GA booming in the USA
Tick All those boxes in CAR206 that I quoted then you are operating RPT. If you you don’t tick the boxes you are not operating RPT. I am a former CASA inspector and I can tell you that the first thing I would do when investigating a complaint (9 times out of 10 made by an RPT operator) I would check the suspect operation against the applicable regulation and not just rely on the allegation. The CASA inspectorate are so under resourced that you can’t afford to pursue a complaint that has insufficient evidence to support it. I am not saying that there aren’t dinosaur inspectors still out there that might try to bluff and bludgeon an operator but they are usually lazy bastards too and eventually discover the futility of pushing a false argument. ( I managed to weed out one or two during training)
They actually now look after several interstate/territory company's due complaints.
Oh theoretical you are 100% - but yes nothing has changed (for the better), the bad days are now looking like blue sky's.
You and 99+% of Australians do not know or do not care - but have opinions/beliefs and complain of things directly part of the problem that they do not care.
Very much like immigration and 457's or other.
You and 99+% of Australians do not know or do not care - but have opinions/beliefs and complain of things directly part of the problem that they do not care.
Very much like immigration and 457's or other.
But that doesn’t change anything in terms of my response to this thread.
In the totally unlikely scenario I proposed, CASA would not and should not have anything to say.
Spike:
The trouble is Spike that to YOU these guys are lazy dinosaurs that you imply are harmless, but to US, they are the representatives of the Australian Government with all the majesty and power associated. They have the capacity to destroy business, reputations, finances and careers as far as WE are concerned, and have to be handled accordingly at great expense with great personal stress. Just look at what is happening to that poor bastard - Glen Buckley.
Your argument is akin to my scuba diving experience with reef sharks, I know they are mostly harmless, but my American dive buddy doesn’t and just about throws up in their face mask when We encounter one or two. Most Australians are like that with authority figures. If some CASA creep threatens to prosecute us we take it very seriously. Turning around a few weeks later and saying “just kidding” doesn’t repair the situation either. For example, who is now going to buy a GA8 Airvan after CASAs shoot from the hip grounding letter? Who wants to be exposed to ANY engagement with CASA?
Where is the code of conduct for CASA officers? Where are the straight forward plain english guides to compliance that aren’t full of weasel words like “suitable”, “appropriate”, “acceptable” and the like.
...or does the pursuit of “safety” allow CASA staff to allegedly act like corrupt mafia thugs?
To get back on topic, no investor or professional person is going to go anywhere near Australian GA once they get a whiff of CASA regulatory culture. The exception seems to be LARGE flying schools exclusively training reams of foreign pilots who have apparently learned to hold their noses when dealing with CASA.
To fix GA, a rewrite of the act and the adoption of FAA regs and the reorganization of the various authorities to provide checks and balances is required. The current system is economically inefficient, inequitable, not market driven, and introduces needless business risk as well as sovereign risk into business calculations.
To put it another way, if a police officer pulls me up on the road, I know exactly where we both stand legally and how both of us are required to behave and how any alleged infractions are to be decided. With CASA ????? You have no idea. Ultimately perhaps years from now, that “safety” discretion thing is going to give rise to low level corruption.
I am not saying that there aren’t dinosaur inspectors still out there that might try to bluff and bludgeon an operator but they are usually lazy bastards too and eventually discover the futility of pushing a false argument. ( I managed to weed out one or two during training)
Your argument is akin to my scuba diving experience with reef sharks, I know they are mostly harmless, but my American dive buddy doesn’t and just about throws up in their face mask when We encounter one or two. Most Australians are like that with authority figures. If some CASA creep threatens to prosecute us we take it very seriously. Turning around a few weeks later and saying “just kidding” doesn’t repair the situation either. For example, who is now going to buy a GA8 Airvan after CASAs shoot from the hip grounding letter? Who wants to be exposed to ANY engagement with CASA?
Where is the code of conduct for CASA officers? Where are the straight forward plain english guides to compliance that aren’t full of weasel words like “suitable”, “appropriate”, “acceptable” and the like.
...or does the pursuit of “safety” allow CASA staff to allegedly act like corrupt mafia thugs?
To get back on topic, no investor or professional person is going to go anywhere near Australian GA once they get a whiff of CASA regulatory culture. The exception seems to be LARGE flying schools exclusively training reams of foreign pilots who have apparently learned to hold their noses when dealing with CASA.
To fix GA, a rewrite of the act and the adoption of FAA regs and the reorganization of the various authorities to provide checks and balances is required. The current system is economically inefficient, inequitable, not market driven, and introduces needless business risk as well as sovereign risk into business calculations.
To put it another way, if a police officer pulls me up on the road, I know exactly where we both stand legally and how both of us are required to behave and how any alleged infractions are to be decided. With CASA ????? You have no idea. Ultimately perhaps years from now, that “safety” discretion thing is going to give rise to low level corruption.
Last edited by Sunfish; 26th Jul 2019 at 20:54.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Implied.
Spike:
The trouble is Spike that to YOU these guys are lazy dinosaurs that you imply are harmless, but to US, they are the representatives of the Australian Government with all the majesty and power associated. They have the capacity to destroy business, reputations, finances and careers as far as WE are concerned, and have to be handled accordingly at great expense with great personal stress. Just look at what is happening to that poor bastard - Glen Buckley.
Your argument is akin to my scuba diving experience with reef sharks, I know they are mostly harmless, but my American dive buddy doesn’t and just about throws up in their face mask when We encounter one or two. Most Australians are like that with authority figures. If some CASA creep threatens to prosecute us we take it very seriously. Turning around a few weeks later and saying “just kidding” doesn’t repair the situation either. For example, who is now going to buy a GA8 Airvan after CASAs shoot from the hip grounding letter? Who wants to be exposed to ANY engagement with CASA?
Where is the code of conduct for CASA officers? Where are the straight forward plain english guides to compliance that aren’t full of weasel words like “suitable”, “appropriate”, “acceptable” and the like.
...or does the pursuit of “safety” allow CASA staff to allegedly act like corrupt mafia thugs?
To get back on topic, no investor or professional person is going to go anywhere near Australian GA once they get a whiff of CASA regulatory culture. The exception seems to be LARGE flying schools exclusively training reams of foreign pilots who have apparently learned to hold their noses when dealing with CASA.
To fix GA, a rewrite of the act and the adoption of FAA regs and the reorganization of the various authorities to provide checks and balances is required. The current system is economically inefficient, inequitable, not market driven, and introduces needless business risk as well as sovereign risk into business calculations.
To put it another way, if a police officer pulls me up on the road, I know exactly where we both stand legally and how both of us are required to behave and how any alleged infractions are to be decided. With CASA ????? You have no idea. Ultimately perhaps years from now, that “safety” discretion thing is going to give rise to low level corruption.
The trouble is Spike that to YOU these guys are lazy dinosaurs that you imply are harmless, but to US, they are the representatives of the Australian Government with all the majesty and power associated. They have the capacity to destroy business, reputations, finances and careers as far as WE are concerned, and have to be handled accordingly at great expense with great personal stress. Just look at what is happening to that poor bastard - Glen Buckley.
Your argument is akin to my scuba diving experience with reef sharks, I know they are mostly harmless, but my American dive buddy doesn’t and just about throws up in their face mask when We encounter one or two. Most Australians are like that with authority figures. If some CASA creep threatens to prosecute us we take it very seriously. Turning around a few weeks later and saying “just kidding” doesn’t repair the situation either. For example, who is now going to buy a GA8 Airvan after CASAs shoot from the hip grounding letter? Who wants to be exposed to ANY engagement with CASA?
Where is the code of conduct for CASA officers? Where are the straight forward plain english guides to compliance that aren’t full of weasel words like “suitable”, “appropriate”, “acceptable” and the like.
...or does the pursuit of “safety” allow CASA staff to allegedly act like corrupt mafia thugs?
To get back on topic, no investor or professional person is going to go anywhere near Australian GA once they get a whiff of CASA regulatory culture. The exception seems to be LARGE flying schools exclusively training reams of foreign pilots who have apparently learned to hold their noses when dealing with CASA.
