AOPA | General Aviation Pilot Numbers
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From AVweb:
The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (IAOPA) is pressing the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to adopt the so-called driver’s licence medical as the standard for all private pilots. At the recent World Assembly held in Chicago just before AirVenture 2016, the 63 delegates from 28 member nations passed the following resolution: “The IAOPA Secretary General (Craig Spence) shall work with ICAO towards formal acceptance of medical requirements for private pilots, that are based on national or state medical standards that are currently used for drivers of motor vehicles.” The ICAO standard is currently the same one now in place in the U.S. and most other flying nations and requires private pilots to have standardized medicals from designated doctors at regular intervals depending on their age. But the U.S., which has by far the most private pilots in the world, will be adopting a modified regime of medical requirements for pilots and it will not comply with ICAO standards.
As we’ve reported extensively, Congress has ordered the FAA to amend medical requirements for most private pilots to a system based mostly on self certification and declaration. All pilots would be required to have at least one FAA medical but beyond that it would be up the pilot and his or her family doctor to determine their medical fitness. After the new rules are adopted, any U.S. pilots opting for self certification will not be able to fly legally in other countries. The IAOPA resolution appears to go further than the current U.S. proposal in that there would be virtually no medical oversight for private pilots beyond what is required to maintain a driver’s licence. Those requirements vary from state to state and country to country as well, particularly in the case of older drivers who must prove competence in some jurisdictions
As we’ve reported extensively, Congress has ordered the FAA to amend medical requirements for most private pilots to a system based mostly on self certification and declaration. All pilots would be required to have at least one FAA medical but beyond that it would be up the pilot and his or her family doctor to determine their medical fitness. After the new rules are adopted, any U.S. pilots opting for self certification will not be able to fly legally in other countries. The IAOPA resolution appears to go further than the current U.S. proposal in that there would be virtually no medical oversight for private pilots beyond what is required to maintain a driver’s licence. Those requirements vary from state to state and country to country as well, particularly in the case of older drivers who must prove competence in some jurisdictions
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LS,
My understanding of the HORSCOT review back around 1985 was it was primarily focused (for our purposes) on the emergence of Ultralights and the CAA's refusal to allow them to be heavy enough to be structurally sound, keep them below 300' AGL and not allow any training.
The results of this policy were obvious and alarming to the public, they were falling like flies. I can recall at the time a comment attributed to a senior CAA fellow that under this policy it would be likely the problem would go away with a little time.
No doubt they had to move away from that kind of rhetoric when they added the "S" to CAA.
However what I was referring to regarding the relaxation to sporting aircraft was much more recent with the adoption of the experimental category in parallel to how it was being done in the US.
This cleared the way for a massive expansion in the types of aircraft kits which could be imported, built and flown in Australia. I feel it was this evolution that has led us to where we are today with performance homebuilts.
Clearly though the HORSCOT's report was a massive win for the AUF at the time and allowed things such as the Jabiru to flourish.
Folks,
Do not give CASA any credit for something they did not do, the above was forced on CAA/CASA politically, starting with the HORSCOT (Darling) report into sports aviation,
Do not give CASA any credit for something they did not do, the above was forced on CAA/CASA politically, starting with the HORSCOT (Darling) report into sports aviation,
The results of this policy were obvious and alarming to the public, they were falling like flies. I can recall at the time a comment attributed to a senior CAA fellow that under this policy it would be likely the problem would go away with a little time.
No doubt they had to move away from that kind of rhetoric when they added the "S" to CAA.
However what I was referring to regarding the relaxation to sporting aircraft was much more recent with the adoption of the experimental category in parallel to how it was being done in the US.
This cleared the way for a massive expansion in the types of aircraft kits which could be imported, built and flown in Australia. I feel it was this evolution that has led us to where we are today with performance homebuilts.
Clearly though the HORSCOT's report was a massive win for the AUF at the time and allowed things such as the Jabiru to flourish.
Leroy Keith was vehemently opposed by the hard core, to the degree that he was set up by said cabal, and had to resign.
Maybe I've misremembered...
Having followed this thread start to today the two things that come out are
The golden days of flying your Cherokee or 172 privately are over. These days the equivalent is people my age buying a RAUS type instead of the red MG B or Ferrari
The other golden period to pass is the business that puts a shingle out with 'for charter'
The only successful charter companies these days have a business model based on such roles as tourism freight
aero medical
With air fares so low why be knocked around in a Baron when you can fly in an ATR orDHC 8
The GA industry can and will survive for those that can adapt to what the modern world demands
The golden days of flying your Cherokee or 172 privately are over. These days the equivalent is people my age buying a RAUS type instead of the red MG B or Ferrari
The other golden period to pass is the business that puts a shingle out with 'for charter'
The only successful charter companies these days have a business model based on such roles as tourism freight
aero medical
With air fares so low why be knocked around in a Baron when you can fly in an ATR orDHC 8
The GA industry can and will survive for those that can adapt to what the modern world demands
The GA industry can and will survive for those that can adapt to what the modern world demands.
I suppose the point that AOPA and others are making is that "the modern world" shouldn't involve Dark Ages medical and regulatory intervention. In "the modern world" things are supposed to be done on the basis of objective analysis of evidence and objective and comparative risks and costs.
An analysis on that basis would result in:
(1) CASA AVMED being reduced to a coordinator of modern world medical practitioners carrying out examinations and issuing Class 1 medical certificates (minus the CVD restrictions bull****), and
(2) the product of the regulatory 'reform' bugger's muddle being put through the shredder
neither of which steps would produce any substantial diminution in safety outcomes, but would reduce, substantially, the resource burdens imposed and stress caused by the busywork of the regulator.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the days of the 140's/172's etc. are pretty much numbered, they served us well for a long time but they are by todays standards inefficient.
The way forward right now at least for private ownership is kit built 2 seaters with good GNM fuel economy and better GS and cheap-ish entry prices. In fact a local aeroclub is considering selling their old Cessna and purchasing a 2 seat performance kit plane (ready to fly). This will likely reduce their flying costs and invigorate club enthusiasm.
The next step might need to be a process whereby we allow a commercial entity to assemble the kits on behalf of a new owner. The more I consider this concept the more spin off benefits I see. However it will only work whilst CASA are kept on a short leash, in the meantime in the absence of government enthuisiasm there is a golden opportunity some semi retired LAME's to beaver away in sheds for cash money.
This is already happening in the shadows and is proving successful, however our ever listening government still considers this to be so heinous as to warrant prison time if your caught and resist paying your financial penance.
In an act of gross hypocrisy though, it is the same business model as governments around the world including ours do and have done when purchasing high ticket priced items from aircraft to cars to machinery and plant. Bought in basic kit assembled locally.
Maybe Malcolm Turnbull when he publicly outlined his vision of an "innovation nation" was intending his comment to be taken metaphorically rather than literally.
The way forward right now at least for private ownership is kit built 2 seaters with good GNM fuel economy and better GS and cheap-ish entry prices. In fact a local aeroclub is considering selling their old Cessna and purchasing a 2 seat performance kit plane (ready to fly). This will likely reduce their flying costs and invigorate club enthusiasm.
The next step might need to be a process whereby we allow a commercial entity to assemble the kits on behalf of a new owner. The more I consider this concept the more spin off benefits I see. However it will only work whilst CASA are kept on a short leash, in the meantime in the absence of government enthuisiasm there is a golden opportunity some semi retired LAME's to beaver away in sheds for cash money.
This is already happening in the shadows and is proving successful, however our ever listening government still considers this to be so heinous as to warrant prison time if your caught and resist paying your financial penance.
In an act of gross hypocrisy though, it is the same business model as governments around the world including ours do and have done when purchasing high ticket priced items from aircraft to cars to machinery and plant. Bought in basic kit assembled locally.
Maybe Malcolm Turnbull when he publicly outlined his vision of an "innovation nation" was intending his comment to be taken metaphorically rather than literally.
I haven't heard any Commonwealth government of recent times connect innovation with aviation.
Apparently the infrastructure inputs to innovation are roads and railways. So 21st century!
I suppose governments figure that aviation and innovation don't mix. I'm guessing a Commonwealth government won't be building any airport infrastructure unless and until the public interest test is met: Would the new airport be a lucrative monopoly that can be gifted to our political camp followers/donors?
Apparently the infrastructure inputs to innovation are roads and railways. So 21st century!
I suppose governments figure that aviation and innovation don't mix. I'm guessing a Commonwealth government won't be building any airport infrastructure unless and until the public interest test is met: Would the new airport be a lucrative monopoly that can be gifted to our political camp followers/donors?
