Regulatory Reform ‘Aussie Style’ – An Occasional Series – Flying Training AO
Thread Starter
Regulatory Reform ‘Aussie Style’ – An Occasional Series – Flying Training AO
The following passages are verbatim from pages 210-213 inclusive, of the 19 February 2002 proof Committee Hansard of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. A copy is available at:. .<a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5365.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5365.pdf</a>
. .Senator O’BRIEN—At the last hearings I asked you about the regulatory arrangements as they relate to pilot training for ultralight aircraft. You told me there were no differences in the types of pilot training provided on a commercial basis. On page 263 of the Hansard of 30 May, you said CASA was attempting to find a means by which people could ‘undertake commercial flying training as opposed to flying training for their members on a not-for-profit basis’. Mr Yates referred to a meeting with the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation on 10 April, and he said that at that meeting CASA officers put to the group a plan to facilitate the issuing of an AOC for sport aviation activity. He referred to a paper which was tabled at that meeting. I do not know if it was actually tabled before the committee. I think Mr Yates offered to table it, but I do not think we actually received it. Can the committee be supplied with a copy of that paper, please?
Mr Toller—Yes, we will try and trace it.
Senator O’BRIEN—Thank you. I understand you wrote to Paul Middleton, the executive director of the AUF, on 11 February this year and said: [quote]Thank you for hosting me for lunch today. It was good to get together and clarify some important issues. We must do it more often.
As discussed I believe there is a sensible resolution to the issue of the proposed requirement for AOCs for all commercial flight training organisations including ultralights. Although the NPRM is open for comment until 28 February, it is now clear in my mind that a better path is to amend CAR206. I intend to propose to do this in the near future prescribing that sports aviation and ultralights do not require an AOC for flying training. Hence I believe your best response to the NPRM would be to write that you would support an amendment to CAR206 as discussed with the Director on 11 February 2002.
I look forward with interest to see how the other issues we discussed progress.<hr></blockquote>
Was it such a good lunch that you decided to take a U-turn on the previous position you put before this committee on the provision of commercial pilot training?
Mr Toller—No, I certainly would not claim that the lunch had anything to do with any U-turn, Senator. This has always been a difficult issue to resolve. The previous policy approach was that we did not—while we were trying to undertake the complete review of all the new regulations—want to undertake an amendment to CAR206.
CAR206 is the regulation which prescribes those activities which require an AOC. It has long been one of the more difficult regulations for us in many ways. The reason that we were looking for a means to provide certification for commercial flying training for sports aviation was because specifically it was prescribed within CAR206. It was clear to me that there would have been immense resistance from the sports aviation movement, and particularly I think from the ultralight movement, to the proposal that was put forward. . . . .Therefore it was worth considering whether there were other ways to achieve the same end and, let us be quite frank about this, the same safety end, because that is what we are talking about at the end of the day. I therefore, after some discussions with the board, the secretary and the minister, proposed that we review the whole issue of which aerial work activities actually require an AOC. We brought in a consultant who had international knowledge in this subject and had worked with us previously. As a result of his report we are currently internally, within the authority, undertaking a review of all those aerial work activities. Equally, as a result of his report, he made it clear that he believed that the government policy—going back to 1985 or 1986—was that sports aviation should be allowed to be self-administering and that it should be allowed therefore to continue to do this and should not have an extra imposition put upon it. I was prepared to accept that view. In accepting that view it leads you down virtually the only other logical avenue, which is that you amend CAR206.
Senator O’BRIEN—Notwithstanding the view that you put on 30 May, does the acceptance of this other view amount to a direction, effectively?
Mr Toller—It retains the status quo that has existed since 1985 or 1986 without imposing the requirement for an air operator’s certificate on sports aviation and all that would have entailed for those bodies. I do not believe it has any effect on anything other than the administrative burden.
Senator O’BRIEN—Is it usually your practice to form a view about a proposal to change a regulation or rule before the comment period for an NPRM has closed?
Mr Toller—No, most definitely not, Senator. You will recall that in this particular case, though, we have extended the comment period. I think it is safe to say that, even though some comments may still be coming in over the next nine days, or however long it is, the overwhelming view of all the comments—and a large number of comments have come in so far—was that the proposal as put in the NPRM was not acceptable to industry.
Senator O’BRIEN—To industry or to parts of industry?
Mr Toller—To those affected, I think, is probably the best way to put it.
Senator O’BRIEN—The providers in the sports and ultralight aviation field?
Mr Toller—Yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—That is the industry you are talking about?
Mr Toller—The majority of the responses would come from those people.
Senator O’BRIEN—Who else have you communicated this view to? You communicated it to Mr Middleton before the end of the NPRM comment period. Who else did you communicate it to?
Mr Toller—I have communicated it to two people, and there was one reason for both of them. The reason is to try and prevent them from having to write a 50-page response to the NPRM and achieve the same end, if you like. In other words, I knew that they were quite capable and probably had drafted very lengthy responses but I just believed that they should know the way that we were thinking. I have also explained this position to Mr Henk Meertens, the President of the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation, who is the other person who is affected. It was with Mr Meertens and the members of his committee that we in fact formulated the original plan for a lower form of certification, which was called an AOC for sports aviation.
I think it is probably fair to say that the politics of sports aviation is quite complex. For reasons that I do not think I even yet understand, the Ultralight Federation split from the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation in about September of last year, and in so doing created sort of a split of opinion within the sports aviation body from that which had existed when we first put together our proposal, so it was really a very different environment in which we were working and I think that what we have achieved is a sensible result for all those who are involved.
Senator O’BRIEN—So you have asked one industry participant to write and support a view that you have taken? That is what you have done, isn’t it?
Mr Toller—I have done it to both of those two, whose organisations represent all the people who were responding to us as individuals.
Senator O’BRIEN—Do you commonly lobby for submissions to be made in response to a notice of proposed rule making to support a view you have about the rule making?
Mr Toller—Not at all. I just believe that, when it is clear from work that has been done since the NPRM was put out, and the weight of the responses to the NPRM suggest that it has no support at all from the respondents, if it is clear that we will be taking another line and that is agreed by the board, why would I not communicate that in advance?
Senator O’BRIEN—This is a board decision?
Mr Toller—It is a decision that has been made by me and ratified by the board. In other words, it is made by me as the chief executive with the advice of my team, and ratified by the board.. .Senator O’BRIEN—Before the end of the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller—Sorry, Senator?
Senator O’BRIEN—Before the end of the consultation on the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller—The board has reviewed the whole situation by asking and agreeing to a review of the requirement for aerial work AOCs. The change that has been made effectively is an agreement that, rather than not amend CAR206, which was the previous board position, the board now accepts that there are occasions—and this is one—when amending the current regulations is probably the best way to go.
Senator O’BRIEN—So it has been determined by CASA that you will propose to the minister an amendment to CAR206 which will exempt all sports aviation training, whether it be commercial training or training for members of an AUF from a requirement to hold an AOC.
Mr Toller—That is one of the proposals of the amendments. We would also review the whole of the current requirements for certification for aerial work, and it is in that context that we are including commercial sports aviation. Non-commercial sports aviation has never required an AOC for flying training.
Senator O’BRIEN—I understand that.
Mr Toller—And one of the difficulties we have, Senator, and I think you will understand this particularly, is that the Civil Aviation Act was amended to remove the word ‘commercial’; however, CAR206 has never been amended. We have this anomalous position whereby the Civil Aviation Act asks that the regulations prescribe the activities that require an AOC, but it has deliberately removed any hint of commercialism because it should be risk based, and yet the word ‘commercial’ still stays within CAR206. Another part of that amendment, I believe, should be to remove the word ‘commercial’ to be consistent with the amendments that were made recently to the act.
Senator O’BRIEN—Have there been any consultations with the minister or the minister’s office about this?
Mr Toller—The minister’s office was informed of our thinking, but that is all.
Senator O’BRIEN—Before or after this lunch?
Mr Toller—Before or after I—
Senator O’BRIEN—Told Mr Middleton at lunch.
Mr Toller—Way before.. ...
. .Senator O’BRIEN—At the last hearings I asked you about the regulatory arrangements as they relate to pilot training for ultralight aircraft. You told me there were no differences in the types of pilot training provided on a commercial basis. On page 263 of the Hansard of 30 May, you said CASA was attempting to find a means by which people could ‘undertake commercial flying training as opposed to flying training for their members on a not-for-profit basis’. Mr Yates referred to a meeting with the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation on 10 April, and he said that at that meeting CASA officers put to the group a plan to facilitate the issuing of an AOC for sport aviation activity. He referred to a paper which was tabled at that meeting. I do not know if it was actually tabled before the committee. I think Mr Yates offered to table it, but I do not think we actually received it. Can the committee be supplied with a copy of that paper, please?
Mr Toller—Yes, we will try and trace it.
Senator O’BRIEN—Thank you. I understand you wrote to Paul Middleton, the executive director of the AUF, on 11 February this year and said: [quote]Thank you for hosting me for lunch today. It was good to get together and clarify some important issues. We must do it more often.
As discussed I believe there is a sensible resolution to the issue of the proposed requirement for AOCs for all commercial flight training organisations including ultralights. Although the NPRM is open for comment until 28 February, it is now clear in my mind that a better path is to amend CAR206. I intend to propose to do this in the near future prescribing that sports aviation and ultralights do not require an AOC for flying training. Hence I believe your best response to the NPRM would be to write that you would support an amendment to CAR206 as discussed with the Director on 11 February 2002.
I look forward with interest to see how the other issues we discussed progress.<hr></blockquote>
Was it such a good lunch that you decided to take a U-turn on the previous position you put before this committee on the provision of commercial pilot training?
Mr Toller—No, I certainly would not claim that the lunch had anything to do with any U-turn, Senator. This has always been a difficult issue to resolve. The previous policy approach was that we did not—while we were trying to undertake the complete review of all the new regulations—want to undertake an amendment to CAR206.
CAR206 is the regulation which prescribes those activities which require an AOC. It has long been one of the more difficult regulations for us in many ways. The reason that we were looking for a means to provide certification for commercial flying training for sports aviation was because specifically it was prescribed within CAR206. It was clear to me that there would have been immense resistance from the sports aviation movement, and particularly I think from the ultralight movement, to the proposal that was put forward. . . . .Therefore it was worth considering whether there were other ways to achieve the same end and, let us be quite frank about this, the same safety end, because that is what we are talking about at the end of the day. I therefore, after some discussions with the board, the secretary and the minister, proposed that we review the whole issue of which aerial work activities actually require an AOC. We brought in a consultant who had international knowledge in this subject and had worked with us previously. As a result of his report we are currently internally, within the authority, undertaking a review of all those aerial work activities. Equally, as a result of his report, he made it clear that he believed that the government policy—going back to 1985 or 1986—was that sports aviation should be allowed to be self-administering and that it should be allowed therefore to continue to do this and should not have an extra imposition put upon it. I was prepared to accept that view. In accepting that view it leads you down virtually the only other logical avenue, which is that you amend CAR206.
Senator O’BRIEN—Notwithstanding the view that you put on 30 May, does the acceptance of this other view amount to a direction, effectively?
Mr Toller—It retains the status quo that has existed since 1985 or 1986 without imposing the requirement for an air operator’s certificate on sports aviation and all that would have entailed for those bodies. I do not believe it has any effect on anything other than the administrative burden.
Senator O’BRIEN—Is it usually your practice to form a view about a proposal to change a regulation or rule before the comment period for an NPRM has closed?
Mr Toller—No, most definitely not, Senator. You will recall that in this particular case, though, we have extended the comment period. I think it is safe to say that, even though some comments may still be coming in over the next nine days, or however long it is, the overwhelming view of all the comments—and a large number of comments have come in so far—was that the proposal as put in the NPRM was not acceptable to industry.
Senator O’BRIEN—To industry or to parts of industry?
Mr Toller—To those affected, I think, is probably the best way to put it.
Senator O’BRIEN—The providers in the sports and ultralight aviation field?
Mr Toller—Yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—That is the industry you are talking about?
Mr Toller—The majority of the responses would come from those people.
Senator O’BRIEN—Who else have you communicated this view to? You communicated it to Mr Middleton before the end of the NPRM comment period. Who else did you communicate it to?
Mr Toller—I have communicated it to two people, and there was one reason for both of them. The reason is to try and prevent them from having to write a 50-page response to the NPRM and achieve the same end, if you like. In other words, I knew that they were quite capable and probably had drafted very lengthy responses but I just believed that they should know the way that we were thinking. I have also explained this position to Mr Henk Meertens, the President of the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation, who is the other person who is affected. It was with Mr Meertens and the members of his committee that we in fact formulated the original plan for a lower form of certification, which was called an AOC for sports aviation.
I think it is probably fair to say that the politics of sports aviation is quite complex. For reasons that I do not think I even yet understand, the Ultralight Federation split from the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation in about September of last year, and in so doing created sort of a split of opinion within the sports aviation body from that which had existed when we first put together our proposal, so it was really a very different environment in which we were working and I think that what we have achieved is a sensible result for all those who are involved.
Senator O’BRIEN—So you have asked one industry participant to write and support a view that you have taken? That is what you have done, isn’t it?
Mr Toller—I have done it to both of those two, whose organisations represent all the people who were responding to us as individuals.
Senator O’BRIEN—Do you commonly lobby for submissions to be made in response to a notice of proposed rule making to support a view you have about the rule making?
Mr Toller—Not at all. I just believe that, when it is clear from work that has been done since the NPRM was put out, and the weight of the responses to the NPRM suggest that it has no support at all from the respondents, if it is clear that we will be taking another line and that is agreed by the board, why would I not communicate that in advance?
Senator O’BRIEN—This is a board decision?
Mr Toller—It is a decision that has been made by me and ratified by the board. In other words, it is made by me as the chief executive with the advice of my team, and ratified by the board.. .Senator O’BRIEN—Before the end of the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller—Sorry, Senator?
Senator O’BRIEN—Before the end of the consultation on the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller—The board has reviewed the whole situation by asking and agreeing to a review of the requirement for aerial work AOCs. The change that has been made effectively is an agreement that, rather than not amend CAR206, which was the previous board position, the board now accepts that there are occasions—and this is one—when amending the current regulations is probably the best way to go.
Senator O’BRIEN—So it has been determined by CASA that you will propose to the minister an amendment to CAR206 which will exempt all sports aviation training, whether it be commercial training or training for members of an AUF from a requirement to hold an AOC.
Mr Toller—That is one of the proposals of the amendments. We would also review the whole of the current requirements for certification for aerial work, and it is in that context that we are including commercial sports aviation. Non-commercial sports aviation has never required an AOC for flying training.
Senator O’BRIEN—I understand that.
Mr Toller—And one of the difficulties we have, Senator, and I think you will understand this particularly, is that the Civil Aviation Act was amended to remove the word ‘commercial’; however, CAR206 has never been amended. We have this anomalous position whereby the Civil Aviation Act asks that the regulations prescribe the activities that require an AOC, but it has deliberately removed any hint of commercialism because it should be risk based, and yet the word ‘commercial’ still stays within CAR206. Another part of that amendment, I believe, should be to remove the word ‘commercial’ to be consistent with the amendments that were made recently to the act.
Senator O’BRIEN—Have there been any consultations with the minister or the minister’s office about this?
Mr Toller—The minister’s office was informed of our thinking, but that is all.
Senator O’BRIEN—Before or after this lunch?
Mr Toller—Before or after I—
Senator O’BRIEN—Told Mr Middleton at lunch.
Mr Toller—Way before.. ...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou Creampuff, this is an issue that has been surprisingly under-discussed on this BB. Looks like Toller and CASA, with the help of their consultant, have finally managed to appreciate the impact of their NPRM and have made a good decision.
Thread Starter
Your assertion that this is a "good decision" merely begs the question.
If a "good" decision is one where you consult with and take into consideration the interests of only those people who will benefit from the decision, then I'm sure a very, very "good" decision has been made. I'm also sure that such decisions are very, very easy to make.
Problem from my perspective is that the NPRM process is supposed to be about consulting with and taking into consideration not only the views of those who may benefit from a proposed rule, but also the views of those whose interests might be adversely affected. And you're not supposed to make a decision until after the time for submitting responses has elapsed.
At least that's what the Office of Regulatory Review would have you believe.
I get the distinct impression that you're ignoring the sham because you like the outcome.
Let's see what you do when the government announces compulsory passenger and third party liability insurance for all operators (passenger-carrying or not, private or not), having gone through a sham consultation process in which the insurance companies had long and convivial lunches with the relevant decision-makers. Would that be a "good" decision?
If a "good" decision is one where you consult with and take into consideration the interests of only those people who will benefit from the decision, then I'm sure a very, very "good" decision has been made. I'm also sure that such decisions are very, very easy to make.
Problem from my perspective is that the NPRM process is supposed to be about consulting with and taking into consideration not only the views of those who may benefit from a proposed rule, but also the views of those whose interests might be adversely affected. And you're not supposed to make a decision until after the time for submitting responses has elapsed.
At least that's what the Office of Regulatory Review would have you believe.
I get the distinct impression that you're ignoring the sham because you like the outcome.
Let's see what you do when the government announces compulsory passenger and third party liability insurance for all operators (passenger-carrying or not, private or not), having gone through a sham consultation process in which the insurance companies had long and convivial lunches with the relevant decision-makers. Would that be a "good" decision?
Creamie, . .What's the world coming to, I'm agreeing with you again.
If the true intent of the ORR system was followed, in my opinion ( 'umble I hain't) CASA would get themselves into a lot less strife in regulatory development.
And so to insurance matters. There are probably few who, on this site understand the threat potentially posed to every operator flying something smaller than, say , a -8, and/or not part of a major airline group.
That threat is the ICAO Montreal Convention 1999, and DoT & RS consideration of it's extension to all aircraft, right down to private aircraft. It's the DoT&RS floating the proposition of extending Montreal 99 it well beyond RPT that is the threat.
Of course, you all responded to the DoTRS discussion paper, didn't you. Of course you did, and so did your union or professional Association. Of course they did, didn't they ??
Wake up chaps and chapesses, CASA and AOPA, AUF, etc are probably minor threats to all your jobs, ( well, maybe CASA is more than a minor threat) compared to this little lulu. Quite simply, in most cases there is no insurance market for what could possibly result, for the remainder, indicative premiums of $50,000 / $60,000 per seat ( and that was before Sept 11 and HIH, and the demise of the AAUP) for a light twin for the compulsory non voidable may as well be no market.
Few operators could survive those premiums, compared to the present setup.
So who is going to start the new thread ??
Tootle pip!!
If the true intent of the ORR system was followed, in my opinion ( 'umble I hain't) CASA would get themselves into a lot less strife in regulatory development.
And so to insurance matters. There are probably few who, on this site understand the threat potentially posed to every operator flying something smaller than, say , a -8, and/or not part of a major airline group.
That threat is the ICAO Montreal Convention 1999, and DoT & RS consideration of it's extension to all aircraft, right down to private aircraft. It's the DoT&RS floating the proposition of extending Montreal 99 it well beyond RPT that is the threat.
Of course, you all responded to the DoTRS discussion paper, didn't you. Of course you did, and so did your union or professional Association. Of course they did, didn't they ??
Wake up chaps and chapesses, CASA and AOPA, AUF, etc are probably minor threats to all your jobs, ( well, maybe CASA is more than a minor threat) compared to this little lulu. Quite simply, in most cases there is no insurance market for what could possibly result, for the remainder, indicative premiums of $50,000 / $60,000 per seat ( and that was before Sept 11 and HIH, and the demise of the AAUP) for a light twin for the compulsory non voidable may as well be no market.
Few operators could survive those premiums, compared to the present setup.
So who is going to start the new thread ??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you are probably right, in that Toller should not have made a decision before the discussion period was over, but I have no vested interests to bring me to my conclucion that it was a good decision.
The AUF's excellent track record in dealing with safety issues is such that the imposition of AOCs would not be of any benefit safety-wise, and only serves to "level the playing field", if you like, with GA schools. This is fair enough.... or is it? Is it fair to place a burden on an industry for no tangible benefit? A far better solution would be to look at whether those GA schools should be burdened with AOCs either, or whether a better solution could be found there too.
The AUF's excellent track record in dealing with safety issues is such that the imposition of AOCs would not be of any benefit safety-wise, and only serves to "level the playing field", if you like, with GA schools. This is fair enough.... or is it? Is it fair to place a burden on an industry for no tangible benefit? A far better solution would be to look at whether those GA schools should be burdened with AOCs either, or whether a better solution could be found there too.
Moderator
By saying that it could place a burden on industry, implies that ultralight training is an industry, a commercial operation. Therefore requires an AOC like the rest of us.
I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on an alternative to AOCs for GA schools. For example, what procedures would be suggested to ensure that all flying schools trained to the industry standard, ie the Day VFR syllabus, if CASA chose not to be involved. Who would decide what the standards are? Who would justify the potentially enormous loss of jobs in the established industry? What controls would there be over all the enthusiastic but unsuitable people who might fancy setting up their own flying school? If it was all run "el cheapo" then instructor's wages (if there were any) would suffer, and the next generation of airline pilots...where will they come from?
There was discussion previously that having an AOC would impose huge costs. Not so. I calculated then that my AOC costs 0.0003% of my annual turnover. It's not that hard or expensive if you know how to go about it, and if you don't then it's not too hard to find out, if you don't want to do that then don't bother.
IMHO there should be one licence to fly, just as there is one licence to drive, and the training and testing should be the same throughout aviation. Not a mish-mash of exemptions.
I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on an alternative to AOCs for GA schools. For example, what procedures would be suggested to ensure that all flying schools trained to the industry standard, ie the Day VFR syllabus, if CASA chose not to be involved. Who would decide what the standards are? Who would justify the potentially enormous loss of jobs in the established industry? What controls would there be over all the enthusiastic but unsuitable people who might fancy setting up their own flying school? If it was all run "el cheapo" then instructor's wages (if there were any) would suffer, and the next generation of airline pilots...where will they come from?
There was discussion previously that having an AOC would impose huge costs. Not so. I calculated then that my AOC costs 0.0003% of my annual turnover. It's not that hard or expensive if you know how to go about it, and if you don't then it's not too hard to find out, if you don't want to do that then don't bother.
IMHO there should be one licence to fly, just as there is one licence to drive, and the training and testing should be the same throughout aviation. Not a mish-mash of exemptions.
Thread Starter
LeadSled.
I’m impressed.
Because Mr Toller’s ramblings about the word “commercial” in subsection 27(9) of the Act and CAR 206 were redolent of your ramblings on the same subject – indeed, eerily redolent of the ramblings of the ‘Technical VP’ of a large aviation-related association – I expected you to attempt to defend the indefensible.
The tealeaf behind which the defenders of unauthorised ‘sports aviation’ flying training used to hide was that magic word “commercial”. The pretence was that if money wasn’t changing hands, or if it was just changing hands intra-association, it wasn’t “commercial” so need not have been authorised by an AOC.
Of course, the fact was and remains that lots of money changed and continues to change hands in ‘sports aviation’ flying training. It’s big business; very big business. So even if you take the view that the only flying training operations that could be prescribed were “commercial” ones, most sports aviation flying training was and is required by law to be authorised by an AOC.
But now even the “commercial” tealeaf has been removed. Flying training is an activity that must be authorised by an AOC, whether or not money changes hands. And that is completely consistent with regulation based upon objective risk.
Yet in the strange, reverse-logic universe in which aviation exists, the deletion of the word “commercial” is perceived by some as having the effect of both reducing the scope of operations that may be prescribed and assisting the sports aviation lobby’s position.
It is going to be very interesting when the amendments to CAR 206 that CASA has already decided should be made so as to exclude ‘sports aviation’ flying training from the AOC requirement, are blocked or disallowed. Whither the tealeaf then? (pun intended)
You should start the thread on insurance, LeadSled. I’m happy to contribute. There are a number of substantial impediments to the dire outcome that I used as an example and you seized upon. Among those impediments is that in order for compulsory insurance to be imposed upon all intra-state operations, each of the States would have to agree to corresponding amendments to its carriers’ liability legislation. I doubt that is politically achievable. In any case, the consultation process on insurance issues is being run by people with a little more integrity than those who are making decisions about sports aviation flying training AOCs. So you can lay down the smokescreen, and I’m happy to spray the dispersant.
Jjagungal
How do you know the AUF has an excellent track record in dealing with safety issues?
Where are the publicly-available hours flown, and accident and incident statistics? Where is the evidence of independent and objective investigation and analysis of the sports aviation safety record?
Methinks that youthinks the AUF has an excellent track record in dealing with safety issues, merely because the AUF says so.
I’m not saying it isn’t true; I’m just saying that an organisation’s own statements as to its own performance are not the only things on which a prudent person relies in making an objective assessment. And I’m far from being convinced that an apples-with-apples comparison would demonstrate that sports aviation flying training is any safer than ‘GA’ flying training. And if it would not, how can the imposition of an AOC requirement on one but not another be justified on safety grounds?
CFI: Don’t go muddying the waters by positing facts and applying orthodox logic. We all know that in theory the rule making process should include a cost-benefit analysis, which, by definition, includes an objective analysis of cost. But in aviation you apparently need only to consult with the beneficiaries of a proposed rule change, and you can accept at face value their bare assertions that the costs of complying with the rule if it is not changed would be unreasonable. And in the reverse-logic universe of aviation, there is no inconsistency in imposing rules for safety reasons on the one hand, then granting exemptions from those rules on the other.
I’m impressed.
Because Mr Toller’s ramblings about the word “commercial” in subsection 27(9) of the Act and CAR 206 were redolent of your ramblings on the same subject – indeed, eerily redolent of the ramblings of the ‘Technical VP’ of a large aviation-related association – I expected you to attempt to defend the indefensible.
The tealeaf behind which the defenders of unauthorised ‘sports aviation’ flying training used to hide was that magic word “commercial”. The pretence was that if money wasn’t changing hands, or if it was just changing hands intra-association, it wasn’t “commercial” so need not have been authorised by an AOC.
Of course, the fact was and remains that lots of money changed and continues to change hands in ‘sports aviation’ flying training. It’s big business; very big business. So even if you take the view that the only flying training operations that could be prescribed were “commercial” ones, most sports aviation flying training was and is required by law to be authorised by an AOC.
But now even the “commercial” tealeaf has been removed. Flying training is an activity that must be authorised by an AOC, whether or not money changes hands. And that is completely consistent with regulation based upon objective risk.
Yet in the strange, reverse-logic universe in which aviation exists, the deletion of the word “commercial” is perceived by some as having the effect of both reducing the scope of operations that may be prescribed and assisting the sports aviation lobby’s position.
It is going to be very interesting when the amendments to CAR 206 that CASA has already decided should be made so as to exclude ‘sports aviation’ flying training from the AOC requirement, are blocked or disallowed. Whither the tealeaf then? (pun intended)
You should start the thread on insurance, LeadSled. I’m happy to contribute. There are a number of substantial impediments to the dire outcome that I used as an example and you seized upon. Among those impediments is that in order for compulsory insurance to be imposed upon all intra-state operations, each of the States would have to agree to corresponding amendments to its carriers’ liability legislation. I doubt that is politically achievable. In any case, the consultation process on insurance issues is being run by people with a little more integrity than those who are making decisions about sports aviation flying training AOCs. So you can lay down the smokescreen, and I’m happy to spray the dispersant.
