[Peetwo]

LMH 03/08/18: Yarrawonga on the market, CASA needs Ockham's Razor and trading flight for life.

Via the Yaffa:

The Last Minute Hitch: 3 August 2018
3 Aug 2018

---

– Steve Hitchen

Those that fly around Victoria's north or the south-east of NSW will know that Yarrawonga is one of the handiest and most friendly airports in the area. Home to a small pilot shop, manufacturers of aircraft covers and maintenance organisations, it's a pivotal location for a fuel stop, food stop or just a quick chat. Now it looks like that could all come to an end soon. Moira Shire Council has declared that it costs too much to run and therefore is going to sell it. I would like to advise the council that it's not good salesmanship to tell the whole world the merchandise is very costly to run; it makes it very clear that to turn a profit the new owners would have to crank up the income. That means massive increases in landing fees and rents that will see the airport usage decline and the business have to move out. But, that could be the plan. If they think they can sell Yarrawonga airport as a going concern, the council must be populated by fools. It remains then that they know any new owner won't be able to make a go of it and the decision to sell is effectively a decision to not have an airport at Yarrawonga anymore. And that will have an impact on the shire that they are pretending it won't; there is a lot of money that flows into Moira Shire that is not credited to the airport's balance sheet. I can cite cases of pilots who own holiday homes in Yarrawonga that would probably sell them if they can't fly up there rather than drive. But then again, aviation-averse councils such as Moira can see only the income from development and not the benefits of connection to the rest of the country that only an airport can bring. I sincerely hope that after the airport is gone, no-one ever needs to be air-lifted from Yarrawonga to the Alfred Hospital.

Since when is flying under the oversight of an incorrect solution safe?

There have been a couple of instances this week where interpretation has misled people to make some erroneous statements with a great deal of honesty. Please forgive me if I don't go into them; I'll probably just make the same mistakes. But for me it has put intense focus on the problem of complexity in Australia's aviation rules and the language we use to write them. CASA, the government and the Labor Party are sticking to their guns that the primary focus of aviation regulation must be safety, so how the hell they allow regulations to be written the way they are is simply bewildering. It is not in any way safe for regulations to be open to interpretation in such a way that they are regularly misinterpreted! There is an old saying in the technical writing industry: if there are two ways to intrepret what you wrote, someone will interpret it the way you didn't mean. David Forsyth touched on this in the ASRR report handed down in 2014, recommending we start talking in plain English, and it needs to happen very soon. I am pleased to see that CASA has said the Manual of Standards for the new GA maintenance regs will be done in plain English; this is a good start in what is a very long road. However, there is still the problem of complexity, which was highlighted at the recent GA summit at Wagga Wagga when hard copies of all the Australian regs were laid out on a table. There were five four-ring binders, two two-ring binders and ERSA. By comparison, the US regs were sat along side them: two books. I'm going to again quote my favourite philosophy because I think it's very pertinent here. Ockham's Razor says "All thing being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the correct one." It therefore follows that the most complex answer tends to be the incorrect one. Since when is flying under the oversight of an incorrect solution safe?

Facebook group Pilot's Lounge Australia has linked up with Bush Flyers Down Under to raise money for struggling Australian farmers. This is a great initiative and well worth the aviation community's support. The idea is to work out how much it costs you to go flying for an hour, donate that money via an online campaign to Drought Angels and go an do something else instead. It's called Trading Flight for Life. I know, what else would you rather do but fly? In this instance the cause is a great one, and if it means sacrificing an hour in the air to help out the farmers, many of whom live their lives in the dark shadow of bankruptcy, then it really is a small price to pay.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...oTiyXMM.99

---

Comment:

Martin Hone • 12 hours ago

It is both sad and frustrating to hear of another council deciding that it can no longer afford its own airport, and that the only option is to sell out to the development vultures. But even you have missed the bleeding obvious, Steve. What about the council helping to set up an airpark ? Hell, there is already a bunch of committed enthusiasts living and working on the airfield. With a little imagination and work, the facility could be made more attractive to a greater number of aviators so that it becomes sustainable and the council benefits from a cash injection from land sales plus ongoing rates. It works in other parts of the country, as you well know.

