The General Aviation Industry is Being Destroyed

[Dick Smith]

In an article in this morning’s Australian newspaper under the heading “CASA Boss to Tackle Regulation Problems” (reproduced in entirety below) there is absolutely no mention of the real problem with the new rules – and that is the cost increases that result from these new rules.

Let me quote some of the comments,

“complaints continue about the implementation of the previous rule packages……anomalies raised by the regulations have already been introduced.

…..conceded the authority had not done well with implementing the new rules”

It’s as if Mr Skidmore, because of his military background, has no idea that the problem with the new regulations is the drastically increased costs that come from them. The general aviation industry is being destroyed and because of this.

I wonder if Mr Skidmore has been told by the Minister “whatever you do, don’t mention cost.” Then again, if you’re from a military system that could lose $1.4 billion of taxpayers’ money on the Super Seasprite project and hold no one accountable and no doubt promote the people that were involved, you can see what happens.

I don’t think Mr Skidmore understands that it won’t matter how much more consultation you take, if you won’t admit that the problem is higher costs compared to our competitor countries you actually get nowhere. Here in the article it says,

“on the problems with recently implemented regulations Mr Skidmore said “I don’t think we’ve sorted it out too well at this stage.”

Note once again, no mention of cost.

I predict that things will get worse and worse. I suggest to everyone that they get out of aviation as soon as you can, sell your planes because you are going to be in for huge losses in the future. Here is the full article...

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is poised to launch an online tool and hold a series of meetings in an attempt to avoid the problems that have dogged the implementation of new aviation rules and upset many in the flying community.

Complaints continue about the implementation of previous rule packages, particularly the Part 61 pilot licensing and Part 141/142 flight training regulations.

CASA chief Mark Skidmore is keen to avoid a repeat of problems as new rules are rolled out in areas such as flight regulations, air transport operations, sports aviation and limited category aircraft operations.

He is also diverting more resources inside CASA to try some of the issues and anomalies raised by the regulations that have already been introduced.

Mr Skidmore conceded the authority had not done well with implementing new rules in the past and needed to work out how to do it better into the future.

“The other part of it is if we look at the regs that we still have remaining there’s about 12 and some of them are significant,’’ he said. “What I want to do — well want and need I guess, you can probably put them together — is work with the aviation community to actually understand what’s the best timeline for these.’’

He said some people wanted new regulations implemented immediately while others said they were unable to handle the pace.

“And my own resources are actually fairly stretched with regards to actually implementing them so I want to get a better idea. Before I come out with it I’d like to talk to people and get a better idea of how we can do this.’’

CASA is holding a series of consultation meetings starting this month in Launceston, Hobart, Moorabbin, Darwin, Albury, Bankstown and Brighton Le Sands in Sydney.

It is also launching an online consultation tool in the coming weeks that will allow members of the aviation community to be part of the consultation process.

“It’s not just for this, but I see it as an opportunity into the future … for other areas like Flight Planning 2030 forums that I’m having,’’ Mr Skidmore said. “We’ll have an opportunity for people to be able to feed in information to us without actually having to be there for the forums.

“I also want to try and get to is a stage where we’ll have feedback available on the websites as well.’’

On the problems with recently implemented regulations, Mr Skidmore said: “I don’t think we’ve sorted it out too well at this stage so I’ve actually told my team that I want to get more focus on (Parts) 61, 141, 142.

“I’m actually taking some resources off other areas and putting them together and saying let’s get some more focus on to this and let’s make sure we solve these concerns.’’

Mr Skidmore was appointed last year in the wake of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review as part of moves to mend the fractured relationship between CASA and the aviation industry by fostering greater consultation.

The review headed by former Qantas executive David Forysth found the regulator’s ‘‘hardline approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to a lack of trust between CASA and operators.

The government also brought in new CASA board members, appointed industry veteran Jeff Boyd as chairman and issued a fresh statement of expectations to the authority. The process continued yesterday with the appointment to the board of Philippa Stone, a lawyer with experience on the Airservices Australia board and with the International Air Services Commission.

Mr Skidmore said the regulator was also “rolling on whole bunch of different programs to try to get, I think, better communication and consultation with the industry’’.

He said he been out in the aviation community attempting to get an understanding of people’s concerns.

“It is important that we understand how it’s going to impact people,’’ he said. “I don’t want to roll things out there to people without understanding what it really means to them because that just doesn’t make any sense to me.

The CASA boss is aware that he will not be able to please everyone. “There will still be some people who won’t be happy because they’ll complain it should have been done earlier, it should have been done later — you’ll never come up with the absolute sweet, perfect solutions but we’ll do the best we damn well can.’’

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Dick, why don't you just call him up and ask him if he understands all this? It's got to be more productive and illuminating than constantly ranting and grandstanding on Pprune, if not as personally gratifying.

[Frank Arouet]

I believe the point Dick is making is that Skidmore doesn't or won't listen. Therefor PPRune is the proper forum to air these concerns. I do know CAsA read these forums because I posted only yesterday a glaring mistake made with regard the CAsA Launceston soiree to glean yet more industry input and during the subsequent posts the CAsA site made the necessary amendments to the stuff up.


What exactly is it that urges people to try to shut Dick up?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I believe the point Dick is making is that Skidmore doesn't or won't listen. Therefor PPRuNe is the proper forum to air these concerns.

I can't see where Dick is making any such point at all, nor that there's any evidence that Skidmore doesnt or won't listen. He mightn't be doing exactly what Dick & his cheer squad want, but that's not the same as refusing to listen. As for this being a proper forum for airing these concerns, I think you're having a lend of yourself if you think venting on here achieves anything beyond gratifying the cheer squad.


What exactly is it that urges people to try to shut Dick up?

Well, I was only trying to suggest a more fruitful outlet for his energies - but loud and repetitive noises can become wearing after a time.

[Squawk7700]

Frank, itsnotthatbloodyhard is ex-military himself so I would expect that kind of response. Moving from the military to an airline as he has will usually make you forget about those little people that fly GA.

I'll happily have Dick campaigning for reducing my costs any day of the week :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

I think he protests too much. The R&F see through that sort of thing.


Dick is doing something. Skidmore is doing nothing.

[Vag277]

How about some facts?


A breakdown of the operating costs of an aircraft and a GS organisation would add some credibility to the rants on this site.


What evidence does anyone have that nothing is being done? The Minister delivered the government response to the ASRR to CASA at the beginning of June 2015.


