General Aviation Summit – Wagga Wagga – 9th & 10th July 2018

[Lead Balloon]

I’m hearing lots of crickets chirping on amendments to section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act, but I will defer to all the PPRuNers with contacts in OPC and the DPM’s office who’ll be able to update us on progress in the drafting of the amendment Bill.

I’m guessing an introduction of the Bill into the House of Reps when it returns to sit next week? I can’t wait for CASA to be obliged to seek to achieve the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation.

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

I’m hearing lots of crickets chirping on amendments to section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act, but I will defer to all the PPRuNers with contacts in OPC and the DPM’s office who’ll be able to update us on progress in the drafting of the amendment Bill.

Folks,
Sadly, the way I read the press statements, the Minister only wants to hear from the GAAG. What an appropriate name.
Put another way, a lot more political pressure is needed.
Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

Once upon a time a lawyer decided to train to get a pilot licence. He was rich and bought his own aircraft in which to do the training.

During training his wise and experienced instructor explained to the lawyer the difference between the best angle of climb speed and the best rate of climb speed. But because the concept didn’t make sense to the lawyer, and because the lawyer knew he was smarter than the instructor - who was only a pilot - the lawyer decided that the way to keep increasing the rate of climb was to keep increasing the pitch attitude of the aircraft.

The instructor tried to explain why the lawyer’s reasoning was misguided, and that the laws of physics dictated best angle and best climb speeds. The lawyer would have none of it and said he would demonstrate why the instructor was wrong. The instructor expressed the view that the lawyer would crash and burn, and urged him not to do what he was proposing to do. Undeterred and unaccompanied by the instructor, the lawyer taxied out.

After take off the aircraft climbed steeper and steeper, and slower and slower, until it stalled, spun, then crashed and burned as predicted, before making even the far end of the runway. The instructor shrugged and thought: At least I tried.

The next day the instructor walked into the office of a lawyer and gave instructions as to changes to the legislation governing the regulation of aviation. The wise and experienced lawyer explained to the instructor why the changes wouldn’t work, as they made no sense, and there were process and political considerations that meant the intended outcome could be achieved by taking a different approach. The lawyer tried to explain how to achieve the outcome the instructor wanted. But because the instructor knew he had lots more experience in aviation than the lawyer, and the lawyer knew nothing about aviation, the instructor pressed for the changes to be made his way. The lawyer expressed the view that the changes would crash and burn. But the instructor would have none of it.

The proposed changes to the legislation crashed and burned before making it even into the parliament. The lawyer shrugged and thought: At least I tried.

[jonkster]

instead,

The lawyer asked the instructor - show me how to climb at the max rate and the max angle, give me the skills and knowledge I need.

The instructor did so. And the lawyer went on to get his PPL and fly happily ever after as he cold afford the costs.

Then the instructor went to the lawyer and asked how to best address the disconnect between how CASA operates and how GA can continue to remain viable and says "what if we did this?" and the lawyer says, "won't work". So the instructor asks "well how about this?" and the lawyer says, "won't work, give up". So the instructor says "well why not?" and the lawyer says "'cause it won't work". So the instructor asks "what will work?" and the lawyer says "don't bother trying it won't work".

So the instructor quits as an instructor, trains to be a lawyer 'cause they seem to know how to keep flying.

[Sunfish]

sadly, the way I read the press statements, the Minister only wants to hear from the GAAG. What an appropriate name.

exactly as predicted, did the same trick meself. AOPA and the other members of GAAG are now co-opted and will become in due course apologists (sorry I mean partners) for CASA - they will start telling you why CASA can't give you what you want and how hard they had to work to get the crumbs you will inevitably be offered. I warned that this would happen unless an arms length approach was taken.

You needed to be going after the organ grinder, not the dancing monkey. Sadly you didn't.

[wishiwasupthere]

At least I tried.

By pontificating on an anonymous internet forum.

Sorry, what did you actually contribute?

[Sunfish]

By pontificating on an anonymous internet forum.

Sorry, what did you actually contribute?

- The unheeded warnings of someone who has actually created and run a gabfest forum such as the Wagga exercise.

