GA booming in the USA

[Dick Smith]

I recently received this message from an Australian friend in the USA.
“General aviation flying in the United States is up substantially – mostly due to flight training of pilots hoping to go to the airlines. Right now airline hiring is up considerably and airline salaries are as well. It is a bonanza.”

It is so totally different in Australia.

[Horatio Leafblower]

The VET-FEE system in Australia totally distorts the market and, like all these schemes, allows people with little or no aptitude to rack up enormous debts doing training for a qualification that they might or not have any aptitude for.

Has the FAA grounded the GA-8 Airvan over there, Dick?

[Squawk7700]

I was told by an airline pilot friend that owner/pilots in the USA, get significant tax breaks for owning their aircraft. Supposedly they only have to attend and display in at least one airshow and in return, they can depreciate their aircraft and claim expenses against it. I’m talking big expenses such as on ex-fighter jets, DC 3’s and the like...

If this is correct, which I would assume it is, I’d be interested to know if that’s contributing to the boom and if so, how it works.....

[Jeps]

What Horatio says in on point. Even if you look at the sausage factories, they are churning so few CPLs out.

[no_one]

I was told by an airline pilot friend that owner/pilots in the USA, get significant tax breaks for owning their aircraft. Supposedly they only have to attend and display in at least one airshow and in return, they can depreciate their aircraft and claim expenses against it. I’m talking big expenses such as on ex-fighter jets, DC 3’s and the like...

If this is correct, which I would assume it is, I’d be interested to know if that’s contributing to the boom and if so, how it works.....



I am not an expert but I think that what you are talking about is that historical aircraft available for public display get an exemption for "Use tax" and "Property Tax" that many states over there have. See for instance this description:
https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/ahs_exemption.htm

It varies from state to state but I dont think that you can claim operating expenses as deductions....

[TBM-Legend]

All true Dick. My friend has an MRO in Van Nuys and Texas and has his hands full. Flying clubs are growing using the shared aircraft to meet the needs of many pilots and friends...

[Okihara]

Is the situation really all that different in Australia? Aerodromes like Moorabbin seem to suffer no shortage of domestic or foreign students. A number of schools have recently been massively growing their fleet of aircraft. Maybe that's just Moorabbin though.

[Denied Justice]

Soooooooooo - What's everyone going to do when CASA and the Airport Operators have finished their destruction of GA in this country by over regulation and outrageous airport operating costs,

RIP - Australian General Aviation (A painful death)

[machtuk]

You would have to have been living under a rock not to know that Australia is going one way with GA & the States going the opposite way!
Last year when I was in Texas doing a course speaking to the course attendees about private ownership & costs etc as well as GA in general they where astounded how our regulator is killing off GA especially in a country roughly the same geographical size as our land mass meaning GA ought to be booming!
One of the biggest stumbling blocks apart from CASA themselves is that we have such a small population & that we are a minority group when it comes to GA, most of the general public have zero idea about light planes & think we few who own & or fly are just wealthy!
We haven't got a chance, the prosperity just isn't there:-(
One thing the FAA is an administration, our so called minders are an Authority languishing under the 'safety' umbrella at all costs!:-(

RIP GA, a once great industry where there was hope, a future something to plan for, glad I had the opportunity to experience a once great Nation when it came to aviation-(

[Squawk7700]

Aussie aircraft fleet circa 15,000
US fleet circa 215,000

Aus population, circa 25 million
US population, circa 328 million

Aus has ~7% aircraft versus population.
US is 7.6%

Have I got those numbers right?

[Okihara]

Aussie aircraft fleet circa 15,000
US fleet circa 215,000

Aus population, circa 25 million
US population, circa 328 million

Aus has ~7% aircraft versus population.
US is 7.6%

Have I got those numbers right?

Probably so but that's not the whole picture of population distribution. One should also account for the percentage of urbanisation. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries, more so than the US in fact (from the "Australia State of the Environment 2016 Report" (https://soe.environment.gov.au/), 90% of the population living in just 0.22% of the land area). In simple terms, a higher percentage of the population in Australia lives in urban areas where one could venture to say that GA is of little to no help. There is however some political will to offload major cities to the benefit of the likes of Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton, etc, esp. with recent waves of immigrants. I would expect that larger population centres scattered throughout the country would benefit GA in the medium term through increased business developments.

[Okihara]

Compare with urbanisation in the US (national average 80% but as low as just 38% in some states): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

[Squawk7700]

Compare with urbanisation in the US (national average 80% but as low as just 38% in some states): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States


Well.... based on your stats then, Australia is far more advanced per head in Aviation than the USA, because with the 80% urbanization with no use for aircraft (or as you put it), we are pretty much at an equivalent with our aircraft population per head.

If our population was more dispersed, aviation would conceivably grow even more.

I believe I’m correct in saying that Australia also has more helicopters per head than any other country in the world (and if not, is certainly close to it)

Maybe things aren’t that bad here, there’s just less people living here !

[Lead Balloon]

Ah statistics.

According to the FAA, there were 25,212,000 general aviation hours flown in the USA in 2018.

Let’s round the numbers and say that Australia has 1/22nd of the population of the USA.

24,212,00 divided by 22 = 1,680,000.

According to BTRE, in 2017 (the most recently-available stats) “general aviation hours flown by VH-registered aircraft [in Australia] decreased by 3.6 per cent to 1.20 million hours”. 25% less than in the USA.

Please define your terms, Squawk.

Anyone who’s been around for a while can remember the amount of work that used to be done by GA that is no longer being done by GA, in and out of aerodromes that are now veritable ghost towns. That outcome is a consequence of many things, but foremost amongst them is the inexorably increasing complexity and consequent cost of the regulatory regime, administered mainly by a variety of people - some out of their depth but (dangerously and blissfully) unaware of that fact, others on a crusade to save the world and believing they are doings so, and yet others on an ego trip - and also amongst them is the sell off or abandonment of aerodrome infrastructure by the Commonwealth. (“Common Wealth” - that’s what it used to be. Sad really.)

[Squawk7700]

So an equivalent number of aircraft, but 25% less hours flown.

Does an overly zealous regulator cause pilots/owners/operators to fly 25% less or is it because the majority of flights take place within the J curve, on arguably shorter flights?

Aren’t statistics great.

[Vag277]

You need to add RAAus hours for a true picture

[Vag277]

Nearly 314,000 in 2017

[Okihara]

Sorry Lead and other folks, with all due respect, I believe there's a mistake in your calculation:

Ah statistics.
According to the FAA, there were 25,212,000 [OK, let's assume that figure] general aviation hours flown in the USA in 2018.
Let’s round the numbers and say that Australia has 1/22nd [Incorrect: [B]US population is 327m, Aus population is 25m, ratio is 1/13] of the population of the USA.
24,212,00 divided by 22 = 1,680,000.
With the correct ratio, one has 25,212,000 / 13 = 1.94m hours
According to BTRE, in 2017 (the most recently-available stats) “general aviation hours flown by VH-registered aircraft [in Australia] decreased by 3.6 per cent to 1.20 million hours”. 25% less than in the USA.

And adding another 314,000 RA hours to the VH ones, that's 1,200,000 + 314,000 ≅ 1,500,000 hours flown, or a 23% decrease per capita over the US [somehow Squawk7700 got the right figure].

