Dick Smith initiated change to the Civil Aviation Act....

[10000]

..... sunk by the Barnaby Joyce affair!!

Front page of The Australian newspaper today:


Barnaby Joyce affair ‘sank aviation reform’, says Dick Smith

• The Australian
• 12:00AM March 14, 2018

• Andrew Burrell

Businessman Dick Smith won approval last month from Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese for a rewrite of the Civil Aviation Act aimed at slashing crippling costs, but the prospect of a bipartisan deal crashed days later with Mr Joyce’s resignation from cabinet.

Mr Smith began working quietly in January to convince Mr Joyce, then the Coalition’s new transport minister, to amend a key part of the act that requires the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to “regard safety as the most ¬important consideration” in regulating the industry. Under the planned changes, CASA would instead be required to seek the “highest level of safety in air navigation” alongside the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

Mr Smith, a former CASA chairman, said yesterday the rewrite would stop bureaucrats using the act to impose extra layers of needless red tape, which had made the general aviation industry unviable and led to fewer people travelling by air.

https://www.pprune.org/members/11918-10000-albums-ca-act-picture969-ca-act.jpg

Mr Joyce met Mr Smith on January 20 at the Promenade Cafe at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel — two weeks before revelations of Mr Joyce’s relationship with a political staffer, Vikki Campion, became front-page news. After winning the minister’s broad support, Mr Smith began lobbying Labor’s transport spokesman Anthony Albanese.

The Australian has obtained a copy of an email sent by Mr Albanese’s chief of staff, Jeff Singleton, on February 9 in which he supports the proposed amendments to the act and suggests several minor changes.

By that time, Mr Joyce had become engulfed in the scandal over his affair with Ms Campion. He resigned from cabinet on February 23 amid revelations that a sexual-harassment claim had been made against him.

Mr Smith said yesterday he had been told by a political source that Mr Albanese and Mr Joyce had discussed the planned changes and agreed on them.

Mr Albanese declined to comment yesterday and Mr Joyce’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr Smith said he considered Mr Joyce’s co-operation a breakthrough because the Coalition’s previous transport minister, Darren Chester, had been a “disaster” and had been unresponsive to changing the act.

“Barnaby told me he was the minister for transport, not just aviation, and he did not want to send more cars on the road and end up with more people dead,” Mr Smith said.

Mr Smith said he would try to convince new Transport Minister Michael McCormack to agree to the amendments.

“If he doesn’t, the whole future of aviation is doomed,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Mr McCormack said the minister could not comment on the content of any private discussions between Mr Joyce and Mr Smith.

The spokeswoman noted that CASA already had a requirement that its regulatory approach must consider the economic and cost impacts on individuals, businesses and the community.

Had that amendment occurred in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 it would have changed the course of aviation history in Australia, in the longer term forced revision of Australia's long overdue Civil Aviation Regulations and freed the aviation industry and airline industry of many of it's unnecessary regulatory costs which bear no relationship to safety of operations.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Now we will see if this McCormack is just another ex-journalist turned politician, like Chester, or a person like Joyce, who would make changes despite voluble and concerted "public service" opposition.
Tootle pip!!

[jonkster]

I think a change to the act that focuses CASA not just on safety but viability would be a great move.

Is it necessarily dead just because Joyce is no longer in the role? That Albanese was on side surely is a positive.

[Slippery_Pete]

Does anyone actually know a dollar amount for how much the regulatory reform program has cost so far?

[busdriver007]

I think a change to the act that focuses CASA not just on safety but viability would be a great move.

Is it necessarily dead just because Joyce is no longer in the role? That Albanese was on side surely is a positive.

Albanese, The Minister for Doing Nothing!

[Ascend Charlie]

That Albanese was on side surely is a positive.

He might be on side, but don't call him Shirley...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Why Not??

:confused: :eek:

What has he done for Aviation, G/A in particular..???????

The answer lies on the next line

-

-

-

-

-

[Torres]

Does anyone actually know a dollar amount for how much the regulatory reform program has cost so far?

The last reliable figure I heard a few years ago was just north of $350 Mill. If Dick's changes were implemented many of the "new" CASR's will become redundant as CASA will be required to justify all changes on the basis of safety and cost.

A change in the Civil Aviation Act from solely "safety" to safety and realistic cost will be one of the most significant shifts in Australian civil aviation policy in more than 30 years.

Don't expect CASA will take this change without a fight. They have controlled the Minister since Anderson days. :mad:

A fundamental change in the Act will be an entire new ball game, long overdue! :ok:

[Pinky the pilot]

Does anyone actually know a dollar amount for how much the regulatory reform program has cost so far?

Pete; I believe that Tailwheel might be able to give us a rough idea of that. A rough idea but nevertheless I suspect that it would be a fair indication.

[TBM-Legend]

Hats off to Dick for having a go....

Let's hope this succeeds..

[Horatio Leafblower]

I know the Nats have been canvassing at least one GA business owner as a potential senior Aviation advisor to the minister.
Additionally, the Nat's new federal director Ross Cadell is a pilot (Commercial or PPL I am not sure) trained at Cessnock in the late 80s/early 90s.

Tragedy of it all is that they only seem to realise too late, with an almost-certain election loss only 12 months away. :ugh:

[Mike Flynn]

Dick Smith had his time in charge and his time is long gone.

In my opinion he should have made drastic changes when he held the baton instead of moaning now.

[Lead Balloon]

He was never in charge. The Chairman of the CASA Board has power to do f*ck all.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

That's not what CASA staff say about his time there. Apparently he was very "hands on" when his NAS changes were going through.

[LeadSled]

Does anyone actually know a dollar amount for how much the regulatory reform program has cost so far?

SP.
It is not just the cost of the program itself, bad though that is, but the horrifying costs of compliance with the "new" rules, that have no counterpart anywhere, and imposed restrictions that have largely rendered Australian aviation a non-starter where we once had export markets in the field.

There is a reason why QANTAS' huge new maintenance investment is in Los Angeles, to employ US A&Ps, under FAA rules, to maintain QF longhaul aircraft.

Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Parts of that rewording are a bit playschool. It's an Act of Parliament ffs, not a manifesto.

[TBM-Legend]

He was never in charge. The Chairman of the CASA Board has power to do f*ck all.

Typical bogan Oz comment. Mate what have you ever done in aviation apart from look after yourself and take cheap shots from the peanut gallery..?

[thorn bird]

It occurs to me that there is a much simpler, cheaper, quicker answer to the whole conundrum regarding regulation in Australia.

CAsA attempt to write a sensible, comprehensive, workable rule set that complies with the "Safety" imperative, but still allow an industry to survive and grow has failed miserably, cost the Australian people hundreds of millions of dollars and in the process decimated a once thriving GA industry. Ultimately it will compromise our airline industry as well, we already see that in the export of our heavy maintenance to foreign climes.

The legacy of their failure will go on costing the Australian people into the future in the ticket price everyone who buys an airline ticket pays. The loss to the economy is already apparent and it will grow worse, anything to do with aviation is captured within the CAsA straightjacket. As businesses close providers contract into monopolies, charges go up and the whole process becomes a self licking stamp to oblivion. The innovators and entrepreneurs amongst us already take their ideas offshore.

I absolutely reject CAsA's insistence that US style regulations cannot be implemented in Australia. They did it in New Zealand, a democracy not unlike our own. with dramatic results. All it takes is the will.

Its so disappointing to read in the Australian just how close Dick Smith came to fixing the fundamental flaw in the ACT.

Without that, reform is improbable.

New Zealand gave us a prime example of what can happen for a few million dollars and a couple of years, their success should be CAsA's shame.

[Dick Smith]

There is an article in The Australian today ("Aviation rule changes still safe, says former CASA chief") with Bruce Byron's comments on changing the Act. Here is a quote from the article:

“Mr Byron said he had tried to make similar changes to the act when he ran CASA between 2003 and 2009. “This part of the act has sat there in stone for 30 years and I think a review of it would be appropriate,” he said…”
Here is a link (http://rosiereunion.com/file/The%20Australian%2015.3.18%20-%20Bruce%20Byron%20on%20changes%20to%20the%20Act.pdf) to the article.

[thorn bird]

Changing the Act will unlock the door to reform Dick, wether CAsA will open it is another matter.
It is a myth that Australia is so much safer than anyone else. Your mantra of copy the best and reject the rest must apply if there is to be any hope of a viable industry in Australia.

