CASA meets the Press
(10-29-2018, 08:54 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
(10-29-2018, 01:18 PM)Peetwo Wrote: LMH - 29 Oct 2018: Sleepless nights for charter ops, ASIC mis-fire, Multicom and the FARs.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

I lie awake tonight
It's weight upon my chest
Smell of the well
Upon the unwell
Voice from the dark water
I don't recognise it
There's a thing that I must do
A question I should ask
Who are you, why do you come for me?

Becoming Bryn - Augie March. Lyrics Glenn Richards.

There are probably lots of people losing sleep in aviation these days, and many of them with a weight upon their chest. They are the small charter operators who have mortgaged their homes to keep their companies afloat, and the weight is CASR Part 135. In its extant form, Part 135 has the potential to end many people's livelihoods and take away their homes. This is mooted regulation that will force charter operators to adopt rules designed for heavy commercial regular public transport. CASA's reasoning is that passengers in charter aeroplanes have the right to expect the same levels of safety as they get when they fly heavy RPT. There is one fundamental problem with that: the charter industry simply cannot comply and many operators may be forced out of business. Frightening estimates are that of the 800 or so charter AOCs in Australia, maybe 100 will survive the new regulations. Part 135 is being termed "coffin regulation", in that it may be the final nail before the GA industry is lowered into cold ground. As it stands, 135 could demand charter pilots undergo route checks before they can fly a customer home to their outback station, pilots can't call ahead to check the actual weather at the destination (unauthorised source of weather information). These are just two of what charter operators are saying are many imbedded unintended consequences of this regulation. Despondency from the charter industry stems from a feeling that all this is a fait accompli; that consultation is meaningless because CASA is hell-bent on forcing this through regardless of consequence or feedback. In that sense, are the "unintended consequences" really unintended? The pervading feeling of frustration and helplessness has many wondering what CASA's intention really is. They must know the damage this will cause, they must know that the industry cannot comply. In that sense, small charter operators have the right to go to CASA and ask "Who are you, why do you come for me?"

Quote: RAAus pilots need no security checks at all to fly

Although well-meant and a hopeless cause worth fighting for, AOPA Australia's letter to CASA demanding parity with RAAus on ASICs is a bit of a mis-fire. Firstly, CASA's only involvement with the ASIC is to be an issuing body; they aren't the regulatory body that controls the ASIC. As a result, I suspect both CASA and the minister will simply reply by saying they'll pass the letter on to the relevant people: the Department of Home Affairs. Secondly, RPL and PPL holders do not need an ASIC to fly as AOPA stated. An ASIC is ground-based, but CASA will accept an ASIC as a security check in lieu of an Aviation ID, or AVID. Pilots must have one or the other. It is true that RAAus pilots need no security checks at all to fly, and this is where the lack of parity lies. Why is a PPL a security risk when an RPC is not? The planes are regularly the same and so are the operations. AOPA's demand for a level playing field is valid, but perhaps we are all forgetting that there is more than one way to level a playing field: you can build up the low side or you can bulldoze down the high side. Governments are not great builders of things, so their method of satisfying the AOPA demand (should they choose to) will likely be to impose restrictions on RAAus rather than to relax those on GA. Sir, your level playing field as requested! This also gels with the old political philosophy of never, ever relaxing aviation regulations when the opposition are likely to throw it in your face from the other side of the House of Reps. It's easier and more expedient to increase controls rather than relax them, and gives no succor to the enemy in opposition.

