CTAF - yet more changes.

[criticalmass]

Remember when a CTAF was a cheese-shaped volume of air with an upper limit of 3000 feet and a radius of 5 nautical miles around the airport? Not all that long ago, was it? There were specific radio calls that had to be made. It was all pretty clear and easy to understand, and as far as I recall it worked rather well.

Then we had the "new airspace procedures" and operations around non-towered aerodromes. A CTAF could be a CTAF or a CTAF(R). One needed a radio to be carried, the other permitted entry without a radio. The dimensions of the CTAF area changed as well. It became a cylinder of air with no height limit, with a requirement that aircraft be listening to the CTAF frequency "by 10nm". Mandatory radio calls were documented and we all started cluttering up the frequency with call after call after call.

Realising the situation had gone beyond a joke, CASA decided to remove mandatory radio calls altogether and replace them with the catch-all proviso that pilots needed to make calls whenever they felt it necessary to do so in the interests of safety. Oddly enough, most pilots continued making most of the calls that had been mandatory - basically because they were genuinely useful.

Well, with effect from 28th June 2012, a CTAF has been redefined yet again, and now it has a defined upper limit. But the upper limit depends on what airspace lies above the area enclosed by the CTAF. The "by 10nm" requirement remains unaltered - for the time being. Another point; it is unclear whether we are to use the term CTAF now, or use the term NTA (non-tower aerodrome).

The new upper limits are as follows:-

i) if there is class G airspace above the CTAF then the CTAF upper limit is 5000 feet.

ii) if there is low-level class E airspace above the CTAF, then the upper limit is 8500 feet.

iii) if there is a control zone above the CTAF then the upper limit is the base of the control zone.

Instructors will doubtless relish the task of re-training existing student pilots in the new requirements. New students will just accept this as the word of God - until someone with not enough to do in the office of airspace reform in Canberra decides to change it yet again. Naturally all the training manuals, exams etc will be immediately re-written to reflect the changes.

The May-June 2012 edition of "Flight Safety" magazine detailed these changes, but my attention was drawn to it by an article in "Australian Aviation", July 2012 issue, page 84, sub-titled "The massaging of non-tower aerodromes (NTA) procedures continues."

I think the word "massaging" is rather perfumed, actually. I'd be using a far less euphemistic term. :suspect:

[Capn Bloggs]

You'd better give me the AIP references, Critical Mass, because apart from the introduction of Broadcast Areas (aka large CTAFs), I can't see any of what you are talking about in the 28 June revision.

By the way:
CASA decided to remove mandatory radio calls altogether and replace them with the catch-all proviso that pilots needed to make calls whenever they felt it necessary to do so in the interests of safety.
is misleading. At least two specific calls inbound and two outbound are "recommended", in addition to the new mandatory call. The rest, quite rightly, have been removed from the mandatory list.

[QSK?]

AIP or NOTAM reference would be handy, if available.

[criticalmass]

The last line in the article in "Flight Safety" May-June (page 4) 2012 states:-

"The changes are expected to come into effect on the AIRAC effective date 28 June 2012."

The last amendment to AIP, no 71 dated 28/6/2012 has the changes in section ENR 1.4-7, heading "Broadcast Areas", 3.3, subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2., but adds an additional upper limit in 3.3.2:-
c) Surface to a nominated level.

(Presumably this covers the eventuality that a control zone overlies the NTA but does not come down to SFC.)

3.3.3 states "The lateral and vertical boundaries are defined in AIP MAP.

[Capn Bloggs]

You're reading too much into this. There is no mention of overlying "control zones", although I could see that being logical (although I can't think of a need for a broadcast area under one of the current CTRs). For some years, large CTAFs (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/printer_30.php) existed over the top-end, in WA and the NT. The NAS ideologues had them removed a couple of years ago because they didn't exist in the USA. Guess what, they do work well and so CASA is re-instating them.

Yet another example of "I think they do things this way in the USA without really understanding it but let's copy it anyway" is not always the best way of making airspace policy (along with the circuit calls/verbal diarrhoea that was introduced at the "urging" of the same ideologues a couple of years back). :}

So, really, nothing much has changed this time round; the only change being an improvement/return to what was previously in place.

