AFAP would not support DS legislative change proposal

[Dick Smith]

I am sure everyone remembers how I managed to get Barnaby Joyce, the Minister for Transport, and Anthony Albanese, the Shadow Minister for Transport, to agree with an important change to the Civil Aviation Act.

The wording that “CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” was going to be changed to the following:


(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must* seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation that is consistent with:

(a) maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector

(b) the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation


One of the reasons it didn’t go ahead was that the AFAP came out against it. This is what they said to me in a letter:

“Unfortunately we are not in a position to support your amendments to the act, which we believe could empower the regulator to relegate safety.”


I really feel for AFAP members. There seems to be something wrong with the hierarchy in the union. There are hundreds of AFAP members out of work, and even when the Coronavirus issue has settled, it is likely that many will remain out of work.

Who could possibly be against the statements about “maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry” and “the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation”? Surely it is what the regulator should be doing.

I believe in this particular case, the new Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack took notice of the AFAP, and that is one of the reasons why the change has not come in.

What a disaster.

[spektrum]

Cancelled my membership the other day. This just further justifies to myself that I made the right call.

[Capn Bloggs]

There are hundreds of AFAP members out of work
Were there hundreds out of work when the AFAP wrote you that letter, Dick?

[Sunfish]

AFAP = Wankers

[gerry111]

I believe in this particular case, the new Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack took notice of the AFAP, and that is one of the reasons why the change has not come in..
So you really think the current Minister for Transport took notice of a pilots' union? And not that he and Barnaby Joyce are known to loathe one another?

[De_flieger]

I've got a couple of questions.
one, did they tell the appropriate ministers or parliamentarians that they opposed, supported or were not taking a position on your requested changes?

two, was the letter they sent to you a statement that they were opposing those changes or taking a public position in opposition to them, or did they simply not want to get involved in whatever you were up to?

Because there's a world of difference between a union or public body taking a position opposing something, versus simply not wanting to get involved in whatever the person who has written to them is doing. I'm not against the changes you are hoping for here, but the context of the letter and their actions relating to it makes a big difference here. Also as Cap Bloggs has said, on what date approximately was the letter sent?

[Squawk7700]

AFAP = Wankers

... and what have been your dealings personally with this mob Sunfish?

[j3pipercub]

Why do you abbreviate your name to DS and talk about yourself in the third person in the title?

Not the time at the moment, nice little quip about hundreds of AFAP members out of work, that will definitely win friends and further your position with members and the wider pilot community.

Give it a rest DS.

[Dick Smith]

The title is simply a heading that communicates in a straightforward way what the post is about.

It’s all about succinct messaging.

Fortunately I can afford the high costs that are forced on the industry by the regulator and it would be easier for me to say and do nothing.

However I do have a concern for those who lose or can’t get jobs when it can be so easily fixed when the present times are over.

The fact that the AFAP did not come out in support of this important change stopped me in my tracks!

Would you like me to post both my email to the AFAP and the Presidents answer?

After all nothing should be secret when it comes to air safety!

[clear to land]

Absolutely. Please post and then Members-if concerned-can address the issue with the Executive.

[Sunfish]

Squawk, I simply note that professional pilot associations, Airlines and the RAAF, CASA and AsA, have absolutely no interest in:

a) maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector

(b) the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation

They are thus part of the problem, not the solution.

All of them have vested interests in the status quo. They like being an exclusive little club and Dicks overtures are about as popular as Donald Trump is with feminists. The last thing any of these organizations want is more GA or Recreational Aircraft “polluting their airspace”. In addition as a group there is also the possibility that they are simpl snobs.

To put that another way, exactly when has there been any support for reform from those bodies? Never.

[aroa]

Hullo Planet Earth...!
What a truly amazing, mind boggling statement from the APF... CAsA is already empowered to over regulate "safety", but they are not empowered to regulate trade and commerce ...which they do.

Post covid. Revo;lution needed !!

[Mach E Avelli]

The last thing any of these organizations want is more GA or Recreational Aircraft “polluting their airspace”. In addition as a group there is also the possibility that they are simpl snobs.


Back in the 80's that was certainly the case. The AFAP then was a supremely elitist and arrogant closed shop union. Then came the debacle of 1989 which brought them and their members serious grief.
Over the years since, in order to survive they have become more moderate and taken a closer interest in GA. There are examples of GA pilots who were shafted by employers who have the AFAP to thank for recovered entitlements. Of course GA operators don't like them, but they are after all a union, not a trade association.
In my own case, not too long ago I had a serious stoush with CASA over a quite trivial matter which they blew up to the point where it could have impacted on my ability to earn a crust. The free legal assistance that came from the AFAP was worth more than I could have afforded had I engaged my own lawyer. While CASA never admitted that their overly zealous officer and ambiguous regulation was at fault, I have had nothing but co-operation from them since.

[Ixixly]

Dick, are you in a position to post up their entire reply? This seems like a cherry picked quote from their letter that leaves out possible reasoning behind it. I'm not saying that I can think of any particular reason why they would but I'm also very much not a fan of cherry picking to prove a point when they may have had very valid reasons that we haven't considered yet.

One thing to consider is that this Paragraph is great and would be a good step forward but for example the way a paragraph like this interacts with the entire legislation is extremely important. If I remember correctly one issue that was brought up when this was first discussed here was that there was another paragraph involving safety that effectively allowed CASA to override this one on the grounds of "Safety" which meant they were in a position to just keep doing what they've already been doing. This is just an example not directly related to the AFAP reply but the possible reasons for the line you've quoted.

[Greeb]

Many years ago, my Gliding club received a rather nasty communication from the AFAP requiring evidence that all our pilots were being paid in accordance with the award. Failure to comply was to result in legal action.
We did not own a powered aeroplane ( winch launching was used ) and had no commercial pilots among our membership.

As already noted - W#$%KERS!

[Dick Smith]

Of course CASA bureaucrats do put cost in front of safety when it comes to the powerful airlines.

For example CASA allows twin engined wide bodies when they have a greater chance of being downed by a bird strike compared to a four engined aircraft.

Why do they allow this? For one reason alone- affordability! It results in slightly lower airfares and higher profits ( or less losses) for the airline industry.

There is no other reason. Pity they can’t use the same commonsense with GA.

[Vag277]

Hypocrisy? So you are saying CASA should not support ETOPs like every other "advanced" aviation regulator?

[thorn bird]

Vag, Hypocracy?...irony more like it. Are four engine aircraft safer than two? CAsA regulates for "Safety" only, Oh and making sure they are not liable for anything.

[Dick Smith]

CASA only allows ETOPS because in this case they have put cost as the most important consideration. That must be the only explanation. A four engined aircraft of the same design standards as a twin will always be slightly safer when it comes to bird strike.

So why do they insist that their Act keeps the words. - safety is the most important consideration?

It’s all about an allowed code of dishonesty.

Unfortunately it destroys the GA industry.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Squawk, I simply note that professional pilot associations, Airlines and the RAAF, CASA and AsA, have absolutely no interest in:



They are thus part of the problem, not the solution.

All of them have vested interests in the status quo. They like being an exclusive little club and Dicks overtures are about as popular as Donald Trump is with feminists. The last thing any of these organizations want is more GA or Recreational Aircraft “polluting their airspace”. In addition as a group there is also the possibility that they are simpl snobs.

To put that another way, exactly when has there been any support for reform from those bodies? Never.

Sunfish,

In a previous thread you asked for and I provided you with a multitude of ways that the RAAF and wider ADF support and foster GA.

Funny how in a thread that has nothing to do with military aviation you've managed to drag it back into focus, nothing like flogging a dead horse, eh.

[PLovett]

Dick, it doesn't matter what changes are proposed to the legislation, when it comes to GA, CASA will interpret the legislation as they wish. When it comes to airline regulation (your ETOPS example) they have no option as the industry world-wide has decided that twin engine aircraft is the way to go; if CASA tried to enforce 4 engine operations into Australia they would be very quickly told where to go.

Until GA decides to unite and to challenge CASA then it will be business as usual; "what end of the pineapple do you prefer?"

[gerry111]

[QUOTE=Dick Smith;10753095Would you like me to post both my email to the AFAP and the Presidents answer?
After all nothing should be secret when it comes to air safety![/QUOTE]

Come on please, Dick. We're waiting.

