GENERAL AVIATION SUMMIT 2018 - 9th & 10th JULY 2018

[AOPA]

General Aviation Summit 2018 - Wagga Wagga, NSW

I am pleased to announce that twenty-eight (28) Australian general aviation industry associations have confirmed their attendance for the upcoming General Aviation Summit 2018 - calling for an update to the Civil Aviation Act.

The participation of the vast majority of Australia’s general aviation industry associations conveys a clear message to both the Minister and Government, that our industry is determined to end aviation decline, seeking a cooperative transition towards growth and opportunity through a positive change to the Civil Aviation Act.

I thank the participating general aviation industry associations below for their commitment and participation.

In the spirit of bipartisan support, both the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack MP, and Mr Anthony Albanese MP, have been invited to attend.

If you are a member of an industry association that is not listed below and would like them to be represented at the General Aviation Summit 2018, please call 0415 577 724. The Summit is open to all general aviation associations and we welcome full participation.

ATTENDING GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)
Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)
Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA)
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA)
Aircraft Electronics Association – South Pacific Region (AEA)
Australian Aircraft Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA)
Experimental Light Aircraft Association of Australia (ELAAA)
Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS)
Australian Warbirds Associations Limited (AWAL)
Australian Women Pilots Association (AWPA)
Seaplane Pilots Association of Australia (SPAA)
RotorTech
Australian Aero Clubs Alliance (AACA)
Royal Federation of Aero Clubs (RFAC)
Airtourer Association (AA)
Cessna 182 Association of Australia (C182AA)
Cessna 200 Association of Australia (C200AA)
Cirrus Owner Pilots Association (COPA)
Lancair Owner Builder Organisation (LOBO)
Australian Beechcraft Society (ABA)
Australian Mooney Pilots Association (AMPA)
International Comanche Society – Australia (ICS)
Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)
Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)
Australian Parachute Federation (APF)
Your Central Coast Airport (YCCA)
Regional Airport User Action Group (RAUG)


Best regards,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia

[TBM-Legend]

Great to see AOPA taking the lead on this very important matter.

Please SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL AOPA and encourage your organisation to be represented at the forum in July at Wagga...

[Dick Smith]

Good on AOPA. I ask everyone who has a genuine interest in stopping the decline of GA, especially flight training , to join AOPA.

Yes. Even if you are a member of another organisation. AOPA needs strength!

Otherwise don’t complain if your grandkids can’t get a job in Aviation.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hope all attendees reach a reasonable consensus on the core issues affecting every part of the industry rather than pet peeves. More unity equals more strength. Because of the news cycle and three year life of parliament means a big section of voters make politicians take notice.

Take note, Francis...AOPA acting as the concilitator bringing all the representative groups together...whodathunkit!

Well done, Ben.

[outnabout]

A sterling effort by AOPA - well done, Ben.

Just one nit picking question - who is representing the small Air Operator (the single pilot / aircraft, or less than 7 employees Air Operator). I can see where Recreational, and Private are represented, and I can see where the ChartAir and larger GA Operators are represented, but I can't see which organisation represents the small Air Operator.

Any suggestions??

[no_one]

Hope all attendees reach a reasonable consensus on the core issues affecting every part of the industry rather than pet peeves.


OZBUSDRIVER, I couldn't agree more!!!! Hopefully the good of the sector overall will triumph over self interest. Some of the organisations listed gain money and power from administering exemptions from ridiculous CASA rules. If the rules were more logical there would be no need for the exemptions and the organisation administering would lose money and power. Hopefully these organizations will be able to see beyond their immediate position and realise that a larger, healthier and more vibrant sector overall will lead to greater participation in their aspect of the whole.

[Sunfish]

I am in Vietnam at the moment and cant post much till i get back. However "the summit" is a standard ploy by the public service to deal with mounting criticism that is usually very effective from a public servant point of view in defanging the critics, keeping the PS in control of the issues and, of course, minimising useful change from the critics perspective. Everybody leaves with a warm inner glow leaving the same public servants in charge. Not much else happens. Sorry to rain on the parade.

I have run one such dog and pony show myself and participated in others. I will try and post some constructive comment in a week in the hope its useful. The odds are still stacked against GA and private pilots in my opinion and there is a less than equal chance of a positive result from a pilots perspective as opposed to an associations perspective.

First hurdle is exactly who sets the agenda, writes the position papers and takes the minutes? ......and this is not trivial procedural BS. another hint; work out membership of your own steering committee right effing now before the department suggests it. The first PS question they ask themselves is who can be bought off? With what?

[Horatio Leafblower]

who is representing the small Air Operator (the single pilot / aircraft, or less than 7 employees Air Operator). I can see where Recreational, and Private are represented, and I can see where the ChartAir and larger GA Operators are represented, but I can't see which organisation represents the small Air Operator.

Thanks Outnabout,
That's my question too.
Every time I speak to Ben Morgan he talks about Freelance flight instructors (will kill small flying schools, not big ones) and private Ride Share for PPLs in the UK (will hurt small charter organisations, not airlines or big charter orgs like Fly Corporate).

AOPA's approach has kicked the door down. Now that we're inside, I just hope we aren't wearing a suicide explosive belt :suspect:

[Lead Balloon]

And so the cracks appear (or, more accurately, are again exposed publicly).

It all plays into the hands of the pollies.

Have the ‘summit’ behind closed doors or even by email, come up with a united position - good luck with that - and communicate that united position as the united position. But sooner or later you’ve all got to realise the major parties don’t give a sh*t about the united position of a gaggle of alphabet aviation organisations. You’re the people who need to be regulated to prevent unsafe anarchy.

The major parties only care about risks to their cosy duopoly. The only credible risk to their cosy duopoly is posed by Dick’s influence among ordinary punters. If Dick’s not willing to exert that influence effectively...

[Horatio Leafblower]

who is representing the small Air Operator ?

I would love to think that AOPA could fill that role - but they will need to embrace the industry sector directly with a working group and they may need to moderate their PPL fantasies of commercial ops without regulation.

[LeadSled]

I would love to think that AOPA could fill that role - but they will need to embrace the industry sector directly with a working group and they may need to moderate their PPL fantasies of commercial ops without regulation.
Horatio,
You are clearly unaware that AOPA in Australia was started by commercial/charter operators, not by "private pilots" - to protect themselves from the overreach of the Department of Civil Aviation.

In recent years, the continual reference by "commercial" operators to "blundering bug smasher", "weekend warriors" etc and the implication that AOPA was a bunch of amateurs who probably shouldn't be flying has always been a myth, but a politically effective one, particularly when pushed by the AFAP.

There is nothing in the constitution that limits membership of the AIRCRAFT (any aircraft) OWNERS (of any aircraft) and PILOTS (any pilots, not just PPLs) Association.

Just have a look at the licenses held and background of the present board of AOPA.

----commercial ops without regulation
Perhaps you would like to explain why you think a greater level of regulation needs to be imposed on low end Australian GA than US or UK, ( or Australia years ago) and why greater and more oppressive regulation is good for GA in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Have the ‘summit’ behind closed doors or even by email, come up with a united position - good luck with that - and communicate that united position as the united position. Totally agree.

[Sunfish]

Idly watching Su22's doing touch and go waiting for our aircraft at Da Nang. FFS even Vietnam has simple ICAO template regulations that are much simpler than Australian BS. Why. not use them?

[LeadSled]

Idly watching Su22's doing touch and go waiting for our aircraft at Da Nang. FFS even Vietnam has simple ICAO template regulations that are much simpler than Australian BS. Why. not use them?


Sunfish,
You know why!! We are always the world's first?? world's best ??
Even this newfound enthusiasm for SBAS/WAAS is being "hailed", in several Government press releases, as a "world first".
Self-delusion on a grand scale.
And the sad fact is that not only is the Australian aviation industry (all of it, not just GA) commercially debilitated, but despite delusional claims to the contrary, as a result we have an inferior air safety outcome, compared to the USA.
Clearly, a Lose/Lose/Lose outcome, but it does add to our GNS** score.
Tootle pip!!
** Gross National Stupidity

[AOPA]

GA Summit Participants,

Further to my last email, I would like to confirm that the General Aviation Summit 2018 has been scheduled for Monday 9thJuly to Tuesday 10th July 2018.

I am pleased to advise that the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted our invitation to open the General Aviation Summit, 9th July 2018, addressing delegates from 11:30am. Given how busy the Deputy Prime Minister is, I know I speak on behalf of all the delegates in thanking him for this valued commitment.

I am now awaiting a confirmation from Mr Anthony Albanese MP, who has been invited to speak from 9am, Tuesday 10th July 2018. At this stage all indicators are positive.

Accordingly, I have updated the General Aviation Summit 2018 Programme, which is attached to this email, and I would like to remind participating associations that their Statement of Positions are due in by 28th May 2018. If any of the associations have any questions with respect to the above, please feel free to call 0415 577 724.

I can now confirm that there are twenty-eight (28) registered associations attending the GA Summit 2018, signalling strong support for a positive change to the Civil Aviation Act.

· Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)
· Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)
· Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA)
· Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA)
· Aircraft Electronics Association – South Pacific Region (AEA)
· Australian Aircraft Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
· Australian Business Aviation Association (ABAA)
· Experimental Light Aircraft Association of Australia (ELAAA)
· Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS)
· Australian Warbirds Associations Limited (AWAL)
· Australian Women Pilots Association (AWPA)
· Seaplane Pilots Association of Australia (SPAA)
· Rotorcraft Asia Pacific
· Australian Aero Clubs Alliance (AACA)
· Royal Federation of Aero Clubs (RFAC)
· Airtourer Association (AA)
· Cessna 182 Association of Australia (C182AA)
· Cessna 200 Association of Australia (C200AA)
· Cirrus Owner Pilots Association (COPA)
· Lancair Owner Builder Organisation (LOBO)
· Australian Beechcraft Society (ABA)
· Australian Mooney Pilots Association (AMPA)
· International Comanche Society – Australia (ICS)
· Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)
· Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)
· Australian Parachute Federation (APF)
· Regional Airports User Action Group (RAUAG)
· Your Central Coast Airport Association (YCCA)


If you are in contact with an association that did not receive an invitation and you feel they could benefit being included, please contact me on 0415 577 724. The Summit is open to all general aviation associations and we are encouraging maximum participation.

Thank you again to everyone for your participation and support towards change, please stay tuned for further updates.

Best regards,

BENJAMIN MORGAN

Executive Director – Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia

[Sunfish]

I am increasingly concerned by what I see is a headlong rush into a veritable Elephant trap set by the public service (the PS) for the associations. Everyone in the industry applauds the efforts being made and is trying to be constructive including me however there are risks in this summit process that need to be managed. In pilot speak, you need an alternate flight plan in case this whole thing turns out to be a waste of time otherwise you will be worse off than before because you will have been effectively neutered by the PS.

The chief risk you are facing is that of being co-opted by the Department - willingly accepting the offer by the PS to become part and parcel of industry change. When that happens, you become responsible to the industry for what happens next - which can be a very sad state of affairs for all of us.

The objective of co-opting is to make you become the Departments lap dog. I have done it myself and had it done to me. The entire PS and all the politicians know how to do it. Aany number of ravening wolves have gone to Canberra in search of 'change" and left as puppy dogs. We start the process with a dose of flattery. The Minister listens attentively. There are lunches, speeches, dinners, fine words and promises to you.

What happens next is that the Minister leaves, promising to stay in touch and admonishing the PS to listen to you. You are now face to face with the PS who will advise the Minister. At this point several things can happen, depending on the egos involved. The Department may suggest forming a small working group, lets call it "GA Australia" (GAA for short) to oversee a rewrite of the Act. They may suggest and offer to pay for consultants to sort through the issues and come up with "a range of options" for consideration, but remember they are the Departments consultants, not yours and the options they produce are theirs not yours. At the end of the day they produce a draft act that you have bought into because you are part of the consulting process weren't you?

So what happens next? You, meaning GA Australia or whatever the new peak body is called, get charged with selling the new product to its constituents and that most likely means selling and apologising for the s@#t sandwich that will be presented. When the industry howls that the new Act is worse than the last, the Department simply says; "talk to GA Australia, they helped write it and approved of it". GA Australia is now the Departments lap dog. Furthermore, the Department now doesn't have to listen to or engage with individual industry groups they simply say; "talk to GAA, they are your peak body now." The Department probably gives GAA a grant to set up a secretariat in Canberra and appoint a local CEO, effectively leaving the entire industry voiceless.

I have left out the descriptions of pandering to egos, dividing and ruling, axe grinding, bribing and pandering to associations that is part and parcel of this process. I've seen it done.

Then there is the question of motives. The Minister couldn't give a rats about the industry, all he cares about is votes. Albanese? Same same. CASA don't want change and this "summit' offers them a perfect opportunity to neuter GA for the next five years until either the industry revolts again under a new leader or dies of neglect.

You need plan B, which is to withhold approval or endorsement of anything and continue to try and build an organisation that is capable of affecting electoral outcomes, in other words building a 'nuclear option' because the threat of losing office is the only thing that always works on politicians and their minions.