And we're back on the Multicom issue, this time perhaps more confused than before. What is CASA's stance on which frequency we should be using at uncharted airfields? To the bulk of the GA community, CASA made a definitive statement in April that they would propose recommending the Multicom 126.7 at these airfields, but now, after all the support the proposal got, they are saying that the area frequency is now their preferred option. Backflip? No, it's not a backflip as I see it. CASA never said they would recommend 126.7, and the proposal doesn't state that. What CASA was actually proposing was that pilots remain on the area frequency, but can switch to 126.7 once they are established in the circuit, which I think they have defined as 3 nm ... and not so much as a mile sooner. So what's the worst case here? It means someone in the circuit has no notice whatsoever of an inbound because that inbound is on a different frequency until they are within 3 nm. Given that aircraft can join on base, a sudden call would scare the ERSA right out of anyone coming along downwind.I cannot believe that the GA industry would have support the proposal to the extent they did had they really understood what it meant. There is only one safe way to do this, and that's how we do it if the airfield is marked: on the circuit frequency at the 10-mile mark and stay there until shut-down. It seems that our regulator is more scared of conflict outside the circuit area of an uncontrolled airfield that they are inside the circuit area. Is this contrary to previous advice? Go back through history and be the judge yourself. And whilst you're there, ponder if it was worth five years of bickering and costly consultation over what frequency to be on at an airfield where you don't even have to carry a radio anyway.
The general aviation industry has been tearfully urging CASA to adopt US regulations for years, so there's no great revelation that feedback to the new GA maintenance regs has nominated the Federal Aviation Regulations as the ones to copy-and-paste for use in Australia. The intent is to simplify and clarify the rules around maintaining small GA planes, and the project has in-principle support from AMROBA, the umbrella assocation for the confused and frustrated maintenance, repair and overhaul community in Australia. But the question being asked at the moment is: will this be a copy-and-paste of the FARs, or will the imported rules be "Australianised" before they get signed in to law? That is a process by which the regulator beats them into a shape that imposes higher costs and greater restrictions, which has the impact of neutering the intent to simplify. I suppose we don't want to put the pressure on CASA, but I expect that the GA community will be watching this project for signs that CASA has changed for the better, and that they earned the increased approval ratiing the last Colmar Brunton survey reported.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...MZJj687.99

Sandy comment -  Wink 


Quote:Sandy Reith • an hour ago

Hitch, some good comment, especially your take on the likely path for maintenance rules and the devastating impact that Part 135 will have on the poor few that are still in the business. By the way I don’t believe 800 operators are currently offering charter services, such a neat round figure. I challenge CASA to verify their figures. Check Google for ads, wouldn’t be a tiny percentage of that. 

I can remember way back some 25 years ago they had the same idea about charter pilots having to be checked on their charter routes and landing grounds. That thought bubble disappeared fairly quickly because the bureaucrats of that day did not have the unfettered power that they have today. The idea is totally ridiculous, completely unworkable and a concept that demonstrates CASA’s fierce determination to destroy GA. I say this because they know full well what they are doing. I say this with the experience of 50 years in the business of GA including charter, scheduled passenger services and flying school operations. 

As for the Colmar Brunton review of industry satisfaction, I contributed to the first one but not the latest. I’m sure C. B. People did their best but how do you say who is a randomly picked aviation industry person when, certainly as per that first survey, people were invited to participate in effect by the corporation itself, it being the body paying which immediately may involve a conflict of interest, or at least an unconscious bias, or a sense from us that it is not a truly independent survey. What a waste of money. Even if remotely expressing some real sentiment it would be like the victim of an assault thanking the perpetrator for taking some of the boot pressure off the said victim’s neck. 

Regards the industry debilitating ASIC, why not a start by making it 10 years? It is pretty disgusting, especially for professional pilots and those of many years standing, aircraft owners and others, that our government says you can’t be trusted for more than 2 years even after 20, 30, 40, or 52 years (my case) and be whacked $288.20 plus a trip to a designated Post Office. Every 2 years! Its preposterous.




& a Hitch correction:


SteveHitchen Mod • an hour ago

Sandy. For the record, CASA didn't give me the figure of 800; that came from within the charter industry.

And Sandy in reply Wink :

Quote:Sandy Reith • a day ago

Thanks for the correction, a GA industry person offered further information to me, to the effect that there were some 800 AOCs but 556 charter approved. An Internet search finds a website called Australian Charter Operators which lists 105 operators. I’ll bet there are not 556 charter operators with pilots and charter qualified aircraft waiting for business (used to be far more than that, probably some thousands before the expensive paper war of AOCs was introduced around 1988).

I clearly remember when CASA were rounding up figures to support their push for the permanent engineering fitment of impact triggered survival beacons, it was discovered that at least one of their examples was in fact an incident involving a boat. Thus one’s jaundiced view of official figures. 

One thing we can be certain about, flying jobs and services, and all the people around them, will lose out as PART 135 bites. Well done Government and Minister McCormack, Minister for Job Losses in the Bush?

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply




LMH 16 Nov '18 - "Please EXPLAIN??"

Again I am tempting fate but after several re-reads I just had to rehash certain parts of this week's chapter of the LMH book of Australian General Aviation faery tales... Rolleyes

Quote:...There are times when it's hard to tell the difference between political promises and marketing; there are also times when there is actually no difference at all. The job of trying to sort out the reality from the rhetoric falls to journalists such as, well, me. And when we start out on a task like this, the natural cynicism so important in our trade always screams to be satisfied, but if we are going to do a fair job of it, we have to suppress our urge to call "bullshit!" at everything that seeps from the political cistern; some of it might actually be genuine. One of the most perplexing tasks I've ever had to do is look closely at the government's actions in changing the wording of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Strong indications from Canberra are that a bill will be set before parliament in 2019 incorporating into the Act the part of the Statement of Expectations (SOE) that compels CASA to take into account cost and risk levels before making new rules for us to abide by. On the first pass, it looks like the government is giving the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) exactly what it pleaded for at the July summit, but the second and third passes start to get the cynicism excited. Firstly, why? At Wagga, DPM Michael McCormack pointed out that the SOE is a legislative instrument and therefore CASA was already compelled to consider the cost. If that is the case, how will simply moving the words from one legislative document to the other actually force change? There is a difference between the two that could answer the question. The SOE is revised and updated with just about every change in Minister, and the cost and risk-level clauses could be struck out with one even application of liquid paper. The Act has been amended regularly, but is essentially the same instrument as it was in 1988. Incorporating the clauses there would protect it better from the policy-change whims that inevitably come with a change in power. To believe that is to suppress the creeping suspicion that this is all marketing designed to soothe the industry in preparation for the next federal election.

Quote: bipartisanship is working against AGAA in this instance

Secondly, the AGAA desire to have the promotion of aviation folded into CASA's bailiwick has been ignored, as has the call for safety to be removed as the priority when making regulations. Given their "druthers" I think the industry would rather have had these two implemented than the wording change. The show-stopper is that the promised bipartisanship is working against AGAA in this instance: both sides of parliament want to keep CASA purely as a safety regulator rather than resurrecting the Civil Aviation Authority and painting it up to look like the FAA. Keeping CASA as it is necessarily means leaving in the priority of safety. As the only body empowered to create safety regulation, realistically what else are they going to do but put safety first? At the AGAA summit, Mike Smith (the other one, not the round-the-world-in-a-Searey one) put forward the concept of an Office of Aviation Business within the department. We haven't heard anything of this yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen ... the road is long. Acting on this initiative would show the aviation industry that both sides of the house are serious about aviation reform, and perhaps turn marketing into some valuable sales at the ballot box...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...aCgiRK7.99

WTD??  Blush 

However then IMO the penny starts to drop when after a paragraph gap where LMH waffles on about GA and the Victorian election there is this bollocks... Dodgy 


Quote:...RAAus has taken a "Bob the Builder" approach in their latest strategy statement. The new slogan "A Pilot in Every Home" is very aspirational, and dovetails nicely with their contention that RAAus can be the entry level for general aviation. In short, GA needs help and "RAAus can fix it!" That has been a consistent message from Fyshwick for a year or so now, and they are forging ahead with it despite AOPA Australia trying to water down the RAAus product and put themselves forward as the saviours of aviation. Personally, I like the new slogan; it has echoes of the late 1940s when the US manufacturers were using the catchphrase "An Airplane in Every Home", and is a heck of a lot less controversial than "Freedom to Fly"...
 
Couple that with this statement from CC at the AAA conference... (ref: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-...ml#pid9535 )
...“And the Act that I have sitting on my desk says that in exercising my powers and performing my functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as our most important consideration.

“And that remains our focus”...


