CASA meets the Press
LMH - 20 April 2018.

Via Oz Flying... Wink

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

No fatal aircraft accident is a happy event, but I find the crash of VH-ZEW to be particularly saddening. If the ATSB is right, this pilot lost her life simply because of the way the autopilot responded to manual control movement whilst it was still engaged. Such a simple thing that ended in tragedy. I find it hard to blame the pilot for much here: an RPL on her first solo nav who was clearly getting familiar with the autopilot; something she would have to do in order to be a candidate for the airlines. What caused the accident seems to have been a lack of understanding that manual control contrary to the autopilot mode would cause the trim to run in the opposite direction as it fought to correct the situation. We are taught in training that elevator trimbe it manual or electronicis there only to remove control forces and not a means of setting attitude, but this accident shows that incorrect trim can have a massive effect on the aircraft in flight. The ATSB report says that the pilot had no warning of the way the autopilot would respond, to which Garmin used the "everybody knows" defence to decide no warning was needed in the handbook. The ATSB didn't swallow that, and neither do I. If there is any type of pilot out there that isn't completely familiar with an autopilot it would have to be an RPL on their first solo nav, and G1000s are being used by more and more just that type of pilot.

Quote:"..but the website still says something different..."

CASA's medical reform program seems to be generating more confusion with each step forward. The current points of contention are the conditions under which a DAME must refer the applicant to CASA. In a note sent to AOPA Australia, CASA's Rob Walker says that DAMEs need to refer only applicants with dementia, eplilepsy, psychosis, or have had a medical refused previously. However, information sent to Australian Flying shows that DAMEs are being given a list of 23 conditions that they must refer. This list comes from the CASA website. A DAME can over-ride the list, but only if they issue the certificate endorsed as CASA Audit Required by DAME (CARD). This is what AOPA Australia wants to kill. They want the DAME on the spot to be able to assess fitness-to-fly under all circumstances without CASA involvement. The CASA reply to AOPA Australia seems to concede that except for the few exclusions, but the website still says something different. It's a work in progress apparently, and there is still a lot of work to do.

An organisation called Your Central Coast Airport (YCCA) has risen to battle the local council over Warnervale, NSW. The airport there has been touted as ripe for industrial and aviation development for a few years now, and last year the council commissioned a report into the potential. But things have changed since then. Two councils merged to form Central Coast Council, and all of a sudden it seems the new municipal body is refusing to release the contents of that report. YCCA is campaigning to try to overturn that decision, claiming there's a lack of transparency, which is hard to argue given they've voted to suppress a report that ratepayers paid for! YCCA wants the aviation community to get behind them and their efforts to force the new council to come clean with the report and the reasons why they clearly won't support development. Have a look at www.ycca.org.au and decide for yourself.

You'll find the latest edition of Australian Flying ready for your collection. Sometimes an issue gels better than others, and this is one of those. If I was asked why, I doubt I could explain. Is it the cover shot? Is it the range and quality of articles? Possibly it is the combination of all of those things together that just work so well along side each other. Mind you, certainly good contributors right across the board help a lot, and those people deserve credit for so much of the success of every print edition we produce. To complement that, you'll also note the Flightpath, Australia's premier magazine on warbirds and antiques also has a new issue. Why not go out and get them both at once?

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...3IrtYjv.99
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
(04-21-2018, 10:01 AM)Peetwo Wrote: LMH - 20 April 2018.

Via Oz Flying... Wink

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

No fatal aircraft accident is a happy event, but I find the crash of VH-ZEW to be particularly saddening. If the ATSB is right, this pilot lost her life simply because of the way the autopilot responded to manual control movement whilst it was still engaged. Such a simple thing that ended in tragedy. I find it hard to blame the pilot for much here: an RPL on her first solo nav who was clearly getting familiar with the autopilot; something she would have to do in order to be a candidate for the airlines. What caused the accident seems to have been a lack of understanding that manual control contrary to the autopilot mode would cause the trim to run in the opposite direction as it fought to correct the situation. We are taught in training that elevator trimbe it manual or electronicis there only to remove control forces and not a means of setting attitude, but this accident shows that incorrect trim can have a massive effect on the aircraft in flight. The ATSB report says that the pilot had no warning of the way the autopilot would respond, to which Garmin used the "everybody knows" defence to decide no warning was needed in the handbook. The ATSB didn't swallow that, and neither do I. If there is any type of pilot out there that isn't completely familiar with an autopilot it would have to be an RPL on their first solo nav, and G1000s are being used by more and more just that type of pilot.

Quote:"..but the website still says something different..."

CASA's medical reform program seems to be generating more confusion with each step forward. The current points of contention are the conditions under which a DAME must refer the applicant to CASA. In a note sent to AOPA Australia, CASA's Rob Walker says that DAMEs need to refer only applicants with dementia, eplilepsy, psychosis, or have had a medical refused previously. However, information sent to Australian Flying shows that DAMEs are being given a list of 23 conditions that they must refer. This list comes from the CASA website. A DAME can over-ride the list, but only if they issue the certificate endorsed as CASA Audit Required by DAME (CARD). This is what AOPA Australia wants to kill. They want the DAME on the spot to be able to assess fitness-to-fly under all circumstances without CASA involvement. The CASA reply to AOPA Australia seems to concede that except for the few exclusions, but the website still says something different. It's a work in progress apparently, and there is still a lot of work to do.

An organisation called Your Central Coast Airport (YCCA) has risen to battle the local council over Warnervale, NSW. The airport there has been touted as ripe for industrial and aviation development for a few years now, and last year the council commissioned a report into the potential. But things have changed since then. Two councils merged to form Central Coast Council, and all of a sudden it seems the new municipal body is refusing to release the contents of that report. YCCA is campaigning to try to overturn that decision, claiming there's a lack of transparency, which is hard to argue given they've voted to suppress a report that ratepayers paid for! YCCA wants the aviation community to get behind them and their efforts to force the new council to come clean with the report and the reasons why they clearly won't support development. Have a look at www.ycca.org.au and decide for yourself.

You'll find the latest edition of Australian Flying ready for your collection. Sometimes an issue gels better than others, and this is one of those. If I was asked why, I doubt I could explain. Is it the cover shot? Is it the range and quality of articles? Possibly it is the combination of all of those things together that just work so well along side each other. Mind you, certainly good contributors right across the board help a lot, and those people deserve credit for so much of the success of every print edition we produce. To complement that, you'll also note the Flightpath, Australia's premier magazine on warbirds and antiques also has a new issue. Why not go out and get them both at once?

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...3IrtYjv.99

MB comment to LMH - Wink

Quote:Mike Borgelt • 2 days ago
So AOPA and others are getting bogged down in minor details while the UK with a much higher population density thinks the risk is acceptable if you can drive a private motor vehicle without restriction and send them a letter to that effect which is good until age 70, then every three years thereafter. The US has an initial assessment followed by an online quiz on aeromedical factors every two years.

