Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Dick Smith - Wagga RSL Media Presentation - Thur 26th April

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

Dick Smith - Wagga RSL Media Presentation - Thur 26th April

Old 27th Apr 2018, 10:15
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by Cloudee View Post
Itís not about winning a seat. Itís about getting enough votes to scare the incumbent to do what you want them to do.
Whether McCormack is scared or not depends on how many people in his electorate he thinks would be likely to not vote for him at the next election over an aviation issue.

The voters probably consider there are more important local issues to them e.g. health and support services, agriculture issues, infrastructure, utility costs etc.
Piston_Broke is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2018, 13:41
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: about there
Posts: 50
That does not mean to say one cannot drive a trailer through the district. Do it!
Blueyonda is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2018, 21:54
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
The voters probably consider there are more important local issues to them e.g. health and support services, agriculture issues, infrastructure, utility costs etc.
When you consider the mediocre job they have done on these, the aviation issue may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
rutan around is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2018, 22:35
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 443
Cloudee
I thought that the plan was to push Government into doing something? The loss of one seat wont change that unless there is very close to a "hung" Lower House. The loss of a single seat, even if it is a minister's seat is not a big deal. I agree that the locals will be more interested in medical, taxes etc and so even a number of angry aviation influenced voters have little chance to influence the outcome in a rural electorate. This is reflected by the Minister's initial statements on safety which as we all know is the usual cop out. Also given that Labor is looking better by the week, losing a country Coalition seat is no big deal to them.

However targeting a Senate position in an era when the Senate and individual Senators are weekly, influencing the direction of Government is the way to go. Its not as "warm and fuzzy" as a Lower House seat because there is no obvious named target but as Roddy Muir and a string of others proved it gives a hell of a lot of influence. Just ask the heads of the big 4 banks if they think that the Senate and the independent Senators have power or not?

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 00:04
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 372
If you want to create change everybody should read today's Australian page 5 headed "Back paddling ensures kayaker so stay afloat".

It is a lesson in how McCormack's department backed down under a deluge of emails and pressure from unpowered kayaks being charge by AMSA for search and rescue and yet fishing boat got let off with almost zero charges.



dhavillandpilot is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 00:24
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 278
McCormack is the Deputy PM and Leader of the National Party so he's not just a run of the mill backbencher. He has clout and needs to keep up a facade of public support.

​​​​​​​In the Qld election a few years ago a billboard campaign against the LNP worked and got the candidates to change their tune. It is visible unlike emails...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 01:06
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 69
I don't think pushing McCormack to change words in the Civil Aviation Act will do a damn thing for the industry.

Even if he did change the words, what would you do then? What do you think would happen?

It won't change CASA's culture. It won't speed regulatory simplification or reform. It won't foster expansion and investment in the various elements of the industry, and clearly the latter wasn't helped by "get out of aviation before you lose all your money" antics.

To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support.

My two cents -
Piston_Broke is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 05:14
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support.
Multiple reforms and proposals confuse punters and politicians alike. Chose just one that's simple and important to us and push it like hell. May I suggest that would be Australia changing to the FAA rules. Clear examples are available that show countries which have done that have thriving aviation industries and at the same time save bucket loads of money by not having a bunch of useless drones making up senseless rules applicable only to Australia and understood by no one.
rutan around is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 05:21
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,942
Keep it simple go with the FAA rules.
Stationair8 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 07:19
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by Piston_Broke View Post
I don't think pushing McCormack to change words in the Civil Aviation Act will do a damn thing for the industry.

Even if he did change the words, what would you do then? What do you think would happen?

It won't change CASA's culture. It won't speed regulatory simplification or reform. It won't foster expansion and investment in the various elements of the industry, and clearly the latter wasn't helped by "get out of aviation before you lose all your money" antics.

To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support.

My two cents -
Totally agree. Forget the Act, instead come up with a set of simple and concise proposals.

I doubt that a nebulous "adopt FAA rules" would get up though.
buckshot1777 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 08:51
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
buckshot1777

I doubt that a nebulous "adopt FAA rules" would get up though.
I don't see anything unclear or hazy about the straightforward proposal but if it would make some politician happier it could be worded along the lines of :-

"If elected my party proposes to adopt worlds best practice in aviation control and development by using the rules and practices of the nation that invented flying and successfully manages safely 10 times the traffic we have in this country .It does all this in an airspace similar to our own at considerably less cost per aircraft.

What is there not to like about this proposal? Iron ring excepted.
rutan around is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 22:57
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,886
Rutan:
AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support.
That way lies madness, period.

Its the regulators job to handle that impossible task of balancing competing interests, including the public interest. That is what they are paid for.

What is required is a rewrite of the Act to include the prime directive of the fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector.

That makes the test of any regulation: 'Is it consistent with "fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector"? AOPA and other associations then can argue with the regulator over the potential outcomes of regulations instead of getting bogged down in useless detail.

This is the only way forward that prevents the regulator from fulfilling its safety mandate by strangling the industry.

To put that another way; The debate over the FAA regulations then becomes: "Would adopting the FAA suite of regulations do more for fostering a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector than the current system?".

Such a rewrite of the Act makes the Board and Department responsible for the state of the industry in terms of not doing anything that kills it.

To try and change anything without making this fundamental alteration is a waste of time.

To put that yet another way, asking AOPA and the other alphabets to come up with a proposal for regulatory reform is impossible. There are too many agendas and that is without CASA inserting itself into the negotiations to divide and rule.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 23:08
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,995
Its the regulators job to handle that impossible task of balancing competing interests, including the public interest. That is what they are paid for.
Wrong. That's what the parliament and policy department are paid to do. They've abdicated that responsibility to CASA.

That's one of the primary reasons why Australia is in the regulatory mess it's in.

It's like giving the police force responsibility for writing the road rules and setting speed limits, while making the police responsible for the road toll.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 00:21
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Don't the FAR's include "foster and promote" the industry it regulates?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 03:10
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Queensland
Posts: 19
Well that's only true, IF they do some online training thing and apply to become a "DAME 2" So we've all been conned, again.
Jeez, imagine having to do some online training - oh the humanity!
Stab Bar is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 05:31
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by Stab Bar View Post
Jeez, imagine having to do some online training - oh the humanity!
Track down one of the many erstwhile DAMEs whoíve bailed out of being a DAME, and ask them why they bailed out.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 06:30
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
To reinvigorate the industry and encourage grants, investment, scholarships, people through the door etc. AOPA and the other associations need to get together and brainstorm a set of tangible proposals and reforms they can push to "someone" - a Senator or McCormack - to support.
Sunny this was posted by Piston Broke. My response was:-
Multiple reforms and proposals confuse punters and politicians alike. Chose just one that's simple and important to us and push it like hell.
I chose that response because of experiences I had way back when I was a union rep. When we did scatter shots about numerous issues we won none of them. When we narrowed it down to one or two issues that were considered very important we had much greater success. Perhaps we aviators should learn from that experience. None of our wins involved strike action but did involve senior public servants and politicians.
rutan around is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 08:43
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,071
What is required is a rewrite of the Act to include the prime directive of the fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector.

That makes the test of any regulation: 'Is it consistent with "fostering of a vibrant, growing, diverse aviation sector"? AOPA and other associations then can argue with the regulator over the potential outcomes of regulations
And realistically, how long is that going to take?

The industry needs an injection of support now, not 5 - 10 years down the track.

Agree with Piston Broke and others. Forget the Act, AOPA and the industry associations should meet and come up with a succinct list of proposals to push.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 11:24
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,886
Without a change to the Act. reform is pointless. You are building on sand. Do I have to spell it out?

P>S. Sorry for misquoting you Rutan around.

Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Apr 2018 at 22:50.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 22:47
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,493
The bureaucracy must be targeted through the Senate. The culture is toxic and needs to change. The regulations reflect the regulator, not the industry. Without change within the bureaucracy at under secretary, department head and deputy head...we will never see any improvment. Remove the office of legal council from regulation input would go a long way to seeing anything written in plain english.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.