Now is your chance to remove unnecessary rules and costs/VOR airspace thread merged
Thread Starter
SM4 Pirate, it all depends on the way it is handled. Look at what has happened to air fares since competition was allowed. Not only have air fares dropped dramatically, but nearly three times as many Australians now travel by air. It is cheaper to go by air to many places than to go by bus.
It must be handled correctly. If the Government handles it like they did the sale of Sydney or Bankstown airports, it will be a disaster.
It is interesting that in New Zealand, where it is open to competitive tender, the costs are way lower. What about Ardmore Aerodrome, which is New Zealand’s equivalent to Bankstown? It was costing a fortune when being operated by the Airways Corporation of New Zealand. It is now – or was when I last looked into it – run by the flying schools at Ardmore Aerodrome. I think the cost is about 10% of what it was previously and they still have very high safety outcomes.
The information in relation to ASA restructuring their rescue and fire fighting for some type of sale is really interesting. This is why we need PPRuNe. Can you find out if that is what they are doing? It will be a disaster if the rescue and fire fighting is sold off so someone like the Macquarie Bank at the highest price. We will all be ruined!
By the way, it is current Australian air traffic controllers who have told me that they can run these towers at a far lower cost to the industry, while actually earning more money for themselves. It is probably tied up with more enlightened rostering, without huge amounts of money going the Canberra head office.
I happen to love competition – especially when it is genuine competition. When I head off to Harvey Norman, or (dare I say it) the Dick Smith Powerhouse, I totally believe that these businesses give me a competitive price without collusion.
It must be handled correctly. If the Government handles it like they did the sale of Sydney or Bankstown airports, it will be a disaster.
It is interesting that in New Zealand, where it is open to competitive tender, the costs are way lower. What about Ardmore Aerodrome, which is New Zealand’s equivalent to Bankstown? It was costing a fortune when being operated by the Airways Corporation of New Zealand. It is now – or was when I last looked into it – run by the flying schools at Ardmore Aerodrome. I think the cost is about 10% of what it was previously and they still have very high safety outcomes.
The information in relation to ASA restructuring their rescue and fire fighting for some type of sale is really interesting. This is why we need PPRuNe. Can you find out if that is what they are doing? It will be a disaster if the rescue and fire fighting is sold off so someone like the Macquarie Bank at the highest price. We will all be ruined!
By the way, it is current Australian air traffic controllers who have told me that they can run these towers at a far lower cost to the industry, while actually earning more money for themselves. It is probably tied up with more enlightened rostering, without huge amounts of money going the Canberra head office.
I happen to love competition – especially when it is genuine competition. When I head off to Harvey Norman, or (dare I say it) the Dick Smith Powerhouse, I totally believe that these businesses give me a competitive price without collusion.
Thread Starter
Chimbu Chuckles, in relation to WAAS, you state:
This is very simple. The people that have been making the decisions on this have been from Airservices Australia. Airservices is a profit making business which is not in the game of funding infrastructure that does not benefit their organisation – in fact, would most likely lower their profitability.
This is why the industry needs people such as myself, as well as many others who are undoubtedly more competent but behind the scenes, constantly pointing out to the Minister that Airservices should not make these decisions as there is a conflict. The Government has recognised this in removing the airspace regulatory side from Airservices. Now they have to get policy decisions on matters such as WAAS, into an organisation which does not have a conflict of interest.
I can assure you I will do everything I can to make sure that any decisions relating to WAAS are made in the interests of all Australians – not just the major airlines and Airservices Australia.
On that basis we appear to be starting down a path that could, in time, exclude most GA aircraft from the ability to carry out GPS based precision approaches.
This is why the industry needs people such as myself, as well as many others who are undoubtedly more competent but behind the scenes, constantly pointing out to the Minister that Airservices should not make these decisions as there is a conflict. The Government has recognised this in removing the airspace regulatory side from Airservices. Now they have to get policy decisions on matters such as WAAS, into an organisation which does not have a conflict of interest.
I can assure you I will do everything I can to make sure that any decisions relating to WAAS are made in the interests of all Australians – not just the major airlines and Airservices Australia.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Government handles it like they did the sale of Sydney or Bankstown airports, it will be a disaster.
It's not like there will be co-located ATC services wanting your business, like the airlines can do. So even if you 'privatise' ATC towers/TMA/Enroute into UPS/ECS/RS; can you really get benefits from competition?
They are single businesses with no competitors at what ever particular location is being privatised; it could only possibly go the way of SACL etc. Maximise their profitability within the contraints defined by the laws; is this a benefit to industry, honestly could you possibly say yes what would be different by privatising ATC; if you make it not profitable who would buy it?
The example of Ardmore is facinating; a non profitable aerodrome with huge costs (relatively, like BK) replaced by a not for profit business model resulting in reduced costs mostly due to overheads and services being provided by those that want/need the service; but nethertheless not getting the control service it used to. Does this (still?) happen outside the ATC Tower hours at Jandakot (CAGRO)?
An Australian example could have been when Port Headland Tower closed, if the areoclub there moved in and provided CAGRO or similar (an offer at some stage), but lets face it that's nothing to do with privatisation and everything to do with service vs dollars.
Thread Starter
SM4 Pirate, I haven’t mentioned the word 'privatisation' - I would prefer to see local ownership. For example, the Coffs Harbour Council operates Coffs Harbour Airport. Yes, some of the costs are high but it is not like the Macquarie Bank running Sydney Airport.
If the Coffs Harbour Council was responsible for the tower, I believe they would get the best price and hand those savings on to the industry.
I can’t see that there is an advantage for a local Council to rip-off aviators. Yes, Councils want to cover their costs – otherwise ratepayers complain. However I haven’t seen many local Councils (especially in country areas) wanting to make rip-off profits from aviation.
If the Coffs Harbour Council was responsible for the tower, I believe they would get the best price and hand those savings on to the industry.
I can’t see that there is an advantage for a local Council to rip-off aviators. Yes, Councils want to cover their costs – otherwise ratepayers complain. However I haven’t seen many local Councils (especially in country areas) wanting to make rip-off profits from aviation.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPT priority at capital city aerodromes - get rid of it!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=243780
Don't fly above 10,000 ft without oxy - get rid of it (erm, as in not just willy-nilly, use the US rules instead)! This makes two more levels available, FL115 & FL125. It would work even better than it does for the septics, coz they would have to check the QNH to see whether they can use 12,500 FT coz its based on cabin pressure altitude which we can read off the altimeter. On the other hand we wouldn't be able to use 10,500 FT because of our silly altimetry rules, which (despite NAS changes), don't conform to the US.
Transition altitude - get rid of it!
Transition level - get rid of it!
Transition layer - get rid of it!
Lowest available flight level remains FL110 if QNH >1013, FL115 if QNH between 997 & 1012, etc.
Set 1013 when climbing through 11,000 FT
Set QNH when descending through lowest available flight level.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=140898
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=243780
Don't fly above 10,000 ft without oxy - get rid of it (erm, as in not just willy-nilly, use the US rules instead)! This makes two more levels available, FL115 & FL125. It would work even better than it does for the septics, coz they would have to check the QNH to see whether they can use 12,500 FT coz its based on cabin pressure altitude which we can read off the altimeter. On the other hand we wouldn't be able to use 10,500 FT because of our silly altimetry rules, which (despite NAS changes), don't conform to the US.
Transition altitude - get rid of it!
Transition level - get rid of it!
Transition layer - get rid of it!
Lowest available flight level remains FL110 if QNH >1013, FL115 if QNH between 997 & 1012, etc.
