Quote:Sandy Reith Mike Borgelt • 5 hours ago
Agree in principle with Mike but a car driver’s licence medical and self reporting (as in the USA, BasicMed) is totally logical on the basis of risk.
In regards to RAAus the CASA position of weight increase is of course logical within an illogical and shockingly wasteful framework of a split system. The great irony is that the RAAus Operations Manual that I received a few years ago was virtually a copy of that which obtained for all of General Aviation (GA) from the 60s through to the 80s. So assuming no great changes I think we can see a turning of the wheel, however reluctantly, in effect being forced on the regulator because in 30 years of attempting to rewrite, and ‘simplify the rules’ (it’s words ’89 & 2010) it has patently failed dismally.
Adding to the wreckage of GA is the Aviation Security Identification Card, only 2 years validity and cost c. $300 for what? Having held a flying licence for 50 years, and former Instructor with CASA testing approvals, I consider it an insulting affront to have my Government question my law abiding disposition with regard to me being a terrorist threat. The cost and paperwork adding to the injury. Can anyone in Government, with now the benefit of many years experience, claim that the ASIC system has prevented terrorist type high-jacking plots? Might a red card seen swinging from someone’s neck induce a false sense of security around an airport? Would it be better to keep one’s eyes open? Why don’t they have such an ID system in the home of ’9/11?
Government must act because the losses are accumulating at an increasing rate.
http://disq.us/p/1to5mh6
Quote:Good morning!
>
> First, apologies. Ben asked for a quick email, but once I started, it sort of got out of hand...
>
> As any of you that have heard me speak would know, even after ten years in Australia, I have an American accent. I come by it honestly, having lived there for most of my life. I feel truly lucky to now be an Australian citizen, and I love this country.
>
> That said, I don’t love CASA quite so much. I have spent a large portion of my flying career flying under a different system, and therefore have extensive experience with a different way of thinking about regulating flying. I would love to be at the Summit, but am unable to attend, so I’m going to share a couple of thoughts with the Board for your consideration.
>
> I agree that the Act is in need of change, but I’m afraid that the actual underlying problem may be even deeper.
>
> When I moved here, and started the process of converting my American Certificates to Australian Licences, the only written test I had to sit was Air Law. Fair enough. I started studying by taking various on-line sample tests, and looking up the answers using Google to find the appropriate sections of the Casa regulations. Once I was comfortable that I was getting high enough marks that I would be likely to pass, I rang the flight school that I had been working with and told the course coordinator that I was ready to take my test, and could she please help me arrange that? She asked if I had taken the tagging and highlighting course. “No” I said, “but that’s ok. I’m pretty comfortable with using an index, and I’m sure I’ll be fine.” She was VERY sceptical of my confidence, and insisted that I needed to sit the course. She asked if I had at least tagged my books myself. I said that I had not, as I didn’t have them yet. I live a couple of hours from the nearest place that I could get them, and I was planning to pick them up on the way to the testing site. For some reason, this really seemed to upset her. Finally, she said that she would have to speak with the CFI. She came back, and with an air of a jump master who had just been instructed to send the new guy out of the plane without a parachute, agreed to set a test date for me.
>
> Now, you have to understand that I wasn’t being arrogant or cocky, I was just terribly uninformed. In America, all of the regulations that govern you as a pilot or an A&P (engineer), as well as generally useful information like what airport markings look like, survival in the event of an emergency landing in winter in Alaska, etc, are contained in a paperback book that is slightly smaller than a typical best selling novel. And it has an index in the back. It’s a bound book, costs $14.95, and once a year, you throw it out and buy a new one. Having never seen a paper version of the Aussie regs, I assumed that they would be at least somewhat similar to their American cousin.
>
> Imagine my surprise when I showed up at the local(ish) pilot supply shop to pick up my copy on the way to my test. I was presented with a stack of papers and a stack of empty three ring binders along with a separate stack of dividers. That will be $895.00, thanks. What the hell??!!! $895.00? You have to assemble your own books? And where is the index? “Oh”, I was informed, “there is no index. I mean there are some commercially available ones, but you’re not allowed to use them.”
>
> And in the last two paragraphs lies, in my opinion is the beginning of understanding the problems with the Australian system.
>
> To start, the reason that the Australian regs take up a stack of books a foot and a half high is that they are a list of all of the things that you can do in an aircraft. The American system generally comes at things from the other side. It’s a list of things that you can’t do. If the regs don’t say you can’t do it, you can.
>
> Simply put, Americans have the right to do whatever they want, as long as there is not a rule against it. Australians have the right to do whatever the Government tells them they can.
>
> And, I think that this points to an even deeper difference. Americans trust individuals, and tend to distrust Governments and large organisations. Australians seem to, at least on a government level, distrust individuals.
>
> This is even apparent in the papers we carry as pilots. In America, I had a Commercial Pilot Certificate. Here I have a Commercial Pilot License.
>
> According to Webster’s dictionary a certificate is a document certifying that one has fulfilled the requirements of and may practice in a field.
>
> A License, on the other hand is a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation.
>
> Similar, but different.
>
> This is extremely evident with the differences between CASA and the FAA. And these differences are one of the main things that create extra costs for aviation.
>
> Starting with your medical certificate. In the States, any Aviation Medical Examiner can issue a second or third class medical certificate on the spot, and a Senior Aviation Medical Examiner can issue any Aviation Medical Certificate on the spot.
> Finish your exam, walk out to the front desk and the receptionist hands you your shiny new certificate.
>
> Because that person is a Doctor that has passed the FAA training and has actually examined you. And the FAA trusts that person, even though they are not part of a bureaucracy. CASA doesn’t trust that individual, and requires the actual Medical Certificate to be issued by a trusted government bureaucrat. That hasn’t ever even met you. And, is that trusted bureaucrat personally reviewing over 100 medical applications per day? Of course not. There is a team of trusted bureaucrats to do that. And being government employees, they are all on a very nice wage, all of which must be paid for by the pilot.
>
> Flight training is obviously the next stop on your expensive journey to becoming a pilot.
>
>
> In Australia, you must go to an approved Flight School that has an AOC that probably cost the school $75,000.00 to $100,000.00. The school must employ a Chief Flight Instructor (who we would hope must be earning at least $100,000.00/year). To have any hope of making any money, the school has to have LOTS of students, which means lots of staff, all on $50,000.00/year or more, as well as a building large enough to house all of these people. This has to be paid for by the student. Typical cost: $25,000.00.
>
>
> In the States, once a pilot earns his Flight Instructor Certificate (just one level, thanks) he or she is considered to be competent to teach people to fly. Because, you know, they have passed all of the tests and earned the certificate. They are free to go to work for a flight school or to just hang out their shingle and start teaching on their own. Or any combination thereof. This, of course, creates a bit of competition. There are Flight Instructors that will work for free, just to build hours. There are Flight Instructors that charge a lot of money, if they can demonstrate to the market that they are providing value. There are flying clubs and Flight schools. Typical cost of a Private Pilot Certificate through a Flight School is about $7,500.00, including check ride. You could do it much more cheaply, of course, if you have your own airplane and an instructor that would teach you for free.
>
> How does this work?
>
> Quite well, thank you. Given that the purpose of regulating Aviation is to ensure safety, the proof of a given system should be in the accident numbers. Even though the US system is SIGNIFICANTLY less bureaucratic, the end result as measured by accident rates is quite good. The GA accident rate per 100,000 flight hours in the US appears to be similar to or less than in Australia. And this in spite of the much more challenging terrain and weather in the US.
>
> Think about that. $7,500.00 vs $25,000.00. For commercial pilots, the difference is even more amazing. $30,000.00 in the US compared to $70,000.00 in Australia. And the main difference is due to the extra regulation that produces NO measurable safety benefit.
>
> When the time comes to renew their Instructor Certificate in the US, all a busy instructor has to do is to provide proof to the FAA that they have recommended at least 5 students for a new certificate or rating and that at least 80% of those have passed the check ride on the first attempt. The FAA doesn’t actually care HOW the students were taught, as long as it was effective. Because, the best demonstration of your competence as an instructor is your ability to transfer knowledge to the student.
>
> If you have not recommended at least five students or if at least 80% of those five didn’t pass, you have the following options
>
> Submitting a completed and signed application with the FAA and satisfactorily completing one of the following renewal requirements -
>
> (ii) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has served as a company check pilot, chief flight instructor, company check airman, or flight instructor in a part 121 or part 135 operation, or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots.
>
> (iii) A graduation certificate showing that, within the preceding 3 calendar months, the person has successfully completed an approved flight instructor refresher course consisting of ground training or flight training, or a combination of both.
> That’s right. You can renew your Instructor Certificate with on on-line course. Available all day long for $99.00. No flight Test required. What?? That’s right, because you still need a BFR, don’t you?
