[Peetwo]

Submissions cont/-

I note that the RRAT committee (at least) are back to work...  

(ps I guess subs 8 & 9 are still under review -   )

---

10 Canberra Airport (PDF 930 KB) 

11 Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) (PDF 379 KB) (Chocfrog submission -   )

From pg 2:

...However, there is a problem, and it is by no means a new problem or a problem that arose as a result of

COVID.

Whilst the activities of The Australian Government working the aviation industry and providing support for
freight and critical passenger movements through a range of assistance programs in the wake of COVID-
19 are acknowledged, this does not in any way shape or form fix the preceding and very fundamental
problem - at the heart of which, is the complex and overly burdensome nature of the Australian aviation
regulations.

THE HEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’S AVIATION SECTOR

The general aviation sector has been struggling for decades under the weight of increasingly complex and
burdensome regulations that are at odds with comparative jurisdictions such as the UK, USA and Canada.
CASA seems to be out of step with contemporary regulatory practice as adopted by The International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) through the promulgation of Annex 19, Safety Management Systems – this
seems likely to in part be contributing to the decline of Australia’s general aviation industry.

Expressed in many ways and in many forums, the essence of the question has been quite simply “Why?”
And further, despite Section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 19883 - Why is it that Australia is not harmonising
its aviation regulations to the rest of the world in accordance with our commitments as a signatory to the
ICAO treaty? Why is Australia so different?

The consequence of the direction our regulations have taken is that aviation is a higher cost activity than it
should be in Australia for a whole raft of reasons associated with regulations imposed by CASA on owners
and operators. In the United States, which does not have the same approach to regulation, aircraft operating
costs have been reported to be around half what they are in Australia and achieving safety outcomes that
are statistically better.

Safety, particularly in general aviation, is dependent on the behaviour of individuals and their personal
responsibility. The consequence of overly complex regulation is counter-productive and it might enable the
successful prosecution of a very small percentage of recalcitrant individuals – however, that approach falls
short when providing safe guidance to the good intentioned majority. Just consider the example of 
voluminous Software Licensing Agreements, which we are all required to so frequently acknowledge;

similarly, our overly complex aviation regulations may obscure the best intentions. But further, overly
complex regulation leads to multiple and confusing interpretations and an over-reliance on “experts” to assist
understanding or clarify intent.

Calls to simplify our aviation regulations have been loud and clear from Australian aviators for decades and
perhaps most vociferously in recent years at the Wagga Wagga General Aviation Summit in 2018. This
summit was attended by almost 40 aviation organisations and businesses and importantly also by the
Deputy Prime Minister (also Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development), Hon. Michael
McCormack MP, and the then Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development,
Hon. Anthony Albanese MP.

The calls to simplify the regulations, for example by adopting the USA aviation rules with ideally only a
minimum of adjustment, remove the red-tape and all the unnecessary cost burdens to the industry so as to
encourage it to flourish, and not encourage it to die were made most clearly to the Ministers. The urgency
to effect change to avoid the loss of more and more aviation related business, and the effects of which reach
far beyond just those involved directly in these businesses, was also made clear to the Ministers.
An important focus of the summit was to debate statements in the Civil Aviation Act in respect of the CASA’s
performance of functions, which at the time effectively provided for CASA to regulate to achieve “safety
outcomes at any cost”. Given the wording of the Act as it stood, CASA’s direction and actions were therefore
perhaps unsurprising. However – the wording in the Act in this regard was considered the likely root cause
of the direction in which our regulations had been heading – was it any wonder that without any regard for
the economic impact of regulations designed to maximise “safety at any cost” would drive the industry into
decline?

The Summit produced a number of recommendations that were carefully considered to represent real
tangible steps to improve the health of Australian aviation and a specific proposal to amend the Civil Aviation
Act – these recommendations were forwarded by letter to the Hon. Michael McCormack MP on 17th July
20184. The need to amend the Act had been recognised for some time and, with bi-partisan support, some
themes of the proposed amendments passed into law in November 2019.

The long and short is that, although there has been some activity to reform the regulations, the process is
incredibly slow – measured not in years, but rather decades. “Re-inventing the wheels” when well proven
cost and safety effective alternatives exist elsewhere in jurisdictions such as the UK, USA and Canada? Is
there some block or unconscious bias existing that seems to have largely thwarted common sense changes
so long sought, in particular, by the general aviation sector over all these decades?

Actions to date and understood to be in-hand / ongoing seem only to play at the edges and seem unlikely
to deliver the quantum change that is really required to make a fundamental change to and transform the
future of Australian aviation – and particularly the general aviation sector. There does not appear to be a
will or the correct settings existing to effect material change. Accordingly, we are convinced that a sense
and culture of expediency and a will to effect change needs to be prosecuted to truly bring about the concept
of “affordable safety”, which is the necessary pre-cursor to effect the real change our industry needs.

COVID does not change a thing in this regard other than, like many other substantial domestic and world
events over the decades that have been then triggers to precipitate or accelerate major reforms, bringing to
the forefront the very real need to do things now to protect and improve the future viability and economic
outcomes of Australia’s aviation industry.

With few exceptions, the required steps have been tabled time and time again by industry. Bring some
pressure to accelerate these steps, further supported with some simple short term financial relief measures,
and we believe the meaningful support for recovery from the consequences of COVID will be available and,
in turn, secure and enhance the long-term viability and economic outcomes of Australia’s aviation industry...

12 Department of Finance (PDF 4320 KB) 

13 Australian Council of Trade Unions (PDF 436 KB) 

14 Australian & International Pilots Association[b] [/b] (PDF 1543 KB) (Chocfrog submission -   )

..We need a national aviation strategy


AIPA maintains the view that much of the disproportionate damage inflicted on the aviation
sector among the severe economic damage induced nationally was largely avoidable and
that our future planning must prioritise the preservation of our aviation connectivity.