Skidmore has established and run a successful aviation business in the past and he is an aircraft owner so has some awareness of the industry outside the RAAF.


A few fact checks would make all this more credible!!

[Jabawocky]

I think he protests too much. The R&F see through that sort of thing.


Dick is doing something. Skidmore is doing nothing.

Frank,

You and I agree on many things, and just like Leadsled we probably agree on far more than we disagree, but I have to say on this topic, from my direct involvement with both individuals over the years, one has done far more on the positive side of the ledger.

On the statement you made above, we will not be able to agree. The evidence strongly supports the opposite in my experience. Even as recently as yesterday.

Cheers :ok:

[Aussie Bob]

I sincerely appreciate Dick's efforts!

[no_one]

The first rule of making a complaint is to tell the person you are complaining to what you want...

While I admire your sentiment Dick many times I think you fail to get what you want because you do not articulate what needs changing to fix things. Take the new part 61 for instance, what bits would you want changed to reduce cost to industry? Would it be flight reviews or what?

[no_one]

The second rule of complaining is not to make it personal....

You can speak with passion, emotion and enthusiasm but stick to the logic of your argument. As soon as you attack the individual your chances of getting what you want drop dramatically. When you are complaining, you only get what you want when the other person concedes something. Are they likely to help someone out who has just insulted them?

[Dick Smith]

It is only the Director that can make the necessary change in culture so that the organisation concentrates on removing every unnecessary cost.

There is no hint of that. Unfortunately the opposite if you read his recent letters.

Re Part 61 it's simple. Remove every requirement that resulted in an increase in cost as there was no safety issue being addressed .

Mr Skidmore just talks about how it could have been better implemented not that it should not have been implemented at all.

GA is being destroyed by military people who are no doubt genuine but don't understand the fine margins in GA.

[edsbar]

And what about Part 66? Oh that's right we have all dropped out pants, bent over and had sand thrown up our arse before being well and truely f&@$d over :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[wishiwasupthere]

edsbar And what about Part 66? Oh that's right we have all dropped out pants, bent over and had sand thrown up our arse before being well and truely f&@$d over

Well that's constructive.

[Hasherucf]

edsbar Part 66 isn't mentioned in that article so obviously you have no issues :ugh:

Launceston, Hobart, Moorabbin, Darwin, Albury, Bankstown and Brighton Le Sands in Sydney

No WA , QLD or SA ? No flying there ?. Maybe those locations aren't announced yet ? Link on website anyone ?

[CaptainMidnight]

Therefor PPRuNe is the proper forum to air these concerns. No, the proper mechanism is via your industry association or representative body.

As for this being a proper forum for airing these concerns, I think you're having a lend of yourself if you think venting on here achieves anything beyond gratifying the cheer squad.
Agree.

[Dick Smith]

It's clear that nothing works. That's why I have made the warning to get out before more money is lost.

It's clear Mr Truss gives no direction in relation to reducing costs.

And I understand he has informed his party that he plans to stand again.

Mr Albanese does not appear to have any vision in relation to the GA part of his shadow portfolio .

A good Chairman but you need more than that- note how Mr Skidmore supports the system and its previous decisions.

That's probably why Mr Mrdak supported the employment of Mr Skidmore.

Bankstown is getting worse and worse- almost dead!

And I don't see the slightest light on the horizon .

[thorn bird]

Dick our estimate between 15 and 20% increase in overheads due to the new regulations, unfortunately more to come which I firmly believe are unsustainable. We are losing a lot of work to New Zealand because their cost base is considerably less than ours. They have sensible regulations, maintenance costs alone are a third cheaper than here.
When it takes 18 months and a couple of hundred K to obtain an AOC, when it costs a hundred grand to gain approval to operate a new type, its mico managed madness, what safety issue were they trying to fix??

We now have unqualified inexperienced people in CAsA dictating how aircraft are to be operated. Its only a matter of time and there will be a major incident, who will accept liability?

Regarding Bankstown, it wont exist in Five years if the development sharks get hold of it. Whats next' privatize our national parks perhaps?

[Lead Balloon]

I've an idea no_one: Lets's get some independent experts to do a review of aviation safety regulation in Australia. Let's get them to gather submissions and distil the key issues of concern - objectively and stripped of anything personal or emotional - and make recommendations for improvement.

Then Mr Skidmore would have some recommendations, made by independent experts based on their objective assessment of the submissions, for much-needed improvement.

Oh wait - that's right, precisely that kind of review was done and precisely those kinds of recommendations were made, and Mr Skidmore dismissed them as "one person's opinion."

He's now defendiing Part 61. His handling of the CVD issue shows that he's not willing or able to be convinced by objective evidence and objective risk assessments.

He's well and truly captured by the people who've run CASA for the last couple of decades. But for the money he's paid, I'd actually pity him.

[SOPS]

Being a victim of 89, I have been overseas for 24 years. I went to Jandakot today for the first time in 20 years. I was shocked at what I saw. The place is almost dead. Seriously, I could have let of a atom bomb there, and not killed anyone.

This whole user pays thing, has killed GA.

It's very very sad.

If I was put in charge, I would change the whole system back to how it was..a regulatory system helping the industry.

And much to Dicks disgust, reopen flight service units all around the country.

And ban landing fees, circuit fees, all Casa fees, the whole bloody lot.
I fear GA in Australia is on the way out. And that is very, very sad.

[ramble on]

What I saw, was that anyone in the military that got above the rank of Group Captain, Colonel, Comander got there by being a consumate career politician, tea room advocate, officers mess gadfly and poodle faker.

Thats the only way to get ahead in the peacetime military. One foot wrong or unwise word and they're out on the street.

Hale to the soldiers.

[Sunfish]

I thank Dick Smith for his well meaning efforts but I suggest that he has missed the first link in his chain of reasoning. The cost, complexity and confusion of Australian aviation regulation destroy opportunities for investment, growth and jobs in the AUstralian aviation industry.

The litmus test for all legislation and regulation regarding aviation is to ask the question: "How will this regulatory action affect Jobs, investment and Growth in the aviation industry?". If this is not done then the GA sector, and later Experimental and Recreational aviation is just going to wither and die.


With respect to Itsnotthatbloodyhard, I think you do not appreciate the situation:

I can't see where Dick is making any such point at all, nor that there's any evidence that Skidmore doesnt or won't listen. He mightn't be doing exactly what Dick & his cheer squad want, but that's not the same as refusing to listen. As for this being a proper forum for airing these concerns, I think you're having a lend of yourself if you think venting on here achieves anything beyond gratifying the cheer squad.

