Get out of aviation now – further important information

[Dick Smith]

It looks as if Warnervale Airport has now followed Gympie. As many know, you cannot land at Gympie without prior approval. That is, if you are flying up the coast and you decide to land there to spend money in the town, that is not possible unless you can get in contact with the Council and get your approval.

I don’t know if it has been reported on PPRuNe before that Warnervale has now followed. The ERSA now states for Warnervale:

“PPR required via ARO Central Coast Council, email: [email protected] or urgent requests via Ph: 02 4392 4741 (0730-1500 LMT).”

In fact it is worse than that. Here are parts of a recent email from the Council to a pilot:

"It is highly unusual to process a landing request at this short notice, due to the Warnervale Airport Restrictions act we need to actively manage the scheduling of all movements. As per conversation earlier today with Airport Manager Peter Stockdale future requests without 24 hours' notice will not be approved.”

Of course there is nothing in the Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act that says 24 hours' notice has to be applied. This is clearly just the sheer bastardry of the bureaucrats in the Council either intentionally or unintentionally destroying general aviation in their area, and jobs for their own children and grandchildren. In fact, the Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act makes it absolutely clear that when there are safety considerations, a pilot can simply land – but of course this is not mentioned in the ERSA. I’m sure the Council has intentionally left that out.

Let’s say there is a young family flying south, with strong southerly winds blowing. They decide that now there is no north/south runway at Bankstown, for precautionary safety purposes they will land at Warnervale. Aha! They look at the ERSA - “Prior Permission Required” - and presumably fly on and take the risk of landing with an excessive crosswind.

It is all so sad. I see it happening more and more. That is why my advice to everyone is to get out of aviation now before you lose everything.

There could possibly be one hope, which is that Clive Palmer gets in and brings in the type of disruption that has happened in the United States.

In the meantime, I suggest everyone stays completely clear of Warnervale. Don’t spend any money there, don’t stay there, tell all your friends to keep away from the place. There are plenty of fantastic, friendly, country airports that welcome pilots and passengers.

Can you imagine if the Council put up a sign on the M1 Pacific Motorway stating “24 hours prior approval required to shop at Warnervale. Please email the Council.” Now that would be dopey.

[flypy]

The fact that you think there are young families getting around in light aircraft is fanciful but nice attempt to pull on the heart strings.

It's a private asset managed by organisations that are increasingly acting like for profit corporations. Who's surprised?

[Dick Smith]

Come on. What private company operates like this?

Do Westfield demand 24 hour prior approval to drive into one of their shopping centre car parks?

[flypy]

But that's a profitable asset. An airfield the size of Warner ale surely is not profitable in and of itself. I'd imagine some regional councils would be glad to be rid of their aeronautical responsibility. They certainly wouldn't go building a new one now in most parts of the country.

[Okihara]

I know, it makes you wonder what kind of people flock to that industry.

Who's ever been denied landing (provided it was asked nicely) by the way?

@Dick: Do you think PPR would carry much weight in stress of weather?

Speaking of which: thanks again to the AD OPR at YMBD for kindly letting us land there at such short notice!

[LeadSled]

It's a private asset managed by organisations that are increasingly acting like for profit corporations. Who's surprised?

Flypy,
" a private asset" --Is that so, I thought it was owned and managed by the local council??

Unless you believe the property of any council is "private property" --- and the public good does not feature when it comes to local road, parks and the like.

A string of state legislation as long as your arm suggests otherwise.

The real issue at Warnervale is, and has always been, who profits from real estate development, short term direct and indirect profits trump long term need of the community, particularly in NSW, ":The First State for Sale" ( a suggested number plate for NSW vehicles).

Tootle pip!!

[MagnumPI]

Warnervale Airport is owned by the Central Coast Council. The Central Coast Aero Club (which owns Warnervale Air, the flying school and engineering facility) has nothing to do with the draconian landing fee structure or airfield management.

That is all I can say publicly...

[Car RAMROD]

That is why my advice to everyone is to get out of aviation now before you lose everything.
.

But then we’d be out of a job, not getting paid and therefore unable to repay loans. Lose our houses etc.

Or have to go and change careers at a late stage and have to work our way up from the bottom again.

Yeah, great advice.


As for the young family.
The horror. The horror!

[zanthrus]

**** them! Land anywhere you like or have to. There is nothing they can do to stop you.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Yes there is. They can close the place. Then **** you!

[Capt Fathom]

They can close the place. Then **** you!
Well that’s their lost then!

[Bull at a Gate]

As is increasingly the case Dick does not tell the whole story. Have a look at section 7 of the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act which deals with “Emergencies”. The family flying south to whom Dick refers would have no trouble landing in the circumstances he describes.

[RatsoreA]

**** them! Land anywhere you like or have to. There is nothing they can do to stop you.


YES!!!! Add my vote for this idea. Civil disobedience isn’t such a bad thing...

I like the quote by Thomas Jefferson "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

[aroa]

Dick...maybe yr sign idea is not such a silly. idea
One on the roads to Warnervale warning motorists that 24 hrs Prior Permission Required to enter town will be instituted shortly because it already has been at the airport.
In the name of equity and non discrimination of Council road and runways users , who all pay rates , it has to happen.
What ..discrimination? Cant have that.!

Is it in the water at Warnervale as in Gympie from the Mary River, or does the idiot virus just infect some councillors and bureaurats.
The more this sort of thing occurs , the closer we will get to a revolution.
Bring it on !

[Dick Smith]

Bull. The family would not know the fine print of the act.

The ERS does not explain in any way the point you have stated.

Blame the the Minister and the National Party. They clearly do nothing to encourage country councils to be pro GA.

I wonder what Clive would do?

[Clare Prop]

Sounds like it is the NIMBYs https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2018/12/warnervale-airport-restrictions-legislation-needs-to-be-seen-in-context/

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It's the same case with many council airports now listing in ERSA that the grass portion of the runway (that's required to be suitable for ground run of aircraft under the MOS for Part 139) is not to be used for aircraft operations.
I guess that's because, strangely enough, councils would prefer that pilots use the (from the MOS)

Runway
A defined rectangular area on a land aerodrome prepared for the landing and take-off of aircraft.

for landing and take off, because it is built for it, rather than the

Runway strip
A defined area including the runway and stopway, if provided, intended:

1. to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft running off a runway; and

2. to protect aircraft flying over it during take-off or landing operations.

which is not. Yes, the Runway Strip is suitable for the ground run of an aircraft to the extent that it reduces damage, not prevents it, however the surface standards are less stringent than a Runway, as you are only meant to be on it if you have run off the Runway (as per the definition), which I guess required explaining the runway excursion you had just experienced to the ARO in the first place. Electing to later take off in weather conditions that precluded you from using the actual runway? Safer?
Also, how did you know that the ground under the grass was safe to land on? There are no bearing strengths dictated for Runway Strips. What if you had left deep ruts in the strip, which the Aerodrome operator then has to repair, or got bogged within the Runway strip and closed the Aerodrome until you could be extricated? What if you had hit a soft spot on takeoff that retarded your acceleration and compromised your takeoff? What if you hit the PAPI boxes or TVASIS boxes in the grass that you missed seeing over the nose of your tail dragger?

[Vag277]

See MOS 139 Table 6.2-4A Could be quire expensive to use runway strip that has not been prepared for normal operations. Nibbles is wrong.

[Fieldmouse]

What's the penalty for failing to receive prior permission and just landing there anyway? Play the old safety case back at them if they ask and carry on landing there.

It's the same case with many council airports now listing in ERSA that the grass portion of the runway (that's required to be suitable for ground run of aircraft under the MOS for Part 139) is not to be used for aircraft operations. I landed a taildragger on one such aerodrome in a stiff crosswind and made my case to the ARO who questioned me, told him it was an operational decision in the name of safety and that I'd be using it again for takeoff once I'd had a bite to eat in town and bought some fuel. Never heard any more about it.

