Who really cares?
 

It goes like this. Dick starts a thread on a minor issue, people wade in with their polar opposite views with some being more strident than others. It goes for a few hundred posts then dies. Nothing is achieved and the cycle starts again.

I fly my private, single engine lighty and keep out of the way of others. I am happy with the current airways system and don’t see any need to change. I am flexible and not stuck in the 50s, 60s or any other decade Dick may choose nor am I obsessed or stuck in concrete but I just don’t see any need to change at this time for what I see as little gain.
Am I alone?

Mods, where's the Like button?

Welcome to the world of Internet forums! No different to sitting down next to your mates at the local pub bar and solving the problems of the world.

I'd have to disagree with you on it going nowhere though. Dick tends to use this forum as a sounding board to gather opinions from those private and in the industry and sometimes to seek clarification on rules, regulation and history that he can't find or interpret himself (can't blame him for that!) He then takes that and prepares a well planned and reasoned response and takes that to either CASA directly, the Australian newspaper or other outlets.

One that I can think of that panned out in this exact way was the relatively recent change that allowed us to join the circuit on base. Small steps yes, but positive ones in ensuring that CASA live up to their mandate of following worlds best in aviation practice. Thanks Dick, I now regularly do this!

It's not all for nothing I assure you Fujii!

PS: Airport weather cameras also come to mind although it should never have taken Dick to pay for it personally to come to fruition!

Where's my cough medicine?

Mods, now I'm looking for a down-thumb! http://www.smilies.our-local.co.uk/i...thumbsdown.gif :)

What was wrong with what he said Capn Bloggs?

So just because fujii is happy we should just lie down and be happy as well? because one guy with a vfr lighty is all happy chappy with it we should all be content as well?

As Stick pointed out, the one person you attacked here is one of the very few who actually tries to/does make changes based not only on what he thinks is right but based on the opinions he forms by discussing with others here and in other parts of his life.

Can you not see the irony in attacking one of the very few people who trying to make changes?!

I have been arracked by Dick on numerous occasions as have many others. I am only asking if others are happy and can’t see any need for change at present. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Well. Having moved to the USA recently, GA is so much better here. Service, ease of use and people smiling. There is a better way.

Ok.....

Fugii-"I have been 'arracked' by Dick on numerous"...............

How did that end for you...???? but, concur with your opinion on free-speech.

Once donated an Esky back at BDV, in a raffle for the RFDS- but, the next draw the 'said Esky' departed, with.................

Trust all ended well for you.

Rgds
S28- BE

With respect, the trouble as I see it is that it's Dick's way or the highway - nothing has changed on that front in 20 years or so. His philosophy has been previously quoted as "crash through or crash" and ultimately it's usually been "crash".

Having said that, I want GA to be a thriving business activity here in Australia as much as everyone else does too.

Personally, I would like to see him use his significant promotional skills in other worthy causes (such as increasing cancer research funds for example) rather than in aviation.

But that's just me speaking...

So Fujii, you're telling me everyone is entitled to an opinion in a thread started by yourself in which you try to shut down Dick and his opinions?

Cause that's how it reads, like you're saying that his posts go no where and are pointless and that they should stop.

Fujii, I care.

There have been very few people since Kingsford Smith who have done as much to raise GA in Oz as Dick has. And even Smithy didn't get himself put in CASA to try to fix that schemozzle. A huge pity that the CASA Jobsworths reversed his input after he left, to protect their empire.

Yes, he is outspoken, but to make any point in this environment, you have to be. Squeaky wheel, meet oil.
Yes, he can be very focused, to the exclusion of some other people's opinions, but show me a politician who won't talk over anybody who opens his mouth.

I have huge respect for Dick, and any chopper driver who operates near Sydney should also be grateful for his input, otherwise you would not have any chopper routes, or Victor 1 or any of the easier ways to move around the Sydney-centric airspace.

The only thing in aviation that is consistent is .... change! Get used to it!

