[Gobbledock]

P2;

"..Thirty-five people.." If nothing else changes I wonder how many would be in attendance this time in 2030??

That's because most of us are sick to death of talkfests and sitting around in circles playing with ourselves. Talk is cheap, they (CAsA) have been 'talking' for years. Let's see action Oliver.

Herr Skid-Mark;

"Also said he was encouraged by the Mildura forum, and would now look at scheduling events in other regions around Australia".

May I suggest a 'talkfest' in Toowoomba, and Bub can be M.C!!

[Kharon]

Misty Mildura Mumbles.

I read with some sadness the report of a ‘jolly good time’ being had by all at Mildura.  It particularly saddens me to read of someone, abused by the old order, rolling over to have a tummy scratch from a smooth talking specimen of Snake oil salesman. Had the sainted DAS apologised, rectified or dare we say recompensed the aggrieved for the shabby treatment received; then I may have been convinced that it was worth turning out and supporting the new regime.  BUT:-

One, Campbell was there, now that, stand alone, speaks volumes.  Two, no offer of apology or recompense has been made to them as suffered ‘Draconian’ treatment.  Three, no promise of fair, equitable future treatment to anyone has been made.  Four, the man running the 35 strong crowd seems well pleased with a gab-fest; chuffed to bits with his own rhetoric, high fives with Gerrard, rather being thoroughly ashamed at the total lack of progress and wasting of time. 

Skidmore is treading water and filling in the waiting time with pointless window dressing, while awaiting instructions from the Board, an ICC (to delay and hide valid complaints) and a deputy with some ducking idea of what must be done.  The board is sitting still, waiting on instruction and direction from Truss’ who; in turn, is waiting for approval from the PMC to act.  This will not be forthcoming, not anytime soon.  The simple mathematics of re-election will prevent any meaningful reform occurring for a while yet.  Abbott needs to get his boot off the bloody brakes.

The tragic truth will, eventually, dawn on the blind believers – conned again.  Just because it’s printed in some local rag, don’t make reform reality.  Talk is cheap; but money buys new equipment and the right to use it.  Next time around, ask Oliver-Skidsmore-Twist why a South Australian approved check list cannot be approved by NSW; or, any one of a dozen similar, operationally important questions.  You will get the same soothing platitudes, while the cost of compliance strips away your profit and time goes by.

Selah.

Brutus:

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

[thorn bird]

Hey guys, any truth to the rumour of a blazing row in Brisbane the other day resulting in a senior manager being shown the door?

May not be the "Night of the long Knives", but starting to sound a bit like "American Sniper"

[Gobbledock]

Upcoming Ausfly in August;

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/...-at-ausfly

Ausfly will also host a full program of seminars including CASA, Airservices Australia, Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, product seminars and maintenance workshops.

Well that bit sort of spoils the whole event then doesn't it? I wonder if Herr Skull and his Yak will be performing as well?

[Peetwo]

From off the Yaffa??

Well Dougy is back from hols and is quick to show his one-eyed favouritism for the current crop of ASA trough dwellers & parasites, summed up here by Gobbles & the Ferryman:

Oh, happy daze..


It’s remarkable that they can get all that done by morning tea, when you consider it’s taken a quarter century to collectively chew through better than a hundred million a year, for 25 years and achieved sod all. But, it’s nice to know we are in good hands and old mate Dougy will keep us all abreast of the latest developments in his insightful, unbiased, clear cut editorials.

Now Sir, will ye have a pessary to heal the troubled area; or, a tompion, lest the ants creep in while you hibernate?

Gobbles; I’ll have that bucket when you’re done with it.  Cheers.

  
Well at least the other side of the Yaffa is a little bit more circumspect in summarising and giving opinion on recent industry/regulator/ASA developments :

The Last Minute Hitch: 7 August 2015

07 Aug 2015

Way back in 2007, Australia looked set to get the US National Airspace System (NAS). Politics and back-room bargaining pretty much consigned the idea to the grave, even though it was government policy. Dick Smith has been the most vocal proponent of the NAS, and now he's back on topic after the new Airspace Policy Statement didn't mention NAS by name. However, the door is not shut for Dick; the new policy states the government expects CASA to implement "world's best practise", and if he's right, then that must mean NAS. But, getting US-style airspace over here has proven nearly impossible, even when it is policy; think of the E-over-D trials and the FAA Class D towers we were supposed to be getting. Yes, the politicians and back-room bargainers are still at work, and the term "world's best practise" is so broad you could land on it sideways, meaning it is open to re-definition by convenience.

This week I have for CASA a bouquet with a brick in it. Firstly, good on them for recognising the need to exempt flying schools from getting approval for adding non-complex aircraft to their training fleets. Does our regulator really need to scrutinise a school that has added a C172 to their Warrior collection? No, and this CASA exemption recognises that. Now for the brick: this exemption came about because of the unintended consequences of definitions used in Parts 141 and 142, which highlights again how badly thought-out some of the regulatory reform has been. We'd much rather CASA get it right first time than issue exemptions. Was it the last Director of Aviation Safety who said the idea of the regulatory reform was to remove the need for exemptions?

Staying on this topic, it is now time for CASA to start looking at the onerous, needlessly complex trial of getting a new aircraft that does need approval added to an Air Operator Certificate. At the recent CASA forum at Mildura, one operator pointed out how much they had to jump through hoops to get a PC-12 added, and pointed out the incongruity of their cargo going in the relative luxury and safety of the PC-12, whilst charter pax were relegated to the old Navajo, a type which CASA has targeted as being an ageing aircraft. The imperative should be to get new types onto charter AOCs as soon as possible to fulfill the aim of retiring the old twins. Clearly, there is a direct nexus between streamlining the process and increased safety, so let's get it done.

Aircraft deliveries released this week from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) can be interpreted in a number of ways. Firstly, you could say the industry is in decline again because the shipments were down on 2014, or you could say it's improving because they are up on the first quarter of 2015. With Q1 being a bit of a disaster for the industry, we really have to take the longer-term view and say that shipments are down. That's reflected in Piper's decision to start laying-off workers, which we believe is not as drastic as was first predicted ... unless you're one of the workers laid off! The biggest surprise is the drop-off in demand for the Diamond DA40, down 63% from last year. With demand for the DA20 also soft, this aircraft had become their bread-and-butter. Fortunately for them, the DA42 is leading the twin-engine stakes easily.

Ausfly is less than a month away now! After a sabattical last year due to the overworked Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) volunteers needing to concentrate on regulation changes, Ausfly looks like coming back with a bang! The air show program is gaining strength and having the Roulettes front up certainly adds some spice. Australian Flying will be there in the expo hall, so come over and say hello when you have a quiet moment. I'm keen to hear your opinions on just about everything from the magazine to regulation reform, new aeroplanes, new products and airports. I look forward to having a chat already!

The Australian Women Pilots’ Association is celebrating the 100th birthday of pioneer aviatrix Nancy-Bird Walton on Friday 26 October at Pyrmont in Sydney.

Tickets are $150 a head and you can book at nancy.bird.dinner@gmail.com. This is a great intiative, and one worthy of becoming an annual event.

Andrew Andersen attended Oshkosh this year and sent back a great set of photos. You can see his work in our Oshkosh 2015 photo gallery on the Australian Flying website.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch

  MTF..P2

[Kharon]

Bugger it: Steam On.

I reckon it’s time to re-badge the not so new DAS – Slydemore – I am slowly, but surely moving away from the notion of NFI toward willing accomplice.  At least Oliver Twist was an innocent, who, as soon as he could, he left his dodgy mates behind and tried to live a honest life.  But, to mix the metaphors, the scoreboard is starting to reflect the innings.

Apart from a few gab-fests and some fairly ordinary window dressing, what has been achieved thus far: to really address the problems industry faces? The short answer is sweet Fanny Adams.  
Reading through the AOPA president’s report there is a common thread.  De Stoop is no ones fool, a first class business man, nice fellah; and, shaping up to be a good voice in the aviation choir.  Whilst his ‘report’ is balanced, it reflects much of what industry is saying.   I can’t lift the quotes from the published page but I will paraphrase some of the important elements.

‘[industry] sees no visible progress in clearing the road blocks’ etc.   A little underdone there Marc; in fact more than one small fiefdom is entirely out of all control.  Road block and barricade central.  Where the rules are being ruthlessly used and manipulated to enforce highly subjective interpretation of policy as law; or, law is bent to suit the edicts of predetermined outcome; unchecked, unchallenged, in the certain knowledge that there is no chance of fair redress.   These actions are fully supported by the certain knowledge that threat of ‘special’ audit can and will be used as a weapon.  The victims terrified to speak or argue, living in dread of the axe falling, at a whim and evidence made to order.  One office is still managed by a person who was actively engaged in the shameful Pel-Air debacle.  Yet this person remains not only untouched by anything vaguely resembling inquiry, let alone discipline.  We can only assume that this type of behaviour is fully supported by the DAS, for it is certain sure that the outlandish behaviour continues, unabated.  

[The] members of the panel responsible for the ASRR are disappointed’ etc..  Understatement of the year; they are duckling furious.  The industry demanded those changes and had every right to expect them.  Not only did industry fund Forsyth, but the Senate inquiry which also had some words to say about the dreadful performance and behaviour of CASA, yet nothing from the DAS, except “Forsyth was a view”.  Truss was acknowledged in 2008 as being less than useful; reconfirmed in 2015 as bloody hopeless.  So long as Truss avoids the issues, the department and the DAS will be free to acts as they see fit; sliding back into the same morass which gave us Pel-Air and several other as yet unpublished abominations.  

[The] perception is that the entrenched CASA bureaucracy etc.  Now we arrive at the gamekeepers of Sleepy Hollow forest.  These people simply ignore the Minister, thumb their noses at the Senate and simply do what ever pleases them best, totally unaccountable, completely untouchable and determinedly capable of destroying any hope of reform which displeases them.  This is the crew that provides the unlimited power and total immunity which protects those a little lower down the pole from retribution for acts of sheer bastardry, malicious embuggerance and repugnant edicts.  Some of the most vicious, deceitful, ridiculous acts emanating from a totally power drunk organisation have been supported by the ‘entrenched’.

‘[the] infantile implementation of Part 61’, etc.  I would not have phrased it so benignly. It is a total, complete and utter Duck up.  Bad law, bad operational practice, dredged up by incompetent, half assed, junior flight instructors, made into experts.  Someone’s wet dream version of how ‘they’ see it.  I’ve seen better written by first year junior pilots trying to make some sense of the ridiculous laws that govern their lives.  Criminal code, strict liability based rules which cannot be safely translated into operational compliance.  It’s bollocks.

And who is selling this crap to vast audiences of 35 people in some distant bush town and claiming it as success and a measure of progress?  The great back slider, master of smoke, commander of mirrors, doyen of the ‘entrenched’.  Yup, you guessed it.

Nah, leave it on Gobbles; I’m going to need it again; real soon. .. .... 

[Peetwo]

Bugger it: Steam On.

I reckon it’s time to re-badge the not so new DAS – Slydemore – I am slowly, but surely moving away from the notion of NFI toward willing accomplice.  At least Oliver Twist was an innocent, who, as soon as he could, he left his dodgy mates behind and tried to live a honest life.  But, to mix the metaphors, the scoreboard is starting to reflect the innings.

Apart from a few gab-fests and some fairly ordinary window dressing, what has been achieved thus far: to really address the problems industry faces? The short answer is sweet Fanny Adams.  
Reading through the AOPA president’s report there is a common thread.  De Stoop is no ones fool, a first class business man, nice fellah; and, shaping up to be a good voice in the aviation choir.  Whilst his ‘report’ is balanced, it reflects much of what industry is saying.   I can’t lift the quotes from the published page but I will paraphrase some of the important elements.

‘[industry] sees no visible progress in clearing the road blocks’ etc.   A little underdone there Marc; in fact more than one small fiefdom is entirely out of all control.  Road block and barricade central.  Where the rules are being ruthlessly used and manipulated to enforce highly subjective interpretation of policy as law; or, law is bent to suit the edicts of predetermined outcome; unchecked, unchallenged, in the certain knowledge that there is no chance of fair redress.   These actions are fully supported by the certain knowledge that threat of ‘special’ audit can and will be used as a weapon.  The victims terrified to speak or argue, living in dread of the axe falling, at a whim and evidence made to order.  One office is still managed by a person who was actively engaged in the shameful Pel-Air debacle.  Yet this person remains not only untouched by anything vaguely resembling inquiry, let alone discipline.  We can only assume that this type of behaviour is fully supported by the DAS, for it is certain sure that the outlandish behaviour continues, unabated.  

[The] members of the panel responsible for the ASRR are disappointed’ etc..  Understatement of the year; they are duckling furious.  The industry demanded those changes and had every right to expect them.  Not only did industry fund Forsyth, but the Senate inquiry which also had some words to say about the dreadful performance and behaviour of CASA, yet nothing from the DAS, except “Forsyth was a view”.  Truss was acknowledged in 2008 as being less than useful; reconfirmed in 2015 as bloody hopeless.  So long as Truss avoids the issues, the department and the DAS will be free to acts as they see fit; sliding back into the same morass which gave us Pel-Air and several other as yet unpublished abominations.  

[The] perception is that the entrenched CASA bureaucracy etc.  Now we arrive at the gamekeepers of Sleepy Hollow forest.  These people simply ignore the Minister, thumb their noses at the Senate and simply do what ever pleases them best, totally unaccountable, completely untouchable and determinedly capable of destroying any hope of reform which displeases them.  This is the crew that provides the unlimited power and total immunity which protects those a little lower down the pole from retribution for acts of sheer bastardry, malicious embuggerance and repugnant edicts.  Some of the most vicious, deceitful, ridiculous acts emanating from a totally power drunk organisation have been supported by the ‘entrenched’.

‘[the] infantile implementation of Part 61’, etc.  I would not have phrased it so benignly. It is a total, complete and utter Duck up.  Bad law, bad operational practice, dredged up by incompetent, half assed, junior flight instructors, made into experts.  Someone’s wet dream version of how ‘they’ see it.  I’ve seen better written by first year junior pilots trying to make some sense of the ridiculous laws that govern their lives.  Criminal code, strict liability based rules which cannot be safely translated into operational compliance.  It’s bollocks.

And who is selling this crap to vast audiences of 35 people in some distant bush town and claiming it as success and a measure of progress?  The great back slider, master of smoke, commander of mirrors, doyen of the ‘entrenched’.  Yup, you guessed it.

Nah, leave it on Gobbles; I’m going to need it again; real soon. .. .... 

There you go...P2

[Gobbledock]

'K';

‘[industry] sees no visible progress in clearing the road blocks’ etc.   A little underdone there Marc; in fact more than one small fiefdom is entirely out of all control.  Road block and barricade central.  Where the rules are being ruthlessly used and manipulated to enforce highly subjective interpretation of policy as law; or, law is bent to suit the edicts of predetermined outcome; unchecked, unchallenged, in the certain knowledge that there is no chance of fair redress.   These actions are fully supported by the certain knowledge that threat of ‘special’ audit can and will be used as a weapon.  The victims terrified to speak or argue, living in dread of the axe falling, at a whim and evidence made to order.  One office is still managed by a person who was actively engaged in the shameful Pel-Air debacle.  Yet this person remains not only untouched by anything vaguely resembling inquiry, let alone discipline.  We can only assume that this type of behaviour is fully supported by the DAS, for it is certain sure that the outlandish behaviour continues, unabated.  

This succinct and truthful comment by the Ferryman lays at the heart of CAsA's reform. Any reform of CAsA practises including better fiscal management, developing a closer working relationship with industry, building trust, cutting red tape and general reform of people and processes will only occur when, and I say not if but when the DAS completes a tidy up of his management and inspectorate. The wascally Wabbit is a prime example of an unsurpassable roadblock, of how no trust can ever be formed as long as there is somebody hellbent on harassing, persecuting, bullying and damaging operators out of spite and vindictiveness. Now to be fair, Herr Skates has started gently chipping around the edges and the departure of Ferret-a-day and the A380 deputy DAS is a good start, but it is not enough. People like the Wabbit are a risk to CAsA, they are at risk of tarnishing CAsA's name (albeit that isn't too hard to do), they stymy business, they are a risk of litigation, they are a risk because they simply make the wrong decisions which could have an impact on safety in a number of areas, they are a risk to the Minister because of the bad publicity they bring to CAsA. So I personally think that if Skid-Mark truly wanted to extend an olive branch he needs to get rid of those pesky 'road blocks', and that means most of his executive level people, or at least the really really bad ones to start with. 

C'mon Skates, you have only one golden opportunity to get rid of the dross, yes the same dross that not only bullies industry but also jams the sharpened knives in between your shoulder blades old mate. Yes the opportunity by way of the upcoming organisational restructure. You've started at the bottom now escalate it through the top tier - change their effing job PD's, force them to reapply or give them redundancy. It's your one chance and only legal excuse to get rid of the vermin. Go forth and exterminate them oh mighty RAAF leader. If not it will only be a matter of time until they take you out mate. Tick tock Skates tick tock.

Tick tock in a soon to be election phase Miniscule, tick tock.

[crankybastards]

I quote perhaps is in order if it mirrors what seems to be happening to the aviation sector. (From Andrew Bolt/ Daily Telegraph today on ALP emissions cut policy); Amend political party to your choice in our predicament.

"If Labor wants to create a welfare-dependent underclass of Australians whose former industries have been rendered non-viable by government legislation, this is exactly the right way to go about it".

Have the public servants got together?

[Peetwo]

The Yaffa on Part 91...

Courtesy Oz Flying...

Civil Aviation Safety Authority inspector overseeing aircraft operations. (CASA)


CASA publishes Part 91 "Road Rules" Package
13 Aug 2015

CASA today published CASR Part 91 general operating rules for public review before they become law.

Part 91 is package of regulations that consolidated both new and current rules from the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders, creating what CASA describes as the "rules of the road."

"Once in place, they will form the foundation for all civil aviation flight operations," CASA's Summary of Proposed Regulation (SPR) states, "much like the 'rules of the road', and will apply to all pilots, aircraft owners and operators, people who fuel and handle aircraft, loading personnel, air display organisers and air traffic services."

Part 91 covers rules such as responsibilities of the pilot in command, right-of-way rules, collision avoidance, minimum heights, VFR and IFR rules, flight instruments, emergency equipment, airspace classification and navigation regulations.

Most significantly, CASA has created a Part 91 Manual of Standards (MOS), which transfers most of the technical detail out of the CASR and into the MOS. According to the SPR, this was done to "allow CASA to more effectively respond to the need for changed requirements, as the MOS is more easily amended than the CASR."

Part 91 will not apply to UAVs and rockets (Part 101), aircraft covered by Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations such as RA-Aus (future Part 103) and free piloted balloons (future Part 131).

Part 91 will be open for public review until 6 October. The proposed legislation, list of amendments and the SPR are all on the CASA website.

In other words we'll let you have a look at it and try to come to terms with it, between now & Oct 06, then we'll bring out the couple of thousand page MOS and expect you to comply the very next time you dare to commit aviation - FFS

While on Part 91 Stan the Man has stumbled across a strange dichotomy, especially when you consider the re-opening of the ATSB PelAir cover-up investigation...

Hi All,

 
All of a sudden there is a pressing need for the preservation of “recordings”, in fact so important that it involves 50 penalty units.
 
I haven’t compared with the existing regs, (yes we should all know these off by heart!) In light of the apparent total disregard of same in the case of the PelAir floatation study, who was /now is responsible and how many Penalty Units apply or applied?
 
Wonder why all of a sudden this is such an important “safety” matter?  CAsA certainly would not use it against anyone in Court, would they? But then again few get their day in court and 'BLANK' (name withheld but guesses welcome - Hint starts with "A" & ends in "I" ) would hold any non-incriminating evidence back as not relevant in [this] action. So in the PelAir case money saved for the taxpayer. Another win for “safety”
 
Remember “Empty skies are safe skies”, here’s another thought along the lines of our “carbon” output reduction, we could/are leading the world in the reduction of G.A. flying – worth a mention at the Paris talks!
 
Regards

  
Here is the Part 91 reference to which STM refers:

91.865 Flight recorders—preserving recordings of immediately reportable matters

EXPOSURE DRAFT

(1) The operator of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this sub regulation if:
(a) the aircraft is fitted with an operative flight data recorder, operative cockpit voice recorder or operative combination recorder; and
(b) an immediately reportable matter occurs in relation to the aircraft; and
© the requirement mentioned in sub regulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirement is that the flight data recording, cockpit voice recording or combination recorder recording of the period of the occurrence of the matter is preserved:
(a) if the Australian Transport Safety Bureau notifies the operator, within 30 days of the matter occurring, that the operator is not required to preserve the recordings—until the date of that notification; or
(b) if the Australian Transport Safety Bureau notifies the operator, within 30 days of the matter occurring, that the Schedule 1 Amendments Part 1 Main amendments 118 Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 91) Regulation 2015 No. , 2015 operator is required to preserve the recordings for a certain period—until the end of that period; or
© in any other case—for 30 days after the day the immediately reportable matter occurred.
(3) Sub regulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) the recordings are not preserved; and
(b) the operator took reasonable steps in the circumstances to preserve the recordings.
(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes sub regulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in sub regulation (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

Hmm...wonder if that could be back dated, remembering that CASA was initially asked by the ATSB if they would contribute to funding the recovery of VH-NGA's CVR/FDR.
The ATSB? - Well the Chief Commissioner would probably argue that the CVR/FDR was perfectly preserved in 40+ metres of sea water offshore from Norfolk Island (that is provided, of course, it is still there.. )
MTF...P2   

[Peetwo]

The Yaffa on Part 91...