Aviation has been subject to a raft of reviews, the latest being the Forsyth Review, and they all say substantially the same thing: the system is broken. Every alphabet organisation in the country and hundreds of well meaning individuals have spent Twenty years of their own time and money on any number of consultations and patient attempts to get some sanity into the system and have received SFA! That is why we are reduced to squealing on Pprune! There is nothing left to do except start a political pressure group to declare war on CASA and what it stands for which is corruption, inefficiency and bias. It is an industry funded parasite.

We now have the situation where CASA decided to go the full EASA micro managed complexity route of aviation regulation in the name of "conformity" without any consideration of how that might affect industry, even though blind freddy knows that the Europeans have tied themselves up in regulatory knots so complex and expensive that GA is Europe is mega expensive where it occurs at all.

To put it another way: What is CASAs reaction to EASA's decision to substantially reduce the regulatory burden on GA after it became apparent that its regulatory approach is going to kill it?

No. This is no time for "tinkering around the edges", we are not having "a few teething troubles". The system is rooted and nothing is going to fix it. The system is run for the benefit of the bureaucrats that run it. Their 'customers" are risk averse politicians in Canberra. We are just "consumers' who get fed this ____ every day.

Now I must go and write to Airservices to get the aircraft noise "Certificate that says I am exempt from needing a certificate". I already paid $700 to learn how to write a maintenance release. I am up for a new ASIC, medical, biannual flight review and a $2500 transponder. Luckily I don't run a business or have required any special permissions from CASA or the costs would run much higher.

To put that yet another way: Why in hells name would any Governmennt approve of a regulator charging by the hour to "consider" an application for anything? Don't they understand that it is an open invitation to inefficiency?

As for AVM Skidmore, I'm sure he means well but the bureaucrats will wait him out. Even if a few heads are lopped, the structure of the system. wording of regulations, delegation of approvals, financial controls, etc. etc. have been set up for the benefit of a few bureaucrats, not the industry, and new appointees will succumb to temptation as quickly as a trade union official.

If I had my way, I would go to PM & C and confess. Then with their advice, set up a tiger team with no CASA involvement to adapt the NZ/FAA regulations to Australia n produce the legislative and regulatory package. I would get some organisation design girls to split up CASA and separate rule making from enforcement and ensure the independence of ATSB and incorporate that split up into the legislative package. I would then get the legislation passed, with transitional provisions and make everyone in CASA reapply for jobs in the new organisations. The guiding principles of the new legislation? Safety, fostering the development of the industry and an end to rule by "exemption".

[DutyofCare]

So many of these posts are to the POINT :D :D :D

When are we going to see some accountability in office for large sums of money being spent ???

DICK >>> HOW LONG WILL WE CONTINUE TO ROLL OVER & COMPLY PLS :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

What has Part 61 achieved to advance aviation safety pls ???

How much money & time have we as operators spent on compliance to these new rules to get what results ???

I remember Gillard saying she had " TOTAL CONFIDENCE " in CASA after the Pelair Westwind ditching at Norfolk Is inquiry >>> well I can't begin to tell you how many holes that Doc had in it !

ITS NOT JUST ME SAYING THIS EITHER, PEOPLE ARE DISCONNECTING FROM THESE GRUBS NEW RULINGS / PROCEDURES :ok: :ok: :ok:

[Ultralights]

if the whole industry disconnects from CASA and the new rules, and continues to operate under the old system, regardless of CASA, what can CASA do about it? fine and shut down the entire industry? just how will politicians charter aircraft then? i know such actions wont happen, its the major thread running through our society, we just suck it up, and put up with ever more regulation and removal or rights and privileges, whinge and complain, but never take action

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

Yes my friend we do disagree on some issues. Take for example the mandatory fitment of ADSB. Even after the fraud of free installation was exposed. I also note Mr Skidmore doesn't see the industry call via AOPA for a moratorium on the ADSB installation date. Do you have common ground here and is this compromising your assessment? What is the SAAA position on this?

This matter with AOPA is probably the reason people are using PPRune to voice their concerns as it seems he just won't listen to industry input despite calling for more consultation.

At the risk of more repetitive "noise" becoming wearisome for the AVM's batman, may I ask where does your new information stand in regard this ADSB matter?

And just a quick note to the person who made the comment not to take personally any issues they may have with the regulator. Can I say I've been fighting this mob for decades and this DAS is a carbon copy of the train of incumbents before him. To me this points to a systemic problem with political identities within the organization, but that's another matter. Just how much loss is definitive of the point where one should take it personally? Have you suffered a financial, personal, family, loss at the hands of CAsA?

They say an average pilot has as many take offs as landings. Skidmore has a job demanding more than an average. If this means having a few crashes, the industry he has oversight of will make allowances if they see him doing so in the pursuit of bettering their present predicament.

To date he demonstrates he is just average.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Hi Sunfish, thanks for a very well-reasoned and well-written post. I fear you may be misunderstanding me somewhat. I'm in what I think is a quite privileged position in aviation, with a relatively secure income and a fair amount of insulation from unnecessary costs and BS - but that doesn't mean I haven't had a gutful of overregulation, over-complication, and unnecessary charges. It's getting beyond a joke, not just in aviation but in society in general. One of the greatest growth industries of the last couple of decades has been the imposition and administration of regulations, and I think a lot of us are plain bloody sick of it. We're even seeing the success of governments measured by the numerical quantity of new legislation they've foisted on us, for God's sake. So I'm philosophically far closer to Dick and yourself than you might think. It's just that I've got a couple of issues with some of the discussions here.

One is the pointlessness of a lot of it, and what I think are unreasonable expectations. If a government monolith has just spent a huge amount of time, money and energy on new licensing regulations, however stupid and pointless (can anyone tell me exactly what the real benefit of Part 61 is?), they're just not going to suddenly bundle the lot up and throw it all in the nearest skip, however much we think they should. A lot of the carping negativity here doesn't achieve anything, either. "Squealing on Pprune"' is a long way from "starting a political pressure group", after all.

