The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Scenic Flights NPRM

Reply

Old 15th Mar 2018, 00:46
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,139
1. Get this simplified scenic flights model up and flying. (And get rid of that RAA scenic flights mascarading as trial instructional flights nonsense. ). AOC costs and time demands is a huge roadblock to small business startups.
Good idea!

Get instructors untied from AOC requirements.
They already sort of are. It took just 6 weeks and $2500 for me to get a "one man band" Part 141 flying school up and running using the CASA ops manual and syllabus

Give RAA simple low cost opportunities to be trained up for Controlled Airspace.
They already have that, all they need to do is get a CASA RPL (pretty well just paperwork and some IF and a flight review) then get a CTA endorsement on same. Voila they can fly their 24 registered aircraft into CTA. A Part 140/141 school that assists in the process does help and there are quite a few. How easy do you want it?
Aussie Bob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2018, 22:21
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
I asked CASA for an update on the Scenic Flight NPRM. Here is the response:

The short answer is that it is still under consideration. CASA is currently conducting separate public consultations for Part 119 and Part 135 of CASR (which covers air transport operations in smaller aeroplanes) and Part 119 and Part 133 of CASR (which cover rotorcraft air transport operations). As you would be aware, at the current moment, scenic flights are regulated as charter flights and under the proposed Part 119 charter and RPT are amalgamated to form air transport.

As part of the public consultation documents, CASA has stated that further public consultation will be conducted with industry in 2019 regarding two previous NPRMs - scenic flight operations and small cargo operations. The aim is to conduct this consultation post the making of Part 119 so that there is a solid baseline with which to frame the discussion, ie) the made Part 119 and the already commenced Parts 141 and 142. Under proposed plans outlined in the current public consultation documents, Parts 119, 133 and 135 would commence in early 2021.
This feedback, along with the currently Part 135 proposal out for feedback, is not great for current or future scenic flight operators.
harrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2018, 01:27
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,389
Folks,
As I noted in an earlier post, have a look at how simple and straightforward it is in the US, and they have a much better "safety" record than AU.
Or have a look how simple it used to be here, 50 years ago, and our safety outcomes have not improved for all the since imposed process.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Aug 2018, 14:50
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post
Good idea!

They already sort of are. It took just 6 weeks and $2500 for me to get a "one man band" Part 141 flying school up and running using the CASA ops manual and syllabus

They already have that, all they need to do is get a CASA RPL (pretty well just paperwork and some IF and a flight review) then get a CTA endorsement on same. Voila they can fly their 24 registered aircraft into CTA. A Part 140/141 school that assists in the process does help and there are quite a few. How easy do you want it?
If Part 61 is really about ICAO harmonisation, then harmonise! You only need a part 141 / 142 like arrangement if you deliver the shortened PPL/CPL courses or doing ATPL/ Multi Crew Training. Your one man band school would’ve cost you nothing, don’t forget about the ongoing audits etc and the associated costs.
As for RAA CTA, glider pilots currently have access without the need to gain an RPL or hold a CASA medical.
roundsounds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Aug 2018, 14:55
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Folks,
As I noted in an earlier post, have a look at how simple and straightforward it is in the US, and they have a much better "safety" record than AU.
Or have a look how simple it used to be here, 50 years ago, and our safety outcomes have not improved for all the since imposed process.
Tootle pip!!
Safety is about education, not regulation! Look at what the FAA does in the way of educating people about hazards versus CASA producing more and more restrictive regulations.

FAA SAFETY
roundsounds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Aug 2018, 02:42
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,389
Originally Posted by roundsounds View Post
Safety is about education, not regulation! Look at what the FAA does in the way of educating people about hazards versus CASA producing more and more restrictive regulations.
FAA SAFETY
Roundsounds,
Exactly, but anything FAA is anathema to the aviation bureaucrats of Australia, and the longer I am around, the more I am forced to believe that too many Australians believe that more regulation is the answer to the meaning of life.

As the last head of the AHRC lamented:" People are still allowed to say what they like around the kitchen table".

FAA's recent actions in reinforcing the preference for education and training over compliance and enforcement only continues a trend of long standing.

If you look at long term "air safety outcomes" (in reality, successful risk management) you will find that Australia and US were level pegging in the 1960s.

From there, they have diverged, with US steadily improving almost every year, until, some years ago now, US became incontestably the "safest", aviationwise, in every category.Meantime, not much has changed in Australia, particularly favorable change based on successful risk management. Just minor "improvement" due to the implosion of a sector.

The point of divergence, of course, was the (then relatively new -- 1958) FAA deciding that education and training to prevent adverse events was far more likely to be a successful risk management strategy than prosecuting the survivors, if any.

The US outcomes are not the US bureaucracy's alone, but the outcome of widespread cooperation with US AOPA and Air Safety Foundation, NBAA, EAA, FSF and various similar bodies, something far less successful here, as the behavior ( despite occasional half-hearted protestations to the contrary) of the bureaucracy demonstrates their belief that all wisdom and knowledge resides in the halls of power.