[mostlytossas]

Couldn't agree more with that Sunfish. You have probably been done over by their processes before. So have I only not in the Aviation field (in my case it was to do with the selloffs of a public utility ) and it's safe guards on prices and service which we all pay for now, as it all meant for nothing.
Your point on them setting up/providing consultants etc is spot on. Do not let them! You must keep control of the agenda and process. They will of course use the age old tactic of divide and conquer . The old " you engineers shouldn't be told by pilots what's in your best interest etc. Will be used where ever an opportunity arises.
As for the current Minister. Word has it he is next to useless on anything technical/operational and will dither and stall till the cows come home finally doing just what his department tells him.
Good luck...me thinks you going to need it.

[SIUYA]

Word has it he is next to useless on anything technical/operational and will dither and stall till the cows come home finally doing just what his department tells him.

I can confirm MT from personal experience in trying to get Mr McCormack to take action on something involving his portfolio that he IS useless on anything technical/operational, DOES dither/stall, and DOES exactly what his department/minders tell him, which is 5/8ths of the sqrt of FCUK-ALL.

He is a complete and utter waste of time. :mad:

Sunfish needs to be listened to!! :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Well...a weakness! If McCormack is next to useless with thins technical and IF the greatest PM eva wants to through his deputy under a bus....reach out to the guy directly and reverse the tactics on the PS. Need to make the minister believe his advisers do not have his ...and our interests at heart. Nothing to lose. To reinforce Sunfish, the entire group must be prepared to walk away from the table/trap before it gets to the PS appointed talkfest with a counter demand.

[thunderbird five]

Sadly, I believe things will play out exactly as Sunfish described. And even if it doesn't and The Act gets changed to exactly the wording that everyone wants, our regulator will just ignore it and keep on trucking. Does anyone really think they won't? REALLY? A Leopard cannot change its spots. We need a new leopard. What we all want probably, is for our regulator to be sacked for incompetence, an administrator appointed, and all our regulations dumped for FAA/NZ which are easy to read.All aviators want, is to have a clear and concise rule set to follow that does not destroy the industry. Every time our regulator puts something out for consultation, it's 350 pages via 7 publications, with detailed responses required by next Thursday. Industry leaders have to down tools to wade through it, on their own dime, perhaps dozens of hours of UNPAID work. Solution? Just do what they do - send an estimate of the costs of reviewing it, with payment required up front before you commence. Use at least $190 per hour, their top figure. (Dick, you can add a zero!) Then after review, tally up the hours actually spent, ask for a significant $ top-up before handing over your report.

Rotorcraft Asia Pacific at the summit?? The helicopter exhibition? Held in Singapore?? Huh???

[thorn bird]

The focus must be "get the act changed" without that nothing will happen.
With it all the rest may follow.

[Lead Balloon]

The focus must be "get the act changed" without that nothing will happen.
With it all the rest may follow.
Not quite.


The focus must be on “get the act changed so that it says ....”.


Plus a number of other specific actions.

[Sandy Reith]

What used to be called the PS. Often these days they refer to themselves as the Public Sector. In effect a new phenomenon, whereby the resources of the State are in competition with the private sector. They are in a winning position because, at the conclusion of the exercise of their power they have the police and courts to enforce their superiority. Ask Clark Butson, quoted as saying he spent $1 million dollars in legal costs to prove that CASA can do anything they like.
Further to Sunfish’s logical opinion and recounting from experience the traps that are set and waiting, I too have seen it over and over again. There’s the matter of principle as well, no matter how many associations are represented they are not the elected representatives of the Nation. As Sunfish points out they maybe gulled into thinking that they have taken power to effect change, but this is wrong. Should the foot come off the pedal don’t expect Minister McCormack to make the changes that are desperately needed.
Remember high hopes or soft soaps 2014? What happened to the Forsyth report and government agreed recommendations?
The only way the Summit will get anywhere will be to tell McCormack that the GA industry will work to unseat him in his electorate and it will not send delegations to Canberra until he has changed the Act and agreed to the FARs. In addition the reps should tell the same story to all their MPs throughout the country. In other words a real political campaign.

[Sunfish]

Remember high hopes or soft soaps 2014? What happened to the Forsyth report and government agreed recommendations?
The only way the Summit will get anywhere will be to tell McCormack that the GA industry will work to unseat him in his electorate and it will not send delegations to Canberra until he has changed the Act and agreed to the FARs. In addition the reps should tell the same story to all their MPs throughout the country. In other words a real political campaign.

IMHO your chances of getting the Act changed now are probably zero. remember a federal election is coming in 2019. that creates a legislative scramble and a new government is not bound to follow through on any pre-election actions. in fact, from memory a new government won't even have access to the working documents of the old one.

it would be a poor public servant who can't stall you until the election is called. so what's to do at a summit? get your demands sorted and tell the PS what's coming, whether they like it or not and that you are going to make them change via naked political pressure, nothing personal of course.

AND you may soon have a perfect opportunity to test negative political campaigning - assuming the Mayo by-election is called in SA (also fremantle, Longman, Braddon and Perth). threaten to run a campaign via leaflet: "don't vote Downer", etc. this is your only hope. it's the one source of power you have. CASA, RAAF, Qantas and all the other supposed demons can't vote or run political campaigns. You can. hopefully AOPA will take the lead. You CAN make a difference, the election margin between libs and labor in longman was about 1%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_by-election,_2018

[Sandy Reith]

Following Sunfish, we can only hope that the chances are somewhat better than zero. But I too believe that AOPA might be heading into the sticky web of Canberra, a glittering cave of promises but hidden vaults full of the skeletons of previous hopefuls.
Take on Downer at by-election? Doubt sufficient resources, but a ginger group to confront candidates and get their commitment to reform would be useful. Questionnaires to all MPs and future candidates with a base shop front office in Wagga, and one candidate for McCormack here, would be the type of campaign that might tip the balance.
Lastly we have slipped a month already, presumably to get McC and Albo to the Summit. We need them to understand we are not interested in listening to them or going off to Canberra. We will not waste time collaborating with Department or Canberra unless the Act is changed to include sustainability and they are fully committed to FAA/NZ rules.
Reminded by a respected colleague that CASRs Parts 23-35 were directly off FAA Parts 23-35, a major reform that was accomplished 20 years ago. The outdated Aussie rules were dumped for those areas. Now for the rest, it’s not difficult.

[Sunfish]

we don't need to take on Downer or anyone else. a simple leaflet drop in letterboxes saying 'don't vote for xxxx" with a few made up reasons is all that is required.

[Frank Arouet]

Brings to mind the nearly year long freeze,(caretaker mode government), when Gillard called an election well in advance of the norm. Yes just one visit to The GG will hold everything up. Changing the Minister only adds another year to that to bring him/her/ whatever, up to speed.

[Eyrie]

Is this the AOPA that was crowing about medical "reform" having been achieved.?
There has been zero, zilch, zip, nada, gar nichts, in the way of meaningful medical reform of the Class 2 in Australia. NONE. Just a very small re-organisation of CASA's administration thereof leaving Australia way out of step with the USA and the UK.
AOPA will continue to be as useless as ever and many of the organisations at this summit have a vested interest in the status quo. I know of a couple where the "leadership" isn't representative of the membership.

[Eyrie]

The first Minister to actually take CASA behind the barn and put an end its (and our) misery will become incredibly famous in Australian aviation and leave a lasting legacy. We may even put statues of him at airports. How much would you like that Minister?

[rutan around]

We may even put statues of him at airports. How much would you like that Minister?

How about beside the Captain Cook Statue only twice as tall?

[Sandy Reith]

Is this the AOPA that was crowing about medical "reform" having been achieved.?
There has been zero, zilch, zip, nada, gar nichts, in the way of meaningful medical reform of the Class 2 in Australia. NONE. Just a very small re-organisation of CASA's administration thereof leaving Australia way out of step with the USA and the UK.
AOPA will continue to be as useless as ever and many of the organisations at this summit have a vested interest in the status quo. I know of a couple where the "leadership" isn't representative of the membership.

Understanding your frustration but your judgment, with respect, is overly harsh. I’ve recently received my Class2 renewal, though late but with one very different condition. For the first time a report on a condition that they require may come from my GP. In addition it’s too early to completely discount the reforms that Mr. Carmody has promised.

Considering how well AOPA is getting publicity and winning new members, joining with and supporting Dick Smith’s change the Act push, this is a far cry from useless, not to mention many other wins. Also you may not be aware of it’s program to get young people engaged, a great initiative which has had many young people gain an aviation experience which would never have happened without Ben Morgan, Marc De Stoop and the new Board of AOPA.

It has also pulled together, with many other organisations, a meeting with Minister McCormack and Mr. Albanese in July. No mean feat and more than anyone has done in many a long year. You are correct that some will consider their own interests more than the greater good. This is always a human nature trait that good leadership will overcome by presenting a case for the practical outcomes of changes that will improve conditions for the aviation industry as a whole. The self interest instinct is the basic flaw in calling for concensus. Concensus is a concept that is difficult to pin down as the Summit meeting will likely find out. At this point strong leadership will diplomatically discount the voice or voices of dissent and declare the agreed position fixed by the majority. A position that should, as far as is possible, be agreed before the meeting. I’m hoping that the Summit will explain;
1. The time for talk has passed.
2. We will not be sending delegates to Canberra without framed legislation pending.
3. We will be taking strong political action.
4. We expect legislation to be expedited to change the Act and the remainder of the FARs (or NZ rules) to be introduced as were, 20 years ago, CASR Parts 23-35, drawn from FAA Parts 23-35. Replacing those parts of out of date Aussie rules which were dumped. It can be done, it’s actually part done, now finish the job.
5. We expect that strict liability be removed and that criminality be via the general law, ie reckless or malicious behaviour in any field is quite sufficient as it is throughout the land.
6. All references to licence “privileges” be removed or not inserted into the reformed rules. It is our right to fly within reasonable rules, this medieval notion, privilege in law, is derived from the Crown being the only one with rights and therefore doling out privileges, the Royal patronage (‘mon droit’).

[Eyrie]

" may come from my GP."
The key word is "may". Your GP might just kick it to CASA.

"Considering how well AOPA is getting publicity and winning new members, joining with and supporting Dick Smith’s change the Act push, this is a far cry from useless, not to mention many other wins. Also you may not be aware of it’s program to get young people engaged, a great initiative which has had many young people gain an aviation experience which would never have happened without Ben Morgan, Marc De Stoop and the new Board of AOPA."

Very nice for AOPA to be getting new members etc but it doesn't do anything about the ridiculous regulation we are under.

Now about:
"There has been zero, zilch, zip, nada, gar nichts, in the way of meaningful medical reform of the Class 2 in Australia. NONE. Just a very small re-organisation of CASA's administration thereof leaving Australia way out of step with the USA and the UK."

Where exactly am I wrong? Whoop dee doo, your GPS may certify a certain condition. CASA AVMED can still take that and demand a specialist's report.

Did you read the 160 odd submissions to CASA on medical reform? I did. What we have is NOTHING and certainly nothing like the vast majority of the submissions, including from a former CASA Chief Medical Officer. We are way out of line with recent UK and US medical reform.

Combine that with with utterly stupid and impractical maintenance regs (modeled on the EASA regs) and we are the most stupidly, highly regulated, aviators in the anglosphere. Even EASA has realised its maintenance regs are impractical for light aircraft and gliders and are changing them.

See here:https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA_GA_ROADMAP_2018_EN_final.pdf




As for your point 6. (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA_GA_ROADMAP_2018_EN_final.pdf)

6. All references to licence “privileges” be removed or not inserted into the reformed rules. It is our right to fly within reasonable rules, this medieval notion, privilege in law, is derived from the Crown being the only one with rights and therefore doling out privileges, the Royal patronage (‘mon droit’).

I completely agree. "Privilege" has no place in a liberal democracy which Australia at least used to be and still pretends to be. Unfortunately subjects in Australia ( that is what we are, not citizens) have utterly no rights when it comes to what the government wants to do to you

[Lead Balloon]

Is this the AOPA that was crowing about medical "reform" having been achieved.?
There has been zero, zilch, zip, nada, gar nichts, in the way of meaningful medical reform of the Class 2 in Australia. NONE. Just a very small re-organisation of CASA's administration thereof leaving Australia way out of step with the USA and the UK.
<snip>.I agree with you, except for the bit I snipped.

On medical certification ‘reform’ AOPA suffered an embarrassing episode of what doctors call ‘premature congratulation’. Have a look at the conditions on the instrument of delegation here: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/199061/download?token=sWAvultt

Effectively, the DAME’s clinical opinion is dictated by CASA. Then there’s all the scary stuff about professional indemnity insurance. And here https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/dame-newsletter-april-2018 the PMO says: “This authorisation is provided under CASA delegation CASA 26/18 (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/non-legislative-instruments). Please make sure you read all the conditions and understand your obligations in relation to exercising this delegation (it is important to note that although you will be a delegate of CASA, you are not indemnified by us.” [bolding added]

Amazing the PMO didn’t mention CAAP Admin 1 here: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/104516/download?token=2TL92Ahp that says, at page 5, that CASA will indemnify non-CASA delegates.