Jjagungal
How do you know the AUF has an excellent track record in dealing with safety issues?
Where are the publicly-available hours flown, and accident and incident statistics? Where is the evidence of independent and objective investigation and analysis of the sports aviation safety record?
Methinks that youthinks the AUF has an excellent track record in dealing with safety issues, merely because the AUF says so.
I’m not saying it isn’t true; I’m just saying that an organisation’s own statements as to its own performance are not the only things on which a prudent person relies in making an objective assessment. And I’m far from being convinced that an apples-with-apples comparison would demonstrate that sports aviation flying training is any safer than ‘GA’ flying training. And if it would not, how can the imposition of an AOC requirement on one but not another be justified on safety grounds?
CFI: Don’t go muddying the waters by positing facts and applying orthodox logic. We all know that in theory the rule making process should include a cost-benefit analysis, which, by definition, includes an objective analysis of cost. But in aviation you apparently need only to consult with the beneficiaries of a proposed rule change, and you can accept at face value their bare assertions that the costs of complying with the rule if it is not changed would be unreasonable. And in the reverse-logic universe of aviation, there is no inconsistency in imposing rules for safety reasons on the one hand, then granting exemptions from those rules on the other.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ,Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have been reading on another website the way this has been pushed through is almost corupt, apparently the decision is already made and the closing date is when??. .There is talk that people in current GA with ops manuals and systems in place cannot go into ultralight training without going through the lenghty CASA approvals OR join AUF, wouldn't this be monopolising? . .And you can acheive a "AMEs" licence to carry out the maintenance by doing a 2 day course and paying the fee, to guess who? The AUF.. .Surely this cant be right? I hope I am wrong.. .If this is true, what the hell are CASA thinking?
Please no one tell me that all is going to be OK.. .Out of the small hourly rates you could charge for ultralights how are wages,insurance,advertisement,office costs,landing fees,CP's,hangar fees,fuel,and MAINTENANCE going to be affordable?
If they want a level playing field do they pay to set up award wages to staff and chief pilots, maintenance agreements,AOC's and all of the other CASA mandatory requirements?. .Hmmm from what I read on the other site you can be a CFI with only 300 hours experience, the Ops manual(which is standard issue written with CASA's help) only costs $25 and you can be a AME in 2 days.
. .If you would like some further reading which I found interesting have a good read through this website (there is no www before it)
<a href="http://people.smartchat.net.au/~fisherrb" target="_blank">http://people.smartchat.net.au/~fisherrb</a>
If anyone can prove this guy wrong I will review my opinion.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Please no one tell me that all is going to be OK.. .Out of the small hourly rates you could charge for ultralights how are wages,insurance,advertisement,office costs,landing fees,CP's,hangar fees,fuel,and MAINTENANCE going to be affordable?
If they want a level playing field do they pay to set up award wages to staff and chief pilots, maintenance agreements,AOC's and all of the other CASA mandatory requirements?. .Hmmm from what I read on the other site you can be a CFI with only 300 hours experience, the Ops manual(which is standard issue written with CASA's help) only costs $25 and you can be a AME in 2 days.
. .If you would like some further reading which I found interesting have a good read through this website (there is no www before it)
<a href="http://people.smartchat.net.au/~fisherrb" target="_blank">http://people.smartchat.net.au/~fisherrb</a>
If anyone can prove this guy wrong I will review my opinion.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Creamie, Old Chap,
In the best of your traditions, I will agree with you that I am who ever you say I am.
Didn't I invite somebody to start an insurance thread, wasn't that buried away somewhere. .in my last 'umble 'heffort. As for the constitutional aspects, if it were not for the treaty provisions of our constitution, I would once again agree with you.
However, to a legal layman, the situation seems to be less cut and dried.
I do have a personal opinion about the whole AOC mess, and that is that it is a mess, because the original intent of the AOC "system" was directed at the more complex and/or airline end of the aviation community.
Statements by senior CASA persons clearly say that there is no objective safety reason for having the current AOC system in the flying training area, whether it is GA, AUF or whatever.
It is equally clear that many flying school operators see their existing AOC as a form of commercial protection, because of the cost, in time, money and delays, of any potential competitor getting an AOC.
And now a question for CFI: Why do you need the assistance of an AOC to help you comply with the law, all the syllabi, standards etc to which you refer are not dependent on the AOC system.
For years we had a very simple flying school licensing system, there is no evidence that the current AOC system has done anything to even maintain standards, let alone improve them.
Tootle pip!!
In the best of your traditions, I will agree with you that I am who ever you say I am.
Didn't I invite somebody to start an insurance thread, wasn't that buried away somewhere. .in my last 'umble 'heffort. As for the constitutional aspects, if it were not for the treaty provisions of our constitution, I would once again agree with you.
However, to a legal layman, the situation seems to be less cut and dried.
I do have a personal opinion about the whole AOC mess, and that is that it is a mess, because the original intent of the AOC "system" was directed at the more complex and/or airline end of the aviation community.
Statements by senior CASA persons clearly say that there is no objective safety reason for having the current AOC system in the flying training area, whether it is GA, AUF or whatever.
It is equally clear that many flying school operators see their existing AOC as a form of commercial protection, because of the cost, in time, money and delays, of any potential competitor getting an AOC.
And now a question for CFI: Why do you need the assistance of an AOC to help you comply with the law, all the syllabi, standards etc to which you refer are not dependent on the AOC system.
For years we had a very simple flying school licensing system, there is no evidence that the current AOC system has done anything to even maintain standards, let alone improve them.
Tootle pip!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a bit hazy on the history of this but it goes back to the Flying Schools deciding that as "value adding" to their CPL courses, as an incentive to get other peoples aircraft on line, the inevitable chase for revenue and heck we might even get a jet one day, so they could do a bit of charter and "joy flights" on the side.
One thing is certain the local "aero club" was always unfair competition with or without an AOC for charter etc to those commercially based, but that is another issue altogether.
It's simple, as Lead Sled avers, flight training. .is flight training and only needs a license for that. The regs unless they have changed prevent anything other than bonafide training including dual TIF.. .If they want to offer their wares to the 'public generally' then they have to jump through the same hoops as every one else.
Having said that the height of flying school license bar should be set at a sufficiently high level to deter the strolling adventurers that abound.
Which brings us to the ever present dilemma.
Are we trying to use safety regulatory measures to "protect" financial committment.
But we also know that the one is inextricably intertwined with the other.
One thing is certain the local "aero club" was always unfair competition with or without an AOC for charter etc to those commercially based, but that is another issue altogether.
It's simple, as Lead Sled avers, flight training. .is flight training and only needs a license for that. The regs unless they have changed prevent anything other than bonafide training including dual TIF.. .If they want to offer their wares to the 'public generally' then they have to jump through the same hoops as every one else.
Having said that the height of flying school license bar should be set at a sufficiently high level to deter the strolling adventurers that abound.
Which brings us to the ever present dilemma.
Are we trying to use safety regulatory measures to "protect" financial committment.
