[Gobbledock]

A vote for Mike Smith - I support Tom, Kharon and P2's motion

Every 6 to12 months something happens that gives me a very brief glimmer of hope. Occasionally even a woody. It's usually dashed pretty quickly, but it's always fun. So with that in mind, a very very reliable inside CAsA source informs me that the reason Skiddy pulled the pin is indeed because of Boyd. Big deal you say? So what you say? Fair enough. But the fact that the 'moustache touting porno star lookalike' has had it up to his eyebrows of being beaten mercilessly by Boyd behind closed doors and has subsequently quit, could be an indicator that the worm has turned. Especially if Carmody is indeed waiting in the wings to take over from Murky, as has been rumoured deep within the bowels of Parliament House for some months.

Boyd unleashed, a new DAS (insert Mike Smith) and an appointment of Carmody as the new Secretary Wingnut of Infrastructure  
would almost gaurentee that true change is in the wind. Hell, the departure of Billiard Ball Campbell, the Witchdoctor and a couple of other parasites would almost completely confirm that change is coming! But wait, there is more - imagine if Chester stopped tweeting, Rev Forsythe's hard work was implemented and the Part 61, CVD and other assorted shenanigans were iced? Oh me oh my, it would simply be too much to take in all at once. Gobbles would keel over from a heart attack!

#mikesmithforDAS

[Peetwo]

A vote for Mike Smith - I support Tom, Kharon and P2's motion

Every 6 to12 months something happens that gives me a very brief glimmer of hope. Occasionally even a woody. It's usually dashed pretty quickly, but it's always fun. So with that in mind, a very very reliable inside CAsA source informs me that the reason Skiddy pulled the pin is indeed because of Boyd. Big deal you say? So what you say? Fair enough. But the fact that the 'moustache touting porno star lookalike' has had it up to his eyebrows of being beaten mercilessly by Boyd behind closed doors and has subsequently quit, could be an indicator that the worm has turned. Especially if Carmody is indeed waiting in the wings to take over from Murky, as has been rumoured deep within the bowels of Parliament House for some months.

Boyd unleashed, a new DAS (insert Mike Smith) and an appointment of Carmody as the new Secretary Wingnut of Infrastructure  
would almost gaurentee that true change is in the wind. Hell, the departure of Billiard Ball Campbell, the Witchdoctor and a couple of other parasites would almost completely confirm that change is coming! But wait, there is more - imagine if Chester stopped tweeting, Rev Forsythe's hard work was implemented and the Part 61, CVD and other assorted shenanigans were iced? Oh me oh my, it would simply be too much to take in all at once. Gobbles would keel over from a heart attack!

#mikesmithforDAS

Dear Ag DAS - L&Ks the SAAA cc AOPA Australia -  

Via Oz Flying today:

The SAAA represents Australia's amateur-built aircraft owners, and wants the same medical standards as that of RAAus. (Steve Hitchen)

SAAA throws its Weight Behind Class 2 Medical Push
12 September 2016

The Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) has written to Acting Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody supporting the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) requests for Class 2 medical reform.

Last week, AOPA CEO Ben Morgan called on all members to write to Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester asking him to adopt AOPA's "driver's licence" medical policy.

The SAAA letter, dated today and signed by SAAA President Rob Lawrie, supports the AOPA policy.

"We strongly urge CASA to act upon this vital project as soon as practically possible," the letter states.

"SAAA believes that private pilot medical reform will provide a very welcome relief within our membership and re-invigorate general aviation businesses across Australia.

"SAAA remains committed to ensuring our members can operate their aircraft on identical terms to that of RAAus and other sport aviation participants. We desire a true self-certified "driver's licence medical" for all private operations in Australia, assessed only where required by a medical practitioner."

This is the second time the SAAA has pushed the point with CASA, having sent a letter to Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore on 15 July this year asking for SAAA members to be subject to the same medical regime as RAAus pilots.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...5pCokmv.99

MTF...P2

#mikesmithforDAS

[Gobbledock]

P2 said;

"The Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) has written to Acting Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody supporting the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) requests for Class 2 medical reform".

Bravo bravo SAAA. We all need to do our share, and with the SAAA supporting AOPA on this ridiculous current medical issue, we have two alphabet souper's supporting industry. But we need many more supporters for change. I've been privately worried for a while that Morgan might become an IOS fallguy for CASA to take out it's displeasure upon, if for nothing more than him simply being a dedicated, proactive, no nonsense verbal sort of guy.
For my liking, if the establishment want to pineapple anybody then they may as well make it all of us! So again, support is essential. We fight the wrongs in the system together, or not at all.

Again bravo SAAA bravo.

And sorry Wingnut and no offence but;

#mikesmithforDAS

[Sandy Reith]

Mike Smith obviously has the credentials and much support and hopefully whoever gets the job understands that times are changing. We have moved on from when Mike Smith was employed in CASA previously. There has been one positive outcome of the disastrous and dysfunctional administration and rule changes and the truly massive waste of money, time and job losses.

That is that we have had to put our minds, to think on, to cogitate how we should be ruled in the pursuit of aviation. Out of this I believe we have shifted, shifted from an acceptance of a Crown given privilege to fly, to the realisation that a free people have the right irrespective of government. I believe we have moved to a accept that, for example strict and stringent aviation medicals are not not efficacious and not improving safety.

All manner of restrictions backed by strict liability and criminal provisions must go.

We will accept simple rules such as those that govern us on the roads. Anything more I believe will be subject to scrutiny, debate and critical assessment to the wider ramifications. We make it clear we will attack those measures that do not stack up.

I believe we must make it clear that the industry will not accept the old regime even as it was just workable, we must demand a new and much freer environment commensurate with an evolving sense of individual responsibility. The old paternalistic ways will not cause improvements in safety or efficiency and will not satisfy a new generation.

Mike Smith and amendments to the Act can cause real reform and a resurgence in Australian aviation. Without the legislated change to back up the new CEO it can all slip back all over again.

[Peetwo]

Warbird win on regulatory reform on Part 132.

Via the Oz today:

Warbirds under regulatory roof
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

Vintage military aircraft operating on experimental certificates will transition to a limited category certificate.

The federal government has rung in regulatory changes that require operators of historic military aircraft to join approved oversight organisations in a move that will grant new powers to groups such as the Australian Warbirds Association.

The changes means vintage military aircraft, known as warbirds, currently operating on ­experimental certificates will have to transition to a limited category certificate.

Australia has about 100 warbirds that operate under the ­experimental category but those aircraft will now have to apply for a new certificate of airworthiness, change to the limited category and seek approval for any mod­ifications that are not part of the original design from approved self-administering aviation organisations such as the AWA.

The changes will bestow approved organisations with the power to have the final say on whether warbird pilots and operators will be given the approvals and permissions they need to fly.

The AWA is so far the only ­organisation to be designated as a self-administering aviation ­organisation.

The new regulations will now also include air racing as a purpose for which limited category aircraft may be used.

This will allow operators of unmodified limited category aircraft, which are not eligible for a certificate of airworthiness in the experimental category, to participate in such events.

The government said the changes had been made to improve the safety and adminis­tration of vintage military aircraft. Infrastructure and Trans­port Minister Darren Chester said the changes, which will apply to ex-armed forces and restored aircraft, would also streamline and simplify regu­latory arrangements.

“The consolidation and clearer set of rules will provide more certainty around operations of these unique types of aircraft,” he said.

The changes have been ushered in under Part 132 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, which will include for the first time personal use, glider towing and air racing as authorised operations under the regulations.

“While the chance of an accident may be low, we should ­always look to improve our regulatory arrangements. I’m delighted to see this change put in place and look forward to seeing these historic aircraft continue to safely operate in Australian skies,” Mr Chester said.

The Australian Warbirds Association — a non-profit organisation that brings together aircraft owners, operators, restorers, maintainers, historians and enthusiasts — welcomed the changes, which have been under consideration since 2013.

“While this legislation has undergone a lengthy development process, we and all other stakeholders have been thoroughly consulted by CASA at every step of the way,” AWA chief executive Mark Awad said.

“We believe Part 132 will prove to have a positive impact on ­Australia’s warbird community, noting that its passage is a step in the right direction for CASA and its long-running process of regulatory reform.

“We represent a unique group within the broader general aviation sector, and are proud of our collaborative approach in working with other peak bodies and organisations, CASA, the Depart­ment of Infrastructure and all other stakeholders towards a stronger, more vibrant and sustainable industry for all.”

Part 132 will start on January 28, 2017.

Transition to the new regulation is required by July 28, 2017

MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

Had a few weeks sabbatical from the wonderful world of aviation.
A time free of the daily frustrations of trying to deal with the Frankenstein monster of our regulatory regime and reflect on just where we as an industry are and how we can save what little is left and perhaps see some light at the end of the tunnel that might encourage people to believe that a worthwhile future awaits them in this industry.

There is a need in Australia for the services commercial general aviation can provide, many of us are convinced this is so. Other countries, many of whom have far less potential for aviation business, have embraced change, unshackled their industry from unnecessary burdensome regulation and seen the resulting development of viable growth, built on encouragement and partnership with their regulators their industries now contribute tremendously to the well being of their economies.

The ethos of the “mystique of safety” must be pushed aside, shown as the myth that it is, in favour of the ethos of “foster and promote”. Aviation in Australia is safe not because of our regulator but despite it and I firmly believe it could become even safer, not by further masses of complicated, indecipherable, rules but by simplification. I don’t believe it is any safer today than it was in the sixties when I first learnt to fly and things were a hell of a lot simpler back then.

The complication of our rules may not be the only reason for the industries decline, but there is no doubt this has had a major effect.
It is a known fact that the more people fly the safer they become the converse is true, as costs go up people fly less.
Perhaps CAsA has a sneaking suspicion this is true illustrated by draconian and expensive recency requirements they impose on us for IFR operation.
On the non commercial side of aviation in the USA I know of few pilots who don’t have IFR ratings, in Australia I know of few who do.

Why is this so? Comparing the requirements for recency between the USA and Australia one can see there is hardly much encouragement here for pilots to undertake the training required to gain those instrument skills.
The cost of gaining the rating then maintaining it in Australia are prohibitive.

Over regulation leading to reduced safety?

Possibly, but one would think given the different requirements between the countries the statistics would prove Australia to be safer, unfortunately they do not, which begs the question, what are Australia’s unique stultifying regulations for? Maybe a little history may shed some light.

The original regulator was formed out of the department of defence, peopled by demobilised war time staff carrying all the ethos of wartime authoritarian attitudes. These people had precious little experience of commercial reality.

This attitude of “we know best” was maintained as the regulator became a place for ex military “Types” who had gone as far as their talents allowed in the military shuffled into the bureaucracy, the same military attitudes perpetuated
as each new wave cycled through the system.

That same recycling of “attitude” has continued till today.

The unfortunate thing is, as the post war industry blossomed, there was a total lack of any talented administrators with commercial experience, and as each new batch was recycled through the system, the same world war two attitudes remained, the upper level of the regulator peopled by bureaucrats with absolutely know idea of commercial reality, the lower front line staff peopled largely by industry rejects, the depth of talent, commercial experience, and expertise within CAsA is mind boggling to the extent that people within the organisation are tasked to perform duties that they themselves would not countenance by anyone in the industry.

This authoritive attitude entrenched for so long by incompetent egotistical sociopaths is illustrated by the regulators attitude to the truth.
A major inquiry some thirty years ago came to unpalatable conclusions which the regulator ignored. Since then year by year further inquiries were recycled and came to the same conclusions which were ignored by the regulator.

What did Einstein say was the definition of insanity?

The Minister calls for yet another inquiry, no doubt encouraged by his Arch Bureaucrat the Murky Mandarin as a way to discourage politically embarrassing dissent. It will come to the same or similar conclusions the recent Forsyth enquiry came to.

The problems of the industry have not changed. I would encourage the minister to read the submissions to that enquiry if he feels he needs education or his Murky Mandarin will allow him to.

I would encourage those that submitted submissions to that enquiry to resubmit
them in their original form if public submissions are called for this new enquiry.

I have been told the minister is aware there are problems but lacks the knowledge to counter CAsA. If this is so I would encourage him to get out into the industry and talk to real people not just carefully selected Casa-philes. I have heard some of these people have told him Part 61 is actually workable and does not increase their overheads, delusional rubbish!!

Finally the alphabet soup organisations must start to work together if there is any hope of change. Slagging each other off will not serve any useful purpose other than give CAsA a free kick. I just hope everyone can come together put aside their ego’s and find common ground, core issues and common aims then attack CAsA with those, the incidental barrows can be pushed later.

[Kharon]

FWIW.

TB – “I would encourage those that submitted submissions to that enquiry to resubmit them in their original form if public submissions are called for.”

IF – if this damn fool minister is allowed to persist with yet another, expensive, time wasting, new ‘review’, particularly a one using BITRE under ToR specified by Murky’s mob; then there are two options and not many choices.  Boycott or resubmit those provided to the Forsyth ASRR.

One of the big ‘unknown’s’ is, will industry be invited to contribute? – I have tried to read between the lines and get a sense of the shape and form the ‘review’; but can’t and BITRE is hardly likely to be interested in the same data set the good Rev espoused. We shall just have  to wait and see what emerges and what form it takes. One thing however is clear, this is a purely ‘political’ move, cynical, time consuming and designed to keep the growing noise, demanding real reform down to a level the minister can safely ignore.

There are those who, I believe, imagine this is a big win and some good will come of it. The history of inquiry, review, and report proves, categorically otherwise. That yet another preordained review outcome will improve matters; is a fiction; naïve, demonstrating an almost childlike belief in the Easter bunny, Santa and the Tooth faery. I note some elements of the ‘new blood’ are claiming some kind of ‘win’ and actually falling into the oldest traps in the game. Those traps for young players have survived generations of ‘new blood’, because they work. In part the traps rely on ‘ego’ and a the belief that the ‘new’ approach will solve the problems. Only the young, naïve ego can withstand the repeated hammering and is blind enough to assist with yet another scam being foisted on industry. Only the young, naïve ego is deaf enough to ignore the pitiful cries and dying agonies of the Rev. Forsyth’s good work and that of the Senate committee during a slow, lingering death. Only a fool ignores history, which, like a bad pizza, repeats.

Personally - I shall boycott the ‘new review’. Life is too short to waste on triviality and I stopped believing in Knights in shining armour rescuing fair damsels and riding off into the sunset; many, many years ago. Mud, blood, shit and hard labour win battles; not some ponce on a white horse. 

My submission will be succinct – “Stick it where the sun don’t shine “.

Toot toot.

[thorn bird]

K, entirely agree with your sentiments, the industry I fear is enquiry fatigued.
I can't help thinking however IF public submissions are called for this recycled
enquiry and IF the minister was allowed to view those submissions,
what a poke in the eye it would be for Murky when all these documents turn up
with the Forsyth address crossed out and the new one pencilled in with a note at the
bottom,
"Nothing has changed since this one or the one before that or the one before that or the one before that!
Minister time to walk the walk we have had enough talk".