Our national aviation policy appears to lack the most critical element – a strategic approach.

Airports 
Airport infrastructure provides an excellent example. This is the US approach:

Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transportation of
people and goods and in regional, national, and international commerce. They are
where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation
and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations
intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most
airports.

This particular preamble relates to the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), an
industry/government collaboration of the US Department of Transportation, and is drawn
from the 2015 ACRP Report 1322, The Role of U.S. Airports in the National Economy.

Evolution of the United States Airport System


Airports have evolved over the past 100 years to meet the specific needs of the
communities they serve and the national aviation system. The first airport in the
United States opened in 1909 in College Park, Maryland, and is still in operation
today. Many airports opened as private landing strips or military airfields in the
1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Still other airports were established by local jurisdictions
and continue to serve as general aviation facilities providing access to small
communities and remote areas.

The United States turned its attention to the development of civilian aviation after
the end of World War II. This included a national network of airports and a national
airport plan, now known as the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). The plan identified existing and proposed new airports to serve
commercial and general aviation needs. Specific criteria were established to meet
national aviation needs at a reasonable cost. These criteria considered the number
of based aircraft and annual operations, scheduled air carrier service, and
proximity to other airports in the national plan. Airports that met special needs,
such as access to remote populations, could also be included.

The national airport plan released in 1951 identified 2,657 existing airports and
2,288 proposed airports. Many of the proposed airports identified in the 1951 plan
were subsequently constructed during the 1950s.
…
Since the 1950s, aviation in the United States has matured, resulting in more than
3,300 airports consistently included in the NPIAS

In stark contrast, a somewhat simplistic comparison with the Australian experience highlights a local program of off-loading our airports to either monopolistic operators making significant private returns from under-priced Commonwealth assets or to struggling local government authorities incapable of generating sufficient returns to maintain the assets and
whose general motivation is to repurpose the airport land to other non-aviation uses.

Clearly, there are Commonwealth support programs for airports, but it is not particularly
clear to us whether they are designed with a clear strategy comparable to the NPIAS or
indeed whether they prioritise preservation of the infrastructure over other funding “needs”.

Pilots and maintainers

The shuttering of Australia’s aviation industry highlighted several vulnerabilities in the supply
chain for aviation personnel. With no flying activity, most people in the sector had no
meaningful work. In the private sector, personal financial commitments drove many to seek
alternative employment for no other reason than to delay the onset of the inevitable financial
distress.

In circumstances where a market collapses with no prospect of return, those losses would

be lamentable but tolerable. However, a pandemic-induced collapse is only temporary,
creating similar economic shocks but with variable and unpredictable recovery timelines.

The uncertainty of a partial or full return to normal levels of aviation activity creates a
number of risks to preparedness for recovery.

The loss of knowledge and experience has been dramatic. For many, the rate of recovery
will force a choice between the uncertainty of resuming their aviation careers and the
apparent security of alternative employment.

For highly qualified licenced personnel, the gaining of essential knowledge and experience
creates a lead time for supply that will substantially lag the demand if we are forced to
respond to a whole cadre of those personnel being permanently lost to the industry. Even
for those who can return, their skills are highly perishable and refresher training
requirements may well exceed the capacity of training systems to return them to job-ready
status.

Many pilots have taken early retirement to protect their entitlements and to provide some
level of financial security. In the main, they will be lost to the aviation system. While
traditionally some might transition into GA training, the current hiatus in flying activity
provides little prospect of employment.

Longer term, we need to plan for the eventual return and increase in demand for key
aviation personnel. AIPA can only remind the Committee of our submissions to the 2010
Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety – nothing of great import has changed in relation
to making the occupation desirable to our young citizens. While we note that funding
options have improved, recommendation 8 of your final report “…that the Government

require the Productivity Commission or another suitable body to undertake a review of the
current and future supply of pilots in Australia…” should be reinvigorated...

...We need to act coherently

As we advised DITRDC in our Issues Paper submission:

Every element of a Commonwealth aviation plan that relies on any or all States to
behave in a certain way, enact certain legislation, adopt a national code or to place
the national interest above local interests is now subject to much higher political
and/or compliance risk. In most cases, AIPA expects the Commonwealth and
State interests to be aligned but we also expect that the States will be emboldened
by both the recent High Court decision on border closures and the acceptance of
the politics of isolation by generally acquiescent populations to occasionally flex
their independence within the Federation.

AIPA fervently hopes that State and Territory politicians now fully understand that
embarking on simplistic and self-interested actions such as wholesale border closures
involve cutting supply lines to both intra- and interstate enterprises and creating economic
damage far greater than the originating issue might otherwise entail.

However, the protracted WA border issues and hollow justifications underline the reality that
politics will always jeopardise rational decision-making, significantly narrowing the range of
proper solutions to maintaining connectivity. On the other hand, the response by the
eastern States to the evolving “northern beaches” cluster seems to be generally that of
containment rather than exclusion and we further hope that such a politically restrained
approach is validated as the future model.

AIPA strongly believes that a constitutional solution must be found that prevents State and
Territory governments from shutting down aviation activities rather than protecting them as
last ditch essential services.

We also believe that if we can create a practical solution to maintain at least cargo
operations but preferably health-safe passenger operations as part of a coherent and
committed national connectivity plan, then we can share the concepts with like-minded
countries to maintain some level of international connectivity as well...

15 Australian Local Government Association (PDF 1261 KB) 

16 Australian Airports Association (PDF 905 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 1259 KB) 

17 Tasmanian Department of State Growth (PDF 2980 KB) 

18 International Transport Workers’ Federation (PDF 1157 KB) 

---

MTF...P2