[Sandy Reith]

Let’s put CASA’s answers to each of the RRAT Interim recommendations :-

1/. We will review costs and consider charging caps to alleviate hardship.

2/. Working through ASAP and TWGs we will consider CASR simplification and combination (stop laughing), plus options for CARs. Will consider conduct of ag pilots Proficiency Checks and options for third party. Will consider and report. Will consider where possible with suitable training Regional and remote pilots (somewhere out there?) to do maintenance. Will examine role of AVMAD in relation to ‘regional and remote’ pilots whose GPs and specialists opinions differ with CASA medicos, but no consideration for city based pilots. Will review CASR 138 and 133 and CAO 48.

3/. Where possible will streamline

4/.This to Government amend Act for the good of Australia’s aviation. CASA noted .

5/. CASA will audit its reg framework where possible to align with USA etc, if it suits us.

6. Will explore opportunities for mutual recognition with other NAAs.

7/. One for Minister BJ, immediately commence, wait for it, yes! an independent review of CASA’s culture.
Oh sure he’s bound to take that one seriously, oh blow now about to be in caretaker mode .

8/. See my previous posted comment, and noting that there’s no direction as to who will set up this new Commonwealth corporate. But if it happens yes it will have to be funded. CASA noted.

9/. Another for someone in Government (?) to initiate as part of the Recovery framework a holistic training review of training. CASA noted.

10/. Someone in Government ensures good careers in aviation including General Aviation, CASA agreed.

11/. Dept. I. T. R. D., Minister Joyce to create a new fund  accessible only to operators of regional and remote airports. Being the independent expert in all things aviation CASA wishes to assist by defining those airports that will be separated by location into regional and remote from the total cohort of airports that may be eligible.

12/. CASA agrees with consultation and that Government ensures this is adhered to.

CASA is pleased to report it has carried out all of its obligations in relation to the RRAT Interim Report.

Should the Committee wish to explore the definition of “regional and remote” CASA, mindful that under the Act safety is the prime consideration, it is prepared to offer a preliminary definition for this new concept of regulatory differentiation in the territory of Australia.

Regional :-  We accept any locality outside the metropolitan areas of the capital cities, but by tying the definition to ‘and remote areas’ CASA must take the safest route and declare that ‘remote,’ for the purpose of rule change to be considered, must be confined to Heard Island, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos Keeling Group.
Tasmania was considered for ‘remote’ but too many pilots could take up residence there causing imbalance.

There it is, all done and dusted in about forty minutes.
Thank you Senator McDonald.

[Peetwo]

AOPA Oz one on one with Senator McDonald - 

AOPA Australia
225 subscribers

AOPA AUSTRALIA LIVE - TODAY 2PM
QUEENSLAND SENATOR SUSAN MCDONALD

Join Benjamin Morgan of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for a one-on-one LIVE discussion with Queensland Senator Susan McDonald,. discussing the outcomes of the General Aviation Industry Inquiry and recent events at privatised airports in Australia.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sic'em Rex calls MAYDAY?? - 

Courtesy BM and AOPA Oz, via Youtube:

AOPA Australia
227 subscribers

AOPA AUSTRALIA LIVE:  TODAY AT 2PM (EST Sydney)!
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN SENATOR, REX PATRICK

Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for a one-on-one interview with South Australian Senator, Rex Patrick, discussing the work of the Senate Rural Regional Affairs Transport Committee (RRAT) on general aviation matters.

LIVE Broadcast will commence at 2pm on the AOPA Australia Facebook Page:  www.facebook.com/aopaaustralia

Hmmm...sic'em Rex - 

Ref: https://auntypru.com/never-laugh-at-live-dragons/

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

“All the world is made of faith, and trust, and pixie dust.”

"All well and good" says the inquiring youngster - "but, can we trust any of it?" A fair question I thought, asked at the end of a revue of the 20/20 inquiry. Best let history answer that question:-

"Highlighting the fracture of industry/regulator relations clearly and repeatedly, the government-commissioned Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) Panel used the word “trust” or one of its derivatives no fewer than 26 times throughout its discussion, analysis and recommendations."  Paul Phelan - Dec 2016.

The rest of the article is -HERE - remarkably little has changed since 2016. Can we expect any change in 2022?  I'm not holding my breath.

[Peetwo]

Su-Spence broken promises and (BS) platitudes?? - 

A year and over a million dollars later; it is now time to start completing the IOS/BRB review on the Su_Spence performance so far...
 
Let's start with the matter of Andy Pascoe v CASA where I refer to the following extract from CASA supp submission 46.2 : 

Alleged concerns about CASA CEO not providing evidence

In AFA’s opening statement to the hearing, Mrs Pagani said that in a Local Court matter, the
presiding magistrate had indicated it might be necessary to ‘subpoena the CEO of CASA, issue a
summons for her arrest to bring her before this court to explain why CASA had not provided
information’ (Proof Hansard, pp. 23 and 24).

CASA assumes the litigation referred to is the criminal prosecution of Mr Andrew Pascoe mounted by
the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) on three (3) charges under the
Commonwealth Criminal Code. The matter is currently before the Parramatta Local Court.

CASA has conferred with the CDPP and the Australian Government Solicitor (who appeared for CASA
in connection with questions related to the production of documents), who both advise they are
unaware of any suggestion by the Magistrate that action should be taken against the CEO.

These assurances notwithstanding, CASA has ordered transcripts of all relevant portions of the
proceedings to determine if any such remarks were made. CASA has been advised it may take several
weeks for these transcripts to be provided. As soon as reasonably practicable, CASA will inform the
Committee of the outcome of its review of the transcripts.

Having reviewed all tabled documents etc. from the (at this stage, still ongoing) GA Inquiry webpages it would appear Su_Spence has reneged on the promise to "inform the Committee of the outcome of its review of the transcripts". This assumption was confirmed in communications with the RRAT committee Secretariat. The Secretariat's comment on this was that CASA may have delayed their response waiting for the outcome of the Federal election.

I call bollocks on this as this is an open inquiry and although the committee needs to be reconstituted (probably early August once the 47th Parliament begins sitting), the committee Secretariat is doing business and still accepting submissions etc. to the inquiry. I also call bollocks because the Spence supp submission with that promise was published in early January 2022, 3 months before the calling of the Federal election...

P2 - IOS/BRB rumour mill: While on the Andy Pascoe case I understand there is some pretty disturbing revelations still to come out from the last court day hearing, with associated rumours of internal wranglings leading all the way up to the Su_Spence office -   

MTF? Yes much! - P2 

[Kharon]

History - for future reference.

Old Nostradamus fancied himself a 'seer' of the future; too airy-fairy and ambiguous for my taste and nowhere near as acute as 'Fearless Phelan' when it came to prediction and far sighted comment. The remarkable thing how is not how applicable the articles were at the time of writing; but how very apt they remain in today's world. One could take any one of Paul's comments, cut, paste and re date it, today - and it would stand as fair comment of the situation aviation has been trapped in for over a decade (or two). Find a coffee and a comfy seat, take a journey back in time and consider how very applicable the writings are today; still after all this time. It is truly remarkable how little 'progress' has been made in real reform of anything that matters; in fact there is evidence of a very real regression from 'reform' of regulation or regulator behaviour. Anyone who has to deal or negotiate with CASA should study the recent history; it may not help but at least forearmed is forewarned;

Stunned Silence.
Phelan: - "Aviation Industry “disappointment” is quickly morphing into outrage over what many stakeholders now see as the government’s lethargic reaction to the “Forsyth Review” which has clearly ex-posed a need for major organisational changes to various aspects of the way the regulator goes about its business.
They are alarmed at the lack of any visible response from Deputy PM and Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss who although he has acknowledged the Air Safety Regulation Review’s (ASRR) recommendations, does not appear to have set out an urgent plan of action for their adoption. There also hasn’t been any visible response from CASA or Mr Truss’s Department. The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, representing several major and diverse industry groups, has been seeking a meeting with the Minister for several days but without success.

The situation has created a perceived void of policy that is now affecting the futures of individuals, manufacturers, AOC holders and MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) certificate holders alike.