You aren't going to like the new Mos 139 Para 6.24 :
If an aerodrome operator prepares a runway strip and makes it available for take-offs and landings, information to that effect and any associated limitations must be provided to the AIS provider for publication in AIP-ERSA.

So very soon, if it isn't declared in ERSA, it isn't available for landing. Keep your insurances up to date for when you ground loop.

[Squawk7700]

Less than 10 years ago, I was invited to land at a private strip by someone that wasn’t authorized to give permission for me to do so. I was waved off and did not land or get below 200ft. The person that was actually authorised to give permission took a photo of my aircraft in the air, called CASA and I was staring down the barrel of 50 points penalty. I only got away with it once I gave CASA the name of the person that gave their permission.

It all escalated very quickly and was somewhat stressful. I was guilty until I proved my innocence.

The moral of the story... get permission in writing!

[mostlytossas]

Of equal concern is anyone promoting CLIVE!!!! Up Queensland way I believe he is real popular.....not.
Dick asks what Clive would do? I can answer that for you....Nothing. Just like last time, if he gets back into parliament (very doubtful thank god ) his party will soon self destruct with competing egos.
Total waste of space and a crook to go with it IMHO.
Regardless of what ever side of politics you lean the opinion polls point to a change of government coming by a large majority.
Minor parties will have no influence at all. Not saying that is a good or bad thing but just the likely outcome.

[LeadSled]

As is increasingly the case Dick does not tell the whole story. Have a look at section 7 of the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act which deals with “Emergencies”. The family flying south to whom Dick refers would have no trouble landing in the circumstances he describes.






Bull at a Gate,
Quite so, the first thing I would do in an emergency in the area is pull out "my copy" the the NSW legislation, Warnervale Airport (Restriction) Act 1996, ( you all carry one in your flight bag, of course) amended, and check if I can "legally" land.
We all know, compliance with "the rules" ensures air safety!!
Indeed, the new Part 91 reinforces the concept, compared with the sloppy old rules that ICAO states around the world have existed with, and continue to "Labor".
Tootle pip!!

From said Act. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/waa1996n57404.pdfPart 2 Restrictions on aircraft movements
4
Application of Part
(1) This Part does not apply to take offs and landings of aircraft at Warnervale Airport on an existing runway.
(2) An existing runway is a runway that was constructed before the commencement of this section and that is not extended at any time after the commencement of this section.

[LeadSled]

Sounds like it is the NIMBYs https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2018/12/warnervale-airport-restrictions-legislation-needs-to-be-seen-in-context/

Clare Prop,

If you had an original signed copy of "The Big Picture", you would find that the major background issue is VBDs**, like so many things in "NSW, The State For Sale", the above is about an individual skirmish.
Tootle pip!!

** VBD - Very Big Developer

[Car RAMROD]

And why is Warnervale the only option. I’m sure there’s others.

Dick, please stop with the scare tactics.

[LeadSled]

And why is Warnervale the only option. I’m sure there’s others.

Dick, please stop with the scare tactics.


RAMROD,
Given the weather patterns in the area (you must be from somewhere else), the options for VFR are very limited by both "standard weather" and the local vertical scenery.
This is my home territory, I know it all too well.
I am not, for one moment, suggesting this is a scare tactic, but the local council improperly using this legislation of "other purposes".
Tootle pip!!

[Urshtnme]

Let's be honest, this isn't a hard thing. I've landed at Warnervale on several occasions in the past and there's very good chance that I'll be there again in the future.

How to deal with this circumstance.

Knowing that I need to land at Warnervale 24hrs or more from the time of landing, email them (and hope I get a response in a timely fashion)
Knowing that I have to land at Warnervale within 24hrs, call the number in ERSA with the specified request.
I'm airborne and had a last minute call to land at Warnervale. It's unavailable, go elsewhere e.g Cessnock.
I'm having an emergency and need to land, Warnervale is closest. I'm landing at Warnervale.

This doesn't seem too challenging to me, it's all circumstantial and I wouldn't pull out of aviation just for that.

[Vag277]

Fieldmouse
You like Nibbles are wrong. The runway strip is not required to be prepared for normal operations. See the previous reference to MOS 139 Table 6.2-4. The purpose of the MOS change is to ensure that where it is so prepared, pilots are given that information. People also need to understand that if the aerodrome is shown in ERSA as UNCR it is not required to conform to Part 139.

[Possum1]

As far as Gympie is concerned, just fill in the form on the council's website and send it off and the long-term ARO there, JB, will email you back in 2-3 days, a 12 month authorisation to land there as required. No landing fees yet...

[YPJT]

Rather an interesting layout of unserviceability cones along the runway strip. https://coastcommunitynews.com.au/central-coast/news/2018/12/warnervale-airport-restrictions-legislation-needs-to-be-seen-in-context/ WTF are they there for?

[Fieldmouse]

YPJT,
Just guessing, but with no access to the NOTAM system and users who regularly land on the strip I'm thinking soft -wet or WIP may need the cones out there, especially when ERSA notes 'vacate the runway as soon as practicable'

[YPJT]

G'day Fieldmouse,
if they are landing on the RWS and it has been approved for that purpose it then it is an unsealed runway and should to be marked with small white cones. On the other hand, if a portion of the RWS is unserviceable for whatever reason, then the adjacent section of the sealed runway is also not available.
Looks like whoever is running that show doesn't really know what they are doing. That marker layout is garbage.

[Fieldmouse]

Agree the RWS should be marked if it's designated for use, but it's been a long time since RWS surface condition affected the serviceability of a sealed runway.
10.2.8.1 unless I'm wrong. Jesus most runways would be closed every time it rained in these parts.

[Dick Smith]

Ursh. That’s just the problem. Now you can’t call within 24 hours. Look again at my first post.

Ayers Rock airport started this prior notice caper and more and more little hitlers will follow. It’s all about control and taking away freedoms

Don’t complain when the number of aircraft owners drops even further and then costs get higher.

[Nulli Secundus]

What a shame such a successful name in Australian business has now become so conflicted and counterproductive.

But why so bitter and destructive? As for any industry body, if you really want to drive away members and destroy any possibility of selling your businesses as going concerns, inviting a despondent, defeatist Dick Smith to articulate his views at your next forum will be the best advice you will ever hear.

Don't forget: Dick Smith wants to see everyone out of general aviation, but he's decided he's staying in! Or, put another way, do as I say, but not as I do. Or put another way, my significant wealth means the impacts of a declining industry will have a very insignificant impact on my personal way life, thus whatever contribution I make to that decline will not affect me in any great way. Now if you're not a person or business of means and you depend on a flourishing, vibrant GA industry just watch how significant these destructive words will be on your personal way of life.

Be honest, we've all met someone like this in our lives. Do you still hold them in great esteem? Maybe you never did.

[Dick Smith]

No. Not conflicted- just telling the truth.

The quicker the destruction occurs the quicker the fix will be started.

Also I get lots of requests for advice on how to make a dollar in GA.

At the present time time I don’t want to lead people on so they lose even more money.

I say get out before you lose everything if you are running a GA business.

Of course if you are a private aviator of substantial means you will not be at risk.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

That picture is taken looking towards the displaced threshold of 20. The runway is being resurfaced. You can see the dotted out markings for repainting the centre line or the white arrows pointing to the DISP THRES. They must be using the "not available" part of the runway as a taxiway. You can see the gable markers running across the end of the RWY Strip further up. The U/S cones are marking areas inside parts of a temporary (or permanent ?) taxiway strip, so they are fine where and how they are.

[Nulli Secundus]

Really?

You could drive an airbus through Dick Smith's contorted positions. A whole industry must be destroyed for it to be fixed? If you Dick Smith, won't help fix a going concern, how could you ever be considered as part of a (fanciful) resurrection? What makes your views so substantially irrelevant is the risk from a decaying GA industry applies equally to everyone, regardless of a private aviator's personal means. With great concern, the message which continues to elude you is that while risk is equal for all, personal impact is not. Your wealth allows you to purchase the luxury of a vocalised defeatism, knowingly comforted that the impact in your personal life will be insignificant. What are the effects of your actions for others? Those not of significant means? Will not your defeatism exacerbate the challenges facing those striving with vision for the greater future in Australian GA?

