AFAP would not support DS legislative change proposal
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, it doesn't matter what changes are proposed to the legislation, when it comes to GA, CASA will interpret the legislation as they wish. When it comes to airline regulation (your ETOPS example) they have no option as the industry world-wide has decided that twin engine aircraft is the way to go; if CASA tried to enforce 4 engine operations into Australia they would be very quickly told where to go.
Until GA decides to unite and to challenge CASA then it will be business as usual; "what end of the pineapple do you prefer?"
Until GA decides to unite and to challenge CASA then it will be business as usual; "what end of the pineapple do you prefer?"
[QUOTE=Dick Smith;10753095Would you like me to post both my email to the AFAP and the Presidents answer?
After all nothing should be secret when it comes to air safety![/QUOTE]
Come on please, Dick. We're waiting.
After all nothing should be secret when it comes to air safety![/QUOTE]
Come on please, Dick. We're waiting.
Only Dick Smith could bring out another CASA won’t do it my way, I’m the only one who knows how it should be done thread in the middle of a Pandemic. I too would like to see all the applicable correspondence, not just a cherrypicked sentence.
Ozbi..its not about what casa won’t do. It’s about the result of Sic Sac Mic MAC the Miniscule wouldn’t do, after listening to dumb advice from apf and his agenda of deleting what Baanaby would have done... moved to change the Act... with a view to get GA in Oz alive again.
All most Av punters want is more freedoms to get on with normal business without the bloody minded, over controlling BS that CAsA comes up with for “safely” saving the world from falling aeroplanes.
CAsA doesn’t own safety. CAsA didn’t invent safety. But as it is CAsA controls ‘safety ‘ with dire economic consequences for all participants..(except them on the teat)
Safety is the result commonsense by thoughtful LAMEs and pilots who act professionally.
Its “safety” bureaucrats who have inserted themselves into the equation...and f**ked it.!
The proof is in the state of the GA pudding. Buggered.
All most Av punters want is more freedoms to get on with normal business without the bloody minded, over controlling BS that CAsA comes up with for “safely” saving the world from falling aeroplanes.
CAsA doesn’t own safety. CAsA didn’t invent safety. But as it is CAsA controls ‘safety ‘ with dire economic consequences for all participants..(except them on the teat)
Safety is the result commonsense by thoughtful LAMEs and pilots who act professionally.
Its “safety” bureaucrats who have inserted themselves into the equation...and f**ked it.!
The proof is in the state of the GA pudding. Buggered.
Ozbi..its not about what casa won’t do. It’s about the result of Sic Sac Mic MAC the Miniscule wouldn’t do, after listening to dumb advice from apf and his agenda of deleting what Baanaby would have done... moved to change the Act... with a view to get GA in Oz alive again.
All most Av punters want is more freedoms to get on with normal business without the bloody minded, over controlling BS that CAsA comes up with for “safely” saving the world from falling aeroplanes.
CAsA doesn’t own safety. CAsA didn’t invent safety. But as it is CAsA controls ‘safety ‘ with dire economic consequences for all participants..(except them on the teat)
Safety is the result commonsense by thoughtful LAMEs and pilots who act professionally.
Its “safety” bureaucrats who have inserted themselves into the equation...and f**ked it.!
The proof is in the state of the GA pudding. Buggered.
All most Av punters want is more freedoms to get on with normal business without the bloody minded, over controlling BS that CAsA comes up with for “safely” saving the world from falling aeroplanes.
CAsA doesn’t own safety. CAsA didn’t invent safety. But as it is CAsA controls ‘safety ‘ with dire economic consequences for all participants..(except them on the teat)
Safety is the result commonsense by thoughtful LAMEs and pilots who act professionally.
Its “safety” bureaucrats who have inserted themselves into the equation...and f**ked it.!
The proof is in the state of the GA pudding. Buggered.
Thread Starter
Ozbiggles, no it is not a cherry-picked sentence. This is my email to the AFAP.
Dear David
The attached article is self-explanatory.
Could you advise whether your organisation supports the change of the Civil Aviation Act as per the agreement of the previous Minister for Transport, Barnaby Joyce, and the current Shadow Minister Anthony Albanese? The wording is as shown in the article.
I look forward to your urgent reply.
Regards
Dick Smith
Here is the answer.
Dear Dick
The AFAP represents over 4500 Australian commercial and airline pilots, including over 1000 pilots working in General Aviation. We share your concerns regarding crippling regulatory costs which have emerged for GA, in particular brought on by Part 61 (Licencing).
Aviation companies have been hit with enormous cost blowouts in training pilots especially on to higher type aircraft. As an example an endorsement on a B200 would have cost approximately $3,000 if done in the actual aircraft, but is now costing $20,000 done in the Ansett Kingair simulator in Melbourne under Part 61 requirements. Similarly, a flight test for an ATPL licence is now required to be undertaken in B1900 or similar meaning a similar $20,000 price tag for an applicant. This leads to the absurdity of it being cheaper for an Australian pilot to travel to the USA, where the ATP flight test is conducted in a light twin. Not surprisingly, the number of ATPL licences issued outside of the airlines over the last three years has plummeted.
