[Peetwo]

Deputy dog spruiks the bollocks on Part141/142 transition - 

Via the Yaffa:

CASA claims Success in Training Transitions
6 September 2018

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) acting CEO Graeme Crawford yesterday issued a statement saying the four-year transition of flying schools to the new regulations had been successful.

Flying schools were given until 31 August 2018 to make the switch to either CASR Part 141 (non-integrated training) or Part 142 (integrated training).

As of the deadline, 235 flying schools that existed under the old rules have been approved under the new regulations, with another 39 new operations starting since the transition period began in 2014.

“This was considerable body of work," Crawford said, "and I would like to thank the flight training operators for their efforts in meeting the transition deadline. I appreciate this work was on top of day-to-day business and required an extra commitment.

“CASA provided a package of support to assist operators to make a successful transition. This support included training syllabi, sample manuals and expositions. The Manual Authoring and Assessment Tool helped to minimise the administration of the approval process, reducing the burden on the aviation community."

In March this year, CASA admitted to having approved only 38% of all applicants for either Part 141 or 142. At the time of writing, CASA was still working with 10 flying schools who had not completed the transition.

It is also believed that around 22 schools elected to close their doors rather than switch to the new regulations

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...84EP6bR.99

Hmm...no comment! 


MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Other than making Australia the most expensive place in
the world to learn to fly, what else has CAsA's world leading gobbledygook
achieved?

Well its certainly reduced participation as illustrated by the decline in pilot numbers.

Its certainly reduced employment with all the school closures.

Its certainly driven up the price of fuel (lower Volume).

Has it made it safer?

There is not a shred of evidence that it has, in fact there is evidence of the opposite.

Has it improved piloting skills and standards? There is not a shred of evidence that it has.

Has it made things simpler?

The addition of a few thousand extra pages more of legalise would certainly keep a Phalanx of lawyers happy
interpreting them. Problem is the industry has been so impoverished it cant afford lawyers.

CAsA can!!

Perhaps the Sociopathic Scottish Git can explain how any of it is of benefit to the industry, the public, or the nation as a whole.
Rather than flapping his gums trying to illustrate how much effort, and pubic funds, CAsA has expended in a desperate effort to explain what the reg's mean or intend. Of course it would never occur to the incompetent clowns that if they simply copied the worlds most successful GA regulations from the Americans, not only would a poultice of public money been saved but the GA industry in Australia just might stand a chance of survival.

Mr Crawford what exactly did this train wreck legislation cost the Australian public and exactly what was the point of it?

[Peetwo]

And today from Ironsider in the Oz..  :

Flight training transition pain
ROBYN IRONSIDE
More than 240 flight training schools have been granted licensing approval under new Civil Aviation Safety regulations

---

More than 240 flight training schools in Australia have been granted licensing approval under new Civil Aviation Safety regulations after a four year transition period.

The changeover has not been without its challenges for the schools, some of whom have closed rather than take on the extra administrative work imposed by the new system.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed 22 had not made the transition for various reasons, including unstable demand or a lack of resources.

However the 242 schools with approval included 39 newcomers to the industry, and ten more were in the process of making the transition.

Ben Wyndham, who operates Airspeed Aviation at Scone in NSW, said nothing had changed about how they taught people to fly, but “layers of administration and legal complexity” had been added.

“They ensure CASA can fulfil its safety oversight obligation by audit rather than expertise in the field,” Mr Wyndham said.

“If your documentation is up to scratch you’re fine, but as one aircraft engineer said ‘the turbo could be hanging off an aeroplane but if the paperwork says it was installed in accordance with the manual, it’s OK’.”

An example of the increased paperwork, was the basic lesson plan which now extended to five or six pages, rather than two.

“For a commercial licence you’re going to do about 250 flying lessons, so you can imagine how much paperwork you’ll end up with,” Mr Wyndham said.

“They’re about to do this to the charter industry as well and make it go through the same process.”

He said his flight training school had been forced to hire a safety manager because as the chief pilot and CEO he was not allowed to continue in that role.

“I’m possibly the most highly qualified safety manager in general aviation that I know of, but I’m not allowed to be a safety manager of my own business,” Mr Wyndham said.

“It’s tough because we’re not a large margin business, we only make enough to live.”

CASA’s acting CEO and director of aviation safety Graeme Crawford said the flight training transition was an important achievement for the aviation community and CASA.

“This was a considerable body of work and I would like to thank the flight training operators for their efforts in meeting the transition deadline,” Mr Crawford said.

“I appreciate this work on top of day-to-day business required an extra commitment.”

He said CASA provided a package of support to assist operators, including training syllabuses, sample manuals and expositions.

“The Manual Authoring and Assessment Tool helped to minimise the administration of the approval process, reducing the burden on the aviation community,” Mr Crawford said.

“I would like to thank CASA’s staff who worked hard to support flight training organisations through the transition.”

A study is currently under way to get a better picture of the true state of general aviation in ­Australia.

Azimuth Partners is conducting the research to provide an understanding of the size of the general aviation industry, its economic impact and employment rates.

The research will also address the health of the sector.

Plus:

LMH 7 Sept 2018: Process errors, training transition and Show Me the Mooney.

Via the Yaffa...  