[Sandy Reith]

Albanese, The Minister for Doing Nothing!
Busdriver, certainly Albo did nothing to arrest the severe decline of GA, you could argue that he hastened the process by being talked (by CASA) into a one off, four years only, increase in the fuel levy. This levy was expected to raise $89.9 million for special safety studies or, my take,‘some such’. ‘Some such’ probably to fund (consultants?) a bunch of remedies to sort the CASA messups that the FAA had uncovered which was threatening to downgrade our international aviation status and burst onto the public consciousness. Wiki- Leaks for info on that one.
Then what? Trust Troglodyte Truss, rolled it over after the four years and its still there in general revenue, one count a couple of years ago upwards of $127 million and counting.
Mid 2009 Albo shoved off the ATSB out of his responsibility to be yet another ‘independent’ statutory Commonwealth corporate body to operate willy nilly like CASA, AirServices and many others outside aviation. ATSB CASA personnel interchange, Rex’s PelAir ditching late that year, Rex’s mighty political donations; all for consideration by timelines and probity.

Regarding the Dick Smith article, Quote:-
“The spokeswoman noted that CASA already had a requirement that its regulatory approach must consider the economic and cost impacts on individuals, businesses and the community.”

This comment as reported from the new Minister in charge of aviation, Mr. McCormack, does not bode well, the drawbridge is up already.

The facts are there for all to see; the ruination of General Aviation, not only because the Act needs to be rewritten with safety as an outcome of a healthy industry, but because the present model of governance, some 30 years on, has patently failed.
Without a return in some form to Ministerial responsibility the present independent corporate structure cannot deliver rational or efficient management of civil aviation in Australia. Virtually the only political input from us the public, through our elected representatives, is an occasional Ministerial Statement of Expectations.
This farcical excuse for Ministerial control has proven to be totally useless and the regulator CASA continues to waste a perfectly good industry while feathering it’s own nest. A make work salary factory that has made rewriting the rules, for 30 years and umpteen hundreds of $millions still not finished, into an art form. Inventing new permissions requiring enormous fees being one method to bolster it’s budget.

Every time a Minister abrogates his responsibility by hiving off part of his portfolio by creating a new Commonwealth corporate, to administer and regulate, the excuse is that an independent umpire is desirable. Unfortunately government is not a sport and the corporate naturally looks after itself and salaries reflect ‘commercial’ rates.

Goodbye responsible government, hello waste, mismanagement, hubris, ego and internal power plays unchecked.

Accountability is lost in a sea of independent bureaucrats, Can’tberra of 403,000 people on salaries much higher than the national average, home to 1200 Commonwealth instrumentalities. The APS, if you can call it a ‘service’ because it is now regarded as the Public Sector, is 157,000 and includes an Ombudsman for just about everything in place of your Parliamentary Representative.

The only hope for Australian aviation is continuous publicity adverse to government. Thanks to the Oz; being the only media outlet that can at least see the tip of the iceberg.

[Sandy Reith]

Dick Smith had his time in charge and his time is long gone.

In my opinion he should have made drastic changes when he held the baton instead of moaning now.
DS never held that much power, he was not ‘the Government’ nor the Minister.
As a GA business and aircraft owner operator, and as CFI, CP plus running charter training and low capacity RPT I can assure you that during DS tenure, at what is now CASA, was the only time that some daylight appeared at the end of the long dark bureaucratic tunnel

[Lead Balloon]

Please, TBM and Jay, tell us what powers the Chairman of the CASA Board has.

Please.

[LeadSled]

I absolutely reject CAsA's insistence that US style regulations cannot be implemented in Australia.
Thorn Bird,
Absolutely correct, after all, CASA Parts 23-35 already are the FAR equivalents by reference, but CASA glosses over this fact, and the rest of the aviation community seems to suffer willful blindness that this has be the case since mid-1998.

CASA Part 21 was largely FAR 21 with a number of industry generated (forced) changes, that all proved to be good, but over the years CASA have been allowed to reverse almost all those beneficial changes, by a succession of Ministers who only "hear" CASA.

The thing about the NZ rules is that they are the FARs, with a good deal of US "political" bumpf edited out, the NZ rules have become the model for a range of countries.

As I have said, time and again, but it never seems to register on the collective psyche of the Australian community, aviation or otherwise, but Australian foreign aid paid for the NZ rules to be installed in PNG, because the (then) Australian rules were not "fit for purpose".

The current Australian rules are immeasurably worse.

Tootle pip!!

[Sandy Reith]

At least we have a free press and thanks to Andrew Burrell and several other reporters and editors from the the Australian for keeping this glaring failure of government in the public eye. The rot is exposed and that is the only hope to stop the loss of General Aviation jobs, businesses and services, not to mention home grown airline pilots.

Having led a deputation thirteen years ago to Mr. Warren Truss, the then Minister and leader of the National Party, pleading for reform was like talking to a stone wall in the wilderness. Amazing lack of action or concern when considering that the regions and those Aussies living in remote areas are hardest hit with shrinking air services and loss of General Aviation. Astonishing, vagrant carelessness towards the Nats own constituency.

Will McCormack act? On the past performance of the Nats not without pressure like never before. Past Leader Barnaby Joyce had plenty of time to order Dapper Darren into motion, he acknowledged to my face 12 months ago that action was needed and suggested to me that we needed a Minister for Aviation. Could have had things moving. But now expect little of substance without continued publicity and so far the Oz is the only mainstream media that’s appreciated the disaster area we know as General Aviation, what’s left of it.

[cooperplace]

I think we should all write to our local members asking for this proposed change to be continued with. I'll certainly write to mine.

[Sandy Reith]

Does anyone actually know a dollar amount for how much the regulatory reform program has cost so far?

Good question Pete, and others have given ball park figures for the direct costs of what changing the rules has cost so far, the never ending story. Preferring ‘change’ terminology rather than reforming because reform can denote enlightened progression. Certainly migrating the rules into the criminal code being utterly unjustifiable, incomprehensible, counterproductive and backward is change not reform. Making all sorts of new strict liability criminal offences for ‘offences’ that don’t even get a mention in other jurisdictions. Altering and adding to the rules making the most arduous, complex and contradictory set of unworkable aviation law in the developed world is what CASA has been beavering away at for 30 years.
By far and away the biggest costs are not that of bureaucracy, for a calculation of cost to community one would need a dedicated statistician.
No doubt the loss of businesses, the unseen consequences from the last 30 years would run to many $billions or more. Lost opportunity costs are obviously difficult to estimate but let no one be in any doubt that the abject failure of government to properly discharge it’s duty has cost us all dearly, many times more than the direct government costs.

[Sandy Reith]

I think we should all write to our local members asking for this proposed change to be continued with. I'll certainly write to mine.
I’ve sent my email, with a copy of the image off the Oz with the proposed changes, to my MP and a few others. Been at this for 30 years, need numbers, there’s certainly a lot more interest now. Love to see the momentum translate into real reform, probably die of shock but would go with a smile.

[YPJT]

If the proposed changes to the act were only presented in January this year it was being extremely optimistic to think we would see any progress within 18 months. As someone who had a far more compelling case for a relatively simple change to regulations I can say with experience that the wheels turn very slowly in this regard.

[Dick Smith]

YPJT. Why does it take so long?

When I was Chairman of CAA and Ron Cooper was in charge of Standards Development we could get changes through within months.

[YPJT]

Dick, I wish I knew why it took so long. it's frustrating

[Sandy Reith]

Dick, I wish I knew why it took so long. it's frustrating
It took hardly any time for Hawke to amend immigration rules which allowed foreign pilots to live and work in Australia in place of pilots who resigned in the great “Dispute” of 1989. Governments can move quickly if they have motivation, and at that time I’ve no doubt that the CASA of those days (CAA) speedily facilitated the entry of foreign pilots at the behest of the Hawke government.

[tfx]

Change legislation? Are you guys kidding? Years ago a friend of mine re-wrote the Fijian flight and duty times regs on his own in a day. Our heros Casa have had hundreds of people on it for five years and got, just glancing through it, nowhere. Rewrite the Act? Ha! They would want fifty thousand people and fifty thousand years.

[LeadSled]

Our heros Casa have had hundreds of people on it for five yearsTFX,
The Flight and Duty Times rewrite has, in fact, been going since at least 1967, when a joint working group, including DCA, major airlines and AFAP, was established.
In various disguises, it has been meandering along ever since.
Tootle pip!!

PS: How do I know -- because I was put on the working group by the AFAP/OSB.

[tail wheel]

Cost of the regulatory rewrite? Many years ago I heard a relatively reliable report of the cost at $300 million. Assuming that figure is correct and extrapolating to 2018, the total cost would now be north of $400 mill.