But we also know that the one is inextricably intertwined with the other.
Thread Starter
It looks like we’re back in close formation on the flying training AOC issue, LeadSled! Either they’re justifiable on safety grounds, or they’re not. If they’re not, then “flying training” should be deleted from CAR 206.
Nail your colors to the mast LeadSled: [Gaunty: please note the lexical consistency of “colors”.]
To AOC, or not to AOC? –that is the question!. .Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. .The slings and arrows of outraged GA operators,. .Or to take arms against a sea of troubles on behalf of the AUF,. .And by opposing end them?
BTW LeadSled, I note elsewhere your spirited support for the NZ rules. Isn’t it true that the NZ equivalent of Australian GA flying training must be authorised by the NZ equivalent of an Australian AOC? Is this an area in which you think the Kiwis have got it wrong? Or is my understanding of their rules mistaken?
Also BTW, I’m not sure how a convention that’s expressed to apply to “international” operations (see Chapter 1 Article 1) can enliven the external affairs powers such that the Commonwealth could impose compulsory insurance obligations on all intra-state operations. The Commonwealth appears to take the same view, given that it went to all that trouble to get the States to pass uniform carriers’ liability legislation for the purpose of filling in what the Commonwealth considered to be gaps in its power to impose insurance obligations on intra-state charter/RPT operations. Or am I drifting off course?
Gaunty: You’re thinking about the ‘good ol’ days’, when men were men, women ate their young, and air service licences were all the rage. They’re long since extinct. (Although CAO 80.1 seemed to hang around for an inordinately long time, like an abandoned pet, waiting – alas in vain – for the return of its owner.)
[ 26 February 2002: Message edited by: Creampuff ]</p>
Nail your colors to the mast LeadSled: [Gaunty: please note the lexical consistency of “colors”.]
To AOC, or not to AOC? –that is the question!. .Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. .The slings and arrows of outraged GA operators,. .Or to take arms against a sea of troubles on behalf of the AUF,. .And by opposing end them?
BTW LeadSled, I note elsewhere your spirited support for the NZ rules. Isn’t it true that the NZ equivalent of Australian GA flying training must be authorised by the NZ equivalent of an Australian AOC? Is this an area in which you think the Kiwis have got it wrong? Or is my understanding of their rules mistaken?
Also BTW, I’m not sure how a convention that’s expressed to apply to “international” operations (see Chapter 1 Article 1) can enliven the external affairs powers such that the Commonwealth could impose compulsory insurance obligations on all intra-state operations. The Commonwealth appears to take the same view, given that it went to all that trouble to get the States to pass uniform carriers’ liability legislation for the purpose of filling in what the Commonwealth considered to be gaps in its power to impose insurance obligations on intra-state charter/RPT operations. Or am I drifting off course?
Gaunty: You’re thinking about the ‘good ol’ days’, when men were men, women ate their young, and air service licences were all the rage. They’re long since extinct. (Although CAO 80.1 seemed to hang around for an inordinately long time, like an abandoned pet, waiting – alas in vain – for the return of its owner.)
[ 26 February 2002: Message edited by: Creampuff ]</p>
Creamie,. .Speaking of nailing things to the mast, ( and this is a true story, my imagination is not this good) one night at Gatwick we had to dissuade a genuine Surrey Bobby from taking to a B727 nose leg with a hammer and a bloody great nail. He had a writ for the apprehension of a "vessel engaged in international navigation" and he was required to nail said writ to the foremast.. . . .He thought the nose leg was the nearest thing he could find. AaaaH. The good old days.
And now to the point, in my opinion, we should get rid of all GA AOC's, including light aircraft charter, and go back to the far more simple system of charter and airwork licenses. Quite simply, there is no credible evidence, based on the last 20 years or so Australian accident record, that an AOC has ever stopped anybody doing something really dumb.
Have our Kiwi friend got it all right, of course not, and they have just embarked on a ten year review of their reformed rules. There is a determination, across the board, to get it right. Fascinating, isn't it, already they are having this review, and we have hardly started yet. Have they got it mostly right, I certainly think so.
I'm not even certain we have any widespread measure of agreement as to the role of CASA. There is certainly a considerable degree of uncertainty within CASA. What does the industry think, does the industry think.
As to training standards, related instructor standards etc, for any kind of aircraft, they should be commensurate with the activity, license privileges etc. The arguments by some, calling for "one standard" is nonsense, we have never had "one standard".
Of course, this is all a vast oversimplification, but you get the general drift.
Tootle pip!!
And now to the point, in my opinion, we should get rid of all GA AOC's, including light aircraft charter, and go back to the far more simple system of charter and airwork licenses. Quite simply, there is no credible evidence, based on the last 20 years or so Australian accident record, that an AOC has ever stopped anybody doing something really dumb.
Have our Kiwi friend got it all right, of course not, and they have just embarked on a ten year review of their reformed rules. There is a determination, across the board, to get it right. Fascinating, isn't it, already they are having this review, and we have hardly started yet. Have they got it mostly right, I certainly think so.
I'm not even certain we have any widespread measure of agreement as to the role of CASA. There is certainly a considerable degree of uncertainty within CASA. What does the industry think, does the industry think.
As to training standards, related instructor standards etc, for any kind of aircraft, they should be commensurate with the activity, license privileges etc. The arguments by some, calling for "one standard" is nonsense, we have never had "one standard".
Of course, this is all a vast oversimplification, but you get the general drift.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled
[quote] I'm not even certain we have any widespread measure of agreement as to the role of CASA. There is certainly a considerable degree of uncertainty within CASA. What does the industry think, does the industry think.<hr></blockquote>
I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
The present line being pushed is that CASA regulate for aviation safety.
Okay riddle me this then....PPL holders need a medical examination to exercise their priveleges but ultralight pilots only need " the driving licence standard" of health, which is NO standard as it is self diagnosis!
So we can have two Jabiru aircraft take off one after the other. One VH, one AUF registered. One pilot medically fit, one pilot whose medical fitness has not been determined.
Now if one of those ends up in the proverbial Primary School playground at lunchtime where does CASA stand on "regulating for safety".
If CASA are happy to let the AUF "self administer" in Mick Tollers' words from Hansard, then could this be extended to light GA aircraft.. .Is the Recreational Pilot Licence the beginning of this?
[quote] I'm not even certain we have any widespread measure of agreement as to the role of CASA. There is certainly a considerable degree of uncertainty within CASA. What does the industry think, does the industry think.<hr></blockquote>
I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
The present line being pushed is that CASA regulate for aviation safety.
Okay riddle me this then....PPL holders need a medical examination to exercise their priveleges but ultralight pilots only need " the driving licence standard" of health, which is NO standard as it is self diagnosis!
So we can have two Jabiru aircraft take off one after the other. One VH, one AUF registered. One pilot medically fit, one pilot whose medical fitness has not been determined.
Now if one of those ends up in the proverbial Primary School playground at lunchtime where does CASA stand on "regulating for safety".
