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

Speaking of music, here is the CAsA theme song;



Reply
Wink 
Gobbles,

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

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:Steve Hitchen

I got accused of being diplomatic last week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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


Comments:

frankus54  

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

Sandy Reith  > frankus54

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

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

SteveHitchen Mod > frankus54

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



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


Quote:– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

Forsyth throws his Weight behind Act Amendment Efforts
18 May 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wink Big Grin


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:AGAA Delegates finalise Outcomes Package



[Image: day_two_delegates.jpg]

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

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

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

The conclusions reached were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

& this week's LMH... Wink

Quote:[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


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


& a comment:

Quote:[Image: avatar92.jpg?1531462372]

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

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




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

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



The Last Minute Hitch: 20 July 2018
20 July 2018

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


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

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

– Steve Hitchen

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

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

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

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

Hitch – “doing so has drawn even more derision.

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























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


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

From miniscule Mc'Nobody's thread:

Quote:Just exactly who is this Graeme Crawford?

Other than a nasty piece of work?

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

And: https://www.linkedin.com/in/graeme-m-crawford-2b77983/
Reply
(07-28-2018, 05:37 AM)kharon Wrote: Janus – the two faced god.

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

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

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

Hitch – “doing so has drawn even more derision.

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























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


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

From miniscule Mc'Nobody's thread:

Quote:Just exactly who is this Graeme Crawford?

Other than a nasty piece of work?

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

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

P2 edit - Watch Mike Smith here:





& from approximately - 21:00 minutes here:



Reply
Wonder who wrote his Linkedin profile for him?
Aleck I suppose, certainly has his style about it.
Good old silver tongue.
Interesting with his much vaulted attributes, he seems
to have had trouble holding down a position for very long.
Then ends up in CAsA, an employer of last resort.
Reply
AA's take on the Luther Crawford bollocks -  Rolleyes

Via AA last week:


CASA defends record on general aviation
written by australianaviation.com.au July 25, 2018

[Image: PHAN6869.jpg]

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has defended its record in relation to general aviation and called on those questioning its commitment to the sector to look at its recent actions.

Writing in the July edition of The CASA Briefing, acting chief executive and director of aviation safety Graeme Crawford noted the recent debate about the regulator’s relationship with the general aviation sector.

“Implicit in this debate is the suggestion by some people that CASA does not support a sustainable and viable general aviation sector,” Crawford said.

“I would like to assure everyone this is simply not true.”

“There is no CASA agenda against general aviation and we regard the sector as a vital component of the national aviation community.”

General Aviation calling for change

Crawford’s comments, published on Wednesday, follow the recently concluded Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) summit at Wagga Wagga.

The two-day gathering concluded on July 10 with more than 30 industry associations agreeing to a communique that said the current regulatory stance adopted by CASA was “out of step with contemporary regulatory practice” and contributing to the rapid decline of Australia’s general aviation industry.

“The Australian economy has the opportunity to benefit from pilot and engineering training, aircraft and component maintenance and construction services flowing from the world-wide expansion of air travel and aviation activity – especially in Asia,” the communique said.

“To achieve this, we must be able to respond effectively and be liberated from over regulation.”

Industry associations present at Wagga Wagga summit, which was organised by the recently-formed Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA), included those covering aircraft owners and pilots, maintenance and engineering, parachutists, gliding, hang gliding, recreational aviation, sport aircraft and seaplanes, among several others.

Crawford said many of CASA’s staff were participants in general aviation or started their careers in the sector, and had a “practical understanding of the issues and challenges” the sector faced.

“CASA can’t deliver solutions to the broader economic and social changes that are affecting parts of general aviation, but we can and will do our best to provide an appropriate safety regulatory framework that creates confidence in general aviation across the broader community,” Crawford said.

“CASA is focused on regulatory solutions that are both practical, proportionate and address aviation safety risk.”

The communique that was agreed to at Wagga Wagga has been sent to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack, as well as his shadow counterpart Anthony Albanese. Both politicians spoke at the summit, with McCormack saying he was keen to listen to their proposals for reform.

Meanwhile, Albanese said he and the Labor opposition were committed to working with the government in a bipartisan way.

The communique called on the federal government to change the wording of the Civil Aviation Act, which as it currently stood said CASA had to “regard safety as the most important consideration” in its role regulating the industry.

Instead, the communique proposed that CASA, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, “must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation as well as maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector”.

Further, the gathering called for the main object of the Act to be to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

Crawford said CASA would continue to develop regulatory solutions that considered risk appetite and safety consequences.

Further, he called on those who doubted CASA’s commitment to general aviation to “please look at our recent actions”.

“Three major reforms this year to the aviation medical system are practical examples of reducing costs and impacts on the aviation community, particularly general aviation,” Crawford said.

“The Basic Class 2 medical, which became available in early July 2018, is targeted at private pilots and makes getting an appropriate medical quicker, easier and cheaper.”


[Image: IMG_1473_1170.jpg]Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) summit delegates after agreeing to the communique to be presented to government.