Meanwhile a couple of thousand Australian glider pilots fly motorgliders and gliders weighing up to 850 Kg on a self declaration medical and nearly 10,000 RAAus pilots fly aircraft weighing up to 600 Kg on a similar system to the UK.

Oh, yes, this is all perfectly consistent, logical and reasonable isn't it?

Shows how seriously, grossly, over regulated this country is and GA pilots will continue to spend millions of dollars every year for ZERO benefit. Lucky we are a rich country with a thriving GA industry, right?
Reply
LMH - 27 April 2018.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:Steve Hitchen

For the second week in a row, I find myself wanting to comment on an accident, even though it's something I say I rarely do. This week we have the report into a fatal EC135 crash that the ATSB has concluded was caused by VFR flight into IMC. The really sad part is that the pilot knew he was in strife and landed at a safe haven, but then after 40 minutes decided to give it another go. We don't know what he was thinking, but enough of us have been in this situation before. Forced down at an airport, we watch the sky eagerly to see when it will relent and allow us to get going. All of a sudden we start to see light patches in the grey overcast. Surely that means things are getting better? Eventually we convince ourselves that the weather has improved enough for us to give it a go. Misguided optimism comes to the fore and we leave our safe haven, just like this pilot did. It's not easy to gauge from the ground if the overcast is really breaking up, so we need to be aware of the danger of misguided optimism and take that into account when we make the call to go.

Quote:I feel the CASA hierarchy was subject to what's known as the Dopeler Effect.

The new Multicom proposal CASA published today contains a level of commonsense that is, I believe, unprecedented. Allowing 126.7 as the frequency at uncharted airports remains the simplest solution and, as the paper notes, many risk mitigators are already in place. This solution seems so obvious it makes me wonder how the Frankenstein proposal of December last year was ever brought to life. Aviation is already a complex activity and excess complication should be weeded out of aviation, not added to it. I feel the CASA hierarchy was subject to what's known as the Dopeler Effect. This is the tendency for silly ideas to seem reasonable if they come at you fast enough. A bit more thinking time and consideration of what the risks really are has produced the simplest answer. I hope CASA has learned that effective regulation doesn't necessarily equate to complex regulation. A couple of weeks back I offered CASA a glass of champagne for killing off the Frankenstein in the room; this week they can have a strawberry in it!

Dick Smith got a very respectable turn-out for his seminar in Wagga Wagga yesterday. They were there to here Dick's ideas for revolutionising general aviation. This could all have been said from Canberra, but doing it in Wagga Wagga had the impact of airing the ideas in the heart of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport's own electorate. Naturally, with Dick being a high-profile person, it got a lot of local media attention. The keystone of Dick's plan is for the minister to implement an agreement Dick says was struck with previous minister Barnaby Joyce and the Labor Party's Anthony Albanese to change the Civil Aviation Act to remove safety as an over-riding priority. Although the minister has not yet openly rejected the idea, deliberately delaying any response under the cover of "considering" is having the same effect. The question remains why the minister hasn't confirmed the agreement. It could be that he doesn't agree with it, sees it not as a priority and will eventually get around to it, or that there is some dark and nefarious political motive behind it all. When politicians are involved, always suspect politics. If Dick's seminar yesterday has put some mustard on the minister, it can only be good for aviation.

Australia Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL) is getting nervous about the future of the CASA funding. The regulator gives money to the various approved self-administering aviation organisations (ASAO) like AWAL, RAAus, GFA and so forth to do the administering work that otherwise CASA would need to do. Now CASA is saying they are reviewing the funding arrangements, but that there will be no change in total overall funds for the ASAOs. So what's there to review? It can only be that CASA is looking to cut the pie into different pieces in the future, which inevitably means that some ASAOs will get more and others less. With AWAL being probably one of the smaller ASAOs around, their share will be relatively parsimonious as it is, so they have some foundation for worry if their slice was to get smaller. So, if the funding level is not going to change, what has prompted the need for a review? If more and more people are migrating from CASA admin to ASAO admin, then the ASAOs need more funding! The only way flat funding will work is if some ASAO participation is up and others down. I don't think we're seeing fluctuation of such a level that the wealth has to be re-distributed.

The rift is getting wider. At the last TAAAF meeting, the forum elected to basically kick out AOPA. The group was getting concerned over the reasons why AOPA co-founded the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA), and when AOPA didn't supply answers, felt they had to take action. AOPA has said they had no intention of leaving TAAAF, but surely their position was no longer tenable. AOPA CEO Ben Morgan has since said TAAAF was no longer working the way they needed it to, so we could expect they would have left the forum sooner or later anyway. The question for the immediate future is whether or not other TAAAF member organisations feel the same way. Morgan has dropped hints that there may be more defectors. but if there are, those groups are making no noise about it. It would make no sense for an association to be a member of both TAAAF and AGAA, so it follows that what's good for one is bad for the other. What we can't tell right now is whether or not this rift is good for aviation or bad for aviation.

Go Matt Hall! A great win in Cannes that promises so much for his 2018 Red Bull Air Race campaign. Second in the championship after two rounds is a handy place to be in, and with the Edge 540 nicely tuned, Matty and his team can rightly expect some more brilliant performances. Currently the fox is the USA's Mike Goulian, but Hall is heading a pack of hounds that inlcudes Yoshi Muroya, Matthias Dolderer and Martin Sonka. For sure it's going to be a challenging year, but Matt Hall Racing has never been too shy to pick up gauntlets when ever they are thrown down.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...3RVuXeD.99
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Of rice bowl protection rackets and turf wars.

Hitch – “The rift is getting wider. At the last TAAAF meeting, the forum elected to basically kick out AOPA. The group was getting concerned over the reasons why AOPA co-founded the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA), and when AOPA didn't supply answers, felt they had to take action. AOPA has said they had no intention of leaving TAAAF, but surely their position was no longer tenable.

Bollocks - This is nucking futs – childish, stupid, incredibly damaging and playing right into the belly of the beast. Divide and conquer rules the skies. It is way past time every one of the ‘alphabet soup groups’ put self interest, ego and agenda aside and focused on two points. Two major issues. Once they have won those points they can go back to throwing rocks on each others shed roofs and cosying up to government agencies for the doled out dollars. BUT FIRST THE ACT and THE REGULATIONS need to be dealt with. Everyone, from Qantas down to Ol’ mate flying his Bunnings Bug smasher around the farm will benefit from a reduction in compliance cost and a reduction in the cost of running the regulator. While they had the tools out they could build a solid case for a total reform of the regulator; which would not only save some pennies, but remove the overburden of ‘criminality’ on a whim; make CASA accountable for the actions they take, the rules they make and every dollar they spend (all of ‘em). All ‘groups’ and companies together: once only in one concerted, unified, solid push would topple the beast. Got to be better than the current hair pulling and bitch slapping. Bunch of badly behaved school kids, FDS we are in deep do-do here; get over yourselves, get on with it – and quit pissing about.

