[Gobbledock]

How funny is that!! Keech finally walks the plank and drops into the 'Harbour'. And it took them how long to wake up to the bloke? He joins a growing list of executive managers (including two from HR now) who have been thoroughly poor choices. No loss in Keech's departure that's for sure, and no tears will be shed.
Perhaps he can join that Muppet Harbour in some consulting work? Or maybe join ASA with Wodger? 

But as we know, CAsA employs a never ending revolving door of arseclowns so I eagerly await the next instalment of stupidity at the big 'R' regulator.....tick tock.

Hey Brian, don't bang the fuc#ing door on the way out!

[Peetwo]

Off the Yaffa - Hitch fired up and on song

The Last Minute Hitch: 11 March 2016
11 Mar 2016

We don't normally talk about general aviation politics from the USA; there is so much going on over there constantly and so often the cascading impact is only a trickle by the time it reaches Australia. However, something happened during the week that stands to change GA in Australia for the better ... maybe. A bi-partisan bill was sent to the senate floor that will pave the way for the FAA to make new aircraft certification cheaper and easier. Right now, certifying a new design can cost a manufacturer up to US$100 million, and the only way to recoup that is to bolster the selling price. You now have an explanation why Cessna and Piper have stuck to their old designs for so long: they don't need to shell out a motza for new development when they can keep updating the old aeroplanes. This new bill will also make it easier to adopt new technologies by re-writing FAR23 to make it less prescriptive and more flexible. It's something we desperately need for the aviation industry to be genuinely cutting-edge and more economically viable.


Red Bull Air Race is back and with the retirement of 2015 champion Paul Bonhomme, our boy Matt Hall is now ranked Number One in the world. That doesn't necessarily make him favourite for the championship; there are several pilots out there capable of chasing him down at every event. Complacency is now Hall's Messerschmidt, but you have to remember he's a combination of fighter pilot and analytical soul, making him a very cool and skillful customer that will be very hard to shoot down. Round One of the 2016 series is in Abu Dhabi this weekend. You can watch qualifying on-line at 2300 tonight eastern time with race day tomorrow from 2100 for the Round of 14 and 2300 for the race on www.redbullairrace.com.

Dick Smith has taken the most extraordinary step of encouraging people to leave general aviation for the good of the industry. Confused? Let me explain: Dick believes that the current state of the industry is not recoverable and many operators and owners will end-up sinking a lot of money into general aviation for zero return. His contention is that the government won't do anything about it until a crisis is reached, and therefore we should bring that crisis on in order to force the government to do something. Personally, I don't agree with Dick. Although I can see what he's getting at, I don't trust the government to do anything even after a crisis occurs. Successive governments have shown complete apathy towards general aviation, and there's nothing to give me confidence they would suddenly wake up and get enthusiastic no matter what happens. Many times in the past I have quoted legendary US flying instructor John King, and now seems an appropriate time for me to do it again. John stood on a stage in Melbourne years ago and told the audience "you can't wait for the goverment to fix things ... that's not what governments do." Can I also quote another Mr Smith? In the classic Frank Capra movie Mr Smith goes to Washington, Jeff Smith (Jimmy Stewart) says something like "lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for." If, as Dick Smith says, general aviation is a lost cause, I believe that's only more reason to keep fighting for it.


Ditto for Jabiru. They've lashed out at the ATSB over the report into engine failures released this week. Their main contention is that the ATSB has not done much investigation of the data, simply drawn conclusions from the statistics alone. For me, the most bewildering question concerns the weight parameter chosen: a maximum MTOW of 800 kg. Why that limit? It marks no form of regulatory break-point. Are they trying to tell us that there are VH-registered aircraft using Jabiru engines that have an MTOW of 800 kg, and therefore needed to be included? If so, say so. And then the earthquake: why has the ATSB made recommendations to the manufacturer and CASA when, if Sue Woods is right, they haven't investigated any of the incidents involving Jabiru engine failures? That responsibility lies with Recreational Aviation Australia, and I don't remember them crying for Jabiru engines to be restricted in operations.

I'm off to the Tyabb Air Show on Sunday refresh my wings and leave behind the politics and cracked rhetoric for a day. This is one of Australia's truly great aviation events and always gets a good crowd. If you're at a loose end and looking for a reason to play aeries, set the DG for a course to Tyabb and just watch the action. Check it out on the air show website.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Another first class offering from Hitch  The comment on the USA initiative valid and oh so true.   The comment on Dick’s latest is also spot on.  But the whole thing needs to knitted up, the dots joined.  With Hitch’s forbearance I shall tinker.

A bi-partisan bill was sent to the senate floor that will pave the way for the FAA to make new aircraft certification cheaper and easier.

Successive governments have shown complete apathy towards general aviation, and there's nothing to give me confidence they would suddenly wake up and get enthusiastic no matter what happens.

Spot the difference? – My cracked rhetoric – survivors clinging to a broken mast after a ship wreck only have time and energy for survival.  Desperately clinging to that which supports them, while hoping and praying for rescue.  It becomes an individual effort to endure, there are few thoughts spared for much else.  Once rescued thoughts may turn to more esoteric topics such as cooperation and improving things; but those thoughts will not appear until the survivors are safe at home, warm, safe, fed and watered.  GA is lost in storm tossed sea, those who could make a difference must survive before energy can be poured into real reform or even assisting their fellow sufferers.  

Cheers Hitch – enjoy Tyabb.

[Peetwo]

Another first class offering from Hitch  The comment on the USA initiative valid and oh so true.   The comment on Dick’s latest is also spot on.  But the whole thing needs to knitted up, the dots joined.  With Hitch’s forbearance I shall tinker.

A bi-partisan bill was sent to the senate floor that will pave the way for the FAA to make new aircraft certification cheaper and easier.

Successive governments have shown complete apathy towards general aviation, and there's nothing to give me confidence they would suddenly wake up and get enthusiastic no matter what happens.

Spot the difference? – My cracked rhetoric – survivors clinging to a broken mast after a ship wreck only have time and energy for survival.  Desperately clinging to that which supports them, while hoping and praying for rescue.  It becomes an individual effort to endure, there are few thoughts spared for much else.  Once rescued thoughts may turn to more esoteric topics such as cooperation and improving things; but those thoughts will not appear until the survivors are safe at home, warm, safe, fed and watered.  GA is lost in storm tossed sea, those who could make a difference must survive before energy can be poured into real reform or even assisting their fellow sufferers.  

Cheers Hitch – enjoy Tyabb.

&..

A truly remarkable comparison.

Wow, the video really shows the stark differences.  The totally different attitude of the FAA toward the industry they regulate and the industry response and cooperation the FAA receive in return perfectly captures how far from reality CASA is.  Remarkable.
 

P2 – “The comparison is so stark it is embarrassing.”

Spot on.  But it’s not the only embarrassment though, is it.  Another will come from speed of delivery, when the FAA and the USA industry agree terms and sane, sensible, understandable, workable legislation comes into being, in the shortest time possible. 
 
Another red face area will be the demonstration of how true collaboration, through real consultation with industry experts provides a rule set which makes nearly everyone ‘happy’.  Smiles all round, hope for a future and a willingness to comply with rules industry had a real part in making.  Remarkable.
 
The final agony and ultimate embarrassment for Australia is the part where after all the American innovation and effort, CASA decide that they are not having a bar of these new fangled aircraft coming out of the USA and impose their own, unique, draconian impositions.  These ‘requirements’ making it just too hard to leave the stone age and the venerable C 172, overweight with unique Australian modifications, flying under exemption, with the strict understanding it will need to be rebuilt every 1500 hours, for safety’s sake, will be the way of the future. 
 
Just another prime example of why Australia leads the race to the bottom.  How I wish Australian government could see the way forward as clearly; alas.
 
Bravo FAA and well done American industry.   I’m going to watch it again, maybe with a pile of tissues handy, lest I weep for the sad, sorry, crippled thing we call the Australian aviation industry. 
 
Toot, sniffle, toot.

Well in a follow up to the US GA industry & FAA initiative on renewing & improving Part 23 to foster & promote the aerospace & small aircraft manufacturing sector, courtesy the JDA Journal:

Part 23: The Massive, much awaited revision is here—initial observations on innovative GA aircraft certification by FAA

TOPICS:NPRMsPart 23

Posted By: Sandy Murdock March 10, 2016

Part 23

The FAA released on March 9, 2016 a much anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, entitled the Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic and Commuter Category Airplanes. Included in the press release is an 8 minute video in which the Administrator, the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, industry leaders and foreign representatives present their perspectives why the new Part 23 makes sense.