Change:

Phelan - The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s handling of its enforcement responsibilities has already seriously degraded Australia’s air safety climate by generating mounting mutual distrust and antipathy between industry and regulator. There is now more confrontation, and less mutual respect and cooperation, than has ever existed between the regulatory body and an industry which now considers itself to be under siege from its own regulator.

• Every certificate holder is continually faced with the threat that it can be shut down almost at the whim of a single CASA decision maker through the continued exploitation of apparently unintended provisions of the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations – some would describe these as loopholes:
  

Trust
 

Phelan - But sixteen months after the release of the ASRR in May 2014, the issues around mutual trust still hadn’t been acknowledged in any public statements from CASA or the Department. Industry watched cynically as hopes for any appreciable change appeared to be fading in the way that had dogged so many earlier attempts at reform. Exasperation was heightened by (then) CASA director John McCormick’s public statements blaming industry’s alleged unpreparedness for endless delays in implementation. More than a year after those insulting and misleading assertions were first made, adoption of the “Part 61” licensing regulations was still delayed by CASA’s failure to complete and publish the micromanagement-laden regulatory guidance material with which industry was expected to comply fully by the end of August 2017.

and no - 'you can't roller skate in a Buffalo heard'.

[Peetwo]

'To be or not to be' - 2020 to 2022??

Via the RRAT lapsed inquiry webpage: 

Australia's general aviation industry

Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia.

The committee will consider the operation and effectiveness of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and other relevant aviation agencies, with particular reference to:

a. the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA's aviation safety management functions, including:

• the application of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to Australia's aviation sector, and whether the legislation is fit for purpose;
  
• the safety and economic impacts, and relative risks, of CASA's aviation safety frameworks; and
  
• the engagement of CASA with other relevant Australian Government agencies;
  

b. the immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small businesses, agricultural operations and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia;
c. CASA's processes and functions, including:

• its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors;
  
• the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation; and
  
• its ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, considering the associated benefits of an expanded aviation sector; and
  

d. any related matters.

The committee presented its interim report on 10 December 2020, and was due to report 30 November 2021.

On 20 October 2021, the Committee agreed to extend the reporting date to 17 March 2022.

On 16 March 2022, the Committee agreed to extend the reporting date to 20 October 2022 and provide an interim report on 30 March 2022.

According to the Senate Committee's Secretariat the GA inquiry at this stage (despite the above) will remain lapsed unless the Committee decides to re-refer for further inquiry. The Committee meets over the next couple of days so we should know by the end of the Parliamentary working week whether the inquiry (like so many before it) will be shelf-wared for all eternity.  

 Despite many detractors for former Chair Senator McDonald's GA 20/20 inquiry I believe this part of the ToR... 

    "..the application of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to Australia's aviation sector, and whether the legislation is fit for purpose.." 

...has definitely not been properly examined with proper factual evidence (30+ years of overburdening regulatory red tape that has lead to the decimation of a once burgeoning GA aviation industry) providing impetus to some serious reform of the CAA. Perhaps that segment alone should be referred to the RRAT Legislative Committee for amendment to the Act to officially disband CASA to be brought back under Ministerial and Departmental control?? - Just saying...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

'To be or not to be' - 2020 to 2022?? - Part II

Via the Yaffa:

GA Senate Inquiry in Limbo

7 October 2022


The future of the Senate Legislation Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the general aviation industry remains in limbo as it has yet to be re-referred to the senate after the federal election held in May.

All senate inquiries lapse when parliament is prorogued, and if they are to continue in the new parliament, need to be re-referred to the senate committee.

Five months after the election, the nearly three-year-old GA industry inquiry remains lapsed.

Although former RRAT Chair Senator Susan McDonald has asked for the inquiry to be referred back, the office of new RRAT chair Senator Glenn Sterle told Australian Flying that no comment on the inquiry would be possible until the ALP government had responded to the interim report tabled last March.

The GA inquiry was self-referred to the RRAT committee in December 2019 with an interim reporting date of December 2020 and a final report one year later. COVID restrictions later forced that to be modified to March 2022. The deadlines were changed again with the interim report being tabled in March 2022 with the final report due on 20 October 2022.

However, the federal election intervened and forced the inquiry into a lapsed state.

One of the early supporters of the GA inquiry was the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA). Current CEO Steve Campbell said the GA inquiry needed to be closed off so all the work put in by the GA community wouldn't go to waste,
"We'd like to see the GA inquiry completed; a lot of work has gone into it and it would be a shame to see it not go through to fruition," he said. "Hopefully the committee will find some good recommendations to give to the government to ease the burden on general aviation.

"We've come this far, and it's important for the general aviation community to see that government's genuinely interested in finding solutions."

The GA community has raised concerns that the ALP will disregard the work done by the senate inquiry in favour of doing a new White Paper, which has been their policy since well before the election. Doing so would further delay any revitalising measures.

"The GA inquiry has been going for a couple of years already and we've said to the government that if we know there are some solutions now, we want the government to act on it now ... we don't want to wait for another two-year process to tell us what we already know," Campbell said.

"The GA inquiry has already uncovered some things that can be worked on, and the government should start working on them straight away."

The office of Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King has been contacted for comment about responding to the interim report.

Hmm...has 'crooked mouth' really seen the light?? 

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

The predictable future is that the inquiry is dead and buried and with it GA.

The excuse will be that the Governments climate change response and green agenda, to be delivered in the forthcoming Green paper, not to mention the current international security situation, preempts the findings of the previous review which are no longer relevant to Australia in a net zero environment.

The Department and CASA can therefore engage in window dressing for another year until the paper is released, then spend the balance of the election cycle considering its implications. That means a minimum of three years of inactivity.

On the bright side, if you are a pilot who identifies as being from a disenfranchised minority group and you own an electric aircraft, the future is looking very good.

[Sandy Reith]

Wombat predicts the GA position in the life of this Parliament, it’s hard not to agree.
One critical missing element is lack of a media profile which could expose the modus operandi of the make work salary factory CASA and its woeful record of mismanagement.
Not to mention the excruciating details of Glen Buckley’s trials and mistreatment at the hands of the out of control regulator.

[Peetwo]

Sandy walks the talk on General Aviation advocacy -

Ref previous post: 

Wombat predicts the GA position in the life of this Parliament, it’s hard not to agree.
One critical missing element is lack of a media profile which could expose the modus operandi of the make work salary factory CASA and its woeful record of mismanagement.
Not to mention the excruciating details of Glen Buckley’s trials and mistreatment at the hands of the out of control regulator.

Via Facebook:

Sandy Reith

Whilst in Canberra for the last couple of days Belle and I were able to meet Senator Susan McDonald.

Senator McDonald is well versed in matters of the “tyranny of distance” having family and personal history in outback ventures and living in northern Queensland. The Senator, of the Liberal National Party, has the very important Shadow Minister Portfolios of Resources and Northern Australia.

The Senator generously agreed to met in between her busy Senate sittings which reminded me of that old saying “If you want a job done ask a busy person.”

We share a mutual Interest to promote practical policies for the revitalisation of General Aviation, and we canvassed some ideas around developing longer term strategies for same, building on the inquiries she initiated through Senate Committee hearings from 2020 and 2021.
 
Having not met Senator McDonald previously, we were most impressed and hope to meet again. There’s no doubt that Senator McDonald’s spirit, personality and free enterprise conviction are the assets that we all wish to see in the Parliament.

Comments in reply:

Ian Tucker

Well done Sandy Reith. I was impressed with Senator McDonald's performance as chair of the Senate Enquiry. She is obviously frustrated with CASA's lack of accountability exposed during the enquiry. What are her thoughts on your suggestion to get CASA back under ministerial control as per normal departmental structure?

---

Benjamin Morgan

Great work Sandy Reith! Senator Susan McDonald is a great friend to Australia's general aviation industry and community!

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

The right question...

Ian Tucker - “Well done Sandy Reith. I was impressed with Senator McDonald's performance as chair of the Senate Enquiry. She is obviously frustrated with CASA's lack of accountability exposed during the enquiry.

Ian Tucker - “What are her thoughts on your suggestion to get CASA back under ministerial control as per normal departmental structure?”