To fix GA, a rewrite of the act and the adoption of FAA regs and the reorganization of the various authorities to provide checks and balances is required. The current system is economically inefficient, inequitable, not market driven, and introduces needless business risk as well as sovereign risk into business calculations.
To put it another way, if a police officer pulls me up on the road, I know exactly where we both stand legally and how both of us are required to behave and how any alleged infractions are to be decided. With CASA ????? You have no idea. Ultimately perhaps years from now, that “safety” discretion thing is going to give rise to low level corruption.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the REG
“Not carrying persons generally”, i.e. seats not available to the general public. I have done FIFO on a closed charter and it is exactly that, closed to the general public. In some instances family members are allowed on closed charter as they are invited to the site by employees and do not purchase a ticket. An example would be Koolan Island when BHP we’re operating it. Family of resident employees could travel to visit relatives on the island but tourists could not.
I find that the many examples given above just don't pass the common sense test. I'm fairly new to the whole AOC concept, so obviously no starting place other than "Who needs an AOC" makes for a better read:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc
where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:
And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself.
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/who-needs-aoc
where two aerial work activities could remotely touch upon the issue at hand:
- Trade Operations
- Carriage, for trading purposes, of goods owned by the pilot, owner or hirer of the aircraft on schedules that are not fixed and terminals
And that's just one cooked up example. The tradie could argue the nuts and bolts belong to his company, not himself.
Some time back, "somebody" ( could name them, but will refrain) in a very senior position in CASA developed the "theory" re. CAR 206 that any use of an aircraft that resulted in qualifying for any deduction of expenses or depreciation on you or your company's tax return, as a result of operating an aircraft, required an AOC.
The idea didn't last long, but caused mayhem where it was "enforced".
This was the same genius that developed the proposal for a "Private Operations AOC", whose definitions would have covered about 50% of then private operations, including the "tradie and his (her) toolbox", "doctor with his bag", :"businessman with his laptop".
You get the drift.
Tootle pip!!
Thank you for your considered reply Flying Spike, I wish you were running CASA.
What I was trying to get across is how completely alien CASA behavior and the regulations are compared to ANY other activity in Australia, and that includes the ATO.
My personal opinion is that it’s killing GA.
If I had done a little more homework before starting flying, I would have taken up golf instead. The signs were there, I just didn’t put two and two together.
What I was trying to get across is how completely alien CASA behavior and the regulations are compared to ANY other activity in Australia, and that includes the ATO.
My personal opinion is that it’s killing GA.
If I had done a little more homework before starting flying, I would have taken up golf instead. The signs were there, I just didn’t put two and two together.
Can it be that some senators in government and opposition are starting to see the damage CASA are doing?
Senate votes down Green Objections to Civil Aviation Bill - Australian Flying
Speaking against the bill, Greens Senator Janet Rice from Victoria said her party considered the bill was risky.
"The Greens believe this is a dangerous bill," she told the Sentors. "This is a bill that would put at risk our aviation safety regime and, consequently, be putting at risk the lives of Australians.
"Taking account of the economic and the social costs of safety standards is, in fact, something that does need to be done. But it should not be done by CASA. CASA's remit is to be making recommendations on the basis of safety.
"It is up to us in the parliament, if we feel that there are other economic or social considerations that need to be taken into account, to make the judgement as to how those regulations should change and how CASA's recommendations maybe should change because of those economic or social considerations. It should not be the remit of CASA to be making those political judgements."
Senator Rice moved an amendment that would require the bill to be referred to a Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport committee inquiry, saying the Senate should know how the bill would effect the function of CASA and other impacts on aviation in Australia. The amendment was defeated 48-9.
"I am deeply disappointed," Senator Rice commented after the vote."There's probably nothing more that you will be able to tell me that will set my heart at rest that we are not undermining the safety standards of our civil aviation safety agency."
With both the government and the opposition in favour of the bill, it looks certain to pass through the Senate.
Speaking in favour of the bill, Labor's Senator Murray Watt said the bill was raised in response to industry concerns about over-regulation.
"Labor understands the importance of the aviation industry, especially in regional Australia," Watt said. "This bill takes a balanced approach between the need to protect the travelling public and, of course, ensuring the viability of the sector. This bill is in response to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that CASA's strong focus on safety has resulted in overregulation, which can be costly for small operators.
"This bill is about general aviation and balancing the critically important need for safety with making sure that the regulatory burden is not too great for small operators to bear."
Tasmanian Senator Jackie Lambie spoke in favour of the bill, stating that "When it comes to aviation safety, the safest passenger is the one that never gets in a plane in the first place. The easiest way to prevent aviation accidents is to shut down aviation altogether – if every plane is grounded, every plane is safe. Excessive regulation is doing just that – keeping planes safe by keeping planes grounded.
"This is all made possible by the rules around the regulator, CASA, which currently has to consider safety as the highest priority above all else. It is required to ignore other considerations like cost, as if it is unrelated."
In what seemed to be a concession to The Greens' concerns, Lambie proposed new wording, which was labeled as ambiguous by two other senators and ultimately defeated in a vote.
The strongest proponent of the bill was Centre Alliance's Senator Rex Patrick, with support from the Liberal Party's Senator David Fawcett.
"Unfortunately, we've now reached the situation where—Senator Rice is talking about aircraft not flying to rural areas," Senator Patrick said. "They're not flying to rural areas because there are no pilots anymore. There are no planes because everyone has been priced out of the market ...
"It's not because they're unsafe; it is simply because of the overburden of regulation that CASA imposes upon general aviation. I'm sure if you put all of the documentation that you require to be able to fly into the back of your Cessna it simply wouldn't take off it would be so heavy.
"To be very clear: the United States and other countries have much slimmer sets of regulations, but they also have much more traffic flying in their airspace and in much harsher conditions. Australia is blessed in many senses because it always has relatively good weather. We don't have to worry about significant storms or de-icing aircraft before we take off. We've got a relatively safe environment compared to other nations that have regard to the fostering of the industry.
"That has not been happening here, and it hasn't been happening here because of the legislation."
"Back when David Forsyth ran the inquiry into Australia's safety regulation for aviation, I worked with former Minister Truss, travelling much of Australia, speaking at many of the same forums and getting feedback from people," Senator Fawcett said.
"One of the issues that was raised consistently was that there were multiple occurrences where the requirements of CASA were bureaucratically correct but didn't actually have a safety outcome. In some cases, advice was given by CASA to industry which they didn't follow through because they basically didn't care about the economic impact.
"The desire is not to provide an avenue for someone to say, 'We think that's going to lose us some profits, so we're not going to do it,' but for them to actually say 'Can we achieve the same safety standard and take account of the economics for a small business?' That was the intent that came out of the Forsyth review and the associated discussions, and has bounced around now for a number of years.
"I'm very pleased to see that the opposition has been able to work with the government to come up with a form of words that makes sure that we keep companies viable, because I've got to say: a safe company is a viable company."
The bill has now been sent for a Third Reading without being amended.
Read more at Senate votes down Green Objections to Civil Aviation Bill - Australian Flying
Senate votes down Green Objections to Civil Aviation Bill - Australian Flying
The Senate yesterday voted against strong objections to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 raised by the Australian Greens.
The bill seeks to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to ensure that CASA takes into account the impact of cost when making regulations, amendments which have support from both the Coalition government and the ALP opposition.Speaking against the bill, Greens Senator Janet Rice from Victoria said her party considered the bill was risky.
"The Greens believe this is a dangerous bill," she told the Sentors. "This is a bill that would put at risk our aviation safety regime and, consequently, be putting at risk the lives of Australians.
"Taking account of the economic and the social costs of safety standards is, in fact, something that does need to be done. But it should not be done by CASA. CASA's remit is to be making recommendations on the basis of safety.
"It is up to us in the parliament, if we feel that there are other economic or social considerations that need to be taken into account, to make the judgement as to how those regulations should change and how CASA's recommendations maybe should change because of those economic or social considerations. It should not be the remit of CASA to be making those political judgements."
Senator Rice moved an amendment that would require the bill to be referred to a Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport committee inquiry, saying the Senate should know how the bill would effect the function of CASA and other impacts on aviation in Australia. The amendment was defeated 48-9.
