The state of aviation
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Woop Woop
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Educate the young... Imagine how many young passionate pilots we would have if people actually went into the schools, encouraged kids to go for a flight. Some people realise they were born to fly, but they never realise this until they've been up before.
It is definately a must to promote the safety of aviation! The general population are paranoid of flying because the only news on planes they see is plane crashes... Maybe CASA should be doing a bit more to show the public the safety of aviation!
As for prices, well, I guess the only way to get flying cheaper is to get more people involved... This proves my point that Aviation needs to be better promoted in Australia.
It is definately a must to promote the safety of aviation! The general population are paranoid of flying because the only news on planes they see is plane crashes... Maybe CASA should be doing a bit more to show the public the safety of aviation!
As for prices, well, I guess the only way to get flying cheaper is to get more people involved... This proves my point that Aviation needs to be better promoted in Australia.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Where ever there is sprayin'
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going right back to the beginning, there really is a huge general opion that 'light' planes are dangerous. I have many friends who won't fly because they are quite simply too scared. They would much prefer to drive for 10 hours, rather then fly.
Once you get rid of that fear, then I believe you can tackle all the other issues.
It is really amazing how things change when people are busy making money! The bitching subsides, the dobbing the operator next door into CASA stops and so on.
It is a simple as getting people to start flying and then things will flow from there
Lets get some positive attitude happening, instead of all this rubbish that keep going round and round and round and.............
ST
Once you get rid of that fear, then I believe you can tackle all the other issues.
It is really amazing how things change when people are busy making money! The bitching subsides, the dobbing the operator next door into CASA stops and so on.
It is a simple as getting people to start flying and then things will flow from there
Lets get some positive attitude happening, instead of all this rubbish that keep going round and round and round and.............
ST
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety and understanding from within and outside the industry
Truthfullness from the employers
A united front from the present pilots in the industry
A fair days work for a fair days pay, (can of worms there)
Motivation
motivation
motivation
My love for flying got me where I am, I had many rather high fences to climb with many hidden and blatent disruptions along the way, I think it is worth it (so far).
Truthfullness from the employers
A united front from the present pilots in the industry
A fair days work for a fair days pay, (can of worms there)
Motivation
motivation
motivation
My love for flying got me where I am, I had many rather high fences to climb with many hidden and blatent disruptions along the way, I think it is worth it (so far).
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intrepid & Ozbusdriver
Entry to the professions is not limited by the professions but by the entry score necessary to gain entry to the university. In other words you have to show that you are intellectually capable of meeting the standards required before being allowed entry.
I fundamentally disagree that you should limit entry to commercial/ATPL pilots courses by what the industry needs. It smacks of totalitarianism.
If someone wants to do it, is capable of doing it and can afford it then it is their fundamental right to be able to do so. 
I do agree that there needs to be some truth from the training companies IF they are asked about the possibilities of work but it is not their responsibility to dissuade people who want to train for a commercial licence.
Before you ask I am not an instructor. A couple of years ago I was associated with an aero club that provided flight training and it was my experience there that most students were looking for a PPL however some then decided to continue on. It was always our policy to be honest about the chances of employment.
The pressures in GA is likely to lead to fewer companies who are larger, have more resources and are professionally managed. There are also likely to be the niche companies that fulfil a specific need.
GA does need to get away from the mindset of pilot/manager, most of whom seem to have established their businesses to provide the owner with flying or a lifestyle. It leads to all kinds of evils such as the exploitation of pilots, substandard or very ordinary maintenance and other dangerous practices.
Entry to the professions is not limited by the professions but by the entry score necessary to gain entry to the university. In other words you have to show that you are intellectually capable of meeting the standards required before being allowed entry.
I fundamentally disagree that you should limit entry to commercial/ATPL pilots courses by what the industry needs. It smacks of totalitarianism.
If someone wants to do it, is capable of doing it and can afford it then it is their fundamental right to be able to do so. I do agree that there needs to be some truth from the training companies IF they are asked about the possibilities of work but it is not their responsibility to dissuade people who want to train for a commercial licence.
