Good on AOPA. I ask everyone who has a genuine interest in stopping the decline of GA, especially flight training , to join AOPA.

Yes. Even if you are a member of another organisation. AOPA needs strength!

Otherwise don’t complain if your grandkids can’t get a job in Aviation.

I am in Vietnam at the moment and cant post much till i get back. However "the summit" is a standard ploy by the public service to deal with mounting criticism that is usually very effective from a public servant point of view in defanging the critics, keeping the PS in control of the issues and, of course, minimising useful change from the critics perspective. Everybody leaves with a warm inner glow leaving the same public servants in charge. Not much else happens. Sorry to rain on the parade.

I have run one such dog and pony show myself and participated in others. I will try and post some constructive comment in a week in the hope its useful. The odds are still stacked against GA and private pilots in my opinion and there is a less than equal chance of a positive result from a pilots perspective as opposed to an associations perspective.

First hurdle is exactly who sets the agenda, writes the position papers and takes the minutes? ......and this is not trivial procedural BS. another hint; work out membership of your own steering committee right effing now before the department suggests it. The first PS question they ask themselves is who can be bought off? With what?

And so the cracks appear (or, more accurately, are again exposed publicly).

It all plays into the hands of the pollies.

Have the ‘summit’ behind closed doors or even by email, come up with a united position - good luck with that - and communicate that united position as the united position. But sooner or later you’ve all got to realise the major parties don’t give a sh*t about the united position of a gaggle of alphabet aviation organisations. You’re the people who need to be regulated to prevent unsafe anarchy.

The major parties only care about risks to their cosy duopoly. The only credible risk to their cosy duopoly is posed by Dick’s influence among ordinary punters. If Dick’s not willing to exert that influence effectively...

Totally agree.

Idly watching Su22's doing touch and go waiting for our aircraft at Da Nang. FFS even Vietnam has simple ICAO template regulations that are much simpler than Australian BS. Why. not use them?

I am increasingly concerned by what I see is a headlong rush into a veritable Elephant trap set by the public service (the PS) for the associations. Everyone in the industry applauds the efforts being made and is trying to be constructive including me however there are risks in this summit process that need to be managed. In pilot speak, you need an alternate flight plan in case this whole thing turns out to be a waste of time otherwise you will be worse off than before because you will have been effectively neutered by the PS.

The chief risk you are facing is that of being co-opted by the Department - willingly accepting the offer by the PS to become part and parcel of industry change. When that happens, you become responsible to the industry for what happens next - which can be a very sad state of affairs for all of us.

The objective of co-opting is to make you become the Departments lap dog. I have done it myself and had it done to me. The entire PS and all the politicians know how to do it. Aany number of ravening wolves have gone to Canberra in search of 'change" and left as puppy dogs. We start the process with a dose of flattery. The Minister listens attentively. There are lunches, speeches, dinners, fine words and promises to you.

What happens next is that the Minister leaves, promising to stay in touch and admonishing the PS to listen to you. You are now face to face with the PS who will advise the Minister. At this point several things can happen, depending on the egos involved. The Department may suggest forming a small working group, lets call it "GA Australia" (GAA for short) to oversee a rewrite of the Act. They may suggest and offer to pay for consultants to sort through the issues and come up with "a range of options" for consideration, but remember they are the Departments consultants, not yours and the options they produce are theirs not yours. At the end of the day they produce a draft act that you have bought into because you are part of the consulting process weren't you?

So what happens next? You, meaning GA Australia or whatever the new peak body is called, get charged with selling the new product to its constituents and that most likely means selling and apologising for the s@#t sandwich that will be presented. When the industry howls that the new Act is worse than the last, the Department simply says; "talk to GA Australia, they helped write it and approved of it". GA Australia is now the Departments lap dog. Furthermore, the Department now doesn't have to listen to or engage with individual industry groups they simply say; "talk to GAA, they are your peak body now." The Department probably gives GAA a grant to set up a secretariat in Canberra and appoint a local CEO, effectively leaving the entire industry voiceless.

I have left out the descriptions of pandering to egos, dividing and ruling, axe grinding, bribing and pandering to associations that is part and parcel of this process. I've seen it done.

Then there is the question of motives. The Minister couldn't give a rats about the industry, all he cares about is votes. Albanese? Same same. CASA don't want change and this "summit' offers them a perfect opportunity to neuter GA for the next five years until either the industry revolts again under a new leader or dies of neglect.

You need plan B, which is to withhold approval or endorsement of anything and continue to try and build an organisation that is capable of affecting electoral outcomes, in other words building a 'nuclear option' because the threat of losing office is the only thing that always works on politicians and their minions.

Not quite.


The focus must be on “get the act changed so that it says ....”.


Plus a number of other specific actions.

