Alphabet if’s and but's.
Hitch with a ASAP TAAAF update - Rolleyes

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: TAAAF_image_composite.jpg]The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) presents a united industry view to Canberra under the guidance of Honorary Chairman Greg Russell. (composite image)

TAAAF sends Three Policy Papers to Canberra

10 November 2017

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has sent three new policy papers to CASA CEO Shane Carmody, covering what it says are issues of great concern to the aviation industry: engineering training, flight training and a revitalisation of general aviation.

The three papers were written with the idea that they would be discussed at the next meeting of CASA's Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) in two weeks' time.

"We've been working on these papers for a while and sent them into the government about three weeks ago," TAAAF Honorary Chairman Greg Russell told Australian Flying. "We think there's a response coming to us shortly.

"I have asked that these three papers go to the next ASAP meeting. I think that's a legitimate way for TAAAF to formulate policy and put it into a consultative process now that we have this panel in place.

"We tried to keep them concise and there are recommendations there that cover more than just CASA, for example, the question of engineering training.

"I think [presenting the papers] is a logical development of the whole forum approach, and now with this consultation mechanism in place, we think this is the right way to get this material into the forum."

Engineering Training

TAAAF says the engineering training program in Australia has "all but collapsed" citing data that indicates that in 2009 there were 779 apprentices, 398 in 2013 and estimates that put next year's figure at less than 100.

"Firstly, there is a lack of a transparent training pathway for students to enter the industry and identify and career pathway," the TAAAF position paper says, "and secondly, the funding arrangements for RTOs [Registered Training Organisations] across the various states are confused and diverse.

"Additionally, these RTO’s are now required to have an additional CASA Approval, namely as a Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO)."

In the paper, TAAAF congratulates CASA for implementing a review of CASR Part 66 maintenance training regulations, but says the issue of funding is one that still needs attention, and recommends "that the Federal government assume control over the funding and management of the training requirements specified by CASA in order to produce appropriately skilled engineers whose licences include greater scope and are recognised internationally."

Flight Training

According to TAAAF, the new flight training regulations, CASR Parts 61, 141 and 142 "impose undue complexity and cost on the aviation industry that will lead to a significant reduction in training capacity."

The paper lays the blame for the situation on four main issues:
  • Students at CASA-approved flight training schools (as distinct from university-backed courses) have to access to HECS or other government funding
  • CASA will not indemnify instructors with a Flight Examiner rating the way they did for Authorised Testing Officers
  • The new CASRs place very high demands on training organisations and individuals that TAAAF believes will lead to a capacity reduction
  • The Federal Goverment tightened 457 visa requirements, which restricts the ability for Australia to recruit instructors from overseas.
"This combination is leading to pilot shortages in various areas, a reduction in the operations of existing flight training schools, a restriction on availability of specialised training, and an overall reduction in capabilities across the industry," TAAAF says.
To correct the situation, the position paper recommends that ASAP establishes a joint industry/CASA review of the three new regulation suites to be completed within three months; that the Federal Government extend funding to all CPL candidates and those doing operational ratings, and the Federal Government take steps to simplify aviation industry access to 457 visa candidates to enable a greater exchange of international expertise.

Revitalising General Aviation

That general aviation is in decline is a position the entire industry has taken over the past 10-15 years, and the TAAAF paper on the subject refines the problem down to four main issues:
  • Overly-prescriptive regulation
  • CASA's lack of focus on GA
  • A failure of state and federal policies on training
  • Cost of access to training facilities and airports
Whilst recognising that many different factors have contributed to the decline of GA, the paper goes on to point out that there are several things that can be laid at CASA's doorstep.

"The key issue is that CASA has struggled with general aviation issues for at least a decade largely because it has not enunciated a clear policy or organisational structure that relates risk and controls to the different needs and capacities of the different sectors it regulates.

"This has led to a slow and overly complex regulatory reform process and significant new costs and complexity."

With CASA currently considering an internal restructure, TAAAF has grabbed the opportunity to recommend the regulator set-up a GA directorate and take a more relevant regulatory stance toward the industry in line with the results of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR).

TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. It is due to review and release an updated major policy statement next year.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...W1hWFsy.99


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
I would hate to think that anyone thought I was bagging the Russel effort to get on top of the regulatory farce and straighten the whole shemozzle out. It is a ‘must’ do. Russel has deep, ‘proper’ knowledge of the weights and ropes which run the deep heart of our bloated bureaucracy; indeed, he was very much part of it and worked ‘the system’ very well. But ‘speed’ is incredibly important.

When one is sitting on a half million a year, secure and at no financial risk; there is time to per sue ‘reform’ at a leisurely pace. But, all the while the industry clock is ticking; and, it is not keeping accurate time. Parts 61, 66, and a few others are creating havoc - right now, in real time. This before we even get to the ridiculous i.e. pilots are no longer considered ‘approved’ meteorological observers. Which, standing alone, is cause for great concern – in a safety sense, if nothing else. But the law is there; it is ridiculous, it needs to be repealed – like yesterday, which would be good.

We have been at ‘regulatory reform’ for three decades now – thirty bloody years. CASA will deliver the packages into ‘law’, no matter what rubbish is enshrined. Aat the present rate of reform it’s going to take another thirty years to straighten out the dogs breakfast we are forced (under criminal liability) to live with. Which regulations have been modified to reflect industry needs or preference. Don't worry - the answer is ZERO.

Great effort Greg – appreciated – but could we please just move it along a little faster – at industry pace – not at the usual speed of the Sleepy Hollow retards. Thank you; that would be great.

Home safe (again) -  well done lad - now get 'em in; we'll not discuss matters aeronautical; unless you became an unintentional criminal today;  No, well how are the dogs?
Reply
Alphabets push for winding back strict liability offences - Rolleyes

Finally the Alphabets collectively lift the scab on CASA's attempted O&O of the Government response to ASRR Recommendation 32:

Quote:Recommendation 32

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reassesses the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

Response

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

CASA, in consultation with the Department and industry, will conduct a review of the penalties for offences in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the CASR.

This review report will be provided to the CASA Board and Director of Aviation Safety and the Attorney-General’s Department (in terms of Criminal Law penalty policy) for consideration by 30 June 2015.

The Government is also aware that CASA is giving consideration to the establishment of a civil penalty regime, noting this would require a change in CASA’s legislation.

The Government supports CASA releasing a policy paper in the first half of 2015 to the public and industry for comment to seek their views on this proposal.

Via the Oz today... Wink :

Quote:[Image: e1f4ce27692523cf6a8fc2b05309fb9c?width=650]

Strict liability in penalty review

12:00am
ANNABEL HEPWORTH

Aviation safety authority and bureaucrats will kick off a review of penalties in the civil aviation rules next year.

Quote:The contentious issue of strict liability will be on the table when Australia’s aviation safety authority and bureaucrats kick off a landmark review of penalties in civil aviation rules next year.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority said it would review penalties under the Civil Aviation Act and the regulations with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development after the drafting of the remaining regulatory reform agenda.

“It is expected the review will be initiated in 2018,” a CASA spokesman said.

The review is expected to focus on “the proportionality of the penalties imposed for specified offences, having regard to the seriousness of the offences ­involved”, the spokesman said.

“Consideration will also be given to the possible decriminalisation of certain legislative ­requirements, and the possible ­relocation of certain of offences from the regulations to the act and vice versa. Consideration will also be given to the propriety, desirability and practicality of a civil penalties regime.”

The issue of strict liability ­offences — which remove the need to prove the person intended to do something wrong, or did so with knowledge, recklessness or negligence — will be within the scope of the review.

“The extent to which strict liability offences should be retained in the civil aviation legislation will be considered in the course of the review,” the spokesman said.

“Strict liability offences are common in Australian legislation governing public safety, including our own longstanding Civil Aviation Regulations and the earlier Air Navigation Regulations.’’

In 2014, a report by the panel led by aviation veteran David ­Forsyth — which criticised CASA for taking too hard a line — urged a review of penalties, a recommendation the government agreed with.

The Forsyth panel said there was concern about the severity of the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

The review cited the example of failing to inform CASA of a change of address within 14 days’ attracting a much higher fine than when a driver doesn’t inform the motor registry of the same thing.

But the review has been plagued by delay.

The Australian Aviation Association Forum honorary chairman Greg Russell said he had sympathy for the size of the reform agenda CASA was dealing with and said this was “no mean feat”, though “we are continuing to see encouraging signs out of CASA”.

The nature and level of penalties had “certainly been an irritation” in the sector.

“What do you do first?” Mr Russell said. It’s just terribly important to get these regulatory things fixed, at least this phase of it. Then the industry will know where they stand. I think that’s the big bugbear.”

Aircraft Owners and Pilots ­Association executive director Benjamin Morgan said his group wanted to see a “wholesale retraction” of some of the penalties.

He also said he was concerned breaches of most of the provisions of the regulations, and some of the provisions in the Civil Aviation Act, were “strict liability”.

Aerial Application Association of Australia chief executive officer Phil Hurst echoed the concern on strict liability.

“The concept of having an ­advanced high-reliability industry and a culture that goes with that is that you’ve got to be able to put trust in people to do the right thing,” Mr Hurst said.

“You have to verify. Without doubt, you’ve got to verify. But you don’t use strict liability as a simple way of making the issuing of penalties easier.”

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said: “A safety culture cannot be imposed. It must be fostered. A regulator can police sensible accepted standards, but it cannot foster the safety culture with a rule book and a heavy-handed application of penalties.”

CASA has previously come under fire for being slow to adopt recommendations from the Forsyth report.

After the CASA executive considered a draft preliminary review of penalties, it was decided a full review of penalties would be started after the regulatory reform agenda was dealt with.

Plans to release a discussion paper by March this year were postponed. It is now expected CASA will release a paper for consultation on the nature and level of penalties in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. The CASA spokesman said a review of offences and penalties would be “useful and constructive”.


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
“Minister it would appear, on the face of it, that there may be some merit in considering if we could, next year, review the status of the Aviation Safety Review of 2014.

Unfortunately the aviation industry, and especially those little plane people, don’t understand how we’ve saved many many lives and how difficult it is to review the vast number of regulations that have been needed to accomplish this task. Yes Minister I hear what you are saying about some dissatisfaction from some quarters, but these people are a very small minority, the sort of outback cowboys that we have to come down on pretty hard and yes we’ve managed to drive many of them out and thus saved a lot of time and trouble within Aviation Hearse.

The smooth running of our current administrative model is one to be admired and I’m expecting the Board to favourably look at rewarding, especially our senior people, all the CASA employees for their dedication, hard work and unstinting help to other Commonwealth corporate bodies, like ATSB, when called upon. Thank you Minister, we’ll have a Statement of Expectorants ready for signing very soon, say early next year. Yes Sir, it would be tight by 30th March next year assuming no unforeseen developments.