An economist with involvement in aviation suggested the impact of the regulatory rewrite on the aviation and airline industry would be approximately four times the cost to CASA.

You do the sums.

[4Greens]

Did some work with an organisation using US registered aircraft. The US regs are brilliant, simple to apply and very clear. They are a perfect
model for Australia.

[Captain Sherm]

If we bring back Flight Engineers and Radio Operators we could really increase employment in aviation. That would be a start.

I'd love to know what other things Dick has in mind? What if for example drones take over all of powerline checking, crop spraying, SAR operations, bank runs.....should we outlaw them because of the job losses?

[LeadSled]

If we bring back Flight Engineers and Radio Operators

Sherm,
And where, my dear chap, has Dick Smith suggested that, or any other silly regression.

What is absolutely vital is that CASA be forced to illustrated the "safety issue" any proposed change is designed to address, and be required to benefit/cost justify (not cost/effectiveness justify) the proposed change.
Or, put another way, make the relevant Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation Guidelines mandatory by amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

In late 1996, we conducted a major study on a section of the engineering "rules", within CASA, and with the very reluctant forced participation of the Airworthiness Branch. For risk assessment, the basis was the then current AS/NZ 4360 standard for Risk Management, and the then Productivity Commission framework for benefit/cos analysis and determination.

The outcome, about 80% of those "rules" should not have been regulation at all, but just outcome based advisory documents.

The great majority of Part 61/141/142, that has imposed huge initial and ongoing costs on the aviation industry, have any basis beyond bureaucratic micro-management. None, and I do mean none, of these additional "requirements" imposed have been the answer to a "safety" ( ie: a real and identified and quantified risk) problem, much less the benefit/cost justified answer.

Dick wants to simplify and reduce cost and complexity --- do you disagree with that aim??

Tootle pip!!

[Sandy Reith]

I concur completely with Lead Sled, well said.
The writing has been on the wall for GA for at least 30 years. It is a continuing disappointment that so few airline crew, but acknowledging a handful of outstanding individuals, ever bothered to join with the reform movement, a necessity if airlines are to recruit locally trained pilots, let alone a nod to future young Aussies who want to follow their flying ambitions.
Where are the airline pilots deputations to the Ministers? Where’s the campaign from the airline unions?
“She’ll be right mate” .....except it isn’t.

[LeadSled]

“She’ll be right mate” .....except it isn’t"

Ain't that the truth, and for aircraft maintenance and all involved, the situation is already immeasurably worse.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

I met the new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport yesterday at Parliament House. I will say right at the start I think he is going to be a very good Minister.

Yes, there is a problem. That is, most people who read this forum have had 10, 20 or 30 years involvement in the aviation catastrophe and non-reform in this country. Our new Minister, Michael McCormack, has now been involved with the Transport portfolio for just over 2 weeks.

The most important discussion we had was about changing the Act. I asked him if he would support the Barnaby Joyce decision to go ahead with the changes as amended by Anthony Albanese. It became clear that the Deputy Prime Minister was not going to proceed that fast. He rightly said that he wanted to come up to speed on the issue, but would be making a decision promptly. We can’t expect more than that.

We in the industry – especially the general aviation industry – will just have to wait and hope that these important legislative changes to the Act will go through. As other posters on this thread have stated, it is really the key to being able to move forward and get our aviation industry thriving again.

I’m more positive than I have been for a long time. We will see what happens.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
We must keep the pressure up, keep those letters rolling in --- to the Minister's office and his electoral office.
How about an online petition, who is going to organise that ?
Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

It became clear that the Deputy Prime Minister was not going to proceed that fast. He rightly said that he wanted to come up to speed on the issue, but would be making a decision promptly. We can’t expect more than that.And still you don’t get it, Dick.

Were his lips moving at the time? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[vne165]

Thanks Dick, a big thanks.
Well done.

[Dick Smith]

Lead. What don’t I get?

If you were in the Deputy Prime Ministers position what would you have done?

Or do you think I have been misled? What evidence do you have?

Remember I started the Australian Skeptics!

Yes. His lips were moving.

[Lead Balloon]

I’d have fobbed you off, of course.

Then I’d have called in my advisers and asked: What’s in it for me if I give Dick what he wants, and what are the risks to me if it don’t?

The answers would determine the meaning of the word “promptly”.

If the answers were that there’s nothing in it for me and no risk to me, “promptly” means a long time.

The bit that you never get is that government is not about the objective merits of an issue.

That’s why, for example, there’s an RFFS but no Tower at Ballina...

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Perhaps the minister has asked his advisors: Does this person truly represent the Aviation industry in this country, or it someone using his influence to peddle his particular view of how things should be?

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Do you think the proposed ACT changes are not necessary? Do you think I am mistaken in believing the changes are necessary for the future of our industry?

Do you think my “ particular view” on this is wrong?

Look forward to an honest and direct answer.

Traffic. I have never claimed or implied my personal views represent the “ aviation industry”. Just that Australia could have a growing aviation industry if we concentrate on removing unnecessary costs.

Do you have an angry chip on your shoulder?

[Dick Smith]

Lead. It is a bit different this time. We have the Shadow Minister openly stating he supports the change.

That has never happened before as far as I know.

Also those who would normally campaign against such a change because it will make them accountable have been silent. Perhaps most now realise the damage that has be done to aviation in this country!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

No, I don't have an angry chip on my shoulder, but it's plainly obvious from the multitude of threads on this site that you have your idea of how things should be, and all to quickly resort to name-calling and insults if other posters do not agree with your point of view. Whilst you have great experience as a private pilot, and recognizing that you were a political appointee as Chairman of CAA and CASA, you have never actually worked in aviation for a living. There are a lot people who have, but you seem disinclined to listen to any of them.
That said, the difficulty with the Civil Aviation Act is that is all, and only, about regulations applying to safety. It has nothing to do with promoting Civil Aviation. Outside the Act, there is only whatever Govt Dept has aviation under it's remit this week, so that's pretty much a dead loss most times.
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
It needs to say:
The main object of this Act is to establish an efficient and sustainable regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
CASA is another problem. It is the Safety Authority. It's functions under 9(1) to 9(4) are to purely to formulate and apply regulations pertaining to aviation safety, so it is no wonder that CASA's performance of function is defined as ...regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. That's what it was established for.
There is no other body established under the Act who's function is to promote aviation across all sectors, so you have to make CASA do it. Even if you change the purpose, the rest of the Act needs a substantial rewrite.
You need to change 9(1) of the Act to show CASA's function to be:
CASA has the function of enhancing and promoting civil aviation by conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
Perhaps how it performs that function at 9A(1)could be rewritten as:
In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must seek to achieve the highest levels of safety of air navigation, while maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry across all sectors.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic Is Er Was, the first part of your post is ridiculous and wrong. Possibly the second part is really useful so thanks for that.

Any success I have had in life has come from asking advice and surrounding myself with capable people. James Strong once described me to a friend saying, “Dick is like a blotter,” yet you state the opposite. What I think you mean is that when I take advice (some of which is conflicting), from your experience I don’t take the advice that agrees with your own ideas and the ideas of your friends. That is very possible.

When I was first on the CAA Board, I suggested that we look around the world and copy the best. That proposal was met with complete silence. The other Board members looked at me as if I was mad. Didn’t I know that “Australia was already the best in aviation and we didn’t need to copy anything? In fact, the rest of the world should be copying us.”

I have flown over 10,000 hours – nearly all in aircraft that have been owned and paid for by myself, including some horrendous maintenance costs. I have spent lots of time in hangars and even advised people in aviation businesses to help them to stave off the day of going broke.

Are you suggesting that if I got a commercial licence and started doing joy flights that you would then respect my advice in relation to aviation? That would be simply ridiculous.

Thanks again for your really good ideas about how to improve the Act. I will work on that.

[Sandy Reith]

Folks,
We must keep the pressure up, keep those letters rolling in --- to the Minister's office and his electoral office.
How about an online petition, who is going to organise that ?
Tootle pip!!
I did one of those, about two years ago and got around 2500 signatures and this was transmitted to Government by AOPA.
The comments reinforced everything we’ve known, all the obvious stupidity and destruction of a perfectly good industry. The stories, hundreds of the same ilk, create an ugly picture of extreme and overbearing bureaucratic actions which has squashed the life out of General Aviation.
Nevertheless the more the merrier, any publicity or influence that Illuminates the sorry state of GA is right and positive.
Totally support a new petition which might be framed to look a change to the Act.

