[Peetwo]

Part II - Yep all's good in aviation for 2016

{Reference post: 4D in denial & a bureaucracy obfuscating - 2016 summary of ASRR progress

YES miniscule - all is good in aviation.  

1. Lack of political support for jobs in General Aviation

The real reason general aviation, i.e. aviation sectors other than the major airlines, cannot achieve its growth potential and add to the Australian economy is the lack of political support in this country for an industry that could create many jobs and careers, especially for rural Australia.

The government defines general aviation as: "General aviation commonly refers to that part of the aviation industry that engages in activity other than commercial air transport activity. This may include small charter operators, aeromedical operators, agricultural aviation businesses, aviation-based fire-fighting services, training and aerial work such as aerial photography and surveying. It also includes private, business, recreational and sports aviation activity."

These are all operational sectors that ignores the ICAO classification of Activities that also lists: "Airport Services, Air Navigation Services, Civil Aviation Manufacturing, Aviation Training, Maintenance and Overhaul, Regulatory Functions and Other Activities (e.g. Design Activities)" ..that are common to both Commercial Air Transport and General Aviation. Regulatory Reform now means adopting one of either the FAA, Canada or the EASA system that is most applicable to the Australian needs. Each adopted provision must be reviewed to determine compatibility to other Australian Federal legislative systems and integration with other government departments and agencies promulgated requirements.

What actual benefits and jobs have been created by this reform?

Nearly 4,000 aircraft on the CASA Aircraft Register do not fly.

 That means there is really only 12,000 active aircraft.

BITRE Stats state that private aircraft average less than 30 hrs per annum.

 Low hours caused by public service inflicted ‘red tape’ and operating requirements.

The falloff in participation started with government creating the Civil Aviation Authority in 1990 with appointment of non-regulatory experienced management with every review and restructure, almost annually at one stage, increased; as regulatory experienced, internationally recognised and respected aviation experienced regulators were knowingly replaced to improve "management".

The aviation industry is conceptually focused on adapting to change as new aircraft and products are brought into service regularly. However, North America modernised their aviation regulatory systems in the last decade or so and these changes were not adopted which left Australia stranded with a system introduced in 1990s that was as flawed as was the CAA’s 1988 approach. In fact, the change from Air Navigation Regulations to Civil Aviation Regulations in 1988 was a disaster for aviation as operator after operator closed. Its effect was so bad it created another government parliamentary review that created CASA in the mid 1990s.

How many reviews has this industry and its regulator, now called CASA, been through since the Hawke/Keating economic reform was commenced? How many recommendations implemented?

We all know that the most honourable "Sir Humphrey Appleby" could think up "political speak" to satisfy (mislead) a Minister whilst doing nothing to implement. Looking at some past episodes clearly identifies the problem in Australia. Government endorsed recommendations from enquiry after enquiry over the decades have not been fully or, in some cases, partially implemented, because of the administrators of policy inane "we know best" attitude.

The ASRR report and the Government Response will not be supported, or understood, by CASA. They will do the minimal and tell government that they have implemented the recommendations.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED to bring benefits to aviation in the last 3 decades. The industry has had more red tape added to it where the FAA, for instance, has made changes to improve productivity, remove red tape, and improve safety so the FAA can provide improved regulatory oversight.

Look at the international authors of the ASRR report – two internationally acclaimed aviation management experts that government and CASA should have been thankful they provided such expertise behind each recommendation. Sadly, the ‘Sir Humphries’ are still in charge and little has been achieved. Harmonisation by adoption is what the ASRR is really recommending. Bring Australia and CASA up to the standards of mature aviation countries. Two eminent international authors:

1. Mr Spruston has wide-ranging experience in oversight and regulation of the aviation sector with the Canadian Government. He has also been extensively involved in the development and implementation of criteria for reviewing aviation safety regulatory performance as part of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). Formerly Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, Mr Spruston was until recently, the Director General of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) based in ICAO headquarters in Montreal, Canada. He has previously held senior positions with Transport Canada including Director General of Aircraft Services, and Regional Director of Air Navigation Services in the Pacific Region.

2. Mr Whitefield has held senior positions in both regulatory and operational roles within the aviation industry—he was previously a commercial pilot for over 30 years. For the past 10 years he has been a board member of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) during a period of significant structural and governance reform of the Authority. He is a member of the International Safety Review Team which most recently conducted an independent safety review of Air France following their loss of an A330 aircraft. He is also Chair of Air Safety Support International (a UK Government company charged with helping deliver aviation safety oversight for British overseas territories).

