[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.

And Sandy in reply :

Sandy Reith • a day ago

Thanks for the correction, a GA industry person offered further information to me, to the effect that there were some 800 AOCs but 556 charter approved. An Internet search finds a website called Australian Charter Operators which lists 105 operators. I’ll bet there are not 556 charter operators with pilots and charter qualified aircraft waiting for business (used to be far more than that, probably some thousands before the expensive paper war of AOCs was introduced around 1988).

I clearly remember when CASA were rounding up figures to support their push for the permanent engineering fitment of impact triggered survival beacons, it was discovered that at least one of their examples was in fact an incident involving a boat. Thus one’s jaundiced view of official figures. 

One thing we can be certain about, flying jobs and services, and all the people around them, will lose out as PART 135 bites. Well done Government and Minister McCormack, Minister for Job Losses in the Bush?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH 16 Nov '18 - "Please EXPLAIN??"

Again I am tempting fate but after several re-reads I just had to rehash certain parts of this week's chapter of the LMH book of Australian General Aviation faery tales...

...There are times when it's hard to tell the difference between political promises and marketing; there are also times when there is actually no difference at all. The job of trying to sort out the reality from the rhetoric falls to journalists such as, well, me. And when we start out on a task like this, the natural cynicism so important in our trade always screams to be satisfied, but if we are going to do a fair job of it, we have to suppress our urge to call "bullshit!" at everything that seeps from the political cistern; some of it might actually be genuine. One of the most perplexing tasks I've ever had to do is look closely at the government's actions in changing the wording of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Strong indications from Canberra are that a bill will be set before parliament in 2019 incorporating into the Act the part of the Statement of Expectations (SOE) that compels CASA to take into account cost and risk levels before making new rules for us to abide by. On the first pass, it looks like the government is giving the Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) exactly what it pleaded for at the July summit, but the second and third passes start to get the cynicism excited. Firstly, why? At Wagga, DPM Michael McCormack pointed out that the SOE is a legislative instrument and therefore CASA was already compelled to consider the cost. If that is the case, how will simply moving the words from one legislative document to the other actually force change? There is a difference between the two that could answer the question. The SOE is revised and updated with just about every change in Minister, and the cost and risk-level clauses could be struck out with one even application of liquid paper. The Act has been amended regularly, but is essentially the same instrument as it was in 1988. Incorporating the clauses there would protect it better from the policy-change whims that inevitably come with a change in power. To believe that is to suppress the creeping suspicion that this is all marketing designed to soothe the industry in preparation for the next federal election.

 bipartisanship is working against AGAA in this instance

Secondly, the AGAA desire to have the promotion of aviation folded into CASA's bailiwick has been ignored, as has the call for safety to be removed as the priority when making regulations. Given their "druthers" I think the industry would rather have had these two implemented than the wording change. The show-stopper is that the promised bipartisanship is working against AGAA in this instance: both sides of parliament want to keep CASA purely as a safety regulator rather than resurrecting the Civil Aviation Authority and painting it up to look like the FAA. Keeping CASA as it is necessarily means leaving in the priority of safety. As the only body empowered to create safety regulation, realistically what else are they going to do but put safety first? At the AGAA summit, Mike Smith (the other one, not the round-the-world-in-a-Searey one) put forward the concept of an Office of Aviation Business within the department. We haven't heard anything of this yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen ... the road is long. Acting on this initiative would show the aviation industry that both sides of the house are serious about aviation reform, and perhaps turn marketing into some valuable sales at the ballot box...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...aCgiRK7.99

WTD??   

However then IMO the penny starts to drop when after a paragraph gap where LMH waffles on about GA and the Victorian election there is this bollocks...  

...RAAus has taken a "Bob the Builder" approach in their latest strategy statement. The new slogan "A Pilot in Every Home" is very aspirational, and dovetails nicely with their contention that RAAus can be the entry level for general aviation. In short, GA needs help and "RAAus can fix it!" That has been a consistent message from Fyshwick for a year or so now, and they are forging ahead with it despite AOPA Australia trying to water down the RAAus product and put themselves forward as the saviours of aviation. Personally, I like the new slogan; it has echoes of the late 1940s when the US manufacturers were using the catchphrase "An Airplane in Every Home", and is a heck of a lot less controversial than "Freedom to Fly"...

 
Couple that with this statement from CC at the AAA conference... (ref: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-...ml#pid9535 )
...“And the Act that I have sitting on my desk says that in exercising my powers and performing my functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as our most important consideration.

“And that remains our focus”...

...and then align that with my statement under this Iron Ring happy snap




Hmm...no comment required me thinks -  


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Hitch caught in aviation bardo

bardo
noun
(in Tibetan Buddhism) a state of existence between death and rebirth, varying in length according to a person's conduct in life and manner of, or age at, death.

LMH (Lick Ministers Hole) is caught in aviation bardo, the current state is that our industry is almost dead and will probably never be rebirthed. Hitch loves flying, but he is caught bewteeen his love of flying and his love of the Ministers ass, being the CAsAmite that he is. To be honest, I don’t listen to anything that the conceited fool dribbles anymore. Just a small time fool flying recreational aircraft while living in club cuckoo land. Hitch, retire your pen you bearded old fool and STFUP.

[Kharon]

Of cancelled subscriptions.

You have to wonder why the editorial staff of a publication, such as Australian Flying, tolerate reporting which is neither ‘straight’ nor informative. They have, I expect, a minimal market share in a competitive field with a limited audience. The ‘story’ (for wont of better) Hitch is blindly groping around the edges of has only two main elements, to wit, the ongoing battle for reform of both regulator and regulation and those who oppose that reform. It really is that simple. The key pieces on the board are industry; CASA, and the incumbent minister. A game of thrones: of influence and of power exercised.  

What Hitch fails to have the hutzpah to address are the base issues; scripting opinion instead of simply reporting the facts – as they stand – having investigated the story thoroughly. The wishy-washy tumble of words presented cannot be taken as a serious attempt at ‘journalism’ although Hitch does try to sell the notion that he is, in fact a real deal ‘Journo’. He ain’t, not by a long shot.

Tomorrow, there is to be a public hearing related to matters aeronautical; yet nary a word of this from Hitch. It is, IMO, a pivotal session of the RRAT committee, revolving around a grass roots matter – medicals for private operations and the CASA created battle between two warring factions for supremacy. That both need their fool heads banged together for falling into the cleverly laid scheme to divide and conquer that element of recreational flying and thus diluting the universal call for reform needs to be amplified. Hitch fails, once again, to present an unbiased, clinical assessment of the situation as it stands.

Then, we read the half baked analysis of the Act and the SOE, which, once again, demonstrates the Hitch version of cart before horse. Clearly, he just ‘don’t get it’. In simple terms the nexus lays with the Seaview accident and the Staunton report. There was a determination made that no matter what, a minister would never, not ever, be put into the same situation again. CASA responded by demanding more autonomy, grabbing both control and money. SAFETY was to be paramount; political safety that is and so began the unbridled reign of the big R regulator. This has become a happy thing for all ministers as they are iron clad and bullet proof from any and all association with matters aeronautical. Guilt free and publically blameless. CASA milk this for every drop and will defend the unlimited power and unaccountability for all that they are worth. Why would anyone willingly dismantle a smoothly running protection system like that to satisfy the calls of a very small minority group? Don’t make any political sense whatsoever.

Yet the need for reform is obvious, the need to free an ailing industry from the chains of prescriptive regulation which cripple and bind innovation and investment must be broken. The need for a system which does not lend itself to fear of criminal conviction – on whim – without trial is blindingly obvious. We are a free, democratic country, with rights enshrined in law; removed by the Civil Aviation Act. Could it be said that it is unconstitutional? YES is the answer; this had been publicly said, with the rider that no one could afford to challenge it.

There is a lot more riding on the call for reform than Hitch has grasped, a cartload more. Yet this latest trite, biased, ill informed load of waffle is published. The good thing is only a few will read it; few of those will see the dire need for a united front for reform; even fewer will give 20 seconds constructive thought to how the industry, not themselves will benefit from a united, clearly enunciated, robust call for reform.

Hitch needs to go back to writing his wee tales of joy flights in the latest Tupperware offering and stay away from serious matters he clearly does not understand. Before someone accuses him of dragging the good name of a once respected publication into the mud of deceit and the stench of bias.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Of cancelled subscriptions.

You have to wonder why the editorial staff of a publication, such as Australian Flying, tolerate reporting which is neither ‘straight’ nor informative. They have, I expect, a minimal market share in a competitive field with a limited audience. The ‘story’ (for wont of better) Hitch is blindly groping around the edges of has only two main elements, to wit, the ongoing battle for reform of both regulator and regulation and those who oppose that reform. It really is that simple. The key pieces on the board are industry; CASA, and the incumbent minister. A game of thrones: of influence and of power exercised.  

What Hitch fails to have the hutzpah to address are the base issues; scripting opinion instead of simply reporting the facts – as they stand – having investigated the story thoroughly. The wishy-washy tumble of words presented cannot be taken as a serious attempt at ‘journalism’ although Hitch does try to sell the notion that he is, in fact a real deal ‘Journo’. He ain’t, not by a long shot.

Tomorrow, there is to be a public hearing related to matters aeronautical; yet nary a word of this from Hitch. It is, IMO, a pivotal session of the RRAT committee, revolving around a grass roots matter – medicals for private operations and the CASA created battle between two warring factions for supremacy. That both need their fool heads banged together for falling into the cleverly laid scheme to divide and conquer that element of recreational flying and thus diluting the universal call for reform needs to be amplified. Hitch fails, once again, to present an unbiased, clinical assessment of the situation as it stands.