What used to be called the PS. Often these days they refer to themselves as the Public Sector. In effect a new phenomenon, whereby the resources of the State are in competition with the private sector. They are in a winning position because, at the conclusion of the exercise of their power they have the police and courts to enforce their superiority. Ask Clark Butson, quoted as saying he spent $1 million dollars in legal costs to prove that CASA can do anything they like.
Further to Sunfish’s logical opinion and recounting from experience the traps that are set and waiting, I too have seen it over and over again. There’s the matter of principle as well, no matter how many associations are represented they are not the elected representatives of the Nation. As Sunfish points out they maybe gulled into thinking that they have taken power to effect change, but this is wrong. Should the foot come off the pedal don’t expect Minister McCormack to make the changes that are desperately needed.
Remember high hopes or soft soaps 2014? What happened to the Forsyth report and government agreed recommendations?
The only way the Summit will get anywhere will be to tell McCormack that the GA industry will work to unseat him in his electorate and it will not send delegations to Canberra until he has changed the Act and agreed to the FARs. In addition the reps should tell the same story to all their MPs throughout the country. In other words a real political campaign.

IMHO your chances of getting the Act changed now are probably zero. remember a federal election is coming in 2019. that creates a legislative scramble and a new government is not bound to follow through on any pre-election actions. in fact, from memory a new government won't even have access to the working documents of the old one.

it would be a poor public servant who can't stall you until the election is called. so what's to do at a summit? get your demands sorted and tell the PS what's coming, whether they like it or not and that you are going to make them change via naked political pressure, nothing personal of course.

AND you may soon have a perfect opportunity to test negative political campaigning - assuming the Mayo by-election is called in SA (also fremantle, Longman, Braddon and Perth). threaten to run a campaign via leaflet: "don't vote Downer", etc. this is your only hope. it's the one source of power you have. CASA, RAAF, Qantas and all the other supposed demons can't vote or run political campaigns. You can. hopefully AOPA will take the lead. You CAN make a difference, the election margin between libs and labor in longman was about 1%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_by-election,_2018

Following Sunfish, we can only hope that the chances are somewhat better than zero. But I too believe that AOPA might be heading into the sticky web of Canberra, a glittering cave of promises but hidden vaults full of the skeletons of previous hopefuls.
Take on Downer at by-election? Doubt sufficient resources, but a ginger group to confront candidates and get their commitment to reform would be useful. Questionnaires to all MPs and future candidates with a base shop front office in Wagga, and one candidate for McCormack here, would be the type of campaign that might tip the balance.
Lastly we have slipped a month already, presumably to get McC and Albo to the Summit. We need them to understand we are not interested in listening to them or going off to Canberra. We will not waste time collaborating with Department or Canberra unless the Act is changed to include sustainability and they are fully committed to FAA/NZ rules.
Reminded by a respected colleague that CASRs Parts 23-35 were directly off FAA Parts 23-35, a major reform that was accomplished 20 years ago. The outdated Aussie rules were dumped for those areas. Now for the rest, it’s not difficult.

we don't need to take on Downer or anyone else. a simple leaflet drop in letterboxes saying 'don't vote for xxxx" with a few made up reasons is all that is required.

Understanding your frustration but your judgment, with respect, is overly harsh. I’ve recently received my Class2 renewal, though late but with one very different condition. For the first time a report on a condition that they require may come from my GP. In addition it’s too early to completely discount the reforms that Mr. Carmody has promised.

Considering how well AOPA is getting publicity and winning new members, joining with and supporting Dick Smith’s change the Act push, this is a far cry from useless, not to mention many other wins. Also you may not be aware of it’s program to get young people engaged, a great initiative which has had many young people gain an aviation experience which would never have happened without Ben Morgan, Marc De Stoop and the new Board of AOPA.

It has also pulled together, with many other organisations, a meeting with Minister McCormack and Mr. Albanese in July. No mean feat and more than anyone has done in many a long year. You are correct that some will consider their own interests more than the greater good. This is always a human nature trait that good leadership will overcome by presenting a case for the practical outcomes of changes that will improve conditions for the aviation industry as a whole. The self interest instinct is the basic flaw in calling for concensus. Concensus is a concept that is difficult to pin down as the Summit meeting will likely find out. At this point strong leadership will diplomatically discount the voice or voices of dissent and declare the agreed position fixed by the majority. A position that should, as far as is possible, be agreed before the meeting. I’m hoping that the Summit will explain;
1. The time for talk has passed.
2. We will not be sending delegates to Canberra without framed legislation pending.
3. We will be taking strong political action.
4. We expect legislation to be expedited to change the Act and the remainder of the FARs (or NZ rules) to be introduced as were, 20 years ago, CASR Parts 23-35, drawn from FAA Parts 23-35. Replacing those parts of out of date Aussie rules which were dumped. It can be done, it’s actually part done, now finish the job.
5. We expect that strict liability be removed and that criminality be via the general law, ie reckless or malicious behaviour in any field is quite sufficient as it is throughout the land.
6. All references to licence “privileges” be removed or not inserted into the reformed rules. It is our right to fly within reasonable rules, this medieval notion, privilege in law, is derived from the Crown being the only one with rights and therefore doling out privileges, the Royal patronage (‘mon droit’).

I agree with you, except for the bit I snipped.

