General Aviation industry: 18 months left

[Horatio Leafblower]

I ran into the HOO of a major flying school today. I gave him his first job 15 years ago and it's been a pleasure to watch him move forward in his career.

He has just been through the Part 142 wringer with CASA and he has had enough - he has quit.

He has quit instructing and he will let his instructor rating lapse, and his Flight Examiner Rating with it. This alone is a major loss of experience and expertise to the GA sector.
He lays the blame squarely at CASA's feet for the industry's demise and he left me with his prediction:

"I reckon GA has about 18 months left before it collapses completely"

[Dick Smith]

It’s sad That’s why I advise people to get out before they lose everything.

The minister has made it clear that he supports the Iron Rings delusion that “the most important consideration must be safety”

Until that lie is corrected the one way ratchet of increased costs will go on.

Only on full collapse of the GA industry will the changes be made.

[Clare Prop]

I have a Part 141 certificate hanging on the wall that cost me nothing. I have always written and updated my own manuals so nothing new there.
Plenty of work coming in, much more than in recent years.

I know people here only like to hear the doom and gloom but at the moment things are on the up and up.
I'm speaking from 25 years experience of running a GA business but expect a select few people on here who have never run a flying training organisation in their lives will tell me I don't know what I'm talking about!
As I have said ad nauseam, it is things like privatised airports, competition from RA-Aus, interference from amateur special interest groups and Fee Help rorts that have caused a lot more damage.
I've also worked in other industries where the regulatory and accreditation authorities are far more onerous than CASA, you just have to deal with it.
If your friend has quit instructing that is a shame but 142 was always going to be hard to get. One of the local airline cadet schools is operating perfectly well on a 141 certificate.
.

[Lead Balloon]

All of which prompts the question: What does the Part 141 certificate therefore represent in substance? What is it that you are now doing, or doing better, that you would otherwise not have done, to the detriment of aviation safety, but for the Part 141 certification process?

[601]

I have a Part 141 certificate hanging on the wall that cost me nothing. I have always written and updated my own manuals

So what hourly rate do you charge yourself out at?
The cost of that Part 141 Certificate is your hourly rate by the number of hours that you spent writing and updating your manuals.
Nothing cost nothing.

[Dick Smith]

Clare Prop Have you made a small fortune or just wages?

[Clare Prop]

Lead balloon, There is no change to my operations compared to when I held an AOC.

601, Being self employed, the rate I charge myself out at would only apply if it was an opportunity cost eg time I could have spent charging myself out as an instructor or examiner, which it wasn't; that is limited by CAO 48 anyway; it was part of the general administration that is involved with running any small business, manuals need to be audited and updated regularly anyway.

Dick, our definitions of a fortune probably differ considerably; I have worked very hard for many years to become a comfortable, debt free working director with a fleet of aircraft, great lifestyle and a happy home, that's all I need.

[Oakape]

I have worked very hard for many years to become a comfortable, debt free working director with a fleet of aircraft, great lifestyle and a happy home, that's all I need.

That’s really all anyone needs. Pity most of the world doesn’t share that opinion. Well done. I wish I could say the same or similar, but am working towards it. I would have been there already if I had been smarter in my younger days.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Clare Prop
I agree with you here:
it is things like privatised airports, competition from RA-Aus, interference from amateur special interest groups and Fee Help rorts that have caused a lot more damage.

...however I feel that the rest of your argument is "I'm OK so there's nothing wrong"

[Okihara]

[...] competition from RA-Aus [...]

Wouldn't RA also be an opportunity for GA?

Disclaimer: I'm not running any kind of GA operation but my school runs GA and RAAus tracks in parallel and while I'm in GA, I often sneak a peek at the trip sheets of RA aircraft. Their fleet is quite uniform with identical aircraft registered in both GA and RA. My observation is: many (most likely a majority) of new students start their training in RA and transition to GA. The flight time on some of their aircraft over the last 12 months is simply through the roof. Obviously they're doing very, very well.