[CHAIRMAN]

And the sad fact is that not only is the Australian aviation industry (all of it, not just GA) commercially debilitated, but despite delusional claims to the contrary, as a result we have an inferior air safety outcome, compared to the USA.
Effectively, the DAME’s clinical opinion is dictated by CASA. Then there’s all the scary stuff about professional indemnity insurance. And here https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...ter-april-2018 (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/dame-newsletter-april-2018) the PMO says: “This authorisation is provided under CASA delegation CASA 26/18 (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/non-legislative-instruments). Please make sure you read all the conditions and understand your obligations in relation to exercising this delegation (it is important to note that although you will be a delegate of CASA, you are not indemnified by us.” [bolding added]

Amazing the PMO didn’t mention CAAP Admin 1 here: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/104516/...token=2TL92Ahp (https://www.casa.gov.au/file/104516/download?token=2TL92Ahp) that says, at page 5, that CASA will indemnify non-CASA delegates.
If what I read is true, then maybe a headline working approach could be:
CASA FAILURE - INDUSTRY IN CRISIS. DESPITE MASSIVE NEW REGULATIONS - SAFETY FOR AUSTRALIAN GENERAL AVIATION IS NOW INFERIOR COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES - PARLIAMENT ACTION NEEDED NOW.
Might get some action. Will definitely get a RE-action. Pauline will probably be on side.
Anyway, AOPA is the best option us small (and lots of bigger) guys have.

[Sandy Reith]

Thanks Outnabout,
That's my question too.
Every time I speak to Ben Morgan he talks about Freelance flight instructors (will kill small flying schools, not big ones) and private Ride Share for PPLs in the UK (will hurt small charter organisations, not airlines or big charter orgs like Fly Corporate).

AOPA's approach has kicked the door down. Now that we're inside, I just hope we aren't wearing a suicide explosive belt :suspect:
As one who ran my own school from the ‘70s for about 25 years I would agree with Ben Morgan’s call for independent instructors. ”Freelance” or independent instructors will not kill small flying schools they will create them. The last few small GA schools will mostly be gone by the time of transition deadline August. Where there used to be schools in hundreds of country towns there are now practically none, you can’t kill them twice.

No healthy training industry equals the death of GA. Call them independent or instructing without the totally unworkable AOC dog’s breakfast, including the super costly paperwork nightmare that is the latest flying school regime, either way it must change. A senior instructor near me had to put up $8000 just to start a school application. Two years later still nothing. In the US where 70% are trained by independent instructors, the instructor mentioned would have been training from day One.

Without pilots the cake shrinks to nothing, more pilots equals more cake to go around. Any of the few schools left will be busy training instructors to go out into the regions. In turn they need aircraft, maintenance, fuel etc.

In the past flying schools have baulked at the idea of the independent instructor for a short sighted fear of losing business, and CASA hated the idea of losing fees and power. I think most schools now would be less enthusiastic for that argument. In any case its up to government to do what is right for Australian aviation irrespective of sectional interest.

PPL cost sharing we had for years, for private ops up to 6 place aircraft. Small charter operators? Nearly all gone like the GA flying schools. Charter AOCs are nearly as impossible as is the regime for flying schools. A local Ag pilot with his own light twin thought to offer charter only to be told by his CASA FOI “don’t bother it’s all too hard.”

We have a very sick system, the fee gouging salary factory will not go down without a serious fight. They will gull the unwary with ploys and inducements, they will slow, stall or move at a creeping pace. They will whisper in the Minister’s ear all sorts of dire consequences and distortions, the MO ably put by Sunfish in this string.

[Sunfish]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Morgan has already been "captured" by CASA, especially if the rumor of a CASA overture to let RAAOz run private GA has any truth. That move would leave AOPA gasping for air in my opinion.

As I asked before; who is drawing up the agenda for the summit? Who is taking minutes? Who is running the steering committee for the summit and who is on it?

Hearing nothing, my expectation is that negotiations have been "taken private". I therefore expect nothing further on Pprune and/or to be told to pull my head in.

To paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby; never hold a summit unless you already have determined the outcome. The Public service are masters at this game.

I am hoping that somewhere there is an AOPA steering committee with maybe a few QC's with aviation interests advising them.

[Sandy Reith]

Whoever is has the running will need nothing more than resolve.
QCs might help but this is a political problem.
Sunfish and others have detailed the pitfalls, for the first time most industry people know what has to be done. Now everyone should be making representations to their MPs and Senators.
In addition to the Summit representatives meeting there should be a plenary session with all invited. Would someone else organise this if AOPA won’t, can’t or too busy?

[TBM-Legend]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Morgan has already been "captured" by CASA

What's your proof? It's a pity that HIA, the Air Ag Assoc and RAAA aren't attending the Summit and voice their opinions and show a united front to McCormack in his home town. Agree that a small steering committee be selected to carry the agenda forward. If we don't those looking for tall poppies win again!

[Sunfish]

TBM and others. What concerns me is that CASA has probably said: "So tell us how you want the Act changed?" and then AOPA takes the bait and presents an impossibly long laundry list of proposals for CASA to inspect, prod and otherwise play with, obfuscating real change by drowning us in detail and watching the associations fighting among themselves. The way of getting bogged down in detail and turf wars only leads to madness and defeat.

What needs to be asked for is a new act that facilitates free market principles that stimulate jobs, investment and growth. Nothing more, nothing less.. All else flows naturally from that - new regs, better medical behaviour, airports, etc., etc. That's why I wrote the "the vision thing".

The reason I hoped for senior legal involvement (Oh for a flying High Court Judge!) is because the exact wording matters greatly and QC's understand this and how to wrap up a concept in a few pithy sentences. If you don't believe me, try understanding the many meanings of the phrase: "for the benefit of the Australian Economy".

I could put that another way but won't out of respect.

P.S. The rumor of CASA allegedly proposing to free light aircraft from the rules by consigning them to the tender ministrations of RAAOz, if true, is the most vicious proposal I have heard for a long time. It is akin to a cornered serial killer with a cellar full of captives proposing to release one of his victims in return for being allowed to kill the rest.

[Sandy Reith]

Quoting Sunfish:- “What concerns me is that CASA has probably said: "So tell us how you want the Act changed?" and then AOPA takes the bait.”

I heard that AOPA considers that they are “inside the tent.” My rejoinder was that Minister McCormack should approaching us to be inside our tent. In other words they would have the suggested wording for the amendment to the Act in their pocket for our approval along with the commitment to proceed with FAR/ NZ rules.

Regarding amendment wording, if memory serves, the suggested wording has had legal input already. If it was legislated it would go through the normal procedures and be vetted by senior Commonwealth legal officers. Would we trust them to do the job? If the Minister is pursuing reform in good faith we would hope so. The proviso being that the whole of CGI, Canberra (now pop. 403,000) Government Industries, is heavily dependent on taxing us in many more ways than just money. It has a vested interest in maintaining maximum power, axiomatically depriving us of our freedoms and reducing National prosperity.

Times have changed, once we had a Public Service, now they often call themselves the Public Sector and act in many ways like a competitor to private enterprise, fee gouging as one example. Much of the government today is performed by an informal conglomerate of very high salary independent Commonwealth corporate bodies, Commissioners and Ombudsmen, all in including Departments said to be 1200 in total. Naturally they all serve each other to some extent, probably by instinctive self preservation (aggrandisement?) more than by design. Employment is fluid between them. The perceived collaboration of the newly independent ATSB (2009) with CASA over the botched Rex/PelAir ditching investigation is a case in point.

Back to a previous discussion (Eyrie thank you) in regard to Mr. Carmody’s AVMED reforms; i.e. to date that they were nil. Thinking again this may well be true looking at the advice to DAMEs where the ‘92 Advisory of DAME insurance indemnity cover by CASA seems contradicted by the latest advice to the DAMEs. Therefore medical reform remains to be seen.

My latest Class 2 has just been issued weeks past my DAME granted two month grace period. No explanation or apology for the delay, a careless omission which I will take to my MP for redress. If we don’t employ our representatives like this they cannot serve us properly.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
Nobody gets "freed" of the rules, just another organisation becomes the contract administrator of the impossibly dysfunctional rules, at your additional expense, and CASA has a convenient liability cutout.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Wren, if AOPA is "inside the tent" then we are ******.

[Sandy Reith]

Wren, if AOPA is "inside the tent" then we are ******.
I see you struggling for the correct wording, try one less letter and it starts with “r”.
I sincerely hope not, the Berlin Wall came down came down surprising everyone.

[Clare Prop]

Don't expect too much from Albanese. He was the Minister in charge of infrastructure for six years, who sat back and allowed HIS tenants, the developers, to sell us out and gouge the federal airports tenants on his watch. He is a politician, he wants to be the next PM, he will say whatever he thinks you want to hear. He is only interested in balancing aircraft noise and votes in his own electorate who will keep his bum on that seat in Canberra. I'm speaking from personal experience in dealing with him while he was Minister for Infrastructure (or whatever they are called this week)

I'm interested in this "independent instructors" thing. Does this mean instructors working outside of any kind of structured flying school environment, or an instructor being able to utilise specialised instructing qualifications at more than one school?

[Sandy Reith]

Clare Prop, without copying out the specific US Regs which allow, for want of a better term, independent instructors, it means that you can instruct without the equivalent of our unworkable AOC system.
It was pointed out to me years ago that Australia is probably in breach of it’s international labour agreement by virtue of not allowing a qualified person to work.

The US system is not a free for all and many such ‘independents’ band together and create flying schools. Also such groups as businesses may employ other instructors. Thus there is a considerable range, from the airline pilot who might instruct by him or herself on their days off, through to I think Part 142 schools which have some advantage regarding a lower hour requirement for, say, a consolidated course through to commercial.

I was first alerted to this having been shown a letter from John King of the respected John and Martha King flying training organisation who estimated 70% US pilots trained by ‘independents.’
Incidentally John King was commissioned by CASA some years ago to advise them.
Mike Smith has also recently written about this, could be on the AOPA website.

Nowhere would benefit more than Australia by switching to such a rational, affordable and proven method of flying training because of our sparse population. The US has a better safety record and their pilots are flying in our skies every day, Few people can afford or have the ability to jump through CASA’s high set flaming hoops today, when I started my school it was a bit silly, patronisingly so, but workable. Today nearly impossible except for the largest organisations with the deepest pockets. Even then it will be fraught with difficulties, watch out Qantas, you might get burnt and wish you’d set up your flying school in the States just as you have with some of your major aircraft overhaul business. Sorry to say.

[Clare Prop]

OK, but I'm still not sure exactly what is meant by "independent" instructors that is different to what we have now, with all the sham contracting that still goes on.

I have read your proposal but what gap in the market are you trying to fill? RA-Aus has already taken up much of the recreational flying training. Where are all these instructors and students that CASA are preventing from training?

I held an AOC for 20 years and now have a 141 certificate that has been hanging on the wall for over a year. It meant a few tweaks to the ops manual, which is a living document that needs to be revised regularly anyway, and cost me the grand total of $0. There were no flaming hoops in fact it was easier than applying for an AOC was back in the 90s. Training in remote bases is something that we have done before and we would do again IF there was a market for it.

What I see is possibly a proposal for anyone with an instructor rating to set up anywhere with no oversight and no cost of compliance to basically make existing flying schools worthless.

What we need is enough incentive for instructors to stick around and get the experience and qualifications to be able to do the advanced training and fill the roles needed by the 142 organisations. Can you explain how your proposal is going to fill this gap?

How many flying schools did AOPA engage in consultation about this proposal? Australian ones, not John and Martha King!

[Sandy Reith]

Clare Prop’s problem with lowering the barriers to flying training amount to being against competition and sees no benefit to GA as a whole. There must be something horribly wrong with a system where there is “$0” cost to Clare and costs ranging from $8000 up front, just to submit an application (2 yrs ago still nothing), to the situation at MB where in order to manage the time consuming administrative costs existing schools have been attempting to devise a way of splitting costs of $100,000 or more. Speaking to the principal of one such school recently I’m convinced that many flying schools are facing this uphill battle and even more will go to the wall if CASA maintains it’s August deadline. That same principal tells me that they would like to sell out, a story I’ve heard from others, but there are no buyers.
I think we can all understand the precarious position that where schools have committed large capital amounts on leaseholds that have in effect been unfairly altered, this is one enormous problem, the problem of no freehold.

Regarding the max weight 600kg RAAus system, yes there’s some filling of the gap but it has limitations, in particular that these very light aircraft can’t fulfill many of the roles that GA needs. Many pilots will then need to transition to more capable aircraft, just another time consuming and costly procedure mitigating against the uptake of aviation generally, assuming that those in the bush can find a qualified Part 141/142 instructor.

Indepedent instructors is not the total answer but would go a long way to reviving GA

[jonkster]

Indepedent instructors is not the total answer but would go a long way to reviving GA

Reducing compliance and regulatory costs and hoops for schools would also go a long way to reviving GA.

The focus should be about the quality of the product not about the ease of regulatory oversight of the processes involved. Sadly I think it has become the opposite.

Not saying the independent instructor idea is without merit but if the idea is to reduce the regulatory restrictions enough to allow independent instructors to operate - why not just reduce those restrictions, fees, pointless form filling, hoop jumping, box ticking, cost overheads etc from the existing school model?

We had a system that worked once - a plethora of schools, flying clubs (remember them?) etc. There are advantages in maintaining and fostering the school/club model rather than doing things that may undermine it.

[Sandy Reith]

Jongster’s point:- “why not just reduce those restrictions, fees, pointless form filling, hoop jumping, box ticking, cost overheads etc from the existing school model?” is another method of achieving the same objective. The revival of flying training where it is needed. One essential ingredient from which all other growth and improvements can grow.

[Clare Prop]

GA schools have always had plenty of competition. I have no problem with that. All this talk of jumping through flaming hoops isn't my experience of the system and I am no fan of CASA, just did what I had to do to be compliant and did it myself rather than pay some "consultant". The $8000 dollars you mention is probably about the same, adjusted for inflation, as I paid to start up over 20 years ago. How do these hundreds of thousands of dollars you mention break down?

Instructors can still instruct out in the bush under existing arrangements if the customers are there. I'm interested in what new markets this is going to open up and if it is worth devaluing existing operators' investments, that presumably all of you have benefitted from. I've shared my real life experience of the system and been shot down which gives me an insight into the amount of real industry knowledge that may have gone into this proposal. Sadly this is the sort of thing that put so many off AOPA in the past .

I'd need to see objective market research and effective consultation with industry to be convinced.

So far I see opinions and motherhood statements..

My questions are:
What is an "independent instructor" in terms of aviation law, employment law and tax law and how does it differ from the current system?
Where and who are the people who are currently being prevented from teaching and learning that need this change?
How many Australian flying schools did AOPA consult before coming up with this proposal?
Where is the market research that shows that this will "revitalise" GA?

Convince me.

[Clare Prop]

I think we can all understand the precarious position that where schools have committed large capital amounts on leaseholds that have in effect been unfairly altered, this is one enormous problem, the problem of no freehold.






Absolutely correct and this is where we need some action from the government, there never was and never will be freehold at the Commonwealth airports but at the same time the monopolies that are gouging their tenants need to be brought to account.

[The name is Porter]

Clare, as an instructor you can work independently of an AOC. It's the same as an instructor in the current system being able to do Flight Activity or Design Feature training outside of a flying school setting but in the States extends to PPL training as well. (I'm not sure if you can do independent training for CPL & Instrument Ratings in the States?)

[Clare Prop]

Thank you, I understand that but would like to see a clearer picture of how this is going to benefit anyone and "revitalise" GA?

How is it going to provide more work for the existing instructors who are rattling around the flying schools without enough to do.

[airag]

There is no way in the world I would ever consider operating as an "independent Instructor " , for all of the reasons Clare prop has raised plus a thousand others !

[Clare Prop]

Clare Prop, without copying out the specific US Regs which allow, for want of a better term, independent instructors, it means that you can instruct without the equivalent of our unworkable AOC system.



You already can under part 141. No AOC required any more.

[Clare Prop]

There is no way in the world I would ever consider operating as an "independent Instructor " , for all of the reasons Clare prop has raised plus a thousand others !

Presumably there has been a consensus of industry professionals that says otherwise. I look forward to seeing survey questions and responses published. You may find you no longer have a choice but to be an independent instructor.

[aroa]

If a small town, remote area independent instructor is good at it, and students enjoy his teaching, and learn to fly safely..he/she probably gets more business by word of mouth.
A slack jack would lose custom and have to take down his shingle and try something else.
Its the nature of capitalism, competition and being an 'entrepreneur.
And CAsA hates individuals like that. You must be micro-managed and controlled, and only "they" will allow you to do ...if you tug the forelock.

Perhaps the GA Industry should start a Class Action with the ACCC as CAsA is a supplier of Control and Regulation unfit for proper purpose, and damaging to all users..
And they cant tell the truth in advertising either.

[Sandy Reith]

I might not have made it clear that the quoted $8000 upfront fee was simply to start an application. In this case there’s still no result two years later. Clare P yes now it not called an AOC now but there’s no practical difference.

Just like Examiners of Airmen are now called Flight Operations Inspectors or have they changed that too? Used to be Grades A, B, & C instructors. Now its 1, 2, & 3. Used to be Biennial Flight Review now its AFR if that’s not changed since I last looked. All part of the living fluidity of The Rules, and totally unnecessary changes which have to be incorporated into everyone’s ops manual or what do they call that now? ‘Exposition’ I heard someone say, like a story book to put your children to sleep.

Reminded me when CASA required us AOC holders to write a supplemental explanation of how we would comply with each of CASA’s rules. Just like the government should be requiring all citizens to read the criminal code and describe how not to murder people. Chief pilots and CFIs all over Australia spending weekends and nights for many months to make this new part to their ops manual. They pestered me for about three years but I stalled, eventually purchased the supplement.

This was truly a crass exercise of bullying the industry, huge waste of time and when put to the test in fact legally CASA could not enforce it because mine read on each line repeated for each reg; “ management acknowledges it’s responsibility”. Page after page and same line after line for all the regs. That was accepted because they couldn’t do otherwise.

PS I sold my Wren 460, sadly what with SIDS etc and decided to drop that as my pseudonym and because I don’t have a need for anonymity. The Wren went back to the States and now resides on Fullerton Airport. Coincidentally it left there as a new aircraft in 1964 to live initially in PNG.

[Clare Prop]

Expositions are only required for Part 142 organisations. They are similar to manuals required in many other industries, not exclusive to aviation.

The point I'm trying to make is that what you are proposing is pretty much what already exists in Part 141, including the ability to train at remote bases. Part 141 is not onerous and has cost me nothing.

Training in remote areas has challenges such as finding an instructor willing to go there, having enough students to make it cost effective, fuel, maintenance, the cost of getting an examiner up there etc. But there is nothing under Part 141 preventing people from doing this if they wish to.

Could you or someone else involved with this proposal answer the following questions:

What is the definition of an "independent instructor" and why can they not operate under an existing Part 141 arrangement?

Where and who are the people who are currently being prevented from teaching and learning that need this change?

How many Australian flying schools did AOPA consult before coming up with this proposal and where are the responses published?

Where is the market research that quantifies how this will revitalise GA?

[Sunfish]

Clare Prop:

Could you or someone else involved with this proposal answer the following questions:

What is the definition of an "independent instructor" and why can they not operate under an existing Part 141 arrangement?

Where and who are the people who are currently being prevented from teaching and learning that need this change?

How many Australian flying schools did AOPA consult before coming up with this proposal and where are the responses published?

Where is the market research that quantifies how this will revitalise GA?

Clare Prop, I feel your pain and have very little comfort to give you.

You have taken the time and the effort to jump through CASA's flaming hoops and are now faced with the probability of increased competition if a new Aviation Act releases the fetters that prevent new market entrants. Everyone who has invested time and money to meet CASA's absurd regulations thinks the same way - you are comfortable in your chains and face the possibility that the value of all that paperwork you invested in is potentially zero.

To put that another way, you feel exactly like the horse buggy manufacturers did when the motor car entered mass production, or the Australian manufacturing sector felt when tariffs were phased out.

The only way the GA sector can be saved is by stimulating investment, jobs and growth. That requires reducing the business risk associated with entering the GA market and that entails removing barriers to entry. By definition, that will hurt those living behind the barriers that will now be demolished.

The only comfort I can give you is that in the long term your costs should drop more than the prices you can charge so overall you will be better off. You get a smaller slice but the pie is larger.

However with CASA's assistance and a few more voices like yours, including the engineers and the federation of aero clubs with their big schools and other self interested groups muddying the waters by asking for endless details, the chances of real reform are just about zero. We need a new Act that provides that any and all regulations are analysed through the principles of free market economics. That process creates winners and losers.

[jonkster]

Not sure independent instructing going to make a big difference.
I assume the independent instructors will be using their own aircraft?
Aircraft costs per hour are lower if the aircraft is more heavily utilised.

Flying schools or clubs typically can offer a variety of aircraft that are more heavily utilised (and therefore cheaper per hour to operate) than if there is only one instructor (utilisation then becomes dependent on the single instructor's availability).

I have no problems with independent instructors per se but think, why not look at encouraging schools and clubs thrive rather than treat them as a problem?
A healthy system would have a variety of schools and flying clubs from small to large providing a variety of experiences and individual points of difference. I would like to see an environment that encouraged that rather than undermine it.

[Clare Prop]

Sunfish and co, Being patronising and talking down to me with emotive language instead of backing up your proposal with some concrete answers to my questions isn't helpful to the discussion. Pprune is not an echo chamber, thank goodness, and if you are looking for confirmation bias then this is the wrong place.

I'm not some kind of aero club dinosaur, quite the reverse in fact. I have adapted my business to go with the times. I didn't need anybody's patronage when I started and I don't now. CASA have been the least of my worries and costs for the last 22 years and I have never had any association with the behemoth 142 organisations, I'm talking about 141 training.

If people are going to tinker with the livlihoods of tens of thousands of people then I think details are important.

If you want support from industry you have to stop seeing us as the evil ones standing in the way of your regulation free utopia. You have to sell us your ideas, not with motherhood statements but with solid evidence of research to substantiate your claims. It is what would be expected in any other industry.

[Clare Prop]

Not sure independent instructing going to make a big difference.
I assume the independent instructors will be using their own aircraft?
Aircraft costs per hour are lower if the aircraft is more heavily utilised.

Flying schools or clubs typically can offer a variety of aircraft that are more heavily utilised (and therefore cheaper per hour to operate) than if there is only one instructor (utilisation then becomes dependent on the single instructor's availability).

I have no problems with independent instructors per se but think, why not look at encouraging schools and clubs thrive rather than treat them as a problem?
A healthy system would have a variety of schools and flying clubs from small to large providing a variety of experiences and individual points of difference. I would like to see an environment that encouraged that rather than undermine it.

Thanks Jonkster, unfortunately there will always be some organisations who want to set up divisions. There's plenty of room for everyone and all the things you mention are available at Jandakot, including casual instructors!

[Sunfish]

Clare Prop: Sunfish and co, Being patronising and talking down to me with emotive language instead of backing up your proposal with some concrete answers to my questions isn't helpful to the discussion. PPRuNe is not an echo chamber, thank goodness, and if you are looking for confirmation bias then this is the wrong place.

I'm not some kind of aero club dinosaur, quite the reverse in fact. I have adapted my business to go with the times. I didn't need anybody's patronage when I started and I don't now. CASA have been the least of my worries and costs for the last 22 years and I have never had any association with the behemoth 142 organisations, I'm talking about 141 training.

If people are going to tinker with the livlihoods of tens of thousands of people then I think details are important.

If you want support from industry you have to stop seeing us as the evil ones standing in the way of your regulation free utopia. You have to sell us your ideas, not with motherhood statements but with solid evidence of research to substantiate your claims. It is what would be expected in any other industry.

Clare Prop, I apologise if I sounded condescending. However I take issue with your proposal that if we are going to "tinker with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people" then we have to convince you that the result is going to be better for you personally by showing you conclusive detailed research that proves the case. Government never does that. It's logically impossible because you are asking me to prove a negative - ie; prove that you won't be worse off.

The Australian textile clothing and footwear sector and whole swathes of Australian manufacturing jobs, including the automotive industry were wiped out, not "tinkered with" with nothing but broad brush economic rationalist theory, which is why consumer goods are now a fraction of the cost they were three decades ago. Nobody showed those industries "the details" prior to change either. So it's a bit rich when change is proposed that might affect you to suddenly demand detailed justifications although its perfectly natural.

Furthermore your proposal that reformers have to sell the idea of reform based on detailed research is poppycock. The GA sector is dying under the weight of dysfunctional regulation instigated by a rotten aviation Act. There have been endless reviews and reports documenting that fact - there's your research. As to what shape the industry assumes if the Act is changed, I don't know. I can't know. I don't want to know. I want the shape of the industry to be "designed'(not the right word, I know) by a new set of freedoms and simple and fair regulation and the natural interplay of free market forces. What I do NOT want is some bunch of pr!cks in Canberra determining the shape of the industry according to their own personal proclivities as it was in the days of Sir (Donald?) Anderson and is now thanks to CASA's regulations which make whole swathes of aviation activities uneconomic.

Nobody can guarantee that your school is going to survive such an upheaval, nor should they. Your concerns are quite natural but unfortunately orthodox economics indicate that trying to insulate you from the effects of change will trigger an avalanche of similar demands and kill any hope of reform at all.

[Clare Prop]

OK well good luck with that. If you are going to convince industry and government I suggest you have something more than motherhood statements to back up your proposals.

I'm up to speed with economics and market forces in GA thanks, otherwise I wouldn't still be in business. There is nothing unreasonable about asking for clarification when proposals are out up that may mean I have to adapt.

