The Last Minute Hitch: 18 October 2024
18 October 2024
– Steve Hitchen
Conundrum: should smaller regional airlines and airports be excluded from the Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme? The AAA thinks so, and has come out swinging in that direction. It makes sense because the scheme is clearly in response to the behaviour of the major airlines as they emerged blinking from the dark days of COVID. That being so, why should the smaller ones be subject to the same level of scrutiny? Doesn't that make them collateral damage? I am sure, given their druthers, that the airports would be happy to dodge the ombuds and concentrate on staying alive, but why not take a different approach. Quality assurance dogma teaches that a complaint can be an opportunity for improvement and should be treated with respect. Perhaps being captured by the ombuds scheme is not such a bad thing; complaint can bring improvement and in improvement often resides efficiency. The big question mark is over how the ombuds scheme will actually work, which is what the Federal Government was consulting about. If they focus on their bread-and-butter complaints–refund policies, cancelations, late arrivals and other shenanigans–then the ombuds office is likely to be too snowed under to pay much attention to the industry's minnows. And if due respect is paid to the regulations under which aviation must exist, I suspect the ombuds won't always come down on the side of the complainant. Regardless, time is money and a lot of time is generally expended on dealing with complaints. It's probably a tinny argument; I suspect politics to yield to the prongs of public opinion, which is likely to demand complete capture.
"..resurrecting circuit caps has also reinstated the same side-effects.."
There are many things that we human beings cling to ferociously even though they have been proven not to work. Think any form of government, transit lanes, stress toys, B&S balls, chicken Twisties and Royal Commissions. Add one more: circuit caps at metro Class D airports. Airservices Australia has brought them back from the dead at Moorabbin in response to rising "operational deviations", even though when CASA lumped them on all the GAAP airports in 2009, they created greater safety issues than the one they were purported to solve. So, resurrecting circuit caps has also reinstated the same side-effects, all of which either bring about a decrease in operational safety or an increase in operational cost. Or both. What needs to be forensically examined is the reason for the caps and whether or not they are the best solution to a problem. In a presentation widely distributed to the industry, Airservices detailed the operational deviations causing concern as mostly Airservices own requirements, missed mandatory calls, sequencing, incorrect levels and taxying. Really, were they expecting crisp, professional airmanship every time at Australia's largest training airport? This has been going on at Moorabbin and all the other metro Ds for years. So why now? RVAC has stated plainly that they think this is about making the stats look good; other operators have hinted at staffing issues in the tower. Either way, having inexperienced students holding outside the zone, forcing them to rush pre-flights, delaying solos, queuing at holding points and over-fueling is a desirable solution to no problem. And I can't see Airservices getting much support for this during their post-implementation review, so they may as well ditch it before something goes sadly wrong.
I am quietly pleased to see a full-motion Caravan sim coming to Australia. When you add that to the news that the RFDS is going to make their King Air sim available for wider GA use, we've gained a couple of very useful tools that represent a quantum leap in safety. I am an unashamed fan of using full-motion sims to practice and embed emergency skills without putting on line the skin of the instructor and pilot. Too many times it has gone wrong, usually resulting in tragedy. Full-motion sims are a powerful tool for mitigating risk, and I'd like to see CASA in particular embrace the technology and permit training ops in simulators for some sequences even though an aeroplane is available for the training. Yes, sims are cheaper than using a real aeroplane, but this is about safety more than anything else, and when the technology increases safety, we all have an obligation to make it the rule rather than the exception.
Your next eNews will be out not next Friday, but rather Monday 28 October. This is because Sonya the Magnificent and I will be traveling to Shellharbour airport for the Australian Aviation Hall of Fame induction dinner. Whether that be by air or by road is up to mother nature and the aviation gods, but either way I'll be en route next Friday and won't be at my desk. The good news is that I'll be able to deliver the good oil on the induction dinner in the next Last Minute Hitch, and I'm expecting there will be plenty of that!
