squawk6969

Gooday Islander Jock, apart from the signs on the gates I thought there were more regs about guns in planes.........ohhh of course WA is the Wild West for good reason.

Okay sorry for thread drift, could not help it...back to normal viewing!

Chuck I do think we humans can cope with more than one change at a time, however they should be kept very much apart, so say two or three no more, but not all from the same family. So your transition layer is a good example, plus say radio frequecy boundaries (Scurvy space perhaps) and some other. However before they start changes a long term plan is to take what we have and as you say fine tune it.

I think the CTA/OCTA idea needs exploring. Take the US system and take all the good bits that compliment the outcomes we need. I now understand slightly better the USA Class E over the ICAO class E and see why the US version would have been better, but we ended up with an ICAO hybrid, or at least I think thats what it was.......thats the kind of confusion we need to avoid. Hence the KISS.

Cheers

SQ

SCE to Aux

The U.S. does have ICAO Class E airspace. Where do you think ICAO got the idea from? What we have in Australia is a hybrid, and that's putting it politely!

Scurvy.D.Dog

Interesting story that, because the way the US apply various instruments to their E is .. well different to ICAO E, which is in turn very similar to Aus E … i.e.
.
ICAO and Aus E
.
In the context of IFR/IFR sep and traffic info on known VFR it is the same … HOWEVER
.
There is a cross pollination of ICAO E,F and G (comms requirements and the provision of FIS) in our E and G .. why?
.
I suspect it is because of:-
.
1. a lack of surveillance coverage
2. a lack of ICAO F classification; and
3. providing FIS in G when ICAO defines OCTA FIS as F,
.
The result is a hybrid of comm’s requirements and FIS services OCTA
.
If you can get access to ICAO (Annex 11 Appendix 4), and compare with the AIP http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ations/aip.asp
ENR 1.4 4 (table of airspace). The Manual of Air Traffic Services Australia is identical to the AIP the differences become apparent.
.
Now, as far as FAA E goes, here is the nub.
.
There are several instruments that refer, the basis result is this:-
.
E exist outside terminal areas (climb and descent areas) of B,C and D. In other words, where non-radio VFR will not likely interfere with arriving and departing IFR at (jet) RPT serviced towered airports.
.
Alaska was sited numerous time in the past. What was glossed over was the VFR two way comms/clearance requirements (see below)
.
FAA AIM
.
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...ns/ATpubs/AIM/
.
Chapter 3
.
Section 1
.
3-1-3. Hierarchy of Overlapping Airspace Designations
.
a. When overlapping airspace designations apply to the same airspace, the operating rules associated with the more restrictive airspace designation apply.
.
b. For the purpose of clarification:
.
1. Class A airspace is more restrictive than Class B, Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
.
2. Class B airspace is more restrictive than Class C, Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
.
3. Class C airspace is more restrictive than Class D, Class E, or Class G airspace;
.
4. Class D airspace is more restrictive than Class E or Class G airspace; and
.
5. Class E is more restrictive than Class G airspace.
.
... there’s a big clue right there …. and;
.
Section 2. Controlled Airspace
.
e. Types of Class E Airspace:
.
1. Surface area designated for an airport. When designated as a surface area for an airport, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures.
.
2. Extension to a surface area. There are Class E airspace areas that serve as extensions to Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas designated for an airport. Such airspace provides controlled airspace to contain standard instrument approach procedures without imposing a communications requirement on pilots operating under VFR.
.
3. Airspace used for transition. There are Class E airspace areas beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet AGL used to transition to/from the terminal or en route environment.
.
4. En Route Domestic Areas. There are Class E airspace areas that extend upward from a specified altitude and are en route domestic airspace areas that provide controlled airspace in those areas where there is a requirement to provide IFR en route ATC services but the Federal airway system is inadequate.
.
5. Federal Airways. The Federal airways are Class E airspace areas and, unless otherwise specified, extend upward from 1,200 feet to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL. The colored airways are green, red, amber, and blue. The VOR airways are classified as Domestic, Alaskan, and Hawaiian.
.
Section 4. Special Use Airspace
.
3-4-6. Alert Areas
.
Alert areas are depicted on aeronautical charts to inform nonparticipating pilots of areas that may contain a high volume of pilot training or an unusual type of aerial activity. Pilots should be particularly alert when flying in these areas. All activity within an alert area shall be conducted in accordance with CFRs, without waiver, and pilots of participating aircraft as well as pilots transiting the area shall be equally responsible for collision avoidance.
.
Section 5. Other Airspace Areas
.
3. Remote Airport Information Service (RAIS) is provided in support of short term special events like small to medium fly-ins. The service is advertised by NOTAM D only. The FSS will not have access to a continuous readout of the current winds and altimeter; therefore, RAIS does not include weather and/or Final Guard service. However, known traffic, special event instructions, and all other services are provided.
.
Code of Federal Regulations
.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl
.
Class D
.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...2.4.16&idno=14
.
Carriage and use of TXPDRS
.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.7.8&idno=14
.
Airports where the above is mandated
.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....77.31&idno=14
.
An airport (servicing jets) with VFR VHF contact REQUIREMENTS
.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...3.11.4&idno=14
.
§ 93.57 General rules: All segments.
.
(e) Except as provided in §§93.63(d) and 93.67(b), each person operating an aircraft in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area shall maintain two-way radio communications with the ATCT serving the segment containing the arrival or departure airport.
.
Now why do you suppose that is??? …. no surveillance??
.
And last but not least:-
.
FAA ORDER 7110.65
.
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff.../ATC/index.htm
.
Nite all