- Constant recommendations that unless GA generates some electoral clout it is doomed, and how to do it.

- The unheeded warnings that CASA is likely to force the industry associations to do its iron will on pain of their own destruction.

I attach, for your delectation, the brief for the GAAG, and a toothless piece of vicious crap it is, although its members no doubt mean well, because it is designed solely to silence any industry voices of dissent. The next step will be to give the GAAG Government grants to run a 'communication program" with industry.

General Aviation Advisory GroupTerms of Reference
PreambleThe Australian Government is committed to establishing a regular dialogue with the general aviation (GA) sector on industry issues and working towards achieving the common goal of a safe, growing and sustainable Australian GA sector. AimThe purpose of the General Aviation Advisory Group (the Group) is to:

• operate as a forum where industry representatives can identify opportunities to work collaboratively to respond to pressures facing the GA sector;
• provide advice to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on matters impacting on GA particularly where existing consultative processes are not addressing the issue; and
• act as a reference group for the General Aviation Study, conducted by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics.

Membership and GovernanceThe Chair and Membership of the Group will be upon invitation of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.Members will drive the Group’s agenda and discussions, seeking to avoid duplicating the work of other aviation-related consultative forums and advisory groups.The Group will generally meet twice each year but can meet on other occasions if agreed by the Chair. ReviewThe Group will review its operations after two years to determine whether it is operating effectively and whether it is appropriate for it to continue its work.
General Aviation Advisory GroupOperating Protocols Chair

1. The General Aviation Advisory Group (the Group) will be chaired by an industry member, appointed by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (the Minister).
2. The Chair will sit as a member of the Aviation Strategic Leaders Forum.
3. Chairing arrangements should be reviewed every two years, or as necessary.

Membership

1. Membership of the Group is determined by, and on the invitation of, the Minister.
2. Members of the Group are members in their own right based on their skills and experience in the aviation industry, rather than their affiliation to a particular organisation. Therefore, substituted attendance at meetings will not generally be appropriate.
3. However, should a member be unable to attend a meeting, then the Minister may invite another person to the meeting with similar expertise to the absent member.
4. Experts may be approached to participate in a Group meeting or provide advice to the Group from time to time on an as needed basis. Officials from relevant Government agencies may attend meetings of the Group as required to inform discussions.

Meetings

1. The Group will determine meeting frequency, of up to four meetings per annum.
2. Meetings will generally be held in Canberra, at an appropriate venue. Teleconference facilities will be provided for members who are unable to attend in person.
3. The Chair is responsible for approving the agenda for each meeting, following input from members. The Chair will be supported in their role, including preparation of an agenda, by the Secretariat.
4. The agenda will include issues of high-level strategic importance to the general aviation sector. The Group’s work is to be driven by industry members.
5. Members wishing to include an item on the agenda must prepare and circulate, through the Secretariat, an agenda paper ahead of the meeting.
6. Agenda papers must identify the issues and the outcome sought from the Group’s discussions. Papers should also address issues and present relevant information, such as, inter alia, options, risks, timetables, financial implications, regulatory impacts, compliance costs, and implementation and consultation strategies.
7. Agenda papers should be provided (through the Secretariat) no less than two weeks before each meeting to allow sufficient time for members to consider the papers.

Referral of matters to other forums

1. Matters raised in Group discussions may, at times, be more appropriately dealt with either in other consultative groups, or through direct discussion between a member and the relevant Department or agency of Government.
2. Such matters should be directed to the relevant forum.

Confidentiality

1. The Group is intended to be an opportunity for its members to engage in honest, open and constructive discussion and debate. As such, members should maintain appropriate confidentiality about Group business and discussions.

Governance ArrangementsDecision-making authority

1. The Group is an advisory body and does not have decision-making authority in its own right.

Reporting requirements

1. Record keeping will be undertaken by the Secretariat.
2. The Secretariat will prepare a draft record of outcomes after Group meetings. Members will have an opportunity to comment on the draft record before it is finalised by the Secretariat with the Chair.
3. The Secretariat will provide final meeting records of outcomes to the Minister and members.

