Extraordinary initiative by AOPA

[Dick Smith]

This is an amazing initiative by AOPA – I can imagine membership soaring. I particularly like the comment by AOPA Chief Executive Ben Morgan as follows:

“For the minister to come out and say he needs time (to consider reform) … is almost laughable. The Nationals have had carriage of the transport portfolio for many years.”

Interesting times! Following is the full text of the article which was published in The Australian today:


McCormack faces aviation dogfight

Australia’s general aviation industry will campaign against Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack in his electorate, potentially even standing a candidate against him, if he fails to endorse regulatory reform.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association yesterday told The Australian it would set up a campaign office in Wagga Wagga, in Mr McCormack’s Riverina electorate, and consider running a candidate, if he failed to commit to changes to the Civil Aviation Act.

“The general aviation industry is in a perilous situation,” AOPA chief executive Ben Morgan said. “For the minister to come out and say he needs time (to consider reform) … is almost laughable. The Nationals have had carriage of the transport portfolio for many years.

“If our minister is not going to listen, I wonder if the people of Wagga would be prepared to have a conversation. We may even need to consider putting candidates forward (in Riverina and other electorates) … to see that these issues are resolved.”

AOPA, which represents thousands of pilots and business owners in general aviation across the country, is backing changes to the act negotiated by former civil aviation safety chief Dick Smith. Mr Smith in February revealed he had found consensus on amendments that then deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and Labor’s Anthony Albanese both indicated they could support.

These would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to operate in a manner that recognised the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”, as well as the “highest level of safety in air navigation”. Many in general aviation, which includes charter, air emergency, pilot training and agricultural operations, believe the act’s current requirement on CASA to “regard safety as the most important consideration” has led to a tangle of costly, needless regulation.

Mr McCormack, who succeeded Mr Joyce on February 26, this week declined to endorse the Smith changes.

But yesterday Mr McCormack said he was happy to meet AOPA to discuss its concerns and reform ideas. “The deputy PM is certainly open to reform, after due consideration is given to any proposals put forward,” his spokesman said. “Reform such as this takes time to ensure everyone’s views are considered and to ensure there are no unintended consequences.”

CASA argues it already considers the financial impact of its regulations, but the issue is gaining traction nationally, with a Senate inquiry taking evidence about the impact of regulation on regional aviation costs.

Inquiry member XNT senator Rex Patrick called for urgent action to tackle the “cost of CASA” and produced CASA data showing revenue from its regulatory service fees rose from $2.9m in 2000 to $13.9m in 2017.

CASA’s staff ballooned from 621 in 2007 to 830 in 2017, while its operating budget rose from $129m to $180m over the same period. “Something has to change,’’ Senator Patrick said.

Mr Morgan said the decline in general aviation was undeniable, with 25 per cent of the fleet of 2993 aircraft not in use.

[triton140]

“Reform such as this takes time to ensure everyone’s views are considered and to ensure there are no unintended consequences.”

What a joke - someone should bring his spokesman up to speed on the Part 61 debacle! :ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

This will only work if Dick:

(1) actively and publicly supports the Aviation Advancement Party candidate, and

(2) doesn’t allow himself to be duchessed by the incumbent.

(For information: “duchessed” does not mean flying in a Duchess...)

AOPA needs to be very, very careful to choose a candidate who doesn’t have dual citizenship, a ‘colourful’ history or any of the other precluding characteristics. The candidate can safely assume that if, as a consequence of Dick’s active and public support, the candidate is a credible threat, s/he will be the subject of very close scrutiny and a ‘dirt’ campaign.

[Frank Arouet]

It was a sad day when this electorate lost Kay Hull and replaced her with the current incumbent. That Lady had a broad indoctrination about the CAsA Juggernaut and she stood firm for her and others values in her dealings with them. McCormack is just another politician by comparison.

[Lookleft]

At least Sunfish's theory about using political leverage of campaigning against the incumbent if they don't change aviation policy will be put to the test . Personally I don't think it will make any difference if the main narrative is about roads,schools and hospitals.

[SIUYA]

McCormack is just another politician by comparison

By comparison to what Frank?

McCormack proved himself to be totally useless in his previous portfolio, so I'd hold absolutely no hope whatsoever he is going to perform any differently in his new role.

In fact, it's probably going to be a race to the bottom with McCormack when his competence (or otherwise) is compared to previous NP leaders, eg., Anderson, or Truss.

As for 'duchessing' LB, I suspect that the one who has been duchessed at this stage is actually McCormack, and that all the candidate you refer to is going to have to take care of is to keep on asking McCormack to provide tangible proof of his political accomplishments so far as they relate to the aviation aspects of his portfolio.

