[Peetwo]

The LMH: 25 October 2019

Via the Yaffa: Rift language, senate language, training language and Funflight is in the air.

---

– Steve Hitchen

When you write anything for public eyes you have to accept that there will be times that people won't like what you've said. If you're not prepared to take the brickbats then you're best to pack up your Olivetti, grab your Bogart hat and head out the door. This happens to me regularly and I've developed a strategy: before doing anything, ask yourself if the person is right. I got a call this week that amounted to respectful criticism of my LMH last week in which I called AirVenture Australia "RAAus-motivated." The caller said they'd had enough of people talking about the rift in GA and language like that was only making the divide larger and doing nothing toward healing wounds. So, time to roll out the strategy: was the caller right? Does talking about it only make it worse? Too much talking is often the by-product of inaction. Nothing happens so we try to use discussion to inject energy into the issue. Once the ball is rolling, we re-focus ourselves on the next problem at hand and use conversation to put energy into that argument. So far, I'm not seeing much action on healing the rift within general aviation and people are still coming to me wanting to talk about it; it was one of the prime topics at Ausfly. But I am not prepared to label the caller as "wrong"; there is merit in the argument. However, actions speak louder than words, so if we just did something concrete about uniting the industry the talk would fade away naturally.

"..McDonald looks prepared to put her feet where her mouth is.."

I don't remember anyone in parliament articulating the CASA problem so comprehensively as Senator Susan McDonald did last week. In an eight-minute speech, she said CASA was extraordinarily disconnected from reality, that it doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration or consultation, imposes regulation for the sake of it and imposes regulation that is costly, unreasonable and seeks to strangle aviation. It was cathartic to hear it expressed in the senate in terms that all of aviation can relate to. And McDonald is clearly prepared to back up her words, crossing the floor against the wishes of the Coalition she serves to side with the independents as they tried to have CASA's community service flight regulations disallowed. McDonald looks prepared to put her feet where her mouth is. The question all of this has brought to mind is "what now?" OK, we've a new superhero in the senate, but being a Nationals senator it's her boss who's in charge of CASA and probably arranged for the bipartisan support that sunk the disallowance in the first place. Is Senator McDonald prepared to march into the minister's office, take off her slipper and smack it up and down on his desk in a very Khrushchevian way? That's not likely to happen and could actually be counter-productive. Another option might be to start agitating for more inquiries; also pointless given that so many of them have been ignored or failed to have the desired impact. For all the will of Senators like McDonald and Patrick, the brick wall built by a lack of political will may be too high to climb over and too strong to break through, leaving a long and winding road around the wall as the only path ahead. We can only hope that general aviation has the endurance to make the journey.

McDonald slams CASA over Angel Flight Rejection

25 October 2019
Comments 1 Comment




Senator Susan McDonald addresses the senate over CASA's rejection of the RRAT recommendation on Angel Flight maintenance requirements. (still from Parliament House feed)

Queensland Nationals senator Susan McDonald has slammed CASA for refusing to adopt a recommendation from the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) to wind back new maintenance regulations imposed on Angel Flight operations.


Senator McDonald chaired an inquiry into the conduct of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) investigation report on an Angel Flight crash at Mount Gambier in 2017, which CASA used as a basis for introducing new restrictions on aircraft and pilots used Angel Flight.

The inquiry made two recommendations, one of which was to remove additional maintenance requirements for the aircraft.

Senator McDonald told the senate last week that CASA had rejected the recommendation.

"I have long believed that regulation of any industry should be outcomes based, it should be effective and it should be reasonable," McDonald said. "There should be transparency of the clear connection between the problem to be solved and the legislative solution.

"CASA has not accepted the unanimous recommendations of RRAT to reject the additional maintenance requirements, which once again adds cost to an increasingly unfinancial sector. The requirement for the additional maintenance was not able to be demonstrated by CASA, either in its written submission or in appearing before the committee.

"Indeed the idea that this was only a small increase to costs fundamentally demonstrates the extraordinary disconnection between this regulating body and the reality of life and services available in regional and remote Australia, the very places that rely on Angel Flight.

"In taking this course of action, CASA doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration and consultation and shows refusal to accept commonsense reform. This lack of understanding of the gradual and relentless increasing cost and regulation on the aviation industry with no demonstrable link to safety improvement other than using a precautionary principle concerns me enormously."

Senator McDonald went on to say that she believed CASA's position would negatively impact Angel Flight to the point that people in rural and regional Australia would be disadvantaged.

"As a resident of this huge outback country, there could be much [sic] services if only aviation was affordable for general aviation and charter businesses," she said.