Good to see AOPA Oz are quick to put the Luther Crawford weasel words to the test... Wink 


Quote:[Image: AOPA-Oz-1.jpg]



[Image: AOPA-Oz-2.jpg]



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 03/08/18: Yarrawonga on the market, CASA needs Ockham's Razor and trading flight for life.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...ch_tbm.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 3 August 2018
3 Aug 2018



– Steve Hitchen

Those that fly around Victoria's north or the south-east of NSW will know that Yarrawonga is one of the handiest and most friendly airports in the area. Home to a small pilot shop, manufacturers of aircraft covers and maintenance organisations, it's a pivotal location for a fuel stop, food stop or just a quick chat. Now it looks like that could all come to an end soon. Moira Shire Council has declared that it costs too much to run and therefore is going to sell it. I would like to advise the council that it's not good salesmanship to tell the whole world the merchandise is very costly to run; it makes it very clear that to turn a profit the new owners would have to crank up the income. That means massive increases in landing fees and rents that will see the airport usage decline and the business have to move out. But, that could be the plan. If they think they can sell Yarrawonga airport as a going concern, the council must be populated by fools. It remains then that they know any new owner won't be able to make a go of it and the decision to sell is effectively a decision to not have an airport at Yarrawonga anymore. And that will have an impact on the shire that they are pretending it won't; there is a lot of money that flows into Moira Shire that is not credited to the airport's balance sheet. I can cite cases of pilots who own holiday homes in Yarrawonga that would probably sell them if they can't fly up there rather than drive. But then again, aviation-averse councils such as Moira can see only the income from development and not the benefits of connection to the rest of the country that only an airport can bring. I sincerely hope that after the airport is gone, no-one ever needs to be air-lifted from Yarrawonga to the Alfred Hospital.

Quote:Since when is flying under the oversight of an incorrect solution safe?

There have been a couple of instances this week where interpretation has misled people to make some erroneous statements with a great deal of honesty. Please forgive me if I don't go into them; I'll probably just make the same mistakes. But for me it has put intense focus on the problem of complexity in Australia's aviation rules and the language we use to write them. CASA, the government and the Labor Party are sticking to their guns that the primary focus of aviation regulation must be safety, so how the hell they allow regulations to be written the way they are is simply bewildering. It is not in any way safe for regulations to be open to interpretation in such a way that they are regularly misinterpreted! There is an old saying in the technical writing industry: if there are two ways to intrepret what you wrote, someone will interpret it the way you didn't mean. David Forsyth touched on this in the ASRR report handed down in 2014, recommending we start talking in plain English, and it needs to happen very soon. I am pleased to see that CASA has said the Manual of Standards for the new GA maintenance regs will be done in plain English; this is a good start in what is a very long road. However, there is still the problem of complexity, which was highlighted at the recent GA summit at Wagga Wagga when hard copies of all the Australian regs were laid out on a table. There were five four-ring binders, two two-ring binders and ERSA. By comparison, the US regs were sat along side them: two books. I'm going to again quote my favourite philosophy because I think it's very pertinent here. Ockham's Razor says "All thing being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the correct one." It therefore follows that the most complex answer tends to be the incorrect one. Since when is flying under the oversight of an incorrect solution safe?

Facebook group Pilot's Lounge Australia has linked up with Bush Flyers Down Under to raise money for struggling Australian farmers. This is a great initiative and well worth the aviation community's support. The idea is to work out how much it costs you to go flying for an hour, donate that money via an online campaign to Drought Angels and go an do something else instead. It's called Trading Flight for Life. I know, what else would you rather do but fly? In this instance the cause is a great one, and if it means sacrificing an hour in the air to help out the farmers, many of whom live their lives in the dark shadow of bankruptcy, then it really is a small price to pay.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch

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



Comment:

Martin Hone  12 hours ago

It is both sad and frustrating to hear of another council deciding that it can no longer afford its own airport, and that the only option is to sell out to the development vultures. But even you have missed the bleeding obvious, Steve. What about the council helping to set up an airpark ? Hell, there is already a bunch of committed enthusiasts living and working on the airfield. With a little imagination and work, the facility could be made more attractive to a greater number of aviators so that it becomes sustainable and the council benefits from a cash injection from land sales plus ongoing rates. It works in other parts of the country, as you well know.

Next: Fort Fumble review of 2 in the cockpit rule -  Undecided 

Via the Oz:


Quote:Two in the cockpit rule relaxed
[Image: 357f25ef93621cd283ff08dce97636d1]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Australia’s major airlines are rethinking the ‘two in the cockpit’ rule after a review found the practice to be fraught with risk.


Australia’s major airlines are rethinking the “two in the cockpit” rule after a review found the practice to be fraught with risk.

The rule was adopted by multiple airlines worldwide following the 2015 Germanwings crash in which co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked his captain out of the cockpit and crashed the A320 into mountains, killing all 150 people on board.

Under the rule, a crew member is required to take the place of the captain or co-pilot if one of them leave the cockpit for a bathroom break.

When the practice was adopted by Australian airlines in agreement with the federal government a week after the German­wings crash, it was decided a review would be conducted after 12 months.

Yesterday Civil Aviation Safety Authority acting chief executive Graeme Crawford revealed the review had identified “unintended consequential risks” from the practice.

These included the “second person in the cockpit potentially distracting the pilot, making inadvertent contact with cockpit switches and taking cabin crew away from their safety role in the cabin”, he said.

“It was also found the practice complicated flight crew access to the cockpit and introduced an additional risk of flight deck incursion,” Mr Crawford said.

