Warren Truss Vows to Unsaddle Regional Aviation Costs
 

Readers of this site may be interested in a newspaper article entitled, “Warren Truss Vows to Unsaddle Regional Aviation Costs” by Steve Creedy in The Australian dated December 17, 2013 where Minister Warren Truss made it clear that red tape is going to be removed.

Now that the Minister has spent almost a decade in his aviation-related portfolios, let’s post here what savings have been made at CASA and Airservices that would reflect a saving in costs to regional aviation.

From what I have been told, the situation is exactly the opposite. In other words, costs have been increased by this Minister.

It is absolutely imperative we hold the Minister responsible. After all, he is our elected representative and he has been in the role of either Shadow Minister or Minister for almost ten years.

A number of people in the industry have asked me to address a fly-in and function in the Minister’s seat. I have said no, but if the industry could guarantee at least 500 people travelling to Hervey Bay or Maryborough, I could be interested.

It is imperative that we hold our elected representatives accountable.

Dick,
Try $100 K just to put a light jet much the same as you operate on an AOC.

I have identified over $150 K per annum in increased costs for a small company to operate a varied fleet of aircraft under part 61. That does not include the costs of rewriting the entire operations manual and all the other "Shelfware" that part 61 requires.

Part61 in its current form is unsustainable.

Is Australia so inept, so incompetent, so corrupt that it takes 2600 pages, and growing, to annunciate procedures that the Kiwis can, in clear, precise, plain language regulations with a fraction of the page numbers, or the FAA or even god forbid EASA?

I have no idea what threat to safety CAsA was attempting to fix, but Part 61 will have no bearing on "safer skies for all" except a lot fewer aircraft will be flying therefore the statistics may look better.


I for one would attend on the sunshine coast if it would help inform the minister.

Targeted Campaigns
 

Is someone finally talking about running a well organised and funded campaign targeting Truss in his own electorate? :ugh: You will need money and big balls. This is the only way to stop CASA seeking us out individually and harming us if we rebel. Who's going to put themselves out there publicly and put their neck on the block? I'm sure Jabiru would stump up some cash.

We should try some persecution of our own, it sounds like fun.:eek:

I'd take money on his retirement at the next Fed election. We'll probably find his successor no better.

As it's unlikely that the Senate voting system is going to be changed, then the best thing for GA would be to consult the 'vote whisperer,' and stand a Senate candidate who is committed to supporting aviation, (amongst other sensible and attractive policies). The Senate is where the power resides, and to have someone with ability there would be far better than a party backbencher who has to toe-the-line. happy days,

Agreed
 

But a national Senate campaign is infinitely more difficult and costly to do. If funds allow do both. Yes I think Truss will retire as well but why not make his swansong a barrage of advertising demonstrating his failures and then move on to his successor's electorate. Just start throwing punches. Waiting for elections is a waste of time these sociopaths need to be hounded and harried every minute of every day in the only language they understand, a one way ticket to mediocrity.


All daydreams! the herd of cats that is Australian aviation is incapable of unified action.

Folks,
The successor will be Barnaby Joice.

Some of you have commented on "toeing the part line" or similar, that is exactly what we want CASA to do, Airservices to do, toe the party line, which is red tape reduction and cost reduction, and all regulation as a last (not first) resort justified by cost/benefit analysis.

https://cuttingredtape.gov.au/handbo...ide-regulation

If you know anything about Government policy on regulatory development, and cost/benefit, you will know it would eliminate somewhere in the region of 70%+ of CASA's rule book.

I know, because we conducted just such a Productivity Commission/ OBPR like exercise on proposed new maintenance rules ---- in CASA, by CASA people ---- some years ago.

It didn't leave much regulation, as opposed to easy to read and understand Advisory Circulars. The unreconstructed of the iron ring were shocked to their core, and the effort was promptly terminated ---- to many rice bowls would be upended.

Tootle pip!!

message to Dick
 

I think you will find a lot of support. You need to let us know how we sign up though. Gather the numbers, then decide.

