Tinstaafl

Have more than one - preferably lots - of organisations who are approved to conduct exams. Nothing like competition to drop the price imposed under the current monopoly.


Re. Instructing without an AOC: There needs to be some means of quality control over the instructor. The US doesn't just let instructors instruct willy-nilly. The FAA monitors the instructor's pass rate for students s/he recommends for a test.

auto throttle

How about reducing the costs involved in importing an aircraft and putting it on the "VH" register. A lot of people including our company don't want to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars just to change it from "N" (US)registered to "VH" registered, especially if it is the first type in Australia. For example, there are about 80 "VH" (non commercial) jets compared to 80,000 "N" registered jets. It would be great to see more modern and safer aircraft operating on Australian AOC's. The aircraft are here, and I'm sure if the costs were reasonable, then some of the aircraft would change their registration and put it on an AOC... I know we would. Operators would also be able to justify the costs in updating all their aircraft, and with todays technology, this would mean more reliable and safer planes...just my two cents worth???

Fhead

ooh danger with the competition for tests. They would not only compete on price but also pass rates. Casa already charges what is $150 to sit an exam why can't they do what are being done by these companies? All they have to do is make the questions and send them out to the flying schools even if they don't send out the answers but take the test back to be marked by a computer or over the net like now.

Also why can't all none passenger charter GA aircraft be RAA registered, or aircraft not belonging to an AOC be RAA. Some of the ultralights nowa days out preform some GA aircraft anyway.

nomorecatering

A good idea would be to eliminate the silly requirement to have 10 hrs on type on a twin to instruct, even if you have hundreds and hundreds of hrs on a similar type eg BE76 to PA44.

Also allows CFI's to issue student licences so they can go solo when ready, not after CPL NAV 7 when it finally arrives.

Rich-Fine-Green

DS:
I don't agree on a free-for-all - letting Instructors teach where, when and who they like.

How about a system that lets said Instructors gain a limited AOC with minimal expense and most of all - LITTLE DELAY!!.

The REAL cost for many small start-ups is the long, long, long time it takes to get an initial issue AOC or an Amendment to an existing AOC. A 6-12 month wait is not uncommon these days!!.

How about a system that allows for a one-man band Grade 1 Instructor become his/her own DAY/VFR/S.E. 'flight school' that teaches in a student's own aircraft by:

1. Establishing a Business Name.
2. Purchase a standardised Operations Manual 'On-Line'.
3. Have a quick interview by web-cam or telephone to save travel time.
4. CASA then emails the AOC in pdf for printing. No need to wait for 2 months while the signatory is away on long service or stress leave.

The process could be done in days - not months.

As suggested already, the quality of the Instructor can be measured by the pass rate. Few passes - No more Limited AOC.

Wind back a couple of decades when I first had an AOC, adding a new type for charter or aerial work did not need expense or approvals.

Also, how about giving a CP or CFI an INITIAL Interview only and not make the poor buggers go through the same process every time they change jobs. Why does one CASA office accept a CFI yet another CASA office knocks the same person back?.

triadic

Dick, good to see you asking for input.... are the others doing that as well?

Here is my 2c worth for consideration:


1) The regs should be made more user-friendly. Back at the CASA FLOT Conference in ‘03, one of the points that came out was that the greatest hazard to aviation was the Attorney’s Generals Department for the way they required the regs/rules to be drafted etc. Aviation is one activity where those in it, such as pilots etc work with the various regs/Acts etc in their face all the time. If you are learning to drive, you go down the newsagent and buy the rule book that covers all you need to know including pictures ! There is none of that in aviation, tho’ in the USA they have the AIM which most refer to before the FARs. We don’t have an AIM. All we have is a strict liability statement on every other page, making the document most un-user friendly – ugly in fact! Either we need an equivalent to the AIM or some major redrafting of our regs etc to make them more user friendly and readable.

2) Student pilot licences must be able to be issued by a CFI. The existing wait for security serves no useful purpose and certainly does not enhance security when you consider the risk and the cost.


3) Issue of ASICs must be streamlined. The existing system and charge is driving many away from the industry.