“(CASA’s) recommendation is for air operators to evaluate their own safety requirements and make an operational decision on whether to maintain ‘two in the cockpit’ in their standard operating procedures.”

In response, Qantas said it would consider “implementing a change to the current procedure”. Similarly, Virgin Australia said it was reviewing its position on the practice and would provide a further update soon.

European airlines including Lufthansa, Swiss and Austrian Airlines have already ended the practice after Europe’s Aviation Safety Agency relaxed the requirement.

Australian International Pilots Association president Murray Butt said the rule’s introduction was an overreaction and the ­organisation welcomed CASA’s recommendation.

“The rule was introduced without any analysis of the risk factors of having a third person coming into the flight deck,” Mr Butt said.

“We hope the airlines move quickly and they can make the public understand that while the two in the cockpit rule was introduced to placate public fears, now they’ve had a good look at it, it’s not such a good idea.”

He said it was more important to work on mental health programs for pilots.

Marcus Diamond from the Australian Federation of Air ­Pilots said they were hopeful the airlines would respond quickly to CASA’s recommendation.

“We couldn’t see any real benefit from (the rule),” Mr Diamond said.
 
& from Creepy:

Quote:Australia eases Germanwings two-person cockpit rule
By
Steve Creedy
579
August 03, 2018 

[Image: P72.jpg]
Australian airlines will be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have two people in the cockpit at all times.

The Australian government followed the lead of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and adopted the two-in-the cockpit rule for aircraft with a seating capacity of more than 50 passengers after the crash of Germanwings Flight 9252 crash in March, 2015.

Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who had been diagnosed with suicidal tendencies, deliberately flew the aircraft into the side of a French mountain, killing 144 passengers and six crew.

The idea was to have another crew member enter the cockpit if one of the pilots left for any reason but the practice has raised a number of safety and security issues.

EASA eased the two-person rule in August, 2017,  and German airlines revealed they would abandon it April this year, arguing it increased security risks rather lowered them.

Australia’s  Civil Aviation Safety Authority said a review of the practice in Australia found there were “unintended consequential risks, including the second person in the cockpit potentially distracting the pilot, making inadvertent contact with cockpit switches and taking cabin crew away from their safety role in the cabin”.

“It was also found the practice complicated flight crew access to the cockpit and introduced an additional risk of flight deck incursion,’’ CASA said in a recent briefing note.

“The recommendation is for air operators to evaluate their own safety requirements and make an operational decision on whether to maintain ‘two in the cockpit’ in their standard operating procedures.

“CASA’s aviation medicine branch will continue to monitor pilot mental health and maintain a high level of awareness among pilots of mental health priorities and sources of assistance.”

Australian pilot unions have welcomed the decision to ease the rules.

It comes as the EU recently published strengthened mental health guidelines for pilots.

The new rules mean all European airlines will need to perform a psychological assessment of pilots before they start employment, something many airlines already do.

They also include a support program for all pilots working for European airlines to help them “recognize, cope with and overcome “problems which might negatively affect their ability to safely exercise the privileges of their license”

Mandatory alcohol testing will be extended to pilots and cabin crew of all European and foreign airlines that fly into the EU.



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 10/08/18: It's all about consultation this week as small transport ops are dropped into the crucible.

Via the Yaffa:



  • [Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]



The Last Minute Hitch: 10 August 2018
10 August 2018


In general aviation, pessimism is robust but optimism is fragile. As much as we'd like to reverse that, things keep happening that justify the pessimism. We all applauded Minister McCormack at Wagga Wagga when he announced that CASA would craft a new set of maintenance regulations specifically for GA, but our ovation may have been premature given that we didn't have the full story. With the release of the initial discussion paper this week, we find that the new regs will apply to only a very small segment of what we call "GA", because CASA has deemed to re-define the term so that charter operations and joyflights are no longer part of GA. Although the proposed new regs seem like a great idea, they will benefit only a few small segments of GA: flying academies, ag operators, aeromedical (except patient transfer), SAR and dedicated airwork aircraft. Private flying schools and aero clubs won't benefit because their aircraft are also used in joyflights, which means the aeroplanes will have to be maintained to the passenger-carrying rules, even though their main purpose is training. Flying academies won't have this problem because they don't offer their fleets for joyflights. Once again, the operators who need the most relief from the regulatory burden are being offered none.

Quote:"..sacrificing joyflights may be the only choice they really have.."

I see three options for the flying schools and aero clubs: maintain one aircraft to the higher standards and use only that one for joyflights, maintain the entire fleet to the higher standard or start refusing joyflights. A dedicated aircraft will add complexity and kill flexibility; running the entire fleet to the passenger-carrying regs will add cost. If the new GA regs are really going to provide the cost and burden relief that CASA says they will, flying schools and aero clubs may have to move to the new regs simply to stay alive. As training forms the larger part of their business, sacrificing joyflights may be the only choice they really have, denying GA one of its greatest promotional tools. The old caper of re-branding a joyflight as a Trial Instructional Flight will have limited ability to assuage the problem because TIFs are training and therefore passengers can't be carried; they're good for only one person. From my desk, the only answer I can see is to reclassify joyflights out of passenger-carrying and back into GA. Perhaps submissions from the industry might reflect that.