boofhead

12 years professional pilot in Aus/NZ with ATPL/instructor both countries, ATPL from UK and now 13 years ATP/CFI/CFII/CFMEI in the US flying and teaching on many single and multi engine airplanes including skis, floats, amphib, conventional gear as instructor/line pilot with airline (Part 135/91), flying schools and as an independent CFI , I believe I am qualified to say that the US system is so much better than that found in Aus/NZ/UK from the perspective of cost and efficiency, and is demonstrated to be safer, that I am astounded you guys have your blinkers so firmly fitted to your faces. Is it a case of NIH? (Not Invented Here).
I particularly like the rules for Instrument flying and for instructing. I don't need to do an instrument competency check unless I don't fly enough. I do an online course to keep my instructor certificate alive. If I get caught by weather I pop up for an IFR clearance and get one every time. I don't have to worry about how much that will cost me since all the regulatory costs are in fuel taxes. Flying IFR is cheaper because I can go direct. I can fly at 12500 feet without oxy and without pressurisation. I teach on airplanes I have not previously flown, I can teach my own kids in my spare time. I am not checked as to my success rate unless I want to be a DPE (designated examiner), but the results of my teaching will show in the results of my students. I fly single pilot IFR at night in single engine airplanes without autopilot (not on airline business), I only have one AI and T&B. My medical takes two hours and costs $100. In short, the system in the US is based on what works; practicality is the aim.
While you live by rules and restrictions, US pilots are tested for competency as pilots and if they pass the practical test (which has tough aurals) they are good to go. They log PIC time whenever they touch the control column, no matter what their assignment in the cockpit, and I know several long-haul pilots who log the time in the bunk, so they are more competitive in the international market too. (OK, that one is not a good example).
The only area I have concern is that the examinations for certificates (they don't have licences) are too easy. But the exams in Aus/UK are way to tough and irrelevant. Maybe something in between?

Chimbu chuckles

I don't think too many of us would argue with your assertion that the US system is simpler and cheaper than the Australian system....'better' remains to be seen.

I, and many others, having been saying to Smith for years..."You want the US system then great, give it to us lock, stock and barrel"...but that is not what has been going on...Smith cherry picks bits of the system he likes and then tries to railroad the changes with no thought as to the consequences given the other realities of the system in Australia.

The biggest difference is radar coverage...US=85%, Australia=15%.

Instead of comparing Australian airspace to the US contigous 48 states compare it to Alaska...a much more valid comparison.