Before you ask I am not an instructor. A couple of years ago I was associated with an aero club that provided flight training and it was my experience there that most students were looking for a PPL however some then decided to continue on. It was always our policy to be honest about the chances of employment.
The pressures in GA is likely to lead to fewer companies who are larger, have more resources and are professionally managed. There are also likely to be the niche companies that fulfil a specific need.
GA does need to get away from the mindset of pilot/manager, most of whom seem to have established their businesses to provide the owner with flying or a lifestyle. It leads to all kinds of evils such as the exploitation of pilots, substandard or very ordinary maintenance and other dangerous practices.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fundamentally disagree that you should limit entry to commercial/ATPL pilots courses by what the industry needs. It smacks of totalitarianism.[QUOTE]
I agree. There's no way you can limit the number of proffessionals in an industry without sounding like Karl Marx. Same with lawyers. This country (USA) and probably oz now, is inundated with lawyers. IT's the same deal as aviation. Jobs are scarce. The ones that stick with it are usually people that actually want to be lawyers and not people who don't know what else to do with their lives.
I agree. There's no way you can limit the number of proffessionals in an industry without sounding like Karl Marx. Same with lawyers. This country (USA) and probably oz now, is inundated with lawyers. IT's the same deal as aviation. Jobs are scarce. The ones that stick with it are usually people that actually want to be lawyers and not people who don't know what else to do with their lives.
I think that you will find that there are absolute limits on numbers with most professions in Australia. Certainly anything trained inside the University system (Med, Law, Desntistry, Architecture etc.) has number limits, although they are varied in a regulated way. So by and large you already have 'totalitarianism' but that is not always a bad thing - haven't seen too many doctors offering to work for free for the experience or paying to perform surgery!
Pilots (if you call them a profession) are one of the few where it is a free for all and as such it just turns instructing into the biggest legal pyramid game around!
Pilots (if you call them a profession) are one of the few where it is a free for all and as such it just turns instructing into the biggest legal pyramid game around!
Limited entry to professions
Just to correct a couple of mis-statements:
Entry to Law is NOT regulated, beyond the number of places available at University. There is one Law qualification in NSW which enrols over 1,600 students each semester and you only need to get a TER of 50, or have a degree (ANY degree), or have worked in a solicitors office or a court for more than x years. It is also much cheaper than a normal degree with fees in the order of $400 per subject (as against $2,000 at Uni).
Only 2-300 people graduate from that course each semester.
I think that is comparable to GA where you can get in if you put up the cash, but only so many 'make it' at the end. Many many more end up moving sideways or opting out before the end of their working lives.
Surgeons and specialists colleges will let you enroll and study, but you earn about $30 per hour as a Registrar in the public hospitals (ie, as an aprentice surgeon). That is compensated for by the fact you work 90+ hours per week.
At the end of it all you will only pass your exams and become a surgeon or Gynie or whatever if the college thinks there is room in the profession.
The Bar is similar - a mate of mine, newly minted as a barrister, was told to have at least $100,000 in the bank before he got up and running.
All worthwhile professions have thir hurdles - some artificial, some natural - and that is what makes the difference between earning $35k in GA and $300k in QF.
Entry to Law is NOT regulated, beyond the number of places available at University. There is one Law qualification in NSW which enrols over 1,600 students each semester and you only need to get a TER of 50, or have a degree (ANY degree), or have worked in a solicitors office or a court for more than x years. It is also much cheaper than a normal degree with fees in the order of $400 per subject (as against $2,000 at Uni).
Only 2-300 people graduate from that course each semester.
I think that is comparable to GA where you can get in if you put up the cash, but only so many 'make it' at the end. Many many more end up moving sideways or opting out before the end of their working lives.
Surgeons and specialists colleges will let you enroll and study, but you earn about $30 per hour as a Registrar in the public hospitals (ie, as an aprentice surgeon). That is compensated for by the fact you work 90+ hours per week.
At the end of it all you will only pass your exams and become a surgeon or Gynie or whatever if the college thinks there is room in the profession.
The Bar is similar - a mate of mine, newly minted as a barrister, was told to have at least $100,000 in the bank before he got up and running.
All worthwhile professions have thir hurdles - some artificial, some natural - and that is what makes the difference between earning $35k in GA and $300k in QF.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Where ever there is sprayin'
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not this hard....................... Starting with the basics, like getting more bot bots on seats of GA / charter aircraft would begin to solve the basis of all the problems you are talking about.
Ask people who are not involved with aviation if they like flying and if why / why not etc. My company invite the local schools to bring their students out for a tour of the airport, sit in a plane, talk to pilots, watch a short video etc. And then what do the kids ask for chrissy or next birthday? A TIF!!!!!!! It is generating interest in aviation.
If we all just keep sitting around arguing the state of aviation, then of course nothing very much is going to happen.
Get a bit more excited and find a way of been proactive.
ST
Ask people who are not involved with aviation if they like flying and if why / why not etc. My company invite the local schools to bring their students out for a tour of the airport, sit in a plane, talk to pilots, watch a short video etc. And then what do the kids ask for chrissy or next birthday? A TIF!!!!!!! It is generating interest in aviation.
If we all just keep sitting around arguing the state of aviation, then of course nothing very much is going to happen.
Get a bit more excited and find a way of been proactive.
ST
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett and Druglord,
We appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I read the topic again and 'The state of aviation' I guess means different things to different people. If you work on the side of aviation which makes revenue and ostensibly profit, such as training schools, private hire etc then any restriction on bringing prospective CPL students with nice bank accounts into the system will be opposed. No argument here, after all those owners have to make a living too.
However I still think that a more rigorous selection process into CPL programs would benefit the industry as a whole due to a better quality of pilot (and not quantity of pilot) filtering through to commercial operations. Hopefully safety and professionalism would be enhanced and wages for new GA pilots would be more reflective of their contribution to the industry.
I am sure the owners wouldn't dream of holding their young pilots to ransom (allegedly occurring in Darwin over the last few months) if there were no sausage factory lining up new fodder for employment. And before you ask, I am not a CPL pilot, only PPL and happy to stay that way. But from my ATC perch I have seen too many prospective CPL's walk away from the industry because the jobs they thought were out there simply don't exist and they spend the next ten years paying off their flying debts with a very bitter taste in their mouths.
Remember I am NOT advocating restricting private flying. The more PPL's the better. But providing a system whereby selection through to CPL (and thereby through to an industry with scarce paid positions) based on merit and not only on an ability to pay must be a fairer and more equitable way to go. What's wrong with providing better job opportunities for CPL's? Obviously flying schools etc won't agree as they have a vested financial interest from pumping CPL's into the market with gay abandon and if the original idea of this topic was to promote ideas to enhance flying schools then clearly my suggestions are ill advised and I apologise for posting.
But if the GA industry includes the pilots as well as the operators then surely we can examine ideas to achieve benefits to both.
"Entry to the professions is not limited by the professions but by the entry score necessary to gain entry to the university"
By the way Plovett, those tertiary entrance scores are governed directly by the professions. They are essentially a barrier to entry. The scores are calculated to provide only the MOST academically predispoed number of year 12 students, through the tertiary system, into those industries with a DEMAND for new entrants. Without tertiary entrance scores year 12 students would be choosing career paths based on desire, glamor factor, earnings potential and interest in the profession alone without any consideration for the requisite academic ability that might be required to succeed in such a career.
Would you advocate allowing all those with the intellectual ability and cash to pay for the tuition into medical school if the jobs for those doctors didn't exist at the other end?? If the mandatory retirement age was suddenly increased by five years I can guarantee tertiary places temporarily drying up. The demand for new employees must exist first no matter how many suitably qualified or cashed up youngsters want to join the industry.
That's why bodies such as QTAC in QLD exist, to screen and funnel academically predisposed individuals into professions that REQUIRE new entrants. The demand for those new entrants MUST first exist. GA has no such screening process.
