|
Minister calls for ga consensus on change to act
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER CALLS FOR GENERAL AVIATION CONSENSUS ON UPDATE TO THE CIVIL AVIATION ACT.
AOPA Australia President, Marc De Stoop, and Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, and AMROBA Executive Director, Ken Cannane, today met with Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack to discuss our support for changes to the Civil Aviation Act and the need for immediate general aviation reforms. The Minister recognised our industry’s need for change and acknowledged the efforts of AOPA Australia member, Dick Smith, in building broader awareness on the issue. With respect to the proposed changes, the Minister has called for general aviation consensus, to assist the government in this process. The AOPA Australia through our Australian General Aviation Alliance will now hold a General Aviation Summit in Wagga Wagga on the 4th to 6th June 2018, inviting representatives from all general aviation associations to participate. The purpose of the Summit will be to develop a consensus proposal for the government on the issue of change to the Civil Aviation Act. The Summit will be chaired by Mr Geoff Breust, former Managing Director of Regional Express. The Minister has invited our associations back to Canberra for a follow-up meeting and we are looking forward to working with the government to achieve this important reform for all of general aviation. BENJAMIN MORGAN AOPA Australia - Executive Director |
This is an exciting development!
Perhaps this time there will be enough gathering momentum to finally effect positive change in order to save GA from extinction in this country. Can the Iron Ring finally be defeated? They will certainly be working hard behind the scenes to maintain the status quo. Power to the People! PG |
call me a cynic but this is a typical politician response out of the delay delay delay playbook
once GA (chaired by a low cap RPT person?) feel they have a united voice there will be another barrier erected to be satisfied before the minister wants to engage |
Simples! Go to summit with Albo in tow. Albo gets up and reiterates the opposition support for the change to the act. Albo stands for a private members bill to change the act....Mc Cormick ...and the CASA...is wedged.
|
Originally Posted by hillbillybob
(Post 10135614)
call me a cynic but this is a typical politician response out of the delay delay delay playbook
once GA (chaired by a low cap RPT person?) feel they have a united voice there will be another barrier erected to be satisfied before the minister wants to engage I’ll bet people’s lips were moving during the meeting. I given previous warnings about that. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10135656)
You’re not a cynic. You’re merely pointing out the evidence of history. I’ll bet people’s lips were moving during the meeting. I given previous warnings about that. |
This beggars belief, government by some amorphous unelected body?
Dear Minister, Those of us retired and not making daily battle with the world’s worst, unworkable and expensive rules of strict liability in the criminal code, have been to Wagga last week. Why does it fall to AOPA to get yet another meeting going for your edification? Why don’t you have a ring around instead trying to get everyone in GA to Wagga, an impossible task. Concensus? This makes no sense, its surely the Government’s job to reconcile competing interests and the variety of views and then make a decision. No more talk, for heavens sake just make a start to arrest the ever steepening decline of GA. The Part 141/142 training rules are causing huge grief to the last remaining schools, no doubt several of same will fail to make the transition by August and so another spike into the body of GA for no good reason. Minister for pity’s sake act to save a valuable industry. |
AOPA AUSTRALIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BENJAMIN MORGAN - ON ABC RADIO RIVERINA TODAY
Apologies, apparenty until I have posted some 10 replies or something, I cannot post link URLS. Please use the linke below, removing the space to listen to the radio broadcast. https://soundcloud .com/abcnsw/benjamin-morgan-on-mccormack |
Great interview, Ben. |
Hear hear! well done Ben. Just have to get it National. Not even the Oz have picked up it yet - makes you wonder??
|
AOPA and the others will first get "duchessed" - wined, dined and fawned over.. If that doesnt work the department will try divide and rule eg. "we like talking to you RAA, you are so reasonable compared to AOPA".
You will be sucked into discussions of detail; eg. "what do you precisely mean by "benefit to the Australian economy" Mr. Morgan?". You need to find a good constitutional lawyer to assist you, preferably someone who has worked in PM&C and knows how to write Acts. You need to go in with a set of principles to be enshrined in the Act and make bloody sure they get in there. You have to get the black letter law right and accept no assurances or you will be screwed every which way as in; "well Mr. X may have promised you that but he retired last week and i have no knowledge, etc. etc." My 2 cents: FAA plain English rules, separate regulation and enforcement, remove criminal penalties and strict liability and of course foster the industry or at least be prevented from killing it. Then of course the charade of getting it tabled and voted and passed which is another hurdle. Good luck, the odds are stacked against you. |
Sunfish. You are probably correct but the the birds are coming home to roost. The damage to GA , especially training, is close to terminal. I too predict it will keep getting worse and eventually heads will roll in Canberra. |
Congratulations to Ben, AOPA and all others who see that like the hour glass the sand is slipping away. I wholeheartedly support the meeting of the minds set for Wagga. I caution however that there are snakes in the grass many of whom wear the CASA logo who will resist change using all available angles, lies and deceit to undermine these needed changes...
|
What constitutes concensus?
