[Peetwo]

Sandy's comment in reply to LMH - 

Reference from last week's LMH:

...The feedback from AirVenture 2019 inevitably contained one sentiment common to just about everyone I spoke to: heartbreak. Events like these consume a lot of time and emotion from the organisers and when the weather gods express their displeasure it's absolutely gut-wrenching. The infamous dust storm on the Saturday was a real crowd-killer as you would expect, but even as the blue skies returned on the Sunday, the attendance from outside Parkes was not as high as the organisers would have hoped. Yes, it was heartbreaking to that extent, and one other: the fact that both this show and Ausfly are constant reminders of the destructive rift in the general aviation community. People are at their wits end with the finger-pointing and constant bickering between AOPA Australia and RAAus that is causing the split. The words "fed up" are starting to be spat back at me whenever I bring up the subject, and fair enough too! This is now at the point where two groups who constantly spout how they are all for promoting general aviation are actually causing a lot of damage en route. It has created an environment of antagonism that just has no place in GA, and the reality is that the ongoing war is not reflective of the true wishes of the majority of people within the GA community. Both AirVenture and Ausfly will continue to struggle as long as they are symbols of this rift and force aviators to choose between one or the other. It's time for one big GA fly-in, preferably organised by a party completely independent of either of the current antagonists.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...9hVPV64.99

Sandy in reply...

Sandy Reith • 2 days ago

RAAus and AOPA split? I understand AOPA is supporting the weight increase so its not all a one way street. The overarching reality is that there should never have been a government induced split in the first place and there is no, repeat zero, reason why we should not all be in one simplified and graduated system with none of the crazy transitional problems. Problems that are, like the sometimes heated and destructive contretemps between unnaturally competing interests, should never have been built in by the irresponsible and thoughtless actions of Ministers and Governments.

Its been plain from the start that the low weight system is designed to siphon off lots of pesky private pilots, induce them, with self declared medicals and some eased maintenance requirements, into the low weight category. No thought was given to suitability, the needs of many for carrying capacity or range or sufficient for the often windy and rough flying conditions of Australia. Building down to an unrealistic weight was always going to create severe problems.

Hiving off what is properly a function of government to a government sponsored private monopoly company will never work fully to the national interest, there are too many ambiguities, and there are incentives within the hierarchies of management to pursue sectional and personal interests.

If only a Minister with eyes to see and a backbone to cause reform. - Yes if only...

A matter of concern.

TOM called the meeting to order; the crew settled down. Item one is a matter of great concern. The needless head butting and hair pulling going on between RAA and AOPA. It is seen as counterproductive, destructive, divisive, irresponsible  and “bloody childish” (not my words). A solution is needed..

So, what to do? History and believe it or not, John Sharp (as Minister) provide the answer. Back in the day, when Sharp was in the hot seat and CASA still had some honourable, intelligent men working for them; a plan was made to accommodate all Part 149 outfits with a set of ‘standards’ which CASA generated and the Alphabet groups could administer. It was a fair and equitable solution; so much so that both Canada and the EASA adopted it, put in a level playing field, and have never been troubled again.

Perhaps it is time the Australian plan was adopted in Australia.

I need to do a bit of digging around and talk to some folk; to be sure the plan can work. If it all pans out, it will be up to the members of the individual groups to sit their ‘management’ down and tell ‘em to get behind it, unite and make it happen. I understand there is a letter to the minister on it’s way, outlining the plan. Ministerial credibility could be partially restored on his nod.

Let’s hope good sense prevails. More to follow as matters progress. Fingers crossed.

Toot – toot.

Mike Borgelt nails it with his comment in reply to Sandy...

---

Mike Borgelt  Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

Bravo Sandy! I'm pleased that someone else gets it.

Of course there should be no split. The concept of these self administering organisations was pioneered by the failed organisational model of the GFA with its long declining and geriatric membership.

All Australian aircraft should be VH registered and all pilots be required to hold at minimum a Recreational Pilot's Licence, not some mickey mouse "certificate" from some private organisation which has "trained" pilots with instructors who may have as few as 100 hours total aeronautical experience.

The only question is the standards. The need for RAAus and GFA would go away with a couple of minor changes to the regulations: 1) For aircraft under x kilograms the owner MAY, if desired, maintain and sign the aircraft out. 2) for aircraft under x kilograms the pilot medical standard is the self declaration and/or State Driver's Licence for Private Motor Vehicles. Simple and effective and a level playing field. Then we can decide rationally what x should be. US experience with LSA aircraft is that the mishap rate is 5 to 6 times that of heavier GA aircraft. 1000 Kg would cover all reasonable single and two seat aircraft and ditch the silly 45 knot stall rquirement. Heavier aircraft with higher stall speeds are more easily able to cope with turbulence, rough Australian airfields and will have much longer fatigue lives. Note that gliders and motorgliders may be up to 850 Kg gross and at that weight may have stalling speeds of up to 49 knots.

Instead we have CASA's Part 149 abomination which requires people to pay private monopolies even if the person already holds a RPL or higher qualification and appropriate ratings, tailwheel, glider etc. resulting in much higher costs and multiple periodic flight reviews. Part 149 has consumed many thousands of man hours at CASA and the private bodies and many of these people are not paid for their efforts.

The resulting mish mash of medical standards, airworthiness standards and maintenance standards is nothing for CASA to be proud of and neither is the CASA sanctioned accident rate in GFA and RAAus.

---

MTF...P2