Resourcing requirements

1. The members of the Group are to meet their own costs of attendance and participation.

Secretariat

1. Secretariat support for the Group will be provided by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by wishiwasupthere

By pontificating on an anonymous internet forum.

Sorry, what did you actually contribute?

If:

(a) pointing out the fact that the language of the proposed amendment to section 9A doesn’t make sense in English is pontificating

(b) pointing out the fact that OPC would presumptively reject ‘lay drafts’ in any event, and in this case with laughing contempt, is pontificating

(c) spoon feeding a set of coherent instructions that encapsulate what is intended, in a format that might actually have more than a snowflake’s hope in hell of getting anywhere in the legislative process is pontificating,

then yep: I’m pontificating.

What did I contribute? A proposed approach that might have had more than a snowflake’s hope in hell of getting somewhere. I did try.

[Sunfish]

I repost my contribution of 17 May 2018. I even got the name right: GAAG. The Secretariat that actually runs GAAG will be chosen with great care.....

I am increasingly concerned by what I see is a headlong rush into a veritable Elephant trap set by the public service (the PS) for the associations. Everyone in the industry applauds the efforts being made and is trying to be constructive including me however there are risks in this summit process that need to be managed. In pilot speak, you need an alternate flight plan in case this whole thing turns out to be a waste of time otherwise you will be worse off than before because you will have been effectively neutered by the PS.

The chief risk you are facing is that of being co-opted by the Department - willingly accepting the offer by the PS to become part and parcel of industry change. When that happens, you become responsible to the industry for what happens next - which can be a very sad state of affairs for all of us.

The objective of co-opting is to make you become the Departments lap dog. I have done it myself and had it done to me. The entire PS and all the politicians know how to do it. Aany number of ravening wolves have gone to Canberra in search of 'change" and left as puppy dogs. We start the process with a dose of flattery. The Minister listens attentively. There are lunches, speeches, dinners, fine words and promises to you.

What happens next is that the Minister leaves, promising to stay in touch and admonishing the PS to listen to you. You are now face to face with the PS who will advise the Minister. At this point several things can happen, depending on the egos involved. The Department may suggest forming a small working group, lets call it "GA Australia" (GAA for short) to oversee a rewrite of the Act. They may suggest and offer to pay for consultants to sort through the issues and come up with "a range of options" for consideration, but remember they are the Departments consultants, not yours and the options they produce are theirs not yours. At the end of the day they produce a draft act that you have bought into because you are part of the consulting process weren't you?

So what happens next? You, meaning GA Australia or whatever the new peak body is called, get charged with selling the new product to its constituents and that most likely means selling and apologising for the s@#t sandwich that will be presented. When the industry howls that the new Act is worse than the last, the Department simply says; "talk to GA Australia, they helped write it and approved of it". GA Australia is now the Departments lap dog. Furthermore, the Department now doesn't have to listen to or engage with individual industry groups they simply say; "talk to GAA, they are your peak body now." The Department probably gives GAA a grant to set up a secretariat in Canberra and appoint a local CEO, effectively leaving the entire industry voiceless.

I have left out the descriptions of pandering to egos, dividing and ruling, axe grinding, bribing and pandering to associations that is part and parcel of this process. I've seen it done.

Then there is the question of motives. The Minister couldn't give a rats about the industry, all he cares about is votes. Albanese? Same same. CASA don't want change and this "summit' offers them a perfect opportunity to neuter GA for the next five years until either the industry revolts again under a new leader or dies of neglect.

You need plan B, which is to withhold approval or endorsement of anything and continue to try and build an organisation that is capable of affecting electoral outcomes, in other words building a 'nuclear option' because the threat of losing office is the only thing that always works on politicians and their minion

GENERAL AVIATION SUMMIT 2018 - 9th & 10th JULY 2018

[wishiwasupthere]

This place is quickly becoming an echo chamber for a few prominent posters.
​​​​​​​
I still maintain that unless you actually picked up the phone or emailed Ben to offer your services (because its obvious that you delight in having so much more knowledge and experience than others), then yes, all the words you've typed into this thread are useless.

