Bill Hamilton gives REX 6 months
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cairns Qld
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said, Gaunty.
Mr Kerans,
I think the horse has well and truly bolted. One can't say things on a national programme like AM with its type of audience and hope no-one was listening. As I said originally we should cease being so negative and get out and support each other. Someone with the high profile of Bill Hamilton should either say something positive or have the wisdom and experience to make no comment. It's hard enough to survive in this industry as it is with out people being unnecessarily negative. We all know that the general fare paying public, on whom our jobs rely, have been chewed up and spat out a bit lately and, as an industry, we need to show solidarity so that their confidence in us is justified.
Mr Kerans,
I think the horse has well and truly bolted. One can't say things on a national programme like AM with its type of audience and hope no-one was listening. As I said originally we should cease being so negative and get out and support each other. Someone with the high profile of Bill Hamilton should either say something positive or have the wisdom and experience to make no comment. It's hard enough to survive in this industry as it is with out people being unnecessarily negative. We all know that the general fare paying public, on whom our jobs rely, have been chewed up and spat out a bit lately and, as an industry, we need to show solidarity so that their confidence in us is justified.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Kerans
I'm sure that you didn't mean to seem patronising by that opening comment.
Further
by all means you should continue your actions and support in this direction.
My only question is, where then has AOPA been for the last 20 or more years on this subject, the concept is hardly original and has been debated ad nauseum here and in other places, even unto the high altar in Canberra by the interested professionals for yonks.
The horse as they say has already bolted, last seen heading overseas helping repatriate profits.
The recent collapse of Ansett et al simply brought it into sharper focus, if indeed that was needed.
The logic of what you suggest is disarmingly attractive but just a little thought will expose the flaws of the argument and why it will not play.
This is NOT QF or VBs responsibility it is a social issue that belongs to the respective Governments.
They, the Govt., did in the past practise the highly laudable use of "Subsidy" to these socially disadvantaged areas.
But as this "S" word has forever been expunged from the Government lexicon in these modern but not necessarily enlightened times and is now treated by the Speaker and President of the respective Houses as a pejorative like unto the "F" word, much work will be required to return it to its former honourable and moral use.
May I suggest that Mr Hamilton would have served this issue better had he, as is usual, put the horse in front of the cart and as part of a well thought out strategy to put it on the agenda.
If as I suspect, like Mr Hamilton, that we will be forced to revisit this issue in a very short period of time, we had better have some very well prepared strategy and some very powerful argument, that will get heard above the inevitable gnashing of teeth, wailing, recrimination and general sturm und drang that will surround it.
It ain't nearly over yet.
All. At the risk of attracting friendly, unfriendly and random fire (nothing much positive on here) I will have my 2c worth.
Further
Now what this has done is prompted AOPA interest in supporting regional thin route airlines. We will be discussing it at out Board meeting this weekend. Perhaps one option is the big carriers (Q) paying a Universal Service fee to support thinner or non-profitable routes to ensure that all Australians have access to reasonably priced air travel.
My only question is, where then has AOPA been for the last 20 or more years on this subject, the concept is hardly original and has been debated ad nauseum here and in other places, even unto the high altar in Canberra by the interested professionals for yonks.
The horse as they say has already bolted, last seen heading overseas helping repatriate profits.
The recent collapse of Ansett et al simply brought it into sharper focus, if indeed that was needed.
The logic of what you suggest is disarmingly attractive but just a little thought will expose the flaws of the argument and why it will not play.
This is NOT QF or VBs responsibility it is a social issue that belongs to the respective Governments.
They, the Govt., did in the past practise the highly laudable use of "Subsidy" to these socially disadvantaged areas.
But as this "S" word has forever been expunged from the Government lexicon in these modern but not necessarily enlightened times and is now treated by the Speaker and President of the respective Houses as a pejorative like unto the "F" word, much work will be required to return it to its former honourable and moral use.
May I suggest that Mr Hamilton would have served this issue better had he, as is usual, put the horse in front of the cart and as part of a well thought out strategy to put it on the agenda.
If as I suspect, like Mr Hamilton, that we will be forced to revisit this issue in a very short period of time, we had better have some very well prepared strategy and some very powerful argument, that will get heard above the inevitable gnashing of teeth, wailing, recrimination and general sturm und drang that will surround it.
It ain't nearly over yet.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
We have similar opinions.
Many years ago, I flew Nomads for the NT Aero Medical Service, effectively the Flying Doctor in the NT.
Nomads were an ideal aircraft for the types of fields to which we operated most of the time in Arnhem land; short, unsealed, big trees surrounding, and not vast distances between base and most ports.
In the aircraft's favour were short field performance, high wing, not bad to fly (N24 here only).
A king Air was available for evacuations from ports like TNK etc.
There was a local GP who gave them a bucketing. Not a doctor who worked for the RFDS or NTAMS, but a local GP.
Who do you reckon the public listened to? The doctor! Not the pilots who flew them, but a doctor who didn't fly them or in them.
