Why do we need to be more restrictive than the USA?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree with mjbow2. If the US system was brought as a whole. FIS again, Lots of D towers, the US charging system, the Government subsidy etc.
WE ARE NOT GETTING THIS.
WE ARE NOT GETTING THIS.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is actually the first posts by Dick I have ever read and have no knowledge of how Dick became so alienated within these pages. So for what its worth Dick, I fully support in principle, a change to the US system, especially if it brings down the cost to the GA guys.
The US system is wonderful; their extra radar sights, extra controllers to go with their extra traffic. Culture cannot be imported it must be developed. We are a long way off the USA airsapce culture. Does the USA envy our culture; some of us envy their's. Every USA ATC I've spoken too would love our old system; they all agree that, it would be safer...
Love your graph Dick, doesn't mean ****e! You could run a very similar graph about ticket costs v activity on RPTs.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow 2, Indeed!
The only Australian pilots opposed would be a very few untravelled ignorant ones that have been brought up within "the local system." And of course, there is always one or two elderly airline gentlement scared stiff of ever getting a TCAS RA, not having the required alertness or reflex action to deal with it.
Dick has only become alienated with a couple dozen archaic union bludging whiners, playing the "safety card" to an uneducated media...and any others that care to listen to such drivel...
The only Australian pilots opposed would be a very few untravelled ignorant ones that have been brought up within "the local system." And of course, there is always one or two elderly airline gentlement scared stiff of ever getting a TCAS RA, not having the required alertness or reflex action to deal with it.
Dick has only become alienated with a couple dozen archaic union bludging whiners, playing the "safety card" to an uneducated media...and any others that care to listen to such drivel...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate
I think you hit the nail on the head with your question:
"Is it the charges you resist or the 'permission' issues? "
Without doubt it's 'permission issues' !
Can you imagine - Shut up Dick and do what your told!
You need C airspace for that!
I think you hit the nail on the head with your question:
"Is it the charges you resist or the 'permission' issues? "
Without doubt it's 'permission issues' !
Can you imagine - Shut up Dick and do what your told!
You need C airspace for that!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun says:
What about B200 (and similar) drivers without the benefit of TCAS?
Single pilot M/E IFR operations is difficult enough as it is!!
The only Australian pilots opposed would be a very few untravelled ignorant ones that have been brought up within "the local system." And of course, there is always one or two elderly airline gentlement scared stiff of ever getting a TCAS RA, not having the required alertness or reflex action to deal with it.
Single pilot M/E IFR operations is difficult enough as it is!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAMPS could you please not quote Winstun cos I have all his posts ignored on here and have been enjoying "ahhh the serenity" of not having to read his drivel. You quoting him brings all those horrible memories back!!! Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera
To hark back to your post earlier today:
"Private flying never was and never will be avialable [sic] to all Australians - only to the financial elite."
Methinks you perhaps show a bias that is unwarranted. There are a substantial number of folks who fly privately who certainly do not approach the wealth of DS and his cohorts. These guys and gals include a substantial number of pro pilots.
Flying and aircraft ownership is as affordable as most of those 4WD/SUVs that you see as a second car, or the larger trailer boats that abound - and even more affordable in syndicate, or in some of the faster U/Light aircraft. Do you label boating or 4WD'ing as elitist?
Do not use the "elitist" tag as a slur to deny to right of those to fly privately if they so wish, whether for enjoyment, for independence, for provision of flight services to areas not well served by RPT or for avoidance of major carriers/airports and their actual and potential problems. They have as much a right to be in the air as the RPT fleet - a big sky can be shared if appropriate measures are in place, as we have proved in the past in Australia.
Fly safely
TimTams
My sincere apologies for words perhaps chosen in haste.
I certainly did not intend any derogatory slur with my use of the word "elitist" and infact, used the term "financial elitist" to indicate the upper income families.
My apologies for any who feel offended. I also hoped I was expressing basic facts, not any bias.
Allow me to clarify: The average Australian income is now approximately $36,000 per annum and many of my own staff are in that income range. Many are single income families, some have a part time of full time second income.
