Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CASA meets the Press
Last LMH for 2017 - Merry Xmas Hitch.. Wink

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: Steve-Hitchen4.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 15 December 2017
15 December 2017
    
– Steve Hitchen

Sometimes timing is everything, and it doesn't seem to have worked for CASA this week at all! With the ink still wet on their proposal to use Multicom 126.7 in Class G en route airspace beneath 5000 feet, they published their VFR ADS-B discussion paper. The two seem somewhat incompatible, because ADS-B is only of value to VFR aircraft if controllers can warn them of proximity, which they can't do on 126.7. The ADS-B paper does say that in an ideal world all VFR aircraft would have ADS-B Out and In so pilots could see the threats themselves, but aviation is a compromise and the ideal very rarely exists. I don't think it will with voluntary ADS-B fitment either. I've had my say on the Multicom issue already, so I won't sound off on it any further, except ...

Quote:it clearly has its genesis somewhere else, which does add credence to the rumblings

Rumbling sounds are coming from Canberra over what appears to be heavy influence into the Multicom issue from both Australia's airlines and CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR). The rumblings are mostly around the concept of re-introducing the CTAF as a physical dimension and expanding it to 20 miles. According to CASA, this is to make sure all RNAVs are contained within their own CTAF zone. Hang on, this Multicom issue is all about VFR traffic, which doesn't use RNAVs, so it has to be an IFR issue. Personally, I doubt private IFR pilots would be plumping for this, and it didn't rate a mention in the original DP, so it clearly has its genesis somewhere else, which does add credence to the rumblings. If not the commercial operators or the OAR, who else would want this? It wasn't the Australian Federation of Air Pilots; it's not in their submission. It wasn't REX; they wanted to keep the area VHF. Most likely it was suggested in a submission not made public, or specially brewed inside CASA.

However, the good news of the week is that CASA has said it will create a GA branch as they move to a new internal structure. Why is this good? It shows that CASA is understanding that GA is not heavy commercial and has characteristics and requirements that are incompatible with those ops. Hopefully, GA branch will be staffed with people who not only have a passion for general aviation, but also are fueled by a desire to see more logical regulation that promotes rather than stunts growth. The last thing we need now is staffers with a passion for bureacracy. Several years ago. CASA set up the GA Task Force, which seemed not to complete a lot of tasks. Technically, I suppose it still exists, but it didn't take long for it to degenerate to a mere shadow of what CASA told us it would be. I suspect the new GA branch will be more durable, given that it's going to be in charge of CASR Part 149 Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations. That's a concept that is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Our first print edition for 2018 is now on the shelves just in time to fill out Christmas stockings. January-February 2018 Australian Flying is the perfect gift for the flying enthusiast, packed with information, entertainment, new, views and just the odd bit of controversy. If you're not convinced, have a look at the feature line-up, then go and get one before they're all gone.

And that's it from me for the year! The Last Minute Hitch goes into hiatus now until mid January. I will keep news stories going on the website, but the weekly newsletter won't be coming out. Sometime between now and then, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is due to release the BITRE GA Study and its response. Keep checking in on our website www.australianflying.com.au to get all the news when the study goes public.

May your gauges have jingle bells on them,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...Bp1OHw2.99

And a comment from dj Wink :

dj17 hours ago
The MULTICOM saga has now dragged on for far too long (4 years). The RAPACs had to fight to get the DP in place and now we have a NPRM that has a proposal that was not part of the DP - the 20nm Radius CTAF. This was never on the table with industry during discussions. The lessons of 15-20 yrs ago show that this system did not work, and it will not work now. There are so many unintended consequences and any sort of safety case or risk analysis is not yet on the table. The OAR was only formed in 2007 and the corporate history in CASA on this (and many other matters) is poor once they try and reinvent the wheel on issues that have been tried previously, especially over 15 yrs ago.

This proposal is only a problem at those CTAFs that do not use 126.7, so what are CASA looking for? Some sort of frequency protection for the paying passenger no doubt. Is this really going to be solved by a 20nm CTAF? The alternative is an extra radio call the airlines say on the MULTICOM, which is workload related and not desirable. I am sure that an independent safety case will show the risk is no more than what we have now. The effort should be directed at pilot education across the board, from the airlines that operate in G down to simple GA ops. Sadly at the moment there does not seem to be any standardisation in the training world on airspace knowledge or procedures.
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
First LMH for 2018 - Happy new year Hitch.. Wink

Via the Yaffa:

[Image: Steve-Hitchen4.jpg]


...What a lot has happened over the newsletter break! China has bought Austria's Diamond Aircraft, in Canberra Darren Chester lost his job as minister and Barnaby Joyce took over, CASA claimed to have taken action on all the ASRR recommendations agreed to, astronaut John Young died and BITRE released the GA study report without a bang. We've a lot to get through, so let's go.

It was probably inevitable that Christian Dries would sell Diamond to Wanfeng, considering the Chinese company bought controlling interest in Diamond Canada last year. Dries had ambitions for an expanded range of single-engine aircraft including a single-engine turbo-prop, and that sort developmental effort requires a lot of available cash. After iconic US companies have been falling to the Chinese purse like skittles (Cirrus, Mooney, Glasair, Enstrom, Teledyne), it would appear only the Chinese have money to throw at general aviation. Cessna and General Electric have joint ventures in China as do Pipistrel and Australia's Brumby and Epic, Icon and Sikorsky all have forms of agreement in place. China is emerging as the great world power in GA as the industry seeks to reinvent itself with new materials and technology, so I will be very surprised if there aren't more announcements similar to the Diamond one coming in the next couple of years.