“No, no thanks mate – I’m off outside; whether to throw rocks at the traffic or; bark at the moon is yet to be decided.”
Reply
LMH - 04 May 2018: WOI's here, AGAA goes for consensus and who needs a 3-nm restriction?

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: steve-hitchen7.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 4 May 2018
3 May 2018

Steve Hitchen

This week's LMH is coming to you a bit from the past. Whilst you are reading this, I am most likely on the road somewhere between Emerald, Vic, and Kiama, NSW. You can expect me to be rolling down the Hume Highway with Eric Clapton or Creedence Clearwater Revival on the CD player and the cruise control engaged. It's that time of the year when all roads and airways point to Wings over Illawarra (WOI), and for me this year means going by road. I was in the midst of writing a newsy piece on WOI the other day when I realised how much WOI was startiing to look a lot like Oshkosh. I understand I've made a huge statement there; in reality there will never be anything else in the world to rival Osh. But in WOI we have the closest we've ever been able to get. It has the largest attendence of any annual air show (in Australia a rare thing indeed), has complete support from the ADF, Temora Aviation Museum and the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society and private owners. GA companies are starting to get on board now, and the likes of CASA, Airservices and RAAus are getting behind it as well. The only thing we really have missing is the mass fly-in of private GA aircraft. Is it that Illawarra Regional Airport is too difficult to get to thanks to the mountains due west? Or is it both the northern and southern approaches are guarded by controlled airspace? The WOI website itself alludes to what may be an increasing problem: there's nowhere to park aeroplanes. The organisers have reserved very limited space this year saying they need more land for public car parking. That could perpetuate the issue because it labels fly-ins as also-rans rather than something to be encouraged. That is probably the tallest obstacle preventing WOI from ever looking more like Oshkosh.

Quote:..One of two things has happened here: the minister has melted, or he's dropped us into a political labyrinth..

It seems the time has come for civil aviation to get its Act together. Last week Dick Smith made a public plea to change the Civil Aviation Act in front of 100 or so people. Dick says he got consensus for the change from Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese, only for Barnaby to get himself mired in scandal and have to resign. New minister Michael McCormack baulked at making the change initially, but has since told the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) that he will consider it if the GA industry can come up with an agreement about what the intent of any changes to the act are. One of two things has happened here: the minister has melted, or he's dropped us into a political labyrinth that he knows we can't get out of. Asking for the general aviation industry for consensus on anything has been a delaying factor in everything that we've tried to do. I have been asking for it for years, but it seems consenus is ever further away with AOPA, AMROBA and the SAAA splitting from TAAAF like the Judean Peoples' Front. However, a change to the Civil Aviation Act to remove the primacy of safety and demand that regulation take into account cost impact is something the entire general aviation industry needs to be able to get together on; it has to be a point of unity. AGAA has scheduled a summit for 4-6 June in Wagga Wagga, the new home of aviation activism, and here's what we need to do. We need to create a new intent for the Act complete with proposed new wording, back it up with solid argument and evidence and lay the whole thing at the minister's feet. If we fail to do that, we hand the government every reason they need to do absolutely nothing.

We have 11 days left to respond to CASA's latest Multicom proposal. This is not really a difficult one to deal with, although some people might be raising an eyebrow over the idea of restricting the use of 126.7 at uncharted airfields to within 3 nm. Driving that restricted seems to be a desire to keep VFR flights on the area frequency as long as possible, but that doesn't seem to be an issue with 126.7 airports that are marked on charts or other CTAFs with dedicated freqencies. My concern is that someone in CASA seems preoccupied with time. If you're in a Piper Archer, 3 nm is 1.5 mins flying time, but in something like a Baron that comes down to a mere 60 seconds. Is 60 seconds enough warning of impending arrival in a circuit? It comes down to balance. What is more dangerous: the fact that an aircraft may not be on the area frequency long enough or arrival in a circuit with 60 seconds notice? As someone who regularly flies out of 126.7 airfields (charted and uncharted), I think only 60 seconds notice of a Baron up my backside is not enough. If CASA want a restriction, it would seem smarter to base it on time, not distance.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...8THczRC.99


Sandy Reith • an hour ago
There’s no logic in calling for a consensus on something which is undefined.

There’s no logic in the Minister inferring that he can’t act in the National interest unless he has a consensus from disparate bodies represented by various individuals.

There’s no logic in putting blame on the General Aviation industry for the shocking loss of GA businesses and jobs, services, asset devaluation and loss of Commonwealth airport utility when clearly its the result of extremely poor policy, government legislated, criminal code unworkable law of strict liability. Thousands of pages of micro management and the new training rules, transition August, which will close even more of the last few GA flying schools. A National disaster is occurring right now and Minister McCormack is sitting on his hands. The invisible government appointed Board of CASA also.

I defy anyone to point to any country where all the various privately organised GA and airline associations act in concert, in one voice, and give singular advice to the government of that country. Of course not, its totaling illogical.

We elect and pay our Parliamentary representatives to govern for the greater good, not to sit back hands off the wheel (the independent regulator) and using every excuse not to act.

The ancient Greeks believed that courage was the highest virtue, too bad its not showing where its seriously needed.


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
I do like the Hitch choice in music - Clapton and CCR. He should probably add some B.B King, Aretha, Stevie Ray Vaughn and John Mayer to his repertoire. But Hitch, please don’t play any of that while flying as that is probably a cardinal sin and crime against the Act in Fort Fumbles books.

Speaking of music, here is the CAsA theme song;



Reply
Wink 
Gobbles,

Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin
Reply
LMH 11 May '18: On diplomacy, remoteness, Cirruses and industry events.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:Steve Hitchen

I got accused of being diplomatic last week.

An e-mail arrived in my inbox accusing me of not labeling the minister's call for consensus as being bullshit. "It's a dummy pass and should be seen as such. Why not say so in your column?" No, I didn't call the minister on it, and the reason why is that I don't know that it's bullshit at all. I did hint in the last LMH that Michael McCormack could be using the call as a delaying tactic, but it's just as likely that the cry for consensus is real. Within the GA community is contained the greatest wealth of knowledge about safe and efficient aviation, the problem is that different voices exhort different solutions with the same level of integrity. So how do we decide which one to follow? I am reminded of a line in the Dire Straits song Industrial Disease that says "Two men say they're Jesus ... one of them must be wrong." Mark Knopfler hinted that he didn't know which one was Jesus, and that's what is facing the department and CASA over almost every issue. Under Mark Skidmore, CASA admitted that it wasn't the be-all and end-all of aviation knowledge, and set up the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) to draw on industry expertise that it just didn't have. But a keystone to ASAP was The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF), which CASA has relied upon to deliver non-fractured policy that the regulator can work with. It saves time, money and frustration not having to sift through and evaluate every single opinion that comes from the industry. I expect they'll be getting a bit antsy that the rise of the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) will return them to the days of multi-opinion feedback that tends to stifle progress. I empathise with them completely! I am regularly delivered information and expertise over any and every matter to hand, and find that I don't get consensus from the industry either. So, why didn't I play the "bullshit" card on the minister? Because for every person who said it was bullshit there was another who said it was genuine. Ironic, isn't it; we can't even get consensus on whether or not we need consensus.