Because from the article Dick refers to, it's only going to take about 5/8ths of the sqrt of F.A of a poofteenth of a millisecond to elaborate on them from what I can see. :ugh::ugh:

[peuce]

... Personally I don't think it will make any difference if the main narrative is about roads,schools and hospitals.

Quite true. Who out there in Joe Blow world cares about Aviation?

However, and its a big however, a campaign based on more broader and general issues may have more success. For example....lack of Public Service accountability...lack of Ministerial/MP access, knowledge, communication, goals, outcomes, performance, representation, advocacy...blah, blah, blah

[dhavillandpilot]

Happy to contribute to the election fund.

But I'll bet the NATs will promise the world to stop an aviation candidate from running.

You will need to see action in the next 3months otherwise all bets should be off and go after the B******d

Don't believe them, as Pauline Hanson has proven, there is support for alternative candidates.

All you need to do is pull enough primary votes away from the NATs for them to lose.

[Frank Arouet]

SIUYA;
I'm making allowances for perhaps you being a millennial, but for you to be fair to my post, the comparison was with Kay Hull.


PM me if you have any problems with that.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Great initiative by Ben Morgan at AOPA, let's do what we can to get as many behind him as possible.

Holding a metaphorical gun to McCormack's head will absolutely get his attention. As for this nonsense about "more consultation, yada, yada, yada", how many inquiries does he need, recommending changes to the Act. What a complete load of polliwaffle.

In the present political climate, even Riverina could be reduced to a marginal seat. That sort of appeal to the hip pocket nerve can be very compelling.

And I agree with Frank, Kay Hull was an exceptional local member who did not put up with nonsense from CASA, as some of her constituents can testify. She was a great loss the Riverina, the Parliament and the National Party.

Tootle pip!!

[kaz3g]

A successful candidate needs to have a suite of policies, not a single interest approach. They also need to present as acceptable to a broad spectrum of voters.

As much as I love flying, the "public" is generally not so interested. They are interested in summer fire fighting resources, in access for the aerial ambulance or RFDS, in the flow of visitors to their towns. I fear most of them won't like the thought that "safety" is being downgraded and that's what the other side will argue.

Fear is the strongest emotion...just look at the ridiculous extent to which successive governments are trying to deal with crime by ever-harsher sentencing in response to the agitations of the Murdoch media instead of dealing with systemic disadvantage and the other causes of crime.

Kaz. :zzz:

[Dick Smith]

I think the public could be concerned about pilot shortages and no flying training for children and grandchildren.

Can anyone recommend a popular candidate?

[TBM-Legend]

Ben Morgan is putting some clear thinking into the issues. He won't please all of the people all of the time so please support him in every possible way.

Maybe Geoff Bruest, well known Wagga aviation type, needs a turn in the Canberra madhouse! He's done more rounds with CASA and Ministers than most and his mentor was our old friend Don Kendall who always stood up for the industry.

[Aussie Bob]

Too little too late... GA is screwed.

[gerry111]

Fear is the strongest emotion...just look at the ridiculous extent to which successive governments are trying to deal with crime by ever-harsher sentencing in response to the agitations of the Murdoch media instead of dealing with systemic disadvantage and the other causes of crime.
Kaz. :zzz:

Not to also mention the "Shock Jocks" at 2GB and 3AW, kaz?

[Horatio Leafblower]

As much as I love flying, the "public" is generally not so interested. They are interested in summer fire fighting resources, in access for the aerial ambulance or RFDS, in the flow of visitors to their towns. I fear most of them won't like the thought that "safety" is being downgraded and that's what the other side will argue.

Kaz
Every small business owner in this country is watching government policy favour lerge corporations. Every small town is seeing businesses close because of over- regulation. Every parent outside the capital cities is wondering how or where their kids will get jobs as all the small shops and businesses disappear.

We can see the future of small business in this country, and if we have a good candidate we can illustrate that the Aviaiton industry's concerns are the same as the concerns of every small business.

...and more importantly, we only need to embarass them AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY before the election, and divert votes to their opposition during the election, to harm them.
The ALP won't have selected a candidate yet so McCormack is effectively unopposed in his home constituency. Let's open up on him and every decision he makes not only in Aviaiton but as local member.

Again, it's not about us winning but about being a credible threat that can make him lose.

[jonkster]

I fear most of them won't like the thought that "safety" is being downgraded and that's what the other side will argue.


I agree, that will probably be the argument used to counter the proposal.