Next: Fort Fumble review of 2 in the cockpit rule -   

Via the Oz:

Two in the cockpit rule relaxed
ROBYN IRONSIDE
Australia’s major airlines are rethinking the ‘two in the cockpit’ rule after a review found the practice to be fraught with risk.

---

Australia’s major airlines are rethinking the “two in the cockpit” rule after a review found the practice to be fraught with risk.

The rule was adopted by multiple airlines worldwide following the 2015 Germanwings crash in which co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked his captain out of the cockpit and crashed the A320 into mountains, killing all 150 people on board.

Under the rule, a crew member is required to take the place of the captain or co-pilot if one of them leave the cockpit for a bathroom break.

When the practice was adopted by Australian airlines in agreement with the federal government a week after the German­wings crash, it was decided a review would be conducted after 12 months.

Yesterday Civil Aviation Safety Authority acting chief executive Graeme Crawford revealed the review had identified “unintended consequential risks” from the practice.

These included the “second person in the cockpit potentially distracting the pilot, making inadvertent contact with cockpit switches and taking cabin crew away from their safety role in the cabin”, he said.

“It was also found the practice complicated flight crew access to the cockpit and introduced an additional risk of flight deck incursion,” Mr Crawford said.

“(CASA’s) recommendation is for air operators to evaluate their own safety requirements and make an operational decision on whether to maintain ‘two in the cockpit’ in their standard operating procedures.”

In response, Qantas said it would consider “implementing a change to the current procedure”. Similarly, Virgin Australia said it was reviewing its position on the practice and would provide a further update soon.

European airlines including Lufthansa, Swiss and Austrian Airlines have already ended the practice after Europe’s Aviation Safety Agency relaxed the requirement.

Australian International Pilots Association president Murray Butt said the rule’s introduction was an overreaction and the ­organisation welcomed CASA’s recommendation.

“The rule was introduced without any analysis of the risk factors of having a third person coming into the flight deck,” Mr Butt said.

“We hope the airlines move quickly and they can make the public understand that while the two in the cockpit rule was introduced to placate public fears, now they’ve had a good look at it, it’s not such a good idea.”

He said it was more important to work on mental health programs for pilots.

Marcus Diamond from the Australian Federation of Air ­Pilots said they were hopeful the airlines would respond quickly to CASA’s recommendation.

“We couldn’t see any real benefit from (the rule),” Mr Diamond said.

 
& from Creepy:

Australia eases Germanwings two-person cockpit rule
By
Steve Creedy
579
August 03, 2018 


Australian airlines will be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have two people in the cockpit at all times.

The Australian government followed the lead of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and adopted the two-in-the cockpit rule for aircraft with a seating capacity of more than 50 passengers after the crash of Germanwings Flight 9252 crash in March, 2015.

Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who had been diagnosed with suicidal tendencies, deliberately flew the aircraft into the side of a French mountain, killing 144 passengers and six crew.

The idea was to have another crew member enter the cockpit if one of the pilots left for any reason but the practice has raised a number of safety and security issues.

EASA eased the two-person rule in August, 2017,  and German airlines revealed they would abandon it April this year, arguing it increased security risks rather lowered them.

Australia’s  Civil Aviation Safety Authority said a review of the practice in Australia found there were “unintended consequential risks, including the second person in the cockpit potentially distracting the pilot, making inadvertent contact with cockpit switches and taking cabin crew away from their safety role in the cabin”.

“It was also found the practice complicated flight crew access to the cockpit and introduced an additional risk of flight deck incursion,’’ CASA said in a recent briefing note.

“The recommendation is for air operators to evaluate their own safety requirements and make an operational decision on whether to maintain ‘two in the cockpit’ in their standard operating procedures.

“CASA’s aviation medicine branch will continue to monitor pilot mental health and maintain a high level of awareness among pilots of mental health priorities and sources of assistance.”

Australian pilot unions have welcomed the decision to ease the rules.

It comes as the EU recently published strengthened mental health guidelines for pilots.

The new rules mean all European airlines will need to perform a psychological assessment of pilots before they start employment, something many airlines already do.

They also include a support program for all pilots working for European airlines to help them “recognize, cope with and overcome “problems which might negatively affect their ability to safely exercise the privileges of their license”

Mandatory alcohol testing will be extended to pilots and cabin crew of all European and foreign airlines that fly into the EU.

MTF...P2