[ozbiggles]

Only Dick Smith could bring out another CASA won’t do it my way, I’m the only one who knows how it should be done thread in the middle of a Pandemic. I too would like to see all the applicable correspondence, not just a cherrypicked sentence.

[aroa]

Ozbi..its not about what casa won’t do. It’s about the result of Sic Sac Mic MAC the Miniscule wouldn’t do, after listening to dumb advice from apf and his agenda of deleting what Baanaby would have done... moved to change the Act... with a view to get GA in Oz alive again.

All most Av punters want is more freedoms to get on with normal business without the bloody minded, over controlling BS that CAsA comes up with for “safely” saving the world from falling aeroplanes.

CAsA doesn’t own safety. CAsA didn’t invent safety. But as it is CAsA controls ‘safety ‘ with dire economic consequences for all participants..(except them on the teat)

Safety is the result commonsense by thoughtful LAMEs and pilots who act professionally.
Its “safety” bureaucrats who have inserted themselves into the equation...and f**ked it.!
The proof is in the state of the GA pudding. Buggered.

[aroa]

Ozbi..its not about what casa won’t do. It’s about the result of Sic Sac Mic MAC the Miniscule wouldn’t do, after listening to dumb advice from apf and his agenda of deleting what Baanaby would have done... moved to change the Act... with a view to get GA in Oz alive again.

All most Av punters want is more freedoms to get on with normal business without the bloody minded, over controlling BS that CAsA comes up with for “safely” saving the world from falling aeroplanes.

CAsA doesn’t own safety. CAsA didn’t invent safety. But as it is CAsA controls ‘safety ‘ with dire economic consequences for all participants..(except them on the teat)

Safety is the result commonsense by thoughtful LAMEs and pilots who act professionally.
Its “safety” bureaucrats who have inserted themselves into the equation...and f**ked it.!
The proof is in the state of the GA pudding. Buggered.

[Dick Smith]

Ozbiggles, no it is not a cherry-picked sentence. This is my email to the AFAP.



Dear David

The attached article is self-explanatory.

Could you advise whether your organisation supports the change of the Civil Aviation Act as per the agreement of the previous Minister for Transport, Barnaby Joyce, and the current Shadow Minister Anthony Albanese? The wording is as shown in the article.

I look forward to your urgent reply.

Regards

Dick Smith


Here is the answer.



Dear Dick

The AFAP represents over 4500 Australian commercial and airline pilots, including over 1000 pilots working in General Aviation. We share your concerns regarding crippling regulatory costs which have emerged for GA, in particular brought on by Part 61 (Licencing).

Aviation companies have been hit with enormous cost blowouts in training pilots especially on to higher type aircraft. As an example an endorsement on a B200 would have cost approximately $3,000 if done in the actual aircraft, but is now costing $20,000 done in the Ansett Kingair simulator in Melbourne under Part 61 requirements. Similarly, a flight test for an ATPL licence is now required to be undertaken in B1900 or similar meaning a similar $20,000 price tag for an applicant. This leads to the absurdity of it being cheaper for an Australian pilot to travel to the USA, where the ATP flight test is conducted in a light twin. Not surprisingly, the number of ATPL licences issued outside of the airlines over the last three years has plummeted.

These costs reduce the ability and willingness of general aviation companies to provide training to pilots in the early part of their career and is contributing to the current pilot training blockages being experienced within the regional airline sector and beyond. The AFAP supports steps to reduce red tape, foster pilot training and rejuvenate the general aviation sector of our industry. CASA considers it does take into account the financial viability of the industry, but plainly this is not occurring and their practice in charging $160/hour to read and approve changes to an operations manual is another case in point. In summary, the cost that Part 61 brought to the industry and the associated red tape has been horrendous, it has also increased costs to the Airline industry but they are more able to absorb these costs.

Turning specifically to your request, unfortunately we are not in a position to support your amendments to the Act which we believe could empower the regulator to relegate safety. Our refusal is influenced by CASA's establishment of the strategic Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) , dominated with Airline executives but with no-one to represent the recommendations and advice of professional pilots.

I wish you every success with your lobbying to government to re-invigorate the aviation sector, and the AFAP will continue to lobby against CASA regulation with no demonstrable safety benefit. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Forsyth Review and incumbent CASA Board have failed to holt these trends.