With 90% of the population in Australia being urbanised vs. 80% in the US, I'd further normalise the ratio to 23% * 80/90 ≅ 20%, because the dispersion of the population in Australia is such that fewer people live in rural areas.

Of course a truer picture of the reality would have to account for what one really understands by "GA is booming". Flight training to foreigners for instance is one field that largely benefits GA in terms of hours flown but will certainly not help GA uniformly across the country.

[Okihara]

The combination of higher urbanisation in Australia with lower overall population also has a more insidious consequence: there are also fewer places with sizable populations to fly to. The business gravity centres are concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney with few other places left that would warrant travelling with a small aircraft. It's perhaps no surprise that the Sydney-Melbourne route is one of the world's busiest air routes with 54,102 flights in 2018 according to OAG.com. By comparison, you'd have to New York-Toronto is just at 17,038 flights while the first US domestic route is Los Angles-San Francisco with 35,365.

On the eastern seaboard of the US, the destinations within a 2/3 hour radius are just countless. That's no surprise that their infrastructure is also spot on.

[Squawk7700]

My calcs weren’t by accident !

[Sunfish]

Okihara: The combination of higher urbanisation in Australia with lower overall population also has a more insidious consequence: there are also fewer places with sizable populations to fly to. The business gravity centres are concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney with few other places left that would warrant travelling with a small aircraft.

Having worked in the field of industry development, I think there is a mix up of cause and effect here.

The concentration of business activity in the capitals is caused by poor transport options to the regional centers. I understand that this is something of a chicken and egg problem but the fact remains that many people and businesses would like to escape the capitals to a cheaper, greener lifestyle if they could.

I am currently in Italy and at least North of Rome you will find household and engineering world famous brand names in quite small towns. For example Brembo brakes are in the small city of Bergamo and Campagnolo (Bicycle hardware) is about two km from where I’m staying in Vicenza. Those and many similar companies would think your crazy if you told them they had to move to Rome or Milan “to be competitive”. The key of course is first class communications.

This is where our infrastructure department is letting us all down. It’s not just airports, it’s getting CASA to foster aviation, it’s roads and rail as well.

For example Australia is too stupid to confine trucks to the left lanes on freeways and institute 130kmh+ car speed limits on suitable highways (although 140kmh in a Fiat500 is breathtaking). Too stupid to stop councils degrading airports. Too stupid to stop CASA making GA unaffordable and destroying any growth prospects.

For example, I am 45 minutes by C172 from YMMB or three hours by road. You think somebody could make an air taxi business out of that? No way in Australia. Why even in third world “backward” Vietnam there is a Cessna caravan service from Hanoi to Halong Bay.

We are prevented by bureaucrats from even trying to solve our transport problems.

[Lead Balloon]

Okihara.

Just so I understand what you’re saying (having correctly picked up my mathematical error in the population ratio), I understand you to be saying that there are roughly 23% fewer hours flown in ‘GA’ per person per annum in Australia compared with the USA (my conclusion being roughly 25%). Is that correct?

Your (and Vag’s) assumption is that the USA figures include the equivalent of that which you’re calling RAAus hours. Is that correct? If yes, what is the basis of that assumption? The FAA website from which I got my 25,212,000 GA hours identifies, separately, “34,200 experimental light aircraft” hours.

On your urbanisation theory, what was different 30 or so years ago? All those little towns a long way from the ‘big cities’ that used to have GA work being done at the local aerodrome - passenger and cargo carriage, flying training and aircraft maintenance - were just that: little towns a long way from the ‘big cities’.

All those businesses didn’t ‘urbanise’. They died. Those who’ve been around a while know what killed most of them.

This during the ‘miracle’ of Australia’s 27 years of uninterrupted annual economic growth. Apparently, we’ve never had it better for so long, economically, but some buffoon in CASA can still attribute the downturn in GA to tough economic conditions. How does that work? Wait until the next recession and double-digit home mortgage rates to see ‘tough economic conditions’!

[Vag277]

LB

The distaste that you and others for CASA and the apparent allocation to them of all blame for a reduction in GA activity seems it overlook many other factors that could be behind the reduction of GA activity in those small regional towns. Some of those factors include extensive, long duration drought conditions, the demise of bank running with practically all financial transaction being electronic rather than by cheque, substantially better roads and motor vehicles making road transport more effective, the aging aircraft fleet and attendant increase in maintenance costs (a characteristic of any machine).The economic growth is national and not necessarily uniformly distributed.
If causes of reduction in GA activity are to be accurately identified, the basis of previous activity needs to be identified and relationships between them assessed.

As I write this there are 3 aircraft currently in the circuit and flying schools at the aerodrome are having 100 hour inspections done at 5-6 week intervals.

[Okihara]

Lead Balloon, I don't claim to have the silver bullet answer to the GA woes in Australia. All I'm trying to do is point out dissimilarities between this country and the US that would explain why point-to-point comparisons, e.g. hours flown per capita, may not be relevant without considering geography, urbanisation, and ..., and ... and so on. But in short, yes, you reached 25% with (wrong inaccurate numbers) while I 23% with more factual ones. The fact remains, Australians, on average, fly less per year in small aircraft than their US counterparts.

I conjecture that Aussie urbanisation is an important underlying factor and I think Vag277 rightly points out that other means of transportation have gradually become more reliable, definitely cheaper and, perhaps, have just become more convenient (that's where the over regulated legal framework might be partly to blame) to use on a regular basis. At the end of the day, that's really just that: unless you have an IR, taking the plane to go from A to B reliably (= be at B by time T on day D) is nothing but a hit and miss which will at best save you a couple of hours of commute but will come at the expense of extensive planning and money.

I'm too young to make any meaningful comparison between today's world with what it was like 30 years ago but I know this: the current trend is, sadly, for younger generations to leave rural areas and congregate in larger urban centres. I'm however old enough to notice that generations junior to mine seem more interested in virtual things (instagram, snapchat and the likes – I'm really no expert) and smashed avos and lattes than in actual stuff. Which is also a byproduct of this: in the last 25 years, the advent and adoption of the Internet has transformed the way we do business and boosted the economy.

In any case, if GA is to thrive here again, there will need to be an operational requirement (beyond that of flight training) that makes travelling by private aeroplane more worthwhile than RPT or road. That's obviously not going to be with a sudden surge in people getting their PPL but perhaps tapping into yet unknown needs. One example that comes to mind is that of a doctor (a cardiologist) who sees patients in rural areas one week a month. She figured that getting healthcare on par with Melbourne was simply out of reach for a lot of people in rural Victoria so she teamed up with a friend with a CPL who flies her to remote places with a small hospital and landing strip long enough to accommodate an SR22. The lucky bit here is that neither of them thought of it as a joint venture until they came to the idea somewhat by accident. I would expect that practitioners in other areas could benefit from GA in this way. The hard part is to raise awareness.

[The name is Porter]

GA in the US was pumping during the GFC (relative to Australia, who wasn't as affected by the GFC). It is even more so pumping.

To blame anything on FEE-HELP is just a whinge, Americans can access the equivalent of FEE-HELP, even with this impost they have to build 1500 hours prior to real employment. There is no shortage of sponsors for these schemes. Australian employers are short term whingers who will not invest a cent in a potential employee.

