CASA meets the Press
Last LMH for 2017 - Merry Xmas Hitch.. Wink

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: Steve-Hitchen4.jpg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges have jingle bells on them,

Hitch

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

And a comment from dj Wink :

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

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

Via the Yaffa:

[Image: Steve-Hitchen4.jpg]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

&..


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

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


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

Via the Oz:

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


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

The Australian 9h ago


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Via the Oz:

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


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

The Australian 9h ago


Former air safety tsar backs calls for red-tape reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

CASA Restructure confirms GA Branch
24 January 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new structure is on the CASA website.

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



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


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



Dick Smith, Shane Carmody at odds over CASA management

[Image: 7471dc484e6abd3eec617765e2e38fac?width=650]

Aviation pioneer Dick Smith. Picture: Emma Murray.

The Australian

12:00AM January 26, 2018

EAN HIGGINS

[Image: ean_higgins.png]

Reporter
Sydney
@EanHiggins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Carmody declined to discuss the “iron ring”.

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

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

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

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




&..more from the Oz... Wink




Regulatory compliance a constant burden on general aviation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Provide training support via CASA.

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

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

Trent Brown is a director of GSL Aviation Group.




Plus... Rolleyes




Dogfight over pilot broadcast zone heats up

[Image: 3854e7c13b09d716181b8a3fc5acb200?width=650]

Regional airlines support the proposal to expand the CTAF.

The Australian
12:00AM January 26, 2018

ANNABEL HEPWORTH

[Image: annabel_hepworth.png]

Aviation Editor
Sydney
@HepworthAnnabel



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional airlines support the proposal to expand the CTAF.

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

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





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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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


Sandy in reply... Wink

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



[Image: Steve-Hitchen7.jpg]

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

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

– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toot – toot.
Reply
LMH 23/02/18

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...xQy7JhQ.99
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
LMH 02/03/18: CC da'man on Class 2 med; miniscule McMack - who? - Rolleyes

Via the Yaffa... Wink  


– Steve Hitchen

As far as medical reform goes, is Shane Carmody "da man"? Carmody has promised that from 3 April, all DAMEs will be able to issue Class 2 medical certificates on the spot without reference to CASA. If he makes this happen, he will have achieved something that the three CEOs that came before him failed to do, despite assurances to the contrary. The sticking point has always been the DAMEs not wanting to take responsibility, which they didn't have to do if CASA issued the certificate. So what has changed? Why has Shane Carmody succeeded where his predecessors failed? There's no doubting Carmody's skill, experience and professionalism as a senior public servant, but it can hardly have been that alone that swung the pendulum. The truth is likely that a complete reform of the AVMED system is in play, and the DAMEs have found themselves having to march in step or be left behind. The cynics will say that so far this reform has been only promised (like many times before), but there is still one complete month in which the wheels can fall off. The difference is that we have a start date to the promise, which is something we've never had before.

Quote:GA has already expressed a great frustration and shown signs of consultation fatigue

And so another great unknown has been injected into general aviation: a Minister for Infrastructure and Transport that has no established record with aviation, and who is so far being very cagy when asked about his attitudes towards GA reform. When Darren Chester got the gig in early 2016, his spin doctors were on the ball, pointing out that he used GA regularly to get from his Bairnsdale to Canberra, and that he had GippsAero in his electorate. So far team Michael McCormack has been very quiet, which is often a sign that they have nothing to say that can benefit them. McCormack now inherits the responsibility of dealing with an aviation community that is infused with the spirit of reform; a community that is not in the mood to accept platitudes in place of progress anymore. But every minister has their own policies and plans, and it may be that McCormack continues with the initiative of Darren Chester such as the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG) and action plans from the BITRE GA Study ... or dismantles all that to put his own actions in place. The latter would be a sting in the arse for GA: new action plans usually start with consultation, studies and all the things that politicians love to do in lieu of actually doing anything. GA has already expressed a great frustration and shown signs of consultation fatigue, so to have to go back onto the merry-go-round of discussions and fact-finding will probably break a lot of hearts.

Australian Flying lost a real asset this week when Senior Contributor Philip Smart moved on to a new position within the aviation and defence industry. Phil is a great writer who displayed a passion for aviation at all levels from drones to A380s. As his editor, I could assign him any challenge and he would rise to it with enthusiasm, producing great copy every time. Phil was also regular contributor to Australian Defence Magazine and was the last ever editor of Aviation Business. His departure will leave a hole in the contributor line-up for Australian Flying, so we are sending out a call to the aviation community for someone to step up and take over his role. I need a right-hand person; someone who always looks up when a light plane goes by, makes a mental note of every windsock they see, stops to watch every time a propeller starts to swing. They also need to be proud of their written work, understand the readership and are dedicated to making Australian Flying better with every issue that goes out. If I just described you, we probably need to talk. Contact me: stevehitchen@yaffa.com.au.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...u3Im7tL.99




MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
LMH 09/03/18: CASA - surveys & approvals.  Dodgy