Darren or Barnaby? In a surprise move, Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce took the role of Minister for Infrastructure and Transport himself, leaving Darren Chester with not even so much as a junior ministry. In Canberra terms, Chester wasn't making a complete dog's breakfast of the portfolio, so it seems the move was driven by political chicanery (officially denied, of course). So where does this leave general aviation? Technically, it means not much change; afterall, at the Tamworth meeting in May 2016, Barnaby Joyce was just as supportive of moves to reform GA as Chester was. But, the encouragement he distributed at Tamworth is coloured by the fact that an election had just been announced and Tamworth was Joyce's electorate. Since being elected (illegally as it turned out!) we've not heard a word on general aviation from him. Now that he clearly believes he's a better person for the job than Chester, it's probably time we knew what he's thinking.

The much-awaited and Canberra-lauded Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) GA study report had been published for about a week before I knew about it. Rather than being released, it was almost like it meekly slipped out the window. And so far, the report has been greeted with a mix of amusement and disdain. Some have been as harsh as to equate it with the 2009 Aviation White Paper, which proved to be about as valuable as a gall stone. The difference here is that the BITRE study report, although it contains conclusions, was never meant to be a list of recommendations. It mentions opportunities, but the job of reacting to those opportunities lies with the department. So, once again, we are back in the hands of the politicians. I have been told that the department will look at it in conjunction with the General Aviation Action Group (GAAG) early this year. But, as AMROBA's Ken Cannane stated in 2016, the study itself is not as important as what the government decides to do next. My concern is that the report contains some statements that seem to be shepherding the department towards concluding that the industry has the capacity to fix itself.

It looks like war in Wagga Wagga. The council there has established a regime of usage charges for the airport that it seems users just aren't going to put up with. Leading the charge is the local aero club, which naturally stands to be disadvantaged the most by the fees. Their argument is strong: the council doesn't charge the boat ramp users to use the boat ramp, and there are free campsites around the town, so why do aviators get charged just because they arrived at the town by air. This is a discrimination argument, and one that could use a lot more exploring. AOPA Australia is getting involved and is watching the Wagga battle with great interest. The result, if successful, could form a tactic template to be used at other airports around the country facing similar problems.

Heroes are not immortal, sadly, and over the Christmas break the time came for John Young. Young was not the most famous of the NASA astronauts, but he was their most experienced and perhaps most dedicated. Long before all his contemporaries hung up their space suits, Young was still on flight status. He was the first of the New Nine astronauts recruited for Project Gemini to go into space, and also the last. His second and final space shuttle launch was his sixth mission, and a seventh was on the slate, only to be canceled when Challenger was destroyed in 1986. Still, many people around the world didn't know his name. That was just the way John Young worked. If you read his list of achievements, you will realise he was probably the greatest space traveler that ever lived.

It seems the issue of 457 visas for pilots is causing a rift in the general aviation industry. The regional airlines are apparently all for it, and the PM himself is behind the need to address the "pilot shortage." It's a bit embarrassing then that the BITRE GA study has come out and stated that there is no pilot shortage (p41). Flying schools and academies are not impressed because bringing pilots in from overseas reduces the opportunities for the candidates they're training. Associations that once worked in harmony are now starting to eye each other with suspicion. That can't be good for general aviation.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

&..


[Image: Fly_logo_web.jpg]   Read more
2018 Australian Flying Survey
17 Jan 2018
Here's your chance to tell us what you think about Australian Flying magazine. Read more

[url=http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/2018-australian-flying-survey][/url]


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
The Rev is back banging the drum - Wink

Via the Oz:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaBapVS9sdBDNJ0S0-mdX...nWdycjvqQw]


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

The Australian 9h ago


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

The Abbott government’s air ­safety tsar has called for reform of “unnecessary” red tape stymieing aviation, urging a more “collaborative” approach by the “hard-line, bureaucratic” regulator.

David Forsyth, who chaired a 2013-14 review into air safety regulation, said needless red tape was still imposed across all areas of Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulation, four years after his ­report was delivered.

“Australia has quite a lot of unique regulations, unnecessarily so,” Mr Forsyth said. “It would be a good thing for Australia if we harmonised our regulations with overseas, particularly with the two big regulatory bodies around the world: the Federal Aviation Administration in the US and the European agency.

“We shouldn’t try to reinvent the wheel all the time and have something different and unique … because we don’t need to.”

Mr Forsyth said “unique” ­requirements existed “across the whole suite” of CASA regulation.

“(That is) operations, flying training, maintenance, air traffic control, the airports,” he said.

A ratio of one flight attendant to 36 passengers was applied, ­despite standards in the US and Europe specifying one to 50.

Restrictive licensing made it difficult to hire maintenance engineers from overseas and created overly burdensome costs.

Pilot training had recently been subject to extra layers of red tape, including requiring pilots wanting to renew licences to do separate tests for each form of aircraft they flew rather than one test on the aircraft type mostly flown. Pilots with overseas qualifi­cations seeking to work in Australia were also put through further needless training or tests.

Mr Forsyth, a former Airservices Australia chairman, Royal Flying Doctor Service vice-president and Qantas senior executive, credited new CASA chief executive Shane Carmody with beginning to address some unjustified regu­lations.

However, he believed CASA was a large bureaucracy ­resistant to change.

CASA yesterday rejected the criticism, saying it had “worked closely and collaboratively” with Mr Forsyth to “consider and ­address all of the actions from the government’s response to the recommendations of the review”.

“These recommendations have either been completed, incorporated into ongoing activities or we have announced plans to take action on recommen­dations,” a spokesman said. “We are committed to ensuring that the intent of the recommen­dations is honoured and the benefits continue to be delivered to the aviation community.

“We look forward to working with industry as we move to finalise the last 10 parts of the civil aviation safety regulations, as well as other items of interest to industry, including changes to aviation medicine, low-level frequency use and finalising our review on the ­fatigue rules.”

Mr Forsyth said there was also a distinct lack of political will to streamline red tape hurting all ­levels of aviation — ministers were scared of streamlining regulation for fear of being blamed for any ­accidents. Mr Forsyth and his review panel were, he said, “exceptionally disappointed” at years of inaction on the recommendations of their report.

The report found CASA’s “hard-line” approach “not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation”, with industry viewing regulations as “overly legalistic, difficult to understand and ­focused on punitive outcomes”.

While Mr Carmody, appointed last June, had made “quite a bit of progress”, action on simplifying regulations was “still fairly slow” and Mr Forsyth feared gains would be lost when Mr Carmody inevitably left the position.



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
(01-25-2018, 08:51 AM)Peetwo Wrote: The Rev is back banging the drum - Wink

Via the Oz:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaBapVS9sdBDNJ0S0-mdX...nWdycjvqQw]


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

The Australian 9h ago


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

The Abbott government’s air ­safety tsar has called for reform of “unnecessary” red tape stymieing aviation, urging a more “collaborative” approach by the “hard-line, bureaucratic” regulator.

David Forsyth, who chaired a 2013-14 review into air safety regulation, said needless red tape was still imposed across all areas of Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulation, four years after his ­report was delivered.

“Australia has quite a lot of unique regulations, unnecessarily so,” Mr Forsyth said. “It would be a good thing for Australia if we harmonised our regulations with overseas, particularly with the two big regulatory bodies around the world: the Federal Aviation Administration in the US and the European agency.

“We shouldn’t try to reinvent the wheel all the time and have something different and unique … because we don’t need to.”

Mr Forsyth said “unique” ­requirements existed “across the whole suite” of CASA regulation.

“(That is) operations, flying training, maintenance, air traffic control, the airports,” he said.

A ratio of one flight attendant to 36 passengers was applied, ­despite standards in the US and Europe specifying one to 50.

Restrictive licensing made it difficult to hire maintenance engineers from overseas and created overly burdensome costs.

Pilot training had recently been subject to extra layers of red tape, including requiring pilots wanting to renew licences to do separate tests for each form of aircraft they flew rather than one test on the aircraft type mostly flown. Pilots with overseas qualifi­cations seeking to work in Australia were also put through further needless training or tests.

Mr Forsyth, a former Airservices Australia chairman, Royal Flying Doctor Service vice-president and Qantas senior executive, credited new CASA chief executive Shane Carmody with beginning to address some unjustified regu­lations.

However, he believed CASA was a large bureaucracy ­resistant to change.

CASA yesterday rejected the criticism, saying it had “worked closely and collaboratively” with Mr Forsyth to “consider and ­address all of the actions from the government’s response to the recommendations of the review”.

“These recommendations have either been completed, incorporated into ongoing activities or we have announced plans to take action on recommen­dations,” a spokesman said. “We are committed to ensuring that the intent of the recommen­dations is honoured and the benefits continue to be delivered to the aviation community.

“We look forward to working with industry as we move to finalise the last 10 parts of the civil aviation safety regulations, as well as other items of interest to industry, including changes to aviation medicine, low-level frequency use and finalising our review on the ­fatigue rules.”

Mr Forsyth said there was also a distinct lack of political will to streamline red tape hurting all ­levels of aviation — ministers were scared of streamlining regulation for fear of being blamed for any ­accidents. Mr Forsyth and his review panel were, he said, “exceptionally disappointed” at years of inaction on the recommendations of their report.

The report found CASA’s “hard-line” approach “not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation”, with industry viewing regulations as “overly legalistic, difficult to understand and ­focused on punitive outcomes”.

While Mr Carmody, appointed last June, had made “quite a bit of progress”, action on simplifying regulations was “still fairly slow” and Mr Forsyth feared gains would be lost when Mr Carmody inevitably left the position.

&.. definitely related the following, courtesy Oz Flying: 



[Image: Carmody_AvHouse.jpg]CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody. (composite image: CASA/Bidgee)

CASA Restructure confirms GA Branch
24 January 2018

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority announced a restructure this week that includes a general aviation branch as first revealed by Australian Flying in December.

To be called the General, Recreational and Sport Aviation Branch, the new group has been established to create a stronger focus on the GA sector, especially important in the implementation of CASR 149 on Approved Self Administering Aviation Organisations.

"I believe that a vibrant general aviation sector is important for the health of the aviation community as a whole," said CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody.

"While CASA's influence on the strength and performance of the general aviation sector is limited, we can play a role by ensuring regulatory requirements are reasonable and fit for purpose.

"We must also ensure we minimise regulatory red tape and make the processes for gaining authorisations and approvals as smooth as possible. The General, Recreational and Sport Aviation branch will be the key contact point between general aviation and CASA.

"Responsibilities of the branch will include entry control, surveillance, regulatory services and oversight of the new Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations."

In the general restructure, CASA has also split the Aviation Group into two divisions: National Operations and Standards and Regulatory Services and Surveillance division. The position of executive manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance division has been filled by new recruit Peter White, who has arrived at CASA with credentials in transport security and regulatory reform. White is also a recreational pilot.

The new structure is on the CASA website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...tIJO3s5.99



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
“[and] Mr Forsyth feared gains would be lost when Mr Carmody inevitably left the position.”
Reply
 Fort Fumble under siege -Undecided  


From 'that man', via the Oz... Confused



Dick Smith, Shane Carmody at odds over CASA management

[Image: 7471dc484e6abd3eec617765e2e38fac?width=650]

Aviation pioneer Dick Smith. Picture: Emma Murray.

The Australian

12:00AM January 26, 2018

EAN HIGGINS

[Image: ean_higgins.png]

Reporter
Sydney
@EanHiggins

Businessman and aviator Dick Smith has said Civil Aviation Safety Authority head Shane Carmody effectively told him to “get lost”, despite encouragement from then transport minister Darren Chester for Mr Smith to talk to the watchdog about airspace management.