Second is the constant ad hominem bull**** we see here, in which Dick is sadly a regular offender. Dick, with almost clockwork regularity you slag off Skidmore as having no awareness of costs, due to his military background. How on earth would you know? Consider that, as was mentioned earlier, the bloke started a successful aviation business, and owns his own aircraft. Is it just possible that someone in that position might have just as much appreciation of costs and fine margins as, say, a bloke who's sitting on a huge pile of money, having sold his electronics empire for a fortune? Had that ever occurred to you, Dick, or do you just prefer to keep trotting out the same trite old lines because they happen to suit your view of the world? I just fail to see what continually slagging the bloke off here achieves. When I suggested calling him up and talking to him instead (have you ever done so?) I was quite serious, because it might actually be constructive.

I suspect you're right in that nothing is going to make much difference, but surely the best chance, if there is any, is to engage with these people in a mature and sensible fashion. What's going on here is more the internet equivalent of hanging from trees, making hooting noises and throwing bits of bark and dung at passers-by. Great fun, but hardly helpful in solving what are some very real problems.

[yr right]

I said from the start that this person was the wrong person for the job. Ex military are like school reach out off touch with reality.
However with may have a chance with Geoff leading the way now.
You only have to look at what the difference between the two are. One that has been there done that and the other that hasn't.
But what we need is accountability with Casa awi. If found to be neglected in their actions and fraudulent there needs to be compensation

[Clare Prop]

SOPS, the gusty 20 knot crosswind at Jandakot yesterday would have had something to do with how quiet it is, but you are right it is a shadow of what it used to be.

The changes are as irreversible as the tilt up concrete jungle on the way in to the airport. It is quiet here because businesses haven't adapted.

If only Dick would concentrate his considerable energy, influence and resources into putting pressure on the government to actually do what they said they would do in their pre election policy statement. The Coalition?s plan for Aviation | Liberal Party of Australia (http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/30/coalitions-plan-aviation) How about it Dick?

[havick]

Here's a great example where Part61 isn't just affecting the bottom dollar of GA, it has actually increased the risk to the community.

Last month CASA released a further exemption (CASA EX148/15) to allow pilots that were previously carrying out firebombing/firefighting activities prior to 01SEP14 to continue to operate without the need for the Aerial application rating-firefighting (whether it be Helicopter or Fixed wing). Whilst CASA has at least woken up to allow previously experience firefighting pilots to continue to operate under the exemption, it doesn't cater for NEW pilots to operate on fires until such time as they receive the Aerial Application rating - firefighting on their license.

Now here's there clincher, CASA is taking months (if at all) to issue the Training Approval to pilots (instructors that were line pilots on firefighting ops as well as previously training up pilots prior to 01SEP14 on firebombing etc with logbook evidence). This then has the knock on effect that without the Training Approval, the Flight Training and Testing Office cannot issue a Flight Examiner approval for the rating. CLARC has tied itself up in knots wondering how they are going to 'legally' issue the training approvals without there having been a previous qualification in existence (chicken/egg scenario).

In the meantime we can only employ pilots that have previous firefighting/bombing experience prior to 01SEP14 and we cannot train up any new pilots in the meantime.

Now the industry typically employs the usual suspects every season, but that usually only makes up 2/3 to 3/4 of the pilots needed on the fire season. So in effect CASA is essentially putting the community at risk by way of not allowing NEW firefighting pilots be trained up and be issued with the CASA introduced Aerial Application-Firefighting rating.

All in the name of 'safety', here's a clear example of CASA where the new regs have in fact decreased safety. This doesn't even take into account the added cost of the training/checking new rating, which won't make an ounce of difference to increasing safety in itself anyway (the industry was doing well enough self regulating by way of client requirements).

Food for thought.

[Lead Balloon]

To CASA, a suburb full of houses and a few farms burning to the ground is an externality - in plain English, not its responsibility.

But think how safe the pilots who would otherwise have been trained to fly aircraft to fight those fires will now be, because of Part 61 and CASA's corporate incompetence. That should provide considerable comfort for the community which would be at lesser risk were there more pilots able to operate fire fighting aircraft. :ok:

[plucka]

I have been issued with an aerial application flight instructor rating post part 61. (I believe I am the only person in Australia that has). I work part time for an approved part 141 Ag flying school, I have 5 seasons firefighting experience but they won't approve me to teach or issue the fire fighting endorsement, even though we have an APPROVED syllabus because, and I quote, "we are not issuing FF endorsements whilst the exemption is in place". Well done CAsA👍

[havick]

Plucka, I'm in the same boat as you albeit in the final throws of getting my Aerial Application-Firefighting (helicopter) rating and training approval (added to my instructor column) issued.

The FTTO is waiting for the above two items to be added to my license before they can process the flight examiner for above rating, admittedly the FTTO has been quite helpful, it's CLARC that's the issue.

It is just ludicrous that we are unable to train up NEW firefighting pilots because of CASA painting themselves into a corner with regard to regs. What happened to the adage "what you could do prior to 01SEP14, you can continue to do afterwards". What an absolute load of crap.

[MartinCh]

plucka.

That's utter insanity!!

You jumped through the hoops or bureaucrapic non-sense, complied with the new system/Part 61 stuff to get instructing endorsement, have sufficient experience, your employer has NEW and current/approved syllabus,

YET

You cannot train what the piece of paper of yours says you can and your company paperwork says.

BECAUSE

you're an exception to the ridiculous status quo marasm CASA regs and their makers got the industry/pilots into. Now round TWO of the exemption instrument, designed to (in theory) bridge the knowingly induced issue while they cook up more regulations patching up insanity of current status quo.

Because everyone else wasn't able/given chance/allowed to be trained from beginning for FF ops, THE ONE exception like yourself (and company), gets discriminated against FOR COMPLYING WITH NEW SYSTEM.

Yes, well said havick The apparent impunity/little accountability of causing all this or even so blatant discrimination against pilots and companies with genuine need for having the paperwork for work/ops. I assume nobody would fancy career and financial suicide taking all this up in court against CASA. I've read some *interesting* cases from past.

[Sunfish]

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone from CASA loses their home to a bushfire this summer due to lack of pilots without the necessary papers?

[yr right]

With out saying to much there is more to this with fire work than meets the eye.
Post recent accidents and aircraft, Casa now in a failsafe mode.


And also add RFS and some operators as well are also included.

[Lead Balloon]

We all know about the tragedy of David Black and the structural issues with Dromader aircraft used in firefighting, yr right.

None of that justifies putting ever-more regulatory barriers in the way of training pilots to conduct firefighting operations.

[ramble on]

You talk about Government & CASA regulatory barriers detroying businesses....

There is also the story about a freight company at Bankstown that brought a prefectly working EU registered BA146 to Australia to add to their AOC and business, together with experienced maintainers and operators.

