GA SUMMIT 2018 - RESOLUTIONS
 

Why do you bother down there, waisting your time.

Mike Smith spent some time over the Dinner giving a very entertaining talk about his experience setting up and operating a flying school and maintenance shop in California.

I think half the room is currently planning to move to the USA.

Horatio I already have my ticket booked. I fly with Mike every year when I go over there.

Leaf Blower, come to USA the land which invented the aircraft. Honestly when you wake up you do what you want within reason the laws and rules are a guide in USA not " strictly enforced" logic, circumstance and common sense prevail in most cases. Like I said good luck down there, what was once such an easy going country with vast space for GA has been destroyed by left wing Government ideology.
Many moons ago spent time with the Hazleton brothers out there in Parks and Orange, how things have changed........

Thanks for the advice. My friends in GA in California are all upping stakes not because of the FAA but all levels of Government imposition.

By the way one thing I do see in the USofA are big "Waists".

Down here this is how we spell "wasting"....

Some thoughts prompted by the "AOPA Minutes" have come to mind.

Aviation is booming world wide, and there are financial opportunities for Australian training establishments to benefit from training (and educating) international students to high standards as pilots or aircraft maintenance engineers. But these opportunities face some administrative hurdles.

1. The lack of alignment of CASRs with FAA/EASA means that a CASA sign off does not easily translate to a home certification for an international student when they successfully finish training in Australia, unless that organisation has pre-approved certification (rare in Aus).

2. The Australian Qualifications Framework is a very poor home for pilot and engineer education (which needs certification as well) because the Civil Aviation Act dictates that ONLY CASA approved personnel can recommend licensing (a good thing IMO). The AQF is largely irrelevant for aviation training although it is through this pathway that students can gain diplomas etc, and such academic qualifications are often sought by privately funded International students.

There is a great complexity in these two issues, and I wouldn't pretend to be able to articulate all of the problems. But identifying and articulating the problems carefully, accurately and in detail is a necessary first step toward providing solutions.

Changing the Civil Aviation Act in line with worlds best practice including outcome based regulation would seem to be a good start, but what is needed is a truly expert Panel that can work to a time frame. (I am reminded that the Forsyth Committee produced the ASRR in around 6 to 7 months, while government response times move more on geological time scales). Such a Panel needs to be set up by the Minister of IR,D&C, and serviced by that Department.

A subpanel dealing with the practical alignment of CASRs with EASA/FAA also needs establishing, with a view to not only simplifying CASRs but also to enhancing economic opportunities with our rapidly growing neighbour states. Once the nature of the alignment becomes clear, syllabi can be redesigned.

Lastly, with regard to the AQF, PhillipsKPA provided a review of the AQF earlier this year to the Federal Dept of Education. A recent article of June 15 in the Campus Morning Mail states "Hopefully they (my words; the government) read the best-bits very slowly which are the scathing indictment (at least by PhillipsKPA’s understated standards) of the voced (my words: vocational education) establishment’s inertia.....Virtually all of the substantive comments made in submissions to the 2009 – 2011 AQF review are still at the forefront of respondents’ concerns in 2018." Making the AQF useful to the aviation industry may prove an insurmountable problem, but the industry should be clear as to what is needed and why.

Oh, and if Australia doesn't get its act together, some other country will, so there is no time for dithering.

JM

If this has been the start of a bloodless revolution...well and good. But I fear not.

Too hidebound, too long entrenched as the Power to let you live or kill you off in GA, until that culture of the bullies, the police mentality, the lying and spin doctoring BS that goes on in all levels of The CAsA Soviet is forced into the real world,..... NOTHING will change.

QUOTE:
"Aviation is booming world wide, and there are financial opportunities for Australian training establishments to benefit from training (and educating) international students to high standards as pilots or aircraft maintenance engineers. But these opportunities face some administrative hurdles."

Why would foreign students come to Australia to gain a certificate that's not recognised anywhere else in the world and pay double or more than the equivalent certificate gained elsewhere?

I know Australia is a great place to be, but the old saying "never give a sucker an even break" wears a bit thin after a while.