Then, we read the half baked analysis of the Act and the SOE, which, once again, demonstrates the Hitch version of cart before horse. Clearly, he just ‘don’t get it’. In simple terms the nexus lays with the Seaview accident and the Staunton report. There was a determination made that no matter what, a minister would never, not ever, be put into the same situation again. CASA responded by demanding more autonomy, grabbing both control and money. SAFETY was to be paramount; political safety that is and so began the unbridled reign of the big R regulator. This has become a happy thing for all ministers as they are iron clad and bullet proof from any and all association with matters aeronautical. Guilt free and publically blameless. CASA milk this for every drop and will defend the unlimited power and unaccountability for all that they are worth. Why would anyone willingly dismantle a smoothly running protection system like that to satisfy the calls of a very small minority group? Don’t make any political sense whatsoever.

Yet the need for reform is obvious, the need to free an ailing industry from the chains of prescriptive regulation which cripple and bind innovation and investment must be broken. The need for a system which does not lend itself to fear of criminal conviction – on whim – without trial is blindingly obvious. We are a free, democratic country, with rights enshrined in law; removed by the Civil Aviation Act. Could it be said that it is unconstitutional? YES is the answer; this had been publicly said, with the rider that no one could afford to challenge it.

There is a lot more riding on the call for reform than Hitch has grasped, a cartload more. Yet this latest trite, biased, ill informed load of waffle is published. The good thing is only a few will read it; few of those will see the dire need for a united front for reform; even fewer will give 20 seconds constructive thought to how the industry, not themselves will benefit from a united, clearly enunciated, robust call for reform.

Hitch needs to go back to writing his wee tales of joy flights in the latest Tupperware offering and stay away from serious matters he clearly does not understand. Before someone accuses him of dragging the good name of a once respected publication into the mud of deceit and the stench of bias.

Toot – toot.

Not really wanting to stir up the Ferryman too much but once again I am totally perplexed on the WTD? Hitch is playing at -  

Except for the comments IMO the LMH is really not worth regurgitating but for shits & giggles here is the link: The Last Minute Hitch: 23 November 2018 

---

Okay no lightning bolts yet?? - so here are the comments - 

Scotty • 17 hours ago

CASA sadly, has a long and proud history of being less than honest or realistic in its existence to create an endless stream of 'make work' for itself as it fusses over 50 year old proven tech that is GA. The idea that a PPL needs a $400 medical every 2 years is joke, especially the $65 just to stamp the medical by the bureaucracy behemoth.. Being a monopoly administrator gives CASA an unlimited level of power which has NOT served the Australian flying public well, not the people who live under the aircraft that fly over their heads, those of whom are CASA's first priority as a Government regulator and which it seems to forget.

---

frankus54 • 18 hours ago

Is there a link to audio/video from the standing comittee's meeting?

---

Sandy Reith  frankus54 • 12 hours ago

Hansard and a number of FaceBook posts from AOPA will give you the full video stream. Die laughing or die of shame and disgust as you watch the lies and rubbish purporting to come from ‘the experts.’ Apart from the extraordinary false claim about the groups agreement signing that was merely an attendance sheet, such beauties as CASA’s utterly ridiculous statement as fact that ‘flight risk goes up greatly when an aircraft enters controlled airspace.’!!! Did the Senators ask for proof? No! —that one even went past the keeper. Gaud ‘elp uz. I note in today’s CASA briefing Mr. Carmody exhorts us to be honest. Say no more. Amazing that we taxpayers spend around $200 million pa on the CASA’s diabolical pathway of wrecking GA. Hitch, you are right when you say there was some confusion, the Senators were having a hard time. CASA could have helped but that might be deleterious to their jobs. For November there’s an awful lot of snow about.

MTF...P2  

[P7_TOM]

My Whack (it seems).

‘The Kid’ flatly refuses to read Hitch; been a progressive thing to watch (and listen to). I guess, that he believes Hitch is not attempting to clear the water; as in making ‘simple’ matters CASA complex and generally stirring the pot. The notion of self certification medicals has been knocking about for a couple of decades. The Brits and their cousins have actually done ‘studies’; the results were clear enough and both major regulators moved with the evidence of the research to ‘ease the pain’ of not being 100% medically fit to operate commercial air services. They made their decisions based against rock solid ‘evidence’, provided by experts. Fair enough; and, by the way, jolly well done, thankyou.

CASA do have available to them the studies completed; and, importantly, the results of those authorities rulings. Neither the Brits nor the Cousins began to support and partially finance a separate, self administering body to support those who were not 100% fit. But! CASA has.

There are strong rules in the USA and the UK, designed to prevent an accident occurring due to a predicted human failure (barring heart attack) aligned to incapacitation; which is, believe it or not – (mostly down to ‘gastric’ anomalies), rather than self certification against a known, medically controlled, manageable condition.

It all begs the question – why has Australia (land of the free) not only ignored the ‘evidence’ but taken a completely different track and sponsored a unique, commercial operation to devolve and reap commercial benefits? That’s crackers.

Pilots are required to comply with thousands of ‘laws’ and’ they manage to do this – all day, every day. So why is there then not an equal playing field? And; why FFS cannot control airspace be utilised, particularly as a ‘safety zone’. Even Sydney and Melbourne will allow the odd scenic flight over the CBD; hell, there are even VFR routes promulgated to accommodate such requests. The standard of flight control is more than adequate to separate the odd 172 or Pa28 from the boys and girls being sequenced and separated from each other to allow the odd one or three bug smashers to enter ‘controlled airspace’ – and what the hell is Moorabin if not a control zone?

It is all bollocks of the first water. The ASA controllers are world class (and better) if they cannot accommodate a lone bug smasher requesting – due weather – a transit of a control zone, I’ll stand bare arsed, Mardi Gras night – Oxford St. For starters ATC cannot deny an aircraft ‘in distress’; they can delay a joy flight – but to categorically state that access to CTR is forbidden and part of an ‘approval’ to fly is borderline lunacy. CASA need to get their act together an allow, across the board, the same limitations and privileges to all recreational pilots; not just those who belong to a privileged, paid up group. A simple rule, with similar restrictions would satisfy the weekend, recreational pilot fraternity AND they would not be obliged to pay an extra fee for the privilege. RA OZ is borderline a Ponzi scam – with CASA backing. Why? We will never understand the Aleck logic – probably because there ain’t any. Marbles Jonathon – remember them – now where did you leave ‘em? Eh?....NFI = right answer.

As for the ‘Hitch’ take – seriously; who gives a monkeys? AP logged 20 times the AF readership last month; this week alone. Hitch don’t signify – just don’t read him; boycott the blighter -  it is, believe or not, just that simple.

[Peetwo]

Hitch develops keyboard diarrhea -   

A little bit late - as I've had more pressing things to attend to - but it somewhat passing strange that the closer we get to the end of the year the more SH seems to be upping the word count and opinion on his little pet LMH weekly summary?? Anyway because he is now promoting one of the wiser and more sane aviation safety experts in this country (i.e KC of AMROBA fame -   ), I am again tempting fate by rehashing one of the longest LMH pieces that I think I have ever seen: 

– Steve Hitchen

The clock struck five and Mr Morrison packed all his pencils in his pencil case, tucked his folder under his arm and marched out of the house. With that, a filibuster-filled last day in Federal Parliament yesterday abruptly ended. The government had avoided an embarrassing defeat on medical care for asylum seekers that would have highlighted their inability to control parliament and therefore, some would say, govern effectively. Shrewdly, the PM has programmed only 10 more sitting days before parliament is dissolved for the May federal election. When you're in minority, sitting days present more opportunitites for defeat than they do victory, and defeats can only dilute the Coalition's message going into the big poll. What this means is that general aviation is unlikely to be mentioned to the house next year because it won't appeal to enough voters; time is of the essence and the largest dragons have to be fed first. Commentators with more wisdom than me are predicting a wipe-out for the Coalition, which will see Labor back in power and the dust blown off the Aviation White Paper that plagued aviation during their last term in power. The only lifeboat we have is the promise from Anthony Albanese of bi-partisan support for GA reforms. If he's true to his word, the changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to enshrine the need to consider cost will make it to the House sometime after the new government begins its term. But need we worry who's in power? When they say you have bi-partisan support a change in the government shouldn't have any impact. That's a politically naive position to take because bi-partisanship often dissolves in the acid of political imperative. The only thing that is certain is that we are in for more uncertainty

the issue of general aviation has been allowed to rot in a corner

Ken Cannane at AMROBA has gone right to the heart of the matter with his piece on industry transition. It's been clear for about 20 years that the GA industry in Australia is changing, but as Cannane asks, changing to what? With no clear direction of the industry's place in the Australian economy, GA has been at the whim and mercy of change for the sake of change, with no controls applied to ensure that GA moves into the next generations with purpose.I began to think we were onto something with the BITRE report; surely a revelation of the value of GA would catalyse the government into doing something like the Thunderbirds responding to a MAYDAY. I am kicking myself for my naivety. The report produced a lot of statistics, but almost no action or recognition on behalf of the government. Consequently, the issue of general aviation has been allowed to rot in a corner with the government letting it decay in the hope that it will conveniently go away. You could easily interpret that as meaning the government considers GA has no place in the economy, except as a means for recovering the cost of regulation. When you look at the amount of money being spent on the inland rail and Western Sydney Airport and compare that to the scraps thrown to a hungry GA industry you get a clear idea of what successive governments think. Yes, clear policy is needed, but that policy also has to have integrity and be backed-up with investment.

But lack of policy is only one boat anchor that GA has to deal with, another one is regulatory attitude. Regulatory attitude seems to govern what CASA does even moreso than the minister's Statement of Expectations. Take CAR Part 135. This is the new suite that lays out the laws regarding passenger-carrying ops in small aircraft. It has been consulted to death, but somehow has been sent for rulemaking without giving any idea of the maintenance regime that will need to be applied to aircraft operating under these rules. The industry has made it very clear they fought to have it included but came up against a brickwall. According to CASA, Part 135 is operational and therefore doesn't have maintenance regs included. This is what I mean about attitude. The SOE doesn't demand that and the industry feedback (that has come to me) doesn't support it, so the thing pushing it along must be attitude. Example Two: consultation pushed hard to have the "nine seats or less" rule extended to 13 seats so the many Cessna Caravan types operating in Australia could be included. It was an out-right winner, but I have been told it didn't greet the judge because someone at CASA tripped it at the last minute saying they would have to consider world's best practice. This is an attitude thing, not an obligation. If it was an obligation they would quickly find that world's best practice means including the maintenance regs in Part 135!