Spot on...Aye: that is THE question. It begs other questions though don't though; for instance are the Mandarins – the heavy duty ones, concerned or jealous? They should be concerned, the Westminster system has served well for generations now, through all manner of trials and troubles, a corner stone of the democracy we all cherish. Etc. etc...For how much longer will the pillars supporting the democratic system sit back and watch an untouchable autocracy run amok without any form of accountability, restraint or limits?

Pick a challenge; any challenge, say climbing Mt Everest or swimming the English Chanel – Google the list of those who have managed to do it; no problem finding those worthies is there. Now find the list of those who tried but didn't make it; there ain't one is there. Sad, but non the less true. Sharpen your research pencil and try to find the list of politicians (all stripes) who have actually managed meaningful reform of aviation management over the past three decades; not a long list is it. There is however a long, long list of those who have tried and failed to put a dent in the Teflon coat the aviation authorities wear. Just add up the easy ones; the 'hearings' and inquiries; the countless pages of submissions; you could even throw in meetings like the one between the excellent Sandy and Senator Mac. One could even stretch the point and take a long look at the McDonald inquiry (20/20) – good effort, no doubt about it. But did it produce anything of real value to Angel Flight? Was the game worth the very expensive candle?  Did it resolve the 'big' question – the one which is never answered; aviation is diminishing yet the CASA budget and staff keeps growing. Why?

I suspect the latest round of Fool-Aid fuelled looking to the Vertiport future is the latest make work project and will be used to mask the excesses; watch as Spence leads her troops 'into the future'.

Toot -toot...

[P7_TOM]

BOLLOCKS !....

Most refreshing to see and hear Sen. McDonald taking up the cause of those on the Torres Strait. Those unfortunates now without a 'safe' reliable air service, reduced to 'travel by tinnie'. Not certain I could do the maths required to compare the 'risk analysis' matrix between being on the open ocean in a 'tinnie', powered by a 16 hp Yamaha two stroke, for four or so hours, as opposed to a 15 minute exposure (average) flight in an aircraft powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT6 (a benchmark amongst the most reliable turbine engines ever made). That an air service system which has never lost a life in 30 odd (probably plus) years is 'suddenly' unsafe, based on a factored number of feet/ yards/ metres needed – without a serious 'at risk time line' being analysed.

But its the purblind 'stupidity' (lack of operational savvy) of the CASA analysis which winds my clock. The 'time at risk' analysis makes a mockery of the CASA assertions. They are waffling on about some 'factored' runway length – on the safely stop – safely go ratios for aircraft with 'scheduled' performance capability. The real facts are that the time span of actual risk, compared to the reliability of the PT6; and, the Asepta safety margin; and, the forced landing areas; and, the percentage chances of an engine and brake failure on even a marginal strip at Charter flight factors are very much less than my chances of winning $100 million on lotto. There is an established, proven, tried and tested safe system in place, so why are those folks now placed at serious risk in shark and croc infested waters – travelling in small boats.  It is  unmitigated BOLLOCKS.

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence to the rescue on Torres airfield embargo?? - Yeah right! 



Media files: 

Frustrated airline CEO lifts lid on rule change that grounded flights

The nation’s aviation regulator stands accused of policy mismanagement which is connected to the death of a Cairns woman and the unnecessary isolation of vulnerable Indigenous communities.

&

SENATOR DEMANDS ANSWERS ON ISLAND AIRSTRIPS DECISION



Shadow Minister for Northern Australia, Senator Susan McDonald, has demanded an urgent review of a decision to close Torres Strait Island airstrips after she questioned CASA staff in Senate Estimates last month about people having to risk their lives travelling in the Strait by boat.

Just three weeks after the hearing – in which Senator McDonald foreshadowed a tragedy happening – speech pathologist Wendy Richardson was lost in the Strait when the boat she was in flipped in rough seas.

Senator McDonald said she knew Ms Richardson and was distressed by her death, offering her deepest sympathies to Ms Richardson’s family.

In Estimates on May 23, Senator McDonald asked CASA chief executive Pip Spence why CASA had closed airstrips on Murray, Darnley and Mabuiag islands for safety reasons when aircraft had been operating on them without incident for 20 years.

Ms Spence said commercial aircraft used on the islands were not suitable for the relatively short airstrips but Sen. McDonald pointed out those same aircraft flying in a private capacity were permitted to use the strips.

“It makes no sense,” she told the hearing. “I think it is pretty shocking that we have actually gone backwards as a result of regulation. For the people on those islands, I think it's a poor outcome.”

“…People are now forced to travel in dinghies across notoriously treacherous water inhabited by crocodiles and sharks. …it will be cold comfort if something terrible happens to somebody [because] we won’t let people land on places anymore where they’ve been landing for 20 years.”

A dismayed Senator McDonald today called on Federal Transport Minister, Catherine King to fast-track planned upgrades for Torres Strait airstrips so people would have a permanent solution for travel between islands by boat.

“CASA made a questionable decision to close these strips and offered no alternatives for people needing to travel and they are forced to use boats,” she said.

“CASA must provide an exemption to allow air travel to restart to and from these islands before there is another tragedy.

“I am distressed that we are seeing CASA make decisions without sufficient evidence that, instead of offering tangible safety benefits, in fact put people in high-risk situations.

“Minister King must review the closures, order the fast-tracking of airstrip upgrades and ensure the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is addressing issues in a timely, logical and effective manner before another life is lost.”

In the 'passing strange' coincidence file, 2 days after Ol_Tom's BOLLOCKS post above Su_Spence added to the cynical "Stating the BOLLOCKS" press file...

Type
Stating the facts
Date
5 July 2023

We make all of our decisions based on safety. Whether it’s a regional service operating from a capital city, an Australian airline flying overseas or a small airline flying people in remote parts of Australia, we won't compromise passenger safety.



However, we also understand the importance of air services to our remote and regional communities.

Skytrans fly into several islands in the Torres Strait that have short runways. The length of the runway means some aircraft need additional approvals to conduct commercial passenger flights in the types of aircraft being operated.

The aircraft meet the minimums required by the manufacturer, but Australia's safety rules for commercial air transport require longer runways to account for unexpected conditions or pilot skills.

We’ve been working with Skytrans to safely resume services.

Earlier this year we approved Skytrans to resume services to Murray Mer Island.

Last week we reviewed additional data provided by Skytrans and gave them approval to resume services with some conditions to Mabuiag and Darnley Islands.

The information they provided included the results of demonstration flights conducted at both islands, comparing real-life data with manufacturer data and safety standards.

Skytrans had already put in place additional controls like special pilot training, runway markers and approach height limits to account for unexpected conditions in the unique Torres Strait environment.

Additional risk work was also conducted and measures put in place to ensure passenger safety.

The flight data validates Skytrans’ efforts to ensure that operations conducted on the short runways on these islands have appropriate safety buffers in place.

We acknowledge Skytrans’ long safety record and appreciate their cooperation as we worked through the process to validate their operations.

We also understand the vital role air transport services play in the Torres Strait and would like to thank local communities for their patience.

Passengers who rely on these services can be assured they have been thoroughly assessed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and that appropriate measures are in place to ensure people arrive at their destination safely.

So Su_Spence concedes but still arrogantly defends the indefensible IE 24 years of safe Caravan LCRPT Ops to those very same islands and what's changed in that time to suddenly make those OPS any less safe? 

Answer: The introduction of an almost indecipherable 468 page CASR part 139 MOS?? -    

Meanwhile down at Essendon the Su_Spence regime completely obfuscates the fact that the DFO shopping centre complex exists in safety non-compliance with our international obligations to ICAO Annex 14 and indeed the Part 139 MOS...

Ref: Popinjay's DFO cover-up report: Part II



Ref: Essendon DFO accident: No MSM speculation here Christine?

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

From the keyboard of Paul (fearless) Phelan.

Speaking of Airports and the rampant rape and pillage of 'useful' space; and the costs to the public of privatisation; and of building close in; and of the risk of wind shear and vortex upset; and the huge increase in rent; and the punitive 'lease' agreements; and the money being made by non aviation interests (dis?), do we have Albo to thank for it all?

