would be less economical. No gain again.

The end state of NAS is to remove DTI. There will be massive opposition to this from all stakeholders. The push will be to remove this prior to surveillance being established in the relevant airspace. If we wait that little bit longer and redirect resources towards technology like ADS-B, then all will be happy when DTI provision is removed.

SUA is another one coming up. The military will not commit to this in any way and cannot comply with the US rules for SUA. Do we again change the model to suit Australia and therefore create another little piece of the hybrid jigsaw?

People are frustrated, and this frustration in most part comes from genuine concern about the future.

Change is good when it is an improvement. Adopting little bits of another model and staging the implementation over a number of years with little or no effective consultation does not work.

A real cost benefit prior to implementation will determine whether these changes are economically viable. There will be a negative cost to industry for all the NAS changes I have mentioned above.

How much money, time and risk does Australia throw at this? Any change carries a risk component. The large majority of changes in NAS fall into the category of change for change sake. In the majority of views some NAS reforms fall into the category of reduced integrity and safety. Hence the continued opposition to these reforms and to the constant rhetoric by certain amateur aviators.

23rd Jul 2007, 02:54
.. comon Dick, yer back in the country .... post the info (in full) :suspect:

24th Jul 2007, 05:32
... this thread Dick ... comon post the stuff you sent!
If you won't we will deduce why :=

Dick Smith
25th Jul 2007, 00:37
Following is everything that was posted that removes unnecessary rules and costs. This has been passed on to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Flying Operations

Oxygen requirements
In Australia oxygen is required above 10,000 feet in Australia. In the US and other leading countries oxygen is required above 12,500 feet, with an allowance to fly up to 14,000 feet for 30 minutes without oxygen. This saves up to $1 million per year.

Non-tower straight in approaches
In Australia there is a current requirement to be established on a 5 mile final to conduct a straight-in approach at non-tower airports. Joining on base is also not permitted. This adds to costs compared to the FAA requirements.

Part 135 – Air Taxi
Australia lacks a Part 135 Scheduled Air Taxi category and instead requires higher costs as aircraft of 9 passengers and below on a scheduled service are designated as RPT. . Over 50 Australian regional airports have lost their air services in the past 20 years. Many could get a service back again.

Single engine piston charter
Single engine piston aircraft cannot conduct IFR charter flights or Night VFR charter flight in Australia. This is possible in the USA, saving a large amount of money

VFR aircraft above FL200
VFR aircraft are restricted from operating above FL200 in Australia. No similar restriction exists in North America. There are times when an aircraft could fly at FL245 and save enroute charges and fuel.

Helicopter low flying
Low flying requirements are more restrictive in Australia, meaning extra costs for endorsements or modification of AOCs.

Aerobatic base height
In Australia a pilot with an aerobatic rating must not do aerobatics below 3,000 feet without a waiver. Not many people are qualified to issue these flight tests and waivers, meaning extra expense to travel to the location of a qualified person, and extra expense to pay for the training/testing. In the USA pilots with an aerobatic rating may conduct aerobatics down to 1,500 feet. Note that many aerobatic training aircraft do not perform well at higher altitudes, resulting in more time and fuel to climb back to altitude between manoeuvres. Aerobatic competitions also have a base height of 1,500 feet and below, so anyone wishing to compete must obtain a waiver.

Simplified AOCs
AOCs should not take 6 to 12 months and cost $50,000. Australia could harmonise with the simpler US system. AOCs should be available within days, not months.

AOC renewals
AOCs require regular renewals. Other leading aviation countries are not as onerous.

Aircraft on AOCs
In Australia there are separate charges to add a light single or a twin to an AOC. This is not required in the USA under the FAA rules.

Joy flights – AOCs
In Australia joy flight operators require an AOC. Joy flights within 25 miles do not require an AOC under the FAA requirements. Harmonisation could lead to savings.


ADs duplicated from manufacturer’s service bulletins
Some Australian ADs actually duplicate manufacturer maintenance requirements while some mandate one aspect of a manufacturer’s supplementary maintenance document.

Unique Australian ADs
There are many unique Australian ADs which add to costs but do not measurably add to safety.

i. AD/GEN/37 – Emergency exit to be checked every 6 months. The FAA requirement is every 3 years or as per manufacturer’s maintenance system.
ii. AD/INST/9 – Instruments in IFR aircraft must be removed from the panel every 3 years to be tested. There is no similar AD in the USA.

Cessna 400 and other aircraft spar inspection
The spar inspection is required at 8,500 hours with a cost of $50,000 to $100,000. A similar inspection is not required by the FAA.

Expert Airworthiness Approval (Section 7.1)
Australia has a requirement for an Expert Airworthiness Approval (Section 7.1). There is no similar requirement in the USA for US pilots when ordering parts from overseas.

Unique certification requirements
In Australia unique certification requirements still exist, despite a Government decision to harmonise – eg extra registration letters painted under the wing double the cost of signwriting registration letters.

Helicopter maintenance/training
Helicopters over 2,750 kg must be maintained to “Transport Class A” regardless of complexity. There is also a doubling of hours required for endorsement training compared with Class B helicopters. If rationalised with the FAA system there would be savings.

A&P System for aircraft maintenance
This system for aircraft maintenance personnel requires less training, and therefore lowers the cost of maintenance compared to the Australian LAME system.

Annual inspections
Australia changed from a three year airworthiness inspection to an annual system but did not harmonise with the FAA requirement.

Maintenance approval for flying training organisations
Flying training organisations need a separate maintenance approval. This is not required in other leading aviation countries.


Free in G
In Canada and the UK, an aircraft can fly IFR in Class G without a directed traffic service and not pay an enroute charge. Australia should harmonise with this as per the NAS policy.

Terminal airspace size
Larger Class D and Class C airspace around Australian towers means that greater diversions are required by aircraft avoiding the airspace.

Restrictive Military Airspace
In Australia aircraft are required to fly extra distances to avoid military airspace. In the USA and other countries they have Military Operation Areas, which aircraft can track through if military flying training or similar activities are taking place.

UNICOMs in lieu of Certified Air/Ground Operators
Australian Certified Air/Ground Operators need to have held an air traffic control or flight service licence. In the USA, any skilled person can operate the UNICOM, with far lower costs.

Simple Class D airspace in the USA means that a Visual Terminal Chart is not required for Class D. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved by showing the simplified NAS Class D airspace on the Visual Navigation Chart rather than printing extra Class D VTCs.

Local ownership

Rescue and fire fighting/air traffic control towers
The FAA saves up to 50% with their contract tower program. Major savings could be achieved here with local ownership.

Flight Instructors/Training/Licensing

Flight instructors – AOC
Flight instructors are required to operate under an AOC in Australia. In the USA, an AOC is not required, resulting in major savings and encouraging experienced pilots to put their knowledge back into the industry.

Flight instructors – hours on type
Australia requires an instructor to have 10 hours on a type specific twin, even if the instructor has hundreds of hours on other twins.

IFR helicopter instruction
In Australia IFR helicopter instruction must be done in an IFR helicopter. In the USA most IFR helicopter training is done on helicopters such as an R22. Costs are saved and safety is improved as more instrument ratings exist.

Student licences
Suggestion to allow CFIs to issue student licences so they can go solo when ready – not after Nav 7! This is a unique Australian requirement.

Student pilot approval - ASIC
Australia requires an ASIC with all of the costs and delays. The US simply requires that the instructor ascertains that the pilot is a US citizen by checking the students’ passport or birth certificate and noting this in the training records.

ICAO licence holders
Australia has a requirement for overseas ICAO licence holders to get a certificate of validation. Flight instructors could approve ICAO licence holders to fly privately here as per ICAO countries.

Biennial Flight Reviews
In Australia holders of fixed wing, helicopter and recreational licences are required to do three separate BFRs – one for each category. In the USA only one is required.

Instrument ratings
In Australia pilots are issued with a single engine or multi-engine instrument rating, with the multi-engine rating requiring 20 hours in multi-engine aircraft. In the USA there is no such requirement. If instrument rating training is conducted in a single engine aircraft, the pilot can still fly multi-engine IFR. In Australia pilots also qualify for each type of approach, which is listed on their licence. In the USA this is not done – a pilot just has an instrument rating. Harmonisation could result in lower costs and more pilots undergoing instrument training, therefore improving safety.

IFR recency requirements and annual renewals
Australia has recency requirements such as an ILS every 35 days. In the USA this is once every 6 months. Harmonisation could lead to substantial savings. Australia also requires an IFR renewal every 12 months. The US does not – as long as recency has been complied with. The helicopter instrument rating renewal can only be taken in an IFR rated helicopter in Australia. There is no requirement for the renewal in the USA. Even in Australia a Night VFR BK117, with IFR equipment which could be used to maintain approach currency, can not be used for a renewal.

