The General Aviation Industry is Being Destroyed
It doesn't take too much guesswork to know who's whispering in his ear.
CC
In this particular case I was thinking of someone located in an office very close to Mr Skidmore's. Someone made of teflon. 
Cost mention in CASA philosophy
There you go Dick,
Cost specifically mentioned in point 2 of CASA's new philosophy statement......
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/s...ory-philosophy
Cost specifically mentioned in point 2 of CASA's new philosophy statement......
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/s...ory-philosophy
Thread Starter
Still looks to me that safety is " the most important consideration"
More important than what? You have it - cost!
Note they don't say that participation levels in aviation are equally important.
Clearly means they are not !
The industry is doomed. Get out as soon as you can.
More important than what? You have it - cost!
Note they don't say that participation levels in aviation are equally important.
Clearly means they are not !
The industry is doomed. Get out as soon as you can.
What a fantastic "philosophy".
Such perfectly proportioned prose.
Pity it's practically pointless.
I'm wracking my brains wondering who took the initiative to draft it (and the recent 'directive'). Who's best-placed to whisper the benefits of these empty gestures into Mr Skidmore's ear. I wonder ...
Such perfectly proportioned prose.
Pity it's practically pointless.
I'm wracking my brains wondering who took the initiative to draft it (and the recent 'directive'). Who's best-placed to whisper the benefits of these empty gestures into Mr Skidmore's ear. I wonder ...
"Safety" is a state of mind. Any CASA butt scratcher can blather on about "safety" and be impossible to contradict.
What is better, but harder, is to implement full blown risk management using an actuarial approach. If that is done, most of CASA and its regulations get swept away.
To put that another way: When someone says "you cannot put a price on human lives". they are talking bullshyte. Insurers, via actuaries, do this very calculation multiple times each day.
What is better, but harder, is to implement full blown risk management using an actuarial approach. If that is done, most of CASA and its regulations get swept away.
To put that another way: When someone says "you cannot put a price on human lives". they are talking bullshyte. Insurers, via actuaries, do this very calculation multiple times each day.
The lawyers managers, and the pen pushers love it......legislate legsilate legislate to make us more safe and keep responsibility as far away from them as possible.
The important practical life saving killer stuff gets drowned in the minutiae created by people who have never sat in a cockpit, let alone sat in a malfunctioning cockpit in a storm at night in the middle of an ocean.
We have thousands of pages of Legislation regulation and AIP, thousands of pages of Ops Manuals thousands of pages of AFMs. Concentrating on the minutiae is becoming special too and self perpetuating in Australia.
The minutiae is also tearing us apart - the regulator v the operators v the crew v ATC (yeah - Australia is the only place worldwide that a lot of overseas crew I have flown with have made the comment that ATC just seem to hate us) v the infrastructure.
When operating in the USA there is a different feeling to aviation - it is a thriving valued service industry, everyone (at least ATC and the crew) are part of the same team and progressive, the rules are simple and well written and the go to document is the singular FAR AIM.
There are more runways and airliners in the terminal areas at just DFW and JFK than there are capital city runways and airliners airborne in Australia. And they have another 50 odd major capital cities.
Why re-invent and propogate the minutiea here - look to the FAA they are doing it safely and practically on a massive scale.
The important practical life saving killer stuff gets drowned in the minutiae created by people who have never sat in a cockpit, let alone sat in a malfunctioning cockpit in a storm at night in the middle of an ocean.
We have thousands of pages of Legislation regulation and AIP, thousands of pages of Ops Manuals thousands of pages of AFMs. Concentrating on the minutiae is becoming special too and self perpetuating in Australia.
The minutiae is also tearing us apart - the regulator v the operators v the crew v ATC (yeah - Australia is the only place worldwide that a lot of overseas crew I have flown with have made the comment that ATC just seem to hate us) v the infrastructure.
When operating in the USA there is a different feeling to aviation - it is a thriving valued service industry, everyone (at least ATC and the crew) are part of the same team and progressive, the rules are simple and well written and the go to document is the singular FAR AIM.
There are more runways and airliners in the terminal areas at just DFW and JFK than there are capital city runways and airliners airborne in Australia. And they have another 50 odd major capital cities.
Why re-invent and propogate the minutiea here - look to the FAA they are doing it safely and practically on a massive scale.
I have been issued with an aerial application flight instructor rating post part 61. (I believe I am the only person in Australia that has). I work part time for an approved part 141 Ag flying school, I have 5 seasons firefighting experience but they won't approve me to teach or issue the fire fighting endorsement, even though we have an APPROVED syllabus because, and I quote, "we are not issuing FF endorsements whilst the exemption is in place". Well done CAsA👍
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't use the FAA as a model !
While yes, there may be some constructive aspects of aviation in the US that merit emulation, and even a few things that FAA still does right,...but do not for a minute think that FAA is a model to broadly copy, or that GA and other US operations are not also under severe cost pressure and flawed criteria pressure from a severely dysfunctional FAA here in the US.
Much of FAA's criteria is obsolete, counterproductive, unnecessary, or overspecified, if not flat out "inappropriate", and in instances is now leading to less safety rather than more safety (by unnecessarily inhibiting advantageous advances).
The US system and FAA are suffering from decades of outdated 1940s to '60s based operating concepts and criteria, for a now entirely obsolete and vastly over-expensive air traffic system. This is also largely true for an often bureaucracy laden counterproductive aircraft, airman, and operations certification system.
That's why the airlines and others in the US (e.g., many in Congress) are now pushing to break up FAA and split out a separate ANSP this fall. GA here is reeling from entirely inappropriate and dysfunctional criteria (e.g., 3rd class medical mess, faulty mis-specified and inappropriate equipage requirements like the WAAS driven FAA ADS-B 2020 deadline, glider avionics ANPRM), as well as many areas of unnecessarily high costs driven by bad or outdated FAA criteria (I could cite pages of examples from TSOs, to rules, to ADs, to STCs to NOTAMS).
Further, NextGen is presently heading straight toward a $40B failure that just simply won't work, at any cost. Even 26 states (now starting to formulate their own UAV criteria), as well as Amazon, and a host of other UAV entities, are now attempting to simply bypass or leapfrog FAA, in exploring their own recommendations for ATC design, as well as chaffing at FAA's seriously flawed and counterproductive ANPRM for UAV policies.
So don't bank on necessarily copying FAA's currently fouled up policies! Many in the US here are actually hoping that Canada, Australia, or NZ eventually someday get it figured out, and then perhaps serve as a model for reconstruction of FAA and a separate ANSP O
Much of FAA's criteria is obsolete, counterproductive, unnecessary, or overspecified, if not flat out "inappropriate", and in instances is now leading to less safety rather than more safety (by unnecessarily inhibiting advantageous advances).
The US system and FAA are suffering from decades of outdated 1940s to '60s based operating concepts and criteria, for a now entirely obsolete and vastly over-expensive air traffic system. This is also largely true for an often bureaucracy laden counterproductive aircraft, airman, and operations certification system.
That's why the airlines and others in the US (e.g., many in Congress) are now pushing to break up FAA and split out a separate ANSP this fall. GA here is reeling from entirely inappropriate and dysfunctional criteria (e.g., 3rd class medical mess, faulty mis-specified and inappropriate equipage requirements like the WAAS driven FAA ADS-B 2020 deadline, glider avionics ANPRM), as well as many areas of unnecessarily high costs driven by bad or outdated FAA criteria (I could cite pages of examples from TSOs, to rules, to ADs, to STCs to NOTAMS).
Further, NextGen is presently heading straight toward a $40B failure that just simply won't work, at any cost. Even 26 states (now starting to formulate their own UAV criteria), as well as Amazon, and a host of other UAV entities, are now attempting to simply bypass or leapfrog FAA, in exploring their own recommendations for ATC design, as well as chaffing at FAA's seriously flawed and counterproductive ANPRM for UAV policies.
So don't bank on necessarily copying FAA's currently fouled up policies! Many in the US here are actually hoping that Canada, Australia, or NZ eventually someday get it figured out, and then perhaps serve as a model for reconstruction of FAA and a separate ANSP O
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want the FAA rules adopted here for GA, I want the job outsourced to the FAA while we decide which of their rules we can abolish. The FAA is a mess but less of one than CASA are (or NZCAA where the rules are simple but suck).
The whole ADSB based ATC system is suffering from being conceived in the mid 1990s. There have been huge advances in computers and comms since then and of course drones have come along, enabled by GPS. Without GPS or something similar they are a non starter for any BVR use.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for NZ or Australia to come up with new rules. NZ is run by smug self satisfied bureaucrats and CASA has taken 21 years to do a cleanup and rationalisation of aviation regulation and failed miserably.
The problem is that just about EVERYONE has forgotten what the aims of regulation are. If we get back to that and actually try to solve the RIGHT problem we may get somewhere.
So here it is:
1. Protect people on the ground from having aircraft fall on them. This is actually a very small risk as shown by historical data. Aircraft crash all the time for all sorts of reasons(usually brain failure) and rarely is there more than some small property damage on the ground
2. Protect airspace users from each other. Modern technology (not ADSB) can do this (see Oz Runways and Avplan's position reporting and traffic awareness capability and before anyone runs off at the mouth, these are currently only a nice proof of concept of what is possible, as is FLARM).
3. Recognise that raising your frail body to an energy level well above that of the surrounding environment is dangerous but that it is a risk that informed adults should be allowed to make.
I'm mainly talking about private aviation (including recreational) here.
The whole ADSB based ATC system is suffering from being conceived in the mid 1990s. There have been huge advances in computers and comms since then and of course drones have come along, enabled by GPS. Without GPS or something similar they are a non starter for any BVR use.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for NZ or Australia to come up with new rules. NZ is run by smug self satisfied bureaucrats and CASA has taken 21 years to do a cleanup and rationalisation of aviation regulation and failed miserably.
The problem is that just about EVERYONE has forgotten what the aims of regulation are. If we get back to that and actually try to solve the RIGHT problem we may get somewhere.
So here it is:
1. Protect people on the ground from having aircraft fall on them. This is actually a very small risk as shown by historical data. Aircraft crash all the time for all sorts of reasons(usually brain failure) and rarely is there more than some small property damage on the ground
2. Protect airspace users from each other. Modern technology (not ADSB) can do this (see Oz Runways and Avplan's position reporting and traffic awareness capability and before anyone runs off at the mouth, these are currently only a nice proof of concept of what is possible, as is FLARM).
3. Recognise that raising your frail body to an energy level well above that of the surrounding environment is dangerous but that it is a risk that informed adults should be allowed to make.
I'm mainly talking about private aviation (including recreational) here.
The legality of Drones in Australia vs the USA is very different due to court rulings over there in the past which has made drones difficult to legislate for them. Hence Amazon wanting to make their own.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent "fundamental basis" for authorities and ANSPs post
Thank you Eyrie for clearly reiterating the fundamental reasons for both authorities, and ANSPs.
But there is also one more responsibility for an authority however, and that is to assure a specified level of safety for "Paying passengers", who otherwise buy a ticket in "common Carriage" (in the US this is often called the "Highest level of safety" dating from the original FAA Act, which in itself has always been problematic language, since the highest level of safety is literally to not fly at all.
For ANSPs, there is also a typical responsibility to provide agreed facilities (to the extent that they are wanted by the airspace users, and the users are willing to pay for them - e.g., navaids, lighting systems) to facilitate flight operations.
The global aviation system needs to review and get back to, and better understand these basic fundamentals, if there is to be any hope of GA economically and practically surviving for another century (and the same for other airspace users to survive too).
But there is also one more responsibility for an authority however, and that is to assure a specified level of safety for "Paying passengers", who otherwise buy a ticket in "common Carriage" (in the US this is often called the "Highest level of safety" dating from the original FAA Act, which in itself has always been problematic language, since the highest level of safety is literally to not fly at all.
For ANSPs, there is also a typical responsibility to provide agreed facilities (to the extent that they are wanted by the airspace users, and the users are willing to pay for them - e.g., navaids, lighting systems) to facilitate flight operations.
The global aviation system needs to review and get back to, and better understand these basic fundamentals, if there is to be any hope of GA economically and practically surviving for another century (and the same for other airspace users to survive too).
Meanwhile in the USA ......
FAA makes upgrading attitude indicators easier - AOPA
A new FAA policy statement will make it easier for aircraft owners to replace vacuum-driven attitude indicators with newer, more reliable electronically driven models. It’s a change AOPA has long advocated as part of a larger effort to make it easier and more affordable to put modern safety equipment in the legacy fleet.
The new policy statement, issued Sept. 14, makes replacing a vacuum-driven attitude indicator with an electronically driven attitude indicator a “minor alteration” under most circumstances. The policy applies to Part 23 aircraft weighing less than 6,000 pounds.
“This new policy statement is a move in the right direction when it comes to helping owners increase their safety and modernize their aircraft,” said David Oord, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. “We hope this signals a broader shift toward commonsense, risk-based policies that will help keep the legacy fleet flying for many years to come.”
The policy statement allows the replacement of a single-function vacuum-driven attitude indicator with either a single-function electronically driven attitude indicator or one with a secondary function, such as a turn-and-slip indicator. The replacement instrument must have an independent standby battery to power it in the event of a loss of primary electrical power, be placed in a way that allows for partial panel techniques in the event of instrument failure, and meet other applicable regulations.
For the installation to be considered a minor alteration, additional conditions must be met regarding the location of the new instrument, the installation of a dedicated circuit breaker, and alterations to the existing electrical and vacuum connections in the aircraft.
A new FAA policy statement will make it easier for aircraft owners to replace vacuum-driven attitude indicators with newer, more reliable electronically driven models. It’s a change AOPA has long advocated as part of a larger effort to make it easier and more affordable to put modern safety equipment in the legacy fleet.
The new policy statement, issued Sept. 14, makes replacing a vacuum-driven attitude indicator with an electronically driven attitude indicator a “minor alteration” under most circumstances. The policy applies to Part 23 aircraft weighing less than 6,000 pounds.
“This new policy statement is a move in the right direction when it comes to helping owners increase their safety and modernize their aircraft,” said David Oord, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. “We hope this signals a broader shift toward commonsense, risk-based policies that will help keep the legacy fleet flying for many years to come.”
The policy statement allows the replacement of a single-function vacuum-driven attitude indicator with either a single-function electronically driven attitude indicator or one with a secondary function, such as a turn-and-slip indicator. The replacement instrument must have an independent standby battery to power it in the event of a loss of primary electrical power, be placed in a way that allows for partial panel techniques in the event of instrument failure, and meet other applicable regulations.
For the installation to be considered a minor alteration, additional conditions must be met regarding the location of the new instrument, the installation of a dedicated circuit breaker, and alterations to the existing electrical and vacuum connections in the aircraft.
Media reps,
Industry about to give up? Maybe our last chance as we collapse on our knees. Good story here? Is it true we haven’t graduated an ATPL licence since 1 Sep ’14. Excellent for overseas pilots on 457 visas. Our schools are slowly melting away and the Asia boom is passing us by ……… why?
Urgent reminder from TLSIC – due 16 Oct ‘15
Note to media. Late notice apology. For those struggling with unresolved CASA issues; maybe send your concerns also to TLSIC. CASA and TLSIC must be aligned for many reasons; RTO approval and visas for overseas students to name a few. So read on:
The Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council Ltd (TLISC) is one of eleven Industry Skills Councils funded by the Government through the Department of Industry. TLISC is chartered with driving the skills and workforce development agenda across the entire transport and logistics industry which encompasses activities in road transport, warehousing, rail, aviation, maritime, logistics and ports.
Call for submissions: Aviation Workforce Skills Study. TLISC has been contracted by the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to undertake a study into the state of the aviation workforce in Australia. The study will identify the industry’s workforce and skill need, as well as the actions that can be taken by industry to meet those needs.
The Aviation Workforce Skills Study will build on the methodology used to develop TLISC’s annual Environmental Scan (E-Scan). It will draw on the extensive data collected by various government agencies on the aviation industry, as well on other publicly-available data and on TLISC’s own research. Stakeholder consultations will be an integral part of the process.
TLISC is calling for submissions on workforce and training issues affecting the Aviation industry. In particular, we are keen to hear industry perspectives on: areas currently experiencing skills shortages; emerging skills and industry’s capacity to meet demand; factors affecting labour supply; comments on the current training framework, including the quality of skills training, the impact of training costs and whether these impacts are disproportionate compared to other industries; and impact of Asia-Pacific traffic growth and opportunities for the Australian aviation industry; measures industry can implement to respond to these aviation workforce challenges, including outcomes of existing programmes.
For more information, please contact Amanda Thomas – General Manager, Strategy and Policy. Tel: 02 6163 7226. Email: Email: [email protected]
AHIA
Industry about to give up? Maybe our last chance as we collapse on our knees. Good story here? Is it true we haven’t graduated an ATPL licence since 1 Sep ’14. Excellent for overseas pilots on 457 visas. Our schools are slowly melting away and the Asia boom is passing us by ……… why?
Urgent reminder from TLSIC – due 16 Oct ‘15
Note to media. Late notice apology. For those struggling with unresolved CASA issues; maybe send your concerns also to TLSIC. CASA and TLSIC must be aligned for many reasons; RTO approval and visas for overseas students to name a few. So read on:
The Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council Ltd (TLISC) is one of eleven Industry Skills Councils funded by the Government through the Department of Industry. TLISC is chartered with driving the skills and workforce development agenda across the entire transport and logistics industry which encompasses activities in road transport, warehousing, rail, aviation, maritime, logistics and ports.
Call for submissions: Aviation Workforce Skills Study. TLISC has been contracted by the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to undertake a study into the state of the aviation workforce in Australia. The study will identify the industry’s workforce and skill need, as well as the actions that can be taken by industry to meet those needs.
The Aviation Workforce Skills Study will build on the methodology used to develop TLISC’s annual Environmental Scan (E-Scan). It will draw on the extensive data collected by various government agencies on the aviation industry, as well on other publicly-available data and on TLISC’s own research. Stakeholder consultations will be an integral part of the process.
TLISC is calling for submissions on workforce and training issues affecting the Aviation industry. In particular, we are keen to hear industry perspectives on: areas currently experiencing skills shortages; emerging skills and industry’s capacity to meet demand; factors affecting labour supply; comments on the current training framework, including the quality of skills training, the impact of training costs and whether these impacts are disproportionate compared to other industries; and impact of Asia-Pacific traffic growth and opportunities for the Australian aviation industry; measures industry can implement to respond to these aviation workforce challenges, including outcomes of existing programmes.
For more information, please contact Amanda Thomas – General Manager, Strategy and Policy. Tel: 02 6163 7226. Email: Email: [email protected]
AHIA