We appear to be talking at cross-purposes. I read the topic again and 'The state of aviation' I guess means different things to different people. If you work on the side of aviation which makes revenue and ostensibly profit, such as training schools, private hire etc then any restriction on bringing prospective CPL students with nice bank accounts into the system will be opposed. No argument here, after all those owners have to make a living too.
However I still think that a more rigorous selection process into CPL programs would benefit the industry as a whole due to a better quality of pilot (and not quantity of pilot) filtering through to commercial operations. Hopefully safety and professionalism would be enhanced and wages for new GA pilots would be more reflective of their contribution to the industry.
I am sure the owners wouldn't dream of holding their young pilots to ransom (allegedly occurring in Darwin over the last few months) if there were no sausage factory lining up new fodder for employment. And before you ask, I am not a CPL pilot, only PPL and happy to stay that way. But from my ATC perch I have seen too many prospective CPL's walk away from the industry because the jobs they thought were out there simply don't exist and they spend the next ten years paying off their flying debts with a very bitter taste in their mouths.
Remember I am NOT advocating restricting private flying. The more PPL's the better. But providing a system whereby selection through to CPL (and thereby through to an industry with scarce paid positions) based on merit and not only on an ability to pay must be a fairer and more equitable way to go. What's wrong with providing better job opportunities for CPL's? Obviously flying schools etc won't agree as they have a vested financial interest from pumping CPL's into the market with gay abandon and if the original idea of this topic was to promote ideas to enhance flying schools then clearly my suggestions are ill advised and I apologise for posting.
But if the GA industry includes the pilots as well as the operators then surely we can examine ideas to achieve benefits to both.
"Entry to the professions is not limited by the professions but by the entry score necessary to gain entry to the university"
By the way Plovett, those tertiary entrance scores are governed directly by the professions. They are essentially a barrier to entry. The scores are calculated to provide only the MOST academically predispoed number of year 12 students, through the tertiary system, into those industries with a DEMAND for new entrants. Without tertiary entrance scores year 12 students would be choosing career paths based on desire, glamor factor, earnings potential and interest in the profession alone without any consideration for the requisite academic ability that might be required to succeed in such a career.
Would you advocate allowing all those with the intellectual ability and cash to pay for the tuition into medical school if the jobs for those doctors didn't exist at the other end?? If the mandatory retirement age was suddenly increased by five years I can guarantee tertiary places temporarily drying up. The demand for new employees must exist first no matter how many suitably qualified or cashed up youngsters want to join the industry.
That's why bodies such as QTAC in QLD exist, to screen and funnel academically predisposed individuals into professions that REQUIRE new entrants. The demand for those new entrants MUST first exist. GA has no such screening process.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This country (USA) and probably oz now, is inundated with lawyers.
Once spoke to a friend at QANTAS about the merits of the cadet scheme at my age with the thoughts of borrowing the money - he said if you have around $30,000 to spare they will consider you
along with the Doctor's sons from Shore and Grammar *sigh*
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, the GA horse has bolted
I'm concerned that as prices for everything in GA keep going up fewer and fewer people with part with their readies ..... the whole industry will hit a point where it is no longer feasible for LAMEs to keep going, pilot shops, flying schools, etc.
Flying is never going to be cheap, but the sale of airports to property developers and super fund managers et al, the requirement for government corporations to become self funding or even profitable, and a series of governments intent upon destroying any cross subsidisation has left us in a position where it will be too expensive to go back.
What's the future? Sport aviation? Sure, if you just want to burn holes in the sky .... but what about GA as a valid form of personal and public transportation? GA requires access to certain infrastructure and a certain industry critical mass.
I hope I'm wrong, but all I see suggests that GA will be dead in the capital cities and larger regional centres within 15 years. Not necessarily so the outback, it'll just keep on in its crooked way ripping off pilots and throwing dodgy 40 year old aircraft into the air.
Bleak, huh?
Flying is never going to be cheap, but the sale of airports to property developers and super fund managers et al, the requirement for government corporations to become self funding or even profitable, and a series of governments intent upon destroying any cross subsidisation has left us in a position where it will be too expensive to go back.
What's the future? Sport aviation? Sure, if you just want to burn holes in the sky .... but what about GA as a valid form of personal and public transportation? GA requires access to certain infrastructure and a certain industry critical mass.