The Last Minute Hitch: 7 September 2018
7 September 2018

– Steve Hitchen
Aviation is an activity based on process and procedure. We have checklists for most of the things we do; either committed to memory or physical cards. The idea of following processes and procedures is to ensure that we don't forget to do something that is critical to safe flight, or to make sure we get the outcome we want. Pre-start checklists have to be done in a specific order or you might not get the right outcome: an engine start. The customary TMPFISCH focuses our attention on the putting the aircraft in the right condition for take-off, but doesn't necessarily have to be done in that sequence if you can come up with a better mnemonic. Where it all comes apart is if something happens to distract us during the procedure. An instructor who wants to talk to you about something right now. A passenger who wants to ask what that protrusion at the back is while you're still checking the prop. Ground staff who want to tell you not to park here when you get back because they want to mow the lawn. When that happens (and it happens often), the most important thing you can do is recognise that the sequence has been disturbed and already have a strategy for dealing with it. You might go back to the last thing you remember checking and check it again, then go on; you might admonish the instructor and demand you finish the vital actions first. Last weekend my processes were broken twice and both times something was overlooked. Neither was dangerous; both were embarrassing. The worst part was that I failed to recognise the danger of interruption and went ahead as if everything was hunky-dory. That was the biggest mistake I made (twice!), not the actual oversights themselves. I got away with it cheap; next time I might not.

Flying schools have been dying-off for years

There are two ways of looking at the statistics that CASA released on the number of schools making the transition to Part 141/142. You could say that 235 organisations made the switch, which proves the new regulations are capable of being adhered to, or you could say that Part 141/142 killed 22 flying schools and has another 10 hanging in there. No doubt the colour of your general opinion of regulatory reform will impact your perception of the announcement. It would be tough to say that Part 141/142 killed off 22 schools. Flying schools have been dying-off for years well before the transition to the new rules began, and these 22 could be natural attrition. However, speaking to several school owners, the impost of conforming to the new rules was mountainous, so there's no way it could not have had some impact on the decision to close their doors. Schools already under financial stress would have found this a very large straw to be loading on the company camel; it was so even for those that made the move successfully.

Congratulations to Team Show Me the Mooney out of Coffs Harbour, firstly for having a great team name; and secondly, for taking line honours in the 2018 Outback Air Race. The honour of top fundraiser went to Tait Auto Group who alone raised more than 10% of the total. All 38 teams put in this year and poured over $500,000 into the RFDS coffers; money that is very much needed and very well placed. All 90 competitors and the organisers can rightfully be proud of such a great effort. Onwards to the next one!

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

 

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Hitch is quite correct in that flying schools have been dying out for many years. I ran my flying school for about thirty years and can attest to the costly and completely unnecessary changes wrought by CASA in it’s unending regulation churning with ever increasing complexity and parallel fee gouging.

When I handed over to a husband and wife team who had come in with their own aircraft and had been working under my Certificate for some time CASA made them go through the hoops, including fees of several thousand dollars. Same CFI and instructor, same aircraft, airport, training area and premises, books, training aids. Six or eight months of pain, and money down the drain, for no safety or administrative improvements whatever.

This is the CASA modus operandi of many years standing. The only difference in the last twenty years being that the system is even more unworkable and expensive, hence in the last thirty years hundreds of flying schools and charter operators have disappeared. With the looming next tranche of rule changes, Parts 135 & 91 for example, more operators will give up and quite a few of their aircraft will be sold into the USA.

The graveyard spiral continues and worse safety outcomes are already apparent, not to mention our airlines having to recruit pilots from overseas.

You couldn’t make this stuff up, a supposedly first world country killing off an industry, with the loss of thousands of jobs, in a field that is most valuable to a large sparsely populated continent and where we can excel and be earning rivers of foreign money to boot.

Don’t worry anybody CASA is looking into it with consultants, wonder who they are and how much money? More waste of time and money, as AMROBA says (much thanks to the tireless public spirit of Ken Cannane) “Who cares?”

[Sandy Reith]

Flying school numbers as given by CASA as successful transitions?

Sorry you can’t take CASA figures at face value. I remember their stats on the use of survival beacons when they counted one that was activated on a boat. I’ll bet that some of the “transition” schools are still struggling with some CASA “details.” 

Still others will come unstuck when the numerous  new impositions make themselves fully apparent, the crazy and expensive new instructor qualifications will cruel more schools as such qualified instructors will be impossible to find.
 
I challenge CASA to publish all the flying school names and state that they all fully comply.

[Peetwo]

LMH 14 Sep 2018: Ructions amongst the lobby groups and the Wings Awards are announced.

Via the Yaffa:

– Steve Hitchen

For an industry sector that is seen to be in decline, there is a lot of organisations staking claim to being the true representatives of GA! The subject has once again broken the surface this week with AOPA slamming TAAAF because they didn't head-off CASA's medical policy that stated clearly no self-certification for GA. AOPA says that TAAAF is not properly representing GA at CASA level. AOPA has also leveled that accusation at RAAus in the past because that organisation too has aspired to be GA's voice in Canberra. The reality of it is that no one organisation has a mandate from the GA community to speak for it, and that's the ongoing problem that the government continues to trumpet as a reason for sticking its head in the sand. AOPA says that it is the best voice for GA, but there are more GA pilots in Australia that aren't members of AOPA than are. TAAAF says it represents GA and that's a line that CASA adheres to as well, but within TAAAF there are organisations that through aspiration must conflict with others. RAAus says it's the entry point and springboard for GA growth, and therefore has the best interests of GA at heart. That position is lusted after by AOPA, which is bound to bring the two into conflict; they are effectively competitors. So it falls to me to raise the point that with all this conflict and bustling for position going on, is anyone really effectively representing GA in Australia? Right now it seems not. I have very high hopes for the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA), but the line between that arrangement and AOPA is very blurry, so much so that regulators in some cases can't get a handle on who is speaking for who. Perhaps if some things can get sorted there we might have a clear-cut, community supported representative.