"CASA's proposed regulatory changes would not have prevented the June 2017 accident, and with no reference to additional maintenance requirements in the ATSB report, it is hard to understand [to] what end CASA has made the change, not to mention the fact that CASA's approach risks driving pilots out of the Angel Flight service, which is so critical to Australians living in rural and remote areas.

"It is painfully apparent that CASA imposes regulation simply for the sake of it.

"I'm here to tell you that I cannot and will not support a report that clearly examines the evidence, examines the challenges for regional and remote Australia and the challenges for the aviation industry and stands by while CASA once again imposes maintenance requirements that are unreasonable, that are costly, and once again seek to strangle opportunity and aviation in this country.

"Regulations need to be strict, but not so strict as to strangle, and I believe Angel Flight will be strangled by these proposals."
Senator McDonald crossed the floor last week to vote with the independent parties in favour of Senator Rex Patrick's motion to disallow the CASA restrictions. She was the only member of the Coalition to do so and the only National to vote. The motion failed to get up because of collaboration between the Coalition and the ALP.

"This is not voting against government," she explained, "this is voting against an instrument that was created by an independent statutory authority that is slowly crippling our aviation industry."

Fellow Coalition senator Slade Brockman from WA agreed with McDonald on the issue of maintenance, but did not participate in the vote against the disallowance motion.

"I didn't disagree with all the regulations ... the one I found difficult to accept ... was the requirement for additional level of aeroplane maintenance," Brockman told the Senate. "If I'm the owner of a particular aircraft and that aircraft is safe enough for me to take my friends up in; safe enough for me to take my children up in, has met the requirements of being considered a safe aircraft for the purpose of general aviation in Australia, then I see no reason to add on to that a further maintenance requirement that risks more people leaving general aviation.

"Additional maintenance requirements are not something just to be shrugged off. Pilots take them seriously; they have to be taken seriously.

"I did agree with large parts of the regulation. As such I did not support Senator Patrick's disallowance. It's a very blunt instrument, a disallowance. Unfortunately it means you knock out everything, you literally [sic] throw the baby out with the bath water.

"I will continue to monitor this area very closely and look to see if the regulations as promulgated do have a negative impact on that sector."

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

Last night I attended a forum on flight training organised by the Australian Division of the Royal Aeronautical Society, which had all the levity of funeral. Speaker after speaker outlined problems insurmountable that have placed the flight training industry in the Catch 22 position of being unable to train enough pilots to fill a growing demand and the industry subsequently hitting a downward slide to oblivion. It's not for a lack of schools, or even government money (there's plenty of that being thrown at students), but an arterial blockage in the instructor pipeline. The voracious appetites of the airlines have them gobbling up both newly-qualified CPLs, ATPLs and the people who taught them, leaving so very few to teach, and those that do are at the inexperienced end of the spectrum, not the end with thousands of hours. Compounding that is that the new Part 61 rules require instructors to have separate approvals for teaching most flight activities and endorsements, which costs money that instructors don't have because they're paid so badly. Although the forum didn't result in any official position of the RAeS, there were virtually no speakers who had answers. It doesn't bode well for the years ahead, and there is a very real possibility that Australia, rather than tapping into overseas sources of students, will actually have to export CPL candidates because there'll be no-one left to teach in this country.

Tomorrow is one of the metaphorical bright days on the general aviation calendar: Funflight. All over the country pilots will be giving up their time and money to give underprivileged and sick children what could literally be the ride of their lifetime. When the general aviation community puts in like this it makes me proud to be a part. Hundreds of children will be smiling broadly tomorrow because of us, and that's something we can treasure. That's if the weather co-operates of course! South of the Murray River the atmosphere is building to something Wagnerian, which it is threatening to visit on the southern states tomorrow and Sunday. We can hope only for enough breaks in the showers and overcast to at least create some smiles even if we can't run the full program of flights. Happy flying to all Funflighters out there.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

---

Finally from the Northern Daily Leader:

---

OCTOBER 24 2019 - 4:26PM

Air safety regulator must consider costs

• Marnie Banger
  
  

The general aviation industry raised concerns about the costs associated with new regulations.

Australia's aviation safety regulator will have to take into account the cost of making rules, under laws which have cleared federal parliament.

The shift comes after the general aviation industry raised concerns about the costs sometimes associated with fresh regulations.

Legislation making the change to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority passed the lower house on Thursday, after clearing the Senate in July.

"The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia, and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden," assistant minister Andrew Gee told the chamber on Thursday.

"It is important that we continue to support an aviation industry which is dynamic and sustainable."

Mr Gee insists safety in the industry will always be the most important consideration.

Labor backed the change, believing it strikes the right balance between keeping people safe and address the concerns of the aviation sector.

"While we understand that there will always be groups that say the balance is completely wrong one way or the other ... on balance, we are supporting this bill," Labor MP Catherine King told parliament.

Some commercial pilots had feared the changes could lead to weaker safety standards in favour of profits, but smaller industry players backed the bill because it aims to reduce costs.

Australian Associated Press
From the Hansard:

BILLS

Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading

Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:01): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy. It links our regions to our cities, and our cities to the world.

A strong aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the regulatory system which governs it. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety—built on a modern regulatory framework—any regulator must continue to keep pace with the industry it regulates.

Some sectors of the general aviation industry are seeking assurance that CASA takes into consideration the economic and cost impacts on industry, and the relative risk environment in the different aviation sectors, when developing broadly applicable aviation safety standards.

The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden.

We are committed to aviation safety being the most important consideration in safety regulation and recognise that CASA must be allowed to ensure aviation in Australia is safe and reliable.

Costs and risks are both carefully weighed by CASA when it develops aviation safety standards. The requirements behind this process are spelt out in the government's statement of expectations issued to the CASA board.

Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that incorporates those guiding principles from the government's statement of expectations into the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is in direct response to the concerns raised by the general aviation industry.

The bill will allow the government to ensure CASA continues to consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community. It will take into account the differing risks posed by those sectors when developing legislative aviation safety standards.

It is important we continue to support an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is responsive and proportionate to risks. The government seeks a level of regulation that maintains the safety of the system without unreasonably restricting innovation and growth.

I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (16:04): The opposition has a very proud record of bipartisanship when it comes to aviation safety. There are, frankly, no margins for error when it comes to aviation safety. As more and more travel, freight movement and recreation is undertaken in our skies, it is important that our aviation safety system keeps people safe. At the same time, Labor understands that the viability of the general aviation industry can be jeopardised by unreasonable regulatory burden.

We understand the importance of the aviation industry in the day-to-day lives of Australians, and this is nowhere more the case than in regional Australia. We also understand that some members of the general aviation sector have raised concerns about red tape and the impact on their operational costs, and the viability of the general aviation sector and jobs in the general aviation industry. Clearly, the regulatory burden that small airline operators in general aviation can carry is vastly different to what can be carried by the larger airlines. If we as legislators don't get that right it could have unintended consequences for the smaller operators and, by extension, regional communities and aviation sector jobs.

We are broadly satisfied that this bill the government has brought forward does take a balanced approach between the need to protect the safety of the travelling public as the pre-eminent operating reason for CASA's existence—it's primary operating order, in essence—and, of course ensuring that red tape does not get in the way of the general aviation sector being viable. This bill responds to concerns from some in the general aviation sector who have been concerned that overregulation is costly for smaller operators. While we understand that there will always be groups who say the balance is completely wrong one way or the other, and that the legislation will never be perfect, on balance we are supporting this bill. We will continue to monitor implementation, however, of these reforms. We do know that this bill does not go as far as some in the general aviation sector would like, but we also know that there are others concerned that any change in the Civil Aviation Act could be seen to water down CASA's primary purpose of ensuring that aviation safety is paramount in their regulatory activities. They are concerned about this bill as well.

We are very strong in and very proud of our track record when it comes to the aviation industry. In government, the now Leader of the Opposition, as transport minister, delivered Australia's first, and only, aviation white paper. One of the stated objectives of that white paper was the maintenance of a safe, efficient and innovative general aviation sector. The white paper provided a comprehensive and balanced framework, bringing together all aspects of aviation policy into a single, coherent and forward-looking statement. Importantly, it included initiatives designed to give the general aviation industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the longer term. To this end, the former Labor government introduced more generous accelerated depreciation rates for aircraft as an incentive for owners to upgrade their aircraft; reduced the number of 24-hour restricted airspace areas from 81 to 15; committed to the continued operation and growth of secondary capital city airports; ensured that the master plans for secondary airports maintained a strong focus on aviation development, not non-aeronautical uses that could compromise future aviation activities; and we lessened the financial burden of regulation on the sector by restricting increases in CASA regulatory service charges to rises in the consumer price index.

These were very important reforms, and I would say to the government that I think there is a distinct lack of coherence today when it does actually come to aviation policy. It may well be time for the government to look, particularly, at the general aviation sector but also at the overall aviation sector in a more comprehensive way once again. Labor will continue to advocate for the aviation sector, to ensure safe and effective aviation services are available to the Australian community.

In conclusion, the opposition will continue to monitor the implementation of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 to ensure that safety is not compromised and that the regulatory burden remains manageable for the sector. But with that, we will be supporting this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

And so it was without little to no fanfare or honest, open and transparent debate, that the CA Act was amended, all under the guise of the political bi-partisanship, 'self-protection' racket of course...

---

MTF...P2