>
> Compare this to the Australian system, where you basically redo your entire flight test every two years. The last time I renewed my Grade One Liscence in Australia, it cost me nearly $2,000.00, and took me all day. Expensive if you’re making your living as a Flight Instructor, pointless expense if you’re not. And since I hate pointless expenses, and since I was making a living flying a floatplane at that point, I didn’t renew. And most Instructors wouldn’t once they were no longer instructing full time. So now instead of a potential student flying with me and gaining the benefit of my 4,000 hours of dual given and over 7,000 hours of GA flying experience, they are flying with a Grade 3 with 250 hours total time. Where is the safety benefit?
>
> Best regards,
>
> SHAWN KELLY
> Director – Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia
(07-07-2018, 06:25 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Just in case anyone still questions the resurrection, direction and motivation of the very much revitalized AOPA, then take the time to read the following from Shawn Kelly, Director AOPA:-
>
Quote:Good morning!
>
> First, apologies. Ben asked for a quick email, but once I started, it sort of got out of hand...
>
> As any of you that have heard me speak would know, even after ten years in Australia, I have an American accent. I come by it honestly, having lived there for most of my life. I feel truly lucky to now be an Australian citizen, and I love this country.
>
> That said, I don’t love CASA quite so much. I have spent a large portion of my flying career flying under a different system, and therefore have extensive experience with a different way of thinking about regulating flying. I would love to be at the Summit, but am unable to attend, so I’m going to share a couple of thoughts with the Board for your consideration.
>
> I agree that the Act is in need of change, but I’m afraid that the actual underlying problem may be even deeper.
>
> When I moved here, and started the process of converting my American Certificates to Australian Licences, the only written test I had to sit was Air Law. Fair enough. I started studying by taking various on-line sample tests, and looking up the answers using Google to find the appropriate sections of the Casa regulations. Once I was comfortable that I was getting high enough marks that I would be likely to pass, I rang the flight school that I had been working with and told the course coordinator that I was ready to take my test, and could she please help me arrange that? She asked if I had taken the tagging and highlighting course. “No” I said, “but that’s ok. I’m pretty comfortable with using an index, and I’m sure I’ll be fine.” She was VERY sceptical of my confidence, and insisted that I needed to sit the course. She asked if I had at least tagged my books myself. I said that I had not, as I didn’t have them yet. I live a couple of hours from the nearest place that I could get them, and I was planning to pick them up on the way to the testing site. For some reason, this really seemed to upset her. Finally, she said that she would have to speak with the CFI. She came back, and with an air of a jump master who had just been instructed to send the new guy out of the plane without a parachute, agreed to set a test date for me.
>
> Now, you have to understand that I wasn’t being arrogant or cocky, I was just terribly uninformed. In America, all of the regulations that govern you as a pilot or an A&P (engineer), as well as generally useful information like what airport markings look like, survival in the event of an emergency landing in winter in Alaska, etc, are contained in a paperback book that is slightly smaller than a typical best selling novel. And it has an index in the back. It’s a bound book, costs $14.95, and once a year, you throw it out and buy a new one. Having never seen a paper version of the Aussie regs, I assumed that they would be at least somewhat similar to their American cousin.
>
> Imagine my surprise when I showed up at the local(ish) pilot supply shop to pick up my copy on the way to my test. I was presented with a stack of papers and a stack of empty three ring binders along with a separate stack of dividers. That will be $895.00, thanks. What the hell??!!! $895.00? You have to assemble your own books? And where is the index? “Oh”, I was informed, “there is no index. I mean there are some commercially available ones, but you’re not allowed to use them.”
>
> And in the last two paragraphs lies, in my opinion is the beginning of understanding the problems with the Australian system.
>
> To start, the reason that the Australian regs take up a stack of books a foot and a half high is that they are a list of all of the things that you can do in an aircraft. The American system generally comes at things from the other side. It’s a list of things that you can’t do. If the regs don’t say you can’t do it, you can.
>
> Simply put, Americans have the right to do whatever they want, as long as there is not a rule against it. Australians have the right to do whatever the Government tells them they can.
>
> And, I think that this points to an even deeper difference. Americans trust individuals, and tend to distrust Governments and large organisations. Australians seem to, at least on a government level, distrust individuals.
>
> This is even apparent in the papers we carry as pilots. In America, I had a Commercial Pilot Certificate. Here I have a Commercial Pilot License.
>
> According to Webster’s dictionary a certificate is a document certifying that one has fulfilled the requirements of and may practice in a field.
>
> A License, on the other hand is a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation.
>
> Similar, but different.
>
> This is extremely evident with the differences between CASA and the FAA. And these differences are one of the main things that create extra costs for aviation.
>
> Starting with your medical certificate. In the States, any Aviation Medical Examiner can issue a second or third class medical certificate on the spot, and a Senior Aviation Medical Examiner can issue any Aviation Medical Certificate on the spot.
> Finish your exam, walk out to the front desk and the receptionist hands you your shiny new certificate.
>
> Because that person is a Doctor that has passed the FAA training and has actually examined you. And the FAA trusts that person, even though they are not part of a bureaucracy. CASA doesn’t trust that individual, and requires the actual Medical Certificate to be issued by a trusted government bureaucrat. That hasn’t ever even met you. And, is that trusted bureaucrat personally reviewing over 100 medical applications per day? Of course not. There is a team of trusted bureaucrats to do that. And being government employees, they are all on a very nice wage, all of which must be paid for by the pilot.
>
> Flight training is obviously the next stop on your expensive journey to becoming a pilot.
>
>
> In Australia, you must go to an approved Flight School that has an AOC that probably cost the school $75,000.00 to $100,000.00. The school must employ a Chief Flight Instructor (who we would hope must be earning at least $100,000.00/year). To have any hope of making any money, the school has to have LOTS of students, which means lots of staff, all on $50,000.00/year or more, as well as a building large enough to house all of these people. This has to be paid for by the student. Typical cost: $25,000.00.
>
>
> In the States, once a pilot earns his Flight Instructor Certificate (just one level, thanks) he or she is considered to be competent to teach people to fly. Because, you know, they have passed all of the tests and earned the certificate. They are free to go to work for a flight school or to just hang out their shingle and start teaching on their own. Or any combination thereof. This, of course, creates a bit of competition. There are Flight Instructors that will work for free, just to build hours. There are Flight Instructors that charge a lot of money, if they can demonstrate to the market that they are providing value. There are flying clubs and Flight schools. Typical cost of a Private Pilot Certificate through a Flight School is about $7,500.00, including check ride. You could do it much more cheaply, of course, if you have your own airplane and an instructor that would teach you for free.
>
> How does this work?
>
> Quite well, thank you. Given that the purpose of regulating Aviation is to ensure safety, the proof of a given system should be in the accident numbers. Even though the US system is SIGNIFICANTLY less bureaucratic, the end result as measured by accident rates is quite good. The GA accident rate per 100,000 flight hours in the US appears to be similar to or less than in Australia. And this in spite of the much more challenging terrain and weather in the US.
>
> Think about that. $7,500.00 vs $25,000.00. For commercial pilots, the difference is even more amazing. $30,000.00 in the US compared to $70,000.00 in Australia. And the main difference is due to the extra regulation that produces NO measurable safety benefit.
>
> When the time comes to renew their Instructor Certificate in the US, all a busy instructor has to do is to provide proof to the FAA that they have recommended at least 5 students for a new certificate or rating and that at least 80% of those have passed the check ride on the first attempt. The FAA doesn’t actually care HOW the students were taught, as long as it was effective. Because, the best demonstration of your competence as an instructor is your ability to transfer knowledge to the student.
>
> If you have not recommended at least five students or if at least 80% of those five didn’t pass, you have the following options
>
> Submitting a completed and signed application with the FAA and satisfactorily completing one of the following renewal requirements -
>
> (ii) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has served as a company check pilot, chief flight instructor, company check airman, or flight instructor in a part 121 or part 135 operation, or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots.
>
> (iii) A graduation certificate showing that, within the preceding 3 calendar months, the person has successfully completed an approved flight instructor refresher course consisting of ground training or flight training, or a combination of both.
> That’s right. You can renew your Instructor Certificate with on on-line course. Available all day long for $99.00. No flight Test required. What?? That’s right, because you still need a BFR, don’t you?
>
> Compare this to the Australian system, where you basically redo your entire flight test every two years. The last time I renewed my Grade One Liscence in Australia, it cost me nearly $2,000.00, and took me all day. Expensive if you’re making your living as a Flight Instructor, pointless expense if you’re not. And since I hate pointless expenses, and since I was making a living flying a floatplane at that point, I didn’t renew. And most Instructors wouldn’t once they were no longer instructing full time. So now instead of a potential student flying with me and gaining the benefit of my 4,000 hours of dual given and over 7,000 hours of GA flying experience, they are flying with a Grade 3 with 250 hours total time. Where is the safety benefit?