The message here of course, as I've said it elsewhere, is you are who you tell people you are. The pilots didn't have the ear of the press, so didn't get a hearing. He, being a doctor, was seen as an authority on everything from ingrown toenails to internatioal aviation.
Very sad.
We have similar opinions.
Many years ago, I flew Nomads for the NT Aero Medical Service, effectively the Flying Doctor in the NT.
Nomads were an ideal aircraft for the types of fields to which we operated most of the time in Arnhem land; short, unsealed, big trees surrounding, and not vast distances between base and most ports.
In the aircraft's favour were short field performance, high wing, not bad to fly (N24 here only).
A king Air was available for evacuations from ports like TNK etc.
There was a local GP who gave them a bucketing. Not a doctor who worked for the RFDS or NTAMS, but a local GP.
Who do you reckon the public listened to? The doctor! Not the pilots who flew them, but a doctor who didn't fly them or in them.
The message here of course, as I've said it elsewhere, is you are who you tell people you are. The pilots didn't have the ear of the press, so didn't get a hearing. He, being a doctor, was seen as an authority on everything from ingrown toenails to internatioal aviation.
Very sad.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T
Get it right, New Homes construction actually and if my bank account is any testimony more than just "good" at it, total sector over $1.7 billion a year just in li'l old WA. Not bad for a bunch of dumb builders eh.
Fourth generation of my family in the company and associated businesses and proud of it.
But once again you are falling back into that rather bad habit of yours of attacking the man or attempting to discredit or undermine him or hers credibility without actually adding anything to the debate or discussion.
I simply rely on the quality of my input, it is then for others to decide whether it is credible or not.
I will happlily debate you all day on the issues and comments I raise but I fail to see what my present vocation has to do with it
Now back to the subject at hand.
Tell me where I "got it wrong", as a Real Estate salesman you understand, with my questoins and observations in regard to Mr Hamilton or Mr Kerans pronouncements. and we can move on from there.
Mr Kerans and Mr Hamilton both know how to register and post on this forum, I'd be amazed if he wasn't aware of it and both must know that the forum members aren't in the habit of accepting "received wisdom from on high" and will not let much woolly thinking or humbug go unchallenged.
Of course its easier to just keep preaching to the converted and having secret clubby discussions amongst your soul mates, but apart from some warm fuzzies it doesn't get anything changed, does it nor does it convert people to your cause.
As a "salesman" and I have always been thus and proud of it, whatever the industry, I know how to do it and what works. I know that whatever the "rightness" of their cause, what has been served up by AOPA so far in the matter of "selling" it clearly has not been working.
Mr Pike came in here for a short time and underwhelmed the majority of us by his aggresive attitude and barely concealed contempt. Perhaps he mistook us for a bunch of dills or Real Estate salesmen.
We may not all be clever, powerful, famous, B747 Capts, not Real Estate salesmen or whatever and whoever you and your compadres think is worthy of your time and attention, but we do know CDF.
ulm
You know the rules here.
Praise where praise is due, test your argument, be prepared to defend your position, change your view when persuaded and take a hiding when you can't.
Or we can just sit around congratulating each other on how lucky we are to be part of this crazy business and let the self appointed "experts" make it uncrazy for us. And we do that from time to time until everbody goes back to sleep.
Get it right, New Homes construction actually and if my bank account is any testimony more than just "good" at it, total sector over $1.7 billion a year just in li'l old WA. Not bad for a bunch of dumb builders eh.
Fourth generation of my family in the company and associated businesses and proud of it.
But once again you are falling back into that rather bad habit of yours of attacking the man or attempting to discredit or undermine him or hers credibility without actually adding anything to the debate or discussion.
I simply rely on the quality of my input, it is then for others to decide whether it is credible or not.
I will happlily debate you all day on the issues and comments I raise but I fail to see what my present vocation has to do with it
Now back to the subject at hand.
Tell me where I "got it wrong", as a Real Estate salesman you understand, with my questoins and observations in regard to Mr Hamilton or Mr Kerans pronouncements. and we can move on from there.
Mr Kerans and Mr Hamilton both know how to register and post on this forum, I'd be amazed if he wasn't aware of it and both must know that the forum members aren't in the habit of accepting "received wisdom from on high" and will not let much woolly thinking or humbug go unchallenged.
Of course its easier to just keep preaching to the converted and having secret clubby discussions amongst your soul mates, but apart from some warm fuzzies it doesn't get anything changed, does it nor does it convert people to your cause.
As a "salesman" and I have always been thus and proud of it, whatever the industry, I know how to do it and what works. I know that whatever the "rightness" of their cause, what has been served up by AOPA so far in the matter of "selling" it clearly has not been working.
Mr Pike came in here for a short time and underwhelmed the majority of us by his aggresive attitude and barely concealed contempt. Perhaps he mistook us for a bunch of dills or Real Estate salesmen.
We may not all be clever, powerful, famous, B747 Capts, not Real Estate salesmen or whatever and whoever you and your compadres think is worthy of your time and attention, but we do know CDF.
ulm
You know the rules here.
Praise where praise is due, test your argument, be prepared to defend your position, change your view when persuaded and take a hiding when you can't.
Or we can just sit around congratulating each other on how lucky we are to be part of this crazy business and let the self appointed "experts" make it uncrazy for us. And we do that from time to time until everbody goes back to sleep.
Last edited by gaunty; 8th Aug 2002 at 08:02.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
Tis obvious Hamilton stuffed up big time. I don't deny it. The instant expert on everything was way out of his comfort zone. But read deeply into Kerans' post, I bet a good bottle there is an underlying resentment of Hamilton's nature amongst at least a thinking few on the AOPA committee.
You intimate you want them here talking to us, but you (and others) attack them whenever they appear. Yeah Pike was agressive, but have you ever given any of them a fair hearing.
I wonder, should they even be bothered with your opinions and arguments, are you a member of AOPA??? I am. If you are then tell them what you want, a letter to the magazine or something.
Oh yeah, you want to guide me to that historical gem of PPRuNe postings where you have been swayed by an argument and changed your position.
Tis obvious Hamilton stuffed up big time. I don't deny it. The instant expert on everything was way out of his comfort zone. But read deeply into Kerans' post, I bet a good bottle there is an underlying resentment of Hamilton's nature amongst at least a thinking few on the AOPA committee.
You intimate you want them here talking to us, but you (and others) attack them whenever they appear. Yeah Pike was agressive, but have you ever given any of them a fair hearing.
I wonder, should they even be bothered with your opinions and arguments, are you a member of AOPA??? I am. If you are then tell them what you want, a letter to the magazine or something.
Oh yeah, you want to guide me to that historical gem of PPRuNe postings where you have been swayed by an argument and changed your position.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ulm
Indeed Mr Kerans is taking a positive role in a difficult environment trying to keep it shiny side up and for that he has and will always have my total support.
Maybe I misinterpreted his post but we have no way of clearing it up.
Now about Mr Pike, it is interesting to review his participation and response to the usual robust discussion of the official AOPA submission to the Minister in this thread
New Airspace Proposal
There is not a post that where he doesn't insult or patronise. His answers a PPRuNer (who identified himself as a B747 and 767 driver) who was asking what he thought was a valid question about the difference between a Jet and any other IFR aircraft in the context of the discussion with “Jets go faster son”. He sounds like a joy to work with in the cockpit. He may well be but he doesn’t seem all that interested in showing his election base other wise.
OK he is entitled to his view but he knows our rules and it is OUR Forum for each and every one and is not “closed to members only”.
It is interesting that the “public forums” closed a short time after the visit here by Mr Pike or was it after a former VP got himself into trouble here. Doesn’t matter, it’s not reaching their target audience the non-members that they desperately need as members.
I went and had a look at their site just a minute ago and it is very difficult to find out what their stand, policy or current campaign is on anything beyond the usual web links, press releases.
I held out a hand with some friendly advice on how to handle the denizens herein and get his message across.
They or any one for that matter will and do get a fair hearing here, unless they resort to these tactics.
To quote another PPRuNer from the same thread that says it much better than I.
my bold
I have chosen not to be since soon after Mr Patroni ‘retired’.
Given their past performance I would suggest to you, that it is they who should be “bothered with our opinions and arguments.”, it is they who have to mend the bridges and restore their credibility with their constituents and the politicians.
I am prepared to listen.
It is not PPRuNe v AOPA either. They both have their proper place in the firmament. They are missing out on a powerful tool that can only be to their benefit if they learn how to use it properly. The nature of PPRuNe is such that ideas and issues can be “floated” debated and tested much more freely here than elsewhere gain REAL input from “inside” that they may be otherwise denied.
Sure there is a lot of chaff, but that is the nature of the beast and human comms, the kernels that do pop out are priceless.
The ball is in their court; we, or at least I anyway, await the return of service if they think it will be worthwhile.
Historical gems ???………….. why, there are heaps, :o……….well I can think of at least one, :o ………isn’t there …………..Heck I even agreed with Mr Hamilton.
Indeed Mr Kerans is taking a positive role in a difficult environment trying to keep it shiny side up and for that he has and will always have my total support.
Maybe I misinterpreted his post but we have no way of clearing it up.
Now about Mr Pike, it is interesting to review his participation and response to the usual robust discussion of the official AOPA submission to the Minister in this thread
New Airspace Proposal
There is not a post that where he doesn't insult or patronise. His answers a PPRuNer (who identified himself as a B747 and 767 driver) who was asking what he thought was a valid question about the difference between a Jet and any other IFR aircraft in the context of the discussion with “Jets go faster son”. He sounds like a joy to work with in the cockpit. He may well be but he doesn’t seem all that interested in showing his election base other wise.
OK he is entitled to his view but he knows our rules and it is OUR Forum for each and every one and is not “closed to members only”.
It is interesting that the “public forums” closed a short time after the visit here by Mr Pike or was it after a former VP got himself into trouble here. Doesn’t matter, it’s not reaching their target audience the non-members that they desperately need as members.
