General Aviation industry: 18 months left
Safety is a culture within a business. No amount of paperwork will stop a shonk being shonky.
CASA produced a 141 manual template. In my case it was just a case of some reformatting and changing some references, there was no change to the day to day operations or any need to pay someone else to do it. I could do very nicely writing manuals for other people, but why help the competition? This is part of my job as CEO and HOO.
Compared to writing manuals for labs in the fresh food industry with compliance with government regulations as well as accreditations such as ISO and NATA plus dealing with unions, HR etc it was very simple. I did some amendments last week and CASA had approved them the following day.
My business model, based on my qualifications and experience in agricultural and food industry production, compliance and retail has worked for me in my own small business. .Flying businesses fail for the same reason as other businesses; woeful, incompetent management, inability to adapt to changing market forces and regulatory structures and massive, unnecessary overheads. Not regulations. Nanny Australia will always heavily regulate things, it is part of living in a Western country.
People going to the media scaring the horses, particularly about training overseas students, doesn't help but a strong business can continue to thrive. In fact I have just started recruiting instructors for the first time in years.
Aviation isn't "special", there are onerous requirements in most Australian industries. You just have to stay ahead of the game.
CASA produced a 141 manual template. In my case it was just a case of some reformatting and changing some references, there was no change to the day to day operations or any need to pay someone else to do it. I could do very nicely writing manuals for other people, but why help the competition? This is part of my job as CEO and HOO.
Compared to writing manuals for labs in the fresh food industry with compliance with government regulations as well as accreditations such as ISO and NATA plus dealing with unions, HR etc it was very simple. I did some amendments last week and CASA had approved them the following day.
My business model, based on my qualifications and experience in agricultural and food industry production, compliance and retail has worked for me in my own small business. .Flying businesses fail for the same reason as other businesses; woeful, incompetent management, inability to adapt to changing market forces and regulatory structures and massive, unnecessary overheads. Not regulations. Nanny Australia will always heavily regulate things, it is part of living in a Western country.
People going to the media scaring the horses, particularly about training overseas students, doesn't help but a strong business can continue to thrive. In fact I have just started recruiting instructors for the first time in years.
Aviation isn't "special", there are onerous requirements in most Australian industries. You just have to stay ahead of the game.
Folks,
Just a couple of examples of wholesale bastardy that has nothing to do with "air safety".
(1) The local council changed some street addresses from Lot No. XX etc to Street No.XX etc. One address involved was an MRO, because of the "change of place of business", ie; Lot No became Street No. the MRO was required to completely reapply for all approvals, "re-calibration of all tooling" etc., the total cost was in excess of $20,000 plus business disruption. This did not include replacement of tooling that CASA now found to be "too old". Perfectly serviceable and meeting current specification, just "too old".
(2) Different state and MRO, CASA "directed" that standard category C.of A aircraft could not be maintained in the same hangar as non-standard category C.of A aircraft, ie: RAOz, a couple of "warbirds", and a "Experiment test and development" aircraft, a new type. All supposedly to do with control of "bogus parts", also a favorite of an adjoining region.
(3) Very early applicant for a Part 141 --- $18,000 and about two years later, the proposed operator, a highly experienced instructor who had been running a school on the site as CFI for some years, gave it away. The existing manuals were re-written multiple times, but always something more required.
I could write pages on what has been done to small charter operators to drive them out of business, including one regional office refusing to recognise ATO approvals and similar from another region, or making short term leasing of a replacement aircraft during (say) a Cessna undergoing SID work time and cost impossible.
I will not go into detail, but I could, of something similar to Clare Prop., things ran along for years, to the degree that the owner was a great supporter of CASA versus industry criticism. All the others "must have been guilty of something" "no smoke without fire" etc. Then a couple of CASA long term "good guys" retired, to be replaced by several of the industry's rejects. The "new" CASA damned near ran the company out of business, if the company proprietor had been entirely dependent on company cash flow, it would have gone belly up.
The problems of CASA v. Aviation is not "CASA v a few disgruntled and incompetent threats to aviation safety", it is a genuine, longstanding and ongoing problem, including an increasingly monstrous and unworkable regulatory system, the like of which is unknown anywhere else.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Clare Prop,
Many of us have experience in other areas, in my case pastoral, transport, heavy construction and mining. None have come close to CASA as being actively anti the industry sector. And it ain't just GA, I could tell you stories from the AU airline world that are just the same, except for the bill, where seven figure runs up pretty quickly.
Just a couple of examples of wholesale bastardy that has nothing to do with "air safety".
(1) The local council changed some street addresses from Lot No. XX etc to Street No.XX etc. One address involved was an MRO, because of the "change of place of business", ie; Lot No became Street No. the MRO was required to completely reapply for all approvals, "re-calibration of all tooling" etc., the total cost was in excess of $20,000 plus business disruption. This did not include replacement of tooling that CASA now found to be "too old". Perfectly serviceable and meeting current specification, just "too old".
(2) Different state and MRO, CASA "directed" that standard category C.of A aircraft could not be maintained in the same hangar as non-standard category C.of A aircraft, ie: RAOz, a couple of "warbirds", and a "Experiment test and development" aircraft, a new type. All supposedly to do with control of "bogus parts", also a favorite of an adjoining region.
(3) Very early applicant for a Part 141 --- $18,000 and about two years later, the proposed operator, a highly experienced instructor who had been running a school on the site as CFI for some years, gave it away. The existing manuals were re-written multiple times, but always something more required.
I could write pages on what has been done to small charter operators to drive them out of business, including one regional office refusing to recognise ATO approvals and similar from another region, or making short term leasing of a replacement aircraft during (say) a Cessna undergoing SID work time and cost impossible.
I will not go into detail, but I could, of something similar to Clare Prop., things ran along for years, to the degree that the owner was a great supporter of CASA versus industry criticism. All the others "must have been guilty of something" "no smoke without fire" etc. Then a couple of CASA long term "good guys" retired, to be replaced by several of the industry's rejects. The "new" CASA damned near ran the company out of business, if the company proprietor had been entirely dependent on company cash flow, it would have gone belly up.
The problems of CASA v. Aviation is not "CASA v a few disgruntled and incompetent threats to aviation safety", it is a genuine, longstanding and ongoing problem, including an increasingly monstrous and unworkable regulatory system, the like of which is unknown anywhere else.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Clare Prop,
Many of us have experience in other areas, in my case pastoral, transport, heavy construction and mining. None have come close to CASA as being actively anti the industry sector. And it ain't just GA, I could tell you stories from the AU airline world that are just the same, except for the bill, where seven figure runs up pretty quickly.
To be clear, I am not a "great supporter" of CASA, I just keep my powder dry.
I have seen plenty of examples of CASA bastardry and also how some shonky operators have got away with all sorts with a wink and a nod while others are torn to shreds. Some of the FOIs are woefully incompetent, nasty little empire builders and yes, industry rejects.
I have been "strongly encouraged to apply" for an FOI position many times, but life is too short and precious to me, I am not an industry reject and no way would I do that job despite the mind boggling salary package, which as an industry professional and taxpayer makes me pretty angry as I don't know one of them worth a fraction of it..
I am no fan of CASA.
I have seen plenty of examples of CASA bastardry and also how some shonky operators have got away with all sorts with a wink and a nod while others are torn to shreds. Some of the FOIs are woefully incompetent, nasty little empire builders and yes, industry rejects.
I have been "strongly encouraged to apply" for an FOI position many times, but life is too short and precious to me, I am not an industry reject and no way would I do that job despite the mind boggling salary package, which as an industry professional and taxpayer makes me pretty angry as I don't know one of them worth a fraction of it..
I am no fan of CASA.
it's the regulatory risk premium which will kill GA. Nobody can invest safely because the behavior of the regulator is uncertain. The other sources of risk are sovereign risk and business risk. The former is negligible in Australia the latter can be managed. However nobody can manage CASA risk.
Folks,
Some little time back, a well known merchant bank (who would not want to be identified) did an interesting comparison of AU v. NZ, and the major identified cost difference was CASA v. NZ CAA and its reformed rules, with the regulatory risk of CASA, on top of the cost differences identified, sealing the decision to not further invest in the relevant area under study, or any other aspect of Australian aviation.
By comparison, all other matters such as OHS showed negligible differences.
In short summary a D check (for want of a better name) of a B737-400 per Boeing was about 40% cheaper in cash costs in NZ, excluding the much reduced turnaround time.
The raw labor cost/hourly rate accounted for about 8%, way offset by the turnaround time.
Recently updated, the difference is now approximately 50%, with the raw labor rate difference reduced to less than 5%.
Most of us know the "why" of a brand new B787 left sitting on the ground for weeks, and as I have posted elsewhere, but it never produces any reaction, there is a reason why QANTAS' major capital investment in MRO has been the hangar in Los Angeles.
I have had figures put to me, and I believe them, that CASA initiates more regulatory compliance/enforcement actions in Australia annually, than does the FAA. Does anybody think the reason is that FAA are slack? Given the relative size if the sectors, USA v. AU, this distortion alone boggles the mind.
Anybody who doesn't believe that CASA has played the dominant role in the contraction/destruction of the aviation sector in Australia (not just GA) is terminally delusional.
Tootle pip!!
Some little time back, a well known merchant bank (who would not want to be identified) did an interesting comparison of AU v. NZ, and the major identified cost difference was CASA v. NZ CAA and its reformed rules, with the regulatory risk of CASA, on top of the cost differences identified, sealing the decision to not further invest in the relevant area under study, or any other aspect of Australian aviation.
By comparison, all other matters such as OHS showed negligible differences.
In short summary a D check (for want of a better name) of a B737-400 per Boeing was about 40% cheaper in cash costs in NZ, excluding the much reduced turnaround time.
The raw labor cost/hourly rate accounted for about 8%, way offset by the turnaround time.
Recently updated, the difference is now approximately 50%, with the raw labor rate difference reduced to less than 5%.
Most of us know the "why" of a brand new B787 left sitting on the ground for weeks, and as I have posted elsewhere, but it never produces any reaction, there is a reason why QANTAS' major capital investment in MRO has been the hangar in Los Angeles.
I have had figures put to me, and I believe them, that CASA initiates more regulatory compliance/enforcement actions in Australia annually, than does the FAA. Does anybody think the reason is that FAA are slack? Given the relative size if the sectors, USA v. AU, this distortion alone boggles the mind.
Anybody who doesn't believe that CASA has played the dominant role in the contraction/destruction of the aviation sector in Australia (not just GA) is terminally delusional.
Tootle pip!!
If you’re talking about students at Soar, then of course they are going to go from RAA to GA as that the sausage factory syllabus that they are running there!
I'm a very ancient GA G1 and a RAAus CFI and Examiner, working perhaps 3 days per week / 300 hrs pa. My RAAus school operates essentially 'back-to-back' with a GA school. The CFI of that is also RAAus, and I help out at that 141 school. We share our FR, (ATO), costs and generally co-operate well in things like supervising student flying, and oversight of schools for temporary absences. Both schools have seen an increase in new starts in 2018. About half of the RAAus students go on to the GA school and transition to their RPL on a C172, and several have purchased aircraft later - from Jabs to RVs to a Mooney. A trickle of older PPLs have obtained their RAAus PC. I know that the GA CFI has had her moments with the paperwork, but then, so have I with the ever increasing flow of stuff out of RAAus! Our 'regulators' have certainly not attempted to simplify things, and I concur with Clare Props' comment about having to do a heap of essentially 'unpaid' work yourself. We'd go broke trying to sub it out! I think we're a long way from going guts up as an industry, but can see a problem looming with younger pilots bypassing instruction for an airline career. Why? I submit it's about lack of a career path and a living income. happy days,