"I am deeply disappointed," Senator Rice commented after the vote."There's probably nothing more that you will be able to tell me that will set my heart at rest that we are not undermining the safety standards of our civil aviation safety agency."
With both the government and the opposition in favour of the bill, it looks certain to pass through the Senate.
Speaking in favour of the bill, Labor's Senator Murray Watt said the bill was raised in response to industry concerns about over-regulation.
"Labor understands the importance of the aviation industry, especially in regional Australia," Watt said. "This bill takes a balanced approach between the need to protect the travelling public and, of course, ensuring the viability of the sector. This bill is in response to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that CASA's strong focus on safety has resulted in overregulation, which can be costly for small operators.
"This bill is about general aviation and balancing the critically important need for safety with making sure that the regulatory burden is not too great for small operators to bear."
Tasmanian Senator Jackie Lambie spoke in favour of the bill, stating that "When it comes to aviation safety, the safest passenger is the one that never gets in a plane in the first place. The easiest way to prevent aviation accidents is to shut down aviation altogether – if every plane is grounded, every plane is safe. Excessive regulation is doing just that – keeping planes safe by keeping planes grounded.
"This is all made possible by the rules around the regulator, CASA, which currently has to consider safety as the highest priority above all else. It is required to ignore other considerations like cost, as if it is unrelated."
In what seemed to be a concession to The Greens' concerns, Lambie proposed new wording, which was labeled as ambiguous by two other senators and ultimately defeated in a vote.
The strongest proponent of the bill was Centre Alliance's Senator Rex Patrick, with support from the Liberal Party's Senator David Fawcett.
"Unfortunately, we've now reached the situation where—Senator Rice is talking about aircraft not flying to rural areas," Senator Patrick said. "They're not flying to rural areas because there are no pilots anymore. There are no planes because everyone has been priced out of the market ...
"It's not because they're unsafe; it is simply because of the overburden of regulation that CASA imposes upon general aviation. I'm sure if you put all of the documentation that you require to be able to fly into the back of your Cessna it simply wouldn't take off it would be so heavy.
"To be very clear: the United States and other countries have much slimmer sets of regulations, but they also have much more traffic flying in their airspace and in much harsher conditions. Australia is blessed in many senses because it always has relatively good weather. We don't have to worry about significant storms or de-icing aircraft before we take off. We've got a relatively safe environment compared to other nations that have regard to the fostering of the industry.
"That has not been happening here, and it hasn't been happening here because of the legislation."
"Back when David Forsyth ran the inquiry into Australia's safety regulation for aviation, I worked with former Minister Truss, travelling much of Australia, speaking at many of the same forums and getting feedback from people," Senator Fawcett said.
"One of the issues that was raised consistently was that there were multiple occurrences where the requirements of CASA were bureaucratically correct but didn't actually have a safety outcome. In some cases, advice was given by CASA to industry which they didn't follow through because they basically didn't care about the economic impact.
"The desire is not to provide an avenue for someone to say, 'We think that's going to lose us some profits, so we're not going to do it,' but for them to actually say 'Can we achieve the same safety standard and take account of the economics for a small business?' That was the intent that came out of the Forsyth review and the associated discussions, and has bounced around now for a number of years.
"I'm very pleased to see that the opposition has been able to work with the government to come up with a form of words that makes sure that we keep companies viable, because I've got to say: a safe company is a viable company."
The bill has now been sent for a Third Reading without being amended.
Read more at Senate votes down Green Objections to Civil Aviation Bill - Australian Flying
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scenario: you acquire an aircraft through a company that you founded with the sole purpose of being its registered holder and operator to rent it out to those pilots who so wish. Let's say you're the only shareholder for simplicity but you're not an employee.
Now you're also a pilot, and you carry out a private operation with this aircraft that you hire from your company in order to take your doctor friend out and back to see some patients. Both you and your friend incur costs for the flight – invoiced by your company – which you split evenly due to the private nature of the flight. The fee your company charges is equivalent to (at least) twice the actual costs and expenses it incurs itself (fuel, oil, airways and landing fees, insurance, engine overhaul, ...). Nothing illegal here, companies survive by charging for services and (try to) make profits in return. Your friend pays her share, you pay yours – all fair and square. Since the fee charged is twice the actual cost, her share covers those costs and while your share becomes an immediate personal loss, it becomes a profit for the company. This profit will be paid out back to you as a dividend (≠ wage/reward) at the end of the fiscal year (or you can leave it in the company).