CASA have forced the aircraft to sit on the ground and rot for 2 years while they made them do the paperwork dog and pony show, not allowing the aircraft to fly. There is not much worse for any aircraft.

All that while the extreme costs of the CASA paperwork battle on tight GA margins run the business to the ground.

Yet in any of our major cities another crap apartment complex is approved and thrown up in a heartbeat by development companies who have the local governments in their pockets.

[Frank Arouet]

Remember the Australian PADS system that the regulator regulated to death. The Gruzman one.


http://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/equip/pads/PADS-001.pdf

[yr right]

We all know about the tragedy of David Black and the structural issues with Dromader aircraft used in firefighting, yr right.

None of that justifies putting ever-more regulatory barriers in the way of training pilots to conduct firefighting operations.


What about the 3 others pilots that lost their lives. Read what I said. They gone into fail safe mode because they F up. Full stop.
Did I say that it justifies what they have done. NO I didn't I said why they done it.

[yr right]

Btw. There are NO structural problems with the drom. At all. Get your facts right before you flap your gums.

[Frank Arouet]

Dale Carnegie: How to win Friends and influence people. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 1-4391-6734-L.

[Clare Prop]

I was asked by CASA to have my Part 141 manuals done nice and early to avoid a backlog later on.

Trouble is the sample ops manual is still listed on their website as "coming soon".

So I've been told to use the CAAP as guidance which is totally unrealistic for a small school and I already have an ops manual anyway!

My argument is why should I spend many hours writing manuals which they may or may not approve if they don't yet know what they want these manuals to contain.

Nor do I want to see my work appearing on their website. :mad:

[Lead Balloon]

yr right

Btw. There are NO structural problems with the drom. At all. Get your facts right before you flap your gums.My apologies, yr right. I should have prefaced my post with: "Subject of course to the objective truths yr right condescends to reveal to us mere mortals, my amateur opinion is ..."

BTW yr right, and subject of course to any objective truths you may condescend to reveal to us, my amateur opinion is that ALL aircraft have structural problems. That's why they all have limitations like VNE, VA, VNO/VC, load limits, G limits and life limits. But of course you'd know that, because of your extensive experience in aircraft design and test flying. :rolleyes:

[thunderbird five]

Clare Prop - I'm in the same boat as you. My enquiries about "where is the Part 141 MAAT template?" over the last year (full year) have been politely fobbed off. Recently, it has turned into a "Sample Operations Manual" and promises to keep me posted have resulted in nothing. I too don't want to waste my time revising our already approved OPS manual. If anyone is in the same boat, I suggest as I have done, revise your submission of draft date to "90 days from receipt of the Sample Operations Manual." I have had that acknowledged in writing - but not accepted nor refused.

[Lead Balloon]

If you operate any aircraft at high weights in turbulence for extended periods, structural problems will arise. And what are the typical characteristics of fire fighting operations, and what are the typical types used in those operations, yr right?

BTW: How many aircraft have you operated at high weights in turbulence, yr right?

And none of this has anything to do with the justification for putting more regulatory complexity in the way of pilot training (unless you have an interest in making more rules and creating more complexity for their own sake, to keep CASA well fed.)

[yr right]

If you operate any aircraft at high weights in turbulence for extended periods, structural problems will arise. And what are the typical characteristics of fire fighting operations, and what are the typical types used in those operations, yr right?

BTW: How many aircraft have you operated at high weights in turbulence, yr right?

And none of this has anything to do with the justification for putting more regulatory complexity in the way of pilot training (unless you have an interest in making more rules and creating more complexity for their own sake, to keep CASA well fed.)

Once again answe the question.
What structural issues dose the Drom have.
I answered the question on why Casa has imposed these limits now on pilots. I didn't say it right but why they don't it. So answers the question. You made the statement.

[thorn bird]

Clare Prop & thunderbird,

The whole question of Ops manuals has been a running sore for many years as their content is largely defined by a multitude of FOI's all with their own opinion. In reality, given the nature of our regulations Ops Manuals should be written by Lawyers, but then they would probably cost a couple of million Dollars and who could afford that.
CAsA spent half a billion on lawyers to write them so a lay person had no hope of ever understanding them, imagine if we stumped up with Manuals written in the same language? The FOI's would go spare!!

The inconsistencies across the regions is appalling. The hangmans nooses CP's have been forced to write into manuals to make a rod for their back at some future date is unconscionable.

I believe there is only one solution to this problem.

If CAsA is going to insist on the gobbledegook they call regulation it should be beholding on them to produce generic operations manuals, get their senior people off their asses and do something useful and useable by Industry for a change.

By doing that so many of the frustrations, confrontations and costs that currently occur would go away.

Many of what I call "GAisms" that creep into commercial operations from various FOI & AWI's opinions, some of which are downright dangerous, would go away, or at least industry would have a central responsible person to argue a case for safety rather than submit to the opinions of an aeroclub mentality with no operational experience.

The costs and time wasted on the back and forth argument to gain approval of this "Shelfware" would be mitigated.

The unsustainable costs and time of placing a new type on an AOC would be mitigated. One company I know of, a hundred grand and over twelve months.

The mind boggling costs of gaining a new AOC would be mitigated. I know of one person two years and over a quarter of a million for a single type.

CAsA would gain the benefit of reducing staff numbers as it would seem most of their FOI & AWI's time is taken up approving shelfware.

Selling manuals to industry could provide an income stream for CAsA and provide bonuses for the managers.

[Lead Balloon]

Operations Manuals have been turned into that exquisite tormentor's tool: the double bind.

Operators have no practical choice but to include provisions implementing the pet personal projects and opinions of the FOIs with which operators deal (and for whose time the operators pay), but CASA takes no responsibility for the content.

You are legally obliged to comply with "your" operations manual, even when its content is effectively dictated by someone who takes no responsibility for the content. But if you want your AOC ...

[Lead Balloon]

At least you got Snarek to draft that one for you. :ok:

PS: yr right has deleted his post. Typical coward.

[UnaMas]

http://i60.tinypic.com/24pz9e1.jpg

[wishiwasupthere]

A village somewhere, is missing their illiterate idiot. :}

[gaunty]

thorn bird :ok:

I hope this finds you well, long time me no seem;)

It won't take long for the usual suspects to appear so I'll make it quick and get back to my life.

Three things.