The argument against that (I think) is that a sustainable industry requires high levels of safety or it won't be sustainable. I don't think anyone in aviation wants an unsafe industry.

Has the CASA regulation and sanction approach done anything to really improve safety for us?

How do Oz accident rates per hour flown over the last few decades compare with most western countries? (many who regularly operate in weather and terrain more hazardous than we generally encounter here).

The focus of CASA on safety through regulation and adversarial interaction appears to have only resulted in damage to the sustainability of the industry rather than enhanced safety.

We all want a safe and viable industry, people in aviation are vitally interested in ways to practically reduce unnecessary risk.

Without a viable industry what is the point?

[Sunfish]

KAz3G: A successful candidate needs to have a suite of policies, not a single interest approach. They also need to present as acceptable to a broad spectrum of voters.

As much as I love flying, the "public" is generally not so interested. They are interested in summer fire fighting resources, in access for the aerial ambulance or RFDS, in the flow of visitors to their towns. I fear most of them won't like the thought that "safety" is being downgraded and that's what the other side will argue.


With respect Kaz, you just don't get it!

We don't have to convince the public about the need for aviation reform, we have to convince politicians that they might lose their seat if they don't reform aviation regulation!

This is not semantics. Your model is : convince the public = they will vote for a reformist = reformist gets elected = CASA gets reformed. As you and I and everyone else knows this is an impossible task.

My model is : convince public not to vote for politician = politician is afraid of losing seat = CASA is reformed very fast. The negative message is very easy to sell. We don't have to try and explain aviation safety to Joe public (an impossible task). A frightened politician is an active reformer!

The negative message only needs to be peripherally connected to aviation; "Senator Bloggs is up to his knees in prostitutes while aviation suffers" will do quite nicely. There is no need for complex messages, simple mud slinging will do.

My only quibble with AOPA's approach is that there is no point targeting the Minister unless his seat is marginal, all you will do is irritate him a little. It would be far better in my opinion if AOPA were to announce it will campaign against sitting Government members in the Five most marginal seats in the country (note: I did not say stand candidates, I said 'campaign against"). If you do that, or threaten to do it, Malcolm Turnbull will have McCormack by the throat ordering instant reform on Monday morning.

[TBM-Legend]

Too little too late... GA is screwed.

Here we go again! The Oz negativity which is why nothing happens.

Remember the bumper sticker "Support you Local Sheriff" in the movies

Now please "Support your Local AOPA"..

[dhavillandpilot]

Sunfish is right. The only thing a politican is interested in is self, and remaining in power. Sling mud and it will stick.

Hit them with loss of votes and I the case of the Liberals - losing government and yes Turnbull will dictate fix the problem.

Just look at out dear Gladys, she has one rebel MP that could derail her over the powerhouse. I bet this issue will go away with a change of plan/s

[Frank Arouet]

It's because the seat isn't marginal, it is taken for granted by the National Party. In fact all, or most political effort is put into the marginal arena at the expense of the so called safe seats.
This indifference to the constituents is not lost on them.
This man is no Kay Hull and any votes AOPA get are those McCormack won't. He needs reminding of this.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

As a truckie,....beware of politicians promising the world while handing out cartons of beer and pizzas...demand the reform be done Before backing off the political pressure.

[andrewr]

It's fun to play with a few numbers related to the CASA budget. 180m works out to approximately:
$5,800 per pilot per year
or
$12,000 per aircraft per year
or
$210,000 per AOC per year
or
$1.80 per passenger movement, i.e. about $300 for a full 737 from Melbourne to Sydney.

No wonder cost recovery is so damaging for Australian aviation.

Of course CASA would argue that the costs are spread around between pilots, aircraft owners, AOC holders etc. so the numbers are not that large but the reality is that whichever way you spread it, the costs fall on the same participants.

The only one that is semi-independent is passenger movements - people wouldn't notice a couple of dollars on a ticket. Unfortunately the airlines do notice $300 on a 737 load, and they are the ones with the lobbying budget to shift costs to somebody else.

For comparison, if the car registration and licensing authorities cost $12,000 per car, their budget would be about 160 billion per year.

This does not include any Airservices figures.

[Lead Balloon]

But what price air safety? We should strive for safety in the air, at any cost.

[triadic]

Safety does not have an infinite budget, hence we really have to call it 'affordable safety'. There comes a time when whatever we are spending our $$ on hits a limit. That's why some of us that can afford a classy car buy one, or perhaps that is our ego?

In relation to aviation safety, yes it does come at a cost, but there needs to be limit as spending big does not ensure 100% safety which is not achievable. (unless you stay in bed all day!)