Youngmic, kit built means 51% done by the owner. Serial assembly will turn the product into another class that will require LAME maintenance.
Be careful of all those sleek two seaters. They are gorgeous looking but the low wing ones have little legs that are easily busted and not much crosswind ability. RVAC had considerable experience with sport stars and they did not prove as bullet proof as the old C150's.
Be careful of all those sleek two seaters. They are gorgeous looking but the low wing ones have little legs that are easily busted and not much crosswind ability. RVAC had considerable experience with sport stars and they did not prove as bullet proof as the old C150's.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Youngmic, kit built means 51% done by the owner. Serial assembly will turn the product into another class that will require LAME maintenance
My point exactly, time for a rule change/modify or so be it, as a homebuilt owner but not builder I don't mind having a LAME look over my aircraft it costs little when I help out and it adds another level of safety to the exercise.
Be careful of all those sleek two seaters. They are gorgeous looking but the low wing ones have little legs that are easily busted and not much crosswind ability. RVAC had considerable experience with sport stars and they did not prove as bullet proof as the old C150's.
In the bigger picture it probably won't matter, they'll break a few but it means they're using them and as you said they're gorgeous looking and this means peeps will want to fly 'em.
If the legs break evolution kicks in and the manufacturer will beef them up or locals will innovate a retro upgrade. One way or another stuff will happen and unless stuff happens soon enough we will be reading NOTAM's with "Caution Tumble Weeds Across the Runways".
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen and ladies, or should I say Colleagues,
there is an article in this AM's Australian that everyone in the Industry should read.
For the first time in the mainstream press a tacit admittance by CAsA that perhaps they have got it wrong.
To me it illustrates that AOPA has now got its act together and finally become a true advocate for the GA industry and is gaining traction in the very urgent necessity to reform the regulator.
There will no doubt be some who dont necessarily agree with everything AOPA is expressing, but they appear to be making headway and regardless of issues people may have, I believe it is vital that if you have skin in the game or love the industry as I do, we all need to get behind AOPA, become involved as a member, not just adding your finacial support, but your input, ideas, knowledge and experience.
The AOPA in Australia could grow into the powerful advocate that the AOPA in the US is for their industry, to do that they need support.
there is an article in this AM's Australian that everyone in the Industry should read.
For the first time in the mainstream press a tacit admittance by CAsA that perhaps they have got it wrong.
To me it illustrates that AOPA has now got its act together and finally become a true advocate for the GA industry and is gaining traction in the very urgent necessity to reform the regulator.
There will no doubt be some who dont necessarily agree with everything AOPA is expressing, but they appear to be making headway and regardless of issues people may have, I believe it is vital that if you have skin in the game or love the industry as I do, we all need to get behind AOPA, become involved as a member, not just adding your finacial support, but your input, ideas, knowledge and experience.
The AOPA in Australia could grow into the powerful advocate that the AOPA in the US is for their industry, to do that they need support.
Last edited by thorn bird; 12th Aug 2016 at 23:29.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny, great idea but I fear it would be like trying to herd a bunch of cats.
I'm just an outsider looking in.
What I see is a bunch of competing ego's that CAsA plays very well.
There are several core issues I believe that everyone agree's with, if people could just put aside their own self interests and focus on those we might start getting somewhere.
To my mind AOPA has had a win in the PR game, they have created a crack in the armour, without support, that is membership, not just for fees, which are less than a tank full of gas for your car, but putting ego's aside and actively participating, there is a chance to build on that little win.
There are some very astute people now involved in AOPA management but they cannot do much without membership support.
I'm just an outsider looking in.
What I see is a bunch of competing ego's that CAsA plays very well.
There are several core issues I believe that everyone agree's with, if people could just put aside their own self interests and focus on those we might start getting somewhere.
To my mind AOPA has had a win in the PR game, they have created a crack in the armour, without support, that is membership, not just for fees, which are less than a tank full of gas for your car, but putting ego's aside and actively participating, there is a chance to build on that little win.
There are some very astute people now involved in AOPA management but they cannot do much without membership support.
Maybe I've misremembered...
Not really, RHS was no supporter of Leroy, and when he was presented with the opportunity to challenge Leroy, he did. The rest is history, with Leroy's services being snapped up elsewhere.
However, it was the dud figures from those we would now call the "iron ring", that set Leroy up for the confrontation with the Board.
Tootle