How right Donald Horne was, when he wrote (and coined the phrase) The Lucky Country, it was not a compliment, more how we succeed, when we do succeed, in spite of ourselves, or in the case of aviation (not just GA) not succeed ---- aviation in Australia is a shadow of what it could and should have been, and fading day by day.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Aug 2018, 02:25
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 179
While a scenic flight is seemingly a simple task, it is not so to the pilot who may very well be in his/her first commercial flying job and will need all the help they can get from the AOC holder. This is a good idea.
The Wawa Zone is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Aug 2018, 04:25
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,389
Originally Posted by The Wawa Zone View Post
While a scenic flight is seemingly a simple task, it is not so to the pilot who may very well be in his/her first commercial flying job and will need all the help they can get from the AOC holder. This is a good idea.
Wawa Zone,
If your example so called pilot needs so much help for the simple task of flying for a short hop VFR ( compared to doing exactly the same thing as a private operation with a couple of friends as a PPL) I shudder at what his/her/its presumed level of (in)competence might be.

Further, as the only difference between the two flights in the above paragraph is that a few $$$ changed hands, pray tell how a few $$$ changing hands made it so much more difficult. And how a few kgs. of dead tree shelf-ware helps.

There really is an aviation regulation version of the Stockholm Syndrome at work here. There is simply no risk management justification, much less a benefit/cost justification, for an AOC for simple straightforward operations ----- as the US has proved for years.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Aug 2018, 06:10
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: perth
Posts: 60
I'm an 'Air Worker' and the changes for that are always 2 years away. ie. don't bother waiting 2 years, because it will still be 2 years.
bolthead is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Nov 2018, 11:48
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 179
LeadSled, sorry I missed your reply for three months; I need to maintain my 0.03 posts per day batting average.
Answer: A private flight with your mates is a private flight where you can pretty much decide what to do and terrify them in the process. A commercial operation is a hire and reward service provided to people you do not know who are paying you to represent the AOC holder and provide a flight within your personal limits, the aircraft's limits and the environmental limits, ie. a far higher standard is required.
That may be a piece of piss to you and I, however at some point we were both "the pilot who may very well be in his/her first commercial flying job", ie., at a transition point where a guiding hand is required.
The Wawa Zone is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Nov 2018, 23:57
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,389
Originally Posted by The Wawa Zone View Post
LeadSled, sorry I missed your reply for three months; I need to maintain my 0.03 posts per day batting average.
Answer: A private flight with your mates is a private flight where you can pretty much decide what to do and terrify them in the process. A commercial operation is a hire and reward service provided to people you do not know who are paying you to represent the AOC holder and provide a flight within your personal limits, the aircraft's limits and the environmental limits, ie. a far higher standard is required.
That may be a piece of piss to you and I, however at some point we were both "the pilot who may very well be in his/her first commercial flying job", ie., at a transition point where a guiding hand is required.
Wawa Zone,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but my "first flight for hire and reward" was on a PPL --- and all quite legal, a CPL was only required at that time and place, if passengers were carried. As for carrying passengers at the time and place, under 12,500 lbs, still no AOC, just the pilot had to have a CPL.
I was also instructing on a PPL.
As for "far higher standards" --- what "far higher standards"?? In GA, in all my years flying, I have never detected a "far higher standard" of actual flying from a CPL versus a PPL, so maybe your standard is to measure by the weight of paperwork??
The present AOC system was, in fact, never intended for light aircraft charter, the old "license" system worked perfectly well, what has happened is a prime example of "bracket creep" in a regulatory sense, and CASA's insatiable desire to micromanage every aspect of Australian aviation.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2018, 00:33
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 179
Mornin' Sled. As much as it pains me to say this, I suggest the 'bracket creep' or perhaps CASA Creep was and remains a good idea. Specifically, because it provides a structure for a new commercial pilot to operate within rather than just roar off on his own and reinvent the aviation industry 1920's style.
I can speak from experience - my first commercial operation was with a borrowed AOC and the advice from the CP consisted of 'Yeah you'll be right mate off ya go', so off I went doing scenic flights in and around the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, including out of Katoomba. Now can you spot the problem with that ?
The Wawa Zone is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2018, 01:02
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outback Australia
Posts: 319
Pop on over to AFAP - pilot jobs.

there is a job advertised for a 210 pilot, to work remotely with minimum supervision. Must have 200 hours TT, and wet season experience.

what could possibly go wrong?

i suggest you cast your minds back to October 2017, and a 210 flying out of Darwin with 2 pilots on board, to refresh your memory as to what could, and did, go wrong.

And yet if the new scenic flights regs go ahead - this is the Brave New World....
outnabout is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2018, 03:39
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,389
Wawa, outnabout et al,
Given that the whole aviation "safety" regulatory structure in Australia has had NIL beneficial effect on air safety outcomes, versus the USA, but has undeniably financially destroyed much of the actual and future potential of aviation in Australia, how is this a "good thing"??
Sound to me like many of you are suffering the Australian aviation equivalent of the Stockholm Syndrome ---- and if you don't know what that is, look it up. But, in short, it means that you become thankful to, and supporters of, your captors and tormentors.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2018, 09:57
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,139
I can speak from experience - my first commercial operation was with a borrowed AOC and the advice from the CP consisted of 'Yeah you'll be right mate off ya go', so off I went doing scenic flights in and around the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, including out of Katoomba. Now can you spot the problem with that ?
So Wanna Zone, with due respect, what you are saying is either, you did ok but you are an ace pilot and others might not be so good, or; you were in over your head and didn't deserve a CPL? Which one is it? As a new commercial pilot I was cut a huge amount of slack from several operators. I still appreciate the opportunities I was given. Trust that would be almost unheard of in these nanny state days. Personally I would like to see it return.

Outandabout, it is a long bow to draw, your comparison. There are 200 hour pilots who can be trusted and who could this job very well. If you want to dwell on the worst case scenario, feel free. I don't agree. I would tend to cut a bit more slack, like I was given in the very start of my career.

Deregulation of simple scenic flights is, IMHO, a good idea.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2018, 15:56
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 179
Sled, you're going to push me over my 0.03 posts / day average.
Instead of Australian VH-xxx v. United States Nxxxx comparisons, lets compare accident stats for regulated VH-xxx aircraft versus not so regulated Australian ultralight etc aircraft; the latter do not fare so well. How about CPL v PPL on the same types ? Yes, CASA is an over-regulator however I suggest it's a bit like the advertising industry adage of 'we know we are wasting half of our advertising budget but we don't know which half'. At least half of it is useful and as you are an ex-CASA man you probably do know which half is wasted.
the actual and future potential of aviation in Australia
The potential to do what ? The tourism industry is not bitching about expensive air fares, technology is allowing other forms of communication besides air, UAV's are providing unmanned aviation solutions to new problems, we have a massive overnight road freight system, and thanks to crap like J Howard we need not worry much about providing air services for our non-existent manufacturing industry.

AB, stop looking for extremes and start looking for spectrums, ie, the stuff in between. I suggest I was a lucky pilot and others might not have been so lucky, and that I was mostly above water and kept my CPL dry while using every bit of it. While I agree with the principle of turning someone loose to allow them to learn decision making ( floridly but incorrectly described as 'get a 1000 in the bush scaring the crap out of yourself' ), as an instructor you'd probably agree with giving them every tool to aid that process before they head off.
The Wawa Zone is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2018, 18:47
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,139
Wawa, I agree which is why I included the “with due respect”. It is true that just about every new CPL scares the shit out of themselves at some stage early in their career. Later too even. It’s always been that way.
I don’t agree with using this fact as a reason not to deregulate the scenic flight industry somewhat from the onerous requirements of a charter AOC.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2018, 23:44
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,389
Wawa,
Let us be clear about one thing, I have never worked for CASA.

As to what CASA by whatever name has done to destroy Australian aviation --- design, certification and manufacturing in Australia has been strangled, that any have survived surprises me. Victa was driven out of Australia, and they are not the only one, more recently Gippsland were almost destroyed, and they were delivered into the hands of Mahindra. Parts and Component manufacture or overhaul is a dead letter, unless you have an FAA or EASA approval.

Contract pilot training in Australia is a rump of what it should be, the story of what CASA did to China Southern Western Australian Flying School is worth a Senate inquiry. That there is more contract pilot training in NZ than Australia --- what does that tell you??

That heavy aircraft maintenance has almost ceased to exist in Australia ( and don't say "cheap Asian labor" unless you can show that Germany and USA are sources of cheap Asian labor) is largely due to the impossibly uncompetitive regulatory structure. You know that Qantas's biggest new company owned facility, A380 + sized, is in California, do you??

As for what works in producing good air safety outcomes, we do know what works and what doesn't, and "The Australian Way" doesn't.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Nov 2018, 01:16
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outback Australia
Posts: 319
Aussie Bob / Leadsled: please enlighten me. I look at the fatal accidents over the last two years, and I wonder how reducing the amount of regulations would have prevented those accidents. However, I also wonder how increasing the regulations would prevent them.

In some instances, Eg Angel Flight at Mt Gambier, it appears to be a pilot completely out of his depth, acting far beyond his experience or training. To my mind, neither decreasing or increasing the regulations will stop cowboys, yet those of us trying to earn a living pay the price in the increased regulations that appear to follow a fatality.
outnabout is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Nov 2018, 20:13
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,873
out about, would you care to comment on the proportions of australian and american pilots holding Ifr ratings? Perhaps under the less costly US system, the Angel flight pilot would have simply filed IFR?
Sunfish is online now  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service