Whilst I stand to be corrected, I suspect the majority of Aussie families have an income of $40,000 or less, a couple of kids, a mortgage to service and possibly a personal loan on the primary family car. They are certainly not living in poverty, are very happy and content but realistically, can't indulge in excess "luxuries" - no new 4WD/SUV, no yacht and can't afford to indulge in private flying.
Only a small minority of Australian families would have the assets, disposeable income and probably the motivation to fly privately or participate in private aircraft ownership. That is still no reason to impose excessive charges upon them when they enjoy their hobby.
Woomera
To hark back to your post earlier today:
"Private flying never was and never will be avialable [sic] to all Australians - only to the financial elite."
Methinks you perhaps show a bias that is unwarranted. There are a substantial number of folks who fly privately who certainly do not approach the wealth of DS and his cohorts. These guys and gals include a substantial number of pro pilots.
Flying and aircraft ownership is as affordable as most of those 4WD/SUVs that you see as a second car, or the larger trailer boats that abound - and even more affordable in syndicate, or in some of the faster U/Light aircraft. Do you label boating or 4WD'ing as elitist?
Do not use the "elitist" tag as a slur to deny to right of those to fly privately if they so wish, whether for enjoyment, for independence, for provision of flight services to areas not well served by RPT or for avoidance of major carriers/airports and their actual and potential problems. They have as much a right to be in the air as the RPT fleet - a big sky can be shared if appropriate measures are in place, as we have proved in the past in Australia.
Fly safely
TimTams
My sincere apologies for words perhaps chosen in haste.
I certainly did not intend any derogatory slur with my use of the word "elitist" and infact, used the term "financial elitist" to indicate the upper income families.My apologies for any who feel offended. I also hoped I was expressing basic facts, not any bias.
Allow me to clarify: The average Australian income is now approximately $36,000 per annum and many of my own staff are in that income range. Many are single income families, some have a part time of full time second income.
Whilst I stand to be corrected, I suspect the majority of Aussie families have an income of $40,000 or less, a couple of kids, a mortgage to service and possibly a personal loan on the primary family car. They are certainly not living in poverty, are very happy and content but realistically, can't indulge in excess "luxuries" - no new 4WD/SUV, no yacht and can't afford to indulge in private flying.
Only a small minority of Australian families would have the assets, disposeable income and probably the motivation to fly privately or participate in private aircraft ownership. That is still no reason to impose excessive charges upon them when they enjoy their hobby.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 21st Apr 2004 at 00:22.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are so many threads about the same topic that it's difficult to know where to post this. This thread will do.
I have raised four daughters, some more successfully than others, but one thing I have managed to get into their heads eventually is that a debate, argument or discussion involves receiving as well as transmitting.
It is important to keep an ear open to the fact that you may be wrong in a basic tenet, even to the point where your whole argument falls down in a screaming heap. If you get to that point it is crucial that you accept it, apologise and start again from a different perspective.
My daughters, to their credit, have absorbed this over the years. Dick, in common with most "self-made" men, hasn't. Think Keith Williams, Kerry Packer, Gerry Harvey... the list is endless. "I am rich, therefore I know better than you all." Their radios are set permanently to transmit; the receiver is switched off. And what a classic case we have of that here.
Never mind, Dick, you still have your little mate Winstun licking your boots, but to the rest of us in the aviation industry in Australia, as opposed to the Walter Mitty's like him, you are quite obviously an embarrassment.
It's a growing pleasure to me to see that you are on your way out, and the Dick Smith years will be remembered as a shameful aberration in Australian aviation. Goodbye, and I sincerely trust your suckerfish John Anderson will take the fall with you.
I have raised four daughters, some more successfully than others, but one thing I have managed to get into their heads eventually is that a debate, argument or discussion involves receiving as well as transmitting.
It is important to keep an ear open to the fact that you may be wrong in a basic tenet, even to the point where your whole argument falls down in a screaming heap. If you get to that point it is crucial that you accept it, apologise and start again from a different perspective.
My daughters, to their credit, have absorbed this over the years. Dick, in common with most "self-made" men, hasn't. Think Keith Williams, Kerry Packer, Gerry Harvey... the list is endless. "I am rich, therefore I know better than you all." Their radios are set permanently to transmit; the receiver is switched off. And what a classic case we have of that here.
Never mind, Dick, you still have your little mate Winstun licking your boots, but to the rest of us in the aviation industry in Australia, as opposed to the Walter Mitty's like him, you are quite obviously an embarrassment.