The snub has put Mr Smith on the attack against Mr Carmody, describing him as “just a career bureaucrat” who though extremely highly paid had “done nothing” and was protecting an “iron ring” of senior CASA officials who, he says, resist change.

Mr Carmody would not reveal his remuneration, but Mr Smith noted it is in the band of up to $622,580 a year plus “performance bonuses”.

The band potentially means Mr Carmody is better paid than the Prime Minister, on $527,854, and the High Court chief justice, on $584,511.

But Mr Carmody has fired back, telling The Australian he has done a lot and achieved results, adding: “Mr Smith’s views are not always shared by the majority and often differ from others in the aviation community.”

Mr Smith, a former chairman of CASA and also its predecessor, the Civil Aviation Authority, has championed aviation reform and in 2015 was awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia for services to the industry.

He has advocated various changes that would transform airspace management towards the US model.

Mr Smith said he raised the possibility of talking to CASA about the issue with Mr Chester last year.

Mr Chester told The Australian: “Dick is an enthusiastic advocate for the aviation sector and I valued his input on the challenges facing some sections of the industry.

“I would’ve certainly encouraged him to raise any specific concerns over airspace directly with CASA.”

But after Mr Smith offered to talk to senior CASA staff about airspace, Mr Carmody wrote to him late last year.

“I’d also like to thank you for your recent offer to consult for CASA in some capacity,” Mr Carmody wrote.

“Unfortunately, there is no readily identifiable opportunity to do this but I will most definitely keep your offer in mind,” he wrote.

Mr Smith characterised Mr Carmody’s letter as “to say, in effect, get lost”.

“All they had to do was get someone to lift the phone and talk to me, and they could say, ‘yes, we talked to Dick Smith’,” he said.

Mr Carmody declined to discuss the “iron ring”.

“Mr Smith is a well-known aviation enthusiast and I value his contributions” Mr Carmody said. “None of us is a single source of expertise and knowledge within aviation.”

Mr Carmody listed a number of what he said were achievements on his watch over the past 15 months.

“Only late last year the International Civil Aviation Organisation completed an audit of Australia’s aviation safety system and the preliminary results from that audit have Australia with a top six world aviation safety ranking … a significant improvement,” Mr Carmody said.
  

Huh  Dodgy - Ok CC money where your mouth is - let's get the FAA back to go over your books & bollocks... Big Grin  




&..more from the Oz... Wink




Regulatory compliance a constant burden on general aviation

   TRENT BROWN
   The Australian
   12:00AM January 26, 2018
   
I started my aviation business seven years ago, at the age of 21, operating just one aircraft in a small country town. I now operate 15 aircraft, in two regional locations, employing 40 staff.

My business is one of the largest employers of newly qualified commercial pilots in the country, normally employing about a dozen new pilots each year For most of my pilots, it is their first job in the industry, and I’m proud to be giving pilots the important first steps in their career.

Despite the success of my business, which is mostly due to a combination of young foolhardiness and good luck, many aviation businesses are struggling to operate at a profit, facing declining profits, or cannot fund growth. The general aviation sector has historically been the training ground for Australian airline pilots, with hands-on flying being the basis for their professionalism and reputation on the world stage.

Most look back on this experience fondly, and credit flying skills to their ‘‘time in the bush’’. As the state of general aviation declines, and airlines demand more pilots, this background of grassroots flying is disappearing. Without decisive action from the federal government, general aviation will continue to lose the entrepreneurial spirit that has driven this industry for the better part of a century.

In case anyone outside of the industry has forgotten, aircraft are expensive and small or medium businesses in aviation are struggling to find capital Banks are not particularly interested in funding aircraft, which is becoming worse as the lending climate leans towards lower risk. In the scheme of things, my business has been quite successful, yet I’ve sought finance from non-bank lenders in order to purchase aircraft.

Aside from the initial purchase, there’s expensive overhaul costs associated with engines, propellers, and airframe components. Once businesses pay their expenses, staff, and taxes, there’s very little capital left over, particularly when a new aircraft could be worth an entire year’s turnover. Capital restrictions are the very reason Australia has an ageing fleet of general aviation aircraft.

Regulatory compliance, as I’m sure I’m not the first to preach, is a constant burden on general aviation. The operator has the most to lose in the event of an accident or incident, and no one is more motivated to ensure operational safety than those in the firing line.

The most common cause of accidents in small aircraft is human error, and operators should be ­focusing mostly on their pilot training, rather than regulatory hurdles and desktop compliance. I’m yet to see an accident caused by a spelling mistake in the company’s operations manual. CASA’s role should be to support operators, and in my opinion this would best be achieved by providing operators with access to quality operational and airworthiness consultants. Instead we are seeing the opposite, where dozens of skilled testing officers will hang up their hat as a result of changes to liability protection. My business relies on one such testing officer, who genuinely improves the safety of our operation with each and every engagement. The revision of aviation law has taken too long, it is too complicated, and the industry isn’t going to be any safer because of it. A more simplistic approach would give operators more freedom, reduce costs, and support growth.

The question then remains, how do we reverse the decline of general aviation in Australia?

Aviation has long been an essential industry in Australia for passenger and freight transport, but the costs have mostly restricted viability to the major airline routes. Small and medium business just can’t offer transport and freight services at a rate that is marketable to anyone other than big business or government.

The federal government has a number of tools available to support the industry, including tax reform, subsidies, reduction of red tape, and provision of services. Subsidised schemes are in place already, but they’re too specific, and don’t promote competition or innovation. The measures below would provide stimulus for the entire general aviation industry, without becoming a burden on taxpayers:

• Allow aviation operators to immediately expense assets, which would encourage faster fleet expansion and/or upgrading to more modern aircraft;

• Government-backed loans to enable operators to secure capital, with funds being repaid on commercial terms;

• Fuel subsidies to reduce operational costs, and enable more competitive services;

• Reform regulatory compliance, and reduce the burden on small and medium business; and

• Provide training support via CASA.