A reduced number of endorsements are required under the FAA system, saving a substantial amount of money.


Exam cost
Presently the cost of exams in Australia is about 10 times the cost of sitting for similar exams under the FAA system.

Flying schools conducting exams
Flying schools can conduct cyber exams up to ATPL level in the USA – this is not permitted in Australia.


Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) costs
In the USA pilots can use existing identification such as a pilot licence and a driver’s licence with a photograph. A separate ASIC is not required. Many millions of dollars would be saved if we harmonised with the US procedure.

Condition lever
25th Jul 2007, 00:55

I have to admit that I am starting to agree with you.
Especially about the renewal of an instrument rating each year.
Re. the military airspace - there are lighty lanes available now. (a la ESL, WLM)
When are you implimenting these ideas?
And when are we getting rid of the ridiculous $75 (previously $130) charge for CASA to process a medical (ie rubber stamp)


25th Jul 2007, 06:51
Thankyou for posting the infoAirspace
Free in G
In Canada and the UK, an aircraft can fly IFR in Class G without a directed traffic service and not pay an enroute charge. Australia should harmonise with this as per the NAS policy.
Terminal airspace size
Larger Class D and Class C airspace around Australian towers means that greater diversions are required by aircraft avoiding the airspace.
Restrictive Military Airspace
In Australia aircraft are required to fly extra distances to avoid military airspace. In the USA and other countries they have Military Operation Areas, which aircraft can track through if military flying training or similar activities are taking place.
UNICOMs in lieu of Certified Air/Ground Operators
Australian Certified Air/Ground Operators need to have held an air traffic control or flight service licence. In the USA, any skilled person can operate the UNICOM, with far lower costs.
Simple Class D airspace in the USA means that a Visual Terminal Chart is not required for Class D. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved by showing the simplified NAS Class D airspace on the Visual Navigation Chart rather than printing extra Class D VTCs. … I don’t disagree with the first one .. that aside …. OK, so in the airspace context you forwarded this, which is clearly your view/s rather than those put forward in this thread … so what was the point of it?
Also, a question arising … did you couch this input as your opinion/s or the industry’s opinion/s??

25th Jul 2007, 10:49
After 12 Yrs here in USA I am not looking forward to putting up with user fees and a staggering number of overly complex rules and regs covering all the areas in your post above and many others.
There is more aviation going on and aircraft here in California in any single day alone than all of Australia put together and the system works extremely well coping with some of the worlds busiest and most complex airspace, mountainous terrain with peaks to 14,500' and extensive ranges over 10,000', snow and ice in winter and other severe weather.

Australia should be ashamed and disgusted of our system which is no safer than the system overall here in the USA but costs GOD only knows how much more to fund and keep :mad::mad::mad::mad:bureaucrats employed and others in the industry who arrogantly assume Australia is far superior to everyone else because we insist on re inventing the wheel, and badly at that and making everything as complex and expensive as possible.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

After studying the AIP at the beginning of the yr I saw rules, regs that have not changed in any way in 12yrs. Some are still word for word the same overblown ,overly complicated , hard to remember novels they were since the early 1980s when I started flying.:ugh::ugh:

It cost me $600 AUD in total costs and fees to get my ASIC and a Class 1 medical reissued and I have still to do my ME CIR renewal and DG course just to be ready to look for work in Aust again.

Let's all work to do what we can to finally overhaul our skies and our laws and procedures.
Flying in Australia with a US style system in place(even with our lack of radar coverage) should be a breeze compared to what I remember and to what I expect to face again next month.:(

tail wheel
25th Jul 2007, 10:58
I have been following this thread with great interest and Mods don't normally express opinions ..... but in this case I think Dick Smith has summarised all the posts exceedingly well.

You may not agree with everything on his agenda, but you must agree the vast majority make sense and very well reflect the opinions posted on PPRuNe.

I hope he succeeds! :ok:

Hello Canberra. Anyone listening??? :hmm:

Chimbu chuckles
25th Jul 2007, 11:18
Dick on your above points covering,

Biennial Flight Reviews

Instrument ratings

IFR recency requirements and annual renewals


you need to differentiate between what the regulator requires and what Insurance Companies demand to extend cover to an individual.

