I don't know about that now, but I for one, spent the full 18 years of my RAAF career in flying postings from the very early 1950's and enjoyed every minute. Every Commanding Officer I served under (all being former wartime pilots), showed no sign at all of being pedants. Indeed, most encouraged their staff to display initiative and come up with good ideas and then allowed them to implement those ideas. For this reason it was a culture shock to me when I left the RAAF with much regret and joined the Head Office of the then Department of Civil Aviation led at the top by its much vaunted Director General, Sir Donald Anderson.

On my first day in DCA it seemed to me over-endowed with office upon dreary office of Public Service shell-backs whose main ambition in life was to knock back any ideas from the aviation industry outside DCA; and also from those unfortunates inside the Department that dared make waves and suggest improvements. In 2015, I sense that attitude has not changed.

Perhaps it was inevitable that as formerly keen and dynamic RAAF pilots joining DCA as junior public servants rose over the years to higher seniority in the Public Service, they learned to cover their arses by becoming more cautious in decision making, lest some Assistant Secretary gnome on the Executive Floor mark him down as a trouble-maker and thus cause the perceived perpetrator to remain in the lower class of ranks for the rest of his chair-borne career. I again sense things haven't changed much in this regard.

TeeEmm,
I rather suspect that if you were back there today, you would find that what has been named "the iron ring" have raised risk aversion to a whole new level since Sir Don's day --- and it was bad then.
Tootle pip!!

in the magazine thing that accompanies the Aviation Trader there is an article on page 7 about the guy in Dubbo.
The article is called Wings out West.

The guy is ex-raaf. from the article the sun is shining on this guy. being ex-raaf I'll bet he never has a refusal from CAsA, never has an adversarial ramp check, and if the local economy is robust enough he should prosper.

I'd love for the writer of the article, to ensure a uniform reporting style, to conduct a similar article on Gerald Repacholi. As far as I know all he has ever tried to do is run a similar aviation business.
Gerald is not ex-raaf and has suffered a life of CAsA embuggerment.

The different experiences of trying to run an aviation business would be eye opening I'm sure.

The AUSFLY at Narromine will be a deciding factor in the poll above. I would suggest it remain up there until after the event to see how well the DAS' new broom works in the popularity stakes.

I wonder how many years it will take until the "too soon to decide"s make a decision. Governments bank on them hanging on for at least a few, after each new saviour is appointed.

I voted 'no', not because I think Mr S isn't smart enough (I'm confident he's very smart) and not because I think Mr S isn't a good bloke (I'm confident he's a great bloke) and not because I think Mr S doesn't have good intentions (I'm confident he means well).

However, I'm also confident that almost none of his experience will help him to bring about any substantial changes, and the early signs indicate that he's fitting quite snugly - maybe even comfortably - into the straightjacket that comes with the big office and the big paypacket.

BTW: Anyone know when and where the next "Aviation industry forum - 2015 to 2030" is being held? The first one was held miles from the nearest airport, during working hours. It was a bit inconvenient for people like me who need to fly to get to places and have to work to live - I understand that there are a number of people like me in the aviation community. Still, it must have been gruelling for Mr S's offsiders to have to hang around in Mildura pretending to care. I do hope their travel arrangements and allowances covered them for a nice meal at Stefano's.

Well how about this for some abstract consideration...

What if one were to go back to the example offered earlier somewhere with regards to a company's CEO and take the view that Aviation (in its totality) was a company (for example) with a large number of members (i.e. those involved as pilots / engineers / ATC / whatever) that was spread wide across Australia. The newly appointed CEO of course being M.S.

As everyone knows the most common mechanism for communication within such a large company is usually by way of electronic means with limited opportunities presenting whereby a CEO can personally address a well represented members cross section in speaker/ audience format, especially where members attend at their own expense.

I would think that given the recency of appointment that any smart CEO would be offering himself, and some members from Senior Management, as a guest speaker at the upcoming Ausfly to perhaps address the members...