...and then align that with my statement under this Iron Ring happy snap Dodgy

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_101518_095846_PM.jpg]


Hmm...no comment required me thinks -  Shy


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
Hitch caught in aviation bardo

bardo
noun
(in Tibetan Buddhism) a state of existence between death and rebirth, varying in length according to a person's conduct in life and manner of, or age at, death.

LMH (Lick Ministers Hole) is caught in aviation bardo, the current state is that our industry is almost dead and will probably never be rebirthed. Hitch loves flying, but he is caught bewteeen his love of flying and his love of the Ministers ass, being the CAsAmite that he is. To be honest, I don’t listen to anything that the conceited fool dribbles anymore. Just a small time fool flying recreational aircraft while living in club cuckoo land. Hitch, retire your pen you bearded old fool and STFUP.
Reply
Of cancelled subscriptions.

You have to wonder why the editorial staff of a publication, such as Australian Flying, tolerate reporting which is neither ‘straight’ nor informative. They have, I expect, a minimal market share in a competitive field with a limited audience. The ‘story’ (for wont of better) Hitch is blindly groping around the edges of has only two main elements, to wit, the ongoing battle for reform of both regulator and regulation and those who oppose that reform. It really is that simple. The key pieces on the board are industry; CASA, and the incumbent minister. A game of thrones: of influence and of power exercised.  

What Hitch fails to have the hutzpah to address are the base issues; scripting opinion instead of simply reporting the facts – as they stand – having investigated the story thoroughly. The wishy-washy tumble of words presented cannot be taken as a serious attempt at ‘journalism’ although Hitch does try to sell the notion that he is, in fact a real deal ‘Journo’. He ain’t, not by a long shot.

Tomorrow, there is to be a public hearing related to matters aeronautical; yet nary a word of this from Hitch. It is, IMO, a pivotal session of the RRAT committee, revolving around a grass roots matter – medicals for private operations and the CASA created battle between two warring factions for supremacy. That both need their fool heads banged together for falling into the cleverly laid scheme to divide and conquer that element of recreational flying and thus diluting the universal call for reform needs to be amplified. Hitch fails, once again, to present an unbiased, clinical assessment of the situation as it stands.

Then, we read the half baked analysis of the Act and the SOE, which, once again, demonstrates the Hitch version of cart before horse. Clearly, he just ‘don’t get it’. In simple terms the nexus lays with the Seaview accident and the Staunton report. There was a determination made that no matter what, a minister would never, not ever, be put into the same situation again. CASA responded by demanding more autonomy, grabbing both control and money. SAFETY was to be paramount; political safety that is and so began the unbridled reign of the big R regulator. This has become a happy thing for all ministers as they are iron clad and bullet proof from any and all association with matters aeronautical. Guilt free and publically blameless. CASA milk this for every drop and will defend the unlimited power and unaccountability for all that they are worth. Why would anyone willingly dismantle a smoothly running protection system like that to satisfy the calls of a very small minority group? Don’t make any political sense whatsoever.

Yet the need for reform is obvious, the need to free an ailing industry from the chains of prescriptive regulation which cripple and bind innovation and investment must be broken. The need for a system which does not lend itself to fear of criminal conviction – on whim – without trial is blindingly obvious. We are a free, democratic country, with rights enshrined in law; removed by the Civil Aviation Act. Could it be said that it is unconstitutional? YES is the answer; this had been publicly said, with the rider that no one could afford to challenge it.

There is a lot more riding on the call for reform than Hitch has grasped, a cartload more. Yet this latest trite, biased, ill informed load of waffle is published. The good thing is only a few will read it; few of those will see the dire need for a united front for reform; even fewer will give 20 seconds constructive thought to how the industry, not themselves will benefit from a united, clearly enunciated, robust call for reform.

Hitch needs to go back to writing his wee tales of joy flights in the latest Tupperware offering and stay away from serious matters he clearly does not understand. Before someone accuses him of dragging the good name of a once respected publication into the mud of deceit and the stench of bias.

Toot – toot.
Reply
(11-18-2018, 06:03 AM)Kharon Wrote: Of cancelled subscriptions.

You have to wonder why the editorial staff of a publication, such as Australian Flying, tolerate reporting which is neither ‘straight’ nor informative. They have, I expect, a minimal market share in a competitive field with a limited audience. The ‘story’ (for wont of better) Hitch is blindly groping around the edges of has only two main elements, to wit, the ongoing battle for reform of both regulator and regulation and those who oppose that reform. It really is that simple. The key pieces on the board are industry; CASA, and the incumbent minister. A game of thrones: of influence and of power exercised.  

What Hitch fails to have the hutzpah to address are the base issues; scripting opinion instead of simply reporting the facts – as they stand – having investigated the story thoroughly. The wishy-washy tumble of words presented cannot be taken as a serious attempt at ‘journalism’ although Hitch does try to sell the notion that he is, in fact a real deal ‘Journo’. He ain’t, not by a long shot.

Tomorrow, there is to be a public hearing related to matters aeronautical; yet nary a word of this from Hitch. It is, IMO, a pivotal session of the RRAT committee, revolving around a grass roots matter – medicals for private operations and the CASA created battle between two warring factions for supremacy. That both need their fool heads banged together for falling into the cleverly laid scheme to divide and conquer that element of recreational flying and thus diluting the universal call for reform needs to be amplified. Hitch fails, once again, to present an unbiased, clinical assessment of the situation as it stands.

Then, we read the half baked analysis of the Act and the SOE, which, once again, demonstrates the Hitch version of cart before horse. Clearly, he just ‘don’t get it’. In simple terms the nexus lays with the Seaview accident and the Staunton report. There was a determination made that no matter what, a minister would never, not ever, be put into the same situation again. CASA responded by demanding more autonomy, grabbing both control and money. SAFETY was to be paramount; political safety that is and so began the unbridled reign of the big R regulator. This has become a happy thing for all ministers as they are iron clad and bullet proof from any and all association with matters aeronautical. Guilt free and publically blameless. CASA milk this for every drop and will defend the unlimited power and unaccountability for all that they are worth. Why would anyone willingly dismantle a smoothly running protection system like that to satisfy the calls of a very small minority group? Don’t make any political sense whatsoever.

Yet the need for reform is obvious, the need to free an ailing industry from the chains of prescriptive regulation which cripple and bind innovation and investment must be broken. The need for a system which does not lend itself to fear of criminal conviction – on whim – without trial is blindingly obvious. We are a free, democratic country, with rights enshrined in law; removed by the Civil Aviation Act. Could it be said that it is unconstitutional? YES is the answer; this had been publicly said, with the rider that no one could afford to challenge it.

There is a lot more riding on the call for reform than Hitch has grasped, a cartload more. Yet this latest trite, biased, ill informed load of waffle is published. The good thing is only a few will read it; few of those will see the dire need for a united front for reform; even fewer will give 20 seconds constructive thought to how the industry, not themselves will benefit from a united, clearly enunciated, robust call for reform.

Hitch needs to go back to writing his wee tales of joy flights in the latest Tupperware offering and stay away from serious matters he clearly does not understand. Before someone accuses him of dragging the good name of a once respected publication into the mud of deceit and the stench of bias.

Toot – toot.

Not really wanting to stir up the Ferryman too much but once again I am totally perplexed on the WTD? Hitch is playing at - Huh  

Except for the comments IMO the LMH is really not worth regurgitating but for shits & giggles here is the link: The Last Minute Hitch: 23 November 2018 


Okay no lightning bolts yet?? - so here are the comments -  Big Grin

Quote:Scotty • 17 hours ago

CASA sadly, has a long and proud history of being less than honest or realistic in its existence to create an endless stream of 'make work' for itself as it fusses over 50 year old proven tech that is GA. The idea that a PPL needs a $400 medical every 2 years is joke, especially the $65 just to stamp the medical by the bureaucracy behemoth.. Being a monopoly administrator gives CASA an unlimited level of power which has NOT served the Australian flying public well, not the people who live under the aircraft that fly over their heads, those of whom are CASA's first priority as a Government regulator and which it seems to forget.




frankus54 • 18 hours ago


Is there a link to audio/video from the standing comittee's meeting?