I believe that the key to their successful operation indeed lies in their dual GA/RA tracks and their fleet of cheaper [to operate and hire] two-seaters for early training.

I don't know what your specifics are but you seem to be doing well too. With electric training aircraft just on the horizon I'd say that the future isn't that bleak actually.

[Horatio Leafblower]

My observation is: many (most likely a majority) of new students start their training in RA and transition to GA.
That may be true for the school you are training at ( I am guessing it is a biggish one at YMMB and YSBK) but we operate schools at 3 locations with RAAus schools competing at each.
People seem to pick their camp, and stay there.
On the RAAus thing... can anyone tell me why RAAus exists as a pseudo-regulatory body at all?
Can you show me another country that has followed this path?
With most LSAs retailing for $120-150k, what is the cost of capital to operate a fleet of A22s vs a fleet of (older) PA28s?
What is the annual cost of registering a RAAus aircraft vs a VH aircraft?
What is the pay rate in RAAus vs a VH flying school?

[Lookleft]

Its a shame that anybody has to defend their success and justify why they don't have a problem with getting on with the regulator. If HB's former student is correct and people like CP have to exit the industry then it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the doomsday prophets.

[Xeptu]

Forgive me for this question, I havn't had my finger on the pulse for some time now. Why would a Part 141 Flying School want to transition to Part 142

[Horatio Leafblower]

Why would a Part 141 Flying School want to transition to Part 142
There are several things to add;
- Integrated CPL and PPL training;
- Multi-Crew Coordination;
- Type Rating training; and
- Contract Check & training.

...but the school in question was a large Integrated CPL type school and they went straight to Part 142 from their old AOC.

[bolthead]

From the outside looking in, it appears each organisation has to start with a blank sheet of paper, and re-invent the wheel. Many thousands of dollars later......Why?

[LeadSled]

That may be true for the school you are training at ( I am guessing it is a biggish one at YMMB and YSBK) but we operate schools at 3 locations with RAAus schools competing at each.
People seem to pick their camp, and stay there.
On the RAAus thing... can anyone tell me why RAAus exists as a pseudo-regulatory body at all?
Can you show me another country that has followed this path?
With most LSAs retailing for $120-150k, what is the cost of capital to operate a fleet of A22s vs a fleet of (older) PA28s?
What is the annual cost of registering a RAAus aircraft vs a VH aircraft?
What is the pay rate in RAAus vs a VH flying school?

Horatio,
Give me a call some time, I will explain the history of RAOz and ALL the OTHER similar aviation bodies in AU, and the other countries, like the UK, who have something similar.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Its a shame that anybody has to defend their success and justify why they don't have a problem with getting on with the regulator. If HB's former student is correct and people like CP have to exit the industry then it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the doomsday prophets.

Lookleft,
It may well be, but it is not the norm, except to those who have never suffered CASA in full on combat mode.
If things are so peachy, explain why we have had so many inquiries into CASA and its predecessors.
Tootle pip!!

[Clare Prop]

Clare Prop
I agree with you here:


...however I feel that the rest of your argument is "I'm OK so there's nothing wrong"

I can only talk from my own experience. I guess my previous experience flying overseas where these systems were already in place and writing ISO manuals has helped
There are some new start-up schools here at Jandakot, something that hasn't happened for a long time.
Yet high profile people creating an investment risk with hysterical headlines saying we are all "rooned" or being sold out to the Chinese is NOT helpful or true.
Bolthead, there was no need to start from scratch, as long as manuals had been regularly updated it was really just a formatting exercise.

[Aussie Bob]

I am with Clare Prop here. I run a one man band Part 141 flying school. Business is as busy as I need, there is room for expansion and CASA have been highly supportive. I didn't write my operations manual, CASA did. It took me just 6 weeks and $2500 from nothing to operational.