[LeadSled]

----- you have never actually worked in aviation for a living. There are a lot people who have, but you seem disinclined to listen to any of them.

Traffic,
I really do wonder about you background, if you don't work for CASA.

Working in aviation for a living does not automatically make you an expert on aviation problems. I can assure you Dick listens to those worth listening to. He has a long and publicly documented history of seeking out those worth listening to, here and outside Australia.

As for "experts" working in the industry, many years ago, a senior office holder of a pilot union, a Regional captain, went on a tour of US/FAA, organised by Dick, to experience first hand, how well the US airspace system worked.

On return, he verbally reported:" Yeah, it works, but I don't care how well it works, I don't care if it is safer, we are not going to do what the f*** septics* do". His written report was, as you might imagine, equally balanced, but a little less combative in the phrasing. He is also the author of the policy that "a perception of risk" must be responded to by regulation of whatever, even when it is demonstrated that the "perceived" risk does NOT exist.

Should Dick have listened to that "industry expert"?? And the many like him.

A big part of the problem is that so many here have absolutely no experience of how aviation is conducted outside Australia, no idea that there is other than the "Australian way", all aided by the completely incorrect and wrong headed notion that Australia has a particularly good safety record, therefor what we do here must be the best.

We don't and it isn't.

It is the US that has the best air safety outcomes in every ICAO recognized category. And generally the lowest costs!!

As for the rest of your post, I am not as charitable as Dick. Do you have any idea of the number of reports and inquiries since 1988, that have all criticised the Civil Aviation Act 1988, indeed the draft bill was criticised as something cobbled up in indecent haste, and the pitfalls were pointed out, but glossed over with: "They would never interpret it so narrowly, would they". The dreaded "they".

And the first time I saw a recommendation to harmonize with US/FAA was the Minister's Annual Report to Parliament on the operation of the Air Navigation Act in 1966.

That is a lot of years, a lot of recommendations, and we are still talking about it.

Tootle pip!!

* For those of you not into rhyming slang: Yank = septic tank = septic.

[LeadSled]

14 Objectives of Minister
The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—
(a)
to undertake the Minister’s functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and
(b)
to ensure that New Zealand’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.
Section 14: substituted, on 1 December 2004, by section 4 of the Civil Aviation Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (2004 No 95).

14A Functions of Minister
The functions of the Minister under this Act are—
(a)
to promote safety in civil aviation:
(b)
to administer New Zealand’s participation in the Convention and any other international aviation convention, agreement, or understanding to which the Government of New Zealand is a party:
(c)
to administer the Crown’s interest in the aerodromes referred to in Part 10:
(d)
to make rules under this Act.
Section 14A: inserted, on 1 December 2004, by section 4 of the Civil Aviation Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (2004 No 95).

Folks,

From NZ, S14 of the NZ CA Act.
Note, in particular, 14(a).
As opposed to Australia distancing the Minister completely from any responsibility.

Tootle pip!!

[Bend alot]

Are you suggesting that if I got a commercial licence and started doing joy flights that you would then respect my advice in relation to aviation? That would be simply ridiculous.




It was my understanding that you do require a Commercial Pilots Licence to fly turbine/jet aircraft such as C208 or the Citation.

[neville_nobody]

If you want the US system, build the US infrastructure. Simple.

Problem is that everyone starts running for the exits when you talk about spending money on aviation infrastructure.

The original idea was that a fuel levy would cover the cost of the infrastructure but that got scuttled and we have now a fantastic user pays system.

[LeadSled]

BendaLot,
Looks like you are headed for a a big FAIL on your next biennial (what used to be) Flight Review, with you lack of knowledge of Aviation Law duly reported to and recorded by CASA in the approved form and process.
In fact, maybe you should voluntarily surrender your license forthwith, pending re-training.
Clearly, CASA prescribed remedial training, and re-sitting your Aviation Law (for whatever license you hold) is definitely a minimum to restore an acceptable level of safety to air navigation in the Australian skies.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Neville, we have a bleeding great fuel levy for CASA, haven't you noticed. As well, of course, for all the invented "services" we have to "buy" from CASA, plus a good chunk of taxpayer $$$$.

[Bend alot]

BendaLot,
Looks like you are headed for a a big FAIL on your next biennial (what used to be) Flight Review, with you lack of knowledge of Aviation Law duly reported to and recorded by CASA in the approved form and process.
In fact, maybe you should voluntarily surrender your license forthwith, pending re-training.
Clearly, CASA prescribed remedial training, and re-sitting your Aviation Law (for whatever license you hold) is definitely a minimum to restore an acceptable level of safety to air navigation in the Australian skies.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Neville, we have a bleeding great fuel levy for CASA, haven't you noticed. As well, of course, for all the invented "services" we have to "buy" from CASA, plus a good chunk of taxpayer $$$$.


I hold a B1 licence.


I resat Air Legislation about 12 years back.

[Dick Smith]

Is that a new CASA proposal ? Commercial Licence minimum for the Caravan?

[Bend alot]

I don't know, just my impression as a LAME was PIC of a turbine required a CPL.


I never had a reason to check that.

But was also told the AN2 was the largest aircraft that can be flown on a PPL, But I think the C208 has a greater MTOW, but still below 5,700KG. But still requiring a CPL due turbine.


Could be way wrong, just was what I have assumed over very many years.

[Sandy Reith]

Is that a new CASA proposal ? Commercial Licence minimum for the Caravan?
I’m sure we should encourage CASA to beef up PPL performance. I think ATPL and Instrument Rating with formation aerobatic endorsement would be most suitable and safer. To be fair allow a couple of years for transition. Two crew also for any aircraft fitted with dual controls would enhance safety. Single control or single seat aircraft might have to be phased out.
I’d just remind CASA officials not to jump for joy at this proposal because we will be watching if anyone is airborne, even momentarily, without a valid flying licence and current medical. With nearly all air law these days of strict liability one photo of any such person with both feet in the air could result in a criminal conviction.

[tail wheel]

Is that a new CASA proposal ? Commercial Licence minimum for the Caravan?

No. A number of parachuting clubs would be out of business if a CPL was required to fly a C208.

Theoretically, if you have enough money, time and jumped through enough hoops I believe you could fly B747 on a PPL.

[Bend alot]

Guess was not just me.

https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/260473-largest-aircraft-basic-ppl-s.html

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

That's a european discussion.

[Bend alot]

But one of the AN2's in Australia was acquired because it was the largest aircraft you could fly on a PPL!


So the belief is out there in Australia.

[LeadSled]

So the belief is out there in Australia.

In Australian aviation, there are a lot of beliefs, some held with the conviction of a new convert to ISIS, that are still wrong.
It gets quite difficult, when the belief is held by an CASA FOI, particularly when it results is a demand to do something that will almost certainly be fatal, or at best, "only" greatly increase the risk to the operation.
Tootle pip!!

[Tankengine]

Guess was not just me.

https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/260473-largest-aircraft-basic-ppl-s.html

The fact that a bunch of BRITISH PPLs were confused ten years ago on pprune does not get you off.
You are wrong! Just admit it (pilots have to all the time!)

No aircraft restrictions on private licences, just need the applicable rating for private ops. :)

[Bend alot]

"It was my understanding"

My understanding seems incorrect (can not say for sure as no evidence has been supplied).

And years later many in Australia still have the same understanding that I had, and some even pilots.


On pilots I have lost count of the number of pilots that had the gear all fold up on 210's after landing, you know they selected down - look at the gear selector handle.

[LeadSled]

----- that had the gear all fold up on 210's after landing, you know they selected down

Given the well known failure modes of C-210 gear, they were no all telling porkies.
Indeed, many year ago, after a number of "experiences" a long gone mate of mine had a big sheet of teflon (Ye!! with an E/0) fitted along the guts, and it worked.
Next time it happened, minimal damage from the gear up landing.
Tootle pip!!

[Sandy Reith]

Given the well known failure modes of C-210 gear, they were no all telling porkies.
Indeed, many year ago, after a number of "experiences" a long gone mate of mine had a big sheet of teflon (Ye!! with an E/0) fitted along the guts, and it worked.
Next time it happened, minimal damage from the gear up landing.
Tootle pip!!
Wish I had the Teflon sales concession for the Can’tberra bureaucracy.

[Bend alot]

The ones with main gear back in the wheel well that said they had visual down, often shop at the market!

[Dick Smith]

It’s not looking good. I remember I was hopeful Warren Truss would be better than John Anderson. But this was not so.