On the optimistic side, the consultation documents for these new regs do hint at a new attitude. Take, for instance, this statement. Adopting a regulatory structure based on an established and appropriate international standard that is tried, tested and proven to be working effectively, is an efficient approach to delivering tangible improvements to Australia’s GA community. That is an absolutely inarguable position for them to take, afterall, we've been telling CASA that for decades! The amount breath and tears spent trying to get this over to CASA seems to have born fruit, but it must be very frustrating to proponents of the FARs that CASA has come back like it was all their idea. All we need now is for that now-acknowledged philosophy to be applied to Part 61 ... Part 66, Part 141, Part 142, Part 135 and every other appropriate regulation.


Concurrent with the above, CASA has also started the consultation process for Part 135, which is the set of rules that cover small aeroplanes in passenger-carrying ops; in other words, low-capacity RPT, charter and joyflight. This is another conundrum for smaller operators: do they keep their charter AOC or opt out? For some companies, they will have to bite the bullet because their charter income is a larger proportion of their business, and for others it's their reason for existence. The new Part 135 proposals do present a large increase in costs (e.g. you will have to fit TAWS-B if you have more than six seats), and as charter is not a high-margin business, there is unlikely to be room to absorb the extra drag on cash flow. CASA says the new regs are designed to combine the flexibility of charter with the safety benefits it says exist in structured training and checking, but, not being an "economic regulator", they have ignored the extra costs. I also have to ask why, when they admit they were told in 1999 to apply RPT-style regs to charter, it has taken 19 years to get around to it? The answer might lie in the statement that CASA "was told ..." So who told them? I suspect the "telling" was political, meaning that CASA probably didn't even believe there was a safety issue to be addressed and so didn't give it priority. You have to wonder if there really is a safety issue that Part 135 will fix.


Bathurst Regional Council has confirmed they are going to apply commercial-standard rents to leases at the airport. They see this as a reasonable thing to do; why should airport operators get lower lease rates than other industries? Their reasoning falls down because of the monopoly they hold. Commercial leases outside of airports are subject to the natural laws of competition; if lessees don't like the rates they can always go elsewhere. Aviation companies must be on airports, which are owned and controlled by one entity: the council. That makes a monopoly situation, and it should be treated as such. Rates at regional airports should be subject to scrutiny from a regulatory body, in this case the Department of Transport and Infrastructure. It would be the ideal function of the mooted Office of Aviation Industry put forward in the resolutions from the AGAA GA summit held at Wagga Wagga. It is not fair to aviation companies that they are locked into a monopoly situation without protection. The major capital city airports are subject to this type of oversight, so why not the regionals as well?


May your gauges always be in the green,


Hitch


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...Bke1RIi.99



Sandy comment:

Quote:Sandy Reith 

Good job Hitch, right on the money regarding the dysfunctional regulatory regime that GA, all of GA, has been saddled with for many years, and getting considerably worse. Remember the ASSR and David Forsyth’s recommendations? Hailed in many quarters as defining the way out of the morass and virtually totally ignored by government after a few platitudes and changing the CEO, the fatuously titled ‘Director of Air Safety.’ 

Mate, keep up your good work, thousands of jobs have already been lost, opportunities for thousands of young Aussies (especially from the bush) could be realised with sensible policies. Proven international practice, yes, well, bit of a joke? Not obvious for the last 30 years? Give me strength.

MTF..P2  Tongue
Reply
Steam – On.

You may read the latest Hitch article – HERE – in Australian Flying without my rudely inserted comments.  Sorry Hitch, and no disrespect, or offense intended but, I couldn’t just let the article pass by without comment, there’s too much at stake to sit idly by with a coffee and let it all float past. So, with your indulgence – Steam On GD, pile it on mate…….

Hitch – “In general aviation, pessimism is robust but optimism is fragile. As much as we'd like to reverse that, things keep happening that justify the pessimism.”

I am mildly surprised to see even Hitch mentioning ‘optimism’ in the same sentence as GA. Wishful thinking I could understand, but history and cold hard facts preclude, in no uncertain manner, any optimism. Until the aviation industry as a whole body says enough and backs that statement with determination to reform the Act, the regulations and the regulator, the endless rounds of meaningless discussion will continue. CASA and the DoIT and many ministers have ridden out past mild storms of protest with consummate ease and why not. They have nothing else to do – industry must earn it's living, pay the bills, meet compliance and run the business; they need to generate the revenue to this. CASA on the other hand have all the toys needed to continue on their merry way – money, time, power and access to ministerial support - all provided by those who must work with the system given. Imagine a flying operation gifted those big guns, with no responsibility for the money or the unholy mess left in the wake. No boys, you’ve taken a blunt, rusty corkscrew to a fight against big artillery. Until all the big guns of the industry get together and challenge this monstrosity, head on, no holds barred and slug it out to the end, optimism is a false, bitter disappointment, a promise, as empty as a politicians promise to be truthful.

Hitch – “We all applauded Minister McCormack at Wagga Wagga”

Not all did – in fact there was a marked, general whisper of ‘we’re ducked’ the minute he opened his mealy mouth. It was made clear right there, right then, that there is no intention to change any damn thing. Read his ‘speech’ – all there - or watch the video, which even more clearly  defines the murder of optimism and crucifies hope with a stake in its heart. Placebo – hells bells the man was only there for 20 minutes at the start, couldn’t get out of Dodge fast enough. A cynical con job – he can say he came, he listened, he consulted and threw it back to the very same people who created the current untenable situation.