I very much doubt the savings in these areas are anything like significant. Insurance costs in the US varies enormously depending on what extended training courses an individual has completed...as an example someone transitioning from a simple aircraft, say 172, to a Bonanza may have to complete 20-30hrs cross country on the Bonanza with a suitably qualified instructor before coverage is extended at all let alone affordable coverage.

Hardly a month goes by when I don't read on the various industry websites I subscribe to about a US PPL holder CFITing while flying an ILS etc etc.

Here is a typical example...if you don't think this impacts insurance premiums you're dreaming...would the overly burdensome:ugh: Australian requirements have avoided this accident?


There is a price to pay for light regulatory hands...the old story, no free lunch.

I think you are naive to suggest huge savings in some of the points you raise above...other points you make above would surely be an improvement.

It seems to me though that reading your list above I see your old drum hidden (badly) among the items...what a surprise.

25th Jul 2007, 11:25

A good summary, well done.

In respect of your request for VFR aircraft to be allowed to fly above F200... they will be required to be equipped with a working transponder that is required to be switched on... won't they?

89 steps to heaven
25th Jul 2007, 12:28
Terminal airspace size
Larger Class D and Class C airspace around Australian towers means that greater diversions are required by aircraft avoiding the airspace.

I think I have followed this thread fairly well, but I don't think this has been raised by anyone. I really don't think this is an issue
Class D airspace around regional towers is just an appropriate size for the use. I remember when we had 16nm radius down to the ground, now 6nm.
Why avoid the airspace? We do our best to facilitate all flights, arriving, departing, transit. It may be that going around the CTA steps / Control zone might end up quicker, maybe not. Never hurts to ask, just don't wait til the last second to call, give us a bit of thinking time.
It also improves things if you can make the initial call with callsign and advise if inbound or transit, wait for an answer, then go ahead with full details. This achieves a couple of things. You get the controllers attention, they know what colour strip to put your details on, their mind begins to add you into the traffic picture and it reduces repeated transmissions.

25th Jul 2007, 12:48
Good bits there, Dick. However, you forgot to ask about why the landlord isn't keeping a tight rein on the tenants to stop them pouring on unneccessary charges and costs on their customers and sub-leasees at our major airports and GAAPS.

A close eye on some developments over the last few years could have saved a runway or two too!

26th Jul 2007, 01:12
Either support or don't have an opinion on most of your list, but will comment on the following.

VFR aircraft are restricted from operating above FL200 in Australia.

No they are not, but a badly expressed rules says they can't without CASA approval. CASA grants such approval if the aircraft is fitted with an IFR calibrated altimeter. They have also permitted glider flights without such, including class A airspace, subject to LOA with ATS. I agree this is a silly rule though.

No similar restriction exists in North America. There are times when an aircraft could fly at FL245 and save enroute charges and fuel.

Erm, not permitting flight above FL180 is an improvement over there hey????? The NAS changes are a bigger impediment to VFR access to high level airspace than this rule. Prior to the NAS 2B changes VFR could get a clearance up to FL285. Now they are permitted (subject to the above), but not in the class A base FL180 environment that coincides with the best radar coverage in the country - the area best able to deal with such flights. This is also the airspace that most closely resembles the US model, do you want to roll it back to class A with a base of FL245? If so, do you have any inkling as to what you will be demanding next week?

In Canada and the UK, an aircraft can fly IFR in Class G without a directed traffic service and not pay an enroute charge. Australia should harmonise with this as per the NAS policy.

I thought the NAS policy was to have class E airspace corridors 4 nm wide with a base of 1,200 FT AGL, and down to 700 FT AGL in terminal areas anywhere an IFR aircraft is likely to make an approach. The knock on for this in the US is no IFR aircraft can move anywhere without a clearance. Where do you envisage IFR exhibiting these wondrous freedoms, or is this more rollback? Isn't this the core of LLAMP you fought so valiantly against a short time ago??? You could have had this already and it is partly your fault it has not happened.

Larger Class D and Class C airspace around Australian towers means that greater diversions are required by aircraft avoiding the airspace.

The justification in the US documents for their skimpy terminal areas that aircraft within constantly brush the edges of is that they are separated with any IFR aircraft in the class E airspace surrounding. Reducing the size of D & C airspace without the mitigators present in the US has the potential to decrease safety, particularly with your 'free in G' mates happily brushing the other side of the boundary.

Do what you like to the vertical extent of such airspace, I'm sure OAR will prove it is safe before they implement it.

26th Jul 2007, 02:27
Aerobatic base height
In Australia a pilot with an aerobatic rating must not do aerobatics below 3,000 feet without a waiver.
About 5 years ago the CASA draft of Part 91 proposed 1500 ft however the response they got from the Australian Aerobatic Club and others was summarised as "Many respondents indicated that the minimum height for aerobatics should be initially set at 3000 feet and not 1500 feet as proposed in the regulation."
I haven't taken much interest in Parts 61 and 91 for ages due to the rate of progress but I believe that 1500 ft is now back in the draft.
As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy.... and he is us".

John Eacott
26th Jul 2007, 02:42

Well summarised: thank you for your efforts to date :D

26th Jul 2007, 03:31

May I requote your post from earlier in the month as I am only just catching up with my reading.

From its content I would guess you may have been as close as I to the NAS2b implementation and its attempted replay with 2c. :{:ugh::ugh::ugh:

There was a real example of unnecessary rules and costs. I never saw the clusterfcuk actually costed but it had to be more than several hundred thousand dollars chasing an idiotology agenda.

Just so those who seem to have a comprehension problem and are terminally resistant to learning from past mistakes here's how change is affected......thank you putytat. Eeeeeerm except for the little Kevie and his heavies maybe.:E And it will be great fun for all if Marn Fern gets the Aviation portfolio.

1. Vote 1 - Kevin Rudd

2. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms and ensure that the risks are identified correctly and thoroughly. Ensure that identified risks have documented mitigators and safety requirements that must be met prior to implementation where necessary.

3. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms to be included in any cost benefit analysis that must be completed by the change proponent. Ensure that these issues are costed correctly and ensure that the change proponents are required to provide detailed information on any CBA to the workshop participants post the event. Ensure that the participants are periodically advised of any amendments to this analysis right through to implementation.
Request information from the change proponent up front regarding exactly what level of CBA would be acceptable for a change to be approved and progressed.

4. Ensure points 2 and 3 are included in the PIR. Ensure that the PIR is firmly programmed into the initial project timeline. Ensure that the same participants will be involved all the way through the process to the PIR stage.

5. Analyse the project plan and timelines to ensure that the appropriate methods of promulgation are planned to be used (unlike CTAFs where a 52 page AIP SUP was used to hand amend AIP book).

6. Ensure that the same participants are fully involved in the creation of the relevant training and education package, and ensure that the content is adequate for the level / type of change.

7. Ask as many questions as necessary regarding the compliance with ICAO of any change proposal.

8. Ensure that the participants sight and approve the required changes to the relevant AIS documentation prior to printing and distribution.

9. Resist at all costs the attempts to use TCAS as a risk mitigator (refer point 7).

There's a starting point, but let's hope the ALP has other ideas and agendas more important than these insignificant reforms that will not add anything to the Aus aviation industry.

John Eacott
28th Jul 2007, 22:03

Re the hours for endorsement training, it appears that the (UK) CAA is proposing a reduction in their requirements. Discussion in a thread on Rotorheads:

The letter references an AIC, which directs readers to a JAA website. Sorry to be unhelpful, but I don't have the letter in front of me just now.
For SEH, the LTE for a 3 hour minimum conversion time for SEP and SET, which had modified the JAR-FCL 5 hour courses, is now replaced in FCL-2 Amendment 6.
The SEP to SEP and SET to SET minimum flight time is now 2 hours in each group, EXCEPT the R22 and R44: which go back to 5 minimum. (And no credit if R22 to R44 or vice-versa.)
The MEH (MET to MET) is now, broadly, 3 hours minimum flight time.
Add the time for an LST to the above.
There are other changes in AL6 too, but I hope this answers your question.

Dick Smith
31st Jul 2007, 06:44
Here’s another cost saving:

Night VFR
Pilots in the USA all do 3 hours dual training at night as part of their PPL. After passing their PPL flight test they are then qualified to fly at night. In Australia pilots must do a Night VFR rating of 10 hours dual (say, a cost of $2,000), including 2 hours of dual night circuits, 5 hours of dual night navigation training and at least one 3 hour navigation exercise of 100 miles or more. They must then pass a test at night. The result is that Australian private pilots have no night flying experience at all, unless they undergo extra costly dual training. Many do not complete this training due to cost – thus lowering the level of safety.

31st Jul 2007, 08:16
The band 'The Dead Kennedys' suddenly springs to mind for some reason....

