[Peetwo]

Latest from the Prez -



Also from AOPA all members will receive or have received the following email/correspondence:

An important message from AOPA Australia ...


 
Dear Member,

AOPA have been involved in high level meetings chaired by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transport and attended by DAS Skidmore and other representatives from CASA.  A lot of major issues were covered in a full and frank manner.

At this stage AOPA isn’t happy with the minutes from this meeting, as we feel they lack the detail of the discussions. We have sent back our desired changes, and once these have been agreed to we’ll be releasing them.

One of the key problems we found is that the DAS thinks the industry is in good shape. We feel otherwise. The Department of Transport are getting two different stories, and want to see evidence about the effects of the over regulation CASA are imposing on industry, which the regulator always justifies in the name of safety.

Can you, our members please take the time to give us real world examples where over regulation has affected the aviation activities you participate in. We need more examples beyond Part 61.
If we are to succeed in bringing about change it’s vital we show the evidence that CASA’s regulations are driving our industry backwards.

Email: editor@aopa.com.au

We are also fighting for medical reform. CASA are proposing to follow the new model put forwards by the UK CAA, which on the surface seems like a big step forwards. But the devil is in the detail. Basically it has the potential to become another debacle like the RPL, where people with pre-existing conditions are still completely excluded.

We are pushing for a system for Class 2 medicals for day VFR that would give the DAME greater control over this area of certification, even with so called ‘complex cases’.  The risk a private pilot presents flying 50 hours a year day VFR is far different from a private pilot flying a twin 250 hours a year under the IFR.  Current AVMED certification policy doesn’t allow these differences to be taken into account in assessing the risk a candidate poses.

We need your suggestions. What do you want to see happen to Class 2 certification for day VFR? Do we want to try for a system like that being proposed in the United States? Under their proposals once a pilot holds a class 3 (same as our class 2) they never have to get another FAA medical again and can fly IFR with six passengers up to 14,000 feet.  Our medical board members feel it would be very difficult to get this introduced, but what’s your opinion?

Same email:  editor@aopa.com.au

Please take the time to help us with these two important requests.

Mark Smith
Director, AOPA.
Editor, Australian Pilot.

 
And this was Sandy's prompt reply...

In response to AOPA's Editor Mark Smith's request for member opinions.

1/. The Canberra meetings and minutes.

The membership should be advised that there were in fact two meetings. The Department split AOPA from TAAAF with the excuse that there were two papers to consider. In reality there is only one consideration:- that is that GA needs radical reform if it is to be viable and grow. Its obvious that it was to the Department's advantage, divide and rule, to be able to say that we are not united. The two bodies have combined points of agreement for the same goal. The details have little to do with the main game:- what will government do to revitalise aviation? These meetings were initiated from Tamworth, the mandate clearly was for one meeting and government should have provided a response to the concerns expressed. 

With respect I consider that the meeting should have been recorded by us so that we, the membership, can clearly appreciate what transpired at the meeting.

What action does the Department propose? As far as Mr. Skidmore is concerned his opinion has no value because he fails to grasp where GA was, and where it should be, and that his massive over regulation and expensive prescriptive type regime is totally against the flow of deregulation as coming from the US, UK and deregulation is even gaining recognition in the EU. Criminal sanctions of strict liability to the nth degree do not make flying safer and are not compatible with our freedoms. Mr. Skidmore, of 'Tiger Team' fame, refuses to acknowledge the seriousness of nearly 300 submissions to the ASRR, and has done little to implement government policy from the Forsyth review. Mr Skidmore's take is totally at odds with Board Chairman Jeff Boyd. Jeff Boyd's opinion expressed at Tamworth was that the rules, still not finished after 28 years and hundreds of millions wasted, are a mess. Jeff Boyd understands what poor regulation does to business, it was a major reason he relinquished Brindabella. 

2/. Medicals:-  From all the surveys there is no safety case to maintain aviation specific medicals, confirmed by careful evaluation in the US and UK.

AOPA directors whose livelihoods and careers depend, or depended on aviation medicals cannot present factual evidence, surveys, to support their case.

In any case their direct vested interests should preclude them from voting on a liberalising measure which will save millions and help put GA back on the map.

Niceties are all very well but GA in this country is going down the drain, we can't afford to waste time, DAMES for PPL medicals are not required and clearly such direct, single issue vested interests should not dictate AOPA policy.

Car driver medicals are totally sufficient, variations between VFR and IFR and hours spent flying are not correlated in regards to medical incapacitation. We can all have various opinions but they should not be policy without hard facts. What is correlated by statistics is that pilots who fly regularly have less accidents. Much like taxi drivers who rarely have fatal accidents. Compare driving to flying, much less risk for third party accident involvement in the case of an aircraft accident. Why do airliners have two pilots? I suggest one main reason because medical science cannot predict an incapacitating event, which occurs four or five times yearly in the US airlines in spite of Class One medicals. 

3/. As for real world experiences of how GA is suffering, your circular asks for member experiences. 

Why? Is this a joke? Show evidence GA is going backwards? Ok class, pay attention:- 
I have to say that one could be forgiven for thinking that AOPA is being led down the garden path. There is no point whatever in going around in circles at the behest of the Department to waste time, to divert us, for them to obfuscate, muddy the waters. 

We all know this:-

ASRR, fuel companies pulling hundreds of refueling facilities, airport movements way down, stagnant or reducing hours flown, numbers of charter operators and flying schools from hundreds to handfuls, developer encroachment on airport land, unnecessary CASA fees, delayed certificates of all sorts, botched reports, SIDs, CVD pilots having to fight again. Biennial flight reviews for experienced and regular flying pilots. No independent instructors. No proper LAME apprenticeship and loss of LAME numbers. ADS B, individuals like Clark Butson of Polar Aviation in unnecessary court battles or hounded out. CASA numbers grown from 640 to 830, average wage $130k, blown out budget. For starters.

They are perfectly well aware of the parlous situation for GA. Don't play along with them any more.

The Department and CASA will do anything to brush it all under the carpet. They have their interests at heart, not ours. Only political action will make a difference. Why not advertise my Change.org petition again, now about 1600 supporters? A big number will help our cause. Action is required, another meeting, with an attendance record, including email addresses and an agenda with motions framed, should be on the planning board, suggest SY. The Ben Morgan inspired momentum should be maintained. Waiting for a nice communique from Department is a waste of time, especially with the election looming. 

Sandy

MTF...P2