[CaptainMidnight]

(Presumably this covers the eventuality that a control zone overlies the NTA but does not come down to SFC.)Control Zones are from SFC up. Control Areas do not come down to the SFC.

Broadcast Areas are not CTAF.

I think you have muddied things to the extent that I recommend all read the 28 June 12 AIP ENR 1.4-7 to understand the real situation.

The problem with the so-called "Large CTAF" was that not having a vertical limit, pilots were unsure at what level overflying they should be on the FIA or Large CTAF. These Broadcast Areas remove that confusion.

A CTAF is just that - a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency. They are not a defined volume of airspace, simply a frequency to be on when in the vicinity (WI 10NM) of an AD/ALA.

[Jabawocky]

What's OLD is new Again!!

Anyone remember what an MBZ is ? :}:E:}

Whats that I hear you say Bloggs?

[josephfeatherweight]

126.7. That was an AWESOME idea! Not...

[Wally Mk2]

MBZ is still modern Jaba..........AFIS/Z....oh the good 'ol days!:)


Wmk2

[criticalmass]

I think Jabawocky raises an interesting point. How long before some whizz-kid in Canberra decides the "within 10 miles" isn't specific enough and decides all aircraft within (say) a 15 mile radius of an NTA must carry radio, and use it?

I recall precisely what an MBZ was, and it doesn't take much to see the new Broadcast Area with a CTAF surrounding an NTA morphing into something very close to what what we used to call an MBZ. (Why is it every time we re-invent the wheel we have to have this lengthy argument about what colour it should be?)

Now, I'm not against change if it improves safety or removes confusion about what the intention of the regulator is. However I am getting fatigued with the continued tweaking of the definition of a volume of air which constitutes a Broadcast Area (and which has a CTAF associated with it, since a CTAF is by definition just a frequency, not the volume of air itself - point acknowledged and noted).

Actually, I am still trying to remember what was wrong with the old CTAF broadcast area's 5 miles and 3000 feet boundaries. It precisely defined a volume of air. You were either in it or you weren't. The old MBZ of 15 miles radius and 5000 feet did likewise. One height, one radius for each volume of air. It wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well as far as I can recall. The boundaries were even marked with special symbols on the VNC and VTC. That worked too. Not any more. At least we have the radio frequencies on the charts again.

My thanks to Capn Bloggs for the heads-up about Large CTAFs. Being a southern state aviator who has never had the adventure of flying in the far North, I was unaware of these huge areas. Thanks, too, to all who have posted. Your time, input and effort are genuinely appreciated.

I'll grovel through AIP ENR 1.4-7 and try to pick the bones out of it sufficiently to impart the new requirements to any pilots I encounter who may be unaware of it. That's probably just about every pilot who holds any sort of recreational flying certificate, because their respective organisations don't seem to have promulgated anything about this at all. Most eloquent in their silence.

Meanwhile I'll look forward eagerly to the next instalment of the ongoing saga of the new airspace procedures. I don't think we've seen the last of it yet.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

LUV YA WAL.......

Cheers :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

their respective organisations don't seem to have promulgated anything about this at all. Most eloquent in their silence.
That's not the way it's supposed to work...is it? :confused:

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Wouldn't want to be flying from Moorabbin down Apollo Bay or something under the 'regular' 3500-5000 base cloud that sits around.

Tyabb, St Leonards, Dysdale, Barwon Heads, Grovedale, Torquay, Ceres and Moriac off the top of my head. And that's before you get past Anglesea.

Awful lot of talking to do.

[CaptainMidnight]

CTAF as defined volumes of airspace were problematic in that they did not work for medium to high performance aircraft. If you left it until entering the volume to call, you'd have the potential for a facefull of aircraft.

Becoming simply a frequency addressed that, but it does rely on the use of common sense, using the CTAF if your ops may infringe the circuit area or local ops at an AD/ALA.