Imagine if you became Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Pretty fantastic. Surely you would want to put in some changes to make it all worthwhile!

History does not support this. Mr Anderson claimed cost was not to be taken into account and it allowed the Bureaucracy to further destroy our General Aviation Industry..

I wonder what the new Minister has been told. Seems to be complete silence. Poor Australia.

Lead ballooon. Are you laughing at me re your post 43?

[jonkster]

I may be wrong in some details and happy to stand corrected but my memory was CASA started a rewrite of the CAO/ANOs and CARs in the mid 1990s to simplify the regulatory framework.

The end result would reduce the then CARs, CAOs into a simple 2 tiered structure by rewriting it, so existing CAOs would be either turned into actual regulations (CARs) or advisory documents describing procedures that would acceptably comply with the CARs (CAAPs).

It sounded pretty sensible, would reduce the complexity and spaghetti nature of existing regulation making it all easier to understand, easier to comply with and verify compliance with and consequently make things safer and more efficient.

Again, as I recall the process was going to take some time as it was a big job - not a year or so but probably a few years but would progressively replace and simplify the existing regulations as it proceeded.

Again I may be wrong here but I understood NZ decided on a similar rewrite of their legislation but they started a few years earlier in the early 1990s.

It is now over 20 years later. NZ have had their rewritten model pretty much all in operation for nearly 20 years? (is that the case? I am not familiar with their history).

Meanwhile in Oz, the rewrite is still actively happening and progressively replacing the old system and is apparently close to being finished, the time-frame, much as it has been for 20 years - is in a year or two...

Now there are also CASRs as well as CARs and CAOs so instead of streamlining the regulations into a single document with an additional advisory document, we now have 3 sets of regulation documents and an advisory document and the new "simplified regulations" are more complicated, less consistent, more spaghetti like and more difficult to comply with than the system they were simplifying.

So the current state of play:

* A 2 decade time blowout.

* The apparent accomplishment of exactly the opposite of what was proposed.

* What must be an enormous amount of money and resources expended.

* A regulator that is deeply distrusted and disliked and mocked by the industry.

* A general aviation industry that is struggling to survive and is snowed under a growing mountain of regulations that they feel do little to enhance safety but find add significant costs and impose inappropriate and silly restrictions.

* The apparent loss of a safety culture that actively sought to understand the factors behind incidents and why safety might be compromised, replaced instead by a regulatory system that looks at ways of pursuing and attaching liability rather than identifying and mitigating systemic failures and weaknesses.

That successive ministers, (of all persuasions), for 2 decades have failed to address this other than by allowing the process to roll on directionless is a classic failure of leadership.

Surely such an ongoing, long standing debacle and such a failure to get the situation in hand would make great fodder for someone who wanted to embarrass a pollie or a government?

[Dick Smith]

I started the re write as Chairman of CAA in 1990 not just to simplify but more importantly to reduce every unnecessary cost as Labor had introduced cost recovery after the Bosch report. I told the PM that without major cost reductions there would not be a General Aviation industry in Australia.

Graham Marsh who was in charge of the NZ rewrite had moved to Hong Kong and was working for Cathay. I attempted to get him to come to Aus but he correctly surmised it would be a poisoned chalice and refused.

The Act stating the most important consideration must be safety was used to stop the concentration on removing cost. Then all downhill!

I agree. The opposite to what was proposed has happened.

[LeadSled]

I may be wrong in some details and happy to stand corrected but my memory was CASA started a rewrite of the CAO/ANOs and CARs in the mid 1990s to simplify the regulatory framework.


Jonkster,
You are partially correct, but you give to much credit to CASA.

The mid- 1990s changes came from the Howard Government aviation policy "Soaring into Tomorrow" and two successive Ministers, Sharp and Vaile who wouldn't be snowed by the public service,and their personally appointed industry Program Advisory Panel (PAP) for the "CASA Review".

There were two other things missing since, a reform minded CASA CEO/DAS who was ex FAA, and an excellent Secretary of the "Department", Alan Hawke.

The substantive output of the PAP/CASA Review was CASR Parts 21-35, and complete drafts of many other major sections, all in simple language --- that past muster with A-Gs etc.

The resistance from the ranks of CASA was ferocious, and as the Minister's moved on, Hawke moved to Defense etc., "the system" conspired to force the resignation of the DAS/CEO, Leroy Keith, convinced the incoming minister that the PAP was no longer required, all the regulations ready to be made were stopped in their tracks, and any real "reform" was dead, and you see what we have all these years later.

There were major reforms in Parts 21 to 35, resulting in the explosive growth of amateur building and the growth of AUF/RAOz, and huge expansion in the "warbirds" sector, all by removing (reforming) unnecessary restrictions.
At the other end of the scale, CASR 25 removed Australian unique restriction on airlines, especially Qantas, who had to compete internationally against airlines who were not subject to such restrictions.

A point not to be forgotten, the FARs by reference for 23 to 35 became CASR 23-35.

GET THAT ---- WE adopted a CHUNK OF US Title 14 CFR (aka FARs) Parts 23 to 35 as Australian law.

But, as we have seen, as soon as the IRON RING re-assumed control, all reform died, and with only the IRON RING in control, you see the atrocities we have today, like Parts 61/ 141/142, the "maintenance suit" including Part 142 and 66, and the forthcoming are just as bad or worse.

The very idea of having to operate a GA8 Airvan (or a C-207 or C-208 etc) to Part 121 HCRPT standards is ludicrous, as Part 135, itself a terrible document, finishes with five seats.

For my money, we should start with most of the NZ regs, which are the FARs cleaned up and greatly reduced in size. There are a few things NZ we should not do, but that could be easily sorted ---- by people who actually know what they are talking about, and not talking for sectional/union interests.

Tootle pip!!

And, in "adopting" the NZ rules, we need to reform the special provisions CASA has forced, that prevent the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty working as intended.

[Sandy Reith]

I agree with Jongster, and LeadSled’s detail is replete with the facts of the disgraceful administration and aviation rules rewrite these many years plus backward and extremely costly warfare against GA.
I would modify Jongster’s 20 year time line to 30 years, having the ‘benefit’ of watching the GA industry slowly die by a thousands cuts. The general decline, and sad loss of flying schools in particular, was well underway before Dick Smith had the position to make change, and during his tenure in my 50 years in GA the only time some sense appeared.
The new Minister has not had time to show us his colours, we can hope against hope.

[Mike Flynn]

I started the re write as Chairman of CAA in 1990 not just to simplify but more importantly to reduce every unnecessary cost as Labor had introduced cost recovery after the Bosch report. I told the PM that without major cost reductions there would not be a General Aviation industry in Australia.

Graham Marsh who was in charge of the NZ rewrite had moved to Hong Kong and was working for Cathay. I attempted to get him to come to Aus but he correctly surmised it would be a poisoned chalice and refused.

The Act stating the most important consideration must be safety was used to stop the concentration on removing cost. Then all downhill!

I agree. The opposite to what was proposed has happened.

I remember your tenure well Dick living in WA during the pilots strike.

It was the guts of Bob Hawke ,Ansett and European pilots that changed the restrictive practices of the pilots union. Australians have benefited from the cheap airlines.

Sadly the days of private pilots coming from Europe to Oz for flying safaris are long gone. The money those tourists brought to rental companies and outback communities is now spent in places such as NZ.

Is it too late to make a noise in Canberra?

[Sandy Reith]

Jay Sata’s question; “Is it too late to make a noise in Canberra?”
Efforts should be redoubled because reforms of any scale will not happen otherwise. In politics, as in other fields, action occurs when the incentives are strong. Politicians react when they think there’s votes to be had. One recent classic example is the turn around by former Transport Minister Albanese. In his time he allowed CASA to grow by another couple of hundred personnel by instituting an additional fuel levy, planned to raise $89.9 million over four years. Now that its not his responsibility and Labor are salivating at the thought of taking government he thinks they will gain more votes than they will lose by agreeing to make a modest change to the Civil Aviation Act.
The medical reform measures being introduced by CASA CEO Mr. Carmody would not have seen the light of day without persistent bad publicity.
Again all the media attention, especially from the Oz (bless them) negative to CASA, and ATSB (made independent like CASA by Albo) would not be happening without noise.

[le Pingouin]

Nothing like slipping a bit of union bashing in eh Leadie? Which unions in particular have had influence over what in particular and by who?

[Dick Smith]

Jay. I did not know New Zealand has taken the European business

Huge export dollars could be made here if the regulations were friendly.

