Mr Skidmore resigned
Bendy flyer, I know you are well meaning,intelligent and your heart is in what you posted.
Your problem comes from your initial assumption:
I am sorry to have to tell you that they do understand "the industry and governance generally".
They have made a conscious decision that it is not in their party political interests to foster the industry.
Contrary to popular opinion, there are plenty of highly intelligent people in both parties and the public service who are perfectly aware of the damage CASA has done, and it's cost to the taxpayer, even without multiple reviews by the Senate. The problem is that there are no votes in fixing the problem and plenty of risk to their backsides in supporting, let alone instigating, change in a politically volatile safety sensitive arena like aviation.
To put it simply, if the Government changes one comma of the aviation act and an accident occurs during the life of the parliament that did it, the opposition and the public will beat them to death at the next general election for "meddling with air safety".
To put that yet another way, giving CASA $250 million over 20 years to piss against the wall is cheap political insurance against the political fallout from (God forbid) a major disaster in Australian airspace involving Australian registered and operated aircraft. They know CASA is wasting money as far as pure economics is concerned, however CASA provides priceless political insurance in return.
The only solution is for the aviation industry to beat them to death, metaphorically speaking, if they don't support reform. As I have suggested time and again, the way to do that is by targeted campaigning in marginal seats in order to scare incumbents in those seats to electoral death.
Your problem comes from your initial assumption:
The responsibility lies fairly and squarly with governments of all persuasions and their failure to understand the industry and governance generally
They have made a conscious decision that it is not in their party political interests to foster the industry.
Contrary to popular opinion, there are plenty of highly intelligent people in both parties and the public service who are perfectly aware of the damage CASA has done, and it's cost to the taxpayer, even without multiple reviews by the Senate. The problem is that there are no votes in fixing the problem and plenty of risk to their backsides in supporting, let alone instigating, change in a politically volatile safety sensitive arena like aviation.
To put it simply, if the Government changes one comma of the aviation act and an accident occurs during the life of the parliament that did it, the opposition and the public will beat them to death at the next general election for "meddling with air safety".
To put that yet another way, giving CASA $250 million over 20 years to piss against the wall is cheap political insurance against the political fallout from (God forbid) a major disaster in Australian airspace involving Australian registered and operated aircraft. They know CASA is wasting money as far as pure economics is concerned, however CASA provides priceless political insurance in return.
The only solution is for the aviation industry to beat them to death, metaphorically speaking, if they don't support reform. As I have suggested time and again, the way to do that is by targeted campaigning in marginal seats in order to scare incumbents in those seats to electoral death.
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Sep 2016 at 09:59.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may seem too simplistic, as I am often accused as part of my troglodyte upbringing, but to put it simply: if the Government does not change one comma of the aviation act and an accident occurs during the life of the parliament that didn't do it, the opposition and the public will beat them to death at the next general election for not "meddling with air safety" with the perceived and demonstrated regulatory problems.
I think we give governments and bureaucrats the benefit of having more sense than they actually possess. Either, nay most, of both classes wouldn't survive in the "real world" where common sense, economy of effort and practiced historical sense would prevail. (Did I mention economy of taxpayer funds), Sorry...
I think we give governments and bureaucrats the benefit of having more sense than they actually possess. Either, nay most, of both classes wouldn't survive in the "real world" where common sense, economy of effort and practiced historical sense would prevail. (Did I mention economy of taxpayer funds), Sorry...
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Country NSW
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish and others I understand your views but I think they are misplaced. The targeted campaign strategy has been tried before and has failed, getting the attention of non aligned politicians has been tried and while initially encouraging has produced no long term results that have produced the change that was required to salvage any sort of future for the industry. The three major players (Qantas/Ansett/RAAF, then Qantas/Virgin/RAAF) in the business have succeeded in getting the ears and action from various ministers in a way that suited their interests but did nothing meaningful to address the issues and role of aviation in Australia other than passenger transport and defence. There was a period after world war two when efforts were made to build upon the resources and skills and to develop industry and aviation technology but they foundered under the weight of other economic issues, namely capital controls and bureaucratic management of the left overs of the so called aerospace sector. We built world class facilities that could have allowed Australia a major role in space exploration and rocketry but let them fall into disuse and disappear. Time after time consortiums have attempted to get political interest in international class freight hubs, satellite and space vehicle launch facilities and manufacturing, like fast rail it remains a dream that will now be never realised. The last airframe manufacturer of any potential we had was sold to the Indians after years of unwarranted assault and interference from CASA.