[Woodwork]

I disagree wholeheartedly mr flappy - until the RAAF commenced providing 7-day ATC services at Newcastle, it wasn't uncommon for inbound 737/A320 to make calls at 50-60 miles, again at 25, and then every 5 miles from 15, and still end up in a massive balls-up as someone in a Jabiru or something crossed the Newcastle City CTAF boundary to the south (limit: Hunter River, about 5NM away from the AD) and entered the Newcastle CTAF, in between calls from the jet, and for both concerned to end up with a surprise windscreen full of the other.

Likewise, there are strips like Bathurst or Cessnock where an over-anxious CPL student just can't help themselves from broadcasting engine start, taxiing on alpha, entering 30, backtracking 30, lining up 30, rolling 30, airborne 30, crosswind 30, downwind 30, scratching left nut, had weeties for breakfast etc while the one or two other low-performance aircraft in the area pass through all the phases of rage and frustration to end up gibbering messes in their cockpits while they try to squeeze in an estimate or a request for the cloud base.

It makes far more sense for CTAFs - which are, let's note, a procedure whose risk tolerance is designed around low-density/low-frequency aerodromes - to be of varying size and dimension according to aircraft performance and traffic conditions, and leave it to the professionalism and airmanship of the pilots within it to determine at what point, and with what frequency, they broadcast. If pilots aren't professional/competent enough to manage that, it's beyond the scope of AIP to regulate common sense.

In any case, most of the people who struggle to determine what's appropriate for a particular CTAF probably haven't picked up a copy of AIP since their GFPT - I still run into pilots who remain completely ignorant that we ever went to CTAF(R), let alone got rid of them again!

[Capn Bloggs]

Actually woody, your argument supports fixed boundaries for CTAFs/Areas. The only problem with your scenario was that 5nm was the limit. If it was that airspace actually used by a jet, then the situation would probably have been completely different; before the Jabiru got to the boundary (say 10nm), it would have made a call, alerting the 737 before windscreens got filled. Newcastle was always going to be a dog's breakfast, as was pointed out to the proponent of the Class G Trial and then E there.

Your example highlights two things: the inappropriateness of low-level Class E airspace into a CTAF area for jet operations in busy airspace, and that 5nm was never appropriate/too close in some circumstances; the only reason we got lumped with it was because "that's the way they do it in America". :rolleyes:

What is needed is clear, simple rules so that even the most lowly-houred troop can understand and comply with. "Approximately 10nm" doesn't work in many situations where jets are involved, not that the most vocal Free in Gers understand.

Regarding your verbal diarrhoea student, there's only one person to blame for that! Unfortunately, as per your example, it takes years to turn the wheel around.

[Hempy]

So let me get this right...as you enter a Broadcast Area (SFC to 5000 AMSL outside radar coverage...so they actually vary in volume, perhaps leaving only 1000FT clearance with the cct height...), you broadcast on the CTAF or CTAF(R) or Multicom, but these broadcasts are not mandatory...right?

[Creampuff]

That’s probably correct, maybe for this week, Hempy. I don’t know.

But I’m guessing that’s your point….

With respect to Woodwork, I’m with mr flappy and Capn Bloggs. A system that has some easily rote-learned parameters with low-risk disadvantages seems to me to be better than one that is confusing. Sure there’s always a judgment call, but a system that leaves less scope for bad judgment calls by the inexperienced participants is better than one that creates more.

The best airspace system is the one in which the experts can anticipate and effectively mitigate the bad decisions made by the beginners. (Cliché Copyright Claimed by Creampuff, 2012)

[SW3]

The defined volume is the best option, especially at 5,000ft and 10nm at least. If you're on a local flight you often don't go above 5,000ft but may be anywhere under that. Anyone above 5,000ft is generally going somewhere. Way back in charter days I'd always plan between 7-10,000ft as it got you up out of the way.
Prescribed mandatory calls for taxi, entering runway, inbound and joining circuit are the way to go with a STANDARD FORMAT! Calling every leg of the circuit is rediculous. Make the required mandatory calls and only if needed make more as required.
Use a bit of common sense in regard to inbound calls. Jets/turboprops are monitoring the CTAF (NTA) from a long way out. Faster aircraft call further out as arrival time will be similar to someone closer but slower.
As for the volume of space, a jet/turboprop will usually be at 5-6,000ft 20nm out and 3,000ft at 10nm.

