Good question.
 

Well, a review is announced, due next year. It's time to answer the question posed by HLB #1.

If GA don't get some credible representation, the big end of town will gazump the show, the vested interests will bring on the razzle dazzle, ATSB will do the smoke and mirrors show, CASA will provide the dancing girls, the DOiT the trained seals and elephant show.

GA will contribute what exactly, last years flying cap, a scrap book of past operations or even a montage of closed workshops. I wonder if GA has the horsepower to take it to the inquiry or if the dear old donkey is so knackered and beaten that all it wants is to find a nice quiet paddock with a bit of shade, a bucket of water and some fresh grass to chew while it contemplates what used to be.

So then, who will represent GA at the next gummint sponsored circus?

Here's the review announcement
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...ement_ASRR.pdf

Start near the bottom of P7 to see who is looking after the interests of both GA and the regional airlines

Formal protest Minister!
 

"Yes Minister there is a mole hole in the middle of the office...hmm yes I can also smell a strong whiff of cuban cigars eminating from the hole..":E

FFS this thread has dwelled on the subject of A.N.O.H.O.P.A := and how they spend a lot of time underneath the desk of the DAS's office and the general consensus was...W.O.F.T.A.M!!:ugh: Then we get this..


"I recognise that it is particularly difficult for the diverse general aviation sector to have its voice heard in a review like this and so I have asked Mr Phillip Reiss, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, to take a particular responsibility as a specialist adviser to ensure that the concerns of general aviation and regional operators are well aired. His experience will provide valuable insight and technical expertise to the panel."


So Fort Fumble have deployed their Mole...well Minister here is a formal protest petition from the IOS and my name is number one on the list..FFS:mad:!

Second the motion.
 

I second the Sarcs motion: how can the review possibly have any credibility with a No Hopa on the panel.

Conflict of interest – probable.
Representative of GA – not likely.
Significant membership – they wish.

The complaints are made against CASA; how can a complete Casaphile be remotely considered 'independent'. Game over before the first ball is delivered. Remember, the rest of the panel probably have NFI about No Hopa Australia and are probably used to dealing with the US version, which is a different animal, worthy of some respect. Hunt with the hounds and run with hares - not possible.

I've sent my protest in, perhaps some of our co-mates and brothers facing exile could do the same. Truss is unlikely to change his mind, but it may put the other members on their guard. What can it hurt? No I'm not cranky, furious? well perhaps, a tiny bit - ....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/censored.gif

"BOLLOCKS !!!" (there now, that's better. It's been coming for a while).

What's the pay scale, or travel, accommodation meals and lurks allowance for a specialist adviser?

Q. Are you still on the payroll of mentioned alphabet soup organization gupta?

Frank

You know I'm not...

Sorry mate, I didn't know for sure. Last I heard you were crook but no details other than that regarding whether you went back or not. It's good to see you are out and about anyway.

Last time we crossed paths there was unrest because of the CASA "roadshows" and I haven't forgotten that. A lot has gone under the bridge since, but my feelings of being disenfranchised remain.

I concur with the previous posts.

So can anyone tell us what qualifies this bloke as an "expert" on all things GA? AOPA stands for "Aircraft owners and pilots" which to me means "Private". Guess it just illustrates the ignorance of our pollies of just exactly what GA is.

Thorny, it doesn't show our pollies ignorance, it shows up our pollies continuation of the previous governments approach to hiding, distorting and avoiding the truth. They hire a Casasexual to review CASA! Jeez, I wonder how that will turn out! Oh how AOPA fans would have enormous chubby's about now? All that experience in slapping together their little rv6's and making CASA breakfast in the morning has paid off!
This decision from the Ministers department basically lets industry and the IOS know early on in the peace what the Liberal government intent is in relation to Australian aviation safety, so I guess in some ways it is good that we know now. I hope all the mum and dad frequent flyers are watching this space. The government you voted for are hell bent on ensuring that the massive decline in aviation safety which has been spiralling for a number of years now continues on its merry spiral into the ground.

Dear Senators, are you watching this? It would seem all your good work has been pissed against the fire, naughty naughty Ministers office. Anyway, your services will be called upon once again in the near future as it is inevitable, based upon what has taken place with Transair, Pel Air, Canley Vale etc etc that the clock keeps on ticking, the incidents keep occurring with frequency, and a giant smoking hole becomes more inevitable.

I think you are giving the Minister credit for thinking that he isn't capable of. He is simply not that devious to plan to thwart the IOS and Industry, (although by and large they are one in the same), so one can only imagine this happened by accident.

One hopes we are not hinting CASA suggested this turn of events to the Minister.

Shirley not?

Has anyone given Mr Truss another option? Is there any other body that DOES represent GA?

Refer HBLs original question…

What's the option GA?

Do you now band together, put aside your differences, bitching and bickering or do you take it, well let's just say as it's dished out. Your cries of TREACHERY! and SHAFTED AGAIN! and HE'S A NO HOPER! are most likely falling on deaf ears. Government doesn't actually have a vision for GA, nor should it.

If there was a remote possibility of an organisation forming to truly represent GA I would even probably put aside my anti-aero club attitude and join.

I'd even pay.