I know what you're going to reply with,

Chicken or the egg!

[Lead Balloon]

LB

The distaste that you and others for CASA and the apparent allocation to them of all blame for a reduction in GA activity seems it overlook many other factors that could be behind the reduction of GA activity in those small regional towns. Some of those factors include extensive, long duration drought conditions, the demise of bank running with practically all financial transaction being electronic rather than by cheque, substantially better roads and motor vehicles making road transport more effective, the aging aircraft fleet and attendant increase in maintenance costs (a characteristic of any machine).The economic growth is national and not necessarily uniformly distributed.
If causes of reduction in GA activity are to be accurately identified, the basis of previous activity needs to be identified and relationships between them assessed.

As I write this there are 3 aircraft currently in the circuit and flying schools at the aerodrome are having 100 hour inspections done at 5-6 week intervals.You misrepresent me, Vag.

I have never attributed to CASA “all” blame for the decline in GA activity. Indeed, to the extent that the decline is caused by the regulatory dog’s breakfast that continues to increase in complexity, I don’t blame CASA. It’s hardly surprising that people are happy to continue to rake in six figure salaries to create more and more complexity and ‘enforce’ it, indefinitely. Rather, I blame the stultifying mediocrities that have presumed the description “government” over the past couple of decades, who have abdicated responsibility and allowed CASA to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create an ever-growing regulatory mess, with no end in sight. (The lies told by successive CASA talking heads about the regulatory reform program are matters for which I do hold CASA responsible.)

I have also attributed a substantial part of the blame to the abandonment by the Commonwealth of aerodrome infrastructure.

Those two factors are not the only factors, but they are the primary factors in my opinion, based upon my first-hand experience and observation over a few decades.

Of course there’s ‘some’ aviation activity and businesses operating at the aerodrome to which you refer: A decline in activity does not mean no activity.

I learned to fly at a capital city airport. There were 6 flying schools and 3 GA maintenance organisations back then. They’re all gone. There is now only one flying school that has established a ‘satellite’ presence there, in the GA ‘terminal’ building (portable site shed). The only person to benefit from the ‘privatisation’ of that airport is the person who is slowly climbing the Rich List on the back of a monopoly that was a Commonwealth asset. All of the people who owned that asset as “common wealth” are now paying to use it, so that one person can climb the Rich List. F*ckn brilliant.

[HarleyD]

Anyone who has flown here and there, and by here I mean USA, will be well aware of the gross differences.

USA FAA. regulator has a fundamental understanding that their jobs and the the jobs of THOUSANDS of others who are totally dependant upon a strong, growing and vibrant industry sector, are not just an incidental statistic, but represent a massive and important benefit. They know that it is the industry who contributes to their wages, salaries and retirement funds. No industry = lose/lose

The more than 200 Aussie’s here at AIRVENTURE OSHKOSH attested to the fact that awareness is growing and that satisfaction with and confidence in our regulator is at an all time low. Anyone who defends this repressive autocracy needs to get out in the real world and take a good hard look at themselves and get over the fundamental stupidity that the entire ‘If you have done nothing to fear you have nothing to fear’ mentality that just reduces us to automatons. Bad, wrong, stupid.

CASA is out to get you, me, and the industry that feeds our families and the families that support in industry in many indirect ways. They are relentlessly empowering them selves with ever more MOS documentations that THEY write for their OWN ADVANTAGE. industry consultation is a joke, and a sick joke.

If have experienced how Aviation, and GA in particular can work with a USA experience, first hand, then you can grasp the concept, but those who yarp on here about how great Casa is and how misunderstood they are, and how we must consider their feelings and try harder, can all just go and get Fu}€ED as far as I am concerned. Do not trust anyone who thinks casa has any beneficial or supportive intent.

Kill all GA is a clear and evident policy of the regulator, and it is clear they have no support to GA and care not how GA can really work with proper consultation, rather than the arrogant and demeaning way industry participants are currently treated.

Casa. Shame on you.

HD

[Sunfish]

Trends like increasing urbanization don’t have to mean the decline of GA. Other markets are born and grow - for example the tourism market.

For example, in New Zealand, hikers, sightseers fishermen, skiers and hunters get to their destinations by air, but not here for some reason. It’s a huge business that is almost dead here.

[Vag277]

The comparison with NZ is not relevant because of the huge differential in travel distance from population centre to attraction. It does happen e.g. seaplane services ex Rose Bay in Sydney and ex Whitsunday Airport, sight seeing at Kakadu and Lake Eyre. All are to attractions in close proximity

[Sunfish]

Vag it is relevant to compare Australia with NZ. There are literally thousands of GA business opportunities in Australia if we could only unlock the sky by tearing up ridiculous over regulation.

Examples:

- I have already asked why airports such as Mansfield, Bright, etc. are not summer gateways to national parks for hikers, deer hunters, skiers, etc. as country airports are in NZ and U.S. I’ve written in detail about this before.

- likewise seaplane services, Melbourne to the Gippsland lakes, Brisbane to the gold coast, Sydney to the south and central coasts etc.

- then there is air touring by dc3 or similar

- then there is massively expanded sightseeing tours everywhere.

- then there are the wine and food tours (I tried organizing one for some o/s visitors - 3 wineries and lunch by helicopter-all too hard)

- and that’s just a few tourism ideas.

Then there is the issue, already mentioned, of medical specialists traveling by air. (prohibited)

Then add air travel possibilities for technical specialists. (currently prohibited)

Then there are the need for unofficial milk runs to outback towns and farms (currently prohibited)

By “prohibited” I mean requiring AOC, thousands of pages of paperwork and other regulatory BS, that kill ideas before they can even be tried.

Just read Pprune about transporting a mechanic, a few tools and some spares. Do it to a schedule and you require an AOC. That costs $$$$ before you even start.

More ridiculosity, I can fly my aircraft to a specialist for propellor balancing, but he can’t chuck his gear in his aircraft and come to me without falling afoul of the commercial purposes rule.

[Mach E Avelli]

And do not forget the once-thriving “fly yourself” air tours that were very popular here. Foreign pilots could get a certificate of validation, attend a briefing, do a few circuits to ensure competence, and launch on a round Australia tour in a C172 or whatever.
Then we got the ASIC.

The Yanks were the ones that got zapped by the bad guys, not us. But they still do not have the equivalent of the ASIC, and amazingly, to the best of my knowledge, no one has deliberately crashed a bugsmasher into a crowd, despite plenty of opportunity to do so.

[Clare Prop]

That's very true. Though CASA can't be blamed for the ASIC situation, that was DOTARS. In fact for a long time C of V holders didn't need a security check, unless of course they wanted to go to a security controlled airport, because the ASIC was only needed for CASA licence holders - a bit of an anomaly, just like RA Aus people (still) not needing a security check to fly in exactly the same airspace.

The reason we lost all the overseas hour builders and self-fly holidaymakers overnight was because of CLARC being created...where they used to fil in the form and take it to the local office, do the checkride then collect the certificate, which took a couple of hours, once CLARC was created and it all had to be processed in Can'tberra it started to take about 9 months.

Lead Balloon hit the nail on the head with the privatisation issue as well.

As for FEE-HELP it seems to have been a poison chalice for some schools. You have to wonder if they would have failed so spectacularly if it hadn't been available.

