GA is doomed – Minister believes safety is more important than cost
Thread Starter
GA is doomed – Minister believes safety is more important than cost
Clearly general aviation is doomed because Minister McCormack still believes safety is more important than cost. He made it clear in Wagga at the summit that he has the same views as previous Minister John Anderson which caused the problems in the first place.
At the summit, the Minister said as follows:
From this statement it is clear that our Deputy Prime Minister has completely ignored the facts that I brought forward in my Wagga address (See here).
Once again I say to everyone get out of aviation as quick as you can. If you stay in you will lose more. I see at least another five years of destruction before our politicians will realise that you actually need to tell the truth and that aviation is like everything else in life. That is, nothing is perfectly safe and you have to recognise that by misallocating safety resources you can run an industry out of business.
Remember, CASA completed a flawed cost-benefit study on ADS-B and Australia introduced the mandate for ADS-B equipment for IFR aircraft three years earlier than the USA. What is the use of the mandate if we mainly have uncontrolled airspace at low levels where the ADS-B is not used for separation purposes?
At the summit, the Minister said as follows:
“I have had the opportunity to meet with the Shadow Minister and agreed that we are both committed to adopt a bipartisan approach to aviation safety.
Aviation safety is above politics.
We are both committed to aviation safety being the most important consideration in safety regulation …”
Aviation safety is above politics.
We are both committed to aviation safety being the most important consideration in safety regulation …”
Once again I say to everyone get out of aviation as quick as you can. If you stay in you will lose more. I see at least another five years of destruction before our politicians will realise that you actually need to tell the truth and that aviation is like everything else in life. That is, nothing is perfectly safe and you have to recognise that by misallocating safety resources you can run an industry out of business.
Remember, CASA completed a flawed cost-benefit study on ADS-B and Australia introduced the mandate for ADS-B equipment for IFR aircraft three years earlier than the USA. What is the use of the mandate if we mainly have uncontrolled airspace at low levels where the ADS-B is not used for separation purposes?
So by now you should have worked out that the problem is bi-partisan abdication of responsibility, to CASA, of the core function of policy making that is supposed to balance costs and risks and benefits. CASA is genetically predisposed to ever-more complexity and restriction.
When are you finally going to use your influence to bring about real change?
If you were to announce that you had lost faith in the competence of the major parties, and publicly and actively advocated for a vote for ‘anyone but them’ until a stated list of outcomes had been achieved (note: not the empty promises and task forces that you’ve fallen for in the past), those outcomes would be achieved very quickly. The cosy duopoly will always act to protect itself - sorry, to protect the public interest.
I don’t understand why you sit, watch and commentate on the death throes of GA when you are uniquely empowered to actually do something about it. The average punter listens to you and respects you. The major parties worry about what the average punter thinks. The outcomes of Wagga? Not so much.
When are you finally going to use your influence to bring about real change?
If you were to announce that you had lost faith in the competence of the major parties, and publicly and actively advocated for a vote for ‘anyone but them’ until a stated list of outcomes had been achieved (note: not the empty promises and task forces that you’ve fallen for in the past), those outcomes would be achieved very quickly. The cosy duopoly will always act to protect itself - sorry, to protect the public interest.
I don’t understand why you sit, watch and commentate on the death throes of GA when you are uniquely empowered to actually do something about it. The average punter listens to you and respects you. The major parties worry about what the average punter thinks. The outcomes of Wagga? Not so much.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 16th Jul 2018 at 06:08.
Dick if you had stood up for us, as you were asked to, when Minister Albanese was allowing airport leaseholders to gouge GA to within an inch of its life and GA businesses were being evicted from their own premises I might have believed you cared about more than the immediate airspace you personally fly in and your personal experiences at CASA.
CASA are only part of the problem, something unlikely ever to change except to get worse, but high-profile pressure for the minister to simply follow due process and enforce the terms of the head leases could have made a huge difference. Where were you and AOPA then?