Hate to say it but GA needs a lobby group that is united and focussed on a group of directives. It must be:

1. Capable of communicating with EVERY aviation professional in this country
2. Capable of producing a clear set of objectives for GA in Australia
3. Capable of representing GA to the Government
4. Capable of presenting GA to the media
5. An AUTHORITY on all issues that affect GA
6. Able to command respect from its members
7. Capable of representing GA to the public
8. Capable of directly affecting the Ministers Review
9. Capable of representing GA to the point of NO CONFIDENCE motion to the government

It needs someone to be able to say to the Attorney General: "Your new rules and regs have failed their original intent and need to be scrapped"

Its members must give their representatives a clear mandate and charter and then allow them to fulfil these.

It needs to a PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION.

It also needs to be THE organisation to PROMOTE, FOSTER, and DEVELOP aviation in Australia.

It needs to have administrative, legal, financial, public relations and lobbying muscle.

It needs to be led by a visionary that has the capacity to embrace all of the above effectively. This can be an individual or a group.

GA needs a leader.

Just some thoughts on a reflective morning reflecting on the fact we are not here for a long time…

It is interesting to note that most of the issues the Review is dealing with relate to GA and small RPT ops. The three that are to do the report are all ex-executive airline material….

The Terms of Reference are not bad. Who will make sure the outcomes GA needs are presented?


sc

Thanks Sprocket,

I am heartened somewhat that the conversation has occasionally referenced the original question.

More concerning is the way in which several of the usual suspects immediately descended into squabbling over historical deeds, misdeeds and wrongdoings.

Sprocket has provided the exact requirements for a GA professional body.

Every time there is a defence scandal or policy announcement the media go to Neil James of the Defence Force Assoc. He provides a clear and concise reply. Why is there no voice for us?

The General Aviation Assoc needs to be re-born and afilliated with RAAA. It needs a clear vision, a strong voice, and freedom from the issues of the past which have diverted the original point of this thread.

Hi HHB,

Well said, but how do we get away from the fact that casa keep on manipulating the facts to get their preferred result.

When there has been a good representative body, casa has "nobbled the horse".

Perhaps we need someone who is better at manipulating the facts?

HLB,
GAA.... A great idea.
Would it be modeled along lines of the AAAA's? Where do we sign?
185

It is occasionally (often) disheartening to see such fractures within the GA community that you could swallow up the Grand Canyon in them.

Most, if not all professional occupations have a body that represents the interests of their, well professionals.

Aviation has none. Aviation seems to be, in my limited understanding of the system, in the clutches of an organised syndicate that plays the role of lawmaker, policeman, judge, jury and executioner.

If the same requirements as for flying an aircraft were applied to driving a car just in terms of being required to know and comprehend the raw legislation, which is still written in legalese and not plain English, itself a complete failure of the original intent behind the re-write - there would be no cars on the road.

HLB is spot on. The GA representative has to make more noise and have a smarter PR and a better face on TV than CASA and shout the woes of GA not just across the reverberant halls of the dominion but from every mountain top, at every accident, from every trig station and every news cross.

It also needs to be pre-emptive rather than just responsive, it needs to dictate the agenda rather than follow. Pro-active rather than re-active. It needs to be telling the community at large how fantastic a job its members are doing, from saving lives to pretty pictures to traffic reports, to training the finest of their young, etc. Bring some joy back into the business!!

Sprocket,

I wonder if a successful TV campaign could be mounted? There must be TV/Sound production people involved in Aviation... somewhere?

General Aviaiton Industry Association.. GAIA... hmmmm

Sprocket Check,
Dream on --- multiple GA outfits on the one airfield can't unite in their mutual interests --- unite across the country??
Tootle pip!!

Leaddie is correct.

AOPA Australia and the type-specific clubs in Australia would achieve a lot more if they were merely affiliates of, and under the direction of, the US equivalents. Organisations like AOPA USA have professional lobbying expertise. Glorified social clubs don’t.

The important question is not: “Who represents GA to government in Australia?”

The important questions are: “To whom and how should representations be made to achieve beneficial change for GA in Australia?”

I can tell you at least two wrong answers to those questions: Making a “submission” to a government “review”.

Last time I’ll say it: The only glimmer of hope is professional lobbying of the people who will be non-major party aligned Senators with effect 1 July 2014.

The real sadness is that it needs anyone. That government AND the public service are so removed from their constituents that they need someone to interpret for them. If they were doing their collective jobs, they'd know.

Why is GA treated as a special thing? The equivalent discussion of this does not seem to occur with road vehicles, or boats, or motorbikes, or most other endeavours that have a business / private mix.

Aviation is so over-regulated that we don't even know what it should look like anymore.

Road transport can mix road trains to light trucks, to tractors, motorbikes, private cars and historic vehicles all within the same regulator at a fraction of the administrative cost. Why can't aviation?

I can drive a 20t truck on a photo ID licence that I pay a couple of hundred bucks for every 10 years with no medical requirement. But to fly a 1 tonne aeroplane I need an annual medical, annual flight check and biannual security check. The combined annual cost of this probably approaches $1000. Really?

My guess is that the ministerial review is really about trying to decide what to do with the Senate hearing and about getting CASA / AsA & ATSB to play well together.

It is said that achieving long term cultural change requires 1/3 of the management to change. I can't see this will happen in the shelter of public service land in Canberra. So, we will continue to tinker at the edges and wonder why the end result doesn't vary much.