CASA
 

Here it all goes again. Approximately 20 years ago, CASA were tasked to review Australian aviation legislation. The existing Civil Aviation Act 9C requires them to do that. To date, the legislative shambles continues and we do not have a coherent set of regulations that are clear so that Australian aviation can operate without error. This situation represents a series of latent failures within the hysterical application by CASA of the Reason model for aviation systems safety (adding compliance on the end of the title), so that failure is guaranteed because everyone is struggling to find the correct legislation that applies to their operation. This is made worse by the incredible number of CASA Legislative Instruments, Non-Legislative Instruments, Authorisations, Designations, Exemptions, Instructions, Permissions and Permits, Specifications and Policy Statements. Even that is not the complete list!

Delegations under the Act and Regulations are then given to an incredible number of CASA inspectors who can then act as they please because "CASA must be satisfied" as indicated in the Civil Aviation Act Subdivision D Issue of AOCs. CASA is struggling to get qualified people because no-one wants to join an organisation that has the reputation it currently has within the industry. If this was not true then a GA Summit would not be required. CASA Human Resources now recruits "safety experts" who have university degrees in human factors but no flying, airworthiness or airport management backgrounds and are so busy giving the industry a hard time with Part 141 and Part 142 approvals that the approval process becomes very subjective, resulting in non-standardisation of the rules and inspectors who constantly state "in my opinion..." This means that they can do what they like and get away with it. CASA offices around the country are not standardised in the application of their duties hence the large list of administrative mechanisms as detailed above now working against the Australian aviation (especially general aviation) industry. There is no evidence that shows CASA Canberra actually knows what is going on in their Area Offices.

The Royal Aero Clubs of Queensland and South Australia have fully closed and the aero clubs at Townsville, Darwin and numerous other places have now closed their doors permanently. The Senate Estimates Committee (for Transport) have failed in making CASA do what it is supposed to do. The number of U-Tube presentations showing their incompetence is amazing. Other Federal agencies send their Commissioners or equivalent to the Senate Estimates Meetings sometimes accompanied by another representative from their agency and usually perform well. CASA arrives with up to 15 people and when asked by the Senators why there are so many people present they are told that they are required because of the need to ensure the questions can be answered. Responses to the Senators questions are then answered with, "I will take that on notice Senator, I do not have that information to hand," or " I will refer that to my Executive Manager (portfolio). Yet none of them have any of the answers to the questions asked and embark in public service jargon to cover their lack of knowledge. Incredibly, the Senate Estimates committee lets them get away with this very low performance meeting after meeting. This debacle has been going on for quite a while now. With a CEO on an unjustifiable salary in the vicinity of $600,000 dollars per annum and his subordinates also on massive salaries, the question of whether the Australian aviation industry is getting value for the massive funds expended on CASA and its other aviation agencies is very clear. The country is not getting any value. The internet shows CASA Area Managers declaring themselves "aviation experts," some on the basis that they were in non-flying roles in the air forces of other countries, but have absolutely no experience in Australia.

Small wonder the country has a very serious aviation problem with rural economic hubs closing rapidly with repercussions in all sorts of industries, loss of jobs, loss of commercial hubbing and communication and aeroplanes sadly parked everywhere. A lot of Australian airports are now almost at closure point. Australia needs to get rid of CASA and Airservices Australia completely and start again with a brand new staff recruited from people who are competent and have been in the Australian aviation sector for a significant period of time. Clearly CASA also needs to rid itself of its Human Resources and Office of Legal Counsel people (or whatever their latest title is) and outsource it to agencies that can do the job properly.

A good start would be to start again with a new Department under a Federal Government Minister and merging the aviation elements of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, ATSB, CASA, Airservices Australia and the aviation sector of AMSA. The number of Federal Government agencies supposedly controlling aviation in Australia is superbly inefficient. It is made worse by interference from State Government transport departments also with dedicated aviation regulators.

Good luck with the meeting at Wagga. Maybe this time there is hope. However, this problem is well beyond the agenda proposed, but a start has to be made somewhere. Australian aviation is in a massive mess and it will take very dramatic steps by the House of Representatives and Senate to stop the current serious decline and especially the uncertainty caused by CASA's mishandling of aviation legislation.

Yep, waste of time. So the meeting put out a bunch of motherhood statements. I expected nothing more.
Should have presented the Minister with a bound copy of the FARs along with the demand that these become the regs governing Australian aviation as of August 1, 2018. Anything else is a waste of time.
The problem is that Australians love being regulated. Everybody wants "permission" to do anything. If you don't believe me look at RAAus and GFA, both allegedly enthusiast organisations who "enthusiastically" make more and more rules to bind their members, in many cases in excess of what CASA requires of private pilots and aircraft owners. I see these hypocrites were at that meeting. Don't worry if the Minister wants to change a thing, they will squeal if it reduces their power and the ability to coerce funding from their "members". How are you a "member" of a CASA contractor which coerces you to be a "member" and extracts money with the authority of the State? This is just a way of CASA taxing the low end of aviation TWICE while evading its responsibilities to Parliament.

Nothing will happen until some high profile person or a family member is sick in the bush and there is no RFDS plane or pilot available to pick them up and they pass away!!.Sadly this is the only time when questions will have to be answered by the bureaucracy that is CAsA.

Thank goodness that I worked out (many years ago) that my membership of AOPA was a total waste of money.
I wonder how much Ben gets paid? For he is AOPA's Executive Director..

Since by your own admission you are not a member gerry, it is absolutely none of your business what Ben gets paid nor has it any relevance to this thread.

I agree Jenna, none of his / her...their business. One things for sure, he would be paid a hell of a lot less than the Tea Lady, sorry person, at CAsA.
Say what you like, but I admire Ben for his commitment and enthusiasm. May not agree with him all the time, but at least he is making an effort, instead of sitting at a keyboard wringing his hands and moaning "Woe is me". Pissing in the pot comes to mind but unlike the pot pissers he's actually making an effort.
It may all come to nought, but at least he trying, herding a bunch of cats with over inflated ego's into one room was an achievement in itself.

From what I know, not much. Less than a GA Charter pilot.

Goodbye...back to Days of Our Lives then!

Gerry111 - Many years ago I agreed with you. It was the efforts of Ben Morgan to rattle the cage, and his effectiveness in doing so, that made me renew my membership 3 years ago and this year to join the board.
I would urge you to step back and take a dispassionate look at the effort expended and the results so far, and perhaps re-consider.

General Aviation needs to present a strong and united front ans as a CASA inspector said to me the other day... an object will remain in motion until it is deflected by an opposing force. GA does not have the mass of Government, but we might be able to achieve the acceleration with your support and that of others.

Cheers

I agree Horatio and apologise that my comments regarding AOPA are negative. But many years ago as a member, there was consensus that if anything was to be achieved politically, the membership fees would need to be massively increased. I was happy with that then, despite AOPA real estate assets in Canberra being squandered.

And then nothing was really achieved. The CASA Regulatory Reform process never took off. That's from about 20 years ago.

I do realise that Ben's efforts are admirable despite unsophisticated. And I have no doubt that nothing will be achieved from the Wagga talkfest.

Did CASA Chairman, Jeff Boyd attend? And were any undertakings by CASA promised?

(The reason that I rag Ben, is that his title as AOPA Executive Director is a bit pretentious to me.)

Jeff Boyd is not CASA Chairman any longer.

My oops!
So who is now and did that person attend?

gerry 111,
Given that is his position, as described in corporate documentation, what would suit your particular view of life, "chief clerk"?? Head cook and bottle washer??
He is a member of the board, he is the Chief Executive.
As for all the achievements of AOPA efforts towards reform, particularly between 1996 and 2001, you just haven't been paying attention.
Tootle pip!!

Gerry 111...if you think Morgans title is 'over the top' read a few of the "titles" some of the CAsA whackos have got. Ben doent even make the cut

Gerry111,
Do you understand the ramifications of our CASR Parts 21- 35, and where that came from, do you think it just appeared out of the mist one morning over Canberra, or was crafted by the CASA "iron ring", out of the goodness of their wooden hearts.

Do you understand that Part 21 is the basis for the huge expansion of AUF/RAOz, Experimental Amateur Built and Limited Category (Warbirds) since 1998.

Do you understand what an advance the original PIFR represented?

All that, and more, ONLY happened because of AOPA effort, subsequent to the reforms to AOPA pushed through by Dick Smith and Boyd Munro in 1994/95.

I appreciate that many of you only feel "comfortable" with "kiss a---", rather than "kick a---", but the latter works, the former just leaves a bad taste.

Ben is doing what has to be done, if anything is to be achieved, given the Minister's most recent statements, he has not yet "got the message", there is a lot more to be done to "convince" the Minister it is in his personal and the Government's collective political interest to take action.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The airlines made major gains out of Parts 21-25 as well, not just the little end of town ---- the whole aviation sector will gain from US style regulation, just as NZ has done post their 1990's reforms, NZ reforms that have now been adopted around the Pacific and into parts of Asia.

In April 1997 The Minister and the Board adopted the new COOP/Classifications of Operations Policy
Not another something that came out the Canberra fog overnight either.... Government Policy FFS.!!!
What use the Bored not to see it through.
21 Years of lost opportunities since then for GA because the CAsA Controlling Soviet didnt want it...cant give the untrustworthy, unsafe aviation citizens more freedoms...bugger that.!
And they did.
And that's why we are where we are today...going political.

Sunfish, does this mean the summit is directly attacking that part by which the CASA rules all?

LeadSled said:

:D:D

Totally, Precisely, Absolutely, and without a doubt. :D

Beautifully put LeadSled.

What IS in doubt though is why the idiot Minister and his minders can't seem to grasp the logic, sense and simplicity of this, and instead believe that the complex mess imposed on Australian aviation by the lunatics at CASA is the right way to continue. The mind boggles :ugh:

It still staggers me that CASA are trying to implement the findings of the Seaview inquiry. That accident happened on 2nd October 1994 and the coroner's findings were released in about 1996. The morphing of Charter and RPT functions, maintenance and administration will result in a further significant decline in GA operations including small operators, small schools and GA small business.
I personally struggle to see a light at the end of the regulatory tunnel. Most days I am not even sure there IS a tunnel.

LeadSled, I agree that AOPA achieved a lot in the mid to late 1990's as your examples certainly prove. That's why I became a member, then.
My criticism is that during recent years, AOPA has achieved IMHO, SFA for their membership. (That's as far as the CASA regulatory reform process is involved.)
I remain unconvinced that Ben's Wagga talkfest will change that anytime soon.

Quite possibly one of the following;

The Minister does not want to do so, or

The many highly {over} paid minders surrounding him { of whom few, if any, would have any knowledge about any type of Aviation} advise him that nothing needs to be done.

LeadSled; I'm with SUIYA, Well put!:ok: The fact that PNG replaced their previously Aussie based regulations with the NZ ones really says something as far as I'm concerned. In my time there at least, there were a few locals highly placed in Government circles who actually realised that the GA sector was absolutely essential to the remote parts of the Country. Some of them really did well out of that too!:E

Dunno about that now though.....:{:hmm:

The Minister's Aviation advisor Steven Campbell is former CFI at Tyabb, ex Chief Pilot of Air Frontier, ex Air North, Ex Kendells, Ex Cathay 777 C&T.
Worryingly/tellingly he was manager of the Part 61/Part 141/Part 142 review team.

...so I am certain he will be telling the Genuine Minister she's all good mate.

Horatio,
Actually, what CASA is doing IS NOT what Seaview recommended.

Seaview DID NOT recommend that charter and RPT should all be to the one standard.

Seaview did NOT require that ALL OPERATIONS be to the highest (most restrictive) possible "standard".

What Seaview DID recommend was, in simplified form: If two similar aircraft are sitting side side, about to conduct functionally identical operations, ie: published scheduled passenger transport operations to Lord Howe Island, they should be operated to the same standard, whatever that standard might be.

What CASA is doing is implementing its preferred creative (as in micro-management and control) interpretation, based on the reasonable assumption that most people, including politicians and aviation industry people will not even have read the actual findings, much less understood them.

Another great example of tell the lie often enough, and most people will believe it is the truth.

What you are seeing is the post Bruce Byron era "policy" results, implemented by a crew that took a "day zero" scorched earth approach to anything before Byron's departure date.

And my qualifications for my statement ---- in 1996, I was given a job to do by the then Minister, which was, in part, to implement the Seaview recommendation, so there is at least half a chance that I understand what the recommendations actually were.

Tootle pip!!

HL...



Based on the track record of certain other people who were 'Ex Cathay' and who were also involved in decision-making at a regulatory level, I'm not really so sure that's an endorsement that we should really be impressed with. :8

Sadly, that's the truth Sunfish.