Now back to the airbus. Not even at top of climb and it has to be asked: surely you don't, Dick Smith, propose operators just close their doors, walk away from their staff and businesses in order to get out of the industry. Many will have debt. Banks don't walk away just because you have.

So let us hear how you would actually counsel a business owner to leave this industry? For example, do you propose they sell out as a going concern? declare bankruptcy due debt? or simply just close down? Please put people's minds at ease with your so-far missing details of how people should take your advice and turn that into action, after all, you are clearly calling for action. What are the specific steps operators should take to get out of the industry? How long would you estimate it will take for us to completely destroy the industry and thereafter how long will it be before the fix-up phase is complete? Will it be quite difficult to attract finance in the planned fix-up phase as financial institutions realise the industry doesn't exist as its been totally destroyed? Do you envisage those who destroyed the industry will also need to seek finance to fix the industry and would you foresee any associated problems in that circumstance?

[Andy_RR]

Dick, out of interest, would you recommend anyone starting a business to do anything in Australia these days? That is, a business that doesn't involve servicing a government demand for something...

[Dick Smith]

Andy RR, yes I would certainly recommend that people get into most forms of business in Australia today. I have operated three profitable businesses in my time – electronics manufacturing (then importing after Whitlam took off the protective tariffs), retailing and servicing, then magazine publishing, then food retailing. In each of these businesses there has been no Government over-regulation to stifle the viability of the operating business.

From my experience, there are literally hundreds of different businesses that people can get involved in and still make a small fortune – if not a large one.

Aviation should be one of them, but because those in the bureaucracy have been able to promote “the lie” that in aviation alone, safety comes before cost. That has prevented businesses from being viable. Yes, if you have tens of millions of passengers like the Airlines do you could hand on the costs caused by needless over-regulation and they are hardly noticed by the individual passenger. However in the general aviation industry, they are noticed – so much so that in many cases, the business is sent into bankruptcy.

Aviation could be the same – once we get the Act changed, there will be a real message that the bureaucrats have to comply. We will then be able to look around the world and copy the regulations which give the highest level of safety while retaining viable general aviation businesses.

It is possible. In fact, what the bureaucrats are doing now will work in reverse. As the businesses head towards bankruptcy they will become less safe. It has happened before. It will just be history repeating itself.

My advice in relation to getting out of the industry is totally genuine. I am very concerned about a number of people I know who are holding in there, hoping that things are going to get better, but if that doesn’t happen, they will lose far more in the future than they will lose if they close down now.

I am also pretty well convinced that we will need an almost complete collapse of the general aviation charter and training industries before anything will be done. That is why I say let’s get it to happen quickly so we can get the fix in quickly.

That is, remove these cargo cult people who have a type of religious faith that aviation can be different to everything else in life. One day it will happen. The quicker it does, the quicker the fix will be and we can start employing tens of thousands of people again in aviation and having the whole industry growing.

[LeadSled]

RAMROD,
Given the weather patterns in the area (you must be from somewhere else), the options for VFR are very limited by both "standard weather" and the local vertical scenery.
This is my home territory, I know it all too well.
I am not, for one moment, suggesting this is a scare tactic, but the local council improperly using this legislation of "other purposes".
Tootle pip!!

Folks,
Interesting, none of you wants to take up the point that the Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Act 1996 DOES NOT impose the limitations the council is claiming, it seems to me they are depending on nobody actually looking at the Act.
In short, they are seeking to blame "Macquarie Street" and the 1996 Act for arbitrary restrictions designed to discourage aviation activity at the site -- restrictions the Act does not impose.
Are those restrictions lawful --- have they been established by lawful council processes, as the restrictions are NOT imposed by the Act??
Tootle pip!!

[Nulli Secundus]

Dick Smith, it would be wise not to take the Australian GA community for fools. Since late 2015 your scheme to collapse the industry has been well broadcast and yet only last year did you actually admit your personal intention was in fact not to get out. And now again, the questions around the details remain unanswered. So let me put it to you again:

Please put people's minds at ease with your so-far missing details of how people should take your advice and turn that into action, after all, you are clearly calling for action. What are the specific steps operators should take to get out of the industry? How long would you estimate it will take for us to completely destroy the industry and thereafter how long will it be before the fix-up phase is complete? Will it be quite difficult to attract finance in the planned fix-up phase as financial institutions realise the industry doesn't exist as its been totally destroyed? Do you envisage those who destroyed the industry will also need to seek finance to fix the industry and would you foresee any associated problems in that circumstance?
Given all current operators have financial liabilities meaning many will need to file for bankruptcy following this mass voluntary closure, please answer how bankrupt former business owners will qualify for finance as they attempt to return to the restarted industry under your proposal?

Additionally, when ever, anywhere in the world, has an industry collectively agreed to collapse itself via mass, mutual business closures and thereafter successfully restarted itself? Please provide examples and say dates, names of prominent organisers and the before and after results. In the event you find yourself unable to substantiate your position by way of answers to these specific questions, would it not be understandable if the GA community came to regard you as simply headline grabbing and attention seeking? Would you thereupon also admit your views smash confidence in the GA industry and cause enormous anxiety for operators and their staff?

[Dick Smith]

Commercial GA operators ask me advice re how they can get CASA to see sense so that their businesses are not driven into bankruptcy.

For many years I gave advice on how I believed they needed to lobby to get CASA to accept that aviation was like everything else in life and had to operate on the principles of affordability to stay in business.

That plan has has clearly failed.

My advice to these people who are clearly struggling is to get out of the GA business before they lose everything.

In the past I suggested they try lobbying the minister to get the necessary change. Now I believe with the present people in power that is a waste of time.
Surely you have noticed that most of the population considers our political system has failed us.

Look at what has happened in the USA!

I confirm my advice. If you are a struggling GA business operator do everything you can to get out before you lose everything.

The people who control your future are bringing in even more expensive regulations and these will hasten your collapse.

[Sunfish]

Nulli Secundus, all Dick is saying is that things must get worse before they can get better. I happen to agree with him. In such a situation a prudent businessman should try to avoid being part of the inevitable collateral damage such a process will inflict.

[Bend alot]

I thought it was obvious to see the new trend. One Nation, The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, Jacqui Lambie, Palmer United Party then on an international level we have Brexit and Trump.

So while Clive may not be the most liked person in Townsville he has heavily put his side of the story there with claims the government is stopping him from reopening with several hundred million of his money - will they buy it? I do not know.

We have had Clive, we still have Katter and they would be at home sitting at a table with Trump.

Aviation in Australia is certainly going down hill, not helped by CAsA or the abuse of casualised labour reducing pay and conditions and not paying taxes. There are "independent contractors" that have not paid tax for more 10 years (this also means they are keeping the GST).

If these independent contractors work for Labour Hire Firms then the LHF should be collecting the PAYE tax from the "contractors" (check ATO website also there should be no GST component).

On the state level the LHF should be paying payroll tax as applicable.

So with the combination of tax "errors" the "contractor" and LHF end up with more cash in their pockets, and that results in offering a lower cost to the companies requiring labour - that are happy to slash unit costs.

[Nulli Secundus]

Dick Smith, you appear to struggle to substantiate the detail of your scheme. Please answer the questions. Is the industry really needing to hear your private discussions with struggling GA operators? No, the matter at hand is all about a mass exodus of operators in the GA sector. Your position was never conditional on whether the operator was struggling or not! Is it now the case that if you are not a struggling GA operator DO NOT LEAVE THE INDUSTRY! ?

I put it to you that subject to just a little scrutiny your views repeatedly alter. Your scheme's rolling conditionality is proportional to the scrutiny. Is it now time for the GA industry to see you as simply chasing a headline in an attempt to remain relevant based on fanciful broadcasts that even you cannot,as the idea promoter, provide any detail or maintain consistently?