And just as we're about to sign-off, CASA has released the policy paper on CASR Part 43. These are the new regulations covering GA maintenance that have (theoretically) been based on the FARs. The seminars start next week, so if you've put your name down to go to one of them, download the policy paper here and give it a good look over the weekend before heading for the seminar. Go armed with questions.

 CASR Part 43 Policy Paper

The new draft CAAP on ops at uncontrolled airports did make it out before the weekend. This is the one that has been at the centre of the five-year debate on frequency use. Last October, CASA called to a halt all the consultation and went with a recommendation of using the area VHF rather than 126.7, but emphasising that a pilot can do what they like if they think it's needed to operate safely. But that's only one section; the CAAP covers all operations in and around CTAFs and ALAs and all of it deserves our attention, not just the frequency issue. The CAAP is up for feedback on the CASA Consultation Hub until 16 January.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...emq6YRX.99

Also on Friday I note that Ben Wyndham, by way of reply to Flying Oz, has had another crack at SHitsandwiTCH...

Ben Wyndham  flyingoz • 4 days ago

...but the operators they are targetting are NOT operating that way. If you want "remiss", it was remiss of Australian Flying to publish from the CASA press release without going to the affected operators and getting their side of the story.

In not one case that I know of is the AOC "borrowed or lent". In every case the AOC holder is controlling the flight operations and the other party is reduced to nothing more than a broker, a Marketing arm or a tour organiser.

Again, CASA has collaborated fully with the construction of these operations and they have delivered a much higher level of safety management and operational oversight than would otherwise have been the case.

For CASA to reneg and now persecute these operators is outrageous.

Hmm...I wonder if the chicken came before the egg? Perhaps that explains why Hitch suddenly developed a case of keyboard diarrhea?

 
MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Tonight’s topic – Mental Bantam weights.

“It takes a special type of incompetence to buy trains that don’t fit through the tunnels,” Mr Foley said

Curse you P2 – I vowed never to read another load of dribble from the Hitch creature; and yet here I am reading a new ‘slant’ from the aeronautical dwarf. On ‘politics’ -  FDS, as if he’d know. This government is in crisis, aviation is a long, long way down the list. For the weasel Hitch to even attempt a ‘writing’ style is offence enough; but seriously:-

“The clock struck five and Mr Morrison packed all his pencils in his pencil case, tucked his folder under his arm and marched out of the house. With that, a filibuster-filled last day in Federal Parliament yesterday abruptly ended.”

As if – ScoMo would even break wind at the mewling’s of the GA industry – he is up to his arse in alligators on some really big issues – loosing government being one of those matters to consider. That, stand alone is a big ticket item for the reprobates currently masquerading as a ‘government’.

Yet suddenly “Hitch” decides to become not only a ‘qualified’ political commentator and ‘expert’ aviation buff; but, to develop a ‘writing style’. I’ve read better on the dunny wall; he has a long pilgrimage to make, before he may even approach the feet of grand master Phelan. Now there was a man who could and did write with clarity of vision, deep understanding and a certain je ne sais quoi about ‘the way thing’s are’.

Hitch needs to grow a set – there are some pretty serious aberrations floating about out there; Bruce Rhoades for a starter. But no, we get some half assed, nonsensical rubbish about how the Prime Minister knocked off at 1700 hrs and packed up his pencil case.

Gods spare me – I don’t need an excuse to have another beer  however; thanks Hitch. It is my turn to talk at the BRB/IOS indaba – guess what; you are the comedy section, along side of Gobson; an others, who just don’t know when to STFU.

Ayup; same again – it will be a longish ‘chat’ with the brethren, need to keep the voice box lubricated; and, it is always good to kick off with a laugh.

[Gobbledock]

LMH = Load of Manure Hitch

Well there you go! Just when we thought that Fuhrer Hitchens had reached his climax of writing inability, he turns to writing about politics and blows the audience away with a load of shite that reaches a new low. Has this buffoon recently completed a course with Peter Gobs’full’o’shite, Steve Creepy, and that nerd Geoffrey Thomas? They all speak the exact same SHIT and are Presstitutes working for their ‘Pimp’ - the Government.

Australian Aviation should hang its head in shame, letting that fool write articles such as that. Somebody has obviously tickled his ego and ashamedly advised the narcissist that his writings are good. Well they are not good, they suck! He is just another CAsAmite extolling the virtues of an inept and out of touch Regulator so he can make a buck. Steve, you write pony pooh mate, it’s all piffle, folly and waffle. Hang up your pencils or go back to writing obituaries or Gumtree advertisements.

[Gobbledock]

CASA criticised over failure to act after fatal helicopter crash

In between eating chips and watching Trump impersonations on Poohtube the Gobbledock has been patrolling the MSM sites and found this snippet from the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh;

https://www.smh.com.au/national/queensla...50oah.html

Cherry picked;

“A coroner has criticised the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for taking no action in warning pilots of manufacturing and design faults of a helicopter model after a fatal crash in central Queensland”

And;

“Mr O'Connell said despite the helicopter being considered as an experimental aircraft, CASA had taken no action following this incident”.

And;

"I will also refer the issue to CASA as to what action they consider necessary as to date there appears, from the evidence at the inquest, little which has been done by them so far”.

To be fair to CAsA, they really provide nothing of safety value to the aviation industry anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter what the Coroner recommends. However I’m sure CAsA’s bearded bullshit artist and fellow Presstitutes Steve Creepy, Head Case Hitch or the Toadfish lookalike Geoffrey Thomas will have something nonchalant, ill researched and stupid to say.

Tick Tock

[Peetwo]

CASA criticised over failure to act after fatal helicopter crash

In between eating chips and watching Trump impersonations on Poohtube the Gobbledock has been patrolling the MSM sites and found this snippet from the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh;

https://www.smh.com.au/national/queensla...50oah.html



Cherry picked;

“A coroner has criticised the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for taking no action in warning pilots of manufacturing and design faults of a helicopter model after a fatal crash in central Queensland”

And;

“Mr O'Connell said despite the helicopter being considered as an experimental aircraft, CASA had taken no action following this incident”.

And;

"I will also refer the issue to CASA as to what action they consider necessary as to date there appears, from the evidence at the inquest, little which has been done by them so far”.

To be fair to CAsA, they really provide nothing of safety value to the aviation industry anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter what the Coroner recommends. However I’m sure CAsA’s bearded bullshit artist and fellow Presstitutes Steve Creepy, Head Case Hitch or the Toadfish lookalike Geoffrey Thomas will have something nonchalant, ill researched and stupid to say.

Tick Tock

P2 edit - From Coroner's report:

Coroners Act s. 46: ‘Coroners Comments’ (Recommendations)


 [36]. This incident does provide the opportunity to recommend important improvements aimed at reducing the risk to users of this particular model of Cicare`.

[37]. To my mind there appears to be a clear issue with the fitness for use of the tail rotor gearbox output bearing and rear stabiliser as they are presently manufactured. It is, indeed in my mind, certain that excessive vibration from the gearbox on its’ output side is causing the failure of the stabiliser which presents as cracks 32 around the join at the conical (or horizontal) mount section. Clearly the manufacturer should redesign the tail rotor gearbox to eliminate the movement which develops from very little use and the stabiliser component for greater practical durability through either oblique bracing struts supporting the vertical fins, high heat treatment of the tube and its welds, or perhaps heavier gauge materials 33 . None of these options are expensive nor difficult processes. The high heat treatment (termed ‘Normalisation” seems very straight forward and could be implemented almost immediately). Perhaps the component only has a certain number of hours of useful life before it should be replaced? This is beyond my expertise, but clearly there is an ongoing issue for the experts at the ATSB to monitor and CASA to determine the most suitable way to enforce 34 a safer aircraft.

[38]. Accordingly I make Recommendations in this regard but I do point out that I consider there does not need to be any wholesale change to this aircraft in its use, simply a better awareness of the tail stabiliser issue, and a practical, costeffective, solution. These types of aircraft are essential equipment for undertaking activities on large rural properties and accordingly should always be available for such. This model merely has a component issue which needs prompt addressing, not wholesale changes to the use of such helicopters.

[39]. It was apparent at this inquest that the tail stabiliser assembly developed cracking despite its re-welding so that is not a solution as the cracks then developed around the welds, some may say simply taking the path of least resistance. Accordingly it is desirable that if any metal fatigue cracking is detected in the tail stabiliser assembly that the item is only replaced. I note that the item is manufactured as a complete unit, and it is simply a “bolt-on/bolt- off” unit, so it is not overly difficult to replace 35, and only a manufacturers original equipment part (hopefully modified in future) should be used.

---

32 Sometimes not visible, but likely present due to ‘working rivets’ where fine black powder appears to bleed from rivet locations, indicating excessive friction and movement is occurring. The ATSB’s letter to owners (see exhibit D1 at page 23) diagrammatically explaining this is commendable.
33 These are merely suggestions for investigation given by an admittedly aviation layman Coroner
34 I appreciate it is an Experimental Category aircraft, and so far lesser restrictions and rules apply, but in the instance of this model Cicare` there clearly is an issue that needs prompt correcting.

---

[40]. The suspected deficiency of its design or manufacture needs to be well broadcast again 36 to users of this particular model Cicare` helicopter. Perhaps the CASA should investigate whether this particular model aircraft should be grounded until a solution found? That is for them to decide.

