The Last Minute Hitch: 28 April 2025
25 April 2025
– Steve Hitchen
CASA safety pledges for pilots and operators are off to a respectable start, which has some people in Canberra pretty chuffed. I am on record as saying I am bewildered about this initiative, but that hasn't stopped others in the aviation community getting on board. I have no objection to that, and anything I say shouldn't be taken as encouragement not to sign. Everyone needs to find their own value in these pledges. And if you scrutinise the signatures on the CASA website, you'll find some very significant names there, which shows people are prepared to back CASA on this. According to CASA, the idea is to show that aviation safety is a shared responsibility, which, being honest, it has always been. But as a professional question-asker, I need to throw up this one: what does it mean if someone elects not to sign? Are we to condemn that person or organisation's attitude towards safety as cavalier? Personally, I don't think so. There are plenty of pilots and operators out there that understand what it takes to make aviation safe, and have it ingrained into their processes and procedures, which often go well above those set by the regulations. Therefore, the uptake of these pledges can't really be used as a barometer of the aviation community's collective attitude towards safety.
"..silence and refusal only enhances their reputation as a company that prefers to do business in the dark.."
News outlet Crikey this week detailed a security incident at Moorabbin Airport on 13 April that involved someone leaping the perimeter fence and running onto the runway. That's a pretty serious incident in anyone's terms, but Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) exacerbated the issue by refusing to communicate with the outlet. I empathise with Crikey; MAC has never responded to any query from me in the past 13 years, except to promise material that never actually came. Although it does me no good, I will acknowledge that MAC has the right to not connect with the media if they don't want to. However, silence and refusal only enhances their reputation as a company that prefers to do business in the dark, which does nothing but generate suspicion and a growing lack of trust. And that's not their tactic for dealing with the media only; aviation companies that make up a large part of their customer base are getting the same treatment. Operators at other metro Class D towers tell similar stories. When lease periods on offer are shrinking and pleas for genuine communication and co-operation are rebuffed, aviation companies have very little reason to place faith in the plans of the airport operators. But I have to think this: if MAC looked upon themselves as the custodian of an airport, they'd be shouting that from the top of the control tower rather than deliberately making mushrooms of the media over every issue.
With less than a week to go to the official opening of the polling booths (and arcing-up the barbies for the democracy sausages), AMROBA Executive Director Ken Cannane has highlighted the discrepancy between the aviation policies trumpeted before each election and the end results. In sum: what they say is not what we get, or if we get what they say, it's no good to us. Whilst Cannane's sphere of expertise is focused on aviation maintenance, his sentiments could be applied to almost every aspect of aviation. When I hear these questions asked, I am immediately transported back to the ALP aviation white paper of 2008, which, as Shadow Transport Minister, Albo pointed out was implemented to the letter. Given that GA in particular is in a very parlous state 17 years later, the value of that white paper has to be reassessed. It is a classic example of policy handed downwards that achieved nothing. Going into this election, we have another white paper in the recent past, which will substitute for ALP policy. Whether or not that paper has integrity above its 2008 cousin is up to each individual to decide. The Coalition, on the other hand, has solved the whole discord issue by saying absolutely nothing to date. I do wonder if they have the same communications strategist as Moorabbin Airport Corporation.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
PS: Sandy in reply to Hitch's article on "Safety Pledge gains Momentum":
Via AP emails:
25 April 2025
– Steve Hitchen
CASA safety pledges for pilots and operators are off to a respectable start, which has some people in Canberra pretty chuffed. I am on record as saying I am bewildered about this initiative, but that hasn't stopped others in the aviation community getting on board. I have no objection to that, and anything I say shouldn't be taken as encouragement not to sign. Everyone needs to find their own value in these pledges. And if you scrutinise the signatures on the CASA website, you'll find some very significant names there, which shows people are prepared to back CASA on this. According to CASA, the idea is to show that aviation safety is a shared responsibility, which, being honest, it has always been. But as a professional question-asker, I need to throw up this one: what does it mean if someone elects not to sign? Are we to condemn that person or organisation's attitude towards safety as cavalier? Personally, I don't think so. There are plenty of pilots and operators out there that understand what it takes to make aviation safe, and have it ingrained into their processes and procedures, which often go well above those set by the regulations. Therefore, the uptake of these pledges can't really be used as a barometer of the aviation community's collective attitude towards safety.
"..silence and refusal only enhances their reputation as a company that prefers to do business in the dark.."
