Is It Time For Direct Political Action? An Accessible Aviation Movement?
Thread Starter
Is It Time For Direct Political Action? An Accessible Aviation Movement?
I have recently become aware of what I would term the studied contempt of CASA towards any form of aviation other than Military Aviation and Heavy Airlines. By this I mean at least Recreational (RAA), Sporting (SAAA), Warbirds and of course General Aviation in all its forms. This situation may not be news to any of you but I am now considerably more aware of just how easy it is for CASA to create deep personal pain for pilots at its slighest whim. This is not to say that all CASA staff and its actions are bad, far from it, however there is in my opinion the aforesaid studied contempt which manifests itself, at best, as sheer capriciousness and at worst, pure bloody mindedness as written about extensively in this and other forums. I would like to suggest what I hope is a novel solution to this situation.
The problem is considerably simpler than I thought. Many people, and of course responsible industry associations, have plied CASA with arguments based on sweet reason, fact, overseas experience, veiled threats of legal action, safety arguments, appeals to human decency - the whole gamut of oratory and techniques of persuasion - and none of it makes the slightest impression on CASAs current or future behaviour towards us. I believe there is one approach that will work and, unless I am mistaken, hasn't been attempted before - direct coordinated political action
The Two most effective lobbying associations generally known are the American National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Their power stems from the demonstrated fact that they can and do prevent political candidates of any party from being elected if theyare inimical to their objectives. I suggest that we need a new pilots political organisation to go for the jugular of CASAs masters, and keep doing it, until the Organisation is reformed. Arguing with CASA does no good, we need to make the politicians sensitive to our needs, by kicking their backsides until they do likewise to CASA, the ATSB and AsA.
Call it the "Accessible Aviation Movement" (AAM) as a working title. It is a purely political animal. It must have no role in regulation or the need for any ongoing engagement with CASA, unlike AOPA, RAA, etc. its focus is not on CASA but the politicians preferably at all levels down to local councils, who permit and or create the embuggerance of aviation. Its primary purpose is not "to get our sort of people elected" its purpose is to prevent the election of the bastards on both sides of politics who allow CASA to continue on its merry way. Its much easier and cheaper to run a negative campaign against a candidate that it is to find and promote your own.
If such an organisation were to exist, it has no need to engage with CASA or try to explain detailed technical subjects to a general public - which always fails- its focus is simple:"either you sign up to our charter and support aviation Mr. Candidate, or you are going to face a sustained negative advertising campaign from us in your personal electorate." And if AAM can organise and resource itself enough to provide a credible threat in as many marginal seats as possible, then ultimately CASA becomes more responsive.
This is not a particularly simple enterprise and it is going to cost money which has to come from us. But wouldnt' you rather cough up a few hundred dollars for AAM every year or so instead of blowing ten times that amount on legal fees fighting CASA?
The organisation would need a patron and to be staffed by non pilots - otherwise CASA would have an opportunity to take administrative revenge on them. The organisation needs a simple charter for local, state and Federal candidates to sign up to. The main activity outside election season would be monitoring the attitude and behaviour of elected officials towards aviation and producing a "league ladder" of exactly who we are for and against. It is imperative that AAM keeps out of party politics regarding immigration, Gay marriage, etc. etc., and focuses on a single issue - the promotion of Aviation at the GA and RAA levels.
I think a modest start would be to label the Minister and his parliamentary secretary as "anti GA" forces of darkness and the Good Senators Fawcett and Xenophon as forces for light.
What say you?
The problem is considerably simpler than I thought. Many people, and of course responsible industry associations, have plied CASA with arguments based on sweet reason, fact, overseas experience, veiled threats of legal action, safety arguments, appeals to human decency - the whole gamut of oratory and techniques of persuasion - and none of it makes the slightest impression on CASAs current or future behaviour towards us. I believe there is one approach that will work and, unless I am mistaken, hasn't been attempted before - direct coordinated political action
The Two most effective lobbying associations generally known are the American National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Their power stems from the demonstrated fact that they can and do prevent political candidates of any party from being elected if theyare inimical to their objectives. I suggest that we need a new pilots political organisation to go for the jugular of CASAs masters, and keep doing it, until the Organisation is reformed. Arguing with CASA does no good, we need to make the politicians sensitive to our needs, by kicking their backsides until they do likewise to CASA, the ATSB and AsA.
Call it the "Accessible Aviation Movement" (AAM) as a working title. It is a purely political animal. It must have no role in regulation or the need for any ongoing engagement with CASA, unlike AOPA, RAA, etc. its focus is not on CASA but the politicians preferably at all levels down to local councils, who permit and or create the embuggerance of aviation. Its primary purpose is not "to get our sort of people elected" its purpose is to prevent the election of the bastards on both sides of politics who allow CASA to continue on its merry way. Its much easier and cheaper to run a negative campaign against a candidate that it is to find and promote your own.