The standard political response of calling for a Commission of Inquiry or Royal Commission and then ignoring the report is standard practice in Australian public life. They even did it to Kingsford Smith back in the 1930's with a Royal Commission into the Coffee Royal misadventure. And the RAAF has been an administrative clusterf&*^% since before WWII, a real look at the standard political ineptitude and defence administration that characterised the RAAF during WW2, which resulted in the Morotai mutiny and sundry other outbreaks of so called disobedience from senior serving officers in the face of ineptitude reveals only that aviation has happened despite politicians and government not because of it. Only recently we have senior officers telling the politicians that the decision to invest in the F35 is a major mistake but the RAAF will get it anyway and it will be useless (But that is a whole other topic of its own).
I am not interested in CASA bashing per se and while it would be easy to pick the organisation to pieces and to reflect upon the damage it has wrought upon individuals, their livelihoods and reputations, it does not change the basic fact that the very people who are responsible for the mess and the decline of the aviation industry will not take responsibility, lack conviction and therefore demonstrate significant shortcomings in both civic responsibility and social leadership. In short, we are and have been governed for a long long time by people who are ignorant fools and cowards. How else would you arrive at a situation where the national carrier, gets rid of local employment and engages in corporate tax avoidance using offshore tax shelters (not my views but the considered views of one the worlds leading tax avoidance experts and former senior ATO official) so if they don't notice or care about that then off course they will not care a fig about the rest of the industry either.
That is why nothing will change and things will only get worse and now that even Qantas has been successful in tax avoidance strategies by offshoring its maintenance we know that even the large corporate players left have no interest in the future of the industry as far as Australia is concerned, it is just a market that adopts technology, uses that technology and will walk away from that industry the moment it suits. Alas it seems that is the way it has always been and always will. It could have different but will not be and so it is best to let it wither and die in peace. You can be creative flogging a dead horse but it is still a dead horse. Best get on with something else less injurious to one's mental health and bank balance.
The standard political response of calling for a Commission of Inquiry or Royal Commission and then ignoring the report is standard practice in Australian public life. They even did it to Kingsford Smith back in the 1930's with a Royal Commission into the Coffee Royal misadventure. And the RAAF has been an administrative clusterf&*^% since before WWII, a real look at the standard political ineptitude and defence administration that characterised the RAAF during WW2, which resulted in the Morotai mutiny and sundry other outbreaks of so called disobedience from senior serving officers in the face of ineptitude reveals only that aviation has happened despite politicians and government not because of it. Only recently we have senior officers telling the politicians that the decision to invest in the F35 is a major mistake but the RAAF will get it anyway and it will be useless (But that is a whole other topic of its own).
I am not interested in CASA bashing per se and while it would be easy to pick the organisation to pieces and to reflect upon the damage it has wrought upon individuals, their livelihoods and reputations, it does not change the basic fact that the very people who are responsible for the mess and the decline of the aviation industry will not take responsibility, lack conviction and therefore demonstrate significant shortcomings in both civic responsibility and social leadership. In short, we are and have been governed for a long long time by people who are ignorant fools and cowards. How else would you arrive at a situation where the national carrier, gets rid of local employment and engages in corporate tax avoidance using offshore tax shelters (not my views but the considered views of one the worlds leading tax avoidance experts and former senior ATO official) so if they don't notice or care about that then off course they will not care a fig about the rest of the industry either.
That is why nothing will change and things will only get worse and now that even Qantas has been successful in tax avoidance strategies by offshoring its maintenance we know that even the large corporate players left have no interest in the future of the industry as far as Australia is concerned, it is just a market that adopts technology, uses that technology and will walk away from that industry the moment it suits. Alas it seems that is the way it has always been and always will. It could have different but will not be and so it is best to let it wither and die in peace. You can be creative flogging a dead horse but it is still a dead horse. Best get on with something else less injurious to one's mental health and bank balance.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Country NSW
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not always Sunfish but Dick is right on a lot of issues. Anyhow just compare the New Zealand outcomes and aviation environment and you can see quite clearly that they have it right on lots of levels and how wrong we have it. As they say history may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bendy,
Don't be too sure about NZ. I was there a year ago and GA didn't seem to be happening too well. Ardmore doesn't have a tower anymore as there is too little traffic. I spent a fine Saturday afternoon there and saw one aircraft fly. Used aircraft prices at the low end now seem to be about two thirds of what they were a year ago.
