[Peetwo]

Hitch overview of TAAAF Policy 2016.

General aviation needs some changes in Canberra if it is to have a vibrant future. (Steve Hitchen)

Inside the 2016 TAAAF Policy
5 May 2016

By Steve Hitchen
Comment

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) 2016 policy paper, released last Thursday, is a strategically-timed document brimming with urgency, yet devoid of panic. And rather than be nothing but a red-flag of distress, the policy is more of a road map to rescue for the aviation industry, and general aviation in particular.

More than any other attempt to turn the heads and minds of politicians, this paper has the goods to overcome most of the stubborn walls that stand in the way of real progress. Having said that, it relies heavily on the government of the day understanding the issues that general aviation faces, and coupling that with a genuine desire to revitalise it. Whereas TAAAF can certainly help understand the issues, it can do very little if the government really doesn’t want a vibrant GA industry.

The way this paper is received in Canberra and what impact is has will reveal a lot about what us under the government’s kilt. This policy does most of the work needed to get GA moving forward and growing, but although it may sit on the desks of the politicians, it will still have to run the slicing gauntlet of the public servants, who will analyse and advise measured against a different criteria to which the policy was written, namely, the hidden agendas of the party in power.

According to TAAAF Honorary Chairman Greg Russell, the 2016 policy is a clear statement of what the forum believes the open agenda should be for the next three years.

“We want to commence a national discussion on a National Aviation Strategy,” he told me last Monday. “Current aviation policy is spread over too many agencies, and we have a good case for a Minister Assisting for Aviation to co-ordinate a national plan.”

Good point. Aviation in Australia currently is influenced by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia, the Department of Defence, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport… and that’s just at federal level.

Then there are the state governments, airport owners, developers, aviation interest groups, self-administering organisations, community groups, airlines and flying schools. Even the education departments are starting to have an influence through the Recognised Training Organisation accreditation scheme for the 150-hour CPL courses.

There’s even an aviation journo or two trying to put their two cents in.
The point is that there are lots of wheelbarrows being pushed and no single parking space for them all. TAAAF’s paper proposes a way to clear the traffic jam.

The main thrust of the paper is a paradigm shift to genuine partnership between stakeholders, in its own words, “having government work with the industry in a new partnership to establish an aviation environment that supports safety, encourages competition and innovations, and delivers significant benefits to the Australian community.”

It sounds simple; like Utopia is only one stop the other side of Redfern, but TAAAF is not demanding quick fixes in double-quick time. This is a long-term plan for equal length sustainability for the industry, but just as every journey begins with one step, TAAAF believes the first forward move is to fix problems at CASA.

“The time has come for a complete overhaul of Australia’s aviation safety regulator,” the paper states. “CASA has had a series of turbulent relationships with industry over the past two decades and it is apparent that the standard of its management and its internal systems and processes have steadily declined.

“This is a situation that is no longer tolerable in a country like Australia that depends so heavily on the safety and growth of its aviation industry.”

That’s strong language that masks another message TAAAF – and the aviation industry – is trying to get across: enough is enough. Industry needs to grow and it can’t take unwarranted and unjustified authoritarianism from some parts of CASA anymore. You know the old saying … if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

But just like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Project Eureka, the centrepiece of the TAAAF policy is a recommendation to sell off Airservices, then pump the money back into aviation. Normally, this would be Lindt chocolate in the mouths of Coalition politicians who have been Australia’s great champions of privatisation, but the recommendation comes with a bit of an onion: the new air service provider should be a not-for-profit company.

According to TAAAF, Nav Canada is a classic success story, the bones of which are closer to where Australia needs to head than the UK National Air Traffic Services commercial model. Russell is a not-so-late CEO of Airservices Australia, and states emphatically that he felt the Airservices model was not long-life anyway, being as it was at the whim of short-term politics.

A sell-off is genuinely on the cards, and has been bandied around before, but how attractive will it be to a buyer if it then has to be run as a non-profit organisation? If we look at the Nav Canada ownership, we find the shareholders are the National Airlines Council of Canada, Canadian Business Aviation Association, Government of Canada and the unions. Would the Australian equivalents or other stakeholders have the capital to stump up a collective $1 billion to buy Airservices, and would they want to do it anyway?

If not, then the only alternative is to get a private buyer involved and kiss goodbye to the non-profit idea.

Ironically, many general aviation companies have been running non-profit for years, with any potential returns on investment soaked up by regulatory costs that contribute nothing to aviation safety and hamper efficiency. Yes, there are some that are doing alright, but the regular extinction of many companies is an indicator of an industry going the way of the dinosaur and quality television. The TAAAF recognises this in their 2016 policy, and make special mention under the heading A New Philosophy for the Regulation of General Aviation.

The basis of the philosophy is simple: you can't take rules designed for airlines and make them work for general aviation without them being a crushing burden on operators. TAAAF is extolling the virtues of a "low risk – low regulation" approach from CASA, and reinforces the legitimacy of the general aviation industry in having a say in the way their industry is regulated.

"General aviation has slipped off the agenda," Greg Russell told me, "and TAAAF wants it back on. It needs to be a thoughtful philosophy and one that could be a foundation for good policy."

The philosophy also contains an appeal for what amounts to a general aviation bill of rights. It reinforces calls for a just culture within CASA, removal of the counter-safety strict liability regime, protection from vindictive reaction to complaints and transparency and accountability. It would surprise a lot of outside observers to know that general aviation has not been afforded any of these things in the past. The sad thing is that all TAAAF is asking for are the rights that GA should have anyway.

So how much genuine influence will the 2016 TAAAF policy have? Their last document in 2013 has been credited as being a factor in the decision to commission the Forsyth Report, which–although still hamstrung–was the biggest earthquake in the aviation industry since the CAA was split into CASA and Airservices.

This group gets listened to and has the influence and respect of many Canberra decision makers, so the new policy will get in front of the right people. Where it goes from there depends upon the many other factors that come into play in the everyday cut-and-thrust of Australian federal politics.

MTF...P2