If such an organisation were to exist, it has no need to engage with CASA or try to explain detailed technical subjects to a general public - which always fails- its focus is simple:"either you sign up to our charter and support aviation Mr. Candidate, or you are going to face a sustained negative advertising campaign from us in your personal electorate." And if AAM can organise and resource itself enough to provide a credible threat in as many marginal seats as possible, then ultimately CASA becomes more responsive.
This is not a particularly simple enterprise and it is going to cost money which has to come from us. But wouldnt' you rather cough up a few hundred dollars for AAM every year or so instead of blowing ten times that amount on legal fees fighting CASA?
The organisation would need a patron and to be staffed by non pilots - otherwise CASA would have an opportunity to take administrative revenge on them. The organisation needs a simple charter for local, state and Federal candidates to sign up to. The main activity outside election season would be monitoring the attitude and behaviour of elected officials towards aviation and producing a "league ladder" of exactly who we are for and against. It is imperative that AAM keeps out of party politics regarding immigration, Gay marriage, etc. etc., and focuses on a single issue - the promotion of Aviation at the GA and RAA levels.
I think a modest start would be to label the Minister and his parliamentary secretary as "anti GA" forces of darkness and the Good Senators Fawcett and Xenophon as forces for light.
What say you?
Last edited by Sunfish; 9th Mar 2013 at 20:03.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sunnie,
Sounds like you have heard of the recent gross incompetence the organisation has just shown for replacing a simple instrument for the SAAA/non SAAA members who own EAB aircraft. The last one expired 10 days ago, and they have had 2 years to write a new one, and they were reminded 2 months out not to stuff it up like every other two years. **see note below
Well they did accomplish one thing. They did not stuff it up like the last few times.......they have stuffed up even worse
. To make matters worse they released a document on the Friday afternoon....at the last minute and all went into hiding. It was rejected and this 10 days later no instrument replacement.
And don't worry, this is not the worst of their stupidity. The most bizzare stupid and moronic cockup by CASA is not for public discussion yet. They will be wondering where the F111 with a nuke payload is coming from and when....and I aint about to spoil the fun on that one
In the USA, this would have politicians under siege, EAA, AOPA etc have large pull with the regulator. Fortunately the SAAA and AOPA in Australia are working closely together, but in Australia the various orgs do not work close enough together, although this is one of the aims of having Ausfly each year, getting the boards of orgs together and working closer.
Perhaps your political pressure group could work with the orgs as well. Problem is we have too many alphabet groups now that do bugger all. So just dont build another one. It must be effective.
My suggestion is the future minister, whom I believe is a lady and pilot(PPL/CPL) would be the perfect start for some "educating" and I am sure that CASA would be more concerned about a savvy and well advised incoming minister than the incompetent fool we have now.
Lets pray it is not tomato truss instead.
Good luck and where do I send my donation. And no I am too busy on too many volunteer boards and companies as it is, but happy to chip in.
** if you own or maintain an EAB aircraft, or know someone who does remind them, for the small price of <$200 you should be a member of SAAA as they are the only ones who fight CASA and their moronic decisions that would eventually have you with a museum piece if let have their way. Only about 50-60% of EAB owners are, and it really should be closer to 100%.
Sounds like you have heard of the recent gross incompetence the organisation has just shown for replacing a simple instrument for the SAAA/non SAAA members who own EAB aircraft. The last one expired 10 days ago, and they have had 2 years to write a new one, and they were reminded 2 months out not to stuff it up like every other two years. **see note below
Well they did accomplish one thing. They did not stuff it up like the last few times.......they have stuffed up even worse
. To make matters worse they released a document on the Friday afternoon....at the last minute and all went into hiding. It was rejected and this 10 days later no instrument replacement.And don't worry, this is not the worst of their stupidity. The most bizzare stupid and moronic cockup by CASA is not for public discussion yet. They will be wondering where the F111 with a nuke payload is coming from and when....and I aint about to spoil the fun on that one
In the USA, this would have politicians under siege, EAA, AOPA etc have large pull with the regulator. Fortunately the SAAA and AOPA in Australia are working closely together, but in Australia the various orgs do not work close enough together, although this is one of the aims of having Ausfly each year, getting the boards of orgs together and working closer.
Perhaps your political pressure group could work with the orgs as well. Problem is we have too many alphabet groups now that do bugger all. So just dont build another one. It must be effective.
My suggestion is the future minister, whom I believe is a lady and pilot(PPL/CPL) would be the perfect start for some "educating" and I am sure that CASA would be more concerned about a savvy and well advised incoming minister than the incompetent fool we have now.
Lets pray it is not tomato truss instead.
Good luck and where do I send my donation. And no I am too busy on too many volunteer boards and companies as it is, but happy to chip in.
** if you own or maintain an EAB aircraft, or know someone who does remind them, for the small price of <$200 you should be a member of SAAA as they are the only ones who fight CASA and their moronic decisions that would eventually have you with a museum piece if let have their way. Only about 50-60% of EAB owners are, and it really should be closer to 100%.