[41]. Due to the precise solution not yet being known I will refer the matter back to the ATSB for further investigation of this incident together with the one in WA to see what similarities present, and then solutions which are practical and cost effective. I will also refer the issue to CASA as to what action they consider necessary as to date there appears, from the evidence at the inquest, little which has been done by them so far. Accordingly I will make a Recommendation to refer the matter for further investigation and as to determine possible solutions to the ATSB, with an additional referral to CASA for any necessary regulatory action. - P2 with CASA's track record with responding to Coroner's (&/or ATSB) recommendations, I wouldn't be holding my breath Mr Coroner (see PAIN reports - HERE & HERE ). 

[42]. About twelve of these aircraft were delivered in Australia, and forty worldwide, so there are many persons presently flying with the existing deficiency and at risk of a repeat fatal accident.

[Peetwo]

Oz Flying for the comments - 

Slightly tempting fate here...

I note over the last week or so that Hitch appears to have woken from his post Xmas/New Year's slumber. Not wanting to provoke the Ferryman too much here are some links (plus the comments) for both this week's LMH and Hitch's take on the miniscule's WOFTAM amendment to the Act:

1) http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...ruary-2019

Sandy Reith • 2 hours ago

Hitch you are absolutely right, in principle, about the efficacy of changing the Act without altering the so called primacy of ‘safety.’ However to dismiss the result as zero is overly pessimistic. I know we are all worn down from hopes dashed again and again, all the official promises revealed as more platitudes. The pattern across the last thirty has become so clear that pronouncements from Ministers and CASA of coming improvements are simply not believed. 

But we do have here part of what we’ve been asking for, and this change to the Act is a psychological jolt to the bureaucracy. Already the pressure we are bringing to bear is showing results, some relief from AVMED in the Basic Class 2 and dropping Eng4 (charter engine maintenance) from the disputed Community Service Flights (CFS) regulations. 

The latter now subject to Disallowance motions from cross bench MPs and likely to sink with out trace is my prediction, and many Coalition MPs will be glad. I’m hoping some may cross the floor. 

Much credit must go to the new heart and strong voice of a regenerated AOPA and the new AGAA partnership. Having attended the Wagga Wagga Summit and spoken directly with Michael McCormack I’m certain that our firmness and direct action is paying off. The rushed appearance of the CFS which Mr. Carmody wanted to implement without going through Parliament snacks of desperation. Is this the Iron Ring trying to plug holes in their old rust bottom ship? All shiny and serene in their magnificent suites and cabins up top but the crew below are running ragged and the bilge water is gaining.

2)  http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...parliament

Ian Tucker • 2 days ago

May be a promising first step but I expect CASA will continue to use it's trademark underhanded tactics to ignore submissions from the GA representative bodies AND any Statement of Expectations introduced by the government. Suspect the Minister's speach was written by CASA spin doctors, note the word "continues" in the following extract. "The bill will allow the government to ensure CASA CONTINUES to consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community." CONTINUES ......really !!

MTF? Errr maybe!!...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH catching up on St Carmody at Estimates. -   

Reference:

If not; why not?

I have just sat through, paying attention, to the CASA Friday special video in the Senate. I have – so help me. I even watched and listened carefully to St. Carmody; by Gad he’s good.  

Mark you, when the minister is carefully managed, spoon fed and watered by St. Carmody’s very own personal aviation specialist, on loan to whichever pathetic specimen of human kind wears the Emperor’s new clothes; an overwhelming sense of confidence must be expected. Hell, with that sort of entrée and backing; you could sell the hanger cat to the public as the next ducking Messiah. So long as the minister is ‘in the loop’ and as dumb as a hammer – you are on a winner. Why would St. Carmody (the self righteous) even break wind, let alone tremble when a couple of stray Senators start asking easy, uniformed questions?

One of the more alarming elements of the whole thing is that St Carmody (ordained preventer of accidents) has either a very slick understanding of ‘statistics’ or has someone on tap who can not only make statistics jump through hoops; but is capable of making those hoops. Remarkable results – to order.  For instance hours:-

Let us examine this ‘safety’ myth that total hours can, in any practical way, relate to the safety of not only CSF operations, but ‘private’ operations in general. I have a good mate who has many thousands of hours in command of a fairly hefty jet transport – which routinely does long haul international flights; top of his game, all flight checks passed and he is bloody good at commanding the aircraft. Would I trust him to fly my family in a single piston engine, propeller driven aircraft, at night to a strange port? No I bloody well would not. Why? Well, he ain’t current for a start and not in the groove for seconds, nor does he have the toys, horsepower and systems support he has learned to rely on in his normal daily work. There is however a young lady of my acquaintance who does very little else except nurse an aging single engine aircraft about the country side, often after sunset, with very limited basic equipment and very few options in so far as power, redundancy or systems backup; yet I would, without a second thought allow my nearest and dearest to travel with her. Why?

One pilot is in current practice with the operational environment the other is not. The young lass could, perhaps get the jet started but that would be the end of it – my mate could probably get the aging beast started; and, relying solely on past experience even manage to fly a circuit or two. But, in an equal race – neither could do the others job. They are simply worlds apart. My mate has not been near an aging single engine aircraft for 30 years; our young lady has never flown a heavy transport. QED?

Yes, an extreme case study – but since when did ‘hours’ signify safety? Angel Flight could (IMO) resolve this silliness quite easily. A pilot data base which would qualify or disqualify a NVFR/IFR or VFR operation on the basis of current in-practice minimums, in compliance with the Regs. A training course which certified that AF pilots have undertaken a course entailing ‘CFIT’/ Weather avoidance analysis, flight planning, fuel management and ‘risk mitigation’ etc. Even had a ride along with a qualified person to ensure that ‘standards’ were met across the operational board. Simple enough to arrange and do. This would provide ‘evidence’ of competency, recent experience and disqualify those who were not ‘currently qualified’ from conducting AF operations until they were. Small expense incurred – occasionally – to provide a venue; lots of experienced folk willing to assist – on a voluntary basis.

No wonder Sen. Patrick say’s “I can’t quite see it” when referring to this cockeyed CASA notion of how ‘safety and statistics’ support their claim that the ‘Little Wings’ version is OK and AF is a setting up an increased level of danger to those who travel. Bollocks.

Even more remote from reality is the CASA take on ‘engine hours’ and aircraft maintenance. Ask any commercial pilot about ‘fit’ aircraft. When do most ‘mechanical’ problems appear – after maintenance. Which aircraft operate and fly the best? Those which ‘fly’ often is the answer. Which is the mechanically and systems malfunction worst aircraft they ever flew – the one which has been in the shed for a twelve month is the answer.

CASA and in particular St. Carmody continue to display their complete disassociation from the realties of working aircraft, pilot fitness for the scheduled operation and sound operational practices.

St. Carmody and his acolytes may be familiar with ‘theory’ but the view from the Ivory tower is limited; the answers are down in the grass roots and basic tenets; not in some academically dreamed up notion of a legally arguable ‘safety’ case. Practical reality; not a sound legal defence against litigation. But Hells Bells, they can’t even get the legal/medico stuff right – as the USA attorney’s are about to point out. The Mt Hotham incident should be the can opener; the Essendon DFO the worms inside that can. Will CASA get a spanking for operational ineptitude? I hope so; for it is well deserved and long overdue. It I were ‘the minister’ I’d be worried more about that and the fall out afterwards than supporting some half arsed waffle stating that sick folk getting a ride to treatment are at more risk than the same folk going shopping – in the DFO – having been given a cost shared ride into town. Pure, unadulterated, political arse covering BOLLOCKS.

Will anything ever change? Yes is the resounding answer – the revised Act, as presented, has, in legal terms imposed a more onerous, retrogressive set of requirements than the one to be replaced. Don’t believe me though – just read it, very carefully – then watch Hansard video 1 and see the smug, satisfied smirk on the wizened face of Jonathon (where’s my marbles) Aleck when it is mentioned. But please, do read the amendment to the Act – ask a legal friend to explain it – and pray to your gods of choice that amendment gets thrown out, into the garbage, where it belongs. A bonus would be the scrawny arse of Aleck following it.

But enough – I’ve only just seen the ‘vision splendid’ once; however, I can assure you, I will watch it all again  MTF? Damn straight there is……..

Toot- Toot.

The Dictatorial, deluded world of Carmody Capers - 
Still waiting on the Hansard but after a technical glitch (now rectified by the good crew at ParlAV -   ) I have now completed the Fort Fumble Estimates video segments in five parts.

My first takeaway from watching the recordings is that the total and utter rubbish emanating from both Carmody Capers and Dr Hoodoo Voodoo Aleck is so full of weasel word rhetoric and disconnected, illogical spin'n'bollocks as to be a perfect script for a comeback series of 'Yes Minister' -  

Listening to an obviously much more relaxed Wingnut I kept of thinking of how many times the un-elected career bureaucrat kept saying it was his decision, my decision...I..I..I..etc..etc..(cough..vomit.. ), till in the end the DASictorial Carmody utters the words that we now all come to expect from these power freak aviation safety Mandarins...        

See from 11:20 here: https://youtu.be/6K9s8wIA9cQ

Now why does that sound oh so familiar  - FFWD to 01:38 : 

Update - Hansard: 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Mr Carmody : That's fine. I understand everything you've said. I would make the point, however, that as a director of aviation safety my responsibility is to keep Australians safe. They're the decisions I make, which the government has empowered me to do and wants me to do, based on the evidence that I have. I've made those decisions and it's up to the parliament. If the parliament wishes to disallow, I understand that process completely.

Senator PATRICK: And I'm a senator who wants to make sure that people who rely on these flights to get medical treatment also do so safely, but there's always a balance to be had here and I'm just not sure it's right.

Mr Carmody : There is certainly a balance, and this is—

Senator PATRICK: We can make it completely safe by banning everyone from flying, and there will be no accidents.

Mr Carmody : That's certainly not our intent. That is why, as you know, I listened to what was said with rotary-wing and said it was not my intention to limit the field; my intention was to make sure these activities occur. But we are in the precautionary space. I cannot prevent two accidents that occurred—I cannot do that. What I can do is raise standards to prevent the next accidents occurring. I can't do any more with organisations like Angel Flight than encourage them to raise their standards. I cannot get them to do anything else, because they are not subject to my regulatory oversight. I can only encourage them to raise their standards. I've done that.

