[Peetwo]

LMH 5/03/21:

Via the Yaffa:

---

The Last Minute Hitch: 5 March 2021
5 March 2021
Comments 0 Comments


– Steve Hitchen

Greater rumour hath no industry like general aviation. It has its minor-league furphies about new avionics or club finances, but it's the Frankenrumours that get the most air, like "CASA is going to be disbanded" or "the government is going to ban all VFR aeroplanes from CTA". Usually they start as a pea-sized fact, then get pumped up to beachball size with the over application of pessimism or wishful thinking. Right now we are dealing with one that says the department is going to rip the heart out of CASA and the jobs of everyone employed there are on the line. The seed from which this one has sprouted is likely the fact that the Department of Infrastructure and Transport is looking at new funding models for CASA in the future. That's usually pollie-speak for budget cuts, lay-offs and increases in charges. In that context, it could be that CASA is about to learn about "right-sizing", a nebulous and often nefarious concept that is a smokescreen for staff cuts; I am yet to have any experience with an organisation that got bigger through right-sizing. If indeed the finances are going to be reshaped, the need to pay for many roles within CASA could be under scrutiny. Similarly, the regulator's income is likely to be examined for fees and charges that might be increased to help with the bottom line. Generally these sort of measures do result in upheaval in an organisation, but it could be over-optimistic to believe that any changes are done in the name of philosophical reform that stands to cure the ills of GA.

 "..Right now we are dealing with one that says the department is going to rip the heart out of CASA and the jobs of everyone employed there are on the line..."

Speaking of the Department the following is a record of their appearance at Sterlo's Aviation Sector Inquiry last Thursday...

  

Listen up DITRDC and PM&C Mandarins (& there Minions) here is some freely available subject matter expert advice - courtesy of KC and AMROBA: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...ssue-2.pdf

3. Possibilities?

Governments have created the current situation over the last 30 years. Without the political support for civil aviation manufacturing, general aviation operations and maintenance, servicing etc., the steady decline in general aviation will continue. The Commonwealth airport leases regulatory standards say one thing but the Minister approved airport master plans says another.

We cannot blame the airport property developers when Minister after Minister approve Master Plans that do not promote aviation businesses over non-aviation businesses.

The Parliamentary system does not hold Ministers to account.

1. No Change:

Accept the fact that civil aviation manufacturing and general aviation have no priority from any political party or government departments and agencies.

a. Minister signed airport master plans have prioritised non-aviation development for the past couple of decades or more. They are all publicly available.
b. Commonwealth leased airports will be converted to non-aviation business parks in the future.
c. Governments have accepted this direction and affected industry just have to accept.
d. Without airport tenancy guarantee, who will invest in an aviation industry.

2. Over Regulation – Increasing red tape.

Instead of streamlining the regulatory burden, it appears that politically there is an unwritten policy supporting the ever increasing regulatory burden. The aviation regulatory systems have become over complicated and not harmonised with the other major aviation country, the USA, in the Asia Pacific Rim. Is this being done on purpose to make it too expensive for civil aviation manufacture, general aviation and private operations in Australia? Is it to stop our industries from competing in the global aviation market? It definitely appears so.

Thirty years of regulatory review and development and governments and the public service has only increased the regulatory burden.

a. Australia’s aviation regulatory review and development being performed by a system that has no end goal to create a system where Australia’s civil aviation system is recognised in its own right by foreign countries.
b. Can we manufacture civil aviation parts and sell them in the global aviation market? NO.
c. What government department or agency is responsible for obtaining civil aviation trade agreements so Australia’s approved civil aviation businesses are recognised in foreign countries? NONE.
d. Are our maintenance personnel skill qualification acceptable by other foreign countries like they were pre regulatory reform and development? NO
e. Will regulatory review and development change the Minister’s airport property development policy approved in Airport Master Plans? NO

3. The most favoured outcome is that nothing will change and Ministers broken policies of either party will continue and the number of aviation businesses will continue to decline.

a. General aviation will not return to being an accumulator of pilots and maintenance engineers that supported the fluctuations of the airline industry.
b. Civil aviation manufacture with off-shore ambition will continue to relocate off-shore.

And from Sharpie and AIPA here: Hansard out

"..Where you have to be careful is that some councils, not all, put the capital that has been given to them by the Commonwealth into a terminal or a runway. They use it to gold plate it. In other words, they build things that aren't necessary. They build things that people don't need, but the local council like to think looks good and makes them look good in the local community. They gold plate it. As a consequence of that, we have infrastructure which is not necessary. Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure. And so the council then uses the capital that has been given to them, that has been invested in the airport, as a reason to argue that the depreciation of that capital has to be added to the operating costs of the airport, and those operating costs of the airport therefore need to be covered by the regional airlines that operate to it..."

---

"...The other thing that comes up is that we lobbied for years to get VET help extended into the pilot training or aviation training areas. We need to review that as well to make sure, as Teri O'Toole said, the support measures are targeted at the individual, not at rent-seeking companies who use them as a government revenue stream and get a whole bunch of people in on the basis of headcount and don't care whether they produce anything or not, so long as they've got money coming in from the government based on the number of students. I think these sorts of support payments need to be tied to the individual so that they're released to the supplier, on the basis of the person achieving a particular milestone, so that it doesn't become a free kick for people like Soar Aviation..."

MTF...P2