There used to be such an organisation. It was called "Dick Smith".
Unfortunately, despite its formidable electoral strength and influence, it was effectively neutered by falling for the temptation of sinecures (CASA Chairmanship) and the distractions of "task forces" (remember the pre-election stunt that kept Dick quiet for the duration of the campaign, after which the "task force" disappeared).
The level of naïveté also manifested itself in the 'User Pays' principle. The reality has been ever-increasing costs in return for ever-decreasing standards of infrastructure and services.
Unfortunately, despite its formidable electoral strength and influence, it was effectively neutered by falling for the temptation of sinecures (CASA Chairmanship) and the distractions of "task forces" (remember the pre-election stunt that kept Dick quiet for the duration of the campaign, after which the "task force" disappeared).
The level of naïveté also manifested itself in the 'User Pays' principle. The reality has been ever-increasing costs in return for ever-decreasing standards of infrastructure and services.
Thread Starter
Hmmmmmmm. this idea is still a work in progress.
Jaba, while it would be "tempting" to work with AOPA, SAAA, RAA, etc. I think it has to be avoided because those organisations have to have productive engagement with CASA and they need total plausible deniability about participating in what is primarily political action.
To put that another way, Public Servants have every right to hate the guts of people who go behind their backs and talk direct to the Minister, with of course the honourable exception of invited submissions to Parliamentary committees. It would be death for AOPA, SAAA, RAA etc to be seen to be going behind CASAs back over something CASA has done or not done.
To put that yet another way, how can AOPA, etc. expect to maintain any sort of relationship with CASA and the Minister if they are perceived to be greasing the skids under them?
However the "Accessible Aviation Movement (tm)" has no such scruples. It simply operates to try to deny election to candidates at Local, State and Federal level who are not responsive to the needs of Aviation for a level playing field, transparency, fairness, Glasnost, Perestroika, a chicken in every pot and a airport in every suburb.
It doesn't get involved in details or particular cases, it has no relationship whatsoever with CASA and must never have one - it is a political animal concerned with Politicians.The idea of participating in "task forces" is a tempting bait to make you part of the process, it must be avoided. What AAM is concerned about is how its charter is being implemented. It focusses on the organ grinder, not the monkey.
To put that another way AAM doesn't get involved in discussion of CASAs new regulations about Thronomister servicing and suchlike or if your Yak can't be registered as experimental - talk to AOPA, about that, its none of our business. Its nothing personal.
What AAM s charter might look like is up to you, My laundry list would look something like.
1. No more airport closures - ever.
2. Build more airports
3. Scrapping the entire regulatory suite and replacing it with the FAA or NZ regs.
4. Separating regulation from enforcement.
5 Restoring the independence of the ATSB and AsA.
6. Changing the CASA charter by legislation to require it to foster the industry and be mindful of regulatory impact on costs.
7. Removal of strict liability provisions and criminal sanctions.
8. Standardisation of requirements and procedures in plain english across the country.
Please feel free to modify..
The way AAM attempts to advance its charter is limited by its financial resources but could include:
a) Newsletters and press releases.
b) Direct funding to preferred candidates in marginal seats both state Federal and at the Council election level (Jaspers Brush A/P users take note)
c) Direct funding for negative advertising campaigns against perceived "enemy" candidates - borrow the old "you are for us or against us" line sign up to the charter or else - as used by the NRA. These campaigns need not be related to Aviation - which the general public can't be made to understand anyway. For example, perhaps a donation to another pressure group. Concentrate on marginal seats where every dollar counts.
It is important to remember that we are not trying to get a candidate elected, we are trying to prevent a candidate from being elected by any legal means available. Under that scenario donations could be made to any person or group that has the ability legally to hurt the candidates electoral chances.
This is the NRA attack dog model: We are trying to ensure electoral failure. We don't necessarily care if the eventual winner is a green or a calathumpian. All we are trying to say is "mate, unless you sign up, then we will do everything legally possible to make sure you dont get elected, nothing personal, this is politics."
The NRA political action group website gives an idea of the not inconsiderable effort involved, These guys are the experts:
NRA-PVF | About PVF
Jaba, while it would be "tempting" to work with AOPA, SAAA, RAA, etc. I think it has to be avoided because those organisations have to have productive engagement with CASA and they need total plausible deniability about participating in what is primarily political action.
To put that another way, Public Servants have every right to hate the guts of people who go behind their backs and talk direct to the Minister, with of course the honourable exception of invited submissions to Parliamentary committees. It would be death for AOPA, SAAA, RAA etc to be seen to be going behind CASAs back over something CASA has done or not done.
To put that yet another way, how can AOPA, etc. expect to maintain any sort of relationship with CASA and the Minister if they are perceived to be greasing the skids under them?
However the "Accessible Aviation Movement (tm)" has no such scruples. It simply operates to try to deny election to candidates at Local, State and Federal level who are not responsive to the needs of Aviation for a level playing field, transparency, fairness, Glasnost, Perestroika, a chicken in every pot and a airport in every suburb.
It doesn't get involved in details or particular cases, it has no relationship whatsoever with CASA and must never have one - it is a political animal concerned with Politicians.The idea of participating in "task forces" is a tempting bait to make you part of the process, it must be avoided. What AAM is concerned about is how its charter is being implemented. It focusses on the organ grinder, not the monkey.
To put that another way AAM doesn't get involved in discussion of CASAs new regulations about Thronomister servicing and suchlike or if your Yak can't be registered as experimental - talk to AOPA, about that, its none of our business. Its nothing personal.
What AAM s charter might look like is up to you, My laundry list would look something like.
1. No more airport closures - ever.
2. Build more airports
3. Scrapping the entire regulatory suite and replacing it with the FAA or NZ regs.
4. Separating regulation from enforcement.
5 Restoring the independence of the ATSB and AsA.
6. Changing the CASA charter by legislation to require it to foster the industry and be mindful of regulatory impact on costs.
7. Removal of strict liability provisions and criminal sanctions.
8. Standardisation of requirements and procedures in plain english across the country.
Please feel free to modify..
The way AAM attempts to advance its charter is limited by its financial resources but could include:
a) Newsletters and press releases.
b) Direct funding to preferred candidates in marginal seats both state Federal and at the Council election level (Jaspers Brush A/P users take note)
c) Direct funding for negative advertising campaigns against perceived "enemy" candidates - borrow the old "you are for us or against us" line sign up to the charter or else - as used by the NRA. These campaigns need not be related to Aviation - which the general public can't be made to understand anyway. For example, perhaps a donation to another pressure group. Concentrate on marginal seats where every dollar counts.
It is important to remember that we are not trying to get a candidate elected, we are trying to prevent a candidate from being elected by any legal means available. Under that scenario donations could be made to any person or group that has the ability legally to hurt the candidates electoral chances.
This is the NRA attack dog model: We are trying to ensure electoral failure. We don't necessarily care if the eventual winner is a green or a calathumpian. All we are trying to say is "mate, unless you sign up, then we will do everything legally possible to make sure you dont get elected, nothing personal, this is politics."
The NRA political action group website gives an idea of the not inconsiderable effort involved, These guys are the experts:
The NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is NRA's political action committee. The NRA-PVF ranks political candidates - irrespective of party affiliation - based on voting records, public statements and their responses to an NRA-PVF questionnaire.
In 2008, NRA-PVF was involved in 271 campaigns for the U.S. House and Senate, winning in 230 of those races (85%). NRA-PVF also endorsed thousands of state legislative candidates that same year and achieved an 84% success rate in those elections.
NRA resources in the 2008 elections were more widely deployed in more critical battles than ever before. Millions of dollars were spent on direct campaign donations, independent campaign expenditures and on mobilizing the most aggressive grassroots operation in NRA history.
In 2009 and '10, NRA-ILA has continued to build upon that grassroots organization with programs that work to effectively communicate with NRA members and others.
NRA relies on a very simple premise: when provided with the facts, the nation's elected officials will recognize that "gun control" schemes are an infringement on the Second Amendment and a proven failure in fighting crime. The importance of this premise lies in the knowledge that, as one U.S. Congressman put it: "The gun lobby is people."
In 2008, NRA-PVF was involved in 271 campaigns for the U.S. House and Senate, winning in 230 of those races (85%). NRA-PVF also endorsed thousands of state legislative candidates that same year and achieved an 84% success rate in those elections.
NRA resources in the 2008 elections were more widely deployed in more critical battles than ever before. Millions of dollars were spent on direct campaign donations, independent campaign expenditures and on mobilizing the most aggressive grassroots operation in NRA history.
In 2009 and '10, NRA-ILA has continued to build upon that grassroots organization with programs that work to effectively communicate with NRA members and others.
NRA relies on a very simple premise: when provided with the facts, the nation's elected officials will recognize that "gun control" schemes are an infringement on the Second Amendment and a proven failure in fighting crime. The importance of this premise lies in the knowledge that, as one U.S. Congressman put it: "The gun lobby is people."
Last edited by Sunfish; 10th Mar 2013 at 00:20.
Thread Starter
VH-XXX I'm advocating adopting their tactics, not their ideology. They quiz each and every would be politician on their attitude to firearms, then decide whether to either support them or oppose them. They also focus on influencing elections in marginal seats with apparently devastating effectiveness. Why shouldn't aviation do the same? After all, engaging with the regulator hasn't produced much results has it?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the narrow focus of AAM, but getting GA (pilots/LAMEs/schools/etc) to stump-up for another set of annual dues will be an obstacle.
I still think that having something like the USA AOPA is the way to go, but I just don't see all the existing Oz alphabet groups agreeing to merge into something that actually would have some clout., hence AAM seems like a workable solution.
Due to the political-cycle timescales, AAM wlll need to take a medium-to-long term view and the members will need to understand that.
I still think that having something like the USA AOPA is the way to go, but I just don't see all the existing Oz alphabet groups agreeing to merge into something that actually would have some clout., hence AAM seems like a workable solution.
Due to the political-cycle timescales, AAM wlll need to take a medium-to-long term view and the members will need to understand that.
Last edited by Biggles_in_Oz; 10th Mar 2013 at 06:18.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given a September election, has any of these alphabet soup organisations or individuals asked any of the political aspirants what their AVIATION POLICY actually is?
I undestand "THE" "WHITE PAPER" is Labor's ideology, what about Lib's, Nat's, Green's, Independants and Ms Hanson? What about The "aviation Party"?
Perhaps we are too broke to have an aviation policy?
I can't believe anybody would suggest putting 200 Alpha Males and Females into one room to discuss the future of aviation when we all know it is rooted and beyond fixing. Just another clusterfcuk.
CAsA needs sinking and a new ship built from the keel up.
Enter Sunfish with some great ideas, but most of these organistaions have already become slaves to their master by taking cash from "the regulator".
And don't anybody say they haven't.
BTW, 20,000 aviation people viz our population has no margin for comparison with The US population of aviation people and their clout proportional to population.
I undestand "THE" "WHITE PAPER" is Labor's ideology, what about Lib's, Nat's, Green's, Independants and Ms Hanson? What about The "aviation Party"?
Perhaps we are too broke to have an aviation policy?
I can't believe anybody would suggest putting 200 Alpha Males and Females into one room to discuss the future of aviation when we all know it is rooted and beyond fixing. Just another clusterfcuk.
CAsA needs sinking and a new ship built from the keel up.
Enter Sunfish with some great ideas, but most of these organistaions have already become slaves to their master by taking cash from "the regulator".
And don't anybody say they haven't.
BTW, 20,000 aviation people viz our population has no margin for comparison with The US population of aviation people and their clout proportional to population.
Thread Starter
Frank, if there is targeted electoral work in marginal electorates that should do it. Just find the people to do it and pay them well. Don't try and do it yourself. Build a Group that will take our $ and convert them into political influence and nothing else.
The Minister and Parliamentary secretary come from safe labour seats.we need to aim at alll the marginals at State and Federal Levels.
The ultimate objective is to ensure that no party can win office without our support. This is what the christianist and similar organisations are doing right now.
The Minister and Parliamentary secretary come from safe labour seats.we need to aim at alll the marginals at State and Federal Levels.
The ultimate objective is to ensure that no party can win office without our support. This is what the christianist and similar organisations are doing right now.
Last edited by Sunfish; 10th Mar 2013 at 09:38.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sans preferences, which have been used before to garner support for protected species in QLD, I would rather vote agnostic than AOG or Family First.
Praying won't solve the problem either sunshine old chap. Not even 20,000 votes can help solve this problem.
Without political will we are doomed.
Our political get up and go, got up and left. Thus only an extreme embarassment, (as in smoking hole), or Senate intervention, (such as with-holding supply), will do anything in the short term. A double dissolution election may help.
Now if Tim had the keys to the BBJ.........................
Praying won't solve the problem either sunshine old chap. Not even 20,000 votes can help solve this problem.
Without political will we are doomed.
Our political get up and go, got up and left. Thus only an extreme embarassment, (as in smoking hole), or Senate intervention, (such as with-holding supply), will do anything in the short term. A double dissolution election may help.
Now if Tim had the keys to the BBJ.........................
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A definition of "insanity" is thinking that you can do the same thing again and again and the result will be different. The past has shown that it matters not a hoot who is in government, the result in aviation will be the same.
For perhaps something like 20 years or more now governments have been getting out of the job of running things like aviation. Witness the fact that once aviation used to be a department within the public service, now it is an independent agency. Governments don't want the hassle of having to manage infrastructure stuff.
Have a look at S. 12A of the Civil Aviation Act and read carefully:
On the face of it a Minister should be able to tell CASA what to do. However, all it says is the Minister can tell the Board of their views as to the appropriate strategic direction and how CASA SHOULD (note should, not must) perform its functions. Under (2) a Board must act in accordance with notices given under subsection (1). Seems clear on the face of it but have a look at the functions of the Board S. 12B
The only real power that the Board has is to ensure CASA complies with directions under s. 12B, which is:
the giving up of documents and information.
What I am getting at is that the Minister's powers here are limited and I don't think they want to get involved in the nitty gritty of aviation administration. On top of that I don't think the general travelling public give a flying fig about aviation. So long as the fares are cheap and they get to where they want to go without being scared s...less then whats to worry about.
Don't get me wrong. I think there is "something rotten in the state of Denmark" and there is a desperate need to address what is going badly wrong. However, I cannot see a politician being the one to do anything about it unless they are absolutely forced to do so and the only way that will happen is with a large smoking hole in the ground or pressure being applied from without, for example, a review of the FAA audit with a fail result instead of a conditional pass.