I went and had a look at their site just a minute ago and it is very difficult to find out what their stand, policy or current campaign is on anything beyond the usual web links, press releases.
I held out a hand with some friendly advice on how to handle the denizens herein and get his message across.
They or any one for that matter will and do get a fair hearing here, unless they resort to these tactics.
I wonder, should they even be bothered with your opinions and arguments, are you a member of AOPA??? I am. If you are then tell them what you want, a letter to the magazine or something.
Pikey, Good to see you posing on this forum. It can only do good for AOPA to enter into the debate. I think you need to realise that anonymity is the mainstay of this forum and part of the reason for its success in the open discussion of issues. The fact is that AOPA got hit for six under the reign of the past three Presidents and your membership numbers reflect this. You have a lot of ground to recover and I wish you luck.
I have chosen not to be since soon after Mr Patroni ‘retired’.
Given their past performance I would suggest to you, that it is they who should be “bothered with our opinions and arguments.”, it is they who have to mend the bridges and restore their credibility with their constituents and the politicians.
I am prepared to listen.
It is not PPRuNe v AOPA either. They both have their proper place in the firmament. They are missing out on a powerful tool that can only be to their benefit if they learn how to use it properly. The nature of PPRuNe is such that ideas and issues can be “floated” debated and tested much more freely here than elsewhere gain REAL input from “inside” that they may be otherwise denied.
Sure there is a lot of chaff, but that is the nature of the beast and human comms, the kernels that do pop out are priceless.
The ball is in their court; we, or at least I anyway, await the return of service if they think it will be worthwhile.
Historical gems ???
………….. why, there are heaps, :o……….well I can think of at least one, :o ………isn’t there …………..Heck I even agreed with Mr Hamilton.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here Rex
Bill's Right for all the wrong reasons,
Gaunty's Right for all the right reasons,
AOPA's stuffed for all the usual reasons.
Dick's sold out for all the other reasons.
Qantas broke Ansett for only commercial reasons.
John's voters have no air service for no real reason.
Corrigan and the Virgin are goin to bust everybodies reasons.
A Singaporian Rex seems to be the breed for the season.
But a Singapore Virgin would be a nice way to fly.
Gaunty's Right for all the right reasons,
AOPA's stuffed for all the usual reasons.
Dick's sold out for all the other reasons.
Qantas broke Ansett for only commercial reasons.
John's voters have no air service for no real reason.
Corrigan and the Virgin are goin to bust everybodies reasons.
A Singaporian Rex seems to be the breed for the season.
But a Singapore Virgin would be a nice way to fly.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
I don't disagree with you much on any of what you have said. There were a number not happy with the way Patroni 'retired' and what happened afterwards. But there were also a lot who were. Me, I'm hurting my bum on the fence pickets.
But you have identified a few in AOPA who are trying to keep it 'shiny side up' and you possibly know who they are better than me. But if you, and the guy you quoted, aren't in the game then who will support them.
If as you say the arrogant ones are stuffing GA with their opinions is it not you who loses.
Chuck
I don't disagree with you much on any of what you have said. There were a number not happy with the way Patroni 'retired' and what happened afterwards. But there were also a lot who were. Me, I'm hurting my bum on the fence pickets.
But you have identified a few in AOPA who are trying to keep it 'shiny side up' and you possibly know who they are better than me. But if you, and the guy you quoted, aren't in the game then who will support them.
If as you say the arrogant ones are stuffing GA with their opinions is it not you who loses.
Chuck
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
I'm blushing, you said nice stuff about someone and it was me!!!
We all got together on the weekend for our usual Board meeting. Now let me tell you, discussion is usually robust and Bill H and I rarely trade too many niceties.
BUT, having talked with him and everyone else I wonder what you would have said, led down the same path by the media
No one on AOPA wants Rex to fail. We want to get the costs down so that they don't. That was Bill Hamilton's message plain and simple.
You have elsewhere supported part 121B. Well a mate of mine that runs a '121B' organisation said to me,
"The planes dont change, the route doesn't change, the weather doesn't change. Only thing that changes and gets worse are the regs. So I don't read em."
So you see, complexity breeds contempt. Therefore I put it to you that the CASRs are actually the CAURs. They are UNSAFE becuse they are fast losing relavence.
I do agree though that we must work WITH CASA to sort this rather than being seen to constantly snipe at them. I say 'being seen' because I know many AOPA Board members DO work with CASA. Trouble is, as with all things aviation, only the controversy gets reported.
BTW, I can post on my own now having worked out the cookies
AK
I'm blushing, you said nice stuff about someone and it was me!!!
We all got together on the weekend for our usual Board meeting. Now let me tell you, discussion is usually robust and Bill H and I rarely trade too many niceties.
BUT, having talked with him and everyone else I wonder what you would have said, led down the same path by the media
No one on AOPA wants Rex to fail. We want to get the costs down so that they don't. That was Bill Hamilton's message plain and simple.
You have elsewhere supported part 121B. Well a mate of mine that runs a '121B' organisation said to me,
"The planes dont change, the route doesn't change, the weather doesn't change. Only thing that changes and gets worse are the regs. So I don't read em."