The combination of these changes would instantly provide employment opportunities for young commercial pilots, support local training schools, use regional airport infrastructure, and secure the grassroots foundation of our professional airline pilots.

More jobs for pilots in Australia will keep tax dollars onshore, and more business opportunities will increase GST and company tax collection from operators. Australians are wary of government subsidised industries (and for good reason), and this is far from a request to make aviation just another one. It’s a means of enabling aviation to continue its tradition in this country. The focus on general aviation has been ignored for too long, and now that it’s been brought into the light, let’s do something about it.

Trent Brown is a director of GSL Aviation Group.




Plus... Rolleyes




Dogfight over pilot broadcast zone heats up

[Image: 3854e7c13b09d716181b8a3fc5acb200?width=650]

Regional airlines support the proposal to expand the CTAF.

The Australian
12:00AM January 26, 2018

ANNABEL HEPWORTH

[Image: annabel_hepworth.png]

Aviation Editor
Sydney
@HepworthAnnabel



The split within the aviation sector over proposals to expand the size of common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas near non-towered ­aerodromes has widened as critics raise fears of the potential for “serious” costs to some operators.

CASA has proposed to increase the radius for the CTAF — which is used by pilots for broadcasting their position and plans — to 20 nautical miles and 5000 feet in altitude at non-controlled airfields.

According to CASA, the proposals are aimed at improving safety for passenger-carrying air transport operations.

They are contained in the draft that would see pilots at low level “class G” airspace such as uncharted dirt landing strips using the “multicom” radio frequency when there was no discrete CTAF frequency or broadcast area.

But in a submission to CASA obtained by The Australian, the Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee says CASA is considering “only one aspect of aviation”, regular passenger transport operations, “at the expense of everyone else”.

The RAPAC submission warns the changes could have “serious cost impacts” to those in private visual flight rules operations, particularly recreational flyers, because the proposal “is seen as bringing with it the impost of compulsory radio to operate in a number of areas”.

“Around southeast Queensland, for example, this has the potential to give pilots a barrier of approximately 140nm where they cannot transit if they don’t have radio,” the submission says.

“These serious restrictions for non-radio-equipped aircraft will force them into big diversions over very unfriendly mountainous terrain that is regularly subject to extremely bad weather.”

But a CASA spokeswoman said that responses to a recent survey indicated that about 90 per cent of all aircraft, including sports aircraft, are already radio-equipped.

The RAPAC paper was based on input from various RAPAC conveners and participants.

Meanwhile, Recreational Aviation Australia chairman Michael Monck said that, assuming pilots needed to make radio broadcasts when entering the now much larger CTAF, this could result “in a raft of radio calls, increased workload for the pilot and decreased situational awareness”.

“I think there is a likelihood that pilots operating under the current ‘no radio’ requirements will not see the perceived benefits of the new requirements and will continue operating as though nothing had changed,” Mr Monck said.

“Alternatively, there may be wilful non-compliance due to the cost.”

The Hang Gliding Federation of Australia has also flagged its opposition to the plan to expand the size of the CTAFs, as it will see certain areas start to fall inside CTAF areas, arguing that the plan fails to take into account the needs of recreational flyers.

The federation has warned that pilots could “wilfully disregard” using airband radio in the areas and the multicom could be clogged up with “unnecessary” transmissions.

The CASA spokeswoman said: “Pilots are reminded to act safety and responsibly and to follow the existing set of rules.”

Regional airlines support the proposal to expand the CTAF.

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins has told CASA that “the only way to ensure safe and effective implementation” of the radio frequency changes is for all CTAF areas to be expanded.

A CASA spokeswoman said that more than 1000 submissions were received.





The popcorn's ordered and beers are on ice..err - TICK..TOCK Barnaby!  Big Grin


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH a day early - Wink

In all the Oz traffic I missed that Hitch's weekly OP summary came out a day early... Blush

 
Quote:...Yes, it's Thursday, but with the Australia Day holiday looming for everyone tomorrow we thought we make this a short and sweet week in aviation.

CASA's restructure announced this week makes a reality of the General, Recreational and Sport Aviation Branch (let's call it the GA branch for short). In theory, the GA branch is a box of our own; somewhere that we can be isolated from the intense focus on commercial transport operations that has been boat-anchor regulation for the industry. It was also going to be a must-have if the Part 149 regulation on self-administration is taken up to the extent that CASA expects. But is this just a change in the shingle hanging out the front? Years ago we had the General Aviation Task Force (GATF) that also looked pretty good, but in reality turned out to be a vehicle for CASA to sell regulation to the GA community rather than any form of enabling squad to advance the cause. The ineffectiveness of GATF was well demonstrated when the manager in charge left and no-one ever heard of GATF again, which leads to thinking that GATF had only one desk in it. But according to CASA, GA branch is a completely different beast because it actually has responsibility over regulation and surveillance, whereas GATF did not. Underpinning the effectiveness of GA branch will be, more than anything else, attitude. The boss of the branch hasn't been announced yet, but it will be a bitter pill dissolved in a poisoned chalice for anyone who is not passionate about the general, recreational and sport aviation sector. For GA branch to be effective, it needs to have at its head someone who is determined to make improvements to regulation covering GA, even if it means sword-fighting with Shane Carmody when what's good for the sector and what's good for CASA diverge. That takes courage and belief; anyone who heads up this mission will need that in spades, or indeed we could end up with a GATF by any other name.