4) Independent instructors could be a good thing, but as said previously there must be some way to ensure standardisation.


5) ATOs must not be permitted to test their own students. PPL only with prior approval and certainly not CPL and IR.

6) It was said at an industry conference a few years back in support of increased flying training standards, that “there were approx 400 places in Oz where you could learn to fly, and only 15 or so places where you could train to be a lawyer!”. What that says is that not every flying school should be permitted to teach above PPL/NVFR. Schools that teach CPL/IRR must jump a higher bar. The standards of trainee CPL pilots coming out of the schools over the past few years are in a word poor! A pilot passing a CPL in the last year or so would not have passed a PPL 15 years ago – go figure!!


7) Get the FOIs out of the office and do more tests. The standards only went down when they stopped testing, now many of them are trapped in the office driving paper and not doing what they are trained (!) to do.

8) Aviation has change as its middle name; however that change over the past decade or more has been very poorly managed (if at all?) and certainly in the airspace world not at all managed as a major project with change management experts involved. This must change and all proposals for change, no matter what, must be properly managed accordingly. This must always include risk analysis and appropriate cost / benefit analysis. On-going education must be part of any change and not just for a few months, but for ever if the change is significant. (and, it must be in someone’s budget!!) Every change should have to pass a user-friendly test and one that considers how the change will encourage aviation and not drive it underground.


9) Various tax liability charges changed at the same time as GST was introduced. Prior to that, aircraft parts etc were duty free, now everything is +10% minimum. Aviation and aircraft operators are at a significant disadvantage post this change (and nobody seems to care?).(no votes in Aviation !!)

10) I agree re the write-off of new aircraft over 3 years or so.


11) In order to encourage GA, AirServices should consider not sending out an invoice if the total is less say than $100 per Qtr. This would encourage private GA in particular to fly more, keep current and use ATC airports in lieu of staying away, with perhaps increased risks (?). I am sure the lost revenue as a result would be minimal and the resultant increase in safety would be significant.

I will now go and think of some more.....

cheers

MMSOBGYTAST

Dick,

Why don't you reply to Capn Bloggs post? I think he has hit the nail on the head.

John Eacott

Dick,

Whilst D & G has a tendency to FW, there is an enormous cost to the Australian helicopter industry as a result of our peculiar interpretation of the helicopter >2750kg ruling. Not only is the requirement that all (well, nearly all, your 109E being an exception!) helicopters >2750kg be maintained to Transport Class A regardless of complexity, there is also a doubling of hours required for endorsement training, compared to Class B helicopters.

A severe rationalisation of the training hours required is long overdue, and would save $10's of thousands per year for each helicopter currently >2750kg

Ovation

My two bobs worth:
(1)
Adopt the US regime for IFR recency requirements
2)
Develop some means of reducing the frequency of the issue and updating of approach plates and charts (and reduce the cost)

Charlie Foxtrot India

Agree with the points already mentioned:

CFIs to issue Student Pilot Licences

DAMEs to be able to issue immediate initial medicals for student pilots

Remove charges for medical issue and renewal unless they can justify it

Allow flying schools to conduct cyberexams up to CPL level

Minister to enforce the airports act on airport lease holders

Make AOCs perpetual

More independant ATOs and no more in-house flight tests

PLUS
Reprint the VFR flight guide

Airservices to sort out their billing - it's a mess - earlier this year they tried to charge double for landings following a session of circuits - I hope everyone was checking thier invoices and only paying what is in the standard contract .

Remove the requirement for overseas ICAO licence holders to have to get a certificate of validation - delegate CFIs to approve ICAO licence holders to fly privately here as per other ICAO countries

#1AHRS

On a broader picture, Australian procedures and regs seem to have (like the marsupials) developed in isolation to the rest of the world. For a country that is flat, has fine weather and is relatively quiet traffic wise, you seem to have made a science out of something that the rest of the world easily achieves. Europe and USA, with far more challenging natural and traffic conditions, achieve better with less fuss and expense and with the same or better level of safety. Why? Casting the thought a little further abroad to those that do a lot more of it on a daily basis is one step in the right direction. However, changing the "we know better" attitude that seems to often permeate through Aus aviation, will be your biggest hurdle. C'mon CASA, as a leader, show some initiative and leadership.

