[Peetwo]

CASA rules on Gong stack; & well said MB! - 

Via the LMH:

It's very hard to look at Oshkosh every year and yearn for something of this nature in Australia. Sadly, over here an event of these proportions would be totally impossible to stage; our industry is fractured and getting more fractured every year. Oshkosh's greatest display is its unity and community spirit. What we have over here is an us-verses-them attitude that is sadly perpetual by both us and them. To be blatant, whilst AOPA Australia and RAAus are standing and flinging mud pies at each other the situation will continue. Of course, both sides are keen to promote unity within GA as long as it is done on their grounds, when the reality is that any form of healing is going to need concessions on behalf of both sides of the wound. We even have two national fly-ins held within 30 days and of each other and only 103 km apart. Many fliers, including me, will be forced to choose one or the other, which only adds to the divide. There will be some that go to both events, but I believe they will be very rare beasts indeed. In the meantime, Oshkosh rolls on taunting us with what could be if the rift in Australian GA ever healed.

the premises it is founded on are shaky at best.

Whilst aviation's political wind vane has been pointing towards the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, the Air Services Amendment Bill has snuck back onto the Senate agenda. Like all legislation, it lapsed with the end of the last parliament and had to be re-listed. This is the bill that will require Airservices to review any flight path into any airport at the request of any single person and contains a special clause to prevent flights over Melbourne CBD below 6000 feet and within 2.7 nm of the city centre. First touted by Greens MP Adam Bandt in 2016 and introduced to the Senate by Greens Senator Janet Rice, proponents of the bill are saying that it is necessary because of "acute circumstance of high intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled air space." In December 2016, I wrote that I expected this "mutt" legislation was likely to be killed dead in the Senate, but it doesn't seem to want to die. It's a mutt because the premises it is founded on are shaky at best and nefarious at worst. Aircraft noise in Melbourne CBD? I guess they don't want to have it cut across their enjoyment of the sound of road traffic.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...hyDE3ad.99

IMO Mike Borgelt nails his chocfrog comment in reply to the red bold - 

Mike Borgelt • 4 days ago

Steve, you have the wrong target about "AOPA and RAAus flinging mud pies at each other".

It is CASA that is the problem. RAAus, GFA, ASRA etc only exist because CASA is too bone idle to do its job properly. Write some simple regs to allow under 600Kg aircraft (can make it some higher number without impacting safety) and gliders to operate on owner maintenance and a private driver's licence medical standard and the need for private organisations having the powers of the state, go away. See Ben Morgan's excellent article of July 11, 2019 here:
https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruptio...integrity/

The idea of multiple "self administering" general aviation organisations may have had some merit when the GFA was formed 70 years ago when gliding was a few eccentrics flying around the circuit (on a good day)but it has long outlived its usefulness and to cement this in place with Part 149 is one of the more demented, brain dead ideas, ever, from a regulator renowned for them.

It is time that ALL recreational GA activities joined the mainstream. We have an RPL, lets use it with different ratings for the different aspects of GA with no compulsion to pay protection money to rapacious employees of private businesses with no accountability. This would encourage cross flow between the various activities with consequent benefits to the activities including safety (spin training for ultralights, anyone?) and the ability for maintenance people to work on various types of aircraft by getting the appropriate CASA rating instead of being forced to join multiple organisations to do so, which amounts to compulsory unionism of MULTIPLE unions.

Next CASA knocks back support for Illawarra gas plume danger area:

CASA Safety Assessment blocks Illawarra Gas Plume
6 August 2019
    
CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) has said it will not support a Danger Area over an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) proposed for the circuit area at Illawarra Regional Airport because it did not sufficiently mitigate the risks to aviation safety.

The move comes after a meeting of the NSW Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) in May voted to reject an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) that would place a Danger Area over the Tallawarra B power station, and to oppose the establishment of the power station itself.

Approval for the Energy Australia project was dependent on the power station not having an impact on aviation safety, which was thought to be accounted for by placing a Danger Area over the gas plume.

The task of assessing the impact on aviation fell to the OAR, which ultimately found the Danger Area was not sufficient.

"CASA has concluded that the proposed Danger Area may not fully mitigate the risk to aviation, and that the establishment of a Danger Area at this site would nevertheless generate additional risks to aviation safety," CASA Manager Industry Relations Matthew Bouttell told NSW RAPAC.

"On the basis that the risk to aviation resulting from the location of the Danger Area cannot be mitigated to achieve an acceptable level of safety for all airspace users the OAR has determined that the ACP is not supported."

Without CASA's approval, the project appears not to meet the safety condition, but the regulator told Australian Flying that their assessment is not about the power station, just the impact on safety of the proposed Danger Area.

"CASA is not the approving authority for the power station," a spokesperson said, "that is NSW Planning, who has requested CASA assess whether it poses a risk to aviation. Now that CASA/OAR has provided it’s advice the decision whether to proceed or not remains with NSW Planning."

When the original approval for Tallawarra B was issued in 2010, it was dependent on CASA agreeing that there was no risk to aviation safety.

"Nothing in this approval permits the construction and operation of an open cycle gas turbine plant, unless the Proponent has submitted a report to the Secretary which demonstrates that operation of an open cycle gas turbine plant will not have an adverse impact on aviation safety," the approval states.

"This report must be prepared in consultation with Shellharbour City Council, and its conclusions and recommendations must have been agreed to by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority."

Without CASA's blessing, the gas plume appears to have been stopped for the time being.

The Illawarra aviation community, supported by AOPA Australia, presented the RAPAC meeting with several objections to the proposal, including:

• moderate turbulence expected from the power station equated to severe turbulence for RAAus aircraft and LSAs
  
• traffic in the Wollongong circuit was significantly different to that used in the proponent's modeling
  
• an EFATO incident in one of the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society's large twins would place it in the gas plume
  
• student pilots would often need to hold over Lake Illawarra close to the gas plume
  
• examples of other airports with nearby gas plumes were not relevant to the Wollongong situation
  

Shellharbour Council also noted that a Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) would meet existing approvals.

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

MTF...P2