So you see, complexity breeds contempt. Therefore I put it to you that the CASRs are actually the CAURs. They are UNSAFE becuse they are fast losing relavence.
I do agree though that we must work WITH CASA to sort this rather than being seen to constantly snipe at them. I say 'being seen' because I know many AOPA Board members DO work with CASA. Trouble is, as with all things aviation, only the controversy gets reported.
BTW, I can post on my own now having worked out the cookies
AK
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Good to see you around (since Feb I see and I hope we can have some interesting debate about our passions (except perhaps my mrs gaunty and yours )
I have had a bit of experience with the media and they do need careful handling, but at the end of the day, they are doing their job feeding the beast that they have created, and it is a bit of a symbiotic relationship.
Getting your stuff on the public agenda amongst all of the other noise without attracting sensationalist headlines is a bit of a trick.
Say nothing, nobody hears anything, say anything and you are front page.
I gave at a recent Coronial, evidence that some say was "controversial and damaging to the industry" about the different levels of safety, based on cost rather than an understanding, available to FIFO operators and their clients.
The "contoversial and damaging to the industry" evidence was a simple explanation of the difference in safety and surveillance levels between FAR Part 23 and 25 which are a matter of regulatory fact and the relevant cost issues they exposed in the choices made by the miners for the transport of their staff in this manner as a cheaper substitute for RPT to the nearest port.
The knowledge of which is held by very few, including many who should (including most pilots) and not the least bit understood by the FIFO pax and travelling public
I was as could be expected, met by a barrage of press and TV outside the court who after a looong morning of very dry technical and relatively uncontested testimony most of which they barely understood and were looking for some relief.
My evidence as far as I can tell was actively supported by CASA and particularly the ATSB.
They, the press, tried about one hundred and sixty different ways to get me to say that charter "wasn't safe" which was not what I said.
What I said was, that there was SAFE, SAFER and SAFEST and that there was an obligation on the part of the charterer to his staff to understand those differences in relation to the cost, which in the REAL world should be similiar, when selecting the appropriate level for travel.
Of course, and that is my point/agenda, for the passenger there should not be a "choice" or a "difference" unless they are FULLY informed.
as this is not practically possible then the Govt/regulator has to do something about it on their behalf.
After some vigourous discussion I agreed to be interviewed only on the understanding that they did not cut and paste a simple statement, to which they agreed.
And that was to the effect that the level of what we currently call SAFE was set well over 30 years ago in the light of the then available technology, but that the world has moved on a very long way to SAFER and it is way way past the time, that the industry moved with it
I guess the point is, I was only a "former aviation consultant", so I guess the effect was limited to whatever peoples preception of what one of "those" is or was.
If I had said it as an AOPA VP (Technical) I would have, not should have, been sacked in the ensuing uproar from your members.
So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As I said at the beginning I happen to agree with Bill on the REX thing and the underlying issues on which he commented.
The problem is that my/this "SAFE, SAFER, SAFEST) agenda" is I suspect, directly contrary to the "perceived" interests of your operator constituency and would not be something on which you would win an election.
It is an agenda that is yet inevitable, so it must be better to lead than follow it.
Your organisation seems to be the last one standiing at least with any "visibility" to the public.
It may be, in Australia anyway, you need in these turbulent times to shift towards a broader representation of the "public" at large than the smaller and rapidly and unfortunately permanently diminishing "sectional" interests and to take hold of that vacant ground in order to remain relevant.
I use the words smaller, rapidly and permanently diminishing as I believe that this is a reality, relative to the past and population for the long term.
You can cut CASA and ASA costs to zero and it will not make one speck of real difference to the viability of Australian aviation until the punters learn or are taught to pay 2002 costs for 2002 technology and that includes Rexs passengers.
A look at the growth of the AUF anf the types that they fly are very real evidence of this.
In closing (at last they say)
How could I disagree with that in that context.
Though I think the point that comes out of that is, because
the
code for CASA have to increase the regulatory surveillance and impose inspections in direct proportion to the age of the aircraft and inversely proportional to the operators revenue to keep em shiny side up.
that's why
and the spiral to the bottom continues.
How do we stop what you call CAUS?
As I used to say my ATPL students, the answer is always in the question.
Good to see you around (since Feb I see
and I hope we can have some interesting debate about our passions (except perhaps my mrs gaunty and yours )I have had a bit of experience with the media and they do need careful handling, but at the end of the day, they are doing their job feeding the beast that they have created, and it is a bit of a symbiotic relationship.
Getting your stuff on the public agenda amongst all of the other noise without attracting sensationalist headlines is a bit of a trick.
Say nothing, nobody hears anything, say anything and you are front page.
I gave at a recent Coronial, evidence that some say was "controversial and damaging to the industry"
about the different levels of safety, based on cost rather than an understanding, available to FIFO operators and their clients.The "contoversial and damaging to the industry" evidence was a simple explanation of the difference in safety and surveillance levels between FAR Part 23 and 25 which are a matter of regulatory fact and the relevant cost issues they exposed in the choices made by the miners for the transport of their staff in this manner as a cheaper substitute for RPT to the nearest port.