CASA are only part of the problem, something unlikely ever to change except to get worse, but high-profile pressure for the minister to simply follow due process and enforce the terms of the head leases could have made a huge difference. Where were you and AOPA then?
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon, thanks for your confidence in me. I am tempted to do what you say – that is, advise people not to vote for any of the major parties unless they agree with some important points which are supported by most Australians.
The problem with aviation is that most people I talk to are only interested in airline travel and would probably prefer that GA didn’t exist at all. Of course they haven’t linked the fact that if GA fails, we probably won’t have the safety of Aussie pilots flying our airlines.
I hate sitting and watching the death throes of GA and I would do anything I could possibly do to stop this from happening, however I have a feeling that the quicker it happens, the quicker it will be fixed.
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the Minister would simply repeat the discredited “safety is the most important consideration” wording. Presumably he has done this to support the bureaucrats within his office, within the Department and within CASA. Presumably it is all about not being accountable.
Of course it is a lie, and I am positive the Minister must know that because I explained to him the reason the Wagga tower isn’t manned is that it was a case where cost was the most important consideration.
Clare Prop, what a load of rubbish. I spent tens of thousands of dollars of my money assisting various organisations in various states to take on the airport owners in legal action. AOPA was also concerned about the problem but simply didn’t have the resources to take on the airport owners that have enormous amounts of financial reserves for legal action.
From what I could make out, the airport leaseholders had paid too much for the airports – clearly the responsibility of a previous Government – and were then trying to get some type of return rather than going broke. Most businesses are like that.
The original mistake was to sell off the secondary airports. I never supported that, I was never asked about it and I had no involvement. I would have been opposed to it.
The problem with aviation is that most people I talk to are only interested in airline travel and would probably prefer that GA didn’t exist at all. Of course they haven’t linked the fact that if GA fails, we probably won’t have the safety of Aussie pilots flying our airlines.
I hate sitting and watching the death throes of GA and I would do anything I could possibly do to stop this from happening, however I have a feeling that the quicker it happens, the quicker it will be fixed.
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the Minister would simply repeat the discredited “safety is the most important consideration” wording. Presumably he has done this to support the bureaucrats within his office, within the Department and within CASA. Presumably it is all about not being accountable.
Of course it is a lie, and I am positive the Minister must know that because I explained to him the reason the Wagga tower isn’t manned is that it was a case where cost was the most important consideration.
Clare Prop, what a load of rubbish. I spent tens of thousands of dollars of my money assisting various organisations in various states to take on the airport owners in legal action. AOPA was also concerned about the problem but simply didn’t have the resources to take on the airport owners that have enormous amounts of financial reserves for legal action.
From what I could make out, the airport leaseholders had paid too much for the airports – clearly the responsibility of a previous Government – and were then trying to get some type of return rather than going broke. Most businesses are like that.
The original mistake was to sell off the secondary airports. I never supported that, I was never asked about it and I had no involvement. I would have been opposed to it.
By the time people needed legal help it was much too late.
Assisting in legal action is one thing, bringing it to the attention of the public would have perhaps been more effective and putting pressure on a minister just to follow due process, our right to "quiet enjoyment" of a commonwealth sub-lease without being personally threatened in our own premises would have been a good start.
The Airport Owners are the Commonwealth Government so who were you actually taking legal action against?
Were you advised by the same people who told you that Merredin had been "transferred into Chinese ownership" ?
If the airport leaseholders didn't do due diligence and paid too much for the leases then that was their problem, the Feds were going to take the highest bidder, of course. GA tenants were only ever going to be collateral damage while Albanese and Garrett looked the other way when the bulldozers and tilt-up concrete came in. It should never have got that far.
Assisting in legal action is one thing, bringing it to the attention of the public would have perhaps been more effective and putting pressure on a minister just to follow due process, our right to "quiet enjoyment" of a commonwealth sub-lease without being personally threatened in our own premises would have been a good start.
