The Last Minute Hitch: 31 May 2024
– Steve Hitchen
Jason Harfield's departure from Airservices is shrouded in a lather of mystery, enough to ensure it would become a target for senate estimates this week. In the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport (RRAT) committee, Senator Bridget McKenzie went pretty hard at Airservices on the matter of Harfield not being re-appointed, zeroing in on the reasons for his departure and the handover to new management. Hardly an answer was given that didn't end with a look of incredulity on McKenzie's face. It was a look well justified. Here are some facts. 1. Harfield was told the board had recommended he be re-appointed. 2. His tenure was extended by 90 days while cabinet mused. 3. Harfield expected to be re-appointed. 4. Cabinet ignored the board and refused a third term for Harfield. 5. Harfield was given no official reason. As cabinet musings are confidential, we are being kept in the dark. But there is one thing I can say without any fear of mistake: 100% of the decisions made in cabinet are political. It would have been reasonable to rubber stamp the Airservices application to keep Harfield, but cabinet jumped on the opportunity to use him as a sacrificial anode. Whether or not Jason Harfield deserved a third term will draw no comment from me. I am happy to say, however, that he deserved better treatment from the department, having spent the best part of a decade doing exactly what the department wanted him to do.
"..modifying the pegs is producing a compromise result.."
You really have to wonder if the maintenance, repair and overhaul industry in Australia is actually beyond repair. Costs have risen astronomically, there are fewer LAMEs to do the work, regulation is confusing and the training pathways are wonky and covered in weeds. There's not much there to recommend the system to aircraft owners. Things got messier this week when AMROBA withdrew its support for CASR Part 43, saying the CASA proposal was too far removed from the FAR 43 it is supposed to be based on. CASR Part 43 covers GA maintenance for private and airwork aircraft, and in 2018 was promised with a flourish from then Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack. The applause got louder when we were told it was to be based on the FAR rather than the EASA. And that, believe it or not, is the problem. EASA compliance demands that charter be classified as passenger transport and therefore not covered by Part 43. Charter is, however, covered by FAR 43. CASA is trying to fit square pegs in round holes, and modifying the pegs is producing a compromise result that has put AMROBA offside. Their doom-saying predictions of MROs simply closing up rather than trying to untangle the red tape is not without foundation; every second contemplating rules is a second not spent applying skills to aeroplanes, something the GA community desperately needs right now. AMROBA's call to merge Part 43 with Part 42 (commercial transport) has a lot of merit, but is likely to produce a brick-wall response from CASA because it would mean a lesser standard of maintenance regs for passenger transport ops, which they have repeatedly said is not on the table.
I was reminded this week of a yarn told at an aero club Sunday BBQ a few years ago. A VFR pilot told a story of how he flew VFR-on-top to Mount Gambier, and on arrival found the overcast had only one very small hole in it. Unable to cruise down through the hole, he elected to stall the aeroplane and hold it in a wings-level stall as he plunged down through the hole, then recovered to land safely. He was proud as punch of his innovative airmanship until asked how he knew the cloud base would give him enough height to recover from the stall. His face became ashen as he admitted he hadn't thought of that. Let's get honest: VFR pilots use cloud holes all the time, and if they're long and wide enough to drop down through in a cruise descent, there's not a lot wrong if you can keep the ground visual and don't enter cloud. The problem becomes when the hole leaves no margin for error and may even change size and shape on you thanks to wind. They're like one-ended valleys in a way: you may be able to get into it, but can you get out if the end is coming at you fast? Success breeds contempt, and in aviation contempt breeds ATSB reports. Cloud holes need respect because they are all different and can lure in the unsuspecting fat-dumb-and-happy pilot if reconnaissance and consideration before taking the plunge is not adequate enough to ensure safety. Cloud-hole adventures make for great yarns, but only if you're still around to tell them.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
– Steve Hitchen
Jason Harfield's departure from Airservices is shrouded in a lather of mystery, enough to ensure it would become a target for senate estimates this week. In the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport (RRAT) committee, Senator Bridget McKenzie went pretty hard at Airservices on the matter of Harfield not being re-appointed, zeroing in on the reasons for his departure and the handover to new management. Hardly an answer was given that didn't end with a look of incredulity on McKenzie's face. It was a look well justified. Here are some facts. 1. Harfield was told the board had recommended he be re-appointed. 2. His tenure was extended by 90 days while cabinet mused. 3. Harfield expected to be re-appointed. 4. Cabinet ignored the board and refused a third term for Harfield. 5. Harfield was given no official reason. As cabinet musings are confidential, we are being kept in the dark. But there is one thing I can say without any fear of mistake: 100% of the decisions made in cabinet are political. It would have been reasonable to rubber stamp the Airservices application to keep Harfield, but cabinet jumped on the opportunity to use him as a sacrificial anode. Whether or not Jason Harfield deserved a third term will draw no comment from me. I am happy to say, however, that he deserved better treatment from the department, having spent the best part of a decade doing exactly what the department wanted him to do.
"..modifying the pegs is producing a compromise result.."
You really have to wonder if the maintenance, repair and overhaul industry in Australia is actually beyond repair. Costs have risen astronomically, there are fewer LAMEs to do the work, regulation is confusing and the training pathways are wonky and covered in weeds. There's not much there to recommend the system to aircraft owners. Things got messier this week when AMROBA withdrew its support for CASR Part 43, saying the CASA proposal was too far removed from the FAR 43 it is supposed to be based on. CASR Part 43 covers GA maintenance for private and airwork aircraft, and in 2018 was promised with a flourish from then Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack. The applause got louder when we were told it was to be based on the FAR rather than the EASA. And that, believe it or not, is the problem. EASA compliance demands that charter be classified as passenger transport and therefore not covered by Part 43. Charter is, however, covered by FAR 43. CASA is trying to fit square pegs in round holes, and modifying the pegs is producing a compromise result that has put AMROBA offside. Their doom-saying predictions of MROs simply closing up rather than trying to untangle the red tape is not without foundation; every second contemplating rules is a second not spent applying skills to aeroplanes, something the GA community desperately needs right now. AMROBA's call to merge Part 43 with Part 42 (commercial transport) has a lot of merit, but is likely to produce a brick-wall response from CASA because it would mean a lesser standard of maintenance regs for passenger transport ops, which they have repeatedly said is not on the table.
I was reminded this week of a yarn told at an aero club Sunday BBQ a few years ago. A VFR pilot told a story of how he flew VFR-on-top to Mount Gambier, and on arrival found the overcast had only one very small hole in it. Unable to cruise down through the hole, he elected to stall the aeroplane and hold it in a wings-level stall as he plunged down through the hole, then recovered to land safely. He was proud as punch of his innovative airmanship until asked how he knew the cloud base would give him enough height to recover from the stall. His face became ashen as he admitted he hadn't thought of that. Let's get honest: VFR pilots use cloud holes all the time, and if they're long and wide enough to drop down through in a cruise descent, there's not a lot wrong if you can keep the ground visual and don't enter cloud. The problem becomes when the hole leaves no margin for error and may even change size and shape on you thanks to wind. They're like one-ended valleys in a way: you may be able to get into it, but can you get out if the end is coming at you fast? Success breeds contempt, and in aviation contempt breeds ATSB reports. Cloud holes need respect because they are all different and can lure in the unsuspecting fat-dumb-and-happy pilot if reconnaissance and consideration before taking the plunge is not adequate enough to ensure safety. Cloud-hole adventures make for great yarns, but only if you're still around to tell them.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch