02-08-2022, 06:58 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2022, 09:35 AM by thorn bird.)
My dear K,
Words. Hypocrisy, sham, safety, ambiguous, lies, rhetoric and so many more.
We rarely hear a question asked, Why? How? Who? To what end? To achieve what? At what cost? Logical?
The biggest question is Why? followed by, have we achieved the result we intended? followed by at what cost?
Why would Australia embark on the folly we have with regard to aviation regulation. to what end?
It should be apparent by now that the end result has severely impacted on the viability of general aviation to survive.
Was that the intended result, if so why?
Some would say the reform project was actioned because the previous regulations were out of date, written to protect and enforce the old protectionist two airline duopoly and needed to be rewritten to reflect Australia's new deregulation policy.
GA never was and never has been a threat to RPT activity, by its very nature it operates outside the RPT sphere and in many cases compliments RPT operators rather than competes.
By its very nature and the essential work it does, and the equipment it uses, GA could never match RPT in the safety stakes, attempting to make it so is quite simply illogical. As we are seeing, attempting to regulate with a one size fits all regulatory suite, to achieve the impossible, is never going to work, a futile exercise.
If the intended exercise is to achieve "Safety" whatever that is defined as, does that require the complete shutdown of all GA activity? Its illogical, as there are other forms of transport statistically far less safe than general aviation.
It seems to me that the word "Safety" really means perception of risk tolerable by the public, that perception of course is driven by the media. Aviation accidents are so rare that when they occur its newsworthy therefore garnering media attention which sensationalises the event, putting the impression in the public's mind that flying is inherently dangerous yet ignore the carnage that occurs on our roads every day.
I cannot get my head around why Australia, with a minuscule aviation industry, would attempt to produce a unique regulatory suite for aviation without regard to alignment with the giants of the aviation world, expend huge amounts of money to do so, yet achieve no better safety outcomes.
Aviation is the most regulated industry in the world, it would seem to me the logical thing to do would be to align with the biggest thus reducing cost burdens that apply and the brick walls that occur when one regulation is out of step with another.
The united States has by far the largest aviation industry in the world, there is a reason for that. A mature regulatory suite that does not stifle innovation or participation and produces arguably better safety outcomes than Australia does.
Australia could for very little cost do what New Zealand did and adopt the US FAR's its incredulous Australia didn't do that in the first place, its the logical thing to do.
Words. Hypocrisy, sham, safety, ambiguous, lies, rhetoric and so many more.
We rarely hear a question asked, Why? How? Who? To what end? To achieve what? At what cost? Logical?
The biggest question is Why? followed by, have we achieved the result we intended? followed by at what cost?
Why would Australia embark on the folly we have with regard to aviation regulation. to what end?
It should be apparent by now that the end result has severely impacted on the viability of general aviation to survive.
Was that the intended result, if so why?
Some would say the reform project was actioned because the previous regulations were out of date, written to protect and enforce the old protectionist two airline duopoly and needed to be rewritten to reflect Australia's new deregulation policy.
GA never was and never has been a threat to RPT activity, by its very nature it operates outside the RPT sphere and in many cases compliments RPT operators rather than competes.
By its very nature and the essential work it does, and the equipment it uses, GA could never match RPT in the safety stakes, attempting to make it so is quite simply illogical. As we are seeing, attempting to regulate with a one size fits all regulatory suite, to achieve the impossible, is never going to work, a futile exercise.
If the intended exercise is to achieve "Safety" whatever that is defined as, does that require the complete shutdown of all GA activity? Its illogical, as there are other forms of transport statistically far less safe than general aviation.
It seems to me that the word "Safety" really means perception of risk tolerable by the public, that perception of course is driven by the media. Aviation accidents are so rare that when they occur its newsworthy therefore garnering media attention which sensationalises the event, putting the impression in the public's mind that flying is inherently dangerous yet ignore the carnage that occurs on our roads every day.
I cannot get my head around why Australia, with a minuscule aviation industry, would attempt to produce a unique regulatory suite for aviation without regard to alignment with the giants of the aviation world, expend huge amounts of money to do so, yet achieve no better safety outcomes.
Aviation is the most regulated industry in the world, it would seem to me the logical thing to do would be to align with the biggest thus reducing cost burdens that apply and the brick walls that occur when one regulation is out of step with another.
The united States has by far the largest aviation industry in the world, there is a reason for that. A mature regulatory suite that does not stifle innovation or participation and produces arguably better safety outcomes than Australia does.
Australia could for very little cost do what New Zealand did and adopt the US FAR's its incredulous Australia didn't do that in the first place, its the logical thing to do.