[It looks like the interviews were taken during the EAA AirVenture®, which was 6 months ago?]

The proposal is the first systematic revision of the GA plane certification standards, 14 CFR Part 23, since its original “codification” of the CAR standards in 1964. As noted in the preamble, the history of the evolution of this certification has been an accretion of rules/standards/criteria in response to specific problems.

It was declared that it was time to take a fresh look at how the FAA (and many other CAAs) will perform this critical safety function of certification of these smaller aircraft. The collective wisdom of all involved in developing the new and improved Part 23 was that the tenor of that regulatory regime was to move from “prescriptive,” detailed requirements to performance-based airworthiness standards. The new regulation would delete current weight- and propulsion-derived categories Part 23 with a single performance- and risk-based parts for airplanes of 19 passengers seats or less and with a maximum takeoff weight of  no greater 19,000 pounds.

[For folks who follow the FAA’s regulatory philosophies, this new concept is reminiscent of Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards Walter Luffsey, who introduced in the 1980s the concept of “regulation by objective” in recognition that compliance could take many valid forms. His novel idea was beyond the vision of many at that time.]

The document is 283 pages long; so much time will be required to see whether the proposed text, in fact, accomplishes the goals of the industry, foreign CAAs and the senior FAA management sought to “reduce the time it takes to get safety enhancing technologies for small airplanes into the marketplace while also reducing cost.”
Its promulgation is most notable for a number of reasons:

• It has been gestating almost ten years.
  
  

• It was the subject of two statutes (FAMRA and SARA) exhorting the FAA to expedite the issuance of these rules.
  
  

• It represents that work of one of the most impressive, international and inclusive ARCs.
  
  

• It reverses a regulatory postulate established by Secretary Pena in 1995 labeled “One Level of Safety” and announced a “safety continuum philosophy” in which “…one level of safety may not be appropriate for all aviation. The FAA accepts higher levels of risk, with correspondingly fewer requirements for the demonstration of compliance, when aircraft are used for personal transportation.”
  
  

• As mentioned by some of the private sector commenters in the Video, now that the rules have been released, there may be some question whether the field staff charged with implementing the new “performance-based” standard will be able to revise their regulatory perspective—
  
  • from a process of dialectical submission of data by the TC proponent and FAA review
    
  • to a more collaborative mechanism in which the TC applicant and the regulators assess the safety risks of the design and then work toward a testing program with the assistance of ATSM.
    

• The lengthy history of this NPRM is unusual in that the work product of the Certification Process Study/ Part 23 Regulatory Review/Part 23 ARC efforts was thorough, extremely well-written and by all accounts ready for publication. In spite of that extensive preparation of what was considered to be a final project, the staff took over two years to issue an NPRM. To add to the curious delay, Congress passed FAMRA and SARA urging that the rule be promulgated, thus
  
  • adding some credibility to the inference (noted in the video) that the staff is resisting the new concept.
    

• While the general theme is to become less prescriptive, the NPRM includes two new specific criteria. The Part 23 applicant must demonstrate the aircraft’s design as it relates to Loss of Control and Super-cooled Large Drop Icing.
  
  

Quotes from the press releases summarize the introduction of the new Part 23 and industry reactions:

• Secretary Foxx:
  
  

“This proposal would improve safety, reduce costs, and leverage innovation to ensure the highest level of safety is designed and built into small airplanes…General aviation is vital to the U.S. economy, and this proposal would benefit manufacturers, pilots, and the general aviation community as a whole.”

• Administrator Huerta:
  

“This proposal would streamline how we approve new technologies for small piston-powered airplanes all the way to complex high-performance executive jets…The FAA’s collaboration with industry and international partners reflects a performance-based, flexible approach which would accommodate today’s rapidly changing aviation industry and technological advances now and in the future.”

• GAMA President and CEO:
  
  

“With today’s issuance of the NPRM, GAMA commends the FAA for taking the next important step toward revitalizing the outdated rules that govern small airplane design and alterations. This proposal is the result of nearly a decade of work by the entire aviation community, and is critical to fulfilling the objectives of the Small Airplane Revitalization Act, which the U.S. Congress passed unanimously and President Obama signed into law in 2013. We especially appreciate the continued support of members of Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for this vital rule, which will help improve general aviation safety and bolster the piston, turboprop, and light jet market, as well as remove barriers to certification for new technologies such as electric and hybrid propulsion.


‘GAMA member companies and staff have spent countless hours working with the FAA to evolve the current requirements to better embrace new technologies and facilitate future innovations. Going forward, it will be critical that the public and key aviation stakeholders respond quickly with meaningful comments and for the FAA to engage with other global aviation authorities, so a well-harmonized and effective final rule can be issued by the current administration. If they do so, the FAA, through its leadership, can put in place a lasting legacy that will benefit general aviation safety and the vitality of the general aviation industry for decades to come.”
[emphasis added]

The “performance-based” regime for GA aircraft draws many parallels with the SMS process on the operating side of the FAA. If the implementation of this revised part is successful, it will be interesting to see how quickly this performance-based philosophy is applied to Part 25, the commercial aircraft standard.

Further, this prominent statement of the “safety continuum” philosophy is an interesting rearticulation of the old Pena philosophy. Whether and how that relative risk tolerance is applied in other contexts will be carefully tracked.
 
Press Release: FAA Proposes Rule to Overhaul Safety Certification Standards

 
Take heed Miniscule, this can be a very positive initiative for GA utility aircraft manufacturers like Mahindra, which resides in your electorate. Not to mention Jabiru the biggest manufacturer of aero-engines in Oz, the company that CASA & the ATSB appear to currently have it in for. Note comment from Jabiru owner off Flying Oz article - http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/...ure-report :

Blair Carruthers • 6 days ago


It sounds like CASA have made up their minds and no amount of evidence will change it. In typical Australian fashion they will kill off an outstanding icon of Australian aviation on the basis of hearsay rather than rigorous evaluation. Whatever the reasons, I now cannot fly the Jab out of Bankstown because of a blanket decision.  

Get with the program Miniscule your constituents deserve the leg up the US FAA initiative on FAR Part 23 will bring. However if you dare to dream for your constituency, beware you will find much resistance in the halls of Fort Fumble (Aviation House) to the concept of PBR (Performance Based Regulation) that the rest of the aviation world is seemingly rushing to embrace..
MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

CAsA lacks the expertise

P2 pretty much nailed it on the AMROBA thread in response to KC and the Sunchine Bands robust and succinct paper. CAsA simply do not have the expertise and as a result of that they are incapable of progression and change.

How is it that the USA got it right?

How is it that New Zealand got it right? They did it in 5 years and for a handful of millions.

How come CAsA has taken 28 years and $300 million and STILL NOT GOT IT FINISHED, OR GOT IT RIGHT???

ICAO is a toothless tiger. The facts are in plain view, Australia is a basket case, it has been for a long time, and nothing changes. ICAO needs to get off it's fat useless arse and head down under and fix this shit once and for all. Or can't it?  That's probably more to the point, ICAO in itself is yet another alphabet soup organisation full of piss and wind who is powerless to do anything but put out pithy statements and glossy brochures under the umbrella of the UN. All talk no action.

CAsA is an embarrassment, a hybrid Frankenstein that has morphed from a pathetic experiment into an unrecognisable mess. It needs to be put out of its misery. We need to start again.

[Kharon]

Yet another tent revival passes into legend.

A quiet one (or two) with TOM last evening developed into a mini BRB.  Seems that a couple of the fellahin felt unable to return to planet Earth after attending the latest Sydney CASA tent revival without a restorative glass.  A veritable cornucopia of spin, smoke, mirrors and snakes posturing on ladders.  Consensus seemed to be that once you enter the dreaming world of the CASA top draw a dose of reality is needed as ‘they’ are in no way connected to the real, gritty world of commercial aviation.  

Oliver seems determined to continue applying band aid measures to the new rules.  I am surprised that no one thought to mention the way history, on his watch is repeating and categorically confirming Einstein’s theory of insanity.  Did you ever wonder why three decades ago it was decided that a new set of rules was essential?  Briefly, in the main it was because the cracks in the  rules had been papered over so many times, there was a need for mass exemptions and the rules had not kept up with technology.  There was also a notion of ‘out come based’ providing an overall better result than overly prescriptive.  Yet here we are – again – faced with the same conundrum  - again; while the rest of the world are enjoying the benefit of their new rules. Yet CASA remains adamant, the new rules are staying: they have no intention whatsoever, or interest in changing their version of what’s best.  OST seems to live in bubble of self satisfied gas, floating above the rest of the world, in the rarefied atmosphere of those who have never had a decision challenged.  Much like the two faced Roman god Janus, the smiling exterior façade hides a determination to do nothing except dream up titles and provide happy-clappy rhetoric to mask the malicious intent to not only retain the status quo, but a reverence for the McConvict methodology, with prosecution.  This, quite apart from being terminally ‘thick’, is emerging more and more with passage of time, comfort and the support of the Iron ring.

