Six airports to be decertified including Mallacoota
 

I have made several AngeFlights to Mallacoota - its a very isolated community with very limited health services - I'm disappointed that I'll loose the option of an instrument approach.

Does anyone know what would need to be done for it to retain certification?


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-...bZXUYv7a8e8wIc

Only a small requirement to maintain certification called “Part 139”.
More council owned facilities and mining ventures are disappearing on a regular basis.

It may required some “well-off” financial contributors to keep it certified or community fundraising or lobbying local/state and federal government. It’s a sad state of affairs when you cannot keep a community asset in a fair state of operation.

So CASA introduce new rules then want to go and exempt everyone from the new rules??? Why bother in the first instance?

The same council runs Bairnsdale and Marlo/Orbost.

I’ve been trying to work with them to them to get cameras installed, even making the front page of the local paper and still nothing from the council. They keep saying “it’s all in the airport master plan” which has been in progress for the last 15 years. A joke.

That story is all over the place. How is Ambulance Victoria and other emergency services obtaining "permission to land using the instrument flight approach"?

Apply to CASA and grandfather the existing infrastructure.The council didn't do anything. They worked out how much it might cost, sh*t themselves, and didn't look at options.

Question....How do the RFDS, Police, Firefighters, Air Ambulance etc., get along if called upon to land in IMC conditions at this 'unlicensed aerodrome'...

For an evac or whatever..??

Sorry Mr T,
We must have been typing at the same time....and I ain't up to your speed.....

That's cos my course was 25 after yours!

The emergency Services can still do the instrument approach - it's called the Merimbula RNP approach. If the ambulance can't get in from grid lowest safe
the only alternative is a road transport to Merimbula.
Love these changes that send aviation backwards. Like medical flights in Part 135 now have to apply the performance requirements of Part 121, so now
having to factor the landings at 1.43 and 1.67. Wipes out a huge amount of airfields for the King Air 350 - airfields that have been used for eons.

I’ve taken the community concerns over the future operation of Mallacoota Airport directly to the Federal Minister for Transport.

Changes made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have led to a decertification of the airport for instrument landings in times of poor visibility.

I am supporting the Shire of East Gippsland in its efforts to get the Minister and CASA to understand the unintended consequences of the new rules.

The changes which have impacted regional airports like Mallacoota are the latest in a long list of compliance costs and regulations which are impacting the general aviation sector.

The regulatory burden which falls on the aviation industry has a disproportionate impact on smaller regional operators who don’t have a vast administration team to do all the paperwork demanded by CASA.

As a former Minister, I was constantly trying to get the CASA bureaucracy to understand the real-world impacts of their rules and regulations on small operators.

These latest changes, supposedly in the name of safety, are more likely to endanger lives and delay treatment for locals and visitors to Mallacoota.

Mallacoota obviously relies on air access during emergency situations but also non-urgent flights to bring medical specialists to town will be impacted and people will have reduced access to preventative care.

Nobody wants to compromise on safety but nothing has changed at the Mallacoota Airport in terms of instruments landings in poor weather, except CASA has changed the rules.

#lovegippsland

Can we stop calling these sorts of things "Unintended Consequences", it implies there was any real thought as to consequences at all when CASA clearly just don't bother to stop and think about it.

Dear Ex-Minister,

Am I missing something here?
"As a former Minister, I was constantly trying to get the CASA bureaucracy to understand the real-world impacts of their rules and regulations on small operators."

Trying to distance yourself from an organisation over which you had direct control, as Minister, has to be the most disingenuous piece of political nonsense I have ever read.
You had the power to tell CASA how to operate and over-rule any bureaucratic decision you thought was against the interest of the people of Australia, who elected you.

If you were unable to get your own executive arm of government to administer the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations in a way that recognised "the real-world impacts" of their actions, this is a reflection on you, not them.
I was once told, by a senior manager in CASA, that his job was to ensure that nothing happened that would adversely affect the chances of his Minister being re-elected.

At that time, you were that Minister.

No he didn’t. That’s precisely why the Parliament sets up independent statutory authorities.

Only the Parliament can change this paradigm, but the Laborials (including Dazzling Darren Chester and whichever hack is the latest seat warmer) have generally been happy to abdicate responsibility to CASA.

Minister without power?
 

I agree with Mr. Approach, he could have issued detailed Statements of Expectations for one, and at least tried to resume proper Departmental and hence Ministerial control with an amended Act. The CASA Board and CEO, not to say much of the Can’tberra bureaucracy, would have sniffed the wind and come to heal. This would have meant Thatcher type leadership where policy was pursued in spite of risk and in full understanding of accountability and responsibility. It’s called democracy. The 34 year debacle of CASA, the independent Commonwealth sponsored monopoly flies in the face of the Westminster system that relies on Ministerial responsibility. Not one Transport Aviation Minister has had the mind to see what is wrong and at least attempt to rectify this disastrous CASA induced decline of our once busy General Aviation sector.
The 1988 idea of the Government Business Enterprise, a farcical piece of muddle headed policy if ever there was, is still there with the CASA make work salary factory and fee for everything including numerous unnecessary permissions.
The system gives lie to the argument for yet more independent commissions or bodies like your IBACS and ombudsman thus removing our elected representatives even further from responsibility and the power to make improvements.
Back in the 1960s the Ombudsman concept was enthusiastically taken up by the Victorian Liberal Party. I was one supporter of this new idea. Yes marvellous independence, like a footy umpire. The Premier Henry Bolte was dead against the whole idea.
He was so right, take away responsibility from your elected representatives and you will only spoil your democracy.
Take just one Ombudsman office, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, it spends $40 million every year. If that money was spent by our MPs looking after their constituents we would have far better governance.
If all of the money spent by wasteful CASA and take into account $billions generated by increased private enterprise GA, plus money from deleting your IBACs and put a proportion of that into making our courts more available you will get a much better and equable outcome.

And what is the penalty for failing to comply with the Minister's Statement of Expectations? Please cite the law that says: "If CASA does not comply with the Minister's Statement of Expectations [....insert words...]. Penalty: [...insert words...]."

He could have "at least tried to resume proper Departmental and hence Ministerial control with an amended Act." But he didn't want to. None of the Laborials do. They are quite happy to continue with bipartisan abdication to the regulator.

What now?
 

It’s easy enough to throw brickbats, how to make better is the question. Should there be a Private Members Bill to disband CASA and have its functions resumed in a Department of Government?
We need a Friends of Aviation group in the Parliament and the Member for Gippsland might well be a big help to formulating a reform policy.
So far as this latest CASA policy about IFR approaches into the likes of Mallacoota, words fail. But this is what to expect from the regulator which is simply out of control, costs and practicality are meaningless to CASA.

The Laborials, including Chester, won't support a Bill to that effect. Won't get through the Senate.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them.

Can’t be done?
 

Nobody would bother to put ideas out, here or anywhere else, unless there’s some hope that sooner or later there’ll be a collective view that inspires change through the Parliament.

IS this any different to CAsA's attempt a few years back when they were going to decertify several hundred airports', ALA's, hospital HLS', etc??

I particularly love this quote.
Unless you need to descend through cloud in order to see the runway.

And to think that idiot is the CEO of the organization that represents airports nationwide... FML.:ugh:

The consequences of CASAs actions are obvious to anyone who studies human behaviour:

- an increase in the number of CFIT fatalities at formerly certified airports.

Why? Because people will make up “home made” instrument approaches that attempt to duplicate what was once available.

The bloke is a tool. Read his LinkedIn bio, he has no aviation experience prior to commencing his current role with the AAA. Just another wordsmith, policy maker, ‘communications expert’ - all piss and wind and exactly what the industry doesn’t need.

The counterproductive strategies of CASA
 

Sunfish identifies one most serious consequence of CASA’s relentless disregard of cost and practicality in virtually all of its regulatory approach.

The CASA strait jacket doesn’t fit and over the years the great majority of the General Aviation community has lost respect for the regulator and its laws. Unlike the rules around surface transport which are largely respected, being practical and fit for purpose.

The result in GA is pervasive, unhealthy and stultifying. A blot on our Nation.

You've conflated my assertion that a specific tactic won't work while ever the Laborials continue to control the Senate for a suggestion that absolutely nothing can be done.

Chester's recent aerodrome corro is pantomime. He as Minister would have received similar corro and have done with it what the current Minister will now do with Mr Chester's corro. And that pantomime has been going on for decades. Throwing rocks one day in opposition and ducking them the next as Minister. And on the rare occasions that CASA could be bothered to pay any attention to the pantomime, it just laughs.

Correctly focussed and timed action is the only thing that has some small chance of bringing about substantial change.

How to achieve change and reform
 

Quote LB :-

“Correctly focussed and timed action is the only thing that has some small chance of bringing about substantial change.”

Yes but what action or actions is obviously the burning question.

In addition there’s no doubt that numbers of voices and persistence give weight and momentum to the call for reform. The deletion of the Cessna SIDs program is one reform that we could reasonably assume would not have come about if not for the General Aviation community voicing its concerns.

Ring, write contact your local MP and State Senators regularly. My local MP certainly knows me and knows he will get an earful whenever we meet and his staff always have correspondence from myself to deal with.

PS, Good to see Darren Chester, former Minister, making a contribution on the thread dealing with the CASA induced Mallacoota airport problem. Any MP that might be persuaded to read that thread, and such as this, will undoubtedly be better informed about the disastrous losses that have occurred in GA. The continual CASA strangling of what should be a vibrant sector employing many more thousands must be recognised.