We could get cracking on the review some time after that. Thank you again Minister. Oh yes of course I’ll pass on to you any important developments that we cannot handle without your invaluable judgment. Of course Minister, no disturbances over the summer break, only a major catastrophe would cause me to call you at your summer beach house.”
Reply
Further TAAAF update & AMROBA latest newsflash -  Rolleyes

(11-10-2017, 05:16 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Hitch with a ASAP TAAAF update - Rolleyes

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: TAAAF_image_composite.jpg]The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) presents a united industry view to Canberra under the guidance of Honorary Chairman Greg Russell. (composite image)

TAAAF sends Three Policy Papers to Canberra

10 November 2017

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has sent three new policy papers to CASA CEO Shane Carmody, covering what it says are issues of great concern to the aviation industry: engineering training, flight training and a revitalisation of general aviation.

The three papers were written with the idea that they would be discussed at the next meeting of CASA's Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) in two weeks' time.

"We've been working on these papers for a while and sent them into the government about three weeks ago," TAAAF Honorary Chairman Greg Russell told Australian Flying. "We think there's a response coming to us shortly.

"I have asked that these three papers go to the next ASAP meeting. I think that's a legitimate way for TAAAF to formulate policy and put it into a consultative process now that we have this panel in place.

"We tried to keep them concise and there are recommendations there that cover more than just CASA, for example, the question of engineering training.

"I think [presenting the papers] is a logical development of the whole forum approach, and now with this consultation mechanism in place, we think this is the right way to get this material into the forum."

Engineering Training

TAAAF says the engineering training program in Australia has "all but collapsed" citing data that indicates that in 2009 there were 779 apprentices, 398 in 2013 and estimates that put next year's figure at less than 100.

"Firstly, there is a lack of a transparent training pathway for students to enter the industry and identify and career pathway," the TAAAF position paper says, "and secondly, the funding arrangements for RTOs [Registered Training Organisations] across the various states are confused and diverse.

"Additionally, these RTO’s are now required to have an additional CASA Approval, namely as a Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO)."

In the paper, TAAAF congratulates CASA for implementing a review of CASR Part 66 maintenance training regulations, but says the issue of funding is one that still needs attention, and recommends "that the Federal government assume control over the funding and management of the training requirements specified by CASA in order to produce appropriately skilled engineers whose licences include greater scope and are recognised internationally."

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...W1hWFsy.99

I note that due to Inflighto's query in comments to the 10 Nov '17 LMH...

Quote:[Image: avatar92.jpg?1510896449]
Inflighto8 days ago
Hi Hitch,

Where can the general aviation 'public' access the TAAAF discussion papers? Are they published somewhere online?

Thanks, Chris
 
...that Hitch responded with this:

Quote:[Image: avatar92.jpg?1436502934]
SteveHitchen Mod Inflighto4 days ago

Chris. Your wish has been granted! At the base of the news story there are now three links for you to download the TAAAF policy papers. Thanks. Hitch

Quote:TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. It is due to review and release an updated major policy statement next year.

TAAAF GA
TAAAF Flight Training
TAAAF Engineering Training

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...44F7Htf.99

I also note that KC & AMROBA, as an active TAAAF member, has proactively struck while the pan is hot and followed up the AAAF initiative with another typically succinct and incisive newsflash bulletin Wink
Quote:
[Image: BN-11-17-390x205.jpg]
Breaking News 
Manufacturing Potential 2018 – If FAR System Adopted
November 18, 2017 Ken Cannane Comments Off on Manufacturing Potential 2018 – If FAR System Adopted
Manufacturing Potential 2018


AIRCRAFT & PARTS MANUFACTURING POTENTIAL – 2018 & ON

The potential of aircraft and aircraft parts manufacturing in Australia is fully dependent on government creating the environment to support their policy; jobs & growth.

Government must implement a global regulatory system that enables our manufacturers and designers to compete in the international aviation market. Our current regulatory system is dated and restricts manufacturers from being innovative & competitive.

The USA aviation manufacturing system was modernised 18 years ago but the Australian system, based on the old USA system, is still operating to the USA pre-modernised system that is bureaucratic and has excessive red tape. It must be updated urgently.

The Government, Department of Infrastructure and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have taken no action to modernise aircraft and parts manufacturing regulatory requirements over the last 18 years. In that period, more red tape has been created.

18 years of government holding back the potential of this industry.The FAA replaced their system with a system that is not only ICAO compliant, harmonised with Europe but also provided appreciable cost savings whilst enhancing safety.

It removed unnecessary red tape, places responsibility and delegated authority with the manufacturer, approved design organisations and individuals. Regulatory functions previous carried out by the FAA have also been delegated to manufacturers and designers. Their changes have enhanced safety and reduced overall costs.

Unlike every regulatory change made by Government/DIRD/CASA over the last couple of decades, the FAA managed to reduce red tape, devolved functions to industry and significantly reduced costs. A rare feat for any regulator, let alone in aviation.

The USA system is now the most modernised aviation manufacturing regulatory system that, in 2009, provided $370M savings for just over $2M change implementation costs.

The concepts of the changes are reflected in the title change of FAR Part 21, Certification Procedures for Product, Articles, and Parts compared to CASR Part 21, Certification and Airworthiness Requirements for Aircraft and Parts.Note Airworthiness Requirements removed.

GOVERNMENT MUST ADOPT THE FAR CHANGES ASAP.

Adopting the FARs and supporting FAA documentation will enable growth and jobs.
We may even see more small aircraft designs being considered.

Modernisation may even see the upgrading of older aircraft by modifications to improve safety as is happening in the USA system today.

VISION MISSING FROM GOVERNMENT/DIRD/CASA

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_111917_070800_PM.jpg]

This is not a vision that will bring about jobs and growth. The safest skies is one without aircraft.

The FAA’s Mission states: Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world; whilst the FAA Vision states: We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

Within CASA we needs the same commitment as the FAA recently made to the US Congress.

FAA Statement to Congress: “Efficiently and effectively managing the safe oversight of the largest fleet of aircraft in the world, while continuing to support the innovation of new and novel technologies is a challenge, but one that we recognize is vital to the economic growth of our country. The U.S. aviation manufacturing industry provides the livelihood for millions of Americans and is a dynamic and innovative industry that we are proud to oversee”.

Our mature aircraft & parts design and manufacturing businesses provide safety levels better than what is prescribed in ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). Australia’s design & manufacturing technical and organisational expertise have embedded ‘safety’ as a fundamental in engineering, it is the reason products continue to improve because new innovation and technologies are implemented regularly to enhance safety.

A lot of the changes incorporated in FAR Part 21 since 2009 were once applied to our aircraft and parts manufacturers under previous regulatory systems before 1990. Australia once led the world with the requirements for utilising manufacturing quality systems.

FAR Part 21 is now explained in their Industry Guide to Product Certification published in May, 2017.

“This revision of The FAA and Industry Guide to Product Certification (hereinafter referred to as “the Guide”) incorporates changes based on lessons learned and the most recent policy and guidance published by FAA. It also encourages the broader and more consistent use of the principles and expected operating norms for efficient design approval processes consisting of TC, STC, TSOA, and Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). But this edition goes further in establishing the principles and guidance for how an Applicant and the FAA can begin a transition to a state where there is progressively less direct involvement of the FAA in the compliance activities of the Applicant.

FAR Part 21 is now about the certification of aircraft, products, etc. and providing a document to put the product into service. Airworthiness control/continuing airworthiness is in FAR Parts 43, 91 & other operational Parts. Even Part 21, Subpart Q, Markings was transferred to Part 45, Subpart B.

Note: FAA “product” definition includes “aircraft” as does ICAO & EASA.

Ken R Cannane

AMROBA
http://www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
AHIA gets an early Xmas bonus courtesy Carmody.

Fellow TAAAF member AHIA would appear to have a win for their flying school training sector.. Wink

Via Oz Flying online:

Quote:[Image: Training_MB_BH.jpg]CASA is proposing to amend Part 61 to enable a 105-hour CPL(H). (Ben Hall)

CASA proposes 105-hour CPL for Helicopters
21 November 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has proposed to amend CASR Part 61 to allow for a 105-hour training syllabus for the commercial helicopter pilot licence (CPL(H)).

The proposal will also enable the 105-hour course to be taught by Part 141 (non-integrated) training organisations and not require basic IFR training for the recreational navigation endorsement, PPL with helicopter category rating and the CPL(H).

"The proposal has been developed following ongoing consultations between the Australian Helicopter Industry Association [AHIA], helicopter flight training operators and CASA," CASA has said.

"Transition regulations which are consistent with this proposal, have been in place since the commencement of the flight crew licensing regulations in September 2014. The transition provisions continue until 31 August 2018."

CASA Part 61 amendments would enshrine training practices that the Australian helicopter training industry are already using successfully. The new regulations would be based largely on those that existed prior to the introduction of Part 61. If the change is accepted, the new regulations would have to be implemented before the transition provisions expire next year.

"The proposal would remove doubt over the continued use of the 105 hour CPL(H) course and the requirement for basic instrument flight training," CASA says. "This would help support and encourage operators to complete their Part 141 transition."

More information and feedback links are on the CASA website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...4Yh1M6w.99
 
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
NPRM issued - CASA concedes on Multicom freq debate Rolleyes

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: Low-level_freq.jpg]CASA's NPRM would expand the size of CTAF areas and mandate 126.7 in en route Glass G airspace below 5000 feet. (CASA)

CASA releases Multicom NPRM
7 December 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) today released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the issue of low-level frequency use.

The NPRM has come after several years of debate over which frequency should be used in the vicinity of airfields not marked on charts, which resulted in a discussion paper released to industry last February.

NPRM 1717AS proposes that all aircraft operating below 5000 feet will monitor Multicom 126.7 unless within range of a CTAF or other airport that has a discrete frequency. It also proposes expanding the zones around airports to 20 nm wide and up to just below 5000 feet.

Previously, those dimensions were 10 nm and had no stated vertical limit other than that which could cause conflict with airfield traffic.

Above 5000 feet, the area VHF will be used, even in Class G airspace.

According to CASA, 83% of respondents to the discussion paper accepted the 126.7 solution, whereas only 43% were in favour of using the area VHF.

"The proposed changes reflect the preferences of the aviation community, while taking into account future airspace design and safety considerations for both visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) pilots," CASA says.

"The intent of changing the procedures for radio frequency use in low level airspace is to maximise the opportunity for aircraft operating at low level in Class G airspace to be on the same frequency and to make and receive broadcasts for 'alerted see-and-avoid'."
CASA is now seeking feedback the the NPRM by 12 January, with a view to having the new changes implemented by mid 2018.

The NPRM and the feedback survey are on the CASA website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Xu2Kdho.99
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Ministerial Muppets & monkey minions -  Confused

[Image: Johnny_and_sal-e1508022309972.jpg]

Via the Oz:

Quote:CASA airs new radio reforms
[Image: 54e0a7816de1f721b4fccfd4bdb4eef7]12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH
Concerns over safety risks to commercial airlines from poor radio policy has led the aviation watchdog to reforms.



[Image: CASA-MULTI.jpg]

"...a win for aviators and a positive move for safety..." 

- Is this muppet for real? Dodgy

 "..CASA has listened to the views of the aviation community, particularly general aviation - (P2 edit) and chosen to completely ignore these 'ills of society' in preference to potentially saving Harfwit and Sir A's Airservices Australia OneSKY trough fund millions of dollars .."  - UDB!  Undecided

I'll let Hitch in this week's LMH put a hole in this monkey's bucket Wink :

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

How did we go from needing to scratch an itch to being treated for scabies? Several years ago members of the RAPACs noted that CASA had changed the frequency for use at uncharted airports from Multicom 126.7 to the area frequency without consulting anyone. All we, the aviation community, ever wanted was that issue sorted out. The NPRM that came out during the week has reinstated 126.7, but spread it across all Class G airspace below 5000 feet unless at an airport with a discrete frequency, and expanded the meaning of "vicinity" to mean 20 nm and up to 4999 feet. According to sources inside CASA, it had to happen to make the aviation community's preference for 126.7 a safe option. The presumption there is that simply using 126.7 for the airfields and retaining the area VHF for en route was unsafe, despite years of safe operation before CASA changed it. But there is a larger viper hiding in the woodpile: CASA's move to make 126.7 an en route frequency isolates VFR aircraft below 5000 feet from ATC centres. ATC centres can neither monitor nor transmit on 126.7. The snakebite comes when you realise they just negated any advantage of ADS-B below 5000 feet for VFR aircraft. At the moment, ATC will often call a VFR aircraft and warn them of other ADS-B paints in their vicinity. This is an expansion of the "alerted see-and-avoid" principle. Now, under the new CASA proposal, they will be unable to provide that service. Theoretically, ATC could be watching an accident in the making, but be unable to do anything to prevent it. My feedback to CASA will be that it's more important to have that ADS-B connection with ATC than to worry about potential issues for which there is no supporting data. To add to that, watering down the value of ADS-B is no way to encourage voluntary fitment. If you check back through the discussion paper, you will note CASA did not include the option to switch the frequency for uncharted airports back to 126.7 and be done with it. It seems CASA ruled out simply scratching the itch from the very start.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...E1BXTcU.99

"...Things that make you go MMMM.." - Rolleyes






MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply
VHF Multicom saga continues - Rolleyes

Dick Smith via the Oz:

Quote:Smith takes swipe at CASA

[Image: 6eb9158b3fe74c7a2686f2b7c60e099b]12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH

Dick Smith has hit out at proposals to expand the size of common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas.

[Image: Dick-Smith-Multicom-Oz.jpg]

And yesterday an excellent OP piece from Hitch... Wink

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: Helimed_One.jpg]Victorian air ambulance Helimed One, a Bell 412. (Steve Hitchen)


Alerted See and Avoid: a True Story
14 December 2017

–Steve Hitchen

Opinion
The day had not gone as planned. A club lunch jaunt from Lilydale to Apollo Bay had seen me put the Piper Archer on the ground at Tyabb when the weather turned decidedly dark and threatening. It stayed that way until it was no longer practical time-wise to consider continuing the flight. A few hours later, I taxied in improving weather for the flight back to Lilydale.

For those who don't know that route, it's a 35-minute straightline that slices across the busy Latrobe Valley - Moorabbin route and tracks in close to Mount Dandenong. The only consideration is the 2500-foot CTA step to the west of the mountain ... unless you want to hug the ridge. That was not looking like a comfortable option in weather that was improving, but still offered grey masses of cloud loitering with intent around the mountain peaks. No thanks; I'll be well and truly under the clouds and the CTA step.

The route flirts with the Moorabbin GMH approach point, so I was generally vigilant as I approached, with the comm tuned to Melbourne 135.7. There are times I have thought that MB TWR would be a better frequency there so I could hear the inbounds to GMH. I am pleased I stayed on 135.7.

"Aircraft tracking north at 3000 10 miles south-east of Moorabbin, Melbourne Centre, are you on frequency?"

I reckoned that was me, and so responded with a chirpy "Good afternoon radar, I think you are refering to me, ABC."

"ABC, squawk ident." I did so, and was rewarded with "ABC standby."

"Aircraft 10 miles east of Moorabbin at 2500 tracking west, Melbourne Centre, are you on frequency?" Interesting, I thought. The pilot's reply was similar, with call sign, let's say XYZ. He was also asked to squawk ident then put on standby.

"Helimed One, Melbourne Centre, we have you tracking south at 3500, confirm." Helimed One confirmed.

"Helimed One, ABC and XYZ, in about three minutes you are all going to converge on a point around eight miles east of Moorabbin at exactly the same moment. Can I get you all to check you're on QNH 1015?"

This was going to be interesting. If Centre was right, I was going to be sandwiched between a Cessna underneath me and an air ambulance going over the top. "If you all keep doing what you're doing and don't change levels you'll be right. Report when you have the traffic sighted."

I had been thinking about going down to 2500 to get under the step, but given the circumstances, decided it could wait for a minute or two.

"Helimed One, traffic sighted."

"ABC, traffic sighted."

"XYZ, traffic not sighted."

The radar prediction was deadly accurate. A few minutes later I was treated to the rare spectacle of Helimed One roaring overhead going south whilst simultaneously the Cessna slid underneath on its way to Moorabbin. We reported back in.

"Centre VH-ABC is clear of traffic. Thanks for that and g'day." Helimed One reported the same, but XYZ had to confess they hadn't seen either of us at any point. Centre told them they were clear.

Melbourne Centre didn't have to help out like that; all three of us were in G Class airspace and were VFR. The controller saw something developing and did something about it. Not so many years earlier, an IFR Chieftain crashed on approach to Benalla because it was flying off-track on the GPS line. ATC had known that, but it wasn't in their remit to tell the pilot. Now, they were actively doing something even though they had no operational obligation. Commonsense had won the day.

But it looks like those days are now over if CASA goes ahead with the NPRM that would have all VFR aircraft below 5000 feet in G airspace operating on 126.7 en route. With the advent of ADS-B, ATC has even more surveillance over aircraft in G, even if they are operating VFR. However, it becomes useless under the NPRM because ATC can neither monitor nor broadcast on 126.7. Now they could see ABC, see XYZ and see Helimed One ... and do nothing but watch and hope.

Somehow, an issue that was about which radio frequency to use for uncharted airports has become an issue about frequency congestion and keeping RNAVs inside the frequency zone of airports. It really is a Frankensolution for an issue that, with analytical hindsight, may not have existed in the first place.

The question to be answered was: if the airport is unmarked, do we use the area VHF or Multicom 126.7? En route airspace and the size of the CTAF areas were not part of the problem, but it seems they have become embroiled. The argument against the area VHF was one of congestion and over-transmitting, which may be have been the genesis of the scattergun application of Multicom proposed in the NPRM. CASA, in its wisdom(?) wrote the discussion paper to effectively say "OK, if you want 126.7 then you're getting it everywhere." There was no option simply to change the system back to the way it had been working (126.7) for two decades.

If we go to Multicom everywhere and cut ATC out of our lives, are we not negating the lessons we learned from the Benalla tragedy and ignoring the advantages of technology?
I am often reminded of William of Ockham, who wrote a piece of philosophy known today as Ockham's Razor. He said "All things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the correct one." I think CASA has forgotten this, and gone instead with the most complex answer. All they needed to do was to change their CAAP advice back to 126.7 for uncharted airports and leave the en route with the area VHF and I doubt there would have been much hue and cry, or demonstrable loss of safety.

One thing I do remember from the day recounted above was that my hand had just reached for the Archer's throttle to start the descent down to 2500. Had Centre not chimed in, I have no doubt that Piper would have met Cessna and today the editor of Australian Flying would be someone else. Mind you, Helimed One would have been on scene quickly.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...uLbiir6.99

CASA indemnity review - Confused

Another potential wound to an already fragile GA industry... Undecided

Via the Oz today:

Quote:End to indemnity for non-CASA workers will have huge impact
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM December 15, 2017
  • ANNABEL HEPWORTH
    [Image: annabel_hepworth.png][/url]
    Aviation Editor
    Sydney
    @HepworthAnnabel
Regional airlines warn that scrapping indemnity provided by the nation’s civil aviation safety watchdog to industry people who do certain key tasks will have a “huge negative impact”.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been indemnifying “delegated” or “authorised” in­dus­try personnel doing aviation-related functions including flight tests of pilots, but new regulations mean several functions will be performed as “privileges” under a permission, instead of people doing so exercising powers on ­behalf of CASA.

This means these people are no longer able to tap ­the indem­nity that CASA gets through the Comcare scheme, the government’s general insurance fund that is listed as a contingent liability in the budget. Instead, people will have to make their own ­insurance arrangements.

CASA’s indemnity and insur­ance arrangements are now under review. Consultations for the review are being led by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, assisted by CASA and the powerful ­Finance Department.

A policy paper released last month states that future indem­nity arrangements “should take into account the risk to the commonwealth, the safety impacts on CASA and different industry sectors, cost considerations for the government and industry, and the current and future availability of insurance”.

Whether indemnity for designated aviation medical examiners will continue is also covered by the review, with the paper noting that they already hold professional ­indemnity and medical negligence insurance.

The department is taking submissions on the paper, which outlines four proposals.
Regional Aviation Association chief executive Mike Higgins said that where CASA is now not providing cover, there are people who have found that commercial ­insurance policies are “totally ­inadequate” in scope and are “very expensive for the smaller operators”, while people could be required “to maintain that level of insurance for 7 years after ceasing that activity”.

“Many senior and experienced industry members have already indicated they are no longer willing or able to continue providing this vital role,” Mr Higgins said.
“It doesn’t take too much imagination to visualise the huge negative impact this ill-informed and misguided policy will have on the industry.”

The first proposal on which the department is seeking consultation would continue the present arrangements, although this would mean that some people would enjoy the CASA coverage while others — such as approved testing officers who have surrendered their delegation and ­obtained a flight examiner rating — would not.

The second proposal would extend indemnities to anyone doing work that used to be done by CASA delegates or authorised people, although the department has flagged that this would have to be looked at against the extra cost to the commonwealth.

The third option would see ­indemnities given by CASA on a case-by-case basis against certain criteria. The fourth proposal would see ­indemnity given where commercial insurance is not available, a move that would ­increase costs for people who then have to get ­insurance on the private market.

A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure and ­Regional Development said ­yesterday: “All submissions ­received during the consultation process will be considered before any ­decisions are taken on future indemnity and insurance ­arrange­ments.”


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Industry feedback on Chester dumping;  - Rolleyes

Via Oz Aviation:

Quote:Darren Chester loses Cabinet seat in reshuffle, with Barnaby Joyce new minister responsible for aviation

December 19, 2017 by australianaviation.com.au
[Image: Minister-with-Seneca-2.jpg]A file image of Darren Chester.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce will take ministerial responsibility for aviation matters following a cabinet reshuffle.

Joyce, who was recently re-elected back into Parliament after being ruled ineligible when it was discovered he was a dual citizen, is the new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.

The Nationals leader, Member for New England in the House of Representatives and Deputy Prime Minister replaces Darren Chester, who has been left out of Cabinet following the reshuffle.

Chester, the Member for Gippsland, said it had been an enormous honour to serve as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, which he described as the “best portfolio possible”.

“I’m proud of the work my team and I have done on behalf of the Government and I’m sorry we won’t get to finish off some of the jobs we’ve started,” Chester said in a statement.