The knowledge of which is held by very few, including many who should (including most pilots) and not the least bit understood by the FIFO pax and travelling public
I was as could be expected, met by a barrage of press and TV outside the court who after a looong morning of very dry technical and relatively uncontested testimony most of which they barely understood and were looking for some relief.
My evidence as far as I can tell was actively supported by CASA and particularly the ATSB.
They, the press, tried about one hundred and sixty different ways to get me to say that charter "wasn't safe" which was not what I said.
What I said was, that there was SAFE, SAFER and SAFEST and that there was an obligation on the part of the charterer to his staff to understand those differences in relation to the cost, which in the REAL world should be similiar, when selecting the appropriate level for travel.
Of course, and that is my point/agenda, for the passenger there should not be a "choice" or a "difference" unless they are FULLY informed.
as this is not practically possible then the Govt/regulator has to do something about it on their behalf.
After some vigourous discussion I agreed to be interviewed only on the understanding that they did not cut and paste a simple statement, to which they agreed.
And that was to the effect that the level of what we currently call SAFE was set well over 30 years ago in the light of the then available technology, but that the world has moved on a very long way to SAFER and it is way way past the time, that the industry moved with it
I guess the point is, I was only a "former aviation consultant", so I guess the effect was limited to whatever peoples preception of what one of "those" is or was.
If I had said it as an AOPA VP (Technical) I would have, not should have, been sacked in the ensuing uproar from your members.
So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As I said at the beginning I happen to agree with Bill on the REX thing and the underlying issues on which he commented.
The problem is that my/this "SAFE, SAFER, SAFEST) agenda" is I suspect, directly contrary to the "perceived" interests of your operator constituency and would not be something on which you would win an election.
It is an agenda that is yet inevitable, so it must be better to lead than follow it.
Your organisation seems to be the last one standiing at least with any "visibility" to the public.
It may be, in Australia anyway, you need in these turbulent times to shift towards a broader representation of the "public" at large than the smaller and rapidly and unfortunately permanently diminishing "sectional" interests and to take hold of that vacant ground in order to remain relevant.
I use the words smaller, rapidly and permanently diminishing as I believe that this is a reality, relative to the past and population for the long term.
You can cut CASA and ASA costs to zero and it will not make one speck of real difference to the viability of Australian aviation until the punters learn or are taught to pay 2002 costs for 2002 technology and that includes Rexs passengers.
A look at the growth of the AUF anf the types that they fly are very real evidence of this.
In closing (at last they say)
"The planes dont change, the route doesn't change, the weather doesn't change. Only thing that changes and gets worse are the regs. So I don't read em."
So you see, complexity breeds contempt. Therefore I put it to you that the CASRs are actually the CAURs. They are UNSAFE becuse they are fast losing relavence.
So you see, complexity breeds contempt. Therefore I put it to you that the CASRs are actually the CAURs. They are UNSAFE becuse they are fast losing relavence.
Though I think the point that comes out of that is, because
The planes dont change
worse are the regs.
that's why
So I don't read em
How do we stop what you call CAUS?
As I used to say my ATPL students, the answer is always in the question.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
You pushed post twice
I am sure the majority of our members want 'safer', but not 'more expensive'. I don't believe for a minute 10% of safer has to cost 300% of more expensive, but it does
But our members are many fold. We have non-radio (even no electrics, I have one of those) who fly in CTAFs. These are vintage and original and we owners want em to stay that way. So we resist RPT calls for mandatory transponders.
We don't gallop around the skies like idiots though, since many of our aircraft are camoflaged (mine is) we are acutely aware that we are hard to see and can't be heard. So we do our absolute best to not be where they are.
I tried to find the statistics on midairs between non-radio aircraft and RPT or charter (or even GA PVT), there aren't any. How can you get any safer that that???
We have GA (PVT) pilots and commercial operators. The latter are now in the minority (cost cutting) so they can hardly expect their view to predominate. All I can say is that if AOPA does something that doesn't suit a non-member...tough
The rest of the argument on transponders comes from AsA and RPT. Fine, as we have seen elsewhere, go the NZ model, pay for em!!! Then everyone (except aforementioned vintage types) will fit them. Even better, fit Mode S and save save save (along with 'safer')
As for AOPA, if you (all of you) don't agree with the direction, then join and change it. The current direction may not be unanimous within the Board, but it is the majority view. If anyone doesn't like it they can do what I did, get elected and try to change it.
I suppose to summarise, I welcome ideas on safer, especially when topped by an icing of cheaper.
Andrew Kerans
AOPA Director
You pushed post twice
I am sure the majority of our members want 'safer', but not 'more expensive'. I don't believe for a minute 10% of safer has to cost 300% of more expensive, but it does
But our members are many fold. We have non-radio (even no electrics, I have one of those) who fly in CTAFs. These are vintage and original and we owners want em to stay that way. So we resist RPT calls for mandatory transponders.
