[Peetwo]

LMH 12 April 2019 & comments - 

Via Oz Flying:

– Steve Hitchen

Finally the starter has released the horses. This year, the race is short; a frantic dash down the front straight from the gates to the finish line. There are only two horses realistically in the race, but it appears that punters aren't really keen on either of them winning. This is the story of the 2019 Australian Federal Election. With only 36 days to sway the minds of the electorate, politicians one and all (except for half of the senate) will want desperately to be our best friends. But as in nearly all Federal Elections, the ramiifications for aviation are not clear, and even murkier when it comes to general aviation. Both the redcoats and the bluecoats have been talking it up in parliament with the Civil Aviation Amendment making it through the lower house easily. However, neither side appears to have the courage to challenge the status quo and make change that has serious impact for the industry. The Coalition has made their feeling clear, and are keen to be seen as the champions of aviation, but although they've made changes in the industry such as commissioning the ASRR and establishing the General Aviation Advisory Group, any benefits don't seem to have been felt on the factory floor. The redcoats are currently even worse. The ALP has not responded to requests for a dissertation on GA, meaning at this time we have only existing material to guide us flying voters. The last ALP document written in 2018 talks about jobs for workers, foreign ownership, air transport agreements and a swag of other issues that have no or very little bearing on the health of the GA industry. What the ALP has made clear is that the 2009 White Paper will form the basis of their policy going forward. In the end, the aviation vote is unlikely to propel either horse to the finish line, leaving us to be swept up in whatever surge comes from the general electorate, but we are a minority that services a majority and we deserve consideration.

The stat gurus are saying there's all sorts of problems with the CASA data

It seems the battle of the statisticians has come to pass. CASA has presented the senate with their data that they say supports their decision to impose restriction on community service flights (CSF), but Angel Flight has responded by using qualified statisticians as artillery to remove CASA from their high ground. According the Angel Flight's interpretation, the data CASA presented does not support the contention that CASA says it does. One of the sticking points seems to be the flight hours. CASA is using a base of 17,500 hours to derive that Angel Flight is more dangerous because four accidents over that time relates to a rate of 2.28 per 10,000 hours. However, Angel Flight is saying that over the sample period, they flew 46,000 flights. If CASA is correct, then each flight averaged only 23 minutes. Does that sound like an Angel Flight mission, given that distance to medical treatment is Angel Flight's raison d' etre? This is a very critical point. Say we give each CSF a duration of only one hour (savagely conservative), then the sample becomes 46,000 hours, or 0.86 incidents every 10,000, which, using CASA logic, actually makes CSF safer than private flights. Of course, that's simple mathematics. The stat gurus are saying there's all sorts of problems with the CASA data set and the conclusions drawn. If they're right, CASA's basis is hardly concrete, and certainly not stable enough to base regulation on. But just who's right and who's wrong? Looks like that might be up to the judge.

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

And from Sandy & Owen Bartrop:

−


Owen Bartrop • 3 days ago

I would like to see the aviation industry, possibly through AOPA, research CASA's changes or subsequent changes to the rules and regulations that they have suggested or made, say over the last ten years. That would show CASA's inability to make safe changes to those rules and regulations at their first or subsequent attempts.

This would give a view that CASA can't, or doesn't have the staff knowledge of aviation, or experience, to carry out it's duties in general aviation. From what I have ascertained, CASA has made so many errors and dreamed up unsafe suggestions that their capability to run safety in aviation must come into contention. The whole organisation as far as general flying is concerned should be stopped and rules and regulations given to someone that knows what they are doing.

---

Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

Glad that Hitch you are making the point and keeping up the pressure regarding the promise of reform that was the subject of the ASRR. The prospect of meaningful reform gulled many GA people into believing that, at last, the glaring necessity for change was recognised and action would follow. But as a few predicted, and recalling my article in a ‘guest appearance’ in this publication titled “High Hopes or Soft Soaps” (when nearly half of the recommendations were only accepted in principle) reform is impossible with the current administrative structure and lack of Ministerial or Parliamentary input.

In regard to statistics, whatever can be made out of the minute number of Angel Flight accidents, just plain commonsense tells us that nothing can be drawn from such a tiny sample. The CASA pretence and all their arguments are totally wasted time. The CASA authoritarianism knows no bounds, searching endlessly for more restrictions in it’s never ending zealotry to force us into a straight jacket of the ideal superhuman aviator. In other words being Australian is an anathema to the bureaucratic machine in Canberra.

In our perverse and unnatural National Capital of so little free enterprise or freehold, so far from the beach, I think they like to punish us for making them live there, even though we taxpayers compensate them 40% more than average for the rest of Australia.

PS, owned, worked and loved several Cessnas, all great, the 172 perhaps the most versatile, The 177 a delight, the 182 for extra performance and comfort. The 402 nine seater handles and flies so well and efficiently. Where to stop? Each with special characteristics, and like Beech and Piper, the US built aircraft are well made for purpose.

While we are on Sandy, I note the following off the UP - 

The CASA job description via KP says it all, another below read “bulk recruiting.”

---

The convoluted and verbose CASA personnel advertisement is excruciatingly childlike in it’s misguided attempt to make what should be a serious job of work into some sort of adventure in the CASA playground of thought bubbles and fantastic ‘outcomes.’ With super up to approx $163,000 pa, for a “non-ongoing” position with possible extension. The giveaway to the whole CASA modus operandi is that the program is “long term.”

It seems that CASA has money to burn, are they getting set for an advantageous change of Minister? Knowing unlikely he’ll chop them back because the majority of Canberrans vote Labor, bread and butter. Or perhaps to kid Mr. Albanese along as they successfully did the last time he was Minister with a bunch of safety necessary (exciting?) programs that needed another 200 employees? That necessitated a one off, only for four years, increase in aviation fuel levies that was estimated to yield $89.9 million. Next Minister Nat leader Warren Truss, neatly rolled (more probably didn’t notice) that one on into general revenue and its still there today, sucking life blood away from aviation into the bloated and steadily growing numbers in Can’tberra, population with Queanbeyan as per Gov stats 449,000, up from 380,000 just a handful of years ago. 

Isn’t the computer age wonderful? Everything is so accessible, easy to use and we need far less people doing mundane paperwork in taxpayer provided bureaucrat factories.

So bulk exciting! 

Bulk recruitment - WTD is that all about??


MTF..P2