What is sad in this industry is the same as what is sad in other industries I have been involved in, that is unnecessary and cumbersome, hard to read garbage legislation coupled with folk that think we need more of it. I bypass this problem by reading as little of the rule books as I can get away with. The other problem is do-gooders who think my safety is their problem.

[Lead Balloon]

My question to Clare:
What is it that you are now doing, or doing better, that you would otherwise not have done, to the detriment of aviation safety, but for the Part 141 certification process?Clare’s answer was:There is no change to my operations compared to when I held an AOC.Aussie Bob said:I didn't write my operations manual, CASA did. Whilst I’m sure there are many people who put a very low price on their time and many people who can tolerate pointless bureaucracy, many other cannot. More importantly: Objectively assessed, these examples show how much of the aviation ‘safety’ certification process has no causal connection with safety.

[Clare Prop]

Safety is a culture within a business. No amount of paperwork will stop a shonk being shonky.

CASA produced a 141 manual template. In my case it was just a case of some reformatting and changing some references, there was no change to the day to day operations or any need to pay someone else to do it. I could do very nicely writing manuals for other people, but why help the competition? This is part of my job as CEO and HOO.

Compared to writing manuals for labs in the fresh food industry with compliance with government regulations as well as accreditations such as ISO and NATA plus dealing with unions, HR etc it was very simple. I did some amendments last week and CASA had approved them the following day.

My business model, based on my qualifications and experience in agricultural and food industry production, compliance and retail has worked for me in my own small business. .Flying businesses fail for the same reason as other businesses; woeful, incompetent management, inability to adapt to changing market forces and regulatory structures and massive, unnecessary overheads. Not regulations. Nanny Australia will always heavily regulate things, it is part of living in a Western country.

People going to the media scaring the horses, particularly about training overseas students, doesn't help but a strong business can continue to thrive. In fact I have just started recruiting instructors for the first time in years.

Aviation isn't "special", there are onerous requirements in most Australian industries. You just have to stay ahead of the game.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just a couple of examples of wholesale bastardy that has nothing to do with "air safety".

(1) The local council changed some street addresses from Lot No. XX etc to Street No.XX etc. One address involved was an MRO, because of the "change of place of business", ie; Lot No became Street No. the MRO was required to completely reapply for all approvals, "re-calibration of all tooling" etc., the total cost was in excess of $20,000 plus business disruption. This did not include replacement of tooling that CASA now found to be "too old". Perfectly serviceable and meeting current specification, just "too old".

(2) Different state and MRO, CASA "directed" that standard category C.of A aircraft could not be maintained in the same hangar as non-standard category C.of A aircraft, ie: RAOz, a couple of "warbirds", and a "Experiment test and development" aircraft, a new type. All supposedly to do with control of "bogus parts", also a favorite of an adjoining region.

(3) Very early applicant for a Part 141 --- $18,000 and about two years later, the proposed operator, a highly experienced instructor who had been running a school on the site as CFI for some years, gave it away. The existing manuals were re-written multiple times, but always something more required.

I could write pages on what has been done to small charter operators to drive them out of business, including one regional office refusing to recognise ATO approvals and similar from another region, or making short term leasing of a replacement aircraft during (say) a Cessna undergoing SID work time and cost impossible.

I will not go into detail, but I could, of something similar to Clare Prop., things ran along for years, to the degree that the owner was a great supporter of CASA versus industry criticism. All the others "must have been guilty of something" "no smoke without fire" etc. Then a couple of CASA long term "good guys" retired, to be replaced by several of the industry's rejects. The "new" CASA damned near ran the company out of business, if the company proprietor had been entirely dependent on company cash flow, it would have gone belly up.

The problems of CASA v. Aviation is not "CASA v a few disgruntled and incompetent threats to aviation safety", it is a genuine, longstanding and ongoing problem, including an increasingly monstrous and unworkable regulatory system, the like of which is unknown anywhere else.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Clare Prop,
Many of us have experience in other areas, in my case pastoral, transport, heavy construction and mining. None have come close to CASA as being actively anti the industry sector. And it ain't just GA, I could tell you stories from the AU airline world that are just the same, except for the bill, where seven figure runs up pretty quickly.