Set 1013 when climbing through 11,000 FT
Set QNH when descending through lowest available flight level.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=140898
Thread Starter
How come no one has mentioned the exam system? I understand in the US the cost of exams for a commercial licence is $60. In Australia it is something like $600 – i.e. ten times the amount. In the USA all of the questions are published – around 1,200 questions, from which you could be asked about 80. This means that the FAA saves the cost of preparing a separate syllabus. Whenever they need to cover extra issues they publish them in the exam questions.
I’ve heard criticism of the US system, however the resultant level of safety is the same in Australia, and this is despite the terrible conditions and high mountain ranges in the US. It doesn’t look as if the ten times higher cost actually leads to higher safety outcomes. What do others think?
I’ve heard criticism of the US system, however the resultant level of safety is the same in Australia, and this is despite the terrible conditions and high mountain ranges in the US. It doesn’t look as if the ten times higher cost actually leads to higher safety outcomes. What do others think?
Dick,
The US exam system is widely know world wide as beeing completely corupt. I know many guys who have come throught the US system and almost all went through schools where they simply had copies of all the possible questions, and learnt the answers.
American pilots are not generally well though of internationally as they are percieved as being under-educated and indoctrinated in the unique American system.
Your constant theme is the everything is done beter in the USA.
It isn't.
The US exam system is widely know world wide as beeing completely corupt. I know many guys who have come throught the US system and almost all went through schools where they simply had copies of all the possible questions, and learnt the answers.
American pilots are not generally well though of internationally as they are percieved as being under-educated and indoctrinated in the unique American system.
Your constant theme is the everything is done beter in the USA.
It isn't.
Thread Starter
CASA’s Failure to Adopt Proposed Cost Savings
Mr Ken Cannane from AMROBA has asked me to post the following information entitled "CASA's Failure to Adopt Proposed Cost Savings". Ken's contact details are at the end of the post.
AMROBA Objective 9 – “Reducing government overheads — assist government, and CASA, in recognising and implementing processes that will reduce costs to the MRO industry. The reduction of government, and CASA costs will assist and encourage a safer internationally competitive Australian MRO industry.”
Assisting government/CASA to reduce government costs whilst maintaining or enhancing safety has been actively proposed by AMROBA Management to CASA. The following is an abstract of 5 of such proposals to reduce costs for the GA/Aerialwork segments. One proposal reduces costs for all certificate holders.
1. Reduce costs to GA/Aerialwork – Regulatory Change – Use FAA outcome based rules, with minimum maintenance standards, for GA/Aerialwork operator/organisations and EASA rules for airline operations.
a. Adopting EASA rules for GA will retain the current requirement for all maintenance organisations, including an organisation that works out of the back of a truck (mobile workshop), to be approved by CASA. Adopting EASA proposed outcome based rules will also increase paperwork for small GA operators/organisations. This proposal by CASA will increase costs on GA/Aerialwork operators/organisations.
b. Many FAA non airline operators/organisations are NOT approved by the FAA as long as they are a Fixed Base Operator. There are numerous flight training organisations, aircraft maintenance organisations and avionic maintenance organisations that are not approved by the FAA – this system will reduce costs.
i.
d. CASA regulatory oversight of GA/Aerialwork (same as FAA) would be based on product surveillance NOT system surveillance. It works – the US just had its safest year in GA/Aerialwork for 40 years.
e. Adoption of the FAA GA/Aerialwork system will save hundreds of thousands dollars for participants in the GA/Aerialwork industry and also save CASA a million dollars in reduced manpower costs.
