TurboOtter

I agree with Huntsman with the 1000 min for instructing.

Also an ATPL has its place but should mean something in GA, Eg. I believe in the states with an ATPL and experience on type you can give an endorsement. Which makes sense, why can't I give an endorsement on a machine I have flown for thousands of hours yet an instructor with bare minimum time on type can.
I think the whole Instructor rating should be revised to enable more experienced pilots to teach, eg I have some flight time under my belt now with over a decade in commercial ops, however some pilot with 300hours total time can teach yet I can't? (I know I'm not perfect but hey I'm still alive with no broken aircraft around me)

I agree with Dick, Non pressurised flight above 10,000 feet should be allowed, I don't know how many times that flying @ 11 or 12 would have saved alot of bumping around for no real reason. It is safe we all know it.

Staight in approaches ARE the best things since sliced bread. I don't mind how a person joins the circuit, all I ask for is for them to TALK and make the right position/intention calls. I had a Kingair almost wipe me out once cause he stuffed up his radio procedures.

I look forward to your summary Dick and would love to help out if I can.

Scurvy.D.Dog

.. fabbie
.
.. perhaps in the interests of openness and transparency, you might in turn post the correspondence and minutes here … all of it!
.
... does anyone really think the incumbents are gunna change tack on entrenched policies and priorities? .. sure …. if we believe pigs might fly unassisted to the moon .. cause it's made of swill don't you know!
.
.… 11 years of what exactly?
.
... the preceding discussion points are a good road map.. who is gunna run with it though? … would the other mob seriously look at these policy options ? .. depends if they have any cognitive ability or not (funny the people we happen across when travelling in commercial aircraft .. another story)!
.
... it/we might be a comparatively small (people numbers) industry … there are however a huge number of folks who are within ear shot of those comparatively small number of aviation people, not to mention the huge percentage of the population that have a direct interest in a safe, efficient and effective industry (powered hang gliders through to A380’s) ….. all in all a very significant mass!
.
… kind of sickly ironic that the PM would dare to ask of us ….
.
‘…. who do you trust … WHO … do YOU trust’?
.
... in aviation terms ….. 11 years of 'trust' delivered what exactly?
.
.… I know who I do not trust!
.
... this discussion is important only in context of the issues being picked up by those who may have a 'real' interest in looking for effective change policies (minus the tired, old and faulty baggage of the past)!
.
.. is that you?
.
.. from your past involvement (including your penchant for accusing others when the predictable occurs) ... sorry ... I don't buy it!
.
regarding CTA
.
.. you had the opportunity just recently …. did you take it up? …. No, just wheeled out the fishing buddy to make spurious statements about supposed ‘restrictiveness’ of our airspace … yes very appropriate!
.
.. out of curiosity, which side do you recommend come Oct/Nov? ..who do you suggest will best look after the future stewardship of this most important industry?.
.
.. pigs might indeed fly!
.
... remember your support for that esteemed former minister leading up to the last election .. have you the same view of the current? .. who comes after him? ... Shrek or any of the other 25Wer’s on that bench? … maybe the Arch Bishop of the Northern burb's or Bishop Bronnie ... just the ticket for the next DoTaRS guru !! … you live near their electorate/s don’t ya … would made for easy gatherings at the OK corral! (.. just don’t get em started on stem cells though).
.
.. a ridiculously impossible suggestion I hear you squeal? .... just as ridiculously impossible as the actual distance between reality and the utopian tenor of the thread … one could park Olympus Mons in that gap!
.
an example .. the 'content' not the person/s is what needs to succeed.
.
IMHO .. if positive change is to occur, it will be in spite of your influence, not because of it! …. so keep at it!
.
For the interested cryptics amongst us:-
.
.. some may have noticed the absence of … well … the genuinely, altruistically minded amongst us who are unfortunate enough to be employed by Canberra!
.
.. there is a lot at stake at the moment .. trust is almost non-existent. The problem always was (and still is) the infected heads of the serpent! .. those obscenely paid 3 piece puppets .. the bazaar lap living pets of those equally bazaar, favour orientated political vandals whose self serving priorities are unsurprisingly aligned with the very ideals that require suppressing of considered dissent ...!
.
nup, attempting an ambush, raising security of tenure etc was a very very stupid thing to do! ... I am reminded of that famous Monty Python movie ... ye may think that hacking off arms and legs will do the trick .... wrong they are!
.
.. we will continue to expose and expurgate any attempts to pervert proper processes! Expect very little oratory here unless official channels are exhausted! ...! Contempt is a word often bandied about at the moment. No matter, it just builds bigger and better bull**** detectors, and bug repellents! … anyhow, enough said!
.
BTW ... My real name is *** ***** .. but you know that! ..what’s yours? .. more importantly who cares ... only you apparently
.
.. you well know that elected people are very keen not to have you on tele calling them names and making accusations .. it therefore follows, that it is easier for them to address the little people making your life uncomfortable ... no, you personally would not be involved in anything silly like that, trouble is, others may think that is what is needed, and you may in the process be assumed to have had an interest! ... even I do not think you are that spiteful .. others may be though! ... if you get my drift
.
Lodown … spot on! …
.
tw .. guess who … thought you would have picked the style .. pretty obvious I thought!
.
..carry on

Dick Smith

Scurvy.D.Dog, your last post is a bit cynical and a bit obtuse for me to understand fully. However I will comment on the following:

Yes, I do – because if they don’t, we will not have a general aviation industry in Australia.

The facts are simple. Both political parties have opened Australia up to a global world. Both parties have moved towards what is euphemistically called “free trade.” Because of this, Australian aviation has to compete internationally, and costs here (which often reflect in the cost of exports) must be competitive – or, to put it simply, lower.

I don’t think it makes any real difference as to which party is in power. When Labor was in power they made major reforms in aviation – the two airline policy removed, the major airspace changes in 1991, and the major regulatory changes at the same time are just examples.

Further reforms are necessary – otherwise we will find in a decade or so there will be virtually no general aviation industry, just lots of people flying around in ultralights.

You state:

I’m not quite sure what you are referring to. Can you explain and I will answer? Better still, give me a ring on 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221.

You say in relation to reform that it is:

Wouldn’t that be great if it were so? Unfortunately it is not just the content. The person, including their personality and leadership abilities, seems to be what counts. There are lots of good boffins around in Australian aviation, but they have little influence on reform – sometimes unfortunately.

I remain positive and I can see changes gradually happening – even the reversals of NAS 2B didn’t reverse everything. That is what always happens, so it is a slow incremental move to an improved system in my view.

A few years ago we had VFR pilots jamming up airwaves, consistently asking for area QNH - i.e. “Sydney Radar, I’ve just departed Hoxton Park for a local flight, request area QNH.” Now, because of the changes made under NAS, you hardly ever hear such a useless call. This is an improvement in both efficiency and in safety.

There are fewer pilots yakking as they fly up and down the light aircraft lane north of Sydney, which jammed up approach frequencies when they were coupled together. This must be a safety improvement.

Scurvy.D.Dog, let’s look to the positive side. It may be slow but gradually, things are getting better.

Scurvy.D.Dog

cynical and a bit obtuse ... oh were it to be so ... realist I would argue
.
.. you said earlier that you could not find anyone in Australia that could do the job, as was pointed out by another esteemed contributor .. they are right under your nose ... it is assumed you choose to ignore them for fear of a different outcome to your desired end .. if that is not the case, explain to us who you have asked to be involved in the real process?
.
the rest is fluff ... if the world market was so heavily slanted away from practices in Australia, then why do we have the number of O/S companies (including large RPT) training/assessing pilots here ... I think we know why .. quality and services available (despite the difficulties) ... as far as GA regulation goes I agree with most of the previous points made here ... so where should the change emphasis be??
.
The structural and procedural issues raised by the VOR, are well understood, they were last time around (by the operational experts) as well, but that was not the problem was it?
.
… the comments regarding NAS2b and its reversal I will leave alone for fear of offence ... I will say this, the very point of these discussions it to remove the ridiculous costs of inappropriate change that in the end costs a fortune for what amounts to a small, largely insignificant change
.
... compare that to careful thorough process (as has been argued for years) that will determine what will work, how it will work, how much it will cost, and what is gained by that expense ... are you satisfied that that represents what the VOR and frankly many of us have been saying for years?
.
things are not getting better! ... better or worse from here is very much contingent on who does what and how ... I am not filled with light in this regard
.
how about you call me tomorrow morning (look in ERSA) .... fair warning though, if that contact is used for anything other than discussion of airspace process and/or design, or you attempt to identify me in public after the fact, or attribute comment to me as a result of those discussions, I will be making a lot of noise in a lot of quarters to seek an appropriate remedy ... agreed?
.
In the meantime, how about you and I shut the hell up, and let folks flesh out the issues without the distraction of hubris!

Dick Smith

Scurvy.D.Dog, you claim that people making rational comments about airspace such as VOR's views on Class E (see here) are:

Can you give me some names – or are you referring to people who are anonymous on PPRuNe that are somehow supposed to be used to do airspace change? Would you have people sitting in a room at CASA involved in airspace changes with their heads in paper bags so their anonymity can be preserved?

It is pretty obvious that if a person with the same views as VOR in relation to Class E airspace was involved in regulatory reform at CASA, we would have Class E airspace above Launceston – as per NAS and as per the Class D towers that Airservices are operating in the USA. This is what you tell me you don’t want.

As I’ve said before, a nightmare has been created because whereas anonymity is important for PPRuNe to expose injustices, shonky practices and other important issues, such anonymity is completely useless if a person is in charge of regulatory reform including airspace. I’m sure you understand this.

I do not know the names of any airspace and regulatory reform experts who have the same views as VOR. If I did, I would be recommending to them that they get involved in the reform process – they would certainly have my support. The people I know by name claim that they are violently opposed to VOR’s views on Class E airspace.

By the way, I have looked in ERSA and I can’t find any entries under “Scurvy.D.Dog”. I will keep looking.

I’m not sure if Scurvy.D.Dog wants this thread to move off the topic, but I’d like to encourage people to keep the good suggestions coming and get this thread back on track.

MMSOBGYTAST

Dick Smith,

Please address Capn Blogg's points. I am sure you are big enough to include his valid points to any airspace committee.

Freedom7

Dear

'white knight and aviation saviour'

Is this what you want in class D Towers?

CrazyMTOWDog

F7

Try ERSA FAC W-18/19

The phone number is in FLIGHT PROCEDURES, 2.a

As you appear to be running another self influencing agenda, maybe that number will help. I believe its close to home......

Your 'influence' would be better received if you posted under an anonymous
name

Scurvy.D.Dog

CrazyMTOWDog ... .. ain't it just

.. nurse .... nurse

PA39

If the aviation industry doesn't take a stance they will be forced out of existence by so called cost recovery fees. take a look at your latest Air Safety Digest and peruse the charges being implemented, especially the hourly rates! How honourable not to charge for the boffins overnight accommodation etc but to charge the applicable hourly rate from the time "they" leave base camp !! my goodness why do we pay taxes? Those of you who do hold an AOC and are in a remote or regional location, that audit is going to really drain your coffers. Observed flight tests, well that too will test your resources.There should be cost saving before cost recovery. Trim the fat. I agree with Dick in principle, why should we have our own unique set of rules in Oz, no wonder experienced grade 1's and CFI's are leaving in droves...........red tape BS.

nomorecatering

I'll go against the trend and suggest some new rules.

1.All aircraft have fuel flow meters and fuel totalisers. In this day and age, we should know exactly how much fuel we are using, and how many litres are left in the tanks.


2. All 6 cylinder aircraft, especially turbocharged engines have individual cylinder head temp propes and EGT monotoring systems such as the EDM series. Charter/RPT aircraft to have the data logging facility.

Dick Smith

Here are a few more costs in Australia.

Type endorsements
Type endorsements are required for many more aircraft in Australia than in the USA and New Zealand. This would bring quite a saving.

Instrument rating renewals
In the USA instrument ratings do not have to be renewed every year. As long as the pilot complies with the recency rules that is all that is required. As stated before, the resultant levels of safety are not measurably different.

Joy flights within 25nm of the airport
In the USA these take place under Part 91 – i.e. no AOC is required. Obviously very large amounts of money are saved and you don’t see the sham where the AOC holder is in a different state for a Tiger Moth giving joy flights at a local country airport.

Free in G
In the UK and Canada, pilots can climb IFR through cloud without having to file a full IFR flight plan and pay a full enroute charge. In Australia, if you fly IFR for 30 seconds in one 600nm flight and you will be charged for the whole 600nm. Just think what a saving that would bring in!

The A & P system (Aircraft and Powerplant)
In the USA much of the maintenance is done by A & P holders, whereas in Australia we do not seem to have an equivalent qualification. Yes, our LAME system provides very highly qualified engineers – but shouldn’t we look at having less qualified personnel doing work under supervision and therefore saving large amounts of money? I understand the training for an A & P can only take 6 months.

UNICOMs in lieu of Certified Air/Ground Operators
I understand that the Certified Air/Ground Operator system at Ayers Rock costs around $400,000 per year because air traffic controllers or flight service licence holders have to be flown in and accommodated. In the USA similar systems are called UNICOMs and are normally operated by person who lives locally. The cost is probably 10% of the Certified Air/Ground cost.

PA39

What Dick is saying is correct and i say again COST SAVINGS BEFORE COST RECOVERY. Now is the time for all in the industry to stand up and be counted. Its your industry, its your future, have your say and make it heard.

89 steps to heaven

PA39, I think it would be better if it were "Appropriate cost savings, properly assessed, before cost recovery"
We could all come up with ideas that would cut initial cost, but might turn out to not be such a good idea in the long run. That's where this type of process has fallen in a heap in the past. Too many ideas, assessed on the perceived required outcome, without proper recognition of the potential long term costs / risks.
Be damn fine if we could get it right this time though.

gaunty

And whilst I am at it, why dont we just let them CASA get on with what they are currently struggling to cope for the moment.

What mebbee 20% naaah give em 25% of the CASA resources over the last dunno lets say 20 years spent on doing the job, the rest "managing" constant change on change fixing meddlers fcuk ups and fending off the zealots, enthusiasts and barbarians.

I dare not even think about what that has cost and we sit calmly here talking about removing unnecessary rules and costs

An operator has got over $30M worth of GA equipment laying around waiting for an AOC (maybe 'til Nov, maybe longer) and I know of at least 2 or three times as much with others, that can't strike a blow because CASA, with the best will in the world are so far under resourced its a joke. And this in a period of unprecedented expansion.

This is what needs fixing NOW Mr Smith because by the time you go through the current folderol we will have folded our tents and gone elsewhere with our money.

And before you start up on your "this is what I'm trying to do" routine, I'm here to tell you not ONE of the issues cost or otherwise, raised in this thread has been a deal breaker.
Yes it would be nice if it was all a bit neater and tidier and I'd rather not have to pay $170 ph to educate the relevant FOI on how it is actually done, but the real problem is not less of these things but waaay MORE resources = manpower. Qualified manpower = someone who knows the difference between FAR 23 and FAR 25 types and which types are one or the other. BTW its definitely NOT the FOI's fault NOR is it CASA's, it is their political masters and those who "advise" them. Given respect to the Brindabella chap, there is NOT ONE member of the "advisory group" who has any idea of what's required and what works in GA charter from the bottom up.
It has been said here before and I have defended CASA on it, that the best way to reduce costs in the industry is to not fly at all and we are coming perilously close to that ideal.

So, it's NOT popular and doesn't get you on 60 minutes, John Howard and Mark Vaile will hate it, BUT lets get the horse in front of the cart, if the Government wants a viable GA industry and for it to survive NOW, then TELL them to get real and INCREASE the CASA budget by whatever is needed to unstall the current progress and ditch the present cost recovery policy. The alternative is simply unacceptable.

There is another way.

Chimbu chuckles

Been there, done that...thankfully before the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation starting charging for you to explain to them how something actually worked

My personal experience of FOIs has been they are out of their depth once the technology gets beyond Piper Chieftain.

It is completely self evident that the Govt of the day (whichever persuasion) is trying to do 'it' on the cheap when it comes to aviation and we are expected to bump significant cash into the system too.

That CASA (and AsA) does not view itself as a service provider in the true sense of that expression is also self evident. It is completey captured by a sense of self that equates to Govt Department and yet the Govt demands it charge for 'services' when there is no mechanism that allows it to be 'punished' by the customer for bad service...competition would be that mechanism in the private sector...and that is the reason 'privatising' govt monopolies is doomed to failure right out of the blocks....actually 'doomed to failure' is not accurate...while it does fail it is not ackowledged to have done so and we pay for the consequences

Examples of this are legion but one is the centralisation of licencing in Canberra...anyone want to imagine the reaction to a similar move with car registration and licencing?

Another is the fact that a current ASIC is not deemed good enough identification to secure renewal of that ASIC in minimal time and at minimal cost...instead when your current ASIC comes due for renewal you must start the whole process again from scratch as though that current ASIC never existed...and the cost for that has increased.

If that is not Govt Department thinking (like Passports) than what is?

Medicals are another...I could go on...and on

Chimbu chuckles

Dick

Type Endorsements

Just because the FAA doesn't mandate a type rating doesn't mean the insurance companies don't. In fact I would go as far as suggest that the lowered bar in this area actually increases costs.

New Zealand has less type ratings than Australia?

Nope...New Zealand doesn't have group endorsements like tailwheel, CSU, retractable undercarriage. A Bonanza is one type rating and C210 another

Having said that NZ is a VASTLY more GA friendly country than Australia...it is palpable when you go there...it is like Australia was 25 years ago...in fact it is better.

Instrument Rating renewals

Well perhaps if we had the abundance of ILSs like the US? But then again I have read lots of US accident reports where it could be argued that more regular testing might have made a significant difference and saved a few lives. Again you probably need to differentiate between the FAA's hands off approach and the Insurance company's hands on approach. Is it better to have a yearly renewal with an ATO/FOI or have your insurance company mandate annual recurrent training?

Agree about joyflights.

Free in G

What...people actually upgrade to IFR in the circumstances you site?

Airframe and Powerplant

We do have that system..sorta...it's called the apprentice and we pay the same hourly rate as a fully qualified LAME to have him stumble around our aircraft taking twice as long to do the job but not do it is well.

I would put it to you that the reality is that in the US A&P=LAME near as damn it and the quality varies as it does here...with experience.

You seem completely captured by the 'US system' and yet never quote the whole picture...perhaps because you only get a 'visitors' view of their system rather than a 'residents' view.

What is really sickening is their system is evolving towards our system in many ways...user pays and 'privitisation' are just two examples.

Chimbu chuckles

The pain the US system is being subjected to.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotloung..._195387-1.html

Torres

Whoa Chucky..........

Not correct!

An apprentice in any trade is indentured under both Federal and State VET legislation and must work directly under trade qualified supervsion. I doubt any employer of apprentices would charge for an apprentice's time and certainly not in Years 1, 2 and 3.

Normally an apprentice's costs is included in the qualified tradesman's charge out rate.

Aircraft engineering apprentices are indentured to complete a Certificate IV in Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Mechanical; Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Structures; or Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - Avionics. Upon completion of their trade qualification, they are then required to sit and pass CASA's licensing examinations to become a LAME - God knows why, probably to justify the exhorbitant fees imposed for these exams!

In Australia, an AME is probably closer to the US A&P Mechanic, except the AME holds no formal CASA qualification and also must work under LAME supervision (unless he holds an "Approval" for a specific maintenance task.) An AME usually has a number of year's experience but does not hold trade qualifications or CASA recognition/licensing.

Some AME's I have known, particularly in PNG, were excellent.

I agree with the US A&P Mechanic qualification and believe it should be introduced in Australia to enable our current AMEs to conduct limited maintenance tasks, unsupervised. Having qualified as an Australian "A&P Mechanic" the AME could then proceed in time to full LAME licenses through the SOE (Schedule of Experience) process of RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning).

I believe Australia urgently needs the equivalent to the FAA A&P Mechanic!!!

Chimbu chuckles

Maybe not correct in theory but in practice?

Ask any aircraft owner. We pay enormous amounts of labour for engineers to 'learn' about our aircraft...that might not be ureasonable with a Cirrus but with a C210 or Bonanza you'd think the learning curve would have flattened out by now.

I will admit to a certain degree of 'tongue in cheek' in that comment however

I agree completely that the L in LAME doesn't necesarily mean what it pretends.

Would I rather have an AME that has been hands on for 30 years or a newly qualified LAME work on my aircraft...silly question...but I don't equate 6 mths worth of qualification with necesarily better value for money.