“Naturally, I’m disappointed by The Leader of the Nationals’ decision to exclude me from his Cabinet team. Politics can be a tough business for all involved.

“But life goes on and I will continue to serve the Turnbull government.”

[Image: 17333625_1672054149477113_3745603324863315968_n.jpg]New Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Barnaby Joyce. (Minister’s Instagram account)

Chester, who became Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in 2016 when he replaced the retiring Warren Truss, said he was looking forward to continuing to serve the people of Gippsland with “passion, enthusiasm and determination for many years to come”.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appointed five new members to Cabinet as part of the reshuffle announced on Tuesday.

“I have to say, Darren has been an outstanding minister, I regret that this has resulted in him no longer being a member of the ministry,” Turnbull was quoted as saying on ABC News.

Australian Airports Association (AAA) chief executive said she looked forward to a continued focus on efficient infrastructure that met the needs of the community and economy from Minister Joyce.

“The infrastructure sector is part of the fabric of the Australian economy, and we welcome Mr Joyce to this important portfolio,” Wilkie said in a statement.

“We look forward to continuing to engage with the Federal Government on the key issues facing the sector.”

Wilkie also thanked Chester for his contribution to the sector over the past two years.
In other aviation-related appointments, Peter Dutton was formally named as Minister for Home Affairs, a new portfolio which has responsibility for the Australian Federal Police, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and the Australian Border Force and therefore security at the nation’s airports.

Dutton was named to lead the new so-called super ministry in July 2017.

Wilkie said: “Airport safety and security is a top priority for our members, and we look forward to working with Mr Dutton in his new capacity as Minister for Home Affairs.”
& more on the CASA Board reshuffle, via Oz Flying:
Quote:[Image: Jane-McAloon_CASA_Jay-Cronan_Defence.jpg]CASA Director Jane McAloon in her role as National Chair of the Defence Reserves Support Council. (Department of Defence / Jay Cronan)

Department reshuffles CASA Board
19 December 2017

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester yesterday announced changes to the board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Experienced industry director Jane McAloon has joined the board and Anita Taylor has been re-appointed. Departing the board are Ian Smith and Murray Warfield.

Chester said the appointment of McAloon will bring a wealth of relevant board and governance experience to the role, including working in regulated industries in the public and private sector in transport and infrastructure.

McAloon has been at various times National Chair of the Defence Reserves Support Council, a director of Healthstate, Energy Australia and sciences company Cogstate, a special advisor for consultancy Gresham Partners. Among other industry positions, she was also Group Company Secretary of BHP Billiton for nine years.

“These appointments will support critical reforms underway at CASA, and completion of the remaining parts of CASA's regulatory reform program,” Chester said.

“I would like to thank Mr Ian Smith AM and Mr Murray Warfield for their valuable contribution to the CASA board over the past three years.

“I look forward to the board continuing to set the strategic direction of CASA, while also working with the diverse aviation sector to maintain Australia's strong safety record.”
Another board member with aviation experience is expected to be appointed early next year.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...y84iMFG.99

& Carmody believes CASA's job is done on ASRR - Dodgy

Also via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: Shane_Carmody.jpg]CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody. (Steve Hitchen)

CASA has acted on All ASRR Recommendations: Carmody
19 December 2017

CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody today announced that CASA had acted on all recommendations arising from 2014's Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR).

The ASRR made a total of 37 recommendations, of which the government of the day agreed with 20 and gave in-principle agreement to another 12 and rejected one outright. Not all of the recommendations related to CASA, with some falling under the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

"CASA has either completed actions flowing from the Government's response to the recommendations, incorporated solutions into ongoing activities or announced plans to take action on recommendations," Carmody said today.

"There are two recommendations where actions will be taken in 2018 – a review of the penalties in the aviation safety regulations and the completion of the remaining parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

"I have made it clear CASA will be striving to finalise the last 10 parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations by the end of 2018.

"My intention is that these parts will be made or be ready to be made, with implementation to take place over an appropriate and staged timeframe.

"Most of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review recommendations are now ongoing as they are embedded into CASA's new policies, processes and procedures. Many of these will take time to bed down but we are making significant headway."

Carmody also revealed he had been collaborating with ASRR chairman and report author David Forsyth to track progress.

In early 2016, Forsyth assessed that CASA had completed only 29% of the reforms that applied to them, but indicated today that progress had been made since then.

"While a number of issues are still in work, there is clear progress on necessary improvements and re-establishing a trust based relationship with industry," Forsyth said.
Carmody also reiterated his belief in the value of the ASRR and the impact reforms are having.

"The review was a very important and valuable benchmarking exercise that has focussed CASA on making worthwhile improvements that are now paying dividends to the aviation community," he said.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...iEYVp5o.99

Hmm...passing strange that this week's SBG - The trick that wins the rubber. - would appear to highlight that the CASA Sydney Regional Office has missed the Carmody memo on embracing the ASRR reforms and indeed the DAS's very own instruction/directive on CASA adopting a 'just culture' - refer: E is for?? Part II: Proof is in the puddingor Legerdemain– a handy skill. - so who is a poor dumbass knuckledragger meant to believe? Confused


MTF...P2 Sad
Reply
Mr. Carmody might believe that the ASSR recommendations are largely implemented and that industry trust of the regulator is being restored.

Too bad that the General Aviation industry is still in a nose dive and that as every day that passes fewer pilots are flying, more aircraft are lying about unused and depreciating in value.

Where there used to be hundreds of flying schools, especially in country areas, this once busy scene is still virtually a desert. One senior instructor nearby to me paid $8000 up front with a flying school AOC application eighteen months ago, still nothing but grief from CASA and no AOC. In the USA this instructor would have been making a living from day one and been able to put $8000 into a suitable training aircraft.

The GA industry is still strangled by all the disastrous strict liability criminal sanction and unworkable rules of Part 61. What used to be a biennial flight review is now a flight test. No consideration or incentives are built into the regime. For example no amelioration for aircraft owners, commercial licence or instructor ratings.

Same for the outlandish ASIC requirements, $283 two years only. No clarity or help to industry which the AVID could easily substitute and the excuse that this is controlled solely by the Department of Infrastructure won’t wash. How many pilots actually have either of these two security identification cards? I have enquired for comparative figures from ten years to the present, same for flying school numbers but CASA doesn’t bother keeping such unimportant numbers. Living in the Can’tberra bubble.

The best potential real reform in years is Mr. Carmody’s belated medical changes which, if implemented in the present form actually will induce pilots to either drop their instrument ratings or not bother obtaining such in the future thus depriving flying schools from valuable work Forget that Instrument Flight Rules is a higher and safer standard of flying operations.

The separating out of the low weight category to induce thousands of flyers into less capable and less strong aircraft remains one of the worst decisions ever perpetrated on the flying industry. Hats off to all those that have had to design down to an extremely low weight and all segments should have a fair go but there’s so many that would have been much better off in fully certified (IFR capable) aircraft. But no, CASA in its lack of wisdom still supports this massive error of public policy.

The whole fee gouging and unsupportable system is still in place and no amount of twiddling at the edges and hoping against hope that some ‘just culture’ attitude change will materially alter the outlook is not realistic.

Only legislative changes, political determination, will cause a true revival of GA. Expecting CASA reforming itself is a forlorn hope, it’s just not capable.
Reply
Turnbull government 2017 report card on aviation policy - Part I Dodgy


(12-20-2017, 08:52 AM)Sandy Reith Wrote: Mr. Carmody might believe that the ASSR recommendations are largely implemented and that industry trust of the regulator is being restored.

Too bad that the General Aviation industry is still in a nose dive and that as every day that passes fewer pilots are flying, more aircraft are lying about unused and depreciating in value.

Where there used to be hundreds of flying schools, especially in country areas, this once busy scene is still virtually a desert. One senior instructor nearby to me paid $8000 up front with a flying school AOC application eighteen months ago, still nothing but grief from CASA and no AOC. In the USA this instructor would have been making a living from day one and been able to put $8000 into a suitable training aircraft.

The GA industry is still strangled by all the disastrous strict liability criminal sanction and unworkable rules of Part 61. What used to be a biennial flight review is now a flight test. No consideration or incentives are built into the regime. For example no amelioration for aircraft owners, commercial licence or instructor ratings.

Same for the outlandish ASIC requirements, $283 two years only. No clarity or help to industry which the AVID could easily substitute and the excuse that this is controlled solely by the Department of Infrastructure won’t wash. How many pilots actually have either of these two security identification cards? I have enquired for comparative figures from ten years to the present, same for flying school numbers but CASA doesn’t bother keeping such unimportant numbers. Living in the Can’tberra bubble.

The best potential real reform in years is Mr. Carmody’s belated medical changes which, if implemented in the present form actually will induce pilots to either drop their instrument ratings or not bother obtaining such in the future thus depriving flying schools from valuable work Forget that Instrument Flight Rules is a higher and safer standard of flying operations.

The separating out of the low weight category to induce thousands of flyers into less capable and less strong aircraft remains one of the worst decisions ever perpetrated on the flying industry. Hats off to all those that have had to design down to an extremely low weight and all segments should have a fair go but there’s so many that would have been much better off in fully certified (IFR capable) aircraft. But no, CASA in its lack of wisdom still supports this massive error of public policy.

The whole fee gouging and unsupportable system is still in place and no amount of twiddling at the edges and hoping against hope that some ‘just culture’ attitude change will materially alter the outlook is not realistic.

Only legislative changes, political determination, will cause a true revival of GA. Expecting CASA reforming itself is a forlorn hope, it’s just not capable.

And today from Annabel Hepworth, via the Oz:

Quote:Aviation’s slow regional burn

[Image: ffa2579c25082ce17a6b337485ed0bd6]1:23pmAnnabel Hepworth

The aviation sector that provides critical regional services has been in decline since 2010, with warnings of “destruction”.

A landmark study has confirmed the decline in the general aviation sector that plays a crucial role in serving regional communities.

A day after a cabinet reshuffle that sees Barnaby Joyce take on aviation, a long-awaited Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics report has found the sector has been decreasing since 2010.

But while private flying and flight training have faced “significant” decreases, this has been partly offset by growth in other areas including aerial mustering and search and rescue activity.

The report was announced last year by former Transport Minister Darren Chester.

It came after warnings that the sector had been hit by red tape and skyrocketing costs.

Businessman and aviation veteran Dick Smith has previously warned that the sector faces “destruction”.

Internationally, general aviation — which serves roles ranging from enabling regional families to fly to town to get their groceries rather than doing huge drives to flying training, firefighting, mustering, private flying and aerial surveying — has been in decline or static in nations including the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand.

“Like many other industry sectors, the demand for and supply of the services offered by GA has changed over the past few decades and will continue to do so with developments in aviation technology and the way in which our economy operates,” the report said.

It finds that “while overall GA activity is declining, it is not accurate to say that all sectors of GA are declining”.

“What is apparent is that for some aviators, operating a GA business is a way of funding their passion. Some aviators continue to operate the same way they have for decades, in aircraft that are decades old, and at airports with few GA operators remaining.”

Among the “challenges” confronting the sector are the cost of pilot and maintenance training, airport leases and charges and regulatory changes including multiple reviews of aviation safety rules by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

As well, the fleet is ageing, with the most popular group of small single engine aeroplanes used by the sector at an average age of 36.4 years.

“While they are very robust aircraft, many are beginning to develop age-related faults such as corrosion and metal fatigue, which are very expensive to repair,” the report says.

“Most still require leaded fuel (aviation gasoline or avgas), which is becoming increasingly harder to source and more expensive, with production likely to cease over the next decade.”

According to the report, people from the GA sector “ have clearly expressed concerns that aviation safety regulatory changes are having an unnecessary adverse impact on the GA sector”. Among these concerns were that a “one size fits all” approach meant changes were introduced for all aircraft that were not appropriate for the smaller planes used in general aviation.

The report finds that while the fees charged by CASA “were relatively small, the true cost was higher as additional wages and administration costs are required to achieve regulatory compliance in areas such as flight crew licencing, flying training and maintenance”.

According to the report, “key opportunities” include for CASA to review the hourly rates it charges, fleet renewal, measures to boost the training and retention of pilots and maintenance staff, and for CASA to look at harmonisation of rules.

& from a IOS/PAIN email chain:

Quote:Folks,
I have had several long discussions with Barnaby re. CASA and aviation generally, and he has a pretty good grasp of where the problems are, but particularly CASA being a “lawless” operation that pays no regard to anything but what it sees as its own interests --- “its own” being the “iron ring’s” best interests. I think he probably understands that Carmody doesn’t really control CASA, and Carmody seems to have become very reliant on Johnathan Alec, not a “good thing”.
 
Interestingly, my last discussion with Barnaby included me putting the view, in my usual subtle and understated way, that he should be Minister for Transport etc., he was less than enthusiastic because of the minefield of aviation. I told him the same as I told John Anderson, he may as well exercise real control and really achieve reform, because if there is a major accident, he will be wearing it in the eyes of the public, regardless of the circumstances. The reason for the accident will be reform/lack of reform.
 
At least Mrdak has already gone.
 
We need to inject into Barnaby the same kind of backbone that both John Sharp and Mark Vaile possessed.
 
One of the biggest problems in the aviation community is that there is no idea, let alone consensus, on the way ahead, the “big picture”.
 
Most discussions are about weed control, not getting rid of the weeds.
 
After what CASA did to Tiger, airlines are more timid (and not just in public) than ever, their “consultations with CASA” are all about pre-emptive damage control.
 
Qantas didn’t build the biggest hangar on Los Angeles International Airport just to park their aircraft out of the SoCal sunshine. If you think it is only wage rates, you are kidding yourself.
 
In 1996, the incoming Howard Government had a policy that was implemented, despite vehement resistance from CASA, Airservices and their unions. We achieved major reforms that most of you seem to have forgotten.
 
That policy is about as valid today, as it was then.  As was the way Sharp and Vaile achieved those reforms.
 
Cheers,
Bill H.


& KC in reply:  

Bill,
 
Where there was reformists within CASA pre 2002, none exist today.
The iron ring protects their jobs not understanding the functions and responsibilities they hold sacrosanct, have been devolved to industry in the FAA system, TCA system and starting to happen in the EASA system.
 
Instead of adopting FAR Parts 61/91, CASA legal want to create quasi regulators putting volunteers under liability they don’t deserve.
 
This is not the economic reform that was originally being pushed. Part 91 provides the freedoms to flight for all sectors.

Part 61 provides the independent flight instructors so desperately need in aviation.
 
Adoption of the FAR system would empower industry and reduce jobs in CASA.
Parts 43 enables greater flexibility without CASA involvement.
Re harmonisation of Part 21 with amended FAR Part 21 - saved US manufacturing $136M for $2M cost to implement. FAA devolved functions to industry.
 
Until we get a smart Minister, hopefully Barnaby, that directs adoption of the FAR system then the anti-modernisation, non-reformists will continue to exist.
 
Merry Xmas to all, will raise me glass to Barnaby if he can break the ring.
Best chance we have had for over a decade
 
Regards
 
Ken
    
BITRE GAS report:

Quote:General Aviation Study
Listen
A A A
[Image: cr_001.jpg]

Publication Type: [url=https://bitre.gov.au/publications/publications.aspx?query=e:"commissioned%20report"&link-search=true]Commissioned Report[/url]

Publication Subject(s): [url=https://bitre.gov.au/publications/publications.aspx?query=s:"aviation"&link-search=true]aviation[/url]

ISBN: 978-1-925531-77-0
Release Date: December 2017

General aviation is a diverse sector that is undergoing change. While overall GA activity appears to be declining slowly, it is not accurate to say that all parts of GA are declining.
Those parts of GA that are discretionary in nature, such as pleasure flying, appear to decline in more conservative economic times, while those parts of GA that are a key part of an expanding industry, such as aerial mustering, have been growing strongly. Detailed economic analysis of these relationships is not currently possible due to the current lack of financial statistics for GA, however this report outlines some of the key challenges facing GA and identifies some key opportunities for the industry and Government to respond to these challenges.



TICK..TOCK Barnaby, TICK TOCK indeed... Confused


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
I’m getting that slow burning sensation. General Aviation going downhill only since 2010? Try 1988 which was about the last time when the stupidity of CASA was partly overbalanced by commonsense and a blind eye looking into the bureaucratic telescope. When flying could be a half reasonable pursuit.
The news article says downhill since 2010; who makes up such a stinking untruth? Is this another fellow Cantberran trying to care for fellow Cantberrans? To save them from the excruciating truth that they have squandered taxpayer funds, three quarters destroyed a perfectly good industry and smashed numerous businesses and the legitimate livelihoods of thousands of fellow Australians?
Barnaby I hope you take note.
Reply
MT/BJ Govt Aviation report card - Part II. 

Again from Annabel, via the Oz... Wink :
 
Quote:Aviation faces training crisis

[Image: a6730d3ea25f26b335b6453c7e8bb2fc]12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH

A report has pointed to the cost of pilot and maintenance training as among several ‘challenges’ facing general aviation.


A flagship report has pointed to the cost of pilot and maintenance training as among several “challenges” facing Australia’s once-vibrant general aviation industry.

Amid a cabinet reshuffle that has seen Barnaby Joyce take on aviation, the report by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics says “opportunities” for the industry and government to respond include targeted measures to boost training and retention of pilots and maintenance staff in general aviation.

The study confirmed the decline in general aviation, saying the sector — which is important to regional communities — had been shrinking since 2010.

General aviation provides connections to areas not serviced by airlines and covers work outside commercial transport operations including mustering, flying training, private flying and firefighting.

Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia chief executive Martin Laverty, chairman of the federal government’s General Aviation Advisory Group, said the group was working on a policy framework “GA Flight Plan” that tried to boost industry capability through better workforce development.

Mr Laverty said this area offered prospects for growth in the GA sector.

In previous shortages of pilots, Australia’s major airlines recruited from either Defence or regional carriers, while regionals in turn recruited from GA.

“But the workforce well that general aviation has historically provided is drier than in the past,” Mr Laverty said. “It’s not likely to be refilled without help.”

Even the Royal Flying Doctor Service was experiencing shor­tages of pilots and engineers. “If the flying public want continued on-time, cheap but safe flights, a plentiful supply of aviation workers is key. Aviation workers are drawn from the full aviation ecosystem, which means ensuring the sustainability of the workforce in general aviation.”

The BITRE report, which was announced last year by then transport minister Darren Chester, came amid warnings that the sector had been struck by skyrocketing costs and red tape.

“Several GA sectors, including private flying and flight training activities, have experienced significant decreases since 2010, but this has been partially offset by increases in other areas, such as aerial mustering and search- and-rescue activity,” the report found.

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Ops at uncontrolled aerodromes - A point of comparison. Shy

(12-15-2017, 08:19 AM)Peetwo Wrote: VHF Multicom saga continues - Rolleyes

Dick Smith via the Oz:

Quote:Smith takes swipe at CASA

[Image: 6eb9158b3fe74c7a2686f2b7c60e099b]12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH

Dick Smith has hit out at proposals to expand the size of common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas.


And yesterday an excellent OP piece from Hitch... Wink

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: Helimed_One.jpg]Victorian air ambulance Helimed One, a Bell 412. (Steve Hitchen)


Alerted See and Avoid: a True Story
14 December 2017

–Steve Hitchen

Opinion
The day had not gone as planned. A club lunch jaunt from Lilydale to Apollo Bay had seen me put the Piper Archer on the ground at Tyabb when the weather turned decidedly dark and threatening. It stayed that way until it was no longer practical time-wise to consider continuing the flight. A few hours later, I taxied in improving weather for the flight back to Lilydale.

For those who don't know that route, it's a 35-minute straightline that slices across the busy Latrobe Valley - Moorabbin route and tracks in close to Mount Dandenong. The only consideration is the 2500-foot CTA step to the west of the mountain ... unless you want to hug the ridge. That was not looking like a comfortable option in weather that was improving, but still offered grey masses of cloud loitering with intent around the mountain peaks. No thanks; I'll be well and truly under the clouds and the CTA step.

The route flirts with the Moorabbin GMH approach point, so I was generally vigilant as I approached, with the comm tuned to Melbourne 135.7. There are times I have thought that MB TWR would be a better frequency there so I could hear the inbounds to GMH. I am pleased I stayed on 135.7.

"Aircraft tracking north at 3000 10 miles south-east of Moorabbin, Melbourne Centre, are you on frequency?"

I reckoned that was me, and so responded with a chirpy "Good afternoon radar, I think you are refering to me, ABC."

"ABC, squawk ident." I did so, and was rewarded with "ABC standby."

"Aircraft 10 miles east of Moorabbin at 2500 tracking west, Melbourne Centre, are you on frequency?" Interesting, I thought. The pilot's reply was similar, with call sign, let's say XYZ. He was also asked to squawk ident then put on standby.

"Helimed One, Melbourne Centre, we have you tracking south at 3500, confirm." Helimed One confirmed.

"Helimed One, ABC and XYZ, in about three minutes you are all going to converge on a point around eight miles east of Moorabbin at exactly the same moment. Can I get you all to check you're on QNH 1015?"

This was going to be interesting. If Centre was right, I was going to be sandwiched between a Cessna underneath me and an air ambulance going over the top. "If you all keep doing what you're doing and don't change levels you'll be right. Report when you have the traffic sighted."

I had been thinking about going down to 2500 to get under the step, but given the circumstances, decided it could wait for a minute or two.

"Helimed One, traffic sighted."

"ABC, traffic sighted."

"XYZ, traffic not sighted."

The radar prediction was deadly accurate. A few minutes later I was treated to the rare spectacle of Helimed One roaring overhead going south whilst simultaneously the Cessna slid underneath on its way to Moorabbin. We reported back in.

"Centre VH-ABC is clear of traffic. Thanks for that and g'day." Helimed One reported the same, but XYZ had to confess they hadn't seen either of us at any point. Centre told them they were clear.

Melbourne Centre didn't have to help out like that; all three of us were in G Class airspace and were VFR. The controller saw something developing and did something about it. Not so many years earlier, an IFR Chieftain crashed on approach to Benalla because it was flying off-track on the GPS line. ATC had known that, but it wasn't in their remit to tell the pilot. Now, they were actively doing something even though they had no operational obligation. Commonsense had won the day.