For perhaps something like 20 years or more now governments have been getting out of the job of running things like aviation. Witness the fact that once aviation used to be a department within the public service, now it is an independent agency. Governments don't want the hassle of having to manage infrastructure stuff.
Have a look at S. 12A of the Civil Aviation Act and read carefully:
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 12A
Minister may give the Board notices about its strategic direction etc.
(1) The Minister may notify the Board in writing of the Minister's views on the following matters:
(a) the appropriate strategic direction for CASA;
(b) the manner in which CASA should perform its functions.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not permit the Minister to notify views in relation to a particular case or a particular holder of a civil aviation authorisation.
(2) In performing its functions, the Board must act in accordance with notices given under subsection (1).
Minister may give the Board notices about its strategic direction etc.
(1) The Minister may notify the Board in writing of the Minister's views on the following matters:
(a) the appropriate strategic direction for CASA;
(b) the manner in which CASA should perform its functions.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not permit the Minister to notify views in relation to a particular case or a particular holder of a civil aviation authorisation.
(2) In performing its functions, the Board must act in accordance with notices given under subsection (1).
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 53
Functions
(1) The functions of the Board are to:
(a) decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; and
(b) ensure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner; and
(c) ensure that CASA complies with directions given by the Minister under section 12B.
(2) The Board has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.
(3) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Board are taken to have been done by CASA.
Functions
(1) The functions of the Board are to:
(a) decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA; and
(b) ensure that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner; and
(c) ensure that CASA complies with directions given by the Minister under section 12B.
(2) The Board has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.
(3) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Board are taken to have been done by CASA.
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 12B
Minister may direct CASA to give documents and information to nominee
(1) The Minister may direct CASA to give to a specified ministerial nominee any documents or information relating to CASA's operations that the nominee requests.
(2) CASA must comply with the direction.
(3) In this section:
"ministerial nominee" means a person whose responsibilities or duties include advising the Minister about CASA's performance and strategies.
Minister may direct CASA to give documents and information to nominee
(1) The Minister may direct CASA to give to a specified ministerial nominee any documents or information relating to CASA's operations that the nominee requests.
(2) CASA must comply with the direction.
(3) In this section:
"ministerial nominee" means a person whose responsibilities or duties include advising the Minister about CASA's performance and strategies.
What I am getting at is that the Minister's powers here are limited and I don't think they want to get involved in the nitty gritty of aviation administration. On top of that I don't think the general travelling public give a flying fig about aviation. So long as the fares are cheap and they get to where they want to go without being scared s...less then whats to worry about.
Don't get me wrong. I think there is "something rotten in the state of Denmark" and there is a desperate need to address what is going badly wrong. However, I cannot see a politician being the one to do anything about it unless they are absolutely forced to do so and the only way that will happen is with a large smoking hole in the ground or pressure being applied from without, for example, a review of the FAA audit with a fail result instead of a conditional pass.
Very commendable.!
Great idea Sunny, so you want us /AAM or whoever to get rid of every politician in the country !!!. (Just think of the savings!)
Because if one Labor person is replaced by one Liberal person. ...WHAT IS THE EFFING DIFFERENCE..??? They either dont know what Aviation is
, or dont care.
The political disinterest in Aviation has been going on for DECADES, and thru Governments many and various. The only change has been that unchecked CASA has got worse and WORSE.
When Albo first got in I wrote him a letter, advising the GA was in dire straights and would he have the aviation division of DoTR kindly consider a CASA free GA conference, so his Dept could hear it from industry like it is, and consider changes etc to promote and foster GA.
You know, a little bit of "democracy" like regs for the industry, by the industry, for the advancement of the industry. Haha.
The response was .. we have the world's best safety record, the flattest country, the best weather etc etc and anyway we are producing a White Paper that will tell it all, dont worry, all is fine and dandy.
The White Paper (Kleenex Super Soft?) covered GA in 2 paragraphs. FFS!!!
My original letter will be followed up in mid September with a Bon Voyage card. Pity I cant book him on the Titanic as well.
But who will replace him. Oh dear. Different dummy, same shop window.
Someone mentioned the F111.
Anyone speak Korean.? Northern dude a bit ansty of late and looking to do a few tests. Just give them the co-ords of Non Aviation House Furzer St CB , will you, and please ask then to get on with it.
Who was that famous Pommie visitor that said Canberra would make a lovely ruin?
SERIOUS change is needed. And quick.
Because if one Labor person is replaced by one Liberal person. ...WHAT IS THE EFFING DIFFERENCE..??? They either dont know what Aviation is
, or dont care.The political disinterest in Aviation has been going on for DECADES, and thru Governments many and various. The only change has been that unchecked CASA has got worse and WORSE.