USAOPA and sundry other alphabet groups are fighting against a FAA re
authorisation bill which will see them introduce 'user pays' in the US too.

The airlines are fighting touth and nail for it because it will transfer enormous amounts of their costs into GA. The same thing is happening in the UK which is already close to twice as expensive as Australia. The same thing happened in Australia many years ago when Dick Smith was chairman of CAA...user pays.

This is just typical corporate short termism and greed...the system exists ONLY because of the (statutory) requirements of airlines...the big end of town. 'GA' has already effectively been 'priced' out of capital city airports...how many light twins and singles do you see at Mascot etc these days? They were common in the old days when we paid fuel tax.

The fact that we (all airspace users) were already paying, via fuel tax, more than it cost (double is what I remember reading at the time) to run the entire airspace system was conveniently forgotten as that money dissappeared into consolidated revenue and was replaced with 'user fees' paid to govt business enterprises (GBE= 'privatised' Govt department where 'public service' inneficiency is charged out at a rate that returns a profit to govt) and later GST on user fees...that is double taxation.

And it wasn't enough for one govt department, CAA, to be turned into a GBE the crunts split into two, CASA and FAC (later AsA), and the Govt demands they both return a dividend to govt...although they claim CASA is still 'subsidised by the taxpayer' AsA is highly profitable...ignoring for the moment that the tax payers of Australia are the ultimate beneficiaries of the airspace infrastructure/system...it would seem reasonable for a profitable AsA to offset an unprofitable CASA given they were once one govt department...but no can't do that.

The Govt also sold off all the airports...something the US has not done...YET. That was when the Federal Airports Corporation became AsA.

The overall US system is, to date, so different to Australia that it is impossible to compare the two...for how long remains to be seen.

sprocket check

If I may chime in with my 2 cents.

A relative newbie to aviation though not so newbie in other areas.

It seems to me CASA is hindering both commercial and recreational aspects of aviation unfer the current system.

I know of an operator that's applied for an AOC for a single type of aerial work. Submitted all required manuals etc and paid thousands in the required fees. CASA informed him he can expect an answer in 6 months. Is there any other industry in Australia subjected to this level of bureaucratic muscle flexing?

An AOC should be issued within 4 weeks from the lodgement of required documentation unless there are errors or omissions. E&O when corrected must be cleared within 7 days. This should be legislated.

Exams-I am currently sitting CPLs. I pay ASL for the exam and I pay CASA for the exam. CASA also pays ASL for the exam in the contract, to the tune of $4,789,000 or so. Interesting...

As far as the FAA version of the exams being better or worse- sure you can get the questions off the FAA web site and learn the answers-but you are still learning. The good thing is you are probably learning the relevant things you actually need to know. Also on the FAA web site are books and guides-and a LOT of them, everything from detailed information on meteorology to systems, instruments, techniques, aerobatics, aerodynamics. It's a wealth of reference material, all free. We don't even have a VFR guide anymore (though there is a pdf on the CASA site now).

Under AU system you pay Bob Tait or AT for the books and then get the questions included.

Instruction: A driver with 2 years on a full license is allowed to teach a new driver under the L/P plate system. No need to go to a special training organisation unless one wants to. Similar thing should be adopted for aviation, perhaps not that loose, but certainly if a person progresses themselves to a standard where they become authorised as an instructor, I see no reason why there should be a need for an AOC. They should be allowed to freelance and operate independently. The AOC does not provide any greater level of confidence or safety, it seemingly only hinders progress. Dodgy operators and instructors I hear you say? Well, they exist now and always will, their reputations stick like the brown stuff and it doesn't matter if there is an AOC involved, so let's dump the AOC requirement for flight training.

sprocket check

BTW,

On ya Dick for coming out with this publicly-for those that criticise putting your name on this thread, it is imho a good thing to do - can you imagine the suspicion and mistrust that would go on if this thread was started under an alias? Those kinds of games belong in little country aero clubs...actually not even there...

GA needs to change to survive, else more airports, etc, etc will go. Fact.

