Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know Mr Skidmore and know very little about him… but thinking clearly and not influenced by the complex fermented sugars:
What if the industry, rather than berating him, stood behind him and gave him the support to be the broom he needs to be? Am I living in the clouds here? He is in a precarious position as far as I can see with the so called executive calling the bureaucratic shots and laying traps no doubt and dealing with a very angry and discontented mob of aviation professionals.
The question to the broader aviation community is how would one structure a support mechanism for change?
Perhaps the entire community needs to, with a single voice, express a vote of zero nada zilch not even a speckle of confidence in the executive and the mis-regulations being introduced… is such a thing even possible? Is there anyone or group capable of drafting a clear direction for the GA industry?
What if the industry, rather than berating him, stood behind him and gave him the support to be the broom he needs to be? Am I living in the clouds here? He is in a precarious position as far as I can see with the so called executive calling the bureaucratic shots and laying traps no doubt and dealing with a very angry and discontented mob of aviation professionals.
The question to the broader aviation community is how would one structure a support mechanism for change?
Perhaps the entire community needs to, with a single voice, express a vote of zero nada zilch not even a speckle of confidence in the executive and the mis-regulations being introduced… is such a thing even possible? Is there anyone or group capable of drafting a clear direction for the GA industry?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Horatio, I guess you'll be the last man standing, GA is doomed.
The general aviation side of the industry cannot continue to function under the burden of the new regulations, and certainly cant under what's coming.
I'm sorry, but the Australian Taxpayer paid a quarter of a BILLION dollars for alleged regulatory reform, allegedly because of the Plethora of exemptions, concessions and dispensations that had to be issued under the old system.
The bloody ink is not even dry on the "NEW" regulations and we are back issuing exemptions, concessions and dispensations against them.
Hey don't forget we have to PAY for each of these, at $190 bucks an hour??? do lawyers charge that much?? There are a lot of people in GA who would be happy with that in a day.
As someone so eloquently said, the taxpayers have been defrauded.
I have no doubt that there are one or two intelligent people within CAsA who realize, as it stands, general aviation is unsustainable under the existing rules, let alone what is in the pipeline.
Therefore I have great sympathy for those who believe there is a deliberate and malicious conspiracy within CAsA to destroy General Aviation.
As the industry declines and more and more of its key support businesses cry enough and leave the field so the costs rise as the law of diminished returns applies. Monopolies unfortunately are not conducive to efficiencies.
Horatio should know a customer base is like a Pyramid, the base consists of those who will always seek the cheapest price. Put your cost up ten percent and you'll lose twenty five percent of your customers. Unfortunately as your pyramid gets lower and lower, so your ability to sustain your business declines.
There are limits to what people will pay.
Horatio might be the last man standing buried in exemptions, concessions and dispensations but I doubt he'll have many customers.
Yet the answer is tantalizingly so easy, close and almost free. ADOPT NZ Rules like a vast majority of our neighbors have.
Want to see the results?? visit New Zealand.
The general aviation side of the industry cannot continue to function under the burden of the new regulations, and certainly cant under what's coming.
I'm sorry, but the Australian Taxpayer paid a quarter of a BILLION dollars for alleged regulatory reform, allegedly because of the Plethora of exemptions, concessions and dispensations that had to be issued under the old system.
The bloody ink is not even dry on the "NEW" regulations and we are back issuing exemptions, concessions and dispensations against them.
Hey don't forget we have to PAY for each of these, at $190 bucks an hour??? do lawyers charge that much?? There are a lot of people in GA who would be happy with that in a day.
As someone so eloquently said, the taxpayers have been defrauded.
I have no doubt that there are one or two intelligent people within CAsA who realize, as it stands, general aviation is unsustainable under the existing rules, let alone what is in the pipeline.
Therefore I have great sympathy for those who believe there is a deliberate and malicious conspiracy within CAsA to destroy General Aviation.
As the industry declines and more and more of its key support businesses cry enough and leave the field so the costs rise as the law of diminished returns applies. Monopolies unfortunately are not conducive to efficiencies.
Horatio should know a customer base is like a Pyramid, the base consists of those who will always seek the cheapest price. Put your cost up ten percent and you'll lose twenty five percent of your customers. Unfortunately as your pyramid gets lower and lower, so your ability to sustain your business declines.
There are limits to what people will pay.
Horatio might be the last man standing buried in exemptions, concessions and dispensations but I doubt he'll have many customers.
Yet the answer is tantalizingly so easy, close and almost free. ADOPT NZ Rules like a vast majority of our neighbors have.
Want to see the results?? visit New Zealand.
Last edited by thorn bird; 27th Aug 2015 at 08:42.
Off topic, but i have just had two convicting opinions of a BFR under part 61. One says i now need to do the BFR in a consent speed retractable torevaildate my endorsements for CS and retractable. The other says I can still do it in a C172.
Who is right?
Who is right?
Mr. Arm Out The Window once again wishes to talk "sweet reason" and criticises anyone who finds fault with CASA and argues that the status quo is really quite good as far as he is concerned. I fail to see how he could possibly believe that this is so.
Nor do I criticise valid and honest arguments from people who've had a bad run with CASA through no fault of their own.
I do have a problem with those who insult and deride people they don't know (e.g. calling Skidmore a puppet who's only in it to line his own pockets with absolutely no direct knowledge of him), and who call for vague but still ridiculous revolutionary action of some sort, all the while moaning about how hard it is to understand regulations they can't be bothered even trying to read because they feel they've been in the game too long and shouldn't have to keep up!
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, all I ask is for a bit of balance rather than blind CASA bashing any time something annoying happens.
GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk."
Sorry mate, if you believe that, you are ignoring the evidence.
There is no better illustration of why your wrong than across the Tasman compared with Europe, you can leave us out of it, same, same.
EASA Sacked their reg. writers and has embarked on true evidence based reform. WHY?
Most of the Pacific has adopted Kiwi reg's. WHY?
Sorry mate, if you believe that, you are ignoring the evidence.
There is no better illustration of why your wrong than across the Tasman compared with Europe, you can leave us out of it, same, same.
EASA Sacked their reg. writers and has embarked on true evidence based reform. WHY?
Most of the Pacific has adopted Kiwi reg's. WHY?
Last edited by thorn bird; 27th Aug 2015 at 08:37.
Sunfish, if you look in Part 61 the requirements for flight reviews and proficiency checks are in there under the heading of limitations on a particular licence, rating or endorsement.
Design feature endorsements (e.g. constant speed, retractable etc) don't have flight reviews mentioned as a limitation on them as, for example, a class or type rating endorsement does, so doing your BFR (or AFR as per the new terminology) in a 172 with none of those things would be fine - it should still cover you for anything in the single engine aeroplane class.
For example, I'm working flying helicopters at the moment, and doing a flight review in an R22 every two years covers me for the single engine helicopter class, including turbine machines (gas turbine engine is a design feature endorsement).
Some things like instrument ratings need proficiency checks (much the same as the old renewal), some need flight reviews (like a low level rating or an aircraft class or type rating), some don't need a review at all (like a design feature endorsement).
The caveat is the general competency requirement, which essentially says you mustn't go and fly anything that you're not full bottle on its systems and operating procedures.
Hope that helps, and vive la revolucion!!!
Design feature endorsements (e.g. constant speed, retractable etc) don't have flight reviews mentioned as a limitation on them as, for example, a class or type rating endorsement does, so doing your BFR (or AFR as per the new terminology) in a 172 with none of those things would be fine - it should still cover you for anything in the single engine aeroplane class.
For example, I'm working flying helicopters at the moment, and doing a flight review in an R22 every two years covers me for the single engine helicopter class, including turbine machines (gas turbine engine is a design feature endorsement).
Some things like instrument ratings need proficiency checks (much the same as the old renewal), some need flight reviews (like a low level rating or an aircraft class or type rating), some don't need a review at all (like a design feature endorsement).
The caveat is the general competency requirement, which essentially says you mustn't go and fly anything that you're not full bottle on its systems and operating procedures.
Hope that helps, and vive la revolucion!!!
GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk.
What you are saying is that CASA has nothing to do with this. What I am saying is bollocks. Wake up and look around. Nothing to do with CASA you say? I say your dreaming.
What you are saying is that CASA has nothing to do with this.
Struth, just 4 years ago you could get a flight review from half a dozen instructors where I live.
The costs
AOTW, sorry but I have to disagree strongly your view regarding the effect on the Industry. As a Business Owner I can assure you the costs of this new legislation are truly unacceptable. My own increase in costs alone, well exceeds the profit of my Business last year. This really will decimate the Australian Owned sector of the Flight Training Industry. The biggest financial challenge for my own organisation will be funding the Approval to continue doing what I used to do. The costs of simply continuing to do what I used to do are well in excess of $100,000 and I mean, well in excess.
He needs to invoke the parable of Matthew 21:12 - enter the temple and fling aside the tables of unworthy and profiteers.
Exactly what I feel like doing when filtered through Australian International IKEA Airports. The only place in the world it happens - just like the rest of this aviation crap that that gets invented by the profiteers in Australia.
Exactly what I feel like doing when filtered through Australian International IKEA Airports. The only place in the world it happens - just like the rest of this aviation crap that that gets invented by the profiteers in Australia.
Depends what flight review you need, but any Grade 1 or 2 working for a flying school can do a basic flight review ... what is it you can't get where you are?
I was talking about a basic flight review
AOTW, your posts remind me of the continual optimism of employees of CASA, who blithely wander around a decaying GA industry blindly stating that all is good. Are you one of them?
AOTW, I see you still refuse to address the conclusions of the Forsyth Review.
I think, since the conclusions of the Forsyth review have been studiously ignored by CASA, we can safely conclude that CASA is now a bad actor and therefore does not require or warrant "nice professional gentlemanly treatment" they have received this from the industry for 15+ years anymore.
To put that another way; professional reasoned argument has been tried on CASA with little result. We can therefore conclude that "the problem" of aviation in Australia is CASA itself.
The fact that you and I have not had a bad experience with CASA is not relevant since plenty of other people have had such negative experience of CASA they were prepared to go to the time and trouble to tell a Senate Committee about it.
I think, since the conclusions of the Forsyth review have been studiously ignored by CASA, we can safely conclude that CASA is now a bad actor and therefore does not require or warrant "nice professional gentlemanly treatment" they have received this from the industry for 15+ years anymore.
To put that another way; professional reasoned argument has been tried on CASA with little result. We can therefore conclude that "the problem" of aviation in Australia is CASA itself.
The fact that you and I have not had a bad experience with CASA is not relevant since plenty of other people have had such negative experience of CASA they were prepared to go to the time and trouble to tell a Senate Committee about it.
glenb, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CASA are all good, I'm just (as I've said a few times) responding to some of the wilder accusations and personal slagging of Mark Skidmore by people who don't know him.
Part of it is that I flew in the RAAF for quite a while and when I see these blanket quotes about how ex-RAAF live in ivory towers and couldn't organise a root in a brothel I get a bit annoyed.
I'm assuming it's new manuals and approvals, and ADSB which have caused the problems for you, and sorry to hear it. I was a business owner (not aviation) and I sympathise with your situation.
Sunfish, I do think Skidmore is trying to change things, and to address outcomes of the Forsyth review, and I don't reckon personal attacks on him are achieving anything.
Anyway, got to go to work.
Part of it is that I flew in the RAAF for quite a while and when I see these blanket quotes about how ex-RAAF live in ivory towers and couldn't organise a root in a brothel I get a bit annoyed.
I'm assuming it's new manuals and approvals, and ADSB which have caused the problems for you, and sorry to hear it. I was a business owner (not aviation) and I sympathise with your situation.
Sunfish, I do think Skidmore is trying to change things, and to address outcomes of the Forsyth review, and I don't reckon personal attacks on him are achieving anything.
Anyway, got to go to work.
AOTW, your posts remind me of the continual optimism of employees of CASA, who blithely wander around a decaying GA industry blindly stating that all is good. Are you one of them?
It is what it is, based on observations as a CP and CFI. I have no grudge against CASA and have had no hassles with them either. The FOI's I know have, at times ,been professional and helpful too.
What I do note is a greatly increased bureaucratic burden, unrealistic attitudes, a lack of any real help, huge costs associated with minor changes to AOC's and real issues with the processing any new AOC applications.
I also have no issue with AOTW playing devils advocate, nor his reasoned arguments. It is not an us versus them argument with me playing "them" either. All I have done is state the bleeding obvious (to me).
The current rules are difficult to understand and almost unworkable. Needing politicians and meetings to gain expiring exemptions is hardly a good reference for a new rule book either.
What I do note is a greatly increased bureaucratic burden, unrealistic attitudes, a lack of any real help, huge costs associated with minor changes to AOC's and real issues with the processing any new AOC applications.
I also have no issue with AOTW playing devils advocate, nor his reasoned arguments. It is not an us versus them argument with me playing "them" either. All I have done is state the bleeding obvious (to me).
The current rules are difficult to understand and almost unworkable. Needing politicians and meetings to gain expiring exemptions is hardly a good reference for a new rule book either.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ CAA Part 61 - 79 pages
FAA Part 61 - 118 pages
CASA Part 61 - 306 pages!!!
Flying in Australia isn't that unique. In fact, you could argue that the threats (environmental, weather, traffic density) is greater in the US and NZ.
If CASA can't see that the system is broken and their 'regulation reform' isn't working, they've clearly got their head's in the sand.
FAA Part 61 - 118 pages
CASA Part 61 - 306 pages!!!
Flying in Australia isn't that unique. In fact, you could argue that the threats (environmental, weather, traffic density) is greater in the US and NZ.
If CASA can't see that the system is broken and their 'regulation reform' isn't working, they've clearly got their head's in the sand.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Part 61
PLUS about 636 more pages of MOS.
Total, about 1000 ONE THOUSAND pages.
Plus - hundreds of instruments of exemption and no doubt the future necessity to write hundreds of pages of CAAPs to explain this rubbish (when the CASA employees feel brave enough to do so).
PLUS about 636 more pages of MOS.
Total, about 1000 ONE THOUSAND pages.
Plus - hundreds of instruments of exemption and no doubt the future necessity to write hundreds of pages of CAAPs to explain this rubbish (when the CASA employees feel brave enough to do so).