Interesting little piece in the weekend Australian by our mate Mitch Bingemann regarding the downturn
in Domestic traffic allegedly showing Australians have been spooked from flying thus causing a reduction in profits
for our two airline crew. John Borgetti blames it on " a combination of reasons that include housing prices, election uncertainty both here and the in the US and global economic jitters"

err John old mate did anyone consider Ticket price? Did anyone have a look at traffic flows of Australians travelling overseas the past couple of years?

Since Australia seems to be Morphing back to the old two airline days of the sixties and seventies when a ticket return to Melbourne cost a punter about six months salary one has to wonder.

I travel fairly regularly from Sydney to the Sunshine Coast, only choice is Virgin, shitstar or a Qaintass Dash 8.
When I need to travel I look at the prices and weigh up the cost of driving compared with flying. Fares can vary between a hundred bucks one way to six hundred dependant on how much they think they can gouge out of desperate punters. Once that fare goes above a hundred and fifty bucks one way I drive, because you can get trapped into a six hundred return ticket plus all the sneaky little extras Shitstar cons you out of. Like fifty bucks for being 0.2KG over your hand carry limit (That was caused by the book I was carrying to read on the flight) (and incidentally someone should check the scales at the airport, I checked on certified scales after the event and my hand carry was actually 0.3 under the limit) Not to worry, revenge is sweet, I happened to have four American friends staying with me on holiday to visit and travel around Australia. So Shitstar might have gouged me for fifty bucks but I reckon I cost them and Qaintass quite a few thousand in lost fares. Incidently my guests loved Virgin's service.

Still I digress, airfares in Australia continue to rise? Why? fuel is still very cheap, but those fares continue on their climb to the stratosphere for domestic travel. I can buy a return ticket to the Philippines for seven hundred dollars.
A one way ticket to the Sunshine Coast or Brisbane averages three to four hundred one way, a cost I cannot justify against the cost of driving.

What has this to do with enquiries? probably nothing, but the end game is approaching for General Aviation in Australia. Its being priced out of existence by regulatory burden. Those same burdens exist for the Airline fraternity but economy of scale and a virtual duopoly makes those burdens easy to absorb, a few bucks on the ticket price is neither here nor there, but a downturn in domestic travel? Shock horror!!! could it be people have reached their limit as I have?

700 bucks return to the Philippines? Now if Australia had true "Open Skies" and international carriers were allowed to compete in the domestic market just how low would our fares go? Think of the economic benefits of Australians spending their holiday money here instead of other peoples countries. Think of the increase in foreign travellers who would visit Australia. Think of the Howls that would be heard from our Airline duopoly of unfair competition because international airlines are not saddled with the bureaucratic bullshit they have to deal with.

One can dream, but I wonder how long do nothing Darren would do nothing if that was the case.

Nice one TB. 'av a choc frog

[Gobbledock]

Thorny, excellent post mate.

With the present condition of aviation, it will take a holistic approach by all stakeholders to turn the ship around. Aviation is, by nature, unavoidably incestual. Planes need airports and airports need planes, airlines need pilots and pilots need the airlines, engineers need airlines and pilots to break the planes, and so it goes over and over and over.

One common thread throughout the entire aviation package is 'R'egulations. I couldn't be bothered listing the reasoning and necessity of regulations and rules, but suffice to say they are needed and justified, of course only to a certain point. Get them wrong or misuse them and you end up with a 'plane wreck', which is exactly where we are today. And the sad cherry on top of the cake is Miniscule Chester. What an insult to our beloved industry.

Now, as for John 'Il Deuce' Borghetti, I don't believe people like him and that disgusting weasel Joyce are themselves free from blame when it comes to problems at the top end of town. And NX nailed it precisely with his recently made observations in front of a room full of pilots.
Joyce can attribute QF's "financial miracle' on screwing staff, asset depreciation and low oil prices'. The worm hasn't done much else, particularly when it comes to safety.
And Il Deuce has been with Virgin for how long now? And how much were they in the red at the last financial report? A couple of hundred million even though staff wages have been screwed, oil prices are low, and most fares remain ludicrously high? Still having issues with hedging your prices correctly mate? Having some Ansett type problems due to a multiple fleet type, John?

The incompetence of Government as well as the incompetence of airline CEO's is most certainly a contributing factor to most aviation issues. Then you can add in the foolishness and greed of some hedge funds and their cohorts who monopolise airports and associated infrastructure and ensure that it is cheaper to buy the airfare tickets than it is to park at the airport for a week.

It will take a huge shift in mindset to fix our aviation problem.

P_666

[Peetwo]

4D in denial & a bureaucracy obfuscating - 2016 summary of ASRR progress


Reference post:

YES miniscule - all is good in aviation.  

Good catch "K" and top shot Minister Nash...



The word is that last Friday the members of TAAAF had a meeting in Can'tberra to discuss the bureaucracy progress (or lack of) in implementing the government supported ASRR recommendations. Courtesy of the AMROBA latest newsletter, KC gives a summary of what I believe can be regarded as the general sentiment amongst TAAAF membership: 

1. Lack of political support for jobs in General Aviation

The real reason general aviation, i.e. aviation sectors other than the major airlines, cannot achieve its growth potential and add to the Australian economy is the lack of political support in this country for an industry that could create many jobs and careers, especially for rural Australia.

The government defines general aviation as: "General aviation commonly refers to that part of the aviation industry that engages in activity other than commercial air transport activity. This may include small charter operators, aeromedical operators, agricultural aviation businesses, aviation-based fire-fighting services, training and aerial work such as aerial photography and surveying. It also includes private, business, recreational and sports aviation activity."

These are all operational sectors that ignores the ICAO classification of Activities that also lists: "Airport Services, Air Navigation Services, Civil Aviation Manufacturing, Aviation Training, Maintenance and Overhaul, Regulatory Functions and Other Activities (e.g. Design Activities)" ..that are common to both Commercial Air Transport and General Aviation. Regulatory Reform now means adopting one of either the FAA, Canada or the EASA system that is most applicable to the Australian needs. Each adopted provision must be reviewed to determine compatibility to other Australian Federal legislative systems and integration with other government departments and agencies promulgated requirements.

What actual benefits and jobs have been created by this reform?

Nearly 4,000 aircraft on the CASA Aircraft Register do not fly.

 That means there is really only 12,000 active aircraft.

BITRE Stats state that private aircraft average less than 30 hrs per annum.

 Low hours caused by public service inflicted ‘red tape’ and operating requirements.

The falloff in participation started with government creating the Civil Aviation Authority in 1990 with appointment of non-regulatory experienced management with every review and restructure, almost annually at one stage, increased; as regulatory experienced, internationally recognised and respected aviation experienced regulators were knowingly replaced to improve "management".

The aviation industry is conceptually focused on adapting to change as new aircraft and products are brought into service regularly. However, North America modernised their aviation regulatory systems in the last decade or so and these changes were not adopted which left Australia stranded with a system introduced in 1990s that was as flawed as was the CAA’s 1988 approach. In fact, the change from Air Navigation Regulations to Civil Aviation Regulations in 1988 was a disaster for aviation as operator after operator closed. Its effect was so bad it created another government parliamentary review that created CASA in the mid 1990s.

How many reviews has this industry and its regulator, now called CASA, been through since the Hawke/Keating economic reform was commenced? How many recommendations implemented?