And let's not just survive, let's thrive.

Flight Me

I am a Professional Pilot and Taxpayer. The bloody Government should pay for my exams, my medicals and while they are at it fix up the bloody road into Brisbane airport so I can get to work without getting up 2 hours earlier than I should just to beat the traffic. This government has been an absolute penny pinching, tight ars% government, and has spent all the bloody money on a friggin war that has served no purpose.
If the CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY were exactly that, then we would not have this problem. It all started back when every friggin aircraft owner said " we want user pays", well that they certainly got.

I cannot believe that you ask on this forum for ideas to cost cut. How bloody unprofessional is that. You cannot be serious, the amount of money the CASA staff are on I would expect a little bit more than that.

So number one cut your pay packets, that might help. Streamline the business and employ people who perform, not ask for help!


And listen to Chimbu Chuckles, there is a lot of truth in there.

sprocket check

DCA - Department of Constant Aggravation
CAA - Constant Aggravation Authority
CASA - Constant Aggravation Supreme Authority?

Chimbu chuckles

CASA=C*&ts Against Sensible Aviation.

SM4 Pirate

My concern with this thread is that inevitably it's a cost argument. I'm all for user pays; but what exactly is it that you are paying for?

The USA user pays vs. taxes of various types is a hot debate in the USA.

The biggest user pays recovery argument here is that Airservices is a profit making arm of the government. Last year after taking reserves of cash for capital works the dividend after tax was something near $70M. That is the government is making somewhere near $100M profit on the 'user pays' philosophy.

Before you all get on that bandwagon of course; were did the actual profit come from? Qantas/Virgin/International airlines; of course. The user pays cost recovery from GA runs at a relatively healthy loss. Don't mention the regional subsidies for smaller than Dash-8s etc.; would REX be profitable without them? The government gives to the regionals who give it to the government, is that money laundering?

The realities of our system is that pax are paying the airlines a contributory cost of a ticket so they can then operate and pay the provider; the airlines probably in general terms charge more per-head for that per pax than it costs them, hedging and all and yield management is far too complex for this thread.

So indirectly the airlines are charging a tax on a ticket (just not calling it that) to pay for the aviation system. So why would the US get rid of this system and why are the airlines pushing so hard? Yes GA is probably a bigger sector and growing in comparison; but ultimately what's in it for the airlines? Well IMHO they realise that they have revenue to be made in removing the taxes on tickets (and fuel) as then those charges (that they'll still charge) don't automatically get forwarded to the big bucket.

But what has any of that got to do with regulation? On the face of it in Australia things move prohibitively slow; what is the solution, decrease the regulation, or increase the resources available and up the costs? Most would baulk at the later, but perhaps the realities to promote aviation is to increase the resources.

Now coming back to the above text, that ASA/It's owner make about $100M profit from aviation perhaps some of the costs associated with regulation could be put directly into the CASA budget. This would pay for about 1000 very well paid employees etc. without cost to industry. Of course it would have an effect on general revenue, but in GDP terms absolutely bugga all.

We will see an argument over wages for ATCs in the next 12 months; this will inevitably turn into the same debates as the past. Various individuals taking public positions about what people deserve (or don't usually); the ASA/It's owners argument will be along the lines of "A fair offer made in an industry that can not afford increases". And the controllers will be saying that they have had a significant reduction in real term wages over the past 10 years.

But really where are the true unnecessary costs going, to general revenue, no doubt about it.

Flight Me

Back to the original question, Mr Smith, why is it now our chance to have a say? Or is it just another way of saying, " well we asked everyone in the industry",(Pprune), and no one really had anything to say. So we will implement stage 4 504 564 of the national, oppps I mean USA airspace system.
I cannot believe this is still going on, get on with it and fix it. You seem to want to let everyone know you can, honestly mate, I am not having a go. Just do what you think best, after all you will be the one responsible when an airbus or boeing smack fair into a 182 taildragger who was making a .5nm final into Ballina.

putytat

[QUOTE]Just do what you think best, after all you will be the one responsible when an airbus or boeing smack fair into a 182 taildragger who was making a .5nm final into Ballina./QUOTE]

That would only apply if one's signature appears on the relevant documents. This has not been the case in the past. The benefits of sitting in a recommendatory capacity only is that one can exert significant influence on others, without taking any responsibility.