And the rumours I am hearing about Part 135, if correct, will cause monumental change and should create howls of outrage that should cause the politicians to sit up and finally take notice of an area they have long ignored. :ok:

But then I have always been a dreamer thinking that it will finally turn out for the best. Based on past experience the people who should be united will retire to their corner grumbling that the others do not understand the problem. :rolleyes:

For the uninitiated Part 135 will be the commercial operation of light aircraft. The rumours I am hearing is that the maintenance and operational requirements will be a lighter version of what is required for low-capacity RPT at present. That will drastically affect most maintenance shops and require commercial operators to get their pilots checked by a recognised C & T organisation. Think how much that will increase your operating costs. :eek:

I am not trying to shut down Dick. He has alluded to working on something and we get the occasional snippet which is supported by half and rejected by the other but until a complete proposal is presented, there is nothing to carry forward. The recent CASA proposal, although unacceptable, was at least in a conversation noise, easily read document. Until something similar is produced by the industry as a whole, we will remain disunited and easily overruled.

Then what exactly is the point you're trying to make fujii? Cause the title is "Who really cares" which seems to be saying "Go away" and asking if others agree with you to gain some support in telling him to go away.

You talk about him being ineffective and then create this thread which has no point at all or is designed to try and get people on side in trying to convince him to go away. So this thread is either dripping in Irony or Hypocrisy?

I've disagreed with him considerably in the past but I don't think it should ever really be frowned upon to ask if there is a better way of doing things.

Admittedly frustrating at times but he does more than most of us for the right intent.

Ixixly you seem to be reading much more into fujii's original post than I interpret he intended, and in each of your subsequent posts you seem to be getting more worked up about it.

No-one is trying to stifle debate, and VH-MLE sums the situation up well.

Not much is wrong with the current airways system. If the current system was unsafe, the airlines in particular wouldn't be flying in it (remember that occurred in the 1998 Class G airspace demonstration), and industry associations would be thumping the table.

There is always room for improvements as time and technology move on, providing change proposals are subject to due process i.e. CBA, safety assessment, industry consultation and agreement, and education.

Whether one agrees with Dick or not, whether his ideas are practical or not, at least he is challenging our often misguided Authority and parlous leadership given by a succession of Ministers, something few others, if any, are doing. And there is no doubt change in CASA must occur if private aviation, general aviation and flying training is to survive in Australia as anything other than the realm of the super rich.

The Australian: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...23ae95f4c54407

I note Carmody did not include completion of Regulatory reform amongst his achievements!

In another time in another life CASA refused to talk to me. The Director later told me it was because their position was indefensible. Perhaps Carmody and the Iron Ring are applying the same reasoning?

Whether Dick is right or not in Australia he has a right to meet with CASA, the same as any other Australian involved in Australian flying operations.

At least he is trying to do something which he hopes will save private, GA and flying training.

Which is more than only a handful of others are doing.

Hmm. Tailwheel posts, deletes, then Torres posts exactly the same post. Alter ego there, TW? ;)

Ironically, given all that has changed, nothing has really changed (nor was there any great need...).

May be worth asking what we actually would like to see changed - what would make a marked change for general aviation in Australia?

I want to see a long term, viable, thriving and diverse aviation industry in Australia (by industry I mean covering everything from recreational operations to GA to RPT - it is all an industry - and GA is the essential nursery of the whole aviation industry).

I just don't see big changes to airspace as being much of a panacea for the ills in the industry.

I can think of lots of more pressing matters than airspace - but there is one change that I think would have huge flow on effects - that is a move to change the role of CASA.

We blame CASA for its actions but really - they are doing exactly what they have been tasked to do. It is the task that is wrong.

CASA's current mission is:

Imagine if it were something along the lines of:
(or something similar that doesn't remove the safety/regulation role but adds industry viability as an essential core responsibility)

Without a change in the mission of CASA (both the symbolic words but also an associated cultural shift) the GA industry will continue to decline and fiddling at issues (like airspace) will not make much of a long term impact.

If their mission is, (as it is now), overwhelmingly to "continually make aviation safer" with no mention about maintaining the viability of the industry, they will pursue activities that will try to continually increase safety even at the cost of industry sustainability.

Don't blame the bureaucrats - that is the exact job we (through our representatives) have given them! The job needs to be changed!

Change this and there is a change to the ecosystem that GA (and aviation altogether) exists in and the other issues can be properly addressed.

Without this change nothing will really change.

my 2c

[--> LIKE <--]

What jonkster said.

CaptainMidnight, not getting worked up. But I'd still like to know what was the point in the post at all other than having a go at Dick?