Sandy Reith  frankus54 • 12 hours ago

Hansard and a number of FaceBook posts from AOPA will give you the full video stream. Die laughing or die of shame and disgust as you watch the lies and rubbish purporting to come from ‘the experts.’ Apart from the extraordinary false claim about the groups agreement signing that was merely an attendance sheet, such beauties as CASA’s utterly ridiculous statement as fact that ‘flight risk goes up greatly when an aircraft enters controlled airspace.’!!! Did the Senators ask for proof? No! —that one even went past the keeper. Gaud ‘elp uz. I note in today’s CASA briefing Mr. Carmody exhorts us to be honest. Say no more. Amazing that we taxpayers spend around $200 million pa on the CASA’s diabolical pathway of wrecking GA. Hitch, you are right when you say there was some confusion, the Senators were having a hard time. CASA could have helped but that might be deleterious to their jobs. For November there’s an awful lot of snow about.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
My Whack (it seems).

‘The Kid’ flatly refuses to read Hitch; been a progressive thing to watch (and listen to). I guess, that he believes Hitch is not attempting to clear the water; as in making ‘simple’ matters CASA complex and generally stirring the pot. The notion of self certification medicals has been knocking about for a couple of decades. The Brits and their cousins have actually done ‘studies’; the results were clear enough and both major regulators moved with the evidence of the research to ‘ease the pain’ of not being 100% medically fit to operate commercial air services. They made their decisions based against rock solid ‘evidence’, provided by experts. Fair enough; and, by the way, jolly well done, thankyou.

CASA do have available to them the studies completed; and, importantly, the results of those authorities rulings. Neither the Brits nor the Cousins began to support and partially finance a separate, self administering body to support those who were not 100% fit. But! CASA has.

There are strong rules in the USA and the UK, designed to prevent an accident occurring due to a predicted human failure (barring heart attack) aligned to incapacitation; which is, believe it or not – (mostly down to ‘gastric’ anomalies), rather than self certification against a known, medically controlled, manageable condition.

It all begs the question – why has Australia (land of the free) not only ignored the ‘evidence’ but taken a completely different track and sponsored a unique, commercial operation to devolve and reap commercial benefits? That’s crackers.

Pilots are required to comply with thousands of ‘laws’ and’ they manage to do this – all day, every day. So why is there then not an equal playing field? And; why FFS cannot control airspace be utilised, particularly as a ‘safety zone’. Even Sydney and Melbourne will allow the odd scenic flight over the CBD; hell, there are even VFR routes promulgated to accommodate such requests. The standard of flight control is more than adequate to separate the odd 172 or Pa28 from the boys and girls being sequenced and separated from each other to allow the odd one or three bug smashers to enter ‘controlled airspace’ – and what the hell is Moorabin if not a control zone?

It is all bollocks of the first water. The ASA controllers are world class (and better) if they cannot accommodate a lone bug smasher requesting – due weather – a transit of a control zone, I’ll stand bare arsed, Mardi Gras night – Oxford St. For starters ATC cannot deny an aircraft ‘in distress’; they can delay a joy flight – but to categorically state that access to CTR is forbidden and part of an ‘approval’ to fly is borderline lunacy. CASA need to get their act together an allow, across the board, the same limitations and privileges to all recreational pilots; not just those who belong to a privileged, paid up group. A simple rule, with similar restrictions would satisfy the weekend, recreational pilot fraternity AND they would not be obliged to pay an extra fee for the privilege. RA OZ is borderline a Ponzi scam – with CASA backing. Why? We will never understand the Aleck logic – probably because there ain’t any. Marbles Jonathon – remember them – now where did you leave ‘em? Eh?....NFI = right answer.

