The END Of GENERAL AVIATION CHARTER ??
All,
The cost in UK, S 30-40,000, you have to be kidding, it recently cost the son of an old mate of mine that much just to complete a CPL etc, after all the concessions he negotiated as a result of having about 250 hours of RAF training. He missed out on the final stage, but his civil career has fared somewhat better, he is now a -737 Captain.
Make certain you are comparing like with like.
The NZ rules would be a very good start, they are more or less the FAR's stripped of years of legislative junk, and there is absolutely no comparison between NZ Part 135 and what CASA is proposing in Part 121B.
There is no comparison between NZ CAA Part 43/143 etc requirements for Transport Cat. maintenance and CASR 43/145/66.
The reformed NZ rules have received considerable favorable comment, they formed the basis for the new rules in PNG via the Balus project. Ironic, really that Australian Foreign Aid paid for consultants to put the NZ rules in place in PNG, because the Australian rules (existing or proposed) were not regarded as useable.
The NZ rules seem likely to form the basis of new aviation regulations for a number of small countries, former or existing British dependencies, because their local CAAs or whatever recognise that adopting the JARs, ( the British "Colonial Office" preference) would be a total disaster for their aviation businesses.
Perhaps we should just shut CASA down and sub contract the lot to NZ CAA.
AS to JAA training outside ECAC countries, that is a whole political mine field that has little or nothing to do with training standards, and everything to do with trade protection and long standing trans-Atlantic "cultural" differences. It seems to me that if it were not for some enlightened application of British consumer/fair trading legislation, none of the US based but British origin organisations would have even got a start.
Tootle pip!!
The cost in UK, S 30-40,000, you have to be kidding, it recently cost the son of an old mate of mine that much just to complete a CPL etc, after all the concessions he negotiated as a result of having about 250 hours of RAF training. He missed out on the final stage, but his civil career has fared somewhat better, he is now a -737 Captain.
Make certain you are comparing like with like.
The NZ rules would be a very good start, they are more or less the FAR's stripped of years of legislative junk, and there is absolutely no comparison between NZ Part 135 and what CASA is proposing in Part 121B.
There is no comparison between NZ CAA Part 43/143 etc requirements for Transport Cat. maintenance and CASR 43/145/66.
The reformed NZ rules have received considerable favorable comment, they formed the basis for the new rules in PNG via the Balus project. Ironic, really that Australian Foreign Aid paid for consultants to put the NZ rules in place in PNG, because the Australian rules (existing or proposed) were not regarded as useable.
The NZ rules seem likely to form the basis of new aviation regulations for a number of small countries, former or existing British dependencies, because their local CAAs or whatever recognise that adopting the JARs, ( the British "Colonial Office" preference) would be a total disaster for their aviation businesses.
Perhaps we should just shut CASA down and sub contract the lot to NZ CAA.
AS to JAA training outside ECAC countries, that is a whole political mine field that has little or nothing to do with training standards, and everything to do with trade protection and long standing trans-Atlantic "cultural" differences. It seems to me that if it were not for some enlightened application of British consumer/fair trading legislation, none of the US based but British origin organisations would have even got a start.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled, I can assure you my cost estimate is accurate, if you still require proof, dip into the Wanabees section where a moderator has stated costs very similiar.
You are wrong about 'British' schools in Florida, as I said before, they are not USA based British schools, they are USA schools doing British training, why do you keep on saying they are different...? I think you have no idea about JAROPS, or the political backdrop here in Europe. Anyway, it is not British anymore, it is European training standards.
And, one last thing, JAR is not British, it is European and the calming force within JAR is the UK CAA. You might not like it, (and continue your misguided thoughts) but thats the way it is.
You are wrong about 'British' schools in Florida, as I said before, they are not USA based British schools, they are USA schools doing British training, why do you keep on saying they are different...? I think you have no idea about JAROPS, or the political backdrop here in Europe. Anyway, it is not British anymore, it is European training standards.
And, one last thing, JAR is not British, it is European and the calming force within JAR is the UK CAA. You might not like it, (and continue your misguided thoughts) but thats the way it is.