Is it time to admit your views smash confidence in the GA industry and cause enormous anxiety for operators and their staff?

[LeadSled]

Dick Smith, you appear to struggle to substantiate the detail of your scheme.

I put it to you that subject to just a little scrutiny your views repeatedly alter. Your scheme's rolling conditionality is proportional to the scrutiny. Is it now time for the GA industry to see you as simply chasing a headline in an attempt to remain relevant based on fanciful broadcasts that even you cannot,as the idea promoter, provide any detail or maintain consistently?

Is it time to admit your views smash confidence in the GA industry and cause enormous anxiety for operators and their staff?

Nulli Secundus,
With the greatest of respect (which, for the comprehension impaired, I obviously don't mean) there is no "scheme", so the rest of your post is "tilting at windmills", about as productive as dealing with CASA and its unjustified "rules".
I assume you are not risking your own capital and resources in GA, otherwise your perspective would be somewhat different --- I know of NO small operator, and I personally know many, who would agree with you, many who "publicly" disagree with Dick privately agree with him.
About the only "GA" businesses that are doing well have government support of one form or another, particularly if they are "Charities".
Tootle pip!!

PS: Your handle will be particularly apt when there is no GA worth talking about to be second to>

[jonkster]

I recall that forever the standard maxim is if you want to make a small fortune in aviation... you know the rest

That is not to say conditions and environment at the moment aren't especially hard but I would always advise that if you want to get into aviation (as a career or business) you do it because you want to do it, not to make a lot of money.

Can't say I know of many people who made themselves millionaires (at least sustainable millionaires) in aviation in Oz. Even during the mythical 'golden years' when aviation was (supposedly) encouraged by government there were very few who made it rich in aviation (there would be a plethora during those times and after who went belly up though losing everything).

As for Dick's comments I take it as hyperbole rather than some sinister plot. I take them to mean he sees things as grim at the moment and something needs to be done or the industry is in peril.

My advice to people would be the same as always - get into GA with your eyes open and because you want to do it because you have a passion but be aware you are taking a substantial financial risk (as always because many GA businesses have launched and failed over decades) and at the moment there is a lot of turmoil in the industry.

I cannot see a golden age of aviation emerging even if the regulator and government got sensible but it sure could be better. I would be very happy if a good GA business, run well and with passion would be a viable and sustainable choice and under such conditions it would be easy to maintain the passion. That is what I would like to see happen. You shouldn't expect to make your fortune though**.

my 2c

** If you just want to make money, skip aviation, my advice would be - become a property developer. Look at airports around the country and start telling local councils how much money they could make/save and how many local jobs would arise if somehow the local aerodrome became an industrial park or retail centre. But get in quick 'cause I think there a lot of people starting to see that opportunity :(

[Sunfish]

The vision thing:

Where are the float plane services linking every inlet, lake, river and reservoir to the capital cities? Even Vietnam has something like that.

Where are the turbine helicopter businesses in every town ferrying tourists, hunters and hikers to and from the wilderness?

Where are the grass strips in parks with bush camping facilities​​​​​​?

Where are the airport cafes and restaurants doing a thriving fly in / fly out business?

Where are all the LAMES schools and aircraft hire services at every regional town?

Where are the aircraft friendly towns, communities and estates?

Where are all the regional charter operators running scenic flights as well as delivering tourists to outback destinations?.

Where is the economic growth, investment and jobs such an industry could provide?

Stuck up the anus that is Canberra.

[Bend alot]

There have been many and still are many GA companies that have made a good dollars out of aviation for extended periods.

The ones that then went bust were generally for four main reasons.
1) A CAsA delegate interpenetrates the legislation differently to all other delegates before him/her, and forces expensive complicated change on the company.
2) The legislation/rules change.
3) The accountants start to "control" the company.
4) CAsA have decided your time is up.

If I needed a 5th it would be a fatal crash triggered an avalanche within the company.

I personally know a few that have made several millions in General Aviation some recently sold, others still in the game.

Some even have been grounded for extended periods at great cost, yet bounced back enormous costs incurred by compliance and wages during the suspended services. This was done in a few ways, one by selling off company assets and I know one sold of some personal prime real-estate to keep the doors open.

There are two guys I know that started in GA made enough to sell an airline or most of it - for a good buck, I would not think RL & MB started with a large fortune but more like $20 and a tool box & Skyport pilot wage driving an old orange lancer from memory.

[Clare Prop]

From what I've seen over many years, GA operators close because of woeful management or lack of key personnel (woeful management) Words like "passion" and "dream" are a problem if they cloud sound business sense, keeping a close eye on overheads and margins and adapting accordingly, or in most cases just not keeping track of things at all or having an exit strategy or deliberately trading insolvent until the liquidator turns up.

I know of NO small operator, and I personally know many, who would agree with you

Well, one right here for a start.

One who has never contacted high profile strangers on the internet for business advice! One who values lifestyle over wealth.

2018 was a record breaking year for my GA company, 2019 looks to be even better, bankruptcy not an option as this business is debt free and owns all capital assets outright. I could walk away tomorrow, I chose not to, no third party will ever make that decision for me and certainly not a PPL holder on the internet. My super is largely in my aircraft so I do wish that people like DS would stop trying to devalue this industry, personnel and assets. You've made your pile and good on you now why not enjoy your retirement, show some respect to the professionals and let us get on with it?

[Sunfish]

Clare, I am led to believe your business operates at the whim of CASA - one adverse meeting with a CASA representative and your business is finished. CASA add a new component - regulatory risk, to the business equation as evidenced by the key finding of the Forsyth review - that industry doesn’t trust CASA.

To put that another way, your investment is not secure.

[Bend alot]

Generally aircraft as a Super fund is not a good move, because when a quick sale is required they are worth a fraction of what they are in good times. I have seen $180-$200K B58's being offered $50K.

They also cost money to maintain and park if not in use.

This with fixed calendar life items including engines and props and even a sudden AD (the C441 life caught a few out), make for a very high risk retirement portfolio.

[Clare Prop]

Might surprise you guys but I've been in business successfully for decades without taking advice from strangers on the internet :)

[CaptainMidnight]

Clare, I am led to believe your business operates at the whim of CASA - one adverse meeting with a CASA representative and your business is finished. CASA add a new component - regulatory risk, to the business equation as evidenced by the key finding of the Forsyth review - that industry doesn’t trust CASA.

You seem to have quite an obsession with CASA, based on this and previous posts on this forum.

What was your experience with them i.e. what did they do to you?

[Bend alot]

I recall a previous conversation with you Mr Prop and that was that you do not need to consider your time as a "award running cost" but at a discount. This seems to be to protect your Super investment being aircraft.

So you take less than the going rate for employment to fund depreciating assets.

Not saying that you are not successful but if you diversed you may be in a much better financial position both during working and in retirement - but the opposite can also apply.

But Mr Prop you seem very happy and that is all it is about at the end of the day, so yes indeed you are a success and well done.

[Bend alot]

You seem to have quite an obsession with CASA, based on this and previous posts on this forum.

What was your experience with them i.e. what did they do to you?
He is not the Lone Ranger!

I was told to do stuff that is against the regulations and have it in emails - do you have the cash to fight it? their "Legal Team" backed the person as they always do.

[Okihara]

Clare:

Might surprise you guys but I've been in business successfully for decades without taking advice from strangers on the internet https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Actually I do believe you.

2018 was a record breaking year for my GA company, 2019 looks to be even better, bankruptcy not an option as this business is debt free and owns all capital assets outright. I could walk away tomorrow, I chose not to, no third party will ever make that decision for me and certainly not a PPL holder on the internet. My super is largely in my aircraft so I do wish that people like DS would stop trying to devalue this industry, personnel and assets. You've made your pile and good on you now why not enjoy your retirement, show some respect to the professionals and let us get on with it?

You bet. 2019 looks awesome.