May 2012 – 

“In an Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing commenced this week, the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce (ACC) Inc. is seeking an AAT finding to set aside a Ministerial Decision of former Transport Minister Anthony Albanese in May 2012, which approved the Archerfield Airport 2011-2031 master plan. The hearing commenced in Brisbane yesterday (Tuesday 18 November) and is expected to run until November 26.Witnesses for the Chamber will include a former Federal Minister of Aviation Mr Peter Morris and other aviation experts, some of whom are former Federal Government employees.

The Chamber is asserting that the Department of Transport and Infrastructure and CASA did not assess the approved Master Plan with the required detail and technical accuracy demanded. In short the approval was granted without having regard to current applicable legislation, the interests of the aviation industry, the general public and the use of erroneous technical assessments.

Remarkable – nothing changes -  the gift to developers which just keeps giving-  thanks Albo...

[Peetwo]

GA sector being buried by overregulation and red tape?? -  

Via Oz Flying today:

General Aviation Sector Grounded by Red Tape and Sky-high Costs
10 November 2023



Red tape, over-regulation, spiralling costs and a vacuum of government policy are putting significant pressure on the general aviation sector in Australia, according to a survey of industry chiefs.

Ageing infrastructure, thin profit margins and conflicts over airspace allocation are all contributing to pessimism in the non-airline civil aviation sector that employs thousands of people.

In a new paper published this month in Case Studies on Transport Policy, aviation experts from Queensland and the University of South Australia (UniSA) outline the issues plaguing the industry, most of which come down to a lack of policy direction in aviation.

The sector includes training, aeromedical, emergency response and charter services in rural and remote communities.

Interviews conducted with the principals of 21 aviation organisations reveal that outside of regulation, the main concerns are the costs associated with operating premises and airport infrastructure.

“A user pays model to cover airport costs is having a direct impact on the sustainability of enterprises that are operating on low passenger volumes without a change in their overheads,” says lead author Dr Lucas Tisdall, CEO of Flight One Academy.

“There appears to be scant recognition of the community and economic contribution that the general aviation sector makes in Australia,” Dr Tisdall says.

Rising maintenance costs to ensure the safety of an ageing fleet of aircraft, smaller profit margins, and growing urban encroachment on airstrips, are other challenges.

UniSA Professor in Aviation Shane Zhang says the increasing popularity of drones used in a range of applications – from fire-ant mapping and fauna surveys through to real estate development and recreational photography – is also causing tensions.

“The emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of transporting patients and passengers introduces new risks,” Prof Zhang says. “Is the automation of such transport at the expense of pilot employment, involving a major re-engineering of international safety systems, worth the cost of development?” he asks.

Aviation chiefs say more federal government assistance is needed to support innovation and investment in the sector, given the average age of general aviation aircraft and the capital cost of new, cleaner technologies, before broader issues like CO2 emissions from aircraft are addressed.

The researchers say the feedback highlights both problems and opportunities.

“It is clear that the current policy and regulatory frameworks are not addressing the sector’s long term needs.

“Approximately 70% of respondents say there is no clear vision for general aviation in Australia, citing bureaucracy and over-regulation as major obstacles, but they are keen to consult with regulators to find common ground,” Dr Tisdall says.

The researchers intend to explore more effective regulatory regimes in the US and New Zealand, where governments and the general aviation industry work more closely.

Via Case Studies on Transport Policy - Volume 14

Seeking wicked problems, finding opportunities: Advancing Australian general aviation policy beyond COVID-19

Abstract

The efficacy and value of Australian general aviation policy has been the subject of strident debate. While a program of regulatory reform has shaped activity in the last decade, little documented evidence of coherent sector development or stimulus exists. The purpose of this paper is to highlight policy issues of contemporary concern to a sample of Australian general aviation stakeholders and to capture insights into their attitudes about the current policy environment. The paper presents the early qualitative findings from part of a longitudinal study into the sector, and initially asks whether the economic concept of ‘wicked problems’ represents a frame for understanding some of the impediments identified by the respondents. The results suggest that although there is a willingness to engage with progressive policy initiatives, efforts to resolve endemic and emergent issues are being compromised by the current bureaucratic engagement strategies in place to participate in industry planning.

---

Introduction

Internationally, the issue of expanding aviation capacity to cater for an increasingly mobile global community creates planning tension. Recent studies have found that for the general aviation (GA) sector, the impacts are often even more keenly felt (Freestone and Wiesel, 2014, Tisdall et al., 2020). Experience during the COVID-19 global pandemic has further exposed a lack of planning efficacy for what is often considered the incubator of civil aviation capability (Tisdall and Zhang, 2020).

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) categorises the general aviation sector as ‘all civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire’ (Skybrary, 2020). In Australia, many operators characterised by this definition also conduct non-scheduled air transport operations by way of non-scheduled (charter) services as adjunct income source from capital invested in aircraft.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is the principal regulatory body for Australian aviation, charged with the administration of legislation in the interests of public safety. CASA’s own Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey for 2020 found that 46% of respondents were not satisfied with the Regulator’s performance across a range of measures (CASA, 2021). Evidence suggests that this body often experiences an adversarial relationship with its constituency (Carter Newell, 2014) despite periodic efforts to overhaul its culture and appeal (Thomas, 1997, Hurst, 2016). The federal government has previously acknowledged that industry efforts to achieve compliance with a perceived pariah regulator have compromised the capacity and the desire of operators to participate in broader policy engagement with the responsible Minister and their department (Kirk, 2002). Ongoing Senate enquiries (Australian Flying, 2019) and new appointments at CASA’s apex are among recent efforts to improve the outlook for Australian aviation (Creedy, 2021).

This article explores the historical difficulty of setting a cogent policy agenda for Australian general aviation, arguing that a more engaging model for consultation between stakeholders is necessary to maximise the planning outcomes for, and economic utility of, general aviation. The discussion focuses on Australia as an illustrative example of an ICAO member state with significant policy making power, a geographic imperative for a functioning aviation industry and a diverse set of issues impacting its GA constituency.

This research presents findings drawn from a qualitative sector enquiry as a contribution to efforts to align the experiences and focus of operators with the capability and intent of policy makers more closely. After initially surveying extant literature relating to the concept of ‘wicked problems’ and their possible presence as an impediment to GA policy planning, the paper introduces contemporary sector commentary as a way of highlighting difficulties for GA operators seeking to build enterprise value in a nebulous policy environment. Wicked problems are those multidimensional economic issues in which there is ‘no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution’ (Lönngren and van Poeck, 2021) Posing two overarching questions about the future of GA and its value as a tool for economic growth, this research utilises results from twenty-one in-depth semi-structured interviews to draw out issues that represent focus topics that can be utilised to galvanise stakeholder engagement in the near term.

The two guiding questions that frame this enquiry include:

Firstly, is evidence of wicked problems for policy planners currently observable?

Secondly, what do the industry’s stakeholders see as significant impediments to business success?

Focusing on the insights gained in this exploration may assist in the development of more robust and engaging policy objectives, with possible international implications for general aviation constituencies.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Same old same old and more words all about lack of policy, over regulation, rising costs in every area including airport rentals etc., etc.

Nothing new and no one is looking at the real cause which is government lacking resolve to tackle the real question which is that the independent regulator is a failure and CASA should be disbanded. The Westminster system cannot work without responsible Ministers and their Departments having the arms of government firmly in their power and grasp.

[Kharon]

In the Rear view mirror.

A wise man once said to me “don't look in the rear view mirror - you ain't going that way.”  True enough and it has stood the test of time as 'sound' advice; however.  I was scratching around for a piece of ancient history in Aunt Pru's now extensive library, the research took me quite a long way back; and, (as you do) my attention to 'search' was diverted to other morsels. It became a retrospective reading session, rather than a 'search for the requested/ required data. Quite a three candle night. I should get to the point about now.

Bear with me here for a while, it is  difficult to frame the discussion 'properly' and relates to 'criminal' application in aviation matters. There is a notion that 'intent' matters in law, the link – HERE – explains it simply.

“Thus, a person commits a criminal act with intent when that person's conscious objective or purpose is to engage in the act which the law forbids or to bring about an unlawful result. Motive, on the other hand, is the reason why a person chooses to engage in criminal conduct”.