Costs to Business
 

Check this out. This is the Australian Governments own Regulation Impact Statement on Part 61/141/142. This is the full text on the effect to Business. I haven't shortened it or abbreviated it. You are seeing it in its entirety.Whoever is responsible for this in the Australian Government, could you please get the Work Experience kid on to a different task next year. This has already cost me, more than I can afford!


Businesses

The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process.

That it, that's all it says. By the way, whoever the Flying School is that used their Work Experience kid to provide the consultation to the Governments Work Experience kid, could you also task him differently next time. Don't go too hard on the Flying School Kid though. This was published a number of years ago when he had nothing at hand to actually look at.

Successor in the portfolio or as leader of the Nats? If you mean the latter I have heard (from a mates second cousin whose best friend is going out with a girl whose father works with someone whose brother is in parliament) that Truss is hanging on until a suitable successor, other than Joyce, can be found.

As to unsaddling regional aviation costs, well, thats just about the funniest thing you will read this year, or any other year. The minister has nothing to do with it, in fact the minister has nothing to do with aviation full stop.

Nothing will change until CASA is totally rebuilt from the top down. There has to be a root and branch clean out with a clear policy direction in line with the NZ approach and the necessary brawn to ensure compliance. Failing that the only hope is for someone like the FAA to review their audit of CASA and decide that nothing has changed and therefore it is a "fail".

If a (minor, but well known) political party included in its policy suite a commitment to repeal CASRs 61/64/141/142 and introduce the NZ legislation;

If that party ran a senate candidate in every state;

If at least one NSW senate candidate was an aviation industry person;

What level of support would it get from the industry?

Dick Smith,

PM Sent

Leafie……

The Shooters, Fishers and Fliers Party sounds like an excellent concept. Many of their following are in regional areas and they are all over the amount of red tape and BS in society.

I would even join them and pay a reasonable donation. Is that what you are planning? :ok:

Dick, YHBA…..when?

A political campaign to put Dick Smith and others in the Senate is the only way to go. Even just the potential to achieve that will result in the breaking of the iron ring.

Jab,

Thinking more about keeping the bastards honest. :ok:

An aviation message to Dick
 

C'mon Dick, you know that you don't want to do it and we know it as well, but you also know that you have to do it. It's the only way.
If the Palmer's and Lambie's of the world can get political seats and shake the apple cart, then you can do even better mate. The next election will be another close one. The taxpayers are disillusioned, disconnected and disenfranchised with the absolute BS being shoved down their throats. People are hungry for change, are starving for something, something that neither a deceitful Abbott or a spineless Shorten can deliver. That leaves a gap, a quandary for the punters as they are looking for something. Dick, your public personality, passion for aviation, non-tolerance of idiots, and willingness to stick it to the political parasites and bureaucrats that are screwing this nation is your starting platform. We know you don't really want to do it, but it's a hand that you have been dealt whether you want it or not. Why? Well you have the profile, the funds, the respect of a lot of the aviation community, an you have a set of plums on you. Mate do it for the industry you love. Make it a short term gig, 3 years in which you get to make some real change, 3 years in which you get to stick it to the dross who have paralysed our industry. Think of the fun you will have as archaic lawyer riddled aviation regulations are repealed, imagine the sheer joy you will feel as you make these bureaucrats squirm in their seats as you expose their lies, trickery and deception. Imagine the chubby you will get, Dick, as you pull down the house of cards one card at a time. Imagine being able to work with Senators such as Fawcett, Sterle and the inestimable Xenophon. Hell mate, once you have put the wrecking ball through those wrecking our industry think of what other elements of our country that have been trashed by successive trough dwellers you could get to work on? The oil barons perhaps? What about positive changes to small business? Import/export regulations, no worries Dick can fix it. Help for our Farmers you say, well Joyce and Truss have done jacks#it. Dick will fix it!! Imagine Dick, just for a moment, sitting on the panel at senate estimates or sitting on the panel at the next aviation senate inquiry as you hold a burning torch to the genitals of MrDak and his executive team! Oh the fun, the fun. ****, and you get paid for it! After 3 years you go back to doing what you do best, enjoying the fruits of your labor, pottering around the garden, who knows and I guess who cares as it is your life mate. All we are asking for is 3 years. It's not too much to ask is it? Do it for aviation and do it for Australia.