Quote:"..there could be some very good propositions coming the way of the department..."

Being a proud Victorian (sorry ... no apologies will be forthcoming) I have bleated on about my state being excluded from the Regional Airports Upgrade Program (RAUP) regularly enough. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria is classified as either inner or outer regional except for two small zones far west and far east. After doing due diligence on this, I noted that only two airports in Victoria qualified for money: Rainbow and Mallacoota. And in the last round of grants, Victoria finally got some money, $250K allocated to ... Hopetoun. What? Was my due diligence not very diligent? ABS has confirmed that Hopetoun is not classified as remote, so why do they get money? It turns out that the boundaries move, and at the time the grants were assessed, the department was using old data that showed the town was remote. But more telling was a reply from the department that said "Hopetoun appears to be only some 20 kilometres from the Remote boundary. If the application were lodged now, the applicant would have the opportunity, under the guidelines, to build a case around the aerodrome servicing remote areas even where it is located in an adjacent regional area itself." To me that changes the game for everyone. Airports near remote boundaries now have the opportunity to get in on the largesse doled out from Canberra provided the can show they support remote areas. With many regional airports supporting the RFDS and firebombing operations into remote areas, there could be some very good propositions coming the way of the department. This is loophole strategy, but necessary in light of the government once again neglecting our regional airports in the budget. In hindsight, we should have expected nothing more; the Federal Government off-loaded the regional airports to the councils in the first place so they wouldn't have to pay for upkeep.

Are the Q1 delivery figures for the SR20 simply a variance or the start of a trend? The smaller Cirrus has been a bit of a journeyman in the market for the past few years; not falling down, but not leaping to great heights either. Then suddenly 20 of them march out the door in one sales quarter. If you go by numbers alone, you'd conclude that the rise of the SR20 has come at the expense of Cessna's C172SP, but why? The answer lies most likely in the G6 version. This machine has a 215-hp motor that has made the SR20 a completely new aeroplane with a new set of capability and performance numbers, and it could be that it's very appealing to the market. But there could also be some cannibal action happening for Cirrus. The capability gap between the SR20 and the SR22 may have drawn marginal buyers into the higher category, but with the gap closing, the SR20 may now be a better fit at a lower cost. The SR22 delivery figures were down for Q1 as well, which appears to confirm a possible migration of buyers to the SR20, but keep in mind that the whole large-single category was, well, a disaster. Add to that the good results for the SF50 and you could argue that the SR22's market share is being cannibalised from both ends at once. Australian Flying analyses shipment data on 32 aircraft types. In total, 242 aircraft were shipped in Q1 2018. In Q1 2017, that total was 243; virtually no difference, which means the highs and lows of individual aircraft indicate a shift in customers from one to another, not an increase or decrease in shipments. With all that on the table, we'll have to wait to see how the rest of the year comes together before we can declare it a trend.

How good is Rotortech going? When was the last time an aviation industry event let delegates in free because sponsorship and support was so high they didn't need the money? Rotortech is an event of the Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA), but is run by Australian Maritime Defence and Security Australia ... the same friendly people that bring us the Australian International Airshow. This is a step-change in the right direction that could set Rotortech up to be a major aviation event on the Australian calendar. The manufacturers seem to think so, with support coming from just about every major marque in the rotary aviation industry. Rotortech this year is on the Sunshine Coast 24-26 May. If you haven't put your name down to go yet, now is probably the time.

My 1700-km round-trip to Wings over Illawarra last week was certainly worth the drive! WOI put on a blinder of a show that rivaled Avalon in just about every way. I limit that comment to the crowd-pleasing flying displays only. When it comes to an industry event, WOI is not in the same class, nor does it need to be. With Aviatex moving to Bankstown in November, Bright Events sacrificed the industry feel of WOI in order to make things work better. Last year, with Aviatex relegated to the wasteland on the other side of the runway, crowd participation in the expo hall was low; at some times absent. Had they tried that again this year, a repeat of the disappointing head-count was on the cards. So off to Bankstown we go, which is probably a preference to being on the outer at Albion Park. The only setback is that my dream of WOI being the Oshkosh of Australia will have to go unfulfilled.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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


Comments:

frankus54  

Regarding the future election, the shadow transport minister is Anthony Albanese and he would make a great transport minister. He is probably the most talented ALP MP and it would be interesting to get his take on policy revision if the ALP were elected.

Sandy Reith  > frankus54

Frankus I’d love to see any Minister make any forward step for our aviation industry, GA in particular. Problem ; Albo’s history when he was previously the Minister is not inspiring. It was he that acceded to CASA’s plea for more money, additional safety studies blah blah so he whacked on an extra fuel levy to pay this one off program to end in four years. The then estimate was $89.9 million over the four years. CASA promptly put on nearly 200 extra staff and had to devise even more make work programs to fill in days when there’re not in conferences O/S or in sunny QLD, especially in winter months.

Mid 2009 Albo migrated the ATSB out of direct Ministerial control claiming it should be above politics, the much loved ‘independent umpire’ concept turning into yet another independent Commonwealth corporate, like CASA. Trouble is without the Minister looking over their shoulders their incentives are to up the salaries and do nothing much except duck shove and delay wherever possible. We all know what happened then, runaway costs and flawed reports. The PelAir/Rex ditching episode is still not settled satisfactorily after nine years even after a number of extra reports at huge expense. Albo has his turn and let the make work salary factories continue to steamroll GA. We’ve not had a Minister worth his salt in living memory, Truss followed Albo and allowed the ‘temporary’ levy to stay on pouring more aviation millions into the government’s insatiable maw.

SteveHitchen Mod > frankus54

Frank. Anthony Albanese was Minister for Transport in both the Rudd and Gillard governments. During that time he didn't really set the town on fire. His department produced the much-discredited Aviation White Paper that has since been thrown in a bottom drawer. When approached before the last federal election, the Labor Party didn't release a new aviation policy as such, but just pointed again to the White Paper. It did them no good at all in aviation circles. Also, Anthony Albanese is the Member for Grayndler, much of which is under the flight path for Sydney International. This makes him beholden (as it should) to an electorate that has become increasingly anti-aviation because of noise. It's a massive conflict of interest. The federal election is late next year, so the Labor Party has time to come up with reasonable aviation policy, which they will need to do if they are to get the industry and community onside.



