The Future of Australia's Aviation Sector—Issues Paper
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Future of Australia's Aviation Sector—Issues Paper
Hi all,
This seems very well hidden away and hastily put together . Only found on Michael McCormack's FB page.
Feel everyone should Spam them their honest feelings.
The Future of Australia's Aviation Sector Paper
This seems very well hidden away and hastily put together . Only found on Michael McCormack's FB page.
Feel everyone should Spam them their honest feelings.
The Future of Australia's Aviation Sector Paper
Pay attention. See: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...ure/index.aspx
This is really important and needs rational thought and response.
This is really important and needs rational thought and response.
Good find there Hasher. Certainly needs some very cosidered and serious responses.
GA.. Can we fix it.? Need more than just Bob the Builder !
A bulldozer thru 16 Firzer st for a start. Followed by a few regional "offices"
GA.. Can we fix it.? Need more than just Bob the Builder !
A bulldozer thru 16 Firzer st for a start. Followed by a few regional "offices"
First skim reading - waste of time. The Department already knows what is required is more of the same. That is apparent from the wording and, more importantly, the lack of any aspirational goals whatsoever in the document.
For example: ‘ “ access to regional airports is important for regional exporters” (motherhood).. Exactly what are the consequences of lack of access? What are the possibilities in gdp terms of unfettered capital city like access?
Exactly how do air freight and pax costs affect the total cost of australian export businesses? Start from here then work down.
As for GA and private aviation, how big are these in gdp terms? How big could they be?
‘They Department has no vision whatsoever, so this paper is a waste of time. I’ve written better.
To put it plainly, where is the ******* gap analysis between where we are now and where we could reasonably be expected to be? THAT is your starting point.
To put it another way, there is a whole field of new technology in UAVS and self drive not to mention electrics and what is the governments response? Suppress/ annual licence fee for anything over 250 grams. In a country with our broad scale agriculture - paddocks that literally extend over the horizon, All that does is ensure that Australian UAV Agricultural technology will NOT be developed and sold in australia!
Its after midnight sleep calls.
I shouldn’t bite the head off the author, but they have been given a prescription to write to.
For example: ‘ “ access to regional airports is important for regional exporters” (motherhood).. Exactly what are the consequences of lack of access? What are the possibilities in gdp terms of unfettered capital city like access?
Exactly how do air freight and pax costs affect the total cost of australian export businesses? Start from here then work down.
As for GA and private aviation, how big are these in gdp terms? How big could they be?
‘They Department has no vision whatsoever, so this paper is a waste of time. I’ve written better.
To put it plainly, where is the ******* gap analysis between where we are now and where we could reasonably be expected to be? THAT is your starting point.
To put it another way, there is a whole field of new technology in UAVS and self drive not to mention electrics and what is the governments response? Suppress/ annual licence fee for anything over 250 grams. In a country with our broad scale agriculture - paddocks that literally extend over the horizon, All that does is ensure that Australian UAV Agricultural technology will NOT be developed and sold in australia!
Its after midnight sleep calls.
I shouldn’t bite the head off the author, but they have been given a prescription to write to.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Oct 2020 at 13:39.
They Department has no vision whatsoever, so this paper is a waste of time.
Ah, Mick from the Wagga office. A real intellect and statesman. From here https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ial-editorials in February 2018:
The new deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack, has distanced himself from a series of newspaper editorials in which he advocated for the death penalty, opposed anti-gay hate laws and compared women’s soccer to an “egg and spoon” race. McCormack was the editor of Wagga Wagga’s Daily Advertiser from 1992 to 2001, and wrote the editorials in 1993 as part of his weekly column “From the editor’s desk”.Since he entered politics, McCormack has consistently apologised for a column he wrote in May that year, where he said it was “unfortunate” that “gays are here to stay”. He apologised when he first ran for office in 2010, and again in August last year, saying: “I have grown and learned not only to tolerate, but to accept all people regardless of their sexual orientation.”
But in further editorials from the same period he said he “wasn’t sorry” about his views, branded himself “homophobic”, mocked women’s sport, and advocated for the death penalty. On April 3 1993, he wrote: “This week’s spate of violent crimes has again rekindled the debate as to whether the death penalty should be re-introduced.
“Those opposed to capital punishment argue that it hasn’t deterred the incidence of crimes ...[and] there is also the possibility an innocent person may be put to death.
“However there is a strong and growing case for capital punishment. Let’s face it, perpetrators of heinous crimes are getting off far too lightly.” He added that capital punishment was “an extremely sensitive and emotional debate” and that the death penalty should be decided through a referendum.
Another editorial supported the mandatory HIV testing of all prisoners, and called for the curtailment of prisoner’s rights.
“Don’t let do-gooders stop the testing of prisoners for HIV,” he wrote on 4 September. “From the moment someone is sentenced to ‘do time’ until they’re let out, that person gives up most of their rights.”
In other editorials, McCormack also argued against laws that would have opposed gay hate, and backed his initial column against “sordid homosexuality”.