It is possible, if you know what you are doing and work with your FOI, to gain a CASA AOC for >5700kg aircraft for unrestricted worldwide operations, from a standing start in my teams case, 100 calendar days, for the pedantic I might add the qualifier maybe +/- 10 days. Big up too, for the CASA peeps on the case.

I have in my top drawer no less than two generic internationally compliant (ICAO, FAA, CAA, TransCan) COMs for both < & > 5700 kg aircraft for Part 91, 135 and 121 operations. They "comply" with what was then and I haven't had any interest in checking later versions, with the CASA shopping list.:ugh:
They flow like warm honey, have actual structure, follow a logical sequence and are extremely user friendly, to the extent that even pilots can follow them. Now wouldn't
that be nice.

Offered, including the above mentioned own COM, gratis to CASA as templates to be made available to industry gratis as a standard form, in order to avoid the financially ruinous "where's Wally" process. Answer, apart from a sincere congratulations on the best prepared application they had seen, ever, "not so much, everybody has their own way of doing things", with respect "dogs bollocks".

COMs are not "competitive" documents meant to give one operator an advantage over another, they are a compliance document, designed for the safe operation of aircraft within a regulatory environment and should be like most safety systems and processes, a shared and collaborative effort between all operations, at least to the highest, lowest, common denominator possible.

It also sets a common economic safety bar for operating costs and releases the FOIs for the job they least enjoy, for which by definition, they are paid and are employed, and that is surveillance for compliance. The "approval" process is therefore a relatively simple clerical procedure requiring ONLY FOI oversight without the usual technical wine tasting.

Operators should then be competing on the other commercial and business processes available to them.

Mind you that was one, or was it two DAS ago.

[LeadSled]

I have more experience in the operation of high weight high turbulence operations low to the ground than you will every have. As for being a troll that is yourself. yr' wrong,
I am informed you are a LAME (unlikely as that may seem) but not a pilot.
If that is, in fact, the case, you have precisely nil/zero/zilch experience of operating an aircraft at high AUW in low level turbulence.

Please enlighten us as to you qualifications and experience as a pilot.

Given your self confessed quite amazing level of knowledge of all things aeronautical, I am very surprised that you would claim a high weight firefighting Dromader is not, in fact a, a Dromader. If it is not a Dromader (despite the Type Certificate that says it is, in fact, a Dromader) please be so kind as to advise us what, in fact, it is.

I am bound to say, not knowing the difference between a sled and a balloon is a bit of a problem.

It is possible, if you know what you are doing and work with your FOI, to gain a CASA AOC for >5700kg aircraft for unrestricted worldwide operations, from a standing start in my teams case, 100 calendar days, for the pedantic I might add the qualifier maybe +/- 10 days. Big up too, for the CASA peeps on the case.

Gaunty,
With the very greatest of respect ( which you know damned well I don't mean, I am just being the very polite chap that I am) for absence of doubt, I will edit your above para; to make your meaning clear.

" All GA's problems with FOIs over "acceptance" of Operations Manuals and timetables measured in years are caused by incompetent, ignorant and inept idiots that make up most of the management if GA companies (and airlines, for that matter) and only if GA was smart enough to employ me, all their problems would go away.

And, by the way, the ASRR was a work of fiction, with the nearly 300 contributors to Forsyth ( including all the major airlines) merely representing the combined incompetence of everybody except me.

CASA is a simply wonderful organisation that doesn't deserve the Australian industry it is lumbered with".


It won't take long for the usual suspects to appear so I'll make it quick and get back to my life. At least you got that much right.

Quite simply, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, which is no surprised to anybody who has known you for as long as I have, right back to your Rex days.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

I hear Peter Boyd has gone west.

[Eyrie]

Anyone here who thinks NZ is the answer is wrong.
I just got back from 6 days there talking to quite a few industry people and GA is in dire straits there. Small aero clubs closing, idiot rules which just make life difficult to impossible and CAA costs well into the brigandry area.
Currently NZ CAA is charging NZ$351 to register and administrate your PPL medical. They also demand blood tests etc for cholesterol, an ECG and hearing test. For a PRIVATE licence. Even if nothing is wrong with you it will cost around NZ$700 to 1000 for all this including the administration fee.
Add in that NZ CAA don't even have a class rating system but require a type rating on each type of simple bugsmasher and the instructor you do your BFR with in THAT type of aircraft also needs a type rating in that aircraft and the instructor rating is getting harder to keep and you find you have trouble finding an instructor to do the BFR with. The BFR also seems to have morphed into a flight TEST instead of a review. More expense.
This is reflected in noticeably falling prices for small light aircraft. No wonder.

I'm going to change the question to ask of the CASA people at the next safety seminar I go to from "what would your organisation be doing differently if it was actually TRYING to destroy private aviation?" to "are your regulatory changes which are destroying private aviation merely the result of advanced incompetence or are they actually malice?"

(Sufficiently advanced incompetence being indistinguishable from malice - a small rewrite of an original quote from Arthur C.Clarke - sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic))

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The problems of pilot medicals trans-Tasman is an interesting one, and an excellent exzample of what a malevolent group can do, despite the regulation, not because of.

Indeed, it can be reasonably said that the problems of pilot medicals in both Australia and New Zealand can be sheeted home to a group of "public service" doctors who have the system (and pilots) by the throat, and have reversed common sense progress in pilot medical over the last 30+ years.

The prime example is CVD, just on the opinions of a couple of highly opinionated DAMEs, we have taken a giant leap backwards in Australia --- and ignored all the experience since the Denison case.

In Australia it is not the "rule" that is wrong, it is CASA Medical ignoring the meaning of the rule, as established in Denison.

Aviation should not be pushed and shoved on the basis of the vagaries of CASA/CAA Department of Aviation Medicine or any other group in a regulatory body.

Personalities should not rule, but they do.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

I understand Boyd going west could take weeks.

[gaunty]

Feel better now old chap, eh. :sad:

[Frank Arouet]

Yes, been announced Roger Weeks.


What is Skidmore thinking?

[Lead Balloon]

What he's manipulated into thinking, of course.

It doesn't take too much guesswork to know who's whispering in his ear. Same people who were whispering into McCormick's ear, and Byron's ear, and Toller's ear ...

[Checklist Charlie]

It doesn't take too much guesswork to know who's whispering in his ear.

Not that paragon of virtue in the secretary's seat at the Department of Gobblegook and Transport by any chance?

CC

[Lead Balloon]

In this particular case I was thinking of someone located in an office very close to Mr Skidmore's. Someone made of teflon. ;)

[Frank Arouet]

I think he is.