2. Removal of Unique Australian Airworthiness Directives
a. Many General ADs are additional requirements to what the same aircraft would have to be maintained to if the aircraft was registered in North America – these ADs should be cancelled.
b. Some General ADs implement mandatory maintenance requirements that are only specific to specific operational segments in the US – these ADs should be amended to make the requirement applicable to the operational segment only.
c. Some ADs actually duplicate manufacturer maintenance requirements; some make mandatory one aspect of a manufacturer’s supplementary maintenance document. These ADs should be cancelled.
d. Many ADs raised in the past were not based on a safety situation that existed in the Australian fleet – many were based on a manufacturer’s recommended maintenance requirement.
e. Adoption of automatic acceptance of ADs issued by the country responsible for the aircraft’s Type Certificate ensures aircraft maintenance complies with international standards – makes resale value better and reduces CASA costs. CASA should only promulgate country of design AD title and web link on the CASA website.
f. Justification to retain an Australian AD should expire after ten years. This ensures that a review is made of expiring ADs to justify that they still addressed a known safety issue – if needed to be retained permanently, make them a regulatory requirement.
g. Cost savings to owners/operators/organisations and CASA as unique requirements would be abolished, unless a known Australian safety case had been used to justify the issue, thus making it easier to maintain to the same standards as used in other countries, especially the aircraft’s country of design.
3. Interim Approach – One CASA certificate – Under current legislation AOC holders such as flying training and Aerialwork operators that do their own maintenance should only have one CASA approval document. The AOC document should have a permission added to it without the need to hold a CASA maintenance organisation approval.
a. This would remove CASA regulatory administrative costs thus lowering costs of pilot training.
b. AOC holder would still need to employ a LAME to certify maintenance.
c. Maintenance would still meet regulatory standards - save thousands of dollars.
4. Capability List – Adopt single page operator/organisation approval document with a condition to maintain a Capability List of the kinds or types of aircraft or components that they operate or maintain.
a. It becomes an operator/organisation function and responsibility to add or remove kinds of aircraft/components to the Capability List – not a cost recoverable CASA approval system.
b. Enables flexibility for the operator/maintenance organisation to react to customer demands quickly.
c. Reduces operators/organisations overhead costs of obtaining separate approvals from CASA and reduces CASA costs as the function and responsibility is transferred to industry. Big savings.
d. Reduction in regulatory imposed costs saving hundreds of thousand of dollars.
5. Aircraft Log Book Statements (LBS) should harmonise with aircraft country of design standards for maintenance based on the operational basis of aircraft.
a. For example, a FAA Normal Type Certificate aircraft used for private operations should meet the same maintenance standard as that in the US. That is, an annual inspection using the manufacturer’s 100 hourly inspection schedules as long as they meet the requirements of FAR Part 43 Appendix.
b. The FAA regulations only require a private aircraft to do 100 hourly inspections if used for flying training of other private commercial operations.
c. Standard LBS should be adopted for the majority of GA normal category aircraft – this would reduce costs and adopt the same maintenance standards used in the country of design.
d. Removes CASA unique additional inspections to manufacturer’s inspection schedules that the rest of the world uses. Standardisation with US minimum standards will reduce costs & improve safety.
Ken R Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
61 (0)2 9759 2715 (phone)
61 (0)2 9759 2025 (facsimile)
0408 029 329 (mobile)
[email protected]
AMROBA Objective 9 – “Reducing government overheads — assist government, and CASA, in recognising and implementing processes that will reduce costs to the MRO industry. The reduction of government, and CASA costs will assist and encourage a safer internationally competitive Australian MRO industry.”
Assisting government/CASA to reduce government costs whilst maintaining or enhancing safety has been actively proposed by AMROBA Management to CASA. The following is an abstract of 5 of such proposals to reduce costs for the GA/Aerialwork segments. One proposal reduces costs for all certificate holders.
1. Reduce costs to GA/Aerialwork – Regulatory Change – Use FAA outcome based rules, with minimum maintenance standards, for GA/Aerialwork operator/organisations and EASA rules for airline operations.
a. Adopting EASA rules for GA will retain the current requirement for all maintenance organisations, including an organisation that works out of the back of a truck (mobile workshop), to be approved by CASA. Adopting EASA proposed outcome based rules will also increase paperwork for small GA operators/organisations. This proposal by CASA will increase costs on GA/Aerialwork operators/organisations.
b. Many FAA non airline operators/organisations are NOT approved by the FAA as long as they are a Fixed Base Operator. There are numerous flight training organisations, aircraft maintenance organisations and avionic maintenance organisations that are not approved by the FAA – this system will reduce costs.
i.