We all know that the most honourable "Sir Humphrey Appleby" could think up "political speak" to satisfy (mislead) a Minister whilst doing nothing to implement. Looking at some past episodes clearly identifies the problem in Australia. Government endorsed recommendations from enquiry after enquiry over the decades have not been fully or, in some cases, partially implemented, because of the administrators of policy inane "we know best" attitude.

The ASRR report and the Government Response will not be supported, or understood, by CASA. They will do the minimal and tell government that they have implemented the recommendations.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED to bring benefits to aviation in the last 3 decades. The industry has had more red tape added to it where the FAA, for instance, has made changes to improve productivity, remove red tape, and improve safety so the FAA can provide improved regulatory oversight.

Look at the international authors of the ASRR report – two internationally acclaimed aviation management experts that government and CASA should have been thankful they provided such expertise behind each recommendation. Sadly, the ‘Sir Humphries’ are still in charge and little has been achieved. Harmonisation by adoption is what the ASRR is really recommending. Bring Australia and CASA up to the standards of mature aviation countries. Two eminent international authors:

1. Mr Spruston has wide-ranging experience in oversight and regulation of the aviation sector with the Canadian Government. He has also been extensively involved in the development and implementation of criteria for reviewing aviation safety regulatory performance as part of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). Formerly Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, Mr Spruston was until recently, the Director General of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) based in ICAO headquarters in Montreal, Canada. He has previously held senior positions with Transport Canada including Director General of Aircraft Services, and Regional Director of Air Navigation Services in the Pacific Region.

2. Mr Whitefield has held senior positions in both regulatory and operational roles within the aviation industry—he was previously a commercial pilot for over 30 years. For the past 10 years he has been a board member of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) during a period of significant structural and governance reform of the Authority. He is a member of the International Safety Review Team which most recently conducted an independent safety review of Air France following their loss of an A330 aircraft. He is also Chair of Air Safety Support International (a UK Government company charged with helping deliver aviation safety oversight for British overseas territories).

Add the Australian author to that mix and we have one of the world’s best review teams that could be assembled. Their recommendations should be adopted as proposed.

3. Mr Forsyth currently works as an independent consultant to the aviation industry and has served on a number of Boards, including as Chair of Airservices Australia, Chair of the Safeskies Conference, Vice President of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (South Eastern Section) and President of the Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division. He previously worked for Qantas for over 30 years in technical and management roles including: Manager of the Melbourne Maintenance Base; General Manager, Regional Airlines; and Executive General Manager, Aircraft Operations.

The aviation inexperience that now exists in the Public Service, including CASA, should have grasped these recommendations and implemented them exactly how these 3 eminent persons suggested in the full report. Sadly, 60 months after the release of the ASRR, the industry has seen little or no change to government practices or regulatory structure in their interaction with the industry.

However, ‘Sir Humphrey’ must have visited, as the Public Service ASRR Recommendations progress report , dated 25 August, 2016, informs the Minister that extraordinary progress has happened and they have completed many of the recommendations. Read this report – almost completed???

A review of the report last Friday, 10-12, by myself and other association leaders did not agreed with the progress report and could only accept that maybe 3 or 4 recommendations may have been completed. This is a "public service" trying to sound as though they are making progress when in fact, they are not. This is a systemic problem within the public service when aviation is the focal point. Read any review recommendations in the last couple of decades and you will see similarities in the recommendations that confirm permanent change as recommended was not achieved.

The problem that CASA, and Infrastructure, has when publishing such a report, is that their creditability immediately slips further into the ravine, and trust and respect takes another battering.

For the progress report to be placed on the Infrastructure’s website, then, not only CASA, but other government departments, including CASA’s Board, must have accepted the report.

"Sir Humphrey Appleby" quote: Yes, yes, yes, I do see that there is real dilemma here. In that, while it has been government policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Ministers and administration as a responsibility of Officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy."

Because of that progress report, the public service has to now stifle the complaints by industry by brandishing those that speak up, on behalf of the industry, as radicals not supported by industry.

The current government is relying on such a dedicated public service to placate the constituents because they are too frighten to take the action that is required by proposing legislation that their foes in Parliament could stop, just to embarrass the government. A political dilemma.

What a mess we have ended up with and what a mess the new CEO/DAS of CASA has to confront.

How do you change the philosophy after more than a generation of wrong direction? Some of those employed will never change their approach because they simply do not know the difference between safety and compliance. A person that is safe may not be compliant with written requirements but a compliant person may not be safe. Which is the better person to be working in the industry? This is where the person doing regulatory oversight has to apply discretion and encourage improvements.

Are CASA staff taught how to apply discretion when safety is being practiced but compliance is not 100%? It may, and probably means the regulatory requirement needs to be amended, not the prevention of a safe practice.

It is also disappointing to read the progress report provided to the Minister by the public service – it confirms to industry that all public service levels that supported the progress report know they can mislead the Minister but, to their misfortune, they cannot fool this industry anymore.

If you wanted to turn a failing company around, you normally clear out the obstructionists to change and create a team without silos. Sounds easy, but you also need a mean streak to make changes. - P2: In other words clear out the dross...  

And from the RAAA:

Next from Phil Hurst CEO of the AAAA's:


Then a recent quote from Sandy, courtesy the PAIN email chain:

Dear All,


Here is an example of the parlous state of flying training;  this crucial but blighted segment of General Aviation. 

Early this month a friend who is employed in aircraft maintenance was ready to go solo but was stymied due to lack of a CASA certificate of English proficiency. 

Joe has been learning at two or three different schools as his work takes him around the countryside and this requirement was overlooked until he was about to fly solo. The advice from his Chief Flying Instructor was that CASA was ok to issue the certificate retrospectively if Joe could produce Year 12 school documents to prove his schooling in English. 

That could not happen because he was interstate at the time, and so no solo flying progression until his travel for work aligns with the flying school and time permitting. 

As one of Joe's pilot friends commented, "Welcome to the world of pilot, you get railroaded at every turn". 

Joe had already passed his pre-solo exam. He had had passes on his progress report for practical radio communication (yes he is an Australian citizen and speaks as you and I do). 

Where there used to be dozens of flying schools west of the Divide in NSW and QLD there are now none or one. Tasmania there used to be twelve, now one or two. Will CASA own up to how many Australian flying schools we used to have? Say ten, twenty or thirty years ago? 

No. 

Unless Parliament makes changes and allows some freedom General Aviation and its businesses will not grow jobs and opportunity. We are all diminished by the mindless nth degree control perpetrated by the big taxing and big stick regulator. A regulator with an enormous swag of strict liability criminal sanctions at the ready. 

The model of governance by this Independent regulator, the Commonwealth Corporate body of CASA, is a failure. General Aviation businesses would expand quickly if the CASA shackles were removed. 

Sandy Reith

---

&..

"VOCA support is to be congratulated on the untiring efforts to raise the issues that bedevil aviation, especially General   Aviation, the dying whipping boy of the uncontrolled regulator. CASA was tasked to rewrite the rules some 28 years ago. Still not finished a multi million dollar rolling make program, the last tranche of regs are so bad and unworkable they are busy creating dozens of exemptions using an in house, excruciatingly Boy Scout named, 'The Tiger Team'. Trying to make best of the worst and most punitive strict liability set of aviation rules of any contempory nation. 