Take YMMB: those schools that make a comfortable profit are the ones that operate a fleet of aircraft that they happen to own. Those that thrive operate economical 2-seaters for ab-initio students and offer rates that are around $40-50/h cheaper than conventional 172s and PA28s while being more cost effective to operate, and they reinvest their earnings into, e.g. marketing and instructors who speak foreign languages such as Mandarin.

RA registered LSAs are netting between $60/h and $70/h when everything is paid for. Those who claim they can't make money with those figures should take a reality check. Moreover, flight instructors are mostly young, underpaid relative to other occupations requiring similar qualifications but highly passionate and out within 2 years when new recruits come in. As always, those that don't have the cash upfront end up paying a lot more for anything. The very same goes for students who can't afford to fly in their own aircraft.

With the Aussie ($) set for a weaker course on assumptions that RBA will cut rates in 2019, I'd bet my chips on an increase in foreign students coming to Australia for flight training.

[Clare Prop]

I recall a previous conversation with you Mr Prop and that was that you do not need to consider your time as a "award running cost" but at a discount. This seems to be to protect your Super investment being aircraft.

So you take less than the going rate for employment to fund depreciating assets.

Not saying that you are not successful but if you diversed you may be in a much better financial position both during working and in retirement - but the opposite can also apply.

But Mr Prop you seem very happy and that is all it is about at the end of the day, so yes indeed you are a success and well done.

Thank you, but it's Ms Prop! You do make a lot of assumptions!

[Bend alot]

My apology's Ms Prop.

Yes I do make lots of assumptions, and that is a requirement of life with a factor greater in fields such as aviation.

On a personal note I never intend to offend you.

[cattletruck]

Though it may appear Nulli has grabbed Dick by the balls (sorry) I think Nulli's taken his message too literally. Dick has his own style of raising public awareness which often involves a bit of controversy, which in this case is the GA end game. This is a common attention grabbing approach with many of our public figures, nothing more, nothing less. Taking it literally is very disingenuous when in this free country you have every right to completely ignore it and proceed as you were.

Sunny's post is brilliant, so much so that I would like to repeat it.
The vision thing:
Where are the float plane services linking every inlet, lake, river and reservoir to the capital cities? Even Vietnam has something like that.

Where are the turbine helicopter businesses in every town ferrying tourists, hunters and hikers to and from the wilderness?

Where are the grass strips in parks with bush camping facilities​​​​​​?

Where are the airport cafes and restaurants doing a thriving fly in / fly out business?

Where are all the LAMES schools and aircraft hire services at every regional town?

Where are the aircraft friendly towns, communities and estates?

Where are all the regional charter operators running scenic flights as well as delivering tourists to outback destinations?.

Where is the economic growth, investment and jobs such an industry could provide?

Stuck up the anus that is Canberra.
The first thing I thought of after reading it was New Zealand GA which doesn't have these issues.

I too also know of a couple of GA operators who have made a mint, only because when they started 30 years ago they purchased farms out in the sticks to fly home to after work. When GA deteriorated they were saved by the population explosion that made their farms suddenly worth many tens of millions of dollars.

There is an article in today's "The Age" about what qualifies you for automatic and free membership to Qantas's chairman's lounge - politicians and senior public servants are high on the list (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/senior-public-servants-with-exclusive-qantas-membership-defend-flights-20180711-p4zqur.html).

GA? What is that.

[Bend alot]

Interesting article CT

"In information given to the Senate committee, the agency reported Ms McNaughton had used $19,424 of travel with Qantas between July 1 2017 and May 24, and just $575 with Virgin in the same period. A spokesperson defended the spending based on the flexibility of travelling Qantas between Sydney and Canberra, with the lowest practical fare of the day, departure time, routing and connections also key considerations."

Qantas do run 20 departures on the day I checked compared to 10 for Virgin however there are a number of QF that are 15 mins apart (so we have a very good idea of when people are knocking off) and needing to rely on a certain 15 minutes (for an advanced booking) in aviation is foolish. All 30 are direct flights and almost always Virgin was cheaper.

I wonder how often a free upgrade to bizzy class happens on the 717?

[LeadSled]

I know of NO small operator, and I personally know many, who would agree with you
Well, one right here for a start.

But I don't know you!!.

However, you (or more properly, your attitude) reminds me of somebody I do know well, who was always of the view, every time a competitor ( or anybody, really) wound up in trouble with CASA --- Serves them right/where there's smoke, there's fire/ favourite appropriate pejorative standard phrase, ---- this went on for years, all holier than thou.

CASA could do no wrong.

Then, guess what, their tame Airworthiness Surveyor retired, and a new one turned up ---- who turned out to be a pedant of the worst kind, with a very imperfect knowledge of the actual regulation, but the ignorance was well supported by "attitude". A list of several hundred NCNs ( as they then were) covering just about every facet of what happens in a hangar --- most nonsense, but given the power of the "delegate" --- of "legal substance".

After costs, losses and dislocation costing close to seven numbers, this small outer urban CAR 30 org. did survive, but only because the proprietor was independently wealthy.

The examples of CASA buggery that informed the Forsyth Report were not the whinging of a few incompetent operators, and were not confine to GA.

I do not doubt your management skills, but you have had luck so far with CASA, "compliance" has little to do with it, for your sake, I hope your luck holds out.

If (or more likely when) your CASA luck changes, it will be a searing and life changing experience, psychologically you will never be the same again.

Tootle pip!!

[Clare Prop]

So the only reason I am still here is because of good luck and being holier than thou. OK.

[LeadSled]

So the only reason I am still here is because of good luck and being holier than thou. OK.

Clare Prop,
That is not quite what I said, is it ??

As for the "holier than thou" --- that didn't apply to anything but the person I described --- You may or may not be, I don't know, because I don't know you, but you do have little appreciation of the disastrous effects of CASA on many quite reasonably well run businesses --- because it hasn't happened to you. Beware hubris.

I have no doubt your success to date must indicate a smart business person, but that will avail you naught if some CASA aggro. bastard decides to take you apart.

Look up the history of Polar Air, for a prime example of what a determined "aggressive audit" can do, it is all on public record. There are so many like it.

And remember, that financial disaster started because the proprietor refused the demands of the FOI to operate a light twin outside it's certified flight envelope and outside of AFM conditions --- and, of course, CASA backed the FOI,despite his demands being contrary to aviation law, despite the long record of fatal crashes (they are not accidents) in twin training, cause by exactly what the FOI was demanding.

Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The first thing I thought of after reading it was New Zealand GA which doesn't have these issues.
What New Zealand has is the topography and tourist appeal to support these services, all contained in an area the size of Victoria. It's not really comparable.
GA the world over is static or in decline.
Thirty years ago, my mates and I drove around Australia. We stopped and did some joy flights at places such as Wilpena Pound, The Witsundays, Kakadu, Kununurra, Rottnest Island and a few others. There were only one or two operators to chose from at each of those places, not 5 or 10 (if GA was in it's heyday and declining ever since). I imagine there's still only 1 or 2 to choose from now.

[Sunfish]

traffic NZ is not a special case! We have our own special cases that are just as compelling.

[Bend alot]

What New Zealand has is the topography and tourist appeal to support these services, all contained in an area the size of Victoria. It's not really comparable.
GA the world over is static or in decline.
Thirty years ago, my mates and I drove around Australia. We stopped and did some joy flights at places such as Wilpena Pound, The Witsundays, Kakadu, Kununurra, Rottnest Island and a few others. There were only one or two operators to chose from at each of those places, not 5 or 10 (if GA was in it's heyday and declining ever since). I imagine there's still only 1 or 2 to choose from now.


Imagine if "RPT" rules did not apply to below 5700 kg or pressurised aircraft.

Selling seats around those areas would be a big increase in GA possibilities. Combined with ground tour options some great tourist packages could be set up.

Arrive Darwin with partner and kid jump on a C208/B200 out to Kakadu, do a trip or two and spend a night or two, then out to a Arnhem Land fishing or hunting spot for a day or a night. Maybe head out to Gove or Groote for a fishing or sailing day, then head off to Batchelor for a Litchfield ground tour, Off to Kunnanara for a cruise then on to Broome. Then a Broome Darwin or a reverse leg.