Applause? Dream on. Hitch -  [he] announced that CASA would craft a new set of maintenance regulations specifically for GA, but our ovation may have been premature given that we didn't have the full story. With the release of the initial discussion paper this week, we find that the new regs will apply to only a very small segment of what we call "GA", because CASA has deemed to re-define the term so that charter operations and joyflights are no longer part of GA. Although the proposed new regs seem like a great idea, they will benefit only a few small segments of GA: flying academies, ag operators, aeromedical (except patient transfer), SAR and dedicated airwork aircraft. Private flying schools and aero clubs won't benefit because their aircraft are also used in joyflights, which means the aeroplanes will have to be maintained to the passenger-carrying rules, even though their main purpose is training. Flying academies won't have this problem because they don't offer their fleets for joyflights. Once again, the operators who need the most relief from the regulatory burden are being offered none.

Would you applaud that – would that fill you with ‘optimism’? I don’t think so. If it does then perhaps its time to visit an ‘alienist’ or hold an exorcism, for you have ‘wandered’.  

Hitch – "I see three options for the flying schools and aero clubs:

GA is more than Flight school and ‘Joy-flights’ – the big charter outfits and regionals (those left standing) are going to be seriously hurt by the new 135 and the maintenance regulations. Where will all the new chums from the flight schools, those which manage to survive, go to get those vital first multi engine hours, gain real life experience and develop command skills then? Rest assured, the government agency may be happy with fluffy, feel good, ultra safe (on paper) qualifications, but insurance companies will not share in that pipe dream. They have an iron clad  ‘cash and no bullshit’ approach to pay outs and are not easy to fool. You may baffle a disinterested minister, but not those boys..........

Hitch - [maintain] one aircraft to the higher standards and use only that one for joyflights, maintain the entire fleet to the higher standard or start refusing joyflights. A dedicated aircraft will add complexity and kill flexibility; running the entire fleet to the passenger-carrying regs will add cost. If the new GA regs are really going to provide the cost and burden relief that CASA says they will, flying schools and aero clubs may have to move to the new regs simply to stay alive. As training forms the larger part of their business, sacrificing joyflights may be the only choice they really have, denying GA one of its greatest promotional tools. The old caper of re-branding a joyflight as a Trial Instructional Flight will have limited ability to assuage the problem because TIFs are training and therefore passengers can't be carried; they're good for only one person. From my desk, the only answer I can see is to reclassify joyflights out of passenger-carrying and back into GA. Perhaps submissions from the industry might reflect that.

Well Hitch, from my desk I can look past the small world you see, to the wider landscape where charter and cargo services become priced and regulated out of business; have a chat with young Master Wyndam up there in Scone, get his views – take a wider view; and, be afraid, be very afraid, for the Bogey man indeed cometh.

Hitch - On the optimistic side, the consultation documents for these new regs do hint at a new attitude. Take, for instance, this statement. Adopting a regulatory structure based on an established and appropriate international standard that is tried, tested and proven to be working effectively, is an efficient approach to delivering tangible improvements to Australia’s GA community. That is an absolutely inarguable position for them to take, after all, we've been telling CASA that for decades! The amount breath and tears spent trying to get this over to CASA seems to have born fruit, but it must be very frustrating to proponents of the FARs that CASA has come back like it was all their idea. All we need now is for that now-acknowledged philosophy to be applied to Part 61 ... Part 66, Part 141, Part 142, Part 135 and every other appropriate regulation.

Amen to that – but mate, history, history and history again – as FAR back as the late Eighties – same rhetoric, same result, same tragic long faces when the realization that they’d been snowed dawned on their enthusiastic, optimism. That mark you, with a minister who actually wanted the changes made. Even then – the dream turned into a nightmarish pile of platitude, excuses and more rubbish masquerading as reformed regulation. Guess who paid for all that?

Hitch – “Concurrent with the above, CASA has also started the consultation process for Part 135, which is the set of rules that cover small aeroplanes in passenger-carrying ops; in other words, low-capacity RPT, charter and joy-flight.

Hitch, mate, do some research – we’ve heard it all before and before that again. The simple fact that ‘consultation is in progress spells out, clearly, that CASA have no idea how to set about the task; and, signifies, clearly their intention to ignore world class rules which work. If there ever was any intention to embrace the FAR (and upset the AFAP) then they would simply do so and save this country a small fortune. They have taken a stand, backed it with our money and they cannot gracefully back down and admit the made a pigs ear of the regulatory reform process. They dare not admit that hundreds of millions have been flushed into a sewer of their own creation. Change the Act. Reform the regulator, adopt world standard rules and all will be well – provided industry can make it through the process. The rest is flatulence, they know it, we know it, the wool blind minister knows it, the bloody Senate committee know it for crying out loud. Dinner is over, the dancing has stopped now it’s time to get to the business end of this long, slow dance.