Short notice I know but what the heck. Maybe you could ammend the Poll to include a reference to such an appearance....

Stiky
;)

That bastard ... you can tell from how he talks about the sustainable future of GA and how we need to work together that he's out to get us and not going to listen to anything anyone says.

I once met a bloke running a GA outfit who had never been in the RAAF and CASA hadn't come after him. Only one though, all the rest were targeted.

I wasn't aware of anyone casting doubt on Mr S's parentage or capacity to state the bleeding obvious or listen to other people stating the bleeding obvious.

Whatever Mr S's parentage, capacity to state the bleeding obvious and listen to other people state the bleeding obvious may be, the point is that none of it changes thing one about what needs to be changed.

I'm confident that most of the "too soon to decide"s will watch as Mr S talks and listens, talks and listens, talks and listens, and keep watching until they wake up one morning and come to the disturbing conclusion that nothing has really changed for the better.

Mr S nailed his colours to the mast with his response to the colour vision deficiency issue. Mr S listened then demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to consider, understand and act on the objective evidence. So much for evidence-based and risk-based decision making.

Let nobody be in any doubt that the military have a historic responsibility to the elected government of the day. They, the government, are supposed to represent the voting public who put them there. Myself, once a commissioned officer often failed to take into consideration that factor and now well retired see how the higher echelons of military power accept that the plebs simply don't matter. Haven't since leaving field rank.


Skidmore and his ilk are appointed by the elected government of the day having passed through the lower and into general rank and well after any in house military promotion by ability or examination. They more than ever owe a duty to the elected government of the day who appointed them.


If that government by any name is ambivalent to aviation in Australia sans Airline and Military, that anointed person is not going to do anything to remedy any situation they see as simply perceived. They obviously have blinkered priorities and have lost all objectivity when it comes to carrying out the wishes of the populous who "elected" the government of the day, who "appointed" the individual to carry out the wishes of the government who have lost objectivity towards the people who elected them to look after their priorities.


The government has lost the plot and doesn't care.


The bureaucrats haven't lost the plot and run the show because they can.


Skidmore is a slave of the bureaucrats who have an agenda to rid the skies of aviation that is outside the envelope of the "illiminati" who reserve the right to own the skies free of pesky individuals in "little aeroplanes". ie. anything that is not an airliner or military or belonging to the gods.


Don't look to Skidmore as any sort of savior.


(my opinion of course if that's OK with you).

Frank, you assert that Mark Skidmore is a puppet. What's the basis of this, other than prejudice?



I'm baffled by this kind of melodramatic blanket statement:

Honestly, what do you personally know of the guy, why he was appointed or what he may or may not do? Opinion indeed, and very defeatist too.

Frank, I think that is most succinctly put.

The only thing is… deep inside we all know it is possible to make the system change. The only problem is there is not enough heat... yet. There is not enough dissent and too much apathy. There is not enough anger and not enough pain.

There is too much perceived personal risk, a lack of cohesion amongst the aviation community as well as a feeling of helplessness.

Behind the iron curtain of the 80's - it ended up with the young making the brave change - the oldies (35+) all knew what need to happen, but dared not do anything. Fear, the most insidious of diseases, debilitating to hell, is what is holding the entire aviation community prisoner to a small circle of power hungry dictators.

From afar, it seems to me Mr S is nothing but a puppet… in the same style as the so-called Presidents of the communist era. Change will not happen until each and every licence, certificate, authority holder declares a common line.

This may never happen unless there is a force that galvanises the feeling into a cohesive action.

my 2c

No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted. All Rights Reserved.
WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
Volenti non fit injuria

Calls may be recorded :E

Mr. Arm Out The Window once again wishes to talk "sweet reason" and criticises anyone who finds fault with CASA and argues that the status quo is really quite good as far as he is concerned. I fail to see how he could possibly believe that this is so.

Perhaps his most telling fault is that he studiously avoids any mention of the Forsyth Review and its conclusions.