Mind you, the idea of Alliance departing Oz for the Shaky Isles bothers him, probably because if there are questions lobbed in the May estimates, by Senators who already have the answers, he may have be forced to reveal part of the truth a flawed administration presents.  But, that will all get lost in the election noise.  No matter, once that has dissipated, we can remind him of those questions one more time, or as many times as is necessary to effect real change and real reform.

Aye, no doubt terminal arrogance is a necessary adjunct to massive ignorance.  OST should have come for beer or two with some real experts; he may have learned something.  But then what has his world to do with ours ?  SFA is the robust answer.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Hitch playing devil's advocate

Disappointing to hear further confirmation that DAS Skidmore is just another bench-warming, do little, NFI,  AVM (ret) numpty who is merely providing top-cover for the Iron Ring and RAeS favoured trough-swillers.

Keeping on theme from the "K" informative post and in line with the following quoted threads...     

From the Reverend's keyboard -

ASA the Empire of the RAeS cash cow - Happy trough-feeding for all

Jamie scooped this good news story, via SMH/AFR: 

Airservices to undertake 'unprecedented' freeze of charges to airlines


Date March 15, 2016

• (29)
  
• Read later
  

Jamie Freed
Senior Reporter


Airservices Australia costs had been increasing faster than revenue. Photo: James Davies

Funny how News Corp weren't privy to this significant industry story -

Doesn't even rate a mention in today's 'that Man' article via the Oz

Concerns raised about Airservices Australia and OneSKY expenses

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• March 18, 2016 12:00AM
  

 On the now 2nd VH-NGA OVERDUE  Final..Final report, perhaps we could start an official O&O thread that captures all ASA, ATSB & CASA projects, investigations, response to recommendations etc that are overdue and evidently being obfuscated?   

Here is a perfect example from a true industry luminary on the progress of the ASRR : 

Regarding how many of the ASRR recommendations have been implemented, I can advise my score card is as follows.

Assessing the information tabled by Minister Truss in parliament in February, showing implementation status as at 31 December 2015, I assessed the following status.

CASA 29% implemented, 15% partially implemented and 56% not done.

DEPT 20% implemented, 60% partially implemented and 20% not done.

ATSB 33% implemented, 33% partially implemented and 33% not done.

This is being is benevolent as possible.  Other may have a harder view.  A number of those regarded as implemented will require ongoing monitoring to ensure change remains in place and/or that the culture has changed.

No matter how you view it, the implementation rate at CASA is poor, and indicates a lack of enthusiasm for change.   As advised to their Board in February 2015, many of the recommendations (more than 10)  are simple and low hanging fruit which could have been implemented within months.   Here we are 22 months after the report was presented to the Minister and 16 months after the Minister accepted most of the recommendations, with more than half the CASA recommendations not acquitted. 

Follow up to quote (above) -  

via Oz Flying:

David Forsyth, Chairman of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) board.



Forsyth scores ASRR Reform Progress
18 Mar 2016

CAsA spinning the numbers.......again


KC of the Sunshine Band fraternity said;

"Mr Cannane said that while official figures from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority showed the number of aircraft maintenance engineers on the rise, he said that was only Mr Cannane said that while official figures from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority showed the number of aircraft maintenance engineers on the rise, he said that was only because the organisation had introduced a perpetual licence scheme in 2007.

“This gives the impression that the number of engineers is always growing but because the licences are perpetual we have no idea how many have left and how many are actually still working in the industry,” he said."

Go Ken!!!! 
You know what I like about Ken? The wily old bugger has been around for an eternity and he can see through a bullshit, fudged Government smokescreen before it has even be thought up! Those numbers quoted are bullshit. "Perpetual figures"! Fu#k me sideways, what a beauty? Murky and his minions have done a nice job using that 'hard to quantify formula' for providing accurate figures. Bollocks! 

CAsA you are a bunch of shysters.

...here is the Hitch OP off his weekly wrap..

The Last Minute Hitch: 18 March 2016

Change almost always bring with it winds of optimism, and the zephyrs in the aviation industry at the are all about a new minister in Canberra. Any change is generally seen as good change, and growing frustration over a perceived lack of progress with the ASRR reforms is gaining momentum; analyst and rantist alike are preparing to hit Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester with gale-force lobbying to adopt their view of the way forward. Many of those will no doubt arm themselves with David Forsyth's reform scorecard that shows there is still a lot of work to be done. That's one way of reading it. Another way is to compare the reform progress made in the last 22 months against the progress made in the last 22 years. By that measure, we're not doing so bad. Mr Chester is about to be bounced around by opinions coming from the industry, CASA, his own department, ATSB, experts, wannabe experts and, yes, aviation journalists. He's going to be faced with choices, and I fully expect he will do nothing. There's a Double-D election in the wind also.

As AMROBA boss Ken Cannane points out, Australia's safety regulation mess is probably historical. With successive regulators failing to simply adopt international standards (which sort of defeats the reason for having international standards) we find ourselves choked with regulations that were unworkable from the very beginning. The aviation community is no longer accepting the old excuse about "Australian conditions"; a catch-all phrase that has come to be understood as a defence mechanism for CASA. OK, there may be some "Australian conditions", but are they really the imperative given the cost and energy required to regulate especially for them? That cost and energy would be better put into trying to revitalise GA; but that's not CASA's brief, is it?...

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Hitch early with Happy Easter wrap -

more news»

• CASA releases Part 141 Guidance Material
  
• Second Runway proposed for Sunshine Coast
  
• CASA to review Small Aircraft Maintenance Regulations
  
• Work starts on Bendigo Upgrade
  

The Last Minute Hitch: 24 March 2016
23 Mar 2016

Easter is here; a four-day break perfect for planning fly-aways. It's also the perfect trap for unwary fliers. Being at this time of year, the weather can vacillate between accomodating and downright hostile ... sometimes in a matter of hours. With many club excursions starting on Friday and ending on Monday, the time between going away and coming home is enough for the weather pattern to change significantly. Over the years, more than one fly-away has been extended by a day because the group encountered impassable skies on the way home. What fliers need to do is accept now that there's a chance they won't get home, and maybe even word-up the boss that they might not be in on Tuesday. Hopefully, that will ward off any cases of press-on-itis early.

Our new minister for transport Darren Chester has been a very busy person in the last couple of weeks. He's been through a string of briefings on the state of the aviation industry, and my agent in Canberra tells me he's got a few more to come. In a way that's a bit worrying ... exactly who is it that is conducting these briefings? There are a thousand individual opinions out there, each one carried to Canberra in a wheelbarrow pushed by self-interest. How does someone new to a portfolio sort out merit from madness when each one seems to stem from some level of expertise. Well, he has the Aviation Industry Consultative Council (AICC) set-up in December 2014 to work with. The idea of that council was to provide a direct link to the minister so feedback would get there without first going through the filters of CASA, Airservices and the department. With the Prime Minister pulling the trigger on a double-dissolution election (unless the senate caves in), we're bound to find out the results of these briefings in the form of a policy statement before polling day. That will be a good read ...

It has to be a relief for the MRO industry that CASA has decided to retain CAR 4A and update it to suit general aviation. It shows that the hard work done by Ken Cannane and the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) is starting to leave a mark on the blackboards of Aviation House. AMROBA noted early that proposed new regs were simply not going to work if the same rules that applied to RPT aeroplanes were extended to GA. Cannane's work is not yet over (in fact it might be just starting); he and AMROBA will have a lot to do to make sure CAR 4A amendments are not infected with the same silliness that the proposed CASRs were going to have.