[Checkboard]

to the best of my knowledge, no one has deliberately crashed a bugsmasher into a crowd, despite plenty of opportunity to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connellan_air_disaster

[Horatio Leafblower]

Re: Blaming CASA

Vag has a point BUT
1/. 3 aircraft in the circuit on the Sunshine Coast in hardly surprising given the population density on the Sunshine Coast; and
2/. Legislation and Regulations are not a "natural" phenomenon - they are entirely within our control. The legislation and policy could be written in a way that facilitates aviation activity while maintaining safety IF WE SO CHOOSE.

The ire and the fury directed at CASA is because they choose NOT to, resulting in the unnecessary destruction of businesses and livelihoods.

The harassment and destruction of APTA is one such example.

The imminent closure of at least 2 major General Aviation tourism operations as a result of the GA-8 Airvan is another.

[rcoight]

Sunfish, can you clarify for me why the example above given by Okihara of a medical specialist and a CPL going to rural areas in an SR22 - or whatever - would be “prohibited”?
Presumably you are saying it would have to be done under an AOC.
Why is that?
Thanks.

[Okihara]

Sunfish, I echo rcoight's message above regarding your remark to my post. Would an AOC be required if said specialist and pilot followed a regular schedule only (sorry for being lazy – no time for personal research/getting lost in PDFs of regs these days)? It would have to be a most surprising island if UBER's air taxis were to be allowed to operate over populated areas while not letting your LAME fly his tools to your aircraft.
PS. Enjoy your time in Italy. GA is the EU suffers a more primitive problem that has luckily spared us so far: the artificially inflated price of Avgas.

[Bend alot]

Sunfish, can you clarify for me why the example above given by Okihara of a medical specialist and a CPL going to rural areas in an SR22 - or whatever - would be “prohibited”?
Presumably you are saying it would have to be done under an AOC.
Why is that?
Thanks.
There is the chance that a CAsA employee told him/her that.

If that is the case and such a flight was carried out without an AOC and that CAsA employee found out - it is effectively prohibited.

It is exactly the same as the CAsA emplyee said all charter pilots have to wear white shirts when flying!

From a CAsA argument the flight is running to a schedule Airport 1 at 10 pm, Airport 2 12 pm and Airport 3 at 4 pm 3 days a month - so it is a RPT operation. You can fight them, many have tried.

[Mach E Avelli]

Checkboard, I was referring to the USA. The point I was attempting to make, but clearly lost on you, is that the combination of the ASIC and loss of a facilitated C of V process has screwed a significant part of the GA industry.
The Connellan tragedy would not have been prevented if the pilot had held an ASIC. Any more than holding an ASIC today would stop such an event.
I do hate it when people jump on simply to contradict.

[Bend alot]

Checkboard, I was referring to the USA. The point I was attempting to make, but clearly lost on you, is that the combination of the ASIC and loss of a facilitated C of V process has screwed a significant part of the GA industry.
The Connellan tragedy would not have been prevented if the pilot had held an ASIC. Any more than holding an ASIC today would stop such an event.
I do hate it when people jump on simply to contradict.

Are you really suggesting that holding an ASIC has not made Australia safer!

[flying-spike]

There is the chance that a CAsA employee told him/her that.

If that is the case and such a flight was carried out without an AOC and that CAsA employee found out - it is effectively prohibited.

It is exactly the same as the CAsA emplyee said all charter pilots have to wear white shirts when flying!

From a CAsA argument the flight is running to a schedule Airport 1 at 10 pm, Airport 2 12 pm and Airport 3 at 4 pm 3 days a month - so it is a RPT operation. You can fight them, many have tried.

There are a few more conditions to be met for a flight to be defined as RPT:

CAR 206

3.2 RPT operations involving ‘transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals’, under CAR 206(1)(c) [emphasis provided].

[Bend alot]

There are a few more conditions to be met for a flight to be defined as RPT:

CAR 206

3.2 RPT operations involving ‘transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals’, under CAR 206(1)(c) [emphasis provided].
Not if the CAsA Inspectors says otherwise.

What you have supplied is mere text!

CAsA employee "fixed schedule" = RPT and give you a little note.

Your next move (while you have that little note given to you 16:30 Friday afternoon saying your grounded! Is, well up to you.

However correctly or incorrectly grounded - should you continue to fly, you are now clearly in breach of more Regulations.

So your next flight might be in a year or 3 - then you are a target, so expect many "random" visits.

[rcoight]

Thanks for the replies.
The scenario I’m imagining is one where the Dr / specialist owns an aircraft (but is not a pilot).
They of course pick up all the costs for running the aircraft, but they engage a CPL to fly them to their country appointments a couple of times a month.
The Dr pays the CPL for their time.
In that situation it would strike me as very bizarre indeed if CASA came along and said it needs to be done under an AOC.

[Bend alot]

Thanks for the replies.
The scenario I’m imagining is one where the Dr / specialist owns an aircraft (but is not a pilot).
They of course pick up all the costs for running the aircraft, but they engage a CPL to fly them to their country appointments a couple of times a month.
The Dr pays the CPL for their time.
In that situation it would strike me as very bizarre indeed if CASA came along and said it needs to be done under an AOC.

There seems to be at least one bizarre employed at each CAsA office, however it seems mandatory to be bizarre if you intend to be part of the CAsA Legal Team.

In most cases and places in Australia this would be classed as a private operation and be no issue - however certain individuals in CAsA may see it differently. It is then correct interpretation is held by the Judge, Jury and Executioner with significant resources (and if they lose a grudge).

[Squawk7700]

Speaking of GA booming in the US.

The likes of Mike Patey, Trent Palmer, Steve Kinevo, Corey Robin and Australian Stefan Drury.

Making videos for YouTube, promoting them with Instagram and Facebook and receiving revenue from YouTube/Google.

Commercial / AOC required or not?

[aroa]

The Medical Specialist would be carrying his/her "tools of trade" medical kit, therefore, according to CAsA this is 'commerce'...and all has to be done under an AOC and a Chief Pilot/CPL
Which costs you buckets of dosh, and gives them ultimate control over whether what you are doing can live or die.

Argue a point? Uh Oh, I dont like your 'attitude', I'll cancel yr AOC ! Thus financially you have yr throat cut.
Dont think its true.?.. I have been presented with exactly that in the past. Ive never found it, but there must be some reg somehere that defines 'attitude'... and I dont mean an aircraft in flight.
Just like the Electrician and his light bulbs and wires. Just like a Photographer and his camera. ' Commerce'
Its all BULLSH*T of course..but Control Freaks rule, OK ?
And if you have $2mil to spare you can challenge it in the Supreme Court, that CAsA is 'ultra vires' the Act.and .have NO head of power to regulate commerce.
Which is proof positive that We the GA people dont get the regulations we need or chose, but get this ****e shoved down yr throat to choke off any endeavor you might be pursuing.
A free and democratic society?...Pull the other one.! We are in bureaucratic chains
Any 'rights' you may have are disenfranchised by the CAsA Policeman keen for a bash... ie the common law right to take a photograph from a public space, and be paid, and earn a living. Just dont use an aircraft.
I say again... there will be NO change until there is a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry into this bastard bureaucrazy.