[Lead Balloon]

I agree completely.

Affordable safety is an unavoidable fact of life.

All that’s happening in GA in Australia is that as the costs of regulatory compliance and airport and airways usage go up, the number of people who can afford it goes down.

[Dick Smith]

No no no. The National Parties policy was quoted by previous Deputy PM John Anderson. It’s very clear

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

The human power to self delude is unlimited!

Mr Anderson then went on to Chair a mining company while Mr Vail went on the Virgin board at $200k a year.

[jonkster]

I think there is a danger of pitching it as affordable safety as it gets spun into cut price safety by those with other agendas and makes the whole debate about money and misses the point of what serves what.

Aviation provides a net benefit to our nation and safety underpins the viability of the industry, not the other way around.

We need safety to be effective and appropriate or the industry suffers as does aviation's communal benefit.

Appropriate and effective safety certainly means managing cost but also means maximising convenience and minimising loss of benefit. Bang for buck. Not all bucks or all bangs.

[aroa]

And who dictates what 'safety' you should get ?

It should be a tripartite ?thing, by all those involved with integrity, honesty and genuine co-operation. Pilots, engineers, regulator
The people in the cockpit, who will be first to arrive at the scene of any accident have a serious interest. Like wise with those that put spanners on the machines we fly in .
We take it on trust they all do there job properly.

Unfortunately the current regulator has no integrity, is dishonest and has created such an overwhelming tsunami of complex, convoluted and contradictory regs, it actually make it less safe. They've LONG forgotten the KISS principle. More regs =safer.

Its rampant rubbbish... but it sustains a whole creche of trough dwellers, kidding themselves THEY are the only ones that can do 'safety'
And theres many a strict liability barb on the CAsA fence to hang up the unwary.

Going political is the only way that might get some change. But dont hold yr breath.

Probably best to fill yr lungs with fresh maritime air and go sailing.

A Cirrus owner told me yesterday...enough of the BS, I'm buying a Catamaran.!

Says it all really.

[Dick Smith]

Jonkster. You are correct. It will be spun that way by some in the media.

So does that mean you can never tell the truth?

However the whole debate IS about money. The only limit to risk reduction is the money available.. Unless you can get a subsidy from non flying taxpayers the money available will be limited by what those who pay for it can afford..

[Sunfish]

Aroa: And who dictates what 'safety' you should get ?


That has been amenable to mathematical calculation for at least Thirty years! Insurance companies do it all the time.

1. Calculate the cost of an aircraft accident - take a sample, work out the actual costs of a variety of accidents and average them out. You CAN put a price on human lives, when I was working in an oil terminal mid 70's the figure was $4 mllion.

2. Now that you have the cost of an accident say for a light aircraft, regional jet, jumbo, etc. Multiply by the probability per year. Say for a jumbo, once every ten years - annual probability of 10%.

That figure in dollars is the expectation cost associated with that event in todays dollars (NPV - net present value). This figure is negative, it is the notional cost of accidents each year.

3. Compare safety activities with their associated budgets and expected impact on the accident rate by calculating the expectation. Use discounted cash flow on the budget to arrive at a cost in todays dollars(NPV).

4. If the impact of what you propose has a positive NPV - in other words it reduces the overall cost of accidents, then the safety measure is worth doing. If the NPV is zero its a worthless idea - no value. If its negative, can it.

For example, you can use this tool to compare things like training, ADSB, CTAFs', rewriting regulations, etc.etc.etc.

Any actuary can show you how to do this. They do it every day to set insurance premiums. I could write an example if pushed.

[Dick Smith]

Sunfish. Good thinking but the problem with this is while we humans will accept lots of deaths in small numbers , say from road deaths, we have problems with larger numbers at once.

In effect a person in a road death may be valued at $4m but we demand something like many times that in aviation. Just results in more total deaths as charter becomes so expensive that more and more are forced on to the roads.

[Sunfish]

Dick, the costs are calculable and form the basis for insurance premiums. For example the A380 and B747 premiums are calculated on the basis of a fully loaded aircraft crashing at midday in the middle of Manhattan or London times the extremely small probability of it happening.

What we are actually calculating is safety benefit in todays dollars.

Example: Initial ADSB capital costs + installation costs including time lost + annual servicing and recurring costs less time savings in routing, etc, etc. over ten years expressed as a Net present value at a discount rate of say, 5% = X$. it's a simple sum.

Then the second equation Cost of safety times accident rate without ADSB Cost of safety times accident rate with ADSB. If the saving is bigger than the cost of ADSB then its a worthwhile initiative, if not it does not provide benefit commensurate with cost.