What aspect of Part 139 and MOS triggered this decision by the Council. CASA did not threaten to decertify aerodromes? The regulatory status terminology changed from “regulated” to “ certified” for some aerodromes.

Perhaps they did, because there were grandfathering clauses built in. Perhaps the fault lies more with the council failing (or choosing not) to act, rather than CASA changing the rules.

CASA said grant options and exemptions were offered to smaller aerodromes, though the council did not apply for either on behalf of the Mallacoota Airport.

"Grandfathering provisions applied to existing facilities, including Mallacoota Airport, so smaller aerodromes did not need costly work to meet the new standards," CASA said.

"No infrastructure changes were required as part of the transition process."

Methinks this is more a ploy of the council to shame the Feds into stumping up for some improvements, rather than them either electing to maintain the status quo, or paying themselves. Only 6 out of 350? Perhaps Angel Flight should rethink who it is pointing the finger at.
When you look at the other 5 airports, perhaps South Gippsland Council should reconsider the company it compares itself with.

Unusually, I find myself in agreement with Vag277.

Given Squawk7700's experience with the specific council concerned, and my experience with councils on matters aerodrome, it is quite possible that the council has put the local aerodromes into the 'it's-no-longer-worth-the-effort' basket.

It's also possible that the council is engaging in the sport of level-of-government blame-shifting, encouraged and aided by Mr Chester. Let's think about what tactic would be better for the Member for Gippsland's (Mr Chester's) popularity: Calling on a Gippsland shire council to get off its backside and sort through the transitional arrangements and exemptions to maintain the certification status of the aerodrome, or dumping on a Federal agency for complex rules made "supposedly in the name of safety". (Surely, as Minister, Mr Chester noticed that all rules made by CASA are "supposedly in the name of safety".)

And it's possible that property developers are licking their lips at the prospect of getting hold of aerodrome land and have given council a 'do we have a deal for you' proposal, and council needs a convenient excuse to give it the tick.

Or a combination of some or all of the above.

As an interesting but relevant aside, CASR Part 175 is the single biggest bureaucratic overreach in relation to small aerodromes. In this thread titled 'Lost - 2000+ airfields' I 'mocked up' a letter from Airservices to the Upper Kikatinlong Shire Council setting out the requirements of Part 175:That thread was started in 2017, when none other than Dazzling Darren was the Minister. I don't recall him giving himself an uppercut for Part 175.

You do yourself a disservice, LB. I remember that letter well. I also remember the address you used to attempt to explain why ASA "Couldn't contact" the Aeronautical Data Originator of Upper Bumphuck Council. :ok:

In this day and age of RNP Runway aligned instrument approaches you could easily write a MOS that just required survey of the approach and missed approach and runway strip splays. Have it designed as no circling and that's it, nothing else is required really for it to be safe for RNP IAP operations. I don't see why a non certified aerodrome can't have runway align RNPs if those critical areas alone are maintained. You could quite easily install cameras that monitor these zones for periodic remote inspection and double as weather cams.

Exactly!

(Everyone knows where PO Box 1 the Gaffa is, KR!)

Thank you to all who responded to this post. It was an interesting read. I'm pleased to report a happy ending to this story (or at least this chapter).

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9ba41d83dd.jpg

Great news

Good news
 

As Ted implied good until next time.

Of course all the angst, time and trouble should never have occurred in the first place. If there’d been minuscule portion of a brain applied to the outcome of CASA’s latest regulatory change the problem would not have surfaced. It should have been well and truly ironed out beforehand. CASA’s budget is in excess of $200 million. Even given they don’t have the expertise that they should have, they could have quietly taken advice that would have made their changes acceptable and without unnecessary deleterious effects.

Sandy, I agree with you but I can understand how these happen through no ill will from either CASA or the council. This has all the hallmarks of something that has fallen through the cracks between CASA's processes and the council's own day to day worries. The rapid about face suggests an oversight rather than malice. The positive outcome is that CASA and the council have both been reminded that YMCO is an important community asset that needs to be look after.

It does make me wonder about the status of other airports that were under threat. Cheers FT.

Oversight?
 

With respect I think more on the mark to qualify CASA’s approach as thoughtless rather than oversight.
Having watched them fairly closely from my early days, from 1968, flying commercial GA, the pattern is clear, the more so since they were ousted from Ministerial control back in 1988.
Malice? Certainly in some individual cases it’s hard not to see elements of that but that’s not been suggested as their motivation here. Rather the CASA modus operandi is one of disregard for the practical effects of its ever more unworkable and costly regulations and administrative ways, or one could say straight up incompetence. CASA has around eight hundred employees plus consultants and costs us all in excess of $200 million pa. Pip Spence commenced as new CEO on the 17th May last year. Reading the CASA annual report to June 30th 2021, Ms. Spence received for her first six weeks a total remuneration of $253,089.

Couldn’t we expect a better service and no oversights on the crucial matter of airport access?