It's a growing pleasure to me to see that you are on your way out, and the Dick Smith years will be remembered as a shameful aberration in Australian aviation. Goodbye, and I sincerely trust your suckerfish John Anderson will take the fall with you.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note: Dick Smith has such contempt for the safety of the Australian public that he does not even bother to address the serious safety issues raised. He merely prattles on and on about his own vested intests.
Where is your evidence? Let me guess.........just believe….
(The evidence of the Class C non-radar vectors might prove your otherwise defamatory case for 'basically criminal' activity. I suggest you gather your facts and report them immediately to CASA, ATSB and the police. Next time you ‘make up' a fact, at least make it look somewhat plausible.)
And your answer to this is to increase costs to US levels?
BTW: What does A B747 RA climb cost in terms of fuel burn, customer confidence etc.?
Name one Australian aviation company which has ever shown that the ‘extra costs of flying in the airspace’ have even been noticed, never mind becoming the ‘difference between success and failure’. No facts? No examples? Pure Dick Smith fantasy. (I believe!!!)
Agreed. Imposing a less safe, more expensive system seems to be a rather dangerous and ridiculous way of fixing the problem, however.
Where is your evidence? Let me guess.........
And NAS addresses this issue ‘across a place like Sydney’……how was that again?
BTW: Before you made this ‘example’ up, you would no doubt have been fully aware of exactly how traffic priorities in a place like Sydney are allocated. (MED< RPT< training etc.) You attempted to mislead people into believing that the flight rules have a bearing, while knowing full well that this is a lie.
Shock horror. Are you suggesting Airservices stop free services to VFR? Try getting that past Boyd, AK and the other boys.
Show us the clause in any Airservices Manager's contract which specifies this. (I know, let me guess......)
Try and tell the US they need to create three separate bureaucracies just to replace the FAA, and see how quickly you are laughed out of Washington!
Why not put it even more simply: Don't tell us, just show us the numbers (A bit hard to do when you are making it up as you go along, I guess.)
And the cost of NAS so far? Who do you think is going to pay the enormous bill you have imposed upon the industry?
So, why are we not using it 'correctly'? Why was it not introduced 'correctly'?
Specifically - and I know you are ignoring the question as hard as you possibly can, because you it will come back to haunt you - "Why was Class E airspace introduced in Australia without the US safety mitigators which allow it to operate safely in the US?" Why are you risking lives and livelihoods in this manner?
Why are we, once again, discovering things to our collective 'horror' after the fact? Why do you not allow proper, safe implementation of reforms that are so sorely needed? For how long can Australian aviation survive the costs, both in lives and dollars, of yet another Dick Smith 'experiment'?
By 'very safe" do you mean in the 'horrific/ basically criminal' sense of safe. Show us your evidence. (I know, we just have to believe and it will be so.)
What are the 'large amounts'? Why not ‘heaps’ or ‘shed-loads’? Why are you still hiding the figures the ARG was paid to come up with to justify NAS? You were paid to determine the cost effectiveness of NAS vs LLAMP. How much will NAS save? How much would LLAMP have saved? You must have the numbers. Why do you keep denying this and say it is up to someone else to provide the figures? (Willoughby, DOTARs, BTRE etc.) Why are you hiding the truth? Too damning perhaps?
PS: The chart shows that 'private/business' aviation has been in decline since 1990 (about when you became chairman of the then CAA) and the decline levelled off somewhat at the end of 1992 (when you left the CAA). It slumps dramatically around 1995 (what were you doing in 1995?) and continues an accelerated decline around 1997 to 1999 (The time your were in charge of CASA). Coincidence? The correlation seems more logical than your lies about airspace issues being the cause.
Your post is full of unsubstantiated, meaningless garbage. Whilst you are sprouting this twaddle, you shamefully ignore the dangerous mess you have created.
Dick Smith, what are you doing to fix the system which created the ‘horrific’ near mid-air collisions recently. Are you going to wait for actual deaths before you do something?
Despite what is said in other threads, Class C airspace (especially non-radar) often results in VFR aircraft being held or
vectored extra distances.
vectored extra distances.