For the record AOTW, The Forsyth review made the most damning statement it is possible to make in polite company about a public servant or public institution words to the effect that CASA has lost the trust of the industry.

I cannot over emphasise the significance of this conclusion!

WIthout trust, as the review observed, it is impossible for industry to build an effective working relationship with CASA.

No matter how nice and trustworthy Skidmore may appear, he is merely a figurehead of an organisation that has demonstrated that it is untrustworthy and the same trustless people are still running it behind the scenes.

Hence the rejection of the Forsyth review by CASA management.

Hence i fail to see the point of engaging with an untrustworthy organisation. No good can come of it except by accident.

To put that another way, Mr. Horatio Leafblower asked for and received an exemption from the regulations, he could just as easily have been refused one, been targeted, harassed,, bullied and driven out of the industry for his temerity.

To put that yet another way; CASA has been declared by the Forsyth Review not to be a "fit and proper person" to have anything to do with aviation, to use the same weapon beloved of CASA lawyers.

Real reform requires that CASA be broken up, its senior management retired and a new vision implemented. Listening to platitudes about relationships from a well meaning AVM. Skidmore would be reassuring, but he isn't the inspector banging on your hangar door the next morning.

I fail to see what prolonging discussion with Mr Arm will achieve however I will add for his/her benefit that the basis for my statement is demonstrated in CAsA history. If he/she fails to learn from that I'm afraid there is no hope for him/her. I'm not a defeatist simply a realist. If you need a term to describe the industry however I would say that would be apathetic. Why? Well they have been subject to rule by regulation for so long they no longer believe the rule of law exists any more. Again I concur with Sunfish.


sprocket check: I've watched this apathy for 50 years and done my share of duty with the alphabet soup organizations only to be kicked in the guts and then forced to deal with pissants who believe the answers can be found in more regulation, more restrictions, more mandates, because that's the way it's been since they remember when they were taught so. I've openly advocated civil disobedience but the "alpha male" (and female), syndrome associated with most pilot activists can't agree with each other long enough to mount any action. CAsA's tactic is to divide and destroy and the industry falls for it every time.


Last feasible group I sponsored are still fighting over the acronym to go by. Last whistleblowers of any credibility were forced off on their own and out of the spotlight to deal with Senators and government and run their own risks without industry support.


Mark Skidmore is probably a good bloke. He owns a nice little aeroplane, the last bloke also owned an aeroplane but this didn't make him competent to know what industry needs. The DAS will never know until he takes part as an undercover boss with a disguise to seek out unprejudiced industry input instead of asking people to expose themselves to possible vexatious reprisals.


Civil disobedience will only work with consensus. Failing that a big smoking hole in the ground is the only galvanizing thing that will turn the spotlight on the voting populous for examination. I'm guessing neither you, as I, will get any joy saying I told you so then.


The fall guy then becomes Mark Skidmore who is the fuse between the flying public and government. That's CAsA's primary function. To absolve the government from any culpability.


Mark Skidmore may not be a "naughty boy", but he's not the "messiah" either. He's not the wagon I want to hitch my ride with.


Metaphors and opinions are not copyright (c)

Sunfish
 

Hi Sunfish

The sequence of events was this:

1/. Part 61 was released for comment without the copilot/single pilot crap;
2/. Part 61 was made with a whole heap of stuff (including the copilot/single-pilot stuff)
3/. I approached my local office and had a sympathetic hearing; was told it might change and was an "unintended consequence"
4/. Nothing happened
5/. More of nothing happened. Hired new pilots who refused to log co-pilot time as it was in contravention of Part 61.
6/. Local office told me there was "no appetite for change" on the co-pilot issue;
7/. Lobbied local members both lower house and Senate
8/. Had meeting with Skidmore arranged by local-based Senator (no I am not a member of his Party);
9/. Skidmore listened to the problem. I was backed up by the local team leader in my concerns. Skidmore stated that, in his opinion, the outcome was not a good one and my point had merit.
10/. unknown other charter operators in the same market segment advised CASA and their local members of the same problem.