A retrospective dive into several CASA prosecutions leaves many unanswered questions – mostly preceded with the words -”Why?”. It is IMO a fair question and a rider to that question is “what did it achieve?” In the whole wide world, laws are written in good faith and with a specific purpose; but not one of those have prevented those with 'intent' from acting. Death penalty for murder has not brought down the number of killings. That could be applied to most serious crimes, from the most heinous to even shop lifting. Before I get lost in the topic, best I get to the point.

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. —Albert Einstein”

The stark differences between the 'official' responses to the Croc Egg fiasco and the Middle Beach event started this ramble. The 'intent' being the focus. It could be argued that the Croc boys knowingly and willingly flaunted the limits of 'legal' operations as per the script; high risk operation stand alone, deliberately, arguably amplified through deviance becoming normalised.

The Middle Beach event is a different matter entirely. These were 'joy-flights' A simple enough exercise, usually gifted to the most junior pilot to assist with 'experience' and hour building; not terribly demanding. There was no 'intent' to do anything else other than show the punters a good time, enjoy the day out and head home for a beer and dinner. An engine failed – why? Well that Sir, is a vexed question. The ATSB could not determine the reason; there is one, but that seems to have been 'lost' from the prosecution case. The aircraft 'crashed' (for wont of better word) – and a fatality occurred. The pilot is on trial facing criminal charges; but where was the 'intent'? An engine quit at possibly the worst time and place (Murphy's law) the experienced pilot made a judgment call within seconds of that and managed to save all but one.

I fail to understand why CASA go after the low hanging fruit; not when there are some serious cases blithely ignored. For example, the ATR with the busted tail plane – potentially lethal to a lot of innocent passengers paying for a commercial service. Of the pilot who 'bust' the tail plane -  no mention, let alone prosecution; the following crews who failed to notice the tail out of true; the engineers who failed to note the back end was 'pissed'. Not even a hint of a hand slap.

Oh, there's many more examples – but any close examination of CASA 'prosecutions' over the last decade leaves many, many questions unanswered. Not, mind you that they ever will be even asked, let alone answered. No good taking it to the politicians – that is a simple waste of your time on this planet. The 'media'? – don't make me laugh.

Sandy - “Nothing new and no one is looking at the real cause which is government lacking resolve to tackle the real question which is that the independent regulator is a failure and CASA should be disbanded. The Westminster system cannot work without responsible Ministers and their Departments having the arms of government firmly in their power and grasp”.

No, we are stuck with a skewed system; if I ever get the time and the inclination in the same day; perhaps a list of prosecutions, the why and the wherefore, could be presented. Not that it would do any good; not against 'the system' it hasn't got a prayer.  Enough – my coffee is stone cold; perhaps I can finesse another in DT's lair.

Toot- toot..

[Peetwo]

In the Rear view mirror - Part II

Quote from latest post from P9 "K" on the 'Aviation - a' la King thread: 

Can you foresee this 'minuscule' even knowing their is a struggling flight school and an aero club in desperate trouble out at Kickinatinalong, let alone stepping in to even order a minion to 'take a look'. Can you imagine this minuscule ordering Spence to her office and asking WTF are you playing at? Can you imagine this minuscule pulling Betsy into gear and read the riot act as part of 'tea and biccys'  No, neither can I. I'd say certain Senators are the only real hope - public embarrassment - in the media is the only lever left uni-pulled. Although therein lays another sordid tale, for another day . But enough;

In a search for stats, info etc..etc on flying schools either going under or flourishing in recent years (before and after COVID), I came across the following insightful blog post from GoFly Aviation CEO Damien Wills...
   

I am the proud owner of a busy flying school. I am not a millionaire, however I do enjoy an adequate income and for the majority of the week I undertake work that I truly love as well as working with some amazing individuals.

I am grateful to own a flying school however the reality is owning and operating a business is tough on a person mentally.

I am confident that the reason the majority of businesses that fail within the first five years is because the owner or owners have had enough of the mental stress and uncertainty which is associated with owning and operating a business.

While owning and operating a business is hard work, owning a flight school can be brutal due to the extra complexities and uncertainties involved.

I have made so many mistakes while owning a business, that I have lost count of them. Fortunately I have learnt from some of these mistakes. I also recognise that sometimes I have no idea what I am doing, so I seek the advice of mentors and books to help me learn critical skills for growing the business.

I have owned GoFly Aviation for almost eight years and during these eight years I have had some not so great times and some wonderful times. I call the ‘not so wonderful’ times ‘inconvenient events’, and truly, if you want to stay sane while operating and growing a business, it is best to call these stressful times ‘inconvenient events’ rather than disasters. The good times I call ‘convenient events’. We learn from both types of events’ but I believe we really learn more about ourselves from the inconvenient ones.

Here is a brief summary of both convenient and inconvenient events that I have experienced while operating a flight school over the last eight years:

• I was offered the chance to purchase a flight school through vendor finance at a very attractive price (convenient event)
  
• Soon after buying the school we experienced the longest prolonged wet weather in 100 years – during which two of my competitors closed down – and I lost $25,000 in my cash reserves (an inconvenient event mixed with a convenient event)
  
• After the rain cleared, the students from my closed down competitor’s flight schools, came across to GoFly and increased our revenue by 30% almost overnight (convenient event)
  
• One of my students offered to improve my business in return for free flying lessons and he increased the business by 20% in two months (convenient event)
  
• [font=Roboto, sans-se
  
• One of my students bent the nosewheel and damaged the engine on one of my aircraft (inconvenient event)
  
• I started two more flight schools at other locations and revenue increases another thirty percent (convenient event)
  
• My reliable CFI/Manager supervising two of those locations had to quit without notice for personal reasons and I was forced to close one of the new flight school locations down and oversee the other two myself (inconvenient event)
  
• I created a Learn to Fly DVD and the income from that eventually replaced the income from my closed flight schools (convenient event)
  
• Over the course of a few months, one of my students becomes a good friend to me and mentors and improves my website and business systems and eventually steps into the role of Operations Manager (convenient event)
  
• The mother of my four children tells me she has fallen in love with someone else and wants to separate, putting my peace of mind, and therefore my business, at risk, as well as taking up all my time (inconvenient event)
  
• My new friend who is also my Operations Manager offers to manage the flight school while I sort out my marriage separation (convenient event)
  
• I decided to combine my two local flights schools into one larger flight school at the most popular location, to save costs and increase efficiency (inconvenient and convenient event)
  
• Approached for employment by an Instructor recently arrived from NZ, whom I employed and who has proven to be so reliable that I have been able to stop working weekends and I have great plans for his future (convenient event)
  
• Met my new life partner who just happens to also have experience in editing, marketing, website creation, real estate, customer service, accounting and risk management, and who also likes cooking and already has adult children (convenient event)
  
• Met and then partnered with a student who wanted to learn to fly and also owned a video production company. Together we came up with the idea to film an online reality TV show which has the potential to further promote GoFly Aviation (convenient event)
  
• Later, with this Video Director and my then Operations Manager, we created the world’s first online Learn to Fly lessons in 360-degree video, which can potentially bring in income any time of the day and regardless of weather (convenient event)
  
• The wet season came early in 2017, bringing with it the wettest November in eight years and causing three weeks of cancelled flights (inconvenient event)
  
• Began planning a business partnership with another of my students who happens to be a mortgage broker (convenient event)
  

I hope it is evident by now that operating a business – and life itself – is full of surprises. Some of these surprises are good and some not so good. While I make a decent income I am hardly rich. If you are looking to start a business in order to just make money, you are deluding yourself and you are going to be vastly disappointed.

Some of the unique challenges owning a flight school include but are not limited to:

Weather

This one is the biggest challenge. Imagine running a restaurant and every week for one or two days, and once a month for four days straight, the electricity gets cut off to your restaurant and you cannot trade on those days. Worse still, you where fully booked on those days and had expected all that income. That is sort of what it feels like to operate a flight school.

The weather is never constant; wind and rain can stop you trading for weeks at a time. This means your cash flow is not constant, so you need to be very disciplined at putting aside a lot of the money that you make while the weather is good, to pay for the fixed costs which are there regardless of weather. If you don’t, you will go out of business very fast.