Quote: an attitude which has seen the department cling furiously to self-declared expertise like Gollum to a gold ring

And there's something else hidden in the new CASA structure: AVMED. It doesn't appear as a separate entity, but my spider sense tells me that it's part of the Client Services Centre now, which means it reports to Stakeholder Engagement Manager Rob Walker. Although CASA has done a lot in the last few months to introduce the Basic Class 2 medical (BC2), it is still faced with the mammoth task of overhauling the attitude prevalent at AVMED; an attitude which has seen the department cling furiously to self-declared expertise like Gollum to a gold ring. It is notable that under BC2 AVMED will not be challenging the assessment of the GP who does the examination, and that CASA is trying to break down the culture of second-guessing DAMEs for all other classes of medical. Culture change falls now to Walker, who I believe has a great understanding of the issues involved, but even he will need back-up from the highest levels within CASA to straighten out this most wonky of all CASA departments.

OK, the long weekend is upon us. Get out there and flying something, and have much fun doing it.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...FREZQvp.99
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
LMH 02/02/18: Composite debate; BITRE Qs; MULTICOM rumours; Redbull Air Race; & Wagga airport AOPA/Aeroclub win.

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

Composite materials have great strength-to-weight ratios and can be formed into more aerodynamic shapes than metal, which has seen them lauded as the future material for aircraft construction. But will that really happen? Is the general aviation industry progressive, or are we so wedded to metal that composites will never make the same in-roads in GA that they have in the recreational and LSA sectors? With the higher-value aircraft, there is plenty of evidence that composites are taking over: the SR22 is easily out-selling the Bonanza, Saratoga and M350 combined; the Diamond twins are leaving the Seneca and Baron well behind. But the story is very different in the four-seat market, where the combination of Cessna's old faithful C172 and the Piper Archer III is leading the composite DA40 and SR20 numbers. Furthermore, one of the best clean-sheet GA aircraft produced in the past 25 years, Tecnam's P2010, is lagging well behind everyone. And now, Vulcanair has waded into the fight with the V1.0, which is an all-metal aeroplane unashamedly targeting Cessna's C172SP market share. The company has revived and redeveloped an old 1960s design, completely shunning composites along the way. The reasons may be two-fold: firstly most of the development work was already done; secondly, it costs a Rajah's ransom to develop and certify completely new aeroplanes, which is what Vulcanair would have needed to do to adopt composites. The governing regulation, FAR23, has been re-written to make it easier and cheaper to certify new designs, and this might encourage traditional metal-aircraft builders to look more closely at composites in the future. A watershed moment in general aviation will be if Cessna revives the composite-metal hybrid Next Generation Piston (NGP) concept it was showing off over 10 years ago, and it is accepted by the market in great numbers. However, aircraft builders are commercial companies, and if the market wants metal, I am sure they will continue to offer it.

Quote: It really is our final line of defence, and if it falls, the day is lost

The GA industry has stopped short of labeling the BITRE GA Study report as another version of the deservedly-maligned Aviation White Paper, but there is certainly disappointment in the ranks of the lobby groups. There was a lot riding on the integrity of the report, and although it presented an accurate depiction of the industry as it stands today, it doens't really provide much in the way of solutions. But was it supposed to? The study was to be exactly that: an examination of the industry producing a set of measures, and it has done that reasonably well. To be fair to BITRE, there are conclusions and opportunities, but no recommendations; BITRE was probably not well equipped to recommend anything, and it was not part of the original brief. The job of making recommendations will now fall to the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG). However, that is no guarantee that things will actually get done; several members of the group have privately expressed the sentiment that GAAG is somewhat toothless. GA's issue is that we can't afford it to be. Greg Russell from TAAAF is right: 2018 needs to be the year things start to happen. Failure of the GA Study to produce action to revitalise our industry is likely to start GA on journey to the end of the line for which we can't buy a return ticket. It really is our final line of defence, and if it falls, the day is lost. I suppose the good news is that we will finally know if the government is serious about wanting a healthy GA industry as the Deputy Prime Minister promised at Tamworth all those months ago.

There are quasi-confirmed reports out of Canberra this week that CASA has dumped the proposal to go with 20-mile radius CTAF. This seems to be a rush of sensibility; it was never a workable solution that addressed an issue that probably never existed. Some perspective here: a 20 nm radius makes the CTAF 50 nm wide. That would have, for example, stretched the Wollongong CTAF out to cover Mittagong! We'll be talking about this for many years to come, mainly trying to answer the question of how this proposal ever made it to paper. More than one source has told me that the proposal was supported within CASA by only four people: the four who proposed it! Apparently no-one else in the regulator wanted it, and the options in the NPRM didn't include the most logical answer. It also seems the driving force for such a prescriptive measure was the regional airline sector. The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) submission to the NPRM certainly supports the 40-mile CTAF. This accusation has been supported by Dick Smith, who told Australian Flying that one regional airline pilot expressed the belief that if GA was gone, it would force people to fly with the regionals. Personally, I am hoping this is the view of one pilot only, but if the regional airlines have the ability to force through a 40-nm wide CTAF when only four people in the regulator supported it, I am afraid the regionals have perhaps a serious amount of clout. Now, this is all very good and reliable intelligence, but there has been no official announcement that the proposal has been dumped, and from what I hear, there may never be one. I guess some things are ugly enough for CASA to want them to die quietly, but it leaves the original question unanswered: what is the best frequency to broadcast on if the airfield does not have its own CTAF?

Red Bull Air Race is back this weekend and Matt Hall is as fired up as ever to have a crack at the championship. He and his team spent 2017 tuning their new Edge 540 race plane, but still got some very good results toward the end of the season. If they have the Edge on song for 2018, a serious tilt at the championship is not out of the question at all. Hall has the skill, his team the dedication and expertise and the Edge 540 is a proven winner, so what's to stand in their way? The 13 other pilots who also eyeing off the championship trophy! With a first-time champion in Muroya, and some new faces on the podiums last year, there is probably no clear favourite to win the series at this stage. Anyone can win; no-one can be written off, and it all starts in Abu Dhabi this weekend.