A more realistic case would obviously have to account for GST, and double taxation avoidance since the dividend payback will also be subject to taxation. I'm no expert of the Aussie taxation system but you get the general idea.
Is there any obvious hole in that scenario or would that allow to bypass the requirement for the company to have an AOC? The idea is obviously not to make a quick buck on your friend's back but to be remain law abiding while helping her in her requirement to see patients and not losing money yourself. Eventually she has an operational requirement to fly around so it's reasonable to expect her to pay for the flight expenses.
Now you're also a pilot, and you carry out a private operation with this aircraft that you hire from your company in order to take your doctor friend out and back to see some patients. Both you and your friend incur costs for the flight – invoiced by your company – which you split evenly due to the private nature of the flight. The fee your company charges is equivalent to (at least) twice the actual costs and expenses it incurs itself (fuel, oil, airways and landing fees, insurance, engine overhaul, ...). Nothing illegal here, companies survive by charging for services and (try to) make profits in return. Your friend pays her share, you pay yours – all fair and square. Since the fee charged is twice the actual cost, her share covers those costs and while your share becomes an immediate personal loss, it becomes a profit for the company. This profit will be paid out back to you as a dividend (≠ wage/reward) at the end of the fiscal year (or you can leave it in the company).
A more realistic case would obviously have to account for GST, and double taxation avoidance since the dividend payback will also be subject to taxation. I'm no expert of the Aussie taxation system but you get the general idea.
Is there any obvious hole in that scenario or would that allow to bypass the requirement for the company to have an AOC? The idea is obviously not to make a quick buck on your friend's back but to be remain law abiding while helping her in her requirement to see patients and not losing money yourself. Eventually she has an operational requirement to fly around so it's reasonable to expect her to pay for the flight expenses.
Last edited by Okihara; 28th Jul 2019 at 10:29.
Oki, I think what people have been suggesting, but of course I could be wrong, is that whatever fancy footwork you may do, CASA might say “no”. Since they have a bottomless pit to pay for litigation, even if you are ultimately proved right in the high court you lose......
.......And what will also have happened in the meantime is a CASA audit of your logbook, the aircraft maintenance and flight logs and the discovery of “discrepancies “ that result in your loss of license and a criminal conviction to boot. If you look through AAT decisions you will find that CASA always look for extra material to bolster their case this way.
I now understand why pilots and engineers are so reticent to answer a lot of questions I once asked, let alone commit themselves by putting anything beyond the absolute bare minimum in official records.
.......And what will also have happened in the meantime is a CASA audit of your logbook, the aircraft maintenance and flight logs and the discovery of “discrepancies “ that result in your loss of license and a criminal conviction to boot. If you look through AAT decisions you will find that CASA always look for extra material to bolster their case this way.
I now understand why pilots and engineers are so reticent to answer a lot of questions I once asked, let alone commit themselves by putting anything beyond the absolute bare minimum in official records.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think after reading this thread that if there is a 'next life' them I'm gunna chose NZ or the States to enjoy my next flying career, might talk funny but at least I will have hope & prosperity, two things that GA in this country will never see again!:-(
I often wonder if anyone in CASA (with authority) ever reads this stuff? I guess if they do it's the 'Ostrich in the sand' mentality that is followed!...
:-(
I often wonder if anyone in CASA (with authority) ever reads this stuff? I guess if they do it's the 'Ostrich in the sand' mentality that is followed!...
:-(
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Most locked down city in the world
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when packing my Datsun 180b in 1986 with my CPL I could count 20 S/E aircraft operating out of Ayers Rock.
Flew in last week same airport, zero fixed wing not a one and only 2 choppers. Yeah good one CASA.
Flew in last week same airport, zero fixed wing not a one and only 2 choppers. Yeah good one CASA.
No fixed wing means no fixed wing accidents ---- now get rid of the helicopters ----- Perfect ------ S.9A of the Act ultimate compliance.