Grandpa Aerotart
What rules would be good?
How about the FARs......the ones that FOSTER aviation in places like Alaska.
How about what the Canadians do to FOSTER aviation in it's great 'outback'.
I think comparisons to these areas are a lot more realistic than those with NZ.
What do we expect with a regulator that, operationally, is populated with people who couldn't make the grade in civil aviation or ex mil types who never had any undestanding of civil aviation in the first place.........and of course Lawers
Chuck.
How about the FARs......the ones that FOSTER aviation in places like Alaska.
How about what the Canadians do to FOSTER aviation in it's great 'outback'.
I think comparisons to these areas are a lot more realistic than those with NZ.
What do we expect with a regulator that, operationally, is populated with people who couldn't make the grade in civil aviation or ex mil types who never had any undestanding of civil aviation in the first place.........and of course Lawers
Chuck.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of a JAR CPL/IR and frozen ATPL is between the amounts quoted by Meeb and Leadsled. £30K sounds pretty good, but I suspect Meed wouldn't pay the difference if you blew over; and you wouldn't be the first. Besides, £30K equates to AUD$80,400 at today’s rate which isn't exactly a bargain for what is in all reality a license to enjoy the same air. Even considering the well known fact that JAA air is by far superior in quality, and therefore more expensive to train in.
It is true that schools offering training to the JAR syllabus don't have to be British based, but like someone famous said, "And, one last thing, JAR is not British, it is European...". Schools offering JAR license training do need a base in a JAR member state.
Most importantly, the desire of a JAR license implies that you wish to spend minimum AUD$80,000 in training, seek employment and live in a JAR member state. I doubt many people making that kind of lifestyle decision give much of a flying fork where training organisations are based and probably the cost. Someone that sensible would have signed up for an accountancy course (and met Meeb).
It is true that schools offering training to the JAR syllabus don't have to be British based, but like someone famous said, "And, one last thing, JAR is not British, it is European...". Schools offering JAR license training do need a base in a JAR member state.
Most importantly, the desire of a JAR license implies that you wish to spend minimum AUD$80,000 in training, seek employment and live in a JAR member state. I doubt many people making that kind of lifestyle decision give much of a flying fork where training organisations are based and probably the cost. Someone that sensible would have signed up for an accountancy course (and met Meeb).
My ruler and pen await
It’s a little like pulling teeth, but at least we’re getting somewhere.
So LeadSled: “The NZ rules would be a good start”.
We’ve now got all the NZ rules on the table in front of us. We’ve cleared the room of all those pesky lawyers, and we get justapplhere to do what he does best: run simple errands for us.
I sit with a ruler and pen, awaiting your instructions.
What words do I delete from which rules?
What words to I add to which rules?
Surely you can tell me: you’re the expert, and you know what you want.
Once you’ve told me, and subject to agreement by all the subscribers to this forum, we can simply deliver a shiny new set of proposed rules, lock stock and barrell to the Minister, with the industry’s imprimatur. Here John: these are the rules the industry wants. You can now save yourself millions by shutting down most of CASA’s standards division.
How could he possibly resist?
My ruler and pen await.....
So LeadSled: “The NZ rules would be a good start”.
We’ve now got all the NZ rules on the table in front of us. We’ve cleared the room of all those pesky lawyers, and we get justapplhere to do what he does best: run simple errands for us.
I sit with a ruler and pen, awaiting your instructions.
What words do I delete from which rules?
What words to I add to which rules?
Surely you can tell me: you’re the expert, and you know what you want.
Once you’ve told me, and subject to agreement by all the subscribers to this forum, we can simply deliver a shiny new set of proposed rules, lock stock and barrell to the Minister, with the industry’s imprimatur. Here John: these are the rules the industry wants. You can now save yourself millions by shutting down most of CASA’s standards division.
How could he possibly resist?
My ruler and pen await.....
Creampuff, I might be wrong about this, but...
Maybe, just maybe, technical and operational regulations that get turned into law might be a teeny bit more complex than someone's bright idea.