Creampuff

Dick

In a way, I am surprised that you have to ask this question. Given all that you have said about common sense and the self-evident way ahead with the rules, I would have thought that you (and folks like Leadsled) would have drafted them twice over by now. Why can't you (or Leadsled) simply plonk them on the table and say: 'Minister, sign these and the world of Australian aviation will be a better place.'

The reality is, of course, that there is no easy, clear, self-evident way ahead with aviation safety regulatory rules. If there were, it would have been taken decades ago.

The reality is that all rules are about reconciling irreconcilable differences - if they weren't, they wouldn't need to be made. That fundamental practical problem is exacerbated in Australia by the ever-increasing politicisation of what are supposed to be independent regulators. Most of the issues raised in this thread are about political compromises that have been imposed on aviation, not by CASA, but by broader government decisions in which political interests have been the determining factor. Why else would Australia have its current SPL arrangements, when similar arrangements were not considered necessary, and have not been imposed, in the USA, despite 9/11?

The government's only interest at the moment is to avoid bad headlines in the lead-up to the election. One person capable of generating bad headlines for the government is Dick Smith. That's why you got this gig, and David Hicks has been brought home.

Could you please describe precisely what the 'taskforce' of which you are a member is going to produce, when is it going to be produced, and what is going to be done about what you produce, when and by whom?

Surely you would agree that any body that is created by the government should be transparent and accountable.

Dick Smith

Thanks everyone for the really good posts – I understand the “powers that be” at CASA are already reading and taking notes. I will of course prepare a list of the changes which have been mentioned here (in précis form) and post it, as well as sending it to CASA and bringing it forward at the next Taskforce meeting.

In relation to the unique Australian requirements for an ASIC and approval of student pilots, at the next Taskforce meeting we are to have a presentation from the experts in the Department on this issue. I believe they have open minds, and if it can be shown that by harmonising with what they do in the USA money can be saved without any measurable impact on safety, I’m sure that will happen.

Remember, these requirements came in not so long after September 11 when everyone wanted to be ultra-conservative in their decision making. Now that we can look at what the USA and other countries are doing – without any terrorist problems from small planes – we can obviously make better decisions.

I find it fascinating that posters such as Rich-Fine-Green state that we should not follow the US system where an instructor is allowed to teach without an AOC, but believes that there should be some form of “limited AOC with minimal expense.” This adds unnecessarily to costs. Can you imagine if when Mark Vaile signed the Free Trade Agreement with the USA, that we ended up with a situation of a “limited duty” with “minimal expense” which worked against Australian farmers. This would be crazy! It would stop us competing.

Australia competes on the world market for flying training. If our costs are higher we will lose business – that is obvious.

My experience in business shows that the difference between success and failure is a razor’s edge. It is all the small costs which have been listed here which are the difference between a business being successful or not. During discussions, whenever I mention extra costs in Australia – such as VFR aircraft not being able to fly at high levels to save the enroute Airservices IFR charge, I’m told “Dick, that is only a small cost – you should be concentrating on other things.”

Please keep the list coming.

I have another one. In the USA a pilot can get a helicopter instrument rating in a Robinson 22. In Australia, the helicopter needs to be IFR certified – and there are virtually none available. The interesting thing is that the resultant level of safety for helicopter ops is about the same between Australia and America – in effect, all the extra high costs of training in an IFR machine doesn’t give a higher level of safety.

John Eacott

Dick,

One step further: my NVFR BK117 has ILS/VOR/GNSS, etc, which I can use to maintain approach currency.

But I can't use it to do my IR renewal

gaunty

Mr Smith

Once again you present us with a dilemma. How to use your undoubtedly high profile and access, to progress Australian aviation in an atmosphere of positive and mutual respect for each others views, usefully, without those same views being "Dick Smithed".