The Airport Owners are the Commonwealth Government so who were you actually taking legal action against?
Were you advised by the same people who told you that Merredin had been "transferred into Chinese ownership" ?
If the airport leaseholders didn't do due diligence and paid too much for the leases then that was their problem, the Feds were going to take the highest bidder, of course. GA tenants were only ever going to be collateral damage while Albanese and Garrett looked the other way when the bulldozers and tilt-up concrete came in. It should never have got that far.
I am tempted to do what you say – that is, advise people not to vote for any of the major parties unless they agree with some important points which are supported by most Australians.
The problem with aviation is that most people I talk to are only interested in airline travel and would probably prefer that GA didn’t exist at all. Of course they haven’t linked the fact that if GA fails, we probably won’t have the safety of Aussie pilots flying our airlines.
I hate sitting and watching the death throes of GA and I would do anything I could possibly do to stop this from happening, however I have a feeling that the quicker it happens, the quicker it will be fixed.
So your plan is to wait for everyone to wake up some day after the last of the little maintenance organisations and flying schools and charter organisations close the hangar doors, whereupon it will somehow become clear that this could and should have been avoided? I reckon that’s not a good plan, Dick.
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the Minister would simply repeat the discredited “safety is the most important consideration” wording. Presumably he has done this to support the bureaucrats within his office, within the Department and within CASA. Presumably it is all about not being accountable.
But threaten the cosy duopoly by actively and publicly advocating for an ‘anyone but them’ vote, Dick, and you’ll be amazed at the bi-partisan support you’ll get for whatever outcomes you want.
Your perennial problem is that you assume that politicians care about the objective merits of an issue.
The only thing politicians really care about is getting re-elected. Whatever it takes.
The only thing CAsA cares about is itself. "Safety" is just a scam for a Bureaucratic Soviet Empire.
As the most costly "self-licking ice cream" with its endless reviews, brown papers, hearings and floods of noxious regs, it can snow-job the politicians forever because of "safety" "safety" "safety" at any cost to the GA industry.
Anything can be done in the name of "safety"....and it is.
All too keep the power of Fort Fumble intact...whatever it takes.
Very, VERY depressing.
Perhaps we the aviation people /AOPA bus n all, need to have a mass protest outside aviation house Carmody cant send a plod to arrest us all..as tried with an industry 'burr' in the coffee shop ( !) ,in the recent past.
A MASS Caravan to Cantberra.? Placards at the front door... CAsA hates bad PR.
And some serious advertising in the National media before the next election.
The only thing CAsA cares about is itself. "Safety" is just a scam for a Bureaucratic Soviet Empire.
As the most costly "self-licking ice cream" with its endless reviews, brown papers, hearings and floods of noxious regs, it can snow-job the politicians forever because of "safety" "safety" "safety" at any cost to the GA industry.
Anything can be done in the name of "safety"....and it is.
All too keep the power of Fort Fumble intact...whatever it takes.
Very, VERY depressing.
Perhaps we the aviation people /AOPA bus n all, need to have a mass protest outside aviation house Carmody cant send a plod to arrest us all..as tried with an industry 'burr' in the coffee shop ( !) ,in the recent past.
A MASS Caravan to Cantberra.? Placards at the front door... CAsA hates bad PR.
And some serious advertising in the National media before the next election.
... Perhaps we the aviation people /AOPA bus n all, need to have a mass protest outside aviation house Carmody cant send a plod to arrest us all..as tried with an industry 'burr' in the coffee shop ( !) ,in the recent past.
A MASS Caravan to Cantberra.? Placards at the front door... CAsA hates bad PR.
And some serious advertising in the National media before the next election.
A MASS Caravan to Cantberra.? Placards at the front door... CAsA hates bad PR.
And some serious advertising in the National media before the next election.
most people I talk to are only interested in airline travel and would probably prefer that GA didn’t exist at all
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the Minister would simply repeat the discredited “safety is the most important consideration” wording. Presumably he has done this to support the bureaucrats within his office, within the Department and within CASA. Presumably it is all about not being accountable.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation safety is the catch phrase used to justify the highly regulated industry, and yet the same politicians open injecting rooms, and give free syringes to addicts who then get in a car, and contribute to the national 1,000 road fatalities annually. One study reported 50% of all road deaths had at least one illicit drug, or alcohol, in their system.
G.A. earns revenue, and drug addicts have no money.
G.A. earns revenue, and drug addicts have no money.
My 2c FWIW
I do not think any reform can happen by just trying to focus on targeting, convincing (or gaining the favour) of politicians.
Politicians of all sides do not want to take risks that may cost them power unless they either really believe the policy is critically important or they believe the risk to their political career is small.
It isn't personal. It isn't fair or the best way to achieve good outcomes but it's politics and that is what we have to deal with.
The only way I can see politicians supporting meaningful reform is if they can see that the "money over safety" tactic can be convincingly countered, so the public (in the main) won't swallow it. Do that and we will be far more likely to get politicians on board.
I think we need a more educated public. I really doubt politicians will lead here - it can only come from GA itself.
The more the average (non-aviation) person sees GA as being something that benefits the community and that can be regulated and fostered in a better way, the more chance we have of getting politicians on board. Most people are not fools, most simply do not know the issues and so are easy targets for spinning simplistic criticisms like "safety must be the only priority, irrespective of costs".
Perhaps the efforts and resources of groups like AOPA (and GA identities with a high public profile), should be aimed at gaining a higher public profile for GA, highlighting how it benefits the community, how it is under stress and how like all transport issues (not just aviation), in the interests of practicality and general benefit, we must always end up balancing safety against cost. Where that balance point lies is what is important, not that such a balance must be made.
However it is done I think it should avoid making it easy to criticise as simply being a "money over safety" push but looks realistically at risk and benefits. (The old "affordable safety" slogan whilst accurate was too easy to misunderstand on initial hearing - it sounds scary to an uninformed public - eg imagine how people would react to a news story about a new end of life health policy called "affordable palliative care" - it may well be compassionate and give better care but people will never get that far and reject it on first hearing - it sounds like a cost cutting policy not a better outcome policy).
I would not frame it as "cost versus safety" but more as "safety, sustainability and utility" (or something along those lines). After all that is what I want from GA.
I do not think any reform can happen by just trying to focus on targeting, convincing (or gaining the favour) of politicians.
Politicians of all sides do not want to take risks that may cost them power unless they either really believe the policy is critically important or they believe the risk to their political career is small.
It isn't personal. It isn't fair or the best way to achieve good outcomes but it's politics and that is what we have to deal with.
The only way I can see politicians supporting meaningful reform is if they can see that the "money over safety" tactic can be convincingly countered, so the public (in the main) won't swallow it. Do that and we will be far more likely to get politicians on board.
I think we need a more educated public. I really doubt politicians will lead here - it can only come from GA itself.
The more the average (non-aviation) person sees GA as being something that benefits the community and that can be regulated and fostered in a better way, the more chance we have of getting politicians on board. Most people are not fools, most simply do not know the issues and so are easy targets for spinning simplistic criticisms like "safety must be the only priority, irrespective of costs".
Perhaps the efforts and resources of groups like AOPA (and GA identities with a high public profile), should be aimed at gaining a higher public profile for GA, highlighting how it benefits the community, how it is under stress and how like all transport issues (not just aviation), in the interests of practicality and general benefit, we must always end up balancing safety against cost. Where that balance point lies is what is important, not that such a balance must be made.
However it is done I think it should avoid making it easy to criticise as simply being a "money over safety" push but looks realistically at risk and benefits. (The old "affordable safety" slogan whilst accurate was too easy to misunderstand on initial hearing - it sounds scary to an uninformed public - eg imagine how people would react to a news story about a new end of life health policy called "affordable palliative care" - it may well be compassionate and give better care but people will never get that far and reject it on first hearing - it sounds like a cost cutting policy not a better outcome policy).
I would not frame it as "cost versus safety" but more as "safety, sustainability and utility" (or something along those lines). After all that is what I want from GA.
My 2c FWIW
I do not think any reform can happen by just trying to focus on targeting, convincing (or gaining the favour) of politicians.
Politicians of all sides do not want to take risks that may cost them power unless they either really believe the policy is critically important or they believe the risk to their political career is small.
It isn't personal. It isn't fair or the best way to achieve good outcomes but it's politics and that is what we have to deal with.
The only way I can see politicians supporting meaningful reform is if they can see that the "money over safety" tactic can be convincingly countered, so the public (in the main) won't swallow it. Do that and we will be far more likely to get politicians on board.
I think we need a more educated public. I really doubt politicians will lead here - it can only come from GA itself.
The more the average (non-aviation) person sees GA as being something that benefits the community and that can be regulated and fostered in a better way, the more chance we have of getting politicians on board. Most people are not fools, most simply do not know the issues and so are easy targets for spinning simplistic criticisms like "safety must be the only priority, irrespective of costs".
Perhaps the efforts and resources of groups like AOPA (and GA identities with a high public profile), should be aimed at gaining a higher public profile for GA, highlighting how it benefits the community, how it is under stress and how like all transport issues (not just aviation), in the interests of practicality and general benefit, we must always end up balancing safety against cost. Where that balance point lies is what is important, not that such a balance must be made.
However it is done I think it should avoid making it easy to criticise as simply being a "money over safety" push but looks realistically at risk and benefits. (The old "affordable safety" slogan whilst accurate was too easy to misunderstand on initial hearing - it sounds scary to an uninformed public - eg imagine how people would react to a news story about a new end of life health policy called "affordable palliative care" - it may well be compassionate and give better care but people will never get that far and reject it on first hearing - it sounds like a cost cutting policy not a better outcome policy).
I would not frame it as "cost versus safety" but more as "safety, sustainability and utility" (or something along those lines). After all that is what I want from GA.
I do not think any reform can happen by just trying to focus on targeting, convincing (or gaining the favour) of politicians.
Politicians of all sides do not want to take risks that may cost them power unless they either really believe the policy is critically important or they believe the risk to their political career is small.
It isn't personal. It isn't fair or the best way to achieve good outcomes but it's politics and that is what we have to deal with.
The only way I can see politicians supporting meaningful reform is if they can see that the "money over safety" tactic can be convincingly countered, so the public (in the main) won't swallow it. Do that and we will be far more likely to get politicians on board.
I think we need a more educated public. I really doubt politicians will lead here - it can only come from GA itself.
The more the average (non-aviation) person sees GA as being something that benefits the community and that can be regulated and fostered in a better way, the more chance we have of getting politicians on board. Most people are not fools, most simply do not know the issues and so are easy targets for spinning simplistic criticisms like "safety must be the only priority, irrespective of costs".
Perhaps the efforts and resources of groups like AOPA (and GA identities with a high public profile), should be aimed at gaining a higher public profile for GA, highlighting how it benefits the community, how it is under stress and how like all transport issues (not just aviation), in the interests of practicality and general benefit, we must always end up balancing safety against cost. Where that balance point lies is what is important, not that such a balance must be made.
However it is done I think it should avoid making it easy to criticise as simply being a "money over safety" push but looks realistically at risk and benefits. (The old "affordable safety" slogan whilst accurate was too easy to misunderstand on initial hearing - it sounds scary to an uninformed public - eg imagine how people would react to a news story about a new end of life health policy called "affordable palliative care" - it may well be compassionate and give better care but people will never get that far and reject it on first hearing - it sounds like a cost cutting policy not a better outcome policy).