These costs reduce the ability and willingness of general aviation companies to provide training to pilots in the early part of their career and is contributing to the current pilot training blockages being experienced within the regional airline sector and beyond. The AFAP supports steps to reduce red tape, foster pilot training and rejuvenate the general aviation sector of our industry. CASA considers it does take into account the financial viability of the industry, but plainly this is not occurring and their practice in charging $160/hour to read and approve changes to an operations manual is another case in point. In summary, the cost that Part 61 brought to the industry and the associated red tape has been horrendous, it has also increased costs to the Airline industry but they are more able to absorb these costs.
Turning specifically to your request, unfortunately we are not in a position to support your amendments to the Act which we believe could empower the regulator to relegate safety. Our refusal is influenced by CASA's establishment of the strategic Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) , dominated with Airline executives but with no-one to represent the recommendations and advice of professional pilots.
I wish you every success with your lobbying to government to re-invigorate the aviation sector, and the AFAP will continue to lobby against CASA regulation with no demonstrable safety benefit. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Forsyth Review and incumbent CASA Board have failed to holt these trends.
Best Regards
David Booth
President
AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF AIR PILOTS
The interesting part is that for the first section of the letter, they appear to be totally agreeing with me in relation to over regulation and cost. Then they suddenly reverse their position with the statement that they wouldn’t support what I was trying to do.
I do know their position was given to the Minister as one of the reasons the Act should not be changed. If you were a Minister for Transport and you didn’t want controversy, you may as well keep the AFAP onside.
Just about everyone else who could benefit from the change remained silent.
Dear David
The attached article is self-explanatory.
Could you advise whether your organisation supports the change of the Civil Aviation Act as per the agreement of the previous Minister for Transport, Barnaby Joyce, and the current Shadow Minister Anthony Albanese? The wording is as shown in the article.
I look forward to your urgent reply.
Regards
Dick Smith
Here is the answer.
Dear Dick
The AFAP represents over 4500 Australian commercial and airline pilots, including over 1000 pilots working in General Aviation. We share your concerns regarding crippling regulatory costs which have emerged for GA, in particular brought on by Part 61 (Licencing).
Aviation companies have been hit with enormous cost blowouts in training pilots especially on to higher type aircraft. As an example an endorsement on a B200 would have cost approximately $3,000 if done in the actual aircraft, but is now costing $20,000 done in the Ansett Kingair simulator in Melbourne under Part 61 requirements. Similarly, a flight test for an ATPL licence is now required to be undertaken in B1900 or similar meaning a similar $20,000 price tag for an applicant. This leads to the absurdity of it being cheaper for an Australian pilot to travel to the USA, where the ATP flight test is conducted in a light twin. Not surprisingly, the number of ATPL licences issued outside of the airlines over the last three years has plummeted.
These costs reduce the ability and willingness of general aviation companies to provide training to pilots in the early part of their career and is contributing to the current pilot training blockages being experienced within the regional airline sector and beyond. The AFAP supports steps to reduce red tape, foster pilot training and rejuvenate the general aviation sector of our industry. CASA considers it does take into account the financial viability of the industry, but plainly this is not occurring and their practice in charging $160/hour to read and approve changes to an operations manual is another case in point. In summary, the cost that Part 61 brought to the industry and the associated red tape has been horrendous, it has also increased costs to the Airline industry but they are more able to absorb these costs.
Turning specifically to your request, unfortunately we are not in a position to support your amendments to the Act which we believe could empower the regulator to relegate safety. Our refusal is influenced by CASA's establishment of the strategic Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) , dominated with Airline executives but with no-one to represent the recommendations and advice of professional pilots.
I wish you every success with your lobbying to government to re-invigorate the aviation sector, and the AFAP will continue to lobby against CASA regulation with no demonstrable safety benefit. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Forsyth Review and incumbent CASA Board have failed to holt these trends.
Best Regards
David Booth
President
AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF AIR PILOTS
The interesting part is that for the first section of the letter, they appear to be totally agreeing with me in relation to over regulation and cost. Then they suddenly reverse their position with the statement that they wouldn’t support what I was trying to do.
I do know their position was given to the Minister as one of the reasons the Act should not be changed. If you were a Minister for Transport and you didn’t want controversy, you may as well keep the AFAP onside.
Just about everyone else who could benefit from the change remained silent.
[QUOTE][Turning specifically to your request, unfortunately we are not in a position to support your amendments to the Act which we believe could empower the regulator to relegate safety. [/QUOTE]
Illiterate, dumb, stupid fool, and his membership likewise if they believe this twaddle.