With the banning of climbing the rock from October, that will get rid of lots of tourist, so preserving the environment.
Think of the reduction in global warning the CO2 reduction will make ------ additional bonus!!
We certainly do live in "The Lucky Country".
Tootle pip!!
Says it all, really. If ever there was a job that could be done by GA, this is it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-...rtage/11369454
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-...tor-1/11369804
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-...rtage/11369454
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-...tor-1/11369804
Government admits 'acute shortages' in rural SA
The South Australian Government has acknowledged that there are "acute shortages of clinical staff in country areas".
It is now trying to fill 60 GP vacancies in the state's regional areas and 35 vacancies in the general practitioner training program.
"Some of the strategies outlined in the plan include to have shared positions between metro health networks and the regions, to give exposure to rural experiences for metro-based medical interns," Health Minister Stephen Wade has said.
]
The South Australian Government has acknowledged that there are "acute shortages of clinical staff in country areas".
It is now trying to fill 60 GP vacancies in the state's regional areas and 35 vacancies in the general practitioner training program.
"Some of the strategies outlined in the plan include to have shared positions between metro health networks and the regions, to give exposure to rural experiences for metro-based medical interns," Health Minister Stephen Wade has said.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Perth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original topic. GA in the USA is affordable. Im living in the USA at the moment and fly recreationally here often. I dont at home in Australia. The reason in the price. Even with the poor exchange rate the cost is minimal compared to Aus. Fuel and maintenance are that much cheeper here, and that gets passed on.
My club here has just upped the price of a 172S from $110/hr to $130...
My club here has just upped the price of a 172S from $110/hr to $130...
Back to the original topic. GA in the USA is affordable. Im living in the USA at the moment and fly recreationally here often. I dont at home in Australia. The reason in the price. Even with the poor exchange rate the cost is minimal compared to Aus. Fuel and maintenance are that much cheeper here, and that gets passed on.
My club here has just upped the price of a 172S from $110/hr to $130...
My club here has just upped the price of a 172S from $110/hr to $130...
OK Are we talking the same sort of dollars -USD vs AUD?
What is the cost breakdown for each? Purchase cost, capital cost, fuel cost, maintenance labour cost, major component replacement allocation, insurance cost? Without that information, price comparisons are meaningless.
What is the cost breakdown for each? Purchase cost, capital cost, fuel cost, maintenance labour cost, major component replacement allocation, insurance cost? Without that information, price comparisons are meaningless.
On Holiday recently I hired a new 172 out of Van Nuys and was $160 odd per hour including tax. So $235 Aussie. A older 70s model was $30 cheaper.
I could also hire a Seminole out for the same price of a 172 hired out here in Melbourne, currency and tax converted!
Briefing and/or Instructor fee per hour was $80-$100us around most places.
Fuel was $1.80us litre. Landing fees even at major places were a few bucks.
Landing a 172 at big airports on a very tight parallel with a dozen odd 737s waiting and departing only set me back a few dollars in landing fees. What we do here is ban GA traffic between say 10-3pm (CNS cough..), decomission small runways to piss of the GA traffic (umm CNS again), charge monstrous landing fees, and to top it off give us 48hrs notice before you come. The latest and greatest is charging the Aussie GA battler for an approach.
I could also hire a Seminole out for the same price of a 172 hired out here in Melbourne, currency and tax converted!
Briefing and/or Instructor fee per hour was $80-$100us around most places.
Fuel was $1.80us litre. Landing fees even at major places were a few bucks.
Landing a 172 at big airports on a very tight parallel with a dozen odd 737s waiting and departing only set me back a few dollars in landing fees. What we do here is ban GA traffic between say 10-3pm (CNS cough..), decomission small runways to piss of the GA traffic (umm CNS again), charge monstrous landing fees, and to top it off give us 48hrs notice before you come. The latest and greatest is charging the Aussie GA battler for an approach.
Interesting. The "boom" appears to be negative. See Chapter 1 with historical data over 11 years https://www.faa.gov/data_research/av...iation/CY2017/
I know this is a rumours site but making claims that are provably incorrect does not sit well.
I know this is a rumours site but making claims that are provably incorrect does not sit well.