Some industry people I talked to said aero clubs around the country were closing and the NZ lack of a class rating meant you had to find an instructor for your AFR who had a type rating in that kind of aircraft. I'm talking simple single engined, fixed gear, fixed prop bug smashers here, not complex aircraft.
PPL medicals were running around NZ$700 to 900 with all required blood tests etc.
NZCAA didn't seem to be held in any higher regard than CASA is here.
Don't be too sure about NZ. I was there a year ago and GA didn't seem to be happening too well. Ardmore doesn't have a tower anymore as there is too little traffic. I spent a fine Saturday afternoon there and saw one aircraft fly. Used aircraft prices at the low end now seem to be about two thirds of what they were a year ago.
Some industry people I talked to said aero clubs around the country were closing and the NZ lack of a class rating meant you had to find an instructor for your AFR who had a type rating in that kind of aircraft. I'm talking simple single engined, fixed gear, fixed prop bug smashers here, not complex aircraft.
PPL medicals were running around NZ$700 to 900 with all required blood tests etc.
NZCAA didn't seem to be held in any higher regard than CASA is here.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old fella,
you forgot to add, "Framer and author of Part 61" That masterpiece of industry killing legislation, admired around the world for its brilliant complexity and length.
you forgot to add, "Framer and author of Part 61" That masterpiece of industry killing legislation, admired around the world for its brilliant complexity and length.
Roger Weeks????
His claim to fame was CFI Royal Perth Aero Club.
Dear oh dear
CASA DIRECTOr OF AVIATION SAFETY??????
His claim to fame was CFI Royal Perth Aero Club.
Dear oh dear
CASA DIRECTOr OF AVIATION SAFETY??????
More than the previous DAS.
Eyrie: Don't be too sure about NZ. I was there a year ago and GA didn't seem to be happening too well. Ardmore doesn't have a tower anymore as there is too little traffic. I spent a fine Saturday afternoon there and saw one aircraft fly. Used aircraft prices at the low end now seem to be about two thirds of what they were a year ago.
Some industry people I talked to said aero clubs around the country were closing and the NZ lack of a class rating meant you had to find an instructor for your AFR who had a type rating in that kind of aircraft. I'm talking simple single engined, fixed gear, fixed prop bug smashers here, not complex aircraft.
PPL medicals were running around NZ$700 to 900 with all required blood tests etc.
NZCAA didn't seem to be held in any higher regard than CASA is here.
Some industry people I talked to said aero clubs around the country were closing and the NZ lack of a class rating meant you had to find an instructor for your AFR who had a type rating in that kind of aircraft. I'm talking simple single engined, fixed gear, fixed prop bug smashers here, not complex aircraft.
PPL medicals were running around NZ$700 to 900 with all required blood tests etc.
NZCAA didn't seem to be held in any higher regard than CASA is here.
Yes, some aero clubs have closed and some seem to be doing quite well. The student loan system has meant a migration of CPL I/R etc training to the larger centres putting stress on the some clubs, some of which have closed.
The lack of a class rating for GA aircraft may have a small impact but we've had that now for over 20 years since the introduction of Part 61. While I agree the class rating (we used to call it Group Rating) is a good system the individual system we have hasn't been too restrictive and there is room for accepting commonality between two very similar aircraft.
The price of aircraft also reflects the general economy, dairy farm income is well down which means less money all round. Also when the NZ dollar appreciates against the USD aircraft prices fall. So the price of aircraft doesn't always accurately reflect the health of aviation.
I agree the medical costs are higher than they should be, though things like blood tests are not required at every medical.
Yep, CAA aren't always painted in a good light however from what I hear they are streets ahead of CASA.