"..If RAAus can do it, is CASA really that out of touch that they can't?.."

But would any representative been able to do any better than TAAAF on the medical policy? We need to remember the active word in "Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP)" is "advisory". AOPA and TAAAF could have co-operated together to thrust the AOPA medical policy into the faces of CASA, but ultimately ASAP has no arsenal for forcing CASA to bend to its will, if in fact that will is in conflict. No self-certification was not being voted on; it was handed to ASAP as a fait accompli, so even if Greg Russell had started throwing chairs around the room he couldn't have made a change to that. Self-certification is a no-brainer given that CASA has endorsed the policy for aircraft administered by RAAus. The CASA position that training people in self-certification would be "ultimately more complex" is a very difficult one to believe. If RAAus can do it, is CASA really that out of touch that they can't? Therefore, this statement probably hides another anchor that is holding back self-certification. It could be that Shane Carmody doesn't believe in it, it could be that the legal department is dourly against it or it could be that GA getting self-certification threatens the market pull of RAAus, and the last thing CASA needs or wants is for RAAus to be under threat. The demarcation has been made clear: medical examinations for GA, self-certification for RAAus and never the twain shall match.

One of the joys of this job is that I get to sit on the judging panel for the Wings Awards. There is not enough recognition of the people who are the cornerstones of general aviation in Australia, and the ability to read their stories and correct that lack of recognition is very satisfying. This year we salute one of the helicopter industry's great stalwarts with the Col Pay Award: Ray Cronin. Ray has been the backbone of the training sector for over 30 years, and a tireless worker in the background for better training, safer operations and more effective use of helicopters. There wouldn't be too many people in the country who can match the career and contribution of Ray Cronin, so I was very pleased to add my endorsement to his Col Pay Award. Huge congratulations to Lyn Gray, who was the unanimous, undebated choice for Flying Instructor of the Year, to North Queensland Aero Club for Aero Club of the Year and to Moorabbin Flying Services for their second straight Flying Training Organisation of the Year award. Well done to all involved and a special thanks to those who put work into their submissions.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...DQO62r1.99

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Red lined credibility gauge.

If Australian Flying wants to continue the presentation of Hitch as a voice which signifies within the aviation world; perhaps they could provide him an education course on defining exactly what he is writing about. He seems to be a little fluffy around the edges of reality.

For example – the unrelenting assertions that GA is all about the likes of RAoz and AOPA; it ain’t. Not by a long shot. His vision seems to be truncated to a focus on ‘private’ operations, which is as far as his knowledge of the real aviation industry seems to extend. This feeds the CASA myth of the towling hat brigade of weekend warriors and wannabe’s and those who think a one hour piddle about the countryside in a Tupperware lookalike aircraft, followed by four hours of talking about it represents GA. Well it don’t.

All over this land, today, as I write, young folk are operating charter services for commercial operators who have bet the house on their business. There are Air Ambulance crews on standby, rescue crews on standby, police air wing teams on standby; if not already working. Last night there would be little or no cargo moved by air, but every night of the week, aircraft are loaded and flown by highly professional pilots, in expensive aircraft. Today there will be both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft operating tours of destination areas which bring in a substantial benefit to local communities and tourism operators. All loosely defined as GA.

The pitiful antics and imbroglios of the few don’t signify when measured against the huge burdens placed on ‘commercial’ operations which are not deemed ‘airline’. Even the big operators struggle to maintain not only compliance, but revenue streams against the ever increasing complexity of ‘the system’. Even Big ‘Q’ are building hangers in the USA – why? Corporate cabin class jets are being flown to the USA for major maintenance – why?  In short, why is anyone who can getting as far away from Australia as is possible?

Yet here we have Hitch perpetuating the myth that GA comes down to a few alphabet groups squabbling over class two medicals. BOLLOCKS Hitch – pure, unmitigated, disingenuous BOLLOCKS. These are the few who pay for their pleasure; not earn a living from it; they don't do commercial operations and are but a small, almost insignificant part of a complex, diverse branch of the revenue producing industry. Compare 'private' hours to commercial (non airline hours) - and write about the damage done to that important branch.

Why not tell it like it is; we have a captive ministerial glove puppet being handled by CASA pet watchdog; we have a divided consultation process, carefully manipulated to support the myth that GA is just a few disgruntled minority groups who can’t agree on the toilet roll colour; we have self interest in spades, redoubled; fuelled by CASA largesse and hand outs and ‘administration’ baksheesh. There is a three decade long track record – on Hansard – which clearly demonstrates how this game is played; and how the industry has fallen for the bait and bribes, every time.

Your credibility gauge is red line mate; and the GPWS is bleating – the truth will set you free.  

Toot – toot. No; bugger it – Addendum.

Hitch, there are commercial operators out there who are desperate to have some reform and a lowering of the onerous burdens imposed in the name of the CASA version of safe convictions; who dare not speak up publically for fear of sanction, reprisal and loss of ‘privileges’ through ‘audit’ and the severe financial pressures that brings to bear. Why not do us a jolly little piece on their problems? Aye, alright then -  steam off.