Again thanks to VOCA Support for continuing to display and expose the worst continuing bureaucratic suffocation of an industry in Australia's history. "

Sandy

 
Then from Stan on the continuing tale of embuggerances from an out of control big "R" regulator and a seemingly inept and uncaring line of miniscules (governments):

..My matter running since 2002 (if you don’t count the fuel contamination cover-up by CAsA) was according to Mr. S. Carmody 1 (in his capacity as second in command under B. Byron) advice to the Minister (Vaile) in 2007 RESOLVED. Yet he then promptly handed the allegedly resolved matter over to the then new ICC, Mike Hart who after my advising him as to the limits of his task, came back 18 months later to advise that he could not investigate anything to do with the executive!  (Just a continuation of the stall long enough and he’ll go away)

 
I then at a change of government decided to write to the new Minister A. Albanese, who got CASA to look into the matter. He too informed that all was RESOLVED.     Had I known this I would not have asked my local member M. Dreyfus to look into this. He also advised me that CASA had advised him of the RESOLUTION,  McCormick then got his bed-mate the ICC, Ms E. Hampton, to look into the matter with the standard reply of SUE ME if YOU CAN.
 
Application for copies of the RESOLUTION under FOI were frustrated by there being no evidence of any RESOLUTION apart from correspondence between various ministerial officers, DOTARS ? , Minister and CASA LSD
 
Next we get in contact with the Truss office, guess what their answer was?
 
Next contact with M. Skidmore, face to face at Avalon, after writing to him with the usual reply. He walks away without any answer.
 
Skidmore does engage (May/June 2016)  the new ICC – J. Hanton, to look into the matters. A few weeks later Hanton comes back that I should have provided my claim earlier. Note; Hanton commenced in the position on 1st Jan 2016. In fact anything I have known about for longer than 12 months cannot be considered without the necessary permission for him, from the CASA Board. So I write to the Board. The letter appears to have been intercepted by Carmody (2) as he answers relevant to my request but avoiding any mention. This is not on behalf of the Board.
 
Concurrently I wrote to Carmody in a different context this as to his clarifying the position of the whereabouts of the RESOLUTION papers, him  having given birth to them, according his advice to the then Minister, later confirmed by other CAsAmites to various other Ministers.
 
The important part here apart from the Aviation matters, is the tactics applied throughout. It is the legal department at all times. See how this changes your attitude to actions against CAsA.  I have kept Jeff Boyd informed of all the correspondence yet no response. So he will not be able to deny existence of the situation as it comes to a head.
 
In summary, all these tactics are firmly in place to block any form of resolution of any matter. They are rife through the Public Service including auditing agencies. So nothing will be resolved through those means.
 
I believe all changes and rewrites are unlawful as they do not comply with the Act.  “Clear and Concise” nor do the Impact statements or safety needs or a need for change get properly addressed. If we as a group want to fight them we need to concentrate on the “legalities”....

Yep all's good in aviation for 2016 - FDS...


MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

A little piece in the Australian newspaper business section on Wed dec 14.

"Allianz to shut local aviation insurance unit"

I always wondered why aircraft insurance premiums were so high here compared with the USA. The premiums for a $50 million BBJ in the USA were about comparable with a $1 million metro in Australia.

Now a cynic would say insurance companies are masters at assessing risk and given Australia's real safety record    (not CAsA's made up one) compared with the USA is so abysmal they needed higher premiums to mitigate the risk.

The article is a good one by Mitch Bingemann because unlike a lot of journo's he's obviously asked a few questions.

Some snipits from the article.

"The closure points to the continued decline of the nation's once-thriving general aviation sector, which has been progressively smothered by the cost of red tape".

"This is not just about Allianz pulling out of the market because of the declining economics of the business model. It's also about the decline of general aviation in Australia." a source within Allianz told the Australian.

" Realistically there is too much underwriting capacity in Australia for the general aviation sector, which is clearly not a boom industry. And frankly, the way the regulator behaves is resulting in general aviation's decline and is a reason why the industry is in such bad shape".

There you go do nuttin Darren, even the insurance companies are deserting the sinking ship.

[Peetwo]

  A little piece in the Australian newspaper business section on Wed dec 14.

"Allianz to shut local aviation insurance unit"

I always wondered why aircraft insurance premiums were so high compared with the USA. The premiums for a $50 million BBJ in the USA were about comparable with a $1 million metro in Australia.

Now a cynic would say insurance companies are masters at assessing risk and given Australia's real safety record    (not CAsA's made up one) compared with the USA is so abysmal they needed higher premiums to mitigate the risk.

The article is a good one by Mitch Bingemann because unlike a lot of journo's he's obviously asked a few questions.

Some snipits from the article.

"The closure points to the continued decline of the nation's once-thriving general aviation sector, which has been progressively smothered by the cost of red tape".

"This is not just about Allianz pulling out of the market because of the declining economics of the business model. It's also about the decline of general aviation in Australia." a source within Allianz told the Australian

P2 - Thorny FYI also covered here: Part II - Yep all's good in aviation for 2016   

[thorn bird]

OOps, sorry P2 missed it.

[Peetwo]

Good news story for Brumby & possibly Cowra -

Reference from - 2016 Election & GA? - Policies not Platitudes:

Jobs & growth or bureaucratic embuggerance??

The following is a short video on the success story that is Brumby Aircraft Australia, note the reason why Mr Goard and his family left Sydney Bankstown airport after 30 years:

While on Brumby & Cowra I noticed the following article from Oz Aviation where the Cowra Shire Council is embarked on an enterprising attempt to attract more aviation businesses and aircraft owners to Cowra:

Cowra offers 21 lots as part of new aviation development at airport
June 27, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au

Cowra is hoping to attract new aviation businesses to the Central West NSW with 21 freehold lots available at its local airport.

The tender closes July 29. More details can be found on the Cowra Airport website.

Going back to the TAAAF report, airports & aircraft manufacturing fall under recommendations 14 & 17 respectively:

14. Airports

Airports are critical support infrastructure and a vibrant airport sector can make a significant contribution to the overall health of the aviation industry.

The Forum recommends, as an integral part of the development of a national aviation strategy, a national airport strategy that seeks to maximise the compatibility of developments with aviation outcomes, including a process that ensures State/Territory planning authorities are also bound by such a policy...

---

17. Aviation manufacturing

Job creation is a significant element in the potential of the aviation industry to grow.

As part of the development of a national aviation strategy for Australia, manufacturing opportunities and barriers to growth should be identified and effective policies developed.

This strategy should also address the development of Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements that include the harmonisation and cross-recognition of Australian regulations with a range of other countries so as to facilitate the export of Australian aviation products and parts.

CASA charges for product certification should be abolished and CASA should be required to delegate more responsibilities to industry where there are suitably qualified candidates or organisations.

CASA should also be required to work more closely with all Australian aviation manufacturing companies to develop a more internationally competitive certification process.

Now imagine if you will how much better off industry stakeholders, like the Cowra Shire Council with its airport development project and Brumby Aircraft, were proactively supported by governments and their related agencies, who knows maybe Brumby Aircraft would be producing 50 or more aircraft a year...  

However the reality is businesses and aviation related enterprise live with the threat of possible embuggerance by government agencies like CASA. Take a look at the ongoing CASA embuggerance of Jabiru; or the Bankstown airport tenants situation as classic examples...

Is it any wonder many successful aviation related enterprises are taking their businesses off shore??

Update to the Brumby China venture -

Via the AFR:

How a flying passion turned an Aussie plane enthusiast into the hope of China

•  Philip (left) and Paul Goard, joint managing directors of Brumby Aviation at their new factory in Fuping, China. "It's a bit flasher than our tin shed in Cowra," says Paul. Angus Grigg
  

by Angus Grigg

When Philip Goard retired to the NSW country town of Cowra in 2001, his plan was to tinker with planes and do some flying.