This path is well-worn and I have been down this track before with the Skull and others. The difference is:

11/. Skidmore listened and did something about it.

This is not an exemption for me only; it was not requested by me only; it does not benefit me only. It fixes a problem.

Can you tell me that this development is not a good thing? :ugh:

Sunny,
Not strictly true, he consistently refers to the ASRR as "just one view or one view", he apparently studiously declines to accept the ASRR as a real and collective description of the state of CASA, and CASA v. the aviation sector.

This is entirely consistent with the CASA practice of referring to submissions by ASAC, AOPA, RAOz etc., as "just one view", and not the collective policy position of thousands.

So far, there is no evidence to refute the view that he has:
(a) been snowed by the "iron ring", or alternatively;
(b) he was only ever going to be a chair warmer.

Tootle pip!!

Yes I can.

It's not a good thing.

It's a bad thing made a little less bad.

Think about how much time and money CASA wasted to create the situation to which the exemption was the solution.

Think about how much time and money CASA will waste in developing exemptions to deal with problems CASA has created during the regulatory reform program.

Think about how much time and money CASA could waste in regulatory reform projects to deal with situations that CASA created during the regulatory reform program.

If you call making a bleedingly obvious decision to put a tiny bandaid over a pustulant running sore a 'good thing', you're only encouraging more of the same.

A 'good thing' would be an announcement that the whole program has been shut down and the product will be put through the shredder.

Well Horatio, how much should a chief pilot have to do that is nothing to do with running an aviation business? Meetings arranged by politicians is not in my copy of "The Chief Pilot Guide".

Clearly you know exactly what it takes to be a chief pilot, so I put the question back at you; do you really think this is a good thing?

I am somewhat disgusted by it (but not by your actions, which I too would have done).

Business people run to politicians all the time. Sounds like HL worked within the system as it currently stands and got the result that he was aiming for. :D

It is a great outcome for HL. The sad and disappointing thing is that it was necessary in the first place.

Lead Balloon
 

I am not asking about the massive cluster**** that is the whole legislative package.

I am simply stating that the DAS has taken the time to identify problems and seek solutions. If you read between the lines, there is a bloke trying to walk the line between his political masters and a demanding industry screaming for change. All his words must be carefully chosen to avoid publicly dumping his senior management in the ****.

Of course, you can continue demanding completely unrealistic outcomes as the only measure of change, but that'll just leave you angry, bitter and twisted.

I don't know Mr Skidmore and know very little about him… but thinking clearly and not influenced by the complex fermented sugars:

What if the industry, rather than berating him, stood behind him and gave him the support to be the broom he needs to be? Am I living in the clouds here? He is in a precarious position as far as I can see with the so called executive calling the bureaucratic shots and laying traps no doubt and dealing with a very angry and discontented mob of aviation professionals.

The question to the broader aviation community is how would one structure a support mechanism for change?

Perhaps the entire community needs to, with a single voice, express a vote of zero nada zilch not even a speckle of confidence in the executive and the mis-regulations being introduced… is such a thing even possible? Is there anyone or group capable of drafting a clear direction for the GA industry?

Well Horatio, I guess you'll be the last man standing, GA is doomed.
The general aviation side of the industry cannot continue to function under the burden of the new regulations, and certainly cant under what's coming.

I'm sorry, but the Australian Taxpayer paid a quarter of a BILLION dollars for alleged regulatory reform, allegedly because of the Plethora of exemptions, concessions and dispensations that had to be issued under the old system.

The bloody ink is not even dry on the "NEW" regulations and we are back issuing exemptions, concessions and dispensations against them.
Hey don't forget we have to PAY for each of these, at $190 bucks an hour??? do lawyers charge that much?? There are a lot of people in GA who would be happy with that in a day.

As someone so eloquently said, the taxpayers have been defrauded.