There was some carnage last round, and history appears to be repeating itself.

Scurvy.D.Dog

... Yup ... with one glaring exception!
.
CASA will have the governance this time around
.
... the staff at the regulator are left holding this 'tickin parcel' on top of the small mountain of other issues they have to field
.
poor bugga's cannot take a trick .
.
.
think happy thoughts .... think happy thoughts .... think hap .... eewwww me' guts ....

Quokka

Dick,

Please consult the industry operating out of Margaret River Airport.

The local council has prevented anyone from building a hangar or shed adjacent to the airstrip to prevent any expansion of the airport. Apparently it has something to do with noise and the councils aim of shutting down the airport.

Seems a strange decision given that the owners and pilots on the receiving end of this are ratepayers and that some of the operations into the airport are of commercial benefit to the region.

I'm not convinced that all local governments could provide the best facilities, safety and commercial governance needed to operate an airport in the best interests of the local community and the industry.

Again, Dick, please consult the industry in WA... and preferably sometime this year.

tsnake

In the absence of a list of suggestions from Mr Smith I have attempted to summarise the key suggestions under a number of headings rather than simply collating them to create a post of limited usefulness. The order chosen is entirely arbitrary and reflects no preference on my part. The standalone suggestions are gathered together at the end. The comments are my own.
As usual PPRUNERS have contributed with the best will and intention, some with more success than others.
For what it’s worth when you have finished reading this post, go back and re-read Gaunty’s thoughts and views and then think about what Creampuff and Lowdown have had to say. All three, from their distant vantage points, make some very pertinent comments about the efficacy of the entire change process for aviation in Australia.
ASICs and security
The delays in obtaining ASICs and the requirements associated with them are clearly a major problem and are seen as a deterrent to new students, among others. The level of security, especially at regional airports, was also highlighted as a problem and a major irritant.
Comment – Given the current security issues associated with aviation worldwide there is no likelihood of the situation changing. If the current activity in the freight forwarding industry is anything to go by we can expect more onerous and time-consuming security procedures in the near future. There is no chance the situation associated with ASICs for students will change, given the 9/11 experience in the US.
Unique ADs
Some examples were offered (Cessna 400 series wing spar caps, Aero Commander 500 series MTOW) and there are undoubtedly more.
Comment – The challenge for industry is firstly collating the inconsistencies and then, secondly, arguing for their abolition or modification. Doing that also requires trying to determine why they were introduced in the first place and addressing the concerns behind that decision. And arguing that we should follow the US example will not, by itself, be enough to sway the decision makers.
Airspace
Ideas raised included the abolition of Class E, or parts if it, transition altitude, height and level and the 250kt speed limit below 10,000ft. The arguments for and against ADS-B and WAAS turned up several times as did the suggestion to return to a form of the old CTA/OCTA arrangements. Throw on the straight-in approach v circuits discussion and concerns about radio procedures, or the lack of them, and you have the usual grab-bag of bleats that get repeated almost every time the industry gets together.
Comment – The industry does itself no service at all when it makes these suggestions without any evidence to support its position other than the usual bluster, assertion and repetition. If you want WAAS let’s see the colour of your money. The absence of any credible representative body for the industry to speak on this, or any other matter, is the fundamental issue.
Training and instruction
The vexed question of who instructs, on what basis and how has been with the industry since the first flight at Kitty Hawk. Suggestions ranged from allowing CFIs to issue student licences, a 1000hrs total time requirement before people can instruct, allowing people to instruct without an AOC and reducing endorsement requirements to removing the requirement for a minimum of 10 hours on twins before instructors can give endorsements.
Some inconsistencies associated with helicopter training were also highlighted and IFR recency/renewal requirements discussed.