Courtesy Oz Flying...

Civil Aviation Safety Authority inspector overseeing aircraft operations. (CASA)


CASA publishes Part 91 "Road Rules" Package
13 Aug 2015

CASA today published CASR Part 91 general operating rules for public review before they become law.

Part 91 is package of regulations that consolidated both new and current rules from the Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Orders, creating what CASA describes as the "rules of the road."

"Once in place, they will form the foundation for all civil aviation flight operations," CASA's Summary of Proposed Regulation (SPR) states, "much like the 'rules of the road', and will apply to all pilots, aircraft owners and operators, people who fuel and handle aircraft, loading personnel, air display organisers and air traffic services."

Part 91 covers rules such as responsibilities of the pilot in command, right-of-way rules, collision avoidance, minimum heights, VFR and IFR rules, flight instruments, emergency equipment, airspace classification and navigation regulations.

Most significantly, CASA has created a Part 91 Manual of Standards (MOS), which transfers most of the technical detail out of the CASR and into the MOS. According to the SPR, this was done to "allow CASA to more effectively respond to the need for changed requirements, as the MOS is more easily amended than the CASR."

Part 91 will not apply to UAVs and rockets (Part 101), aircraft covered by Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations such as RA-Aus (future Part 103) and free piloted balloons (future Part 131).

Part 91 will be open for public review until 6 October. The proposed legislation, list of amendments and the SPR are all on the CASA website.

In other words we'll let you have a look at it and try to come to terms with it, between now & Oct 06, then we'll bring out the couple of thousand page MOS and expect you to comply the very next time you dare to commit aviation - FFS

While on Part 91 Stan the Man has stumbled across a strange dichotomy, especially when you consider the re-opening of the ATSB PelAir cover-up investigation...

Hi All,

 
All of a sudden there is a pressing need for the preservation of “recordings”, in fact so important that it involves 50 penalty units.
 
I haven’t compared with the existing regs, (yes we should all know these off by heart!) In light of the apparent total disregard of same in the case of the PelAir floatation study, who was /now is responsible and how many Penalty Units apply or applied?
 
Wonder why all of a sudden this is such an important “safety” matter?  CAsA certainly would not use it against anyone in Court, would they? But then again few get their day in court and 'BLANK' (name withheld but guesses welcome - Hint starts with "A" & ends in "I" ) would hold any non-incriminating evidence back as not relevant in [this] action. So in the PelAir case money saved for the taxpayer. Another win for “safety”
 
Remember “Empty skies are safe skies”, here’s another thought along the lines of our “carbon” output reduction, we could/are leading the world in the reduction of G.A. flying – worth a mention at the Paris talks!
 
Regards

  
Here is the Part 91 reference to which STM refers:

91.865 Flight recorders—preserving recordings of immediately reportable matters

EXPOSURE DRAFT

(1) The operator of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this sub regulation if:
(a) the aircraft is fitted with an operative flight data recorder, operative cockpit voice recorder or operative combination recorder; and
(b) an immediately reportable matter occurs in relation to the aircraft; and
© the requirement mentioned in sub regulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirement is that the flight data recording, cockpit voice recording or combination recorder recording of the period of the occurrence of the matter is preserved:
(a) if the Australian Transport Safety Bureau notifies the operator, within 30 days of the matter occurring, that the operator is not required to preserve the recordings—until the date of that notification; or
(b) if the Australian Transport Safety Bureau notifies the operator, within 30 days of the matter occurring, that the Schedule 1 Amendments Part 1 Main amendments 118 Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 91) Regulation 2015 No. , 2015 operator is required to preserve the recordings for a certain period—until the end of that period; or
© in any other case—for 30 days after the day the immediately reportable matter occurred.
(3) Sub regulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) the recordings are not preserved; and
(b) the operator took reasonable steps in the circumstances to preserve the recordings.
(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes sub regulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in sub regulation (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

Hmm...wonder if that could be back dated, remembering that CASA was initially asked by the ATSB if they would contribute to funding the recovery of VH-NGA's CVR/FDR.
The ATSB? - Well the Chief Commissioner would probably argue that the CVR/FDR was perfectly preserved in 40+ metres of sea water offshore from Norfolk Island (that is provided, of course, it is still there.. )

Follow up to the above post, Hitch's weekly wrap is IMO worth regurgitating in full (you'll see why.. ):

The Last Minute Hitch: 14 August 2015
14 Aug 2015

General aviation may soon be subjected to a classic piece of bureaucratic bastardry: the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) could become mandatory. So far, pilots who haven't needed to go into security-controlled airports didn't need an ASIC, but they did have to have an Aviation ID (AVID) issued by CASA. In a discussion paper released last December, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) asked for feedback on a number of options about what to do with the ASIC. One of the options tabled was to remove or integrate the AVID into the ASIC, given that only 300 AVIDs have been issued. We've known for some time that the Australian Transport Security Act has demanded pilots undergo security checking, so if the AVID is removed the only way a pilot can comply with the Act is to get an ASIC ... whether they need it or not. It seems that's what DIRD wants, betrayed in the discussion paper with this line:

"If airside ASIC display requirements were to reduce, a corresponding increased reliance on AVIDs may in effect draw away from some of the benefits delivered by the ASIC scheme, such as the background checking standard delivered under the AusCheck framework."

What is not mentioned in the DP anywhere is the option for the AVID to stand in for a red ASIC, which is the most logical, economic and fair option. There is, however, some consideration being given to reducing the physical areas on the ground in which ASICs are needed. There's more to come on this, probably before the end of the year.

And by the end of the year we should just about have finished going through the new CASR Part 91 draft released this week. Part 91 is all the general rules we need to abide by when operating aircraft, so you can imagine this is a big document. So, genuine thanks to CASA for publishing a list of amendments, which will make it easier for us to see what is changing, and for including a Manual of Standards. One of the most interesting changes slotted in comes under section 91.120 (3), which is a list of all documents to be carried on an aircraft in domestic flight: aeronautical information, weather forecast and the flight technical log for the aircraft. It seems we don't have to carry our licence and medical cert anymore.

On the downside, Part 91 still includes the hideous statement about strict liability, despite assurances that steps were being taken to relieve us of this prejudice. According to CASA, they are "reassessing the penalties in the Civil Aviation legislation, in the course of which the categorisation of certain offences as strict liability offences will be considered." So what happens to the shiny, new Part 91 if some of these offences are reclassified? Do we burn the new legislation and start again?

Part 66 has come under fire from the maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) people for causing one of the industries great unintended consequences: it has lowered the standard of maintenance training. According to their association, AMROBA, apprentices coming out of CASA Part 66 schools don't have the spanner skills of those coming from the TAFE system, but the TAFEs are shutting down because they can't get funding. Consequently, Part 66 has put the industry in a more precarious position than it did before. Operators aren't happy, and some are even saying that work done by Part 66-trained engineers often has to be redone.

On the plus side, Matt Hall is on track this weekend with another real chance to score his first race win in the Red Bull Air Race series. He was looking for all money like a winner in Budapest, but the knock-out format worked against him, and even though he was third fastest in the Round of 8, didn't qualify for the final. In typical Matt fashion, he's taking his performance as an indicator that he's doing a lot right, and it's full steam ahead for Matt Hall Racing at Ascot on Sunday. Sooner or later he's going to crack one, and although the British pilots will be fired-up to win on home soil, our man cannot be written off.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

"...Do we burn the new legislation and start again?.."