31st Jul 2007, 08:25
"Pilots in the USA all do 3 hours dual training at night as part of their PPL. After passing their PPL flight test they are then qualified to fly at night."

Sounds to me like a quick way to end your life cycle!

Dr :cool:

PS: Dick, tell me you are not serious! You're not are you? Dick?

How about 3 hours dual training for a PPL. That would save some money. Do it at night in IMC and throw in a night rating AND an IR!

31st Jul 2007, 08:35

Dick, there is a minimum standard that we really shouldn't play with lest someone trys to push their limited skillset and ending up bending something, or worse:eek:.

For my money, I do not want a devalued CIR, thankyou very much!

John Eacott
31st Jul 2007, 09:44
In Australia pilots must do a Night VFR rating of 10 hours dual (say, a cost of $2,000), including 2 hours of dual night circuits, 5 hours of dual night navigation training and at least one 3 hour navigation exercise of 100 miles or more. They must then pass a test at night.


Well over double, nay treble, that cost for helicopters :* The 3 hour Nav is a farce, most training helicopters don't have the endurance for a 3 hour Nav, and there are some in the training industry, and in CASA, who read the requirement as non-stop 3 hours.

My last pilot who did a NVFR rating cost me a a lot, not least because the night Nav had to be aborted due weather and only totalled 2.5 hours. No discussion, another night Nav had to be flown of 3 hours total, no credit at all for the 2.5hr already flown :=

31st Jul 2007, 11:01

I actually agree with much of what you have said on this thread, but as someone who has and does fly a lot at night, the US night flying training is way deficient of what is required for competent execution of the "near IFR" flying that is night flying in most of Australia. In comparison with the population centres of the USA, we are "blessed"(!) here with huge expanses of areas deficient in ground lighting and rural "black hole" runways with the minimum of lighting requirements - not an environment for the poorly trained or overconfident.

1st Aug 2007, 00:30
Dick and others
I am doing some research on this issue and would appreciate advice on other non regulatory support measures for GA eg access to finance, insurance costs, access to aircraft to replace ageing fleet, taxation relief, remote area operation support etc etc

1st Aug 2007, 02:37

I really do not think our NVFR standards are too much for a training requirement, but I do think the point John Eacott raises is one needing some review.

NVFR/IFR are not things to take lightly.


1st Aug 2007, 16:43
Dick, Australia suffers badly from the NIH syndrome.
The US night flying requirement includes a dual night navigation exercise, and it is rare to complete the requirements, and reach the standard the CFI as well as the student would accept, in the minimum of three hours. Most take more than that.
I teach in the US and I have not had a pilot go out and kill himself because he thinks he has enough training at night. If I do my job correctly he will know that 3 hours is enough to give him/her an idea about night flying, not enough to jump out with three passengers in a 172 and fly over the mountains in the dark. Nobody is stupid enough to even try.
And I know there are accidents caused by inexperienced pilots at night, I would bet that happens in Aus as well. Nothing to do with licence standards. The Aus requirement is an overkill, as is the instrument rating.
Another point is that once qualified, as by definition all private pilots are, they only need three takeoffs and landings within 90 days to remain current. If their currency is lost, three solo (or dual would be better) circuits will restore it. No need to spend vast amounts of money to be able to fly at night.
One way the standards are maintained is that most schools, FBOs and the like have their own requirements before renting, that stop the cowboys and keep the insurance companies happy. No need for FAA intervention/cost/complication.
I would wager that if the US rules were to be brought in by fiat and Aus pilots gave them a fair shot, they would become believers real quickly.
Possible exception would be the groundschool, which in the US is seriously deficient. Too easy to cheat.

Dick Smith
2nd Aug 2007, 06:00
I’ve read your responses about Night VFR training but one important point seems to have been forgotten. That is, there is no requirement for Australian private pilots to receive any night training at all. Surely this is a safety consideration.

Yes, flight on dark nights in areas away from lighting can be risky, and these risks also apply to experienced pilots. It’s a matter of airmanship.

If the PPL training in the USA is so deficient, can anyone explain why there is no measurable difference in the resultant level of safety between the USA and Australia? Their mountains are higher, their weather is more treacherous than ours, and the traffic density is considerably higher, yet the accident rate is similar.

Perhaps the lower costs in the USA enable pilots to fly regularly and build experience, while our pilots may struggle to keep current – let alone to undertake further training.