>
> Best regards,
>
> SHAWN KELLY
> Director – Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia
And from the CC HR: post #86
Quote:A little more of AOPA logic from Shawn Kelly (director). A 'change' in culture has been a long wished for item. Probably from both sides; however, (IMO) until the threat of a liability matter, being raised against CASA is removed, it seems to me CASA is hidebound: locked within the toils of their own legal knitting. It is terms like 'CASA must be satisfied' which create the second edge to the knife. If the approval legislation was 'un-ravelled' to a simple USA style system where if you have (A), (B), ©, and (D) you're good to go pay the fee and get on with it, CASA would benefit. But because of the legalese, mumbo-jumbo and arse covering built into the rules, an approval becomes a legal minefield. That said - Shawn makes a valuable, reasoned comparison analysis, which heralds the way forward for the AOPA efforts to make life just a little better for the aviation community.
Quote: Wrote:> Subject: Re: Another example of CASA regulation making things VERY difficult.
>
> It might have, but I’m a bit skeptical. Keep in mind that CASA proactively and aggressively pursued this. I think that the bigger problem is that the overall mindset is that they are a police agency and we are a bunch of shady characters that are always trying to get away with something.
>
> Unless we can somehow change the culture at CASA, I don’t see much improvement, and I think that that is a very big project. No impossible, but certainly a big project.
>
> I AM, however, convinced that a change of the basic underlying regulations to the American system would yield very positive results. If we were allowed to do anything that wasn’t prohibited I think that it would change the power dynamic. Even though it seems like a simple difference in semantics, it I think that there is a a very real, if subtle, difference in the perception of power. The individual is the one with the rights, and those rights cannot be usurped unless there is a specific rule that allows them to be. Plus, it allows for more flexibility and less cost.
>
> Ben told me something the other day that’s an incredibly powerful argument in favour of the American system. There are as many GA aircraft movements in Southern California in one day as there are in Australia in a year.
>
> Think about that!
>
> Having flown quite a bit in Southern California, I can believe it. And most of that flying is taking place in the smog in the Los Angeles Basin. Going into the sun, visibility is very limited. Most of the time you are flying over densely populated city with few if any acceptable emergency landing spots. And yet, they have a safety record equal to or better than ours.
>
> Adopting that system would involve trusting individuals to be competent and to do the right thing. It would involve a lot of people in CASA giving up a lot of power. And would probably result in a reduced number of bureaucrats. I think that makes it a bit of an uphill battle.
Quote:OVER-REGULATED? Initial Aircraft Registration Application
There has been much discussion over the past year about over-regulation of Australia’s aviation industry, with plenty of debate on both sides of the argument. However, how does over-regulation impact the average aircraft owner or pilot?
Let’s take a quick look at an Initial Aircraft Registration Application, purely comparing the application form to assess simplicity and efficiency;
In the United States, an Initial Aircraft Registration Application is a three (3) page form;
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/AC8050-1.pdf
In Canada, an Initial Aircraft Registration Application is a two (2) page form;
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/…/forms-form…/download/26-0522_BO_PD
In the United Kingdom an Initial Aircraft Registration Application is a four (4) page form;
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA1Issue08_Enabled.pdf
In Australia an Initial Aircraft Registration Application is a seventeen page form;
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/136066/download?token=dwOjPdS_
The clear winners in this comparison are Canada, requiring just two (2) pages and the United States, requiring three (3).
Australia on the other hand struggles in with an uncontested last place, with a hefty seventeen (17) page form!
Over-regulated? Leave your comments below.
NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership
Quote:One more sleep: wake up in Wagga.
- Posted by Sarcs
- • Leave a comment
- • ASA, ATSB, Aunty Pru - First solo, CASA, Minister for Transport, Senate Estimates - Unplugged, Whimsy and Waffle
- • Edit
One more sleep: wake up in Wagga.– AP Forum version. Wagga set to host aviation leaders from around the nation | The … The Daily Advertiser Wagga to host the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia’s aviation summit next week When you awake on the morning of a hunt, you have choices. You may […]
Continue ReadingOne more sleep: wake up in Wagga.
Wagga set to host aviation leaders from around the nation | The ...
The Daily Advertiser
Wagga to host the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia's aviation summit next week
When you awake on the morning of a hunt, you have choices. You may go along for the sheer thrill of hearing the hounds give voice, the surge of the animal you ride as it flies toward a thicket hedge and the adrenalin rush as you clear the thorns, to arrive back, dirty, tired and happy as the proverbial pig. Or, you may elect to adopt a more pedestrian role; amble along at the back, happy to ‘hack’ around and spend the day ‘a-chatting’. Lots of options, you can even stay home and watch MKR repeat episodes – up to you. However, if you turn out, then which ever way you decide to spend the day, you are involved. I’ve never been certain which came first – hunting or racing horses: you certainly ‘race’ when hunting; and you are effectively ‘hunting’ a prize when racing; no matter. The prize at Wagga is political understanding of the deep problems Australian aviation faces; the basic, fundamental, deeply entrenched, bitterly disputed, never ending or ever going away, AUD400,000,000 dollars worth and three decades old ‘troubles’. Racing or hunting, both demand courage, cunning, stamina, intelligence and ability - from both beast and man. The prize is elusive, the hunted a cunning dangerous creature. But as TOM say’s –Want a rabbit pie? – first you must catch your rabbit.
Quote:Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the Bureau of Meteorology is centralising Tasmanian forecasting on the mainland. One project, well advanced, bases aviation forecasting in Melbourne and Brisbane, but emergency services, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, tourism companies and smaller aircraft operators haven't been properly consulted, nor has it been on the agenda of the regular RAPAC meetings between industry and government. Another project to base other forecasting on the mainland is equally irrational—a hit to jobs and puts lives at risk, especially in remote areas and during emergencies. Prime Minister, will you reverse this madness? We've already lost our airport Federal Police. Will you be the PM to accept that Tasmania is a state of the Commonwealth and should be treated equally?
Quote:Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:16): I thank the member for his question. That is exactly what I believe. I can assure the member for Denison that there will be no loss of positions at the Bureau of Meteorology in Tasmania. That's a position that has already been made public to date, and I'm happy to restate that here today. I'm also happy to advise the member that the Bureau of Meteorology has recently been the beneficiary, as it rightly should, of the government's investment to reinvest in its technology platforms, which were in desperate need of investment to ensure that our farmers and others can have the best of all possible weather information. This information and how it's relayed to them, using new technology, is critical for modern farming practices. It is working its way into it the way financial models and financing techniques are used to support agriculture all around the country. The work that continues to be done in Tasmania, and additional work that will go to Tasmania to focus more specifically on the skills and needs that are there, will continue to follow.
In the budget we made an investment in not only the Bureau of Meteorology but also a whole range of important research infrastructure in Australia, such as in supercomputers, the Australian Phenomics Network, the Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering, the Australia Telescope National Facility, the National Imaging Facility and the Population Health Research Network.
Ms Collins interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I'm asked, 'Wasn't that a decision of the Turnbull government?' Yes, it was. You may have noticed that I was the Treasurer and delivered the budget and was integrally involved in this.
Ms Collins interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: You make a good point. I'm happy to take the interjection as Prime Minister in this government. I stood with the member for Warringah when we stopped the boats and I stood with the former member for Wentworth, the then Prime Minister, as we balanced the budget, and now my team stands with me.
https://twitter.com/aopaaustralia/status...6524092416
Quote:LETTER TO THE RAAUS SPORTPILOT EDITOR
Mr Mark Smith,
Editor, RAAus SportPilot
16th September 2018
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a letter, seeking feedback. Our 3,600 AOPA Australia members and every GA RPL and PPL holder would like to know;
1. Why did the RAAus Chairman and CEO respond to the CASA Medical Certification Discussion paper public consultation in December 2016, calling on CASA to deny all GA RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private drivers license medical?
2. Why did the RAAus Chairman and CEO vote on the 22nd November 2017 at the CASA ASAP meeting, against self-certification private drivers licence medical for general aviation RPL and PPL holders, endorsing CASA’s proposal to deny GA private pilots essential medical certification reform?
3. Given that the RAAus Chairman and CEO loudly proclaim that they represent 10,000 members;
a) Prior to submitting the RAAus response paper in December 2016 that called for CASA to deny GA RPL and PPL holders a self-certification private driver licence medical did the RAAus survey its members on self-certification private drivers licence medical reform, seeking their consensus on the issue?
b) Did the RAAus Board of Directors approve the RAAus discussion paper response?
4. In view of recent editorials published by the RAAus Chairman and CEO in Australian Flying magazine, do they believe that their actions to deny the GA RPL and PPL pilot community of meaningful medical reform are a demonstration of the RAAus supporting the general aviation community?