I hope I'm wrong, but all I see suggests that GA will be dead in the capital cities and larger regional centres within 15 years. Not necessarily so the outback, it'll just keep on in its crooked way ripping off pilots and throwing dodgy 40 year old aircraft into the air.
Bleak, huh?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The Desert
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I worked on cattle stations, I noticed a big frigin semi pass by the roadhouse. Not unusual you say! Well the truck was full of fruit and veg. Some of it had been picked at a nearby orchid not 2 days earlier. A truck took the fruit and veg south to Adelaide-1DAY, was off loaded and sorted then loaded onto another truck then all the way to Darwin passing through the local town- 2DAYS. The fruit and veg was then off loaded in Darwin and another smaller truck brought it back to the same place it was grown- 3DAYS. Guess how much a KG of oranges was- $10 a friggin KG for non fresh fruit. The locals who grew the stuff were threatened as they were going to set up their own outlet in town.
Get a union to represent the interests of the GA industry, get rid of the TWU as their main concern is to feather the truckies.
Imagine the work that would be created if someone took on the road transport people and unions. Australia could have the Kingair haulin the load in half the time, less trucks on the road, a good thing.
Get a union to represent the interests of the GA industry, get rid of the TWU as their main concern is to feather the truckies.
Imagine the work that would be created if someone took on the road transport people and unions. Australia could have the Kingair haulin the load in half the time, less trucks on the road, a good thing.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GA horse is still very much in the paddock in NZ.
the difference here is cr@p government policy and a cr@ppier regulator.
Instructor wages arent the answer, increase those and hourly rates go up, that will kill GA for sure.
we need to get overheads down, like parking, AsA fees, fuel taxes and insurance. A reduction of $20 an hour op costs could lead to $2500 a year increase for high end instructors.
the difference here is cr@p government policy and a cr@ppier regulator.
Instructor wages arent the answer, increase those and hourly rates go up, that will kill GA for sure.
we need to get overheads down, like parking, AsA fees, fuel taxes and insurance. A reduction of $20 an hour op costs could lead to $2500 a year increase for high end instructors.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obiwan firstly I'd like to commend your bounty system on the lawyers. Lawyer season doesn't start until December here, so I'm biding my time and thanking the american fifth ammendment (the right to bear arms I think) for the right to carry a fully automatic.
Intrepid, firstly don't think that your opinion is any less valuable or important because you're a ppl and not a cpl/atpl. I like these forums because it takes away that faux heirarchy. The only problem with that is that intelligent pilots don't always make good pilots or safe ones. High motivation and interest in the job seems to produce better than book smarts
Intrepid, firstly don't think that your opinion is any less valuable or important because you're a ppl and not a cpl/atpl. I like these forums because it takes away that faux heirarchy. The only problem with that is that intelligent pilots don't always make good pilots or safe ones. High motivation and interest in the job seems to produce better than book smarts
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intrepid
Entry to university courses are NOT regulated by the professions but by the individual university. They are set at a level which the university believes will ensure that a student who attains that level will be able to cope with the courses.
There are some universities that use a different method. For example the University of Tasmania will not allow any student to start a law degree unless they have successfully completed a year in another degree course. Even then the failure rate at the end of first year law is about 2/3 of the course.
In a discussion with the Dean of the faculty in Tasmania he told me that the faculty was constantly resisting attempts by the profession to alter the courses to suit the profession. In fact the faculty felt that it had a strong need to protect the academic value of the course from the wish of the profession to turn it into vocational training.
Emphatically YES. I believe in free choice - not a "guided choice" to ensure you meet a defined need.
However, back to the topic. I don't think there is any way you can regulate the number of CPL students in the way you suggest. That many will not find jobs is immaterial - there are no promises in any career - why should aviation be different?
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not in favour of flying schools selling some rosy image of the profession with debatable promises made for work at the end of the training.
However, if a person believes they have what it takes to be a commercial pilot (and lets be honest with the barriers to achieving the desired end you have to be forever besotted with flying to even consider it) then they should not be stopped.