Hitch – This is another conundrum for smaller operators: do they keep their charter AOC or opt out? For some companies, they will have to bite the bullet because their charter income is a larger proportion of their business, and for others it's their reason for existence. The new Part 135 proposals do present a large increase in costs (e.g. you will have to fit TAWS-B if you have more than six seats), and as charter is not a high-margin business, there is unlikely to be room to absorb the extra drag on cash flow. CASA says the new regs are designed to combine the flexibility of charter with the safety benefits it says exist in structured training and checking, but, not being an "economic regulator", they have ignored the extra costs. I also have to ask why, when they admit they were told in 1999 to apply RPT-style regs to charter, it has taken 19 years to get around to it? The answer might lie in the statement that CASA "was told ..." So who told them? I suspect the "telling" was political, meaning that CASA probably didn't even believe there was a safety issue to be addressed and so didn't give it priority. You have to wonder if there really is a safety issue that Part 135 will fix.

Enough; time this industry grew a backbone. Time to put aside the cozy relationships, the exemptions, the permissions, hand outs , self interest and privilege’s doled out. Those are rights, not favours, under real law. Don’t ask ‘em – tell ‘em. This is a complete and utter balls up – fix it or fuck off and let someone who knows what needs to be done, get it done.

There, I feel better now. Not that it will do the slightest bit of good, but WTD. Aye, steam off GD, steady as she goes mate.

Toot - toot.
Reply
STEAM ON, STEAM OFF, OR JUST PLAIN ‘STEAMER’?

Oh dear oh dear, the Last Minute Snitch. What is wrong with that bloke? Why has he gone from being a fairly normal knock-about bloke who lives and breathes flying, to being a captured CAsAmite singing the praises of a Regulator and cardboard cutout Miniscule while he acts like that fool Steve Creepy, a hypnotised Presstitute!

Surely Snitch has been in the industry long enough to know that words are cheap, especially words spat out by bureaucratic turd polishers. To be honest the Australian aviation turd is beyond polishing, nothing can save it. All this cheap politician waffle means SFA. If Malcolm Turdball can drop half a billion dollars in the lap of small reef organisation on a whim, then he can drop the same amount into GA as well as the demolition of CAsA and starting again. No, sorry, the Miniscule speaketh with forked tongue and through the anus.

No Ferryman, no steam on today, it’s just a giant steamer - our industry mate. And after 30 bloody years of failed reform and half a billion dollars pissed into the wind we have every reason to be offended my muppets like Snitch, McDo’nothing and any other oxygen thief who talks but doesn’t deliver.

Tick ‘steaming’ Tock
Reply
LMH 17/08/18: Holes in the information, medical caution and Jeff Boyd.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 17 August 2018
17 August 2018

– Steve Hitchen
I am currently reading Richard de Crespigny's new book FLY! Richard is best known of course as the skipper of QF32, which did its best to self-destruct near Singapore in 2010. Rather than another recounting of the incident, this book is about decision making, management and critical thinking; a self-help book for dealiing with crises. At one stage when talking about public relations, de Crespigny says something along the lines of "if what you release to the media has a hole in it, you'd better fill it yourself or someone else will." Very, very good advice; advice that just about every government department needs to heed. In our case, it's the Department of Infrastructure and Transport. Despite the minister coming across as all keen to help and looking forward to receiving the outcomes from the AGAA summit in early July, the industry has heard nothing about what's going on. With approaches to the department going unanswered, the general aviation community is left to wonder if everything the minister said was nothing but electioneering. It certainly sounded like it, and if the minister wants to refute that, going quiet is probably a poor strategy. I presume the papers will make their way to the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG). Having been charged with working up some answers in the GA Flight Plan, you would hope that GAAG would be including the AGAA feedback in their work. If in fact there's no intention for that to happen, are we to read that the department has decided to ignore GAAG and come up with their own ideas, or is it that they are using silence to mask the fact that they want the whole thing to go away? That's my speculation anyway. Please go ahead and add your own ... the department has left us with a large hole to fill.

Quote:..it seems CASA is using the same argument to hobble their own reforms..

Talk about the Kings of Mixed Messages! CASA has sore lips from blowing its own trumpet over medical reforms, in particularly the Basic Class 2 and the DAME-assessed medicals, so we couldn't be blamed for presuming they support wholeheartedly their own reforms. But this week, the Principal Medical Officer has shown his support in a very strange way: by putting the frighteners on DAMEs over DAME-assessed medicals. The message, in bare-bones terms, seems to be that DAMEs need to be meticulous in their processes or they risk being sued. Those of us whose memories are on the long side will recall that this very argument was used to delay DAME-assessed medicals for years, and now it has finally been implemented, it seems CASA is using the same argument to hobble their own reforms. It's a bit like desperately trying to reach V1 but making sure the co-pilot has their feet on the brakes: you have to question whether or not you really want to take-off. I think the aviation community would much rather CASA get behind the new reforms completely and encourage DAMEs rather than whisper cautious words in their ears.

