[Peetwo]

Ask not what the industry can do for you - 


And so; down the rabbit hole. http://auntypru.com/and-so-down-the-rabbit-hole/

How KC and the AMROBA band must wring their hands in frustration when they view such progressive EASA policy and work-shopping (above) on how best to promote the GA industry inside of the European Union...

However one thing about KC is despite having the historical knowledge on how it is our GA industry is in such dire straits, he also maintains a pure vision on how these mainly Government  and CASA generated embuggerances can be arrested and turned around...  

Example from AMROBA's latest newsletter...  

1. An Industry in Permanent Transition?

It is of great credit to the participants of ‘general aviation’ that safety levels have been sustained during continual transition to an unknown future not yet defined by governments, or the public service, that are still debating what is “general aviation”. Since the 1992 Productivity Commission’s Intrastate Aviation paper, aviation, in particular general aviation, has been in transition. But, Transition to what!!!!

Aviation, especially general aviation, has been unsympathetically treated by governments for decades and some changes that have been imposed on aviation was not based on survival or growth of the VH general aviation industry. You only have to look at how the public service interprets recommendations from multiple reports that have been created over the last 30 years to understands the outcome we have today.

None of the reports generated by Federal & State parliaments supported a blueprint that describes where and how general aviation participates and grows in the future. The political answers were, and are, “competition” and “direct cost recovery” from participants.

Like roads, airports are a means of transport servicing communities commercially and privately. Without airports, communities tend to wither and stagnate.

The significance of “AVIATION” was officially removed from the Federal Portfolio Department’s title in 1987 when Departments of Transport, Aviation and Communications amalgamated to form the Department of Transport and Communications.

Creating an Agency (CAA) in 1988 moved aviation outside political influence but this also meant a loss of a previous political supported general aviation industry; design, manufacturing, maintenance, private and commercial operators.

The August 1990 Federal Budget announced that the $73 million contributed towards safety regulation would be phased out in favour of the costs being met by the aviation industry.

A list of the changes (ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/...c284925919 ) over the last 20 years demonstrates the instability of governance.

No industry can grow when there is so much change in governance and administrative directions – all affect the capability of small and private businesses and individuals.

What are the benefits to the community and the small private and commercial industry?

It is hard to imagine the future when there is no vision promulgated and politically supported.

The biggest single problem with the government’s guide to better regulation is that the Regulatory Impact Statement is based on there being a government policy.

If there is no policy for a future safe and viable general aviation industry, then all the RIS is creating is an undocumented policy problem to be changed.

The Government’s guide to better regulations provides what was once an approach taken by the Authority and before the decision to include European provisions.

“Light touch regulation is defined as: As a policy maker, you can choose to be less prescriptive and give discretion to regulated parties on how they can act. Principles–based regulation allows maximum flexibility among affected groups as to how they achieve compliance.”

When politicians eventually support a future for general aviation private and business aviation, including design, manufacturing and education, then making regulatory changes to reduce regulation and red tape to support that vision would make sense.

Also from the newsletter: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...sue-10.pdf

---

   

---

All makes perfectly good sense to me, trouble is we have a miniscule seemingly hell bent on ignoring the pleas from the AGAA and the aviation IOS in preference for an aviation safety bureaucracy that has spent the better part of 3 decades and 500 million dollars on a still incomplete regulatory reform program - FDS!   

---

---

 In reference to the ASAP (pic above) I note a passing strange coincidence that last week in Friday's 'the Oz', the CEO of the RFDS and Chairman of the ASAP,  Martin Laverty featured in an Ironsider article labelled - Timely tweak for aviation safety law??

New aviation safety regulations will be required by law to consider the cost to operators, under new legislation to be drafted by the Deputy Prime Minister’s General Aviation Advisory Group.

Chairman Martin Laverty from the Royal Flying Doctor Service said a meeting of the group yesterday won the commitment that there should be an awareness that any regulatory changes came with a cost that ultimately affected operators.

“The decision of the Deputy Prime Minister (Michael McCormack) to ask the advisory group for direction as to how this should be legislated is responsive to the industry’s concerns,” Dr Laverty said.

“Legislation will continue to have safety as the first and foremost obligation, but there will now be a requirement on the regulator for that to be applied in a pragmatic, practical and proportionate way.”

Other commitments given by Mr McCormack related to work pressures in the aviation workforce, and would deliver improvements to student con­cessions available through the vocational education and training sector.

Dr Laverty said it was widely recognised that the cost of obtaining a pilot’s licence was “a specific barrier to entry to the profession at the same time as it was experiencing a shortage”.

“This is particularly impacting general aviation and the flying doctors, so any concessions are going to be a great help,” he said.

“Emphasis is to be placed on the attraction and recruitment of females into both these pilot and maintenance roles. We think there’s a great opportunity to ­expand the profession as an ­attractive career choice.”

It was the intention to go back to government before Christmas with the group’s position on amendments to aviation safety legislation followed by broader consultation, Dr Laverty said.

“ Those words that I’ve chosen —pragmatic, practical and proportionate — were the sentiment of today’s discussion and we will now be formalising that up,” he said. “We’d anticipate that amendment should be made early next year as a possibility.”

   
"..Those words that I’ve chosen — pragmatic, practical and proportionate.." - Q/ Why is it being left up to the ASAP Chair to make the decision to adopt those key words? And why has there been NO consideration by the ASAP (or by the Govt) to adopt the guiding principles promolgated in the AGAA Wagga aviation summit resolutions? Surely if there is contemplation of a legislative solution to the nearly three decade CASA red tape embuggerance of industry, then the AGAA resolutions and suggestions for amending the Act deserve ASAP (& by default Govt) review - ANYONE??  

MTF...P2