The END Of GENERAL AVIATION CHARTER ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The END Of GENERAL AVIATION CHARTER ??
Last edited by Outback Pilot; 24th Apr 2002 at 06:41.
Moderator
Don't let these people spook you with all their doom and gloom, at least two of them of nothing to do with GA charter; read the information and draw your own conclusions.
One in particular is so out of touch with reality it's quite sad.
One in particular is so out of touch with reality it's quite sad.
Groundhog Day!
Leadlsled and T: Exactly which set of rules do you want?
Telling us what you don't like about proposed rules is interesting, but in the same breath you'll tell us that your existing rules are unnecessarily complicated and need to be reformed. (After all, that's why you Aussies set out on this road to nowhere!)
Which rules? NZD'ed FARs, FARs, JAR-OPS, Mobutu Decrees.
It seems to me that the quickest way to get what you want, and to by-pass those awful bureaucrats, is to agree upon an off-the-shelf set of rules to be adopted lock, stock and barrell.
Which rules do you want? And please: no motherhood statements.
Telling us what you don't like about proposed rules is interesting, but in the same breath you'll tell us that your existing rules are unnecessarily complicated and need to be reformed. (After all, that's why you Aussies set out on this road to nowhere!)
Which rules? NZD'ed FARs, FARs, JAR-OPS, Mobutu Decrees.
It seems to me that the quickest way to get what you want, and to by-pass those awful bureaucrats, is to agree upon an off-the-shelf set of rules to be adopted lock, stock and barrell.
Which rules do you want? And please: no motherhood statements.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are pilots and operators alike doing about this? It's you that has to make the difference. This just seems to be a case of someone picking on a weak target that is too "professional" to get involved in a slaging match.
This is extremely similar to what the Australia Medical Association (AMA) is doing to General Practitioners. They are killing off GP's and making it harder for them to make money and enjoy their job. You don't see GP's out the front of Parliament House with posters shouting out slogans, etc. They are just too professional (like pilots, etc) to be involved in this. Hence we are a weak target for organisations such as CASA and they think they can get away with it and they are!
Looks like anything associated with the word general is doomed...in this country anyway.
This is extremely similar to what the Australia Medical Association (AMA) is doing to General Practitioners. They are killing off GP's and making it harder for them to make money and enjoy their job. You don't see GP's out the front of Parliament House with posters shouting out slogans, etc. They are just too professional (like pilots, etc) to be involved in this. Hence we are a weak target for organisations such as CASA and they think they can get away with it and they are!
Looks like anything associated with the word general is doomed...in this country anyway.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to agree with cogwheel.
Until the Office of Legal Drafting understand that the answer to an operational situation is an operational response (education) and not more regulation (and only when there are punitive measures attached). Until then we will continue to suffer the legalise bumpf that is masquarading as the Act, CAR's & Orders.
There really only needs to be one sentence in the Act:
"Thou shall not crash"
anything else is waffle and padding.
Bunch of PIllicks actually
ding
Until the Office of Legal Drafting understand that the answer to an operational situation is an operational response (education) and not more regulation (and only when there are punitive measures attached). Until then we will continue to suffer the legalise bumpf that is masquarading as the Act, CAR's & Orders.
There really only needs to be one sentence in the Act:
"Thou shall not crash"
anything else is waffle and padding.
Bunch of PIllicks actually
ding
Victa
How can it be? The AMA purport to represent GP's whereas CASA regulate the aviation industry in accordance with the Civil Aviation Act.
dingo 084
Really?
Let's get specific. Post the proposal and articulate the problems that you see with them.
Anything else is, as you say dingo084
This is extremely similar to what the Australia Medical Association (AMA) is doing to General Practitioners
dingo 084
There really only needs to be one sentence in the Act:
"Thou shall not crash" anything else is waffle and padding.
"Thou shall not crash" anything else is waffle and padding.
Let's get specific. Post the proposal and articulate the problems that you see with them.
Anything else is, as you say dingo084
waffle and padding
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus2001
I probably stated that wrong. Yes AMA represents doctors...similar to how AOPA represents aircraft owners and pilots.
What I meant is that the AMA is not doing enough for the doctors. Maybe the same could be said for AOPA? I don't know, that's a whole new ball game.
I probably stated that wrong. Yes AMA represents doctors...similar to how AOPA represents aircraft owners and pilots.
What I meant is that the AMA is not doing enough for the doctors. Maybe the same could be said for AOPA? I don't know, that's a whole new ball game.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ic
Where do I start!
Probably 30 years ago when I got into this game,
(edited to save the bandwidth)
So there you go, there are no simple answers (regulations) inspite of the OLD's attempt to regulate everything.
But then again, CASA is no longer an Authority on Safe Civil Aviation, they are a regulator that only knows legalise, pure and (not so) simple.
ding
PS Watch out for the Sun
Where do I start!
Probably 30 years ago when I got into this game,
(edited to save the bandwidth)
So there you go, there are no simple answers (regulations) inspite of the OLD's attempt to regulate everything.
But then again, CASA is no longer an Authority on Safe Civil Aviation, they are a regulator that only knows legalise, pure and (not so) simple.
ding
PS Watch out for the Sun
Okay point taken Victa.
One of the problems is that no single group represents pilots or even large sections of the industry, because of its diverse nature. What the Low Capacity RPT management think is good doesn't suit the GA pilots. The wishes of High Capacity RPT pilots do not mesh with what AUF flying schools want and so.
Management and pilots within one sector do not even agree very often.
The point is these are only proposals at present. They can and will change. I am still wading through the ones that will affect my sector of the industry.
Another point is that CASA itself is being reviewed. So expect a new direction soon.