It may or may not be news to you that PPRuNe has been read and discussed by those in the halls of power for way longer than you have been a member. It may or may not be news to you that PPRuNe was, and maybe still is although the jury is out on it for the moment, where those in the halls of power came to find out the "real story", as distinct from an agenda or distorted information that maybe their "advisors" were feeding them.

I need not dilate on the details, they are well known here and there and you were not as often the subject as you may imagine. PPRuNers discriminate equally in so far as loose logic or specious argument is concerned.

Yours has been but one view expressed here, it carries no more nor less weight that any other PPRuNer, anonymous or not. The only weight it does carry is whether it can support a logical and/or factual basis for argument and that opinion is clearly disscociated from fact.

One can only applaud your motivation in offering to present PPRuNers views as a "chance to remove unecessary rules and costs" by your membership of the Ministerial advisory group. My worry is, and the evidence of the past suggests it may be so that apart from the really obvious stuff that has appeared here it that will be your agenda and not the industries which will be ultimately presented.

I digress, back to the dilemma, and I'll be blunt, the very value of PPRuNe is its anonymous nature, the ability of posters to speak plainly, even against accepted employer, Goverment or regulatory positions without fear of retribution. You have not valued that in the past we do not have any evidence that you will present the views from here without personal comment.

You may best advise your fellow members and the Govt et al to continue to do what they have since PPRuNe started get it directly from the horses mouth.

The argument or views presented here do not magically become logical or not when the PPRuNer does or does not identify themselves.

The sun may rise in the west before it happens, but there is a logical argument for you to post anonymously. At least there may be a chance that your arguments or views may get a chance to be assessed without the bagagge, there would be no more or less rigour and yes sometimes dumbosity applied to it but at the least you would find out, like some of the policy and rule changes floated here, whether it would fly or not.

huntsman

• Instructors to have a minimum 1000hrs TT
• At about $200 per hr, CASA should supply a decent service under "User Pays"
• Remove any need for ATPL Theory - or ATPL period

werbil

CB - How is it physically easier to see an aircraft flying a normal base leg of a full circuit than an aircraft joining an oblique final 1nm from the threshold?

If the issue is with heavy jet aircraft, don't impose restrictions on operations where heavy jets can't operate. Under the legislation as it stands, an ag pilot flying off an ag strip legally has to either fly three legs of the circuit or join a 5nm final, as does any pilot operating at ANY uncontolled aerodrome in VMC.

This is not advocating a free for all in the circuit - currently if you are on a straight in approach you are legally required by CAR 166 to give way to ANY aircraft that is flying a normal circuit (at least three legs). Keep the rule the same, or even give jets priority if that will make you happier .

IMHO appropriate, accurate, concise radio communication is the key to collision avoidance in the terminal area. It is much easier to see an aircraft when you know where it is, and if you can't see it both pilots can positively separate themselves. At any airport that is serviced by jet RPT I believe that either CTAF(R) is in place if not Class D.

Do you want to go back to the "old" days (pre straight in approach) where everyone had to fly three legs of the circuit? Back then I heard a regional turbo prop calling "joining downwind" when they were on a 5nm oblique final (a local at the airport said this was standard practice). Even earlier than that at another airport I watched / heard a regional turbo prop come barrelling in on a straight in approach and the aircraft backtracking down the runway had to make a hurried cross country departure from the runway.

W

BTW A few months ago a 737 nearly had to fly a full circuit as I was established on a 5nm final and he was no 2 also on a straight in approach. If I'd been able to join at 2nm I would have been 2 minutes further ahead (I was appoaching at about 90 degrees to the runway direction) with no pressure to clear the runway. There were only 2 aircraft within 10nm of the aerodrome at the time (the 737 and myself), and there is normally only around 5 jet movements a day at this aerodrome. (DS condemned this airport (YBPN) as being the most dangerous in Australia a few years ago even though there is very little activity apart from the jet RPT).

Rich-Fine-Green

DS:
Read My post again.....

My point was MORE the real costs with an AOC is the incrediblely long delay.

and No, there should not be a free-for-all. We ALL know of Instructors out there that should not be let off the leash without some kind of check and control. Thankfully, these people are very much in the minority. A free-for-all approach will allow some of the few unemployable Instructors loose without any controls.

Call it an AOC, Training Approval or whatever. A quick and inexpensive way of checking and approving such an Instructor is not unreasonable.

What would be unreasonable and damn expensive is to delay this Instructor.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical as all issues posted here by our fellow ppruners are not new and have been flagged to the different forms of CASA over the decades - including when you held the reins Dick.

Now i'm sure you did your very best during your short stay in CASA. It's not my place to comment or judge what was or wasn't done when you had the chance to make changes.

As much as I would like to hope your Taskforce will actually be taken seriously, there has not been much evidence in the last few decades that Industry opinion is in any way valued by CASA or the Govt. Du Jour. I've lost count of the number of Industry taskforces, Forums and Focus Groups that have been assembled over the years - all without result.

Dick - have you considered that this Taskforce may be a great way of keeping you occupied before an Election?.

Use your talents Man!. A hint of a statement from DS will bring the Journos running.

Lodown

Dick, I was in two minds whether to respond. You charge into a topic like a bull into a china shop, make a big impact, get people fired up with a few key phrases and then turn the tables and expectations by presenting your agenda and publicly claiming to have wide support. Call me cynical, but you appear to be doing it again! You burst in like a white knight and aviation saviour and then proceed to pooh-pooh any suggestion that doesn’t fit with your version of “common-sense”. Reread your post “correcting” Rich-Fine-Green.

Forgive me for thinking that you have a purpose in mind for starting this post counter to seeking ideas. I get the feeling that you’re trolling for a couple of good topics that you can hang your hat on to regenerate personal aviation support. In the process, maybe you intend to ditch your image as a Liberal backer and replace it with a preferred image in the current political environment once again as an apolitical crusader for aviation reform and cuddle up to Labor supporters. In the general period of government departmental inactivity preceding and briefly following the next election, maybe I could be pardoned for thinking that you anticipate cementing a new influence and are seeking additional support by starting somewhat conciliatory and emotional topics on Pprune.

The campaigning and political positioning for the next election is well and truly underway. A pox on me for my cynicism.

YesTAM

1. Immediately introduce WAAS and forget about developing an (Australia only)ADS-B, in other words, stop developing instrumentation and use what the rest of the world uses. If someone wants to obtain a PhD in electronics, let them do it in their own time.

2. Harmonise and standardise what is taught in ab initio training and get rid of this stupid minimalist "outcomes based" or "Competency based" whatever its called CASA syllabus and go back to a traditional approach. One of the reasons I hang around Pprune is to pick up the odd Gem of wisdom that NO ONE has ever mentioned before, and believe me I fly with instructors as often as I can.

Examples include:

(a) Spending $1500 in insurance excess for a C172 firewall after bouncing one very badly because NO ONE had taught me what happens when you get it wrong and land too fast. I "demonstrated competence" on my endorsement without any understanding of what the potential errors were and what their effect would be. I understand that the C172 firewall thing is way too frequent - why?

(b) Doing a CS and Retractable endorsement and NO ONE mentioned the practice of checking manifold pressure and fuel flow as well as RPM and T's and P's on starting your roll. - I picked that up last week here. Anyone care to think how "expensive" that could be?

3. Iimmediately get rid of the requirement that a student needs an ASIC before First Solo and streamline the medical so that a DAME can issue one. Schools have lost students because of the delay.

4. DO NOT under any circumstances allow "accelerated depreciation" or any similar tax breaks for aircraft. If this happens, the tax scheme operators will dive in and rort it very quickly, totally distorting and poisoning the industry. PM me if you want more information as to why and how.

5. Most importantly somehow encourage CASA to adopt a culture of the "90 percent solution" BECAUSE IT IS INFINITELY CHEAPER. That means that if there is a system or practice overseas that meets 90 percent or more of Australias requirements, then CASA and the industry adopts it and WE CHANGE OUR BUSINESS PRACTICES to accomodate the 10 percent difference.STOP DEVELOPING ONE OFF SYSTEMS THAT MEET "100 PERCENT' OF A UNIQUELY AUSTRALIAN REQUIREMENT IMMEDIATELY! .