A Fixed Based Operator/Organisation is the same as an Australian Registered Business (ARB) meeting conditions. e.g. “Industry Codes of Practice” agreed by CASA/Industry Associations.
ii. E.g. Non CASA approved operators/organisations would need to be a member of industry association to comply with industry segments “Codes of Practice”. Same practice as used in other Australian self compliant industries. (e.g. Broadcasting Industry)
iii. One of the conditions in the US is that these operators/organisations must use a FAA licensed person to do/sign the tasks – e.g. Graded Flight Instructor or Rated IA/A&P mechanic.
c. In addition, FAA rules for private operation are based on setting minimum standards for aircraft that removes the subjective interpretations of the current rules and would also reduce CASA involvement. FARs limits manufacturers recommended maintenance schedules depending on operational status.ii. E.g. Non CASA approved operators/organisations would need to be a member of industry association to comply with industry segments “Codes of Practice”. Same practice as used in other Australian self compliant industries. (e.g. Broadcasting Industry)
iii. One of the conditions in the US is that these operators/organisations must use a FAA licensed person to do/sign the tasks – e.g. Graded Flight Instructor or Rated IA/A&P mechanic.
d. CASA regulatory oversight of GA/Aerialwork (same as FAA) would be based on product surveillance NOT system surveillance. It works – the US just had its safest year in GA/Aerialwork for 40 years.
e. Adoption of the FAA GA/Aerialwork system will save hundreds of thousands dollars for participants in the GA/Aerialwork industry and also save CASA a million dollars in reduced manpower costs.
2. Removal of Unique Australian Airworthiness Directives
a. Many General ADs are additional requirements to what the same aircraft would have to be maintained to if the aircraft was registered in North America – these ADs should be cancelled.
b. Some General ADs implement mandatory maintenance requirements that are only specific to specific operational segments in the US – these ADs should be amended to make the requirement applicable to the operational segment only.
c. Some ADs actually duplicate manufacturer maintenance requirements; some make mandatory one aspect of a manufacturer’s supplementary maintenance document. These ADs should be cancelled.
d. Many ADs raised in the past were not based on a safety situation that existed in the Australian fleet – many were based on a manufacturer’s recommended maintenance requirement.
e. Adoption of automatic acceptance of ADs issued by the country responsible for the aircraft’s Type Certificate ensures aircraft maintenance complies with international standards – makes resale value better and reduces CASA costs. CASA should only promulgate country of design AD title and web link on the CASA website.
f. Justification to retain an Australian AD should expire after ten years. This ensures that a review is made of expiring ADs to justify that they still addressed a known safety issue – if needed to be retained permanently, make them a regulatory requirement.
g. Cost savings to owners/operators/organisations and CASA as unique requirements would be abolished, unless a known Australian safety case had been used to justify the issue, thus making it easier to maintain to the same standards as used in other countries, especially the aircraft’s country of design.
3. Interim Approach – One CASA certificate – Under current legislation AOC holders such as flying training and Aerialwork operators that do their own maintenance should only have one CASA approval document. The AOC document should have a permission added to it without the need to hold a CASA maintenance organisation approval.
a. This would remove CASA regulatory administrative costs thus lowering costs of pilot training.
b. AOC holder would still need to employ a LAME to certify maintenance.
c. Maintenance would still meet regulatory standards - save thousands of dollars.
4. Capability List – Adopt single page operator/organisation approval document with a condition to maintain a Capability List of the kinds or types of aircraft or components that they operate or maintain.
a. It becomes an operator/organisation function and responsibility to add or remove kinds of aircraft/components to the Capability List – not a cost recoverable CASA approval system.
b. Enables flexibility for the operator/maintenance organisation to react to customer demands quickly.
c. Reduces operators/organisations overhead costs of obtaining separate approvals from CASA and reduces CASA costs as the function and responsibility is transferred to industry. Big savings.
d. Reduction in regulatory imposed costs saving hundreds of thousand of dollars.