And Sunfish, when push came to shove and you were called to put your money where your mouth is and contribute something meaningful, you were too busy swimming in the Mediterranean. But not too busy to get on Pprune and give your holier than thou opinion anyway.

[Sunfish]

What is the point of supporting a lost cause? An instructor says; "Bloggs, if you have an engine failure after takeoff and you turn back at low altitude, you will spin, crash and burn". Your Bloggs replies 'you are just mouthing holier that thou platitudes". I tried to tell you i have done exactly what the Department has done. It's an old trick. If its new to you too bad.

Ben was/is free to read my posts for what little they are worth.

let's look at your imagination; GAAG: "hey CASA, we reckon you are too heavy handed, you could lighten up and use the FAA regs, by the way, get rid of criminal liability as well". CASA: "why sure thing! We never thought of that before! Coming right up!".

Stop with the fake gravitas. Stop with the idea that this time will be different. Read the GAAG brief and understand that GAAG is a meaningless fig leaf over a venereal regulatory cancer that will kill GA.

[Horatio Leafblower]

pointing out the fact that OPC would presumptively reject ‘lay drafts’ in any event, and in this case with laughing contempt,

I was down the back of the room on the second day of the Wagga summit and I can assure you that the 2 Infrastructure mandarins were laughing and sneering as the resolutions were put.
It was not very encouraging.

I am torn between believing that they really have no idea and are clueless..... or, given the amount of infrastructure spending on airport upgrades at the moment, there is a well-formed plan to kill off GA and re-corporatise regional airports (for sale to the highest bidder or the biggest political donor, whichever comes first)

[Sunfish]

Neither party could give a rats @ss about General aviation. As for recreational aviation, that can be killed off in good time. All the GAAG gambit has done is neutralize a certain organization as it is now inside the tent p1ssing out rather than being a source of electoral pressure as a certain American equivalent is. This is what you need (my bolding ):

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE



PAC NEWS/ISSUES:

AOPA is currently lobbying for legislation to expand the 3rd class medical certificate, and we fought back against the FAA’s unilateral policy-making on Sleep Apnea. We are also working to limit Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) authority to stop and search law-abiding pilots and GA aircraft unless there is reasonable suspicion of illegal activity or probable cause to do so. Other key issues include: finding an alternative to leaded aviation gasoline; protecting the interests of GA as the FAA and Congress work towards modernizing our air traffic control system or NextGen; working in states to cut costs, protect funding, and keep aviation accessible; protecting Santa Monica airport from closure; and leading an effort to transform pilot testing and training.ABOUT AOPA PAC:

AOPA PAC is an integral part of AOPA's efforts to promote the legislative and political interests of all aircraft owners and pilots. AOPA PAC is an independent fund of voluntary, personal contributions. The fund is strictly regulated by the Federal Election Commission and is used by political candidates to defray campaign costs. AOPA PAC is a completely non-partisan entity. Its primary goal is to elect a pro-general aviation majority in Congress.

Under federal law, AOPA is prohibited from giving dues money to candidates for federal office. Therefore, AOPA PAC has been created to identify and contribute money to qualified candidates who weigh the interests of general aviation when considering legislation. In addition to our proven friends in Congress, AOPA PAC works to cultivate new members and candidates who are supportive of the industry.

The AOPA PAC provides members with another collective tool to ensure the needs of general aviation are recognized in Congress. By contributing through AOPA PAC, your dollars are pooled with contributions from other pilots and aircraft owners nationwide. This means that each dollar you give carries far greater weight than if you contributed on your own. By acting through the PAC, you are part of a focused and effective campaign to achieve maximum returns from limited dollars.

By acting through the PAC, AOPA members are part of a focused and effective campaign on behalf of general aviation to achieve maximum returns from limited dollars. The PAC allows us to back our friends in Congress who support us day-to-day in defense of our freedom to fly.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS FOR GIVING TO THE AOPA PAC?

WHICH CANDIDATES RECEIVE AOPA PAC CONTRIBUTIONS?

I WANT MY FUNDS TO GO STRICTLY TO A REPUBLICAN / DEMOCRAT, OTHERWISE I WILL NOT DONATE. IS THIS POSSIBLE?

