The END Of GENERAL AVIATION CHARTER ??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: melbourne
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SCHUTT DOWN !!
The way things are going at the moment, is it any wonder rumors avail themselves to anyone who'll listen...........or read..
It is strongly rumored that "allegedly" an operator has lost their A.O.C. THEY WILL SOON BE ATTEMPTING TO FLY THEIR AIRCRAFT AS 'GLIDERS'!!
It is strongly rumored that "allegedly" an operator has lost their A.O.C. THEY WILL SOON BE ATTEMPTING TO FLY THEIR AIRCRAFT AS 'GLIDERS'!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you doubt, go read CASA's Part 121B Draft policy.
Oh go on, of course you can afford to sell your 206 for $35K (thats all a PPL will pay) and buy a 2.5 Mil Caravan.
But dont forget to ask for the extra money to pay an ATPL (sorry, all you 250 hour CPLs can just stick to selling Maccas) and a Maintenance Controller. (No of course you CAN'T call the LAME youself, you aint qualified to know when the 100 hourly is due).
Ain't nuffin wrong with woop-woop aero club buying a Dash-8 just to do joyflights, is there???
And of course we all agreed to the European model...I musta bin pissed...I'm sure we did. That nice man from CASA, he might miss the odd maintenance release, but he wouldn't lie...would he.
I suppose AWetzell is right, we better all join AOPA, or a union, or learn to say 'would you like fries with that?'
Chuck
Oh go on, of course you can afford to sell your 206 for $35K (thats all a PPL will pay) and buy a 2.5 Mil Caravan.
But dont forget to ask for the extra money to pay an ATPL (sorry, all you 250 hour CPLs can just stick to selling Maccas) and a Maintenance Controller. (No of course you CAN'T call the LAME youself, you aint qualified to know when the 100 hourly is due).
Ain't nuffin wrong with woop-woop aero club buying a Dash-8 just to do joyflights, is there???
And of course we all agreed to the European model...I musta bin pissed...I'm sure we did. That nice man from CASA, he might miss the odd maintenance release, but he wouldn't lie...would he.
I suppose AWetzell is right, we better all join AOPA, or a union, or learn to say 'would you like fries with that?'
Chuck
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little side thought!
I guess that in this country it is very expensive to operate an aviation company yet everone wants to have a go. We see people start a business for which they have no real intentions for appart from the fact of filling up their own pockets and try and run it in some illegitimate fashion by not having any regard for the people that work for them or for their tools of the trade or the rulles which govern them. Through this they undermine the legitimate operators through cheaper prices, hence they attain clients which have no idea about the operation appart from what they are paying and the saving that they acvhieve. Inevitably the standards are lowered throughout the industry which ultimately require to be overhauled when they get out of shape, as the authority sees it. The new regulations are often worse than the old ones for which operators find ways to bend to keep their operations afloat or to build their 15th house. The wheel keeps on turning.
Wouldn't it be easier perhaps for the regulator to its job and weed out the bad apples in the industry letting the legitimate operators do the job right, hence expanding their operations and employing more personel and showing them the correct way.
If u can't do it right dont do it at all!! Our regulations certainly need a cut and polish but the industry and its operators definitely need a strip back and repaint!
Just a thought, of course I could be wrong!!!!:
I guess that in this country it is very expensive to operate an aviation company yet everone wants to have a go. We see people start a business for which they have no real intentions for appart from the fact of filling up their own pockets and try and run it in some illegitimate fashion by not having any regard for the people that work for them or for their tools of the trade or the rulles which govern them. Through this they undermine the legitimate operators through cheaper prices, hence they attain clients which have no idea about the operation appart from what they are paying and the saving that they acvhieve. Inevitably the standards are lowered throughout the industry which ultimately require to be overhauled when they get out of shape, as the authority sees it. The new regulations are often worse than the old ones for which operators find ways to bend to keep their operations afloat or to build their 15th house. The wheel keeps on turning.
Wouldn't it be easier perhaps for the regulator to its job and weed out the bad apples in the industry letting the legitimate operators do the job right, hence expanding their operations and employing more personel and showing them the correct way.
If u can't do it right dont do it at all!! Our regulations certainly need a cut and polish but the industry and its operators definitely need a strip back and repaint!
Just a thought, of course I could be wrong!!!!:
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note that in Europe we are now waiting for the roll-out of JAR OPS-2 (Charter and Private operators).
Hopefully 121b isn't implemented before CASA has had a chance to look at the JAA's solution for charter operators.
Hopefully 121b isn't implemented before CASA has had a chance to look at the JAA's solution for charter operators.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ulm....I've read the CASA's DRAFT 121B from front to back, and I didn't read in it anywhere where it said to sell your 206 for 35K (and some I've seen, that would be paying to much) and buy a Campervan for 2.5m......Perhaps you could point out that section to me.