I have no doubt that there are one or two intelligent people within CAsA who realize, as it stands, general aviation is unsustainable under the existing rules, let alone what is in the pipeline.

Therefore I have great sympathy for those who believe there is a deliberate and malicious conspiracy within CAsA to destroy General Aviation.

As the industry declines and more and more of its key support businesses cry enough and leave the field so the costs rise as the law of diminished returns applies. Monopolies unfortunately are not conducive to efficiencies.

Horatio should know a customer base is like a Pyramid, the base consists of those who will always seek the cheapest price. Put your cost up ten percent and you'll lose twenty five percent of your customers. Unfortunately as your pyramid gets lower and lower, so your ability to sustain your business declines.

There are limits to what people will pay.

Horatio might be the last man standing buried in exemptions, concessions and dispensations but I doubt he'll have many customers.

Yet the answer is tantalizingly so easy, close and almost free. ADOPT NZ Rules like a vast majority of our neighbors have.
Want to see the results?? visit New Zealand.

Off topic, but i have just had two convicting opinions of a BFR under part 61. One says i now need to do the BFR in a consent speed retractable torevaildate my endorsements for CS and retractable. The other says I can still do it in a C172.
Who is right?

I don't criticise anyone who finds fault with CASA. I don't agree with everything CASA does, far from it.

Nor do I criticise valid and honest arguments from people who've had a bad run with CASA through no fault of their own.

I do have a problem with those who insult and deride people they don't know (e.g. calling Skidmore a puppet who's only in it to line his own pockets with absolutely no direct knowledge of him), and who call for vague but still ridiculous revolutionary action of some sort, all the while moaning about how hard it is to understand regulations they can't be bothered even trying to read because they feel they've been in the game too long and shouldn't have to keep up!

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, all I ask is for a bit of balance rather than blind CASA bashing any time something annoying happens.

GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk.

"GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk."

Sorry mate, if you believe that, you are ignoring the evidence.

There is no better illustration of why your wrong than across the Tasman compared with Europe, you can leave us out of it, same, same.

EASA Sacked their reg. writers and has embarked on true evidence based reform. WHY?

Most of the Pacific has adopted Kiwi reg's. WHY?

Sunfish, if you look in Part 61 the requirements for flight reviews and proficiency checks are in there under the heading of limitations on a particular licence, rating or endorsement.

Design feature endorsements (e.g. constant speed, retractable etc) don't have flight reviews mentioned as a limitation on them as, for example, a class or type rating endorsement does, so doing your BFR (or AFR as per the new terminology) in a 172 with none of those things would be fine - it should still cover you for anything in the single engine aeroplane class.

For example, I'm working flying helicopters at the moment, and doing a flight review in an R22 every two years covers me for the single engine helicopter class, including turbine machines (gas turbine engine is a design feature endorsement).

Some things like instrument ratings need proficiency checks (much the same as the old renewal), some need flight reviews (like a low level rating or an aircraft class or type rating), some don't need a review at all (like a design feature endorsement).

The caveat is the general competency requirement, which essentially says you mustn't go and fly anything that you're not full bottle on its systems and operating procedures.

Hope that helps, and vive la revolucion!!!

AOTW, are you new to this business? Given your posts I don't think so! Blind Freddie can see aviation in AU is in serious decline. Struth, just 4 years ago you could get a flight review from half a dozen instructors where I live. Now there are none.

What you are saying is that CASA has nothing to do with this. What I am saying is bollocks. Wake up and look around. Nothing to do with CASA you say? I say your dreaming.

No, that's not what I'm saying! I'm just not getting on the 'we're all f@$%ed because of those pricks' bandwagon, is all.

Depends what flight review you need, but any Grade 1 or 2 working for a flying school can do a basic flight review ... what is it you can't get where you are?

The costs
 

AOTW, sorry but I have to disagree strongly your view regarding the effect on the Industry. As a Business Owner I can assure you the costs of this new legislation are truly unacceptable. My own increase in costs alone, well exceeds the profit of my Business last year. This really will decimate the Australian Owned sector of the Flight Training Industry. The biggest financial challenge for my own organisation will be funding the Approval to continue doing what I used to do. The costs of simply continuing to do what I used to do are well in excess of $100,000 and I mean, well in excess.

