AOPA had, for a while, a line "pay our own way and have our own say". This possibly confused many into thinking Dick may have instigated it in support of user pays. In fact it was another President who coined the phrase.

I understand Dick was president of AOPA 1995-1996, when Location Specific Charging was being pushed hard by AOPA.

SMH, June 17, 1995

Bosch was a decade before.

Boyd was after Dick.

Don't forget Prof Fred Hilmer. Henry Bosch was the architect of user pays but Hilmer, with the support of the Libs, Labor (the illustrious Laurie Brereton) and the Nats, was the real instigator of corporatization and privatization.
The Government did very well out of the sale of the FAC airports $5b+ from memory and now the whole industry is fractured with GA dying.
As an aside, a beautiful day in south west WA today and 10 years ago plenty of lighties would've turned up for a visit and lunch in this quiet pretty coastal town. No landing fees. Today, one arrival only - a gyrocopter! Says it all really, the heart of GA has been ripped out by an incompetent regulator, greedy airport owners operating under the protection of the Airports Act and politicians who are so out of touch it's disgraceful. Can't see a solution, regrettably.

P51D:

It should be noted that we don't have true "user pays" in Australian Aviation because the implicit checks and balances in such a system were never enacted. When government bears the full cost of regulation, the Treasury provides the checks and balances in the form of an annual budget, efficiency reviews, auditor general etc. In true user pays, the user either has an option of a choice of service providers and market forces provide the checks, or the checks are enacted via strict rules on costing and pricing by the regulator, mandatory cost benefit analysis, a requirement to foster industry, etc., etc.

We don't have any of that, just obscenely bloated abortions of institutions allowed to charge what they like without any let or hindrance.

The solution is RAA and SAAA aircraft using private grass field runways at present.

However once CASA, AsA and airport owners have finished sucking the last blood out of GA, they will come after those little aircraft as well.

My personal opinion:

Is it really CASA and ASA and bureaucracy etc that are causing the demise of GA in Oz?

In the US where the regulators (apparently) have a much less intrusive role, airport owners charge less, fuel is cheaper, rules less burdensome etc, GA seems to be similarly declining. :(

How much of this is simply how the economy (and its effects on people) are changing the way people behave and view aviation?

GA thrives on new blood in the way of pilots, owners and operators. It cannot self sustain on an aging pool of private owners, small GA operators having trouble getting customers and the dwindling general flying school industry unless there are customers wanting to spend their money on aviation.

Operators need to make a buck, students need to be able to pay for lessons and not risk their mortgage, CPL trainees need to believe the cost outlay will allow at least the potential for them to get some sort of career path in aviation that might justify the cost.

Today I suspect it is not that flying costs have grown out of proportion to the average new blood punter's wages but that with the cost of housing in much of Australia, the average new blood punter is spending most of their income on paying off a mortgage. The median house price in Sydney is near a million dollars! :eek: How can a 'median' family with a couple of kids in school service that kind of debt and have enough left over to get a PPL?

The previous new blood punters are too scared of what might happen if the interest rates go up or there is a recession to spend their left over money on getting a PPL or helping their kids go for a CPL or invest in an aviation business that is far from a sure bet given the current state of play of GA.

Flying costs need to appear to be within reach of the average punter. It used to be that way.

20 years ago I recall plenty of students from all walks of life from teachers, fitters and turners, builders, plumbers, salespeople etc who wanted to learn to fly (or were looking to have a shot at aviation as a new career and stumped up to work at a CPL).

They managed to find the costs at least within their reach (even if sometimes it was tight and they needed to spread their training out).

For all the talk of steady economic growth in Oz, that is not how many people I think feel personally about 'their personal economy' today.

I think that is why GA is dying not simply because of the regulators, bureaucrats or landing charges.

Not to say those costs/hurdles don't hurt things but I think the real issues run way deeper and are far more difficult to solve. Sadly :(

Look at how many schools and flying clubs there were back then compared to now.

Today? How many new students come in off the street? How many have an average job to fund it? I seriously wonder how kids (or older) can afford to get a PPL (or do a CPL) when most of your income is going into a mortgage or rent.

Consider the editorial in the January 2017 issue of AERO Australia for similar points to consider

Jonkster: what is the most saddest thing about what you've said is that the only thing that has not changed is the number of people out there who are interested in aviation. The downward spiral only serves to reduce entry further.

Jonkster,

I agree with most of your sentiments, there are many impediments that have contributed to the decline of general aviation.
It does not however alter the fact that the cost of compliance measured as a percentage of operating costs has dramatically increased over the past thirty years since the bureaucrats decided to subvert a direction to align with FAA rules and go their own way with regulatory reform, leading to the prescriptive, convoluted, rubbish masquerading as safety related regulation we enjoy today.
In truth, we are no safer here than the USA, the biggest aviation market on the planet. Technology has contributed for sure, to better safety outcomes. Over regulation on the other hand has contributed nothing except an ever increasing cost burden. Our regulator is supposed to be a profit centre for the government,and as such I believe our home grown regulations are more focused on make work and therefore provide more opportunities to derive income, rather than focusing on improving safety. As a safety regulator I believe CAsA is a complete and utter failure. They have squandered hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer's money on a folly and achieved nothing, in real terms I don't believe it is any safer today than it was fifty years ago, just a hell of a lot more complicated and expensive.
Compare the US "AIM" booklet against the plethora of Australian reg's, the AIM is an A5 booklet you can hold in your hand, you'd need a very large table to stack up Australia's regs.