C'mon Dick, it's time to act, the next election is counting down old chap. Do it, please do it, we dare you.

We need 500 people to join a "party" to be registered.

I have registered the name "The Hangar Party" for a rainy day but "the General Aviation renewal party" (GARP?) is probably more appropriate.

I reckon if we had ONE co-ordinator at every aerodrome in Aus walk around with a coffee tin and membership forms, we could have 2000 members before the end of the month.

$10 membership

Clear policies on aviation regulation

Clear policies on a few other key issues

Policy document headed "The World according to GARP" :E

Enough senate candidates in each state to form our own column, but we only really need one lead candidate per state.

How hard would it be to get 700-1000 GA employees & PPLs and enthusiasts in each state to vote for GARP?

We really don't need Dick to lead this if we have good candidates in each State & Territory who can rally the local industry behind them. Dick as a figurehead and public spokesman possibly but (sorry Dick.... tough love follows) he can be divisive in some sectors of the industry and, being a strong-minded individual used to getting things HIS way, could go off on tangents a la Clive Palmer.

I would certainly prefer to have Dick on board than against us.

NAY SAYERS AND HATERS

I know there will be a lot of rusted-on LNP and ALP voters amongst our colleagues - but if we can unite for ONE election we might just save our industry.
Vote for your preferred Party in the Reps by all means but ask yourself: When was the last time your preferred party actually did something to help your industry?

Give the Senate vote to GARP just for one election.

You will also have to convince the media and therefore the public that "something is rotten in the State of Denmark".

At present the public believes that all is sweet and rosy in the world of Australian aviation and that we have the safest skies in the world. The truth is out there but is hidden under a mountain load of spin.

Leafy, you looking for a job as chief speech writer and motivator??:ok:

That's the "beauty" of our situation - it is dire enough and plain enough for everyone in the industry to see, that we don't really need anyone outside the industry to vote for it

...if we can get the industry behind it.

Stuff the mainstream media and the general public. :mad:

Aviation industry reform can occur through legislative means and it would occur with the hundreds of other bits and pieces of legislation that go through without much interest or comment every year. There isn't much need for a mandate from the General Public. It won't increase spending from the public purse (it should save some) and although it will affect the quality of life of many Australians, the majority will never notice the difference in their day-to-day lives. :ok:

Where do we send our money to support Dick in the Senate?

RIS to read
 

Horatio; Re the idea of GARP.

Count me in.:ok:

Leafie,

I actually think there is a greater chance of success leveraging off the S&FP than starting afresh.

There is less dilution of the vote, and GA could bring significant numbers to the S&FP.

They are the only common sense no BS kind of folk on the political landscape at present. I have never voted for them and never been a member, but they make more sense than the rest of the numpties, including the Liberal party who have had my constant support for all my voting life.

When the Libs or the ALP start seeing sensible folk swinging away to "common sense" you might get more overall impact.

Just my $0.22 inc GST worth.

Jabs,

Having been involved with a couple of political groups over the years, I would suggest that we will never get traction with an established party due to their own internal politics.
If Abbott pulls an early election as speculated or a Double dissolution, it will be very interesting indeed. We will not have time to get it up through some other party's mechanisms.

...and to illustrate a crack before we even start, I personally don't view the shooters and fishers to be uniformly "common sense".I suspect that you would view my personal political position to be somewhere in the "loony left" spectrum.

A single-issue party (for all the limitations that would bring) keeps it all very neatly and narrowly focussed for the people we are going forth to represent.

I think you have just described the very reason for failure to succeed already.

The intentions are good but execution is flawed. :ok:

So... let's make it a single issue party and keep "religion" out of it :ok:

Imagine if all of us out there in G.A. land could actually get together to fight for a political cause? Pure fantasy from my thirty years involved. :sad:


The politicians and bureaucrats well know that.


Where's Kharon when we need him?

He's off in a small group of like-minded ex PPRuNers, shouting at their computer screens, spittle flying, shaking their fists in the air. The cat has learnt to keep a wide berth lest it gets another kick to emphasise some point about the injustice of it all.