But it looks like those days are now over if CASA goes ahead with the NPRM that would have all VFR aircraft below 5000 feet in G airspace operating on 126.7 en route. With the advent of ADS-B, ATC has even more surveillance over aircraft in G, even if they are operating VFR. However, it becomes useless under the NPRM because ATC can neither monitor nor broadcast on 126.7. Now they could see ABC, see XYZ and see Helimed One ... and do nothing but watch and hope.

Somehow, an issue that was about which radio frequency to use for uncharted airports has become an issue about frequency congestion and keeping RNAVs inside the frequency zone of airports. It really is a Frankensolution for an issue that, with analytical hindsight, may not have existed in the first place.

The question to be answered was: if the airport is unmarked, do we use the area VHF or Multicom 126.7? En route airspace and the size of the CTAF areas were not part of the problem, but it seems they have become embroiled. The argument against the area VHF was one of congestion and over-transmitting, which may be have been the genesis of the scattergun application of Multicom proposed in the NPRM. CASA, in its wisdom(?) wrote the discussion paper to effectively say "OK, if you want 126.7 then you're getting it everywhere." There was no option simply to change the system back to the way it had been working (126.7) for two decades.

If we go to Multicom everywhere and cut ATC out of our lives, are we not negating the lessons we learned from the Benalla tragedy and ignoring the advantages of technology?
I am often reminded of William of Ockham, who wrote a piece of philosophy known today as Ockham's Razor. He said "All things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the correct one." I think CASA has forgotten this, and gone instead with the most complex answer. All they needed to do was to change their CAAP advice back to 126.7 for uncharted airports and leave the en route with the area VHF and I doubt there would have been much hue and cry, or demonstrable loss of safety.

One thing I do remember from the day recounted above was that my hand had just reached for the Archer's throttle to start the descent down to 2500. Had Centre not chimed in, I have no doubt that Piper would have met Cessna and today the editor of Australian Flying would be someone else. Mind you, Helimed One would have been on scene quickly.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...uLbiir6.99

Meanwhile in a hemisphere...far..far away -  Rolleyes

Via FAA AC 90-66B... Wink :

[Image: FAA-AC-1.jpg][Image: FAA-AC-2.jpg][Image: FAA-AC-3.jpg][Image: FAA-AC-4.jpg][Image: FAA-AC-5.jpg]


"..Where there is no tower, CTAF, or UNICOM station depicted for an airport on an aeronautical chart, use MULTICOM frequency 122.9 for self-announce procedures. Such airports should be identified in appropriate aeronautical information publications.." - Sounds like a simple and understandable solution for the current CASA created VHF Multicom clusterduck - Rolleyes

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
MT/BJ Govt Aviation report card - Part III.


Via the Weekend Oz today  Wink :


New CASA regulations blow training costs sky-high
[Image: 2daa3e32acc52642e4e8e533e1a910cd?width=650]
Glen Buckley of Melbourne Flight Training school says he paid $700,000 to comply with new CASA regulations. Picture: Aaron Francis
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM December 23, 2017
  • ANDREW BURRELL
    [Image: andrew_burrell.png]
    WA Chief Reporter
    Perth
    @AndrewBurrell7

One of Australia’s most experienced flight trainers, Glen Buckley, says he has just spent a “staggering” $700,000 to comply with new regulations imposed on the industry by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

And it almost broke him.

“The cost (of complying) was much, much higher than I’d expected,” he said. “I would have ­exited the industry if I had known it was going to be that much.”

The Weekend Australian has spoken to many smaller industry players who are highly critical of the new regulations and the hugely increased cost of compliance, but few are prepared to criticise CASA for fear of being targeted.

Mr Buckley, the chief executive of Melbourne Flight Training, one of the larger firms, said he had spent $700,000 moving to CASA’s new scheme that governs training.

His salary bill has risen from $1 million a year to $1.3m because of the requirement for more staff and the increased regulatory burden.

He was concerned the extra ­expenditure was not the most cost-effective way to increase­ ­safety.

Under the new system, all of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations had to decide by September 1 whether they wished to operate under a lower classification, known as Part 141, or a higher classification, Part 142.

A Part 142 school will be able to train pilots for a shorter syllabus of 150 hours of training, compared with 200 hours under Part 141.

Mr Buckley said he had had no option but to become a Part 142 school so he could continue to offer the 150-hour course. “The 150-hour course makes up 90 per cent of my revenue, and no business could afford to lose 90 per cent of its revenue and expect to survive,” he said.

Although Mr Buckley complied, fewer than 10 per cent of training businesses had moved to the new system, forcing CASA to delay the deadline for a year Mr Buckley predicted many businesses, especially smaller ones, would be forced to close in coming months because of the cost of compliance.

“Schools delivering the 150-hour syllabus will lose that approval in September next year and customers will gravitate to the larger 142 schools to access the 150-hour course, which is about $15,000 cheaper than the 200-hour course,” he said.

“This will impact many schools, especially those in rural areas that can’t afford the transition to a Part 142 organisation.”

A CASA spokesman said the regulations were introduced in September 2014 and the agency had consulted widely. “The transition for a flying school to Parts 141 and 142 has been made much easier and cost-efficient,” he said.

CASA had also removed impediments to flying training organisations that wished to set up in remote areas, he said. Some flying schools had transitioned to Part 141 recently and CASA was receiving “very positive” feedback.




China swoops on flight schools to solve pilot shortage

[Image: ad8d1b20afd41396b8a8f6872d086a99?width=650]
Aminta Hennessy of Clamback & Hennessy at Bankstown. Picture: John Feder
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM December 23, 2017
  • ANDREW BURRELL
    [/url]

Chinese companies are swooping on Australian flight training schools increasingly stricken by skyrocketing costs and crippling red tape, amid predictions that the nation will be forced to import scores of commercial pilots from Asia and Africa in coming years.

The Weekend Australian has spoken to several of the country’s 350 aviation training businesses that say they are unprofitable and are considering selling to the ­Chinese. Scores of local firms have folded in recent years and several of the larger schools are now foreign-owned.

China will need an estimated 110,000 new pilots by 2035 but is relying on other countries for most of its training because of its heavy smog, military-controlled airspace and lack of qualified teachers who speak English.

A federal government report this week confirmed the local industry’s drastic decline, showing the number of general aviation flying hours in Australia fell by 40 per cent — from 500,000 hours a year to 300,000 hours a year — between 2010 and 2015.

The increasing foreign ownership in the flight training industry — particularly the concentration of Chinese acquisitions — is raising concern among senior security experts.

Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said the “aggregation effect’’ could be of the same concern in flight training as it had been to Scott Morrison in other sectors.

“It may be acceptable to own one or two flight training schools,’’ Mr Jennings said, but if the ­Chinese acquired flight training schools to the point where there was a dependence on it, “the aggregation ­effect of that could be negative from a government perspective’’. Flying training is seen as vital to allow Australia to keep up with the increasing demand for pilots, with predictions of a major shortage in coming years.

[url=http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1bf0f9ac13252e647fbcf44d8b0c60ac][Image: 1bf0f9ac13252e647fbcf44d8b0c60ac?width=650]
 
The landmark study by the ­Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics also raised industry fears about the cost of pilot and maintenance training, soaring airport charges and recent regulatory changes that were “not supported by adequate justification”.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association chief executive Ben Morgan said he believed more than 50 per cent of all flight training in Australia was now being carried out by foreign companies, and most of them were Chinese.

He said it was “realistic” to predict the industry could be entirely foreign-owned in the next 10 years. “The Chinese are cleaning up,” he said. “Australia is selling out its flight training industry to foreign interests.”

Chinese airlines have been investing heavily in Australian flight training in recent years. In 2015, a China Eastern Airlines subsidiary bought a 50 per cent stake in CAE’s Melbourne training school. Its rival, China Southern Airlines, owns 50 per cent of a West Australian academy.

One of the biggest regional schools, Australian International Aviation College in Port Macquarie, is now owned by Hainan Airlines after the local operator ran into financial trouble in 2014.

The Chinese sale was facilitated by the federal government’s Austrade agency.

The business is now planning an $18 million training facility at Kempsey airport to train Chinese students.

Dick Smith, a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, blamed the destruction of the industry on the former Howard government’s directive to CASA to ignore costs in relation to air safety, which he said had led to the adoption of the world’s most expensive regulations.

“Australian companies are going broke because of paperwork and red tape,” he said. “Now we have a shortage of ­pilots. Does it matter that in five years … we will have pilots from developing countries — from India, Indonesia and China — flying our airlines?”

Mr Smith said he was also concerned that Australian flight training companies were unable to get approval from China to train ­Chinese students, in the same way Chinese-run schools do in ­Australia.

Mr Morgan, of AOPA, welcomed the appointment this week of Barnaby Joyce as Transport Minister and called on him to urgently address how the local flight training industry could deliver crews for Australian airlines rather than relying on Asian and African pilots.

He said CASA should allow independent flight instructors to be used by smaller businesses, noting that 70 per cent of training in the US was conducted by independent instructors.

“If you are not an organisation with a bucket of cash, there’s no way you can get involved in flight training,” he said.

“We used to be a leader in flight training but we have created an expensive and cumbersome system.”

A CASA spokesman said the concept of independent flight instructors was raised during consultations but was not widely supported at the time.

“If the aviation community believes the concept of independent instructors needs to be looked at again, CASA is willing to listen to constructive suggestions,” he said.

Industry veteran John Douglas, the former head of the Royal Aero Club of WA, said conditions were the worst he had seen in 50 years.

He said the number of training hours a year at the club had fallen from 36,000 hours a year to 16,000 over the past two decades.

Mr Douglas slammed new CASA requirements for schools to spend money to gain new certification for training. “The cost of compliance is killing the industry,” he said.

Bill Whitworth, the owner of Whitworth Aviation at Bankstown Airport, recently agreed to sell his troubled business to a Chinese company. “They want to get a foothold here at Bankstown Airport,” he said. “They want to bring students down and train them, starting with 30 students.”

Mr Whitworth, who has been teaching flying since 1965, said his decision to sell was driven by soaring costs and changes to the system of government loans for students.

Another long-term operator at Bankstown, Aminta Hennessy, said businesses were also being hurt by rising airport fees and charges.

She said she had been recently approached by foreign companies to sell.

The chief executive of Melbourne Flight Training, Glen Buckley, said he had received five offers from Chinese companies to buy up to 20 per cent of his business, but he had so far resisted the temptation to sell.

Additional reporting: Sid Maher



Merry Xmas All!  Big Grin  

..Oh and TICK...TOCK Barnaby... Rolleyes

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_100117_112009_PM.jpg]


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
MT/BJ Govt Aviation report card - Part IV

(12-23-2017, 09:00 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Via the Weekend Oz today  Wink :


New CASA regulations blow training costs sky-high
[Image: 2daa3e32acc52642e4e8e533e1a910cd?width=650]
Glen Buckley of Melbourne Flight Training school says he paid $700,000 to comply with new CASA regulations. Picture: Aaron Francis
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM December 23, 2017
  • ANDREW BURRELL
    [Image: andrew_burrell.png]
    WA Chief Reporter
    Perth
    @AndrewBurrell7

One of Australia’s most experienced flight trainers, Glen Buckley, says he has just spent a “staggering” $700,000 to comply with new regulations imposed on the industry by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

And it almost broke him.