I don't want to appear to be approving or agreeing to the ENTIRE Part 121B PROPOSAL in it's current format, but more to reiterate what I've said before.....
And to date, I don't believe anything has changed since
I don't want to appear to be approving or agreeing to the ENTIRE Part 121B PROPOSAL in it's current format, but more to reiterate what I've said before.....
I'm currently working my way thru the mire now, but as a starter, would those that forsee this as the forerunner to doom for GA, please put up some specifics as to the problems they see this bringing on.....At the point I'm at with reading the 170 pages I printed off this morning, I'm at a bit of a loss to see what the major bitch is
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).
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).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay I come in at the end. I have a couple of questions about CASA's actions, JARs, FARs and regulatory procedures.
If the Australian Regs are so bad, how come the Australian airlines have such an impeccable safety record? Better than NZ, UK and the USA. The detractors of the Australian regs are saying they are unworkable and out of date. For whom, or which part of the industry?
If the Australian Regs are so bad, how come the Australian airlines have such an impeccable safety record? Better than NZ, UK and the USA. The detractors of the Australian regs are saying they are unworkable and out of date. For whom, or which part of the industry?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nasa
Remember Part 47. Oh says the nice man from CASA, its just changing the way we do things. Won't affect you.
THEN, we get the neat little letter telling us to hand over our C of Rs to a LAME. NEVER trust CASA with a loosely worded Reg.
Now, having been through 121B about 8 times in a month I have to agree, nothing SPECIFIC about turbos.
However interpretation by burned out ex SQDLDRs with a hatred for GA is the problem here. (ie CASA)
Now read the bit on maintenance in Part 121B. Then cross that over with the bit about aligning charter with RPT. Add a dash of pilot route quals and take some mind altering drugs (so you can think like the CASA ******).
I can almost see the wording of the letter.
The funny thing, must be a hell of a lot of you running international charter (I aint). Every 5th para in the JAR (sorry CASR Part 121B) refers to operating in another country. What a joke. Tasmania perhaps.
But the big ask, when were we EVER consulted about JARs as the basis for CASRs???? NEVER. So the rewrite is a farce and as usual CASA consultation is a farce.
This Reg has got to go. Nah, stuff it, CASA has got to go!!!!
Chuck
Remember Part 47. Oh says the nice man from CASA, its just changing the way we do things. Won't affect you.
THEN, we get the neat little letter telling us to hand over our C of Rs to a LAME. NEVER trust CASA with a loosely worded Reg.
Now, having been through 121B about 8 times in a month I have to agree, nothing SPECIFIC about turbos.
However interpretation by burned out ex SQDLDRs with a hatred for GA is the problem here. (ie CASA)
Now read the bit on maintenance in Part 121B. Then cross that over with the bit about aligning charter with RPT. Add a dash of pilot route quals and take some mind altering drugs (so you can think like the CASA ******).
I can almost see the wording of the letter.
The funny thing, must be a hell of a lot of you running international charter (I aint). Every 5th para in the JAR (sorry CASR Part 121B) refers to operating in another country. What a joke. Tasmania perhaps.
But the big ask, when were we EVER consulted about JARs as the basis for CASRs???? NEVER. So the rewrite is a farce and as usual CASA consultation is a farce.
This Reg has got to go. Nah, stuff it, CASA has got to go!!!!
Chuck
Lodown, in answer to your question.
There are those that would say define "impeccable". Look at our terrain and weather then look at the relatively high standard of training in Australia.
There are those that would say define "impeccable". Look at our terrain and weather then look at the relatively high standard of training in Australia.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowdown
Go read WW2 books, even WW1. Go look at the guys operating in PNG or TI or out west, or in the NT.
Now excluding some of the gutless wonders flying UH 1Xs in Nam, (but with absolute full apologies to the 5 av 1xx reccy etc guys caught up in this 'living legend' ... you guys are just better than the RAAF!!!!... lets face it) Oz pilots are just plain better!!!!
Thats why.
Explains also why a has been Pom can't run CASA, just like a has been Pom screwed up the NSW Police.
Chuck
Go read WW2 books, even WW1. Go look at the guys operating in PNG or TI or out west, or in the NT.
Now excluding some of the gutless wonders flying UH 1Xs in Nam, (but with absolute full apologies to the 5 av 1xx reccy etc guys caught up in this 'living legend' ... you guys are just better than the RAAF!!!!... lets face it) Oz pilots are just plain better!!!!
Thats why.
Explains also why a has been Pom can't run CASA, just like a has been Pom screwed up the NSW Police.
