Dick Smith initiated change to the Civil Aviation Act....
If indeed all the
the exchange rate of Euro > NZD (1 EUR = 1.70 NZD or thereabouts) might be more likely to have something to do with it, rather than Australian aviation regulations.
private pilots coming from Europe to Oz for flying safaris are long gone. The money those tourists brought to rental companies and outback communities is now spent in places such as NZ.
Having my career in GA since the 60’s it is quite plain the ridiculous, super costly and ambiguous regulations have squashed the life out of GA.
Its as plain as the nose on your face.
the exchange rate of Euro > NZD (1 EUR = 1.70 NZD or thereabouts) might be more likely to have something to do with it, rather than Australian aviation regulations.
With all due respect, absolute rubbish.
Some little time ago, I was institutionally involved with assisting one US and one Canadian group that organised flying safaris in Australia, and their trials and tribulations with the almost impenetrable Australian burgeoning bureaucratic maze.
The first killer was the ever extending time cost and complexity of getting a license validated to fly in Australia, (made much worse by Part 61) compounded by the cost, time delays and uncertainties of (ever) getting an AVID/ASIC clearance.
At all stages, the CASA "attitude" was uncooperative, varying from "constrictive (obstructive??) inertia" to a positively hostile attitude to the idea of "foreign PPLs" flying in Australian airspace --- the implicit objection was so clearly was that these "foreign" pilots would not be up the very high standards required to fly in Australian air.
There was a very obvious particular bias against FAA licensed pilots --- apparently it was/is "too easy" to get a license in US.
At one stage, there was one Queensland operator had something like fourteen aircraft dedicated to flying safaris. That is long gone.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 2nd Apr 2018 at 07:06.
Which unions in particular have had influence over what in particular and by who?
You would't actually suggest that AFAP have ever been objective about airspace reform, (or much else) would you?? Unlike AIPA.
You would't actually suggest that AFAP members among FOIs have been supportive of risk based benefit/cost justified reform, would you??
You wouldn't actually suggest that ALAEAA members within CASA have been supportive of risk based benefit/cost justified reform, would you??
Or any of the above, except AIPA, have supported genuine international harmonization??
the restrictive practices of the pilots union
AIPA was formed long before the '89 debacle, fundamentally because we (the former Overseas Branch of the AFAP) could not live with the policies and attitudes of Australian domestic pilots.
So, in '89, it was unions, plural.
Tootle pip!!
Oz,
ASIC certainly was a major problem, but the nonsense CASA went on with over licenses was, at times, unbelievable.
I refer to the requirements to establish (in hard copy) that a visiting pilot actually had a license, and if the National Authority did not precisely comply, in all minute detail, with "CASA Requirements", a potential visitor's license would not be recognized. In the FAA case, (then) you could look up all the details on the FAA web site, but no, it had to be to CASA requirements and in the form prescribed by CASA, and a screen print didn't do it.
Another nasty little angle was "validation flight tests", with the organisation "designated" by CASA. Result, the poor visitor being confronted by inflated hourly rates and ridiculous hours counts.
In reality, CASA "mates" getting some particularly profitable business.
For example, a US airline Captain, flying to Australia regularly, and, of course with an ATR/Multi/Land/Instrument and a string of other qualifications, including A&P/AI, and CFI including the then FAA equivalent of an ATO, being "required" to do a minimum of five hours dual on a light twin??
Tootle pip!!
ASIC certainly was a major problem, but the nonsense CASA went on with over licenses was, at times, unbelievable.
I refer to the requirements to establish (in hard copy) that a visiting pilot actually had a license, and if the National Authority did not precisely comply, in all minute detail, with "CASA Requirements", a potential visitor's license would not be recognized. In the FAA case, (then) you could look up all the details on the FAA web site, but no, it had to be to CASA requirements and in the form prescribed by CASA, and a screen print didn't do it.
Another nasty little angle was "validation flight tests", with the organisation "designated" by CASA. Result, the poor visitor being confronted by inflated hourly rates and ridiculous hours counts.
In reality, CASA "mates" getting some particularly profitable business.
For example, a US airline Captain, flying to Australia regularly, and, of course with an ATR/Multi/Land/Instrument and a string of other qualifications, including A&P/AI, and CFI including the then FAA equivalent of an ATO, being "required" to do a minimum of five hours dual on a light twin??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: ACT
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in the room when Warren Truss (the then Minister) told the Department of infrastructure to do a "complete review of the Act - not just a band aid job".
As we knòw, the Department has carriage of the Act. CASA handles the subordinate legislation.
There is not one person in the Department who would know where to begin and CSSA has a vested interest (job protection via status quo aka iron ring). Thats the problem!
As we knòw, the Department has carriage of the Act. CASA handles the subordinate legislation.
There is not one person in the Department who would know where to begin and CSSA has a vested interest (job protection via status quo aka iron ring). Thats the problem!
ASIC - AVID ambiguity
From the CASA website ‘explaining’ the difference between ASIC and AVID.
Quote:-
“ASICs and AVIDs show that the holder has a current security check but only an ASIC can be used at security controlled airports. ASICs are normally valid for up to 2 years and AVIDs are normally valid for up to 5 years.
While an AVID and an ASIC are both evidence that background checks have been undertaken, the background checks for the AVID are not equivalent to the checks for the ASIC.
At a minimum, all pilots must undergo the background checks for an AVID. Only those pilots who require access to a secure area of a security controlled airport will need to undergo the more robust background checks for an ASIC.
To streamline processes and remove any duplication, pilots who undergo the background checking for an ASIC do not have to undergo the background checking for an AVID.
If you plan to fly frequently into a security controlled airport that has RPT services you need to have an ASIC.”
Note the last paragraph, I have written to CASA about this making the point that if I don’t fly frequently into a security controlled airport then why would an AVID not be sufficient? Also that I don’t need entry to the “secure area of a security controlled airport” therefore again why not an AVID?
The answer I received left me none the wiser, the ambiguity remains.
The cost of an ASIC to the applicant for a PPL known to me, not including considerable time and cost driving to a regional security controlled airport to gain a certificate that the applicant would need to fly into such airport, was $283.
This is unsupportable. If Australia must persist with it’s exclusive policy then why not extend the ASIC validity period at least for commercial pilots or instructors etc. For PPLs a formula extension for years of ‘good behaviour’ would be reasonable. Please Mr. Minister any reform will be welcome.
Quote:-
“ASICs and AVIDs show that the holder has a current security check but only an ASIC can be used at security controlled airports. ASICs are normally valid for up to 2 years and AVIDs are normally valid for up to 5 years.
While an AVID and an ASIC are both evidence that background checks have been undertaken, the background checks for the AVID are not equivalent to the checks for the ASIC.
At a minimum, all pilots must undergo the background checks for an AVID. Only those pilots who require access to a secure area of a security controlled airport will need to undergo the more robust background checks for an ASIC.
To streamline processes and remove any duplication, pilots who undergo the background checking for an ASIC do not have to undergo the background checking for an AVID.
If you plan to fly frequently into a security controlled airport that has RPT services you need to have an ASIC.”
Note the last paragraph, I have written to CASA about this making the point that if I don’t fly frequently into a security controlled airport then why would an AVID not be sufficient? Also that I don’t need entry to the “secure area of a security controlled airport” therefore again why not an AVID?
The answer I received left me none the wiser, the ambiguity remains.
The cost of an ASIC to the applicant for a PPL known to me, not including considerable time and cost driving to a regional security controlled airport to gain a certificate that the applicant would need to fly into such airport, was $283.
This is unsupportable. If Australia must persist with it’s exclusive policy then why not extend the ASIC validity period at least for commercial pilots or instructors etc. For PPLs a formula extension for years of ‘good behaviour’ would be reasonable. Please Mr. Minister any reform will be welcome.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: ACT
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An ASIC is not an Aviation Safety Identification Card. So why do CASA have anything to do with them? The cards should be in the hands of either the Department of Infrastructure or Home Affairs.
Correct it is not a safety card and it is in fact a product of Department of Infrastructure. I believe that CASA acts as an agent. Why this is so I do not know, but the result is well known, another nail in the coffin of GA.
In the past GA has looked to CASA for reform action, this was never going to occur because CASA’s salary factory make work programs and fee gouging would be seriously difficult to justify.
The newly formed Australian General Aviation Association (SAAA, AOPA and AMROBA so far) are planning a meeting in Can’tberra mid year.
Let’s hope this will provide the political impetus that is so necessary.
Wow. A planned meeting mid year!
The bureaucracy will be trembling!
The previous GAA collapsed because the people in Canberra ignored it. Hopefully better this time around.
The bureaucracy will be trembling!
The previous GAA collapsed because the people in Canberra ignored it. Hopefully better this time around.
It’s not looking good. I remember I was hopeful Warren Truss would be better than John Anderson. But this was not so.
Imagine if you became Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Pretty fantastic. Surely you would want to put in some changes to make it all worthwhile!
History does not support this. Mr Anderson claimed cost was not to be taken into account and it allowed the Bureaucracy to further destroy our General Aviation Industry..
I wonder what the new Minister has been told. Seems to be complete silence. Poor Australia.
Lead ballooon. Are you laughing at me re your post 43?
Imagine if you became Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Pretty fantastic. Surely you would want to put in some changes to make it all worthwhile!
History does not support this. Mr Anderson claimed cost was not to be taken into account and it allowed the Bureaucracy to further destroy our General Aviation Industry..
I wonder what the new Minister has been told. Seems to be complete silence. Poor Australia.
Lead ballooon. Are you laughing at me re your post 43?
Despairing.
Despairing that you fall for it, every time.
Despairing that the power you have could be used to achieve the outcome that you and many others want, but you don’t know how to use it.
Despairing that you seem incapable of understanding that this is about politics, and politics is not about the merits of an argument.
Lead Balloon I cannot see that pointing the finger or blame game is warranted. For one thing its too easy and for another one might wonder how hard have others worked with their MPs and through political parties to push for reform.
That’s where the real hard work is, going to meetings, putting in time and money.
Just because someone has a high public profile doesn’t mean they are obliged to work harder than anyone else. If anyone volunteers their efforts for the public good then plus points appear. If they don’t then its zero points to count, not negative points.
On personalities we are all entitled to our opinions, but to judge publicly is fraught with problems which will only give comfort to the opposition forces entrenched in Can’tberra.
That’s where the real hard work is, going to meetings, putting in time and money.
Just because someone has a high public profile doesn’t mean they are obliged to work harder than anyone else. If anyone volunteers their efforts for the public good then plus points appear. If they don’t then its zero points to count, not negative points.
On personalities we are all entitled to our opinions, but to judge publicly is fraught with problems which will only give comfort to the opposition forces entrenched in Can’tberra.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just getting back to the thread for a minute, one thing that could be done possibly even by casa at a finite cost and in a finite time would be to remove all references to "strict liability". That concept was never intended for trivial regulation infringements and is entirely out of place in that context. JMO.
And let's leave 1989 out of it. Not relevant. Besides, nobody who wasn't involved in that dust-up seems to have the faintest idea what happened or why.
And let's leave 1989 out of it. Not relevant. Besides, nobody who wasn't involved in that dust-up seems to have the faintest idea what happened or why.