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
18 October 2024
– Steve Hitchen
Conundrum: should smaller regional airlines and airports be excluded from the Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme? The AAA thinks so, and has come out swinging in that direction. It makes sense because the scheme is clearly in response to the behaviour of the major airlines as they emerged blinking from the dark days of COVID. That being so, why should the smaller ones be subject to the same level of scrutiny? Doesn't that make them collateral damage? I am sure, given their druthers, that the airports would be happy to dodge the ombuds and concentrate on staying alive, but why not take a different approach. Quality assurance dogma teaches that a complaint can be an opportunity for improvement and should be treated with respect. Perhaps being captured by the ombuds scheme is not such a bad thing; complaint can bring improvement and in improvement often resides efficiency. The big question mark is over how the ombuds scheme will actually work, which is what the Federal Government was consulting about. If they focus on their bread-and-butter complaints–refund policies, cancelations, late arrivals and other shenanigans–then the ombuds office is likely to be too snowed under to pay much attention to the industry's minnows. And if due respect is paid to the regulations under which aviation must exist, I suspect the ombuds won't always come down on the side of the complainant. Regardless, time is money and a lot of time is generally expended on dealing with complaints. It's probably a tinny argument; I suspect politics to yield to the prongs of public opinion, which is likely to demand complete capture.
"..resurrecting circuit caps has also reinstated the same side-effects.."
There are many things that we human beings cling to ferociously even though they have been proven not to work. Think any form of government, transit lanes, stress toys, B&S balls, chicken Twisties and Royal Commissions. Add one more: circuit caps at metro Class D airports. Airservices Australia has brought them back from the dead at Moorabbin in response to rising "operational deviations", even though when CASA lumped them on all the GAAP airports in 2009, they created greater safety issues than the one they were purported to solve. So, resurrecting circuit caps has also reinstated the same side-effects, all of which either bring about a decrease in operational safety or an increase in operational cost. Or both. What needs to be forensically examined is the reason for the caps and whether or not they are the best solution to a problem. In a presentation widely distributed to the industry, Airservices detailed the operational deviations causing concern as mostly Airservices own requirements, missed mandatory calls, sequencing, incorrect levels and taxying. Really, were they expecting crisp, professional airmanship every time at Australia's largest training airport? This has been going on at Moorabbin and all the other metro Ds for years. So why now? RVAC has stated plainly that they think this is about making the stats look good; other operators have hinted at staffing issues in the tower. Either way, having inexperienced students holding outside the zone, forcing them to rush pre-flights, delaying solos, queuing at holding points and over-fueling is a desirable solution to no problem. And I can't see Airservices getting much support for this during their post-implementation review, so they may as well ditch it before something goes sadly wrong.
I am quietly pleased to see a full-motion Caravan sim coming to Australia. When you add that to the news that the RFDS is going to make their King Air sim available for wider GA use, we've gained a couple of very useful tools that represent a quantum leap in safety. I am an unashamed fan of using full-motion sims to practice and embed emergency skills without putting on line the skin of the instructor and pilot. Too many times it has gone wrong, usually resulting in tragedy. Full-motion sims are a powerful tool for mitigating risk, and I'd like to see CASA in particular embrace the technology and permit training ops in simulators for some sequences even though an aeroplane is available for the training. Yes, sims are cheaper than using a real aeroplane, but this is about safety more than anything else, and when the technology increases safety, we all have an obligation to make it the rule rather than the exception.
Your next eNews will be out not next Friday, but rather Monday 28 October. This is because Sonya the Magnificent and I will be traveling to Shellharbour airport for the Australian Aviation Hall of Fame induction dinner. Whether that be by air or by road is up to mother nature and the aviation gods, but either way I'll be en route next Friday and won't be at my desk. The good news is that I'll be able to deliver the good oil on the induction dinner in the next Last Minute Hitch, and I'm expecting there will be plenty of that!
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch