Civil Aviation Bill 2019 - We’re Saved!
Of course travelling by airline is safer than GA. Similar to train travel which is safer than car travel. Both have set tracks to follow ,monitored along the way by controllers, dual drivers, back up systems backed up by more systems. Though occasionally even these modes of transport have fatalities.
But that is not to say GA or cars are not safe. Just not AS safe.
We really need to stop these people that bash on about safety at all costs from holding sway with governments. I bet most people that work at CASA own and drive a car.( and I bet I could find a few not even roadworthy.)
Fact is there is some risk in everything we do. The sooner we move onto acceptable risk for the class of transport the better. There are some people that think motor cycles should be banned too, and contact sport!
We need politicians with a few balls to stand up to these public servants in high places and put an end to this nonsense.
But of course pigs might fly.
But that is not to say GA or cars are not safe. Just not AS safe.
We really need to stop these people that bash on about safety at all costs from holding sway with governments. I bet most people that work at CASA own and drive a car.( and I bet I could find a few not even roadworthy.)
Fact is there is some risk in everything we do. The sooner we move onto acceptable risk for the class of transport the better. There are some people that think motor cycles should be banned too, and contact sport!
We need politicians with a few balls to stand up to these public servants in high places and put an end to this nonsense.
But of course pigs might fly.
The following information was distributed by the Minister at the time and has also been sent to me – note who was consulted.
It seems strange as Qantas supported the Barnaby Joyce Change. To remind everyone, here is the proposed wording. Why would anyone be against this wording?
CIVIL AVIATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 OUTLINE The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (CA Act) to ensure the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards, takes into consideration the impacts of costs and the relative risk environment of the different aviation industry sectors. The Bill incorporates existing regulatory practice into legislation. The Bill does not alter Section 9A(1) of the CA Act, which instructs that in exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. In making this amendment, the Government reaffirms that safety remains the primary consideration for CASA in exercising its powers and performing its functions. Consultation was undertaken with the General Aviation Advisory Group, the Australian Airports Association, the Board of Airline Representatives Australia, Qantas and Virgin between November and December 2018. No concerns were raised regarding the intent of the changes. Financial impact statement The Bill is not expected to have significant financial impact.
It seems strange as Qantas supported the Barnaby Joyce Change. To remind everyone, here is the proposed wording. Why would anyone be against this wording?
Proposed Amendments to Civil Aviation Act
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation that is consistent with:
(a) maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector
(b) the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation that is consistent with:
(a) maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector
(b) the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Feb 2019 at 01:31.
Nulli Secundus, over the last few years I have received some of the most incredible emails and letters from people who are absolutely struggling in aviation. Some were either going to lose their homes (or possibly have lost their homes) because of CASA decisions. These emails and letters have asked me for advice on how they should act so they could return their business to profitability.
In the early days I did give advice and suggested that they contact their local member or write to the Minister. Invariably, when I look back this advice has been wrong. The ones who stayed on ended up being closed down but with a greater loss.
Yes, if you are wealthy and fly privately you are not going to be affected by the one-way ratchet of increased regulation, red tape and costs - but most Australians are not like this.
Things are really bad now, but the Minister is not doing anything about it – in fact, he is making things worse by taking advice from CASA and not allowing the Act change to make it clear that you have to look at cost as well as safety.
The logic and rationale in what I say about getting out comes from the fact that I believe once we reach a critical point, where the local Parliamentarians can’t even get a charter flight, that is when we will start being able to make the necessary change decisions.
You have to understand that the people at CASA seemed to be covered by some type of “group think”. That is, they alone in aviation can ignore the reality of the marketplace and just write rule after rule that “improve safety” and everything will be OK. As most of us know, this is not so.
My advice to these smaller commercial operators, who are suffering, is based on me telling the truth. I simply can’t see any light on the horizon and I can see all the smaller ones being driven to bankruptcy. What is wrong with telling the truth? Everyone can make up their own minds on what advice they want to take notice of.
There is just a small chance that someone may say to the Minister, or to Mr Carmody, that Dick Smith is advising people to get out because he believes they simply can’t run a viable general aviation business. You never know, that may have the impact that gets the Minister, or Mr Carmody, to make some sensible decisions.
Here’s hoping.
In the early days I did give advice and suggested that they contact their local member or write to the Minister. Invariably, when I look back this advice has been wrong. The ones who stayed on ended up being closed down but with a greater loss.
Yes, if you are wealthy and fly privately you are not going to be affected by the one-way ratchet of increased regulation, red tape and costs - but most Australians are not like this.
Things are really bad now, but the Minister is not doing anything about it – in fact, he is making things worse by taking advice from CASA and not allowing the Act change to make it clear that you have to look at cost as well as safety.
The logic and rationale in what I say about getting out comes from the fact that I believe once we reach a critical point, where the local Parliamentarians can’t even get a charter flight, that is when we will start being able to make the necessary change decisions.