Best Regards

David Booth
President
AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF AIR PILOTS


The interesting part is that for the first section of the letter, they appear to be totally agreeing with me in relation to over regulation and cost. Then they suddenly reverse their position with the statement that they wouldn’t support what I was trying to do.

I do know their position was given to the Minister as one of the reasons the Act should not be changed. If you were a Minister for Transport and you didn’t want controversy, you may as well keep the AFAP onside.

Just about everyone else who could benefit from the change remained silent.

[Sunfish]

[Turning specifically to your request, unfortunately we are not in a position to support your amendments to the Act which we believe could empower the regulator to relegate safety.

Illiterate, dumb, stupid fool, and his membership likewise if they believe this twaddle.

[Clare Prop]

I could have sworn Louise Pole has been the president of AFAP since October 2018, not David Booth

Yes I am a member of AFAP, thanks for the compliment Sunny..

[Sunfish]

Clare, If you are a member of this useless bunch of no hopers, then give your entire board a kick in the backside for utter stupidity.

What the amendment of the Act would require is for CASA to engage in evidence based rule making, not the current witch doctor driven, personal prejudice driven, military mindset friendly., steaming piles of bureaucratic ordure your AFAP President, and by association YOU, are so happy to wallow in.

What “evidence based” means is that you have to apply common or garden risk management principles which are well know hard science that have been around since at least 1975 when I was taught their application as a junior engineer responsible for 21 million litres of petrol and 36 tank trucks.

It beggars belief that anyone, ANYONE, involved in Safety critical activity would prefer mumbo jumbo to good common sense, but CASA and the AFAP prefer “fake safety” over the real thing.

The only benefit I can see in the current system is that it provides an opportunity for group therapy for congenital deviates engaged in onanistic fantasies of power and control over what’s left of Australian Aviation that they haven’t already destroyed.

As for this clowns command of english, God help us.

Do I make myself clear?

[gerry111]

Dick,
For clarity, please let us know the date of your letter to AFAP and the date of the reply from David Booth.
Thank you.

[Ixixly]

Also Dick, which is the article to which you refer in your email? They specifically mention they don't support YOUR amendments to the act and I'm uncertain exactly what your amendments to the act would be exactly?

[Clare Prop]

Clare, If you are a member of this useless bunch of no hopers, then give your entire board a kick in the backside for utter stupidity.

What the amendment of the Act would require is for CASA to engage in evidence based rule making, not the current witch doctor driven, personal prejudice driven, military mindset friendly., steaming piles of bureaucratic ordure your AFAP President, and by association YOU, are so happy to wallow in.

What “evidence based” means is that you have to apply common or garden risk management principles which are well know hard science that have been around since at least 1975 when I was taught their application as a junior engineer responsible for 21 million litres of petrol and 36 tank trucks.

It beggars belief that anyone, ANYONE, involved in Safety critical activity would prefer mumbo jumbo to good common sense, but CASA and the AFAP prefer “fake safety” over the real thing.

The only benefit I can see in the current system is that it provides an opportunity for group therapy for congenital deviates engaged in onanistic fantasies of power and control over what’s left of Australian Aviation that they haven’t already destroyed.

As for this clowns command of english, God help us.

Do I make myself clear?
Abundantly! :D I haven't been told off like that since school! LOL
Can you or Dick explain why he is quoting emails from someone who stopped being the president of AFAP 18 months ago?

[aroa]

Sunny...love yr wording regarding those in CAsA. !! How absolutely true. Top marks.

[Sunfish]

I feel better now.

[Dick Smith]

Gerry111, my letter to the AFAP was dated 11 April 2018 and the reply from David Booth was dated 13 April 2018.

Ixixly, (http://rosiereunion.com/file/theaustralianbarnabyjoyceaffair.pdf)the article to which my letter refers (http://rosiereunion.com/file/theaustralianbarnabyjoyceaffair.pdf) was published in The Australian on 14 March 2018.

[Clare Prop]

I feel better now.

Because you are one of those people who find personal attacks so satisfying. It's rather sad.