Chuck
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
If the Australian Regs are so bad, how come the Australian airlines have such an impeccable safety record? Better than NZ, UK and the USA. The detractors of the Australian regs are saying they are unworkable and out of date. For whom, or which part of the industry?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quote from an operator.
" I operate the same aircraft over the same route in the same weather using the same procedures I have for 30 years, the only thing that has changed is the regs, not that I notice, I haven't read them for 20 years"
CASA is irrelavent in real terms because they have become such a joke noone pays attention anymore.
Chuck
" I operate the same aircraft over the same route in the same weather using the same procedures I have for 30 years, the only thing that has changed is the regs, not that I notice, I haven't read them for 20 years"
CASA is irrelavent in real terms because they have become such a joke noone pays attention anymore.
Chuck
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Granted, we have nice weather, but I am talking about Qantas and Ansett (RIP) that fly internationally as well as domestically. They essentially use the same rulebook. Their accident record is something to be proud of from a company, government, CASA, ATSB and resident viewpoint. Not so with GA.
CASA have a mandate to improve aviation safety. Records from the ATSB site indicate accident numbers per hours flown are sliding north again in the last couple of years after a number of years in decline. You can say that the pilots are better. That's debateable, but the airlines hire from GA. So what's the problem with GA, if indeed there is a problem? Why can't CASA and the GA industry encourage an improved safety record? Maybe the people that don't look at the rulebook for the last 20 years have something to do with it.
On a personal note, I think that a strong regulatory environment will encourage a strong industry, and vice versa. Like a strong union body has to have a strong company.
I've been hearing the doomsayers of GA for the last 30 years. One thing has been consistent, "The regulator is responsible for the death of GA." Strange how flight hours for GA have continued to grow in that time. Operators come and go. Look at any industry. The average life of any company these days is about thirty years.
CASA have a mandate to improve aviation safety. Records from the ATSB site indicate accident numbers per hours flown are sliding north again in the last couple of years after a number of years in decline. You can say that the pilots are better. That's debateable, but the airlines hire from GA. So what's the problem with GA, if indeed there is a problem? Why can't CASA and the GA industry encourage an improved safety record? Maybe the people that don't look at the rulebook for the last 20 years have something to do with it.
On a personal note, I think that a strong regulatory environment will encourage a strong industry, and vice versa. Like a strong union body has to have a strong company.
I've been hearing the doomsayers of GA for the last 30 years. One thing has been consistent, "The regulator is responsible for the death of GA." Strange how flight hours for GA have continued to grow in that time. Operators come and go. Look at any industry. The average life of any company these days is about thirty years.
Last edited by Lodown; 10th Jun 2002 at 20:06.
Watch your step Lowdown
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lodown
Creampuff is on the money.
Mr ulm
You are shooting at the wrong target, it's over here, no, no, no, ......not there............ here.......... now look in this mirror. Ahhhhh there, thats who.
The regulatory fees, imposts and safety requirements were never ever the reason that GA operators have gone backwards out the door, neither are the ASA charges or whoever happens to be charging for whatever at the time.
The defunct operators and the others always complaining that the regulations are driving them out of bsuiness has/have managed it all on their little lonesome, without needing their help.
As a percentage of the what they should be charging for their services and compliance, ours, (regulatory charges), are very little different if not actually cheaper than most around the world.
Of course as a percentage of current rates they seem twice as high as they should be, maybe there is a message there, because they (the rates) are actually way less than half what they should be.
In the real world you work out what your costs are inc. compliance, Govt charges and add a margin.
Here the operators work backwards, they find out what the operator next door charges, deduct their margin and try to work out how to provide the service with whats left, It doesn't seem to occur to them that the operator next door is doing the same using their rates.
It's a classic case of their object oh sublime they will achieve in time, by making the punishment fit the crime....... apologies to to Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan who would BTW if they were still around have written a very funny high farce show on this subject.
I don't suppose you've worked out yet, what happens if the guy you are following is following you.
No, as Mr Smith found out you can't dismantle something that worked unless you know how to replace it with something that works better.
It wasn't perfect but it wasn't that broke that it needed vapourising.
You all got behind the Pied Piper carolling the cheaper Regulator thingy thinking it was the answer to your profits and he led you right over the cliff TWICE.
Pretty dumb huh.
Problem was, you thought his agenda was the same as yours. Silly and dumb, but you know the story about trying to unscramble eggs.
So now they are trying to put it all back together, except its like trying to do that 10,000 pce jigsaw puzzle that someone has thrown away the box with the picture on it.
And that doesn't mean following the whim of Government or whichever lobby or high profile personality happens to be shouting the loudest at the time.
Creampuff is on the money.