5. Given that the RAAus Chairman and CEO have now communicated to CASA that RPL and PPL pilots operating aircraft between 600 and 5400kgs should not be allowed to fly on a self-certified private drivers licence medical, doesn’t this now send a message that aircraft between 600 and 1500kgs can’t be flown on a self-certified private drivers licence medical, entirely undermining the push for RAAus 1,500kg expansion?
6. Assuming that the RAAus Chairman and CEO did not consult with their 10,000 members, and given that they have actively campaigned to undermine the national private pilot community, seeking to clearly disadvantage RPL and PPL pilots so as to force pilots into a system where a private company owns your pilots licence, aircraft registration and your freedom to fly, should the RAAus continue to be allowed to influence industry consultation panels? Do these actions constitute a gross conflict of interest and an abuse of the industry consultation processes?
I thank you again and look forward to the RAAus response.
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director - AOPA Australia
Email: ben.morgan@aopa.com.au
(09-16-2018, 12:28 PM)Cap\n Wannabe Wrote: Letter from Ben Morgan to the editor or the RAAus magazine "Sport Pilot":
Quote:LETTER TO THE RAAUS SPORTPILOT EDITOR
Mr Mark Smith,
Editor, RAAus SportPilot
16th September 2018
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a letter, seeking feedback. Our 3,600 AOPA Australia members and every GA RPL and PPL holder would like to know;
1. Why did the RAAus Chairman and CEO respond to the CASA Medical Certification Discussion paper public consultation in December 2016, calling on CASA to deny all GA RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private drivers license medical?
2. Why did the RAAus Chairman and CEO vote on the 22nd November 2017 at the CASA ASAP meeting, against self-certification private drivers licence medical for general aviation RPL and PPL holders, endorsing CASA’s proposal to deny GA private pilots essential medical certification reform?
3. Given that the RAAus Chairman and CEO loudly proclaim that they represent 10,000 members;
a) Prior to submitting the RAAus response paper in December 2016 that called for CASA to deny GA RPL and PPL holders a self-certification private driver licence medical did the RAAus survey its members on self-certification private drivers licence medical reform, seeking their consensus on the issue?
b) Did the RAAus Board of Directors approve the RAAus discussion paper response?
4. In view of recent editorials published by the RAAus Chairman and CEO in Australian Flying magazine, do they believe that their actions to deny the GA RPL and PPL pilot community of meaningful medical reform are a demonstration of the RAAus supporting the general aviation community?
5. Given that the RAAus Chairman and CEO have now communicated to CASA that RPL and PPL pilots operating aircraft between 600 and 5400kgs should not be allowed to fly on a self-certified private drivers licence medical, doesn’t this now send a message that aircraft between 600 and 1500kgs can’t be flown on a self-certified private drivers licence medical, entirely undermining the push for RAAus 1,500kg expansion?
6. Assuming that the RAAus Chairman and CEO did not consult with their 10,000 members, and given that they have actively campaigned to undermine the national private pilot community, seeking to clearly disadvantage RPL and PPL pilots so as to force pilots into a system where a private company owns your pilots licence, aircraft registration and your freedom to fly, should the RAAus continue to be allowed to influence industry consultation panels? Do these actions constitute a gross conflict of interest and an abuse of the industry consultation processes?
I thank you again and look forward to the RAAus response.
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director - AOPA Australia
Email: ben.morgan@aopa.com.au
:Quote:Mr Hitchen’s description of this issue as a spat seems to trivialise what is the most important issue to many GA pilots.
The inner workings of TAAAF and ASAP have been an eye opener for me. I am stunned to see who represents the industry on these forums. My one visit to TAAAF confirmed it is a forum where only issues that every member association can agree on are taken forward. This all but ensures that issues such as medical reform cannot be represented at that level. Ben Morgan’s assertion that TAAAF does not adequately represent GA is 100% correct in my opinion. Who are the members of TAAAF? Well the website is certainly not accurate. It appears to me that the bulk of logos are used to provide credibility to the real power base.
Ironically 3/8 ASAP members are also members of TAAF. So one might conclude the allows them to put issues they do not agree with “out to pasture” at TAAAF and then drive the nail in at ASAP. Others are told they cannot sit on ASAP, but instead be represented by TAAAF? How is it that RAAA and RAAus sit on the panel but GFA, APF, Warbirds, AAUS (Drones) do not? Drones are the biggest emerging market in aviation. Where is the representation of small Charter operators who are about to be wiped out by excessive regulation?
Aviation is full of contradictions. Ask CASA and they will tell some participants that you can’t fly in controlled airspace without a Class 2 medical. That is of course rubbish, as GFA have been flying gliders in GAAP and Class D airspace for many years without an aviation medical.
CASA have not provided anything to demonstrate they have taken a risk based approach and on what basis they have discounted the safety data of UK and USA. It’s not even clear if the panel was given the details of the UNRESTRICTED requirement for the AUSTROADS Commercial standard, which now means a private pilot must meet a medical standard far in excess of that required to drive a 40 seat commercial coach. CASA have yet again implemented a heavily restricted medical for healthy pilots, Class 2 Basic is perhaps worse than the failed RAMPc. Unhealthy pilots must still submit to a Class 2. CASA have done absolutely everything they can do to avoid actually changing the Class 2 medical standard, so very few people will get any relief.
This issue and the way it has been consulted upon is ugly, and the Australian Aviation community would be appalled with what appears to have taken place here. Thousands of pilots signed the petition for medical reform. There has been no meaningful consultation with any of them or, AOPA and SAAA who represent the majority of them. In fact CASA declined to register their 1700+ letters in the public consultation that they did conduct. None of the members of the ASAP panel appear to have done any consultation with their members at all!
It is now 2018. With social media and the Internet is would be possible for CASA or the minister to poll every pilot in the country in 24 hours. AOPA’s own polling on Facebook indicates well over 80% of pilots support self-certification medicals in line with UK and USA. So who are these faceless people who claim to represent the interests of the industry, but do not?
CASA needs to get back to implementing a single standard for same operations, based on the risk and level of informed consent of the participants, rather than designing a market and playing the participants off against each other.
I hope the parties can do better!
Quote:P2 - This is not my indaba (as a member of RAAus Wannabe may care to respond), however it is my understanding that none of the rank & file RAAus members were informed that the CEO and Chair of the Board would be putting forward that CASA deny all GA RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private drivers license medical.
Quote:AOPA AUSTRALIA MEETS WITH SENATOR GLENN STERLE
The AOPA Australia Vice President, Richard Talbot, and Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, has today met with Senator Glenn Sterle to discuss CASA’s failure to deliver fair and unbiased private pilot medical standards.
Under CASA’s new basic class 2 medical system private pilots are being forced to demonstrate a higher medical fitness than commercial truck drivers operating heavy B-double vehicles on Australian highways transporting dangerous goods!
CASA has imposed unfair differential safety standards that purposefully seek to deny RPL and PPL holders of a self certification private drivers licence medical standard. Yet at the same time CASA have provided a private business (RAAus) and its pilots these rights!
Quite simply it is either safe or unsafe for a private pilot to operate an aircraft in Australia on a Self certification private licence medical standard - CASA must end the double standards!
CASA should not be abusing its position and power in forcing unfair and biased aviation safety standards that seek to intentionally disadvantage RPL and PPL pilots, so as to force them into a private self administration business (RAAus) where they are exposed to fees and charges that do not exist within the CASA system!
Importantly, it appears that CASA’s decision to deny all general aviation RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private drivers licence ??????? was made following calls from the RAAus self-administration for CASA to provide their business with a ‘competitive advantage’ threatening to hand back to the regulator the administration and management of the recreational pilot community should it adopt the same reforms as the USA and UK.
As a result of this egregious denial of pilots rights, CASA regulated RPL and PPL holders are forced to become customers of a private business (RAAus) that owns your medical, your licence and your aircraft registration! Pilots are forced to pay fees and charges that are unregulated and are subjected to oversight and disciplinary processes that are at the discretion of the private business and the personalities that run it. And, to prevent you from electing to stay within the government regulated general aviation industry, CASA have denied pilots the right to choose by refusing to provide an equal and unbiased self-certification private drivers licence ??????? standard.
It certainly appears that CASA has been influenced into protecting the private business interests of the RAAus, rather than protecting the safety concerns of the greater general aviation community.
Are we now seeing the wholesale corruption of our national aviation safety regulator? Why is CASA creating safety standards that disadvantage RPL and PPL holders, whilst deregulating the rules for a private business?
Does any of this pass the pub test?
The Deputy Prime Minister must now step up and end this abuse of power and demand that Australian private pilots be regulated equally and fairly.
Quote:LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Questions for the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited
Sunday, 16th September 2018
Mr Mark Smith
Editor – RAAUS SportPilot Magazine
PO BOX 1265
Fyshwick ACT 2609, Australia
Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia
Dear Mr Mark Smith,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a letter to the editor, seeking the feedback of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS), enabling the industry to help ‘set the agenda’.
AOPA Australia’s 3,600 members and every GA RPL and PPL holder would like to know;
1. Why did the RAAus Chairman/CEO respond to CASA’s Medical Certification Discussion Paper, pressuring CASA to deny all GA RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private driver licence medical standard?
Important excerpts from the RAAUS Medical Certification Discussion Paper Response;
a. Page 4 – 4. Aim of the submission: The aim of this submission is to outline any direct, adverse or unintended consequences that changes to the medical certification regime might have on RAAus…
b. Page 4 – 5. Key concerns generally: Concern 3: Possible negative economic effects that RAAus may experience by any reduction in the current RAMPC regime.
c. Page 8 – Q7. What are the likely cost implications of any changes: … Direct cost to RAAus – potentially significant loss of revenue specifically if the RAMPC medical requirements are reduced. This could mean that the Recreational Pilots Licence (RPL) requirements will have a direct advantage over the RAAus Pilot Certificate with the possibility that members will leave RAAus to access CTA and MTOW, as has happened since CASA introduced the RPL. RAAus maintains its position that the RPL was an unnecessary introduction…. This could result in a dramatic effect on the financial position of RAAus, which is a significant risk to the regulator should RAAus become unviable. IF this did occur CASA would be left to manage some 10,000 pilots and 3,200 aircraft; it is questionable whether CASA has the capacity to undertake this responsibility. So, any changes to medical standards must be made in light of ensuring RAAus remains a viable and safe alternative.
d. Page 12 – 12. Summary …. RAAus believes its track record of over 30 years with self-certification of pilot medical status demonstrates self-certification could have positive impacts on the General Aviation sector (through reduced red tape and compliance costs) without compromising safety… However RAAus also is apprehensive of the potential impact CASA offering its pilots the same medical requirements as RAAus (a key point of differentiation in the market at present) could have on the ongoing capacity of RAAus to perform the functions it currently performs on behalf of the regulator… Adoption of a self-certification model by CASA would put CASA in direct competition with RAAus and create the untenable situation of RAAus having to compete with the body that controls its very existence – a conflict of interest for CASA that could have significant adverse consequences.
2. Why did the RAAus Chairman/CEO vote on the 22nd November 2017 at the CASA Aviation Safety Advisory Panel meeting, against a self-certification private drivers licence medical for GA RPL and PPL holders, endorsing CASA’s proposal to deny all GA private pilots of important and essential medical certification reform?
a. Attached is the 22nd November 2017 CASA Agenda Item 5.1 obtained under freedom of information;
b. Attached is the Minutes of the 22nd November 2017 CASA ASAP Meeting;
c. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: The panel members that voted to deny GA RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private drivers licence medical were;
i. Mr Jim Davis, Chairman of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and member of the TAAAF;
ii. Mr Michael Monck, Chairman of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited and member of the TAAAF;
iii. Mr Greg Russell, Chairman of the TAAAF
iv. Mr John Gissing, Group Executive QANTAS
v. Mr Rob Sharp, Group Executive Virgin Australia
vi. Ms Caroline Wilke, CEO Australian Airports Association
vii. Mr Graeme Crawford, Group Manager, Aviation Group CASA
viii. Mr Rob Walker, Group Manager, Stakeholder Engagement Group CASA
3. Given that the RAAus Chairman/CEO proudly proclaim that they represent the views and interests of 10,000 members;
a. Prior to submitting the RAAus Medical Certification Discussion Paper Response that clearly pressured CASA to deny all GA RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private driver licence medical, did the RAAus undertake a survey of its members seeking their input, feedback or consensus on this important issue?
b. Did the RAAus Board of Directors approve and/or sign-off on the discussion paper response that pressured CASA to deny all GA RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification drivers licence medical?
c. Given that there are thousands of RAAus members who would like to exercise their GA RPL and PPL licences, how should these members view the actions of the RAAus Chairman/CEO to deny this essential reform? Should they as members not feel utterly betrayed and totally taken advantage of by their Chairman/CEO?
4. In view of recent editorials published by the RAAus Chairman/CEO in Australian Flying magazine, which claim that the RAAus is the victim of unfair attacks by GA industry associations and that the RAAus is in fact the future for GA in Australia;
a. Why should the GA community support the RAAus, when they are so actively seeking to remove the GA community’s freedom to fly, seeking to force pilots into a private business to continue enjoying aviation in this country?
b. Why does the RAAus believe that the only future for GA is one that involves our community paying fees and charges to RAAus?
c. Why does the RAAus stand opposed to the GA industry achieving reforms that would enable pilots to fly free of unnecessary cost and restrictions?
5. Given that the RAAus Chairman/CEO have now communicated to CASA that GA RPL and PPL pilots operating aircraft between 600 and 5400kgs should not be allowed to fly on a self-certified private drivers licence medical, does this now send a clear message to CASA that aircraft between 600 and 1500kgs MTOW can’t be flown on a self-certified private drivers licence medical, entirely undermining the RAAus push for a weight limit increase?
5. Assuming that the RAAus Chairman/CEO did not consult with their 10,000 members, and with clear evidence that they have actively campaigned to undermine the Australian GA RPL and PPL private pilot community, with the sole intention of forcing pilots into the RAAus system (where a private company owns your pilots licence, your aircraft registration and ultimately your freedom to fly) should the RAAus continue to be allowed to influence industry consultation panels or should it be removed to avoid further conflicts of interest?
6. Finally, a question for you directly Mark. Given your past personal involvement with the AOPA Australia as our Editor and as a vocal industry spokesperson for the need for self-certification private drivers licence medicals for GA RPL and PPL holders, how do you view the actions of the RAAus to deny the GA community of this essential reform, given that it has denied you an opportunity to continue flying in GA?
I thank you again for the opportunity and I look forward to a detailed RAAus response soon.
Yours Sincerely,
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director - AOPA Australia
DOCUMENT DOWNLOADS
AOPA Australia Letter to the Editor
FOI CASA Agenda 5.1
ASAP 22NOV Minutes
:Quote:AOPA’s misery over medicals
ROBYN IRONSIDE
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is lobbying for further changes to medical tests for general aviation pilots.
CASA accused of double standards over pilot medical tests
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is lobbying the federal government for further changes to medical tests for general aviation pilots, despite the simplification of requirements in July.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority introduced a basic Class 2 category to allow general aviation pilots to renew their medical certificate for as little as $10 based on an assessment by their GP.
But AOPA executive director Benjamin Morgan said it was not fair that CASA allowed members of the privately run Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) to be self-certified.
He said the same privilege should be afforded to general aviation pilots overseen by CASA.
“Quite simply it is either safe or unsafe for a private pilot to operate an aircraft in Australia on a self-certification private licence medical standard,” Mr Morgan said.
“CASA must end the double standards.”
He said there was something “smelly” about CASA’s willingness to allow a private company to abide by a different set of standards to the rest of the aviation industry.
“It’s a private company that’s being looked after by the regulator,” said Mr Morgan, who met with Liberal, Labor and crossbench senators in Canberra this week to discuss the issue.
RAAus chairman Michael Monck said it was ridiculous to suggest the organisation was getting special treatment.
“I don’t think there are double standards. There’s just a different approach to different activities,” Mr Monck said. “Our members are limited to aircraft under 600kg, we’re limited to flying during daylight hours, we can’t fly at night or in cloud, and the flight can’t involve any sort of commercial arrangement.”
A CASA spokesman said the authority had carefully assessed the safety issues and risks in determining the various classes of aviation medical certificates, taking into account things like other airspace users, aircraft passengers and people and property on the ground.
“CASA considers self medical certification to be appropriate for recreational pilots operating in small aircraft with one passenger, and outside controlled airspace under licences issued by Recreational Aviation Australia,” the spokesman said. “CASA considers medical certification based on an assessment by a medical professional to be appropriate for pilots flying in all classes of airspace, including controlled airspace under a CASA issued licence.”
He said since July, more than 200 general aviation pilots had applied for a basic Class 2 category of medical certification.
Meanwhile, CASA will explore ways to make it cheaper and easier for aircraft flying under visual flight rules to voluntarily use automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) technology.
The technology automatically broadcasts the precise location and altitude of the aircraft and is compulsory on instrument-flight rules aircraft.
CASA chief executive Shane Carmody said so far uptake in the visual flight rules community had been low despite there being strong support for voluntary adoption.
As a result, CASA was proposing to relax the equipment and installation standards for ADS-B fitment in visual flight rules aircraft.
Quote:
AOPA calls for Medicals Risk Assessment
21 September 2018
AOPA Australia today called upon CASA CEO Shane Carmody to release a risk assessment that showed it was safe for holders of Recreational Pilot Certificates to fly on self-certified medicals but not for holders of Recreational Pilot Licences or Private Pilot Licences.