(The evidence of the Class C non-radar vectors might prove your otherwise defamatory case for 'basically criminal' activity. I suggest you gather your facts and report them immediately to CASA, ATSB and the police. Next time you ‘make up' a fact, at least make it look somewhat plausible.)
Remember, the difference between success and failure in a small business is quite often small amounts of money. The extra costs of flying in the airspace can have a substantive difference on the success of the general aviation industry.
BTW: What does A B747 RA climb cost in terms of fuel burn, customer confidence etc.?
Name one Australian aviation company which has ever shown that the ‘extra costs of flying in the airspace’ have even been noticed, never mind becoming the ‘difference between success and failure’. No facts? No examples? Pure Dick Smith fantasy. (I believe!!!)
I believe now the hours are getting so low that we will possibly get into a situation where the whole industry becomes non-viable. This would be a great pity for Australia.
I have heard aircraft attempting to get a VFR clearance across a place like Sydney and the clearance is simply not available. However if the same aircraft files IFR and pays the enroute charge, the clearance is most often immediately available with no delays.
And NAS addresses this issue ‘across a place like Sydney’……how was that again?
BTW: Before you made this ‘example’ up, you would no doubt have been fully aware of exactly how traffic priorities in a place like Sydney are allocated. (MED< RPT< training etc.) You attempted to mislead people into believing that the flight rules have a bearing, while knowing full well that this is a lie.
Of course, Airservices earns money from IFR flight plans - even in CAVOK conditions - whereas they make no money from VFR enroute flights.
There is obviously a conflict of interest with the organisation that is responsible for the design and allocation of airspace also being responsible for making a profit out of that airspace - especially when the top executives are paid a share of that profit. They have incentives not to provide cost savings to general aviation when they lose money from this.
Try and tell the US they need to create three separate bureaucracies just to replace the FAA, and see how quickly you are laughed out of Washington!
To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.
And the cost of NAS so far? Who do you think is going to pay the enormous bill you have imposed upon the industry?
If used correctly, the NAS system has the potential to be very safe and to save general aviation large amounts of money - this will assist the industry to be viable again and employ many more people.
Specifically - and I know you are ignoring the question as hard as you possibly can, because you it will come back to haunt you - "Why was Class E airspace introduced in Australia without the US safety mitigators which allow it to operate safely in the US?" Why are you risking lives and livelihoods in this manner?
Why are we, once again, discovering things to our collective 'horror' after the fact? Why do you not allow proper, safe implementation of reforms that are so sorely needed? For how long can Australian aviation survive the costs, both in lives and dollars, of yet another Dick Smith 'experiment'?
By 'very safe" do you mean in the 'horrific/ basically criminal' sense of safe. Show us your evidence. (I know, we just have to believe and it will be so.)
What are the 'large amounts'? Why not ‘heaps’ or ‘shed-loads’? Why are you still hiding the figures the ARG was paid to come up with to justify NAS? You were paid to determine the cost effectiveness of NAS vs LLAMP. How much will NAS save? How much would LLAMP have saved? You must have the numbers. Why do you keep denying this and say it is up to someone else to provide the figures? (Willoughby, DOTARs, BTRE etc.) Why are you hiding the truth? Too damning perhaps?
PS: The chart shows that 'private/business' aviation has been in decline since 1990 (about when you became chairman of the then CAA) and the decline levelled off somewhat at the end of 1992 (when you left the CAA). It slumps dramatically around 1995 (what were you doing in 1995?) and continues an accelerated decline around 1997 to 1999 (The time your were in charge of CASA). Coincidence? The correlation seems more logical than your lies about airspace issues being the cause.
Your post is full of unsubstantiated, meaningless garbage. Whilst you are sprouting this twaddle, you shamefully ignore the dangerous mess you have created.
Dick Smith, what are you doing to fix the system which created the ‘horrific’ near mid-air collisions recently. Are you going to wait for actual deaths before you do something?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Mr Smith. One of the courtesies shown on Pprune is that if you place opinions on these threads, you should (if you have any backbone) stand up for them, and debate the issue.
I for one, and there are probably numerous others, would like to see your reply to 4711's post, and the multitude that have taken the time and the courtesy to reply to your original post. Give them some respect, and answer them, please.
Or have you no backbone?
I for one, and there are probably numerous others, would like to see your reply to 4711's post, and the multitude that have taken the time and the courtesy to reply to your original post. Give them some respect, and answer them, please.
Or have you no backbone?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many posts have refered to the costs. It must be made clear that the user bares NO costs within the US system barring any taxes etc from fuel sales/ hangar tie down fees etc at airports. The airpace system is funded entirely by govt infrastructure spending.
Since John Howard come to power, his agender has been to privatise much of the public infrastructure from telecomunications to aviation, which has resulted in higher costs to the user, and not lower as advertised. This industry, probably cannot self fund the infrastructure (airspce/air services) due to its limited size, from fuel taxes etc. If we want a US system it is clear that a lot more federal money needs to be spent.
If a wholesale adoption of the US system is taken on and properly funded by the government, then the users will bare no costs from Flight Services (weather/flight planning/briefing/filing of flight plans etc.), the absence of landing fees for GA, no airspace charges, no approach charges and an airpace system that encourages VFR use of ATC and caters for VFR and IFR alike.
US system = NO COST to the GA user. Stop privatising Aviation infrastructure and start spending that budget surplus.
MJB
Since John Howard come to power, his agender has been to privatise much of the public infrastructure from telecomunications to aviation, which has resulted in higher costs to the user, and not lower as advertised. This industry, probably cannot self fund the infrastructure (airspce/air services) due to its limited size, from fuel taxes etc. If we want a US system it is clear that a lot more federal money needs to be spent.
If a wholesale adoption of the US system is taken on and properly funded by the government, then the users will bare no costs from Flight Services (weather/flight planning/briefing/filing of flight plans etc.), the absence of landing fees for GA, no airspace charges, no approach charges and an airpace system that encourages VFR use of ATC and caters for VFR and IFR alike.
US system = NO COST to the GA user. Stop privatising Aviation infrastructure and start spending that budget surplus.
MJB
Last edited by mjbow2; 21st Apr 2004 at 02:32.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies ASA - the comments got my goat up!!
mjbow2 - you got it in one.
I noticed how the privatisation of CB decimated GA there. The same is happening at BK.
mjbow2 - you got it in one.
I noticed how the privatisation of CB decimated GA there. The same is happening at BK.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Could you please quote a credible, reliable and authorative source for your "outrageous" claim: To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.
It is your qualification If used correctly: If used correctly, the NAS system has the potential to be very safe and to save general aviation large amounts of money – this will assist the industry to be viable again and employ many more people.
If used correctly relates to the training and education which has failed this implementation; and in this regard you shoulder much responsibility.
Your graph is descriptive, but so too is the raw data:
Key Indicators
General Aviation, 2002
• General Aviation flying continued to show a decrease in activity in 2002, with a drop in flying hours of 0.9 per cent. Aerial agriculture flying fell by 33.6 per cent from the effects of drought conditions across much of Australia. Charter, business flying and test and ferry activity also decreased by 4.4, 1.8 and 9.9 per cent respectively. Aerial work recorded the largest increase in flying activity, with a rise of 11.2 per cent. Private and training activity also saw more moderate increases of 3.2 and 1.1 per cent respectively.
• The major activities in 2002 were charter operations (445,700 hours, down 4.4 per cent on 2001), training (410,800 hours, up 1.1 per cent) and aerial work (327,100 hours, up 11.2 per cent).
• 270,200 hours were flown for private purposes including recreation and personal travel. Sport aviation flew an additional 80,600 hours in ultralight aircraft, 122,200 hours in hang gliders and 32,300 hours in gyroplanes. Recent gliding activity statistics are not available, but totalled 63,900 hours in 1998/99.
Hours flown ('000') in General Aviation
Year Private Business Training Agriculture Aerial work Test & ferry Charter TOTAL
1992 255.4 204.2 421.6 80.9 256.7 28.2 403.9 1,651.0
1993 265.3 212.3 436.8 89.2 278.8 28.2 393.4 1,703.9
1994 256.9 198.5 419.5 78.9 301.7 25.9 424.4 1,705.7
1995 251.0 189.1 430.6 94.5 302.4 28.2 465.7 1,761.3
1996 261.6 182.8 444.9 117.4 285.7 26.2 480.4 1,799.0
1997 266.7 176.0 449.5 128.4 307.4 27.6 483.7 1,839.3
1998 263.0 163.8 478.5 139.2 312.4 26.6 494.6 1,877.9
1999 275.9 153.3 448.8 126.3 306.6 26.6 504.6 1,842.2
2000 248.5 136.3 413.6 115.0 296.9 27.9 476.7 1,714.8
2001 261.7 144.9 406.2 106.7 294.2 23.2 466.0 1,702.9
2002 270.2 142.2 410.8 70.8 327.1 20.9 445.7 1,687.7
Sorry if the table is corrupted check it out here.