We don't gallop around the skies like idiots though, since many of our aircraft are camoflaged (mine is) we are acutely aware that we are hard to see and can't be heard. So we do our absolute best to not be where they are.
I tried to find the statistics on midairs between non-radio aircraft and RPT or charter (or even GA PVT), there aren't any. How can you get any safer that that???
We have GA (PVT) pilots and commercial operators. The latter are now in the minority (cost cutting) so they can hardly expect their view to predominate. All I can say is that if AOPA does something that doesn't suit a non-member...tough
The rest of the argument on transponders comes from AsA and RPT. Fine, as we have seen elsewhere, go the NZ model, pay for em!!! Then everyone (except aforementioned vintage types) will fit them. Even better, fit Mode S and save save save (along with 'safer')
As for AOPA, if you (all of you) don't agree with the direction, then join and change it. The current direction may not be unanimous within the Board, but it is the majority view. If anyone doesn't like it they can do what I did, get elected and try to change it.
I suppose to summarise, I welcome ideas on safer, especially when topped by an icing of cheaper.
Andrew Kerans
AOPA Director
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew
Oooops twice, sorry must have been a Freudian slip, my friends and enemies all agree that I do go on a bit.
Ahhh I see we are still a nation divided by a common language.
I cannot disagree with anything that you say with regard to the the private operators and pilots, especially the vintage and war bird operators who are professional to a fault.
And I agree 300%, that the law of diminishing returns does apply to some forms of regulation
I hasten to point out that my comments in re; SAFE, SAFER, SAFEST above were not aimed at "those" sections of your manifold membership. I am fortunate to count more than a few of "those" amongst my friends.
it was aimed at the GA, Low Cap RPT and Charter operators
The great movements we have seen in the regulator in the recent past have been driven by those "famous" accidents in the public transport arena, in the clean up after the depredations of single agenda activists and some of the "strolling adventurers and travellers" who have, unfortunately, "used' your organisation as the battering ram.
As a result, I suspect as far as the public is concerned, AOPA represent the Low Cap RPT and GA charter industry and can no longer "see" the very real but IMHO "separate" private agenda.
I don't profess to have the definitive answer or even the beginning of one, I just feel we need to define a little more clearly at what and whom CASA are aiming.
Using a howitzer to shoot turkeys is more likely to kill the sparrows.
Oooops twice, sorry must have been a Freudian slip, my friends and enemies all agree that I do go on a bit.
Ahhh I see we are still a nation divided by a common language.
I cannot disagree with anything that you say with regard to the the private operators and pilots, especially the vintage and war bird operators who are professional to a fault.
And I agree 300%, that the law of diminishing returns does apply to some forms of regulation
I hasten to point out that my comments in re; SAFE, SAFER, SAFEST above were not aimed at "those" sections of your manifold membership. I am fortunate to count more than a few of "those" amongst my friends.
it was aimed at the GA, Low Cap RPT and Charter operators
The great movements we have seen in the regulator in the recent past have been driven by those "famous" accidents in the public transport arena, in the clean up after the depredations of single agenda activists and some of the "strolling adventurers and travellers" who have, unfortunately, "used' your organisation as the battering ram.
As a result, I suspect as far as the public is concerned, AOPA represent the Low Cap RPT and GA charter industry and can no longer "see" the very real but IMHO "separate" private agenda.
I don't profess to have the definitive answer or even the beginning of one, I just feel we need to define a little more clearly at what and whom CASA are aiming.
Using a howitzer to shoot turkeys is more likely to kill the sparrows.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Gaunty.
If we read here most of the complaints are that PVT pilots won't get out of the sky to allow freedom of passage to the RPT Gods-and-owners-of-airspace
So how do we reconcile that. ????
My view, amateur as it is. All that above 8500 bilong big boys. All that below and at 8500 bilong pvt.
Big boy wanna fly pvt airspace, (s)he do it with care (except where tin-pushers make job easy)
If we read here most of the complaints are that PVT pilots won't get out of the sky to allow freedom of passage to the RPT Gods-and-owners-of-airspace
So how do we reconcile that. ????
My view, amateur as it is. All that above 8500 bilong big boys. All that below and at 8500 bilong pvt.
Big boy wanna fly pvt airspace, (s)he do it with care (except where tin-pushers make job easy)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cairns Qld
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
One of the problems (among many) that we human beings have is that there are some of us who will flout the rules, no matter what the consequences, and others who will try to do things by the book. This occurs in all parts of life and I am sure I can patronise you further, if I tried, by saying that I know you know this.
No matter what regulations are thrown at them there are some that will always try and break them and one of the guises used especially in GA is costs. Whether it be maintenance, fuel, wages, taxes, insurance etc etc the excuse used to justify poor management by operators is that costs are always rising and they can only afford so much, so we go for the safe, safer options. There is only one place to be if you are an operator. There are no options to be considered.