To extrapolate what you're asking of Lead Sled would be like asking for my biased opinion of what I think the Motor Traffic Act should look like from a cyclist's point of view.
Anyway, keep it up, I enjoy being you.
Maybe, just maybe, technical and operational regulations that get turned into law might be a teeny bit more complex than someone's bright idea.
To extrapolate what you're asking of Lead Sled would be like asking for my biased opinion of what I think the Motor Traffic Act should look like from a cyclist's point of view.
Anyway, keep it up, I enjoy being you.
'day CP
It saddens me to see you continue to hide behind sophistry to defend the indefensible.
The challenge is surely not for the industry to write the regulations but for the regulator to recognise and accept that it has gone down a blind path and is standing on the brink (along with the industry it has dragged there).
Perhaps your analogy of the mother and child is apt. It gives the impression of a domineering control figure out of touch with the real needs of those in its charge.
In an ideal world, we would have two partners; one creating and maintaining the environment where the other can thrive.
That is what business expects of government.
But we've been down this path before, haven't we.........
It saddens me to see you continue to hide behind sophistry to defend the indefensible.
The challenge is surely not for the industry to write the regulations but for the regulator to recognise and accept that it has gone down a blind path and is standing on the brink (along with the industry it has dragged there).
Perhaps your analogy of the mother and child is apt. It gives the impression of a domineering control figure out of touch with the real needs of those in its charge.
In an ideal world, we would have two partners; one creating and maintaining the environment where the other can thrive.
That is what business expects of government.
But we've been down this path before, haven't we.........
Creamie, m' old mate,
Another alternative--- use the "model" aviation regulatory framework that FAA has produced ( in the ICAO format, not the FAR) for "third world countries". ---- Just kidding.
The FAA/ARAC/SAE/ARINC/ASTM approach to development of technical regualtory and standards matter will do me---- because it produces common sense results.
Similar frameworks even work in Australia.
Meeb, I know whereof I speak, perhaps you should do an audit of the number of counties of EEC/ECAC that embrace all/ some/ little of the JARs. Perhaps you would be surprised at the result.
I often enjoy a view of the surroundings from a particular building in Redhill, Surry, well know to many aviators of the Misty Isles.
As yet, the JARs have no legal force unless they are adopted into national legislation by EEC/ECAC countries. The JAA has no legal power to enforce anything. The most recent attempts to progress towards a trans European "EAA" look to me like they have actually gone backwards.
Given the glacial pace of any ATC reform in Western Europe, don't hold your breath, I don't think a United States of Europe is going to happen any time soon.
Aerobat150 is well informed, and believe me, it WAS UK anti restraint of trade law/policies that finally allowed any JAA training in the US or any non EEC/ECAC country. The UK Government would not accept that the citizens of the fair Ilses should be denied the lower costs of flying training in the US. It is far more complicated than that, but that is a near enough summary.
The original JAA "determination", supported ( surprise, surprise) by European based schools, was that training could only be conducted in EEC/ECAC countries for any JAR/FCL qualifications.
Tootle pip!!
Another alternative--- use the "model" aviation regulatory framework that FAA has produced ( in the ICAO format, not the FAR) for "third world countries". ---- Just kidding.
The FAA/ARAC/SAE/ARINC/ASTM approach to development of technical regualtory and standards matter will do me---- because it produces common sense results.
Similar frameworks even work in Australia.
Meeb, I know whereof I speak, perhaps you should do an audit of the number of counties of EEC/ECAC that embrace all/ some/ little of the JARs. Perhaps you would be surprised at the result.
I often enjoy a view of the surroundings from a particular building in Redhill, Surry, well know to many aviators of the Misty Isles.
As yet, the JARs have no legal force unless they are adopted into national legislation by EEC/ECAC countries. The JAA has no legal power to enforce anything. The most recent attempts to progress towards a trans European "EAA" look to me like they have actually gone backwards.
Given the glacial pace of any ATC reform in Western Europe, don't hold your breath, I don't think a United States of Europe is going to happen any time soon.
Aerobat150 is well informed, and believe me, it WAS UK anti restraint of trade law/policies that finally allowed any JAA training in the US or any non EEC/ECAC country. The UK Government would not accept that the citizens of the fair Ilses should be denied the lower costs of flying training in the US. It is far more complicated than that, but that is a near enough summary.
The original JAA "determination", supported ( surprise, surprise) by European based schools, was that training could only be conducted in EEC/ECAC countries for any JAR/FCL qualifications.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
150Aerobat, you say the cost of a JAR licence is somewhere between what I said and Leadsled quoted. Then you go onto quote the figure I stated...doh!
You then state:
<<Schools offering JAR license training do need a base in a JAR member state.>>
Totally wrong my friend! The proposal for that rule was being banded about 4 years ago but was never implemented.
No one, especially me is saying JAR training is superior, it is not, and you are right on one thing, it is overpriced. I agree cost is more important than where a school is based, but understanding the regulations of such is I think also important.
You then state:
<<Schools offering JAR license training do need a base in a JAR member state.>>
Totally wrong my friend! The proposal for that rule was being banded about 4 years ago but was never implemented.
No one, especially me is saying JAR training is superior, it is not, and you are right on one thing, it is overpriced. I agree cost is more important than where a school is based, but understanding the regulations of such is I think also important.
My ruler and pen still await
Cooda: I’m going to stick my neck out on a limb, and observe that you can mix your metaphors until the cows come home but you’ve still been led up the garden path after the horse has bolted.
You’ve got the cart before the horse. The regulator hasn’t dragged the industry down this path: the regulator has been dragged down this path by snakeoil salesmen who’ve convinced some short-sighted politicians that they represent and understand “the industry”.
A wholesale rewrite of the ANRs was completed in 1988: that’s what produced the 1988 CARs. Do you really think that after completing that process, the regulator said to itself: “Well now. Let’s turn all our work into a ******’s muddle.”?
If you don’t like the old rules, and you can’t say what rules you want, then, like Johnny, you’ll get whatever you’re dished up.
Carefully analyse what LeadSled says and does not say. Look at his last post. He won’t tell me what to delete or add to the NZ rules, which he said are “a good start”. He’s now just advocating a process through which he thinks the rules should be developed:
When in doubt, invoke that shibboleth, trot out that creme da la creme of motherhood statements: “common sense”.
Whose common sense? His? Yours? You wouldn’t insult my intelligence by asserting that there is a common view as to what the rules should be, would you? Just read this thread. I wouldn’t describe Nasa as CASA’s greatest fan, yet he doesn’t perceive that much wrong with the proposed part. And our elder statesman Gaunty isn’t entirely ignorant of the various regulatory regimes. He thinks the proposed part doesn’t go far enough! Icarus2001 comprehends that every rule – no matter what it says - will have benefits as well as opportunity costs.
If there is a “common sense” solution to this, then surely it would be abundantly clear to Outback Pilot, Gaunty, Nasa, Leadsled, Icarus2001, you and every other subscriber to this forum. Yet, inexplicably, the “common sense” solution does not emerge.
All that LeadSled wants is his gig as head dabbler. He knows that the best way to get his gig as head dabbler is to continuously criticise the performance of the existing dabblers, while claiming to have the “common sense” or “best” solution. But he’s also acutely aware that if he got his gig as head dabbler, a whole bunch of people would say to him what I keep saying to him: G’day head dabbler, tell us exactly what you want. We’ve got the NZ rules on the table in front of us. Our rulers and pens are ready. Tell us what words to delete from which rules, and tell us what words to add to which rules. At that point – as now – he will look uncannily similar to his predecessors.
LeadSled: my ruler and pen still await.
You’ve got the cart before the horse. The regulator hasn’t dragged the industry down this path: the regulator has been dragged down this path by snakeoil salesmen who’ve convinced some short-sighted politicians that they represent and understand “the industry”.
A wholesale rewrite of the ANRs was completed in 1988: that’s what produced the 1988 CARs. Do you really think that after completing that process, the regulator said to itself: “Well now. Let’s turn all our work into a ******’s muddle.”?