If CASA are happy to let the AUF "self administer" in Mick Tollers' words from Hansard, then could this be extended to light GA aircraft.. .Is the Recreational Pilot Licence the beginning of this?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ,Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe seems as you feel so strongly G Lock, you could explain our stupidity a little more precisely with a less colourful display of the english language perhaps!!. .If you care to look at the thread I posted above there seems to be mention that C150's could be pulled into the "sports aircraft"category?. .Would this have some impact on GA?. .I never mind being set straight if you have some more reliable info/theory you would care to share.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sobeit
I think that he was eponymic at the time <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Onya Creamy and Sled enjoying your debate immensely.
God, we might actually get back to the old days brothers, come the revolution. What with the GG going down, Betty here with Tony, I think they may have come to take back posession of one of their Dominions.. .To the barricades.
I think that he was eponymic at the time <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Onya Creamy and Sled enjoying your debate immensely.
God, we might actually get back to the old days brothers, come the revolution. What with the GG going down, Betty here with Tony, I think they may have come to take back posession of one of their Dominions.. .To the barricades.
Ikky,. .The question of medical standards is a prime example of how little much of aviation regulation has to do with risk. Original medical standards (WW1) were used as a military selection mechanism, they were not related to any real assessment of the physical attributes needed to safely fly an aircraft. Just a method to weed out 99%.
And so it went for many years.
Have a look at the history of eye sight standards over the years, has the change had an adverse safety result, of course not. When I did my first aviation medical in UK, you could not get a CPL/ALTP medical if you had to wear glasses. That lasted well into the '70's. It was nothing to do with safety, once you had the license, then if you needed glasses, that was OK.
FAA did the largest study I know of, on the subject, as part of the lead up to the Recreational Pilot License. The result--- there is no relation between pilot medical standards, or class of medical held, or recency of a medical, and the rate of in flight incapacitation.
In reality, this has been known for years, this is why Australia went from two to one medical a year for ATPL, years ago. This held up until recently, and CASA would not file a difference with ICAO, so now it is back to every 6 months for over 40, flying international only.
In the above FAA case, the medical lobby outweighed the pilot lobbies, with all the usual "expert" appeals to "public opinion", and as a result, there is an FAA requirement for a medical certificate for the RPL, despite there being NO safety justification.
Who is likely to cause more public carnage, a driver incapacitation at high speed during peak hour in Sydney, at, say a school bus stop at going home time,or on a freeway ( or US turnpike) in dense traffic, or a light aircraft.
Locally, there is no record of AUF pilots having any adverse accident history, compared to GA, that is related to the holding or not holding some kind of aviation medical certification.
In fact, there is no adverse relative accident record, period.
Don't confuse regulation by tradition, prejudice, ignorance or disguised economic regulation, with risk management based regulation.
Right now, CASA's "big thing" is compliance audit. The recent accident rates do rather suggests that "compliance", CASA style has very little to do with safety outcomes. If you only regarded the short term trends, you would have to come to the conclusion that current CASA fashions have had a rather adverse safety result.
This may even be correct.
Tootle pip!!
And so it went for many years.
Have a look at the history of eye sight standards over the years, has the change had an adverse safety result, of course not. When I did my first aviation medical in UK, you could not get a CPL/ALTP medical if you had to wear glasses. That lasted well into the '70's. It was nothing to do with safety, once you had the license, then if you needed glasses, that was OK.
FAA did the largest study I know of, on the subject, as part of the lead up to the Recreational Pilot License. The result--- there is no relation between pilot medical standards, or class of medical held, or recency of a medical, and the rate of in flight incapacitation.
In reality, this has been known for years, this is why Australia went from two to one medical a year for ATPL, years ago. This held up until recently, and CASA would not file a difference with ICAO, so now it is back to every 6 months for over 40, flying international only.
In the above FAA case, the medical lobby outweighed the pilot lobbies, with all the usual "expert" appeals to "public opinion", and as a result, there is an FAA requirement for a medical certificate for the RPL, despite there being NO safety justification.
Who is likely to cause more public carnage, a driver incapacitation at high speed during peak hour in Sydney, at, say a school bus stop at going home time,or on a freeway ( or US turnpike) in dense traffic, or a light aircraft.
Locally, there is no record of AUF pilots having any adverse accident history, compared to GA, that is related to the holding or not holding some kind of aviation medical certification.
In fact, there is no adverse relative accident record, period.
Don't confuse regulation by tradition, prejudice, ignorance or disguised economic regulation, with risk management based regulation.
Right now, CASA's "big thing" is compliance audit. The recent accident rates do rather suggests that "compliance", CASA style has very little to do with safety outcomes. If you only regarded the short term trends, you would have to come to the conclusion that current CASA fashions have had a rather adverse safety result.
This may even be correct.
Tootle pip!!
[quote] Locally, there is no record of AUF pilots having any adverse accident history, compared to GA, that is related to the holding or not holding some kind of aviation medical certification.
In fact, there is no adverse relative accident record, period."<hr></blockquote>
Wasn't there an accident at Narrogin, where the pilot of a Jabiru died at the controls, and apparently a nasty lawsuit followed from the seriously injured passenger? Or doesn't that count? Word was that the pilot was wasn't even medically fit to be driving a car.
[ 26 February 2002: Message edited by: YPJT ]</p>
In fact, there is no adverse relative accident record, period."<hr></blockquote>
Wasn't there an accident at Narrogin, where the pilot of a Jabiru died at the controls, and apparently a nasty lawsuit followed from the seriously injured passenger? Or doesn't that count? Word was that the pilot was wasn't even medically fit to be driving a car.
[ 26 February 2002: Message edited by: YPJT ]</p>
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AUF rules state that AUF pilot certificate holders must have, at a minimum, good enough health to drive a car.
Any pilot can knowingly breach a regulation, be they AUF or GA. I teach my AUF students exactly the same airmanship and responsibilities as my GA students - from there it is up to them.
Long live the AUF, a breath of fresh air when surrounded by the foul stench of tyrrany.
Any pilot can knowingly breach a regulation, be they AUF or GA. I teach my AUF students exactly the same airmanship and responsibilities as my GA students - from there it is up to them.
Long live the AUF, a breath of fresh air when surrounded by the foul stench of tyrrany.
Thread Starter
LeadSled
Re nailing the writ to the nose leg – what a crack up! (Just another reminder of how much air navigation law derives from maritime navigation law, eh? Of course, back in the old days, there was only one kind of navigation.) Remember the story about the nice new Mirages staging thru Greece on the way to the customer? That night on the flight line, the macho Greek guard decides to do a few chin ups, using a perfectly-positioned pitot probe. Does a couple of chin ups, then notices he’s bent the damn probe! Ooooops! What to do? Thinks: maybe they won’t notice. Looks down the neat line of jets, and sees that his one’s noticeably droopy in the nose! Thinks: I must make them all look the same, otherwise someone will notice. What to do? Do the same number of chin ups on each of them, so they’re all equally bent and I get my exercise! Many Drachmae later…….