Gaining concensus sounds great until you look into what is meant by this call for general agreement. If the Minister fails to define the parameters for his request for consensus then It has no meaning, it is then just a platitude. The next question is what if there is no concensus to whatever is put to this meeting? Will that mean that the Minister is off the hook and can just walk away? Is it reasonable that the various groups can get there opinions ready in a short space of time to properly reflect the views of their members? no doubt there’s going to be some pretty fast footwork. |
Thank you Ben.
I'd be wanting to see a Royal Commission into the behaviour of those who gained massive land banks from The Airports Act and the ministers who enabled them. Remember, it was during Albo's nearly six years as the minster responsible for the federally owned airports that the worst of the gouging, bullying and threatening was bleeding the GA tenants dry while the leaseholders made millions from developing the land and chucking people out of the premises they had built. He was well informed about what was going on and just sat back and let it happen. Don't expect anything from him, or any of them. The last one that made a gesture of standing up to them was Mark Vaile and that took a lot of work. There is a great deal more threatening the sustainability of GA than CASA. Obviously a trip to Wagga is out of the question for those of us who need to have our bums in an aeroplane seat to make a living and aren't getting paid to go there. We should still have a voice. |
Quote:
"Remember, it was during Albo's nearly six years as the minster responsible for the federally owned airports that the worst of the gouging, bullying and threatening was bleeding the GA tenants dry while the leaseholders made millions from developing the land and chucking people out of the premises they had built." Clare one could say, "never truer words were spoken" There is however a legal "precedent". Not in an explicit aviation sense, rather against the powers leasing public infrastructure. A little known court case against a Chinese company who leased Newcastle's port facilities and set about gouging their tenants using remarkably similar tactics the Mc Banks of this world and their development shark mates employed against the users of airports. They lost, in a legal judgement that could so easily be used against airport owners. There are the "Facts" that the intent of the "Airports Act" has been neatly circumvented. There are the "fact" that the terms of the head leases for secondary airports have been circumvented. There are the "fact" that billions of dollars gouged from hapless users have somehow been disappeared to foreign climes with no benefit at all to the users, or the taxpayers who once upon a time owned those pieces of infrastructure. When secondary airports were managed by the Federal Airports Commission they made a profit. A modest one perhaps, if you valued the land at todays prices, but the land was owned by the public and the Act reserved it for special purpose use in much the same way as National Parks are reserved for special purpose use. Not as a cash cow for greedy banks and property developers. There is also the considerable returns a viable GA industry was making and could again make to the national economy if the monkeys could be removed from its back. |
You need to be pushing the "jobs, investment and growth" buttons as justification for change with every sentence. Agree with Wren, asking for "consensus" is the first trap as is asking for the members of the aviation community to be consulted. All it takes then is for a few big egos (eg Gaunty of criminal strict liability fame) to deliberately throw their weight around and consensus vanishes. The Minister can then let his Department "interpret' all the screeching and we end up with a rewrite that either changes nothing or is even worse.
I commend to you the FAA mission statement. "Being the most efficient Aerospace sector in the world" encompasses everything succinctly because that word "efficient" has a concrete meaning (ie.: use of resources to produce biggest bang for a buck) and that includes regulations, enforcement, standards, airports, RA, AOPA,, parachutes - everything, and efficiency can be measured. P.S. That is why the CASA mission doesn't use "efficient" - it is subject to measurement. They instead talk about being "effective" which is meaningless. Words matter. |
And don’t forget what the law says in the USA. US Title 49-TRANSPORTATION SUBTITLE VII-AVIATION PROGRAMS PART A-AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY subpart i-general CHAPTER 401-GENERAL PROVISIONS (here: [USC03] 49 USC 40104: Promotion of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce ) says: §40104. Promotion of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce (a) Developing Civil Aeronautics and Safety of Air Commerce.- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall encourage the development of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce in and outside the United States. In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator shall take action that the Administrator considers necessary to establish, within available resources, a program to distribute civil aviation information in each region served by the Administration. The program shall provide, on request, informational material and expertise on civil aviation to State and local school administrators, college and university officials, and officers of other interested organizations. |
The damage is done, but if any minister gave a toss about aviation they could start by proving it by not allowing any further destruction to the airports, such as listening to the tenants, actually reading submissions about master plans and not just waving them through.