[CaptainMidnight]

If indeed all the private pilots coming from Europe to Oz for flying safaris are long gone. The money those tourists brought to rental companies and outback communities is now spent in places such as NZ.

the exchange rate of Euro > NZD (1 EUR = 1.70 NZD or thereabouts) might be more likely to have something to do with it, rather than Australian aviation regulations.

[Dick Smith]

The luxury lodges in Australia are achieving staggering occupancy rates from European tourists.

So the exchange rate is not the prime reason !

[Sandy Reith]

The luxury lodges in Australia are achieving staggering occupancy rates from European tourists.

So the exchange rate is not the prime reason !

Furthermore, answering Captain Midnight, Australia offers far more scope for flying than does NZ, the facts of life mate. The impossible regulations are a prime reason for the now almost total lack of international flying safaris. If one frequents US aircraft forums such as Beechtalk for long enough you will eventually come across unguarded statements about Australia that will make you cringe. We are a joke or worse, but of course usually outsiders are too polite to show their their true opinions.
Having my career in GA since the 60’s it is quite plain the ridiculous, super costly and ambiguous regulations have squashed the life out of GA.
Its as plain as the nose on your face.

[LeadSled]

the exchange rate of Euro > NZD (1 EUR = 1.70 NZD or thereabouts) might be more likely to have something to do with it, rather than Australian aviation regulations.

Midnight,
With all due respect, absolute rubbish.

Some little time ago, I was institutionally involved with assisting one US and one Canadian group that organised flying safaris in Australia, and their trials and tribulations with the almost impenetrable Australian burgeoning bureaucratic maze.

The first killer was the ever extending time cost and complexity of getting a license validated to fly in Australia, (made much worse by Part 61) compounded by the cost, time delays and uncertainties of (ever) getting an AVID/ASIC clearance.

At all stages, the CASA "attitude" was uncooperative, varying from "constrictive (obstructive??) inertia" to a positively hostile attitude to the idea of "foreign PPLs" flying in Australian airspace --- the implicit objection was so clearly was that these "foreign" pilots would not be up the very high standards required to fly in Australian air.

There was a very obvious particular bias against FAA licensed pilots --- apparently it was/is "too easy" to get a license in US.

At one stage, there was one Queensland operator had something like fourteen aircraft dedicated to flying safaris. That is long gone.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Which unions in particular have had influence over what in particular and by who?

Le Ping,
You would't actually suggest that AFAP have ever been objective about airspace reform, (or much else) would you?? Unlike AIPA.
You would't actually suggest that AFAP members among FOIs have been supportive of risk based benefit/cost justified reform, would you??
You wouldn't actually suggest that ALAEAA members within CASA have been supportive of risk based benefit/cost justified reform, would you??
Or any of the above, except AIPA, have supported genuine international harmonization??

the restrictive practices of the pilots union


Jaya Sata,
AIPA was formed long before the '89 debacle, fundamentally because we (the former Overseas Branch of the AFAP) could not live with the policies and attitudes of Australian domestic pilots.
So, in '89, it was unions, plural.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Four letters killed air safari ops in Australia ASIC

[LeadSled]

Oz,
ASIC certainly was a major problem, but the nonsense CASA went on with over licenses was, at times, unbelievable.

I refer to the requirements to establish (in hard copy) that a visiting pilot actually had a license, and if the National Authority did not precisely comply, in all minute detail, with "CASA Requirements", a potential visitor's license would not be recognized. In the FAA case, (then) you could look up all the details on the FAA web site, but no, it had to be to CASA requirements and in the form prescribed by CASA, and a screen print didn't do it.

Another nasty little angle was "validation flight tests", with the organisation "designated" by CASA. Result, the poor visitor being confronted by inflated hourly rates and ridiculous hours counts.

In reality, CASA "mates" getting some particularly profitable business.

For example, a US airline Captain, flying to Australia regularly, and, of course with an ATR/Multi/Land/Instrument and a string of other qualifications, including A&P/AI, and CFI including the then FAA equivalent of an ATO, being "required" to do a minimum of five hours dual on a light twin??

Tootle pip!!

[Oldmanemu]

I was in the room when Warren Truss (the then Minister) told the Department of infrastructure to do a "complete review of the Act - not just a band aid job".
As we knòw, the Department has carriage of the Act. CASA handles the subordinate legislation.
There is not one person in the Department who would know where to begin and CSSA has a vested interest (job protection via status quo aka iron ring). Thats the problem!

[le Pingouin]

Leadie, you aren't actually suggesting that merely opposing something is tantamount to having influence?!? You'll need to do better than that.

[Sandy Reith]

Four letters killed air safari ops in Australia ASIC
From the CASA website ‘explaining’ the difference between ASIC and AVID.
Quote:-
“ASICs and AVIDs show that the holder has a current security check but only an ASIC can be used at security controlled airports. ASICs are normally valid for up to 2 years and AVIDs are normally valid for up to 5 years.

While an AVID and an ASIC are both evidence that background checks have been undertaken, the background checks for the AVID are not equivalent to the checks for the ASIC.

At a minimum, all pilots must undergo the background checks for an AVID. Only those pilots who require access to a secure area of a security controlled airport will need to undergo the more robust background checks for an ASIC.

To streamline processes and remove any duplication, pilots who undergo the background checking for an ASIC do not have to undergo the background checking for an AVID.

If you plan to fly frequently into a security controlled airport that has RPT services you need to have an ASIC.”

Note the last paragraph, I have written to CASA about this making the point that if I don’t fly frequently into a security controlled airport then why would an AVID not be sufficient? Also that I don’t need entry to the “secure area of a security controlled airport” therefore again why not an AVID?
The answer I received left me none the wiser, the ambiguity remains.
The cost of an ASIC to the applicant for a PPL known to me, not including considerable time and cost driving to a regional security controlled airport to gain a certificate that the applicant would need to fly into such airport, was $283.
This is unsupportable. If Australia must persist with it’s exclusive policy then why not extend the ASIC validity period at least for commercial pilots or instructors etc. For PPLs a formula extension for years of ‘good behaviour’ would be reasonable. Please Mr. Minister any reform will be welcome.

[thorn bird]

Meanwhile in the home of 9/11.........
Risk based comes to mind.

[Oldmanemu]

An ASIC is not an Aviation Safety Identification Card. So why do CASA have anything to do with them? The cards should be in the hands of either the Department of Infrastructure or Home Affairs.

[Sandy Reith]

Correct it is not a safety card and it is in fact a product of Department of Infrastructure. I believe that CASA acts as an agent. Why this is so I do not know, but the result is well known, another nail in the coffin of GA.

[Dick Smith]

While the ACT remains as it is it appears there will continue to be a one way ratchet increasing costs..

[Sandy Reith]

While the ACT remains as it is it appears there will continue to be a one way ratchet increasing costs..

That could stand for the A. C. T. or the Civil Aviation Act, either way only Parliament can cause real reform, starting by changing the Act, reforms which have become really urgent.
In the past GA has looked to CASA for reform action, this was never going to occur because CASA’s salary factory make work programs and fee gouging would be seriously difficult to justify.
The newly formed Australian General Aviation Association (SAAA, AOPA and AMROBA so far) are planning a meeting in Can’tberra mid year.
Let’s hope this will provide the political impetus that is so necessary.

[Dick Smith]

Wow. A planned meeting mid year!

The bureaucracy will be trembling!

The previous GAA collapsed because the people in Canberra ignored it. Hopefully better this time around.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s not looking good. I remember I was hopeful Warren Truss would be better than John Anderson. But this was not so.

Imagine if you became Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Pretty fantastic. Surely you would want to put in some changes to make it all worthwhile!

History does not support this. Mr Anderson claimed cost was not to be taken into account and it allowed the Bureaucracy to further destroy our General Aviation Industry..

I wonder what the new Minister has been told. Seems to be complete silence. Poor Australia.

Lead ballooon. Are you laughing at me re your post 43?Not laughing Dick.

Despairing.

Despairing that you fall for it, every time.

Despairing that the power you have could be used to achieve the outcome that you and many others want, but you don’t know how to use it.

Despairing that you seem incapable of understanding that this is about politics, and politics is not about the merits of an argument.

[Sandy Reith]

Lead Balloon I cannot see that pointing the finger or blame game is warranted. For one thing its too easy and for another one might wonder how hard have others worked with their MPs and through political parties to push for reform.

That’s where the real hard work is, going to meetings, putting in time and money.