If you don’t like the old rules, and you can’t say what rules you want, then, like Johnny, you’ll get whatever you’re dished up.
Carefully analyse what LeadSled says and does not say. Look at his last post. He won’t tell me what to delete or add to the NZ rules, which he said are “a good start”. He’s now just advocating a process through which he thinks the rules should be developed:
The FAA/ARAC/SAE/ARINC/ASTM approach to development of technical regualtory [sic] and standards matter will do me---- because it produces common sense results.
Whose common sense? His? Yours? You wouldn’t insult my intelligence by asserting that there is a common view as to what the rules should be, would you? Just read this thread. I wouldn’t describe Nasa as CASA’s greatest fan, yet he doesn’t perceive that much wrong with the proposed part. And our elder statesman Gaunty isn’t entirely ignorant of the various regulatory regimes. He thinks the proposed part doesn’t go far enough! Icarus2001 comprehends that every rule – no matter what it says - will have benefits as well as opportunity costs.
If there is a “common sense” solution to this, then surely it would be abundantly clear to Outback Pilot, Gaunty, Nasa, Leadsled, Icarus2001, you and every other subscriber to this forum. Yet, inexplicably, the “common sense” solution does not emerge.
All that LeadSled wants is his gig as head dabbler. He knows that the best way to get his gig as head dabbler is to continuously criticise the performance of the existing dabblers, while claiming to have the “common sense” or “best” solution. But he’s also acutely aware that if he got his gig as head dabbler, a whole bunch of people would say to him what I keep saying to him: G’day head dabbler, tell us exactly what you want. We’ve got the NZ rules on the table in front of us. Our rulers and pens are ready. Tell us what words to delete from which rules, and tell us what words to add to which rules. At that point – as now – he will look uncannily similar to his predecessors.
LeadSled: my ruler and pen still await.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled, I have just read your posts and must congratulate you. It's about time that someone with a bit of literary intelligence took on the likes of Gaunty and NASA. I really do wonder what the guys are thinking sometimes. Aside from the ridiculous effort of re-writing the regs what about the cost. I'll have a little wager with anyone that the production and implimentation of the new rules will cost far more than any proposed cost saving. In fact I wonder how the poor guys at CASA field offices are going to cope with the new regs when they are totally overworked now. How do you think they will be able to police the industry in the future, not to mention now, without undergoing expensive and time consuming training? Anyhow I'm off to work out how to do the next charter into farmer Joe's dirt strip, that I have never seen before, without route checking one of my pilots into that strip and writing up proceedures for EFATO and inserting them into the Ops Manual that said pilot must take with him on the aircraft. Oh S...t I forgot I'll have to ring the surveyor to get him out there first to work out the length, runway slope and gradient before I can write up the proceedures!!!!! Hang on who's going to pay for all this? I bet Gaunty and NASA don't know!!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groggy
Who's going to pay??
As a matter of fact I do know, but the answer will have to wait until I have finished the tasks assigned to me by mrs gaunty, lest I have no fingers with which to type.
Meanwhile ponder on the fact that that I, with a few others have operated largish GA companies some with new 25 new aircraft at rates which truly reflected the cost and to standards higher than that now proposed AND made a fair bit of money in the process.
Also,
Consider the possibility that GA companies exist for purposes other than to provide the means for youngsters to gather the experience necessary to move onto "real" aircraft.
Who's going to pay??
As a matter of fact I do know, but the answer will have to wait until I have finished the tasks assigned to me by mrs gaunty, lest I have no fingers with which to type.
Meanwhile ponder on the fact that that I, with a few others have operated largish GA companies some with new 25 new aircraft at rates which truly reflected the cost and to standards higher than that now proposed AND made a fair bit of money in the process.
Also,
Consider the possibility that GA companies exist for purposes other than to provide the means for youngsters to gather the experience necessary to move onto "real" aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groggy me old.....Want to answer the question I raised a few pages back, and tell me specifically what it is that's wrong with the proposal as it's been presented.
I'm a little at a loss to see how
is constructive, and exactly what is it that requires gaunty & nasa to be taken on 
....I'm sure that gaunty will tell you, that it is very rare that he and I agree.