Despite immediately receiving dozens of complaints from readers and gay rights groups, his next column was titled: “I’m not sorry, why should I be?”
“I have no pangs of guilt for telling the truth about what gays are doing to the world and the decent people who live in it,” he wrote. “I’ve been labelled homophobic by some of the many people who have been moved to write letters.
“Well if homophobic can be taken as an intense fear of homosexuals then that’s fine, call me homophobic ... If something isn’t done and done quickly to prevent homosexuals getting rights they don’t deserve then God help us.”
An editorial on 11 September argued against proposed legislation to prevent the vilification of gay people.
“Homosexuals want to be accepted as part of society, yet want special treatment,” he wrote. “If this had been passed now, what further ‘favouritism’ would these people get in future?”
In the lead-up to Sydney’s successful 2000 Olympics bid, McCormack also wrote that women’s soccer “trivialised” the Games.
On Wednesday, McCormack told Guardian Australia that none of these articles reflected his current views.
“Editorial views expressed more than 25 years ago in no way reflect how my views and community views have changed since publication,” he said. “Australia in the early 90s was very different to what it is now. I say this not to excuse the culture which once existed but to put the quotes in context.
“As people get older and start families, and grow as members of their community it is completely reasonable their views change over time.”
Rose Kulak, a coordinator at Amnesty International Australia, said the organisation would “reach out” to McCormack to discuss his stance on the death penalty.
“The worldwide trend is away from the death penalty and Amnesty International would certainly hope that the new deputy prime minister’s views have also progressed in line with this trend,” she said.
But in further editorials from the same period he said he “wasn’t sorry” about his views, branded himself “homophobic”, mocked women’s sport, and advocated for the death penalty. On April 3 1993, he wrote: “This week’s spate of violent crimes has again rekindled the debate as to whether the death penalty should be re-introduced.
“Those opposed to capital punishment argue that it hasn’t deterred the incidence of crimes ...[and] there is also the possibility an innocent person may be put to death.
“However there is a strong and growing case for capital punishment. Let’s face it, perpetrators of heinous crimes are getting off far too lightly.” He added that capital punishment was “an extremely sensitive and emotional debate” and that the death penalty should be decided through a referendum.
Another editorial supported the mandatory HIV testing of all prisoners, and called for the curtailment of prisoner’s rights.
“Don’t let do-gooders stop the testing of prisoners for HIV,” he wrote on 4 September. “From the moment someone is sentenced to ‘do time’ until they’re let out, that person gives up most of their rights.”
In other editorials, McCormack also argued against laws that would have opposed gay hate, and backed his initial column against “sordid homosexuality”.
Despite immediately receiving dozens of complaints from readers and gay rights groups, his next column was titled: “I’m not sorry, why should I be?”
“I have no pangs of guilt for telling the truth about what gays are doing to the world and the decent people who live in it,” he wrote. “I’ve been labelled homophobic by some of the many people who have been moved to write letters.
“Well if homophobic can be taken as an intense fear of homosexuals then that’s fine, call me homophobic ... If something isn’t done and done quickly to prevent homosexuals getting rights they don’t deserve then God help us.”
An editorial on 11 September argued against proposed legislation to prevent the vilification of gay people.
“Homosexuals want to be accepted as part of society, yet want special treatment,” he wrote. “If this had been passed now, what further ‘favouritism’ would these people get in future?”
In the lead-up to Sydney’s successful 2000 Olympics bid, McCormack also wrote that women’s soccer “trivialised” the Games.
On Wednesday, McCormack told Guardian Australia that none of these articles reflected his current views.
“Editorial views expressed more than 25 years ago in no way reflect how my views and community views have changed since publication,” he said. “Australia in the early 90s was very different to what it is now. I say this not to excuse the culture which once existed but to put the quotes in context.
“As people get older and start families, and grow as members of their community it is completely reasonable their views change over time.”
Rose Kulak, a coordinator at Amnesty International Australia, said the organisation would “reach out” to McCormack to discuss his stance on the death penalty.
“The worldwide trend is away from the death penalty and Amnesty International would certainly hope that the new deputy prime minister’s views have also progressed in line with this trend,” she said.
Ah, Mick from the Wagga office. A real intellect and statesman. From here https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ial-editorials in February 2018:
That said, I’m no fan of the modern practice of trawling through people’s life looking for age-old ‘gotcha’ quotes that are no longer acceptable.
Times change, so do people. I for one cringe at things I said and did years ago.
But did you say those things as a mature-aged newspaper editor, JH? It seems to me that saying stupid things, as a callow youth, to your mates at a drunken footy BBQ is one thing; taking time to write things, in a professional capacity, that you know will be published in the cold light of day, is another.
But did you say those things as a mature-aged newspaper editor, JH? It seems to me that saying stupid things, as a callow youth, to your mates at a drunken footy BBQ is one thing; taking time to write things, in a professional capacity, that you know will be published in the cold light of day, is another.