Illiterate, dumb, stupid fool, and his membership likewise if they believe this twaddle.
I could have sworn Louise Pole has been the president of AFAP since October 2018, not David Booth
Yes I am a member of AFAP, thanks for the compliment Sunny..
Yes I am a member of AFAP, thanks for the compliment Sunny..
Clare, If you are a member of this useless bunch of no hopers, then give your entire board a kick in the backside for utter stupidity.
What the amendment of the Act would require is for CASA to engage in evidence based rule making, not the current witch doctor driven, personal prejudice driven, military mindset friendly., steaming piles of bureaucratic ordure your AFAP President, and by association YOU, are so happy to wallow in.
What “evidence based” means is that you have to apply common or garden risk management principles which are well know hard science that have been around since at least 1975 when I was taught their application as a junior engineer responsible for 21 million litres of petrol and 36 tank trucks.
It beggars belief that anyone, ANYONE, involved in Safety critical activity would prefer mumbo jumbo to good common sense, but CASA and the AFAP prefer “fake safety” over the real thing.
The only benefit I can see in the current system is that it provides an opportunity for group therapy for congenital deviates engaged in onanistic fantasies of power and control over what’s left of Australian Aviation that they haven’t already destroyed.
As for this clowns command of english, God help us.
Do I make myself clear?
What the amendment of the Act would require is for CASA to engage in evidence based rule making, not the current witch doctor driven, personal prejudice driven, military mindset friendly., steaming piles of bureaucratic ordure your AFAP President, and by association YOU, are so happy to wallow in.
What “evidence based” means is that you have to apply common or garden risk management principles which are well know hard science that have been around since at least 1975 when I was taught their application as a junior engineer responsible for 21 million litres of petrol and 36 tank trucks.
It beggars belief that anyone, ANYONE, involved in Safety critical activity would prefer mumbo jumbo to good common sense, but CASA and the AFAP prefer “fake safety” over the real thing.
The only benefit I can see in the current system is that it provides an opportunity for group therapy for congenital deviates engaged in onanistic fantasies of power and control over what’s left of Australian Aviation that they haven’t already destroyed.
As for this clowns command of english, God help us.
Do I make myself clear?
Also Dick, which is the article to which you refer in your email? They specifically mention they don't support YOUR amendments to the act and I'm uncertain exactly what your amendments to the act would be exactly?
Clare, If you are a member of this useless bunch of no hopers, then give your entire board a kick in the backside for utter stupidity.
What the amendment of the Act would require is for CASA to engage in evidence based rule making, not the current witch doctor driven, personal prejudice driven, military mindset friendly., steaming piles of bureaucratic ordure your AFAP President, and by association YOU, are so happy to wallow in.
What “evidence based” means is that you have to apply common or garden risk management principles which are well know hard science that have been around since at least 1975 when I was taught their application as a junior engineer responsible for 21 million litres of petrol and 36 tank trucks.
It beggars belief that anyone, ANYONE, involved in Safety critical activity would prefer mumbo jumbo to good common sense, but CASA and the AFAP prefer “fake safety” over the real thing.
The only benefit I can see in the current system is that it provides an opportunity for group therapy for congenital deviates engaged in onanistic fantasies of power and control over what’s left of Australian Aviation that they haven’t already destroyed.
As for this clowns command of english, God help us.
Do I make myself clear?
What the amendment of the Act would require is for CASA to engage in evidence based rule making, not the current witch doctor driven, personal prejudice driven, military mindset friendly., steaming piles of bureaucratic ordure your AFAP President, and by association YOU, are so happy to wallow in.
What “evidence based” means is that you have to apply common or garden risk management principles which are well know hard science that have been around since at least 1975 when I was taught their application as a junior engineer responsible for 21 million litres of petrol and 36 tank trucks.
It beggars belief that anyone, ANYONE, involved in Safety critical activity would prefer mumbo jumbo to good common sense, but CASA and the AFAP prefer “fake safety” over the real thing.
The only benefit I can see in the current system is that it provides an opportunity for group therapy for congenital deviates engaged in onanistic fantasies of power and control over what’s left of Australian Aviation that they haven’t already destroyed.
As for this clowns command of english, God help us.
Do I make myself clear?
I haven't been told off like that since school! LOLCan you or Dick explain why he is quoting emails from someone who stopped being the president of AFAP 18 months ago?
Thread Starter
Gerry111, my letter to the AFAP was dated 11 April 2018 and the reply from David Booth was dated 13 April 2018.
Ixixly, the article to which my letter refers was published in The Australian on 14 March 2018.
Ixixly, the article to which my letter refers was published in The Australian on 14 March 2018.
So, the point I would make is this Booth character obviously did not go to the membership with this. What a prick, to be making assumptions on behalf of the membership. It points out everything that is wrong with unions. The executives own little play thing obviously.