Jeff Boyd's tenure as chairman of CASA comes to an end today, with Tony Mathews taking over the mantle on Monday morning. Boyd came to the post in 2014 hailed as the great saviour largely because of the high regard in which the general aviation community holds him. Everything was going to be alright now ... Jeff will fix it all. The pressure of expectation placed on Boyd was probably unfair and displayed a naivety in the GA community that I suspect has been stomped on by now. That everything at the end of his four years in not alright as predicted is, I believe, not for want of trying or commitment on Boyd's behalf. We have to remember that legislation puts the power of regulation in the hands of one member of the CASA board only: the Director of Aviation Safety. Boyd was definitely a pro-active chairman, but as the DAS actually reports directly to the minister, the chairman has limited ability to disrupt the flow. That's not to say that they can't influence, but if political will is against the chairman, they face the same uphill battle that the rest of the general aviation community do. I feel that Boyd probably understands now the full extent of the struggle perhaps even more than he did before he got the gig. But to be fair, a lot of change happened during Boyd's tenure, most of which is yet to trigger much difference to the aviator in the street. Hopefully, legacies of his work will be obvious in the near future.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


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

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 24/08/18: Slogan wars, self-declaring schools and the end of a logbook. 

Via the Yaffa Wink :

Quote:[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 24 August 2018
24 August 2018

– Steve Hitchen
What's in a good slogan? Absolutely everything if you ask Coca-Cola, Nike or American Express. A good slogan is snappy, easy to remember and conveys a message that you want the customers to know. It's something they can relate to; something they want, and they associate that want with your company. Yes, a good slogan is everything. That's what's got AOPA most outraged over RAAus claiming "Freedom to Fly" via a trade mark registration. AOPA has been using it for several years and it's been effective in creating that association with what general aviation wants. Having RAAus take control of it is being seen as hijacking, not only by AOPA, but also by several RAAus members who believe this has damaged the organisation's reputation. Although RAAus has said they claimed it so any non-profit could use it, that defence is seen as being weak and fooling no-one. And it has inflicted serious injury on RAAus' standing, because people in both GA and recreational flying believe it masks something sinister: confirmation of a long-denied war between AOPA and RAAus. There has been lots of input to this debate; most of it supporting AOPA and very little for RAAus other than from within RAAus itself. Regardless of the genuine reasons for registering the trade mark, this can only be a mis-fire by RAAus. They must have known that registering AOPA's slogan as a trade mark would cause an out-pouring of rage the level of which we have seen this week. AOPA was unlikely to take this on the chin and go and write themselves another slogan; they were always likely to go to the mattresses over it. RAAus now finds themselves in the corner of the room surrounded by wet paint. The call for a general meeting to discuss the issue went out this week, and it included resolutions not only to surrender the trade mark, but also to have those responsible for it removed from office. That's a very visceral response, and RAAus won't want to fight a war within their own ranks; a war which everyone will lose. Ask Malcolm Turnbull about that.
 

Quote:it could even ensure their ongoing existence

EASA looks to be taking a very interesting stance on flight training: Declared Training Organisations. A DTO is a school that doesn't do training above PPL level and has a completely different set of rules that are much simpler and cheaper to comply with. Most outstanding is that they are not approved by EASA, but certify themselves as complying much in the way that an LSA manufacturer certifies their own aircraft. The thinking here is that PPLs operate in lower-risk environments and therefore need lower-intensity oversight. But although it doesn't say it, EASA's attitude is probably directed more at LSA operations than GA PPL. There is no self-administering organisation for recreational aircraft in Europe, so I believe this regulation is written predominantly for those operations, but has been extended to capture GA PPLs also. The first question is whether this sort of thing would benefit Australia. Whereas flight training organisations won't want to surrender the ability to train CPLs, aero clubs might do, and so could save a lot of money and heartache by moving to a DTO. In some cases it could even ensure their ongoing existence. DTOs could be a way of saving GA because it would logically foster new entries into the flying school market in areas that have long been abandoned due to school and club closures. The second question is CASA's attitude towards this concept, and although I suspect they will scream and run when they read the EASA reg, we can only hope that they watch the idea as it evolves in Europe over the coming years.

A strange thing happened to me this week: after 33 years of flying I have finished my first logbook. That's strange because most pilots I know who have been around that long are onto their second or even third. I attribute the longevity of my battered green book (yes, they weren't always blue) to Scrooge-like entries, an anemic bank account and a four-year break away from flying. Stepping back through Logbook #1, I began to realise what a portal to the past flight crew logbooks really are. When I flew my first hour, Moorabbin had a runway 35/17 centre, you could buy a new Cessna 152, VFR cross-country flights were generally full-reporting, we had a Department of Civil Aviation and there was no such thing as a recreational aeroplane, VNCs or ERSA. Aviation has changed so much since I scrawled "Effect of controls - medium banks 0.6" on 25 May 1985. Some of those changes have improved aviation; some of them have been detrimental. The rise of iPad apps and glass cockpit have been improvements; the ongoing loss of airports and flying schools (including the ones I logged my first hour at) has been detrimental. My hope for my next logbook is that when I finish it, I wander back through the pages and conclude that aviation was in a better state than it was when I started the book way back in 2018. If that dream is ever to come true, changes need to happen right now to make sure that there is still a general aviation industry 33 years from now. Here's hoping.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...5ci3GlH.99


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 31/08/18: Airport funding, Qantas reality and the consequences of Spring.