It was also suggested that schools should be limited so that only certain schools should be allowed to train the CPL levels and others limited to training to PPL level only.
The arguments about exams, cyber and otherwise, was also canvassed.
Comment – The industry is well aware that there are pilot mills churning out marginal aviators and others producing quality operators. Changing the instructional part of the industry will require more than tinkering with bits of the problem. As an example imposing a 1000hrsTT requirement before you could instruct would wreck the instruction business for years to come and might lead to pilot shortages.
The bigger challenge is a coherent and reliable business model for the instruction industry that enables it to draw on a pool of properly trained, reasonably-paid career instructors able to produce well-trained aviators at a sustainable profit.
Air taxi and charter
Single-engine IFR charter and VFR charter at night, the return of ANR203 and limits on charter operations generally were raised although, yet again, without supporting argument, other than pointing back to the past and its alleged successes.
AOC issues
The bureaucracy of getting and keeping an AOC remains, as it always has, a huge source of frustration. Suggestions ranged from moving towards a permanent issue of an AOC through to general pleas to reduce the delays and paperwork requirements associated with AOCs.
Comment – Seeking changes to the way aviation businesses are dealt with and policed will not be helped by looking back to the past ie. hoping for ANR203 to return or by pleading for relaxation of the existing regime, Looking back will only remind politicians and decision makers about Monarch, Whyalla and Seaview. And the current coronial inquiry into the Transair disaster, and the evidence given so far, suggests the possibility conditions on AOCs, and the process of granting and maintaining them, could become even more onerous. SE IFR and VFR charter at night are not going to get a tick from politicians concerned about maintaining margins for safety.
Documentation
User-friendly regulations, a long-time industry bugbear, was thrown into the mix by Triadic, another suggestion called for the amendment cycle for DAPs to be addressed and one correspondent hoped for the return of the VFR Flight Guide. Legislative issues bothered others as well.
Comment – The challenge of developing user-friendly documentation is broader than the aviation industry. It took the banks a decade to really make an effort to make documentation easier to understand. The problem is that the lawyers, draftsmen and aviation regulators are under no pressure to change. And the dear old orange book some of us can vaguely recall – I hear the voice of Darryl Kerrigan: “Tell him he’s dreaming”.
A+Ps
Several posters wanted the US-style A+P to make their appearance in Australia, citing cost savings.
Comment – Any suggestion that might raise in the public’s mind that costs are being cut in maintenance is just not going to be considered. The union backlash alone would guarantee failure. At a practical level who’s going to train the A+Ps and maintain their standards? And how long will it be before the first cadre becomes available? And who’s paying? My own experience in the field of trade training and the associated development of syllabus, training packages and training the trainer programs suggests a 3-4 year lead time at least.
There were some suggestions that fall into the category of “only if you’re paying”:
1. Fuel flow meters/totalisers; cylinder head gauges and EGT gauges on turbo 6’s;
2. Second runway at PH, more AWIS, more radar coverage; and
3. More UNICOMS.
and one that fell into the truly outrageous category - that CASA should have some role in determining the viability of aviation businesses.
And in closing some “fat chance” thoughts – Chimbu Chuckles would like to see CASA, Airservices and the ATSB re-amalgamated (too many SP Greenies me thinks Chuck) ; CFI wants to see the Airports Act enforced on leaseholders (by whom pray tell) and one brave poster suggested scrapping the priority for RPT flights (incoming!).
While I personally have little time for Mr Smith and his antics at least give him credit for trying to get some input from the industry.
My own experience is that petty issues, local irritants, personal grudges and dislikes and a complete inability to focus on major issues are just some of the reasons why the GA industry simply isn’t heard by decision-makers.

Chris Higgins

A good post Mate! Now if I could only get the QF website to give a stopover in Auckland on the way down to Sydney, I'd be better able to tell you when I could offer you a beer.

Nothing, including this industry is impossible to fix. We can fix it and again, Dick Smith has tried his best to affect change, only to have people take cheap pot-shots; yet again.

Goodonya Dick! I dunno why you do it.