When Albo first got in I wrote him a letter, advising the GA was in dire straights and would he have the aviation division of DoTR kindly consider a CASA free GA conference, so his Dept could hear it from industry like it is, and consider changes etc to promote and foster GA.
You know, a little bit of "democracy" like regs for the industry, by the industry, for the advancement of the industry. Haha.
The response was .. we have the world's best safety record, the flattest country, the best weather etc etc and anyway we are producing a White Paper that will tell it all, dont worry, all is fine and dandy.
The White Paper (Kleenex Super Soft?) covered GA in 2 paragraphs. FFS!!!
My original letter will be followed up in mid September with a Bon Voyage card.
Pity I cant book him on the Titanic as well.But who will replace him. Oh dear. Different dummy, same shop window.
Someone mentioned the F111.
Anyone speak Korean.? Northern dude a bit ansty of late and looking to do a few tests. Just give them the co-ords of Non Aviation House Furzer St CB , will you, and please ask then to get on with it.
Who was that famous Pommie visitor that said Canberra would make a lovely ruin?
SERIOUS change is needed. And quick.
Plovett,
The short answer to your post is that the Act can be amended, and the Act is in serious need of amendment.
Sunfish,
AOPA was at its most effective when it had enough influence to take CASA head on --- it only took a couple of dis-allowance motions to get CASA's attention.
You really should review the whole history of how Parts 21-35 went in place, despite the tactics of the middle ranks of CASA --- the "iron ring".
It will be interesting to see what the present AOPA has to say about the discussion papers out right now re. smaller aircraft maintenance ---- in short, the proposals are like nothing in any other country, an a disaster in the making for the light end of aviation.
To quote one of the CASA proponents of the "new" maintenance rules: "There should only be two kinds of aviation, airlines and military", ---- and that is not second hand, I was there when that statement was made ---likewise, his offsider's quote: "My job is to ground aeroplanes".
Right now, within certain elements of CASA, it is "conventional wisdom" that the Act does not require aviation to continue to exist, so any adverse results of "rules" to "minimise accidents and incidence" (S.9A) are not their problem.
Tootle pip!!
The short answer to your post is that the Act can be amended, and the Act is in serious need of amendment.
Sunfish,
AOPA was at its most effective when it had enough influence to take CASA head on --- it only took a couple of dis-allowance motions to get CASA's attention.
You really should review the whole history of how Parts 21-35 went in place, despite the tactics of the middle ranks of CASA --- the "iron ring".
It will be interesting to see what the present AOPA has to say about the discussion papers out right now re. smaller aircraft maintenance ---- in short, the proposals are like nothing in any other country, an a disaster in the making for the light end of aviation.
To quote one of the CASA proponents of the "new" maintenance rules: "There should only be two kinds of aviation, airlines and military", ---- and that is not second hand, I was there when that statement was made ---likewise, his offsider's quote: "My job is to ground aeroplanes".
Right now, within certain elements of CASA, it is "conventional wisdom" that the Act does not require aviation to continue to exist, so any adverse results of "rules" to "minimise accidents and incidence" (S.9A) are not their problem.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Mar 2013 at 13:53.
Thread Starter
Leadsled:
Is this a wind up? Are there witnesses? At what level is the alleged speaker? Public servants have been sacked for less.
To quote one of the CASA proponents of the "new" maintenance rules: "There should only be two kinds of aviation, airlines and military", ---- and that is not second hand, I was there when that statement was made ---likewise, his offsider's quote: "My job is to ground aeroplanes".
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled speak with straight tongue.
Just thinking out loud here, speculative – in the way of trying to see clearly how this could work. I wonder if the "Aviation" lobby idea is selling it's self a bit short. Agree, there are very few votes and little clout within what may be defined as 'the industry', but the associated travel, tourism elements combined with hotel, catering and other 'employment' areas which depend in some degree on 'aviation' would, I imagine have slightly more horsepower.
Should the FAA or ICAO downgrade Australia's rating, I believe that would have some impact on GDP; perhaps the 'heavy mob' who run tourism etc. could be persuaded that 'aviation' is important – to their business.
Badly expressed I know, but half a dozen blokes and a couple of lighties ain't going to change or affect too much, if anything. But if say the casinos (for example) thought 'their' business would be affected, or if the RFDS wasn't there, or if the mail stopped turning up, or the resort that used sea planes as a selling point were going to suffer, perhaps then the lobby, as part of that group could present enough numbers to make a difference.
As stated, just a twiddle: but stand alone and influence political outcomes – big ask. Huge.
OK, Ok, back to my knitting right.
Just thinking out loud here, speculative – in the way of trying to see clearly how this could work. I wonder if the "Aviation" lobby idea is selling it's self a bit short. Agree, there are very few votes and little clout within what may be defined as 'the industry', but the associated travel, tourism elements combined with hotel, catering and other 'employment' areas which depend in some degree on 'aviation' would, I imagine have slightly more horsepower.