To top it all off Rocket Lab are about to start commercial launches of space vehicles in the very near future. Rocket Lab nearly clear for NZ space launch - Business - NZ Herald News
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Isn't everyone crying out for someone who will understand the plight of GA?"
dr dre,
In principle I agree with your sentiments, we do need more competent people in CAsA with whole industry experience. The key word being "Competent" as opposed to industry rejects.
Mr Weeks in my opinion does not understand the plight of GA, he is the plight.
27/09 succinctly illustrates that although far from perfect, NZ powers ahead of Australia, given their population their GA and other parts of the aviation industry seem to be doing quite well. Amazing what good regulation can achieve.
dr dre,
In principle I agree with your sentiments, we do need more competent people in CAsA with whole industry experience. The key word being "Competent" as opposed to industry rejects.
Mr Weeks in my opinion does not understand the plight of GA, he is the plight.
27/09 succinctly illustrates that although far from perfect, NZ powers ahead of Australia, given their population their GA and other parts of the aviation industry seem to be doing quite well. Amazing what good regulation can achieve.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"More than the previous DAS".
Let nobody be in any doubt that the problem is not with the plethora of "previous DAS", but the ability of any incumbent to carry out the proper function of a DAS while being subservient to the ruling bureaucracy with their funny handshakes and deliberate and feigned isolation from the political arm of the hand that feeds them. The matter is a political one, and dependent upon that political master to control his rabid advisers. Unfortunately voting for someone with the advertised skills is proven folly when the incumbent becomes endowed with power and wants isolating from the plebiscite.
Abstaining from the KIWI and PNG/ FAA ideas, China has a less prescriptive aviation regime than Australia.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 17th Sep 2016 at 10:07. Reason: Part 61 was written by persons not competent to fix the problem/ They are the problem.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong Roger
Thorn Bird wrongly labels Roger Weeks as the "Framer and author of Part 61"
It turns out that CASA has more than one "Shining Roger". Blame Part 61 on the other one.
Roger, roger, wilco, over and out.
It turns out that CASA has more than one "Shining Roger". Blame Part 61 on the other one.
Roger, roger, wilco, over and out.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that Mr Skidmore leaves the building next Friday and I for one would like to wish him well. We may speculate for many years on the why he decided to pull the pin, but does it matter to us? I don't believe so, as I think that the position and the job have a degree of difficulty that many would say is a poison challis. He did make some changes which are still embryonic and like others have observed we can only wait and see if they work. One can hope so. At the end of the day, maybe he just wants less stress in his life and be able to spend more time with his family. I think we all might like that!
Last edited by triadic; 30th Sep 2016 at 04:35. Reason: typo
May he go well and be more relaxed out in the normal world, having left a skid mark on the CAsA floor of history.
As predicted.
Cost? Great. Accomplishments ? None that we can see that benefits GA and saves the day for the industry, all but dead on its feet.
Its all very well to bail out early...didnt he ask around and do due diligence in depth and find out what CAsA is really like, just to protect himself.
Now he knows. And obviously realised he couldnt fight the good fight.
He supped the cup and got poisoned. The taxpayer supplied the antidote.
All good'
Next !
As predicted.
Cost? Great. Accomplishments ? None that we can see that benefits GA and saves the day for the industry, all but dead on its feet.
Its all very well to bail out early...didnt he ask around and do due diligence in depth and find out what CAsA is really like, just to protect himself.
Now he knows. And obviously realised he couldnt fight the good fight.
He supped the cup and got poisoned. The taxpayer supplied the antidote.
All good'
Next !
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pretty good summation there, aroa.
Depressing, ain't it?
It'll be interesting to read his memoirs down the track - assuming his payout was not 'conditional'.
Depressing, ain't it?
It'll be interesting to read his memoirs down the track - assuming his payout was not 'conditional'.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West of SY OZ
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skidders gone - Good, Carmody next???
What has Skidmore brought us?