RPCs are issued by Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) for two-seat aircraft up to 600 kg MTOW, whereas the RPL and PPL are issued by CASA for VH-registered aircraft.
"If CASA considers it safe for a private ‘recreational’ pilot to operate in small aircraft with one passenger outside of controlled airspace, then why has CASA denied all government regulated RPL and PPL holders of this risk-appropriate permission?", AOPA CEO Ben Morgan asked in the letter.
"Why has CASA implemented aviation medical safety standards that serve to force RPL and PPL holders into a private business (the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited) that exposes them to unregulated monopoly fees and charges? Why are Australia’s aviation safety regulations being used to benefit one specific private business, whilst denying all CASA RPL and PPL holders of their rights?"
In July this year, CASA introduced the medical reforms that created the Basic Class 2 medical, which enabled PPLs to have medicals done by general practitioners to an Austroads standard, rather than by a DAME to a CASA standard. At the time, AOPA described the reforms as a "thundering success" to the general aviation industry, but of late has become concerned that the desires of the PPL population of Australia was not properly represented when the reforms were considered.
During an AOPA internet podcast last night, Morgan accused Carmody of obscuring the truth about why self-certifying medicals have been denied to CASA-regulated pilots.
"The real villain in this is in fact CASA," Morgan said. "The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been very dishonest, and I'm going to call it out. Shane Carmody ... you've been incredibly dishonest with the people of this country. You need to come clean now and own-up, and put it on the table.
"What are you are doing to Australia's general aviation industry? Are you supporting our industry, or are you selling us out? I think the community are owed some honesty and transparency in what's going on, if in fact it's your intention to privatise our aviation sectors, then come out, come clean and let everyone know.
"But if it's not, then answer the question: why have you denied CASA-regulated RPL and PPLs access to private driver's licence medicals, whilst at the same time you're allowing the glider community and RAAus to do it? Something has to be answered here."
CASA has declined to address Morgan's accusations of dishonesty, but issued the following statement to Australian Flying.
"CASA considers self medical certification to be appropriate for recreational pilots operating in small aircraft (weighing no more than 600kg) with one passenger and outside controlled airspace under licences issued by Recreational Aviation Australia.
"CASA considers medical certification based on an assessment by a medical professional to be appropriate for pilots flying in all classes of airspace, including controlled airspace, under a CASA issued licence."
There has been no indication of whether or not CASA intends to release the risk assessment.
Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...qyjppC3.99
Quote:NATIONS UNITE TO MODIFY MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS
IAOPA ADVOCATES AT ICAO HEADQUARTERS
October 1, 2018 By Amelia Walsh
Thirty-six nations around the globe have already moved forward and abandoned costly and burdensome bureaucratic red-tape requirements associated with outdated medical certification processes for general aviation pilots. In a Sept. 24 meeting at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) headquarters in Montreal, leaders representing the International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA) urged officials to keep pace with these changes as they review and update their standards for GA pilots.
ICAO Ambassador Thomas Carter greeted the IAOPA delegation, which included Mark Baker, president of both IAOPA and AOPA-US, IAOPA Secretary General Craig Spence, IAOPA General Counsel Ken Mead, AOPA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Advocacy Jim Coon, and IAOPA’s ICAO representative Frank Hofmann. The nonprofit aviation membership group represents nearly 400,000 pilots in 79 countries.
Many countries have successfully developed and implemented new medical processes and rules. Just last year, BasicMed was introduced in the United States, and now more than 40,000 pilots are flying under the medical program. The United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries also have implemented changes aimed at reducing red tape for GA pilots.
IAOPA’s meeting with ICAO comes just weeks ahead of the Thirteenth Air Navigation Conference in Montreal, where industry stakeholders are set to discuss the implementation of global strategies for safety, air navigation planning, and development. IAOPA will be presenting at the upcoming conference to encourage ICAO to review existing protocols and develop common universal medical guidelines for GA pilots. This work is being done in furtherance of IAOPA Resolution 29/6, Harmonized International Civil Aviation Medical Standards, which was adopted unanimously at the twenty-ninth World Assembly hosted by AOPA New Zealand.
Tens of thousands of pilots are flying aircraft, including twins such as this Hawker Beechcraft Baron G58, under BasicMed. AOPA file photo by Mike Fizer.
The aviation industry is also facing a shortage of skilled professionals—a problem that ICAO is working to address through its Next Generation of Aviation Professionals initiative. Similarly, AOPA is doing its part to encourage youth to get involved in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)-related fields and help grow the pilot population through its You Can Fly program.
During the visit to ICAO headquarters, Baker also discussed the many ways in which AOPA’s You Can Fly program can be used as a resource for nations around the world. The program works to inspire people to fly and keep them flying by reducing costs and regulatory hurdles, increasing access, and improving value.
Often, that starts in schools. Part of the You Can Fly program is the high school STEM curriculum, which encourages students to pursue careers in aviation. So far, it has proven a huge success as approximately 2,000 students in 81 schools are using AOPA’s ninth-grade curriculum.
You Can Fly also aims to get pilots involved in flying clubs to make aviation more affordable and to get a sense of camaraderie and support. This year, the program helped start 28 new clubs, for a total of 93 flying clubs started in recent years.
Additionally, IAOPA leaders spoke to ICAO officials about the countless aviation safety resources offered through the AOPA Air Safety Institute, including podcasts, seminars, web courses, and case studies. The Air Safety Institute's safety materials can be shared among other nations to make all GA pilots safer pilots and continue to decrease the accident rate. This year alone, these materials will be accessed more than 4 million times.
The You Can Fly program and the Air Safety Institute are entirely funded by charitable donations to the AOPA Foundation, a 501©(3) organization.
Amelia Walsh
Communications Coordinator
AOPA Communications Coordinator Amelia Walsh joined AOPA in 2017. Named after the famous aviatrix, she comes from a family of pilots and is currently working on her pilot certificate.
(11-01-2018, 09:40 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Real world vs Fort Fumble fantasy land: cont/-
http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-177...ml#pid9500
Some additional commentary off AOPA Oz FB page...
Quote:Steve Fenech More of CASA's self perpetuating bullshit!.. Line your friends up, survey them (special medical arrangements for RAAus for example), and reward them for saying nice things about you. Seems like a perfectly biased survey to me but then what did we really expect from that lot of navel gazing wankers. About the only thing that has improved in the GA world is the size of the screw up CASA are creating and fostering with their protected mates!
Jeremy Watson I don't remember receiving a survey. If there had been I would have let loose.
Ric Wilson Federal Royal Commission urgently needed into the Australian Aviation situation - All aspects.
Rob Lawrie Sounds a bit like the smoke they were blowing up themselves a few months ago about another self reported audit on their performance, interestingly North Korea managed to provide a presumably equally accurate and totally honest self report and achieved the same score as CASA for Organisation and Legislation mmmmm...... They really do think we’re that stupid.
Quote:
Quote:...Is the CASA Satisfaction Survey Report really worth fighting over? Is any poll really worth fighting over? We have issues with CASR Part 61, Part 66, Part 135, Part 141 and just about ever other CASR reformed in the last 10 years. These things threaten our industry's viability and this is where I believe we should be putting our energy. AOPA has latched on to the results of the Colmar Brunton survey as being an indicator of CASA trying to hide the truth for political reasons. They believe the people surveyed were selected to ensure a positive result, and therefore the results aren't valid when compared to the 2015 results. The issue I have is that you could argue that with just about any poll or survey ... even the 2021 survey that is still to come. CASA's response, naturally, is to deny any attempt to skew the results. Pursuing this argument is going to take a lot of breath and in the meantime Rome continues to burn. There is no chance of the poll being revoked or repeated; it is what it is. We're better off judging CASA by what impact they are having on our lives than on those eternal damned liars: statistics. AOPA has said that they're ready to launch their own poll, which they believe will be a more accurate measure of CASAs performance. However, it is widely recognised that happy people tend not to tell you what they think and unhappy people never hold back. If that is true, how will the AOPA poll hold more validity than the Colmar Brunton survey?...
Quote:AOPA Australia calls for the suspension of 8th November Melbourne VFR route rules
Thursday, 1st November 2018
Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia
Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Mr Rob Walker
Group Manager Stakeholder Engagement
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Deputy Prime Minister,
Further to the announcement by Airservices Australia of their planned 8th November 2018 changes to the Melbourne VFR route for general aviation aircraft.
Under the new Melbourne VFR route rules, aircraft will be recommended to fly at the same level in the opposite direction to aircraft operating under current VFR recommendations nationwide. This not only creates confusion but also substantially increases the risk of a mid-air collision which may result in fatalities.