In other moves from Canberra, CASA has released guidance material for Part 141. This is the new suite of regs that apply to non-academy flying schools, to define it as simply as possible. Most of these schools and aero clubs have limited resources to deal with this sort of workload, and inevitably it falls to the Chief Flying Instructors to make it all work. That got me thinking. There is plenty of debate in the aviation community about the standard of flight training, especially that given by hour-building instructors who's eyes are more on their own log books than that of their students. So, in some kind of Bizarro World way, we take the best instructors we have (the CFIs) and pin them to their desks under a mass of paperwork. What we need is for them to be out in aeroplanes passing on years of experience. If CASA really wants to do something about flight training, they could always find away to get CFIs out from behind desks and back in aeroplanes. Simples.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Also noticed a couple of comments from recent Oz Flying articles that I think deserve regurgitation, so here we go:-

First in response to Hitch's coverage of the Dick Smith UP post - Dick Smith urges Aviators to Quit:

Benjamin Morgan • 11 days ago

Astounded that Australian Flying would put the above to press. Rather than scaremonger, how about Australian Flying get behind those within the industry that are working hard to re-build the industry? Calling for the industry to pack up and leave is ridiculous.

• SteveHitchen Mod Benjamin Morgan • 11 days ago
  G'day, Ben. Australian Flying is totally behind those who are trying to re-build general aviation, and those people know that. However, as publishers we are obliged to run both sides of an argument provided it comes from someone who has industry credibility. Dick is one of the most controversial characters in aviation, and I don't necessarily agree with what he says (as I don't with this one), but that doesn't mean other people won't find merit in his argument.
   
  Benjamin Morgan SteveHitchen • 10 days ago
  Steve, I don't buy your position on this and feel its very irresponsible of you to be providing oxygen to such absurd commentary . If tomorrow Dick Smith releases a statement saying we should all jump of a cliff, would you feel it ethical to communicate it? Surely not.
  
  Ok, aviation is doing it tough in Australia and we are all feeling the pinch. That said, sinking the boot in and communicating to all and sundry for them sell their businesses, sell their aircraft and leave the industry, is hardly helping invigorate constructive debate with regard to solutions or pathways to recovery.
  
  What our industry needs right now is vision and leadership - not cheap scaremongering and sensationalist headlines.
  
  As one of our industry masthead publications - you can do better.
   
  
• SteveHitchen Mod Benjamin Morgan • 10 days ago
  Ben, you have an absolute right not to agree with my position, just as I have an absolute right not to agree with yours. Yes, if I thought Dick Smith had the background, expertise and integrity to advise us all to jump off a cliff, I would publish it. I wouldn't be jumping because I don't agree with it, but others might.
  

  
&..from same article:-

Alfred • 10 days ago

I am glad you guys posted this article. It's a shame what CASA have done to the industry with their backwards regulations. Just looks at NZ and how much easier it is to do things over there... Hopefully CASA one day will wake up and step back to realize before there's no industry left in Aus.

And remove that fricken' ATPL flight test, why bring that in? There were no issues before...

&..finally from Sandy on last week's Last minute Hitch:

Sandy Reith • 5 days ago

In regard to reform for General Aviation David Forsyth's score card should not be mistaken for real progress. The reality is that GA is in steep decline in spite of the ASRR recommendations and despite of any implementation of those recommendations. The new and unworkable rules and the long existing grinding machinery of CASA coupled with it's fear and fee mongering modus operandi, continues with scant abatement.

Without Parliamentary action and a change to the Civil Aviation Act the behemoth will continue to waste the GA industry at huge expense with loss of jobs and services to the Australian community.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

It’s great to watch a star being born; Phelan class, balanced, factual journalism from Hitch.  It is good to see the comments count rising.  Well done Australian Flying, thanks Hitch.

Have a cyber key to the Tim Tam cupboard.

Toot… .....toot.

[Peetwo]

Have got no idea what it all means but for those Warbird members/fanciers/enthusiasts:

Australia's warbirds are operated in either the Limited or Experimental categories, or can have full registration on the civil register.(Steve Hitchen)



CASA to create New Standards for Limited Category
29 Mar 2016

CASA has proposed a new manual of standards (MOS) for the Limited category that will create new freedoms of use for warbirds, but force operators to join an administering organisation.

The new MOS will cover CASR Part 132 and is in response to Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) recommendation 30 for CASA to introduce three tiers of regulation: the Civil Aviation Act, regulations and standards.

"The proposed manual of standards for limited category operations will provide a greater freedom of use for warbirds and historic aircraft, with cost sharing flights and air racing to be authorised," CASA Director of Aviation Mark Skidmore said in his March CASA Briefing Newsletter.

"The requirement for limited category aircraft to be operated under the manuals and procedures of an approved self-administering aviation organisation will be strengthened. This means warbirds currently operating on experimental certificates will transition to a limited category certificate."

Australia currently has around 100 warbirds that operate under the Experimental category. These aircraft would have to be changed to Limited and the owners would need to join an approved self-administering aviation organisation (ASAAO), such as the Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL).

CASA says it has already consulted with AWAL and is now asking for public feedback for the proposed new MOS.

Further information on the MOS and submissions is on the CASA website

 
Personally I think it is merely a smoke'n'mirrors excuse for Skidmore to do not ducking much..


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Fresh off the Yaffa -

Minister Paul Fletcher MP (left) and AOPA President Marc De Stoop (right) met in Canberra last Friday.


AOPA President meets with Minister over Project Eureka
05 Apr 2016

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) President Marc De Stoop met with the Department of Infrastructure and Transport last Friday to present an outline of Project Eureka, AOPA's plan for revitalising general aviation in Australia.

De Stoop handed Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government Paul Fletcher MP a letter outlining AOPA's plan and discussed opportunities to create employment within GA.

According to De Stoop, the meeting was "not just a meet and greet"

"He was across some of the issues and listened well," De Stoop said. "He knew NZ were doing a lot better than us in GA.

"Big picture stuff is what he is interested in. He needs to be convinced the industry is worth reviving to create those jobs. I promised [Project] Eureka would propose a path for this outcome."

In the letter, De Stoop and AOPA outlined Project Eureka, the brief of which is due to be complete next week.

"Project Eureka is a brief to government containing policy proposals and initiatives to revitalise this flagging Australian industry: an industry that has been in constant and unabated decline over the last 30 years," the letter states.

"The industry recognises there is no easy solution to the current situation. It is made up of many sectors that all have to work or prosper together to create a vibrant GA industry."

When completed, Project Eureka is expected to target nine areas of the general aviation industry that AOPA believes are in need of reform:

• Flight Regulations and Operations
  
• Industry Funding and Taxes
  
• Airport and General Aviation Business Security and Tenure
  
• Charter and Airwork Operations
  
• Flight Training
  
• Aviation Medicine
  
• Airspace Management
  
• Engineering/Manufacturing
  
• Future Technologies
  
  

AOPA describes Project Eureka as "a last stand against inappropriate government industry regulation that has decimated our once thriving GA industry." It would appear that AOPA has decided to do something different to get the message through.

"Chatting to the regulators for the last 15 years has not got GA anywhere with appropriate regulatory reform," De Stoop told Australian Flying.

"We are trying a different approach to get our message across about the perilous state of GA in this country.

"At the end of the day the government wants to create high value jobs for the Australian economy. That's what we want being generated from a healthy GA business sector.

De Stoop pointed out that the meeting with Minister Fletcher and the letter were not intended to be critical of CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore, but rather were aimed at a bureaucratic system that resisted reform.

"It’s not a personal attack on Mark Skidmore. I think he is personally trying to achieve reform. He can’t do it satisfactorily under the current semi-autonomous monopoly model the government has created. No minister is game to meddle with them.

"They need to realize the industry is their customer and completely change their attitude to doing business. They also need to acknowledge safety is enhanced by training, collaboration and helping industry rather than writing volumes of penal code."

The full text of the AOPA letter to Minister Fletcher is available from the AOPA website.

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Fresh off the Yaffa -

Minister Paul Fletcher MP (left) and AOPA President Marc De Stoop (right) met in Canberra last Friday.


AOPA President meets with Minister over Project Eureka
05 Apr 2016

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) President Marc De Stoop met with the Department of Infrastructure and Transport last Friday to present an outline of Project Eureka, AOPA's plan for revitalising general aviation in Australia.

De Stoop handed Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government Paul Fletcher MP a letter outlining AOPA's plan and discussed opportunities to create employment within GA.

According to De Stoop, the meeting was "not just a meet and greet"

"He was across some of the issues and listened well," De Stoop said. "He knew NZ were doing a lot better than us in GA.

"Big picture stuff is what he is interested in. He needs to be convinced the industry is worth reviving to create those jobs. I promised [Project] Eureka would propose a path for this outcome."

In the letter, De Stoop and AOPA outlined Project Eureka, the brief of which is due to be complete next week.

"Project Eureka is a brief to government containing policy proposals and initiatives to revitalise this flagging Australian industry: an industry that has been in constant and unabated decline over the last 30 years," the letter states.

"The industry recognises there is no easy solution to the current situation. It is made up of many sectors that all have to work or prosper together to create a vibrant GA industry."

When completed, Project Eureka is expected to target nine areas of the general aviation industry that AOPA believes are in need of reform:

• Flight Regulations and Operations
  
• Industry Funding and Taxes
  
• Airport and General Aviation Business Security and Tenure
  
• Charter and Airwork Operations
  
• Flight Training
  
• Aviation Medicine
  
• Airspace Management
  
• Engineering/Manufacturing
  
• Future Technologies
  
  

AOPA describes Project Eureka as "a last stand against inappropriate government industry regulation that has decimated our once thriving GA industry." It would appear that AOPA has decided to do something different to get the message through.

"Chatting to the regulators for the last 15 years has not got GA anywhere with appropriate regulatory reform," De Stoop told Australian Flying.

"We are trying a different approach to get our message across about the perilous state of GA in this country.

"At the end of the day the government wants to create high value jobs for the Australian economy. That's what we want being generated from a healthy GA business sector.

De Stoop pointed out that the meeting with Minister Fletcher and the letter were not intended to be critical of CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore, but rather were aimed at a bureaucratic system that resisted reform.

"It’s not a personal attack on Mark Skidmore. I think he is personally trying to achieve reform. He can’t do it satisfactorily under the current semi-autonomous monopoly model the government has created. No minister is game to meddle with them.

"They need to realize the industry is their customer and completely change their attitude to doing business. They also need to acknowledge safety is enhanced by training, collaboration and helping industry rather than writing volumes of penal code."

The full text of the AOPA letter to Minister Fletcher is available from the AOPA website.

PP (ProAviation) on Dick Smith lawyer's letter to DAS Skidmore :

“See you in court” – Dick’s new challenge to CASA

 

Dick Smith (yes, That Dick Smith) has launched a Federal Court challenge to CASA’s director and its legal team over the regulator’s long-disputed decision (the ‘area VHF direction’) to assign already busy VHF (very high frequency) radio frequencies to aircraft flying at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes that don’t have a discrete common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) and are not depicted on aeronautical charts.

The debate on this issue has been long-standing and ProAviation has never seen any meaningful regulatory response to the well-reasoned opposition it has generated from affected industry organisations and operators. That opposition debates safety fears related to frequency congestion with large numbers of aircraft on the same frequencies in environments where they may not all be geographically able to communicate with one another or other aircraft on different channels.

That decision appears to be embodied in the NOTAM (notice to airmen) C119/14 issued by CASA in July 2014, and changes to the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) made at CASA’s instance in May 2013 and in August 2014.

“It appears to our client that in making the decision, CASA failed to act within with the limits of its statutory authority, and either took into account irrelevant considerations, or failed to consider relevant considerations, or both.”

The letter details Dick’s views that the area VHF direction was made potentially without due legal head of power, that formal industry consultation processes were circumvented or ignored, that there is at the very least, disagreement within the aviation industry stakeholders as to whether the area VHF direction complies with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act, that CASA decision-making processes have been non-transparent in areas that affect airspace use decisions and related communications between aircraft and ground stations, apparent noncompliance with CASA’s own Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS.)

In a letter copied to CASA’s head lawyer Adam Anastasi and to incoming Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester, Dick’s lawyers Mark O’Brien Legal give the regulator notice that “If we do not have a satisfactory response within fourteen days of the date of this letter, we have instructions to commence proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, with no further notice to you, to judicially review CASA’s decision.

“Our client has standing, as a person who is affected by CASA’s decision, to seek relief in the form of constitutional writs, including that the decision of CASA be quashed and re-made according to law.”

A judicial review such as the one Dick is seeking could see senior aviation bureaucrats responding under oath to numerous assertions contained in the letter; in particular whether CASA’s actions are consistent with its obligations under the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations.

Although Dick owns his own small fleet of general aviation aircraft, he reserves his sympathies for those on aviation who are less fortunate in the face of our fast-expanding aviation bureaucracies. He told ProAviation recently:

“There is simply no understanding at Airservices and at CASA or in the Department that cost is so important for general aviation. Misallocate $100 million in relation to the airlines and that’s either $1 or $2 per passenger and hardly noticeable. Misallocate $100 million in General Aviation and you don’t have an industry anymore.

“There is no understanding of this within these three organisations and that’s why things are going to get far worse before they get better.”

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Fresh off the Yaffa -

Minister Paul Fletcher MP (left) and AOPA President Marc De Stoop (right) met in Canberra last Friday.


AOPA President meets with Minister over Project Eureka
05 Apr 2016

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) President Marc De Stoop met with the Department of Infrastructure and Transport last Friday to present an outline of Project Eureka, AOPA's plan for revitalising general aviation in Australia.

De Stoop handed Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government Paul Fletcher MP a letter outlining AOPA's plan and discussed opportunities to create employment within GA.

According to De Stoop, the meeting was "not just a meet and greet"

"He was across some of the issues and listened well," De Stoop said. "He knew NZ were doing a lot better than us in GA.

"Big picture stuff is what he is interested in. He needs to be convinced the industry is worth reviving to create those jobs. I promised [Project] Eureka would propose a path for this outcome."

In the letter, De Stoop and AOPA outlined Project Eureka, the brief of which is due to be complete next week.

"Project Eureka is a brief to government containing policy proposals and initiatives to revitalise this flagging Australian industry: an industry that has been in constant and unabated decline over the last 30 years," the letter states.

"The industry recognises there is no easy solution to the current situation. It is made up of many sectors that all have to work or prosper together to create a vibrant GA industry."

When completed, Project Eureka is expected to target nine areas of the general aviation industry that AOPA believes are in need of reform:

• Flight Regulations and Operations
  
• Industry Funding and Taxes
  
• Airport and General Aviation Business Security and Tenure
  
• Charter and Airwork Operations
  
• Flight Training
  
• Aviation Medicine
  
• Airspace Management
  
• Engineering/Manufacturing
  
• Future Technologies
  
  

AOPA describes Project Eureka as "a last stand against inappropriate government industry regulation that has decimated our once thriving GA industry." It would appear that AOPA has decided to do something different to get the message through.

"Chatting to the regulators for the last 15 years has not got GA anywhere with appropriate regulatory reform," De Stoop told Australian Flying.

"We are trying a different approach to get our message across about the perilous state of GA in this country.

"At the end of the day the government wants to create high value jobs for the Australian economy. That's what we want being generated from a healthy GA business sector.

De Stoop pointed out that the meeting with Minister Fletcher and the letter were not intended to be critical of CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore, but rather were aimed at a bureaucratic system that resisted reform.

"It’s not a personal attack on Mark Skidmore. I think he is personally trying to achieve reform. He can’t do it satisfactorily under the current semi-autonomous monopoly model the government has created. No minister is game to meddle with them.

"They need to realize the industry is their customer and completely change their attitude to doing business. They also need to acknowledge safety is enhanced by training, collaboration and helping industry rather than writing volumes of penal code."

The full text of the AOPA letter to Minister Fletcher is available from the AOPA website.

PP (ProAviation) on Dick Smith lawyer's letter to DAS Skidmore :

“See you in court” – Dick’s new challenge to CASA

 

Dick Smith (yes, That Dick Smith) has launched a Federal Court challenge to CASA’s director and its legal team over the regulator’s long-disputed decision (the ‘area VHF direction’) to assign already busy VHF (very high frequency) radio frequencies to aircraft flying at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes that don’t have a discrete common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) and are not depicted on aeronautical charts.

The debate on this issue has been long-standing and ProAviation has never seen any meaningful regulatory response to the well-reasoned opposition it has generated from affected industry organisations and operators. That opposition debates safety fears related to frequency congestion with large numbers of aircraft on the same frequencies in environments where they may not all be geographically able to communicate with one another or other aircraft on different channels.

That decision appears to be embodied in the NOTAM (notice to airmen) C119/14 issued by CASA in July 2014, and changes to the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) made at CASA’s instance in May 2013 and in August 2014.

“It appears to our client that in making the decision, CASA failed to act within with the limits of its statutory authority, and either took into account irrelevant considerations, or failed to consider relevant considerations, or both.”

The letter details Dick’s views that the area VHF direction was made potentially without due legal head of power, that formal industry consultation processes were circumvented or ignored, that there is at the very least, disagreement within the aviation industry stakeholders as to whether the area VHF direction complies with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act, that CASA decision-making processes have been non-transparent in areas that affect airspace use decisions and related communications between aircraft and ground stations, apparent noncompliance with CASA’s own Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS.)

In a letter copied to CASA’s head lawyer Adam Anastasi and to incoming Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester, Dick’s lawyers Mark O’Brien Legal give the regulator notice that “If we do not have a satisfactory response within fourteen days of the date of this letter, we have instructions to commence proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, with no further notice to you, to judicially review CASA’s decision.

“Our client has standing, as a person who is affected by CASA’s decision, to seek relief in the form of constitutional writs, including that the decision of CASA be quashed and re-made according to law.”

A judicial review such as the one Dick is seeking could see senior aviation bureaucrats responding under oath to numerous assertions contained in the letter; in particular whether CASA’s actions are consistent with its obligations under the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations.

Although Dick owns his own small fleet of general aviation aircraft, he reserves his sympathies for those on aviation who are less fortunate in the face of our fast-expanding aviation bureaucracies. He told ProAviation recently:

“There is simply no understanding at Airservices and at CASA or in the Department that cost is so important for general aviation. Misallocate $100 million in relation to the airlines and that’s either $1 or $2 per passenger and hardly noticeable. Misallocate $100 million in General Aviation and you don’t have an industry anymore.

“There is no understanding of this within these three organisations and that’s why things are going to get far worse before they get better.”

From Oz Aviation today:

AOPA pushes government to support GA sector

April 6, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au Leave a Comment


Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA) president Marc De Stoop has presented the federal government with a nine-point plan to support and revitalise the nation’s general aviation (GA) sector, including proposed changes to the nation’s aviation safety regulator and the privatisation of Airservices.

The reforms are outlined in brief to government called Project Eureka and aim to turn around a once flourishing GA sector AOPA says is slowly dying and “collapsing under the weight of regulation”.

“AOPA is making what to us is seen as a last stand against inappropriate government industry regulation that has decimated our once thriving GA industry,” AOPA Australia president De Stoop said in a letter to federal Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government Paul Fletcher.

“It may sound melodramatic to those not associated with the industry, but those of us who have been in the industry through the period 1960-1990 feel very frustrated that government bureaucrats, through lack of understanding of the need for businesses to be commercially viable, have failed this industry.”

AOPA said previous dealings with CASA and Airservices, as well as the Department, had gone nowhere, with these bodies failing to understand the “commercial implications of their policy agenda”.

Part of AOPA’s proposed reforms include changes to the Civil Aviation Act that require regulators to take into account of “industry viability, efficiency and sustainability”, and for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to be renamed the Civil Aviation Authority and be absorbed back into the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
“CASA has proven unable to regulate without impacting commercial viability,” AOPA said.

There were also calls to enforce rules that provided security of tenure for aviation businesses at airports, for the adoption of a US-style suite of regulatory rules to replace the current Civil Aviation Orders and Regulations, for the reintroduction of TAFE funding to boost aviation apprenticeships and the harmonisation of medical certification for recreational and GA private pilots for all recreational aviation aircraft (those weighing less than 5,700kg).

AOPA, which has 2,600 members and aims to represent the general aviation sector, also called for Australia to follow the US timeline of implementing ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast), and changes to ASIC (Aviation Security Identification Card) requirements.

To help pay for these and other initiatives, AOPA called for the the nation’s air traffic manager Airservices, which it described as an “underperforming Australian public asset” to be sold and the proceeds used to set up an industry trust fund.

“This capital is needed to re-invest and innovate general aviation business; to fund new technologies, university research and development; and to create long term, high value-added jobs,” AOPA said.

“This funding model provides the means to revitalise the general aviation industry through government investment while also improving the Treasury fiscal position.”

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Hats off to these gentlemen.......

Marc De Succinct said;

"To help pay for these and other initiatives, AOPA called for the the nation’s air traffic manager Airservices, which it described as an “underperforming Australian public asset” to be sold and the proceeds used to set up an industry trust fund".

Hell yes. We all know that no Government or government department is capable of managing anything greater than watching two ants copulate. By flogging the asset we could at least utilise the sale funds (placed in a perpetual fund with full transparent view of what those funds are being used for, to prevent the bureaucratic incompetents from pissing all the money away) and ASA can then be managed by a competent private sector rather than Electric Blue and that Chairman of the Board suckhole and all of their lapdogs, mates an hangers on.

The tenacious Dick Smith;

"In a letter copied to CASA’s head lawyer Adam Anastasi and to incoming Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester, Dick’s lawyers Mark O’Brien Legal give the regulator notice that “If we do not have a satisfactory response within fourteen days of the date of this letter, we have instructions to commence proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, with no further notice to you, to judicially review CASA’s decision".

Go Dick. Glad to see Flyingfiend put under the pump. I hope he finds time to respond to Messr Smith rather than write shit on UP  

[Peetwo]

Hitch on Project Eureka -  IMHO Hitch in most part, nails it.

AOPA believes Project Eureka is the solution to the dark skies hovering over GA in Australia. (Steve Hitchen)



Project Eureka: the Bare Bones
20 Apr 2016

Comment

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's (AOPA) Project Eureka papers released last week contain several recommendations the authors believe will revitalise the general aviation industry in Australia.

It has been hailed as the last stand for GA, hence the name "Eureka", after the Ballarat miners' revolt in 1854, rather than the Greek word meaning "I have found it."

Eureka collects the expert opinions of several general aviation advocates and uses their voices to show how AOPA's solutions for GA are connected to the realities. It exhorts the government to recognise the opportunities that the industry can provide to all Australians, and the ramifications of the very real possibility of the industry disappearing.

For most part, the recommendations reinforce the cornerstone arguments of key general aviation advocates, which adds further weight to those aspects and presents a consistent message to the government. The Eureka recommendations are:

• Automatic approval of overseas licences and regulations.
  
• Aircraft maintenance regs should follow the regulations of the country of manufacture
  
• Fully implements the Aviation Safety Regulation Review
  
• Amend the Civil Aviation Act (the Act) to allow the current CASA CAR/CAO EASA bias rules to apply to only Part 121 RPT operators and not GA
  
• Amend the Act to allow US FAR or NZ CAA rules for general aviation
  
• Mandate US FARs to save costs and get the regulatory reforms completed
  
• Adopt the NZ model for mandating ADS-B, which comes into force one year after the US mandate, therefore 2021
  
• A stay of en-route charges for 10 years for operators that have already upgraded to ADS-B and paid a higher cost for conformance
  
• An investigation into the 2009 Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and the assumptions made
  
• Abolish barriers against overseas pilots and engineers from countries with compatible standards to Australia
  
• Re-introduce independant flying instructors with no requirement to hold an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC)
  
• Remove user-pays fees for general aviation aircraft and operations
  
• Sell Airservices Australia and use the revenue to re-invest in general aviation for development and technology and to buy back the secondary capital city Class D airports
  
• Charges from the privatised Airservices to be subject to review
  
• Amend the Act to require the regulator to take into account the sustainablility of the general aviation industry
  
• Rename CASA to the Civil Aviation Division and re-absorb it back into the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
  
• Modify Class 2 medical requirements to bring them into line with recreational standards and have the medical examiners issue the certificates
  
• Fully implement the National Airspace System (NAS)
  
• CASA to consult with overseas National Aviation Authorities (NAA) to determine if Jabiru engine failures are the result of maintenance practices in Australia
  
• CASA to establish a program to allow individual Jabiru-powered aircraft to be inspected and have the restrictions lifted.
  
  

It takes only one read through to establish the over-arching desire of Project Eureka: get rid of CASA and simply adopt the US way of doing things. It's a call that has been echoing through general aviation for some years now, and one that, of all recommendations, we are most unlikely to get. If any paper or policy had the credibility to recommend this, it was the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), and David Forsyth and his team didn't see the need to include such a drastic step in their report to Canberra.

This is not an admonishment of AOPA for including this in Eureka; GA is in such a state that any solution is probably hidden deep inside something improbable, so all options are up for exploration, provided they are presented with integrity.

However, no matter how logical it would be to adopt the FARs as our own, any recommendation to do so (again, something not in the ASRR) ignores the political imperative of not wanting to tell the taxpayers they've wasted hundreds of millions of dollars over 28 years and gotten nowhere (albeit the truth!). There are some things the pollies will be red-penning the moment they see them, and this will be one of them. Including this in Eureka may have a side-effect that is of more value: it may prompt the new minister to ask "is this right that reform has gone on for 28 years when we could have used the US system?" There is no answer CASA can give that will cover them in glory.

Some recommendations, such as the ADS-B mandate, full NAS implementation and DAME medicals, are battlegrounds still being fought over, and right now each one has reached stalemate. They needed to be included or Eureka could not be held up as the definitive needs of general aviation. In the case of ADS-B and NAS, they are issues plagued by contention within the GA ranks: we're not all in formation with opinions and solutions ... except the medical thing. The failure to implement the DAME medical despite promises from three Directors of Aviation Safety and recommendations from the ASRR is still bewildering.

AOPA has come up with one truly innovative idea: the industry trust fund. The idea is that the government sell off Airservices and use the money to create an industry trust fund for technological development and venture capital, and the big one, to buy back the leases on the secondary capital city airports. This is blue-sky thinking, and unfortunately will remain that way. The cost of buying back the leases to airports like Bankstown, Archerfield, Jandakot and the other ex-GAAPs would be so astronomical that there'd be nothing left of the cash from the AsA sales. The leaseholders would probably demand also compensation for the money they'd invested as well as loss of income from having their projected cash flows cut off. A solution needs to be found for the ails the government has inflicted on GA by selling the leases, but I don't think buying them back is an option; the cash outlay to do so would be just too high. I would not have tied that to the industry trust fund concept.

It was good to see AOPA push for independant flying instructors that don't need an AOC. This would bring aviation back to towns that lost their flying schools simply because the cost of maintaining an AOC was too high. The biggest entry barrier to pilot training is the cost, and most of it is unnecessary burden that brings about no safety benefit for anyone.

Go to any Australian flying school and ask to see their ops manual and you will understand how bad this is immediately after you are pointed to a shelf containing about 10-12 lever arch folders. This is counter to aviation safety because it means the best instructors have to spend time shuffling papers and not out there passing on years of flying experience. AOPA, push hard for this one; it's not out of reach.

As a working document, I believe Project Eureka has many strengths and many weaknesses, which is something that could in truth be said about most aviation papers presented in the last 20 years, except the White Paper ... that had no strengths. If the government was to implement all the recommendations, we would see a complete revolution in the general aviation industry in Australia. Perhaps that's what is needed to revitalise GA, but is the government willing to do that? It all comes down to whether or not they really want a GA industry, which is a question that has never been satisfactorily answered in word or deed.

With project Eureka, as with the impending The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) policy paper, we won't really know the impact until the goverment responds (if they do). Stand alone, I don't believe Project Eureka will achieve anything; papers are very easy to file away. It's true value is as a position paper for AOPA. Now they need to start an exhaustive program of constant lobbying to support their recommendations and show leadership for the GA community

 Hitch the keys for the Tim Tam cupboard are in the mail... 

MTF...P2     

[Kharon]

Bless Hitch –for good man.  Saved me the trouble of editing miles of commentary to arrive at pretty much the same sort of conclusions.   I like the Hitch style; one can only hope that he continues to provide balanced reports like this one which picks out the bones and provides sensible commentary on both the good and the bad parts of a thing like Eureka.  He saved the best for last:-

It's true value is as a position paper for AOPA. Now they need to start an exhaustive program of constant lobbying to support their recommendations and show leadership for the GA community.

This is the beauty part, and full credit to De Stoop for finding a way to restore AOPA base principals and credibility.  It’s been many years since AOPA had that sort of standing. Although it may take a little while and fresh, active membership with vision to see it fully restored to it’s rightful position, you get a sense that De Stoop will get it there, in style.

[Peetwo]

Bless Hitch –for a good man.  Saved me the trouble of editing miles of commentary to arrive at pretty much the same sort of conclusions.   I like the Hitch style; one can only hope that he continues to provide balanced reports like this one which picks out the bones and provides sensible commentary on both the good and the bad parts of a thing like Eureka.  He saved the best for last:-

It's true value is as a position paper for AOPA. Now they need to start an exhaustive program of constant lobbying to support their recommendations and show leadership for the GA community.

This is the beauty part, and full credit to De Stoop for finding a way to restore AOPA base principals and credibility.  It’s been many years since AOPA had that sort of standing. Although it may take a little while and fresh, active membership with vision to see it fully restored to it’s rightful position, you get a sense that De Stoop will get it there, in style.

In addition to the very good Hitch OP on Project Eureka, yesterday in his weekly wrap:

The Last Minute Hitch: 22 April 2016
22 Apr 2016



AOPA's Project Eureka Papers contain a lot of home truths, and that is going to make it a very unpopular document with a lot of people who cherish their egos and positions. It asks for a lot, but GA is in a state where a lot needs to happen. There is nothing in Eureka that serves as an eye-opener for general aviation, but a mountain of stuff that will open the eyes of people within the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. However, seeing is not doing, and history shows politicians often need a reason to make change beyond the need for change itself; some political imperative that forces their hand. What is it general aviation has to catalyse change? Whereas papers like Eureka are valuable to state positions, they so often don't have an impact for lack of an alterior motive running in support.


To keep the momentum going, AOPA has organised a rally in Tamworth for 6 May, which has attracted the attention of Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Minister for Transport Darren Chester and CASA Chairman Jeff Boyd. Coming just on the windward side of an election announcement, and scheduled for the Deputy PMs own marginal electorate, it is no wonder government reps are making sounds like they want to help. However, this is a good opportunity to make some noise, and the more voices that attend the greater weight behind the industry's issues. If you can get there, get there...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Noise? Not required.  

However, this is a good opportunity to make some noise, and the more voices that attend the greater weight behind the industry's issues.

Lots of small, annoying noises simply serve to foster and promote frayed tempers and direct action to stop the irritation.  Ever gone in early to hear a symphony orchestra, in concert?  Get there early, when the orchestra is unpacking, tuning up and getting ready – that’s true noise; a bloody awful cacophony of disparate toot and tweets, thumps and bumps: drive you nuts.  No one would pay to hear that racket.

Enter the conductor; silence reigns, thought is concentrated, the audience sits still in silent, wrapt attention.  The baton is raised; and, suddenly, just like that, magic happens.  The awful noises from Hell’s pit No3 are transformed into something truly marvellous.

So, what is the GA symphony to sound like? Hells bells it’s been rehearsing long enough and there will never be a better chance to play it; nor a more important, critical audience to listen.  The aviation orchestra, not just GA need to present one clear message: enough.

Regulatory reform is a brilliant and desirable thing; but, until the regulator is reformed there is little point to spending more and more on ‘new’ regulations.  The industry problems stem from the Act, the way CASA choose to interpret that unconstitutional document, unchallenged and unaccountable.  The CASA method of using the regulation to suit a desired outcome has, for decades been a thorn; creating many more problems than the regulations themselves.  Air Services and ATSB as they stand are another expensive waste.  One way or another, any way you look at it, the aviation sector is a perfect opportunity to test the Turnbull anti red-tape thinking.  It’s a job tailor made to suit Fletcher.  Government has the power, Barnaby needs the seat and the votes/kudos gained  helping the Trucking fraternity proves there is benefit in ‘doing the right thing’.

So before everyone pitches up in Tamworth and starts playing their own favourite part; think on the difference between:- a racket 

and a symphony.

Forsyth conducting; Hurst on first violin, Cannane on brass, De Stoop on woodwind, VIPA on timpani, AIPA string section and the AFAP playing at silly buggers. 

If you can get there, get there...

Hmm. I may yet make the effort, if just to shake the hand of Ben Morgan.  We shall see.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Restructure results expected this week

Big week ahead for Fort Fumbles biggest hitters. After a slight delay recently the senior staff should find out whose positions/services are no longer required, who gets to snort from the trough for a bit longer, and who gets promoted higher up the chain and gets an even bigger trough to feed from!

It should put an end to the frenzied internal activities of the past 6 months in which numerous musical chairs have been adjusted which included the departure of numerous highly ranked douchebags, plus numerous managers have been busy lobbying for support and/or kissing Skid'Marks ass, and all sorts of other internal shennanigans have been taking place.

Oink oink

[Peetwo]

Latest on TAAAF Aviation Policy 2016

TAAAF also suggests ASA privatisation -  

Courtesy of Oz Aviation:

TAAAF calls on government to privatise Airservices

April 28, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au 
 
The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum has called for the privatisation of Airservices, with the funds used to set up an Aviation Future Fund.

The Forum says the current Airservices’ model is “no longer capable of effectively responding to emerging aviation opportunities or the need for greater efficiency”.

“The partially-corporatised model under which Airservices Australia has operated for almost 20 years is increasingly incapable of delivering efficient and affordable air traffic services in a growing aviation market,” said TAAAF’s 2016 policy document, which was released on Thursday.

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

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

As part of the privatisation of Airservices, TAAAF also called for major airport operators to be responsible for day-to-day management of aircraft noise reporting and take over aviation rescue and fire-fighting services.

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

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA), which has 2,600 members and aims to represent the general aviation sector, has also called for Airservices to be privatised.

The federal government has said previously it did not support the privatisation of Airservices.

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

A national aviation strategy and integrated aviation infrastructure master plan were also needed to meet the forecast growth in demand over the next two decades.

“The Forum believes there are significant savings for industry and government through a more efficient planning process,” TAAAF said.

TAAAF has also proposed changes to the Civil Aviation Act, given Australia’s “highly prescriptive approach to aviation safety” had “hindered the development of the industry for little discernible safety benefit”.

TAAAF chair – and former Airservices chief executive – Greg Russell said the association’s proposed policy initiatives offered “real pathways to improved services, savings for the taxpayer and more effective regulation”.

“It is estimated that over $2.2 billion in benefits to government, industry and society would be realised from the adoption of these policies,” Russell said in a statement.

“A new approach to aviation challenges through a government/industry partnership would make Australia into a regional aviation leader and drive growth and opportunities across the nation.”

Don't reckon Harfwit would be happy with that idea, he might actually have to work hard to justify his esteemed position and his cut of the trough - then again he may not even keep his job in the real world of big business...

Also from Hitch off the Yaffa:

TAAAF releases 2016 Aviation Policy

28 Apr 2016

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) released its 2016 policy paper in Sydney this morning.

According to TAAAF, the new policy is aimed at "establishing a new partnership between industry and government that focuses on job creation, industry growth, and a major overhaul of aviation structures."

Chair of the Forum, former Airservices boss Greg Russell, said that the policy provides a unique opportunity for government and industry to take a more mature approach to fostering an industry that is capable of significant jobs growth.

"These policies represent a milestone opportunity for aviation policy in Australia," he said. "A new approach to aviation challenges through a Government/Industry partnership would make Australia into a regional aviation leader and drive growth and opportunities across the nation.

"These policies offer real pathways to improved services, savings for the taxpayer and more effective regulation. It is estimated that over $2.2 billion in benefits to Government, industry and society would be realised from the adoption of these policies."

At the centre of the new policy is the recommendation to sell Airservices Australia and create an Aviation Future Fund to support the aviation industry. TAAAF points out that Airservices has operated for 20 years funded largely by fees paid by the aviation industry.

The group estimates that the Federal Goverment could reap $1 billion from the sale of Airservices and pour half that back into industry via the future fund.

TAAAF uses as an example the Canadian Nav Canada not-for-profit model and links the creation of an Aviation Future Fund to improved training pathways, export opportunities and international harmonisation.

"Airservices' current model is no longer capable of effectively responding to emerging aviation opportunities or the need for greater efficiency," TAAAF states. "Forum policies would establish a new structure that has proven to be more effective for the management of safety and cost-effective service delivery."

Other policy announcements included a revamp of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to align it with international standards and reduce costs and delays, and a realignment of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and CASA to drive policy implementation.

TAAAF costings show a benefit to industry of $1.63 billion and $0.608 billion to the government if its policies were to be adopted.

The complete policy will soon be available for download from TAAAF member organisations as below.

• Aerial Application Association of Australia
  
• Australian Association of Flying Instructors
  
• Aviation Business Association of Australia
  
• Australian Helicopter Industry Association
  
• Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
  
• Australian Warbirds
  
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia
  
• Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia
  
• Recreational Aviation Association of Australia.
  

Also from Oz Flying Hitch provides an update to the Dick Smith vs Skidmore frequency issue at unmarked aerodromes:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority regularly creates discussion papers on a range of issues.


Frequency Discussion Paper to be issued
28 Apr 2016

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority announced yesterday that it will produce a discussion paper (DP) on the issue of frequencies at unmarked airstrips.

Under the National Airspace System (NAS), all airfields without a dedicated Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) were to use Multicom 126.7, but CASA has since released advice that where the airfield is not marked on any chart, pilots should use the VHF area frequency for broadcasts.

The moves comes after Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore held a teleconference with the convenors of the Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committees (RAPAC) and aviation advocate Dick Smith threatened to take the matter to the Supreme Court to force a review of any CASA decision made on the matter.

"The discussion paper will be released during 2016 and CASA will be looking for everyone from sports pilots to regular public transport operators to comment on the issues," the CASA announcement stated.

"CASA will carefully consider all viewpoints before reaching a final position on the most appropriate frequency use in class G airspace. Until the consultation process is finalised CASA urges all pilots to follow the current advice on frequency choice in class G airspace which is to use the VHF area frequency."

Dick Smith has always said that the original concept of the NAS Multicom should be enforced to reduce VFR traffic on the area frequencies. It is believed that internal CASA staff are still leaning toward the area frequency.

Smith first raised the issue in October 2014, drawing a prompt response from CASA reinforcing their advice.

   
Finally I wonder if Skidmore's Tiger team will give this sensible industry cost saving suggestion the nod - again via Oz Flying..

Students at Glen Buckley's Melbourne Flight Training. (MFT)


Innovative Idea aims to save Flying School Costs
28 Apr 2016

Moorabbin flying instructor Glen Buckley has developed an innovative idea to help flying schools cut administrative costs.

The owner and CFI of Melbourne Flight Training has proposed a consortium of flying schools to share key personnel required by CASA regulations.

If it comes to fruition, Buckley believes it could not only reduce c
osts, but could also save some schools that will find themselves unable to afford to transition to a CASR Part 142 school to offer the 150-hour CPL.

Named Australian Integrated Pilot Training (AIPT), Buckey's concept is to share the Head of Operations, Head of Aircraft Airworthiness and Maintenance Control (HAAMC), Safety Manager and Compliance and QA Manager across anything up to 20 different flying schools.

Each flying school in AIPT would contribute part of the salaries for the "super group" of administrators, and in return get high-level expertise to bring their school up to Part 142 standards at a fraction of the cost of going it alone.

Buckley developed the idea after considering the future of his own school in the current economic and regulator environment. With 90% of MFT's business coming from students doing the integrated 150-hour CPL course, Buckley was faced with a large investment simply to keep the doors open past 31 August 2018, the date by which schools must transition to the new Part 142 rules.

"I’m concerned about the future of Australian-owned businesses in the flight training sector," Buckley says, "and as my business is my superannuation, I’m concerned somewhat for my family's future.

"I consistently strive for perfection in my business but increasingly I feel like I can’t keep up anymore. I’m tired of the bureaucracy associated with simply proving that I am already doing the right thing. I get frustrated by the Fee-Help system. I need to get focused on my business at the moment, but I keep getting pulled away.

"Increasingly I have been considering how I can continue to operate my business, and operate it successfully. How can I increase its potential in a time of 'doom and gloom' for our sector?

"I’ve come up with this proposal. I want to get 20 like-minded schools that genuinely want to survive in the new environment; a range of both country and city schools, Australian-owned businesses that really have the intent to deliver on the regulator's requirements, and maintain a robust business."

Buckley says his idea is well down the track, having secured in-principle agreement from some of the key personnel to join AIPT. Buckley has also spoken with people at CASA and says the idea has been greeted with interest.

Under the proposal, each school would no longer require their senior key personnel, and even the Chief Flying Instructor could be renamed Senior Base Pilot as the CFI role would be done by a qualified instructor roving between the member organisations. Buckley also proposes each school use the Flight School Manager program to ensure compatibility of systems and procedures.

Buckley recognises there are some challenges to the AIPT concept that would need to be overcome, such as CASA's interpretation of the key personnel requirements, but understands they need to be taken on as the flight training industry itself is facing new hurdles in the next couple of years.

"A challenge immediately ahead is the transition to a 141 or a 142 organisation," he points out. "A bigger challenge will come soon after when we are audited for compliance against these complicated criteria. The transition is not the big issue. The challenge actually comes after the transition in ensuring you have the resources to maintain compliance.

"[the AIPT] approach will allow us to attend to this challenge co-operatively."
Buckley already has interest from some flying schools, and will soon be approaching others who are facing the same cost burden as MFT.

"The cost of rewriting compliant manuals alone was in excess of $100,000 for my organisation and took far too much of my attention for far too long. This was extremely challenging from a resource perspective. This approach will substantially free up both financial and time resources to allow them to focus on running their businesses."

MTF...P2