Add the Australian author to that mix and we have one of the world’s best review teams that could be assembled. Their recommendations should be adopted as proposed.

3. Mr Forsyth currently works as an independent consultant to the aviation industry and has served on a number of Boards, including as Chair of Airservices Australia, Chair of the Safeskies Conference, Vice President of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (South Eastern Section) and President of the Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division. He previously worked for Qantas for over 30 years in technical and management roles including: Manager of the Melbourne Maintenance Base; General Manager, Regional Airlines; and Executive General Manager, Aircraft Operations.

The aviation inexperience that now exists in the Public Service, including CASA, should have grasped these recommendations and implemented them exactly how these 3 eminent persons suggested in the full report. Sadly, 60 months after the release of the ASRR, the industry has seen little or no change to government practices or regulatory structure in their interaction with the industry.

However, ‘Sir Humphrey’ must have visited, as the Public Service ASRR Recommendations progress report , dated 25 August, 2016, informs the Minister that extraordinary progress has happened and they have completed many of the recommendations. Read this report – almost completed???

A review of the report last Friday, 10-12, by myself and other association leaders did not agreed with the progress report and could only accept that maybe 3 or 4 recommendations may have been completed. This is a "public service" trying to sound as though they are making progress when in fact, they are not. This is a systemic problem within the public service when aviation is the focal point. Read any review recommendations in the last couple of decades and you will see similarities in the recommendations that confirm permanent change as recommended was not achieved.

The problem that CASA, and Infrastructure, has when publishing such a report, is that their creditability immediately slips further into the ravine, and trust and respect takes another battering.

For the progress report to be placed on the Infrastructure’s website, then, not only CASA, but other government departments, including CASA’s Board, must have accepted the report.

"Sir Humphrey Appleby" quote: Yes, yes, yes, I do see that there is real dilemma here. In that, while it has been government policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Ministers and administration as a responsibility of Officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy."

Because of that progress report, the public service has to now stifle the complaints by industry by brandishing those that speak up, on behalf of the industry, as radicals not supported by industry.

The current government is relying on such a dedicated public service to placate the constituents because they are too frighten to take the action that is required by proposing legislation that their foes in Parliament could stop, just to embarrass the government. A political dilemma.

What a mess we have ended up with and what a mess the new CEO/DAS of CASA has to confront.

How do you change the philosophy after more than a generation of wrong direction? Some of those employed will never change their approach because they simply do not know the difference between safety and compliance. A person that is safe may not be compliant with written requirements but a compliant person may not be safe. Which is the better person to be working in the industry? This is where the person doing regulatory oversight has to apply discretion and encourage improvements.

Are CASA staff taught how to apply discretion when safety is being practiced but compliance is not 100%? It may, and probably means the regulatory requirement needs to be amended, not the prevention of a safe practice.

It is also disappointing to read the progress report provided to the Minister by the public service – it confirms to industry that all public service levels that supported the progress report know they can mislead the Minister but, to their misfortune, they cannot fool this industry anymore.

If you wanted to turn a failing company around, you normally clear out the obstructionists to change and create a team without silos. Sounds easy, but you also need a mean streak to make changes. - P2: In other words clear out the dross...  

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this AM Binger in the Oz writes on another indicator pointing towards GA industry decimation:

Allianz to shut aviation cover
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN
Allianz is pulling its aviation insurance business out of Australia, closing the books on $20 million in policies.

Insurance giant Allianz is pulling its aviation insurance business out of Australia, closing the books on the $20 million worth of insurance policies it holds in the market and leaving the fate of six roles within the division up in the air.

The closure next year will put in doubt some 3000 aviation-related insurance policies that Allianz underwrites in the Australian market. These policies include liability insurance for airport operators, aircraft hull insurance, hangar insurance, drone policies and ground handler cover.

The company will continue to offer insurance for large commercial airlines and aircraft operators through its London office.

“Allianz Global Corporate and Speciality Pacific will commence placing existing aviation business written out of Australia into run-off, effective 1 January 2017,” Willem van Wyk, the chief of Allianz Global Corporate and Speciality Pacific, wrote to staff in late November.

“The move comes as part of a strategic review of the local market and allows AGCS Pacific to focus on building upon its successes in the global corporate segment.”