5. Aircraft Log Book Statements (LBS) should harmonise with aircraft country of design standards for maintenance based on the operational basis of aircraft.
a. For example, a FAA Normal Type Certificate aircraft used for private operations should meet the same maintenance standard as that in the US. That is, an annual inspection using the manufacturer’s 100 hourly inspection schedules as long as they meet the requirements of FAR Part 43 Appendix.
b. The FAA regulations only require a private aircraft to do 100 hourly inspections if used for flying training of other private commercial operations.
c. Standard LBS should be adopted for the majority of GA normal category aircraft – this would reduce costs and adopt the same maintenance standards used in the country of design.
d. Removes CASA unique additional inspections to manufacturer’s inspection schedules that the rest of the world uses. Standardisation with US minimum standards will reduce costs & improve safety.
Ken R Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
61 (0)2 9759 2715 (phone)
61 (0)2 9759 2025 (facsimile)
0408 029 329 (mobile)
[email protected]
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick simply will not respond to posts that contradict his "I love everything to do with America"
Dick - The FAA exams are a joke- Multi guess questions. But hey, doesnt prove to be any less safe according to Dick and its cheap so lets go that way.
Dick - The FAA exams are a joke- Multi guess questions. But hey, doesnt prove to be any less safe according to Dick and its cheap so lets go that way.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coral
You make a very valid point. Your method of delivery might be seen as cynical and sarcastic, however the point is very valid.
I do believe that coucls should be given the chance to do their community folk a better service and the aviation community in general. They need to be convinced its worth their trouble preserving such assets.
Watch the video Sixteen Right. If you do not have it, "Do yourselves a favour" and buy it.
Example is Ballina, I bet they are glad that they never turned that strip into a housing estate years ago..........Its not what we say its how we say it. Same goes for us (or Dick) selling this to Governments at all levels.
SQ
You make a very valid point. Your method of delivery might be seen as cynical and sarcastic, however the point is very valid.
I do believe that coucls should be given the chance to do their community folk a better service and the aviation community in general. They need to be convinced its worth their trouble preserving such assets.
Watch the video Sixteen Right. If you do not have it, "Do yourselves a favour" and buy it.
Example is Ballina, I bet they are glad that they never turned that strip into a housing estate years ago..........Its not what we say its how we say it. Same goes for us (or Dick) selling this to Governments at all levels.
SQ
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Just a note of caution about quoting Ardmore NZ as a shining example...
Landing fees are my third highest expense!
$15 + for a full stop and rents have quadrupled over the last 5 years, $350 a month for an old standard shared hangar...
Cross runway closed... and guys leaving left right and centre for other, more friendly places NZTG.
Current owner against aviation $$$$ are the only important thing.....
It's a shambles !
Just a note of caution about quoting Ardmore NZ as a shining example...
Landing fees are my third highest expense!
$15 + for a full stop and rents have quadrupled over the last 5 years, $350 a month for an old standard shared hangar...
Cross runway closed... and guys leaving left right and centre for other, more friendly places NZTG.
Current owner against aviation $$$$ are the only important thing.....
It's a shambles !
Grandpa Aerotart
Maroochydore Shire Council (I think it is) have told the tennants at Caloundra they can pack their bags...they want the land for a housing development.
It's hardly surprising when councils are usually stacked with developers who do a stint in council to change zoning laws.
Wombat35 that is genuinely sad to hear...that is/was a great little airfeld.
So Dick...another one of your naive ideas shot in the ass...next.
It's hardly surprising when councils are usually stacked with developers who do a stint in council to change zoning laws.
Wombat35 that is genuinely sad to hear...that is/was a great little airfeld.
So Dick...another one of your naive ideas shot in the ass...next.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 28th Jun 2007 at 08:58.