Via the Yaffa Wink :

Quote:[Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 31 August 2018
31 August 2018

– Steve Hitchen

RAUAG's new funding model for regional and local airports makes a lot of sense, and is something we desperately need in general aviation right now: ideas from outside the square. The concept of requiring the major airports to contribute something of the cost of running the regionals seems fair given the amount of revenue they make from the connections, but no doubt the airport operators don't see it that way. Regardless of which side of the centreline they're on, most people in general aviation would be prepared to admit that the current system of making the local councils bear the cost of running the regional airports just doesn't work. Let's get very real here: ALOP has failed. The Commonwealth hand-balled the cost of running airports to the local councils, then very generously gave them grants to help with the upkeep. That was years ago and they money is all pretty much gone now. Our aviation infrastructure is crumbling around us, and the federal government, who has caused the problem, prefers to think not. Grants are not the solution. They may solve short-term issues like fencing, lighting and taxiway upgrades, but it won't be long until we're back in the same place we're at now. Only a sustainable solution will do any good; a solution similar to that which RAUAG has put forward.

Quote:Australian flying trainers were voted off the island many years ago

It is a shame no-one has thought to make a reality TV series out of the Qantas flight training academy story. The decision of where the Flying Kangaroo is going to put their new schools has at least nine councils and probably around 17,000 potential candidates hanging on the final announcement. It's like the councils are waiting with anticipation to see if Qantas gives them a rose. You can't blame them; the successful airports stand to get a good influx of income that will help them with the large cash deficits most of them are living with. The decision will transform airports and solve major headaches for the operators, but there is another group waiting in the wings to see if they're selected to participate: the aircraft builders. You can guarantee that Qantas will populate their flight lines with new aircraft, and if they're serious about training 500 pilots per year, some manufacturer is looking at a decent contract of sale. Cessna? Piper? Diamond? It is a shame that there really is no home-grown product that could step up here; an Australian two-seat trainer that would fill the role and further expand the beneficial reach of Qantas' initiative. Alas, Australian flying trainers were voted off the island many years ago, meaning a large chunk of Qantas' investment must go overseas.

Spring comes tomorrow, and we all know what that means: your time to convert your licence to Part 61 just ran out. For most pilots that won't be a problem. The transition period was four years, so in that time active pilots will have completed a flight review and their licence automatically updated to Part 61. If for some reason you haven't done that yet, you will now need to apply to CASA to have your old CAR 5 licence updated ... and pay a $25 fee. This firmly cements aviation into a Part 61 world; a world that got off to a very shaky start, and given the number of exemptions that have had to be written, it doesn't yet appear to be on solid ground. One of the reasons for the whole regulatory reform saga was to stop rule by exemption, but that doesn't seem to have happened given the number that have been issued. So, has the Part 61 re-write improved things or just changed things? I suppose that's something we could ask about most new regs, but Part 61 seems to have been the most difficult baby CASA has ever had. Hopefully the industry has identified most of the problems over the last four years and we can now all get on with debating the next set of new rules.

OK, so let's talk Spring more seriously. Yes, there will be birdies in our baffles and wasps in our pitot tubes, but as we will have been checking those things all year round, there isn't much we have to change, is there? There is one thing: our look-out probably needs to get sharper. The Spring months are when we get our planes out of their winter hibernation and we rediscover the joy of flying. It's also the season for fly-ins and air shows that are scheduled to take advantage of the return of flying weather, particularly in the south-eastern states. That means more aircraft converging on airports where events are held, and many of us won't have done much flying over winter, so our level of joy will be high but our levels of concentration perhaps a bit low. So let's get out there and go to as many events as we can, but sharpen your mind and your eyes when you do.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch


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

Also off the Yaffa... Rolleyes 


Quote:[Image: aquila_a210_ja-2.jpg]



CASA publishes Feedback on Operating Rules
31 August 2018
Comments 0 Comments
     1

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) this week published some of the feedback to the CASR Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules proposals.
Part 91 will replace more than 100 documents such as regulations, orders, supporting instruments and exemptions, combining them into just two documents. It will retain the existing rules with a small number of new rules which CASA says are designed to enhance operational flexibility and safety and increase compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards.
CASA received 116 submission to the proposed regulations, with a majority of respondents supporting all the main changes. Some proposals had slightly higher percentages that indicated some amendments were needed.
Among the proposed changes to be incorporated in Part 91 are:
  • Amending the fitness-for-duty rule to reinstate the eight-hour rule and add a prescriptive blood alcohol level requirement
  • Amending the cruising level AGL requirements from 1000 ft AGL to 1500 ft AGL to provide appropriate alleviation in the reduction of the AMSL height from the current 5000 ft AMSL to 3000 ft AMSL
  • Amending the requirements regarding taking off and landing into wind at the non-controlled aerodromes to permit cross wind training
  • Amending the simulating emergency requirements to be conditional on the flight conditions (IMC) and not the flight rules (IFR)
  • Ensuring that the existing requirements for carrying passengers in experimental amateur-built aircraft continue without the need for further approval.
  • Amending the requirement for flight instruments for experimental amateur-built aircraft to clarify that the approval process for installing equipment in day VFR and night VFR aircraft is not intended to become more onerous or complex
  • Amending the back-up battery requirements for EFIS fitted to experimental amateur-built aircraft to 60 mins duration
  • Clarifying requirements to reflect that aircraft operated VFR by day only are not required to fit or display anti-collision lights or navigation lights.

CASA has also published a list of general responses to feedback concerns and what the regulator intends to do about them.

The full list of publishable submissions and CASA responses is on the CASA website.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...qMFkEH3.99
 

MTF...P2   Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)