Well argued on the AOC front. Your judgment on the operational issues is vastly more well-informed than mine (although I wouldn’t mind seeing the sport aviation stats – see below). If holding an AOC produces no more safe an outcome than not holding an AOC, then the requirement to hold an AOC cannot be justified on safety grounds.
My concerns relate primarily to consistency of treatment, and objective and competent administration of the law. I see very little to allay my concerns in the flying training AOC area.
It will be interesting to see what the Kiwis do about GA flying training and AOCs.
I only just stopped laughing about your nose leg story when I read your comment that: [quote]they [the Kiwis] are having this review, and we [Aussies] have hardly started yet<hr></blockquote>
I nearly fell off my chair! You Aussies started years ago. Trouble is, there’s been a lot of activity but very little productivity. (Although I assume we can expect a nice little draft amendment to 206 soon, per Mick and Paul’s chat over lunch.)
And I’m not sure whether you went out of your way to touch my rawest of raw nerves (or is that roarest of roar nerves Aussie Pilot?) when you said: [quote] I'm not even certain we have any widespread measure of agreement as to the role of CASA. There is certainly a considerable degree of uncertainty within CASA. What does the industry think, does the industry think.<hr></blockquote>
[mounts soap box]CASA’s role is not a matter of debate. CASA’s object and functions have been prescribed by the parliament. If CASA concentrated on doing just what it is supposed to, in just the way it is supposed to do it, CASA might avoid many of the controversies in which it becomes embroiled. Because the industry thinks CASA’s role is a matter of debate, and because CASA comprises many industry personnel, CASA wallows around in a quagmire of “uncertainty”, producing a trickle of muddle headed rules that get disallowed, and making regulatory decisions over a chat at lunch with the beneficiary of the decision.[dismounts soapbox]
I am interested in your statement that: [quote] Locally, there is no record of AUF pilots having any adverse accident history, compared to GA, that is related to the holding or not holding some kind of aviation medical certification.
In fact, there is no adverse relative accident record, period.. .<hr></blockquote>
Can you point me to published statistics as to the hours flown and the number of accidents and incidents during AUF operations? And who investigates AUF accidents and incidents? Or are you saying that there are literally “no records”, and consequently there is “no record of AUF pilots having etc…”? (Your use of words is nearly as skillful as mine.) I am very keen to get to the bottom of this, and will continue pressing for an answer.
Your last point is a crucial one: who, if anyone, is analysing the extent, if any, to which various mixes of regulatory approach causally affects safety outcomes? Absent that kind of analysis, you might as well decide the regulatory mix by chocolate wheel or dartboard.
G-Lock you w&*gl+#bro^%ist: A kite does not satisfy the definition of “aircraft” in the Civil Aviation Act. Accordingly, flying a kite need never be authorised by an AOC. (Now there’s a thought…a kite sufficiently large to lift a person off the ground…a bloody long string, say long enough to reach from Sydney to Melbourne…wait for the wind to blow in the right direction, then wait for the fare-paying kite pax to roll in! No AOC required! There’s plenty of room for pax to wait in the KSA terminal. [With thanks to Spike Milligan, may he RIP: I’m rich! Rich I tell you!)
Re nailing the writ to the nose leg – what a crack up! (Just another reminder of how much air navigation law derives from maritime navigation law, eh? Of course, back in the old days, there was only one kind of navigation.) Remember the story about the nice new Mirages staging thru Greece on the way to the customer? That night on the flight line, the macho Greek guard decides to do a few chin ups, using a perfectly-positioned pitot probe. Does a couple of chin ups, then notices he’s bent the damn probe! Ooooops! What to do? Thinks: maybe they won’t notice. Looks down the neat line of jets, and sees that his one’s noticeably droopy in the nose! Thinks: I must make them all look the same, otherwise someone will notice. What to do? Do the same number of chin ups on each of them, so they’re all equally bent and I get my exercise! Many Drachmae later…….
Well argued on the AOC front. Your judgment on the operational issues is vastly more well-informed than mine (although I wouldn’t mind seeing the sport aviation stats – see below). If holding an AOC produces no more safe an outcome than not holding an AOC, then the requirement to hold an AOC cannot be justified on safety grounds.
My concerns relate primarily to consistency of treatment, and objective and competent administration of the law. I see very little to allay my concerns in the flying training AOC area.
It will be interesting to see what the Kiwis do about GA flying training and AOCs.
I only just stopped laughing about your nose leg story when I read your comment that: [quote]they [the Kiwis] are having this review, and we [Aussies] have hardly started yet<hr></blockquote>
I nearly fell off my chair! You Aussies started years ago. Trouble is, there’s been a lot of activity but very little productivity. (Although I assume we can expect a nice little draft amendment to 206 soon, per Mick and Paul’s chat over lunch.)
And I’m not sure whether you went out of your way to touch my rawest of raw nerves (or is that roarest of roar nerves Aussie Pilot?) when you said: [quote] I'm not even certain we have any widespread measure of agreement as to the role of CASA. There is certainly a considerable degree of uncertainty within CASA. What does the industry think, does the industry think.<hr></blockquote>
[mounts soap box]CASA’s role is not a matter of debate. CASA’s object and functions have been prescribed by the parliament. If CASA concentrated on doing just what it is supposed to, in just the way it is supposed to do it, CASA might avoid many of the controversies in which it becomes embroiled. Because the industry thinks CASA’s role is a matter of debate, and because CASA comprises many industry personnel, CASA wallows around in a quagmire of “uncertainty”, producing a trickle of muddle headed rules that get disallowed, and making regulatory decisions over a chat at lunch with the beneficiary of the decision.[dismounts soapbox]
I am interested in your statement that: [quote] Locally, there is no record of AUF pilots having any adverse accident history, compared to GA, that is related to the holding or not holding some kind of aviation medical certification.
In fact, there is no adverse relative accident record, period.. .<hr></blockquote>
Can you point me to published statistics as to the hours flown and the number of accidents and incidents during AUF operations? And who investigates AUF accidents and incidents? Or are you saying that there are literally “no records”, and consequently there is “no record of AUF pilots having etc…”? (Your use of words is nearly as skillful as mine.) I am very keen to get to the bottom of this, and will continue pressing for an answer.
Your last point is a crucial one: who, if anyone, is analysing the extent, if any, to which various mixes of regulatory approach causally affects safety outcomes? Absent that kind of analysis, you might as well decide the regulatory mix by chocolate wheel or dartboard.
G-Lock you w&*gl+#bro^%ist: A kite does not satisfy the definition of “aircraft” in the Civil Aviation Act. Accordingly, flying a kite need never be authorised by an AOC. (Now there’s a thought…a kite sufficiently large to lift a person off the ground…a bloody long string, say long enough to reach from Sydney to Melbourne…wait for the wind to blow in the right direction, then wait for the fare-paying kite pax to roll in! No AOC required! There’s plenty of room for pax to wait in the KSA terminal. [With thanks to Spike Milligan, may he RIP: I’m rich! Rich I tell you!)