AOPA Australia’s concerns with the Melbourne VFR route rules are;
1. From the 8th November pilots transiting the Melbourne VFR route will be recommended to fly at the same level in the opposite direction to aircraft operating under current VFR recommendations nationwide;
2. The changes will create unnecessary airspace confusion, which may result in aircraft inadvertently flying at the same level in opposite directions;
3. The changes dramatically increase the risk of a mid-air collision by creating an environment where aircraft following the current VFR recommendations will be in direct conflict with aircraft operating by the new Melbourne VFR route rules;
RECOMMENDATION
The AOPA Australia calls for the immediate suspension of the planned 8th November 2018 changes to the Melbourne VFR route rules, seeking a review with particular reference to the recommended direction of air traffic.
Thank you for your time and our association awaits your reply.
Yours Sincerely,
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.
General aviation maintenance regulation reforms ready for public consultation, yet CASA management have placed them on hold.
Wednesday, 31st October 2018
Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia
Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Mr Rob Walker
Group Manager Stakeholder Engagement
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Deputy Prime Minister,
Further to your announcement in July 2018 at the General Aviation Summit in Wagga Wagga of important reforms to Australia’s general aviation maintenance regulations.
This week, the AOPA Australia has learned that the general aviation maintenance regulation reform package is now ready for advancement to public consultation, but CASA management have now placed them on hold.
These new regulations are essential for our industry and we call on you to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays.
Thank you for your time and our association awaits your reply.
Yours Sincerely,
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.
Quote:YOU’RE ALL INVITED! ALL AVIATORS UNDER ONE SKY - AUSFLY 2019 - 17TH TO 20TH OCT!
Following the successful relaunch of AUSFLY based at Narromine Airport this past October, the event partners are pleased to announce our 2019 event dates!
Thursday 17th to Sunday 20th October 2019
AUSFLY 2019 will be an extra special event, forming part of our year long AOPA Australia 70th Anniversary celebrations - 70 years of advocating for Australian general aviation!
- Workshops & Seminars
- Aircraft Displays and Showcase Competitions
- Trade Exhibitions and Manufacturers
- AUSFLY 2019 Major Raffle Prize
- Gala Dinner and Industry Awards
- Airshow and Flying Displays
- OzSTOL Campsite and BBQ Pitmasters
- Narromine Aero Club Bistro & Bar
- Narromine Glider Club Canteen
- Friends, laughs and beers
The annual AUSFLY general aviation industry fly-in and camp-out is an aviation community partnership initative sponsored by;
- Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
- Sport Aircraft Association of Australia
- Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association
- Gliding Federation of Australia
- OzSTOL
- Narromine Shire Council
- Narromine Aero Club
- Narromine Gliding Club
- Australian General Aviation Alliance
Come be part of all the fun, celebrating what we all love about aviation! There are no fees or charges for exhibitors, visitors or supporters!
Balloons, Parachutes, Hang Gliders, Ultralights, Gyros, Light Sport, Experimental, Certified, Ex-Military or Vintage - AUSFLY is for ‘all aviators under one sky!’
Quote:AOPA AUSTRALIA ENROUTE TO THE WALCHA AIRSHOW
Your AOPA Australia team are back out on the road this evening - destination Walcha NSW! The Walcha Aero Club are hosting a fantastic airshow this Saturday 3rd November, featuring the AOPA Australia Freedom to Fly display team, our Junior Pilot flight simulators, RAAF Hercules, the SAAA Stooges RV formation team and more!
If you’re looking for somewhere to fly this weekend, fuel up those tanks and make your way to Walcha!
EARLY MORNING ARRIVALS TO THE WALCHA AIRSHOW, SAT 3RD NOV
Early morning aircraft arrivals at the Walcha Aero Club airshow today! Shaping up to be a great event!
The big Russian Yak18T making her way down to the airshow aircraft parking! Who doesn’t love the sound of big and round!
(11-03-2018, 10:16 AM)Peetwo Wrote: A bit of AOPA Oz goss - Part II
(11-01-2018, 09:40 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Real world vs Fort Fumble fantasy land: cont/-
http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-177...ml#pid9500
Some additional commentary off AOPA Oz FB page...
Quote:Steve Fenech More of CASA's self perpetuating bullshit!.. Line your friends up, survey them (special medical arrangements for RAAus for example), and reward them for saying nice things about you. Seems like a perfectly biased survey to me but then what did we really expect from that lot of navel gazing wankers. About the only thing that has improved in the GA world is the size of the screw up CASA are creating and fostering with their protected mates!
Jeremy Watson I don't remember receiving a survey. If there had been I would have let loose.
Ric Wilson Federal Royal Commission urgently needed into the Australian Aviation situation - All aspects.
Rob Lawrie Sounds a bit like the smoke they were blowing up themselves a few months ago about another self reported audit on their performance, interestingly North Korea managed to provide a presumably equally accurate and totally honest self report and achieved the same score as CASA for Organisation and Legislation mmmmm...... They really do think we’re that stupid.
Quote:
Continuing with that BOLLOCKS CASA survey...
WTD is Hitch playing at?? - Quote from the LMH:
Quote:...Is the CASA Satisfaction Survey Report really worth fighting over? Is any poll really worth fighting over? We have issues with CASR Part 61, Part 66, Part 135, Part 141 and just about ever other CASR reformed in the last 10 years. These things threaten our industry's viability and this is where I believe we should be putting our energy. AOPA has latched on to the results of the Colmar Brunton survey as being an indicator of CASA trying to hide the truth for political reasons. They believe the people surveyed were selected to ensure a positive result, and therefore the results aren't valid when compared to the 2015 results. The issue I have is that you could argue that with just about any poll or survey ... even the 2021 survey that is still to come. CASA's response, naturally, is to deny any attempt to skew the results. Pursuing this argument is going to take a lot of breath and in the meantime Rome continues to burn. There is no chance of the poll being revoked or repeated; it is what it is. We're better off judging CASA by what impact they are having on our lives than on those eternal damned liars: statistics. AOPA has said that they're ready to launch their own poll, which they believe will be a more accurate measure of CASAs performance. However, it is widely recognised that happy people tend not to tell you what they think and unhappy people never hold back. If that is true, how will the AOPA poll hold more validity than the Colmar Brunton survey?...
Friends like Hitch who needs enemies -
Next from AOPA I see that BM hasn't wasted time firing off another salvo (or two) - for recent concerning issues involving our Big R-regulator - to our useless good for nothing miniscule :
Quote:AOPA Australia calls for the suspension of 8th November Melbourne VFR route rules
Thursday, 1st November 2018
Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia
Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Mr Rob Walker
Group Manager Stakeholder Engagement
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Deputy Prime Minister,
Further to the announcement by Airservices Australia of their planned 8th November 2018 changes to the Melbourne VFR route for general aviation aircraft.
Under the new Melbourne VFR route rules, aircraft will be recommended to fly at the same level in the opposite direction to aircraft operating under current VFR recommendations nationwide. This not only creates confusion but also substantially increases the risk of a mid-air collision which may result in fatalities.
AOPA Australia’s concerns with the Melbourne VFR route rules are;
1. From the 8th November pilots transiting the Melbourne VFR route will be recommended to fly at the same level in the opposite direction to aircraft operating under current VFR recommendations nationwide;
2. The changes will create unnecessary airspace confusion, which may result in aircraft inadvertently flying at the same level in opposite directions;
3. The changes dramatically increase the risk of a mid-air collision by creating an environment where aircraft following the current VFR recommendations will be in direct conflict with aircraft operating by the new Melbourne VFR route rules;
RECOMMENDATION
The AOPA Australia calls for the immediate suspension of the planned 8th November 2018 changes to the Melbourne VFR route rules, seeking a review with particular reference to the recommended direction of air traffic.
Thank you for your time and our association awaits your reply.
Yours Sincerely,
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.
General aviation maintenance regulation reforms ready for public consultation, yet CASA management have placed them on hold.
Wednesday, 31st October 2018
Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia
Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Mr Rob Walker
Group Manager Stakeholder Engagement
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Deputy Prime Minister,
Further to your announcement in July 2018 at the General Aviation Summit in Wagga Wagga of important reforms to Australia’s general aviation maintenance regulations.
This week, the AOPA Australia has learned that the general aviation maintenance regulation reform package is now ready for advancement to public consultation, but CASA management have now placed them on hold.
These new regulations are essential for our industry and we call on you to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays.
Thank you for your time and our association awaits your reply.
Yours Sincerely,
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.
On a lighter note I see that after a successful turnout at AUSFLY event are already planning next year's repeat...
Quote:YOU’RE ALL INVITED! ALL AVIATORS UNDER ONE SKY - AUSFLY 2019 - 17TH TO 20TH OCT!
Following the successful relaunch of AUSFLY based at Narromine Airport this past October, the event partners are pleased to announce our 2019 event dates!
Thursday 17th to Sunday 20th October 2019
AUSFLY 2019 will be an extra special event, forming part of our year long AOPA Australia 70th Anniversary celebrations - 70 years of advocating for Australian general aviation!
- Workshops & Seminars
- Aircraft Displays and Showcase Competitions
- Trade Exhibitions and Manufacturers
- AUSFLY 2019 Major Raffle Prize
- Gala Dinner and Industry Awards
- Airshow and Flying Displays
- OzSTOL Campsite and BBQ Pitmasters
- Narromine Aero Club Bistro & Bar
- Narromine Glider Club Canteen
- Friends, laughs and beers
The annual AUSFLY general aviation industry fly-in and camp-out is an aviation community partnership initative sponsored by;
- Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
- Sport Aircraft Association of Australia
- Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association
- Gliding Federation of Australia
- OzSTOL
- Narromine Shire Council
- Narromine Aero Club
- Narromine Gliding Club
- Australian General Aviation Alliance
Come be part of all the fun, celebrating what we all love about aviation! There are no fees or charges for exhibitors, visitors or supporters!
Balloons, Parachutes, Hang Gliders, Ultralights, Gyros, Light Sport, Experimental, Certified, Ex-Military or Vintage - AUSFLY is for ‘all aviators under one sky!’
...and this weekend BM and the AOPA Oz crew will be helping turn on the entertainment at the Walcha airshow:
Quote:AOPA AUSTRALIA ENROUTE TO THE WALCHA AIRSHOW
Your AOPA Australia team are back out on the road this evening - destination Walcha NSW! The Walcha Aero Club are hosting a fantastic airshow this Saturday 3rd November, featuring the AOPA Australia Freedom to Fly display team, our Junior Pilot flight simulators, RAAF Hercules, the SAAA Stooges RV formation team and more!
If you’re looking for somewhere to fly this weekend, fuel up those tanks and make your way to Walcha!
EARLY MORNING ARRIVALS TO THE WALCHA AIRSHOW, SAT 3RD NOV
Early morning aircraft arrivals at the Walcha Aero Club airshow today! Shaping up to be a great event!
The big Russian Yak18T making her way down to the airshow aircraft parking! Who doesn’t love the sound of big and round!
:Quote:Owners, pilots call for CASA satisfaction survey to be scrapped
The relationship between the general aviation community and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has hit a new low, following the release of CASA’s 2018 stakeholder satisfaction survey.
CASA chief executive Shane Carmody unveiled the results two weeks ago, showing the mean rate of satisfaction with the regulator had improved from 4.2 out of 10 in 2015, to 6.2 this year.
He said the results showed CASA’s own belief that it was improving in key areas was shared by the aviation community, although he acknowledged they could always do better.
But Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association executive director Benjamin Morgan said Mr Carmody had failed to point out this year’s survey excluded 16 key general aviation industry associations that were involved in the 2015 research.
In a letter to Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack calling on him to withdraw the report and order a new survey, Mr Morgan said the results could not be considered an accurate reflection of the aviation community’s opinion of CASA.
He said those associations that were involved were all members of the CASA Aviation Safety Advisory Panel.
“For the CASA stakeholder satisfaction research 2018 report to be of any value to yourself of government, the survey must be conducted in an open and transparent manner,” Mr Morgan told Mr McCormack. “AOPA Australia is calling on you as our minister to immediately withdraw the 2018 report and to require CASA resurvey the benchmark 2015 respondents in the same methodology as was conducted in that year.”
As of yesterday, Mr Morgan said he was still waiting for a reply.
Quote:709 RIDES
November 1, 2018 By Ray Carver
The FAA often responds to accidents and incidents by requesting a Reexamination under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, also known as a “709 ride.”
Section 44709 gives the FAA broad authority to reexamine, among other things, any airman holding an airman certificate. Pilots involved in accidents or incidents often find it difficult to challenge the request because the FAA is only required to show a “reasonable basis” for the reexamination.
While the bar to request a 709 ride may be low, the scope of the reexamination should be tailored to those areas in which the FAA believes a lack of competency may have played a role in the event. The FAA’s letter should indicate what certificate is being reexamined and which tasks will be evaluated during the reexamination. For example, if you ground-looped your tailwheel aircraft, the reexamination will focus on takeoffs and landings rather than less relevant areas such as cross-country planning or navigation. By contrast, a 709 ride following a fuel exhaustion event is likely to focus heavily on flight planning and may be a tabletop-only exercise with no actual flying.
Although you may have previously passed your checkride with ease, it’s important that you take the 709 ride seriously. Take time with an instructor to review and practice the required maneuvers or knowledge items in preparation for the reexamination. While the FAA often provides a second chance to pass the reexamination, they will typically request that you put your certificate on deposit in exchange for a temporary certificate that does not allow passenger carriage. Continued failure to perform to the standards of your certificate will result in revocation.
Fortunately, once you finish your training and successfully pass the reexamination, your case will be closed and the action will be removed from your airman record within 90 days. If you ever receive a request for a 709 ride, call the AOPA Legal Services Plan at 1-800-872-2672.
[img=140x0]https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/-/media/images/pps/authors/carverray.jpg[/img]
Ray Carver
Legal Services Plan, Attorney
Ray is a staff attorney with AOPA’s Legal Services Plan. He counsels participating AOPA members on aviation-related legal matters. Ray is also a private pilot.
Quote:Case study 01 – Shooting the Messenger
Case study 02 – Birds? What birds?.
Case study 03 – Persecution in the Pilbara.
Case study 04 – Dudding the delegate.
Case study 05 – Publish and be damned.
Case study 06 – Dad’s Army revisited.
Case study 07 – Outing Ord Air
Case study 08 – Two weeks of shame.
Case study 09 – A Carefully Mismanaged Stuffup.
Case study 10 – How wrong can you get it?.
Quote:SENATE RRAT INQUIRY INTO DUAL MEDICAL STANDARDS
November 21, 2018 By Benjamin Morgan
Senate Rural Regional Affairs Transport Committee
19th November 2018 – Oversight of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
IMPORTANT DOCUMENT DOWNLOADS
Click to download a PDF copy of the Hansard Transcript
Click to download a PDF copy of the RRAT Committee Invitation to AOPA Australia
Part 1: Presentations by Recreational Aviation Australia Limited, Australian Warbirds Association Limited and the Australian Parachute Federation
Part 2: Presentations by Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association and the Gliding Federation of Australia
Part 3: Presentations by Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Benjamin Morgan
Executive Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia
![[Image: 36802928_168124250729327_164609207355781...e=5BD9A25C]](https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2147-6/c0.113.476.249/p476x249/36802928_168124250729327_1646092073557819392_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=28fbe98e087e2a41c42d1e2a99f99ea1&oe=5BD9A25C)
![[Image: 39-100x100.jpg]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/39-100x100.jpg)
![[Image: DhikdZSU0AA98En.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhikdZSU0AA98En.jpg)
![[Image: morgan_carmody.jpg]](http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dmImage/StandardImage/morgan_carmody.jpg)
![[Image: medical_baron_10_1x1.jpg?h=420&w=420&la=...155E0B89A8]](https://www.aopa.org/-/media/images/aopa-main/news-and-media/advocacy/medical_baron_10/medical_baron_10_1x1.jpg?h=420&w=420&la=en&hash=B4CDA6C1F82B5A1DDAD3CA730B5AED155E0B89A8)
![[Image: DqwFd7qU4AAGQt0.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqwFd7qU4AAGQt0.jpg)
![[Image: 45083902_10156742216479257_7639848153511...e=5C7D940D]](https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45083902_10156742216479257_7639848153511886848_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=642b7a5e63438b33c10402c5df32ea7a&oe=5C7D940D)
![[Image: safe_image.php?d=AQCpSijbeBXZ1XAa&w=540&...wjVkQBQKVG]](https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCpSijbeBXZ1XAa&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Faopa.com.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2F44249907_1394490690681852_3174598705739202560_n.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQDP85wjVkQBQKVG)
![[Image: 45347964_1404503636347224_24338047179151...e=5C78FBA0]](https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45347964_1404503636347224_2433804717915111424_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=025ff2b138ddefd81dfcb61631eac6bb&oe=5C78FBA0)
![[Image: 45219373_1404810452983209_72858827531390...e=5C4AC936]](https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45219373_1404810452983209_7285882753139081216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=e7ba4c46d5249bdc30808ca93743a682&oe=5C4AC936)
![[Image: 45235061_1404813969649524_75542283240635...e=5C48BF0E]](https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45235061_1404813969649524_7554228324063510528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=3e91972ccf27b0884e91acfac02911c6&oe=5C48BF0E)
![[Image: 11-2018-carver_16x9.jpg?mw=880&mh=495&as...7773D336D1]](https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/-/media/images/pps/news-images/2018/11-2018-carver/11-2018-carver_16x9.jpg?mw=880&mh=495&as=1&hash=7F75FACA9FFC5ED6F31807FEE9B0F27773D336D1)
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2018-11-21-at-8.33.48-pm-1170x500.png]](https://aopa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Screen-Shot-2018-11-21-at-8.33.48-pm-1170x500.png)