[P7_TOM]

Just a short add on – in support. All Hitch has managed to do is feed the notion that a few private groups are true GA. It is a fact they are not. There are operators out there who are true GA; battling everyday to ensure ‘compliance and meet the ever increasing costs of the same. They cannot, no dare not, tell their story, yet they contribute – day after day to the well being of this nation, safely, effectively and without a voice. Time to take a wider view Hitch; there are more troubles in this world of Australian aviation than you ever mention; all you have done is perpetuate the CASA version of GA as squabbling, pathetic bunch of amateurs. This; as you well know, is simply not true.

Get the facts from Morgan, then write a true analysis – or; remain forever silent on matters of which you have not researched before grabbing a key-board and assisting in the denigration of a fine industry. Put up or shut up – your call.

[Peetwo]

Just a short add on – in support. All Hitch has managed to do is feed the notion that a few private groups are true GA. It is a fact they are not. There are operators out there who are true GA; battling everyday to ensure ‘compliance and meet the ever increasing costs of the same. They cannot, no dare not, tell their story, yet they contribute – day after day to the well being of this nation, safely, effectively and without a voice. Time to take a wider view Hitch; there are more troubles in this world of Australian aviation than you ever mention; all you have done is perpetuate the CASA version of GA as squabbling, pathetic bunch of amateurs. This; as you well know, is simply not true.

Get the facts from Morgan, then write a true analysis – or; remain forever silent on matters of which you have not researched before grabbing a key-board and assisting in the denigration of a fine industry. Put up or shut up – your call.

In follow up to the P7 & P9 posts (above) I note that Hitch got the AP memos -  whether he understood the message is another matter entirely...

Via Oz Flying off the Yaffa:

Representation Survey
19 September 2018

Australian Flying may have stirred a hornet's nest last week by posing the simple question: which is the right organisation to represent general aviation in Canberra. Is it AOPA? Is it RAAus? Then there are the composite organisations like TAAAF and AGAA. Now we want to know what you think. It is easy to declare yourself a leader, but the best way to find out is to look behind and see if anyone is following. So who are you following? Five easy questions that will tell us a lot about what the general aviation community thinks about representation in Canberra.

Australian Flying Representation Survey

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...7zL1mAi.99

 
MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Just a short add on – in support. All Hitch has managed to do is feed the notion that a few private groups are true GA. It is a fact they are not. There are operators out there who are true GA; battling everyday to ensure ‘compliance and meet the ever increasing costs of the same. They cannot, no dare not, tell their story, yet they contribute – day after day to the well being of this nation, safely, effectively and without a voice. Time to take a wider view Hitch; there are more troubles in this world of Australian aviation than you ever mention; all you have done is perpetuate the CASA version of GA as squabbling, pathetic bunch of amateurs. This; as you well know, is simply not true.

Get the facts from Morgan, then write a true analysis – or; remain forever silent on matters of which you have not researched before grabbing a key-board and assisting in the denigration of a fine industry. Put up or shut up – your call.

In follow up to the P7 & P9 posts (above) I note that Hitch got the AP memos -  whether he understood the message is another matter entirely...

Via Oz Flying off the Yaffa:

Representation Survey
19 September 2018

Australian Flying may have stirred a hornet's nest last week by posing the simple question: which is the right organisation to represent general aviation in Canberra. Is it AOPA? Is it RAAus? Then there are the composite organisations like TAAAF and AGAA. Now we want to know what you think. It is easy to declare yourself a leader, but the best way to find out is to look behind and see if anyone is following. So who are you following? Five easy questions that will tell us a lot about what the general aviation community thinks about representation in Canberra.

Australian Flying Representation Survey

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...7zL1mAi.99

LMH 21 Sep 2018 - Pliable regulation, VFR ADS-B, politics, representation, Aviatex and the Parrot bows out.

– Steve Hitchen

I have come to understand that when CASA releases new regulations it is not necessarily the end of the matter. Part 61 needed a lot of post-implementation work; Part 66 has been under review for over a year. Even with the medicals reforms instituted in July, CASA has left wriggle room for further reform to take place. Yes, things like IFR, aerobatics and formations may be part of the Basic Class 2 in the future, but right now we've got what we've got. I have also come to understand there are several reasons for this phenomenon. Initially it was a culture of bloody-mindedness at CASA that dumped junk regulation on the industry that then became completely unworkable (Part 61), but in some cases CASA has wanted to avoid mass change by making progressive small changes that are easier to handle. This, I suspect is the case with the medical reforms. The latest set of regulations that govern the charter and small RPT industry are likely to be also heavily modified post-implementation because the industry is already saying the drafts are unworkable. The last thing we need is for another regulation to be thrust on general aviation only to have to spend time and money beating it into a shape that it should have been in the first place. It would be a huge step forward in the relationship between CASA and the industry if CASA was to present the NFRM in a form that is immediately workable.
 

"there seems to be a double standard being applied " - P2 comment: "No shit Shirlock.." 

CASA's VFR ADS-B proposal is likely also to change shape if it is implemented as written. Firstly, CASA needs to be commended for pursuing a great idea that has a lot going for it. ADS-B is proving its mettle as a separation tool, and if we're honest, the controversy that has dogged the program from the start was never really about the technology as it was about the way it was going to be implemented. However, a certified ADS-B system is costly, but if you combine it with an IFR panel upgrade you can justify the expense because of the other added capability a new system brings. If you're not IFR, it's harder to justify the expense, and given there's no fitment mandate for VFR, why would you bother with it? Having a low-cost system available for VFR is a carrot that aircraft owners might find appealing enough to join the ADS-B revolution and therefore increase overall surveillance. But why not CTA in type-certified aeroplanes? Again, much like the medicals, there seems to be a double standard being applied. Low-cost ADS-B in home-builts and LSAs will be permitted to beep away like a gecko on heat in CTA, but those fitted to a type-certified aircraft may have to be turned off to enter CTA. It seems, in this case, CASA has declared that no ADS-B is better than some ADS-B. Having said that, this is probably not a reason to delay getting this important reform in place soonest, but I can see the matter will have to be addressed shortly afterwards.

This week marks a watershed moment in GA politics in Australia. It is the week that all pretence of no rift between AOPA and RAAus was washed away with the tide. AOPA CEO Ben Morgan is incensed that RAAus reportedly stood up at Cessnock yesterday and openly declared to their membership that not only are they chasing a weight increase for self-administration, but also have desires on aerobatics, helicopters and multi-engined aircraft as well. In Morgan's own words, if this is RAAus' intent, the gloves are well and truly off. According to unconfirmed reports, RAAus also stated that costs of self-administration were going up, so the organisation had not option but to find more members to increase the cash flow, or start charging more money. The obvious answer is always to find more members, but from where do they get them? Their best tactic is to draw them from GA, which they will be hoping to do via an increase in weight limit and other GA privileges RAAus will be hoping to duplicate in their self-administered environment. That's what has AOPA so narky: a flow away from GA to RAAus doesn't help the GA community that AOPA has branded itself the champions of. To his credit, Morgan openly stated that he would have expected nothing less from an incorporated business that needs to increase its cash flow. It seems no matter which way you slice the pie, it's not getting any larger, which is actually what both GA and RAAus need to happen. Last week I found a large stick and poked a big bear with it, even though at the time I thought the bear was a baby panda. I ventured to ask who really best represents the interests of general aviation in Canberra. That sparked a response that perhaps I was out of touch, with critics saying that there was more to general aviation than just AOPA, RAAus, TAAAF and other representative groups. Most confusing for me is that I never limited GA representation to those groups. However, these are the three that have positioned themselves as the leaders of the industry, and it is around those three that I posed my question. So, in the spirit of "the leader is the one most people follow", I have created an on-line survey to find out what the GA community has to say about the matter. This survey is open to anyone in GA, not just the adherents and critics of any of the three groups involved; if you considered yourself part of GA, we want to get your input. And I have thrown in a couple of questions about how Australian Flying handles the politics of GA as well. Our magazine and website are primarily there to nuture and encourage pilots and I recognise that political reporting not only fails to do that, but can actually be a bit of a deterrent to those that just want to fly. Get on our survey here.

Disappointing news this week that Aviatex 2018 has been canceled. This was a general aviation expo scheduled for Bankstown in November, having been relocated from Albion Park where it has been previously incorporated with Wings over Illawarra. The reason for the cancelation is a bit vague, but I hope to have more news on this soon. Bright Events have said they have plans for Aviatex 2019.

Rumours flowing out of the "Parrot Party" in Tamworth are encouraging for people hoping to pick-up an ex-BAe CT-4. With the farewell to the venerable Plastic Parrot that has been in service for over 40 years in full swing, it has become apparent that not all the CT-4s are destined for the dustbin. Spar-life limits were thought to have killed-off the species, but if my contacts are correct, there are some left up in Tamworth that will be sold into civilian service. That's a real fillip for the warbird community. The CT-4 was originally greeted by the RAAF with some derision when it replaced the CAC Winjeel in the basic training role; hence the name Plastic Parrot. The "parrot" bit came from their original yellow and green livery, and "plastic" because they were seen as less robust than the Winjeel they replaced. Over the years the Parrot proved its worth, but now has to make way for the PC-21 turbine. Here's hoping the rumours are true; it would be good to see the civil Parrot population bolstered.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH 28 Sept '18: Qantas academy, AirVenture verses Ausfly and ASAOs under the microscope.

Via the Yaffa:

The Last Minute Hitch: 28 September 2018
28 September 2018

– Steve Hitchen

A great opportunity for aviation in Australia has been missed with the announcement of the first Qantas Group Pilot Academy. Regional and municipal airports all around the country are starved for investment, and the academy has been seen as having the potential to revitalise at least two stuggling airports with a significant injection of funds. Instead, Qantas has given all that money to Wellcamp Airport near Toowoomba, a privately-owned concern. With private partners involved in the project, the demands for a return on investment will see money flow out of the industry instead of being retained in infrastructure and upgrades that general aviation would have very much welcomed. To make matters worse, Qantas has then appointed a US company, L3 Commercial Aviation, to run the flying schools. Even more money will flow out of Australia. No doubt Qantas has made the best decision for the airline and their private business partners, but it couldn't have worked out worse for general aviation. There is still one more location to be announced, so there is one more airport out there that, quite literally, could be saved by a cash injection. Several councils are crossing their fingers and hoping their airport will be the annointed one. The rumours reaching my office are still heavily in favour of Tamworth.

"..the attendance figures can be twisted to suit a desired dogma.."

With the political swordfighting between AOPA Australiaand RAAus starting to dominate general aviation politics, there was probably always going to be controversy over AirVenture Australia verses Ausfly. AirVenture was held last week in Cessnock, and by any measure, the attendances were well down on the 10,000 estimate given to the council and published on the AirVenture website. But, like any good statistic the attendance figures can be twisted to suit a desired dogma. AOPA Australia sees the result as an indictment of RAAus and the AirVenture concept, touting instead Ausfly at Narromine next month as an event better suited to GA. AirVenture Australia, whilst recognising the crowd was down, was still bouyant at the results of the show. Cessnock City Council has also expressed delight at the outcome, especially for local commerce. So who is right, Peter or Paul? At this stage we have only half a measure, which is no good to assess anything by. Ausfly is in a couple of weeks, which provide the second half of the metrics. However, can we really say with any honesty that comparing attendances at two different flying events is a comprehensive vote for either AOPA/SAAA or RAAus? Flying is a complex activity impacted by a number of different things: aeroplane availability, weather, money, health, regulation, fuel availability, money, money and money. But, in my 33 years of flying, I am yet to see or hear of someone using politics as a reason for going or not going to a fly-in.