As for the ‘Hitch’ take – seriously; who gives a monkeys? AP logged 20 times the AF readership last month; this week alone. Hitch don’t signify – just don’t read him; boycott the blighter -  it is, believe or not, just that simple.
Reply
Hitch develops keyboard diarrhea -  Huh 

A little bit late - as I've had more pressing things to attend to - but it somewhat passing strange that the closer we get to the end of the year the more SH seems to be upping the word count and opinion on his little pet LMH weekly summary?? Anyway because he is now promoting one of the wiser and more sane aviation safety experts in this country (i.e KC of AMROBA fame -  Wink ), I am again tempting fate by rehashing one of the longest LMH pieces that I think I have ever seen: 

Quote:– Steve Hitchen

The clock struck five and Mr Morrison packed all his pencils in his pencil case, tucked his folder under his arm and marched out of the house. With that, a filibuster-filled last day in Federal Parliament yesterday abruptly ended. The government had avoided an embarrassing defeat on medical care for asylum seekers that would have highlighted their inability to control parliament and therefore, some would say, govern effectively. Shrewdly, the PM has programmed only 10 more sitting days before parliament is dissolved for the May federal election. When you're in minority, sitting days present more opportunitites for defeat than they do victory, and defeats can only dilute the Coalition's message going into the big poll. What this means is that general aviation is unlikely to be mentioned to the house next year because it won't appeal to enough voters; time is of the essence and the largest dragons have to be fed first. Commentators with more wisdom than me are predicting a wipe-out for the Coalition, which will see Labor back in power and the dust blown off the Aviation White Paper that plagued aviation during their last term in power. The only lifeboat we have is the promise from Anthony Albanese of bi-partisan support for GA reforms. If he's true to his word, the changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to enshrine the need to consider cost will make it to the House sometime after the new government begins its term. But need we worry who's in power? When they say you have bi-partisan support a change in the government shouldn't have any impact. That's a politically naive position to take because bi-partisanship often dissolves in the acid of political imperative. The only thing that is certain is that we are in for more uncertainty

Quote:the issue of general aviation has been allowed to rot in a corner

Ken Cannane at AMROBA has gone right to the heart of the matter with his piece on industry transition. It's been clear for about 20 years that the GA industry in Australia is changing, but as Cannane asks, changing to what? With no clear direction of the industry's place in the Australian economy, GA has been at the whim and mercy of change for the sake of change, with no controls applied to ensure that GA moves into the next generations with purpose.I began to think we were onto something with the BITRE report; surely a revelation of the value of GA would catalyse the government into doing something like the Thunderbirds responding to a MAYDAY. I am kicking myself for my naivety. The report produced a lot of statistics, but almost no action or recognition on behalf of the government. Consequently, the issue of general aviation has been allowed to rot in a corner with the government letting it decay in the hope that it will conveniently go away. You could easily interpret that as meaning the government considers GA has no place in the economy, except as a means for recovering the cost of regulation. When you look at the amount of money being spent on the inland rail and Western Sydney Airport and compare that to the scraps thrown to a hungry GA industry you get a clear idea of what successive governments think. Yes, clear policy is needed, but that policy also has to have integrity and be backed-up with investment.

But lack of policy is only one boat anchor that GA has to deal with, another one is regulatory attitude. Regulatory attitude seems to govern what CASA does even moreso than the minister's Statement of Expectations. Take CAR Part 135. This is the new suite that lays out the laws regarding passenger-carrying ops in small aircraft. It has been consulted to death, but somehow has been sent for rulemaking without giving any idea of the maintenance regime that will need to be applied to aircraft operating under these rules. The industry has made it very clear they fought to have it included but came up against a brickwall. According to CASA, Part 135 is operational and therefore doesn't have maintenance regs included. This is what I mean about attitude. The SOE doesn't demand that and the industry feedback (that has come to me) doesn't support it, so the thing pushing it along must be attitude. Example Two: consultation pushed hard to have the "nine seats or less" rule extended to 13 seats so the many Cessna Caravan types operating in Australia could be included. It was an out-right winner, but I have been told it didn't greet the judge because someone at CASA tripped it at the last minute saying they would have to consider world's best practice. This is an attitude thing, not an obligation. If it was an obligation they would quickly find that world's best practice means including the maintenance regs in Part 135!

And just as we're about to sign-off, CASA has released the policy paper on CASR Part 43. These are the new regulations covering GA maintenance that have (theoretically) been based on the FARs. The seminars start next week, so if you've put your name down to go to one of them, download the policy paper here and give it a good look over the weekend before heading for the seminar. Go armed with questions.