On medical certification ‘reform’ AOPA suffered an embarrassing episode of what doctors call ‘premature congratulation’. Have a look at the conditions on the instrument of delegation here: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/199061/...token=sWAvultt

Effectively, the DAME’s clinical opinion is dictated by CASA. Then there’s all the scary stuff about professional indemnity insurance. And here https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...ter-april-2018 the PMO says: “This authorisation is provided under CASA delegation CASA 26/18. Please make sure you read all the conditions and understand your obligations in relation to exercising this delegation (it is important to note that although you will be a delegate of CASA, you are not indemnified by us.” [bolding added]

Amazing the PMO didn’t mention CAAP Admin 1 here: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/104516/...token=2TL92Ahp that says, at page 5, that CASA will indemnify non-CASA delegates.

If what I read is true, then maybe a headline working approach could be:
CASA FAILURE - INDUSTRY IN CRISIS. DESPITE MASSIVE NEW REGULATIONS - SAFETY FOR AUSTRALIAN GENERAL AVIATION IS NOW INFERIOR COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES - PARLIAMENT ACTION NEEDED NOW.
Might get some action. Will definitely get a RE-action. Pauline will probably be on side.
Anyway, AOPA is the best option us small (and lots of bigger) guys have.

As one who ran my own school from the ‘70s for about 25 years I would agree with Ben Morgan’s call for independent instructors. ”Freelance” or independent instructors will not kill small flying schools they will create them. The last few small GA schools will mostly be gone by the time of transition deadline August. Where there used to be schools in hundreds of country towns there are now practically none, you can’t kill them twice.

No healthy training industry equals the death of GA. Call them independent or instructing without the totally unworkable AOC dog’s breakfast, including the super costly paperwork nightmare that is the latest flying school regime, either way it must change. A senior instructor near me had to put up $8000 just to start a school application. Two years later still nothing. In the US where 70% are trained by independent instructors, the instructor mentioned would have been training from day One.

Without pilots the cake shrinks to nothing, more pilots equals more cake to go around. Any of the few schools left will be busy training instructors to go out into the regions. In turn they need aircraft, maintenance, fuel etc.

In the past flying schools have baulked at the idea of the independent instructor for a short sighted fear of losing business, and CASA hated the idea of losing fees and power. I think most schools now would be less enthusiastic for that argument. In any case its up to government to do what is right for Australian aviation irrespective of sectional interest.

PPL cost sharing we had for years, for private ops up to 6 place aircraft. Small charter operators? Nearly all gone like the GA flying schools. Charter AOCs are nearly as impossible as is the regime for flying schools. A local Ag pilot with his own light twin thought to offer charter only to be told by his CASA FOI “don’t bother it’s all too hard.”

We have a very sick system, the fee gouging salary factory will not go down without a serious fight. They will gull the unwary with ploys and inducements, they will slow, stall or move at a creeping pace. They will whisper in the Minister’s ear all sorts of dire consequences and distortions, the MO ably put by Sunfish in this string.

Whoever is has the running will need nothing more than resolve.
QCs might help but this is a political problem.
Sunfish and others have detailed the pitfalls, for the first time most industry people know what has to be done. Now everyone should be making representations to their MPs and Senators.
In addition to the Summit representatives meeting there should be a plenary session with all invited. Would someone else organise this if AOPA won’t, can’t or too busy?

Quoting Sunfish:- “What concerns me is that CASA has probably said: "So tell us how you want the Act changed?" and then AOPA takes the bait.”

I heard that AOPA considers that they are “inside the tent.” My rejoinder was that Minister McCormack should approaching us to be inside our tent. In other words they would have the suggested wording for the amendment to the Act in their pocket for our approval along with the commitment to proceed with FAR/ NZ rules.

Regarding amendment wording, if memory serves, the suggested wording has had legal input already. If it was legislated it would go through the normal procedures and be vetted by senior Commonwealth legal officers. Would we trust them to do the job? If the Minister is pursuing reform in good faith we would hope so. The proviso being that the whole of CGI, Canberra (now pop. 403,000) Government Industries, is heavily dependent on taxing us in many more ways than just money. It has a vested interest in maintaining maximum power, axiomatically depriving us of our freedoms and reducing National prosperity.

Times have changed, once we had a Public Service, now they often call themselves the Public Sector and act in many ways like a competitor to private enterprise, fee gouging as one example. Much of the government today is performed by an informal conglomerate of very high salary independent Commonwealth corporate bodies, Commissioners and Ombudsmen, all in including Departments said to be 1200 in total. Naturally they all serve each other to some extent, probably by instinctive self preservation (aggrandisement?) more than by design. Employment is fluid between them. The perceived collaboration of the newly independent ATSB (2009) with CASA over the botched Rex/PelAir ditching investigation is a case in point.

Back to a previous discussion (Eyrie thank you) in regard to Mr. Carmody’s AVMED reforms; i.e. to date that they were nil. Thinking again this may well be true looking at the advice to DAMEs where the ‘92 Advisory of DAME insurance indemnity cover by CASA seems contradicted by the latest advice to the DAMEs. Therefore medical reform remains to be seen.

My latest Class 2 has just been issued weeks past my DAME granted two month grace period. No explanation or apology for the delay, a careless omission which I will take to my MP for redress. If we don’t employ our representatives like this they cannot serve us properly.