You have to understand that the people at CASA seemed to be covered by some type of “group think”. That is, they alone in aviation can ignore the reality of the marketplace and just write rule after rule that “improve safety” and everything will be OK. As most of us know, this is not so.
My advice to these smaller commercial operators, who are suffering, is based on me telling the truth. I simply can’t see any light on the horizon and I can see all the smaller ones being driven to bankruptcy. What is wrong with telling the truth? Everyone can make up their own minds on what advice they want to take notice of.
There is just a small chance that someone may say to the Minister, or to Mr Carmody, that Dick Smith is advising people to get out because he believes they simply can’t run a viable general aviation business. You never know, that may have the impact that gets the Minister, or Mr Carmody, to make some sensible decisions.
Here’s hoping.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Feb 2019 at 02:58.
Lead. There is a chance if Labor gets in that important changes could come in.
Remember Albo strongly supported changes to 9a of the Act.
If Albo remains in the Transport portfolio and as he has had many years of experience of little happening you never know what may happen!
Remember Albo strongly supported changes to 9a of the Act.
If Albo remains in the Transport portfolio and as he has had many years of experience of little happening you never know what may happen!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst you may, Dick Smith, wish to again avail us of your advisory anecdotes, the questions for struggling operators nevertheless remain unanswered:
It does appear you are now aimlessly wavering back again to an industry wide position. Will you from here on commit to include this essential component within your advice, that being, your view is not industry wide but only applies to struggling aviation businesses?
Surely therefore, would it not be fair and likely that any minister or any head of CASA would have no choice but to disregard your views, and in fact yourself as a credible industry participant, until such time as you can consistently articulate your position and how exactly your proposal would, or even could, be executed.
Let us all hear the specific details as so far 'let's collapse the industry' doesn't seem to be gaining much momentum. Liberate the thought processes you have conjured in order for you to gift such sage advice. Or is just so farfetched that people really will be forgiven for thinking this guy's after some attention and a headline?
- How can they get out? Should they just walk away for no money?
- If so, does this not mean they do lose even more? Doesn't your advice now mean someone else must get in? Doesn't that then mean that that person must now get out? And so on and so on.
- Is it not correct to say your advice to the strugglers is in fact flawed and that you continually fail to disclose your true and full position is on an industry wide basis and in so doing you cause enormous harm and upset to the rest of the industry? Are you simply attempting to remain relevant, using what others have described here as headline grabbing, at the expense of industry participants working hard to gain say new members or additional business revenue?
It does appear you are now aimlessly wavering back again to an industry wide position. Will you from here on commit to include this essential component within your advice, that being, your view is not industry wide but only applies to struggling aviation businesses?
Surely therefore, would it not be fair and likely that any minister or any head of CASA would have no choice but to disregard your views, and in fact yourself as a credible industry participant, until such time as you can consistently articulate your position and how exactly your proposal would, or even could, be executed.
Let us all hear the specific details as so far 'let's collapse the industry' doesn't seem to be gaining much momentum. Liberate the thought processes you have conjured in order for you to gift such sage advice. Or is just so farfetched that people really will be forgiven for thinking this guy's after some attention and a headline?
Nulli. Do you work for CASA?
Get out now can either mean close down or sell out. A number of flying schools have already sold to the Chinese.
The Chinese appear to have very deep pockets and a long term agenda. They are prepared to run at a loss for other reasons. Not many Aussie owned companies can do this.
I am clearly not relevant in the current situation and nothing will change that.
However I stick by my advice to those reading this thread. There is a hostile and dysfunctional regulator out there that will do you further damage. The fact that they continue to propagate the lie about safety being more important than affordability shows this.
The collapse of the GA industry is gaining momentum with flying training down 30% when it should be up by 200% to provide enough pilots.
Get out now can either mean close down or sell out. A number of flying schools have already sold to the Chinese.
The Chinese appear to have very deep pockets and a long term agenda. They are prepared to run at a loss for other reasons. Not many Aussie owned companies can do this.
I am clearly not relevant in the current situation and nothing will change that.
However I stick by my advice to those reading this thread. There is a hostile and dysfunctional regulator out there that will do you further damage. The fact that they continue to propagate the lie about safety being more important than affordability shows this.
The collapse of the GA industry is gaining momentum with flying training down 30% when it should be up by 200% to provide enough pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, back on message. The questions remain mostly unanswered.
Are you struggling to articulate your ideas in any meaningful way because you don't believe you are relevant in this situation? Is it because the idea is so fanciful it falls over with every notion. Take for example, 'a number of flying schools have sold out to the Chinese': surely your advice equally now applies to them? Same horse just a different jockey. They too will lose money and ultimately become bankrupt too, won't they Dick? Is that the plan? Let some other bunny sip the poisoned chalice? Or are you ok with an operator of Chinese heritage getting smacked by the onerous CASA regime? That's definitely a question needing an answer! And what if a prospective buyer is not of Chinese heritage Dick? How does your advice manage that scenario? Sell? Don't sell?
