CTAF - yet more changes.
Table 1 on page 13 of the linked report clearly shows the GA activity levels which I quoted. The data has never been collected by CASA, always by BITRE and its predecessors who send aircraft operators a survey form every year.
The data published by Dick Smith is very selective. it is only private and business flying, ommitting training, aerial ag., charter, ultralight (RA-Aus) and gliding. His site says it is BITRE data. Again, see here: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...tivity2010.pdf
Table 2 breaks it up further.
The CASA annual report provides data on a range of matters, including enforcement action taken. See here: http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma.../ar1112_p6.pdf
Enforcement action is at page 173 of the report. Numbers are interesting given there are 37,776 licensed flight crew, 860 AOC and 733 CoA. Small proportion of misbehavors in our ranks. Note also the actions taken to AAT and judicial review-page 171, 172
The data published by Dick Smith is very selective. it is only private and business flying, ommitting training, aerial ag., charter, ultralight (RA-Aus) and gliding. His site says it is BITRE data. Again, see here: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...tivity2010.pdf
Table 2 breaks it up further.
The CASA annual report provides data on a range of matters, including enforcement action taken. See here: http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma.../ar1112_p6.pdf
Enforcement action is at page 173 of the report. Numbers are interesting given there are 37,776 licensed flight crew, 860 AOC and 733 CoA. Small proportion of misbehavors in our ranks. Note also the actions taken to AAT and judicial review-page 171, 172
Which regulations have changed that make VFR private flying harder or more expensive? When I learned to fly in 1975, it cost $30/hr dual on a graduate engineer pre tax income of $100/week. Today it could cost $250 on a graduate engineer income of about $1200/week.
When I learned to fly, I went solo in 7 hours, which was about average. Now the average seems to be 12. Syllabus changes, safety systems and general risk aversion has slowed everything down.
In 1974 I paid $14 solo / $22 dual for a PA28 (VH-CHR) at the now defunct Casey Airfield with Bill Campbell-Hicks. The member rate for a Warrior at Tyabb (an equivalent outer suburban airfield) is now $198 / $294. In 1974 there were basically no airnav / landing charges, but now they are added to hire cost. My first job as a graduate engineer paid $11,500pa. A Graduate engineer now is probably about $65k. So aircraft hire has gone up more than 14 times vs about 5.5 times for wages (or at least Graduate engineers).
Replaced Air Navigation Charges, an annual fee based on MTOW and general tax funding of the aviation bureaucracy including ATC and Safet Regulation around the time of the Bosch Report.
Fuel excise now forms about 61% of CASA funding. The taxpayer provides about 24%
Fuel excise now forms about 61% of CASA funding. The taxpayer provides about 24%
How many people buy Avgas but don’t pay any GST or income tax?
Why do my taxes pay for public schools, when I have no children?
Why do my taxes pay for public hospitals, when I’ve never been in one?
Why do my taxes get spent on foreign aid, when I’m a xenophobe?
Why do I pay to use a piece of infrastructure that was a public asset, but is now a monopoly in the hands of a millionaire?
Why don’t I get a rebate on the cost of the diesel I buy for my car?
I wouldn’t mind ‘user pays’, if it was actually applied consistently. I wouldn’t mind getting rid of ‘free rides’, if all of them were abolished.
But, as we all know, it’s about politics, not principle.
The only sectors that are accused of having a ‘free ride’ are, of course, those that have no political clout. And the aviation sector has little political clout because it is disorganised and disunited (and is therefore its own worst enemy, as you note in your thread).
Why do my taxes pay for public schools, when I have no children?
Why do my taxes pay for public hospitals, when I’ve never been in one?
Why do my taxes get spent on foreign aid, when I’m a xenophobe?
Why do I pay to use a piece of infrastructure that was a public asset, but is now a monopoly in the hands of a millionaire?
Why don’t I get a rebate on the cost of the diesel I buy for my car?
I wouldn’t mind ‘user pays’, if it was actually applied consistently. I wouldn’t mind getting rid of ‘free rides’, if all of them were abolished.
But, as we all know, it’s about politics, not principle.
The only sectors that are accused of having a ‘free ride’ are, of course, those that have no political clout. And the aviation sector has little political clout because it is disorganised and disunited (and is therefore its own worst enemy, as you note in your thread).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And the avgas fee that used to cover nav charges.....goes where?