Nearly 16 years later he's doing just that, except he's swapped a tin shed in rural Australia for a $20 million factory with 60 staff in the southern Chinese province of Fuzhou.

While not the tree change Goard had envisaged, the move will enable his passion project – a single-engine aircraft he designed and built – to go into mass production and in doing so fire up China's long-held ambition to develop its own aviation industry. "I never did get to retire," says Goard, who will soon turn 69.

The journey of Goard and his son Paul from Cowra to the industrial city of Fuping is one of the more unlikely partnerships in aviation history.

 Wang Jingyi (left) on the factory floor at Fujian Brumby speaking with Philip and Paul Goard. Angus Grigg

In 2014, a controlling stake in the Goards' family company, Brumby Air, was purchased by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), a $170 billion state-owned giant making everything from fighter jets to cruise missiles which in recent years has moved into commercial aviation.

In buying a stake in Brumby, AVIC's goal is to replicate some of its own military success in the civilian space by manufacturing a truly Chinese plane, rather than one assembled in China using foreign parts.

"We are pretty much the first one in China making a plane from scratch," says Wang Jingyi, a manager at the newly formed Fujian Brumby Aviation Co, who acted as tour guide during the Weekend Financial Review's visit in early February. "We are the pioneers."

Challenging process

A key step in that pioneering journey began last Thursday, when the Brumby 610 Light Sport Aircraft officially went into production at Fuping.

 The Goards are among a new breed of smaller, high-tech Australian operators who have found niche opportunities in China, where many of the big multi-nationals have found the going tough. Angus Grigg

Goard senior and junior were on the factory floor, with two of their Australian technicians, to begin what everyone knows will be a challenging process.

The language barrier, cultural differences, navigating the AVIC bureaucracy and training a workforce which has never built an aircraft before are just some of the obstacles faced by the joint venture.

Lack of ambition won't be a problem. Like most of China's government-ordained national champions, AVIC is thinking big.

Over dinner at a hotel near their factory, the Goards spoke of producing 15 aircraft by Christmas this year and increasing the run-rate to 100 each year by 2019.

 "It's a bit flasher than our tin shed in Cowra," says Goard junior casting his eye over millions of dollars in German machinery on the factory floor. "It's pretty amazing really." Angus Grigg

But the very next morning their Chinese partner was forecasting far larger numbers.

"We will eventually make 400 aircraft a year, over two production lines," says Wang.

"We will produce aeroplanes like sausages."

Benefit of scale

 The language barrier, cultural differences, navigating the AVIC bureaucracy and training a workforce which has never built an aircraft before are just some of the obstacles faced by the joint venture. Angus Grigg

The Fuzhou Daily, a local Communist Party newspaper, went even further, saying in April last year the factory would eventually produce 500 planes a year and generate annual revenue of $75 million.

Wherever this figure settles, the move will see the Goards producing more aircraft during a single week in China than they did in a year at home in Cowra.

This is the benefit of China – scale.

"We could just not make them quick enough in Australia," says Goard junior.

 "We will eventually make 400 aircraft a year, over two production lines," says the manager Wang Jingyi. Angus Grigg

The challenge for the Goards and their local partner is bridging this divide between reality and ambition, while keeping costs down and the quality up.

In the days before production was due to start, the usual frustrations were on display. Some of the key materials had not been ordered, machines were not calibrated correctly and previously agreed tasks were yet to be completed.

"They needed to pull their finger out," says Goard junior.

His father is more diplomatic saying: "It will all happen but we want it to happen more quickly.

"These small problems are to be expected."

'Flasher than our tin shed'

Amid the stress and activity before production starting, both father and son did allow themselves a small moment to survey the factory.

"It's a bit flasher than our tin shed in Cowra," says Goard junior, casting his eye over millions of dollars in German machinery on the factory floor. "It's pretty amazing really."

Technician Lu Yangchun works on a machine at Brumby Aviation's new factory in Fuping. Angus Grigg

For both Goards the journey from Cowra to Fuping started at Sydney's Bankstown Airport in 1996.

As a sideline to his aviation maintenance business, Goard senior had designed a single-engine aircraft – primarily for use as a trainer – but didn't put the plane into production because the cost of having it certified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was prohibitive.

That changed in 2005 when Australia, following a lead from the US, allowed self-certification for the so-called "light sport" category.

This new classification couldn't be used to transport paying passengers, but quickly found a big market among flying schools, farmers and weekend enthusiasts.

"It is now the fastest-growing aircraft category in the world," says Goard senior.

A year after CASA changed to self-certification, Gourd senior built the first Brumby 600 and his plans to just "potter around" were ruined.

"We took it [the aircraft] to an air show and got 10 orders," he says. "Then we had to get set up to produce it."

In the years after, the Brumby developed a strong following in Australia. Apart from it's competitive price – $135,000 – it's cheap to run, has high visibility through its wide canopy, a fixed undercarriage well suited to Australian conditions and has a range of nearly 1000km.

Went looking for a partner

One of the aircraft's biggest supporters is the federal member for Mallee, Andrew Broad, a pilot who owned a Brumby until 2012.

"I have flown the Brumby half way across Australia and in my opinion it is the best light sport aircraft you can buy."

But while the endorsements rolled in, the Goards had neither the capital nor production facilities to meet demand and so went looking for a partner in China.

Their Chinese story is typical of many Australian companies that have come to the mainland looking for both cheaper production and capital.

In the early days of seeking out a partner they signed, then backed out, of a memorandum of understanding with a drone manufacturer. They also went close to getting capital from a mining company in Shandong Province and even an elevator maker in Shanghai, before eventually teaming up with AVIC.

But more than this the Goards are among a new breed of smaller, high-tech Australian operators who have found niche opportunities in China, where many of the big multi-nationals have found the going tough.

The difference is that these smaller players have often discovered a way to insert themselves into Beijing's bigger strategic and economic goals, which at present are focused on high-end manufacturing and the development of a more skilled workforce.

Brumby ticks both these boxes, along with meeting Beijing's desire to develop its own civil aviation industry.

"We were told that China was 100 years behind the US in commercial aviation and wants to catch up in 20 years," says Goard junior.

Controlling stake

That need to catch up saw AVIC buy a controlling stake in Brumby in August 2014, leaving the Goards with a significant minority shareholding in the new company – the percentage has not been disclosed, although they have two of the five board seats.

The father and son team received an upfront payment, will take a royalty on every aircraft and have retained distribution rights for Australia and New Zealand.

"The Brumby story is a great Australian success story," says Stephen Cartwright, chief executive of the NSW Business Chamber.

Over the longer term the shareholding in the newly formed Fujian Brumby Aviation Co could be highly valuable, but in the next few years the Goards will make their money from royalties and being the local distributor.

The first 70 planes will be sent to Australia where they will be assembled and fitted out with avionics and other accessories.

"We will buy them at wholesale prices, hot them up a bit, and sell at retail prices in Australia," he says.

This is where the narrative from the so-called "offshoring" of manufacturing is a little more complex than just the moving of jobs to China.

Huge numbers

While the Goards were forced to cut back their production operations in Cowra, which employed 15 people at the peak, they could end up employing more staff over the longer term as an operation to assemble, fit out and service aircraft.

Then there's the training.

After the first batch of 70 planes are sent to Australia, the joint venture will focus on selling the Brumby in China, the US and Europe for use in pilot training.

But China will remain a focus and here the numbers are, as always, huge.

The Civil Aviation Flight University of China estimated last November the country needs to train 6000 pilots every year for at least the next decade to meet the demand from commercial airlines.

But the university said only half these pilots could be trained in China given the restricted airspace, which is controlled by the military, which brings up the opportunity to train the pilots in Australia.

"They [AVIC] have asked us to set up a flight school at Cowra," says Goard junior, which could mean more regional jobs and economic benefits for Cowra.

But AVIC's ambitions don't stop there.

Along with pumping out as many as 400 Brumby aircraft a year in two models (high and low wing), AVIC are pushing Goard senior to begin designing a larger "air cruiser".
For Australian aviation buffs this could be a case of back to the future.

The idea is for Goard senior to redesign the legendary Victa Air Cruiser, a four seater aircraft with a production run of one, built in 1966.

A modified version of that plane, originally made by the lawnmower company of the same name, is still used in the Australian Air Force. However what's known as the "type certificate" or the CASA approved design, is owned by the Goards.

Saving millions

By redesigning and modernising the bigger scale aircraft, rather than starting from scratch, they will save millions of dollars in CASA approvals and crunch the time required to get it into production.

"They [AVIC] are very keen on this ... it's in all their marketing material and brochures," says Goard junior.

If the option to develop the air cruiser was taken up by AVIC or if Australian investors backed the project, it would mean more jobs in Cowra. The idea is for the town to host design and early production of the aircraft.

But as the first fuselage and wings of the Brumby 610 Light Sport Aircraft roll off the production line in Fuping the father and son team are focused on the present.

"The air cruiser and flight school are all in the future ... at the moment we just need to focus on getting the first production runs right," says Goard junior.

"That's the way in China, there are always so many opportunities, but you need to focus on getting one thing right first then you can think about the others."


Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-investment/how-a-flying-passion-turned-an-aussie-plane-enthusiast-into-the-hope-of-china-20170215-gudait#ixzz4ZIlcrJBH
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

Oh Malcolm what could have been..   - Innovation, jobs & growth, the Brumby story has it all...

Oh well as long as the grubby, useless polywaffles & Mandarins stay out of the way, perhaps Cowra may get some benefit with a Chinese flying school - now there's a thought 


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

The Goads sausage factory vs the CAsA sausage factory

Excellent article P2. Well done. It's an inspiring story actually. A couple of chumps with a vision and hey presto - dream realised! Full kudos to the Goad family.

The reference to a sausage factory is a succinct and perfect analogy as I agree that they will likely succeed in pumping out those well priced aircraft with ease and in abundance (wonder if Mrs Gobbles will notice $135k of our super missing???). And as the CAsA sausage factory continues to churn out endless regulations, DAS's and ridiculously high paid bureaucrats, minions and assorted trough dwellers, our country misses out, again, on a profitable business that would have contributed nicely to a region such as Cowra, Bankstown or bloody Mareeba, who cares! Jobs go begging, an economic opportunity goes begging, an opportunity for the dopey ass Chester to smile for a media moment while sharing the Goads success on local TV goes begging....it's a bloody disgrace. This should be happening in OUR backyard, not China's!

Anyway, congrats to the Goads, well done, you deserve full marks. But Chester, Turnbull and Joyce you effing morons, take a long hard look in your own backyard. You lot are a disgrace. All you three can manage is the control of the Southern Hemispheres largest shit producing sausage factory - Parliament House.

Tick Tock

[thorn bird]

A very sad and infuriating example of what could have been, your sentiments are very poignant Gobbles.
Unfortunately its not the first and unless there are changes to the very fundamentals in way our industry is governed, it won't be the last.
Aviation is a passion, there will always be people like the Goads with a dream. It is so very tragic that to realise that dream they have to take it to someone else's country.

Where's an Australian "Trump" when you need one? When are those self serving idiots in Cant'berra going to be bought to account and our industry brought back from the wilderness.
This is just another classic example of what happens when arrogant, inept, incompetent clowns are not kept in check by political masters. Australian entrepreneurial brilliance gets exported to foster and promote someone else's
industry.
It IS a national disgrace Gobbles, and at the head of it a certain pumpkin headed mandarin.

[Peetwo]

Not good signs for GA industry -

Latest GAMA figures via Oz Flying... :

Cessna's Skyhawk SP was the best-selling small single in 2016. (Textron Aviation)

Shipment figures show No GA Recovery
24 February 2017

The 2016 shipment figures released by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) show that a much-awaited recovery for the GA aeroplane sector has not happened.

The 2262 aeroplanes delivered to customers in the 2016 calendar year is five units down on 2015, meaning effectively there is no change in market demand.

General aviation suffered greatly during the global financial crisis, and appeared to start recovering in 2014, when shipments spiked at 2454, but that was followed with a sharp decline in 2015, indicating the sector was still under pressure.

Total aeroplane billings in 2016 amounted to over $US 20.7 billion, which is only 1% down on last year, but a far cry from the $US 24.5 billion of 2014.

"The 2016 year-end results were disappointing overall, although we did see some blue sky in the turbo-prop sector,” said GAMA president and CEO Pete Bunce. “As we look toward 2017 and beyond, we are optimistic about the future and encouraged by the number of companies investing in innovative research and development programs and planning to bring new products to market."

Small Four-seaters
Despite a 30% drop, Cessna's Skyhawk SP continued to lead the category with more than double the sales of the second-placed Diamond DA40. Piper's Archer III also performed well with a 68% leap in sales. The result boosted Piper's sales by 26% or $US 32 million more than last year.

Large Four-seaters
The Cessna C182T Skylane goes from strength to strength after it was reintroduced to the range in 2015. With 50 shipments for the year, it's up 52% over 2015. However, the SR22/T range continues to dominate with 152 aircraft sold, despite that being a significant 44% down on the 270 delivered for 2015. The Cessna TTx and Piper M350/Matrix also showed declines of around 30% each.

Twins
Diamond's DA62 started to make its presence felt in 2016, with 30 airframes delivered to customers. That is only four aircraft short of the market leader, its sister ship the DA42. Splitting the two is the Tecnam P2006T with 32 aircraft, an increase of 52%. It can only be a matter of months before the DA62 becomes the best-selling piston twin on the market.

SETPs
The single engine turbo-prop market recorded a 6% increase in shipments for the year, with the Pilatus PC-12 wresting the lead from Cessna's Caravan range. Quest's Kodiak 100 also performed well with a 13% increase in sales, and Piper's Meridian series recorded a 26% jump as well.

Personal Jets
Embraer's Phenom 100 and 300 held their market lead in small jets in 2016, with the 300 out-selling the 100 by over six to one. Total shipments, however, were down by 11%. The big mover in the category was the Honda HA420, which recorded a healthy 23 aircraft delivered, in what was its first full year on the market. The last quarter of 2016 marked the debut of the Cirrus SF50 vision in the charts, with three aircraft reported shipped. As the type didn't get its FAA certification until 31 October 2016, we can expect a larger splash from the SF50 in 2017.

Piston Utilities
Cessna's T206H Skylane is almost in a category of its own, with the only real challenger being the Airvan 8 from Mahindra/GippsAero. The Cessna dominated shipments in 2016, logging 36 deliveries against the 14 of the Australian-built Airvan. However, year-on-year, the T206H declined by 29% and the Airvan 8 declined by 36%.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...82EEiOH.99

 
MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

A few Avalon Airshow comments having flown in on Tuesday and attended again, this time by car, on Thursday.