If you will dismiss industry input then who are you actually representing? You've admitted that existing operators should not survive your upheaval so who is going to train the army of instructors waiting in the wings for this brave new world? Or is the need for an instructor rating too much regulation?

Comparisons with other industries that have been affected by cheap imports and high labour costs is irrelevant unless your idea includes putting existing local businesses out of work and allowing cheap imported instructional labour.

[Clare Prop]

However I take issue with your proposal that if we are going to "tinker with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people" then we have to convince you that the result is going to be better for you personally by showing you conclusive detailed research that proves the case. Government never does that. It's logically impossible because you are asking me to prove a negative - ie; prove that you won't be worse off.

Not at all. I'm asking for some evidence that you can use to back this up and convince the whole industry.

Furthermore your proposal that reformers have to sell the idea of reform based on detailed research is poppycock.
Um, OK....!

The GA sector is dying under the weight of dysfunctional regulation instigated by a rotten aviation Act.There have been endless reviews and reports documenting that fact

References please. If you had said the Airports Act then I would agree with you. That is at the forefront of the rot. We can't run a GA industry without affordable accessible infrastructure and landlords who are gouging us.

As to what shape the industry assumes if the Act is changed, I don't know. I can't know. I don't want to know.

OK . I'm baffled as to why you are so determined to change the face of the industry but not care about the outcome.

orthodox economics indicate that trying to insulate you from the effects of change will trigger an avalanche of similar demands and kill any hope of reform at all.

Where did you study economics? Are all demands from industry representatives automatically unreasonable compared to the ideals of people who presumably make their living from some other profession? Are you saying that all industry reform can only be driven by the consumer? How is that going to attract investment?

I'm trying to open up a dialogue and give you the opportunity to expand on your ideas. Why can't you do that instead of trying to shut me down by being patronising? This is PPrune, not an echo chamber. If you don't want to be challenged then you are in the wrong place.

[LeadSled]

[QUOTE]and allowing cheap imported instructional labour. [QUOTE]
Clare Prop,
Where did you get that idea?

Whether you accept it or not, around 70% of pilot training in the biggest aviation market is conducted by a person who is a FAA CFI -- Certified Flying Instructor. If you want to set up an FAA 141 or 142 school, the commercial advantage you get is being able to put a student up for test with less total hours.

Far to many Australian "commentators" heap damnation on "change" proposals with little or no knowledge of what happens in the rest of the world --- and this includes employees of CASA (especially) and Airservices.

When I first started flying, in UK, I did go to an "approved" flying school, because I could get a PPL in 30 hours, just flying with an instructor, minimum 40 hours.

My PPL examiner came from the Royal Aero Club panel of examiners, nothing to do with (what became in 1972) CAA UK.

When I started instructing, I did the required course for an "Assistant Instructor" and the examiner who tested me and granted the certificate was from the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators,GAPAN, ( now The Honourable Company of Air Pilots and Navigators) nothing to do with CAA , and ALL ON A PPL, not a CPL. In those days, the first time you encountered the "Man from the Ministry" was a CPL flight test.

When I got my first Test Pilot certification (nothing fancy, just "Production and Post Maintenance, all aircraft up to 12,600lbs, but a hard way to get D.P. Davies autograph) that came from the ARB, aka the Air Registration Board Ltd, a company jointly owned by most of the companies that made up the UK aviation industry. The ARB (not a Government body, but set up by Government legislation pre-WWII) set and administered airworthiness certification and maintenance standards. Interestingly, UK decided to not harmonize with US in those days, because UK had what we would now call "performance based" or "outcome based" design and certification standards, and considered the US far to rigid. In those days, UK was a major manufacturer of light aircraft, that was all killed largely by post WWII bureaucratic intervention.

And after all these years ( post 1972) of the bureaucracy ( CAA , aka the Campaign Against Aviation) having swallowed up everything, and strangling aviation, in may ways the UK is now reverting to what worked so well many years ago. And I do not doubt the Brexit will accelerate the change.

And the reason for all of the above exposition ---- just to show there are other ways of doing business, not just in the US. And that everywhere, public "service" bureaucracy is the existential enemy, not a friend.

In Australia we are beset with prescriptive and restrictive regulation to the max, a regulatory frame work that is the worst in the world, and getting worse, not better, not a glimmer (except for CASR Parts 21-35) of the reforms in many countries in recent years. And the common thread through all the genuine reforms ----- to get rid of mountains of accumulated restrictive regulation that does nothing for air safety outcomes. And allow the "aviation industry" to take responsibility where it should fall, not on micro-managing bureaucrats whose default position is "NO"

Except in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Clare Prop,
On a slightly different note, CASA is an air safety regulator, it has no economic regulatory function, have a look at the Act. It is specifically barred as an economic regulator.
CASA cannot make decisions based on economic outcomes, as we know all too well.
If there are far too many flying schools on an aerodrome to make commercial sense, that is nothing to do with CASA.
In part, that is why the Act must be changed, to make certain that that proper coast/benefit analysis is mandatory in justifying any regulation , but ONLY for management of risk (aka Safety) , not economic outcomes.
Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

And reg 206 (4) photography) is commercial. No AOC or CPL..... BANG !!! Gotcha, You're dead. !!
reg 2 (7) d using an aircraft for a commercial purpose. , ie photography...BANG !!! Gotcha. Coup de grace !!.

Note ..it doesnt say using an aircraft for a dangerous, reckless or negligent purpose...a commercial purpose. FFS !!
Which shows, as we all know..the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation have NFI about "safety",but plenty about power and control.
How amusing...! Not if you lose yr job.

[jonkster]

Over regulation is not the answer. Lack of regulation and 'free market' is not the answer either. Common sense is.

[LeadSled]

And reg 206 (4) photography) is commercial. No AOC or CPL..... BANG !!! Gotcha, You're dead. !!
reg 2 (7) d using an aircraft for a commercial purpose. , ie photography...BANG !!! Gotcha. Coup de grace !!.

Note ..it doesnt say using an aircraft for a dangerous, reckless or negligent purpose...a commercial purpose. FFS !!
Which shows, as we all know..the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation have NFI about "safety",but plenty about power and control.
How amusing...! Not if you lose yr job.
And under FAA style rules, just Part 91, private, FARs don't even have an Aerial Work catagory.
That CAR 206 has caused so much trouble over the years is one of the most glaring examples of half completed regulatory change, there are other remnants scattered throughout the "rools".
Tootle pip!!

[Clare Prop]

LeadSled, I came through the UK system as well, I did the CAAFU CPL flight test at EGHH and worked as an AFI/QFI in EGJA and EGJJ, when I did it there was no more instructing on a PPL though I was trained by some PPL instructors, some were great, some were atrocious, like anywhere, and most were building hours towards the CPL which as you would know required 700 hours then. I also hold FAA qualifications.

When I came to Australia it was quite a surprise to see how different things were here and I have seen many regulatory changes over the past 20 years. Some good, some bad and a lot of hysteria from people adverse to change at any cost. I have taken changes in my stride and kept my business going while many have failed for all kinds of reasons (mostly an inablility to adapt to changes in regulation or market forces and/or simple bad management)

The two things I have observed that have contributed most to the decline in GA are the Airports Act and the raising of the weight limit for RA Aus. The FEE-Help hasn't helped, where students are lured away from the smaller schools to the behemoths for "free flying" and risk finding their logbooks in a skip if the school goes into liquidation. As Sunfish has rightly said in another thread, RA Aus changes can allow the remains of GA to be swept into a small dustbin. That is a result of easing restrictions. There is room for us all, but I feel that any changes should be done with industry consultation rather than just consumer opinions. Otherwise next time you need an AFR you might just find tumbleweeds where the runway used to be.

When you have CASA filled with drongoes who are either ex military or ex sheltered behemoth environments then of course they can't be expected to understand economic realities because they are the untouchable ones with a nice fat pension to look forward to no matter how much they ^^^^ up. The economics are up to the operators.

We operators are not sitting on pots of gold but assets that have plummeted in value such as buildings on commonwealth airport sub- leaseholds that will be pulled out from under us at renewal time and *maybe* rented back to us at massive expense. THIS is what needs to be sorted out, no matter what regulatory environment you are working in you can't have a thriving GA industry with unaffordable infrastructure and hostile landlords and a minister who, like Albanese in his time, just lets them run amok; if they had their way there would be no GA airports in the capital cities.

IS the solution to move training away from the capital cities? Thing is the sort of people who can afford to fly are likely to be time poor so driving for hours for a lesson isn't an option for everyone. Hence airports within a couple of hours drive of the city are mostrly deserted when they should be humming with activity.

I'm all for looking at proposed changes but it would be irresponsible to make major business decisions and investments based on motherhood statements. I suspect most finance companies would see it the same way. So please, answer my questions.

If you think CASA regulation is restrictive try working in the food manufacturing industry....Aviation isn't a special case. It has high consumer expectations too.

[Sandy Reith]

Quote ClareProp “......so who is going to train the army of instructors waiting in the wings for this brave new world? Or is the need for an instructor rating too much regulation?”

i would think that existing schools could benefit from a regulatory environment such as the FARs because they would be in a position to supply instructor training and the instructor required experience level.

If we have a reform program that is getting results, and we remain on the warpath, it’s much more likely that the question of tenure on government airports will get the attention it deserves. I’ve always believed that the airside should remain public, like roads, and the landside be privately owned, for the obvious reasons of security and capital preservation for the aviation business owners.

There are a number of other areas crying out for reform which might well come under the spotlight once we establish the general need and have have some reform action. Measures to encourage growth, incentives such as relief from ASICs, a minimum acceptable start might be 5 year validity for those with commercial licences, or having held licences for more than 10 years, or think of a graduated system (a senior’s card?).

Recently a new PPL candidate known to me was told he had to have an ASIC to have his licence issued. For that, apart from the forms, birth certificate paperwork and associated police checks, he had to drive to security controlled airport and have the ARO sign a paper confirming that he needed the ASIC because he had a need to fly into that airport.
The ASIC, truly A Sick and Asinine procedure which cost this PPL applicant $283 plus a 1:5 hr drive. Now read the CASA website on ASICs and AVIDs, I defy anyone to come to definite conclusion about exactly where one or the other will suffice. Why you could not do with the cheaper 5 year AVID is beyond rational comprehension. They don’t have this in the US, this is just our penchant for massive and costly overkill with zero follow up to check for actual benefits.

We should work to achieve more incentives through regulation, say double the validity of the AFR for higher licence categories and for aircraft ownership. Since retirement I have had to waste much time and money demonstating my aircraft (BFR/AFR) to my colleagues to retain my flying status. It is enjoyable to fly with one’s peers but there’s an element of waste and the system could easily be more practical and much less wasteful.

This paper from AOPA Australia is background to improvements that are being sought :-
Discussion Paper: Independent Flight Instructors

Background

Australia has experienced a decline in active pilot numbers and in new trainees that is impacting the aviation industry at all levels. Traditional flight schools are struggling to meet the requirements of CASR §61 and this has led to an increase in the cost of training and virtually excluded small schools from the market. In regional Australia, where Aero Clubs once flourished, flight training is almost non-existent. In addition to the fees charged by CASA to process applications, applicants endure significant compliance and related costs during the certificate life-cycle.

A global shortage of airline pilots has resulted in airlines in the major markets such as North America and Europe cancelling flights caused by the inability to source adequate numbers of qualified personnel. There is an urgent need to address the global demand for trained pilots that could be met by Australian flight instructors.

ICAO

ICAO Annex 1 outlines the Standards and Recommended Practices for Personnel Licensing, including pilot licenses. Annex 1 provides for training by authorized instructors working as individuals or providing training as part of an approved course.

CASA’s implementation of Annex 1 standards does not allow for instructors to work outside of an approved school. Australia therefore has flight schools individually authorized by CASA under CASR §61 or §141.

FAA

There are three flight instructor certificates available in the USA. These certificates are commonly referred to as: Certified Flight Instructor (CFI), Certified Flight Instructor Instrument (CFII) and Multi Engine Instructor (MEI). All are stand-alone certificates i.e. there is no requirement to hold any one instructor certificate before you can hold any of the others.

Although flight instructors can and do work independently, most work for a flight school that may or may not hold an FAA §141 certificate. As an example, ATP with over 300 aircraft, 300 instructors, 42 locations and delivering about 190,000 hours of training annually do this under §61. It is estimated that 70% of pilots are trained under §61. For those schools wishing to be certificated under §141, the process is relatively straightforward forward with the FAA providing templates for the required manuals and processing the application with no fee attached.

A flight instructor need only hold a class three medical certificate since the FAA views the service a flight instructor is being paid for is their teaching services, not their piloting services. If the student is legally entitled to be the pilot in command, the flight instructor need not hold a medical certificate at all. An example of this is an instructor teaching a commercial student who already holds a private certificate, the student is entitled to be PIC and therefore the instructor does not require a medical. Similarly, for a Flight Review, provided the candidate has a current medical and their Flight Review currency has not lapsed, the flight instructor conducting the review need not have a current medical. There is no requirement for the FAA to be notified that a Flight Review has been conducted.