[Sunfish]

You have demonstrated my point. Medical specialists and other professionals don’t have time to argue the toss with CASA. They Require precision. If the use of GA is a grey area for them, they won’t touch it. All it takes is one CASA guy saying “i’m not sure that’s legal” and the medicos won’t touch it. For example, my stepson is what you might call a “human spare parts salesman” - he supplies surgeons with all sorts of pins, joints, plates, etc. and is present in operating theatres. What if he is in the aircraft with his kit of parts for an operation, with the surgeon?

To put it another way, the level of aviation business risk is just too high in Australia - thanks to CASA

As for RPT definitions, there is a full discussion of what CASA thinks it might mean, sometimes, in the AAT decisions. One involved a few outback stations that decided it was a good idea to organize a fairly regular private milk run. CASA put a stop to that.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A quick and very rough count suggests that CASA is third behind tax and immigration matters in persons appealing to the AAT.
Given the tiny size of the aviation community, compared to the number of taxpayers, or potential new settlers with a visa problem, what does this tell us, even if the "third" is not accurate.
A database search certainly brings up a welter of AAT appeals against CASA.
Tootle pip!!

[Okihara]

I find that the many examples given above just don't pass the common sense test. I'm fairly new to the whole AOC concept, so obviously no starting place other than "Who needs an AOC" makes for a better read:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc
where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:

Trade Operations
Carriage, for trading purposes, of goods owned by the pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft on schedules that are not fixed and terminals

Now I find it a bit of a stretch to consider medicine to be a "trade operation". If flagging the carriage of her own stethoscope is such, then so would the fuel in the wings because she paid for it and it's helping her get to where she wants to be. Or her white coat for that matter. If the issue was to boil down to personal items, she could formally bequeath them to her husband who will gladly let her use them indefinitely.

And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself.

[Bend alot]

I find that the many examples given above just don't pass the common sense test. I'm fairly new to the whole AOC concept, so obviously no starting place other than "Who needs an AOC" makes for a better read:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc
where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:

Trade Operations
Carriage, for trading purposes, of goods owned by the pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft on schedules that are not fixed and terminals
Now I find it a bit of a stretch to consider medicine to be a "trade operation". If flagging the carriage of her own stethoscope is such, then so would the fuel in the wings because she paid for it and it's helping her get to where she wants to be. Or her white coat for that matter. If the issue was to boil down to personal items, she could formally bequeath them to her husband who will gladly let her use them indefinitely.

And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself.
We are talking CAsA not common DF - I do not like your attitude, you are grounded!

Very simply that is both fact and truth in a large number of cases.

I have been instructed by a "Team Leader" to do things against the regulations in recording matters to a lower extent - how can I beat this? I was not allowed to do it to the legal/higher level of recording information, but forced to do it illegally.

So I shut shop.

[flying-spike]

Not if the CAsA Inspectors says otherwise.

What you have supplied is mere text!

CAsA employee "fixed schedule" = RPT and give you a little note.

Your next move (while you have that little note given to you 16:30 Friday afternoon saying your grounded! Is, well up to you.

However correctly or incorrectly grounded - should you continue to fly, you are now clearly in breach of more Regulations.

So your next flight might be in a year or 3 - then you are a target, so expect many "random" visits.

That “mere text” is the law and if you think a CASA inspector is going to strain themselves by putting finger to keyboard before checking that the act might generate more work for themselves you best don the foil hat and take shelter from the chemtrails. Besides, there are a lot more “operations” sailing closer to the RPT wind that are getting away with it

[Sunfish]

okihara, the facts are apparently against you.

[Bend alot]

That “mere text” is the law and if you think a CASA inspector is going to strain themselves by putting finger to keyboard before checking that the act might generate more work for themselves you best don the foil hat and take shelter from the chemtrails. Besides, there are a lot more “operations” sailing closer to the RPT wind that are getting away with it
I will PM you their name and details of the case if you like - then call them and have it confirmed.

If verbal is not ok ask for it in writing, mine was sent via email.

[Sunfish]

Flying Spike “getting away” with what? Trying to run an aviation business in the face of massive over regulation?

Exactly what is there to get away with? Do businesses in the U.S. or N.Z. also have to,”get away with it” too? Or are we talking, as I suspect, of some weird and restrictive regulation that Australia invented all on its own?

[cbradio]

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/mayday-two-shadowy-chinese-corporations-behind-virgins-plan-to-control-australian-airbase/
Virgin Australia may have misled all levels of Australian government and has made dubious public claims about the true identity of its shadowy Chinese partners in its secretive proposal to take control of the nation’s biggest military pilot school, at an RAAF training facility in Tamworth NSW.


Quote:
“General aviation flying in the United States is up substantially – mostly due to flight training of pilots hoping to go to the airlines. Right now airline hiring is up considerably and airline salaries are as well. It is a bonanza.”



Surely the "foreign owned business" horse bolted long ago in this country.
or is aviation different?
Ideally it would all be ozzy companies, but that sentiment applies to every industry and business.

[rcoight]

Flying Spike “getting away” with what? Trying to run an aviation business in the face of massive over regulation?

Exactly what is there to get away with? Do businesses in the U.S. or N.Z. also have to,”get away with it” too? Or are we talking, as I suspect, of some weird and restrictive regulation that Australia invented all on its own?

I have no idea (any more) what people "trying to run an aviation business" are up against - nor do I want to know. I left that world a long time ago and it was the best thing that ever happened to me, but

In the scenario I put forth, there is no way in the world that CASA could get away with prosecuting it as some kind of commercial enterprise that requires an AOC.
In that situation, no-one is "trying to run an aviation business".
The logical extension is that no aircraft owner can ever do anything after flying their own aircraft that might make them a bit of money.
What about an aircraft owner who flies to their rental property interstate to tidy it up or install a heater? What about an aircraft owner who flies somewhere to take up a short term contract and then flies home at the end of it? Do they need an AOC?

I very much doubt that CASA would or could try to prosecute in those or any number of other scenarios.

I think what we have here are a number of people who ARE trying to run an aviation business being tripped up by over-zealous CASA employees, which is an entirely different thing altogether, and I'm sure the complaints are also entirely justified. In some cases at least.

[Icarus2001]

From a CAsA argument the flight is running to a schedule Airport 1 at 10 pm, Airport 2 12 pm and Airport 3 at 4 pm 3 days a month - so it is a RPT operation.] Explain to me again about jet FIFO CHARTER from fixed bases in accordance with fixed schedules...

[Bend alot]

I have no idea (any more) what people "trying to run an aviation business" are up against - nor do I want to know. I left that world a long time ago and it was the best thing that ever happened to me, but

In the scenario I put forth, there is no way in the world that CASA could get away with prosecuting it as some kind of commercial enterprise that requires an AOC.
In that situation, no-one is "trying to run an aviation business".
The logical extension is that no aircraft owner can ever do anything after flying their own aircraft that might make them a bit of money.
What about an aircraft owner who flies to their rental property interstate to tidy it up or install a heater? What about an aircraft owner who flies somewhere to take up a short term contract and then flies home at the end of it? Do they need an AOC?

I very much doubt that CASA would or could try to prosecute in those or any number of other scenarios.