There's good news from Wagga Wagga this week where the combined lobbying power of the aero club and AOPA Australia has managed to fight off significant usage charges at the airport. Instead, the council has agreed to review the airport's operations and financial footing, and through an advisory committee, the local users are going to have significant input into the airport's future. This doesn't mean that charges are dead forever, and with the council CEO all in favour of charging users, you would have to say the matter is not dead in the water. However, the approach the councillors have taken is very encouraging, and one that could serve as an example for other airport-owning councils around Australia to follow. We all need watch the developments at Wagga Wagga with great interest; it's a vital airport in the eastern state GA infrastructure, and operational changes there will in one way or another effect nearly everyone who flies.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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


Sandy in reply... Wink

Good comprehensive LMH, thanks Hitch. Regarding the Bitter (BITRE!) Report, yawn, what happened to the ASRR Forsyth report? Was CASA ever able to keep the Minister informed about the health of the industry that it’s supposed to regulate? CASA gobbles up one billion of our dollars every few years, employs 830 people and can’t keep a few basic figures available. I’ve tried to find numbers like how many flying schools left, active pilot numbers (your predecessor Paul Phelan managed that by checking up the AVMED nos).

How many pilots have ASICs now and 5 and 10 years ago? They don’t keep any such basic metrics, I’ve tried. If the Minister would ask the pertinent questions, he should have all the figures and monthly updates could be published.



The lack of political guidance has practically put GA out of business. A hands off disaster still going downhill.

The Wagga Council story points to exactly the same problem, all these former Commonwealth airports were handed over to Councils with no national or rational use definition, each council to set pretty much whatever conditions they feel like.

Think on this, you get in your car and drive freely virtually everywhere in Australia and you know what to expect. One of our most valuable freedoms. You can buy freehold with a public road servicing your premises. You wish to fly somewhere and there’s different charges and conditions everywhere. 

Say you want to start a flying business; but there’s no freehold available hence the lack of investment and the generally old and poor condition of most airport buildings. Not to mention thousands of unsightly containers, stop gap storage and visual proof of policy failure.

Hitch you are dead right to say good job at Wagga, AOPA and all concerned, but it’s not all guaranteed. Of course not, councils change all the time. Councils should be told to maintain their airports just like roads and sell of some landside to private owners. Then they pick up rate revenue, encourage jobs, everyone benefits. We desperately need Government action.

http://disq.us/p/1ptqgx0
 
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
LMH 16/02/18 - Via the Yaffa:



[Image: Steve-Hitchen7.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 16 February 2018
16 February 2018
[/url]

[url=http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-last-minute-hitch/the-last-minute-hitch-16-february-2018#comments]

– Steve Hitchen

For a few weeks now, I've been dropping hints about a potential split in the GA representative groups, and this week the rumours and speculation became the matter of hard fact when the the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) was announced. The three founding member associations are AOPA Australia, AMROBA and the SAAA. But even the term "founding members" hints at ambitions of expansion; expansion of member associations, of numbers and of influence. That will mean targeting other associations as potential members, but to get them on board, AGAA will have to have a decent product to sell them. The quandry is whether or not an association can be a member of both AGAA and The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF). AGAA was catalysed by dissatisfaction with the way TAAAF was presenting the interests of GA in Canberra, so you would have to presume the two have differing philosophies, which would make it nearly impossible to be a member of both. AGAA is therefore faced with the task of poaching members from TAAAF in order to expand. But will they come? TAAAF is a very well respected group in Canberra with a seat on CASA's Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), which AGAA will have to aspire to if they want to have the influence they were born to have. There is, however, no compulsion on CASA to give AGAA a seat at the table, which will mean defector groups could find themselves at a greater distance from the decision makers than they were if they'd sat pat with TAAAF.

Quote: If AMROBA wants to play hard ball, they could almost force CASA to bring AGAA into the advisory fold

No sooner had AGAA been announced than people were asking about the intentions of RAAus. RAAus went through some sword fighting with both AOPA and the SAAA over AirVenture Australia last year, so it would take some serious kiss-and-make-up overtures for them to sit comfortably with each other. RAAus is pretty solid with TAAAF, and they'd need a damn good reason to jump ship. If they don't we'll have clear battle lines drawn in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the general aviation community: AGAA/AOPA verses TAAAF/RAAus. It would be much better for the GA community if that were not the case, but it is indicative of the passion that exists for GA in Australia, and also of the fractured nature of the representation. Depending on who you talk to, there is a lot of condemnation around for both AOPA and RAAus over their troubled relationship, and this representative division does nothing to solve that.

The ATSB indicated last year that they would likely examine the approval process for the Essendon DFO that was involved in the fatal King Air crash in February 2017, and now they've announced a separate investigation that will go on even after the final accident investigation report is published. They say where there's smoke, there's fire, and I suspect the ATSB has found an inferno. If the planning process had played a negligible part in the crash, I think the ATSB would have folded that into the accident report. That they have elected to run a separate report tells us that the building location played a significant role in the tragic outcome. The results of the investigation may have ramifications right across the country, as there are many other buildings on federally-leased airports that have the potential to find themselves occupying space that an aircraft in an emergency might need one day.

In the January-February print issue of Australian Flying, writer Philip Smart got into the nitty-gritty of using aircraft as a business tool, and found that largely the business world has a misguided perception of the way they are used. Rather than be the luxury transport of executives, they are a tool for the whole company to maximise use of their time. The business aviation world is coming to Essendon Airport next month with an International Standard for Business Aircraft Operation (IS-BAO) workshop dedicated to laying out the best principles of operation so companies can make sure their aircraft is used as a weapon and not just a vehicle for jaunts. This workshop is good for Australia, because despite the large distances between work places and potential customers, Australian businesses still seem shy of adopting or hiring company aircraft as a day-to-day tool.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...DRfFLl9.99



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
If’s, And’s and Bluffs.