- More regulation;
- No improvement of regs especially Part 61, which brings higher costs and no understanding improvements, despite Skidmore’s “Tiger Team”;
- A maximum 42% approval rating – #Colmarbrunton report;
- An aviation industrial that has no faith in the regulator;
- #aviation calling for the introduction of the FAA-FAR’s;
- Bad decisions not fixed: Pantovic, Quadrio, Rudd, Polar Aviation, Barrier Aviation;
- No move to “Rule of Law” and keeping to MLO;
- Fail to fully and completely implement the 37-ASRR recommendations;
- Fail to enliven internal protocols for meeting the full MLO’s;
- Fail to meet 10-commandments;
- Cause major losses of pilot numbers and registered aircraft, then blame others for the source of the data [internal FOI data and annual reports]
Last edited by advo-cate; 2nd Oct 2016 at 00:04. Reason: missed t
Wild-assed speculation by me, earlier in this thread:
From the AFR, 6 May 2016:
More wild-assed speculation on my part:
From the ABC, 13 Aug 2015:
But alas: A week's long time in politics, and a year ...well, time for Plan B.
Meanwhile, in CASA land, the Acting Director of Aviation Safety has opened his mouth and proved himself a well-prepared puppet. The bolding of the text other than the names of the speakers is mine:
This has created a symbiosis between the major parties. While ever they continue to take turns in government, they'll continue to control and nurture the system that gives them and their friends a continuous and very lucrative share of the body politic's treasure. Although each of them would prefer the other to be in opposition, it is in neither of their interests to put the cosy duopoly at risk.
Turnbull government makes 103 last minute appointments before poll
Australia has six new ambassadors, a new Reserve Bank governor and 76 new or reappointed members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as part of a wave of 103 appointments – including former politicians – made in the dying days of the current parliament.
While many of the appointments and reappointments are entirely uncontroversial, the Coalition's enthusiasm for making so many appointments that will run during the life of whoever forms the next government – without consulting the opposition – will raise some eyebrows and runs contrary to the Coalition's own bitter protests about Labor making such appointments in the past.
In the current case, the appointments include appointing judges to the Federal Courts to fill vacancies that haven't yet occurred.
The most enthusiastic appointer in the past week has been Attorney-General George Brandis, who has made 76 reappointments to the AAT including a former Liberal senator, Judith Troeth, a former chief of staff to Scott Morrison, and a former federal Liberal candidate Denis Dragovic.
He has also appointed a counsel assisting the Heydon Royal Commission, Sarah McNaughton, as Director of Public Prosecutions, and former Howard gGovernment health minister Kay Patterson as age discrimination commissioner on the Human Rights Commission.
Senator Brandis has appointed Stephen Burley, SC, to the Federal Court to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of the Hon Justice Annabelle Bennett, AO. He has also appointed Mr Shane Gill to the Family Court to fill one of the positions that will become vacant when two justices "retire in the coming months", while Ms Brana Obradovic is being appointed to the Federal Circuit Court to fill "an upcoming vacancy".
Treasurer Scott Morrison and Communications Minister Mitch Fifield have also been busy making appointments, including to the Productivity Commission – where commission member Karen Chester has been appointed deputy chair – and a range of cultural boards, including the National Portrait Gallery, the National Library of Australia and the National Gallery.
Former Liberal minister Michael Ronaldson has been appointed to the board of Australia Post.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has appointed career diplomats as ambassadors to Italy, Vietnam, Iran, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Holy See, and as high commissioner to Ghana.
It has become a common occurrence for governments to make a rash of appointments before going to the polls, though the numbers this time around seem particularly large.
The issue of the appropriateness of making such appointments – when a new government may not agree with them – is the major point of contention between parties, rather than necessarily the candidates.
For example, the Coalition was critical of Labor for extended Glenn Stevens' term as Reserve Bank governor before the last election, even though it backed the appointment. The then prime minister said he did not have have an argument with the appointment, but "we just think that it was bad process from a government which is incapable of good process".
"There should have been consultation with the opposition."
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen was equally critical this week of the lack of consultation on Philip Lowe's appointment as Reserve Bank governor, although he backed the appointment
Australia has six new ambassadors, a new Reserve Bank governor and 76 new or reappointed members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as part of a wave of 103 appointments – including former politicians – made in the dying days of the current parliament.
While many of the appointments and reappointments are entirely uncontroversial, the Coalition's enthusiasm for making so many appointments that will run during the life of whoever forms the next government – without consulting the opposition – will raise some eyebrows and runs contrary to the Coalition's own bitter protests about Labor making such appointments in the past.
In the current case, the appointments include appointing judges to the Federal Courts to fill vacancies that haven't yet occurred.