http://www.btre.gov.au/avstats/genpage.htm
Quote from the 2002/2003 Airservices Annual report (page 89) and the Charter Letter, Ministerial Directions and Notifications:
“..It is the Government’s view that Airservices has a responsibility to operate in a way that promotes the general health of the aviation industry, but this does not require Airservices to ensure the viability of any individual operator, nor will it require that the aspirations of any particular aviation sector be met.”
Given this government charter - what place is there for you amongst the other industry players, other than a lobyist seeking best advantage for your commarades. Why not are the other legitimate concerns, reasonably argued also valid?
Could you please quote a credible, reliable and authorative source for your "outrageous" claim: To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.
It is your qualification If used correctly: If used correctly, the NAS system has the potential to be very safe and to save general aviation large amounts of money – this will assist the industry to be viable again and employ many more people.
If used correctly relates to the training and education which has failed this implementation; and in this regard you shoulder much responsibility.
Your graph is descriptive, but so too is the raw data:
Key Indicators
General Aviation, 2002
• General Aviation flying continued to show a decrease in activity in 2002, with a drop in flying hours of 0.9 per cent. Aerial agriculture flying fell by 33.6 per cent from the effects of drought conditions across much of Australia. Charter, business flying and test and ferry activity also decreased by 4.4, 1.8 and 9.9 per cent respectively. Aerial work recorded the largest increase in flying activity, with a rise of 11.2 per cent. Private and training activity also saw more moderate increases of 3.2 and 1.1 per cent respectively.
• The major activities in 2002 were charter operations (445,700 hours, down 4.4 per cent on 2001), training (410,800 hours, up 1.1 per cent) and aerial work (327,100 hours, up 11.2 per cent).
• 270,200 hours were flown for private purposes including recreation and personal travel. Sport aviation flew an additional 80,600 hours in ultralight aircraft, 122,200 hours in hang gliders and 32,300 hours in gyroplanes. Recent gliding activity statistics are not available, but totalled 63,900 hours in 1998/99.
Hours flown ('000') in General Aviation
Year Private Business Training Agriculture Aerial work Test & ferry Charter TOTAL
1992 255.4 204.2 421.6 80.9 256.7 28.2 403.9 1,651.0
1993 265.3 212.3 436.8 89.2 278.8 28.2 393.4 1,703.9
1994 256.9 198.5 419.5 78.9 301.7 25.9 424.4 1,705.7
1995 251.0 189.1 430.6 94.5 302.4 28.2 465.7 1,761.3
1996 261.6 182.8 444.9 117.4 285.7 26.2 480.4 1,799.0
1997 266.7 176.0 449.5 128.4 307.4 27.6 483.7 1,839.3
1998 263.0 163.8 478.5 139.2 312.4 26.6 494.6 1,877.9
1999 275.9 153.3 448.8 126.3 306.6 26.6 504.6 1,842.2
2000 248.5 136.3 413.6 115.0 296.9 27.9 476.7 1,714.8
2001 261.7 144.9 406.2 106.7 294.2 23.2 466.0 1,702.9
2002 270.2 142.2 410.8 70.8 327.1 20.9 445.7 1,687.7
Sorry if the table is corrupted check it out here.
http://www.btre.gov.au/avstats/genpage.htm
Quote from the 2002/2003 Airservices Annual report (page 89) and the Charter Letter, Ministerial Directions and Notifications:
“..It is the Government’s view that Airservices has a responsibility to operate in a way that promotes the general health of the aviation industry, but this does not require Airservices to ensure the viability of any individual operator, nor will it require that the aspirations of any particular aviation sector be met.”