The first two years of owning a flight school were hell for me. I had come from a corporate management job and was used to a regular income. It was hard to look at the calendar and know that all aircraft were fully booked for the week ahead but I was going to be unable to fly due to rain. On a good week I can make $3,000 profit. If it rains during a fully booked week I can loose $3,000 from my reserve PLUS not make the $3,000 profit, so I end up about $6,000 down.

It might appear that on busy weeks you are striking it rich, however after you average your profit and losses out over time, the profit margins are actually quite thin.

Maintenance

Aircraft cost money to maintain and I am meticulous about how our aircraft are maintained. At times routine maintenance may end up taking longer than expected, and occasionally non-routine maintenance is required, which means the aircraft is then unavailable. For each day that one of my aircraft is offline due maintenance, I lose the potential to earn $1800 in revenue. You can imagine how it feels to have have a busy week of flying booked, but an engine part is delayed and your aircraft is offline for three days more than it should have been (ouch).

Staff

Hiring good, competent staff who are passionate about flying is critical if you want to stay in this business.  The other reality is that unless your flight school trains full time commercial pilots the business cannot warrant paying full-time flight instructors . If a plane is unavailable, if the weather is bad or a student cancels, the instructors don’t get paid. A man with four children would soon go broke if he had to pay instructors who are not actually flying, on top of the fixed rental costs during weeks of bad weather. I am now in the position to be able to give most of the flying hours to my three main staff members – especially at weekends – rather than do it myself. I now mainly instruct navigation lessons and do the testing. I also have a number of casual employees whom I can call on if we get really busy or my regular Instructors are sick or on leave.

The ‘nice to have’ business

The flying school model is a ‘nice to have’ business. What do I mean by that? A supermarket is a HAVE TO HAVE business; unless you grow your own, everyone HAS to buy food. Not everyone HAS to learn to fly a plane. It is a business that is dependent on people’s discretionary income, which means that if a student gets a big tax or dentist bill and they need to spend less that week, guess what gets cancelled first? That’s right, their flying lesson. So cancellations from students, without much notice, are quite common and quite frustrating, especially when staff have travelled all the way to the airport expecting to teach that day.

Competitive environment

Owning a flying school, and particularly a recreational flying school, can be a lifestyle business for some owners. What this means is that this type of business attracts individuals who start the business for lifestyle reasons only, and not as their main source of income. A good example is the retired engineer who is also an instructor, and who decides to start his own school flight school because he is bored with retirement. There’s nothing wrong with this in theory except that this retired engineer might have less overheads and he is happy to undercut his competitors’ hourly rate because he doesn’t really need to make a profit or grow his business. This is bad news for any nearby business which is actually trying to pay staff a decent wage and turn a profit in order to grow the business.

How to deal with business stress and worry

I would be lying if I said I never worry; I am human and I am not the Dalai Lama. When I first started the school, there were times  – due to unforeseen circumstances – that I was unable to sleep because I was worrying about whether I would be able to afford rent the following week or whether my electricity might be cut off because I hadn’t paid the bill yet. Thankfully, as time goes by, my stress and worry have reduced considerably (and my cash reserves have grown thank goodness). I do let worry creep in occasionally but I am aware of it now and have learned how to deal with it so it doesn’t affect my sleep or my enjoyment of owning a business.

Below I have outlined some strategies I use to reduce worry and stress:

• Learn from others: I read a lot of books, in fact, I read almost one new book each week. The books I read are business, motivational, spiritual and autobiographies. I would not be able to continue doing the work I love, or coping with the frustrations of owning a business, had I not been an avid reader, and learning from others’ success and failures. Reading puts you into the mind of individuals who have done what you are trying to do and have learnt valuable lessons. There are also many books on dealing with stress. Also while you are focusing on reading, you’re not worrying!
  

• Meditation: I meditate regularly to quiet my mind and I find that this also allows creative insight to flow freely.
  

• Mentors: I have many trusted mentors whom I can call when the going gets tough, and who will offer me objective advice and encouragement.
  

• Quality relationships: This helps me put things into perspective.It is our close relationships that really matter the most in life, and these relationships are my number one priority and also partly the ‘reason why’ I operate my own business. Spending time with my partner, kids and extended family reminds me that worry is just a waste of my time.
  

• Time in nature: I walk regularly in nature, in particular on the beach. The ocean has an incredible ability to relieve any stress.
  

Despite all the challenges I still love being an Instructor and I love owning a flying school. Maybe I’m a masochist but I really would not change a thing that I have experienced over the last eight years.

There have been some challenging moments where I thought I might lose the business, but the love of what I was doing kept me going through those times. When you go through struggles, you learn so much about yourself and other people. I believe we grow the most mentally, emotionally and spiritually when we challenge ourselves and overcome adversity.

My reason ‘why’ is powerful: I love flying, I love teaching, I love owning the business and I love coming up with visions for how I want the Flight School to develop and then implementing those ideas. When I was a teenager learning to fly, I had some awful experiences with both lousy flight schools and lousy instructors and this frustration is one of my drivers to make sure that learning to fly is a positive life-changing experience for all of GoFly’s customers.

A flying school business is such a positive business to be involved it. All the customers that come to GoFly to learn to fly are ‘can do’ people who want to be here and they believe in themselves and their capabilities. I have made some great friendships with many of our customers and flight instructors over the last eight years and this also continues to drive and inspire me.

Owning a business involves a never-ending pursuit of improvement. So if your reason ‘why’ is meaningful enough to you, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a coffee shop, an online business or a flying school, you will find a way to make your business thrive.

Damien
CEO, GoFly Group
Click on this link to read further blogs by Damien.

With my interest piqued I went to the above link and noted a relevant (to this thread) blog post labelled "General Aviation is dying and here are 10 radical ideas for saving it!":

General Aviation is dying a slow death. This is not just confined to Australia, this is a worldwide phenomenon. The reasons are many and varied. Some of the main reasons GA is dying in Australia are (but are not limited to) the following:

• A lack of interest from young individuals in wanting to learn to fly
  
• Overly complex loan structures for trainee pilots
  
• A training syllabus that was created over 50 years ago
  
• Rising costs in regulation, maintenance and aircraft manufacturing
  
• Slowness to adopt and incorporate modern technology
  
• A lack of entrepreneurial spirit to drive General Aviation into a new and vibrant future
  
• A lack of a clear vision on how the future should look
  
• Over-regulation and a slowness to adapt, in our governing body, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
  
• A lack of a commercial imperative within CASA
  

I do not presume to have all the answers,  I am writing this post not to pick fault with the current system but in the hope of sparking a debate on how we can imagine a better future for General Aviation. What is lacking is a vision of the future which can replace rules and regulations which were designed over sixty years ago.

We are starting to see some exciting technology on the very near horizon and if General Aviation does not adapt to these changes then General Aviation will die. There is not just one entity to blame for this: CASA, Flight Schools, Charter Operators, aircraft manufacturers and our current legal structures are all to blame. For example, the electric on-demand Air Taxi industry is predicted to be the next high-growth industry. There are currently over 200 new company startups working to develop on-demand Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) electric aircraft. If General Aviation does not act fast, it will be left in the dust.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has just released a report confirming that General Aviation has declined by 18 percent over the last five years. Recreational Aviation has increased by 0.2 percent in the same time period. This is hardly surprising given the cost and bureaucratic differences between RAA and CASA, and the differences between aircraft age, type and technology. Ease of access and training is another benefit that Recreational Aviation offers over General Aviation training. For example, a person can walk into a Flight School, sign a RAA temporary membership form and be learning to fly 15 minutes later.

CASA is finally trying to address a lot of these issues, however without a clear vision of what the future will look like, CASA will only be plugging the water leak in the sinking ship, when it should be creating a new and better ship. The world is changing so fast, that if Government agencies cannot change, innovate and adapt quickly, they will self-destruct and destroy the very industries that they are governing and supposedly protecting.

I am an eternal optimist and I believe that with enough public debate and enough passionate individuals, we can turn things around for General Aviation.

Here are my ten ideas to help stimulate a debate about what’s possible for the future of General Aviation.

1.CASA should simplify its business model and adopt a commercial imperative

You don’t have to be genius to realise that the structure of CASA is overly complex and is stuck in a post-World War II government bureaucratic mindset. This isn’t really anyone’s fault; it is more a limitation of this type of public service government structure.