[Old Akro]

I think this discussion is mixing up good airmanship with regulation. I fly an antique aeroplane with a cruise below 60 kts and a complex twin with a cruise above 200 kts. You can't have a regulation that is appropriate for both. The bit the bridges the two is airmanship. The problem is that CASA no longer understands what it is and I'm not sure that our flying schools teach it. Regardless of the rules, if I'm on descent to a CTAF from flight levels, doing 200 kts, the radio calls start 30nm out and a listening watch on traffic at probably 60nm - and the calls will be giving a circuit area time estimate not a distance. 180 kts (for easy math) is 3nm a minute. 30 nm takes 10 minutes - about the time it takes a flying school single to do a circuit. On the basis that many guys only seem to listen to about 1 radio call in 2 (maybe 1 in 3?), you need to get out about 3 calls before joining the circuit. Try this approach in a Cessna 150 and between making a 30nm call and joining the circuit and either everyone forgot the first call of the guys in the circuit have all landed and there's a new crop of aircraft in the circuit. A simple 3nm call is adequate in this circumstance.

CASA has accident data going back 80 - 90 years. We didn't need this level of detail in the regulations 40 years ago when I started flying (an we had twice the air traffic). Why do we need it now?

[Icarus2001]

You can't have a regulation that is appropriate for both.Why not? We can and we do. We have road rules for bicycles to roadtrains to sports cars.

We didn't need this level of detail in the regulations 40 years ago when I started flying (an we had twice the air traffic). So you believe that in 1972 the traffic levels were double current levels in G airspace (old OCTA)? Any figures anywhere to back that up?

[Avgas172]

maybe more appropriate to do the calls in relation to time rather than distance from the field, then not a problem if you are in a cub or a citation ... Just the way I have done it for 30 years now ....

[LeadSled]

Icarus2001,
A good starting point would be Avgas consumption --- it is now a fraction of what it was in the '70s, and has not been made up by GA Avtur consumption.
I also remember 12 aircraft in the training circuit at Bankstown at the one time, now it should be called Ghostown. The flying hasn't moved, in the eastern states, it has disappeared.
Tootle pip!!

[QSK?]

Saturday morning at YMMB in 1973 when I was #13 in line for take-off. Haven't seen that level of traffic for years.

[T28D]

A year ago I ferried a twin across Aust from Bankstown to Jandakot.

Apart from Circuit traffic at Parafield ( had to go there ) not one of the CTAF all the way across had any, nada, none, traffic.

A U/S Navy helicopter at Ceduna was the only high light of the entire trip, even Kalgoorlie was quiet.

So we really need high traffic procedures for CTAF ?????????

I favour the time to CCT call regime, it allows for performance diferences and gives any other traffic time to decide which is best way to avoid conflict.

Worked for me for 30+ years without a problem , even into active glider operations .

[Old Akro]

Dick Smith has mapped the decline using CASA data. I'm sure its easy to find on his website. CASA have hours flown data on their website too, but I can't find it after the latest redesign. Icarus is the only person I've heard who hasn't accepted that there has been a marked decline in GA.

When I learned to fly at Casey airfield there were airstrips & flying schools at Berwick (Casey - gone), Tooradin (still there) Tyabb (Still there), Moorooduc (gone), Geelong (Lovely Banks & Grovedale both gone). There was another (Rockdale?) towards Bacchus Marsh which is now gone. Moorabbin had simultaneous operation on 3 parallel strips.

There was undeniably more flying from more locations in the seventies & eighties. There were less regulation, less people employed by CASA and its predecessors and (from memory) about the same accident rate per 10,000 hours flown. How have we progressed?

Casey airfield had antique aircraft, homebuilt aircraft, training aircraft, aerobatic aircraft, retractable single touring aircraft (as a newly minted PPL, I flew a Bonanza out of Casey) and occasional twins up to a Cessna 411. All out of a gravel strip that (if memory serves) was 2700 ft long.