Just because someone has a high public profile doesn’t mean they are obliged to work harder than anyone else. If anyone volunteers their efforts for the public good then plus points appear. If they don’t then its zero points to count, not negative points.

On personalities we are all entitled to our opinions, but to judge publicly is fraught with problems which will only give comfort to the opposition forces entrenched in Can’tberra.

[Dick Smith]

Lead. How about giving me a call?

I have clearly failed. I would like your advice on how to handle politically!

I will give it a go.

[tfx]

Just getting back to the thread for a minute, one thing that could be done possibly even by casa at a finite cost and in a finite time would be to remove all references to "strict liability". That concept was never intended for trivial regulation infringements and is entirely out of place in that context. JMO.

And let's leave 1989 out of it. Not relevant. Besides, nobody who wasn't involved in that dust-up seems to have the faintest idea what happened or why.

[LeadSled]

That concept was never intended for trivial regulation infringements and is entirely out of place in that context. JMO.


TFX,
How true, but successive governments have never bothered to enforce their own legislative guidelines.
Tootle pip!!

[Sandy Reith]

TFX,
How true, but successive governments have never bothered to enforce their own legislative guidelines.
Tootle pip!!

I recall Mr Carmody making reference to the issue of strict liability being inappropriate, but obviously its low on priority. Repeating a point, CASA has strong disincentives to make changes that could put GA on a growth path. Loss of fees for all sorts of permissions that don’t exist in the USA for one example. Less power to micro manage by CASA would eventually lead to lower staffing and possibly lower salaries within CASA. Any logical changes might lead to cessation of the everlasting (30 yr so far and still counting) make work program of rule rewriting, a system of great wealth creation which CASA would be loathe to give up. The hubristic egos of the Iron Ring would be assaulted by any winding back of the worst and most unworkable aviation rules in the developed world, one more obstacle in the way of commonsense and practical reform that is desperately needed.

[Lead Balloon]

Wren: I’m not “pointing the finger” at anyone or expecting Dick to do anything. My point is that if Dick wants to achieve change, there’s a way that is more likely to work than the ones to which he is choosing to devote his energy. If he’s going to choose to devote any energy to achieving outcomes through interactions with politicians, here’s what he should do:

1. Ignore what they say. The only measure of progress is outcomes.

2. Be specific about what outcome you want. In the case of amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, Dick gets a tick against 2.

3. Tell all politicians, or at least the parliamentary members of the major parties, that you will run a public campaign to get them all tossed out, until the outcome you want has been implemented. Politics is about obtaining and retaining power, so if you pose a credible threat to someone who is in a comfy position of power, or to someone who has a sniff of a possibility to get into that position, you will have their attention. (This is where Dick has unique power.)

4. Constantly remind yourself of rule 1.

5. Constantly remind yourself that achieving the outcome has nothing to do with the merits of the issue. That will help you to comply with Rule 1 and understand Rule 3.

[Sandy Reith]

L Balloon regarding your advice to Dick Smith and your opinion that he has unique power and the inference that he could cause a number of MPs to lose their seats. I don’t see this as realistic when one considers the huge effort by thousands of political party personnel and millions of dollars that go make up a general election. This is a competition that drowns out all but the main issues of welfare money and the maintenance of average lifestyles.
The surest way to get reform for GA is by GA people to engage with their MPs and get political parties together agreeing to policy change. Dick Smith looked to have a fundamental change, agreed surprisingly by both sides, to the CA Act in the bag, a great effort which I’m sure did not come overnight or without considerable effort (unpaid). Too bad BJ took a tumble but maybe the new Minister might carry that forward.
We can can write, ring, email and meet our MPs and exhort them to push that legislative action.

[Dick Smith]

Unbelievably bad news for our industry! !

I had a phone call with the Deputy PM Michael McCormack a few days ago. From what I could read into the phone call he will not be supporting the change in the act that is so fundamental for the future of our industry. I think we have another John Anderson- nice bloke but he will take his $400K+ salary each year and make sure he can never be held accountable for anything!

Just like Darren Chester he is a trained journalist so he knows that the media will beat up anything that attempts to tell the truth about aviation safety and cost. His training will be “leave the status quo- and you can never be held responsible”.

I suppose the only hope is a change of government with Mr Albanese then changing the act. He has told me he will do this.

Then again Lead will point out that I should not believe such a claim. So where should we go from here?

In the meantime. Get out of General Aviation in Australia before you lose everything

[Sandy Reith]

Not happy Jan.
It would be easy enough to slip into Lead Balloon’s incipient despair but to hell with that we will redouble effort.
The political cycle is on our side, the balance is finely weighted between the main parties. This dynamic is able to be shaped and directed if we take the issues directly to our MPs and cite the coming avalanche of criticism in publicity.
The Australian has run many articles in the last few months which run towards our reform requirements, this is the other driver to be exploited, to make one Minister irrelevant and to be overtaken by the political imperatives of severe critiques by publicity.
Might too hopeful but it is possible by motivating the GA community.

[Dick Smith]

“You cannot rush policy outcomes, especially when it involves people’s safety. If changes are possible, they will be properly considered and broad consultation will be held before any decision is made.”
So goes a quote from an article in The Australian this morning. See here. (http://rosiereunion.com/file/The%20Australian%20-%20Aviation%20reform%20grounded%20by%20Barnaby's%20successor %209.4.18_Page_1.jpg)

This statement is clearly "John Anderson speak" for doing nothing. It worked for John Anderson for over 6½ years – he was one of our longest serving aviation Ministers ever and managed to stay there without making any material change that would assist the industry by using such statements.

Of course, what is left out of the article is that the present Act is a lie. The most important consideration is not safety in many cases when CASA is dealing with powerful airlines. They only use the Act when it is to destroy the weaker general aviation industry.

I despair.

[Sandy Reith]

So goes a quote from an article in The Australian this morning. See here. (http://rosiereunion.com/file/The%20Australian%20-%20Aviation%20reform%20grounded%20by%20Barnaby's%20successor %209.4.18_Page_1.jpg)

This statement is clearly "John Anderson speak" for doing nothing. It worked for John Anderson for over 6½ years – he was one of our longest serving aviation Ministers ever and managed to stay there without making any material change that would assist the industry by using such statements.

Of course, what is left out of the article is that the present Act is a lie. The most important consideration is not safety in many cases when CASA is dealing with powerful airlines. They only use the Act when it is to destroy the weaker general aviation industry.

I despair.
It’s pretty sad but we have to keep on, its a duty. Get a few hundred GA people to Can’tberra as is the plan of the AGAA group will give us valuable publicity. The 30 bad news polls can be good news because sooner or later the penny will drop, both major parties will be scrounging for every vote.
We can help them.

[Dick Smith]

“I don’t think that you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable. Safety is something which has the highest priority – it is not a question of cost.”

John Anderson, Australia’s longest serving transport Minister, in the Namoi Valley Independent newspaper, Thursday 5 October 2000.

So here we have a Deputy Prime Minister basically stating a lie and getting away with it.

Have a look at Mr Anderson’s Wikipedia entry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anderson_(Australian_politician))

It raves on about what a fantastic Deputy Prime Minister he was and how he was praised when he eventually retired. There is not one mention in the entry of him actually doing anything for the aviation side of the Transport portfolio.

As we know, he propagated these “lies” that you don’t need to have affordable aviation regulations. He got away with that and by the look of it, the next Minister has been advised (by bureaucrats earning $600,000 or $700,000 per year) to do the same thing.

It is almost as if our democracy is not working any more.

[Sandy Reith]

So here we have a Deputy Prime Minister basically stating a lie and getting away with it.

Have a look at Mr Anderson’s Wikipedia entry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anderson_(Australian_politician))

It raves on about what a fantastic Deputy Prime Minister he was and how he was praised when he eventually retired. There is not one mention in the entry of him actually doing anything for the aviation side of the Transport portfolio.

As we know, he propagated these “lies” that you don’t need to have affordable aviation regulations. He got away with that and by the look of it, the next Minister has been advised (by bureaucrats earning $600,000 or $700,000 per year) to do the same thing.

It is almost as if our democracy is not working any more.

