Second coffee Addendum:-
TB - "An instructor at a rural airport with maybe half a dozen students could never recoup the capital costs, let alone purchase and run a trainer."
Sandy - // "or the fact that Ms. Spence was paid $253,089 from 17th May 2021 to 30th June 2021. Six weeks."
Two diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum - but what of the bits in the middle? The dramatically increased cost and liability gradient to those who must bear the brunt of the increased impost; many examples to choose from; all prevent non airline pilots and operators from seeking to add to their 'tool-kit' improve their skill levels; or business base model.
The cost and the liability of being an independent ATO for example; the cost and liability of an in house ATO; the endless paper trail which can and is used to prevent all but the brave (or the cunning) from adding qualification to a licence. The cost of obtaining an instrument or night rating; the added cost of maintaining - along with the increase in liability - along with the cost of upgrade of equipment - along with the time taken for any sort of approval - along with the breathtaking speed it can all be taken away is not only indecent; but prevents a general increase in 'safety' through advanced training - on tap.
Even the humble NVMC rating (let alone an CIR) is beyond the reach of the average mug; and yet the benefit to 'safety' is tangible. It should be encouraged not turned into an expensive, legal minefield for both the trainer and the trainee, with the cost and risks of 'compliance' a big disincentive. - Alas, the whole system is so bogged down in legal and financial risk that the uptake of additional 'qualification' is preventative - when it should be an inducement. There should not be any reason (bar choice) that a PPL cannot obtain a multi engine or instrument rating. The benefits are many, even if only rarely used; an instrument/night rating would improve safety yet again - but the 'compliance' cost is a considerable burden, the liability for instructor and pilot beyond a sustainable level for any but those employed in the game; and, even then, all are walking on the hot coals of legal liability.
The whole legal and financial burden CASA impose on the industry is detrimental to safety, improvement, investment, incentive and enthusiasm for venturing beyond the remit. Time taken, compliance, maintaining compliance and cost involved a great disincentive to expansion of horizon and scope. Just imagine if the Spence salary was ploughed back into any aviation endeavour. That alone would improve the safety case beyond any benefit provided by paying her an indecent amount of money to 'keep the brakes on'. We all know what happens when the brakes are 'ridden' -
Its all arse about face - the biggest beneficiary of the aviation industry is CASA, along with zero responsibility or restraint - nice one...But what happens when the golden goose stops laying - or the government wake up and realise just how badly they've been conned by the 'mystique' (read bull-shit) of aviation safety by their 'watchdog' and the size of the dent put into revenue generated back to the tax paying public.
My two bob (much devalued) spent as pleased me best.
Toot - toot...
TB - "An instructor at a rural airport with maybe half a dozen students could never recoup the capital costs, let alone purchase and run a trainer."
Sandy - // "or the fact that Ms. Spence was paid $253,089 from 17th May 2021 to 30th June 2021. Six weeks."
Two diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum - but what of the bits in the middle? The dramatically increased cost and liability gradient to those who must bear the brunt of the increased impost; many examples to choose from; all prevent non airline pilots and operators from seeking to add to their 'tool-kit' improve their skill levels; or business base model.
The cost and the liability of being an independent ATO for example; the cost and liability of an in house ATO; the endless paper trail which can and is used to prevent all but the brave (or the cunning) from adding qualification to a licence. The cost of obtaining an instrument or night rating; the added cost of maintaining - along with the increase in liability - along with the cost of upgrade of equipment - along with the time taken for any sort of approval - along with the breathtaking speed it can all be taken away is not only indecent; but prevents a general increase in 'safety' through advanced training - on tap.
Even the humble NVMC rating (let alone an CIR) is beyond the reach of the average mug; and yet the benefit to 'safety' is tangible. It should be encouraged not turned into an expensive, legal minefield for both the trainer and the trainee, with the cost and risks of 'compliance' a big disincentive. - Alas, the whole system is so bogged down in legal and financial risk that the uptake of additional 'qualification' is preventative - when it should be an inducement. There should not be any reason (bar choice) that a PPL cannot obtain a multi engine or instrument rating. The benefits are many, even if only rarely used; an instrument/night rating would improve safety yet again - but the 'compliance' cost is a considerable burden, the liability for instructor and pilot beyond a sustainable level for any but those employed in the game; and, even then, all are walking on the hot coals of legal liability.
The whole legal and financial burden CASA impose on the industry is detrimental to safety, improvement, investment, incentive and enthusiasm for venturing beyond the remit. Time taken, compliance, maintaining compliance and cost involved a great disincentive to expansion of horizon and scope. Just imagine if the Spence salary was ploughed back into any aviation endeavour. That alone would improve the safety case beyond any benefit provided by paying her an indecent amount of money to 'keep the brakes on'. We all know what happens when the brakes are 'ridden' -
Its all arse about face - the biggest beneficiary of the aviation industry is CASA, along with zero responsibility or restraint - nice one...But what happens when the golden goose stops laying - or the government wake up and realise just how badly they've been conned by the 'mystique' (read bull-shit) of aviation safety by their 'watchdog' and the size of the dent put into revenue generated back to the tax paying public.
My two bob (much devalued) spent as pleased me best.
Toot - toot...