NASA used to be a classic example of this mindset. NASA has finally seen the light and have finally contracted (outsourced) to private companies like SpaceX to supply most of their rocket requirements. They  realised that private industry is where innovation thrives, not in government agencies.

I’m not suggesting that CASA should privatise – though it’s worth considering – but it might not be such a bad idea to outsource many of its functions to companies which understand, and have a vision for, the future of General Aviation

The issue with government agencies is that they often sit above the sinking ship below them. They don’t realise that the sinking ship (private industry) is actually their supply ship, and if it goes down, they go down with it too. When you work for an agency which receives income from taxpayers – regardless of the state of General Aviation – it’s hard to have a ‘this needs to be changed now mentality.

All you have to do is log onto the CASA website to see how complex this agency is. This complexity is a byproduct of it being a government agency. I remember ringing CASA once to ask them the minimum hours required for a Commercial Helicopter Pilot to convert to being a Commercial Fixed Wing pilot. The wording in Part 61 was confusing, so I rang the licensing division. In the space of three weeks I had to call them three times, and I spoke to three different staff members and received three different answers. The licensing staff themselves admitted the wording was confusing.

Exams are another issue that needs to be addressed. At present a student can only sit the exams in an approved exam centre, and it can cost between $100 to $250 to sit an exam (depending on where you are doing it). I believe a simpler model would be to allow all flight schools to have access to the online exams and all responsibility should fall on the CFI to make sure the exams are completed honestly. Regular flight school audits would ensure everyone is doing the exams honestly and fairly.

The other issue is that, unlike the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the states, CASA does not have a commercial imperative to grow and promote General Aviation; its main purpose is to regulate it (to maintain safety). While there is no doubt that we require regulation to minimise risk in aviation, I do not see the point in having an organisation regulate an industry without also promoting the future of that industry, because without that industry the regulator would not exist.

In a recent interview, Former Chairman of CASA, Bruce Byron, backed key changes to the Civil Aviation Act being pushed by businessman Dick Smith, who has complained about a rise in needless red tape. The article says, ‘Mr Smith, a former CASA chairman, last month ­secured approval from Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese for a rewrite of the Act, but the prospect of a bipartisan deal died with Mr Joyce’s resignation from cabinet on February 23. Mr Joyce, then the Coalition transport minister, had agreed with Mr Albanese, his Labor counterpart, about removing a key part of the act that requires CASA to ‘regard safety as the most important consideration’ in regulating the industry. Under the changes, CASA would instead be required to prioritise the ‘highest level of safety in air navigation’ with the need for ‘an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry’. We can only hope that this push for the rewrite of the Act, continues, despite changes in personnel within CASA and parliament.

Government agencies are notoriously slow to change and adapt, an example of this is the proposed controlled Airspace endorsement for Recreational Pilots. This proposal has been sitting with CASA now for at least seven years. The irony is that Glider pilots can do a controlled airspace endorsement, and gliders have been legally flying into controlled airspace for years. I understand that the new endorsement needs to be implemented correctly, but seven years is ridiculous. I’m  convinced that private industry could have implemented a project to safely roll this out within six months.

My suggestion for CASA would be to outsource the task of creating Survey and Innovation teams. The Survey teams could survey the stakeholders of the General Aviation industry, to collect positive and negative critical feedback on what needs to change within the industry, then the Innovation teams can oversee the implementation of any required changes.

2. Recreational Aircraft should be allowed to be ‘VH’ registered and used for both General Aviation and Recreational pilot training

With some light sport aircraft, if the plane is ‘VH’  registered, it can be used for GA training and even night training. However this same aircraft cannot be used for Recreational training unless it is ‘24’ registered (that is, registered through Recreational Aviation Australia).

At some schools that do both GA and RAA training, they have two of the same aircraft, one registered 24 (with RAA) for recreational pilot training and one registered VH (GA) for general aviation training. They are the exact same aircraft but registered with two different organisations!

My argument is that if a flight school wanted to best utilise an aircraft for both PPL, night and RAA training, the ability to use it should not be determined by how it is registered. This just adds complexity once again when it is not required.

I own a flight school which currently does both RAA and GA training in conjunction with another school, and currently leases aircraft owned by others. It would be fantastic if I could VH register our Sling aircraft and use it for PPL, controlled and night training for GA students (with a GA instructor) and then also use it for Recreational Pilot training through RAA. This would allow the light sport aircraft to be fully utilised and improve the aircraft owner’s return on their investment. It would also make it easy for students to transition from RAA to a PPL or even CPL licence.

3. CPL training should be allowed to be conducted in Light Sport Aircraft or General Aviation Aircraft without a design feature difference

Currently in Australia, a commercial fixed-wing student completing a non-integrated flying course can fly the majority of their training hours in a Recreational aircraft. However, to obtain their Commercial Pilot’s Licence (CPL), they need to sit and pass all their CPL theory exams, as well as pass a Class One medical and sit a flight test in a certified aircraft which can do at least 120 kts and has at least one design feature (e.g retractable undercarriage or constant speed propellor). This usually means you have to sit the flight test in an ageing Cessna 182 or 172 RG.

The issue here is that there is now a plethora of new light sport or EaSA CS-VLA  aircraft which are modern and sexy and cost the same as an ageing Cessna, and about half the cost of a new certified single engine aircraft. The Blackshape Prime is a classic example of the new breed of light sport aircraft. This aircraft can cruise at 150kts, has a retractable undercarriage, constant speed, glass cockpit, a BRS chute and costs around $250,000 new (a new Cessna 182 is around $700,000). The operating costs are about one third of the costs of a Cessna 172 RG. And did I also mention that it is sexy?

I know some instructors have argued that you should do your CPL training in a similar aircraft to what you will be flying for your first job, however this argument is becoming redundant as most jobs for new pilots are now going to be either direct entry airline or Instructing jobs.

The Blackshape Prime would be an ideal aircraft for night and CPL training but under the current regulations it cannot be used for the CPL flight tests even it is VH registered, as it is not a ‘fully certified’ aircraft. There are plenty of new Light Sport or ESA VL aircraft under $200,000 which could be used for CPL training. This would make it affordable for flight schools to replace their ageing fleets and at the same time attract new students with these new and exciting aircraft.

4. Airlines should do away with the Twin Engine Instrument rating requirement (single only)

Back in the dark ages when I was a Charter Pilot in the Northern Territory, young pilots would fight each other to get multi-engine instrument time as the airlines required at least 500 hours of multi-engine instrument time before they would even look at employing you. The major airlines have now reduced this requirement, however I propose that they get of this requirement altogether. The reason is simple: handling a multi-engine jet or turbine aircraft is fundamentally different than handling a piston twin. The first difference is of course that if a turbine twin aircraft or jet has an engine failure there is a very good chance you will keep flying.

The other reason is that the airline will do an aircraft Type Endorsement on the jet aircraft you will be flying anyway, and you will be spending a considerable amount of time as a co-pilot before they let you loose as a Captain. During this time you will have to demonstrate your proficiency in handling engine out procedures in the simulator. Most of the twin-engine Charter Pilots I knew never had an engine failure, so more time on a twin  – other than going faster – had no bearing on their ability to fly a twin-engine jet in the future.

I believe a more common sense approach would be to only require a single-engine instrument rating (as well as your CPL) as a requirement for airline entry. This would make it easier for Flight Schools as they wouldn’t have to own and house an ageing twin-engine aircraft just to satisfy this requirement.

A Flight School could potentially use an aircraft like a Cirrus SR20 for PPL, CPL and instrument training, and this better utilisation would increase return on investment for the school. Plus statistically, twin-engine training in light piston twins is a higher risk scenario than single-engine operations, due to increased complexity and controllability issues during asymmetric operations for twin-engine aircraft.

The other key benefit would be the reduced cost of flight training and of obtaining your CPL/instrument rating, which would be a huge benefit for everyone, including the airlines.

5. CASA needs to implement the FAA new Part 23 and make it seamless for new business startups to design new aircraft

The FAA has recently implemented a new Part 23 for the certification of light aircraft. Basically the new Part makes it easier and less costly for new aircraft manufacturers to design and manufacture new aircraft. Prior to this, designing and certifying a brand new light aircraft was prohibitively expensive. For instance, the cost to design and certify a new piston 4-seater aircraft in the USA was around $20 million. With the new Part 23 rules this cost drops to around $2-4m. This makes it a lot more attractive for investors to invest in new startups designing and building new types of aircraft . It also means the manufacturer does not have to recoup the huge costs of certification from the initial investment. This hopefully will lead to more modern cost-effective aircraft.

I would recommend CASA implements a Part 23 Team to foster new light aircraft design and production in Australia by following the new Part 23 rules which have been introduced in the USA. We have so many talented aerospace professions in Australia, and this new rule could be a huge boost for the Australian manufacturing sector (and economy), particularly if you consider our dollar exchange rate compared to other countries.

Designing and manufacturing aircraft and exporting them to the USA, China and Europe makes a lot of sense and it would invigorate our own General Aviation industry (and the economy) while at the same time allowing home grown products to be purchased by local flight schools, charter companies and private individuals.

6. The government needs to implement tax incentives for flight schools and aircraft manufacturers

Why not also make it easier for flight schools and charter companies to get started and keep doing business? Tax incentives for investors, as well as a grace period or reduced tax for new startups could be a good way to stimulate business growth in these areas. The other obvious solution would be to do away with the huge processing fees (and timeframes) required in obtaining an AOC for either a flight school or charter operation.

CASA could implement generic templates which could be used for all new startups, while a simple processing fee would be all that is required for your new venture to be approved – providing it follows the guidelines.

7. Change the flight training syllabus for greater use of flight simulation and alternative technologies

Our current flight training syllabus originated during World War II. While much of the syllabus makes sense and has served the General Aviation industry well for many years, I believe we need to take a close look at what is working and what is not working in relation to new technologies. A good example of a change that makes sense was the introduction of the MPL course which offers integrated training for would-be airline pilots and offers multi-crew training all the way through their course (with a high focus on jet simulator training and a reduction in flying real small aircraft).

An idea that was first proposed was that airline students could complete all of their training, from ab initio to being job-ready, on a simulator and never had to conduct any training in a real light aircraft. The reasoning is that flight simulators are so advanced the student does not know the difference, plus the student will be sitting in the right-hand seat under supervision for at least five years once they are flying real aircraft. Most industry professionals did not accept this innovative idea, but they do accept that simulators play a very important role in flight training.

While I believe in and see the benefits of training in real aircraft, I also feel that with the advancement in computer technology (including virtual technology) we could allow flight schools the ability to lower the hourly requirements if they could introduce low-cost realistic flight simulation to supplement training in planes. An example might be to reduce a 200-hour non-integrated CPL course down to 150 hours, providing 50 hours are conducted in an advanced low-cost simulator.

Everyone knows the benefits of simulator training for use in practicing emergency procedures that are too risky to practice in real aircraft, so why are they reluctant to adopt this technology in the smaller flight schools? Lowering the hourly requirements and relaxing the simulator requirements would encourage more Flight Schools to invest in this technology. Plus it would attract more young students. At my own Flight School I’ve created an Online Flight School, which consists of standard and 360-degree videos of pre-flight and in-flight lessons which can be watched by any student at any time and on any device. These videos supplememt the in-air lessons and make the whole learning experience more interesting than an Instructor standing at a whiteboard.

8. The Government needs to introduce a new streamlined VET process for all flying schools

The current diploma HECS or VET Fee program for flight schools, while working successfully in some respects, could be dramatically improved. The scale of the VET Fee program has recently been reduced, due to many schools abusing the program. The other issue is that many VET providers have to wait up to three months to be paid by the government once an invoice has been submitted. Flight Schools are weather-dependent and cash-flow dependent businesses with high overheads (see my recent blog on this subject). Many schools which spent months jumping through hurdles and adapting their syllabus in order to be eligible to receive VET fees, have now had to close down altogether due to not being able to manage cash-flow during the three-month period between invoicing for and finally receiving the large VET fee payments!

I believe the government needs to make VET fee available for all flight schools, including Recreational Flight Schools (up to stage 02), and ensure all invoice payments are made within 14 days of submission to the VET fee government department.

If anyone asked me, my suggestion would be to introduce a three-step program for VET fee help for schools. The VET Fee would be consist of three stages:

First Stage  – PPL and CPL Theory course. This fee help would be around $6,000 and allow students to enrol in a full-time theory course to CPL level. If the student does not pass their theory tests then they cannot progress to the next VET fee stage. This ensures that only seriously committed students get access to the next stage of funding, and the worse case scenario for the student is that they are $6,000 in debt.

Second Stage  – RAA or PPL licence. This VET fee amount would be up to $20,000 and allow the student to conduct their RAA, RPL or PPL licence  – or an integration of both. The student would not be allowed to progress to the next stage unless they pass this stage of their training. They can choose whichever school they prefer.

Third stage – Command time and CPL/Instrument training up to $50,000 at any approved CPL school. This staged progression would reduce the risk of students getting VET fee funding for the entire course only to realise towards the end of the course that they are not CPL material, and now they have a huge debt with nothing to show for it.  This could be a great way to encourage young students to consider an airline career.

9. Airlines should hire new CPL pilots directly from flight schools

Airlines have forecast a serious pilot shortage in the future and are already putting in place programs for cadetships, quotas for more females and are even setting up regional training bases.

I think it is crazy that airlines can run their own cadet program and allow their cadet students to go directly into the right-hand seat of an airliner with minimum experience, whereas for those who have paid for their own training, they require them to build 500 to 2,000 hours of flying experience before the airlines will consider hiring them.

Here is a radical idea to fix the future pilot shortage: reduce the minimum hours required for entry into airlines to 200 hours with only an instrument rating and CPL licence for everyone. The airlines could do extra simulator training to bring these low-hour pilots up to speed on that particular aircraft type. The ATPL theory subjects could be studied part-time and completed before the new hire is promoted to Captaincy. The reality is that a new airline hire is going to spend three to eight years in the right-hand seat under supervision of the Captain. That’s around 2,000 to 4,000 hours of flying experience before they are ready for a command position.

If young students knew that they could go directly from a flying school into an airline job, I can guarantee there would be no longer be a future shortage of pilots, as the career path would be a lot more attractive than spending years out in regional Australian towns trying to build hours on an ageing light aircraft, or being paid a minimum wage as an instructor.

10. Encourage mature individuals to learn to fly and become career instructors

The other major issue affecting General Aviation is the poaching of qualified instructors by the airlines  – to the point where there is a serious lack of qualified experienced instructors. This is only going to get worse with the current pilot shortage. One of the current problems is that the younger instructors will work for a low hourly rate just to build their hours before heading off to the airlines (see my point above!). While this may benefit the Flight Schools in the short term, in the long term, the entire industry suffers.

I believe that one way of avoiding this is to try to attract the middle-aged individual who has left it too late to join an airline but would make an excellent career instructor. I know plenty of individuals who are in their late 40s who would happily give up their soul-destroying office or construction job to be a full-time or part-time flight instructor if there was a clearer pathway and the income was adequate.

Private industry needs to work together to improve the pay conditions and advertise the lifestyle benefits of changing careers to become an instructor. My experience is that a properly run flight school in a good location can comfortably pay its full-time instructors anywhere between $50,000 – $65,000 per year. I’m sure there are plenty of mature potential instructors who would love to fly planes every day for $60,000 per year.

Time for change

In fairness, CASA has a challenging job and they have been trying to innovate many of their processes for a while. The recent changes to the medical requirements for PPL holders is a good example and a step in the right direction.

Within 10 years we will have low-cost electric aircraft and electric vertical take off and landing aircraft readily available (see my blog on this subject). If General Aviation does not adapt with the times it will be replaced by something new and foreign to many of us. Self-flying air taxis are a real possibility, but who will manage the infrastructure and safety aspects of these new industries when we cannot get the current framework right?

We require inspiration and entrepreneurial leaders in private industry and in government to initiate change today, not tomorrow. If you have a vision for a better future for General Aviation don’t sit on the fence and hope things will improve, make a noise, join a board, or at the very least, comment on this blog.

The future of General Aviation is in your hands!

MTF...P2