“The cost (of complying) was much, much higher than I’d expected,” he said. “I would have ­exited the industry if I had known it was going to be that much.”

The Weekend Australian has spoken to many smaller industry players who are highly critical of the new regulations and the hugely increased cost of compliance, but few are prepared to criticise CASA for fear of being targeted.

Mr Buckley, the chief executive of Melbourne Flight Training, one of the larger firms, said he had spent $700,000 moving to CASA’s new scheme that governs training.

His salary bill has risen from $1 million a year to $1.3m because of the requirement for more staff and the increased regulatory burden.

He was concerned the extra ­expenditure was not the most cost-effective way to increase­ ­safety.

Under the new system, all of Australia’s 350 flight training organisations had to decide by September 1 whether they wished to operate under a lower classification, known as Part 141, or a higher classification, Part 142.

A Part 142 school will be able to train pilots for a shorter syllabus of 150 hours of training, compared with 200 hours under Part 141.

Mr Buckley said he had had no option but to become a Part 142 school so he could continue to offer the 150-hour course. “The 150-hour course makes up 90 per cent of my revenue, and no business could afford to lose 90 per cent of its revenue and expect to survive,” he said.

Although Mr Buckley complied, fewer than 10 per cent of training businesses had moved to the new system, forcing CASA to delay the deadline for a year Mr Buckley predicted many businesses, especially smaller ones, would be forced to close in coming months because of the cost of compliance.

“Schools delivering the 150-hour syllabus will lose that approval in September next year and customers will gravitate to the larger 142 schools to access the 150-hour course, which is about $15,000 cheaper than the 200-hour course,” he said.

“This will impact many schools, especially those in rural areas that can’t afford the transition to a Part 142 organisation.”

A CASA spokesman said the regulations were introduced in September 2014 and the agency had consulted widely. “The transition for a flying school to Parts 141 and 142 has been made much easier and cost-efficient,” he said.

CASA had also removed impediments to flying training organisations that wished to set up in remote areas, he said. Some flying schools had transitioned to Part 141 recently and CASA was receiving “very positive” feedback.



& Sandy in response:

Alexander


“CASA had also removed impediments to flying training organisations that wished to set up in remote areas, he said. Some flying schools had transitioned to Part 141 recently and CASA was receiving “very positive” feedback.” I know one senior instructor had to put $8000 up front for a flying school application still no approval 18 months on where in the USA that instructor would have been underway with no fee or the Australia famous ‘Air Operators Certificate’. 

Regarding the quote, I’ve read some utter rubbish from CASA in my 50 years in General Aviation. This one gets the prize raspberry for 2017.

There used to be flying schools everywhere, now regulated practically out of existence especially out in the bush where the need is greatest. Great to see some reporting of probably the worst case of bureaucratic overreach in Australia’s history. Alex in the Rises

+

One more thing, CASA claims there are 350 flying schools. Hmm, nice round number. For years I tried to get the numbers of flying schools from CASA in order to compare and understand the disastrous decline of the flying training industry. 

They always told me these figures were unavailable. The same goes for the question how many Aviation Security Identification Cards, now around $283 every two years irrespective of flying qualifications, age or CASA history, have been issued to pilots with a comparison over the last ten years. Not available, excuse is that’s Department of Infrastructure. CASA’s figures have been shown to be dodgy in the past like counting the activation of a boat electronic survival beacon as one from an aircraft when padding out figures to argue for a more expensive system to be foisted on General Aviation aircraft.

Sad but true, you just can’t believe what this mega $millions bureaucracy puts out through its PR outlet. Thanks be to the Australian for at last prising open the lid. Standby for more CASA story telling. Alex in the Rises



China swoops on flight schools to solve pilot shortage

[Image: ad8d1b20afd41396b8a8f6872d086a99?width=650]
Aminta Hennessy of Clamback & Hennessy at Bankstown. Picture: John Feder
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM December 23, 2017
  • ANDREW BURRELL
    [/url]

Chinese companies are swooping on Australian flight training schools increasingly stricken by skyrocketing costs and crippling red tape, amid predictions that the nation will be forced to import scores of commercial pilots from Asia and Africa in coming years.

The Weekend Australian has spoken to several of the country’s 350 aviation training businesses that say they are unprofitable and are considering selling to the ­Chinese. Scores of local firms have folded in recent years and several of the larger schools are now foreign-owned.

China will need an estimated 110,000 new pilots by 2035 but is relying on other countries for most of its training because of its heavy smog, military-controlled airspace and lack of qualified teachers who speak English.

A federal government report this week confirmed the local industry’s drastic decline, showing the number of general aviation flying hours in Australia fell by 40 per cent — from 500,000 hours a year to 300,000 hours a year — between 2010 and 2015.

The increasing foreign ownership in the flight training industry — particularly the concentration of Chinese acquisitions — is raising concern among senior security experts.

Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said the “aggregation effect’’ could be of the same concern in flight training as it had been to Scott Morrison in other sectors.

“It may be acceptable to own one or two flight training schools,’’ Mr Jennings said, but if the ­Chinese acquired flight training schools to the point where there was a dependence on it, “the aggregation ­effect of that could be negative from a government perspective’’. Flying training is seen as vital to allow Australia to keep up with the increasing demand for pilots, with predictions of a major shortage in coming years.

[url=http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1bf0f9ac13252e647fbcf44d8b0c60ac][Image: 1bf0f9ac13252e647fbcf44d8b0c60ac?width=650]
 
The landmark study by the ­Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics also raised industry fears about the cost of pilot and maintenance training, soaring airport charges and recent regulatory changes that were “not supported by adequate justification”.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association chief executive Ben Morgan said he believed more than 50 per cent of all flight training in Australia was now being carried out by foreign companies, and most of them were Chinese.

He said it was “realistic” to predict the industry could be entirely foreign-owned in the next 10 years. “The Chinese are cleaning up,” he said. “Australia is selling out its flight training industry to foreign interests.”

Chinese airlines have been investing heavily in Australian flight training in recent years. In 2015, a China Eastern Airlines subsidiary bought a 50 per cent stake in CAE’s Melbourne training school. Its rival, China Southern Airlines, owns 50 per cent of a West Australian academy.

One of the biggest regional schools, Australian International Aviation College in Port Macquarie, is now owned by Hainan Airlines after the local operator ran into financial trouble in 2014.

The Chinese sale was facilitated by the federal government’s Austrade agency.

The business is now planning an $18 million training facility at Kempsey airport to train Chinese students.

Dick Smith, a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, blamed the destruction of the industry on the former Howard government’s directive to CASA to ignore costs in relation to air safety, which he said had led to the adoption of the world’s most expensive regulations.

“Australian companies are going broke because of paperwork and red tape,” he said. “Now we have a shortage of ­pilots. Does it matter that in five years … we will have pilots from developing countries — from India, Indonesia and China — flying our airlines?”

Mr Smith said he was also concerned that Australian flight training companies were unable to get approval from China to train ­Chinese students, in the same way Chinese-run schools do in ­Australia.

Mr Morgan, of AOPA, welcomed the appointment this week of Barnaby Joyce as Transport Minister and called on him to urgently address how the local flight training industry could deliver crews for Australian airlines rather than relying on Asian and African pilots.

He said CASA should allow independent flight instructors to be used by smaller businesses, noting that 70 per cent of training in the US was conducted by independent instructors.

“If you are not an organisation with a bucket of cash, there’s no way you can get involved in flight training,” he said.

“We used to be a leader in flight training but we have created an expensive and cumbersome system.”

A CASA spokesman said the concept of independent flight instructors was raised during consultations but was not widely supported at the time.

“If the aviation community believes the concept of independent instructors needs to be looked at again, CASA is willing to listen to constructive suggestions,” he said.

Industry veteran John Douglas, the former head of the Royal Aero Club of WA, said conditions were the worst he had seen in 50 years.

He said the number of training hours a year at the club had fallen from 36,000 hours a year to 16,000 over the past two decades.

Mr Douglas slammed new CASA requirements for schools to spend money to gain new certification for training. “The cost of compliance is killing the industry,” he said.

Bill Whitworth, the owner of Whitworth Aviation at Bankstown Airport, recently agreed to sell his troubled business to a Chinese company. “They want to get a foothold here at Bankstown Airport,” he said. “They want to bring students down and train them, starting with 30 students.”

Mr Whitworth, who has been teaching flying since 1965, said his decision to sell was driven by soaring costs and changes to the system of government loans for students.

Another long-term operator at Bankstown, Aminta Hennessy, said businesses were also being hurt by rising airport fees and charges.

She said she had been recently approached by foreign companies to sell.

The chief executive of Melbourne Flight Training, Glen Buckley, said he had received five offers from Chinese companies to buy up to 20 per cent of his business, but he had so far resisted the temptation to sell.

Additional reporting: Sid Maher



Merry Xmas All!  Big Grin  

..Oh and TICK...TOCK Barnaby... Rolleyes

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_100117_112009_PM.jpg]


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
MT/BJ Govt Aviation report card - Part V

Via the Airports thread:

Quote:The slow death of the local airport - [Image: confused.gif]


Between cashed up developers, Chinese investors and encroaching building/wind farm developments - what used to be regarded as essential infrastructure - the local town airport will continue to go the way of the Dodo bird... [Image: confused.gif]

Via the Oz today:

Quote: Wrote:Aviation outrage over Chinese ownership of Merredin airport
[Image: bfe3d60cb3881aac1a05e0f941e4c10a?width=650]
The sign outside Merredin aerodrome. Picture: Colin Murty

The Australian
12:00AM December 27, 2017
ANDREW BURRELL
[Image: andrew_burrell.png]
WA Chief Reporter
Perth

@AndrewBurrell7



Merredin airport in Western Australia is effectively under the control of a Chinese government enterprise, prompting outrage in aviation circles, as safety concerns shut down its pilot training school.

The airport’s runways, control tower, hangars and all of its assets are 50 per cent owned, and may soon be fully owned, by China’s biggest airline, state-owned China Southern Airlines.

In 1993, the secretive company quietly paid $1 to the WA government to lease the airport for 100 years to use as a base to train thousands of Chinese pilots for employment in the world’s fastest- growing aviation market.

In recent years it has owned the flight school with Canadian company CAE.

So far, more than 2000 pilots have graduated from the ­facility, making it China Southern Airlines’ biggest training base in the world.

For an Australian town’s sole airstrip to be effectively controlled by the Chinese government is unusual.

Anyone who wishes to land at the aerodrome, 260km east of Perth, must seek approval from the flying school. Locals say permission has never been denied, but aviation veteran and businessman Dick Smith believes the airport should not be owned by a foreign company or government.

“It is outrageous that an Aussie pilot can’t go to a country airport without getting approval from the Chinese to land there,” he said.

“I’ve never heard of this happening anywhere.” In recent months, however, the Chinese flying school has suspended its operations in WA after the Civil Aviation Safety Authority raised safety concerns.

Aviation industry sources say the company has continued to pay millions of dollars in wages — without any students — since March this year.

One source said he believed a dispute between Guangzhou-based China Southern Airlines and CAE could lead to China Southern taking full ownership of the flying school within months.

A spokesman for China Southern West Australian Flying College declined to comment.

Merredin shire president Ken Hooper said nobody in town had been able to find out when the flying school would reopen.

“It’s quite important for our economy here but we just can’t get any information,” he said.

A CASA spokesman said the regulator would not publicly discuss details of its dealings with aviation organisations unless serious action was taken, such as suspending or cancelling a certificate.

“CASA and China Southern have been working to address identified safety and regulatory issues over a period of time,” the spokesman said. “CASA is hopeful that China Southern can meet all requirements as soon as possible.”

There is broader concern in the aviation industry about growing foreign ownership and control of pilot training schools in Australia.

With a looming shortage of commercial pilots predicted, there are fears Australia will have to import pilots while foreign-controlled pilot schools in this country send their graduates to China and elsewhere in Asia. At the same time, flight schools claim they are being crippled by skyrocketing costs and over-regulation.

& also via NBN news:
Quote:[Image: GLEN-FLIGHT.png]

AAFT ABANDONS GLEN INNES FLIGHT TRAINING SCHOOL
Amelia Bernasconi December 23, 2017 North West News Leave a comment

Australia Asia Flight Training has withdrawn its interest from the Glen Innes Flight Training School.

In a letter to Glen Innes Severn Council, the A-A-F-T stated after 12 years of attempting to realise an independent residential pilot training academy in regional Australia, it has decided to abandon the project as of Decemeber 31st.

Company Chairman Kingsley Mundey says the land, lease and approved DA will be handed back to Council.

Mayor Steve Toms says council was disappointed to receive the news and will explore other options for the site in the New Year.

NOTE: VISION ONLY

http://www.nbnnews.com.au/2017/12/23/aaf...ng-school/
 
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
MT/BJ Govt Aviation report card - Part VI

Reference Re Joyce post - Update: Aviation industry in crisis.

Following on from that shameful exposé, I note that the 'happy little chappy' from Tassie has backed up with this offering, courtesy of the Oz Wink :  

Quote:Aussie pilots land $750k in China

[Image: 5fa17ea8b0bb1d49632b55027f022aa0]12:00amMATTHEW DENHOLM

Chinese airlines are poaching experienced Australian pilots by doubling their pay-packets, threatening a pilot shortage.


Chinese airlines are poaching ­experienced Australian pilots by offering more than $750,000 a year, leading to concerns pilot shortages may spread from ­regional Australia to major routes.

Combined with a decline in Australian pilot training, the ­lucrative Chinese contracts have prompted some pilots to warn of potential shortages of major airline captains amid a developing global shortage.

Captain Murray Butt, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, representing 2250 Qantas Group pilots, told The Australian Chinese airlines were offering salaries for domestic pilots beyond the capacity of Australia’s main carriers.

“They are talking about 737 training captains earning ­upwards of $US600,000 ($769,000) tax-free and that’s going to be difficult even for the major Australian airlines to cope with,” he said. “The evidence is out there. People have been talking about a worldwide shortage for a long time and we’ve been a little bit protected because of the number of Australians that have been overseas and have wanted to ... come back.”

It is understood significant numbers of Qantas pilots granted leave without pay to work with overseas carriers during a cost-cutting period are now returning, with pilots again in demand. While this is helping to offset any attrition for Qantas, the decline in pilot training — and the purchase of Australian pilot schools by Chinese airlines — has raised concerns about pilot numbers in the long term. “That’s the problem you have when you are not feeding (new pilots) in from the bottom and allowing people to go through a system to get to the top,” Mr Butt said.

Industry sources told The Australian experienced pilots could earn more operating 737s on Chinese domestic routes than at the controls of Qantas’s new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Globally advertised 737 captain positions for Chinese domestic routes offer salaries in excess of $400,000; roughly double the salary of a Jetstar or Tigerair 737 captain (about $200,000, according to industry sources).

Sources said Dreamliner captains were expected to earn about $330,000. In China, Xiamen Air is offering $400,000 for 737 captains, Suparna Airlines $415,000 and Fuzhou Airlines $375,000 for EMB190 captains.

It is estimated that China will need an extra 110,000 pilots by 2035, a demand it cannot meet at home. Mr Butt said he recently ­attended a conference where representatives from five Chinese airlines “all spoke about how they expected to double within the next five years and … were just there to recruit”.

The Australian yesterday revealed government plans to allow regional airlines to hire foreign ­pilots on two-year work visas, from next month, to overcome a shortage of pilots on regional routes, but Mr Butt’s union has questioned whether the right calibre of pilots will be found, given global wages competition.

Captain David Booth, president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, representing about 4500 commercial pilots, had not heard of Chinese companies ­offering as much as $769,000, but said Chinese pay packets of $400,000 were on offer on websites pitched to Australian pilots.

He said some Australian pilots were taking up such offers, but that most would likely be deterred by the loss of their airline seniority status on return to Australia.

“China is offering 100 per cent more than everyone else to fly a narrow-bodied aeroplane, but flying there also has its unique challenges,” he said.

Qantas Group spokesman ­Andrew McGinnes said the airline had no difficulty attracting ­pilots, with a recent recruitment drive attracting 1000 applications for 170 positions.

Virgin Australia chief pilot Mike Fitzgerald said while pilots were in “high demand” globally, the airline could compete.

“Virgin Australia has a number of pilot recruitment drivers including our cadetship program, the work we do with universities through their pilot training programs, as well as using jobseeker platforms to advertise for experienced pilots,” he said. “All Virgin Australia pilots ­receive international-standard training, a competitive salary and opportunities to fly a range of aircraft.”

Opposition transport spokesman Anthony Albanese said the Turnbull government had “dropped the ball when it comes to workforce training in aviation”.

“Australia must ensure we have enough pilots and engineers to ensure the ongoing success of our industry,” he said.

Albo said - “dropped the ball when it comes to workforce training in aviation”.

“Australia must ensure we have enough pilots and engineers to ensure the ongoing success of our industry,”

Sheer, utter hypocrisy from the former miniscule for non-aviation, who did as much to contribute to the current aviation cluster-duck, merely by hiring one John McCormick as CASA DAS and one Martin (Beaker) Dolan as Chief (Top cover) Commissioner to the ATSB.

Here is Albo singing McCormick's praises in a bollocks 2014 APH speech in response to the ASRR and TSBC reports Dodgy :



  

&.. from Sandy in response to same... Wink :

Quote:Opposition transport spokesman Anthony Albanese said the Turnbull government had “dropped the ball when it comes to workforce training in aviation”.

The former Minister who allowed CASA to have a one off increase in the fuel levy for extra safety studies. CASA promptly put on nearly another two hundred staff and in 2014 came out with the worst, most expensive and almost impossible flying training rules hence the death of General Aviation and pilot shortage. Admittedly just part of CASA’s great make work rules rewrite stared 1988 and still not finished, but nevertheless well done Mr Albanese for your part in the scandal that is the maladministration of aviation in Australia. Alex in the Rises

P2 comment - On the search 4 IP thread there is a perfect example of how Albo's 'hands off' and leaving it to JMAC & Beaker policy has negatively impacted on our aviation safety standards: PelAir MKII: SMS a lip service exercise - Part III



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Update: 04/01/2018

Almost missed this one.. Blush

Via the DT.. Wink

Quote:Foreign pilots decision puts our safety at risk

[Image: 80e6f0665b4a4906b920eeae649162f5?width=150]
Nick Dyrenfurth
January 4, 2018 12:00am





THE Turnbull government think they can play the Australian people like a piano.

In April, Prime Minister announced a so-called ‘ban’ on 457 foreign worker visas. It would ‘ensure Australian workers are given the absolute first priority for jobs.’ Yet an almost identical Temporary Work Visas became law at the same time.

Turnbull went on: ‘We are making it easier for Australians to find work and we have restored order to our borders so we can ensure foreign workers have an opportunity to arrive through the appropriate channels.’

Note the stress on ‘restoring order to our borders’ and ‘absolute first priority for jobs’. Because just this week comes news that foreign pilots will be allowed into Australia on two-year visas to address what Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s suggests is a growing shortage of local pilots. ‘Airline pilot’ will be found on a revised list of skilled occupations allowed into Australia under the list of new TWVs to be announced next month.

The shortage has, according to industry lobbyists and the government, already led to flight cancellations, not that any concrete evidence has been provided.

[Image: 56d386013296f4c6253ab4ea05cb1813?width=650]We should make it easier for student pilots like Claire Gipps, Nick Evans, Bec Spencer and Noah Mirosch to get their licences rather than importing foreign pilots. (Pic: Mark Calleja)

Even if the problem exists this solution is a sugar-hit which masks a larger issue. Why in the first place are we not properly investing in the domestic training of domestic pilots to fill labour market gaps?

Unemployment is at 7 per cent, not to mention massive underemployment, particularly in regional areas.

And why are we allowing our best and most experienced pilots to be poached by overseas carriers, notably Chinese companies?

The same goes for ownership of our airports.

It is a national disgrace that we are not training enough or retaining skilled pilots for our airlines when they should be expanding into a booming Asian market. We need government, business and unions to come together to fix this mess. Our safety depends upon it.

There is a real question mark over the qualifications and expertise of the foreign pilots flown in under the new visa system. Just ask the pilots who fly our iconic Qantas airline who have already voiced serious concerns. Every time we step on a plane we are told that our safety is their number one priority. Just who are we importing to fly millions of Australians across the expanses of our wide brown land?

In particular, regional flyers have reason for concern. This at a time when aviation safety has repeatedly been called into question as the Turnbull government under-resources both AirServices and Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

[Image: 9ec54275ff2938b6820ad2568161472c?width=650]Australian and International Pilots Association president, Captain Murray Butt, has spoken of his concerns about the foreign pilot visas. (Pic: Justin Lloyd)

There are legitimate fears about what these foreign pilots will be paid too, at a time when wages growth is at its lowest ever recorded levels. Can the government provide a rock-solid guarantee that these pilots will not be used to undermine hard-earned wages and conditions of our local workers?

That doesn’t just go for pilots. It owes the same iron-clad guarantee to our hardworking airline hosties, baggage handlers and aircraft maintenance workers. Otherwise the idea of having foreign pilots is simply a smokescreen for the Liberals’ ideological obsession with creating a low-wage, insecure work, race-to-the-bottom economy.

Peter Dutton has made much of his role in the Abbott government’s success in stopping unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia through a tough policy combination of offshore detention and turnbacks. He is meant to be the nation’s tough cop-on-the-beat, protecting us against very real terrorist threats. Yet now appears Dutton’s plan for offshore retention.

Malcolm Turnbull’s main protector doesn’t want to protect the Australian public when they are flying, as so many of us are over the Christmas and New Year period.


Offshore retention entails people not trained to our highest safety standards and on lower wages being brought into the country and in charge of the precious human cargo navigating our skies.


Nick Dyrenfurth is Executive Director of the John Curtin Research Centre


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)