While that is a long trip even parts of it, on selling seats in the past has proven desired compared to a charter.

[machtuk]

Look GA is all but dead, those trying to hang on in CASA's stifling world me takes me hat off to uze, but it's inevitable, GA will be a thing of the past for Ausraya, just the way it is:-(

[Car RAMROD]

I was told to do stuff that is against the regulations and have it in emails - do you have the cash to fight it? their "Legal Team" backed the person as they always do.

Nope not always!
Their legal team has sided with me and not their FOI. And it didn’t involve bucketloads of cash to fight it. No more cash than my employment wages already covered, just a little bit of time and effort on our behalf.

[ShropshirePilot]

Wow, what an interesting thread. I thought we in the UK had the world championship for whingeing about the decline of GA in the bag. Now I'm not so sure!! And we have much worse weather to contend with.

I flew around a bit in Australia a few years back from Camden and I didn't see much evidence that it was any much worse than here. Cheer up and keep flying. It's quite fun don't you think? At least we don't get parking tickets/ speeding tickets and any equivalent of middle lane drivers in the sky. As for overpriced landing fees and PPR restrictions, we definitely win on that level. I was quoted over £60 for a landing fee at a regional airport recently and then mandatory handling on top... do you have that down your way?

If flying makes you smile, keep doing it and ignore Dick Smith. He may be an awesome bloke but his logic is mental!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

traffic NZ is not a special case! We have our own special cases that are just as compelling.
They are obviously not.

[LeadSled]

I flew around a bit in Australia a few years back from Camden and I didn't see much evidence that it was any much worse than here. Cheer up and keep flying. It's quite fun don't you think? At least we don't get parking tickets/ speeding tickets and any equivalent of middle lane drivers in the sky. As for overpriced landing fees and PPR restrictions, we definitely win on that level. I was quoted over £60 for a landing fee at a regional airport recently and then mandatory handling on top... do you have that down your way?

If flying makes you smile, keep doing it and ignore Dick Smith. He may be an awesome bloke but his logic is mental!

Shropshire Pilot,
Surprising as it may seem to you, but I deal with UK CAA, and in recent years the reforms seem to have worked for light GA and sports aviation --- and I still have my Campaign Against Aviation CAA t-shirt!!
As for matters of airport charges of all kinds, light GA has been priced out of major airports, and GA related businesses just don't get leases renewed at any price, in favor of shopping centers and warehouses etc.
The latest wheeze is demanding in advance very high minimum insurance levels, and that the aerodrome operator be included as a named covered (whatever the correct term) in advance of gaining PP.
Tootle pip!!

[Stikybeke]

Good on you Clare,

I hope that 2019 is all that you hope for and more. Blue Skies.

Stiky

[aroa]

In the deep north of Oz , late 80s/early?,. there was also an anti CAA T shirt produced, limited edition dozen? which sold out in about a week

Excusing the French, but it was The Cunza Against Aviation, being a take on the Hunza a tribal people that do things in life to live long.
The Cunza tribe being the opposite...do regulatory genocide to kill off people, businesses and an Industry..

Maybe for this CFS issue we need another.... Cretins Against Sensible Aviation

[Ejector]

Warnervale Airport is owned by the Central Coast Council. The Central Coast Aero Club (which owns Warnervale Air, the flying school and engineering facility) has nothing to do with the draconian landing fee structure or airfield management.

That is all I can say publicly...

Can you tell me Privately please ?

[navajoe]

GA dead........not at Cessnock it seems.... Quote, " VISION FOR AIRPORT SOARS" A five year plan for Cessnock airport highlights it's vision to be a viable, user friendly, and vibrant aviation hub in the hunter region. An extended runway, increased power availability, improved water and sewerage, improved development controls and upgraded facilities for the western side of the airport are among the short and long term actions in the plan.
Cessnock mayor Bob Pynsent said the airport was a public asset. " The central location of the airport makes it a fantastic asset and the plan identifies ways to further develop as an aerodrome business hub " he said.
Go to cessnock.nsw.gov.au to view and provide feedback on the plan by 20th february. "unquote.
Pretty amazing from a rusted on Labor council, Show this to your council.
.

[Dick Smith]

I did receive a letter from the Council in relation to this issue. Here is the wording:

“Dear Mr Smith

Letter to Mayor Smith: 24 hour notice requirement

Thank you for your email to the Mayor of 24 January 2019 regarding the 24 hour notice requirement for landing approval.

At its meeting held 27 November 2017, Council resolved to support the Warnervale Restrictions Act (WAR Act) 1996. In response, staff have recently implemented a requirement for itinerant aircraft to provide at least 24 hours’ notice prior to wanting to land and/take-off from Warnervale Airport.

Council understands that there are instances where it is not possible to provide 24 hours’ notice and in those cases the request has been accommodated.

Council is aware that pilots are trained to land at any airport in an emergency and legally able to do so. The ERSA entry does not remove this provision but aims to best manage aircraft movements in accordance with the Council resolution and the Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act 1996.”

So from what I can read from this, whilst they prefer 24 hours’ notice, if you happen to be flying up the coast and want to land and spend some money there, there is a good chance you will be allowed to land! Simply ring the ARO I would presume.

Of course, if the weather is bad, remember “Don’t push it, land it.”

By the way, to land a Cessna Caravan there costs $91.68, so you have been warned!

[jonkster]

If you read the "Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act 1996" https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/acts/1996-57.pdf it appears it only applies to aircraft operating on runways constructed after 1996. Am I reading that right?

[Dick Smith]

I despair regarding Warnervale.

An experienced pilot was recently prevented by smoke from heading towards Maitland and was forced to come back and land at Warnervale. Yes the Council made it clear in a letter to me that in times of emergency, people could land without any repercussions, however this is the wording that the pilot was sent after his landing:

“No problem, however for future reference, there will not be any short notice approvals even though this was partially due to conditions, this was a once off. The fact that enough time was not allowed for to fly diversion around the smoke before last light will need to be taken into account as no further short notice (less than 24hrs) approvals will be forthcoming.

If we make an exception for one everyone will expect it.”

Of course, more and more aerodromes will start copying this 24 hour prior notice principle and general aviation will be further destroyed.

What a joke! People wonder why I advise business operators to get out of general aviation before they lose everything.

[Nulli Secundus]

You are correct! They absolutely do wonder why.

Could it be they wonder why you are unable to substantiate the detail of how your advice is meant to work? Maybe they wonder why you flounder at the detail that for someone to get out, someone else must get in? Do they wonder how illogical you appear with every post? Could they be wondering the damage you cause to those ever diligent, hard working types, aiming to build their businesses, their club memberships and their industry patronage? Could they be wondering why a person so keen for the decline in Australian GA keeps contributing? Or maybe they just wonder why you need to write in the first person, broadcast your heroes, telegraph your correspondences and articulate your significant financial resources, meaning you are unaffected by the hardship most in the industry are experiencing right now. Or could it be they wonder why this person is forever all headline and no story. Do they wonder why a person so light on detail could possibly believe their words don't cause others substantial hardship?

Maybe already, some people no longer need to wonder.

Or maybe they just may wonder when will a close friend tap you on the shoulder and say hey, that's enough, its time to go quietly, enjoy your retirement and dispense with this conflicted defeatism.

[Sunfish]

Given stories like Glen Buckley’s and the results of the Forsyth review, what blue sky exists for the industry Nulli?

I have worked with over 200 businesses when I was with Government and I am familiar with the rules of the game; like farmers you never let on when you are making money and you always moan and complain about everything all the time - par for the course.

However I have never, ever, heard or read such negative stories about a government department like CASA, not even about the ATO. I don’t think it’s just Dick or the odd malcontents, the Senate doesn’t mount reviews for nothing. I see no evidence of hidden wealth in the aviation industry - a look at the fleet doesn’t suggest much investment either. Facility investment is not apparent with the exception of large foreign student operations that have as little local content as possible.