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 18 May '18 - WTD Huh


Quote:– Steve Hitchen

Lawyers, guns, money. Misusing any of these three things generally brings heartache and pain and rarely advances the cause for which they were originally employed. Take, for example, the Australian General Aviation Alliance's (AGAA) plan to involve a quarrel of solicitors operating pro bono at their summit in July. The intent, according to inside sources, is to use legal arguments to support their case and counter anything CASA can put up against them in their quest to remove the primacy of safety from the Civil Aviation Act 1988. I believe this is a plan to fail. Firstly, this summit needs to be about the general aviation industry, what it wants and what it needs. The GA community needs to be able to converse with each other, bounce ideas off each other and come up with a good plan that can be presented to the minister after only two days. Involve the lawyers and at the end of it all you'll be right back where you started. The lawyers will pick apart any and every argument you can put up for new wording to the Act and find fault with just about everything you write. The summit will effectively be strangled by legal opinion and the opinions that count the most will be lost. Secondly, I have it on pretty good authority that CASA won't put up any arguments to be countered. Why would they? CASA has two instruments that it must abide by: the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the minister's Statement of Expectations. It's not their place to put up counter-arguments and I don't think they'll do it. The Act is, literally, an Act of Parliament, and so is owned by parliamentarians. They might put up counter arguments, but most of those arguments will be based in politics, not law. Get the industry consensus on paper, present it to the minister, then let the department deal with the legalities to make it work. Let the aviation community breathe and achieve at the summit; you won't be able to do that if you misuse lawyers in an attempt to make your solution foolproof.

On that note: David Forsyth has come out in support of making changes to the Act. This is very surprising given that his ASRR in 2014 didn't recommend this despite many submissions that supported it. However, his explanation behind the changes of heart is pretty solid: attempts to bring about economic release through other means have failed, so now the big bat has to be used. This is a huge feather in the cap of the change proponents, as Forsyth is one of the most respected people in the aviation community, and his opinion travels miles around Canberra...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...S5zxhqU.99

Quote:[Image: Forsyth_9E5A5950-EC9D-11E5-8369061EFD4639D7.jpg]David Forsyth, Chairman of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) board.

Forsyth throws his Weight behind Act Amendment Efforts
18 May 2018

David Forsyth, author of the 2014's Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) report has come out in support of amending the Civil Aviation Act to force CASA to take into account economic factors.

The ASRR specifically avoided recommending changes to the Act despite receiving several submissions to do so.

Speaking to Australian Flying, Forsyth said that he felt moves to change the Act were now needed due to slow progess on reforms recommended in the ASRR.
"I am fully supportive of Dick Smith’s proposal to modify the Civil Aviation Act, and sincerely hope that it is successful," he said.

"During the ASRR, the panel specifically did not recommend a dual mandate, in part due to debate about dual mandates being unworkable as part of the Royal Commission into the Pikes River disaster in New Zealand, and issues arising from the Valujet accident in the USA.

"Countries like the UK and NZ which had dual mandates also had an aviation regulator who had a wider remit than CASA – the UK CAA also regulates commercial issues in aviation and NZ also covers security. 

"The panel also believed at the time, that with the right approach and a willing regulator, a better balance of sustainability and safety would be achieved. That belief proved to be misplaced, as for the two years after the ASRR, the regulator continued to demonstrate its unwillingness to change its culture or to take a more balanced approach. 

"Fortunately that has improved since Shane Carmody took up the DAS role. The ongoing concern, however, is that when Shane leaves CASA, it is likely that the old culture could return.

"That is why I agree with Dick that the Act needs to be changed, to ensure that the regulator does not hide behind the primacy of safety to the exclusion of everything else, including sustainability."

Dick Smith and the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) have come out strongly in favour of making the change, with AGAA organising a summit of associations in July to reach industry consensus on how the Act should be worded and what the intent should be.

Forsyth also said that any wording changes to the Act would need to be carefully chosen.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...ZcM8j56.99

Wink Big Grin


MTF...P2  Rolleyes on Hitch.. Dodgy
Reply
Or, as the good Reverend would say -

Hitch probably doesn’t mean to come off all ‘negative’ but he sure reads that way, and he’s got it all arse about. There are only two debates which will have great effect on the final outcome and two, possibly three major elements of uncertainty.

1) Dual mandate. As it stands CASA is bound to a single mandate – safety. The proposed changes to the Act will impose a second mandate – economy. Many believe it is wrong to have dual a mandate despite the fact that the UK, USA and NZ and many other leading nations aviation administrators seem to manage quite well, without getting their knitting tangled. Within CASA and government it’s a reasonable assumption that there will be two camps – pro and anti. It will fall to the parliament to pass a new Act or not – provided the revised Act gets that far after parliament debates it. Two things must happen (i) the incumbent minister must be convinced that there is a need to change the Act; and (ii) the parliament must pass the bill. With the Act changed, CASA will have no option other than to comply.

2) Will the hierarchy of the CASA agree or disagree to accept the proposed changes, for there will be two camps (and a boat load of fence sitters). This debate will be of much greater importance than the parliament version. Should those who agree that a change is a good thing win the day; then the minister will get the nod and things will happen. If the no change crew (black hats) win the argument, then the minister must ‘consider his position’. CASA says this stinks like Skippy’s bum, then the reform process is dead. Should the wise owls and white hats win, then the minister will happily stand up and back the changes.

a) Shane Carmody; much will depend on his say –so. Hard to fathom his game plan; on the one hand at Estimates he strongly defends some untenable CASA actions; then later, through the grapevine, we get wind of subtle, but important changes being made. If the CEO believes that a dual mandate is a good thing, then things will happen – if not; then things may happen – eventually. But I’ll have departed this fix for another dimension long before the diluted, manipulated changes filter down to the rank and file.

b) The way CASA have got things set up is, for them, very, very safe and cosy. The minister is well protected; the CASA troops have a tremendous layer of top cover and CASA can do whatever it likes, when it likes as often as pleases. They will loose all of this under a reformed Act and become both accountable and responsible, which will be a shock to the system – a big shock. The notion of CASA operating as responsibly and accountably as a major airline management team is an anathema. It will come down to Black hats v White hats, with Carmody the umpire. Toss a coin.

c) Industry support for a sane, sensible Act will be essential; without that, once again the minister will need to ‘consider his options’. The big players will benefit most through reduced compliance costs and greater efficiency. The engineering and pilot unions should be backing this proposal to the hilt – even if simply to avoid the ever present threat of being prosecuted and unable to defend their actions (or lack thereof).

Should those elements all see the benefit of changing the Act and the knock on effects to industry benefit that will bring, then reform is possible and hope flourishes. Ask yourself one simple question, which nations have a great aviation industry and who does not?