For Icarus, road traffic is largely the same speed. Motorbikes, sports cars, cars, 4WD's & trucks basically all do the same regulated speeds. In the suburbs, so do pushbikes (if they're not faster). I fly GA aircraft with cruise speeds from about 50 kts to 220 kts. That is a time difference across 10nm of under 3 minutes to over 11 minutes. My point is that good airmanship would be for the fast aeroplane to make early calls. Not regulation - airmanship. Implicit but unstated in my post is that we could do with less regulation, but more airmanship.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Why not take a leaf from the old AFIZ days and call at 30nm on the way in.

Even the jets take around 7 mins or so for the distance, and 'normal' twins around 10 minutes.
Of course your bugsmasher may take up to 20 or so minutes, but at least everyone gets adequate warning with your estimate for the CIRA.....

And, aren't the jets at 1,500ft above, whilst the little fellas are at 1,000ft above?

Just another thought.....
:hmm:

[Old Akro]

That's my practice. I was responding (many posts ago) to an assertion that it required regulation. My simple assertion is that all it requires is airmanship.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

ONYA Akro........

Not many of us 'common dog' ones left - so it would seem.....
:{

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick Smith has mapped the decline using CASA data.
How ironic.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Yes Cap'n......Fully agree!!

But unfortunately, I could not possibly respond without some vitriol 'creeping in' due to his 'evangelistic' dismantling of the system and replacing it with....?????

N O T H I N G !!








:=

[Sunfish]

We are all lucky that the OH&S police haven't made us wear High Viz waistcoats just yet.

The state of "learned helplessness" caused by these regulatory oxygen thieves has to be seen to be believed.

[Vag277]

Old Akro et al

Some stats on aircraft numbers over the years. Sources are CASA and RAAus

RAAus Aircraft
January 2012 3414
January 2011 3216
December 2009 2955
December 2007 2912




Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft on the register, 1928 to 2006 Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Aircraft on the register, 1928 to 2006 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90135)
1975 4483 aircraft
2006 12,463 aircraft

Which regulations have changed that make VFR private flying harder or more expensive? When I learned to fly in 1975, it cost $30/hr dual on a graduate engineer pre tax income of $100/week. Today it could cost $250 on a graduate engineer income of about $1200/week.

[LeadSled]

1975 4483 aircraft
2006 12,463 aircraft

Vag277,
Never forget, statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital.

Since 1975 the definition of "Australia Aircraft" has been altered, so that the numbers you quote are not comparable. Indeed, the definition was changed to include such as AUF/RAOz aircraft, to bolster the raw number, to try and maintain a figure above 10,000.

The significance of 10,000 ---- apparently less than 10,000, and ICAO doesn't rate you as a "major aviation nation". --- who told me that --- a now very senior bureaucrat in DoIT, then brand new in the job, and perhaps not as discreet as he would be now.

For what is really going on, Avstats figures and avgas sales tell the story.

Aircraft sales are also telling ---- sale of conventional new aircraft is not actually booming, although the high dollar and low prices in US is leading to quite a few used imports --- but numbers are nothing like the rate of the '60's/70's.

As for "hourly rate v. gross income" ---- a telling factor is a comparison using "after tax and other unavoidable deductions".
Another serious "turn-off" is the perceived (whether real or imagined, but a case of the perception is the reality) aggressive enforcement by CASA. As an aside, anecdotal evidence suggests about 80% of students reaching GFPT drop out before getting a PPL, citing difficulty passing the CASA written examinations.

Re. the T-28D story, a colleague and friends recently had a flying holiday from Ghostown to Horn Island and back, via inland routes, although they saw the occasional parked aircraft, they did not encounter one single other movement the whole way up and back. As this group also found, fuel availability is becoming increasingly a problem, with old fueling installations no longer meeting ballooning EPA and OHS regulations, and fallen sales insufficient to justify upgrading.

Tootle pip!!