There is no need to go to a §141 school for any training for a pilot certificate or rating. Even flight instructors can be trained by other flight instructors under §61. The only limitation is that an instructor must have held an instructor certificate for 2 years and have given at least 200 hours of flight instruction before they can recommend an applicant for their first instructor certificate. Even this limitation is currently the subject of a discussion paper that proposes to remove this requirement.

The situation is similar for mechanics who can perform most maintenance without working for the holder of a §145 certificate. Certificated A&P mechanics can perform most of the maintenance required to be performed on flight school aircraft and holders of Inspection Authorizations can certify for annual inspections. These activities do not require FAA certification beyond the individual’s certificates.

PROPOSAL

Adopt the FAA interpretation of ICAO Annex 1 and permit authorized flight instructors to provide flight training for any CASA pilot license without the need to hold or work for the holder of a CASA flight school certificate. During a transitional period, grant existing holders of §61 flight school certificates provisional §141 status.

Implementation

CASA would seek the repeal of those sections of CASR §61 that require an operating certificate for individuals or organizations that provide flight training. CASR § 141 would remain to allow for schools to take advantage of the reduced training hour requirements that ICAO Annex 1 provides for when undertaking training as part of an approved course.

CASA would continue to make regulations that give specificity to ICAO training standards such as the minimum aeronautical experience required for each license as well as the knowledge requirements to be met. Instructors would be required to ensure that all required training is completed before students may progress to solo for example, and prior to being recommended for a flight test.

Other Considerations

Existing flight schools often express concern that the independent instructor system would undermine their business. In contrast to the Australian experience, the FAA process to gain a §141 pilot school certificate is straightforward and in-expensive, CASA should follow a similar, simple and affordable process. In transitioning to the new arrangements, existing CASA certificated flight schools under §61 should be granted provisional §141 status and then have two years to meet the applicable requirements for a pilot school certificate (non- provisional).

Some believe that safety is compromised however, this is not supported by FAA experience.

[djpil]

Not sure independent instructing going to make a big difference.
I assume the independent instructors will be using their own aircraft?
Aircraft costs per hour are lower if the aircraft is more heavily utilised.

Flying schools or clubs typically can offer a variety of aircraft that are more heavily utilised (and therefore cheaper per hour to operate) than if there is only one instructor (utilisation then becomes dependent on the single instructor's availability).....
Seems to me that the comparison with the system in the USA should be addressed rather than independent instructors vs others.

A typical small flying school or club in the USA would be a Part 61 school - a business not requiring FAA approval - compare that with the relatively onerous Part 141 here. Of course there are independent instructors operating as a one man band but very many more who work for Part 61 schools.
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/pilot_schools/

There is no reason for Australia's Part 141 and Part 142 vs the USA's Part 61 and Part 141,
Then compare the FAA Part 141 with our Part 142.

[jonkster]

Seems to me that the comparison with the system in the USA should be addressed rather than independent instructors vs others.

A typical small flying school or club in the USA would be a Part 61 school - a business not requiring FAA approval - compare that with the relatively onerous Part 141 here. Of course there are independent instructors operating as a one man band but very many more who work for Part 61 schools.
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/pilot_schools/

There is no reason for Australia's Part 141 and Part 142 vs the USA's Part 61 and Part 141,
Then compare the FAA Part 141 with our Part 142.

So their system divides flight training into basically into 2 types: you can be 'certified' (with higher compliance and oversight requirements) or 'non certified' (with less requirements)?

Seems on the face of it to be reasonable. I could see a role for the 'non certified' schools for aero clubs and smaller operations. I would still like to see commonality of competency/testing standards of pilots (and instructors) across both but lowering the operational compliance hurdles for smaller schools or clubs seems to be a reasonable idea on the face of it.

[airag]

Back to one of Clare Props Q's ..... "where are the new students coming from " ?

When Instructing in Melbourne over the years , it has been my observation the only schools doing well are those with contracts for foreign airline cadets , essentially it's been Asian airlines keeping the Australian flight Training industry going .

When I fly in rural Aus' , all the aeroclubs are dead or dying with virtually no young people at all .... nothing like enough for viable flight training in any guise !

People have neither the spare income nor the interest in learning to fly anymore ... for a host of reasons , but changing to independent Instructors will change none of that nor do Airlines want them training their cadets

[Sunfish]

This thread has deteriorated into a discussion of one tiny part of the over regulation problem - flight schools.

Continue to carry on like this instead of looking at the bigger picture and you will get no reform and confirm the death spiral of GA.

[YPJT]

Well Sunny, you certainly didn't spare any keyboard strokes giving us your views on the matter.
Maybe those who have questioned this one aspect of the proposed changes have been around long enough to realise that the devil is in the detail.

[Sunfish]

YPJT, yes, the devil is indeed in the detail but the "detail" has to depend on The Act. You can't write detail without referring to The Act. The reason we are in such a mess is because the current Act is deliberately loosely written to maximise CASA's ability to do what it wants with no responsibility for outcomes.

If you get a new Act right, then the detail you ask for will automatically reflect common sense.

By getting "the Act right", I mean framing it in outcome based terms that are amenable to measurement - without that there can be no accountability. The current act deliberately talks about "safety" which is a meaningless nominative word.

[QFF]

I would agree with Sunfish about changing the Act in terms of outcome rather than prescriptive measures. One example I can think of is the whole issue of colour vision testing. Currently, in CASR Part 67, the medical standard is (my paraphrase) you need to pass the 24-plate Ishihara test - this test is specifically mentioned but is only useful for measuring red-green colour blindness. Now, red-green colour blindess is an inherited disorder which doesn't change with time (i.e. you don't suddenly develop red-green colour blindness). That is the reason why we have to do this useless test, for some of us, every year, to confirm for the 50th time you are not red-green colour blind, or to rub your nose in it that you are.

There are much similar, but better, tests out there which can measure blue-yellow colour blindness (which the Ishihara doesn't). Blue-yellow colour blindness can acquired, i.e. develop at any time due to head injury/trauma or stroke. But we're not testing for it because the Regulations say specifically - test with the Ishihara plates - an example of a prescriptive measure that is past it's use-by date.

Change the Act - but watch for the Devil in the details!

[LeadSled]

QFF,
It is worth looking at what the formal vision standards actually says, it is not what you believe it is( and its even ICAO compliant) and how CASA actually screw it up completely by imposing "policies" that contradict the standard, and also ignore the AAT test case precedent ---- a law unto themselves.
Tootle pip!!

[Vref+5]

Sunfish is right, the PS knows exactly how to shut this down, by encouraging the maximum number of industry organisations to participate. Then create somewhere they can continue to argue, it could be called the UNGAA, standing for the UN General Aviation Assembly. Then it has the maximum amount of people it can use to stir up the fights between the members, cause confusion, make the whole thing completely and utterly useless and impotent. Just like the other UN.

Best thing to do is to have the agreed list of demands prepared, walk in, drop them off, with a draft copy of the flyers that will be distributed in his electorate during the next election campaign. Then head off for an early lunch, before the minister does. If you sit down for any form of "workshop", it's sayonara to any change.

Don't believe me? You might believe history's greatest public servant, Sir Humphrey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

[gerry111]

Very well explained, Vref+5!
I doubt Ben realises this just yet. Rubbing shoulders with the deputy Prime Minister and some of the leading aviation association leaders may keep his ego duchessed.
For a while..
And then there's Dick..

[triadic]

Somewhere in this discussion I recall hearing that part of these changes would permit instructors to operate on a PPL in such cases were they no longer can hold a Class one medical.
This would allow those older and experienced pilots with instructional experience to continue to provide instruction that may assist in rural schools or for specialist training such as IF, formation etc.

[aroa]

Holey moley !!, traidic ...are you crazy Experienced PPL doing training. !! Good grief
PPLs have all the acccidents and kill people....CASA said so, in a court of law !

When I came back from the UK, where PPLs did just that, I went to see CAA or whatever their moiniker was then, to see if it was possible here...since I couldnt get a Cl 1.
One person looked like to faint and the others hustled me out of the building quick march. !
Just shows you that bureaucrats hate new ideas coming for anyone else.

[Clare Prop]

You can instruct in Australia with a Class 2 medical.

[AOPA]

General Aviation Summit 2018 - Wagga Wagga, NSW

I am pleased to announce that thirty one (31) industry associations have confirmed their attendance. Both the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack MP and Mr Anthony Albanese MP have confirmed their attendance. We are awaiting the confirmation of the Rural and Regional Affairs Transport Committee.

Invited Special Guests

Deputy Prime Minister, The Hon Michael McCormack MP - Confirmed
Mr Anthony Albanese MP, Shadow Minister for Transport - Confirmed
The Mayor, City of Wagga Wagga, Councillor Greg Conkey - Confirmed
Rural and Regional Affairs Transport Committee - Pending

Confirmed Industry Associations:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)
Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)
Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA)
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA)
Aircraft Electronics Association – South Pacific Region (AEA)
Australian Aircraft Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
Australian Business Aircraft Association (ABAA)
Experimental Light Aircraft Association of Australia (ELAAA)
Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS)
Australian Warbirds Associations Limited (AWAL)
Australian Women Pilots Association (AWPA)
Seaplane Pilots Association of Australia (SPAA)
Rotorcraft
Australian Aero Clubs Alliance (AACA)
Royal Federation of Aero Clubs (RFAC)
Airtourer Association (AA)
Cessna 182 Association of Australia (C182AA)
Cessna 200 Association of Australia (C200AA)
Cirrus Owner Pilots Association (COPA)
Lancair Owner Builder Organisation (LOBO)
Australian Beechcraft Society (ABA)
Australian Mooney Pilots Association (AMPA)
International Comanche Society – Australia (ICS)
Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)
Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)
Australian Parachute Federation (APF)
Regional Airport Users Action Group (RAUAG)
Your Central Coast Airport Association (YCCA)
The Honourable Company of Air Pilots
The Australian International Pilots Association (AIPA)
The Australian Indigenous Aviation Foundation (AIAF)

[LeadSled]

Somewhere in this discussion I recall hearing that part of these changes would permit instructors to operate on a PPL in such cases were they no longer can hold a Class one medical.
This would allow those older and experienced pilots with instructional experience to continue to provide instruction that may assist in rural schools or for specialist training such as IF, formation etc.
Which is exactly what happened in the UK until late 1960s, when bureaucracy got control, and destroyed more than four decades of a successful system.

And!!! Guess what!!!! Created a pilot shortage for airlines.

Sound familiar.

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

For the Wagga 2 conflab...The lawyers who will be attending for help formulate a "Consenus" ...with all the proper legal wording ,..and covering all aspects they we require for change...are ???

And another bit of CAsA complete buggery that needs VERY serious attention is the quality, experience and attitude of "Investigators". CAs needs to be got out of this business altogether. and an Independent outfit ( no CAsA persons need apply !), Division of AFP or some other.
Two examples...
1 'Investigator' (sic) not yet legally appointed and just a few weeks in CAsA ( ex cop, why ?) knows SFA about aviation. To quote the engineer he spoke to, and wrote a statement for, !!! , ." didnt know jack sh*t about aviation, didnt know what an MR was, or an AD or what the aircraft he was to photograph looked like'.

On being advised that the alleged perp had no case to answer as the a'/c had no MR...his enlightened response was...'I dont know about that ( and he didnt), but there are people in Canberra who think they can make this stick"
Scary sh*t indeed. But all part of CAsA's "Just culture" Quailty investigation....NOT. !! Just arse actually.

2. Serious complaint that involved alleged criminality does a few hops around the Fort and ends up with a lady from People and Culture Division ( new wanko name for HR ). NO investigative qualifications, fed a whole lot of rubbish from the LSD takers, she arrives at a "conclusion" that it wasnt him.!! CYA 101
She obviously believes in Father Xmas AND the Tooth ( ex military) Fairy.!!

When the police investigate the police, their colleagues, oft time it doesnt pass the citizens' smell test.
When CAsA persons "investigate" their own ...the stench remains the same.
It has to change. And soon.

[gerry111]

General Aviation Summit 2018 - Wagga Wagga, NSW

I am pleased to announce that thirty one (31) industry associations have confirmed their attendance. Both the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack MP and Mr Anthony Albanese MP have confirmed their attendance. We are awaiting the confirmation of the Rural and Regional Affairs Transport Committee.

Invited Special Guests

Deputy Prime Minister, The Hon Michael McCormack MP - Confirmed
Mr Anthony Albanese MP, Shadow Minister for Transport - Confirmed
The Mayor, City of Wagga Wagga, Councillor Greg Conkey - Confirmed
Rural and Regional Affairs Transport Committee - Pending

Confirmed Industry Associations:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)
Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)
Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA)
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA)
Aircraft Electronics Association – South Pacific Region (AEA)
Australian Aircraft Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
Australian Business Aircraft Association (ABAA)
Experimental Light Aircraft Association of Australia (ELAAA)
Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS)
Australian Warbirds Associations Limited (AWAL)
Australian Women Pilots Association (AWPA)
Seaplane Pilots Association of Australia (SPAA)
Rotorcraft
Australian Aero Clubs Alliance (AACA)
Royal Federation of Aero Clubs (RFAC)
Airtourer Association (AA)
Cessna 182 Association of Australia (C182AA)
Cessna 200 Association of Australia (C200AA)
Cirrus Owner Pilots Association (COPA)
Lancair Owner Builder Organisation (LOBO)
Australian Beechcraft Society (ABA)
Australian Mooney Pilots Association (AMPA)
International Comanche Society – Australia (ICS)
Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)
Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)
Australian Parachute Federation (APF)
Regional Airport Users Action Group (RAUAG)
Your Central Coast Airport Association (YCCA)
The Honourable Company of Air Pilots
The Australian International Pilots Association (AIPA)
The Australian Indigenous Aviation Foundation (AIAF)



So what's the agenda for the meeting, Ben? It's looking like only a bit of a gabfest without one.

[Sunfish]

the only agenda item should be a vote of no confidence in CASA and the Department.

[Clare Prop]

Agreed, Sunfish, what is the due process for that?

It's a long list. But how many of them can actually be called Industry Associations?

[AOPA]

AOPA AUSTRALIA TO MEET WITH MR ANTHONY ALBANESE MP, FRIDAY 1st JUNE 2018The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia will meet with Labor's Mr Anthony Albanese MP, to discuss support for a change to Australia's Civil Aviation Act, tomorrow 1st June 2018.Attending the meeting will be AOPA Australia President, Ms Aminta Hennessy OAM, Vice President, Mr Marc De Stoop, and Executive Director, Mr Benjamin Morgan, along with Mr Dick Smith and General Aviation Summit Chairman, Mr Geoff Breust.The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia believes that;
1. Aviation regulations must be developed so that aviation safety is both affordable and sustainable; and
2. That the Australian aviation safety regulator be required to foster and develop aviation.

Mr Anthony Albanese MP has this week confirmed his attendance to the General Aviation Summit, which will be held in Wagga Wagga on the 9th and 10th of July.The purpose of the Summit is to bring together the leadership of Australia’s general aviation industry associations, seeking to develop a consensus proposal for a change to the Civil Aviation Act, to facilitate the economic recovery of Australia’s aviation industry. To date 31 aviation industry associations have confirmed their participation. NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aopa.com.au%2Fmembership&h=ATNR7rMqVA3bPseBC6O0AE6Fs1Cjy1b9qcAzPsJr4PK9BG86B86quy6q81-EQONYUUZD1D9VDEiZA-pqG3gOiBX3UjhxRFMddDOWs5w5EE4t-O6w6Ej7Wn7cuy4DfX8J0g)

[Lookleft]

Interesting that in that list of attendees there wasn't any mention of the Pprune Concerned Aviators We Have All the Answers Don't You Know Who We Are Association.

[pngheliops]

Also, I don't see the Australian Helicopters Industry Association on the list?

[aroa]

Ah Lookie Leftie....comment as expected.
Dont worry, many of us PCA;s have lodged docs re CAsA ****e and illegal behaviour..plenty of that from the Fort.and regional orrifices.
Read and noted perhaps, but the issue of the Big Meet is the consensus to be formulated ...and that the GA industry requires that action to be taken.

[Sunfish]

I will be in Europe. I don't expect much from "the summit". I will be happy if the result is not any worse than what we have now. As for the grand vision of a vibrant and healthy GA sector, something like New Zealands or the U.S. for example, there isn't a hope in hell of that happening. Be aware of the agendas:

- the Minister and his minders want to ensure AOPA doesn't make waves at the next election or by elections because AOPA could do some real electoral damage by campaigning against the Government in marginal seats.

- The Department wants to please and control the Minister.

- CASA wants to increase its power, always.

-It should not be too hard for the above to encourage the various associations and the egos contained therein into a chaotic p1ssing competition. Looklefts cynical and unconstructive comment is a good example of what can be expected.

It would be wonderful if AOPA and associates could win but I think the odds are against them based on prior CASA performance.

[Lookleft]

Looklefts cynical and unconstructive comment is a good example of what can be expected

On the cynicism scale my post doesn't even come close to yours Sunfish. All you have been banging on about is how none of this will achieve anything unless the conveners follow your (and others) words of wisdom on how to save GA. I am only commenting on your lack of involvement other than the whinging on this forum. From where I sit AOPA is doing what its members have asked for, and that is to do something to engage those who control the levers. All you have done is state that it is all a big waste of time.

[Sunfish]

engage those who control the levers???? Shirley you jest! That has been tried ad nauseam, the last effort being the Forsyth review. My position, which is constructive is simple: rip the levers out of the floor and use them to electorally beat the crap out of the politicians until they agree to a new act and rip the guts out of CASA. Anything less is a proven failure.

[gerry111]

So how did the Friday 1st June 2018 meeting with Anthony Albanese go, Ben?
Were any "core" promises made for when Labor has its next turn, on the Federal Treasury benches?

[Fantome]

This heated debate is necessary and we should be thankful that this open forum exists at all. If this Wagga event proves no more than another gab-fest, then the membership of the AOPA should say to the directors that what is expected now is the appointment of experienced lobbyists to get the message across at federal election time, and beyond. Every concerned member of the AOPA should volunteer on election day to man one of the thousands of polling booths across the nation, armed with how-to-vote leaflets.

If Fred Hoinviille was still around, he would write it in the sky. Think he might have been one of AOPA's founders, apart from being a brilliant sky-writer.

[Vag277]

Sunfish
Given your apparently bitter views of CASA, would you describe the personal contact that caused this?

[Sunfish]

Vag: Given your apparently bitter views of CASA, would you describe the personal contact that caused this?

I see what you did there......

You make the unfounded assumption that my views of CASA are "bitter" and then insinuate that this is because of personal interaction with the same. The implication you are trying to hang on me and others, being, like Lookleft perhaps, that critics like me are merely a few sick individuals, with axes to grind, who can be safely ignored. The next implication following from that is that all critics are a bunch of crybabies who should man up and get on with business and leave CASA and The Aviation Act alone.

Well mate, when I see a rapist at work, I don't ignore it. There is ample written evidence, the latest being the Forsyth Review, that things aren't rosy in the garden and anyone, like me, would wish to see an expanding, thriving industry providing jobs, growth, sheer enjoyment and a robust contribution to the Australian economy. To put that in terms you might understand; what pisses me off is the sheer waste and lost opportunities under the dead hand that now administers what's left of aviation. Things could be so much better.

There is also a multitude of evidence available to anyone who has travelled overseas or can read a web page, that GA in other countries is thriving and in Australia it is not. Given that Australians are not flightless effing Emus then there must be some other reason GA in Australia is dying and the number one candidate is poor regulation. This can be changed if we keep our eye on the ball and refuse to be distracted.

[Fantome]

It is gratifying that Sunny has the drive, motivation, wit and eloquence to push these vital arguments to the fore. But these are just words, I'm afraid, of feeble support. Action is required, but, to say it yet again, there will be no effective action , let alone result, without a groundswell of support from sufficient numbers of those concerned; unafraid to stick their heads up.,

[Lookleft]

No Sunfish, you just have a very inflated view of how your past experience is relevant to your hobby of aviation.

critics like me are merely a few sick individuals, with axes to grind, who can be safely ignored. The next implication following from that is that all critics are a bunch of crybabies who should man up and get on with business and leave CASA and The Aviation Act alone.
No one is implying anything of the sort. What you don't seem to understand, and Fantome has summed it up nicely, is that you are big on the rhetoric but small on the action. Or to put that another way, you are a bag of wind who expects others to make the changes that you think are necessary.

I am not a member of AOPA as I am not a GA pilot but I do applaud their efforts to engage the various agencies and try to get the changes their constituency are demanding. All I have seen from the PAC is any number of reasons of why it is not going to work. Enjoy your holiday Sunfish, AOPA will just get on with the job.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Dick Smith was on Jones and Co. tonight, let's hope he can keep Jones fired up, because A.Jones, Esq. has the useful ability to frighten politicians enough to actually force policy change.
Watch out for the video, hopefully it will be available real soon now.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Lookleft, what have you done apart from criticize? This is a battle that must be won by pen, not marching around Canberra singing "we shall overcome".

[Lookleft]

Sunfish, you need to actually read what people write before you get things wrong again. My criticism has been of those who rant on about how the system can be fixed and what others need to do yet they don't want their hands to get dirty in the process. You may notice that my post #94 didn't mention any names but you have recognised yourself anyway. The Carly Simon song comes to mind. I don't have any pretensions that I can make any changes to the system. My criticisms are of those who consider that their self-importance and experience of the "system" give them a greater right to be heard than other "lesser" mortals.

[Eddie Dean]

Is indeed most peculiar that some one building a kit plane, who has no relationship with CASA can be so vitriolic about them.

[Sunfish]

I have a relationship with truth, natural justice, equity and procedural fairness. That is all that is required if one can also read documents like the Forsyth Review. I am not Robinson Crusoe.

To put that another way, I don't have to have a "relationship" with an axe murderer to want to see them behind bars.

[Eddie Dean]

I have a relationship with truth, natural justice, equity and procedural fairness. That is all that is required if one can also read documents like the Forsyth Review. I am not Robinson Crusoe.

To put that another way, I don't have to have a "relationship" with an axe murderer to want to see them behind bars.I deal with CASA on a regular basis in three states and I have had very few issues with any of them. You need to talk with CASA rather than read some report and base your postings on those.

[Sunfish]

You need to talk with CASA rather than read some report and base your postings on those.

You mean like the Forsyth Review?

[Eddie Dean]

You mean like the Forsyth Review?You have the least inter action with CASA of all those posting here, yet you claim to have the most insight into how to deal with that organisation. Fvcks me mate why you even bother posting.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Day 1 done...any news?

[cogwheel]

JULY..... a month to go!

[Sunfish]

ED: You have the least inter action with CASA of all those posting here, yet you claim to have the most insight into how to deal with that organisation. Fvcks me mate why you even bother posting.

Totally wrong Edward.

I claim, like many others, to have a working knowledge of natural justice and procedural fairness. I also claim to have had the privilege of working in Government and industry which perhaps goes beyond the experience of some pilots and that I modestly hope might be useful to some.

But besides that, you don't need to have been attacked by an axe murderer to comment on what should happen to one. There is plenty of official, written evidence that CASA is dysfunctional and as a public institution we have a right, perhaps even a duty to try and improve that situation.

When you hear me telling someone how to fly a B777 you can criticize but for now shut up.

[YPJT]

As a leading protagonist in this Sunny your last sentence leaves me somewhat bewildered. Not the smartest way to get support for you cause.

[LeadSled]

As a leading protagonist in this Sunny your last sentence leaves me somewhat bewildered. Not the smartest way to get support for you cause.
YPJT,
I can well understand the frustrations of Sunfish and other coming to the surface from time to time.

As for the apologists for CASA, they are in two broad categories, it seems to me.

The first are those who work for CASA, in one way or another, and secondly, those who have never had to deal with the real "CASA Rampant".

The record is very clear and beyond dispute, that, over the years, CASA and it's predecessors have been a major impediment to the Australian aviation sector, report after report of multiple Royal Commissions and other forms of inquiry, over many years, all have one thing in common, severe criticism of the CASA by whatever name at the time, always on multiple grounds.

Yet, such is the way Canberra works, and in this case, the ruthless exploitation of public fear and ignorance under the general heading of "air safety", and the gullibility of the "media", that only on few occasions has the power of the bureaucrats at the time been seriously dented, and always not for long, as Ministers come and go.

Only political power will overcome the situation, we have seen major shakeups in bureaucracy before, if any department becomes too much of an embarrassment to elected Government, politicians will move.

Will that ever happen in Aviation??

It seems unlikely, as the size of the aviation sector that is interested shrinks, the general public ( and quite a few in the aviation sector) believes CASA's self serving publicity, and the aviation bureaucracy continues to expand.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

:ugh:duuuuuh

[Eddie Dean]

YPJT,
I can well understand the frustrations of Sunfish and other coming to the surface from time to time.

As for the apologists for CASA, they are in two broad categories, it seems to me.

The first are those who work for CASA, in one way or another, and secondly, those who have never had to deal with the real "CASA Rampant".

The record is very clear and beyond dispute, that, over the years, CASA and it's predecessors have been a major impediment to the Australian aviation sector, report after report of multiple Royal Commissions and other forms of inquiry, over many years, all have one thing in common, severe criticism of the CASA by whatever name at the time, always on multiple grounds.

Yet, such is the way Canberra works, and in this case, the ruthless exploitation of public fear and ignorance under the general heading of "air safety", and the gullibility of the "media", that only on few occasions has the power of the bureaucrats at the time been seriously dented, and always not for long, as Ministers come and go.

Only political power will overcome the situation, we have seen major shakeups in bureaucracy before, if any department becomes too much of an embarrassment to elected Government, politicians will move.

Will that ever happen in Aviation??

It seems unlikely, as the size of the aviation sector that is interested shrinks, the general public ( and quite a few in the aviation sector) believes CASA's self serving publicity, and the aviation bureaucracy continues to expand.