Via the Yaffa... Wink


– Steve Hitchen

CASA is going again with their relationship survey, last done in 2015. The result of the last one garnered the name Colmar-Brunton Report and many activists and lobby groups in the aviation industry used it as a bat to beat the regulator with. The results weren't spectacular, but were they ever going to be? The problem with surveys by governments, regulators, councils or any other body that takes money from us then tells us what to do, is that the average punter in the street will use the survey as an excuse to let fly with all batteries. Those that are happy will tend to sit pat. Consequently, despite the analytical skills of the consultant company, the reports are too often skewed in a negative direction. In the CASA instance, the satisfaction rating of their last report, broadly, was 25%, so I'm sure they'll be looking for that to improve. I'm not so sure that it will; there is a real danger CASA will actually get a worse rating. A promise broken is far worse than a promise never made, and despite reassurances and working groups, there is still a lot of misery in the general aviation community over Part 61, 66, 139, 141 and 142. Enough misery, probably, for many to use the survey as a spleen-venting exercise. There will be some improvemetn in the score over the Basic Class 2 concept, but that may be canceled out by the Multicom issue, which many in the industry are taking as an indicator that there's no real improvement at Aviation House. No matter what you think, it's important to give CASA frank and fair feedback so we can use the next Colmar Brunton Report with integrity to assess whether or not there has been reform progress.

Quote:it's not good for aviation and it's not good for CASA.

And speaking of regulatory reform, CASA this week revealed they have processed only 38% of Part 141/142 approvals over the past 12 months. This looks bad for those schools still queued, because the deadline of 31 August looks mathematically impossible. To be fair, some schools will have contributed to their own delays, but there are reports coming back from schools about CASA taking too long to give answers, CASA staff that don't understand the material any better than the people they're approving and, inevitably, accusations of deliberate delays within the regulator in order to protect jobs. What ever is the reality, CASA is going to have to spool up their capacity to get all schools moved over to the new regs before the deadline. The numbers show there are still 181 training organisations to approve, and unless something happens we could be hearing a barrage of slamming doors as flying schools go out of business. That's good for no-one; it's not good for aviation and it's not good for CASA. CASA has said they are confidant, but I am predicting a deadline extension is coming up to enable schools to stay open and for approval work to continue past 31 August. But a quick word in the ear of CEO Shane Carmody: there once was a man who extended the Part 61 deadline then blamed the aviation community for it to cover his own organisation's shortcomings. Best not to make that mistake again if you want a better score on your relationship survey.

If you haven't planned your Sunday out yet, think about the Tyabb Air Show. This is one of Australia's best shows and, being the home of a lot of warbirds, has some magnificent machinery on display. I have flown into this event several times over the years, and it is one of the slickest when it comes to moving GA planes around, so delays in and out are rare. They've had some grief down there this year with pied locals defacing advertising hoardings, ignoring the benefits and legal standing of the airport. The GA community could do no better than to show the detractors that Tyabb is important and has the support of a lot of people. And there's the show to watch as well! Have a look at the show website; I'm pretty sure you'll find something there worth flying in to see.

Yesterday I was chauffered around the sky in a new (less than 100 hours) Piper M600 SETP. This is one magnificent aeroplane and I'm not ashamed to say I felt a little bit spoiled sitting down the back and doing not a lot whilst staring out the windows. Up the front, someone else was steering and running the Garmin 3000 and seemed to be making a pretty good fist of it even though it was his first attempt. With Tom the demo pilot talking him through the aeroplane, he made the transition from Bonanza to M600 relatively easily. And that's seems to be a market that's opening up now: upgrades from six-cylinder pistons. Cirrus has brought in the SF50 Vision to capture those customers with brand loyalty, Daher has had great success with the TBM range and now Piper has bolstered its position with the M600. It does make me wonder then why Textron hasn't entered the fray, producing a product that Bonanza loyalists can upgrade to. Brand loyalty to Cessna can go up the Citation M2 channel, but Beech owners still have nowhere to go beyond the Bonanza. Some will be captured by the Cessna Denali, but with 11 seats its a lot of aeroplane in capacity, performance and cost. The six-seat turbines are very much in the box seat.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...55o4FWf.99


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Easter LMH - A day early... Wink

Via the Yaffa:



[Image: steve-hitchen2.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 29 March 2018
29 March 2018

– Steve Hitchen

CASR Part 91 is the latest suite of regs to be laid upon the table for scrutiny. These are the operating rules by which we fly; the skeletal bones of the entire body of regulations. So the controversy over why they were not among the first rules to be reviewed is probably pretty fair. If feedback now forces significant change, amendments would need to be made to CASR parts that have already been done and dusted. But if you read carefully CASA's description of the changes, there really aren't many at all; it's mainly just conglomerating a swag of other instruments into just two. In other words, they aren't expecting to make much in the way of change to Part 91, so there shouldn't be anything to flow over to other CASR parts. Is the consultation therefore a waste of time? The aviation industry would do well to get stuck in to this and pull it to pieces perhaps moreso than other suites; it governs what we do flight by flight. What I do like is that CASA is promising a plain-English guide to Part 91 similar to the Visual Flight Rules Guide. This will make it a lot easier for us to understand what CASA wants from us as pilots and operators. Plain English was flagged as necessary in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, and this new guide will, I hope, be the first of several documents that take the legalese of the CASRs and interpret them into a understandable form.