Coral. I don't think you understand the airport cost dilema in rural communities, or even appreciate the cost to maintain a rural airport to a level appropriate to the communities needs.
I live in a rural community which receives Dash 8 scheduled air services, 24 hour aero medical services and a small amount of GA aircrsft movements.
Some years ago the then Minister (Anderson) "granted" rural airports to local communities under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP). At that time financial inducements could be negotiated but the bottom line from the Minister was simply "take over the airport or we close it".
Rural Councils were forced to assume operational and financial responsibility for airports which in most cases, were essential infrastructure, critical to the needs, welfare and delivery of services to that local community. In many cases, the airports required extensive initial and on going maintenance and since Councils assumed control, additional requirements have been imposed including the recent security fencing requirement.
The dilema for most Councils is that their rate base is simply too small to support their airport to the required standard to sustain, in the case of the community in which I live, 24 hour aero medical operations and daily scheduled airline services. Landing charges were introduces, generally a nominal sum of $10 to $15 for a light SE aircraft, however with less than twenty flight movements per day, the resultant revenue versus cost was but a mere "drop in the bucket". Also, aeromedical services, which constitute many of the movements each day (and night), are generally exempt from landing fees - as it should be.
Why should my Council rates and taxes subsidise your private aviation interests?
Another argument in rural Councils is that many rural airports serve multiple council residents (in our case, seven Councils), whilst one Council is required to bear all the cost.
I do not know of one rural Council that makes a profit on it's airport ownership and operation.
There is a very strong case for the Federal Government to rebate it's profits from capital city airport leases, ASA operational profits and aviation fuel excise and GST, back to rural councils, which are striving to provide for essential air services to their communities.
We both know that will not happen.
Chuck. Whilst not commenting on Maroochydore, I can think of a number of airports where the land should indeed be converted to residential or commercial use, Toowoomba being one example! Inclement weather (particularly fog), proximity to Oakey, town center location and a host of other reasons indicate it will only be a matter of time before Toowoomba airport land is put to far better use.
I live in a rural community which receives Dash 8 scheduled air services, 24 hour aero medical services and a small amount of GA aircrsft movements.
Some years ago the then Minister (Anderson) "granted" rural airports to local communities under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP). At that time financial inducements could be negotiated but the bottom line from the Minister was simply "take over the airport or we close it".
Rural Councils were forced to assume operational and financial responsibility for airports which in most cases, were essential infrastructure, critical to the needs, welfare and delivery of services to that local community. In many cases, the airports required extensive initial and on going maintenance and since Councils assumed control, additional requirements have been imposed including the recent security fencing requirement.
The dilema for most Councils is that their rate base is simply too small to support their airport to the required standard to sustain, in the case of the community in which I live, 24 hour aero medical operations and daily scheduled airline services. Landing charges were introduces, generally a nominal sum of $10 to $15 for a light SE aircraft, however with less than twenty flight movements per day, the resultant revenue versus cost was but a mere "drop in the bucket". Also, aeromedical services, which constitute many of the movements each day (and night), are generally exempt from landing fees - as it should be.
Why should my Council rates and taxes subsidise your private aviation interests?
Another argument in rural Councils is that many rural airports serve multiple council residents (in our case, seven Councils), whilst one Council is required to bear all the cost.
I do not know of one rural Council that makes a profit on it's airport ownership and operation.
There is a very strong case for the Federal Government to rebate it's profits from capital city airport leases, ASA operational profits and aviation fuel excise and GST, back to rural councils, which are striving to provide for essential air services to their communities.
We both know that will not happen.
Chuck. Whilst not commenting on Maroochydore, I can think of a number of airports where the land should indeed be converted to residential or commercial use, Toowoomba being one example! Inclement weather (particularly fog), proximity to Oakey, town center location and a host of other reasons indicate it will only be a matter of time before Toowoomba airport land is put to far better use.