As most people have said, at least Dick tries to do whatever he can for what he thinks is right and will be good for Aviation and I personally don't think fujii coming on here and trying to put him down is in anyones interest at all and that's how it reads to me. Either the post itself is Ironic in having no point or Hypocritical in trying to say Dick should stop and then pointing out that fujii has his right to an opinion too.

Jonkster I think has really hit the nail on the head though, CASA need to have their mandate changed towards one of not just safety but fostering aviation.

Fujii. In the 1980s most pilots were happy with the system .

Pilots under the J curve in good radar covered airspace were locked by regulation to monitor the FS frequency when OCTA even though the operator had no access to the radar.

No one complained. Some even claimed it was safer!

I pushed for a change to internationally proven airspace where the pilot in radar covered airspace could communicate directly to the radar controller. It was copying the proven Noth American system.


So far about half way there!

CASA has made it very complicated so there is lots of non compliance

Thanks Dick and I hope you appreciate I am not having a go at you. It’s just that we as pilots don’t present a united front. The system works now albeit with some problems. If change is needed it needs to be all over, not just piecemeal. CASA has put out a proposal for all to comment on and there’ll be some changes to that proposal but what is required is some sort of unifying counter proposal from the industry. There is more flying knowledge here on PPRune than in CASA. Is it possible to get people together where you can present your ideas? There will possibly be a bit of tweaking required but maybe something would emerge which is acceptable to the majority. Maybe we need a fly in somewhere where ideas can be considered.

Cheers,
Don.

Jonkster. You are correct. The current act states that safety must be the most important consideration.

It makes no mention re maximising the number of Australians who benefit from this safety.

Of course CASA is intermittent in complying. In the case of small airline aircraft to country towns it has clearly put affordability and the market place in front of safety.

The act forces them to live a lie. Would be demoralising.

Don. The prime reasons for the problem is the half wind back that put the frequency boundaries back on the charts.

The CASA people have been trying to get that to work.

It worked well when the frequencies were advisory and operated by Flight Service. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get to work where ATC are actually controlling IFR airline aircraft on the same frequency.

We actually operated the system without the frequency boundaries for three months and it was starting to work well.

We need to try that again in my view. It’s so much simpler and works so well in other countries.

And Don. I don’t object to you or others “ having a go at me “. As long as you hold your views honestly I have no problems.

The trouble is Dick, what difference has it all made? Has the accident rate changed? Has aviation thrived in this country? Yes if you are a pax, it's never been a better/cheaper time to fly in the back of a jet. For everyone else, it seems to be a race to the bottom. GA is effectively dead. Changes to the airspace have been irrelevant, and will continue to be. The problems lie elsewhere.

Because I was never able to finish the changes.

My prime proposal was to reform the regulations to remove every unnecessary cost.

That’s what I started Ron Cooper on and we saved the industry tens of millions. This was then changed to not looking at the lowest cost and most affordable way to do something to the opposite. Take the most expensive and therefore “ safest”

The airspace was just one part of the whole vision. Maximise the safety benefits of radar at the lowest possible cost. We will never know how many, if any , lives have been saved.

Also harmonise where possible with the leading aviation countries so we can be the flight training powerhouse of the world.

We don’t even have a simple system for climbing through E when VMC exists.

The last FS sectors closed down in 2005; almost 20 years ago.

ATC have been managing the traffic, airspace and frequencies ever since. If there was an issue, they'd complain. They have never been shy about doing that over the years.

Move on. There are more important things to work on to revive GA than airspace.

My bolding.

That's the trouble. That's why it would never have stood up to any cost/benefit analysis. No one knows how much it cost, and there is no way to measure the benefit.
Visions are great, but pointless if no-one else shares them.

Flew down to Gundaroo yesterday from Terry Hills.

Have been doing this for over 20 years.

Operated VFR and religiously monitored all the ATC area frequencies. Many of the aircraft I heard was in the Gippsland area in Victoria.

In the 20 years I have never heard another aircraft that required me to reply or make a self announcement. Then again most of the other aircraft on the frequencies were not giving position reports so I do not know where they were.

This is clearly a crazy “ cry wolf “ system. Concrete minds attempting to cling to the past.

Traffic. It saved money by getting the existing ATCs to provide the service on the airspace below.

Or are you suggesting that this plan was changed and additional ATCs were employed to provide the radar service at the lower level?

And it’s obvious that using the existing radar coverage improved safety .

Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform
 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d7f952e5683d4d

Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

All debatable.
- Higher paid ATC providing less service to GA.
- Initially, FSO's who wished and were capable were transferred and trained as ATC, so yes ultimately the higher paid job did have a numbers increase. I would hazard a guess that ATC numbers are higher now than they were in the 80's, but a lot of their internal structure has changed due to advances in technology, which would have happened anyway, so numbers have probably not increased commensurately over time.
- Completely unquantifiable. There was never any way of measuring it under your initial changes, and no way of measuring it in the system now. It is just a perception. It was/is possibly no more or less dangerous under either system.

David Forsyth is right; CASA is a bloated inefficient bureaucracy which is self serving.
Seabreeze

EU could dash hopes for UK to remain in aviation safety agency
Julia Fioretti
4 MIN READ
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Britain could be excluded from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after it quits the EU, raising the prospect of increased certification costs for airlines and manufacturers and dashing London’s hopes of keeping its membership.

FILE PHOTO - An aircraft makes its approach to Heathrow airport in London, Britain, October 30 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville
EASA ensures airlines respect safety rules and certifies aerospace products across the bloc, helping to bring down the costs of development and production within the industry. In addition, the EU has a bilateral agreement with the United States under which they accept each other’s certifications.

The EU is preparing its negotiating position for its future relationship with Britain and appears to be taking a hard line on aviation.

“UK membership of EASA is not possible,” the European Commission said in slides presented to member states last week which will inform its negotiating position for a transitional agreement and the future relationship with Britain.

The Commission sketched out a vision of the UK having an aviation agreement with the EU along the lines of those the bloc has with the United States and Canada.

Membership of EASA is contingent upon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, something Britain has ruled out.

The British government, airlines, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have all called for Britain to remain a part of EASA once it quits the EU in March 2019, to ensure cooperation on safety continues and avoid increased certification costs.

Should the UK leave EASA, its manufacturers would have to pay for FAA certification to sell their products in the United States and maintenance facilities would have to pay to be certified as meeting FAA standards.

“It makes no sense to recreate a national regulator. At best, you replicate the vast majority of European regulation, and you’d have to do it over an extended period of time. At worst, you create unnecessary barriers,” CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines said in a speech in September.

If Britain is not allowed to remain a part of EASA, the CAA would have to take over its responsibilities in making sure airlines respect safety rules and manufacturers and maintenance companies meet standards, raising questions about whether it has the capacity to do that.

Airbus SE
89.56
AIR.PAPARIS STOCK EXCHANGE
+1.56(+1.77%)
AIR.PA
AIR.PA
Haines said the CAA was purposely not planning for that scenario “as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.”

UK aerospace industry body ADS, which counts Airbus (AIR.PA) as a member, said last week it would take approximately 5-10 years for the CAA to rebuild its safety regulation capability to take over EASA’s current responsibilities.

In the slides, the Commission says there could be a bilateral aviation safety agreement with the UK where both sides have separate certification systems. If there is “reciprocal trust”, there could be a simplified certification process of products from the other side, but no mutual recognition.

The head of the U.S. FAA was in Brussels in December to call for clarity on the safety regime Britain would operate under post Brexit, saying it would be highly costly for manufacturers if Britain left EASA as the FAA would have to make its own findings, “manufacturer by manufacturer.”

“Seeking new aviation arrangements is a top priority and we aim to have the new arrangements in place before the day of exit,” said a spokesman for Britain’s Department for Transport.

Additional reporting by Alistair Smout in London and Victoria Bryan in Berlin; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

It would seem there is concerns in Euroland, about the severe costs imposed on industry where regulations across the globe are not in harmony.
One question that needs to be answered is, exactly who's regulations are Australian reg's in harmony with?
Australia with an ethos of all the rest of the world is wrong, only we are right, has cost us dearly. We forewent the opportunity to align with the US system in favour of IASA, then forewent that for our own hodge podge rule set that has demonstrably decimated our industry. New Zealand had the sense to align theirs with the safest in the world and are reaping the benefits, Kiwi regs now spread across the Pacific, in harmony with the biggest aviation industry on the planet.
Was safety compromised? are aircraft falling out of the sky all over the pacific?
One thing for sure is their compliance costs are a hell of a lot less than ours, perhaps our political masters should decide do they want an industry or not? If it stays as it is I don't think we can compete and survive.