Hmm..anyone would think Hitch had been reading Aunty Pru -"We won't sleep until the regs are burning" ...



IMO however that's the best idea Hitch has ever written...

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Hot off the press??

1st from Oz Aviation some more weasel words from the bench warmer Oliver Skidmore-Twist:

CASA boss announces significant change program

August 25, 2015 by
Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) director of aviation safety (DAS) Mark Skidmore is embarking on a “significant change program” as part of improving the regulator’s efforts to improve service delivery.

The nation’s aviation safety regulator needed to “do better at delivering regulatory services to the aviation community”, Skidmore said in the August CASA Briefing.
“As part of our efforts to strengthen the contribution CASA makes to the Australian aviation safety system I have embarked on an internal change program,” Skidmore said.

“It is clear to me from both internal and external feedback, as well as my evaluation of the Federal Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, that a range of changes are required. From talking with many people I understand our service delivery can be inconsistent and applications can sometimes get passed unnecessarily between different areas of CASA, slowing down our response times.”

Skidmore said he was committed to the significant change program, adding reforms to the organisation would be undertaken progressively to minimise disruption to CASA’s operations.

All CASA’s processes would be under review in efforts to determine where and how the most effective improvements could be made to “deliver consistent, effective, efficient and timely regulatory services to the aviation community”.

“The plan is to have key changes in place by the middle of 2016, with a number of steps being taken between now and then,” Skidmore said.

“This approach allows us to build on the positive things CASA does and to ensure important safety outcomes continue to be delivered. The overarching aim of the change program will be to develop a more constructive engagement between CASA and all sectors of the aviation community.”

Skidmore said CASA would soon set out its regulatory philosophy, outlining how the organisation would be a “strong, fair and responsive safety regulator that works with the aviation community to achieve optimal safety results”.

CASA announced a new directive in June, which said, among other things, that aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary and developed with a view to addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be addressed effectively by non-regulatory means alone.

Further, the directive said: “If a regulation can be justified on safety-risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources. Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.”

Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) chairman Jim Davis described the directive as a “landmark document”, adding that the RAAA stood “ready to assist” in meeting its stated objectives.

Hmm..timing is interesting?? However words are still cheap and while you've got numb-nuts like PB strolling around the halls of Fort Fumble and putting out garbage correspondence like this here addressed to Dick Smith well??- need I say more??!! FFS  
Next there was this from Hitch off the Yaffa:

CASA has had a presence at Ausfly since the event was first staged in 2012. (Steve Hitchen)

CASA coy about Ramp Checks at Ausfly
25 Aug 2015

CASA has neither confirmed or denied that it plans to ramp-check general aviation pilots arriving at Narromine for Ausfly.

In a statement released to Australian Flying today, a CASA spokesperson hinted that ramp checks could be part of their involvement with the event.

"A number of CASA people will be attending Ausfly 2015," the statement says. "We will be assisting the event organisers, conducting safety education forums, oversighting the air-display and may conduct ramp checks.

"The main focus of CASA’s activities, including any ramp checks, will be educational. Ramp checks give CASA personnel an opportunity to talk with pilots while reviewing documentation, asking about preparation for flight and looking at aircraft. CASA personnel can and do provide advice where appropriate.

"It is also a chance for pilots to ask questions of CASA and discuss any current issues. Ramp checks are a great opportunity for CASA personnel to meet private and recreational pilots who otherwise have little interaction with CASA."

Pilots planning to fly into Ausfly from 4-6 September might do well to prepare for possible ramp checks. Details of what needs to be checked are available on the CASA website.

Which is also interesting given the following concern from a certain vocal PAIN associate:

...Many of you will be aware of the trouble several operators are having getting “CASA Approved Check Systems” approved by CASA micro-management.
 

By and large, what CASA micro-management will accept is a threat to air safety, the “approved systems” are so complex and extensive, and generally so contrary to manufacturer’s Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) recommended procedures, that they seriously impinge on the safe operation of the aircraft.
 
Note that what is in the AFM, despite CAR 138, is not acceptable to at least two CASA regional offices.
 
Well, some bright spark in CASA has decided that, in the new Skidmore spirit of cooperation with industry, that CAR 232 should be rigorously enforced, after all it is “the law”, every aircraft has a “registered operator”, and CAR 232 rates a stand-alone mention in the CASA Ramp Check checklist, so it must be really, really important.
 
It applies to all “Australian aircraft”.
 
As you all understand, it is just a simple matter of air safety, not just another opportunity to make life a very expensive misery for anybody who “commits aviation”.
 
This is going to be a “nice little earner” as the total penalty points in CAR 232 is 85, and it you fail one section you will almost certainly fail them all, because virtually zero % of privately operated or only a small % of flying school operated aircraft would have a check system approved by CASA and complying with CAR 232.
 
85 penalty points at AUD$180 per point, so the maximum penalty is $15,300, making the administrative penalty $3060. That should pay for a few ramp checks.
 
I wonder will the Airstapo be out in force at Ausfly to unveil their “new” gotcha.
 
For your edification, the CASA Ramp Check checklist is at: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100209/ramp-checks-ga.pdf
 
CAR 232 rates a mention as a stand-alone “checklist” item under “Aircraft”.
 
This is the sort of stuff that has contributed to the steady deterioration in our air safety outcomes, compared to the USA...

Again..need I say more??

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

AFAP - Strange dichotomy on CAO48.1??  

The theme for today IMO has to be 'division in the ranks', the following example of this is quite bizarre but (also IMO) extremely amusing..

From Steve Creedy, courtesy the Oz:

CASA ‘caved in’ on new pilot flight rules  

• by: Steve Creedy
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 28, 2015 12:00AM
  

Aviation Editor
Sydney

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been accused of caving in to industry pressure by delaying changes to pilot flight and duty time limits.  

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots and the Australian and International Pilots Association have been working with the authority for almost five years to bring about the changes prompted by International Civil Aviation Organisation recommendations.

ICAO recommended the new rules reflected in Civil Aviation Order 48.1 after a series of accidents in which fatigue was deemed a significant factor and legislation introduced in 2013 gave operators until April next year to comply.

But the authority recently announced it was extending deadline to May 2017 after making a series of changes and to “ease the regulatory burden of the new fatigue rules and potentially reduce costs for air operators and flying training organisations’’.

Under the new deadline, which the authority said was the result of feedback from the aviation community, operators now have until October next year to tell CASA when they will make the transition and supply it with proposed operations manual amendments.

However, the pilot organisations were not consulted about the changes and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots has questioned the need for the delay.

AFAP technical director Peter Gardiner said the new limitation were generally more restrictive than the previous regime but gave operators the option of setting up a fatigue risk management scheme (FRMS).

Captain Gardiner said the pilot groups were not completely happy with the new limits but were willing to work with companies to set up an FRMS if they chose that path.

Under the original plan, companies who opted from an FRMS were required to have a trial in place by April this year with implementation due next April.

“We have recently been advised that CASA, for reasons unexplained, has now delayed the implementation for a further 12 months, ’’ Captain Gardiner said.

“This was done without any consultation with either of the pilots groups, who are the individuals who are required to work with the new rules and it raises questions about how serious they are about the whole issue of fatigue generally.