One of the problems is that no single group represents pilots or even large sections of the industry, because of its diverse nature. What the Low Capacity RPT management think is good doesn't suit the GA pilots. The wishes of High Capacity RPT pilots do not mesh with what AUF flying schools want and so.
Management and pilots within one sector do not even agree very often.
The point is these are only proposals at present. They can and will change. I am still wading through the ones that will affect my sector of the industry.
Another point is that CASA itself is being reviewed. So expect a new direction soon.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
run through some scenarios as a wannabe, and this becomes very scary.
basically (and i stand to be corrected on this) my shiny new cpl, me/cir qualifies me only to fly day vfr in a single engine piston!
to be able to fly any aircraft commercially with passengers under IFR i need
it seems to be completely ridiculous that after having done all the work, sat all the exams, tests etc, that i am still not considered capable of flying 1 passenger from A to B!!
the only escape is to go the freight route, and surely there is not enough of that to go around.
basically (and i stand to be corrected on this) my shiny new cpl, me/cir qualifies me only to fly day vfr in a single engine piston!
to be able to fly any aircraft commercially with passengers under IFR i need
500hrs as a pilot of registered... aeroplanes, including 150hrs as PIC under IFR
the only escape is to go the freight route, and surely there is not enough of that to go around.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: World
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rovey, you have answered your own question. A new licence is a licence to learn your trade. What better way to learn than flying a light single around in daytime good weather? Australia has a real problem with safety and low time pilots getting it out of shape. Under JAROPS an individual needs 700hrs TT before carrying fare paying pax IFR. How you get those hours is not the concern of the regulator. Once you have them you have reserved your place on the first rung of the RPT ladder, and so doing so open yourself up to further scrutiny by the regulator, and that is the only way for a developed country to operate. It's coming to Australia, better start thinking that way or get left behind.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Strya
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rovey,
you wouldn't be likely to get a job flying pax IFR without 500 odd hours anyway. If you have been told otherwise then you have been given a bum steer. The integrated course is only relevant for airline cadets.
you wouldn't be likely to get a job flying pax IFR without 500 odd hours anyway. If you have been told otherwise then you have been given a bum steer. The integrated course is only relevant for airline cadets.
CASA's stated aims, about 5 years ago, were to re write CAR's in accordance with FAR. Even the numbering was aligned to accommodate the change.
Now we have some born again rocket scientist who has arbitrarily decided that FAR's are no longer the go, and JAR's are the be all and end all. Chicken little it may seem, but the proposal (only aeroplanes at the moment, I'm glad to see) will cause untold problems for us all, if it goes through unchallenged. Take the time to download the .pdf's from http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/casr/121b.htm , read and weep!! Small example: the proposal will prevent any Day, VFR charter with more than 9 pax unless the pilot is IR. Can anyone explain what difference this makes, or what the justification is?
Mind you, our cut off in helicopters is 2750kg, instead of fixed wing 5700kg, so we've been up against beaurocratic ineptitude since 1991, when it was decided that endorsement requirements should more than double at that figure. Only adds about $10k+ to a basic VFR endorsement
Now we have some born again rocket scientist who has arbitrarily decided that FAR's are no longer the go, and JAR's are the be all and end all. Chicken little it may seem, but the proposal (only aeroplanes at the moment, I'm glad to see) will cause untold problems for us all, if it goes through unchallenged. Take the time to download the .pdf's from http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/casr/121b.htm , read and weep!! Small example: the proposal will prevent any Day, VFR charter with more than 9 pax unless the pilot is IR. Can anyone explain what difference this makes, or what the justification is?
Mind you, our cut off in helicopters is 2750kg, instead of fixed wing 5700kg, so we've been up against beaurocratic ineptitude since 1991, when it was decided that endorsement requirements should more than double at that figure. Only adds about $10k+ to a basic VFR endorsement
Just looking at it from one perspective only...it will make those that have the hours and qualifications more valued, harder to replace and therefore worth more money?
Let's face it, the barriers to entry are fairly low hence too many pilots.
Let's face it, the barriers to entry are fairly low hence too many pilots.
Short scenario followed by a short question
Johnny: Mom, I don’t like what you keep giving me for dinner.
Mom: Well Johnny, what would you like for dinner?
Johnny: I want things that I would like.
Mom: Well Johnny, what would you like?
Johnny: Not the things that you keep giving me.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some meat?
Johnny: No, I don’t like meat.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some fruit or vegetables?
Johnny: No, I don’t like fruit and vegetables.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some milk or cheese or yoghurt?
Johnny: No, I don’t like dairy stuff.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some bread and honey?
Johnny: No, I don’t like bread and honey.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some vitamin and mineral tablets?
Johnny: No, I don’t like tablets.
Mom: Well Johnny, what would you like?
Johnny: Not the things you keep giving me.
Question: What should Johnny be given for dinner?
5 words or less, no expletives please.
Mom: Well Johnny, what would you like for dinner?
Johnny: I want things that I would like.
Mom: Well Johnny, what would you like?
Johnny: Not the things that you keep giving me.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some meat?
Johnny: No, I don’t like meat.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some fruit or vegetables?
Johnny: No, I don’t like fruit and vegetables.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some milk or cheese or yoghurt?
Johnny: No, I don’t like dairy stuff.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some bread and honey?
Johnny: No, I don’t like bread and honey.
Mom: Well Johnny, would you like some vitamin and mineral tablets?
Johnny: No, I don’t like tablets.
Mom: Well Johnny, what would you like?
Johnny: Not the things you keep giving me.
Question: What should Johnny be given for dinner?
5 words or less, no expletives please.