GENERAL AVIATION SUMMIT 2018 - 9th & 10th JULY 2018
Not sure independent instructing going to make a big difference.
I assume the independent instructors will be using their own aircraft?
Aircraft costs per hour are lower if the aircraft is more heavily utilised.
Flying schools or clubs typically can offer a variety of aircraft that are more heavily utilised (and therefore cheaper per hour to operate) than if there is only one instructor (utilisation then becomes dependent on the single instructor's availability).
I have no problems with independent instructors per se but think, why not look at encouraging schools and clubs thrive rather than treat them as a problem?
A healthy system would have a variety of schools and flying clubs from small to large providing a variety of experiences and individual points of difference. I would like to see an environment that encouraged that rather than undermine it.
I assume the independent instructors will be using their own aircraft?
Aircraft costs per hour are lower if the aircraft is more heavily utilised.
Flying schools or clubs typically can offer a variety of aircraft that are more heavily utilised (and therefore cheaper per hour to operate) than if there is only one instructor (utilisation then becomes dependent on the single instructor's availability).
I have no problems with independent instructors per se but think, why not look at encouraging schools and clubs thrive rather than treat them as a problem?
A healthy system would have a variety of schools and flying clubs from small to large providing a variety of experiences and individual points of difference. I would like to see an environment that encouraged that rather than undermine it.
Eddie,
Just to make it quite clear, so, hopefully, even you can understand, by "inquiry" I am not referring to the regular embarrassing appearances by CASA/Airesevices/ATSB at Senate Estimates, but dedicated procedures, such as Royal Commissions, or the "Forsyth Report", established by letters patent, Ministerial directive or whatever, processes with dedicated staff, advertised and taking submissions from interested parties, and publishing a dedicated report, not just Hansard.
If you bothered to take off your rose coloured glasses, you would find that the total devoted to CASA is greater than any other Commonwealth instrumentality. And by a very large margin!!
Why do you think this might be the case???
Why do you think CASA appeals take up so much of the AAT time. AAT has specialists in taxation, immigration and AVIATION --- can you explain the need, compared to so many other technical areas where matter are heard by the AAT.
Why does CASA apparently generate more enforcement proceedings than the FAA , is Australian aviation such a bunch of cowboys?? After all, the aviation sector in Australia is little more than a statistical blip, compared to US, less than 10% of the size.
Tootle pip!!
Just to make it quite clear, so, hopefully, even you can understand, by "inquiry" I am not referring to the regular embarrassing appearances by CASA/Airesevices/ATSB at Senate Estimates, but dedicated procedures, such as Royal Commissions, or the "Forsyth Report", established by letters patent, Ministerial directive or whatever, processes with dedicated staff, advertised and taking submissions from interested parties, and publishing a dedicated report, not just Hansard.
If you bothered to take off your rose coloured glasses, you would find that the total devoted to CASA is greater than any other Commonwealth instrumentality. And by a very large margin!!
Why do you think this might be the case???
Why do you think CASA appeals take up so much of the AAT time. AAT has specialists in taxation, immigration and AVIATION --- can you explain the need, compared to so many other technical areas where matter are heard by the AAT.
Why does CASA apparently generate more enforcement proceedings than the FAA , is Australian aviation such a bunch of cowboys?? After all, the aviation sector in Australia is little more than a statistical blip, compared to US, less than 10% of the size.
Tootle pip!!
Lead Sled you remind very much of a bunch of typewriter warriors who would classify people on this BB as pro-CASA (them) and the rabid anti-CASA (us) so it was always that you are part of us or one of them. Why do I think this:
You seem to very much want to put people in certain boxes because that makes it easier for you.
So where do you put the President of AHIA who is quoted as saying this about CASA : "We are both starting to get a better appreciation for each other's problems. CASA is starting to understand the helicopter industry better and the problems the industry has, both operational and financial. We, likewise, are gaining a better understanding of what their procedures and requirements are, driven largely by legal requirement"(AA P39 June 2018)
So is this a person who has the rose coloured glasses on or has never had to deal with CASA Rampant; or did he work for CASA at one point in his career?
The issue is not really CASA, but that your axe to grind is so pathological that anyone questioning your rhetoric is immediately classified as "not being one of us".
There is a whole BB with pitchforks and fire and they are big fans of yours. Why don't you do us all a favour and go to the happy CASA hunting ground ( I do have a long memory of their PP expression).
BTW Watched AJ DS and PC and it did as much to advance the cause of GA as all the Senate Inquiries put together.
As for the apologists for CASA, they are in two broad categories, it seems to me.
The first are those who work for CASA, in one way or another, and secondly, those who have never had to deal with the real "CASA Rampant".
The first are those who work for CASA, in one way or another, and secondly, those who have never had to deal with the real "CASA Rampant".
So where do you put the President of AHIA who is quoted as saying this about CASA : "We are both starting to get a better appreciation for each other's problems. CASA is starting to understand the helicopter industry better and the problems the industry has, both operational and financial. We, likewise, are gaining a better understanding of what their procedures and requirements are, driven largely by legal requirement"(AA P39 June 2018)
So is this a person who has the rose coloured glasses on or has never had to deal with CASA Rampant; or did he work for CASA at one point in his career?
The issue is not really CASA, but that your axe to grind is so pathological that anyone questioning your rhetoric is immediately classified as "not being one of us".
There is a whole BB with pitchforks and fire and they are big fans of yours. Why don't you do us all a favour and go to the happy CASA hunting ground ( I do have a long memory of their PP expression).
BTW Watched AJ DS and PC and it did as much to advance the cause of GA as all the Senate Inquiries put together.
There are plenty of axe grinders out there LookLeft and I guess you would agree that there are a few in CASA as well. However that doesn't change the fact that the main conclusion of the Forsyth review was that CASA has lost the trust of the industry. That is a totally damning criticism* as you must know, working for CASA as you seem to do.
*Actually organisationally fatal to a government agency.
P.S. As for the "legal requirements" excuse given by CASA and presumably swallowed by AHIA. I think I may have a little more experience dealing with Lawyers than you (including being sued by the AFL of all people which is an entertaining story). I spent upwards of $200,000 per year with law firms for a whole slew of contracts and advice. Lawyers fall into two categories; the average - who complexify things as much as possible in order to garner as much power, control and money as possible and who obviously infest CASA, and the true legal geniuses who can cut through an argument like a knife, can reduce difficult concepts to a few words and write simple concise english rules and regulations. Plain English law and regulations like the FAA's are eminently achievable in Australia. It just requires the will to implement them.
Here is a hint; a well written rule or regulation will explain how to comply and what will happen to you if you don't comply. So much for CASA use of weasel words like 'appropriate', "acceptable", "sufficient" and of course "fit and proper".
*Actually organisationally fatal to a government agency.
P.S. As for the "legal requirements" excuse given by CASA and presumably swallowed by AHIA. I think I may have a little more experience dealing with Lawyers than you (including being sued by the AFL of all people which is an entertaining story). I spent upwards of $200,000 per year with law firms for a whole slew of contracts and advice. Lawyers fall into two categories; the average - who complexify things as much as possible in order to garner as much power, control and money as possible and who obviously infest CASA, and the true legal geniuses who can cut through an argument like a knife, can reduce difficult concepts to a few words and write simple concise english rules and regulations. Plain English law and regulations like the FAA's are eminently achievable in Australia. It just requires the will to implement them.
Here is a hint; a well written rule or regulation will explain how to comply and what will happen to you if you don't comply. So much for CASA use of weasel words like 'appropriate', "acceptable", "sufficient" and of course "fit and proper".
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Jun 2018 at 03:26.
So where do you put the President of AHIA who is quoted as saying this about CASA : "We are both starting to get a better appreciation for each other's problems. CASA is starting to understand the helicopter industry better and the problems the industry has, both operational and financial. We, likewise, are gaining a better understanding of what their procedures and requirements are, driven largely by legal requirement"(AA P39 June 2018)
So is this a person who has the rose coloured glasses on or has never had to deal with CASA Rampant; or did he work for CASA at one point in his career?