The most enthusiastic appointer in the past week has been Attorney-General George Brandis, who has made 76 reappointments to the AAT including a former Liberal senator, Judith Troeth, a former chief of staff to Scott Morrison, and a former federal Liberal candidate Denis Dragovic.
He has also appointed a counsel assisting the Heydon Royal Commission, Sarah McNaughton, as Director of Public Prosecutions, and former Howard gGovernment health minister Kay Patterson as age discrimination commissioner on the Human Rights Commission.
Senator Brandis has appointed Stephen Burley, SC, to the Federal Court to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of the Hon Justice Annabelle Bennett, AO. He has also appointed Mr Shane Gill to the Family Court to fill one of the positions that will become vacant when two justices "retire in the coming months", while Ms Brana Obradovic is being appointed to the Federal Circuit Court to fill "an upcoming vacancy".
Treasurer Scott Morrison and Communications Minister Mitch Fifield have also been busy making appointments, including to the Productivity Commission – where commission member Karen Chester has been appointed deputy chair – and a range of cultural boards, including the National Portrait Gallery, the National Library of Australia and the National Gallery.
Former Liberal minister Michael Ronaldson has been appointed to the board of Australia Post.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has appointed career diplomats as ambassadors to Italy, Vietnam, Iran, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Holy See, and as high commissioner to Ghana.
It has become a common occurrence for governments to make a rash of appointments before going to the polls, though the numbers this time around seem particularly large.
The issue of the appropriateness of making such appointments – when a new government may not agree with them – is the major point of contention between parties, rather than necessarily the candidates.
For example, the Coalition was critical of Labor for extended Glenn Stevens' term as Reserve Bank governor before the last election, even though it backed the appointment. The then prime minister said he did not have have an argument with the appointment, but "we just think that it was bad process from a government which is incapable of good process".
"There should have been consultation with the opposition."
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen was equally critical this week of the lack of consultation on Philip Lowe's appointment as Reserve Bank governor, although he backed the appointment
If the cross-bench and opposition Senators are in the way of something a government wants badly enough, the government will give the cross-bench Senators just about anything they want. Note that in these circumstances the merits or otherwise of what the cross-bench Senators want will be of secondary relevance to the government's decision to give them what they want. The decision will be made primarily on the basis of how badly the government wants to get the blocked measure through.
Government cuts deal with crossbench, allowing importation of controversial shotgun
ELEANOR HALL: The Federal Government has agreed to allow the importation of a controversial shotgun, in exchange for the support on its migration laws of a crossbench senator.
The Government had banned the Adler lever-action shotgun while it reviewed firearms laws.
But it's now agreed to introduce a sunset clause so the guns can be imported in a year's time.
As Eric Tlozek reports...
ELEANOR HALL: The Federal Government has agreed to allow the importation of a controversial shotgun, in exchange for the support on its migration laws of a crossbench senator.
The Government had banned the Adler lever-action shotgun while it reviewed firearms laws.
But it's now agreed to introduce a sunset clause so the guns can be imported in a year's time.
As Eric Tlozek reports...
Meanwhile, in CASA land, the Acting Director of Aviation Safety has opened his mouth and proved himself a well-prepared puppet. The bolding of the text other than the names of the speakers is mine:
Mr Carmody: There are a lot of questions there. I can try and deal with a couple of them. I note the point on declining general aviation pilots, and I have seen the statistics. The statistics do not show the growth in recreational pilots, which is very significant. General aviation is characterised by quite old aircraft. The market has actually changed in the last 10 to 15 years. Recreational pilots flying two-seater aircraft have increased exponentially. So, taking the figures in one hit, it is only looking at one segment of the market. That is one point I would like to make.
In terms of the mandates for fitment of ADS-B, there are many, many operators over the last five years— individuals and organisations—that have made a commitment to fit ADS-B. They have fitted it on the basis of the mandate that is in place and the fact that the mandate is coming in. There are a number of operators who would therefore not thank me and would come back at us as a regulator to say, 'You are making it less safe by deferring fitment, when we have already made our investment in accordance with your direction.' We have made very clear directions for the mandate up until 2017. They have invested very significantly, in many cases, in this. So that is a second aspect.