BlunderBus

oxygen at 10,000 = 14.2%
11,000 = 13.7%
12,000 = 13.2%

not a huge risk flying at 12K as opposed to 10K

Chimbu chuckles

tssnake that was a pretty negative post...not that I necesarily dissagree with you on the likelyhood of sundry outcomes.

911 was not a failure of airport security, pilot licencing or anything else to do with our industry...it was an intelligence failure pure and simple...and yet we pay?

Spend the money where it is needed...it aint needed at SPPL level or anywhere else in GA.

In a country with such a relatively small aviation industry and few aircraft/airports we should be blessed with a very simple system...that we are not is a disgrace.

Appropriate use of Class C around major airports, D/GAAP around secondary airports and G everywhere else is all that is required...E has no net benefit.

As far as user pays is concerned the 'user' needs to be better defined...and the beneficiaries of aviation infrastructure,Every Australian, needs to be recognised...aviation infrastructure is no different to road, rail or shipping infrastructure...aviation is a basic requirement of a modern society and should be funded as such.

Maintenance requirements need to better fit the operation...no-one is suggesting cutting corners but a privately owned Cessna, Piper or Beechcraft does not require the same regulatory oversight and paperwork as a commercially operated Cheiftain or Kingair. We already, effectively, have an A+P system...they're called AMEs...widen their authority to sign off basic maintenance.

The problems facing GA in Australia ARE simple and DO have simple answers...but the lunatics running the asylum CANNOT admit that...overcomplication and obfuscation keeps them employed in numbers far greater than this industry can afford.

putytat

Hi Chris,
I have not addressed your responses prior to this. You state that there are many cheap shots being thrown at Mr Smith; again.

People rarely doing things for nil reason. The large majority in aviation are passionate about their job and the industry in general. The biggest whinge continually appears to be the absolute waste of resources directed at reforms that achieve little or in some cases, reduce the integrity of the overall system and increase the level of confusion. The available resources could be directed to much better use for the benefit of all; particularly those stakeholders who actually pay for a service.

RNP and Flextrack / UPR implementation immediately come to mind. Real benefits to the industry in fuel savings and the environment.

I have tried to recall a reform since the turn of the century in aviation initiated by Mr Smith that has been beneficial in any way to the Australian industry; and cannot think of one. CTAFs was and is an absolute debacle. Education was poor, but so was the model and the method of implementation. This was all under the control of the change proponent; the NASIG. Industry did not want it, but there was no way of stopping it.

The next round of NAS reforms will achieve nothing for the industry; and will in fact have a negative impact in some ways. Take low level Class E airspace surrounding a regional port; Gladstone for instance. Marginal VMC or IMC exists. One in, one out is all that can be achieved. Increased numbers of controllers and consoles will be required, and significant ATC training; and what is the gain?

Lower the Class E airspace to FL145 without surveillance will restricted turboprop operations obtaining a clearance above FL145. Currently aircraft not able to be cleared can cruise below FL180 with some economy. I would suspect cruising below FL145 would be less economical. No gain again.

The end state of NAS is to remove DTI. There will be massive opposition to this from all stakeholders. The push will be to remove this prior to surveillance being established in the relevant airspace. If we wait that little bit longer and redirect resources towards technology like ADS-B, then all will be happy when DTI provision is removed.

SUA is another one coming up. The military will not commit to this in any way and cannot comply with the US rules for SUA. Do we again change the model to suit Australia and therefore create another little piece of the hybrid jigsaw?

People are frustrated, and this frustration in most part comes from genuine concern about the future.

Change is good when it is an improvement. Adopting little bits of another model and staging the implementation over a number of years with little or no effective consultation does not work.

A real cost benefit prior to implementation will determine whether these changes are economically viable. There will be a negative cost to industry for all the NAS changes I have mentioned above.

How much money, time and risk does Australia throw at this? Any change carries a risk component. The large majority of changes in NAS fall into the category of change for change sake. In the majority of views some NAS reforms fall into the category of reduced integrity and safety. Hence the continued opposition to these reforms and to the constant rhetoric by certain amateur aviators.