I have been involved in a battle for several years over flood damage to my premises, the insurance company said it was the direct responsibility of the head lease holders for allowing storm water to enter my lease from outside due to inadequate maintenance of the airport site (section 9.2 of their lease, IIRC). The leaseholders admitted liability by finally putting in a functioning drain when the environmental audit gave them no choice but all correspondence regarding replacing the damaged paving and carpets is just ignored since the one where they said it was "my fault" for my building being put in the wrong place (it was the first one in that area and it is subsequent developments and their bitumen areas that caused my crossover to become a torrent). I can't afford to fix it and they know that, I can't be doing with the sheer nastiness and can't afford a lawyer, I shouldn't need one just to get them to comply with the lease and fix the damage they are responsible for. This is the sort of crap we have to put up with all the time. I don't think a lot of people realise the hostility we are up against just to have a lease. Sorry to be cynical but it's true, there will be a few people with vested interests who will hijack anything like this. Look at some of the "experts" the Meeja run to for a soundbite and expect more of the same. |
Airport leasehold problems and careless government
Clare Props problems stem from one simple principle. If there are no inbuilt incentives for the proper management of a parcel of land, like a government lacking incentive to police their lease conditions, then hoping followed by disappointment will follow. Isn’t it amazing that we all can see and benefit from free enterprise of which private property rights are an essential element. The whole of our social edifice relies on the inherent fairness of property rights in law and, coupled with judicial and other institutions, the whole has conveyed unprecedented prosperity. In the field of aviation and airports it as though we are back in the Dark Ages when the Monarch did anything and couldn’t care less for the poor benighted peasants down at the lower levels of precipitous life or death. As one who based a life and career on my privately owned airport and enjoyed the benefits of the property value by way of an unrestricted use right, and later as a very valuable asset which translated into a retirement fund, I say that government must make freehold available to individual aviation businesses on government owned airports. What would be wrong with private landside property and community runways and parking areas? This should be exactly the same as any other businesses abutting roads. To invest, grow and develop a business with initial borrowing you need the solidity of freehold. Can this be a reasonable hope for the future? I doubt that because the free enterprise concept is not fully developed in our society as yet. |
Wren, I couldn't even get a caveat on my building to say it was mine. When my sub-lease expires it will have no value as the chances of the lessees letting me sell the building and assign the lease on the land to someone else, rather than them just grabbing it for themselves without compensation (or making me demolish it at my own cost) are nil. The patch of land will be used for some non aviation activity or other as they have already set the precedent of a fait accompli of changing the land use from "aviation" to "commercial" without any of the consultation process being followed while the aforementioned minister was in charge.
And when it comes to security of tenure, by appearing on the front page of the Sunday Times in hard hats saying they were the "new owners" and were going to close the airport meant that there was a risk for any finance company to lend to a Jandakot business for a long time afterwards, a tactic to make things even harder for the tenants. They tried to force me into signing a five year lease rather than assign me the existing 23 year one. It took a very expensive lawyer to achieve what should have been a straightforward lease assignment. I could write a book about the "relocation" era and have a great deal of evidence which I would happily produce if there was ever an investigation into how the Airports Act was allowed to benefit developers at the expense of the existing tenants and the industry. This is the kind of thing that has put GA into a decline. No point "fixing" CASA if we don't have an affordable infrastructure to operate in. |
Changing the subject now, how can we have "jobs and growth" if some commentators are saying we shouldn't be training overseas pilots here? How do they think many pilots get the hours and qualifications they need? We should be encouraging it, not scaremongering.
|
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
(Post 10137046)
Changing the subject now, how can we have "jobs and growth" if some commentators are saying we shouldn't be training overseas pilots here? How do they think many pilots get the hours and qualifications they need? We should be encouraging it, not scaremongering.
What sort of message is that sending to potential investors? |
Midnight:
Totally agree, and I've said that before about similar "get out of aviation now" comments. What sort of message is that sending to potential investors? No potential investor in their right mind will lend to an aviation business when there exists a extra aviation business risk compared to other businesses called "the regulator' who is totally unaccountable, capricious, untrustworthy and vindictive as evidenced by the Forsyth review. Pointing that out to potential investors is only fair. |
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
(Post 10137416)
Totally agree, and I've said that before about similar "get out of aviation now" comments.