I think what we have here are a number of people who ARE trying to run an aviation business being tripped up by over-zealous CASA employees, which is an entirely different thing altogether, and I'm sure the complaints are also entirely justified. In some cases at least.
My previous post to supply info, I also am happy to supply the same info to you.

Only deal is then you must publicly respond here, the truth you will uncover and name the CAsA person.

[rcoight]

My previous post to supply info, I also am happy to supply the same info to you.

Only deal is then you must publicly respond here, the truth you will uncover and name the CAsA person.

Honestly, mate, I don’t care. It is of no actual interest to me other than curiosity.
I’ve been in that world in a previous life so I know what used to go on, and I’ve been on the wrong end of it.
I know that personal targeting of individuals / businesses has gone on in the bad old days. It’s disappointing to hear that it may still be going on.

However, that doesn’t change my view that in the particular - entirely theoretical - scenario I proposed the people doing that would have nothing to worry about.

[Bend alot]

Oh theoretical you are 100% - but yes nothing has changed (for the better), the bad days are now looking like blue sky's.

You and 99+% of Australians do not know or do not care - but have opinions/beliefs and complain of things directly part of the problem that they do not care.

Very much like immigration and 457's or other.

[flying-spike]

Tick All those boxes in CAR206 that I quoted then you are operating RPT. If you you don’t tick the boxes you are not operating RPT. I am a former CASA inspector and I can tell you that the first thing I would do when investigating a complaint (9 times out of 10 made by an RPT operator) I would check the suspect operation against the applicable regulation and not just rely on the allegation. The CASA inspectorate are so under resourced that you can’t afford to pursue a complaint that has insufficient evidence to support it. I am not saying that there aren’t dinosaur inspectors still out there that might try to bluff and bludgeon an operator but they are usually lazy bastards too and eventually discover the futility of pushing a false argument. ( I managed to weed out one or two during training)

[Bend alot]

Tick All those boxes in CAR206 that I quoted then you are operating RPT. If you you don’t tick the boxes you are not operating RPT. I am a former CASA inspector and I can tell you that the first thing I would do when investigating a complaint (9 times out of 10 made by an RPT operator) I would check the suspect operation against the applicable regulation and not just rely on the allegation. The CASA inspectorate are so under resourced that you can’t afford to pursue a complaint that has insufficient evidence to support it. I am not saying that there aren’t dinosaur inspectors still out there that might try to bluff and bludgeon an operator but they are usually lazy bastards too and eventually discover the futility of pushing a false argument. ( I managed to weed out one or two during training)
If you are from Brisbane, the QLD CAsA staff are far better than many in Australia.

They actually now look after several interstate/territory company's due complaints.

[rcoight]

Oh theoretical you are 100% - but yes nothing has changed (for the better), the bad days are now looking like blue sky's.

You and 99+% of Australians do not know or do not care - but have opinions/beliefs and complain of things directly part of the problem that they do not care.

Very much like immigration and 457's or other.

Well, I’m disappointed that maybe nothing has changed in the last 20 years.
But that doesn’t change anything in terms of my response to this thread.
In the totally unlikely scenario I proposed, CASA would not and should not have anything to say.

[Sunfish]

Spike: I am not saying that there aren’t dinosaur inspectors still out there that might try to bluff and bludgeon an operator but they are usually lazy bastards too and eventually discover the futility of pushing a false argument. ( I managed to weed out one or two during training)

The trouble is Spike that to YOU these guys are lazy dinosaurs that you imply are harmless, but to US, they are the representatives of the Australian Government with all the majesty and power associated. They have the capacity to destroy business, reputations, finances and careers as far as WE are concerned, and have to be handled accordingly at great expense with great personal stress. Just look at what is happening to that poor bastard - Glen Buckley.

Your argument is akin to my scuba diving experience with reef sharks, I know they are mostly harmless, but my American dive buddy doesn’t and just about throws up in their face mask when We encounter one or two. Most Australians are like that with authority figures. If some CASA creep threatens to prosecute us we take it very seriously. Turning around a few weeks later and saying “just kidding” doesn’t repair the situation either. For example, who is now going to buy a GA8 Airvan after CASAs shoot from the hip grounding letter? Who wants to be exposed to ANY engagement with CASA?

Where is the code of conduct for CASA officers? Where are the straight forward plain english guides to compliance that aren’t full of weasel words like “suitable”, “appropriate”, “acceptable” and the like.

...or does the pursuit of “safety” allow CASA staff to allegedly act like corrupt mafia thugs?

To get back on topic, no investor or professional person is going to go anywhere near Australian GA once they get a whiff of CASA regulatory culture. The exception seems to be LARGE flying schools exclusively training reams of foreign pilots who have apparently learned to hold their noses when dealing with CASA.

To fix GA, a rewrite of the act and the adoption of FAA regs and the reorganization of the various authorities to provide checks and balances is required. The current system is economically inefficient, inequitable, not market driven, and introduces needless business risk as well as sovereign risk into business calculations.

To put it another way, if a police officer pulls me up on the road, I know exactly where we both stand legally and how both of us are required to behave and how any alleged infractions are to be decided. With CASA ????? You have no idea. Ultimately perhaps years from now, that “safety” discretion thing is going to give rise to low level corruption.

[flying-spike]

Spike:

The trouble is Spike that to YOU these guys are lazy dinosaurs that you imply are harmless, but to US, they are the representatives of the Australian Government with all the majesty and power associated. They have the capacity to destroy business, reputations, finances and careers as far as WE are concerned, and have to be handled accordingly at great expense with great personal stress. Just look at what is happening to that poor bastard - Glen Buckley.

Your argument is akin to my scuba diving experience with reef sharks, I know they are mostly harmless, but my American dive buddy doesn’t and just about throws up in their face mask when We encounter one or two. Most Australians are like that with authority figures. If some CASA creep threatens to prosecute us we take it very seriously. Turning around a few weeks later and saying “just kidding” doesn’t repair the situation either. For example, who is now going to buy a GA8 Airvan after CASAs shoot from the hip grounding letter? Who wants to be exposed to ANY engagement with CASA?

Where is the code of conduct for CASA officers? Where are the straight forward plain english guides to compliance that aren’t full of weasel words like “suitable”, “appropriate”, “acceptable” and the like.

...or does the pursuit of “safety” allow CASA staff to allegedly act like corrupt mafia thugs?

To get back on topic, no investor or professional person is going to go anywhere near Australian GA once they get a whiff of CASA regulatory culture. The exception seems to be LARGE flying schools exclusively training reams of foreign pilots who have apparently learned to hold their noses when dealing with CASA.

To fix GA, a rewrite of the act and the adoption of FAA regs and the reorganization of the various authorities to provide checks and balances is required. The current system is economically inefficient, inequitable, not market driven, and introduces needless business risk as well as sovereign risk into business calculations.

To put it another way, if a police officer pulls me up on the road, I know exactly where we both stand legally and how both of us are required to behave and how any alleged infractions are to be decided. With CASA ????? You have no idea. Ultimately perhaps years from now, that “safety” discretion thing is going to give rise to low level corruption.
Nothing harmless implied at all otherwise I would not have been happy to weed the dinosaurs out. I totally agree that that sort of behaviour is not only damaging to industry (and decent CASA inspectors, of which there are many) but counterproductive and institutionalised bullying. Many CASA inspectors have been bullied (myself included) for taking a moderate and technically correct approach to surveillance and regulation. I am still part of aviation in this country and experienced regulation in others and have to say that if you stick to the principles that ignorance is no defence and knowledge is the best defence you can’t go far wrong. Yes, our regulations are a convoluted tangle of legalese compared to other countries but until (?) they are rationalised we have to work with them.