The third aspect, if I may say, is that there is nothing to suggest that the prices will decrease as fitment increases in the United States and elsewhere. In fact, there might be more competition for equipment, and the prices may not decrease. It may be more difficult to get equipment closer to the time. The view from one group of people is that it will get cheaper if we wait until afterwards. The challenge for us is that ADS-B is a safer technology, because it indicates where every aircraft is. That is the safety case we are working towards. My final point on the United States—
Senator XENOPHON: That is not all aircraft and, with apologies, Senator Sterle, ADS-B stands for—
Mr Carmody: Okay, it is not all.
Senator XENOPHON: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-broadcast.
CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, I do not mean to interrupt, but you are coming to the end.
Senator XENOPHON: I am. I am very close. Can I just say that if aircraft fly below cloud cover, visually—if aircraft do not have ADS-B, they have to fly visually—correct?
Mr Carmody: Yes, they have to fly visually. That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: The point that Dick Smith has made to me just again today is that that poses a risk to pilots. There has never been a case of a mid-air collision in this country involving aircraft in clouds—is that right?
Mr Carmody: I did see a quote to that effect. I assume it is correct; I have heard that.
Senator XENOPHON: He has expressed a concern previously and again today that requiring pilots who cannot afford to install ADS-B to fly visually below clouds itself is problematic from a safety point of view. Is that something you have assessed?
Mr Carmody: Not to my knowledge. I can take that on notice and see whether we have. I do not know the answer to that, I am sorry.
Senator XENOPHON: Could you take it on notice. Is there any possibility—and I emphasise the word 'possibility'—that, given the alarming numbers in respect to general aviation in this country, there may be consideration on CASA's part to consider a stretching out of the date for the implementation of ADS-B?
Mr Carmody: There are no plans at this stage to delay the implementation, but I have only been in place for a week. I would like to look at the possibilities. At this stage there are none, but I will see.
...
In terms of the mandates for fitment of ADS-B, there are many, many operators over the last five years— individuals and organisations—that have made a commitment to fit ADS-B. They have fitted it on the basis of the mandate that is in place and the fact that the mandate is coming in. There are a number of operators who would therefore not thank me and would come back at us as a regulator to say, 'You are making it less safe by deferring fitment, when we have already made our investment in accordance with your direction.' We have made very clear directions for the mandate up until 2017. They have invested very significantly, in many cases, in this. So that is a second aspect.
The third aspect, if I may say, is that there is nothing to suggest that the prices will decrease as fitment increases in the United States and elsewhere. In fact, there might be more competition for equipment, and the prices may not decrease. It may be more difficult to get equipment closer to the time. The view from one group of people is that it will get cheaper if we wait until afterwards. The challenge for us is that ADS-B is a safer technology, because it indicates where every aircraft is. That is the safety case we are working towards. My final point on the United States—
Senator XENOPHON: That is not all aircraft and, with apologies, Senator Sterle, ADS-B stands for—
Mr Carmody: Okay, it is not all.
Senator XENOPHON: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-broadcast.
CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, I do not mean to interrupt, but you are coming to the end.
Senator XENOPHON: I am. I am very close. Can I just say that if aircraft fly below cloud cover, visually—if aircraft do not have ADS-B, they have to fly visually—correct?
Mr Carmody: Yes, they have to fly visually. That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: The point that Dick Smith has made to me just again today is that that poses a risk to pilots. There has never been a case of a mid-air collision in this country involving aircraft in clouds—is that right?
Mr Carmody: I did see a quote to that effect. I assume it is correct; I have heard that.
Senator XENOPHON: He has expressed a concern previously and again today that requiring pilots who cannot afford to install ADS-B to fly visually below clouds itself is problematic from a safety point of view. Is that something you have assessed?
Mr Carmody: Not to my knowledge. I can take that on notice and see whether we have. I do not know the answer to that, I am sorry.
Senator XENOPHON: Could you take it on notice. Is there any possibility—and I emphasise the word 'possibility'—that, given the alarming numbers in respect to general aviation in this country, there may be consideration on CASA's part to consider a stretching out of the date for the implementation of ADS-B?
Mr Carmody: There are no plans at this stage to delay the implementation, but I have only been in place for a week. I would like to look at the possibilities. At this stage there are none, but I will see.
...