To date since I made my original post, I've sat back and watched the toing & froing without comment, and like gaunty, if Mrs nasa catches me at the controls right about now, instead of being outside washing the cars and looking after the little nasa mob, then I'm for it in no uncertain terms.
However, the two people that have bothered to take up the gauntlet, are gaunty & LeadSled.....For mine, gaunty has taken off on his favourite track, but has yet to spell out exactly what aircraft, not Certification Category, but types gaunty, and also the cost, so I will wait for that, and LS has pointed out about ICAO/FAA Operational Control Service, a factor I was not aware of.....Now unless I'm mistaken, this is a draft paper, and is open for discussion, discussion that should it be undertaken in a reasonable, forthright and mature manner, by both sides and all parties, should enable changes to be made to the proposed 121B, and the Operational Control would be the first to be taken under serious consideration.
As I see it, 121B as proposed here, is an attempt to have Commercial, money making, pax carrying aircraft lumped into one category, and the appropriate certification of the pilots and operations would be then be uniform.....The two questions that I have yet to have answered are:
1.....Does this mean that we can now have one AOC Category that covers RPT & Charter, and will it mean that the meaning of RPT changes, and 2.....What are the maintenance requirements going to be for these aircraft and will owners & operators be able to maintain the aircraft under the current system of Cat "A" (for want of better terminolgy).
BTW.....Why is 9 pax the magical cut off number....does an aircraft know how many pax it has and thus needs to be treated differently because of that number, and also gaunty
Does this mean that an aircraft certified to carry say 10 pax, can't, because those pax are being carried as RPT pax and paying for the ride, and thus, the aircraft needs to be treated differently.....maybe that's why no legal eagle has jumped on the bandwagon, because the aircraft are carrying what they are certified to carry, and the operator/pilot is just not telling people that a 747 woud be safer than a PA31, and BTW, does that mean that QF should alert me to the fact that if I get on one of their 747SP's that I would be safer on a 744 
I'm a little at a loss to see how
It's about time that someone with a bit of literary intelligence took on the likes of Gaunty and NASA
....I'm sure that gaunty will tell you, that it is very rare that he and I agree.To date since I made my original post, I've sat back and watched the toing & froing without comment, and like gaunty, if Mrs nasa catches me at the controls right about now, instead of being outside washing the cars and looking after the little nasa mob, then I'm for it in no uncertain terms.
However, the two people that have bothered to take up the gauntlet, are gaunty & LeadSled.....For mine, gaunty has taken off on his favourite track, but has yet to spell out exactly what aircraft, not Certification Category, but types gaunty, and also the cost, so I will wait for that, and LS has pointed out about ICAO/FAA Operational Control Service, a factor I was not aware of.....Now unless I'm mistaken, this is a draft paper, and is open for discussion, discussion that should it be undertaken in a reasonable, forthright and mature manner, by both sides and all parties, should enable changes to be made to the proposed 121B, and the Operational Control would be the first to be taken under serious consideration.
As I see it, 121B as proposed here, is an attempt to have Commercial, money making, pax carrying aircraft lumped into one category, and the appropriate certification of the pilots and operations would be then be uniform.....The two questions that I have yet to have answered are:
1.....Does this mean that we can now have one AOC Category that covers RPT & Charter, and will it mean that the meaning of RPT changes, and 2.....What are the maintenance requirements going to be for these aircraft and will owners & operators be able to maintain the aircraft under the current system of Cat "A" (for want of better terminolgy).
BTW.....Why is 9 pax the magical cut off number....does an aircraft know how many pax it has and thus needs to be treated differently because of that number, and also gaunty
not designed or certified for the task for which it is being used.