Mr ulm
You are shooting at the wrong target, it's over here, no, no, no, ......not there............ here.......... now look in this mirror. Ahhhhh there, thats who.
The regulatory fees, imposts and safety requirements were never ever the reason that GA operators have gone backwards out the door, neither are the ASA charges or whoever happens to be charging for whatever at the time.
The defunct operators and the others always complaining that the regulations are driving them out of bsuiness has/have managed it all on their little lonesome, without needing their help.
As a percentage of the what they should be charging for their services and compliance, ours, (regulatory charges), are very little different if not actually cheaper than most around the world.
Of course as a percentage of current rates they seem twice as high as they should be, maybe there is a message there, because they (the rates) are actually way less than half what they should be.
In the real world you work out what your costs are inc. compliance, Govt charges and add a margin.
Here the operators work backwards, they find out what the operator next door charges, deduct their margin and try to work out how to provide the service with whats left, It doesn't seem to occur to them that the operator next door is doing the same using their rates.
It's a classic case of their object oh sublime they will achieve in time, by making the punishment fit the crime....... apologies to to Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan who would BTW if they were still around have written a very funny high farce show on this subject.
I don't suppose you've worked out yet, what happens if the guy you are following is following you.
No, as Mr Smith found out you can't dismantle something that worked unless you know how to replace it with something that works better.
It wasn't perfect but it wasn't that broke that it needed vapourising.
You all got behind the Pied Piper carolling the cheaper Regulator thingy thinking it was the answer to your profits and he led you right over the cliff TWICE.
Pretty dumb huh.
Problem was, you thought his agenda was the same as yours. Silly and dumb, but you know the story about trying to unscramble eggs.
So now they are trying to put it all back together, except its like trying to do that 10,000 pce jigsaw puzzle that someone has thrown away the box with the picture on it.
a strong regulatory environment will encourage a strong industry, and vice versa. Like a strong union body has to have a strong company.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
121B DP
AOPA have an option instead of just whining.......
www.aopa.com.au
Click on news, then current news.
Worth a try.
Dog
www.aopa.com.au
Click on news, then current news.
Worth a try.
Dog
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna slams CASA's new GA rules
From the latest issue of F.I. -
Cessna has joined a growing number of angry general aviation (GA) voices openly opposing the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) new GA regulations, based on European Joint Aviation Regulations for air transport operations (JAR OPS-1).
The manufacturer, whose 208 Caravan I would be affected by the new rules, has publicly accused the regulator of "bureaucratic laziness, a lack of intellectual rigour and a disquieting lack of knowledge about Australian aviation".
CASA is being excessively harsh in its interpretation of a ministerial instruction to bring the rules for small charter operations closer to those of scheduled operations, says Cessna, and in doing so is breaking with practice in other Pacific nations. Cessna says CASA has abandoned the US Federal Aviation Administration Part 135 format and attempted to develop GA rules by adapting JAR OPS-1 for charter and low-capacity regular public transport operations.
The company objects that, under the proposed rules, its 12- to 14-seat Caravans would be limited to nine passengers when operating over water or under instrument flight rules, regardless of whether they are fitted with the expensive equipment prescribed by CASA's recently "approved single-engine turbine powered aeroplane" rules and the number of operating crew. Cessna says that this is unreasonable in the Australian operational environment.
My favourite bit - "bureaucratic laziness, a lack of intellectual rigour and a disquieting lack of knowledge about Australian aviation" - took the words right out of my mouth!
Cessna has joined a growing number of angry general aviation (GA) voices openly opposing the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) new GA regulations, based on European Joint Aviation Regulations for air transport operations (JAR OPS-1).
The manufacturer, whose 208 Caravan I would be affected by the new rules, has publicly accused the regulator of "bureaucratic laziness, a lack of intellectual rigour and a disquieting lack of knowledge about Australian aviation".
CASA is being excessively harsh in its interpretation of a ministerial instruction to bring the rules for small charter operations closer to those of scheduled operations, says Cessna, and in doing so is breaking with practice in other Pacific nations. Cessna says CASA has abandoned the US Federal Aviation Administration Part 135 format and attempted to develop GA rules by adapting JAR OPS-1 for charter and low-capacity regular public transport operations.
The company objects that, under the proposed rules, its 12- to 14-seat Caravans would be limited to nine passengers when operating over water or under instrument flight rules, regardless of whether they are fitted with the expensive equipment prescribed by CASA's recently "approved single-engine turbine powered aeroplane" rules and the number of operating crew. Cessna says that this is unreasonable in the Australian operational environment.
My favourite bit - "bureaucratic laziness, a lack of intellectual rigour and a disquieting lack of knowledge about Australian aviation" - took the words right out of my mouth!