"The ATSB indicated last year that they would likely examine the approval process for the Essendon DFO that was involved in the fatal King Air crash in February 2017, and now they've announced a separate investigation that will go on even after the final accident investigation report is published. They say where there's smoke, there's fire, and I suspect the ATSB has found an inferno. If the planning process had played a negligible part in the crash, I think the ATSB would have folded that into the accident report. That they have elected to run a separate report tells us that the building location played a significant role in the tragic outcome. The results of the investigation may have ramifications right across the country, as there are many other buildings on federally-leased airports that have the potential to find themselves occupying space that an aircraft in an emergency might need one day."

This is risible. How much lower can the ATSB sink; just when you think they’ve bottomed out, we get the disgusting pap above spoon fed.

Big IF – if ATSB had the skill set required and some serious experience of unravelling ‘Corporate’ scams, machinations and ‘finely stretched’ points of ‘law’, then I’d say have at it and good luck. But ATSB do not.

Big IF – if ATSB had a stellar investigative track record of such things and an unblemished record for fearless, honest reporting of accident and incident, then I’d say have at it and good luck. But ATSB do not.

Big IF – if ATSB was a shining example of integrity and true independence from external influence, rather than a PR outlet for CASA and the major airlines and the minister, rather than a well schooled lap dog; then I’d say have at it and good luck. But ATSB are not.

Big IF – if anyone else, other than Hood was running the ATSB there may be a chance, slim, but acceptable, of a reasonable result. The Hood name has been associated with some very shaky doings; the FAA audit and Pel-Air for examples. Innocent until proven guilty is the accepted norm, but until there is a broad investigation of the entire ‘situation’ about the time of the Norfolk ditching, beginning with ‘the minister’, Hood is one of several who must remain in the shadow of suspicion.

We do have agencies, such as the ANAO and other ‘corporate watchdogs’ must better qualified to take a look under the ‘airport’ carpet and sweep up the mess. The ATSB is, at best, an air accident investigator; not ASIO.

Aye well, it sounds like a good thing and will, undoubtedly, fool some of the people. ATSB must now hope the FAA and NTSB are amongst the gullible. Good luck with that.

Toot – toot.
Reply
LMH 23/02/18

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

Has Cirrus beaten Textron Aviation into submission? The GAMA sales figures released this week show that the Cirrus SR22 range is out-selling the rest of the GA market by the length of a KSA runway. Textron has two players in the high-speed, four-seat piston market: the venerable and idolised Beech Bonanza and the composite-bodied Cessna TTx. Neither of those two have been able to take substantial share away from the big Cirrus; indeed the Bonanza has seen its own delivery figures on a long downward slide since before 2013. And now there are rumours swirling around the USA that Textron has called it quits for the TTX. Although the company is keeping its lips locked, the model has been deleted from the company website. The TTX was supposed to be main weapon in the battle to overthrow the Cirrus supremacy, but it has proven not to be as sharp as Textron would have liked. However, it certainly had the wood over its stablemate G36 Bonanza, recording a five-year average delivery figure of 28 airframes per year against the 23 of the Bonanza. Purely on numbers, shouldn't it be the Bonanza on the chopping block? How's this for a rumour-starter? Perhaps with the re-write of FAR23 making it far easier and cheaper to certify new aircraftparticularly composite onesTextron may have deleted the TTx to make way for a completely new composite design to take the fight up to Cirrus. That's speculation, of course, but Textron has to do something. In the spirit of "go hard or go home", they either have to cede that market segment, or give it a red-hot go with something else.

Quote:one regional airport somewhere in Australia is going to get a very large flying school

Qantas has announced it's getting back into the flight academy game. According to the company, it has to do so in order to a) address a pilot shortage, and b) guarantee academy graduates of a suitable nature to what they want. As the Flying Kangaroo already sources graduates from several established academies, are they making a $20 million statement that they think those graduates aren't as Qantastic as they want them to be? If so, perhaps the curriculum and standards at some of the academies need to be looked at.To some schools, this will may mean a reduction in the brightest students coming their way as the lure of direct entry syphons off those students to Qantas. Qantas has stated that they will continue to draw crew from the existing schools they have deals with, but you can expect that to lessen over time as their own school starts to provide pilots ready-made with Qantas attitudes. But in the meantime, one regional airport somewhere in Australia is going to get a very large flying school, possibly even the biggest in the country. Councils will probably already be wide-eyed in excitement at the thought that a big Qantas school at their airport could be the answer to their airport cash-flow woes. Wherever it ends up, that airport and its managers and tenants, will have to steel themselves for a public outcry over a significant increase in movements.

Bye, bye Barnaby. We hardly had the time to get to know you ... or perhaps we knew you too well in the end? From the moment someone said "Hang on, ain't he a Kiwi?" Barnaby Joyce was immersed in scandal. He came to us as minister in charge of aviation when he replaced the incumbent Darren Chester with himself in a move that Canberra pundits described as payback against the Victorian. Then came the whole baby and divorce thing and now another scandal in the form of a sexual harrassment claim. It seems we learned a lot about Barnaby except what he thought about general aviation. His words at Tamworth in 2016 were encouraging, but between then and when he took the aviation reins we'd heard virtually nothing. So now he's gone, and a new minister looms on the horizon. Will it be back to the future with DC back in the chair, or will the Nationals give it to the new leader, whoever that turns out to be? Standby for Monday!

The March-April print edition of Australian Flying is now ready for your reading eyes. This time we've taken a Blackshape Prime for a squirt, had a look at noise-canceling headset, analysed cloud meanings, sussed-out how drones are taking GA jobs and presented a briefing on the new CASA Basic Class 2 medical. There's plenty in this for everyone, so get your hands on a copy before they become a collectors' item!

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...xQy7JhQ.99
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)