This is a new phenomenon, this ability (and the will to) trawl back through people’s past to ensure they held the ‘correct’ view, and I don’t think it’s healthy. People DO change, just as society’s values do.
Anyway, McCormack and the Nationals are surely objectionable enough in their current form without the need to dredge up 20 year old editorials?
McCormack and the Nationals (and other political parties) have no compunction in dredging up and using whatever they think may be put to their base purposes. Those who live by the dredge...
Ah, Mick from the Wagga office. A real intellect and statesman. From here https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ial-editorials in February 2018:
The Guardian article at the link includes what appear to be photocopies of the pages of the newspapers in which Mick’s editorials featured. I suppose they could have been faked.
Sexist homophobes are usually considered good blokes by likeminded blokes.
Sexist homophobes are usually considered good blokes by likeminded blokes.
McCormack aside, my reading of the so-called Issues paper is the "Department" re-telling that time-honoured porky about everything in Australian aviation being rosy.
They devote endless pages to telling us how wonderful everything is with just a few bits thrown asking us to tinker around the edges.
Frankly I do not know whether Governments of both persuations think that aviation is just fine, but I do know that you will not get reform from a politcal party that misleadingly calls itself Liberal when it is in fact Conservative.
The vote by Labor on Angel Flight engine servicing also indicates that they are not about to reform aviation either.
Apart from a thorough distaste for CASA it is also difficult to know what correspondents on Prune want changed, I suspect that getting agreement would be like the famous herding of cats!
For my part I dislike the amount of Government control of the industry. This is manifested through the Federal Departments of DIRD and Defence, and DIRD's controlling agencies, CASA, Airservices and ATSB, coupled with the State Governments' control of airports and their subsidisation of air routes.
All together this heavy-handed bureacratic oversight results in a lack of competion, a lack of freedom of navigation, no reward for entrepreneurialship and a level of safety that is chronically dependent on rules.
To give example of all of these things would result ina PHD length paper, the writing of which would be a total waste of anyone's time. You might get a clap on the back and a fancy piece of paper but no-one would take any notice.
"They" are quite happy with the way things are, remember they care only if it involves politician, gets in the papers or affects Sydney airport.
We mourn the death of four police officers on a Melbourne highway (i do too but theirs' is a high risk job), but no-one cares about the death of four pilots going about their business in what should be a low risk job.
Sorry about that rant, as Aunty Pru is prone to say, back to the lathe (wish I had one)
They devote endless pages to telling us how wonderful everything is with just a few bits thrown asking us to tinker around the edges.
Frankly I do not know whether Governments of both persuations think that aviation is just fine, but I do know that you will not get reform from a politcal party that misleadingly calls itself Liberal when it is in fact Conservative.
The vote by Labor on Angel Flight engine servicing also indicates that they are not about to reform aviation either.
Apart from a thorough distaste for CASA it is also difficult to know what correspondents on Prune want changed, I suspect that getting agreement would be like the famous herding of cats!
For my part I dislike the amount of Government control of the industry. This is manifested through the Federal Departments of DIRD and Defence, and DIRD's controlling agencies, CASA, Airservices and ATSB, coupled with the State Governments' control of airports and their subsidisation of air routes.
All together this heavy-handed bureacratic oversight results in a lack of competion, a lack of freedom of navigation, no reward for entrepreneurialship and a level of safety that is chronically dependent on rules.
To give example of all of these things would result ina PHD length paper, the writing of which would be a total waste of anyone's time. You might get a clap on the back and a fancy piece of paper but no-one would take any notice.
"They" are quite happy with the way things are, remember they care only if it involves politician, gets in the papers or affects Sydney airport.
We mourn the death of four police officers on a Melbourne highway (i do too but theirs' is a high risk job), but no-one cares about the death of four pilots going about their business in what should be a low risk job.
Sorry about that rant, as Aunty Pru is prone to say, back to the lathe (wish I had one)
Mr Approach the answer is simple remove CASA in it's entirety. Burn it all and salt the earth! Contract in the FAA to operate as regulator and then rebuild from the ground up. The current regulator is not fit for purpose!
Ah the name calling, usually considered as a last resort, tells us plenty but goes over like a Lead Buffon.
Oz Bus Lik.e. Like Like. The ONLY answer. A tota lwipe out and a ground up restart.
But since "Goverments" of all pursuasions have handed "governance" over to the unelected bureaurats...wer're fcuked.
When the people fear Govts/ bureaucazies , we have tyranny. And people fear CAsA because they can destroy a business or an individual with impunity.
When Govts fear the people, we have liberty.. I think we have a very long way to got yet.
But since "Goverments" of all pursuasions have handed "governance" over to the unelected bureaurats...wer're fcuked.
When the people fear Govts/ bureaucazies , we have tyranny. And people fear CAsA because they can destroy a business or an individual with impunity.
When Govts fear the people, we have liberty.. I think we have a very long way to got yet.