“Industry had three years to comply with these new requirements and it is the job of CASA as the regulator to ensure they do and not be complicit in bending the rules to suit.’’

Captain Gardiner said there were seven appendices available which covered areas such as flying training, airwork and multi-crew operations as well as an FRMS.

He said changes included re-categorising a minimum rest period of eight hours to an eight-hour “sleep opportunity’’, suggesting the minimum rest period could be as much as 12 hours.

The amount of flight time could also be reduced from 12 to 10 hours, depending on a pilots’ start time.

He believed there was an element of CASA not being ready for the changes and not having the people in the field capable of assessing them.

The companies, because they had three years’ leeway, had also not moved on the issue.

“And then obviously there’s been a bit of lobbying from industry again and they now said they’re going to delay it by 12 months,’’ he said.

“So they’ve just really dragged the chain on it.’’

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the authority had listened to feedback from the aviation community and provided extra time for the transition to the new fatigue rules and made changes to the requirements.

“In making these adjustments CASA has taken into account the need to give CASA and the aviation community adequate time to transition to the new rules, while ensuring appropriate safety standards are maintained,’’ he said.

Mr Gibson pointed to operations manual supplement templates published on the CASA website to assist operators in the transition process.

The website says the proposed fatigue rule changes adjust some of the prescriptive flight and duty time limitations “while remaining in line with scientific principles’’ so as not to unduly disadvantage operators.

“The proposed changes will allow many operators to comply with the prescriptive limitations in the new fatigue rules rather than having to develop and seek approval for a fatigue risk management system,’’ it says.

  
OK all good but this bit from Capt Gardiner perked my interest...

“We have recently been advised that CASA, for reasons unexplained, has now delayed the implementation for a further 12 months, ’’ Captain Gardiner said.


“This was done without any consultation with either of the pilots groups, who are the individuals who are required to work with the new rules and it raises questions about how serious they are about the whole issue of fatigue generally.

“Industry had three years to comply with these new requirements and it is the job of CASA as the regulator to ensure they do and not be complicit in bending the rules to suit.’’

...Why?- Well recently a long time AFAP member sent me some interesting links that suggested the previously CA(s)A-ffienated Feds maybe becoming more professional, industry pilot orientated. 

Ok from those links there was two that the subject matter was CAO48.1. The 1st was correspondence from Captain Gardiner (above) to CASA (SMS & HF, standards division) and was addressing perceived issues that the EMS/MT sector saw with appendix 3 & 4 (in particular 4B) - Submission on CAO 48.1 Appendix 4B.

...Our submission is based on feedback from members working in the emergency medical services field and the views of the Federation’s Technical Committee, made up of working airline and commercial pilots under the direction of the AFAP’s Technical Director.

As a professional association, the members and staff of the Federation are active in promoting flight safety and improving Australian and global aviation standards. The Federation’s diverse pilot membership base places it in a strong position to comment on the proposed changes to Flight Time Limitations.

Owing to the short timeline, our submission should not be regarded as comprehensive. We would welcome the opportunity to further explain and supplement our submission via discussion with all interested parties...

Hmm (tin foil hat donned ) ..okay so maybe (AFAP) Peter G, just maybe CASA SMS & HF, standards division have taken your advice/suggestion (the part in bold) - along with other industry submissions - on-board and have simply decided to delay the rollout of CAO48.1...   

The other (CAsA) PG: ...“In making these adjustments CASA has taken into account the need to give CASA and the aviation community adequate time to transition to the new rules, while ensuring appropriate safety standards are maintained,’’..

I can thoroughly understand (AFAP) PG's cynicism, because quite frankly we've all seen similar delaying/obfuscation tactics before. However it is perhaps a bit rich (in this case) to expect CAsA to react quite so quickly, when less than a week ago DAS Skidmore would have received this correspondence from the AFAP Prez, Capt Booth:

..I am writing to express our concern about the proposed Medical Transport & Emergency
Service Operations Appendix to CAO 48.1, 2013.

The Federation was not involved in the original working group to develop the proposal & it was only through our members that we were made aware of the draft. Following representation to CASA we were invited to attend the most recent working group. As we made clear at the meeting, we have no concern about operators conducting emergency retrieval services, search & rescue, rig & range safety or the myriad other low rate operations, where Crew Members are on standby for extended periods, under the proposed Appendix 4b. These crew members would be rarely if ever subject to cumulative fatigue however, we are very concerned about the crew members who are involved primarily in patient transfer services.

The majority of these patients are not in need of urgent medical attention, they are being transported because the services they require are not available at their local hospital.

These patients are frequently accompanied by family members & it is not appropriate to be unnecessarily exposing these passengers to the elevated fatigue risk associated with Appendix 4b.

The crew members with these operators are averaging 500 to 700 flight hours a year & would typically be rostered between 35 to 45 duty hours a week (5 x 8 hour duty periods). This is on a par with any regional airline operating under Appendix 3 or 4. They are doing this generally single pilot, in complex aircraft, flying multiple sectors in all weather conditions. The majority of these flights are into regional airports with limited facilities primarily outside the protection of controlled airspace.

The proposed Appendix is not suitable for this type of operation; it allows a crew member to be rostered for up to 12 days duty with the only restriction being a maximum of 40 hours flight time or 60 hours duty in 7 days. The standby provisions allow an aeromedical pilot who may have already done 4 or 5 days duty to spend up to 24hours on standby then be called in for an 11 hour duty. Repetitive, long days like these without adequate rest can lead to high cumulative fatigue levels.

In accordance with our original submission we propose that medical transport services(MTS) be conducted under Appendix 3 or 4 , If these crewmembers are then tasked with an Aeromedical evacuation this can be conducted under Appendix 4b if required.

The definitions of these terms are included in our original submission. “Submission on Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Appendix 4b”, dated 9th June 2015. A copy of which is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Captain David Booth

President

  
Just saying..


MTF soon on what it might mean if the FEDS become de-CA(s)Affeinated...P2

[Peetwo]

Weekly wrap from off the Yaffa

Hitch's weekly wrap is worthy of regurgitating in full because it is quite topical to the real Oz aviation weekly goings on...

The Last Minute Hitch: 28 August 2015
28 Aug 2015

I had the pleasure of taking the new Aeroprakt A32 Vixxen for a squirt around Westernport Bay during he week. I won't pre-empt the flight test coming up in our Nov-Dec print issue except to say that the Vixxen is a brilliant little aeroplane and I had great fun flying it ... even if my landing was, shall we say, sub-optimal. I think both GA and RA-Aus pilots are going to have a good long look at this machine; it's a wonderful two-seat option.

You can catch up with the demonstrator yourself at Ausfly next week. Yikes ... only a week to go and so much to get organised. Providing the weather holds for those of us getting there by air, the turn-out is looking to be very healthy indeed. With a full-blown air show and about 40 exhibitors on the program, there's really not a lot of reason to stay home. But if we're flying in, be warned that CASA has hinted at ramp checks, so pilots would do well to get all the docs, plans, weight and balance all squared away before being greeted in the GA park.