I would not frame it as "cost versus safety" but more as "safety, sustainability and utility" (or something along those lines). After all that is what I want from GA.
Until the average everyday punter who doesn't know an A380 from a C172 has a reason to care about it GA simply doesn't have the numbers to make any political headway. ALL the AOPA summit attendees combined represented 26,000 members - just over half of the wagga wagga electorates voting age population or 0.162% of all voters in the country- a drop in the ocean politically.
What does the average punter care about then....consumer goods availability, healthcare, public safety, reliability of services, investment in "my" region. These are the areas needing to be addressed.
I have long advocated for (since I don't have the finances to start it myself) a simple campaign to highlight GA benefits to these areas - stickers placed on every box shipped by a light aircraft "without a light aircraft this box would not have reached you", every idle pilot waiting for passengers at a regional town delivering a pamphlet and some info on who the brought to town to the local chamber of commerce etc. Making sure every person in every town knows that their doctors, pathology samples, mobile phone services (technicians) etc arrive on a light aircraft. All with links to a petition/webpage. If every operator and owner chipped in to cover the cost of the stickers/pamphlets/time the cost per operator would be minimal but we could begin to garner public interest in the GA sector and its survival. You would need a catchy phrase, think "without trucks, australia stops" campaign. And ditch the term GA! Use something the NON-FLYING public understands "light aircraft operator"? the trucking industry did not use "without road freight, australia stops" for good reason.
It would only take a month or so of this type campaign before GA would begin to get noticed politically, simply because we would then be making political inroads toward the MAJORITY of people in each electorate.
Between us jonkster and I have already coughed up 4 cents toward this idea - if someone is willing to co-ordinate this I will pitch in another $50 of my hard earned. And if all the people represented by the combined orgs at the summit did this we would have a 1.3million dollar campaign - that will buy a LOT of stickers.
Progressive.
Between us jonkster and I have already coughed up 4 cents toward this idea - if someone is willing to co-ordinate this I will pitch in another $50 of my hard earned. And if all the people represented by the combined orgs at the summit did this we would have a 1.3million dollar campaign - that will buy a LOT of stickers.
Dick is right - use negative campaigning 26000 .campaigners can makes a difference in marginal seats.
Casa provides both government parties a firewall against a serious accident. That is its only function.
you will have to fight politically to change this.
Casa provides both government parties a firewall against a serious accident. That is its only function.
you will have to fight politically to change this.
I wanted to see what the doom for flight training in GA was going to look like. So I plotted out the stats for GA flight hours I could get a hold of. Quite frankly I don't see 'DOOM'.
In early 2000s our dollar was quite weak and we see a stable period that increases until the period of the GFC.
After that our dollar increased in strength, even exceeding the US dollar. In that post GFC period we see a decline.
In the last few years our dollar has been weakening and, guess what, the flight training hours seem to pick up again.
If anything is driving GA activity it seems to be our dollar, and probably, the number of foreign students we can attract.
In early 2000s our dollar was quite weak and we see a stable period that increases until the period of the GFC.
After that our dollar increased in strength, even exceeding the US dollar. In that post GFC period we see a decline.
In the last few years our dollar has been weakening and, guess what, the flight training hours seem to pick up again.
If anything is driving GA activity it seems to be our dollar, and probably, the number of foreign students we can attract.
Thanks George,
Great looking graph.
I am curious about your experience level and how long you have been in the industry because to be honest, every flying school owner I know has seen a massive drop off in flight training.
Can I suggest that:
1/. We have seen a huge drop in the number of owner/operator schools in regional Australia
2/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by the increase in business at *some* larger schools offering VET-FEE HELP
3/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by increased foreign-owned schools; and
4/. BITRE numbers are rubbish.
15 years ago in New England/North-west alone, for example, flying schools were operating (each on separate AOCs) at Moree, Narrabri, Gunnedah, Tamworth, Inverell, Scone, and Armidale with 3 at Cessnock and 1 at Maitland.