News outlet Crikey this week detailed a security incident at Moorabbin Airport on 13 April that involved someone leaping the perimeter fence and running onto the runway. That's a pretty serious incident in anyone's terms, but Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) exacerbated the issue by refusing to communicate with the outlet. I empathise with Crikey; MAC has never responded to any query from me in the past 13 years, except to promise material that never actually came. Although it does me no good, I will acknowledge that MAC has the right to not connect with the media if they don't want to. However, silence and refusal only enhances their reputation as a company that prefers to do business in the dark, which does nothing but generate suspicion and a growing lack of trust. And that's not their tactic for dealing with the media only; aviation companies that make up a large part of their customer base are getting the same treatment. Operators at other metro Class D towers tell similar stories. When lease periods on offer are shrinking and pleas for genuine communication and co-operation are rebuffed, aviation companies have very little reason to place faith in the plans of the airport operators. But I have to think this: if MAC looked upon themselves as the custodian of an airport, they'd be shouting that from the top of the control tower rather than deliberately making mushrooms of the media over every issue.
With less than a week to go to the official opening of the polling booths (and arcing-up the barbies for the democracy sausages), AMROBA Executive Director Ken Cannane has highlighted the discrepancy between the aviation policies trumpeted before each election and the end results. In sum: what they say is not what we get, or if we get what they say, it's no good to us. Whilst Cannane's sphere of expertise is focused on aviation maintenance, his sentiments could be applied to almost every aspect of aviation. When I hear these questions asked, I am immediately transported back to the ALP aviation white paper of 2008, which, as Shadow Transport Minister, Albo pointed out was implemented to the letter. Given that GA in particular is in a very parlous state 17 years later, the value of that white paper has to be reassessed. It is a classic example of policy handed downwards that achieved nothing. Going into this election, we have another white paper in the recent past, which will substitute for ALP policy. Whether or not that paper has integrity above its 2008 cousin is up to each individual to decide. The Coalition, on the other hand, has solved the whole discord issue by saying absolutely nothing to date. I do wonder if they have the same communications strategist as Moorabbin Airport Corporation.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
PS: Sandy in reply to Hitch's article on "Safety Pledge gains Momentum":
Via AP emails:
Quote:You; Susan McDonald;W. J. R. (Bill) Hamilton;+11 others
Editor-at-Large, Australian Flying
The Civil Aviation Safety Authorities’s campaign for general aviation pilots to make a Pledge for Safety.
Steve,
Personally I think it’s outrageous that CASA should ask us about a pledge for safety when the boot is on the other foot, no question.
What a colossal cheek when CASA has induced thousands of PPLs into the low weight category which aircraft are not as safe as are heavier and far more capable VH registered aircraft. It’s obvious to any one that the 600kg limit is utterly wrong for numbers of missions that these aircraft are put to in regular private operations. People have died in these aircraft due to their inherent unsuitability for Australia’s long distances and windy conditions.
Hence the mooted change of the low weight recreational aircraft from 600kg to 760kg, but CASA can’t bring itself to implement the change because it implies recognition of the completely wrong model of governance.
All flying operations should be controlled through a Department with Minister in charge via graduated system because it’s not the role of government to hand off governance to monopoly bodies simply to avoid work and responsibility.
What hubris is on display here when CASA has wrecked the flying school industry by creating the most unnecessarily complex, time consuming and costly regulatory regime beyond any rationality. A cursory investigation of the systems in other countries, particularly the USA, shows that our sclerotic regulatory overreach is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive.
I’d be saying to CASA you pledge to have the Act changed by simplifying your regulations and to revert them to misdemeanour status and delete the proviso of strict liability in line with our British style of justice of proportionality.
Then CASA should pledge to Glen Buckley total restitution of his flying school and provide him with proportionate compensation for CASA’s unconscionable treatment against him. Similarly an apology and compensation for Les Woodall and a plea to the court to rescind his criminal conviction, and any such convictions unfairly obtained due to the strict liability provision.
And CASA should pledge to use risk analysis and the experience in other GA countries to determine standards, including medical standards, instead of saddling us with unique and crippling Australian regulatory over reach.
Finally, all citizens have responsibility to respect our laws. Will we be required to make such pledges in every area of civic life? What’s next, shall we be exhorted to report any possible bad thinking or possible regulation breaches by others?
CASA disrespects everyone in GA with this abhorrent Big Brother style of pilot denigration.
No doubt CASA will list those that have signed and those that have not for future reference when deciding who to favour and who to prosecute.
Cheers, Sandy