By degrees and by definition it is not working as it should because Ministers have been giving up their responsibilities by creating independent Commonwealth corporations to govern in their stead. The great ‘independent umpire’ idea so fancied by politicians and it seems the sports loving populace.
It is also a much beloved and coveted prize for a bureaucracy moving out of the more salary restricted mainstream Public Service into the wider Pubilic Sector and where ‘commercial corporate’ rates of pay are the norm.
When CASA was set loose from direct Ministerial control, some thirty years ago, none of us foresaw the looming disaster, death by a thousand cuts for GA.
As for John Anderson, dishing up the notion that affordability has no place regarding safety was always mindless and completely illogical. That the notion was made into law shows how, for all our supposed educated sophistication, our democracy is far from perfect and the old saying “eternal vigilance,” to keep our freedoms, remains just as true as anytime in the past.
Inroads into our freedom of speech have occurred and the whole apparatus of government has become extremely top heavy thanks in no small part to the handout mentality. In consequence there’s as many voting for a living as working for same making it very difficult for governments to move.
GA has got a battle on it’s hands.

[jonkster]

1. A regulation rewrite by a government body that has taken decades longer than anticipated and is still ongoing (and NZ who did similar achieved and implemented decades faster). At what cost? To achieve not a simpler system but a more arcane one.

2. An aviation industry that is struggling to survive. Closures of maintenance, charter and training organisations across the country. Loss of facilities, skills, corporate knowledge. Loss of public benefit that having a viable GA industry provides.

3. A shortage of pilots in the airlines. Australian flying schools disappearing and talk of having to get overseas pilots to fill vacancies because we are not able to train our own. We used to train not just our own pilots but large numbers of overseas pilots.

4. Regional aviation industries, jobs and services disappearing. Higher costs to regional residents for transport and closures of local business and loss of employers.

5. The body responsible for overseeing the industry keeps growing larger and is imposing more and more onerous restrictions on the industry and there is much doubt within the industry about the actual safety value of those restrictions.

6. Huge antipathy and distrust between the regulatory body and the industry it serves.

7. An industry in crisis that wants a regulatory body that includes in its charter some responsibility for assisting maintain the viability of the industry it serves instead of its current narrow focus on imposing regulation without any need to consider the practical impact of those regulations on the viability of the industry.

8. An industry whose health and viability depends on maintaining a high level of safety but that feels it is having onerous and often poorly thought out regulations imposed on it that are not so much about practical safety outcomes as the appearance and ease of enforcement by the regulator.

9. Governments over decades that have washed their hands and allowed the regulator to continue to act without regard for the viability of the industry because they are too scared to make decisions that may impact safety (or the perception of safety).

10 Handing over of commonwealth aviation assets that have served a vital role in the aviation industry (and its benefit to the community) to private hands who then develop and those assets to maximise their profits in ways that reduce or remove aviation from the facility.

Surely this would make for a great 4 corners program. Particularly close to an election.

[Sandy Reith]

Jonkster that is on the money, the main ills of the current trajectory and the way forward. Material for the media and any venue that gives us a platform.
I think one important ingredient in the debate is a new attitude towards the whole mechanism of government control over our freedoms.
We used to accept by acquiescence that government, ie the Crown, gave us privileges to fly. This is rubbish. We have a right to fly and the ‘privilege’ idea out of the medieval concept of the Monarch holding all rights, to be dispensed as Royal favour, must be discarded.
We accept simple rules for flight in the same way as we all accept the road rules. Those rules might be more complex than road rules but the principle is the same.
In the past we accepted all sorts of restrictions and costly procedures, which are now far worse, but commonsense and some liberal reading of the rules allowed GA to thrive.
Not so today and this must change.

[Lead Balloon]

...The surest way to get reform for GA is by GA people to engage with their MPs and get political parties together agreeing to policy change.I wish that were true but, alas, it’s demonstrably naive.Dick Smith looked to have a fundamental change, agreed surprisingly by both sides, to the CA Act in the bag, a great effort which I’m sure did not come overnight or without considerable effort (unpaid). Too bad BJ took a tumble but maybe the new Minister might carry that forward.The new Minister won’t take it forward. There’s nothing in it for the Minister to do so. The bipartisan agreement to fundamental change was balloon juice. We can can write, ring, email and meet our MPs and exhort them to push that legislative action.Yep we can.

At least I can say I tried really hard to get the horse to drink. :(

[Sandy Reith]

Lead B., the thirst for votes is our major hope. It took more than 40 years to get the Berlin Wall down and no one saw that coming.
Thatcher revolutioned how Britain does business and set that country on a pathway to much greater prosperity, and no one saw that coming.
Unfortunately with privatisation all the rage some bright spark in government thought up Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) and coupled that with ‘user pays.’ Such monopolies, illegal in the real world and enterprising only in the sense of finding new ways of extorting fees from a reeling aviation industry, dropped the GBE title as too pointedly a deceptive ploy.
There’s no alternative but to continue to put the case, the current trajectory is costing the Commonwealth untold $millions in forgone taxation receipts far in excess of the fees gouged out of the declining GA industry. This factor goes to the deficit problem quite apart from the direct disadvantages succinctly put by Jongster, and, not to be overlooked, our freedom to pursue happiness.
Its an obligation, our civic duty, to state a case.

[Lead Balloon]

There’s no alternative but to continue to put the case.I agree.

My point is that, in parallel with that demonstrably failed tactic, Dick could focus his energies on the tactic that is most likely to get results. I’ve led him to the water...

[Sandy Reith]

I agree.

My point is that, in parallel with that demonstrably failed tactic, Dick could focus his energies on the tactic that is most likely to get results. I’ve led him to the water...

“Failed tactic?” I think the picture is far more complex, will we ever achieve every ideal and are those ideals shared by all?
The amount of publicity adverse to current aviation policy, especially from the Oz, is many times increased thanks in great measure to the efforts of Dick Smith and many others.
There’s a build up of knowledge within the aviation community, and change of attitude towards such critical areas such as independent instructors and medical requirements. CASA is actually moving to reforms in the AVMED space. Without GA pushing no such movement would be likely.
Its very important to get our philosophies right, to assert our freedom to fly and to change the notion that we have to have micro management by our betters (the “Crown”). We now see that there must be change to the way government administers aviation.
All of this is necessary background to a reset in our own collective attitude to the basics. Part of this is to put aside all sorts of pet theories about the minutiae of flying, to recognise that simple rules work and we rely on proven techniques by experienced people to further and improve aviation in all it’s variations.
True we haven’t yet achieved game changing reform, but the only absolute failure would be giving up the fight.

[Roller Merlin]

On this one I agree with the thrust of Dick's strategy. A top-down amendment the Aviation Act is the only avenue that could change CASA from the statute-law-building behemoth it has become. The lawyers in CASA have been steering the ship for a long time and increasingly towards shallow waters. Dick - Better luck with Albo!

[Sandy Reith]

Roller Merlin, ref Dick Smith getting Albo onside, advice from a former Minister to me is to frame the matter as beyond party politics, not so much by describing the current trajectory, but to show the great prospects for growth if there is real change and reforms for growth. Could be seen as radical in the current Australian context but normal and demonstrably safe and efficient in, for example, the USA.
If possible to find one or two Members from the Nats, Libs and Labor to help. Again pretty much as Dick Smith has had with some success. But now to carry through with more MPs if they can be found. Not easy but entirely possible.

[Dick Smith]

I have been told by experts in the Canberra scene that the legislative change could be completed in weeks if the minister wanted the result.

A week or so in legislative drafting and then to the house. It appears such quick change has been made before when both sides are in agreement.

The urgent action is needed because of the dire straights of the training industry. That’s going to effect Airline passengers and growth!

[Roller Merlin]

Wren - I think you are on the money - and this being an election year could be utilised to an advantage - the issue would need a cause to bubble towards the top of an already crowded political agenda, and remain on the table just long enough to be seen as a minor policy advantage point of difference for the Labour Party.

My view is that the public are tired of all nanny state legislation and would view positively the benefits of red tape-ripping in aviation that preserves current levels of safety. Especially with Baggerys Creek/ Melb and Brisbane Airports expansion/ and the QF Academy being current media topics. Some political traction could be gained through the message of this simple legislative change - it may appear is a positive-no-brainer for the public and the shadow minister without eroding opinions over public safety.

Since the next federal election must be called between Aug18 and May19, the timing of any campaign and announcement would be paramount.

Dick - if Albo is on side with this, do you believe there is the political goodwill to make this a minor point of (good) aviation policy difference for the Labour Party going into the next election?

RM

[Dick Smith]

Yes. I believe Albo is on side and I understand AOPA are arranging an urgent meeting with him.

Yes. I reckon labor could support this but I am still hoping the new minister will become supportive and get the change underway now.

Hope to see as many interested parties as possible at my presentation in Wagga next Thursday at 11 am at the RSL club.

I will explain the sad story of the demise of GA and what we can do to reverse the trend.

Plenty of time for questions!