CASA has unleashed the Part 149 beast. The Manual of Standards (MOS) for approved self-administering aviation organisations (ASAO) is now open for discussion. The MOS is the bible that ASAOs are going to live or die by, and there are some in the aviation community that believe the most likely result is die. The MOS will add cost to administration and you have to wonder if, had this document been available earlier, self-administering organisations would have ever put their hand up under these conditions. We have reached the ASAO PNR, when we have to go forward with self-administration because CASA couldn't possibly take it back; they just don't have the flexibility and are too much constrained by a dearth of innovative thinking. So, the ASAO concept has to work because it is only under self-administration that the general aviation industry is growing. Just to put a banana peel in the hallway, I have heard rumblings from Canberra about a senate inquiry into ASAOs and whether or not CASA is using them to abdicate responsibility. Questions sent to one hard-charging senator have yet to be answered. I'll keep trying to chase this down.

Have you given us your thoughts in the representation survey yet? The issue of who is best placed to represent GA in Canberra is tainted with a lot of bias and down-right parochialism, but it seems none of the current claimants to the crown have particularly strong cases. So far, this is being reflected in the reponses we have. We'd like more to add greater weight to opinions gathered, so please get on and answer the five questions posed, and encourage all your flying mates to do the same. The results will be published for all to see once we're done. There could be a surprise in the making.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

And for my nomination for comment of the week... 

Mike Borgelt • an hour ago

It is never to late to kill a bad idea. Unfortunately the ASAOs were too stupid to realise what a poison pill Part 149 is.

Who ever thought that having multiple administrative systems for civil aviation was a good idea needs to be found and have his or her employment terminated. It is unnecessarily duplicative, expensive for participants and divides sectors of aviation from one another. CASA is abrogating its responsibility to Parliament and the Australian people and deliberately turns a blind eye to the gross over reporting of flying hours by at least one of the organisations which results in CASA saying the safety statistics are "acceptable" in the sector.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A self written epitaph.

I applaud the Hitch courage; to write one’s own epitaph is a brave thing to do. Not that he’ll be missed, not after this last, pointless Creedy/Gibson style load of bollocks. The very least he could do is slope off into a deeper insignificance. He says; and I quote “But, in my 33 years of flying, etc. BOLLOCKS. He has been poncing about, grabbing ‘free’ rides and attempting to write about it for three decades – there are veritable children with 33 months of ‘proper’ aviation under their fledgling wings who have more idea about ‘flying’ than Hitch has ever been able to accomplish. Could he actually get a real job, flying a humble 206 about the NT?

Now, today, he chooses to whip up the fires between two insignificant GA outfits; and, has the hide to pontificate – WTD. The enemy is part 149 – blind Freddy (apologies P27) can see that; yet Hitch chooses to rub salt into the wounds rather than bang silly heads together. Anyone who actually believes CASA would work in their interests needs their bumps felt – big time.  FCOL – if both parties agreed to disagree, but united told CASA to shove it where the sin don’t shine’ perhaps, they could both move onward and upward in a better environment. But, no, Hitch chooses to stoke the coals; then, tells ‘em the same lie that CASA tell.  No options - It's simply not true, you do have a choice - just reject it.

Hitch - The MOS is the bible that ASAOs are going to live or die by, and there are some in the aviation community that believe the most likely result is die.

Bollocks – No it ain't. United the small end of GA could tell CASA that the MOS is rubbish, the intent sinister, the outcome ridiculous, the concept fatally flawed and; they (collectively) ain’t going to have a bar of it. Self interest must run second place here; let the market decide who wins. But to let CASA roll this piece of legislative garbage through, without let or hindrance is tantamount to killing off sport and recreational flying. That means no more free-bee’s for Hitch.

If all that weren’t bad enough we get this line of twaddle:-

Hitch - "To make matters worse, Qantas has then appointed a US company, L3 Commercial Aviation, to run the flying schools."

Why Hitch? Why in all the seven hells would Qantas use an Australian company to teach the children? Think about it, try hard, just for a moment – think it through. Then there is this silly ‘survey’ to consider. Perhaps Hitch ain’t worked it out yet why folk ain’t queuing up. Bloody Muppet. .

Enough – Hitch has written his own epitaph and shown his true colours. It is enough for the time being. Oz flying should not have too much trouble filling in the miniscule, gutless hole left in his wake. Even Fearless Phelan may crack a smile now and Sandilands will beam down – from above. Shame really – Hitch had a chance to really make a difference – alas……………

Gauge RED line exceeded – shut down required.

Toot – toot.

[Gobbledock]

LMH - Licks Ministers Hole

Not sure what it is with these aviation writers. Most start out well but then the wheels fall off. I believe the phrase that CAsA love to use is appropriate; ‘capture’.

Hitch, Creepy, that wanker from Perth Geoffrey Thomas, Peter Gobfullofshite, they are all spin doctors and creeps. Their musings are as believable as the crap that emanates out of the New York Times. Put the lot of them out to pasture.