You should all have a look at the Australian Aviation Association's Forum aviation policy paper for a list of the problems we didn't have in the 70's. ---- and blame cost recovery on the Bosch Report, it was not Dick Smith's idea, all he wanted to do was eliminate unjustified expenditure --- that was to be recovered by the recommendations of Bosch, implemented by Hawke/Keating.

[Vag277]

I will gather more facts. In the mean time, note that the CASA numbers are VH registered aircraft while the RA-Aus are separate as noted. The two categories are not double counted.

See here for aviation activity since 1985
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/General_Aviation_Activity2010.pdf

Hours flown as reported by industry are higher than they have ever been since 1985 and probably before that.

1985 1.568million hours (nil reported for ultralights)
2010 1.999 million including ultralights

The issue of disposable income is not a regulatory issue so cannot be blamed on CASA or its predecessors. Government cost recovery polices, tax office, litigation lawyers, the welfare state or many other causes.

The issue of CASA enforcement also needs facts. How many prosecutions as percentage of ACO, COA and licence holders? Perception is not a fact - it is usually the product of unsubstantiated rumour.

Fuel availability is an economic issue for fuel companies. No government subsidies any more for regional aerodromes and most regional air services use Jet A1.

[Old Akro]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=411558008916811&set=a.388527251219887.92144.388525541220058&type=1&theater

[Old Akro]

Tried to post a photo. pprune doesn't seem to like the URL. I'll try again later. One of the problems with VAG's figures is that it is total flying. You need to strip out the airlines & choppers. The CASA website used to have a graph of annual GA hours flown, but I can't find it now. Leadsled is also correct in that the register contains a bunch of stuff (like hot air balloons) that didn't used to be there. In the late seventies I used to buy a copy of the register periodically (it came as a thick computer printout with the row of holes down each edge). My clear recollection was that the total number was always in the mid to high 6,000's.

[Old Akro]

Been through the current CASA annual report. They don't seem to be publishing flying hours any more. I did notice about 1500 balloons & gliders with VH registration and about 1500 helicopters. I suspect both of these would have been a handful only in the seventies.

Dick Smith has a graph of flying hours as the first thing on the Dick Smith Flyer page. And before the Anti-Dick people howl, I'm referring only to the graph which is just publishing the statistics that CASA used to have on its own website.

[QSK?]

These reports by the Department into the state of GA in Australia may be useful for this discussion thread:

General Aviation: An Industry Overview (http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2005/report_111.aspx)

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/general/GA_Action_Agenda_Report_v1.2.pdf

[LeadSled]

Vag277,
While you are digging up data, see what you can find about increasing use of Administrative Fines, anecdotal "evidence" suggest a very considerable increase, with a number of people who have rung me saying the first they knew of an alleged problem/offence was a request for payment of the penalty turning up in the post.

AMROBA also has some figures on the rather arbitrary use of Administrative Fines and the increasing frequency.

Only the most cynical would suggest it is a Government quest for revenue, it certainly has little to do with "Air Safety".

As for fuel being an "economic argument ", it cannot be so simply compartmentalised, there are a lot on inter-dependencies.

A group who are being driven out of business by aggressive auditing are country maintenance facilities, often "one man bands", who cannot economically cope with ever expanding paperwork demands. One recent casualty, not even in the country, was Sandora Aviation at Caboolture, well know P-51D restorer, as well a a general maintenance facility. Ed Field closed up shop, after about 20 years, he simply couldn't afford the CASA demands for Part 145 like paperwork.

Part 135 will be another nail in the coffin of light aircraft charter, despite various soothing statements about light aircraft maintenance by McCormick. Part 135 is pretty clear, "public transport" aircraft will have to be maintained in a Part 145 facility.

Even Qantas is apparently having trouble getting a Part 145 approval that they can commercially live with!

There has been no safety justification or serious cost/benefit justification of the proposed Part 135, much of the new regulation is regulation for regulation's sake. The fuel "regulations" defy rational legal definition.

The minimum aerodrome standards for Part 135 alone, will eliminate a large percentage of traditional "charter".

Tootle pip!!