Was exhorted by the Airservices Notam that pilots would need to display a high level of airmanship and situational awareness due to traffic congestion. Presumably this means that Airservices believes that the average pilot may not be capable and, like children about to cross a busy road, must be sternly admonished to behave carefully. This is typical of the insulting attitude of our aviation regulators.  As it happened I was distracted on the approach attempting to find the non existent painted containers that were supposed to be the markers for base and final to Avalon East runway 17, as per the 16 page notam. Probably the last to arrive, after a bone shaking touchdown on a surface not fit for most aircraft, we were directed by numerous bat waving ground marshalls to line up with the maybe twenty other aircraft in a parking area capable of taking perhaps four or five hundred. They told me that, as at previous airshows, CASA inspectors were conducting ramp checks on all arrivals.

Can't help wondering if these several CASA inspectors couldn't be retrained for motor cars and put to better use checking all the vehicles parking at footy venues on the weekends. Yes they would have to be issued with weapons and protective clothing.

But back to my Tuesday fly in and park experience, the CASA inspectors were a no show for me, must have been at lunch so disappointingly I was left wondering if me and my aircraft were really fit to fly.

Attending the AOPA Pacific Forum at Avalon on Thursday one could be forgiven for a feeling of being underwhelmed. Coming off a slow start, in part due to an unusually foggy morning, chairman Spencer Ferrier introduced the four speakers who had ten minutes each to address the audience of about sixty (?) mostly GA people.

Mr. Carmody repeatedly stated he would act on evidence based proposals. He said that there were 40,000 pilots. We know this is not true. We know that years ago licences were deemed to be "perpetual", and the question has been asked before does CASA take note of those licence holders who have died? But this has little to do with how many pilots, that is those with current medicals, let alone those who fly regularly. In a dying industry the CEO of CASA should be across the facts, should be aware of the evidence.

Jason Harfield of Airservices made an important point that they, Airservices Australia, are required to promote and facilitate aviation, too bad CASA doesn't have the same imperative.

Greg Hood, peculiarly dressed in a high vis ATSB inspector's jacket, spoke about the work of ATSB and notably told us that his railway accident experts had little to do most of the time. In which case would it not be sensible to fly in some experts when needed? As he spoke he ran a series of aircraft accident photos dispaying on a large screen for the edification of the audience. These several photos were run on a loop so we got a second dose of the unfortunate crumples, but we were also treated, in ghoulish fashion, to stills of the Perth Mallard in its fatal nose dive when its occupants were about to die. I could not ascertain why Greg had this slide show, whether to create a distracting emotional response or frighten us wasn't clear but it was weird. Pelair was not mentioned, or raised by us audience, probably because we ran out of time.

Ben Morgan was to the point regarding reform for GA and covered the live issues and certainly gave lie to the 40,000 pilot number with his graph showing the precipitous decline of pilot numbers.

Question time evoked plenty of audience participation with many grievances being put to Shane Carmody. Predictably these were deflected or "let me look at that". The AVMED catastrophe probably took up the most time in questions.  

The proceedings confirmed to me that there's no substantial reform in the offing, that delay and obscurantism are situation normal in the failed models of governance, the Commonwealth Corporate Body. These independent bodies have the greatest incentive to perpetuate and improve their feather beds. Parliament is the only hope and the media to get their attention.

[Kharon]

Another Choc frog for Sandy.

Sandy - “Mr. Carmody repeatedly stated he would act on evidence based proposals.”

“Act on evidence based proposals”  what a curious choice of words. Very curious indeed, I wonder what he can mean by them? For example, there are two ways to interpret the word ‘act’. The obvious implies that action will be taken, whether that ‘action’ will be positive or negative is not specified. Much of the CASA ‘action’ has meant a gross negative effect with massive impacts on industry. Did anyone think to ask him for an example of how me means to ‘act’? Thought not. Then of course, Carmody could mean ‘act’ as a thespian would, play a role, convince a gullible audience of the ‘gritty reality’ of the part. Proof that almost anyone can ‘act’ as DAS.

Then we have the dubious ‘evidence based proposals’ ; now I don’t know about you Sandy, but I can think of a few ‘evidence based’ proposals which have not been ‘acted’ on; reform of both regulator and regulation being one. I realise that the Senate recommendations after the Pel-Air inquiry were only ‘opinions’ and that the ASRR was given similar short shrift; but both were ‘evidence’ based, were they not? Seems to me Carmody has found the Skidmore little book in which the opening paragraph states “unless it happens on your watch, it is all history, ignore’. This is a handy little tenet, particularly when coupled with the words ‘yesterdays gone’ – now history. There are other examples of ‘evidence based’ items which have been conveniently flushed, CVD for a starter (or non starter), fuel levy to pay for CASA audit failures; Oh, it is too long a list to cite – but you do see, don’t you.

Sandy – “Jason Harfield of Airservices made an important point that they, Airservices Australia, are required to promote and facilitate aviation, etc.”

The only ‘imperative’ Halfwit is interested in is keeping his job; although WTD he thinks can be gained by eliciting the one candle power light of GA support to counter the glare of the Senate generated headlights, I can’t think.  There is only one thing he’s interested in ‘promoting’ and it ain’t GA.

Sandy - “Greg Hood, peculiarly dressed in a high vis ATSB inspector's jacket, etc.”

 Enough said right there; strange and wonderful are the manifestations of Hood. Whether wearing chaps, a toga or his birthday suit with tassels, there is still enough ‘evidence’ proposals based on his actions when he was ‘the man’ who signed many death warrants when entrenched at CASA. Hood has enough blood on his hands to justify the sack cloth and ashes of a true penitent. Hi viz, as a security blanket, not the best choice for a moving target.  

Thanks for the briefing Sandy, nicely done as always. It only leaves a few question begging answers after the predictable ‘official’ behaviour. What did the AOPA members gain from attending: in real terms; what tangible improvements were gained, which goals were achieved, was the DAS convinced to support their aspirations, was ‘Eureka’ hailed by the minister as the answer to pagans prayer, was a direct instruction given to make AOPA ‘policy’ that of the government? Did AOPA inspect the runway to make sure it was actually acceptable for use; or that the painted containers were visible and had an AOPA sponsored strobe light to help in low visibility conditions?

Course they didn’t – every man-jack there thinking of politics and bullshit while the runway rots and the ‘containers’ remain a mystery. Maybe the GAAG troops had more luck with the minister – we shall see.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Of airshows and arsewipes

I second Kharons choccy frog award to Sandy. Well said Sandy, well said.

'K';

"every man-jack there thinking of politics and bullshit while the runway rots and the ‘containers’ remain a mystery"

I believe the containers contained a crack commando unit of CAsA FOI's ready to pounce on the 'Sandy's of the world' as they parked their machines. After all, all pilots are criminals. However, the Inspectors decided to turn the containers into makeshift entertainment facilities for themselves and they had a bar, roulette table, dance pole, and jelly wrestling pool.

On a serious note I don't see Avalon as being a venue where the likes of Hood, Carmody or Jason 'buccular' Harfwit need attend. I mean, it would be a good forum for them should they be transparent, honest and value adding, however these bureaucratic Ministerial footstools only add nails to our industry's coffin and therefore should stay in Can'tberra where they belong, kissing the Ministers ass, providing protective cover to the Government, and finding inventive and ingenious ways to abrogate accountability and obsfucate 'change' and reform in whatever manner is humanly possible.

Avalon? Duck that, stay home and av'a'beer instead.

Tick Tock