[Perspective]

" it probably needed a real engineer to understand"

Like one that drives locomotives?! ;)

[Progressive]

There you go Dick,

Cost specifically mentioned in point 2 of CASA's new philosophy statement......

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/standard-page/regulatory-philosophy

[aroa]

for Skidmark.?

I think its just all Hoodoo Voodoo myself.

:{

[Dick Smith]

Still looks to me that safety is " the most important consideration"

More important than what? You have it - cost!

Note they don't say that participation levels in aviation are equally important.

Clearly means they are not !

The industry is doomed. Get out as soon as you can.

[Lead Balloon]

What a fantastic "philosophy".

Such perfectly proportioned prose. :D

Pity it's practically pointless.

I'm wracking my brains wondering who took the initiative to draft it (and the recent 'directive'). Who's best-placed to whisper the benefits of these empty gestures into Mr Skidmore's ear. I wonder ...

[Aussie Bob]

The industry is doomed. Get out as soon as you can

Get real Dick! Jump in your trike and go for a burn.

[Dick Smith]

The CJ 3 is on the market - that's just the start - but I will probably end up with just the trike.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Time out for LeadSled and yr right

[Sunfish]

"Safety" is a state of mind. Any CASA butt scratcher can blather on about "safety" and be impossible to contradict.

What is better, but harder, is to implement full blown risk management using an actuarial approach. If that is done, most of CASA and its regulations get swept away.

To put that another way: When someone says "you cannot put a price on human lives". they are talking bullshyte. Insurers, via actuaries, do this very calculation multiple times each day.

[ramble on]

The lawyers managers, and the pen pushers love it......legislate legsilate legislate to make us more safe and keep responsibility as far away from them as possible.

The important practical life saving killer stuff gets drowned in the minutiae created by people who have never sat in a cockpit, let alone sat in a malfunctioning cockpit in a storm at night in the middle of an ocean.

We have thousands of pages of Legislation regulation and AIP, thousands of pages of Ops Manuals thousands of pages of AFMs. Concentrating on the minutiae is becoming special too and self perpetuating in Australia.

The minutiae is also tearing us apart - the regulator v the operators v the crew v ATC (yeah - Australia is the only place worldwide that a lot of overseas crew I have flown with have made the comment that ATC just seem to hate us) v the infrastructure.

When operating in the USA there is a different feeling to aviation - it is a thriving valued service industry, everyone (at least ATC and the crew) are part of the same team and progressive, the rules are simple and well written and the go to document is the singular FAR AIM.

There are more runways and airliners in the terminal areas at just DFW and JFK than there are capital city runways and airliners airborne in Australia. And they have another 50 odd major capital cities.

Why re-invent and propogate the minutiea here - look to the FAA they are doing it safely and practically on a massive scale.

[havick]

I have been issued with an aerial application flight instructor rating post part 61. (I believe I am the only person in Australia that has). I work part time for an approved part 141 Ag flying school, I have 5 seasons firefighting experience but they won't approve me to teach or issue the fire fighting endorsement, even though we have an APPROVED syllabus because, and I quote, "we are not issuing FF endorsements whilst the exemption is in place". Well done CAsA👍

Plucka, I'll eat my hat now. My Helicopter firefighting rating and training approval for said rating was attached to my license late last week. I wonder if this thread had anything to do with it?

[7478ti]

While yes, there may be some constructive aspects of aviation in the US that merit emulation, and even a few things that FAA still does right,...but do not for a minute think that FAA is a model to broadly copy, or that GA and other US operations are not also under severe cost pressure and flawed criteria pressure from a severely dysfunctional FAA here in the US.

Much of FAA's criteria is obsolete, counterproductive, unnecessary, or overspecified, if not flat out "inappropriate", and in instances is now leading to less safety rather than more safety (by unnecessarily inhibiting advantageous advances).

The US system and FAA are suffering from decades of outdated 1940s to '60s based operating concepts and criteria, for a now entirely obsolete and vastly over-expensive air traffic system. This is also largely true for an often bureaucracy laden counterproductive aircraft, airman, and operations certification system.

That's why the airlines and others in the US (e.g., many in Congress) are now pushing to break up FAA and split out a separate ANSP this fall. GA here is reeling from entirely inappropriate and dysfunctional criteria (e.g., 3rd class medical mess, faulty mis-specified and inappropriate equipage requirements like the WAAS driven FAA ADS-B 2020 deadline, glider avionics ANPRM), as well as many areas of unnecessarily high costs driven by bad or outdated FAA criteria (I could cite pages of examples from TSOs, to rules, to ADs, to STCs to NOTAMS).

Further, NextGen is presently heading straight toward a $40B failure that just simply won't work, at any cost. Even 26 states (now starting to formulate their own UAV criteria), as well as Amazon, and a host of other UAV entities, are now attempting to simply bypass or leapfrog FAA, in exploring their own recommendations for ATC design, as well as chaffing at FAA's seriously flawed and counterproductive ANPRM for UAV policies.

So don't bank on necessarily copying FAA's currently fouled up policies! Many in the US here are actually hoping that Canada, Australia, or NZ eventually someday get it figured out, and then perhaps serve as a model for reconstruction of FAA and a separate ANSP O:)

[Eyrie]

I don't want the FAA rules adopted here for GA, I want the job outsourced to the FAA while we decide which of their rules we can abolish. The FAA is a mess but less of one than CASA are (or NZCAA where the rules are simple but suck).
The whole ADSB based ATC system is suffering from being conceived in the mid 1990s. There have been huge advances in computers and comms since then and of course drones have come along, enabled by GPS. Without GPS or something similar they are a non starter for any BVR use.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for NZ or Australia to come up with new rules. NZ is run by smug self satisfied bureaucrats and CASA has taken 21 years to do a cleanup and rationalisation of aviation regulation and failed miserably.
The problem is that just about EVERYONE has forgotten what the aims of regulation are. If we get back to that and actually try to solve the RIGHT problem we may get somewhere.
So here it is:
1. Protect people on the ground from having aircraft fall on them. This is actually a very small risk as shown by historical data. Aircraft crash all the time for all sorts of reasons(usually brain failure) and rarely is there more than some small property damage on the ground
2. Protect airspace users from each other. Modern technology (not ADSB) can do this (see Oz Runways and Avplan's position reporting and traffic awareness capability and before anyone runs off at the mouth, these are currently only a nice proof of concept of what is possible, as is FLARM).
3. Recognise that raising your frail body to an energy level well above that of the surrounding environment is dangerous but that it is a risk that informed adults should be allowed to make.