Given this government charter - what place is there for you amongst the other industry players, other than a lobyist seeking best advantage for your commarades. Why not are the other legitimate concerns, reasonably argued also valid?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2,
Your post was, I feel, supremely accurate and very noteworthy except on a couple of points.
Firstly, much of the government funding that you allude to in the States actually comes from a trust system, with enormous financial backing that has been built not just over years but generations. Thus, whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, there is no quick fix solution for Oz there. In fact, given that successive governments have shown no intention of stepping back from their selling-off frenzy to make their own books look good, I seriously doubt there will be the 180 degree change in policy to start putting the money back. More's the pity.
Secondly, as per the Manual of Air Traffic Services and pointed out by 4-7-11, there is NO DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN VFR AND IFR AIRCRAFT WHEN ISSUING CLEARANCES, so VFR and IFR are already catered to alike (barring the irreparable damage that Dick has done to GA for over a decade by trying to "help them").
Your post was, I feel, supremely accurate and very noteworthy except on a couple of points.
Firstly, much of the government funding that you allude to in the States actually comes from a trust system, with enormous financial backing that has been built not just over years but generations. Thus, whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, there is no quick fix solution for Oz there. In fact, given that successive governments have shown no intention of stepping back from their selling-off frenzy to make their own books look good, I seriously doubt there will be the 180 degree change in policy to start putting the money back. More's the pity.
Secondly, as per the Manual of Air Traffic Services and pointed out by 4-7-11, there is NO DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN VFR AND IFR AIRCRAFT WHEN ISSUING CLEARANCES, so VFR and IFR are already catered to alike (barring the irreparable damage that Dick has done to GA for over a decade by trying to "help them").
Grandpa Aerotart
Dick I don't even know why I'm bothering replying to an individual who constantly shows he has a teenagers ability to comprehend anyone but his/her own position...but here goes!
General Aviation is in a world of terminal hurt in Australia because;
1/. Govt policy of the last 15+ years with respect to privitisation/cost recovery.
2/. Vastly reduced charter hours due to vastly increased RPT network/frequencies and vastly reduced airfares.
It has zero to do with airspace...or if not zero the % is so small as to be irrelevant.
More 'efficient' modern aircraft and zero airways/landing charges will still not even up the playing field when a person can get from a-b several times a day for a fraction of what it costs to charter an aircraft....simple really.
Not to mention the capital costs of those more efficient aircraft are prohibitive without the utilisation...see 2/. above...which is why most charter aircraft in Oz GA are old aircraft with low capital outlay.
Added to the above the vast array of competitors for an individuals leisure dollar...after Mr Howard takes his enormous %...and it is easy to see why there will never be a return to the halcyon days of the 70s/early 80s.
As much as I love going from A-B in my Bonanza, or even just A-A, I'm very close myself to putting her on the market and getting a sailing boat instead. The labour costs associated with aircraft maintenance these days is becoming prohibitive....thanks to a youth spent working in boatsheds teaching sailing and repairing boats I can fix most anything on a sailing boat myself....as opposed to paying some bozo $60+/hr to look perplexed and give bs reasons why it took 4 x the time and 3 x the money quoted for the job.
You are on a flogging to nowhere....I hope the ATCOs/industry take you to the cleaners. Your contribution to Australian aviation has been and continues to be, on balance, negative
Chuck
General Aviation is in a world of terminal hurt in Australia because;
1/. Govt policy of the last 15+ years with respect to privitisation/cost recovery.
2/. Vastly reduced charter hours due to vastly increased RPT network/frequencies and vastly reduced airfares.
It has zero to do with airspace...or if not zero the % is so small as to be irrelevant.
More 'efficient' modern aircraft and zero airways/landing charges will still not even up the playing field when a person can get from a-b several times a day for a fraction of what it costs to charter an aircraft....simple really.
Not to mention the capital costs of those more efficient aircraft are prohibitive without the utilisation...see 2/. above...which is why most charter aircraft in Oz GA are old aircraft with low capital outlay.
Added to the above the vast array of competitors for an individuals leisure dollar...after Mr Howard takes his enormous %...and it is easy to see why there will never be a return to the halcyon days of the 70s/early 80s.