The only sensible thing Hitch alluded to was this;

“At this stage we have only half a measure”

Hitch, I think you can buy little blue pills to help you with that! Your erections are probably on par with your articles - limp.


‘Safe limp and flaccid stories for all’

[Peetwo]

LMH 5 Oct '18: ASICs, Maydays, Ausfly and surveys.

Tempting fate here but it would seem that Hitch is committed to feeding the division in the current GA war (AOPA Oz v RAAus) fires  - err I wonder why?...

Via the Yaffa:

– Steve Hitchen

Beware the unwary. Last year the government made significant changes to the ASIC system, tightening it up spuriously in the name of security. One of the changes they made was to demand the Issuing Bodies sight the originals of identification documents in order to verify them. Previously, copies authenticated by people on a government list were sufficient. As it was not possible for applicants to travel to the companies, a network of agents sprung up around Australia, which seemed the best, most logical way to deal with the new demands from the Department of Home Affairs. But here's where you need to be careful: those agents have a right to charge for their services on top of the cost of the ASIC. For example, if your Issuing Body is using Australia Post as a verifying agent, you'll get slugged a further $44. In some cases, the Issuing Agent may not make this clear until you have lodged the paperwork. Once you've done that, there's almost no reversing the process. So, before you commit to an Issuing Body, contact them about their agent network and any extra charges involved. Getting an ASIC is already one of the most frustrating and meaningless things we have to do, and being slugged for hefty hidden charges can only raise the ire another notch.

the reaction we saw in Sydney might presage an unintended consequence of the new rule

United Airlines' MAYDAY call yesterday turned out to be much ado about nothing. The pilot was just following procedures that have to be applied once the aircraft is starting to dip into its reserves. Of course at the mention of the word MAYDAY the emergency services went into frenetic action ready for the great disaster that was never going to happen. Is this a harbinger of things to come? CASA's new fuel rules that require a "MAYDAY – fuel" call once a flight crew determines the aircraft will land with less than 30 minutes in the tanks comes into force on 8 November, and it seems that the reaction we saw in Sydney might presage an unintended consequence of the new rule. "MAYDAY" is a term well-known publicly to mean distress and danger, and anyone who hears that is likely to interpret it as an indicator of impending doom; it's a cry for help and salvation. With that in mind, the reaction of the Sydney emergency services was justified. It really wasn't their fault that there was no danger to the aircraft of the magnitude that warranted the use of the word MAYDAY. However, there are many ears listening to aviation frequencies nowadays and hearing  "MAYDAY – fuel" transmitted is likely to trigger a repeat of the United Airlines incident. To avoid this, CASA would have been wise to mandate a PAN call instead; perhaps a term more appropriate to the level of the situation.

AOPA CEO Ben Morgan has declared that Ausfly will be a non-political event. It may be that on the surface, but you can guarantee the undercurrent will be a political one. Morgan and AOPA didn't go to the RAAus-backed AirVenture, but are now inviting RAAus to their event. That makes for a nice little quandry for everyone to ponder. Should RAAus not go, it would be unfair for AOPA to round on them given that AOPA also declined the AirVenture invitation. If RAAus does go, they immediately take the moral high-ground from AOPA with a magnanimous gesture and a display of no hard feelings. The Cold War in Australian general aviation has yet to reach the iron curtain stage, but it really can't be far off a time when dialogue between RAAus and AOPA/AGAA collapses completely. AOPA has said they'd love to do a round table with RAAus to discuss the future of the industry and have suggested Ausfly as the place to do it. But, like so many summits during the real Cold War, fruitful discussions in cordial environments often go sour once the parties get back to their respective corners. What GA needs is genuine collaboration rather than points scoring, but it seems to the industry that both parties are focusing on doing just that. Sounds like politics to me!

Speaking of, this week is the last week we will keep the GA Representation Survey open. After that, we'll sift through the responses and make the results public. Having kept an eye on the responses as they come in, I can let it slip that the results so far are heavily weighted towards one representative group over all the others. Most interesting. Not had your say yet? You've got another week to get your opinion on the record.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

IMO Martin Hoane in comments nails it:

Martin Hone • an hour ago
When are our 'leaders' going to actually represent the members. Who cares if RA-Aus goes to Ausfly or AOPA goes to Airventure ? Their respective members will go anyway so why the politics ? I've been watching this farce for 30 years and nothing has changed.

 
Exactly MH - who gives a rat's; and why exactly is Hitch stoking the coals??

Finally not that there is many, for my nomination for comment of the week off the Yaffa...  

Krator • 7 days ago 

What a load of CASA crap; they just want to slowly kill light general aviation flying, In the US it'd be totally different, and supportive, including increase SLSA aircraft weight,. CASA, take off your fancy suites, and be terminated immediately.

Fire from your useless never-flown jobs and get some AVIATORS IN charge running the bloated CASA, MAKE-WORK AT OBSCENELY HUGH SALARIES.. http://disq.us/p/1w42hqe

 


MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

HITCH DRIBBLES SHIT ONCE AGAIN

LMH (Lick My Hole) has outdone himself this time. Our aviation presstitute has obviously been to a Dr Voodoo course on ‘Safe Use Of Wank Words’ as he managed to trot out the following gems in his latest aviation sharticle;

Spuriously
Presage
Quandary
Cordial environments
Collaboration
Magnanimous

Absolute folly, piffle and waffle. Hitch, your gauges are in the brown mate.

Tick ‘steaming turd’ tock

[P7_TOM]

Red line syntax.


