AFAP would not support DS legislative change proposal
 

I am sure everyone remembers how I managed to get Barnaby Joyce, the Minister for Transport, and Anthony Albanese, the Shadow Minister for Transport, to agree with an important change to the Civil Aviation Act.

The wording that “CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” was going to be changed to the following:

One of the reasons it didn’t go ahead was that the AFAP came out against it. This is what they said to me in a letter:


I really feel for AFAP members. There seems to be something wrong with the hierarchy in the union. There are hundreds of AFAP members out of work, and even when the Coronavirus issue has settled, it is likely that many will remain out of work.

Who could possibly be against the statements about “maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry” and “the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation”? Surely it is what the regulator should be doing.

I believe in this particular case, the new Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack took notice of the AFAP, and that is one of the reasons why the change has not come in.

What a disaster.

Cancelled my membership the other day. This just further justifies to myself that I made the right call.

Were there hundreds out of work when the AFAP wrote you that letter, Dick?

AFAP = Wankers

So you really think the current Minister for Transport took notice of a pilots' union? And not that he and Barnaby Joyce are known to loathe one another?

I've got a couple of questions.
one, did they tell the appropriate ministers or parliamentarians that they opposed, supported or were not taking a position on your requested changes?

two, was the letter they sent to you a statement that they were opposing those changes or taking a public position in opposition to them, or did they simply not want to get involved in whatever you were up to?

Because there's a world of difference between a union or public body taking a position opposing something, versus simply not wanting to get involved in whatever the person who has written to them is doing. I'm not against the changes you are hoping for here, but the context of the letter and their actions relating to it makes a big difference here. Also as Cap Bloggs has said, on what date approximately was the letter sent?

... and what have been your dealings personally with this mob Sunfish?

Why do you abbreviate your name to DS and talk about yourself in the third person in the title?

Not the time at the moment, nice little quip about hundreds of AFAP members out of work, that will definitely win friends and further your position with members and the wider pilot community.

Give it a rest DS.

The title is simply a heading that communicates in a straightforward way what the post is about.

It’s all about succinct messaging.

Fortunately I can afford the high costs that are forced on the industry by the regulator and it would be easier for me to say and do nothing.

However I do have a concern for those who lose or can’t get jobs when it can be so easily fixed when the present times are over.

The fact that the AFAP did not come out in support of this important change stopped me in my tracks!

Would you like me to post both my email to the AFAP and the Presidents answer?

After all nothing should be secret when it comes to air safety!

Absolutely. Please post and then Members-if concerned-can address the issue with the Executive.

Squawk, I simply note that professional pilot associations, Airlines and the RAAF, CASA and AsA, have absolutely no interest in:



They are thus part of the problem, not the solution.

All of them have vested interests in the status quo. They like being an exclusive little club and Dicks overtures are about as popular as Donald Trump is with feminists. The last thing any of these organizations want is more GA or Recreational Aircraft “polluting their airspace”. In addition as a group there is also the possibility that they are simpl snobs.

To put that another way, exactly when has there been any support for reform from those bodies? Never.

Hullo Planet Earth...!
What a truly amazing, mind boggling statement from the APF... CAsA is already empowered to over regulate "safety", but they are not empowered to regulate trade and commerce ...which they do.

Post covid. Revo;lution needed !!

Back in the 80's that was certainly the case. The AFAP then was a supremely elitist and arrogant closed shop union. Then came the debacle of 1989 which brought them and their members serious grief.
Over the years since, in order to survive they have become more moderate and taken a closer interest in GA. There are examples of GA pilots who were shafted by employers who have the AFAP to thank for recovered entitlements. Of course GA operators don't like them, but they are after all a union, not a trade association.
In my own case, not too long ago I had a serious stoush with CASA over a quite trivial matter which they blew up to the point where it could have impacted on my ability to earn a crust. The free legal assistance that came from the AFAP was worth more than I could have afforded had I engaged my own lawyer. While CASA never admitted that their overly zealous officer and ambiguous regulation was at fault, I have had nothing but co-operation from them since.

Dick, are you in a position to post up their entire reply? This seems like a cherry picked quote from their letter that leaves out possible reasoning behind it. I'm not saying that I can think of any particular reason why they would but I'm also very much not a fan of cherry picking to prove a point when they may have had very valid reasons that we haven't considered yet.

One thing to consider is that this Paragraph is great and would be a good step forward but for example the way a paragraph like this interacts with the entire legislation is extremely important. If I remember correctly one issue that was brought up when this was first discussed here was that there was another paragraph involving safety that effectively allowed CASA to override this one on the grounds of "Safety" which meant they were in a position to just keep doing what they've already been doing. This is just an example not directly related to the AFAP reply but the possible reasons for the line you've quoted.

Many years ago, my Gliding club received a rather nasty communication from the AFAP requiring evidence that all our pilots were being paid in accordance with the award. Failure to comply was to result in legal action.
We did not own a powered aeroplane ( winch launching was used ) and had no commercial pilots among our membership.

As already noted - W#$%KERS!

Of course CASA bureaucrats do put cost in front of safety when it comes to the powerful airlines.

For example CASA allows twin engined wide bodies when they have a greater chance of being downed by a bird strike compared to a four engined aircraft.

Why do they allow this? For one reason alone- affordability! It results in slightly lower airfares and higher profits ( or less losses) for the airline industry.

There is no other reason. Pity they can’t use the same commonsense with GA.

Hypocrisy? So you are saying CASA should not support ETOPs like every other "advanced" aviation regulator?

Vag, Hypocracy?...irony more like it. Are four engine aircraft safer than two? CAsA regulates for "Safety" only, Oh and making sure they are not liable for anything.

CASA only allows ETOPS because in this case they have put cost as the most important consideration. That must be the only explanation. A four engined aircraft of the same design standards as a twin will always be slightly safer when it comes to bird strike.

So why do they insist that their Act keeps the words. - safety is the most important consideration?

It’s all about an allowed code of dishonesty.

Unfortunately it destroys the GA industry.

Sunfish,

In a previous thread you asked for and I provided you with a multitude of ways that the RAAF and wider ADF support and foster GA.

Funny how in a thread that has nothing to do with military aviation you've managed to drag it back into focus, nothing like flogging a dead horse, eh.