It's taken a few years, but I think now general aviation is in a position to officially declare the ADS-B mandate a complete debacle. If Dick Smith is right, the cost impact in the original estimates was inaccurate by nearly $64 million! Anything that far out is certainly a debacle, and completely scuttles the justification for the project. You can't blame AOPA for withdrawing their support. From the outset, the grand plan was for the cost of the equipment to be subsidised by decommissioning radars and pouring the cost savings into ADS-B. The radars weren't decommissioned, the subsidy never happened, and CASA and Airservices ploughed ahead regardless of the fact that their Regulatory Impact Statement is now of value only for getting the fire started. In essence, there is no RIS for what we've ended up with, but it's unlikely to be reviewed in any way that will result in change; if it did, the goverment would have to wear a substantial part of the $64 million. Here's what we need to do: STOP! With the radars re-commissioned and ADS-B already operating above FL270, are we really in a hurry now to mandate? Go back, look at the figures again, see where we're really at and get an understanding of genuine cost. But please, don't point at the original RIS as justification for forging ahead.

The impending certification of the Cirrus SF50 Vision will probably bring to a close one of aviation's great misjudgments: the very light jet (VLJ) concept. About 10 years ago, it was considered possible to make a private jet that would sell for around $1 million. New designs were coming from everywhere: Adam, Spectrum, Diamond, Epic ... remember ATG with the Javelin? There was so much money poured into so many bottomless pits, and one by one projects shut down. In the meantime, Cessna and Embraer found that people would pay more money for a better idea, and the Mustang and Phenom series have proven very successful. In the background was the Cirrus project, and even it stalled until a Chinese company bought Cirrus and suddenly there was cash to keep developing. It's been a long road for Cirrus, and the final sell price is set to be $US1.96 million, somewhat higher than the VLJ target, but customers will be getting a better aeroplane for the money.

CASA's latest corporate plan is bound to draw comments from some sectors of the aviation community, most notably those that are tired of words and just want change now. There is some thought out there that this plan is simply window dressing and created to give the impression that things are changing, whilst the real intent at CASA is business as usual. However, there is another way of looking at this: if genuine change is on the way, we would expect a corporate plan that is exactly like this one. That's our quandry: a well-constructed facade and a meaningful road map to change would look exactly the same. How we accept the corporate plan will depend upon whether the glasses we decide to look through are rose-coloured or mud-coloured. I have my ideas, and I'd like to hear yours.

What do we think about private companies running ATC towers? The big carrot is competition for Airservices and theoretically reduced costs, and if there is any basis in reality, you'd have to say we're onto a winner. But private companies have an obligation to themselves and their stakeholders to increase profits year over year. There is only two ways of doing that: raise the prices or cut the costs. It's very hard to raise the prices in the sort of competitive environment that privatisation is supposed to bring, leaving cost-cutting as the most obvious path, and that results in reduced training, lower staffing levels, poor investment in technology and decaying infrastructure. However, competition would probably give Airservices a much-needed clip behind the ear and force them to straighten up and fly right. No harm in that at all!

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

MTF..P2

[Kharon]

Good to see Hitch has removed the rose coloured specs and is finally coming to grips with and actually daring to voice (sotto) the ‘problems’.  Like it or not; industry is stuck with the ‘vision splendid’ and only time will tell if it is to be just another handful of bog and yet another layer of paint applied over the rusted supports, or, a strip back and repair job; a replacement being apparently out of the question.  There is no need for any colour spectacles, but there is an established need for eagle eyed, clear vision and expert assessment of how the repairs are carried out, before acceptance.  Each and every movement and action needs to carefully monitored with proof of provenance established at each stage.

The resistance to real change is legendary, ancient and a default setting.  We have no option but accept the offering, little real say in the way the proposed changes will be made.  The changes will be made by those who have so perfectly created, overseen and managed the current buggers muddle.  New paint with old brushes, over the same flawed, rusty mudguard.  

Does the Leopard change it’s spots?  Not in my jungle.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Update to: Houston (Skidmore & Boyd) we have a problem??  

(K. Lovell)



AOPA demands Compensation for ADS-B Mandate
28 Aug 2015

AOPA Australia has demanded full compensation for aircraft owners if CASA and Airservices continue with the ADS-B fitment mandate for aircraft in all classes of air space.

In a letter sent to CASA boss Mark Skidmore dated 25 August, AOPA president Mark De Stoop says the organisation will withdraw support because the original Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has proven to be flawed, and the cost of fitting the equipment is much higher than stated.

"AOPA's position has always been to support new technology that improves safety," De Stoop says. "We believe that ADS-B in areas that previously had no radar coverage has the potential to improve safety in controlled air space.

"We provided this support, however, on the clear understanding from the CASA Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) circulated at the beginning of the planned implementation that the financial impact to the GA community would be at very worst cost-neutral.

"We now find ourselves in the situation that the costs of the final developed policy are very substantial to our members."

In the initial RIS, it was estimated that ADS-B would stand to save general aviation $4.1 million in fuel costs every year, but last week Dick Smith presented figure to a Senate inquiry into Airservices Australia that put the cost position to GA at negative $62.2 million.

"We as an organisation took the financial assumptions stated in the RIS to be correct and hence we provided our support for the policy," De stoop said. "If these assumptions are in fact not correct then AOPA will withdraw its support.

"The fact that our members are indeed significantly cost disadvantaged, at the end of the policy formulation, suggests the RIS financial assumptions, or modelling, are indeed incorrect."

De Stoop goes on to call for CASA and Airservices Australia to adopt the US ADS-B policy where the Federal Aviation Administration will not mandate ADS-B for flights in Class E and G airspace below 10,000 feet.

"If CASA/ASA continue to mandate that all GA in the IFR category be fitted in all air space, that AOPA's position is, it will insist on behalf of its members, full financial compensation for costs incurred to aircraft owners as per the original Joint Consultation Paper and Regulatory Impact Statement."

CASA has mandated that all aircraft flying under Instrument Flight Rules be fitted with ADS-B Out equipment by February 2017.

Courtesy the Oz a short update by SC to last week's Yaffa story (above).... :

Owner-flyers demand compo for hi-tech control

• by: STEVE CREEDY
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 04, 2015 12:00AM
  

Aviation Editor
Sydney


The Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association has called for financial relief to help small-plane owners meet the mandatory introduction of satellite-based air traffic control technology.  

In a letter to Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore, AOPA president Marc De Stoop expresses concern about recent Senate hearing claims that financial assumptions in the regulation impact statement for the introduction of automatic dependent surveillance — broadcast technology were flawed. All instrument flight rules aircraft must be ADS-B equipped by 2017, sooner in Western Australia, and small-plane operators say the cost can be crippling.

Mr De Stoop said the impact statement should be re-evaluated to determine the correct financial impact and called on CASA to adopt the US Federal Aviation Administration’s approach to ADS-B. “The FAA will not require the fitting of ADS-B for flights in class G or E airspace below 10,000ft above mean sea level,’’ he said. “AOPA (says) that this should also apply to Australian regulations.’’

Should CASA and Airservices persist, Mr De Stoop said AOPA would insist on full financial compensation for costs incurred by aircraft owners as outlined in the original joint consultation and regulatory impact statements.

{NB: For those interested the original RIS features on page 7 of the Dick Smith Senate RRAT submission - sub2_Dick Smith.}
YEA HAH... ! Good to see AOPA - under a proactive Prez like De Stoop & after so many years in obscurity - finally growing a set ....

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

P2;

Good to see AOPA - under a proactive Prez like De Stoop & after so many years in obscurity - finally growing a set ....