Juggle three balls to win; convince the minister, convince Carmody and convince the industry; drop one and that’s it – tilt, game over.

There now, get off your arse and get behind this very slim chance of making Australian aviation great again.





Lawyers – really Hitch, you been at the Kool Aid again haven’t you. Buck up man and support the drive for better conditions. You know you want to.

Toot toot.
Reply
Hitch's Wagga wrap & OP on LMH.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:AGAA Delegates finalise Outcomes Package



[Image: day_two_delegates.jpg]

Delegates to the 2018 AGAA summit form the recommendations and resolutions to be presented to the government. (Steve Hitchen)

Delegates to the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) summit in Wagga Wagga this week have collaborated on a series of conclusions and recommendations that it wants to present to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack.

Following a series of presentations from various associations last Monday, AGAA delegates gathered on Tuesday to decide on wording for a call to action to be presented to minister Michael McCormack and shadow minister Anthony Albanese.

The conclusions reached were:

  1. general aviation wants to maintain or improve Australia’s aviation safety outcomes
  2. the general aviation sector is of vital importance to Australia especially regional and rural Australia not only in economic terms but in social and community service provision terms
  3. the general aviation sector, including the commercial elements of the sector, is overburdened with the complexity and cost flowing from the current Civil Aviation Act, regulations and other aviation legislation
  4. the current regulatory regime is based on a prescriptive approach to rules and compliance. World best practice is based on outcome-based regulation which Australia should implement immediately in accordance with DAS Directive 01/2015 and the Minister’s CASA Statement of Expectations
  5. the cost and complexity burdens placed on the general aviation sector are exacerbated by the actions of Airservices and airport operators, both privatised and local government owned, by further cost impositions, operational restrictions and inappropriate infrastructure development
  6. the Australian economy has the opportunity to benefit from pilot and engineering training, aircraft and component maintenance and construction services flowing from the world-wide expansion of air travel and aviation activity – especially in Asia. To achieve this, we must be able to respond effectively and be liberated from over regulation
  7. the attitude must be to adopt best regulatory practices in parallel with embracing safety and economic benefits of new technologies in Australian aircraft and operations. This will allow Australia to achieve its potential as an aviation leader, aviation service provider and exporter.

The summit also agreed on a series of resolutions to further the campaign for a reform of the general aviation sector and an easing of the regulatory burden that they believe will lead to industry growth. The resolutions are:
  • provide a statement of value of the GA sector in Australia
  • provide a statement of opportunity for the GA sector in Australia
  • recommend the Civil Aviation Act and other aviation legislation is reviewed and amended to ensure outcome-based regulation is implemented during the first term of the next government
  • recommend a small number of amendments to the Civil Aviation Act to immediately re-focus to a less prescriptive and holistic approach to regulation to be passed through parliament before the next election
  • recommend establishment of an Office of Aviation Industry in the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to engage and assist industry to foster and develop aviation both domestically and internationally
  • recommend prioritising and implementing a programme to identify a number of advances in aviation safety and amenity that can be made within the current regulations and responsibilities and make changes within defined time frames.

Both McCormack and Albanese had previously said that they welcomed the opportunity to consider the outcomes of the summit.

Changes to the Civil Aviation Act as Resolved by the AGAA Summit Delegates.

Whereas the current regulatory stance adopted by CASA is out of step with contemporary regulatory practice, as adopted by The International Civil Aviation Organization through the promulgation of Annex 19, Safety Management Systems, and is contributing to the rapid decline of Australia’s general aviation industry, and

Whereas the World is facing a growing shortage of skilled aviation personnel and Australia has the opportunity to contribute to the training of these personnel in a way that can improve safety, the Aviation Summit finds that elements of the current Civil Aviation Act are not fit for purpose.

Specifically, S9A, Performance of Functions, imposes upon CASA a limitation that impedes the development of performance-based regulation and the safety benefits that would otherwise be achieved. S9A (1) requires that, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration and there is an urgent need to address this anomaly.

The Aviation Summit supports a review of the Civil Aviation Act, to include as a minimum, a repeal of S9A (1) and a replacement with the following language:

9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation as well as:

(a) maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector;
(b) the need for more people to benefit from civil aviation.

The Summit delegates support the need to amend, as soon as possible, the Object of the Civil Aviation Act and other aviation related Acts, without reducing the primacy of safety, to include an amended Object to support a sustainable and viable aviation industry;
The main objective of the Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents;

In addition to this, the objects must include;
i. a strong, efficient and sustainable aviation industry;
ii. enabling more people to benefit from aviation; and
iii. emphasis on substantially reducing the administrative and financial burden of regulatory compliance.

(Note: the final wording will be decided between both the Minister and Shadow Minister.
The summit delegates also support the inclusion of government’s Red Tape Policy to be permanently inserted in Section 98


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...UPVz07D.99

& this week's LMH... Wink

Quote:[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

– Steve Hitchen

In most situations, pessimism spreads like wildfire and optimism has the viscosity of a glacier. But, after the AGAA summit in Wagga Wagga this week, general aviation finds itself on very unfamiliar ground, infected, it seems, with rampant optimism. The summit worked so well that it put itself outside the reach of the most persistent cynicism. Credit for that must go to everyone involved, but particularly to the organisers, AOPA CEO Ben Morgan and summit chairman Geoff Breust. Of course the true measure of any summit will be what it achieves. If everything said was delivered with sincerity and doesn't fall victim to political imperative, we are about to see large leaps forward in aviation reform in this country. How can that not happen now? Minister Michael McCormack and Shadow Minister Anthony Albanese both agreed they would work with the industry and each other to get through needed changes. Possibly the most-used word at the summit was "bipartisan". But has this infectious optimism blinded us slightly to reality? McCormack said in his speech that it was always hard to get anything done when you had a lower-house majority of only one seat. Why was this relevant when bipartisan co-operation will deliver the greatest possible majority you can have, as confirmed by Albanese in his speech? McCormack also pointed out that the requirement for CASA to take into account economic factors is contained in the Statement of Expectations, and that he and Albanese both agree that safety must remain the most important consideration in regulation. As the idea of the summit was to have the primacy of safety removed from the Civil Aviation Act 1988, it seems both these men were telling us it's not going to happen. Even if we make some progress, we are facing some serious headwinds to actually get it agreed to in parliament. We are now in the gravitational pull of the next federal election, and neither side will want aviation safety to even be mentioned in passing during that period. Voters won't understand, and that will scare them. If there is any threat of frightening the voters, both the opposition and the government will likely throw aviation reform under the AOPA bus. So why this flood of optimism?

Quote:..it has the ability to make the changes that will release the GA industry's potential energy..