[Clare Prop]

To be clear, I am not a "great supporter" of CASA, I just keep my powder dry.

I have seen plenty of examples of CASA bastardry and also how some shonky operators have got away with all sorts with a wink and a nod while others are torn to shreds. Some of the FOIs are woefully incompetent, nasty little empire builders and yes, industry rejects.

I have been "strongly encouraged to apply" for an FOI position many times, but life is too short and precious to me, I am not an industry reject and no way would I do that job despite the mind boggling salary package, which as an industry professional and taxpayer makes me pretty angry as I don't know one of them worth a fraction of it..

I am no fan of CASA.

[Sunfish]

it's the regulatory risk premium which will kill GA. Nobody can invest safely because the behavior of the regulator is uncertain. The other sources of risk are sovereign risk and business risk. The former is negligible in Australia the latter can be managed. However nobody can manage CASA risk.

[LeadSled]

However nobody can manage CASA risk.

Folks,
Some little time back, a well known merchant bank (who would not want to be identified) did an interesting comparison of AU v. NZ, and the major identified cost difference was CASA v. NZ CAA and its reformed rules, with the regulatory risk of CASA, on top of the cost differences identified, sealing the decision to not further invest in the relevant area under study, or any other aspect of Australian aviation.

By comparison, all other matters such as OHS showed negligible differences.

In short summary a D check (for want of a better name) of a B737-400 per Boeing was about 40% cheaper in cash costs in NZ, excluding the much reduced turnaround time.

The raw labor cost/hourly rate accounted for about 8%, way offset by the turnaround time.

Recently updated, the difference is now approximately 50%, with the raw labor rate difference reduced to less than 5%.

Most of us know the "why" of a brand new B787 left sitting on the ground for weeks, and as I have posted elsewhere, but it never produces any reaction, there is a reason why QANTAS' major capital investment in MRO has been the hangar in Los Angeles.

I have had figures put to me, and I believe them, that CASA initiates more regulatory compliance/enforcement actions in Australia annually, than does the FAA. Does anybody think the reason is that FAA are slack? Given the relative size if the sectors, USA v. AU, this distortion alone boggles the mind.

Anybody who doesn't believe that CASA has played the dominant role in the contraction/destruction of the aviation sector in Australia (not just GA) is terminally delusional.

Tootle pip!!

[Squawk7700]

If you’re talking about students at Soar, then of course they are going to go from RAA to GA as that the sausage factory syllabus that they are running there!

[poteroo]

I'm a very ancient GA G1 and a RAAus CFI and Examiner, working perhaps 3 days per week / 300 hrs pa. My RAAus school operates essentially 'back-to-back' with a GA school. The CFI of that is also RAAus, and I help out at that 141 school. We share our FR, (ATO), costs and generally co-operate well in things like supervising student flying, and oversight of schools for temporary absences. Both schools have seen an increase in new starts in 2018. About half of the RAAus students go on to the GA school and transition to their RPL on a C172, and several have purchased aircraft later - from Jabs to RVs to a Mooney. A trickle of older PPLs have obtained their RAAus PC. I know that the GA CFI has had her moments with the paperwork, but then, so have I with the ever increasing flow of stuff out of RAAus! Our 'regulators' have certainly not attempted to simplify things, and I concur with Clare Props' comment about having to do a heap of essentially 'unpaid' work yourself. We'd go broke trying to sub it out! I think we're a long way from going guts up as an industry, but can see a problem looming with younger pilots bypassing instruction for an airline career. Why? I submit it's about lack of a career path and a living income. happy days,

[Lookleft]

No problems with getting into the airlines with instructing hours, in fact they look favorably on them. It hasn't always been the case.