Very pleasing to see not only a proactive President, but as P2 said - one that has 'grown a set'! Unfortunately AOPA has had to endure some lacklustre leadership in the past, some presidents who weren't worth a pinch of camel pooh. I remember one former President who was an extremely conceited, arrogant nimrod who was desperate to be listened too but in reality was laughed at every time he opened his mouth. A real gaylord with no credibility! But many are glad that those days seem to be gone and the new AOPA is clawing back it's balls and it's credibility. Good work boys.

Hey speaking of ex Presidents, wasn't there some bloke, ummm nobody remembers much about him, an insignificant sort names Brian J Hannan? Just wondering....

'Safe Guilders For All'

[Peetwo]

Off the Yaffa: Truss Hitched at AusFly...

It would seem that Hitchen is already firmly entrenched for the Weekend at AusFly - half his luck. Anyway apparently one DPM Truss is also there and Hitch was able to corral him for a word or two - who'd of thought??

Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss (centre) at Ausfly 2015. (Steve Hitchen)


Truss to stand Firm on Forsyth Reforms
04 Sep 2015

Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Developement Warren Truss has said he will not accept any attempts to de-rail the recommendations of the Forsyth Report.

Speaking with Australian Flying at Ausfly today, Truss said that he had expectations that both CASA and Airservices would comply with his direction.

"Many of the recommendations have their own timeframe in them," he said, "and we expect those timeframes to be honoured. So in each of the plans I have given in my ministerial instructions to Airservices and also to CASA, I have highlighted the need to address all of the recommendations in the Forsyth Review.

"I am expecting from them regular reports on progress. Some of them have been implemented in full; others still have some distance to go. I won’t accept any pushbacks; we’ve got to get on with it, and I know the industry has expectations that these things will be delivered and I share those expectations."

With the government's response to the Forsyth Report delivered in December 2014, many areas of general aviation are starting to get impatient to see signs of real reform, with communication from CASA often considered window dressing. According to Truss, the reforms are very real.

"I’ve made that very clear to the new boards at CASA and Airservices that I expect they will deliver on the specific recommendations."

  
Hitch then followed this up with his weekly wrap, which I again consider worthy of regurgitating in full...

 


The Last Minute Hitch: 4 September 2015
04 Sep 2015

This week's Last Minute Hitch comes to you from my little enclave in the bustling expo centre at Ausfly. It's a magnificent morning here, which has organisers with huge grins on their faces after the damp, grey day we got yesterday. The tarmac is buzzing as things get going here, and there's an energy about the place that can only be good for aviation. It's time to forget the woes for the weekend and just wallow in the joys of general aviation for a while. - Here..here to that!

On my arrival here I was greeted with some sad news: a well-known aviation identity is selling up his aeroplane and getting out of aviation all together because he's had enough of CASA. This is only one example of many people who the regulator has chased out of aviation in the past few years. Yes, we have been promised reform, and the recent corporate plan does show intent to implement the Forsyth Report recommendations, but I have to wonder if Canberra really does understand the damage poor culture at the regulator has done to general aviation. My fear now is that no amount of reform can help us. Is it possible that general aviation is jaded beyond any recovery? I'd like to think we are not; that our spirit for flying is stronger than the apathy-driven badgering that has come out of Canberra over the past 20 years. I agree that change takes time, but that's something that GA is running low on.

Minister Warren Truss has said he will accept no "pushback" from either CASA or Airservices when it comes to the Forsyth reforms. Most interesting is that the question I put to him didn't say anything about "pushback" or any resistance. Obviously it has been on his mind, which supports the word around the industry of a middle-management "revolt" at CASA over the impending reforms. Truss did not comment on any revolt, nor did I ask him, but the maths add up, doesn't it?

Recently, Dick Smith put the cost of ADS-B to general aviation in the spotlight with some startling figures that has the industry wailing, and prompted AOPA to withdraw their support for the program. It appears there could be some financial respite, with Enigma Avionics developing a low-cost ADS-B system right here in Australia. If it takes off, Enigma's system could be a great alternative to the cost-heavy systems being touted as the only option.

Personally, I don't think the ATSB's report into the loss of control of a drone over the MCG is particularly well done. Allowing the operator to conduct their own investigation into why contact with the drone was lost, the ATSB has accepted a "probably maybe" conclusion. OK, it may be impossible to tell, but that means it is also impossible to analyse what can be done about stopping it from happening again. The amount of radio frequency traffic around major sporting events is immense, and if the operator is right, there is a real risk of it happening again at another football game. The problem is that we don't know, and it appears we don't care. CASA has at least moved to make it mandatory to report runaways to ATC or to broadcast in Class G.

According to their corporate plan, CASA is planning to ramp-up their oversight of the Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations (RAAO). It's unclear what the catalyst is for this, but you can almost bet it has to do with pressure on CASA over accidents. The mainstream media loves to tell people how a plane that crashed was a "home-built" or an ultralight, fueling the impression that small aeroplanes, especially those built in someone's garage, are dirty dangerous things that will crash on the general public. It would be irresponsible for me to comment on the reasons for CASA's actions without knowing the background for sure. I will say only that this worries me, because it stands to ramp-up pressure on the volunteers that are the hearts and souls of the RAAOs. Have we forgotten that it was the workload on the SAAA that forced Ausfly 2014 to be canceled? However, it seems RA-Aus is taking a "bring it on" attitude, but some of the smaller RAAOs may not have the luxury of doing that.

If the figures on the economic benefit of Avalon 2015 are accurate, the Australian International Airshow has become a very important part of the Victorian economy. With injections of cash like this, you can bet that Spring Street will be rubbing their hands together in absolute glee. What I would like to have seen is how much of that largesse has made its way back into aviation.

Don't forget, Matt Hall is "going for gold" again this weekend in the Red Bull Air Race. Round 6 is over the Red Bull-owned Spielberg Formula One circuit in Austria. Matt didn't go so well there last year, but that will only make him even more determined to make up for it. His MXS-R is on song more than it was last year, so he's in with a real chance to make up some ground in the championship.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

 
As for Dougy...   Sorry mate no banana this week.. - Editor's Insights 3 September 2015
MTF..P2

[Kharon]

Choc Frog for master Hitch.  Nicely done that man -

Hitch - "My fear now is that no amount of reform can help us. Is it possible that general aviation is jaded beyond any recovery? I'd like to think we are not; that our spirit for flying is stronger than the apathy-driven badgering that has come out of Canberra over the past 20 years."

Come on Hitch, you know better than that; nice crisp morning, smell of aviation on the gentle breeze, a good ship to do the journey and a journey worth doing; hell man, throw in just a little reform and it’s smiles all around as we get into doing that which ‘we’ do best.

Good news from the Minister, nice little report – Thank you.

Cyber Choc frog delivered……

Dougy?– well, that’s a thing as don’t signify, given the pre loaded options.....

[Gobbledock]

Sorry boys, don't mean to be a party pooh-per but;

- Farmer Truss's words are about as believable as the rumour that Elvis is a CAsA FOI. Hit the flush button boys.

-Dougys Insight? Absolute crap. The most boring load of bollocks I have read in a very long time. Hit the flush button boys.

But as for Hitch! Gold. Succinct article, factual and accurate. Be nice if the powers-to-be would listen because Dougy comes from the pointy end of industry and has a grasp on aviations true condition. Not the blinded view that politicians have because their heads are buried up their own asses or submerged in a trough!

"Succinct articles for all"