What sort of message is that sending to potential investors? The great frustration is that the new rules actually detract from the efficient training of pilot skills and impose huge additional costs for no actual benefit for the safety of flight. It could easily be argued that the whole system is inimical to safety and should be altered to comply with the Act. Government treats treats the industry like a bunch of recalcitrant idiot children. Well illustrated by the expression from one CASA personage that the industry was not sufficiently “mature” to be allowed any leeway. This hubristic attitude permeates not just CASA but is the common way of Can’tberra, I’m sorry to say. These days the Public Service has been replaced by the Public Sector, a transformation which has morphed the “Service” into a competitor against private enterprise. A competitor with a massive advantage, being able to force its power with the whole apparatus of the State. Just look at the CASA fee gouging of the last two or three years, in the unequal competition for aviation dollars they are winning hands down. This is the stuff that revolutions have been made with, the lessons of history are plain enough. |
wren 460,
Actually, the full context of one of your points was even more serious. A "senior CASA lawyer" made the claim that neither the industry nor CASA was sufficiently mature to handle outcome based regulation (a la EASA, and Australian Commonwealth Government regulation making policy), so aviation has to have detailed prescriptive criminal law based legislation, mostly strict liability, to control safety. Tootle pip!! |
The pollies will change the regulations when people can't get their super cheap airfares to places cause airlines can't get people either local or on 457 Visas because the licensing has become too difficult.
It must surely be getting close to the point where it is more viable for a new pilot to go to NZ or the USA and do their training over there and convert it when they get back. If that same pilot is a person with no interest in commercial aviation but owns their own aircraft just keep it on the applicable foreign register, That way you'd only have to comply with Airservices Australia airspace restrictions not CASA regulations. |
What will cause Parliament to halt the destruction of GA?
We want change, an obvious motivator for MPs is keeping their supporters on side and winning seats with policies that have public appeal. To this end the recent Dick Smith meeting and the subsequent radio interview with AOPA’s Ben Morgan are the means to attract public notice and then for politicians to provide policies to cater for this consciousness. AOPA or the new AGAA group could run a candidate to oust Minister McCormack. A campaign office in Wagga would undoubtedly get lots of volunteers. I’ll pledge a week, anyone else? Minister McCormack will try his best to prevent this from happening, all groups will be invited into his Alladin type cave full of glittering treasures but only for a look while there’s another set of consultations and reviews so that he is satisfied with a concensus as defined by himself. By then the delay will take the problem beyond the next election. It may be that as Dick Smith postulates it has to get worse yet, and so bad that everyone in Parliament will want to make real changes. I sincerely hope this does not occur because it will cause even more harm to many fellow Aussies. |
Steve Hitchen in Australian Flying calls for concensus in his editorial.
With respect Hitch, I’m sure you’ll agree a little sparring does no harm. My reply as follows:- There’s no logic in calling for a concensus on something which is undefined. There’s no logic in the Minister inferring that he can’t act in the National interest unless he has a concensus from disparate bodies represented by various individuals. There’s no logic in putting blame on the General Aviation industry for the shocking loss of GA businesses and jobs, services, asset devaluation and loss of Commonwealth airport utility when clearly its the result of extremely poor policy, government legislated, criminal code unworkable law of strict liability. Thousands of pages of micro management and the new training rules, transition August, which will close even more of the last few GA flying schools. A National disaster is occurring right now and Minister MCCormack is sitting on his hands. The invisible government appointed Board of CASA also. I defy anyone to point to any country where all the various privately organised GA and airline associations act in concert, in one voice, and give singular advice to the government of that country. Of course not, its totaling illogical. We elect and pay our Parliamentary representatives to govern for the gtreater good, not to sit back hands off the wheel (the independent regulator) and using every excuse not to act. The ancient Greeks believed that courage was the highest virtue, too bad its not showing where its seriously needed. |
Good sense wren and clare. We cannot have an industry when we, the industry are treated with disrespect and disdain by Minister's and CA$a.