A spokesman for Allianz refused to answer questions about the closure of the insurance unit — including reasons for shutting down the business, the value of policies held and what will happen to impacted staff — saying he could not “fully answer” questions provided by The Australian.

But the spokesman did confirm that Allianz’s aviation insurance arm would shut down by January 1.

“AGCS will continue to work closely with brokers and clients during the transition period and the run-off of its existing business. Only five positions are impacted by AGCS’s change in strategy. The staff impact will be staggered over 2017, although opportunities for redeployment may also be identified where appropriate.”

The closure points to the continued decline of the nation’s once-thriving general aviation sector, which has been progressively smothered by the cost of red tape.

It comes after Allianz has progressively pulled out of aviation insurance around the world through closures of its Singapore, Brazil and Chicago aviation insurance offices.

“This is not just about Allianz pulling out of the market because of the declining economics of the business model. It’s also about the decline of general aviation in Australia,” a source within Allianz told The Australian.

“Realistically there is too much underwriting capacity in Australia for the general aviation sector, which is clearly not a boom industry. And frankly, the way the regulator behaves is resulting in general aviation’s decline and is a reason why the industry is in such bad shape.”

Earlier this year the aviation regulator conceded it needed to do more to reduce the red tape and costs strangling Australia’s general aviation sector.

The concession came in response to calls from the general aviation sector for a government lifeline after data showing massive declines in the number of new pilots and aircraft entering the industry was presented to the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority.

AOPA executive director Ben Morgan said Allianz’s withdrawal was emblematic of the struggles facing the industry.

This is despite Boeing predicting that there will be a need for quarter of a million new pilots in the Asia-Pacific region by 2035 

Virtual reality technology to speed up pilot training as demand grows
Robyn Ironside News Corp Australia Network

SOARING demand for air travel in the Asia-Pacific region will create the need for an extra 248,000 pilots by 2035.

Aircraft manufacturer Boeing has released its annual Pilot and Technican Outlook forecasting huge numbers of jobs to be created in the aviation industry.

It is anticipated 111,000 additional pilots will be needed by Chinese carriers, or 5600 a year, plus 62,000 in Southeast Asia.

Although demand is much smaller in the Oceania region, an extra 13,000 pilots should still be required by Australian, New Zealand and South Pacific airlines in the next two decades.


Pilot training in a Boeing flight simulator. Picture: Thomas Hanser, BoeingnoSource:Supplied

Vice-President of Boeing Flight Services Sherry Carbary said the aircraft manufacturer was working closely with airlines, regulators and flight schools to train new pilots and technicians.

“We are seeing a lot of poaching — a lot of airlines that are willing to pay more than the market to get the captains and to get the first officers that they need,” said Ms Carbary.

“So far it’s been OK, the United States had a surplus of pilots, Europe had a surplus of pilots; the question is when does that surplus extinguish itself and then what happens next.”


Virtual Reality technology is being developed by Boeing to assist in the training of pilots and technicians. Picture: AFP/Christof StacheSource:AFP

To support the demand for training, Boeing is investing in virtual reality-based training solutions, that will put trainee pilots into a virtual cockpit without the immediate need for an expensive flight simulator.

“You’re actually seeing the aeroplane, you’re seeing the flight deck, you’re seeing the training manuals, you’re seeing everything you need to make a decision,” said Ms Carbary.

“I think that will if not accelerate the training, it will certainly change the training experience.”

She said the use of new technology would also help attract more young people to the aerospace industry.

“That’s what they’ve grown up on. They didn’t grow up sitting in a classroom reading a book and so I think this is going to take us to a whole new level of training,” Ms Carbary said.

“But I think it’s too early on to say (if virtual reality will replace simulators).”


Qantas’s pilot recruitment drive is going gangbusters: Picture: Peter ThomasSource:Supplied

Australian airlines have recently stepped up pilot recruitment, with Qantas seeking an additional 170 pilots and Jetstar recruiting for its Cadet Pilot Program.

The Flying Kangaroo has already filled some positions, from the more than 500 applications received.

The Jetstar program is the only jet aircraft pilot cadetship offered in Australia with just 12 cadets being taken initially, and another 20 next year.

On completion of the program, operated in partnership with Swinburne University of Technology, the cadets will become First Officers on Jetstar’s Airbus A320 aircraft, or Second Officers on Jetstar’s Boeing 787s.

MTF...P2