I would love to be proved wrong, but all I see is run down facilities and people constantly worried about the regulator closing them down, the fear in any operation about a visit from CASA is palpable. CASA seems as popular as a dose of the flu.

On an optimistic note if Government wants to encourage jobs investment and growth, then adopting the FAA regs and a more relaxed, less anal approach to aviation regulation would be an easy option. The industry would blossom overnight. Go to NZ and take a look at their industry as an example of what happens when the lead weight of over regulation is removed. Ever seen milford sound airport on a sunny day?

[machtuk]

I think most already know GA in this country is all but dead from a commercial standpoint, you don't need to be Dick Smith to know that!
Getting out now whilst you can would be smart for some and not so for others, either way it's YOUR choice!

[currawong]

Pardon my ignorance but can anybody explain why Warnervale needs to be "Restricted" in order to "schedule all movements"?

Council must have justified this scheme to themselves and their ratepayers with some plausible notion at some point.

[YPJT]

Bloody hell, Warnervale is little more than a glorified ALA yet they behave like they have to arrange slot times into the CTAF.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I’d call it a glorified goat track compared with the first time I flew in there a few decades ago.

What’s been done to aerodrome infrastructure in Australia is a national disgrace.

[thorn bird]

Quote:

"Pardon my ignorance but can anybody explain why Warnervale needs to be "Restricted" in order to "schedule all movements"?"

As my old dad used to say, "want a reason?..Follow the money". Property developers are like sharks.
Throw a bit of chum in the water and they appear out of nowhere to bring a DFO to an airport near you.

[Clare Prop]

So back onto the subject, Dick Smith, with no knowledge of other people's business models and never having run a GA business, decides to tell everyone to "get out of aviation now".

He is also clearly against any kind of foreign investment in flying training in this country.

So what DOES he want?

[thorn bird]

Clare, I have the utmost respect for you having go, as I did almost fifty years ago.
I got out not because I could see no future, but I moved on to other things.
When you consider that Graham Crawford will likely become the new DAS, when you look at what has happened to so many enthusiastic people who have run afoul of the regulator, when you look at the level of competence across CASA, and I acknowledge there are some very good people within the regulator.
When you look at our regulations against our peers, it sticks in my craw, but I fear Dick Smith's advice to get out while you can probably has some merit.
The Polliwaflers bang on about sovereign risk for those considering investing in Australia, what about sovereign risk for anyone considering investment in Australian aviation? An AOC will cost you a small fortune, but is in essence valueless.

Who will be the last man standing in GA in Australia?

[roundsounds]

Clare, I have the utmost respect for you having go, as I did almost fifty years ago.
I got out not because I could see no future, but I moved on to other things.
When you consider that Graham Crawford will likely become the new DAS, when you look at what has happened to so many enthusiastic people who have run afoul of the regulator, when you look at the level of competence across CASA, and I acknowledge there are some very good people within the regulator.
When you look at our regulations against our peers, it sticks in my craw, but I fear Dick Smith's advice to get out while you can probably has some merit.
The Polliwaflers bang on about sovereign risk for those considering investing in Australia, what about sovereign risk for anyone considering investment in Australian aviation? An AOC will cost you a small fortune, but is in essence valueless.

Who will be the last man standing in GA in Australia?

I think the end game is to have a small handful of big schools. Easy to administer from CASA’s perspective and financially viable as they will be able to charge enough to be profitable - the Coles / Wollies model.

[thorn bird]

I think you are probably right Round. On the surface it would seem CAsA is deliberately thinning out the flying training part of the industry by pricing it out of business in favour of the large foreign owned players.

The backbone of training in the old days was the aero club movement and small regional schools scattered around the country. I don't think that was a bad thing as it bought aviation to a far wider community.

We think of training these days from a career path perspective, for sure Commercial training occurred in the past with some schools specialising in that, but by and large the regional aero clubs catered to the private side. The complex raft of CAsA rules has effectively killed off that avenue for people to engage in learning to fly, there are many other things to excite people these days, CAsA has made aviation too complicated and expensive as a hobby except for the die hards.

By comparison, visit a small local airfield in the USA on a weekend. The level of activity is startling, the cost of training about half that of Australia. But then they have sensible rules and the industry is appreciated and valued.

I have no idea of the veracity, but I'm told Foreign pilots training in Australia at the big foreign owned schools, only train to a minimum level under Australian rules and from that point on to their national standard. That sort of makes sense in that professional licences can be obtained in other jurisdictions for about half what they can here.There are American schools advertising here for students. I wonder how many Aussie kids would take up that offer if Government subsidy via HEC's was not available to them.

[Sunfish]

If you have ever visited a school catering to foreign pilot students you will be depressed. I visited one (RMIT) and was not impressed. They are to aviation what battery chicken farms are to agriculture.

[Nulli Secundus]

So as Glen Buckley gives his all to challenge the draconian CASA-driven business environment, Dick Smith refuses to articulate how it could ever be possible let alone logical for everyone to get out of an industry on mass. The Einstein dictum that if you can't explain it, you don't know it well enough is irrefutable. Why would anyone put up an idea without more than just a sentence or two of explanation? Could it be Dick Smith simply needs the attention? With every post there's more about him than the very serious issue of an industry battling to enjoy the prosperity it deserves. Time to give up this destructive nonsense Dick Smith and get back to doing something that can help resurrect this industry.

Glen Buckley could use a hand. Dick Smith, why not get yourself to Melbourne, hand Glen a cheque for $100K and DON"T tell anyone, DON"T alert the media and definitely DO make that the beginning of your positive, quiet, unheralded contribution to see more businesses, pilots, student pilots et al return to this industry. The AOPA are doing a superb job of revitalising their advocacy and growing their membership. Only numbers will trump the CASA nonsense.

Dick Smith you are so needed right now, but NOT to broadcast business advice as you are not qualified in commercial aviation. Retailing, publishing, commercial property - absolutely you should be reasonably well regarded for guidance. GA aviation business advice is not your gig as you have never done it (and sorry Dick, owning commercial types is simply illogical as a C150 is also a commercial type but the PPL private owner is not thereafter a GA business expert). You are needed to help rebuild the numbers of active participants in Australian GA, not drive them away. You are needed to contribute to the cause and not broadcast about yourself. You are so needed to offer only that which is logical, can be substantiated, can be measured and can be done relatively simply and quickly with results that generate revenue and growth for the current business owners and in turn counters the regulatory restrictions.

[Sunfish]

With respect to Mr. Smith, there is some sense in what Nulli is proposing but it’s not my money and I believe I am aware that you often work behind the scenes for the good of all anyway.

[LeadSled]

Nulli,
Have you considered that the reverse is true ---- the aviation community is so quiet and "respectful" that short of the Qantas Chairman's Lounge it is unknown to politicians and the public.--- and largely talks to itself.

The result (helped by generally ignorant media) is an industry functionally invisible to the "public", so that whatever happens in the "Canberra Bubble", aviation, but particularly GA, is impotent.

After all, back in the early 2000s, the then DAS/CEO announced that CASA would be reducing the number of AOCs, CAR 30 approvals and the like to a number which CASA was comfortable surveying.

At the time it was remarked, why is CASA "comfort" more important than industry requirements.---- but CASA and its predecessors have always seen themselves as the "managers" of Australian aviation --- not just a regulatory agency. Remember, back in the GODs, DCA representatives actually sat on airline boards.

In reality, the situation that has come about because the Australian aviation community does not fight for its rights ---- and this is nothing new, civil aviation has battled the bureaucrats since shortly post WW1.--- when Australian aviation bureaucracy was created as an office of the military.

Until the aviation community unites to fight for the right to exist, the (not so) slow death by a thousand cuts will continue. Will they, probably not, with rare exceptions it hasn't happened yet.