I'm mainly talking about private aviation (including recreational) here.

[neville_nobody]

The legality of Drones in Australia vs the USA is very different due to court rulings over there in the past which has made drones difficult to legislate for them. Hence Amazon wanting to make their own.

[7478ti]

Thank you Eyrie for clearly reiterating the fundamental reasons for both authorities, and ANSPs.

But there is also one more responsibility for an authority however, and that is to assure a specified level of safety for "Paying passengers", who otherwise buy a ticket in "common Carriage" (in the US this is often called the "Highest level of safety" dating from the original FAA Act, which in itself has always been problematic language, since the highest level of safety is literally to not fly at all.

For ANSPs, there is also a typical responsibility to provide agreed facilities (to the extent that they are wanted by the airspace users, and the users are willing to pay for them - e.g., navaids, lighting systems) to facilitate flight operations.

The global aviation system needs to review and get back to, and better understand these basic fundamentals, if there is to be any hope of GA economically and practically surviving for another century (and the same for other airspace users to survive too).

[edsbar]

FAA makes upgrading attitude indicators easier - AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/September/23/New-policy-makes-upgrading-attitude-indicators-easier)

A new FAA policy statement will make it easier for aircraft owners to replace vacuum-driven attitude indicators with newer, more reliable electronically driven models. It’s a change AOPA has long advocated as part of a larger effort to make it easier and more affordable to put modern safety equipment in the legacy fleet.

The new policy statement, issued Sept. 14, makes replacing a vacuum-driven attitude indicator with an electronically driven attitude indicator a “minor alteration” under most circumstances. The policy applies to Part 23 aircraft weighing less than 6,000 pounds.

“This new policy statement is a move in the right direction when it comes to helping owners increase their safety and modernize their aircraft,” said David Oord, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. “We hope this signals a broader shift toward commonsense, risk-based policies that will help keep the legacy fleet flying for many years to come.”

The policy statement allows the replacement of a single-function vacuum-driven attitude indicator with either a single-function electronically driven attitude indicator or one with a secondary function, such as a turn-and-slip indicator. The replacement instrument must have an independent standby battery to power it in the event of a loss of primary electrical power, be placed in a way that allows for partial panel techniques in the event of instrument failure, and meet other applicable regulations.

For the installation to be considered a minor alteration, additional conditions must be met regarding the location of the new instrument, the installation of a dedicated circuit breaker, and alterations to the existing electrical and vacuum connections in the aircraft.

[robsrich]

Media reps,

Industry about to give up? Maybe our last chance as we collapse on our knees. Good story here? Is it true we haven’t graduated an ATPL licence since 1 Sep ’14. Excellent for overseas pilots on 457 visas. Our schools are slowly melting away and the Asia boom is passing us by ……… why?


Urgent reminder from TLSIC – due 16 Oct ‘15

Note to media. Late notice apology. For those struggling with unresolved CASA issues; maybe send your concerns also to TLSIC. CASA and TLSIC must be aligned for many reasons; RTO approval and visas for overseas students to name a few. So read on:

The Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council Ltd (TLISC) is one of eleven Industry Skills Councils funded by the Government through the Department of Industry. TLISC is chartered with driving the skills and workforce development agenda across the entire transport and logistics industry which encompasses activities in road transport, warehousing, rail, aviation, maritime, logistics and ports.

Call for submissions: Aviation Workforce Skills Study. TLISC has been contracted by the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to undertake a study into the state of the aviation workforce in Australia. The study will identify the industry’s workforce and skill need, as well as the actions that can be taken by industry to meet those needs.

The Aviation Workforce Skills Study will build on the methodology used to develop TLISC’s annual Environmental Scan (E-Scan). It will draw on the extensive data collected by various government agencies on the aviation industry, as well on other publicly-available data and on TLISC’s own research. Stakeholder consultations will be an integral part of the process.

TLISC is calling for submissions on workforce and training issues affecting the Aviation industry. In particular, we are keen to hear industry perspectives on: areas currently experiencing skills shortages; emerging skills and industry’s capacity to meet demand; factors affecting labour supply; comments on the current training framework, including the quality of skills training, the impact of training costs and whether these impacts are disproportionate compared to other industries; and impact of Asia-Pacific traffic growth and opportunities for the Australian aviation industry; measures industry can implement to respond to these aviation workforce challenges, including outcomes of existing programmes.

For more information, please contact Amanda Thomas – General Manager, Strategy and Policy. Tel: 02 6163 7226. Email: Email: [email protected]

AHIA

[robsrich]

China’s leading aircraft maker has begun work on an industrial and operations centre dedicated to general aviation.

The Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) this week held a ceremonial for a complex planned to occupy 30 square km in Jingmen City, in the of central Chinese province of Hubei.

AVIC will invest 20 billion yuan ($A4.25 billion) over eight years in the base, which will be dedicated to manufacturing aircraft, research and training.

The China Daily quoted AVIC chairman Lin Zuoming, as saying AVIC would build 50 similar complexes across China.

‘These would serve 90 per cent of the country’s population and build a national light aircraft operation network,’ Mr Lin said.

General aviation aircraft are restricted to flying in low-altitude airspace below 1000 metres (3280 feet) in China, but the China daily reports that ‘policymakers are mulling loosening that regulation.’

China’s general aviation sector, consisting of about 1500 aircraft, recorded 591,000 flying hours in 2013, but is expected to hit the two million hour mark by 2020, according to the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC).

In contrast, Australian general aviation flew 1.7 million hours in 2012, according to the Bureau of Transport and regional Economics (BITRE).

Online news service.

[Adsie]

Dick

What you would be your words of advice to a person who is looking to by an
AOC ?

Is GA really that bad that there is no future in spending money to chase an aviation venture ?

If so - this is so devastating

The worst thing I see is this wonderful airport [ YSCB ] with little or no GA movement and business for the owner of the airport is moving in the direction that appears to to suit them.

Sad - considering the owner comes from a GA background but I guess business is business. Right or wrong.

[thorn bird]

Adsie,


To my mind an AOC is not an asset, it has no value because its not transferrable, at least not without massive expense and its subject to the whims of an unfetted and absolutely incompetent bureaucracy.


Now with a capital city airport on the other hand, you are purchasing a monopoly, a money making machine that generates vast amounts of tax free dollars, every developers wet dream.