Tootle pip!!I have no understanding of Sunfish's diatribes against CASA, as he has no relationship with them, according to his postings.

Your statement about the types of people who wish to deal with CASA in a professional and civil manner exhibits a closed mindedness to the modern paradigm.

Most of the senate enquiries and such have only shown the ignorance of the senators to the reality of aviation, with maybe the exception of Dave Fawcett who I served with in the great green suck.

You will be well aware that the politicians and general public care not about those at the lower end of aviation, any complaints are like yelling into a 44 gallon drum.

Genersl aviation will keep on keeping on, even old mechanics like me can stay employed and earning.

I have a conference with CASA team in Brisbane in a couple of weeks, I'm sure I won't be using the Leadsled approved method of communication to settle our differences, over the safety issue that we have under review.
FWIW.

[Sunfish]

thank you Eddie, you have made your position quite clear.

[roundsounds]

Not sure independent instructing going to make a big difference.
I assume the independent instructors will be using their own aircraft?
Aircraft costs per hour are lower if the aircraft is more heavily utilised.

Flying schools or clubs typically can offer a variety of aircraft that are more heavily utilised (and therefore cheaper per hour to operate) than if there is only one instructor (utilisation then becomes dependent on the single instructor's availability).

I have no problems with independent instructors per se but think, why not look at encouraging schools and clubs thrive rather than treat them as a problem?
A healthy system would have a variety of schools and flying clubs from small to large providing a variety of experiences and individual points of difference. I would like to see an environment that encouraged that rather than undermine it.

Existing Clubs and Schools would not be required to maintain their 141 certificate unless they choose to provide the 150hour CPL course. Most Flying school /aeroclubs in NZ don’t hold an AOC / certificate.

[LeadSled]

Eddie,
Just to make it quite clear, so, hopefully, even you can understand, by "inquiry" I am not referring to the regular embarrassing appearances by CASA/Airesevices/ATSB at Senate Estimates, but dedicated procedures, such as Royal Commissions, or the "Forsyth Report", established by letters patent, Ministerial directive or whatever, processes with dedicated staff, advertised and taking submissions from interested parties, and publishing a dedicated report, not just Hansard.

If you bothered to take off your rose coloured glasses, you would find that the total devoted to CASA is greater than any other Commonwealth instrumentality. And by a very large margin!!

Why do you think this might be the case???

Why do you think CASA appeals take up so much of the AAT time. AAT has specialists in taxation, immigration and AVIATION --- can you explain the need, compared to so many other technical areas where matter are heard by the AAT.

Why does CASA apparently generate more enforcement proceedings than the FAA , is Australian aviation such a bunch of cowboys?? After all, the aviation sector in Australia is little more than a statistical blip, compared to US, less than 10% of the size.

Tootle pip!!

[Lookleft]

Lead Sled you remind very much of a bunch of typewriter warriors who would classify people on this BB as pro-CASA (them) and the rabid anti-CASA (us) so it was always that you are part of us or one of them. Why do I think this: As for the apologists for CASA, they are in two broad categories, it seems to me.
The first are those who work for CASA, in one way or another, and secondly, those who have never had to deal with the real "CASA Rampant". You seem to very much want to put people in certain boxes because that makes it easier for you.

So where do you put the President of AHIA who is quoted as saying this about CASA : "We are both starting to get a better appreciation for each other's problems. CASA is starting to understand the helicopter industry better and the problems the industry has, both operational and financial. We, likewise, are gaining a better understanding of what their procedures and requirements are, driven largely by legal requirement"(AA P39 June 2018)

So is this a person who has the rose coloured glasses on or has never had to deal with CASA Rampant; or did he work for CASA at one point in his career?

The issue is not really CASA, but that your axe to grind is so pathological that anyone questioning your rhetoric is immediately classified as "not being one of us".

There is a whole BB with pitchforks and fire and they are big fans of yours. Why don't you do us all a favour and go to the happy CASA hunting ground ( I do have a long memory of their PP expression).

BTW Watched AJ DS and PC and it did as much to advance the cause of GA as all the Senate Inquiries put together.

[Sunfish]

There are plenty of axe grinders out there LookLeft and I guess you would agree that there are a few in CASA as well. However that doesn't change the fact that the main conclusion of the Forsyth review was that CASA has lost the trust of the industry. That is a totally damning criticism* as you must know, working for CASA as you seem to do.


*Actually organisationally fatal to a government agency.


P.S. As for the "legal requirements" excuse given by CASA and presumably swallowed by AHIA. I think I may have a little more experience dealing with Lawyers than you (including being sued by the AFL of all people which is an entertaining story). I spent upwards of $200,000 per year with law firms for a whole slew of contracts and advice. Lawyers fall into two categories; the average - who complexify things as much as possible in order to garner as much power, control and money as possible and who obviously infest CASA, and the true legal geniuses who can cut through an argument like a knife, can reduce difficult concepts to a few words and write simple concise english rules and regulations. Plain English law and regulations like the FAA's are eminently achievable in Australia. It just requires the will to implement them.

Here is a hint; a well written rule or regulation will explain how to comply and what will happen to you if you don't comply. So much for CASA use of weasel words like 'appropriate', "acceptable", "sufficient" and of course "fit and proper".

[LeadSled]

So where do you put the President of AHIA who is quoted as saying this about CASA : "We are both starting to get a better appreciation for each other's problems. CASA is starting to understand the helicopter industry better and the problems the industry has, both operational and financial. We, likewise, are gaining a better understanding of what their procedures and requirements are, driven largely by legal requirement"(AA P39 June 2018)

So is this a person who has the rose coloured glasses on or has never had to deal with CASA Rampant; or did he work for CASA at one point in his career?

.
Lookleft,
Do you really mean that we are intended to believe that such a statement as the above is anything more than a carefully crafted political statement from the head of an industry organisation, which has to deal with CASA is it is, and not what they would prefer it to be ---- more like NZ CAA or FAA, or Transport Canada?? And Ministers generally indifferent to the aviation sector.

Indeed, I am well acquainted and have worked closely with some well known members of the AHIA, who have had significant problems with CASA over the years. I have worked quite closely with several Presidents of the AHIA, do you really imagine that a public statement like the above would be the same as their private views??

Whether you wish to believe it or not, my views on CASA and its predecessors are based on direct experience, not some "ivory tower" theoretical position.

In all my years in aviation, in Australia the industry has always been in an adversarial relationship with whatever the regulator of the day was called, with any "win" for the industry seem as a "loss" by the regulator. There has been little evidence, ever, of mutual trust and cooperation for the good of industry advancement, and the Australian economy as a whole.

Consequently, with very rare exceptions, I agree with the finding of the many Royal Commissions and other judicial/semi-judicial/Parliamentary/ other inquiry finding into CASA, including the detailed findings of ICAO and FAA audits (not just the CASA/Government PR on the latter two).

And two exceptions --- I disagreed with the ASRR (Forsyth) report on adding an additional layer of legislation, or a lack of recommendation to amend the Act. I can safely say that, with the value of hindsight, if the ASRR team were writing their final report today, I would not have those two exceptions.

There would be no third tier of legislation, there would be a recommendation for re-writing the Act.

Tootle pip!!

[Lookleft]

See Sunfish, you have just reinforced my point perfectly:
There are plenty of axe grinders out there LookLeft and I guess you would agree that there are a few in CASA as well. However that doesn't change the fact that the main conclusion of the Forsyth review was that CASA has lost the trust of the industry. That is a totally damning criticism* as you must know, working for CASA as you seem to do.

If you disagree with those whose knowledge of higher levels of government and the way the system works is above any mere mortals that inhabit this forum(just ask them) then you must work for CASA! I am quite sure that there are axe grinders in CASA and probably those with a pathological hatred of GA ( I have met them) but you and Lead Sled and aroa and thorn bird are no different, its just that you are on the other side of the fence. At least the others have actually dealt with CASA and have worked in the industry. You just want to tell as many people as possible how important you were when you were a consultant/advisor to government. I think I may have a little more experience dealing with Lawyers than you (including being sued by the AFL of all people which is an entertaining story). I spent upwards of $200,000 per year with law firms for a whole slew of contracts and advice.



So to you Lead Sled, that other great figjam of Pprune. Assuming you started your aviation career in the 60's( to be generous), that would mean that you have been ranting against the regulator for nearly 60 years with still no result!

In all my years in aviation, in Australia the industry has always been in an adversarial relationship with whatever the regulator of the day was called, with any "win" for the industry seem as a "loss" by the regulator. There has been little evidence, ever, of mutual trust and cooperation for the good of industry advancement, and the Australian economy as a whole.


So all the pontificating changed nothing then and will change nothing now. I don't think the quote from the AHIA President suggests their relationship has always been fruitful but it seems as though the AHIA has just got on with the job and improved the lot of their members. The same goes for Clare Prop. I don't know the person from a bar of soap but when they state they have a good working relationship with CASA you say that can't be right. Eddie Dean is clearly (in your eyes) delusional because he doesn't share the same spot on the Wailing Wall with you. ICAO states that CASA are well above the world average on the metrics they use, and that according to ICAO not CASA, yet you say its all smoke and mirrors. Like I said earlier if you want to post on a BB with like minded people who want to shower you with chocolate treats from an ex-Australian biscuit manufacturer then off you shoot.

What your posts and Sunfish et al lack is any sense of balance. So when others don't agree with you then you get very personal and that is what I object to.

[LeadSled]

Lookleft,
On one level, your last effort is quite funny, based wholly on assumption. In complete ignorance of who I might be, and what I might have done, you automatically assume nothing I have done has achieved anything.
I will leave it to those who actually know me, to assess what I might have achieved, aviation reform wise.
Tootle pip!!

[Lookleft]

I think the initials BH come to mind and you flew 747s for Qantas. Nothing special.

[LeadSled]

I think the initials BH come to mind and you flew 747s for Qantas. Nothing special.
Lookleft,
There you go again, assumption, wrong initials, and that would be a bit of a thin CV, if that's all there was!!

And you clearly have not read the detailed ICAO audit reports, that are (were??) on the Department of (now) Infrastructure web site, and have probably never had access to the FAA audit. Suffice to say (as others here know) Australia has twice in recent years gone very close to being relegated to a Cat. 2 nation by FAA/USA, thanks to CASA.

You may or may not know the severe commercial penalties that would bring to the Australian aviation sector, particularly Qantas and Virgin, and only headed off, on both occasions, by frantic diplomatic activity.

Have you ever actually read any of the various inquiry reports with an open mind (but not open at both ends).

I never cease to be amazed at the CASA boosters claims, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Tootle pip!!

[Lookleft]

wrong initials, Correct tosser though. You are the original FIGJAM which are the correct initials.

[Sunfish]

Lookleft, I know a dysfunctional organisation when I see one. I don't have to be bitten by it to know its dysfunctional either.

[Lookleft]

Yes Sunfish but you also think you know who people work for based on their disagreeing with you. You are wrong. I would think that a dysfunctional organisation is one that never admits it is wrong and bases its opinions on its own bias rather than factual information.

[LeadSled]

I would think that a dysfunctional organisation is one that never admits it is wrong and bases its opinions on its own bias rather than factual information.
Folks,
Lookleft has excelled himself, a nigh on perfect description of dysfunctional CASA, and here we all thought he was just a CASAkisser and apologist.
Tootle pip!!

PS: The above is a rare (the only) example of Lookleft actually addressing the issue, rather than ignore inconvenient truths.

[aroa]

Yep LL you got it !!
CAsA IS a dysfunctional (dis) 'organisation' that never admits it is wrong...and proves that by covering up and hiding the wrongs ( serious criminality) of its employees.
And having suffered their bullsh*t and bias, I know about that as well.
Nothing to see here, just a minor 'code' breach.!

From some of the paperwork I have gathered under FOI..or more to the point CAsAs NON FOI...to make life difficult and continue the cover up...I can assure you there truly are some people with the high ranks of CAsA that should be certified. The Loonies really are in charge of their asylum.!

[Lookleft]

Well WJRH FIGJAM you and aroa have completely lost the irony of my comment. I was referring to Sunfish. Let me try and explain in clear and simple terms that men of your advanced age might understand. Your rants against CASA show the same propensity to never admit you are wrong and you base your opinions on your own bias rather than factual information. The very thing you accuse CASA of is what you do page in and page out of Pprune. It may come as a surprise to you but I have never stated that CASA is a well run organisation that is fault free. I have restated what ICAO has published about CASA and taken at face value what people like Clare Prop, Eddie Dean and the President of the AHIA have put forward in public forums. What I do is contrast their viewpoint with the vehement hysteria of your posts. I also like to point out the "line shooter" aspect of your rants. Your aviation memory goes back a long way Bill. I imagine that you would even have flown with the wartime pilots who would have had an equal disdain of the "line shooter".

I'm not the only one who thinks that. This from Pprune 2003:

bill is past his use by date and should stand back and let others that are just as well versed on the matters he believes he is the only expert on get on with the job

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

OK that's enough