The good ship SS General Aviation cannot be picked up and moved to another place, no matter how loudly Kharon and UITA and the rest of them scream. We are currently steaming at a leisurely pace towards the rocks - we need to turn the ship, and that will take time (of which we have precious little)

We need to land a SWAT team on the deck, kill the zombie (CASA) crew currently at the helm, and turn it away from the reef. I suspect this has started when Jeff Boyd (played by Steven Segal) managed to sneak aboard last year.

The longer we spend fighting about who gets to climb the ladder to the wheelhouse, and what they do when they get there, the less likely we will be able to shoot the dead bad guy who comes back to life at the end of the story.

Never forget the dead bad guy. :=

Aviation Business May 14 2015 Editor's Insights

:ok::ok:

The editor is obviously reading my PPRuNe stuff.

:8

Senate campaigns don't need to be national
 

only need to pick one state

Any news on what came out of the budget thats relevant to Aviation?

I believe that a significant amount was announced prior to the budget to be spent on regional aerodromes in NT, FNQ & maybe WA. It would be part of the budget but where it's embedded? Dunno............

Fly in
 

Ill make the trip.

I put to my neighbor, a pilot who doesn't follow aviation blogs, the following:

Of the names and acronyms below, which would you see as having the most public and political respect and recognition in The Senate as a potential cross bench member who would represent your needs and concerns.

PUP.
Lambe.
GARP.
Dick Smith.
Shooters/Fishers/aviation Party.
Ronald McDonald.

Guess what he said?

im going with the last one..

He's a pilot acutely aware that more people have been killed on the roads taking the pickle out of Ronald's burgers than anything our aviation regulator could prevent by more regulation were they given the chance.


But you're close.

Franky.
 

I wonder if you offered him "GA Revival Party" instead?

....i also wonder if you think someone attempting this would just get their name on the Ballot paper and hope for the best? ....or would they do a little bit of campaigning and advertising?

I look forward to your respose because you always have something positive to add.

I don't think people who vote for party's that garner the preferences for these minor party's would be too keen on general aviators or their little machines. However Palmer did get in with LNP preferences as well as the left's. I guess what I'm trying to say is a yachting party by any acronym would get the same result good or bad.


I don't think voters are too keen on acronyms these days anyway. Having your name as number 1 on the ballot paper has distinct advantages though.


I'm simply saying Dick is a household name and his identity is his trademark. Being a businessman reliant on that image I don't think he will bankroll any political party unless his name is on it. Not even DSGARP.


I hope this positive feedback has made your day more pleasant.

Warren Truss – What Does He Believe In?
 

Can anyone advise me if, in the ten years Warren Truss has been either Minister or Shadow Minister responsible for aviation - he has ever articulated a view on any substantive issue that he believes in and that affects us in aviation? That is, has Warren Truss ever identified with one statement or one issue that he could be held accountable for?

Over the years I and others have given Warren Truss very thorough briefings on everything from airspace to rescue and firefighting, to Unicoms and Part 61 and the unique, costly ADS-B requirements for general aviation. Yet I don’t believe he has ever made one statement that illustrates his views on these issues. For example, has he ever made a comment about Part 61? Or the ADS-B mandate for general aviation aircraft?

Warren Truss is paid more than $300,000 a year and knows that, just like his predecessors, after he completes his term he will no doubt end up with a prodigious and highly paid position on the Virgin Airlines Board or chairing some type of fracking company destroying our valuable and productive rural land.

From time to time journalists phone me to ask my view on some aviation regulatory issue. I suggest they phone the Minister, but the journalists invariably don’t even know who the Minister is! Why a person would want to be in this important position but then actually not have any stated view that could help Australia is beyond me.

I am planning to give a number of talks around Australia and I want to know if ever in the last ten years Warren Truss (Deputy Prime Minister - unbelievable!) has made a statement in relation to aviation that he could actually be held accountable for. That is, I want to find out if there is one statement Warren Truss has ever made that depicts what he actually believes in relation to aviation. Or has he been cautioned by his political advisors not to go down that route, you know, in true “Yes Minister” style - i.e. the dishonest, never-say-anything-that-actually-means-something approach? But surely there must be something!!