And we wonder why ASA now charge Nav charges.
Are we paying twice?...ohh and plus the GST
And we wonder why ASA now charge Nav charges.
Are we paying twice?...ohh and plus the GST
You should all have a look at the Australian Aviation Association's Forum aviation policy paper for a list of the problems we didn't have in the 70's.
Aviation forum’s formula for recovery – aviationadvertiser.com.au
There was also this summary of the policy in last Friday's Australian:
Industry calls for status in Canberra
THE next federal government should appoint a minister for aviation with his own department and commit to better industry engagement, according to a coalition of the nation's aviation associations.
The call is among a series of actions recommended in a wide-reaching policy document prepared by the Australian Aviation Associations' Forum ahead of next year's federal election.
The policy was launched in Sydney on Wednesday and has been sent to bureaucrats and parliamentarians, including Transport Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss.
It is backed by the Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia, the Australian Association of Flight Instructors, the Australian Business Aviation Association, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia.
The document looks at 15 areas ranging from aviation taxation and government policy to insurance, research and regulatory reform.
The associations believe the focus on aviation issues has been lost in the restructures and portfolio changes that have occurred over recent decades. They also believe that while the government's aviation white paper was a good summary of existing aviation policy, it lacked vision.
The policy document argues that aviation is an essential part of the national infrastructure but this is not reflected in the structure of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport or its predecessors for the past several decades.
"There is a distinct lack of any government instrumentality with a clear charter to promote aviation and yet it is the preferred mode of transport for business, tourism and industry," it says.
The AAAF members want the government to develop stand-alone aviation policies overseen by an aviation minister with his own department.
At the very least, they want an improved ministerial focus through a parliamentary secretary and a clearly delineated department or division. There should also be a high level "Aviation Research Institute" investigating and analysing industry issues and trends.
On the regulatory front, the document calls for a review of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board to include industry representation and for reform to be taken from the regulator and placed with the department.
Other calls include a change in legislation to give aviation agencies the power and responsibility to foster and promote an Australian aviation industry, the abolition of the carbon tax and a 60 per cent aircraft depreciation rate in the first year.
They also recommend a 150 per cent write-off for aviation research access to HECS for all commercial pilots, financial support for aviation services to regional centres where a commercial service is not viable and the reintroduction of an en-route subsidy.
A lengthy airports section calls for an integrated airport and aviation policy to ensure development is compatible with the industry and guaranteed access for regional and business jet services to capital city airports.
It says government should "direct the ACCC to oversee and direct pricing at major and secondary airports and direct it to maintain a focus on airport pricing, especially as it affects aviation users".
AAAF chairman Chris Manning said the document marked the start of a high-level campaign designed to push aviation, and predicted it would be a long process.
"It's forward-looking, it has a fair bit of vision," he said. "It's not what I would call 'in the weeds' too much. It's positive, it gives solutions to the things we think are important in aviation."
Representatives of organisations attending this week's launch said there was a consensus on the policy document.
AAAA chief executive Phil Hurst said the policy was not a carping criticism of CASA or any other particular agency. "What we've tried to do is learn from the past, to suggest a framework for the future, because we believe it is the framework that is causing a lot of the problems we see in aviation," he said.
Mr Hurst said the forum wanted political parties to look at the policies, to pick them up in the spirit in which they were offered and to engage with industry to work out what could be delivered.
"So when aviators broadly in the industry come to the next election, they should have much better idea of where the political parties stand in the terms of their commitment to something that a lot of the industry has signed on to," he said.
However, it may be some time before that happens.
Spokespeople for Mr Truss and Mr Albanese said they were still considering the document.
THE next federal government should appoint a minister for aviation with his own department and commit to better industry engagement, according to a coalition of the nation's aviation associations.
The call is among a series of actions recommended in a wide-reaching policy document prepared by the Australian Aviation Associations' Forum ahead of next year's federal election.
The policy was launched in Sydney on Wednesday and has been sent to bureaucrats and parliamentarians, including Transport Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss.
It is backed by the Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia, the Australian Association of Flight Instructors, the Australian Business Aviation Association, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia.
The document looks at 15 areas ranging from aviation taxation and government policy to insurance, research and regulatory reform.