Last edited by nasa; 25th Apr 2002 at 23:23.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nasa Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner! I take your point that this is a draft and we need to make a submission if we don't like or agree with what we read. What is wrong is that I don't think any of this is going to make things safer. They all keep barking up the wrong tree and spending absolutely heaps of dollars using the age old argument that you can't put a value on human life. While that is true they only use it as a smoke screen to justify their exsistance. I agree with you entirely that an aircraft doesn't know how many people it has on board and I think the same logic applies to certification and a few other issues. And my friend I believe that is the whole point, it's the mindset of the management culture that will make the difference, not a 15kg book of rules that changes your operating rules because you have one extra pax on board.
gaunty I know that you made money doing this with new airplanes many moons ago but that was then. Times change, and so does the dollar exchange rate, just to single out one small part. I would really love to see you do it in today's enviroment but then if you had that much money to start with why would you bother? Same Sh...t different day
gaunty I know that you made money doing this with new airplanes many moons ago but that was then. Times change, and so does the dollar exchange rate, just to single out one small part. I would really love to see you do it in today's enviroment but then if you had that much money to start with why would you bother? Same Sh...t different day
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Well it's an IRS nowdays, but the AHRS were fun.
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what needs to be pointed out here is that the proposed rules are not an improvement they are a catch up. Australian Aviation is operationally quite a long way behind a lot of the world. As allready hinted at, even the Kiwi's have advanced further in the evolution of aviation. It should go a bit deeper than changing a few licencing rules ETC. The FAA, CAA rule structure becomes ingrained into the corporate culture of an operator with all party's responsible right up to the CEO. You could certainly imagine the changes that would happen if a few current CEO's (The guys that pull the purse strings) realised that they too would be standing in the court dock in the case of a serious infringement or accident.
As for who pays..Well it should be the user as along with a lot of things in this world "there aint no such thing as a free lunch" and as a customer you can have your say and as a seller (CASA or whoever) they have to sharpen their act up if the customers are refusing to pay for what they percieve as poor service.
As for who pays..Well it should be the user as along with a lot of things in this world "there aint no such thing as a free lunch" and as a customer you can have your say and as a seller (CASA or whoever) they have to sharpen their act up if the customers are refusing to pay for what they percieve as poor service.
Last edited by #1AHRS; 26th Apr 2002 at 22:42.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder why NZ rules are put forward as advanced. Some have been left out that were once part of CASO, having less is not always an advantage. I would use as an example Runway Strip,defined in AIP Australia in Gen 2.2-20. This definition has been completely deleted from NZ scene, yet every aerodrome plate, and ground movement plate in the IFG has the Runway
Strip marked, either as a dotted line on aerodrome plate, or as runway holding points. I have raised this point because at our local aerodrome senior instructors are using the runway strip for taxi purposes, when queried about this procedure the answer was where does it say they cannot? this answer is strictly speaking correct legally, but not so correct when safe operations are the end requirement. Once again, you cannot rely on common sense, it is not always so common, and regulations have to be written to cover every situation.
Strip marked, either as a dotted line on aerodrome plate, or as runway holding points. I have raised this point because at our local aerodrome senior instructors are using the runway strip for taxi purposes, when queried about this procedure the answer was where does it say they cannot? this answer is strictly speaking correct legally, but not so correct when safe operations are the end requirement. Once again, you cannot rely on common sense, it is not always so common, and regulations have to be written to cover every situation.
All.
A "Discussion Paper" Part 121B may well be, but is this (or any other recent CASA effort in a similar vein --- Remember the 121A, originally eliminating Qantas from all its long range operations, 133 and 137 efforts---- What makes a Bell 206 or any other single engine helicopter so dangerous that it is virtually relegated to private operations) any way to develop regulations for a reasonably technical industry.
As far as I am concerned, what I am seeing is something more akin to the extreme ambit claims of some unions come award time. You all remember some of the more outrageous.
So where do we go with this one, we all comment, CASA accepts some, rejects some, and like an industrial negotiation we wind up somewhere between two extremes. --- But this is not an industrial award or enterprise bargaining deal. ---- This is supposed to be about a revamped regulatory framework for Australian aviation. --- Which should be all about the minimum necessary intervention to achieve acceptable safety outcomes, whilst leaving the aviation industry, at all levels, to get on with the business of aviation.