Thread Starter
MMSOBGYTAST, you’ve got me completely wrong. I simply don’t have a view that everything in America is positive. I suggest you look at some of my comments in relation to globalisation and huge US companies such as Wal-Mart potentially taking over the world.
Having said that, because the US has a very litigious society which is very wealthy, and because it has some of the worst weather conditions in the world, with high mountain ranges, I believe it has evolved aviation-wise into a very good system of balancing cost and benefit.
Remember, we used to spend a huge amount of money in modifying aircraft from the USA so they could meet Australian certification standards. As Chairman of the CAA I was responsible for the decision to remove that requirement. Many millions of dollars have been saved since then and there has been no measurable impact on safety.
You say that the FAA exam system is a joke. If this is so, why is their resultant level of safety about the same as Australia – despite snow and ice for 4 months of the year and the high mountain ranges? I have a feeling that we put in all this extra cost and complexity in the theory system when there is no measurable safety advantage.
I have heard about of the recent questions in our theory exams and it is more about testing your ability in comprehension and English than actually knowing the real answer. This doesn’t add to aviation safety.
Having said that, because the US has a very litigious society which is very wealthy, and because it has some of the worst weather conditions in the world, with high mountain ranges, I believe it has evolved aviation-wise into a very good system of balancing cost and benefit.
Remember, we used to spend a huge amount of money in modifying aircraft from the USA so they could meet Australian certification standards. As Chairman of the CAA I was responsible for the decision to remove that requirement. Many millions of dollars have been saved since then and there has been no measurable impact on safety.
You say that the FAA exam system is a joke. If this is so, why is their resultant level of safety about the same as Australia – despite snow and ice for 4 months of the year and the high mountain ranges? I have a feeling that we put in all this extra cost and complexity in the theory system when there is no measurable safety advantage.
I have heard about of the recent questions in our theory exams and it is more about testing your ability in comprehension and English than actually knowing the real answer. This doesn’t add to aviation safety.
Grandpa Aerotart
Yup sorry......Caloundra not Caboulture.
Hey Bushy hangarage becomes marginally worthwhile at $300/mth...at $3000/mth you're paying the equivalent of a new paint job and interior every 18-24 mths...was $3000 a typo?
Hey Bushy hangarage becomes marginally worthwhile at $300/mth...at $3000/mth you're paying the equivalent of a new paint job and interior every 18-24 mths...was $3000 a typo?
Coral. HID/TI is a case in point. If memory serves me correctly, initially the Torres Shire Council wanted nothing to do with the airport ownership but were told "take it or we'll close it".
They were enticed by - I think - resheeting the tarmac at Commonwealth expense plus $3 mill towards future costs.
Then the Torres Shire Council complained they were responsible for the total cost of operating the aerodrome, whilst the benefit was enjoyed by the residents of approximately twelve or thirteen Councils.
That was the justification to introduce the RPT Passenger Head Tax to fund the HID airport operation.
I don't think Dick is interested in cost saving - or redistribution of Government aviation based profits to rural airports.
In the rural town in which I live, which has a Base Hospital, hardly a night passes without an RFDS King Air flying over my house. Our airport is as important to this town as ambulance services, train and bus services (which we don't have) and Pizza Hut restaurants are to city dwellers.
They were enticed by - I think - resheeting the tarmac at Commonwealth expense plus $3 mill towards future costs.
Then the Torres Shire Council complained they were responsible for the total cost of operating the aerodrome, whilst the benefit was enjoyed by the residents of approximately twelve or thirteen Councils.
That was the justification to introduce the RPT Passenger Head Tax to fund the HID airport operation.
I don't think Dick is interested in cost saving - or redistribution of Government aviation based profits to rural airports.
In the rural town in which I live, which has a Base Hospital, hardly a night passes without an RFDS King Air flying over my house. Our airport is as important to this town as ambulance services, train and bus services (which we don't have) and Pizza Hut restaurants are to city dwellers.