There are no simple answers apart from applying more and more stringent rules, policing them, and chucking out operators who fail to comply. Fine - works for me. But in the melee what happens.A lot of those operators whose businesses start failing therefore making them feel they should start cutting costs, pushing the envelope as far as flight and duty times, not following maintenance schedules are not bad people/pilots they are just bad businessmen. They have no idea how to run a business and they invariably employ the wrong people to help them run the business. Aviation is a difficult business to run but some things just follow. 1/ Maintain your aircraft to the highest standard and forward plan your maintenance. 2/ Look after your pilots. 3/Make sure your customers are always aware that your company always adheres to the first two points because the third point always looks after the first.
It is amazing how much customers know or sense about how safe your aviation business is even if they don't appear to.
And if you can't afford to do the first two points then you can't afford to be in the business of aviation.
Perhaps, if there was a compulsory course in business management coupled with a course of how to comply with CASA regs before they went into business a lot of aviation businesses would not start up and fewer would end up feeling they have to make the choice of safe, safer, safest.
One of the problems (among many) that we human beings have is that there are some of us who will flout the rules, no matter what the consequences, and others who will try to do things by the book. This occurs in all parts of life and I am sure I can patronise you further, if I tried, by saying that I know you know this.
No matter what regulations are thrown at them there are some that will always try and break them and one of the guises used especially in GA is costs. Whether it be maintenance, fuel, wages, taxes, insurance etc etc the excuse used to justify poor management by operators is that costs are always rising and they can only afford so much, so we go for the safe, safer options. There is only one place to be if you are an operator. There are no options to be considered.
There are no simple answers apart from applying more and more stringent rules, policing them, and chucking out operators who fail to comply. Fine - works for me. But in the melee what happens.A lot of those operators whose businesses start failing therefore making them feel they should start cutting costs, pushing the envelope as far as flight and duty times, not following maintenance schedules are not bad people/pilots they are just bad businessmen. They have no idea how to run a business and they invariably employ the wrong people to help them run the business. Aviation is a difficult business to run but some things just follow. 1/ Maintain your aircraft to the highest standard and forward plan your maintenance. 2/ Look after your pilots. 3/Make sure your customers are always aware that your company always adheres to the first two points because the third point always looks after the first.
It is amazing how much customers know or sense about how safe your aviation business is even if they don't appear to.
And if you can't afford to do the first two points then you can't afford to be in the business of aviation.
Perhaps, if there was a compulsory course in business management coupled with a course of how to comply with CASA regs before they went into business a lot of aviation businesses would not start up and fewer would end up feeling they have to make the choice of safe, safer, safest.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skychaser
I agree absolutely.
What I was talking about in relation to SAFE, SAFER and SAFEST was not the regulatoryand surveillance actions required and whether or not the operator was doing the right thing, but the fundamental differences in safety "philosophy" for want of a different term, between the the two levels of certification i.e. FAR Part 23 for Normal Category aircraft < 5700kgs and FAR Part 25 for Transport Category aircraft >5700kgs.
For reasons of expediency and lack of immediately available equipment and as a transition instrument only, the FAA introduced a "Commuter Category" certification which lifted the FAR Part 23 Normal Category certification requirements as far as it was technically possible towards the requirement of FAR Part 25. This "Commuter Category" is due for 'repeal' I believe in about 2010.
It needs to be understood that the weight "distinction" was not jus an arbitrary one in the context of the development of the regs.
It was to separate and provide the basic standards for PRIVATE use of small aircraft (for that purpose defined as <5700kgs) from those intended to be used in the provision of TRANSPORT services to the public generally.
Simply, the philosophy being that the use of small aircraft for PRIVATE ops was considered to be "informed".
The public at large required, or it was considered necessary, a higher level of protection.
It is thus that I think of the different levels as
FAR 23 = SAFE
Commuter SFAR 23 = SAFER
FAR25 = SAFEST.
I agree absolutely.
What I was talking about in relation to SAFE, SAFER and SAFEST was not the regulatoryand surveillance actions required and whether or not the operator was doing the right thing, but the fundamental differences in safety "philosophy" for want of a different term, between the the two levels of certification i.e. FAR Part 23 for Normal Category aircraft < 5700kgs and FAR Part 25 for Transport Category aircraft >5700kgs.
For reasons of expediency and lack of immediately available equipment and as a transition instrument only, the FAA introduced a "Commuter Category" certification which lifted the FAR Part 23 Normal Category certification requirements as far as it was technically possible towards the requirement of FAR Part 25. This "Commuter Category" is due for 'repeal' I believe in about 2010.
It needs to be understood that the weight "distinction" was not jus an arbitrary one in the context of the development of the regs.
It was to separate and provide the basic standards for PRIVATE use of small aircraft (for that purpose defined as <5700kgs) from those intended to be used in the provision of TRANSPORT services to the public generally.
Simply, the philosophy being that the use of small aircraft for PRIVATE ops was considered to be "informed".
The public at large required, or it was considered necessary, a higher level of protection.
It is thus that I think of the different levels as
FAR 23 = SAFE
Commuter SFAR 23 = SAFER
FAR25 = SAFEST.
