CSFCWA grounded
Thread Starter
CSFCWA grounded
During a discussion at JANDAKOT Yesterday was told that all of China Southern's training operations have been suspended by the regulator. A time of three to six months was mentioned. That will be expensive and require a lot f work to bring the students back up to speed.
Folks,
Who owns the outfit now, seeing as China Southern sold out quite a while ago, and only had "remnant" training there, having moved most of their cadet training to Canada.
Tootle pip!!
Who owns the outfit now, seeing as China Southern sold out quite a while ago, and only had "remnant" training there, having moved most of their cadet training to Canada.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Geosynchronous
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less people in the air (outside of the major airlines) - Check!
Less people employed in criminal activity (committing general aviation) - Check!
Plus
The team that runs this country (property developers and speculators) will win again as another nail's hammered into YPJT!
There are a lot of people employed there and it brought in a lot of revenue to WA, how can anyone say this is a good thing?
The loss of revenue for Jandakot will probably be passed on to the other tenants.
Enjoy your peace on the radio.
The loss of revenue for Jandakot will probably be passed on to the other tenants.
Enjoy your peace on the radio.
Folks,
Let's go back a bit further, as this has been a long time coming.
The WA Government, in times past, put together a quite large scale plan for development of aviation businesses in WA, to the intended long term benefit of the WA (and Australian) economy ----
In short, to "Promote and Foster" aviation in WA.
I still have a copy of the report and final policy document --- an impressive publication, whichever way you looked at it, except if you worked for CASA in Canberra.
A direct upshot of that, and WA trade missions to RP China, was WAFC becoming China Southern WAFC --- Merredin airfield was acquired, and a (then) US$750,000,000.00 (three quarters of a billion dollars US) development was announced.
That is a bloody big investment, even in 2017 dollars, let alone fifteen years ago.
Then came CASA, after frustration after frustration, the investment program was truncated, and finally canned, and most of the money went to NZ, and to Canada, where the respective regulatory authorities are not actively hostile to aviation --- the hostility often tinged with undisguised racial bias --- as exhibited on this thread.
A couple of years ago, I attended a major GA conference in Xi'an, China, where I had a long conversation with the head of China Southern's external to China cadet pilot training program -- unsurprisingly, his comments were scathing.
He made it very plain( at a breakout session) that they (China Southern) would never again consider Australia as a place for cadet training, as had originally been intended ---- they have a policy of training cadets in a western environment.
Australia really is "the lucky country" ---- and Donald Horn did not mean that to be a compliment.
Tootle pip!!
Let's go back a bit further, as this has been a long time coming.
The WA Government, in times past, put together a quite large scale plan for development of aviation businesses in WA, to the intended long term benefit of the WA (and Australian) economy ----
In short, to "Promote and Foster" aviation in WA.
I still have a copy of the report and final policy document --- an impressive publication, whichever way you looked at it, except if you worked for CASA in Canberra.
A direct upshot of that, and WA trade missions to RP China, was WAFC becoming China Southern WAFC --- Merredin airfield was acquired, and a (then) US$750,000,000.00 (three quarters of a billion dollars US) development was announced.
That is a bloody big investment, even in 2017 dollars, let alone fifteen years ago.
Then came CASA, after frustration after frustration, the investment program was truncated, and finally canned, and most of the money went to NZ, and to Canada, where the respective regulatory authorities are not actively hostile to aviation --- the hostility often tinged with undisguised racial bias --- as exhibited on this thread.
A couple of years ago, I attended a major GA conference in Xi'an, China, where I had a long conversation with the head of China Southern's external to China cadet pilot training program -- unsurprisingly, his comments were scathing.
He made it very plain( at a breakout session) that they (China Southern) would never again consider Australia as a place for cadet training, as had originally been intended ---- they have a policy of training cadets in a western environment.
Australia really is "the lucky country" ---- and Donald Horn did not mean that to be a compliment.
Tootle pip!!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
Leady; Which further reinforces my view that it is an active and definite plan of CASA to deliberately destroy General Aviation in Australia!
Why??
FIIK!
Why??
FIIK!
I'm with 'Clare',
'Hear Hear' as they say......
AND....From 'LeadSled'
Re" He made it very plain( at a breakout session) that they (China Southern) would never again consider Australia as a place for cadet training, as had originally been intended ---- they have a policy of training cadets in a western environment"
Surely this could be an issue for "DFAT" to take up.
It seems that 'our regulator' may be stifling foreign investment and trade..??
Has this ever been put before the Minister?
No cheers
'Hear Hear' as they say......
AND....From 'LeadSled'
Re" He made it very plain( at a breakout session) that they (China Southern) would never again consider Australia as a place for cadet training, as had originally been intended ---- they have a policy of training cadets in a western environment"
Surely this could be an issue for "DFAT" to take up.
It seems that 'our regulator' may be stifling foreign investment and trade..??
Has this ever been put before the Minister?
No cheers
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Leadie.....why is it that Dick has not been all over the media with that feedback? It is sad to read your words, and hardly surprising.
I am not sure there is a written policy to destroy GA in Australia, but there certainly seems to be zero doubt that they do their best to stamp out any spot fires of GA they find at all costs.
Just like another regulatory authority group that write their own "policy" despite what the act says.
I am not sure there is a written policy to destroy GA in Australia, but there certainly seems to be zero doubt that they do their best to stamp out any spot fires of GA they find at all costs.
Just like another regulatory authority group that write their own "policy" despite what the act says.
Sorry - just had a few beers and wine but I get tired of hearing about how bad CASA is why they are the baddies but seriously - whinge as much as you want - talk is cheap, it has been going on for ages and nothing changes.
Their mandate is safety, not sustainability. That is what they were tasked to do, it is in their mission statement.
Given that, they do what they are tasked to do.
Sustainability of the industry is *not* what they are asked to support. Why do we expect them to somehow look for sustainability and growth? Why are we surprised that they don't?
What we need is not to whinge about them for doing what they were tasked to do, what we need to do is lobby the government to change their mandate!
We need a governing body whose mandate is explicitly to support aviation. Whinging about them doing their job might feel good but changes nothing. We need to change their job.
We need to have a body whose mandate is not just industry safety but also industry sustainability.
That will happen when we push that with politicians through industry bodies and through representations to our local members and senators.
A safe AND viable industry will be good for our economy. Change the CASA mission rather than ask why they work to uphold their mission rather than expect them to just decide to do what we want. They are doing their job. It is the job requested that is wrong.
Going to bed now... probably will regret posting tomorrow...
Their mandate is safety, not sustainability. That is what they were tasked to do, it is in their mission statement.
Given that, they do what they are tasked to do.
Sustainability of the industry is *not* what they are asked to support. Why do we expect them to somehow look for sustainability and growth? Why are we surprised that they don't?
What we need is not to whinge about them for doing what they were tasked to do, what we need to do is lobby the government to change their mandate!
We need a governing body whose mandate is explicitly to support aviation. Whinging about them doing their job might feel good but changes nothing. We need to change their job.
We need to have a body whose mandate is not just industry safety but also industry sustainability.
That will happen when we push that with politicians through industry bodies and through representations to our local members and senators.
A safe AND viable industry will be good for our economy. Change the CASA mission rather than ask why they work to uphold their mission rather than expect them to just decide to do what we want. They are doing their job. It is the job requested that is wrong.
Going to bed now... probably will regret posting tomorrow...
Once you've had your beauty sleep, let us know what your definition of "safety" is.
That's the heart of the problem.
The almost inevitable consequence of giving one agency responsibility for both "safety" outcomes and the setting of "safety" standards is that the agency's response to any accident will be the imposition of more rules and more restrictions. It's like making the police responsible for both the road toll and the setting of speed limits.
That's the heart of the problem.
The almost inevitable consequence of giving one agency responsibility for both "safety" outcomes and the setting of "safety" standards is that the agency's response to any accident will be the imposition of more rules and more restrictions. It's like making the police responsible for both the road toll and the setting of speed limits.
The other problem is that it's all good and well to say "Well that's their job" but should they also not be able to use some common bloody sense and think "Well gee, we should probably be trying to do a bit more for the Industry!!". Instead they sit at their desks, fat, dumb and happy pulling in large amounts of money and giving back the bare minimum.