[Vag277]

Table 1 on page 13 of the linked report clearly shows the GA activity levels which I quoted. The data has never been collected by CASA, always by BITRE and its predecessors who send aircraft operators a survey form every year.

The data published by Dick Smith is very selective. it is only private and business flying, ommitting training, aerial ag., charter, ultralight (RA-Aus) and gliding. His site says it is BITRE data. Again, see here: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/General_Aviation_Activity2010.pdf

Table 2 breaks it up further.

The CASA annual report provides data on a range of matters, including enforcement action taken. See here: http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100173/ar1112_p6.pdf

Enforcement action is at page 173 of the report. Numbers are interesting given there are 37,776 licensed flight crew, 860 AOC and 733 CoA. Small proportion of misbehavors in our ranks. Note also the actions taken to AAT and judicial review-page 171, 172

[Old Akro]

Which regulations have changed that make VFR private flying harder or more expensive? When I learned to fly in 1975, it cost $30/hr dual on a graduate engineer pre tax income of $100/week. Today it could cost $250 on a graduate engineer income of about $1200/week.

Plus landing fees, plus airnav charges, plus ASIC, plus rating test fees, plus licence printing fees, plus medical fees, plus AsA charts (used to be free), plus EPIRB (used to have full reporting).

When I learned to fly, I went solo in 7 hours, which was about average. Now the average seems to be 12. Syllabus changes, safety systems and general risk aversion has slowed everything down.

In 1974 I paid $14 solo / $22 dual for a PA28 (VH-CHR) at the now defunct Casey Airfield with Bill Campbell-Hicks. The member rate for a Warrior at Tyabb (an equivalent outer suburban airfield) is now $198 / $294. In 1974 there were basically no airnav / landing charges, but now they are added to hire cost. My first job as a graduate engineer paid $11,500pa. A Graduate engineer now is probably about $65k. So aircraft hire has gone up more than 14 times vs about 5.5 times for wages (or at least Graduate engineers).

[Vag277]

I guess we had some free rides for a while, then the rest of the taxpayers and those with their hands out said enough!

[Creampuff]

What was the Avgas levy for?

[Vag277]

Replaced Air Navigation Charges, an annual fee based on MTOW and general tax funding of the aviation bureaucracy including ATC and Safet Regulation around the time of the Bosch Report.

Fuel excise now forms about 61% of CASA funding. The taxpayer provides about 24%

[Creampuff]

How many people buy Avgas but don’t pay any GST or income tax?

Why do my taxes pay for public schools, when I have no children?

Why do my taxes pay for public hospitals, when I’ve never been in one?

Why do my taxes get spent on foreign aid, when I’m a xenophobe?

Why do I pay to use a piece of infrastructure that was a public asset, but is now a monopoly in the hands of a millionaire?

Why don’t I get a rebate on the cost of the diesel I buy for my car?

I wouldn’t mind ‘user pays’, if it was actually applied consistently. I wouldn’t mind getting rid of ‘free rides’, if all of them were abolished.

But, as we all know, it’s about politics, not principle.

The only sectors that are accused of having a ‘free ride’ are, of course, those that have no political clout. And the aviation sector has little political clout because it is disorganised and disunited (and is therefore its own worst enemy, as you note in your thread).

[Jabawocky]

And the avgas fee that used to cover nav charges.....goes where?

And we wonder why ASA now charge Nav charges.

Are we paying twice?...ohh and plus the GST:E

[Sarcs]

You should all have a look at the Australian Aviation Association's Forum aviation policy paper for a list of the problems we didn't have in the 70's.

Phelan's article on the AAA Forum policy paper is well worth a read:

Aviation forum’s formula for recovery – aviationadvertiser.com.au (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/12/aviation-forums-formula-for-recovery/)

There was also this summary of the policy in last Friday's Australian:
Industry calls for status in Canberra

THE next federal government should appoint a minister for aviation with his own department and commit to better industry engagement, according to a coalition of the nation's aviation associations.

The call is among a series of actions recommended in a wide-reaching policy document prepared by the Australian Aviation Associations' Forum ahead of next year's federal election.

The policy was launched in Sydney on Wednesday and has been sent to bureaucrats and parliamentarians, including Transport Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss.