Quote:are we now going to get an upgrade program for airports that are not so remote?

And so we bid a fond farewell to the Remote Airfields Upgrade program. The $7 million of Round Five empties the treasure chest, but over the last four years that money has been put to very good use. The intent of the program was to help those communities where the airport is a critical connection from them to the rest of Australia; hence, it was available to only those airports classified as remote or very remote. So are we now going to get an upgrade program for airports that are not so remote? You could argue that airports at regional towns are just as critical as those in remote areas, but for different reasons.

Regional airports become valuable resources in times of disaster, and there are many of them that are in need of an upgrade to make sure they can do the job when the chips are firmly down. May I quote the example of Cobden in Victoria? This was upgraded by a former state government a few years ago. At the time even I wondered why so much money was spent in such a small town. The government of today reaped the benefits a few weeks ago when bushfires raced across the south west of the state, threatening homes and killing livestock. Cobden Airport became a base of operations for both rotary and fixed-wing firebombers. Choppers both large and small, single-engine aerial tankers (SEATs) and C337 fire spotters used the airport to great advantage, and they probably couldn't have done it had the previous government not spent the money. The airport became critical, and there are many more just like it around Australia that may one day find their little local runway busier than Sydney International. The Federal Government needs to remember that, and look closely at funding needs for those airports as well.

The Commonwealth Games kick-off this coming week, and there's plenty of restrictions on the airspace around the Gold Coast and huge chunks of Queenland. If you don't want to be greeted mid-air by Hornets, you'll need to bring yourself up to speed with AIP SUP H145/17 and H183/17. They're both available on the Airservices Australia website.

Easter begins tomorrow, and there'll be people taking advantage of general aviation to make quick getaways from the cities to the regions for well-earned breaks. They could be private flyers or members of aero club fly-aways. Either way, don't forget to plan well and fly well. The weather for most of the country is looking very flyable, but if you're in Brisbane or Darwin you may have some decisions to make. Those decisions will utimately affect whether or not you have a good Easter, so decide well.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Carmody Capers retreats further on big CTAF concept - Confused

Via the Oz:

Quote:CASA backs down on frequencies
[Image: 262016e17cc15f7abde1368a1848f4b5]12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH

CASA is to issue a new proposal on radio frequencies used by light aircraft at some small airstrips.



CASA backs down on unpopular move to expand common frequencies


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is set to issue a new proposal on radio frequencies used by light aircraft at some small airstrips after backing down on the controversial plan to expand the common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas near non-towered aerodromes.

After a backlash, CASA has abandoned its proposal to increase the radius for the common traffic advisory frequency broadcast areas that pilots use to announce their position and intentions at non-controlled airfields. But CASA has broad support for another key part of the proposal: to tell light aircraft pilots at some small airstrips to use the 126.7Mhz “multicom” frequency.

The safety authority is expected to release a “new option” soon that will then be the subject of further consultation.

CASA chief executive and director of aviation safety Shane Carmody said the agency was looking at “whether there is another way”.

This could include effectively returning to the practice before contentious changes in 2013.

Before those changes, pilots used the multicom when near unchartered aerodromes that did not have a discrete frequency.

“There’s no one-size-fits-all here,” Mr Carmody told The Australian yesterday.

“How do we get the mix right and make it simple for people who are flying in the same sky being able to talk to one another?”

The backdown by CASA is significant as the issue of radio frequency use at low levels in uncontrolled airspace was an area that Mr Carmody had previously said was being pushed towards a resolution.

Critics of the CTAF proposal included aviator Dick Smith, the Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee and Recreational Aviation Australia.

This week, CASA revealed that of the 1064 survey responses to its consultation on the proposal, it was rejected by 57.2 per cent of ­respondents.

While most favoured the use of multicom, a “substantial” number did not want the CTAF expanded from 10 nautical miles to 20. Concerns included the prospect of overlapping CTAFs, causing confusion about which frequency to use, and congestion.

According to a summary of consultation released this week, there were fears that multicom could be misused as a “chat ­channel”.

Also, paragliders and hang gliders had been worried they would have to carry a radio or monitor two frequencies.

Mr Smith said that North America, Europe and the UK had a simpler system, without prescriptive giant CTAFs.

The chairman of Recreational Aviation Australia, Michael Monck, said his group wanted a true solution that “doesn’t compromise safety of the frequency users of airfields in favour of the odd RPT (regular public transport) aircraft”.

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
LMH - 20 April 2018.

Via Oz Flying... Wink

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

Via Oz Flying... Wink

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

MB comment to LMH - Wink

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

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

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

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

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

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

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

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

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: steve-hitchen7.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 4 May 2018
3 May 2018

Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)