Condition lever
2nd Aug 2007, 08:16
Hi Dick,

Please confirm that your position at CASA (on the board???).
There seems to be a great deal of discussion and not much action.
When would you expect that these suggestions might be implimented?

Regards CL

Brook Papworth
25th Aug 2009, 14:17
Hi Dick,

Your points are exceptionally valid. The cost differences here in Australia in regards to Aviation are notably different its worth getting your Visa and eloping.

The customer base in Australia is just too small to warrant competitive flying it seems. As a trike (microlight) instructor here in Oz, I am finishing off my PPL in the US since the King Schools theory is so much better than anything we have here and I have reviewed them all and studied the best one of them in great detail.

With my life on the line and flying being a global and GA being an primarily American affair I vote with my passport.

I noted the date of your original post, its been 2 years, and nothing much has changed within CASA.

Things such as night flying mandatory for PPL, deadstick / engine out landings, cost effective instrument training, they just dont seem to exist in this country, so the only players will become those who are simply using Australia as an economic currency trade agains the dollar, similar to what is happening within Australian universities.

That is a another reason that recreational flying is taking off so much here, because CASA would appear to be driving people away from GA and into old mates drinking / flying clubs...(with the resultant safety issues for passengers not to mention pilots).

The latest is just to transition recreational pilots to PPL without the same quality or depth of training, and CTA phobias. One thing I have noted is the lack of consistency in Ground Schooling in Australia, another reason I love the King Schools product.

There appears to be too many conflicting answers from separate flight schools on the same subjects, and as I recall flying is an applied science where cause and effect are considered somewhat.

I believe new CASA CEO John Mccormick is GA friendly though so who knows, with the right impetus and FAA CASA couplings, perhaps things could change?

I really feel for you after all your hard work, I hope it does change for the better in Australia over time in this sector...


Dick Smith
26th Aug 2009, 22:53
Brook, thanks for your positive words.

Kangaroo Court
26th Aug 2009, 23:40

I too have instructed in America and there is quite a lot of merit to your arguments regarding the deficiencies in the Australian PPL program; most notably the lack of an integrated night rating as part of the curriculum.

Making flying less expensive does not mean making flying "cheaper" which is not what the media wants to start spinning at the public. Flying has to be affordable so a standard can be met and maintained by the highest number of valued participants. Quite a different story than making it "cheaper".

I, too am deeply troubled by the number of American pilots with low academic standards and poor reasoning capacity being placed in the cockpits of sophisticated aircraft. I fear that the groundschools in Australia may have fallen into rote memorisation techniques that reward parrots with a pass too.

The academics of the Australian pilot population should not be compromised under some new "feel good" proposal that will make you popular with those that struggle to meet minimum standards.

If you make flying so easy an idiot can do it; you will find no short supply of idiots.

27th Aug 2009, 03:52
Having just restarted paying my hard-earned to ASL at $1.63 a question (not including CASA fee) I got to wondering about the arrangement CASA and ASL have.

Is it locked in that ASL have the exclusive rights to the delivery of CyberExams? If CASA dont want to do it themselves, they should at least allow for competition. Why Flying schools that are permitted to do BAK and PPL Cyberexams aren't allowed to do CPLs either is totally beyond me.

"we trust you up to a certain point..."

CASA taking their cut too really annoys me, too many snouts in the trough. And why do ASL charge more for an ATPL test? Same computer, same mouse, same keyboard... Maybe 30 mins more in a freezing cold room with some dodgy Australian landscape photos really is a commodity these days.

Kangaroo Court
27th Aug 2009, 10:53
It was always expensive. There are costs associated wtih the operation. Sorry your room was cold, but the rest of it just sounds like whining.

Kangaroo Court
31st Aug 2009, 11:41

I don't think that we need the entire system corrupted with instructors teaching the answers from the back of the book.

Despite your apparent paranoia, the Oystralian taxpayuh deserves to know that there is some standard guaranteed by their contributions to the pool.

The more you get to know about this industry, the more you will learn that most operators simply cannot be trusted and should be nowhere near self-regulated.

31st Aug 2009, 12:26
Well I certainly wasn't arguing for self-regulation, and I fail to see where my 'paranoia' is either...

Take the ASIC for example, at least one third party is able to provide another option to the market. As for the cost thing, sure, there are costs associated with the operation. But it only serves to strengthen the feeling that CASA, Govt et al have very little care in fostering and prospering aviation in this country.

This is not new ground though of course.