The associations believe the focus on aviation issues has been lost in the restructures and portfolio changes that have occurred over recent decades. They also believe that while the government's aviation white paper was a good summary of existing aviation policy, it lacked vision.
The policy document argues that aviation is an essential part of the national infrastructure but this is not reflected in the structure of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport or its predecessors for the past several decades.
"There is a distinct lack of any government instrumentality with a clear charter to promote aviation and yet it is the preferred mode of transport for business, tourism and industry," it says.
The AAAF members want the government to develop stand-alone aviation policies overseen by an aviation minister with his own department.
At the very least, they want an improved ministerial focus through a parliamentary secretary and a clearly delineated department or division. There should also be a high level "Aviation Research Institute" investigating and analysing industry issues and trends.
On the regulatory front, the document calls for a review of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board to include industry representation and for reform to be taken from the regulator and placed with the department.
Other calls include a change in legislation to give aviation agencies the power and responsibility to foster and promote an Australian aviation industry, the abolition of the carbon tax and a 60 per cent aircraft depreciation rate in the first year.
They also recommend a 150 per cent write-off for aviation research access to HECS for all commercial pilots, financial support for aviation services to regional centres where a commercial service is not viable and the reintroduction of an en-route subsidy.
A lengthy airports section calls for an integrated airport and aviation policy to ensure development is compatible with the industry and guaranteed access for regional and business jet services to capital city airports.
It says government should "direct the ACCC to oversee and direct pricing at major and secondary airports and direct it to maintain a focus on airport pricing, especially as it affects aviation users".
AAAF chairman Chris Manning said the document marked the start of a high-level campaign designed to push aviation, and predicted it would be a long process.
"It's forward-looking, it has a fair bit of vision," he said. "It's not what I would call 'in the weeds' too much. It's positive, it gives solutions to the things we think are important in aviation."
Representatives of organisations attending this week's launch said there was a consensus on the policy document.
AAAA chief executive Phil Hurst said the policy was not a carping criticism of CASA or any other particular agency. "What we've tried to do is learn from the past, to suggest a framework for the future, because we believe it is the framework that is causing a lot of the problems we see in aviation," he said.
Mr Hurst said the forum wanted political parties to look at the policies, to pick them up in the spirit in which they were offered and to engage with industry to work out what could be delivered.
"So when aviators broadly in the industry come to the next election, they should have much better idea of where the political parties stand in the terms of their commitment to something that a lot of the industry has signed on to," he said.
However, it may be some time before that happens.
Spokespeople for Mr Truss and Mr Albanese said they were still considering the document.
Aviation is about the only area that got suckered into "user-pays". It doesn't happen with road transport, or sea transport and it definitely doesn't happen with rail transport.
And given that we got stuck with user-pays, we also missed the concept that those that pay get a say in how the money is spent.
CASA cost approx $175m last year. That's about $14,000 per aircraft registered. or about $7,000 per pilot. Just doesn't seem like good ratios.
Its a bit of an unfair comparison because of economies of scale, but the FAA budget is about $10,000 million and they have about 230,000 aircraft. That's about $45 per aircraft registered, or about $16 for each of their 600,000-ish pilots.
And given that we got stuck with user-pays, we also missed the concept that those that pay get a say in how the money is spent.
CASA cost approx $175m last year. That's about $14,000 per aircraft registered. or about $7,000 per pilot. Just doesn't seem like good ratios.
Its a bit of an unfair comparison because of economies of scale, but the FAA budget is about $10,000 million and they have about 230,000 aircraft. That's about $45 per aircraft registered, or about $16 for each of their 600,000-ish pilots.
I continue to marvel at the outrageous ability of the bureaucracy to expand to consume all of the allocated expenditure without delivering a service.
Back to the future with a minister of aviation. As Chimbu Chuckles correctly pointed out years ago. Aviation in Australia is stateless, unrepresented and overtaxed with little return from that investment in the public purse. Clever accounting from the Hawke/Keating government extracted the money making part of aviation from the loss making part...guess which part we got?
Back to the future with a minister of aviation. As Chimbu Chuckles correctly pointed out years ago. Aviation in Australia is stateless, unrepresented and overtaxed with little return from that investment in the public purse. Clever accounting from the Hawke/Keating government extracted the money making part of aviation from the loss making part...guess which part we got?