[flying-spike]

Explain to me again about jet FIFO CHARTER from fixed bases in accordance with fixed schedules...

“Not carrying persons generally”, i.e. seats not available to the general public. I have done FIFO on a closed charter and it is exactly that, closed to the general public. In some instances family members are allowed on closed charter as they are invited to the site by employees and do not purchase a ticket. An example would be Koolan Island when BHP we’re operating it. Family of resident employees could travel to visit relatives on the island but tourists could not.

[LeadSled]

I find that the many examples given above just don't pass the common sense test. I'm fairly new to the whole AOC concept, so obviously no starting place other than "Who needs an AOC" makes for a better read:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc
where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:

Trade Operations
Carriage, for trading purposes, of goods owned by the pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft on schedules that are not fixed and terminals
Now I find it a bit of a stretch to consider medicine to be a "trade operation". If flagging the carriage of her own stethoscope is such, then so would the fuel in the wings because she paid for it and it's helping her get to where she wants to be. Or her white coat for that matter. If the issue was to boil down to personal items, she could formally bequeath them to her husband who will gladly let her use them indefinitely.

And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself.
Folks,
Some time back, "somebody" ( could name them, but will refrain) in a very senior position in CASA developed the "theory" re. CAR 206 that any use of an aircraft that resulted in qualifying for any deduction of expenses or depreciation on you or your company's tax return, as a result of operating an aircraft, required an AOC.
The idea didn't last long, but caused mayhem where it was "enforced".
This was the same genius that developed the proposal for a "Private Operations AOC", whose definitions would have covered about 50% of then private operations, including the "tradie and his (her) toolbox", "doctor with his bag", :"businessman with his laptop".
You get the drift.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Thank you for your considered reply Flying Spike, I wish you were running CASA.

What I was trying to get across is how completely alien CASA behavior and the regulations are compared to ANY other activity in Australia, and that includes the ATO.

My personal opinion is that it’s killing GA.

If I had done a little more homework before starting flying, I would have taken up golf instead. The signs were there, I just didn’t put two and two together.

[Cloudee]

Can it be that some senators in government and opposition are starting to see the damage CASA are doing?

Senate votes down Green Objections to Civil Aviation Bill - Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/senate-votes-down-green-objections-to-civil-aviation-bill)The Senate yesterday voted against strong objections to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 raised by the Australian Greens.The bill seeks to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to ensure that CASA takes into account the impact of cost when making regulations, amendments which have support from both the Coalition government and the ALP opposition.

Speaking against the bill, Greens Senator Janet Rice from Victoria said her party considered the bill was risky.

"The Greens believe this is a dangerous bill," she told the Sentors. "This is a bill that would put at risk our aviation safety regime and, consequently, be putting at risk the lives of Australians.

"Taking account of the economic and the social costs of safety standards is, in fact, something that does need to be done. But it should not be done by CASA. CASA's remit is to be making recommendations on the basis of safety.

"It is up to us in the parliament, if we feel that there are other economic or social considerations that need to be taken into account, to make the judgement as to how those regulations should change and how CASA's recommendations maybe should change because of those economic or social considerations. It should not be the remit of CASA to be making those political judgements."

Senator Rice moved an amendment that would require the bill to be referred to a Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport committee inquiry, saying the Senate should know how the bill would effect the function of CASA and other impacts on aviation in Australia. The amendment was defeated 48-9.

"I am deeply disappointed," Senator Rice commented after the vote."There's probably nothing more that you will be able to tell me that will set my heart at rest that we are not undermining the safety standards of our civil aviation safety agency."

With both the government and the opposition in favour of the bill, it looks certain to pass through the Senate.

Speaking in favour of the bill, Labor's Senator Murray Watt said the bill was raised in response to industry concerns about over-regulation.

"Labor understands the importance of the aviation industry, especially in regional Australia," Watt said. "This bill takes a balanced approach between the need to protect the travelling public and, of course, ensuring the viability of the sector. This bill is in response to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that CASA's strong focus on safety has resulted in overregulation, which can be costly for small operators.

"This bill is about general aviation and balancing the critically important need for safety with making sure that the regulatory burden is not too great for small operators to bear."

Tasmanian Senator Jackie Lambie spoke in favour of the bill, stating that "When it comes to aviation safety, the safest passenger is the one that never gets in a plane in the first place. The easiest way to prevent aviation accidents is to shut down aviation altogether – if every plane is grounded, every plane is safe. Excessive regulation is doing just that – keeping planes safe by keeping planes grounded.

"This is all made possible by the rules around the regulator, CASA, which currently has to consider safety as the highest priority above all else. It is required to ignore other considerations like cost, as if it is unrelated."

In what seemed to be a concession to The Greens' concerns, Lambie proposed new wording, which was labeled as ambiguous by two other senators and ultimately defeated in a vote.

The strongest proponent of the bill was Centre Alliance's Senator Rex Patrick, with support from the Liberal Party's Senator David Fawcett.

"Unfortunately, we've now reached the situation where—Senator Rice is talking about aircraft not flying to rural areas," Senator Patrick said. "They're not flying to rural areas because there are no pilots anymore. There are no planes because everyone has been priced out of the market ...

"It's not because they're unsafe; it is simply because of the overburden of regulation that CASA imposes upon general aviation. I'm sure if you put all of the documentation that you require to be able to fly into the back of your Cessna it simply wouldn't take off it would be so heavy.

"To be very clear: the United States and other countries have much slimmer sets of regulations, but they also have much more traffic flying in their airspace and in much harsher conditions. Australia is blessed in many senses because it always has relatively good weather. We don't have to worry about significant storms or de-icing aircraft before we take off. We've got a relatively safe environment compared to other nations that have regard to the fostering of the industry.

"That has not been happening here, and it hasn't been happening here because of the legislation."

"Back when David Forsyth ran the inquiry into Australia's safety regulation for aviation, I worked with former Minister Truss, travelling much of Australia, speaking at many of the same forums and getting feedback from people," Senator Fawcett said.

"One of the issues that was raised consistently was that there were multiple occurrences where the requirements of CASA were bureaucratically correct but didn't actually have a safety outcome. In some cases, advice was given by CASA to industry which they didn't follow through because they basically didn't care about the economic impact.

"The desire is not to provide an avenue for someone to say, 'We think that's going to lose us some profits, so we're not going to do it,' but for them to actually say 'Can we achieve the same safety standard and take account of the economics for a small business?' That was the intent that came out of the Forsyth review and the associated discussions, and has bounced around now for a number of years.

"I'm very pleased to see that the opposition has been able to work with the government to come up with a form of words that makes sure that we keep companies viable, because I've got to say: a safe company is a viable company."

The bill has now been sent for a Third Reading without being amended.


Read more at Senate votes down Green Objections to Civil Aviation Bill - Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/senate-votes-down-green-objections-to-civil-aviation-bill#qjS7OE8FQeI0L6Uu.99)

[Okihara]

Scenario: you acquire an aircraft through a company that you founded with the sole purpose of being its registered holder and operator to rent it out to those pilots who so wish. Let's say you're the only shareholder for simplicity but you're not an employee.