 CASR Part 43 Policy Paper

The new draft CAAP on ops at uncontrolled airports did make it out before the weekend. This is the one that has been at the centre of the five-year debate on frequency use. Last October, CASA called to a halt all the consultation and went with a recommendation of using the area VHF rather than 126.7, but emphasising that a pilot can do what they like if they think it's needed to operate safely. But that's only one section; the CAAP covers all operations in and around CTAFs and ALAs and all of it deserves our attention, not just the frequency issue. The CAAP is up for feedback on the CASA Consultation Hub until 16 January.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...emq6YRX.99

Also on Friday I note that Ben Wyndham, by way of reply to Flying Oz, has had another crack at SHitsandwiTCH... Confused

Quote:Ben Wyndham  flyingoz  4 days ago

...but the operators they are targetting are NOT operating that way. If you want "remiss", it was remiss of Australian Flying to publish from the CASA press release without going to the affected operators and getting their side of the story.

In not one case that I know of is the AOC "borrowed or lent". In every case the AOC holder is controlling the flight operations and the other party is reduced to nothing more than a broker, a Marketing arm or a tour organiser.

Again, CASA has collaborated fully with the construction of these operations and they have delivered a much higher level of safety management and operational oversight than would otherwise have been the case.

For CASA to reneg and now persecute these operators is outrageous.

Hmm...I wonder if the chicken came before the egg? Perhaps that explains why Hitch suddenly developed a case of keyboard diarrhea?

 
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Tonight’s topic – Mental Bantam weights.

“It takes a special type of incompetence to buy trains that don’t fit through the tunnels,” Mr Foley said

Curse you P2 – I vowed never to read another load of dribble from the Hitch creature; and yet here I am reading a new ‘slant’ from the aeronautical dwarf. On ‘politics’ -  FDS, as if he’d know. This government is in crisis, aviation is a long, long way down the list. For the weasel Hitch to even attempt a ‘writing’ style is offence enough; but seriously:-

“The clock struck five and Mr Morrison packed all his pencils in his pencil case, tucked his folder under his arm and marched out of the house. With that, a filibuster-filled last day in Federal Parliament yesterday abruptly ended.”

As if – ScoMo would even break wind at the mewling’s of the GA industry – he is up to his arse in alligators on some really big issues – loosing government being one of those matters to consider. That, stand alone is a big ticket item for the reprobates currently masquerading as a ‘government’.

Yet suddenly “Hitch” decides to become not only a ‘qualified’ political commentator and ‘expert’ aviation buff; but, to develop a ‘writing style’. I’ve read better on the dunny wall; he has a long pilgrimage to make, before he may even approach the feet of grand master Phelan. Now there was a man who could and did write with clarity of vision, deep understanding and a certain je ne sais quoi about ‘the way thing’s are’.

Hitch needs to grow a set – there are some pretty serious aberrations floating about out there; Bruce Rhoades for a starter. But no, we get some half assed, nonsensical rubbish about how the Prime Minister knocked off at 1700 hrs and packed up his pencil case.

Gods spare me – I don’t need an excuse to have another beer  however; thanks Hitch. It is my turn to talk at the BRB/IOS indaba – guess what; you are the comedy section, along side of Gobson; an others, who just don’t know when to STFU.

Ayup; same again – it will be a longish ‘chat’ with the brethren, need to keep the voice box lubricated; and, it is always good to kick off with a laugh.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply
LMH = Load of Manure Hitch

Well there you go! Just when we thought that Fuhrer Hitchens had reached his climax of writing inability, he turns to writing about politics and blows the audience away with a load of shite that reaches a new low. Has this buffoon recently completed a course with Peter Gobs’full’o’shite, Steve Creepy, and that nerd Geoffrey Thomas? They all speak the exact same SHIT and are Presstitutes working for their ‘Pimp’ - the Government.

Australian Aviation should hang its head in shame, letting that fool write articles such as that. Somebody has obviously tickled his ego and ashamedly advised the narcissist that his writings are good. Well they are not good, they suck! He is just another CAsAmite extolling the virtues of an inept and out of touch Regulator so he can make a buck. Steve, you write pony pooh mate, it’s all piffle, folly and waffle. Hang up your pencils or go back to writing obituaries or Gumtree advertisements.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)