Today there is Airspeed (covering Narrabri, Gunnedah, Tamworth, Scone) and Inverell Aviation, plus one school at Maitland and one at Cessnock (which is actually based in Bankstown). Each of those flying schools employed pilots and paid $$$ to maintenance shops and kept skilled people employed in regional areas. Many other regional areas tell the same tale.
You might respond that there are a great many reasons for this and you would be right HOWEVER there is no reason for Govt rules, which are variable at the whim of a public servants pen, to make life even harder than it already is.
The other side of the coin, which has been alluded to in other threads by LeadSled, Jonkster, and others is that GA is hardly doing itself any favours in the marketing dept. We need to get Dick Smith and others behind a GA promotional effort to make flying sexy again. It needs to be industry-wide, it needs to be slick, and it needs to be soon.
Tally Tootle Pip Ho.
Great looking graph.
I am curious about your experience level and how long you have been in the industry because to be honest, every flying school owner I know has seen a massive drop off in flight training.
Can I suggest that:
1/. We have seen a huge drop in the number of owner/operator schools in regional Australia
2/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by the increase in business at *some* larger schools offering VET-FEE HELP
3/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by increased foreign-owned schools; and
4/. BITRE numbers are rubbish.
15 years ago in New England/North-west alone, for example, flying schools were operating (each on separate AOCs) at Moree, Narrabri, Gunnedah, Tamworth, Inverell, Scone, and Armidale with 3 at Cessnock and 1 at Maitland.
Today there is Airspeed (covering Narrabri, Gunnedah, Tamworth, Scone) and Inverell Aviation, plus one school at Maitland and one at Cessnock (which is actually based in Bankstown). Each of those flying schools employed pilots and paid $$$ to maintenance shops and kept skilled people employed in regional areas. Many other regional areas tell the same tale.
You might respond that there are a great many reasons for this and you would be right HOWEVER there is no reason for Govt rules, which are variable at the whim of a public servants pen, to make life even harder than it already is.
The other side of the coin, which has been alluded to in other threads by LeadSled, Jonkster, and others is that GA is hardly doing itself any favours in the marketing dept. We need to get Dick Smith and others behind a GA promotional effort to make flying sexy again. It needs to be industry-wide, it needs to be slick, and it needs to be soon.
Tally Tootle Pip Ho.
Thanks George,
Great looking graph.
I am curious about your experience level and how long you have been in the industry because to be honest, every flying school owner I know has seen a massive drop off in flight training.
Can I suggest that:
1/. We have seen a huge drop in the number of owner/operator schools in regional Australia
2/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by the increase in business at *some* larger schools offering VET-FEE HELP
3/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by increased foreign-owned schools; and
4/. BITRE numbers are rubbish.
Great looking graph.
I am curious about your experience level and how long you have been in the industry because to be honest, every flying school owner I know has seen a massive drop off in flight training.
Can I suggest that:
1/. We have seen a huge drop in the number of owner/operator schools in regional Australia
2/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by the increase in business at *some* larger schools offering VET-FEE HELP
3/. *some* of that drop-off has been balanced by increased foreign-owned schools; and
4/. BITRE numbers are rubbish.
Last year I went back to do some refresher training with my old flying school at Moorabbin. In the 1980s the flying school was busy on the weekends and quiet during the week, with most of the fleet parked on the tarmac on weekdays enjoying the sunshine and rain (as you can get in Melbourne). Anyway when I was there last year there was continual activity with both local and overseas students. The ground school was full with commercial and ATPL students and it was like that 7 days/week. If you wanted to do some circuits you had to book your slot with ATC an hour in advance, whereas back in the 80s and 90s your student turned up and you jumped into the aeroplane and did some touch and goes, very rarely was the circuit full like it was last year. So yes things are different and it wouldn't surprise me if all the activity is focussed around the bigger schools and larger centres now (with the exception of Bankstown, possibly because Sydney is too expensive and so the operators have moved out to satellite airports).