Incidentally, I don't think it is a bad idea for PPL pilots to consider commercial training even if they don't want to ever be a commercial pilot. The training will lead to an improvement of skills.
For the record I do not work as a flying instructor nor do I ever intend to. The company I work for does have a flight training division but not where I am based. I have nothing to do with that division.
Entry to university courses are NOT regulated by the professions but by the individual university. They are set at a level which the university believes will ensure that a student who attains that level will be able to cope with the courses.
There are some universities that use a different method. For example the University of Tasmania will not allow any student to start a law degree unless they have successfully completed a year in another degree course. Even then the failure rate at the end of first year law is about 2/3 of the course.
In a discussion with the Dean of the faculty in Tasmania he told me that the faculty was constantly resisting attempts by the profession to alter the courses to suit the profession. In fact the faculty felt that it had a strong need to protect the academic value of the course from the wish of the profession to turn it into vocational training.
Would you advocate allowing all those with the intellectual ability and cash to pay for the tuition into medical school if the jobs for those doctors didn't exist at the other end??
However, back to the topic. I don't think there is any way you can regulate the number of CPL students in the way you suggest. That many will not find jobs is immaterial - there are no promises in any career - why should aviation be different?
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not in favour of flying schools selling some rosy image of the profession with debatable promises made for work at the end of the training.
However, if a person believes they have what it takes to be a commercial pilot (and lets be honest with the barriers to achieving the desired end you have to be forever besotted with flying to even consider it) then they should not be stopped.
Incidentally, I don't think it is a bad idea for PPL pilots to consider commercial training even if they don't want to ever be a commercial pilot. The training will lead to an improvement of skills.
For the record I do not work as a flying instructor nor do I ever intend to. The company I work for does have a flight training division but not where I am based. I have nothing to do with that division.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the posters I believe have come close to the mark in identifying the many problems of GA. There is no single answer, other than we must work together with the aim of getting Canberra on side and showing that we are a responsible industry.
I understand that in 1935 an hours flying cost about a weeks wage.. By that mark it is too cheap these days..???
Why does almost every insurance policy have an exclusion for non airline aviation activity? The most dangerous part of an airplane journey is driving to the airport, but it seems nobody has convinced the insurers of this.
Today there are many alternative activities for young people to spend their money on. Many of these did not exist 20 + years ago so the number of entry PPLs now is much less - because they choose to do something else. Just look at the average age at your local aero club etc.. Most would be well over 40 and many clubs it would be over 50. The average age of LAMEs recently was around 55 or so I understand. Who is going to maintain your aeroplane in 10 yrs time??
There are far too many flying schools. Someone once said there is around 400 places to learn to fly, but only a dozen or so where you can train to be a lawyer. If this is anywhere near correct it shows there is a problem within the training industry – and perhaps how it is regulated.
You cannot stop people spending their money and learning to fly but you can raise the bar on entry to professional licence training. Doing this would significantly reduce the number of schools providing CPL> training. I think perhaps the bar is there but the regulator does not enforce it. Certainly the standard at the end of the sausage machine these days is way down on the standard 15+ yrs ago. It was said not long back that an average CPL doing a test today would not have passed a PPL 15 yrs ago. From what I have seen of late, I would have to agree.
Efforts to get the industry to act with one voice (such as AUSAC) have either failed or not had the support of all the industry. Why is this so? Well the ego's and the failure of many to want to act as part of a team is part of the reason. The desire to push single agenda's and programs that might only benefit part of the industry dominate the desire to act in the greater good. There must be some give and take. Many don't want to give (guess?).
What can be done? I suggest that the only salvation will come from Government when they are presented with collective representation on the problems and what the options might be.
Many of the answers have been listed above, but obviously include those relating to costs and charging policies. Have a look at the depreciation schedule for aircraft in the USA and compare with here and you have one potential answer.
Unless the industry get together and work for the greater good I don't see any light in the tunnel. The training standards issue is one for the regulator, but I don't hold my breath on any real change there. Too much commercial pressure!
We need to work at it collectively and hope for some luck along the way, otherwise it will continue to get worse.
I understand that in 1935 an hours flying cost about a weeks wage.. By that mark it is too cheap these days..???
Why does almost every insurance policy have an exclusion for non airline aviation activity? The most dangerous part of an airplane journey is driving to the airport, but it seems nobody has convinced the insurers of this.
Today there are many alternative activities for young people to spend their money on. Many of these did not exist 20 + years ago so the number of entry PPLs now is much less - because they choose to do something else. Just look at the average age at your local aero club etc.. Most would be well over 40 and many clubs it would be over 50. The average age of LAMEs recently was around 55 or so I understand. Who is going to maintain your aeroplane in 10 yrs time??
There are far too many flying schools. Someone once said there is around 400 places to learn to fly, but only a dozen or so where you can train to be a lawyer. If this is anywhere near correct it shows there is a problem within the training industry – and perhaps how it is regulated.
You cannot stop people spending their money and learning to fly but you can raise the bar on entry to professional licence training. Doing this would significantly reduce the number of schools providing CPL> training. I think perhaps the bar is there but the regulator does not enforce it. Certainly the standard at the end of the sausage machine these days is way down on the standard 15+ yrs ago. It was said not long back that an average CPL doing a test today would not have passed a PPL 15 yrs ago. From what I have seen of late, I would have to agree.
Efforts to get the industry to act with one voice (such as AUSAC) have either failed or not had the support of all the industry. Why is this so? Well the ego's and the failure of many to want to act as part of a team is part of the reason. The desire to push single agenda's and programs that might only benefit part of the industry dominate the desire to act in the greater good. There must be some give and take. Many don't want to give (guess?).
What can be done? I suggest that the only salvation will come from Government when they are presented with collective representation on the problems and what the options might be.
Many of the answers have been listed above, but obviously include those relating to costs and charging policies. Have a look at the depreciation schedule for aircraft in the USA and compare with here and you have one potential answer.
Unless the industry get together and work for the greater good I don't see any light in the tunnel. The training standards issue is one for the regulator, but I don't hold my breath on any real change there. Too much commercial pressure!
We need to work at it collectively and hope for some luck along the way, otherwise it will continue to get worse.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think AUSAC has suceesed vey well. You may care to cast blame, but a group of essentially self appointed persons has to do a little more than simply announce their presence before all groups of industry are going to allow them to represent us.
Other than that, all groups did put into the AUSAC process, including the new AOPA Board.
Other than that, all groups did put into the AUSAC process, including the new AOPA Board.
Thread Starter
Thanks all for some good replies!!!
But me being only one person in the industry I have no idea where to take this now. I am seriously interested in changing things - but how...?
PM me if you like.
But me being only one person in the industry I have no idea where to take this now. I am seriously interested in changing things - but how...?
PM me if you like.
Thread Starter
Copied from another thread... (and edited a little)
quote
To change Government policy you need the general public behind you, in support of the changes you want. In other words to get the government to support a GA agenda, the general public need to percieve GA is a very good thing.
Now, in my humble opinion, the General public view of GA is something like :
"what??????" Aviation is about Qantas, Virgin Blue and BIG planes or military jets. Aviation is about me going to Surfers paradise by plane to see Aunty Moira or a B747 from Sydney to London. Little planes are either bringing crayfish from King Island so I can buy em cheap, playthings of rich silvertails, or things that give me a $60 twenty minute ride for a thrill."
1. Produce some concrete statistics about the size and value of GA to the Australian economy, lets start with contribution to GDP as a percentage and dollar figure, employment - especially compared to RPT operators, number of aircraft, hours flown, numbers of flights, passenger miles, number of passengers, tax revenue, etc. etc. The purpose of this twofold: establish the importance of GA to the AUstralain economy, compare it to the RPT operators as well. Are we important to the Australian economy? Do we therefore have interests that should legitimately be considered? Are we merely a wart on the bum of progress? These figures will prove it one way or the other.
2. Build a vision. What should GA look like in twenty years? Ten years? Five years?
3. Get a first rate PR firm to turn your vision into comprehensible position and policy statements that the general public can understand and agree with. Intersperse the statements with FACTS to support the argument ie: "Did you know that Qantas employs 35,000 and has revenues of 2 billion ? Well GA employs 150,000 people and has revenues of $4.5 billion". " Did you know that Bankstown airport generates x,000 jobs and Y,000 million in wages? " "Did you know that z,000 people are moved to hospital by GA every year? In other words build a simple case about why GA is GOOD for Australia.
4. Sell the message to the General Public for a few years in as many ways possible - (for example, why do you think the motorcycle riders association has an annual christmas toy collection for disadvantaged kids?
5. Once you can PROVE that the General Public has a good perception of GA, and that GA is "at risk" in some way, then talk to the public servants concerned with regulating you and work out whats feasible and what is not. Work out what is going to give you some win/win situations ie: something good for GA, good for the public servants, good for CASA, ASA or whatever, and good in terms of votes for the Minister. unquote
Found a good website which gives all (or at least most) of the stats that sunfish suggests.
http://www.btre.gov.au/avstats/docs/
Now I want to ask you - what should aviation be like in (insert appropriate period of time).
The figures I have skimmed over tell me that we are not harnessing our potential in carriage of pax and freight. Overwhelmingly, people travel places in cars and freight goes by sea/road. I understand that we cant carry things like coal etc but surely we can carry more than 0.1% of ffreight??
Anyway I'd like to hear your opinions.
quote
To change Government policy you need the general public behind you, in support of the changes you want. In other words to get the government to support a GA agenda, the general public need to percieve GA is a very good thing.
Now, in my humble opinion, the General public view of GA is something like :
"what??????" Aviation is about Qantas, Virgin Blue and BIG planes or military jets. Aviation is about me going to Surfers paradise by plane to see Aunty Moira or a B747 from Sydney to London. Little planes are either bringing crayfish from King Island so I can buy em cheap, playthings of rich silvertails, or things that give me a $60 twenty minute ride for a thrill."
1. Produce some concrete statistics about the size and value of GA to the Australian economy, lets start with contribution to GDP as a percentage and dollar figure, employment - especially compared to RPT operators, number of aircraft, hours flown, numbers of flights, passenger miles, number of passengers, tax revenue, etc. etc. The purpose of this twofold: establish the importance of GA to the AUstralain economy, compare it to the RPT operators as well. Are we important to the Australian economy? Do we therefore have interests that should legitimately be considered? Are we merely a wart on the bum of progress? These figures will prove it one way or the other.
2. Build a vision. What should GA look like in twenty years? Ten years? Five years?
3. Get a first rate PR firm to turn your vision into comprehensible position and policy statements that the general public can understand and agree with. Intersperse the statements with FACTS to support the argument ie: "Did you know that Qantas employs 35,000 and has revenues of 2 billion ? Well GA employs 150,000 people and has revenues of $4.5 billion". " Did you know that Bankstown airport generates x,000 jobs and Y,000 million in wages? " "Did you know that z,000 people are moved to hospital by GA every year? In other words build a simple case about why GA is GOOD for Australia.
4. Sell the message to the General Public for a few years in as many ways possible - (for example, why do you think the motorcycle riders association has an annual christmas toy collection for disadvantaged kids?
5. Once you can PROVE that the General Public has a good perception of GA, and that GA is "at risk" in some way, then talk to the public servants concerned with regulating you and work out whats feasible and what is not. Work out what is going to give you some win/win situations ie: something good for GA, good for the public servants, good for CASA, ASA or whatever, and good in terms of votes for the Minister. unquote
Found a good website which gives all (or at least most) of the stats that sunfish suggests.
http://www.btre.gov.au/avstats/docs/
Now I want to ask you - what should aviation be like in (insert appropriate period of time).
The figures I have skimmed over tell me that we are not harnessing our potential in carriage of pax and freight. Overwhelmingly, people travel places in cars and freight goes by sea/road. I understand that we cant carry things like coal etc but surely we can carry more than 0.1% of ffreight??
Anyway I'd like to hear your opinions.