But hang on, Chinese heritage or otherwise, won't they also train the people who may very well become the future pilots for those future politicians needing a charter flight in outback Queensland? And what then for the industry exodus? Ideas in disarray, Dick? The advice you give is hardly credible is it Dick? The slow drip feed of tiny detail thus far shows its just a thought bubble, isn't it Dick.
Given you've now made it known you don't believe you're relevant in this situation, is it now time to give this position away and discontinue the damaging industry wide broadcasts that everyone should get out? Should you be considered a credible commentator or merely one seeking to boost one's public profile?
Are you struggling to articulate your ideas in any meaningful way because you don't believe you are relevant in this situation? Is it because the idea is so fanciful it falls over with every notion. Take for example, 'a number of flying schools have sold out to the Chinese': surely your advice equally now applies to them? Same horse just a different jockey. They too will lose money and ultimately become bankrupt too, won't they Dick? Is that the plan? Let some other bunny sip the poisoned chalice? Or are you ok with an operator of Chinese heritage getting smacked by the onerous CASA regime? That's definitely a question needing an answer! And what if a prospective buyer is not of Chinese heritage Dick? How does your advice manage that scenario? Sell? Don't sell?
But hang on, Chinese heritage or otherwise, won't they also train the people who may very well become the future pilots for those future politicians needing a charter flight in outback Queensland? And what then for the industry exodus? Ideas in disarray, Dick? The advice you give is hardly credible is it Dick? The slow drip feed of tiny detail thus far shows its just a thought bubble, isn't it Dick.
Given you've now made it known you don't believe you're relevant in this situation, is it now time to give this position away and discontinue the damaging industry wide broadcasts that everyone should get out? Should you be considered a credible commentator or merely one seeking to boost one's public profile?
Nulli. I can see why you don’t have the confidence to post under your own name.
To others - if you are expecting a change at CASA that will allow Aussie owned small aviation businesses to operate viably I can’t see it happening under the present regime.
There appears to to be a “ group think” in the organisation that believes that in aviation alone that affordability can be put behind safety improvements!
The latest changes to the act reinforce this so get out now before you lose even more would be my advice.
Of of course if you are an Airline you will be allowed to do almost anything that maximises profits - even fly two engined aircraft over remote oceans at night when a four engined aircraft of the same design standard would clearly be safer.
Or make sure the Wagga Tower is not manned by ATC so you can clearly put profits in front of safety!
One rule for the powerful- another rule for the weak.
To others - if you are expecting a change at CASA that will allow Aussie owned small aviation businesses to operate viably I can’t see it happening under the present regime.
There appears to to be a “ group think” in the organisation that believes that in aviation alone that affordability can be put behind safety improvements!
The latest changes to the act reinforce this so get out now before you lose even more would be my advice.
Of of course if you are an Airline you will be allowed to do almost anything that maximises profits - even fly two engined aircraft over remote oceans at night when a four engined aircraft of the same design standard would clearly be safer.
Or make sure the Wagga Tower is not manned by ATC so you can clearly put profits in front of safety!
One rule for the powerful- another rule for the weak.
Thread Starter
Because the cost of the tower was not justified by the risk.
Who’s stopping the tower being reestablished? Why has it not been reestablished? Because the cost is not justified by the risk!
That’s called “affordable safety”.
If CASA’s mandate was really what Mr Carmody said on 22 Feb at Estimates it is - to “make certain” that e.g. RPT operations in and out of Wagga are “as safe as possible”, Mr Carmody would be banning RPT operations in and out of Wagga until the tower is reestablished. Dick cannot stop Mr Carmody from doing that.
RPT operations in and out of Wagga are not as safe as they could possibly be, because there is no tower, and it’s possible for CASA to do something about that. But CASA isn’t doing anything about it. We all know why.
That’s Dick’s point.
Who’s stopping the tower being reestablished? Why has it not been reestablished? Because the cost is not justified by the risk!
That’s called “affordable safety”.
If CASA’s mandate was really what Mr Carmody said on 22 Feb at Estimates it is - to “make certain” that e.g. RPT operations in and out of Wagga are “as safe as possible”, Mr Carmody would be banning RPT operations in and out of Wagga until the tower is reestablished. Dick cannot stop Mr Carmody from doing that.
RPT operations in and out of Wagga are not as safe as they could possibly be, because there is no tower, and it’s possible for CASA to do something about that. But CASA isn’t doing anything about it. We all know why.
That’s Dick’s point.
Yep. That is exactly my point.
The tower is closed because in this case the cost is the most important consideration- not safety improvement!
Amazing that the Minister and the Bureaucrats can lie about this.
Imagine working at CASA when you know the Act is setup to get you for not complying when the inevitable accident occurs.
The tower is closed because in this case the cost is the most important consideration- not safety improvement!
Amazing that the Minister and the Bureaucrats can lie about this.
Imagine working at CASA when you know the Act is setup to get you for not complying when the inevitable accident occurs.