He needs to invoke the parable of Matthew 21:12 - enter the temple and fling aside the tables of unworthy and profiteers.

Exactly what I feel like doing when filtered through Australian International IKEA Airports. The only place in the world it happens - just like the rest of this aviation crap that that gets invented by the profiteers in Australia.

Therein lies the problem. From an area that once supported 6 flying schools there are now none. The demise of the final flying school was mostly due to part 61, the onerous requirements of CASA and the need for a new ops manual to continue doing the same stuff. I dunno what cloud you have stepped off, but this all costs time and money in the real world.

I was talking about a basic flight review :rolleyes:

AOTW, your posts remind me of the continual optimism of employees of CASA, who blithely wander around a decaying GA industry blindly stating that all is good. Are you one of them?

No mate, do not and have never worked for them.

AOTW, I see you still refuse to address the conclusions of the Forsyth Review.

I think, since the conclusions of the Forsyth review have been studiously ignored by CASA, we can safely conclude that CASA is now a bad actor and therefore does not require or warrant "nice professional gentlemanly treatment" they have received this from the industry for 15+ years anymore.

To put that another way; professional reasoned argument has been tried on CASA with little result. We can therefore conclude that "the problem" of aviation in Australia is CASA itself.

The fact that you and I have not had a bad experience with CASA is not relevant since plenty of other people have had such negative experience of CASA they were prepared to go to the time and trouble to tell a Senate Committee about it.

glenb, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CASA are all good, I'm just (as I've said a few times) responding to some of the wilder accusations and personal slagging of Mark Skidmore by people who don't know him.

Part of it is that I flew in the RAAF for quite a while and when I see these blanket quotes about how ex-RAAF live in ivory towers and couldn't organise a root in a brothel I get a bit annoyed.

I'm assuming it's new manuals and approvals, and ADSB which have caused the problems for you, and sorry to hear it. I was a business owner (not aviation) and I sympathise with your situation.

Sunfish, I do think Skidmore is trying to change things, and to address outcomes of the Forsyth review, and I don't reckon personal attacks on him are achieving anything.

Anyway, got to go to work.

You know they have no reasoned argument when they come out with that statement. Good on AOTW for not joining the howling mob, it doesn't make him "against us" whoever "us" is.

It is what it is, based on observations as a CP and CFI. I have no grudge against CASA and have had no hassles with them either. The FOI's I know have, at times ,been professional and helpful too.

What I do note is a greatly increased bureaucratic burden, unrealistic attitudes, a lack of any real help, huge costs associated with minor changes to AOC's and real issues with the processing any new AOC applications.

I also have no issue with AOTW playing devils advocate, nor his reasoned arguments. It is not an us versus them argument with me playing "them" either. All I have done is state the bleeding obvious (to me).

The current rules are difficult to understand and almost unworkable. Needing politicians and meetings to gain expiring exemptions is hardly a good reference for a new rule book either.

NZ CAA Part 61 - 79 pages

FAA Part 61 - 118 pages

CASA Part 61 - 306 pages!!! :ugh:

Flying in Australia isn't that unique. In fact, you could argue that the threats (environmental, weather, traffic density) is greater in the US and NZ.

If CASA can't see that the system is broken and their 'regulation reform' isn't working, they've clearly got their head's in the sand.

CASA Part 61
PLUS about 636 more pages of MOS.
Total, about 1000 ONE THOUSAND pages.

CASA Part 61
PLUS about 636 more pages of MOS.
Total, about 1000 ONE THOUSAND pages.


Plus - hundreds of instruments of exemption and no doubt the future necessity to write hundreds of pages of CAAPs to explain this rubbish (when the CASA employees feel brave enough to do so).

What value is the MOS that could not be covered by good training?