Senator PATRICK: You gave every one of their pilots a licence.

Mr Carmody : With respect, they would say they are not their pilots.

Senator PATRICK: Okay. Sure. I'm done, Chair. Thank you very much for your time, Mr Carmody.

Mr Carmody : My pleasure.

ACTING CHAIR: Just to follow up what Senator Patrick said: I think the reason we are both concerned about these regulations is that we've heard from the general aviation sector over a long period that they feel they are being squeezed out of existence by the level of regulation they face. As Senator Patrick said, we could make things a lot safer if everybody stopped flying, but I don't think that's where any of us want to be...

LMH must have had a quiet moment while at the Avalon Airshow?

Via Oz Flying: 

Senate grills CASA over Community Service Flights
27 February 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
The senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) Legislation Committee last Friday put CASA's new community service regulations under the microscope in a supplementary session of senate estimates.

Senator Rex Patrick and Acting Chairman Slade Brockman sought clarification from CASA CEO Shane Carmody over the new regulations, focusing on the difference between a normal private flight and one organised by a community service organisation such as Angel Flight.
In answering some of the questions, Carmody said that statistically a community service flight (CSF) was "four to five times" more likely to have an accident or incident than a normal private flight, and offered to provide grounded evidence at the next RRAT session marked for 2 April.

Carmody also stated that the new limitations of 400 hours total time, 250 hours in command and no Night VFR were aimed at raising the standards and pointed out that the CASA restrictions were still not as rigid as those applied by some Angel Flight organisations in the USA,
However, Carmody also agreed with Senator Patrick that the new regulations would have only minor impacts of the operations of Angel Flight in Australia.

Senator Patrick took particular issue with the ban on Night VFR operations, querying what made a CSF any different from a normal private flight

"I'm just trying to understand why, where you have someone who is qualified to fly night VFR, I can go to that person and say, in a private way, 'There're two of us in the plane; how about we split the cost of this journey?', Senator Patrick asked.

"I can pitch in for the fuel, pitch in for some of the maintenance costs and pitch in for whatever other costs might be involved in the flight. But my colleague who is ill—with the same pilot, the same aircraft and, in this instance, where someone is assisting with the cost of the fuel—can't do that. I just wonder how you differentiate between—I'm probably less valuable than that person!—two people in exactly the same circumstances from a safety perspective?"

"In that last accident case, I think the drift into night VFR was a consequence of late appointments and what have you," Carmody replied. "Sometimes this happens in the community service flight sector, where someone is flying into the city for an appointment. The appointment gets delayed, something happens and then they're under pressure to get back.

"In this case I think it was a drift into night VFR, but they ran out of time. The pilot would be saying: 'I'm still qualified, so I'll fly in night VFR. I've been flying all day but I'll keep on flying.' We're looking for human factors, decision making, to say, 'Maybe I shouldn't fly night VFR.'"
Senator Patrick also tabled the Angel Flight documentation that showed people accepting CSFs were required to sign a waiver, read a fact sheet and watch a video, which the senator believed negated the duty-of-care factor and showed that passengers were going to into the flight with "eyes wide open", which led to the following exchange.

Mr Carmody: What the document doesn't say is that, in Angel Flight's case, for example, according to our statistics, there's a significantly higher risk of accident or incident flying with Angel Flight than flying privately.

Senator Patrick: I'm going to ask you to table evidence that grounds that statement.

Mr Carmody: We have done our calculations, which have led us to our conclusion. I'm not sure that, even though we've done our work, everyone will agree with it. I'm quite happy to table it or quite happy to do it on notice.
Senator Patrick: That's fine.

Senator Patrick later put CASA on notice that he was expecting to see the statistics CASA was relying on to make their case and how the new regulations would make CSFs as safe as normal private operations.

"Can I just tell you the strategy that my party has done in terms of lodging a disallowance. We have lodged a disallowance in the House. It's really just to send a signal so that people can be prepared and present their case. I will do the same in the Senate when it returns on 2 April.
"I don't want to disallow something, but you've got to make your case. You are the safety authority. You are introducing a regulation that you say is centred on safety. I can't quite see it as it stands. You have now basically said it comes down to the statistics. You are concerned that Angel Flight have more incidents than private pilots [private operations].

"I want to see those statistics and see how these regulations would have altered those statistics to get them back to the place we are with normal pilots' licences."

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...vyel99i.99

Still shake my head over the completely unchallenged load of weasel worded lies and bollocks that emanated from St Carmody's lips in that session - UDB! 





MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH 25/03/19: The Federal Government and the regions, more Angel Flight and a new Senior Contributor. 

...Do not adjust your sets, this is in fact Monday. Last Friday we had a technical glitch in the Sydney office that prevented the weekly newsletter from going out, so we postponed it until today. Apologies to all those that may have been wondering what happened ... we are still sort of wondering ourselves!


The Federal Government released their manifesto Planning for Australia's Future Population last week, a large part of which is effectively a policy of investing in the regions to restrict the relentless march of capital-city suburbia. It talks about new roads, new rail infrastructure and jobs growth among many things. Out of curiosity, I searched the document using the term "aviation" and got NO RESULTS FOUND. Searching again under "airports" found reference to Western Sydney, a rail connection to Tullamarine, and Hobart Airport. That's it. Our industry and community gets no other mention in this tome, which can be taken squarely as a pitch for votes in the May election. Such scant mention of aviation in a policy that boasts about "better connecting regional Australia" tells the aviation community exactly where we stand: nowhere. Despite the rhetoric of successive ministers it is clear the government believes aviation plays no part in the future of Australia other than as gateways to and from the capital cities. How can a serious government honestly believe it can connect regional cities by ignoring the most efficient way of doing it? It is a depressing norm that aviation always gets the rhetoric, but not the action. This time we've even been excluded from the rhetoric, an effect of not representing enough votes to make politicians sweat at night.

"..the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation.."

Perhaps the goverment would have done well to consider Ken Cannane's position on jobs in the regions. The head of AMROBA last week outlined how he believes regulation is stifling the industry's potential to generate jobs. His plan is allow small operators in flight training and maintenance to function without having to abide by the heavy regulations that load so much cost onto businesses without returning even a reasonable increase in safety. According to Cannane, the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation and the rise of the Civil Aviation Authority and the CARs in 1988. The CAA became CASA in 1996, which it does appear only exacerbated the problem. In short, not all the functions and responsibilities of the DoA were picked up by either CASA or Airservices Australia. One of these was simply looking after an industry that reported employs 200,000 people in this country. Cannane is a firm believer in the concept of independent flying instructors and LAMEs as a way of taking general aviation back to the regional airports and therefore catalysing the process that turns small into medium and results in the very jobs the government says it wants to generate.

Angel Flight suffered a bit of check last week in its bid to thwart CASA's new regulations on community service flights (CSF). The Federal Court in Victoria ruled against their application to stay the new rules, which means they are now in effect. Angel Flight's battle is not lost though. They still have the option to argue in the courts that CASA didn't actually have the right to make the rules they've made, which was an argument put forward from the very beginning. On top of that, Senator Rex Patrick has promised to move a motion of disallowance when the senate sits again in April. My fear for all of this is that the collateral damage caused by such a passionate fight has wound back the clock to a time when CASA and the aviation community basically had no co-operative relationship at all. Good steps have been made since the Stakeholder Engagement Group was founded and consultation has certainly increased with the advent of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), but any good will from those initiatives stands to be wiped-out as the aviation community sees the new CSF rules as the old CASA rising up from the ground and smiting Angel Flight with unjustified regulation exactly the way they used to...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...zD9ACOV.99

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH 25/03/19: The Federal Government and the regions, more Angel Flight and a new Senior Contributor. 

...Do not adjust your sets, this is in fact Monday. Last Friday we had a technical glitch in the Sydney office that prevented the weekly newsletter from going out, so we postponed it until today. Apologies to all those that may have been wondering what happened ... we are still sort of wondering ourselves!


The Federal Government released their manifesto Planning for Australia's Future Population last week, a large part of which is effectively a policy of investing in the regions to restrict the relentless march of capital-city suburbia. It talks about new roads, new rail infrastructure and jobs growth among many things. Out of curiosity, I searched the document using the term "aviation" and got NO RESULTS FOUND. Searching again under "airports" found reference to Western Sydney, a rail connection to Tullamarine, and Hobart Airport. That's it. Our industry and community gets no other mention in this tome, which can be taken squarely as a pitch for votes in the May election. Such scant mention of aviation in a policy that boasts about "better connecting regional Australia" tells the aviation community exactly where we stand: nowhere. Despite the rhetoric of successive ministers it is clear the government believes aviation plays no part in the future of Australia other than as gateways to and from the capital cities. How can a serious government honestly believe it can connect regional cities by ignoring the most efficient way of doing it? It is a depressing norm that aviation always gets the rhetoric, but not the action. This time we've even been excluded from the rhetoric, an effect of not representing enough votes to make politicians sweat at night.

"..the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation.."

Perhaps the goverment would have done well to consider Ken Cannane's position on jobs in the regions. The head of AMROBA last week outlined how he believes regulation is stifling the industry's potential to generate jobs. His plan is allow small operators in flight training and maintenance to function without having to abide by the heavy regulations that load so much cost onto businesses without returning even a reasonable increase in safety. According to Cannane, the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation and the rise of the Civil Aviation Authority and the CARs in 1988. The CAA became CASA in 1996, which it does appear only exacerbated the problem. In short, not all the functions and responsibilities of the DoA were picked up by either CASA or Airservices Australia. One of these was simply looking after an industry that reported employs 200,000 people in this country. Cannane is a firm believer in the concept of independent flying instructors and LAMEs as a way of taking general aviation back to the regional airports and therefore catalysing the process that turns small into medium and results in the very jobs the government says it wants to generate.