In my view, the major reason why US aviation is so successful is because of a very different national ethos in USA --- people accept having to fight for rights ---- that is how the US started -- here in Australian aviation we just fight among each other for the crumbs.

The reason that there are such strong aviation lobby's in US is because participants have banded together ---- to enforce their rights, just have a look at the total membership of AOPA US and EAA, something like 60+% of pilots alone ---- that is the sort of thing politicians take notice of ---- and it shows.

Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Hear, hear, Leadie,

getting GA to agree on anything is like herding cats, some of the threads on Pprune illustrate that and CAsA play it for all its worth.

I fear that until there is a major hull loss in Australia and a subsequent royal commission, nothing will change, look at the New Zealand example.

[machtuk]

Have you considered that the reverse is true ---- the aviation community is so quiet and "respectful" that short of the Qantas Chairman's Lounge it is unknown to politicians and the public.--- and largely talks to itself.

The result (helped by generally ignorant media) is an industry functionally invisible to the "public", so that whatever happens in the "Canberra Bubble", aviation, but particularly GA, is impotent.

This about sums it up!
We fill these pages with all sorts of anger, excuses, reasons, suggestions the list goes on forever & ever BUT at the GA level we are so insignificant as far as the general public & corrupt Govt are concerned! Ask any citizen on the street about GA they will most likely say who/what? We are nothing, we mean little to other than ourselves, we are a minority group of rich aircraft owners (so the public believe) drowning waiting to go under for good & it's just around the corner! CASA who? Another authority that Mr & Mrs Joe public would never have heard of! As long as the 180 boguns at a time get to the Gold Coast for their holiday nobody cares! get used to it, GA is all but dead compared to the good old days & it ain't comin' back!

[Clare Prop]

Rather than "having a go" I've been doing this for close on 30 years.
I've seen a lot of flying schools come and go in that time. Most have failed because of poor business practices, unrealistic expectations, bad decision making, lack of financial discipline, inability to adapt to a changing business environment, (particularly following privatisation of the airports) in other words the same reasons ALL kinds of businesses fail, not because of CASA. The only one I have seen shut down by CASA was China Southern when they couldn't find the key personnel. So that hardly shows them favouring the big schools.
I'm not still here because of luck and certainly not because I am naïve. I am realistic.

[Lead Balloon]

As you appear to know, could you please provide more specific details of the issues you’ve identified:
poor business practicesWhat poor practises, specifically? unrealistic expectationsWhat unrealistic expectations, specifically?bad decision makingWhat bad decisions, specifically? lack of financial disciplineWhat undisciplined decisions were made, specifically? inability to adapt to a changing business environment, (particularly following privatisation of the airports)And what did you do, specifically, to adapt to the airport privatisation environment?

You will hopefully continue to navigate around the random chance of changing opinion inside the regulator. We’ll look forward to your wisdom when you crash into it.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled, I thoroughly agree with you...110%!

why the hell didnt you start this even twenty years ago. You guys were pushing to get the CASA out of our lives to do our own thing...now you can see it was the wrong direction..we should have united under one umbrella organisation to stand up for our collective rights. Its not too late yet.

[LeadSled]

The only one I have seen shut down by CASA was China Southern when they couldn't find the key personnel. So that hardly shows them favouring the big schools.
.
Clare Prop,
That's not quite really what happened, is it.

And I speak from being closely involved.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the following:
CFI gives one month's notice of resignation. In arrears, CASA decrees that the resignation is effective immediately (not in one month) therefor as of the date of the notification resignation of the CFI the school was without a CFI, and the allegations was that all flying from the date of the NOTICE of resignation until the following week's shutdown constituted one breach per flight. Therefor the school has committed some hundreds of breeches of law,and is therefor a threat to aviation safety. An "administrative" decision ostensibly created hundreds of offense.

And so began a long fight, dragged out by CASA, who (as all too often happens) finally dropped all charges on the steps of the court. The CASA allegations were without legal basis.

There was a lot more to it than that, including CASA activity shredding a lot of WA Government plans (you do remember the masterplan for the aviation industry in WA, do you) CSWAFC being sold by China Southern, a planned and announced US$750,000,000 ( almost a billion AU) investment in expansion was cancelled --- most of that money went to Canada.

And another major planned aviation training development of a similar magnitude moved to NZ. The Asian (not China) backers decided the CASA behavior made the sovereign risk of such investment too great

And CASA caused diplomatic mayhem in Beijing, by attempting to subpoena a Government Minister, who was a director of CSWAFC, without even telling DOTARS, let alone Foreign Affairs and our embassy in Beijing.

In my opinion, your comment is naive in the extreme.

My sources, my being on the spot, including spending an average of two days a week at the CASA Moore St. HO.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

The left wing commentariat at the ABC and The Age and Fairfax all had their resignations in their back pockets on election night and job offers as press secretaries for putative Labor Ministers sitting on the mantelpiece. Similarly Liberal Ministerial staff were looking at new employment options.

All that went in the garbage cans when they got home early Sunday morning.

The Liberal Government is now selecting new Ministerial staff and rearranging the chairs a little.

Who knows? Maybe CASA and it’s parent, the Department, might be in for some surprises.

[ifylofd]

Well then, based on the amount of time some have spent on this thread one could be forgiven for thinking there is in fact nothing much left to do in GA - and must all but confirm it’s (GA’s) slow, timely, but expertley prophesised demise........ 😳

[maxter]

Nulli,
Have you considered that the reverse is true ---- the aviation community is so quiet and "respectful" that short of the Qantas Chairman's Lounge it is unknown to politicians and the public.--- and largely talks to itself.

The result (helped by generally ignorant media) is an industry functionally invisible to the "public", so that whatever happens in the "Canberra Bubble", aviation, but particularly GA, is impotent.

After all, back in the early 2000s, the then DAS/CEO announced that CASA would be reducing the number of AOCs, CAR 30 approvals and the like to a number which CASA was comfortable surveying.

At the time it was remarked, why is CASA "comfort" more important than industry requirements.---- but CASA and its predecessors have always seen themselves as the "managers" of Australian aviation --- not just a regulatory agency. Remember, back in the GODs, DCA representatives actually sat on airline boards.

In reality, the situation that has come about because the Australian aviation community does not fight for its rights ---- and this is nothing new, civil aviation has battled the bureaucrats since shortly post WW1.--- when Australian aviation bureaucracy was created as an office of the military.

Until the aviation community unites to fight for the right to exist, the (not so) slow death by a thousand cuts will continue. Will they, probably not, with rare exceptions it hasn't happened yet.

In my view, the major reason why US aviation is so successful is because of a very different national ethos in USA --- people accept having to fight for rights ---- that is how the US started -- here in Australian aviation we just fight among each other for the crumbs.

The reason that there are such strong aviation lobby's in US is because participants have banded together ---- to enforce their rights, just have a look at the total membership of AOPA US and EAA, something like 60+% of pilots alone ---- that is the sort of thing politicians take notice of ---- and it shows.

Tootle pip!!

Best summary I have seen. Well said

[LeadSled]

Best summary I have seen. Well said
Maxter,
And those who do fight, like Dick Smith, get lambasted by a cross section of the aviation community!!
Tootle pip!!

[KRviator]

Maxter,
And those who do fight, like Dick Smith, get lambasted by a cross section of the aviation community!!
Tootle pip!!I'm going to disagree with Dick this time...

Warnervale, despite being PPR, has actually dropped its' landing fees from a couple years ago! Yep, you read that correctly. They finally included a 700> kg rate, that is 'only' $8.25 for each and every landing.

So instead of costing $495 an hour in landing fees for an hour of circuits in my RAAus-registered RV-9 - and that's just the landing fees, not the hourly cost, or the extra $110 just to refuel there (excluding the actual fuel purchased), it now costs "only" $150 an hour in landing fees. Plus the $110 "refuelling fee" if you BYO jerrycans and refuel 'on council land'

Still PPR though. :mad:

Why not charge every motorist a milage payment of $40/km for their LGA? That'd be what it works out to for the amount of runway you'd use.