Aussie GA destroyed – we’re the odd one out, safety most important consideration
 

My submission to the Forsyth Review covered the statement in the CASA Act regarding “Performance of Functions……CASA must regard………..safety as the most important consideration”

I said this was a ridiculous statement- if safety was the most important consideration, cost would actually come after that – thus destroying a viable industry.

David Forsyth did not address this important point in his review and later told me that “he was not looking at economic issues."

I recently had a survey conducted as to what NZ and the UK state in relation to safety. As you can see from below, we are the only country that has the mythical claim that safety is the most important consideration. In fact, the UK Civil Aviation Act actually mentions “public demand at the lowest charges….”

I’m absolutely sure until we can get our Act to change to reflect reality, there will be further destruction to our aviation industry. Let's copy the UK on this one I would reckon!

“PRIORITY OF SAFETY IN AVIATION LEGISLATION

Australia (CA Act)

Performance of Functions
“….CASA must regard….safety as the most important consideration”

New Zealand (CA Act)

Objectives
“The objective of CAA is to undertake its safety, security and other functions:… to achieve…” an integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable transport system”

Functions
(a) to promote civil aviation safety and security
(b) - (j) establish aviation security service, review accidents and various admin and non-safety procedural measures

UK (CA Act)

General Objectives
(a) “To secure that British airlines provide air transport services which satisfy …. Public demand at the lowest charges consistent with a high standard of safety in operating the services and an economic return to efficient operators…and with securing the sound development of the civil air transport industry in the UK.”
(b) To further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services”

Dick, you may not remember but the previous version of CASA, the CAA, was seen as being too close to the industry by the Commission of Inquiry following the Seaview Air crash. The legislation was changed following that inquiry to what it is at present.

Now, I believe the current legislative framework is wrong as it is an open-ended excuse to belabour the industry with oppressive legislation. Further, it is a complete nonsense as it ignores what the industry does in risk-management but as to how you get the Govt. to change the legislation, I don't know.

Mr Smith, your love of the US system is not shining through here.

Their mission is... https://www.faa.gov/about/

So not that dissimilar. Of course the devil is in the detail.

https://www.faa.gov/about/safety_efficiency/

And to foster and promote.. but why mention that?

Icarus. I like it. Note they don't state that safety is more important than efficiency. They say " safest AND most efficient".

Very astute. Very different than Aus.

I am not one for pseudo science mumbo jumbo, but I did once read an interesting article from an aviation psychologist (I am sorry, I have forgotten his name) who postulated that the social and decision making dynamic of the government body may well come down to something as simple as the name of that body. For example, both CASA and CAA are "Authorities" ergo, their mandate is to set rules etc for the industry and we must obey, that is what we do with an authority. However the FAA is an "Administration". In that respect they facilitate the industry, allowing it to operate in a manner that does not inhibit growth. Now I know that is not actually the case in many respects, but perhaps it does explain the governing body's general approach to many issues raised with it. It has always stuck in my mind for some reason. Food for thought?

Looking at the US FAA requirements under 14 it states;

“Promoting, encouraging and developing civil aeronautics and a viable privately owned US air transport industry”

Nothing could be clearer than this – totally different to the ridiculous Australian cargo cult requirement.

From my dealings with them I would suggest that there would be something in that theory. There is so much overreach from CASA and them believing that they are basically flying the plane or running a airline from Canberra it is ridiculous.

A 'Safety Authority' vs a Administration are poles apart in terms of who is responsible.

Personally I would have thought that David Leyonhjelm might have gone onto CASA because this is right up his alley however he seems a weak when it comes aviation matters.

The difference is the genetic inheritance of the US culture v the Australian culture.

In the USA, aviation in all its forms is part of the genes of the culture. Being able to design, build, fly, crash, experiment with, improve on, fight in, travel in, and admire aircraft, is the USA. It's intrinsic to their sense of individual freedom and economic activity; and intrinsic to their sense of security through aeronautical capability and technological superiority.

In Australia, aviation has no intrinsic value, other than as a means of mass transport and defence, using aircraft designed and built by someone else, purchased on money borrowed from someone else. There is no perceived value in having an intrinsic capability to design and build aircraft, or in using them as a means of private transport instead of a car. Airports exist as pieces of monopoly infrastructure merely to make a few political mates rich. CASA exists to protect Australians from aviation.

Sad really.

I started my GA career in 1975. The aviation industry was thriving. ATC, FS, Briefing Offices everywhere. Hangars full of engineers and their apprentices.
No ASICs, no fences, unlocked terminals and real refuellers. It was a pleasure to spend a day at any airport during a charter.

WTF happened?

41 years of evolution that have included deregulation of the airline industry, introduction of new technologies that have significantly dumbed down the skills required to become a pilot, global spread of terrorism, and the transformation of the airline industry to the low cost model we have today.

For your reference, the Canadian policy is found here:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/ace-menu.htm

I like the wording, and remind Transport Canada staff of it whenever I feel they are forgetting industry's needs.

Folks,
Lead Balloon's comments are all too true, and I would add:

Civil aviation administration in US has always been civil, the predecessor to the FAA, the CAA, grew out of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and in general, the military has to fit around civil aviation.

The military influence in FAA, as a result of ex-military employees, is as good as zero.

By contrast, administration of civil aviation in Australia started as a branch office of the military, and there has always been a very strong military influence, with many ex-military employees maintaining that influence --- and not limited to Flight Operations. The number of "engineers" in Airworthiness with nil civil aviation experience, and "honorary" civil licences based on military experience is a serious problem.

As for airspace, the "We won WWII, it all belongs to us" view still prevails, the extent of military controlled airspace, and military PRD in Australia is ridiculous.

Finally, something that will surprise no one, in the best of Australian "Regulatory" traditions (all is prohibited except that expressly permitted) Australia had a comprehensive aviation law, but sod all aviation, years ahead of the US, that had lots of aviation, but sod all aviation law.

The accident rates in those days were roughly similar, now it can reasonably said that our bureaucratic jungle of aviation regulation is an impediment to safety, based on the poor Australian air safety record, compared to the USA ---- and we don't even have lots of lousy weather and seriously big hills.

Mind you, I am certain that bureaucrats are proud of the fact that Australia leads the wold in aviation law, based on volume, weight or page or word count, take your pick.

Effectiveness or cost of regulation has never been a criteria in Cantberra, so aviation regulation is not an exception.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I see Albo is already banging the drum for rigorous air safety standards and enforcement, if he gets back on Saturday. Remember, the last Labor government boasted of their effectiveness and inefficiency, based on "new laws per. annum". More law equals better government, what could possibly be wrong with that??

If air safety is their main consideration, then they should regulate all GA aircraft should stay on the ground. Silly as my statement is, it is no more stupid than the idiots that have made their statement.

@Leadsled, I do not disagree with what you say.

However I would ask that you do not insult the 350,000 people or so that live in the city of Canberra and region. CASA or any other agency that happens to have staff here does not necessarily reflect our community - our home. I would point out that Dick lives (occasionally) in the Canberra region too.

Friggin' over that, the press do it every day. The @rseholes that are your elected representatives don't live here (or work here much) either.

Back on topic. Yes I do think the charter of CASA would be better if it also included the promotion of aviation. Ditto to a simplification of legislation and of statutory requirements

However I think that just changing that is a simplification of the issue, after all the yanks say their GA industry is in dire straights too! As do the Euro's! I think there are multiple economic factors that have just as great a bearing on GA viability as a business or hobby. I personally am a believer that market size has a bearing on unit cost - that is the greater the market the lower the unit cost. For example; if there are more kids who want to fly (for whatever reason), it drives demand for aircraft, instructors, LAMES, aerodromes etc.. The unit supply cost for each of these drops per unit of demand - therefore it becomes accessible to more people - it becomes a self sustaining and growing industry.

With weight of numbers also comes political and economic clout. At the moment the general population view is that pilots are either well off (little do most know what the average GA pilot earns, and has paid to get there), or that we are all a bunch of rich b@stards with our private planes (I usually explain that boating and aviation have similar private costs and extremes)...

So my answer is that this is not a one dimensional problem, and to attack it as such (and Dick - you are like my all time hero - I know you are smarter than that) is futile. I also think that it is to our detriment to rely on, or even expect the Government of the day to do anything. The change starts with each of us, if we take personal responsibility for promoting aviation as an industry and past time the rest will come.

My 2c...

Dan. You are 100% correct. And they don't even comply with their own act because it is stupid.

I have been attempting to change this wording ever since it appeared.