Don't get bogged down about definitions of aerodromes, have a look at where it actually is in the NZ rules, our Kiwi cousins still manage to have properly marked and operating airfields, mostly characterized by far more activity than any Australian equivalent. As for who taxis where ---- I have never seen any example of "regulations" making the difference between a dumb pilot, and the rest. All it does is make prosecution and conviction a tad easier. The saying " Can't see the wood for the trees" does come to mind.
Remember, NZ is conducting a 10 year Review of the "new" regulations, and we are no where near even a reasonable re start, a "re start" that that allegedly happened almost three years ago.
The NZ rules are no longer "new", they are "proven in practice".
Gaunty, have a look at the accident statistics, where is the evidence that aircraft not certified to your desired/required Part 23 Commuter or Part 25 is, in any way, a contribution to Charter accidents. Get from somebody the Air North presentation on the comparative economics of re-manufacturing Cessna 400 series aircraft, ( the FAA/Cessna program) versus the Caravan.
The C 208 is a non starter in the hard world of staying in business without Government funding/subsidy. This presentation was made at the last RAAA Convention --- It is an excellent example of how cost/benefit analysis should be done, and how it is NOT done by CASA.
In short, where is any evidence, in the proposed Part 121B, that the major imposts are the answer to any clearly delineated "safety" problem, let alone a reasonable cost/ benefit justified solution, based on defined and quantified (agreed) risk management criteria.
The rest of Australian industry can do it, what's wrong with Australian aviation.
Where is any evidence that the major imposts of P119/91/43/145/121A/121B/133, and their combined impact is the necessary answer to any genuine safety problems, for fixed or rotary wing operations.
Tootle pip !!
A "Discussion Paper" Part 121B may well be, but is this (or any other recent CASA effort in a similar vein --- Remember the 121A, originally eliminating Qantas from all its long range operations, 133 and 137 efforts---- What makes a Bell 206 or any other single engine helicopter so dangerous that it is virtually relegated to private operations) any way to develop regulations for a reasonably technical industry.
As far as I am concerned, what I am seeing is something more akin to the extreme ambit claims of some unions come award time. You all remember some of the more outrageous.
So where do we go with this one, we all comment, CASA accepts some, rejects some, and like an industrial negotiation we wind up somewhere between two extremes. --- But this is not an industrial award or enterprise bargaining deal. ---- This is supposed to be about a revamped regulatory framework for Australian aviation. --- Which should be all about the minimum necessary intervention to achieve acceptable safety outcomes, whilst leaving the aviation industry, at all levels, to get on with the business of aviation.
Don't get bogged down about definitions of aerodromes, have a look at where it actually is in the NZ rules, our Kiwi cousins still manage to have properly marked and operating airfields, mostly characterized by far more activity than any Australian equivalent. As for who taxis where ---- I have never seen any example of "regulations" making the difference between a dumb pilot, and the rest. All it does is make prosecution and conviction a tad easier. The saying " Can't see the wood for the trees" does come to mind.
Remember, NZ is conducting a 10 year Review of the "new" regulations, and we are no where near even a reasonable re start, a "re start" that that allegedly happened almost three years ago.
The NZ rules are no longer "new", they are "proven in practice".
Gaunty, have a look at the accident statistics, where is the evidence that aircraft not certified to your desired/required Part 23 Commuter or Part 25 is, in any way, a contribution to Charter accidents. Get from somebody the Air North presentation on the comparative economics of re-manufacturing Cessna 400 series aircraft, ( the FAA/Cessna program) versus the Caravan.
The C 208 is a non starter in the hard world of staying in business without Government funding/subsidy. This presentation was made at the last RAAA Convention --- It is an excellent example of how cost/benefit analysis should be done, and how it is NOT done by CASA.
In short, where is any evidence, in the proposed Part 121B, that the major imposts are the answer to any clearly delineated "safety" problem, let alone a reasonable cost/ benefit justified solution, based on defined and quantified (agreed) risk management criteria.
The rest of Australian industry can do it, what's wrong with Australian aviation.
Where is any evidence that the major imposts of P119/91/43/145/121A/121B/133, and their combined impact is the necessary answer to any genuine safety problems, for fixed or rotary wing operations.
Tootle pip !!