As much as I love going from A-B in my Bonanza, or even just A-A, I'm very close myself to putting her on the market and getting a sailing boat instead. The labour costs associated with aircraft maintenance these days is becoming prohibitive....thanks to a youth spent working in boatsheds teaching sailing and repairing boats I can fix most anything on a sailing boat myself....as opposed to paying some bozo $60+/hr to look perplexed and give bs reasons why it took 4 x the time and 3 x the money quoted for the job.
You are on a flogging to nowhere....I hope the ATCOs/industry take you to the cleaners. Your contribution to Australian aviation has been and continues to be, on balance, negative
Chuck
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adamaster
Actaully, I have found the controllers here quite accomodating while under VFR. I was refering to the SYSTEM as discouraging.
ie. GA user flying a duchess at around $5 a minute trying to keep current in aircraft and approaches is subject to approach fees, airspace use, landing fees (3 in 90 days etc), fees to get a Wx brief/file for entering class C where the ILS is.
Most IFR flights probably have to fly IFR (company ops/Wx etc) but VFR have a choice, or do they? That duchess flight cost close to $400 for the first hour, if the pilot elected to conduct it under IFR. Now, back when I was training abroad, I never paid more than $120 US for a Duchess and no air services/landing charges.
So, looking at the entire cost of GA IFR flying, I can fully appreciate that with the extraordinary cost of flying in Oz coupled with the myriad of fees for the use of the IFR system, that it discourages those that dont HAVE to use it. In order to save each possible hard earned cent of the GA pilot, they, as I was, would feel reluctant to use the safety net of the system.
MJB
ie. GA user flying a duchess at around $5 a minute trying to keep current in aircraft and approaches is subject to approach fees, airspace use, landing fees (3 in 90 days etc), fees to get a Wx brief/file for entering class C where the ILS is.
Most IFR flights probably have to fly IFR (company ops/Wx etc) but VFR have a choice, or do they? That duchess flight cost close to $400 for the first hour, if the pilot elected to conduct it under IFR. Now, back when I was training abroad, I never paid more than $120 US for a Duchess and no air services/landing charges.
So, looking at the entire cost of GA IFR flying, I can fully appreciate that with the extraordinary cost of flying in Oz coupled with the myriad of fees for the use of the IFR system, that it discourages those that dont HAVE to use it. In order to save each possible hard earned cent of the GA pilot, they, as I was, would feel reluctant to use the safety net of the system.
MJB
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Are you implying that there is a definite system in place to discriminate against VFR pilots in order to generate revenue.
Wouldn't that be illegal??
But then you have no problem making similar claims against ATCs on radio stations so why not here.
Don't you think you are becoming a bit of a conspiracy theorist?
Time to face up to the facts and present your facts or back down as you are just opening yourself further up to the lawyers.
Are you implying that there is a definite system in place to discriminate against VFR pilots in order to generate revenue.
I have heard aircraft attempting to get a VFR clearance across a place like Sydney and the clearance is simply not available. However if the same aircraft files IFR and pays the enroute charge, the clearance is most often immediately available with no delays. Of course, Airservices earns money from IFR flight plans – even in CAVOK conditions – whereas they make no money from VFR enroute flights.
But then you have no problem making similar claims against ATCs on radio stations so why not here.
Don't you think you are becoming a bit of a conspiracy theorist?
Time to face up to the facts and present your facts or back down as you are just opening yourself further up to the lawyers.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Coming to a airport near you
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we allowing this clown to wind us up. He is not a fit and proper person to submit to PPRUNE. Until we see a full and honest apology he should be banned from this site.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you guys realise the damage 'he' does to himself and his arguments each time 'he' posts.
The world is now able to see his lies laid bare for exactly what they are.
Notice how even his supporters, or those who might have been prepared to support his position, have now gone ominously quiet?
The facts are getting out, and no amount of 'spinning' will help him now. Giving 'him' enough rope has been a good thing- maybe Anderson is not as dumb as we all think. Just lucky no-one had to die (yet) to make the point. How long til it's over?
The world is now able to see his lies laid bare for exactly what they are.
Notice how even his supporters, or those who might have been prepared to support his position, have now gone ominously quiet?
The facts are getting out, and no amount of 'spinning' will help him now. Giving 'him' enough rope has been a good thing- maybe Anderson is not as dumb as we all think. Just lucky no-one had to die (yet) to make the point. How long til it's over?