It is backed by the Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia, the Australian Association of Flight Instructors, the Australian Business Aviation Association, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia.

The document looks at 15 areas ranging from aviation taxation and government policy to insurance, research and regulatory reform.

The associations believe the focus on aviation issues has been lost in the restructures and portfolio changes that have occurred over recent decades. They also believe that while the government's aviation white paper was a good summary of existing aviation policy, it lacked vision.

The policy document argues that aviation is an essential part of the national infrastructure but this is not reflected in the structure of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport or its predecessors for the past several decades.
"There is a distinct lack of any government instrumentality with a clear charter to promote aviation and yet it is the preferred mode of transport for business, tourism and industry," it says.

The AAAF members want the government to develop stand-alone aviation policies overseen by an aviation minister with his own department.

At the very least, they want an improved ministerial focus through a parliamentary secretary and a clearly delineated department or division. There should also be a high level "Aviation Research Institute" investigating and analysing industry issues and trends.

On the regulatory front, the document calls for a review of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board to include industry representation and for reform to be taken from the regulator and placed with the department.

Other calls include a change in legislation to give aviation agencies the power and responsibility to foster and promote an Australian aviation industry, the abolition of the carbon tax and a 60 per cent aircraft depreciation rate in the first year.

They also recommend a 150 per cent write-off for aviation research access to HECS for all commercial pilots, financial support for aviation services to regional centres where a commercial service is not viable and the reintroduction of an en-route subsidy.

A lengthy airports section calls for an integrated airport and aviation policy to ensure development is compatible with the industry and guaranteed access for regional and business jet services to capital city airports.

It says government should "direct the ACCC to oversee and direct pricing at major and secondary airports and direct it to maintain a focus on airport pricing, especially as it affects aviation users".

AAAF chairman Chris Manning said the document marked the start of a high-level campaign designed to push aviation, and predicted it would be a long process.
"It's forward-looking, it has a fair bit of vision," he said. "It's not what I would call 'in the weeds' too much. It's positive, it gives solutions to the things we think are important in aviation."

Representatives of organisations attending this week's launch said there was a consensus on the policy document.

AAAA chief executive Phil Hurst said the policy was not a carping criticism of CASA or any other particular agency. "What we've tried to do is learn from the past, to suggest a framework for the future, because we believe it is the framework that is causing a lot of the problems we see in aviation," he said.

Mr Hurst said the forum wanted political parties to look at the policies, to pick them up in the spirit in which they were offered and to engage with industry to work out what could be delivered.

"So when aviators broadly in the industry come to the next election, they should have much better idea of where the political parties stand in the terms of their commitment to something that a lot of the industry has signed on to," he said.
However, it may be some time before that happens.

Spokespeople for Mr Truss and Mr Albanese said they were still considering the document.

However, as Creamy alludes to, while the industry remains "disorganised and disunited" with little "political clout" the AAA Forum's well constructed policy will continue to fall on deaf ears while we have a Minister so totally disconnected from the aviation part of his portfolio!

[Old Akro]

Aviation is about the only area that got suckered into "user-pays". It doesn't happen with road transport, or sea transport and it definitely doesn't happen with rail transport.

And given that we got stuck with user-pays, we also missed the concept that those that pay get a say in how the money is spent.

CASA cost approx $175m last year. That's about $14,000 per aircraft registered. or about $7,000 per pilot. Just doesn't seem like good ratios.

Its a bit of an unfair comparison because of economies of scale, but the FAA budget is about $10,000 million and they have about 230,000 aircraft. That's about $45 per aircraft registered, or about $16 for each of their 600,000-ish pilots.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I continue to marvel at the outrageous ability of the bureaucracy to expand to consume all of the allocated expenditure without delivering a service.

Back to the future with a minister of aviation. As Chimbu Chuckles correctly pointed out years ago. Aviation in Australia is stateless, unrepresented and overtaxed with little return from that investment in the public purse. Clever accounting from the Hawke/Keating government extracted the money making part of aviation from the loss making part...guess which part we got?