Regarding your 5 points I think there is probably some truth in all of those points. I don't know if it is possible to get better stats, so we make do with what we can get.
Regarding the whimsical rules of CASA, I am not arguing with Dick about CASA. He is probably correct that the CASA culture needs an overhaul, but the half-life of organisational cultures is about 15 years or more. Just look at how long it took airlines to take-up CRM as a serious concern. But if we are going to wait for GA to collapse under the weight of CASA rules the graph doesn't seem to suggest that. It looks to me like there is a steady (or possibly slowly declining) rate of local flying students, and superimposed on that is a component of overseas students. In the 1980s we had a lot of trainees from European airlines and some Asian. Perhaps now it is mostly Asian and some European, don't know. If anyone knows of a good data source where we can pick that out please let me know.
Last edited by georgeeipi; 19th Jul 2018 at 09:06.
Re figures, there is also Australian Aircraft Activity with reports from 2002 to 2016 and some of those reports have historical data back to early 1990s. The data however is reliant upon the accuracy of reporting by operators and I think is more rubbery rather than rigorous.
FWIW I plotted what was in the 2016 report for 'other VH aircraft' from 1985 in 1000s of hours
The general trend seems downward but I think the numbers not highly accurate.
My hunch is better indication would be from avgas useage but it could be argued the rise of RAAus aircraft may not be accurately reflected here.
That also seems downward but as said - not necessarily a definitive reflection of activity.
My perception of decline is less objective but comes from the differences I see between when I was instructing in the 90s and now. At the same aerodrome.
In the 90s the aerodrome had 4 full time commercial flying schools, 3 other volunteer run training schools and an aero club.
Most of those non commercial schools/clubs operated mostly weekends but it was not uncommon for them to have ops during the week and were very active during school holidays.
There was a reasonable amount of private owner activity as well.
Since that time several of the commercial schools went broke, some were replaced by new ones but some of the replacements then also went broke. A nearby aerodrome was closed and one school transplanted itself here.
Now, there are only 2 full time schools left (one from back then and a new entrant that transplanted from the aerodrome that was closed), another one that operates part time mostly weekends (but sometimes remains closed even on weekends).
Two of the non commercial schools/volunteer run ones remain, one only operates weekends, the other still sometimes does a few days during the week. The aero club folded.
Most of the parking is filled with privately owned aircraft that rarely if ever move, grass growing up around them as they slowly sag lower and grow sadder looking.
FWIW I plotted what was in the 2016 report for 'other VH aircraft' from 1985 in 1000s of hours
The general trend seems downward but I think the numbers not highly accurate.
My hunch is better indication would be from avgas useage but it could be argued the rise of RAAus aircraft may not be accurately reflected here.
That also seems downward but as said - not necessarily a definitive reflection of activity.
My perception of decline is less objective but comes from the differences I see between when I was instructing in the 90s and now. At the same aerodrome.
In the 90s the aerodrome had 4 full time commercial flying schools, 3 other volunteer run training schools and an aero club.
Most of those non commercial schools/clubs operated mostly weekends but it was not uncommon for them to have ops during the week and were very active during school holidays.
There was a reasonable amount of private owner activity as well.
Since that time several of the commercial schools went broke, some were replaced by new ones but some of the replacements then also went broke. A nearby aerodrome was closed and one school transplanted itself here.
Now, there are only 2 full time schools left (one from back then and a new entrant that transplanted from the aerodrome that was closed), another one that operates part time mostly weekends (but sometimes remains closed even on weekends).
Two of the non commercial schools/volunteer run ones remain, one only operates weekends, the other still sometimes does a few days during the week. The aero club folded.
Most of the parking is filled with privately owned aircraft that rarely if ever move, grass growing up around them as they slowly sag lower and grow sadder looking.