From my seat I saw a general aviation industry that was working together in a co-operative and respectful manner with the aim of finally doing something about the parlous state we are in. There was still some paraochialism and self-interest, but it was like even that was recognised with respect and was never used as obstacles to agreement. This, to me, is Christmas in July. I have been crying out for co-operation and unity in general aviation since, like, forever. Earlier this week I saw it for what I believe is the first time in at least 30 years. So how can this new-born unity carry GA forward? Legislation is not the only way of making change happen; there is also regulation, which is the domain of the department and doesn't have to be approved by parliament. One of the recommendations, which I will credit to Mike Smith, was to establish an Office of Aviation Industry within the current department. The responsibility of that department would be to foster the aviation industry, promote Australian capabilties to the world and keep the other regulators and administrators honest when it came to sticking to policy initiatives and agreements. There is a very good chance this might get up. If it does, and is effective, it has the ability to make the changes that will release the GA industry's potential energy that is currently bottled up by ineffective regulation and government apathy. So, our new-found optimism has some merit, even if it can't bring about the desired legislative change.

That's not to say no legislative change will happen.There are some indications that both sides of parliament will agree to changes to include the need for CASA to take economic factors into account, but the primacy of safety will remain at Number One. It seems the summit delegates have conceded that, as the final alternative wording of the Act to go back to the department no longer calls for the primacy of safety to be removed, but now states that CASA needs to maintain safety as well as taking economic factors into account. There are some indications that this has a chance of being accepted, but as Albanese pointed out, nothing in parliament happens in a hurry, and no-one will make this an election issue. Consequently, we might have a bit of a wait on our hands.

And as is the custom, the minister arrived at Wagga Wagga armed with good-news announcements pertinent to the event he is attending. This time there were four: Basic Class 2 has started, Marc de Stoop has been appointed to the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG), CASA is starting work on new maintenance regs and that CASA insurance has been extended to those holding a Flight Examiner Rating. This last one got the most applause. It just made sense, and it's frustrating that it took so long for this to be done. When CASA introduced Part 61, Approved Testing Officers (ATOs) were CASA delegates and therefore indemnified by CASA, but the new Flight Examiners that would replace ATOs were not delegates, and therefore not indemnified. That left Flight Examiners open to litigation should an accident or incident cause be traced back to them. Many ATOs simply failed to make the transition, causing CASA to extend the deadline to 31 August this year. According to CASA, there are 800 people who have made the transition, but a further 260 who have yet to do so. The regulator has promised to smooth the path for those who have left the move to the last minute. With the insurance issue now behind us, the whole saga should soon come to an end.

And in another piece of commonsense-loaded good news, Airservices has waived $2 million in service fees for some not-for-profit aeromedical operators. These are groups that are usually very under-funded (although the RFDS does alright in that area) and provide services that have enhanced and saved lives right around the country. It makes sense that they should not only have fees waived, but also should be permanently exempt from further fees in the future. Every little bit helps, and if we're speaking honestly, these five groups need the money more than Airservices does. And in case the irony was lost on anyone, one of the aircraft used in the announcement photo shoot was Little Wings' Piper Malibu VH-FEE. Gotta love that.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...3OXDRzu.99


& a comment:

Quote:[Image: avatar92.jpg?1531462372]

Michael Dalton  2 hours ago
It was certainly an interesting couple of days Hitch. Like you, i cant recall a time there were that many associations in the same location and essentially on the same page. I was actually surprised that there was so many groups and that's probably been a large part of our problem over the years which has enabled CASA to win by divide and conquer! 

The optimist in me hopes like heck that this will be the start of real change but the realist (maybe cynic) in me suggests that as an industry we simply don't represent enough votes for them to care about and we will get lip service at best.




MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 20/07/18: AGAA to force changes; & RAeS pilot training concerns. 

Via the Yaffa Rolleyes :
Quote:
  • [Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]



The Last Minute Hitch: 20 July 2018
20 July 2018

– Steve Hitchen
Forty-nine years ago today, two men named Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon. It was (and probably still is) the pinnacle moment of all the world's space programs. It was a long time ago. I was six years old, and many of you reading this were probably not much older, or perhaps weren't even born. Two years before, Australia had launched its very own space mission. WRESAT blasted into orbit from Woomera Rocket Range in November 1967, and no doubt at the time was thought to be the launch not only of a satellite, but also of Australia's space industry. Nearly half a century later we are finally starting to wonder if we should get into this game. The intervening 50 years since WRESAT can be counted as lost opportunity, which Australia has really made a career out of doing. All you have to do is look at our aircraft manufacturing industry to see that ... any manufacturing industry if we're being honest. Now that the federal government has bowed to commonsense and taken steps to set up a space agency, the time is ripe for general aviation to leverage this sudden attack of awareness and show them how they are bound to continue this endless cycle of lost opportunity unless they act now to save general aviation. Further more, they'll have to spend far less doing it than they will setting up a space agency!

Quote:The trick will  be to keep the energy in the effort

But it does seem that the general aviation industry is determined to force some changes after the success of the GA summit earlier this month. The trick will  be to keep the energy in the effort and show the government that it's time for real change with positive outcomes rather than the political rhetoric and lip services that has made up the responses of the past. The associations seem to be on the same page as well, withmany of them signing up for membership of the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA). This is great news,  because it signifies and ongoing determination to drive change and acceptance that the only way to do it is if the industry gets together. Never before has the old saying "united, we stand; divided, we fall" been more apt in the history of aviation in Australia. Hopefully, the substance these new members have given to AGAA will be noticed in Canberra and taken very seriously.

I read with great curiosity the letter sent to the Minister from the Australian Division of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS). Among other things, it laments that students seem to be unprepared for airline life because they haven't been exposed to new technology enough. It is true that an airline flying career will be all glass cockpits and flight directors, but the general aviation industry regularly complains that graduates, particularly from the academies, are exposed to too much technology and don't have the steam-gauge skills required to fly the majority of the GA fleet. To me it highlights two things: the division in needs between the airline operators and the charter operators, and the schism evident in our training industry: academies (Part 142) teach to airline standards and private schools (Part 141) prepare CPLs for a career in GA. You could argue that this is a great arrangement because operators know where to go for their best fit, but there are two serious issues with that. Firstly, Part 142 schools tend to have VET FEE HELP and CRICOS and other acronym-inflicted funding programs, whereas the Part 141 schools don't get access to that as a general rule. Consequently, students with airlines in their eyes tend to take the fast route and put themselves well into debt to get it by signing up with an academy. Secondly, the airlines don't take the full output of the academies, leaving those without a seat to seek work in a GA industry they have not been adequately prepared for ... but they still have the debt. The RAeS rightly points out that the gap in needs between the airlines and GA is widening and says that professional academies are likely the answer. True enough for the airlines, but the GA world still gets left out in the cold because academies will tailor their training to their prime market, which is young people aiming to fly Embraers, Boeings and Airbuses, not Pipers and Cessnas. That issue is still to be dealt with.

Submissions for the 2018 Wings Awards are now closed. The job is now up to the judging panel to sift through the nominations and identify the best submissions in each category. At first glance, we have a job on our hands, particularly when it comes to the individual people, because some of the most well-known names in the aviation industry have been nominated, and selection of the winner is often down to how well the nominator addressed the criteria. We're due to make the results public in the November-December issue of Australian Flying, which is a good thing because it gives the judging panel plenty of time to consider each one carefully.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...L3Foeif.99
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 27/07/18 - Deputy dog's bollocks; Rustle's report; & Bathurst airport win. 

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

– Steve Hitchen

I am not sure CASA coming out and defending itself against accusations of having an anti-GA agenda is a brilliant tactic; they'd be better off just getting on with the job. This week acting CEO Graeme Crawford went there again, and even though the sentiments might be valid, doing so has drawn even more derision. The reason is that the industry still remembers historical instances that could be explained away only by an anti-GA agenda or simply a lack of expertise. Many of these cases remain unresolved through lack of acknowledgment that CASA's treatment of good people was harsh at best and devious at worst. No words are ever going to substitute for corrective action, and a simple statement "No, we're really goodfellas" is tantamount to sticking a finger in a wound yet to heal. The other issue is that ultimately CASA says something that is either inaccurate or causes more wounds. In this case, the newsletter said "We use available aviation sector information such as accident and incident data, surveillance findings and sector risk profiles to develop informed solutions." It's hard to accept that as accurate in the light of the new fuel rules that will apply from November. Not only has CASA not shown their working out on this, but the solution seems to create more problems than it addresses, which hints at guesswork. And if CASA really operated using sector information, they couldn't possibly have come up with the legendary debacle known as CASR Part 61. With all this in hand, the general aviation community is not listening anymore, but it is watching. Words aren't worth actions, and actions are what GA is looking for. There are signs that CASA is starting to take note of the damage its policies have caused in the past, but there's a long way to go yet. We need to get into a position where the GA community tells CASA they're goodfellas, not the other way around.

Quote:it would be devastating if the government still does nothing.

The industry-led skills and training report has been handed to the minister, who extended it a warm welcome, but not a lot else. Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack has said that training is vital and he's written to the Minister for Education and Training Simon Birmingham to commend the report. That's good, and probably follows protocol, but what we really need McCormack to do is go into Birmingham's office, take off his shoe and start thumping it on the desk demanding immediate action. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is also the Deputy Prime Minister, so surely he has the clout to concrete changes to improve the situation. After all the work the GA industry has put into making sure each and every issue plaguing the industry was put under the nose of the minister, it would be devastating if the government still does nothing.

And the report itself shows an aviation training system in complete disarray; misaligned with requirements and failing in so many aspects. Demand for both properly trained and qualified pilots and engineers is outstripping supply by a very long way, so far that the airlines themselves are going into self-protection mode. Any situation where demand exceeds supply should be a guarantee of the industry fixing itself through new entrants and expanding existing players, but entry costs, complex regulations, lack of instructors and ongoing costs of compliance are actually seeing the opposite happen: schools are shutting their doors. How is this possible? With the government nowadays offering student loans to get people through degree courses in Part 142 schools, we should have streams of new CPLs coming on line and there should be no shortage. Obviously that's not the case, and the reason is a very complex one. As I see it, the decline of the GA sector has killed the airlines' fallback plans. Traditionally, the airlines took GA pilots with lots of MECIR time on Navajos, Chieftains and C402s that translated nicely into experience the airlines could use. With those aircraft being obsoleted largely by the Cessna Caravan, the airlines are struggling to find the right type of pilot in the GA industry. That sends the airlines back to the academies, which seem to be unable to supply the airlines with the right type of person. Fun fact: in the period 2009-2017 the number of aviation students using government loans rose systematically. The number of licences issued did not.* Is this an indicator that students are getting started, but are dropping out before they are qualified? It would be very interesting to get the stats on how many starters at degree level actually make it through to an airline seat.

There seems to be a thawing in the frosty attitude many regional councils have traditionally taken to general aviation. Bathurst airport looked to be the target of increased fees and charges this week, but intervention from the users and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has cause the council to take a second look. Add to that news that Bourke shire is rethinking their plan to close three airstrips and both Orange and Armidale have invited the industry to discussions on the future of their airports. Only a few months ago, Wagga Waggawas touting new charges there as well, which were seen off by the industry. Although we can't declare victory just yet, these are all positives and point strongly to the advantages of co-operation between the industry and willing local councils. The issue remains the unwilling local councils who are blinkered in their approach to aviation and can see airports only as liabilities rather than assets.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

*Australian Industry Standards, Aviation Workforce Skills Study, March 2017, p7


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



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
WTF? Has Hitch returned to ‘our side’? He certainly went off track for a bit and was becoming a CAsAmite but now he seems to be speaking without forked tongue again?

A good article Hitch. It turned my gauge green again.
Reply
Janus – the two faced god.

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.”

Hitch – “I am not sure CASA coming out and defending itself against accusations of having an anti-GA agenda is a brilliant tactic; they'd be better off just getting on with the job. This week acting CEO Graeme Crawford went there again etc.”

When I read in a report, words like those in the Hitch opening sentence (above), I’m never sure whether to grab the AP bucket first - or the key-board. Tragedy it would be,  should I mix up the actions.

Hitch – “doing so has drawn even more derision.

There is only one way to deal with a creature like Crawford. If I ask nicely, I’m fairly sure P2 can provide a whole range of Hansard video featuring the man who is defending the CASA actions. Watch and study first – then, decide whether you believe if this man has the best interests of the industry at heart - or not.























To my mind, there is a lot more McConvict than Santa Claus on display in the video evidence. If you were seeking to cast a villain in a dark movie; one in which the story line was focussed on (Hitch) - Many of these cases remain unresolved through lack of acknowledgment that CASA's treatment of good people was harsh at best and devious at worst.” You would look no further than Crawford, would you.
 
Jung - “The reason for evil in the world is that people are not able to tell their stories.


If you can spare the time (if P2 can find it) watch a real reformer at work – Mike Smith – (the man who should be DAS) at Wagga (try AOPA). Chalk and cheese; puts the stark differences between what CASA should be, and what it is in reality, into very sharp focus indeed.
 
Not that any of it matters; not so long as we have a minister who’s best advice comes through a conduit, from the likes of Crawford and Aleck. A minister who not only swallows it, but takes the soft, safe option and actually embraces it.  I'll have that bucket now please GD...
 
“A knavish speech sleeps in a fool's ear.”
 
Toot – MTF – toot.

From miniscule Mc'Nobody's thread:

Quote:Just exactly who is this Graeme Crawford?

Other than a nasty piece of work?

P2 - See here TB: Janus – the two faced god. 

And: https://www.linkedin.com/in/graeme-m-crawford-2b77983/
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)