But you can't do this from inside the GAAG, or can you?

[Horatio Leafblower]

But you can't do this from inside the GAAG, or can you?

Interesting question.

[Lead Balloon]

I was down the back of the room on the second day of the Wagga summit and I can assure you that the 2 Infrastructure mandarins were laughing and sneering as the resolutions were put.
It was not very encouraging.

I am torn between believing that they really have no idea and are clueless..... or, given the amount of infrastructure spending on airport upgrades at the moment, there is a well-formed plan to kill off GA and re-corporatise regional airports (for sale to the highest bidder or the biggest political donor, whichever comes first)

I watched the video. I have a pretty good idea as to what the Infrastructure attendees were doing.

They knew, full well, what they were doing, in the sense that the Minister needed do know whether the ‘Summit’ represented any political risk. They reported - accurately - that the Summit wasn’t a risk, confirmed by a proposed amendment to the Civil Aviation Act that doesn’t make sense even as a sentence in English, much less as a matter of coherent policy.

AOPA load blown.

For the record, I reiterate my suggested way forward that might have more than a snowflake’s hope in proceeding:

1. Dick publicly advocates for a vote for anyone other than the major parties unless and until a list of outcomes have been implemented,

2. Publish the list.

Note that this suggested way forward only coincidentally relates to aviation or AOPA or the merits or whatever other trivia individuals might consider relevant. Achieving the desired outcome has almost nothing to do with the benefits for aviation or the merits of the issue.

[aroa]

Over to AOPA. ! Heads together and develop a PAC. asap. !..Fed election next year. Utilize any AOPA US contacts or liase with their PAC for advice.

As in the past when CAsA could trash, and still does, Government Policy..eg COOP 1997,. and the Miniscules (nutless) and the Boreds have no interest in seeing anything thru to its conclusion, its a hopeless situation for GA.
Going political, as others say, seems to be the only 'hope'.

[Sunfish]

The Associations are now neutered. They are inside the policy bubble that is GAAG. That means that they are stuck having to sell the Government policy they are made privy to and have a hand (well even a little finger) in developing. They become party to policy by osmosis' once the secretariat lets off a paper foreshadowing changes, they have one chance to object - which will cost them membership of GAAG, or they are stuck selling it to their members.

If a PAC is to get up, it must be separate and at arms length from the associations so that they have plausible deniability or they are off GAAG. Of course ideally GAAG won't include reputable members and can thus be ignored, but there is always some wood duck who falls for the "change from within" fable.


The more ominous threat is allegedly CASA authority to approve, meddle in and withdraw self regulating status to the various associations. This allegedly includes approval of individuals in charge of said associations, the ability to license competitors, or not and suchlike Orwellian controls.

I posted about this before: The Kapo System Of Aviation Regulation and CASA

[Lead Balloon]

Now that the major parties return to their self-indulgent ‘leadership’ convulsions and dumb and dumber competition in the lead up to yet another early election, we can safely assume that aviation ‘reform’ is not front of mind and there is little practical possibility of changing that. Aviation has not been engineered into an issue that might upset the cosy duopoly. All you had to do was publicly advocate for an ‘anyone but them vote, until these things have been implemented’, Dick...

All power prices, immigration and Laura Norder from here on in.

I’d be pencilling in this time in 2020 to try again.

[Sunfish]

The summit exercise was to preclude any coherent electoral influence campaigns by what might be termed an aviation lobby group for the four by elections last month and the coming federal election.

it has achieved its aim.

furthermore, CASA is in a position to punish any aviation association that has the temerity to now try any political action. The suggestion that RAA be allowed to sign up aircraft up to PA28, C172 sizes was a deliberate threat to AOPA in my opinion. Similarly the ongoing use of limited time exemptions, fit and proper person tests, approval of association executives and control over the creation of new entities means that CASA maintains an iron grip on Aviation for the foreseeable future.

Dont look for any better result under a labor government either. To them, we are silver tails who don't vote labor anyway, we occupy prime real estate they wish to sell to their mates and we annoy labors partners - the greens.

[Blueyonda]

Have there been any meetings between Govt.,AOPA and CASA since the Wagga summit?