.
Do you really mean that we are intended to believe that such a statement as the above is anything more than a carefully crafted political statement from the head of an industry organisation, which has to deal with CASA is it is, and not what they would prefer it to be ---- more like NZ CAA or FAA, or Transport Canada?? And Ministers generally indifferent to the aviation sector.
Indeed, I am well acquainted and have worked closely with some well known members of the AHIA, who have had significant problems with CASA over the years. I have worked quite closely with several Presidents of the AHIA, do you really imagine that a public statement like the above would be the same as their private views??
Whether you wish to believe it or not, my views on CASA and its predecessors are based on direct experience, not some "ivory tower" theoretical position.
In all my years in aviation, in Australia the industry has always been in an adversarial relationship with whatever the regulator of the day was called, with any "win" for the industry seem as a "loss" by the regulator. There has been little evidence, ever, of mutual trust and cooperation for the good of industry advancement, and the Australian economy as a whole.
Consequently, with very rare exceptions, I agree with the finding of the many Royal Commissions and other judicial/semi-judicial/Parliamentary/ other inquiry finding into CASA, including the detailed findings of ICAO and FAA audits (not just the CASA/Government PR on the latter two).
And two exceptions --- I disagreed with the ASRR (Forsyth) report on adding an additional layer of legislation, or a lack of recommendation to amend the Act. I can safely say that, with the value of hindsight, if the ASRR team were writing their final report today, I would not have those two exceptions.
There would be no third tier of legislation, there would be a recommendation for re-writing the Act.
Tootle pip!!
See Sunfish, you have just reinforced my point perfectly:
If you disagree with those whose knowledge of higher levels of government and the way the system works is above any mere mortals that inhabit this forum(just ask them) then you must work for CASA! I am quite sure that there are axe grinders in CASA and probably those with a pathological hatred of GA ( I have met them) but you and Lead Sled and aroa and thorn bird are no different, its just that you are on the other side of the fence. At least the others have actually dealt with CASA and have worked in the industry. You just want to tell as many people as possible how important you were when you were a consultant/advisor to government.
So to you Lead Sled, that other great figjam of Pprune. Assuming you started your aviation career in the 60's( to be generous), that would mean that you have been ranting against the regulator for nearly 60 years with still no result!
So all the pontificating changed nothing then and will change nothing now. I don't think the quote from the AHIA President suggests their relationship has always been fruitful but it seems as though the AHIA has just got on with the job and improved the lot of their members. The same goes for Clare Prop. I don't know the person from a bar of soap but when they state they have a good working relationship with CASA you say that can't be right. Eddie Dean is clearly (in your eyes) delusional because he doesn't share the same spot on the Wailing Wall with you. ICAO states that CASA are well above the world average on the metrics they use, and that according to ICAO not CASA, yet you say its all smoke and mirrors. Like I said earlier if you want to post on a BB with like minded people who want to shower you with chocolate treats from an ex-Australian biscuit manufacturer then off you shoot.
What your posts and Sunfish et al lack is any sense of balance. So when others don't agree with you then you get very personal and that is what I object to.
There are plenty of axe grinders out there LookLeft and I guess you would agree that there are a few in CASA as well. However that doesn't change the fact that the main conclusion of the Forsyth review was that CASA has lost the trust of the industry. That is a totally damning criticism* as you must know, working for CASA as you seem to do.
I think I may have a little more experience dealing with Lawyers than you (including being sued by the AFL of all people which is an entertaining story). I spent upwards of $200,000 per year with law firms for a whole slew of contracts and advice.
In all my years in aviation, in Australia the industry has always been in an adversarial relationship with whatever the regulator of the day was called, with any "win" for the industry seem as a "loss" by the regulator. There has been little evidence, ever, of mutual trust and cooperation for the good of industry advancement, and the Australian economy as a whole.
What your posts and Sunfish et al lack is any sense of balance. So when others don't agree with you then you get very personal and that is what I object to.
Last edited by Lookleft; 12th Jun 2018 at 11:59. Reason: PS Kharon, you are mellowing in old age, yours was a balanced post
Lookleft,
On one level, your last effort is quite funny, based wholly on assumption. In complete ignorance of who I might be, and what I might have done, you automatically assume nothing I have done has achieved anything.
I will leave it to those who actually know me, to assess what I might have achieved, aviation reform wise.
Tootle pip!!
On one level, your last effort is quite funny, based wholly on assumption. In complete ignorance of who I might be, and what I might have done, you automatically assume nothing I have done has achieved anything.
I will leave it to those who actually know me, to assess what I might have achieved, aviation reform wise.
Tootle pip!!
There you go again, assumption, wrong initials, and that would be a bit of a thin CV, if that's all there was!!
And you clearly have not read the detailed ICAO audit reports, that are (were??) on the Department of (now) Infrastructure web site, and have probably never had access to the FAA audit. Suffice to say (as others here know) Australia has twice in recent years gone very close to being relegated to a Cat. 2 nation by FAA/USA, thanks to CASA.
You may or may not know the severe commercial penalties that would bring to the Australian aviation sector, particularly Qantas and Virgin, and only headed off, on both occasions, by frantic diplomatic activity.
Have you ever actually read any of the various inquiry reports with an open mind (but not open at both ends).
I never cease to be amazed at the CASA boosters claims, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Tootle pip!!
Yes Sunfish but you also think you know who people work for based on their disagreeing with you. You are wrong. I would think that a dysfunctional organisation is one that never admits it is wrong and bases its opinions on its own bias rather than factual information.
Lookleft has excelled himself, a nigh on perfect description of dysfunctional CASA, and here we all thought he was just a CASAkisser and apologist.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The above is a rare (the only) example of Lookleft actually addressing the issue, rather than ignore inconvenient truths.
Yep LL you got it !!
CAsA IS a dysfunctional (dis) 'organisation' that never admits it is wrong...and proves that by covering up and hiding the wrongs ( serious criminality) of its employees.
And having suffered their bullsh*t and bias, I know about that as well.
Nothing to see here, just a minor 'code' breach.!
From some of the paperwork I have gathered under FOI..or more to the point CAsAs NON FOI...to make life difficult and continue the cover up...I can assure you there truly are some people with the high ranks of CAsA that should be certified. The Loonies really are in charge of their asylum.!
CAsA IS a dysfunctional (dis) 'organisation' that never admits it is wrong...and proves that by covering up and hiding the wrongs ( serious criminality) of its employees.
And having suffered their bullsh*t and bias, I know about that as well.
Nothing to see here, just a minor 'code' breach.!
From some of the paperwork I have gathered under FOI..or more to the point CAsAs NON FOI...to make life difficult and continue the cover up...I can assure you there truly are some people with the high ranks of CAsA that should be certified. The Loonies really are in charge of their asylum.!
Well WJRH FIGJAM you and aroa have completely lost the irony of my comment. I was referring to Sunfish. Let me try and explain in clear and simple terms that men of your advanced age might understand. Your rants against CASA show the same propensity to never admit you are wrong and you base your opinions on your own bias rather than factual information. The very thing you accuse CASA of is what you do page in and page out of Pprune. It may come as a surprise to you but I have never stated that CASA is a well run organisation that is fault free. I have restated what ICAO has published about CASA and taken at face value what people like Clare Prop, Eddie Dean and the President of the AHIA have put forward in public forums. What I do is contrast their viewpoint with the vehement hysteria of your posts. I also like to point out the "line shooter" aspect of your rants. Your aviation memory goes back a long way Bill. I imagine that you would even have flown with the wartime pilots who would have had an equal disdain of the "line shooter".
I'm not the only one who thinks that. This from Pprune 2003:
I'm not the only one who thinks that. This from Pprune 2003:
bill is past his use by date and should stand back and let others that are just as well versed on the matters he believes he is the only expert on get on with the job
Last edited by Lookleft; 13th Jun 2018 at 03:01.
