[Peetwo]

More on TAAAF Policy & Tamworth "N"-DAY 

From Binger in the Oz today..

Groups plead for drastic reform

12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

An alliance of Australia’s major aviation associations has called on the government to reform aviation regulations.

..The newly released 66-page report from the Australian Aviation Associations Forum says it is imperative that the Civil Aviation Act is rewritten to align with international standards and that action be taken to ensure education and aviation training remain on par with global best-practice.


“Aviation policy has lan­guished and is in need of a bold agenda for reform. It is critical that the industry start moving forward again rather than being subjected to another review,” the report says.


“The Forum believes that key challenges for aviation in the next term of our federal parliament are to create a whole-of-government approach and forward-looking aviation policy, to harmonise aviation regulations with international standards and to establish performance-based safety regulation based on risk assessment and outcomes.”


The report calls for the realignment of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Dev­el­opment and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to implement policy effectively and create a performance-based regulatory system. It points to Australia’s pilot certification regulations, which cover 3000 pages, whereas the same material in the US — which has better safety statistics — covers just 100 pages.


“A key initiative is a major modernisation of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which has not been reviewed in nearly 30 years. A priority is to ensure Australian aviation regulations are better aligned with international standards to facilitate exports and reduce unnecessary costs and delays, including the recognition of Australian qualifications by other aviation states, especially in the emerging aviation powerhouses of China and India,” the report said.

Also from off Dazzling Dazza's thread:

Traction + Action = Vote winning:-

No one could consider the TAAAF a bunch of tendentious bloggers, IOS or a raving anti establishment outfit; no one.  They continue to produce first class, expert based solutions to Australia’s manifold aviation industry problems.  Those problems are every bit as real as the advice and solutions are valid.

Cherry picked from the ASA thread – HERE – is a sample of what has been consistently ignored by government, minister, department and the ‘safety’ oversight bodies that tax payers (think voters) fund.  Cost effective (tick), red tape reduction (tick), progressive (tick), advantageous to government (tick), beneficial to industry (tick): there’s a lot more ticks but it’s not for me to overburden the limited thinking capacity of those who are, ultimately responsible for the current shambles.

Bravo TAAAF, nicely done and fingers crossed.  Best free advice the minister could get.  Thank you.

TAAAF  - “Airservices should be privatised along the lines of the Canadian air traffic provider, Nav Canada, which has operated successfully and safely for over 20 years.

“Nav Canada is a not-for-profit regulated monopoly owned by industry stakeholders who are represented on the governing board and surpluses are reinvested in the corporation or used to reduce prices.”

TAAAF estimates the privatisation of Airservices would generate about $1 billion. Of that, $500 million should be spent on a developing training, research and leadership programs.

Well worth doing - even if just to remove the trough diving and whiff of corruption. 

TAAAF - "With a federal election likely to be held on July 2, TAAAF is also calling for the federal government to appoint a Minister Assisting for Aviation, whose role would be to “oversee and coordinate a new aviation strategy for Australia”.

Brilliant, essential and we already have the right man, with right stuff, laying about idle, being wasted.  

Toot toot.

&..from Byron Bailey Oz article:

...Just when you thought things could not get any worse, then came the attempted revision of Part 61 “Pilot Certification” in September 2014.


We now have, at an alleged cost of $200 million, 3000 pages of what a senior US FAA official described as gobbledygook. In the US, pilot certification runs to 100 pages and the New Zealand rules come in at 89 pages.



New Zealand revamped all their aviation regulations after a royal commission and the result is widely used and admired by other countries. Australia, however, is saddled with a regulatory nightmare that is forcing the industry to collapse.



Industry heavyweights have decided enough is enough. Desperate times call for desperate action. Concerned aviation insiders that care about the future of general aviation have organised a public meeting in Tamworth on Friday, May 6, with the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Transport Minister Darren Chester and that great Australian and aviation expert Dick Smith.



Both these ministerial portfolios were formerly held by Warren Truss, who appears not to have had any leverage over CASA/ATSB/ASA. Also attending for the defence is CASA chairman Jeff Boyd. The aim of the meeting is to prevent the collapse of the industry by requesting government intervention on a range of matters, the most pressing problem being the scrapping of the totally unworkable and ruinous Part 61...

&..off the UP..

CP - More power to your arm, Ben.

Some paradigm issues that I suggest you take into consideration in your strategic thinking, so that any momentum you build and effort you are making are focussed where it may have some chance of having some effect.



The practical reality is that while ever the Coalition and Labour effectively take turns in government, they both win every election. Each 'side' merely takes its turn to feast on the treasure of the body politic.

These days, the job of the bureaucracy is to protect the relevant minister. Whether that happens to result in something that's in the public interest is a matter of mere coincidence. The bureaucracy is effectively now a support system for the political advisers for the ministers who come and go, no matter to what party they happen to belong. The political advisers decide whether the minister is happy or sad, and that determines whether the bureaucrats keep their jobs.

Both 'sides' effectively abdicated their responsibility for the aviation industry to the bureaucracy a couple of decades or so ago. This makes ministers and their advisers happy, because they can disclaim responsibility for aviation regulation on a bi-partisan and 'public interest' basis. That's why the bureaucracy proceeded to build (and continues to build) the enormous, complex mess that is the aviation regulatory system. My view is that it is now impossible for anyone to work out what the amalgamation of the Civil Aviation Act, 1988 regulations, 1998 regulations, Civil Aviation Orders, Manuals of Standards, Directions, Determinations and, most importantly, exemptions, actually means as a matter of practicality. It's now mainly a life support system for all the people who build and continue to build on the mess: The bigger the mess, the longer it will take them to clean it up (on six figure salaries, year after year).

Some of them seriously believe they are making a positive contribution to safety. Many of the people in AVMED would fall into this category.

This abdication is also the explanation for why nothing changes despite all of the matters identified by Senate Committees and inquiries and reviews and coronials etc. Witness all those Senate enquiries that don't result in the Senators walking into the Senate and voting to give effect to the strong opinions expressed during Committee hearings. It's just pantomime.

Short point for you: Don't bother wasting energy on the tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. The only glimmer of hope for GA lies in the laps of independents like Nick X.

Therefore, I'd suggest it would be very worthwhile finding out whether Tony Windsor has any knowledge of the plight of GA, any sympathy for the plight of GA and any inclination to use his vote to support change to improve the lot of GA. If the answer to each of those questions is 'no', meeting with and talking to Chester, Joyce and Windsor is - in my opinion based on the observation of the similar circumstances have arisen with depressing regularity over the last couple of decades and more - a complete waste of your and everyone else's time and energy. Focus has to be on the people who are actually prepared to legislate for change. 

Less than 7 days & counting miniscule -  

Tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..
MTF...P2