Angel Flight suffered a bit of check last week in its bid to thwart CASA's new regulations on community service flights (CSF). The Federal Court in Victoria ruled against their application to stay the new rules, which means they are now in effect. Angel Flight's battle is not lost though. They still have the option to argue in the courts that CASA didn't actually have the right to make the rules they've made, which was an argument put forward from the very beginning. On top of that, Senator Rex Patrick has promised to move a motion of disallowance when the senate sits again in April. My fear for all of this is that the collateral damage caused by such a passionate fight has wound back the clock to a time when CASA and the aviation community basically had no co-operative relationship at all. Good steps have been made since the Stakeholder Engagement Group was founded and consultation has certainly increased with the advent of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), but any good will from those initiatives stands to be wiped-out as the aviation community sees the new CSF rules as the old CASA rising up from the ground and smiting Angel Flight with unjustified regulation exactly the way they used to...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...zD9ACOV.99

P2 comment - For some reason Hitch did not publish the following comment from Sandy, but that doesn't mean Aunty Pru won't - 

   

Hitch, great spadework, very well put the case and state of play for aviation in Australia from the Commonwealth’s perspective, and in particular for General Aviation. 


A big fat zero from the Coalition which includes the National Party, the Party that claims to represent regional Australia. What a sick joke! The NSW election results with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party taking former Nat strongholds might just prise open a few Nat eyelids to what is glaringly obvious, the relentless smashing of a perfectly good GA industry, a thirty year process of death by a thousand regulatory cuts.
 
One issue I would take up with Hitch is the effect on safety by, quote, “heavy regulation...without even returning a reasonable degree of safety.”

With respect to that opinion, from my perspective having been at the business of GA flying since 1968 as airport and aircraft owner operator, including scheduled services and training as CP and CFI, safety has been reduced, considerably reduced. Lower throughput means fewer experienced personnel both in training and maintenance Specialised skills are lost, cost increases may lead to increased risk taking.

Fewer hours flown by individuals means loss of recency and aircraft that sit around tend to deteriorate. Many in the outback have just dropped out altogether, and some are flying without medicals or maintenance releases Shock horror you say? Is it a huge problem? No its not, they are not idiots bent on killing themselves. Oddly enough it gives the lie to the whole edifice of way over the top regulation.  

In addition, we can’t imagine all the advances that we might have initiated, tested and adopted, world beating advances to our great benefit because we have the spirit and wherewithal as an advanced nation. We shouldn’t just look backwards, we should aim for much better, the world is not stationary.  

Then there’s the wider picture, and that is our rights in a free country, and that freedom that actually delivers a high standard of living. For example Ken Cannane’s excellent proposition for independent instructors, qualified instructors are prevented from plying their trade against the human rights provisions, restrictions of trade, of the UN to which Australia is signatory. No such problem in the US where, according to John King of highly respected John and Martha King Aviation, 70% of US pilots are trained by such independent instructors. Ring write or email your federal MP and State Senators. 

Lastly, hats off to Senator Rex Patrick for taking the plight of GA seriously. 

LMH 29/03/19: Hitch playing politics etc..etc - 

The Last Minute Hitch: 29 March 2019
29 March 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
– Steve Hitchen
I find it amusing that the Civil Aviation Act 1988 requires "clear and concise" regulation, yet the federal government's Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing (OLDP) basically exists to make sure that doesn't happen. Regulations are written in legalese in order for lawyers to be able to frame arguments in front of a magistrate, not as rules that can be easily understood by those they apply to. The Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) hammered the point home when they recommended a third tier of regulation to be written in plain English. CASA, to their credit, is taking up the challenge by producing a plain English version of Part 91. Good on them; I am an advocate. But there's a couple of problems. Firstly, who gets to judge if the plain English version is clear and carries forward the intent of the regulation? I suspect it will be the legal eagles, who are likely to completely destroy the document in a red-pen frenzy howling that the legislation is clear already. Secondly, CASA did not demand that the people who are writing the plain English Part 91 are actually qualified to write in plain English. So there are some challenges, and if CASA actually succeeds, I have some advice for them: throw out the legislative version and make the plain English version the law. In the meantime, we struggle on. I don't often refer my readers to PPruNe, but this time I will. Someone who has obviously been on the wrong side of legislative interpretation has opened a poll to see if the industry believes CASA has complied with the Act's "clear and concise" requirement. It's probably a Monty that most will vote "No", but it will be worth getting a reasonable measure anyway. Have a look at the URL below.

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/619804-quick-poll-if-you-have-moment-much-appreciated.html

we really don't need another long period of uncertainty and inaction

It's budget day on Tuesday, but also the day the senate sits again. If he's true to his promise, we should see Senator Rex Patrick rise and move a motion to disallow CASA's new regulations on community service flights. What happens next is currently anyone's guess. When the Prime Minister moved the budget forward one complete month, he telegraphed to the nation that he's looking to send us all to an election sometime in May. The 11th and 18th are currently leading the betting market. The PM must be looking to place the government into caretaker mode very soon, in which case the motions of disallowance–one in the House and one in the Senate–are not likely to get heard. With the Labor Party an almost certainty to get in, aviation will get a new/old minister for transport: Anthony Albanese. History has shown that Albanese is not a friend of aviation. Who remembers the White Paper? Labor has indicated they will dust off the document,  give it a coat of paint and present it back to the industry as their aviation policy again. Consequently, there is a chance that all the work done in the last few years cajoling the Coalition government into revitalising GA could have been wasted. No matter what happens, we really don't need another long period of uncertainty and inaction.

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

---

View Poll Results: Have CASA achieved clear and concise aviation safety standards as per the Act?
This poll will close on [b]4th Apr 2019 at 23:58[/b]
Yes, they have

20
2.15%

---

No, they have not

853
91.82%

---

Don't know/undecided
[img=0x10]https://www.pprune.org/images/polls/bar4.gif[/img]
3
0.32%

---

Should Australia adopt the New Zealand Regs? 

53
5.71%

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH 12 April 2019 & comments - 

Via Oz Flying:

– Steve Hitchen

Finally the starter has released the horses. This year, the race is short; a frantic dash down the front straight from the gates to the finish line. There are only two horses realistically in the race, but it appears that punters aren't really keen on either of them winning. This is the story of the 2019 Australian Federal Election. With only 36 days to sway the minds of the electorate, politicians one and all (except for half of the senate) will want desperately to be our best friends. But as in nearly all Federal Elections, the ramiifications for aviation are not clear, and even murkier when it comes to general aviation. Both the redcoats and the bluecoats have been talking it up in parliament with the Civil Aviation Amendment making it through the lower house easily. However, neither side appears to have the courage to challenge the status quo and make change that has serious impact for the industry. The Coalition has made their feeling clear, and are keen to be seen as the champions of aviation, but although they've made changes in the industry such as commissioning the ASRR and establishing the General Aviation Advisory Group, any benefits don't seem to have been felt on the factory floor. The redcoats are currently even worse. The ALP has not responded to requests for a dissertation on GA, meaning at this time we have only existing material to guide us flying voters. The last ALP document written in 2018 talks about jobs for workers, foreign ownership, air transport agreements and a swag of other issues that have no or very little bearing on the health of the GA industry. What the ALP has made clear is that the 2009 White Paper will form the basis of their policy going forward. In the end, the aviation vote is unlikely to propel either horse to the finish line, leaving us to be swept up in whatever surge comes from the general electorate, but we are a minority that services a majority and we deserve consideration.

The stat gurus are saying there's all sorts of problems with the CASA data

It seems the battle of the statisticians has come to pass. CASA has presented the senate with their data that they say supports their decision to impose restriction on community service flights (CSF), but Angel Flight has responded by using qualified statisticians as artillery to remove CASA from their high ground. According the Angel Flight's interpretation, the data CASA presented does not support the contention that CASA says it does. One of the sticking points seems to be the flight hours. CASA is using a base of 17,500 hours to derive that Angel Flight is more dangerous because four accidents over that time relates to a rate of 2.28 per 10,000 hours. However, Angel Flight is saying that over the sample period, they flew 46,000 flights. If CASA is correct, then each flight averaged only 23 minutes. Does that sound like an Angel Flight mission, given that distance to medical treatment is Angel Flight's raison d' etre? This is a very critical point. Say we give each CSF a duration of only one hour (savagely conservative), then the sample becomes 46,000 hours, or 0.86 incidents every 10,000, which, using CASA logic, actually makes CSF safer than private flights. Of course, that's simple mathematics. The stat gurus are saying there's all sorts of problems with the CASA data set and the conclusions drawn. If they're right, CASA's basis is hardly concrete, and certainly not stable enough to base regulation on. But just who's right and who's wrong? Looks like that might be up to the judge.

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

And from Sandy & Owen Bartrop:

−


Owen Bartrop • 3 days ago

I would like to see the aviation industry, possibly through AOPA, research CASA's changes or subsequent changes to the rules and regulations that they have suggested or made, say over the last ten years. That would show CASA's inability to make safe changes to those rules and regulations at their first or subsequent attempts.

This would give a view that CASA can't, or doesn't have the staff knowledge of aviation, or experience, to carry out it's duties in general aviation. From what I have ascertained, CASA has made so many errors and dreamed up unsafe suggestions that their capability to run safety in aviation must come into contention. The whole organisation as far as general flying is concerned should be stopped and rules and regulations given to someone that knows what they are doing.

---

Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

Glad that Hitch you are making the point and keeping up the pressure regarding the promise of reform that was the subject of the ASRR. The prospect of meaningful reform gulled many GA people into believing that, at last, the glaring necessity for change was recognised and action would follow. But as a few predicted, and recalling my article in a ‘guest appearance’ in this publication titled “High Hopes or Soft Soaps” (when nearly half of the recommendations were only accepted in principle) reform is impossible with the current administrative structure and lack of Ministerial or Parliamentary input.

In regard to statistics, whatever can be made out of the minute number of Angel Flight accidents, just plain commonsense tells us that nothing can be drawn from such a tiny sample. The CASA pretence and all their arguments are totally wasted time. The CASA authoritarianism knows no bounds, searching endlessly for more restrictions in it’s never ending zealotry to force us into a straight jacket of the ideal superhuman aviator. In other words being Australian is an anathema to the bureaucratic machine in Canberra.

In our perverse and unnatural National Capital of so little free enterprise or freehold, so far from the beach, I think they like to punish us for making them live there, even though we taxpayers compensate them 40% more than average for the rest of Australia.

PS, owned, worked and loved several Cessnas, all great, the 172 perhaps the most versatile, The 177 a delight, the 182 for extra performance and comfort. The 402 nine seater handles and flies so well and efficiently. Where to stop? Each with special characteristics, and like Beech and Piper, the US built aircraft are well made for purpose.

While we are on Sandy, I note the following off the UP - 

The CASA job description via KP says it all, another below read “bulk recruiting.”

---

The convoluted and verbose CASA personnel advertisement is excruciatingly childlike in it’s misguided attempt to make what should be a serious job of work into some sort of adventure in the CASA playground of thought bubbles and fantastic ‘outcomes.’ With super up to approx $163,000 pa, for a “non-ongoing” position with possible extension. The giveaway to the whole CASA modus operandi is that the program is “long term.”

It seems that CASA has money to burn, are they getting set for an advantageous change of Minister? Knowing unlikely he’ll chop them back because the majority of Canberrans vote Labor, bread and butter. Or perhaps to kid Mr. Albanese along as they successfully did the last time he was Minister with a bunch of safety necessary (exciting?) programs that needed another 200 employees? That necessitated a one off, only for four years, increase in aviation fuel levies that was estimated to yield $89.9 million. Next Minister Nat leader Warren Truss, neatly rolled (more probably didn’t notice) that one on into general revenue and its still there today, sucking life blood away from aviation into the bloated and steadily growing numbers in Can’tberra, population with Queanbeyan as per Gov stats 449,000, up from 380,000 just a handful of years ago. 

Isn’t the computer age wonderful? Everything is so accessible, easy to use and we need far less people doing mundane paperwork in taxpayer provided bureaucrat factories.

So bulk exciting! 

Bulk recruitment - WTD is that all about??


MTF..P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Bulk recruitment; one suggestion has it that employment contracts are up for renegotiation.
More money.

[Peetwo]

Bulk recruitment; one suggestion has it that employment contracts are up for renegotiation. 

More money. - Sandy.

---

Off the Hmmm....  

Well hmmm...this is kind of topical  - 

The election countdown is in full motion and us gullible fools are nightly being fed the usual political half truths and vast piles of misinformation. The world is promised in the hope of a vote, as the Polliwaffles indulge themselves in sanctimonious bullshit which rarely if ever gets realised after the vote has been cast

Last night I watched the Jones and Credlin show on Sky and a piece about the NDIS set my mind wandering.
A 22 billion project to ease the suffering of disabled people and allow them to lead a life as close to normal as they were capable of achieving.

A political thought bubble with actual noble intentions, bipartisan support, free from self interest.

When it was announced I couldn't help feeling a little pang of pride in Australia seeking to take care of its most vulnerable, but in the pit of my stomach a nagging doubt, I desperately wanted to see it work, but as with so many government projects, that started with noble intentions, I feared it would get swallowed up in the miasma of Canberra bureaucrats who's self interest and pure ineptitude at managing anything would create a vortex of rules and paperwork that would suck money from the funds available like a Dyson vacuum cleaner, feeding an ever enlarging bureaucracy. My fears it appears have been realised.

Nothing in the public arena ever comes in on budget, not even close to budget, deals are struck with unions to siphon funds into nefarious union entities in exchange for industrial peace, supply gets overpriced by suppliers with a nudge and a wink from those supposedly managing the public purse, deals get done, soft corruption they call it, but there's nothing soft about it, I often wonder just how much of the allocated 22 bullion gets eaten up by administration.

The NDIS is buried in bureaucratic bullshit, its "clients" that's what they call them buried in paperwork trying to obtain the simplest things that would make their life easier. Each application carries a fee, that fee is deducted from their entitlement, how the hell does that help them? Giving on one hand and taking back on the other. A fire wall of call centres separates the 'clients" from the decision makers who make an art form out of not being available, classic bureaucrat obfuscation. The tragedy is the bastards who manage this don't give shit about their clients as long as their rice bowl gets filled every month.

Sound familiar?

The aviation industry is managed in the same way. CAsA don't give a shit about the industry they run. The big airlines are not so easy as they are cashed up with lots of legal and political pull, but the soft target of GA is ripe for the picking and picking they do. Sad really because its all so futile because once GA is finished they themselves become irrelevant.

‘Crat’s at work.



Thorny’s post above  - HERE – starts with a Credilin/Jones ‘look-at’ the situations as it stands now. Which is fantastic for about two minutes of air time which makes folks aware of the dire circumstances facing the less fortunate – so what? Where is the follow up; where is the resultant change emanating from this exposure of the dreadful treatment the ‘victims’ receive? Where is it? It is blowing in the wind of the ether. That’s where, gone and forgotten. Those responsible know the public have the attention span of a well trained racing rabbit; they also know that the next day, the kids need to be organised, the car needs washing, the garden mowing and the mortgage is due and ‘baby needs new shoes’. The 30 seconds of compassion felt lasts no longer than the end of the next advert break and is well gone by the time MKR starts.

If you're short of a quid, don’t ask a rich man; the bloke who will help you when you’re on crutches is the fellah who has been there and done that - the rest will simply view you as a nuisance, impeding their progress. It is a fact of life which is ruthlessly exploited by those in safe, secure billets – like the bureaucracy. Not one of them is wondering how to pay the latest electricity bill on a pension – too busy planning their long weekend escape with the latest squeeze. Whatever it was that made Australia a desirable place to live is lost to the next generation – ground down into a sludge of endless ‘approval’ for this – that – or the other. FDS what happened to the ‘spirit’ of this wide brown land? Lost, forever, in the never ending bureaucratic swamp.

Our politicians are ‘remote’ from the agencies running the system – and; they like it that way. Take ATSB or CASA as an example – those agencies, through the gutless chicanery of the political minders are so far beyond public control as to be scary. They are totally unaccountable to anyone for anything at all. Not even a Senate Committee. Hells Bells they even get ‘trained’ in ‘estimates’ management – can you believe that - or even imagine the cost associated with training the agencies to duck, weave, dive and obfuscate their way through questions a committee may ask? It is not a small number; which by-the-by, those getting ‘managed’ pay for. Ridiculous? Absolutely. And yet, like good little lambs to the slaughter we toddle along to the knife and happily say we live in a free country. I say it is time to end the rule of the bureaucrat and reclaim a ‘democracy’ which, even vaguely  represents ‘the will of the people’.

Everyone seems to want someone else to ‘do something’ – wake up for pities sake.

Low on the will of the people scale is aviation.

Thorny – “The aviation industry is managed in the same way. CAsA don't give a shit about the industry they run. The big airlines are not so easy as they are cashed up with lots of legal and political pull, but the soft target of GA is ripe for the picking and picking they do. Sad really because its all so futile because once GA is finished they themselves become irrelevant.

The entire industry is slowly going mad trying to understand what CASA at playing at – or with. Yet, the changes despite serious opposition keep getting pushed through. Why? BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY, LIKE GOOD LITTLE SHEEP ALLOW IT. Say NO – tell ‘em to bugger off and put it where the sun don’t shine. 

Awww! – Whatssamtta? Scared of the Boogey Man?

Boo!

And - penny finally drops at LMH:

...There is a bit of anecdotal evidence around at the moment that CASA's Regulatory Philosophy has about as much power and relevance as an ombudsman's recommendation: it's very good in theory and a great fallback, but doesn't have to be complied with if it's inconvenient. When the ASRR sparked a series of reforms within CASA several years ago, I took the position that the impact of reform can't be measured until there is clear difference at the point where CASA staff interact directly with the aviation community. Sadly, it seems now that the reforms have had no impact; the obstructionism and payback that marked CASA's attitudes pre-ASRR still characterise regulation more than the philosophy does. Furthermore, CASA is showing more signs of circling their wagons than they are of enforcing the philosophy on the staff it was written to govern. It is obvious that personal philosophy is being allowed to override regulatory philosophy, a situation that should not be allowed to continue. With this in evidence, how can the aviation community conclude that reform has achieved anything at all? Attitudes at the "coalface" have not changed and regulation is getting more and more obstructive with no increase in safety. I am most disappointed for those in the GA community that gave the "new" CASA the benefit of the doubt.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...9koiciG.99

Plus in response another classic Ruddles...

Richard RUDD • 14 hours ago

CAsA, Im afraid is still the 'same old, same old.' control freaking bureaucrazy.

Until there is either a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry into its failed state...it will just continue on its merry way buggerizing a vital industry.

Happy Easter All! - MTF..P2  

[Peetwo]

LMH on TAAAF SMH & UAP doesn't meet the Press??

TAAAF policy 2019??

Via the LMH:

TAAAF Policy calls for CASA Reform
10 May 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has called for substantial reform of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) through a major review of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

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

– Steve Hitchen


Dr Strangelove said it nicely, I think. At the end of the 1964's Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, he berated the Russians for having a doomsday weapon they told no-one about. "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret!", Strangelove rants. "Why didn't you tell the world, EH?" The same could be said of political policies developed upwind of a Federal Election: what's the point of them if you tell no-one? Last Saturday, the United Australia Party apparently released their aviation policy in Wagga Wagga, strategically, in the electorate of Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack. Media weren't invited, I am told, to avoid "stupid" questions being asked. Since then there has been no press releases and not even a hint posted on the UAP website. They answer no phone calls and (so far) no e-mails. To paraphrase the aforementioned Doctor, what's the point? Policies are lures to get people to vote for you, but if you keep them secret how are the voters to know? It's a bit like presenting the fish with an empty hook and holding back the bait as a prize for fish that jump in the boat by themselves. Not a way to catch fish ... or voters.

CASA would be refocused on real issues rather than introducing problems by fixing things that aren't broken

The TAAAF policy released this week is likely to be the most rational, productive and effective document ever ignored by Canberra. The keystone to the paper is that CASA needs to be reformed with the board taking greater power and responsibility, with the role of the CEO/Director of Aviation Safety downgraded. At the moment, the board is an oversight committee that doesn't have a lot of power to effect change. That position gains integrity when you consider that the paper was signed by the immediate past chairman of the CASA board Jeff Boyd. Is there anyone out there in a better position to know what the problem is than the person who was regularly blocked from making significant change to the way aviation safety is regulated? I believe what we are seeing in the TAAAF paper is Boyd's statement, backed by TAAAF, of what ails the industry the most, and it is delivered from very high ground indeed. So why is Canberra going to ignore it? Effectively it would put control of aviation regulation in the hands of the aviation industry; the very parties that the government believes need to be regulated so harshly due to their cavalier attitudes towards the unfounded fears of the general public. It will be completely lost on our elected representatives that such a move would actually bring about an increase in safety because CASA would be refocused on real issues rather than introducing problems by fixing things that aren't broken. Greater papers have been ignored before, which doesn't make me feel optimistic for this one.

What a great show Wings over Illawarra was! Plenty of noise and colour that not even strong winds and heavy rain patches on the Sunday could dull. Applause needs to be directed the way of Kerry and Mark Bright, their army of volunteers and all the pilots and operators who put on a good show. We've put up a gallery of the best things so those of you who couldn't make it can enjoy some of the sights anyway. But (of course there's a "but"), I came away from WOI with the fear that we're doing air shows all wrong. WOI featured a great military line-up, warbirds (the military line-up of yore) and some of Australia's most exciting aerobatics. So are we teaching the general public that aviation is all about danger and derring-do? I love a good air show as much as the next aviation tragic, but I feel that general aviation is being stifled by the big drawcards. Last November I flew in an air show at my home airport of Lilydale. We were determined to make sure the public knew all about what happened on the airport daily, so we put up a large formation of civil trainers and twins; normal aeroplanes used in an unusual way. Anecdotal evidence told us that it was one of the routines people in the crowd remembered the most ... and they were just GA planes, nothing special. I am not saying that we shouldn't show off our aerobatic prowess, but should use the crowd-pulling capabilities of the high-energy routines, the warbirds and the ADF assets to better effect by weaving some GA into the program pattern. Just thinking out loud.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

And commentary so far on this risible turn of events in the Wonderland of Iron Rings and MOAS fairy tales...  

Frank Andrewartha • 3 hours ago

Great journalism. Re the report, we just need to yell louder and not let it fade away. Newton"s second law applies.

Eventually it will go somewhere if force is continuously applied.

---

Richard RUDD • 17 hours ago

If you want to see the power of the Board just revisit the COOP/Classification of Operations Policy accepted by the Minister and the BOARD.

Where did that all go.? ... pursued and driven to fruition by the Bored.? NUP.. Faded into obscurity, erased by the 'Iron Ring' who would then /and still brook no radical, practical , GA growth ideas.

Post election sit back and try and enjoy the same old ride

Credibility; or

Believe it if you like.

Seems great at first don’t it, that is if you don’t spend more than two minutes thinking it through – which you must.

Consider two things Time and Benefit. Consider the time gift TAAAF are offering CASA and who will benefit most from that time allowance. Then, take a break and consider who is presenting this ‘call for reform’ and why.

Let us take a short look at the gift of  time the TAAAF policy allows CASA, it is a gift from either the gods in heaven or, their mates on earth. Either way it only benefits one group and it ain’t the industry, which is dying on it feet.

How long do you imagine it will take for this:-

“TAAAF wants to see the lapsed Civil Aviation Amendment Bill re-introduced to parliament with amendments that bring about legislative changes to CASA.”

- to actually happen, how long do you imagine it will take to get through the hoops and, at the end of the shift, what do you imagine the result to be? Then take a close look at the TAAAF wish list:-

•  Amendments that address safety issues and High Court challenges to the primacy of the Civil Aviation Act
•  addition of cost and sector risk approaches
•  CASA board to have full powers over strategy, operation and administration
•  CASA board to be comprised of people with relevant and significant aviation experience
•  Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) to be ex-officio member of the board
•  revision of CEO/DAS position to increase accountability to the board
•  establishing formal consultation with peak aviation bodies.

Dontcha know - Santa Claus is an old family friend, I often pick up the Easter Bunny and give him a lift aback my magical Elephant to the North Pole where we help the Elves sort out Santa’s Christmas mail into piles of can do, will do, and mission impossible. I can’t wait to see which pile Boyd’s version of Oliver Twist’s polite request ends up in.

“How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.”

Toot - MTF – toot.

 
Okay after that brief interlude let's get back to the trough...



MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH goes cryptic but Sandy plays a straight bat -    

Via the Yaffa:

The Last Minute Hitch: 7 June 2019
7 June 2019

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...mIlE8tu.99


Does bureaucracy begat bureaucracy, and does bureaucracy begat safety? The answers are Yes and No. If you study the decisions of bureaucrats over time, it becomes apparent that their main course of action (when they decide action is indeed needed) is to create more bureaucracy. There is perhaps no better example than the decision by CASA's bureaucrats to write CASR Part 141 and 142 ... the latter in particular. Part 142 requires all sorts of management systems and managers put in place to oversee a system that was working quite well before the regulations were implemented. In effect, CASA demanded that training organisations install their very own bureaucracies, with absolutely no care in the world as to the economic impact of doing so. Of all the industries in the world, bureaucracies represent the worst return on investment, contributing significantly to the cost base without adding commensurate value to the company. It's even worse when that company is trying to earn money from general aviation. The impact was not as great at the "sausage factory" academies, many of which already had the desired managers in place, but it delivered a crushing blow to the smaller schools by depriving them of conducting 150-hour CPLs. It seems someone at CASA decided that CPLs should be trained largely by integrated courses rather than the traditional 200-hour syllabus available to Part 141 schools. But is a 150-hour CPL better than a 200-hour CPL? The answer is still being debated, which in itself is a worry, because such an upheaval forced on the industry should have had immediate and obvious safety benefits. More cost, no apparent increase in safety. That is a situation that only bureaucracy could have achieved and only bureaucracy will maintain.

 they have allowed their ears to be borrowed by a small faction of anti-airport Johnnies-come-lately

Tyabb Airport is going unto the breech once more to defend its simple right to exist. The Mornington Peninsula Shire Council has tried to shut them down using a very transparent piece of chicanery. Apparently they can't find the permits that allow the businesses to operate, and have therefore ordered them to cease operations. I feel sorry for MPSC; they are going to get their arses kicked from pillar to post, and its all because they have allowed their ears to be borrowed by a small faction of anti-airport Johnnies-come-lately who are clearly forcing the council to take questionable action. Only a few weeks ago, the very same council ordered the airport to adhere to a 50-year-old restriction that prevented them from flying during church hours on Sunday morning. The church in question has been a cafe for over 30 years. I also have trouble believing the council has only just discovered the permits are missing. Can they also not find the permits for the hangars built only a few year back, a case which went to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)? Surely in putting together the legal case which they inevitably lost, MPSC sought out all paperwork relating to the airport and the operations. Were the permits not found then? If yes, then why have they waited until now to take action. If no, then clearly they have gone astray only in the past few years. Either way, whatever court is inevitably going to hear this dispute is unlikely to be happy with this piece of maladministration.

The battle between Angel Flight and CASA is progressing slowly through the court system, as so many matters do. Angel Flight is claiming the restrictions placed on them by CASA represents a denial of natural justice and that telling private pilots who they can and can't carry in their aeroplanes is outside CASA's authority. The regulator is making a play to avoid the natural justice issue saying it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Their argument is that the community service flight regs are legislative, not administrative. That's a move to be expected when you think back. CASA DAS Shane Carmody told Senate Estimates that he expected the restrictions would have little impact on the operation of community service flights, but CASA imposed them anyway. This does seem to lack the simple logic and nexus to an increase in safety that natural justice demands. However, that's my view, and Australia's courts don't have a great record in understanding aviation. This is a swordfight worth watching.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

And Sandy in reply :

Sandy Reith • 14 hours ago

The ordinary citizen, beg pardon, subject of Her Maj, must becoming aware that we don’t live in a particularly free country. Sorry to say but the facts speak for themselves. Two areas that Hitch has well put in the LMH, troubles in flying schools, what’s left of them after hundreds have gone out of business in the last thirty years, and Tyabb as victim of our incredible government control of private land use, euphemistically termed as ‘planning.’ 

The flying school debacle no better illustrated than Glen Buckley’s great enterprise to provide the administrative functions of the extraordinarily expensive and complex requirements of the new Parts 141/142 flying school across several schools. This model he developed with full cognisance of CASA and gained several client schools all CASA compliant under his umbrella organisation. In October last only to be told that CASA’s approval was only temporary, and that no new schools could be added. Thus jeopardising the whole business model and the future of several flying schools. Absolutely extraordinary and testament to the abject incompetence of CASA in it’s administrative function. Contrast to the USA where 70% of pilots are trained by independent instructors without need of any such huge administrative burdens, let alone the costs of such nonsensical requirements. No wonder Some Aussies are heading Stateside for their training.

Regarding Tyabb they should have, as the law certainly once provided, a continuing use right. The presumption should be that theirs is the right to keep on with what has been a successful Club and the activities that have been uninterrupted for fifty years from my personal knowledge. 

We do, unfortunately, live in a country which is deserving of the name Bureacratalia, Ever growing Canberra seems to be more intent than ever to throw it’s weight around, see raids on journalist and ABC, this the flavour of the hour and its causing sour looks and indigestion.

Hmm...in line with the Sandy comment here is a SBG pre-editorial heads up...

We can be cryptic too Hitch??...MTF - P2