Syntax - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language. "the syntax of English"

noun; plural noun: nouns
1. a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things ( common noun ), or to name a particular one of these ( proper noun ).

adjective;
noun: adjective; plural noun: adjectives
1. a word naming an attribute of a noun, such as sweet, red, or technical.

Spurious (adjective).
false and not what it appears to be, or (of reasons and judgments) based on something that has not been correctly understood and therefore false:

E.g. - Some of the arguments in favour of shutting the factory are questionable and others downright spurious.

(Hitch)-  "Last year the government made significant changes to the ASIC system, tightening it up spuriously in the name of security."

Oh dear.  I reckon Aleck and Anastasi would still be having a quiet chuckle; or, adding up the revenue from a successful slander/libel case. Bring back Pheelan? If only.......

Now then, let's see; double top and 16 should do the trick –

[Gobbledock]

LMH (Lick My Hole) Addendum

The bearded waffler also mentioned the phrase ‘much ado about nothing’. Perhaps LMH moonlights as a Moderator on the UP, ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ with the brown nosing industry retired Stailwheel and the VA check captain Tidy Bins Tidbindildo?

[Peetwo]

CASA has considered and is satisfied - FDS!   

First Hitch follows up on the now 5 year CASA multicom consultation clusterduck:

CASA to implement Area VHF Despite Feedback
19 October 2018

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will recommend the use of the area VHF frequency at uncharted airfields despite community feedback indicating a preference for Multicom 126.7.

The issue has been ongoing since 2013, when the AIP was changed from using 126.7 to the area VHF, with CASA stating that overflying pilots would be unaware of the presence of an uncharted aerodrome unless a call on the area VHF was made.

CASA yesterday released a summary of the consultation received from the Discussion Paper released on 27 April this year, and the course of action they have elected to take.

"As a result of the feedback received from the consultation for ‘Frequency use in Class G’, CASA has determined not to implement the 20 nm/below 5000 ft AMSL proposal or the use of MULTICOM 126.7 in the circuit area of uncharted aerodromes," a CASA statement says.

"The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) will be simplified and less prescriptive about the frequency to use at those aerodromes that are uncharted."

The new radio frequencies CASA will recommend in the future are:

• in the vicinity’—within 10nm, and at a height where your operations could be in the way of other traffic—of any non-controlled aerodrome published on aeronautical charts, pilots should use the CTAF (126.7 MHz or discrete frequency) as published
  
• anywhere within a Broadcast Area, pilots should use the dedicated Broadcast Area CTAF
  
• in all other non-controlled airspace, pilots should be on Area VHF.
  

However, this course of action does appear to be contrary to the desires of the published feedback, with most respondents clearly stating they could see no issue with using 126.7 at uncharted aerodromes, a fact CASA acknowledges in the announcement.

"Feedback on the second proposal – to allow 126.7 MHz in the circuit at uncharted aerodromes – confirmed a preference among some sectors to use 126.7 MHz in non-controlled airspace," CASA says.

"While 58 per cent did not believe the proposal introduced issues of safety or practicality, of the 42 per cent that did, almost half suggested the proposal would introduce complexities and confusion."

CASA has also said they will work with Airservices Australia to increase the number of airfields marked on aeronautical charts.

Amendments to the AIP to reflect the above are scheduled for the 28 February 2019 publication cycle.

>More information and the published feedback is available on the CASA Consultation Hub website.

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

 
Yep consultation Comardy Capers style...

Next following on from CC's bollocks in the Oz today - see http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-142...ml#pid9446 - Oz Flying has this on the FF survey:

Industry Survey boosts CASA's Approval Rating
19 October 2018

Survey results released today indicate that the aviation industry is more satisfied with CASA than they were three years ago.

The overall satisfaction rating for the regulator as measured by consultants Colmar Brunton has increased to 6.2 out of 10 compared to the 4.2 result in the 2015 survey.
CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody said the results were very positive.

“The survey shows CASA has come a long way in a relatively short time,” he said. “On all questions the rankings of CASA’s performance provided by people across the aviation community have improved markedly on the 2015 survey.

“I would like to thank everyone in CASA for contributing to this improved performance and assure the aviation community we will continue to strive to do even better.

"There is certainly no room for complacency. The survey found there is more work to be done to make regulations simpler, clearer and more practical and to deliver even more consultation.”

CASA’s service delivery rating has risen to 6.2 compared to 3.8 in 2015, satisfaction with audits and compliance is up to 6.3 from 4.8 and satisfaction with development of regulations is up to 5.5 from 3.0.

All key ratings rose as a result of the 2018 survey, which canvassed more than 1100 aviation industry participants.

Significantly, the industry marked CASA's inspectors much higher than they did in 2015 when it came to understanding regulations and applying them consistently, one of the key issues that eroded the aviation communities confidence in the regulator.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...U6TurQd.99

"..Let's do the timewarp again!!"


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH - 29 Oct 2018: Sleepless nights for charter ops, ASIC mis-fire, Multicom and the FARs.

Via the Yaffa:

– Steve Hitchen

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

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

 RAAus pilots need no security checks at all to fly

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH - 29 Oct 2018: Sleepless nights for charter ops, ASIC mis-fire, Multicom and the FARs.

Via the Yaffa:

– Steve Hitchen

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

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

 RAAus pilots need no security checks at all to fly

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

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

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

Sandy comment -   

Sandy Reith • an hour ago

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

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

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

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

---

& a Hitch correction:


SteveHitchen Mod • an hour ago

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

MTF...P2