Infrastructure and a clear way forward which supports #aviation rather than the very obvious examples of negativity: #casa, Canberra Airport, Goulburn Airport, YSBK, YPJT, YMMN, YBPF and on and on. Here is the complete Dick Smith Oration with slides separated. |
You are correct, Wren. It’s just one of many tactics pollies use to justify doing nothing. Unless Dick uses his profile to threaten the cosy major party duopoly, nothing with change. Dick has to either publicly campaign for a vote against all major party candidates (and mean it) or get the support of a critical mass of cross-bench Senators. And he has to stop listening to them whenevever their lips are moving. The only thing that counts is actions, not words. Reviews are not actions: They are stalling tactics. Inquiries are not actions: They are stalling tactics. Senate Committee hearings are political pantomime. Amending legislation is action. Funding airport infrastructure is action. Enforcing airport leases and, if necessary, varying them so that airports remain airports, is action. Terminating the 457 visa scheme for pilots is action. Terminating the regulatory ‘reform’ program and sacking the self-licking icecream of people working on it is action. Terminating the endless fiddling and speculation on airspace and frequency arrangements is action. Whatever the list of actions happen to be, Dick has to continue to use his public profile to threaten the cosy major party duopoloy until the actions have occurred and not before. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10138419)
Unless Dick uses his profile to threaten the cosy major party duopoly, nothing with change. Dick has to either publicly campaign for a vote against all major party candidates (and mean it) or get the support of a critical mass of cross-bench Senators. And he has to stop listening to them whenevever their lips are moving. Whatever the list of actions happen to be, Dick has to continue to use his public profile to threaten the cosy major party duopoloy until the actions have occurred and not before. LB agree the main points but as a lot of us are well into our seventies, DS and self for two, it needs to be said that we should not and can not put such an obligation on one person. With respect to say that one person is the only hope, well could that be changed to say that if DS puts his considerable profile to the cause then we will grateful of course. Dick Smith has already spent much energy and money far more than most that I can see. He is under no obligation any more than the rest of us. |
Originally Posted by wren 460
(Post 10138431)
(Truncated quote) LB agree the main points but as a lot of us are well into our seventies, DS and self for two, it needs to be said that we should not and can not put such an obligation on one person. With respect to say that one person is the only hope, well could that be changed to say that if DS puts his considerable profile to the cause then we will grateful of course. Dick Smith has already spent much energy and money far more than most that I can see. He is under no obligation any more than the rest of us. Think your real call Wren, is for everyone involved, no matter in what area of #aviation, to: "Step up to the Plate - NOW" |
They don’t care about us, wren. It doesn’t matter if we all step up to the plate, advo. They don’t care about the rabble of aviators and alphabet soup organisations who’ve been beating their chests and making submissions and complaining for decades. They care about themselves. That’s why they care about Dick’s popularity among ordinary voters. Dick has the power to influence sufficient votes to make or break a candidate or party. That happens to be the most efficient and effective way to achieve change. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10138444)
They don’t care about us, wren. It doesn’t matter if we all step up to the plate, advo. They don’t care about the rabble of aviators and alphabet soup organisations who’ve been beating their chests and making submissions and complaining for decades. They care about themselves. That’s why they care about Dick’s popularity among ordinary voters. Dick has the power to influence sufficient votes to make or break a candidate or party. That happens to be the most efficient and effective way to achieve change. |
A candidate and office for McC’s seat to set up now in WW
Political action has always been the main road to effect change. All the insults and hurling abuse at CASA (perfectly understandable) has probably produced some minor pull backs, but as we can see clearly now, it has not and will never be instrumental in effecting real reforms. The CASA jobs are too cushy, the salaries so high and the path to completely fire-proof itself with ever more extraordinary rules, disregarding any semblance of fairness or economic realities, makes perfect sense. It will continue on this path until a Minister is induced to step in and do his duty. Therefore political action on the head of power, Parliament, is obviously the main route to take. Unswerving until, as LB states correctly, that actual change is legislated. |
I think you will need a Royal Commission into CASA and/or the elite beneficiaries of the Airports Act to get anyone out of their comfort zone in Canberra. The only time I have ever seen a minister jump to attention over something aviation related was when "Mandamus" was mentioned, but that's not really appropriate in this case, or is it?
|
A writ mandamus
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
(Post 10138524)
I think you will need a Royal Commission into CASA and/or the elite beneficiaries of the Airports Act to get anyone out of their comfort zone in Canberra. The only time I have ever seen a minister jump to attention over something aviation related was when "Mandamus" was mentioned, but that's not really appropriate in this case, or is it?
Way back when in Victoria my family employed such a writ to cause an official to register land titles. Doubtful that it would succeed here as being not a definite procedure to enforce, but if accepted to trial would create great publicity and possibly goad the toad to a leap into action. Bush lawyer advice only. A definition from online follows.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.