[Hoosten]

So, the point I would make is this Booth character obviously did not go to the membership with this. What a prick, to be making assumptions on behalf of the membership. It points out everything that is wrong with unions. The executives own little play thing obviously.

[j3pipercub]

I’m still confused as to why this has been raised two years after the letter?

[Dick Smith]

Because the position of the AFAP has not changed.

I too believe that the membership was not consulted.

[Mach E Avelli]

As for this clowns command of english, God help us.

?

Hmm, where is the apostrophe when it is needed?

[CaptainMidnight]

AFAP Position Paper Posted: Tuesday, 22 October 2019 (https://www.afap.org.au/news1/ArtMID/1606/ArticleID/161/afap-position-paper)

[j3pipercub]

The position paper makes sense to me, including the Annexure 2 section 9a amendment. The original letter also makes perfect sense to me. Afap support the intent, not the specific wording.

Seems a lot like the usual suspects attempting to sink the boot into the afap.

j3

[Sunfish]

I’ve read your position paper and you can stick it up your backside.

WTF IS; “take into account that civil aviation is a system of safety.”??
’
This is gobbledygook for “we know the regulation seems stupid, but it’s part of a larger system”.

”System” is a nominative word like “safety”. One could say that the Calabrian mafia are a “system”. just like bikie gangs.

Do you #@#$ing so called professional pilots understand what you are talking about? If you did, you might even understand that “system thinking” in cybernetic terms, is about inputs and outputs. By any stretch of the imagination you think CASA will change as a result?

Bikies, the mafia, colombian drug cartels and the new york mobs are all system players, since when does calling it a system of air safety imply that it is efficient, just or sustainable?

I could make another reference to a well known system player, but that would put me in breach of Godwin’s law.

Seriously, you AFAP guys are easy meat. I have a bridge to sell you.

P.S. Piper cub, it makes sense to you because nominative words like “system”, “safety”, “justice”, “fairness”, etc. have no hard and fast concrete meaning. They are concepts that exist in the mind of the reader and nowhere else. Of course they make sense to you. They exist in your mind only. Other people may have an equally valid but totall different concept of what is systemic, safe, just or fair. Politicians use nominative because it leaves them free (not you) to define what they mean.

Leaving CASA to determine what “safety system” means as the AFAP proposes, is like asking a heroine dealer to define the term “commercial quantity” of that drug.

[Clare Prop]

Nurse! NURSE!

[Sunfish]

Nurse indeed. Ever see Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched?

I feel like the hero in “one flew over the Cuckoos nest” - Randle McMurphy is the only character who can see the insanity of the administration of the insane asylum in which he is an inmate.

”Upon arriving at the hospital, he finds the ward run by nurse Mildred Ratched (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Ratched), a cold, passive-aggressive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior) tyrant who uses her rules and authority to intimidate her charges into a restrictive, joyless existence.”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo%27s_Nest_(film)


Some of you poor bastards are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

[j3pipercub]

You're so right Sunfish, it's everyone else that's wrong. The diatribe of faux intellectualism and foul language won me over.

Not to mention the crafty mention of Godwins law, well done you on the sneaky non mention of Nazis. Just sublime. Or is sublime all in my head? Are we all just waiting to be soylent green? Should I take the blue pill and remain ignorant or take the red and become as woke as you are? Decisions, decisions.

You keep doing you mate, never change, but it sounds like you need a holiday. I hear the dalmatian coast is a great sailing destination...

j3

[Sunfish]

J3cub, define what “take into account that civil aviation is a system of safety.” actually means.

When you have completed that simple task define the word “safety” in an aviation context actually means in practice.

Your replies will no doubt be more nominative words that are meaningless.

I find it amazing that people who are supposed to be professional masters of the hard and brutal physical laws of flight should fall for professionally bottled snake oil like the AFAP position paper.’’


To put that another way, What would you say if you got into an aircraft and the POH said “advance the throttles until the engines feel right and accelerate smoothly until the aircraft feels like it might want to rotate, then climb at a comfortable rate until you are at a sufficient altitude. When you think you might be near your destination, descend at a rate that feels good to you to a height that looks Ok then descend at a comfortable speed until you think you might be near the runway.” You have 300 pax on board.

That is the EXACT analogue to what you are allowing the regulator to do.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Enough of the personal attacks. CLICK