Should the FAA or ICAO downgrade Australia's rating, I believe that would have some impact on GDP; perhaps the 'heavy mob' who run tourism etc. could be persuaded that 'aviation' is important – to their business.
Badly expressed I know, but half a dozen blokes and a couple of lighties ain't going to change or affect too much, if anything. But if say the casinos (for example) thought 'their' business would be affected, or if the RFDS wasn't there, or if the mail stopped turning up, or the resort that used sea planes as a selling point were going to suffer, perhaps then the lobby, as part of that group could present enough numbers to make a difference.
As stated, just a twiddle: but stand alone and influence political outcomes – big ask. Huge.
OK, Ok, back to my knitting right.
Last edited by Kharon; 10th Mar 2013 at 19:20. Reason: em buggered if I know.
Thread Starter
Kharon, agreed, we have no voting power, but what we have is money. That money can be used to buy votes.
To reiterate, what I am suggesting is that we can influence the politicians by running campaigns in marginal seats, and the cheapest form of campaign is a negative campaign.
To put that another way, we don't have to spell out in excruciating detail exactly why CASR 4784 is a load of crap because we will have to send our Thronomisters to Mongolia for recalibrating at great expense every year, and therefore you, Mr. General Public, should vote for the Liberal candidate. That is not the message we want to send.
The message we want to send is DON"T VOTE FOR Mr. XYZ! All we need to do is run a legal negative campaign or provide some funding for those who are already doing so. We don't have to talk about aviation at all! We can talk about dirty coal mining real estate deals, pederasty, anything you like as long as it is legal and resonates negatively with the electorate.
This is the genius of the U.S. lobbying system: we don't have to prove our case in the court of public opinion. We don't have to have closely reasoned technical arguments - the General Public wouldn't understand them and as others have correctly pointed out, they don't care anyway.
All we have to do is implant a reason, any reason, for the electorate not to vote for our "candidate" and that reason is highly unlikely to be an aviation related reason unless an Airbus suddenly drops out of the sky, the reason is far more likely to be questionable commercial dealing, fiddling of government expense accounts or racist statements about some group or other.
It also matters not if the opposition candidate is a green tree hugger who hates aviation. When our candidate points this out to us we simply say: " be that as it may Mr. Candidate, YOU won't be in Parliament". And if we are successful and our candidate gets binned, we then have Four more years to work on the tree hugger and carefully remind him where some of his electoral support came from and ask if he wants the same again or "the treatment"?
As an aside, I have never really given politics this much thought, but the alleged behaviour of CASA, if true, has had a galvanising effect on this old fart.
To reiterate, what I am suggesting is that we can influence the politicians by running campaigns in marginal seats, and the cheapest form of campaign is a negative campaign.
To put that another way, we don't have to spell out in excruciating detail exactly why CASR 4784 is a load of crap because we will have to send our Thronomisters to Mongolia for recalibrating at great expense every year, and therefore you, Mr. General Public, should vote for the Liberal candidate. That is not the message we want to send.
The message we want to send is DON"T VOTE FOR Mr. XYZ! All we need to do is run a legal negative campaign or provide some funding for those who are already doing so. We don't have to talk about aviation at all! We can talk about dirty coal mining real estate deals, pederasty, anything you like as long as it is legal and resonates negatively with the electorate.
This is the genius of the U.S. lobbying system: we don't have to prove our case in the court of public opinion. We don't have to have closely reasoned technical arguments - the General Public wouldn't understand them and as others have correctly pointed out, they don't care anyway.
All we have to do is implant a reason, any reason, for the electorate not to vote for our "candidate" and that reason is highly unlikely to be an aviation related reason unless an Airbus suddenly drops out of the sky, the reason is far more likely to be questionable commercial dealing, fiddling of government expense accounts or racist statements about some group or other.
It also matters not if the opposition candidate is a green tree hugger who hates aviation. When our candidate points this out to us we simply say: " be that as it may Mr. Candidate, YOU won't be in Parliament". And if we are successful and our candidate gets binned, we then have Four more years to work on the tree hugger and carefully remind him where some of his electoral support came from and ask if he wants the same again or "the treatment"?
As an aside, I have never really given politics this much thought, but the alleged behaviour of CASA, if true, has had a galvanising effect on this old fart.
Last edited by Sunfish; 10th Mar 2013 at 21:36.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The short answer to your post is that the Act can be amended, and the Act is in serious need of amendment.
Can they become interested? Perhaps, but you will also have to interest a party to want to reform aviation in Australia because, as aroa said:
The political disinterest in Aviation has been going on for DECADES, and thru Governments many and various.
Lobby groups in the US are very effective in the main because they are well supported by the interests they represent. In the case of the NRA it also helps to representing a very large percentage of the American public but even groups like the AOPA (US) and NBAA are effective because they are supported. Unlike Australia where our "rugged individualism" leads us to constantly complain about any group that tries to represent us. Look at the history of these groups, riddled with factional disputes and splits that makes the ALP look like a kindergarten class.