Now you're also a pilot, and you carry out a private operation with this aircraft that you hire from your company in order to take your doctor friend out and back to see some patients. Both you and your friend incur costs for the flight – invoiced by your company – which you split evenly due to the private nature of the flight. The fee your company charges is equivalent to (at least) twice the actual costs and expenses it incurs itself (fuel, oil, airways and landing fees, insurance, engine overhaul, ...). Nothing illegal here, companies survive by charging for services and (try to) make profits in return. Your friend pays her share, you pay yours – all fair and square. Since the fee charged is twice the actual cost, her share covers those costs and while your share becomes an immediate personal loss, it becomes a profit for the company. This profit will be paid out back to you as a dividend (≠ wage/reward) at the end of the fiscal year (or you can leave it in the company).

A more realistic case would obviously have to account for GST, and double taxation avoidance since the dividend payback will also be subject to taxation. I'm no expert of the Aussie taxation system but you get the general idea.

Is there any obvious hole in that scenario or would that allow to bypass the requirement for the company to have an AOC? The idea is obviously not to make a quick buck on your friend's back but to be remain law abiding while helping her in her requirement to see patients and not losing money yourself. Eventually she has an operational requirement to fly around so it's reasonable to expect her to pay for the flight expenses.

[Sunfish]

Oki, I think what people have been suggesting, but of course I could be wrong, is that whatever fancy footwork you may do, CASA might say “no”. Since they have a bottomless pit to pay for litigation, even if you are ultimately proved right in the high court you lose......

.......And what will also have happened in the meantime is a CASA audit of your logbook, the aircraft maintenance and flight logs and the discovery of “discrepancies “ that result in your loss of license and a criminal conviction to boot. If you look through AAT decisions you will find that CASA always look for extra material to bolster their case this way.

I now understand why pilots and engineers are so reticent to answer a lot of questions I once asked, let alone commit themselves by putting anything beyond the absolute bare minimum in official records.

[machtuk]

I think after reading this thread that if there is a 'next life' them I'm gunna chose NZ or the States to enjoy my next flying career, might talk funny but at least I will have hope & prosperity, two things that GA in this country will never see again!:-(
I often wonder if anyone in CASA (with authority) ever reads this stuff? I guess if they do it's the 'Ostrich in the sand' mentality that is followed!...

:-(

[Turnleft080]

I remember when packing my Datsun 180b in 1986 with my CPL I could count 20 S/E aircraft operating out of Ayers Rock.
Flew in last week same airport, zero fixed wing not a one and only 2 choppers. Yeah good one CASA.

[LeadSled]

I remember when packing my Datsun 180b in 1986 with my CPL I could count 20 S/E aircraft operating out of Ayers Rock.
Flew in last week same airport, zero fixed wing not a one and only 2 choppers. Yeah good one CASA.
Well done CASA!!
No fixed wing means no fixed wing accidents ---- now get rid of the helicopters ----- Perfect ------ S.9A of the Act ultimate compliance.
With the banning of climbing the rock from October, that will get rid of lots of tourist, so preserving the environment.
Think of the reduction in global warning the CO2 reduction will make ------ additional bonus!!
We certainly do live in "The Lucky Country".
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Says it all, really. If ever there was a job that could be done by GA, this is it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-31/sa-girl-writes-second-letter-about-doctor-shortage/11369454

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-31/edie-rayners-letter-pleading-for-a-kimba-doctor-1/11369804


Government admits 'acute shortages' in rural SA

The South Australian Government has acknowledged that there are "acute shortages of clinical staff in country areas".

It is now trying to fill 60 GP vacancies in the state's regional areas and 35 vacancies in the general practitioner training program.

"Some of the strategies outlined in the plan include to have shared positions between metro health networks and the regions, to give exposure to rural experiences for metro-based medical interns," Health Minister Stephen Wade has said.





]

[OldMate1]

Back to the original topic. GA in the USA is affordable. Im living in the USA at the moment and fly recreationally here often. I dont at home in Australia. The reason in the price. Even with the poor exchange rate the cost is minimal compared to Aus. Fuel and maintenance are that much cheeper here, and that gets passed on.

My club here has just upped the price of a 172S from $110/hr to $130...

[vee1-rotate]

Back to the original topic. GA in the USA is affordable. Im living in the USA at the moment and fly recreationally here often. I dont at home in Australia. The reason in the price. Even with the poor exchange rate the cost is minimal compared to Aus. Fuel and maintenance are that much cheeper here, and that gets passed on.

My club here has just upped the price of a 172S from $110/hr to $130...

Likewise. Another Aussie living in the US here and I have a choice at my flying club from a variety of planes from a Beech Musketeer, Piper Archer, 172 up to a full glass Comanche ... prices from about $100 through $190.

[Sunfish]

RVAC C172 no glass $259+

[Vag277]

OK Are we talking the same sort of dollars -USD vs AUD?
What is the cost breakdown for each? Purchase cost, capital cost, fuel cost, maintenance labour cost, major component replacement allocation, insurance cost? Without that information, price comparisons are meaningless.

[PoppaJo]

On Holiday recently I hired a new 172 out of Van Nuys and was $160 odd per hour including tax. So $235 Aussie. A older 70s model was $30 cheaper.

I could also hire a Seminole out for the same price of a 172 hired out here in Melbourne, currency and tax converted!

Briefing and/or Instructor fee per hour was $80-$100us around most places.

Fuel was $1.80us litre. Landing fees even at major places were a few bucks.

Landing a 172 at big airports on a very tight parallel with a dozen odd 737s waiting and departing only set me back a few dollars in landing fees. What we do here is ban GA traffic between say 10-3pm (CNS cough..), decomission small runways to piss of the GA traffic (umm CNS again), charge monstrous landing fees, and to top it off give us 48hrs notice before you come. The latest and greatest is charging the Aussie GA battler for an approach.

[Vag277]

Interesting. The "boom" appears to be negative. See Chapter 1 with historical data over 11 years https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2017/
I know this is a rumours site but making claims that are provably incorrect does not sit well.

[Vag277]

....and fuel prices average US$5.06/US gallon https://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html approx AU$1.98/litre

[Vag277]

....and here for Australia https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/general_aviation.aspx#anc_summary
General aviation hours flown by VH-registered aircraft increased by 2.1 per cent to 1.23 million hours. Instructional flying increased by 8.7 per cent to 390 thousand hours, and Sport and pleasure flying increased by 8.7 per cent to 235 thousand hours. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in Aerial Work (down 4.5 per cent to 439 thousand hours), and Own use business flying (down 2.0 per cent to 134 thousand hours).

[Stickshift3000]

Interesting. The "boom" appears to be negative. See Chapter 1 with historical data over 11 years https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2017/
I know this is a rumours site but making claims that are provably incorrect does not sit well.

Those figures don’t appear to include LSA.

[deja vu]

RVAC C172 no glass $259+
I recall paying $12/hr ($14 dual) for a Cherokee 140 from RVAC in the late 1960's. My first full time flying job in '69 paid $47/week based in Darwin.

So things don't seem that different now, just over 25% of average weekly salary for an hours flying, provided you can actually get a job.